Big Branch Site_100141_TProp_2019

:. _ -�a r .`)fir' •'.�_': _"'.-�i:;�J.,`' '•`107W,.
f
t -_'` •rri ~ ' _ ".fir �� � v
�� -d,�,- •' '``-V '5+�." . �� -�; ti. r 'per- _-
•�a, Big Branch
Mitigation J o
r
;�, , ti•'�.. :;.,, CATAWBA RIVER BASIN
' RFP #16-007875 / CU #03050101
- - c
Submitted to:
�{ .� - NC DEQ Division of Mitigation Services
Attention: Majorie Barber
217 West Jones Street Suite 3409-1
Raleigh, NC 27603
V'
`'� �r
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
Michael Baker
INTERNATI ONAL nhnerinr,cn mms

.11
;IMFN� it y
41.
-• J � � Ti .~1 i�ieii.• M�
f _ t w �46'� � • ��
i;. nF1tr v
ti
7•��• r r.'_�MW
W
Cover Letter

Big Branch Mitigation Project
CATAWBA RIVER BASI N / RFP #16-007875 / CU #03050101
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600, Cary, NC 27518
Office: 919-463-5488 1 Fax: [phone]
August 13, 2019
NC DEQ- Division of Mitigation Services
Attn: Marjorie Barber
217 West Jones Street, Suite 3409-1
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
RE: Proposal to Provide Stream and Wetland Mitigation Credits through the Big
Branch Mitigation Project, RFP #16-007875, Catawba River Basin Cataloging Unit
03050101
Dear Marjorie Barber:
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. (Michael Baker) is pleased to present to the North
Carolina Department of Environmental Quality; Division of Mitigation Services
(NCDMS) the following proposal to provide stream mitigation credits and riparian
wetland mitigation credits in the Catawba River Basin (Cataloging Unit 03050101) in
response to RFP #16-007875. This proposal is a firm offer from Michael Baker and
shall remain open for acceptance by NCDMS for a period of 180 days from the
opening date of August 13, 2019 for the above -referenced RFP.
Michael Baker has entered into contracts to purchase conservation easements on
acreage to comprise the Big Branch Mitigation Site in Alexander County. The project
site is located near Stony Point, just northwest of Statesville.
Michael Baker has extensive restoration and mitigation implementation experience
and understands the most recent requirements and standards applicable for
restoration in this sub -watershed of the Catawba River Basin. Should NCDMS pursue
the wetland mitigation option, Michael Baker has extensive experience in restoring
degraded wetlands. Accordingly, Michael Baker is in a strong position to implement
this proposed project in a timely and effective manner.
The information provided in this proposal is being submitted for the sole purpose of
responding to the above -referenced request for proposals. We greatly appreciate all
consideration NCDMS gives this proposal and look forward to hearing from you
regarding a decision. We would appreciate the opportunity to complete the
presentation of this proposal to NCDMS through a field visit and discussion.
Sincerely,
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
Dwain G. Hathaway, PE
Office Executive / Vice Presid6tit
PH: 919-481-5702/E-Mail: [e-mail]
The Big Branch Mitigation
Project will include the
following:
Two options for well over
10,000 stream mitigation
credits and a third option for
9,100 credits utilizing a broad,
balanced approach including
restoration and enhancement to
address the stream reaches on the
project property providing the
maximum possible functional
uplift.
This project will provide removal of
direct livestock access and
associated impairments to surface
waters along more than 12,600
linear feet (LF) of existing stream
channel.
The project also offers optional
riparian wetland mitigation
credits.
_4Ka (Katie) McKeithan, PE, CPESC, CPSWQ, CFM
Ecosystem Restoration Manager / Primary Contact
PH: 919-481-5703/E-Mail: Katie. [e-mail]
IRTERNATk0HAL
Page 1

Big Branch Mitigation Project qqqq
CATAWBA RIVER BASIN / RFP #16-007875 / CU #03050101
Title Page
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Cary, NC 27518
Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Authorized Representative: Dwain Hathaway, PE
Catawba River Basin
RFP #16-007875/CU #03050101
INTERNATIONAL

Or I
Execution Page
and Addenda

�01 MsTArF °F�
X
o
` LessE Q�UAI� VVon` *
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Request for Proposal #: 16-007875
Full Delivery Projects to Provide Stream Mitigation
Credits within the Cataloging Unit 03050101 of the
Catawba River Basin as described in the Scope of Work
Date of Issue: May 6, 2019
Proposal Opening Date: August 13, 2019
At 2:00 PM ET
Direct all inquiries concerning this RFP to:
Marjorie Barber
Purchasing Agent
Email: [e-mail]
Phone: [phone]

'��FSSE Qum a �'�
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
Request for Proposal #
16-007875
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). Pursuantto G.S. 132-1.10(b) this identification number
shall not be released to the public. This page will be removed and shredded, or otherwise kept
confidential, before the procurement file is made available for public inspection.
This page is to be filled out and returned with your proposal.
Failure to do so may subject your proposal to rejection.
ID Number:
13-5674528
Federal ID Number or Social Security Number
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
Vendor Name
Sealed, mailed or hand delivered responses ONLY will be accepted for this
solicitation.

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
Department of Environmental Quality
Refer ALL Inquiries regarding this RFP to: Request for Proposal #: 16-007875
Marjorie Barber Proposals will be publicly opened: August 13, 2019
Mariorie.barber ncdenr. av
[phone]
Contract Type. Open Market Using Agency: Division of Mitigation Services
Commodity No. and Description:962-73 Requisition No.: NIA
Restoration ! Reclamation Services of Land
and other Properties
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 all items upon which prices are bid, at the prices set opposite each item within the time
specified herein. By executing this proposal, the undersigned Vendor certifies that this proposal is submitted competitively and
without collusion (G.S. 143-54), that none of its officers, directors, or owners of an unincorporated business entity has been
convicted of any violations of Chapter 78A of the General Statutes, the Securities Act of 1933, or the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (G.S_ 143-59.2), and that it is not an ineligible Vendor as set forth in G.S. 143-59.1. False certification is a Class I felony.
Furthermore, by executing this proposal, the undersigned certifies to the best of 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, complies with the requirements of Article 2 of
Chapter 64 of the NC General Statutes, including the requirement for each employer with more than 25 employees in North
Carolina to verify the work authorization of its employees through the federal E-Verify system. G.S. 133-32 and Executive Order
24 (2009) prohibitthe offer to, or acceptance by, any State Employee associated with the preparing plans, specifications, estimates
for public Contract; or awarding or administering public Contracts; or inspecting or supervising delivery of the public Contract of
any gift from anyone with a Contract with the State, or from any person seeking to do business with the State. By execution of this
response to the RFP, the undersigned certifies, for your entire organization and its employees or agents, that you are not aware
that any such gift has been offered, accepted, or promised by any employees of your organization.
Failure to execute/sign proposal prior to submittal shall render proposal invalid and it WILL BE REJECTED.
Late proposals cannot be accepted.
'OMPLETEIFORMAL NAME OF
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
CITY & STATE & ZIP:
Cary, NC 27518
P.O.
ZIP:
1 27518
TELEPHONE NUMBER: I TOLL FREE TEL.
919-463-5488
PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS ADDRESS IF DIFFERENT FROM ABOVE (SEE INSTRUCTIONS TO VENDORS ITEM #12):
PRINT NAME & TITLE OF PERSON SIGNING ON BEHALF OF VENDOR: FAX NUMBER:
DwairyG.-Hathaway, PE r
VEN OR' AUTHQRtZED'SMNATUR.E*: DATE: EMAIL:
�� ( / _ _ 07/16/2019 [e-mail]
Offer valid for at least 180 days from �ate� of proposal opening. After this time, any withdrawal of offer shall be made in writing,
effective upon receipt by the agency issuing this RFP.
ACCEPTANCE OF PROPOSAL
If any or all parts of this proposal are accepted by the State of North Carolina, an authorized representative of the Department of
Environmental Quality shall affix his/her signature hereto and this document and all provisions of this Request for Proposal
along with the Vendor proposal response and the written results of any negotiations shall then constitute the written agreement
between the parties. A copy of this acceptance will be forwarded to the successful Vendor(s).
accept and Contract awarded this day of , 2019, as indicated on the
attached certification, by
(Authorized Representative of Department of Environmental Quality)
Ver: 12/3118

Proposal Number: 16-007875 Vendor. Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
Contents
1.0 PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND.............................................................................................6
2.0 GENERAL INFORMATION.......................................................................................................6
2.1 REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL DOCUMENT.............................................................................6
2.2 RESERVED &PROCUREMENT SOLICITATION...................................................................6
2.3 NOTICE TO VENDORS REGARDING RFP TERMS AND CONDITIONS...............................6
2.4 RFP SCHEDULE.....................................................................................................................7
2.5 PROPOSAL QUESTIONS.......................................................................................................8
2.6 PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL.......................................................................................................8
2.7 PROPOSAL CONTENTS......................................................................................................10
2.8 IMPORTANT INFORMATION AND RESTRICTIONS............................................................12
2.9 TEMPLATES, TECHNICAL SCORESHEETS, TARGET WATERSHEDS, & MAPS.............12
2.10 DEFINITIONS, ACRONYMS, AND ABBREVIATIONS..........................................................13
3.0 METHOD OF AWARD AND PROPOSAL EVALUATION PROCESS.....................................17
3.1 METHOD OF AWARD...........................................................................................................17
3.2 CONFIDENTIALITY AND PROHIBITED COMMUNICATIONS DURING EVALUATION ....... 17
3.3 PROPOSAL EVALUATION PROCESS.................................................................................18
3.4 EVALUATION CRITERIA......................................................................................................19
3.5 PERFORMANCE OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES.............................................................19
3.6 INTERPRETATION OF TERMS AND PHRASES..................................................................19
4.0 REQUIREMENTS...................................................................................................................20
4.1
CONTRACT TERM................................................................................................................20
4.2
PRICING..............................................................................................................................-20
4.3
DOWNWARD PAYMENT ADJUSTMENTS...........................................................................20
4.4
INVOICES..............................................................................................................................20
4.5
PAYMENT TERMS.................................................................................................................21
4.6
FINANCIAL STABILITY........................................................................................................21
4.7
FINANCIAL ASSURANCE....................................................................................................21
4.8
VENDOR EXPERIENCE........................................................................................................21
4.9
REFERENCES......................................................................................................................21
4.10
BACKGROUND CHECKS.....................................................................................................22
4.11
PERSONNEL........................................................................................................................22
4.12
VENDOR'S REPRESENTATIONS........................................................................................22
Ver:1213l18 Page 4 of 41

Proposal Number: 16-007875 Vendor: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
5.0 SCOPE OF WORK.................................................................................................................23
5.1 GENERAL.............................................................................................................................23
5.2 OBJECTIVES........................................................................................................................23
5.3 TASKS............................................................................................................................I......24
5.4 PAYMENT SCHEDULE AND DESCRIPTION OF MILESTONE............................................26
5.5 ACCEPTANCE OF WORK....................................................................................................27
6.0 CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION.............................................................................................27
6.1 PROJECT MANAGER AND CUSTOMER SERVICE................................I...........................27
6.2 DISPUTE RESOLUTION.......................................................................................................27
6.3 CONTRACT CHANGES........................................................................................................27
6.4 CONTRACT ADMINISTRATOR............................................................................................27
ATTACHMENTA: PRICING..............................................................................................................28
ATTACHMENT B: INSTRUCTIONS TO VENDORS..........................................................................29
ATTACHMENT C: NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL CONTRACT TERMS & CONDITIONS .............32
ATTACHMENT D: LOCATION OF WORKERS UTILIZED BY VENDOR..........................................38
ATTACHMENT E: CERTIFICATION OF FINANCIAL CONDITION...................................................39
ATTACHMENT F: SUPPLEMENTAL VENDOR INFORMATION......................................................40
ATTACHMENT G: VENDOR'S INFORMATION................................................................................41
ATTACHMENT H: TASKS AND DELIVERABLES
Ver: 10/23118 Page 5 of 41

Proposal Number: 16-007875
1.0 PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND
Vendor. Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
The mission of NCDMS is to provide cost-effective mitigation alternatives that improve the state's water resources.
This RFP is soliciting Proposals from qualified Vendors for needed mitigation as described herein for the NCDMS to
successfully meet permit conditions mandated by the regulatory agencies.
This RFP is not an offer for a Contract, nor does the Department's acceptance of any Technical/Cost Proposal
guarantee a Contract with the Department. The Department reserves the right to reject any or all proposals deemed not
to be in the best interest of the State of North Carolina.
Proposals shall be submitted in accordance with the terms and conditions of this RFP and any addenda issued hereto.
2.0 GENERAL INFORMATION
2.1 REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL DOCUMENT
The RFP is comprised of the base RFP document, any attachments, and any addenda released before Contract award
All attachments and addenda released for this RFP in advance of any Contract award are incorporated herein by
reference.
2.2 RESERVED &PROCUREMENT SOLICITATION
ATTENTION: This is NOT an E-Procurement solicitation. Paragraph #16 of Attachment C: North Carolina General
Contract Terms and Conditions, paragraphs (b) and (c), do not apply to this solicitation.
2.3 NOTICE TO VENDORS REGARDING RFP TERMS AND CONDITIONS
It shall be the Vendor's responsibility to read the Instructions, the State's terms and conditions, all relevant exhibits and
attachments, and any other components made a part of this RFP and comply with all requirements and specifications
herein. Vendors also are responsible for obtaining and complying with all Addenda and other changes that may be
issued it connection with this RFP.
If Vendors have questions, issues, or exceptions regarding any term, condition, or other component within this RFP,
those must be submitted as questions in accordance with the instructions in Section 2.5 PROPOSAL QUESTIONS. If
the State determines that any changes will be made as a result of the questions asked, then such decisions will be
communicated in the form of an RFP addendum. The State may also elect to leave open the possibility for later
negotiation and amendment of specific provisions of the Contract that have been addressed during the question and
answer period. Other than through this process, the State rejects and will not be required to evaluate or consider any
additional or modified terms and conditions submitted with Vendor's proposal. This applies to any language appearing
in or attached to the document as part of the Vendor's proposal that purports to vary any terms and conditions or Vendors'
instructions herein or to render the proposal non -binding or subject to further negotiation. Vendor's proposal shall
constitute a firm offer. By execution and delivery of this RFP Response, the Vendor agrees that any additional or
modified terms and conditions, whether submitted purposely or inadvertently, shall have no force or effect, and
will be disregarded. Noncompliance with, or any attempt to alter or delete, this paragraph shall constitute
sufficient grounds to reject Vendor's proposal as nonresponsive.
By executing and submitting its proposal in response to this RFP, Vendor understands and agrees that the State may
exercise its discretion not to consider any and all proposed modifications Vendor(s) may request and may accept
Vendor's proposal under the terms and conditions of this RFP.
Contact with anyone working for or with the State regarding this RFP other than the State Contract Specialist named on
the face page of this RFP in the manner specified by this RFP shall constitute grounds for rejection of said Vendor's
offer, at the State's election.
Ver: 10/23/18 Page 6 of 41

Proposal Number: 16-007875
Vendor: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
2.4 RFP SCHEDULE
The table below shows the intended schedule for this RFP. The State will make every effort to adhere to this schedule.
Event
Responsibility
Date and Time
Issue RFP
State
May 6, 2019
Hold Pre -Proposal Meeting
State
May 16, 2019
Submit Written Questions
Vendor
May 24, 2019 by 2:00 PM ET
Provide Response to Questions
State
May 31, 2019
Submit Proposals
Vendor
August 13, 2019 by 2:00 PM ET
Contract Award
State
TBD
Contract Effective Date
State
TBD
MANDATORY PRE -PROPOSAL CONFERENCE
Mandatory Pre -Proposal Conference:
Date: May 16, 2019
Time: 10:30 AM Eastern Time
Contact #: [phone]
Instructions; It shall be MANDATORY that each Vendor representative be present for a pre -proposal conference on
May 16, 2019. Attendees must meet promptly at 10:30 AM Eastern Time at North Carolina Department of Environmental
Quality, Division of Mitigation Services, 217 West Jones Street, Raleigh, NC 27603.
Attendance at this Pre -Proposal Conference is a prerequisite for consideration of a bidder's offer. Vendor and/or
his representative must:
(1) arrive prior to the scheduled start time of the Pre -Proposal Conference; Late arrivals will not be allowed to sign
in or participate in the meeting
(2) sign -in on the attendance sheet; and
(3) sign -out upon completion of the Pre -Proposal Conference.
Failure to comply with this requirement will cause offer to be rejected. The purpose of the pre -proposal
conference is for all prospective offerors to acquaint themselves with the conditions and requirements of the tasks to
be performed. Submission of an offer shall constitute sufficient evidence of this compliance and no allowance will be
made for unreported conditions that a prudent offeror would recognize as affecting the performance of the work called
for in this solicitation. Offeror is cautioned that any information released to offeror other than during the pre -proposal
conference which conflicts with, supersedes, or adds to requirements in this solicitation, must be confirmed by written
addendum before it can be considered part of this solicitation document. Vendor bidding otherwise does so at his own
risk.
Each offeror is permitted to send no more than (2) people to the conference. Only one (1) representative per
offeror is allowed to sign both the sign -in and sign -out sheet (the representative that signed in must also sign
out).
Only one (1) pre -determined, pre -proposal conference will be held; individual pre -proposal conferences are
not allowed.
Ver: 10/23/18 Page 7 of 41

Proposal Number: 16-007875
Vendor.- Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
The purpose of this pre -proposal conference is for all prospective Vendors to apprise themselves with the conditions
and requirements which will affect the performance of the work called for by this Request for Proposals. Vendors must
stay for the duration of the pre -proposal conference, No allowances will be made for unreported conditions that a prudent
Vendor would recognize as affecting the work called for or implied by this proposal.
Vendors are cautioned that any information released to attendees during the pre -proposal conference, other than that
involving the physical aspects of the facility referenced above, and which conflicts with, supersedes, or adds to
requirements in this Request for Proposal, must be confirmed by written addendum before it can be considered to be a
part of this proposal.
2.5 PROPOSAL QUESTIONS
Upon review of the RFP documents, Vendors may have questions to clarify or interpret the RFP in order to submit the
best proposal possible. To accommodate the Proposal Questions process, Vendors shall submit any such questions by
the above due date.
Written questions shall be emailed to mariorie. barber ncde_ nr.gov by the date and time specified above. Vendors should
enter "RFP #: 16-007875: Questions" as the subject for the email. Questions submittals should include a reference to
the applicable RFP section and be submitted in a format shown below:
Reference
Vendor Question
RFP Section, Page Number
Vendor question ...?
Questions received prior to the submission deadline date, the State's response, and any additional terms deemed
necessary by the State will be posted in the form of an addendum to the Interactive Purchasing System {IPS),
http:llwww,ips,state.nc.us, and shall become an Addendum to this RFP. No information, instruction or advice provided
orally or informally by any State personnel, whether made in response to a question or otherwise in connection with this
RFP, shall be considered authoritative or binding. Vendors shall rely only on written material contained in an Addendum
to this RFP.
2.6 PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL
IMPORTANT NOTE: This is an absolute requirement. Vendor shall bear the risk for late submission due to unintended
or unanticipated delay —whether submitted electronically, delivered by hand, U.S. Postal Service, courier or other
delivery service. it is the Vendor's sole responsibility to ensure its proposal has been submitted to this Office by the
specified time and date of opening. The time and date of submission will be marked on each proposal when received
Any proposal -submitted after the proposal deadline will be rejected.
Mailing address for delivery of proposal Office Address of delivery by any other method
via US Postal Service (special delivery, overnight, or any other carrier).
PROPOSAL NUMBER: 16-007875 PROPOSAL NUMBER: 16-007875
NC DEQ - DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES NC DEQ - DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
ATTN: MARJORIE BARBER ATTN: MARJORIE BARBER
1652 MAIL SERVICE CENTER 217 WEST JONES STREET, SUITE 3409-1
RALEIGH, NC 27699-1652 RALEIGH, NC 27603
For proposals submitted via U.S. mail, please note that the U.S. Postal Service generally does not deliver mail to a
specified street address but to the State's Mail Service Center. Vendors are cautioned that proposals sent via U.S. Mail,
including Express Mail, may not be delivered by the Mail Service Center to the agency's purchasing office on the due
date in time to meet the proposal deadline. All Vendors are urged to take the possibility of delay into account when
submitting a proposal by U.S. Postal Service, courier, or other delivery service. Attempts to submit a proposal via
facsimile (FAX) machine, telephone or email in response to this RFP shall NOT be accepted.
Very 10123M 8 Page 8 of 41

Proposal Number: 16-007875 Vendor: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
a) Submit one (1) signed, original executed Technical Proposal responses, and four (4) photocopies, (Ail 5 Must Be
Placed in Separate - 3-Ring Binders or Notebooks and Include Section Tabs). Original responses must be
labeled.
b) Submit one (1) redacted electronic (Proprietary and Confidential Information Excluded) copy of the executed
Technical Proposal on one (1) USB flash drive simultaneously to the address identified in the table above The
electronic files shall NOT be password protected, shall be in .PDF or .XLS format, and shall be capable of being
copied to other media including readable in Microsoft Word and/or Microsoft Excel.
c) Technical Proposal must list any proprietary information identified as confidential and proprietary in accordance with
Attachment B, Paragraph 14 of the Instructions to Vendors. The Division of Mitigation Services, in responding to
public records requests, will release the information provided. It is the sole responsibility of the Vendor to ensure that
this information complies with the requirements of Paragraph 14 of the Instructions to Vendors
d) Submit the boundaries of the proposed project on the LISB flash drive containing the technical proposal described
above. The boundary can be the proposed easement(s) or the general project area. NCOMS expects the submitted
file to closely match the project area(s) shown in the project proposal location map. The file representing the
proposed project boundaries must: 1) Consist of an ArcMap multipart polygon format (.shp or geodatabase); 2)
Project in the State Plane Coordinate System (NAD 83) using a base unit of meters or feet; 3) Include the *.prj file
holding the coordinate system information; 4) Adhere to the following convention within the attribute table. Each
record represents a single boundary configuration in its entirety as proposed for consideration. If more than one
boundary configuration is proposed, a separate and discrete record is required. Each record must have the
following attribute information: Vendor name; Site _Name (as named in proposal); Configuration/Option (as named
in proposal); Project —Type (Stream, Wetland, Buffer or Combination); Coordinate —System (SP Meters or SP Feet).
e) Submit your technical proposal in a sealed package. Clearly mark each package with: (1) Sealed Technical
Proposal (2) the RFP number, (3) the Due Date and Time, (4) Vendor Name and Address, (5) the River Basin
and Cataloging Unit for which the proposal response is being submitted, and (6) the Site Name and Type of
Mitigation being proposed. Address the package(s) for delivery as shown in the table above. If Vendor is submitting
more than one (1) proposal, each proposal shall be submitted in separate sealed envelopes and marked accordingly.
For delivery purposes, separate sealed envelopes from a single Vendor may be included in the same outer package.
Proposals are subject to rejection unless submitted with the information above included on the outside of the sealed
proposal package.
f) Submit one (1) signed, original executed cost proposal responses and one (1 ) photocopy (All must be In aced in
one separately sealed envelope). All cost proposal response packages must be clearly marked with (1) Sealed
Cost Proposal (2) the RFP number, (3) the Due Date and Time, (4) Vendor Name and Address, (5) the River
Basin and Cataloging Unit for which the proposal response is being submitted, and (6) the Site Name and Type
of Mitigation being proposed. If Vendor is submitting more than one (1) cost proposal option, each response
shall be submitted in a separately sealed envelope and marked accordingly. For delivery purposes, separately
sealed envelopes from a single Vendor may be included in the same outer package.
NOTE: All Technical and cost proposals must constitute a firm, irrevocable offer for a period of at least six (6)
months beyond the specified "Opening Date" for this RFP-
Failure tc submit a proposal in strict accordance with these instructions shall constitute sufficient cause to reject a
vendor's proposal(s).
Critical updated information may be included in Addenda to this RFP. It is important that all Vendors proposing on this
RFP periodically check the State's IPS website for any Addenda that may be issued prior to the bid opening date. All
Vendors shall be deemed to have read and understood all information in this RFP and all Addenda thereto.
Ves: 10/23/18 Page 9 of 41

Proposal Number: 16-007875 Vendor. Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
Contact with anyone working for or with the State regarding this RFP other than the State Contract Lead named on the
face page of this RFP in the manner specified by this RFP shall constitute grounds for rejection of said Vendor's offer,
at the State's election
2.7 PROPOSAL CONTENTS
Vendors shall populate all attachments of this RFP that require the Vendor to provide information and include an
authorized signature where requested. Vendor RFP responses shall include the following items and those attachments
should be arranged in the following order:
a) COVER LETTER
b) TITLE PAGE: Include the company name, address, phone number and authorized representative along with the
Proposal Number.
c) EXECUTION PAGES and any ADDENDA released in conjunction with this RFP that requires the Addenda to be
returned. These must be completed and signed. Failure to comply will result in your bid being disqualified.
d) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The executive summary shall consist of highlights of the general contents of the proposal,
and shall clearly state the anticipated mitigation type and amount of credits proposed. If the Vendor is proposing
multiple mitigation options, each option shall be specifically described in this section. (Submitted Mitigation credits
as stated in the Executive Summary small match the credit tables shown in the Technical approach section of the
submittal. This credit total also shall match the amount on the Sealed Bid Proposal (attachment A).
e) CORPORATE BACKGROUND AND EXPERIENCE: This section shall include background information on the firm
submitting the proposal, the firm's ability to carry out all phases of the proposal, information concerning similar
mitigation projects completed in North Carolina and other states, the firm's office location(s), the experience of the
project manager, the firm's multidisciplinary approach to the project, the resumes of key personnel for the primary
Vendor and sub -vendors, and DBE/HUB participation.
f) PROJECT ORGANIZATION: This section must include the proposed staffing, deployment, and organization of
personnel to be assigned to this project. The Vendor shall provide information as to the qualifications and experience
of all executive, managerial, legal, and professional personnel to be assigned to this project, including resumes citing
experience with similar projects and the responsibilities to be assigned to each person.
g) TECHNICAL APPROACH: This section shall include and be completed in the following sequence:
• Project Goals and Objectives- Specifically describe how the proposed project will address the watershed
goals identified in the River Basin Restoration Plan (RBRP) applicable to the project area, and the
objectives that will be used to accomplish those goals. RBRPs can be found at:
https://deg.ng.gov/about/divisions/mitigation-services/dms-planning/watershed-planning-documents
searchable by river basin. Unless otherwise specified in the RFP, the proposed ecological benefits and
functional uplift the project could provide may be determined at the discretion of the Vendor. If a proposed
site addresses more than one of the watershed goals, it will be taken into consideration in the site rating.
• Project Description- Provide a detailed description of the project including, but not limited to a description
of the site in its existing condition, watershed (including County and 14-digit Hydrologic Unit) and its
condition; soils and geology; anticipated cultural resources, protected species issues and known site
constraints (i.e. other easements, crossings, site access, etc.). Note: due to concerns regarding waterfowl
attraction in the vicinity of air transport facilities, the project description must include a site location map
that identifies any air transport facility located within 5 miles of the project site. The presence of an air
transport facility will not exclude the proposal from consideration.
• The proposal shall include a maps) with topographic background that includes mapping of proposed
mitigation areas (Restoration, Enhancement, etc.)
Project Development — Describe in detail the means by which the proposed changes will be made.
Describe in detail reasons for the anticipated activities and why these activities are warranted to the level
proposed. Clearly state the anticipated ecological uplift for each activity on the project. The project
development description must include:
Ver: 10/23/18 Page 10 of 41

Proposal Number: 16-007875 Vendor.- Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
• A general description for all stream crossings, fords, roads etc. The description must include the
location, width, and type of crossing (ford, culvert, bridge etc.). Crossings that utilize bridges and/or
culverts with fencing that permanently prevent livestock access both upstream and downstream of the
crossing (so that livestock exclusion is not dependent on the use of gates) provide better protection
of the riparian area, and possibly gaining more points on the Technical Proposal Scoresheet.
Proposed Mitigation - Provide a description of the mitigation credits proposed. include an explanation of
how the proposed credits were derived and a table of anticipated mitigation credits. The table shall include
a total for each type of mitigation (i.e. restoration, etc.) being offered. If multiple options are proposed, a
table for each option shall be provided. Mitigation credits shall match information provided in the sealed
cost sheets (Appendix A: Pricing).
Current Ownership and Long Term Protection - Identify the ownership of all parcels which will be affected
by the project. Include the landowners name and parcel number and the proposed method for providing long
term protection of the mitigation site. The long term protection may be provided through real estate
instruments such as conservation easements held by entities such as federal, tribal, state or local resource
agencies, non-profit conservation organizations, or private land managers; the transfer of title to such
entities; or by restrictive covenants.
In this section of the technical proposal it should be clearly stated that conveyance of a conservation
easement to the State is the method that will be used to provide long term protection of the mitigation
site.
A signed option agreement valid for a period of at least one -hundred eighty (180) days from the closing
date of this RFP, prepared in accordance with NCGS Chapter 47G-2, and recorded in the applicable
County(ies), or other suitable documentation of real property interest must be provided for each parcel.
• Project Phasing — Provide a complete schedule for completing the tasks for the project as identified in this
RFP. Describe methods for completing these tasks. The proposed schedule must be based on completion
of the project (seven (7) year monitoring period) within the ten (10) year contract period. The proposed
schedule should be based on the number of months (from contract issuance) needed to complete each of
the tasks listed in the scope of work.
Success Criteria — Identify specific performance standards that are anticipated to be utilized to measure
success of the project. The success criteria must be directly related to the anticipated ecological uplift
identified in paragraph Project Development above.
Quality Control — This section shall describe the Vendor's quality control program and other
procedures that will be used to ensure: 1) each deliverable (i.e. mitigation plan, baseline monitoring
document, monitoring report, etc.) is submitted in accordance with the schedule established in the
technical proposal, it follows the format(s) established by NC DMS, it contains all required information,
and is gram maticallyltypographically correct; and 2) sufficient oversight is provided during the
construction/planting phase so that the project is completed on schedule and is in compliance with
any required federal, state or local permit(s).
Maps diagrams, and/or photographs may be used to supplement the text and may be printed on one side.
However, the Technical Proposal should not exceed a total of 50 pages printed front to back (100-
page limit) and each shall be submitted within a three ring binder with section tabs. Photographs,
maps and diagrams will count toward the 100 pages. If a technical proposal does not meet all the
Department's requirements, it will be rejected and the corresponding sealed cost proposal will not
be opened.
Ver: 10/23118 Page 11 of 41

Proposal Number: 16-007875 vendor: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
g) ATTACHMENT A: PRICING (COMPLETED, SIGNED AND SEPARATELY SEALED)
h) ATTACHMENT B: INSTRUCTIONS TO VENDORS
ii) ATTACHMENT C: NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL CONTRACT TERMS AND CONDITIONS
j) ATTACHMENT D: LOCATION OF WORKERS UTILIZED BY VENDOR (COMPLETED)
i) ATTACHMENT E: CERTIFICATION OF FINANCIAL CONDITION (COMPLETED AND SIGNED)
j) ATTACHMENT F: SUPPLEMENTAL VENDOR INFORMATION (COMPLETED)
k) ATTACHMENT G: ADDITIONAL VENDOR INFORMATION (COMPLETED)
I) TECHNICAL SCORESHEET — COMPLETED (OPTIONAL)
2.8 IMPORTANT INFORMATION AND RESTRICTIONS
a) The DMS recognizes that a Vendor(s) might not be able to find one site that provides the total amount of
mitigation requested for the cataloging unit listed above. Therefore, proposals may be submitted in any of the
following categories:
■ One or more sites providing all of the requested mitigation credits; or
■ One or more sites providing a portion of the requested mitigation credits.
b) Unless the Vendor states in both the cover letter and the Executive Summary of the technical proposal that
multiple mitigation options are being offered for a site, and specifically describes each option, the Department
shall only consider the full proposal amount and will not extend an offer to contract for less than the full amount
indicated in the proposal.
c) Proposals will NOT be accepted using the following types of sites:
1. Property purchased with Clean Water Management Trust Fund monies
2. Property that is enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, Conservation Reserve
Program, Wetlands Reserve Program, or any other state or federal program that provides funds for any
of the tasks outlined in this RFP
1 Property that has been used for compensatory mitigation under Section 404 and/or 401 of the Clean
Water Act
4. Properties that are in the control of the State or currently in negotiation for compensatory mitigation
needs by any state agency
5. Properties that are controlled by any federal agency
6. Properties that have been timbered, filled, or manipulated (stream channel dredging or channel re-
alignment) in violation of federal or state rules or statutes.
d) Please note that the State of North Carolina will NOT accept fee simple title to any property as a result of this
RFP. As stated in the TASKS Section, long-term protection of the selected properties must be provided by a
conservation easement held by the State of North Carolina.
2.9 TEMPLATES, TECHNICAL SCORESHEETS, TARGET WATERSHEDS, & MAPS
The latest required report templates, technical scoresheets, target watersheds and mapping and applicable to
this RFP are found at:
htt s://de .nc. ov/about/divisions/miti ation-services/dms-vendors/rf -forms-tem rates
Ver: 10/23/18 Page 12 of 41

Proposal Number: 16-007875 vendor: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
2.10 DEFINITIONS, ACRONYMS, AND ABBREVIATIONS
Adjusted Credit Cost — The Credit Cost of a Site divided by the Proposal Rating; units are Dollars per Wetland
Mitigation Credit, Stream Mitigation credits, Buffer Mitigation credits, or Nutrient Offset Credits.
Agencies — The regulatory and advisory units of the state and federal government in North Carolina which are
involved in permitting and/or commenting on proposed activities in wetlands, streams, or riparian areas and in
approving and/or commenting on proposed compensatory wetland, stream, riparian buffer or nutrient offset
mitigation.
As -Built Drawings — Scale drawings depicting the final configuration, dimensions, and locations of all pertinent
features of a Site after all implementation activities have been completed.
Baseline Monitoring Document — A written document, supplemented with graphics (including as -built drawings),
that describes in detail the implemented mitigation site, the goals established for the project, how it was
implemented, how it will be monitored, the amount of mitigation credits the project will generate, and the criteria by
which its success will be determined.
Cataloging Unit ("CU") — A geographic area representing part or all of a River Basin and identified by an 8-digit
number as depicted on the "Hydrologic Unit Map — 1974, State of North Carolina, published by the U.S. Department
of Interior, Geological Survey".
Categorical Exclusion — Categories of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on
the human or natural environment and for which, therefore, neither an Environmental Assessment nor an
Environmental Impact Statement is required. The Categorical Exclusion will be satisfied by completing the
Categorical Exclusion Action Form and Document. The Categorical Exclusion must be approved by the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).
Coastal Wetland — As defined in North Carolina General Statute 113-229(n)(3) and described in the CAMA
Handbook for Development in Coastal North Carolina — Section 2(A)(4) found at:
httpa/portal ncdenr org/web/cm/104
Closeout Report — A component of the final year of the Monitoring Report that provides an assessment of the
monitoring data collected from the entire monitoring period to demonstrate attainment of success criteria.
Conservation Easement — A restriction landowners voluntarily place on specified uses of their property to protect its
natural, productive, or cultural features. It is recorded as a written legal agreement between the landowner and the
"holder" of the easement. The State of North Carolina must receive from the landowner a conservation easement as
prepared and facilitated by the full delivery provider for all NC Division of Mitigation Services full delivery projects.
Credit — A unit of measure (e.g., a functional or a real measure or other suitable metric) representing the accrual or
attainment of aquatic functions at a compensatory mitigation site, as approved by the regulatory agencies. The
measure of aquatic functions is based on the resources restored (rehabilitated), established, enhanced or preserved.
Credit Cost — Total bid cost divided by the number of offered credits for each type of mitigation.
Credit Release Schedule - The timeline established for the periodic release of mitigation credits based upon the
successful implementation of the approved Mitigation Plan, including construction and post -construction monitoring.
Department — The North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ)
Division of Financial Services — Contracting arm of NCDEQ.
Division of Water Resources -Division in NCDEQ that is responsible for state water quality regulations.
DOAIP&C — The North Carolina Department of Administration, Division of Purchase and Contract.
Financial Assurance — Financial security assuring the ability of the provider to deliver the contracted for mitigation
credits. Financial Assurance must be provided through Performance Bonds, letters of Credit or Casualty Insurance.
Ver: 10/23/18 Page 13 of 41

Proposal Number: 16-007875 Vendor. Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
Hydrologic Unit ("HU") — A geographic area representing a portion of a Cataloging Unit as depicted on the
"Hydrologic Unit Map — 1974, State of North Carolina, published by the U.S. Department of Interior, Geological
Survey," and identified by a 14-digit number.
Interagency Review Team (IRT) — A group of federal, tribal, state, and/or local regulatory and resource agency
representatives that review documentation for, and advises the USACE district engineer on the establishment and
management of a stream and/or wetland mitigation bank or an in -lieu fee program.
Intermittent Stream — A well-defined channel that contains water for only part of the year, typically during winter
and spring when the aquatic bed is below the water table. The flow may be heavily supplemented by storm water
runoff. An intermittent stream should score at least 19 points using the NC Division of Water Quality Classification
Manual, Version 4.11, 2C10, effective September 1, 2010. This manual can be found at:
htt :/1 ortal.ncdenr.or /web/w /swlws/401/waterresources/streamdeterrninations
Jurisdictional Wetland - A wetland as defined in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
Local Watershed Plan — an NCDMS watershed plan that is conducted in specific priority areas (typically one or
more TLWs) where NCDMS and the local community have identified a need to address critical watershed issues.
Through this planning process, NCDMS collaborates with local stakeholders and resource professionals to identify
projects and management strategies to restore, enhance and protect local watershed resources. LWPs can be found
by County or River Basin at:
https:l/deq. nc. gov/abouUdivisions/m itigatio_n-services/dms-planning/watershed-plann ing-documents
Long Term Protection — as defined in the Federal Code of Regulations (Federal RegisterNol. 73, No. 70/Thursday,
April 10, 2008/ Rules and Regulations — Section 332.7 Management, the Long Term Protection of a mitigation site
may be provided through real estate instruments such as conservation easements held by entities such as federal,
tribal, state or local resource agencies, non-profit conservation organizations, or private land managers; the transfer
of title to such entities; or by restrictive covenants. The use of conservation easements and/or restrictive covenants
must receive prior approval by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) — District Engineer. As noted
in the Federal Code of Regulations, the USACE District Engineer shall consider relevant legal constraints on the use
of conservation easements and/or restrictive covenants in determining whether such mechanisms provide sufficient
protection.
Mitigation Plan — A written document, supplemented with graphics, which describes: the existing site conditions,
the goals and objectives of the project and other pertinent information. The Mitigation Plan is developed and
submitted prior to the implementation of the project.
Monitoring Report --- A written document, supplemented with graphics due on December 1st of each year during
the seven (7) year monitoring period following the completion of construction. This report contains results of the
measured success criteria as defined in the Baseline Monitoring Document.
NCDMS — The North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services.
Non -Riparian Wetland — An area underlain with hydric soils that is NOT located in a geomorphic floodplain or
natural crenulation and NOT contiguous to natural lakes greater than 20 acres in size or artificial impoundments.
Non -Riparian Wetlands are typically found on flats in interstream divides (pocosins), side slopes (seeps), and in
depressions surrounded by uplands (mafic depressions, lime sinks and Carolina Bays). The hydrology of non -
riparian wetlands is driven by precipitation and is characterized by groundwater being at or near the surface for much
of the year. Must meet US Army Corps of Engineers wetlands definition (33 CFR 328.3(b)).
Opening Date — The location, date, and time that the Sealed Technical Proposal and Sealed Cost Proposal must
be delivered to NCDMS. Proposals will not be accepted by NCDMS after the opening date/time.
Perennial Stream — A well-defined channel that contains water year-round during a year of normal rainfall, with the
aquatic bed located below the water table for most of the year. A perennial stream should score at least 30 points
using the NC Division of Water Quality Stream Classification Manual, Version 4.11, 2010, effective September 1,
2010. This manual can be found at:
http:i/portal.ncdenr.ora/web/wo/swptws/401/waterresourceslstreamdeterminations
Ver: 10/23118 Page 14 of 41

