20200712 Ver 1_Mitigation Proposal_20200305

Cool Run Mitigation Site
Brunswick County, NC
Full Delivery Proposal to Provide Stream and Riparian
Wetland Mitigation Credits
for Cataloging Unit 03040207 of the
Lumber River Basin
RFP #16-20190201
Clearwater Mitigation Solutions
604 Macon Place
Raleigh, North Carolina
Authorized Representative: Mr. Kevin Yates
Phone: [phone]
CLEAR W4 TER WTIGA TYON
SOLVTIONS t
October 15, 2019

(This page intentionally left blank)

Section D. Executive Summary
In response to RFP Number 16-20190201, Clearwater Mitigation Solutions, LLC presents the following
proposal for the Cool Run Mitigation Site, which will provide high quality compensatory mitigation for
authorized stream and riparian wetland impacts credited through the NC DMS in -lieu -fee program
and occurring within the Lumber River Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03040207. The project team
consists of highly experienced professionals with diverse backgrounds that lend to a multi -disciplinary
approach to the mitigation effort. The team is led by Mr. Kevin Yates of Clearwater Mitigation
Soutions, LLC. The Project Manager will be Mr. Christian Preziosi with Land Management Group
(LMG). Grant Lewis with Axiom Environmental, Inc. (AXE) will serve as the lead for stream design and
construction management. Wes Newell of Waterway Design Build, LLC will provide construction
oversight and management.
The restoration areas are located along Cool Run and an unnamed headwater tributary that flow
directly into the Shallotte River. The Upper Shallotte River watershed (14-digit HUC 03040207020060)
is a Target Local Watershed (TLW) of the Lumber River Basin. The upper portion of the Shallotte River
has exhibited significant water quality impairments associated with low dissolved oxygen (DO) and pH,
possibly due to swamp water conditions. The lower portions of the Shallotte River are closed for
shellfish due to fecal coliform bacteria. The proposed project promotes the goals of the Lumber RBRP
(2008) and specifically the Upper Shallotte River TLW by addressing the priority of restoring
headwater stream channels and riparian wetlands. The anticipated functional uplift to be provided by
the project will have direct benefits to on -site stream and wetlands, as well as to the downstream
receiving waters and to the broader ecological health of the Upper Shallotte River watershed.
CMS has secured a real estate option agreement for the purchase of easement rights on one parcel in
Brunswick County, North Carolina, near the Town of Shallotte. Two options for the project are
proposed for mitigation credit generation:
Option 1 encompasses the entire 25.15 acres easement area and can produce 2,208 SMUs and
14.3 WMUs.
Option 2 also encompasses the entire 25.15 easement area, and can yield the minimum of
2,000 SMUs and 8.0 WMU, representing the requested mitigation credits in RFP #16-20190201.
Figure 9 (Appendix A) depicts the proposed easement area, which is identical for Option 1 and Option
2. Option 1 provides an additional 208 SMUs and 6.3 WMUs above the requested amount in RFP #16-
2019201. Both options provide for restoration and protection of aquatic resources with a conservation
easement and will result in net gains in hydrology, water quality, and habitat functions at the Site.
Stream Mitigation Units (SMU)
Riparian Wetland Mitigation Units
(WMU)
Option 1
2,208 SMUs
14.3 WMUs
Option 2
2,000 SMUs
8.0 WMUs
Response to Request for Proposal #16-20190201
Section D. Executive Summary

The proposed mitigation quantities and credits which can be produced from the 25.15 easement area
are outlined in the table below:
Stream and Wetland Mitigation Quantities
Linear Feet (If) or Acres
Mitigation Type
Ratio
Credits
(ac)
Stream Restoration (P1-single thread)
1405
1:1
1405
Stream Restoration (P2 — single thread)
650
1.5:1
433.3
Stream Restoration (headwater)
370
1:1
370
Stream Credit Total
2,208.3
Riparian Wetland Restoration (Re -
Establishment)
11.5
1:1
11.5
Riparian Wetland Restoration (Re -
Habilitation)
2.7
1.5:1
1.8
Riparian Wetland Enhancement
3.2
3:1
1 1
Riparian Wetland Credit Total
14.3
The following technical proposal describes the entire 25.15 acre easement area, which encompasses
Option 1 and Option 2.
Response to Request for Proposal #16-20190201 ii
Section D. Executive Summary

Section E. Corporate Background and Experience
1. Proiect Team
The team assembled for this project is led by Clearwater Mitigation Solutions and includes the multi-
disciplinary expertise of Land Management Group (LMG). The team has been established to provide the
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) successful implementation of this riparian buffer
mitigation project by providing turnkey services including site identification, land acquisition, planning and
assessment, design, permitting, construction management, performance monitoring, remedial action and
financial planning.
Clearwater Mitigation Solutions, LLC (CMS), a North Carolina Limited Liability Company, was founded in
2015, but has over 17 years of experience in water resources consulting, regulatory experience,
environmental site investigations, mitigation plan development, permitting, implementation, and
monitoring, with proven ability to carry out large-scale ecological restoration projects. CMS has worked
on a broad range of projects in the public and private sector over the years which has provided for a well-
rounded approach to problem solving and a unique ability to manage the complex needs of ecological
restoration projects.
Land Management Group (LMG) has provided a full range of environmental services for over 25 years.
LMG employs a multidisciplinary, professional staff of soil scientists, wetland scientists, geologists, and
GIS/CAD technicians to assist our clients with various levels of environmental site investigations, land -use
consulting, and compensatory mitigation. LMG specializes in ecological restoration services, natural
resource inventories, wetland delineations, soil mapping assessments, and Section 404/401 permitting
throughout the Carolinas and Virginia. In particular, LMG has developed and implemented a variety of
stream and wetland restoration projects over the past fifteen years. These projects have been designed
and implemented as part of North Carolina Department of Transportation (DOT) and North Carolina
Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) full -delivery requests, permittee-responsible mitigation (associated
with Section 404/401 authorizations), and private mitigation banks. This ecological restoration work is
premised on natural design principles promoting functional uplift to degraded stream, buffer, and
wetland systems. Throughout the course of this work, LMG has worked in close association with
municipalities, private land owners, state government agencies, and project engineers to implement
successful, cost-effective compensatory mitigation projects. In July 2018, LMG was acquired by Davey
Resource Group, Inc. (DRG) a full -service environmental firm within the Davey Tree Expert Company
(founded in 1880). The combined resources of LMG and DRG allow our firm to provide more
comprehensive and responsive services to our mitigation clients.
Axiom Environmental, Inc. (AXE), based in Raleigh, North Carolina, provides environmental services
throughout the eastern US with experience in the Carolinas, Georgia, Louisiana, Tennessee, Virginia,
Maryland, Pennsylvania, and the US Virgin Islands. Our team offers a full -spectrum of natural systems
investigations and natural resources restoration services to clients who need moderately priced and
responsive solutions to complex ecological and regulatory issues. AXE's team of professionals
Response to Request for Proposal #16-20190201 11 P a g e
Section E — Corporate Background and Experience

consists of Licensed Soil Scientists, Professional Wetland Scientists, Licensed Wildlife Damage Control
Agent, geologist, botanists, biologists, and mitigation design specialists.
2. Office Locations
• Clearwater Mitigation Solution's office is located at 604 Macon Place in Raleigh, North Carolina.
• Land Management Group's office is located at 3805 Wrightsville Avenue, Suite 15 in Wilmington, North
Carolina.
• Axiom Environmental's office is located at 218 Snow Avenue in Raleigh, North Carolina.
3. Key Staff
The key staff assigned to the project offer the DMS a qualified and experienced group of professionals
dedicated to providing the highest quality services and technical expertise in the field of stream, buffer,
and wetland mitigation. Our team's past record of successful work performance is directly attributed
to our ability to work interactively on multi -disciplined projects in concert with clients, agencies and
stakeholders, and demonstrates our commitment and capabilities to undertake projects involving a
variety of environmental, engineering, and ecological challenges. The team's combined years of
experience will result in internal efficiencies, quality deliverables and an invaluable working knowledge
of the State's mitigation program. Our team is prepared to complete all tasks on the proposed project
in an innovative, cost effective and timely manner.
Project Manager Qualifications and Experience
CMS recognizes that the Project Manager will serve an important role on a full delivery project. An
individual with a broad range of skills linking together budgetary and personnel management with all
the components of a restoration project (assessment, survey, design, construction, permitting,
monitoring, agency and credit delivery) will be needed to successfully oversee and implement this
project. The individual will also need to be experienced in completing large scale restoration projects
with time -sensitive design and construction deliverables.
CMS's project manager on this project will be Kevin Yates. Mr. Yates has over 17 years of experience
in water resources, stream, wetlands, stormwater, riparian buffer, environmental restoration, and
mitigation. Mr. Yates began working for the US Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District in 2001,
while attending graduate school at the University of North Carolina at Wilmington, graduating with a
Masters of Marine Science in 2004. During this period, Mr. Yates worked as an intern in the USACE
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office and full-time in the USACE Raleigh Regulatory Field Office as a
Regulatory Project Manager through May, 2005. Mr. Yates went into private environmental
consulting in 2005, with a large multi -disciplinary engineering/design firm, McAdams Company,
based in Durham, North Carolina. Mr. Yates was awarded the McAdams Company trailblazer award
in 2006 for chartering and leading these new environmental consulting services for the firm, where
he served as the Senior Environmental Consultant and Project Manager through 2018. For the natural
Response to Request for Proposal #16-20190201 2 1 P a g e
Section E — Corporate Background and Experience

resources group at McAdams, Mr. Yates managed staffing, budgeting, billing, project scheduling,
environmental field investigations (including stream, wetland, buffer investigations), and any
required wetland, stream, and riparian buffer permitting (through USACE/DWR/CAMA). In addition,
Mr. Yates prepared and implemented compensatory mitigation plans, prepared environmental
assessment documents under NEPA/SEPA requirements, and was routinely asked to review and
comment on pending federal and state legislation, as well as local ordinances.
Mr. Yates has worked on a broad range of projects during his tenure at McAdams which has helped
to give him a well-rounded approach to problem solving and a unique ability to manage the complex
needs of large scale restoration projects. Equipped with first-hand knowledge of assessment
techniques, design understanding and construction management and implementation experience,
Mr. Yates has been challenged to manage the design and construction elements of various
environmental mitigation projects completed in both urban and rural settings. More recently, Mr.
Yates formed Clearwater Mitigation Solutions in 2015 and has since developed and managed a $2.1
million, 71-acre turn -key riparian and non -riparian wetland mitigation site known as the Lowlands
Wetland Mitigation Site, in the Hydrologic Unit 03020201 (Neuse 01) service area. CMS is currently
under contract with DMS on a full -delivery riparian buffer mitigation site, with the CMS/LMG team
working on this site, known as the Wingfoot Site in Pitt County.
Mr. Yates' philosophy on developing successful environmental design and construction projects is to
promote ownership of the project from the ground up. This involves informing and training
contractors, landowners, regulatory staff, project owners and other project stakeholders through
diligent communication and involvement. As an owner/operator, Mr. Yates understands that the key
to managing large scale projects with aggressive time requirements is to stay in front of potential
problems, foster active partnering among team members and to surround yourself with hard
working, skilled individuals who all have a stake in the success of the project. The CMS / LMG Team
has been formed with these factors in mind and will be dedicated to the success of the project.
Land Management Group — Statement of Ability
LMG has implemented and monitored several large-scale wetland and stream restoration projects
over the last 15 years. In particular, LMG has successfully completed full -delivery projects for both
the NCDOT and the NCDMS and currently provides annual monitoring and project closeout services
for NCDMS. LMG has managed multiple private mitigation banks and permittee-responsible
mitigation projects. In light of the range of demonstrated experience in compensatory mitigation,
our firm is uniquely qualified to conduct comprehensive environmental evaluations for large,
complex sites and to assemble site -specific data for use in the design and implementation of high
quality compensatory mitigation.
Our staff of licensed soil scientists, professional geologists, and wetland biologists allows for an
interdisciplinary approach toward mitigation site evaluations and design strategies that promote
increased likelihood for project success. LMG specializes in natural resources inventories (including
USACE jurisdictional determinations, stream identification, and threatened and endangered species
assessments) that provide the baseline data for the development of natural design restoration
Response to Request for Proposal #16-20190201 3 1 P a g e
Section E — Corporate Background and Experience

projects. LMG has extensive experience in characterizing watershed conditions and functional needs.
Through the use of remotely sensed data and field reconnaissance, LMG can effectively and
accurately catalogue stressors contributing to wetland and/or stream degradation. From these
evaluations, appropriate management strategies can be identified to effectively achieve watershed
management goals. We routinely submit and obtain regulatory concurrence on wetland and stream
determinations. LMG has demonstrated experience working with regulatory and resource agencies
for mitigation design, implementation, monitoring, and closeout.
LMG applies the most current agency guidelines and rules governing mitigation design,
implementation, and monitoring. We are well -versed in the 2008 Federal Rule for Compensatory
Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources and the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Wilmington
District Stream Mitigation Guidelines. We interface regularly with federal and state agency
representatives regarding current permitting and mitigation requirements. LMG has a number of
comprehensive mitigation plans and monitoring reports recently approved by Interagency Review
Teams (IRTs).
As a full -delivery provider and current on -call provider for monitoring services for NCDMS projects,
LMG is well -versed in the NCDMS Project Implementation Manual detailing the minimum content
and format requirements for consulting and design service deliverables. LMG staff has training and
applied experience in Carolina Vegetative Survey (CVS) vegetation monitoring, native and non-native
plant identification, stream geomorphic measurements, and gauge installation, download, and
maintenance.
Land Management Group — Key Personnel
Christian Preziosi, MS
Mr. Preziosi received his Master of Science Degree in Marine Science (Concentration in Wetland
Ecology) from the University of North Carolina at Wilmington in 1998. He completed graduate level
training in wetland ecology, hydrogeology, and plant identification and taxonomy. Mr. Preziosi
continued to work for the University performing water quality studies and identifying potential
sources of impairments in various watersheds throughout the Wilmington (NC) area. He joined
Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. (VHB) in 1999 where he assisted in the development of the Virginia
Department of Transportation Compensatory Mitigation Manual. Mr. Preziosi returned to
Wilmington as project manager for Land Management Group, Inc. His duties for LMG have included
groundwater hydrologic assessments and modeling; vegetation surveys; NEPA/SEPA documentation;
and mitigation plan development. He currently serves as Section Manager overseeing several
mitigation contracts with various private, municipal, and state entities. Recent clients include The
Village of Bald Head Island, the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services, Weyerhaeuser, and
PCS Phosphate Company, Inc.
Mr. Preziosi routinely prepares wetland mitigation plans in compliance with current rules and
guidelines. Mr. Preziosi completed training in Stream Classification and Assessment and Stream
Restoration Design Principles (NC Stream Restoration Institute). He also has completed continuing
education in Advanced Hydric Soils and Hardwood Forest Restoration. By way of continuing
Response to Request for Proposal #16-20190201 4 1 P a g e
Section E — Corporate Background and Experience

education and applied project experience, Mr. Preziosi possesses a thorough knowledge of the
mitigation process from site selection through construction and monitoring.
Nicholas Howell, BS, Licensed Soil Scientist (NC License #1294)
Mr. Howell received his Bachelor of Science Degree in Natural Resources: Soil and Water Systems,
from North Carolina State University in 2004. Mr. Howell worked under Dr. Mike Vepraskis in the
wetland soils lab researching the changes in hydric soil conditions before, during and after wetland
mitigation. Mr. Howell became a NC Licensed Soil Scientist in 2007. His duties at LMG have included
soil mapping for wetland and stream mitigation sites, soil taxonomy, identification of hydric soil
indicators, soil evaluations for stormwater and wastewater treatment, soils/geological studies for
large scale wastewater dispersal, technical report writing, and groundwater monitoring/modeling.
Kimberlee Williams, MEM
Ms. Williams received a Master of Environmental Management with a concentration in conservation
biology from Duke University in 1999. She is a Certified Plant Professional through the NC Association
of Nurserymen, Inc. She also obtained certification in the Carolina Vegetation Survey vegetation
monitoring and surveying protocol in 2009. Ms. Williams completed training in Stream Classification
and Assessment and Stream Restoration Design Principles (NC Stream Restoration Institute) in 2002.
Her responsibilities at LMG include biological and habitat assessments, endangered species surveys,
mitigation site planting plans, and mitigation site monitoring. She has 19 years of experience in ME
identification, wetland mitigation planning and monitoring; Section 404/401 permit preparation and
submission; and preparation of environmental assessment and biological assessment documents in
compliance with NEPA/SEPA guidelines for tidal and non -tidal habitats.
Corey Novak, MS, Professional Wetland Scientist
Mr. Novak holds a Master of Science from the University of North Carolina at Wilmington with an
emphasis on benthic invertebrates in marshes. He also completed a "Taxonomy and Pollution Ecology
of Aquatic Insects" course offered through NCSU's Stream Restoration Institute. Mr. Novak has
received NC WAM (Wetlands Assessment Method) Certification offered through the NC Division of
Water Resources. Mr. Novak is responsible for numerous freshwater and coastal wetland delineation
projects and stream assessments. He regularly coordinates with US Army Corps of Engineers
personnel to obtain confirmation of wetland and stream boundaries. He routinely performs
hydrologic assessments utilizing RDS Ecotone equipment for several large delineation and mitigation
projects. Mr. Novak has expertise in hydrologic data analyses and graphing for the accurate
characterization of wetland hydroperiods. He also performs benthic, stream flow, and substrate
analysis required for mitigation projects and permit compliance.
Response to Request for Proposal #16-20190201 5 1 P a g e
Section E — Corporate Background and Experience

