20150416 Ver 1 _Technical Proposal _20150415

Strickland, Bev
From: Baker, Virginia
Sent: Monday, April 27, 2015 10:43 AM
To: Sullivan, Shelton; Montalvo, Sheri A
Cc: Strickland, Bev
Subject: FW: NEW FD Contract IRT Kickoff Meetings - Proposed times and dates
(UNCLASSIFIED)
Attachments: John Deere Technical Proposal.pdf, Russel Gap Technical Proposal.pdf; Sandy Bridge
Technical Proposal.pdf
Hi All
Attached are three new DMS projects that need to be registered and put in LF. I just have soft copies and don't need to print out the
entire document for review. Do you want me to print out just what I need for review and bring that to you?
ginny
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Johnson, Alan
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2015 1:52 PM
To: Tugwell, Todd SAW
Cc: Baker, Virginia
Subject: RE: NEW FD Contract IRT Kickoff Meetings - Proposed times and dates (UNCLASSIFIED)
Unbelievable, I have another commitment on the 27th. The Alexander county site is the only one in my region. LOL Thanks for the
info
Flip it?
Alan
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Tugwell, Todd SAW [ mailto :Todd.Tugwell @usace.army.mil]
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2015 10:30 AM
To: Jones, Scott SAW; Alexander, Tasha L SAW; Brown, David W SAW; Kichefski, Steven L SAW; Marella Buncick
( Marella [e-mail]); Leslie, Andrea J; Fox, Tim; Johnson, Alan; Ginny; Bowers, Todd
Cc: Wicker, Henry M JR SAW; Hughes, Andrea W SAW; Wiesner, Paul; Tsomides, Harry; Baumgartner, Tim; Reid, Matthew
Subject: FW: NEW FD Contract IRT Kickoff Meetings - Proposed times and dates (UNCLASSIFIED)
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
Sorry if you are getting this twice, but we had email delivery issues last night, so I am resending to make sure this goes through.
All,
Please see the message below from Paul Wiesner with DMS regarding three newly contracted EEP sites for which they would like to
set up IRT reviews. Paul is looking to visit the first two on May 26th and the third on the 27th. Please let me know your availability
on these days. The technical proposals should be available for download from the DMS portal by the end of the week.
Thanks,
Todd Tugwell
Special Projects Manager
Wilmington District, US Army Corps of Engineers
11405 Falls of the Neuse Road

Wake Forest, NC 27587
Office: 919 - 846 -2564
Mobile: 919 - 710 -0240
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Wiesner, Paul [ mailto:paul.wiesner @ncdenr.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 12:17 PM
To: Tugwell, Todd SAW; Jones, Scott SAW
Cc: Tsomides, Harry; Baumgartner, Tim; Reid, Matthew
Subject: [EXTERNAL] NEW FD Contract IRT Kickoff Meetings - Proposed times and dates
Todd,
DMS would like to schedule the initial IRT site visits for three (3) recently contracted Full Delivery projects. We would like to
schedule the site visits on the following dates and the times identified below. I have discussed this with DMS staff and the
applicable full delivery providers and they will be able to meet as follows:
Tuesday May 26, 2015:
9:OOam - John Deere site (Broad 05) - Rutherford County - FD Provider: RES (Formerly EBX)
1:OOpm - Sandy Bridge Site - Option A (Broad 05) - Rutherford County - FD Provider: KCI
Wednesday May 27, 2015:
10:OOam - Russell Gap - Option A (Catawba 01) - Alexander County - FD Provider: Baker International
Technical Proposals for the sites will be available on our portal in the NEW FULL DELIVERY CONTRACTS folder located here. We will
have them posted by the end of this week:
http: / /portal.ncdenr.org /group /eep -irt /documents ?p p id =20
I have also attached meeting location .kml files for each site.
At your earliest convenience please confirm these dates and times with the other IRT members.
As always, give me a call if you have any questions or concerns.

Paul Wiesner
Western Project Management Supervisor
NCDENR - Division of Mitigation Services
5 Ravenscroft Dr., Suite 102
Asheville, NC 28801
(828)273 -1673 Mobile
E -mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to
third parties.
Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

c —
y Ij 4'
1.
i.
f.
ool
f
A'
S;Wwr"il
M1 T
4 r''
... _ �� 1' °s. � 4, �R. �r. 5 i�'y,�r �3 �,t� /.�i ♦�II 'q "s �" rtrar �
- . _ •3— a ��-� :o '' � \�A'.� a II
A I,......,.,L.... +1l1 Of) 4 A

Innovotiorl,f one Right.-We Moke a Difference
I H T E R N A T 1 0 N A L
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
80000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600 1 Cary, NC 27518
Office: 919.463.5488 1 Fax: [phone]
November 20, 2014
NCDENR Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Attn: Kathy Dale, 217 West Jones Street, Suite 3307 -A
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
RE: Proposal to Provide Warm Water Stream Mitigation Credits through the Russell Gap Stream Mitigation Project
In Response to REP 16- 006177 — Catawba River 01/ Catawba River Basin Cataloging Unit 03050101
Dear Ms. Dale:
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. (Baker) is pleased to present to the North Carolina DENR Ecosystem Enhancement
Program ( NCEEP) the following proposal to provide warm water stream mitigation credits in the Catawba River Basin
(Cataloging Unit 03050101) in response to RFP 16- 006177. This proposal is a firm offer from Baker and shall remain
open for acceptance by NCEEP for a period of one (1) year from the opening date of November 20, 2014 for the above -
referenced RFP. All paper contained within this proposal is printed double -sided and has a post- consumer recycled
content of at least 30 percent.
Baker has entered into contracts to purchase a conservation easement on acreage to comprise the Russell Gap Stream
Mitigation Project, which is in Alexander County, in the Russell Gap Community. The project site is located in the DENR
sub -basin 03 -08 -32 and the Targeted Local Watershed 03050101 - 120010 of the Catawba River Basin. The project will
involve restoration and enhancement of stream and riparian buffer functions and restoration of wetland functions along
Davis Creek, unnamed tributaries (UTs) to Davis Creek, the East Prong Lower Little River, and UTs to the East Prong
Lower Little River, tributaries to the Catawba River.
As described more fully in the following Technical Proposal, the proposed restoration project not only has the potential to
provide more than 8,000 warm water stream mitigation credits, but will also accomplish ecological improvements through
habitat restoration and a decrease in nutrient and sediment loads from the watershed. Multiple options are being provided
to NCEEP for procuring mitigation credits from the proposed project. The available options are listed below and are
described in more detail in the Executive Summary Section of the Technical Proposal:
Project Mitigation Summary Table
Option
Name
Reaches
Included
Restoration
Stream
Credits
Enhancement
Levell
Stream Credits
Enhancement
Level 11
Stream Credits
Total
Stream
Credits
(Potential)
Total
Stream
Credits
(Proposed
for
Contract)
R1, R2, R3,
R4, R5, R6,
R7, R8, R9,
R10, R11,
R12, R13,
Option A
3,723
3,401
1,082
8;206
8,150
R14, R15,
R16, R17,
R18, R19,
R20, R21,
R22, R23
)rn9 --EMFA KAIUMN iSAUYPOST MBAKlnRIN'TL_COM

Innovotion Done Right ... VWe Moke o Difference
Option
Name
Reaches
Included
Restoration
Stream
Credits
Enhancement
Levell
Stream Credits
Enhancement
Level 11
Stream Credits
Total
Stream
Credits
(Potential)
Total
Stream
Credits
(Proposed
for
Contract)
R1, R10,
Option
R11, R12,
2,510
347
299
3,156
3,100
B
R13, R14
R2, R3, R4,
R5, R6, R7,
R8, R9, R15,
Option
R16, R17,
1,213
3,054
783
5,050
5,000
R18, R19,
R20, R21,
R22, R23
Baker has extensive restoration and mitigation implementation experience and understands the most recent requirements
and standards applicable for restoration in this sub -basin of the Catawba River. We have extensive experience in restoring
prior converted wetlands. Accordingly, Baker is in a strong position to implement this proposed project in a timely and
effective manner. In summary, this restoration project will include the following:
• Up to 8,150 warm water stream credits utilizing a broad, balanced approach including restoration, enhancement,
and permanent protection to address the vast majority of the stream reaches in the project watershed, providing the
maximum possible functional uplift and utilizing a watershed approach.
• Riparian wetland restoration utilizing both wetland re- habilitation and wetland re- establishment approaches to provide
maximum functional uplift and permanent protection.
• Removal of direct livestock access and associated impairments to surface waters along more than 10,000 linear feet
(LF) of stream channel.
• Reduction of sediment and nutrient loadings from streambank erosion and restoration of riparian buffers and riparian
wetlands.
• Improved water quality by allowing restored stream buffers to remove nutrients and sediment, while stream
restoration and bank stabilization will reduce erosion in the stream channel, and allow streams to access restored
floodplains and riparian wetlands.
• Improvements to aquatic, riparian, and wetland habitat functions for maximum uplift of the site's ecological function.
The information provided in this proposal is being submitted for the sole purpose of responding to the above - referenced
request for proposals. We greatly appreciate your consideration of this proposal and look forward to hearing from you
regarding NCEEP's decision. We would appreciate the opportunity to complete the presentation of this proposal to
NCEEP through a field visit and discussion.
Sincerely,
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
William Scott Hunt, III, PE
Ecosystem Restoration Technical Services Manager
�M, -. LlYPORT MBAKERINTL. €4M

22. YEAR 2000 COMPLIANCE/WARRANTY: Vendor shall ensure the product(s) and service(s) furnished pursuant to this agreement ( "product"
shall include, without limitation, any piece of equipment, hardware, firmware, middleware, custom or commercial software, or internal
components, subroutines, and interfaces therein) which perform any date and/or time data recognition function, calculation, or sequencing, will
support a four digit year format, and will provide accurate date /time data and leap year calculations on and after December 31, 1999, at the
same level of functionality for which originally acquired without additional cost to the user. This warranty shall survive termination or expiration
of the agreement.
23. GENERAL INDEMNITY_ The contractor shall hold and save the State, its officers, agents, and employees, harmless from liability of any kind,
including all claims and losses accruing or resulting to any other person, firm, or corporation furnishing or supplying work, services, materials,
or supplies in connection with the performance of this contract, and from any and all claims and losses accruing or resulting to any person,
firm, or corporation that may be injured or damaged by the contractor in the performance of this contract and that are attributable to the
negligence or intentionally tortious acts of the contractor provided that the contractor is notified in writing within 30 days that the State has
knowledge of such claims. The contractor represents and warrants that it shall make no claim of any kind or nature against the State's agents
who are involved in the delivery or processing of contractor goods to the State. The representation and warranty in the preceding sentence
shall survive the termination or expiration of this contract.
24. OUTSOURCING: Any vendor or subcontractor providing call or contact center services to the State of North Carolina shall disclose to
inbound callers the location from which the call or contact center services are being provided.
If, after award of a contract, the contractor wishes to outsource any portion of the work to a location outside the United States, prior written
approval must be obtained from the State agency responsible for the contract.
Vendor must give notice to the using agency of any relocation of the vendor, employees of the vendor, subcontractors of the vendor, or other
persons performing services under a state contract outside of the United States.
25. BY EXECUTIVE ORDER 24, issued by Governor Perdue, and N.C.G.S. § 133 -32, it is unlawful for any vendor or contractor (i.e., architect,
bidder, contractor, construction manager, design professional, engineer, landlord, offeror, seller, subcontractor, supplier or vendor), to make
gifts or to give favors to any State employee of the Governor's Cabinet Agencies (i.e., Administration, Commerce, Correction, Crime Control
and Public Safety, Cultural Resources, Environment and Natural Resources, health and Human Services, Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention, Revenue, Transportation, and the Office of the Governor). This prohibition covers those vendors and contractors who:
(1) Have a contract with a governmental agency; or
(2) Have performed under such a contract within the past year; or
(3) Anticipate bidding on such a contract in the future.
For additional information regarding the specific requirements and exemptions, vendors and contractors are encouraged to review Executive
Order 24 and G.S. Sec. 133 -32.
Executive Order 24 also encouraged and invited other State Agencies to implement the requirements and prohibitions of the Executive Order
to their agencies. Vendors and contractors should contact other State Agencies to determine if those agencies have adopted Executive Order
24.
SECTION 9. EXECUTION OF PROPOSAL BY OFFEROR — INCLUDE IN TECHNICAL PROPOSAL
By submitting this proposal, the potential contractor certifies the following:
• This proposal is signed below by an authorized representative of the firm.
• It can obtain insurance certificates as required within 10 calendar days after notice of award.
• The cost and availability of all equipment, materials, and supplies associated with performing the services described herein have been
determined and included in the proposed cost.
• All labor costs, direct and indirect, have been determined and included in the proposed cost.
• The offeror has attended the mandatory conference /site visit and is aware of prevailing conditions associated with performing these
services.
• The offeror can and will provide the specified performance bond or alternate performance guarantee. (See Section 12, Performance
Guarantee).
• The offeror acknowledges that on July 1, 2004 the State of North Carolina became a "tax exempt" entity (Tax Exempt #400027).
RFP 16- 006177 Page 22 of 29

• The potential contractor has read and understands the conditions set forth in this RFP and agrees to them with no exceptions.
• The offeror certifies the following regarding:
• Debarment And Suspension - To the best of its knowledge and belief that it and its principals:
(a) are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from covered
transactions by any Federal, State, or local government agency;
(b) have not within a 3 -year period preceding this proposal been convicted of or had a civil judgment rendered against them for
commission of fraud or a criminal offense in connection with obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public (Federal,
State, or local) transaction or contract under a public transaction; violation of Federal or State antitrust statutes or commission
of embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, falsification or destruction of records, making false statements, or receiving stolen
property;
(c) are not presently indicted for or otherwise criminally or civilly charged by a governmental entity (Federal, State, or local) with
commission of any of the offenses enumerated in paragraph (b) of this certification; and
(d) have not within a 3 -year period preceding this application /proposal had one or more public transactions (Federal, State, or
local) terminated for cause or default.
• Lobbying - To the best of his or her knowledge and belief, that:
(a) No Federal, State or local government appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of the undersigned, to
any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any Federal, State or local government agency;
a member of Congress, North Carolina's General Assembly or local government body; an officer or employee of Congress,
North Carolina's General Assembly or local government body, or an employee of a member of Congress, North Carolina's
General Assembly or local government body, in connection with the awarding of any Federal, State or local government
contract, the making of any Federal, State or local government grant, the making of any Federal, State or local government
loan, the entering into of any Federal, State or local government cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation,
renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal, State or local government contract, grant, loan, or cooperative
agreement.
(b) If any funds other than Federal, State or local government appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for
influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency; a member of Congress, North Carolina's General
Assembly or local government body; an officer or employee of Congress, North Carolina's General Assembly or local
government body; or an employee of a member of Congress, North Carolina's General Assembly or local government body in
connection with the Federal, State or local government contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement, the undersigned shall
complete and submit Standard Form -LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying" in accordance with its instructions.
• Drug -Free Work Place Requirements - It will comply by:
(a) Publishing a statement notifying employees that the unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensing, possession or use of a
controlled substance is prohibited in the grantee's workplace and specifying the actions that will be taken against employees for
violation of such prohibition;
(b) Establishing a drug -free awareness program to inform employees about -
(1) The dangers of drug abuse in the workplace;
(2) The grantee's policy of maintaining a drug -free workplace;
(3) Any available drug counseling, rehabilitation, and employee assistance programs; and
(4) The penalties that may be imposed upon employees for drug abuse violations occurring in the workplace;
(c) Making it a requirement that each employee to be engaged in the performance of the grant be given a copy of the statement
required by paragraph (a) above;
(d) Notifying the employee in the statement required by paragraph (a), above, that, as a condition of employment under the grant,
the employee will -
(1) Abide by the terms of the statement; and
(2) Notify the employer of any criminal drug statue conviction for a violation occurring in the workplace no later than five days
after such conviction;
RFP 16- 006177 Page 23 of 29