Proposal Number: 16-007875
Vendor: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
Preliminary Findings Report — An NCDMS report that is developed during the Local Watershed Planning process
that contains an evaluation of available data sources and an initial determination of watershed conditions; identifies
data gaps; and includes a plan for a detailed evaluation of the watershed and its water quality, habitat and hydrologic
functions.
Project Area — For the purposes of this RFP, project area is defined as the area within the proposed conservation
easement for the project.
Project Milestones — A deliverable, such as a document or completed action that signifies that the endo of a task
in the Scope of Service.
Property— A Site may be comprised of one or more pieces of real Property owned by one or more individual.
Proposal — The response to the RFP from an interested Vendor consisting of a signed Sealed Cost Proposal and a
Sealed Technical Proposal,
Proposed Project - a site that is in a pre -construction state and that is not associated with, or a part of, an
approved (signed, fully executed) Mitigation Banking Instrument by the closing date of this RFP.
Proposal Rating ("PR") — A value (number) that is calculated for each Proposal based upon the evaluation of the
Proposal by the PRC. The PR is established by dividing the points scored by the total amount of potential points.
Proposal Review Committee ("PRC") - A committee established by the NCDMS to review and evaluate each
Proposal received and to make recommendations to the NCDMS Director and Procurement Manager.
Release of Credits — means a determination by the USACE district engineer in consultation with the IRT (or DWR
for riparian buffer and nutrient offset), that credits associated with an approved mitigation plan are available for sale
or transfer as defined under the Federal Guidance for the Establishment, Use and Operation of Mitigation Banks
(Federal Register April 10, 2008, Volume 70, Number 73, pp 19594-19705).
RFP — Request for Proposals; the document issued by the Department to solicit Proposals from interested Vendors.
Riparian Buffer Mitigation Credit- The unit of measurement of the extent of riparian buffer mitigation being offered
in a Proposal.
Riparian Wetlands — An area that is underlain with hydric soils and located within a geomorphic floodptain or natural
crenulation, or contiguous with NATURAL water bodies greater than 20 acres in size.
River Basin — The largest category of surface water drainage; there are seventeen (17) river basins in North
Carolina,
River Basin Restoration Priorities -A planning document prepared by the NCDMS that targets specific watersheds
(TLWs) with descriptions of existing degradation and protection needs for restoration project implementation. Unless
otherwise stipulated in the RFP, NCDMS requires mitigation sites to be located in these targeted local
watersheds (i.e. hydrologic units).
Scope of Services — All services, actions, and physical work required by the Department to achieve the purpose
and objectives defined in the RFP; such services may include the furnishing of all required labor, equipment, supplies
and materials except as specifically stated.
Sealed Cost Proposal — The completed Sealed Cost Proposal form included in the RFP signed by the Vendor
specifying the total compensation requested for the performance of the specified scope of services as defined by
the RFP. if more than one Site is proposed, a separate Sealed Cost Proposal must be submitted for each Site. If
the Vendor is willing to offer multiple options (i.e. different quantities of mitigation at different credit costs) for one
proposed site, a separate Cost Proposal must be submitted for each option offered.
Service Area — 1) A geographic area where mitigation credits from a mitigation site can generally be utilized to
satisfy permit requirements. 2) A geographic area where a mitigation requirement can be satisfied.
Ver: 10/23/18 Page 15 of 41

Proposal Number: 16-007875 Vendor: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
Site— Property or properties identified by a Vendor in a Proposal as having potential to provide either wetland, stream,
buffer or nutrient offset mitigation. A proposed project shall describe mitigation activities that occur on a single
property parcel, or which occur on multiple property parcels. Project proposals shall demonstrate hydrologic
connectivity and/or habitat continuity such that the functional relationships between the project components,
encompassed within each parcel is evident. DMS shall have the sole discretion to determine whether the project
components have sufficient hydrologic connectivity and/or habitat continuity to be considered in a single project
proposal.
Stream Mitigation Credit — The unit of measurement of the extent of stream mitigation being offered in a Proposal.
Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) — A 14-digit Hydrologic Unit identified as a targeted area in the RFP. These are
preferred locations for mitigation projects because they may have environmental characteristics that can be
improved through restoration projects.
Targeted Resource Area (TRA) — a unique or substantial important asset, opportunity, or function located within a
defined area. TRAs can include targeted assets or targeted opportunities. These are identified by analyzing spatial
data representing assets, problems, and opportunities that manifest as patches of significance at a smaller scale
than the 12- or 14-digit hydrologic units. These are analogous to TLWs; however, IRAs have defined boundaries
based on an area of influence or an area of habitat extent NOT necessarily defined by a watershed boundary.
Technical Proposal — One of the two parts of the Proposal which contains a technical description of the proposed
mitigation.
USACE — United States Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch, Wilmington District
USGS — United States Geological Survey.
Vendor — A private agency, corporation, firm, organization, business, or individual offering to provide qualified
professional or specialized services to the Department; if two or more private agencies, corporations, organizations,
businesses or individuals join together in a prime vendor/sub-vendor relationship to submit a Proposal, the
Department will consider the prime vendor to be the Vendor; only the Vendor may enter into a Contract with the
Department (The words 'Vendor' and `Contractor' are used interchangeably for this RFP).
Wetland Enhancement - means the manipulation of the physical, chemical and biological characteristics of a site
to heighten, intensify, or improve a specific aquatic resource function(s). Enhancement results in the gain of selected
aquatic resource function(s), but may also lead to a decline in other aquatic resource function(s). Enhancement does
not result in a gain in aquatic resource area.
Wetland Preservation - means the removal of a threat to, or preventing the decline of, aquatic resources by an
action in or near those aquatic resources. This term includes those activities normally associated with the protection
and maintenance of aquatic resources through the implementation of appropriate legal and physical mechanisms.
Preservation does not result in a gain in aquatic resource area or functions.
Wetland Restoration - means the manipulation of the physical, chemical and biological characteristics of a site with
the goal of returning natural/historic functions to a former or degraded aquatic resource. Wetland restoration is
divided into two categories: Re-establishment and Rehabilitation. See definition of Wetland Re-establishment and
Wetland Rehabilitation.
Wetland Re-establishment — means the manipulation of the physical, chemical and biological characteristics of a
site with the goal of returning natural/historic functions to a former aquatic resource. Re-establishment results in
rebuilding a former aquatic resource and results in a gain in aquatic resource area and function.
Wetland Rehabilitation — means the manipulation of the physical, chemical and biological characteristics of a site
with the goal of returning most, if not all of the natural/historic functions to a degraded aquatic resource.
Rehabilitation results in a gain in aquatic resource function, but does not result in a gain in aquatic resource area.
Wetland Mitigation Credit —The unit of measurement of the extent of wetland mitigation being offered in a Proposal.
Ver: 10/23/18 Page 16 of 41

Proposal Number! 16-007875 Vendor: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
3.0 METHOD OF AWARD AND PROPOSAL EVALUATION PROCESS
3.1 METHOD OF AWARD
Contracts will be awarded in accordance with G.S. 143-52 and the evaluation criteria set out in this solicitation.
Prospective Vendors shall not be discriminated against on the basis of any prohibited grounds as defined by
Federal and State law.
All qualified proposals will be evaluated, and awards will be made to the Vendor(s) meeting the RFP requirements and
achieving the highest and best final evaluation, based on the criteria described below.
The NCDMS Procurement Manager and the Director, will analyze the ranked sites, determine the proposal selections and
submit recommendations to the Department of Administration, Purchase & Contract section, as required, for approval,
taking into account the following information:
• adjusted credit cost
• credit cost
■ available funds
• mitigation needs at the time of selection
■ the best interest of the State of North Carolina
While the intent of this RFP is to award a Contract(s) to single Vendor, the State reserves the right to make separate
awards to different Vendors for one contracts, to not award one or more contracts, or to cancel this RFP in its entirety
without awarding a Contract, if it is considered to be most advantageous to the State to do so.
The status of a Vendor's E-Procurement Services account(s) shall be considered a relevant factor in determining whether
to approve the award of a contract under this RFP. Any Vendor with an E-Procurement Services account that is in arrears
by 91 days or more at the time of proposal opening may, at the State's discretion, be disqualified from further evaluation
or consideration.
The State reserves the right to waive any minor informality or technicality in proposals received.
3.2 CONFIDENTIALITY AND PROHIBITED COMMUNICATIONS DURING EVALUATION
During the evaluation period —from the date proposals are opened through the date the contract is awarded —each
Vendor submitting a proposal (including its representatives, sub -contractors and/or suppliers) is prohibited from having
any communications with any person inside or outside the using agency, issuing agency, other government agency
office, or body (including the purchaser named above, department secretary, agency head, members of the general
assembly and/or governor's office), or private entity, if the communication refers to the content of Vendor's proposal or
qualifications, the contents of another Vendor's proposal, another Vendor's qualifications or ability to perform the
contract, and/or the transmittal of any other communication of information that could be reasonably considered to have
the effect of directly or indirectly influencing the evaluation of proposals and/or the award of the contract. A Vendor not
in com Hance with this provision shall be disqualified from contract award, unless it is determined in the State's discretion
that the communication was harmless, that it was made without intent to influence and that the best interest of the State
would not be served by the disqualification. A Vendor's proposal may be disqualified if its sub -contractor and supplier
engage in any of the foregoing communications during the time that the procurement is active (i.e., the issuance date of
the procurement to the date of contract award). Only those discussions, communications or transmittals of information
authorized or initiated by the issuing agency for this RFP or general inquiries directed to the purchaser regarding
requirements of the RFP (prior to proposal submission) or the status of the contract award (after submission) are
excepted from this provision.
Ver: 10123/18 Page 17 of 41

Proposal Number: 16-007875
3.3 PROPOSAL EVALUATION PROCESS
Vendor.- Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
The State shall review all Vendor responses to this RFP to confirm that they meet the specifications and requirements
of the RFP.
The State will conduct a Two -Step evaluation of Proposals:
Proposals will be received from each Vendor as two separate volumes - the Technical Proposal and the Cost
Proposal. Both proposals (Technical and Cost) shall be signed and dated by an official authorized to bind the firm.
Unsigned proposals will not be considered.
NOTE: No technical information shall be contained in the cost proposal. No cost information shall be
contained in the technical proposal. Inclusion of any cost information in the technical proposal and/or any
technical information in the cost proposal shall constitute sufficient grounds to reject Vendor's proposal.
All proposals must be received by the issuing agency not later than the date and time specified on the cover sheet
of this RFP.
At that date and time, the package containing the technical proposals from each responding firm will be publicly
opened and the name of each Vendor announced publicly. A notation will also be made whether a separate sealed
cost proposal has been received. Cost proposals will be placed in safekeeping until opened at a later date.
All technical proposals will be evaluated prior to opening any cost proposal.
Upon completion of the technical evaluation, the cost proposals of those Vendors whose technical proposals have
been deemed acceptable will be publicly opened. The total cost offered by each firm will be tabulated and become
a matter of public record. Interested parties are cautioned that these costs and their components are subject to
further evaluation for completeness and correctness and therefore may not be an exact indicator of a Vendor's
pricing position.
At their sole option, the evaluators may request oral presentations or discussions with any or all Vendors for the
purpose of clarification or to amplify the materials presented in any part of the proposal. Vendors are cautioned,
however, that the evaluators are not required to request presentations or other clarification —and often do not;
therefore, all proposals must be complete and reflect the most favorable terms available from the Vendor.
Proposals will generally be evaluated according to completeness, content, experience with similar projects, ability of
the Vendor and its staff, and cost. Specific evaluation criteria are listed section 3.4 EVALUATION CRITERIA, below.
Vendors are cautioned that this is a request for proposals, not a request to contract, and the State reserves the
unqualified right to reject any and all offers at any time if such rejection is deemed to be in the best interest of the
State.
The State reserves the right to reject all original offers and request one or more of the Vendors submitting proposals
within a competitive range to submit a best and final offer (BAFO), based on discussions and negotiations with the
State, if the initial responses to the RFP have been evaluated and determined to be unsatisfactory.
Upon completion of the evaluation process, the State will make Award(s) based on the evaluation and post the
award(s) to IPS under the RFP number for this solicitation. Award of a Contract to one Vendor does not mean that
the other proposals lacked merit, but that, all factors considered, the selected proposal was deemed most
advantageous and represented the best value to the State.
Ver: 10/23/18 Page 18 of 41

Proposal Number: 16-007875
3.4 EVALUATION CRITERIA
Vendor: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
All qualified proposals will be evaluated and award made based on considering the following criteria, to result in an award
most advantageous to the State_ A proposal may be rejected during any phase of review if the PRC determines that the
proposal has not provided the requested information in the specified format, has determined that the firm is not qualified
to perform the services, and/or if it has been determined that the proposal cannot provide the mitigation indicated in the
proposal. Each proposal will be reviewed and assigned a proposal rating prior to opening any cost proposal.
Proposals will generally be evaluated according to completeness, content, experience with similar projects,
ability of the offeror and its staff, and cost. Specific evaluation criteria are listed below.
Technical
a) Technical Proposals will be reviewed for length, format requirements and qualifications of firm and project
approach by the Contract Administrator and Purchasing Agent. Only vendors who meet these initial
qualifications will move forward.
b) Upon completion of the initial review, a field review and evaluation of the proposed site will be conducted
by the PRC.
c) Each Vendor will be scored based on the Technical Scoresheet.
Price
a) Sealed cost proposals for all proposals still under consideration will be opened and tabulated.
b) The adjusted credit cost is a combined technical and cost measure, and used for ranking sites. This is a
best value determination by NCDMS after evaluating all factors in the technical proposal and then
evaluating the cost proposal. The adjusted credit cost will be calculated and determined using the
following formula:
Credit Cost _ Proposal Rating (Technical Score)
Each site will be ranked by the lowest adjusted credit cost.
3.5 PERFORMANCE OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES
Vendor shall complete ATTACHMENT D: LOCATION OF WORKERS UTILIZED BY VENDOR. In addition to any other
evaluation criteria identified in this RFP, the State may also consider, for purposes of evaluating proposed or actual
contract performance outside of the United States, how that performance may affect the following factors to ensure that
any award will be in the best interest of the State:
a) Total cost to the State
b) Level of quality provided by the Vendor
c) Process and performance capability across multiple jurisdictions
d) Protection of the State's information and intellectual property
e) Availability of pertinent skills
f) Ability to understand the State's business requirements and internal operational culture
g) Particular risk factors such as the security of the State's information technology
h) Relations with citizens and employees
i) Contract enforcement jurisdictional issues
3.6 INTERPRETATION OF TERMS AND PHRASES
This Request for Proposal serves two functions: (1) to advise potential Vendors of the parameters of the solution being
sought by the Department; and (2) to provide (together with other specified documents) the terms of the Contract
resulting from this procurement. As such, all terms in the Request for Proposal shall be enforceable as contract terms
in accordance with the General Contract Terms and Conditions. The use of phrases such as "shall," "must," and
"requirements" are intended to create enforceable contract conditions. In determining whether proposals should be
Ver: 10123/18 Page 19 of 41

Proposal Number: 16-007875 Vendor: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
evaluated or rejected, the Department will take into consideration the degree to which Vendors have proposed or failed
to propose solutions that will satisfy the Department's needs as described in the Request for Proposal. Except as
specifically stated in the Request for Proposal, no one requirement shall automatically disqualify a Vendor from
consideration. However, failure to comply with any single requirement may result in the Department exercising its
discretion to reject a proposal in its entirety.
4.0 REQUIREMENTS
This Section lists the requirements related to this RFP. By submitting a proposal, the Vendor agrees to meet all stated
requirements in this Section as well as any other specifications, requirements and terms and conditions stated in this
RFP. if a Vendor is unclear about a requirement or specification or believes a change to a requirement would allow for
the State to receive a better proposal, the Vendor is urged and cautioned to submit these items in the form of a question
during the question and answer period in accordance with Section 2.5,
4.1 CONTRACT TERM
The Contract shall have maximum term of up to ten (10) years, beginning on the date of contract award (the "Effective
Date"). The Vendor shall begin work under the Contract within seven (7) business days of the Effective Date.
4.2 PRICING
Proposal price shall constitute the total cost to Buyer for complete performance in accordance with the requirements and
specifications herein, including all applicable charges handling, administrative and other similar fees. Vendor shall not
invoice for any amounts not specifically allowed for in this RFP. Complete ATTACHMENT A: PRICING FORM and
include in Proposal
4.3 DOWNWARD PAYMENT ADJUSTMENTS
Payment by the Department will be based on the number of credits the vendor is able to provide at the credit price first
established by the cost proposal pursuant to the proposal review process and credits identified in the technical proposal.
In order to ensure that the Department does not overpay at the end of the process, periodic adjustments may be made
so that the final total payment equals the final number of mitigation credits, as determined by the IRT, delivered by the
vendor multiplied by the original per credit price. Payment adjustments may be made after the initial contract is executed
based on the number of mitigation credits the project is anticipated to provide as documented after contract execution,
including but not limited to: completion of the mitigation plan; site restoration (earthwork/planting), completion of the
baseline monitoring document; the post construction monitoring period, and/or after final determination of mitigation
credits by the IRT.
4.4 INVOICES
a) Invoices are to be submitted to the NCDMS after its approval of each individual task/deliverable.
b) The Vendor must follow the NCDMS Invoice Guidelines dated March 1, 2014.
c) Final invoice must be received by the DEPARTMENT within 45 days after the end of the contract period.
d) Invoices must bear the correct contract number to ensure prompt payment. The Vendor's failure to include the
correct contract number may cause delay in payment.
e) Invoices must be submitted to the following address:
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
Attn: Debby Davis
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652.
Ver: 10/23/18 Page 20 of 41

Proposal Number: 16-007875 Vendor., Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
4.5 PAYMENT TERMS
a) The Vendor will be compensated at the rates quoted in the Vendor's Cost Proposal (as per the Payment
Schedule provided in Section 5.4).
b) The Vendor will be paid net thirty (30) calendar days after the Vendor's invoice is approved by the State
4.6 FINANCIAL STABILITY
Each Vendor shall certify it is financially stable by completing the ATTACHMENT E: CERTIFICATION OF FINANCIAL
CONDITION. The State is requiring this certification to minimize potential issues from Contracting with a Vendor that is
financially unstable. From the date of the Certification to the expiration of the Contract, the Vendor shall notify the State
within thirty (30) days of any occurrence or condition that materially alters the truth of any statement made in this
Certification.
4.7 FINANCIAL ASSURANCE
The vendor must provide financial assurance in one of the following forms:
1) Performance Bonding — The vendor must provide security in the form of an acceptable performance bond as
described in the following paragraph to guarantee delivery of the maximum number of originally contracted
credits. The performance bond must be obtained from a company licensed in North Carolina as shown in the
Federal Treasury Listing of Approved Sureties (Circular 570). The maximum allowable amount provided by a
surety may not exceed the "underwriting limitation" for the surety as identified in the Federal Treasury Listing.
Although this RFP is a request for mitigation and not construction, the performance bond shall follow the
prescribed wording provided in N.C.G.S. § 44A-33. The performance bond must be for 55% of the total value of
the contract and must be in effect and submitted with the Task 3 deliverable before DMS will authorize payment
for that deliverable. The bond must remain in effect until the vendor has received written notification from the
DMS that the requirements of Task 6 (submittal of baseline monitoring report) have been met (the financial
assurance document must indicate that it is in effect through approval of task 6 and must include the NCDEQ
contract number). After the successful completion of Task 6, the bond can be retired.
2) Letters of Credit- LOCs must be drawn from a reputable bank identified by the FDIC as "Well Capitalized" or
"Adequately Capitalized" and follow the submittal timing, contract amounts and schedules for reduction as
those described above for the performance bonds_ Evergreen or irrevocable LOCs shall be required to
provide a 120-day notice of cancellation, termination or non -renewal.
3) Casualty Insurance on underlying performance of credits of mitigation, must follow the same submittal timing,
contract amounts and reduction schedules as those described above in performance bonds. The insurance
must contain the following information:
a. The "NCDEQ DMS," the contract number and the Insured Property must be named in the insurance
document. NCDEQ shall have the sole right to place a claim against the policy,
Casualty Insurance can be written effective for one year, but notice from the Vendor, stating that it is currently in the
process of replacing the current policy, must be submitted to NCDMS at least one month before policy expiration date.
4.8 VENDOR EXPERIENCE
In its Proposal, Vendor shall demonstrate experience with public and/or private sector clients with similar or greater size
and complexity to the State of North Carolina. Vendor shall provide information as to the qualifications and experience
of all executive, managerial, legal, and professional personnel to be assigned to this project, including resumes citing
experience with similar projects and the responsibilities to be assigned to each person.
4.9 REFERENCES
The State reserves the right to request and verify references. Upon request, references must be submitted within three
(3) business days. Failure to provide references will cause your proposal to be rejected.
Ver: 1 M3118 Page 21 of 41

Proposal Number: 16-007875 Vendor: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
4.10 BACKGROUND CHECKS
Vendor and its personnel are required to provide or undergo background checks at Vendor's expense prior to beginning
work with the State. As part of Vendor background the details below must be provided to the State:
a) Any criminal investigation for any offense involving moral turpitude, including, but not limited to fraud,
misappropriation, falsification or deception pending against Vendor of which it has knowledge or a statement it is
aware of none;
b) Any regulatory sanctions levied against Vendor or any of its officers, directors or its professional employees
expected to provide Services on this project by any state or federal regulatory agencies within the past three years
or a statement that there are none. As used herein, the term "regulatory sanctions" includes the revocation or
suspension of any license or certification, the levying of any monetary penalties or fines, and the issuance of any
written warnings;
Vendor's responses to these requests shall be considered to be continuing representations, and Vendor's failure to notify
the State within thirty (30) days of any criminal litigation, investigation or proceeding involving Vendor or its then current
officers, directors or persons providing Services under this contract during its term shall constitute a material breach of
contract. The provisions of this paragraph shall also apply to any subcontractor utilized by Vendor to perform Services
under this contract.
4.11 PERSONNEL
Vendor shall not substitute key personnel assigned to the performance of this Contract without prior written approval by
the Contract Lead. Vendor shall notify the Contract Lead of any desired substitution, including the name(s) and
references of Vendor's recommended substitute personnel. The State will approve or disapprove the requested
substitution in a timely manner. The State may, in its sole discretion, terminate the services of any person providing
services under this Contract. Upon such termination, the State may request acceptable substitute personnel or terminate
the contract services provided by such personnel.
4.12 VENDOR'S REPRESENTATIONS
a) Vendor warrants that qualified personnel shall provide Services under this Contract in a professional manner.
"Professional manner" means that the personnel performing the Services will possess the skill and competence
consistent with the prevailing business standards in the industry. Vendor agrees that it will not enter any agreement
with a third party that may abridge any rights of the State under this Contract. Vendor will serve as the prime
contractor under this Contract and shall be responsible for the performance and payment of all subcontractor(s) that
may be approved by the State. Names of any third party Vendors or subcontractors of Vendor may appear for
purposes of convenience in Contract documents; and shall not limit Vendor's obligations hereunder. Vendor will
retain executive representation for functional and technical expertise as needed in order to incorporate any work by
third party subcontractor(s).
b) If any Services, deliverables, functions, or responsibilities not specifically described in this Contract are required for
Vendor's proper performance, provision and delivery of the service and deliverables under this Contract, or are an
inherent part of or necessary sub -task included within such service, they will be deemed to be implied by and
included within the scope of the contract to the same extent and in the same manner as if specifically described in
the contract. Unless otherwise expressly provided herein, Vendor will furnish all of its own necessary management,
supervision, labor, facilities, furniture, computer and telecommunications equipment, software, supplies and
materials necessary for the Vendor to provide and deliver the Services and Deliverables.
c) Vendor warrants that it has the financial capacity to perform and to continue perform its obligations under the
contract; that Vendor has no constructive or actual knowledge of an actual or potential legal proceeding being
brought against Vendor that could materially adversely affect performance of this Contract; and that entering into
this Contract is not prohibited by any contract, or order by any court of competent jurisdiction.
Ver. 10/23/18 Page 22 of 41

Proposal Number: 16-007875
5.0 SCOPE OF WORK
Vendor.' Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
5.1 GENERAL
The mission of NCDMS is to provide cost-effective mitigation alternatives that improve the state's water resources
This RFP is soliciting Proposals from qualified Vendors for needed mitigation as described herein for the NCDMS to
successfully meet permit conditions mandated by the regulatory agencies.
5.2 OBJECTIVES
The Department desires to acquire Mitigation Credits quantified in the table below and occurring within the service
areas for Cataloging Unit 03050101 of the Catawba River Basin (which can be found on the DMS website at the
following Zink: https:lldeq.n_q._gov/about/divisions/mitigation-services/dms-vendorsirtp-forms-templates).
RIVER BASIN
CATALOGING UNITS
Catawba
03050101
Credits Shall Meet a
Mitigation
Thermal
Credits Shall Not
Minimum Restoration
Type
Requested Credits
Regime
Exceed Preservation
Percentage of Total
Percentage
Credits Offered
Stream
10,000
Warm
10 % of total CREDITS
nla
Riparian
Wetland
OPTION
nla
nla
Non -Riparian
Wetland
nla
nla
nla
Riparian
Buffer
nla
n/a
nla
DMS is not seeking Riparian Wetland credits at this time. On the Cost Proposal form (Attachment A), there is a line for
an optional riparian wetland credit cost. If DMS has a riparian wetland credit need during the contracted project
lifetime, an amendment can be made to the contract payable to the contracted vendor for the amount per credit
delivered (and accepted by the IRT) as indicated by the optional cost. Vendors must provide an optional cost for
Riparian Wetland credits if they wish DMS to purchase these credits from the vendor.
General Mitigation Information
Stream Mitigation:
The definitions of stream restoration, enhancement levels I and II, and preservation are defined in the Stream
Mitigation Guidelines (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District, April, 2003) available on their website. For
the purposes of this RFP (the technical proposal, and any contract(s) that may result from this RFP), all mitigation
must be consistent with 2003 USACE Stream Mitigation Guidelines and the Wilmington District Stream and Wetland
Compensatory Mitigation Update (NCIRT-October24, 2016).
Wetland Mitigation:
Information, including soil boring logs prepared by a Licensed Soil Scientist (LSS), must be provided in the technical
proposal to demonstrate that areas proposed for restoration consist predominantly of hydric soils, and:
1. Are not currently jurisdictional wetlands as defined in the 1987 US Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation
Manual and USACE regional supplements, and that are devoid of the proper community type of vegetation (Wetland
Re-establishment).
2. Are degraded (poorly functioning) jurisdictional wetlands that have been drained or otherwise manipulated resulting
in a significant loss of wetland function (Wetland Rehabilitation). Wetland Rehabilitation should restore most, if not all
natural and/or historic functions to a degraded wetland.
3. Are degraded (poorly to moderately functioning) jurisdictional wetlands that have been manipulated resulting in a
loss of wetland function (Wetland Enhancement) — Wetland Enhancement results in the gain of selected wetland
function(s), but may also lead to a decline in other aquatic resource function(s).
Ver. 10/23/18 Page 23 of 41

Proposal Number: 16-007875 Vendor: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
5.3 TASKS
Task deliverables must meet the latest required report templates described in Section 2.10. Deliverable quantity,
format, and method of delivery are provided in Attachment H.
The Vendor may elect to complete Task 3 (site specific Mitigation Plan), including the requirement for financial
assurance (See FINANCIAL ASSURANCE section) prior to completion of Task 2.
Task 9 Environmental and Project Screening:
1. Conduct an on -site meeting with the IRT and DMS to discuss proposed mitigation plan and obtain concurrence
on planned work and crediting. Document and distribute site visit through notes and receive approval via
communication from IRT (e-mail or letter).
2. Follow procedure from most recent DMS and FHWA `Environmental Screening and Documentation Guidelines
for DMS Projects' for compliance with environmental laws and regulations. This screening tool and associated
documentation must be reviewed and approved by DMS and FHWA to meet categorical exclusion
requirements and demonstrate project will not have a significant environmental impact.
3. if applicable, provide a signed and dated DMS Full Delivery Landowner Authorization form prior to post -
contract site visit in accordance with USACE requirements.
4. If applicable, satisfy the public notification process in accordance with USACE requirements.
Task 2 Property:
Ste One: Prelimina Process and Review
The Vendor shall provide the following task deliverables associated with the conservation
easement(s):
Draft Conservation Easement
• Use the latest conservation easement template found on the DMS website
• The Vendor shall convey to the State of North Carolina the rights to all mitigation, including but not
limited to, stream, wetlands, riparian buffer, and nutrient offset mitigation credits derived from each
site and within the area of the conservation easement_
• The easement boundary must mimic the boundary provided within the technical proposal within
reason. Any variations must be communicated to the DMS Project Manager.
The Vendor must provide a copy of the conservation easement to the landowner, and be aware of
tax implications such as NC General Statute 105-277.4 which addresses county agricultural deferred
taxes that may be incurred at closing.
2. Preliminary Survey Plat
• All surveys shall meet the Standards of Practice for Land Surveying in North Carolina as described in
Title 21, Chapter 56, of the North Carolina Administrative Code. As such, surveys and digital files
shall be tied to the North Carolina State Plane Coordinate System NAD83 (NSRS2007).
• The survey title block shall read, "Conservation Easement Survey for the State of North Carolina,
Division of Mitigation Services." The title block shall also contain the project name, SPO number,
DMS Project number, name of the owner, location, date surveyed, scale of the drawing, name,
address, registration number and seal of the surveyor,
• A table of coordinates (northing and easting) for all property corners, numbered consecutively, must
be included on the plat. If multiple parcels comprise a single project, assign a unique number for each
property comer within the project.
• A text metes and bounds must be provided for recordation with the conservation easement.
• The Vendor shall show the following that exist within 100 feet of the easement boundary: roads or
trails, property corners, nearby easements, dwellings, roadways, streams and creeks, manholes,
poles, and right-of-ways.
• The landowner(s) or his/her legal representative must sign the recorded plat.
• Access to the easement area must be shown, with location and width depicted by a dotted line and
note on the recorded plat.
Ver. 10/23/18 Page 24 of 41

Proposal Number: 16-007875
Vendor.- Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
3. Draft attorney's report on title based on a 30-year title search with all supporting deeds and documentation
Each conservation easement conveyed must have good, marketable title free of liens and
encumbrances_
4, Title attorney's "Schedule A" with any documents describing possible exceptions to title and exhibits.
Step Two: Approval for Closing
1.SPO and DIMS will review and issue written approval to record after documents meet requirements.
2. The Vendor shall record the final approved easement and plat and obtain all necessary approvals from the
County Review Officer.
Step Three: Task 2 Payment
The Vendor will complete the six (6) listed deliverables.
1. Recorded Conservation Easement
2. Recorded Survey Plat
3. Final attorneys report on title based on 30-year search with deeds and documentation.
4 Original title insurance policy shall be forwarded to SPO immediately upon availability
5. Provide the name, address, phone number, and e-mail address (if available) of each grantor (via electronic
communication) to SPO and DMS.
6. Install survey monumentation and conduct boundary marking with the following specifications in accordance
with NCBELS:
The Vendor shall set 5/8" rebar 30" in length with 3-1/4" aluminum caps on all easement corners.
Caps shall meet DMS specifications (Berntsen RBD5325, imprinted with NC State Logo # B9087
or equivalent). After installation, caps shall be stamped with the corresponding number from the
tableof coordinates on the survey.
The Vendor shall place a 6-foot tall durable witness post at each corner in the conservation easement
boundary. Posts shall be made of material that will last a minimum of 20 years.
The Vendor shall attach a conservation easement sign to each witness post and place additional signs
at no more than 200-foot intervals on long boundary lines. When applicable, the Vendor can mark
existing trees (>3dbh) with conservation easement signs and/or blaze property lines at approximate
eye level in lieu of line posts. Where applicable, established fence posts can be used for placement
of signage.
ALLOWANCES:
1. The vendor may elect to install boundary marking during Task 6 preparation. No payment for Task 6 will be
approved prior to installation.
2. The original title insurance policy(ies) must be received prior to payment for the Task 6 deliverable.
TASK 3
Develop a site -specific Draft mitigation plan, as appropriate for each site and submit it to the DMS for review,
comment, and approval. Submit a Final Draft mitigation plan for IRT review. Submit a Final mitigation plan with PCNs
for permitting. FINANCIAL ASSURANCE is also due as part of this deliverable.
Deliverables will not be approved without the strict adherence to the current version of the DMS digital
drawing guidance.
TASK 4
Secure any necessary permits and/or certifications (i.e. Erosion and Sedimentation Control permit, etc.). Submit
applicable permits, certifications, etc. to ❑MS prior to implementation of the earthwork portion of the mitigation project.
Upon completion of earthwork, notify DMS in writing of completion date.
TASK 5
Complete planting of the mitigation site and install all monitoring devices/plots. Vegetation must be planted at least six
months before vegetation monitoring activities are conducted at the end of the growing season. Upon completion of
planting and installation of monitoring devices/plots, notify DMS in writing of completion date.
Ver: 10/23/18 Page 25 of 41

Proposal Number: 16-007875 Vendor. Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
Deliverables will not be approved without the strict adherence to the current version of the DMS digital
drawing guidance.
TASK 6
Prepare the baseline monitoring document and as -built drawings. The as -built drawings (final record of project
construction) should be submitted with the following criteria:
a. Pre -Construction Plan design
b. As -built survey (on same sheets as Pre -Construction Plan design)
C. Must bear Professional Land Surveyor (PLS) seal and/or Professional Engineer (PE) seal
where applicable
d. Annotation and corrections of the Pre -Construction Plan design
Deliverables will not be approved without strict adherence to the current version of the DMS digital drawing
guidance.
TASKS 7-13
Monitor the mitigation site as stipulated in the mitigation plan and baseline monitoring report to assess the success of
the restored site for a period of at least seven (7) years. Each annual monitoring report must be submitted to the DMS
by December 1st of the year during which the monitoring was conducted. The 71h year monitoring report (or final year
in cases where monitoring has been extended beyond 7 years) must include a closeout report that provides an
assessment of the monitoring data collected from the entire monitoring period. The Vendor must attend preparation
closeout meetings, and present the final project to the IRT in closeout office/onsite meetings.
Deliverables will not be approved without the strict adherence to the current version of the
DMS digital drawing guidance.
5.4 PAYMENT SCHEDULE AND DESCRIPTION OF MILESTONE
Project Milestones and Payment Schedule
Task
Project Milestone
Payment"
(% of Contract Value")
1
Requiatory Site Visit & Environmental Screening
5
2
Submit Recorded Conservation Easement on the Site
20
3
Mitigation Plan Final Draft and Financial Assurance
15
4
Mitigation Site Earthwork completed
15
5
Mitigation Site Planting and Installation of Monitoring Devices
10
6
Baseline Monitoring Report (including As -Built Drawings)'
10
7
Submit Monitoring Report #1 to DMS (meets success criteria*'
5
8
Submit Monitoring Report #2 to DMS (meets success criteria*)'
2
9
Submit Monitoring Report #3 to DMS(meets success criteria*)'
2
10
Submit Monitoring Report #4 to DMS (meets success criteria*)'
2
11
Submit Monitoring Report #5 to DMS (meets success criteria*)'
2
12
Submit Monitoring Report #6 to DMS meets success criteria*)'
2
13
Submit Monitoring Report #7 to DMS and complete project Close-
Out process meets success criteria*)'
10
TOTAL
100
'Vendor is only eligible for payment after DMS has approved the task/deliverable.
*If site fails to meet success criteria, as indicated in any monitoring report, payment of the monitoring task may
be made if a suitable contingency plan is submitted to and accepted by the DMS.
1 For any year, beginning with delivery of Task 6; if credits are withheld by the regulatory agencies or credits
are lost for other reasons, and deliverable payments must be adjusted, then all futureyearly payments will be
made following IRT yearly release of the credits.
Ver: 10/23/18 Page 26 of 41

Proposal Number: 16-007875 Vendor.' Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
5.5 ACCEPTANCE OF WORK
In the event acceptance criteria for any work or deliverables is not described in contract documents or work orders
hereunder, the State shall have the obligation to notify Vendor, in writing ten (10) calendar days following completion of
such work or deliverable described in the Contract that it is not acceptable. The notice shall specify in reasonable detail
the reason(s) it is unacceptable. Acceptance by the State shall not be unreasonably withheld; but may be conditioned
or delayed as required for reasonable review, evaluation, installation or testing, as applicable of the work or deliverable.
Final acceptance is expressly conditioned upon completion of all applicable assessment procedures. Should the work
or deliverables fail to meet any requirements, acceptance criteria or otherwise fail to conform to the contract, the State
may exercise any and all rights hereunder, including, for deliverables, such rights provided by the Uniform Commercial
Code as adopted in North Carolina.
6.0 CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION
6.1 PROJECT MANAGER AND CUSTOMER SERVICE
The Vendor shall designate and make available to the State a project manager. The project manager shall be the State's
point of contact for contract related issues and issues concerning performance, progress review, scheduling and service.
Vendor must complete a copy of ATTACHMENT G: Additional Vendor Information and return with bid.
6.2 DISPUTE RESOLUTION
The parties agree that it is in their mutual interest to resolve disputes informally. A claim by the Vendor shall be submitted
in writing to the State's Contract Lead for resolution. A claim by the State shall be submitted in writing to the Vendor's
Project Manager for resolution. The Parties shall negotiate in good faith and use all reasonable efforts to resolve such
dispute(s). During the time the Parties are attempting to resolve any dispute, each shall proceed diligently to perform
their respective duties and responsibilities under this Contract. If a dispute cannot be resolved between the Parties
within thirty (30) days after delivery of notice, either Party may elect to exercise any other remedies available under this
Contract, or at law. This term shall not constitute an agreement by either party to mediate or arbitrate any dispute
6.3 CONTRACT CHANGES
Contract changes, if any, over the life of the contract shall be implemented by contract amendments agreed to in writing
by the State and Vendor.
6.4 CONTRACT ADMINISTRATOR
Kristie Corson is designated as the contract administrator for the Department for the purposes of this RFP.
Ver: 10123M 8 Page 27 of 41

Proposal Number: 16-007875 Vendor. Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
ATTACHMENT A: PRICING
RFP #: 16-007875
RFP TITLE: Full Delivery Projects to provide Stream Mitigation Credits within the Cataloging Emit
03050101 of the Catawba River Basin as described in the Scope of Work
A Separate Sealed Cost Proposal Is Required For Each Proposed Site And For Each Option Proposed For A
Site.
Vendor must list on the front of each sealed cost proposal envelope, the Site Name/Location and
Option Number (if Applicable) Must be Indicated
All costs related to the mitigation offered must be included in this SEALED COST PROPOSAL. No
additional charges for travel, per diem, or cost of any services will be allowed. Cost will be a major factor
in the selection of proposals. ALL Sealed Cost Proposals will be compared to mitigation cost data
maintained by the NCDMS.
SITE NAME (See Separate Sealed Envelope with Cost Proposal)
OPTION
PROPOSED COST
TOTAL CREDITS
COST ($1CREDIT)
AL COSTS
GRAND TOTAL: NIA
Optional Riparian Wetland Credit Cost ($/Credit)
NIA
Printed Name of Authorized Representative
NIA
Company Name (Printed)
STREAM
NIA
Signature of Authorized Representative
NIA
Date
Ver: 10/23/18 Page 28 of 41

