20201094 Ver 1_Mitigation Technical Report_20200901

ID#* 20201094 Version* 1
Select Reviewer:*
Erin Davis
Initial Review Completed Date 09/03/2020
Mitigation Project Submittal - 9/1/2020
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site?* C Yes C No
Type of Mitigation Project:*
rJ Stream rJ Wetlands [Buffer ❑ Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Company/Owner:* DMS
Contact Name:* Email Address:*
Matthew Reid [e-mail]
Project Information
Project Type: a DMS C Mitigation Bank
Project Name: Blair Creek Mitigation Project
County: Clay
Document Information
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Technical Report
File Upload: Blair Cr. Tech Prop _RFP #16-007278_CU
16.29MB
06020002_2017. pdf
Rease upload only one R]Fcf the corrplete file that needs to be subnitted...
Signature
Print Name:* Matthew Reid
Signature:*

Ik'7-71
F F F
H iwassee River Basin
RFP#: 16-007278 / CU 06020002
September 21, 2017 at 2:00 PM
Oar
,• 'ram ~ - . _ _
Submitted by:
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600 1 Cary, NC 27518
r -
-
BakerMichael
I N T E R N AT 1 Q N A t
1VER
t�

N N rly TON PAG r,
ANC
�' ? :�'� Fri �`t .M1,. E f , ■.• ,� -,
- -, • -` :'iT'" �+' �� ' '•+` :ter..: - '- - . � s
Ilk,
m
x
CD
e-7
O
v
Q
CD
v
Q
D
Q
Q
Q
v

RFP Number: RFP 16-007278 Vendor: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
-5:>^Nothing Compares,--,,,..
NORTH CAROLINA
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Request for Proposal #: 16-007278
Full Delivery Projects To Provide Stream Mitigation Credits
Within Cataloging Unit 06020002 Of The Hiwassee River
Basin As Described In The Scope Of Work
Date of Issue: June 21, 2017
Proposal Opening Date: September 21, 2017
4111101141
Direct all inquiries concerning this RFP to:
Kathy Dale
DMS Purchasing Agent
Email: [e-mail]
Phone: [phone]
Ver: 9/30/16 Page 1 of 42

RFP Number. 16-007278 Vendor: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
-::5:"oth1ng Compares
NORTH CAROLINA
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
Request for Proposal #
16-007278
For internal State agency processing, including tabulation of proposals in the Interactive Purchasing System
(IPS), please provide your company's Federal Employer Identification Number or alternate identification number
(e.g. Social Security Number). Pursuant to G.S. 132-1.10(b) this identification number shall not be released to
the public. This page will be removed and shredded, or otherwise kept confidential, before the procurement file
is made available for public inspection.
This page is to be filled out and returned with your proposal.
Failure to do so may subject your proposal to rejection.
ID Number:
13-5674528
Federal ID Number or Social Security Number
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
Vendor Name
Ver: 9/30/16 Page 2 of 42

RFP Number. 16-007278 Vendor: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
Refer ALL inquiries reg
RFP to:
Kathy Dale
Email: kathy.dale(a_ncdenr.gov
Phone: [phone]
EXECUTION
Request for Proposal # 16-007278
Proposals will be publicly opened: September 21, 2017 @ 2:00 pm
Contract Type: Open Market
Commodity No. and Description: 962-73 Restoration /
Reclamation Services of Land and other Properties
Using Agency: Division of Mitigation Services
Requisition No.: N/A
In compliance with this Request for Proposals, and subject to all the conditions herein, the undersigned Vendor offers and agrees to
furnish and deliver any or all items upon which prices are bid, at the prices set opposite each item within the time specified herein. By
executing this proposal, the undersigned Vendor certifies that this proposal is submitted competitively and without collusion (G.S. 143-
54), that none of its officers, directors, or owners of an unincorporated business entity has been convicted of any violations of Chapter
78A of the General Statutes, the Securities Act of 1933, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (G.S. 143-59.2), and that it is not an
ineligible Vendor as set forth in G.S. 143-59.1. False certification is a Class I felony. Furthermore, by executing this proposal, the
undersigned certifies to the best of Vendor's knowledge and belief, that it and its principals are not presently debarred, suspended,
proposed for debarment, declared ineligible or voluntarily excluded from covered transactions by any Federal or State department or
agency. As required by G.S. 143-48.5, the undersigned Vendor certifies that it, and each of its sub -Contractors for any Contract awarded
as a result of this RFP, complies with the requirements of Article 2 of Chapter 64 of the NC General Statutes, including the requirement
for each employer with more than 25 employees in North Carolina to verify the work authorization of its employees through the federal E-
Verify system. G.S. 133-32 and Executive Order 24 (2009) prohibit the offer to, or acceptance by, any State Employee associated with
the preparing plans, specifications, estimates for public Contract; or awarding or administering public Contracts; or inspecting or
supervising delivery of the public Contract of any gift from anyone with a Contract with the State, or from any person seeking to do
business with the State. By execution of this response to the RFP, the undersigned certifies, for your entire organization and its employees
or agents, that you are not aware that any such gift has been offered, accepted, or promised by any employees of your organization.
Failure to execute/sign proposal prior to submittal shall render proposal invalid and it WILL BE REJECTED. Late
proposals cannot be accepted.
VENDOR:
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
STREET ADDRESS:
P.O. BOX:
ZIP:
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
27518
CITY & STATE & ZIP:
TELEPHONE NUMBER:
TOLL FREE TEL. NO:
Cary, NC 27518
919-463-5488
PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS ADDRESS IF DIFFERENT FROM ABOVE (SEE INSTRUCTIONS TO VENDORS ITEM #10):
PRINT NAME & TITLE OF PERSON SIGNING ON BEHALF OFVENDOR:
FAX NUMBER:
Dwain G. Hathaway, PE
919-463-5490
VEND91114AUTHONfED R
DATE:
EMAIL:
09/05/2017
[e-mail]
Offer valid for at least 180 days from date of proposal opening. After this time, any withdrawal of offer shall be made in writing, effective
upon receipt by the agency issuing this RFP.
ACCEPTANCE OF PROPOSAL
If any or all parts of this proposal are accepted by the State of North Carolina, an authorized representative of the Departmentof
Environmental Quality shall affix his/her signature hereto and this document and all provisions of this Request for Proposal along with
the Vendor proposal response and the written results of any negotiations shall then constitute the written agreement between the
parties. A copy of this acceptance will be forwarded to the successful Vendor(s).
FOR STATE USE ONLY Offer accepted and Contract awarded this day of , 20 , as indicated on the
attached certification, by (Authorized Representative of DEQ).
Ver: 9/30/16 Page 3 of 42

RFP Number. 16-007278 Vendor: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
Table of Contents
1.0
PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND .............................................................................................
5
2.0
VENDOR INFORMATION..........................................................................................................5
2..1
MANDATORY PRE -PROPOSAL CONFERENCE.....................................................................
6
2.2
PROPOSAL QUESTIONS.........................................................................................................
6
2.3
PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL..........................................................................................................
6
2.4
PROPOSAL CONTENTS..........................................................................................................
8
2.5
IMPORTANT INFORMATION AND RESTRICTIONS..............................................................
10
2.6
REQUIRED TEMPLATES FOR THIS RFP..............................................................................
10
2.7
DEFINITIONS, ACRONYMS, AND ABBREVIATIONS... ....................... .................................
10
3.0
SCOPE OF WORK..................................................................................................................
14
3.1
OBJECTIVES..........................................................................................................................
14
3.2
TASKS................................................................................................................... ..............
...14
3.3
PAYMENT SCHEDULE AND DESCRIPTION OF MILESTONES..-. .................................. ....
17
4.0
ADMINISTRATIVE TERMS.....................................................................................................18
4.1
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL DOCUMENT..............................................................................
18
4.2
CONTRACT TERM.................................................................................................................
18
4.3
PRICING.................................................................................................................................
18
4.4
ACCEPTANCE OF WORK........................................................................................................18
4.5
DOWNWARD PAYMENT ADJUSTMENTS............................................................................
18
4.6
...................
INVOICES...................................................................................................... ......
18
4.7
PAYMENT TERMS.................................................................................................................
19
4.8
PERFORMANCE OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES.... ...........................................................
19
4.9
NOTICE TO VENDORS REGARDING RFP TERMS AND CONDITIONS ..............................
19
4.10
INTERPRETATION OF TERMS AND PHRASES....................................................................
19
5.0
PROPOSAL EVALUATION PROCESS AND METHOD OF AWARD ......................................
20
5.1
CONFIDENTIALITY AND PROHIBITED COMMUNICATIONS DURING EVALUATION..........
20
5.2
PROPOSAL OPENING PROCESS... . .............. .................... ...............................
.20
5.3
EVALUATION PROCESS.....................................................................................................20
5.4
EVALUATION CRITERIA...................................................................................... ................
21
5.5
METHOD OF AWARD............................................................................................................
21
6.0
REQUIREMENTS..................................................................................................................22
6.1
FINANCIAL. STABILITY...........................................................................................22
62
FINANCIAL ASSURANCE.......................................................................................................
22
6.3
REFERENCES.......................................................................................__, .........22
6.4
ACCESS TO PERSONS AND RECORDS.............................................................................
22
6.5
BACKGROUND CHECKS........................................................................................................
23
6.6
SUBSTITUTION OF PERSONNEL.........................................................................................
23
Ver: 9/30/16 Page 4 of 42

RFP Number. 16-007278 Vendor: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
6.7 VENDOR REPRESENTATIONS..............................................................................................23
7.0 CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION.............................................................................................24
7.1 PROJECT MANAGER AND CUSTOMER SERVICE...............................................................24
7.2 REPORTS.............................................................................................................24
7.3 DISPUTE RESOLUTION.........................................................................................................24
7.4 CONTRACT CHANGES..........................................................................................24
7.5 CONTRACT ADMINISTRATOR..............................................................................................24
ATTACHMENT A: INSTRUCTIONS TO VENDORS..........................................................................25
ATTACHMENT B: NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL CONTRACT TERMS AND CONDITIONS ........... 28
ATTACHMENTC: PRICING..............................................................................................................32
ATTACHMENT D: LOCATION OF WORKERS UTILIZED BY VENDOR............................................33
ATTACHMENT E: CERTIFICATION OF FINANCIAL CONDITION....................................................34
ATTACHMENT F: ADDITIONAL VENDOR INFORMATION......................................................35
ATTACHMENT G: CERTIFICATION OF ELIGIBILITY- IRAN DIVESTMENTACT ..........................36
ATTACHMENT H: TARGET LOCAL WATERSHED MAPS.......................................................37
ATTACHMENT is TECHNICAL EVALUATION SCORESHEET................................................38
1.0 PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND
The mission of NCDMS is to provide cost-effective mitigation alternatives that improve the state's waterresources.
This RFP is soliciting Proposals from qualified Vendors for needed mitigation as described herein for the NCDMSto
successfully meet permit conditions mandated by the regulatory agencies.
Proposals shall be submitted in accordance with the terms and conditions of this RFP and any addenda issued hereto.
This RFP is not an offer for a Contract, nor does the Department's acceptance of any Technical /Cost Proposal
guarantee a Contract with the Department. The Department reserves the right to reject any or all proposals deemed not
to be in the best interest of the State of North Carolina.
2.0 VENDOR INFORMATION
2.1 MANDATORY PRE -PROPOSAL CONFERENCE
A MANDATORY PRE -PROPOSAL CONFERENCE will be held to clarify all information contained within this Request for
Proposals (RFP) and to provide information relative to specific requirements. Vendor and/or his representative must attend
the scheduled Mandatory Pre -Proposal Conference.
Attendance at this Pre -proposal Conference is a prerequisite for consideration of a bidder's offer. Vendor and/or his
representative must:
(1) arrive prior to the scheduled start time of the Pre -proposal Conference; Late arrivals will not be allowed to sign in or
participate in the meeting
(2) sign -in on the attendance sheet; and
(3) sign -out upon completion of the Pre -proposal Conference.
Ver: 9/30/16 Page 5 of 42

RFP Number: 16-007278 Vendor: Michael Baker Engineering. Inc.
Failure to comply with this requirement will cause offer to be rejected. The purpose of the pre -proposal conference
is for all prospective offerors to acquaint themselves with the conditions and requirements of the tasks to be performed.
Submission of an offer shall constitute sufficient evidence of this compliance and no allowance will be made for unreported
conditions that a prudent offeror would recognize as affecting the performance of the work called for in this solicitation. Offeror
is cautioned that any information released to offeror other than during the pre -proposal conference which conflicts with,
supersedes, or adds to requirements in this solicitation, must be confirmed by written addendum before it can be considered
to be a part of this solicitation document. Vendor bidding otherwise does so at his own risk.
Each offeror is permitted to send no more than (2) people to the conference. Only one (1) representative per offeror is
allowed to sign both the sign -in and sign -out sheet (the representative that signed in must also sign out).
Only one (1) pre -determined, pre -proposal conference will be held: individual pre -proposal conferences are not
allowed.
Pre -proposal Conference Location / Date I Time Details:
Location: North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
217 West Jones Street, Suite 1210
Raleigh, NC 27603
Date: July 14, 2017
Start Time: 2:00 PM
2.1 PROPOSAL QUESTIONS
Upon review of the RFP documents, Vendors may have questions to clarify or interpret the RFP in order to submit the best
proposal possible. To accommodate the Proposal Questions process, Vendors shall submit all such questions by 5:00 PM
on Friday, July 21, 2017.
Written questions shall be e-mailed to kathy.dale(&ncdenr.gov by the date and time specified above. Vendors should
enter "RFP #16-007278.- Questions" as the subject for the email.
Contact with anyone working for or with the State regarding this RFP other than the person named on the face
pale of this RFP in the manner specified by this RFP shall constitute grounds for rejection of said Vendor's offer,
at the State's election.
2.2 PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL
Sealed proposals, subject to the conditions made a part hereof and the receipt requirements described below, shall be
received at the address indicated in the table below, for furnishing and delivering those items or services as described
herein.
IF DELIVERED BY' i.IS POSTAL SERVIC —1
Address as below:
RFP ## 16-007278
NC DEQ-DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
ATTN: KATHY DALE
1652 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699.1652
IF DELIVERED BY ANY OTHER MEANS
(UPS/FEDEX/ETC.)
Address as below:
RFP # 16.007278
NC DEQ-DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
ATTN: KATHY DALE
217 WEST JONES STREET, SUITE 3409-J
RALEIGH NC 27603
IMPORTANT NOTE: All proposals shall be physically delivered to the office address listed above on or before the proposal
deadline in order to be considered timely, regardless of the method of delivery. This is an absolute requirement. All risk
of late arrival due to unanticipated delay --whether delivered by hand, U.S. Postal Service, courier or other delivery service
is entirely on the Vendor. It is the sole resnonsibility of the Vendor to have the proposal physically in this Office by
the specified time and date of opening. The time of delivery will be marked on each proposal when received, and any
proposal received after the proposal submission deadline will be rejected. Sealed proposals, subject to the conditions made
Ver: 9/30/16 Page 6 of 42

RFP Number. 16-007278 Vendor: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
a part hereof, will be received at the address indicated in the table in this Section, for furnishing and delivering the commodity
as described herein.
Note that the U.S. Postal Service generally does not deliver mail to specified street address but to theState's
Mail Service Center. Vendors are cautioned that proposals sent via U.S. Mail, including Express Mail, may not
be delivered by the Mail Service Center to the agency's purchasing office on the due date in time to meetthe
proposal deadline. All Vendors are urged to take the possibility of delay into account when submitting a
proposal. Attempts to submit a proposal via facsimile (FAX) machine, telephone or electronic means,
including but not limited to email, in response to this RFP shall NOT be accepted.
Vendors must follow the steps below when submitting their bid:
a) Submit two (2) signed, original executed Technical Proposal responses and five (5) photocopies (All 7 Must Be
Placed in separate 3 Ring Binders or Notebooks and Include Section Tabs). Original responses must be labeled.
b) Submit two (2) redacted electronic (Proprietary and Confidential Information Excluded) copies of the executed Technical
Proposal on USB flash drives to the address identified in the table above. The electronic files shall NOT be password
protected, shall be in .PDF or .XLS format, and shall be capable of being copied to other media including readable in
Microsoft Word and/or Microsoft Excel
Technical Proposal must list any proprietary information identified as confidential and proprietary in accordance with
Attachment A, Paragraph 11 of the Instructions to Vendors. The Division of Mitigation Services, in responding to
public records requests, will release the information on this disc. It is the sole responsibility of the Vendor to ensure that
this drive complies with the requirements of A, Paragraph 11 of the Instructions to Vendors.
c) Submit one (1) read-only USB flash drive containing the ArcGIS format of the boundaries of the proposed project. The
flash drive should be clearly marked as "ArcGIS". The boundary can be the proposed easement(s), or general project
area. NCDMS expects that the submitted file will match closely the project area(s) shown in the project proposal
location map. The file must be in ArcGIS format and must be nroiected in the State Plane Coordinate System
(MAD 831 using a base unit of meters orfee. It is preferred that the'.prj file holding the coordinate system informatic^
be included in the file. The table for the ArcGIS file must contain the following:
• Site —Name- (List as named in proposal report)
• Company- (Vendor)
• Project —Type- (Stream, Wetland, Buffer or Combination)
• Coordinate —System- (SP Meters or SP Feet)
Ownership of the flash drives and the contents become the property of NCDEQ-DMS.
d) Submit your technical proposal in a sealed package. Clearly mark each package with: (1) Sealed Technical Proposal
(2) the RFP number, (3) the Due Date and Time, (4) Vendor Name and Address, (5) the River Basin and Cataloging
Unit forwhich the proposal response is being submitted, and (6) the Site Name and Type of Mitigation being proposed.
Address the package(s) for delivery as shown in the table above. If Vendor is submitting more than one (1) proposal,
each proposal shall be submitted in separate sealed envelopes and marked accordingly. For delivery purposes, separate
sealed envelopes from a single Vendor may be included in the same outer package. Proposals are subjectto rejection
unless submitted with the information above included on the outside of the sealed proposal package.
3) Submit two (2) signed, original executed cost proposal responses and two (2) photocopies (All 4 must benlaced in
one separately sealed envelope). All cost proposal response packages must be clearly marked with (1) Sealed Cost
Proposal (2) the RFP number, (3) the Due Date and Time, (4) Vendor Name and Address, (5) the River Basin
and Cataloging Unit for which the proposal response is being submitted, and (6) the Site Name and Type of
Mitigation being proposed. If Vendor is submitting more than one (1) cost proposal option, each response
shall be submitted in a separately sealed envelope and marked accordingly. For delivery purposes, separately
sealed envelopes from a single Vendor may be included in the same outer package.
NOTE: All technical and cost proposals must constitute a firm, irrevocable offer for a period of at least six
(6) months beyond the specified "Opening Date" for this RFP.
Ver: 9/30/16 Page 7 of 42

RFP Number: 16-007278 Vendor: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
2.3 PROPOSAL CONTENTS
Vendors shall complete all the attachments in this RFP that require the Vendor to provide information and include an
authorized signature where requested. Vendor RFP responses shall include the following items and those
attachments should be arranged in the following order and separated by tabs:
a) COVER LETTER
b) TITLE PAGE: Include tho company name, address, phone number and authorized representative along with the
Proposal Number.
c) EXECUTION PAGES and any ADDENDA released in conjunction with this RFP that requires the Addenda to be
returned. These must be completed and signed. Failure to comply will result in your bid being disqualified.
d) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The executive summary shall consist of highlights of the general contents of the
proposal, and shall clearly state the anticipated mitigation type and amount of credits proposed. If the Vendor is
proposing multiple mitigation options, each option must be specifically described in this section.
e) CORPORATE BACKGROUND AND EXPERIENCE: This section shall include background information on the
firm submitting the proposal; the firm's ability to carry out all phases of the proposal, information concerning similar
mitigation projects completed in North Carolina and other states, the firm's office location(s) and the firm's
multidisciplinary approach to the project.
f) PROJECT ORGANIZATION: This section must include the proposed staffing, deployment, and organization of
personnel to be assigned to this project. The Vendor shall provide information as to the qualifications and
experience of all executive, managerial, legal, and professional personnel to be assigned to this project, including
resumes citing experience with similar projects and the responsibilities to be assigned to each person including
sub -vendors and DBE/HUB participation.
g) TECHNICAL APPROACH: This section shall include and be completed in the following sequence:
Project Goals and Objectives- Specifically describe how the proposed project will address the watershed
goals identified in the River Basin Restoration Plan (RBRP) and/or Local Watershed Plan (LWP) applicable to
the project area, and the objectives that will be used to accomplish those goals. RBRPs and LWPs can be
found at: http://deg.nc.gov/about/divisions/mitigation-services/dms-planning/watershed-planning-documents
searchable by river basin. Unless otherwise specified in the RFP, the proposed ecological benefits and
functional uplift the project could provide may be determined at the discretion of the Vendor. If a proposed site
addresses more than one of the watershed goals, it will be taken into consideration in the site rating.
Project Description- Provide a detailed description of the project including, but not limited to a description of
the site in its existing condition; watershed (including County and 14-digit Hydrologic Unit) and its condition;
soils and geology; anticipated cultural resources, protected species issues, and known site constraints (i.e.
other easements, crossings, site access, etc.). Note: due to concerns regarding waterfowl attraction near air
transport facilities, the project description must include a site location map that identifies any air transport facility
located within 5 miles of the project site. The presence of an air transport facility will not exclude the proposal from
consideration.
The proposal shall include a map(s) preferably with topographic background that includes mapping of
channel stability features (i.e_ Incision, bank instability, the occurrence of bedrock) and any relevant
features which have implications for describing impairments (e.g. ditching) and/or support the proposed
level of intervention The map should also include a table which provides a reach description.
Project Development -- Describe in detail how the proposed changes will be made. Identify individual project
reaches and the specific method in which the mitigation will be completed. Describe in detail reasons for the
anticipated activities and why these activities are warranted to the level proposed. Clearly state the anticipated
ecological uplift for each activity for each reach. Submittals for restoration of both intermittent and perennial
streams must provide sufficient documentation and discussion of the net gain in function resulting from the
proposed level of restoration as compared to other levels of restoration. Modification of pattern, dimension
and profile should not be assumed to be the appropriate level of restoration for all degraded streams. The project
development description must include:
Ver: 9/30/16 Page 8 of 42

RFP Number. 96-007278 Vendor: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
■ Where restoration is appropriate, Priority I restoration is strongly encouraged. It is understood that Priority II
restoration will sometimes be necessary for tie-ins and transitions, but if it is proposed as the overall
design approach for a given reach then at a minimum it must meet the criteria described in the technical
score sheet for this RFP.
■ A general description for all stream crossings, fords, roads etc. The description must include the location,
width, and type of crossing (ford, culvert, bridge etc.). Crossings that utilize bridges and/or culverts with
fencing that permanently prevent livestock access both upstream and downstream of the crossing (so
that livestock exclusion is not dependent on the use of gates) provide better protection of the riparian
area, and will therefore be awarded more points on the Technical Proposal Evaluation Form.
Proposed Mitigation - Provide a description of the mitigation credits proposed. Include an explanation of how
the proposed credits were derived and a table of anticipated mitigation types and credits. The table should
include a total for each type of mitigation (i.e. restoration, enhancement, preservation, etc.) being offered. If
multiple options are proposed, a table for each option should beprovided.
Current Ownership and Long Term Protection - Identify the ownership of all parcels which will be affected by
the project. Include the landowners name and parcel number and the proposed method for providing long term
protection of the mitigation site. Based on the Federal Code of Regulations (Federal Register/Vol. 73, No.
70/Thursday, April 10, 2008/ Rules and Regulations — Section 332.7 Management, the long-term protection
may be provided through real estate instruments such as conservation easements held by entities such as
federal, tribal, state or local resource agencies, non-profit conservation organizations, or private land managers;
the transfer of title to such entities; or by restrictive covenants.
■ In this section of the technical proposal it should be clearly stated that conveyance of a conservation
easement to the State is the method that will be used to provide long term protection of the mitigation
site.
■ A signed option agreement valid for a period of at least six (6) months from the closing date of this RFP
or other suitable documentation of real property must be provided for each parcel.
• Project Phasing — Provide a complete schedule for completing the tasks for the project as identified in this
RFP. Describe methods for completing these tasks. The proposed schedule must be based on completion of
the project within the ten (10) year contract period. The proposed schedule should be based on the number of
months (from contract issuance) needed to complete each of the tasks listed in the scope of work.
• Success Criteria — Identify specific performance standards that are anticipated to be utilized to measure
success of the project. The success criteria must be directly related to the anticipated ecological uplift identified
in paragraph Project Development above.
Quality Control — This section shall describe the Vendor's quality control program and other procedures
that will be used to ensure: 1) each deliverable (i.e. mitigation plan, baseline monitoring document,
monitoring report, etc.) is submitted in accordance with the schedule established in the technical proposal, it
follows the format(s) established by NCDMS, it contains all required information, and is
grammatically/typographically correct; and 2) sufficient oversight is provided during the construction
phase so that the project is completed on schedule and is in compliance with any required federal, state
or local permit(s).
Maps diagrams, and/or photographs may be used to supplement the text and may be printed on one side.
However, the Technical Pronosal shall not exceed a total of 50 pages printed front to back (100-nape
limit) and shall be submitted within a three ring binder with section tabs. Photographs, maps and diagrams
will count toward the 100 pages. If a technical proposal does not meet all the Department's requirements, it
will be rejected and the corresponding sealed cost proposal will not be opened.
h) ATTACHMENT A: INSTRUCTIONS TO VENDORS
i) ATTACHMENT B: NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL CONTRACT TERMS AND CONDITIONS
j) ATTACHMENT C: PRICING (Completed, Signed and Separately Sealed)
k) ATTACHMENT D: LOCATION OF WORKERS UTILIZED BY VENDOR (Completed and Signed)
1) ATTACHMENT E: CERTIFICATION OF FINANCIAL CONDITION (Completed and Signed)
m) ATTACHMENT F: ADDITIONAL VENDOR INFORMATION (Completed)
Ver: 9/30/16 Page 9 of 42

RFP Number. 16-007278 Vendor: Micheal Baker Engineering, Inc.
n) ATTACHMENT G: IRAN DIVESTMENT ACT CERTIFICATION (Completed)
0) ATTACHMENT H: TARGETED LOCAL WATERSHEDS & WATERSHED MAP
p) ATTACHMENT I: TECHNICAL EVALUATION SCORESHEET (Completed)
2.5 IMPORTANT INFORMATION AND RESTRICTIONS
a) The DMS recognizes that a Vendor(s) might not be able to find one site that provides the total amount of mitigation
requested for the cataloging unit listed above. Therefore, proposals may be submitted in any of the following
categories.
■ One or more sites providing all the requested mitigation credits; or
■ One or more sites providing a portion of the requested mitigation credits.
b) Unless the Vendor states in both the cover letter and the Executive Summary of the technical proposal that multiple
mitigation options are being offered for a site, and specifically describes each option, the Department shall only
consider the full proposal amount and will not extend an offer to contract for less than the full amount indicated in
the proposal.
c) Proposals will NOT be accepted using the following types of sites:
1. Property purchased with Clean Water Management Trust Fund monies
2. Property that is enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, Conservation Reserve
Program, Wetlands Reserve Program, or, any other state or federal program that provides funds for any of
the tasks outlined in this RFP
3. Property that has been used for compensatory mitigation under Section 404 and/or 401 of the Clean Water
Act
4. Properties that are in the control of the State or currently in negotiation for compensatory mitigation needs
by any state agency
5. Properties that are controlled by any federal agency
6. Properties that have been timbered, filled, or manipulated (stream channel dredging or channel re-
alignment) in violation of federal or state rules or statutes.
d) Please note that the State of North Carolina will NOT accept fee simple title to any property for this RFP. As
stated in Section 3.3, Task 2 of this RFP, long terra protection of the selected properties must be provided by
a conservation easement held by the State of North Carolina as defined in the Federal Code of Regulations
(Federal registerNol. 73, No. 70/Thursday, April 10, 2008/Rules and Regulations — Section 332.7 Management).
2.6 REQUIRED TEMPLATES FOR THIS RFP (Must use latest templates, found on DMS website)
http://deci.nc.-gov/about/divisions/mitigation-services/dms-vendors/rfp-forms-templates
2.7 DEFINITIONS, ACRONYMS, AND ABBREVIATIONS
Adjusted Credit. Cost -- The Credit Cost of a Site divided by the Proposal Rating; units are Dollars per Wetland
Mitigation Credits, Stream Mitigation credits, Buffer Mitigation credits, or Nutrient Offset Credits.
Agencies — The regulatory and advisory units of the state and federal government in North Carolina which are
involved in permitting and/or commenting on proposed activities in wetlands. streams, or riparian areas and in
approving and/or commenting on proposed compensatory wetland, stream, riparian buffer or nutrient offset mitigation.
As -Built Drawings — Scale drawings depicting the final configuration, dimensions, and locations of all pertinent
features of a Site after all implementation activities have been completed.
BAFO- Best and Final Offer, submitted by a Vendor to alter its initial offer, made in response to a request by
the issuing agency.
Baseline Monitoring Document —A written document, supplemented with graphics (including as -built
drawings), that describes in detail the implemented mitigation site, the goals established for the project, how it
was implemented, how it will be monitored, the amount of mitigation credits the project will generate, and the
criteria by which its success will be determined.
Cataloging Unit ("CU") — A geographic area representing part or all of a River Basin and identified by an 8-
digit number as depicted on the "Hydrologic Unit Map — 1974, State of North Carolina, published by the U.S.
Department of Interior, Geological Survey".
Categorical Exclusion — Categories of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on
the human or natural environment and for which, therefore, neither an Environmental Assessment nor an
Ver: 9/30/16 Page 10 of 42

RFP Number: 16-007278 Vendor: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
Environmental Impact Statement is required.
Categorical Exclusion Action Form and Document — An abbreviated environmental document, prefaced by
an Action Form, that briefly describes the mitigation site, the plan for its implementation, and documents that it
willhave minimal or no impact on the environment. The Categorical Exclusion must be approved by the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA).
Coastal Wetland —As defined in North Carolina General Statute 113-229(n)(3) and described in the
CAMA Handbook for Development in Coastal North Carolina — Section 2(A)(4) found at:
httn://dea,nc.aov/about/divisions/coastal-management
Closeout Report —A component of the final year of the Monitoring Report that provides an assessment of the
monitoring data collected from the entire monitoring period to demonstrate attainment of success criteria.
Conservation Easement — A restriction a landowner can voluntarily place on specified uses of their property to
protect its natural, productive, or cultural features. It is recorded as a written legal agreement between the landowner
and the "holder" of the easement. The State of North Carolina must receive from the landowner a conservation
easement as prepared and facilitated by the full delivery provider for all NC Division of Mitigation Services full delivery
projects.
Contract Lead- Representative of the Division of Mitigation Services who corresponds with potential Vendors to
identify and contract with that Vendor providing the greatest benefit to the State and who will administer this contract
for the State
Credit — A unit of measure (e.g., a functional or a real measure or other suitable metric) representing the accrual
or attainment of aquatic functions at a compensatory mitigation site, as approved by the regulatory agencies. The
measure of aquatic functions is based on the resources restored (rehabilitated), established, enhanced or
preserved.
Credit Cost — Total bid cost divided by the number of offered credits for each type of mitigation.
Credit Release Schedule - The timeline established for the periodic release of mitigation credits based upon
the successful implementation of the approved Mitigation Plan, including construction and post -construction
monitoring.
Department — The North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ)
Division of Financial Services — Contracting arm of NCDEQ.
DOA/P&C — The North Carolina Department of Administration, Division of Purchase and Contract.
Financial Assurance — Financial security assuring the ability of the provider to deliver the contracted for
mitigation credits. Financial Assurance must be provided through Performance Bonds, Letters of Credit or
Casualty Insurance or another pre -approved method.
Hydrologic Unit ("HU") — A geographic area representing a portion of a Cataloging Unit as depicted on
the "Hydrologic Unit Map — 1974, State of North Carolina, published by the U.S. Department of Interior,
Geological Survey," and identified by a number.
Interagency Review Team (IRT) — A group of federal, tribal, state, and/or local regulatory and resource
agency representatives that review documentation for, and advises the USACE district engineer on the
establishment and management of a mitigation bank or an in -lieu fee program.
Intermittent Stream — A well-defined channel that contains water for only part of the year, typically during
winter and spring when the aquatic bed is below the water table. The flow may be heavily supplemented by
stormwater runoff. An intermittent stream should score at least 19 points using the NC Division of Water
Quality Classification Manual, Version 4.11, 2010, effective September 1, 2010. This manual can be found at:
hftp:fldeg.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources
Jurisdictional Wetland - A wetland as defined in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
Local Watershed Plan —An NCDMS watershed plan that is conducted in specific priority areas (typically one or
more TLWs) where NCDMS and the local community have identified a need to address critical watershed issues.
Through this planning process, NCDMS collaborates with local stakeholders and resource professionals to identify
projects and management strategies to restore, enhance and protect local watershed resources. LWPs can be
found by County or River Basin at http://dea.nc.gov/about/divisions/mitigation-services/dms-planning/watershed-
planning-documents
Long Term Protection — Defined in the Federal Code of Regulations (Federal RegisterNol. 73, No. 70rrhursday,
April 10, 2008/ Rules and Regulations — Section 332.7 Management, the Long Term Protection of a mitigation site
may be provided through real estate instruments such as conservation easements held by entities such as federal,
Ver: 9/30/16 Page 11 of 42

