20221366 Ver 1_PART 6 - Technical Approach_Bluebird__20220926

TECHNICAL APPROACH AND RESTORATION PLAN
BLUEBIRD MITIGATION SITE
CHATHAM COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
RFP #16-452048014 - FULL DELIVERY PROJECT TO PROVIDE STREAM AND RIPARIAN WETLAND MITIGATION
CREDITS WITHIN CATALOGING UNIT 03030003 OF THE CAPE FEAR RIVER BASIN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART6: TECHNICAL
APPROACH...................................................................................................................................1
1.1
Project Goals and Objectives...........................................................................................................1
1.2
Project Description..........................................................................................................................5
1.2.1 Soils.................................................................................................................................6
1.2.2 Stream Characterization.................................................................................................7
1.2.3 Sediment Model..............................................................................................................8
1.2.4 Nutrient Model................................................................................................................8
1.2.5 Site Design and Implementation Constraints..................................................................9
1.3
Project Development....................................................................................................................10
1.3.1 Stream Restoration.......................................................................................................10
1.3.2 Stream Enhancement (Level II).....................................................................................11
1.3.3 Individual Reach Descriptions.......................................................................................11
1.3.4 Wetland Restoration (Re-establishment)......................................................................12
1.3.5 Wetland Enhancement..................................................................................................12
1.3.6 Riparian Restoration.....................................................................................................12
1.3.7 Fence / Easement Marking...........................................................................................13
1.3.8 Nuisance Species Management....................................................................................13
1.4
Proposed Mitigation......................................................................................................................13
1.5
Current Ownership and Long-term Protection.............................................................................14
1.6
Project Phasing..............................................................................................................................14
1.7
Success Criteria.............................................................................................................................14
1.8
Quality Control..............................................................................................................................16
1.9
References.....................................................................................................................................18
LIST OF TABLES
Table1. RBRP Goals.......................................................................................................................................................1
Table2A. INC SAM Summary..........................................................................................................................................2
Table2B. INC WAM Summary........................................................................................................................................3
Table 2C. Targeted Functions, Goals, Objectives, and Uplift Evaluation.......................................................................4
Table 3. Project Background Information......................................................................................................................5
Table4. Site Soils...........................................................................................................................................................6
Table 5. Essential Morphology Parameters...................................................................................................................7
Table 6. BEHI and NBS Modeling Summary...................................................................................................................8
Table 7. Threatened and Endangered Species..............................................................................................................9
Table 8. Individual Reach Descriptions and Functional Uplift.....................................................................................11
Table 9. Mitigation Activities and Site Credit Potential Summary...............................................................................13
Table10. Current Ownership.......................................................................................................................................14
Table 11. Proposed Project Schedule..........................................................................................................................14
Table12. Monitoring Schedule....................................................................................................................................15
Table13. Success Criteria............................................................................................................................................15
Table 14. Compatibility of Performance Criteria to Project Goals and Objectives......................................................15
Bluebird Mitigation Site Part 6 —Technical Approach
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-452048014) Table of Contents

APPENDICES
Appendix A. Figures
Figure 1. Site Location
Figure 2. Hydrologic Unit Map
Figure 3A. Existing Topography and Drainage Area
Figure 3B. Proposed Topography and Drainage Area
Figures 4. Existing Conditions
Figure 5. Soils
Figure 6. LiDAR
Figure 7. Proposed Conditions
Appendix B. Stream & Wetland Data
NCSAM Forms
NCWAM Forms
NCDWR Forms
Cross -Sections
BEHI & NBS
Soil Boring Logs
Appendix C. NHP Report, IPaC Resource List, and RCW SLOPES Determination Key
Appendix D: Landowner Authorization (LOA) & Memorandum of Option Agreement (MOA)
Appendix E: Completed and Signed RFP Attachments & Technical Scoresheet
RFP Attachment D: HUB Supplemental Vendor Information
RFP Attachment E: Supplemental Vendor Information
RFP Attachment F: Location of Workers Utilized by Vendor
RFP Attachment G: Certification of Financial Condition
Completed Technical Proposal Scoresheet
Bluebird Mitigation Site Part 6—Technical Approach
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-452048014) Table of Contents

PART 6: TECHNICAL APPROACH
Restoration Systems (RS) is pleased to provide you with this proposal in response to the Request for Proposals (RFP)
#16-452048014 dated June 28, 2022. This proposal describes the merits of the Bluebird Mitigation Site
(Site/Project). The general content of this technical proposal includes the following:
• Project Staffing and Organization — Part 5
• Technical Approach — Part 6
- Project goals, objectives, description, development, and success criteria
- Proposed mitigation
- Current ownership and long-term protection of the Site
- Project phasing/implementation schedule
- Project success criteria
- Quality control procedures
Completed and signed RFP Attachments (D-G)
Completed Technical Scoresheet
1.1 Project Goals and Objectives
The Site is in the 14-digit Cataloging Unit 03030003070020 and subbasin 03-06-12. The Cape Fear River Basin
Restoration Priorities (RBRP) report (NCEEP 2009) documents the Cape Fear River Basin's goals. These goals are
summarized below, along with how they will be addressed by Project mitigation activities. The Site is in a Hydrology
Targeted Resource Area (TRA), a Targeted Local Watershed (TLW), and a Local Watershed Planning (LWP) area.
Table 1. RBRP Goals
RBRP Goal
Site Objectives Addressing RBRP Goals
Reduction of 57.5 tons/year after mitigation is
Reduce and control sediment inputs
complete
Livestock removal from streams will result in a direct
Reduce and manage nutrient inputs
reduction of 868 Ibs/yr of nitrogen, 72 Ibs/yr of
phosphorus, and 9.4 x 1011 col of fecal coliform/day
Protect and augment designated natural heritage areas
NA
Site -specific mitigation goals and objectives were developed using the North Carolina Stream Assessment Method
(NC SAM) and North Carolina Wetland Assessment Method (NC WAM) analyses of existing stream systems at the
Site (NC SFAT 2015 and NC WFAT 2010). Site functional assessment data forms are available upon request; model
output is included in Appendix B and summarized in Tables 2A and 2B. Metrics targeted to meet the Site's goals and
objectives are depicted in bold.
Based on NC SAM output, all three primary stream functional metrics (Hydrology, Water Quality, and Habitat) and
19 sub -metrics are under -performing, as exhibited by a LOW metric rating (see Figure 4, Appendix A for NC SAM
data reaches). LOW performing metrics are targeted for functional uplift through mitigation activities, goals,
objectives, monitoring, and success criteria. Based on NC WAM output, all three primary wetland functional
metrics (Hydrology, Water Quality, and Habitat) and 8 sub -metrics are under -performing, as exhibited by a LOW
metric rating. LOW performing metrics are targeted for functional uplift through mitigation activities, goals,
objectives, monitoring, and success criteria.
Stream and wetland metrics targeted for functional uplift, tied to defined Site -specific project goals and objectives,
are presented in Table 2C.
Bluebird Mitigation Site Part 6—Technical Approach
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-452048014) Page 1