(e) Notifying the agency within ten days after receiving notice under subparagraph (d)(2), above, from an employee or otherwise
receiving actual notice of such conviction;
(f) Taking one of the following actions, within 30 days of receiving notice under subparagraph (d)(2), above with respect to any
employee who is so convicted -
(1) Taking appropriate personnel action against such an employee, up to and including termination; or
(2) Requiring such employee to participate satisfactorily in a drug abuse assistance or rehabilitation program approved for
such purposes by a Federal, State, or local health, law enforcement, or other appropriate agency;
(g) Making a good faith effort to continue to maintain a drug -free workplace through implementation of paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d),
(e), and (f), above. The offeror will comply with the provisions of the Equal Employment Practices Act set out in Article 49A of
Chapter 143 of the North Carolina General Statutes.
• The offeror will comply with the provisions of the Equal Employment Practices Act set out in Article 49A of Chapter 143 of the North
Carolina General Statutes.
• The offeror will comply, as applicable, with the provisions of the Wage and Hour Act, Occupational Safety and Health Act of North
Carolina, Controlled Substance Examination Regulation, Retaliatory Employment Discrimination, Safety and Health Programs and
Committees, Workplace Violence Prevention, and other applicable provisions of Chapter 95 of the North Carolina General Statutes
regarding labor standards.
• The offeror will comply with all applicable requirements of all other federal, state and local government laws, executive orders, regulations
and policies governing this program.
• The offeror is registered in NC E- Procurement @ Your Service or agrees to register within two days after notification of contract award.
Registration web site: http: / /vendor.ncgov.com .
• The offeror as required by G.S. §143 -48.5 (Session Law 2013 -418), certifies that it, and each of its subcontractors for any contract
awarded as a result of this solicitation, complies with the requirements of Article 2 of Chapter 64 of the NC General Statutes, including
the requirement for each employer with more than 25 employees in North Carolina to verify the work authorization of its employees
through the federal E- Verify system.
(THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK)
RFP 16- 006177 Page 24 of 29

EXECUTION OF PROPOSAL BY OFFEROR
Therefore, in compliance with this Request for Proposals, and subject to all conditions herein, the undersigned offers and agrees, if this
proposal is accepted within one year from the date of the opening, to furnish the subject services per the attached Sealed Cost Proposal.
Offeror: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
Check Appropriate Status —
Business Owned /Controlled
Street or PO Box:
African American
{ }
Handicapped
{ }
Woman Owned
{ }
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Other Minority Specify:
City: Cary
State: NC
Zip Code: 27518
Telephone Number:
919 - 481 -5703
Fax Number:
919 - 463 -5490
Principal Place of Business if different from above (See General
City:
State:
Zip Code:
Information on Submitting Proposals, Item 18):
Will any of the work under this contract be performed outside the United States? If yes, describe
❑ Yes
X❑ No
in an attachment with your offer.
N.C.G.S. § 133 -32 and Executive Order 24 prohibit the offer to, or acceptance by, any State Employee 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 any
response in this procurement, you attest, for your entire organization and its employees or agents, that you are not aware
that any such gift has been offered, accepted, or promised by any employees of your organization.
Signature (Authorized Official):
Title: Ecosystem Restoration
Technical Services Manager
Typed or Printed Name:
Date:
William Scott Hunt, III, PE
November 20, 2014
E -Mail address:
[e-mail]
Key Personnel /Individual Assigned To This RFP By The Offeror:
William Scott Hunt, III, PE
Title:
Ecosystem Restoration Technical Services Manager
E -Mail address:
[e-mail]
"THIS PAGE MUST BE SIGNED AND INCLUDED IN YOUR TECHNICAL PROPOSAL"
FAILURE TO SIGN AND RETURN THIS PAGE WITH YOUR OFFER WILL CAUSE YOUR OFFER TO BE REJECTED.
RFP 16- 006177 Page 25 of 29

SECTION 10, LOCATION OF CONTRACT PERFORMANCE
INCLUDE IN TECHNICAL PROPOSAL
WHERE SERVICE CONTRACTS WILL BE PERFORMED
In accordance with NC General Statue 143 -59.4 (Session Law 2005 -169),
this form is to be completed and submitted with the offeror's (technical) proposal 1 bid.
(THIS INFORMATION WILL NOT COUNT TOWARD THE 100 PAGE LIMIT REQUIRED FOR TECHNICAL PROPOSAL)
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■
Issuing Agency: Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Solicitation #: RFP 16- 006177
Agency Contract Person Kathy Dale Phone Number: 919 - 707 -8451
Solicitation Title / Type of Service: Full Delivery Projects To Provide Stream Mitigation Within Cataloging Unit 03050101 Of The
Catawba River Basin As Described In The Scope Of Work
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■ ■■■ ■■■■■■■ ■■■ ■ ■■ ■■■ ■■■■■■■ ■■
TO BE COMPLETED BY THE OFFEROR
OFFEROR: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
CITY & STATE: Cary, NC
Location(s) from which services will be performed by the Contractor:
SERVICE
CITY / PROVIDENCE / STATE
COUNTRY
Project management, surveying,
Cary, NC
USA
design, stream & wetland analyses
USA
construction inspection, and moni
oring
trom which services are anticiDatea to be Dertormea uu I Slut 1 lit U. S. by the contractor:
Location(s) from which services will be performed by subcontractor(s):
SERVICE
SUBCONTRACTOR
CITY /PROVIDENCE /STATE
COUNTRY
Construction and
vegetation planting
Riverworks, Inc.
Raleigh, NC
USA
trom Which Services are antlClDatea to be Dertormed uu I Slut I lit U. 5. by the subco
(Attach additional pages if necessary)
RFP 16- 006177 Page 26 of 29

SECTION 11. ADDITIONAL OFFEROR INFORMATION
INCLUDE IN TECHNICAL PROPOSAL
(THIS INFORMATION WILL NOT COUNT TOWARD THE 100 PAGE LIMIT FOR THE TECHNICAL PROPOSAL)
OFFERORS INFORMATION
Offerors Primary Contact (or Project Manager)
Name:
William Scott Hunt, III, PE
Agency:
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
Title:
Ecosystem Restoration Technical Services Manager
Address:
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Address:
8000 Regency
City:
Cary
State/ Zip: NC
27518
Telephone:
919 - 481 -5703
Fax:
919 - 463 -5490
Email:
wshunt @mbakerintl.com
Offerors Execution Address (Where the contract should be mailed for signature)
Name:
William Scott
Hunt, III, PE
Agency:
Michael Baker
Engineering, Inc.
Title:
Ecosystem Restoration Technical Services Manager
Address:
8000 Regency
Parkway, Suite 600
Pittsburgh
State/ Zip: PA
15251 -6451
City:
Cary
Fax:
State / Zip: NC
27518
Telephone:
919 -481 -5703
Fax:
919- 463 -5490
Email:
Offerors Payment (Remit -To) Address (Where the checks should be mailed)
(This address should agree with the "Remit -To" address associated with the Contractor's Tax ID. This information must
be verified with the Contractor's Corporate Accounting Office)
Name:
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
Agency:
Title:
Address:
PO Box 360451
City:
Pittsburgh
State/ Zip: PA
15251 -6451
Telephone:
Fax:
Email:
RFP 16- 006177 Page 27 of 29

CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
Solicitation RFP 16- 006177
Bidder /Offeror: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
THIS PAGE IS TO BE FILLED OUT AND RETURNED WITH YOUR BID. FAILURE TO DO SO MAY
SUBJECT YOUR BID TO REJECTION.
ATTENTION:
Federal Employer Identification Number or alternate identification number (e.g., Social Security Number) is used for internal
processing, including bid tabulation.
Enter ID number(s) BELOW:
US Company: Federal Employer Identification No. Federal Tax ID Number 13- 5674528
Company D -U -N -S No.
(D -U -N -S = Data Universal Numbering System)
US Citizen: Social Security No. {DO NOT INCLUDE IF YOU HAVE A FEDERAL EMPLOYEE ID NO.)
Outside US: Business ID No.
Pursuant to N.C.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 does not count towards the 100 page (printed front and back)
limit for Technical Proposals
RFP 16- 006177 Page 29 of 29

AT"A
DER
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
Pat McCrory, Governor Michael Ellison, Director John E. Skvarla, III, Secretary
October 2, 2014
THIS ADDENDUM MUST BE RETURNED WITH YOUR TECHNICAL PROPOSAL
RFP NO.
16- 006177
RFP TITLE:
Full Delivery Projects To Provide Stream Mitigation Within
Cataloging Unit 03050101 Of The Catawba River Basin As
Described in the Scope of Work
ADDENDUM NO.
01
USING
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
AGENCY:
PURCHASER
KATHY
OPENING
November 20, 2014 @ 2:00 P.M.
DALE
DATE /TIME:
This correspondence serves as an addendum to the subject RFP. Your response to this RFP should be governed by the
content of the original RFP and the Revisions provided in this addendum notice.
SECTION 1- REVISIONS /ADDITIONS
1. Page 11 - Task 2 has been replacement with the following information:
Task 2: Property
SteD One: Preliminary Process and Review
The Contractor shall electronically send the following five (5) items to the NCEEP Project Manager and State
Property Office (SPO) Manager Blane Rice (Blane.Rice @doa.nc.gov) for review:
1. Draft Conservation Easement in Microsoft word document form
• Use the 9/4/2014 conservation easement template.
• The Contractor shall convey to the State of North Carolina the rights to all mitigation, including but not
limited to, stream, wetlands, riparian buffer, and nutrient offset mitigation credits derived from each
site and within the area of the conservation easement.
• The easement boundary must reflect the boundary provided within the technical proposal within
reason. Any variations must be communicated to the NCEEP Project Manager.
• The Contractor must provide a copy of the conservation easement to the landowner, and be aware of
tax implications such as NC General Statute 105 -277.4 which addresses county agricultural deferred
taxes that may be incurred at closing.
2. Preliminary Survey Plat in Adobe PDF form
• All surveys shall meet the Standards of Practice for Land Surveying in North Carolina as described in Title
21, Chapter 56, of the North Carolina Administrative Code. As such, surveys and digital files shall be tied
to the North Carolina State Plane Coordinate System NAD83 (NSRS2007).
RFP 16- 006177
Addendum No.1 Page 1 of 5

• The survey title block shall read, "Conservation Easement Survey for the State of North Carolina,
Ecosystem Enhancement Program." The title block shall also contain the project name, SPO number,
NCEEP IMS number, name of the owner, location, date surveyed, scale of the drawing, name, address,
registration number and seal of the professional land surveyor (PLS).
• A table of coordinates (northing and easting) for all property corners, numbered consecutively, must be
included on the plat. If multiple parcels comprise a single project, assign a unique number for each
property corner within the project.
• A table of metes and bounds for all lines must be included in the plat.
• The Contractor shall show the following that exist within 100 feet of the easement boundary: roads or
trails, property corners, nearby easements, dwellings, roadways, streams and creeks, manholes, poles,
and right -of -ways.
• The landowner(s) or his /her legal representative must sign the recorded plat.
• Access to the easement area must be shown, with location and width depicted by a dotted line and note
on the recorded plat.
3. Digital Easement File in AutoCAD (.dwg) and ArcMap (.shp) format
• The CAD and GIS files must contain a closed polygon layer of the conservation easement shape in
addition to the line work.
4. Copy of the attorney's report on title based on a 30 -year title search with all supporting deeds and
documentation
• Each conservation easement conveyed must have good, marketable title free of liens and
encumbrances.
5. Title attorney's "Schedule A" with any documents describing possible exceptions to title and exhibits.
Step Two: Approval for Closing
• SPO and NCEEP will review and issue written approval to record after documents meet requirements.
• The Contractor shall record the final approved easement and plat and obtain all necessary approvals
from the County Review Officer.
Step Three: Task 2 PaVment
The Contractor will complete the seven (7) listed deliverables along with invoice for Task 2 payment. Document
deliverables shall be submitted electronically to the NCEEP project manager and SPO Manager Blane Rice
(Blane.Rice @doa.nc.gov). Additionally, SPO requires one (1) hard copy of all the original documents and a
compact disk mailed to Blane Rice, NC Department of Administration, State Property Office, 1321 Mail Service
Center, Raleigh, NC 27699 -1321. Once received, SPO will issue authorization for payment.
1. Recorded Conservation Easement in Adobe PDF form
2. Recorded Survey Plat in Adobe PDF form
3. Updated digital easement file in AutoCAD (.dwg) and ArcMap (.shp) format
4. Final attorneys report on title based on 30 -year search with deeds and documentation.
Additionally, the following must be satisfied during Task 2:
5. Original title insurance policy shall be forwarded to SPO ( Blane Rice) as soon as it is available.
6. Provide the name, address, phone number, and e-mail address (if available) of each grantor via
RFP 16- 006177
Addendum No.1 Page 2 of 5

electronic communication to SPO and NCEEP.
7. Install survey monumentation and conduct boundary marking with the following specifications:
• The Contractor shall set 5/8" rebar 30" in length with 3 -1/4" aluminum caps on all easement
corners. Caps shall meet EEP specifications (Berntsen RBD5325, imprinted with NC State Logo #
B9087 or equivalent). After installation, caps shall be stamped with the corresponding number
from the table of coordinates on the survey.
• The Contractor shall place a 6 -foot tall durable witness post at each corner in the conservation
easement boundary. Posts shall be made of material that will last a minimum of 20 years.
• The Contractor shall attach a conservation easement sign to each witness post and place
additional signs at no more than 200 -foot intervals on long boundary lines. When applicable,
the Contractor can mark existing trees ( >3dbh) with conservation easement signs and /or blaze
property lines at approximate eye level in lieu of line posts. Where applicable, established fence
posts can be used for placement of signage.
ALLOWANCES:
• The contractor may elect to install monumentation and boundary marking during Task 5 preparation. No
payment for Task 5 will be approved prior to installation.
• The original title insurance policy(ies) must be received prior to payment for the Task 5 deliverable.
• The contractor may elect to complete Task 3 (site specific Mitigation Plan), including the requirement
for financial assurance prior to the completion of Task 2. Please be advised, however, that subsequent
failure of the contractor to convey an acceptable conservation easement to the State of North
Carolina, will require the contractor to fully reimburse the State for any payment(s) made to the
contractor for completion of Task 3.
RECCOMENDATIONS:
The following recommendations are based on previous mitigation project experience. These practices are
proven to benefit overall project cost, save time, protect mitigation credit, and lend favor during regulatory
close -out consideration.
• Simplified project boundaries with lines greater than 200 feet and with fewer corners minimizes
encroachments, protects mitigation assets, lowers fencing costs, and makes it easier for adjacent
landowners to understand boundaries.
• Culverts are often preferred over ford crossings to encourage aquatic passage and minimize stream
impact.
• Fence type established should be based on landowner and livestock needs. In general, well -built fences
will provide less opportunity for encroachment, better maintenance, and long term protection of
property.
• Carefully locating fences for long -term maintenance lessens impact to the conservation easement.
• Using the survey plat as baseline documentation for existing roads, paths, trails, or other items of note
provides a reference for long -term stewardship and landowners.
• Woven wire and multi- strand barbed wire fencing installed in accordance to NRCS standards are proven
fencing methods during project closeouts. Past projects with electrified high tensile have experienced
many difficulties during monitoring and closeout. The contractor should discuss fencing options with
landowners; however, continue to be cognizant of mitigation credit protection and long term
stewardship.
RFP 16- 006177
Addendum No.1 Page 3 of 5

