Riverbend_100592_TP_2021

W
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
August 12, 2021
Ms. Brooke Wells
NC DEQ-division of Mitigation Services
217 West Jones Street, Suite 3409-1
Raleigh, NC 27603
RF: Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Proposal — Riverbend Mitigation Site
Catawba River Basin Cataloging Unit 03050102 — Lower Catawba Boundary; Catawba County, NC
In response to RFP 15-20210102 - Full Delivery Project
Dear Ms. Wells,
As an authorized representative of Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands), I am pleased to present to
the NC Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) the following proposal to provide stream and wetland
credits in the Catawba River Basin (Cataloging Unit 030S0102— Lower Catawba Boundary) in response to
RFP 16-20210102, This proposal is a firm offer from Wildlands and remains open for acceptance by the
NC Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) until February 8, 2022, which is 180 days from the
closing date of the above -referenced RFP.
As a fully licensed engineering firm, Wildlands will serve as the contracting entity and lead designer. The
key individuals on the Wildlands Team have worked together on numerous projects over multiple years
and will operate smoothly as a cohesive unit.
Wildlands is committed to creating an excellent ecological restoration project at the Riverbend
Mitigation Site (Site) and is proposing to provide 2,210 stream credits and 11.961 wetland credits using a
combination of stream restoration and enhancement and wetland re-establishment, rehabilitation, and
enhancement.
The Site is an active cattle farm and includes two unnamed tributaries to the South Fork Catawba River.
The Site streams are impacted from direct cattle access and often lack stabilizing riparian vegetation,
resulting in eroded stream banks and diminished bedform and aquatic habitats. The project will improve
water quality and result in ecological uplift through cattle exclusion, wetland restoration, buffer
reforestation, reconnection of streams to floodplains, and restoration of stream dimension and function
within two (Water Quality and Habitat) TRAs.
Wildlands' Rive rbend Mitigation Site submittal includes one signed, original Technical Proposals two
photocopies of the Technical Proposal; one USB flash drive containing one electronic copy of the
Technical Proposal and the Project Site boundaries in ArcGIS format; and one signed, original Cost
Proposal. All paper contained within this proposal is 100% recycled, 30% post -consumer content. With
our diverse, yet unified team we offer the expertise, understanding, and commitment to ensure this
project's success. Wildlands has read the RFP in its entirety, including all links, and all addenda.
Sincerely,
IJ
Shawn Wilkerson, President
w Wildlands Engineering, Irni. (P) 744.332.7754 • (F)704.332.3306 ■ 1430 South Mint St, Suite 104 0 Charlotte, NCUd03

RIVERBEND MITIGATION SITE
CATAWBA RIVER BASIN 03050103 -
LOWER CATAWBA BOUNDARY
RFP #16-20210102
TECHNICAL PROPOSAL
PROPOSAL OPENING DATE: AUGUST 12, 2021 at 2:00 PM
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
1430 S. Mint Street, Suite 104, Charlotte, NC 28203
PHONE: [phone] FAX: [phone]
Wildlands' Authorized Representative: Shawn D. Wilkerson
IL4# This report is printed on recycled paper
SUBMITTED TO:
no

,L-
I
-\I - .1
w
0
Fri.
-Ss� Qu� ��
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
Request for Proposal #
16-202101 oz
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.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Vendor Name
Vendor#
Note. For your proposal to be considered, your company (you) must be a North Carolina
registered vendor in good standing. You must enter the vendor number assigned through eVP
(Electronic Vendor Portal). If you do not have a vendor number, register at
�tt�ws: JJvz��i �d Q�-. n cg o v . co i�� dveia d a � llog i �i
Sealed, mailed responses ONLY will be accepted for this solicitation.

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
Division of Mitigation Services
Refer ALL Inquiries regarding this RFP to:
Brooke Wells
brooke.wells cdenr. ov [phone]
Request for Proposal # 16-20210102
Proposals will be publicly opened: August 12, 2021
Using Agency: Division of Mitigation
Services
Commodity No. and description: Commodity No. and
Description: 962-73 Restoration/Reclamation Services of Land
and other Properties
Requisition No.: N/A
Sealed, mailed responses ONL Y will be accepted for this solicitation.
EXECUTION
In compliance with this Request for Proposals (RFP), and subject to all the conditions herein, the undersigned Vendor offers and
agrees to furnish and deliver any or atl 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 understands that False certification is a Class I felony and certifies that:
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
it is not an ineligible Vendor as set forth in G.S. 143-59.1.
Furthermore, by executing this proposal, the undersigned certifies to the best of Vendors 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, compiles 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 �2009j 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 Vendor's entire organization
and its employees or agents, that Vendor are not aware that any such gift has been offered, accepted, or promised by any
employees of your organization.
By executing this bid, 'Vendor certifies that i1 has read and agreed to the INSTRWTIONS TO VENDOR'S amd the NO'RTi ki
CAROLI'NA GENERAL TERM CONDITIONS.
Failure to executelsign proposal prior to submittal may render proposal invalid and it WILL BE REJECTED.
Late proposals cannot be accepted.
COMPLETEIFORMAL NAME OF VENDOR:
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
STREET ADDRESS
P.O. BOX:
ZIP;
1430 S. Mint St., Suite 104
nla
28203
CITY & STATE & ZIP:
TELEPHONE NUMBER:
TOLL FREE TEL. NO:
Charlotte, NC 28203
704-332-7754
nla
PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS ADDRESS IF DIFFERENT FROM ABOVE (SEE INSTRUCTIONS TO VENDORS ITEM #12):
nla
�►1Wy.7`1P%1Y&

PRINT NAME & TITLE OF PERSON SIGNING ON BEHALF OF VENDOR:
FAX NUMBER:
Sh n D. Wilkerson President
704-332-3306
VEN R'S AUT ORIZED SIGNATURE*:
DATE:
EMAIL:
6
08/12/2021
[e-mail]
Mr
VALIDITY PERIOD
Offer valid for at least 60 days from date of bid opening, unless otherwise stated here: 180 days. After this date, any
withdrawal of offer shall be made in writing, effective upon receipt by the agency issuing this RFP.
ACCEPTANCE OF PROPOSAL
The contract is a separate document that represents the Vendor's and the State's entire agreement (herein "Contract'). If your
proposal is accepted and results, through negotiation or otherwise, in a contract award you will be expected to accept the
NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS as part of the Contract. Dependent upon the product or service
being offered, other terms and conditions may apply.
FOR STATE USE ONLY: Offer accepted and Contract awarded this day of , 20 as indicated on
The attached certification, by
(Authorized Representative of Department of Environmental Quality)
vraW11`rriri

PART D - Executive Summary
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands) is proposing to provide 2,210 stream credits and 11.961 wetland
credits within the Catawba River Basin Catalog Unit 03050102 — Lower Catawba Boundary at the
Riverbend Mitigation Site (Site) in Catawba County, NC. Wildlands has recorded an option to acquire a
conservation easement on approximately 32 acres on the Site. The project will include restoration and
enhancement of two unnamed tributaries to the South Fork Catawba River and re-establishment,
rehabilitation, and enhancement of wetlands.
The Site is an active cattle farm and the streams are in various stages of impact due to cattle grazing.
Cattle have access to all streams, wetland, and riparian areas on site. The streams are generally incised,
bermed, and eroding which has drained former riparian wetlands. Existing wooded riparian areas are
dominated by Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) and other invasive exotic species. The presence of
instream habitat and bedform diversity is
dependent on the extent of cattle wallowing on
the reach. The presence of large woody debris
(LWD) varies across the site depending on the
presence of existing wooded riparian areas.
This project will improve water quality and
ecology through riparian buffer establishment,
stream and wetland restoration activities,
exclusion of livestock, and the treatment of
invasive species. These activities will result in a
decrease in nutrient and sediment loads from the
Site and improved aquatic and terrestrial habitat.
The specific evaluation criteria outlined in the
DMS' Request for Proposals will be met as
summarized in Part F of this proposal.
In summary, the mitigation plan for the Site will include the following:
• Cattle exclusion from the streams, wetlands, and riparian buffers onsite;
• Reconnection of incised streams to their historic floodplain and riparian wetlands;
• Enhancement of habitat functions through in -stream structures and planting native riparian
buffers;
• Protection for stream channels from further channel degradation and vegetation impact for
agricultural purposes;
• Reduction of sediment and nutrient loadings due to overland runoff from agricultural fields;
• Improvements to water quality and habitat within the DMS Targeted Resource Areas for water
quality and habitat;
• Conservation of 32 acres of restored land in perpetuity.
Riverbend Mitigation Site - PART D
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page D.1

PART E - Project Organization
1.0 Organizational Chart
The following illustrates the organization of personnel that will be assigned to this project.
■ wILOLANos Charlotte, NC Office
■ wILOL4NDs Asheville, NC Office
Jacob Wiseman, PE, CFM
Jordan Hessler
Engineering services will be
performed by employees of
licensed corporate entities.
2.0 Qualifications and Experience
Brief resumes presenting the qualifications, experience, and assigned project responsibilities of each
project team member are presented on the following pages.
Riverbend Mitigation Site - PART E
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page E.1

Pril lr9rinn-
MS, Civil Engineering,
University of North
Carolina at Charlotte,
1998
BA, English Literature,
Appalachian State
University, 1993
Professional Registrations:
Real Estate Broker, NC
Additional Training:
• Rosgen Level I -IV, 1998-
2003
• PSMJ Project Manager
Boot Camp, 2004, 2014
• Mecklenburg habitat
Assessment Protocol
Training, 2000
Shawn Wilkerson, President
Project Role: Principal -in -Charge
Years of Experience: 21 years
Mr. Wilkerson has professional experience in water resources, focusing on
surface water hydrology and restoration. He has managed and designed a
diverse range of projects, including wetland/BMP construction and
monitoring, stream restoration and enhancement, and watershed
planning for flood control and water quality improvements. In the roles of
principal -in -charge or project manager, Mr. Wilkerson has overseen and
managed design and construction for more than 34 miles of stream
restoration projects. Several of his key projects have involved mitigation
banking and turn -key mitigation solutions. In his role at Wildlands, he also
serves as the leader of a team of scientists and engineers that focuses on
ecological restoration and assessments. Mr. Wilkerson focuses on
integrating ecologically responsible projects within the constraints of
impacted landscapes while using his experience and education to manage
and create innovative and successful projects.
PROJECT EXPERIENCE AT WILDLANDS I DETAILS I ROLE
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site, 13,164 stream credits; Principal -in -
Yadkin County, NC 9.5 wetland credits Charge
Banner Farm Mitigation Site, 6,294 stream credits; Principal -in -
Henderson County, NC 34.0 wetland credits Charge
Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation
Site, Montgomery County, NC
Big Harris Creek Mitigation Site,
Cleveland County, NC
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site,
Catawba County, NC
Henry Fork Mitigation Site,
Catawba County, NC
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site,
Burke County, NC
9,242 stream credits;
Principal-in-
4.85 wetland credits
Charge
25,836 stream credits
Project
Manager
5,571 stream credits;
Principal-in-
7.0 wetland credits
Charge
4,500 stream credits;
Principal-in-
4.0 wetland credits
Charge
4,875 stream credits
Principal -in -
Charge
Oak Hill Dairy Mitigation Site, 4,643 stream credits; Principal -in -
Gaston County, NC 8.0 wetland credits Charge
Wyant Lands Mitigation Site, 6,864 stream credits; Principal -in -
Lincoln County, NC 13.0 wetland credits Charge
Norkett Branch Mitigation Site,
Union County, NC
10,098 stream credits Principal -in -
Charge
Riverbend Mitigation Site - PART E
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page E.2

prillrori.,n•
MS, Biological Systems
Engineering, Virginia
Tech, 2013
BS, Civil Engineering,
University of Tennessee,
2010
Professional Registrations:
Professional Engineer, NC
#042660
Additional Training:
• Stream Simulation:
Aquatic Organism
Passage (AOP), USFS,
2020
• Rosgen Level I -IV, 2015-
2018
• River Course 201:
Natural Channel Design
Principles, 2013
• River Course 101:
Stream Morphology and
Assessment, 2013
• HEC-RAS, A Hands -On
Computer Workshop,
2013
• Stream Restoration
Design Techniques, 2012
• Sediment Transport
Fundamentals, 2012
Eric Neuhaus, PE, Water Resources Engineer
Project Role: Project Manager
Years of Experience: 8 years
Mr. Neuhaus serves as a water resources engineer and project manager for
Wildlands Engineering in the Asheville, NC office. Mr. Neuhaus has
experience working on a variety of projects including stream and wetland
restoration, stormwater management, erosion and sediment control,
hydrologic modeling, and groundwater modeling. Mr. Neuhaus' duties
include project management, mitigation solution design and development
for proposals, field data collection, site analysis, design development,
preparation of construction plans, earthwork estimation, and construction
administration. He also provides hydrologic modeling, water budget
analysis, preliminary site evaluation, and design for wetland restoration
projects.
PROJECT EXPERIENCE AT WILDLANDS
DETAILS
I ROLE
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site,
4,875 stream credits
Project Manager
Burke County, NC
Banner Farm Mitigation Site,
6,294 stream credits;
Henderson County, NC
34.0 wetland credits
Project Manager
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation
3,229 stream credits;
Site, Gaston County, NC
8.0 wetland credits
Project Manager
Catawba Umbrella Mitigation
Bank: Firestone Mitigation Site,
5,576 stream credits
Project Manager
Wildlands-owned Bank, Catawba
County, NC
Yadkin Valley Umbrella
Mitigation Bank: Plantation
Branch Mitigation Site,
5,268 stream credits
Project Manager
Wildlands-owned Bank,
Surry County, NC
Yadkin Valley Umbrella
Mitigation Bank: White Buffalo,
4,980 stream credits
Project Manager
Wildlands-owned Bank,
Surry County, NC
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site,
2,838 stream credits;
Union County, NC
8.0 wetland credits
Design
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration
3,242 stream credits;
Construction
Project, Union County, NC
7 9 wetland credits;
Administration
54,135 buffer credits
Oak Hill Dairy Mitigation Site,
4,643 stream credits;
Gaston County, NC
8.0 wetland credits
Design Review
Riverbend Mitigation Site - PART E
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page E.3