g Ln
O
J
o
0
J
0
J
0
J
0
J
0
J
0
J
0
0
J
0
J
0
J
0
0
J
0
J
0}
J
O
J
O
J
O
J
o
0
J
0
0
J
0
J
0
J
0
J
o
Q
cW
cW
cW
cW
cW
g
O
J
=
o
J
o
J
o
J
o
J
o
J
o
J
0
o
J
o
J
o
J
2
o
J
o
J
o}
J
o
J
o
J
o
J
=
o
J
0
o
J
o
J
o
J
o
J
o
J
Q
Ln
cW
c
cW
c
�
Q
3
O
J
�_�_
=
o
J
o
J
o
J
o
J
o
J
o
J
0
0
o
J
o
J
2
o
J
o
J
o
J
}
o
J
o
J
o
J
=
0
W
0
o
J
o
J
o
J
o
J
o
J
cW
c
cW
c
c
cWc
G
QJ
O
(D
=
o
J
o
J
o
J
o
J
o
J
o
J
0
0
o
J
o
J
�=
=
O
J
O
J
O
J
}
O
J
O
J
O
J
�=
=
o
0
o
J
o
J
o
J
o
J
o
J
cW
cW
cW
cW
O
J
=
O
J
o
=
o
J
o
J
o
J
0
o
J
o
J
o
J
2
o
J
o
J
o
J
}
o
J
o
J
o
J
=
o
J
0
o
J
o
J
o
J
o
J
o
J
cW
cW
cW
'
CL a
Q �
N
o
cW
c
2
o
cW
c
0
cW
c
2
0
cW
c
2
0
cW
c
=
2
o
cW
c
=
2
o
cW
c
2
o
cWc
G
O
J
2
o
cW
c
0
cWc
G
o
cW
c
z
0
J
o
J
o
J
2
o
cW
c
0
cWc
G
0
J
=
=
0
cW
c
0
J
C
am
c
C
E
H
LL
a
U
z
Q
oc
H
(Q
0
oOc
}
2
00
LL
o
o
►i
O
++
m
N
.y
N
w
ff
M
In
V
O
o
LL
H
m
a
m
CL
oEoo
N
O
o
A
Q
i
CL
`—'
E
w
H
M
41
�o
a
Gl
E
w
H
O
CL
ID
N
H~
C
°C
"'
Q
�'
°�'
"-
m
°
W
v
E
v
Ln
c
O
LL
M
O
C
`—°
a
a
M
ao
y
E
E
z
H
M
y
O
Vl
O
0�
,co,
—
v
V
co
a
Q
~
Q
~
m
Q
x
v�
L
n
—
>j
O
°�'
m;
m
M
a0+
L
u
Cn
M
L
E
�o
W
cn
M
+
W
+
n
5
M
.y
E
w
N
mm
+_+
E
af0i
�n
M
O
_O
aN'o
E
v
s
M
J
J
cc
W

Table 2B. NC WAM Summary
NC WAM Sub -function Rating
Summary
WAM 1
WAM 2
WAM 3
WAM 3
WAM 3
Wetland Type
Headwater
Forest
Headwater
Forest
Headwater
Forest
Headwater
Forest
Bottomland
Hardwood Forest
(1) HYDROLOGY — Site is in TRA
LOW
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
LOW
LOW
(2) Surface Storage & Retention
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
(2) Sub -surface Storage and
Retention
LOW
HIGH
HIGH
LOW
MEDIUM
(1) WATER QUALITY
LOW
HIGH
LOW
LOW
LOW
(2) Pathogen change
MEDIUM
HIGH
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(2) Particulate Change
LOW
LOW
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
(2) Soluble change
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
LOW
LOW
(2) Physical Change
LOW
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
LOW
(1) HABITAT
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
(2) Physical Structure
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
(2) Landscape Patch Structure
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
(2) Vegetative Composition
LOW
LOW
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
OVERALL
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
This space was purposefully left blank
Bluebird Mitigation Site Part 6—Technical Approach
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-452048014) Page 3

Table 2C. Targeted Functions, Goals, Objectives, and Uplift Evaluation
DMS Functional Uplift
Targeted Functions Goals Objectives Evaluations
Identified Functional Stressor
(Uplift Potential)
(1) HYDROLOGY — This Site is in a Hydrology TRA
(2) Flood Flow
(3) Streamside Area
Attenuation
(4) Floodplain Access
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
(4) Microtopography
(2) Wetland Surface Storage
and Retention
(2) Wetland Sub -surface
Storage and Retention
(3) Stream Stability
(4) Sediment Transport
(4) Stream Geomorphology
(1) WATER QUALITY
(2) Streamside Area
Vegetation
(3) Upland Pollutant
Filtration
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Indicators of Stressors
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
(2) Wetland Pathogen Change
(2) Wetland Soluble Change
(2) Wetland Physical Change
• Minimize
downstream
flooding to the
maximum extent
possible.
• Increase stream
stability within
the Site so that
channels are
neither
aggrading nor
degrading.
• Remove direct
and indirect
nutrient and
pollutant
inputs from
the Site and
reduce
contributions
to downstream
waters.
• Construct a new channel at
historic floodplain elevation to
restore overbank flows
• Plant woody riparian buffer
• Deep rip floodplain soils to
reduce compaction and increase
soil surface roughness
• Protect riparian buffers with a
perpetual conservation
easement
• Remove incised/ditched streams
• Construct channels with the
proper pattern, dimension, and
longitudinal profile
• Remove livestock from the
property
• Construct stable channels with
the appropriate substrate
• Upgrade piped channel crossings
• Plant woody riparian buffer
• Stabilize stream banks
• Remove agricultural livestock
and reduce agricultural
land/inputs
• Plant woody riparian buffer
• Restore/enhance jurisdictional
wetlands adjacent to Site
streams
• Provide surface roughness and
reduce compaction through
deep ripping/plowing.
• Restore overbank flooding by
constructing channels at
historic floodplain elevation.
• Peak Flows (restore overbank
flooding, surface water and
subsurface water storage,
increase frictional resistance
to floodwaters, remove
incised streams from
floodplains)
• Artificial Barriers (tie to two
road culverts and upgrade
piped stream crossings to
restore aquatic life passage)
• Ditching/Draining (remove
incised streams within the
floodplain)
• Non-functioning Riparian
Buffer/Wetland Vegetation
(restoring or enhancing ^25
acres of riparian buffer)
• Sediment (removing 57.5
tons per year of sediment
from bank erosion)
• Nutrients (removing 868 Ibs
N/year and 72 Ibs P/year)
• Fecal Coliform (removing
9.4x1011 colonies of fecal
coliform/day)
Bluebird Mitigation Site Part 6 —Technical Approach
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-452048014) Page 4