RFP Number. 16-007278 Vendor: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
tribal, state or local resource agencies, non-profit conservation organizations, or private land managers; thetransfer
of title to such entities; or by restrictive covenants. The use of conservation easements and/or restrictive covenants
must receive prior approval by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) — District Engineer. As noted in
the Federal Code of Regulations, the USAGE District Engineer shall consider relevant legal constraints on the use of
conservation easements and/or restrictive covenants in determining whether such mechanisms provide sufficient
protection.
Mitigation Plan — A written document, supplemented with graphics, which describes: the existing site conditions,
the goals and objectives of the project and other pertinent information. The Mitigation Plan is developed and
submitted prior to the implementation of the project.
Monitoring Report —A written document, supplemented with graphics due on December 1st of each year during the
seven (7) year monitoring period following the completion of construction. This report contains results of the
measured success criteria as defined in the Baseline Monitoring Document.
NCDMS —The Ncrtn Carolina Division of Mitigation Services.
Non -Riparian Wetland — An area underlain with hydric soils that is NOT located in a geomorphic floodplain or natural
crenulation and NO7 contiguous to natural lakes ,greater than 20 acres in size or artificial impoundments. Non -
Riparian Wetlands are typically found on flats in interstream divides (pocosins), side slopes (seeps), and in depressions
surrounded by uplands (mafic depressions, lime sinks and Carolina Bays). The hydrology of non -riparian wetlands is
driven by precipitation and is characterized by groundwater being at or near the surface for much of the year. Must
meet US Army Corps of Engineers wetlands definition (33 CFR 328.3(b)).
Opening Date — The location, date, and time that the Sealed Technical Proposal and Sealed Cost Proposal must be
delivered to NCDMS. Proposals will not be accepted by NCDMS after the closing date/time.
On -Time Delivery- The delivery of all items to the receiving point designated by the delivery time required.
Perennial Strearn — A well-defined channel that contains water year-round during a year of normal rainfall, with the
aquatic bed located below the water table for most of the year. A perennial stream should score at least 30 points
using the NC Division of Water Quality Stream Classification Manual, Version 4.11, 2010, effective September 1,
2010. This manual can be found at: http://deg.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources
Preliminary Findings Report -- An NCDMS report that is developed during the Local Watershed Planning process
that contains an evaluation of available data sources and an initial determination of watershed conditions; identifies
data gaps; and includes a plan for a detailed evaluation of the watershed and its water quality, habitat and hydrologic
functions.
Prior Converted Cropland — Areas defined by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (Section 512.15 of the
National Food Security Act Manual, August 1988) as wetlands which were both manipulated (drained or otherwise
physically altered to remove excess water from the land) and cropped before 23 December 1985, to the extent that
they no longer exhibit important wetland values.
Project Area -- For the purposes of this RFP, project area is defined as the area within the proposed conservation
easement for the project.
Project Milestones — A deliverable, such as a document or completed action that signifies that the endo of a task in
the Scope of Service.
Property-- A Site may be comprised of one or more pieces of real Property owned by one or more individual.
Proposal •-- The response to the RFP from an interested Vendor consisting of a signed Sealed Cost Proposal and a
Sealed Technical Proposal.
Proposed Project - A site that is in a pre -construction state and that is not associated with, or a part of, an
approved (signed, fully executed) Mitigation Banking Instrument by the closing date of this RFP.
Proposal Rating ("PR") — A value (number) that is calculated for each Proposal based upon the evaluation of the
Proposal by the PRC: The PR is established by dividing the points scored by the total amount of potential points.
(Technical Sere)
Proposal Review Committee ("PRC") - A committee established by the NCDMS to review and evaluate each
Proposal received and to make recommendations to the NCDMS Director and Procurement Manager.
Release of Credits — A determination by the USAGE district engineer in consultation with the IRT, that credits
associated with an approved mitigation plan are available for sale or transfer as defined under the Federal Guidance
for the Establishment, Use and Operation of Mitigation Banks (Federal Register April 10, 2008, Volume 70, Number
73, pp 19594-19705),
RFP — Request for Proposals; the document issued by the Department to solicit Proposals from interested Vendors.
Ver: 9/30/16 Page 12 of 42

RFP Number; 16-007278 Vendor: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
Riparian Wetlands — An area that is underlain with hydric soils and located within a geomorphic floodplain or natural
crenulation, or contiguous with NATURAL water bodies greater than 20 acres in size.
River Basin — The largest category of surface water drainage; there are seventeen (17) river basins in North Carolina.
River Basin Restoration Priorities - A planning document prepared by the NCDMS that targets specific watersheds
(TLWs) with descriptions of existing degradation and protection needs for restoration project implementation. Unless
otherwise stipulated in the RFP, NCDMS requires mitigation sites to be located in these targeted local watersheds (i.e.
hydrologic units).
Scope of Services —All services, actions, and physical work required by the Department to achieve the purpose and
objectives defined in the RFP; such services may include the furnishing of all required labor, equipment, supplies and
materials except as specifically stated.
Sealed Cost Proposal — The completed Sealed Cost Proposal form included in the RFP signed by the Vendor
specifying the total compensation requested for the performance of the specified scope of services as defined by the
RFP. If more than one Site is proposed, a separate Sealed Cost Proposal must be submitted for each Site. If the
Vendor is willing to offer multiple options (i.e. different quantities of mitigation at different credit costs) for one proposed
site, a separate Cost Proposal must be submitted for each option offered.
Service Area —1) A geographic area where mitigation credits from a mitigation site can generally be utilized to satisfy
permit requirements. 2) A geographic area where a mitigation requirement can be satisfied.
Site — Property or properties identified by a Vendor in a Proposal as having potential to provide either wetland, stream,
buffer or nutrient offset mitigation. A proposed project shall describe mitigation activities that occur on a single
property parcel, or which occur on multiple property parcels. Project proposals shall demonstrate hydrologic
connectivity and/or habitat continuity such that the functional relationships between the project components,
encompassed within each parcel is clearly evident. DMS shall have the sole discretion to determine whether the project
components have sufficient hydrologic connectivity and/or habitat continuity to be considered in a single project
proposal.
Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) —A 14-digit Hydrologic Unit identified as a targeted area in the RFP. These are
preferred locations for mitigation projects because they may have environmental characteristics that can be
improved through restoration projects.
Targeted Resource Area (TRA) — A unique or substantial important asset, opportunity, or function located within a
defined area. TRAs can include targeted assets or targeted opportunities. These are identified by analyzing spatiai
data representing assets, problems, and opportunities that manifest as patches of significance at a smaller scale
than the 12- or 14-digit hydrologic units. These are analogous to TLWs; however, TRAs have defined boundaries
based on an area of influence or an area of habitat extent NOT necessarily defined by a watershed boundary.
Technical Proposal — One of the two parts of the Proposal which contains a technical description of the proposed
mitigation.
USACE — United States Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch, Wilmington District
USGS — United States Geological Surrey.
Vendor — A private agency, corporation, firm, organization, business, or individual offering to provide qualified
professional or specialized services to the Department; if two or more private agencies, corporations, organizations,
businesses or individuals join together in a prime vendor/sub-vendor relationship to submit a proposal, the Department
will consider the prime vendor to be the Vendor; only the Vendor may enter into a contract with the Department (The
words 'Vendor' and 'Contractor are used interchangeably for this RFP).
Wetland Enhancement - The manipulation of the physical, chemical and biological characteristics of a site to
heighten, intensify, or improve a specific aquatic resource function(s). Enhancement results in the gain of selected
aquatic resource function(s), but may also lead to a decline in other aquatic resource function(s). Enhancement does
not result in a gain in aquatic resource area.
Wetland Preservation - The removal of a threat to, or preventing the decline of, aquatic resources by an action in or
near those aquatic resources. This term includes those activities normally associated with the protection and
maintenance of aquatic resources through the implementation of appropriate legal and physical mechanisms.
Preservation does not result in a gain in aquatic resource area orfunctions.
Wetland Restoration - The manipulation of the physical, chemical and biological characteristics of a site with the
goal of returning natural/historic functions to a former or degraded aquatic resource. Wetland restoration is divided
into two categories: Re-establishment and Rehabilitation. See definition of Wetland Re-establishment and Wetland
Rehabilitation.
Wetland Re-establishment — The manipulation of the physical, chemical and biological characteristics of a site with
Ver: 9/30/16 Page 13 of 42

RFP plumber: 96-007278 Vendor: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
the goal of returning natural/historic functions to a former aquatic resource. Re-establishment results in rebuilding a
former aquatic resource and results in a gain in aquatic resource area and function.
Wetland Rehabilitation — The manipulation of the physical, chemical and biological characteristics of a site with the
goal of returning most, if not all the natural/historic functions to a degraded aquatic resource. Rehabilitation results in
a gain in aquatic resource function, but does not result in a gain in aquatic resourcearea.
3.0 SCOPE OF WORK
3.1 OBJECTIVES
The Department desires to acquire 3,000 Stream Mitigation credits within the service area (see Attachment H) for
Cataloging Unit 06020002 of the Hiwassee River Basin.
River Basin iratalc9ing Unit (CU) Stream Credit~i
HIWASSEE 06020002 3,000
SPECIAL CONDITIONS:
Temperature regime: All stream must be of the cold variety.
No more than 10% of the total linear feet of stream offered for mitigation can be stream preservation.
DMS is not seeking Riparian Wetland credits at this time. On the Cost Proposal form (Attachment C),
there is a line for an optional riparian wetland credit cost. If DMS has a riparian wetland credit need
during the contracted project lifetime, an amendment can be made to the contract payable to the
contracted vendor for the amount per credit delivered (and accepted by the IRT) as indicated by the
optional cost. Vendors must provide an optional cost for Riparian Wetland credits if they wish DMS to
purchase these credits from the vendor.
Mitigation Information and Restrictions
Stream Mitigation:
The definitions of stream restoration, enhancement levels I and Il, and preservation are defined in the Stream
Mitigation Guidelines (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District, April, 2003) available on their website. For
the purposes of this RFP (the technical proposal, and any contract(s) that may result from this RFP), all mitigation
must be consistent with 2003 USACOE Stream Mitigation Guidelines and the Wilmington District Stream and
Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update (NCIRT-October 24, 2016).
3.2 TASKS
TASK 1 DMS requires two (2) hard copies and one electronic copy of the deliverables for Task 1:
a) Conduct an on -site meeting with the IRT and DMS to discuss basic concepts of the proposed mitigation plan and
identify concerns or issues related to that plan. Concerns or issues identified must be addressed prior to
conveyance of the conservation easement or development of the formai mitigation plan.
b) CondUCt an environmental screening to identify/survey potential protected species, archaeological sites,
historical architecture structures, contamination, etc. of the site.
c) In addition, in accordance to USACF .requirements, the Vendor will provide a signed and dated DMS Full
Delivery Landowner Authorization Form for each parcel AFTER contract has been awarded and prior to the
post contract on -site meeting with the IRT.
TASK 2 Property
Step One: Preliminary Process and Review
The Contractor shall electronically send the following five (5) items to the DMS Project Manager and State Property
Ver: 9/30/16 P ago 14 of 42

RFP Number; 16-007278 Vendor: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
Office (SPO) Manager Blane Rice (Blane.Rice(a)doa.nc.4ov) for review:
Draft Conservation Easement in Microsoft word document form
• Use the 9/4/2014 conservation easement template.
• The contractor shall convey to the State of North Carolina the rights to all mitigation, including but not
limited to, stream, wetlands, riparian buffer, and nutrient offset mitigation credits derived from each site
and within the area of the conservation easement.
• The easement boundary must mimic the boundary provided within the technical proposal within reason.
Any variations must be communicated to the DMS Project Manager.
• The Contractor must provide a copy of the conservation easement to the landowner, and be aware of tax
implications such as NC General Statute 105-277.4 which addresses county agricultural deferred taxes
that may be incurred at closing.
2. Preliminary Survey Plat in Adobe PDF form
• All surveys shall meet the Standards of Practice for Land Surveying in North Carolina as described in
Title 21, Chapter 56, of the North Carolina Administrative Code. As such, surveys and digital files shall
be tied to the North Carolina State Plane Coordinate System NAD83 (NSRS2007).
• The survey title block shall read, "Conservation Easement Survey for the State of North Carolina, Division
of Mitigation Services." The title block shall also contain the project name, SPO number, DMS Project
number, name of the owner, location, date surveyed, scale of the drawing, name, address, registration
number and seal of the surveyor.
• A table of coordinates (northing and easting) for all property corners, numbered consecutively, must be
included on the plat. If multiple parcels comprise a single project, assign a unique number for each
property corner within the project.
• A text metes and bounds must be provided for recordation with the Conservation easement.
• The Contractor shall show the following that exist within 100 feet of the easement boundary: roads or
trails, property corners, nearby easements, dwellings, roadways, streams and creeks, manholes, poles,
and right-of-ways.
• The landowner(s) or his/her legal representative must sign the recorded plat.
• Access to the easement area must be shown, with location and width depicted by a dotted line and note
on the recorded plat.
3.Digital Easement File in AutoCAD (.dwg) and ArcMap (.shp) format
• The CAD and GIS files must contain a closed polygon layer of the conservation easement shape in
addition to the line work.
4. Copy of the attorney's report on title based on a 30-year title search with all supporting deeds and documentation
• Each conservation easement conveyed must have good, marketable title free of liens and encumbrances.
5.Title attorney's "Schedule A" with any documents describing possible exceptions to title and exhibits.
Step Two: Anoroval for Closing
1.SPO and DMS will review and issue written approval to record after documents meet requirements.
2. The Contractor shall record the final approved easement and plat and obtain all necessary approvals from the
County Review Officer.
Stan Three: Task 2 Payment
The Contractor will complete the seven (7) listed deliverables along with invoice for Task 2 payment. Document
deliverables shall be submitted electronically to the DMS project manager and SPO Manager Blane Rice
(Blane.Rice(a-)-doa.nc.gov). Additionally, SPO requires one (1) hard copy of all the original documents and a
compact disk mailed to Blane Rice, NC Department of Administration, State Property Office, 1321 Mail Service
Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1321. Once received, SPO will issue authorization for payment.
1. Recorded Conservation Easement in Adobe PDF form
2. Recorded Survey Plat in Adobe PDF form
3. Updated digital easement file in AutoCAD (.dwg) and ArcMap (.shp) format
Ver: 9/30/16 Page 15 of 42

RFP Number. 16-007278 Vendor: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
4. Final attorneys report on title based on 30-year search with deeds and documentation.
Additionally, the following must be satisfied during Task 2:
5. Original title insurance policy shall be forwarded to SPO as soon as it is available to Blane Rice.
6.Provide the name, address, phone number, and e-mail address (if available) of each grantor via electronic
communication to SPO and DMS.
7.Install survey monumentation and conduct boundary marking with the following specifications:
• The Contractor shall set 5/8" rebar 30" in length with 3-1/4" aluminum caps on all easement corners,
Caps shall meet DIMS specifications (Berntsen RBD5325, imprinted with NG State Logo # B9087 or
equivalent). After installation, raps shall be stamped with the corresponding number from the tableof
coordinates on the survey.
• The Contractor shall place a 6-foot tall durable witness post at each corner in the conservation easement
boundary. Posts shall be made of material that will last a minimum of 20 years.
• The Contractor shall attach a conservation easement sign to each witness post and place additional signs
at no more than 200-foot intervals on long boundary lines. When applicable, the Contractor can mark
existing trees (>3dbh) with conservation easement signs and/or blaze property lines at approximate eye
level in lieu of line posts. Where applicable, established fence posts can be used for placement of signage-
1 The contractor may elect to install monurrrentation and boundary marking during Task 5 preparation. No payment
for Task 5 will be approved prior to installation.
2. The original title insurance policy(ies) must be received prior to payment for the Task 5 deliverable.
3.The contractor may elect to complete Task 3 (site specific Mitigation Plan), including the requirement forfinancial
assurance (See Section 6.2 FINANCIAL ASSURANCE) prior to completion of Task 2. Please be advised, however,
that subsequent failure of the contractor to convey an acceptable conservation easement to the State of North
Carolina, or to provide for the Long -Term Protection of the site through other methods acceptable to DMS, will
require the contractor to fully reimburse the State for any payment(s) made to the contractor for completion of Task
3.
The following recommendations are based on previous mitigation project experience. These practices are
proven to benefit overall project cost, save time, protect mitigation credit, and lend favor during regulatory
close-out consideration.
1. Simplified project boundaries with lines greater than 200 feet and with fewer corners minimizes
encroachments, protects mitigation assets, lowers fencing costs, and makes it easier for adjacent
landowners to understand boundaries.
2. Culverts are often preferred over ford crossings to encourage aquatic passage and minimize stream impact.
3. Fence type established should be based on landowner, and livestock needs. In general, well-built fences
will provide less opportunity for encroachment, better maintenance, and long term protection of property.
4. Carefully locating fences for long-term maintenance lessens impact to the conservation easement.
5.Using the survey plat as baseline documentation for existing roads, paths. trails, or other items of note
provides a reference for long-term stewardship and landowners.
6. Woven wire and multi -strand barbed wire fencing installed in accordance to NRCS standards are proven fencing
methods during project closeouts. Past projects with electrified high tensile have experienced many difficulties during
monitoring and closeout. The contractor should discuss fencing options with landowners; however, continue to
be cognizant of mitigation credit protection and long terra stewardship.
TASK 3 Develop a site -specific mitigation plan, as appropriate for each site and submit it to the DMS for review,
comment, and approval. DMS requires three (3) hard copies and one (1) pdf file on a USB flash drive of
the "Draft" mitigation plan. After "Draft" approval, DMS requires five (5) hard copies and one (1) pdf file
on a USB flash drive (which can be sent electronically if preferred) of the "Final Draft" mitigation plan
which will be posted on the DMS Portal for review by the IRT. Following IRT approval, DMS requires two
(2) completed Pre -Construction notice (PCN) forms with DMS named as the "permittee" and the Vendor
as "agent", six
(6) hard copies and one (1) USB flash drive with the .pdf files of the "Final' mitigation plan and the PCN
FINANCIAL ASSURANCE is also due as part of this deliverable.
TASK 4 Secure all other necessary permits and/or certifications (i.e. Erosion and Sedimentation Control permit,
etc.). Submit one (1) copy of all applicable permits, certifications, etc. tr. DMS prior to implementation of
Ver: 9/30/16 Page 16 of 42

RFP Number: 96-007278 Vendor: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
the earthwork portion of the mitigation project. Upon completion of earthwork, notify DMS in writing of
completion date and submit payment request (invoice).
TASK 5 Complete planting of the mitigation site and install all monitoring devices/plots. Vegetation must be planted
at least six months before vegetation monitoring activities are conducted at the end of the growing
season. Upon completion of planting and installation of monitoring devices/plots, notify DMS in writing of
completion date and submit payment request.
TASK 6 DMS requires three (3) hard copies of the "Draft" baseline monitoring document and "Draft" as -built
drawings. After "Draft" approval, DMS requires three (3) hard copies and one (1) pdf file on a USB flash
drive (which can be sent electronically if preferred) of the "Final' baseline monitoring document and the
as-builts. The as -built drawings (final record of project construction) should be submitted with the
following criteria:
a. Pre -Construction Plan design
b. As -built survey (on same sheets as Pre -Construction Plan design)
C. Must bear Professional Land Surveyor (PLS) seal and/or Professional Engineer (PE) seal where
applicable
d. Annotation and corrections of the Pre -Construction Plan design
TASKS 7-13 (7 years monitoring). DMS requires five (5) hard copies and one (1) .pdf formatted copy on a USB
flash drive (which can be sent electronically if preferred) of the yearly monitoring reports. Monitor the
mitigation site as stipulated in the mitigation plan and baseline monitoring report to assess the success
of the restored site for a period consistent with regulatory guidance. Each annual monitoring report must
be submitted to the DMS by December 1st of the year during which the monitoring was conducted.
The 7tn year monitoring report (or final year in cases where monitoring has been extended beyond 7
years) must include a closeout report that provides an assessment of the monitoring data collected
from the entire monitoring period. The contracted firm must attend closeout meetings and present final
project to the IRT both in a closeout meeting at a site to be named later and on the project site, following
all DMS closeout procedures and templates.
3.3 PAYMENT SCHEDULE AND DESCRIPTION OF MILESTONES
Project Milestones and Payment Schedule
Task
Project Milestone
Payment"
(% of Contract Value*)
1
Categorical Exclusion Document
5
2
Submit Recorded Conservation Easement on the Site
20
3
Mitigation Plan Final Draft and Financial Assurance
15
4
Mitigation Site Earthwork completed
15
5
Mitigation Site Planting and Installation of Monitoring Devices
10
6
Baseline Monitoring Report(including As -Built Drawings)'
10
7
Submit Monitoring Report #1 to DMS meets success criteria*'
5
8
1 Submit Monitoring Report #2 to DMS meets success criteria*'
2
9
Submit Monitoring Report #3 to DMS meets success criteria*'
2
10
Submit Monitoring Report #4 to DMS meets success criteria*'
2
11
Submit Monitoring Report #5 to DMS (meets success criteria*)'
2
12
Submit Monitoring Report #6 to DMS (meets success criteria*'
2
13
Submit Monitoring Report #7 to DMS and complete project Close-
Out process meets success criteria*)'
10
TOTALI
100
"Vendor is only eligible for payment after DMS has approved thetask/deliverable.
If site fails to meet success criteria, as indicated in any monitoring report, payment of the monitoring task maybe
made if a suitable contingency plan is submitted to and accepted by the DMS.
'For any year, beginning with delivery of task 6; if credits are withheld by the regulatory agencies or credits
are lost for other reasons, and deliverable payments must be adjusted, then all futureyearly payments will
be made following IRT yearly release of the credits.
Ver: 9/30/16 Page 17 of 42

RFP Number: 16-007278 Vendor: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
4.0 ADMINISTRATIVE TERMS
4.1 REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL DOCUMENT
The RFP is comprised of the base RFP document, any attachments, and any addenda released before Contract
award. All attachments and addenda released for this RFP in advance of any Contract award are incorporated herein
by reference.
4.2 CONTRACT TERM
The Contract shall have a maximum term of up to 10 years, beginning on the date of contract award (the "Effective
Date"). The Vendor shall begin work under the Contract within seven (7) business days of the Effective Date.
4.3 PRICING
Proposal price shall constitute the total cost to Buyer for complete performance in accordance with the requirements
and specifications herein, including all applicable charges handling, administrative and other similar fees. Vendor
shall not invoice for any arnounts not specifically allowed for in this RFP. Complete ATTACHMENT C: PRICING
FORM and include in Proposal.
4.4 ACCEPTANCE OF WORK
Acceptance of work by the State shall not be unreasonably withheld; but may be conditioned or delayed as required
for reasonable review, evaluation, installation or testing, as applicable to the work or deliverable. Final acceptance is
expressly conditioned upon completion of all applicable assessment procedures. Should the work or deliverables fail
to meet any requirements, acceptance criteria or otherwise fail to conform to the contract, the State may exercise all
rights hereunder, including, for deliverables, such rights provided by the Uniform Commercial Code as adopted in North
Carolina.
4.5 DOWNWARD PAYMENT ADJUSTMENTS
Payment by the Department will be based on the number of credits the vendor delivers at the credit price first
established by the cost proposal pursuant to the proposal review process and credits identified in the technical
proposal. To ensure that the Department does not overpay at the end of the process, periodic adjustments may be
made so that the final total payment equals the final number of mitigation credits, as determined by the 1RT, delivered
by the vendor multiplied by the original per credit price. Payment adjustments may be made after the initial contract is
executed based on the number of mitigation credits the project is anticipated to provide as documented after contract
execution, including but not limited to: completion of the mitigation plan; site restoration (earthwork/planting),
completion of the baseline monitoring document; the post construction monitoring period; and/or after final
determination/release of mitigation credits by the IRT.
4.6 INVOICES
a) Invoices are to be submitted for the Contract Administrator's review after NCDMS approval of each individual
task/deliverable.
b) The Vendor must follow the NCDMS Invoice Guidelines dated March 1, 2014.
c) Final invoice must be received by the DEPARTMENT within 45 days after the end of the contract period.
d) Invoices must bear the correct contract number to ensure prompt payment. The Vendor's failure to include the
correct contract number may cause delay in payment.
e) Invoices must be submitted to the following address:
NO Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
Attn: Debby Davis
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
Ver: 9/30/16 Page 18 of 42

RFP Number. 16-007278
4.7 PAYMENT TERMS
Vendor: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
a) The Vendor will be compensated at the rates quoted in the Vendor's Cost Proposal.
b) The Vendor will be paid net thirty (30) calendar days after the Vendor's invoice is approved by the State.
4.8 PERFORMANCE OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES
Vendor shall complete ATTACHMENT D: LOCATION OF WORKERS UTILIZED BY VENDOR. In addition to any other
evaluation criteria identified in this RFP, the State may also consider, for purposes of evaluating proposed or actual
contract performance outside of the United States, how that performance may affect the following factors to ensure
that any award will be in the best interest of the State:
Total cost to the State
Level of quality provided by the Vendor
Process and performance capability across multiple jurisdictions
Protection of the State's information and intellectual property Availability
of pertinent skills
Ability to understand the State's business requirements and internal operational culture
Particular risk factors such as the security of the State's information technology Relations
with citizens and employees
Contract enforcement jurisdictional issues
4.9 NOTICE TO VENDORS REGARDING RFP TERMS AND CONDITIONS
It shall be the Vendor's responsibility to read the Instructions, the State's terms and conditions, all relevant exhibits and
attachments, and any other components made a part of this RFP, and comply with all requirements and
specifications herein. Vendors also are responsible for obtaining and complying with all Addenda and other changes
that may be issued in connection with this RFP.
If Vendors have questions, issues, or exceptions regarding any term, condition, or other component within this RFP,
those must be submitted as questions in accordance with in the instructions in Section 2.2 PROPOSAL QUESTIONS. If
the State determines that any changes will be made as a result of the points raised, then such decisions will be
communicated in the form of an RFP addendum. The State may also elect to leave open the possibility for later
negotiation of specific components of the Contract that have been addressed during the question and answer period.
Other than through this process, the State rejects and will not be required to evaluate or consider any additional or
modified terms and conditions submitted with Vendor's proposal. This applies to any language appearing in or
attached to the document as part of the Vendor's proposal that purports to vary any terms and conditions or Vendors'
instructions herein or to render the proposal non -binding or subject to further negotiation. By execution and delivery
of this RFP Response, the Vendor agrees that any additional or modified terms and conditions, whether
submitted purposely or inadvertently, shall have no force or effect, and will be disregarded. Noncompliance
with, or any attempt to alter or delete, this paragraph shall constitute sufficient grounds to reject Vendor's
proposal as nonresponsive.
4.10 INTERPRETATION OF TERMS AND PHRASES
This Request for Proposal serves two functions: (1) to advise potential Vendors of the parameters of the solution
being sought by the Department; and (2) to provide (together with other specified documents) the terms of the Contract
resulting from this procurement. As such, all terms in the Request for Proposal shall be enforceable as contract terms
in accordance with the General Terms and Conditions. The use of phrases such as "shall," "must," and "requirements"
are intended to create enforceable contract conditions. In determining whether proposals should be evaluated or
rejected, the Department will take into consideration the degree to which Vendors have proposed or failed to propose
solutions that will satisfy the Department's needs as described in the Request for Proposal. Except as specifically
stated in the Request for Proposal, no one requirement shall automatically disqualify a Vendor from consideration.
However, failure to comply with any single requirement may result in the Department exercising its discretion to reject a
proposal in its entirety.
Ver: 9/30/16 Page 19 of 42

RFP Number. 96-007278 Vendor: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
5.0 PROPOSAL OPENING, EVALUATION PROCESS AND METHOD OF AWARD
5.1 CONFIDENTIALITY AND PROHIBITED COMMUNICATIONS DURING EVALUATION
During the evaluation period —from the date proposals are opened through the date the contract is awarded each
Vendor submitting a proposal (including its representatives, sub -vendors and/or suppliers) is prohibited from having
any communications with any person inside or outside the using agency, issuing agency, other government agency
office, or body (including the purchaser named above, department secretary, agency head, members of the general
assembly and/ur governor's office), or private entity; if the communication refers to the content of Vendor's proposal
or qualifications, the contents of another Vendor's proposal, another Vendor's qualifications or ability to perform the
contract, and/or the transmittal of any other communication of information that could be reasonably considered to
have the effect of directly or indirectly influencing the evaluation of proposals and/or the award of the contract. A
Vendor not in compliance with this provision shall be disqualified from contract award, unless it is determined in the
Statc's discretion that the communication was harmless, that it was made without intent to influence and that the best
interest of the state would not be served by the disqualification. A Vendor's proposal may be disqualified if its sub -
vendor and supplier engage in any of the foregoing communications during the time that the procurement is active
(i.e., the issuance date of the procurement to the date of contract award). Only those discussions, communications
or transmittals of information authorized or initiated by the issuing agency for this RFP or general inquiries directed to
the purchaser regarding requirements of the RFP (prior to proposal submission) or the status of the contract award
(after submission) are excepted from this provision.
5.2 PROPOSAL OPENING PROCESS
Proposals will be received from each Vendor in two separate, sealed packages the Technical Proposal and the Cost
Proposal. Each original of both proposals (Technical and Cost) shall be signed and dated by an official authorized to
bind the firm. Unsigned proposals will not be considered.
NOTE: No technical information shall be contained in the cost proposal. No cost information shall be
contained in the technical proposal. Inclusion of any cost information in the technical proposal and/or any technical
information in the cost proposal shall constitute sufficient grounds to reject Vendor's proposal.
All proposals must be received by the issuing agency no later than the date and time specified on the cover sheet of
this RFP.
At that date and time, the package containing the technical proposals from each responding firm will be publicly
opened and the name of each Vendor announced publicly. A notation will also be made whether a separate sealed
cost proposal has been received. Cost proposals will be placed in safekeeping and opened at a laterdate.
5.3 EVALUATION PROCESS
The State will conduct a Two -Step evaluation of the Proposals received.
The State shall review all Vendor responses to this RFP to confirm that they meet the specifications and requirements
of the RFP. The State reserves the right to waive any minor informality or technicality in proposals received.
All technical proposals will be evaluated prior to opening any cost proposal.
Upon completion of the technical evaluation, the cost proposals of those Vendors whose technical proposals have
been deemed acceptable will be publicly opened. The; total cost offered by each firm will be tabulated and become a
matter of public record. Interested parties are cautioned that these costs and their components are subject to further
evaluation for completeness and correctness and therefore may not be an exact indicator of a Vendor's pricing
position.
At their sole option, the evaluators may request oral presentations or discussion with any or all Vendors for
clarification or to amplify the materials presented in any part of the proposal. Vendors are cautioned, however,
that the evaluators are not required to request presentations or other clarification —and often do not; therefore,
all proposals must be complete and reflect the most favorable terms available from the Vendor.
Ver: 9/30116 Page 20 of 42

RFP Number. 16-007278 Vendor: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
Vendors are cautioned that this is a request for proposals, not a request to contract, and the State reserves the
unqualified right to reject any and all offers at any time if such rejection is deemed to be in the best interest of the
State.
The State reserves the right to reject all original offers and request one or more of the Vendors submitting proposals
to submit best and final offers (BAFOs), prepared in collaboration with the State after the initial responses to the RFP
have been evaluated and determined to be unsatisfactory.
Upon completion of the evaluation process, the State will make Award(s) based on the evaluation and post the
award(s) to IPS under the RFP number for this solicitation. Award of a Contract to one Vendor does not mean that
the other proposals lacked merit, but that, all factors considered, the selected proposal was deemed most
advantageous and represented the best value to the State.
5.4 EVALUATION CRITERIA
All qualified proposals will be evaluated and award made based on the following criteria considered, to result in an
award most advantageous to the State_ A proposal may be rejected during any phase of review if the PRC determines
that the proposal has not provided the requested information in the specified format, has determined that the firm is
not qualified to perform the services, and/or if it has been determined that the proposal cannot provide the mitigation
indicated in the proposal. Each proposal will be reviewed and assigned a proposal rating prior to opening any cost
proposal.
Proposals will generally be evaluated per completeness, content, experience with similar projects, ability of the offer
or and its staff, and cost. Specific evaluation criteria are listed below.
Technical
a) Technical Proposals will be reviewed for length, format requirements and qualifications of firm and project
approach by the PRC. Only vendors who meet these initial qualifications will move forward.
b) Upon completion of the initial review, a field review and evaluation of the proposed site will be conducted by
the PRC.
c) Each Vendor will be scored based on the Technical Scoresheet located in Attachment I of this RFP.
Price
a) Sealed cost proposals for all proposals still under consideration will be opened and tabulated.
b) The adjusted credit cost is a combined technical and cost measure. This is a best value determination by
NCDMS after evaluating all factors in the technical proposal and then evaluating the cost proposal. The adjusted
unit cost will be calculated and determined using the following formula:
Unit Cost _ Proposal Rating (Technical Score)
All sites will be ranked by the lowest adjusted credit cost.
5.5 METHOD OF AWARD
The NCDMS Procurement Manager and the Director, will analyze the ranked sites, determine the proposal selections
and submit recommendations to the Department and the Department of Administration, Purchase & Contract section,
as required, for approval, considering the following information:
■ adjusted credit cost
■ credit cost
■ available funds
■ mitigation needs at the time of selection
• the best interest of the State of North Carolina
Ver: 9/30/16 Page 21 of 42