PZ4
Pril lr9rinn-
BS, Biosystems Engineering
with a Minor in
Environmental
Engineering, Clemson
University, 1999
Professional Registrations:
Professional Engineer, NC
#029913
Certified Floodplain
Manager, NC-04-0113
Additional Training:
• PSMJ Project Principal
Training, 2016
• PSMJ Project Manager
Boot Camp, 2004, 2014
• Hydraulic Modeling for
Stream Restoration and
Sediment Transport,
2011
• Advanced HEC-RAS
Training, 2002
• Floodplain Map Revision
Workshop, 2001
• Soil Erosion and
Sediment Control
Construction Practices
Workshop, 2000
Emily Reinicker, PE, CFM, Senior Water Resources Engineer,
Director of Operations and Design
Project Role: QA/QC Manager
Years of Experience: 21 years
Ms. Reinicker currently serves as the director of operations and design
for Wildlands Engineering. Her duties include operations optimization
for the ecosystem restoration team, technical review and project
management for ecological restoration projects. She has professional
experience in water resources and civil engineering, including
hydrologic and hydraulic modeling, natural channel design, watershed
analysis, and storm water management. She has been involved in the
design of more than 50,000 LF of stream restoration and enhancement
work in urban settings and 100,000 LF of streams in rural settings of NC.
I:jl.tojl:csid;r4:j4*.li4Llr44riidkTiTilip1wilkillimopl:ilfill�I
Reedy Creek Design -Build 26,149 stream credits; Project
Stream Restoration Project, 4.6 wetland credits Manager
Mecklenburg County, NC
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site,
Catawba County, NC
Owl's Den Mitigation Site,
Lincoln County, NC
5,571 stream credits; Project
7.0 wetland credits Manager
2,400 stream credits; Project
8.0 wetland credits Manager
Scaly Bark Creek Mitigation Site, 6,450 stream credits Design Lead
Stanly County, NC
Big Harris Creek Mitigation Site,
Cleveland County, NC
Yadkin Valley Umbrella
Mitigation Bank: Critcher
Brothers Mitigation Site,
Wildlands-owned Bank,
Wilkes County, NC
Assistant
25,836 stream credits Project
Manager
21,000 stream credits Project
Manager
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site, 13,164 stream credits; Project
Yadkin County, NC 9.5 wetland credits Manager
Norkett Branch Mitigation Site,
Union County, NC
10,098 stream credits
Project
Manager
Riverbend Mitigation Site - PART E
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page E.4

M
Education:
MS, Forestry and Natural
Resources, Clemson
University, 2004
BS, Earth Sciences, State
University of New York
at Fredonia, 2000
Additional Training:
• Rosgen Level 1-III, 2007-
2014
• River Course 131,
Assessment and
Identification of Riparian
Vegetation, 2012
• NC Wetland Assessment
Method Certification
Training, 2010
• Stream Restoration
Construction Training,
2006, 2009
• Project Management
Training I -IV, 2007-2009
• AutoCAD for Stream
Monitoring and
Restoration, 2006
• River Course 101-201,
2004
Kirsten Gimbert, Senior Environmental Scientist
Project Role: Categorical Exclusions
Years of Experience: 16 years
Ms. Gimbert has experience with stream and wetland restoration
projects and watershed assessments. She currently serves as a senior
environmental scientist for Wildlands Engineering's Charlotte, NC office.
Currently, Ms. Gimbert is working alongside both the mitigation
development and ecological assessment team. Her diverse roles and
responsibilities include market research analysis, categorical exclusions,
project management, QA/QC lead, mitigation report preparation, and
GIS mapping for ecological restoration projects. In addition, her
professional background consists of serving as monitoring program
coordinator, assistant designer for stream restoration projects,
performing stream and wetland monitoring, water quality monitoring,
existing condition assessments, sediment transport sampling and
analysis, construction management, stormwater BMP/LID monitoring,
watershed and habitat assessments, and sediment and erosion control
assessments.
PROJECT EXPERIENCE AT WILDLANDS
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site,
Burke County, NC
I DETAILS
4,875 stream credits
I ROLE
Categorical
Exclusions
Oak Hill Dairy Mitigation Site,
4,643 stream credits;
Categorical
Gaston County, NC
8.0 wetland credits
Exclusions
Huntsman Mitigation Site,
5,817 stream credits
Categorical
Wilkes County, NC
Exclusions
Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation
9,242 stream credits;
Categorical
Site, Montgomery County, NC
4.85 wetland credits
Exclusions
Liberty Rock Mitigation Site,
Randolph County, NC
Cool Springs Mitigation Site,
Harnett County, NC
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site,
Catawba County, NC
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration
Project, Union County, NC
5,118 stream credits; Categorical
15.0 wetland credits Exclusions
4,680 stream credits; Categorical
1.36 wetland credits Exclusions
5,571 stream credits; Monitoring
7.0 wetland credits Lead
3,242 stream credits;
7.9 wetland credits; Monitoring
54,135 buffer credits
Riverbend Mitigation Site - PART E
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page E.5

Prillrori.,n•
BS, Environmental Science,
University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill,
2014
Additional Training:
• NC Stream Assessment
Method — Certification
Training, 2018
• Surface Water
Identification Training
and Certification, 2018
• River Course 201: Natural
Channel Design
Principles, 2018
• River Course 101: Stream
Morphology Assessment,
2017
• Stormwater BMP
Maintenance &
Inspection, 2015
Mimi Caddell, Environmental Scientist
Project Role: Existing Conditions Assessment, Monitoring
Years of Experience: 6 years
Ms. Caddell has six years of experience related to watershed resources.
She has assisted with water quality grant projects such as stormwater best
management practices and conservation land monitoring in Western
North Carolina. Additionally, she is experienced with community outreach
by working with volunteer groups on invasive plant species projects and
carrying out watershed education programs. Ms. Caddell's duties at
Wildlands include vegetation and geomorphic assessments and data
processing, GIS mapping, and site maintenance.
PROJECT EXPERIENCE AT WILDLANDS I DETAILS I ROLE
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site, 13,164 stream credits; Monitoring
Yadkin County, NC 9.5 wetland credits
Existing
Banner Farm Mitigation Site,
6,294 stream credits;
Conditions
Henderson County, NC
34.0 wetland credits
Assessment;
Monitoring
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration
3,242 stream credits;
Project, Union County, NC
7.9 wetland credits;
Monitoring
54,135 buffer credits
Existing
Wyant Lands Mitigation Site,
6,864 stream credits;
Conditions
Lincoln County, NC
13.0 wetland credits
Assessment;
Mitigation Plan
Development
Deep Meadow Mitigation Site,
2,838 stream credits;
ExistingConditions
Union County, NC
8.0 wetland credits
Assessment
Existing
Shake Rag Mitigation Site,
Conditions
Madison County, NC
6,655 stream credits
Assessment;
T&E Survey;
Monitoring
Hopewell Mitigation Site,
7,412 stream credits
Monitoring
Randolph County, NC
Vile Creek Mitigation Site,
5,146 stream credits;
Alleghany County, NC
6.0 wetland credits
Monitoring
Glade Creek II Restoration
2,166 stream credits
Monitoring
Project, Alleghany County, NC
Riverbend Mitigation Site - PART E
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page E.6

Fri nratinn-
BS, Biology with a
concentration in Ecology
& Evolution, Western
Carolina University, 2015
AAS, Horticulture
Technology, Haywood
Community College,
2011
Additional Training:
• River Course 303: Multi -
Dimensional Modeling
for Stream Restoration,
2021
• River Course 302: HEC-
RAS for Stream
Restoration, 2021
• River Course 101:
Stream Morphology and
Assessment, NC State
University, 2019
• Stormwater & Flood
Modeling Training
Course,
XPSWMM/XPSTORM,
2019
• Streambank Protection
Design: Hard & Soft
Techniques &
Applications, Forester
University, 2019
Jordan Hessler, Environmental Scientist/Designer
Project Role: Design, Construction Administration
Years of Experience: 6 years
Mr. Hessler currently serves the Asheville office as an environmental
scientist/designer. He has experience in civil engineering, Auto CAD
applications, Graphic information systems, stormwater management, and
soil and sediment control measures. additional skills include wetland land
delineation and permitting, construction quality assurance, landscape
design, vegetation surveys, threatened and endangered species survey.
Mr. Hessler is responsible for wetland delineations, post -construction
monitoring, existing geomorphic surveys, regulatory permitting, agency
correspondence, design support, and construction oversight.
PROJECT EXPERIENCE AT WILDLANDS
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site,
Burke County, NC
LDETAILS
4,875 stream credits
ROLE
Design;
Construction
Oversight
Design;
Banner Farm Mitigation Site,
6,294 stream credits;
Permitting;Steam
Henderson County, NC
34.0 wetland credits
&
Wetland
Delineations
Carpenter Bottom Mitigation
3,229 stream credits;
Design;
Site, Gaston County, NC
8.0 wetland credits
Permitting;
Planting Plan
Design;
Oak Hill Dairy Mitigation Site,
4,643 stream credits;
Mitigation Plan
Gaston County, NC
8.0 wetland credits
Development;
Permitting
Existing
Little Tennessee Umbrella
Conditions
Mitigation Bank— East Buffalo
4,432 stream credits;
Assessment;
Mitigation Site, Wildlands-
1.0 wetland credits
Design;
owned bank, Graham County, NC
Permitting;
Construction
Administration
Existing
Wyant Lands Mitigation Site,
6,864 stream credits;
Conditions
Lincoln Lincoln County, NC
13.0 wetland credits
Design;
Permitting
Henry Fork Mitigation Site,
4,500 stream credits;
Catawba County, NC
4.0 wetland credits
Monitoring
Riverbend Mitigation Site - PART E
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page E.7

Education:
MS, Forest Resources,
Clemson University,
2021
BS, Natural Resource
Ecology and
Management with a
Concentration in
Conservation Biology,
Louisiana State
University, 2015
Professional Registrations:
• American Red Cross
Basic Life Support, 2020
• Certified USFWS
Motorboat Operator,
2018
• Certified Wetland
Delineator, 2016
Jessica Waller, Environmental Scientist
Project Role: Existing Conditions Assessment, Monitoring
Years of Experience: 6 years
Ms. Waller currently serves in the Wildlands Asheville office as an
environmental scientist. Ms. Waller has a combined six years of post-
graduate professional and academic experience in the natural resources
field. She has worked extensively in coastal cypress swamps, bottomland
hardwood forests, and tidal estuarine/marsh environments and is
experienced in wetland assessment, permitting, and mitigation.
PROJECT EXPERIENCE AT WILDLANDS
I DETAILS ROLE
Big Harris Creek Mitigation Site,
25,836 stream credits;
Cleveland County, NC
9 BMPs
Monitoring
Vile Creek Mitigation Site,
5,146 stream credits;
Alleghany County, NC
6.0 wetland credits
Monitoring
Henry Fork Mitigation Site,
4,500 stream credits;
Catawba County, NC
4.0 wetland credits
Monitoring
Owl's Den Mitigation Site,
2,400 stream credits;
Lincoln County, NC
8.0 wetland credits
Monitoring
Shake Rag Mitigation Site,
6,655 stream credits
Monitoring
Madison County, NC
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site,
13,164 stream credits;
Yadkin County, NC
9.5 wetland credits
Monitoring
Glade Creek II Restoration
2,166 stream credits
Monitoring
Project, Alleghany County, NC
Yadkin Valley Umbrella
Mitigation Bank: Plantation
Branch Mitigation Site,
5,268 stream credits
Monitoring
Wildlands-owned Bank,
Surry County, NC
SIMILAR PROJECT EXPERIENCE AT
DETAILS
ROLE
PREVIOUS FIRMS
311.0 bottomland
Avoca Island Mitigation Bank,
hardwoods wetland credits;
Existing
Morgan City, St. Mary Parish, LA
171.6 cypress/tupelo gum
Conditions
swamp wetland credits
Assessment
42.7 bottomland
Existing
Blouin Mitigation Bank,
hardwoods wetland credits;
Conditions
Raceland, Lafourche Parish, LA
166.9 cypress/tupelo gum
swamp wetland credits
Assessment
Riverbend Mitigation Site - PART E
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page E.8

Education:
JD, Campbell University,
2009
BS, American Studies,
University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill,
2004
Matt Covington, General Counsel
Project Role: Easements
Years of Experience: 7 years
Mr. Covington serves as Wildlands' General Counsel and works closely with
the Mitigation Development team to identify and develop mitigation
projects. Prior to joining Wildlands, Mr. Covington was Director of Land
Acquisition for a non-profit land trust based in Charlotte, North Carolina,
where he led the organization's conservation efforts. He was directly
involved in 33 conservation transactions which included site identification,
landowner outreach and negotiations, grant writing and reporting, due
diligence investigations, and real estate closings. Mr. Covington has been
licensed to practice law in North Carolina since 2009 and before entering
the environmental field, he worked at Charlotte law firm as a solo
practitioner mainly focused on civil litigation.
PROJECT EXPERIENCE AT WILDLANDS I DETAILS ROLE
Site
East Mingo Creek Mitigation Site, 6,500 stream credits; Identification;
Wildlands-owned Bank, Johnston 22.3 wetland credits Land & Easement
County, NC
Acquisition
Catawba Umbrella Mitigation
Bank: Firestone Mitigation Site,
Wildlands-owned Bank, Catawba
County, NC
SIMILAR PROJECT EXPERIENCE AT
PREVIOUS FIRMS
Massapoag Preserve,
Lincoln County, NC
Old Still Farm Conservation
Easement, Union County, NC
Holly Track Conservation
Easement, Mecklenburg County,
NC
Carolina Thread Trail,
North Carolina
Site
Identification;
5,576 stream credits Land & Easement
Acquisition
DETAILS ROLE
14 acres of Land & Easement
conservation Acquisition
461 acres of
conservation;
10,000 LF of buffer
enhancement
200 acres of
conservation
2,000 acres of
permanent
conservation
Site
Identification;
Land & Easement
Acquisition
Site
Identification;
Land & Easement
Acquisition
Land & Easement
Acquisition
Riverbend Mitigation Site - PART E
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page E.9

Andrea Eckardt, Senior Environmental Planner
Project Role: Categorical Exclusions
Years of Experience: 24 years
+
Ms. Andrea Eckardt currently serves as a senior environmental planner for
the Charlotte, NC office. She specializes in mitigation bank entitlement,
`
riparian buffer mitigation, watershed management, project development
and implementation, agency facilitation,
conservation easement
Education:
coordination, and GIS mapping.
MS, Environmental Science
of Applied Ecology,
PROJECT EXPERIENCE AT WILDLANDS
I DETAILS
ROLE
Indiana University, 1996
Categorical
BS, Biology, Wake Forest
Exclusion;
University, 1994
Various Full -Delivery Projects,
33 full -delivery projects
Conservation
Additional Training:
Multiple Counties in NC
Easement
• Clean Water
Acquisition
Management Trust Fund
Workshop (CWMTF),
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site,
5,571 stream credits;
Categorical
2015
Catawba County, NC
7.0 wetland credits
Exclusion
• Consultant Regulatory
Workshop, 2007
Big Harris Creek Mitigation Site,
25,836 stream credits;
Mitigation Plan
• Financial Benefits of
Cleveland County, NC
9 BMPs
Lead
Conservation Easements:
Conservation Programs
3,242 stream credits;
and Tax Incentives for NC
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration
7.9 wetland credits;
Categorical
Landowners, 2006
Project, Union County, NC
54,135 buffer credits
Exclusion
• Project Manager
Bootcamp, 2004, 2014
Box Creek Wilderness Area
Project Manager;
• Natural Resource Leader
Stream Mitigation Bank,
42,735 stream credits
Conservation
Institute, 2001
Rutherford County, NC
Easement
Acquisition
Little Troublesome Creek
Project Manager
Mitigation Site, Rockingham
4,900 stream credits;
(existing condition
12.7 wetland credits
and design
County, NC
phase)
Conservation
Sassarixa Swamp Mitigation
921,403 buffer credits;
Easement
Site, Johnston County, NC
8,619 stream credits
Acquisition, Plat
Recordation
Mangum Homestead Mitigation
36,933 buffer credits;
Site,
19,985 nutrient credits
Project Manager
Orange County, NC
Riverbend Mitigation Site - PART E
Wildlands Engineering,
Inc.
Page E.10