Proposal Number: 16-007875 Vendor.- Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
ATTACHMENT B: INSTRUCTIONS TO VENDORS
1. READ, REVIEW AND COMPLY: It shall be the Vendor's responsibility to read this entire document, review all
enclosures and attachments, and any addenda thereto, and comply with all requirements specified herein,
regardless of whether appearing in these Instructions to Vendors or elsewhere in this RFP document.
2. LATE PROPOSALS: Late proposals, regardless of cause, will not be opened or considered, and will automatically
be disqualified from further consideration. It shall be the Vendor's sole responsibility to ensure the timely submission
of proposals.
3. ACCEPTANCE AND REJECTION: The State reserves the right to reject any and all proposals, to waive any
informality in proposals and, unless otherwise specified by the Vendor, to accept any item in the proposal.
4. BASIS FOR REJECTION: Pursuant to 01 NCAC 05B .0501, the State reserves the right to reject any and all offers,
in whole or in part, by deeming the offer unsatisfactory as to quality or quantity, delivery, price or service offered,
non-compliance with the requirements or intent of this solicitation, lack of competitiveness, error(s) in specifications
or indications that revision would be advantageous to the State, cancellation or other changes in the intended project
or any other determination that the proposed requirement is no longer needed, limitation or lack of available funds,
circumstances that prevent determination of the best offer, or any other determination that rejection would be in the
best interest of the State.
5. EXECUTION, Failure to execute page 1 of the RFP (Execution Page) in the designated space shall render the
proposal non -responsive, and it will be rejected.
6. ORDER OF PRECEDENCE: In cases of conflict between specific provisions in this solicitation or those in any
resulting contract documents, the order of precedence shall be (high to low) (1) any special terms and conditions
specific to this RFP, including any negotiated terms; (2) requirements and specifications and administration
provisions in Sections 4, 5 and 6 of this RFP; (3) North Carolina General Contract Terms and Conditions in
ATTACHMENT C: NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL CONTRACT TERMS AND CONDITIONS; (4) Instructions in
ATTACHMENT B: INSTRUCTIONS TO VENDORS; (5) ATTACHMENT A: PRICING, and (6) Vendor's proposal.
7. INFORMATION AND DESCRIPTIVE LITERATURE: Vendor shall furnish all information requested in the spaces
provided in this document. Further, if required elsewhere in this proposal, each Vendor shall submit with its proposal
any sketches, descriptive literature and/or complete specifications covering the products and Services offered.
Reference to literature submitted with a previous proposal or available elsewhere will not satisfy this provision.
Failure to comply with these requirements shall constitute sufficient cause to reject a proposal without further
consideration.
RECYCLING AND SOURCE REDUCTION: It is the policy of the State to encourage and promote the purchase of
products with recycled content to the extent economically practicable, and to purchase items which are reusable,
refillable, repairable, more durable and less toxic to the extent that the purchase or use is practicable and cost-
effective. We also encourage and promote using minimal packaging and the use of recycled/recyclable products in
the packaging of commodities purchased. However, no sacrifice in quality of packaging will be acceptable. The
Vendor remains responsible for providing packaging that will adequately protect the commodity and contain it for its
intended use. Vendors are strongly urged to bring to the attention of purchasers those products or packaging they
offer which have recycled content and that are recyclable.
9. CERTIFICATE TO TRANSACT BUSINESS IN NORTH CAROLINA: As a condition of contract award, each out -of -
State Vendor that is a corporation, limited -liability company or limited -liability partnership shall have received, and
shall maintain throughout the term of The Contract, a Certificate of Authority to Transact Business in North Carolina
from the North Carolina Secretary of State, as required by North Carolina law. A State contract requiring only an
isolated transaction completed within a period of six months, and not in the course of a number of repeated
transactions of like nature, shall not be considered as transacting business in North Carolina and shall not require a
Certificate of Authority to Transact Business.
10. SUSTAINABILITY: To support the sustainability efforts of the State of North Carolina we solicit your cooperation
in this effort. Pursuant to Executive Order 156 (1999), it is desirable that all print responses submitted meet the
Ver: 10/23/18 Page 29 of 41

Proposal Number; 16-007875 Vendor: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
following:
• All copies of the proposal are printed double sided.
• All submittals and copies are printed on recycled paper with a minimum post -consumer content of 30%.
• Unless absolutely necessary, all proposals and copies should minimize or eliminate use of non -recyclable or
non -reusable materials such as plastic report covers, plastic dividers, vinyl sleeves, and GBC binding. Three -
ringed binders, glued materials, paper clips, and staples are acceptable.
• Materials should be submitted in a format which allows for easy removal, filing and/or recycling of paper and
binder materials. Use of oversized paper is strongly discouraged unless necessary for clarity or legibility.
11. HISTORICALLY UNDERUTILIZED BUSINESSES: The State is committed to retaining Vendors from diverse
backgrounds, and it invites and encourages participation in the procurement process by businesses owned by
minorities, women, disabled, disabled business enterprises and non-profit work centers for the blind and severely
disabled. In particular, the State encourages participation by Vendors certified by the State Office of Historically
Underutilized Businesses, as well as the use of HUB -certified vendors as subcontractors on State contracts.
12. RECIPROCAL PREFERENCE: G.S. 143-59 establishes a reciprocal preference requirement to discourage other
states from favoring their own resident Vendors by applying a percentage increase to the price of any proposal from
a North Carolina resident Vendor. To the extent another state does so, North Carolina applies the same percentage
increase to the proposal of a vendor resident in that state. Residency is determined by a Vendor's "Principal Place
of Business," defined as that principal place from which the overall trade or business of the Vendor is directed or
managed.
13. INELIGIBLE VENDORS: As provided in G.S. 147-86.59 and G.S. 147-86.82, the following companies are
ineligible to contract with the State of North Carolina or any political subdivision of the State: a) any company
identified as engaging in investment activities in Iran, as determined by appearing on the Final Divestment List
created by the State Treasurer pursuant to G.S. 147-86.58, and b) any company identified as engaged in a boycott
of Israel as determined by appearing on the List of restricted companies created by the State Treasurer pursuant
to G.S. 147-86.81. A contract with the State or any of its political subdivisions by any company identified in a) or b)
above shall be void ab inifio.
14. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION: To the extent permitted by applicable statutes and rules, the State will maintain
as confidential trade secrets in its proposal that the Vendor does not wish disclosed. As a condition to confidential
treatment, each page containing trade secret information shall be identified in boldface at the top and bottom as
"CONFIDENTIAL" by the Vendor, with specific trade secret information enclosed in boxes, marked in a distinctive
color or by similar indication. Cost information shall not be deemed confidential under any circumstances.
Regardless of what a Vendor may label as a trade secret, the determination whether it is or is not entitled to protection
will be determined in accordance with G.S. 132-1.2. Any material labeled as confidential constitutes a representation
by the Vendor that it has made a reasonable effort in good faith to determine that such material is, in fact, a trade
secret under G.S. 132-1.2. Vendors are urged and cautioned to limit the marking of information as a trade secret or
as confidential so far as is possible. If a legal action is brought to require the disclosure of any material so marked
as confidential, the State will notify Vendor of such action and allow Vendor to defend the confidential status of its
information.
15. PROTEST PROCEDURES: When a Vendor wishes to protest the award of The Contract awarded by the Division
of Purchase and Contract, or awarded by an agency in an awarded amount of at least $25,000, a Vendor shall
submit a written request addressed to the State Purchasing Officer at: Division of Purchase and Contract, 1305 Mail
Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1305. A protest request related to an award amount of less than $25,000 shall
be sent to the purchasing officer of the agency that issued the award. The protest request must be received in the
proper office within thirty (30) consecutive calendar days from the date of the Contract award. Protest letters shall
contain specific grounds and reasons for the protest, how the protesting party was harmed by the award made and
any documentation providing support for the protesting party's claims. Note: Contract award notices are sent only
to the Vendor actually awarded the Contract, and not to every person or firm responding to a solicitation. Proposal
status and Award notices are posted on the Internet at https://www.iDs.state.nc.ustips . All protests will be handled
pursuant to the North Carolina Administrative Code, 01 NCAC 05B .1519.
Ver, 10/23/18 Page 30 of 41

Proposal Number: 16-007875 Vendor. Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
16. MISCELLANEOUS: Any gender -specific pronouns used herein, whether masculine or feminine, shall be read and
construed as gender neutral, and the singular of any word or phrase shall be read to include the plural and vice
versa.
17. COMMUNICATIONS BY VENDORS: In submitting its proposal, the Vendor agrees not to discuss or otherwise
reveal the contents of its proposal to any source, government or private, outside of the using or issuing agency until
after the award of the Contract or cancellation of this RFP. All Vendors are forbidden from having any
communications with the using or issuing agency, or any other representative of the State concerning the solicitation,
during the evaluation of the proposals (i.e., after the public opening of the proposals and before the award of the
Contract), unless the State directly contacts the Vendor(s) for purposes of seeking clarification or another reason
permitted by the solicitation. A Vendor shall not: (a) transmit to the issuing and/or using agency any information
commenting on the ability or qualifications of any other Vendor to provide the advertised good, equipment,
commodity; (b) identify defects, errors and/or omissions in any other Vendor's proposal and/or prices at any time
during the procurement process; and/or (c) engage in or attempt any other communication or conduct that could
influence the evaluation or award of a Contract related to this RFP. Failure to comply with this requirement shall
constitute sufficient justification to disqualify a Vendor from a Contract award. Only those communications with the
using agency or issuing agency authorized by this RFP are permitted.
18. TABULATIONS: Bid tabulations can be electronically retrieved at the Interactive Purchasing System (IPS),
httpsYlwww.ips.state.nc.us/ips/BidNumberSearch.asox. Click on the IPS BIDS icon, click on Search for Bid, enter
the bid number, and then search. Tabulations will normally be available at this web site not later than one working
day after the bid opening. Lengthy or complex tabulations may be summarized, with other details not made available
on IPS, and requests for additional details or information concerning such tabulations cannot be honored.
19. VENDOR REGISTRATION AND SOLICITATION NOTIFICATION SYSTEM: The North Carolina electronic Vendor
Portal (eVP) allows Vendors to electronically register for free with the State to receive electronic notification of current
procurement opportunities for goods and Services of potential interests to them available on the Interactive
Purchasing System, as well as notifications of status changes to those solicitations. Online registration and other
purchasing information is available at the following website: http:/Incadmin.nc.aov/about-doa/divisions/purchase-
contract.
20. WITHDRAWAL OF PROPOSAL: Proposals that have been delivered by hand, U.S. Postal Service, courier or other
delivery service may be withdrawn only in writing and if receipt is acknowledged by the office issuing the RFP prior
to the time for opening proposals identified on the cover page of this RFP (or such later date included in an
Addendum to the RFP). Written withdrawal requests shall be submitted on the Vendor's letterhead and signed by
an official of the Vendor authorized to make such request. Any withdrawal request made after the opening of
proposals shall be allowed only for good cause shown and in the sole discretion of the Division of Purchase and
Contract.
21. INFORMAL COMMENTS: The State shall not be bound by informal explanations, instructions or information
given at any time by anyone on behalf of the State during the competitive process or after award. The State is
bound only by information provided in writing in this RFP and in formal Addenda issued through IPS.
22. COST FOR PROPOSAL PREPARATION: Any costs incurred by Vendor in preparing or submitting offers are the
Vendor's sole responsibility; the State of North Carolina will not reimburse any Vendor for any costs incurred or
associated with the preparation of proposals.
23. VENDOR'S REPRESENTATIVE: Each Vendor shall submit with its proposal the name, address, and telephone
number of the person(s) with authority to bind the firm and answer questions or provide clarification concerning the
firm's proposal.
24. INSPECTION AT VENDOR'S SITE: The State reserves the right to inspect, at a reasonable time, the equipment,
item, plant or other facilities of a prospective Vendor prior to Contract award, and during the Contract term as
necessary for the State's determination that such equipment, item, plant or other facilities conform with the
specifications/requirements and are adequate and suitable for the proper and effective performance of the Contract.
Ver: 10123/18 Page 31 of 41

Proposal Number: 16-007875 Vendor: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
ATTACHMENT C: NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL CONTRACT TERMS & CONDITIONS
1. PERFORMANCE AND DEFAULT:
a) It is anticipated that the tasks and duties undertaken by the Vendor shall include services or the
manufacturing, furnishing, or development of goods and other tangible features or components as
deliverables that are directly correlated and/or ancillary to the services performed. Except as provided
immediately below, and unless otherwise mutually agreed in writing prior to award, any service deliverables
or ancillary services provided by Vendor in performance of the contract shall remain property of the State.
During performance, Vendor may provide proprietary components as part of the service deliverables that
are identified in the solicitation response. Vendor grants the State a personal, permanent, non -transferable
license to use such proprietary components of the service deliverables and other functional ities, as provided
under this Agreement. Any technical and business information owned by Vendor or its suppliers or licensors
made accessible or furnished to the State shall be and remain the property of the Vendor or such other
party, respectively. Vendor agrees to perform its services under the contract in the same or similar manner
provided to comparable users. The State shall notify the Vendor of any defects or deficiencies in
performance of its services or failure of service deliverables to conform to the standards and specifications
provided in this solicitation. Vendor agrees to remedy defective performance or any nonconforming
deliverables upon timely notice provided by the State.
b) Vendor has a limited, non-exclusive license to access and use State Data provided to Vendor, but solely for
performing its obligations under this Agreement and in confidence as may be further provided herein. Vendor
or its suppliers shall at a minimum, and except as otherwise specified and agreed herein, provide assistance
to the State related to all services performed or deliverables procured hereunder during the State's normal
business hours. Vendor warrants that its support, customer service, and assistance will be performed in
accordance with generally accepted and applicable industry standards.
c) If, through any cause, Vendor shall fail to fulfill in a timely and proper manner the obligations under The
Contract, the State shall have the right to terminate The Contract by giving written notice to the Vendor and
specifying the effective date thereof In that event and subject to all other provisions of this contract, all
finished or unfinished deliverable items under this contract prepared by the Vendor shall, at the option of the
State, become its property, and the Vendor shall be entitled to receive compensation for units actually
produced, if any, in an amount determined by reducing the total amount due had the full number of Units
been produced pro rata, such that the ratio of the final compensation actually paid to the original total amount
due in accordance with Attachment A (as amended, if applicable) is equal to the ratio of the Units actually
generated to the total Units identified in Attachment A.
d) In the event of default by the Vendor, the State may procure the goods and services necessary to complete
performance hereunder from other sources and hold the Vendor responsible for any excess cost occasioned
thereby. In addition, in the event of default by the Vendor under The Contract, or upon the Vendor filing a
petition for bankruptcy or the entering of a judgment of bankruptcy by or against the Vendor, the State may
immediately cease doing business with the Vendor, immediately terminate The Contract for cause, and may
take action to debar the Vendor from doing future business with the State.
2. GOVERNMENTAL RESTRICTIONS: In the event any Governmental restrictions are imposed which necessitate
alteration of the goods, material, quality, workmanship or performance of the Services offered prior to acceptance,
it shall be the responsibility of the Vendor to notify the Contract Lead at once, in writing, indicating the specific
regulation which required such alterations. The State reserves the right to accept any such alterations, including any
price adjustments occasioned thereby, or to cancel the Contract.
3. AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS: Any and all payments to the Vendor shall be dependent upon and subject to the
availability of funds to the agency for the purpose set forth in The Contract.
4. TAXES: Any applicable taxes shall be invoiced as a separate item.
a) G.S. 143-59.1 bars the Secretary of Administration from entering into Contracts with Vendors if the Vendor
or its affiliates meet one of the conditions of G.S. 105-164.8(b) and refuses to collect use tax on sales of
tangible personal property to purchasers in North Carolina. Conditions under G.S. 105-164.8(b) include: (1)
Ver: 10/23/18 Page 32 of 41

Proposal Number: 16-007875
Vendor.- Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
Maintenance of a retail establishment or office, (2) Presence of representatives in the State that solicit sales
or transact business on behalf of the Vendor and (3) Systematic exploitation of the market by media -
assisted, media -facilitated, or media -solicited means. By execution of the proposal document the Vendor
certifies that it and all of its affiliates, (if it has affiliates), collect(s) the appropriate taxes.
b) The agency(ies) participating in The Contract are exempt from Federal Taxes, such as excise and
transportation. Exemption forms submitted by the Vendor will be executed and returned by the using agency.
c) Prices offered are not to include any personal property taxes, nor any sales or use tax (or fees) unless
required by the North Carolina Department of Revenue.
5. SITUS AND GOVERNING LAWS: This Contract is made under and shall be governed and construed in accordance
with the laws of the State of North Carolina, without regard to its conflict of laws rules, and within which State all
matters, whether sounding in Contract or tort or otherwise, relating to its validity, construction, interpretation and
enforcement shall be determined.
S. PAYMENT TERMS: Payment terms are Net not later than 30 days after receipt of a correct invoice or acceptance
of goods, whichever is later. The using agency is responsible for all payments to the Vendor under the Contract.
Payment by some agencies may be made by procurement card, if the Vendor accepts that card (Visa, MasterCard,
etc.) from other customers, and it shall be accepted by the Vendor for payment under the same terms and conditions
as any other method of payment accepted by the Vendor. If payment is made by procurement card, then payment
may be processed immediately by the Vendor.
7. AFFIRMATIVE ACTION: The Vendor will take affirmative action in complying with all Federal and State
requirements concerning fair employment and employment of people with disabilities and concerning the treatment
of all employees without regard to discrimination on the basis of any prohibited grounds as defined by Federal and
State law.
8. CONDITION AND PACKAGING: Unless otherwise provided by special terms and conditions or specifications, it is
understood and agreed that any item offered or shipped has not been sold or used for any purpose and shall be in
first class condition. All containers/packaging shall be suitable for handling, storage or shipment.
9. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY WARRANTY AND INDEMNITY: Vendor shall hold and save the State, its officers,
agents and employees, harmless from liability of any kind, including costs and expenses, resulting from infringement
of the rights of any third party in any copyrighted material, patented or patent -pending invention, article, device or
appliance delivered in connection with The Contract.
a. Vendor warrants to the best of its knowledge that:
i. Performance under The Contract does not infringe upon any intellectual property rights of any
third party; and
ii. There are no actual or threatened actions arising from, or alleged under, any intellectual property
rights of any third party;
h Should any deliverables supplied by Vendor become the subject of a claim of infringement of a patent,
copyright, trademark or a trade secret in the United States, the Vendor, shall at its option and expense,
either procure for the State the right to continue using the deliverables, or replace or modify the same to
become non -infringing. If neither of these options can reasonably be taken in Vendor's judgment, or if
further use shall be prevented by injunction, the Vendor agrees to cease provision of any affected
deliverables and refund any sums the State has paid Vendor and make every reasonable effort to assist
the State in procuring substitute deliverables. If, in the sole opinion of the State, the cessation of use by
the State of any such deliverables due to infringement issues makes the retention of other items acquired
from the Vendor under this Agreement impractical, the State shall then have the option of terminating the
Agreement, or applicable portions thereof, without penalty or termination charge; and Vendor agrees to
refund any sums the State paid for unused Services or Deliverables.
c. The Vendor, at its own expense, shall defend any action brought against the State to the extent that such
action is based upon a claim that the deliverables supplied by the Vendor, their use or operation, infringes
on a patent, copyright, trademark or violates a trade secret in the United States. The Vendor shall pay
those costs and damages finally awarded or agreed in a settlement against the State in any such action.
Such defense and payment shall be conditioned on the following:
i. That the Vendor shall be notified within a reasonable time in writing by the State of any such
claim; and
Ver: 10/23/18 Page 33 of 41

Proposal Number: 16-007875 Vendor. Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
ii. That the Vendor shall have the sole control of the defense of any action on such claim and all
negotiations for its settlement or compromise provided, however, that the State shall have the
option to participate in such action at its own expense.
Vendor will not be required to defend or indemnify the State if any claim by a third party against the State
for infringement or misappropriation results from the State's material alteration of any Vendor -branded
deliverables or services, or from the continued use of the deliverable(s) or Services after receiving notice
of infringement on a trade secret of a third party.
10. TERMINATION FOR CONVENIENCE: If this contract contemplates deliveries or performance over a period of time,
the State may terminate this contract at any time by providing 60 days' notice in writing from the State to the Vendor.
In that event, any or all finished or unfinished deliverables prepared by the Vendor under this contract shall, at the
option of the State, become its property. If the contract is terminated by the State as provided in this section, the
State shall pay for those items for which such option is exercised, less any payment or compensation previously
made.
11. ADVERTISING: Vendor agrees not to use the existence of The Contract or the name of the State of North Carolina
as part of any commercial advertising or marketing of products or Services. A Vendor may inquire whether the State
is willing to act as a reference by providing factual information directly to other prospective customers.
12. ACCESS TO PERSONS AND RECORDS: During and after the term hereof, the State Auditor and any using
agency's internal auditors shall have access to persons and records related to The Contract to verify accounts and
data affecting fees or performance under the Contract, as provided in G.S. 1.43-49(9).
13. ASSIGNMENT: No assignment of the Vendor's obligations nor the Vendor's right to receive payment hereunder
shall be permitted.
However, upon written request approved by the issuing purchasing authority and solely as a convenience to the
Vendor, the State may:
a) Forward the Vendor's payment check directly to any person or entity designated by the Vendor, and
b) Include any person or entity designated by Vendor as a joint payee on the Vendor's payment check.
In no event shall such approval and action obligate the State to anyone other than the Vendor and the Vendor shall
remain responsible for fulfillment of all Contract obligations. Upon advance written request, the State may, in its
unfettered discretion, approve an assignment to the surviving entity of a merger, acquisition or corporate
reorganization, if made as part of the transfer of all or substantially all of the Vendor's assets. Any purported
assignment made in violation of this provision shall be void and a material breach of The Contract.
14. INSURANCE:
COVERAGE - During the term of the Contract, the Vendor at its sole cost and expense shall provide commercial
insurance of such type and with such terms and limits as may be reasonably associated with the Contract. As a
minimum, the Vendor shall provide and maintain the following coverage and limits:
a) Worker's Compensation - The Vendor shall provide and maintain Worker's Compensation Insurance, as
required by the laws of North Carolina, as well as employer's liability coverage with minimum limits of $500,000.00,
covering all of Vendor's employees who are engaged in any work under the Contract in North Carolina. If any work
is sub -contracted, the Vendor shall require the sub -Contractor to provide the same coverage for any of his employees
engaged in any work under the Contract within the State.
b) Commercial General Liability - General Liability Coverage on a Comprehensive Broad Form on an
occurrence basis in the minimum amount of $1,000,000.00 Combined Single Limit. Defense cost shall be in excess
of the limit of liability.
c) Automobile - Automobile Liability Insurance, to include liability coverage, covering all owned, hired and non -
owned vehicles, used within North Carolina in connection with the Contract. The minimum combined single limit
shall be $250,000.00 bodily injury and property damage; $250,000.00 uninsured/under insured motorist; and
$2,500.00 medical payment.
REQUIREMENTS - Providing and maintaining adequate insurance coverage is a material obligation of the Vendor
and is of the essence of The Contract. All such insurance shall meet all laws of the State of North Carolina. Such
Ver: 1 D123118 Page 34 of 41

Proposal Number: 16-007875 Vendor. Michael Baker Engineering, Inc,
insurance coverage shall be obtained from companies that are authorized to provide such coverage and that are
authorized by the Commissioner of Insurance to do business in North Carolina. The Vendor shall at all times comply
with the terms of such insurance policies, and all requirements of the insurer under any such insurance policies,
except as they may conflict with existing North Carolina laws or The Contract. The limits of coverage under each
insurance policy maintained by the Vendor shall not be interpreted as limiting the Vendor's liability and obligations
under the Contract.
15. GENERAL INDEMNITY: The Vendor shall hold and save the State, its officers, agents, and employees, harmless
from liability of any kind, including all claims and losses accruing or resulting to any other person, firm, or corporation
furnishing or supplying work, Services, materials, or supplies in connection with the performance of The Contract,
and from any and all claims and losses accruing or resulting to any person, firm, or corporation that may be injured
or damaged by the Vendor in the performance of The Contract and that are attributable to the negligence or
intentionally tortious acts of the Vendor provided that the Vendor is notified in writing within 30 days from the date
that the State has knowledge of such claims. The Vendor represents and warrants that it shall make no claim of any
kind or nature against the State's agents who are involved in the delivery or processing of Vendor deliverables or
Services to the State. The representation and warranty in the preceding sentence shall survive the termination or
expiration of The Contract.
16. ELECTRONIC PROCUREMENT:
a) Purchasing shall be conducted through the Statewide E-Procurement Service, The State's third -party agent shall
serve as the Supplier Manager for this E-Procurement Service. The Vendor shall register for the Statewide E-
Procurement Service within two (2) business days of notification of award in order to receive an electronic purchase
order resulting from award of this contract.
b) THE SUCCESSFUL BIDDER(S) SHALL PAY A TRANSACTION FEE OF 1.75% (.0175) ON THE TOTAL
DOLLAR AMOUNT (EXCLUDING SALES TAXES) OF ALL GOODS INCLUDED ON EACH PURCHASE ORDER
ISSUED THROUGH THE STATEWIDE &PROCUREMENT SERVICE. This applies to all purchase orders, regardless
of the quantity or dollar amount of the purchase order. The transaction fee shall not be stated or included as a separate
item on the invoice. There are no additional fees or charges to the Vendor for the services rendered by the Supplier
Manager under this contract. Vendor will receive a credit for transaction fees they paid for the purchase of any item(s)
if an item(s) is returned through no fault of the Vendor. Transaction fees are non-refundable when an item is rejected
and returned, or declined, due to the Vendor's failure to perform or comply with specifications or requirements of the
contract.
c) Vendor or its Authorized Reseller, as applicable, will be invoiced monthly for the State's transaction fee by the Supplier
Manager. The transaction fee shall be based on a) purchase activity for the prior month, or b) purchases for which the
supplier invoice has been paid. Unless Supplier Manager receives written notice from the Vendor identifying with
specificity any errors in an invoice for the transaction fee within thirty (30) days of the receipt of invoice, such invoice
shall be deemed to be correct and Vendor shall have waived its right to later dispute the accuracy and completeness of
the invoice. Payment of the transaction fee by the Vendor is due to the account designated by the State within thirty
(30) days after receipt of the invoice for the transaction fee. If payment of the transaction fee is not received by the State
within this payment period, it shall be considered a material breach of contract. Pursuant to G.S. 147-86.23, the Service
will charge interest and late payment penalties on past due balances. Interest shall be charged at the rate set by the
Secretary of Revenue pursuant to G.S. 105-241.21 as of the date the balances are past due. The late -payment penalty
will be ten percent (10%) of the account receivable. Within thirty (30) days of the receipt of invoice, Vendor may dispute
in writing the accuracy of an invoice. No interest shall be charged on disputed and overdue amounts to the extent the
State agrees to reduce or adjust the amount in dispute. The Supplier Manager shall provide, whenever reasonably
requested by the Vendor in writing (including electronic documents), supporting documentation from the E-Procurement
Service that accounts for the amount of the invoice.
d) The Supplier Manager will capture the order from the State approved user, including the shipping and payment
information, and submit the order in accordance with the E-Procurement Service. Subsequently, the Supplier Manager
will send those orders to the appropriate Vendor on State Contract. The State or State -approved user, not the Supplier
Manager, shall be responsible for the solicitation, bids received, evaluation of bids received, award of contract, and the
payment for goods delivered.
e) Vendor shall at all times maintain the confidentiality of its user name and password for the Statewide E-Procurement
Ver, 10123/18 Page 35 of 41

Proposal Number: 16-007875
Vendor: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
Services. If Vendor is a corporation, partnership or other legal entity, then the Vendor may authorize its employees to
use its password. Vendor shall be responsible for all activity and all charges by such employees. Vendor agrees not to
permit a third party to use the Statewide E-Procurement Services through its account. If there is a breach of security
through the Vendor's account, Vendor shall immediately change its password and notify the Supplier Manager of the
security breach by email. Vendor shall cooperate with the State and the Supplier Manager to mitigate and correct any
security breach.
17. SUBCONTRACTING: Performance under The Contract by the Vendor shall not be subcontracted without prior
written approval of the State's assigned Contract Lead. Unless otherwise agreed in writing, acceptance of a Vendor's
proposal shall include approval to use the subcontractor(s) that have been specified therein.
18. CONFIDENTIALITY: Any State information, data, instruments, documents, studies or reports given to or prepared
or assembled by or provided to the Vendor under The Contract shall be kept as confidential, used only for the
purpose(s) required to perform The Contract and not divulged or made available to any individual or organization
without the prior written approval of the State.
19. CARE OF STATE DATA AND PROPERTY: The Vendor agrees that it shall be responsible for the proper custody
and care of any data owned and furnished to the Vendor by the State (State Data), or other State property in the
hands of the Vendor, for use in connection with the performance of The Contract or purchased by or for the State
for The Contract. Vendor will reimburse the State for loss or damage of such property while in Vendor's custody.
The State's Data in the hands of the Vendor shall be protected from unauthorized disclosure, loss, damage,
destruction by a natural event or other eventuality. Such State Data shall be returned to the State in a form acceptable
to the State upon the termination or expiration of this Agreement. The Vendor shall notify the State of any security
breaches within 24 hours as required by G.S. 143E-1379. See G.S. 75-60 et seq.
20. OUTSOURCING: Any Vendor or subcontractor providing call or contact center services to the State of North
Carolina or any of its agencies shall disclose to inbound callers the location from which the call or contact center
services are being provided.
If, after award of a contract, the contractor wishes to relocate or outsource any portion of performance to a location
outside the United States, or to contract with a subcontractor for any such performance, which subcontractor and
nature of the work has not previously been disclosed to the State in writing, prior written approval must be obtained
from the State agency responsible for the contract.
Vendor shall give notice to the using agency of any relocation of the Vendor, employees of the Vendor,
subcontractors of the Vendor, or other persons providing performance under a State contract to a location outside
of the United States.
21. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS: Vendor shall comply with all laws, ordinances, codes, rules, regulations, and
licensing requirements that are applicable to the conduct of its business and its performance in accordance with
The Contract, including those of federal, state, and local agencies having jurisdiction and/or authority.
22. ENTIRE AGREEMENT: This RFP and any documents incorporated specifically by reference represent the entire
agreement between the parties and supersede all prior oral or written statements or agreements. This RFP, any
addenda hereto, and the Vendor's proposal are incorporated herein by reference as though set forth verbatim.
All promises, requirements, terms, conditions, provisions, representations, guarantees, and warranties contained
herein shall survive the contract expiration or termination date unless specifically provided otherwise herein, or
unless superseded by applicable Federal or State statutes of limitation.
23. ELECTRONIC RECORDS: The State will digitize all Vendor responses to this solicitation, if not received
electronically, as well as any awarded contract together with associated procurement -related documents. These
electronic copies shall constitute a preservation record and shall serve as the official record of this procurement
with the same force and effect as the original written documents comprising such record. Any electronic copy,
printout or other output readable by sight shown to reflect such record accurately shall constitute an "original."
24. AMENDMENTS: This Contract may be amended only by a written amendment duly executed by the State and the
Vendor.
Ver: 1012118 Page 36 of 41

Proposal Number: 16-007875 Vendor. Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
25. NO WAIVER: Notwithstanding any other language or provision in The Contract, nothing herein is intended nor
shall be interpreted as a waiver of any right or remedy otherwise available to the State under applicable law. The
waiver by the State of any right or remedy on any one occasion or instance shall not constitute or be interpreted
as a waiver of that or any other right or remedy on any other occasion or instance.
26. FORCE MAJEURE: Neither party shall be deemed to be in default of its obligations hereunder if and so long as it
is prevented from performing such obligations as a result of events beyond its reasonable control, including without
limitation, fire, power failures, any act of war, hostile foreign action, nuclear explosion, riot, strikes or failures or
refusals to perform under subcontracts, civil insurrection, earthquake, hurricane, tornado, or other catastrophic
natural event or act of God.
27. SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY: Notwithstanding any other term or provision in The Contract, nothing herein is intended
nor shall be interpreted as waiving any claim or defense based on the principle of sovereign immunity or other State
or federal constitutional provision or principle that otherwise would be available to the State under applicable law.
Ver: 10/23/18 Page 37 of 41

Proposal Number: 16-007875
Vendor.- Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
ATTACHMENT D: LOCATION OF WORKERS UTILIZED BY VENDOR
In accordance with NC General Statute 143-59.4, the Vendor shall detail the location(s) at which performance will occur,
as well as the manner in which it intends to utilize resources or workers outside of the United States in the performance
of this Contract. The State will evaluate the additional risks, costs, and other factors associated with such utilization prior
to making an award. Please complete items a, b, and c below.
a) Will any work under this Contract be performed outside the United States? ❑ YES ® NO
If the Vendor answered "YES" above, Vendor must complete items 1 and 2 below:
List the location(s) outside the United States where work under this Contract will be performed by the Vendor,
any sub -Contractors, employees, or other persons performing work under the Contract:
2. Describe the corporate structure and location of corporate employees and activities of the Vendor, its affiliates
or any other sub -Contractors that will perform work outside the U.S.:
b) The Vendor agrees to provide notice, in writing to the State, of the relocation of the
Vendor, employees of the Vendor, sub -Contractors of the Vendor, or other persons ® YES ❑ NO
performing services under the Contract outside of the United States
NOTE: All Vendor or sub -Contractor personnel providing call or contact center services to
the State of North Carolina under the Contract shall disclose to inbound callers the
location from which the call or contact center services are being provided.
c) Identiait U.S. locations at whim performance will occur: Cary, Asheville, Greensboro and Charlotte, NC, US
Ver: 10/23/18 Page 38 of 41

Proposal Number: 16-007875 Vendor: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
ATTACHMENT E: CERTIFICATION OF FINANCIAL CONDITION
Name of Vendor.
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
The undersigned hereby certifies that: [check all applicable boxes]
® The Vendor is in sound financial condition and, if applicable, has received an unqualified audit opinion for the
latest audit of its financial statements.
Date of latest audit: December 2018
® The Vendor has no outstanding liabilities, including tax and judgment liens, to the Internal Revenue Service or
any other government entity.
® The Vendor is current in all amounts due for payments of federal and state taxes and required employment -
related contributions and withholdings.
® The Vendor is not the subject of any current litigation or findings of noncompliance under federal or state law.
® The Vendor has not been the subject of any past or current litigation, findings in any past litigation, or findings
of noncompliance under federal or state law that may impact in any way its ability to fulfill the requirements of
this Contract.
© He or she is authorized to make the foregoing statements on behalf of the Vendor.
Note: This is a continuing certification and Vendor shall notify the Contract Lead within 15 days of any material
change to any of the representations made herein.
If any one or more of the foregoing boxes is NOT checked, Vendor shall explain the reason in the space below:
Signature
-71 It, ?(--)f
Date
Dwain G. Hathaway, PE Vice President 1 Office Executive
Printed Name Title
[This Certification must be signed by an individual authorized to speak for the Vendor]
Ver: 10/23/18 Page 39 of 41

Proposal Number: 16-007875
Vendor: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
ATTACHMENT F: SUPPLEMENTAL VENDOR INFORMATION
HISTORICALLY UNDERUTILIZED BUSINESSES
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. 14313-1361(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 subcontractors to perform the required
functions in this RFP. Any questions concerning NC HUB certification, contact the North Carolina Office of Historical)
Underutilized Businesses at [phone]. The Vendor shall respond to question #1 and #2 below.
a) Is Vendor a Historically Underutilized Business? ❑ Yes ® No
b) Is Vendor Certified with North Carolina as a Historically Underutilized Business? ❑ Yes ® No
If so, state HUB classification:
Ver: 10/23/18 Page 40 of 41

Proposal Number: 16-007875
Vendor Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
ATTACHMENT G: VENDOR'S INFORMATION
Vendors Primary Contact (or Project Manager)
Name:
Kathleen (Katie) McKeithan, PE, CPESC, CPSWQ, CFM
Agency:
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
Title:
Ecosystem Restoration Manager
Address:
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
City:
Cary
State/ Zip: NC
27518
Telephone:
919-481-5703
Fax: [phone]
Email:
katie. mckeithanmbakerintl.com
Vendors Execution Address (Where the contract should be mailed forsignature)
Name:
Dwain G. Hathaway, PE
Agency:
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
Title:
North Carolina Office Executive/Vice President
Address:
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
City:
Cary
State/ Zip: NC
27518
Telephone:
919481-5702
Fax: [phone]
Email:
[e-mail]
Vendors Payment (Remit To) Address (Where the checks should be mailed
(This address should agree with the "Remit -To" address associated with the Vendor's Tax ID. Thls information
must be verified with the Vendor's Corporate Accounting Office)
Name:
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
Agency:
ATTN: Michele Gow
Title:
Address:
PO Box 360451
City:
Pittsburgh
State/ Zip: PA
15251-6541
Telephone:
724-495-4059
Fax:
Email:
[e-mail]
Ver; 10/23/18 Page 41 of 41

�
C
C
m
Z E
,Qi
a
g
a
•'
� a 5
a°
a
o
m
m
o
ic
C>
O q
a'
°
Z p
n 'sp
n=
J
.3
v
.G
Y
3 E
a9
3 $ °�'
o ❑` ?
ov
nv
6
r,
O
x
x
a
E
u°
Y
_
�
x
LL
LL
0
2
❑
t
'q❑S
Q
d
x
a
c
Yz
o
cIE
x
N Y
G
d
x
x
❑
4y
a
4
Q
z
x
0.
°
S
2
�
0
_°
❑"
m
�
a
a
�
$
�
-
o`
❑`
-
-
-
-
aa.
3
0`$
,�S �d
o`er
�°x�
$�
-
�
�
m
�
n

ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretory
TIM BAUMGARTNER
Virector
NORTH CAROLINA
Environmental Quality
June 3, 2019
THIS ADDENDUM DOES NOT HAVE TO BE RETURNED WITH YOUR TECHNICAL PROPOSAL
RFP NO.
16-007875
RFP TITLE:
FULL DELIVERY PROJECTS TO PROVIDE STREAM
MITIGATION CREDITS WITHIN THE CATALOGING
UNIT 03050101 OF THE CATAWBA RIVER BASIN AS
DESCRIBED IN THE SCOPE OF WORK
ADDENDUM NO.
1
USING
AGENCY:
DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
PURCHASER
MARJORIE
OPENING
BARBER
DATElTIME:
August 13, 2019 @ 2:00 P.M.
This correspondence serves as an addendum to the subject RFP. Your response to this RFP should be
governed by the content of the original RFP and the additional information provided in this addendum notice.
SECTION 1: Response to vendor _questions_
Questions and Answers:
Question #t:
Section 5.2 pg. 23, Could you share where exactly the impacts are occurring for this RFP? Are you able
to share any GIS polygon files illustrating these impacts?
Answer:
DMS mitigates for impacts within the cataloging unit. Details regarding impact locations are not
available through the RFP process.
BIDDER: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
ADDRESS (CITY & STATE): 8000
AUTHORIZED SIGNATU
Suite 600, Cary, NC 27518
ALL OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS REMAIN THE SAME.
NT�r D^E 6�
oewmmm� a uwm�.M,� w.uh�
July 16, 2019
North Carolina Department of Errvironmental Quality I Division of Mitigation Services
217 W.]ones Street 11652 Mail Service Center I Raleigh North Carolina 27699-1652
919.707.8976