Axiom Environmental — Key Personnel
Key personnel from Axiom Environmental that have been assigned to this project include Grant Lewis
and Kenan Jernigan. A summary of their experience and training is presented below.
Team Member/
Professional Licenses/Certificates
Professional Training
W. Grant Lewis (Principal -in -Charge)
. NRCS Licensed Soil Scientist (#1233), State of North Carolina
Years' Experience: 25+
• Professional Wetland Scientist Certification, January 2002
• Applied Fluvial Geomorphology (Rosgen Level I, II, III, and IV)
NRCS Licensed Soil Scientist #1233
• NS/CSX Roadway Worker Protection Training — 2016
• USACE Regulatory Road Show— March 2010
• N.C. Division of Water Quality Intermittent and Perennial Stream Identification
for Riparian Buffer Rules— North Carolina, 2010
• CVS Vegetation Monitoring & Survey Protocol Levels 2 & 3, 2006-2007
• Certified Stormwater BMP Inspection & Maintenance Professional, 2007
• Basic Processes in Hydric Soils, 2009
Kenan Jernigan (Project Scientist)
• NC Stream Assessment Method Certification, 2017
Years' Experience: 9
• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington District Regulatory Workshop, 2016
• NC Surface Water Identification Training and Certification (SWITC), 2014
• ArcGIS 10, 2012
• NC Wetland Assessment Method Certification, 2012
• Natural Community and Rare Plants Identification Workshops, 2012 and 2013
• NS/CSX Roadway Worker Protection Training, 2016
In addition, Mr. Wes Newell (independent consultant) will provide additional technical support and
construction management for the project.
4. Similar Project Experience
Clearwater Mitigation Solutions
The following project summaries highlight recent mitigation projects completed by CMS in North
Carolina:
Lowlands Wetland Mitigation Site (Johnston County, North Carolina)
Clearwater Mitigation Solutions' (CMS) Lowlands Wetland Mitigation Site is a 71-acre, turn -key
project which will provide wetland mitigation credits to Dominion Energy Transmission, Inc. (DETI) as
part of DETI's Permittee Responsible
Mitigation Plan (PRM) to compensate for
unavoidable impacts to wetlands associated
with the Atlantic Coast Pipeline Project (ACP),
within the Hydrologic Unit 03020201 (Neuse
01) service area. All wetland mitigation units
generated within the Site are to be utilized by
DETI for the ACP within this service area. The
project area is approximately 71.2 acres, of
which 65.3 acres will include some form of
wetland re-establishment, enhancement, or
preservation with the remaining 5.9-acres of
Response to Request for Proposal #16-20190201 6 1 P a g e
Section E — Corporate Background and Experience

uplands and non-credit area to be included within the overall conservation easement as an upland
buffer. CMS identified the site, which comprised multiple land owners, negotiated with land owners,
conducted initial groundwater level monitoring, identified and coordinated all survey items, helped
develop and coordinate contracts with DETI's legal team and the CMS legal team, developed a
mitigation plan along with the design team which was approved by the USACE in 2017 as part of
DETI's compensatory mitigation plan for the ACP. Clearwater Holdings I, a subsidiary of CMS, acquired
the conservation easement, with CMS overseeing construction and planting in early 2018.
Ultimately, the wetland mitigation project will improve the overall function, habitat, and integrity of
the degraded and drained wetlands, while preserving existing higher quality wetlands, with primary
goals to:
1. Restore the primary wetland functions and
values appropriate for this section of the
Neuse River Lowlands.
Objective: Re-establishment and conversion of the
existing agricultural fields exhibiting hydric soil
characteristics to a bottomland hardwood
wetland.
2. Improve sediment retention and capacity for
nutrient removal to offset historic agricultural
practices.
Objective: Filling discharge ditches, traditionally
used in nutrient -enriched row crop production.
Planting with native bottomland hardwood
species to prevent sediment loss and provide for
nutrient uptake.
3. Restoration of the attendant hydrologic and
biologic functions of a bottomland hardwood forest.
Objective: Restoration of appropriate bottomland
hardwood wetland hydrology through filling of site
ditches and restoring connectivity with adjacent
surface waters. Improve surface water storage by
tilling compacted soil to create microtopography. .
4. Restore and Enhance native bottomland hardwood
forest.
Objective: Plant native tree and understory species,
including Atlantic White Cedar and Bald Cypress,
within re-establishment and enhancement portions of
the Site.
S. Permanently protect existing higher quality bottomland hardwood forest, in addition to the
remainder of the project area.
Objective: Establish a perpetual conversation easement over the Site.
Construction was completed in February 2018, with the goal to re-establish 23.1-acres of riparian
wetlands, enhance 5.1 acres of riparian and 14.3 acres of non -riparian wetlands, and preserve 22.8-
acres of non -riparian wetlands within the Site producing 24.25 riparian and 9.33 non -riparian wetland
mitigation units (WMUs). The as -built data collection and survey has been completed and the site has
Response to Request for Proposal #16-20190201 7 1 P a g e
Section E — Corporate Background and Experience

been set-up for seven years of monitoring through 2024. CMS has met all milestones and submittal
requirements on time and on schedule to DETI through the life of the project thus far. Year 1
monitoring is complete with all hydrology wells and vegetation plots meeting minimum success
criteria.
Client Reference: DETI - Spencer Trichell [phone]
Engineer Reference: Josh Allen, PE [phone]
Contractor Reference: Wes Newell, Backwater Environmental (919)-523-4375
Principal in Charge: Kevin Yates
Project Manager: Kevin Yates
Value: $2.1 Million
Campus Drive Stream Restoration Site (Duke University Main Campus, Durham, North Carolina)
.,": A -
On behalf of Duke University, CMS staff served as
the lead consultant for environmental site
investigations, mitigation plan development,
permitting, implementation, and monitoring of the
Duke University Campus Drive Stream Mitigation
Project, as part of their compensatory mitigation
conditions of a 404/401 Individual Permit. The
project area consists of an unnamed tributary to
Sandy Creek, running along Campus Drive, within
Duke University's Main Campus, which ultimately
drains to Jordan Lake within the Cape Fear (HUC
03030002).
The project included restoration and enhancement of approximately 3,249 linear feet of existing
highly degraded and poorly functioning perennial stream channel for a total of 2,941 stream
mitigation units (SMUs), within Duke University's Main Campus. The project also ties into existing
Clean Water Management Trust Fund stream restoration projects downstream of the same unnamed
tributary, which will incorporate a more watershed -based design approach. The Campus Drive stream
restoration project created an approximate 9,500 linear foot corridor of restored stream and riparian
corridor, from Campus Drive to the Duke University golf course, protected in perpetuity. CMS staff
worked with Durham County Soil and Water Conservation District which agreed to hold the
Conservation Easement to provide, third -party, long-term assurance to the success of the project.
Although this is an urbanized setting, most of the impervious surface within the watershed is built -
out and there would be little to no
new impervious surface draining to
the proposed project. The restoration
plan also incorporated stormwater
management devices, plunge pools,
and stormwater wetlands in locations
along the mitigation corridor where
stormwater runoff is currently
untreated. Due to the challenging
conditions of stream restoration in
Response to Request for Proposal #16-20190201
Section E — Corporate Background and Experience
8 1 P a g e

the Triassic basin, the riparian areas were initially planted with larger 5 and 10-gallon trees which
promoted channel stability, flood attenuation and a vegetated buffer which intercepts overland
stormwater.
Client Reference: Duke Facilities Management Dept. — Ryan Lavinder [phone]
Engineer Reference: Josh Allen, PE [phone]
Project Manager: Kevin Yates
Value: Undisclosed
Jordan Lake Nutrient Banks - Orange County, North Carolina (Cape Fear HUC 03030002)
CMS staff worked with Mid Atlantic Mitigation (later purchased by EBX, then subsequently by RES) to
bring to market the first two official nutrient
mitigation banks within the Jordan Lake
watershed. CMS staff was involved in all aspects
of development of these banks, including
development of the Umbrella Mitigation
Banking Instrument and approvals of that
instrument through the NC Division of Water
Resources (formerly DWQ). CMS was
responsible for all site searches, including
development of a priority rating system for each
of the sites. CMS staff was involved on property
owner negotiation and easement acquisition,
and was responsible for making initial contact
with each landowner to gauge interest in the project. Once a site was identified, CMS staff assisted
in providing all technical resources to complete design, permitting, and easement recordation. After
construction, CMS staff assisted in completion of the as -built requirements, initial monitoring setup,
and monitoring during the required monitoring period.
Client: Mid -Atlantic Mitigation / EBX
Engineer Reference: Amos Clark, PE [phone]
Project Manager: Amos Clark / Kevin Yates
Value: Undisclosed
Land Management Group
The following project summaries highlight recent mitigation projects completed by LMG in North
Carolina. In addition, a list of similar contracts performed by LMG in the past five years is listed in
Table 1.
Response to Request for Proposal #16-20190201 9 1 P a g e
Section E — Corporate Background and Experience

Rutman Creek Watershed Restoration Protect (Hyde County, NC)
Client: Wetlands Resource Center, PCS Phosphate Company
Project References: Cal Miller (WRC), Phone [phone]
Jeff Furness (PCS), Phone [phone]
In response to authorized wetland and stream impacts associated with the PCS Phosphate Mine
Expansion, Land Management Group was the lead consultant in mitigation plan development,
permitting, implementation, and monitoring of the Rutman Creek Watershed Restoration Project (a
permittee-responsible mitigation project). The mitigation project consisted of landscape -scale
restoration of wetlands, streams, and riparian buffer at the headwaters of Rutman Creek, a second -
order tributary of the Pungo River located
within the Tar -Pamlico River Basin. The
entire project restored approximately 3,342
acres of wetlands and 8,793 If of zero -order
stream reaches. An additional 129 acres of
wetlands and 7,994 If of stream channel
were enhanced via re-establishment of
natural hydroperiods and flow. LMG was
the lead in agency coordination throughout
all stages of implementation and
monitoring of the project. Five years of monitoring have been recently completed for the project and
the site has been successfully closed -out with the interagency review team (IRT).
Bachelors Delight Stream and Wetland Mitigation Bank (Onslow County, NC)
Client: Weyerhaeuser NR
Project Reference: Kellie Hawkins (Weyerhaeuser), Phone: [phone]
Land Management Group, Inc. served as the lead consultant for environmental site investigations,
design, permitting, implementation, and monitoring of the Bachelors Delight Stream and Wetland
Mitigation Bank. The Bank is located approximately 2 miles north of the City of Jacksonville in Half
Moon, Onslow County, North Carolina. The site is located within the New River watershed (14-digit
HUC 030300001010040) (an identified Targeted Local Watershed of the White Oak River Basin). The
Bank site (approximately 363 acres) consists predominantly of channelized headwater wetland and
stream systems that have been historically altered as a result of silvicultural and agricultural
management practices. Streams and waterbodies within the watershed are susceptible to
impairment from nutrient loading and low ambient dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations.
Response to Request for Proposal #16-20190201 10 1 P a g e
Section E — Corporate Background and Experience

In conjunction with the stream designer
(HDR, Inc.), LMG oversaw construction
management and planting. Functional
uplift to stream reaches and associated
adjacent wetlands have been achieved via
the re-establishment of natural
hydrologic and vegetative conditions that
existed prior to the initiation of intensive
land management in the early 1970s. Re-
establishment of native vegetative
communities suited to the landscape
position and soil types of the project area provide for enhanced feeding and refuge habitat for
resident and migratory species. Restoration and protection (via the conservation easement deed) of
the riparian and non -riparian wetlands provides a habitat corridor from expansive wetland flats of
Hofmann Forest to downstream bottomland hardwood forests of Bachelors Delight Swamp and New
River.
UT to Millers Creek (Duplin County, NC)
Client: HDR Inc., NC Division of Mitigation Services
Project Reference: Ryan Smith (HDR), Phone: [phone]
Land Management Group provided environmental consulting services to the stream designer (HDR
Inc.) for the UT to Millers Creek Full Delivery Stream and Wetland Restoration Project in Duplin
County, NC. The project includes the restoration of 2,100 existing linear feet of the UT (2,679 restored
feet); restoration of wetland hydrology to 8.77 acres of drained and modified (ditched and ponded)
hydric soils to restore riparian wetlands adjacent to the UT; and restoration of native vegetation to
10 acres of riparian buffers. LMGIm
services included existing condition
site investigations including soil
profiles, groundwater level
monitoring, and hydrologic modeling.
In addition, LMG prepared the wetland
mitigation layouts and assisted with
mitigation construction and planting.
LMG continues to provide hydrologic
and vegetation monitoring and
reporting to NC DMS.
Response to Request for Proposal #16-20190201 111 P a g e
Section E — Corporate Background and Experience

Lower Cape Fear Umbrella Mitigation Bank (Brunswick County, NC)
Client: LCFUMB, LLC
Project Reference: Jon Vincent (LCFUMB, LLC), Phone: [phone]The Lower Cape Fear Umbrella
Mitigation Bank (LCFUMB) has resulted in the restoration, enhancement, and preservation of over
500 acres of regionally significant and endemic
tidal marsh, riverine swamp forest, and
headwater stream habitats of the Cape Fear
Region, North Carolina. The "umbrella" Bank
consists of two sites: (1) the Sneeden Tract
located 1.4 river miles north of the northern
confluence of the Brunswick and Cape Fear
Rivers in Navassa, NC; and (2) the White
Springs Tract located approximately 13 miles
south of Wilmington, NC. The Bank has
completed intensive regulatory review and
subsequent concurrence by the interagency
review team (IRT). Restoration work has been completed at both sites, and the project is in the post -
restoration monitoring phase. LMG has provided turn -key environmental services throughout the
duration of the project and continues with all monitoring, reporting, and IRT coordination for the
umbrella mitigation bank.
Response to Request for Proposal #16-20190201 12 1 Page
Section E — Corporate Background and Experience

Table 1. Similar Project Experience - Land Management Group
Project Name
Client
Location
(County)
Scope
Start Date
End Date
1. UT to Lilliput (Hog Branch Ponds)
NC DMS
Stream and Wetland Restoration
Mr. Jeff Jurek
Brunswick
Annual Monitoring of Wetland and Stream using CVS protocol
5/2011
12/2014
Project
[phone]
2. Little River Stream and Wetland
NC DMS
Mr. Jeff Jurek
Moore
Annual Monitoring of Stream Enhancement using CVS
5/2011
12/2015
Enhancement Project
[phone]
protocol
3. Jacksonville Country Club Stream
NC DMS
Mr. Jeff Jurek
Onslow
Baseline & Annual Monitoring Years 1-5 using CVS Protocol
9/2012
Ongoing —
Restoration Project
[phone]
Year 5
4. UT to Millers Creek Stream and
HDR, Inc./ NC DMS
Duplin County
Wetland Delineation, Wetland Restoration Layout, Baseline
612013
Ongoing —
Wetland Restoration
Mr. Ryan Smith
and Annual Monitoring using CVS Protocol (Full -Delivery)
Year 3
5. Stone Farm Regional Mitigation
Ocean Isle Investment Co.
Wetland Delineation;
Bank
Mr. DeCarol Williamson
Brunswick
Design/Construction Management & Post -Construction
10/2004
6/2017
910 279-6603
Monitoring of 14,000 If Stream/325 acres of Wetlands
Wetlands Resource Center
6. Rutman Creek Watershed
under contract w/ PCS
Wetland Delineation;
Restoration Project
Phosphate
Hyde
Design/Construction Management & Post -Construction
6/2007
5/2016
Mr. Cal Miller
Monitoring of 4,000 ac Watershed Restoration
614 864-7511
7. Bachelors Delight Stream and
Weyerhaeuser Co.
Wetland Delineation;
Ongoing —
Wetland Mitigation Bank
Mr. Taylor Downey
Onslow
Design/Construction Management
4/2008
Year 5
706 474-0295
26,000 If Stream/300 acres of Wetlands
Wetlands Resource Center
Wetland Delineation;
8. Northeast Cape Fear Umbrella
Mr. Cal Miller
Pender
Design/Construction Management & Post -Construction
3/2009
Ongoing —
Mitigation Bank
[phone]
Monitoring 1,000 acres of Wetland Restoration and 4,000 If
Year 5
of Stream
LCFUMB, LLC
Wetland Delineation;
9. Lower Cape Fear Umbrella
Mr. Jon Vincent
Brunswick
Design/Construction Management & Post -Construction
4/2009
Ongoing —
Mitigation Bank
[phone]
Monitoring 510 acres of Wetland Restoration and 6,800 If of
Year 4
Stream
Response to Request for Proposal #16-20190201 13 1 Page
Section E — Corporate Background and Experience