Table 2C. Targeted Functions, Goals, Objectives, and Uplift Evaluation (continued)
DMS Functional Uplift
Targeted Functions
Goals
Objectives
Evaluations
Identified Functional Stressor
(Uplift Potential)
(1) HABITAT
(2) In -stream Habitat
• Construct stable channels with
the appropriate substrate
• Plant woody riparian buffer to
• Habitat Fragmentation (tie to
two road culverts and
(3) Substrate
(3) In -Stream Habitat
provide organic matter and
upgrade piped stream
(2) Stream -side Habitat
shade
• Construct a new channel at
crossings to restore aquatic
life passage)
(3) Stream -side Habitat
. Improve
historic floodplain elevation to
• Limited Bedform Diversity
(3) Thermoregulation
instream and
stream -side
restore overbank flows
• Protect riparian buffers with a
(restoring regular, sustained
sequence of riffles and pools
(2) Wetland Physical Structure
habitat.
perpetual conservation
easement
that do not fill with
sediment)
(2) Wetland Landscape Patch
Structure
• Restore/enhance jurisdictional
• Absence of Large Woody
wetlands adjacent to Site
Debris (restoring woody
(2) Wetland Vegetative
streams
debris on channel banks or in
Composition
• Stabilize stream banks
bed)
• Install in -stream structures
1.2 Project Description
The Site is located approximately 0.2 miles south of Silk Hope in northwestern Chatham County (Figure 1, Appendix
A). General Project information is included in Table 3.
Table 3. Project Background Information
Project Information
Site
Bluebird Mitigation Site
County
Chatham
Easement Area
21.1 acres
Site Coordinates (latitude & latitude)
35.776103,-79.366384
Site Elevations
630-580 feet
Site Streams
UT 1— UT 6 of Varnell Creek
Physiography & Watershed Information
Physiographic Province
Piedmont
Level IV Ecoregion
Carolina Slate Belt
River Basin
Cape Fear
USGS 14-digit HUC
03030003070020
NCDWR Sub -basin
03-06-12
Targeted Local Watershed
Yes
LWP, RWP, TRA*
Yes, No, Yes (Hydrology TRA)
Bluebird Mitigation Site Part 6—Technical Approach
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-452048014) Page 5

Table 3. Project Background Information (continued)
Water Quality Information
Stream Index Number
Varnell Creek 17-43-11
Best Use Classification
C
303d List
No
Drainage Area & Land Use Information
Existing Site Land Use
Livestock pasture, hayfield, forest
Site Drainage Area
0.40 square miles (253.1 acres)
Site Drainage Area Land Use
Livestock pasture, forest, residential
Site Drainage Area Percentage Impervious Surface
<2%
*LWP=Local Watershed Plan, RWP=Regional Watershed Plan, TRA=Targeted Resource Area
1.2.1 Soils
Based on Web Soil Survey mapping (USDA 2022), the Site contains the soil series outlined in Table 4. A licensed soil
scientist (NC LSS # 1233) mapped existing wetlands and drained hydric soils of the Wehadkee series April 12, 2022
(Figure 5, Appendix A); soil boring logs are included in Appendix B.
Table 4. Site Soils
Map Unit
Map Unit Name
Hydric Status
Description
Symbol
(Classification)
This series consists of moderately deep to very deep,
Non-hydric
somewhat poorly drained to moderately well drained, slow
Cid-Lignum complex
but may
to very slowly permeable soils on interstream divides,
CmB
(Aquic Hapludults)
contain hydric
broad ridges, drainageways, and heads of drainageways.
inclusions
Parent material is residuum weathered from argillite and
other fine-grained metavolcanic rock. Depth to the
seasonal high-water table is 1 to 2.5 feet.
This series consists of very deep, well drained, moderately
Georgeville silt clay loam
permeable soils on Piedmont uplands. Parent material is
GeC2
(Typic Kanhapludults)
Non-hydric
residuum weathered from fine-grained metavolcanic rock
of the Carolina Slate Belt. Depth to the seasonal high-water
table is more than 5 feet.
This series consists of deep to moderately deep, well
Nanford-Badin complex
drained, moderately permeable soils on Piedmont uplands.
NaC
(Typic Kanhapludults) and
Non-hydric
Parent material is residuum weathered from fine-grained
(Typic Hapludults)
metavolcanic rock. Depth to the seasonal high-water table
is more than 6 feet.
This series consists of moderately deep to very deep,
Pittsboro-Iredell complex
moderately well drained, very slowly permeable soils on
PsB
(Oxyaquic Hapludalfs) and
Non-hydric
Piedmont uplands. Parent material is residuum weathered
(Vertic Hapludalfs)
from mafic rock. Depth to the seasonal high-water table is
1 to 2 feet.
Bluebird Mitigation Site Part 6—Technical Approach
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-452048014) Page 6

Geology
As mentioned in Table 3, the Site is within the Carolina Slate Belt, where soils outside the stream floodplains have
formed in residuum weathered from felsic-ash flow tuffs, intermediate to mafic lava flows, and other fine-grained
metavolcanic rocks. As a result, soils in the Site are highly variable. At times, these soils were mapped as complexes
due to the scale at which they were mapped. This variability in the soils results in a multitude of factors promoting
lateral groundwater movement, including depth to restrictive layers, presence of sandy subsoil lenses, slow to
moderate permeability, high silt and clay content, and sticky and plastic soil consistency. These soil characteristics
result in wetland seeps at the heads of drainageways and along lower portions of side slopes, typical of stream
origins at the Site.
Landscape
The Site's landscape includes broken/sharply irregular convex slopes ranging from 2 - 10% with short valley sides.
This topography results in short and stubby first and second -order streams with high angle junctions. The
contributing drainage area of the Site's unnamed tributaries (UT) has been affected by livestock pastures with eroded
soil surfaces and agricultural ponds, increasing the rate and amount of surface water runoff entering the Site. These
conditions, coupled with the geology and soils, facilitate surface and subsurface water movement resulting in
wetland seeps observed throughout the Site
1.2.2 Stream Characterization
Table 5 summarizes morphology parameters existing at the Site and preliminary estimates of stable stream
attributes based upon regional curves for the Piedmont region of North Carolina (Harmen et al. 1999). The channels
appear to be straightened, as evidenced by low sinuosity values across much of the Site. In general, Site streams are
oversized; however, ditching and dredging and livestock trampling have led to stream channels that are incised and
narrow (low width -to -depth ratio) and are actively eroding. In addition, a lack of habitat and structure occurs within
the channels, leading to opportunities to significantly improve aquatic life propagation and survival.
Table 5. Essential Morphology Parameters
Parameter
XS 1 (UT 1)
XS 2 (UT 3)
XS 3 (UT 4)
XS 4 (UT 5)
Existing
Proposed*
Existing
Proposed*
Existing
Proposed*
Existing
Proposed*
Valley Width (ft)
250
250
50
50
50
50
8
50
Contributing Drainage Area (sq. mi.)
0.29
0.29
0.05
0.05
0.08
0.08
0.03
0.03
Discharge (dfs)
36.4
36.4
10.2
10.2
14.4
14.4
7.1
7.1
Channel/Reach Classification
E-type
C/E-type
E-type
C/E-type
E-type
C/E-type
E/G-type
C/E-type
Bankfull Cross -sectional Area (ftz)
6.2
9.3
2.8
2.8
3.9
3.9
2.0
2.0
Existing Cross -sectional Area (ft2)
6.2
9.3
2.8
2.8
3.9
3.9
10.2
2.0
Bankfull Width (ft)
4.5
8.4
5.4
4.3
6.0
5.1
3.2
3.5
Bankfull Depth (ft)
1.4
1.1
0.5
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.6
0.6
Maximum Depth (ft)
2.0
1.4
1.3
0.9
1.2
1.0
1.4
0.8
Low Bank Height (ft)
2.0
1.4
1.3
0.9
1.2
1.0
2.8
0.8
Flood Prone Area (ft)
250
250
50
50
50
50
8
50
Width/Depth Ratio
3.3
7.6
10.3
6.4
9.0
6.7
5.0
6.1
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
Entrenchment Ratio
55.7
29.8
9.2
11.6
8.4
9.8
2.5
14.3
Sinuosity
1.01
1.15
1.03
1.15
1.03
1.15
1.02
1.15
Substrate
Sand/
Silt
Cobble/
gravel
Sand/Silt
Cobble/
gravel
Sand/Silt
Cobble/
gravel
Sand/
Silt
Cobble/
gravel
*Preliminary estimates of stable stream attributes are based primarily upon regional curves for the Piedmont region
of North Carolina (Harmen et al. 1999).
Bluebird Mitigation Site Part 6-Technical Approach
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-452048014) Page 7