RFP Number; 16-007278 Vendor: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
While the intent of this RFP is to award a Contract to single Vendor, the State reserves the right to make separate
awards to different Vendors for one or more line items, to not award one or more line items or to cancel this RFP in
its entirety without awarding a Contract, if it is considered to be most advantageous to the State to do so.
6.0 REQUIREMENTS
This Section lists the requirements related to this RFP. By submitting a proposal; the Vendor agrees to meet all stated
requirements in this Section as well as any other specifications, requirements and terms and conditions stated in this
RFP. If a Vendor is unclear about a requirement or specification or believes a change to a requirement would allow
for the State to receive a better proposal, the Vendor is urged and cautioned to submit these items in the form of a
question during the question and answer period in accordance with Section 2.2.
6.1 FINANCIAL STABILITY
Each Vendor shall certify it is financially stable by completing the ATTACHMENT E: CERTIFICATION OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION. The State is requiring this certification to minimize potential issues from Contractingwith
a Vendor that is financially unstable. From the date of the Certification to the expiration of the Contract, the Vendor
shall notify the State within thirty (30) days of any occurrence or condition that materially alters the truth of any
statement made in this Certification. DMS reserves the right to ask for additional financial data if clarification is
needed.
6.2 FINANCIAL ASSURANCE
The vendor must provide financial assurance in one of the following forms:
1) Performance Bonding — The vendor must provide security in the form of an acceptable performance bond
as described in the following paragraph to guarantee delivery of the maximum number of originally contracted
credits. The performance bond must be obtained from a company licensed in North Carolina as shown in the
Federal Treasury Listing of Approved Sureties (Circular 570). The maximum allowable amount provided by a
surety may not exceed the "underwriting limitation" for the surety as identified in the Federal Treasury Listing.
Although this RFP is a request for mitigation and not construction, the performance bond shall follow the
prescribed wording provided in N.C.G.S. § 44A-33. The performance bond must be for 55% of the total value
of the contract and must be in effect and submitted with the Task 3 deliverable before DMS will authorize
payment for that deliverable. The bond must remain in effect until the vendor has received written notification
from the DMS that the requirements of Task 6 (submittal of baseline monitoring report) have been met (the
financial assurance document must indicate that it is in effect through approval of task 6 and must
include the NCDEQ contract number). After the successful completion of Task 6, the bond can be retired.
2) Letters of Credit- LOCs must be drawn from a reputable bank identified by the FDIC as "Well Capitalized" or
"Adequately Capitalized" and follow the submittal timing, contract amounts and schedules as those described
above for the performance bonds. Evergreen or irrevocable LOCs shall be required to provide a 120- day notice
of cancellation, termination or non -renewal.
3) Casually Insurance on underlying performance of credits of mitigation, must follow the same submittal timing,
contract amounts and reduction schedules as those described above in performance bonds. The insurance must
contain the following information:
a. The "NCDEQ" must be named as the "Regulatory Body". NCDEQ shall have the sole right to place a claim
against the policy. NCDEQ shall have the sole right and obligation as the responsible "regulatory body" to
approve any claim settlement,
b. The insurance amounts and duration must follow the same as described above in performance bonds.
6.3 REFERENCES
The State reserves the right to request and verify references. Upon request references, must be submitted within 3
business days. Failure to provide references will cause your proposal to be rejected.
6.4 ACCESS TO PERSONS AND RECORDS
Pursuant to Item # 11 of the North Carolina General Terms and Condition, the State Auditor and the using agency's
internal auditors shall have access to persons and records as a result of all contracts or grants entered into by
Ver: 9/30/16 Page 22 of 42

RFP Number: 16-007278
State
Vendor: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
agencies or political subdivisions in accordance with General Statue 147-64.7 and Session Law 2010-194. Section
21 (i.e., the State Auditors and internal auditors may audit the records of the Vendor during the term of the contract
to verify accounts and data affecting fees or performance). Vendor shall retain all records for a period of six (6)
years following completion of the contract or until any audits begun during this period are completed and findings
released.
6.5 BACKGROUND CHECKS
Any personnel or agent of the Vendor performing services under any contract arising from this RFP may be required
to undergo a background check at the expense of the Vendor, if so requested by the State. These background checks
may be performed for the following:
(a) Any regulatory sanctions levied against Vendor or any of its officers, directors or its professional employees
expected to provide services on this project by any state or federal regulatory agencies within the past three
years or a statement that there are none. As used herein, the term "regulatory sanctions" includes the
revocation or suspension of any license or certification, the levying of any monetary penalties or fines, and the
issuance of any written warnings;
(b) Any regulatory investigations pending against Vendor or any of its officers, directors or its professional
employees expected to provide services on this project by any state or federal regulatory agencies of which
Vendor has knowledge or a statement that there are none.
6.6 SUBSTITUTION OF PERSONNEL
Vendor shall not substitute key personnel assigned to the performance of this Contract without prior written approval
by the Contract Administrator. Vendor shall notify the Contract Lead of any desired substitution, including the name(s)
and references of Vendor's recommended substitute personnel. The State will approve or disapprove the requested
substitution in a timely manner. The State may, in its sole discretion, terminate the services of any person providing
services under this Contract. Upon such termination, the State may request acceptable substitute personnel or
terminate the contract services provided by such personnel.
6.7 VENDOR'S REPRESENTATIONS
a) Vendor warrants that qualified personnel shall provide services under this Contract in a professional manner.
"Professional manner" means that the personnel performing the services will possess the skill and competence
consistent with the prevailing business standards in the industry. Vendor agrees that it will not enter any
agreement with a third party that may abridge any rights of the State under this Contract. Vendor will serve as
the prime vendor under this Contract and shall be responsible for the performance and payment of all sub-
vendor(s) that may be approved by the State. Names of any third -party vendors or sub -vendors of Vendor may
appear for purposes of convenience in Contract documents; and shall not limit Vendor's obligations hereunder.
Vendorwill retain executive representation forfunctional and technical expertise as needed to incorporate any work
by third party sub-vendor(s).
b) If any services, deliverables, functions, or responsibilities not specifically described in this Contract are required
for Vendor's proper performance, provision and delivery of the service and deliverables under this Contract, or
are an inherent part of or necessary sub -task included within such service, they will be deemed to be implied by
and included within the scope of the contract to the same extent and in the same manner as if specifically
described in the contract. Unless otherwise expressly provided herein, Vendor will furnish all its own necessary
equipment, management, supervision, labor, facilities, furniture, computer and telecommunications equipment,
software, supplies and materials necessary for the Vendor to provide and deliver the Services and Deliverables.
c) Vendor warrants that it has the financial capacity to perform and to continue perform its obligations under
the contract; that Vendor has no constructive or actual knowledge of an actual or potential legal
proceeding being brought against Vendor that could materially adversely affect performance of this
Contract; and that entering into this Contract is not prohibited by any contract, or order by any court of
competentjurisdiction.
Ver: 9/30/16 Page 23 of 42

RFP Number: 16-007278 Vendor: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
7.0 CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION
7.1 PROJECT MANAGER AND CUSTOMER SERVICE
The Vendor shall designate and make available to the State a project manager. The project manager shall be the
State's point of contact for contract related issues and issues concerning performance, progress review, scheduling
and service. Vendor must complete a copy of ATTACHMENT F: Additional Vendor Information and return with
bid.
7.2 REPORTS
Reports shall be submitted well organized and easy to read. The Vendor shall submit the reports in a timelymanner
and on a regular schedule as specified by this RFP.
7.3 DISPUTE RESOLUTION
The parties agree that it is in their mutual interest to resolve disputes informally. A claim by the Vendor shall be
submitted in writing to the State's Contract Lead for resolution. A claim by the State shall be submitted in writing to
the Vendor's Project Manager for resolution. The Parties shall negotiate in good faith and use all reasonable efforts
to resolve such dispute(s). During the time the Parties are attempting to resolve any dispute, each shall proceed
diligently to perform their respective duties and responsibilities under this Contract. If a dispute cannot be resolved
between the Parties within thirty (30) days after delivery of notice, either Party may elect to exercise any other
remedies available under this Contract, or at law. This term shall not constitute an agreement by either party to
mediate or arbitrate any dispute.
7.4 CONTRACT CHANGES
Contract changes, if any.. over the life of the contract shall be implemented by contract amendments agreed to
in writing by the State and Vendor.
7.5 CONTRACT ADMINISTRATOR
Kristie Corson is designated as the contract administrator for the Department for the purposes of this RFP
This Space is Intentionally Left Blank
Attachments to this RFP begin on the next page.
Ver: 9/30/16 Page 24 of 42

RFP Number: 16-007278 Vendor: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
ATTACHMENT A: INSTRUCTIONS TO VENDORS
1. READ, REVIEW AND COMPLY: It shall be the Vendor's responsibility to read this entire document, review all enclosures
and attachments, and any addenda thereto, and comply with all requirements specified herein, regardless of whether
appearing in these Instructions to Vendors or elsewhere in this RFP document.
2. LATE PROPOSALS: Late proposals, regardless of cause, will not be opened or considered, and will automatically be
disqualified from further consideration. It shall be the Vendor's sole responsibility to ensure delivery at the designated
office by the designated time.
3. ACCEPTANCE AND REJECTION: The State reserves the right to reject any and all proposals, to waive any informality
in proposals and, unless otherwise specified by the Vendor, to accept any item in the proposal. If either a unit price or an
extended price is obviously in error and the other is obviously correct, the incorrect price will be disregarded.
4. BASIS FOR REJECTION: Pursuant to 01 NCAC 05B .0501, the State reserves the right to reject any and all offers, in
whole or in part, by deeming the offer unsatisfactory as to quality or quantity, delivery, price or service offered, non-
compliance with the requirements or intent of this solicitation, lack of competitiveness, error(s) in specifications or
indications that revision would be advantageous to the State, cancellation or other changes in the intended project or any
other determination that the proposed requirement is no longer needed, limitation or lack of available funds, circumstances
that prevent determination of the best offer, or any other determination that rejection would be in the best interest of the
State.
5. EXECUTION: Failure to sign EXECUTION PAGE in the indicated space will render proposal non -responsive, and it shall
be rejected.
6. ORDER OF PRECEDENCE: In cases of conflict between specific provisions in this solicitation or those in any resulting
contract, the order of precedence shall be (high to low) (1) any special terms and conditions specific to this RFP, including
any negotiated terms; (2) requirements and specifications in Sections 4, 5 and 6 of this RFP; (3) North Carolina General
Contract Terms and Conditions in ATTACHMENT B: NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL CONTRACT TERMS AND
CONDITIONS; (4) Instructions in ATTACHMENT A: INSTRUCTIONS TO VENDORS; and (5) Vendor's Proposal.
7. INFORMATION AND DESCRIPTIVE LITERATURE: Vendor shall furnish all information requested and in the spaces
provided in this document. Further, if required elsewhere in this proposal, each Vendor must submit with their proposal
sketches, descriptive literature and/or complete specifications covering the products offered. Reference to literature
submitted with a previous proposal or available elsewhere will not satisfy this provision. Proposals that do not comply with
these requirements shall be subject to rejection without further consideration.
8. SUSTAINABILITY: To support the sustainability efforts of the State of North Carolina we solicit your cooperation in this
effort. Pursuant to Executive Order 156 (1999), it is desirable that all responses meet the following:
• All copies of the proposal are printed double sided.
• All submittals and copies are printed on recycled paper with a minimum post -consumer content of 30%.
• Unless absolutely necessary, all proposals and copies should minimize or eliminate use of non -recyclable or non -
reusable materials such as plastic report covers, plastic dividers, vinyl sleeves, and GBC binding. Three -ringed
binders, glued materials, paper clips, and staples are acceptable.
• Materials should be submitted in a format which allows for easy removal, filing and/or recycling of paper and binder
materials. Use of oversized paper is strongly discouraged unless necessary for clarity or legibility.
9. HISTORICALLY UNDERUTILIZED BUSINESSES: Pursuant to General Statute 143-48 and Executive Order #150
(1999), the State invites and encourages participation in this procurement process by businesses owned by minorities,
women, disabled, disabled business enterprises and non-profit work centers for the blind and severely disabled.
10. RECIPROCAL PREFERENCE: G.S. 143-59 establishes a reciprocal preference requirement to discourage other states
from favoring their own resident Vendors by applying a percentage increase to the price of any proposal from a North
Carolina resident Vendor. The "Principal Place of Business" is defined as that principal place from which the trade or
business of the Vendor is directed or managed.
Ver: 9/30/16 Page 25 of 42

RFP Number: 16-007278 Vendor: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
11. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION: To the extent permitted by applicable statutes and rules, the State will maintain
confidential trade secrets that the Vendor does not wish disclosed. As a condition to confidential treatment, each page
containing trade secret information shall be identified in boldface at the top and bottom as "CONFIDENTIAL" by the
Vendor, with specific trade secret information enclosed in boxes or similar indication. Cost information shall not be deemed
confidential under any circumstances. Regardless of what a Vendor may label as a trade secret, the determination whether
it is or is not entitled to protection will be determined in accordance with G.S. 132-1.2. Any material labeled as confidential
constitutes a representation by the Vendor that it has made a reasonable effort in good faith to determine that such material
is, in fact, a trade secret under G.S. 132-1.2. Vendors are urged and cautioned to limit the marking of information as a
trade secret or as confidential so far as is possible.
12. PROTEST PROCEDURES: When a Vendor wishes to protest a Contract resulting from this solicitation that is awarded
by the Division of Purchase and Contract, or awarded by an agency in an awarded amount of at least $25,000, a Vendor
shall submit a written request addressed to the State Purchasing Officer at Purchase and Contract, 1305 Mail Service
Center, Raleigh, NC 27699.1305. A protest request related to an award amount of less than $25.000 shall be sent to the
purchasing officer of the agency that issued the award. The protest request must be received in the proper office within
thirty (30) consecutive calendar days from the date of the Contract award. Protest letters shall contain specific grounds
and reasons for the protest, how the protesting party was harmed by the award made and any documentation providing
support for the protesting party's claims. Note: Contract award notices are sent only to the Vendor actually awarded the
Contract, and not to every person or firm responding to a solicitation. Proposal status and Award notices are posted on
the Internet at https://www.ips.state.nc.us/ips/. All protests will be handled pursuant to the North Carolina Administrative
Code, 01 NCAC 05B .1519.
13. MISCELLANEOUS: Masculine pronouns shall be read to include feminine pronouns, and the singular of any word or
phrase shall be read to include the plural and vice versa.
14. COMMUNICATIONS BY VENDORS: In submitting its proposal, the Vendor agrees not to discuss or otherwise reveal the
contents of its proposal to any source, government or private, outside of the using or issuing agency until after the award
of the Contract or cancellation of this RFP. All Vendors are forbidden from having any communications with the using or
issuing agency, or any other representative of the State concerning the solicitation, during the evaluation of the proposals
(i.e., after the public opening of the proposals and before the award of the Contract), unless the State directly contacts the
Vendor(s) for purposes of seeking clarification or another reason permitted by the solicitation. A Vendor shall not: (a)
transmit to the issuing and/or using agency any information commenting on the ability or qualifications of any other Vendor
to provide the advertised good, equipment, commodity; (b) identify defects, errors and/or omissions in any other Vendor's
proposal and/or prices at any time during the procurement process; and/or (c) engage in or attempt any other
communication or conduct that could influence the evaluation and/or award of the Contract that is the subject of this RFP.
Vendors not in compliance with this provision may be disqualified, at the option of the State, from the Contract award.
Only those communications with the using agency or issuing agency authorized by this RFP are permitted.
15. TABULATIONS: Proposal tabulations can be electronically retrieved at the Interactive Purchasing System (IPS),
https://www.ips.state.nc.uslips/BidNumberSearch.aspx, Click on the IPS BIDS icon, click on Search for Bid, enter the
proposal number, and then search. Tabulations will normally be available at this website not later than one working day
after the proposal opening. Lengthy or complex tabulations may be summarized, with other details not made available on
IPS, and requests for additional details or information concerning such tabulations cannot be honored.
16. VENDOR REGISTRATION AND SOLICITATION NOTIFICATION SYSTEM: The North Carolina electronic Vendor Portal
(eVP) allows Vendors to electronically register free with the State to receive electronic notification of current procurement
opportunities for goods and services of potential interests to them available on the Interactive Purchasing System, as well
as notifications of status changes to those solicitations. Online registration and other purchasing information is available
at the following website https://www.ips.state.nc.us/.
17. WITHDRAWAL OF PROPOSAL: a Proposal may be withdrawn only in writing and actually received by the office issuing
the RFP prior to the time for the opening of Proposals identified on the cover page of this RFP (or such later date included
in an Addendum to the RFP). A withdrawal request must be on Vendor's letterhead and signed by an official of the Vendor
authorized to make such request. Any withdrawal request made after the opening of Proposals shall be allowed only for
good cause shown and in the sole discretion of the Division of Purchase and Contract.
18. INFORMAL COMMENTS: The State shall not be bound by informal explanations; instructions or information given at
any time by anyone on behalf of the State during the competitive process or after award The State is bound oniy by
infor-nati---on provided in this RFP and ir; formal Addenda issued through IPS.
Verr: 9/30/16 Page 26 of 42

RFP Number: 16-007278 Vendor: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
19. COST FOR PROPOSAL PREPARATION: Any costs incurred by Vendor in preparing or submitting offers are the
Vendor's sole responsibility; the State of North Carolina will not reimburse any Vendor for any costs incurred prior to
award.
20. VENDOR'S REPRESENTATIVE: Each Vendor shall submit with its proposal the name, address, and telephone number
of the person(s) with authority to bind the firm and answer questions or provide clarification concerning the firm's proposal.
21. SUBCONTRACTING: Unless expressly prohibited, a Vendor may propose to subcontract portions of the work to identified
subcontractor(s), provided that its proposal clearly describe what work it plans to subcontract and that Vendor includes in
its proposal all information regarding employees, business experience, and other information for each proposed
subcontractor that is required to be provided for Vendor itself.
22. INSPECTION AT VENDOR'S SITE: The State reserves the right to inspect, at a reasonable time, the equipment/item,
plant or other facilities of a prospective Vendor prior to Contract award, and during the Contract term as necessary for the
State determination that such equipment/item, plant or other facilities conform with the specifications/requirements and
are adequate and suitable for the proper and effective performance of the Contract.
This Space is Intentionally Left Blank
Ver: 9/30/16 Page 27 of 42

RFP Number: 16-007278 Vendor: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
ATTACHMENT B: NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL CONTRACT TERMS AND CONDITIONS
PERFORMANCE AND DEFAULT: If, through any cause, Vendor shall fail to fulfill in timely and proper manner the
obligations under this contract, the State shall have the right to terminate this contract by giving written notice to the Vendor
and specifying the effective date thereof. In that event and subject to all other provisions of this contract, all finished or
unfinished deliverable items under this contract prepared by the Vendor shall, at the option of the State, become its
property, and the Vendor shall be entitled to receive compensation, for units actually produced, if any, in an amount
determined by reducing the total amount due had the full number of Units been produced pro rata, such that the ratio
of the final compensation actually paid to the original total amount due in accordance with Attachment C (as amended,
if applicable) is equal to the ratio of the Units actually generated to the total Units identified in Attachment C.
Notwithstanding any other provision in this agreement, Vendor shall not be relieved of liability to the State for damages
sustained by the State by virtue of any breach of this contract, and the State may withhold any payment due the Vendor
for the purpose of setoff until such time as the exact amount of damages due the State from such breach can be
determined. The State reserves the right to require at any time a performance bond or other acceptable alternative
guarantees from a successful Vendor without expense to the State.
In case of default by the Vendor', the State may procure the services necessary to complete performance hereunder from
other sources and hold the Vendor responsible for any excess cost occasioned thereby. In addition, in the event of default
by the Vendor under this contract, or upon the Vendor filing a petition for bankruptcy or the entering of a judgment of
bankruptcy by or against the Vendor, the State may immediately cease doing business with the Vendor, immediately
terminate this contract for cause. and may act to debar the Vendor from doing future business with the State
2. GOVERNMENTAL RESTRICTIONS: In the event any Governmental restrictions are imposed which necessitate alteration
of the material, quality, workmanship or performance of the goods or services offered prior to their delivery, it shall be the
responsibility of the Vendor to notify, in writing, the Contract Lead at once, indicating the specific regulation which required
such alterations. The State reserves the right to accept any such alterations, including any price adjustments occasioned
thereby, or to cancel the Contract.
3. AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS: Any and all payments to the Vendor shall be dependent upon and subject to the availability
of funds to the agency for the purpose set forth in this contract.
4. TAXES: Any applicable taxes shall be invoiced as a separate item.
G.S. 143-59.1 bars the Secretary of Administration from entering into Contracts with Vendors if the Vendor or its
affiliates meet one of the conditions of G.S. 105-164.8(b) and refuses to collect use tax on sales of tangible
personal property to purchasers in North Carolina. Conditions under G.S. 105•-164.8(b) include: (1) Maintenance
of a retail establishment or office, (2) Presence of representatives in the State that solicit sales or transact business
on behalf of the Vendor and (3) Systematic exploitation of the market by media -assisted, media -facilitated, or
media -solicited means. By execution of the proposal document the Vendor certifies that it and all of its affiliates,
(if it has affiliates), collect(s) the appropriate taxes.
All agencies participating in this Contract are exempt from Federal Taxes, such as excise and transportation.
Exemption forms submitted by the Vendor will be executed and returned by the using agency.
c. Prices offered are not to include any personal property taxes, not, any sales or use tax (or fees) unless required
by the North Carolina Department of Revenue.
5. SITUS: The place of this Contract, its situs and forum, shall be North Carolina, where all matters; whether sounding in
Contract or tort, relating to its validity, construction, interpretation and enforcement shall be determined
6. GOVERNING LAWS: This Contract is rnade under and shall be governed, construed and enforced in accordance with
the laws of the State of North Carolina; without regard to is conflict of laws rules.
7. PAYMENT TERMS: Payment terms are Net not later, than 30 days after receipt of correct invoice or acceptance of goods,
whichever is later. The using agency is responsible for a'li payments to the Vendor under the Contract. payment by some
agencies may be made by procurement card, if the Vendor accepts that card (Visa. MasterCard, etc.) from other
Ver: 9/30/16 Page 28 of 42

RFP Number: 16-007278 Vendor: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
customers, and it shall be accepted by the Vendor for payment under the same terms and conditions as any other method
of payment accepted by the Vendor. If payment is made by procurement card, then payment may be processed
immediately by the Vendor.
8. AFFIRMATIVE ACTION: The Vendor will take affirmative action in complying with all Federal and State requirements
concerning fair employment and employment of people with disabilities, and concerning the treatment of all employees
without regard to discrimination by reason of race, color, religion, sex, national origin or disability.
9. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDEMNITY: Vendor shall hold and save the State, its officers, agents and employees,
harmless from liability of any kind, including costs and expenses, resulting from infringement of the rights of any third party
in any copyrighted material, patented or unpatented invention, articles, device or appliance delivered in connection with
this contract.
10. ADVERTISING: Vendor agrees not to use the existence of this Contract or the name of the State of North Carolina as
part of any commercial advertising or marketing of products or services. A Vendor may inquire whether the State is willing
to act as a reference by providing factual information directly to other prospective customers.
11. ACCESS TO PERSONS AND RECORDS: During and after the term hereof, the State Auditor and any using agency's
internal auditors shall have access to persons and records related to this Contract to verify accounts and data affecting
fees or performance under the Contract, as provided in G.S. 143-49(9).
12. ASSIGNMENT: No assignment of the Vendor's obligations nor the Vendor's right to receive payment hereunder shall be
permitted.
However, upon written request approved by the issuing purchasing authority and solely as a convenience to the Vendor,
the State may:
a. Forward the Vendor's payment check directly to any person or entity designated by the Vendor, and
b. Include any person or entity designated by Vendor as a joint payee on the Vendor's payment check.
In no event shall such approval and action obligate the State to anyone other than the Vendor and the Vendor shall remain
responsible for fulfillment of all Contract obligations. Upon advance written request, the State may, in its unfettered
discretion, approve an assignment to the surviving entity of a merger, acquisition or corporate reorganization, if made as
part of the transfer of all or substantially all of the Vendor's assets. Any purported assignment made in violation of this
provision shall be void and a material breach of this Contract.
13. INSURANCE:
COVERAGE - During the term of the Contract, the Vendor at its sole cost and expense shall provide commercial insurance
of such type and with such terms and limits as may be reasonably associated with the Contract. As a minimum, the Vendor
shall provide and maintain the following coverage and limits:
a. Worker's Compensation - The Vendor shall provide and maintain Worker's Compensation Insurance, as required
by the laws of North Carolina, as well as employer's liability coverage with minimum limits of $500,000.00, covering all of
Vendor's employees who are engaged in any work under the Contract. If any work is sub -contracted, the Vendor shall
require the sub -Contractor to provide the same coverage for any of his employees engaged in any work under the Contract.
b. Commercial General Liability - General Liability Coverage on a Comprehensive Broad Form on an occurrence
basis in the minimum amount of $1,000,000.00 Combined Single Limit. (Defense cost shall be in excess of the limit of
liability.)
c. Automobile - Automobile Liability Insurance, to include liability coverage, covering all owned, hired and non -owned
vehicles, used in connection with the Contract. The minimum combined single limit shall be $250,000.00 bodily injury and
property damage; $250,000.00 uninsured/under insured motorist; and $2,500.00 medical payment.
REQUIREMENTS - Providing and maintaining adequate insurance coverage is a material obligation of the Vendor and is
of the essence of this Contract. All such insurance shall meet all laws of the State of North Carolina. Such insurance
Ver: 9/30/16 Page 29 of 42

RFP Number: 16-007278 Vendor: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
coverage shall be obtained from companies that are authorized to provide such coverage and that are authorized by the
Commissioner of Insurance to do business in North Carolina. The Vendor shall at all times comply with the terms of such
insurance policies, and all requirements of the insurer under any such insurance policies, except as they may conflict with
existing North Carolina laws or this Contract. The limits of coverage under each insurance policy maintained by the Vendor
shall not be interpreted as limiting the Vendor's liability and obligations under the Contract.
14. GENERAL INDEMNITY: The Vendor shall hold and save the State, its officers, agents, and employees, harmless from
liability of any kind, including all claims and losses accruing or resulting to any other person, firm, or corporation furnishing
or supplying work, services, materials, or supplies in connection with the performance of this Contract, and from any and
all claims and losses accruing or resulting to any person, firm, or corporation that may be injured or damaged by the
Vendor in the performance of this Contract and that are attributable to the negligence or intentionally tortious acts of the
Vendor provided that the Vendor is notified in writing within 30 days that the State has knowledge of such claims. The
Vendor represents and warrants that it shall make no claim of any kind or nature against the State's agents who are
involved in the delivery or processing of Vendor goods or services to the State. The representation and warranty in the
preceding sentence shall survive the termination or expiration of this Contract.
15. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR: Vendor shall be considered to be an independent contractor and as such shall be
wholly responsible for the work to be performed and for the supervision of its employees. Vendor represents that it has,
or will secure at its own expense, all personnel required in performing the services under this contract. Such employees
shall not be employees of, or have any individual contractual relationship with the State.
16. KEY PERSONNEL: Vendor shall not substitute key personnel assigned to the performance of this contract without prior
written approval by the State's assigned Contract Lead. The individuals designated as key personnel for purposes of this
contract are those specified in the RFP and persons identified in Vendor's proposal.
17. SUBCONTRACTING: Work proposed to be performed under this contract by the Vendor or its employees shall not be
subcontracted without prior written approval of the State's assigned Contract Administrator. Unless otherwise indicated,
acceptance of a Vendor's proposal shall include approval to use the subcontractor(s) that have been specified therein in
accordance with paragraph 20 of Attachment A: Instructions to Vendor.
18. TERMINATION FOR CONVENIENCE: The State may terminate this contract at any time by providing _ days' notice
in writing from the State to the Vendor. In that event, all finished or unfinished deliverable items prepared by the Vendor
under this contract shall, at the option of the State, become its property. If the contract is terminated by the State as
provided in this section, the State shall pay for services satisfactorily completed by the Vendor, less any payment or
compensation previously made.
19. CONFIDENTIALITY: Any State information, data, instruments, documents, studies or reports given to or prepared or
assembled by or provided to the Vendor under this contract shall be kept as confidential, used only for the purpose(s)
required to perform this contract and not divulged or made available to any individual or organization without the prior
written approval of the State.
20. CARE OF PROPERTY. The Vendor agrees that it shall be responsible for the proper custody and care of any property
furnished it by the State for use in connection with the performance of this contract or purchased by or for the State for
this contract, and Vendor will reimburse the State for loss or damage of such property while in Vendor's custody,
21, PROPERTY RIGHTS: All deliverable items and materials produced for or as a result of this contract shall become the
property of the State, and Vendor hereby assigns all ownership rights in such deliverables, including all intellectual property
rights; to the State; provided, however, that as to any preexisting works imbedded in such deliverables, Vendor hereby
grants the State a fully -paid, perpetual license to copy, distribute and adapt the preexisting works.
22. OUTSOURCING. Any Vendor or subcontractor providing call or contact center services to the State of North Carolina
shall disclose to inbound callers the location from which the call or contact center services are being arovided.
If, after award of a contract, the contractor wishes to relocate or outsource any portion of the work to a location outside
the United States, or to contract with a subcontractor for the performance of any work, which subcontractor and nature of
the work has not previously Deer disclosed to the State in writing, prior written approval must be obtained from the State
agency responsible for the contract.
Ver: 9/30/16 P acg : 30 of 42

RFP Number: 16-007278 Vendor: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
Vendor shall give notice to the using agency of any relocation of the Vendor, employees of the Vendor, subcontractors of
the Vendor, or other persons performing services under a State contract to a location outside of the United States.
23. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS: Vendor shall comply with all laws, ordinances, codes, rules, regulations, and licensing
requirements that are applicable to the conduct of its business and its performance in accordance with this contract,
including those of federal, state, and local agencies having jurisdiction and/or authority.
24. ENTIRE AGREEMENT: This RFP and any documents incorporated specifically by reference represent the entire
agreement between the parties and supersede all prior oral or written statements or agreements. This RFP, any addenda
thereto, and the Vendor's proposal are incorporated herein by reference as though set forth verbatim.
All promises, requirements, terms, conditions, provisions, representations, guarantees, and. warranties contained herein
shall survive the contract expiration or termination date unless specifically provided otherwise herein, or unless
superseded by applicable Federal or State statutes of limitation.
25. AMENDMENTS: This contract may be amended only by a written amendment duly executed by the State and the Vendor.
The NC Division of Purchase and Contract shall give prior approval to any amendment to a contract awarded through that
office.
26. WAIVER: The failure to enforce or the waiver by the State of any right or an event of breach or default on one occasion
or instance shall not constitute the waiver of such right, breach or default on any subsequent occasion or instance.
27. FORCE MAJEURE: Neither party shall be deemed to be in default of its obligations hereunder if and so long as it is
prevented from performing such obligations as a result of events beyond its reasonable control, including without limitation,
fire, power failures, any act of war, hostile foreign action, nuclear explosion, riot, strikes or failures or refusals to perform
under subcontracts, civil insurrection, earthquake, hurricane, tornado, or other catastrophic natural event or act of God.
28. SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY: Notwithstanding any other term or provision in this contract, nothing herein is intended nor
shall be interpreted as waiving any claim or defense based on the principle of sovereign immunity that otherwise would
be available to the State under applicable law.
This Space is Intentionally Left Blank
Ver: 9130/16 Page 31 of 42