Axiom Environmental, Inc. (AXE) has extensive experience with mitigation services throughout North
Carolina for over 20 years. Table 2 below summarizes AXE contracts with NC DMS and indicates which
tasks were completed for each project including site design, construction oversight, baseline
monitoring, annual monitoring, closeout services, and IRT involvement. In addition to NC DMS
projects, Axiom has completed numerous mitigation site designs and construction oversight, has
extensive experience with agencies, and has completed monitoring on more than 35 additional sites;
some of these projects are summarized below.
➢ Mitigation Site Design
o Abbey Lamm Stream and Wetland Site, 2014 (Restoration Systems —
Full Delivery)
o Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Site, 2015 (Restoration Systems
— Full Delivery)
o Jarmons Oak Stream and Wetland Site, 2007 (Restoration Systems —
Full Delivery)
o Threemile Stream and Wetland Site, 2007 (Restoration Systems— Full
Delivery)
o Pancho Stream and Wetland Bank, 2012 (Restoration Systems — Bank Site)
o Cripple Creek Stream and Wetland Bank, 2007 (Restoration Systems
— Bank Site)
o Herman Dairy Stream and Wetland Site, 2011 (Restoration Systems —
Full Delivery)
➢ Construction/Planting Oversight
o South Wake Landfill Stream Repairs and Construction Oversight, 2010 (Wake County — Permit)
o Pancho Stream and Wetland Bank, 2013 (Restoration Systems — Bank Site)
o Herman Dairy Stream and Wetland Site, 2011 (Restoration Systems — Full Delivery)
o Cripple Creek Stream and Wetland Bank, 2010 (Restoration Systems — Bank Site)
o Supplemental Planting 22 NCDMS Sites, 2011-2012 (NCDMS — RFP)
o Wall Riparian Buffer, 2011 (Restoration Systems — Full Delivery)
➢ Experience with USACE, NCDWO, and IRT Member Agencies
o Lloyd Stream and Wetland Site Closeout, 2012 (Restoration Systems — Full Delivery)
o Sleepy Creek Wetland Site Closeout, 2009 (Restoration Systems — Bank Site)
o Jarmons Oak Stream and Wetland Site Closeout, 2012 (Restoration Systems — Full Delivery)
o South Wake Landfill Stream Repairs and Annual Monitoring, 2010-2013 (Wake County - Permit)
o Pancho Stream and Wetland Bank, 2013 (Restoration Systems — Bank Site)
o Cripple Creek Stream and Wetland Bank, 2010 (Restoration Systems — Bank Site)
o Sluder Branch Mitigation Bank, 2012 (Sluder Branch Mitigation Company— Bank Site)
2. DBE/HUB Participation
The project team and its entities (CMS, LMG, and AXE) are not Disadvantaged or Historically
Underutilized Business Enterprises. However, our team is committed to providing opportunities for
such firms during the full -delivery project.
Response to Request for Proposal #16-20190201 14 1 Page
Section E — Corporate Background and Experience

Table 2. AXE Contracts with NC Division of Mitigation Services
NCDMS Contracts
Detailed Plan/ Site
Design
Construction
Oversight
As -Built Baseline
Monitoring
Annual
Monitoring
Closeout
IRT
Jumping Run Cr
MY5
Howell Woods
MY5-7
2010
x
Smith & Austin
MY4-5
2008
Terrible Creek
2008
x
2008
MY1-5
2013
Camp Lejeune
MY5
Clayhill Farms
2006
MY1-5
2011
x
Grove Cr
2007
MY1-5
2012
x
Sturgeon City
MY2-5
2009
Bold Run
MY2-5
2012
x
Charles Run
MY2-5
2012
x
Goldsboro Housing
MY1-5
2014
Goose Cr
MY1-5
2014
Norwood Gainey
MY3-5
2012
UT to Cane Cr
2008
MY1-3
UT to Haw (Gwynn)
2009
x
2010
MY1-5
2015
UT to Haw (Beckom)
2010
x
2011
MY1-5
2016
UT to Bear (St Anna)
2010
Irwin Cr
2010
MY1-5
McIntyre Cr
2010
MY1-6
Chapel Cr
MY4-5
2014
Greenbrier
MY1-5
2017
Mill Cr
MY1-5
2017
x
Hauser Cr
MY1-5
2017
Briles Cr
MY4-5
2013
Tate Farm
MY1-5
x
McCain Cr
MY4-5
2014
UT to Bald
MY1-5
2017
x
UT to Martins
2014
MY1-5
Martins II
2014
MY1-5
Bear Cr (Phillips)
2014
MY1-5
Helms
MY4-5
2016
Little Lick Cr Buffer
2013
2014
MY1-5
S Hominy Cr
MY3-5
2017
Bobs Creek
2016
MY1-3
Neighbors Br
2016
MY1-3
Response to Request for Proposal # 16-20190201 15 1 Page
Section E — Corporate Background and Experience

(This page intentionally left blank)

Section F. Project Organization
The assembled project team consists of highly experienced professionals with diverse backgrounds
that lend to a multi -disciplinary approach to the mitigation effort. The Project Manager will be Mr.
Kevin Yates. Christian Preziosi will serve as the lead technical project manager. Supporting the
technical implementation and monitoring of the project will be a staff of environmental scientists
from Land Management Group and Axiom Environmental that have been project managers or
integral team members for several mitigation projects constructed and monitored in North Carolina
within the last ten years. LMG staff assigned to this project include: (1) Nick Howell (Licensed Soil
Scientist, GIS/CAD support); Kim Williams (certified plant professional, permitting specialist, and
QA/QC manager); (3) Wes Fryar (planting and construction oversight, GIS/CAD support); and (4)
Corey Novak (Professional Wetland Scientist, post -construction monitoring manager, GIS/CAD
support). AXE staff assigned to this project include: (1) Grant Lewis (licensed soil scientist, lead stream
designer, construction oversight, and QA/QC manager); and (2) Kenan Jernigan (stream designer, existing
and reference conditions data collection, planting and construction oversight, GIS/CAD support, and post -
construction monitoring). Wes Newell will serve as the lead construction manager and will support the
technical implementation of the project.
Resumes of project manager and key personnel are attached in Appendix G. The team member role
matrix is depicted in Table 3.
Rest of this page is intentionally left blank
Response to Request for Proposal #16-20190201 16 1 P a g e
Section F. Project Organization

Table 3. Team Members and Project Role
Team
Christian
Kenan
Kevin Yates
Grant Lewis
Wes Fryar
Wes Newell
Member
Preziosi
Jernigan
Clearwater
Land
Axiom
Land
Axiom
Company
Mitigation
Management
Environmental
Management
Environmental
Consultant
Solutions
Group (LMG)
(AXE)
Group (LMG)
(AXE)
MS (Landscape
Education/
MS
MS
BS (Range
BA
BA
Ecosystem
Experience
(Marine
(Marine
Ecosystem
(Geography
(Environmental
Classification
Biology)
Biology)
Management)
/GIS)
Studies)
and Ecosystem
Hydrology)
Project Role
Project
Manager
Environmental
Data
Collection
Environmental
Screening
Report
Conservation
Easement
J
J
Coordination
Mitigation
Plan
J
V
V
V
Development
404/401/SEC
Permitting
Planting and
Construction
Management
Plot Install and
Baseline
J
1I
1I
Monitoring
CAD/GIS/
Graphic
1I
1I
Support
QA/QC
Response to Request for Proposal #16-20190201 17 1 P a g e
Section F. Project Organization

Section G. Technical Approach
1. Project Goals and Objectives
The over -arching goal of the Cool Run Mitigation Project is to provide high quality compensatory
mitigation for authorized stream, riparian wetland, and non -riparian wetland impacts credited
through the NC DMS in -lieu -fee program and occurring within the Lumber River Hydrologic Unit
Code (HUC) 03040207. The project is located within the Upper Shallotte River watershed (14-digit
HUC 03040207020060), which is a Target Local Watershed (TLW) of the Lumber River Basin. This
watershed exhibits water quality impairments associated with low dissolved oxygen (DO). In
addition, surface waters in this area are susceptible to high nutrient concentrations (N and P) that
manifest from non -point source loading associated with intensive agricultural and forestry land -use
practices. Sediment loading (associated with silvicultural and agricultural drainage) is prevalent
throughout the watershed. These impairments tend to be exacerbated by direct disturbances to
streams and wetlands (such as prior channelization of streams and historic drainage of wetlands).
The cumulative effects of such practices result in diminished nutrient uptake and nutrient/sediment
loading to down -gradient waters. Cool Run is located within an area subject to some of the highest
rates of population growth in the country'. Rapid growth and development has presented a suite
of additional stressors to water quality within the watershed including run-off associated with
increased impervious cover. While forest remains the dominant land cover at over 34%, the Long
Bay Subbasin is the most impervious subbasin in the Lumber River Basin (NC DENR 2010).
The proposed project promotes the goals of the Lumber River Basinwide Water Quality Plan (2008)
and specifically the Upper Shallotte River TLW by addressing the priority of restoring headwater
stream channels and riparian wetlands. The primary goals and objectives of this stream and
wetland restoration project focus on the following (goals listed first followed by objectives in bullet
form):
1. Improvement of hydraulic connectivity to floodplains and enhancement of flood attenuation
• Restoring the existing highly modified and incised channel using predominantly Priority 1
restoration techniques where bankfull and larger flows will more readily access the
historic floodplain;
• Restoring streams on -site using Priority I restoration techniques will enhance the Site's
ability to mitigate flood flows by reconnecting bankfull and higher flows to its historic
floodplain;
Brunswick County was recently identified as the fastest growing county in the state. According to the U.S. Census
Bureau (2017), Brunswick County's population increased by 21.8 percent, or by 23,466 people between 2010 and
July 2017. In addition, Brunswick County's metro area, which includes Myrtle Beach and Conway, was the second
fastest growing area in the country.
Response to Request for Proposal #16-20190201 11 P a g e
Section G. Technical Approach

• Removing adjacent earthen berms (spoil from historic channel modification) from the
floodplain will afford more natural valley access for floodwaters, in turn attenuating
flows and assisting in hydrating riparian areas that are largely severed from interaction
with existing stream channels; and
• Restoring riparian wetlands adjacent to the restored channels will assist in attenuating
floodwaters, thus reducing sediment and nutrient loading to downstream waters.
2. Raising near -surface groundwater hydrology in floodplain/riparian areas to assist in the
restoration of wetlands and to increase the Site's ability to uptake and store pollutant inputs
• Restoring the bed elevations of the stream channel into its relict channel will re-
establish surface water inflows and groundwater storage within riparian wetlands,
thus promoting the uptake, storage and fixation of nutrients and sedimentation from
overbank flows.
• Removing spoil from relic wetland areas will re-establish natural contours and
floodwater storage thus contributing to enhance nutrient uptake/transformation and
sediment retention.
3. Reduction of sediment loss from degraded banks that affects water quality and aquatic
habitat
• Restoring the degraded, straightened and incised stream as primarily a Priority 1
restoration where bankfull and larger flows can access the floodplain allows nutrients,
sedimentation, and debris from upstream silvicultural land use to settle within the
floodplain to a greater extent than existing conditions.
• Restoring a stable dimension, pattern, and profile by re -connecting to the relict
channel. Doing so will allow for the channel to transport and attenuate watershed
flows and sediment loads without aggrading or degrading. Priority 1 restoration will
increase flood interaction with the floodplain, thereby increasing capacity for nutrient
uptake and pollutant removal prior to discharge to downstream receiving waters.
• Stabilizing channel banks by restoring the channel to its relict location in the low point
of the valley and utilizing in -stream structures (where deemed suitable) to reduce
shearing forces on outside meander bends, and planting native vegetative species to
provide soil stability will reduce stream bank stressors.
4. Enhancement of aquatic, semi -aquatic and riparian habitat
• Restoring the channel to a sand bed system with meanders and natural structures that
promote invert scour and pool development fosters improved aquatic habitat for
benthic macroin vertebrate and fish propagation. Woody materials such as log
structures, overhanging planted vegetation and toe wood in submerged water will
Response to Request for Proposal #16-20190201 2 1 P a g e
Section G. Technical Approach

provide a diversity of shading, bed form and foraging opportunities for aquatic
organisms.
• Restoring wetland hydrology and introducing floodwaters back to the historic
floodplain will provide a diversity of habitats for semi -aquatic flora and fauna.
S. Protecting, preserving and enhancing stream and wetland habitat within and adjacent to
agricultural and silvicultural site
• Restoration and protection (via the conservation easement deed) of the riparian
wetlands provides a habitat corridor from the upper reaches of a first -order stream to
downstream bottomland hardwood forests of Shallotte River. Long-term protection is
considered particularly beneficial in light of intensive development pressures within the
subbasin and the susceptibility of downstream waters to shellfish closures (attributed
to stormwater runoff).
The anticipated functional uplift to be provided by the project will have direct benefits to on -site
stream and wetlands, as well as to the downstream receiving waters and to the broader ecological
health of the Upper Shallotte River watershed. This is particularly beneficial in light of the extent
and severity of water quality impairments of surface waters of the Shallotte River and the threat to
existing stream and wetland habitats as a result of intensive development pressures along this
stretch of the southeastern North Carolina coast.
2. Project Description
A. Site Location
The project site is located in Brunswick County, approximately five miles southwest of the city limits
of Shallotte, North Carolina and north of State Route 1316 (Old Shallotte Rd NW) (refer to Figure 1).
As indicated above, Cool Run is a first -order tributary located within the Upper Shallotte River
watershed (14-digit HUC 03040207020060), which is a Target Local Watershed (TLW) of the Lumber
River Basin (Figure 2). The riparian wetland restoration areas are situated within the floodplain of
the relict channel of Cool Run which has been historically re-routed (to the edge of the floodplain),
straightened, and deepened. The manipulated channel of Cool Run drains into the Shallotte River
approximately 2.0 river miles downstream from the project area (refer to Figure 3 and Figure 4).
B. Watershed and Water Quality Classification
Cool Run has a NC DEQ surface water classification of C; SW. The classification "C" denotes waters
protected for secondary uses such as secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish consumption,
aquatic life including propagation, survival and maintenance of biological integrity, and agriculture.
"Secondary recreation includes wading, boating, and other uses involving human body contact with
water where such activities take place in an infrequent, unorganized, or incidental manner." The
"SW" classification is a supplemental classification intended to recognize those waters which have
low velocities and other natural characteristics which are different from adjacent streams.
Response to Request for Proposal #16-20190201 3 1 P a g e
Section G. Technical Approach

C. Physiography. Geology, and Soils
The Cool Run mitigation site is located within the Carolina Flatwoods of the Middle Atlantic Coastal
Plain Ecoregion (63h). In general, this ecoregion is characterized by nearly level coastal plain with
less relief and larger areas of poorly drained soils than the adjacent, higher elevation Southeastern
Plains to the west. The Carolina Flatwoods were covered by shallow coastal waters during the
Pleistocene, and the resultant terraces tend to consist of fine -loamy and coarse -loamy soils, with
periodically high water tables. Other areas have clayey, sandy, or organic soils, contributing to the
region's plant diversity. The region is a significant center of endemic biota, with high biological
diversity and rare species compared to adjacent regions. Artificial drainage for forestry and
agriculture is common.
Elevations of the site range from 52 ft above mean seal level (AMSL) along the northeastern
boundary to 38 ft AMSL where Cool Run exits along the southern boundary. The soils formed in
unconsolidated sand, silt, and clay deposited by water. They are nearly level to sloping. Soils of the
site consist of very poorly drained loams in drainageways to moderately well -drained loamy sands
along convex stream terraces (refer to Figure 5). Mapped soil series occurring on the site and their
associated properties are summarized in Table 1. Areas proposed for stream and riparian wetland
mitigation occur within the poorly drained Muckalee loam soil series. Profile descriptions of on -site
soil borings (prepared by a NC Licensed Soil Scientist) are provided in Appendix A.
Table 1. Summary of Mapped Soil Series
MapUnit
Landscape Position and
Hic
Series Name
Drainage Class
Landform
Soil
Symbol
(Y/N)
Baymeade fine sand
Uplands of lower to upper
BaB
1 to 6% slopes
Well Drained
Coastal Plain
N
o
(1 to 12/ slopes)
Goldsboro fine
Moderately
Marine terraces and uplands of
GoA
sandy loam
Well Drained
lower to upper Coastal Plain
N
(0 to 2/ slopes)
Lynchburg fine sandy
Somewhat
Marine terraces and uplands of
Ly
loam
Poorly Drained
lower to upper Coastal Plain
N
o
(0 to 2/ slopes)
Floodplains of streams
Mk
Muckalee loam
Poorly Drained
in the Coastal Plain
Y
(less than 2% slope)
Flats and depressions of lower,
Ra
Rains fine sandy loam
Poorly Drained
middle, and upper Coastal Plain
Y
(0 to 3% slopes)
D. Existing Conditions
1. Stream Tributaries
The property is currently managed for agricultural and silvicultural production with the majority of
the mitigation area occurring within the previously harvested floodplain of Cool Run. The natural
hydrologic conditions of the site have been historically altered by the relocation, straightening, and
Response to Request for Proposal #16-20190201 4 1 P a g e
Section G. Technical Approach

deepening of the Cool Run tributary and an unnamed tributary to Cool Run (UT-1) and subsequent
installation of several shallow surface ditches within the riparian floodplain. The altered channel
and ditches appear on historic aerial photos dating back to the 1950s (see historical site aerial
photography in Appendix B). The project site consists of the headwaters of Cool Run (a first -order
tributary of the Shallotte River), an unnamed tributary to Cool Run (UT-1), and former wetland
areas historically impacted by prescribed site drainage practices. The stream reaches and highly
degraded riparian areas lie within topographic crenulations characteristic of fluvial systems. Cool
Run appears to have been relocated and channelized in the late 1950s. UT-1 appears to have been
channelized prior to 1956. Historic channelization has resulted in the disconnection of the stream
channels from their adjacent riparian floodplain and effectively drained riparian wetlands. The
extent of the conservation easement boundary is depicted on the 1998 aerial and 2016 aerial in
Figure 6 and Figure 7, respectively. The existing conditions plan view (with stream features, NC
SAM form locations, and cross-section locations as further described below) is provided in Figure 8.
Site specific mitigation goals and objectives have been developed through the use of the North
Carolina Stream Assessment Method (NC SAM) analyses of existing stream systems at the Site (NC
SFAT 2015). Site functional assessment data forms are available upon request and model output is
included in Appendix C and is summarized in the following table. Metrics targeted to meet the Site's
goals and objectives are depicted in bold, within Table 2 below.
a. Cool Run
Cool Run enters the Site as a low -gradient, first order perennial tributary and maintains first order
status through the Site (USGS 1946). Cool Run generally flows from the northeast to the southwest
and south through the proposed mitigation site. The channel continues south along the outer,
eastern edge of an impounded pond that is on the adjacent property to the west. Cool Run flows
south across US Highway 17 into the Shallotte River (approximately 2 river miles south of the
mitigation site).
Cool Run enters the site via an incised and straightened channel that drains approximately 1.62-
miles of timberlands to the north (USGS Stream Stats). The stream is a sand -bed system that has
been highly modified in the past. Historical aerials confirm ditching of the site beginning in the late
1950s. Evidence of ditching includes spoil piles which act as berms along both banks. The channel
predominantly flows along the left valley shoulder (outside of the natural floodplain) as it enters the
site and then transects the floodplain to where it flows along the upper edge of the right valley.
The existing Cool Run channel lacks any natural meander geometry. Fortunately, the relic
(abandoned) natural channel was not filled during prior site alteration and remains throughout the
length of the valley (as evidenced through LiDAR imagery and subsequently verified through field
investigations). These relic sections of the channel will be utilized in further assessments during
determination of reference conditions and mitigation planning.
Channel bed form is absent of deeps/pools which would be commonly found in highly functional
and sinuous Coastal Plain stream channels. Channel banks are high, nearly vertical and display
lengths of bare soils that are eroding because the channel is incised below the rooting depth of
adjacent vegetation. Channel banks are high because:
• anthropogenic disturbances that have intentionally deepened the channel;
• spoil from channel modifications has been cast off to the top of bank, which raises the
ground surface along the bank and;
Response to Request for Proposal #16-20190201 5 1 P a g e
Section G. Technical Approach