2- Revised Conservation Easement 9/4/14;
Link: http: / /Portal.ncdenr.org /c /document library /get file ?uuid= 608df0fa- 1660- 4c9c -a999-
fe344f609af7 &erou old =60329
2. TASK 6- DIGITAL DATA SUBMITTALS:
Page 12 of 29; Task 6 previously read... NCEEP requires three (3) hard copies of the "Draft" baseline monitoring
document and "Draft' as -built drawings. After "Draft' approval, NCEEP requires three (3) hard copies and one (1)
pdf. file on compact disc (which can be sent electronically if preferred) of the "Final' baseline monitoring document
and the as- builts. The as -built drawings should be submitted with the following criteria:
Task 6 has been revised to read... NCEEP requires three (3) hard copies of the "Draft' baseline monitoring
document and "Draft' as -built drawings. After "Draft' approval, NCEEP requires three (3) hardcopies and one (1)
pdf file on compact disc (which can be sent electronically if preferred) and digital data submission, prepared in
accordance with the Format, Data Requirements and Content Guidance for Digital Drawings Submitted to
EEP (Version 2.0 9/30/14) on compact disc of the "Final" baseline monitoring document and the as-
builts..." The as -built drawings should be submitted with the following criteria:
Page 12 of 29, Tasks 7 -13 previously read... NCEEP requires five (5) hard copies and one (1) .pdf formatted
copy on a compact disc (which can be sent electronically if preferred) of the yearly monitoring reports. Monitor
the mitigation site as stipulated in the mitigation plan and baseline monitoring report to assess the success of the
restored site for a period of at least seven (7) years. Each annual monitoring report must be submitted to the
NCEEP by December 1St of the year during which the monitoring was conducted. The project success criteria of
260 stems per acre must be met at the end of the 7th year of monitoring, or monitoring will continue until the
success criteria are met. The 7th year monitoring report (or final year in cases where monitoring has been
extended beyond 7 years) must include a closeout report that provides an assessment of the monitoring data
collected from the entire monitoring period. The contracted firm must attend closeout meetings and present final
project to the IRT both in a closeout meeting at a site to be named later and on the project site, following all
NCEEP closeout procedures and templates.
Tasks 7 -13 have been revised to read... " NCEEP requires five (5) hard copies and one (1) .pdf formatted copy
on a compact disc (which can be sent electronically if preferred) and digital data submission, prepared in
accordance with the Format, Data Requirements and Content Guidance for Digital Drawings Submitted to
EEP (Version 2.0 9/30/14) on compact disc of the yearly monitoring reports." Monitor the mitigation site as
stipulated in the mitigation plan and baseline monitoring report to assess the success of the restored site for a
period of at least seven (7) years. Each annual monitoring report must be submitted to the NCEEP by December
1 St of the year during which the monitoring was conducted. The project success criteria of 260 stems per acre
must be met at the end of the 7th year of monitoring, or monitoring will continue until the success criteria are met.
The 7th year monitoring report (or final year in cases where monitoring has been extended beyond 7 years) must
include a closeout report that provides an assessment of the monitoring data collected from the entire monitoring
period. The contracted firm must attend closeout meetings and present final project to the IRT both in a closeout
meeting at a site to be named later and on the project site, following all NCEEP closeout procedures and
templates.
3. A copy of the Catawba "Cool' water map can be found in Attachment A of this Addendum.
RFP 16- 006177
Addendum No.1 Page 4 of 5

SECTION 2
PLEASE NOTE — THIS ADDENDUM MUST BE RETURNED WITH YOUR TECHNICAL PROPOSAL
Check ONLY ONE of the following categories and if required, return one properly executed copy of this
addendum prior to bid opening time and date.
❑ Bid has already been mailed. Changes resulting from this addendum are attached.
❑ Bid has already been mailed. NO CHANGES resulted from this addendum.
Bid has NOT been mailed and ANY CHANGES resulting from this addendum are included in our offer.
SECTION 3
Execute Addendum:
BIDDER:Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
ADDRESS (CITY & STATE): 8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600, Cary, NC 27518
AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE: DATE. .November 20 2014
William Scott Hunt, III, PE
NAME & TITLE (TYPED): Ecosystem Restoration Technical Services Manager
Note: It is the offeror's responsibility to choose the appropriate delivery method to guarantee that
the offer is received by the Issuing Agency by the Opening Date /Time noted in the RFP.
DELIVERED BY US POSTAL SERVICE
(Mail at least 7 business days prior to Bid
Closing Date)
DELIVERED BY ANY OTHER MEANS (UPS /
FEDEX / ETC.)
(Suggestion: Request Signature Receipt)
SEALED BID
SEALED BID
RFP 16- 006177
RFP 16- 006177
NC DENR ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT
NC DENR ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT
PROGRAM
PROGRAM
ATTN: KATHY DALE
ATTN: KATHY DALE
1652 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
217 W. JONES STREET, SUITE 3000A
RALEIGH NC 27699 -1652
RALEIGH NC 27603
IT IS THE OFFER'S RESPONSIBILITY TO CONTINUOUSLY CHECK FOR ADDENDA UP TO THE LAST
POSTED OPENING DATE /TIME AND TO ASSURE THAT ALL ADDENDA HAVE BEEN REVIEWED,
SIGNED AND RETURNED IF REQUIRED.
RFP 16- 006177
Addendum No.1 Page 5 of 5

« �
zO
± 2
z �
U 2
/ 2
¥ 2
« �
c
«
.
_2|
�
. ~
2 Co
\
C)
0
R
m
CII)
L
/
c
§
0
CD
§
{
a)
(3)
CA®
�
\
p
`
D
e
�
_
A { r
§
o
\
\
\ \
§
-
U
%
5
]
J 2
<
�
0�
U. LL
2
�
R
u
x .
k
w
/
2
~
o
LL
e
LU
LU
2
z`
r
.
§
f
§
�
I
�
�
§
0
2
B
co
Ln
�
�
]
�
2

ATTACHMENT B
ADDENDUM NO. 1
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEED OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT
AND RIGHT OF ACCESS PROVIDED
PURSUANT TO
FULL DELIVERY
MITIGATION CONTRACT
COUNTY
SPO File Number:
EEP Project Number:
Prepared by: Office of the Attorney General
Property Control Section
Return to: NC Department of Administration
State Property Office
1321 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1321
THIS DEED OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT AND RIGHT OF ACCESS, made
this day of , 20_, by Landowner name goes here
, ( "Grantor "), whose mailing address is Landowner address goes here , to the State of
North Carolina, ( "Grantee "), whose mailing address is State of North Carolina, Department of
Administration, State Property Office, 1321 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699 -1321. The
designations of Grantor and Grantee as used herein shall include said parties, their heirs,
successors, and assigns, and shall include singular, plural, masculine, feminine, or neuter as
required by context.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143 -214.8 et seq., the State
of North Carolina has established the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (formerly known as the
Wetlands Restoration Program) within the Department of Environment and Natural Resources
for the purposes of acquiring, maintaining, restoring, enhancing, creating and preserving wetland
and riparian resources that contribute to the protection and improvement of water quality, flood
prevention, fisheries, aquatic habitat, wildlife habitat, and recreational opportunities; and
WHEREAS, this Conservation Easement from Grantor to Grantee has been negotiated,
arranged and provided for as a condition of a full delivery contract between ( insert name and
address of full delivery contract provider ) and the North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources, to provide stream, wetland and/or buffer mitigation pursuant to the North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Purchase and Services Contract
Number
WHEREAS, The State of North Carolina is qualified to be the Grantee of a Conservation
Easement pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 121 -35; and
NCEEP Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 4 September 2014
Page 1 of 10

ATTACHMENT B
ADDENDUM NO. 1
WHEREAS, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources and the United
States Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding, (MOU) duly executed by all parties on November 4, 1998. This MOU
recognized that the Wetlands Restoration Program was to provide effective compensatory
mitigation for authorized impacts to wetlands, streams and other aquatic resources by restoring,
enhancing and preserving the wetland and riparian areas of the State; and
WHEREAS, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the North Carolina
Department of Transportation and the United States Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington
District entered into a Memorandum of Agreement, (MOA) duly executed by all parties in
Greensboro, NC on July 22, 2003, which recognizes that the Ecosystem Enhancement Program
is to provide for compensatory mitigation by effective protection of the land, water and natural
resources of the State by restoring, enhancing and preserving ecosystem functions; and
WHEREAS, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, the North Carolina Division of
Water Quality, the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management, and the National Marine
Fisheries Service entered into an agreement to continue the In -Lieu Fee operations of the North
Carolina Department of Natural Resources' Ecosystem Enhancement Program with an effective
date of 28 July, 2010, which supersedes and replaces the previously effective MOA and MOU
referenced above; and
WHEREAS, the acceptance of this instrument for and on behalf of the State of North
Carolina was granted to the Department of Administration by resolution as approved by the
Governor and Council of State adopted at a meeting held in the City of Raleigh, North Carolina,
on the 8th day of February 2000; and
WHEREAS, the Ecosystem Enhancement Program in the Department of Environment
and Natural Resources, which has been delegated the authority authorized by the Governor and
Council of State to the Department of Administration, has approved acceptance of this
instrument; and
WHEREAS, Grantor owns in fee simple certain real property situated, lying, and being
in Township, County, North Carolina (the "Property "), and being
more particularly described as that certain parcel of land containing approximately
acres and being conveyed to the Grantor by deed as recorded in Deed Book at Page
of the County Registry, North Carolina; and
WHEREAS, Grantor is willing to grant a Conservation Easement and Right of Access
over the herein described areas of the Property, thereby restricting and limiting the use of the
areas of the Property subject to the Conservation Easement to the terms and conditions and
purposes hereinafter set forth, and Grantee is willing to accept said Easement and Access Rights.
The Conservation Easement shall be for the protection and benefit of the waters of if known
insert name of stream, branch, river or waterway here.
NCEEP Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 4 September 2014
Page 2 of 10

ATTACHMENT B
ADDENDUM NO. 1
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants, terms, conditions, and
restrictions hereinafter set forth, Grantor unconditionally and irrevocably hereby grants and
conveys unto Grantee, its successors and assigns, forever and in perpetuity, a Conservation
Easement along with a general Right of Access.
The Conservation Easement Area consists of the following:
Tracts Number containing a total of acres as shown on the plats
of survey entitled "Final Plat, Conservation Easement for North Carolina Ecosystem
Enhancement Program, Project Name: , SPO File No. , EEP Site No.
, Property of ," dated , 20_ by name
of surveyor, PLS Number and recorded in the County, North
Carolina Register of Deeds at Plat Book Pages
See attached "Exhibit A ", Legal Description of area of the Property hereinafter referred to as the
"Conservation Easement Area"
The purposes of this Conservation Easement are to maintain, restore, enhance, construct,
create and preserve wetland and/or riparian resources in the Conservation Easement Area that
contribute to the protection and improvement of water quality, flood prevention, fisheries,
aquatic habitat, wildlife habitat, and recreational opportunities; to maintain permanently the
Conservation Easement Area in its natural condition, consistent with these purposes; and to
prevent any use of the Easement Area that will significantly impair or interfere with these
purposes. To achieve these purposes, the following conditions and restrictions are set forth:
I. DURATION OF EASEMENT
Pursuant to law, including the above referenced statutes, this Conservation Easement and
Right of Access shall be perpetual and it shall run with, and be a continuing restriction upon the
use of, the Property, and it shall be enforceable by the Grantee against the Grantor and against
Grantor's heirs, successors and assigns, personal representatives, agents, lessees, and licensees.
IL GRANTOR RESERVED USES AND RESTRICTED ACTIVITIES
The Conservation Easement Area shall be restricted from any development or usage that
would impair or interfere with the purposes of this Conservation Easement. Unless expressly
reserved as a compatible use herein, any activity in, or use of, the Conservation Easement Area
by the Grantor is prohibited as inconsistent with the purposes of this Conservation Easement.
Any rights not expressly reserved hereunder by the Grantor have been acquired by the Grantee.
Any rights not expressly reserved hereunder by the Grantor, including the rights to all mitigation
credits, including, but not limited to, stream, wetland, and riparian buffer mitigation units,
derived from each site within the area of the Conservation Easement, are conveyed to and belong
to the Grantee. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the following specific uses are
prohibited, restricted, or reserved as indicated:
NCEEP Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 4 September 2014
Page 3 of 10