RFP Number: 16-007278 Vendor: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
ATTACHMENT C: PRICING
RFP# 16-007278
RFP TITLE: FULL DELIVERY PROJECTS TO PROVIDE STREAM MITIGATION CREDITS WITHIN
CATALOGING UNIT 06020002 OF THE HIWASSEE RIVER BASIN AS DESCRIBED IN THE
SCOPE OF WORK
A Separate Sealed Cost Proposal Is Required For Each Proposed Site And For Each Option Proposed For A Site.
VENDOR MUST LIST ON THE FRONT OF EACH SEALED COST PROPOSAL ENVELOPE, The Site
Name/Location And Option Number (If Applicable) Must Be Indicated.
All costs related to the mitigation offered must be included in this SEALED COST PROPOSAL. No additional
charges for travel, per diem, or cost of any services will be allowed. Cost will be a major factor in the selection
of proposals. ALL Sealed Cost Proposals will be compared to mitigation cost data maintained by the NCDMS.
SITE NAME See Separate Sealed Envelope with Cost Proposal
OPTION
PROPOSED COST
GRAND TOTAL: N/A
RIPARIAN WETLAND CREDIT OFFER FOR POSSIBLE FUTURE PURCHASE
CREDIT COST
($/CREDIT)
I
N/A
Printed Name of Authorized Representative
N/A
Company Name (Printed)
N/A
Signature of Authorized Representative
►1h_1
Date
Ver: 9/30/16 Page 32 of 42

RFP Number: 16-007278 Vendor: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
ATTACHMENT D: LOCATION OF WORKERS UTILIZED BY VENDOR
In accordance with NC General Statute 143-59.4, the Vendor shall detail the location(s) at which performance will occur, as well
as the manner in which it intends to utilize resources or workers outside of the United States in the performance of this Contract.
The State will evaluate the additional risks, costs, and other factors associated with such utilization prior to making an award.
Please complete items a, b, and c below.
a) Will any work under this Contract be performed outside the United States? ❑ YES ® NO
If the Vendor answered "YES" above, Vendor must complete items 1 and 2 below:
List the location(s) outside the United States where work under this Contract will be performed by the Vendor. any
sub -Contractors, employees, or other persons performing work under the Contract:
2. Describe the corporate structure and location of corporate employees and activities of the Vendor, its affiliates or any
other sub -Contractors that will perform work outside the U.S.:
b) The Vendor agrees to provide notice, in writing to the State, of the relocation of the
Vendor, employees of the Vendor, sub -Contractors of the Vendor, or other persons ® YES ❑ NO
performing services under the Contract outside of the United States
NOTE: All Vendor or sub -Contractor personnel providing call or contact center services to
the State of North Carolina under the Contract shall disclose to inbound callers the
location from which the call or contact center services are being provided.
c) Identify all U.S. locations at which performance will occur: Asheville, Charlotte and Cary, North Carolina, US
This Space is Intentionally Left Blank
Ver: 9/30/16 Page 33 of 42

RFP Number: 16-007278 Vendor: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
ATTACHMENT E: CERTIFICATION OF FINANCIAL CONDITION
Name of Vendor: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
The undersigned hereby certifies that: [check all applicable boxes]
[XI The Vendor is in sound financial condition and, if applicable, has received an unqualified audit opinion for the latest
audit of its financial statements.
Date of latest audit: December 31, 2016
® The Vendor has no outstanding liabilities, including tax and judgment liens, to the internal Revenue Service or any
other government entity.
® The Vendor is current in all amounts due for payments of federal and state taxes and required employment -related
contributions and withholdings.
® The Vendor is not the subject of any current litigation or findings of noncompliance under federal or state law.
® The Vendor has not been the subject of any past or current litigation, findings in arry past litigation, or findings of
noncompliance under federal or state law that may impact in any way its ability to fulfill the requirements of this
Contract.
® He or she is authorized to make the foregoing statements on behalf of the Vendor.
Note: This is a continuing certification and Vendor shall notify the Contract Lead within 15 days of any material change
to any of the representations made herein.
If any one or more of the foregoing boxes is NOT checked, Vendor shall explain the reason in the space below:
Signature
Dwain G. Hathaway, PE
I /-z r261
Date
Vice President / Office Executive
Printed Name Title
[This Certification must be signed by an individual authorized to speak for the Vendor]
Ver 9/30/16 Page 34 of 42

RFP Number: 16-007278 Vendor: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
ATTACHMENT F: ADDITIONAL VENDOR INFORMATION
VENDOR'S INFORMATION
Vendors Primary Contact (or Project Manager)
Name:
Jacob M. Byers, PE
Agency:
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
Title:
NC Ecosystem Services Manager
Address:
797 Haywood Road, Suite 201
City:
Asheville
State/ Zip: NC
Telephone:
828-412-6101
Fax: [phone]
Email:
[e-mail]
Vendors Execution Address (Where the contract should be mailed forsignature)
Name:
Dwain G. Hathaway, PE
Agency:
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
Title:
North Carolina Office Executive / Vice President
Address:
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
City:
Cary
State/Zip: NC
27518
Telephone:
919-481-5700
Fax: [phone]
Email:
[e-mail]
Vendors Payment (Remit -To) Address (Where the checks should be mailed)
(This address should agree with the "Remit -To" address associated with the Vendor's Tax ID. This information must
be verified with the Vendor's Corporate Accounting Office)
Name:
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
Agency:
ATTN: Michele Gow
Title:
Address:
PO Box 360451
City:
Pittsburgh
State/Zip: PA
15251-6541
Telephone:
724-495-4059
Fax:
Email:
[e-mail]
Ver: 9/30/16 Page 35 of 42

RFP Number: 16-007278
Vendor: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
ATTACHMENT G: CERTIFICATION OF ELIGIBILITY-IRAN DIVESTMENT ACT
CERTIFICATION OF ELIGIBILITY
Under the Iran Divestment Act
As provided in G.S. 147-86.59, any person identified as engaging in investment activities in Iran, determined by appearing
on the Final Divestment List created by the State Treasurer pursuant to G.S. 147-86.58, is ineligible to contract with the
State of North Carolina or any political subdivision of the State. The Iran Divestment Act of 2015, G.S. 147-86.55 et seq.*
requires that each Vendor, prior to contracting with the State certify, and the undersigned on behalf of the Vendor does
hereby certify, to the following:
1. that the Vendor is not identified on the Final Divestment List of entities that the State Treasurer has determined
engages in investment activities in Iran;
2. that the Vendor shall not utilize on any contract with the State agency any subcontractor that is identified on the Final
Divestment List; and
3. that the undersigned is authorized by the Vendor to make this Certification.
Vendor: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
By: ijf,--- \ I
Signature
Dwain G. Hathaway, PE
Printed Name
%-7/2lDi --7
Date
NC; Office Executive / Vice President
Title
The State Treasurer's Final Divestment List can be found on the State Treasurer's website at the address
https://www. nctreasurer.com/inside-the-department/OpenGovernmenVPages/l ran-Divestment-Act-
Resources.aspx, which will be updated every 180 days. For questions about the Department of State
Treasurer's Iran Divestment Policy, please contact Meryl Murtagh at [e-mail] or
[phone].
" Note: Enacted by Session Law 2015-118 as G.S. 143C-55 et seq., but renumbered for codification at the direction of
the Revisor of Statutes.
Ver: 9/30/16 Page 36 of42

RFP Number., 16-007278 Vendor: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
ATTACHMENT H: TARGETED LOCAL WATERSHED MAPS
Hiwassee 06020002 Full Delivery RFP
Targeted Watersheds with Cold Thermal Regimes
for HIAWASEE RIVER BASIN - Cataloging Unit 06020002
HUC #
LWP
HUC #
LWP
HUC #
LWP
6020002060010
No
6020002100020
No
6020002170010
Yes
6020002090010
No
6020002100030
No
6020002180010
No
6020002090020
Yes
6020002100040
Yes
6020002180020
No
6020002100010
No
6020002100050
Yes
T
LJ0t
�(
! 9_
\JJ.A
Da
y
t
I
N
�!w
Wit
k} AW
CD
CD
CL
A '
CD
v- a
CD
to
to
CD
CD
O
Ver: 9/30/16 Page 37 of 42

RFP Number: 16-007278 Vendor: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
ATTACHMENT I: TECHNICAL EVALUATION SCORESHEET
Important Notes/Guidance
1. Projects MUST be located within DMS Targeted Local Watersheds within Hiwassee 06020002 (Attachment G Table and Map). Projects located within Local Watershed Planning (LWP) or
Regional Watershed Plan (RWP)HUCs may receive additional points, as noted in Section 1.0 of this Technical Proposal Rating Form (or "scoresheet").
2. Questions in sections 1 through 4 are required and MUST be addressed in the proposal. BONUS questions in Section 5 (after the required section) may receive additional points, but
will NOT disqualify a Provider's proposal if unanswered or not applicable. Bonus questions can add up to 7 points to the total score.
W Technical Proposal Evaluation Criteria
Hiwassee 06020002 CU Rating Form
Offeror:
Site Name:
River Basin 11
Catalog Unit:
RFP Number:
This completed form can be found in the Appendices Section
Date of Site
Evaluation:
Type/Amt of
Mitigation
Offered:
Proposal
Review
Committee:
Alternate
Attendees:
Overall hierlt(Proposal Screening)or
1-For stream mitigation projects, does the Technical Proposal adequately document the historical presence of stream(s) on the
project site, and provide the drainage areas (acres) and provide accurate, process -based descriptions of all project stream reaches
and tributaries?
2-For proposals that include wetland mitigation, does the technical proposal adequately document the presence of hydric soil
indicators (including soil boring logs prepared by a Licensed Soil Scientist and a map showing soil boring locations and mapped soil
series)?
3-For proposals that include wetland mitigation, does the proposed success hydroperiod exceed the 5`yo minimum and is it
appropriate for the project site and soil series? If the proposed hydroperiod differs from the 20161RTguidance, justification must
be provided in the RFP.
4-Does the proposal adequately document the physical, chemical and/or biological impairments that currently exist on the project
site?
5-Does DMS agree with the overall mitigation approach (proposed levels of intervention) presented? [The Technical Proposal
must demonstrate that the proposed mitigation activities are appropriate for existing site conditions and watershed
characteristics (e.g., adjacent land use/land cover), and are optimized to yield maximum functional gains.]
6-Does DMS agree with the proposed credit structure(s) described in the proposal?
7-Does the proposed project avoid significant adverse impacts to existing wetlands and/or streams?
8-Does the proposal adequately describe how the project will advance DMS watershed planning goals?
9-For any proposed Priority II restoration, are all the following elements included in the proposal OR is Priority
2 stream restoration limited to "tie-ins' (designed tributary confluences)?
-Floodplain bench grading will extend a minimum 1.5 bankfull widths beyond the stream belt -width (no
meanderingfloodplains — see Diagram below).
The floodplain will be over -excavated to accommodate replacement of topsoil.
I
The design and construction oversight Will ensure the management of topsoil to include the harvest and segregated
stockpiling of A and B soil horizons for placement on excavated floodplain features.
-The slopes between the outer edge of floodplain grading and the terrace will be a minimum of 5:1.
Note: An answer of No in this section means the Technical Proposal is rejected. ~
Continue or Reject?
Ver: 9/30/16 Page 38 of 42

RFP Number. 16-007278 Vendor: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
2W
____._. ~Wn for P66ft 11 Qwstim About.
/.I.0ty q Ns+cllrl.ln ti.wvh
IW
t..il.t V. d-V mIM�nWn[
Ica
.W
12
.50
tm
'�` mrPvi chsr.nvlwldth
,�{'
-150
i0 f40�Wn;hwldlh{1.5 tinO�;M1rn».I�v{dlM1Yb.q.rMtM blNw Mth
O IOD 700 300 +IOD :AO
Section 1.0 - Watershed Module [20 Points Possible] REQUIRED
For proposed projects located outside of a Local Watershed Plan (LWP) area -- but within another targeted HUC (TLW,
TRA) -- to what extent does the project support the restoration goals? The following CU-wide and TLW goals are
documented in the Hiwassee River Basin Restoration Priorities report (see link below): 1- reduce sediment inputs to streams;
2 - reduce nutrient inputs to streams; 3 - restore degraded aquatic habitat ; 4 - restore riparian buffers . [Provider must
describe specific elements/features of the current site conditions and proposed project design that will contribute
substantially to meeting these goals.]
resses
Projects Located within LWP or RWP
For projects located within the Peachtree -Martins Creek LWP, does proposed project address stressors and sources as
identified in Findings and Recommendations Summary? The major LWP stressors/sources include: 1- lack of riparian
vegetation; 2 - channel modification; 3 - excess nutrients and sediment; 4 - fecal bacterial contamination; 5 - stormwater
pollutants and velocities; and 8 - groundwater contamination. To receive points, Provider must describe in detail how the
proposed project will contribute significantly to addressing identified stressors.
Project addresses fewer than 2 stressors. 1 point
IProiect addresses 2 to 4 of 8 stressors. 5 points I I
IProiect addresses 5 to 6 of 8 stressors. 15 points I I
addresses 7 to 8 of 8 stressors 20 points
Ver: 9130/16 Page 39 of 42

RFP Number: 16-007278 Vendor: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
Section 2.0 - Uplift_ProTe fial-M'ddule [60 Poin`ts Possib`ferRECEOIKE
_ Stream (SMUs) Focus
1
What is the proportion of significant, obvious incision (BHR > —1.5)?
Less than 50% of the proposed footage exhibits significant, obvious incision. 1 point --
50-75% of t`ne proposed footage exhibits significant, obvious incision. 5 points
>75% of the proposed footage exhibits significant, obvious incision_ 15 points
2
What is the proportion of the existing condition proposed for treatment indicative of active bank erosion? Active bank
erosion includes surficial scour (distinguished from bare banks), hyraulic and mechanical bank failures.
Less than 20% active erosion. 1 point
20-50% active erosion. 5 points
>50% active erosion. 15 points
3
What is the dominant buffer vegetation condition?
Small woody Vegetation >30 feet in width (shrub, early successional trees). 1 point
Small woody vegetation <30 feet in width or an herbaceous dominated condition; or mature
trees are scattered and sparse within the proposed boundary (the proposed reach
treatments could take place with minimal impacts to mature trees). 5 points
No buffer vegetation, maintained cover, or grazed pasture; or impervious cover proposed
for removal. 15 points
4
What is the percent of proposed easement length actively subject to water quality stressors that will be addressed by the
project? [stressors within or immediately adjacent to easement may include pasture with direct livestock access, livestock
exclusion but with poorly managed crossings, hydrologic bypass of buffers (e.g. the drains, discharge outfalls, hydrologic
connections to livestock wallows or CAFO ponds), stormwater outfalls, adjacent row crops, maintained vegetation, or
impervious surfaces within 30 feet of proposed easement boundary]
Proportion of affected length less than 50%. 1 point
Proportion of affected length 50-75%. 5 points
Proportion of affected length >75%. 15 points
The following multiplier is included to prevent a bias against stream projects that include appropriate levels of
!enhancement.
_
TOTAL STREAM SMU FOCUS POINTS
Ratio of Total LF to SMUs:
SECTION 2 (Streams) TOTAL = Stream SMU focus total x
Ratio of Total LF to SMUs (not to exceed 60 points)
Ver: 9/30/16 Page 40 of 42

RFP Number. 96-007278 Vendor: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
section 3.0 - implementation and Risko u e Points Possiblej REQUIRED
1
Physical constraints or barriers (i.e. utilities, culverts, property lines, easements, managed areas, etc.) that affect project
design and effectiveness. [Percentages calculated based upon adding total linear footage of crossings, roadways, utilities,
>10 % of the total project footage is segmented by crossings, roadways, or utility
rights of way. 1point
5-10 % of the total project footage is segmented by crossings, roadways, or utility
rights of way. 5 points
< 5% of the total project footage is segmented by crossings, roadways, or utility
rights of way. 10 points
Project is not affected by crossings, roadways, and/or utilities; or project with
existing constraints removes or relocates the constraints or barriers such that the
design is not significantly affected by the constraint(s). 15 points
Section 4.0 - Provider Experience [15 Points Possible] REQUIRED
1 Similar mitigation projects completed by the Offeror (through at least 3 years of monitoring).
Completed less than 5 mitigation projects. 2 points
Completed more than 5 mitigation projects. 5 points
2
Experience
of Project Team (people actually completing work)
Project team contains at !east two individuals with mitigation experience specific to
project evaluation, acquisition, design, construction, and monitoring. 2 points
All of the above and at least two projects brought to successful regulatory closure
with the Interagency Review Team (IRT). 10 points
Nor -
REQUIRED SECTION5 TOTAL
Ver: 9130/16 Page 41 of 42

RFP Number: 16-007278
Vendor: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
Section 5.0 - Bonus Module (7 points possible)
I 1
i
i[Flyperlink
Is the proposed project located within a priority subwatershed within the LWP or RWP area?
to LWP or RWP), 1 point
2
Does the proposal implement all or part of a project identified within the LWP or RWP Project Atlas?
1 point
3
For projects Located within or outside LWP (but still in a designated TLW): Does the project's
conceptual design include one or more structural BMPs (other than livestock exclusion fencing and
alternate watering) within or immediately upstream of the project easement such that nutrient
and/or sediment inputs or, hydraulic stresses from outside the project easement are more
effectively addressed? [In rural subwatersheds, this would be agricultural BMPs; in urban/suburban
watersheds, this would be stormwater BMPsJ The BMP locations and types should be clearly
identified on a map figure in the proposal. 1 point.
4
Project reach(es) are on or confluent to (directly discharge to) an impaired stream or waterbody.
Impaired waters include those that are 303d listed (Category 5) or Category 4 waters, per the
most recent Integrated Report (provided online by NC DWR). 1 point
5
JProposed project is on or drains to WS-classified reach(es) within a Water Supply watershed,
as designated by NC DWR. 1 point
Ability to connect adjacent (having a common boundary with) natural habitats and extend
wildlife corridors. 1 point i
8
JProposed project boundaries are directly contiguous to (have a common boundary with) '
another protected property.
Proposed project easement shares at least one boundary
Proposed project easement shares at least one boundary with
another mitigation property (DMS project or approved
9
For stream or buffer mitigation projects on first order streams (headwater drainages), do project
easements extend upstream toward drainage divides on all tributaries/reaches such that flow
(whether perennial, intermittent or ephemeral) in >90% of all upstream channels is captured within
the project easement(s)? [To receive points, Provider must include appropriate maps and
calculations to demonstrate that this criterion is met,] 1 point.
TOTAL BONUS POINTS
Total Required Section Points (Maximum Possible = 110 Points) -
+ Bonus Points (Maximum Possible = 7 Points) _
Total Points =
Proposal Rating ( Score x 0.01) _
(Comments:
Ver: 9/30/16 Page 42 of 42

Mitigation Services
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretary
July 25, 2017
THIS ADDENDUM MUST BE RETURNED WITH YOUR TECHNICAL PROPOSAL
RFP NO.
16-007278
RFP TITLE:
Full Delivery Projects To Provide Stream Mitigation
Credits Within Cataloging Unit 06020002 of the
Hiwassee River Basin
ADDENDUM NO.
1
USING
Division of Mitigation Services
AGENCY:
PURCHASER
KATHY DALE
OPENING
September 21, 2017 @ 2:00 P.M.
DATE/TIME:
This correspondence serves as an addendum to the subject RFP. Your response to this RFP should be governed
by the content of the original RFP and the additional information provided in this addendum notice.
SECTION I
ADDITIONAL NEEDS:
DMS wishes to increase the need for stream credits by 500 credits; The new total request for stream credits
is 3,500.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
QUESTION# 1: Section 3.0, question 1 of the Technical Evaluation Scoresheet seems to be cut off.
Please clarify.
Answer:
Section 3.0, Question 1 of the Technical Evaluation Scoresheet should read, "Physical constraints
or barriers (i.e. utilities, culverts, property lines, easements, managed areas, etc.) that affect
project design and effectiveness. [Percentages calculated based upon adding total linear footage
of crossings, roadways, utilities, or reduced buffer; divided by total linear footage.]"
CLARIFICATION
1) The RFP states that contractor "must use latest templates, found on DMS website" (Section
2.6). The spreadsheet from the hyperlink has later versions (4126/15 and 5/5/17) of the
conservation easement doc. However, the RFP states to use the 9/4114 template.
Vendors shall use the appropriate conservation easement template as defined in the RFP. Do
not use the 9/4/14 template.
RFP 16-007278 Page 1 of 2

PLEASE NOTE —THIS ADDENDUM MUST BE RETURNED WITH YOUR TECHNICAL PROPOSAL
2) The following URL is an interactive map specific for this RFP
https://ncdenr.maps.arcg is.com/apps/webappviewerlindex.htm I?id=5bd8a782804b4a8989048a4cca7ed8f4
SECTION 2
Check ONLY ONE of the following categories and if required, return one properly executed copy of
this addendum prior to bid opening time and date.
❑ Bid has already been mailed. Changes resulting from this addendum are attached.
❑ Bid has already been mailed. NO CHANGES resulted from this addendum.
© Bid has NOT been mailed and ANY CHANGES resulting from this addendum are included in
our offer.
SECTION 3
Execute Addendum:
BIDDER: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
ADDRESS (CITY & STATE): 8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600, Cary, NC 27518
AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE: ( DATE: 9/5/2017
Note: It is the offeror's responsibility to choose the appropriate delivery method to guarantee that the
offer is received by the Issuing Agency by the Opening Date/Time noted in the RFP.
DELIVERED BY US POSTAL SERVICE
(Mail at least 7 business days prior to Bid
Closin Date)
DELIVERED BY ANY OTHER MEANS (UPS / FEDEX I
ETC.)
((Suggestion: Request Signature Receipt)
SEALED BID
SEALED BID
RFP 16-007278
RFP 16-007278
NC DEPT ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
NC DEPT ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
ATTN: KATHY DALE
ATTN: KATHY DALE
1652 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
217 W. JONES STREET, SUITE 3409-J
RALEIGH NC 27699-1652
RALEIGH NC 27603
IT IS THE OFFER'S RESPONSIBILITY TO CONTINUOUSLY CHECK FOR ADDENDA UP TO THE LAST
POSTED OPENING DATE/TIME AND TO ASSURE THAT ALL ADDENDA HAVE BEEN REVIEWED,
SIGNIGNED AND RETURNED IF REQUIRED.
RFP 16-007278 Page 2 of 2

CU`.
.�tIvIrAlIfF
lo Al
.7
red .. A
C-)
0
(D
(D
rt
rt
(D

Hiwassee River Basin
16-0072781 CU 06020002
BLMR CREEK
MITIGATION PROJECT
September 21, 2017 Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600, Cary NC 27518
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Office: 919-463-5488 1 Fax: [phone]
Division of Mitigation Services
Attn: Kathy Dale, 217 West Jones Street, Suite 3409-J
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
RE: Proposal to Provide Stream Mitigation Credits through the Blair Creek Mitigation Project,
RFP # 16-007278, Hiawassee River Basin Cataloging Unit 06020002
Dear Ms. Dale:
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. (Michael Baker) is pleased to present to the North Carolina Department of Environmental
Quality; Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS) the following proposal to provide cold water stream mitigation credits in
the Hiwassee River Basin (Cataloging Unit 06020002) in response to RFP 16-007278. This proposal is a firm offer from
Michael Baker and shall remain open for acceptance by NCDMS for a period of 180 days from the opening date of
September 21, 2017 for the above -referenced RFP. All paper contained within this proposal is printed double -sided and
has a post -consumer recycled content of at least 30 percent.
Michael Baker has entered into contracts to purchase a conservation easement on acreage to comprise the Blair Creek
Mitigation Project, which is in Clay County, in the Town of Hayesville. The project site is located in the NCDMS Targeted
Local Watershed (TLW) 06020002060010 of the Hiwassee River Basin. The project will involve restoration and
enhancement of stream, wetland, and riparian buffer functions along Blair Creek (North Fork, South Fork, Blair Creek
Proper) and an unnamed tributary to Blair Creek.
As described more fully in the following Technical Proposal, the proposed restoration project will not only provide up to
4,320 cold water stream mitigation credits, but will also accomplish ecological improvements through habitat restoration
and a decrease in nutrient and sediment loads from the watershed. The proposed option is listed below and is described
in more detail in the Executive Summary Section of the Technical Proposal:
Project Mitigation Summary Table
Michael Baker has extensive restoration and mitigation implementation experience and understands the most recent
requirements and standards applicable for restoration in this watershed within the Hiwassee River Basin. Accordingly,
Michael Baker is in a strong position to implement this proposed project in a timely and effective manner. In summary,
this restoration project will include the following:
• Up to 4,320 cold water stream credits utilizing a broad, balanced approach including restoration, enhancement, and
permanent protection to address the stream reaches in the project watershed, providing the maximum possible
functional uplift.
• Removal of agricultural impairments to surface waters along more than 4,400 linear feet (LF) of stream channel which
will result in a reduction of sediment and nutrient loadings from the watershed.
• Improved water quality by allowing restored stream buffers to remove nutrients and sediment, while stream
restoration and bank stabilization will reduce erosion in the stream channel, and allow streams to access restored
floodplains.
LZZ- 1VER
INTERNATIONAL

Hiwassee River Basin I BLMR CREEK
: 16-0072781 Cu 06020002 MITIGATION PROJECT
Improvements to aquatic, riparian, and wetland habitat functions for maximum uplift of the site's ecological function.
The information provided in this proposal is being submitted for the sole purpose of responding to the above -referenced
request for proposals. We greatly appreciate your consideration of this proposal and look forward to hearing from you
regarding NCDMS's decision. We would appreciate the opportunity to complete the presentation of this proposal to
NCDMS through a field visit and discussion.
Sincerely,
Dwain G. Hathaway, PE
North Carolina Office Executive
[e-mail] PH:919-481-5700
1VER
INTERNATIONAL
Ja Jacob M. Byers, PE
NC Ecosystem Services Manager
[e-mail] PH:828-412-6101

y
'r �'- a +� Fri M1,, 4 r • 1 ,� ,
C
fi w:�a�
red-
�1+ - ' 'Y it ,A L ' • �

Hiwassee River Basin BI AIR CREEK
: 16-007278/ CU 06020002 1 MITIGATION PROJECT
Part 1. Executive Summary
This Executive Summary outlines the proposed Blair Creek Mitigation Project, presented by Michael Baker Engineering,
Inc. (Michael Baker). The project will provide stream mitigation credits in the Hiwassee River Basin (Cataloging Unit
06020002) in response to RFP 16007278. The project is located in the NCDMS Targeted Local Watershed (TLW)
06020002060010 of the Hiwassee River Basin in Clay County.
�- ej
The project will involve the restoration, enhancement, and
preservation of 4 stream reaches, totaling approximately 4,407 linear
feet (LF) of existing streams, (R1, R2, R3, and UT1) that are part of the
Blair Creek project drainage area. In addition, degraded riparian
wetlands will be restored or enhanced through implementing Priority
Level 1 restoration and through revegetation of the riparian buffer.
This broad, balanced approach is critical as it addresses all of the
intermittent and perennial stream reaches on the project property,
including restoring riparian buffers alone all of the project stream
reaches currently in agriculture or without adequate buffers,
restoring non-functioning historical riparian wetlands, and
protecting and enhancing existing wetlands. Thus, the project
provides the maximum functional uplift utilizing a watershed
approach. The existing stream reaches have been significantly
impacted by past unrestricted livestock access, current row crop
production, and removal of riparian buffers. The project has
primarily cleared stream reaches with some narrow buffer mostly
composed of invasive species. The project stream reaches are
unstable, incised and exhibit active bank erosion. All the project
reaches lack adequate riparian buffers. Currently, the project reaches
act as sources of sediment and nutrient contamination to Blair Creek
and ultimately the Hiwassee River.
The following is a brief description of the proposed treatments of all the stream reaches on the project site. Treatment
of R1, R2, and R3 will involve restoration practices. All the reaches proposed for restoration practices are perennial
streams. Level II Enhancement is proposed for UT1 based on the current condition of the reach and because the reach
is an intermittent headwater channel. Level II Enhancement practices will primarily focus on planting along with spot
stabilization of eroding banks, arresting of any headcuts, and making stable transitions at downstream confluences.
Wetlands or hydric soils noted during field investigations will be restored or enhanced. Restoration will be accomplished
through implementing a Priority 1 restoration approach, which will raise the streambed elevation, increasing
groundwater levels in the adjacent hydric soils.
Wetland enhancement will be accomplished through revegetation of a native riparian wetland vegetation community,
and permanently protecting both soil structure and vegetation.
Although wetland functions may be restored and enhanced in various areas throughout the proposed conservation
easement, no wetland credit is being requested. As such, a detailed hydric soils report or wetland delineation is not
included.
Buffers in excess of 30 feet will be established along all proposed reaches. In addition, existing functional wetlands will
be incorporated inside the conservation easement to protect them in perpetuity.
All stream work will be protected by a perpetual conservation easement. Detailed narratives of the proposed practices
are provided in Part 5.3. Our proposed mitigation is summarized in the table below, and specific design approaches and
details are described in more narrative detail in the Technical Approach.
1VEli
INTERNATIONAL

Fliwassee River Basin j BI AIR CREEK
RFP#: 16-007278/ CU 06020002 I MITIGATION PROJECT
Mitigation Summary
Mitigation Type(s)
Total Stream Credits Total Stream Credits (Proposed for
(Potential) Contract)
Restoration and Enhancement II 4,320 3,500
This approach includes the treatment of all stream reaches at the project site. Treatment of R1, R2, and R3 will involve
restoration practices. All the reaches proposed for restoration practices are perennial streams. Level II Enhancement
is proposed for UT1 based on the current condition of the reach and because the reach is an intermittent headwater
channel. Level II Enhancement practices will primarily focus on planting along with the spot stabilization of eroding
banks, the arresting of any headcuts, and making stable transitions at downstream confluences.
Isolated pockets of degraded wetlands and hydric soils are located throughout the riparian zone of the project within
the proposed conservation easement. These resources will be restored or enhanced through Priority 1 restoration
and revegetation. Michael Baker understands that NCDMS is not requesting any wetland mitigation credits at this
time. Michael Baker is providing this information to NCDMS for information only and to demonstrate that the project
is maximizing the possible functional uplift potential.
- - WEFL-",
I NT ER N AT I O N At

