20230438 Ver 1_Mitigation Information_20230324

V,
CLEARWATER MITIGATION
S O L U T z O N S
October 18, 2022
Proposal Number: 16-519597878
NCDEQ-Division of Mitigation Services
Attn: Brooke Wells
217 West Jones Street, Suite 3409-1
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
Dear Ms. Wells:
Clearwater Mitigation Solutions, LLC (CMS), a North Carolina Limited Liability Company, presents the
following proposal to provide stream, riparian wetland, riparian buffer, and nutrient offset
mitigation credits in the Tar -Pamlico River Basin, (Cataloging Unit 03020101) in response to RFP #16-
519597878, with a site known as the Totten Mitigation Site. The team assembled for this project is
led by Clearwater Mitigation Solutions and includes the multi -disciplinary expertise of Axiom
Environmental, Inc. (AXE). This proposal includes one signed, original technical proposal, and
ArcGIS shapefiles of the proposed project boundaries submitted via the sourcing tool. Two cost
proposal options have been submitted separately via the sourcing tool portal.
The proposed project promotes the watershed goals identified in the Tar -Pamlico River Basin
Restoration Plan (RBRP) (NCEEP 2018) and the Fishing Creek Local Watershed Plan (NCEEP 2013).
Mitigation credits are to be generated via the restoration and enhancement (level I, and level 11) of
Unnamed Tributaries (UTs) to Jordan Creek, in addition to the reestablishment, rehabilitation,
enhancement, and creation of adjacent riparian wetlands and riparian buffers. Two options for the
project are proposed for mitigation credit generation, and are calculated in accordance with the
requirements stipulated in RFP # 16-519597878:
Option 1 encompasses the entire 28-acre easement area, and can yield 2,500 SMUs, 5.0 WMUs,
475,000 Riparian Buffer Credits, and 450 Ibs phosphorous reduction and associated nitrogen for
Nutrient Offset, representing the requested mitigation credits in RFP #16-416897656.
Option 2 also encompasses the entire 28-acre easement area, and can yield 3,365 SMUs, 5.0
WMUs, 475,000 Riparian Buffer Credits, and 450 Ibs phosphorous reduction and associated
nitrogen for Nutrient Offset, with the only difference from Option 1 being the SMU total.
Our team stands ready to assist with your mitigation needs with the Totten Mitigation Site. The
team has thoroughly read the RFP, execution pages, addenda, sourcing tool links, and fully
understands the language, requirements, and conditions, therein. Upon review of our
submittal, we trust you will find our qualifications and proposed site commensurate with your
requirements. We look forward to addressing any questions or comments you may have and
the opportunity to work with you in the near future.
Sincerely,
Kevin Yates
Clearwater Mitigation Solutions
604 Macon Place. Raleigh, NC 27609
919-624-6901
[e-mail]

Totten Mitigation Site
Granville County, NC
Full Delivery Proposal to Provide Stream, Riparian
Wetland, Buffer & Nutrient Offset Mitigation Credits
for Cataloging Unit 03020101 of the
Tar -Pamlico River Basin
RFP #16-519597848
Clearwater Mitigation Solutions
604 Macon Place
Raleigh, North Carolina
Authorized Representative: Mr. Kevin Yates
Phone: [phone]
CLEARWATER MITIGATION
S O L U T I O N S
October 18, 2022

Table of Contents
Section C. Execution Pages, Attachments, and RFP......................................................................................0
Section D. Executive Summary.....................................................................................................................1
Section E. Corporate Background and Experience.......................................................................................4
E1. Project Team.......................................................................................................................................4
E2. Office Locations...................................................................................................................................5
E3. Key Staff.............................................................................................................................................. 5
E4. Similar Project Experience..................................................................................................................8
E5. DBE/HUB Participation......................................................................................................................11
Section F. Project Organization...................................................................................................................12
Section G. Technical Approach...................................................................................................................14
G1. Project Goals and Objectives............................................................................................................14
G2. Project Description...........................................................................................................................18
ASite Location................................................................................................................................18
B Watershed and Water Quality Classification..............................................................................18
C Physiography, Geology, and Soils...............................................................................................18
D Existing Stream Conditions.........................................................................................................19
ECultural Resources......................................................................................................................
21
F Threatened and Endangered Species.........................................................................................
22
GSite Constraints...........................................................................................................................23
G3. Project Development........................................................................................................................23
AStream Restoration.....................................................................................................................23
B Stream Enhancement (Level 1)....................................................................................................24
C Stream Enhancement (Level 11)...................................................................................................24
D Wetland Reestablishment...........................................................................................................25
EWetland Enhancement...............................................................................................................
26
FRiparian Restoration...................................................................................................................
26
G Fence/ Easement Marking.........................................................................................................27
H Nuisance Species Management..................................................................................................27
G4. Proposed Mitigation.........................................................................................................................28
G5. Current Ownership and Long -Term Protection................................................................................30
G6. Project Phasing.................................................................................................................................30
G7. Success Criteria.................................................................................................................................30
A Stream Success Criteria...............................................................................................................31
B Wetland Success Criteria............................................................................................................31
C Vegetation Success Criteria.........................................................................................................31
G8. Quality Control.................................................................................................................................32
G9. References........................................................................................................................................34
Response for Request for Proposal 416-519597848 Table of Contents 11

�7
Table1. NC SAM Summary...................................................................................................................... 15
Table2. NC WAM Summary..................................................................................................................... 16
Table 3. Targeted Functions, Goals, Objectives, and Uplift Evaluation...................................................:17
Table4. Site Soils.................................................................................................................................... 19
Table 5. Stream Attribute Summary....................................................................................................... 19
Table 6. Essential Morphology Parameters............................................................................................. 20
Table 7. BEHI and NBS Modeling Summary............................................................................................. 21
Table 8. Threatened and Endangered Species......................................................................................... 22
Table 9. Individual Reach Descriptions and Functional Uplift..................................................................25
Table 10A. Mitigation Activities and Credit Potential Summary — Option 1............................................ 28
Table 10B. Mitigation Activities and Credit Potential Summary — Option 2..............................................29
Table 11. Current Parcel Ownership.........................................................................................................301
Table12. Project Timeline........................................................................................................................30
Appendices
Appendix A. Figures
Figure 1. Site Location
Figure 2. Hydrologic Unit Map
Figure 3. Topography and Drainage Area
Figure 4. Existing Conditions
Figure 5. Soils
Figure 6. LiDAR
Figure 7. Historic Aerial Photographs
Figure 8. Proposed Conditions
Figure 9. Buffer and Nutrient Offset Mitigation
Appendix B. Stream & Wetland Data
NCSAM Results
NCWAM Results
NCDWR Forms
Cross -sections
Sediment Analysis Data
Soil Boring Log
Appendix C. Site Photographs
Appendix D. IPaC Data and Natural Heritage Program Report
Appendix E. Signed Option Agreement & Landowner Agent Authorization Form
Appendix F. Resumes (Project Manager & Key Personnel)
Appendix G. Technical Proposal Score Sheet
Response for Request for Proposal 416-519597848 Table of Contents III

Section C. Execution Pages, Attachments, & RFP

xASTATE oF�o
w - a
\SSE QUAWAD
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
Request for Proposal #
16-519597848
For internal State agency processing, including tabulation of proposals, provide your company's eVP
(Electronic Vendor Portal) Number. Pursuant to G.S. 132-1.10(b) this identification number shall not be
released to the public. This page will be removed and shredded, or otherwise kept confidential, before
the procurement file is made available for public inspection.
This page shall be filled out and returned with your proposal.
Failure to do so may subject your proposal to rejection.
Clearwater Mitigation Solutions, LLC
Vendor Name
373585
Vendor eVP#
Note: For your proposal to be considered, your company (you) must be a North Carolina
registered vendor in good standing. You must enter the vendor number assigned through eVP
(Electronic Vendor Portal). If you do not have a vendor number, register at
nttps://venaor.ncgov.com/vendor/login
Ve r: 11 /2021

Proposal Number: 16-519597848
Vendor:
Clearwater Mitigation Solutions, LLC
VALIDITY PERIOD
Offer shall be valid for at least 60 days from date of bid opening, unless otherwise stated here: 180 days, or if extended by mutual
agreement of the parties. Any withdrawal of this offer shall be made in writing, effective upon receipt by the agency issuing this RFP.
ACCEPTANCE OF PROPOSAL
If your proposal is accepted, all provisions of this RFP, along with the written results of any negotiations, shall constitute the written
agreement between the parties ("Contract"). The NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS are incorporated herein
and shall apply. Depending upon the Goods or Services being offered, other terms and conditions may apply, as mutually agreed.
FOR STATE USE ONLY: Offer accepted and Contract awarded this day of , 20 , as indicated on
The attached certification, by
(Authorized Representative of Department of Environmental Quality)
Ver. 11/2021 pg. 2

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
Division of Mitigation Services
Refer ALL Inquiries regarding this RFP to:
Brooke We1fs
Request for Proposal #: 16-519597848
Proposals will be publicly opened: October 18, 2022
Using Agency: Division of Mitigation
Services
Commodity No. and Description: 926-40 Ecological Services
Requisition No.: NIA
FJ{ECUTION
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 understands that false certificatlon_is a Class I felony and certifies that:
• this proposal is submitted competitively and without collusion (G.S. 143-54),
• none of its officers, directors, or owners of an unincorporated business entity has been convicted of any violations of Chapter
78A of the General Statutes, the Securities Act of 1933, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (G.S. 143-59.2), and
• it is not an ineligible Vendor as set forth in G.S. 143-59.1.
Furthermore, by executing this proposal, the undersigned certifies to the best of Vendor's knowledge and belief, that:
it and its principals are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily
excluded from covered transactions by any Federal or State department or agency,
As required by G.S, 143-48.5, the undersigned Vendor certifies that it, and each of its sub -Contractors for any Ccntract awarded as
a result of this RFP, compiles with the requirements of Article 2 of Chapter 64 of the NC General Statutes, including the requirement
far each employer with more than 25 employees in North Carolina to verify the work authorization of its employees through the federal
E-Verify system.
G.S. 133-32 and Executive Order 24 (2009) prohibit the offer to, or acceptance by, any State Employee associated with the preparing
plans, specifications, estimates for public contracts; or awarding or administering public contracts; or inspecting cr supervising delivery
of the public contract of any gift from anyone with a contract with the State, or from any person seeking to do business with the State.
By execution of this response to the RFP, the undersigned certifies, for Vendor's entire organization and its employees or agents, that
Vendor is not aware that any such gift has been offered, accepted, or promised by any employees of your organization.
By executing this bid, Vendor certifies that it has read and agreed to the INSTRUCTION TO VENDORS and the NORTH CAROLINA
GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS. These documents can be accessed from the Ariba Sourcing Tool.
Failure to execute/sign proposal prior to submittal may render proposal invalid and it MAY BE REJECTED. Late
proposals shall not be accepted.
COMPLETE/FORMAL NAME OF VENDOR: Clearwater Mitigation Solutions, LLC
STREET ADDRESS: 604 Macon Place
P.O. BOX:
ZIP:
CITY & STATE & ZIP: Raleigh, North Carolina 27609
TELEPHONE NUMBER:
TOLL FREE TEL. NO:
919-624-6901
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:
Kevin Yates, Principal
VENDOR'S AUTHORIZED IGNATLIR ':
DATE:
EMAIL:
10/1712022
[e-mail]
Ver: 11l2a21 pg. 26

61EsT -jv,
y a'y
�esseeunn.no air
ATTACHMENT D: HUB Supplemental Vendor Information
Solicitation #: 16-519597848
Vendor Name: Clearwater Mitigation Solutions, LLC
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) from one of these 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, the disable, disabled business
enterprises, and non-profit work centers for the blind and severely disabled. This includes utilizing
individual(s) from these categories as subcontractors to perform the functions required in this Solicitation.
The Vendor shall respond to questions below, as applicable
PART I: HUB CERTIFICATION
Is Vendor a NC -certified HUB entity? ❑ Yes ■❑ No
If yes, provide Vendor #:
If no, does Vendor qualify for certification as HUB? ❑ Yes ❑■ No
Vendors that check "yes" will be referred to the HUB Office for assistance in acquiring
certification.
PART II: PROCUREMENT OF GOODS - SUPPLIERS
For Goods procurements, are you using Tier 2 suppliers? ❑ Yes JK No
If yes, then provide the following information:
Company
Name
Company
Address
Website
Address
Contact
Name
Contact
Email
Contact
Phone
NC HUB
certified?
Percent
of total
bid
price
North Carolina HUB Supplemental Vendor Information
Version Date: 09/2021
Page 1 1

PART III: PROCUREMENT OF SERVICES - SUBCONTRACTORS
For Services procurements, are you using Subcontractors to perform any of the services being procured
under this solicitation? X Yes ❑ No
If yes, then provide the following information:
Percent
Company
Company
Website
Contact
Contact
Contact
NC HUB
of total
Name
Address
Address
Name
Email
Phone
certified?
bid
price
Axiom
218 Snow Ave.
axiomenvironme
Grant
glewis@axiome
919-215-169�
No
15
Environmental
Raleigh, NC
ntal.org
Lewis
nvironmental.orc
27603
K2 Design
774 S. Beston
k2designgrou
John
john@k2desi
252-582-3097
No
5
Group
Rd. LaGrange,
p.com
Rudolph
gngroup.com
NC 28551
KBS
5616 Coble
kbsearthwork
Kory
office@kbsea
336-382-4866
No
45
Earthworks
Church Road
s.com
Strader
rthworks.com
Julian, NC 27281
Need more information?
Questions concerning the completion of this form should be presented during the Q&A period through the
process defined in the Solicitation document.
Questions concerning NC HUB certification, contact the North Carolina Office of Historically
Underutilized Businesses at 984-236-0130 or aaomce.aoaCQdoa.nc.gov
North Carolina HUB Supplemental Vendor Information
Version Date: 09/2021
Page 12

ATTACHMENTE: VENDOR'S INFORMATION
VENDOR'S INFORMATION
Vendors Primary Contact (or Project Manager)
Name:
KevinYates
Agency:
Clearwater Mitigation Solutions, LLC
Title:
Principal
Address:
604 Macon Place
City:
Raleigh
State/ Zip:
NC / 27609
Telephone:
919-624-6901
Fax:
Email:
[e-mail]
Vendors Execution Address (Where the contract should be mailed forsignature)
Name:
KevinYates
Agency:
Clearwater Mitigation Solutions, LLC
Title:
Principal
Address:
604 Macon Place
City:
Raleigh
State/ Zip:
NC / 27609
Telephone:
919-624-6901
Fax:
Email:
[e-mail]
Vendors Payment (Remit To) Address (Where the checks should be mailed) This address should
agree with the "Remit -To" address associated with the Vendor's Tax ID. This information must be
verified with the Vendor's Corporate Accounting Office.
Name:
KevinYates
Agency:
Clearwater Mitigation Solutions, LLC
Title:
Principal
Address:
604 Macon Place
City:
Raleigh
State/ Zip:
NC / 27609
Telephone:
919-624-6901
Fax:
Email:
[e-mail]

610T -jV,
y a'y
�esseeunn.no air
ATTACHMENT F: LOCATION OF WORKERS UTILIZED BY VENDOR
Solicitation #: 16-519597848
Vendor Name: Clearwater Mitigation Solutions, LLC
In accordance with NC General Statute G.S. 143-59.4, Vendor shall detail the location(s) at which
performance will occur, as well as the manner in which it intends to utilize resources or workers outside of
the United States in the performance of The Contract.
Vendor shall complete items 1 and 2 below.
1. Will any work under this Contract be performed outside of the United States? ❑ YES ■❑ NO
If "YES":
a) List the location(s) outside of the United States where work under the Contract will be
performed by the Vendor, any subcontractors, employees, or any other persons performing
work under the Contract.
b) Specify the manner in which the resources or workers will be utilized:
2. Where within the United States will work be performed?
Oxford, North Carolina
Raleigh, North Carolina
NOTES:
1. The State will evaluate the additional risks, costs, and other factors associated with the utilization of workers
outside of the United States prior to making an award.
2. Vendor shall provide notice in writing to the State of the relocation of the Vendor, employees of the Vendor,
subcontractors of the Vendor, or other persons performing services under the Contract to a location outside
of the United States.
3. All Vendor or subcontractor 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.
North Carolina Location of Workers
Version Date: 09/2021
Page 1 1

610T -JV'
y a'y
�esseeunn.no air
ATTACHMENT G: CERTIFICATION OF FINANCIAL CONDITION
Solicitation #: 16-519597848
Vendor Name: Clearwater Mitigation Solutions, LLC
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: October 15, 2021 (If no audit within past 18 months, explain reason
below.)
❑= 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.
❑m He or she is authorized to make the foregoing statements on behalf of the Vendor.
Note: This shall constitute a continuing certification and Vendor shall notify the Contract Lead within 30
days of any material change to any of the representations made herein.
If any one or more of the foregoing boxes is NOT checked, Vendor shall explain the reason(s) in
the space below. Failure to include an explanation may result in Vendor being deemed non-
responsive and its submission rejected in its entirety.
Signature
Kevin Yates
Printed Name
10/17/2022
Date
Principal / Owner
Title
[This Certification must be signed by an individual authorized to speak for the Vendor]
North Carolina Certification of Financial Condition
Version Date: 09/2021
Page 1 1

\SSf QUAWAD
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Request for Proposal #: 16-519597848
Full Delivery Projects to Provide Stream, Riparian Wetland, Non -
Riparian Wetland, Riparian Buffer, & Nutrient Offset (Phosphorous)
Mitigation Credits within the Cataloguing Unit 03020101 of the Tar -
Pamlico River Basin as described in the Scope of Work
Date of Issue: October 04, 2022
Proposal Opening Date: October 18, 2022
At 02:00 PM ET
Direct all inquiries concerning this RFP to:
Brooke Wells NCCM
Procurement Specialist II
Email: [e-mail]
Phone: [phone]

xASTATE oF�o
w - a
\SSE QUAWAD
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
Request for Proposal #
16-519597848
For internal State agency processing, including tabulation of proposals, provide your company's eVP
(Electronic Vendor Portal) Number. Pursuant to G.S. 132-1.10(b) this identification number shall not be
released to the public. This page will be removed and shredded, or otherwise kept confidential, before
the procurement file is made available for public inspection.
This page shall be filled out and returned with your proposal.
Failure to do so may subject your proposal to rejection.
Clearwater Mitigation Solutions, LLC
Vendor Name
373585
Vendor eVP#
Note: For your proposal to be considered, your company (you) must be a North Carolina
registered vendor in good standing. You must enter the vendor number assigned through eVP
(Electronic Vendor Portal). If you do not have a vendor number, register at
nttps://venaor.ncgov.com/vendor/login
Ve r: 11 /2021

Proposal Number: 16-519597848 Vendor:
Clearwater Mitigation Solutions, LLC
VALIDITY PERIOD
Offer shall be valid for at least 60 days from date of bid opening, unless otherwise stated here: 180 days, or if extended by mutual
agreement of the parties. Any withdrawal of this offer shall be made in writing, effective upon receipt by the agency issuing this RFP.
ACCEPTANCE OF PROPOSAL
If your proposal is accepted, all provisions of this RFP, along with the written results of any negotiations, shall constitute the written
agreement between the parties ("Contract"). The NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS are incorporated herein
and shall apply. Depending upon the Goods or Services being offered, other terms and conditions may apply, as mutually agreed.
FOR STATE USE ONLY: Offer accepted and Contract awarded this day of , 20 , as indicated on
The attached certification, by
(Authorized Representative of Department of Environmental Quality)
Ver. 11/2021 pg. 2

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
Division of Mitigation Services
Refer ALL Inquiries regarding this RFP to:
Brooke We1fs
Request for Proposal #: 16-519597848
Proposals will be publicly opened: October 18, 2022
Using Agency: Division of Mitigation
Services
Commodity No. and Description: 926-40 Ecological Services
Requisition No.: NIA
FJ{ECUTION
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 understands that false certificatlon_is a Class I felony and certifies that:
• this proposal is submitted competitively and without collusion (G.S. 143-54),
• none of its officers, directors, or owners of an unincorporated business entity has been convicted of any violations of Chapter
78A of the General Statutes, the Securities Act of 1933, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (G.S. 143-59.2), and
• it is not an ineligible Vendor as set forth in G.S. 143-59.1.
Furthermore, by executing this proposal, the undersigned certifies to the best of Vendor's knowledge and belief, that:
it and its principals are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily
excluded from covered transactions by any Federal or State department or agency,
As required by G.S, 143-48.5, the undersigned Vendor certifies that it, and each of its sub -Contractors for any Ccntract awarded as
a result of this RFP, compiles with the requirements of Article 2 of Chapter 64 of the NC General Statutes, including the requirement
far each employer with more than 25 employees in North Carolina to verify the work authorization of its employees through the federal
E-Verify system.
G.S. 133-32 and Executive Order 24 (2009) prohibit the offer to, or acceptance by, any State Employee associated with the preparing
plans, specifications, estimates for public contracts; or awarding or administering public contracts; or inspecting cr supervising delivery
of the public contract of any gift from anyone with a contract with the State, or from any person seeking to do business with the State.
By execution of this response to the RFP, the undersigned certifies, for Vendor's entire organization and its employees or agents, that
Vendor is not aware that any such gift has been offered, accepted, or promised by any employees of your organization.
By executing this bid, Vendor certifies that it has read and agreed to the INSTRUCTION TO VENDORS and the NORTH CAROLINA
GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS. These documents can be accessed from the Ariba Sourcing Tool.
Failure to execute/sign proposal prior to submittal may render proposal invalid and it MAY BE REJECTED. Late
proposals shall not be accepted.
COMPLETE/FORMAL NAME OF VENDOR: Clearwater Mitigation Solutions, LLC
STREET ADDRESS: 604 Macon Place
P.O. BOX:
ZIP:
CITY & STATE & ZIP: Raleigh, North Carolina 27609
TELEPHONE NUMBER:
TOLL FREE TEL. NO:
919-624-6901
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:
Kevin Yates, Principal
VENDOR'S AUTHORIZED IGNATLIR ':
DATE:
EMAIL:
10/1712022
[e-mail]
Ver: 11l2a21 pg. 26

Proposal Number: 16-519597848
Vendor:
Clearwater Mitigation Solutions, LLC
Contents
1.0 PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND.............................................................................................5
1.1 CONTRACT TERM..................................................................................................................5
2.0 GENERAL INFORMATION.......................................................................................................5
2.1
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL DOCUMENT.............................................................................5
2.2
E-PROCUREMENT FEE.........................................................................................................5
2.3
NOTICE TO VENDORS REGARDING RFP TERMS AND CONDITIONS...............................5
2.4
RFP SCHEDULE.....................................................................................................................6
2.5
PRE -PROPOSAL CONFERENCE...........................................................................................6
2.6
PROPOSAL QUESTIONS.......................................................................................................6
2.7
PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL.......................................................................................................6
2.8
PROPOSAL CONTENTS........................................................................................................7
2.9
IMPORTANT INFORMATION AND RESTRICTIONS..............................................................9
2.10
ALTERNATE BIDS................................................................................................................10
2.11
TEMPLATES, TECHNICAL SCORESHEETS, TARGET WATERSHEDS, AND MAPS ........
10
2.12
DEFINITIONS, ACRONYMS, AND ABBREVIATIONS..........................................................10
3.0 METHOD OF AWARD AND PROPOSAL EVALUATION PROCESS.....................................14
3.1 METHOD OF AWARD...........................................................................................................14
3.2 CONFIDENTIALITY AND PROHIBITED COMMUNICATIONS DURING EVALUATION ....... 15
3.3 PROPOSAL EVALUATION PROCESS.................................................................................15
3.4 EVALUATION CRITERIA......................................................................................................16
3.5 PERFORMANCE OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES.............................................................16
3.6 INTERPRETATION OF TERMS AND PHRASES..................................................................17
4.0 REQUIREMENTS...................................................................................................................17
4.1
PRICING................................................................................................................................17
4.2
DOWNWARD PAYMENT ADJUSTMENTS...........................................................................17
4.3
INVOICES..............................................................................................................................17
4.4
PAYMENT TERMS................................................................................................................18
4.5
FINANCIAL STABILITY........................................................................................................18
4.6
FINANCIAL ASSURANCE....................................................................................................18
4.7
HUB PARTICIPATION..........................................................................................................18
4.8
VENDOR EXPERIENCE........................................................................................................19
4.9
REFERENCES......................................................................................................................19
4.10
BACKGROUND CHECKS.....................................................................................................19
4.11
PERSONNEL.........................................................................................................................19
Ve r. 11 /2021 pg. 3

Proposal Number: 16-519597848 Vendor: Clearwater Mitigation Solutions, LLC
4.12 VENDOR'S REPRESENTATIONS........................................................................................20
5.0 SCOPE OF WORK.................................................................................................................20
5.1 GENERAL.............................................................................................................................20
5.2 OBJECTIVES........................................................................................................................20
5.3 TASKS...................................................................................................................................21
5.4 PAYMENT SCHEDULE AND DESCRIPTION OF MILESTONE............................................23
5.5 ACCEPTANCE OF WORK....................................................................................................24
6.0 CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION.............................................................................................24
6.1
CONTRACT ADMINISTRATOR............................................................................................24
6.2
PROJECT MANAGER AND CUSTOMER SERVICE............................................................24
6.3
CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT............................................................................................24
6.4
DISPUTE RESOLUTION.......................................................................................................24
6.5
CONTRACT CHANGES........................................................................................................24
6.6
ATTACHMENTS....................................................................................................................24
ATTACHMENTH............................................................................................................26
Ve r. 11 /2021 pg. 4

Clearwater Mitigation Solutions, LLC
Proposal Number: 16-519597848 Vendor:
1.0 PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND
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.
The intent of this solicitation is to award an Agency Specific Contract.
1.1 CONTRACT TERM
The Contract shall have an initial term of ten (10) years, beginning on the date of final Contract execution (the "Effective
Date"). The contract term shall run from November 2022 through October 2032. The Vendor shall begin work under the
Contract within seven (7) business days of the Effective Date.
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
This RFP is comprised of the base RFP document, any attachments, and any addenda released before Contract award,
which are incorporated herein by reference.
2.2 E-PROCUREMENT FEE
ATTENTION: This is an NC eProcurement solicitation facilitated by the Ariba Network. See the paragraph entitled
ELECTRONIC PROCUREMENT of the North Carolina General Terms and Conditions.
General information on the E-Procurement Services can be found at:.htti)://ei)rocurement.nc.gov/.
What is the Ariba Network?
The Ariba Network is a web -based platform that serves as a connection point for buyers and vendors. Vendors can log
in to the Ariba Network to view purchase orders, respond to electronic requests for quotes, participate in Sourcing Events,
and collaborate with buyers on contract documents.
For training on how to use the Sourcing Tool to view solicitations, submit questions, develop responses, upload
documents, and submit offers to the State, Vendors should go to the following site:
http://eprocurement.nc.gov/training/vendor-training.
2.3 NOTICE TO VENDORS REGARDING RFP TERMS AND CONDITIONS
It shall be the Vendor's responsibility to read the Instructions to Vendors, the North Carolina General 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 are also responsible for obtaining and complying with all Addenda
and other changes that may be issued in connection with this RFP.
If Vendors have questions, issues, or exceptions regarding any term, condition, or other component of this RFP, those
must be submitted as questions in accordance with the instructions in the PROPOSAL QUESTIONS Section. 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 Q and A process or negotiation under 01 NCAC 0513.0503, the State rejects and will not be
required to evaluate or consider any additional or modified terms and conditions submitted with Vendor's proposal or
otherwise. 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
Ve r. 11 /2021 pg . 5

Clearwater Mitigation Solutions, LLC
Proposal Number: 16-519597848 Vendor:
to further negotiation. Vendor's proposal shall constitute a firm offer that shall be held open for the period required herein
("Validity Period" above).
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. The State may exercise its discretion to consider Vendor proposed
modifications.
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
October 04, 2022, by 5:00 PM ET
Submit Written Questions
Vendor
October 07, 2022, by 11:00 AM ET
Submit Proposals
Vendor
October 18, 2022, by 2:00 PM ET
Contract Award
State
TBD
Contract Effective Date
State
TBD
2.5 PRE -PROPOSAL CONFERENCE
No pre -proposal conference will be held for this solicitation.
2.6 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 "Submit Written Questions" date and time provided in the RFP SCHEDULE Section above, unless modified by
Addendum.
Questions related to the content of the solicitation, or the procurement process should be directed to the person on the
title page of this document via the Sourcing Tool's message board by the date and time specified in the RFP SCHEDULE
Section of this RFP. Vendors will enter "RFP # 16-519597848: Questions" as the subject of the message. Question
submittals should include a reference to the applicable RFP section. This is the only way questions will be received.
Questions or issues related to using the Sourcing Tool itself can be directed to the North Carolina eProcurement Help
Desk at 888-211-7440, Option 2. Help Desk representatives are available Monday through Friday from 7:30 AM ET to
5:00 PM ET.
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 Sourcing Tool in the form of an addendum 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 the RFP and an addendum to this RFP.
2.7 PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL
IMPORTANT NOTE: This is an absolute requirement. Vendor shall bear the risk of late submission due to unintended
or unanticipated delay. It is the Vendor's sole responsibility to ensure its proposal has been received as described in this
RFP by the specified time and date of opening. Failure to submit a proposal in strict accordance with instructions provided
shall constitute sufficient cause to reject a Vendor's proposal(s). Solicitation responses are subject to Sealed Bidding
requirements.
Vendor's proposals for this procurement must be submitted through the Sourcing Tool. For training on how to use the
Sourcing Tool to view solicitations, submit questions, develop responses, upload documents, and submit offers to the
State, Vendors should go to the following site: ittps:Heprocurement.nc.,qov/traininq/vendor-training
Ve r. 11 /2021 pg. 6