ATTACHMENT B
ADDENDUM NO. 1
A. Recreational Uses. Grantor expressly reserves the right to undeveloped recreational
uses, including hiking, bird watching, hunting and fishing, and access to the Conservation
Easement Area for the purposes thereof.
B. Motorized Vehicle Use. Motorized vehicle use in the Conservation Easement Area is
prohibited except within a Crossing Area(s) or Road or Trail as shown on the recorded survey
plat.
C. Educational Uses. The Grantor reserves the right to engage in and permit others to
engage in educational uses in the Conservation Easement Area not inconsistent with this
Conservation Easement, and the right of access to the Conservation Easement Area for such
purposes including organized educational activities such as site visits and observations.
Educational uses of the property shall not alter vegetation, hydrology or topography of the site.
D. Damage to Vegetation. Except within Crossing Area(s) as shown on the recorded
survey plat and as related to the removal of non- native plants, diseased or damaged trees, or
vegetation that destabilizes or renders unsafe the Conservation Easement Area to persons or
natural habitat, all cutting, removal, mowing, harming, or destruction of any trees and vegetation
in the Conservation Easement Area is prohibited.
E. Industrial, Residential and Commercial Uses. All industrial, residential and
commercial uses are prohibited in the Conservation Easement Area.
F. Agricultural Use. All agricultural uses are prohibited within the Conservation Easement
Area including any use for cropland, waste lagoons, or pastureland.
G. New Construction. There shall be no building, facility, mobile home, antenna, utility
pole, tower, or other structure constructed or placed in the Conservation Easement Area.
H. Roads and Trails. There shall be no construction or maintenance of new roads, trails,
walkways, or paving in the Conservation Easement.
All existing roads, trails and crossings within the Conservation Easement Area shall be shown on
the recorded survey plat.
I. Signs. No signs shall be permitted in the Conservation Easement Area except
interpretive signs describing restoration activities and the conservation values of the
Conservation Easement Area, signs identifying the owner of the Property and the holder of the
Conservation Easement, signs giving directions, or signs prescribing rules and regulations for the
use of the Conservation Easement Area.
J. Dumping or Storing. Dumping or storage of soil, trash, ashes, garbage, waste,
abandoned vehicles, appliances, machinery, or any other material in the Conservation Easement
Area is prohibited.
NCEEP Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 4 September 2014
Page 4 of 10

ATTACHMENT B
ADDENDUM NO. 1
K. Grading, Mineral Use, Excavation, Dredging. There shall be no grading, filling,
excavation, dredging, mining, drilling, hydraulic fracturing; removal of topsoil, sand, gravel,
rock, peat, minerals, or other materials.
L. Water Quality and Drainage Patterns. There shall be no diking, draining, dredging,
channeling, filling, leveling, pumping, impounding or diverting, causing, allowing or permitting
the diversion of surface or underground water in the Conservation Easement Area. No altering
or tampering with water control structures or devices, or disruption or alteration of the restored,
enhanced, or created drainage patterns is allowed. All removal of wetlands, polluting or
discharging into waters, springs, seeps, or wetlands, or use of pesticide or biocides in the
Conservation Easement Area is prohibited. In the event of an emergency interruption or
shortage of all other water sources, water from within the Conservation Easement Area may
temporarily be withdrawn for good cause shown as needed for the survival of livestock on the
Property.
M. Subdivision and Conveyance. Grantor voluntarily agrees that no further subdivision,
partitioning, or dividing of the Conservation Easement Area portion of the Property owned by the
Grantor in fee simple ( "fee ") that is subject to this Conservation Easement is allowed. Any future
transfer of the Property shall be subject to this Conservation Easement and Right of Access and to the
Grantee's right of unlimited and repeated ingress and egress over and across the Property to the
Conservation Easement Area for the purposes set forth herein.
N. Development Rights. All development rights are permanently removed from the
Conservation Easement Area and are non - transferrable.
O. Disturbance of Natural Features. Any change, disturbance, alteration or impairment of
the natural features of the Conservation Easement Area or any intentional introduction of non-
native plants, trees and /or animal species by Grantor is prohibited.
The Grantor may request permission to vary from the above restrictions for good cause
shown, provided that any such request is not inconsistent with the purposes of this Conservation
Easement, and the Grantor obtains advance written approval from the N.C. Ecosystem
Enhancement Program, whose mailing address is 1652 Mail Services Center, Raleigh, NC
27699 -1652.
III. GRANTEE RESERVED USES
A. Right of Access, Construction, and Inspection. The Grantee, its employees and agents,
successors and assigns, receive a perpetual Right of Access to the Conservation Easement Area
over the Property at reasonable times to undertake any activities to restore, construct, manage,
maintain, enhance, protect, and monitor the stream, wetland and any other riparian resources in
the Conservation Easement Area, in accordance with restoration activities or a long -term
management plan. Unless otherwise specifically set forth in this Conservation Easement, the
rights granted herein do not include or establish for the public any access rights.
B. Restoration Activities. These activities include planting of trees, shrubs and herbaceous
vegetation, installation of monitoring wells, utilization of heavy equipment to grade, fill, and
NCEEP Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 4 September 2014
Page 5 of 10

ATTACHMENT B
ADDENDUM NO. 1
prepare the soil, modification of the hydrology of the site, and installation of natural and
manmade materials as needed to direct in- stream, above ground, and subterraneous water flow.
C. Signs. The Grantee, its employees and agents, successors or assigns, shall be permitted
to place signs and witness posts on the Property to include any or all of the following: describe
the project, prohibited activities within the Conservation Easement, or identify the project
boundaries and the holder of the Conservation Easement.
D. Fences. Conservation Easements are purchased to protect the investments by the State
(Grantee) in natural resources. Livestock within conservations easements damages the
investment and can result in reductions in natural resource value and mitigation credits which
would cause financial harm to the State. Therefore, Landowners (Grantor) with livestock are
required to restrict livestock access to the Conservation Easement area. Repeated failure to do so
may result in the State (Grantee) repairing or installing livestock exclusion devices (fences)
within the conservation area for the purpose of restricting livestock access. In such cases, the
landowner (Grantor) must provide access to the State (Grantee) to make repairs.
E. Crossing Area(s). The Grantee is not responsible for maintenance of crossing area(s),
however, the Grantee, its employees and agents, successors or assigns, reserve the right to repair
crossing area(s), at its sole discretion and to recover the cost of such repairs from the Grantor if
such repairs are needed as a result of activities of the Grantor, his successors or assigns.
IV. ENFORCEMENT AND REMEDIES
A. Enforcement. To accomplish the purposes of this Conservation Easement, Grantee is
allowed to prevent any activity within the Conservation Easement Area that is inconsistent with
the purposes of this Conservation Easement and to require the restoration of such areas or
features in the Conservation Easement Area that may have been damaged by such unauthorized
activity or use. Upon any breach of the terms of this Conservation Easement by Grantor, the
Grantee shall, except as provided below, notify the Grantor in writing of such breach and the
Grantor shall have ninety (90) days after receipt of such notice to correct the damage caused by
such breach. If the breach and damage remains uncured after ninety (90) days, the Grantee may
enforce this Conservation Easement by bringing appropriate legal proceedings including an
action to recover damages, as well as injunctive and other relief. The Grantee shall also have the
power and authority, consistent with its statutory authority: (a) to prevent any impairment of the
Conservation Easement Area by acts which may be unlawful or in violation of this Conservation
Easement; (b) to otherwise preserve or protect its interest in the Property; or (c) to seek damages
from any appropriate person or entity. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Grantee reserves the
immediate right, without notice, to obtain a temporary restraining order, injunctive or other
appropriate relief, if the breach is or would irreversibly or otherwise materially impair the
benefits to be derived from this Conservation Easement, and the Grantor and Grantee
acknowledge that the damage would be irreparable and remedies at law inadequate. The rights
and remedies of the Grantee provided hereunder shall be in addition to, and not in lieu of, all
other rights and remedies available to Grantee in connection with this Conservation Easement.
NCEEP Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 4 September 2014
Page 6 of 10

ATTACHMENT B
ADDENDUM NO. 1
B. Inspection. The Grantee, its employees and agents, successors and assigns, have the
right, with reasonable notice, to enter the Conservation Easement Area over the Property at
reasonable times for the purpose of inspection to determine whether the Grantor is complying
with the terms, conditions and restrictions of this Conservation Easement.
C. Acts Beyond Grantor's Control. Nothing contained in this Conservation Easement
shall be construed to entitle Grantee to bring any action against Grantor for any injury or change
in the Conservation Easement Area caused by third parties, resulting from causes beyond the
Grantor's control, including, without limitation, fire, flood, storm, and earth movement, or from
any prudent action taken in good faith by the Grantor under emergency conditions to prevent,
abate, or mitigate significant injury to life or damage to the Property resulting from such causes.
D. Costs of Enforcement. Beyond regular and typical monitoring expenses, any costs
incurred by Grantee in enforcing the terms of this Conservation Easement against Grantor,
including, without limitation, any costs of restoration necessitated by Grantor's acts or omissions
in violation of the terms of this Conservation Easement, shall be borne by Grantor.
E. No Waiver. Enforcement of this Easement shall be at the discretion of the Grantee and
any forbearance, delay or omission by Grantee to exercise its rights hereunder in the event of any
breach of any term set forth herein shall not be construed to be a waiver by Grantee.
V. MISCELLANEOUS
A. This instrument sets forth the entire agreement of the parties with respect to the
Conservation Easement and supersedes all prior discussions, negotiations, understandings or
agreements relating to the Conservation Easement. If any provision is found to be invalid, the
remainder of the provisions of the Conservation Easement, and the application of such provision
to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is found to be invalid, shall not be
affected thereby.
B. Grantor is responsible for any real estate taxes, assessments, fees, or charges levied upon
the Property. Grantee shall not be responsible for any costs or liability of any kind related to the
ownership, operation, insurance, upkeep, or maintenance of the Property, except as expressly
provided herein. Upkeep of any constructed bridges, fences, or other amenities on the Property
are the sole responsibility of the Grantor. Nothing herein shall relieve the Grantor of the
obligation to comply with federal, state or local laws, regulations and permits that may apply to
the exercise of the Reserved Rights.
C. Any notices shall be sent by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested to the
parties at their addresses shown herein or to other addresses as either party establishes in writing
upon notification to the other.
D. Grantor shall notify Grantee in writing of the name and address and any party to whom
the Property or any part thereof is to be transferred at or prior to the time said transfer is made.
NCEEP Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 4 September 2014
Page 7 of 10

ATTACHMENT B
ADDENDUM NO. 1
Grantor further agrees that any subsequent lease, deed, or other legal instrument by which any
interest in the Property is conveyed is subject to the Conservation Easement herein created.
E. The Grantor and Grantee agree that the terms of this Conservation Easement shall survive
any merger of the fee and easement interests in the Property or any portion thereof.
F. This Conservation Easement and Right of Access may be amended, but only in writing
signed by all parties hereto, or their successors or assigns, if such amendment does not affect the
qualification of this Conservation Easement or the status of the Grantee under any applicable
laws, and is consistent with the purposes of the Conservation Easement. The owner of the
Property shall notify the State Property Office and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in writing
sixty (60) days prior to the initiation of any transfer of all or any part of the Property or of any
request to void or modify this Conservation Easement. Such notifications and modification
requests shall be addressed to:
Ecosystem Enhancement Program Manager
State Property Office
1321 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1321
and
General Counsel
US Army Corps of Engineers
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403
G. The parties recognize and agree that the benefits of this Conservation Easement are in
gross and assignable provided, however, that the Grantee hereby covenants and agrees, that in
the event it transfers or assigns this Conservation Easement, the organization receiving the
interest will be a qualified holder under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 121 -34 et seq. and § 170(h) of the
Internal Revenue Code, and the Grantee further covenants and agrees that the terms of the
transfer or assignment will be such that the transferee or assignee will be required to continue in
perpetuity the conservation purposes described in this document.
VI. QUIET ENJOYMENT
Grantor reserves all remaining rights accruing from ownership of the Property, including
the right to engage in or permit or invite others to engage in only those uses of the Conservation
Easement Area that are expressly reserved herein, not prohibited or restricted herein, and are not
inconsistent with the purposes of this Conservation Easement. Without limiting the generality of
the foregoing, the Grantor expressly reserves to the Grantor, and the Grantor's invitees and
licensees, the right of access to the Conservation Easement Area, and the right of quiet
enjoyment of the Conservation Easement Area,
NCEEP Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 4 September 2014
Page 8 of 10

ATTACHMENT B
ADDENDUM NO. 1
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, the said rights and easements perpetually unto the State of
North Carolina for the aforesaid purposes,
AND Grantor covenants that Grantor is seized of said premises in fee and has the right to
convey the permanent Conservation Easement herein granted; that the same is free from
encumbrances and that Grantor will warrant and defend title to the same against the claims of all
persons whomsoever.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the Grantor has hereunto set his hand and seal, the day
and year first above written.
(SEAL)
NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF
I, , a Notary Public in and for the County and State
aforesaid, do hereby certify that , 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
day of , 20_.
Notary Public
My commission expires:
NCEEP Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 4 September 2014
Page 9 of 10

ATTACHMENT B
ADDENDUM NO. 1
Exhibit A
[INSERT LEGAL DESCRIPTION]
NCEEP Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template adopted 4 September 2014
Page 10 of 10

.ATA
DEN
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Pat McCrory Michael Ellison John E. Skvarla, III
Governor Director Secretary
October 17, 2014
THIS ADDENDUM MUST BE RETURNED WITH YOUR TECHNICAL PROPOSAL
RFP NO.
16- 006177
RFP TITLE:
Full Delivery Projects To Provide Stream Mitigation Within
Cataloging Unit 03050101 Of The Catawba River Basin As
Described in the Scope of Work
ADDENDUM NO.
02
USING
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
AGENCY:
PURCHASER
KATHY
OPENING
November 20, 2014 @ 2:00 P.M.
DALE
DATE /TIME:
This correspondence serves as an addendum to the subject RFP. Your response to this RFP should be governed by the
content of the original RFP and the Revisions provided in this addendum notice.
SECTION 1- REVISIONS /ADDITIONS
1. NCEEP would like to add a request for 6,400 warm stream credits in Catawba 01.
2. Attached is a copy of a revised cost proposal sheet that must be returned with your bid package. Do not include
this sheet filled out in your technical proposal. Print a copy of this addendum with the new cost proposal blank
and submit with your technical proposal. Three O '
SECTION 2
PLEASE NOTE — THIS ADDENDUM MUST BE RETURNED WITH YOUR TECHNICAL PROPOSAL
Check ONLY ONE of the following categories and if required, return one properly executed copy of this
addendum prior to bid opening time and date.
❑ Bid has already been mailed. Changes resulting from this addendum are attached.
❑ Bid has already been mailed. NO CHANGES resulted from this addendum.
® Bid has NOT been mailed and ANY CHANGES resulting from this addendum are included in our offer.
RFP 16- 006177
Addendum No.2
1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1601
Phone: 919 - 707 -89761 Internet: www.ncdenr.gov
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer— 50% Recycled 1 10% Post Consumer Paper
Page 1 of 3