Hiwassee River Basin BLMR CREED
: 16-007278 i CU 06020002 MITIGATION PROJECT
Mitigation Credit Summary
Project Mitigation Summary Table
Total
Reaches
Restoration
Enhancement
Total
Stream
Included
Stream
Level11
Stream
Credits
Credits
Stream
Credits
(Proposed
Credits
(Potential)
for
Contract)
R1, R2, R3, UT1
4,262
58
4,320
3,500
Project Reach Summary Table
Project
Watershed
Stream Status
Existing Channel Type
Proposed Channel
Reach
Drainage
Watershed
Based on
Mitigation
(Rosgen
Type (Rosgen
Designation
Area (acres) 1
Drainage Area
Field
Type Z
Classification)
Classification)
(sq. miles) 1
Analyses
R1
983
1.54
Perennial
R
E4
C4
R2
880
1.38
Perennial
R
E4
C4
R3
1,864
2.91
Perennial
R
E5/E4
C4
UT1
22
0.03
Intermittent
Ell
B5
B5
Project Total NCDMS Rating Form Scores' = 88 (Total Points) and 0.88 (Proposal Rating) Note 1: Watershed drainage
area is estimated based on topographic and LIDAR information at the downstream end of each reach.
Note 2: R= Restoration, EII=Level 2 Enhancement. Note 3: Project Total NCDMS Rating Form Scores are the Total Points
and Proposal Rating, respectively, as determined using the Technical Evaluation Scoresheet included in RFP 16-007278.
Note 4: Stream types of these reaches are based on best professional judgment and quick field measurements. Surveyed
cross sections were not conducted on these reaches.
Part 2. Financial Statement — See Attachment E, Certification of Financial Condition.
Part 3. Corporate Background and Experience
Michael Baker Engineering (Michael Baker) is one of the largest professional service firms, MichaelBaker
consistently ranked among the top 10 percent of US engineering practices by Engineering News- I N T E R N A T 1 o N A L
Record. Michael Baker was founded in 1940 as a civil engineering and surveying firm. Today,
with over 6,000 professional employees in the United States and abroad, Michael Baker successfully serves the Buildings,
Civil, Environmental, and Transportation markets. The company is part of Michael Baker International, which provides
high -end engineering, development, intelligence, and technology solutions with global reach and mobility.
Michael Baker has demonstrated the ability to work with local, state and federal regulatory agencies in the permitting,
design, and construction of wetland, stream, and riparian buffer restoration projects. We have worked extensively on
numerous full -delivery projects for the NCDMS and the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). With
nearly 120 North Carolina employees working full-time on projects, Michael Baker has the manpower and expertise to
successfully carry out existing projects as well as secure and carry out new projects. Michael Baker operates in North
Carolina as Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. and has environmental staff in Charlotte, Asheville, Cary, and Greensboro.
Ability to Carry Out All Phases of Proposal: The Michael Baker team has extensive experience in all aspects of full -delivery
restoration work, having completed many projects for NCDMS, Clean Water Management Trust Fund, NCDOT and entities
in other states.
1VEli.
INTERNATIONAL

i -lit
Hiwassee River Basin BI AIR CREEK
RFP#- 16-007278 / CU 06020002 1 MITIGATION PROJECT
Nim
Michael Baker has teamed with River Works and Kee Mapping & Surveying who have a long history of cooperation on
full -delivery projects, so NCDMS can rely on the smooth function of our team as we undertake the proposed project.
Michael Baker understands the regulatory and financial constraints associated with full -delivery projects and has shown
the ability to meet mitigation credit goals and project schedules.
Specifically, Michael Baker has identified the proposed project site and secured the necessary landowner options. The
Michael Baker Team will obtain the necessary easements, identify site constraints, and ensure site access. Michael Baker
has unparalleled experience in stream and wetland restoration design, having completed hundreds of projects that
translate into over 190 miles of stream restoration and over 3,000 acres of wetlands. Based on this experience, we are
familiar with all documentation requirements necessary to proceed with these types of projects. Michael Baker will obtain
the necessary environmental approvals and is experienced in developing Categorical Exclusions (CE) for mitigation
projects.
Michael Baker will coordinate with state and local officials to resolve any regulatory floodplain issues associated with the
restoration efforts. Once permits are issued, the Michael Baker Team will restore the site based on the concepts described
herein. River Works has extensive experience in constructing restoration projects and has a good relationship with Michael
Baker's design and construction observation personnel. Finally, once construction has been completed, Michael Baker will
follow and utilize the current NCDMS monitoring guidelines and templates to conduct the required monitoring activities
and develop monitoring reports. Throughout the monitoring process, Michael Baker will work to ensure that the site
meets NCDMS mitigation credit goals. Michael Baker has undertaken monitoring in many areas throughout North Carolina
and is familiar with the site -specific needs of the project.
Primary Sub Contractor
IMPIVER The primary sub -contractor to Michael Baker on North Carolina restoration projects is River Works,
Inc. River Works offers clients a construction contractor with the specialized expertise to implement
environmental restoration designs. The foremen and operators on the River Works team work primarily on environmental
restoration projects, and as such, have a thorough understanding of construction sequencing, erosion and sedimentation
control, water diversion, and vegetation requirements. River Works has extensive experience constructing stream and
wetland restoration projects, including the re -vegetation of restoration sites. Michael Baker and River Works have worked
together on dozens of stream restoration projects and have unparalleled experience as a full delivery team.
River Works also has extensive experience selecting and planting appropriate vegetative buffers using live stakes, bare
roots, transplants, and containerized native plant species. River Works takes great care in selecting plant material and
temporary and permanent seed mixtures specifically matched to the environment of the site. They provide on -site
supervision during planting operations to ensure that plant materials are of suitable quality, and that the materials are
planted appropriately according to each species' moisture tolerance, soil condition needs, and stage of growth.
ee Kee Mapping & Surveying offers comprehensive professional land surveying and mapping services for
North Carolina. Their main focus is providing clients with top quality mapping and surveying solutions. Kee
Mapping & Surveying was founded in 2007. Kee Mapping & Surveying specializesin GIS mapping, boundary, topographic,
and conservation easement surveys for awide variety of projects. With an in depth knowledge of local, state and federal
requirements, Kee Mapping & Surveying provides sound advice and accurate results in an efficient manner. Michael
Baker has worked with Kee Mapping & Surveying on multiple jobs with exceptional results.
Project Manager Experience
Micky Clemmons is a senior environmental scientist with Michael Baker. His responsibilities
include stream restoration design, aquatic ecology projects and project management. Prior
to joining Michael Baker, Mr. Clemmons worked for 18 years with the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission (WRC) as a fisheries biologist and was the WRC's first Stream
Restoration Coordinator. With many years of experience in fisheries biology and -
management, stream ecology, and fluvial geomorphology, Mr. Clemmons is experienced in
conducting projects that optimize habitat value and benefit aquatic species. 11
TEF
INTERNATIONAL

Hiwassee River Basin 1 0000,
BI AIR CREEK
RFP#- 16-007278 / CU 06020002 MITIGATION PROJECT
Mr. Clem mons has been the project manager for many different stream restoration and enhancement projects throughout
North Carolina and other eastern states. He has either been the project manager or played a key role in conducting sixteen
different projects for NCDMS. These include both full -delivery and design/bid/build projects, as well as watershed planning
studies. Mr. Clemmons will provide a high level of service through open communication and quality final products.
Similar Stream and Wetland Restoration Project Experience
Michael Baker has extensive experience in stream, wetland, and riparian buffer restoration. We have initiated over 400
projects in the past seven years, and have restored more than 1 million feet of streams and 3,000 acres of wetlands. We
have successfully completed 5 years of monitoring on 10 NCDMS mitigation projects and have successfully brought 10
NCDMS projects to regulatory closure and have completed the required monitoring and are in the process of closing 5
additional mitigation projects. Several examples of projects are highlighted on the following pages.
Pinch Gut Creek Restoration, NCDMS, Stokes County, NC. Michael Baker restored over 10,500 LF of perennial stream
channel in northwestern Stokes County. Streams on the site had been degraded primarily due to agricultural practices and
cattle access. The project involved restoring six tributaries that drain a headwater catchment approximately 1.7 square
miles in size. Rosgen Priority Level 1 and 2 approaches were used to restore access to an active floodplain. In -stream
structures were used to provide stream stability, as well as to improve aquatic habitat and fisheries. The restored riparian
buffers adjacent to the streams are protected through permanent fencing that excluded cattle and livestock. Michael
Baker conducted watershed analyses, performed existing condition and reference reach surveys, prepared 401/404
permitting documents, developed construction documents, and provided construction oversight. Construction was
completed in 2008, five years of project monitoring, and project regulatory closeout were successfully completed in the
summer of 2013.
=` ,k'
Pinch Gut Creek restoration work during construction and five years after.
Candiff Creek Restoration, NCDMS, Surry County, NC. Michael Baker restored, enhanced and preserved over 7,038
LF of degraded streams near Siloam, NC to provide mitigation credits and to improve water quality and stream habitat on
Candiff Creek and unnamed tributaries to Candiff Creek using natural channel design techniques. The project streams had
been heavily impacted from past agriculture activities. The streams were deeply incised and overly wide. Bank erosion
was severe throughout the majority of the project reaches. The project was completed in 2012, and In 2016, Michael
Baker completed the fifth year of post -construction monitoring. The project included existing condition surveys, data
analyses, design development based on reference reaches, permitting, construction plans and specifications, on -site
construction management, and project management. The project design was based on Rosgen Priority Level 1 approach
for restoring incised stream channels. It included channel geometry and planform modifications based on reference reach
data, reconnecting the channel with its historic floodplain, in -stream structure installation, streambank stabilization, bio-
engineering and riparian vegetation planting and management.
DIVER
INTERNATIONAL

Hiwassee River Basin BI AIR CREEK
: 16-007278 i CU 06020002 MITIGATION PROJECT
Views of Candiff Creek before and 5 years after restoration.
Browns Summit Creek Restoration, NCDMS, Guilford County, NC. Michael Baker restored 3,846 LF of jurisdictional
stream channel, enhanced 2,535 LF of stream (of which 559 is for stormwater BMPs) along unnamed tributaries to the
Haw River, restored 4.44 acres of wetland, and constructed two stormwater BMPs within the conservation easement
boundary. Due to extensive agricultural practices (dairy and beef cattle operations primarily), the streams and wetlands
on the Browns Summit project had been severely degraded. The channels had been heavily manipulated, including the
installation of multiple ponds within the channel's alignment. A Rosgen Priority Level 1 approach raised the channel such
that flows greater than bankfull are accessing the floodplain. The channel now meanders down the valley line over log
and boulder structures installed to improve stability and channel habitat. Raising the streambed and removing spoil berms
along the floodplain, also raised the groundwater level and has restored wetland hydrology. The streambanks,
floodplain/buffers, and wetlands were seeded with native herbaceous vegetation and planted with native tree species to
develop a native forest habitat. Michael Baker conducted watershed analyses, performed existing condition and reference
reach surveys, prepared a mitigation plan, prepared and submitted environmental permits, and provided construction
oversight. Construction was completed February 2017. Year 1 monitoring is underway.
Browns Summit existing conditions and just after construction.
Upper Silver Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration, NCDMS, Burke County, NC. Michael Baker restored or
enhanced 5,186 LF of perennial stream channel along Silver Creek, UT1, UT2, and UT3 and restored, enhanced or created
approximately 9.14 acres of wetlands that had been previously disturbed in Burke County, NC. The streams and wetlands
at this site had been disturbed by area gold mining operations, livestock, and channelization. Streams at this site were
restored utilizing a Rosgen Priority Level 1 approach, raising the channel, so that flows greater than bankfull can access
the floodplain. This approach included developing a meandering channel that had log and boulder structures installed to
improve stability and channel habitat. The stream restoration approach also raised the groundwater level, thereby
restoring wetland hydrology. Limited overburden was removed in wetland areas where upland soils had been deposited.
- : • DIVER
INTERNATIONAL

Hiwassee River Basin BLAIR CREEK
RFP#- 16 007278 / CU 06020002 , MITIGATION PROJECT
Stream channel buffers and wetlands were seeded with native vegetation and trees were planted throughout the project
easement area to develop a native forest habitat. Michael Baker conducted watershed analyses, performed existing
condition and reference reach surveys, prepared a mitigation plan, prepared and submitted environmental permits, and
provided construction oversight. Construction was completed December 2014, and the project is currently in monitoring
year 3.
Upper Silver Creek existing conditions and during Monitoring Year 2 (2016).
Contreras Stream and Wetland Restoration, NCDMS, Cherokee County, NC. This stream and wetland restoration project
totaling 6,854 LF of channel and 0.3 acres of wetlands on several UTs to Martin Creek in the Peachtree -Martin Creek
Watershed south of Murphy, NC was constructed in July 2013. In addition to the design and construction of restored
stream corridors, Michael Baker also worked with NCDMS to enhance approximately 0.3 acres of wetlands adjacent to a
UT by removing an old dam, constructing a transition from wetlands to stream at the dam site and excluding cattle from
the wetland. The project included the completion of an environmental review, existing condition surveys, data analyses,
development of a design based on reference conditions, permitting, construction plans and specifications, on -site
construction management, and project management. The project design was based on a Rosgen Priority 1 and 2 approach
for restoring hydrologic connectivity between streams and adjacent floodplains. This project included channel geometry
modifications, in -stream structure installation, streambank stabilization, and riparian vegetation planting. Restoration
and enhancement activities for this project involved the removal of exotic, invasive vegetation and the enhancement of
microtopography of the wetland to restore its hydrologic functions in relation to nearby streams.
Views of Contreras restoration project before and after restoration
. 1VER,
INTERNATIONAL

Hiwassee River Basin BLAIR CREED
: 16-007278 i CU 06020002 1 MITIGATION PROJECT
Multidisciplinary Project Approach:
The goal of ecosystem restoration is to return the maximum amount of hydrologic and biological functioning to a degraded
stream and/or wetland system, given land use and landform constraints. Michael Baker's team of environmental
scientists, geomorphologists, geologists, soil scientists, and surveyors lead the efforts to document the existing conditions
of the projects site and document impairments and constraints. Engineers, designers, soil scientists, and biologists then
develop restoration designs that provide the maximum functional uplift within the site constraints. Planning personnel
lead the efforts for CE tasks and permitting requirements. Hydrologists and hydraulic engineers prepare models and
analyses to evaluate Federal Emergency Management Agency requirements, flooding conditions, and sediment transport.
Several staff on the project organization chart have significant experience with regulatory review, including project close
out. Construction specialists perform constructability reviews to ensure designs are practical and can be constructed
efficiently. Construction experts, including foremen, equipment operators, laborers and vegetation specialists ensure that
sound, innovative and cost effective construction is employed in a timely manner. They are able to adapt to various
environmental and site conditions. After construction, surveyors and environmental scientists perform as -built and
monitoring surveys to document project conditions during the monitoring period. This multidisciplinary approach to
projects has been a primary factor in Michael Baker's successful track record with ecosystem restoration projects.
Resumes of Key Personnel:
INTERNATIONAL
Micky Clemmons, Senior Environmental Scientist
Project Role: Mr. Clemmons will serve as the Project Manager and will assist with design and construction inspection for
this project.
Education: MS, Biology, Western Carolina University 1987; BS, Marine Biology, UNC at Wilmington, 1984
Continuing Education: Rosgen I, Rosgen II, Rosgen III, Rosgen IV
Mr. Clemmons is a senior environmental scientist with Michael Baker. His responsibilities include stream restoration
design, aquatic ecology projects and project management. Prior to joining Michael Baker, Mr. Clemmons worked for 18
years with WRC as a fisheries biologist and was the WRC's first Stream Restoration Coordinator. With many years of
experience in fisheries biology and management, stream ecology, and fluvial geomorphology, Mr. Clemmons is
experienced in conducting projects that optimize habitat value and benefit aquatic species. Mr. Clemmons has been the
project manager for many different stream restoration and enhancement projects throughout North Carolina and other
eastern states. He has either been the project manager or played a key role in conducting 16 different projects for NCDMS.
These include both full -delivery and design/bid/build type projects, as well as watershed planning studies. Mr. Clemmons
will be NCDMS' point of contact for day to day activities and will provide a high level of service through open
communication and quality final products.
Jacob (Jake) Byers, PE, NC Ecosystem Services Manager
Project Role: Mr. Byers will serve as the Engineer of Record and QA/QC Engineer for this project.
Education: BS, Biological Engineering, NC State University, 2007
Professional Registrations: Professional Engineer, NC, #039201, 2012; NCDOT Erosion & Sediment Control/Stormwater
Certification, #3179, 2012; USDA NRCS TSP, #TSP-14-9877
Continuing Education: Rosgen I, Rosgen II, Rosgen III
Mr. Byers serves as the NC Ecosystem Restoration Services Manager, with more than 11 years of experience with analysis
and design of stream and wetland restoration projects and stormwater BMP projects. He has extensive experience as a
leader and as part of a team, in design and project management, client and agency technical coordination, sediment
transport, geomorphic assessment, construction oversight and inspection, and environmental permitting for numerous
projects. He is currently the project manager for the NCDMS Candiff Creek Stream Restoration Project and the Russell Gap
Stream Mitigation Project. He has successfully designed and implemented stream restoration projects in varying
physiographic provinces from headwater coastal plain streams to large mountain rivers.
DIVER
INTERNATIONAL

Hiwassee River Basin BLAIR CREEK
: 16-007278 i CU 06020002 1 MITIGATION PROJECT
Dwain Hathaway, PE, North Carolina Principal -In -Charge
Project Role: Mr. Hathaway will be the Offeror's Representative and Principal -In -Charge.
Education: MCE, 1996, Structures, North Carolina State University; BS, 1994, Civil Engineer, North Carolina State University
Professional Registrations: Professional Engineer, NC, 25911; GA, PE034770; SC, 23590; TX, 121036; VA, 0402039356
Mr. Hathaway currently serves as the Office Executive and vice president for Michael Baker's North Carolina operations.
In this role, Mr. Hathaway leads a multi -disciplined team of engineering professionals in the successful implementation of
a wide range of projects. Mr. Hathaway has extensive experience managing transportation projects throughout the
country, specializing in structural engineering. Mr. Hathaway brings many years of experience in engineering. In his Office
Executive role, he leads business development and manages personnel and day-to-day operations for more than 120
engineers, designers, inspectors, and specialists within the Cary, Asheville, and Greensboro offices.
Kathleen (Katie) McKeithan, PE, CPESC, CPSWO, CFM, Senior Engineer
Project Role: Ms. McKeithan will assist with designs and construction inspection for this project.
Education: BS, Biological Engineering, NC State University, 1998
Professional Registrations: Professional Engineer, NC #028432; Certified Professional in Erosion and Sediment Control,
2005, 2546; Certified Professional Storm Water Quality, 2003, 135; Certified Floodplain Manager, North Carolina, 2010,
NC-10-0359; USDA NRCS TSP, #TSP-14-9852; NCDOT Level III: Designer of Erosion and Sediment Control Plans, #3121
Continuing Education: NCSU Forestry Identification of Intermittent and Perennial Streams and Their Origins, NCSU Aquatic
Insect Collection, Rosgen I, Rosgen II, Rosgen III, Rosgen IV.
Ms. McKeithan has 19 years of experience in the environmental field including stream and wetland restoration, planning,
design and construction inspection, erosion and sedimentation control, greenway planning and design, BMPs,
sustainability, and remediation projects. Ms. McKeithan has extensive knowledge of NCDMS projects, templates and
procedures and currently serves as the project manager for the Brown Summit Restoration project for NCDMS.
Scott King, LSS, PWS, Environmental Specialist
Project Role: Mr. King will assist with analysis, design, monitoring, and construction inspection.
Education: MS, Soil Science, NC State University, 2006; BS, Biology, The College of William of Mary, 1996
Professional Registrations: Licensed Soil Scientist, North Carolina, 2008, NCLSS #1301; Professional Wetland Scientist,
2009, #1908
Continuing Education: NCSU Stream Restoration Program River Course workshops 101, 201, 401, 131, and 161, NCDWR's
Intermittent and Perennial Stream Identification for Riparian Buffer Rules, Rosgen I, Rosgen II
Mr. King has a wide range of experience in the environmental field, specializing in water quality projects. He provides a
broad array of environmental services including stream and wetland restorations, GIS analysis, wetland delineations, soil
evaluations, stormwater BMP projects, and environmental permitting. He has worked on most of Michael Baker's
currently active stream restoration projects and is managing several NCDMS projects for Michael Baker, including UT to
Cane Creek and Thomas Creek. Mr. King previously worked as a watershed planner at the NCDMS, as a researcher in the
Department of Soil Science at NC State University, and as an environmental consultant specializing in wetlands issues.
Kristi Suggs, Environmental Scientist
Project Role: Ms. Suggs will lead the development of the CE, permitting, and assist with construction inspection and post -
construction monitoring.
Education: BS, Animal and Veterinary Science, WV University, 1995; MS, Earth and Environmental Resource Management,
University of SC, 2005
Continuing Education: Wetland Delineation and Jurisdictional Determination, 2008; Intermittent and Perennial Stream
Identification for Regulatory Applications, 2007; NC Stream Assessment Method (NCSAM) and NC Wetland Assessment
Method (NCWAM), 2016; Erosion & Sediment Control, SC
Ms. Suggs has over 17 years of experience in watershed management, environmental compliance and planning, water
quality studies, and GIS. As an environmental scientist for Michael Baker, she specializes in environmental permitting,
mitigation, watershed assessments and management, water quality planning, project development and implementation,
citizen/agency facilitation, and GIS mapping. She has served as the project manager for the Town Creek, Big Cedar, Little
River, and UT to Town Creek projects for NCDMS.
TEF
INTERNATIONAL

Hiwassee River Basin BLAIR CREED
: 16-007278 i CU 06020002 1 MITIGATION PROJECT
Richard Darling, Senior Environmental Scientist
Project Role: Mr. Darling will provide senior review of protected species surveys, and permits.
Education: MS, Biological Science, Florida State University, 1986; BS, Zoology, University of Melbourne, 1983
Professional Registration: Certified Ecologist (Ecological Society of America #421)
Continuing Education: USACE Wetland Delineation, NCWAM, Rosgen I, NC Stream Identification, Aquatic Insect Collection
Mr. Darling is a senior environmental scientist with over 32 years of multi -disciplinary experience in natural resources
consulting. His background includes extensive technical direction and project management for environmental studies
including numerous protected species surveys, wetland delineations, riparian buffer determinations, wetland and stream
evaluations, Section 404/401 permitting and mitigation, documentation per the National and State (NC, FL, GA, and SC)
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA) requirements, Environmental Assessment, and Environmental Impact
Statements. Recent focus has included stream evaluation and classification, design of stream restoration and
enhancement projects, and local watershed planning.
Terry Burhans, PWS, Environmental Scientist
Project Role: Mr. Burhans will assist with stream and wetland analysis, and provide review of protected species surveys
and permits.
Education: MS, 2012, Forestry, West Virginia University; BS, 2010, Environmental Sciences, University of California,
Riverside; Graduate Studies, 2016, Soil Science, Texas Tech University
Professional Registrations: Professional Wetland Scientist, 2017, 2808; Certified Professional Soil Scientist, 2017, 406082;
Confined Space Training, WV, 2015, BBCSEOOCEN; Wetland Delineation & Management Training Program, WV, 2012; Safe
Land USA Training, WV, 2014, PEC100474438; PEC Safety Certification, WV, 2014, PEC100474438
Mr. Burhans is an Environmental Scientist with exemplary technical writing skills. He has experience in landscape level
geospatial analysis and GIS analysis, project management and collaboration, stream and wetland identification,
protection, restoration and mitigation, state and federal environmental permitting, endangered species surveys and
conservation planning including conservation measures development, implementation, and monitoring. Mr. Burhans also
has interest in Stream and Wetland Ecology, and Soil and Water Science. Mr. Burhans' additional experience is in research
entomology, outreach education, and marketing including video production and social media development.
Russell Myers, Environmental Scientist
Project Role: Mr. Myers will support the existing conditions analysis and monitoring effort.
Education: MS, 2012, Natural Resources Management NC State University; BS, 2007, Environmental Science Shepard
University.
Mr. Myers is a natural resource professional with proven experience in improving and protecting water quality. He is well
practiced in developing strategies for long-term natural resource preservation working with both government agencies
and private entities. He has a thorough background in environmental science and experience with different methods of
data collection including field surveying, GIS mapping, and project management, as well as an understanding of in-depth
jobsite inspections, technical writing and database management. Mr. Myers also has a specific understanding of natural
resource policy development and implementation at both the local and national levels.
Bill Wright, Executive Vice President of River Works ��
Project Role: Mr. Wright will serve as the Project Executive for construction activities. He will 12
be responsible for ensuring the crews have adequate resources to complete the project on time
and within budget.
Education: BS, Agronomy, NC State University, 1974
Professional Registration: North Carolina General Contractors License 54912 (Building, Highway), H (Excavation and
Grading), PU (Water and Sewer Lines), and PU (Water Purification and Sewage Disposal)
Continuing Education: River Restoration Design Implementation by Wildland Hydrology, 1994
Mr. Wright joined the River Works team in 2007, and has been involved in a construction management and project
estimating capacity for over 367,368 LF of stream and 2,403 acres of wetland work while working at River Works. Mr.
Wright has more than 31 years of experience in the construction, environmental, and soil and water conservation fields.
- :• ItTEFL,
INTERNATIONAL

Hiwassee River Basin BLAIR CREED
: 16-007278 i CU 06020002 1 MITIGATION PROJECT
George Morris, RPP, Vegetation Specialist
Project Role: Mr. Morris will lead the effort for all vegetation and planting components of the project.
Education: BS, Agriculture and Plant Science, University of Delaware at Newark, 1985
Professional Registrations: NC Pesticide Applicators License (subclass L and A) #5440, NC Landscape Contractors'
Registration, Registered Professional Plantsman
Mr. Morris oversees soil bioengineering and riparian buffer, wetland, and BMP planting for restoration projects. He also
oversees invasive plant species removal for various projects. Mr. Morris has a strong background in horticulture and
landscaping with native plant species.
Steve Shore, Site Superintendent
Project Role: Mr. Shore will be a site superintendent during construction for this project.
Mr. Shore joined River Works in 2007. Mr. Shore has over 20 years in the construction industry, including 15 years of
experience in the construction of stream and wetland restoration projects. In his time at River Works, Mr. Shore has
completed over 102,354 feet of stream restoration, and 206 acres of wetlands restoration. His work includes supervision
of all site activities in the construction of stream and wetland restoration projects. Prior to becoming a supervisor, Mr.
Shore worked for as a heavy equipment operator in grading stream channels and installing structures. Mr. Shore's
experience includes working with detailed site plans and specifications, operating and maintaining all light and heavy
construction equipment, site management, site safety, sediment and erosion control practices, crew supervision from 6
to 20 employees, and property owner/client relations. Mr. Shore is qualified to operate all construction equipment used
in stream and wetland restoration.
Brad Kee, CFS, PLS, Survey
Project Role: Mr. Kee will oversee and lead the effort for all surveying for this project. =_
Education: BS, GIS, Appalachian State University in 1997; Surveying Technology,
Asheville —Buncombe Technical Community College, 2003
Professional Registrations: Professional Land Surveyor, NC 4647; Certified Floodplain Surveyor, NC-204
Mr. Kee began his career as a GPS Technician at Dinosaur National Monument. He then became a GIS Technician for
Analytical Surveys, Inc., a private provider of data conversion and computerized mapping services to the GIS industry. Mr.
Kee's love for the outdoors influenced his decision to become a land surveyor in 1999. He has over 19 years of experience
in GIS mapping and land surveying as well asa dedicated and skilled staff that add to the increased success of the company.
Mr. Kee has vast experience surveying stream and wetland project from existing conditions topographic surveys to as -
built surveys and throughout the monitoring phase of the project.
Nolan Carmack, CFS, PLS, Survey
Project Role: Mr. Carmack will support the surveying for this project.
Education: BS, Geography from Appalachian State University, 2006; Associates Degree in Survey Technology, 2011
Professional Registrations: Certified Floodplain Surveyor, NC-202; Professional Land Surveyor, NC 5076
Mr. Carmack moved to Asheville to complete his Associates Degree in Survey Technology in order to further his knowledge
in the field. He is a licensed professional in North Carolina and Tennessee as well as a Flood plainSurveyor. Mr. Carmack's
primary role will be ensuring quality control for all aspects of surveying.
DBE/HUB Participation: Michael Baker does not have an agreement with a DBE/HUB certif
DIVER,
INTERNATIONAL

Hiwassee River Basin BI AIR CREEK
: 16-007278 i Cu 06020002 1 MITIGATION PROJECT
..011111111111
Part 4. Project Organization:
Qualifications & Responsibilities: For all personnel assigned to this project, please see the resumes in Part 3.
Proposed Staffing, and Organization
Brad Kee, CFS, PLS(K)
Nolan Carmack, CFS, PLS ( K)
Richard Darling (B)
Jacob Byers, PE I B)
Scott King, LSS, PWS I B)
K ri sti Suggs (B)
Russell Myers (B)
Terry Burhans, PWS (B)
Micky Clemmons(B)
Jacob Byers, PE ( B)
Kathleen McKeithan, PE,
CPESC, CPSWQ, CFM iB)
Scott King, LSS, PWS (B)
Richard Darling IB)
Kri sti Suggs (B)
Brad Kee, CFS, PLS (K)
Nolan Carmack, CFS, PLS (K)
Bill Wright lRW)
George Morris. RPP (RW)
Steve Share (RW)
Scott King, LSS, PWS (B)
K risti Suggs (B)
Russell Myers; B)
Brad Kee, CFS, PLS ( K)
Nolan Carmack, CFS, PLS IK)
Jacob Byers, PEIB)
Kathleen McKeithan, PE, CPESC,
CPSWC2, CFM IB)
Scott King, L55, PWS (B)
KristiSuggs(B)
MickyClern mans(0) io
^17,72-272" {B)Wchae,Baker Engineering,
IL' � ^)Ri—Wnrks.�—
(K) Kee Mapping$ S—wing
Personnel with Similar Experience: Shown in the table below are team personnel who worked on the projects in Part 3.
vv
v 'o
Ii
o
v
` a
Y
£ a
3 a
`y
a
U a
O
7 'P
C7
O
h -P
a c
a O
M Y
c� c
N O
M Y
MD
s `O
vYi
w
c
O O
3 `o
p vYi
N £ O
v M `O`O
O- ` vYi
` O
c vYi
Name
a z
U
co z
n CL vI z
c°� z
Micky Clemmons
0
0
0•
Jacob Byers, PE
0
0
0•
Dwain Hathaway, PE
0
0•
Kathleen McKeithan, PE, CPESC, CPSWQ, CFM
0
0•
Scott King, LSS, PWS
0
0•
Richard Darling
0
0
0•
Kristi Suggs
0
0
0•
Russell Myers
0
0•
Terry Burhans, PWS
Bill Wright (Riverworks)
0
0
0•
George Morris, RPP (Riverworks)
0
0
0•
Steve Shore (Riverworks)
0
0•
Brad Kee, CFS, PLS (Kee)
0
0•
Nolan Carmack, CFS, PLS (Kee)
0
0•
DIVER,
INTERNATIONAL

Hiwassee River Basin BI AIR CREEK
: 16-007278/ CU 06020002 1 MITIGATION PROJECT
Part 5. Technical Approach
5.1. Project Goals & Objectives
The Blair Creek Mitigation Project will provide
numerous water quality and ecological benefits on -
site and within the Blair Creek and Hiwassee River
Watersheds. Blair Creek is situated within a water
supply watershed (WS-IV) and drains directly to the
Hiwassee River which is a drinking water source for
the several downstream municipalities. While
many of these benefits are limited to the project
area, others, such as nutrient removal, sediment
reduction, and improved aquatic and terrestrial
habitat, have more far-reaching effects, potentially
extending downstream to the Hiwassee River and
beyond. Implementing this project on a stream
draining into the Hiwassee River will meet three of
the five major CU-wide functional improvement
goals. The goals will be addressed by:
• Reducing sediment and nutrient inputs through restoring riparian buffer vegetation, stabilizing banks, and
restoring natural geomorphology;
• Restoring and protecting habitat for priority fish, mussel, snail, and crayfish species; and
• Working with landowners to protect and restore watersheds through restoration and preservation.
Additionally, as stated in RFP 16-007278 Technical Proposal Evaluation Criteria Hiwassee 06020002 CU Rating Form
Section 1.0, question 1, the TLW goals are to:
• Reduce sediment inputs to streams;
• Reduce nutrient inputs to streams;
• Restore degraded aquatic habitat; and
• Restore riparian buffers.
Implementing this project will accomplish all four of these stated goals.
As stated previously, the project is located within TLW 06020002060010. Expected improvements to water quality,
hydrology, and habitat are outlined below as project goals.
NCDMS' mission is to provide cost-effective mitigation alternatives that improve the state's water resources. The Blair
Creek Mitigation Project achieves NCDMS' goal by providing high quality stream mitigation in an economical manner. The
Blair Creek Mitigation Project will focus on maintaining and enhancing water quality, restoring hydrology, and improving
and protecting aquatic and terrestrial habitat. The Blair Creek Mitigation Project will enhance water quality by reducing
nutrient and sediment inputs through the project area through stream restoration and revegetation. Hydrology will be
restored to adjacent hydric soils and isolated wetlands by implementing Priority Level 1 Restoration to raise the existing
streambed. Aquatic and terrestrial habitat will be improved and protected by improving stream bedform diversity and
establishing a permanent conservation easement 30 feet or greater along all proposed stream reaches.
Goals, general objectives, and anticipated benefits related to water quality and ecological processes are detailed below.
More detailed measurable objectives and associated performance standards will be developed as part of the site's
Mitigation Plan.
DIVER
INTERNATIONAL

Wiwassee River Basin BI AIR CREEK
: 16-007278 / CU 06020002 1 MITIGATION PROJECT
Nutrient removal
Restore riparian stream buffer — Excess nutrients and pollutants in the form of phosphorus and nitrogen
from agriculture practices are entering the project reaches without flowing through adequate riparian
buffers. Fully functioning riparian buffers will be established and permanently protected to filter runoff
containing excess nutrients and pollutants before entering the project reaches.
Sediment removal
Restore proper channel form — Streams with proper dimension, pattern, and profile will efficiently
transport sediment and allow for deposition on point bars and on the floodplain. In addition, the design
will prevent degradation by arresting and repairing any headcuts, dissipating energy over proper riffle and
pool and/or step -pool, sequences, and by dissipating stream energy with overbank flooding for storms
greater than bankfull.
Construct in -stream structures — In -stream structures such as cross vanes, single arm vanes, and j-hooks
divert shear stress from the banks to the center of the channel during storm events thus reducing bank
erosion. Based on preliminary site assessments, stream bank erosion is a main contributor of sediment and
turbidity within the project area and to downstream reaches.
Restore riparian stream buffer —All project reaches are lacking a mature, wide riparian buffer. As a result,
stream banks are actively eroding and introducing sediment to the stream. A restored riparian buffer will
increase root mass within stream banks, thus decreasing bank erosion and sedimentation. Restored
riparian buffers will also filter sediment from cropland runoff flowing through the buffers.
Stream bank bioengineering — Construction of geolifts, brush mattresses, brush layers, installation of live
stakes, and other bioengineering practices will re-establish a healthy root mass along the stream banks,
thus preventing erosion and excess sediment delivery to the stream.
- - WER: ,y
I NT ER N AT 10 N At