Jacob Wiseman, PE, CFM, Environmental Designer
Project Role: Design, Permitting, Construction Administration
4W
Years of Experience: 9 years
Mr. Wiseman currently serves as an environmental designer in the
Wildlands Asheville, NC office. He has nine years of experience in
hydrologic and hydraulic modeling, bioengineering, and has an extensive
background in erosion control and stormwater management. As an
Education:
environmental designer, Mr. Wiseman assists with planning,
hydrologic
MS, Biological and
and hydraulic modeling, design, and monitoring of ecological restoration
Agricultural Engineering,
and stormwater projects.
North Carolina State
University, 2011
PROJECT EXPERIENCE AT WILDLANDS DETAILS I
ROLE
BS, Biological and
Assistant Project
Agricultural Engineering,Laurel
g4,875
Valley Mitigation Site,
stream credits
Manager; Design
Environmental
Burke County, NC
Lead
Engineering
Design; FEMA
Concentration, North
Banner Farm Mitigation Site, 6,294 stream credits;
Flood Study;
Carolina State University,
2008
Henderson County, NC 34.0 wetland credits
Construction
Oversight
Professional Registrations:
Professional Engineer,
g
Oak Hill Dairy Mitigation Site, 4,643 stream credits;
Design Lead
#50639 NC
Gaston County, NC 8.0 wetland credits
Certified Floodplain
Cornbread Valley Mitigation 4,630 stream credits;
Design; Plan Set
Manager, NC-17-00692
Site, Macon County, NC 7.0 wetland credits
Development
Additional Training:
Little Tennessee Umbrella
• River Course 303: Multi-
Mitigation Bank — East Buffalo 4,432 stream credits;
Dimensional Modeling
Mitigation Site, Wildlands- 1.0 wetland credits
Design
for Stream Restoration,
owned bank, Graham County, NC
2021
Yadkin Valley Umbrella
• River Course 302: HEC
Mitigation Bank: Plantation
Design; Hydraulic
RAS for Stream
Branch Mitigation Site, 5,268 stream credits
Modeling; Project
Restoration, 2021
• Level III Design of Erosion
Wildlands-owned Bank,
Scheduling
and Sediment Control
Surry County, NC
Plans Certification,
Yadkin Valley Umbrella
NCDOT, Cert #3530
Mitigation Bank: White Buffalo,
Design; Hydraulic
• NCSU stormwater BMP
4,980 stream credits
Wildlands-owned Bank,
Modeling; Project
Inspection and
Surry County, NC
Scheduling
Maintenance
Certification, Cert. #2465
Shake Rag Mitigation Site,
Site Assessment;
6,655 stream credits
Madison County, NC
Construction
Documents
Design;
Multi -Area Stream Bank
Streambank
11,000 LF of stream
Stabilization Project, City of
Stabilization;
stabilization across
Hendersonville, Hendersonville,
permitting;
13 sites
NC
Stream
Delineation
Riverbend Mitigation Site - PART E
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Page E.11

Part F -Technical Approach
The Riverbend Mitigation Site (Site) straddles the Catawba/Lincoln County line but, according to the NC
One GIS layer and Lincoln County and Catawba County websites, is located in Catawba County
approximately three miles west of Maiden (Figure 1). The project includes stream restoration and
enhancement and reestablishment, rehabilitation, and enhancement of project wetlands. The project is
located within the Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03050102040010 and is being submitted for mitigation
credit in the Catawba River Basin Catalog Unit 03050102 - Lower Catawba boundary. The site is located
within DWR Subbasin 03-08-35 and drains directly to the South Fork of the Catawba River which is the
primary receiving water in this 8-digit HUC (Figure 1). RBRP goals emphasize the importance of removing
conditions causing sediment impairments, improving management on cattle farms, and building off
existing land protection efforts. The Site is located within habitat and water quality Targeted Resource
Areas (TRA) (Catchment ID - 9745736) identified by DMS.
The Site contains two unnamed tributaries to the South Fork of the Catawba River, given names for the
proposal of UT to SF Catawba and UT1. The Site supports the RBRP goals listed above by removing cattle
from the streams, existing wetlands, and former wetlands; removing sediment sources through
establishing riparian buffers; improving stream conditions; constructing a Best Management Practice
(BMP); and connecting to an existing Catawba Lands Conservancy (CLC) conservation area. The
Riverbend Conservation Area is a collection of conservation easements and fee -owned parcels along the
South Fork of the Catawba River from Blackburn Bridge Road downstream to an area adjacent to the
intersection of Killian Road and Reepsville Road. Overall, this Conservation Area protects approximately
1,300 acres of floodplain, wetlands, and slopes along the river protecting water quality and providing
flood protection for the river downstream (https://catawbalands.org/signature/riverbend-conservation-
area ).
In addition to the CLC protected land, four DMS easements are located within a five -mile radius of the
Site. These easements all protect stream and wetland systems that drain directly to the South Fork of
the Catawba River. The Site provides an excellent opportunity to build off the significant conservation
efforts in this region of the watershed. It should be noted that this is not reflected in the project density
score in the score sheet due to the large size of the South Fork of the Catawba watershed.
1.0 Project Goals and Objectives
The major goals of the proposed stream and wetland
mitigation project are to provide ecological and water
quality enhancements to the Catawba River Basin while
creating a functional riparian corridor at the site level.
Site stressors include stream incision, active stream
erosion, livestock access, poor quality buffers dominated
by Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) and other invasive
species, and areas of limited to absent bedform diversity.
Specific enhancements to water quality, hydrology, and
habitat are outlined in Table F.I. Watershed ecological
uplift potential and specific calculations supporting these
goals and objectives are outlined in Section 3.
Riverbend Mitigation Site - PART F
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page F.1

Table F.1 Water Quality, Hydrology, and Habitat Goals of the Mitigation Project
Site Functional
Functional Uplift Potential
Site Goal
Site Objective
Stressors
Very High —Approximately 70% of the
Restore and
Water Quality:
riparian zones on site are less than 50 ft.
supplement native
• Convert active livestock
Non-functioning
Restored riparian zones will be much
floodplain and
pasture to forested riparian
riparian
greater than the required 50 ft
wetland vegetation
buffers along all Site streams.
buffer/wetland
throughout. The project will include
beyond required 50
' Protect and enhance existing
vegetation
planting stream and wetland riparian
feet where possible.
forested riparian buffers.
zones with native vegetation.
High —The primary source of sediment is
• Reconstruct stream channels
eroding streams and livestock trampling.
Improve the
slated for restoration with
Water Quality:
Restoration of channels, establishment of
stability of stream
stable dimensions and
Sediment
riparian vegetation, and livestock
channels
appropriate depth relative to
exclusion will reduce sediment loss from
the existing floodplain. Add
the system.
bank bioengineering methods
and instream structures to
Very High - Project is expected reduce TN
by 1,633 Ibs/yr and TP by 135 Ibs/yr based
Reduce sediment
protect restored/ enhanced
Water Quality:
on 32 acres of new livestock exclusion.
and nutrient input
streams.
Nutrients
Runoff from fertilized pastures will be
from adjacent
• Remove ditches to increase
filtered through restored and
agricultural fields
floodplain storage in riparian
supplemented buffers and one BMP.
wetlands.
• Restore riparian stream
Very High -Exclusion of livestock and land
conversion will reduce fecal coliform
corridor to slow and filter
is
loading by approximately 4.98x10 col/yr.
Exclude livestock
runoff from adjacent
Water Quality:
These pollutants will be further reduced
from streams and
agricultural fields.
Fecal rm
by eliminating over 32 acres of fertilized
wetlands
Exclude livestock from
pasture and planting vegetated buffers on
streams and riparian areas,
90% of the site.
and/or exclude livestock from
adjacent fields.
High -Incised channels will be restored
Reconnect streams
• Reconnecting incised streams
using Priority 1 restoration to allow for
to floodplain
to their active floodplains
Hydrology:
increased floodplain storage of storm
wetlands to
through restoration will
Peak Flows
flows and decreasing the drainage effect
infiltrate runoff and
address peak flows.
on surrounding riparian wetlands.
attenuate peak
flows.
Hydrology:
Moderate —Removal of one pond dam
Improve instream
• Remove pond dam to remove
Artificial Barriers
and hydrologic evaluation of two culverts.
habitats
barriers to aquatic organism
passage.
High —Priority 1 stream restoration will
Allow for frequent
raise the streambeds to allow for frequent
flooding and
. Raise stream beds through
Hydrology:
overbank flooding and a higher water
improve wetland
Priority 1 restoration.
Ditching/Draining
table to better support existing riparian.
hydrology for all
Filling ditches will reduce drainage
currently existing
• Fill existing ditches.
wetlands.
riparian wetlands.
Habitat:
Moderate — One pond dam will be
Diversify and
. Eliminate pond dam
Habitat
removed and the project connects directly
connect instream
• Connect to existing CLC
Fragmentation
to approximately 1,300 acres of CLC
and floodplain
conserved Land
conserved land.
habitat.
Riverbend Mitigation Site - PART F
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page F.2

Site Functional
Functional Uplift Potential
Site Goal
Site Objective
Stressors
High - Streams lack bedform diversity due
to livestock trampling and high fine grain
Habitat:
sediment load. Diverse bedforms including
• Install habitat features such
Limited Bedform
riffles, pools of varying depth, log and/or
as constructed steps, cover
Diversity
rock sill features will be created in streams
logs, and brush toes on
to provide habitat. Woody instream
restored reaches. Add woody
structures will be implemented.
materials/ LWD to channel
Improve instream
habitat and riparian
beds. Improve bedform
High — Woody debris is currently present,
however extended riparian buffers will
wetland habitat.
diversity by constructing
improve the presence and delivery of
riffle -pool sequences with
Habitat:
wood to streams. The woody structures
pools of varying depth and
Absence of Large
described above that will be implemented
step -pool sequences.
Woody Debris
as part of the proposed project will be
• Add vegetation to riparian
installed throughout the project streams.
wetlands.
The majority of restored buffers extend
well beyond the minimum 50 ft.
Permanently
N/A
N/A
protect the project
• Establish a conservation
site from harmful
easement on the site.
uses.
2.0 Project Description
The following section describes the existing conditions at the Site in terms of geomorphic condition,
watershed, soils, geology, cultural resources, species of concern, regulated floodplain zones, and site
constraints. Figure 2 provides a Site map that shows approximate locations of incision, water quality
stressors, active headcuts, and other relevant site observations.
2.1 Existing Site Conditions
Current land use at the Site is predominantly a mix of agriculture, including active cattle and hay
pasture, and forest (Figure 2). The majority of the property has been in cattle or hay pasture since
before 1956. UT South Fork Catawba and UT1 watersheds were both extensively deforested by 1961,
with minimal reforestation occurring afterwards. A review of historic aerials from 1950 to 2016 shows
the Site streams have existed in their approximate locations over time and appear to have been
straightened at some point prior to 1950.
2.2 Existing Conditions — Riparian Buffer
The riparian buffer along the project streams varies but is typically narrow along one or both banks. At
the upstream portion of UT to SF Catawba, the buffer consists of a discontinuous row of trees near the
banks with open pasture grasses that dominate the remainder of the streamside area. As UT to SF
Catawba enters the wider valley, the woody buffer widens to between 20 and 200 ft along the right
floodplain and between 10 and 50 feet along the left floodplain. However, this woody buffer has been
highly impacted by cattle and agricultural practices with some exotic invasives outcompeting native
species, especially in the understory. A gap in the woody buffer exists where the overhead powerline
easement crosses the UT to SF Catawba, along the lower portion of the Site.
Along the upper portion of UT1, a narrow (between 10 to 20 feet wide) woody buffer exists with a gap in
the trees at the culvert crossing. The downstream portion of UT1 enters the wider buffer that exists
along the left floodplain of UT to SF Catawba.
Riverbend Mitigation Site - PART F
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page F.3

Typical overstory species include black walnut (Juglons nigro), persimmon (Diospyros virginiona), winged
elm (Ulmus oloto), river birch (Betula nigro), pawpaw (Asimina trilobo), box elder (Acer negundo), green
ash (Froxinus pennsylvonico), sycamore (Plotonus occidentolis), sugarberry (Celtis laevigoto), tag alder
(Alnus serruloto), willow oak (Quercus phellos), and black willow (Solix nigro). Understory species were
predominantly comprised of Chinese privet, multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), greenbrier (Smilax sp.),
river cane (Arundinaria gigantea), false nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica), and wingstem (Verbesina
olternifolia). Vegetation in livestock and open pasture areas is dominated by common pasture grasses
such as fescue (Festuca sp.) and wingstem, with dayflower (Murdannia keisak) and sedges (Corex sp.) in
wet, low-lying areas.
2.3 Existing Conditions — Streams
On July 27, 2021 all Site streams were evaluated and scored. The upstream portion of UT to SF Catawba
begins on -site as intermittent and transitions to perennial within the project limits. UT1 was identified as
perennial within the project limits. A toe of slope ditch on the north side of Wetland Area 1 exhibits
characteristics of a natural stream. However, based on landscape position, the feature was determined
to be a ditch and was not scored using the NCDWR stream origination form. Below are brief descriptions
of each of the project streams.
UT to SF Catawba
UT to SF Catawba originates as an intermittent stream
at a headcut above a small remnant pond bed through
which it lacks consistent geomorphology and is choked
with dayflower (Murdannia sp.). At the downstream
end of a breached pond embankment, a second
headcut marks the start of the perennial stream. From
here, the stream maintains continuous bed and banks
but is severely trampled due to cattle access. There is
limited bedform and fines dominating the substrate
material throughout the stream. About 200 linear feet
downstream of the intermittent/perennial break, the
stream becomes channelized with side cast berms
prominent along the majority of both banks. The
combination of incision and sidecast berms has caused
the stream to be incised with no access to its
floodplain. The valley transitions from moderately
confined to unconfined as the stream flows into the
wider, flatter floodplain of the SF Catawba River. An
overhead powerline utility easement exists and crosses
the stream under which there is a 36-inch metal
culvert crossing for the farm road access. Some woody
debris is present both within and over the channel as
woody debris. The stream continues in a southeast
direction before it exits the property and flows about
200 linear feet through CLC Riverbend Conservation
Area to meet the South Fork Catawba River.
Riverbend Mitigation Site - PART F
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page FA