1.2.3 Sediment Model
Sediment load modeling was performed using methodologies outlined in A Practical Method of Computing
Streambank Erosion Rate (Rosgen 2009) and Estimating Sediment Loads using the Bank Assessment of Non -point
Sources Consequences of Sediment (Rosgen 2011). These models provide a quantitative prediction of streambank
erosions by calculating Bank Erosion Hazard Index (BEHI) and Near -Bank Stress (NBS) along each Site reach. The
resulting BEHI and NBS values are compared to streambank erodibility graphs prepared for North Carolina by the NC
Stream Restoration Institute and NC Sea Grant.
Streambank characteristics involve measurements of bank height, angles, materials, presence of layers, rooting
depth, rooting density, and percent of the bank protected by rocks, logs, roots, or vegetation. Site reaches have been
measured for BEHI and NBS characteristics and predicted lateral erosion rate, height, and length to calculate a cubic
volume of sediment contributed by the reach each year. Data forms for the analysis are available upon request, and
the data output is presented in Appendix B. Model results are shown in Table 6.
Table 6. BEHI and NBS Modeling Summary
Stream Reach
Proposed Mitigation Treatment
Predicted Sediment
Contribution (tons/year)
UT 1
Restoration
34.3
UT 2
Restoration
3.0
UT 3
Restoration
11.0
UT 4
Restoration
3.4
UT 5
Restoration
5.9
Total Sediment Contribution (tons/year)
57.5
1.2.4 Nutrient Model
Nutrient modeling was conducted using a method developed by the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services
(NCDMS) (NCDMS 2016) to determine nutrient and fecal coliform reductions from the exclusion of livestock from
the buffer.
The equation for nutrient reduction for this model includes the following:
TN reduction (Ibs/yr) = 51.04 (Ibs/ac/yr) x Area (ac)
TP reduction (Ibs/yr) = 4.23 (Ibs/ac/yr) x Area (ac)
Where:
TN — total nitrogen;
TP —total phosphorus; and
Area —total area of restored riparian buffers inside of livestock exclusion fences.
Equations for fecal coliform reduction for this model include the following.
Fecal coliform reduction (col) = 2.2 x 1011(col/AU/day) x AU x 0.085
Where:
Col - quantities of Fecal Coliform bacteria
AU - animal unit (1000 Ibs of livestock)
Assuming approximately 17 of the 21.1 acres of the Site will have livestock removed, and a current stocking rate of
50 head of livestock residing on the farm, the NC DMS analysis calculates approximately 868 Ibs/yr of nitrogen, 72
Ibs/yr of phosphorus, and 9.4 x 1011 col of fecal coliform/day will be reduced via exclusion of livestock from the
easement area.
Bluebird Mitigation Site Part 6—Technical Approach
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-452048014) Page 8

1.2.5 Site Design and Implementation Constraints
During field surveys, no known Site constraints that may hinder proposed mitigation activities were identified.
Potential constraints reviewed include the following:
Threatened & Endangered Species
Federally protected species listed by the US Fish and Wildlife — Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC)
website "as occurring in the vicinity" of the Site are summarized in Table 7, along with potential habitat and a
preliminary biological conclusion for each species (IPaC 2022).
Table 7. Threatened and Endangered Species
Common Name
Federal
Habitat at
Biological
(Scientific Name)
Status
Site
Conclusion
Summary
Red -cockaded Woodpecker
Habitat does not exist in or near
(Picoides borealis)
Endangered
No
No Effect
the Project boundaries.
Cape Fear Shiner
Endangered
Yes
Unresolved
Habitat exists in or near the
(Notripis mekistocholas)
Project boundaries.
Atlantic Pigtoe
Habitat exists in or near the
(Fusconaia masoni)
Threatened
Yes
Unresolved
Project boundaries.
Harperella
Endangered
Yes
Unresolved
Habitat exists in or near the
(Ptilimnium nodosum)
Project boundaries.
Red -cockaded Woodpecker
Primary habitat consists of mature to over -mature southern pine forests dominated by loblolly (Pinus taeda), long-
leaf (P. palustris), slash (P. elliottii), and pond (P. serotina) pines (Thompson and Baker 1971). Nest cavities are
constructed in the heartwood of living pines, generally older than 70 years and infected with red -heart disease. Nest
cavity trees tend to occur in clusters, referred to as colonies (FWS 1985).
Habitat for this species does not exist within the Project area. In addition, the Site does not occur within a Red -
cockaded Woodpecker Consultation Area, as designated by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (see SLOPES key in
Appendix C). Therefore, this Project is not expected to affect this species.
Cape Fear Shiner
Habitat elements include clean streams with gravel, cobble, and boulder substrates with pools, riffles, shallow runs
and slackwater areas with large rock outcrops and side channels and pools with water of good quality with relatively
low silt loads (USFWS 2003).
Habitat for this species exists within the Project area. A site -wide survey will be conducted prior to initiating
construction activities.
Atlantic pigtoe
Habitat includes streams with yielding substrates composed of coarse sand and gravel downstream from riffle areas
(TSCFTM 1990).
Habitat for this species exists within the Project area. A site -wide survey will be conducted before initiating
construction activities.
Harperella
This plant is a relatively prolific annual, and large numbers may occur within each population, especially along rivers
(FWS 2003). Habitat includes (1) rocky or gravel shoals and margins of clear, swift -flowing stream sections; and (2)
edges of intermittent pineland ponds in the coastal plain. This plant tolerates and may require a particular and
Bluebird Mitigation Site Part 6—Technical Approach
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-452048014) Page 9