Wiwassee River Basin BI AIR CREEK
: 16-007278/ CU 06020002 1 MITIGATION PROJECT
-. ..• .
Improved substrate
Restore proper channel form — Restored channel dimension, pattern, and profile will ensure adequate bed
and
load and suspended sediment transport according to sediment supply, valley type and valley slope.
in -stream cover
Appropriate sediment transport will ensure the sediment supply is adequately transported and excessive
degradation or aggradation does not occur.
Construct in -stream structures — Construction of in -stream structures, which are designed to improve
bedform diversity, increase dissolved oxygen, and trap detritus, will improve in -stream cover and aquatic
habitat.
Reduce water
Restore riparian stream buffer — A restored and protected riparian stream buffer will increase shading of
temperature
the project stream reaches. The increased shade is expected to decrease water temperatures.
Stream bank bioengineering— Bioengineering such as geolifts and stream bank live staking will provide tree
canopy and shading to the stream and reduce water temperatures once established.
Improve aquatic
Aquatic habit will be improved from implementing each previously listed goal. If all goals are achieved, the
habitat
project will realize maximum aquatic habitat improvement and ecological uplift.
Improved
Restored riparian buffers will decrease runoff rates and increase infiltration of precipitation into the local
floodwater
ground water. In addition, the restored stream reaches will have increased access to their floodplains,
retention
which will be wider, allowing floodwater energy to dissipate over the floodplain and floodwater retention
time to increase.
Restoration of
Riparian buffer planting and streambank bioengineering will improve terrestrial habitat throughout the
terrestrial habitat
entire conservation easement. The conservation easement will adjoin other mature wooded areas at the
extents of the project creating a wildlife corridor.
Improved aesthetics
Restore riparian buffer vegetation — Areas where the riparian buffer vegetation has been removed, has
low plant diversity, or is low quality will be replanted with native riparian vegetation. Removing exotic plant
species and planting native woody and herbaceous plants will greatly improve site aesthetics.
Restore proper channel form — Restoring stable channel dimension, pattern, and profile will decrease
unsightly bank erosion and restore a more natural appearance to project reaches.
Improved wetland
As stated previously, small pockets of isolated wetlands or hydric soils noted during field investigations will
function
be restored or enhanced. Restoration will be accomplished through implementing a Priority I restoration
approach, which will raise the streambed elevation, increasing groundwater levels in the adjacent hydric
soils. Wetland enhancement will be accomplished through revegetation of a native riparian wetland
vegetation community, and establishing a conservation easement to protect both soil structure and
vegetation.
- - WEFL_",
I NT ER N AT 10 N At

Hiwassee River Basin BLMR CREED
: 16-007278 i CU 06020002 MITIGATION PROJECT
5.2. Project Description Overview
Photo 1. Looking at an eroding bank along R1. Photo
shows eroding banks, lack of quality buffer (vegetation
primarily shallow rooted privet) and incised condition.
The project is located in Clay Countyjust outside the limits of the
town of Hayesville. The project site is located in the TLW
06020002060010 of the Hiwassee River Basin (Figure 1). The
project includes The North Fork of Blair Creek, South Fork of Blair
Creek, Blair Creek Proper and an UT to the South Fork of Blair
Creek. Blair Creek flows directly into the Hiwassee River, which is
classified as a Water Supply (WS-IV) and serves as the water
source for several downstream municipalities. Michael Baker's
detailed field investigations have documented significant
degradation to the aquatic resources on the project site. The
degradation is mainly in the form of bank erosion, channel
incision, lack of bedform diversity, and lack of riparian buffers.
These related factors make the ecological and functional uplift
potential provided through implementation of the Blair Creek
Mitigation Project very high.
Each of the project reaches have been heavily impacted from
historic land use practices, predominantly livestock production, piping of streams, and other agricultural uses. Until
recently, the site was as a dairy farm. While livestock do not currently have stream access, detrimental agricultural
practices such as adjacent row crops are still present. Within the project area, approximately 100 percent of the stream
length proposed for some level of restoration or enhancement have inadequate (less than 30 feet wide) riparian buffers.
The stream does have a narrow buffer along its banks in places but is generally composed of invasive species and is of low
quality. Figure 6 shows the most recent aerial photography with clearly narrow and/or absent riparian buffers. Previous
livestock impacts, lack of deep rooted woody vegetation, adjacent row crops, and storm flow shear stresses have severely
impacted the stream banks along the project stream reaches.
The lack of adequate and quality buffer vegetation and land use disturbances present a significant opportunity for water
quality and ecosystem functional uplift through the implementation of this project.
According to the 2008 Hiwassee River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP) document, the project is located within the
Hiwassee River/Sweetwater Creek Targeted Local Watershed 06020002060010. Issues associated with the watershed
include stream degradation and lack of riparian buffers. Although there are no 303(d) listed streams in this watershed, it
contains a number of degraded streams. As stated above, this project would support three of the five goals stated in the
RBRP. The only goals listed in the RBRP that this project does not address are cooperating with the Hiwassee River
Watershed Coalition to help leverage funding and prioritizing projects within the Peachtree -Martins Creek Local
Watershed Planning area. We have however been working with the
Hiwassee River Watershed Coalition (HRWC) to identify this project
site, to ensure that the overall goals of this project meet objectives
that the HRWC share and so that the HRWC may be able to link
potential future efforts to what can be accomplished through this
project. HRWC support is not linked to funding. Also, as stated above,
the project supports all 4 CU-wide goals listed in the RFP 16-007278
Technical Proposal Evaluation Criteria Hiwassee 06020002 CU Rating
Form Section 1.0, question 1. Supporting the maximum number of
goals and addressing the maximum number of stressors and sources
stated in these plans allows this project to provide the maximum
amount of functional uplift possible.
Figures 2, 4, and 6 show the existing topography within the project
area. The proposed conservation easement area has the potential to
encompass more than 9 acres of land.
LZZ. 1VER
INTERNATIONAL

Hiwassee River Basin BI AIR CREEK
: 16-007278/ CU 06020002 MITIGATION PROJECT
The streams on the project site were broken into 4 project reaches totaling approximately 3,952 LF of existing streams,
(R1, R2, R3, UT1). These reach designations are based on being separate streams.
Field evaluations determined that all project reaches are perennial or intermittent streams. The presence of historic
valleys for each of the project stream reaches can be seen from LIDAR imagery for the site (Figure 4) and are obvious
during field investigations.
Field evaluations of intermittent/perennial stream status were made in September 2017. These evaluations were based
on the North Carolina Division of Water Quality's (NCDWQ, now known as the North Carolina Division of Water Resources,
NCDWR) Methodology for Identification of Intermittent and Perennial Streams and Their Origins, (v 4.11, Effective Date:
September 1, 2010) stream assessment protocols or professional judgement for obvious perennial calls. Reaches R1, R2,
and R3 were determined to be obviously perennial with drainage areas all over 880 acres, so no stream forms were
completed. A stream form was completed for UT1 and classified UT1 as intermittent. The 1998 NRCS Clay County Soil
Survey has UT1 shown as an intermittent stream as well. Table 1 below presents the results of the field evaluations along
with the assessed status of each project reach.
Table 1. Summary Information for Field Investigations to Determine Intermittent/Perennial Status.
Project Reach
Existing Project Reach
NCDWR StreamWatershed
Drainage
Stream Status Based on
Designation
Length (ft.)
Classification FormScore
Area (acres) Z
Field Analyses
1
R1 (NF Blair Creek)
2,331
>30
983
Perennial
R2 (SF Blair Creek)
1,280
>30
880
Perennial
R3 (Blair Creek)
196
>30
1,864
Perennial
UT1
145
23.75
22
Intermittent
Note 1: NCDWR Stream classification forms are available upon request for the streams listed above. Streams listed with a score of
">30" were determined through best professional judgement to be obviously perennial, so no forms were completed. Note 2:
Watershed drainage area is approximated based on topographic and LIDAR information at the downstream end of each reach.
The Blair Creek Mitigation Project will provide maximum possible functional uplift to all reaches and appropriately
addresses all the intermittent and perennial stream reaches on the project property. All reaches within the proposed
design are being addressed such that the maximum uplift for water quality, habitat, and stability for the site will be
achieved.
Geology: Geologically, the Blair Creek Site lies within the Ocoee Supergroup portion of the Blue Ridge Belt, consisting
primarily of sedimentary and metamorphic rock (see Figure 19). The Ocoee Supergroup has been cut and deformed by
numerous faults resulting in repeated sections and obscured stratigraphic relationships. The project area is further
underlain by the Metasandstone, Metagraywacke, Metasiltstone, and Mica schist Formation, and commonly contains
beds and lenses of abundant calc-silicate rock, with garnet, staurolite, and cross-biotite porphyroblasts common in the
fine-grained layers. The formation includes host rocks of large sulfide deposits and as sediments were commonly
deposited under reducing conditions in the formation of the sedimentary rock in this region. Iron sulfides are a common
constituent in much of the present rock, along with the soils derived from them.
Ecoregion: The project is also located within the EPA Level IV Broad Basin ecoregion of the Level III Blue Ridge ecoregion.
The Broad Basin ecoregion is drier, has lower elevations and less relief than the other, more mountainous Blue Ridge
regions. It also has less boulder colluvium than the other regions and more saprolite. The soils are mostly deep, well -
drained, loamy to clayey Ultisols, although there are variations between the uplands, the high and low terraces, and the
floodplains. Compared to the higher mountainous ecoregions of Blue Ridge, the Broad Basins have a mix of oaks and pines
more similar to the Piedmont, with more shortleaf and Virginia pine and white, southern red, black, and scarlet oaks.
Although some areas of this rolling foothills region are forested, overall it has more pasture, cropland, industrial land uses,
LZZ. 1VE11
INTERNATIONAL

Hiwassee River Basin BI AIR CREEK
: 16-007278 i CU 06020002 MITIGATION PROJECT
and human settlement than other Blue Ridge ecoregions. Outlines of abandoned fields with pine -hardwood succession
are apparent on many lower slopes.
Soils: The Project Site is located within the Broad Basin, River Terrace, and Flood Plain Soil System of the Mountain Soil
Region of North Carolina (Daniels et al., 1999), consisting of low rounded mountains, discontinuous river terraces, and
wide river valleys and floodplains. Soils found on the Blair Creek Site are almost entirely dominated by Arkaqua loams (0-
2% slope) located throughout the floodplain (See Figure 3) as determined through the National Resource Conservation
Service (NRCS) Soil Survey data for Clay County. Arkaqua loams are somewhat poorly drained, moderately permeable
soils found on nearly level floodplains along creeks and rivers in the Southern Appalachian, Blue Ridge, and Great Smokey
Mountain regions. They are listed as hydric soils for Clay County by the NRCS and commonly contain inclusions ofToxaway
loams, another listed hydric soil. The adjacent uplands outside the project floodplain are dominated by Dillard loam,
Hayesville clay loam, Tate loam, and Evard-Cowee complex soils. These soils tend to be deep to very deep, moderately to
well drained soils found along stream slopes and terraces of the Southern Appalachian mountains and upper Piedmont
region. Dillard loams are listed as hydric by the NRCS, but the others are not.
Threatened and Endangered Species: Potential habitat for the bog turtle (Glyptemys muhlenbergii), which is state
listed as threatened and federally listed as threatened due to similarity of appearance (T/SA), will also be restored and
protected through stream restoration activities within the proposed riparian buffers, and protected by establishing a
permanent conservation easement. As stated previously, wetlands or hydric soils noted during field investigations will be
restored or enhanced. Restoration will be accomplished through implementing a Priority 1 restoration approach, which
will raise the streambed elevation, increasing groundwater levels in the adjacent hydric soils. Wetland enhancement will
be accomplished through revegetation of a native riparian wetland vegetation community, and permanently protected
through a conservation easement which will protect both soil structure and vegetation. Although wetland functions may
be restored and enhanced in various areas throughout the proposed conservation easement, no wetland credit is being
requested. As such, a detailed hydric soils report or wetland delineation has not been included. These isolated wetland
areas may provide valuable habitat for bog turtle and other species, such as the green pitcher plant.
The green pitcher plant (Sarracenia oreophila) is federally and state listed as endangered and its range of occurrence in
North Carolina is limited to Clay County. The habitat of this carnivorous perennial varies from moist upland areas and
seepage bogs to boggy stream banks. The species reproduces both by seed and root extensions. Flowering occurs from
mid -April to early June. Seedlings require high soil moisture content and sunny open areas especially during the first year
of growth. Suitable habitat for the green pitcher plant is present within the proposed project area; therefore, a plant -by -
plant survey for species will be conducted during the appropriate survey window to determine if individual specimens
exist in areas where potential damage could occur. No individuals or populations of the species have been observed
during cursory field reviews of the proposed project area.
Rusty patched bumble bees (Bombus affinis) are federally listed as endangered and live in colonies with a single queen
and female worker bees. Habitat consists of open, prairie -like grassy areas with abundant flowering plants for collecting
nectar, small underground cavities and clumps of grass for nesting, and undisturbed soil areas for hibernating winter
queens. While this species is listed as endangered, it is noted as a historic record and has not been observed in Clay County
since the 1980s. Suitable habitat for the rusty patched bumble bee is only 0.1% likely to be present in locations where
their record status is listed as historic.
In order to determine the likelihood of this species being present, the USFWS has generated a quick guide the "The Rusty
Patched Bumble Bee (Bombus affinis) Endangered Species Act Voluntary Implementation Guidance, Version 1.1" (USFWS,
2017) to determine if consultation with the USFWS and/or subsequent permit is required. As outlined in the guidance a
preliminary search was conducted on September 12, 2017 using the USFWS' IPaC Resource for the proposed project area.
Since the species was not listed as an endangered species on the generated list for the proposed project area, it is not
likely to be present and consultation under section 7(a)(2) should not be required.
Rock gnome lichen (Gymnoderma lineare) is listed as federally endangered and is the only member of the genus
Gymnoderma that is present in North America. Colonies form on vertical rock faces where water seeps from moist forest
soils flow during the wet season. The species cannot tolerate high intensity solar radiation and generally located on open
northern exposures with at least partial coverage from the surrounding canopy. Because there are not any vertical rock
1VEli
INTERNATIONAL

Hiwassee River Basin BLMR CREED
: 16-007278 i CU 06020002 MITIGATION PROJECT
faces located on the project site, suitable habitat for the species is not present. Therefore, it is anticipated that this project
will not affect the species.
A search of the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database on September 12, 2017 indicated that there
were no known occurrences of bog turtles, green pitcher plants, rusty patched bumble bees, or rock gnome lichen within
two miles of the project location.
The Gray bat (Myotis grisescens) is known to occur in scattered locations within western North Carolina counties. The
species predominantly roots throughout the year in caves. Suitable habitat for the gray bat does not exist within the
project area and a review of the NCNHP database did not indicate any known populations within 2.0 mile of the study
area. Therefore, it is anticipated that this project will not affect the species.
Northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) (NLEB) is a federally listed threatened species and occurs in the
mountains, with scattered records in the Piedmont and coastal plain. In western North Carolina, NLEB spend winter
hibernating in caves and mines. During the summer, NLEB roost singly or in colonies underneath bark, in cavities, or in
crevices of both live and dead trees (typically >_3 inches dbh). This bat has also been found, rarely, roosting in structures
like barns and sheds, under eaves of buildings, behind window shutters, in bridges, and in bat houses. Foraging occurs on
forested hillsides and ridges, and occasionally over forest clearings, over water, and along tree -lined corridors. Mature
forests may be an important habitat type for foraging.
Forested habitats containing trees at least 3-inch dbh in the project area provide suitable habitat for NLEB. Due to the
decline of the NLEB population from the White Nose Syndrome (WNS), the USFWS has issued the finalization of a special
rule under section 4(d) of the ESA to addresses the effects to the NLEB resulting from purposeful and incidental take based
on the occurrence of WNS. Because the project is located within a WNS zone and will include the removal/clearing of
trees, it is subject to the final 4(d) ruling. As previously stated, a review of NCNHP records did not indicate any known
NLEB populations within 2.0 mile of the study area; therefore, the project will be eligible to use the NLEB 4(d) Rule
Streamlined Consultation Form to meet regulatory requirements for section 7(a)(2) compliance 4(d) consultation.
The Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) is a federally listed endangered species. Like the NLEB, the species also occurs in the
mountains of North Carolina, hibernates caves and mines during the winter months and roosts underneath bark, in
cavities, or in crevices of both live and dead trees (typically >_3 inches dbh) during the summer. A review of NCNHP records
does not indicate known Indiana bat populations within 2.0 mile of the study area; however, the presence of the species
is suspected in Clay County. Because the project will include the removal/clearing of trees within suitable habitat less
than 100-feet of an existing road service, a Presence/Probable Absence (P/A) survey will be conducted for the species
during the appropriate time period. On -site cursory reviews observed no individuals or colonies of the Indiana bat;
therefore, it is anticipated that a P/A survey would result in a negative finding. With a negative finding and the
implementation of project conservation techniques that would prohibit the removal/clearing of trees during the roosting
season, the project will meet Section 7(a)(2) requirements of the ESA with the use of the 2016 programmatic biological
opinion process for the Indian bat.
Cultural Resources: Michael Baker also conducted a two-mile search around the project area for state registered historic
properties using the NC State Historic Preservation Office's (NCSHPO) online GIS database. The search resulted in sixteen
existing and one eligible surveyed preservation sites that are located within a 2-mile area, twelve of which are located
within a 1-mile area. However, no registered historic properties are located on the project site.
All applicable agencies will be coordinated with during the categorical exclusion and permit
These agencies include North Carolina State Historic Preservation (NCSHPO), US Fish and Wi
NCWRC among others.
DIVER,
INTERNATIONAL

Hiwassee River Basin BLAIR CREED
: 16-007278 i CU 06020002 1 MITIGATION PROJECT
Sediment Analysis: Visual inspections of the stream substrate materials were conducted for each reach along with
pebble count samples on R1 and R2. The project site consists of
primarily gravel bed streams with a large sand component
k throughout Blair Creek which is particularly pronounced along R1.
# This is likely due to localized bank erosion and a lack of access to
depositional features. One bedrock knickpoint was noted along R1
which is serving to control the bed elevation along this reach.
Sediment sources are from localized bank erosion and sediment
transported from upstream. UT1 is a headwater reach and as
such, sediment supply is limited and is primarily from localized
bank erosion and overland transport of fines in runoff from
adjacent agricultural lands. UT1 has a sand/silt bed. The
' restoration of riparian buffers will reduce the amount of sediment
entering into this headwater reach. The proposed project will
Photo 3. Severe bank erosion and a minimal buffer stabilize these reaches reducing localized erosion and sediment
dominated by invasive vegetation along R1. supply. However, aerial photography indicates that Blair Creek
and its tributaries exhibit sections of bank erosion, lack riparian
buffers, and have adjacent fields and pasture areas which will continue to supply Blair Creek with a sediment supply.
Visual assessment of R1, R2, and R3 shows that there is a high quantity of fine sediment in these reaches that has
accumulated in pools and riffles, clogging the interspatial areas between coarser bed material. This is due to the lack of
access to depositional features to store sediment outside of the steam bed. This is likely caused by channel incision and
a lack of meander geometry. As such, fines fall out of the water column onto the streambed as the stage of the stream
decreases after storm flows. Appropriate bankfull channel geometry, planform, and profiles will be designed to ensure
that the streams have access to depositional features and that the streams will have enough competency to transport the
sediment supply. In areas where the channel is overly wide and fines are being deposited, geometry will be corrected
such that stream power will be increased to ensure that this sediment is moved through the system. A detailed sediment
transport analysis will be conducted during the design phase of the project to ensure that the sediment supplied from the
watershed can be stored on bars and floodplains to the extent possible and that sediment is transported downstream in
a manner to ensure equilibrium and long-term stability. Pebble counts were conducted on reaches R1 and R2 in the
locations of surveyed cross sections. A shear stress/competence analysis was conducted along R1 and R2. The results
show that the critical shear stress along the channel bed of R1 and R2 in their current conditions, is significantly greater
than the shear stress required to initiate motion of the largest particles found in the riffle pebble count. This is likely due
to an increase in slope from channelization and from a skew of the median bed particle diameter towards sand due to an
excess of sand being deposited along the stream bed.
Sediment storage along all incised project reaches is limited. Suspended and
bedload sediment does not generally have access to a floodplain during
bankfull flows. Not only is this causing localized stability issues, large
amounts of sediment are being moved downstream instead of being
deposited on floodplains causing offsite issues. Removing excess sediment
from this watershed is one of the major RBRP goals as stated above. This
project will accomplish this goal by providing depositional areas for sediment
and greatly reducing channel erosion. These are preliminary calculations and
assumptions. More detailed calculations, modeling and analysis will be
conducted during the design phase of the project. This will include a more
detailed sediment size distribution including bar samples, entrainment and
competence calculations using Watershed Assessment of River Stability and
Sediment Supply (WARSSS) methodologies to provide converging lines of
evidence of the current conditions of the system and stability of the system
as designed from a sediment transport view point.
Photo 4. Typical hydric soils found
throughout the floodplain along the Blair
Creek Project.
The project will address erosion on all the unstable intermittent and perennial stream reaches on the project site, and
future supplies of gravel and fine sediment from on -site channel erosion is expected to be reduced significantly.
LEM= TER
INTERNATIONAL

Hiwassee River Basin BI AIR CREEK
: 16-007278 / CU 06020002 1 MITIGATION PROJECT
Consequently, constructed riffles will be incorporated in the design with larger rock sizes that will be immobile during
storm events. The constructed riffles will also increase dissolved oxygen content, provide aquatic habitat and assurance
that the restored channel will not degrade over time. Further discussion of sediment transport analysis is provided in
Section 5.3.
Existing Conditions Descriptions: Michael Baker conducted field studies to evaluate and document the existing
conditions of the site, as well as each project stream reach. These studies included field evaluations, photographic
documentation, cross section surveys, soils investigations, and pebble counts. Field -work dependant sections of the
NCDMS' Technical Proposal Evaluation Criteria Hiwassee 06020002 Rating Form for RFP# 16-007278 and all of the mapping
and calculation of associated statistics in accordance with NCDMS' Guidance for the Submission of Mapping and Associated
Statistics in Technical Proposals were completed. Copies of the completed rating forms, described above, are included in
the appendices. The results of the existing condition cross section surveys and/orvisual field analysis were used to conduct
geomorphic stream classification for the project stream reaches and preliminary sediment transport analysis. The results
of the existing condition cross sections surveys are summarized in Table 2. The results of the field evaluations were used
in conjunction with available GIS data to develop mapping.
Table 2. Summary of Existing Condition Cross section Survey Data.
Project Reach
Designation
Watershed Drainage
1
Area (acres)
Entrenchment Ratio
Width/Depth Ratio
Typical Bank Height Ratio
R1
983
2.8-3.8
5.2-5.3
>1.5
R2
880
3.5-3.6
5.7-7.8
>1.5
R3
1,864
>2.2
<12
>1.5
UT1
22
4.6
13.4
1.0
Note 1: Watershed drainage area is approximated based on USGS topographic and LIDAR information. Note 2: Cross section
locations are shown in Figure 10. Note 3: Geomorphic parameters of R3 are based on best professional judgment and quick field
measurements. Surveyed cross sections were not conducted on this reach.
R1 is on the North Fork of Blair Creek and extends from the upstream
terminus of the project at an existing driveway bridge crossing
Az -
downstream approximately 2,331 feet to the confluence with South
Fork of Blair Creek. R1 is a perennial channel with a valley slope of
0.9 percent and a drainage area of 983 acres. R1 is very incised with
bank height ratios (BHR) greater than 1.5 throughout most of its
length and higher than 2.0 in many areas. This reach is exhibiting
bank scour ranging from 50-60 percent in the upper reach, 40-50
percent in the middle of the reach, and 60-70 percent in the
downstream end of the reach. Mass wasting is occurring on?'+
approximately 10-20 percent of the reach as a whole. While bank
erosion in the form of scour and mass wasting is not extremely high,
this is primarily due to vegetation along the stream banks. This Photo S. Looking downstream on R1 showing
vegetation is almost entirely composed of mature Chinese privet erosion along the right bank, invasive vegetation
(Ligustrum sinense). R1 has a narrow buffer of approximately 10 feet and a thin riparian buffer.
or less and is almost entirely composed of Chinese privet among
other invasive species including multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), Oriental
Bittersweet (Celastrus orbiculatus) and others. Outside of this thin invasive buffer, row crops are planted and maintained.
Beaver activity is clear along the downstream end of R1 and dams have impounded water throughout the bottom
approximately 25 percent of this reach. Numerous field drains are evident emptying into R1 which bypass any filtration
of runoff through vegetation.
- : • DIVE11
INTERNATIONAL

Hiwassee River Basin BI AIR CREEK
: 16-007278/ CU 06020002 1 MITIGATION PROJECT
There is one existing culverted crossing along R1 near the middle of the reach and along with one bedrock knickpoint
which is helping to control stream bed grade. As described above, the bed material is composed of medium gravel (d50
= 13 mm) with a high proportion of sand. This sand is due to localized bank erosion and the lack of depositional features.
This reach lacks deep pools and is almost entirely composed of riffles or runs. Habitat is almost uniform throughout this
reach. R1 is classified as an incised E4 stream type with a stream slope of approximately 0.8 percent and a very low
sinuosity of 1.06.
R2 is on the South Fork of Blair Creek and begins just below a bridge at the landowner's driveway and extends downstream
approximately 1,280 feet to the confluence with North Fork of Blair Creek. R2 is a perennial channel with a drainage area
of 880 acres and has a valley slope of 1.2 percent. Stream bank erosion is occurring along R2 on approximately 40-50
percent of the streambank lengths. Like R1, the R2 channel is very incised over most of its length and has a BHR that is
1.5 to 2.0 over most of the channel length. There are some small areas with BHRs are close to 1 and appear to be where
banks have failed and sediment has built a small bankfull bench, but these are limited in extent. Bank scour is common
and significant bank failures have occurred as the stream tries to meander. Mass wasting is occurring on approximately
20-30 percent of the reach as a whole and appears to commonly be a result of shallow rooted invasive species being
undercut. The lower 25% of this reach has been degraded from being inundated by a beaver dam. This has caused a loss
of vegetation, erosion of banks and deposition that causes
d " further instability. Row crops and hay are currently grown along
both sides of R2 along much of its length, which contributes
excess sediment and nutrients to the watershed. Stream bank
scour is exacerbated by a thick stand of shallow rooted Chinese
nd
r . �' rivet Li ustrum sinense which limits the growth of more deeply
rooted woody vegetation. This invasive species is the dominate
NVI
vegetation within the buffer. In addition to privet there are
multiple other species of non-native invasive vegetation species.
` However, there are a few large mature trees scattered along this
reach and generally these will be preserved in the stream design.
Any native vegetation species such as tag alder that are present
along the streambanks and will be transplanted as part of
Photo 6. Looking downstream along R2. Channel is restoration activities to the extent practical. The width of the
incised and has narrow buffer of primarily privet. vegetation is extremely variable but overall is quite narrow,
averaging about 10 feet. R2's floodplain has been altered to prevent flooding of the crop fields by the installation of field
drains to remove ground and surface water from the fields and quickly move it to the stream. Farm paths are also present
along the reach and a ford crossing was developed. R2 has a Rosgen stream type classification of E4; however, R2 is very
incised and has low sinuosity of 1.02 and a channel slope of approximately 1.1 percent.
R3 begins at the confluence of the North Fork and South Fork of
Blair Creek, which are the ends of R1 and R2, and forms Blair
Creek proper. This reach flows east for approximately 196 feet
and ends at the upstream point of where Blair Creek flows into
the right-of-way for an overhead utility line. The drainage area
for Reach R3 is approximately 1,864 acres. Conditions along this
reach are essentially like those described for R2 and this reach
has been broken out primarily due to the increase in drainage
area. Bank instability on R3 is present on approximately 90
percent of the streambanks. The observed erosion is typically in
the form of localized bank scour caused by inundation from a
beaver dam, excessive near bank shear stress during storm
events and a lack of woody vegetation along the stream banks.
Channel width is extremely wide in a few locations. The degree of
incision along R3 is moderate to high, with a BHR of
approximately 1.5 and higher.
TEF
INTERNATIONAL
v

Hiwassee River Basin BLMR CREED
: 16-007278 i CU 06020002 MITIGATION PROJECT
While some trees do exist in the riparian areas along R3, the buffer is sparse, in poor condition, and not of sufficient width.
The stream bed of this reach is primarily sand and silt due to deposition caused by a beaver dam. This reach has a Rosgen
stream type classification of E5, but is incised and has a low sinuosity of approximately 1.0. This reach would most likely
be an E4 stream type if there were no beaver dams.
UT1 begins at a culvert under Cherry Road and continues down slope
145 feet to confluence with South Fork Blair Creek on the right bank
of R2. UT1 is an intermittent channel with a well-defined bank and
bed composed primarily of sand and silt. Bank erosion along UT1
appeared to be minimal at the time of our field evaluation; however,
this may change in the winter months when herbaceous vegetation
dies back. There is no woody vegetation along this channel, except
around the confluence with R2. The channel is incised for
approximately 30 feet below the culvert opening then has low
incision. Erosion is significant at the culvert opening but appears to
be minimal for the rest of the channel length. This reach is classified
as an B5 stream type and is generally in good condition.
Based on a review using Google Earth, the nearest airport to the
project site is Tusquitee Landing located 6.8 miles to the northeast.
Photo 8. The channel on UT1 showing the sand/silt
bed and thick herbaceous vegetation on the banks.
R3 is located within a FEMA regulated floodplain (Zone AE). Michael Baker will coordinate with the local floodplain
administrator as needed and prepare the required documentation to obtain approval for any FEMA regulated impacts.
5.3. Project Development
The Blair Creek Mitigation Project will include the restoration and enhancement of 4 stream reaches and their associated
riparian buffers. This broad, balanced approach, utilizing a ranee of practices. from Priority Level 1 Restoration to
Enhancement Level II, is critical to providing the maximum functional uplift. Our proposed watershed approach has the
potential to address all of the intermittent and perennial stream reaches on the project property including restoring
riparian buffers along all of the project stream reaches. This project has the potential to restore and enhance
approximately 4,407 LF of stream (Figure 9).
The streams to be restored or enhanced have been impacted by channelization, loss of riparian buffers, past land use
disturbances, current agricultural use, and past direct livestock access (see Photos 1 through 14).
Approximately 55 percent of the total streambank length is experiencing active bank erosion and 100 percent of the total
stream length is actively subject to onsite water quality stressors resulting from adjacent cropland and the lack of mature
high quality riparian buffers. Approximately 77 percent of the total stream length exhibits significant, obvious incision
(BHR > 1.5). The proposed project will provide or improve floodplain access to all reaches undergoing Restoration.
For any project reach along which Priority Level II Restoration will be utilized (transitional areas), the following elements
will be incorporated into the proposed design and construction:
• Floodplain bench excavation grading will extend a minimum of 1.5 bankfull widths beyond the stream belt width such
that meandering floodplains are not created.
• All proposed floodplains will be constructed such that they are over -excavated to accommodate replacement of
topsoil.
• Design and construction oversight measures will ensure the proper harvesting, segregating, stockpiling, storage,
handling, overall management and replacement of A and B soil horizon materials onto the excavated floodplain.
• Constructed return slopes between the outer edge of the excavated floodplain and the terrace will be a minimum of
5:1 or flatter.
- : • DIVER
INTERNATIONAL