SECTION 3
Execute Addendum:
BIDDER:Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
ADDRESS (CITY & STATE): 8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600, Cary, NC 27518
f
AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE: DATE: November
William Scott Hunt, III, PE
20, 2014
NAME & TITLE (TYPED): Ecosystem Restoration Technical Services Manager
Note: It is the offeror's responsibility to choose the appropriate delivery method to guarantee that
the offer is received by the Issuing Agency by the Opening Date /Time noted in the RFP.
DELIVERED BY US POSTAL SERVICE
(Mail at least 7 business days prior to Bid
Closing Date)
DELIVERED BY ANY OTHER MEANS (UPS /
FEDEX / ETC.)
(Suggestion: Request Signature Receipt)
SEALED BID
SEALED BID
RFP 16- 006177
RFP 16- 006177
NC DENR ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT
NC DENR ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT
PROGRAM
PROGRAM
ATTN: KATHY DALE
ATTN: KATHY DALE
1652 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
217 W. JONES STREET, SUITE 3000A
RALEIGH NC 27699 -1652
RALEIGH NC 27603
IT IS THE OFFER'S RESPONSIBILITY TO CONTINUOUSLY CHECK FOR ADDENDA UP TO THE LAST
POSTED OPENING DATE /TIME AND TO ASSURE THAT ALL ADDENDA HAVE BEEN REVIEWED,
SIGNED AND RETURNED IF REQUIRED.
RFP 16- 006177
Addendum No.2
1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1652
Phone: 919 - 707 -89761 Internet: www.ncdenr.gov
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer — Made in part by recycled paper
ATTACHMENT A
Page 2 of 3

REVISED SEALED COST PROPOSAL FORM
RFP# 16- 006177
RFP TITLE: FULL DELIVERY PROJECTS TO PROVIDE STREAM MITIGATION CREDITS WITHIN CATALOGING UNIT
03050101 OF THE CATAWBA RIVER BASIN
A SEPARATE SEALED COST PROPOSAL IS REQUIRED FOR EACH PROPOSED SITE AND FOR EACH
OPTION PROPOSED FOR A SITE.
ON THE FRONT OF YOUR SEALED COST PROPOSAL ENVELOPE, THE SITE NAME /LOCATION AND
OPTION NUMBER (IF APPLICABLE) MUST BE INDICATED.
YOU MUST RETURN THIS COST PROPOSAL FORM ALONG WITH YOUR BID.
SITE NAME
OPTION NUMBER (IF APPLICABLE)
PROPOSED COST
GRAND TOTAL:
All costs related to the mitigation offered must be included in this SEALED COST PROPOSAL. No additional charges for travel, per
diem, or cost of any services will be allowed. Cost will be a major factor in the selection of proposals. ALL Sealed Cost Proposals will
be compared to mitigation cost data maintained by the NCEEP.
Signature of Authorized Representative Date
Company Name (Printed) Federal ID #
RFP 16- 006177
Addendum No.2
1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1652
Phone: 919 - 707 -89761 Internet: www.ncdenr.gov
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer — Made in part by recycled paper
Page 3 of 3
STREAM
CREDITS
TOTAL UNITS
UNIT COST $ /UNIT
TOTAL COSTS
GRAND TOTAL:
All costs related to the mitigation offered must be included in this SEALED COST PROPOSAL. No additional charges for travel, per
diem, or cost of any services will be allowed. Cost will be a major factor in the selection of proposals. ALL Sealed Cost Proposals will
be compared to mitigation cost data maintained by the NCEEP.
Signature of Authorized Representative Date
Company Name (Printed) Federal ID #
RFP 16- 006177
Addendum No.2
1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1652
Phone: 919 - 707 -89761 Internet: www.ncdenr.gov
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer — Made in part by recycled paper
Page 3 of 3

.ATA
DEN
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Pat McCrory Michael Ellison John E. Skvarla, III
Governor Director Secretary
October 20, 2014
THIS ADDENDUM MUST BE RETURNED WITH YOUR TECHNICAL PROPOSAL
RFP NO.
16- 006177
RFP TITLE:
Full Delivery Projects To Provide Stream Mitigation Within
Cataloging Unit 03050101 Of The Catawba River Basin As
Described in the Scope of Work
ADDENDUM NO.
03
USING
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
AGENCY:
PURCHASER
KATHY
OPENING
November 20, 2014 @ 2:00 P.M.
DALE
DATE /TIME:
This correspondence serves as an addendum to the subject RFP. Your response to this RFP should be governed by the
content of the original RFP and the Revisions provided in this addendum notice.
SECTION 1- REVISION /CLARIFICATIONS
1. Please ignore all lettering in the black box (COOL STREAM CREDITS) on the new cost proposal page. It was
entered incorrectly. Pricing should be listed as one price for both types of stream credits. NCEEP will not
differentiate between cool and warm pricing.
2. With the additional of the 6,400 warm stream credits in Addendum #2, the total stream credit request for this RFP
is:
14,400 warm
2,000 cool
SECTION 2
PLEASE NOTE — THIS ADDENDUM MUST BE RETURNED WITH YOUR TECHNICAL PROPOSAL
Check ONLY ONE of the following categories and if required, return one properly executed copy of this
addendum prior to bid opening time and date.
❑ Bid has already been mailed. Changes resulting from this addendum are attached.
❑ Bid has already been mailed. NO CHANGES resulted from this addendum.
X❑ Bid has NOT been mailed and ANY CHANGES resulting from this addendum are included in our offer.
RFP 16- 006177
Addendum No.3
1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1601
Phone: 919 - 707 -89761 Internet: www.ncdenr.gov
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer— 50% Recycled 1 10% Post Consumer Paper
Page 1 of 3

SECTION 3
Execute Addendum:
BIDDER:Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
ADDRESS (CITY & STATE): 8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600, Cary, NC 27518
AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE: DATE: November 20, 2 014
William Scott Hunt, III, PE
NAME & TITLE (TYPED): Ecosystem Restoration Technical Services Manager
Note: It is the offeror's responsibility to choose the appropriate delivery method to guarantee that
the offer is received by the Issuing Agency by the Opening Date /Time noted in the RFP.
DELIVERED BY US POSTAL SERVICE
(Mail at least 7 business days prior to Bid
Closing Date)
DELIVERED BY ANY OTHER MEANS (UPS /
FEDEX / ETC.)
(Suggestion: Request Signature Receipt)
SEALED BID
SEALED BID
RFP 16- 006177
RFP 16- 006177
NC DENR ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT
NC DENR ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT
PROGRAM
PROGRAM
ATTN: KATHY DALE
ATTN: KATHY DALE
1652 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
217 W. JONES STREET, SUITE 3000A
RALEIGH NC 27699 -1652
RALEIGH NC 27603
IT IS THE OFFER'S RESPONSIBILITY TO CONTINUOUSLY CHECK FOR ADDENDA UP TO THE LAST
POSTED OPENING DATE /TIME AND TO ASSURE THAT ALL ADDENDA HAVE BEEN REVIEWED,
SIGNED AND RETURNED IF REQUIRED.
RFP 16- 006177
Addendum No.3
1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1652
Phone: 919 - 707 -89761 Internet: www.ncdenr.gov
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer - Made in part by recycled paper
Page 2 of 2

Part 1. Executive Summary
This Executive Summary outlines the proposed Russell Gap Stream Mitigation Project (Russell Gap), presented by
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. (Baker). The project will provide stream mitigation credits in the Catawba River
Basin (Cataloging Unit 03050101) in response to RFP 16- 006177. The project is located in Alexander County, in
the Russell Gap Community. The project site is located in the North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources (DENR) Sub -Basin 03 -08 -32 and the Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) 03050101- 120010 of
the Catawba River Basin. The project will involve restoration of stream, wetland, and riparian buffer functions
along Davis Creek, unnamed tributaries (UTs) to Davis Creek, the East Prong Lower Little River, and UTs to the
East Prong Lower Little River. Davis Creek flows directly into the East Prong Lower Little River on the project
property. The East Prong Lower Little River drains to the Lower Little River approximately 1.5 miles southwest
of the downstream end of the project. The Lower Little River flows into the Catawba River at the headwaters of
Lookout Shoals Reservoir, near Millersville.
The project will involve the potential restoration, enhancement, and protection of 23 stream reaches, totaling
approximately 10,659 linear feet of existing streams, (RI, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, R8, R9, R10, RI I, R12, R13,
R14, R15, R16, R17, R18, R19, R20, R21, R22 and R23) that are part of the Russell Gap project drainage area. In
addition, significantly degraded riparian wetlands will be restored, utilizing wetland re- establishment and
rehabilitation approaches by implementing Priority Level I Restoration, livestock removal, limited removal of
upland soils above the hydric soils, and re- vegetation. This broad, balanced approach, utilizing the entire range
of practices, from Priority Level I Restoration to Level II Enhancement, is critical as it has the potential to
address all of the intermittent and perennial stream reaches on project property, including restoring
riparian buffers along all of the project stream reaches currently in pasture, restoring degraded riparian
wetlands, and reducing and limiting the number of stream crossings, thus providing the maximum functional
uplift and utilizing a watershed approach. The existing stream reaches and riparian wetlands have been
significantly impacted by past and present unrestricted livestock access and/or channelization for agricultural
drainage associated predominantly with cattle pastures. The project has primarily cleared stream reaches and
wetland areas with small, partially forested areas. Some of the project stream reaches are unstable, with active
headcut migration, and localized widening and down- cutting. Livestock currently have unrestricted access to 18 of
the 23 stream reaches, partial access to 3 other stream reaches (See Figure 13), and full access to all of the degraded
wetland areas. The vast majority of the project reaches lack adequate riparian buffers. Currently, the project reaches
act as sources of sediment and nutrient contamination to Davis Creek, the East Prong Lower Little River, impaired
portions of the Lower Little River, and ultimately the Catawba River.
The following is a brief description of the proposed treatments of all of the stream reaches on the project site (Option
A). The treatment approaches are consistent between all of the presented technical options. The only difference
between the technical options is the number of stream reaches proposed for treatment within the different options.
Treatment of RI, R6, R14, R22, and R23 will involve primarily restoration practices. All of the reaches proposed
for restoration practices are perennial streams as determined by the methodologies utilized to complete North
Carolina Division of Water Quality (NC DWQ) Stream Identification Forms. Level I Enhancement is proposed for
Reaches R4, R7, R9, RI 1, R17, and R19. The appropriate bankfull geometry will be restored and the stream bed
will be raised where needed to provide the stream reach access to its floodplain. Level II Enhancement is proposed
for R2, R3, R5, R8, R10, R12, R13, R15, R16, R18, R20, and R21 based on the current condition of the reach or
due to the fact that the reach is an intermittent headwater channel. Level I1 Enhancement practices will primarily
focus on planting and permanent livestock exclusion along with the spot stabilization of eroding banks and the
arresting of any headcuts.
Wetland restoration will involve both wetland re- establishment as well as wetland rehabilitation. Significantly
degraded wetlands exist along RI, R4, and R9. Wetland functions along the floodplains of these stream reaches
will be restored, through wetland re- establishment and wetland rehabilitation, by implementing stream restoration
(Priority Level I along R1) and stream enhancement (Enhancement Level I along R4 and R9) through the wetland
restoration areas to restore proper hydrology, re- establishing a native riparian wetland vegetation community,
removing limited upland soils, and permanently excluding livestock to protect both restored soil structure and
vegetation. Livestock will be permanently excluded from all of the project areas. Buffers in excess of 50 feet will
be established along all proposed reaches. All work will be protected by a perpetual conservation easement.
Detailed narratives of the proposed restoration and enhancement practices are provided in Part 5.3.
Page 3
I N T I R N IT 100A

Our proposed mitigation options are summarized in the table below, and specific design approaches and details
are described in more narrative detail in the Technical Approach:
Mitigation Summary
Option A. Mitigation Type(s)
Reaches Included
Stream
Credits
Stream Restoration, Enhancement I and II
R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, R8, R9, R10, R11,
8,150
R12, R13, R14, R15, R16, R17, R18, R19,
R20, R21, R22, R23 (All reaches)
Option A includes the treatment of all stream reaches at the project site. Treatment of R1, R6, R22, and R23 will involve
primarily Priority Level I Restoration practices and R14 will involve Priority Level II Restoration practices. All of the reaches
proposed for restoration practices are perennial streams as determined by the methodologies utilized to complete NC DWQ
Stream Identification Forms. Level I Enhancement is proposed for Reaches R4, R7, R9, R11, R17, and R19. The appropriate
bankfull geometry will be restored and the stream bed will be raised where needed to provide the stream reach access to its
floodplain. Level 11 Enhancement is proposed for R2, R3, R5, R8, R10, R12, R13, R15, R16, R18, R20, and R21 based on the
current condition of the reach or due to the fact that the reach is an intermittent headwater channel. Level II Enhancement
practices will primarily focus on planting and permanent livestock exclusion along with the spot stabilization of eroding banks
and the arresting of any headcuts. This would meet approximately S7 percent of the 14,400 warm water stream credits
requested in this RFP.
Option A includes the restoration of existing wetland areas located on the project site through wetland rehabilitation and
wetland re- establishment. Hydric soils are present along the floodplains of R1, R4, and R9, as confirmed by Baker's licensed
soil scientist (LSS), and are associated with significant areas of likely jurisdictional wetlands. These areas have been
manipulated by human and livestock activities, resulting in significant loss of wetland function. These significantly degraded
riparian wetlands will be restored by implementing Priority Level I Restoration along Reach R1 and Enhancement Level I along
R4 and R9 to restore proper hydrology, re- establishing a native riparian wetland vegetation community, limited removal of
upland soils, and permanently excluding livestock to protect both restored soil structure and vegetation. Baker understands
that NCEEP is not requesting wetland mitigation credits as part of this RFP. As such, Baker is not requesting any
compensation for the wetland mitigation credits that could potentially be provided by this project. Baker aims only to
provide this information to NCEEP for their use. However, the wetland restoration activities will maximize the functional
uplift for the protect reaches.
Option B. Mitigation Type(s)
Reaches Included
Stream
Credits
Stream Restoration, Enhancement I and II
R1, R10, R11, R12, R13, R14
3,100
Option B includes the treatment of R1 and its tributaries, which includes the treatment of all of the project reaches north of
Mount Olive Church Road. Treatment of reaches R1 and R14 will both be restoration reaches and will involve Priority Level I
and Priority Level II Restoration practices, respectively. Both R1 and R14 are perennial streams as determined by the
methodologies utilized to complete NC DWQ Stream Identification Forms. Level I Enhancement is proposed for Reach R11.
The appropriate bankfull geometry will be restored and the stream bed will be raised where needed to provide the stream
reach access to its floodplain. Level 11 Enhancement is proposed for R10, R12, and R13 based on the current condition of the
reach or due to the fact that the reach is an intermittent headwater channel. Level 11 Enhancement practices will primarily
focus on planting and permanent livestock exclusion along with the spot stabilization of eroding banks and the arresting of
any headcuts.
Option B includes the restoration of existing wetland areas located along the floodplain of R1 through wetland rehabilitation
and wetland re- establishment. Hydric soils are present along the floodplain of R1 as confirmed by Baker's licensed soil scientist
(LSS), and are associated with significant areas of likely jurisdictional wetlands. These areas have been manipulated by human
and livestock activities, resulting in significant loss of wetland function. These significantly degraded riparian wetlands will be
restored by implementing Priority Level I Restoration along Reach R1 to restore proper hydrology, re- establishing a native
riparian wetland vegetation community, limited removal of upland soils, and permanently excluding livestock to protect both
restored soil structure and vegetation. Baker understands that NCEEP is not requesting wetland mitigation credits as part
of this RFP. As such, Baker is not requesting any compensation for the wetland mitigation credits that could potentially be
provided by this proiect. Baker aims only to provide this information to NCEEP for their use. However, the wetland
restoration activities will maximize the functional uplift for the proiect reaches.
Page 4
INTERNATIONAL