Clearwater Mitigation Solutions, LLC
Proposal Number: 16-519597848 Vendor:
Questions or issues related to using the Sourcing Tool itself can be directed to the North Carolina eProcurement Help
Desk at 888-211-7440, Option 2. Help Desk representatives are available Monday through Friday from 7:30 AM EST to
5:00 PM EST.
Tips for Using the Sourcing Tool
1. Vendors should review available training and confirm that they are able to access the Sourcing Event, enter
responses, and upload files well in advance of the date and time response are due to allow sufficient time to
seek assistance from the North Carolina eProcurement Help Desk.
2. Vendors may submit their responses early to make sure there are no issues, and then submit a revised response
any time prior to the response due date and time. The State will only review the most recent response.
3. Vendors should respond to all relevant sections of the Sourcing Event. Certain questions or items are required
to submit a response and are denoted with an asterisk. The Sourcing Tool will not allow a response to be
submitted unless all required items are completed. The Sourcing Tool will provide error messages to help identify
any required information that is missing when response is submitted.
4. Simply saving your response in the Sourcing Tool is not the same as submitting your response to the State.
Vendors should make sure they complete the submission process and receive a message that their response
was successfully submitted.
2.8 PROPOSAL CONTENTS
Vendors shall provide responses to all questions and complete all attachments for this RFP that require the Vendor to
provide information and upload them to the Sourcing Event in the Sourcing Tool. Vendor may not be able to submit its
response in the Sourcing Tool unless all required items are addressed. Vendors shall provide authorized signatures
where requested. Failure to provide all required items, or Vendor's submission of incomplete items, may result in the
State rejecting Vendor's proposal, in the State's sole discretion.
Vendor shall include the following items and attachments in the Sourcing Tool:
a) Completed and signed version of ATTACHMENT A: PRICING (each pricing PDF needs to be uploaded as a
separate attachment in the Sourcing Tool — more information will be found in section 5 of the Sourcing Tool)
b) Vendor's Response including:
1. Cover Letter, must include a statement that confirms that the proposer has read the RFP in its entirety,
including all links, and all Addenda released in conjunction with the RFP.
2. Title Page: Include the company name, address, phone number and authorized representative along with
the Proposal Number.
3. Completed and signed version of all EXECUTION PAGES, along with the RFP in its entirety (will not
count towards page limit) and signed receipt pages of any ADDENDA released in conjunction with this RFP
(ONLY if addenda are required to be returned).
4. 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 number 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 shall 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).
5. Project Staffing and Organization: This section must include the proposed staffing, deployment, and
organization of personnel to be assigned to this project. The offeror shall provide information as to the
qualifications and experience of all professional personnel to be assigned to this project, related experience
with similar projects and the responsibilities to be assigned to each person.
6. 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 DMS
watershed planning goals, identified in the River Basin Restoration Plan (RBRP), Targeted Resource
Ve r. 11 /2021 pg . 7

Clearwater Mitigation Solutions, LLC
Proposal Number: 16-519597848 Vendor:
Areas (TRAs) identified in the RFP map, and/or any applicable Regional or Local Watershed Plans.
The proposal should identify plans applicable to the project area and should document the objectives
that will be used to accomplish watershed planning goals. 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.
• RBRPs can be found at:
https://deci.nc.gov/about/divisions/mitigation-services/dms-pIanninq/watershed-
planning-documents (searchable by river basin)
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 map(s) 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:
— 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. If using wider buffers or benthic or water quality to
justify additional credits, provide methodology, tables, maps and/or calculations to justify those credits.
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, witnessed option agreement valid for a period of at least ten (10) months from the
closing date of this RFP, 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. Proposed schedules shall include either five (5) year monitoring period within
an eight (8) year contract, or seven (7) year monitoring period within a ten (10) year contract period, as
applicable. 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
Ve r. 11 /2021 pg . 8

Clearwater Mitigation Solutions, LLC
Proposal Number: 16-519597848 Vendor:
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 is submitted in accordance with the
schedule established in the technical proposal, it follows the format(s) established by NCDMS, it
contains all required information, and is grammatically/typographically correct; and 2) sufficient
oversight is provided during the construction/planting phase so that the project is completed on
schedule and is in compliance with any required federal, state or local permit(s).
8. Completed version of ATTACHMENT D: HUB SUPPLEMENTAL VENDOR INFORMATION
9. Completed version of ATTACHMENT E: SUPPLEMENTAL VENDOR INFORMATION
10. Completed version of ATTACHMENT F: LOCATION OF WORKERS UTILIZED BY VENDOR
11. Completed and signed version of ATTACHMENT G: CERTIFICATION OF FINANCIAL CONDITION
12. Completed version of TECHNICAL SCORESHEET (optional)
Attachments are to be downloaded from the Sourcing tool. Attachments B, and C are not required to be returned as part
of the RFP in its entirety. Attachments A, D, E, F, and G must be uploaded in the above order as part of your "vendor's
response". Vendors response should be one PDF containing the RFP in its entirety and all required information described
above.
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). 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.
c) Submit the boundaries of the proposed project as an additional attachment to section 6.1 of the Sourcing Tool (where
you are uploading your PDF technical proposal). The boundary can be the proposed easement(s) or the general
project area. NCDMS 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)
2.9 IMPORTANT INFORMATION AND RESTRICTIONS
a) The DMS recognizes that a Vendor(s) might not be able to find one site that provides the total amount of
mitigation requested for the cataloging unit listed above. Therefore, proposals may be submitted in any of the
following categories:
■ One or more sites providing all the requested mitigation credits; or
■ One or more sites providing a portion of the requested mitigation credits.
b) Unless the Vendor states in both the cover letter and the Executive Summary of the technical proposal that
multiple mitigation options are being offered for a site, and specifically describes each option, the Department
shall only consider the full proposal amount and will not extend an offer to contract for less than the full amount
indicated in the proposal.
c) Proposals will NOT be accepted using the following types of sites:
1. Property purchased with Clean Water Management Trust Fund monies
2. Property that is enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, Conservation Reserve
Ve r. 11 /2021 pg . 9

Proposal Number: 16-519597848
Vendor: Clearwater Mitigation Solutions, LLC
Program, Wetlands Reserve Program, or any other state or federal program that provides funds for any
of the tasks outlined in this RFP
3. Property that has been used for compensatory mitigation under Section 404 and/or 401 of the Clean
Water Act
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.
2.10 ALTERNATE BIDS
The Sourcing Tool is set up to only allow one (1) bid per Vendor (per eVP number), however a Vendor may submit
"alternate bids" for any subsequent sites they have to offer all within their one (1) bid. Alternate bid(s) must specifically
identify all the RFP requirements required in "Proposal Contents" above.
If a Vendor chooses to respond with more than one (1) site, Vendor shall follow the specific instructions for uploading
Alternate Bids in section 6.6 in the Sourcing Tool. Each bid must be for a separate site and must include a separate
Attachment A: Pricing form (to be uploaded separately in section 5.1 in the Sourcing Tool).
For example, if Acme Solutions (eVP #1234) has two sites they wish to submit they would log into the Sourcing Tool
and complete all the necessary sections for the first site. Site #1 has 2 options and will have: Site #1, Option #1 pricing
form uploaded to section 5.1, Site #1, Option #2 pricing form uploaded as a SEPARATE pdf also to Section 5.1, and
technical proposal pdf uploaded to sections 6.1 that cover both options for Site #1, all necessary shapefiles for Site #1
will also be uploaded as a separate, subsequent attachment (zip file) to section 6.1. Acme Solutions (eVP#1234) now
has a second site they want to submit with 3 options. Site #2 will have: three (3) separate pricing forms uploaded to
section 5.2 as separate/subsequent attachments and a compressed zip file uploaded to section 6.6 containing all the
necessary RFP requirements.
Clear and precise labeling is crucial to success.
2.11 TEMPLATES, TECHNICAL SCORESHEETS, TARGET WATERSHEDS, AND MAPS
The latest required report templates, technical scoresheets, target watersheds and mapping applicable to this RFP are
found at:
https://deg.nc.uovlaboutldivisions/mitigation-services/dms-vendors/templates-quidelines-tools-projects
2.12 DEFINITIONS, ACRONYMS, AND ABBREVIATIONS
Relevant definitions for this RFP are provided in 01 NCAC 05A .0112 and in the Instructions to Vendors found in the
Sourcing Tool, which are incorporated herein by this reference.
The following definitions, acronyms, and abbreviations are also relevant to this RFP:
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.
Ve r. 11 /2021 pg . 10

Clearwater Mitigation Solutions, LLC
Proposal Number: 16-519597848 Vendor:
Baseline Monitoring Document — A written document, supplemented with graphics 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).
Conservation Easement — A restriction that 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.
DOA/P&C — The North Carolina Department of Administration, Division of Purchase and Contract.
Financial Assurance — Financial security assuring the ability of the provider to deliver the contracted for mitigation
credits. Financial Assurance must be provided through Performance Bonds, Letters of Credit or Casualty Insurance.
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, 2010, effective September 1, 2010.
Jurisdictional Wetland - A wetland as defined in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
Ve r. 11 /2021 pg . 11

Clearwater Mitigation Solutions, LLC
Proposal Number: 16-519597848 Vendor:
Local Watershed Plan (LWP) — an NCDMS watershed plan that is conducted in specific priority areas (typically
one or more 12-digit Hydrologic Units) 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://deg.nc.gov/about/divisions/mitigation-services/dms-planning/watershed-planning-documents
Long Term Protection — as defined in the Federal Code of Regulations (Federal Register/Vol. 73, No. 70/Thursday,
April 10, 2008/ Rules and Regulations — Section 332.7 Management, the Long Term Protection 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 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.
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.
Ve r. 11 /2021 pg . 12

Clearwater Mitigation Solutions, LLC
Proposal Number: 16-519597848 Vendor:
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, 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). DWR provides determinations related to riparian buffer and nutrient offset credits.
Regional Watershed Plan (RWP) — an NCDMS watershed plan that is conducted in specific priority areas (typically
several 12-digit Hydrologic Units) where NCDMS has identified a need to address critical watershed issues. Through
this planning process, NCDMS collaborates with local stakeholders and resource professionals to identify
management strategies to restore, enhance and protect local watershed resources. RWPs can be found by County
or River Basin at:
https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/mitigation-services/dms-planning/watershed-planning-documents
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 floodplain or natural
crenulation, or contiguous with NATURAL water bodies greater than 20 acres in size.
River Basin — The largest category of surface water drainage; there are seventeen (17) river basins in North
Carolina.
River Basin Restoration Priorities - A planning document prepared by the NCDMS that targets specific watersheds
(TLWs and TRAs) with descriptions of existing degradation and protection needs for restoration project
implementation.
Scope of Services — All services, actions, and physical work required by the Department to achieve the purpose
and objectives defined in the RFP; such services may include the furnishing of all required labor, equipment, supplies
and materials except as specifically stated.
Sealed Cost Proposal — The completed Sealed Cost Proposal form included in the RFP signed by the Vendor
specifying the total compensation requested for the performance of the specified scope of services as defined by
the RFP. If more than one Site is proposed, a separate Sealed Cost Proposal must be submitted for each Site. If
the Vendor is willing to offer multiple options (i.e., different quantities of mitigation at different credit costs) for one
proposed site, a separate Cost Proposal must be submitted for each option offered.
Service Area — 1) A geographic area where mitigation credits from a mitigation site can generally be utilized to
satisfy permit requirements. 2) A geographic area where a mitigation requirement can be satisfied.
Site — Property or properties identified by a Vendor in a Proposal as having potential to provide either wetland, stream,
buffer, or nutrient offset mitigation. A proposed project shall describe mitigation activities that occur on a single
property parcel, or which occur on multiple property parcels. Project proposals shall demonstrate hydrologic
connectivity and/or habitat continuity such that the functional relationships between the project components,
encompassed within each parcel is 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 RBRP. In past
planning efforts, these watersheds were identified because they may have had environmental characteristics that
could be improved through restoration projects. TLWs have been replaced by TRAs.
Targeted Resource Area (TRA) — Natural geographic grouping (cluster) of NHD-Plus catchments with high
predicted uplift potential for one or more functions (hydrology, water quality, habitat); replace TLWs as the basic
Ve r. 11 /2021 pg . 13

Clearwater Mitigation Solutions, LLC
Proposal Number: 16-519597848 Vendor. -
priority unit in the updated RBRP methodology. TRAs have defined boundaries based on an area of influence or
an area of habitat extent NOT necessarily defined by a watershed boundary.
Technical Proposal — One of the two parts of the Proposal which contains a technical description of the proposed
mitigation.
USACE — United States Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch, Wilmington District
USGS — United States Geological Survey.
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 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.
3.0 METHOD OF AWARD AND PROPOSAL EVALUATION PROCESS
3.1 METHOD OF AWARD
North Carolina G.S. 143-52 provides a general list of criteria the State shall use to award contracts, as supplemented by
the additional criteria herein. The Goods or Services being procured shall dictate the application and order of criteria;
however, all award decisions shall be in the State's best interest. All qualified proposals will be evaluated, and awards
will be made to the Vendor(s) meeting the specific RFP Specifications 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'S Purchasing Director and General Council in accordance with the
Special Delegation Agreement made pursuant to G.S. 143-53 and 01 NCAC 05B .1603 between Division of Purchase
and Services and DEQ, for approval. The following information will be considered:
■ 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 a single Vendor, the State reserves the right to make separate
awards to different Vendors for one or more line -items, to not award one or more line -items or to cancel this RFP in its
entirety without awarding a Contract if it is considered to be most advantageous to the State to do so.
Ve r. 11 /2021 pg . 14

Proposal Number: 16-519597848
Vendor: Clearwater Mitigation Solutions, LLC
The State reserves the right to waive any minor informality or technicality in proposals received.
3.2 CONFIDENTIALITY AND PROHIBITED COMMUNICATIONS DURING EVALUATION
While this RFP is under evaluation, the responding Vendor, including any subcontractors and suppliers, is prohibited
from engaging in conversations intended to influence the outcome of the evaluation. See the Paragraph of the
Instructions to Vendors entitled Confidential Information.
3.3 PROPOSAL EVALUATION PROCESS
Only responsive submissions will be evaluated.
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 in the RFP
SCHEDULE Section above, unless modified by Addendum. 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.
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 via TEAMS. Vendor representatives may request an
invitation to the opening by submitting an e-mail to Brooke.Wells(a)ncdenr.gov on or before the opening date
specified above. Vendors should enter "RFP # 16-519597848: Request to Attend Virtual Opening" as the subject
line for the email. Vendor attendance will be limited to two (2) representatives. An email invitation to a Microsoft
TEAMS meeting will be sent to the email address(es) provided. (MS TEAMS is an online communication tool which
allows a virtual meeting setting to share information. The app is approved by the NC DEQ Division of Information
Technology (IT) and there is no purchase required for download and use.) Attendees are reminded to enter the MS
TEAMS with camera selected to the off position, and microphone muted. It is up to the vendor to check their internet
connection ahead of time as DMS will not be responsible for any connection issues vendors may experience during
the conference.
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.
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 Vendor 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.
If negotiation is anticipated under 01 NCAC 05B.0503, pricing may not be public until award.
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.
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.
Ve r. 11 /2021 pg . 15

Clearwater Mitigation Solutions, LLC
Proposal Number: 16-519597848 Vendor:
Upon completion of the evaluation process, the State will make award(s) based on the evaluation and post the
award(s) 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.
The State reserves the right to negotiate with one or more vendors, or to reject all original offers and negotiate with
one or more sources of supply that may be capable of satisfying the requirement, and in either case to require
Vendor to submit a Best and Final Offer (BAFO) based on discussions and negotiations with the State.
3.4 EVALUATION CRITERIA
In addition to the general criteria in G.S. 143-52 which may or may not be relevant to this RFP, 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 DMS staff 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
offer or and its staff, and cost. Specific evaluation criteria are listed below:
Technical
a) Technical Proposals will be reviewed for length, format requirements and qualifications of firm and project
approach by the 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)
3.5 PERFORMANCE OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES
Vendor shall complete ATTACHMENT F: 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
Ve r. 11 /2021 pg . 16

Clearwater Mitigation Solutions, LLC
Proposal Number: 16-519597848 Vendor. -
3.6 INTERPRETATION OF TERMS AND PHRASES
This RFP serves two functions: (1) to advise potential Vendors of the parameters of the solution being sought by the
State; and (2) to provide (together with other specified documents) the terms of the Contract resulting from this
procurement. The use of phrases such as "shall," "must," and "requirements" are intended to create enforceable contract
conditions. In determining whether proposals should be evaluated or rejected, the State will take into consideration the
degree to which Vendors have proposed or failed to propose solutions that will satisfy the State's needs as described in
the RFP. Except as specifically stated in the RFP, no one requirement shall automatically disqualify a Vendor from
consideration. However, failure to comply with any single requirement may result in the State 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 to submit these items in the form of a question during the
question -and -answer period in accordance with the Proposal Questions Section above.
4.1 PRICING
Proposal price shall constitute the total cost to the State for complete performance in accordance with the requirements
and specifications herein, including all applicable charges for handling, transportation, administrative and other similar
fees. Download, Complete ATTACHMENT A: PRICING FORM and upload in the Sourcing Tool. The pricing provided in
ATTACHMENT A, or resulting from any negotiations, is incorporated herein and shall become part of any resulting
Contract.
4.2 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.
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 and/or DWR as applicable,
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 and/or DWR as applicable.
4.3 INVOICES
Vendor shall invoice the Purchasing Agency as follows:
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 may either be submitted electronically to Debby. Davis(a)ncdenr.gov; or hardcopies may 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
Ve r. 11 /2021 pg . 17

Clearwater Mitigation Solutions, LLC
Proposal Number: 16-519597848 Vendor:
4.4 PAYMENT TERMS
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).
The Vendor will be paid net thirty (30) calendar days after the Vendor's invoice is approved by the State.
4.5 FINANCIAL STABILITY
As a condition of contract award, the Vendor must certify that it has the financial capacity to perform and to continue to
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.
Each Vendor shall certify it is financially stable by completing ATTACHMENT G: 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. The Contract Manager may require annual recertification of the Vendor's financial stability.
4.6 FINANCIAL ASSURANCE
The vendor must provide financial assurance in one of the following forms:
a) 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 by DMS and must include the
NCDEQ contract number). After the successful completion of Task 6, the bond can be retired.
b) 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.
c) 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:
i. 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;
ii. 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.
4.7 HUB PARTICIPATION
Pursuant to North Carolina General Statute G.S. 143-48, it is State policy to encourage and promote the use of small,
minority, physically handicapped, and women contractors in purchasing Goods and Services. As such, this RFP will
serve to identify those Vendors that are minority owned or have a strategic plan to support the State's Historically
Underutilized Business program by meeting or exceeding the goal of 10% utilization of diverse firms as 1st or 2nd tier
subcontractors. Vendor shall complete ATTACHMENT D: HUB SUPPLEMENTAL VENDOR INFORMATION.
Ve r. 11 /2021 pg . 18

Proposal Number: 16-519597848
4.8 VENDOR EXPERIENCE
Vendor: Clearwater Mitigation Solutions, LLC
DMS reserves the right to request corporate background and experience, as needed. If requested, the vendor shall
include background information on the organization and should give details of experience with similar public and/or
private projects in size and complexity. 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. A list of references (including
contact persons and telephone numbers) for whom similar work has been performed shall be included and the list shall
include all similar contracts performed by the offeror in the past three years. The evaluators may check references
sources to determine whether offeror has listed all contracts for similar work within the designated period.
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.
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 following details must be provided to the State:
a) Any regulatory sanctions levied against Vendor or any of its officers, directors or its professional employees
expected to provide Services on this project by any state or federal regulatory agencies within the past three years
or a statement that there are none. As used herein, the term "regulatory sanctions" includes the revocation or
suspension of any license or certification, the levying of any monetary penalties or fines, and the issuance of any
written warnings;
b) Any regulatory investigations pending against Vendor or any of its officers, directors or its professional employees
expected to provide Services on this project by any state or federal regulatory agencies of which Vendor has
knowledge or a statement that there are none.
Vendor's response to these requests shall be considered a continuing representation, 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 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 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 to incorporate any work by third party subcontractor(s).
Should the Vendor's proposal result in an award, the Vendor shall be required to agree that it will not substitute key
personnel assigned to the performance of the Contract without prior written approval by the Contract Lead. Vendor shall
further agree that it will 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.
Ve r. 11 /2021 pg . 19

Clearwater Mitigation Solutions, LLC
Proposal Number: 16-519597848 Vendor:
4.12 VENDOR'S REPRESENTATIONS
If Vendor's Proposal results in an award, Vendor agrees that it will not enter any agreement with a third party that may
abridge any rights of the State under the Contract. If any Services, deliverables, functions, or responsibilities not
specifically described in this solicitation are required for Vendor's proper performance, provision and delivery of the
Service and deliverables under a resulting Contract, or are an inherent part of or necessary sub -task included within
such Service, they will be deemed to be implied by and included within the scope of the Contract to the same extent and
in the same manner as if specifically described in the Contract. Unless otherwise expressly provided herein, Vendor will
furnish all its own necessary management, supervision, labor, facilities, furniture, computer and telecommunications
equipment, software, supplies and materials necessary for the Vendor to provide and deliver the Services and/or other
Deliverables.
5.0 SCOPE OF WORK
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 Cataloging
Unit 03020101 of the Tar Pamlico River Basin (which can be found on the DMS website at the following link:
https://aeci.nc.gov/aaout/aivisions/mitegation-servicesigms-venaors/templates-guiaelines-tools-proiects
Proposals can be submitted outside of the designated Targeted Resource Areas (TRAs); however, proposals that are
within finalized DMS identified watershed planning areas and address specified watershed needs will be awarded
additional points during the technical review process.
RIVER BASIN
CATALOGING UNITS
Tar Pamlico
03020101
Mitigation Type
Requested Credits
Stream (Warm)
2,500*
Riparian Wetland
5*
Non -Riparian Wetland
5*
Riparian Buffer
475,000
Nutrient Offset - Phos horus
450**
*Preservation credits shall not exceed 10% of total credits.
**includes associated Nitrogen Credits.
Credit Combinations
Acceptable for this Submission
Stream Only
NO
Riparian Wetland Only
YES
Non -Riparian Wetland Only
YES
Stream & Wetland
YES
Stream, Wetland, Buffer/Nutrient Offset
YES
Stream & Buffer/Nutrient Offset
YES
Buffer & Nutrient Offset
NO
Buffer Only
NO
Nutrient Offset Only
NO
Ve r. 11 /2021 pg . 20

Clearwater Mitigation Solutions, LLC
Proposal Number: 16-519597848 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-October 24, 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, (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).
Buffer mitigation must be consistent with the "Consolidated Buffer Mitigation Rule (15A NCAC 02B .0295)" found at the
following link:
https://deg. nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/water-resources-rules/401-certification-express-review-statutes
rules -guides
Nutrient offset mitigation must be consistent with the Neuse Nutrient Strategy found at the following link:
https://deg.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/planning/nonpoint-source-management/nutrient-strategies/neuse
5.3 TASKS
Task deliverables must meet the latest required report templates described in Section 2.11. Deliverable quantity,
format, and method of delivery are provided in Attachment H. Deliverables will not be approved without the strict
adherence to the current version of the DMS formatting requirements for spatial data.
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 1 Environmental and Project Screening:
1. Conduct an on -site meeting with DWR 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 DWR (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:
Vendor will review and adhere to provisions in all applicable templates and guidance documents posted on DMS
Templates, Guidance & Tools for Projects page.
•DMS Protection Mechanism Guidance Document
•Conservation Easement Template
•Landowner Contact Template
•As -built Requirements Guidance
Ve r. 11 /2021 pg . 21

Clearwater Mitigation Solutions, LLC
Proposal Number: 16-519597848 Vendor:
The Vendor shall convey to the State of North Carolina, 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.
Step One: Preliminary Process and Review
The Vendor shall provide the following task deliverables associated with the conservation easement(s):
The Vendor shall electronically send the following Six (6) items to the DMS Project Manager and State Property Office
(SPO) Manager Blane Rice (Blane.Rice(gdoa.nc.gov), and DMS Property Specialist Jeff Horton
([e-mail]) for review:
1.Draft Conservation Easement
2.Preliminary Survey Plat
3.Digital Easement Files
4.Copy of the attorney's report on title based on 30-year search with deeds and documentation
5.Title attorney's "Schedule A" with title insurance commitment
6.Completed Landowner Contacts Template
Step Two: Approval for Closing
1.SPO and DMS will review, and issue written approval to record to the vendor after the preliminary submittal meets
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 and provide the five (5) listed deliverables.
1.Copy of the Recorded Conservation Easement in Adobe PDF format
2.Copy of the Recorded Survey Plat in Adobe PDF format
3.Final digital easement files in AutoCAD (.dwg) and Esri shapefile (.shp) format
4.Updated attorneys report on title with title binder or commitment in the name of the State of North Carolina
5.As soon as available, the original title insurance policy and original recorded conservation easement shall be mailed
to the State Property Office at the following address: North Carolina Department of Administration State Property
Office attn. Blane Rice1321 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699 - 1321
ALLOWANCES:
1.The Vendor may elect to install monumentation and boundary marking during Task 6 preparation. No payment for
Task 6 will be approved prior to installation.
2.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. Please be advised, however, that
subsequent failure of the Vendor to convey an acceptable conservation easement to the State of North Carolina, or to
provide for the Long -Term Protection of the site through other methods acceptable to DMS, will require the Vendor to
fully reimburse the State for any payment(s) made to the Vendor for completion of Task 3.
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 DWR review. Submit a final mitigation plan with PCNs
for permitting (if necessary). FINANCIAL ASSURANCE is also due as part of this deliverable.
If applicable, vendor must identify and evaluate all riparian buffer features for convertibility to nutrient offset (both
Nitrogen and Phosphorus) in the Mitigation Plan. Similarly, nutrient offset features must be evaluated for convertibility
to riparian buffer. Vendor should utilize definitions in the DWR Consolidated Rule and utilize the Project Credit Table
Template approved by DWR in the 11/21/2019 `Clarified Procedures for Calculating Buffer Mitigation Credits & Nutrient
Offset Credits' memorandum available at the following link:
https://deci.nc..qov/about/divisions/water-resources/water-quality-permittinq/401-buffer-permittinq-branch/nutrient
In service areas where Nitrogen and Phosphorus are regulated, nutrient offset features should include both Nitrogen
and Phosphorus credits.
Ve r. 11 /2021 pg . 22

Clearwater Mitigation Solutions, LLC
Proposal Number: 16-519597848 Vendor:
TASK 4
Secure any necessary permits and/or certifications (i.e., Erosion and Sedimentation Control permit, etc.). Submit
applicable permits, certifications, etc. to DMS 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.
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:
Pre -Construction Plan design
As -built survey (on same sheets as Pre -Construction Plan design)
Must bear Professional Land Surveyor (PLS) seal and/or Professional Engineer (PE) seal
where applicable
Annotation and corrections of the Pre -Construction Plan design
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 7t" year monitoring report (or final year
in cases where monitoring has been extended beyond 7 years) must include 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. FINAL (Task 13) payment will be made after IRT credit
approval, and the vendor removes all monitoring devices from the site. The vendor should notify DMS in writing once
Task 13 is complete.
5.4 PAYMENT SCHEDULE AND DESCRIPTION OF MILESTONE
Project Milestones and Payment Schedule
Task
Project Milestone
Payment^
(% of Contract Value*)
1
Regulatory 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 & 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
TOTAQ
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 maybe 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.
Ve r. 11 /2021 pg . 23

Clearwater Mitigation Solutions, LLC
Proposal Number: 16-519597848 Vendor:
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 thirty (30) 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
All Contract Administration requirements are conditioned on an award resulting from this solicitation. This information
is provided for the Vendor's planning purposes.
6.1 CONTRACT ADMINISTRATOR
Kristie Corson is designated the Contract Administrator for the Department for the purposes of this RFP.
6.2 PROJECT MANAGER AND CUSTOMER SERVICE
The Vendor shall be required to 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.
6.3 CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT
The State encourages the Vendor to identify opportunities to reduce the total cost the State. A continuous improvement
effort consists of various ways to enhance business efficiencies as performance progresses.
6.4 DISPUTE RESOLUTION
During the performance of the Contract, the parties agree that it is in their mutual interest to resolve disputes informally.
Any claims by the Vendor shall be submitted in writing to the State's Contract Manager for resolution. Any claims by the
State shall be submitted in writing to the Vendor's Project Manager for resolution. The Parties shall agree to 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. The Parties will agree on a reasonable amount of time to resolve a
dispute. If a dispute cannot be resolved between the Parties within the agreed upon period, either Party may elect to
exercise any other remedies available under the Contract, or at law. This provision, when agreed in the Contract, shall
not constitute an agreement by either party to mediate or arbitrate any dispute.
6.5 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.
6.6 ATTACHMENTS
ALL attachments shall be found, and can be downloaded, from the Sourcing tool. For this RFP: Attachments B and C
are not required to be returned as part of the RFP in its entirety and are in the Sourcing Tool for your review.
Attachments A, D, E, F, and G must be uploaded in the order mentioned in section 2.8 as part of your "vendor's
response" in the Sourcing Tool.
Ve r. 11 /2021 pg . 24

Clearwater Mitigation Solutions, LLC
Proposal Number: 16-519597848 Vendor:
THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Ve r. 11 /2021 pg . 25

Tama a o Dewmm
Ptarrel
neil'ap 111e1ttDtl
7amr a
reft D®oip6m
Tat Dowmat a
Hadnpr Iq
AODUC FCF
MS tuna
°fit 5i M
DS- --q b
EMFII
?tea:
1
BnionnormlBP,Okd
S—nG
=AA
SPD
DW PO
Miss SPO
DF.E&SPO
DVE&SP0
MSBSPO
Drattc.—t ,n aanet
Pr,innk. rznsenmai 5'e¢srvrt9rarer
x
DmltAMWO(S R?ut%3D'y W &$EMWM
2
Proartr
WaTh! T5OM!dt1eA-
A
Fk.rmetl Eamrat
1
x
a
re—ded[or Lion em—rwk sM 6e nrkd torte Stale Pmp" Rfie
IWr f.§owisgad*—: North mNm Deperhnenl&Mri—tl Shdr
Oft. ethr- Blare Iis1321 Mail 3— D brMftoy RC Zf39- M1
F-I mlxtJtetlan Fawns[ 51an
1
x
•
•
•
M
Aftm-,•s tik —7h.
otamatiatatr
1
M
OTnmlftl in9Jellrt Paicy
1
M
m4inw tik ina—a point awi be r-kd mthe5lah Propetr 011i¢al
TDWWrrgadir=:flodh l3Dine l3epaMWKOTAffWft rmmS73te
PFDP�MCfbMfftItn. Blare D. 13Z1 r ti xryi¢ tarter arg4 9CZFe6}iBt1
Armor nraarrrsYatas iet krtan
dxameftd on?sBuil duvefper7wh6
rash2
7&k De Wtmn
Ted DeFre.ehk
Hadaprl;j
Aiohe PCF
HNiI
Dmttwopitian Plan
2
A
A
F—I DrnXVb b-Plan
3
A
a
..upped the Fief Malt FX>gem IIRmti.IRTSI.� dtff ivies 6r
FR anon, e w dalaiddca ban" mdFtn 11Jg and 17M.
ieaoaa new drrr�
FrawaialAssuanoe:
i
:
Mft7ti- Phn & faaraia
ASNaDoe
Fircl Mitipim Ptsn
2
x
DPZ-Id.bbute tf c FL•d hen Flow to the US4U-
Iiy6ad to find F.i1Vbm Flarto me WWAim of Wlakr t>esaata
d--t"et t refoll-q krt
raba]iae rtr uphadrr, nooarnrkmcfa W alneatthefn"int
��edo¢. .'aterP.�x+cq.' •S2A2 "ss N
�i�yk�o� rnh Df.Ses
2
WFtldIi ldpmd PCMtathe LM%1F and MUM Id" POt to the
. TM Van sar.l r4 tt erdwwd, sip)W PCH whhttx Final Ftti�m
to the PICDkioi-dNhtero— airs to—ftfor tthe Yk
4
P—I irk
Perm ant m[ik�6—
i
a
5
�brr�>E
WAdtendo ftlom
i
a
Oran Bsseirc F.6rvmrt5 ; A ALwt
Draxir�, d�l ddraatic
1
l:
>t
A
a
6
B—f3 "ar"11 Ar
&ilt D—n5,
9MI easdrc KOD.WAIC repot; Ale iR
Dr- retldnva6les f�
rrrivcns node duij U4—M rrxew &
-fty -"
VuEbrwil rated to FiM B.M.. F.6r bh %Report rdAs
BUN Draxinp to the NC Dhision Mob: Rescuers onYrc
"at the init. F-dul b-
7-d2
M.ft&. d mon" Front O
F`nel Araael B. i� PePort d<d l
&A -all.
1
N
a
a
it s kOd to frml r{nrronib•tr� report. mite NC Ltisisim d W is
aN— do¢ —t'}�d� �' T at Brc rep prmtrtd IW—
13
Mar3in5Y-7ord
Project D—A
DraRAaad Moor" Retort YF,
Ooseat Ekdgw adlvmles
1
N
A
a
Final ft-w Mora .i Port M.
& Wft aces
1
A
B
a
nil urtad to fret rmyt to the PIC Dir®ndtltrler Rexv¢s mine
ivmya the ire Proyidem a—
'il{+N51]
Attachment H:
Tasks and
Deliverables
Matrix for
Stream[Wetland
Tasks and
Deliverables Matrix -
Ve r: 11 /2021 pg. 26