Hiwassee River Basin BI AIR CREEK
: 16-007278 i CU 06020002 1 MITIGATION PROJECT
Michael Baker will continue to compile and assess watershed information including: drainage areas, historical land uses
and development trends, geologic setting, soil types, and terrestrial plant communities. Project reach designs will use
appropriate field investigations, hydraulic and hydrologic models, and regional curves to verify proposed bankfull channel
dimensions. Michael Baker will use the results of the existing condition analyses along with reference reach data from
previous projects to develop a proposed stream restoration design for the project reaches. This design will utilize multiple
restoration design techniques and approaches that have been successfully implemented on past projects, including
natural channel design methodology, under which dimensionless ratios from reference reach and past project experience
are used to restore stable dimension, pattern, and profile, as well as proper sediment -transport for the proposed reach.
The proposed project will provide increased floodplain access throughout the project area for all Restoration reaches and
will be monitored to demonstrate floodplain function. The stream channel design will include analysis of the hydrology,
hydraulics, shear stress, sediment transport, and appropriate channel dimensions. The hydrology and hydraulics will
include analysis of the bankfull discharge and comparison of the reference reach ratios to design ratios from past projects
under similar geomorphic and geographic settings which have proved successful. The bankfull discharge will be used to
develop the proposed channel dimension and to assess performance. Sediment transport calculations and stream power
analyses will be performed for the existing channels and the design channels for comparison. Specifically, Michael Baker
will perform representative pebble counts and will collect bar samples, pavement and subpavement samples to evaluate
bed material characteristics and sediment transport. The bed material will be sieved and a grain size distribution
developed. The results of the substrate analyses will be used to classify the streams and to complete shear stress, sediment
transport, and stability analyses. Michael Baker will use the critical shear stress and boundary shear stress analysis
approaches to verify that the channels as designed will not aggrade nor degrade.
In -stream structures will be constructed only from materials naturally found at the project site such as hardwood logs,
brush, stone, and boulder materials. In order to ensure sustainability of those structures, Michael Baker will only use
methods of structure design and construction that have proven successful on numerous past projects in the same
geographic region.
While the drainage area of UT1 is small (22 acres), this reach is considered to be an intermittent reach. Evidence for this
comes from an NCDWR stream score above 19 (UT1), discussions with the landowners regarding the flow histories of the
streams, and the stream being shown as an intermittent stream on the 1998 Clay County NRCS Soil Survey.
Michael Baker has field verified that the project site has adequate, viable construction access, staging, and stockpile areas.
Note that crossings account for less than 1.0 percent of the proposed stream length. These same site access points and
features will be used for future access after the completion of construction. Where practicable, impacts to existing native
riparian buffer vegetation will be minimized. The use of native riparian buffer transplants will be maximized as well. Any
potential impacts to existing wetland areas will be avoided during construction, with only temporary, minimal impacts
expected as necessary for maximizing permanent stream and buffer functional uplift.
R1— Restoration
"N�:
\ -
0-11
i
pyj1�
lii'��
"bell
L
9. Straight channel, eroding right bank, narrow
and extensive stand of privet along R1.
A Priority Level 1 restoration approach is proposed for R1 to fully
restore stream and associated buffer functions. The reach
currently exhibits lateral and vertical instability as shown by active
bank erosion and excess sand in the channel. This systemic
instability will likely continue, since the existing channel is very
incised and has mostly vertical banks without access to a
floodplain. The channel will be raised to reconnect the stream to
its historic floodplain. This will promote more frequent over bank
flooding thus reducing erosive stream energies during storm
events greater than the bankfull discharge. This floodplain area will
also act as a sediment sink providing storage of sediment from
upstream sources instead of sending all the sediment load
downstream. This will help accomplish one of the main goals in
the RBRP plan of removing excess sediment.
- : • DIVER
INTERNATIONAL

Hiwassee River Basin BLAIR CREED
: 16-007278 i Cu 06020002 1 MITIGATION PROJECT
A Priority Level 2 approach will be used at the beginning of the reach where the channel will be raised and at the end of
the reach if needed to match existing elevations. This approach will continue until it can be brought to an elevation where
the bankfull elevation matches the existing valley. Over this short reach, a bankfull bench will be excavated until a Priority
1 design can begin. The reach will be designed as a Rosgen C4 stream type and will be restored using appropriate riffle -
pool morphology, which will restore appropriate channel meander geometry and incorporate deep pools. This will greatly
improve habitat throughout this reach. In stream structures such as constructed riffles, cross vanes and j-hook vanes, will
be constructed using boulder, stone, brush, and log materials. This technique will provide the appropriate bedform
morphology, protect stream banks, improve aquatic habitat, and ensure grade control along this reach. Channel banks
will be graded to stable slopes and the adjacent floodplain will be re -connected to promote stability and improve ground
water hydrology. Bioengineering techniques such as geolifts, root wads, toe wood, brush layers, and live stakes will also
be used to protect restored stream banks and to promote woody vegetation growth along the stream banks. The old
channel will be filled using suitable material up to the floodplain elevation. This reach lacks mature native woody
vegetation; however, any existing isolated native trees or shrubs will be protected or transplanted if possible. The existing
vegetation, as described above is composed almost entirely of Chinese privet. This vegetation will be mechanically
removed during construction and will be chemically treated after that. It is anticipated that an invasive treatment regimen
will be required and followed throughout the life of the project. The lower end of this reach has been impacted by beaver
activity as described above. Trained professionals will be utilized to remove the beaver colony at this site and to continue
control activities as needed to avoid impacts after construction. Riparian buffers in excess of 30 feet will be restored and
protected along all of R1. The existing culverted stream crossing will be improved using a larger culvert and a floodplain
relief pipe to improve hydraulic functions and channel stability.
R2 — Restoration
A Priority Level 1 approach is proposed for R2 to fully
restore stream and associated buffer functions and this
will be similar to that described for R1. As described Jiy'
above a Priority Level 2 approach will be needed at then
beginning and end of this reach to make upstream and
downstream connections. The reach currently exhibits
lateral instability as shown by active bank erosion andtic
Ar
bank slumping. This systemic instability will likely continue g�`t �����
since the existing channel has mostly vertical banks with
little deep rooted vegetation. The channel will be raised
to reconnect it to the adjacent floodplain. This will F; _ V
vt
promote more frequent over bank flooding improving
riparian groundwater hydrology, channel stability, and
sediment storage. The existing valley along this reach is
appropriate for a meandering riffle -pool morphology. The photo 10. Looking downstream along R2 showing mass
reach will be designed as a Rosgen C4 stream type. This wasting from stream bank, invasive species and no buffer.
reach lacks mature woody vegetation; however, any
existing isolated trees or shrubs will be protected or transplanted if possible. A new meandering channel will be
constructed and the floodplain will consist of native hardwood species. While formal design calculations have not been
completed, it is likely that the design width/depth ratio for the channel will be similar to comparable streams in this
geologic setting. It is expected that over time, the channel widths will narrow due to fine sediment deposition and
stream bank vegetation growth. In -stream structures will be used to control grade, dissipate energy, protect stream banks,
and eliminate the potential for upstream channel incision. In -stream structures will most likely include constructed riffles,
cross vanes, and grade control j-hook vanes for grade control and habitat, and vanes for increased bank stability and
habitat diversity. Channel banks will be graded to stable slopes, and the adjacent floodplains will be re -connected to the
bankfull elevation to further promote stability and growth of riparian vegetation. Bioengineering techniques such as
geolifts, root wads, toe wood, brush layers, and live stakes will also be used to protect restored stream banks and to
promote growth of woody vegetation along the stream banks.
- : • DIVEfff
INTERNATIONAL

Hiwassee River Basin BI AIR CREEK
: 16-007278 i CU 06020002 MITIGATION PROJECT
Sections of the existing channel that are not incorporated into the new channel alignment will be filled to an elevation
sufficient to connect the new design channel to the historic floodplain along its entire length. Suitable material will be
used to fill where needed and will include material excavated during construction of the newly restored channels. Riparian
buffers in excess of 30 feet will be restored and protected along all of R2.
R3 — Restoration
The Priority Level 1 approach that is described above for R1 and
R2 is proposed to be carried through this reach. The beginning
of this reach is the confluence of the South Fork and North Fork
of Blair Creek and from this point to the end of the reach the
design dimension and profile must change to account for the
increase in drainage area. However, the overall design strategy
and pattern will be the same as that described above for R1 and
R2. The transition from R1 and R2 into R3, will be done so that
the differences in design are natural and consistent. The
transition back to the existing channel at the end of the reach
may require that we use a Priority 2 approach as described
above. If needed, the transition will likely be done along R3. This
entire reach has been impacted by beaver activity and as stated
above, trained professionals will be utilized to remove the
beavers at this site. Riparian buffers in excess of 30 feet will be
restored and protected along all of R3.
UT1— Enhancement II
UT1 is a primarily stable reach that begins at a culvert outlet
under Cherry Road. This reach has no woody vegetation in most
of the riparian buffer. Work along UT1 will involve
Enhancement Level II practices to maintain the stability of the
channel. The existing channel is generally stable with only
isolated and limited bank erosion. Consequently, Michael Baker
proposes to slope, mat, and live stake the stream banks in
minimal localized areas where any bank erosion is occurring or
in areas where the banks are steep. We will stabilize the outlet
of the culvert under Cherry Road and ensure a stable transition
to R2 using a step -pool channel. We will also plant a riparian
buffer in excess of 30 feet with trees that will provide year-
round, long-term channel stability.
BMP Considerations
Photo 11. Existing herbaceous vegetation, impounded
stream and extremely overwide area above beaver dam
along R3.
Photo 12. Existing herbaceous vegetation along UT1.
Vegetated swales will be used to convey runoff from field drains outside of the conservation easement, to the channel.
These swales will help to filter nutrients and sediment from the agricultural runoff. If during analysis and design, it is
determined that a wetland BMP would not be appropriate for this location due to site constraints or soils, an alternative
BMP will be used.
Conservation Easement Boundary Marking
Immediately following site construction and planting, the conservation easement boundaries will be permanently marked
and posted. All boundary marking, posting and signage will be in accordance with the applicable NCDMS, North Carolina
State Properties Office, and State of North Carolina standards.
LEM= TEIi
INTERNATIONAL

Hiwassee River Basin BLAIR CREED
: 16-00727s i CU 06020002 1 MITIGATION PROJECT
Restoration of Riparian Buffers
Riparian buffers in excess of 30 feet from the top of banks will be restored along all proposed stream restoration and
enhancement reaches, as previously discussed. The proposed vegetative plant selection for stream and wetland buffer
areas will incorporate native species that follow those described by Schafale and Weakley (1990) and tolerances cited in
Wetlands Research Program (WRP) Technical Note VN-RS-4.1 (1997). The natural vegetation community will include the
appropriate strata (canopy, understory, shrub, and herbaceous species) based on an appropriate reference community.
Within the four different strata, a variety of species will be planted to create an appropriate, diverse plant community as
shown in Table 3.
Additionally, moderately -tolerant species are able to survive on soils that are saturated or flooded for several months
during the growing season. Flood -tolerant species are able to survive on sites in which the soil is saturated or flooded for
long indefinite periods during the growing season (WRP, 1997). Species planted across the stream banks, floodplains, and
upland areas will include a mixture of appropriate native species for the local region and based on wetness conditions.
Planting will be done at a density to achieve the vegetative success criteria outlined in Part 5.
Table 3. Summary Information for Natural Vegetation Community.
Botanical Name
Common Name
Strata
Wetland
Tolerance
Acer rubrum
Red maple
Canopy
FAC
Betula nigra
River Birch
Canopy
FACW
Quercus rubra
Red Oak
Canopy
FACU
Liriodendron tulipfera
Tulip poplar
Canopy
FACU
Platanus occidentalis
American Sycamore
Canopy
FACW-
Diospyros virginiana
Common Persimmon
Canopy
FAC
Viburnum nudum
Possomhaw viburnum
Understory
FACW+
Carpinus carolinianum
Ironwood
Understory
FAC
Hamamelis virginiana
Witch -hazel
Understory
FACU
Halesia caroliniana
Silverbell
Understory
FAC
Asimina triloba
Paw paw
Understory
FAC
Corpus amomum
Silky Dogwood
Shrub Layer
FACW+
Salix nigra
Black Willow
Shrub Layer
OBL
Sambucus Canadensis
Elderberry
Shrub Layer
FAC
Physocarpus opulifolius
Ninebark
Shrub Layer
FACW
Alnus serrulata
Tag Alder
Shrub Layer
FACW+
Salixsericea
Silky Willow
Shrub Layer
OBL
Corylus americana
Hazelnut
Shrub Layer
FACU
Chasmanthium latifolium
River oats
Herbaceous Layer
FACU
Carex tenera
Quill sedge
Herbaceous Layer
FAC
Carex crinita
Fringed sedge
Herbaceous Layer
FACW+
Andropogon virginicus
Broom sedge
Herbaceous Layer
FACU
Vernonia noveboracensis
New York Ironweed
Herbaceous Layer
FACW
Juncus effuses
Soft stem rush
Herbaceous Layer
FACW+
Andropogon glomeratus
Bushy bluestem
Herbaceous Layer
FACW
Eutrochium fistulosum
Joe-pye-weed
Herbaceous Layer
FACW
Michael Baker and River Works have a successful planting strategy which includes early successional, as well as climax
species. The vegetation selections will be interspersed throughout the project area so that the early successional species
may give way to climax species in all areas.
- : • DIVEfff
INTERNATIONAL

i -lit
Hiwassee River Basin BLAIR CREED
RFP: 16-007278 / CU 06020002 1 MITIGATION PROJECT
The early successional species which have proven successful include river birch and red maple. The successful climax
species include red oak, sycamore, and tulip poplar. All understory and shrub layer species are all considered to be climax
species in the riparian buffer community.
It is understood that riparian buffer conditions at mature reference sites do not reflect those seen at planted or
successional buffer sites until the woody species begin to establish and compete with herbaceous vegetation. To account
for this, a riparian buffer planting with a combination of overstory and understory species, planted at 680 stems per acre,
is typically utilized. Michael Baker will also consider, via prescription in the mitigation plan, the revegetation and
supplemental planting of larger and older planting stock to modify species density and type. This consideration will be
utilized particularly to increase the rate of buffer establishment and buffer species variety, as well as to decrease the
planting/application costs. Examples might include the selective supplemental planting of older mast producing species
as potted stock in later years for increased survivability. This technique can be effective as it avoids sun scald common
with bare root planting at initial revegetation.
As part of the proposed project, invasive exotic vegetation will be treated within the proposed conservation easement
areas. Invasive species will be mechanically removed during site construction and chemical applications of herbicide will
be applied to individual specimens that were unable to be removed or have re -sprouted. This will continue through the
monitoring period. These efforts will aid in the establishment of native riparian species within the restored riparian buffer
areas.
Expected Water Quality Benefits
Along the project stream reaches 100 percent of the stream banks have
inadequate (less than 30 feet wide) riparian buffers. In addition, row crop
production is adjacent to all of the stream reaches. The proposed buffer
areas for the project site will have trees replanted to appropriate densities
(i.e. the riparian buffers will be restored and permanently protected). The
leaves that these trees will drop every fall will increase the standing litter
on the ground, reducing runoff and improve soil health and provide
detritus for aquatic organisms. Commonly accepted nutrient reduction
removal efficiency rates of 60 to 70 percent for the restoration of riparian
buffers will by realized (Mayer et al., 2007).
To quantify how the proposed project would reduce sediment inputs into
Photo 13. Bank erosion along R2. the Hiwassee River watershed, Michael Baker utilized the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Region 5 model. The Region 5
Model is a widely -accepted computer based model used to determine sediment and nutrient load reductions from the
implementation of urban and agricultural BMPs, including but not limited to vegetated filter strips, wetland detention,
and bank stabilization/stream restoration. Model inputs include eroded stream bank length, stream bank height, lateral
recession rates, soil weight based on texture, soil nutrient concentrations, and predicted BMP efficiency rates. For this
project, each stream reach was evaluated individually. Assumptions for the model include the use of average soil nutrient
concentrations for Clay County agricultural land, field judgements in the current lateral recession rate, and a post -
construction reduction efficiency rate of 90%. When applied to streambank stabilization, the model estimates that the
project would reduce sediment inputs to the watershed by 279 tons/year, along with an associated reduction of 237
Ibs/year of Phosphorus and 475 Ibs/year of Nitrogen. In addition, the Region 5 Model estimates that the revegetated
buffers will reduce Total Phosphorus (TP) by 75 percent and Total Nitrogen (TN) by 70 percent.
Additional nutrient reduction estimates were also made using techniques and equations provided in the NCDMS
document "Quantifying Benefits to Water Quality from Livestock Exclusion and Riparian Buffer Establishment for Stream
Restoration June 15, 2016" which reference the NC Division of Water Resources Methodology and Calculation (1998) for
determining nutrient reductions associated with Riparian Buffer Establishment. According to these methods, TN will be
reduced by 692 Ibs/year while TP will be reduced by 45 Ibs/year.
LZZ. 1VEli
INTERNATIONAL

Wiwassee River Basin BLMR CREEK
: 16-007278 / CLI 06020002 MITIGATION PROJECT
Functional Uplift: In their current conditions, the project reaches and riparian buffer areas are highly degraded as a
result of past channelization, past cattle access, land use disturbance, current row crop use, and buffer removal. The
maximum possible functional uplift will be achieved by:
• Providing stable channel forms to reduce bank erosion and sedimentation.
• Restoring, enhancing, and protecting riparian wetlands along the project stream reaches.
• Restoring riparian buffer vegetation to promote native species, improving vegetation densities, filtering flood flows
and runoff, and increasing riparian habitat value.
• Providing improved floodplain connection to dissipate flood energies, filtering storm flows, and promoting sediment
and debris deposition on the floodplain and banks.
• Restoring diverse aquatic and terrestrial habitats that are appropriate for the ecoregion and landscape setting.
• Restoring and extending wildlife corridors that connect to existing wooded areas and natural communities at the
periphery of the project site.
• Reducing nutrient and sediment loadings by restoring riparian buffers.
5.4. Proposed Mitigation:
This technical proposal describes the proposed stream mitigation approaches for the Blair Creek Mitigation Project. The
work will include restoration and enhancement of approximately 3,952 LF of existing stream (Figure 9). This approach will
yield more than 3,500 cold water stream mitigation credits. Any additional credits developed within the conservation
easement areas above the contracted amount will be available to NCDMS as part of the proposed project. The proposed
amounts of stream mitigation are presented in Table 4 below.
Table 4. Proposed Stream and Wetland Mitigation Credit Summary for the Blair Creek Mitigation Project
- -.
R1
Stream Restoration
2,565
1:1
2,565
R2
Stream Restoration
1,472
1:1
1,472
R3
Stream Restoration
225
1:1
225
UT1
Stream Enhancement Level II
145
2.5:1
58
Total Potential Stream Credits
4,320
Total Stream Proposed for
Contract
3,500
5.5. Current Ownership and Long -Term Protection
Michael Baker proposes to transfer a conservation easement to the State of North Carolina for the Blair Creek Mitigation
Project and for that conveyance to serve as the method that will be used for long-term protection of the mitigation site.
Michael Baker has entered into Option Agreements for the acquisition of a conservation easement with the landowners
along the Blair Creek Mitigation Project (Table 5). The Option Agreements have been recorded with the Clay County
Register of Deeds and are valid for a period of greater than or equal to one (1) year from the closing date of this RFP. A
copy of each of the Memorandum of Option Agreements are provided in the appendices, and are summarized in Table 5
on the next page.
A copy of the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services Landowner Authorization Form has been signed by each of
the project landowners. The Option Agreements allow Michael Baker to proceed with the project and to restrict the land -
use in perpetuity through a permanent conservation easement. Michael Baker is prepared to close on the project area
after contract award by NCDMS and will provide, at any time, copies of the deeds of easement, titles, surveys, and any
maps as required.
cm== IVEft
INTERNATIONAL

Hiwassee River Basin BI AIR CREEK
: 16-007278/ CU 06020002 MITIGATION PROJECT
Table S. Summary Information of Current Land Ownership for the Whittier Creek Mitigation Project.
Lynn E and Gail P. Waldrup
September 8, 2017
September 8, 2020
Eugene Tommie B. Waldrup
September 19, 2017
September 19, 2020
Note: A copy of each Memorandum of Option Agreement is provided in the appendices.
5.6. Project Phasing
Michael Baker has extensive stream restoration experience and understands the most recent mitigation requirements and
standards. Accordingly, Michael Baker is in a strong position to implement this project in a timely and effective manner.
Upon contract execution for the Blair Creek Mitigation Project, Michael Baker will implement the project schedule below.
aw
Project Task
milli,
Task 1. CE Document
6 months
May 30, 2018
Task 2. Submit Recorded Conservation
10 months
October 30, 2018
Easement on the Site
Task 3. Mitigation Plan (Final Draft) and
10 months
October 30, 2018
Financial Assurance
Task 4. Mitigation Site Earthwork
1 year, 2 months
February 27, 2019
Completed
Task 5. Mitigation Site Planting and
1 year, 3 months
March 30, 2019
Installation of Monitoring Devices
Task 6. Baseline Monitoring Report
1 year, 6 months
June 30, 2019
(including As -built Drawings)
Task 7. Submit Monitoring Report #1 to
1 year, 11 months
December 1, 2019
NCDMS (meets success criteria)
Task 8. Submit Monitoring Report #2 to
2 years, 11 months
December 1, 2020
NCDMS (meets success criteria)
Task 9. Submit Monitoring Report #3 to
3 years, 11 months
December 1, 2021
NCDMS (meets success criteria)
Task 10. Submit Monitoring Report #4 to
4 years, 11 months
December 1, 2022
NCDMS (meets success criteria)
Task 11. Submit Monitoring Report #5 to
5 years, 11 months
December 1, 2023
NCDMS (meets success criteria)
Task 12. Submit Monitoring Report #6 to
6 years, 11 months
December 1, 2024
NCDMS (meets success criteria)
Task 13. Submit Monitoring Report #7 to
NCDMS and complete Project Close-
7 years, 11 months
December 1, 2025
out process (meets success criteria)
LZZ:. 1VER.
INTERNATIONAL

Hiwassee River Basin BLMR CREED
: 16-007278 i CU 06020002 MITIGATION PROJECT
5.7. Success Criteria
Michael Baker has obtained regulatory approval for numerous stream and wetland mitigation projects (Permitee-
Responsible and both NCDOT and NCDMS full -delivery projects). The stream and wetland restoration design and applied
success criteria for the project site will follow approved success criteria presented in the mitigation plan, developed in
compliance with the NCDMS Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan Template and Guidance (June 2017), as well as the
Stream Mitigation Guidelines issued in April 2003 and the Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory
Mitigation Update (October 2016). In addition, the monitoring success criteria, practices, and corresponding reporting will
follow the NCDMS Stream and Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Guidelines issued in April, 2015, the NCDMS As -built
Baseline Monitoring Report Format, Data Requirements, and Content Guidance issued in June, 2017, and the NCDMS
Annual Monitoring Template (June 2017), and Closeout Template Guidance v2.2, January 2016. Monitoring activities will
be conducted for a period of 5 to 7 years with the final duration dependent upon performance trends toward achieving
project goals and objectives. An early closure provision may be requested by Michael Baker for some or all of the
monitoring components. Early closure may only be obtained through written approval from the regulatory agencies.
Specific success criteria components are presented below.
Stream Restoration Success Criteria
Stream Hydrology: Four bankfull flow events must be documented within the seven-year monitoring period. The four
bankfull events must occur in separate years. Otherwise, the stream monitoring will continue until four bankfull events
have been documented in separate years. Additionally, continuous surface water flow within the tributaries must be
documented to occur for at least 30 consecutive days each year.
Bank Height Ratios: BHR shall not exceed 1.2 at any of the measured riffle cross sections. This standard only applies to
restored reaches of the channel where BHRs are corrected through design and construction. The annual change in BHR
should not exceed 10% as measured between years where cross section surveys take place.
Entrenchment Ratio: Entrenchment Ratio (ER) shall be no less than 1.4 at any of the measured riffle cross sections. This
standard only applies to restored reaches of the channel where entrenchment ratios are corrected through design and
construction. The annual change in entrenchment ratio should not exceed 10% as measured between years where cross
section surveys take place.
Visual Assessment: Visual monitoring of all sections of the project, to include representative photographic
documentation, will be conducted annually for each of the years of monitoring, and will be inclusive of the Current
Conditions Plan View (CCPV) and tables that house the visual assessment metrics. Visual assessments will be undertaken
of bank and bed stability, condition of in -stream structures, channel migration, headcuts, live stake mortality, impacts
from invasive plant species or animal species, and condition of pools and riffles. Inspections will also include assessments
of riparian buffer conditions. Photographs will be used to subjectively evaluate channel aggradation or degradation, bank
erosion, success of riparian vegetation and effectiveness of erosion control measures. Longitudinal photos should indicate
the absence of developing bars within the channel or excessive increase in channel depth. Lateral photos should not
indicate excessive erosion or continuing degradation of the banks. A series of photos over time should indicate
successional maturation of riparian vegetation.
Stream Enhancement II Success Criteria: Success criteria for Enhancement II stream reaches will follow the success
criteria for Visual Monitoring and Vegetation Success Criteria as outlined herein.
Vegetation Success Criteria
The interim measures of vegetative success for the project will be the survival of at least 320, three -year -old trees per
acre at the end of Year Three of the monitoring period and at least 260, five -year -old, trees per acre at the end of Year 5
of the monitoring period. Final success criteria will be a density no less than 210, seven -year -old stems per acre in Year 7
of monitoring. Additionally, trees in each plat must average six feet in height at year 5 and eight feet in height at year 7.
A listing of preferred species to be planted on the site is provided in Part 5.3.
DIVER
INTERNATIONAL

Hiwassee River Basin BLAIR CREED
: 16-007278 i Cu 06020002 1 MITIGATION PROJECT
Method of Reporting on Success Criteria
In accordance with the approved mitigation plan, the baseline monitoring document and as -built monitoring report
documenting the stream mitigation will be developed within 60 days of the planting completion and monitoring
installation on the restored site.
In addition, a period of at least 180 days will separate the as -built baseline measurements and the first year monitoring
measurements. The baseline monitoring document and as -built baseline report will include all information required by
the current NCDMS templates and guidance referenced above, including planimetric (plan view) and elevation (profile
view) information, photographs, sampling plot locations, description of initial species composition by community type,
and monitoring stations. The report will include a list of the vegetation species planted and the associated planting
densities.
The monitoring program will be implemented to document system development and progress toward achieving the
success criteria referenced above. At least 180 days will separate the completion of initial vegetation planting and the
initiation of first year monitoring. Stream morphology, stream hydrology, as well as vegetation, will be assessed to
determine the success of the mitigation. The monitoring program will be undertaken for five to seven years or until the
final success criteria are achieved. For stream Enhancement II monitoring will be limited to visual assessment and
vegetation success.
Monitoring reports will be prepared in the fall of each year of
monitoring and submitted to NCDMS by December 1 of each
monitoring year. The monitoring reports will follow the current
NCDMS monitoring report guidance and templates, as specified in
the RFP, and referenced above, and will include:
1. A detailed narrative summarizing the condition of the
restored site and all regular maintenance activities;
2. Project background information;
3. Maps showing location of vegetation sampling plots,
permanent photo points, and location of transects;
4. CCPV map including monitoring features and any areas of
concern or problem areas noted during monitoring;
5. Photographs showing views of the site taken from fixed point
stations;
6. Geomorphic data;
7. Hydrologic data;
8. Vegetative data, as described below;
9. Any geomorphic, hydrologic or vegetative problem areas;
10. A description of any damage done by animals or vandalism; and
11. Wildlife observations.
Stream Mitigation Monitoring
The stream mitigation success criteria are defined above.
Photo 14. Typical field drain and eroding stream
banks.
Hydrologic Monitoring: Stream hydrologic monitoring will be conducted on Restoration reaches. The occurrence of
bankfull events and floodplain access within the monitoring period will be documented by the use of automated gages
and photographs. The gages will be installed on the floodplain of each reach longer than 1,000 feet. One gage per 5,000
feet will be installed. The crest gages will record the frequency and duration of out of bank flows and the gages will be
checked each time there is a site visit to determine if a bankfull event has occurred. Photographs will be used to document
the occurrence of debris lines and sediment deposition on the floodplain during monitoring site visits. Automated gages
will also be installed on small tributaries to document consecutive days of flow.
- : • DIVEfff
INTERNATIONAL

Hiwassee River Basin BI AIR CREEK
: 16-007278 i Cu 06020002 MITIGATION PROJECT
Photo Reference Stations: Photographs will be used to visually document restoration success. Reference stations will be
photographed for at least five years following construction. Reference photos will be taken once a year. Photographs will
be taken from a height of approximately five to six feet above grade. Permanent markers will be established to ensure
that the same locations (and view directions) on the site are monitored in each monitoring period.
Cross Sections: Cross sections will be monitored for seven years, with monitoring events occurring during years 1, 2, 3, 5,
and 7. Permanent, monumented cross sections will be installed at a frequency of one per 20 bankfull widths or two cross
sections per 1,000 feet of stream. There should be little change in as -built restoration cross sections. If changes occur,
they should be evaluated to determine if they represent a movement toward a more unstable condition (e.g.,
downcutting, erosion) or a movement toward increased stability (e.g., settling, vegetative changes, deposition along the
banks, decrease in width/depth ratio). Cross sections shall be classified using the Rosgen Stream Classification method
and monitored cross sections should fall within the quantitative parameters defined for channels of the design stream
type.
Longitudinal Profiles: Longitudinal profiles will be developed to document the as -built condition for Restoration and
Enhancement Level I reaches. Bedforms observed should be consistent with those observed for channels of the design
stream type. Additional longitudinal profiles may be required if problems are identified during the monitoring period.
Lateral Reference Photos: Reference photo transects will be taken at each permanent cross section. Photographs will be
taken of both banks at each cross section. The survey tape will be centered in the photographs of the bank. The water
line will be located in the lower edge of the frame and as much of the bank as possible will be included in each photo.
Photographers will make an effort to maintain the same area in each photo over time.
Vegetation Monitoring
The vegetative success criteria are defined above. Successful restoration of the vegetation on a mitigation site is
dependent upon hydrologic restoration, planting of preferred canopy species, and volunteer regeneration of the native
plant community. In order to determine if the criteria are achieved, vegetation plots will be installed and monitored in
years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7. The vegetation plots will be comprised of fixed and random plots. The plots will make up a minimum
of two percent of the planted portion of the site. Vegetation monitoring will occur in the fall. Individual quadrant data
will be provided and will include individual -specific data on species, height, date planted, and grid location; as well as a
collective determination of density within the quadrant. Relative values will be calculated and importance values will be
determined. Individual seedlings will be marked, so they can be found in succeeding monitoring years. Volunteer species
will be counted and noted and their inclusion in quadrant data will be evaluated on a case -by -case basis. The presence of
invasive species vegetation within quadrants will also be noted, as will any wildlife effects. At the end of the first growing
season species composition, density, height, and survival will be evaluated. For each subsequent year, until the final
success criteria are achieved, the restored site will be evaluated between July and October.
Remedial Actions
In the event that the site or a specific component of the site fails to achieve the defined success criteria, Michael Baker
will develop necessary adaptive management plans and/or implement appropriate remedial actions for the site in
coordination with NCDMS and the review agencies. Remedial action required will be designed to achieve the success
criteria specified previously and will include a work schedule and monitoring criteria that will take into account physical
and climatic conditions. As stated above, it is anticipated that a robust invasive species treatment regimen will be required
along with the removal of beavers throughout the life of the project. Michael Baker will work alongside local groups and
agencies to ensure that these nuisance and invasive species do not have a detrimental impact to the project.
Part 6. Quality Control
Quality is built around processes and procedures. Michael Baker's companywide Quality Management System establishes
those processes and procedures at three different levels:
a. "Project Management - The Michael Baker Way" — Michael Baker has established a standard structured Project
Delivery Process for all projects. This process addresses every aspect of a project and is the foundation for
delivering a quality product.
- : • DIVEfff
INTERNATIONAL

Hiwassee River Basin BLAIR CREED
RFP : 16-007278 / CU 06020002 1 MITIGATION PROJECT
b. Project Management Plan (PMP) —The foundation established in "The Michael Baker Way" is further defined with
the PMP. Each project's PMP applies the Project Delivery Process to specific project conditions and establishes
the process for managing the project.
C. Project Specific Quality Management Plan (PSQMP) — Project Managers prepare a PSQMP for each project that
defines project specific quality assurance and quality control procedures.
The first two levels of quality control will ensure that all aspects of this project are delivered according to schedule
established herein. The PSQMP for this project will establish and document various quality assurance reviews to cross-
examine all engineering and design methods, set forth document preparation and delivery methods and activities, and
ensure all deliverables are technically sound, follow the required NCDMS formats, contain all required information, and
are grammatically/typographically correct. Reviews will include:
a. Peer Reviews — Qualified and experienced individuals independent of the project will perform peer reviews. The
objective of these reviews will be to: assess the product versus NCDMS' requirements, spot check key values,
verify completeness and clarity, and determine if the design meets sound engineering practice.
b. Deliverable Reviews — Appropriate staff will review the entire submission for overall presentation, format,
uniformity, consistency, and completeness.
C. Constructability Reviews —Appropriate staff will perform constructability reviews relative to scope, schedule, and
acceptability. Results of the constructability review will be incorporated in the design to optimize work and
material used during construction, and to ensure the project is completed in compliance with any required federal,
state, or local permits.
The PSQMP also identifies when quality audits are performed to insure that the PSQMP is in place, appropriate, and being
followed. The PSQMP is kept simple and practical to ensure effectiveness. Central to effectively implementing the PSQMP
is ensuring that the project is appropriately staffed, both in terms of manpower and experience. Time to perform quality
control and quality assurance activities is an important consideration when developing the project schedule.
During the construction phases, the Project Manager and the assigned Michael Baker staff will be responsible for oversight
of construction activities. This will involve checking the contractor's adherence to design documents, making decisions
regarding field changes, and checking compliance with federal, state and local permits.
DIVER,
INTERNATIONAL

GIS T
.r,�tllr Allf V
W,

North
Havesvill
r
lay County
I Site Location I
D -�> o
�,_
z
hatuge
6
o
Note: Site is located within Targeted Local
Watershed 06020002060010
Figure 1
Project Vicinity Map
Blair Creek Mitigation Project
-
rorm
t1\, I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L
0 0.5 1 2
Miles