unusual water regime, including moderately intensive spring floods, which may reduce or eliminate competing
vegetation.
Habitat for this species exists within the Project area. A site -wide survey will be conducted during the survey window
(July to early September) and before initiating construction activities.
Cultural Resources
Field visits were conducted at the Site in April 2022. No structures or other features that may be eligible for inclusion
on the National Register of Historic Places were identified within proposed easement boundaries; however,
coordination with State Historic Preservation Office will occur before construction activities to determine if any
significant cultural resources are present.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Elements
A query of the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database indicates there are no records for rare
species, important natural communities, natural areas, or conservation/managed areas within the proposed Site
boundary. Within a one -mile radius of the Site, NCNHP lists no federally -protected species (Appendix C). Within a
one -mile radius of the Project area, NCNHP identifies one managed area (Triangle Land Conservancy Preserve).
FEMA
FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps were inspected for the Project: Rate Map 3710878200J, Panel 8782, effective
2/2/2007. FEMA mapping indicates that the Site is not located within a Zone AE flood area. Therefore, a "Conditional
Letter of Map Revision" (CLOMR) is not expected for this Site. However, coordination with FEMA will occur
throughout the Project.
Utilities
No utilities cross the Site. Utility crossings are not expected to adversely affect the Project.
Air Transport Facilities
No air transport facilities occur within 5 miles of the Site. Therefore, air transport facilities are not expected to
adversely affect the Project.
1.3 Project Development
1.3.1 Stream Restoration
Stream restoration efforts are designed to restore a stable stream that approximates hydrodynamics, geometry, and
local microtopography relative to reference stream conditions. Restoration at the Site will be Priority I restoration,
raising the bankfull elevations to meet the adjacent valley floodplain elevation. Stream restoration is expected to
entail 1) channel excavation, 2) channel stabilization, 3) channel diversion, and 4) channel backfill.
In -stream Structures: In -stream structures will be used for grade control, habitat, and to elevate local water surface
profiles in the channel, flattening the water -energy slope or gradient and directing stream energy into the center of
the channel and away from banks. The structures will consist of log cross -vanes or log j-hook vanes; however, at the
Engineer's discretion, rock cross -vanes or rock j-hook vanes may be substituted if dictated by field conditions. In
addition, the structures will be placed in relatively straight reaches to provide secondary (perpendicular) flow cells
during bankfull events.
Channel Crossings: Active cattle farming surrounding the Site will necessitate installing several piped/bridged
crossings within easement breaks to allow access to portions of the property isolated by stream restoration activities.
Piped crossings will be constructed of properly sized pipes and hydraulically stable rip -rap or suitable rock. Crossings
will be large enough to handle the weight of anticipated vehicular traffic. Approach grades will be at an approximate
10:1 slope and constructed of scour -resistant crushed rock or other permeable material free of fines.
Bluebird Mitigation Site Part 6—Technical Approach
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-452048014) Page 10

1.3.2 Stream Enhancement (Level II)
Stream enhancement (level II) will entail installing easement markers and planting riparian buffers with native forest
vegetation, targeted streambank stabilization, and livestock exclusion to facilitate stream recovery and prevent
further stream degradation.
Stream enhancement (Level II) is proposed for a short section of UT 3. This reach of UT 3 is characterized by a
relatively stable channel with a narrow fringe of trees and is therefore proposed at a mitigation ratio of 7.5:1.
1.3.3 Individual Reach Descriptions
Mitigation activities for each stream reach and anticipated functional uplift are summarized in Table b.
Table 8. Individual Reach Descriptions and Functional Uplift
Reach
Mitigation Activities
Functional Uplift Provided for
Identified Stressors
• Non-functioning riparian
• Upfit the existing pond outfall to prevent further erosion
buffer/wetland vegetation
• Tie into the channel at the upstream pond dam and initiate P1 stream restoration.
• Sediment
• Install grade control/habitat structures.
• Nutrients
UT-1
• Install two piped/bridged channel crossings.
• Fecal Coliform
• Restore and enhance wetlands adjacent to the channel.
• Ditching/Draining
• Remove livestock from the property.
• Habitat Fragmentation
• Plant a vegetative buffer within the entire floodplain.
• Limited Bedform Diversity
• Absence of Large Woody Debris
• Non-functioning riparian
buffer/wetland vegetation
• Tie into road culvert and Initiate P1 stream restoration.
• Sediment
• Direct channel down historic floodplain towards UT 4 and continue P1 restoration.
• Tie into UT 4 at the appropriate elevation/location.
9 Nutrients
• Fecal Coliform
UT-2
• Install grade control/habitat structures.
• Peak Flows
• Remove livestock from the easement area.
• Ditching/Draining
• Restore and enhance adjacent wetlands.
• Habitat Fragmentation
• Plant a vegetative buffer within the entire floodplain.
• Limited Bedform Diversity
• Absence of Large Woody Debris
• Non-functioning riparian
• Tie into the culvert at the upper reaches and initiate P1 stream restoration.
buffer/wetland vegetation
• Elevate the stream to tie into adjacent wetland restoration/enhancement.
• Sediment
• Enter woods and begin stream Enhancement (Level II) through bank stabilization
. Nutrients
UT-3
and livestock removal.
• Fecal Coliform
• Below woods, begin P1 stream restoration, ultimately directing the stream into a
Peak Flows
historic channel.
• Ditching/Draining
• Fencing livestock, treating invasive species and planting forest vegetation.
• Tie into UT 1 at the appropriate location and elevation.
• Limited Bedform Diversity
• Absence of Large Woody Debris
• Non-functioning riparian
• Install a piped channel crossing at the property boundary.
buffer/wetland vegetation
• Initiate P1 stream restoration at the upper limits of the reach
• Sediment
• Maintain natural grade at a headcut and restore the channel to a new location at
the historic floodplain's elevation.
. Nutrients
• Fecal Coliform
UT-4
• Restore and enhance wetlands adjacent to the channel.
• Peak Flows
• Tie into UT 5 and then install a piped channel crossing.
• Ditching/Draining
• Tie into UT 1 at the appropriate elevation/location.
• Habitat Fragmentation
• Remove livestock from the easement.
• Limited Bedform Diversity
• Plant a vegetative buffer within the entire floodplain.
• Absence of Large Woody Debris
Bluebird Mitigation Site Part 6—Technical Approach
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-452048014) Page 11