UT1
UT1 is a pond -fed stream that originates off -property upstream
of the pond. The stream re-emerges as a stream channel below a
four -foot headcut below the base of the pond. This perennial
stream flows westward in an unconfined valley to meet UT to SF
Catawba from the left floodplain. The upper portion of UT1 is
vertically incised with steep eroding banks. There is an existing
18-inch concrete culvert crossing near the midpoint of the on -
site stream where cattle have trampled the bed and banks.
Downstream of the culvert crossing, the channel becomes
choked with aquatic vegetation before itjoins the receiving
stream. Aquatic habitat in the stream is poor due to a lack of woody debris, no diversity in bedform, and
substrate material that is dominated by silt -clay.
2.4 Existing Conditions — Wetlands
Existing jurisdictional wetlands along UT to SF Catawba and UT1 are impaired by livestock access, the
drainage influence of the incised stream channels, and infrequent overbank events. Wetland Area 4 is
extensively impacted by cattle grazing, drainage from the incised condition of UT1, and is devoid of
native riparian vegetation. Wetland Areas 2 and 3 are extensively impacted by cattle and invasive
species but are not as affected by drainage features such as ditching or stream incision. Canopy cover is
mature in these wetlands. A licensed soil scientist confirmed presence of hydric soil in all existing
wetlands (see LSS Report in appendix).
There are additional hydric soil areas (Wetland Areas 1 and 5) at the Site which do not have a
contemporary wetland hydrology regime. This suggests historic presence of wetlands that have been
drained by stream incision and agricultural ditching. Wetland Area 1 is extensively drained by a parallel
ditch network and associated field crowning.
2.5 Existing Conditions — Watersheds
The Site topography, as indicated on the Reepsville USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle, shows the
valley as broad with moderate slopes at the upper portion of the watershed (Figure 3). Drainage areas
for the project reaches were delineated using 2-foot contour intervals derived from the 2016/2017
North Carolina Emergency Management Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) data (Figure 6). Land uses
draining to the project reaches are predominantly a mix of forested and agriculture pasture/hay with
some development. The land use was calculated using the National Land Cover Database (NLCD) for
2016. The watershed areas and current land uses are summarized in Table F.2, below and depicted in
Figure 4.
Table F.2 Drainage Areas and Associated Land Use
NC DWR
Intermittent/
Watershed
Reach
Stream
Perennial
Watershed
Area (sq.
Land Use'
Name
Identification
Area (acres)
Status
mi.)
Form Scores
UT to
Intermittent/
Developed 9%; Forest and Shrub 11%;
South Fork
29/33
154
0.24
Perennial
Agriculture 68%; Wetlands and Water 12%
Catawba
Developed 14%; Forest and Shrub 25%;
UT1
35.5
Perennial
39
0.06
Agriculture 61%; Wetlands and Water >1%
Depicted on the USGS National Map (https://apps.nationalmap.gov/viewer/) and the Natural Resources Conservation Service
1985 Soil Survey (https://www.nres.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_MANUSCRIPTS/north_carolina/NC109/0/lincoln.pdf).
Riverbend Mitigation Site - PART F
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page F.5

2.6 Soils
The proposed project is mapped by the Web Soil Survey for Catawba County. The primary project area
soils are described below in Table F.3. Figure 5 provides a soil map of the Site. Lloyd and Chewacla loam
soils are mapped as the primary soil group in the floodplains of project streams, with a combination of
Masada sandy and Riverview loams on the stream terraces, interfluves, and hillsides. The LSS report
indicates that currently hydric soils on site are most similar to the Chewacla series and the Wehadkee
series which is typically the hydric component of the Chewacla series.
Table F.3 Project Soil Types and Descriptions
Soil Name
Description
Chewacla soils are found on slopes ranging from 0 to 2 %, somewhat poorly
Chewacla Loam
drained soils located on floodplains. This soil is frequently flooded, permeability is
moderate, and the shrink -swell potential is low. The upper 10 inches is loam and
the below is sandy clay loam until bedrock with a depth of more than 5 feet.
Lloyd series consists of very deep, well drained, moderately permeable soils on
Lloyd Loam
uplands in the Southern Piedmont. The soils formed in residuum derived from
intermediate and mafic, igneous and high-grade metamorphic rocks. Slopes are
commonly 2 to 10 percent but range to 50 %.
Lloyd Sandy Clay Loam
These soil series are moderately eroded and typically found on slopes ranging
from 2 to 8 % on hillslopes and ridges. Permeability is moderately high to high.
Masada soils are well drained, located within hillslopes on stream terraces.
Masada Sandy Loam
Derived from old alluvium from granite and gneiss they have moderately high to
high permeability with slopes ranging from 2 to 8 %.
Riverview soils are well drained and occasionally flooded. They are located on
Riverview Loam
floodplains with 0 to 2 % slopes. Soils consist of loamy alluvium derived from
igneous and metamorphic rock. Permeability it
Source: Soil Survey of Catawba County, North Carolina, USDA-NRCS,
https://websoiIsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app/WebSoiISurvey.aspx
2.7 Geology
The Site is in the Inner Piedmont, Chauga, Smith River Allochthon, and Sauratown Mountain Belt within
in the Piedmont physiographic province. The Piedmont is characterized by gently rolling, well-rounded
hills with long, low ridges, with elevations ranging from 300 to 1500 feet above sea level. The Site
located in the Cat Square terrane, is composed of deformed metamorphic rocks such as gneiss and
schist that have been intruded by younger granitic rocks. According to the Geologic Map of North
Carolina (1985), the underlying geology of the Site is mapped as Late Proterozoic -Cambrian age (500
million to 900 million years in age) amphibolite and biotite gneiss (CZab), metamorphic rocks
interlayered with minor layers and lenses of hornblende gneiss, metagabbro, mica schist, and granitic
rock. No shallow bedrock was observed on site and is not expected to affect project design.
Sources:
Geologic Map of North Carolina 1:500,000 scale.
Compiled by Philip M. Brown at el. Raleigh, NC, North Carolina Geological Survey
httos://ncdenr. maps. arcgis. com/aposIMaoSerieslind ex.htm/?appid=a8281 cbd24b84239b29cd2ca798d4a10
The Terranes and Major Geologic Elements Of North Carolina.
https://ncdenr. maps. arcgis. com/apps/MapSeries/ind ex.html ?appid=Oa7ccd9394734ff6aa2434d2528ddf12
Riverbend Mitigation Site - PART F
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page F.6

2.8 Cultural Resources and Significant Natural Heritage Areas
There are several entries in the State Historic Preservation Office's National Register in the vicinity of the
Site, but none located on Site parcels or that are expected to be impacted by Site activities. The
archaeological site files at the North Carolina Office of state Archaeology (OSA) have not been reviewed
at this time. All appropriate cultural resource agencies will be contacted for their review and comment
prior to any land disturbing activity.
The NC Natural Heritage Program (NHP) Managed Areas and Significant Natural Areas references several
Catawba Lands Conservancy managed lands and the Riverbend Conservation Area adjacent to the Site.
The Site is also adjacent to the Longs Farm/Riverbend Natural Area and NC Land and Water Fund
Projects.
2.9 Threatened and Endangered Species
Wildlands searched the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and NHP databases for federally protected
plant and animal species in Catawba and Lincoln County, NC. Currently the Schweinitz's sunflower
(Helianthus schweinitzii) and the Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii) are federally listed as endangered.
The dwarf -flowered heartleaf (Hexastylis naniflora), Northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis),
and the bog turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii) are federally listed as threatened. The bald eagle is also
protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. A pedestrian survey conducted on July 27tn,
2021 indicated that the project area provides suitable habitat for the Schweinitz's sunflower and
northern long-eared bat. No suitable habitat was identified for the bog turtle, Michaux's sumac, or
dwarf -flowered heartleaf. Wildlands will conduct a full review of the Site for protected species upon
award of the contract and will coordinate with USFWS and NCWRC as necessary based on that review.
Table FA Federally Protected Species in Catawba and Lincoln County, NC
Species Federal Status I Habitat
Flowering Plant
Dwarf -flowered heartleaf
Threatened
Found in acidic soils along bluffs and adjacent slopes, in boggy areas next to
(Hexastylis naniflora)
streams and creek heads, and along the slopes of nearby hillsides and ravines.
Schweinitz's sunflower
Occurs in areas with poor soils, such as thin clays that vary from wet to dry
eliot
(Helianthus schweinitzii)
Endangered
and found in areas of full to partial sun such as natural forest opening or
grasslands and along roadsides.
Michaux's sumac
Endangered
Located in open sandy or rocky areas. Reliant on disturbances including wind
(Rhus michauxii)
throws, fire, and utility right of ways to provide a gapped canopy.
Reptiles
Bog turtle (Clemmys
Threatened
Inhabit open -canopy, herbaceous sedge meadows and fens, wet cow
muhlenbergii)
(Similarity of
pastures, and shrub swamps bordered by wooded areas. Depend on wetland
Appearance)
microhabitats for foraging, nesting, basking, hibernation, and shelter.
Mammals
Northern long-eared bat
Threatened
Roost in crevices, under tree bark, and caves in the summer. Hibernate in
(Myotis septentrionalis)
high humidity caves with stable temperatures in the winter.
Source: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/report/species-listings-by-current-range-county?fips=37071
https://www.ncnhp.org/data/species-community-search
2.10 Floodplain Compliance
The Site is represented on the Catawba County Flood Maps 3710362600K and 3710360600K. The Site is
located within FEMA Zone AE of the South Fork Catawba River floodplain and has an associated limited
detailed model. There is no mapped floodway.
Wildlands will coordinate with the Catawba County floodplain administrator to obtain a floodplain
development permit and meet permit requirements.
Riverbend Mitigation Site - PART F
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page F.7

The project will be designed to avoid adverse floodplain impacts or hydrologic trespass on adjacent
properties or local roadways.
2.11 Site Constraints and Access
Two internal crossings are proposed at the Site to maintain landowner access to pastures and to allow
for an existing powerline utility. An existing culvert within the powerline crossing will be removed.
Livestock will be excluded from the proposed culvert crossing. The culvert will be designed with the
restored stream bed profile to allow for aquatic organism passage. The crossings are summarized and
numbered below in Table F.5 and on Figure 6.
Table F.5 Proposed Easement Crossings
No.
Width (ft)
Location
Internal or External
Crossing Type
1
50
UT1
Internal
Proposed Culvert Crossing
2
50
UT to SF Catawba
Internal
Existing Utility Easement
The easement boundaries around streams proposed for mitigation credit provide the required 50-foot
minimum riparian buffer for Piedmont streams. The entire easement area can be accessed for
construction, monitoring, and long-term stewardship from Herter Road. There are no airports within five
miles of the Site.
3.0 Project Development — Functional Uplift Potential
The Wildlands Team proposes to restore a high quality of ecological function to streams, wetlands, and
riparian areas on this Site. The project design will be developed to avoid adverse impacts to existing
streams, wetland resources, or mature wooded vegetation where possible. Management strategies for
individual resources are tailored to their functional uplift potential.
3.1 Functional Uplift for Water Quality
Non-functioning riparian buffer/Wetland vegetation
Riparian vegetation, as described in Section 3.1, varies along project reaches and does not meet the
standard of 50 feet along both banks for the majority of the project streams. Planting riparian buffers on
project streams and wetlands will not only improve terrestrial habitat but will contribute to water
quality improvements. Buffer widths along UT to SF Catawba and UT1 will exceed the required 50 feet
along the majority of the stream length allowing for a higher functioning riparian corridor. Using the
estimate of livestock exclusion areas removing 51.04 Ibs of total nitrogen (TN) per acre per year (DMS
2016), and 4.23 Ibs of total phosphorus (TP) per acre per year, this project may reduce TN by 1,633 Ibs
and TP by 135 Ibs annually (based on 32 acres of new livestock exclusion). Wildlands has scored non-
functioning riparian buffer/wetland vegetation functional uplift as very high.
Sediment
Livestock trampling and mass wasting from lateral instability on Site are the primary sources of sediment
input to the sediment in UT1 and UT to SF Catawba. Cattle have trampled the pond dam on UT1, which is
contributing sediment. The streams have the stream power to transport that sediment downstream until
the stream slopes flatten after the confluence and some sediment deposition is present. These sediment
sources will be controlled through the restoration of channel banks and exclusion of livestock. A BMP will
be placed upstream of UT to SF Catawba to address sediment input from agricultural fields. The channels
will be reconnected to floodplains, allowing for flood flows to deposit sediment onto the floodplain for
storage. The channels will be designed with stream power to pass the remaining sediment load. Flooding
of SF Catawba River periodically deposits sediment along the downstream end of UT to SF Catawba,
which flushes back into SF Catawba River over time. This process is expected to continue post -
restoration. Wildlands has scored the sediment functional uplift potential as high.
Riverbend Mitigation Site - PART F
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page F.8

Nutrients and Fecal Coliform
Active pasture accounts for approximately 75% of the project site and livestock have access to the entire
site. Converting that pastureland to forest may reduce the total nitrogen (TN) contributed by the site by
1,633 pounds per year and total phosphorus (TP) by 135 pounds per year (Table F.6). Exclusion of
livestock and land conversion may also reduce fecal coliform loading on site by approximately 6.03x1013
colonies annually. Calculation variables are shown in Table F.6. below. The majority of streams will be
buffered greater than 50 feet in width, allowing for more overland interception and treatment of
nutrients and fecal coliform. Wildlands has scored nutrients functional uplift potential as very high and
fecal coliform uplift potential as very high.
Table F.6 Water Quality Calculations
Estimated Nutrient and Fecal Coliform Reductions for Proposed Project
Input Variables
Acres of livestock exclusion
32
LB TN reduction/ac/year
51.04
LB TP reduction/ac/year
4.23
Animal Units (AU) = 1,0001b livestock
140
colonies/AU/day
2.2E+11
input into streams
0.085
Q—Annual Runoff (in)
43.13
P—Typical annual precipitation (in)
47.1
S - Potential Maximum retention
3.51
CN - Curve Number**
74
la - Initial Abstraction
0.70
hydrologic soil group
B
pasture grazed continuously (col/gal)
1,894,000
runoff volume (gal)
2.93x107
Nutrient reduction calculations
Total Nitrogen reduction (lb/year)
1,633
Total Phosphorus reduction (lb/year)
135
Fecal Coliform Direct Input reduction (col/yr)
2.618x1012
Fecal Coliform Reduction from buffer filtration (col/yr)
6.03x1013
Total Fecal Coliform reduction (col/yr)
6.03x1013
** Curve number in Table above assumes between good and fair conditions for pasture and woods
Sources:
NCDMS. 2016. Quantifying Benefits to Water Quality from Livestock Exclusion and Riparian Buffer Establishment for Stream
Restoration.
Schwab et al. 1993. Soil and Water Conservation Engineering. NY, NY. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
US Climate Data for Lincolnton, NC. HTTP://usclimatedata.com accessed 7/30/2021.
3.2 Functional Uplift for Hydrology
Peak Flows
UT to SF Catawba is highly incised with a bank height ratio of 2.3 and a pronounced sidecast berm on the
right top of bank. Hydric soils in the areas of incision along UT to SF Catawba and UT1 indicate that
riparian wetland drainage has resulted from the vertical instability of the stream system. Restoration
activities will be tailored to restore this hydrologic connection between stream, floodplain, and riparian
wetlands.
Streams proposed for restoration will be restored using Priority 1 restoration. Raising the stream beds
will improve floodplain connectivity, reduce the erosive effects of peak flows and decrease the drainage
Riverbend Mitigation Site - PART F
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page F.9