Proposed Conservation Easement �p
? ' �89, ,Fort HII
H
aYeSviilg Chi ■ ' I94�j
MillSL
- M��31N
14i
f cam 2
B M I P•99 r' •f -� ,
- 1837
j
' am 1
3 G
■t�Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed
Figure 2
Michael Baker 0 1,000 2,000 USGS Topographic Map
1 N T E R N A T 1 Q N A! Feet (Hayesville Quadrangle)
Blair Creek Mitigation Project

N ThC
Project Streams
HbB2 C Proposed Conservation Easement
NRCS Mapped Hydric Soils
!►D Soil Mapping Units
DrB ArA-Arkaqua loam (0-2%)
ThB d DrB-Dillard loam (1-6%)
EvD-Evard-Cowee complex (15-30%)
EvE-Evard-Cowee complex (30-50%)
Hb132-Hayesville clay loam (2-8%)
HbC2-Hayesville clay loam (8-15%)
HbD2-Hayesville clay loam (15-30%)
DrB ThB-Tate loam (2-8%)
Fibc2 ThC-Tate loam (8-15%)
Ud-Udorthents, loamy
W-Water
I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L
ud
0 300 600 Figure 3
Feet NRCS Soils Map
1 inch = 300 feet Blair Creek Mitigation Project

A
❑C
I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L
Proposed Conservation Easement
LiDAR Elevation (ft)
- High : 2244
Low: 1830
of
46
450 900 Figure 4
Feet LiDAR Map
1 inch = 450 feet Blair Creek Mitigation Project

Panel
o:. y _(r�p.
Proposed Conservation Easement
FEMA Flood Hazard Zones
1 % Annual Chance Flood Hazard
0.02% Annual Chance Flood Hazard
0yN'
�i
0 400 800 Figure 5
Michael Bakel Feet
FEMA Floodplain Map
N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L 1 inch = 400 feet Blair Creek Mitigation Project

Proposed Conservation Easement
5' Topographic Contours
�r
s -
-
! .
NCCGIA
0 300 600
Michael ■ Feet Figure 6
Recent Aerial with Topography
N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L 1 inch = 300 feet Blair Creek Mitigation Project

-r- ■a
or ift
.'�Jpk
,i
J
- u0 It
Project Watershed
Proposed Conservation Easement
2011 National Land Cover Database
Developed, Open Space
Developed, Low Intensity
- Developed, Medium Intensity
• - Developed, High Intensity
Barren Land
Deciduous Forest
- Evergreen Forest
17-1
Project Land Use: Mixed Forest
Drainage Area: 2.91 square miles (1,864 acres) Shrub/Scrub
1.69% Impervious Herbaceous
11.70% Developed Hay/Pasture
58.70% Forested Cultivated Crops
24.32% Agriculture Woody Wetlands
Sources: USGS Streamstats and
2011 Nional Land Cover Database Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands
at
r
0 2,000
I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L 1 inch = 2,000 feet
:em
Project Location
■
■
4,000 Figure 7
� Feet Impervious Surface
and Land Use Analysis
Blair Creek Mitigation Project

— t r
-1 limb
Reach 1: 983 acres
Reach 1 ` Reach 2: 880 acres
Reach 2 Reach 3: 1,864 acres
Reach 3 UT1: 22 acres
UT1
Proposed Conservation Easement
-
5' Topographic Contours
Project Streams
4.
vrr - - _ .. t y
Reach 2
S. Fork Blair Creek
UT1
L -
Reach 1
N. Fork Blair Creek
Reach 3
Blair Creek
0 1,600 3,200 Figure 8
Michael Bakel Feet
Watershed Drainage Areas
N T E R N A T 1❑ N A L 1 inch = 1,600 feet Blair Creek Mitigation Project

N
`.. xs-1
XS-6
XS-4
INTERNAT10NAL
O Stream Form Locations
0 Pebble Counts
Cross Sections
Existing Streams
Proposed Conservation Easement
Parcel Boundaries
"4
Reach 1
N. Fork Blair Creek
XS-3
XS-5
�]i•
Reach 3
Blair Creek
Reach 2
S. Fork Blair Creek
* � w
UT1
1
ap, NC Center for 'G Fag r a p n i ci Information and Analysis
0 300 600 Figure 10
Feet Pre -Monitoring Features
1 inch = 300 feet Blair Creek Mitigation Project

A
'1104`1,400- -
Cherry Road
UT1 Note: The historic aerial photograph is not georeferenced,
and the easement boundary location is approximate.
Historic Aerial Photograph Source: USGS 19-Ja .19.57A.-
' kr
..r
Michael
Bakeq Figure 11A
Not to Scale Historic Aerial 1957
1 N T E R N A T 1❑ N A L Blair Creek Mitigation Project

■
Historic Aerial Photograph Source: USGS 19-Jan-1957
Michael Figure 11 B
el Not to Scale Historic Aerial 1975
1 N T E R N A T 1❑ N A L Blair Creek Mitigation Project

N _ _ -I,%T
'1
• Reach 1
01
-e f
�` • `i • ell �' .•
fi
�s
'4'
ir� A
Reach 2 '�
�"� Reach 3
r-
� � Cherry Read `
UT1
Historic Aerial Photograph Sourcea-USGS
Michael w 0 300 600 Figure 11 D
e4 Feet Historic Aerial 2006
N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L 1 inch = 300 feet Blair Creek Mitigation Project

N
Beaver Dam
Q Bedrock
Streams
Reach 1 Crossings/Easement Breaks
N. Fork Blair Creek Cross Sections
Stream Impacted by Beaver Dams
Proposed Conservation Easement
•; Parcel Boundaries
Incision
High (BHR - >1.5)
xs-z
Moderate (BHR - 1.3-1.5)
Low (BHR - 1.0-1.2)
Channel Incision
Reach
Moderate
Low Incision Incision
(BHR = 1.0-1.2) (BHR = 1.3-1.5)
High
Incision
BHR = >1.5) Typical BHR
Reach 1
19% 0%
81% >1.5
Reach 2
10% 23%
67% >1.5
Reach 3
0% 13%
87% >1.5
UT1
100% 0%
0% 1
Approximately 76.77% of the proposed project streams exhibit
significant, obvious incision BHR>1.5
XS-4
I H T E R N A T 1 0 N A L
XS-3
Incision in these areas liLL
artificially low due to pon
from beaver dams
, mm
NE
Reach 3
Blair Creek
XS-5
Reach 2
S. Fork Blair Creek
0 300 600 Figure 12
Feet Channel Stability Map
Incision and Bedrock Control
1 inch = 300 feet Blair Creek Mitigation Project

Reach 3
Blair Creek
Reach 2
S. Fork Blair Creek
UT1
• 0 300 600 Figure 14
Michael " Feet
Floodplain Alteration
[ H T E R N A T 1 0 N A L 1 inch = 300 feet Blair Creek Mitigation Project

`+
Targeted Local Watersheds
Jq
I Y. F ,•_� '.q• - .-fir Proposed Conservation Easement
7.?.1
rM
14.71
`��
qk
�rL .fir. // ,� �'" _ �<., F'`"�•F !!i 'r!p-. '� ka!* $✓✓,r3 , f•''`'�c. '/�a
�r P. t ,2V N.
f f.• ~+ff > �i f3�� �/ • . fir' �Tj '
. ^i� .` .��� ° `�' d I' - ' 7f"•.1+,r .��'�' � rt •' + 7s'Y �S��r ` Y� i ��ll�t�% {�
�x 6
-1
. �� W
.l � � �:, ��'' " .,b� ~• ' ,;a,.- ,�
yl�_l�„�y
Yam' 3 ! -., + _ _ Y� - � ���• � Y S ��ir„�".• � •.,}A � -� _
�1 , , y yr• � � �� , � ,�yfhF• �a�� 1 t
01
i >a ; tea►/� ►r
At
'ifd�a je �'' �., - ._ � �� • - 'Y 3 �" Lim. a 1,�t�t�9^IX, �/
14
. ._ nP 'r fit' i �[ `� _ .. j � ,rr�:- �-,�`�-'�•F
�C ,'� r~ a •��ri';N y•r Z+-
��' . 0 0 0 . 0 0'. I\�l{n O 0 0 0 . 0 0 . 0,
ure 16
Michael Baker0 _Miles . - -• Planning
Contextual.•
_ T I 1 _

A
NC CWMTF Easement
7HIW/Upper Hiwasses River
Aquatic Habitat
Nantahala National Forest-
Tusquitee Ranger District
Land Trust for the
Little Tennessee Preserve
Water Supply Watershed
Conservation Easement
Federal Ownership
►����� Private
Natural Areas -Very High
Tw Natural Areas -Moderate
Streams
Hiwassee River
Waterbodies
Proposed Conservation Easement
Aerial Photograph Source4NCnO:reMap,
N
INTERNATIONAL
111
1 inch = .75 miles
_ HIW/Tusquitee Creek/ _
': Big Tuni Creek Aquatic Habitat
d t
SS •;t
vs
Site Location
Blair Creek
Nantahala National Forest-
Tusquitee Ranger District
Chatuge Lake
1.5 Figure 17
■ Miles Adjacent and Proximal
Planning Elements Map
Blair Creek Mitigation Project

-
Project Streams
Proposed Conservation Easement
NRCS Mapped Hydric Soils
DrB
ArA-Arkaqua loam (0-2%)
v'+ DrB-Dillard loam (1-6%)
Note: There are no mapped
wetlands near the project site.
Reach 1
N. Fork Blair Creek
DrB
r '1
x,
Reach 3
' Blair Creek
Reach 2
S. Fork Blair Creek j
ArA.r
0 300 600 Figure 18
Michael Bakel Feet
Hydric Soils and Wetlands
N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L 1 inch = 300 feet Blair Creek Mitigation Project

Proposed Conservation Easement
FORMATION
Biotite gneiss
Copper Hill Formation
A
Blue Ridge Belt: Metasandstone, Metagraywacke, Metasiltstone, and Mica schist
Blue Ridge Belt: Wehutty Formation
Blue Ridge Belt: Ocoee Supergoup
Metasandstone, Metagraywacke, Metasiltstone, and Mica schist
Al
[ H T E R N A T 1 0 N A L
Blue Ridge Belt: Ocoee Supergroup.
Wehutty Formation;.
Blue Ridge Belt: Ocoee Supergroup
Copper Hill Formation
Blue Ridge Belt:
hikgtite gneiss
1,200 2,400 Figure 19
Feet Geologic Map
1 inch = 1,200 feet Blair Creek Mitigation Project

AlIPT
.r�tl lr Allf r
�N

RFP Number: 16-007278 Vendor: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
ATTACHMENT I: TECHNICAL EVALUATION SCORESHEET
Important Notes/Guidance
1. Projects MUST be located within DMS Targeted Local Watersheds within Hiwassee 06020002 (Attachment G Table and Map). Projects located within Local Watershed Planning
(LWP) or
Regional Watershed Plan (RWP)HUCs may receive additional points, as noted in Section 1.0 of this Technical Proposal Rating Form (or "scoresheet")
2. Questions in sections 1 through 4 are required and MUST be addressed in the proposal. BONUS questions in Section 5 (after the required section) may receive additional points, but
will NOT disqualify a Provider's proposal if unanswered or not applicable. Bonus questions can add up to 7 points to the total score.
Technical Proposal Evaluation Criteria
Hiwassee 06020002 CU Rating Form
Offeror:
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
Site Name:
Blair Creek Mitigation Project
River Basin /
Catalog Unit:
Hiwassee River Basin / CU 06020002
RFP Number:
RFP #: 16_007278
Date of Site
Evaluation:
Type/Amt of
Mitigation
Offered:
Proposal
Review
Committee:
Alternate
Attendees:
Overall Merit (Proposal Screening)
Yes/I.
or N
1-For stream mitigation projects, does the Technical Proposal adequately document the historical presence of stream(s) on the
project site, and provide the drainage areas (acres) and provide accurate, process -based descriptions of all project stream reaches
Y
and tributaries?
2-For proposals that include wetland mitigation, does the technical proposal adequately document the presence of hydric soil
indicators (including soil boring logs prepared by a Licensed Soil Scientist and a map showing soil boring locations and mapped soil
series)?
N/A
3-For proposals that include wetland mitigation, does the proposed success hydroperiod exceed the 5% minimum and is it
appropriate for the project site and soil series? If the proposed hydroperiod differs from the 2016 IRT guidance, justification must
be provided in the RFP.
N/A
4-Does the proposal adequately document the physical, chemical and/or biological impairments that currently exist on the project
site?
Y
S-Does DMS agree with the overall mitigation approach (proposed levels of intervention) presented? [The Technical Proposal
must demonstrate that the proposed mitigation activities are appropriate for existing site conditions and watershed
characteristics (e.g., adjacent land use/land cover), and are optimized to yield maximum functional gains.]
Y
6-Does DMS agree with the proposed credit structure(s) described in the proposal?
Y
7-Does the proposed project avoid significant adverse impacts to existing wetlands and/or streams?
Y
8-Does the proposal adequately describe how the project will advance DMS watershed planning goals?
Y
9-For any proposed Priority II restoration, are all the following elements included in the proposal OR is Priority
2 stream restoration limited to "tie-ins" (designed tributary confluences)?
- Floodplain bench grading will extend a minimum 1.5 bankfull widths beyond the stream belt -width (no
meandering floodplains—seeDiagram below).
The floodplain will be over -excavated to accommodate replacement of topsoil.
The design and construction oversight will ensure the management of topsoil to include the harvest and segregated
stockpiling of A and B soil horizons for placement on excavated floodplain features.
-The slopes between the outer edge of floodplain grading and the terrace will be a minimum of 5:1.
Y
Note: An answer of No in this section means the Technical Proposal is rejected.
Continue or Reject?
Ver: 9/30/16 Page 38 of 42

RFP Number: 16-007278 Vendor: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
Diayrarn For Priark[y II Ruesi[on Above.
Iar W
Section 1.0 - Watershed Module [20 Points Possible] REQUIRED
Projects Locatedoutside o or RWP
1 For proposed projects located outside of a Local Watershed Plan (LWP) area -- but within another targeted HUC (TLW,
TRA) -- to what extent does the project support the restoration goals? The following CU-wide and TLW goals are
documented in the Hiwassee River Basin Restoration Priorities report (see link below): 1- reduce sediment inputs to streams;
2 - reduce nutrient inputs to streams ; 3 - restore degraded aquatic habitat ; 4 - restore riparian buffers . [Provider must
describe specific elements/features of the current site conditions and proposed project design that will contribute
substantially to meeting these goals.]
Hiwassee RBRP
rojec a resses ewer an goals point
Project addresses o goals points
Projectaddresses o goals points 10
Projects Located within LWP or RWP
2 For projects located within the Peachtree -Martins Creek LWP, does proposed project address stressors and sources as
identified in Findings and Recommendations Summary? The major LWP stressors/sources include: 1- lack of riparian
vegetation; 2 - channel modification; 3 - excess nutrients and sediment; 4 - fecal bacterial contamination; 5 - stormwater
pollutants and velocities; and 8 - groundwater contamination. To receive points, Provider must describe in detail how the
proposed project will contribute significantly to addressing identified stressors.
Peachtree -Martins Creek LWP
Project addresses fewer than 2 stressors. 1 point N/A
Project addresses 2 to 4 of 8 stressors. 5 points
Project addresses 5 to 6 of 8 stressors. 15 points
Project addresses 7 to 8 of 8 stressors 20 points
Ver: 9/30/16 Page 39 of 42

RFP Number. 16-007278 Vendor: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
Section Z.0 - Uplift Potentialo u e JbU Points Possible]
Stream (SMUs) Focus
1
What is the proportion of significant, obvious incision (BHR > —1.5)?
Less than 50% of the proposed footage exhibits significant, obvious incision. 1 point
50-75% of the proposed footage exhibits significant, obvious incision. 5 points
>75% of the proposed footage exhibits significant, obvious incision. 15 points
15 Approximately 77%
2
What is the proportion of the existing condition proposed for treatment indicative of active bank erosion? Active bank
erosion includes surficial scour (distinguished from bare banks), hyraulic and mechanical bank failures.
Less than 20% active erosion. 1 point
20-50% active erosion. 5 points
>50% active erosion. 15 points
15 Approximately 55%
3
What is the dominant buffer vegetation condition?
Small woody Vegetation >30 feet in width (shrub, early successional trees). 1 point
Small woody vegetation <30 feet in width or an herbaceous dominated condition; or mature
trees are scattered and sparse within the proposed boundary (the proposed reach
treatments could take place with minimal impacts to mature trees). 5 points
5
No buffer vegetation, maintained cover, or grazed pasture; or impervious cover proposed
for removal. 15 points
4
What is the percent of proposed easement length actively subject to water quality stressors that will be addressed by the
project? [stressors within or immediately adjacent to easement may include pasture with direct livestock access, livestock
exclusion but with poorly managed crossings, hydrologic bypass of buffers (e.g. the drains, discharge outfalls, hydrologic
connections to livestock wallows or CAFO ponds), stormwater outfalls, adjacent row crops, maintained vegetation, or
impervious surfaces within 30 feet of proposed easement boundary]
Proportion of affected length less than 50%. 1 point
Proportion of affected length 50-75%. 5 points
Proportion of affected length >75%. 15 points
15 Approximately 100%
The following multiplier is included to prevent a bias against stream projects that include appropriate levels of
enhancement.
TOTAL STREAM SMU FOCUS POINTS
60
Ratio of Total LF to SMUs:
1.26
SECTION 2 (Streams) TOTAL = Stream SMU focus total x
Ratio of Total LF to SMUs (not to exceed 60 points)
60 X 1.26
= 75.55
= 60
Ver: 9/30/16 Page 40 of 42

RFP Number: 16-007278 Vendor: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
Section 3.0 - implementation and Risko u e L15 Points Possible]
1
Physical constraints or barriers (i.e. utilities, culverts, property lines, easements, managed areas, etc.) that affect project
design and effectiveness. [Percentages calculated based upon adding total linear footage of crossings, roadways, utilities,
>10 % of the total project footage is segmented by crossings, roadways, or utility
rights of way. 1 point
5-10 % of the total project footage is segmented by crossings, roadways, or utility
rights of way. 5 points
< 5% of the total project footage is segmented by crossings, roadways, or utility
rights of way. 10 points
10 Less than 1%
Project is not affected by crossings, roadways, and/or utilities; or project with
existing constraints removes or relocates the constraints or barriers such that the
design is not significantly affected by the constraint(s). 15 points
Section 4.0- Provider Experience [15 Points Possible] REQUIRED
1
Similar mitigation projects completed by the Offeror (through at least 3 years of monitoring).
Completed less than 5 mitigation projects. 2 points
Completed more than 5 mitigation projects. 5 points
5
2
Experience
of Project Team (people actually completing work)
Project team contains at least two individuals with mitigation experience specific to
project evaluation, acquisition, design, construction, and monitoring. 2 points
All of the above and at least two projects brought to successful regulatory closure
with the Interagency Review Team (IRT). 10 points
10
REQUIRED SECTIONS TOTAL
25
Ver: 9/30/16 Page 41 of 42

RFP Number: 16-007278
Vendor: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
Section 5.0 - Bonus Module (7 points possible)
1
Is the proposed project located within a priority subwatershed within the LWP or RWP area?
[Hyperlink to LWP or RWP]. 1 point
NO
2
Does the proposal implement all or part of a project identified within the LWP or RWP Project Atlas?
1 point
NO
3
For protects Located within or outside LWP (but still in a designated TLM: Does the project's
conceptual design include one or more structural BMPs (other than livestock exclusion fencing and
alternate watering) within or immediately upstream of the project easement such that nutrient
and/or sediment inputs or hydraulic stresses from outside the project easement are more
effectively addressed? [In rural subwatersheds, this would be agricultural BMPs; in urban/suburban
watersheds, this would be stormwater BMPsJ The BMP locations and types should be clearly
identified on a map figure in the proposal. 1 point.
1
Grassed Swale
4
Project each (es) are on or confluent to (directly discharge to) an impaired stream or waterbody.
Impaired waters include those that are 303d listed (Category 5) or Category 4 waters, per the
most recent Integrated Report (provided online by NC DWR). 1 point
No
5
Proposed project is on or drains to WS-classified reach(es) within a Water Supply watershed,
�as designated by NC DWR. 1 point
1
7
Ability to connect adjacent (having a common boundary with) natural habitats and extend
wildlife corridors. 1 point
1
8
Proposed project boundaries are directly contiguous to (have a common boundary with)
another protected property.
Proposed project easement shares at least one boundary
Proposed project easement shares at least one boundary with
another mitigation property (DMS project or approved
No
9
For stream or buffer mitigation projects on first order streams (headwater drainages), do project
easements extend upstream toward drainage divides on all tributaries/reaches such that flow
(whether perennial, intermittent or ephemeral) in >90% of all upstream channels is captured within
the project easement(s)? [To receive points, Provider must include appropriate maps and
calculations to demonstrate that this criterion is met.] 1 point.
No
TOTAL BONUS POINTS
3
Total Required Section Points (Maximum Possible = 110 Points) =
60 + 25 = 85
+ Bonus Points (Maximum Possible = 7 Points) =
85 + 3 = 88
Total Points =
88
Proposal Rating ( Score x 0.01) =
0.88
Comments:
Ver: 9/30/16 Page 42 of 42

zoi�oo�seee
09 L1a42�17 Hillilfilliffillill
„11g8jj
r'Imna by —I 1—. _,. _..,� .�,,��!%'f}
BK: CRP 413�
a dve,. PG: 230-230. A �-
MichaelIJAmU- •,lac D�
Tel H,p —111d. S,, 2UI
Uitldlr. NC 211&Ih
M1ley40RANPV'M OF OPTION III PVRC:I IASE CONSERVATION FASENI RNT
TRIS MT:MOa u" MR f)PFTON TO PMCIIASE CONSERVATION EASA.MEN'r
1"Mrnwmn,ium'ry re nude mvl rnlfrN lisle Ihiz _duy of Sm,vvber. An by end buwern
.Nis. fywa nwuo d W'aldmw 'nvrtc 1.'WnWIVu ('C' um•') ,w M)CIrAF.l. A KR
LNC[NFFRING, INC., a .anpu "u —! m the wfc M rve. very wifu n� ul rSi IMyrvowl
Rd, s'unr last, Aslm•f II¢
WIIEREAS� L'ranlor xnJ 6Ma mve wad Imo x caUm Uplimi ,e Pwclnxx [,m,ervpum,
'Y)pl— I damd SemmMm 19,,M7 panue,n to whuh t;,unm yremd In Hnkn. iI
mredrldnatiygnnnlyiee NMI,
Z ra�ena,rvh rase I ll lm"Eau ,,I,d nl" rW
Prapuly Incaiod in i18ti (�, Nurlh Cunliaa, what P^NrnS is nmrt pmiaulerlY dmenb9rl p, Ilx
ehaand Wof llha "Prolxa,y"}vW
WRkRCAS• I'hr ISJiw rnlainro Ihin MawrtmWm fnr Jr purPozcol zmiAg [mlh,main Venn
anJ covdiuom ortprlllpoP and,n pmvWrralswStiur llgite of llle OMin1c
NON'. TNERF.PORF, in axui,imn[xm of drc fmryvm6,hr putin durfiy agxras relh,we
rn ,Nln of the OPliup �'Mluuc<ni.1 ne srnVcmbcc lu 2n1] od A.11 eapirt ml
sanrnma ts. 2ozn.
•111 ¢f ll t PrwraAnu M "I' ,n ds UPI— s< Inamlronsd In'hla Memnmmlum Nr
,olcxaoc.
fhc UPi, 1.11 L•r b.11 gWrnlwW inura Ialhe Voarlil al'. Immimandd,ah rmpvJ ive
hmty. auccnw,n and,rtafmt.
ISIONA IVR A U Nt)I Axy A�-KNCIW I. MMh. MPEAKON PULLOWINf. PAINS}
CRANTOW
3ID
HP—'c - K-'z n. ii'b. R r—:r $,tair —'
PNnl Namr .la,•rL C4./.�.e.n
4I'AIEOFSIOR11 CAROLINA
I})UNn'OF Caw �`
L .S..cs.. IA Larc.. .,hr uudmyiyyld Noxnwy Puphc of J,r Ceupyy eltd Snw
4f asYid, ce,ti[Y Hru lf5r,P6_�.v'gw W.idau�_peraunollYeppotmA befnrelerc lhlydvS.
uknnwledSlydy to medal W-rnlmuraily.,O-d ecc M Its I'mrgamF docmnmt Ilure
rt,.rwd,avaraaaan a.,ama armr Pr:wn', idmdJy W Iht mm, M Syc� aavna3RL2 &K
W iulmany huhd alnl NPhrlal®nmPm Beal, thu �daynr S..g1r.A�.�..ola �J11
G�nV 91R^iri�nf Hzwrvy�}
PM1nld Nome S..s� N 1�,..z. Nmary Puldk
My CummlRlwt Eap'mz o.7.y�-S �a 2�
j Arrix NOTARIAL STAMPSEALJ
lbr v�ime ca�mY. NC ���
II
Iry w[TN>:56 WRRRF P, ohepsnirs he.e duly ear,.trvq Nis Msmwanmm n+erohr dalr HM
nYn4[Wnl[m-
GRANTEE:
Ry:
Prmi Nnmc(
rIN: Llrt r.r£SInEJ^
STATE OF NOR1 CAROLR'IA
CO{��1rcrV ULI n • t
tLt��.�.
1o1Y
I—`�.
I, }!,L{lll_. 1_T'�,k
aTialnry PWdic of the Caunly and Slas nfartanN, Je hertW
cnr,gv Jn i:fl
penanalty nme hHom me Niv dayand
11
edconulydgtd ,ha, baehru �Ilf� I f"aNPt Vi M
Mitl, ]8eker F.rylimainP,Irrc.nNOMCerNksa prW'encimai uirywniion, aed Jw be arknoud •dytrl n•
mr,M, he wlun,mlr sipmdVM FuaPumg
decumenlf the pl,lrra eFuaninumursd and in the
I—.- Nr kneels I Y'I'
_
Wikaz my hwd and olreu
Il¢V,hr V='Jay nf�!20I1.
h
OffiSipruavcofN¢ury
Pdmed Name: �� N•say Put•li,-
MSCrmlmievmExPua' •+, e-) I
It-, }IH
APFIK NOTnRIAf. sIAMP-NkALI
NyyUs P
B
a aO7gRiFw

VIIIVI�IIII� IIIIIII�IIVIlip
2017001917
0&97-21702E I:s1 VM �{j/�
Prepared by alw Rawl', BKr:fCRP 41
°""��;�(^L
%,"dma PG: 17Y-172 ( s-1 = 111
74, H l Nakra ld, Su eri�y, Ins. 'j"
;'97 Hnvnnod Rd, Svhe 20I
Adhrsiilq TC ?hRp6
MEWRAND17AI OF OPTION 10 PURC 1—F. VON SRRVAI HUN EASRMLNT
TIIIS Ml•,MONANIILIII l OPTION TOPURGNASF CONSLAV A'PdpN F.ASIMFNI'
!"Memmandtwf'7 W nude aqd mlervd 'ium Ima ` aaY of 9eor�2{Ij] ny aad bautza
Mr. I.snn F, AMdrouu a d Mro Ca'I P WaId� an, pn s landowner l-Cramea'} and MICN
BARER CNOMF.F.RINO, INCH. a wrporuian ivymit<d in it q sWtc of Ncw Yhrk with trffe: s a, '47
Nay aoa Rd,Suit. 2pl, A,JNjhe, N('„8Sts6("f,a ').
N'I1FRF. 5, I:ranror aM Heke� (rave nutted ial, s 6f-itaut 11Ptl 1 ur Pmrnrtse C'u Fi—
basement Nm "(1Friu� 7 dalyd �'splflOhar 8.2pi?. Inaan:ud ru whioh Orsmor prwadd In Baker. 1U
-ha .1 aaIT, C-1 n apron In n'n+.lrw Hero lure'Y wdmP'1 outs wM.real
p hrl'awd m (lW Norllr Canrli which p�pen)• Is rtnvr lrarticolmlp deem-hai M. me
anar;lial Lx li;yn nl (Ihc"Prtrpert.;'I eod
WRERFAS,I WPanes pFllirw dil.MNnnrarrdnm Ibr dsa pWI— vk-e Pramcenamlama
+W..prW:don. of Ih= Optiond to P—de wrrstruol notice ofnc, cob,
NOW,'1'PIL'l ILPO Ih:, in cvnsidemtron nrthe fomeoirg. the pm tm Imahy xFoe nc InUows.
rpe a of the lrwi coramelaed on Seo anbn v 1.17 no .hall eapirc or,
SpyrcmbcrH ��o=p
All of IIt. Frovra on. scr Cork ,, the Wp4o:t arc igcnrlelrnl[A ih cols Mas sF.. by
,aRr,.
Tile rlraiml anal[ he tiediag upovand inure mmn hrnefit nflhe Nanrr3.nd mar zlieufive
h nr,:-.rrGeCS— and esHEara.
1516MA1'URL'S AND NMARY AC'KN'ON'LhOUMCh75 APPFAR ON FOLLMY N5 PAf M
ORAN—
H1';
YriN N.rne
7Wc:
SPATT.OF NORTH
CA LINA
couNTYOF L—
I. Cir�S'h`I�I.I I'1''I �'•I, `e1lCk.�� F,Ihe undctsigued Notary Public oflhe Cowry yM Srare
aferuaid, cmaify .hat Sra.�L41(>slr9rati.� J,<rwuwllr xppcatN bc6mmeays aey,
acknnwledging llr me lha!lrashq vddu,nirly sigredaml execul { the fP'{'ndacwnrn1. 7bs-
rcneivsN natjafedory cvldencer,frlte paua�:idrnlily in [he fomr of�[NyY.1"$ �1Ep-•r�y�
Wilncu mY hand errd NotatiaL��m�or seal,leis_] doyo( .2.016.
Off iei Sipnatvre Y4olery .n
PM1nkd Namc N fill 1 r rTdary Public
MY Commis<ion Fapirea_ NIN't,��'r� 2r�CZ(7
[AFFIX NOTARIAL S TAMP-Si;AT.J
n Meal
Notary PU..
[lap county• nc
IN W'ITTiF554'HFRF.OF the pastes n. re duly Pxeculed mia AingomnJmr as r:f the vaa fry[
ximecwdR4al-
CRANTFF.
Nv
Yam Nanw: �., I-4snuW
rills JlCF f�GSIC6_%j
HTATP OF IVOR-C.—LWN
COUNT Y UP
1, l<.tNk�i �tFnnaNaary YUFlicefma e'.onrrtyana scores reraid, an �mrF
.caifv Thar 1
paumu3la mrnebefrme merhia daynnd aaknou'lodgM lharhash<rs Vi�[lP—F: da OF
Michael rSaker Ln2oeering ]nc. a iv'rxrh Cnmline ryMpeinnel wtyanhon and mar he aJaiaWledged Irr
mematn<ranrrradt'atmrr�lh�fr� an�da��mlf„rrtKm�mn,a,nmc�nexpreasmarmm,�a
repre9mtar>'aeattiadry �a s,arnl_ I1�a�e.�.,�d radarawny =�den�nfmc pcnon s wmmry,n me
form of d.:.G-d {I cia]�
Wimes. mY land and oficivl real: ihia d¢$�ny of S��"a�"�r.��2,.p•.IOIf.
�vSPt,.. Wt
PrSnrsl Name ��L1E..1 M NK .r�dGeNnrary' Pnms
xa•cammfaslen lapi�I Z•-2v�1�
[nFF rY N—RIAf97MP-SIIAI.J t•M'M
£ NOThflY I1
eua•e•< \R7
�kE u
C:RANTOB.:
Ra..
PrLn Natra Liu R L✓e/�r� ar
STATE OF NOWT 11C/A/��N.OLKA
C011N'1'Y OF NaL"1
k CINTr qn MM 6� kl mewed--dN :tryPnhI., ruma,amyandSWm
,hm�raia,.rslfymat ynL v� WGeAdv��yrraenalty'ayP.arranerrrem.mi.dax
xe6 owJedging m me Thal hvx.he va]wuWv elpred aM exaeurad the fuscgaing daumvnt. 1 lava
raei�ed.a,�.r wryeaiarn.��ofmgpnrenn•.idanrlly'mmeroanef_iir,.�CY'S `IC3_l'�Cd
Witness my hand and Nataaslammy Or seal, this'3 dsYof &W' .2016.
official Sigsaturco Nowr�
�,.f�fi�"nlcd rianre'. �'] ��, Nrnmv Puhlls
My('nrmrrc.sion Fapucs; ��✓)rI`P(1'r �w 'Zr7-0��
[AFFIX NOl'AR]ASTAMYS£ALI
erihn M MII V/
CBy [WPoDI NC

t - Asr
�a•�
1 - `• r- .�1t - �`i�
INTERNATIONAL
1VER