Parts 1-5
4p SO
Ar
At,

Big Branch Mitigation Project
CATAWBA RIVER BASI N / RFP #16-007875 / CU #03050101
V Part 1. Executive Summary
This Executive Summary outlines the proposed Big Branch Mitigation Pro
presented by Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. (Michael Baker). The project v
provide stream mitigation credits in the Catawba River Basin (Cataloging Unit
03050101) in response to RFP 16-007875. The project is located outside the
town of Stony Point in Alexander County.
The project will involve the potential restoration and enhancement of the-
i4
mainstem of Big Branch as well as 4 unnamed tributaries (UTs), consisting
y
of 10 different stream reaches, totaling approximately 12,630 LF of existing��
stream. This project will potentially include Big Branch (the mainstem or
MS), UT1, UT1A, UT113, UT2, UT2A, UT3, UT3A, UT313, and UT4. Best
Management Practices (BMPs) will also be installed below the Smith pond
and on an eroding gully flowing into UT1. In addition, degraded riparian
wetlands will be restored or enhanced through implementing Priority Level 1 "`
F
ly
restoration, excluding livestock, and through revegetation of the riparian buffer.
This broad, balanced approach is critical as it addresses all intermittent and perennial
stream reaches that are impacted by livestock grazing on the project property, including restoring
riparian buffers along all of the project stream reaches currently without adequate buffers and
,
restoring non-functioning historical riparian wetlands. Thus, the project provides the maximum
functional uplift utilizing a watershed approach. The existing stream reaches have been significantly
impacted by unrestricted livestock access and removal of riparian buffers. The project stream reaches
primarily have cleared banks with some scattered small trees, mixed with scattered stands of invasive
species (mostly in non -grazed areas). The project stream reaches are unstable, incised and exhibit active bank erosion
from both high flows and livestock access. All the project reaches lack adequate, quality riparian buffers.
Currently, the
project reaches act as significant sources of sediment and nutrient contamination to Big Branch, and to some degree the
downstream waters including: Elk Shoals Creek, Catawba River and Lookout Shoals Lake, a drinking water source for
several nearby municipalities.
The following is a brief description of the proposed treatments of all the stream reaches on the project site. The
approaches begin with the most aggressive to the most conservative. The technical options vary in lengths presented
and approach type (Restoration, Enhancement I and/or Enhancement II).
Although not thoroughly discussed in the proposal, there is ample opportunity on the site to address wetland mitigation
credits and an option to pursue has been provided. Wetlands, with hydric soils noted during field investigations, will be
restored or enhanced. Restoration would be accomplished through implementing a Priority 1 restoration approach,
which will raise the streambed elevation, increasing groundwater levels in the adjacent soils. Wetland enhancement
will be accomplished by re-establishing a native riparian wetland vegetation community, and permanently protecting
both soil structure and vegetation. Although wetland functions may be restored and enhanced in various areas
throughout the proposed conservation easement, no wetland credit is being requested, only provided as an option. As
such, a detailed hydric soils report or wetland delineation is not included.
Livestock will be permanently excluded from all project areas. Buffers in excess of 50 feet will be established along all
proposed reaches. In addition, existing functional wetlands will be incorporated inside the conservation easement to
protect them in perpetuity. A BMP in the form of a constructed wet pond will be installed below the Smith pond within
the conservation easement. The BMP will help to remove pollutants from runoff prior to it entering the mainstem of Big
Branch, and will improve the oxygenation of the water as well. Livestock will be excluded from this BMP, removing a
direct source of nutrients and sediment. A second BMP will be installed at a gully on the left bank of UT1, which is
eroding and contributing sediment -laden flow during storm events.
All stream work will be protected by a permanent conservation easement. Detailed narratives of the proposed practices
are provided in Part 4. Our proposed mitigation approach is summarized in the table below, and specific design
approaches and details are described in more narrative detail in the Technical Approach. Options are shown on Figure
13A—C.
IXTERHATI0HA! Page

Big Branch Mitigation Project
CATAWBA RIVER BASI N 1 RFP #16-007875 / CU # 03050101
Fgation Summary
Stream Restoration, All (MS, UT1, UT1A, UT113, UT2, 11,691
Enhancement I and Enhancement UT2A, UT3, UT3A, UT313, and UT4)
10,000
The Option A approach includes the treatment of all stream reaches at the project site impacted by livestock. Option
A is the most aggressive restoration approach with the most Restoration and Enhancement I practices proposed. This
option tends towards a slightly heavier construction approach to treat the highly eroding streambanks and
streambeds. Treatment of the mainstem, UT1, UT2, UT3, and UT4 will primarily involve Priority Level I Restoration
practices with Priority Level II transitioning from upstream and downstream reaches to tie into existing conditions.
The appropriate bankfull geometry will be restored, stream pattern will be adjusted to the appropriate geometry and
the streambed will be raised to provide the stream access to its floodplain. In -stream structures will be installed to
provide grade control, protect streambanks, and encourage bedform diversity.
Agricultural BMPs will be implemented across the farms with all the options. Wells, waterers, fencing, and stable farm
crossings will be implemented on both farms to provide livestock exclusion from the stream channel as well as a clean
water source and stone pad area for the livestock to water. A BMP is proposed to provide improved buffering from
barren fields along UT1 through the utilization of wood chips along the outer edge of the buffer. An agricultural BMP
will also be constructed within the conservation easement below the Smith pond. This BMP will help to remove fecal
coliform and nutrients through detention, plant uptake and microbial activity. Livestock will be excluded from the
BMP to prevent direct pollutant inputs and degradation by hoof shear.
n A does offer the potential for WMU should NCDMS choose to pursue.
Stream Restoration, Enhancement I and All (MS, UT1, UT1A, UT113, UT2, 10,958 10,000
Enhancement II UT2A, UT3, UT3A, UT313, and UT4) 7
The Option B approach also includes the treatment of all stream reaches at the project site that are impacted by
livestock. Option B is a more conservative restoration approach with restoration comprising the majority of the work,
followed by Enhancement I and then Enhancement II activities. This option provides the restoration needed to treat
highly eroding streambanks and streambeds while making a slight shift towards more Enhancement I and II work.
Option B moves a few of the headwaters to an Enhancement II approach (UT1 A and UT113), moves the upper UT1
from Restoration to Enhancement I, reduces length of UT2A, breaks part of UT313 into Enhancement I, and moves UT4
Restoration to Enhancement I. Treatment of the mainstem, UT1, UT2, UT3, and UT4 will primarily involve Priority
Level I Restoration practices with Priority Level II transitioning from upstream and downstream reaches to tie into
existing conditions. The appropriate bankfull geometry will be restored, stream pattern will be adjusted to the
appropriate geometry and the streambed will be raised to provide the stream access to its floodplain. In -stream
structures will be installed to provide grade control, protect streambanks, and encourage bedform diversity.
Agricultural BMPs will be implemented across the farms with all the options. Wells, waterers, fencing, and stable farm
crossings will be implemented on both farms to provide livestock exclusion from the stream channel as well as a clean
water source and stone pad area for the livestock to water. A BMP is proposed to provide improved buffering from
barren fields along UT1 through the utilization of wood chips along the outer edge of the buffer. An agricultural BMP
will also be constructed within the conservation easement below the Smith pond. This BMP will help to remove fecal
coliform and nutrients through detention, plant uptake and microbial activity. Livestock will be excluded from the
BMP to prevent direct pollutant inputs and degradation by hoof shear.
Option B does offer the potential for WMU should NCDMS choose to pursue.
IXTERHATI0HA! Page

Big Branch Mitigation Project
CATAWBA RIVER BASI N 1 RFP #16-007875 / CU # 03050101
Stream Restoration, Enhancement I and All (MS, UT1, UT1A, UT113, UT2, 9,676 9,100
Enhancement 11 UT2A, UT3, UT3A, UT313, and UT4)
The Option C approach also includes the treatment of all stream reaches at the project site that are impacted by
livestock. Option C is the most conservative approach presented. This option provides the restoration needed to
treat highly eroding streambanks and streambeds while making a significant shift towards more Enhancement I and
II activities. Restoration is only proposed on portions of the mainstem and all of UT2. Enhancement I is proposed on
(all or portions of) the mainstem, UT1, UT3, UT3A, UT313, and UT4. Enhancement II is proposed on UT1A, UT113, UT2A,
UT3, and portions of UT313 and UT4. In -stream structures will be installed to provide grade control, protect
streambanks, and encourage bedform diversity.
Agricultural BMPs will be implemented across the farms with all the options. Wells, waterers, fencing, and stable farm
crossings will be implemented on both farms to provide livestock exclusion from the stream channel as well as a clean
water source and stone pad area for the livestock to water. A BMP is proposed to provide improved buffering from
barren fields along UT1 through the utilization of wood chips along the outer edge of the buffer. An agricultural BMP
will also be constructed within the conservation easement below the Smith pond. This BMP will help to remove fecal
coliform and nutrients through detention, plant uptake and microbial activity. Livestock will be excluded from the
BMP to prevent direct pollutant inputs and degradation by hoof shear.
Option C does offer the potential for WMU should NCDMS choose to pursue.
Mitigation Credit Summary
Project Mitigation Summary Table
IXTERHATI0HA! Page

Big Branch Mitigation Project
F7 CATAWBA RIVER BASIN / RFP#16-067875 / CU #03D5D101
Project Reach Summary Table
Watershed
watershedqFS'tream
Statulj�Kxisting
Channel Type
ProposedProject
Reach
Drainage
..
•.(Rosgen
Drainage Area
Designation
Area (acres)
(sq. miles)
Field
Analyses
Type'
Classification)
Classification)
MS
2,036
3.18
Perennial
R, El
F/G/B
C
UT1
46
0.07
Perennial
R, El
G
BIC
UT1A
9.4
0.01
Perennial
El, Ell
G4
B
UT113
17
0.03
Perennial
El, Ell
G4
B
UT2
43
0.07
Perennial
R
G
BIC
UT2A
3.3
0.01
Intermittent
Ell
G4
B
UT3
156
0.24
Perennial
R, El, Ell
G
C
UT3A
78
0.12
Perennial
R, El
F
C
UT3B
59
0.09
Perennial
R, El, Ell
F
C
UT4
35
0.05
Perennial*
R, El, Ell
G
BIC
Project Total NCDMS Rating Form Scores3 Option A = 110 (Total Points) and 1.10 (Proposal Rating), Option B = 107
(Total Points) and 1.07 (Proposal Rating), and Option C = 105 (Total Points) and 1.05 (Proposal Rating),
Note 1: Watershed drainage area is estimated based on topographic and LIDAR information at the downstream end of
each reach.
Note 2: R= Restoration, EI=Level I Enhancement, E11=Level II Enhancement, P=Preservation.
Note 3: Project Total NCDMS Rating Form Scores are the Total Points and Proposal Rating, respectively, as determined
using the Technical Evaluation Scoresheet included in RFP 16-007875.
Note 4: Stream types of these reaches are based on best professional judgment and quick field measurements. Surveyed
cross sections were not conducted on these reaches.
Note 5: The Rosgen stream classification system may not be appropriate for this reach due to its highly altered condition.
* Due to severe impacts from historic channelization and cattle access, the stream geomorphology in this reach has been altered to such an
extent that the stream form criteria rates this as an intermittent channel, though we strongly believe it is perennial.
INTERNATIONAL Pages

Big Branch Mitigation Project
CATAWBA RIVER BASIN / RFP#16-007875 / CU #03050101
Part 2. Corporate Background and Experience
Michael Baker Engineering (Michael Baker) is one of the largest professional service
Michael Baker firms, consistently ranked among the top 10% of US engineering practices by
N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L Engineering News -Record. Michael Baker was founded in 1940 as a civil engineering
and surveying firm. Today, with over 3,000 professional employees in the United
States, Michael Baker successfully serves the buildings, civil, environmental, and transportation markets. The company is
part of Michael Baker International, Inc. which provides high -end engineering, development, intelligence, and technology
solutions with global reach and mobility.
Michael Baker has demonstrated the ability to work with local, state and federal regulatory agencies in the permitting,
design, construction, and monitoring of wetland, stream, and riparian buffer restoration projects. We have worked
extensively on numerous full -delivery projects for the NCDMS and the North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT). With nearly 150 North Carolina employees working full-time on projects, Michael Baker has the manpower and
expertise to successfully carry out existing projects as well as secure and carry out new projects. Michael Baker operates
in North Carolina as Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. and has environmental staff in Asheville, Cary, Greensboro, and
Charlotte.
Ability to Carry Out All Phases of Proposal: The Michael Baker Team has extensive experience in all aspects of full -
delivery restoration work, having completed many projects for NCDMS, Clean Water Management Trust Fund, Resource
Institute, NCDOT and entities such as The Nature Conservancy. Michael Baker has teamed with KBS Earthworks and Kee
Mapping & Surveying whose staff both have a long history of cooperation with Michael Baker on successful full -delivery
projects. Michael Baker understands the regulatory and financial constraints associated with full -delivery projects and
has shown the ability to meet mitigation credit goals and project schedules.
Specifically, Michael Baker has identified the proposed project site and secured the necessary landowner options. The
Michael Baker Team will obtain the necessary easements, identify site constraints, and ensure site access. Michael Baker
has unparalleled experience in stream and wetland restoration design, having completed hundreds of projects that
translate into over 190 miles of stream restoration and over 3,000 acres of wetlands. Based on this experience, we are
familiar with all documentation requirements necessary to proceed with these types of projects.
Michael Baker will first obtain the necessary environmental approvals, coordinating with state and local officials to resolve
any regulatory issues associated with the restoration efforts, and is experienced in developing Categorical Exclusions (CE)
for mitigation projects. The Michael Baker Team will then create an appropriate restoration design and mitigation plan
that maximizes the functional uplift of the site, and then oversee its implementation throughout the subsequent
construction phase. KBS Earthworks has extensive experience in constructing restoration projects (directly for Michael
Baker as a subcontractor to RiverWorks) and works extremely well with Michael Baker's design and construction
inspection personnel. Finally, once construction has been completed, Michael Baker will utilize and follow the current
NCDMS monitoring guidelines and templates to conduct the required monitoring activities and develop annual monitoring
reports until obtaining closeout approval.
Note: All paper contained within this proposal is printed double -sided and has a post -consumer recycled content of at
least 30 percent. Michael Baker has met the page requirements of not exceeding 50 pages front to back and or
(100 page limit).
INTERNATIONAL Page

Big Branch Mitigation Project
CATAWBA RIVER BASI N / RFP #16-007875 / CU #03050101
Primary Sub -Contractor
The primary sub -contractor to Michael Baker for this project is KBS Earthworks, Inc (KBS). KBS FIF_o
�)
offers clients a construction contractor with the specialized expertise to implement
environmental restoration designs. The foremen and operators on the KBS team work primarily Earthworksinc.
on environmental restoration projects, and as such, have a thorough understanding of
construction sequencing, erosion and sedimentation control, water diversion, in -stream structure design, and vegetation
requirements. KBS has extensive experience constructing stream and wetland restoration projects, including the re -
vegetation of restoration sites. Below is a list of NCDMS projects Michael Baker and KBS have worked on together over
the past several years.
• Thomas Creek Restoration, New Hill, NC
• Hitchcock Creek, Rockingham, NC
• Brown Creek Tributaries, Troy, NC
• UT to Cane Creek, Snow Camp, NC
• St. Clair Creek, Bath, NC
• UT to Mill Swamp, Richlands, NC
• Puzzle Creek, Forest City, NC
KBS also has extensive experience selecting and planting appropriate vegetative buffers using live stakes, bare roots,
transplants, and containerized native plant species. KBS takes great care in selecting plant material and temporary and
permanent seed mixtures specifically matched to the environment of the site. They provide on -site supervision during
planting operations to ensure that plant materials are of suitable quality, and that the materials are planted appropriately
according to each species' moisture tolerance, soil condition needs, and stage of growth.
Kee Mapping & Surveying, PA (Kee) offers comprehensive professional land surveying and --Kee
mapping services for North Carolina. Their main focus is providing clients with top quality =
mapping and surveying solutions. Kee was founded in 2007, and specializes in GIS mapping,
boundary, topographic, and conservation easement surveys for awide variety of projects. With
an in-depth knowledge of local, state and federal requirements, Kee provides sound advice and accurate results in an
efficient manner. Below is a list of restoration NCDMS projects that Michael Baker has worked with Kee on.
• Browns Summit Creek, Browns Summit, NC
• Upper Silver Creek, Burke County, NC
• Thomas Creek, New Hill, NC
• Brown Creek Tributaries, Anson County, NC
• UT to Cane Creek, Alamance County, NC
• UT to Magness Creek, Lawndale, NC
• UT to Rush Fork, Haywood County, NC
• UT to Town Creek, Stanly County, NC
• Lochill Farm, Orange County, NC
Project Manager Experience
Scott King, PWS, LSS, our project manager, has a thorough understanding of the work
that NCDMS requires, and practical, on -the -ground experience with the entire suite of
services needed. Scott has extensive experience in the environmental field
focused primarily on stream, wetland, and riparian buffer research, delineation, and
restoration. His 17 years of experience include work on stream and wetland
restorations, GIS analysis, wetland delineations, soil evaluations, stormwater BMP
projects, riparian buffer research, environmental permitting, and remediation
irojects from a variety of geographic settings in North Carolina and Virginia. As a manager,
enjoys taking a project from initial land owner discussions all the way through post -
construction monitoring and close out. Scott has served as project manager, professional wetland
scientist and licensed soil scientist for numerous restoration and stormwater projects. Scott previously worked as a
watershed planner at NCDMS, as a researcher in the Department of Soil Science at NC State University (NCSU), and as an
environmental consultant specializing in wetlands issues.
INTERNATIONAL Pagel

UPPER SILVER CREEK STREAM AND WETLAND
RESTORATION, NCDMS, BURKE COUNTY, NC.
Michael Baker restored or enhanced 5,186 (LF) of perennial stream
channel along Silver Creek, UT1, UT2, and UT3 and restored, enhanced
or created approximately 9.14 acres of wetlands that had been
previously disturbed in Burke County, NC. The streams and wetlands at
this site had been disturbed by area gold mining operations, livestock,
and channelization. Streams at this site were restored utilizing a Rosgen
Priority Level 1 approach, raising the channel, so that flows greater than
bankfull can access the floodplain. This approach included developing a
meandering channel that had log and boulder structures installed to
improve stability and channel habitat. The stream restoration approach
also raised the groundwater level, thereby restoring wetland hydrology.
Limited overburden was removed in wetland areas where upland soils
had been deposited.
Stream channel buffers and wetlands were seeded with native
vegetation and trees were planted throughout the project easement
area to develop a native forest habitat. Michael Baker conducted
watershed analyses, performed existing condition and reference reach
surveys, prepared a mitigation plan, prepared and submitted
environmental permits, and provided construction oversight.
Construction was completed December 2014, and the project is
currently in monitoring year 5 of 5. Post -construction monitoring shows
the project is functioning very well.
Estimated Completion Date: 2020
Key Team Members: Scott King, Katie McKeithan, Dwain Hathaway,
Micky Clemmons, Andrew Powers, Jason York, and Holland Youngman
Michael Baker's Role:
• Conservation easement acquisition
• Stream and wetland restoration design
• Construction, oversight & buffer reforestation
• Monitoring and document preparation
Project Value: Michael Baker's stream restoration and enhancement along with riparian and non -riparian wetland
restoration and enhancement will yield 4,980 SMUs and 6.85 WMUs, which will support NCDMS's goal of restoring and
protecting wetlands and waterways for future generations while offsetting unavoidable environmental damage from
economic development.
Michael Baker

THOMAS CREEK RESTORATION, NCDMS, NEW HILL, NC.
As part of a full -delivery project, Michael Baker restored 4,721 LF and
enhanced 3,948 LF of perennial and intermittent tributaries to Thomas
Creek, a significant tributary to the Harris Lake reservoir.
The streams had been impaired from past agricultural conversion and
.;
cattle grazing. The project involved restoring or enhancing nine
`
headwater tributaries with a combined drainage area of 246 acres.
Rosgen Priority Level 1 and 2 Restoration design approaches were
utilized to restore stream access to an active floodplain. Enhancement
Levels I and II approaches were also used to stabilize streambanks and
profile to prevent further degradation in the form of erosion and
downcutting. In -stream structures were included as part of the design
throughout the project to provide channel stability and improve aquatic
habitat and fish passage. The restored riparian buffers adjacent to the
streams are protected through a 23-acre permanent conservation
�e;
easement with fencing that excludes livestock.
A total of 5,500 SMU will be created through enhancement and
�a >,
restoration. The project also includes seven years of annual monitoring
J
to document that the restoration and enhancement work are
functioning as anticipated. Thomas Creek is currently in monitoring year
- '-
5 and preforming as anticipated.
Estimated Completion Date: 2022
Key Team Members: Scott King, Katie McKeithan, Dwain Hathaway,
Andrew Powers, Richard Darling, and Jason York
Michael Baker's Role:
• Conservation easement acquisition
• Stream restoration design
• Buffer reforestation
• As -built document preparation
• Annual stream and wetland monitoring
• Project closeout
Project Value: Michael Baker's stream restoration and enhancement and riparian wetland restoration and creation
will yield at least 5,500 SMUs, which will support NCDMS's goal of restoring and protecting streams for future generations
while offsetting unavoidable environmental damage from economic development.
Michael Baker

are -
UT TO CANE CREEK RESTORATION, NCDMS, ALAMANCE
COUNTY, NC.
As part of a full -delivery project, Michael Baker restored 3,314 LF and
enhanced 2,911 LF of perennial and intermittent stream channel in
southeast Alamance County. The streams had been degraded primarily
by agricultural practices and associated cattle access. The project
involved restoring and enhancing two headwater catchments (452 acres
and 80 acres). Rosgen Priority Level I and II Restoration approaches
were part of the design to restore access to an active floodplain.
Enhancement activities were also employed to stabilize the
streambanks and profile. In -stream structures were included in the
design to provide stream stability and improve aquatic habitat and
fisheries. The restored riparian buffers adjacent to the streams are
protected through permanent conservation easement and fencing that
excludes livestock.
Construction was completed in 2014 and following monitoring
activities have included services to control invasive vegetation and
beaver activity within the conservation easement to ensure long-term
site success. The site is currently in monitoring year 6 of 7 and on track
to close out on time with the full recognition of all planned mitigation
credits.
Estimated Completion Date: 2022
Key Team Members: Scott King, Katie McKeithan, Dwain Hathaway,
Micky Clemmons, Richard Darling, Andrew Powers, and Jason York
Michael Baker's Role:
• Conservation easement acquisition
• Stream restoration design
• Buffer reforestation
• As -built document preparation
• Annual stream and wetland monitoring
• Project closeout
Project Value: Michael Baker's stream restoration and enhancement will yield at least 4,594 SMUs, which will
support the client's goal of providing in -lieu fee mitigation credits.
Michael Baker

LOCHILL FARM STREAM MITIGATION, NCDMS,
ORANGE COUNTY, NC.
Michael Baker provided environmental engineering services for the
restoration, enhancement, and preservation of nine stream reaches,
totaling approximately 5,500 LF of existing streams that are part of the
Lochill Farm project drainage area. The project will provide stream
mitigation credits in the Neuse River Basin, approximately 5 miles
northeast of the Town of Hillsborough. The project involved the
restoration, enhancement, or preservation of stream, wetland, and
riparian buffer functions along Finches Branch and UT to Finches
Branch. Finches Branch flows into Buckwater Creek, which is listed as a
Water Supply Watershed (WS-IV) and Nutrient Sensitive Water. The
confluence with Buckwater Creek is approximately % mile from the
subject site, which subsequently flows about 2 miles into the Eno River
and then into Falls Lake Reservoir in approximately 10 miles.
The existing stream reaches and riparian wetlands have been
significantly impacted by past and present use as a horse farm, historic
logging activity, and agricultural use for both row -crops and pasture for
cattle and sheep. Almost the entire length of the mainstem of Finches
Branch has active streambank erosion, as do substantial portions of
other reaches. Large portions of the project site lack adequate riparian
buffers and are impacted by livestock intrusion.
In addition to stream reach restoration, the degraded riparian wetlands
were functionally improved utilizing a Priority Level 1 stream
restoration approach, re -vegetating, and providing permanent animal
exclusion. Construction completed in early 2019 and monitoring will
proceed for seven years. The project is currently in monitoring year 1.
Estimated Completion Date: 2026
Key Team Members: Scott King, Katie McKeithan, Dwain Hathaway,
Micky Clemmons, and Andrew Powers
Michael Baker's Role:
• Conservation easement acquisition
• Stream restoration design
• Wetland restoration design
• Buffer reforestation
• As -built document preparation
• Annual stream and wetland monitoring
• Project closeout
Project Value: Michael Baker's stream restoration, enhancement and preservation paired with buffer restoration
and preservation will yield 4,113 SMUs and 176,511 buffer mitigation units, which will support the client's goal of
increasing its credits for mitigation banking.
Michael Baker

BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION, NCDMS,
GUILFORD COUNTY, NC.
�r
Michael Baker restored 3,846 LF of jurisdictional stream channel,
enhanced 2,535 LF of stream along UT to the Haw River, restored 4.44
acres of wetland, and constructed two stormwater BMPs within the
x ;
conservation easement boundary.
Due to extensive agricultural use (dairy and beef cattle operations
. - �a •"� '
primarily), the streams and wetlands on the Browns Summit project had
. ,
been severely degraded. The channels had been heavily manipulated,
,,.
including the installation of multiple ponds within the channel's
alignment. A Rosgen Priority Level 1 approach raised the channel such
< : -
that flows greater than bankfull are accessing the floodplain. The
channel now meanders down the valley line over log and stone
structures installed to improve stability and channel habitat. Raising the
streambed and removing spoil berms along the floodplain, also raised
the groundwater level and has restored wetland hydrology.
-
The streambanks, floodplain/buffers, and wetlands were seeded with
native herbaceous vegetation and planted with native tree species to
a 4
develop a native forest habitat. Michael Baker conducted watershed
analyses, performed existing condition and reference reach surveys,
prepared a mitigation plan, prepared and submitted environmental
' - -
permits, and provided construction oversight and post -construction
'
monitoring. Construction of the project was completed in 2017. The
project is currently in monitoring year 3 of 7.
Estimated Completion Date: 2024
s
Key Team Members: Katie McKeithan, Scott King, Dwain Hathaway,
"{� w
Richard Darling, Terry Burhans, Andrew Powers, and Jason York
- -
Michael Baker's Role:
• Conservation easement acquisition
• Stream restoration design
• Wetland restoration design
• Stormwater BMPs
'
• Buffer reforestation
• As -built document preparation
• Annual stream and wetland monitoring
-,'
• Project closeout
° Project Value: Michael Baker's stream restoration and
enhancement and riparian wetland restoration and creation will yield
khm at least 5,301 SMUs and 2.50 WMUs which will support the client's
win w goal of environmental uplift of stream, wetland and buffer systems.
Michael Baker

UT TO TOWN CREEK RESTORATION, NCDMS, STANLY
COUNTY, NC.
As part of a NCDMS full -delivery project, Michael Baker restored
approximately 5,554 LF and enhanced approximately 791 LF of
perennial and intermittent stream channel in Stanly County. In addition,
this project, restored and created 4.12 acres of riparian wetlands,
enhanced 1.00 acre of riparian wetlands, and constructed two
stormwater wetland BMPs upstream of the mitigation areas.
Prior to construction, the project area streams and existing wetlands
were severely degraded from active cattle access and agricultural
practices, such as removal of the riparian buffer, channelization,
draining riparian wetlands, and filling in the floodplain. The Project
involved Rosgen Priority Level I and II Restoration approaches to restore
access to an active floodplain. Enhancement Level I and II were also
implemented to stabilize the streambanks and profile. In -stream
structures were included to provide stream stability and improve
habitat for fish and other aquatic species. The restored riparian buffers
adjacent to the streams are protected through permanent fencing that
excludes livestock. Michael Baker conducted watershed analyses,
performed existing condition and reference reach surveys, prepared the
designs and mitigation plan, permitted the project, and provided
construction oversight and post -construction monitoring. Construction
of the project was completed in the winter of 2015 and the project is
currently in monitoring year 4 of 5.
Estimated Completion Date: 2021
Key Team Members: Scott King, Katie McKeithan, Dwain Hathaway,
Micky Clemmons, Andrew Powers, Jason York, and Holland Youngman
Michael Baker's Role:
• Conservation easement acquisition
• Stream and wetland restoration design
• Stormwater BMPs
• Buffer reforestation
• As -built document preparation
• Annual stream and wetland monitoring
• Project closeout
y Y; `.W.,
Project Value: Michael Baker's stream restoration and
enhancement and riparian wetland restoration and creation will
yield at least 6,394 SMUs and 3.1 WMUs which will support the
client's goal of increasing its credits for mitigation banking. Following
three years of monitoring, the site has been fully documented and
achieved complete credit release for year three.
Michael Baker

Big Branch Mitigation Project
CATAWBA RIVER BASI N / RFP #16-007875 / CU #03050101
Multidisciplinary Project Approach:
The goal of ecosystem restoration is to return the maximum amount of function possible
to a degraded stream or wetland system, given land use and landform constraints.
Michael Baker's Team of environmental scientists, geomorphologists, geologists, soil
scientists, and surveyors lead the efforts to document the existing conditions of project
sites, impairments, and constraints. Engineers, designers, soil scientists, and biologists
then develop restoration designs that provide the maximum functional uplift within the
site constraints. Planning personnel lead the efforts for CE tasks and permitting
requirements, while hydrologists and hydraulic engineers prepare models and analyses
to evaluate Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) requirements, flooding
conditions, and sediment transport.
Several staff on the project organization chart have extensive experience with regulatory
review, including project closeout. Construction specialists perform constructability
reviews to ensure designs are practical and can be constructed efficiently. Construction
experts, including foremen, equipment operators, laborers, and vegetation specialists,
ensure that sound, innovative, and cost-effective construction is employed in a timely
manner. These staff members can quickly adapt to various environmental and site
conditions. After construction, surveyors/engineers and environmental scientists
perform as -built and monitoring surveys to document project conditions during the
monitoring period. This multidisciplinary approach to projects has been a primary factor
in Michael Baker's successful track record with ecosystem restoration projects.
Resumes of Key Personnel:
INTERNATIONAL
SCOTT KING, PWS, LSS, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTIST & PROJECT MANAGER
Education: MS, 2006, Soil Science, NCSU; BS, 1996, Biology, The College of William of Mary
Professional Registrations: Licensed Soil Scientist 1301, NC; Professional Wetland Scientist 1908
Continuing Education: Rosgen I, Rosgen II, Rosgen III; NCSU Stream Restoration Program River Course Workshops 101,
201, 401, 131, and 161; NCDWR's Intermittent and Perennial Stream Identification for Riparian Buffer Rules, Swamp -
School: Developing Wetland Water Budgets, UNC-CH: Certificate in Native Plant Studies
Dtt has a wide range of experience in the environmental field, specializing in water quality projects. He
�ovides a broad array of environmental services including stream and wetland restorations, GIS analysis,
etland delineations, soil evaluations, stormwater BMP projects, and environmental permitting. He has
worked on most of Michael Baker's currently active stream restoration projects and is managing several
NCDMS projects for Michael Baker, including Lochill Farm, UT to Cane Creek, and Thomas Creek. Scott
previously worked as a watershed planner at NCDMS, as a researcher in the Department of Soil Science
at NCSU, and as an environmental consultant specializing in wetlands issues.
• Lochill Farm Stream Restoration, NCDMS, Orange County, NC. Project Manager
• UT to Cane Creek Restoration, NCDMS, Alamance County, NC. Project Manager
• Thomas Creek Stream Restoration, NCDMS, New Hill, NC. Project Manager
• Brown Creek Tributaries Stream Restoration, NCDMS, Anson County, NC. Project Manager
• UT to Town Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration, NCDMS, Stanly County, NC. Environmental Specialist
• Browns Summit Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration, NCDMS, Browns Summit, NC. Environmental Scientist
• Upper Silver Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration, NCDMS, Burke County, NC. Environmental Specialist
INTERNATIONAL Page14

Big Branch Mitigation Project
CATAWBA RIVER BASI N / RFP #16-007875 / CIU #03050101
KATHLEEN (KATIE) MCKEITHAN, PE, CPESC, CPSWQ, CFM, ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION GROUP
MANAGER
Education: BS, 1998, Biological Engineering, NCSU
Professional Registrations: Professional Engineer, NC #028432; Certified Professional in Erosion and Sediment Control,
2546; Certified Professional Storm Water Quality, 135; Certified Floodplain Manager, NC, NC-10-0359; USDA NRCS TSP,
#TSP-14-9852; NCDOT Level III: Designer of Erosion and Sediment Control Plans, #3121
Continuing Education: NCSU Forestry Identification of Intermittent and Perennial Streams and Their Origins, NCSU Aquatic
Insect Collection, Rosgen I, Rosgen II, Rosgen III, Rosgen IV, Dr. Hey's Natural River Mechanics Morphology & Management
Katie has 21 years of experience in the environmental field working on a variety of projects including
watershed assessments; stream, wetland, and buffer functional assessments and restoration;
greenway planning and design; BMP designs including retrofits; and remediation projects. Projects
often include a holistic approach to environmental uplift by restoring the streams, wetlands and
buffers. Katie's career began working with NCDOT Roadside Environmental Unit on erosion and
sediment control plans; stream and wetland mitigation; site planning, construction and post
a
construction monitoring. Following NCDOT, Katie began working in consulting focusing on stream,
a wetland and buffer restoration and BMPs design and implementation. The majority of Katie's
stream and wetland work has been with NCDMS projects.
• Browns Summit Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site, NCDMS, Browns Summit, NC. Project Manager
• Scott Creek (Farmer Site), Resource Institute, Jackson County, NC. Project Manager
• Cullowhee Creek (Mock Site), Resource Institute, Jackson County, NC. Project Manager
• TNC Fancy Gap Bog Turtle Site, The Nature Conservancy, VA. Project Manager
• Russell Gap Mitigation, Alexander County, NC. Project Manager
• Upper Silver Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration, NCDMS, Burke County, NC. Monitoring Project Engineer
• Russell Gap Mitigation, Alexander County, NC. Project Engineer
MICKY CLEMMONS, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTIST
Education: MS, 1987, Biology, Western Carolina University; BS, 1984 Marine Biology, UNC at Wilmington
Continuing Education: Rosgen I, Rosgen II, Rosgen III, Rosgen IV
Micky's responsibilities include stream restoration design, aquatic ecology projects, and project
management. Prior to joining Michael Baker, Micky worked for 18 years with the North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) as a Fisheries Biologist and was the WRC's first Stream
Restoration Coordinator. With many years of experience in fisheries biology and management,
stream ecology, and fluvial geomorphology, he is experienced in conducting projects that optimize
habitat value and benefit aquatic species. The present practice of stream mitigation in North
Carolina began when the WRC agreed to accomplish stream restoration as mitigation for stream
impacts caused by the construction of Interstate 26 in Madison County, NC. As a Stream
Restoration Coordinator, he worked with NCDOT to accomplish this stream restoration to mitigate for impacts, while he
also located mitigation sites, worked with landowners to develop agreements, evaluated site needs, designed restoration
plans, hired and supervised contractors to implement plans, and wrote as -built reports for mitigation crediting. Micky has
been the project manager for many varied stream restoration and enhancement projects throughout North Carolina and
other eastern states.
• Upper Silver Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration, NCDMS, Burke County, NC. Project Manager
• Elk Branch Stream Restoration Site, NCDMS, Mitchell County, NC. Project Manager
• Logan Creek Restoration, NCDMS, Jackson County, NC. Project Manager
• Blair Creek Mitigation Project, NCDMS, Clay County, NC. Project Manager
• UT to Magness Creek Stream Mitigation Project, NCDMS, Cleveland County, NC. Project Manager
• UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project, NCDMS, Haywood County, NC. Project Manager
• TDOT On -Call, Stream Mitigation Site Assessment and Design, Multiple Locations, TN. Project Manager
IXTERHATI0HA! Page15

Big Branch Mitigation Project
CATAWBA RIVER BASI N / RFP #16-007875 / CU #03050101
OF VICTORIA HOYLAND, PE, ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER
Education: MS, 2012, Environmental Engineering, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State Engineering; BS, 1999, Civil
Engineering, West Virginia University
Professional Registration: Professional Engineer, VA, and CT (obtaining her North Carolina PE license through comity)
Continuing Education: Erosion and Sediment Control Inspector and Program Administrator
Victoria recently joined Michael Baker Engineering as an Environmental Engineer. She has provided
c
environmental engineering services through all stages of project development, from preliminary
' engineering analyses through design and construction management. Her technical experience was
initially focused in the drinking water and wastewater sectors and has since delved more into the
M nature -based solutions field (harnessing and restoring ecosystem services to reduce risk to the built
environment).
• Smyth County Source Evaluation, VA. Project Engineer
• Southwestern Connecticut Regional Resilience Framework, CT. Project Lead
• Kearney Bank Filtration Evaluation, NC. Project Engineer
• The Nature Conservancy, NC. Environmental Engineer
• Town of Blacksburg, VA. Town Engineer
RICHARD DARLING, CE, SENIOR ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTIST
Education: MS, 1986, Biological Science, Florida State University; BS, 1983, Zoology, University of Melbourne
Professional Registration: Certified Ecologist 421
Continuing Education: USACE Wetland Delineation, Rosgen Level I
Richard is a senior environmental scientist with 34 years of multi -disciplinary experience in natural resources
consulting. His background includes extensive technical direction and project management for
environmental studies including numerous protected species surveys, wetland delineations, riparian
buffer determinations, wetland and stream evaluations, Section 404/401 permitting and mitigation,
documentation per the National and State (NC, FL, GA, and SC) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)
requirements (EA, EIS).
• Thomas Creek Restoration, NCDMS, New Hill, NC. Environmental Scientist
• UT to Cane Creek Restoration, NCDMS, Alamance County, NC. Environmental Scientist
• Crowns West Branch Restoration Plan, NCDMS, Onslow County, NC. Environmental Specialist
• Duke Swamp Stream and Wetland Restoration, NCDMS, Gates County, NC. Ecologist
• Pinch Gut Stream Restoration, NCDMS, Stokes County, NC. Ecologist
TERRY BURHANS, PWS, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTIST
Education: MS, 2012, Forestry, West Virginia University; BS, 2010, Environmental Sciences, University of California,
Riverside; Graduate Studies, 2016, Soil Science, Texas Tech University
Professional Registrations: Certified Professional Soil Scientist, 406082; Professional Wetland Scientist, 2808
Terry is an Environmental Scientist with exemplary analytical and technical writing skills. He has experience
in linear project planning, landscape level geospatial analysis and GIS analysis, project management and
+ collaboration, stream and wetland identification, protection, restoration and mitigation, state and
federal environmental permitting, endangered species surveys and conservation planning including
I
conservation measures development, implementation, and monitoring. Terry also has interest in
r, stream and wetland ecology, and soil and water science.
• St. Clair Creek, NCDMS, Beaufort County, NC. Environmental Scientist
• UT to Mill Swamp, NCDMS, Onslow County, NC. Environmental Scientist
• NC 11 Transportation Improvements, NCDOT, Lenoir and Pitt Counties, NC. Environmental Scientist
• NC 127 Widening Preliminary Design, NCDOT, Catawba and Alexander Counties, NC. Environmental Scientist
• US 19/74/64/129 Improvements, R-5735, NCDOT, Cherokee County, NC. Environmental Scientist
INTERNATIONAL Page16