Table 8. Individual Reach Descriptions and Functional Uplift (continued)
Reach
Mitigation Activities
Functional Uplift Provided for
Identified Stressors
• Non-functioning riparian
• Initiate P1 stream restoration in an abandoned pond bed.
buffer/wetland vegetation
• Continue P1 stream Restoration techniques down the valley.
• Sediment
• Install habitat/grade control structures.
• Nutrients
• Restore and enhance adjacent wetlands by tying the stream channel to the
• Fecal Coliform
UT-5
adjacent floodplain.
• Peak Flows
• Tie to UT 4 at the appropriate location and elevation.
• Ditching/Draining
• Remove livestock from the property.
• Habitat Fragmentation
• Plant a vegetative buffer within the entire floodplain.
• Limited Bedform Diversity
• Absence of Large Woody Debris
• Install a piped crossing across wetlands upstream of origin.
• Sediment
• Tie into springs at the base of a slope.
• Nutrients
• Initiate Priority 1 stream restoration.
• Fecal Coliform
UT-6
• Install habitat/grade control structures.
• Ditching/Draining
• Tie to UT 3 at the appropriate location and elevation.
• Limited Bedform Diversity
• Remove livestock from the easement.
• Absence of Large Woody Debris
• Plant a vegetative buffer within the entire floodplain.
1.3.4 Wetland Restoration (Re-establishment)
Alternatives for wetland re-establishment are designed to restore a fully functioning wetland system, provide
surface water storage, nutrient cycling, remove imported elements and compounds, and create various wildlife
habitats.
Portions of the Site underlain by hydric soils have been impacted by stream entrenchment, vegetative clearing,
livestock disturbance, and other land disturbances associated with land use management. Wetland re-
establishment/rehabilitation options focus on the restoration of vegetative communities, restoration of stream
corridors and historic groundwater tables, and the re-establishment of soil structure and microtopographic
variations. In addition, the construction of (or provisions for) surface water storage depressions (ephemeral pools)
will also add an important component to groundwater restoration activities. These activities will result in the re-
establishment of approximately 2.565 acres of jurisdictional riparian riverine wetlands.
1.3.5 Wetland Enhancement
Wetland enhancement will focus on removing livestock and restoring vegetation communities, improving wetland
function to 4.173 acres of riparian riverine wetlands.
1.3.6 Riparian Restoration
Restoration of floodplain forests allows for developing and expanding characteristic species across the landscape.
Ecotonal changes between community types contribute to species diversity and provide secondary benefits, such as
enhanced feeding and nesting opportunities for mammals, birds, amphibians, and other wildlife.
Revegetating floodplains will provide overall system stability, shade, and wildlife habitat. In addition, viable riparian
communities will improve biogeochemical function by filtering pollutants from overland and shallow subsurface
flows and providing organic materials to adjacent stream channels.
Variations in vegetative planting will occur based on topography and hydrologic condition of soils. Vegetative species
composition will be based on Reference Forest Ecosystems (RFEs), site -specific features, and community descriptions
from Guide to the Natural Communities of North Carolina (Schafale 2012). Community associations to be utilized
include 1) a combination of Piedmont Alluvial Forest and Piedmont Headwater Forest, 2) Dry-Mesic Oak -Hickory
Forest, and 3) Streamside Assemblage.
Bluebird Mitigation Site Part 6—Technical Approach
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-452048014) Page 12

Bare -root seedlings within the Piedmont Alluvial/Headwater Forest and Dry-Mesic Oak -Hickory will be planted at
approximately 680 stems per acre on 8-foot centers. Stream -side assemblage will be planted at a density of
approximately 2,720 stems per acre on 4-foot centers. Planting will be performed between November 15 and March
15 to allow plants to stabilize during the dormant period and set root during the spring season. Potential species
planted within the Site may include the following.
Piedmont Alluvial/Headwater Forest Dry-Mesic Oak -Hickory Forest
1. Sycamore (Platanus occidentalis)
2. American elm (Ulmus americana)
3. Hackberry (Celtis laevigata)
4. Green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica)
5. Shagbark hickory (Carya ovata)
6. Willow oak (Quercus phellos)
7. Shumard oak (Quercus shumardii)
8. River birch (Betula nigra)
9. Silky dogwood (Cornus amomum)
10. Pawpaw (Asimina triloba)
Stream -Side Assemblage
1. Black willow (Salix nigra)
2. Tag alder (Alnus serrulata)
3. Buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis)
1. White oak (Quercus alba)
2. Northern red oak (Quercus rubra)
3. Pignut hickory (Carya glabra)
4. Mockernut hickory (Carya alba/tomentosa)
5. Black gum (Nyssa sylvatica var. sylvatica)
6. Flowering dogwood (Cornus florida)
7. Eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana)
8. Persimmon (Diospyros virginiana)
9. Ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana)
1.3.7 Fence / Easement Marking
The entire easement area will be fenced and/or appropriately marked to identify the easement boundaries per
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and Interagency Review Team (IRT) requirements. Livestock is to be
removed entirely from the Site.
1.3.8 Nuisance Species Management
Beaver, privet, and other potential nuisance species will be monitored throughout the 7-year monitoring period.
Appropriate actions to ameliorate any negative impacts regarding vegetation development and/or water
management will occur as needed.
1.4 Proposed Mitigation
Mitigation outlined in this proposal is designed to provide the following, as calculated under the requirements
stipulated in RFP #16-452048014, and is summarized in Table 9.
Table 9. Mitigation Activities and Site Credit Potential Summary
Stream Mitigation Type
Type
Linear Feet
Ratio
SMUs
Restoration
Priority 1
7,034.288
1:1
7,034.288
Enhancement
Level 11
122.781
7.5:1
16.371
Totals
7,157.069
7,050.659 SMUs
Wetland Mitigation Type
Type
Acreage
Ratio
Riparian Riverine WMU
Re-establishment
Riparian Riverine
2.565
1:1
2.565
Enhancement
Riparian Riverine
4.173
2:1
2.087
Totals
6.738
4.652 WMUs
Bluebird Mitigation Site
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-452048014)
Part 6—Technical Approach
Page 13

1.5 Current Ownership and Long-term Protection
Current property ownership and parcel information are as follows:
Table 10. Current Ownership
Current Property Owner Parcel ID Number
Clyde Reid Perry Jr. 0089643, 0010345, 0010410, and 0087985
Restoration Systems has an Agreement for the Purchase and Sale of a Conservation Easement (Agreements) with
the property owners. Memorandums of the agreements were recorded in the Chatham County Register of Deeds
(Appendix D). Complete copies of these Agreements are available upon request. Upon approval of the contract,
Restoration Systems will place a conservation easement over the subject parcels; such easement will be conveyed
to the State of North Carolina. Restoration Systems will remain responsible for Project implementation, the
achievement of success criteria, and management actions. A long-term management plan that, in general, will
include protecting the Site from encroachment, trespass, clearing, and other violations that interfere with
conservation purposes will be developed for the Site and incorporated into the mitigation plan. Other activities may
be included based on site -specific considerations.
1.6 Project Phasing
A tentative Project phasing schedule is presented in Table 11 and commences upon contract execution.
Table 11. Proposed Project Schedule
Task
Project Milestones
Months from Contract Execution
Task 1
Regulatory Site Visit & Environmental Screening
3
Task 2
Submit Recorded Conservation Easement on the Site
16
Task 3
Mitigation Plan (Final Draft) and Financial Assurance
12
Task 4
Mitigation Site Earthwork Complete
24
Task 5
Mitigation Site Planting and Installation of Monitoring Devices
25*
Task 6
Baseline Monitoring Report (including As -built Drawings)
28*
Task 7
Submit Monitoring Report #1 to NCDMS
Dec. after implementation
Task 8
Submit Monitoring Report #2 to NCDMS
Dec. - 2yrs after implementation
Task 9
Submit Monitoring Report #3 to NCDMS
Dec. - 3yrs after implementation
Task 10
Submit Monitoring Report #4 to NCDMS
Dec. - 4yrs after implementation
Task 11
Submit Monitoring Report #5 to NCDMS
Dec. - 5yrs after implementation
Task 12
Submit Monitoring Report #6 to NCDMS
Dec. - 6yrs after implementation
Task 13
Submit Monitoring Report #7 to NCDMS and Complete Project
Close-out Process
Dec. - 7yrs after implementation
and Spring after submittal of
Report #7
* Time frame is dependent upon seasonal conditions after Site implementation.
1.7 Success Criteria
Tables 12-14 summarize the monitoring schedule and success criteria for this Project, which follow the October 24,
2016, NC Interagency Review Team Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update.
Bluebird Mitigation Site Part 6—Technical Approach
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-452048014) Page 14