Section D. Executive Summary
Clearwater Mitigation Solutions, LLC (CMS), a North Carolina Limited Liability Company, presents
the following proposal to provide stream, riparian wetland, riparian buffer, and nutrient offset
mitigation credits in the Tar -Pamlico River Basin, (Cataloging Unit 03020101) in response to RFP
#16-519597848, with a site known as the Totten Mitigation Site. The team assembled for this
project is led by Clearwater Mitigation Solutions and includes the multi -disciplinary expertise of
Axiom Environmental, Inc. (AXE).
CMS has secured a real estate option agreement for the purchase of easement rights on four
parcels in Granville County, North Carolina, near the Town of Oxford. The easement encompasses
approximately 28.0 acres of agricultural land used for livestock grazing and hay production (see
Figure 8 [Appendix A] for Site easement and proposed activities). The project will provide for
restoration and protection of aquatic resources with a conservation easement and will result in
net gains in hydrology, water quality, and habitat functions at the Site. Two options for the
project are proposed for mitigation credit generation, and are calculated in accordance with
the requirements stipulated in RFP # 16-519597848:
Option 1 encompasses the entire 28-acre easement area, and can yield 2,500 SMUs, 5.0 WMUs,
475,000 Riparian Buffer Credits, and 450 Ibs phosphorous reduction and associated nitrogen
for Nutrient Offset, representing the requested mitigation credits in RFP #16-519597848.
Option 2 also encompasses the entire 28-acre easement area, and can yield 3,365 SMUs, 5.0
WMUs, 475,000 Riparian Buffer Credits, and 450 Ibs phosphorous reduction and associated
nitrogen for Nutrient Offset, with the only difference from Option 1 being the SMU total.
Stream Mitigation
Riparian Wetland
Mitigation Units
Riparian Buffer (ft2)
Nutrient Offset
Units (SMU)
(WMU)
(
(Ibs)
Option 1
2,500 SMU
5.0 WMU
475,000 ft2
450 Ibs P,
6,986.739 Ibs N
450 Ibs P,
Option 2
3,365 SMU
5.0 WMU
475,000 ft2
6,986.739 Ibs N
Mitigation credits are to be generated via the restoration and enhancement (level I, and level II) of
Unnamed Tributaries (UTs) to Jordan Creek, along with associated riparian buffers, in addition to
the reestablishment, rehabilitation, enhancement, and creation of adjacent riparian wetlands.
The proposed project promotes the watershed goals identified in the Tar -Pamlico River Basin
Restoration Plan (RBRP) (NCEEP 2018) and the Fishing Creek Local Watershed Plan (NCEEP 2013)
by continuing watershed improvement efforts, improving management of stormwater runoff,
preserving active floodplains, and protecting and enhancing aquatic habitat. The proposed Site
mitigation quantities and credits are outlined in the following table.
Response for Request for Proposal 916-519597848 Page I 1
Section E — Corporate Background and Experience

Mitigation Summary — Option 1
Stream Mitigation Type
Type
Linear Feet
Mitigation
Ratio
SMUs
Restoration
Priority 1
3126
1:1
3126
Enhancement
Level 1
255
1.5:1
170
Enhancement
Level 11
255
5:1
51
Enhancement
Level 11
177
10:1
18
Totals
3,813 linear feet
3,365 SMUs
Total Offered
2,500 SMUs
Wetland Mitigation Type
Type
Acreage
Mitigation
Ratio
Riparian Riverine WMU
Reestablishment
Riparian Riverine
3.33
1:1
3.33
Enhancement
Riparian Riverine
4.07*
2:1
2.03*
Totals
7.40 acres
5.36 WMUs
Total Offered
5.0 WMUs
Riparian Buffer Mitigation
Type
Type
Square Footage
Mitigation
Ratio
Riparian Buffer Credits
Restoration
TOB — 100 ft
354,189
1:1
354,189.000
Restoration
101— 200 ft
306,583
3.03030:1
101,172.491
Enhancement via cattle
exclusion
TOB — 100 ft
45,187
2:1
22,593.50
Enhancement via cattle
exclusion
101— 200 ft
21,264
6.06061:1
3,508.558
Totals
727,223 ft2
481,463.549
Total Offered
475,000
Nutrient Offset Mitigation
Type
Type
Square Footage
Mitigation
Ratio
Nutrient Offset Credits
Phosphorous
101— 200 ft
135,000
NA
453.719
Nitrogen
101— 200 ft
NA
7,044.480
Total Offered
450 Ibs P,
6,986.739 Ibs N
*Approximately 0.82 acres of wetland enhancement area will be converted to riparian buffer and/or nutrient offset (Figure
9, Appendix A).
Response for Request for Proposal 416-519597848 Page 12
Section E — Corporate Background and Experience

Mitigation Summary — Option 2
Stream Mitigation Type
Type
Linear Feet
Mitigation
Ratio
SMUs
Restoration
Priority 1
3126
1:1
3126
Enhancement
Level 1
255
1.5:1
170
Enhancement
Level 11
255
5:1
51
Enhancement
Level 11
177
10:1
18
Totals
3,813 linear feet
3,365 SMUs
Total Offered
3,365 SMUs
Wetland Mitigation Type
Type
Acreage
Mitigation
Ratio
Riparian Riverine WMU
Reestablishment
Riparian Riverine
3.33
1:1
3.33
Enhancement
Riparian Riverine
4.07*
2:1
2.03*
Totals
7.40 acres
5.36 WMUs
Total Offered
5.0 WMUs
Riparian Buffer Mitigation
Type
Type
Square Footage
Mitigation
Ratio
Riparian Buffer Credits
Restoration
TOB — 100 ft
354,189
1:1
354,189.000
Restoration
101— 200 ft
306,583
3.03030:1
101,172.491
Enhancement via cattle
exclusion
TOB — 100 ft
45,187
2:1
22,593.50
Enhancement via cattle
exclusion
101— 200 ft
21,264
6.06061:1
3,508.558
Totals
727,223 ft2
481,463.549
Total Offered
475,000
Nutrient Offset Mitigation
Type
Type
Square Footage
Mitigation
Ratio
Nutrient Offset Credits
Phosphorous
101— 200 ft
135,000
NA
453.719
Nitrogen
101— 200 ft
NA
7,044.480
Total Offered
450 Ibs P,
6,986.739 Ibs N
*Approximately 0.82 acres of wetland enhancement area will be converted to riparian buffer and/or nutrient offset (Figure
9, Appendix A).
Response for Request for Proposal 416-519597848 Page 13
Section E — Corporate Background and Experience

Section E. Corporate Background and Experience
E1. Proiect Team
The team assembled for this project is led by Clearwater Mitigation Solutions and includes the multi-
disciplinary expertise of Axiom Environmental, Inc. (AXE). The team has been established to provide the
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) successful implementation of this stream and
wetland mitigation project by providing turnkey services including site identification, land acquisition,
planning and assessment, design, permitting, construction management, performance monitoring,
remedial action, and financial planning.
Clearwater Mitigation Solutions, LLC (CMS), a North Carolina Limited Liability Company, was founded in
2015, but has over 19 years of experience in water resources consulting, regulatory experience,
environmental site investigations, mitigation plan development, permitting, implementation, and
monitoring, with proven ability to carry out large-scale ecological restoration projects. CMS has worked
on a broad range of projects in the public and private sector over the years, which has provided for a well-
rounded approach to problem solving and a unique ability to manage the complex needs of ecological
restoration projects.
Axiom Environmental, Inc. (AXE) is based in Raleigh, North Carolina and provides environmental
services throughout the eastern US. The AXE team of professionals consists of Licensed Soil Scientists,
Professional Wetland Scientists, a Licensed Wildlife Damage Control Agent, a geologist, botanists,
biologists, and mitigation design specialists. AXE offers services in support of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Clean Water Act, and
Endangered Species Act. These services cover a wide range of activities including:
- Stream and Wetland Restoration Design
- Environmental Permitting
- Ecological Surveys
- Biological Assessments
- H2O Quality Sampling
- NEPA/SEPA Documentation
- Transportation Environmental Studies
- Protected Species Assessments
- Stream and Wetland Delineations
- Buffer Determinations
- Mitigation Banking
- Mitigation Site Searches
Response for Request for Proposal 416-519597848
Section E — Corporate Background and Experience
- Feasibility Studies
- Mitigation Monitoring
- Construction Plan Development and
Oversight
- Construction Implementation
- Benthic Macroinvertebrate Surveys
- Coastal Studies
- Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Surveys
- Forest Service Plant and Animal Surveys
- Comprehensive Plant and Animal
Surveys
Page 14

E2. Office Locations
• Clearwater Mitigation Solution's office is located at 604 Macon Place in Raleigh, North
Carolina.
• Axiom Environmental, Inc.'s office is location at 218 Snow Avenue in Raleigh, North
Carolina.
E3. Key Staff
The key staff assigned to the project offer the DMS a qualified and experienced group of professionals
dedicated to providing the highest quality services and technical expertise in the field of stream and
wetland mitigation. Our team's past record of successful work performance is directly attributed to
our ability to work interactively on multi -disciplined projects in concert with clients, agencies, and
stakeholders, and demonstrates our commitment and capabilities to undertake projects involving a
variety of environmental, engineering, and ecological challenges. The team's combined years of
experience will result in internal efficiencies, quality deliverables and an invaluable working
knowledge of the State's mitigation program. Our team is prepared to complete all tasks on the
proposed project in an innovative, cost effective, and timely manner.
Project Manager Qualifications and Experience
CMS recognizes that the Project Manager will serve an important role on a full delivery project. An
individual with a broad range of skills linking together budgetary and personnel management with
all the components of a restoration project (assessment, survey, design, construction, permitting,
monitoring, agency and credit delivery) will be needed to successfully oversee and implement this
project. The individual will also need to be experienced in completing large scale restoration
projects with time -sensitive design and construction deliverables.
CMS's project manager on this project will be Kevin Yates. Mr. Yates has over 17 years of experience
in water resources, stream, wetlands, stormwater, riparian buffer, environmental restoration, and
mitigation. Mr. Yates began working for the US Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District in 2001,
while attending graduate school at the University of North Carolina at Wilmington, graduating with
a Master of Marine Science in 2004. During this period, Mr. Yates worked as an intern in the USACE
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office and full-time in the USACE Raleigh Regulatory Field Office as a
Regulatory Project Manager through May 2005. Mr. Yates went into private environmental
consulting in 2005, with a large multi -disciplinary engineering/design firm, McAdams Company,
based in Durham, North Carolina. Mr. Yates was awarded the McAdams Company trailblazer award
in 2006 for chartering and leading these new environmental consulting services for the firm, where
he served as the Senior Environmental Consultant and Project Manager through 2018. For the
natural resources group at McAdams, Mr. Yates managed staffing, budgeting, billing, project
Response for Request for Proposal 416-519597848 P a g iz; 15
Section E — Corporate Background and Experience

scheduling, environmental field investigations, (including stream, wetland, buffer investigations),
and any required wetland, stream, and riparian buffer permitting (through USACE/DWR/CAMA).
In addition, Mr. Yates prepared and implemented compensatory mitigation plans, prepared
environmental assessment documents under NEPA/SEPA requirements, and was routinely asked
to review and comment on pending federal and state legislation, as well as local ordinances.
Mr. Yates has worked on a broad range of projects during his tenure at McAdams which has helped
to give him a well-rounded approach to problem solving and a unique ability to manage the
complex needs of large-scale restoration projects. Equipped with first-hand knowledge of
assessment techniques, design understanding and construction management and implementation
experience, Mr. Yates has been challenged to manage the design and construction elements of
various environmental mitigation projects completed in both urban and rural settings. More
recently, Mr. Yates formed Clearwater Mitigation Solutions in 2015 and has since developed and
managed a $2.1 million, 71-acre turn -key riparian and non -riparian wetland mitigation site known
as the Lowlands Wetland Mitigation Site, in the Hydrologic Unit 03020201 (Neuse 01) service area.
CMS is currently under contract with DMS on two full -delivery riparian buffer mitigation sites,
known as the Wingfoot Site in Pitt County and the Longhorn Site in Granville County.
Mr. Yates' philosophy on developing successful environmental design and construction projects is
to promote ownership of the project from the ground up. This involves informing and training
contractors, landowners, regulatory staff, project owners and other project stakeholders through
diligent communication and involvement. As an owner/operator, Mr. Yates understands that the
key to managing large scale projects with aggressive time requirements is to stay in front of potential
problems, foster active partnering among team members, and to surround yourself with hard
working, skilled individuals who all have a stake in the success of the project. The CMS / AXE Team
has been formed with these factors in mind and will be dedicated to the success of the project.
Response for Request for Proposal 416-519597848 Page 16
Section E — Corporate Background and Experience

Axiom Environmental, Inc. — Kev Personnel
Team Member/
Professional Licenses/Certificates
Professional Training
W. Grant Lewis (Principal -in -Charge)
• NRCS Licensed Soil Scientist (#1233), State of North Carolina
Years' Experience: 25+
• Professional Wetland Scientist Certification, January 2002
• Applied Fluvial Geomorphology (Rosgen Level I, II, III, and IV)
NRCS Licensed Soil Scientist #1233
• NS/CSX Roadway Worker Protection Training-2016
• USACE Regulatory Road Show— March 2010
• N.C. Division of Water Quality Intermittent and Perennial Stream Identification
for Riparian Buffer Rules — North Carolina, 2010
• CVS Vegetation Monitoring & Survey Protocol Levels 2 & 3, 2006-2007
• Certified Stormwater BMP Inspection & Maintenance Professional, 2007
• Basic Processes in Hydric Soils, 2009
Kenan Jernigan (Project Scientist)
• NC Stream Assessment Method Certification, 2017
Years' Experience: 9
• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington District Regulatory Workshop, 2016
• NC Surface Water Identification Training and Certification (SWITC), 2014
• ArcGIS 10, 2012
• NC Wetland Assessment Method Certification, 2012
• Natural Community and Rare Plants Identification Workshops, 2012 and 2013
• NS/CSX Roadway Worker Protection Training, 2016
Corri Faquin (Senior Project Manager)
• USACE Permitting Workshop, 2001
Years' Experience: 18
• Rare Plant Identification Workshops, 2001 and 2003
• Delineation of Piedmont and Coastal Plain Jurisdictional Wetlands, 2002
• NCDWQ Express Permit Training, 2004
• Fluvial Geomorphic Principles (Rosgen) Training, Level I -II, 2004
• Introduction to Taxonomy and Pollution Ecology of Aquatic Insects, 2006
• Certified Stormwater BMP Inspection & Maintenance Professional (#462), 2007
• CVS Vegetation Monitoring & Survey Protocol, 2008
• USACE Regulatory Road Show, 2010
• Stream Id for Regulatory Application, 2004 & 2010
• NS/CSX Roadway Worker Protection Training, 2014
Phillip Perkinson (Project Scientist)
• NC Stream Assessment Method Certification, 2017
Years' Experience: 10
• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington District Regulatory Workshop, 2016
• N.C. Division of Water Quality Intermittent and Perennial Stream Identification
North Carolina Well Contractors Class A
for Riparian Buffer Rules — North Carolina, 2010
License #3526
• USACE Regulatory Road Show, 2010
Licensed Wildlife Damage Control Agent
• NS/CSX Roadway Worker Protection Training, 2016
• Basic Processes in Hydric Soils, 2009
• NC Wetland Assessment Method Certification, 2012
Response for Request for Proposal 416-519597848 Page 17
Section E — Corporate Background and Experience

E4. Similar Project Experience
Clearwater Mitigation Solutions
The following project summaries highlight recent mitigation projects completed by CMS in
North Carolina:
Wingfoot Riparian Buffer Restoration Site ( Farmville, North Carolina) Clearwater Mitigation
Solutions provided riparian buffer
..:�.• ''' ��,a=�� mitigation credits in the Neuse River Basin,
-a3�
(Cataloging Unit 03020203) for the North
Carolina Division of Mitigation Services
(DMS), for a process known as Full -
Delivery, with a site known as the Wingfoot
Riparian Buffer Mitigation Site. The team
assembled for this project is led by
ram.{k Clearwater Mitigation Solutions and
r'a includes the multi -disciplinary expertise of
Land Management Group (LMG).
Clearwater secured a real estate option
agreement and closed the purchase of
easement rights on a property in Pitt
'Jinaki a'iFsnan
6.ffrM{4g.—Ed. Ra N County North Carolina near the Town of
Cal Ibo n9 U.4 oseauzca ConrnpHLo9ation Plan
" Farmville. The delivered 109% of the
Rezpmze to RFP416-0OSAQ] 0
510,000 riparian buffer credits requested
by DMS, via the restoration and enhancement of woody buffer along unnamed tributaries of the
Little Contentnea Creek (a 303d-listed impaired waterbody). An additional 2.26-acres of riparian
habitat corridor is being provided to allow for contiguous connectivity between an existing,
adjacent NC DMS site (Fox Run Buffer Site) with the proposed Wingfoot Riparian Buffer Mitigation
Project.
Client Reference: NC Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) Lindsay Crocker (DMS) 919-594-3910
Design Team: Land Management Group (LMG) —Wes Fryar 910-452-0001
Lonehorn Riparian Buffer Restoration Site -DMS Full Delivery Proiect ( Soahia. North Carolina
�- Clearwater Mitigation Solutions is currently under
��- -- contract to provide riparian buffer credits in the
wooRandleman Watershed Cape Fear River Basin,
(Cataloging Unit 03030003) for the North Carolina
Division of Mitigation Services (DMS), for a process
known as Full -Delivery, with a site known as the
=` Longhorn Riparian Buffer Mitigation Site. The 20.82-
�- acre project was constructed in 2020 with 8,000 bare
root seedlings planted, within the project and is
- currently in Year-2 monitoring. Clearwater worked
with the land owners to provide access to all portions
e - of the property outside of the easement, and provide
new cattle fencing, a new water well, and cattle drinkers.
Client Reference: NC Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) Jeremiah Dow (DMS) 919-594-3910
Design Team: Land Management Group (LMG) — Wes Fryar 910-452-0001
Response for Request for Proposal 416-519597848 Page 18
Section E — Corporate Background and Experience

Cool Run Mitigation Site - DMS Full Delivery Project ( Shallotte, North Carolina)
Clearwater Mitigation Solutions is currently under contract to provide 2,208 stream credits and
14.30 riparian wetland credits within a targeted local watershed of the Upper Shallotte River 14-digit
HUC (03040207020060) of the Lumber River basin for the North Carolina Division of Mitigation
Services (DMS), with a site known as the Cool Run Mitigation Site The Site encompasses 25.6
acres of disturbed forest and agricultural fields along Cool Run and its unnamed tributary (UT 1).
In its current state, the Site includes 2,270 linear feet of channelized and relocated stream
channel (based on the approved PJD dated 02/025/2020), 2.89 acres of degraded wetland, 17.46
acres of drained hydric soil.
Proposed restoration activities include the
construction of meandering, E/C-type stream
channel resulting in 2,028 linear feet of Priority I
stream restoration, 592 linear feet of Priority 11
stream restoration, 14.108 acres of riparian
wetland re-establishment, 1.433 acres of riparian
wetland rehabilitation, 1.201 acre of riparian
wetland enhancement, and 0.492 acre of
riparian wetland preservation.
Client Reference: NC Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) Jeremiah Dow (DMS) 828-231-7912
Design Team: Axiom Environmental — Grant Lewis 919-215-1693
Bull Chute Stream & Wetland Restoration Site - DMS Full Delivery Proiect
( Sophia, North Carolina)
Clearwater Mitigation Solutions is currently under contract to provide 7,000 stream credits and
an acre of riparian wetland mitigation credits in the Yadkin River Basin, (Cataloging Unit 03040103)
for the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (DMS), for a process known as Full -Delivery,
with a site known as the Bull Chute Mitigation Site. The 32-acre project site includes 8720 linear
,. ; � - -- --- feet of degraded stream channel, 1.9 acres
�- y
of degraded wetland, 3.6 acres of drained
hydric soil. The project area includes 8
#, different parcels and 4 sets of land owners,
4, f
t and will include wells, cattle fencing, and
stream crossings for land owner access
across the project. Construction was
completed in March 2022, and is currently
j„ in year 1 monitoring.
.. 4
JO
- 7
Client Reference: NC Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) Matthew Reid (DMS) 828-231-7912
Design Team: Axiom Environmental — Grant Lewis 919-215-1693
Response for Request for Proposal 416-519597848 Page 19
Section E — Corporate Background and Experience

Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Axiom Environmental, Inc. (AXE) has extensive experience with mitigation services throughout
North Carolina for over 20 years. The following summarizes AXE contracts with NC DMS and
indicates which tasks were completed for each project including site design, construction
oversight, baseline monitoring, annual monitoring, closeout services, and IRT involvement.
NCDMS Contracts
Detailed Plan/ Site
Design
Construction
Oversight
As -Built Baseline
Monitoring
Annual
Monitoring
Closeout
IRT
Jumping Run Cr
MY5
Howell Woods
MY5-7
2010
x
Smith & Austin
MY4-5
2008
Terrible Creek
2008
x
2008
MY1-5
2013
Camp Lejeune
MY5
Clayhill Farms
2006
MY1-5
2011
x
Grove Cr
2007
MY1-5
2012
x
Sturgeon City
MY2-5
2009
Bold Run
MY2-5
2012
x
Charles Run
MY2-5
2012
x
Goldsboro Housing
MY1-5
2014
Goose Cr
MY1-5
2014
Norwood Gainey
MY3-5
2012
UT to Cane Cr
2008
MY1-3
UT to Haw (Gwynn)
2009
x
2010
MY1-5
2015
UT to Haw (Beckom)
2010
x
2011
MY1-5
2016
UT to Bear (St Anna)
2010
Irwin Cr
2010
MY1-5
McIntyre Cr
2010
MY1-6
Chapel Cr
MY4-5
2014
Greenbrier
MY1-5
2017
Mill Cr
MY1-5
2017
x
Hauser Cr
MY1-5
2017
Briles Cr
MY4-5
2013
Tate Farm
MY1-5
x
McCain Cr
MY4-5
2014
UT to Bald
MY1-5
2017
x
UT to Martins
2014
MY1-5
Martins II
2014
MY1-5
Bear Cr (Phillips)
2014
MY1-5
Helms
MY4-5
2016
Little Lick Cr Buffer
2013
2014
MY1-5
S Hominy Cr
IMY3-5
2017
Bobs Creek
2016
MY1-3
Neighbors Br
2016
MY1-3
Response for Request for Proposal 916-519597848 Page 110
Section F — Project Organization

In addition to NC DMS projects, Axiom has completed numerous mitigation site designs
and construction oversight, has extensive experience with agencies, and has completed
monitoring on more than 35 additional sites; some of these projects are summarized
below.
➢ Mitigation Site Design
o Abbey Lamm Stream and Wetland Site, 2014 (Restoration Systems —
Full Delivery)
o Aycock Springs Stream and Wetland Site, 2015 (Restoration Systems
— Full
Delivery)
o Jarmons Oak Stream and Wetland Site, 2007 (Restoration Systems —
Full Delivery)
o Threemile Stream and Wetland Site, 2007 (Restoration Systems — Full
Delivery)
o Pancho Stream and Wetland Bank, 2012 (Restoration Systems _ Bank
Site)
o Cripple Creek Stream and Wetland Bank, 2007 (Restoration Systems
— Bank Site)
o Herman Dairy Stream and Wetland Site, 2011 (Restoration Systems
— Full Delivery)
➢ Construction/Planting Oversight
o South Wake Landfill Stream Repairs and Construction Oversight, 2010 (Wake
County — Permit)
o Pancho Stream and Wetland Bank, 2013 (Restoration Systems — Bank Site)
o Herman Dairy Stream and Wetland Site, 2011 (Restoration Systems — Full Delivery)
o Cripple Creek Stream and Wetland Bank, 2010 (Restoration Systems — Bank Site)
o Supplemental Planting 22 NCDMS Sites, 2011-2012 (NCDMS — RFP)
o Wall Riparian Buffer, 2011 (Restoration Systems — Full Delivery)
➢ Experience with USACE, NCDWQ and IRT Member Agencies
o Lloyd Stream and Wetland Site Closeout, 2012 (Restoration Systems — Full
Delivery)
o Sleepy Creek Wetland Site Closeout, 2009 (Restoration Systems — Bank Site)
o Jarmons Oak Stream and Wetland Site Closeout, 2012 (Restoration Systems — Full
Delivery)
o South Wake Landfill Stream Repairs and Annual Monitoring, 2010-2013 (Wake
County - Permit)
o Pancho Stream and Wetland Bank, 2013 (Restoration Systems — Bank Site)
o Cripple Creek Stream and Wetland Bank, 2010 (Restoration Systems — Bank Site)
o Studer Branch Mitigation Bank, 2012 (Studer Branch Mitigation Company — Bank
Site)
E5. DBE/HUB Participation
Neither Clearwater Mitigation Solutions nor Axiom Environmental, Inc. are Disadvantaged
or Historically Underutilized Business Enterprises. However, our team is committed to
providing opportunities for such firms.
Response for Request for Proposal 916-519597848 111
Section F — Project Organization

Section F. Project Organization
The assembled project team consists of highly experienced professionals with diverse
backgrounds that lend to a multi -disciplinary approach to the mitigation effort. The Project
Manager will be Mr. Kevin Yates. Grant Lewis will serve as the lead technical project manager.
Supporting the technical implementation and monitoring of the project will be a staff of
environmental scientists from Axiom Environmental, Inc. that have been project managers or
integral team members for several mitigation projects constructed and monitored in North
Carolina within the last 15 years. AXE staff assigned to this project include: (1) Grant Lewis
(licensed soil scientist, lead designer, construction oversight, GIS/CAD support, and QA/QC
manager); (2) Kenan Jernigan (designer, existing and reference conditions data collection, planting
and construction oversight, lead GIS/CAD, post -construction monitoring, and QA/QC support); (3)
Corri Faquin (document support, GIS/CAD support, QA/QC support); and (4) Phillip Perkinson
(existing and reference conditions data collection, planting and construction oversight, post -
construction monitoring manager).
Resumes of project manager and key personnel are attached in Appendix F.
Response for Request for Proposal 916-519597848 Page 112
Section F — Project Organization

Team Members and Project Role
Team
Member
Kevin Yates
Grant Lewis
Kenan Jernigan
Corri Faquin
Phillip Perkinson
Axiom
Axiom
Axiom
Axiom
Company
Clearwater
Environmental,
Environmental,
Environmental,
Environmental, Inc.
Mitigation Solutions
Inc. (AXE)
Inc. (AXE)
Inc. (AXE)
(AXE)
BS(Range
BS(Natural
Education/
MS (Marine
Ecosystem
BA (Environmental
Resources
BS (Geology)
Experience
Biology)
Mana ement
g )
Studies )
Ecosystem
Assessment)
Project Role
Project
Manager
Environmental
Data Collection
Environmental
Screening
J
Report
Conservation
Easement
Coordination
Mitigation Plan
Development
404/401/SEC
Permitting
Planting and
Construction
J
J
J
J
Management
Plot Install and
Baseline
Monitoring
CAD/G I S/
Graphic
J
J
J
J
Support
QA/QC
Response for Request for Proposal 916-519597848 Page 113
Section F — Project Organization

Section G. Technical Approach
G1. Project Goals and Objectives
The goals of the proposed Totten Mitigation Site are to provide high quality compensatory mitigation
for authorized stream and wetland impacts credited through the NC DMS in -lieu -fee program and
occurring within the Tar -Pamlico River Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03020101 and to address the
watershed goals identified in the Tar -Pamlico River Basin Restoration Plan (RBRP) (NCEEP 2018).
Specific HUC 03020101 watershed goals include:
• Promoting nutrient reduction in municipal areas through the implementation of
stormwater best management practices;
• Promoting nutrient and sediment reduction in agricultural areas by restoring and
preserving wetlands, streams, and riparian buffers;
• Continuing targeted implementation of projects under the Nutrient Offset and Buffer
programs, as well as focusing NCDOT-sponsored restoration in areas where it will provide
the most functional improvement to the ecosystems; and
• Protecting, augmenting, and connecting state -designated Natural Heritage Areas and
other conservation lands.
In addition, the Site is located within the Fishing Creek Local Watershed Plan area (NCEEP 2013),
which includes the Fishing Creek watershed (HUC 03020101020010). This area includes streams
that are degraded and/or threatened by development and existing uses, including urban land,
agriculture, silviculture, and point and non -point source pollution. Management strategies
identified in the Fishing Creek watershed plan include identifying stream and riparian buffer
restoration, preservation, or enhancement projects that address:
• Deforested or degraded riparian buffers;
• Stream instability;
• Degraded aquatic habitat; and
• Livestock access to streams.
The Site is located within a Targeted Local Watershed (TLW); however, it is not located in a
Regional Watershed Plan (RWP) or Targeted Resource Area (TRA).
Site specific mitigation goals and objectives have been developed through the use of North
Carolina Stream Assessment Method (NC SAM) and North Carolina Wetland Assessment Method
(NC WAM) analyses of existing stream systems at the Site (NC SFAT 2015 and NC WFAT 2010).
Site functional assessment data forms are available upon request; model output is included in
Appendix B and is summarized in the following table. Metrics targeted to meet the Site's goals
and objectives are depicted in bold, within Tables 1 and 2, below.
Response for Request for Proposal #16-519597848 Page 114
Section G — Technical Approach