• the channel has been relocated to the edge of the valley where topographical relief is
significantly greater than within the flatter valley floor.
Table 2. NC SAM Summary
NC SAM Function Class Rating Summary
Cool Run: SAM-1
UT 1: SAM-2
Cool Run: SAM-3
(1) HYDROLOGY
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
(2) Flood Flow
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
(4) Floodplain Access
MEDIUM
HIGH
LOW
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
LOW
LOW
MEDIUM
(4) Microtopography
LOW
LOW
MEDIUM
(3) Stream Stability
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(4) Channel Stability
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
(4) Stream Geomorphology
LOW
LOW
LOW
(1) WATER QUALITY
LOW
LOW
MEDIUM
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
(2) Stream -side Area Vegetation
LOW
LOW
HIGH
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
LOW
LOW
HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation
MEDIUM
LOW
MEDIUM
(2) Indicators of Stressors
NO
NO
NO
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
LOW
NA
LOW
(1) HABITAT
LOW
HIGH
(2) In -stream Habitat
LOW
LOW
HIGH
(3) Baseflow
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
(3) Substrate
LOW
LOW
HIGH
(3) Stream Stability
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(3) In -Stream Habitat
MEDIUM
LOW
MEDIUM
(2) Stream -side Habitat
LOW
LOW
MEDIUM
(3) Stream -side Habitat
LOW
LOW
LOW
(3) Thermoregulation
LOW
LOW
HIGH
OVERALL
LOW
LOW
MEDIUM
These high banks cause the channel to be
much deeper than would be anticipated
naturally, which in -turn causes high flows to
be maintained within the channel and
reduces access to the floodplain.
Containment of higher flows within in the
channel increases shearing forces on the
vertical side slopes and channel invert which
promotes erosion.
Response to Request for Proposal #16-20190201 6 1 P a g e
Section G. Technical Approach

An assessment of the channel's Frink Site XS1-UT1 FWe--
geometry was completed by
100
surveying two representative
cross -sections through the Site.
Cross -sectional data is located in �e
Appendix D. Cross -sectional 2
data reveal that the estimated W �6
bankfull discharge stage within �5 -- --- — -- --- the upstream portions of the94 p p d 5 ,d 15 2d 25 30
Site is entrenched. The Ee Width from River Left to Right(R)
width-t,Depth Ratio: 7.2
entrenchment ratios is 1.5, while E,ft—hme„t Mt :1.9
Bii 3.3
the bank height ratios is 1.9.
Generally, the bankfull flow stage appears to be approximately at the low bank height. Geomorphic
data confirms the containment of bankfull and higher flows within the channel. Data from the
cross -sections (Appendix D) indicate that Cool Run can generally be classified as a G type stream,
which is indicative of an unstable system. It should be noted that geomorphic parameters that
influence channel classification have been significantly influenced by anthropogenic modifications.
As indicated above, the relic channel remains
relatively intact with characteristic channel
geometry and meanders throughout much of the
natural valley. However, due to the
channelization and relocation of the Cool Run
tributary, the relict channel exhibits no flow
patterns.
b. Un-named Tributary (UT)-1
A small stream channel with a relatively small
drainage area (approximately 70-acres) enters
the Site and converges with Cool Run (USGS
Stream Stats). This stream (UT-1) is denoted as
a blue line on the 1943 USGS Shallotte
quadrangle. However, valley crenulations are
only depicted on the 1990 USGS quadrangle.
Additionally, the digital elevation model (DEM)
(Figure 4) clearly depicts crenulations in the
landscape, indicating natural valleys are present
at the UT-1 tributary. A summary of channel:
characteristics is previously depicted in Table 3.
A NC DWR Stream Identification Form was completed on UT-1 which scored 27.5 indicating the
ditches channel is intermittent, or headwater in nature (Appendix Q.
UT-1 has been modified (i.e. ditched) to promote drainage within the adjacent agricultural fields.
The channel is a sand bed system that has been ditched and straightened through its valley;
therefore, there is no natural meander geometry or pool formation. The channel has a planar
Response to Request for Proposal #16-20190201 7 1 P a g e
Section G. Technical Approach

bedform due to the lack of meander geometry and has been deepened in an effort to promote
drainage towards Cool Run. Appendix D depicts typical cross -sections of selected tributaries.
Data from UT-1 confirms that Frink SAe X52_ Coo, Run Riffle
flowsare significantly entrenched
iot
(bank height ratio of 3.3 and
mo
entrenchment ratio of 1.8).
Geomorphic parameters signify a a �g
Ge type channel. Representative w
cross -sectional data collected �6
where UT-1 flows through the �5
agricultural field (Appendix D) D 10 95 20 25
O"'i -ion: G Width from River Left to Right (it)
reveals a channel that is ""`""o-°e"`"1=.6
Entrenchment Patio: ].5
BHP: 1.9
approximately 3 feet deep. It
should be noted that geomorphic parameters that influence channel classification have been
significantly influenced by anthropogenic modifications. It appears that flood flows rarely access
UT-1's adjacent valley in the upslope portions of the Site or within Cool Runs floodplain.
c. Morphology Parameters
Table 3 summarizes morphology parameters existing at the Site as well as preliminary estimates of
stable stream attributes based upon regional curves for the Coastal Plain region of North Carolina
(Sweet et al. 2003).
Table 3. Essential Morphology Parameters
Parameter
XS 1-UT 1
XS 2 - Cool Run
Existing
Proposed*
Existing
Proposed*
Valley Width (ft)
8
100
19
250
Contributing Drainage Area (sq. mi.)
0.19
0.19
1.43
1.43
Discharge (cfs)
2.5
2.5
11.5
11.5
Channel/Reach Classification
Ge
C/E
G
C/E
Bankfull Cross -sectional Area (ftz)
2.8
2.8
12.3
12.3
Existing Cross -sectional Area (ftz)
20.7
2.8
34.3
12.3
Bankfull Width (ft)
4.5
5.1
12.5
11.0
Bankfull Depth (ft)
0.6
0.5
1.0
1.1
Maximum Depth (ft)
0.9
0.7
1.6
1.5
Low Bank Height (ft)
3.0
0.7
3.0
1.5
Flood Prone Area (ft)
8.0
100
19.0
250
Width/Depth Ratio
7.2
9.5
12.6
9.9
Bank Height Ratio
3.3
1.0
1.9
1.0
Entrenchment Ratio
1.8
19.6
1.5
22.7
Sinuosity
1.0
1.3
1.0
1.3
Substrate
Sand
*Preliminary estimates of stable stream attributes are based primarily upon regional curves for the Coastal Plain region of
North Carolina (Sweet et al. 2003).
Response to Request for Proposal #16-20190201 8 1 P a g e
Section G. Technical Approach

d. Sediment Model
Sediment load modeling was performed using methodologies outlined in A Practical Method of
Computing Streambank Erosion Rate (Rosgen 2009) along with Estimating Sediment Loads using the
Bank Assessment of Non -point Sources Consequences of Sediment (Rosgen 2011). These models
provide a quantitative prediction of streambank erosions by calculating Bank Erosion Hazard Index
(BEHI) and Near -Bank Stress (NBS) along each Site reach. The resulting BEHI and NBS values are
then compared to streambank erodibility graphs prepared for North Carolina by the NC Stream
Restoration Institute and NC Sea Grant.
Streambank characteristics involve measurements of bank height, angles, materials, presence of
layers, rooting depth, rooting density, and percent of the bank protected by rocks, logs, roots, or
vegetation. Site reaches have been measured for each BEHI and NBS characteristic and predicted
lateral erosion rate, height, and length to calculate a cubic volume of sediment contributed by the
reach each year. Data forms for the analysis are available upon request and the data output is
presented in Appendix F. Results of the model are presented in Table 4 below.
Table 4. BEHI and NBS Modeline Summary
Stream Reach
Proposed Mitigation Treatment
Predicted Sediment
Contribution (tons/year)
Cool Run
Restoration by reconnecting historic channel
0
UT 1
Restoration using braided, headwater techniques
23.6
Total Sediment Contribution (tons/year)
23.6
2. Wetland Conditions
Wetlands within the project area have been historically altered via drainage and conversion to
timber and/or agricultural management. Surface water inflow via overbank flooding no longer
occurs with the floodplain of the channelized streams. Groundwater levels have been significantly
lowered to the extent that the adjacent riparian zone within the proposed restoration area is no
longer considered jurisdictional wetlands as evidenced by the lack of primary indicators of wetland
hydrology. This in turn has resulted in subsidence and oxidation of surface organics and has
contributed to a shift in vegetative assemblages (i.e. recruitment of drier species). In addition, the
vegetative assemblage has been historically altered from conversion to monotypic loblolly pine
plantation and subsequent harvesting. Canopy species within the immediate riparian zone (i.e.
within SO feet more or less) of the upper reach consist of sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua) and
red maple (Acer rubrum) (i.e. species more representative of altered sites). The understory consists
of species characteristic of drained sites such as horse sugar (Symplocos tinctoria), American
beautyberry (Callicarpa americana), dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), and muscadine grape
(Vitis rotundifolia). Areas lacking wetland hydrology are targeted for wetland restoration (e.g. re-
establishment) as described further in Section 3B below.
In the downstream portion of the site, few remnant canopy specimens of characteristic species
such as tulip poplar (Lirodendron tulipifera), and swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii) persist.
The sub -canopy and shrub strata in these area include fetterbush (Ilex glabra) and American holly
(Ilex opaca). However, subsidence, lack of hydrologic indicators, and the presence of vegetative
species indicative of drier conditions illustrate drainage through much of the reach within the
project area. Microtopographical depressions remain within the floodplain (including portions of
Response to Request for Proposal #16-20190201 9 1 P a g e
Section G. Technical Approach

the relic channel). These areas appear to meet the three parameters of wetland hydrology but lack
characteristic riparian wetland hydrology (i.e. intermittent to seasonal inundation with surface
water inflow from stream overbank flooding). Restoration of the Cool Run tributary to its original
location within the central portion of the valley will allow for the rehabilitation of wetlands that
have been historically impacted.
Up -gradient riparian wetland areas on the eastern edge of the valley have been disconnected from
the floodplain by a toe -slope interceptor ditch which has resulted in a lowered groundwater
condition. However, wetland hydrology of the adjacent seeps and headwater wetland areas still
persists (though with apparent reduced hydroperiods). As result, these wetland areas are targeted
for enhancement (refer to Figure 8 for the Existing Conditions Plan View).
Riparian wetlands associated with much of the reach of Cool Run are classified as Headwater Forest
wetland type that grade to Bottomland Hardwood Forest wetland type (NCWAM 2010) just south of
the mitigation site. UT-1 is classified as Headwater Forest wetland type (NCWAM 2010). The stream
reach grades to Riverine Swamp Forest down -gradient where overbank flooding would normally be
a more significant source of water in an unaltered condition. Based upon Schafale and Weakley
(1990), the riparian wetlands of the project area are considered Small Stream Swamp (Blackwater
Subtype) grading to Bottomland Hardwood Forest (Blackwater Subtype). These wetland types are
intermittently to seasonally flooded in an unaltered condition. Principal sources of hydrology are
groundwater seepage, diffuse surface flow, and overbank flooding. Downstream sections of Cool
Run would exhibit greater hydrologic input from higher frequency overbank flooding events
(NCWAM 2010).
Photographs of existing site conditions are provided in Appendix G. The limits of the proposed
restoration and enhancement are depicted in Figure 9 and are described in more detail in Section
3B below.
E. Jurisdictional Streams and Wetlands
As indicated above, historic drainage practices associated with silvicultural and agricultural
management have resulted in the interception of surface water, the lateral drawdown of
groundwater, and the reduction/removal of overbank flooding in former riparian wetland areas.
Some depressions within the floodplain (including those associated with the relict stream channel)
exhibit higher groundwater levels. In addition, up -gradient riparian wetland areas on the eastern
edge of the valley also retain indicators of wetland hydrology. These areas are considered to be
jurisdictional wetlands as regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the NC
Division of Water Resources (DWR) (refer to Figure 8). No other wetlands were identified within
the project area as part of the site assessments. However, a complete wetland delineation with
USACE review and concurrence will be performed as part of the mitigation plan development. The
delineation will culminate in the issuance of a final jurisdictional determination (JD) issued by the
USACE prior to approval of the final mitigation plan.
All channels identified for single -thread or headwater stream restoration meet the definition of
jurisdictional Waters of the United States as each exhibits a continuous Ordinary High Water Mark
(OHWM). NC DWR Stream Identification Forms have been completed for each of the on -site
channels proposed for restoration. The entire length of the Cool Run is considered perennial. The
UT-1 headwater stream channel is considered intermittent.
Response to Request for Proposal #16-20190201 10 1 P a g e
Section G. Technical Approach

F. Cultural Resources
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires federal agencies to take into account
the effects of their undertakings on historic properties. LMG reviewed the State of North Carolina's
online cultural resource database (HPOWEB GIS Service) to determine if any cultural resources
and/or historic properties have been recorded within or near the project area. According to their
website, there are no sites or features listed in the National Register of Historic Places within or
adjacent to the project site. Attached is a map illustrating documented cultural and historic
resources in the vicinity of the project area (Appendix H).
G. Threatened and Endangered Species
Species with the federal classification of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Officially Proposed (P)
for such listing are protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended, and the
Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. The US Fish and Wildlife Service's Information, Planning, and
Consultation (IPaC) system was used to determine federally -protected species that are known to
occur in the general project vicinity (Table 5). Furthermore, a search of the North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program database was conducted to identify areas within or around the site that are
already known to support rare species. According to their files, no federally or state -protected
species are known to occur within the site. One historical record of a state -listed dragonfly has
previously been identified within a one -mile radius of the site (see Appendix H).
The presence of any plant or animal species is determined by the availability and abundance of
suitable habitat. Staff of LMG performed a limited site evaluation to identify community types
within the site that may support federally -protected species. The property is currently managed for
silvicultural and agricultural production (including recent harvesting along the majority of the
project area). Cool Runs has been channelized over the years and former wetlands areas adjacent
to the channel (proposed riparian wetland restoration) have been drained. The riparian areas (in
areas without harvesting) currently support a canopy of red maple and sweetgum with a fairly
dense subcanopy and shrub layer that supports horse sugar, American beautyberry, and American
holly, and gallberry (Ilex glabra). The riparian areas are classified as Bottomland Hardwood Forest
(NCWAM, 2010). Downstream of the project site consists of Bottomland Hardwood Forests grading
to Riverine Swamp Forest and high -order stream channels that have the potential to support
American alligator. However, these areas are located off the property. Proposed mitigation work
would not have an adverse effect on any federally -listed species.
Outside of the stream valley, the site consists of convex ridges and interstream flats and
depressions. These areas are actively managed for silvicultural and agricultural production and
generally consist of active farm fields and harvested areas. Based upon preliminary site evaluations
and findings, these areas do no support habitat suitable for listed species.
Overall, the proposed mitigation work would not have an adverse effect on any federally -listed
plant or animal species. However, headwater stream restoration will promote enhanced water
quality and habitat for aquatic and semi -aquatic species that will in turn beneficially affect listed
species such as the American alligator and bald eagle. Upon award of contract, an environmental
screening will confirm these findings.
Response to Request for Proposal #16-20190201 11 I P a g e
Section G. Technical Approach

Table 5. Federally protected endangered and threatened species known to occur near the project area
per the USFWS IPaC website, excluding coastal and marine species.
Habitat
Status
Present in
Effects
Common Name
Scientific Name
Habitat Description
Project
Determination
US
NC
Area?
ANIMALS
Alligator
Freshwater swamps,
American Alligator
T (S/A)
T
marshes, rivers, and
No
No Effect
mississippiensis
lakes
Bald Eagle
Haliaeetus
BGPA
T
Nests in large trees
No
No Effect
leucocephalus
near open water
Orton Pond and pond
Magnificent
Planorbella
on Sand Hill Creek;
Ramshorn
magnifica
C
E
formerly Greenfield
No
No Effect
Lake (endemic to
North Carolina)
Hibernates in caves
and mines; roosts
underneath bark, in
Not Likely to
Northern Long-
Myotis
cavities or in crevices
Adversely
Eared Bat
septentrionalis
T
of both live trees and
Yes
Affect Per
snags. They are site
Programmatic
generalists and can be
BO
found in a range of
forested areas.
Red -Cockaded
Picoides
Open pine woodlands
Woodpecker
borealis
E
E
and savannas with
No
No Effect
large old pines
Freshwater and
estuarine wetlands;
nest in patches of
Wood Stork
Mycteria
T
E
medium to tall trees,
Yes
No Effect
americana
either in standing
water or on islands
surrounded by open
water
PLANTS
Cooley's
Thalictrum
Moist to wet bogs and
Meadowrue
cooleyi
E
E
savannas with neutral
No
No Effect
soils
Ecotones between
pine savannas and
Rough -leaved
Lysimachia
E
E
pocosins, on moist to
No
No Effect
Loosestrife
asperulaefolia
seasonally saturated
sands, on organic soils
overlaying sand
Response to Request for Proposal #16-20190201 12 1 P a g e
Section G. Technical Approach