Table 12. Monitoring Schedule
Resource
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Year 6
Year 7
Streams
X
X
X
X
X
Wetlands
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Vegetation
X
X
X
X
X
Visual Assessment
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Report Submittal
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Table 13. Success Criteria
Streams
• All streams must maintain an Ordinary High -Water Mark (OHWM), per RGL 05-05.
• Bank height ratio (BHR) cannot exceed 1.2 at any measured cross-section over the monitoring period.
• BHR at any measured riffle cross-section should not change by more than 10% from baseline conditions during the
monitoring period.
• The stream project shall remain stable, and all other performance standards shall be met through four separate
bankfull events, occurring in individual years, during the monitoring years 1-7.
Wetland Hydrology
• Saturation or inundation within the upper 12 inches of the soil surface for, at a minimum, 12 percent of the growing
season, during average climatic conditions (IRT 2016).
Vegetation
• Within planted portions of the Site, a minimum of 320 stems per acre must be present at year 3; a minimum of 260
stems per acre must be present at year 5; and a minimum of 210 stems per acre must be present at year 7.
• In the Piedmont counties, trees must average 7 feet in height at year 5 and 10 feet in height at year 7 in each plot.
• Planted and volunteer stems are counted, provided they are included in the approved planting list for the Site;
natural recruits not on the planting list may be considered by the IRT on a case -by -case basis.
• Any single species can only account for up to 50% of the required number of stems within any vegetation plot.
Table 14. Compatibility of Performance Criteria to Project Goals and Objectives
Goals
Objectives
Success Criteria
(1) HYDROLOGY —The Site is in a Hydrology TRA
• Construct a new channel at historic floodplain elevation to
• BHR not to exceed 1.2 over the
• Minimize
restore overbank flows
monitoring period
downstream
• Plant woody riparian buffer
• Document four overbank events
flooding to the
• Deep rip floodplain soils to reduce compaction and increase soil
in separate monitoring years
maximum extent
surface roughness
• Attain Wetland Hydrology
possible.
• Protect riparian buffers with a perpetual conservation easement
Success Criteria
• Remove incised/ditched streams
• Attain Vegetation Success Criteria
• Conservation Easement recorded
• Cross-section measurements
• Construct channels with the proper pattern, dimension, and
indicate a stable channel with the
• Increase stream
longitudinal profile
appropriate substrate
stability within the
.Remove livestock from the easement
• Visual documentation of stable
Site so that channels
. Construct stable channels with the appropriate substrate
channels and structures
are neither
. Upgrade/install piped channel crossings
• BHR not to exceed 1.2 over the
aggrading nor
monitoring period
degrading.
. Plant woody riparian buffer
• < 10% change in BHR over the
• Stabilize stream banks
monitoring period
• Attain Vegetation Success Criteria
Bluebird Mitigation Site Part 6—Technical Approach
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-452048014) Page 15

Table 14. Compatibility of Performance Criteria to Project Goals and Objectives (continued)
Goals
Objectives
Success Criteria
(1) WATER QUALITY
• Remove direct and
. Remove agricultural livestock and reduce agricultural land/inputs
• BHR not to exceed 1.2 over the
indirect nutrient
. Plant woody riparian buffer
monitoring period
and pollutant
• Restore/enhance jurisdictional wetlands adjacent to Site streams
• Document four overbank events
inputs from the
Site and reduce
. Provide surface roughness and reduce compaction through deep
in separate monitoring years
contributions to
ripping/plowing.
•Attain Wetland Hydrology Success
downstream
• Restore overbank flooding by constructing channels at historic
Criteria
waters.
floodplain elevation.
• Attain Vegetation Success Criteria
(1) HABITAT
• Cross-section measurement
indicate a stable channel with the
• Construct stable channels with the appropriate substrate
appropriate substrate
• Plant woody riparian buffer to provide organic matter and shade
• Visual documentation of stable
• Construct a new channel at historic floodplain elevation to
channels and in -stream structures
• Improve instream
restore overbank flows
• BHR not to exceed 1.2 over the
and stream -side
• Protect riparian buffers with a perpetual conservation easement
monitoring period
habitat.
• Restore/enhance jurisdictional wetlands adjacent to Site
• Document four overbank events
streams
in separate monitoring years
• Stabilize stream banks
• Attain Wetland Hydrology
• Install in -stream structures
Success Criteria
• Attain Vegetation Success Criteria
• Conservation Easement recorded
1.8 Quality Control
Our core business at IRS is full -delivery ecosystem restoration (usually within the context of compensatory
mitigation); as such, our projects are repeatedly scrutinized. More importantly, our compensation is tied directly to
project quality. Thus, quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) is of the utmost importance to our compensation
and reputation.
The IRS QA/QC program comprises a broad range of general and specific measures to ensure that all deliverables
submitted to the contracting organization meet projected schedules, follow appropriate formats, and comply with
applicable laws, regulations, and permits.
General Measures:
- Staff Qualifications — IRS employs trained and/or experienced staff in varied specific aspects of
environmental restoration. Examples include regulatory affairs, permitting, design, geomorphology,
chemistry, biology, soils, Geographic Informational Systems (GIS), and invasive species management.
Field Training — Staff members attend periodic workshops for training in pertinent topics to improve and/or
maintain necessary skills related to stream/wetland design and construction. Staff members have also
participated in stream and wetland restoration workshops, including those held by North Carolina State
University's Stream Restoration Institute (SRI), focusing on proper procedures related to stream restoration
practices. Restoration Systems periodically has internal workshops and field study days led by experienced
staff members to ensure that the team of Project Managers is up-to-date on current practices and
technology.
- Internal Experience - Office staff members periodically attend workshops led by professional organizations
to remain current on best practices. All projects are backed by a support team. Senior -level professionals
are consulted to successfully guide the process from start to finish.
Bluebird Mitigation Site Part 6—Technical Approach
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-452048014) Page 16