effect on surrounding wetlands. The existing streams will be filled, though some shallow floodplain
pools may be established along the intersection of existing channel and areas of concentrated overland
flow. Shallow floodplain pools provide storage of runoff, as well as habitat variety. Wildlands has scored
control of peak flows functional uplift potential as high.
Artificial Barriers
Two existing culverts and one farm pond exist on site. The farm pond will be removed, creating a
continuous wildlife corridor that connects to the CLC Riverbend Conservation Area downstream.
Removing the pond will also restore lotic hydrology to UT1. The culverts will be evaluated for adequate
hydraulics and aquatic organism passage and replaced as necessary. Wildlands has scored the artificial
barriers functional uplift as moderate.
Ditching and Draining
A licensed soil scientist determined that while the majority of the area proposed for wetland credit has
hydric soil, the areas proposed for re-establishment are not currently jurisdictional due to lack of
wetland vegetation and hydrology. The summary report and boring logs are contained within the
appendix. Wetland hydrology has been disrupted by a combination of stream incision and the ditch
network in the pasture.
Wildlands proposes to reestablish wetland hydrology by implementing Priority 1 stream restoration,
removing any side cast material from probably historic dredging of channels, filling the extensive ditch
network and providing surface roughness. These activities will all work concurrently to improve
hydrologic functioning of proposed re-establishment areas. While rehabilitation areas generally have
functioning hydrology, they have been hydrologically disconnected from on -Site streams. Restoring the
re-establishment areas will hydrologically reconnect all on site wetlands to the streams. Wildlands has
scored ditching and draining functional uplift potential as high.
3.3 Functional Uplift for Habitat
Habitat Fragmentation
A farm pond along UT1 will be removed to establish a stream system through the bottom providing a
continuous aquatic and terrestrial habitat upstream of the site and downstream to the confluence with
UT to SF Catawba. The project is bordered on the southern and eastern sides by the 1,300-acre CLC
Riverbend Conservation Area providing the opportunity for a continuous aquatic and terrestrial habitat
from the project site to the South Fork Catawba River. Wildlands has scored habitat fragmentation as
moderate.
Limited Bedform Diversity and Absence of Large Woody Debris
Streams on site have limited bedform diversity as described in Section 2.3. mass wasting of banks from
erosion and livestock trampling have caused a fining of bed material and lack of a riffle pool sequence
expected in this landform. Streams have some large woody debris in areas of denser canopy, but are
lacking in areas where the buffer is limited to a single line of trees.
Bedform diversity will be created in streams slated for restoration and enhancement to provide habitat
for an increased number of insects, fish, and amphibians. Woody instream structures appropriate for the
geomorphic setting, such as log sills, woody riffles, and brush toes, will be implemented. Planting riparian
buffers will provide future sources of large woody debris in streams. The majority of buffers extend
beyond the required 50 feet providing additional sources of input for streams. Wildlands has scored
limited bedform diversity functional uplift potential as high and absence of large woody debris as high.
Riverbend Mitigation Site - PART F
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page F.10

Table F.7 Functional Uplift Potential Summary Table
Functional
Category
Functional Stressor
Functional Uplift
Potential
TRA
Non-functioning riparian buffer/wetland vegetation
Very High
X
Sediment
High
X
Water Quality
Nutrients
Very High
X
Fecal Coliform
Very High
X
Peak Flows
High
Hydrology
Artificial Barriers
Moderate
Ditching/Draining
High
Habitat Fragmentation
Moderate
X
Habitat
Limited Bedform Diversity
High
X
Absence of Large Woody Debris
High
X
3.4 Project Development — Design Approach
Wildlands will begin the project by identifying the best design approach to meet the stated project
objectives and implement the appropriate degree of intervention. A combination of analog, empirical,
and analytical design approaches will potentially be used. All project resources will be designed to create
stable, functional stream channels and riparian wetlands.
3.5 Stream Restoration
All project reaches are proposed for restoration with the exception of UT1 Reach 2. These reaches will
be designed and built with appropriate dimension, pattern, and profile to allow for frequent overbank
flooding, provide stable bank slopes, enable biological lift, and reconnect streams with wetlands and
existing floodplains. Reference streams will be identified and will serve as one of the primary sources of
information on which restoration designs are based. Wildlands has developed a general approach to be
used as the basis for stream restoration design. The design approach, which is tailored to each site,
continues to develop as additional projects are implemented.
Outside of transition zones, all reaches proposed for restoration
will be done with a Priority 1 approach, raising channel beds to
reconnect them with existing floodplains. The only anticipated
transition zone is the downstream end of UT to SF Catawba
where the stream transitions down to the South Fork of the
Catawba River. Livestock will be excluded from the proposeda4
project area. Stream structures will be installed to promote .,
water quality, increase bed and bank stabilization, provide
bedform diversity, and increase aquatic and terrestrial habitat.
i
Wildlands plans to evaluate stream substrate and determine z :
appropriate gradations/bed features for the Site streams. At this
stage, Wildlands believes most of these channels will be built using a threshold channel approach with a
gravel substrate. A BMP will be installed at the upstream end of UT to SF Catawba to treat runoff from
an adjacent field for no additional credit.
3.6 Enhancement II
UT1 Reach 2 is slated for Enhancement II approach. This reach is geomorphically stable in its current
condition and has lower bank height ratios, low bank slopes, and a lesser degree of erosion than reaches
slated for restoration. The riparian buffer is comprised of sparse mature vegetation with minimal
understory. Livestock have access to the Enhancement II reach. The primary enhancement activities
include the exclusion of livestock, the enhancement of a wooded riparian buffer, the treating of Chinese
Riverbend Mitigation Site - PART F
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page F.11

privet in established riparian buffers, and the use of in stream and bank structures to stabilize headcuts
and localized scour.
3.7 Wetland Mitigation Approach
Proposed wetland mitigation includes rehabilitation and enhancement of existing wetlands and re-
establishment of historic wetlands. Wetland enhancement practices will include livestock exclusion,
establishment of a native hydrophytic vegetation community, and treatment of invasive species.
Wetland hydrology will be restored in re-establishment areas by filling drainage ditches, removing field
crowns, Priority 1 construction of an appropriately sized stream channel and surface roughening to
increase infiltration. Wetland re-establishment is proposed in areas containing hydric and non-hydric
soils. The non-hydric areas proposed for re-establishment typically exhibit soil morphology influenced by
saturation, but the depletions comprise a slightly lower percentage of the matrix or begin at a slightly
greater depth than required to achieve hydric soil criteria (see LSS Report in appendix). It is likely these
soils will support wetland hydrology following Priority 1 stream restoration, ditch removal, and minor
grading of field crowns. Wetland credit zones are presented in Figure 6.
3.8 Riparian Restoration, Enhancement, and Preservation
Native riparian buffers will be planted along restored and enhanced stream reaches, in all proposed
wetland restoration zones, and in all riparian restoration areas. The ecological uplift can be summarized
as transforming an agriculturally impacted area to a protected riparian corridor. Buffer restoration will
involve planting appropriate native tree species along the riparian corridor. Herbaceous riparian
vegetation will also be planted, but additional herbaceous plants are expected to re-establish naturally
and through the placement of a native seed mix in disturbed areas. Live stake shrub species will be
planted along restored streams. Vegetation management and herbicide applications will be needed over
the first few years of tree establishment in the riparian buffer restoration areas to prevent
encroachment of invasive species. Portions of the site that have been maintained as cleared agricultural
fields will require little site preparation other than select herbicide treatments or limited mechanical
clearing to remove undesirable underbrush prior to planting.
The planting plan will be based on an appropriate nearby reference
community and past project experience. The plan will be developed
to restore appropriate strata (canopy, understory, shrub, and
herbaceous layers). Vegetation planted in restored wetland areas
will be based on species identified within appropriate reference
locations and professional experience based on site conditions.
Areas with an existing wooded riparian corridor will be treated for
invasive species. The Site will be protected in perpetuity under a
conservation easement and will be marked per DMS guidelines.
4.0 Proposed Mitigation
The mitigation stream and wetland credit calculation was derived using the US Army Corps of Engineers'
Stream Mitigation Guidance and was based on Wildlands' conceptual design for maximum ecological
uplift. Given the existing conditions of the stream channels, wetlands, the disturbance factors, and the
constraints, management objectives for each reach have been established. The Site will be a
combination of stream restoration and enhancement level II activities and wetland reestablishment,
rehabilitation, and enhancement activities. Stream restoration is proposed at a ratio of 1:1 and
enhancement level II is proposed at a ratio of 2.5:1. Wetland re-establishment is proposed at a ratio of
1:1 in Wetland Area 1 and at a ratio of 1.5:1 in Wetland Area 5. All areas proposed for wetland re-
establishment require hydrologic uplift and cattle exclusion; however, only Wetland Area 1 requires the
Riverbend Mitigation Site - PART F
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page F.12

removal of field crowns and re-establishment of forest and herbaceous communities. Wetland
rehabilitation (Wetland Area 4) is proposed at a ratio of 1.5:1. Wetland Areas 2 and 3 are proposed for
enhancement at a ratio of 3:1. Both require livestock exclusion and minor hydrologic uplift but have an
existing forested community that will be maintained. The management objective, the mitigation type,
and proposed amount of mitigation is presented in the below Table F.8.
Table F.8 Mitigation Credits Proposed
Stream Credits
Length
Stream
Reach
Management Objectives
Type of Mitigation
Ratio
(feet)
Credits
RESTORATION
UT to SF
Catawba R1
Restore appropriate dimension, pattern, and profile
with Priority 1 restoration. Install habitat structures,
Restoration
989
1:1
989
UT to SF
Catawba R2
allow bankfull floodplain access. Establish native
riparian buffer and exclude cattle.
781
1:1
781
UT1 R1
330
1:1
330
Restoration Subtotal:
2,100
2,100
ENHANCEMENT II
Install habitat structures. Establish native riparian buffer
UT1 R2
Enhancement II
275
2.5:1
110
where needed and exclude cattle.
Enhancement II Subtotal:
275
110
TOTAL:
2,375
2,210
Wetland credits
Type of
Area
Wetland
Area
Management Objectives
Ratio
Mitigation
(Acres)
Credits
Wetland Re-
Fill parallel ditch series, remove field crowns, and
Wetland Re-
establishment
raise adjacent stream beds to restore hydrology,
8.061
1:1
8.061
establishment
(Wetland Area 1)
establish native wetland vegetation, exclude cattle
Wetland Re-
Raise adjacent stream beds to restore hydrology,
Wetland Re-
establishment
enhance native wetland vegetation where needed,
establishment
4.396
1.5:1
2.931
(Wetland Area 5)
exclude cattle
Wetland
Raise adjacent stream beds and remove pond dam
Wetland
Rehabilitation
to improve hydrology to existing wetlands, re-
0.705
1.5:1
0.470
Rehabilitation
(Wetland Area 4)
establish native wetland vegetation, exclude cattle
Wetland
Raise nearby streams to improve hydrology to
Enhancement
Wetland
A
(Wetland Areas 2
existing wetlands, enhance native wetland
Enhancement
1.498
3:1
0.499
vegetation where needed, exclude cattle
and
TOTAL:
14.660
1
11.961
5.0 Current Ownership and Long -Term Protection
The Site is located on one parcel owned by one property owner. An option agreement for the project
area shown on Figure 6 has been signed by the property owner and the Memorandum of Option is
recorded at the Catawba County Register of Deeds. The option agreement allows Wildlands to purchase
a conservation easement on the project property. The Memorandum of Option is valid for a minimum of
one year from the closing date of the RFP 16-20210102. Wildlands will convey the conservation
easement to the State to provide long term protection of the Site. The conservation easement
agreement will ensure the right of entry abilities of Wildlands, its contractors, and the future easement
holder in any future land transactions. A copy of the Memorandum of Option is included in the
appendix.
Riverbend Mitigation Site - PART F
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page F.13

Table F.9 Property Ownership
Property Owner
I Parcel ID Number
Memorandum of Option Deed Book (DB) and Page (PG) Numbers
Wyant Land & Investments, LLC
1 362601075176
DB: 5248; PG: 1471-1475
6.0 Scope of Work and Project Phasing
Table F.10 describes the tasks and deliverables required by the Scope of Work outlined in RFP 16-
20210102. Table F.11 provides the proposed schedule for accomplishing each Scope of Work task. The
Wildlands Team has experience handling tightly scheduled projects with multiple stakeholders. We
understand the importance of clear communication and adherence to deadlines. We will establish
additional internal deadlines to keep the project milestones on track. Each task will be staffed with the
appropriate technical and management staff to ensure quality and timely completion.
Table F.10 Summary Scope of Work
Task #
Task Name
Task Summary
DMS Deliverable
• Onsite meeting with the IRT and DMS to
discuss concepts of the mitigation plan and
obtain concurrence on planned work and
crediting.
• Approved Categorical Exclusion document -
Environmental
• Conduct DMS/FHWA guidelines for
emailed Adobe PDF.
1
and Project
environmental screening to identify
• IRT meeting minutes — emailed Adobe PDF.
Screening
threatened/endangered species,
• DMS Full Delivery Landowner Authorization
environmental, or cultural issues on the Site.
Form (if applicable).
• Secure DMS Full Delivery Landowner
• USACE Public Notice (if applicable).
Authorization Form (if applicable).
• Satisfy USACE public notification process (if
applicable).
• 4 preliminary review items outlined in the RFP,
submitted electronically as defined in
• Create conservation easement documents
Attachment H.
2
Property
and plats.
. 5 final deliverables outlined in the RFP,
• Close and record the conservation easement.
submitted electronically and in hard copy asdefined
in Attachment H.
• Installation of boundary marking documented
with As -Built survey during Task 6.
• 2 hard copies and 1 electronic "Draft"
Mitigation Plan and survey.
Mitigation Plan
• 3 hard copies and 1 electronic "Final Draft"
(Final Draft)
a Develop a site -specific mitigation plan,
Mitigation Plan and survey.
3
and Financial
appropriate for the Site.
• Performance Bond (may be retired after
Assurance
a Revise per DMS and IRT review comments.
completion of Task 6)
• 2 Completed PCN forms and 2 hard copies of
the "Final" Mitigation Plan. 1 copy of both
submitted electronically.
Permitting and
• Secure all necessary permits and/or
• 1 electronic copy of approved permits prior to
4
Earthwork
certifications for Site construction.
beginning earthwork.
. Construct the Site.
• Written notification of earthwork completion.
Mitigation Site
5
Planting and
Installation of
. Complete planting of Site.
• Written notification of planting and monitoring
Monitoring
Install monitoring devices.
device installation completion.
Devices
Riverbend Mitigation Site - PART F
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page F.14