Table 1. NC SAM Summary
NC SAM Function Class Rating Summary
UT 1
UT 2
UT 3
(1) HYDROLOGY
LOW
LOW
LOW
(2) Baseflow
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
HIGH
(2) Flood Flow
LOW
LOW
LOW
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
(4) Floodplain Access
LOW
HIGH
LOW
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
LOW
LOW
LOW
(4) Microtopography
LOW
LOW
LOW
(3) Stream Stability
LOW
LOW
LOW
(4) Channel Stability
HIGH
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(4) Sediment Transport
LOW
LOW
LOW
(4) Stream Geomorphology
LOW
LOW
LOW
(1) WATER QUALITY
LOW
LOW
LOW
(2) Baseflow
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
HIGH
(2) Stream -side Area Vegetation
LOW
LOW
LOW
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
LOW
LOW
LOW
(3) Thermoregulation
LOW
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(2) Indicators of Stressors
YES
YES
YES
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
LOW
LOW
LOW
(1) HABITAT
LOW
LOW
LOW
(2) In -stream Habitat
LOW
LOW
LOW
(3) Baseflow
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
HIGH
(3) Substrate
LOW
LOW
LOW
(3) Stream Stability
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(3) In -Stream Habitat
MEDIUM
LOW
MEDIUM
(2) Stream -side Habitat
LOW
LOW
LOW
(3) Stream -side Habitat
LOW
LOW
LOW
(3) Thermoregulation
LOW
LOW
MEDIUM
OVERALL
LOW
LOW
LOW
Based on NC SAM output, all three primary stream functional metrics (Hydrology, Water Quality
and Habitat), as well as 19 sub -metrics are under -performing as exhibited by a LOW metric rating
(see Figure 4, Appendix A for NC SAM data reaches). LOW performing metrics are to be targeted
for functional uplift through mitigation activities, goals and objectives, as well as, monitoring and
success criteria.
Response for Request for Proposal 416-519597848 Page 115
Section G — Technical Approach

Table 2. NC WAM Summary
NC WAM Sub -function Rating Summary
WAM 1
WAM 2
Wetland Type
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Headwater Forest
(1) HYDROLOGY
LOW
LOW
(2) Surface Storage & Retention
LOW
LOW
(2) Sub -surface Storage & Retention
LOW
LOW
(1) WATER QUALITY
HIGH
MEDIUM
(2) Pathogen change
HIGH
MEDIUM
(2) Particulate Change
LOW
MEDIUM
(2) Soluble change
MEDIUM
LOW
(2) Physical Change
HIGH
MEDIUM
(1) HABITAT
LOW
HIGH
(2) Physical Structure
LOW
MEDIUM
(2) Landscape Patch Structure
LOW
HIGH
(2) Vegetative Composition
LOW
MEDIUM
OVERALL
LOW
MEDIUM
Based on NC WAM output, two of the primary wetland functional metrics (Hydrology and
Habitat), as well as 7 sub -metrics are under -performing as exhibited by a LOW metric rating.
LOW performing metrics are to be targeted for functional uplift through mitigation activities,
goals and objectives, as well as, monitoring and success criteria.
Stream and wetland metrics targeted for functional uplift, tied to defined Site -specific project
goals and objectives are presented in Table 3, below.
Response for Request for Proposal 416-519597848 Page 116
Section G — Technical Approach

Table 3. Targeted Functions, Goals, Objectives, and Uplift Evaluation
Targeted Functions
Goals
Objectives
DMS Functional Uplift Evaluations
Identified Functional Stressor (Uplift Potential)
(1) HYDROLOGY
(2) Flood Flow
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
• Construct new channel at historic floodplain elevation to restore overbank flows
(4) Floodplain Access
• Plant woody riparian buffer to 200 ft from TOB
• Deep rip floodplain soils to reduce compaction and increase soil surface roughness
. Peak Flows (restore overbank flooding, surface water and
subsurface water storage, increase frictional resistance to
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
. Minimize downstream flooding to the maximum
• Protect riparian buffers with a perpetual conservation easement
floodwaters)
(4) Microtopography
extent possible.
. Construct channels with proper pattern, dimension, and longitudinal profile
• Artificial Barriers (remove one large farm pond dam and upgrade
• Increase stream stability within the Site so that
. Remove livestock from the property
perched culverts to repair instream flow and function)
Wetland Surface Storage &Retention
channels are neither aggrading nor degrading.
. Construct stable channels with appropriate substrate
• Ditching/Draining (raising stream beds to historic floodplain
Wetland Sub -surface Storage &Retention
. Upgrade existing piped channel crossings and install piped crossings at existing
forded crossings
elevation, where necessary, in order to restore interactions of
surface water, groundwater, and throughflow)
(3) Stream Stability
• Stabilize stream banks
(4) Sediment Transport
(4) Stream Geomorphology
(1) WATER QUALITY
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
• Remove agricultural livestock and reduce agricultural land/inputs
• Plant wood riparian buffer to 200 ft from TOB
y p
• Non-functioning Riparian Buffer/Wetland Vegetation (restoring
or enhancing ^28 acres of riparian buffer)
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
(3) Thermoregulation
• Remove direct nutrient and pollutant inputs
• Restore/enhance jurisdictional wetlands adjacent to Site streams to treat runoff
• Sediment (removing 20.1 tons per year of sediment from bank
(2) Indicators of Stressors
from the Site and reduce contributions to
downstream waters.
from adjacent pasture
• Provide surface roughness and reduce compaction through deep ripping/plowing
• Restore overbank flooding by constructing channels at historic floodplain elevation
erosion)
• Nutrients (removing1 429.12 Ibs N/year and 118.44 Ibs P/year)
• Fecal Coliform (removing 9.35x1011 colonies of fecal
coliform/day)
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
Wetland Particulate Change
Wetland Soluble Change
(1) HABITAT
(2) In -stream Habitat
• Construct stable channels with appropriate substrate
• Plant woody riparian buffer to provide organic matter and shade
• Habitat Fragmentation (remove one large farm pond dam and
(3) Substrate
(3) In -Stream Habitat
(2) Stream -side Habitat
• Improve instream and stream -side habitat.
• Construct new channel at historic floodplain elevation to restore overbank flows
• Protect riparian buffers with a perpetual conservation easement
upgrade perched culverts to allow for aquatic life passage)
• Limited Bedform Diversity (restoring regular, sustained
(3) Stream -side Habitat
• Restore/enhance jurisdictional wetlands adjacent to Site streams
sequence of riffles and pools with proper substrate)
(3) Thermoregulation
. Absence of Large Woody Debris (restoring woody debris on
• Stabilize stream banks
channel banks and in bed)
Wetland Physical Structure
• Install in -stream grade -control and habitat structures
Wetland Landscape Patch Structure
Wetland Vegetative Composition
Response for Request for Proposal 916-519597848 Page 117
Section F — Project Organization

G2. Project Description
A Site Location
The project site is located in Granville County, less than one mile northeast of Oxford. The property
is situated just east of US Highway 15 and north of US Highway 158 Oxford Loop Road (Figure 1,
Appendix). The Site is located within Targeted Local Watershed and Local Watershed Plan Area
(Fishing Creek) 14-digit HUC (03020101020010) of the Tar -Pamlico River basin (Figure 2, Appendix
A). Stream and wetland mitigation areas are located along unnamed tributaries (UTs) to Jordan
Creek.
B Watershed and Water Quality Classification
Based upon the NC Department of Environmental Quality surface water classification, Jordan Creek
has a surface water classification of C;NSW. The class "C" use denotes waters protected for secondary
uses such as secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish consumption, aquatic life including
propagation, survival and maintenance of biological integrity, and agriculture and the designation
"NSW" indicates nutrient sensitive waters. (NCDWR 2013). Jordan Creek (Stream Index Number 28-
11-5-1) is not listed on the final 2018 303d list (NCDEQ 2019).
C Physiography, Geology, and Soils
The Totten Mitigation Site is located within the Northern Outer Piedmont ecoregion of the Piedmont
Physiographic Province (Griffith et al. 2002). The ecoregion is characterized by dissected irregular
plains, some rounded hills and ridges, and low to moderate gradient streams with cobble, gravel,
and sandy substrates. Onsite elevations range from a high of 486 feet National Geodetic Vertical
Datum (NGVD) at the upper reaches to a low of approximately 440 feet NGVD at the Site outfall
(USGS Oxford, North Carolina 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle) (Figure 3, Appendix A).
Based on Web Soil Survey mapping (USDA 2021), the Site contains the soil series outlined in Table 4.
The majority of Site soils are mapped as Enon fine sandy loam and Iredell sandy loam, both class B
hydric soils with inclusions of Picture soils; however, existing wetlands and drained hydric soils were
mapped by a licensed soil scientist (NC LSS # 1233) on March 23, 2021 and confirmed on August 18,
2022, as soils of the Wehadkee series (Figure 5, Appendix A). Soil boring logs are included in
Appendix B.
Response for Request for Proposal #16-519597848 Page 118
Section G — Technical Approach

Table 4. Site Soils
Map Unit
Map Unit Name
Hydric
Description
Symbol
(Classification)
Status
This series consists of very deep, well drained, moderately
permeable soils on ridges and side slopes of the Piedmont
Appling sandy loam
uplands. They are deep to saprolite and very deep to bedrock.
AuC
(Typic Kanhapludults)
Non-hydric
They formed in residuum weathered from felsic igneous and
metamorphic rocks of the Piedmont uplands. Depth to the
seasonal high-water table and restrictive features is more
than 80 inches. Slope ranges from 0 to 25 percent.
This series consists of very deep, well drained, slowly
permeable soils on ridgetops and side slopes in the Piedmont.
They have formed in residuum weathered from mafic or
EnB,
Enon fine sandy loam
Hydric
intermediate igneous and high-grade metamorphic rocks such
EnC
(Ultic Hapludalfs)
(Class B)
as diorite, gabbro, diabase, or hornblende gneiss or schist.
Depth to the seasonal high-water table and restrictive
features is more than 80 inches. Slope ranges from 2 to 45
percent.
This series consists of moderately well drained, very slowly
permeable soils. They formed in material weathered from
Iredell sandy loam
Hydric
diabase, diorite, gabbro, and other rocks high in ferro-
IrB
(Oxyaquic Vertic Hapludalfs)
(Class B)
magnesium minerals. Depth to restrictive features is 60 to 80
inches to paralithic bedrock. Depth to water table is about 12
to 24 inches. Slope is dominantly less than 6 percent but
ranges up to 15 percent.
This series consists of well drained, slowly permeable soils
that formed in residuum weathered from acid crystalline rocks
Vance sandy loam
in the Piedmont. They are moderately deep to saprolite and
VaC
(Typic Hapludulfs)
Non-hydric
very deep to bedrock. The soils are on ridges and side slopes.
Depth to the seasonal high-water table and restrictive
features is more than 80 inches. Slopes range from 2 to 25
percent.
D Existing Stream Conditions
The property currently consists entirely of actively grazed pastureland with approximately 50 head
of cattle. The majority of existing streams lack a mature forested buffer. The Site includes 2,340
linear feet of existing perennial streams, a 5.7-acre open water farm pond, 4.9 acres of degraded
wetlands, and 2.3 acres of drained hydric soils that have been historically altered/impacted via
agricultural land uses.
One NC DWR Stream Identification Form was completed on UT2 (Appendix B). A summary of
Site stream flow regimes is provided in the table below. Site photos of existing conditions are
provided in Appendix C, and historic aerial photography is provided on Figure 7 (Appendix A).
Table 5. Stream Attribute Summary
Stream/Surface
Water Attribute
Surface Water ID
UT1
UT2
UT3
Flow
Perennial
Perennial
Perennial
Stream ID Score
NA
NA
36.5
Response for Request for Proposal 916-519597848 Page 119
Section G — Technical Approach

The following Table 6 summarizes morphology parameters existing at the Site as well as
preliminary estimates of stable stream attributes based upon regional curves for the Piedmont
region of North Carolina (Harmen et al. 1999).
Table 6. Essential Moroholoev Parameters
Parameter
Existing
Proposed*
XS-1
XS-1
Valley Width (ft)
6
100
Contributing Drainage Area (sq. mi.)
0.05
0.05
Discharge (cfs)
9.74
9.74
Channel/Reach Classification
G
C/E
Bankfull Cross -sectional Area (ft')
2.7
2.7
Existing Cross -sectional Area (ft 2)
23.6
2.7
Bankfull Width (ft)
3.9
4.1
Bankfull Depth (ft)
0.7
0.7
Maximum Depth (ft)
1.0
0.9
Low Bank Height (ft)
3.7
0.9
Flood Prone Area (ft)
6
100
Width/Depth Ratio
5.7
6.3
Bank Height Ratio
3.7
1.0
Entrenchment Ratio
1.5
24.4
Sinuosity
1.0
1.15
Substrate
Sand/Gravel
Gravel/Cobble
*Preliminary estimates of stable stream attributes are based primarily upon regional curves for the Piedmont region of North Carolina
(Harmen et al. 1999).
Sediment Model
Sediment load modeling was performed using methodologies outlined in A Practical Method of
Computing Streambank Erosion Rate (Rosgen 2009) along with Estimating Sediment Loads using
the Bank Assessment of Non -point Sources Consequences of Sediment (Rosgen 2011). These
models provide a quantitative prediction of streambank erosions by calculating Bank Erosion
Hazard Index (BEHI) and Near -Bank Stress (NBS) along each Site reach. The resulting BEHI and NBS
values are then compared to streambank erodibility graphs prepared for North Carolina by the NC
Stream Restoration Institute and NC Sea Grant.
Streambank characteristics involve measurements of bank height, angles, materials, presence of
layers, rooting depth, rooting density, and percent of the bank protected by rocks, logs, roots, or
vegetation. Site reaches have been measured for each BEHI and NBS characteristic and predicted
lateral erosion rate, height, and length to calculate a cubic volume of sediment contributed by the
reach each year. Data forms for the analysis are available upon request and the data output is
presented in Appendix B. Results of the model are presented in Table 7 below.
Response for Request for Proposal #16-519597848 Page 120
Section G — Technical Approach

Table 7. BEHI and NBS Modeline Summary
Stream Reach
Proposed Mitigation Treatment
Predicted Sediment
Contribution (tons/year)
UT 1
Restoration
3.7
UT 2
Enhancement (Levels I and 11)
0.0
UT 3
Restoration and Enhancement (Level 1)
16.4
Total Sediment Contribution (tons/year)
20.1
Nutrient Model
Nutrient modeling was conducted using a method developed by the North Carolina Division of
Mitigation Services (NCDMS) (NCDMS 2016) to determine nutrient and fecal coliform reductions
from exclusion of livestock from the buffer.
The equation for nutrient reduction for this model includes the following:
TN reduction (Ibs/yr) = 51.04 (Ibs/ac/yr) x Area (ac)
TP reduction (Ibs/yr) = 4.23 (Ibs/ac/yr) x Area (ac)
Where:
TN —total nitrogen;
TP —total phosphorus; and
Area — total area of restored riparian buffers inside of livestock exclusion fences.
Equations for fecal coliform reduction for this model include the following.
Fecal coliform reduction (col) = 2.2 x 1011 (col/AU/day) x AU x 0.085
Where:
Col - quantities of Fecal Coliform bacteria
AU - animal unit (1000 Ibs of livestock)
Assuming the entire 28.0 acres of the Site will have livestock removed and stocking rates include
approximately 50 cows residing on the farm, the NC DMS analysis calculates approximately
1,429.12 Ibs/yr of nitrogen, 118.44 Ibs/yr of phosphorus, and 9.35 x 1011 col of fecal coliform/day
will be reduced due to exclusion of livestock from the easement area.
E Cultural Resources
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires federal agencies to take into account
the effects of their undertakings on historic properties. Coordination with State Historic
Preservation Office will occur prior to construction activities to determine if any significant cultural
resources are present.
Response for Request for Proposal #16-519597848 Page 121
Section G — Technical Approach

F Threatened and Endangered Species
Species with the federal classification of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Officially Proposed
(P) for such listing are protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended,
and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. Federally protected species listed by the US Fish
and Wildlife — Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) website "as occurring in the
vicinity" of the Site are summarized in Table 8, along with potential habitat and a preliminary
biological conclusion for each species (IPaC 2022).
Furthermore, a search of the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) database was
conducted to identify areas within or around the Site that are already known to support rare
species. According to NHP files, no federally or state -protected species are known to occur within
the Site (Appendix D). Additionally, one NC DMS Easement is located northeast of the Site.
Table 8. Threatened and Endangered Species
Species
Habitat
Potential
Biological
Habitat at Site
Conclusion
inhabits streams and rivers, generally in gravel and coarse
sand substrates. This species requires clean, moderate
Atlantic pigtoe
flowing water with high dissolved oxygen content in creek
No
No Effect
(Fusconaia masoni)
and riverine environments. Because this species prefers
more pristine conditions, it typically occurs in headwaters
and rural watershed.
Carolina madtom
Inhabits riffles, runs, and pools in medium to large streams
(Noturus furiosus)
and rivers with moderate gradient in both the Piedmont and
No
No Effect
Coastal Plain physiographic regions.
Dwarf wedgemussel
inhabits streams ranging from <5 meters->100 meters in
(Alasmwidth;
is found in a variety of substrates including clay, sand,
No
No Effect
hetero on)
heterodon)
gravel and pebble, and sometimes in silt depositional areas
near banks; usually inhabits hydrologically stable areas.
dependent on clean, moderate flowing water with high
dissolved oxygen content in riverine or larger creek
Yellow Lance
environments. Historically, the most robust populations
No
No Effect
(Elliptio lanceolata)
existed in creeks and rivers with excellent water quality, and
no populations appear to be extant below pollution point
sources or areas with increased nutrient loading.
Harperella
occurs on rocky or gravel shoals and sandbars and along the
(Ptilimnium nodosum)
margins of clear, swift -flowing stream sections and the
No
No Effect
edges of intermittent pineland ponds in the coastal plain.
Neuse River Waterdog
Inhabits riffles, runs, and pools in medium to large streams
(Necturus lewisi)
and rivers with moderate gradient in both the Piedmont and
No
No Effect
Coastal Plain physiographic regions.
typically occurs in open woods, glades, cedar barrens,
roadsides, clearcuts, dry limestone bluffs, and power line
rights -of -way, usually on magnesium and calcium rich soils
associated with amphibolite, dolomite, limestone, gabbro,
Smooth coneflower
diabase, and marble. Optimal sites are characterized by
(Echinacea laevigata)
abundant sunlight and little competition in the herbaceous
Yes
Unresolved
layer. Natural fires, as well as large herbivores, historically
influenced the vegetation in this species' range. Many of the
herbs associated with Smooth coneflower are also sun -
loving species that depend on periodic disturbances to
reduce the shade and competition of woody plants.
Response for Request for Proposal 416-519597848 122
Section G — Technical Approach

G Site Constraints
The Site is well -suited for achieving the preferences as indicated in the RFP based upon its soil
types, landscape position, hydrology, extent of previous human alteration, lack of physical
constraints, and lacking riparian buffer. There are no known Site constraints that would impede
or adversely affect the restoration and enhancement of streams and wetlands within the
proposed easement area.
G3. Project Development
A Stream Restoration
Stream restoration efforts are designed to restore a stable stream that approximates
hydrodynamics, stream geometry, and local microtopography relative to reference conditions.
Restoration at the Site will be Priority I restoration; therefore, bankfull elevations will be raised to
meet the adjacent valley floodplain elevation.
Stream restoration is expected to entail 1) channel excavation, 2) channel stabilization, 3) channel
diversion, and 4) channel backfill.
In -stream Structures
The use of in -stream structures for grade control and habitat is essential for successful stream
restoration. In -stream structures may be placed in the channel to elevate local water surface
profiles in the channel, potentially flattening the water energy slope or gradient and directing
stream energy into the center of the channel and away from banks. The structures will consist of
log cross -vanes or log j-hook vanes; however, at the discretion of the Engineer, rock cross -vanes
or rock j-hook vanes may be substituted if dictated by field conditions. In addition, the structures
will be placed in relatively straight reaches to provide secondary (perpendicular) flow cells during
bankfull events.
Piped Channel Crossings
Landowner constraints will necessitate the installation of two piped channel crossings within
breaks in the easement to allow access to portions of the property isolated by stream restoration
activities (Figure 8, Appendix A). The crossings will be constructed with suitable sized pipes to
allow for stormwater flows, with adjacent floodplain pipes to allow for overflow discharge onto
the floodplain. Materials will include hydraulically stable rip -rap or suitable rock. The crossings
will be large enough to handle anticipated vehicular traffic. Approach grades to the crossings will
be at an approximate 10:1 slope and constructed of hard, scour -resistant crushed rock or other
permeable material, which is free of fines. Alternatively, bridges may be installed at the two
crossing locations and large enough to handle vehicular traffic.
Dam Removal
Stream restoration within a 6-acre pond will include 1) notching the dam to dewater sediments;
2) removal of the dam to the elevation of the adjacent floodplain; 3) excavating sediment that is
unsuitable for channel bank construction; 4) backfilling areas of sediment removed with soil
Response for Request for Proposal #16-519597848 P a �,, e 123
Section G — Technical Approach

suitable for channel construction (if necessary); 5) excavation of the design channel, 6)
stabilization of the channel with coir matting, seed, and mulch; and 7) installation of structures.
The dam will be notched in the prior to the construction date, and the pond bed will be seeded
with temporary grasses to stabilize sediments remaining in the pond. Care will be taken during
notching of the dam to drain the maximum amount of water, thereby allowing sediments to
dewater.
Once the pond has dewatered, and sediments have stabilized, the dam will be removed with
finished grades matching elevations of the valley and floodplain above and below the dam
location. Material removed from the dam, if suitable, may be used as channel backfill for reaches
of the stream to be abandoned during Priority I stream restoration efforts. If additional backfill
remains, the material will be stockpiled outside of the easement or spread evenly across the
adjacent property and seeded for stabilization. Erosion control measures, such as silt fence,
seeding, and mulching will be implemented on all stockpiled or spread soil materials.
A determination on sediment quantity and quality within the abandoned pond will be made
concerning the ability to work with/stabilize the sediment for stream construction. If sediment is
deemed unsuitable for channel construction, the sediment will be removed from the vicinity of
the design channel and spread along the pond's outer margins. Subsequently, suitable soil
material will be placed in the design channel's location such that design channel banks will be
stabilized without liquefaction. The removal of unsuitable material, installation of suitable
material, and excavation of the design channel may occur simultaneously to reduce impacts of
machinery on the pond bed.
Excavation of the design channel will occur in the pond bed similar to other stream restoration
reaches, with stabilization using approved erosion control materials and techniques.
B Stream Enhancement (Level 1)
Stream enhancement (level 1) will entail restoration of stream dimension, installation of easement
markers and cattle exclusion fence, the removal of livestock, and planting riparian buffers with
native forest vegetation to facilitate stream recovery and prevent further degradation of the
stream.
C Stream Enhancement (Level 11)
Stream enhancement (level 11) will entail installation of easement markers and cattle exclusion
fence, the removal of livestock, and planting riparian buffers with native forest vegetation to
facilitate stream recovery and prevent further degradation of the stream.
Response for Request for Proposal #16-519597848 Page 124
Section G — Technical Approach

Table 9. Individual Reach Descriptions and Functional Uplift
Individual
Functional Uplift Provided for
Reach
Mitigation Activities
Identified Stressors
UT-1
• Tie into elevation of upstream property, just above existing piped crossing.
• Non-functioning riparian
• Move the channel across the floodplain using Priority 1 stream restoration
buffer/wetland vegetation
on new location.
• Sediment
• Install grade control/habitat structures.
• Nutrients
• Backfill existing channel to reconnect overbank hydrology to rehydrate
• Fecal Coliform
drained hydric soils and enhance function of existing wetlands.
• Peak Flows
• Remove dam and restore stream through the lowest portion of the valley in
• Artificial Barriers
pond bed.
• Ditching/Draining
• Construct a piped crossingjust upstream of the confluence with UT 2.
• Habitat Fragmentation
• Remove livestock from the property.
• Limited Bedform Diversity
• Plant a vegetative buffer within the entire floodplain, 200 feet from TOB.
• Absence of Large Woody Debris
• Construct a piped crossing at the downstream extent, and tie into existing
downstream channel location and elevation.
LIT-2
• Conduct bank stabilization where necessary.
• Non-functioning riparian
• Remove livestock from the property.
buffer/wetland vegetation
• Treat invasive species.
• Sediment
• Plant a vegetative buffer within the entire floodplain, 200 feet from TOB.
• Nutrients
• Fecal Coliform
LIT-3
• Elevate streambed with grade control/habitat structures and contour
• Non-functioning riparian
channel banks to the appropriate dimensions.
buffer/wetland vegetation
• Reconnect overbank hydrology to rehydrate drained hydric soils and
• Sediment
improve hydrology of existing wetlands.
• Nutrients
• Move channel across floodplain using Priority 1 stream restoration through
• Fecal Coliform
the natural lowest valley position.
• Peak Flows
• Backfill existing channel to rehydrate drained hydric soils along new stream
• Ditching/Draining
alignment.
• Limited Bedform Diversity
• Tie the channel to UT 1 in a natural location.
• Absence of Large Woody Debris
• Remove livestock from the property.
• Treat invasive species.
• Plant a vegetative buffer within the entire floodplain, 200 feet from TOB.
D Wetland Reestablishment
Alternatives for wetland reestablishment are designed to restore a fully functioning wetland
system, which will provide surface water storage, nutrient cycling, removal of imported elements
and compounds, and will create a variety and abundance of wildlife habitat.
Portions of the Site underlain by hydric soils have been impacted by stream degradation, ditching
and dredging, vegetative clearing, livestock trampling, and other land disturbances associated
with land use management. Wetland reestablishment options should focus on the restoration of
vegetative communities, restoration of stream corridors and historic groundwater tables, and the
reestablishment of soil structure and microtopographic variations. In addition, the construction
of (or provisions for) surface water storage depressions (ephemeral pools) will also add an
important component to groundwater restoration activities. These activities will result in the
reestablishment of 3.33 acres of jurisdictional riparian riverine wetlands.
Response for Request for Proposal 916-519597848 Page 125
Section G — Technical Approach

E Wetland Enhancement
Wetland enhancement will focus on the removal of livestock and restoration of vegetative
communities resulting in the enhancement of 4.89 acres of jurisdictional riparian riverine
wetlands, a portion of which will be converted to riparian buffer credit as needed.
F Riparian Restoration
Restoration of floodplain forest allows for development and expansion of characteristic species
across the landscape. Ecotonal changes between community types contribute to diversity and
provide secondary benefits, such as enhanced feeding and nesting opportunities for mammals,
birds, amphibians, and other wildlife.
Revegetating floodplains will provide overall system stability, shade, and wildlife habitat. In
addition, viable riparian communities will improve system biogeochemical function by filtering
pollutants from overland and shallow subsurface flows and providing organic materials to
adjacent stream channels.
Variations in vegetative planting will occur based on topography and hydrologic condition of soils.
Vegetative species composition will be based on Reference Forest Ecosystems (RFEs), site -specific
features, and community descriptions from Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina (Schafale 1990). Community associations to be utilized include: 1) Piedmont/Low
Mountain Alluvial Forest, 2) Dry-Mesic Oak -Hickory Forest and 3) Streamside Assemblage.
Bare -root seedlings within the Piedmont Alluvial Forest and Dry-Mesic Oak -Hickory Forest will be
planted at a density of approximately 680 stems per acre on 8-foot centers, and in the stream -
side assemblage at a density of approximately 2720 stems per acre on 4-foot centers. Planting
will be performed between November 15 and March 15 to allow plants to stabilize during the
dormant period and set root during the spring season. Potential species planted within the Site
may include the following.
Piedmont Alluvial Forest
1. Sycamore (Platanus occidentalis)
2. American elm (Ulmus americana)
3. Hackberry (Celtis laevigata)
4. Green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica)
5. Shagbark hickory (Carya ovata)
6. Willow oak (Quercus phellos)
7. Shumard oak (Quercus shumardii)
8. River birch (Betula nigra)
9. Silky dogwood (Cornus amomum)
10. Pawpaw (Asimina triloba)
Response for Request for Proposal #16-519597848 Page 126
Section G — Technical Approach

Dry-Mesic Oak -Hickory Forest
1. White oak (Quercus alba)
2. Northern red oak (Quercus rubra)
3. Pignut hickory (Carya glabra)
4. Mockernut hickory (Carya alba/tomentosa)
5. Black gum (Nyssa sylvatica var. sylvatica)
6. Flowering dogwood (Corn us florida)
7. Eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana)
8. Persimmon (Diospyros virginiana)
9. Ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana)
Stream -Side Assemblage
1. Black willow (Salix nigra)
2. Tag alder (Alnus serrulata)
3. Buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis)
G Fence / Easement Marking
The entire easement area will be fenced with cattle exclusion fencing and appropriately marked
to identify the easement boundaries per United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and
Interagency Review Team (IRT) requirements.
H Nuisance Species Management
Beaver, privet, and other potential nuisance species will be monitored over the course of the 7-
year monitoring period. Appropriate actions to ameliorate any negative impacts regarding
vegetation development and/or water management will occur on an as -needed basis.
Response for Request for Proposal #16-519597848 Page 127
Section G — Technical Approach

G4. Proposed Mitigation
Mitigation outlined in this report is designed to provide the following, as calculated in accordance
with the requirements stipulated in RFP #16-519597848.
Table 10A. Mitigation Activities and Credit Potential Summary — Option 1
Stream Mitigation Type
Type
Linear Feet
Mitigation
Ratio
SMUs
Restoration
Priority 1
3126
1:1
3126
Enhancement
Level 1
255
1.5:1
170
Enhancement
Level 11
255
5:1
51
Enhancement
Level 11
177
10:1
18
Totals
3,813 linear feet
3,365 SMUs
Total Offered
2,500 SMUs
Wetland Mitigation Type
Type
Acreage
MitigationRatio
Riparian Riverine WMU
Reestablishment
Riparian Riverine
3.33
1:1
3.33
Enhancement
Riparian Riverine
4.07*
2:1
2.03*
Totals
7.40 acres
5.36 WMUs
Total Offered
5.0 WMUs
Riparian Buffer Mitigation
Type
Type
Square Footage
Mitigation
Ratio
Riparian Buffer Credits
Restoration
TOB — 100 ft
354,189
1:1
354,189.000
Restoration
101— 200 ft
306,583
3.03030:1
101,172.491
Enhancement via cattle
exclusion
TOB — 100 ft
45,187
2:1
22,593.50
Enhancement via cattle
exclusion
101— 200 ft
21,264
6.06061:1
3,508.558
Totals
727,223 ft2
481,463.549
Total Offered
475,000
Nutrient Offset Mitigation
Type
Type
Square Footage
Mitigation
Ratio
Nutrient Offset Credits
Phosphorous
101— 200 ft
135,000
NA
453.719
Nitrogen
101— 200 ft
NA
7,044.480
Total Offered
450 Ibs P,
6,986.739 Ibs N
*Approximately 0.82 acres of wetland enhancement area will be converted to riparian buffer and/or nutrient offset
(Figure 9, Appendix A).
Response for Request for Proposal 916-519597848 Page 128
Section G — Technical Approach