Specific Measures:
- Project Implementation -The core of RS's project implementation QA/QC program utilizes task changeover
points within the restoration process. Procedural verification steps at each changeover point provide
control and correction opportunities, minimizing waste while ensuring a project meets its objectives.
Quality Control - Ecosystem restoration projects
o Site evaluation
■ Identify and document site constraints that will affect restoration objectives, design,
and construction
o Design evaluation
■ Verify design meets objectives and is practicable given construction constraints and site -
specific conditions
o Construction plan evaluation
■ Ensure the construction plan is consistent with permit conditions and efficiently
implements design (i.e., limits the number of phases)
o Construction environmental and permit compliance
■ Routine inspection of construction activities to ensure environmental compliance and
that all work is performed according to specifications and limitations of acquired
permits
o Design and construction reconciliation
■ Reconcile construction drawings with implementation routinely, especially before
transitioning between construction phases
o Construction drawing and as -built reconciliation
■ Verify the accuracy of as -built drawings and reconcile them with construction drawings,
noting deviations and their explanations
o Site closeout
■ confirm planting was performed with appropriate species composition and density
■ check that all excess construction materials have been removed and all
features/structures are in a completed condition
- Assignment of specific tasks and responsibilities — Specific tasks that occur throughout a project's life are
assigned to specific individuals who are trained and/or experienced to perform that task. All arrangements
are overseen by senior management.
The project implementation QA/QC program is a collaborative effort between the Senior Project Manager and
Construction Manager). The project manager or the construction manager (or both) will be on -site during
construction hours to ensure environmental compliance and the appropriate implementation of the Project's design.
- Deliverable Preparation — a series of measures are taken to prepare deliverables to ensure each product
meets the customer's expectations promptly.
0 Checklists and Templates — IRS staff has developed internal guidelines, checklists, and templates to
prepare all deliverables to ensure compliance with appropriate requirements and schedules.
Checklists are created to ensure that all required paperwork is included when assembling submittal
packages and easy delegation of workflow.
0 Peer Review of Documents — All submitted deliverables are reviewed by several qualified
individuals. Once a document has been generated internally or received from an assigned
consultant, it is entered into a three -round internal review process. It is first reviewed by staff
members with experience in editing. The document is then passed on to staff members with
specific expertise in a given area to ensure accuracy. Finally, where applicable, maps and diagrams
are reviewed by an experienced GIS Manager for accuracy. Once all comments are made, the
document is edited and distributed for a final round of review by staff members and the assigned
Project Manager before packaging.
Bluebird Mitigation Site Part 6—Technical Approach
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-452048014) Page 17

0 Prolect Managers' Meetings —All managers meet weekly to update company management on each
Project's status, including the projected future timeline of tasks.
Prolect Coordination and Tracking — Restoration Systems' Project Manager and Construction
Manager utilize appropriate computer software to produce a Gantt chart for each Project. These
charts graphically display each Project's schedule and are used to identify potential delays,
overload points, and other issues related to schedules. Each chart is reviewed weekly at the Project
Managers' meeting.
1.9 References
Harman, W.A., G.D. Jennings, J.M. Patterson, D.R. Clinton, L.A. O'Hara, A. Jessup, R. Everhart. 1999. Bankfull
Hydraulic Geometry Relationships for North Carolina Streams. N.C. State University, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC). 2022. United States Fish and Wildlife Service (online). Available:
https:Hipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/ (April 1, 2022).
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS). 2016. Quantifying Benefits to Water Quality from
Livestock Exclusion and Riparian Buffer Establishment for Stream Restoration. June 15, 2016. North Carolina
Department of Environmental Quality, Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ). 2020. 2020 Final North Carolina 303(d) List (online).
Available:
https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/Water%20Quality/Planning/TM DL/303d/2020/NC_2020_Category5_303dlist.pdf
(March 24, 2022).
North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR). 2013. River Basin Classification Schedule: Cape Fear (online).
Available:
https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/Water%20Quality/Planning/CSU/Surface%2OWater/River%2OBasin%2OWater%2OQualit
y%20Classifications%20as%20of%20Dec%209%202013/CapeFear_Hydro_order.pdf (April 13, 2022).
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP). 2009. Cape Fear River Basin Restoration Priorities
(online). Available:
https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/Water%20Quality/Planning/BPU/BPU/Cape_Fear/Cape%20Fear%20PIans/2006%20PIan
/CPF%202005.pdf (April 13, 2022).
North Carolina Stream Functional Assessment Team. (NC SFAT 2015). N.C. Stream Assessment Method (NC SAM)
User Manual. Version 2.1.
North Carolina Wetland Functional Assessment Team (NC WFAT) 2010. N.C. Wetland Assessment Method (NC
WAM) User Manual. Version 4.1.
Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology (Publisher). Pagosa Springs, Colorado
Rosgen, D. 2009. A Practical Method of Computing Streambank Erosion Rate (online). Available: http://www.u-s-
c.org/html/documents/Erosion rates.pdf.
Rosgen, D. 2011. Estimating Sediment Loads using the Bank Assessment of Non -point source Consequences of
Sediment (BANCS). Watershed Assessment of River Stability and Sediment Supply (WARSSS). Hagerstown,
Maryland.
Schafale, M.P. 2012. Guide to the Natural Communities of North Carolina: Fourth Approximation. North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, North Carolina Department of Environment, Health,
and Natural Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina.
Bluebird Mitigation Site Part 6—Technical Approach
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-452048014) Page 18

The Scientific Council on Freshwater and Terrestrial Mollusks (TSCFTM). 1990. A Report on the Conservation Status
of North Carolina's Freshwater and Terrestrial Molluscan Fauna. Pp. 50-52.
Thompson, R.L. and W.W. Baker. 1971. A survey of red -cockaded woodpeckers nesting habitat requirements (pp.
170-186). In R.L. Thompson ed., The Ecology and Management of the Red -cockaded Woodpecker. Tall Timbers
Research Station, Tallahassee, FL.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2016. Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory
Mitigation Update.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2022. Web Soil Survey (online). Available:
http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx [March 24, 2022].
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1985. Red -cockaded Woodpecker Recovery Plan. U.S. Department of the Interior,
Southeast Region, Atlanta, Georgia. 88 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2003. Threatened and Endangered Species in North Carolina. Chatham
County listing. Internet address: http://nc-es.fws.gov/es/countyfr.html.
Bluebird Mitigation Site Part 6—Technical Approach
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-452048014) Page 19

APPENDIX A: FIGURES
Figure 1. Site Location
Figure 2. Hydrologic Unit Map
Figure 3A. Existing Topography and Drainage Area
Figure 313. Proposed Topography and Drainage Area
Figure 4. Existing Conditions
Figure 5. Soils
Figure 6. LiDAR
Figure 7. Proposed Conditions
Bluebird Mitigation Site Part 6—Technical Approach
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-452048014) Appendices

APPENDIX B: STREAM & WETLAND DATA
NCSAM Forms
NCWAM Forms
NCDWR Forms
Cross Sections
BEHI & NBS
Soil Boring Logs
Bluebird Mitigation Site Part 6—Technical Approach
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-452048014) Appendices

APPENDIX C: FORMS & REPORTS
NHP Report
IPac data
RCW SLOPES
Bluebird Mitigation Site Part 6—Technical Approach
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-452048014) Appendices

APPENDIX D: LANDOWNER INFORMATION
Landowner Authorization (LOA)
Memorandum of Option Agreement (MOA)
Bluebird Mitigation Site Part 6—Technical Approach
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-452048014) Appendices

APPENDIX E: COMPLETED AND SIGNED RFP ATTACHMENTS & TECHNICAL SCORESHEET
RFP Attachment D: HUB Supplemental Vendor Information
RFP Attachment E: Supplemental Vendor Information
RFP Attachment F: Location of Workers Utilized by Vendor
RFP Attachment G: Certification of Financial Condition
Completed Technical Proposal Scoresheet
Bluebird Mitigation Site Part 6—Technical Approach
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-452048014) Appendices