Big Branch Mitigation Project
CATAWBA RIVER BASIN/ RFP #16-007875 I C7#0310501VO1
JASON YORK, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTIST
Education: MS, 2010, Environmental Studies Conservation Biology, Green Mountain College; BS, 2004, Social Sciences,
Unity College
Professional Registrations and Continuing Education: Ground Applicator License, North Carolina, 024-28136; Taxonomic
Certification Program (NABS-TCP), North Carolina, Rosgen I.
Jason joined Michael Baker in February of this year, as a conservation biologist with a comprehensive
a" background in invasive/exotic plant management, pest management, and laboratory analysis and
1.�:
- taxonomy. His experience includes macroinvertebrate taxonomy, pest control for wood -boring insects,
.. timber stand improvement, and habitat restoration. As part of his work, he has performed
environmental site assessments, authored Phase I Environmental Site Assessments, drafted
NEPA/FWS concurrence letters, and performed Section 106 reviews.
• Macro-Benthos ID On -Call, Penrose Environmental Consulting, Buncombe County, NC. Project Manager
• Browns Summit Creek Restoration, NCDMS, Guilford County, NC. Environmental Scientist
• UT to Town Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration, NCDMS, Stanly County, NC. Environmental Scientist
• Upper Silver Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration, NCDMS, Burke County, NC. Environmental Scientist
• UT Clarke Creek Invasive Vegetation Management, Mecklenburg County, NC. Environmental Scientist
• Neighbor Bob's Invasive Vegetation Management, McDowell County, NC. Environmental Scientist
HOLLAND YOUNGMAN, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTIST
Education: MS, 2017, Environmental Science, University of Tennessee at Chattanooga; BS, 2006, Wildlife and Fisheries
Biology, Clemson University
Holland joined Michael Baker in March of this year, as an experienced wetland biologist with training and
proficiency conducting wetland delineations, watershed management programs, mitigation plan review,
1. and permit processing. Her background includes wildlife research, field assessments, report writing,
database management, and professional correspondence with agencies, organizations, and the public.
JF41
In addition, she is well -versed in ArcGIS software and the use of GPS units for field -based projects. Since
joining Michael Baker Holland has worked on multiple NCDMS projects.
• UT to Magness Creek Stream Mitigation Project, NCDMS, Cleveland County, NC. Environmental Scientist
• Blair Creek Mitigation Project, NCDMS, Clay County, NC. Environmental Scientist
• UT to Rush Fork Stream Mitigation Project, NCDMS, Haywood County, NC. Environmental Scientist
• Tasewell, SR-32 Mitigation Assessment, TDOT, Campbell County, TN. Environmental Scientist
• Cullowhee Creek (Mock Site), Resource Institute, Jackson County, NC. Project Manager
• Dog Creek Mitigation Assessment, TDOT, Campbell County, TN. Environmental Scientist
ANDREW POWERS, ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATE
Education: BS, 2017, Agricultural and Environmental Technology, NCSU; AS, 2015, Pre -Engineering, Wake Technical
Community College
Andrew is an environmental associate with experience in wetland delineation and stream restoration. Andrew
has been leading the majority of field monitoring efforts for stream and wetland restoration projects from
?` construction management through installation and upkeep of monitoring equipment. He has hands on
1
experience with project implementation, monitoring and maintenance. Furthermore, Andrew's skills
include public relations, planning, documentation, technical reports, project managing, and problem
solving.
• Thomas Creek Restoration, NCDMS, New Hill, NC. Environmental Associate
• UT to Town Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration, NCDMS, Stanly County, NC. Monitoring Manager
• Browns Summit Creek Restoration, NCDMS, Browns Summit, NC. Monitoring Manager
• Lochill Farm Stream Mitigation Site, NCDMS, Orange County, NC. Environmental Associate
• Russell Gap Mitigation, NCDMS, Alexander County, NC. Environmental Associate
INTERNATIONAL Page17

Big Branch Mitigation Project
CATAWBA RIVER BASI N / RFP #16-007875 / CIU #03050101
BRAD KEE, CFS, PLS, SURVEY MANAGER ee
Education: BS, GIS, Appalachian State University in 1997; Surveying Technology, Asheville —Buncombe
Technical Community College, 2003
Professional Registrations: Professional Land Surveyor, NC 4647; Certified Floodplain Surveyor, NC-204
Brad founded Kee Mapping and Surveying, PA in 2007 with the goal of becoming one of North Carolina's
top land surveying and mapping companies. Brad has 18 years of experience in GIS mapping and land
surveying as well as a dedicated and skilled staff that add to the increased success of the company. Brad
is a certified floodplain surveyor and is trained in stream morphology assessment. He also specializes in
boundary, topographic, construction and as -built surveys for stream restoration and storm water
YYdesign. Brad has provided topographical and post -construction monioring survey on a wide variety
I p L
of Michael Baker projects over the past five years including: Upper Silver, Browns Summit, Logan
Creek, Cooks Creek, Town Creek, UT to Town Creek, Brown Creek Tributaries, Lochill Farm, and Thomas Creek.
• Lochill Farm Stream Restoration, NCDMS, Orange County, NC. Survey Manager
• Thomas Creek Stream Restoration, NCDMS, New Hill, NC. Survey Manager
• Brown Creek Tributaries Restoration, NCDMS, Montgomery County, NC. Survey Manager
• UT to Town Creek Restoration, NCDMS, Stanly County, NC. Survey Manager
• Browns Summit Creek Restoration, NCDMS, Browns Summit, NC. Survey Manager
KO STRADER, CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR
Licenses/Certifications: River Course 201, Natural Channel Design Principles, NCSU; Construction ,art worksrnc.
Practices for Stream Restoration, NCSU; Erosion & Sediment Control Certification, NCSU; Stormwater BMP
Inspection & Maintenance Certification NCSU
Kory is the CEO/Founder of KBS Earthworks. He transitioned the company to focus on large scale
environmental stream and wetland projects. He hired and trained supporting personnel to continue
business expansion and completed various stream restoration construction projects throughout Virginia,
North Carolina, Tennessee, South Carolina, and Maryland. Kory monitors the daily operations and
manage all personnel to include project managers, superintendents, equipment operators, accounting
staff, and estimators. He continues to assist in equipment operation in the field and advise on best
practices for project sequencing and construction. KBS Earthworks has routinely worked with Michael
Baker through their work as a subcontractor for RiverWorks, thus he has led the following projects for
KBS Earthworks: Cane Creek Stream Restoration, St. Clair Stream Restoration, Brown Creek Tributaries Restoration, and
Thomas Creek.
• Thomas Creek Stream Restoration, NCDMS, New Hill, NC. Construction Lead
• Brown Creek Tributaries Restoration, NCDMS, Montgomery County, NC. Construction Lead
• UT to Cane Creek Restoration, NCDMS, Alamance County, NC. Construction Lead
• St. Clair Creek Restoration, NCDMS, Beaufort County, NC. Construction Lead
• Hitchcock Creek Restoration, NCDMS, Richmond County, NC. Construction Lead
DBE/HUB Participation: Michael Baker does not have an agreement with a DBE/HUB certified firm for this project.
INTERNATIONAL Page18

0`1
Part 3. Project Organization:
Big Branch Mitigation Project
CATAWBA RIVER BASI N 1 RFP #16-007875 / CU #0305010
Qualifications & Responsibilities: For all personnel assigned to this project, please see the resumes in Part 2. With our
large number of staff that is dedicated entirely to mitigation and restoration projects, we have the available man -power
and resources to handle any of the NCDMS project needs that may arise. Michael Baker will use resources from all our
North Carolina offices to best meet the needs and requests of the NCDMS. In addition, Michael Baker has highly
experienced environmental staff in each of our neighboring states, as well as across the US, that we work directly with on
a regular basis and are able to be called upon for support as needed.
Under the leadership of Dwain Hathaway, PE our North Carolina Office Executive and the Principal -In -Charge, Michael
Baker is committing to applying our firm's design quality control program throughout the lifetime of every project. The
key elements of the program are the client -based quality control guidelines and quality control reviews by senior members
of the Michael Baker Team. We will review all of the plans for accuracy and consistency at every stage of the project and
ensure that all calculations, plans, specifications, and any reports are properly reviewed for completeness, accuracy, and
constructability prior to submittal to NCDMS. Subconsultant work will be reviewed and verified prior to submittal as a
routine procedure for each Michael Baker project.
Proposed Staffing, and Organization
Brad Kee, CFS, PLS (KEE)
Daniel Pettingill, PLS (KEE)
Kevin Jones, PLS (KEE)
Jim Lark, PLS (KEE)
Kathleen (Katie) McKeithan,
PE, CPESC, CPSWQ, CFM (MB)
Micky Clemmons (MB)
Scott King, LSS, PWS (MB)
Andrew Powers (MB)
Jason York (MB)
Holland Youngman (MB)
I N 7 E R N A 7 1 6 N A L
ProjeEt Manager
Scott Icing, LSS, PWS (Mi3)
Kathleen (Katie) McKeithan,
PE, CPESC, CPSWQ, CFM (MB)
Micky Clemmons (MB)
Scott King, LSS, PWS (MB)
Victoria Hoyland, PE (MB)
Richard Darling, CE (MB)
Terry Burhans, PWS (MB)
Jason York (MB)
Holland Youngman (MB)
Dwain Hathaway, PE (MB)
Kory Strader (KBS) and Team
Andrew Powers (MB)
Brad Kee, CFS, PL5 (KEE)
Micky Clemmons (MB)
Daniel Pettingill, PLS (KEE)
Kevin Jones, PL5 (KEE)
Scott King, LSS, PWS (MB)
Jim Lark, PLS (KEE)
Jason York (MB)
Holland Youngman (MB)
Kathleen (Katie) McKeithan,
PE, CPESC, CPSWQ, CFM (MB)
Micky Clemmons (MB)
Victoria Hoyland, PE (MB)
Scott King, LSS, PWS (MB)
Jason York (MB)
HDlland Youngman (MB)
MB = Michael Baker Engineering, Inc,
ti K139=K13S Earthworks, Inc.
KEE = Kee Mapping A Surveying, PA
I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L Page19

Big Branch Mitigation Project
CATAWBA RIVER BASI N / RFP #16-007875 / CU #03050101
PF Personnel with Similar Experience: Shown in the table below are team personnel who worked on the projects in Part 2.
Na
Y
01
N
(J
0
i+
L i
N O 41
CL
Y
0
N [!
f6 i
E O
H
y
i
0
(6 i+
V i
O O41
D
;V
N
m o
L.L
= N
Op
c� c
J C
Y
N
N
L
++
N 0
4+
, i
+O+
O
m
-he-he
N
i
V
3 0
O a+
H i
+O+
D
Scott PWS
King, LSS,
Dwain Hathaway, PE
Katie McKeithan,
Micky ClemmonsRichard
Victoria Hoyland, PE
Darling, CE
Andrew Powers
Holland Youngman
Kee Surveying & Mapping
KBS Earthworks
• Growing Environmental Team
Michael Baker is expanding our stream restoration team with the additions of Jason York (February 2019),
Holland Youngman (March 2019) and Victoria Hoyland (August 2019). Both Jason and Holland have been working
on multiple NCDMS projects in various river basins throughout the state this year. Victoria has just come on board
and will be introduced to a majority of the sites through 2019 post -construction monitoring efforts.
As a former Dave Penrose employee, Jason brings a wealth of macroinvertebrate experience to
Michael Baker and is in the process of certifying our laboratory in Asheville, NC. Jason continues to
work for Penrose Environmental Consulting through an On -Call agreement. Field work always
includes Jason turning some rocks over and sifting through leaf litter to learn more about the
stream's health. Jason is also a vegetation specialist and very experienced in identifying and
providing (professionally licensed) treatment of invasive species. Michael Baker is excited to have
Jason on board and feels he enhances our multidisciplinary project approach.
lolland had been working in the environmental field for approximate
years when she received her master's in Environmental Science from th
University of Tennessee at Chattanooga (UTC). She brings superb GIS experience from her
time with the UTC as an employee and master's student. Holland has also worked with
the Tennessee River Gorge Trust on avian monitoring, water quality monitoring, land
stewardship and event management; UTC as a biology lab instructor, South Carolina
Department of Natural Resources as a biologist; The Nature Conservancy monitoring
conservation easements for large properties for easement compliance, presence of
invasive species and general ecological condition; US Army Corps of Engineers as a
wetland biologist on permitting. She directed research on the turquoise darter
reintroduction effort including backpack electrofishing, stream delineation and watf
velocity and substrate measurements. Holland is an asset to the Michael Baker Team and I
often be found saving a flipped beetle or identifying a bird passing through as she takes stream and
wetland data.
I N T E R N AT 10 N A L
Page 20

Big Branch Mitigation Project
CATAWBA RIVER BASI N / RFP #16-007875 / CU #03050101
✓ictoria recentlyjoined Michael Baker Engineering as an Environmental Engineer and is bringing
experience from The Nature Conservancy where she reviewed and developed plans and
specifications for green stormwater infrastructure projects. Her projects focused on erosion
control, flood and stormwater management, and eco-engineering (living shorelines, green
stormwater infrastructure, marsh restoration, etc). Victoria also worked as a Town
Engineer with the Town of Blacksburg, Virginia and understands procurement of services,
review and approval of plans and specifications, field inspections and construction
management. As an adjunct instructor at Virginia Tech, Victoria provided instruction of
water/wastewater engineering design. Her work also includes surface water treatment
:)filter experience.
INTERNATIONAL Page21

rPart4. Technical Approach
Big Branch Mitigation Project
CATAWBA RIVER BASI N 1 RFP #16-007875 1 CU #03050101
Project Goals & Objectives
The Big Branch Mitigation Project will
provide numerous water quality and
ecological benefits on -site and within
the Big Branch, Elk Shoals Creek, and r t1 wt e
Catawba River Watersheds. Big Branch
is located within a water supply
watershed (WS-IV), ultimately draining
about 4 miles downstream into the
Catawba River and Lookout Shoals
Lake, which is a drinking water source
for several nearby municipalities. '
While some benefits may be more
limited to the j roect area many
Y rr
others, such as nutrient and bacterial
removal reduction of sedimentationAC
and improved aquatic and terrestrial Jiv
habitat, have more far-reaching` A r
effects, potentially extending u
downstream to the Catawba River and Lookout Shoals Lake reservoir. Implementing this project on a stream contributing
to the Catawba River watershed will meet all six of the major CU-wide restoration goals listed in the 2009 (amended July
2018) Upper Catawba River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP) (NCDMS 2018) report. The goals and approach to meet
are listed as follows:
Restoration of nutrient- and sediment-
impaired waters (including tributary
streams) of the Catawba River mainstem
lakes (water supply reservoirs), including
Lake James, Lake Rhodhiss, Lake Hickory
and Lookout Shoals Lake.
Goals01W�.
The proposed project reduces sediment inputs into the
target local watershed streams by stabilizing stream banks
and riparian zones. The site is located in the Elk Shoal Creek
watershed which makes up part of the Lookout Shoals Lake
watershed.
Yes
Protection of riparian buffers and aquatic
The proposed project restores riparian buffers by excluding
Yes, within
habitat within the headwater reaches of
livestock and replanting buffers with diverse woody and
target local
asset -rich watersheds of the upper
herbaceous vegetation within a target local watershed of
watershed
Catawba River basin, including the upper
the upper Catawba River basin. Several headwater
and upper
Linville River, North Fork Catawba River,
tributaries are included within the project.
Catawba
Wilson Creek, Mulberry Creek, Johns River
River basin
and Lower Little River.
Aquatic habitat is proposed to be restored by establishing
(outside of
natural channel geometry along the headwater tributaries
watersheds
that will provide appropriate sediment transport and access
listed)
to the stream's historic floodplain. Additionally, aquatic
habitat will be restored by improving bedform diversity and
the inclusion of woody debris and structures.
Implementation of stormwater assessment
The site is nine miles from Taylorsville and will provide
Yes, but
and management efforts, including
stormwater BMP treatments to smooth storm hydrographs
outside of
stormwater BMP projects, within urban
and reduce sediment inputs to the system.
City Limits.
and suburban subwatersheds in the
Linville, Marion, Lenoir, Morganton,
Hickory and Taylorsville areas.
Page 22
I N T E R N A 7 1 0 N A L

Big Branch Mitigation Project
CATAWBA RIVER BASIN / RFP #16-007875 / CU #03050101
W-Wide Restora
LApproach to Meet Goals
Meet Goal
Increased implementation of agricultural
Agricultural BMPs will be implemented along the proposed
Yes
BMPs within heavily agricultural sub-
project in multiple locations across two farms. Site is
watersheds of TLWs, including North and
located in the Elk Shoal Creek watershed.
South Muddy Creeks, Silver Creek, lower
Lower Creek, Lower Little River, Jumping
Run Creek and Elk Shoal Creek.
Restoration of nutrient- and sediment-
The proposed project will reduce nutrient and bacterial
Yes
impaired waters (including tributary
inputs into watershed streams by excluding livestock and
streams) of the Catawba River mainstem
improving riparian vegetation, resulting in greater root
lakes (water supply reservoirs), including
density that will mitigate these inputs. Project is upstream
Lake James, Lake Rhodhiss, Lake Hickory
of Lookout Shoals Lake.
and Lookout Shoals Lake.
Continuation of the collaborative
The proposed project will assess, plan, and restore part of
Yes, but
watershed assessment, planning and
the targeted local watershed draining to Elk Shoals Creek
outside of
restoration efforts that are integral to three
and Lookout Shoals Lake.
LWP
existing LWP initiatives in the upper
Catawba River basin: Lower Creek (DMS
and LCAT), Muddy Creek (Muddy Creek
Restoration Partnership) and Lake Rhodhiss
(WPCOG).
Additionally, as stated in RFP 16-007875 Technical Proposal Evaluation Criteria Catawba 03050101 CU Rating Form Section
Functional Uplift Evaluation, the proposed project addresses the following functional categories and stressors:
rater Quality
on -functioning riparian
uffer/wetland vegetation
Planting full riparian buffer with a variety of native
hardwood trees and shrubs as well as herbaceous species
High
• Sediment
Streambank stabilization and streambed restoration
allowing for appropriate sediment transport
Very high
• Nutrients
BMPs, riparian buffer restoration, and livestock exclusion
Very high
• Fecal Coliform
BMPs, riparian buffer restoration, and livestock exclusion
Very high
• Other
N/A
N/A
Hydrology
• Peak Flows
Installation of BMPs, riparian buffers, and the restoration
of floodplain access should reduce peak flows
Very high
• Artificial Barriers
Remove spoil piles, replace clogged culverts
High
• Ditching/Draining
Priority 1 restoration across the site to raise water table,
remove artificial ditching and non-functioning culverts
within conservation easement
High
• Other
N/A
N/A
Habitat
• Habitat Fragmentation
Large Conservation Easement being established
High
• Limited Bedform Diversity
Proposing instream structures to increase diversity and
promote riffle/pool sequencing
Very high
• Absence of Large Woody Debris
Installation of geolifts, brush toe, and log vanes, as well as
buffer restoration (large woody debris source)
Very high
• Other
N/A
N/A
Page 23
I H T E R H A T 1 0 H A t

Big Branch Mitigation Project
CATAWBA RIVER BASIN/ RFP #16-007875 / CU #03050101
As stated previously, the project is located within TLW 03050101130010. Expected improvements to water quality,
hydrology, and habitat are outlined below as project goals.
NCDMS' mission is to provide cost-effective mitigation alternatives that improve the state's water resources. The Big
Branch Mitigation Project achieves this goal by providing high quality stream mitigation in an economical manner. The
Project will focus on enhancing water quality, restoring geomorphology, and improving and protecting aquatic and
terrestrial habitat. The Project will enhance water quality by reducing nutrient, sediment and bacterial inputs from the
project area through stream restoration and enhancement, cattle exclusion, and revegetation. Hydrology will be restored
to adjacent floodplains by implementing Priority Level 1 Restoration to raise the existing streambed. Aquatic and
terrestrial habitat will be improved and protected by improving stream bedform diversity and establishing a permanent
conservation easement along a fully -restored riparian buffer, 50 feet wide or greater along all proposed stream reaches.
Goals, general objectives, and anticipated benefits related to water quality and ecological processes are detailed below.
More detailed measurable objectives and associated performance standards will be developed as part of the site's
mitigation plan.
Nutrient and Restore riparian stream buffer— Excess nutrients and pollutants in the form of fecal coliform, phosphorus
bacteria removal and nitrogen from livestock waste are entering the project reaches without flowing through adequate
riparian buffers. Fully functioning riparian buffers will be established and permanently protected to filter
runoff containing excess nutrients and pollutants before entering the project reaches.
Exclude livestock — Livestock have unrestricted access to virtually all proposed stream reaches (See Figure
12). Exclusion of livestock through easements and permanent fencing will remove a direct source of
nutrients and fecal coliform inputs to the aquatic resource. Removing existing livestock trails, that run
through the buffer and across the stream, will eliminate flow paths that carry pollutants to the stream by
overland flow.
Implement structural BMPs — Agricultural BMPs will be implemented across the farms by the proposed
project. Wells, waterers, fencing, and stable farm crossings will be implemented on both farms to provide
livestock exclusion from the stream channel as well as a clean water source and stone pad area for the
livestock to water. The downstream landowner (Hull) has invested significantly into pasture production;
however, has had a difficult time getting pasture grasses to establish, thus a BMP is proposed to provide
improved buffering from these barren fields through the utilization of wood chips along the outer edge of
the buffer. An agricultural BMP will also be constructed within the conservation easement below the Smith
pond. This BMP will help to remove fecal coliform and nutrients through detention, plant uptake and
microbial activity. Livestock will be excluded from the BMP to prevent direct pollutant inputs and
degradation by hoof shear.
Sediment removai Restore proper channel form — Streams with proper dimension, pattern, and profile will efficiently
transport sediment and allow for deposition on point bars and on the floodplain. In addition, the design
will prevent degradation by arresting and repairing any headcuts, dissipating energy over proper riffle and
pool and/or step -pool, sequences, and by dissipating stream energy with overbank flooding for storms
greater than bankfull.
Construct in -stream structures — In -stream structures such as cross vanes, single arm vanes, and j-hooks
divert shear stress from the banks to the center of the channel during storm events thus reducing bank
erosion. Based on preliminary site assessments, stream bank erosion is a main contributor of sediment and
turbidity within the project area and to downstream reaches.
Page 24
I N T E R N AT 10 N A L

Big Branch Mitigation Project
CATAWBA RIVER BASIN / RFP #tb-007875 / CLJ #03050101
r
Sediment removal Restore riparian stream buffer —All project reaches proposed for restoration are lacking a diverse, mature,
fully wide riparian buffer. A restored riparian buffer will increase root mass within stream banks, thus
decreasing bank erosion and downstream sedimentation. Restored riparian buffers will also filter sediment
from overland pasture runoff.
Implement stream bank bioengineering — Construction of geolifts, brush mattresses, brush layers,
installation of live stakes, and other bioengineering practices will re-establish a healthy root mass along the
stream banks, thus preventing erosion and excess sediment delivery to the stream.
Benefits Related to Ecological .
.. Objectives - Benefits
Improved substrate
Restore proper channel form — Restored channel dimension, pattern, and profile will ensure adequate bed
and in -stream cover
load and suspended sediment transport according to sediment supply, valley type and valley slope.
Appropriate sediment transport will ensure the sediment supply is adequately transported and excessive
degradation or aegradation does not occur.
Construct in -stream structures — Construction of in -stream structures, which are designed to improve
bedform diversity, increase dissolved oxygen, and trap detritus, will improve in -stream cover and aquatic
habitat.
Reduce water
Restore riparian stream buffer — A restored and protected riparian stream buffer will increase shading of
temperature
the project stream reaches. The increased shade is expected to decrease water temperatures.
Implement stream bank bioengineering — Bioengineering such as geolifts and stream bank live staking will
provide tree canopy and shading to the stream and reduce water temperatures once established.
Improved
Restore riparian buffers — Restored riparian buffers will decrease runoff rates and increase infiltration of
floodwater
precipitation into the local ground water. In addition, the restored stream reaches will have increased
retention
access to their historic floodplains, allowing floodwater energy to dissipate over the floodplain and
floodwater retention time to increase.
Restoration of
Restore riparian buffers — Riparian buffer planting and streambank bioengineering will improve terrestrial
terrestrial habitat
habitat throughout the entire conservation easement. The conservation easement will adjoin other mature
wooded areas at the upstream and downstream extents, creating a wildlife corridor.
Improved aesthetics
Restore riparian buffer vegetation — Areas where the riparian buffer vegetation has been removed, has low
plant diversity, or is low quality will be replanted with native riparian vegetation. Treating exotic plant
species and planting native woody and herbaceous plants will greatly improve site aesthetics.
Exclude livestock — Livestock exclusion will reduce unsightly bank erosion and livestock waste from the
project area.
Restore proper channel form — Restoring stable channel dimension, pattern, and profile will decrease bank
erosion and restore a more natural appearance to project reaches.
Improved wetland
Restore hydrology — Hydric soils noted during field investigations should be restored. Restoration will be
function
accomplished through implementing a Priority 1 restoration approach, which will raise the streambed
elevation, increasing groundwater levels in the adjacent hydric soils. These areas will also be replanted with
a native riparian wetland vegetation community and protected by establishing a conservation easement.
Existing wetlands will be enhanced or restored through improved hydrological function, the
reestablishment of wetland vegetation, and by the permanent exclusion of livestock.
Page 25
1 N T E R N A 7 1 0 N A L

r
Big Branch Mitigation Project
CATAWBA RIVER BASI N / RFP #16-007875 / CU #03050101
Improve aquatic Aquatic habit — Habitat will be improved from implementing each previously listed goal. If all goals are
habitat achieved, the project will realize maximum aquatic habitat improvement and ecological uplift.
Project Description Overview
The project is located in Alexander County just outside the town of
Stony Point, within the Catawba River Basin TLW 03050101130010
(Figure 1). The project consists of Big Branch (referred to as the
mainstem or MS) and four smaller UTs to this mainstem reach. The
MS flows into Elk Shoals Creek just % of a mile below the site, which in
turn flows into the Catawba River and Lookout Shoals Lake roughly 3
miles further downstream. This watershed is classified as a Water
Supply (WS-IV) from the source to Elk Shoal Creek (Stream Index 11-
73-2) and serves as the water source for several downstream
municipalities. Michael Baker's detailed field investigations
documented significant degradation of this aquatic resource at the
project site. The degradation is a result of historic channelization and
unimpeded livestock access and is mainly in the form of extreme bank
erosion, channel incision, excessive sedimentation, direct inputs of nutrients and bacteria from animal waste, lack of
bedform diversity, and poor -quality riparian buffers along many stream sections. These related conditions make the
ecological and functional uplift potential that can be provided through implementation of the Big Branch Mitigation
Project very high.
Each of the project reaches has been heavily impacted from historic and ongoing land use. Currently, the land use within
the project area is predominantly livestock production but historically has also included areas of row -crop production.
These land uses and the associated straightening/dredging of streams to maximize production area and improve drainage
resulted in severe resource degradation. Livestock currently have access to all the streams identified for restoration and
enhancement. Within the project area, 80% of the stream length proposed for restoration or enhancement have poor
quality riparian buffers, with approximately 16% having only grass or bare buffers, and 64% having buffers of less than 30
feet in width. And while the remaining stream length does have forested buffers greater than 30 feet in width, they have
a low diversity of species and are in poor health due to livestock impacts. Several invasive species are also found in the
project area including significant areas of Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), with multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora) and
tree -of -heaven (Ailanthus altissima) also found scattered throughout the site. Figure 12 shows the most recent aerial
photography of the site and details the location of absent or partially functioning riparian buffers along all the project
reaches. The constant livestock access, with extreme bank erosion and incision, have created extremely poor channel
conditions with many trees falling into the stream or being undercut and at risk of falling.
According to the 2009 Catawba River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP) amended July 2018, the project is located within
the Elk Shoal Creek Watershed TLW 03050101130010. Although there are no 303(d) listed streams in this TLW, the RBRP
indicates it does contain many degraded streams. The watershed has over 45% of its land dedicated to some form of
agricultural production, including 19 NPDES-permitted concentrated animal feeding operations. This report also states
that within this TLW there are zero acres in conservation (though it appears there are two DMS easements located
approximately 2 miles away along Elk Shoal Creek and a tributary), and that many streams here are in need of restoration
with a high percentage of them lacking a fully functioning riparian buffer.
As described previously, the project also supports all three of the functional categories listed in the Technical Proposal
Evaluation Criteria Rating Form, Section 2. Functional Uplift Evaluation: Water Quality, Hydrology, and Habitat along with
each of their listed functional stressors. Thus, the project supports a wide range of watershed planning goals, addressing
a number of pollutant sources and water quality stressors, with a high overall functional uplift potential. The project will
be protected through a permanent conservation easement that will encompass more than 35.5 acres of land.
Page 26
1 N T E R N AT 10 N A L

Big Branch Mitigation Project
CATAWBA RIVER BASI N / RFP #16-007875 1 CU #03050101
There are ten stream reaches at this project site totaling approximately 12,630 LF (MS, UT1, UT1A, UT1B, UT2, UT2A, UT3,
UT3A, UT313, and UT4). Field evaluations determined that all reaches are perennial with the exception of the intermittent
reach UT2A. The lower section of UT4 also scored as an intermittent on the stream form due to the severe impacts from
historic channelization and cattle access, which has altered the stream geomorphology here to such an extent that the
form criteria rates this as an intermittent channel. However, we strongly believe it is actually perennial due to the
significant level of flow observed during the dry season, from the observed condition of the channel bed, and from
landowner discussions. The presence of historic valleys for each of the project stream reaches can be seen on USGS
topographic and NCDOT LIDAR imagery derived topographic contours for the site (Figures 2 and 5) and were obvious
during field investigations. Additionally, the historic aerial photograph from 1956 has been marked in blue pen by NRCS
agents to show the streams on site at that time (Figure 8C). Reaches MS, UT1, UT1A, UT1B, UT2, UT2A, UT3, UT3A, UT313,
and UT4 are all clearly marked as streams, though UT3A and UT313 are a bit blurry.
Field evaluations of intermittent/perennial stream status were made in July 2019 under relatively dry conditions. These
evaluations were based on the North Carolina Division of Water Resources stream assessment protocols (NCDWR 2010).
A stream form was completed for each reach. Figures 7A and 7B show the watershed drainage areas for each reach, while
Table 1 below presents the results of the field evaluations along with the assessed status of each project reach.
Table 1. Summary Information for Field Investigations to Determine Intermittent/Perennial Status.
NCDWR Stream
Project Reach
Existing Project Reach
Classification Form
Watershed Drainage
Stream Status ..
Designation
Length (ft.)
Score
Area (acres)
Field Analyses
MS
5,903
49.5
2,036
Perennial
UT1
1,312
34
46
Perennial
UT1A
282
38
9.4
Perennial
UT1B
215
32
17
Perennial
UT2
1,121
36
43
Perennial
UT2A
309
20
3.3
Intermittent
UT3
1,106
38
156
Perennial
UT3A
248
35.5
78
Perennial
UT3B
250
37.5
59
Perennial
UT4 lower
668
26.5*
35
Perennial*
UT4 upper
248
31.5
28
Perennial
Note 1: NCDWR Stream classification forms are available upon request for the streams listed above.
Note 2: Watershed drainage area is approximated using the USGS StreamStats program and from topographic and LIDAR information
at the downstream end of each reach.
* Due to severe impacts from historic channelization and cattle access, the stream geomorphology in this reach has been altered to
such an extent that the stream form criteria rates this as an intermittent channel, though we strongly believe it is actually perennial.
All reaches within the proposed project boundary are being addressed such that the maximum uplift for water quality,
hydrology, and habitat for the site will be achieved.
Geology: Geologically, the Big Branch site lies within the Inner Piedmont Belt, consisting of metamorphic rock primarily
in the mica schist formation. Lenses and layers of quartz schist, micaceous quartzite, calc-silicate rock, biotite gneiss,
amphibolite, and phyllite are also found throughout this formation, with garnet, staurolite, kyanite, or sillimanite occurring
locally (NCGS, 1985).
Page 27
I N T E R N A 7 1 0 N A t

Big Branch Mitigation Project
CATAWBA RIVER BASI N / RFP #16-007875 / CU #03050101
Ecoregion: The project is located within the EPA Level IV Northern Inner Piedmont ecoregion of the larger Level III
Piedmont ecoregion (Griffith et al., 2002). This ecoregion is described as a rolling to hilly region with higher elevations,
more rugged topography, more monadnocks (mountain outliers), colder temperatures, more snowfall, mostly mesic soil
temperature regimes, and a shorter growing season than other areas of the Piedmont. It also has many disjunct mountain
species, such as more Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana) and chestnut oak (Quercus montana) and fewer shortleaf pines (Pinus
echinata). Streams in this region also tend to have higher gradients and contain many mountain -type macroinvertebrate
species than those found in the outer Piedmont. The physiography of the region is described as consisting of dissected
irregular plains with low to high hills and ridges, with low to moderate gradient streams of cobble, gravel, and sandy
substrates. Elevations vary dramatically across the region, from 360 feet in the eastern portion to 2,035 feet along the
western boundary with the Blue Ridge Ecoregions. The Big Branch site is roughly in the middle of this range with average
elevations on site of around 1,000 feet.
Soils: The project site is located within the Felsic Crystalline Soil System of the
Piedmont Soil Region of North Carolina (Daniels et al., 1999), formed primarily
in residium saprolite from the underlying bedrock metamorphic or igneous
parent materials. Topographically, broad gently sloping uplands are common
with moderately to steeply sloping areas with narrow convex ridges and steep
valley slopes along branching, dendritic stream patterns. Finer -textured soils
such as Cecil and Pacolet typically dominate the uplands, while more coarse -
loamy soils such as Chewacla and Toccoa are commonly found throughout the
floodplains.
The specific soils found in the general surrounding area of the Big Branch Site
are dominated by a common Piedmont soil transitional landscape with Licensed Soil Scientist evoluoting
Clifford sandy clay loam soils (2-8% slopes) found in the broad interstream on -site soils.
divides, with Fairview sandy clay loam soils (8-25% slopes) found on the
steeper slopes along the stream channels, with Codorus loams (0-2% slopes) found throughout the floodplains (Figure 3).
These Codorus loams dominate the proposed project site itself, and are very deep, moderately well drained to poorly
drained, moderately permeable soils formed in alluvial materials and typically found on floodplains throughout the
Piedmont. Codorus is an NRSC-listed hydric soil for Alexander County. Its formal taxonomic classification is: fine -loamy,
mixed, active, mesic Fluvaquentic Dystrudepts.
Threatened and Endangered Species: A search within a two-mile radius of the project site was conducted on July 31,
2019 using the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) Data Explorer (https://ncnhde.natureserve.org/). This
search indicated that there "are no records of threatened or endangered species, important natural communities, natural
areas or conservation/managed areas" within a one -mile radius of the project location. Further, there are no records of
threatened or endangered species or important natural communities or natural areas within a two-mile radius of the
project location. The only occurrence within the two-mile radius is of a conservation easement managed by NC-DMS, the
'Elk Shoals RFP' site. For Alexander County, there are three species that are listed as Threated by the US Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS), and one species that is listed under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGPA): the Northern long-
eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) (NLEB) and the Dwarf -flowered heartleaf (Hexastylis naniflora) are listed as threatened;
the Bog turtle (Glyptemys muhlenbergii) is listed as Threatened (S/A); and the Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocaphalus) is
listed under the BGPA.
NLEB is a federally listed threatened species and occurs in the mountains, with scattered records in the Piedmont and
coastal plain. In western North Carolina, NLEB spend winter hibernating in caves and mines. During the summer, NLEB
roost singly or in colonies underneath bark, in cavities, or in crevices of both live and dead trees (typically >_3 inches
diameter breast height (dbh)). This bat has also been found, rarely, roosting in structures like barns and sheds, under
eaves of buildings, behind window shutters, in bridges, and in bat houses. Foraging occurs on forested hillsides and ridges,
and occasionally over forest clearings, over water, and along tree -lined corridors. Mature forests may be an important
habitat type for foraging. Forested habitats containing trees at least 3-inch dbh in the project area provide suitable habitat
for NLEB. Due to the decline of the NLEB population from the White Nose Syndrome (WNS), the USFWS has issued the
finalization of a special rule under section 4(d) of the ESA to addresses the effects to the NLEB resulting from purposeful
Page 28
I N T E R N AT 10 N A L

Big Branch Mitigation Project
CATAWBA RIVER BASIN/ RFP #16-007875 / CU #03050101
and: incidental take based on the occurrence of WNS. Because the project is located within a WNS zone and will include
the removal/clearing of trees, it is subject to the final 4(d) ruling. As previously stated, a review of NCNHP records did not
indicate any known NLEB populations within 2.0 miles of the study area; therefore, the project will be eligible to use the
NLEB 4(d) Rule Streamlined Consultation Form to meet regulatory requirements for section 7(a)(2) compliance 4(d)
consultation.
Dwarf -flowered heartleaf (Hexastylis naniflora) is listed as federally threatened and occurs in the upper piedmont region
of North Carolina and upstate South Carolina. The dwarf -flowered heartleaf is a low -growing evergreen perennial that
flowers in mid -March to early June. This species grows in acidic soils along bluffs and adjacent slopes, in boggy areas next
to streams and creek headwaters, and along the slopes of nearby hillsides and ravines. Because much of the habitat at
this site is currently or has been heavily grazed by livestock, suitable habitat for the species is not present. Since no known
occurrences of the dwarf -flowered heartleaf have been documented within a two-mile radius of the project area, it is
anticipated that the project will not affect the species. However, a field survey will be conducted during the plant's
blooming season to verify the presence or absence of the species.
Bog turtle (Glyptemys muhlenbergii) is listed as federally Threatened due to Similarity of Appearance (T(S/A)). This
designation was put in place after the northern population of the bog turtle (from New York south to Maryland) was listed
as Threatened in 1997. The designation bans the collection and interstate and international commercial trade of bog
turtles from the southern population. It has no effect on land management activities by private landowners in North
Carolina. The southern bog turtle population is considered a Federal species of concern due to habitat loss. The habitat
for this species consists of unpolluted wetlands such as bogs, swamps and wet meadows dominated by herbaceous and
scrub/shrub vegetation, bordered by wooded areas. During field investigations, very little suitable habitat like this was
identified and no individuals or populations of this species were observed in the proposed project area. And as no known
occurrences of the bog turtle have been documented within a two-mile radius of the project area, it is anticipated that
the project will not affect the species.
Cultural Resources: Michael Baker conducted a search for state registered historic properties within a two-mile area of
the project site, using the NC State Historic Preservation Office's (NCSHPO) online GIS database. The search resulted in
the identification of two existing structures of historic significance. Both sites are historic houses (the J. Will Alexander
House, and the Frederick Mock House) located over one mile from the project site, but both are only listed as being
potentially eligible for inclusion on the national register. No registered historic properties are located on the project site.
Michael Baker will coordinate with all applicable state and federal agencies during the categorical exclusion (CE) and
permitting phases of the project with regards to all protected biological, cultural, and historic resources. These agencies
include NCSHPO, USFWS, and NCWRC among others.
Sediment Analysis: Visual inspections of the stream substrate materials were conducted for each reach. The project
site consists primarily of sand and gravel bed streams with significant amounts of sand deposition observed in long
sections of the larger reaches, excessively so for this geographic region. This is almost certainly due to the extreme lateral
instability observed and to the resulting extensive stream bank erosion, as well as long-term livestock access. Due to
incision, the streams do not have access to their floodplains where excess sediment could be deposited.
Due to channelization and downcutting from headcut migration,
the mainstem has bedrock knickpoints controlling the grade of this
channel. There is some evidence of bench building within the
mainstem as could be expected with the current stage of the
channel's evolution. However, livestock access has limited the
extent of these indicators. While this process if left to evolve, would
eventually create a channel and floodplain at this lower elevation,
this process is still a long way from completion. A large amount of
sediment will continue to enter the watershed from bank erosion
and cattle impacts during this process if restoration activities are
not implemented.
- s F
Mainstem Streambed
INTERNATI0NAL
Page 29