Task #
Task Name
Task Summary
DMS Deliverable
Baseline
Monitoring
• Conduct baseline monitoring.
• 1 hard copy and 1 electronic copy of "Draft"
Report
• Perform as -built survey.
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built
6
(Including As-
• Prepare baseline monitoring document.
drawings. Electronic copies of surveys.
Built Drawings)
• Prepare as -built survey drawings.
e 1 hard copy and 1 electronic copy of "Final"
Approved by
• Install easement markers and signage.
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built
DMS
drawings. Electronic copies of surveys.
7
Monitoring
• Monitor the Site.
Year 1
• Prepare the monitoring report.
Monitoring
• Monitor the Site.
8
Year 2
• Prepare the monitoring report.
• 1 hard copy and 1 electronic copy of each
"Draft" annual monitoring report. Electronic
9
Monitoring
• Monitor the Site.
Year 3
• Prepare the monitoring report.
copy of survey.
• 1 hard copy and 1 electronic copy of each
Monitoring
• Monitor the Site.
10
Year 4
• Prepare the monitoring report.
"Final" annual monitoring report. Electronic
copy of survey.
Monitoring
• Monitor the Site.
11
Year 5
• Prepare the monitoring report.
Monitoring
• Monitor the Site.
12
Year 6
• Prepare the monitoring report.
• Monitor the Site.
• 1 hard copy and 1 electronic copy of the "Draft"
Monitoring
e Prepare the monitoring report.
annual monitoring report and closeout report.
Year 7 and
Electronic copy of survey.
13
Close -Out
•Prepare closeout report.
• 1 hard copy and 1 electronic copy of the "Final"
Process
• Attend closeout meetings and present final
annual monitoring report and closeout report.
project to IRT.
Electronic copy of survey.
Table F.11 Project Schedule
Project Milestone
Proposed Time to
Completion
(from date of NTP)
Proposed Completion
Date (assuming NTP
September 15, 2021)
Task 1. Regulatory Site Visit & Environmental Screening
3 months
December 15, 2021
Task 2. Submit Recorded Conservation Easement on the Site
1 year, 11 months
August 15, 2023
Task 3. Mitigation Plan Approved by DMS and Financial Assurance
1 year, 9 months
June 15, 2023
Task 4. Mitigation Site Earthwork Completed
2 years, 5 months
February 15, 2024
Task 5. Mitigation Site Planting & Installation of Monitoring Devices
2 years, 6 months
March 15, 2024
Task 6. Baseline Monitoring Report (Including As -Built Drawings)
Approved by DMS
2 years, 8 months
May 15, 2024
Task 7. Submit Monitoring Report #1 to DMS*
3 years, 2 months
November 30, 2024
Task 8. Submit Monitoring Report #2 to DMS*
4 years, 2 months
November 30, 2025
Task 9. Submit Monitoring Report #3 to DMS*
5 years, 2months
November 30, 2026
Task 10. Submit Monitoring Report #4 to DMS*
6 years, 2 months
November 30, 2027
Task 11. Submit Monitoring Report #5 to DMS*
7 years, 2 months
November 30, 2028
Task 12. Submit Monitoring Report #6 to DMS*
8 years, 2 months
November 30, 2029
Task 13. Submit Monitoring Report #7 to DMS* and complete Close-
Out Process
9 years, 2 months
November 30, 2030
*Meets success criteria (schedule progression has been developed assuming that the site meets success criteria each monitoring year)
Riverbend Mitigation Site - PART F
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page F.15

7.0 Performance Standards and Monitoring Plan
The performance criteria for the Site will follow approved performance criteria presented in the DMS
Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan Template and Guidance (June 2017), and the October 2016 IRT
Mitigation Monitoring Guidance. Annual monitoring and semi-annual site visits will be conducted to
assess the condition of the completed project. Specific performance standard components are proposed
for stream morphology, hydrology, vegetation, and wetland hydrology. The stream restoration reaches
of the project will be assigned specific performance criteria components for hydrology, vegetation, and
geomorphology. Wetland restoration will be assigned specific performance criteria components for
hydrology. Performance criteria will be evaluated throughout the (up to) seven years of post -
construction monitoring. An outline of the performance criteria components follows.
7.1 Stream Morphological Parameters and Channel Stability
Dimension
Riffle cross sections on the restoration reaches should be
stable and should show little change in bankfull area, bank
height ratio, and width -to -depth ratio. Riffle cross sections
should fall within the parameters defined for channels of
the appropriate stream type. If any changes do occur, these
changes will be evaluated to assess whether the stream
channel is showing signs of instability. Changes in the
channel that indicate a movement toward stability or
enhanced habitat include a decrease in the width -to -depth
ratio in meandering channels or an increase in pool depth.
Remedial action would not be taken if channel changes
indicate a movement toward stability.
In order to assess channel dimension performance, permanent cross sections will be installed on
restoration and enhancement I reaches per the IRT Mitigation Monitoring Guidelines (October 2016).
Each cross section will be permanently marked with pins to establish its location. Cross section surveys
will include points measured at all breaks in slope, including top of bank, bankfull, edge of water, and
thalweg. Cross section and bank pin surveys (if applicable) will be conducted in monitoring years one,
two, three, five, and seven.
Profile and Pattern
Longitudinal profile surveys will be conducted during the as -built survey but will not be conducted
during the seven-year monitoring period unless other indicators during the annual monitoring indicate a
trend toward vertical and lateral instability. If a longitudinal profile is deemed necessary, monitoring will
follow standards as described in the Stream Channel Reference Sites: An Illustrated Guide to Field
Technique (Harrelson et. al., 1994) for the necessary reaches.
Substrate
Substrate materials in the restoration reaches should indicate a progression towards or the maintenance
of coarser materials in the riffle features and smaller particles in the pool features. However, natural
variations in pool and riffle substrate are expected as a result of sediment transport processes in steeper
sloped channels. A reach -wide pebble count will be performed in each restoration and enhancement I
reach in monitoring years one, two, three, five, and seven for classification purposes. A wetted pebble
count will be performed during the baseline survey at surveyed riffle cross sections to characterize the
pavement.
Riverbend Mitigation Site - PART F
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Page F.16

7.2 Hydrology
Stream
Four bankfull flow events, occurring in separate years, must be documented on the restoration and
enhancement I reaches within the seven-year monitoring period. Stream monitoring will continue until
success criteria in the form of four bankfull events in separate years have been documented. Bankfull
events will be documented using photographs and an automated pressure transducer. The device will
be installed in the stream within a surveyed riffle cross section. Photographs will also be used to
document the occurrence of debris lines and sediment deposition.
Where restoration or enhancement activities are proposed for intermittent streams, monitoring gages
will be installed to track the frequency and duration of stream flow events. Continuous surface water
flow within the tributaries must be documented to occur every year for at least 30 consecutive days
during the seven-year monitoring period. This 30-day period of flow can occur at any point during the
year. Additional monitoring may be required if surface water flow cannot be documented due to
abnormally dry conditions.
Wetland
Groundwater monitoring will be conducted for seven years after construction to evaluate the hydrologic
condition of the restored wetland areas. Wetland groundwater gages will be installed in accordance
with the techniques and standards described in the USACE document entitled "Technical Standard for
Water -Table Monitoring of Potential Wetland Sites" (ERDC TN-WRAP-05-2, June 2005). Groundwater
monitoring gages will be established throughout the wetland area to adequately characterize the
different soils, vegetation communities, and surface topographic variations that are found across the
site. The soils are mapped by NRCS as the Chewacla series. The LSS report indicates that hydric soils
within the study area are most similar to the Wehadkee series, which is a typical inclusion within the
Chewacla series. Performance criteria for the wetland hydrology for Chewacla and Wehadkee soil series
are 10-12% and 12-16% respectively within the 2016 Wilmington District Mitigation update. Appropriate
values within these ranges will be selected as the wetland hydrologic performance criteria based on
further Site investigation and discussions with the NCIRT. The growing season will be determined by the
appropriate NRCS WETS table for Catawba County but may be supplemented with soil temperature
probes. Soil temperature probes will be installed onsite to determine growing season dates for each
individual monitoring year. Per USACE guidance, probes will be located at a depth of 12 inches. The
growing season will be defined as that portion of the year where soil temperature remains above 40
degrees Fahrenheit. The growing season may not begin before March 1 of each year when calculating
hydroperiods.
7.3 Vegetation
The final vegetative success criteria will be the survival of 210 planted stems per acre in the riparian
corridors at the end of the required monitoring period (year seven). The interim measure of vegetative
success for the Site will be the survival of at least 320 native species stems per acre at the end of the
third monitoring year and at least 260 native species stems per acre at the end of the fifth year of
monitoring. Also, trees must average seven feet in height at the end of the fifth monitoring year, and ten
feet in height at the end of the seventh monitoring year. The extent of invasive species coverage will
also be monitored and controlled as necessary throughout the required monitoring period.
Vegetation monitoring quadrants will be monitored for seven years and will be installed across the Site
to measure the survival of the planted trees. The number of monitoring quadrants required will be
based on the October 2016 IRT Mitigation Monitoring Guidance. Vegetation monitoring will occur in
monitoring years one, two, three, five, and seven between July 15T and leaf drop and will follow the CVS-
EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation (2008) or another DMS approved protocol.
Riverbend Mitigation Site - PART F
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page F.17

7.4 Other Parameters
Photo Reference Stations
Photographs should illustrate the Site's vegetation and morphological stability on an annual basis. Cross
section photos should demonstrate no excessive erosion or degradation of the banks. Longitudinal
photos should indicate the absence of persistent mid -channel bars within the channel or vertical
incision. Grade control structures should remain stable. Deposition of sediment on the bank side of vane
arms is preferable. Maintenance of scour pools on the channel side of vane arms is expected.
Photographs will be taken once a year to visually document stability for seven years following
construction. Permanent markers will be established and located with GPS equipment, so that the same
locations and view directions on the Site are photographed each year. Photos will be used to monitor
restoration and enhancement areas, as well as vegetation plots.
Longitudinal reference photos will be established at regular intervals along the channel by taking a
photo looking upstream and downstream. Cross sectional photos will be taken of each permanent cross
section looking upstream and downstream. Reference photos will also be taken for each of the
vegetation plots. Representative digital photos of each permanent photo point, cross section, and
vegetation plot will be taken when the stream and vegetation assessments are conducted. The
photographer will make every effort to consistently maintain the same area in each photo over time.
Visual Assessments
Visual assessments should support the specific performance standards for each metric as described
above. Visual assessments will be performed along stream reaches on a semi-annual basis during the
seven-year monitoring period. Problem areas such as channel instability (e.g., lateral and/or vertical
instability, instream structure failure/instability and/or piping, headcuts), vegetation health (e.g., low
stem density, vegetation mortality, invasive species, or encroachment), beaver activity, or livestock
access will be noted. Areas of concern will be mapped and photographed and will be accompanied by a
written description in the annual report. Problem areas will be re-evaluated during each subsequent
visual assessment. Should remedial actions be required, a plan of action will be provided in the annual
monitoring report.
Benthic Macroinvertebrates
If required by NCDWR as part of the project's permitting process, benthic macroinvertebrate sampling
will be performed on the restored Site. Any required sampling will be performed using NCDWR Standard
Operating Procedures for the Collection and Analysis of Benthic Macroin vertebrates, February 2016
(Version 5.0).
7.5 Reporting Performance Criteria
Using the DMS As -Built Survey Requirement Document (October 2020), the Annual Monitoring Report
Template (October 2020), and the Record Drawings Requirement Guidance (October 2020), a baseline
monitoring document and as -built record drawings of the project will be developed for the constructed
Site. Annual monitoring reports will be prepared in the fall of each year of monitoring and submitted to
DMS. These reports will be based on the DMS Annual Monitoring Report Template (October 2020). Full
monitoring reports will be submitted to DMS in monitoring years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7. Abbreviated
monitoring reports will be submitted in monitoring years 4 and 6. Closeout monitoring period will be
seven years beyond completion of construction or until performance standards have been met.
7.6 Maintenance and Contingency Plans
The Wildlands Team will develop necessary adaptive measures or implement appropriate remedial
actions if the Site or a specific component of the Site fails to achieve the success criteria outlined above.
The project -specific monitoring plan developed during the design phase will identify an appropriate
Riverbend Mitigation Site - PART F
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page F.18

threshold for maintenance intervention based on the monitored items. Any actions implemented will be
designed to achieve the success criteria previously specified and will include a work schedule and
updated monitoring criteria (if applicable).
8.0 Quality Control
The Wildlands Team takes pride in the quality of services that we
deliver to our clients. We strive to exceed our clients'
expectations. To maintain the highest level of quality, Wildlands
has an established Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC)
protocol that every member of our staff follows.
At the beginning of a project, the necessary level of CIA/QC is
determined based on the size and complexity of the project. At a
minimum, the project manager and an assigned QA/QC manager
will function to control the quality of the project. The project
manager provides day-to-day QA/QC and may assign task leaders
to provide task -specific quality control (QC) functions. The QA/QC
manager is a knowledgeable senior staff member who is not
assigned to function in a lead capacity on other areas of the
project. This provides the CIA/QC manager objective views of the
quality of work.
a
R.W i.agy er.�n ho.O.,�RM..dRniaag.
R.+r..N By 4Y
p�
Our QC program includes established procedures for processes
performed from project inception through implementation and
monitoring of the project. For example, Wildlands has developeda,,.�
standardized checklists and pre -defined procedures for activities;
such as field surveys of stream cross -sections and profiles, pebble
counts, benthic surveys, bank stability assessments, natural
channel design, permitting, contract document preparation, post -construction baseline survey, and post
construction monitoring. The checklists are largely based on the most current DMS guidelines to ensure
that all required information is included in the correct format. Task leaders assigned for each activity
train project team members in the application of these procedures. The task leaders assist the project
manager by providing day-to-day QC functions, such as establishing clear decisions and directions to
team members in the field, checking the completeness and accuracy of checklists, constant supervision,
and documentation of all decisions, assumptions, and recommendations. The role of the project
manager in QC is to monitor and maintain project schedule and budget, address any concerns the client
may have, constantly assess company resources, and review all of the checklists.
During the conceptual and preliminary design stages, the project manager and the task leader will
perform a review of the design data, plans, technical specifications, and construction estimate for
accuracy, correct approach, and general overall quality of the product and compliance with DMS
formats before submission to the client. Sediment sampling, groundwater gage monitoring, and
pressure transducer surface flow monitoring are frequently used during the design phase to validate the
design criteria and analytical models. The project manager will perform a similar review at final design as
will the CIA/QC manager. During the construction phase, the project manager and the construction task
manager will regularly meet to provide updates and discuss any issues. The goal of the QC process is to
provide the highest quality product to our client by completing tasks correctly the first time. By
completing procedural processes once, Wildlands helps ensure that we deliver the best products at a
minimum cost to our clients.
Riverbend Mitigation Site - PART F
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page F.19