TABLE KEY:
Status Definition
E Endangered. A taxon "in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range."
T Threatened. A taxon "likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range."
T(S/A) Threatened due to similarity of appearance.
BGPA Protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act.
H. Floodplain Compliance
Review of the Floodplain Mapping Program website and the effective Flood Insurance Rate Map
(FIRM) Map Numbers 3720104800J & 3720106800J Effective Date June 2, 2006 and Map Numbers
3720105700K & 3720106700K Effective Date August 28, 2018 indicates the Site streams are within
Zone X and are not part of a detailed study. It is anticipated that the provider will submit a
Floodplain Development Permit as a courtesy to the County to inform them of the project.
I. Site Constraints
The site is well -suited for achieving the preferences as indicated in the RFP based upon its soil
types, landscape position, hydrology, extent of previous human alteration, lack of physical
constraints, and connectivity to relatively undisturbed bottomland hardwood forest offsite. There
are no known site constraints that would impede or adversely affect the restoration, enhancement,
or preservation of streams and wetlands of the project area.
3. Project Development
The Proposal documents one Mitigation Option for the proposed cataloging unit. See Figure 9 for
the Proposed Mitigation Map. Proposed mitigation is summarized as:
Summary of Streams
• Cool Run — Restore natural pattern, profile and dimension to approximately 2055 feet of
Cool Run within the Site limits by redirecting stream flow into the historic abandoned
channel.
• UT 1— Restore a headwater stream to approximately 370 feet of valley which constitutes UT
1 within the Site limits.
Summary of Wetlands
• Riparian Wetland Restoration — re-establish characteristic wetland hydrology via raising of
stream bed elevations and removal of spoil piles (re-establishment of surface water inflows
and groundwater storage); plant areas lacking characteristic wetland tree and shrubs;
connection of existing wetlands to floodplain and stream
• Riparian Wetland Enhancement — re-establish characteristic wetland hydroperiods via
backfilling or plugging of toe -slope ditches and connection to the down -gradient floodplain;
plant areas lacking characteristic wetland tree and shrubs
Response to Request for Proposal #16-20190201 13 1 P a g e
Section G. Technical Approach

A. Proposed Stream Mitigation
1. Cool Run
Stream restoration efforts are designed to restore a stable stream that approximates
hydrodynamics, stream geometry, and local microtopography relative to reference conditions. The
channel is incised (as evidenced by elevated bank height ratios approaching and exceeding 2.0),
channelized and significantly influenced by adjacent berms that were created when the Site was
modified in a regional drainage effort. It is evident that bankfull/channel forming and higher flows
rarely access the historic floodplain within the proposed restoration reach, causing increased stress
and subsequent erosion within the banks and increased drainage of groundwater from the adjacent
floodplain.
It is anticipated that Cool Run will be restored as a Priority I (PI) restoration where the bankfull
elevation matches the historic/abandoned floodplain. Sections of relic natural channel within the
floodplain will be located during topographical surveys and utilized in the restoration design to the
greatest extent practical. Priority II stream restoration techniques may be utilized in the upper and
lower reach of the Site tributaries to tie the channel into the existing ditches above and below the
Site. Priority II reaches will be minimized to the maximum extent feasible. Additionally, removal of
the extensive berm network that currently blocks flood access to the floodplain will allow above -
bank flows to access the entire valley.
The use of in -stream structures for grade control and habitat is essential for successful stream
restoration. It is anticipated in stream structures may be incorporated into the channel design in an
effort to increase in -stream foraging and propagation habitat, promote a diversity in bed form, and
provide immediate bank stability in higher stress areas. In -stream structures may be placed in the
channel to elevate local water surface profiles in the channel, potentially flattening the water
energy slope or gradient and directing stream energy into the center of the channel and away from
banks. The structures will consist of log cross -vanes or log j-hook vanes. In addition, the structures
will be placed in relatively straight reaches to provide secondary (perpendicular) flow cells during
bankfull events.
The mitigation plan will strive to minimize impacts to mature specimen trees within the valley of
Cool Run. It is anticipated that trees 12 inches and greater will be located during topographical
surveys in an effort to reduce impacts to mature vegetation during design and subsequent
construction. Any portion of the existing buffer that is removed to facilitate restoration of the
channel will be replanted with native vegetation characteristic of a Coastal Plain Bottomland
Hardwood Forest community (Schafale & Weakley 1990) (refer to proposed planting below).
2. UT-1
Headwater channel restoration is proposed for the valley of UT-1. UT-1 was historically
straightened and depended in an effort to promote rapid drainage through historic wetlands. The
proposed mitigation plan is anticipated to include the filling of existing ditched channels, installation
of valley sills using natural native materials, removal of berms through the valley, restoration of
natural contours, and restoration of natural vegetation that is adapted to headwater conditions.
Removal of the drainage effects of the ditched channels should greatly improve the storage and
filtering function of the headwater valley, provide attenuation for storm water flows from the
contributing watershed, provide semi -aquatic habitat for various fauna and flora, and provide a
significant carbon source for downstream receiving waters associated with Cool Run.
Response to Request for Proposal #16-20190201 14 1 P a g e
Section G. Technical Approach

3. General Description of Stream Mitigation Activities
It is anticipated that construction of the Site will begin at the upstream extents of the valleys on -site
and work downstream. Standard construction equipment including CAT 320 (or equivalent) track
hoes, dozers, and track trucks will be utilized to clean -out and re-establish the relict channel.
Erosion control measures such as a pump -around operation with silt bags, silt checks, erosion
control matting, seeding and mulch will be implemented during construction. Grading quantities
cannot be determined until after site design which will occur in the Mitigation Plan phase.
However, earthwork is anticipated to be relatively minimal since the bankfull channel of Cool Run
will be reconnected to the original floodplain for the majority of the restoration (i.e. Priority
restoration) and because UT-1 will be restored as a headwater channel through the valley.
The desired plant community and species types will be established by utilizing a reference forest
system, but may include species found within the existing wooded forest along the southern end of
the Site along Cool Run. Planting densities of bare root species at approximately 680 trees per acre
are anticipated for areas of restored vegetative buffer. Soil amendments may be added during and
following construction to promote grass and tree growth within the disturbed areas on -site. Signs
will be posted along the easement boundary to clearly demarcate the easement boundary for the
landowners.
4. Summary of Stream Function Uplift
It is anticipated that all mitigation activities will substantially increase net ecological, hydrologic and
hydraulic functions to Cool Run, and the headwater stream valley associated with UT 1, and
downstream receiving waters. Functional uplift is expected to include the following:
• Stabilizing stream channel side slopes and invert on Cool Run through reconnection to the
historic channel, coir fiber matting, and establishment of permanent native vegetation
(grasses and trees).
• Removal of eroding channel side slopes on UT's by filling channels and grading to natural
contours.
• Creating stable and productive in -stream habitat within Cool Run through a more natural
plan form geometry that promotes deeps and shallows throughout the channel.
• Introduction of woody materials into the channel of Cool Run such as toe wads and logs sills
that will provide refuge habitat for fish and semiaquatic species, foraging habitat for
macrobenthos, channel depth variability, stream shading, and invert stabilization.
• Installation of riparian and bank vegetation that will add woody debris to the channel for
foraging and refuge and will shade the channel which will regulate temperatures and
stabilize dissolved oxygen.
• Connecting higher than bankfull flows to its historic floodplain, which will decrease channel
shear stress, promote attenuation of water across the broad floodplain, drop and store
suspended solids on the floodplain, filter nutrients, pesticides and other pollutants, and
rehydrate the riparian buffer to allow for greater groundwater and surface water storage.
• Removal of the drainage effects of the ditched channels of UT-1 should greatly improve the
storage and filtering function of the headwater valley, provide attenuation for storm water
flow from the contributing watershed, provide semi -aquatic habitat for various fauna and
flora and provide a significant carbon source for downstream receiving waters associated
with Cool Run.
Response to Request for Proposal #16-20190201 15 1 P a g e
Section G. Technical Approach

5. Reference Streams
Stream reference reaches will be incorporated into the Natural Channel Design to assist in
determining morphological parameters for the restored channels. The design team has restored
numerous single thread and headwater streams within the same Ecoregion as the Site and have
previously identified and surveyed several suitable reference streams (both single thread and
headwater) that have been approved through agency coordination and used in Mitigation Plans. It
is anticipated that these previously surveyed and approved reference sites will be used to assist in
completion of the Site design.
B. Proposed Wetland Mitigation
Approximately 14.2 acres of former riparian wetland (or highly degraded wetland) associated with
the channelized tributaries have been targeted for restoration. As discussed in the previous
section, these areas have been historically drained through silvicultural and agricultural
management activities over the past five decades. The riparian restoration will occur within the
existing crenulation of the stream bottom via re-establishment of the original stream channel
geometry and bed elevation resulting the reconnection to the stream to adjacent riparian areas.
The reconnection of the stream and adjacent riparian wetlands (in concert with the removal of
other on -site ditches) will restore characteristic hydroperiods (via minimizing subsurface drainage
and increasing overbank flooding within the adjacent floodplain). The proposed restoration
footprint for these areas has been identified via contour LIDAR data, geomorphic data, and
observed field conditions. The final footprint will be premised on more detailed site investigations
and an approved wetland delineation (i.e. jurisdictional determination). Modeling of similarly -sized
stream reaches have demonstrated sufficient hydrologic inflow resulting from elevation of static
groundwater elevations and periodic overbank flooding in response to precipitation events.
Earthwork will include the backfilling of the existing, channelized segment of Cool Run and the re-
establishment of the relict Cool Run tributary. Existing spoil piles will be removed (i.e. will be
utilized to backfill ditches). In addition, the ditch located on the eastern toe of slope of the valley
will be plugged and/or backfilled to remove its drainage influence. Earthen material from side -cast
spoil will be used to backfill the adjacent ditches. Material will be consolidated to effectively
impede drainage. As a result, portions of the roadside ditches will remain as open water habitat
pending final cut/fill volumes. Clay plugs will be installed at prescribed intervals and will be
reinforced with filter -fabric and rip -rap to ensure long-term stability and functioning. Areas within
the valley that are graded will be disked, straw -mulched, and planted.
Prior to any grading work, appropriate federal and state authorizations will be obtained for
earthwork (including a Nationwide Permit 27). Erosion control measures to prevent sediment from
leaving the site will include installation of check dams within downgradient sections of ditches to be
backfilled and/or plugged. Areas to be graded will be stabilized with straw mulch and temporary
and permanent seeding. In addition, all graded areas will be planted with characteristic wetland
tree bare -root seedling and containerized wetland shrubs (per the planting plan in the final,
approved Mitigation Plan).
Response to Request for Proposal #16-20190201 16 1 P a g e
Section G. Technical Approach

The proposed restoration areas will be planted with species typical of a small stream swamp
community (Figure 9). Much of the restored riparian wetland valley will be re -planted due to the
lack of characteristic riparian wetland vegetation. As indicated above, much of the area consists of
non -target species characteristic of drained sites. Areas to be replanted will be drum -chopped and
or bush -hogged prior to planting. Areas with existing, suitable canopy species (at the southern
terminus of the site) will be left intact with larger specimen trees of target species located and
preserved. Plantings of the riparian valley will include installation of bare -root seedlings of bald
cypress (Taxodium distichum), swamp tupelo (Nyssa biflora), ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), and
swamp chestnut oak. It is expected that other characteristic species will recruit naturally into these
restored areas upon successful hydrologic restoration.
C. All Mitigation
It is anticipated that Priority I restoration will be utilized throughout Cool Run to the maximum
extent practical. Several in -stream woody structures such as densely vegetated soil lifts, toe wood,
log sills, and cover logs are anticipated to be incorporated into the channel design. The final
bankfull channel size will be determined during the Mitigation Plan; however, preliminary data
suggests that the channel will be designed as moderately low width -to -depth ratio C or E type
channel that conveys the bankfull discharge. Additionally, the contributing UT-1 will be restored as
headwater streams within the Site. It is anticipated that UT-1's existing channel will be filled, and
the valleys graded to natural contours that mimic pre -disturbance conditions.
1. Site Planting
The majority of the hardwood riparian buffer has been removed from the Site, with portions of
buffers, primarily on the UT-1, being comprised of agricultural field. The proposed buffer width
includes a minimum of the required 50 foot stream buffer; however, the proposed buffer will
extend out to 100 ft or greater. It is anticipated that trees 12 inches and greater will be surveyed
within the restoration area in an effort to ensure protection of mature vegetation during design and
subsequent construction. Portions of the existing buffer that are removed to facilitate restoration of
the channels will be replanted with native vegetation.
The proposed mitigation site will provide for the establishment of natural plant assemblages
occurring within riparian habitats of the Coastal Plain. Target species to be planted have been
identified based upon site -specific information (including soil profiles and evaluation of landscape
position). The proposed planting regime will result in a mature community characteristic of specific
wetland community types. Establishment of a characteristic plant community will provide for the
necessary structure for resident and migratory fauna utilizing these types of habitat. The project is
expected to benefit a range of fauna by providing for a contiguous habitat corridor suitable for
refuge, nesting, and feeding. In addition, project activities are expected to contribute to enhanced
water quality conditions beneficially affecting downstream faunal communities.
The final planting plan will be premised on a comprehensive vegetation survey of adjacent wooded
areas as well as site soils and hydrology such that selected native trees will be well -suited to the
site -specific conditions of the property to promote high survivorship rates. No existing exotic or
invasive species have been observed within the project area. However, the mitigation plan will also
incorporate an invasive species management plan and protocol that can be implemented should
invasive species volunteer into the site. Note that the graded areas will also be planted with bare -
root seedlings, and live stakes of appropriate species (black willow, silky dogwood, and/or
Response to Request for Proposal #16-20190201 17 1 P a g e
Section G. Technical Approach

elderberry) will be installed. Planting densities of bare root species at approximately 538 to 680
trees per acre are anticipated for the restored vegetative buffer, but may be lower in areas that
may only require supplemental plantings. Soil amendments may be added during and following
construction to promote grass and tree growth within the disturbed areas on -site.
Species selection and distribution will be matched closely to micro -site hydrologic and edaphic
conditions. In other words, species more tolerant of poorly drained soils (e.g. bald cypress) will be
planted within lower landscape positions generally consisting of the Muckalee soil series while
species characteristically occurring in better drained soils will be planted in slightly higher convex
landscape positions.
2. Stream Crossings
There are currently no stream crossings within the Site.
3. Easement Boundary Protection
Marking of the easement boundary will be provided in the form of signage which will demarcate
the bounds of the conservation easement.
D. Mitigation Quantities
This proposal details one Mitigation Option that is summarized in Table 6 below. Note that the
table reflects stream credit and riparian wetland credit projections in excess of the requested
amounts in the RFP. While the project team anticipates overage on credits for these mitigation
types, it is understood that the contracted amount will not exceed the requested quantities (2,000
stream credits, 8.0 riparian wetland credits). The proposed project will satisfy all the credit needs
identified in the RFP.
Table 6. Mitigation Activities and Credit Potential Summary
Stream
Mitigation Type
Type
Linear Feet
Mitigation
Ratio
SMUs
Restoration
Priority 1
1405
1:1
1405
Restoration
Priority 11
650
1.5:1
433.3
Restoration
Headwater
370
1:1
370
Totals
2425 linear feet
2208.3 SMUs
Wetland
Mitigation Type
Type
Acreage
Mitigation
Ratio
Riparian Riverine
WMU
Restoration
(Reestablishment)
Riparian
Riverine
11.5
1:1
11.5
Restoration
(Rehabilitation)
Riparian
Riverine
2.7
1.5:1
1.8
Enhancement
Riparian
Riverine
3.2
3:1
1
Totals
17.4 acres
14.3 WMUs
Response to Request for Proposal #16-20190201 18 1 P a g e
Section G. Technical Approach