OptionX.[IAllitigationLfype(s)0
Reaches®ncluded
Streamm
Creditsm
Stream Restoration, Enhancement I and II
R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, R8, R9, R15, R16,
5,000
R17, R18, R19, R20, R21, R22, R23
Option C includes the treatment of all of the project reaches on the south side of Mount Olive Church Road. Treatment of R6,
R22, and R23 will involve primarily Priority Level I Restoration practices. All of the reaches proposed for restoration practices
are perennial streams as determined by the methodologies utilized to complete NC DWQ Stream Identification Forms. Level
I Enhancement is proposed for R4, R7, R9, R17, and R19. The appropriate bankfull geometry will be restored and the stream
bed will be raised where needed to provide the stream reach access to its floodplain. Level II Enhancement is proposed for
R2, R3, R5, R8, R15, R16, R18, R20, and R21 based on the current condition of the reach or due to the fact that the reach is an
intermittent headwater channel. Level II Enhancement practices will primarily focus on planting and permanent livestock
exclusion along with the spot stabilization of eroding banks and the arresting of any headcuts.
Option C includes the restoration of existing wetland areas located along the floodplains of R4 and R9 through wetland
rehabilitation. Hydric soils are present along the floodplains of R4 and R9 as confirmed by Baker's licensed soil scientist (LSS),
and are associated with significant areas of likely jurisdictional wetlands. These areas have been manipulated by human and
livestock activities, resulting in significant loss of wetland function. These significantly degraded riparian wetlands will be
restored by implementing Enhancement Level I practices along Reaches R4 and R9 to restore proper hydrology, re- establishing
a native riparian wetland vegetation community, limited removal of upland soils, and permanently excluding livestock to
protect both restored soil structure and vegetation. BakerAinderstandsAhatRYCEEPOsRiotaeguestingMNetlandititigationm
creditsl bs[ bartlbf3his [RFP.[As@uch,MakerlisC hot[ keguestinglbnv lkompensationllorlthe[Dvetla nd linnitigation[kreditsmhat @ould0
potentiallyJ) e3) rovidedl ylthis3) roject.[ EBakerMimslbnlyllo3) rovidellhisJnformationlio3 YCEEPUforltheirmse .Mowever,liheO
wetlandliestorationlbctivitiesC willgnaximizelthelunctionalgi pliftgor[thelbroiect[keaches.
MitigationXredit3ummary0
ProjectWitigation3ummaryW-ablem
Page 5
N.-MM41 K % ",A.-ff.r
Total
Enhancementm
ReachesM
Restoration
Enhancementm
Tota10
Streamm
Leve l®m
Optionm
Includedm
Streamm
Level0lm
Streamm
Creditsm
Named
Creditsm
Streamm
Stream0
Credits0
(Proposedm
m
m
Creditsm
Credits0
(Potential)
form
Contract)m
R1, R2, R3,
R4, R5, R6,
R7, R8, R9,
R10, R11,
Optionm
R12, R13,
Am
R14, R15,
3,723
3,401
1,082
8,206
8,1500
R16, R17,
R18, R19,
R20, R21,
R22, R23
Optionm
R11 R10,
BD
R11, R12,
2,510
347
299
3,156
3,100
R13, R14
R2, R3, R4,
R5, R6, R7,
Option0
R8, R9, R15,
ON
R16, R17,
1,213
3,054
783
5,050
5,000M
R18, R19,
R20, R21,
R22, R23
Page 5
N.-MM41 K % ",A.-ff.r

ProjectMeach3ummaryFobleE
Project0
ReachO
DesignationM
Watershed0
Draina e[AreaO
g
(acres)MM
Watershed0
Draina e[Area®
g
(sglkniles)MM
Stream3tatusE
BasedR)n[Field0
Analyses®
Mitigation[?
zo
Type
Existing[Ehannel0
T e Ros en0
Yp � g
Classification)0
Proposed[EhannelLfypeO
Ras en1EIassification 0
( g )
R1
934
1.46
Perennial
R
E4
C4
R2
1056
1.65
Perennial
Ell
E44
E4
R3
2227
3.48
Perennial
Ell
E4
E4
R4
806
1.26
Perennial
El
E4
E4
R5
154
0.24
Perennial
Ell
C44
C4
R6
186
0.29
Perennial
R
G4
B4
R7
288
0.45
Perennial
El
E4
E4
R8
333
0.52
Perennial
Ell
B44
B4
R9
352
0.55
Perennial
El
E4
E4
R10
17.3
0.03
Perennial
Ell
E44
E4
R11
14.1
0.02
Intermittent
El
A4 /E44
B4a /E4
R12
115
0.18
Perennial
Ell
E44
E4
R13
20.7
0.03
Intermittent
Ell
134a
134a
R14
22.4
0.04
Perennial
R
G4 /E4
B4 /C4
R15
18.7
0.03
Intermittent
Ell
E44
E4
R16
25.5
0.04
Intermittent
Ell
B44
B4
R17
26.2
0.04
Intermittent
El
B44
B4
R18
14.1
0.02
Perennial
Ell
B44
B4
R19
22.3
0.03
Intermittent
El
134a
B4
R20
16.6
0.03
Intermittent
Ell
B44
B4
R21
32.5
0.05
Perennial
Ell
B44
B4
R22
2.7
0.004
Perennial
R
G44
B4
R23
7.4
0.01
Perennial
R
C44
B4
ProjectfflrotaIMICEEPQ 2atingRForm[ Scores3M-- ML15C( TotalMPoints )bndM.15D(ProposalMating)Wote01: WatershedWrainage[PdrealusE
estimatedbasedCbnA opographicLbndl iIDARJnformationLbt [theVownstreamR?ndtft ach[ teach.M VVote2 :MR= U?estoration,GEI= LeveME
Enhancement XII= Level2LEnhancement. IlVoteB: IN ProjectQotaiW CEEP[ Ii atingTorm [ScoresLbrellheQotalLpointsU ndYroposol3?ating,0
respectively, lbsWetermined3 isingaheTcosystemXnhancementfflrogram' sQ' TechnicalTroposaff valuationTriterio [N- MatingLTorm';E
forA heVroject .OVoteNI:EStreamaypesU fQheseN- eachesA7remasedmnEbestVrofessionalg' udgmentAindMuichfieldErneasurements ..
Surveyed [trossC�ectionslvereMotlond uctedRbnllheseleaches.
Page 6
MIMrMarsm"9i.M

Part 2. Financial Statement - only included in original technical proposal.
Part 3. Corporate Background and Experience
Michael Baker Corporation (Baker) is one of
Michad Baker the largest professional service firms,
I N i E N N A r 1 0 N A L consistently ranked among the top 8 percent of
U.S. engineering practices by Engineering News - Record (ENR). Baker
was founded in 1940 as a civil engineering and surveying firm. Having
recently merged with IMS, the combination of Michael Baker and IMS
has created a company with over $1.0 billion in revenue and a platform
with global reach. Today, with over 5,000 professional employees in the
United States and abroad, Baker successfully serves the Buildings, Civil,
Environmental, and Transportation markets. The company recently
became part of Michael Baker International, which provides high -end
engineering, development, intelligence, and technology solutions with global reach and mobility.
Baker has demonstrated the ability to work with local, state and federal regulatory agencies in the permitting, design,
and construction of wetland, stream, and riparian buffer restoration projects. We have worked extensively on
numerous full - delivery projects for the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) and the North
Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). With nearly 100 North Carolina employees working full -time on
projects, Baker has the manpower and expertise to successfully carry out existing projects as well as secure and carry
out new projects.
Baker operates in North Carolina as Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. and has environmental staff in Charlotte,
Asheville, Cary, and Greensboro.
Ability to Carry Out All Phases of Proposal
The Baker team has extensive experience in all aspects of full - delivery restoration work, having completed many
projects for NCEEP, the Clean Water Management Trust Fund (CWMTF), and entities in other states. Baker and
River Works have a long history of cooperation on full- delivery projects, so NCEEP can rely on the smooth function
of our team as we undertake the proposed project. Baker understands the regulatory and financial constraints
associated with full - delivery projects and has shown the ability to meet mitigation credit goals and project schedules.
Specifically, Baker has identified the proposed project site and secured the necessary landowner options. The Baker
Team will obtain the necessary easements, identify site constraints, and ensure site access. Baker has unparalleled
experience in stream and wetland restoration design, having completed hundreds of projects that translate into over
180 miles of stream restoration and over 3,000 acres of wetlands. Based on this experience, we are familiar with all
documentation requirements necessary to proceed with these types of projects. Baker will obtain the necessary
environmental approvals and is experienced in developing Categorical Exclusions for mitigation projects. Baker will
coordinate with state and local officials to resolve any FEMA issues associated with the restoration efforts. Once
permits are issued, the Baker Team will restore the site based on the concepts described herein. River Works has
extensive experience in constructing restoration projects and has a good relationship with Baker's construction
observation personnel. Finally, once construction has been completed, Baker will follow and utilize the current
NCEEP monitoring guidelines and template to conduct the required monitoring activities and develop monitoring
reports. Throughout the monitoring process, Baker will ensure that the site meets NCEEP mitigation credit goals.
Baker has undertaken monitoring in many areas throughout North Carolina and is familiar with the site - specific needs
of this project.
Primary Sub Contractor
The primary subcontractor to Baker on North Carolina restoration projects is River Works, Inc. River Works was
started to offer clients a construction contractor with the specialized expertise to implement environmental restoration
designs. The foremen and operators on the River Works team work primarily on environmental restoration projects,
and as such, have a thorough understanding of construction sequencing, sedimentation and erosion control, water
diversion, and vegetation requirements. River Works has extensive experience constructing stream and wetland
restoration projects, including the re- vegetation of restoration sites.
Page 7
I N T E It N 1, T 10 it AL

WIERiver Works also has extensive experience selecting and planting appropriate vegetative
% K m buffers using live stakes, bare roots, transplants, and containerized native plant
I. species. River Works takes great care in selecting plant material and temporary and
permanent seed mixtures specifically matched to the environment of the site. They provide on -site supervision during
planting operations to ensure that plant materials are of suitable quality, and that the materials are planted
appropriately according to each species' moisture tolerance, soil condition needs, and stage of growth.
Project Manager Experience
Mr. Kayne Van Stell will be the Project Manager for this project. Kayne has extensive
experience in stream and wetland restoration projects, and has managed all aspects of
full- delivery projects for NCEEP in the North Carolina Piedmont and other areas of
the state. He understands the various phases and contractual requirements of these
projects. Most recently he has served as the Project Manager for the UT to Cane Creek
Restoration Project and the UT to Mill Swamp Stream and Wetland Restoration
Project. He has successfully navigated regulatory closure of the Pinch Gut Creek and
Duke Swamp mitigation projects in recent years.
Similar Stream and Wetland Restoration Project Experience
Baker has extensive experience in stream, wetland, and riparian buffer restoration. We have initiated over 400
projects in the past seven years, and have restored more than 1 million feet of streams and 3,000 acres of wetlands.
We have successfully completed 5 years of monitoring on more than 5 NCEEP mitigation projects and have
successfully brought 4 NCEEP projects to regulatory closure. Several examples of projects are highlighted below:
Pinch Gut Creek Restoration Project, NCEEP, Stokes County, NC. Baker restored over 10,500 LF of perennial
stream channel in northwestern Stokes County, North Carolina. Streams on the site had been degraded primarily due
to agricultural practices and cattle access. The project involved restoring six tributaries that drain a headwater
catchment approximately 1.7 square miles in size. Rosgen Priority Level I and II approaches were used to restore
access to an active floodplain. In- stream structures were used to provide stream stability, as well as to improve aquatic
habitat and fisheries. The restored riparian buffers adjacent to the streams are protected through permanent fencing
that excluded cattle and livestock. Baker conducted watershed analyses, performed existing condition and reference
reach surveys, prepared 401/404 permitting documents, developed construction documents, and provided construction
oversight. Construction of the project was completed in 2008, five years of project monitoring were completed, and
the project regulatory closeout was successfully completed in the summer of 2013.
I N T E It W k T 1 0 It IL
Pinch Gut Creek restoration work during construction and five years after.
Page 8

UT to Mill Swamp Stream and Wetland Restoration Project, NCEEP, Onslow County, NC. Under a full -
delivery contract, Baker successfully designed and oversaw construction activities for 1,513 linear feet of single -
thread channel, 2,093 linear feet of multi- thread channel, and 4.0 acres of riparian wetlands in the White Oak River
Basin. In addition, the project enhanced 600 linear feet of stream and excluded cattle from an intermittent tributary
that flows into the project area. The project is located in the Inner Coastal Plain physiographic region, which has a
long history of aquatic resource degradation caused by agricultural practices such as ditching, draining, and watershed
hydromodifications. As part of the design and permitting considerations for the project, Baker worked extensively
with the NCEEP and IRT to determine what restoration approach would be appropriate for the headwater stream and
wetland system based on the current coastal plain mitigation guidance and functional uplift potential at the site.
Baker performed detailed field assessments, which included jurisdictional wetland delineations, hydrologic analyses,
geomorphic surveys, stream determinations for intermittent and perennial status, and a delineation and investigation
of hydric soil units. Based on the existing conditions analyses, a design plan was developed for the site which involved
removing spoil piles and filling the highly degraded channel to restore a shallow, broad or diffuse flow path across
the relic floodplain and allow the channel to adjust naturally after construction.
This headwater restoration approach raised the local water table and greatly improved aquatic and terrestrial habitat
by providing in- stream cover through the addition of woody debris and brush piles. Baker also sought to minimize
unnecessary disturbance to ecologically functional areas that were prevalent within the stream corridor. On site
woody material was stockpiled and incorporated back into the system whenever possible, and a revegetation plan was
developed to remove invasive plant species and improve the riparian stream buffers with native vegetation species.
To meet one of the NCEEPs RBRP project goals, Baker implemented an agricultural BMP to reduce nonpoint source
inputs into the restoration area. A wet pond was installed to capture runoff from adjacent farm fields and to thereby
increase filtering capacity through sediment and nutrient settling, demonstrating great application of innovative /non-
traditional restoration. The pond also serves as a site amenity that creates aquatic habitat and recreational
opportunities for the local community.
The project construction was completed in June 2013 and the project is currently in its second year of successful post -
construction performance monitoring, and is on track for early closure for contracted mitigation credits prior to the
seven year monitoring period.
Before Restoration:
Degraded Channel at UT to Mill Swamp.
I N T E It W k T 1 0 It IL
After Restoration:
Restored multi- thread channel at UT to Mill Swamp.
Page 9