CIA is performed to confirm that the QC program is effectively practiced, and to provide feedback on
further developments needed in the QC program. The QA/QC manager leads the CIA program; however,
the project manager, task leaders, and project team staff also play large roles. It is each person's
responsibility to notify the QA/QC manager whenever discrepancies and inefficiencies are found in the
set of procedural activities that make up the QC process. The objective of CIA is the continual
improvement of the total delivery process to enhance quality, productivity, and customer satisfaction.
We are continually improving the QC process so that our latest products and services are better than the
previous ones.
8.1 Deliverables
The project schedule is established during the scoping phases of a project and it is the project manager's
responsibility to maintain the schedule. A work plan is developed at the outset of a project and shared
internally with team members so that milestone deadlines and work requirements are clearly outlined.
Review time is built into this internal schedule to ensure that adequate review takes place.
The CIA form, which is maintained by the QA/QC manager, is established at the beginning of the project
and is maintained throughout the life of the project. Reviews of technical data, design parameters,
reports, plan sheets, hydraulic models, and supporting calculations are tracked on the form. Included on
this form are requirements that a professional staff member, who is not involved in the project on a
day-to-day basis, review the design calculations, hydraulic models, reports, plans, and all other types of
project deliverables. Conformance with DIMS report templates and a final grammar/spelling/formatting
review are also integrated into the CIA review process.
8.2 Construction
Wildlands team members are familiar with the policies, procedures, and practices necessary to
construct natural channel design and stream and wetland mitigation projects. Wildlands has provided
construction administration and observation services of over 107 miles of stream work and 474 acres of
wetland work. We believe that project implementation is the ultimate key to a successful project and, to
achieve this, it is extremely important to have our most experienced staff members involved on all
construction projects. Our team knows how to oversee construction so that the project is completed on
time and in compliance with all federal, state, and local permits. Several members of the proposed
project team have assisted with construction services for the DIMS restoration sites, many of which have
performed successfully for multiple years.
Table F.12 Wildlands Team Member Construction Oversight Experience
N
t
c
a
L
N
'
z
W
a
Project
Details
"'
Big Harris Creek Mitigation Site
25,836 stream credits; 9 BMPs
x
Henry Fork Mitigation Site
4,500 stream credits; 4.0 wetland credits
x
Lone Hickory Mitigation Site
13,164 stream credits; 9.5 wetland credits
x
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
6,655 stream credits
x
Owl's Den Mitigation Site
2,400 stream credits; 8.0 wetland credits
x
Multi -Area Streambank Restoration Project
11,000 LF of stream restoration
x
for City of Hendersonville
Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank:
4,432 stream credits, 1.0 wetland credit
x
East Buffalo Mitigation Site
Tomahawk Branch Restoration Project
1,350 LF of stream restoration
x
Riverbend Mitigation Site - PART F
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page F.20

Proposal Number.' 16-20210102 Vendor: Wildlands 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 The Contract.
Vendor shall complete items a) and b) below.
a) Will any work under this Contract be performed outside the United States?
❑ YES
04 NO
If "YES":
1. List the location(s) outside the United States where work under The Contract will be performed
by the Vendor, any sub -Contractors, employees, or other persons performing work under the
Contract:
n/a
2. Specify the manner in which the resources or workers will be utilized:
n/a
b) Where, within the U.S., will work be performed?
Design: Charlotte & Asheville, NC; Survey: TBD
NOTES:
1. The State will evaluate the additional risks, costs, and other factors associated with the utilization of workers outside the
United States prior to making an award.
2. Vendor shall 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 performing services under the Contract to a location outside of the United States.
3. 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
Ver:2/1 /2021 Page 51 of 65

Proposal Number.' 16-20210102 Vendor: Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
ATTACHMENT E: CERTIFICATION OF FINANCIAL CONDITION
The undersigned hereby certifies that: [check all applicable boxes]
K j 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: nla (If no audit within past 18 months, explain reason below.)
K[] 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 withho;dings.
® The Vendor is not the subject of any current litigation or findings of noncompliance under federal or state law.
74❑ The Vendor has not been the subject of any past or current litigation, findings in any past litigation, or findings
of noncompliance under federal or state law that may impact in any way its ability to fulfill the requirements of
this Contract.
0 He or she is authorized to make the foregoing statements on behalf of the Vendor.
Note: This shall constitute 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(s) in the space
below: Box #1: our CPA has recommended that a full audit is not necessary for firm of our size. Our CPA
performs an annual CPA review of our financials for our bonding company, produces quarterly
statements for our bonding company, and is actively involved in reconciliations and our other
regular accounting duties on a monthly basis. Wildlands is in sound financial condition.
LD ' 08/12/2021
gnature Date
Shawn D. Wilkerson
Printed Name
President
Title
[This Certification must be signed by an individual authorized to speak for the Vendor]
Ver.21112021 Page 52 of 55

Proposal Number. 16-20210102 Vendor Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
ATTACHMENT F: HUB SUPPLEMENTAL SUPPLIER INFORMATION
Historically Underutilized Businesses (HUBs) consist of minority, women and disabled business firms that
are at least fifty-one percent owned and operated by an individual(s) of the categories. Also included in this
category are disabled business enterprises and non-profit work centers for the blind and severely disabled.
Pursuant to G.S. 143B-1361(a), 143-48 and 143-128,4, 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. This includes utilizing
individual(s) of the categories as subcontractors to perform the required functions in this solicitation
documents.
The Vendor shall respond to questions below, as applicable.
1. Is Vendor a NC -certified HUB? ❑ Yes ® No
if yes, provide vendor #.
If no, does vendor qualify for certification as HUB? ❑ Yes ® No
Vendors that check "yes" will be referred to the HUB Office for assistance in acquiring certification
2. For Services procurements, are you using Subcontractors to perform any of the services being
procured underthis solicitation? ® Yes ❑ No
If yes, then provide the following information:
Please see next page.
Wildlands Engineering will select subcontractors from this list (on next page) of qualified vendors.
Need more information?
Questions concerning the completion of this form should be presented during the Q&A period through the process
defined in the solicitation document.
questions conaemIng NC HUB certification, con tact the North CarofIna Office of Historically
Underutilized Businesses at 984-236-0130 or hubaffice.doa@doa,nc.gov
Ver:21112021 Page 53 of 55

N
p
O
a
ro
z m
r G C
q
r-
n
°�
rn n
ari
aWi
w
-V (m LA
rrD
tII
2
pZi
3
re
y
ov
Q
a
rn
m
G)
fmS
ro
3
ro
u
Ln
m
n
ru
nQ
w 70 73
Z
44
N G) x �
ro ;p Ln Lu
c
N Vm r N
V '❑ N
Kt „ n i-
Co ❑ m 0�❑❑
N T Ln 'a N
Lp
r r b � oa
op sn C 00
Z u, -c
y n
O_ 0
00 ,
Q V
V as
Ij
V M 0-
w
❑
C
V
14
00 7 ro
n�
Ln �
7
Cn ;w
�•
ro
W
N �"
N
Ln
Lp 7 rD
M
V
Cn
0
@ a
Q
;;: n
rD �
Q N 7 n
v❑
0. 3
Ln
N cm
nri N
C7 rU Cf
L� UU ti
°❑
Q C
N 0q
N Z
r0 W
Co
H C•7
W C• ❑�
o
Ln ai
:�
l
Z
n_
C)
FL 0)
m
ro D
a at
rn �
LNn
m
_�
a�
oVv
n
i1 70
❑
�
Q
n
°°
n
CL
n
'''-r
r'�•r
�
r"'�r
'ter
r�
�
.'',
rp
[n
N
N
[n
N
N
N
C
.fir
R
(a
N
Q
Q
Mrn
N
7
[n
Ln
CL
rl
p�7
1
p
a!
Ln
❑
N
vq
rr
n
y
n
❑
rp
[1
❑
r
Q
O
O
r
W
C
v O
❑
ro ,'
rt
V)
v
N
3
v
+
❑
S
< s
m ro
{p
❑
n1
a
n ro
m
rn w
Ln
rD
0
5
S
77
S
Q
❑
N
CL
ill
❑
CL
:3ai
,0
m
J
r�
❑
!1
CD
r➢
m
N
fll
h_rDCl
v
m
Q
y
❑—
.r
Q
0
❑
❑
M
O
n
°
x'
STO
ro
ro
<
0]
❑'
M
n
OG
y
q
O
i�
n
°
O
�
N
Lp
W
LO
CO
V
fla
Ln
-0 {'}
Lr
I--1
M1l
O
r`r
I-'
S ❑
N
LD
D6
-P.
00
lL3
❑
LI
00
V
Q7
b"s
Ln
0G
W
0C
Ln
LO
W
6:
Gd
V
N
r
�
C
W
Q
�
Q
Ln
Q
LL
00
W
m
4
N
"P.
Q
F
Ln
Z
Z
Z
'y
n Z
... _
="' CZr�
a
-V
v
n °
n
O
O to
v
p7
nr
rr+
m
44
m

Proposal Number. 16-20210102 Vendor. Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
ATTACHMENT G: VENDOR'S INFORMATION
VENDOR'S INFORMATION
Vendors Primary Contact (or Project Manager)
Name:
Eric Neuhaus, PE
Agency:
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Title:
Project Manager
Address:
167-B Haywood Rd.
City:
Asheville
State/ Zip:
NC 28806
Telephone:
828-774-5547
Fax:
704-332-3306
Email:
[e-mail]
Vendors Execution Address (Where the contract should be mailed forsignature)
Name:
Shawn D. Wilkerson
Agency:
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Title:
President
Address:
1430 S. Mint Street, Suite 104
City:
Charlotte
State/ Zip:
NC, 28203
Telephone:
704-332-7754
Fax:
704-332-3306
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:
Shawn D. Wilkerson
Agency:
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Title:
President
Address:
1430 S. Mint Street, Suite 104
City:
Charlotte
State/ Zip:
NC, 28203
Telephone:
704-332-7754
Fax:
704-332-3306
Email:
swilkerson@wild landseng.com
Ver:2/1/2021 Page 54 of 66

Instructions:
L. Immediately save this with your new, desired filename.
2. Fill out all areas highlighted in yellow.
3. Place the letter'Y' in appropriate box for multiple choice questions.
Technical Proposal Evaluation Criteria
8-digit CU Rating Form
Offeror:
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Site Name:
Riverbend Mitigation Site
River Basin
/ Catalog
Lower Catawba Boundary / 03050102
Unit:
RFP
Number:
16-20210102
Date of Site
Evaluation:
TBD
Type/Amt of
Mitigation
2,210 stream credits; 11.961 wetland credits
Offered:
Proposal
Review
TBD
Committee:
Alternate
Attendees:
TBD

Section 1. Minimum Requirements
Yes/No
or N/A
1- For stream mitigation projects, does the Technical Proposal adequately document the historical presence of
stream(s) on the project site, provide the drainage areas (acres) and provide accurate, process -based
YES
descriptionsof 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
YES
showing soil boring locations and mapped soil series)?
3- For proposals that include wetland mitigation, does the proposed success hydroperiod follow the IRT
Guidance for the project site and soil series? If the proposed hydroperiod differs from the IRT guidance,
YES
justification must beprovided in the RFP.
4- Does the proposal adequately document the physical, chemical and/or biological impairments that
currently exist on the project site?
YES
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
YES
maximum functional gains.]
6- Does DMS agree with the proposed credit structure(s) described in the proposal?
YES
7- Does the proposed project avoid significant adverse impacts to existing wetlands and/or streams?
YES
8- Does the proposal adequately describe how the project will advance DMS watershed planning goals?
YES
9- For any proposed Priority 2 restoration, is P2 justified and/or limited to "tie-ins"?
YES
An answer of No in this section means the Technical Proposal is rejected. Continue or Reject?
CONTINUE

Section 2. Functional Uplift Evaluation
Functional
Functional Stressor
Functional Uplift Potential
Planning Identified Stressor
Category
Complete this section for identified
Place an X below if stressor is
Check boxes below to
functional stressors ONLY. Place an X
identified through watershed
identify stressors addressed
under the option that best describes the
planning -only count the MOST
by proposal.
uplift potential for the majority of the
LOCAL plan.
project area.
Low
Mod
High
Very High
TRA
RWP
LWP
Non-functioning
x
riparian buffer /
x
x
wetland vegetation
Sediment
x
x
Z3x
cr
x
Nutrients
x
x
N
a-J
>ca
x
Fecal Coliform
x
x
Other
x
Peak Flows
x
13.0
_p
x
Artificial Barriers
x
O
_0
Ditching/Draining
:X::m
x
2
Other
x
Habitat Fragmentation
x
x
Limited Bedform
ro
+�,
x
Diversity
x
x
ro
ca
Absence of Large
=
x
Woody Debris
x
x
Other
Total Count
Total
0
2
5
3
7
0
0
Count
-0 4-
Multiplier
C= O
ca �
x1
x3
x6
x10
x 2
x4
x6
ca Z3
Count x Function
Countx
C= c/)
0 13.0
C=
Multiplier
p
0
6
30
30
Planning
14
0
0
u
Multiplier
Z
Sum of Function A
Sum of
e
L
66
Planning
14

Adjusted Risk Factor 0 Only Applicable if this Box is Checked
Total Restoration
Enhancement
Taal Restoration and Enhancement Feet
Risk Adjusted Score
and Enhancement
Restoration Feet
Feet
Restoration Feet +k (Enhancement}
ell
(Sum of Function X Factors)
Feet
2,375
2,100
275
C
1.06
D
69.96
Risk Adjusted Score D+ PlanningB = Total Function and Planning
83.96 E
Section 3. General (place an X in the appropriate box)
1pt
3 pts
6 pts
10 pts
Physical constraints or barriers
>5%
2-5%
<2%
None
x
Project Density
>10
>8 - 10
>4 - 8
</=4
X
Total General
1
3
0
0
4 F
Section 4. Final Score and Proposal Rating
Total Function and
83.96 E
Total General
4 F
Final Score (E + F)
87.96
Proposal Rating (Final
Score x 0.01)
0.8796

CProject Location
5 Mile Radius
County Boundary
Municipality
Q8-Digit HUC
L._•; Hydrologic Unit Code (14-Digit)
® Local Watershed Plans C c Water Supply Watershed
Water Quality TRA DMS Project Easments
Habitat TRA NC Historic Preservation Areas
0 Hydrology TRA o303d Listed Streams (Draft)
Significant Natural Heritage Areas Water Features
NC Nat. Heritage Program Managed Areas © Airports
0305(
Propst Fly Sky I� .� 321 Franklin D. Reinh`rdt/
iHarren-Hood Farm1 030501
NC DMS Easement- `
South Fork
Catawba County Open Space
32
Abraham Anthony Farm
030501
Keever-Cansler Farm 050902bt40010
�• �
0305010204002C 9745678 �
NC DMS Easement- 9745680
/ Pott Creek II 9745668r
N� 9745702 Catawba Lands Conservancy-
' Viles Property I�
_.._, �.�..�..�..�..�..�..� 9745736
lu
9745702
-•�••---�.. �.__:. Project Location
Catawba Lands Conservancy- Rollins Preserve 9745730 97457381
I ~• LII
_NC La` and Water Fund Project Longs Farm/Riverbend
Catawba Lands Conservancy Easement 9745756
9745756
Catawba Lands Conservancy- Cole Property
Salem Union Church
NC DMS Easement- Pott Creek and Cemetery
t
1.
Daniels Evan gelical & Reformed Church Complex Catawba Lands Conservancy -
Rjiverbend Conservation Area
,
June Bug Woods 0305o1o2i
T
David C. arlick
Farmstead`
Catawba Lands Conservancy-
44 03050102040040 ` Coley Preserve w
30501020400301,
Catawba Lands Conservancy Easement
' NC DMS Easement-
000
Owls Den Mitigation Site <
321
Project Is Located On A Catawba County Parcel
1
I
20
03050101160010
501011
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
W I L D L A N D S 0 0.75 1.5 Miles Riverbend Mitigation Site
ktww E N G I N E E R I N G I I I I I Catawba River Basin (03050102)
Lower Catawba Boundary
Catawba County, NC

u

f
Reepsville USGS 7.5 Minute
Topographic Quadrangle
�I
{ IF
{
i I �y �f � �•
0.
O
Proposed Conservation Easement
kv,WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
i
r
r�
I
I
Figure 3 USGS Topographic Map
0 200 400 Feet Riverbend Mitigation Site
I I I I I Catawba River Basin (03050102)
Lower Catawba Boundary
Catawba County, NC