Big Branch Mitigation Project
CATAWBA RIVER BASI N / RFP #16-007875 1 CU #03050101
Tributaries UT1, UT1A, UT1B, UT2, UT2A, UT3, UT3A, UT313, and UT4 have also become incised due to past alterations,
cattle impacts, and to adjacent MS incision, and have also widened to a significant degree. The only exceptions to this are
found in the lower sections of tributaries UT1 and UT2, which are not particularly incised but are overwide from livestock
impacts and have numerous ephemeral drainages flowing into them carrying heavy sediment loads. These lower sections
of UT1 and UT2 are in the floodplain of the MS and have aggregated from the extreme erosion and downcutting upstream.
The end result of these channel alterations is increased lateral and vertical erosion and greater instability that is likely to
continue for a significant span of time, contributing tons of sand, silt, and gravel to the watershed.
The proposed project will stabilize these reaches reducing localized
erosion and sediment supply which is a major RBRP goal. Appropriate
bankfull channel geometry, planform, and profiles will be designed
to ensure that the streams have access to depositional features and
that the streams will have enough competency to transport the
sediment supply. In areas where the channel is degrading vertically
and/or horizontally, the proposed geometry will be corrected such
that stream power will move the sediment supply through the
system while maintaining the system's stability. A detailed sediment
transport analysis will be conducted during the design phase of the
project to ensure that the sediment supplied from the watershed can
be stored on point bars and floodplains and that sediment is
transported downstream in a manner to ensure equilibrium and long-
term stability.
UT2 Streambed
The project will address erosion on all the unstable intermittent and
perennial stream reaches on the project site, and future supplies of
gravel and fine sediment from on -site channel erosion is expected to
be reduced significantly. Consequently, constructed riffles will be
incorporated in the design with larger rock sizes that will be
immobile during storm events. The constructed riffles will also
increase dissolved oxygen content, provide aquatic habitat and
assurance that the restored channel will not degrade over time.
Existing Conditions Descriptions: Michael Baker conducted field
studies to evaluate and document the general existing conditions of
Cattle Hoofprints Along Streambed the site, as well as specific assessments for each project stream
reach. These studies included field evaluations, photographic
documentation, cross section surveys, soils investigations, and pebble counts. Field -work dependant sections of the
NCDMS' Technical Proposal Evaluation Criteria Catawba 03050101 CU Rating Form for RFP# 16-007875 and all of the
mapping and calculation of associated statistics were completed in accordance with NCDMS' Guidance for the Submission
of Mapping and Associated Statistics for Full Delivery RFPs. A copy of the completed rating form, described above, is
included in the appendices. The results of the existing condition cross section surveys and/or visual field analysis were
used to conduct geomorphic stream classification for the project stream reaches.
The results of the existing condition cross section surveys are summarized in Table 2. The results of the field evaluations
were used in conjunction with available GIS data to develop mapping calculations and Figures.
Table 2. Summary of Existing Condition Cross Section Survey Data.
I N T E R N A 7 1 0 N A L
Page 30

Big Branch Mitigation Project
CATAWBA RIVER BASI N / RFP #16-007875 1 ClJ #03050101
Project Reach
Designation'
Watershed Drainage
Area (acres) Z
Entrenchment Ratio
Width/Depth Ratio
Typical Bank Height Ratio
Note 1: Cross section locations are shown in Figure 9 and include 5 on MS and 1 each on UT1, UT2, UT3, UT3A, UT38, and UT4.
Note 2: Watershed drainage area is approximated using the USGS StreamStats program and from topographic and LIDAR
information at the downstream end of each reach.
MS: The mainstem (Big Branch) reach begins at the upstream project
property line and flows down valley to the southeast for approximately
3,800 feet to a box culvert under Drumstand Road, where it continues
flowing for another 2,100 feet until it leaves the downstream project
property. MS is a perennial channel with a valley slope of approximately
0.50% and a drainage area of 3.2 square miles (2,036 acres). MS is
significantly incised with bank height ratios (BHR) greater than 1.5
throughout its length (and often much greater). This reach also exhibits
significant levels of stream bank scour over its entire length. Mass wasting
was even observed on approximately 15-20% of the reach. The reach
currently classifies predominantly as a Rosgen F5 stream type, though some
sections classify as a G5 or B5 stream type, demonstrating the channel
evolutionary process. Although a gravel bed might be expected for MS given
its size and geographic location, long sections of this reach are buried in
thick sand deposition, though sections of gravel bed are still observed. Two
areas of bedrock outcropping were also observed in the channel. There are
long sections of obvious spoil berms located along the channel banks as well
from historic dredging and straightening of the channel.
The buffer along this reach varies from areas with only grass, to sections
with only a narrow row of trees on one or both banks, to sections that have
scattered trees on only one bank. The significant incision and erosion have
caused many of the trees along the streambanks to be undercut. Many have
fallen or are in danger of falling and are causing further erosion as flows are
directed into the banks. The buffer also has invasive species which include Mainstem Smith Property
significant amounts of Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) found throughout (Upstream on Drumstand Road)
the buffer, with scattered multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), and tree -of -
heaven (Ailanthus altissima) also present. And while there are mature trees scattered throughout the buffer at varying
densities, livestock have access to the entire stream channel and all buffer areas.
Mainstem Hull Property
(Downstream on Drumstand Road)
This access has caused significant degradation of the channel, as described above, but it has also caused degradation of
the buffer area along the channel. There are multiple trails along the sides of the channel and access points into and
across the channel that are severely degraded. These livestock trails are additional sources of sediment from bank
trampling and as overland storm flow carries sediment down these trails and into the channel.
Page 31
I N T E R N AT 10 N A L

Big Branch Mitigation Project
CATAWBA RIVER BASIN/ RFP #16-007875 / CU #03050101
UT1: Reach UT1 is a 1,312 ft long tributary that connects with the MS on the
left bank, approximately 775 feet upstream of the property line at the bottom
of the project. UT1 is a perennial channel with a valley slope of around 2.3%
and a drainage area of 46 acres. UT1 is moderately incised for much of its
length, and it is overly wide from livestock impacts. The majority of the reach
currently classifies as a G stream type. Two existing culverts near the top and
bottom of the reach are clogged, causing stream hydrologic disconnects, some
bypass flow scour, and substantial sand deposition in the lowermost section.
The entirety of the left floodplain along UT1 is a recently timbered field
currently being prepared for use as pasture. A large debris berm of soil and
timber waste was built along the left bank of the reach during the timbering
UT1: Earthen Berms on Channel's Left activity that blocks most overland flow from the channel (Figure 11). The
Bank and Barren Buffer adjacent field has a very low density of vegetation and ephemeral drains have
formed in several locations, scouring through the debris berm and dumping
sediment -laden storm flow into the reach. The channel bed of UT1 consists of sand with small amounts of gravel. Many
sections of the reach are clogged with sand deposition and several headcuts were observed. The banks are moderately
unstable with some sections of active scour observed along with sections where herbaceous vegetation is present to
provide seasonal stabilization. Approximately 15-30% of reach banks show active erosion and scour. The upstream origin
of UT1 is the confluence of two smaller tributaries, Reaches UT1A and UT1B.
UT1A: Reach UT1A is a 282 ft long, spring -fed, perennial tributary to UT1 with a drainage area of approximately 9.4 acres
that originates at a headcut just below the recently timbered open field that is being prepared for use as future pasture.
It is a moderately incised channel (BHR —1.3) with little access to a floodplain and with headcuts observed in the channel.
Its banks are moderately unstable with localized bank erosion found in sections. The streambed shows evidence of
sedimentation form the adjacent baron fields. It is also missing a significant portion of its buffer along the left bank, where
the adjacent field was recently timbered and is being prepared for use as pasture.
UT1113: Reach UT1B is a 215 ft long perennial tributary to UT1 with a drainage area of approximately 17.4 acres that, similar
to UT1A, originates at a headcut just below the recently timbered open field that is being prepared for use as future
pasture. This section, while still maintaining a mostly wooded buffer (with numerous invasive species), is nevertheless
highly degraded. It is very incised (BHR>1.5), has highly eroding banks, has numerous headcuts found in the channel, and
the streambed is loose and shows significant sedimentation from baron fields upslope.
UT2: Reach UT2 is a 1,121 ft long tributary that connects with the MS on the
right bank, approximately 1,800 feet upstream of the southern project
property line. UT2 is a perennial channel with a valley slope of approximately
3.3% and a drainage area of 43 acres. UT2 is very incised with BHRs greater
than 2.0 throughout most of its length. The reach completely lacks a riparian
buffer in its lower section, and has only a partial buffer in its upper section.
This reach exhibits extensive stream bank scour that is apparent over the
majority of the reach, though the lowermost section is comparatively stable
with pasture grasses present. There are even a few areas of mass wasting
;4x found in the upper and middle sections of the reach. Livestock hoof shear
UT2: Bank Erosion on a 90 Degree Turn on the banks is probably a greater contributor to loosening soil and
mobilizing it into the channel than is stormflow induced mass wasting due to
the small drainage area. Bed material consists of sand with a small amount of gravel. There is no obvious grade control
along this reach, and several headcuts were observed. Reach UT2 currently classifies as a G stream type.
UT2A: Reach UT2A is a 309 ft long tributary to UT2 that connects in roughly 60 ft from the very top of UT2. It is a spring -
fed, intermittent channel with a drainage area of roughly 3.3 acres. It is a degraded stream with severe incision (BHR over
2.0) and sections of active erosion along the banks, with headcuts observed in the channel, and lacking any riparian buffer.
The beginning of this reach is the break at which the channel changes from ephemeral to intermittent.
Page 32
INTERNATI0NAL

Big Branch Mitigation Project
CATAWBA RIVER BASIN/ RFP #16-007875 1 CU #03050101
UT3: Unstable Banks
UT3B: Unstable Banks and Cattle
Access degradation
UT4: Livestock Crossing
UT4: Surveying Cross Section
UT3: Reach UT3 is a 1,106 ft long tributary that connects into the MS on the
left bank, at roughly its midpoint, approximately 600 feet upstream of
Drumstand Road. UT3 is a perennial channel with a valley slope of 1.2% and
a drainage area of 156 acres. UT3 is very incised in places with BHRs greater
than 2.0 throughout most of its length, particularly in the upper and lower
sections, though the middle section does appear to be better connected to
its floodplain. This reach exhibits stream bank scour in the upper and
lowermost sections, though in the middle has vegetation present along
much its banks. Bed material consists of sand with a small amount of gravel.
There was no obvious grade control along this reach and several headcuts
were observed. There are also several trees along this channel in the upper
portion that have fallen into or across the channel. The reach classifies as G
stream type. The upstream origin of UT3 is the confluence of two smaller
tributaries, Reaches UT3A and UT3B.
UT3A: Reach UT3A is a 248 ft long perennial tributary to UT3 with a
drainage area of approximately 78.3 acres that originates at a project
property line. The reach is severely incised (BHRs > 2.0) with actively
eroding banks observed throughout the reach. Excessive sedimentation
and headcuts are also found throughout the channel. And though it does
currently have a riparian buffer, it also has invasive species found within the
buffer and along the stream banks and is located within woods that may be
timbered in the future for additional pasture.
UT3B: Reach UT3B is a 1,161 ft long perennial tributary to UT3 with a
drainage area of approximately 59.8 acres that originates at the project
property line. Much like UT3A, this reach is severely incised (BHRs > 2.0)
with actively eroding banks observed throughout the reach. Excessive
sedimentation and headcuts are also found throughout the channel. There
are also several trees along this channel in the upper portion that have fallen
into or across the channel, with some debris jams resulting. And though it
does currently have a riparian buffer, it also has invasive species found
within the buffer and along the stream banks and is located within woods
that may be timbered for additional pasture in the future.
UT4: Reach UT4 is a 916 ft long spring -fed tributary that connects with the
MS on the right bank, approximately 580 feet downstream from the top of
the project. It has a drainage area of 35 acres and a valley slope of around
3.7%. The entirety of UT4 is a perennial channel, though the lower section
classifies as an intermittent due to the severity of the impacts from cattle
and historic channelization. These impacts have so dramatically affected
the stream geomorphology that the stream form criteria incorrectly rates
it as intermittent. The reach is very incised throughout, but especially in
the lower section where it has been dredged and straightened (with BHRs
significantly greater than 2.0). There are numerous headcuts and cattle
crossings observed throughout UT4 and areas of actively eroding banks and
some mass wasting found in the uppermost section. The upper section also
lacks a full buffer, while the lower section lacks any buffer at all, though
herbaceous vegetation is growing in and along much of the banks here to
provide at least some seasonal stability. There is an existing closed culvert
crossing causing aggradation upstream of the culvert and high flows to flood
over the crossing.
I N T E R N AT 10 N A L
Page 33

Big Branch Mitigation Project
CATAWBA RIVER BASI N / RFP #16-007875 / CU #03050101
Bed: material consists of sand deposition from upstream bank erosion, with some small amounts of gravel also found in
the bed of the upper section. The reach classifies as a G stream type. The MS and lowermost sections of UT1, UT2, UT3,
and UT4 are all located within a FEMA regulated floodplain (Zone AE, 1% chance annual flood) from FIRM Panel
3710377600J effective 12/18/2007 as shown in Figure 4. Due to the Priority Level I Restoration approach being proposed
on the MS, wherein the stream bed elevation will be raised to a significant degree, a CLOMR certification may be required
to address any proposed changes in the floodplain. Michael Baker's engineering staff routinely provides these services
(CLOMRs/LOMRs, and no -rise certifications) for restoration projects. Any activities conducted for this project within this
regulated zone will be done in accordance with FEMA regulations and we will coordinate with FEMA during project
development.
Based on a review using Google Earth, the nearest airport to the project site is the Alexander County private airport located
approximately 2.5 miles to the Northwest. Additionally, the Statesville Regional airport is located to the southeast
approximately 8.5 miles away.
Project Development
The Big Branch Mitigation Project will include the restoration and enhancement of 10 stream reaches and their associated
riparian buffers. This broad, balanced approach, utilizing a range of practices, from Priority Level 1 Restoration to
Enhancement Level II, is critical to providing the maximum functional uplift possible. Our proposed approach will
address all of the intermittent and perennial stream reaches within the project boundary including restoring and
protecting riparian buffers along all of the project stream reaches. This project has the potential to restore and enhance
up to approximately 11,121 LF of stream.
The streams to be restored or enhanced have been impacted by channelization, loss or degradation of riparian buffers,
past land use disturbances, current agricultural use, and direct livestock access (see photos throughout proposal).
Approximately 79% of the total streambank length is experiencing active bank erosion (Figure 10), and 100% of the total
stream length is actively subject to onsite water quality stressors resulting from livestock access and/or the lack of a
diverse high -quality riparian buffer (Figure 12). Approximately 75% of the total stream length exhibits significant, obvious
incision (BHR > 1.5) as detailed in Figure 9. The proposed project will provide or improve floodplain access to all reaches
undergoing Restoration.
For any project reach along which Priority Level II Restoration will be utilized (transitional areas), the following elements
will be incorporated into the proposed design and construction to the extent possible:
• Floodplain bench excavation grading will extend beyond the stream belt width such that meandering floodplains are
not created.
• All proposed floodplains will be constructed such that they are over -excavated to accommodate replacement of
topsoil.
• Design and construction oversight measures will ensure the proper harvesting, segregating, stockpiling, storage,
handling, overall management and replacement of A and B soil horizon materials onto the excavated floodplain.
• Constructed return slopes between the outer edge of the excavated floodplain and the terrace will be a minimum of
5:1 or flatter.
Michael Baker will continue to compile and assess watershed information including: drainage areas, historical land uses
and development trends, geologic setting, soil types, and terrestrial plant communities. Project reach designs will use
appropriate field investigations, hydraulic and hydrologic models, and regional curves to verify proposed bankfull channel
dimensions. Michael Baker will use the results of the existing condition analyses along with reference reach data from
previous projects to develop a proposed stream restoration design for the project reaches. This design will utilize multiple
restoration design techniques and approaches that have been successfully implemented on past projects, including
natural channel design methodology, under which dimensionless ratios from reference reach and past project experience
are used to restore stable dimension, pattern, and profile, as well as proper sediment -transport for the proposed reach.
The proposed project will provide increased floodplain access throughout the project area for MS and many of the
proposed tributaries and each will be monitored to demonstrate floodplain function. The stream channel design will
include analysis of the hydrology, hydraulics, shear stress, sediment transport, and appropriate channel dimensions. The
Page 34
I H T E R H A T 1 0 H A L

Big Branch Mitigation Project
CATAWBA RIVER BASIN / RFP #tb-007875 / CU #03050101
hydrology and hydraulics will include analysis of the bankfull discharge and comparison of the reference reach ratios to
design ratios from past projects under similar geomorphic and geographic settings which have proved successful.
The bankfull discharge will be used to develop the proposed channel dimension and to assess performance. Sediment
transport calculations and stream power analyses will be performed for the existing channels and the design channels for
comparison. Specifically, Michael Baker will perform representative pebble counts and will collect bar and/or sub -
pavement samples to evaluate bed material characteristics and sediment transport. The bed material will be sieved and a
grain size distribution developed. The results of the substrate analyses will be used to classify the streams and to complete
shear stress, sediment transport, and stability analyses. Michael Baker will use the critical shear stress and boundary shear
stress analysis approaches to verify that the channels as designed will not aggrade nor degrade.
Whenever possible, in -stream structures will be constructed only from materials naturally found at the project site such
as hardwood logs, brush, stone, and boulder materials. To ensure sustainability of those structures, Michael Baker will
only use methods of structure design and construction that have proven successful on numerous past projects in the same
geographic region.
Michael Baker has field verified that the project site has adequate, viable construction access, staging, and stockpile areas.
Note that crossings account for roughly 2% of the proposed stream length. The same site access points and features will
be used for future access after the completion of construction. Where practicable, impacts to existing native riparian
buffer vegetation, particularly mature native trees, will be minimized. The use of native riparian buffer transplants will be
maximized as well.
Proposed Restoration Approaches: Option A
MS — Restoration A Priority Level 1 restoration approach is
proposed for the MS to fully restore stream and associated buffer
functions. The reach currently exhibits lateral and vertical instability as
shown by active bank erosion, extreme incision, and excessive fine
sedimentation in the channel. This systemic instability will likely
continue, since the existing channel is so very incised and has mostly
vertical banks without access to a floodplain. The channel will be raised
to reconnect the stream to its historic floodplain. This will promote more
frequent overbank flooding thus reducing erosive stream energies
during storm events greater than the bankfull discharge. This floodplain
area will also act as a sediment sink providing storage of sediment from
upstream sources instead of sending all the sediment load downstream.
This will help accomplish one of the main goals in the RBRP plan of
removing excess sediment.
Mainstem Bank Erosion
Livestock Cooling in Mainstem
A Priority Level 2 approach will be used at the beginning of the reach
where the channel will be raised, on both the upstream and
downstream sections of Drumstand Rd, and at the end of the reach as
needed to match existing elevations. This approach will continue until
the bankfull elevation matches the existing valley elevation. Over
these short sections, a bankfull bench will be excavated to provide the
stream floodplain access. The reach will be designed as a Rosgen C4
stream type and will restore appropriate riffle -pool morphology.
This overall approach will restore appropriate meander geometry and
incorporate deep pools. This will greatly improve habitat throughout
this reach. In -stream structures such as constructed riffles, cross vanes
and j-hook vanes, will be constructed using boulder, stone, brush, and
log materials.
! N T E R N A 7 1 0 N A L
Page 35

Big Branch Mitigation Project
CATAWBA RIVER BASIN/ RFP #tb-007875 / CU #03050101
This technique will provide the appropriate bedform morphology, protect stream banks, improve aquatic habitat, and
ensure grade control along this reach. Channel banks will be graded to stable slopes and the adjacent floodplain will be
re -connected to promote stability and improve ground water hydrology.
Bioengineering techniques such as geolifts, root wads, toe wood, brush layers, and live stakes will also be used to protect
restored stream banks and to promote woody vegetation growth along the stream banks, particularly in high stress areas.
The old channel will be filled using suitable material up to the floodplain elevation. Some areas on the existing channel
may be only partially filled to create vernal pool areas.
Mature native trees will be located in our site survey and the stream design will avoid impacting as many of these trees
as possible. Any small native trees or shrubs will be protected or transplanted whenever possible. Invasive vegetation
will be mechanically removed during construction and will be chemically treated after that. Riparian buffers at least 50
feet in width will be restored and protected along all of the MS. There will be 2 rock crossings installed along the MS so
that livestock can utilize pasture areas on both sides of the conservation easement. These crossings will be gated so they
can be utilized when needed.
UT1: Manipulated Section
UT1 — Restoration A Priority Level 1 restoration approach is proposed
for reach UT1 to fully restore stream and associated buffer functions. The
reach currently exhibits lateral and vertical instability as shown by active
bank erosion, channel incision, several headcuts, and excessive fine
sedimentation found throughout the reach. This systemic instability will
likely continue, since the existing channel has unstable banks without access
to a full floodplain. As such, the channel will be raised to reconnect the
stream to its historic floodplain to promote more frequent overbank
flooding thus reducing erosive stream energies during storm events greater
than the bankfull discharge. The floodplain area will also act as a sediment
sink providing storage of sediment from upstream sources instead of
sending all the sediment load downstream into the MS. The large debris
berm of soil and timber waste located along the left bank of UT1 will be
removed, and the woody debris converted to wood chips to use as a soil amendment for the buffer. Invasive species will
be treated and a full 50 ft wide buffer will be planted along both stream banks. The floodplain in the lowermost section
of UT1 near its confluence with the MS exhibits extensive areas of hydric soils and wetland vegetation, and thus the
restoration will help restore a more appropriate hydrology to this area as well. A BMP will also be installed along an
ephemeral drainage running into the left bank of Reach UT1 that currently carries sediment -laden flow from the adjacent
timbered cutover area.
UT1A — Enhancement I Reach UT1A is a degraded spring -fed reach that merges with UT113 to form reach UT1. It
has headcuts in the channel and is incised with little access to a floodplain. However, its banks are moderately unstable
with localized bank erosion found in sections, and the buffers are partially functioning. Thus, Enhancement Level I work
is proposed for this reach that includes; sloping, matting, and live staking the sections of stream banks where active bank
erosion is occurring; repairing any headcuts and installing in -stream structures to create or improve channel features
(riffles/pools) and habitat; treating invasive species present; and planting a full 50 ft buffer on both sides of the channel.
UT1B — Enhancement I Reach UT113 is a degraded spring -fed reach that merges with UT1A to form reach UT1. It
has headcuts in the channel and is incised with no access to even a small floodplain. The banks are highly eroding;
however, the buffers are mostly functioning. Thus, Enhancement Level I work is proposed for this reach that includes;
sloping, matting, and live staking the small sections of stream banks where active bank erosion is occurring; repairing any
headcuts and installing in -stream structures to create or improve channel features (riffles/pools) and habitat; treating any
invasive species present; and planting a full 50 ft buffer on both sides of the channel.
Page 36
I N T E R N AT 10 N A L

Big Branch Mitigation Project
CATAWBA RIVER BASIN / RFP #tb-007875 / CU #03050101
UT2: Entrenched Cross Section (note tape)
UT2— Restoration A Priority Level 1 restoration approach is proposed
for reach UT2 to fully restore stream and associated buffer functions. The
reach currently exhibits lateral and vertical instability as shown by active
bank erosion, extreme incision, and excessive fine sedimentation in the
channel. This systemic instability will likely continue, since the existing
channel is so very incised and has mostly vertical, unstable banks without
access to a floodplain. The channel will be raised to reconnect the stream
to its historic floodplain. This will promote more frequent overbank
flooding thus reducing erosive stream energies during storm events
greater than the bankfull discharge. This floodplain area will also act as a
sediment sink providing storage of sediment from upstream sources
instead of sending all the sediment load downstream into the MS.
Livestock will be permanently excluded from the channel. Invasive species will be treated and a full 50 ft wide buffer will
be planted along both stream banks. The few large trees found scattered along the left bank of the reach will be left in
place wherever possible.
UT2A — Enhancement II UT2A is a highly degraded, intermittent, spring -fed reach that flows into the top section of
UT2. However, the existing channel is generally stable with only localized bank erosion. It is incised and has no access to
even a small floodplain. Enhancement Level II work is proposed for this reach that includes; sloping, matting, and live
staking the stream banks where active bank erosion is occurring; repairing any headcuts and installing structures to
prevent future headcuts, treating any invasive species present; and planting a full 50 ft buffer on both sides of the channel.
UT3 — Restoration (Upstream) and Enhancement II (Downstream) A Priority Level 1 restoration
approach is proposed for the upstream half of reach UT3 to fully restore stream and associated buffer functions. The
reach currently exhibits lateral and vertical instability as shown by active bank erosion, extreme incision, and areas of
excessive fine sedimentation in the channel. The channel will be raised to reconnect the stream to its historic floodplain,
promoting more frequent overbank flooding and reducing erosive stream energies during storm events greater than the
bankfull discharge. However, the downstream half of the reach, while still significantly incised and lacking a full riparian
buffer, appears more stable overall with established vegetation found along its banks. Thus, an Enhancement Level II
approach is proposed here that includes; sloping, matting, and live staking the stream banks where active bank erosion is
occurring; repairing any headcuts and installing a few in -stream structures where appropriate; treating any invasive
species present; and planting a full 50 ft buffer on both sides of the channel.
UT3A — Restoration A Priority Level 1 restoration approach is proposed for reach UT3A to fully restore stream
functions. The reach currently exhibits lateral and vertical instability as shown by active bank erosion, extreme incision,
multiple headcuts, and areas of fine sedimentation in the channel. This systemic instability will likely continue, since the
existing channel is incised, has mostly vertical banks without access to a floodplain. The channel will be raised to reconnect
the stream to its historic floodplain. This will promote more frequent overbank flooding thus reducing erosive stream
energies during storm events greater than the bankfull discharge.
UT3B: Bank Erosion
UT3B — Restoration A Priority Level 1 restoration approach is
proposed for reach UT313 to fully restore stream functions. The reach
currently exhibits lateral and vertical instability as shown by active bank
erosion, extreme incision, multiple headcuts, and areas of fine
sedimentation in the channel. This systemic instability will likely continue,
since the existing channel is incised, has mostly vertical banks without
access to a floodplain. The channel will be raised to reconnect the stream
to its historic floodplain. This will promote more frequent overbank
flooding thus reducing erosive stream energies during storm events
greater than the bankfull discharge. This reach is also located through a
forested area that may be cut for timber.
I N T E R N AT 10 N A L
Page 37

Big Branch Mitigation Project
CATAWBA RIVER BASI N / RFP #16-007875 / CU #03050101
Thus, the restoration and protection of this reach through a conservation easement is very important to protect
downstream reaches of the project.
UT4— Enhancement II (Upstream) and Restoration (Downstream) The upstream section of reach UT4
has several significant headcuts and signs of general channel degradation, but has stable, if quite steep banks, and a fully
functioning riparian buffer along one bank. Thus, an Enhancement Level II approach is proposed that would add in -stream
structures to eliminate the headcuts, treat any invasive species, and reestablish a full riparian buffer on the right bank.
However, a Priority Level 1 restoration approach is proposed for the downstream section of reach UT4 to fully restore
stream and associated buffer functions. The reach currently exhibits lateral and vertical instability as shown by active
bank erosion, extreme incision, multiple headcuts, and excessive fine sedimentation found throughout the channel. This
systemic instability will likely continue, since the existing channel is very incised, has significant livestock presence here,
and has mostly vertical banks without access to a floodplain. The channel will be raised to reconnect the stream to its
historic floodplain.
This will promote more frequent overbank flooding thus reducing erosive stream energies during storm events greater
than the bankfull discharge. The floodplain in the lowermost section of UT4 near the MS exhibits extensive areas of hydric
soils and wetland vegetation, and thus the restoration will help restore a more appropriate hydrology to this area as well.
Proposed Restoration Approaches: Option B
The proposed approaches for Option B remain the same as described above in Option A for Reaches MS, UT2, UT3, and
UT3a. The differences for Reaches UT1, UT1A, UT1B, UT2A, UT3B, and UT4 are described below:
UT1— Enhancement I (Upstream) and Restoration (Downstream) An Enhancement Level I approach is
proposed for the upper section of UT3B. While incised, and lacking a full riparian buffer on both sides, it has relatively
stable banks with herbaceous vegetation more commonly observed as compared to the downstream section. The stream
channel, while certainly degraded, is also not as degraded as compared to the downstream section either. Thus, an
Enhancement Level I approach is proposed here that will include; sloping, matting, and live staking the stream banks
where active bank erosion is occurring; repairing any headcuts and installing in -stream structures to create or improve
channel features (riffles/pools) and habitat; treating any invasive species present; and planting a full 50 ft buffer on both
sides of the channel. By comparison, a Priority Level 1 restoration approach is still proposed for the downstream section
of reach UT1 to fully restore stream and associated buffer functions. This section of the reach currently exhibits lateral
and vertical instability as shown by active bank erosion, channel incision, several headcuts, and excessive fine
sedimentation found throughout the reach. This systemic instability will likely continue, since the existing channel has
unstable banks without access to a full floodplain. As such, the channel will be raised to reconnect the stream to its historic
floodplain. This will promote more frequent overbank flooding thus reducing erosive stream energies during storm events
greater than the bankfull discharge. The floodplain area will also act as a sediment sink providing storage of sediment from
upstream sources instead of sending all the sediment load downstream into the MS. The large debris berm of soil and
timber waste located along the left bank of UT1 will be removed, and the woody debris converted to wood chips to use
as a soil amendment for the buffer. Invasive species will be treated and a full 50 ft wide buffer will be planted along both
stream banks. The floodplain in the lowermost section of UT1 near its confluence with the MS exhibits extensive areas of
hydric soils and wetland vegetation, and thus the restoration will help restore a more appropriate hydrology to this area
as well. A BMP will also be installed along an ephemeral drainage running into the left bank of Reach UT1 that currently
carries sediment -laden flow from the adjacent timbered cutover area.
UT1A — Enhancement II Reach UT1A is a degraded spring -fed reach that merges with UT1B to form reach UT1. It
has headcuts and is incised with no access to even a small floodplain. However, its banks are moderately eroding and the
buffers are partially functioning. Thus, Enhancement Level II work is proposed under this option for UT1A that includes;
sloping, matting, and live staking the sections of stream banks where active bank erosion is occurring; treating invasive
species present; and planting a full 50 ft buffer on both sides of the channel.
Page 38
I N T E R N AT 10 N A L

Big Branch Mitigation Project
CATAWBA RIVER BASI N / RFP #16-007875 / CU #03050101
UT1B — Enhancement II Reach UT1B is a degraded spring -fed reach that merges with UT1A to form reach UT1. It
has numerous headcuts and is incised with no access to even a small floodplain. The banks are highly eroding; however,
the buffers are mostly functioning. Thus, Enhancement Level II work is proposed for this reach that includes; sloping,
matting, and live staking the small sections of stream banks where active bank erosion is occurring; treating invasive
species present; and planting a full 50 ft buffer on both sides of the channel.
UT2A — Enhancement II The Enhancement Level II approach described previously for UT2A is still proposed here
for Option B but will start roughly halfway down the previous extent of the reach at a significant headcut. This lower reach
section is a highly degraded, intermittent, spring -fed reach that flows into the top section of UT2. However, the existing
channel is generally stable with only localized bank erosion. It is incised and has no access to even a small floodplain.
Enhancement Level II work is proposed for this reach that includes; sloping, matting, and live staking the stream banks
where active bank erosion is occurring; repairing any headcuts and installing structures for grade control; treating any
invasive species present; and planting a full 50 ft buffer on both sides of the channel.
UT313 — Restoration (Upstream), Enhancement I (Middle) and Restoration (Downstream) An
Enhancement Level I approach is proposed for the middle section of UT3B. Incision in the middle section is variable with
some areas of low bank passing into areas of high banks, it has a full riparian buffer and relatively stable banks with
herbaceous vegetation present in several sections. The stream channel, while degraded, is not as degraded as compared
to the downstream section either, with some macrobenthic species and fish observed.
This section of stream is also located through a forested area most likely to be cut for timber, so the repair and protection
of this upper section is very important to the downstream reaches of the project. Thus, an Enhancement Level I approach
is proposed here that will include; sloping, matting, and live staking the stream banks where active bank erosion is
occurring and installing in -stream structures to create or improve channel features (riffles/pools) and habitat; treating any
invasive species present; and replanting a full 50 ft buffer on both sides of the channel. By comparison, a Priority Level 1
Restoration approach is proposed for the upstream and downstream section of UT3B to fully restore stream functions.
The reach currently exhibits lateral and vertical instability as shown by active bank erosion, extreme incision, multiple
headcuts, and areas of fine sedimentation in the channel. This systemic instability will likely continue, since the existing
channel is incised, has mostly vertical banks without access to a floodplain. The channel will be raised to reconnect the
stream to its historic floodplain. This will promote more frequent overbank flooding thus reducing erosive stream energies
during storm events greater than the bankfull discharge.
UT4— Enhancement II (Upstream) and Enhancement I (Downstream) The upstream section of reach
UT4 has several significant headcuts and signs of general channel degradation, but has stable, if quite steep banks, and a
fully functioning riparian buffer along one bank. Thus, an Enhancement Level II approach is proposed that would add in -
stream structures to eliminate the headcuts, treat any invasive species, and reestablish a full riparian buffer on the right
bank. The downstream section of UT4 is significantly incised, lacks any riparian buffer, and has a highly degraded channel
with multiple significant headcuts, excessive fine sedimentation, and with a common livestock presence. However, while
there are sections of actively eroding banks, they are predominantly covered in herbaceous vegetation and are relatively
stable. Thus, an Enhancement Level I approach is proposed here that will include; sloping, matting, and live staking the
stream banks where active bank erosion is occurring; repairing all headcuts and installing in -stream structures to create
or improve channel features (riffles/pools) and habitat; treating any invasive species present; and planting a full 50 ft
buffer on both sides of the channel.
Proposed Restoration Approaches: Option C
The proposed approaches for Option C remain the same as described above in Option B for Reaches UT1A, UT1B, UT2,
UT2A, and UT4. The differences for Reaches MS, UT1, UT3, MA, and UT3B are described below:
MS — Enhancement I (Upstream) and Restoration (Downstream) Reach MS currently exhibits
significant lateral and vertical instability as shown by large sections of active bank erosion, extreme incision, and excessive
fine sedimentation in the channel. This systemic instability will likely continue, since the existing channel is very incised
and has mostly vertical banks without access to a floodplain. Thus, a Priority Level I Restoration is still proposed for the
majority of the reach, to fully restore stream and associated buffer functions.
Page 39
I N T E R N AT 10 N A L

Big Branch Mitigation Project
CATAWBA RIVER BASI N / RFP #16-007875 / CU #03050101
The channel in this section will be raised to reconnect the stream to its historic flood plain. This will promote more frequent
overbank flooding thus reducing erosive stream energies during storm events greater than the bankfull discharge. This
floodplain area will also act as a sediment sink providing storage of sediment from upstream sources instead of sending
all the sediment load downstream. However, for the upstream section of MS, where the channel is particularly incised
and where the buffer is more functioning, an Enhancement Level I approach is proposed under this option. This approach
will include; sloping, matting, installing brush-toe/root wads in bends, and live staking the stream banks where active bank
erosion is occurring; installing in -stream structures to create or improve channel features (riffles/pools) and habitat;
treating any invasive species present; and planting a full 50 ft buffer on both sides of the channel.
UT1— Enhancement I An Enhancement Level I approach is proposed for UT1. While moderately incised, and lacking
a full riparian buffer on both sides, it has somewhat stable banks with herbaceous vegetation observed growing in many
sections. The stream channel is degraded with numerous headcuts and fine sedimentation found throughout. Thus, an
Enhancement Level I approach is proposed under this option that will include; sloping, matting, and live staking the stream
banks where active bank erosion is occurring; repairing any headcuts and installing in -stream structures to create or
improve channel features (riffles/pools) and habitat; treating any invasive species present; and planting a full 50 ft buffer
on both sides of the channel. The large debris berm of soil and timber waste located along the left bank of UT1 will be
removed, and the woody debris converted to wood chips to use as a soil amendment for the buffer. Additionally, a BMP
will be installed along an ephemeral drainage running into the left bank of Reach UT1 that currently carries sediment -
laden flow from the adjacent timbered cutover area.
UT3 — Enhancement I (Upstream) and Enhancement II (Downstream) An Enhancement Level I
approach is proposed for the upstream half of reach UT3. This section shows lateral and vertical instability as it is
significantly incised and has sections of actively eroding banks. The stream channel is also degraded in sections with
headcuts and fine sedimentation observed. It also lacks a fully functioning riparian buffer on both sides. Thus, an
Enhancement Level I approach is proposed under this option that will include; sloping, matting, and live staking the stream
banks where active bank erosion is occurring; repairing any headcuts and installing in -stream structures to create or
improve channel features (riffles/pools) and habitat; treating any invasive species present; and planting a full 50 ft buffer
on both sides of the channel. By comparison, the downstream half of the reach, while still significantly incised and lacking
a full riparian buffer, appears more stable overall with established vegetation found along its banks. Thus, an Enhancement
Level II approach is proposed here that includes; sloping, matting, and live staking the stream banks where active bank
erosion is occurring; repairing any headcuts and installing a few in -stream structures where appropriate; treating any
invasive species present; and planting a full 50 ft buffer on both sides of the channel.
UT3A — Enhancement I An Enhancement Level I approach is proposed for UT3A under this option. The reach
currently exhibits lateral and vertical instability as shown by active bank erosion, extreme incision, multiple headcuts, and
areas of fine sedimentation in the channel. Thus, the Enhancement Level I approach is proposed that will include; sloping,
matting, and live staking the stream banks where active bank erosion is occurring; repairing any headcuts and installing
in -stream structures to create or improve channel features (riffles/pools) and habitat; treating any invasive species
present; and planting a full 50 ft buffer on both sides of the channel.
UT313 — Enhancement I (Upstream), Enhancement II (Middle) and Enhancement
(Downstream) An Enhancement Level II approach is proposed for the middle section of UT3B under this option. While
significantly incised, it has a full riparian buffer and relatively stable banks with herbaceous vegetation present in several
sections. The stream channel, while degraded, is not as degraded as compared to the downstream or upstream section.
This section of stream is also located through a forested area which could be cut for timber, so the repair and protection
of this upper section is very important to the downstream reaches of the project. Thus, an Enhancement Level II approach
is proposed here that will include; sloping, matting, and live staking the stream banks where active bank erosion is
occurring; treating any invasive species present; and re -planting a full 50 ft buffer on both sides of the channel. However,
an Enhancement Level I approach is proposed for the upstream and downstream section of UT3B under this option. These
reaches currently exhibit lateral and vertical instability as shown by active bank erosion, extreme incision, multiple
headcuts, and areas of fine sedimentation in the channel.
Page 40
I N T E R N AT 10 N A L