E. Current Ownership and Long Term Protection
CMS has secured a real estate option agreement for the purchase of easement rights on one prcel
in Brunswick County, North Carolina, near the Town of Shallotte. Upon project award and
completion of the Categorical Exclusion document (Task 1), CMS will record a Conservation
Easement on the project area. The easement will be conveyed to the State of North Carolina for
protection of the property in perpetuity.
F. Project Phasing
The following is a projected timeline of tasks to be completed as part of the scope of work for this
project:
Table 7. Project Timeline
Task
Project Milestone
Projected
Completion'
1
On -Site Meeting; Environmental Screening; Landowner Authorization
December 31, 2019
2
Record a Conservation Easement on the Site Approved by SPO
March 2020
3
Draft Mitigation Plan; PCN; Final Mit Plan and Financial Assurances
October 2020
4
Mitigation Site Earthwork Completed
January 2021
5
Vegetative Planting and Installation of Monitoring Devices
March 2021
6
Draft Baseline Monitoring Document; As -Built Drawings; and Final
Baseline Monitoring Document
June 2021
7
Submit Monitoring Report #1 to DMS
December 2021
8
Submit Monitoring Report #2 to DMS
December 2022
9
Submit Monitoring Report #3 to DMS
December 2023
10
Submit Monitoring Report #4 to DMS
December 2024
11
Submit Monitoring Report #5 to DMS
December 2025
12
Submit Monitoring Report #6 to DMS
December 2026
13
Submit Monitoring Report #7 to DMS (with Project Close -Out Report)
and Attendance at Close -Out Meetings
December 2027
'Projected timeline assumes an approximate contract award date of November 2019.
G. Success Criteria
Upon completion of the restoration project, a Baseline Monitoring Report will be prepared and
submitted to the NC DMS to document the extent of the mitigation performed. The report will
include all information required by DMS monitoring guidelines including photographs, plot
locations, and documentation of existing species density and composition.
The performance standards shall be consistent with the requirements described in the Federal rule
for compensatory mitigation project sites as described in the Federal Register Title 33 Navigation
and Navigable Waters Volume 3 Chapter 2 Section § 332.5 paragraphs (a) and (b). Additionally, the
October 24`", 2016 "Notification of Issuance of Guidance for Compensatory Stream and Wetland
Mitigation Conducted for Wilmington District" will be used to not only to determine monitoring
requirements but also success criteria. Criteria below are preliminary conceptual success criteria
and may change upon approval of the final mitigation plan.
Response to Request for Proposal #16-20190201 19 1 P a g e
Section G. Technical Approach

1. Streams
The restored stream reaches are proposed to be monitored for geomorphic activity. Annual
fall/winter monitoring will include development of channel cross -sections on riffles in addition to
visual observation of channel stability. A longitudinal profile of the thalweg, water surface, bankfull,
and top of bank will be collected during the as -built survey of the constructed channel.
a. Stream Dimension
General maintenance of a stable cross-section and hydrologic access to the floodplain features over
the course of the monitoring period will generally represent success in dimensional stability. Some
changes in dimension (such as lowering of bankfull width -to -depth ratio) should be expected. Riffle
sections should generally maintain a Bank Height ratio approaching 1.0 —1.2, with some variation in
this ratio naturally occurring, and display an entrenchment ratio of no less than 2.2. Both ratios
should display no more than 10 percent change from year-to-year. Pool sections naturally adjust
based on recent flows and time between flows; therefore, more leeway on pool section geometry is
expected.
b. Stream Pattern and Profile
Pattern features should show little adjustment over the standard 7 year monitoring period. The
profile should not demonstrate significant trends towards degradation or aggradation over a
significant portion of a reach.
c. Substrate and Sediment Transport
There should be an absence of any significant trend in the aggradational or depositional potential of
the channel.
d. Hydraulics
All stream channels will maintain an ordinary high water mark (OHWM) through monitoring. A
minimum of four bankfull events must be documented within the 7 year monitoring period. The
four bankfull events shall occur within separate years.
e. Headwater Stream Restoration
Headwater stream restoration success criteria is anticipated to include documentation of surface
water flow for a minimum of 30 days during the monitoring timeframe. It is anticipated that
monitoring years 1 through 4 will document concentrated flow within the restored headwater
valley. Additionally, monitoring years 5 through 7 will document both evidence of concentrated
flow and the development of a stream bed and bank (i.e. Ordinary High Water Mark).
f. Macroinvertebrate and Water Quality
The provider will coordinate with resource agencies to determine if site specific monitoring
protocols and success criteria for the Site are required.
2. Wetland Hydrology
Hydroperiods of restored wetlands will be established in the Mitigation Plan and will be consistent
with the Wetland Threshold Saturation ranges identified in the Wilmington District Stream and
Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Guidance (October 2016). Groundwater and shallow surface
water elevations will be collected daily during the growing season via automated gauges and
downloaded quarterly. The project team will prepare hydrographs depicting water levels
Response to Request for Proposal #16-20190201 20 1 P a g e
Section G. Technical Approach

throughout the growing season of each monitoring year. Should wetland hydrology fail to meet
success criteria as outlined in the Mitigation Plan for the Site, LMG will evaluate the potential
causes of failure and provide DMS with their remediation proposal. The remediation proposal will
detail corrective actions and/or maintenance actions proposed and an implementation schedule.
Upon review and approval of the remediation proposal by DMS, LMG will implement the necessary
corrective measures.
3. Vegetation
Vegetation plots will be monitoring for 7 years, with monitoring events occurring on years 1, 2, 3, 5,
and 7. A combination of permanent fixed plots and random plots will be employed to document
vegetation coverage. The specific protocol for plot establishment will be consistent with the recent
(October 2016) Wilmington District IRT Guidance. The performance standards require a minimum
of 320 planted stems per acre surviving after year three, 260 stems per acre after year five, and 210
stems per acre after year seven. Trees should average 7 feet in height at year five and 10 feet in
height at year seven. In addition, any single species can only account for up to 50% of the required
number of stems within a vegetation plot. Should the performance criteria outlined above not be
met during the monitoring period, a remedial action plan will be prepared that will identify
corrective actions and/or maintenance actions proposed and an implementation schedule for said
actions. Upon review and approval by DMS, such actions will be implemented.
4. Noxious Species
Noxious species will be identified and controlled so that none become dominant or alter the desired
community structure of the proposed Site. If noxious plants are identified as a problem in the
proposed Site, a species -specific control plan will be prepared and provided to DMS for approval
prior to implementation. All vegetation removal from the Site shall be done by mechanical means
only, unless DMS has first authorized the use of herbicides or algaecides for the control of plants in
or immediately adjacent to the affected areas.
5. Success Criteria Methodologies and Reporting
Monitoring of the Site will be performed until success criteria are met as defined in the restoration
plans and the permits. Results will be documented on an annual basis, with the associated reports
submitted to DMS as evidence that goals are being achieved. The project team and DMS, in
coordination with the appropriate regulatory agencies, will determine when the performance
standards have been achieved at the Site. If standards are not met, project team will perform
appropriate remedial activities to satisfy DMS. If the monitoring of the Site demonstrates that the
Site is successful by year five and no concerns have been identified, the project team will propose to
terminate monitoring of the Site and forego the monitoring requirements of years six and seven. In
general, the restoration success criteria, and required remediation actions, are based on the
Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update (USACE et al. 2016) and
the Annual Monitoring Report Format, Data Requirements, and Content Guidance (NCDMS 2017).
6. Frequency
All monitoring reports will be submitted to DMS's designated representative for coordination with
the appropriate regulatory agencies by December 1st of each year. The year of construction may
have two submittals, one being the As -Built drawings and the second being the First Year Annual
Monitoring Report. If monitoring reports indicate any deficiencies in achieving the success criteria
on schedule, a remedial action plan will be included in the annual monitoring reports. The project
Response to Request for Proposal #16-20190201 21 I P a g e
Section G. Technical Approach

team will be available to coordinate any agency site visits; both before and after restoration
activities have been completed. Vegetative monitoring will be conducted between July 15t and leaf
drop of each monitoring year.
H. Quality Control
Our quality approach is based on the Total Quality Management philosophy, which provides
guidance on producing quality deliverables. Quality assurance begins with a clear understanding of
the goals and objectives of the project prior to finalizing project scoping. Project team members are
selected based upon qualifications considered most suitable for accomplishing identified task items.
The Project Manager (PM) is responsible for establishing clear roles for team members, facilitating
project schedules, and ensuring quality. The project team members are involved in the
development and refinement of the final scope of work and project schedule.
Quality control will be ensured for editorial content, technical validity, and overall project
effectiveness. Prior to submittal of any documents, the identified quality assurance reviewer meets
with the PM and reviews the document's technical merits and accuracy. The assignment of a
Technical Reviewer is made by the PM. The Technical Reviewer is a senior level scientist whose
background and experience avoids and minimizes issues that may have been encountered on prior
projects. In addition, a peer reviewer will provide editorial comment to ensure correct spelling,
grammar, formatting, and consistency in text and graphics.
The project team has a strong record in providing deliverables in a timely fashion to our clients and
the regulatory community. Projects are typically executed within the stated budgetary constraints.
The assembled team has demonstrated ability to maintain efficiency while limiting cost overruns
and providing our client with a quality product. LMG has provided deliverables to NCDEQ (NC DMS)
on time and on -budget throughout the course of our work over the past 15 years.
Representative QA/QC measures to be employed for the Cool Run Mitigation Site are described
further below.
1. The Project Manager (Mr. Kevin Yates) will be responsible for ensuring timely submittal of
project deliverables (e.g. mitigation plan, baseline monitoring document, monitoring report,
etc.) and invoicing that accurately reflects contract tasks and contract percentages. In
addition, CMS has direct experience in NC DMS invoicing procedures. CMS will manage the
invoicing spreadsheet that will display percentage of task completed and invoiced along
with cumulative invoice totals.
2. The Technical Reviewer (Mr. Christian Preziosi) and the Peer Reviewer (Ms. Kim Williams)
will be responsible for the technical and editorial content of the project deliverables and will
ensure that the deliverables are consistent with current NC DMS standards and templates,
including the Annual Monitoring Report Template (ver. 2.0)). All mitigation work will be
performed in accordance with the Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory
Mitigation Update (USACE et al. 2016).
3. Task managers will be assigned for each of the major milestones of the project. Task
managers will provide a minimum of monthly progress reports to the Project Manager. The
Response to Request for Proposal #16-20190201 22 1 P a g e
Section G. Technical Approach

Project Manager will assign deadlines for all tasks and sub -tasks and will maintain a gantt
chart illustrating projected completion dates and percentages of tasks completed.
4. The construction management team led by Mr. Grant Lewis of AXE and Wes Fryar of LMG
will work closely with the Project Manager for the selection and oversight of the contractor
and for the procurement of native hardwoods suitable for site conditions. LMG and AXE will
conduct a pre -construction meeting with the contractor and planting foreman to review the
plans and to discuss specific construction and planting protocols. Professional scientists
from LMG and AXE will be on -site during planting and construction to ensure
implementation consistent with the approved mitigation plan. Planting and construction
will be photo -documented. The construction management team will work closely with the
monitoring task manager for the installation of permanent vegetation monitoring plots and
the baseline monitoring.
5. Monitoring reports will be submitted annually to the NC DMS (by December 1 of each year).
These reports will include results of vegetative monitoring and photographic documentation
of site conditions. Monitoring reports will also identify any contingency measures that may
need to be employed to remedy any site deficiencies. The seventh year monitoring report
will include a close-out report that provides an assessment of the monitoring data collected
from the entire monitoring period. The Project Manager and the monitoring task manager
will attend the close-out meeting(s) and will present the final project to the IRT following all
DMS closeout procedures and templates.
Response to Request for Proposal #16-20190201 23 1 P a g e
Section G. Technical Approach

(This page intentionally left blank)

FIGURES
Response to Request for Proposal #16-20190201

34r riF + 46
!c ti +46 1 �h
MIF �I#r 4* 4� 'E t i 11 'rfi
-
4166
130
lr -"y,. �
7 4" J6
4t Y 9!t§ +{
j7 ILW_ W
{ 4"
�-
SITE
17
i
T i e NW
I'
r
." . .`, v �. god
.. OWn� t 1
.
1S 5h _
} _..
AI ti17
lugQa
_
#._ F D410 f "PI ntora=G.�.
u
gAk 5J
9& &1
jP
fit ira
179
904
e CEsriI HERE, Gayr n (c)*OpenStr, et'Kap=contributo:rS-
= Cool Run Mitigation Site Conservation Easement: -25.15 Acres N
Boundaries are approximate and not meant to be absolute.
Map Source: 2012 NC Atlas & Gazetteer, Page 86.
Cool Run Mitigation Site GLE4RW4TER ffTIGA7YON
Clearwater Mitigation Solutions SOLUTIONS
Brunswick County, NC
Map Date: 10-11-19 tLMG
LM G 19.196 LAND MANAGEMENT GROUP
a DA MY1. company
0 0.250.5 1 1.5 2
Miles
Figure 1
Vicinity Map
Response to RFP#:16-20190201

iT �7 _
F -1'
- - Columbus
II - _ L L -��• -_ - _
■-ti- - -
I NC 87
- - •* Y_ 17
■.f
Brunswick • - _ _ - 97
-� Cool Run Site --- _-
�K
21 I -
��.
..................................................-
Cool Run Mitigation Site
Clearwater Mitigation Solutions
Brunswick County, NC
Map Date: 10-11-19
LMG19.196
- Cool Run Mitigation Site Conservation Easement: —25.15 Acres
Targeted Local Watershed (03040207020060)
8-Digit Hydrologic Unit (03040207)
N
0 1 2 4 6 8
Miles
CLFARWATER A17TIGATfON
,SOLUTIONS 6
4LMG
LAND MANAGEMENT GROUP
Figure 2
Watershed Map
Response to RFP#:16-20190201

� -,rarer +r. ,•••,
'L age
SITE ' '+
,��,4Wµ�4M,. +xox4 Plrixl. „yx;5L1�`
�rxt `, y#4�
4 Y Yo '}b. W �MINIM h
S ,mm`44ydNbSw' �-
w,w4=
0
�•yµYR
IF V
M1J
Esri HERE Garmin c) p p�0 enStreetMa contributors
, �
= Cool Run Mitigation Site Conservation Easement: —25.15 Acres
Boundaries are approximate and not meant to be absolute.
Map Source: USGS Shallotte Quadrangle 7.5 Minute, 1943.
0 125 250 500 750 1,000 I
Feet
Cool Run Mitigation Site CLFARWATER AflTIGANON
Clearwater Mitigation Solutions SOLUTIONS Figure 3
BUSGS Topographic Map
Brunswick County, NC
Map Date: 10-11-19 4LMG
LMG19.196 LAND MANAGEMENT GROUP
Response to RFP#:16-20190201
a CAYC #- company

SITE
Legend
Elevation
59,749 - 63,84
55.658 - 59.749
t
- 51.567 - 55.658 -
- 47.476 - 51.567
- 43,384 - 47,476
W293 - 41384
r
- 35,202 - 39.293
31.111 - 35.202
27.02 - 31.111
Cool Run Mitigation Site Conservation Easement: -25.15 Acres
loundaries are approximate and not meant to be absolute.
Aap Source: NC Floodplain Mapping Program 2014 QL2 LiDAR Data
Cool Run Mitigation Site CLE4RRATER APTIG4770_V
Clearwater Mitigation Solutions SOLUY-.1a S
Brunswick County, NC ----
Map Date: 10-11-19 LMG
LM G 19.196 I LAND MANAGEMENT GROUP
0 75 150 300 450 600
Feet
Figure 4
LiDAR Map
Response to RFP#:16-20190201

VY O
T
GO
Fo
LEGEND
BaB: Baymeade fine sand, 1 to 6% slopes
GoA: Goldsboro fine sandy loam, 0-2% slopes
Ly: Lynchburg fine sandy loam
Mk: Muckalee loam
Ra: Rains fine sandy loam
= Cool Run Mitigation Site Conservation Easement: —25.15 Acres
Boundaries are approximate and not meant to be absolute.
Map Source: NRCS Soil Survey, Brunswick County, 1984.
Cool Run Mitigation Site
Clearwater Mitigation Solutions
Brunswick County, NC
Map Date: 10-11-19
LMG19.196
Mk,
•
N
0 125 250 500 750 1,000
Feet
CLEARWATER A ffTIGA TfON
,SOLUTIONS 6
4LMG
LAND MANAGEMENT GROUP
Figure 5
Soils Map
Response to RFP#:16-20190201

# * • '.+ i
l
Ad'
fling� �l►+
qPP - 'A
-Adli�� -a, '.
I r_
Cool Run Mitigation Site Conservation Easement: —25.15 Acres
Boundaries are approximate and not meant to be absolute.
Map Source: 1998 NAPP Aerial Photography
Cool Run Mitigation Site CLFARWATER AflTIGATTON
Clearwater Mitigation Solutions SOLUTIONS
Brunswick County, NC
Map Date: 10-11-19 4LMG
LMG 19.196 LAND MANAGEMENT GROUP
a CAYC #— company
III
0 4
Ra
N
0 75 150 300 450 600
Feet
Figure 6
1998 Aerial Photograph
Response to RFP#:16-20190201

Cool Run Mitigation Site Conservation Easement: —25.15 Acres N
Boundaries are approximate and not meant to be absolute. 0 75 150 300 450 600
Feet
Map Source: 2016 NC OneMap Aerial Photography A
Cool Run Mitigation Site
Clearwater Mitigation Solutions
Brunswick County, NC
Map Date: 10-11-19
LMG19.196
CLFARWATER A17TIGATfON
,SOLUTIONS 6
4LMG
LAND MANAGEMENT GROUP
Figure 7
2016 Aerial Photograph
Response to RFP#:16-20190201

Cool Run
Legend
Cool Run Mitigation Site Conservation Easement: —25.15 Acres
Cross Sections
Cool Run (Existing Location)
UT1 (Existing Location)
"'— Existing Ditches (Non Stream)
NCDWR Form Locations
ONCSAM Form Locations
Upland Areas
':S•..:: Approximate Existing Wetland Areas
Boundaries are approximate and not meant to be absolute.
Map Source: 2016 GIS World Imagery Layer
"
..4
1
1377l4G1
W
N
0 75150 300
XS-2
SAM 3 i
,f
450 600
Feet
Cool Run Mitigation Site CLFARWATER AflTIGATfON
Clearwater Mitigation Solutions SOLUTIONS 6 Figure 8
Brunswick County, NC Existing Conditions Plan View
Map Date: 10-11-19 4LMG
LMG19.196 LAND MANAGEMENT GROUP
Response to RFP#:16-20190201
a CAYC #— company