•
v
f
.f
*VWTLDLANDS 0 350 700 Feet
ENGINEERING I I I I
�UT To SF Catawba Watershed
Subwatershed
Proposed Conservation Easement
Perennial Project Streams
Intermittent Project Streams
Existing Ditch
Non -Project Stream
Topographic Contours (4')
;9-`
O
a
1
-. -,&! A- _.-.r
00006"1 .. :.:..I . kr _ -727M
Figure 4 Watershed Map
Riverbend Mitigation Site
Catawba River Basin (03050102)
Lower Catawba Boundary
Catawba County, NC

LcD
LdB2 �•
LdB2 —•.y
,'``' /
LJ Project Location
Proposed Conservation Easement
ChA- Chewacla Loam, 0-2% Slopes, Frequently Flooded
LcD- Lloyd Loam, 15-25% Slopes
C LdB2- Lloyd Sandy Clay Loam, 2-8% Slopes, Moderately Eroded
MsB- Masada Sandy Loam, 2-8% Slopes
RvA- Riverview Loam, 0-2% Slopes, Occasionally Flooded
Perennial Project Streams
Intermittent Project Streams
Existing Ditch
Non -Project Streams
Reach Break
W T L D L A N D 5 0 200 400 Feet
ktww ENGINEERING I I I I I
Figure 5 Soils Map
Riverbend Mitigation Site
Catawba River Basin (03050102)
Lower Catawba Boundary
Catawba County, NC

u
Ij

i
INQUIRY #:6592651.5
YEAR: 2016
= 500'
0.
r ANIn; ,

1r r
*,d A!'
INQUIRY #: 6592651.5 1 N
YEAR: 2009
500'I=DR

l
� �l.Y.• �
, -'y
-. r. �� t � fir,-'„' }!.'. L'
- _ !", .
ic
tit
Imm-
of
f

INQUIRY #: 6592651.5 N
YEAR: 1999
= 750'GZ3 FOR
Up
dIM
r
i
T
r 7
fpq i '
V
RI' qp
' 7
AR,
Subject boundary not shown because it
exceeds image extent or image is not
georeferenced.

INQUIRY #: 6592651.5
N
YEAR: 1999
Q
= 500'I=DR'
r
I
Subject boundary not shown because it
exceeds image extent or image is not
georeferenced.

INQUIRY #: 6592651.5 jJr /� N
YEAR: 1993 �
= 500' FOR
711-1 MI.
v
,6.
t .

Ilb 7 V15,51
A*% 06 a
41
` ..4 -[" )*�av
It
Ago
f
INQUIRY #:6592651.5 /� -
YEAR: 1984 1 i
= 500' EDR '
N.
ft

.40 0 J�dp
A
INQUIRY #: 6592651.5 1 N
YEAR: 1976 jI Jr
500'I=DR
40

INQUIRY #:6592651.5 jJr /� N
YEAR: 1964 �
= 500' FOR

�i

14
► � � Z k � �'ry,.'•nCa� mow,/��,""�''7�►. � � I
s
JL
r•

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: - �� 1 u� I
Project/Site: ,�VeA
-(OLL
Latitude: 5,� l
Evaluator: M , �C 11
County: QIt�J
Longitude: 9 �'�' _
Total Points:
Stream is at least inter
Stream Det (circle one)
Ephemera Intermittent
Other �
if _ 19 orerennial if _ 30mittent �
erennial
e g Quad Name'
7
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = I I )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1", Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2"
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
r0~
J
0.5
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No =
Yes = 3
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = 10 5 )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
��
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
14. Leaf litter
1-5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
D
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes = 3
C. Biology (Subtotal = -a-, 5 ) �J
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
2 .
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
! Q�
1
2
3
22. Fish
0.'
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0 >
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0..1
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75, B1L = 1. ; Other = 0 t iGCI•
"perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes: �' l
yl-ASketch, ,-� eta
rX r`�I�M
0
r;

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: (� -
Project/Site: y►
e`
Latitude: Y65 Bg3q
Evaluator: M I (CO 6e
County: C'cki a L'i CCW1>a t.
Longitud� 23 /
{�} / lO
Total Points:
is at least intermittent 33
Stream Determination ('
OtherStr1l f
if=e19
if> 1� �r perennial if? 3/"
Ephemeral Intermitte erenrn
P
e. Quad Name: ' .
g- �0. " v
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal =_�_�)
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1" Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
_
2. Sinuosity of channel along thaiweg
0
J
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
r�
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
�0 __:
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8, Headcuts
0
1
2
�3
9. Grade control
C67>
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
- 2�
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1 _
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes = 3
C. Biology (Subtotal = )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
C -�
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
"D
1
2
3
22. Fish
�(_
�0
0.5 -
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0 g-)
1
1.5
25. Algae
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL =
1.5 Other = D
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See
p. 35 of manual.
Notes: A
Sketch:
L

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: - 11-1*7-CY?-
Project/Site: Q_\ YeAbt��
Latitude:
Evaluator:
County: ,C'J_Vtx',`
Longitude.-'ali'2237_3 lb
Total Points:
Stream is of least intermittent %,
Stream Determination (ci
Other'U t 1
d> 19 or erennial if 30' r
Ephemeral Intermitte t Perennialg"
Quad Name:
i F_
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal =
}
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
18' Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
_ 3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2 '.
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2-
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
�3 '
9. Grade control
Q. ."
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1 f+
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discuss .00ns in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
-
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
L
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes =
C. Biology Subtotal = t' '-)
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3 2
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0,.-
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
9
1.5
23. Crayfish
t]o1
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1 )
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.
Other =
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes: 6) -x _. �: G rl , . (.A
d t �` - C 7_.
J
J
Sketch:
LQ
�
�cr-,. d..•
11�� �
y�L
J

N
� �
y.� SAT �
S1S �E,� a:.. ,, 1•
k e
t
1
•
I�
U
•
LL
f/1
1
O
'
1
V
O •
N
U
••
N
N
O
L

a: l ✓
A �
S
Y
P
�ai�'{'�i R4 ��,a •
�K
/n
X
,
' � �iyr
•
� mb .
I
4 ,',r,
I
•
d
a
O
N
. • •
•
C
O
��
u
a
.•
.•
.•
V)
U
N
N
O
L
•

3675-1747
FILED ELECTRONICALLY
CATAWBA COUNTY NC
DONNA HICKS SPENCER
RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203
Attention: Matt Covington
FILED Jul 30, 2021
AT 08:59:00 AM
BOOK 03675
START PAGE 1747
END PAGE 1750
INSTRUMENT # 18295
EXCISE TAX $0.00
C)
SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE
MEMORANDUM OF OPTION
This Memorandum of Option (this "Memorandum") is between Wyant Land & Investments, LLC,
a North Carolina limited liability co ("Seller"), and Wildlands Engineering, Inc., a North Carolina
corporation ("Buyer").
This memorandum wibecome effective when all parties have signed it. The date of this
Memorandum will be the date this Memorandum is signed by the last party to sign it.
Seller does hereby give and grant to Buyer the right and option to purchase mitigation use rights
on a portion of real property comprised of approximately 166.88 acres located at 4519 Herter Road in
Lincolnton, Catawba County, North Carolina, recorded in that County's Register of Deeds at Book 3155,
Page 529 (the "Property"). The Property is also identified as Parcel Identification Number 362601075176.
This option expires on August 12, 2024 and the closing shall occur on or before the date that is 30
days after the option expiration.
The provisions set forth in a written Option to Purchase Mitigation Use Rights between the parties
with an effective date of ✓ •?% 2021 are hereby incorporated in this memorandum.
Each party is signing this memorandum on the date stated below that party's signature.
submitted electronically by "wildlands Engineering, Inc."
.min compliance with North Carolina statutes governing recordable documents
and the terms of the submitter agreement with the Catawba County Register of Deeds.

3675-1748
BUYER:
WILDLANDS ENGINEERING, INC., a North Carolina
torpor ion
By: P .
SI wn D. Wilkerson, President
Date: IL-
1W#
2
SELLER:
WYANT LAND & INVESTMENTS, LLC, a North
Carolina limited liability company
By:
Greg yant��
Title:
Date: 7 - 13 -

3675-1749
RO-6416 County, North Carolina
I certify that Shawn D. Wilkerson personally appeared before me this day, acknowledging to me that he
is President of Wildlands Engineering, Inc., a North Carolina corporation and that he, as President, being
authorized to do so, executed the foregoing on behalf of Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Date: % l
1N HAZ��tio
Q OTAR Y ^=
PUBk-1G z_
BURG,�����
My commission expires: G — /f `j

3675-1750
County, North Carolina
I certify that Greg Wyant personally appeared before me this day, acknowledging to me that he is
Pr•Caie,pw4 of Wyant Land & Investments, LLC, a North Carolina limited bility company
and that he, as P'�C.51+A,%4 being authorized to do so, executed the f oing on behalf
of Wyant Land & Investments, LLC.
Date: e?�• :2©,� 1
(Official Seal)
2 tnN public
= NO kle�t9
M0 �ou�tY
//,,RT Hsu tP`�`o�\\\
Official Signature of Notary
Nola s printed or typed name
y commission expires:

Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
1010 Ruwn Ridgy Road • Ralcigh. North Curiiliu.1 27614 • Photw 1 19) Mb-51AX) • Fimr 1119) 84(-94(17
WW W- S id IdEC.ram
PRELIMINARY HYDRIC SOIL INVESTIGATION
Riverbend Mitigation Site
4615 Herter Rd., Lincolnton, NC
Piedmont
Catawba River Basin
Catawba County, North Carolina
Prepared for:
Mr. Eric Neuhaus
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
167-B Haywood Road
Asheville, NC 28806
r�r� - I%k,W
co
as Sr. P �1{P"
Cry
q[ WETt�►���
August 2"d, 2021
1

INTRODUCTION
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA (S&EC, PA) was retained to perform a preliminary evaluation to
assess the presence and extent of hydric soils onsite. There are a number of field ditches that dissect the
site. Much of the area evaluated is in pasture but some of the area is wooded.
METHODOLOGY
On July 15'" and July 2P 2021 Kevin Martin (LSS, PWS) of S&EC, PA performed a preliminary soil
evaluation at the site. Hand auger borings were advanced on the property at locations as appropriate to
approximately estimate the location and extent of hydric soils within the project area (see attached
Figure A— Riverbend Mitigation Site Soil Boring Study). Each soil boring was evaluated to assess the
presence or absence of hydric soil indicators. Hydric soil indicators were identified utilizing the NRCS Field
Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States - A Guide for Identifying and Delineating Hydric Soils in the
United States (Version 8.2, 2018).
All areas evaluated are mapped as the Chewacla soil series (Fine -loamy, mixed, active, thermic
Fluvaquentic Dystrudepts) by NRCS. Hydric soils observed onsite are most like the Wehadkee (Fine -loamy,
mixed, active, nonacid, thermic Fluvaquentic Endoaquepts) soil series except at BH2, 3 and 4 where only a
F3a indicator was present within the top 10" of the soil profile. Those three profiles would represent a
hydric Chewacla soil series. Non-hydric soils were most like the Chewacla or Congaree soil series.
RESULTS
Fifty one soil borings were performed within the study area. Twenty three of the borings
contained hydric soils. The majority of borings within the easternmost wooded area were hydric
while all borings within the westernmost wooded area were non-hydric. In general, the northern
and northeastern areas of the pasture contained hydric soils. Soil characteristics were evaluated
and all areas identified as containing hydric soils met one of the hydric soil criteria described
below.
A circle with an "X" inside on the map indicates approximate soil boring locations. Green circles
are at locations that contained hydric soils while the red circles are at non-hydric soil locations.
Depth to hydric soil indicators, were less than 10". Borings where hydric soils were present
contain a depleted matrix.
Indicator F3: Depleted Matrix
Technical Description: A layer that has a depleted matrix with 60 percent
or more chroma of 2 or less and that has a minimum thickness of either:
(a) 2 in. (5 cm) if the 2 in. (5 cm) is entirely within the upper 6 in. (15 cm)
of the soil, or
(b) 6 in. (15 cm) starting within 10 in. (25 cm) of the soil surface.

Five of the borings within the hydric soil areas contained both the F3a and F3b hydric soil
indicators. These five borings were located in the northeastern wooded area. While all of the
other borings performed in hydric soil areas contained the F3b indicator. A typical soil profile is
attached for a boring that was performed at 131-14 and is representative of soil profiles with only
the F3a hydric soil indicator within 10" of the soil surface. The soil profile descriptions at BH14
and BH39 are representative of the F3b hydric soil indicator.

LL
O
O
O
O
N
O

/
k
CL
%
E
\
\
%
O
0
/
:
%
c
u
LU
t
/
§
]
u
>
>
2
3
u
.E
ƒ
.%
(
\
u
u
%
¥
§
±
_
)
>
ƒ
y
\
\
u
e
e
n
$
\
E
E
�
/
/
\
LO
ƒ
u
6
f
»
\
\
e
@
e
\ /
_
\ .0
§ \
/ u E
\
/
@
m r
g
e
w
u
0 2
=
R
\
\ /
(
co
co
k
ƒ /
I
: /
#
2 = �
- o C
0 n
oft
%
+
•/ 2
0} u
3
3
%
o >
�
t
\

a�
0
z
CL
a�
s
4
o
axi
v
C
w
U
C
N
�
O
(p
>
+,
m
J
d
U
O
LL
U
E
N
s
4'
Q
U
U
f6
f
C
O
�
U-
c
X
O
c
o
U
f6
N
l0
X
p
E
E
O
L?
p
I�
O
U
T
C
o
U-
o
LO
W
N
cI
a
'�
m
s
O
.L
O
U
E
4-
N
m
v�
U
O
J m
U
U-
U
i
'=
O
N
Lo
L
Q
\ u
O
2
N -0
x
c
H
O
N
C
O
n
O
O
u
a
co
N
^' Q s
u
rl
O
2
O
O
cn 2
N
cn

a�
a�
f6
o
z
aL
LL
E
Q
E
m>
°
�
N
>
U
JOcr
O
0
(a
U
'a
U
C
w
U-
4
C
C
O
(6
U
O
>
7
U-
CU_
C
s
�
Q
>,
U
U
U
U
H
U
L.L
O
o
O
O
O
N
a
4=
U
f6
of
o
In
>
o
Ln
>-
E
U
In
I-�
Ln
m
O
10
o
O
O
O
C
W
00
I,
I
x +�
N
u
L VI
O
O
m
(0 O
v
cr-
>-
`n
c s
,,
LO
O U
4=
N
m vi
U
O (0
C
J m v
O
m � U
�
N
L
Q
m
m
m
i 0 E
O
O 4, O
2
CO M C
\ •v O
m -0 x
c
a� .o -a
o s
m
N
OCIA
U VI
_
" N U
O
4O
c-I
m
V)i 2 t