Table 1013. Mitigation Activities and Credit Potential Summary — Option 2
Stream Mitigation Type
Type
Linear Feet
Mitigation
Ratio
SMUs
Restoration
Priority 1
3126
1:1
3126
Enhancement
Level 1
255
1.5:1
170
Enhancement
Level 11
255
5:1
51
Enhancement
Level 11
177
10:1
18
Totals
3,813 linear feet
3,365 SMUs
Total Offered
3,365 SMUs
Wetland Mitigation Type
Type
Acreage
MitigationRatio
Riparian Riverine WMU
Reestablishment
Riparian Riverine
3.33
1:1
3.33
Enhancement
Riparian Riverine
4.07*
2:1
2.03*
Totals
7.40 acres
5.36 WMUs
Total Offered
5.0 WMUs
Riparian Buffer Mitigation
Type
Type
Square Footage
Mitigation
Ratio
Riparian Buffer Credits
Restoration
TOB — 100 ft
354,189
1:1
354,189.000
Restoration
101— 200 ft
306,583
3.03030:1
101,172.491
Enhancement via cattle
exclusion
TOB — 100 ft
45,187
2:1
22,593.50
Enhancement via cattle
exclusion
101— 200 ft
21,264
6.06061:1
3,508.558
Totals
727,223 ft2
481,463.549
Total Offered
475,000
Nutrient Offset Mitigation
Type
Type
Square Footage
Mitigation
Ratio
Nutrient Offset Credits
Phosphorous
101— 200 ft
135,000
NA
453.719
Nitrogen
101— 200 ft
NA
7,044.480
Total Offered
450 Ibs P,
6,986.739 Ibs N
*Approximately 0.82 acres of wetland enhancement area will be converted to riparian buffer and/or nutrient offset
(Figure 9, Appendix A).
Response for Request for Proposal 916-519597848 Page 129
Section G — Technical Approach

G5. Current Ownership and Long -Term Protection
The project area and proposed conservation easement contains portions of three parcels. CMS
has acquired a Conservation Easement Option Agreement from the owner on the project
parcels, and one adjacent parcel, which borders the proposed conservation easement
boundary. A Memorandum of Conservation Easement Option for each parcel has been
recorded at the Granville County Register of Deeds. Copies of the landowner agreements are
provided in Appendix E. The mitigation site will be protected in perpetuity via the recordation
of a conservation easement that will be conveyed to the State of North Carolina. Current
ownership and parcel information is as follows.
Table 11. Current Parcel Ownership
Current Owner
Parcel Number
Lynette Totten
192403340564, 192403145579, 192403135554, 192403123832
G6. Project Phasing
The following is a projected timeline of tasks to be completed as part of the scope of work for
this project:
Table 12. Proiect Timeline
Task
Project Milestone
Projected Completion'
1
Regulatory Site Visit & Environmental Screening
3 months from Contract award
2
Submit Recorded Conservation Easement on the Site by SPO
6 months from Contract award
3
Mitigation Plan (Final Draft) and Financial Assurances
12 months from Contract award
4
Mitigation Site Earthwork completed
18 months from Contract award
5
Mitigation Site Planting & Installation of Monitoring Devices
24 months from Contract award*
6
Baseline Monitoring Report (including As -built Drawings)
24 months from Contract award*
7
Submit Monitoring Report #1 to DMS
Dec. after implementation
8
Submit Monitoring Report #2 to DMS
Dec. - 2yrs after implementation
9
Submit Monitoring Report #3 to DMS
Dec. - 3yrs after implementation
10
Submit Monitoring Report #4 to DMS
Dec. - 4yrs after implementation
11
Submit Monitoring Report #5 to DMS
Dec. - 5yrs after implementation
12
Submit Monitoring Report #6 to DMS
Dec. - 6yrs after implementation
13
Submit Monitoring Report #7 to DMS & complete project
Close-out process (meets success criteria**)
Dec. - 7yrs after implementation and
Spring after submittal of Report #7
* Time frame is dependent upon seasonal conditions at completion of Site implementation.
** 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 DIMS.
G7. Success Criteria
Monitoring requirements and success criteria outlined in this plan follow the October 24, 2016
NC Interagency Review Team Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory
Mitigation Update. Monitoring data collected at the Site should include reference photos, plant
survival analysis, channel stability analysis, and biological data, if specifically required by permit
conditions.
Response for Request for Proposal #16-519597848 Page 130
Section G — Technical Approach

A Stream Success Criteria
• All streams must maintain an Ordinary High -Water Mark (OHWM), per RGL 05-
05.
• Continuous surface flow in each tributary should occur each year for at least 30
consecutive days.
• Bank height ratio (BHR) cannot exceed 1.2 at any measured cross-section over
the monitoring period.
• BHR at any measured riffle cross-section should not change by more than 10%
in any given year for a majority of a given reach over the monitoring period.
• Must document occurrence of at least 4 bankfull events in separate years during
the monitoring period.
B Wetland Success Criteria
• Saturation or inundation within the upper 12 inches of the soil surface for, at a
minimum, 12 percent of the growing season, during average climatic conditions
(for a Wehadkee soil per USACE 2016).
C Vegetation Success Criteria
• Within planted portions of the site, a minimum of 320 stems per acre must be
present at year 3; a minimum of 260 stems per acre must be present at year 5;
and a minimum of 210 stems per acre must be present at year 7.
• Trees must average 7 feet in height at year 5, and 10 feet in height at year 7.
• Planted and volunteer stems are counted, provided they are included in the
approved planting list for the site; natural recruits not on the planting list may
be considered by the IRT on a case -by -case basis.
• Any single species can only account for 50% of the required stems within any
vegetation plot.
Monitoring reports will be submitted annually to the DMS (by December 1 of each year). These
reports will include results of monitoring and photographic documentation of site conditions.
Monitoring reports will also identify any contingency measures that may need to be employed to
remedy any site deficiencies. For instance, invasive species management may be needed if exotic
species volunteer into the site. The seventh -year monitoring report will include a close-out report
that provides an assessment of the monitoring data collected from the entire monitoring period.
The project managers for Clearwater Mitigation Solutions and Axiom Environmental, Inc. will attend
the close-out meeting(s) and will present the final project to the DWR following all DMS closeout
procedures and templates.
Response for Request for Proposal #16-519597848 Page 131
Section G — Technical Approach

G8. Quality Control
Our quality approach is based on the Total Quality Management philosophy, which provides guidance
on producing quality deliverables. Quality assurance begins with a clear understanding of the goals
and objectives of the project prior to finalizing project scoping. Project team members are selected
based upon qualifications considered most suitable for accomplishing identified task items. The
Project Manager (PM) is responsible for establishing clear roles for team members, facilitating project
schedules, and ensuring quality. The project team members are involved in the development and
refinement of the final scope of work and project schedule.
Quality control will be ensured for editorial content, technical validity, and overall project
effectiveness. Prior to submittal of any documents, the identified quality assurance reviewer meets
with the PM and reviews the document's technical merits and accuracy. The assignment of a
Technical Reviewer is made by the PM. The Technical Reviewer is a senior level scientist whose
background and experience avoids and minimizes issues that may have been encountered on prior
projects. In addition, a peer reviewer will provide editorial comment to ensure correct spelling,
grammar, formatting, and consistency in text and graphics.
The project team has a strong record in providing deliverables in a timely fashion to our clients and
the regulatory community. Projects are typically executed within the stated budgetary constraints.
The assembled team has demonstrated ability to maintain efficiency while limiting cost overruns
and providing our client with a quality product. AXE has provided deliverables to NCDEQ (NC DMS)
on time and on -budget throughout the course of our work over the past 15 years.
Representative QA/QC measures to be employed are described further below.
1. The Project Manager (Mr. Kevin Yates) will be responsible for ensuring timely submittal
of project deliverables (e.g. mitigation plan, baseline monitoring document,
monitoring report, etc.) and invoicing that accurately reflects contract tasks and
contract percentages.
2. The Technical Reviewer (Mr. Grant Lewis) and the Peer Reviewer (Ms. Corri Faquin)
will be responsible for the technical and editorial content of the project deliverables
and will ensure that the deliverables are consistent with current NC DMS standards
and templates.
3. Task managers will be assigned for each of the major milestones of the project. Task
managers will provide a minimum of monthly progress reports to the Project Manager
and Technical Oversight Manager. The Project Manager will assign deadlines for all
tasks and sub -tasks.
4. The Project Manager and Technical Oversight Manager will work closely to ensure the
procurement of characteristic native hardwood species from a reputable plant nursery
with stock material suitable for the outer Piedmont. CMS and AXE will conduct a pre -
construction meeting with the contractor and planting foreman to review the plans
and to discuss specific construction and planting protocols. Professional scientists
from AXE and CMS will be on -site during planting and construction to ensure
Response for Request for Proposal #16-519597848 Page 132
Section G — Technical Approach

implementation consistent with the approved mitigation plan. Planting and
construction will be photo documented. The planting and construction manager will
work closely with the monitoring task manager for the installation of permanent
vegetation monitoring plots and the baseline monitoring.
5. Monitoring reports will be submitted annually to the NC DMS (by December 1 of each
year). These reports will include results of annual monitoring and photographic
documentation of site conditions. Monitoring reports will also identify any
contingency measures that may need to be employed to remedy any site deficiencies.
The seventh -year monitoring report will include a close-out report that provides an
assessment of the monitoring data collected from the entire monitoring period. The
project managers for Clearwater Mitigation Solutions and Axiom Environmental, Inc.
will attend the close-out meeting(s) and will present the final project to the DWR
following all DMS closeout procedures and templates.
Response for Request for Proposal #16-519597848 Page 133
Section G — Technical Approach

G9. References
Griffith, G.E., J.M. 0mernik, J.A. Comstock, M.P. Schafale, W.H. McNab, D.R. Lenat, T.F. MacPherson, J.B. Glover,
and V.B. Shelbourne. 2002. Ecoregions of North Carolina and South Carolina. U.S. Geological Survey,
Reston, Virginia.
Harman, W.A., G.D. Jennings, J.M. Patterson, D.R. Clinton, L.A. O'Hara, A. Jessup, R. Everhart. 1999. Bankfull
Hydraulic Geometry Relationships for North Carolina Streams. N.C. State University, Raleigh, North
Carolina.
Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC). 2022. United States Fish and Wildlife Service (online).
Available: https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/ (August 18, 2022).
Lee, M.T., R.K. Peet, S.D. Roberts, and T.R. Wentworth. 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation.
Version 4.2. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Ecosystem
Enhancement Program. Raleigh, North Carolina.
Leopold, L.B. 1994. A View of the River. Harvard University Press. Cambridge, MA. 298 pp.
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS). 2016. Quantifying Benefits to Water Quality from
Livestock Exclusion and Riparian Buffer Establishment for Stream Restoration. June 15, 2016. North
Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ). 2019. 2018 NC Category 5 Assessment "303(d)
List" Final (online). Available:
https://files. nc.gov/ncdeq/Water% 20Quality/Planning/TM DL/303d/2018/2018-NC-303-d--List-
Final.pdf (August 8, 2022).
North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR). 2013. River Basin Classification Schedule: Tar -Pamlico
(online). Available:
https://files. nc.gov/ncdeq/Water%20Quality/Planning/CSU/Surface%20Water/River%20Basi n%20Wa
ter%20Quality%20CIassifications%20as%20of%20Dec%209%202013/Tar-Pam Hydro order.pdf
(August 8, 2022).
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP). 2013. Local Watershed Plan for the Tar -Pamlico
River Basin: Fishing Creek (online). Available:
https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/Mitigation%20Services/Watershed Planning/Tar-
Pamlico River Basin/Fishing Creek/Fishing%20Creek%20Fact%20Sheet%20201609.pdf (August 5,
2022)
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP). 2018. Tar -Pamlico River Basin Restoration Priorities
(online). Available:
https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/Mitigation%20Services/Watershed Planning/Tar-
Pamlico River Basin/RBRP-Tar-Pamlico-072018-Amend.pdf (August 5, 2022).
North Carolina Stream Functional Assessment Team. (NC SFAT 2015). N.C. Stream Assessment Method (NC
SAM) User Manual. Version 2.1.
North Carolina Wetland Functional Assessment Team (NC WFAT) 2010. N.C. Wetland Assessment Method (NC
WAM) User Manual. Version 4.1.
Response for Request for Proposal 916-519597848 Page 134
Section G — Technical Approach

Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology (Publisher). Pagosa Springs, Colorado
Rosgen, D. 2009. A Practical Method of Computing Streambank Erosion Rate (online). Available: http://www.u-
s-c.org/htmI/documents/Erosionrates.pdf.
Rosgen, D. 2011. Estimating Sediment Loads using the Bank Assessment of Non -point source Consequences of
Sediment (BANCS). Watershed Assessment of River Stability and Sediment Supply (WARSSS).
Hagerstown, Maryland.
Schafale, M.P. 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, North
Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2016. Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory
Mitigation Update.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2021. Web Soil Survey (online). Available:
https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurveV.aspx (August 8, 2022).
Response for Request for Proposal 916-519597848 Page 135
Section G — Technical Approach

Appendix A. Figures
Figure 1. Site Location
Figure 2. Hydrologic Unit Map
Figure 3. Topography and Drainage Area
Figure 4. Existing Conditions
Figure 5. Soils
Figure 6. LiDAR
Figure 7. Historic Aerial Photographs
Figure 8. Proposed Conditions
Figure 9. Buffer and Nutrient Offset Mitigation
Response for Request for Proposal #16-519597848 A p p e n d i c e s

N
Axiom Environmenial, mc.
�''� \ : • M iew :'� jl•/ Prepared for:
Pat
_� ci N23 is I l��� r^ �I
? i i f�� y� �e�• 9Road_ � /��
���_' �1 1\ \ � � �as "� is t• � /� ,�Q�l` 11i-
CLEARWATER MITIGATION
?' PA
,\ S
Project:
Q • Q
TOTTEN
14 `° -`'��— �! MITIGATION SITE
� l ^ •a r:
t163 I <- / a u N Granville County, NC
220 —�f r ��. II _ ��•� Title:
100-
SITE
LOCATION
b D
Roan a: Drawn y:
% AE K
�+ a � r_ , •� � � .
•s
158 I Date:
AUG 2022
bra Y r?`•r ' ( G?'� c _� I_ A L-" Legend Scale:
- •Grarnriil \ 1:20,000
1�pgp481 , � Totten Easement = 28.0 ac
� ■ a.;. NCDOT Roads Project No..
r`• •� 19-008.04
oro Road + 11
FtoXb . ••. t, % ' Minute Topographic Map (Oxford, NC Quad)
��—_� '
W"i0 ord •..1 a ��a-�`�%
x° s s Directions to the Site from Raleigh:
FIGURE
.I C4wL� i g
' ` �� • y � _ - Head north on NC-50/US-15 N for 42 miles
Turn left onto W Industry Drive for 1.0 mile
• ey p �•, r 96' I u, Continue onto Oxford Loop Road for 3.0 miles
° . • y Roaa'' • L_� I �' !, Turn left onto College Street for 0.3 mile
15 �� �•_ 1; I �`/' '••„ - The site can be accessed 0.1 mile on the right
Site Latitude, Longitude 36.339506,-78.589690 (WGS84)
0 IN' ice
o I

thel 49
BI
N
R.—r'
L
MavoR -cir
s "\
GZ
s' Location of Totten Mitigation
`+ Site within USGS Hydrologic
Unit and Targeted Local
1 Watershed 03020101020010
/ 1 1 >
Ulu
;c iCl �,.♦♦.�r
I �f
''m
Y
y
fir•
'�
j
, - ,
r- . •
�°�
1
1
Legend
r Totten Easement = 28.0 ac
USGS Hydrologic Unit 03020101
li 48
14 Digit Hydrologic Unit Boundaries Aile
® Fishing Creek Local Watershed Plan Boundary ze' j
Targeted Local Watershed
World Basemap'
0 2.5 5 10 15 20 25
Miles
Axiom Envlronmeniai, mc.
Prepared for:
CLEARNNATER MITIGATION
1,
�. Till
Project:
TOTTEN
MITIGATION SITE
Granville County, NC
Title:
3 z,
HYDROLOGIC
UNIT MAP
A
Drawn by:
AEK
oro:
r
44 Date:
1 AUG 2022
Scale:
1:370,000
Project No.:
42 19-008.04
FIGURE
zFs _
Copyright:(,) 2018 Ga

futlam r:nvlron+nemai, mc.
Prepared for:
Legend
.��
O Totten Easement = 28.0 ac ! 1
WOW
O UT 1 Drainage Area - 0.38 sq mi (243.0 ac) ' `
UT 2 Drainage Area - 0.06 sq mi (37.6 ac) CLEARWATER MITIGATION
UT 3 Drainage Area - 0.07 sq mi (43.8 ac) �-
NI
Project:
TOTTEN
MITIGATION SITE
+
7", ,
• ixy r ' Granville County, NC
• Title:
4 _ �
I
TOPOGRAPHY
Y j.
AND
• • 0 DRAINAGE AREA
, � • r t
000'
Drawn by:
� � � AEK
} Date:
� AUG 2022
4 l
Scale:
1:7000
Project No.:
! 19-008.04
`` • �� FIGURE
5
0 500 1,000 2,000 Feet
-Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed

• _ NCWAM Form #2 - -'
A �
Score: MEDIUM
A Jaw
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
31
G � 5L.. Prepared for:
.�f� if �f 1��� � •'{i ti.:::,14' � ry �.f .. '��j AJ'1 •':��. L. ��
CLEARW�ATER MITIGATION
1Y 'rr` NCSAM Form #1
Score: LOW ' NCSAM Form #3 d yA
Score: LOW Y
Project:
s TOTTEN
MITIGATION SITE
100.0 - sib -
Cr 3ss Secti n 1 d:.-UT:..�� 2
n'3•
99.0 Score:36.5
'NCDWR.Form #1
'+
98.5 iry'y� . ,�.
DA = 0.05 sq � �
98.0 Abkf = 2.7 sq ft' a "•�
Wbkf=3.9ftq :-4y` Granville County, NC
97.5 Dbkf=0.7ft
Wbkf/Dbkf = 5.7 t
J
97.0 FPA = 6 ft Title:
ENT=1.5 ���NNN .•v. ,`t '� -
96.5 — Dmax = 1.0 ft
96.0 Abkf _ LBH=3.7ft NCSAM Form #2.
BHR = 3.7
95.5 G-type ., Score: LOW
EXISTING
CONDITIONS
0 2 4 6 S 10 12 14 16 1S 20 qF >' •,� - -=:.:�
r }y •• f� ..�'�}-3Y �.`il�,iq n ``•il�:�"".a : iv �=�1,..- .� ;:�-:.
` NCWAM Form #1
Score: LOW'
', s a �.• +n.i�� �.y�...:*: Y Drawn by:
'k
- tl.:•: Le end AEK
-d> J
.s
Totten Easement = 28.0 a
.r • T Y a`F` J, - c Date:
A — Existing Streams - 2340 ft AUG 2022
'•F° �..,.+ Existing Wetlands = 4.9 ac
%: ° • �:''' 0 g Scale:
" V -
.;y�:r•®Drained Hydric Soils - 2.3 ac
i& Existing Open Water = 5.7 ac Project No.:
$` E' I'�'�: Cross -Section 19-008.04
ay�Y1 •.
r �, �•:.� 3 ;;' �I NCSAM Form Locations
J t•:k Y �'*• If.,: fT.�+ t{ NCWAM Form Locations
NCDWR Form Locations FIGURE
,� � '��;:.`• __ °.�. ` .:�•':�'�� l �i '••�i� t:.;,:�. �{
r i ` ..,.•
�J�.n`;: � r' 2-foot Contours
e -y Granville County Parcel Boundaries
.s'
0 250 500 1,000
Feet

A.
EiTB
JAI
— 'VIA3.
C
......... ......... F
7.-
A
14
N
Axiom Eriviironimnlal, Inc.
Prepared for:
CLEARWATLR MITIGATION
aviiiios
Project:
TOTTEN
MITIGATION SITE
Granville County, NC
SOILS
Drawn by:
'AQQ' Ca AEK
Date:
Legend AUG 2022
E En, - Totten Easement = 28.0 ac Scale:
n Existing Streams = 2340 ft 1:3200
Existing Wetlands = 4.9 ac
Project No.:
®D
rained Hydric Soils = 2.3 ac 19-008.04
Existing Open Water = 5.7 ac
0 Soil Profile
Wetland/Hydric Soils GPS Points (3-4 soil borings at each) FIGURE
NRCS Soil Boundaries
a A
Granville County Parcel Boundaries
ON
0 250 500 1,000
AM
JJ�2 Feet
Zk ' � ..................

19� 3'
t
r '
7 x
ra r 4 �r r ii-. t
�A+' .:� 1i.F w _ '� i5':y,.E >r .�,'g� :t.n�'.. ^,fix •<' + °"�Y.�i y*c'• : #!� s�b�['�, 2��J !„y'A
"
c r JJ�-I"'j
0
AW
! r a
.. y.
Axiom Envifoomenial, Iric.
t
r .
^ P x� �4 -� } Prepared for:
— !a. ;,,
It
r /
. .� ;, '7 ;: y,.. J 4ex r� .• a; �.''; s.G 17 , ^ 1 ,, AM CLEARWATER MITIGATION
I T + o r,
f� p •'
R .. .
' 1
- ! Project:
Y
. -- • - ., `fir ,
,
F 4 .
9 TOTTEN
s i>n MITIGATION SITE
r
0
Legend
r
Totten Easement = 28.0 ace
-� Granville County NC
, v
a �e
r�
Title:
2017 "2010
. ? r
N
i
44
HISTORICAL
R k�x AERIAL
• � '� ` ��--zz IMAGERY
7.� � r7 . � ,,.; p. ,j ,.. ... ,. � :h,�J .. � ��t� eft ry.• — �� ,
tq
A
.iA,��.ihY"'"e •leyicyR .Se +' A't�' iF.�l , Dh Y �'3- ,*'.`5' '� Y��
c " ^
, b �
zi �7
Drawn by:
-,g!%
AE K
♦ ,::-�, , R Weys'
�Mt,ay� . R :,� • ' S. 4tr "} .`L'�, �� ''" ✓ f;j b+4.: ,p. 'F '1: "iF
a tla:ey c,., a s r µ Date:
M
' b"'. Af• .AAU
104 / ice..-. - •" '... #.. '" 44`Rwd'!i , :,Ji.:e ).. 'C; 1', '`.. +•.••.i�.$ r,*FMd.. �., d._t e"t° �''jM1FI k. i,
ik
Scale.
t
,
,
- 1:9000
Project No.,
., i ' "'"''",'x�'", -'� t � a•,. S' � z$it•€`a ...-_-::. t ', :.. ..,. .;,. 1 q�.;. rn t,1s ,� R ,R#�t � t'_,.<. d
19-008.04
_r�S`- -` -' G' t �, . ...• t - a ,.>< ' , n�° , ;.- ,x;� 1, 74
i
X
� • r'•� a at ', �" � � t ,.
7
FIGURE
r. , . 9.6 j' r• r.. - - }: `�.. I i - '# Z,� a:,ur b :,-=Y r
"
y; •
"
71,
P
•n
_w �4
,

1) Backfill existing channel to tie in
at upstream elevation
1) Remove livestock
Axiom Eriviironnxnlal, Inc.
2) Plant vegetative buffer to 200 ft
3) Treat invasives
Prepared for:
1) Initiate priority 1 stream restoration instream
up to floodplain elevation
natural valley position
rate drained hydric soils
2) Install grade control and habitat structures
grade -control structures
3) Backfill existing channel to elevate groundwater
4) Remove livestock
table and rehydrate drained hydric soils
5) Plant vegetative buffer to 200 ft
CLEARWATER MITIGATION
4 ) Remove livestock
6) Treat invasives
S U L U V L N
5) Plant vegetative buffer to 200 ft
Ir.
Initiate priority 1 stream restoration in
Project:
1) Install piped crossing
natural valley position
r
2) Install grade control and habitat structures
3) Backfill existing channel to elevate groundwater
r.
TOTTEN
table and rehydrate drained hydric soils
4) Remove livestock
A
MITIGATION
UT-2,
5) Plant vegetative buffer to 200 ft
SITE
ki
1) Repair trampled banks
2) Remove livestock
3) Plant vegetative buffer to 200 ft
Granville County, NC
. . . . . . . . ......
4) Treat invasivesew
Title:
. . . . . . . . . . .
v
CONDITIONS
. . . . . . .
. .......
'13
;N
Drawn by:
KRJ
1) Remove pond and damDate:
2) Initiate priority 1 stream restoration in the
AUG 2022
lowest portion of the valley
IN
3) Install grade control and habitat structures
Legend
Scale:
4) Remove livestock
[=Easement= 28.0 ac
1:3200
1;) Plant '. =tnti­ ') h,ff=, f� M) ft
—Stream Restoration = 3126 ft Project No.:
19-008.04
N Stream Enhancement (Level 1)= 255 ft
Stream Enhancement (Level 11 @ 5:1) = 255 ft
Stream Enhancement (Level 11 @ 10:1 177 ft
FIGURE
Wetland Reestablishment = 3.33 ac
Wetland Enhancement = 4.89 ac
=Granville County Parcel Boundaries
1) Install piped crossing
2) Tie-in to downstream elevation
00 Feet
777"

N `=fir _... ;t . • , � � :< _ ,
TOTAL AREA OF BUFFER
MITIGATION (TABM)
Mitigation Totals
Square Feet
Credits
Restoration:
660,772
455,361.491
Enhancement:
66,451
26,102.058
Preservation:
0
0.000
Total Riparian Buffer:
1 727,223
j 481,463.549
TOTAL NUTRIENT
OFFSET MITIGATION
Mitigation Totals
Square Feet
Credits
Nutrient
Offset:
Nitrogen:
135,000
7,044.480
kosphorus:
453.719
W
71.
i.i
Approximately 0.82 acres of wetland enhancement
area will be converted to riparian buffer and/or
nutrient offset mitigation area.
•y+e.. r
u 0 250 500
ti
KX
L--'2 L
x
t •S r
Jam
6.
imFeet'`...r:�
e- A. �
A
• 's
Axiom Eriwonmenlal, inc.
Prepared for:
Legend
Q Easement = 28.0 ac
Proposed Stream
NIK_ Buffer Restoration JOB - 100ft, can be converted to NO)
Buffer Restoration (101 - 200ft, can be converted to NO)
Buffer Restoration JOB - 100 ft, coverted from wetland enhancement)
Buffer Enhancement via cattle removal JOB - 100ft)
. Buffer Enhancement via cattle removal (101 - 200ft)
11 ®Wetland Mitigation Area
0 Granville County Parcel Boundaries
CLLAHXVrl•I L•'It '.S'11TLi::1'1'lUN
Project:
TOTTEN
MITIGATION
SITE
Granville County, NC
Title:
BUFFER AND
NUTRIENT OFFSET
MITIGATION
Drawn by:
KRJ
Date:
AUG 2022
Scale:
1:3200
Project No.:
19-008.04
FIGURE
9

Appendix B. Stream & Wetland Data
NCSAM Results
NCWAM Results
NCDWR Forms
Cross -sections
Sediment Analysis Data
Soil Boring Log
Response for Request for Proposal #16-519597848 A p p e n d i c e s

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT RESULTS
mpm
USACE AID #: NCDWR #:
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle,
and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same property, identify and
number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the INC SAM User Manual fordetailed descriptions
and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
INC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENTAREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECTISITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): Totten SAM1 2. Date of evaluation: 3/23/21
3. Applicantlowner name: Clearwater Mitigation 4. Assessor name/organization: Jernigan -Axiom
5. County: Granville 6. Nearest named water body
7. River basin: Tar -Pamlico on USGS 7.5-minute quad: Jordan Creek
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 36.344518,-78.587122
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): SAM1 UT-1 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 100
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 1 El Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 5 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? ❑Yes ❑No
14. Feature type: ®Perennial flow ❑Intermittent flow ❑Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. INC SAM Zone: ❑ Mountains (M) ❑ Piedmont (P) ❑ Inner Coastal Plain (1) ❑ Outer Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic ❑A` V J ❑B�
valley shape (skip for
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip ❑Size 1 (< 0.1 min) ®Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mil) ❑Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mil) ❑Size 4 (>: 5 mil)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ❑Yes El No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑Section 10 water ❑Classified Trout Waters ❑Water Supply Watershed (❑l ❑II ❑III ❑IV ❑V)
❑Essential Fish Habitat ❑Primary Nursery Area ❑ High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
❑Publicly owned property ®NCDWR Riparian buffer rule in effect ❑Nutrient Sensitive Waters
❑Anadromous fish ❑303(d) List ❑CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
❑Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
❑Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
1. Channel Water- assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
❑A Waterthroughout assessment reach.
❑B No flow, water in pools only.
❑C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction- assessment reach metric
❑A
At least 10 % of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates, debris jams,
beaver dams).
❑B
Not
3. Feature
Pattern- assessment reach metric
❑A
A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
❑B
Not
4. Feature
Longitudinal Profile- assessment reach metric
®A
Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down -cutting, existing damming, over
widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of these
disturbances).
❑B
Not
5. Signs of Active Instability - assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap).
❑A
< 10q of channel unstable
❑B
10 to 25% of channel unstable
❑C
> 25% of channel unstable
6. Stream
side Area l interaction - streamside area metric
Consider
for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB
RB
❑A
❑A Little orno evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
❑B
❑B Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down -cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited stream side area access, disruption of flood flows through stream side area, leaky
or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with fioodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
❑C
❑C Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no fioodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with fioodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision, disruption
off ood flows through streamside area] ortoo much fioodplain/intertidal zone access [examples: impoundments, intensive
mosquito ditching]) or fioodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a man-made feature on an
interstream divide
7. Water
Quality Stressors- assessment reachlintertidal zone metric
Check
all that apply.
❑A
Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
❑B
Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
❑C
Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
❑D
Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
❑E
Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in "Notes/Sketch"
section.
❑F
Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
❑G
Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
❑H
Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc)
❑1
Other. (explain in "Notes/Sketch" section)
❑J
Little to no stressors
8. Recent
Weather -watershed metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
For Size 1 or2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought, for Size 3 or4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a drought.
❑A
Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
❑B
Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
®C
No drought conditions
9. Large or Dangerous Stream - assessment reach metric
❑Yes ❑No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. Natural In -stream Habitat Types -assessment reach metric
10a.
®Yes ❑No Degraded in -stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in -stream hardening [for example, rip -rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b.
Check all that occur (occurs if> 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
❑A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses -
❑F 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats) a
❑G Submerged aquatic vegetation
❑B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent N
❑H Low -tide refugia (pools)
vegetation
❑I Sand bottom
❑C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees)
❑J 5% vertical bank along the marsh
❑D 5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots
❑K Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
❑E Little orno habitat
*****"********************* -* REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOTAPPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS******"***********"*********
11. Bedform and Substrate- assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11a. ❑Yes ❑No Is assessment reach in a natural sand -bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
❑A Riffle -run section (evaluate 11c)
❑B Pool -glide section (evaluate 11d)
❑C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11 c. In riffle sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach -whether or not submerged. Check
at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP)= absent, Rare
(R) = present but < 10q, Common (C) _ > 10-40 , Abundant (A) _ > 40-70%, Predominant (P) _ > 70%. Cumulative percentages
should not exceed 100q for each assessment reach.
IN R C A P
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Bedrock/saprolite
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Boulder (256 - 4096 rum)
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Cobble (64 - 256 rum)
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Gravel (2-64 mm)
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Sand (.062-2 mm)
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Detritus
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Artificial (rip -rap, concrete, etc.)
11d. ®Yes ❑No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)