34
Legend
Cool Run Mitigation Site Conservation Easement: —25.15 Acres
Cool Run (Existing Location)
UT1 (Existing Location)
E=00c Proposed Restored Stream Channel (P1 - Relict Channel): —1405 L.F.
■■■■■ Proposed Restored Stream Channel (P2): —650 L.F.
■■■■■ Headwater Stream (Zero Order) Restoration: —370 L.F.
® Zero Order Valley (100-ft)
® Riparian Wetland Restoration (Re-establishment): —11.5 Acres
- Riparian Wetland Restoration (Rehabilitation): —2.7 Acres
Riparian Wetland Enhancement: —3.2 Acres
Existing Ditches (Non Stream)
Upland Areas (No Credit)
® Non -Restorable Areas (Hydric)
® Soil Borings
Boundaries are approximate and not meant to be absolute.
Map Source: USGS Shallotte Quadrangle 7.5 Minute, 1990.
111
60-ft Access
Easement
l`
i
Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) I penStreetMap contributor
N
0 75 150 300 450 600
Feet
Cool Run Mitigation Site CLFARWATER AflTIGA7TON
Clearwater Mitigation Solutions SOLUTIONS
Brunswick County, NC
Map Date: 10-11-19 4LMG
LMG 19.196 I LAND MANAGEMENT GROUP
Figure 9
Proposed Mitigation Layout
Response to RFP#:16-20190201

APPENDIX A.
Soil Boring Logs
Response to Request for Proposal #16-20190201

LMG
LAND :MANAGEMENT GROUP
a DAVEY. company
Project Site:
Cool Run Stream Site
Date:
8/7/2019
County:
Brunswick
Job#:
LMG19.196
Location:
Grissittown
State:
NC
Soil Series:
Muckalee
Data Point:
SB-1
Soil Classification: Coarse -loamy, siliceous, superactive, nonacid, thermic Typic Fluvaquents
OWT:
42"
SHWT:
<6"
Slope:
2-3%
Landscape:
drainageway (filled/ditched)
Elevation:
—45 MSL
Drainage:
Very poorly drained
Permeability:
Moderate
Vegetation:
Corn stalks, panic grass, edge of field
Hydric Soil Indicator(s):
F13
Horizon
Depth (in)
Matrix
Mottles
Texture
Structure
Consistence
Notes
Fill
0-10
10YR 3/3
SL
gr
fr, ns, np
Colluvium from past farming
Ab
10-28
10YR 2/1
SL
gr
fr, ss, np
High O.M. not Mucky
Cg1
28-44
10YR 4/1
10YR 3/6
SCL/LS
MA
fr, ss, sp
25% Distinct Concentrations
Thin CoLS strata
Cg2
44-54+
2.5Y 5/2
2.5Y 5/6
CoLS/SL
MA
vfr, ns, np
10% distinct concentrations
2.5Y 6/1
15% distinct depleations
Thin SL strata
Comments:
Described By:
Nick Howell - LSS #1294
adjacent to agricultural ditch, fill from past farming
activities. Interbedded strata in deeper sediment
indicative of higher order stream sediment.
`s X,le
r
1.1,474
LMG
LAND :MANAGEMENT GROUP
a DAVEY. company
Project Site:
Cool Run Stream Site
Date:
8/7/2019
County:
Brunswick
Job#:
LMG19.196
Location:
Grissittown
State:
NC
Soil Series:
Lynchburg
Data Point:
SB-2
Soil Classification: Fine -loamy, siliceous, semiactive, thermic Aeric Paleaquults
OWT:
>36"
SHWT:
21"
Slope:
2-3%
Landscape:
stream terrace
Elevation:
—45 MSL
Drainage:
Somewhat poorly
Permeability:
Moderate
Vegetation:
Corn stalks, panic grass, edge of field
Hydric Soil Indicator(s):
None
Horizon
Depth (in)
Matrix
Mottles
Texture
Structure
Consistence
Notes
Fill
0-5
10YR 4/3
LS
gr
vfr, ns, np
Colluvium from past farming
A
5-12
10YR 5/2
10YR 6/1
LS
gr
vfr, ns, np
20% distinct depleations
Bw
12-16
10YR 4/4
LS
gr
vfr, ns, np
E
16-21
10YR 6/4
LS
gr
vfr, ns, np
Bt
21-36
10YR 6/4
10YR 5/8
SL/SCL
sbk
fr, ss, np
20% prominent concentration
10YR 6/2
20% distinct depleations
Comments:
Described By:
Nick Howell - LSS #1294
edge of field above drainage ditch and stream
floodplain/valley�i_,;_
� � r

LMG
LAND MANAGEMENT GROUP
a DAVEY. company
Project Site:
Cool Run Stream Site
Date:
8/7/2019
County:
Brunswick
Job#:
LMG19.196
Location:
Grissittown
State:
NC
Soil Series:
Muckalee
Data Point:
SB-3
Soil Classification: Coarse -loamy, siliceous, superactive, nonacid, thermic Typic Fluvaquents
OWT:
45"
SHWT:
<6"
Slope:
2-3%
Landscape:
drainageway (filled/ditched)
Elevation:
—43 MSL
Drainage:
Very poorly drained
Permeability:
Moderate
Vegetation:
Corn stalks, panic grass, edge of field
Hydric Soil Indicator(s):
S7
Horizon
Depth (in)
Matrix
Mottles
Texture
Structure
Consistence
Notes
Fill
0-9
10YR 3/3
SL
gr
fr, ns, np
Colluvium from past farming
Ab
9-18
10YR 2/1
LS
gr
fr, ss, np
High O.M. not Mucky
Cg1
18-28
10YR 4/2
10YR 5/6
LS/SL
MA
fr, ss, sp
20% prominent concentration
2.5Y 6/2
10% distinct depleations
Thin SL strata
Cg2
28-54+
2.5Y 4/2
2.5Y 5/2
LS/SCL
MA
vfr, ns, np
15% Faint depleations
2.5Y 3/1
10% distinct om concentration
Thin SCL Strata
Comments:
Described By:
Nick Howell - LSS #1294
adjacent to agricultural ditch, fill from past farming
activities. Interbedded strata in deeper sedimentY
indicative of higher order stream sediment.
fl
P1q ,r 9f
LMG
LAND MANAGEMENT GROUP
a DAVEY. company
Project Site:
Cool Run Stream Site
Date:
8/7/2019
County:
Brunswick
Job#:
LMG19.196
Location:
Grissittown
State:
NC
Soil Series:
Lynchburg
Data Point:
SB-4
Soil Classification: Fine -loamy, siliceous, semiactive, thermic Aeric Paleaquults
OWT:
>36"
SHWT:
20"
Slope:
2-3%
Landscape:
stream terrace
Elevation:
—45 MSL
Drainage:
Somewhat poorly
Permeability:
Moderate
Vegetation:
Corn stalks, panic grass, edge of field
Hydric Soil Indicator(s):
None
Horizon
Depth (in)
Matrix
Mottles
Texture
Structure
Consistence
Notes
A
0-11
10YR 3/3
LS
gr
vfr, ns, np
E
11-20
10YR 6/4
LS
gr
vfr, ns, np
Bt
20-36
10YR 5/6
10YR 6/4
SCL/LS
sbk
fr, ss, np
20% distinct depleations
10YR 5/8
5%faint concentrations
10YR 6/2
15% prominent depleations
LS strata on ped faces
Comments:
Described By:
Nick Howell - LSS #1294
edge of field above topo break into old stream
floodplainY=
4*
�W5i�4`��y
re �4 4
k 4d�

LMG
LAND MANAGEMENT GROUP
a DAVEY. company
Project Site:
Cool Run Stream Site
Date:
8/7/2019
County:
Brunswick
Job#:
LMG19.196
Location:
Grissittown
State:
NC
Soil Series:
Rains / Muckalee
Data Point:
SB-5
Soil Classification: Fine -loamy, siliceous, semiactive, thermic Typic Paleaquults
OWT:
34"
SHWT:
<12"
Slope:
2-3%
Landscape:
toe slope
Elevation:
—48 MSL
Drainage:
I poorly drained
Permeability:
Moderate
Vegetation:
Corn stalks, panic grass, edge of field
Hydric Soil Indicator(s):
F3
Horizon
Depth (in)
Matrix
Mottles
Texture
Structure
Consistence
Notes
A
0-6
2.5Y 3/1
SL
gr
vfr, ns, np
Btg1
6-26
2.5Y 5/2
10YR 5/6
SCL
sbk
fr, ss, sp
25% prominent concentration
7.5YR 5/8
5% prominent concentrations
Btg2
26-42+
2.5Y 6/2
5Y 6/2
SCL/LS
sbk
fr, ss, sp
10% distinct depleations
2.5Y 5/6
Thin LS strata
25% distinct concentrations
10YR 5/6
10% prominent concentration
Comments:
Described By:
Nick Howell - LSS #1294
Footslope above floodplain, quick transition into flood
plain soils
Fxok.
ff
�p r
i Y
LMG
LAND MANAGEMENT GROUP
a DAVEY. company
Project Site:
Cool Run Stream Site
Date:
8/7/2019
County:
Brunswick
Job#:
LMG19.196
Location:
Grissittown
State:
NC
Soil Series:
Muckalee
Data Point:
SB-6
Soil Classification: Coarse -loamy, siliceous, superactive, nonacid, thermic Typic Fluvaquents
OWT:
40"
SHWT:
<6"
Slope:
1-2%
Landscape:
flood plain
Elevation:
—43 MSL
Drainage:
Very poorly drained
Permeability:
Moderate
Vegetation:
Sweetgum, Loblolly Pine, Blackberry, Panic grass, Dogfennel
Hydric Soil Indicator(s):
A7, F13, F3
Horizon
Depth (in)
Matrix
Mottles
Texture
Structure
Consistence
Notes
A
0-8
10YR 3/1
MuL
gr
fr, ss, np
Cg1
8-23
10YR 4/2
10YR 3/6
SL
MA
fr, ns, np
20% distinct concentrations
Cg2
23-42+
2.5Y 5/2
2.5Y 5/6
LS/SCL
MA
fr, ns, np
20% distinct concentrations
2.5Y 6/1
10% distinct depleations
Interbedded layers LS/SCL
Comments:
Described By:
Nick Howell - LSS #1294
Stressed drainage due to proximity to drainage dtich.
F 4*
K
jf , N5i�4`�y (�i^yamG
�_. "..
t r
Tk ii,• Si?F4:1 _
Y 7 s
k

LMG
LAND :MANAGEMENT GROUP
a DAVEY. company
Project Site:
Cool Run Stream Site
Date:
8/7/2019
County:
Brunswick
Job#:
LMG19.196
Location:
Grissittown
State:
NC
Soil Series:
Muckalee
Data Point:
SB-7
Soil Classification: Coarse -loamy, siliceous, superactive, nonacid, thermic Typic Fluvaquents
OWT:
17"
SHWT:
<6"
Slope:
0-1%
Landscape:
flood plain
Elevation:
—43 MSL
Drainage:
Very poorly drained
Permeability:
Moderate to slow
Vegetation:
Dog fennel, loblolly pine, muscidine, bushy bluesteam, blackberry, beauty berry, panic grass
Hydric Soil Indicator(s):
A2, A9, F13, Al2
Horizon
Depth (in)
Matrix
Mottles
Texture
Structure
Consistence
Notes
Oa
0-10
10YR 3/1
Muck
MA
fr, ss, np
Cg
10-13
2.5Y 5/2
SL
sbk
fr, ns, np
Oab
13-17
10YR 3/2
Muck
MA
fr, ss, np
Ab
17-28
10YR 3/1
MuSL
sbk
fr, ss, np
2Cg
28-42+
2.5Y 4/2
SCL
Co sbk
fr, ms, sp
Comments:
Described By:
Nick Howell - LSS #1294
upper floodplain topography, stressed FAC vegetation
present
a.
r � �
r
1.1,474
LMG
LAND :MANAGEMENT GROUP
a DAVEY. company
Project Site:
Cool Run Stream Site
Date:
8/7/2019
County:
Brunswick
Job#:
LMG19.196
Location:
Grissittown
State:
NC
Soil Series:
Muckalee
Data Point:
SB-8
Soil Classification: Coarse -loamy, siliceous, superactive, nonacid, thermic Typic Fluvaquents
OWT:
18"
SHWT:
<6"
Slope:
0-1%
Landscape:
flood plain
Elevation:
—42 MSL
Drainage:
Very poorly drained
Permeability:
Moderate to slow
Vegetation:
Dog fennel, loblolly pine, muscidine, bushy bluesteam, blackberry, beauty berry, panic grass
Hydric Soil Indicator(s):
A2, A9, F13, Al2
Horizon
Depth (in)
Matrix
Mottles
Texture
Structure
Consistence
Notes
Oa
0-12
10YR 3/1
Muck
MA
Fr, ss, np
A
12-33
10YR 4/2
MuSL
SBK
fr, ss, np
2Cg
33-42+
2.5Y 4/2
10YR 5/6
SCL
VCoSBK
fr, ms, sp
10% prominent concentration
Comments:
Described By:
Nick Howell - LSS #1294
upper floodplain topography, stressed FAC vegetation
present
� � r
ew

LMG
LAND :MANAGEMENT GROUP
a DAVEY. company
Project Site:
Cool Run Stream Site
Date:
8/7/2019
County:
Brunswick
Job#:
LMG19.196
Location:
Grissittown
State:
NC
Soil Series:
Muckalee
Data Point:
SB-9
Soil Classification: Coarse -loamy, siliceous, superactive, nonacid, thermic Typic Fluvaquents
OWT:
8"
SHWT:
<6"
Slope:
0-1%
Landscape:
flood plain
Elevation:
—42 MSL
Drainage:
Very poorly drained
Permeability:
Moderate
Vegetation:
gallberry, muscidine, loblolly pine, sweetgum, beauty berry, dog fennel, black berry, panic grass
Hydric Soil Indicator(s):
A2, A9, F13, Al2
Horizon
Depth (in)
Matrix
Mottles
Texture
Structure
Consistence
Notes
Oa
0-13
10YR 3/1
Muck
MA
fr, ss, np
A
13-28
2.5Y 4/1
MuSL
SBK
fr, ss, np
Cg
28-42+
2.5Y 5/2
2.5Y 6/1
SCL/LS
MA
fr, ss, np
15% faint depleations
2.5Y 4/1
Interbedded SCL/LS sediment
15% distinct om concentration
Comments:
Described By:
Nick Howell - LSS #1294
upper floodplain topography, stressed FAC vegetation
present
�C1 7

APPENDIX B.
HISTORIC AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY
Response to Request for Proposal #16-20190201

y

,T
�•:.t�- ` }� �`' �i: y ..fit �� '� � �- � '� � vY �`•- � !'�
AV -We
- - - y - lYi .,f'�k.�� '' :•f'. I, O-W
$ .
--� '�[L � 4 R .� t . ` 77 •• r �'o- �`�•: $'." Ld'°, •3..� lam-/ _.�. '!f u [`f�-
y�.�
kv
Ar
We'
°�.+':f ,'� F,,�'•,3 fir.. �..R
S '�.�+. � � „ �_ � ir.-.r`•�P � w'`{ �� i r r �il'4'r .air - ° � � F •J
1 �.s• t ,.
•� 1. - 1 �r• r� i
11 °w-. a ... _-, _ - _ .� •�+ ; �,_ - ,..