Big Branch Mitigation Project
CATAWBA RIVER BASI N / RFP #16-007875 / CU #03050101
Thus, the Enhancement Level I approach is proposed that will include; sloping, matting, and live staking the stream banks
where active bank erosion is occurring; repairing any headcuts and installing in -stream structures to create or improve
channel features (riffles/pools) and habitat; treating any invasive species present; and replanting a full 50 ft buffer on both
sides of the channel. The potential for timber harvest along these sections makes the repair and permanent protection
of this reach through a conservation easement is very important to protect downstream reaches of the project.
BMP Considerations
Michael Baker plans to install a wet pond BMP within the easement at the
outfall of the farm pond where it connects into Reach MS. Pond outfall water
quality is notoriously poor, often being warmer and more oxygen deficientthan
ideal for aquatic organisms. The outfall of the BMP will consist of deep step -
pools to oxygenate the waterjust priorto discharge back into the MS, while the
BMP will ultimately be shaded, providing a cooling effect. Cattle also lounge in
the pond outfall near this location so the BMP will also help remove nutrients
and bacteria as well. A second BMP will also be installed along an ephemeral
drainage running into the left bank of Reach UT1 approximately 325 feet from
BMP Example (Browns Summit 2019) the top of the reach that currently carries overland flow from the adjacent
timbered cutover area. Scour during storm events is evident, with rill and gully
formation occurring here, carrying with it significant sediment loads into UT1.
The timbered field is being prepped for use as pasture for livestock, so the BMP will ultimately capture and reduce
sediment, nutrients, and bacteria from entering the MS. If during analysis and design, it is determined that a more
beneficial BMP would be appropriate for this location; or at another location due to site constraints, soils or concentrated
drainageways such as the crossing on UT3; an alternative BMP will be used or an additional BMP may be proposed in the
mitigation plan.
Conservation Easement Boundary Marking
Immediately following site construction and planting, the conservation
easement boundaries will be permanently marked and posted. All boundary
marking, posting and signage will be in accordance with the applicable NCDMS,
North Carolina State Properties Office, and State of North Carolina standards.
Restoration of Riparian Buffers
Riparian buffers that are at least 50 feet from the top of banks, will be restored
along all proposed stream restoration and enhancement reaches. The
proposed vegetative plant selection for stream and wetland buffer areas will
Boundary Marking Example incorporate native species that follow those described by Schafale and
(Browns Summit2017) Weakley (1990) for a Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest and tolerances
cited in Wetlands Research Program Technical Note VN-RS-4.1 (WRP 1997).
The natural vegetation community will include the appropriate strata (canopy, understory, shrub, and herbaceous species)
based on an appropriate reference community. Within the four different strata, a variety of species will be planted to
create an appropriate, diverse plant community such below as that shown in Table 3.
Moderately flood -tolerant species are able to survive on soils that are saturated or flooded for several months during the
growing season. Flood -tolerant species are able to survive on sites in which the soil is saturated or flooded for long to
indefinite periods during the growing season (WRP 1997). Species planted across the stream banks, floodplains, and
upland areas will include a mixture of native species that are appropriate for the local region and for the site -specific dry
or wet conditions. Planting will be done at a density that gives the best opportunity to achieve the vegetative success
criteria outlined in Part 5.
Page 41
I H T E R H A T 1 0 N A t

"• --� s
Big Branch Mitigation Project
CATAWBA RIVER BASI N / RFP #16-007875 / CU #03050101
Table 3. Summary Information for Natural Vegetation Community.
Froxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
Canopy
FACW
Betula nigra
River Birch
Canopy
FACW
Quercus rubra
Red Oak
Canopy
FACU
Quercus phellos
Willow Oak
Canopy
FAC
Liriodendron tulipfera
Tulip Poplar
Canopy
FACU
Platanus occidentalis
American Sycamore
Canopy
FACW
Diospyros virginiana
Common Persimmon
Canopy
FAC
Celtis laevigata
Sugarberry
Canopy
FACW
Acer negundo
Boxelder
Understory
FAC
Viburnum nudum
Possomhaw Viburnum
Understory
OBL
Carpinus carolinianum
Ironwood
Understory
FAC
Hamamelis virginiana
Witch -hazel
Understory
FACU
Halesia caroliniana
Silverbell
Understory
FAC
Asimina triloba
Paw Paw
Understory
FAC
Cornus amomum
Silky Dogwood
Shrub Layer
FACW
Salix nigra
Black Willow
Shrub Layer
OBL
Sambucus Canadensis
Elderberry
Shrub Layer
FAC
Physocarpus opulifolius
Ninebark
Shrub Layer
FACW
Alnus serrulata
Tag Alder
Shrub Layer
OBL
Salixsericea
Silky Willow
Shrub Layer
OBL
Corylus americana
Hazelnut
Shrub Layer
FACU
Chasmanthium latifolium
River Oats
Herbaceous Layer
FACU
Carex tenera
Quill Sedge
Herbaceous Layer
FAC
Carex crinita
Fringed Sedge
Herbaceous Layer
OBL
Andropogon virginicus
Broom Sedge
Herbaceous Layer
FACU
Vernonia noveboracensis
New York Ironweed
Herbaceous Layer
FACW
Juncus effuses
Soft Stem Rush
Herbaceous Layer
FACW
Andropogon glomeratus
Bushy Bluestem
Herbaceous Layer
FACW
Eutrochium fistulosum
Joe-Pye Weed
Herbaceous Layer
FACW
Michael Baker and KBS have a successful planting strategy which includes early successional, as well as climax species. The
vegetation selections will be stratified throughout the project area so that the early successional species may give way to
climax species in all areas.
The early successional species which have proven successful include river birch, boxelder, and persimmon. The successful
climax species include oaks, sycamore, and tulip poplar. All understory and shrub layer species are considered to be climax
species in the riparian buffer community.
It is understood that riparian buffer conditions at mature reference sites do not reflect those seen at planted or
successional buffer sites until the woody species begin to establish and compete with herbaceous vegetation. To account
for this, a riparian buffer planting with a combination of overstory and understory species, planted at 680 stems per acre,
is typically utilized. Michael Baker will also consider, via prescription in the mitigation plan, the revegetation and
supplemental planting of larger and older planting stock to modify species density and type. This consideration will be
utilized particularly to increase the rate of buffer establishment and buffer species variety.
Examples might include the selective supplemental planting of older mast producing species as potted stock in later years
for increased survivability. This technique can be effective as it avoids sun scald common with bare root planting at initial
revegetation.
Page 42
I H T E R H A T 1 0 N A L

Big Branch Mitigation Project
CATAWBA RIVER BASI N / RFP #16-007875 / CU #03050101
As part of the proposed project, invasive exotic vegetation will be treated within the proposed conservation easement
areas. Invasive species will be mechanically removed during site construction and chemical applications of herbicide will
be applied to individual specimens that were unable to be removed or have re -sprouted. This will continue through the
monitoring period. These efforts will aid in the establishment of native riparian species within the restored riparian buffer
areas.
Expected Water Quality Benefits
Along the project stream reaches, 100% of the stream banks have inadequate riparian buffers. Additionally, livestock have
potential unrestricted access to all of the project streams. While there are buffer areas that vary in density from no trees
to areas with mature trees, these areas are of poor general quality. Livestock graze (and have overgrazed portions)
herbaceous vegetation, hoof shear has created a disturbed and eroding soil surface and stream banks, and animals have
damaged the roots and bark of many buffer trees. The proposed buffer areas for the project site will have a diverse
vegetation community replanted to appropriate densities and will be permanently protected. The leaves that these trees
will drop every fall will increase the standing litter on the ground, reducing runoff, improving soil health and providing
detritus that supports aquatic food chains. The restored riparian buffer vegetation will also help remove nutrients that
livestock produce with commonly accepted nutrient reduction removal efficiency rates of 60 to 70% (Mayer et al., 2007).
Cattle grazing adjacent to streams can directly contribute contaminants such as sediment, nutrients, and pathogens to the
stream by fecal deposition and indirectly by cattle traffic stirring up sediment, trampling streambanks, and increasing bank
erosion (Kauffman et al., 1983; Kauffman and Kruger, 1984; Marlow et al., 1987; Trimble, 1994; Trimble and Mendel, 1995;
Belsky et al., 1999; Bagshaw, 2002; Sarr, 2002). Cooper et al. (1995) stated that the exclusion of cattle from riparian zones
may act like a riparian buffer thereby reducing runoff and improving water quality. Miller et al. (2010) concluded that the
improved environmental quality of cattle -excluded areas are the result of decreased runoff and greater infiltration due to
greater vegetation cover, more standing litter, decreased bare soil, and lower soil compaction. Owens et al. (1996) stated
that livestock exclusion from riparian areas reduced the sediment yield from a cattle pasture by up to 40%, as documented
over a 13-year monitoring period.
In addition to sediment reduction, studies have shown that livestock exclusion results in reductions in nitrogen and
phosphorus loads and exports. James et al. (2007) estimated that excluding pastured cattle from streams resulted in a
32% reduction of in -stream deposition of fecal phosphorous in Cannonsville Watershed of southeastern New York. Jones
and Knowlton (1999) noted 52% reductions in downstream total phosphorus after dairy cows and calves were fenced out
of a stream, while Line et al. (2000) reported a 76% reduction in total P when dairy cattle were excluded from a North
Carolina stream. Using the DMS-recommended water quality benefit quantification tools (DMS 2016), the nutrient load
reduction due to the restoration of riparian buffers and cattle exclusion to the adjacent streams was estimated to be 1,414
Ibs/year for Total Nitrogen, and 117 Ibs/year for Total Phosphorus. The fecal coliform bacteria load reduction was
estimated to be 6.OX1012 col/year. The proposed buffer areas for the project site will have vegetation replanted to
appropriate densities and permanently protected to exclude all livestock.
Functional Uplift: In their current condition, the project reaches and riparian buffer areas are highly degraded as a
result of past channelization, ongoing cattle access, land use disturbance, and buffer degradation. The maximum possible
functional uplift will be achieved by:
• Providing stable channel forms to reduce bank erosion and sedimentation.
• Restoring and protecting riparian wetlands along the project stream reaches.
• Restoring quality riparian buffer vegetation to promote native species, improve vegetation densities, filter flood flows
and runoff, treat invasive species, and increase riparian habitat value.
• Providing improved floodplain connection to dissipate flood energies, filter storm flows, and promote sediment and
debris deposition on the floodplain and banks.
• Restoring diverse aquatic and terrestrial habitats that are appropriate for the ecoregion and landscape setting.
Page 43
I N T E R N AT 10 N A L

Big Branch Mitigation Project
CATAWBA RIVER BASIN / RFP #16-007875 / CU #03050101
Restoring and extending wildlife corridors that connect to existing wooded areas and natural communities at the
periphery of the project site.
• Reducing nutrient and sediment loadings by restoring riparian buffers, stabilizing streambanks, and excluding cattle.
Proposed Mitigation:
This technical proposal describes the proposed stream mitigation approaches for the Big Branch Mitigation Project. The
work will include restoration and enhancement of approximately 12,630 LF of existing stream. The approaches outlined
in Option A will yield approximately 11,691 warm water stream mitigation credits (Figure 13A), while those in Option B
will yield approximately 10,958 credits (Figure 13B), and those in Option C will yield approximately 9,676 credits (Figure
13C). Any additional credits developed within the conservation easement areas above the contracted amount will be
available to NCDMS as part of the proposed project. The proposed amounts of stream mitigation credits are presented in
below in Table 4.
Table 4. Proposed Stream Mitigation Credit Summary for the Big Branch Mitigation Project
Option A
Reach
Type of Mitigation'
R
Existing Stream
Length [LF)
5,903
ProposedProject
Length [LF)
5,903
1:1
5,903
UT1
R
1,312
1,310
1:1
1,310
UT1A
El
282
282
1.5:1
188
UT1 B
El
215
215
1.5:1
143
UT2
R
1,178
1,178
1:1
1,178
UT2A
Ell
309
309
2.5:1
124
UT3
R
562
562
1:1
562
UT3
Ell
544
544
2.5:1
218
UT3A
R
248
248
1:1
248
UT3 B
R
1,161
1,050
1:1
1,050
UT4
R
668
668
1:1
668
UT4
Ell
248
248
2.5:1
99
Total Potential Stream Credits
11,691
Total Stream Proposed for Contract
10,000
Note 1: R= Restoration, EI=Level I Enhancement, Ell=Level 11 Enhancement, P=Preservation.
Page 44
! N T E R N A 7 1 0 N A L

Big Branch Mitigation Project
CATAWBA RIVER BASIN/ RFP #16-007875 / CU #03050101
Option B
Reach
Ms
Type of Mitigation
R
Existing Stream
Length (LIF)
5,903
ProposedProject
Length (LIF)
5,903
1:1
5,903
UT1
R
825
825
1:1
825
UT1
El
485
485
1.5:1
323
UT1A
Ell
282
282
2.5:1
113
UT1113
Ell
215
215
2.5:2
86
UT2
R
1,178
1,178
1:1
1,178
UT2A
Ell
186
186
2.5:1
74
UT3
R
562
562
1:1
562
UT3
Ell
544
544
2.5:1
218
UT3A
R
248
248
1:1
248
UT3113
R
550
550
1:1
550
UT3113
El
500
500
1.5:1
333
UT4
El
668
668
1.5:1
445
UT4
Ell
248
248
2.5:1
99
Total Potential Stream Credits
10,958
Total Stream Proposed for Contract
10,000
Option C
Reach
UT1
Type of Mitigation
E1
Existing Stream
Length (LIF)
1,310
ProposedProject
Length (LIF)
1,310
1.5:1
873
UT1A
Ell
282
282
2.5:1
113
UT1113
Ell
215
215
2.5:2
86
UT2
R
1,178
1,178
1:1
1,178
UT2A
Ell
186
186
2.5:1
74
UT3
El
562
562
1.5:1
375
UT3
Ell
544
544
2.5:1
218
UT3A
El
248
248
1.5:1
165
UT3113
El
450
450
1.5:1
300
UT3113
Ell
600
600
2.5:1
240
UT4
El
668
668
1.5:1
445
UT4
Ell
248
248
2.5:1
99
Total Potential Stream Credits
9,676
Total Stream Proposed for Contract
9,100
Current Ownership and Long -Term Protection
Michael Baker will transfer a conservation easement to the State of North Carolina for the Big Branch Mitigation Project.
This conveyance will serve as the long-term protection of the mitigation site. Michael Baker has entered into an Option
Agreement for the acquisition of a conservation easement with the landowners along the Big Branch Mitigation Project
(Table 5). The Option Agreements have been recorded with the Alexander County Register of Deeds and is valid for a
period of greater than two years from the closing date of this RFP. A copy of the Memorandum of Option Agreement is
provided in the appendices, and is summarized in Table 5.
Page 45
I N T E R N A 7 1 0 N A L

Big Branch Mitigation Project
CATAWBA RIVER BASIN / RFP #16-007875 / CU #03050101
A copy of the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services Landowner Authorization Form has been signed by the project
landowner. The Option Agreement allows Michael Baker to proceed with the project and to restrict the land -use in
perpetuity through a permanent conservation easement. Michael Baker is prepared to close on the project area after
contract award by NCDMS and will provide, at any time, copies of the deeds of easement, titles, surveys, and any maps as
required.
Table 5. Summary Information of Current Land Ownership for the Big Branch Mitigation Project.
Int
Owners of Record Option Agreement Date Duration of Agreeme :J
Smith Family July 10, 2019 July 10, 2022
Hull Family July 10, 2019 July 10, 2022
Note: A copy of the Memorandum of Option Agreement is provided in the appendices.
Project Phasing
Michael Baker has extensive stream restoration experience and understands the most recent mitigation requirements and
standards. Accordingly, Michael Baker is in a strong position to implement this project in a timely and effective manner.
Upon contract execution for the Big Branch Mitigation Project, Michael Baker will implement the project schedule below.
Scheduled Completion
Time
Scheduled Completion Date
Project Task
hft —
date of contract
execution)
(assuming contract execution
on October 1, 2019)
Task 1. Regulatory Site Visit and
6 months
April 1, 2020
Environmental Screening
Task 2. Submit Recorded Conservation
10 months
August 1, 2020
Easement on the Site
Task 3. Mitigation Plan (Final Draft) and
Financial Assurance
14 months
December 1, 2020
Task 4. Mitigation Site Earthwork Completed
21 months
July 1, 2021
Task 5. Mitigation Site Planting and
27 months
January 1, 2022
Installation of Monitoring Devices
Task 6. Baseline Monitoring Report (including
29 months
March 1, 2022
As -built Drawings)
Task 7. Submit Monitoring Report #1 to
35 months
December 1, 2022
NCDMS (meets success criteria)
Task 8. Submit Monitoring Report #2 to
38 months
December 1, 2023
NCDMS (meets success criteria)
Task 9. Submit Monitoring Report #3 to
50 months
December 1, 2024
NCDMS (meets success criteria)
Task 10. Submit Monitoring Report #4 to
62 months
December 1, 2025
NCDMS (meets success criteria)
Task 11. Submit Monitoring Report #5 to
74 months
December 1, 2026
NCDMS (meets success criteria)
Task 12. Submit Monitoring Report #6 to
86 months
December 1, 2027
NCDMS (meets success criteria)
Task 13. Submit Monitoring Report #7 to
NCDMS and complete Project Close-out
91 months
May 1, 2028
process (meets success criteria)
Page 46
! N T E R N A 7 1 0 N A L

Big Branch Mitigation Project
%yJ CATAWBA RIVER BASIN/ RFP #16-007875 / CU #03050101
Success Criteria
Michael Baker has obtained regulatory approval for numerous stream and
wetland mitigation projects (Perm itee-Responsible and for NCDOT, NCDMS,
and The Nature Conservancy full -delivery projects). The stream restoration
design and applied success criteria for the project site will follow approved
success criteria presented in the mitigation plan, developed in compliance
with the NCDMS Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan Template and Guidance
(June 2017), as well as the Stream Mitigation Guidelines issued in April 2003
and the Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation
Update (October 2016). In addition, the monitoring success criteria, practices,
and corresponding reporting will follow the NCDMS Stream and Wetland
Mitigation Monitoring Guidelines issued in April 2015 and June 2018, the
NCDMS As -built Baseline Monitoring Report Format, Data Requirements, and
Content Guidance issued in June 2017, and the NCDMS Annual Monitoring
Template (June 2017), and Closeout Template Guidance v2.2, January 2016.
Monitoring activities will be conducted for a period of seven years with the
final duration dependent upon performance trends toward achieving project
goals and objectives.
Stream Restoration and Enhancement Level I Success Criteria
Stream Hydrology: Four bankfull flow events must be documented within the
seven-year monitoring period. The four bankfull events must occur in
separate years. Otherwise, the stream monitoring will continue until four
bankfull events have been documented in separate years. Additionally,
continuous surface water flow within the tributaries must be documented to
occur for at least 30 consecutive days each year.
Drew Powers Monitoring at
St. Clair May 2019
Monitoring: IRT Review Meeting at
St. Claire May2019
Bank Height Ratios: BHR shall not exceed 1.2 at any of the measured riffle
cross sections. This standard only applies to restored reaches of the channel where BHRs are corrected through design
and construction. The annual change in BHR should not exceed 10% as measured between years where cross section
surveys take place.
Entrenchment Ratio: Entrenchment Ratio (ER) shall be no less than 1.4 at any of the measured riffle cross sections. This
standard only applies to restored reaches of the channel where entrenchment ratios are corrected through design and
construction. The annual change in entrenchment ratio should not exceed 10% as measured between years where cross
section surveys take place.
Visual Assessment: Visual monitoring of all sections of the project, to include representative photographic
documentation, will be conducted annually for each of the years of monitoring, and will be inclusive of the Current
Conditions Plan View (CCPV) and tables that house the visual assessment metrics. Visual assessments will be undertaken
for bank and bed stability, condition of in -stream structures, channel migration, headcuts, live stake mortality, impacts
from invasive plant or animal species, and condition of pools and riffles. Inspections will also include assessments of
riparian buffer conditions. Photographs will be used to subjectively evaluate channel aggradation or degradation, bank
erosion, success of riparian vegetation and effectiveness of erosion control measures. Longitudinal photos should indicate
the absence of developing bars within the channel or excessive increase in channel depth. Lateral photos should not
indicate excessive erosion or continuing degradation of the banks. A series of photos over time should indicate
successional maturation of riparian vegetation.
Stream Enhancement Level II Success Criteria: Success criteria for Enhancement II stream reaches will follow the
success criteria for Visual Assessment and Vegetation Success Criteria as outlined herein.
Vegetation Success Criteria
The interim measures of vegetative success for the project will be the survival of at least 320, three -year -old trees per
acre at the end of Year Three of the monitoring period and at least 260, five -year -old, trees per acre at the end of Year 5
Page 47
I N T E R N AT 10 N A L

Big Branch Mitigation Project
CATAWBA RIVER BASI N / RFP #16-007875 / ClJ #03050101
of the monitoring period. Final success criteria will be a density no less than 210, seven -year -old stems per acre in Year 7
of monitoring. Additionally, trees in each plot must average six feet in height at Year 5 and eight feet in height at Year 7.
A listing of preferred species to be planted on the site is provided in Table 3.
Method of Reporting on Success Criteria
In accordance with the approved mitigation plan, the baseline monitoring document and as -built monitoring report
documenting the implementation of stream mitigation plan will be developed within 60 days of the planting completion
and monitoring installation on the restored site.
In addition, a period of at least 180 days will separate the as -built baseline measurements and the first -year monitoring
measurements. The baseline monitoring document and as -built baseline report will include all information required by
the current NCDMS templates and guidance referenced above, including planimetric (plan view) and elevation (profile
view) information, photographs, sampling plot locations, description of initial species composition by community type,
and monitoring stations. The report will include a list of the vegetation species planted and the associated planting
densities.
The monitoring program will be implemented to document system development and progress toward achieving the
success criteria referenced above. At least 180 days will separate the completion of initial vegetation planting and the
initiation of first year monitoring. Stream morphology, stream hydrology, as well as vegetation, will be assessed to
determine the success of the mitigation.
The monitoring program will be undertaken for seven years or until the final success criteria are achieved. For stream
Enhancement II monitoring will be limited to visual assessment and vegetation success.
Monitoring reports will be prepared in the fall of each year of monitoring and submitted to NCDMS by December 1 of each
monitoring year. The monitoring reports will follow the current NCDMS monitoring report guidance and templates, as
specified in the RFP, and referenced above, and will include:
1. A detailed narrative summarizing the condition of the restored site and all regular maintenance activities;
2. Project background information;
3. Maps showing location of vegetation sampling plots, permanent photo points, and location of transects;
4. CCPV map including monitoring features and any areas of concern or problem areas noted during monitoring;
5. Photographs showing views of the site taken from fixed point stations;
6. Geomorphic data;
7. Hydrologic data;
8. Vegetative data, as described below;
9. Any geomorphic, hydrologic or vegetative problem areas;
10. A description of any damage done by animals or vandalism; and
11. Wildlife observations.
Stream Mitigation Monitoring
The stream mitigation success criteria are defined below.
Hydrologic Monitoring: Stream hydrologic monitoring will be conducted on Restoration and Enhancement I reaches. The
occurrence of bankfull events and floodplain access within the monitoring period will be documented using automated
gages and photographs. The gages will be installed on the floodplain of each reach longer than 1,000 feet. One gage per
5,000 feet will be installed.
The gages will record the frequency and duration of out of bank flows and the gages will be checked each time there is a
site visit to determine if a bankfull event has occurred. Photographs will be used to document the occurrence of debris
lines and sediment deposition on the floodplain during monitoring site visits. Automated gages will also be installed on
small tributaries to document consecutive days of flow.
Photo Reference Stations: Photographs will be used to visually document restoration success. Reference stations will be
photographed for seven years following construction. Reference photos will be taken once a year. Photographs will be
taken from a height of approximately five to six feet above grade. Permanent markers will be established to ensure that
the same locations (and view directions) on the site are monitored in each monitoring period.
Page 48
I H T E R H A T 1 0 H A L

Big Branch Mitigation Project
CATAWBA RIVER BASI N / RFP #16-007875 / ClJ #03050101
Cross Sections: Cross sections will be monitored for seven years, with monitoring events occurring during years 1, 2, 3, 5,
and 7. Permanent, monumented cross sections will be installed at a frequency of one per 20 bankfull widths or two cross
sections per 1,000 feet of stream. There should be little change in as -built restoration cross sections. If changes occur,
they should be evaluated to determine if they represent a movement toward a more unstable condition (e.g.,
downcutting, erosion) or a movement toward increased stability (e.g., settling, vegetative changes, deposition along the
banks, decrease in width/depth ratio). Cross sections shall be classified using the Rosgen Stream Classification method
and monitored cross sections should fall within the quantitative parameters defined for channels of the design stream
type.
Longitudinal Profiles: Longitudinal profiles will be developed to document the as -built condition for Restoration and
Enhancement Level I reaches. Bedforms observed should be consistent with those observed for channels of the design
stream type. Additional longitudinal profiles may be required if problems are identified during the monitoring period.
Lateral Reference Photos: Reference photo transects will be taken at each permanent cross section. Photographs will be
taken of both banks at each cross section. The survey tape will be centered in the photographs of the bank. The water
line will be in the lower edge of the frame and as much of the bank as possible will be included in each photo.
Photographers will make an effort to maintain the same area in each photo over time.
Vegetation Monitoring
The vegetative success criteria are defined above. Successful restoration of the vegetation on a mitigation site is
dependent upon hydrologic restoration, planting of preferred canopy species, and volunteer regeneration of the native
plant community. To determine if the criteria are achieved, vegetation plots will be installed and monitored in years 1, 2,
3, 5, and 7 in accordance with the Carolina Vegetation Survey's CVS-DMS Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version 4.1,
and the CVS-DMS Data Entry Tool, version 2.3.1. The vegetation plots will be comprised of fixed and random plots. The
plots will make up a minimum of two percent of the planted portion of the site. Vegetation monitoring will occur in the
fall. Individual quadrant data will be provided and will include individual -specific data on species, height, date planted,
and grid location; as well as a collective determination of density within the quadrant. Relative values will be calculated
and importance values will be determined. Individual seedlings will be marked, so they can be found in succeeding
monitoring years. Volunteer species will be counted and noted and their inclusion in quadrant data will be evaluated on
a case -by -case basis. The presence of invasive species vegetation within quadrants will also be noted, as will any wildlife
effects. At the end of the first growing season species composition, density, height, and survival will be evaluated. For
each subsequent year, until the final success criteria are achieved, the restored site will be evaluated between July and
October.
Remedial Actions
If the site or a specific component of the site fails to achieve the defined success criteria, Michael Baker will develop
necessary adaptive management plans and/or implement appropriate remedial actions for the site in coordination with
NCDMS and the review agencies. Remedial action required will be designed to achieve the success criteria specified
previously and will include a work schedule and monitoring criteria that will take into account physical and climatic
conditions. Michael Baker will work alongside local groups and agencies to ensure that nuisance and invasive species do
not have a detrimental impact to the project.
Page 49
I N T E R N AT 10 N A L

0c.;.::
1;._
r
Big Branch Mitigation Project
CATAWBA RIVER BASI N / RFP #16-007875 / ClJ #03D5D101
Part S. Quality Control
Michael Baker has established a standard
structured Project Delivery Process for all
projects. This process addresses every
aspect of a project and is the foundation
for delivering a quality product.
The foundation established in "The Michael
Baker Way" is further defined with the PMP.
Each project's PMP applies the Project
Delivery Process to specific project
conditions and establishes the process for
managing the project.
Project Managers prepare a PSQMP for
each project that defines project specific
quality assurance and quality
control procedures.
The first two levels of quality control will ensure that all aspects of this project are delivered according to schedule
established herein. The PSQMP for this project will establish and document various quality assurance reviews to cross-
examine all engineering and design methods, set forth document preparation and delivery methods and activities, and
ensure all deliverables are technically sound, follow the required NCDMS formats, contain all required information, and
are grammatically/typographically correct. Reviews will include:
Peer Reviews — Qualified and experienced individuals independent of the project will perform peer reviews. The
objective of these reviews will be to: assess the product versus DMS requirements; spot check key values; verify
completeness and clarity; and determine if the design meets sound engineering practice.
Deliverable Reviews — Appropriate staff will review the entire submission for overall presentation, format,
uniformity, consistency, and completeness. These reviews will be performed on all written documents.
Constructability Reviews —Appropriate staff will perform constructability reviews relative to scope, schedule, and
acceptability. Results of the constructability review will be incorporated into the design to optimize work and
material use during construction, and to ensure the project is completed in compliance with any required federal,
state, or local permits. These reviews will be conducted on design plans.
The PSQMP also identifies when quality audits are performed to ensure that the PSQMP is in place, appropriate, and being
followed. The PSQMP is kept simple and practical to ensure effectiveness. Central to effectively implementing the PSQMP
is ensuring that the project is appropriately staffed, both in terms of manpower and experience. Time to perform quality
control and quality assurance activities is an important consideration when developing the project schedule.
During the construction phases, the Project Manager and the assigned Michael Baker staff will be responsible for oversight
of construction activities. This will involve checking the contractor's adherence to design documents, making decisions
regarding field changes, and checking compliance with federal, state and local permits.
All project deliverables (Scope & Fee, Permits, Mitigation Plan, Baseline Monitoring, Monitoring Reports, etc.) go through
the quality assurance/quality control procedures outlined above to insure each is delivered in accordance with scoped
templates, schedules and professional standards.
Page 50
1 H T E R H A T 1 0 H A L

Big Branch Mitigation Project
CATAWBA RIVER BASI N / RFP #16-007875 / CU #03050101
All field activities receive the same quality assurance/quality control measures described above. Field surveys are
scheduled to meet required federal, state and local permitting deadlines, including any endangered species survey
windows. Construction will also be closely monitored to meet scheduling requirements. At each phase of the project
(assessment, permitting, design, construction, as -built and yearly monitoring reports), the mitigation credits are tracked
to eliminate or minimize any losses over the project's lifespan. Michael Baker staff is experienced in all stages of project
development and routinely provides the full amount of credits contracted and expects to only improve this track record
by rigorous quality assurance, quality control and tracking.
References
Bagshaw, C.S. 2002. Factors influencing direct deposition of cattle fecal material in riparian zones. MAF Technical Paper
No. 2002/19. New Zealand Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Wellington, New Zealand.
Belsky, A.J., A. Matzke, and S. Uselman, 1999. Survey of Livestock Influences on Stream and Riparian Ecosystems in the
Western United States. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 54(1):419-431.
Cooper, A.B., Smith, C.M. and M.J. Smith. 1995. Effects of riparian set -aside on soil characteristics in an agricultural
landscape: Implications for nutrient transport and retention. Agric. Ecosystems Environ., 55:61-67.
Daniels et al. 1999. Soils Systems of North Carolina. Technical Bulletin 314. North Carolina State University, Dept. of
Soil Science. Raleigh, NC.
Carolina Vegetation Survey (CVS) and NC Division of Mitigation Services (DMS). CVS-DMS Data Entry Tool v. 2.3.1.
University of North Carolina, Raleigh, NC. 2012.
Griffith, G.E., Omernik, J.M., Comstock, J.A., Schafale, M.P., McNab, W.H., Lenat, D.R., MacPherson, T.F., Glover, J.B., and
Shelburne, V.B., 2002, Ecoregions of North Carolina and South Carolina (map, descriptive text, summary tables, and
photographs): Reston, Virginia, U.S. Geological Survey (map scale 1: 1,500,000).
James, E., Kleinman, P., Veith, T., Stedman, R., and A. Sharpley 2007. Phosphorus contributions from pastured dairy
cattle to streams of the Cannonsville Watershed, New York. J. Soil Water Conserv. 62(1):40-47.
Jones, G.M. and K. Knowlton. 1999. Protecting healthy streams by fencing out the dairy head. The Virginia Dairyman:
Volume 14.
Kauffman, J.B. and W.C. Krueger, 1984. Livestock Impacts on Riparian Ecosystems and Streamside Management
Implications ... A Review. Journal of Range Management 37(5):430-438.
Kauffman, J.B., W.C. Krueger, and M. Varva, 1983. Impacts of Cattle on Streambanks in Northeastern Oregon. Journal of
Range Management 36(6):683-685.
Lee, M., Peet R., Roberts, S., Wentworth, T. 2007. CVS-DMS Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version 4.1.
Line, D.E., W.A. Harman, G.D. Jennings, E.J. Thompson, and D.L. Osmond. 2000. Nonpoint source pollutant load
reductions associated with livestock exclusion. Journal of Environmental Quality 29:1882-1890.
Marlow, C. B., Pogacnik, T. and Quinsey, S. 1987. Streambank stability and cattle grazing in southwestern Montana,
Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 42:291 -296.
Mayer, P.M., Reynolds, S.K. Jr., McCutchen, M.D., and T.J. Canfield. 2007. Meta -Analysis of Nitrogen Removal in Riparian
Buffers. J. Environ. Qual. 36:1172-1180.
Miller, J., Chanasyk, D., Curtis, T., Entz, T., and W. Willms, 2010. Influence of streambank fencing with a cattle crossing
on riparian health and water quality of the Lower Little Bow River in Southern Alberta, Canada. Agricultural Water
Management 97:247-258.
National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). 1995. Soil Survey of Alexander County, North Carolina.
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services. 2016. Quantifying Benefits to Water Quality from Livestock Exclusion and
Riparian Buffer Establishment for Stream Restoration. Raleigh, NC.
Page 51
I N T E R N AT 10 N A L

Big Branch Mitigation Project
CATAWBA RIVER BASI N / RFP #16-007875 / CU #03050101
North Carolina Division of Water Resources Methodology for Identification of Intermittent and Perennial Streams and
Their Origins, (v 4.11, Effective Date: September 1, 2010)
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (the precursor to the Division of Mitigation Services) 2018. Upper
Catawba River Basin Restoration Priorities 2009, Amended July 2018. 33 pages. Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Geological Survey (NCGS), 1985. Geologic Map of North Carolina. Raleigh, North Carolina Department of
Natural Resources and Community Development, Geological Survey Section. Scale 1:500,000. Available for
download as GIS feature at: http://data.nconemap.gov/downloads/vector/geol.zip
Owens, L.B., Edwards, W.M., van Keuren, R.W., 1996. Sediment losses from a pastured watershed before and after
stream fencing. J. Soil Water Conserv. 51(1):90-94.
Ries, K.G., III, Newson J.K., Smith, M.J., Guthrie, J.D., Steeves, P.A., Haluska, T.L., Kolb, K.R., Thompson, R.F., Santoro,
R.D., and Vraga, H.W., 2017, StreamStats, version 4: U.S. Geological Survey Fact 2017-3046, 4
p., https://doi.org/10.3133/fs20173046. [Supersedes USGS Fact Sheet 2008-3067].
Rosgen, D. L., 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22:169-199.
Rosgen, D. L., 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology Books, Pagosa Springs, Colo.
Sarr, D.A., 2002. Riparian livestock exclosure research in the western United States: a critique and some
recommendations. Environ. Manage. 30(4):516-526.
Schafale, M. P., and A. S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the natural communities of North Carolina, third
approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. Division of Parks and Recreation, NCDENR. Raleigh, NC.
Trimble, S.W. 1994. Erosional Effects of Cattle on Streambanks in Tennessee, U.S.A. Earth Surface Processes and
Landforms 19:451-464.
Trimble, S.W. and A.C. Mendel, 1995. The Cow as a Geomorphic Agent — A Critical Review. Geomorphology 13:233-253.
United States Army Corps of Engineers, 1997. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Research Program. Technical Note VN-RS-
4.1. Environmental Laboratory. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS.
Page 52
I N T E R N AT 10 N A L

►'y � r` � s. l r•
• . : . r'> ..R. i. ;. w.'a _. Sr` ..c.p ... � . r �r ems• � ;� 7�r �-
ll
-•y^ r��� l• '. T_ it j,.� � i.YM��
LA
�
7
may{
11
GIS Figures
� v 4 ; A •��. t� � L � �, �� Ns�`. y, �+ r3h�'�na�...j�•� - �"'�• ��, �'"-Yba��}�e
J
z a< � .sy z�la ,�$3 r � � �-,+ + fir, �S�'?' a -, �' �•F 'rr' �° Fx- ¢. - .. .. '
h r' .S 5 � V � j � �TiT a AF S .' ��'� d� 'e� � • �

N 03NO102010020
20040 03040102010030
03040102010010
Point
Alexander County F r, 0304010201010.0 ` I
Airport
03040102040010 �. 3
1 03NO102030010
03050101130010
• - r[-•�IrY,• V��
6-1
Project Location F
~■ 1'
03040102030020
StatesviI e
03050101090030 03050101150020 ''—
StOtesvlflP
03040102040020
Irk 1,
p • - k,
�.. r
i • 21
70 _
— i_ s 0301
-Claremont-
030501. 140010 y
NI ' - ` Troutman
03050101150040
Alexander County
u � 030501011
- 03050101150030 •
S T National Map. National Boundaries
North Carolina
g vation Program, Geographic r.
+° Figure 1
US
+� —
Project Vicinity Map
:�l rxmder Big Branch
Michael Baker
Stream Mitigation Project
N T E R N AT Z O N A L * �- 0 1.75 3.5 7
�; Hickor, Miles

Cem0
• -
.o1 Ws
i " 1 � � � • i = - _ IQ{? - _ �R�- � ��� ■■■711' fit• � � � ' \
1 r ••,N
Cb
M.
— - N�
`ti c,
Stony Point QuaNk drangle r ---
Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed
Figure 2
0 1,000 2,000 4,000 USGS Topographic Map
Michael Baker � Feet Big Branch
N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L 1 inch = 1,800 feet Stream Mitigation Project

M
k
INTERNATIONAL
0 250 500
0 Proposed CE
Project Reaches
NRCS Hydric Soils
Soil Mapping Units
Ce132 Clifford sandy clay loam (2-8%)
6 COA Codorus loam (0-2%)
Dp132 Danripple sandy clay loam (2-8%)
FCC2 Fairview sandy clay loam (8-15%)
FcD2 Fairview sandy clay loam (15-25%)
1,000
Feet
1 inch = 500 feet
FcC2
Figure 3
NRCS Soils Map
Big Branch
Stream Mitigation Project

FEMA FIRM Panel
37103776003
eff.1211812007
-"0
loaf
Ok #40%
J
OP
As.
V 'V. K3.4 Zone E on
14
ti
iL
Proposed CE
Project Reaches
USA Flood Hazard Areas
1% Annual Chance Flood Hazard
A6 sri -41Diiht, IG lobe, GeoEye, E*�.stalr4eograp ics, CNE iFbus DS,
Figure 4
0 250 500 1,000
Michael Baker Feet FEMA Floodplain Map
Big Branch
I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L 1 inch = 500 feet Stream Mitigation Project

N Project Land Use:
Drainage Area: 3.18 square miles (2,035.5 acres)
1.2% Impervious
4.9% Developed
r r 37.3% Forested
53.1% Agriculture
�. Sources: USGS StreamStats and
2011 National Land Cover Database Bak
.t A t `t
r
SPA
41 AN
■
r
r
•
0 Project Watershed
0 Proposed CE • r
USA NLCD Land Cover t ,
Open Water �� + Mft
Perennial Snow/Ice
Developed Open Space Jim# it
Developed Low Intensity r
� Developed Medium Intensity ,
Developed High Intensity 'r
Barren Land
Deciduous Forest
Evergreen Forest
Mixed Forest #
Dwarf Scrub Project Location
Shrub/Scrub
Grassland/Herbaceous Z
■•
Sedge/Herbaceous
Lichens #
Moss
� ■ No
Pasture/Hay r r
Cultivated Crops L
Woody Wetlands ■ # .R.0
•
Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands l
rL DigitalGlo e e GeoE , E phics, CN s 09 USGS, GRIi� IGN, and the GIS User Community
o 1,000 2,000 4,000 Figure 6Michael Baker Feet Land Use Analysis
Big Branch
N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L 1 inch = 2,000 feet Stream Mitigation Project

N
A
wL"
b I ON A NO Lb'a-72 , v
yy
ON
osoft
MS
�UT3
Proposed CE
Project Reaches UT1
2' Contours
MS (2,035.5 acres)
UT1 (45.8 acres)
UT2
UT2 (43.3 acres)
UT3 (153.6 acres) ti
Ail,, VAk
UT4 (34.6 acres)
'E 6 US A, M IM 1 11 IMEA, IL�46;,C o m m u n I Ly
IN
s, ZNES/Aiio D
hsiz&lb lay I:
Figure 7A
0 1,000 2,000 4,000
Michael Baker Feet Watershed Drainage Areas
Big Branch
I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L 1 inch = 2,000 feet Stream Mitigation Project
ON
osoft
MS
�UT3
Proposed CE
Project Reaches UT1
2' Contours
MS (2,035.5 acres)
UT1 (45.8 acres)
UT2
UT2 (43.3 acres)
UT3 (153.6 acres) ti
Ail,, VAk
UT4 (34.6 acres)
'E 6 US A, M IM 1 11 IMEA, IL�46;,C o m m u n I Ly
IN
s, ZNES/Aiio D
hsiz&lb lay I:
Figure 7A
0 1,000 2,000 4,000
Michael Baker Feet Watershed Drainage Areas
Big Branch
I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L 1 inch = 2,000 feet Stream Mitigation Project