12. Aquatic Life -assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
19. Buffer Width - streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. ®Yes ❑No Was an in -stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
Consider "vegetated buffer" and "wooded buffer" separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top of bank out
If No, select one ofthe following reasons and skip to Metric 13. ❑No Water ❑Other:
to the first break.
12b. ®Yes ❑No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check all that
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB RB
apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
NA NA ❑A ❑A >: 100 feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to "individuals' for Size 1 and 2 streams and "taxes for Size 3 and 4 streams.
❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B From 50 to < 100 feet wide
N ❑Adult frogs
❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C From 30 to < 50 feet wide
❑ ❑Aquatic reptiles
❑D ❑D ❑D ND From 10 to< 30 feet wide
❑ ❑Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
❑E ❑E NE ❑E < 10 feet wide orno trees
❑ ❑Beetles
El ❑Caddisfly larvae (T)
20. Buffer Structure - streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
❑ ❑Asian clam (Corbicula)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Vegetated" Buffer Width).
ElNCmstacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
LB RB
❑A ❑A Mature forest
El ❑Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
El ❑Dipterans
❑ B NB Non -mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
El ❑Mayfly larvae (E)
NC ❑C Herbaceous vegetation with or with out a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
❑Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
❑D ❑D Maintained shrubsEl
❑E ❑E Little or no vegetation
El ❑Midges/mosquito larvae
❑ ❑Mosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
21. Buffer Stressors - streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
❑ ❑Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but is
❑ ❑Other fish
within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
❑ ❑Salamanders/tadpoles
If none ofthe following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22: ❑
❑ ❑Snails
Abuts < 30 feet 3050 feet
❑ ❑Stonefly larvae (P)
LB RB LB RB LB RB
❑ ❑Tipulid larvae
❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A Row crops
❑ ❑Worms/leeches
❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B Maintained turf
❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C Pasture (no Iivestockycommercial horticulture
13. Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition -streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
MID ND ND ND ND ND Pasture (active livestock use)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and upland runoff.
LB RB
22. Stem Density - streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
❑A ❑A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority ofthe streamside area
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Wooded" Buffer Width).
❑B ❑B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
LB RB
NC NC Severe alteration to water storage capacity over majority of the streamside area (examples: ditches, fill, soil compaction,
❑A ❑A Medium to high stem density
livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
❑B NB Low stem density
NC ❑C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
14. Streamside Area Water Storage - streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer- streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
LB RB
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10 feet wide.
❑A ❑A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water >: 6 inches deep
LB RB
❑B ❑B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
NA NA The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
NC NC Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
❑B ❑B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
❑C ❑C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
15. Wetland Presence- streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside ofthe streamside area or within the normal
24. Vegetative Composition - streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes to
LB RB
assessment reach habitat.
NY NY Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
LB RB
❑N ❑N
❑A ❑A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native species,
16. Baseflow Contributors - assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
❑B ❑B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
9
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear -cutting or clearing or
NA Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
NB Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins ordry detention basins)
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
❑C Obstruction passing flow during low -flow periods within the assessment area (beaver dam, leaky dam, bottom -release dam, weir)
NC NC Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
ND Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron in water indicates seepage)
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
NE Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
stands of non -characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
❑F None of the above
25. Conductivity - assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
17. Baseflow Detractors - assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
25a. ❑Yes NNo Was conductivity measurement recorded?
Check all that apply.
If No, select one ofthe following reasons. ❑No Water ❑Other:
❑A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
❑B Obstruction not passing flow during low -flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens percentimeter).
❑C Urban stream (>- 24% impervious surface forwatershed)
❑A < 46 ❑B 46 to < 67 ❑C 67 to < 79 ❑D 79 to < 230 ❑E >:230
❑D Evidence that the streamside area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
❑E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
OF None ofthe above
Notes/Sketch:
18. Shading - assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider "leaf -on" condition.
❑A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
❑B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
NC Stream shading is gone or largely absent

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name Totten SAM1 Date of Assessment 3/23/21
Stream Category Pat Assessor Name/Organization Jernigan -Axiom
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
YES
Additional stream informationtsupplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NO
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
Perennial
USACE/ NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary
All Streams Intermittent
(1) Hydrology
LOW
(2) Baseflow
MEDIUM
(2) Flood Flow
LOW
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
LOW
(4) Floodplain Access
LOW
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
LOW
(4) Microtopography
LOW
(3) Stream Stability
LOW
(4) Channel Stability
HIGH
(4) Sediment Transport
LOW
(4) Stream Geomorphology
LOW
(2)Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(1) Water Quality
LOW
(2) Baseflow
MEDIUM
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
LOW
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
LOW
(3) Thermoregulation
LOW
(2) Indicators of Stressors
YES
(2)Aquatic Life Tolerance
LOW
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
NA
(1) Habitat
LOW
(2) In -stream Habitat
LOW
(3) Baseflow
MEDIUM
(3) Substrate
LOW
(3) Stream Stability
MEDIUM
(3) In -stream Habitat
MEDIUM
(2) Stream -side Habitat
LOW
(3) Stream -side Habitat
(3) Thermoregulation
(2)Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
(3) Flow Restriction
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology!III
(3)Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
(2) Intertidal Zone
Overall
LOW
NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT RESULTS
mucullipaill-
USACE AID #: NCDWR #:
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle,
and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same property, identify and
number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual fordetailed descriptions
and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENTAREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): Totten SAM2 2. Date of evaluation: 3/23/21
3. Applicantlowner name: Clearwater Mitigation 4. Assessor name/organization: Jernigan -Axiom
5. County: Granville 6. Nearest named water body
7. River basin: Tar -Pamlico on USGS 7.5-minute quad: Jordan Creek
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 36.343276,-78.586081
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): SAM2 UT-2 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 300
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): .5 ❑Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 3-5 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? ❑Yes ❑No
14. Feature type: ®Perennial flow ❑Intermittent flow ❑Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: ❑ Mountains (M) ® Piedmont (P) ❑ Inner Coastal Plain (I) ❑ Outer Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic ®A` V J ❑B�
valley shape (skip for
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip ❑Size 1 (< 0.1 min) ®Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mil) ❑Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mil) ❑Size 4 (>: 5 mil)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes ❑No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑Section 10 water ❑Classified Trout Waters ❑Water Supply Watershed (❑I ❑II ❑III ❑IV ❑V)
❑Essential Fish Habitat ❑Primary Nursery Area ❑ High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
❑Publicly owned property ®NCDWR Riparian buffer rule in effect ❑Nutrient Sensitive Waters
❑Anadromous fish ❑303(d) List ❑CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
❑Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
❑Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
1. Channel Water- assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
®A Waterthmughout assessment reach.
❑B No flow, water in pools only.
❑C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction- assessment reach metric
❑A
At least 10q of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates, debris jams,
beaver dams).
®B
Not
3. Feature
Pattern- assessment reach metric
®A
A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
❑B
Not
4. Feature
Longitudinal Profile- assessment reach metric
®A
Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down -cutting, existing damming, over
widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of these
disturbances).
❑B
Not
5. Signs of
Active Instability - assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap).
❑A
< 10q of channel unstable
®B
10 to 25 % of channel unstable
❑C
> 25% of channel unstable

Stream side Area Interaction -streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
❑A ❑A Little orno evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
❑B ❑B Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down -cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flowsthmugh streamside area, leaky
or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
❑C ❑C Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision, disruption
offlood flows through streamside area] ortoo much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples: impoundments, intensive
mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a man-made feature on an
interstream divide
Water Quality Stressors - assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
❑A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
❑B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
❑C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
❑D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
❑E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in "Notes/Sketch"
section.
❑F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
❑G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
❑H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc)
❑1 Other: (explain in "Notes/Sketch" section)
❑J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather -watershed metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
For Size 1 or streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a drought.
❑A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
❑B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
❑C No drought conditions
9. Large or Dangerous Stream - assessment reach metric
❑Yes ❑No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. Natural In -stream Habitat Types-assessmentreach metric
10a. ®Yes ❑No Degraded in -stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in -stream hardening [for example, rip -rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if> 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
❑A Multiple aquatic macmphytes and aquatic mosses - ❑F 5 % oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats) a ❑G Submerged aquatic vegetation
❑B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent N ❑H Low -tide refugia (pools)
vegetation 2 ❑I Sand bottom
❑C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees) ❑J 5% vertical bank along the marsh
❑D 5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots ❑K Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
❑E Little or no habitat
*************************** -* REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS******"***********"*********
11. Bedform and Substrate- assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11a. ❑Yes ❑No Is assessment reach in a natural sand -bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
❑A Riffle -run section (evaluate 11c)
❑B Pool -glide section (evaluate 11d)
❑C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11c. In riffle sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach -whether or not submerged. Check
at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP)= absent, Rare
(R) = present but < 10q, Common (C) _ > 10-40%, Abundant (A) _ > 40-70q, Predominant (P) _ > 70%. Cumulative percentages
should not exceed 100q for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Bedrock/saprolite
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Boulder (256 - 4096 mm)
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Cobble (64 - 256 rum)
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Gravel (2-64 mm)
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Sand (.062-2 mm)
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ SilVclay (< 0.062 mm)
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Detritus
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Artificial (rip -rap, concrete, etc.)
11d. ❑Yes ❑No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
12. Aquatic Life -assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. Eyes ❑No Was an in -stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one ofthe following reasons and skip to Metric 13. ❑No Water ❑Other:
12b. ❑Yes ❑No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check all that
apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to "individuals' for Size 1 and 2 streams and "taxes for Size 3 and 4 streams.
❑ ❑Adult frogs
❑ ❑Aquatic reptiles
❑ ❑Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
❑ ❑Beetles
❑ ❑Caddisfly larvae (T)
❑ ❑Asian clam (Corbicula)
❑ ❑Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
❑ ❑Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
❑ ❑Dipterans
❑ ❑Mayfly larvae (E)
❑ ❑Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
❑ ❑Midges/mosquito larvae
❑ ❑Mosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
❑ ❑Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula)
❑ ❑Otherfish
❑ ❑Salamanders/tadpoles
❑ ❑Snails
❑ ❑Stonefly larvae (P)
❑ ❑Tipulid larvae
❑ ❑Worms/leeches
13. Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition - streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Considerfor the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacitywith regard to both overbank flow and upland runoff.
LB RB
❑A ❑A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority ofthe streamside area
❑B ❑B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
❑C ❑C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over majority of the streamside area (examples: ditches, fill, soil compaction,
livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14. Streamside Area Water Storage - streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
❑A ❑A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water >: 6 inches deep
❑B ❑B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
❑C ❑C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15. Wetland Presence - streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside ofthe streamside area or within the normal
wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
❑Y ❑Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
❑N ❑N
16. Baseflow Contributors - assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
❑A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
❑B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
❑C Obstruction passing flow during low -flow periods within the assessment area (beaver dam, leaky dam, bottom -release dam, weir)
❑D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron in water indicates seepage)
❑E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
❑F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors - assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
❑A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
❑B Obstruction not passing flow during low -flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
❑C Urban stream (>- 24q impervious surface forwatershed)
❑D Evidence that the streamside area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
❑E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
❑F None ofthe above
18. Shading - assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider "leaf -on" condition.
❑A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
❑B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
❑C Stream shading is gone or largely absent

19. Buffer Width — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Consider "vegetated buffer" and "wooded buffer" separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top of bank out
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB IRS LB IRS
Stream Site Name Totten SAM2 Date of Assessment 3/23/21
®A ®A ❑A ❑A >: 100 feet wide orextends to the edge of the watershed
Stream Category Pat Assessor Name/Organization Jernigan -Axiom
❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B From 50 to< 100 feet wide
❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C From 30 to < 50 feet wide
❑D ❑D ®D ®D From 10 to < 30 feet wide
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
NO
❑E ❑E ❑E ❑E < 10 feet wide orno trees
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
YES
Additional stream informationtsupplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NO
20. Buffer Structure —streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
Perennial
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Vegetated" Buffer Width).
LB IRS
❑A ❑A Mature forest
USACE/ NCDWR
❑B ❑B Non -mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
Function Class Rating Summary
All Streams Intermittent
®C ®C Herbaceous vegetation with orwithout a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
(1) Hydrology
LOW
❑D ❑D Maintained shrubs
❑E ❑E Little or no vegetation
(2)Baseflow
MEDIUM
21. Buffer Stressors — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
(2) Flood Flow
LOW
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but is
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
MEDIUM
within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
(4) Floodplain Access
HIGH
If none ofthe following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22: ❑
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
LOW
Abuts < 30 feet 3050 feet
LB IRS LB IRS LB IRS
(4) Microtopography
LOW
❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A Row crops
(3) Stream Stability
LOW
❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B Maintained turf
(4) Channel Stability
MEDIUM
❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C Pasture (no livestockycommercial horticulture
(4) Sediment Transport
LOW
MID MID MID ®D MID ND Pasture (active livestock use)
(4) Stream Geomorphology
22. Stem Density —streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Wooded" Buffer Width).
LB RS
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
❑A ❑A Medium to high stem density
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
tNA
®B ®B Low stem density❑C
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
❑C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
(1) Water Quality
LOW
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10 feet wide.
LB IRS
(2) Baseflow
MEDIUM
®A ®A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
LOW
❑B ❑B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
LOW
❑C ❑C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
(3) Thermoregulation
MEDIUM
24. Vegetative Composition — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
(2) Indicators of Stressors
YES
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes to
assessment reach habitat.
(2)Aquatic Life Tolerance
LOW
LB IRS
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
NA
❑A ❑A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native species,
(1) Habitat
LOW
with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
❑B ❑B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
(2) In -stream Habitat
LOW
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear -cutting or clearing or
(3) Baseflow
MEDIUM
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
(3) Substrate
LOW
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
Stream Stability
MEDIUM
®C ®C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
(3)
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
(3) In -stream Habitat
LOW
stands of non -characteristic species orcommunities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
(2) Stream -side Habitat
LOW
25. Conductivity —assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
(3) Stream -side Habitat
LOW
25a. ❑Yes ®No Was conductivity measurement recorded?
(3) Thermoregulation
If No, select one ofthe following reasons. ❑No Water ❑Other:
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
(3) Flow Restriction
❑A < 46 ❑B 46to<67 ❑C 67 to< 79 ❑D 79to<230 ❑E >: 230(3)
Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
]NA
Notes/Sketch:
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(3)Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
(2) Intertidal Zone
Overall

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT RESULTS
mpm
USACE AID #: NCDWR #:
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle,
and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same property, identify and
number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the INC SAM User Manual fordetailed descriptions
and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
INC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENTAREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECTISITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): Totten SAM3 2. Date of evaluation: 3/23/21
3. Applicantlowner name: Clearwater Mitigation 4. Assessor name/organization: Jernigan -Axiom
5. County: Granville 6. Nearest named water body
7. River basin: Tar -Pamlico on USGS 7.5-minute quad: Jordan Creek
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 36.344952,-78.586100
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): SAM3 UT-3 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 100
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 3 El Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 5 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? ❑Yes ❑No
14. Feature type: ®Perennial flow ❑Intermittent flow ❑Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. INC SAM Zone: ❑ Mountains (M) ❑ Piedmont (P) ❑ Inner Coastal Plain (1) ❑ Outer Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic ❑A` V J ❑B�
valley shape (skip for
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip ®Size 1 (< 0.1 min) ❑Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mil) ❑Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mil) ❑Size 4 (>: 5 mil)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ❑Yes El No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑Section 10 water ❑Classified Trout Waters ❑Water Supply Watershed (❑l ❑II ❑III ❑IV ❑V)
❑Essential Fish Habitat ❑Primary Nursery Area ❑ High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
❑Publicly owned property ®NCDWR Riparian buffer rule in effect ❑Nutrient Sensitive Waters
❑Anadromous fish ❑303(d) List ❑CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
❑Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
❑Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
1. Channel Water- assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
❑A Waterthroughout assessment reach.
❑B No flow, water in pools only.
❑C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction- assessment reach metric
❑A
At least 10 % of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates, debris jams,
beaver dams).
❑B
Not
3. Feature
Pattern- assessment reach metric
❑A
A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
❑B
Not
4. Feature
Longitudinal Profile- assessment reach metric
®A
Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down -cutting, existing damming, over
widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of these
disturbances).
❑B
Not
5. Signs of Active Instability - assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap).
❑A
< 10q of channel unstable
❑B
10 to 25% of channel unstable
❑C
> 25% of channel unstable
6. St ream
side Area l nteraction- strea m side area m etric
Consider
for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB
RB
❑A
❑A Little orno evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
❑B
❑B Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down -cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited stream sida area access, disruption of flood flows through stream sida area, leaky
or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with fioodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
❑C
❑C Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no fioodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with fioodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision, disruption
off ood flows through streamside area] ortoo much fioodplain/intertidal zone access [examples: impoundments, intensive
mosquito ditching]) or fioodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a man-made feature on an
interstream divide
7. Water
Quality Stressors- assessment reachlintertidal zone metric
Check
all that apply.
❑A
Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
❑B
Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
❑C
Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
❑D
Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
❑E
Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in "Notes/Sketch"
section.
❑F
Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
❑G
Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
❑H
Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc)
❑1
Other. (explain in "Notes/Sketch" section)
❑J
Little to no stressors
8. Recent
Weather -watershed metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
For Size 1 or2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought, for Size 3 or4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a drought.
❑A
Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
❑B
Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
®C
No drought conditions
9. Large or Dangerous Stream - assessment reach metric
❑Yes ❑No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. Natural In -stream Habitat Types -assessment reach metric
10a.
®Yes ❑No Degraded in -stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in -stream hardening [for example, rip -rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b.
Check all that occur (occurs if> 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
❑A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses -
❑F 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats) a
❑G Submerged aquatic vegetation
❑B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent N
❑H Low -tide refugia (pools)
vegetation
❑I Sand bottom
❑C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees)
❑J 5% vertical bank along the marsh
❑D 5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots
❑K Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
❑E Little orno habitat
*****"********************* -* REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOTAPPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS******"***********"*********
11. Bedform and Substrate- assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11a. ❑Yes ❑No Is assessment reach in a natural sand -bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
❑A Riffle -run section (evaluate 11c)
❑B Pool -glide section (evaluate 11d)
❑C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11 c. In riffle sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach -whether or not submerged. Check
at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP)= absent, Rare
(R) = present but < 10q, Common (C) _ > 10-40 , Abundant (A) _ > 40-70%, Predominant (P) _ > 70%. Cumulative percentages
should not exceed 100q for each assessment reach.
IN R C A P
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Bedrock/saprolite
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Boulder (256 - 4096 rum)
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Cobble (64 - 256 rum)
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Gravel (2-64 mm)
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Sand (.062-2 mm)
❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Detritus
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Artificial (rip -rap, concrete, etc.)
11d. ®Yes ❑No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)

12. Aquatic Life -assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
19. Buffer Width - streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. ®Yes ❑No Was an in -stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
Consider "vegetated buffer" and "wooded buffer" separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top of bank out
If No, select one ofthe following reasons and skip to Metric 13. ❑No Water ❑Other:
to the first break.
12b. ®Yes ❑No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check all that
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB RB
apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
NA NA ❑A ❑A >: 100 feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to "individuals' for Size 1 and 2 streams and "taxes for Size 3 and 4 streams.
❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B From 50 to < 100 feet wide
❑ ❑Adult frogs
❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C From 30 to < 50 feet wide
❑ ❑Aquatic reptiles
❑D ❑D ND ND From 10 to< 30 feet wide
❑ ❑Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
❑E ❑E ❑E ❑E < 10 feet wide orno trees
❑ ❑Beetles
El ❑Caddisfly larvae (T)
20. Buffer Structure - streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
❑ ❑Asian clam (Corbicula)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Vegetated" Buffer Width).
ElNCmstacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
LB RB
❑A ❑A Mature forest
El ❑Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
El ❑Dipterans
❑ B NB Non -mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
El ❑Mayfly larvae (E)
NC ❑C Herbaceous vegetation with or with out a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
❑Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
❑D ❑D Maintained shrubsEl
❑E ❑E Little or no vegetation
El ❑Midges/mosquito larvae
❑ ❑Mosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
21. Buffer Stressors - streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
❑ ❑Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but is
❑ ❑Other fish
within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
❑ ❑Salamanders/tadpoles
If none ofthe following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22: ❑
❑ ❑Snails
Abuts < 30 feet 3050 feet
❑ ❑Stonefly larvae (P)
LB RB LB RB LB RB
❑ ❑Tipulid larvae
❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A Row crops
❑ ❑Worms/leeches
❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B Maintained turf
❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C Pasture (no Iivestockycommercial horticulture
13. Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition -streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
ND ND ND ND ND Pasture (active livestock use)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and upland runoff.ND
LB RB
22. Stem Density - streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
❑A ❑A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority ofthe streamside area
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Wooded" Buffer Width).
❑B ❑B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
LB RB
NC NC Severe alteration to water storage capacity over majority of the streamside area (examples: ditches, fill, soil compaction,
❑A ❑A Medium to high stem density
livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
NB NB Low stem density
❑C ❑C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
14. Streamside Area Water Storage - streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer- streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
LB RB
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10 feet wide.
❑A ❑A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water >: 6 inches deep
LB RB
❑B ❑B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
NA NA The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
NC NC Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
❑B ❑B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
❑C ❑C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
15. Wetland Presence- streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside ofthe streamside area or within the normal
24. Vegetative Composition - streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes to
LB RB
assessment reach habitat.
❑Y ❑Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
LB RB
ON ON
❑A ❑A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native species,
16. Baseflow Contributors - assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
❑B ❑B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
9
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear -cutting or clearing or
NA Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
❑B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins ordry detention basins)
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
❑C Obstruction passing flow during low -flow periods within the assessment area (beaver dam, leaky dam, bottom -release dam, weir)
NC NC Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
ND Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron in water indicates seepage)
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
NE Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
stands of non -characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
❑F None of the above
25. Conductivity - assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
17. Baseflow Detractors - assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
25a. ❑Yes NNo Was conductivity measurement recorded?
Check all that apply.
If No, select one ofthe following reasons. ❑No Water ❑Other:
❑A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
❑B Obstruction not passing flow during low -flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens percentimeter).
❑C Urban stream (>- 24% impervious surface forwatershed)
❑A < 46 ❑B 46 to < 67 ❑C 67 to < 79 ❑D 79 to < 230 ❑E >:230
❑D Evidence that the streamside area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
❑E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
OF None ofthe above
Notes/Sketch:
18. Shading - assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider "leaf -on" condition.
❑A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
NB Degraded (example: scattered trees)
❑C Stream shading is gone or largely absent

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name Totten SAM3 Date of Assessment 3/23/21
Stream Category Pal Assessor Name/Organization Jernigan -Axiom
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) YES
Additional stream informationtsupplementary measurements included (Y/N) NO
INC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream) Perennial
USACE/ NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary
All Streams Intermittent
(1) Hydrology
LOW
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
(2) Flood Flow
LOW
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
LOW
(4) Floodplain Access
LOW
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
LOW
(4) Microtopography
LOW
(3) Stream Stability
LOW
(4) Channel Stability
(4) Sediment Transport
(4) Stream Geomorphology
(2)Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
iia
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(1) Water Quality
LOW
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
LOW
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
LOW
(3) Thermoregulation
MEDIUM
(2) Indicators of Stressors
YES
(2)Aquatic Life Tolerance
LOW
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
NA
(1) Habitat
LOW
(2) In -stream Habitat
LOW
(3) Baseflow
HIGH
(3) Substrate
LOW
(3) Stream Stability
MEDIUM
(3) In -stream Habitat
MEDIUM
(2) Stream -side Habitat
LOW
(3) Stream -side Habitat
LOW
(3) Thermoregulation
MEDIUM
(2)Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
(3) Flow Restriction
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology(3)Tidal
MNA
Marsh In -stream Habitat
(2) Intertidal Zone
Overall
NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT RESULTS
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
USACE AID # NCDWR#
Project Name Totten Date of Evaluation 3/23/21
Applicant/Owner Name Clearwater Mitgation Wetland Site Name WAM1
Wetland Type Bottomland Hardwood Forest Assessor Name/Organization Jernigan -Axiom
Level III Ecoregion Piedmont Nearest Named Water Body Jordan Creek
River Basin Tar -Pamlico USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit 03020101
County Granville NCDWR Region Raleigh
❑ Yes R No Precipitation within 481 Latitude/Longitude deci-de rees 36.342251,-78.587128
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on the last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if appropriate, in
recent past (for instance, within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub -surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby septic
tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear -cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? R Yes ❑ No
Regulatory Considerations -Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes ❑No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑ Anadmmous fish
❑ Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
R NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect
❑ Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
❑ Publicly owned property
❑ N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
❑ Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HOW, ORW, or Trout
❑ Designated NCNHP reference community
❑ Abuts a 303(d}listed stream or a tributary to a 303(dpisted stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, if any? (check all that apply)
❑ Blackwater
® Brownwater
❑ Tidal (iftidal, check one of the following boxes) ❑ Lunar ❑ Wind ❑ Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? ❑ Yes R No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? ❑ Yes R No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? ❑ Yes R No
Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition— assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure (VS) in the
assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable, then rate the assessment
area based on evidence an effect.
GS VS
❑A ❑A Not severely altered
NB RB Severely altered over a majority ofthe assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire -plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing, less
diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
Surface and Sub -Surface Storage Capacity and Duration — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub -surface storage capacity and duration (Sub).
Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. A ditch 2- 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only, while a ditch > 1 foot
deep is expected to affect both surface and sub -surface water. Considertidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf Sub
❑A ❑A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
❑B ❑B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
RC RC Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation change)
(examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
3. Water Storage/Surface Relief— assessment arealwetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box in each column. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (Wf).
AA Wf
3a. ❑A ❑A Majority ofwetland with depressions able to pond wai 1 deep
❑B ❑B Majority ofwetland with depressions able to pond water inches to 1 foot deep
❑C ❑C Majority ofwetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
RD RD Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
3b. ❑A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
❑B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
RC Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot

4. Soil Texture/Structure -assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape feature.
Make soil observations within the top 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for regional
indicators.
4a. ❑A Sandy soil
®B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
❑C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
❑D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
❑E Histosol orhistic epipedon
4b. ®A Soil ribbon < 1 inch
❑B Soil ribbon >_ 1 inch
4c. ®A No peat or muck presence
❑B A peat or muck presence
Discharge into Wetland -opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub -surface pollutants or discharges (Sub). Examples
of sub -surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf Sub
❑A ❑A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
❑B ®B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
®C ❑C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
6. Land Use- opportunity metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
Check all that apply (at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources draining
to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (5M),
and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M).
WS 5M 2M
❑A ❑A ❑A > 10q impervious surfaces
❑B ❑B ❑B Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source ofpollutants
®C ®C ®C >_ 20q coverage of pasture
❑D ❑D ❑D >_ 20q coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
❑E ❑E ❑E >_20q coverage of maintained grass/herb
❑F ❑F ❑F >_20q coverage of clear-cut land
❑G ❑G ❑G Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from little or no disturbance in
the watershed or hydrologic alterations that prevent drainage and/or overbank flow from affecting the
assessment area.
Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer- assessment arealwetland complex condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
®Yes ❑No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8.
Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland.
Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.
7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is wetland? (Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the .water body. Make
buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland. Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.)
®A >: 50 feet
❑B From 30 to < 50 feet
❑C From 15 to < 30 feet
❑D From 5 to < 15 feet
❑E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c. Tributarywidth. Ifthe tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channel s/braids for a total width.
❑<- 15-feet wide ®> 15-feet wide ❑ Other open water (no tributary present)
7d. Do mots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water.?
®Yes ❑No
7e. Is stream or other open water sheltered or exposed?
®Sheltered - adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
❑Exposed - adjacent open water with width >: 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
Wetland Width at the Assessment Area -wetland type/wetland complex condition metric (evaluate WTfor all marshes and
Estuarine Woody Wetland only; evaluate WC for Bottomland Hardwood Forest, Headwater Forest, and Riverine Swamp Forest
only)
Check a box in each column for riverine wetlands only. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area (Wf) and
the wetland complex at the assessment area (WC). See User Manual for Wf and WC boundaries.
Wf WC
❑A ❑A >: 100 feet
❑B ❑B From 80 to < 100 feet
®C ®C From 50 to < 80 feet
❑D ❑D From 40 to < 50 feet
❑E ❑E From 30 to < 40 feet
❑F ❑F From 15 to < 30 feet
❑G ❑G From 5 to < 15 feet
❑H ❑H <5feet
9. Inundation Duration- assessment area condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
❑A Evidence of short -duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
®B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
❑C Evidence of long -duration inundation or very long -duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition- assessment area condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands and all marshes)
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
®A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
❑B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
❑C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size - wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (Wf), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable, see User
Manual). Seethe User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select "K" for the FW column.
Wf
WC
FW (if applicable)
❑A
❑A
❑A
>: 500 acres
❑B
❑B
❑B
From 100 to < 500 acres
❑C
❑C
❑C
From 50 to < 100 acres
❑D
❑D
❑D
From 25 to < 50 acres
❑E
❑E
❑E
From 10 to< 25 acres
❑F
❑F
❑F
From 5 to < 10 acres
❑G
❑G
❑G
From 1 to < 5 acres
❑H
❑H
❑H
From 0.5 to< l acre
❑I
❑I
❑I
From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
❑J
❑J
❑J
From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
®K
®K
®K
< 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness -wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
❑A Pocosin is the full extent (>: 90q) of its natural landscape size.
❑B Pocosin type is < 90q of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas - landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contiguous
naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four4ane roads, regulady maintained utility line
corridors the width of a four4ane road or wider, urban landscapes, maintained fields (pasture and agriculture), or open water> 300
feet wide.
Well
Loosely
❑A
❑A
>: 500 acres
❑B
❑B
From 100 to < 500 acres
❑C
❑C
From 50 to < 100 acres
❑D
❑D
From 10 to < 50 acres
❑E
❑E
<10 acres
OF
OF
Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats
13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
❑Yes ❑No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waterststream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect -wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
non -forested areas >: 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors, and clear -cuts. Consider
the eight main points of the compass. Artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in how many directions? If the assessment area is clear cut,
select option "C"
❑A 0
❑B 1to4
®C 5to8
15. Vegetative Composition- assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
❑A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
❑B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
characteristic ofthe wetland type. This may include communities ofweedy native species that develop after clearcutting or clearing.
It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion ofthe expected strata.
®C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition, or expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non -
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species), or exotic species are dominant in at
least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity -assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non -tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
❑A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species (< 10% cover of exotics).
®B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10q to 50q cover of exotics.
❑C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (> 50 q cover of exotics).