UT to Cane Creek Restoration Project, NCEEP, Alamance County, NC. As part of an NCEEP full- delivery
project, Baker is in the process of restoring approximately 3,400 LF and enhancing approximately 2,900 LF of
perennial and intermittent stream channel in southeast Alamance County, North Carolina. The streams have been
degraded primarily by agricultural practices and associated cattle access. The project involves restoring two tributaries
that drain headwater catchments (areas are 452 acres and 80 acres, respectively). Rosgen Priority Level I and II
Restoration approaches are part of the design to restore access to an active floodplain. Enhancement Level I and 11
are also being employed to stabilize the streambanks and profile. In- stream structures are included in the design to
provide stream stability and improve aquatic habitat and fisheries. The restored riparian buffers adjacent to the
streams will be protected through permanent fencing that excludes livestock. Baker has conducted watershed
analyses, performed existing condition and reference reach surveys, and prepared the mitigation plan. Construction
of the project was completed in the summer of 2014.
UT to Cane Creek existing conditions and during first year after construction.
Confidential Client, Confidential Project, Undisclosed Location, West Virginia. This project involved using
natural channel design methods to restore approximately 3,000 LF of stream at an active coal mining operation in
West Virginia. The stream flows from the toe of the valley fill and flows approximately 3,000 feet through several
inline ponds and detention basins of varying size before leaving the mine property. The purpose of the project is
provide improved aquatic habitat and stream stability by reducing bank erosion and preventing channel incision and
to reduce accumulated alkaline precipitate in the valley and stream channel to the extent practicable. Baker collected
benthic macroinvertebrate data and surveyed the physical stream habitat to document baseline conditions prior to
beginning the restoration. We also conducted existing condition surveys, determined the bankfull cross sectional area
from existing stable riffle cross sections, utilized regional curve information, and performed hydrologic assessments
of flows being discharged from the upstream valley fill. Using the results of these studies and surveys, Baker
developed design criteria, construction plans and specifications. Baker also developed a specific riparian vegetation
and management plan to provide appropriate vegetation types and densities and promote rapid establishment of
vegetation communities following restoration.
Before and after views of restoration at active coal mining operation property in West Virginia.
Page 10
IN T E It N AY T 1 0 M 4L

Cooks Creek Mitigation Site, Mount Airy / Surry County Airport, Surry County, NC. Baker restored, enhanced
and preserved over 5,200 LF of incised streams near Dobson, NC. The goal of the project was to provide stream
mitigation credits to offset impacts to jurisdictional stream channels associated with airport expansion and to improve
water quality and stream stability on an unnamed tributary to Cooks Creek using natural channel design techniques.
The project was completed in 2012 and is currently in the second year of post - construction monitoring. The project
included existing condition surveys, data analyses, design development based on reference reaches, permitting,
construction plans and specifications, on -site construction management, and project management. The project design
was based on Rosgen Priority Level I and lI approaches for restoring incised stream channels. It included channel
geometry modifications based on reference reach data, bankfull benches, in- stream structure installation, streambank
stabilization, bio- engineering and riparian vegetation planting and management.
Views of UT to Cooks Creeks before and after restoration
Multidisciplinary Project Approach
The goal of ecosystem restoration is to return the maximum amount of hydrologic and biological functioning to a
degraded stream and/or wetland corridor, given land use and landform constraints. Baker's environmental scientists,
geomorphologists, geologists, soil scientists, and surveyors lead the efforts to document the existing conditions of the
projects site and document impairments and constraints. Engineers, designers, soil scientists, and biologists then
develop restoration designs that provide functional uplift within the site constraints. Planning personnel lead the
efforts for Categorical Exclusion tasks and permitting requirements. Hydrologists and hydraulic engineers prepare
models and analyses to evaluate FEMA requirements, flooding conditions, and sediment transport. Several staff on
the project organization chart have significant experience with regulatory review, including project close out.
Construction specialists perform constructability reviews to ensure designs are practical and can be constructed
efficiently. Construction experts, including foremen, equipment operators, laborers and vegetation specialists ensure
that sound, innovative and cost effective construction is employed in a timely manner. They are able to adapt to
various environmental and site conditions. After construction, Baker surveyors and environmental scientists perform
as -built and monitoring surveys to document project conditions during the monitoring period. This multidisciplinary
approach to projects has been a primary factor in Baker's successful track record with ecosystem restoration projects.
Page 11
I N T E It W k T 1 0 It IL

Resumes of Key Personnel:
I N T E R N A T I O N A L Kayne Van Stell, Environmental Scientist
Project Role: Mr. Van Stell will serve as the project manager for this project and will also assist with design and
construction inspection for the project.
Education: BS, Biology with a minor in Ecology, Northern Michigan University, 1997
Continuing Education: Rosgen I, Rosgen II, Rosgen III, Rosgen IV, Natural Channel Design and River Restoration
Mr. Van Stell has over 18 years of experience as a Project Manager, environmental scientist, and designer for stream
and wetland restoration and site /civil projects. He has a wide range of experience that includes reviewing and
developing construction plans and specifications, providing technical coordination with clients, staff, and contractors,
while conducting construction oversight on numerous projects throughout the Southeastern US. Mr. Van Stell has
served as Project Manager for the UT to Jumping Run, Pinch Gut Creek, UT to Mill Swamp, UT to Cane Creek, and
Duke Swamp restoration projects for NCEEP. He developed stream and wetland designs, coordinated extensively
with agencies and landowners, and ensured the quality of project deliverables including monitoring reports. For the
UT to Jumping Run Project, he was responsible for securing SHPO acceptance of a stream restoration project on a
National Register Listed Property. He also has experience with natural systems surveys, GIS, and CADD.
Scott Hunt, PE, Ecosystem Restoration Technical Services Manager
Project Role: Mr. Hunt will serve as the senior technical advisor and QC /AC coordinator for this project, as well as
serving as the offeror's representative for Baker as defined under this RFP.
Education: BS, Civil Engineering, North Carolina State University, 1992
Professional Registrations: Professional Engineer, NC, # PE022967, 1997
Continuing Education: Rosgen I, Rosgen II, Rosgen III, Rosgen IV, Natural Channel Design and River Restoration
Mr. Hunt is an accomplished natural resources engineer with more than 22 years of civil engineering experience,
specializing in stream, wetland, and habitat restoration, conservation and stewardship. Mr. Hunt serves as Baker's
Ecosystem Restoration Technical Services Manager and is the department manager for Ecosystem Restoration for the
North Carolina Offices. He currently serves as the central point of contact for Baker for all NCEEP projects and is
responsible for design reviews and overall project QA/QC. He has been responsible for these duties for the UT to
Cane Creek, St. Clair Creek, Pinch Gut Creek, and Browns Creek projects. Mr. Hunt is an avid, conservation - minded
outdoorsman with passionate vision and a genuine desire to strike a balance between sound engineering principles
and environmental stewardship in order to promote and implement improvements to the conservation of our natural
resources.
Christopher A. Tomsic, PE, CFM, Water Resources Engineer
Project Role: Mr. Tomsic will serve as the engineer of record and lead designer for this project and will also assist
with construction inspection for the project.
Education: BS, Civil Eng., Ohio State University, 2000. MS, Civil Eng., Ohio State University, 2006.
Professional Registrations: Professional Engineer, NC, #036916, 2010. IN, #11100617, 2011. VA, #0402052713
Continuing Education: Rosgen I, Rosgen II, Rosgen III, Rosgen IV, Natural Channel Design and River Restoration
Mr. Tomsic has 8 years of experience specializing in wetland and stream restoration, best management practices
(BMPs), hydraulic /hydrologic modeling, and field surveying. As a water resources engineer at Baker, he provides
project management and technical assistance in all aspects of wetland and stream restoration projects and stormwater
BMP projects, including site search, geomorphic assessments, field surveying, hydraulic and hydrologic modeling,
design, plan production, quantity and cost estimation, and construction management services. He served as lead
designer for UT to Town Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration proj ect through NCEEP as well as the Muddy Creek
Stream Restoration Project contracted through the City of Charlotte. He is currently project manager of the Hoppers
Creek — Melton Farm Stream Restoration Monitoring Project and South Muddy Creek Stream Restoration Monitoring
Project through NCEEP. Mr. Tomsic has also previously worked as a water resources engineer in Indiana on several
stream and wetland restoration and mitigation projects and lead efforts for Americans with Disabilities Act
compliance, greenway designs, and bike lane designs.
Page 12
I N T E It N 1, T10 kAL

Jacob Byers, PE, Civil Engineer
Project Role: Mr. Byers will assist with design and construction inspection for this project.
Education: BS, Biological Engineering, North Carolina State University, 2007
Professional Registrations: Professional Engineer, NC, #PE039201, 2012, NCDOT Erosion & Sediment
Control / Stormwater Certification, #3179, 2012, USDA NRCS TSP, #TSP -14 -9877
Continuing Education: Rosgen I, Rosgen II, Rosgen III
Mr. Byers serves as the lead engineer for our Asheville Office, with more than eight years of experience with analysis
and design of stream and wetland restoration projects and stormwater BMP projects. He has extensive experience as
a leader and as part of a team, in design and project management, sedimentation and erosion control designs, sediment
transport, geomorphic assessment, and field surveys, construction oversight and inspection, plan development,
landowner coordination, and environmental permitting for numerous projects along the east coast. Mr. Byers has
served as Project Manager for a number of restoration projects in North Carolina and the eastern US. He is currently
the Project Manager for the NCEEP St. Clair Creek Stream Restoration Project in Beaufort County, North Carolina.
Scott King, LSS, PWS, CPESC, Environmental Specialist
Project Role: For this project, Mr. King will assist with stream and wetland analysis, design, and monitoring.
Education: MS, Soil Science, NC State University, 2006, BS, Biology, The College of William of Mary, 1996
Professional Registrations: Licensed Soil Scientist, North Carolina, 2008, Professional Wetland Scientist, 2009
Continuing Education: NCSU Stream Restoration Program River Course workshops 101, 201, 401, 131, and 161,
and NCDWR's Intermittent and Perennial Stream Identification for Riparian Buffer Rules
Mr. King has a wide range of experience in the environmental field, specializing in water quality projects. He provides
a broad array of environmental services including stream and wetland restorations, GIS analysis, wetland delineations,
soil evaluations, stormwater BMP projects, and environmental permitting. Mr. King previously worked as a watershed
planner at the NCEEP, as a researcher in the Dept. of Soil Science at NC State University, and as an environmental
consultant specializing in wetlands issues.
Micky Clemmons, Senior Environmental Scientist
Project Role: Mr. Clemmons will assist with stream and wetland analysis, design and construction inspection.
Education MS, Biology, Western Carolina University, 1987, BS, Marine Biology, UNC at Wilmington, 1984
Continuing Education: Rosgen I, Rosgen II, Rosgen III, Rosgen IV, Natural Channel Design and River Restoration
Mr. Clemmons is a senior scientist, fisheries biologist, and Branch Manager of Baker's Asheville's Office. He has
over 18 years of experience working across the state as a fisheries biologist in various aquatic habitats. He also has
extensive experience reviewing various environmental permits for state approval. Mr. Clemmons has served as a
Project Manager or Principal -in- Charge for Puzzle Creek, Sink Hole Creek, Blockhouse Creek, Logan Creek, Martin
Creek and UT to Martin Creek (Contreras Site) for NCEEP. He developed stream and wetland designs, coordinated
extensively with agencies and landowners, and ensured the quality of project deliverables including monitoring
reports. Mr. Clemmons utilizes his 28 years of experience in fisheries biology and management, stream ecology, and
fluvial geomorphology to conduct stream restoration projects that optimize aquatic habitat and seeks to provide the
maximum functional lift.
Marshall Wight, PLS, Senior Surveyor
Project Role: Mr. Wight will oversee and lead the effort for all surveying for this project.
Education: BS, Agricultural and Environmental Technology, North Carolina State University, 2001
Professional Registration: Professional Land Surveyor, NC, #L -5034, 2012
Mr. Wight is an experienced professional land surveyor and environmental scientist who has worked on more than
90 stream and wetland restoration projects, conducting cross sectional and longitudinal profile surveys, pebble counts,
and pavement /sub - pavement analyses, existing condition, as- built, monitoring surveys, stream designs, mitigation
and monitoring reports, project management and construction layout and oversight. Mr. Wight has expertise in
mapping, designing, and analyzing stream projects from a variety of geographical areas. He also has experience in
soil and concrete testing. Mr. Wight leads Baker's North Carolina survey operations and develops all or our
recordable conservation easement plats.
Page 13
I N T E It N 1, T 10 it AL

Richard Darling, Senior Environmental Scientist
Project Role: Mr. Darling will assist with stream and wetland analysis.
Education: MS, Biological Science, Florida State University, 1986, BS, Zoology, University of Melbourne, 1983
Professional Registration: Certified Ecologist (Ecological Society of America #421)
Continuing Education: USACE Wetland Delineation, NCWAM, Rosgen I, NC Stream Identification, Aquatic Insect
Collection
Mr. Darling is a senior environmental scientist with over 28 years of multi - disciplinary experience in natural resources
consulting. His background includes extensive technical direction and project management for environmental studies
including numerous wetland delineations, riparian buffer determinations, wetland and stream evaluations, Section
404/401 permitting and mitigation, documentation per the National and State (FL, GA, NC, SC) Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA/SEPA) requirements (EA, EIS), and protected species surveys. Recent focus has included stream
evaluation and classification, design of stream restoration and enhancement projects, and local watershed
planning. Mr. Darling has also supervised Stormwater Pollution Prevention Planning, Phase I Environmental Site
Assessments, and Laboratory Quality Control.
Ken Gilland, PG, Environmental Scientist
Project Role: Mr. Gilland will lead the development of the Categorical Exclusion.
Education: BA, Geology, North Carolina State University, 1986
Professional Registration: Professional Geologist, NC, #2314, 2011
Continuing Education: Buck Engineering In -House Natural Channel Design Training, 2004; NCEEP Environmental
Resource Technical Reports and Categorical Exclusion Workshop, September 2009
Mr. Gilland has 19 years of experience as an environmental scientist, and has extensive experience on water quality
issues and environmental planning. He has developed Categorical Exclusion documents for more than 15 NCEEP
projects including UT to Cane Creek, UT to Mill Swamp, UT to Jumping Run, Candiff Creek, St. Clair Creek, and
Pinch Gut Creek. He also serves as a reviewer for mitigation plans and monitoring reports and has assisted with the
development of local watershed plans in the Cape Fear and Yadkin/Pee Dee River Basins.
Kristi Suggs, Environmental Scientist
Project Role: Ms. Suggs will assist with development of the Categorical Exclusion and with stream and wetland
analysis.
Education: BS, Animal and Veterinary Science, West Virginia University, 1995, MS, Earth and Environmental
Resource Management, University of South Carolina, 2005
Continuing Education: Wetland Delineation and Jurisdictional Determination, 2008; Intermittent and Perennial
Stream Identification for Regulatory Applications, 2007
Ms. Suggs has over 13 years of experience in watershed management, environmental compliance and planning, water
quality studies, and geographic information systems (GIS). As an Environmental Scientist for Baker, she specializes
in environmental permitting, mitigation banking, watershed assessments and management, water quality planning,
project development and implementation, citizen/agency facilitation, and GIS mapping.
Dwayne Huneycutt, Environmental Scientist
Project Role: Mr. Huneycutt will lead the monitoring effort and yearly monitoring reports and will assist with stream
and wetland analysis.
Education: BS, Earth Science, UNC at Charlotte, 2001
Professional Registration: Wetland Certification Training, 2002
Continuing Education: NCDWR Methodology for Identification of Intermittent and Perennial Streams
Mr. Huneycutt has 14 years of experience in environmental planning, land use planning, hydrologic analysis, and
fluvial geomorphologic analysis. At Baker, he provides technical support in the design, construction, and monitoring
of stream and wetland restoration and enhancement projects. He is also experienced in project management and
assessment for use in stormwater planning and water quality improvements.
Page 14
I N T E It N 1, T 10 it At