PI
•,t+aa.� , F ,,' owl
I
14
it
w �� �• fey M
.s �,
t�l a 1 w 3i`1
�J
r a �• '
rTy41
46
T - f _ ►j7 � F a ` _
at J
c ,'►.
a It
Proposed C E N � _ . •' r
AL
0 320 640 1,280 Figure 8A
Michael Baker � Feet Historic Aerial1993
Big Branch
INTERNATIONAL 1 inch = 500 feet Stream Mitigation Project

Note: The historic aerial photograph is not
r georeferenced, and the easement boundary
location is approximate.
• � 1 k
Wh
Pt
•� a +-�•rIK
3�
1 k 3V IF
�
;%
.,, oil.. ��_ • .
01.S
� F� � �" �•�� �� � i-•- .* `tee +�i �t� a� � S xii' �. ;'�'�'�; _ 3, ..6.
Ir • _ r
Proposed
ILW r-
Figure • .
Michael Baker Not to Scale Historic Aerial 1981
. • Branch
►Stream MitigationProject

" Note: The historic aerial photograph is not
georeferenced, and the easement boundary
` w A location is approximate.
06,
iIlk.
A"-
-WOW" 1 a
Lt
• pR _ � • _ � -y� Y r
pt
46
00
ir
ffff • �
LProposed C E r

1,
NChannel Incision
- Low Incision Moderate Incision HigJlncision
Reach
{BHR = 1.1-1.2] {BHR = 1.3-1.5] {BHMS 0% 0%
UT1 14% 84% 2%
UT1A D% 1DD% D%
UT1B 0% D% 1D0%
ti UT2 20% D% 8D%
UT2A D% 60% 40%
UT3B UT3 0% 66% 34%
- UT3A D% D% 1DD%
UT3B 0% 0% 1D0%
UT4 D% 37% 63%
UT3AApproximately 75% of the proposed project stream reaches
exhibit significant, obvious incision (BHR>1.5)
UT4
i
UT1 B UT1 A
UT1
x J
}� s !
A,t MS
IL 11116
1■� •`• ,
Headcuts UT2
O Cross Sections
Bedrock
0 Proposed CE
Project Parcels UT2A
Incision _
— Low (BHR 1.1-1.2) -
Moderate (BHR 1.3-1.5)
— High (BHR>1.5)
'h
M
a i �I •lobe; GeoEye, Eart ; g� i s b s DS, US i
Figure 9
0 250 500 1,000 Channel Stability
Michael Baker Feet Incision and Bedrock Control
N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L 1 inch = 500 feet Big Branch
Stream Mitigation Project

UT4
.Y�
A
UT3B
UT3
Bank Erosion/Scour
_ Apx. Reach Apx. Proportion of
Reach Reach length Length Exhibiting Reach Length
Bank Scour (ft) Exhbiting Bank
Scour
MS 5,903 5,903 100%
UT1 1,312 420 32%
UT1A 282 63 23%
UT1B 215 215 100%
UT2 1,178 896 76%
UT2A 309 70 23%
UT3 1,106 704 64%
UT3A 248 248 100%
UT3A UT3B 1,161 1,161 100%
UT4 916 259 28%
12,630 9,940 79%
Note: Approximately 9,940 feet (79%) of total project stream
reaches exhibit active bank scour and erosion
., UT1 B UT1A
UT1
i
-�-', i
UT2
a � t
0 Proposed CE - L
Project Parcels
Scour
15-30%
30-50%
>50%
,g r_ ographics, CNES/Airbus IDS. USDA, U
Figure 10
0 250 500 1,000 Channel Stability
Michael Baker � Feet Bank Scour
N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L 1 inch = 500 feet Big Branch
Stream Mitigation Project

N Note: Approximately 2% of proposed
project streams are impacted by
crossings or easement breaks.
ALL. 6-
-r.
UT3B
- At.
U T3A
UT4
UT3
�. UT1 B UT1 A
It '
'` AgA
UT1
41,
f
�'! �►
JPk�F
' h'1•'� � _ Timber Debris
UT2
_e
Proposed CE
Project Reaches t
Powerline UT2A
Berm -
® Straightened * ' • .�� yF_
Y '
• Ditch
' Y
o Culvert [ -
o Cattle Crossing
Project Parcels
ScTi ce: � ,. Digit. I I eogrwhic`s, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, i
Figure 11
0 250 500 1,000 Michael Baker Feet Floodplain Alteration
Big Branch
N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L 1 inch = 500 feet Stream Mitigation Project

Mw
NBuffer Vegetation Condition
Livestock
Reach Access to Dominant Buffer Vegetation
Stream Condition
MS 100% <30 ft. (7756)
UT1 100% <30 ft. (85%)
UT1A 100% <30 ft. (100%)
UT1B 100% >30 ft. (100%)
UT2 100% <30 ft. (70%)
UT2A 100% None(60%)
_. UT3B UT3 100% <30ft. (100%)
UT3A 100% >30 ft. (100%)
U13B 1 100% >30 ft. (100%)
UT4 100% None(54%)
Livestock have access to 12,630 ft. (100%) of project
♦, streams. Approximately 1,559 ft. (16%) of project
UT4 V -_ �♦ UT3A streams have no riparian buffer vegetation; 8,108 ft.
,• (64%) of streams have <30 ft. buffer vegetaiton.
w UT3UT1 B UT1 A
y i
s�
+♦ `�, i UT1
c
MS
l sit.
' fin.J f
1
'` `��; • ,f UT2
0 Proposed CE ; -
Project Reaches
- — - Livestock Access Streams UT2A
Project Parcels
Buffer Vegetation Condition P"
Buffer <30 *+ �' }
No Buffer
I I be GeoEye, Earths o i s, CNES S S, US i
Figure 12
0 250 500 1,000 Michael Baker Feet Water Quality Stressors
Big Branch
N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L 1 inch = 500 feet Stream Mitigation Project

A-
MOA�
UT3B
UT3A
UT4
UT3 0
�I
+fit f0 Jam\
}'1 M Kt
UT1 B
IL
IVIO
JL � '� sti 'h• +t.i 1. ti'� i .-
UT2
UT2A l'+,,4
0 Proposed CE Al
4, fir,}`[ 6'"'.`�r• ��1
O Proposed BMP i ,
Restoration - Option A
Enhancement I - Option A l
fir '
Enhancement II - Option A°
E50, DigitalGlo,be, Neert a`r.Geographic,OO E /Airbus DS, USDA,
Proposed Mitigation Features -
Option A
Reach
R
El
Ell
M5
5,903
UT1
1,310
UT1A
282
UT1B
215
UT2
1,178
UT2A
3U9
UT3
562
544
UT3A
248
UT3B
1,050
UT4
1 668
248
Total Footage for Credit
12.517
4
ti
r
Z; t
UT1A
Figure 13A
0 250 500 1,000 Proposed Mitigation Features
Michael Baker Feet Option A
N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L 1 inch = 500 feet Big Branch
Stream Mitigation Project

N Proposed Mitigation Features -
Option B
Reach R EI Ell
MS 5,903
UIT1 825 485
UT1A 282
UT3B UT113 215
UT2 1,178
- - UT2A 186
UT3 562 544
UT3A UT3A 248
t R UT3B 550 500
_ UIT4 668 248
UT4 , ,.,{r Total Footage for Credit 12,394
"`.►,* UT3 . ' o «,�
UT1 B UT1A
MS
tie
Ik
UT2
%�
Proposed CE
* ,: o .
Project Reaches°''`
o Proposed BMP Restoration - Option B: -. k`
Enhancement I- Option B
4
Enhancement II - Option B ,' `
E'ri, Dig'iltal I 6,r •1Ey Ntrt Fa rlieographics,oWjAirbus DS. USDA, IN
Figure 13B
0 250 500 1,000 Proposed Mitigation Features
Michael Baker � Feet Option B
N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L 1 inch = 500 feet Big Branch
Stream Mitigation Project

N Proposed Mitigation Features -
Option C
Reach R El Ell
y t M5 4,723 1,180
- UTl 1,310
UT1A 282
UT3B UT1B 215
UT2 1,178
UT2A 186
UT3 562 544
UT3A 248
UT3B 450 600
UT4 668 248
UT4 Total Footage for Credit 12,394 '.
jr-
9, ►. UT3
t
bp
or
MS
IK
M
T•
UT2'
0 Proposed CE .�- ��• ��"1 - '�� -
Project Reaches 3 < '
O Proposed BMP
Restoration - Option C + = �`, a,i,• •'�� ,-, -,
Enhancement I - Option C
Enhancement II - Option C „�+ Arl•... '
f
i i i I I" E hstar G.e� , S i So, S.AeroGRID.IGN, and the GI
,. Carolina DOT, LMIMIFNIM
Figure 13C
0 250 500 1,000 Proposed Mitigation Features
Michael Baker Feet Option C
N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L 1 inch = 500 feet Big Branch
Stream Mitigation Project

OR
1' 1 7v -��0/��
p6ft. lab
-OAF 'OVA SO
/.�
�r ��� ,N��� � f�'fr � � �, w. �j � SY/, � , �� �• �dd�j � � //
zz
FA
4,004/6/
14 0 04,
OAF
` �VG �I
.. r � �� /► gip.
s 'i ,y r ► �. +� (gyp , ;Y
�� �• . � 1:*,.�i��� d '�I � �i° ice; � ��
Awl
POP� b�
gr
�I
v
Nil -
mil
OWE
F///7 Targeted Local Watersheds
pr
a►;0-00Jr. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , i+....cs
Streams
�- �� �� � [ CU]L•° c�3 ,L ° 5�' `e � V\1 [�J51i2 P ��Gf1Cf7���Os�fr
'f/'/fray/ .�►f�i i ► � _ . � it �
Figure 14
Watershed •
Michael Baker — es Contextual
i - C • Branch

��'► -- �. � ICI, �'b `A � '
" i /'��� � "'ry , ►111111: III
" Payne Dairy Mitigation Site •. �,
,t and Conservation Easement
,r
a� 'Ir Third Creek
�"%+s �• ; �I� . �,'� `• 'r� Rare Plant Siteivy-mr
Elk Shoals Mitigation Site
* 4 and Conservation Easement s
,,�ji illlllllllll +/
��� III ► 7, �—'"/J,�/� . ,% r - ` • '
IIIIIIIII I II I III 11 IIIII IIIIIIWIIIIIIIIII .. �� �� "
Catawba Rivi
CorridorSite
Big Branch Creek �/►�`
P
op
Alexander Farm Mitigation Site
�- and Conservation Easement
Catawba County � r t
Open Space d• �1`�► f , ,
Land Trust for Central NC -
;� , / Gray Farm Mitigation Site and , Conservation Easement
Conservation Easement
L �f/ �j �� '' />� ♦ Rich Slopes �' �, �� =� IIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIII ' �� _ ' < t pIIIIIIIIV IIIIIIIIIIIII 2 �► . wo
t III '
c y
Farm Mitigation Site and _
I
' Catawba River Gray III I g
4'I
,_, Proposed CE IConservation Easement
i 1
DMS Tierl Projects
0 Conservation Easement f �S - i .J� ^
Water Supply Watersheds (I P `
Waterbodies -�
Streams
Natural Areas .:� �_ - ,��� *. .• � + ,• 1
General
Moderate r �• ` } �11*^.
1110
Figure 15
0 0.5 1 2 Adjacent and Proximal
Michael Baker Miles Planning Elements Map
INTERNATIONAL 1 inch mile Big Branch
Stream Mitigation Project

Appendices

Technical Proposal Evaluation Criteria
Rating Form
Offeror:
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
Site Name:
Big Branch Mitigation Project
River Basin
/ Catalog
Catawba River Basin / CU 03050101
Unit:
RFP
16-007875
Number:
Date of Site
Evaluation:
Type/Amt of
M itigation
Offered:
Proposal
Review
Committee:
Alternate
Attendees:

Section 2. Functional Uplift Evaluation
for Option A
Functional
Functional
Planning Identified
Category
Functional Stressor
Uplift Potential
Stressor
Check box below if
Completethis sectionfor identified
stressoris identified
Check boxes belowto identify
functional stressors ONLY. Selecttheoption
through watershed
stressors addressed by proposal.
that best describes the uplift potential for
planning
RWP
LWP
the majorityof the project area.
U Non-functioning riparian
Low
Moderate
High
Very High
>_
buffer/wetland vegetation
ca
U Sediment
Low
Moderate
High
ery High
IJ Nutrients
Low
Moderate
High
Very High
N
IJ Fecal Coliform
Low
Moderate
High
ery High
IJ Other
Low
Moderate
High
Very High
IJ Peak Flows
Low
Moderate
High
Very High
t�A
O
U Artificial Barriers
Low
Moderate
High
Very High
O
U Ditching/Draining
Low
Moderate
High
2
IJ Other
Low
Moderate
High
Very High
U Ha bitat Fragmentation
Low
Moderate
High
Very High
U Limited Bedform Diversity
Low
Moderate
High
ery High
2
U Absence of Large Woody
Low
Moderate
High
Very High
Debris
IJ Other
Low
Moderate
High
Very High
�O
Tota I Count
Tota I
Count
Multiplier
Multiplier
ca a-J
— -0
ca
x1
x3
x6
x10
x4
x6
O IAA
Count x Function
Count x
U
Planning
C:
Multiplier
Multiplier
L.L L (6
A
Sumof
B
a
Sumof Function
Planning

Adjusted Risk Factor
Total
Restoration
Restoration
Enhancement
Total Restoration and Enhancement Feet
Risk Adjusted Score
and
Feet
Feet
Enhancement Feet
(Sum of Function AX Factorc)
Enhancement
Restoration Feet + k 2 )
Feet
12,517
10,919
1,598
1.07 `
90 D
Risk Adjusted Score + PlanningB =
Section 3. General
90 E Total Function and Planning
im1
What percent of the request does the proposed stream
project provide? (if applicable)
point
<50%
3 points
50-70%
6 points
71-90%
10 points
>90%
Physical constraints or barriers —2%
>5%
2-5%
<2%
None
Easement Continuity 13.2(from DMStool)
>12
8-12
0-8
Project Density 15.7 SgMi* / 2 DMS sites = 7.8
>10
8-10
4- 1
<4
Total
1
3
6 1
10
* Drainage Area at confluence of Elk Shoals Creek and a UT to Elk Shoals Creek is 15.7 SgMi and contains 2 DMS projects
Section 4. Final Score and Proposal Rating
Total Function and
E
Planning
F
Total General
Final Score
110
(E+F)
Proposal Rating
1.10
(Final Score x 0.01)
20 F
4

Section 2. Functional Uplift Evaluation
for Option B
Functional
Functional
Planning Identified
Category
Functional Stressor
Uplift Potential
Stressor
Check box below if
Completethis sectionfor identified
stressoris identified
Check boxes belowto identify
functional stressors ONLY. Selecttheoption
through watershed
stressors addressed by proposal.
that best describes the uplift potential for
planning
RWP
LWP
the majorityof the project area.
U Non-functioning riparian
Low
Moderate
High
Very High
>_
buffer/wetland vegetation
ca
U Sediment
Low
Moderate
High
ery High
IJ Nutrients
Low
Moderate
High
Very High
N
IJ Fecal Coliform
Low
Moderate
High
ery High
IJ Other
Low
Moderate
High
Very High
IJ Peak Flows
Low
Moderate
High
Very High
t�A
O
U Artificial Barriers
Low
Moderate
High
Very High
O
U Ditching/Draining
Low
Moderate
High
2
IJ Other
Low
Moderate
High
Very High
U Ha bitat Fragmentation
Low
Moderate
F7D
Very High
U Limited Bedform Diversity
Low
Moderate
GD
Very High
U Absence of Large Woody
Low
Moderate
High
Very High
2
Debris
IJ Other
Low
Moderate
High
Very High
03
Tota I Count
Tota I
0
Count
Multiplier
Multiplier
ca a-J
— -0
ca
x1
x3
x6
x10
x4
x6
O IAA
Count x Function
Count x
U
Planning
C:
Multiplier
Multiplier
L.L L (6
A
Sumof
B
Sumof Function
Planning

Adjusted Risk Factor
Total
Restoration
Restoration
Enhancement
Total Restoration and Enhancement Feet
Risk Adjusted Score
and
Feet
Feet
Enhancement Feet
(Sum of Function AX Factorc)
Enhancement
Restoration Feet + k 2 )
Feet
12,394
9,266
3,128
1.14
87
Risk Adjusted Score + PlanningB =
Section 3. General
E Total Function and Planning
im1
What percent of the request does the proposed stream
project provide? (if applicable)
point
<50%
3 points
50-70%
6 points
71-90%
10 points
>90%
Physical constraints or barriers —2%
>5%
2-5%
<2%
None
Easement Continuity 13.2(from DMStool)
>12
8-12
0-8
Project Density 15.7 SgMi* / 2 DMS sites = 7.8
>10
8-10
4- 1
<4
Total
1
3
6 1
10
* Drainage Area at confluence of Elk Shoals Creek and a UT to Elk Shoals Creek is 15.7 SgMi and contains 2 DMS projects
Section 4. Final Score and Proposal Rating
Total Function and
E
Planning
F
Total General
Final Score
107
(E+F)
Proposal Rating
1.07
(Final Score x 0.01)
20 F
4

Section 2. Functional Uplift Evaluation
for Option C
Functional
Functional
Planning Identified
Category
Functional Stressor
Uplift Potential
Stressor
Check box below if
Completethis sectionfor identified
stressoris identified
Check boxes belowto identify
functional stressors ONLY. Selecttheoption
through watershed
stressors addressed by proposal.
that best describes the uplift potential for
planning
RWP
LWP
the majorityof the project area.
U Non-functioning riparian
Low
Moderate
High
Very High
>_
buffer/wetland vegetation
ca
U Sediment
Low
Moderate
High
ery High
IJ Nutrients
Low
Moderate
High
Very High
N
IJ Fecal Coliform
Low
Moderate
High
ery High
IJ Other
Low
Moderate
High
Very High
IJ Peak Flows
Low
Moderate
High
Very High
t�A
O
U Artificial Barriers
Low
Moderate
High
Very High
O
U Ditching/Draining
Low
Moderate
High
2
IJ Other
Low
Moderate
High
Very High
U Ha bi tat Fragmentation
Low
Moderate
High
Very High
ro
U Limited Bedform Diversity
Low
Moderate
High
Very High
U Absence of Large Woody
Low
Moderate
High
Very High
2
Debris
IJ Other
Low
Moderate
High
Very High
�O
Tota I Count
Tota I
Count
Multiplier
Multiplier
ca a-J
— -0
ca
x1
x3
x6
x10
x4
x6
O IAA
Count x Function
Count x
U
Planning
C:
Multiplier
Multiplier
L.L L (6
A
Sumof
B
Sumof Function
Planning

Adjusted Risk Factor
Total
Restoration
Restoration
Enhancement
Total Restoration and Enhancement Feet
Risk Adjusted Score
and
Feet
Feet
Enhancement Feet
(Sum of Function AX Factorc)
Enhancement
Restoration Feet + k 2 )
Feet
12,394
5,901
6,493
1.35
85
Risk Adjusted Score + PlanningB =
Section 3. General
E Total Function and Planning
im1
What percent of the request does the proposed stream
project provide? (if applicable)
point
<50%
3 points
50-70%
6 points
71-90%
10 points
>90%
Physical constraints or barriers —2%
>5%
2-5%
<2%
None
Easement Continuity 13.2(from DMStool)
>12
8-12
0-8
Project Density 15.7 SgMi* / 2 DMS sites = 7.8
>10
8-10
4- 1
<4
Total
1
3
6 1
10
* Drainage Area at confluence of Elk Shoals Creek and a UT to Elk Shoals Creek is 15.7 SgMi and contains 2 DMS projects
Section 4. Final Score and Proposal Rating
Total Function and
E
Planning
F
Total General
Final Score
105
(E+F)
Proposal Rating
1.05
(Final Score x 0.01)
20 F
4

e ansr 'a.a: aetnls is ro a, .
a°shoo Ppapa a
niIa:aa.r,
FiliM n vanes e� or Deena
-619-97-102
1,14i, 7'Y z"U 4- / ��2nYl,lYlimWJ
Prepared by and Retur,,.
mi ky t1nnmune
Michael Raker isnFin ,Inc.
197 Haywnpd Rd. 501201
Asheville, NC 28566
MEMORANDUM Of OPI'tON TO PURCHASE fONSERVATION EASEMENT
THIS MENOAANDUM FOR OPTION TO PGRGHASE (oNSLRVATION EASLAI"T
("Mnnuraodum''1 is made a,W ealeml lao Ihis 10" _Jay of laav, �, by and betwecy,
Matt p}da and lsaudfcr Lm, hull- pnvala lavdawnels ("OmNor'7 and MICTIAEL IIARER
ENGINF-ERING, INC., a nerporatie,r n[Fanined in the s.. of New York emb offices a, 1971[ayw'dod
Rd., Save 201. Ashetdle, KC 2SAOd C'Aalmr' oe "Orznlee°�.
W FIEREAS, Grants, and [taker Ill, netamd in, e s v,ni Opb au Furth- Crn,srnaaon
Eaccmeca lthe "ppnon"j dated lulu 102019, Pumuarn 1uw71icl,Gmiuol graNcE to Baker, its auurnoa
and asaPyms m, ppriwl m Purchxsr a twnurvanon ea em llho •'Eeseawedl^) dver —a real Paryxrly
I-mIe.1Ie Alexander Cuu ty, Nerth Caroline rvhI&p.partyamere pa ,darly deso+bW on the 4.aed
Eahihi[ Ill lJ,c and Fvhibia 112 iDeeJ Refena—,fF
WHEREAS,'Ihe parcl erntcr mto Ihis Metnnraodims for,hc purpose of strung forth cercai0 reamns
end eonJrtiare „f the Optionand m provide cenawaEe nonee.,f the Opnan.
NOW, T11P:ILI:EORF, m considemrion of ilia fnrtgaing me Iwrcire herrhy ipee as follows.
I. Therermnfthe Oprlfnt c, alnnersc ian]uly la 2l�ead mall cxplm pn 1, [v i02021.
An pP ILe Pn'vaa,uos ne rash m the UplFon ace irccnrpnrulW in Ilds Memom,uWm by
-i nee
3. ITe Cptiun shall be Y M,,g ap,a ARJ inure to Ihe Im left of Lhc Wit and [heir rapzlirc
hen s'I—'Ind e ipys.
I SfONA II I AND NOTARY 41-Li I'S APPPAR ON FCLLO VI NIi PAGE51
GRANTOR: /�I/�
Ry., � s1Y,(/
Tali _LcIn1 0wr—,
STATE OF NORTH CAROLWA
COUNTY OF g�AVN
[. `%(�R�� M M4l`/INativr
,Ihe uadeaippral Noaay Ppblic,•I'Ific CwnlY ared Slane
ndu, ®aid, crnify thm A/uA{4v
11 P—guy ai belbrc me this day,
acknnwkedganp tn,ne [Iwl he/she v dwddrily shed and execvlM the forcgaing documerrt. I Ise ve
received sacisfarTorY evidrnae siflhe pmaoa aidmtllYmrl,e Rrvn oP ��Cvraa IiGWL.-.
Witness my hand atd Natnrial
su'mp' c•rsa^l.lh-u lD day ol,Jlfr 2019.
X—T�,_ Ihn,iVl�
VOimel 9,g,utu�m/ o�t�N�Wazy
�r�'
N.une_ 6&(m'ti �}ys•FItiaAldfilary puhl.e
IPrisned
My Ce,m,ission Eapscs_ �'Id]'LL
IAIII I AMP-SEALI
Y�Ae2OTq Rt6
t ur cea.n. r:a.'a
as apslm. �
9 ?
�,a+ecG+fN
IN WITNIM WHEREOF, Ihr partite have duly eaecad� If Mrarwfandunl da 0f the date fivr
shove —I-
GRANTEE:
Ry,
Print Nmue, DAOi
Ell, NCIHf Ezeced.�
STATEOF EIG
GOUNTYOF GhUTil-Ifs-IM_
I,Ai1n�Veevt N4 It/�C�Qft{ ,H_ a Notary Pnbtic of the l"aurtty flnJ SiataaFpreaayl, do hereby
pertify rear IJWafIPI {'+dfl�au pe,xonaliY came bcfine m IM,dayand acknowledged
that he'zha is jy�Q[{I[0F"if�q,Alae of Reheat Baker Fnpnccdng, Inc, a Nnclh Cernlinn pffi i000i
cnrpnralinn, and That he aclmwla!Wd m me 11aaa he vahmarily sagned the foregoing d— far the
pumoarsb.. expensed and In tits pt-enedn"cap,cjtya, Slatedlhaveromtredsaafefa0,my
cvideuce of ll a wi apn'a IdWily in Ihe f0ma of
I n.
Wimces myhand pnA afGaal sal, This the �' itay of �( ��19_
Offi
1a7 lNNary hL.
Poaled Name: Np , PLIM11
My Cammiusiun Rep ,:
IAFFIX NPTARIAL STAMP-SE,LL] ns'%?O MA RL
r �Wmm..aP.
it oa x.xol. �
\ URL70 2 'y
9, coNbV
GRAN'TO µ:
by__ !'TM
S PATE OF NOR'I'N CAROLLNA
COwI OIq--/IlfiYne-WL
I, _ fI/� /i �-,_ ,me underSl�ed Nasty Public nf[he County n,d su;��
af.n9d, ehdfy rher iayn' .µyj� peNpabwppcucd hefine me Ihis day,
eeknawledping to me That hrvahe vnluntanly aipuxl and exmsr¢d Ihe fompoine dewmmt. T hove
rcerivod eansfx[aryeviJmca o/rhe petsan'a III— in thefrnn al JrilreaS jaeeN9t.
Witness my hendaM Natanal xlamp arscel. ddsfQyol' ,2049.
11ilCiwletof Nma,y
ISinl�Nama�/L�11.gP M.Nnary Public
My C.'amEaplrca: zl�fwx�- was
AI'I'1%NDIa1RIAL S7AMP-SEAL] ry 2O qRy d4
00
Ia U
OI =
,.uN�

N— The map.., not o<. ciatlRm.-, and bee ni, boa
A
mdewed by a fool 9—Me t a9errLY for cgrYliaax aith as
.pplka k land dmekpnmt rephlbY eM hm not error
reefew 4Rw cgr®liomss9h 2n9reghanarW rPe
HY6 Jennifer L�
t
3737 MattlMW]
7B6aaB9]
HNI Malthraw John
Hull xnnifer 6
3
3]]fiMafi64
'
Hull Ma1.MraW John
NYII]ennifer Lynn i�l Hu11 MaLHrcw)ahn Ir
37]6749636 }�!! Hull Jennifer Lynn 1
.
37766431Ja ! -^
(✓S.�Xul
t
MaLaanalnhn
Xu6 ]ennlhr Lynn
37766394g7 b'S'-:
Nu117en 4=2
S]]6&592112 r
1
fr
Metal M9nitaw ]oho -
Hull]enrdfer Lytm
3]]672979]
Xu6 Ma1fMw Jahn
XWI ]anNler Lynn
XWI JaBfd{afL
7776775990
� Nle MalNtew]
. r4
,r'AA 3T/6615900
J
Parr,z119tlBndarsco y
Project Streams �' ik�„ t
��' '_ r�
rrer■wn9aaow3o3
�'oyE�FSitq,.gaa
9aaya [Ne4NNur p3, USb0.
Exhibit D1
o ssB sax OOa
a oFat Landowner(s):
Hull, Matthew J. anc
I N T E R N A T I D N A L
Hull, Jennifer L.
Exhiki 02
!]nod Pehrence
Parcel];PIN377561590B, BEING ALL OF Tract Ne.1,cuntalning 135 acres, as the..mars described
and recorded In 606 585 at Page £329 of the Alexander county Regletry, to which reference is
heretry made (or greater vrtahny of descrlptlnrl by metes and hounds.
Parcel ]. PIN 377G64p68J, 2EINGALLOIP—N.,2, eontain'rng 30.11 acresr as the..coals desvihed
and Ll=ud In gook 585 at Page 1329 of the Alexander County ReglstN, Lo which reference Ie
hereby made for greater certainty of desorption by metes and b... ds'.
P.Ice13:PIN377h72FL00, PPINGALLOftutNv-2,containingJ9.J7 acres,asthe samelsd¢senhad an0
recorded m Book 579 at Page 24n and plat pook !-0 of Page 91 of the Alexander County Registry, tD
which re Mrence is hereby made For greater ttrtaln[y of der[! ptn7n bF metesand hounds.
Pa I,t-PINL77fi74B03k BEING ALL OFTractl coot. nl g4696 acres as the same'. described and
r mraed'n dbdk 5M at Page 184 and Plat Rook 14 at Page 193 of the Alerand,,C,, dy Registry, to
which references hereby made for greater lerlalnty of tlexdptrdn by metes and bvunde.
7artel S: PIN 3]769406fi4, REINGALL0FTr 1Nn.l,con[aining 6.fi12 acres, as the sameis tlexrlbetl
and recorded in Povq 69] at Page 952 W the Alexander County Registry, to wlach reYeence Is
hereby made forgreaeer certainty ei description bV metes and hounds.
Pa IrE16.PIN377GB4327g, BEING ALL OF Tract A, a, CALL) falning 16.9aves. as the same is
described and recorded in Bock 549-at PAW 556and plat I,13 at Page 22 of the Aleaander
Courtly R,Ci ,,tR w hich reference Is hereby made For greatercertalnry of dextlption By rne[es
and bounds.
Parcel]: PIN 377fi639487, BEING ALL OF TIae111 m Nrrug 95R7 aces, i, the same hdescribed and
ecorded In aook Sao At Page 184-and Plat Hook 14 It Page 193 of the Alevander Caunty Registry, to
,,h reference is hereby made for greater ceda l"of d—ption by males and bounds.
Parcel e_ In N 1171111111, BEING ALL 11111, , 1 o—Ina,5, 14 a....... t he camels described and
m rdea in souk 573 at Page 2410 and Plat Book 14 al Page 91 al the Alexander County Registry, to
which reference Is hereby made for greater rertalnty of description by males and bounds,
Parcel 9', PIN 37751334202, BEING ALL OFa tact con uh,,54.92 acres, as the .amp is descdded and
ecorded In BOON 547 at Page 649 and Plat gook 12 at Page 20.4 of the Aleaantler [DunIY Regiz[ry, to
which reference Is hereby made fdr greater certainly of desriptrvn by metes and bounds.

��ol/3J/2018 ee Ia.N:al pl
�id lxa.�o Paps 1 e a
Mefx Has er o vea\
a419 rZ8-96fP uu
LJ
*1, f"
7tt 1Iry a Rmlm:
Micky rlemm
s�MichaeA flakes fyR[om Idi b�
]yS Hafm•ood Rd. Suhe201
.4shcvillc.NC 2y S96
MF M ORANIi1,M OF OPTION'1'0 PLlIWIASE C(MSli rlOM E. LWN'1
T1115 MEMORAND17M POR OPTION'PO PURC'71ASE CONSERVATION EARRMENT
I"Mervumlxlwn'J :, xnd eltcrcd ima Ihi+ _ IQ" dm' of Jul a01S. W vw hawtvr
Mr. Novl VVavne SnRII1t.eM t. f)nllald Sm,llt. Mr. TllmmvS I(h.},,abans 5N,fh Mr K®um LS salk
pmalc [andonmc[s ("Ganlor'1 and MlE11A[:L RARER F.VGIN'EERIMG, LV Cy a cvrpvmslva
mgalnuvl in the Halt of Nrn York with olGfes xl ]9) tl y k Rd., 9ssi1e 201, Ashn illc. Nl' 28806
I"Raker" nY'I,mnl¢"J,
W[IRREA.V, Grenun nnJ Baker hove mlerat iron a ccnaln VN' Vwclwae Gm;lervaei;,n
Fascmml(Ne "Oplien"l daed lulu 30.21119,pwaoanL la wi,ich Grealore.avlyd to flakacile suaarta�m
and xsei AlNs oplim iv Junes coelservaliuu mvemenl I,he `F.asemert"J Deer tens v rral pnrpely
IIMn[csI in mgnderCmtmy.y. NaNt farohm, wbiclspmpaty a nsnm pwieularty dacrtbcd ontMettarLM
>y nib C� pnc"nop�ty'lnnd r�eibi[ U2(nacd Rel<rm—)
W'PIE11EA5, 11se pxniei mier inu, This Memnnmd{Im kr the putposepf sulivg font tens; .,tams
and condlltvru ufda Oytim,'atld ut rrtlr;de p9nnln�adve nalia of the UPtims:
VOW, T18EREFO1IE, in tsmmlkralivu of dle l;negf rin5, Ills pmies lurtbys¢rcc ae follows.
I_ Tlielerm nflhe rJplinn mnrmmeed on,J{I Ip 3Ot9aMsn R.pl­ll,fulV 10.2022,
]sW nf�dse Wnvisians set fords m the Opli,m ary ,nivrrporatcd m Ilvs Mentpmttdwn by
incUali nshall be bkrsdmgdponaad murrmLzeLaufilotMepanies mdlharnsp¢trvc
hryrs,.oce'wnn rind H4�6,u,
in;VI VREb ANI)N'(lliVtY ACKNt1Wl, F.00MCNTS APPEAR On EOLLVWUIGPAGIS
r.I1ANTOR:
R�y✓, rr - _
1}Im NanrTed,�,-���
Till., tol-4 /levrvr
M I'EOI NUI(IJf L.v(oLINA
—1 MTV OF
I, �} {t1Js � fk'lr,C[I>x�l, the and�.rtPsssl N,y,uy kubhc aftlm Coumy and Slalc
ar,irexaia eedily lhm. .i�/AffIP.rSi e:fl, per roll h'arypmred before medsis d,.
ae}nlNv3w1I{ina w me Ihxl he'Yhe valuoWnlY slyoaM ald evxolW the lirrzyoing document. l love
;rival amisfaGury endnn.e of rlv,pixsun's ideadN rn>trt (I'mM l�rf SIT �'oshy`.
WimeR nsy land and Notarial slampsn seal. Ihiaay of �, 20I9.
Icia1 e1�P,ur�nre „I'N�nl��
Printed Name: ,i�arlhfml h9 f74 ff�' i1LNdtnry IUblic
My [aramisatan Lvpves. ��
IAITi NOI'ARIALETAMP-hUALJ M y
i � l0 Ar14
¢ems
U9L\G i
�94 couNfi�
Eu wrrMEl;s wnpnroF, ma ryrnrnhava anlr eaamm d>wa Melmrandnm es onnv aal� r,m
aN,�a wri+,mt,
GRANTEE:
Ov,
Prmt Name: IlwaN Iladuu
Ti{Jc.- NC Offce t"amemive
ti l_lll•fL' �(_
-L.N1YOU LNhYiJA:N
L adln l[Ln PA LXiULZHnas• ,e Nolary Public nfd,cC'omny and State alimxaid, <k,httcbv
.emfy rP� �IUA1xl iiwYJ+s,w a„i pawn hcdmeLrfore;ru uu. aay arW ued:n,rwlcdged
�t na'ahn is YJL FJFIFr+ 6jrra,4(k orhlmhael Baker EvPinneting. �-a Ives m �nmhaa pn,rwaivual
cvryomLwr u,d Thal he acAmwlMped Ivme Ixal he minntarily dLg the£vsagowp awwneas for the
s sths— express d.dIn the sepaamtaun ermaciry sv staled. lhave rereivea sasiaf wrnry
,aepeeeem=arsm,'aiavnky;hnlermrnnr��k.�dx,1 kkLata�af��.
wilncea my hwd Bad of9 d seal. 11j,ft�Len Jur vi'.]J� ,21119,
mow.- M MI-Y
uHicial tllpmw��re//nfNnury
Privtcd Name: K-40m PA 1Ark­ANutnry Pobllc
KY Caltmrixstols ErFnn•.vl �Y+�
M df
[01NUSARJALSTAMRSCAFJ to NOTAR tiz
c j�`O81IG�S
y Co\7�
lhint Name✓ 1/nna �d fl.S:n i I rl
rvEa: La.,a owHs
slarcayn'vnxrn cnrzul�A
C(11RfR f)P fT
1, ��'I�l� fLP]—.il,e wdnsi Pmad WJary Puhlic of the Conroy and s(ale
afo dcaufy7 t I JiY`L) Nilih pc+➢mNnYapyemedbeforerae lhfs Jpy,
acknnwled€inP m ow thai hn'she columanlY sly,ed el;d exan{ed the rm�etgoingdacumrnL 1 hate
,xaved mliafulury esvleane nflhepr.. m's i11rn1hY is the fomr of dJf V,ICfS �-IC:yi��.
Wlvw my hw,d rod Nnle,ix7 Na`nlyal�,,E,11ye,,Cy/s�L tore 4 rynf Ju 29t8.
Prin,a4Namc: �iy ��uumry Puhli,
Myafmm;.snn a=mrtw: � k9n�1°f �71 ZO z l
lu'r'Jx NO'f.VtL1L SjAMP-SEAL]
vvy�pSETTE,e'y'!.a
PUBLIO e�:

l:[L4NTf1R:
tly�
Prirrl Nxrnc: ��4�h�.—ZLY�-}
Tine: � and -QW^u _
STATE pR NCINTHC'ATIOLINA
,OLNTVpF pl(t)r—
L !��' �h rt�in ihe�inefuvgrri NnratY RrElk aYthe ryanry antl Stale
xfgr>•said, eenify War - I� pRwually apo—d be-- fi a day,
acknowJedydnx to me Ihal itc,'elia tnfanlenly xigom aW eiwuyj the Pwe9 ,v rineumrnt I date
rcccrYcd smlaF.:Wpr eriddwc offivp—Ol-dvrpry mrhe llmn of— (fwft LI(�yriFe
Wien ,my head and Nraartrrl sump ordeal, llrisef4 dn_v of cJ[(�l/ .�914.
0 dial ynal ofof Noipry��{l�
..`` Prial�NSmeFlle`iL I_J YAA AM1rt�rlrarY lsaillie
My Camanssion E'xpircs.!`a YEM�'r 07, ZO t 1
A—WTAk sCAMfR RALJ
Ir YE t rtlrr
NOTAll
_era,, PydOLlG r�r
l.a. k�.,.d�rnn✓
STnTe. TIIfAMI Ma
m r,F�L,i�a`i4,
�nn.tlL_ ni' �[ iM mrcMmil.4y��nr.ai. w�i.�GnlvW4a�
.raow M Av B>rn,:w',r.11 e�r.,x�eer r ,.Jq�
.r rx we ii ew it npuJaue.mN�lrlp lgeidvJ iiv mw rM
..��,.em.i.! y Yu�Walni iFcrma.i:.�wnnru.il�brwu. �.�Kb (fin
AraM M1am NlrcrC/31; 1J�C .r.rbW.
mm�x rim amumnw�s�y„ .d'°•'�e
GRANTOR:
Prim Name: Sala rlP 5lnr,!!l
Tnlr. S1 na 0—
STATE OF NORTH CAROIfNA
CULNTYUF �L�r
I, h`"r x-
olr,Kseid, aplily ihnt SYnne
1/- ,Ihcwtdciaiguod Notary Public of the County and Start
dU Y'✓I ycr .11y aW..d bd—mctlua day,
acknrnvledgingm me that helshe w]uninnly signed and eaxvted rAe i'or\ecning doer.prerar_ Ihnw
>comvwl salisFacrory widrnru nl'rhePmnn'x idrnaity io abc form of jf{ 1 f� f �[)�$t
ws— my Head and xm—1 atara{p�aranwl/. rn;s��'y4Yff n� mY�oyl�t-s(! zola.
e\LM �i11
JfV�L{AU Ll�.i-�
Printed N—Vl Y1�TIf- l.{ IhVtdry Public
My ConaNssion Expirc+, 7.V�FIR!]�'{
��r �Z
IA= NOTAR,Pajr 4tlANty lGE.41.1
TTAEE+
TTT
�,•'a
l>