17. Vegetative Structure —assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
®Yes ❑No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.
17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non -marsh wetlands.
❑A >_ 25% coverage of vegetation
❑B <25q coverage ofvegetation
17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non -marsh wetlands. Consider
structure in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
AA
Wi
o❑A
❑A
Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
m ❑B
❑B
Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
O MC
MC
Canopy sparse or absent
❑A
❑A
Dense mid-story/sapling layer
❑B
❑B
Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
®C
®C
Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent
❑A
❑A
Dense shrub layer
` ❑B
❑B
Moderate density shrub layer
W ®C
MC
Shrub layer sparse or absent
a ®A ®A Dense herb layer
El ❑B Moderate density herb layer
❑C ❑C Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags —wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
❑A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
®B Not
19. Diameter Class Distribution —wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
❑A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH), many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present.
❑B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12 inch DBH.
®C Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris —wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Include both natural debris and man -placed natural debris.
❑A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
MB Not
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion —wetland typelopen water condition metric (evaluate for Non -Tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
❑A ❑B ❑C ❑D
22. Hydrologic Connectivity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands and Salt/Brackish Marsh only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization, diversion,
man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B, C, or D.
MA Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
❑B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
❑C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
❑D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area
Notes
NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name WAM1
Date of Assessment 3/23/21
Wetland Type Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Assessor Name/Organization Jernigan
-Axiom
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
YES
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary
or other open water (Y/N)
YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)
NO
Sub -function Rating Summary
Function Sub -function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
LOW
Sub -surface Storage and
Retention
Condition
LOW
Water Quality Pathogen Change
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
YES
Particulate Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NA
Soluble Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
YES
Physical Change
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
YES
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NA
Habitat Physical Structure
Condition
LOW
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
LOW
Vegetation Composition
Condition
LOW
Function Rating Summary
Function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology
Condition
LOW
Water Quality
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
YES
Habitat
Condition
LOW
Overall Wetland Rating LOW

NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT RESULTS
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
USACE AID # NCDWR#
Project Name Totten Date of Evaluation 3/23/21
Applicant/Owner Name Clearwater Mitgation Wetland Site Name WAM2
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization Jernigan -Axiom
Level III Ecoregion Piedmont Nearest Named Water Body Jordan Creek
River Basin Tar -Pamlico USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit 03020101
County Granville NCDWR Region Raleigh
❑ Yes R No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude/Longitude deci-de reel 36.345642,-78.585192
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on the last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if appropriate, in
recent past (for instance, within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub -surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby septic
tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear -cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? ❑ Yes R No
Regulatory Considerations -Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes ❑No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑ Anadmmous fish
❑ Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
® NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect
❑ Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
❑ Publicly owned property
❑ N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
❑ Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HOW, ORW, or Trout
❑ Designated NCNHP reference community
❑ Abuts a 303(d}listed stream or a tributary to a 303(dpisted stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, if any? (check all that apply)
❑ Blackwater
® Brownwater
❑ Tidal (iftidal, check one of the following boxes) ❑ Lunar ❑ Wind ❑ Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? ❑ Yes R No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? ❑ Yes R No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? ❑ Yes R No
Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition- assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure (VS) in the
assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable, then rate the assessment
area based on evidence an effect.
GS VS
❑A ❑A Not severely altered
NB RB Severely altered over a majority ofthe assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire -plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing, less
diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
Surface and Sub -Surface Storage Capacity and Duration - assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub -surface storage capacity and duration (Sub).
Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. A ditch <- 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only, while a ditch > 1 foot
deep is expected to affect both surface and sub -surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf Sub
❑A ❑A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
❑B ❑B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
RC RC Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation change)
(examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
3. Water Storage/Surface Relief- assessment arealwetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box in each column. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (Wf).
AA Wf
3a. ❑A ❑A Majority ofwetland with depressions able to pond water> 1 deep
❑B ❑B Majority ofwetland with depressions able to pond water inches to 1 foot deep
RC RC Majority ofwetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
❑D ❑D Depressions able to pond water< 3 inches deep
3b. ❑A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
❑B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
RC Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot
4. Soil Texture/Structure - assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape feature.
Make soil observations within the top 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for regional
indicators.
4a. ❑A Sandy soil
RB Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
❑C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
❑D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
❑E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b. RA Soil ribbon < 1 inch
❑B Soil ribbon >_ 1 inch
4c. RA No peat or muck presence
❑B A peat or muck presence
Discharge into Wetland -opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub -surface pollutants or discharges (Sub). Examples
of sub -surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf Sub
❑A RA Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
RB ❑B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
❑C ❑C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
6. Land Use-
opportunity metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
Check
all that apply (at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources draining
to assessment area within
entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (5M),
and within
2 miles and within
the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M).
WS
5M 2M
❑A
❑A ❑A
> 10q impervious surfaces
❑B
❑B ❑B
Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source ofpollutants
RC
RC RC
>_ 20q coverage of pasture
❑D
❑D ❑D
>_ 20q coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
❑E
❑E ❑E
>_20q coverage of maintained grasstherb
❑F
❑F ❑F
>_20q coverage of clear-cut land
❑G
❑G ❑G
Little orno opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from little or no disturbance in
the watershed or hydrologic alterations that prevent drainage and/or overbank flow from affecting the
assessment area.
Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer- assessment arealwetland complex condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
®Yes ❑No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8.
Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make buffer judgment based on the average width ofwetland.
Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.
7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is wetland? (Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the .water body. Make
buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland. Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.)
RA >: 50 feet
❑B From 30 to < 50 feet
❑C From 15 to < 30 feet
❑D From 5 to < 15 feet
❑E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c. Tributarywidth. Ifthe tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channel s/braids for a total width.
R<- 15-feet wide ❑> 15-feet wide ❑ Other open water (no tributary present)
7d. Do mots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
®Yes ❑No
7e. Is stream or other open water sheltered or exposed?
®Sheltered - adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
❑Exposed - adjacent open water with width >: 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
Wetland Width at the Assessment Area - wetland type/wetland complex condition metric (evaluate WTfor all marshes and
Estuarine Woody Wetland only; evaluate WC for Bottomland Hardwood Forest, Headwater Forest, and Riverine Swamp Forest
only)
Check a box in each column for riverine wetlands only. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area (Wf) and
the wetland complex at the assessment area (WC). See User Manual for Wf and WC boundaries.
Wf WC
❑A ❑A >: 100 feet
❑B ❑B From 80 to < 100 feet
RC RC From 50 to < 80 feet
❑D ❑D From 40 to < 50 feet
❑E ❑E From 30 to < 40 feet
❑F ❑F From 15 to < 30 feet
❑G ❑G From 5 to < 15 feet
❑H ❑H <5feet

9. Inundation Duration — assessment area condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
❑A Evidence of short -duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
®B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
❑C Evidence of long -duration inundation or very long -duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition— assessment area condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands and all marshes)
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
®A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
❑B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
❑C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size —wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable, see User
Manual). Seethe User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select "K" for the FW column.
WT
WC
FW (if applicable)
❑A
❑A
❑A
>: 500 acres
❑B
❑B
❑B
From 100 to < 500 acres
❑C
❑C
❑C
From 50 to < 100 acres
❑D
❑D
❑D
From 25 to < 50 acres
❑E
❑E
❑E
From 10 to< 25 acres
❑F
❑F
❑F
From 5 to< 10 acres
®G
®G
®G
From 1 to < 5 acres
❑H
❑H
❑H
From 0.5 to< l acre
❑I
❑I
❑I
From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
❑J
❑J
❑J
From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
❑K
❑K
❑K
< 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness —wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
❑A Pocosin is the full extent (>: 90q) of its natural landscape size.
❑B Pocosin type is < 90q of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas — landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contiguous
naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four4ane roads, regulady maintained utility line
corridors the width of a four4ane road or wider, urban landscapes, maintained fields (pasture and agriculture), or open water> 300
feet wide.
Well
Loosely
❑A
❑A
>: 500 acres
❑B
❑B
From 100 to < 500 acres
❑C
❑C
From 50 to < 100 acres
❑D
❑D
From 10 to < 50 acres
®E
®E
<10 acres
❑F
❑F
Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats
13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
❑Yes ❑No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waterststream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect —wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
non -forested areas >: 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors, and clear -cuts. Consider
the eight main points of the compass. Artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in how many directions? If the assessment area is clear cut,
select option "C"
❑A 0
®B 1to4
❑C 5to8
15. Vegetative Composition— assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
❑A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
®B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
characteristic ofthe wetland type. This may include communities ofweedy native species that develop after clearcutting or clearing.
It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion ofthe expected strata.
❑C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition, or expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non -
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species), or exotic species are dominant in at
least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity —assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non -tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
®A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species (< 10% cover of exotics).
❑B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10q to 50q cover of exotics.
❑C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (> 50 q cover of exotics).
17. Vegetative Structure — assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
®Yes ❑No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.
17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non -marsh wetlands.
❑A >_ 25% coverage of vegetation
❑B <25q coverage ofvegetation
17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non -marsh wetlands. Consider
structure in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
AA WT
o❑A ®A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
.NB ❑B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
o ❑C ❑C Canopy sparse or absent
❑A
❑A
Dense mid-story/sapling layer
®B
®B
Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
❑C
❑C
Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent
❑A
❑A
Dense shrub layer
` ®B
®B
Moderate density shrub layer
W ❑C
❑C
Shrub layer sparse or absent
a ❑A
❑A
Dense herb layer
®B
®B
Moderate density herb layer
❑C
❑C
Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags —wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
❑A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
®B Not
19. Diameter Class Distribution —wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
❑A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH), many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present.
®B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12 inch DBH.
❑C Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris —wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Include both natural debris and man -placed natural debris.
❑A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
®B Not
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion —wetland typelopen water condition metric (evaluate for Non -Tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
❑A ❑B ❑C ❑D
a
22. Hydrologic Connectivity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands and Salt/Brackish Marsh only)
Examples of activities that may severely alterhydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization, diversion,
man-made berms, beaverdams, and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B, C, or D.
❑A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
®B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
❑C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
❑D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
Notes

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name WAM2 Date of Assessment
3/23/21
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization
Jernigan -Axiom
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
YES
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N)
YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)
NO
Sub -function Rating Summary
Function Sub -function Metrics Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition LOW
Sub -surface Storage and
Retention Condition LOW
Water Quality
Pathogen Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Particulate Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NA
Soluble Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Physical Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NA
Habitat
Physical Structure
Condition
MEDIUM
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
HIGH
Vegetation Composition
Condition
MEDIUM
Function Rating Summary
Function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology
Condition
LOW
Water Quality
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NO
Habitat
Condition
HIGH
Overall Wetland Rating MEDIUM
Date: 3f Z3I2t
Projectisne: "Ipl'r'Cr Ut-
Latitude: 3G_?`1319-,L
Evaluator.
County: u 1:.t
Longitude: -W. 5S"l36J
Total Points:
Stream Is of least intermittent
36.5
Stream Determination (ci
Otter
Halgar nniat8¢34'
Ephemeral Interm itten Perennial
e.g. Quad Name: CJ X(orct
A. Geomo holo (Subtotal =_�
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1e Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thahneg
0
1
-a
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ri le- oof se uence
0
1
�{ -�
z I
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2�
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
1
2
3
8. Headcuis
0
1
2
3
g. Grade control
0
.$
1
1.5
10. Natural valley0
.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0)
Yes = 3
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
(3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
_ali
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
.5
1.5
1 B. Organic debris lines or piles
0
.5
i 1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes = 31
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
10. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22 Fish
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
--70-57
1
1 1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75: OSL = 1.5 Other = 0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes: ; «)c T .
Sketch:

100
99.5
99
98.5
98
I 97.5
97
w 96.5
96
95.5
95
notes
Totten Site XS 1 Riffle -
4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Width from River Left to Right (ft)
section: Totten Site
Riffle
description: - -
of instrument (ft): , I
ince FS FS FS W fpa channel Manning's
[l (ft) elevation bankfull too of bank (ft) slope (%) "n"
dimensions
2.7
3.9
1.0
3.7
6.0
x-section area
0.7
4.8
0.6
5.7
1.5
d mean
width
wet P
d max
h d radi
bank ht
w/d ratio
W flood rone area
ent ratio
hydraulics
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.000
0.00
0.0
&0
velocity fUsec
discharge rate, Q cfs
shear stress Ibs/ft s
shear velocity fUsec
unit stream power Ibs/fUsec
Froude number
friction factor u/u`
threshold rain size mm
check from channel material
0
0.0
0.000
measured D84 mm
relative rou hness 1 0.0
fric. factor
Mannin 's n from channel material
Site
Totten Mitigation Site
Stream
UT1
Bank Length
2769
Observers
KRJ
Date
18-Aug-22
Station
Bank
BEHI
NBS
Erosion Rate
Length
Bank Height
Erosion
1
920
right
Low
Low
0
920
1
0.0
2
961
right
Mod
Low
0.02
41
1
0.8
3
996
right
Low
Low
0
35
1
0.0
4
1050
right
High
Mod
0.15
54
4
32.4
5
1113
right
Mod
Low
0.02
63
3
3.8
6
1384
right
Low
Low
0
271
2
0.0
7
8
9
885
left
Low
Low
0
885
1
0.0
10
920
left
Mod
Low
0.02
35
1
0.7
11
996
left
Low
Low
0
76
1
0.0
12
1050
left
High
Mod
0.15
54
4
32.4
13
1152
left
Mod
Low
0.02
102
3
6.1
14
1385
left
Low
Low
0
233
3
0.0
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Sum erosion sub -totals for each BEHI/NBS
Total Erosion (ft3/yr)
76.2
Divide total erosion (ft3) by 27
Total Erosion (yd/yr)
2.8
Multiply Total erosion (yard3) by 1.3
Total Erosion (tons/yr)
1 3.7
Erosion per unit length
Total Erosion (Tons/yr/ft)
0,001

Site
Totten Mitigation Site
Stream
UT 2
Bank Length
510
Observers
KRJ
Date
18-Aug-22
Station
Bank
BEHI
NBS
Erosion Rate
Length
Bank Height
Erosion
1
255
right
Low
Low
0
255
0.5
0.0
2
3
4
5
6
255
left
Low
Low
0
255
0.5
0.0
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Sum erosion sub -totals for each BEHI/NBS
Total Erosion (ft3/yr)
0.0
Divide total erosion (ft3) by 27
Total Erosion (yd/yr)
0.0
Multiply Total erosion (yard3) by 1.3
Total Erosion (tons/yr)
0.0
Erosion per unit length
Total Erosion (Tons/yr/ft)
0.000
Site
Totten Mitigation Site
Stream
UT 3
Bank Length
1740
Observers
KRJ
Date
18-Aug-22
Station
Bank
BEHI
NBS
Erosion Rate
Length
Bank Height
Erosion
1
2
3
179
right
High
Low
0.1
179
3
53.7
4
363
right
Mod
Low
0.02
184
3
11.0
5
607
right
High
Mod
0.15
244
3
109.8
6
688
right
Mod
Low
0.02
81
2
3.2
7
781
right
Low
Low
0
93
1
0.0
8
870
right
Mod
Low
0.02
89
2.5
4.5
9
10
11
12
179
left
High
Low
0.1
179
3
53.7
13
423
left
Mod
Low
0.02
244
3
14.6
14
607
left
High
Mod
0.15
184
3
82.8
15
688
left
Mod
Low
0.02
81
2
3.2
16
781
left
Low
Low
0
93
1
0.0
17
870
left
Mod
Low
0.02
89
2.5
4.5
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Sum erosion sub -totals for each BEHI/NBS
Total Erosion (ft3/yr)
341.1
Divide total erosion (ft3) by 27
Total Erosion (yd/yr)
12.6
Multiply Total erosion (yard3) by 1.3
Total Erosion (tons/yr)
16.4
Erosion per unit length
Total Erosion (Tons/yr/ft)
0.009

BEHI/NBS Summary
Stream Reach
Erosion Rate
(tons/year)
UT 1
3.7
UT 2
0.0
UT 3
16.4
Total
20.1
AXIOM ENVIRONMENTAL, INC
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
919-215-1693
SOIL BORING LOG
Date: 3/23/2021
Project/Site: Totten
County, State: Granville County, NC
Sampling Point/
Coordinates: Soil Profile A (36.339743,-78.589362)
Investigator: W. Grant Lewis
Soil Series: Mapped as Enon variant, field verified as Wehadkee
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Notes: Location is shown on
Figure 5.
Depth (inches)
Matrix
Mottling
Texture
Color
%
Color
%
0-3
10 YR 5/1
95
10 YR 5/6
5
sandy clay loam
3-9
10 YR 5/1
90
10 YR 4/6
10
sandy clay loam
9-14
10YR 6/2
90
10 YR 5/6
5
sandy clay loam
10 YR 3/3
5
14+
10 YR 6/2
50
clay loam
10 YR 4/2
50
North Carolina Licensed Soil Scientist
Number: 1233
Signature: vV J""�
Name/Print: W. Grant Lewis

AXIOM ENVIRONMENTAL, INC
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
919-215-1693
Date:
Project/Site:
County, State:
Sampling Point/
Coordinates:
Investigator:
Soil Series:
SOIL BORING LOG
3/23/2021
Totten
Granville County, NC
Soil Profile B (36.341687,-78.587441)
W. Grant Lewis
Mapped as Iredell variant, field verified as Wehadkee
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Notes: Location is shown on
Figure 5.
Depth (inches)
Matrix
Mottling
Texture
Color
%
Color
%
0-3
10 YR 3/1
100
loam
3-9
10 YR 4/1
90
10 YR 3/6
10
sandy loam
9+
10YR 6/1
85
10 YR 6/6
15
sandy clay loam
North Carolina Licensed Soil Scientist
Number: 1233
Signature: / '""�Vt
Name/Print: W. Grant Lewis
AXIOM ENVIRONMENTAL, INC
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
919-215-1693
Date:
Project/Site:
County, State:
Sampling Point/
Coordinates:
Investigator:
Soil Series:
SOIL BORING LOG
3/23/2021
Totten
Granville County, NC
Soil Profile C (36.344876,-78.587725)
W. Grant Lewis
Mapped as Iredell variant, field verified as Wehadkee
Axiom Environmental. Inc.
Location is shown on
5.
Depth (inches)
Matr'uc
Mottling
Texture
Color
%
Color
%
0-2
10 YR 4/1
95
10 YR 4/6
5
loam
2-9
10 YR 6/2
90
10 YR 5/1
5
sandy clay
10 YR 5/6
5
9+
10 YR 6/1
45
10 YR 5/6
10
clay
10 YR 5/1
45
North Carolina Licensed Soil Scientist
Number: 1233
Signature: /-kA4"
Name/Print: W. Grant Lewis

AXIOM ENVIRONMENTAL, INC
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
919-215-1693
Date:
Project/Site:
County, State:
Sampling Point/
Coordinates:
Investigator:
Soil Series:
SOIL BORING LOG
3/23/2021
Totten
Granville County, NC
Soil Profile D (36.345098,-78.586177)
W. Grant Lewis
Mapped as Iredell variant, field verified as Wehadkee
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Notes: Location is shown on
Figure 5.
Depth (inches)
Matrix
Mottling
Texture
Color
%
Color
%
0-1
10 YR 3/2
100
sandy loam
1-10
10 YR 4/1
85
10 YR 4/6
15
loamy clay
10+
1 10 YR 5/1
80
10 YR 5/6
15
sandy clay loam
10 YR 3/1
5
North Carolina Licensed Soil Scientist
Number: 1233
Signature: / '""�Vt
Name/Print: W. Grant Lewis
AXIOM ENVIRONMENTAL, INC
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
919-215-1693
Date:
Project/Site:
County, State:
Sampling Point/
Coordinates:
Investigator:
Soil Series:
SOIL BORING LOG
8/18/2022
Totten
Granville County, NC
Soil Profile E (36.342836,-78.587034)
W. Grant Lewis
Mapped as Iredell variant, field verified as Wehadkee
Axiom Environmental. Inc.
Location is shown on
5.
Depth (inches)
Matr'uc
Mottling
Texture
Color
%
Color
%
0-2
10 YR 4/4
100
sandy loam
2-10
10 YR 5/2
85
10 YR 4/6
15
sandy clay loam
10+
10 YR 4/1
90
10 YR 3/6
10
sandy clay loam
North Carolina Licensed Soil Scientist
Number: 1233
Signature: /-kA4"
Name/Print: W. Grant Lewis

Appendix C. Site Photographs
Response for Request for Proposal 916-519597848 A p p e n d i c e s

. . . . . . . . . . . .
x

Totten
Existing Site Photographs (continued)
Taken March 2021
35
r �
K
- N21,
•�'✓` -
Response for Request for Proposal 916-519597848 A p p e n d i c e s

Appendix D. IPaC Data and Natural Heritage Program Report
Response for Request for Proposal 916-519597848 A p p e n d i c e s

IPaC U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
IPaC resource list
This report is an automatically generated list of species and other resources such as
critical habitat (collectively referred to as trust resources) under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service's (USFWS) jurisdiction that are known or expected to be on or near the project
area referenced below. The list may also include trust resources that occur outside of the
project area, but that could potentially be directly or indirectly affected by activities in the
project area. However, determining the likelihood and extent of effects a project may ha
on trust resources typically requires gathering additional site -specific (e.g.,
vegetation/species surveys) and project -specific (e.g., magnitude and timingof�p opo e
activities) information. /�\
Below is a summary of the project information you provided and contact information for
the USFWS office(s) with jurisdiction in the defined project area. Please read the
introduction to each section that follows (Endangered Species, Migratory Birds, USFWS
Facilities, and NWI Wetlands) for additional information applicable to the trust resources
addressed in that section. O�V
Location )J
Granville County, North Carolina
O
y
Local office
Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office
[phone]
11 [phone]
MAILING ADDRESS
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
PHYSICAL ADDRESS
551 Pylon Drive, Suite F
Raleigh, NC 27606-1487
1.4
01
:�Xxxo\
GON���1r-
FOB

Endangered species
This resource list is for informational purposes only and does not constitute an
analysis of project level impacts.
The primary information used to generate this list is the known or expected range of each
species. Additional areas of influence (AOI) for species are also considered. An AOI
includes areas outside of the species range if the species could be indirectly affected by
activities in that area (e.g., placing a dam upstream of a fish population even if that fish
does not occur at the dam site, may indirectly impact the species by reducing or
eliminating water flow downstream). Because species can move, and site conditions can
change, the species on this list are not guaranteed to be found on or near the project
area. To fully determine any potential effects to species, additional site -specific and
project specific information is often required. 4 ( 1
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires Federal agencies to "request of the
Secretary information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be
present in the area of such proposed action" for any project that is conducted, permitted,
funded, or licensed by any Federal agency. A letter from the local office and a species list
which fulfills this requirement can only be obtained by requesting an official species list
from either the Regulatory Review section in IPaC (see directions below) or from the local
field office directly.
For project evaluations that require USFWS concurrence/review, please return to the IPaC
website and request an official species list by doing the following:
1. Draw the project location and click CONTINUE.
2. Click DEFINE PROJECT.
3. Log in (if directed to do so).
4. Provide a name and description for your project.
5. Click REQUEST SPECIES LIST.
Listed species1 and their critical habitats are managed by the Ecological Services Program
of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the fisheries division of the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA Fisheries2).
Species and critical habitats under the sole responsibility of NOAA Fisheries are not shown
on this list. Please contact NOAA Fisheries for species under their jurisdiction.
1. Species listed under the Endangered Species Act are threatened or endangered; IPaC
also shows species that are candidates, or proposed, for listing. See the hating status
page for more information. IPaC only shows species that are regulated by USFWS (see
FAQ).
2. NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an
office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department
of Commerce.
The following species are potentially affected by activities in this location:
Amphibians
NAME STATUS
Neuse River Waterdog Necturus lewsi Threatened
Wherever found
There is final critical habitat for this species. The location of
the critical habitat is not available.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6772
Fishes \0\
NAME STATUS
z
Carolina Madtom Noturusfuriosus Endangered
Wherever found
There is final critical habitat for this species. The to ter
the critical habitat is not available. J
hUps://ecos.fws.gov/ecpLapecies/528 O
Clams
NAME STATUS
i
Atlantic Pigtoe Fusconaia masoni Threatened
Whereverfound
There is final critical habitat for this species. The location of
the critical habitat is not available.
htt ps://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5164
Dwarf Wedgemussel Alasmidonta heterodon Endangered
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/784
Yellow Lance Elliptio lanceclata Threatened
Wherever round
There is final critical habitat for this species. The location of
the critical habitat is not available.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/4511

Insects
NAME
Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
https: //ecos.fws.gov/ecpLspecies/9743
Flowering Plants
NAMF
Harperella Ptilimnium nodosum
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3739
Additional information can be found using the following links:
STATUS • Birds of Conservation Concern hops//www.fws.gQvLprQgram/mjgratory-bjrd-,�Lspecies
• Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds h-UpsWwww.fws.gQvLlibrary_
Candidate /collections/avoiding-and-minimizing-incidental-take-migratory-birds
• Nationwide conservation measures for birds hops://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files
/documents/nationwide-standard-conservation-measures.pdf
STATUS
Endangered `
No\
Smooth Coneflower Echinacea laevigata Threatened
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this specie
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3473
Critical habitats CO
Potential effects to critical habitats) in this location must be analyzed along with the
endangered species themselves.
Them are no critical habitats at this location.
Migratory birds
Certain birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act! and the Bald and Golden
Eagle Protection Actz.
Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to
migratory birds, eagles, and their habitats should follow appropriate regulations and
consider implementing appropriate conservation measures, as described below.
1. The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918.
2. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940.
The birds listed below are birds of particular concern either because they occur on the
USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) list or warrant special attention in your
project location. To learn more about the levels of concern for birds on your list and how
this list is generated, see the FAQ be> o . This is not a list of every bird you may find in this
location, nor a guarantee that every bird on this list will be found in your project area,T_ o�
see exact locations of where birders and the general public have sighted birds in and
around your project area, visit the E-bird data data mapping tool (Tip: enter your location,
desired date range and a species on your list). For projects that occur off the Atlantic
Coast, additional maps and models detailing the relative occurrence and abundance of
bird species on your list are available. Links to additional information about Atlantic Coast
birds, and other important information about your migratory bird list, including how to
properly interpret and use your migratory bird report, can be found below.
For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization
measures to reduce impacts to migratory birds on your list, click on the PROBABILITY OF
PRESENCE SUMMARY at the top of your list to see when these birds are most likely to be
present and breeding in your project area.
NAME BREEDING SEASON
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Breeds Sep 1 to Jul 31
This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area,
but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for
potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types
of development or activities.
httpaL//ecos.fvvs.gov/ecp
Chimney Swift Chaetura pelagica Breeds Mar 15 to Aug 25
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its
range in the continental USA and Alaska.
Prairie Warbler Dendroica discolor Breeds May 1 to Jul 31
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its
range in the continental USA and Alaska.

Red-headed Woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its
range in the continental USA and Alaska.
Probability of Presence Summary
Breeds May 10 to Sep 10 Survey Effort (1)
Vertical black lines superimposed on probability of presence bars indicate the number of
surveys performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps. The
number of surveys is expressed as a range, for example, 33 to 64 surveys.
To see a bar's survey effort range, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar.
The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most
likely to be present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and
schedule your project activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure
you read and understand the FAQ "Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird
Report" before using or attempting to interpret this report.
Probability of Presence (m)
Each green bar represents the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid
cell(s) your project overlaps during a particular week of the year. (A year is represented as
12 4-week months.) A taller bar indicates a higher probability of species presence. The
survey effort (see below) can be used to establish a level of confidence in the presence
score. One can have higher confidence in the presence score if the corresponding survey
effort is also high. �k
How is the probability of presence score calculated? The calculation is done in three steps:
1. The probability of presence for each week is calculated as the number of survey events
in the week where the species was detected divided by the total number of survey
events for that week. For example, if in week 12 there were 20 survey events and the
Spotted Towhee was found in 5 of them, the probability of presence of the Spotted
Towhee in week 12 is 0.25.
2. To properly present the pattern of presence across the year, the relative probability of
presence is calculated. This is the probability of presence divided by the maximum
probability of presence across all weeks. For example, imagine the probability of
presence in week 20 for the Spotted Towhee is 0.05, and that the probability of
presence at week 12 (0.25) is the maximum of any week of the year. The relative
probability of presence on week 12 is 0.25/0.25 = 1; at week 20 it is 0.05/0.25 = 0.2.
3. The relative probability of presence calculated in the previous step undergoes a
statistical conversion so that all possible values fall between 0 and 10, inclusive. This is
the probability of presence score.
To see a bar's probability of presence score, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar
Breeding Season( )
Yellow bars denote a very liberal estimate of the time -frame inside which the bird breeds
across its entire range. If there are no yellow bars shown for a bird, it does not breed in
your project area.
No Data (—)
A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week.
Survey Timeframe
Surveys from only the last 10 years are used in order to ensure delivery of currently
relevant information. The exception to this is areas off the Atlantic coast, where bird
returns are based on all years of available data, since data in these areas is currently
much more sparse.
_t
■ probability of presence breeding season I survey effort — no data
SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT+ NOV DEC
Bald Eagle
Non -BCC
Vulnerable
Chimney
Swift
BCC
Rangewide
(CON)
IIII III 1111111111111111 I it IWII hod gill
---- -------- ----
., G
Prairie
Warbler
BCC
Rangewide
ms
(CON) ( �
Red-headed
Woodpecker
BCC
Rangewide
(CON)
—. 1 � .— —' — — — — --17 r-
—'--.----
Tell me more about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to
migratory birds.
Nationwide Conservation Measures describes measures that can help avoid and minimize impacts to all
birds at any location year round. Implementation of these measures is particularly important when
birds are most likely to occur in the project area. When birds may be breeding in the area, identifying
the locations of any active nests and avoiding their destruction is a very helpful impact minimization
measure. To see when birds are most likely to occur and be breeding in your project area, view the
Probability of Presence Summary. Additional measures or permits may be advisable depending on the
type of activity you are conducting and the type of infrastructure or bird species present on your project
site.