� - ap
JW
�k

W
M.
lk
INQUIRY #: 5821326.2 /�
YEAR: 1956 1
= 300' (rEDR®

APPENDIX C.
NC SAM Forms
Response to Request for Proposal #16-20190201

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name Frink SAM #1
Stream Category Oa3
Date of Assessment 9/30/19
Assessor Name/Organization Jernigan/Axiom
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream) Perennial
USACE/ NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary
All Streams Intermittent
(1) Hydrology
LOW
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
(2) Flood Flow
LOW
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
LOW
(4) Floodplain Access
MEDIUM
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
LOW
(4) Microtopography
LOW
(3) Stream Stability
MEDIUM
(4) Channel Stability
HIGH
(4) Sediment Transport
NA
(4) Stream Geomorphology
LOW
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(1) Water Quality
LOW
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
LOW
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
LOW
(3) Thermoregulation
MEDIUM
(2) Indicators of Stressors
NO
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
LOW
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
NA
(1) Habitat
LOW
(2) In -stream Habitat
LOW
(3) Baseflow
HIGH
(3) Substrate
LOW
(3) Stream Stability
MEDIUM
(3) In -stream Habitat
MEDIUM
(2) Stream -side Habitat
LOW
(3) Stream -side Habitat
LOW
(3) Thermoregulation
LOW
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
(3) Flow Restriction
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone
NA
Overall
LOW

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name Frink SAM #2 Date of Assessment
9/30/19
Stream Category Oa2 Assessor Name/Organization Jernigan/Axiom
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
Intermittent
USACE/
NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary
All Streams
Intermittent
(1) Hydrology
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
HIGH
(2) Flood Flow
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(4) Floodplain Access
HIGH
HIGH
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
LOW
LOW
(4) Microtopography
LOW
LOW
(3) Stream Stability
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(4) Channel Stability
HIGH
HIGH
(4) Sediment Transport
NA
NA
(4) Stream Geomorphology
LOW
LOW
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
NA
NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
NA
NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
NA
(1) Water Quality
LOW
LOW
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
LOW
LOW
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
LOW
LOW
(3) Thermoregulation
LOW
LOW
(2) Indicators of Stressors
NO
NO
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
OMITTED
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
NA
NA
(1) Habitat
LOW
LOW
(2) In -stream Habitat
LOW
LOW
(3) Baseflow
HIGH
HIGH
(3) Substrate
LOW
LOW
(3) Stream Stability
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(3) In -stream Habitat
LOW
LOW
(2) Stream -side Habitat
LOW
LOW
(3) Stream -side Habitat
LOW
LOW
(3) Thermoregulation
LOW
LOW
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
NA
(3) Flow Restriction
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone
NA
NA
Overall
LOW
LOW

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name Frink SAM #3
Stream Category Oa3
Date of Assessment 9/30/19
Assessor Name/Organization Lewis/Axiom
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream) Perennial
USACE/ NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary
All Streams Intermittent
(1) Hydrology
LOW
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
(2) Flood Flow
LOW
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
LOW
(4) Floodplain Access
LOW
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
MEDIUM
(4) Microtopography
MEDIUM
(3) Stream Stability
MEDIUM
(4) Channel Stability
HIGH
(4) Sediment Transport
NA
(4) Stream Geomorphology
LOW
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(1) Water Quality
MEDIUM
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
HIGH
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation
MEDIUM
(2) Indicators of Stressors
NO
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
LOW
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
NA
(1) Habitat
HIGH
(2) In -stream Habitat
HIGH
(3) Baseflow
HIGH
(3) Substrate
HIGH
(3) Stream Stability
MEDIUM
(3) In -stream Habitat
MEDIUM
(2) Stream -side Habitat
MEDIUM
(3) Stream -side Habitat
LOW
(3) Thermoregulation
HIGH
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
(3) Flow Restriction
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone
NA
Overall
MEDIUM

APPENDIX D.
Stream Cross Sections
Response to Request for Proposal #16-20190201

C
■
C
U
U
X
X
y
0
y o
C
C
1
1
i
7
7
X
X
y
0
y o
C
C
(u) uo!lenal3

APPENDIX E.
NC DWR Stream Forms
Response to Request for Proposal #16-20190201

OA'zti
NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: S - 2 t 1 ) Project/Site:
Evaluator: La e$ FtMcw-- LnM6 County: V. ryiClc-
Total Points: Stream Determination (circle
Stream is at least intermittent 3 S. 2 Ephpperal InterAttent Pere
if>_ 19 oroerennial if>_ 30*
Latitude: 33 . of 910 143
Longitude: -?I. y?23C.a
Other GosJ I ju rnJ
ag, Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = /5 `p )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1"Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
7P
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
(9
1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
Olp
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
3
8. Headcuts
U
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
MD
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
- artiTicial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdrolnov f5uhtntnl = /n . 90 1
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13, Iron oxidizing bacteria
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
es = 3
C. Kinlonv f5uhtntal = r0 .271
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
_
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
CD
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
ACW =
8L = 1.5 Other = 0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:
NC DWO Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: 3o f�
Project/Site: I
Latitude: 73..1.71604
Evaluator: Qr,l,�an �
County: 3rNnslr_Lfr
Longitude: _74.q 5,15l
Total Points:
Stream Determ' a (circle one)
Other
Stream Is at least intermittent /L'�- �j
Ephemeral termttten Perennial
e.g. Quad Name:
if a 19 or perennial if 2 30"
I
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = B
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
18, Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
"1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
'3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0-'
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0 0.5
No = 0
1.5
Yes = 3
11. Second or greater order channel
QI11111I01 UI1V1160 QI6 IIV1 IQIOU, QW= UIJUUOOIVI IJ III IIIQI IUQI
B_ Hvdrolocfv (Subtotal = � el
12, Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
'1.5)
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
r .5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes = 3
C. Bloloav [Subtotal = !^ ]
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3:)
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3 %
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22. Fish
0.1
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
Q
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
(0
0.5
1
1.5
25, Algae
0 .'
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
"perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes: I `v 45 r Au icA
Sketch:

APPENDIX F.
BEHI
Response to Request for Proposal #16-20190201

Site
Frink Mitigation Site
Stream
Cool Run
Bank Length
3798
Observers
WGL
Date
30-Sep-19
Station
Bank
BEHI
NBS
Erosion Rate
Length
Bank Height
Erosion
1
1899
right
Low
Low
0
1899
3
0.0
2
0.0
3
1899
left
Low
Low
0
1899
3
0.0
4
0.0
5
0.0
6
0.0
7
0.0
8
0.0
9
0.0
10
0.0
11
0.0
12
0.0
13
0.0
14
0.0
15
0.0
16
0.0
17
0.0
18
0.0
19
0.0
20
0.0
21
0.0
22
0.0
23
0.0
24
0.0
25
0.0
26
0.0
27
0.0
28
0.0
29
0.0
30
0.0
31
0.0
32
0.0
33
0.0
34
0.0
35
0.0
36
0.0
37
0.0
38
0.0
39
0.0
40
Sum erosion sub -totals for each BEHI/NBS
Total Erosion (ft3/yr)
0.0
Divide total erosion (ft3) by 27
Total Erosion (yd/yr)
0.0
Multiply Total erosion (yard3) by 1.3
Total Erosion (tons/yr)
0.0
Erosion per unit length
Total Erosion (Tons/yr/ft)
0.000
Site
Frink Mitigation Site
Stream
UT 1
Bank Length
3210
Observers
WGL
Date
30-Sep-19
Station
Bank
BEHI
NBS
Erosion Rate
Length
Bank Height
Erosion
1
175
right
Low
Low
0
175
3
0.0
2
405
right
Mod
Mod
0.05
230
5
57.5
3
470
right
High
Mod
0.15
65
5
48.8
4
545
right
Mod
Mod
0.05
75
5
18.8
5
580
right
High
Mod
0.15
35
5
26.3
6
9S5
right
Mod
Mod
0.05
375
S
93.8
7
1605
right
Low
Low
0
650
5
0.0
8
9
175
left
Low
Low
0
175
3
0.0
10
405
left
Mod
Mod
0.05
230
5
57.5
11
470
left
High
Mod
0.15
65
S
48.8
12
545
left
Mod
Mod
0.05
75
5
18.8
13
580
left
High
Mod
0.15
35
5
26.3
14
955
left
Mod
Mod
0.05
375
5
93.8
15
1605
left
Low
Low
0
650
5
0.0
16
17
18
19
20
Sum erosion sub -totals for each BEHI/NBS
Total Erosion (ft3/yr)
490.0
Divide total erosion (ft3) by 27
Total Erosion (yd/yr)
18.1
Multiply Total erosion (yard3) by 1.3
Total Erosion (tons/yr)
23.6
Erosion per unit length
ITotal Erosion (Tons/yr/ft)
0.007
BEHI/NBS Summary
Stream Reach
Erosion Rate
(tons/year)
Cool Run
0.0
UT 1
23.6
Total
23.6

APPENDIX G.
Site Photos
Response to Request for Proposal #16-20190201

APPENDIX G. SITE PHOTOS — EXISTING CONDITIONS
(1) Cool Run: Incised and failing banks
(looking south towards boundary)
(3) Cool Run: Typical View
(near confluence of UT-1)
(5) Cool Run: At northeastern corner (looking south)
Response to Request for Proposal #16-20190201
Appendix D. Site Photos — Existing Conditions
(2) Cool Run: Along western field (looking south
towards boundary)
(4) Cool Run: Along east -west section (between
XS-1 & XS-2)
(6) UT 1 (at head of headwater stream — looking
east)

APPENDIX G. SITE PHOTOS — EXISTING CONDITIONS
(7) UT 1 (at confluence with Cool Run -looking east) (8) UT 1 (looking west into proposed restoration area)
(9) Existing wetland areas (riparian rehabilitation) (10) Relict channel (looking south)
(11) Relict channel (looking south)
Response to Request for Proposal #16-20190201
Appendix D. Site Photos — Existing Conditions

APPENDIX H.
CULTURAL RESOURCES AND HISTORIC PROPERTIES MAP
Response to Request for Proposal #16-20190201

Frink Tract
October 9, 2019 1:18,056
0 0.13 0.25 0.5 mi
NR Points NR Boundaries
NR Individual Listing National Register Boundary 0 0.2 0.4 0.8 km
NR Listing, Gone F1 Boundary of Destroyed/Removed NR Listing
NRHD Center Point SL Points INC Center for Geographic Information &Analysis
0 SL Individual Entry

APPENDIX I.
THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES
(NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM DATABASE)
Response to Request for Proposal #16-20190201

®®
®®
®®
®®Exo
®
Exo
®
®®
®
®®
®
®CE3Ego
®®
®
®
®®
®®
®Eg
®
®
®
® ®®
®®
®
®®®®
®®®®
RE
®®®®
®®®®®
®
®
®
®
®®®®
®®®®®
®
®
RE
®
®j
®®
®
®
®
®®
®
®® CEO
®
®
®®
®
®® ®
®
®
CHO
®®
®
®
®DK
®®
EE
®®
®
®® ®®
®® ®
®
®
®®
®
®
®
®®
®
RE
®
®®
®
EE
®
®®
®®® ®®
®
®
®®

-I.-
CU
(6
L
L
LL
0
I
W
0
Z
U
Z
Y
OR M
O
W
M v uR
N o O
0
N
N M
O
0-0
z
0
0
c
-o
0 a
0, CO
N �Ott-
C
a m
D
00
0
c6eN
N a�
=�z
OW
W
Pn5
0
m o
a=�
�zv
P' vi
as 01
Ejo
.Z-6
zo
`E OOY
WCD2
=U
2ZN
CL E
�Z WU
RE

APPENDIX J.
COPIES OF DEEDS
Response to Request for Proposal #16-20190201

CONSERVATION EASEMENT OPTION AGREEMENT
This CONSERVATION EASEMENT OPTION AGREEMENT, hereinafter referred to as ("the Option"),
made and entered into this 151 day of October, 2019 by and between, Pearl D. Frink (the"Grantor"),
CLEARWATER MITIGATION SOLUTIONS, LLC ("CMS"), a North Carolina Limited Liability Company
whose primary address is 604 Macon Place, Raleigh, NC 27609 and its successors and assigns (the "Grantee").
WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, Grantor is the owner of certain real property located in Brunswick County, containing
135.12 acres, more or less. The real property is more particularly described as follows: A tract or parcel of
land identified in Deed Book 3348, Page 1120, Parcel Identification Number (PIN) 105800915168, of
the Brunswick County Registry, (the "Property");and
WHEREAS, Grantor has agreed to convey to Grantee, an exclusive right and option to acquire
conservation easement rights similar to those described in the Sample Deed of Conservation Easement
attached hereto as Addendum A , containing 25.15 acres, more or less, as more particularly described onthe
attached Exhibit A (the "Easement Area "), over the Property in accordance with the terms of this Option;
and
WHEREAS, Grantee is interested in acquiring the Easement Area in order to develop a stream
and wetland restoration project ("Project") over the lands covered by the Easement Area in conjunction
with requests for proposals issued under the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services within the North
Carolina Department of Environmental Quality ("DEQ")
WHEREAS, Lands and the rights to be acquired, within the Easement Area, are described as
follows: Being a perpetual Conservation Easement that will permanently protect the restoration
enhancement or preservation of property containing streams and wetlands, located on the Property, in
Brunswick County, North Carolina. The Easement Area encompasses acreage shown in Exhibit A
attached.
WHEREAS, in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition
Policies Act of 1970, CMS hereby notifies Grantor that: (i) CMS believes the fair market value of the
Easement is the purchase price, pursuant to Paragraph 4(a) together with the value of the environmental
improvements to be made to the Easement by CMS in performing the Work on the Easement; and (ii) CMS
does not possess the power of eminent domain;
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the sum of
(the "Option Deposit") and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which
is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. OPTION PERIOD. Grantee may exercise the Option by delivering to Grantor notice thereof prior to 5:00
p.m. on December 31, 2020 (the "Original Option Period"), unless mutually extended by both parties
under an "Amended Option Agreement". This Option shall be exercised upon posting, by certified mail,
fax or written notice to the Grantor. Exercise shall be deemed timely if such written notice is mailed on or
before the date first set forth in this paragraph. A Memorandum of Conservation Easement Option in the
form attached as EXHIBIT B shall be executed by both parties simultaneously with this Option and
recorded at Clearwater Mitigation Solutions, LLC sole discretion and expense in the county where the
Property is located to provide record notice of this Option.

Legend
N
Terry Frink CE Area Boundary: -25.15 Acres
Frink Parcel: -135 Acres A
Frink Tract CLEARWATERAKTIGATIOV
Brunswick County, NC SOLUTIONS 6
Map Date: October 2019 4LMG
LMG 19.355 I LAND MANAGEMENT GROUP
0 75 150 300 450 600
Feet
Exhibit A:
Proposed Easement Map

ll I111 l I Illl I I� I I l Il [Id I I Ji 1111111 t��P0473 09:54A9.000
Brunswick County, NC RegisterM.s pC2ig:* I PROP
of 4 o
Prepared by and Return:
Robert H. Merritt, Jr.
Bailey & Dixon, LLC
434 Fayetteville Street, Suite 2500
Raleigh, NC 27601
4
iii �� ��S �S
;or;JI Zto �
t $ Q ).z _Casio
::tuna u._ ` -_Finance
Portions of ills . to condition
of original.
l Document cor: ,j�L�xv
stnhe
EXHIBIT B
MEMORANDUM OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT OPTION
This MEMORANDUM OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT OPTION ("Memorandum") is made
and entered into this 15th day of October, 2019 by and between, Pearl D. Frink, hereinafter referred to
as "Grantor", CLEARWATER MITIGATION SOLUTIONS, LLC, a North Carolina Limited
Liability Company whose address is 604 Macon Place, NC 27609 (hereinafter referred to as "Grantee").
WHEREAS, Grantor and Grantee have entered into a certain Conservation Easement
O p t i o n A g r e e m e n t (the "Option") dated October l 5th 2019 pursuant to which Grantor granted
to Grantee, its successors and assigns, an option to purchase a conservation easement (the "Easement
Area") over certain real property located in Brunswick County, North Carolina, which property is more
particularly described on the attached Exhibit C .
WHEREAS, The parties enter into this Memorandum for the purpose of setting forth certain terms and
conditions ofthe Option, as amended, 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 October 15111 2019 and shall expire on
December 31, 2020, unless mutually extended by both parties under an "Amended
Option Agreement".
2. All of the provisions set forth in the Option, as amended, are incorporated in this
Memorandum by reference.
The Option, as amended, shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit oftheparties andtheir
respective heirs, successors and assigns.
[SIGNATURES AND NOTARY ACKNOWLEDGMENTS APPEAR ON FOLLOWING PAGES]
IN'tit=0-,5-20,s
ck County, NC ��l Brenda fti, 09 54:19.000
r Df Qeeds C Z eemmons PROP
page 2 of 4
Grantor/Seller F
By._9Xa.zdz1C
Print Name: 3 D8 d, t
NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF
K--.NLLQQd , a Notary Public in and for the County and State aforesaid, do
hereby certify that P C'__CLI- I 1� , , GRANTOR, personally appeared
before me this day and acknowledged the execution of the foregoing instrument.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and Notary Seal this the day of
(Y—,+E) be , 2019.
-WC-,,A
otary Public
My commission expires:
1��a31�oa3
Brenda K, Wood
it3 Brunswick
Public
runswick County. NC
M
- y Gomm
1 � 3 � CQ,3

11111111111111111111
c ?1
UT11 IN RUN;
89 54900@
mnPROPswiak County, NC Register of Deeds, page 3 of
4
Grantee/Buyer
By: r :�Ac
horixed Offic
Print Name J. Kevin Yates
NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF VPV -
a Notary Public in and for the County and State aforesaid,
d❑ hereby certify that g-- Y � s , personally appeared before me this day
and acknowledged that he/she is the of Member/Manager, of CLEARWATER MITIGATION
SOLUTIONS, LLC, a North Carolina Limited Liability Company, GRANTEE, and that by the authority
duly given as an act of the limited liability company, the foregoing instrument was signed in its name by its
authorized officer and attested by its authorized officer.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and Notary Seal this the--- .! day of
. 2019.
l,1111l111111r, �
0 AMAT:yfr�
40b
d,
�a3, 00 .....
° 'F�
My commission expires:
► �y`��, vE LAG +
4ti.nu...........
S
c
�avl0,
EXHIBIT C
A tract or parcel of land identified in Deed Book 3348, Page 1120, Parcel
Identification Number (PIN) 105800915168, of the Brunswick County
Registry.
S'uhSW.ZCk COL Aft
84260 P041fi e9-�-2019
deeds C page
4 79.000
Aage ¢ of 4 P06P

LANDOWNER AUTHORIZATION FORM
PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRITION:
Deed Book: 3348 Page: 1 120 County: Brunswick
Parcel ID Number: 105800915168
Street Address: NIA
Property Owner (please print: Pearl D. Frink
The undersigned, registered property owner(s) of the above property, do hereby authorize
(Contractor/Agent/Project Manager)'
of Clearwater Mitigation Solutions
(Name of Contractor/Agent Firm/Agency)Z
to take all actions necessary for the evaluation of the property as a potential stream, wetland and/or
riparian buffer mitigation project, including conducting stream and/or wetland determinations and
delineations, as well as issuance and acceptance of any required permit(s) or certification(s). I
agree to allow regulatory agencies, including the US Army Corps of Engineers, to visit the property
as part of these environmental reviews.
Property Owners(s) Address: 1758 Prink Street SW
Ocean Isle Beach NC 28669
(if different from above)
Property Owner Telephone Number: 843 241-8902
Property Owner Telephone Number:
We hereby certify the above information to be true and accurate to the best of our knowledge.
zi I/ ZU , &� 4 — /,:_
(Property Owner
Signature)
(Property Owner Authorized Signature)
(Date)
(Date)
'Name of full delivery staff member (full -deliveries) or DMS project manager (design -bid -build).
Name of company (full -deliveries) or DMS (design -bid -build).