What does IPaC use to generate the list of migratory birds that potentially occur in my specified
location?
The Migratory Bird Resource List is comprised of USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) and other
species that may warrant special attention in your project location.
The migratory bird list generated for your project is derived from data provided by the Avian Knowledge
Network (AKN). The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science
datasets and is queried and filtered to return a list of those birds reported as occurring in the 10km grid
cell(s) which your project intersects, and that have been identified as warranting special attention
because they are a BCC species in that area, an eagle (Eagle Act requirements may apply), or a species
that has a particular vulnerability to offshore activities or development.
Again, the Migratory Bird Resource list includes only a subset of birds that may occur in your project
area. It is not representative of all birds that may occur in your project area. To get a list of all birds
potentially present in your project area, please visit the Rapid Avian Information Locator, (`R41L) To
What does IPaC use to generate the probability of presence graphs for the migra bi 10
potentially occurring in my specified location?
The probability of presence graphs associated with your migratory bird list are based on data provided
by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). This data is derived from a growing collection of suns€y,
banding, and citizen science datasets.
Probability of presence data is continuously being updated as new and better information becomes
available. To learn more about how the probability of presence graphs are produced and how to
interpret them, go the Probability of Presence Summary and then click on the "Tell me about these
graphs" link.
How do I know if a bird is breeding, wintering or migrating in my area?
To see what part of a particular bird's range your project area falls within (i.e. breeding, wintering,
migrating or year --round), you may query your location using the RAIL Tool and look at the range maps
provided for birds in your area at the bottom of the profiles provided for each bird in your results. If a
bird on your migratory bird species list has a breeding season associated with it, if that bird does occur
in your project area, there may be nests present at some point within the timeframe specified. If
"Breeds elsewhere" is indicated, then the bird likely does not breed in your project area.
What are the levels of concern for migratory birds?
Migratory birds delivered through IPaC fall into the following distinct categories of concern:
1. "BCC Rangewide" birds are Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) that are of concern throughout
their range anywhere within the USA (including Hawaii, the Pacific Islands, Puerto Rico, and the
Virgin Islands);
2. "BCC - BCR" birds are BCCs that are of concern only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs)
in the continental USA; and
"Non -BCC - Vulnerable" birds are not BCC species in your project area, but appear on your list either
because of the Eagle Act requirements (for eagles) or (for non -eagles) potential susceptibilities in
offshore areas from certain types of development or activities (e.g. offshore energy development or
longline fishing).
Although it is important to try to avoid and minimize impacts to all birds, efforts should be made, in
particular, to avoid and minimize impacts to the birds on this list, especially eagles and BCC species of
rangewide concern. For more information on conservation measures you can implement to help avoid
and minimize migratory bird impacts and requirements for eagles, please see the FAQs for these topics.
Details about birds that are potentially affected by offshore projects
For additional details about the relative occurrence and abundance of both individual bird species and
groups of bird species within your project area off the Atlantic Coast, please visit the Northeast Ocean
Data Portal. The Portal also offers data and information about other taxa besides birds that may be
helpful to you in your project review. Alternately, you may download the bird model results files
underlying the portal maps through the NOAA NCCOS Integrative Statistical Modeling and Predictive
Mapping of Marine Bird Distributions and Abundance on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf pro
Mappingj\
webpage. 4 1 Bird tracking data can also provide additional details about occurrence and habitat use throughout the
year, including migration. Models relying on survey data may not include this information. For
additional information on marine bird tracking data, see the Diving Bird Study and the-nanotag studies
or contact Caleb Spiegel or Pam Loring. `\
What if I have eagles on my list? t J v
If your project has the potential to disturb or kill eagles, you may need to obtain a permit to avoid
violating the Eagle Act should such impacts occur.
Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report
The migratory bird list generated is not a list of all birds in your project area, only a subset of birds of
priority concern. To learn more about how your list is generated, and see options for identifying what
other birds may be in your project area, please see the FAQ "What does IPaC use to generate the
migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location". Please be aware this report provides the
"probability of presence" of birds within the 10 km grid cell(s) that overlap your project; not your exact
project footprint. On the graphs provided, please also look carefully at the survey effort (indicated by
the black vertical bar) and for the existence of the "no data" indicator (a red horizontal bar). A high
survey effort is the key component. If the survey effort is high, then the probability of presence score
can be viewed as more dependable. In contrast, a low survey effort bar or no data bar means a lack of
data and, therefore, a lack of certainty about presence of the species. This list is not perfect; it is simply
a starting point for identifying what birds of concern have the potential to be in your project area, when
they might be there, and if they might be breeding (which means nests might be present). The list helps
you know what to look for to confirm presence, and helps guide you in knowing when to implement
conservation measures to avoid or minimize potential impacts from your project activities, should
presence be confirmed. To learn more about conservation measures, visit the FAQ "Tell me about
conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds" at the bottom
of your migratory bird trust resources page.

Coastal Barrier Resources System
Projects within the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) may be
subject to the restrictions on federal expenditures and financial assistance and the
consultation requirements of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) (16 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.). For more information, please contact the local Ecological Services Field Office or visit
the CBRA Consultations website. The CBRA website provides tools such as a flow chart to
help determine whether consultation is required and a template to facilitate the
consultation process.
There are no known coastal barriers at this location.
Data limitations
_t
The CBRS boundaries used in IPaC are representations of the controlling boundaries, which are
depicted on the official CBRS maps. The boundaries depicted in this layer are not to be considered
authoritative for in/out determinations close to a CBRS boundary (i.e., within the "CBRS Buffer Zone"
that appears as a hatched area on either side of the boundary). For projects that are very close to a
CBRS boundary but do not clearly intersect a unit, you may contact the Service for an official
determination by following the instructions here: https://www.fws.gov/service/coastal-barrier-
resources-system-promo erty-documentation OX 11.>
Data exclusions r 2
CBRS units extend seaward out to either the 20- or 30-foot bathymetric contour (depending on the
location of the unit). The true seaward extent of the units is not shown in the CBRS data, therefore
projects in the offshore areas of units (e.g., dredging, breakwaters, offshore wind energy or oil and gas
projects) may be subject to CBRA even if they do not intersect the CBRS data. For additional
information, please contact CB�o�fyvs gov.
�\
Facilities
National Wildlife Refuge lands
Any activity proposed on lands managed by the National Wildlife Refuge system must
undergo a 'Compatibility Determination' conducted by the Refuge. Please contact the
individual Refuges to discuss any questions or concerns.
There are no refuge lands at this location.
Fish hatcheries
There are no fish hatcheries at this location.
Wetlands in the National Wetlands
nventory
Impacts to NWI wetlands and other aquatic habitats may be subject to regulation under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, or other State/Federal statutes. �
For more information please contact the Regulatory Program of the local U.S. Army rps
of Engineers District.
Please note that the NWI data being shown may be out of date. We are currently working
to update our NWI data set. We recommend you verify these results with a site visit to
determine the actual extent of wetlands on site.
This location overlaps the following wetla
FRESHWATER EMERGENT WETLAND
Palustrine v
RIVERINE
Riverine , O
4
A full description for each wetland code can be found at the National Wetlands Inventory
website
NOTE: This initial screening does not replace an on -site delineation to determine whether
wetlands occur. Additional information on the NWI data is provided below.
Data limitations
The Service's objective of mapping wetlands and deepwater habitats is to produce reconnaissance level
information on the location, type and size of these resources. The maps are prepared from the analysis
of high altitude imagery. Wetlands are identified based on vegetation, visible hydrology and geography.
A margin of error is inherent in the use of imagery; thus, detailed on -the -ground inspection of any
particular site may result in revision of the wetland boundaries or classification established through
image analysis.
The accuracy of image interpretation depends on the quality of the imagery, the experience of the

image analysts, the amount and quality of the collateral data and the amount of ground truth
verification work conducted. Metadata should be consulted to determine the date of the source
imagery used and any mapping problems.
Wetlands or other mapped features may have changed since the date of the imagery or field work.
There may be occasional differences in polygon boundaries or classifications between the information
depicted on the map and the actual conditions on site.
Data exclusions
Certain wetland habitats are excluded from the National mapping program because of the limitations of
aerial imagery as the primary data source used to detect wetlands. These habitats include seagrasses or
submerged aquatic vegetation that are found in the intertidal and subticial zones of estuaries and
nearshore coastal waters. Some deepwater reef communities (coral or tuberficid worm reefs) have al o
been excluded from the inventory. These habitats, because of their depth, go undetected by aeria
imagery. O
Data precautions ��`
Federal, state, and local regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over wetlands may define and describe
wetlands in a different manner than that used in this inventory. There is no attempt, in either the
design or products of this inventory, to define the limits of proprietary jurisdiction of any Federal, state,
or local government or to establish the geographical scope of the regulatory programs of government
agencies. Persons intending to engage in activities involving modifications within or adjacent to wetland
areas should seek the advice of appropriate federal, state, or local agencies concerning specified agency
regulatory programs and proprietary jurisdictions that may affect such activities.
MESON
■10.000 NC DEPARTMENT OF
NONE NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
April 5, 2021
Allison Keith
Axiom Environmental
218 Snow Ave
Raleigh, NC27603
RE: Totten Site, 19-008.04
Dear Allison Keith:
Roy Cooper, Governor
D. Reid Wilson, Secretary
Wafter Clark
Director, Division of land and Water Stewardship
NCNHDE-14387
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) appreciates the opportunity to provide
Information about natural heritage resources for the project referenced above.
Based on the project area mapped with your request, a query of the NCNHP database Indicates that
there are no records for rare species, Important natural communities, natural areas, and/or
conservation/managed areas within the proposed project boundary. Please note that although there
may be no documentation of natural heritage elements within the project boundary, It does not
Imply or confirm their absence, the area may not have been surveyed. The results of this query
should not be substituted for field surveys where suitable habitat exists. In the event that rare
species are found within the project area, please contact the NCNHP so that we may update our
records.
The attached `Potential Occurrences' table summarizes rare species and natural communities that
have been documented within a one -mile radius of the property boundary. The proximity of these
records suggests that these natural heritage elements may potentially be present In the project area
If suitable habitat exists. Tables of natural areas and conservation/managed areas within a one -mile
radius of the project area, If any, are also Included In this report.
If a Federally -listed species is found within the project area or is indicated within a one -mile radius of
the project area, the NCNHP recommends contacting the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for
guidance. Contact information for USFWS offices in North Carolina is found here:
httos://www.fws.aov/offices/Directory/LlstOfflces.cfm?statecode=37.
Please note that natural heritage element data are maintained for the purposes of conservation
planning, project review, and scientific research, and are not Intended for use as the primary criteria
for regulatory decisions. Information provided by the NCNHP database may not be published
without prior written notification to the NCNHP, and the NCNHP must be credited as an information
source In these publications. Maps of NCNHP data may not be redistributed without permission.
The NC Natural Heritage Program may follow this letter with additional correspondence If a
Dedicated Nature Preserve, Registered Heritage Area, Land and Water Fund easement, or Federally -
listed species are documented near the project area.
If you have questions regarding the Information provided In this letter or need additional assistance,
please contact Rodney A. Butler at rodnev.butler(o)ncdcr.aov or 919-707-8603.
Sincerely,
NC Natural Heritage Program
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
QQ 121 W. JONES STREET. RALEIGH. NC 27603 • 1651 MAIL SERVICE CENTER. RALEIGH. NC 27699
oFc 919.7079120 • FAX [phone]

Natural Heritage Element Occurrences, Natural Areas, and Managed Areas Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Totten Site
Project No. 19-008.04
April 5, 2021
NCNHDE-14387
No Element Occurrences are Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
No Natural Areas are Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
Managed Areas Documented Within a One -mile Radius of the Project Area
NO Division of Mitigation Services Easement NO DEQ, Division of Mitigation Services State
Defnibons and an explanation ofstatus d—tnations and codes can be D—d athffnc//nrnhrienafn. ra/M1Pln Data query generated on Apirl 5,2021, source NCNHP, Q4 January 2021. Please
resubmit your information request if more than one year elapses before project initiation as new information is continually added to the NCNHP database.
April 5, 2021
❑ Project Boundary
❑ Buffered Project Boundary
❑ Managed—(MABEA)
NCNHDE-14387: Totten Site
Page 2 of 3 Page 3 of 3
1:21,711
0,7
rh

Appendix E. Signed Option Agreement & Landowner Agent Authorization Form
Response for Request for Proposal #16-519597848 A p p e n d i c e s

Prepared by and Return:
Robert H. Merritt, Jr.
Bailey & Dixon, LLC
434 Fayetteville Street, Suite 2500
Raleigli, NC 27601
Doc rD; 003e94600004 Type; CRP
Recorded: 08/11/2022 at 11:42:49 AM
Fee Amt: $26.00 Page 1 of 4
Granville County, NC
Kathy M. Taylor Reg of Deeds
RK 1916 PG231-234
MEMORANDUM OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT OPTION
This MEMORANDUM OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT OPTION ("Memorandum") is made
and entered into this 3 � day of August, 2022 by and between, Lynette G. Totten, hereinafter
referred to as "Grantor", CLEARWATER MITIGATION SOLUTIONS, LLC, a North Carolina
Limited Liability Company whose address is 604 Macon Place, NC 27609 (hereinafter referred to as
"Grantee").
WHEREAS, Grantor and Grantee have entered into a certain Conservation Easement
Option Agreement (the "Option") dated August _ 1 r 2022 pursuant to which Grantor
granted to G r a n t e e , its successors and assigns, an option to purchase a conservation easement (the
"Easement Area") over certain real property located in Granville County, North Carolina, which property
is more particularly described on the attached Exhibit C .
WHEREAS, The pates enter into this Memorandum for the purpose of setting forth certain terms and
conditions ofthe Option, as amended, and to provide constructive notice ofthe Option;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration ofthe foregoing, the parties hereby agree as follows.
1. The term ofthe Option commenced on August 3 r d 2022 and shall expire on
March 3lst, 2024 , unless mutually extended by both parties under an `Amended
Option Agreement".
All of the provisions set forth in the Option, as amended, are incorporated in this
Memorandum by reference.
The Option, as amended, shall be binding upon and inureto the benefit ofthe parties and their
respective heirs, successors and assigns.
[SIGNATURES AND NOTARY ACKNOWLEDGMENTS APPEAR ON FOLLOWING PAGES]
Grantor/Seller
tI
Print Name: Lynette G. Totten
NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF
Il k« 0, Q • 04AO-v- , a Notary Public in and for the County and State aforesaid, do
hereby certify that � 4 cAX-r- , GRANTOR, personally appeared
before me this day and acknowledged the execution of the foregoing instrument.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and Notary Seal this the 31,ca day of
-`� , 2022.
Notary Public
My commission expires:
a P� A.iu
A A.
411 Notary Public
u,'
Johnston
County =
My Comm. Exp,
20 11-07-2022 �P
9T

Grantee/Buyer
By:
thorized Offi
EXHLBIT C
Print Name J. Kevin Yates
Easement Area within Tracts or Parcels of land identified as PIN: 192403123832,
PIN: 192403135554, PIN: 192403145579, PIN:192403340564 of the Granville
County Registry.
NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF
I, G4t_a nn POa&-� , a Notary Public in and for the County and State aforesaid,
do hereby certify that �) . 14�r, plc,,( -CS , personally appeared before me this day
and acknowledged that he/she is the of Member/Manager, of CLEARWATER MITIGATION
SOLUTIONS, LLC, a North Carolina Limited Liability Company, GRANTEE, and that by the
authority duly given as an act ofthe limited liability company, the foregoing instniment was signed in
its name by its authorized officer and attested by its authorized officer.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and Notary Seal this the -a
day of
AVL$Si- .2022.
_
0NNII PU���zi
Notary Public
_ �oTAgh
MyyT'commission
:�z°; �eLt� U
��expires:
�� �
COUN����

CONSERVATION EASEMENT OPTION AGREEMENT
This CONSERVATION EASEMENT OPTION AGREEMENT, hereinafter referred to as ("the Option"),
made and entered into this 314 day of August, 2022 by and between, Lynette G. Totten (the"Grantor"),
CLEARWATER MITIGATION SOLUTIONS, LLC ("CMS"), a North Carolina Limited Liability Company
whose primary address is 604 Macon Place, Raleigh, NC 27609 and its successors and assigns (the "Grantee").
WMESSETH
WHEREAS, Grantor is the owner of certain real property located in Granville County. The real
property is more particularly described as follows: Tracts or Parcels of land identified within
PIN: 192403123832, PIN: 192403135554, PIN: 192403145579, PIN:192403340564, of the Granville
County Registry, (the "Property''�;and
WHEREAS, Grantor has agreed to convey to G rantee, an exclusive right and option to acquire
conservation easement rights similar to those described in the Sample Deed of Conservation Easement
attached hereto as Addendum A , containing 28.0 acres, more or less, as more particularly described onthe
attached Exhibit A ("Easement Area"), over the Property in accordance with the terms of this Option; and
WHEREAS, Grantee is interested in acquiring Easement Area in order to develop a stream,
wetland, and riparian buffer restoration project ('Project") over the lands covered by Easement Area in
conjunction with requests for proposals issued under the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services within
the North Carolina Department of Euviommental Quality ("DEQ")
WHEREAS, Lands and the rights to be acquired, within Easement Area, are described as follows:
Being a perpetual Conservation Easement that will permanently protect the restoration enhancement or
preservation of property containing streams and wetlands, located on the Property, in Granville County,
North Carolina. Easement Area encompasses acreage shown in Exhibit A attached.
WHEREAS, in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition
Policies Act of 1970, CMS hereby notifies Grantor that: (i) CMS believes the fair market value of the
Easement is the purchase price, pursuant to Paragraph 4(a) together with the value of the environmental
improvements to be made to the Easement by CMS in performing the Work on the Easement; and (ii) CMS
does not possess the power of eminent domain;
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the sum o
(the "Option Deposit") and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency ofwhieh
is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. OPTION PERIOD. Grantee may exercise the Option by delivering to Grantor notice thereofprior to 5:00
pm. on March 31 " 2024 (the "Original Option Period"), unless mutually extended by both parties under
an "Amended Option Agreement". This Option shall be exercised upon posting, by certified mail, fax or
written notice to the Grantor. Exercise shall be deemed timely if such written notice is mailed on or before
the date fast set forth in this paragraph. A Memorandum of Conservation Easement Option in the form
attached as EXHIBIT B shall be executed by both parties simultaneously with this Option and recorded
at Clearwater Mitigation Solutions, LLC sole discretion and expense in the county where the Property is
located to provide record notice of this Option.

LANDOWNER AUTHORIZATION FORM
PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRITION:
Parcel ID Number: 192403123832
County:
Granville
Parcel ID Number: 192403135554
County:
Granville
Parcel ID Number: 192403I45579
County:
Granville
Parcel ID Number: 192403340564
County:
Granville
Street Address: 1510 B College Street (Hwy 15)
Oxford, NC 27565
Property Owner (please print): Lynette G. Totten
The undersigned, registered property owner(s) of the above property, do hereby authorize
Clearwater Mitigation Solutions
(Name of Contractor/Agent Firm/Agency)
to take all actions necessary for the evaluation of the property as a potential stream, wetland and/or
riparian buffer mitigation project, including conducting stream and/or wetland determinations and
delineations, as well as issuance and acceptance of any required permit(s) or certification(s). I
agree to allow regulatory agencies, including the NC Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS), US
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and/or NC Division Of Water Resources (DWR), to visit the
property as part of these environmental reviews.
Property Owners(s) Address: 139 Ride Road ^
(if different from above)
Butner NC 27509
Property Owner Telephone Number: i�4
We hereby certify the above information to be true and accurate to the best of our knowledge.
Owner Authorized Signature) (Date)

Appendix F. Resumes (Project Manager & Key Personnel)
Response for Request for Proposal #16-519597848 A p p e n d i c e s

CLEAR WATER MITIGATION SOL UTIONS
Kevin Yates
Member / Manager / Environmental & Mitigation Consultant
Mr. Yates has over 17 years of experience in water resources, stream, wetlands, stormwater, riparian buffer,
environmental restoration, and mitigation. Mr. Yates began working for the US Army Corps of Engineers,
Wilmington District in 2001, while attending graduate school at the University of North Carolina at
Wilmington, graduating with a Masters of Marine Science in 2004. During this period, Mr. Yates worked
as an intern in the USACE Wilmington Regulatory Field Office and full-time in the USACE Raleigh
Regulatory Field Office as a Regulatory Project Manager through May, 2005. Mr. Yates went into private
environmental consulting in 2005, with a large multi -disciplinary engineering/design firm, McAdams
Company, based in Durham, North Carolina. Mr. Yates was awarded the McAdams Company trailblazer
award in 2006 for chartering and leading these new environmental consulting services for the firm, where
he served as the Senior Environmental Consultant and Project Manager. More recently, Mr. Yates formed
Clearwater Mitigation Solutions in 2015. Mr. Yates' philosophy on developing successful environmental
design and construction projects is to promote ownership of the project from the ground up. This involves
informing and training contractors, landowners, regulatory staff, project owners and other project
stakeholders through diligent communication and involvement. As an owner/operator, Mr. Yates
understands that the key to managing large scale projects with aggressive time requirements is to stay in
front of potential problems, foster active partnering among team members and to surround yourself with
hard working, skilled individuals who all have a stake in the success of the project.
Professional Affiliations & Certifications
City of Raleigh Stormwater Management Advisory Commission (SMAC)
Commission Member 2012-20161 Vice Chair (2014-2015)
NCSU BMP Inspection and Maintenance Certification # 434
Governor Appointee to NCDENR Policy Advisory Group, 2008
North Carolina Water Resources Association (NCWRA)
PADI Certified Open Water Diver
Training
Advanced Stormwater BMP Design, 2006
NC State Stream Restoration Institute, Construction Training, 2006
USACE Regulatory II — Public Interest Review & Documentation, 2004
NC State Stream Restoration Institute, River Course, 2003
NC State Stream Restoration Institute, Advanced Course, 2003
NCDWQ Macroinvertebrate Identification, 2003
Federal Highways & NEPA Coordination, 2002
Basic Processes in Hydric Soils Dates, 2002
USFW Endangered Species Consultation, 2002
USACE Wetland Delineation, 2002
Education
Master of Marine Science, University of North Carolina at Wilmington, 2004
Department of the Army Cooperative Student Program
Research Fellowship — Dauphin Island Sea Lab, 1999
Bachelor of Science, Natural Resources, North Carolina State University, 1999
Research Fellowship — Dauphin Island Sea Lab
W. GRANT LEWIS
President/Senior Project Manager, Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Summary of Qualifications
• 25-year professional background in the environmental consulting field including experience in
natural systems documentation, permitting, and stream/wetland restoration.
• Managed over 75 mitigation feasibility studies, 20 detailed mitigation plans, and implemented
greater than 30,000 linear feet of stream restoration and 500 acres of wetland restoration.
Senior Project Manager for more than 25 ecological assessments and/or natural system reports
including field delineations, protected species surveys, document preparation, and permitting.
Licensed soil scientist with extensive soil mapping experience including mapping of 42,000 acres
in the Coastal Plain of Georgia for timber companies.
• Familiar with CAD software including MicroStation, Corel Draw, ArcView GIS, and Trimble.
• Proficient with survey equipment including laser level, total station, transit, laser Atlanta, and GPS.
Technical/Computer Skills
ArcView GIS, Micro Station, Total Station, Laser Level, Global Positioning System, USGS Flood
Frequency Analysis Software, Pathfinder Office, Microsoft Word, Excel, Power Point, Corel
Draw, Adobe Acrobat
Professional Experience
2004-present, Axiom Environmental, Inc., Raleigh, NC, President/Senior Project Manager
1998-2004, EcoScience Corporation, Raleigh, NC, Senior Scientist/Senior Project Manager
1994-1998 Environmental Services, Inc., Raleigh, NC, Technical Scientist/Senior Scientist
1994, CTA Environmental, Atlanta, GA, Technical Scientist
1993, LTER-CPER, Fort Collins, CO, Field biologist
Professional Affiliations
National Association of Environmental Professionals
N.C. Association of Environmental Professionals
Society of Wetland Scientists
Xi Sigma Phi Honors Society
Additional Studies & Certificates
NRCS Licensed Soil Scientist (# 1233) for the State of North Carolina
Society of Wetland Scientists, Professional Wetland Scientist Certification, January 2002
Applied Fluvial Geomorphology (Rosgen Level I, II, III, and IV)
Academic Background
B.S. Range Ecosystem Management, Colorado State University, 1993
Outstanding Student Award for Department of Range Ecosystem Sciences, 1993
W. Grant Lewis
Resume page 1

Specific Project Experience
Abbey Lamm Stream and Wetland Restoration Site (2013-2014), Alamance County
Developed stream and wetland restoration plans to restore 5637 linear feet of stream
channel and 1 acre of riverine wetlands for the N.C. Ecosystem Enhancement Program.
Poncho Mitigation Bank Stream and Wetland Restoration Site (2010-2014), Wayne County
Developed stream and wetland restoration plans to restore 5322 linear feet of stream
channel and 29 acres of riverine wetlands as well as riparian buffer credits. Once the site
was constructed, stream and wetland monitoring included longitudinal profile surveys,
measurements of permanently monumented cross -sections, substrate pebble counts,
benthic macroinvertebrate surveys, vegetative sampling, and groundwater monitoring.
Generation of Mitigation Plans for an Umbrella Mitigation Bank (2008-2009), Wake County
Generation of draft mitigation plans, Section 404 jurisdictional area delineations, gaining
agency verification of the delineations, and generation of final mitigation plans for sites to
be included in an umbrella mitigation bank for the City of Raleigh.
Smith & Austin Creeks Stream Restoration Site (2006-2009), Wake County
Conducted stream monitoring on approximately 12,000 linear feet of stream located in
northern Wake County. The project included longitudinal profile surveys, measurements
of permanently monumented cross -sections, substrate pebble counts, BEHI evaluations,
and vegetative sampling utilizing the CVS-EEP protocol. This project was measured
through year-5 monitoring and was successfully closed out.
Causey Farm Stream and Wetland Restoration Site (2003-2009), Guilford County
Developed stream and wetland restoration plans to restore 7700 linear feet of stream
channel and 10 acres of riverine wetlands. Once the site was constructed, stream and
wetland monitoring included longitudinal profile surveys, measurements of permanently
monumented cross -sections, substrate pebble counts, benthic macroinvertebrate surveys,
vegetative sampling, and groundwater monitoring. This project was measured through
year-5 monitoring and was successfully closed out.
I-85 Widening (2002), Mecklenburg County
Environmental investigations associated with the widening of a 5-mile stretch of I-85.
Project tasks included Section 404 jurisdictional area delineations and agency verification,
protected species surveys, and generation of an environmental document.
Blowing Rock Bypass (2000-2003), Caldwell and Watauga counties
Environmental investigations associated with multiple alternatives for the Blowing Rock
Bypass. Project tasks included Section 404 jurisdictional area delineations and agency
verification, protected species surveys, and generation of an environmental document.
W. Grant Lewis Resume page 2

Appendix G. Technical Proposal Score Sheet
Response for Request for Proposal 916-519597848 A p p e n d i c e s

Instructions:
1. Immediately save this with your new, desired filename.
2. Fill out all areas highlighted in yellow.
3. Place the letter 'Y' in appropriate box for multiple choice questions.
Technical Proposal Evaluation Criteria
03020101 Rating Form
Offeror:
Clearwater Mitigation Solutions
Site Name:
Totten Mitigation Site
River Basin
/ Catalog
Tar -Pamlico 03020101
Unit:
RFP
Number:
16-519597848
Date of Site
Evaluation:
Type/Amt of
2,500 SMUs, 5.0 Riparian WMUs, 475,000 Riparian Buffer Credits, 450 Ibs
Mitigation
Phosphorus (including associated Nitrogen Credits)
Offered:
Proposal
Review
Committee:
Alternate
Attendees:

Section 1. Minimum Requirements
Yes/No
or N/A
1- For stream mitigation projects, does the Technical Proposal adequately document the historical presence of
stream(s) on the project site, provide the drainage areas (acres) and provide accurate, process -based
YES
descriptionsof all project stream reaches and tributaries?
2- For proposals that include wetland mitigation, does the technical proposal adequately document the
presence of hydric soil indicators (including soil boring logs prepared by a Licensed Soil Scientist and a map
YES
showing soil boring locations and mapped soil series)?
3- For proposals that include wetland mitigation, does the proposed success hydroperiod follow the IRT
Guidance for the project site and soil series? If the proposed hydroperiod differs from the IRT guidance,
YES
justification must beprovided in the RFP.
4- Does the proposal adequately document the physical, chemical and/or biological impairments that
YES
currently exist on the project site?
5- Does DMS agree with the overall mitigation approach (proposed levels of intervention) presented? [The
Technical Proposal must demonstrate that the proposed mitigation activities are appropriate for existing site
YES
conditions and watershed characteristics (e.g., adjacent land use/land cover), and are optimized to yield
maximum functional gains.]
6- Does DMS agree with the proposed credit structure(s) described in the proposal?
YES
7- Does the proposed project avoid significant adverse impacts to existing wetlands and/or streams?
YES
8- Does the proposal adequately describe how the project will advance DMS watershed planning goals?
YES
9- For any proposed Priority 2 restoration, is P2 justified and/or limited to "tie-ins"?
YES
An answer of No in this section means the Technical Proposal is rejected. Continue or Reject?
CONTINUE

Section 2. Functional Uplift Evaluation
Functional
Functional Stressor
Functional Uplift Potential
Planning Identified Stressor
Category
Complete this section for identified
Place an X below if stressor is
Check boxes below to
functional stressors ONLY. Place an X
identified through watershed
identify stressors addressed
under the option that best describes the
planning -only count the MOST
by proposal.
uplift potential for the majority of the
LOCAL plan.
project area.
Low
Mod
High
Very High
TRA RWP LWP
Non-functioning
riparian buffer /
X
X
}'
wetland vegetation
Sediment
)(
X
Cr
Nutrients
X
X
N
Fecal Coliform
X
X
Other
Peak Flows
X
X
Artificial Barriers
X
t�A
_O
O
_0
Ditching/Draining
:X::m
2
Other
Habitat Fragmentation
X
X
+.,
Limited Bedform
Diversity
X
X
Absence of Large
X
=
Woody Debris
Other
Total Count
Total
0
0
8
0
0 0 7
Count
Multiplier
C O
ca �
x1
x3
x6
x10
x 2 x4 x6
ca �
Count x Function
Countx
C (/)
O bn
'` C
Multiplier
p
0
0
48
0
Planning
Multiplier
0 0 42
E
Sum of Function A
Sum of
B
LJ-
61
Planning
42

Adjusted Risk Factor '] Only Applicable if this Box is Checked
Risk Adjusted Score
(Sum of Function X Factorc)
61
Risk Adjusted Score °+ PlanningB = Total Function and Planning
103 E
Section 3. General (place an X in the appropriate box)
1pt
3 pts
6 pts
10 pts
Physical constraints or barriers
>5%
2-5%
<2%
None
Project Density
>10
>8 - 10
>4 - 8
</=4
Total General
0
0
0
0
F
Section 4. Final Score and Proposal Rating
Total Function and
103 E
Total General
F
Final Score (E + F)
0
Proposal Rating (Final
0
Score x 0.01)