Bill Wright, Vice President
k , , . Lk Project Role: Mr. Wright will serve as the Construction Manager for construction activities
on this project.
Education: BS, Agronomy, North Carolina State University, 1974
Professional Registration: North Carolina General Contractors License (Building, Highway, H (Excavation and
Grading), PU (Water and Sewer Lines), and PU (Water Purification and Sewage Disposal)
Continuing Education: River Restoration Design Implementation by Wildland Hydrology, 1994
Mr. Wright joined the River Works team as Vice President in February 2007. He has been involved in a construction
management and project estimating capacity for over 216,000 feet of stream and 1,780 acres of wetlands
improvements while working at River Works. Prior to joining River Works, Mr. Wright served six years as manager
of the Stream Restoration and Wetland Construction Program at Shamrock Environmental Corporation. Mr. Wright
serves as the primary Project Manager for River Works, and his responsibilities include planning and directing the
functional activities of the company including marketing, technical project oversight, quality assurance, and general
administration.
Phillip Todd, Project Development Coordinator for River Works
Project Role: Mr. Todd will assist with project development from the construction aspect for this project.
Education: Master of Public Administration, NC State University, 2002, BS, Biology, NC State University, 1993
Continuing Education: Rosgen I, Rosgen II, Rosgen III
Mr. Todd joined River Works in October 2011 as Project Development Coordinator. Mr. Todd's background brings
unique and valuable experience to River Works. Prior to coming to River Works, Mr. Todd worked over 6 years with
an engineering firm where he served as Program Manager, Project Manager, technical expert and resource agencies
coordinator for stream restoration, wetland restoration, planting plans, stream monitoring, wetland delineation, stream
delineation, environmental permitting and NEPA documentation. His work experience also includes over 11 years
with NCDOT, where he managed stream and wetland mitigation site identification searches, feasibility studies and
mitigation/restoration plan development, including discussions with landowners regarding conservation easements
and resource agencies discussions about mitigation concepts and credits.
George Morris, Vegetation Specialist for River Works
Project Role: Mr. Morris will lead the effort for all vegetation and planting expertise.
Education: BS, Agriculture and Plant Science, University of Delaware at Newark, 1985
Professional Registrations: NC Pesticide Applicators License (subclass L and A), NC Landscape Contractors'
Registration, Registered Professional Plantsman
Mr. Morris oversees soil bioengineering and riparian buffer, wetland, and BMP planting for restoration projects. He
also oversees invasive plant species removal for various projects. Mr. Morris has a strong background in horticulture
and landscaping with native plant species.
Nathan Carter, Site Superintendent
Project Role: Mr. Carter will be a site superintendent during construction for this project.
Professional Registrations: North Carolina Commercial Drivers License
Mr. Carter joined the River Works team as a site superintendent in October 2007. Prior to joining River Works, Mr.
Carter served 7 years as project superintendent for the Remediation Construction Program at Shamrock
Environmental Corporation. This work included supervision of all site activities in construction of municipal waste
landfills and closures in North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, Michigan, and Tennessee. Other work included
the supervision of cleanup of environmentally impacted areas, the installation of storm drain systems, tank removal
and stream restoration.
DBE /HUB Participation Baker does not have an agreement with a DBE /HUB certified firm for this project.
Part 4. Project Organization
Qualifications & Responsibilities: For all personnel assigned to this project, please see the resumes in Part 3.
Page 15
I N T E It N k T 1 8 KS AL

Proposed Staffing, Deployment & Organization:
silt
FN I E II NA E 10 4FL
(S) h4�lgcl BEifl7 F.�iMGftllg, iaYe
�rvef� � I��'kF[rr�ft4'arks, fnt
a Z'csmsvc,i'fi "I IM) - Soo Kwa. PH (a % 71 4krigIN, l'I-3 !P¢ RK&ud Durlff g fbj Ai191VT lrl { 1V}
Lis, PW73. I
R iEiliscal � liA-uyn thmWYCUIC &j h!?cVj lernmm IFi} philllpTOW(RIV)
t3lllarad. FO A GCMF '.ti ma CRWW)
iw tom, cp iB Nathan C W iR
EMy
mffi hall1V*KPLS(B) DA -Myna 13m utt {I3)
Rcbm 5[Ilvnn(Bi Kung, MS, I' -K �.`P"ES M
Krtltu Slg' iFi a
u TcmE►s. TS, 4,I•'!%S 4
.Ilea B) -Cr* PE IT{i
office L"arkion New
Cary
charlotte
Ash"Ille
Personnel with Similar Experience: Shown in the table below are team personnel who worked on the
projects highlighted in Part 3.
* River Works Personnel
I N T L It W k 1 0 R1L
Page 16
r-
0
U
fl
fC u
Y
u
Op
y
+,
o
=
c o
c
o
v
M
M M
`o
v
o
v
a0i
Name
L
0
0
�
O
o
Y
>
ao01c
IoW
,r
v °in
u0
Kayne Van Stell
•
•
Scott Hunt, PE
•
Chris Tomsic, PE, CFM
•
Jacob Byers, PE
•
Scott King, LSS, PWS,CPESC
•
Micky Clemmons
•
Marshall Wight, PLS
•
•
•
•
Richard Darling
•
•
Ken Gilland, PG
•
•
•
•
Kristi Suggs
•
•
•
•
Dwayne Huneycutt
•
•
•
•
* Bill Wright
•
•
•
•
•
*Phillip Todd
•
•
•
•
*George Morris
•
•
•
•
•
*Nathan Carter
•
•
•
•
* River Works Personnel
I N T L It W k 1 0 R1L
Page 16

Part 5. Technical Approach
5.1. Project Goals & Objectives
The Russell Gap Stream Mitigation Project will provide numerous water quality and ecological benefits within the
Davis Creek and East Prong Lower Little River Watersheds, which ultimately drain to the Catawba River. While
many of these benefits are limited to the project area, others, such as nutrient removal, sediment reduction, and
improved aquatic and terrestrial habitat, have more far - reaching effects, potentially extending downstream to the
Catawba River. The project will meet three of the four major CU -wide functional improvement goals by:
Reducing Sediment and nutrient inputs to the Lower Little River, which is listed on North Carolina's draft
2014 list of impaired waters (303(d) list).
Protecting /improving riparian buffers and aquatic habitat.
Implementing agricultural BMPs and stream restoration in predominantly agricultural /rural watersheds.
As stated previously, the project is located within TLW 03050101- 120010. Expected improvements to water quality,
hydrology, and habitat are outlined below as project goals.
NCEEP's broad focus points include maintaining and NCEEP's broad focus includes:
enhancing water quality, restoring hydrology, and protecting
fish and wildlife habitat. The Russell Gap Stream Mitigation Maintaining and enhancing water quality
Project meets each of these broad focus points. It will enhance Restoring hydrology
water quality by reducing nutrient and sediment inputs through Protecting fish and wildlife habitat
the project area. Hydrology will be restored to wetland
restoration areas by implementing priority Level I Restoration to raise the existing stream bed, and fish and wildlife
habitat will be protected through livestock exclusion and a permanent conservation easement in excess of 50 feet
along all proposed stream and wetland restoration/enhancement areas.
The project is located adjacent to the Brushy Mountain Macrosite, which was included in the Inventory of the
Significant Natural Areas ofAlexander County (North Carolina Natural Heritage Program ( NCNHP), 2012). NCNHP
no longer lists macrosites, as Significant Natural Areas, but the macrosite still retains its largely undeveloped
character. There are also three Significant Natural Areas in the immediate vicinity of the project area: Upper Fork
Little River, Brushy Mountains; Sugarloaf Mountain; and Bald Rock Mountain (see Figure 15). The proposed project
would extend the area covered by the macrosite downstream to a riparian wetland/stream complex.
The NCNHP 2012 report states that the Brushy Mountain macrosite is home to populations pink thoroughwort
(Fleischmannia incarnate) and striped garlic (Allium cuthbertii), both of which are a state listed threatened species,
as well as Wright's cliff -brake (Pellaea wrightiana), which is state listed as endangered. The project will improve
potential habitats for these species through the project area, continuing the wildlife corridor from the macrosite. In
addition, the state listed threatened Rafinesque's big -eared bat - Mountain subspecies (Corynorhinus rafinesquii
rafinesquii) is listed as having occurred in Alexander County. The project will protect and preserve high - quality in-
stream and riparian headwater habitat on multiple reaches through a permanent conservation easement. This will
extend the wildlife corridor from the upland areas of the Brushy Mountain Macrosite along a riparian valley with
hydric soils, providing added habitat diversity to the area.
Potential habitat for the bog turtle (Glyptemys muhlenbergii), which is state listed as threatened and federally listed
as threatened due to similarity of appearance (T /SA), will also be restored by wetland rehabilitation and re-
establishment within the proposed riparian buffers, and protected through livestock exclusion and a permanent
conservation easement. As stated previously, the documented hydric soils along areas of the project reaches will
provide valuable habitat for bog turtle and other state - listed species. Stormwater BMPs such as bioswales and
agricultural BMPs in the forms of fencing livestock water boxes will be installed to remove direct nutrient and
sediment contamination from the project streams and wetlands.
Page 17
I N T E It W k T 1 0 It IL

Page 18
INTERNATIONAL
Nutrient removal
Restore riparian stream buffer — Currently excess nutrients and pollutants in the form of fecal
coliform and nitrogen from cattle waste and other agriculture practices are entering the project
reaches without flowing through adequate riparian buffers. Fully functioning riparian buffers will
be established and permanently protected to filter runoff containing excess nutrients and pollutants
before entering the project reaches.
Livestock exclusion — Cattle currently have unrestricted access to 18 of the 23 stream reaches and
partial access to 3 other stream reaches (See Figure 13) and all of the degraded wetland areas.
Exclusion of livestock through easements and permanent fencing would remove a direct source of
nutrient input to the system.
Sediment removal
Restore proper channel form — Streams with proper dimension, pattern, and profile will efficiently
transport sediment and allow for deposition on point bars and on the floodplain. In addition, the
design will prevent degradation by arresting and repairing headcuts, dissipating energy over proper
riffle and pool and /or step -pool, sequences, and by dissipating stream energy with overbank
flooding for storms greater than bankfull.
Construct in- stream structures — In- stream structures such as cross vanes, single arm vanes, and j-
hooks divert shear stress from the near bank to the center of the channel during storm events thus
reducing bank erosion. Based on preliminary site assessments, stream bank erosion is a main
contributor of sediment and Total Suspended Solids (TSS) within the project area.
Livestock exclusion — Stream banks are currently eroding from livestock access to the streams.
Livestock will be excluded from the stream and wetland areas with construction of a permanent
fence system encompassing the conservation easement areas.
Restore riparian stream buffer — All project reaches are lacking a mature, wide riparian buffer. As
a result, stream banks are actively eroding and introducing sediment to the stream in many areas.
A restored riparian buffer will increase root mass within stream banks, thus decreasing bank erosion
and sedimentation.
Stream bank bioengineering — Construction of geolifts, brush mattresses, brush layers, installation
of live stakes, and other bioengineering practices will re- establish a healthy root mass along the
stream banks, thus preventing erosion and excess sediment delivery to the stream.
Improved
Restore proper channel form — Restored channel dimension, pattern, and profile will ensure
substrate and in-
adequate bed load and suspended sediment transport according to sediment supply, valley type
stream cover
and valley slope. Appropriate sediment transport will ensure riffle substrate is adequately
transported and excessive degradation or aegradation does not occur.
Construct in- stream structures — Construction of in- stream structures, which are designed to
improve bedform diversity and trap detritus, will improve in- stream cover and aquatic habitat.
Livestock exclusion — Exclusion of livestock will reduce in- stream sediment from bank erosion,
which impairs channel substrate and destroys habitat for macro - invertebrates. Excess nutrients
from cattle waste will also be eliminated.
Reduce water
Restore riparian stream buffer — A restored and protected riparian stream buffer will increase
temperature
shading of the project stream reaches. The increased shade will decrease water temperatures.
Stream bank bioengineering — Bioengineering such as geolifts and stream bank live staking will
provide tree canopy and shading to the stream and reduce water temperatures.
Page 18
INTERNATIONAL

Improve aquatic
Aquatic habit will be improved from each previously listed goal. If all goals are achieved, the project
habitat
will realize maximum aquatic habitat improvement and ecological uplift.
Improved
Riparian buffers and restored riparian wetlands will increase infiltration of precipitation into the
floodwater
local ground water. In addition, the restored stream reaches will have increased access to their
retention
floodplains, which will be wider, allowing floodwater energy to dissipate over the floodplain, which
will increase floodwater retention time.
Restoration of
Riparian buffer planting and streambank bioengineering will improve terrestrial habitat adjacent to
terrestrial habitat
the project streams.
Improved
Restore riparian wetland and stream buffer vegetation — Areas where the riparian wetland
aesthetics
vegetation has been removed, are being heavily grazed by livestock, plant diversity is limited or of
low quality due to lack of density and presence of exotic species. These areas will be replanted with
native riparian vegetation. Removing exotic plant species and planting native woody and
herbaceous plants will greatly improve site aesthetics.
Livestock exclusion — Livestock exclusion will benefit site aesthetics by reducing unsightly bank
erosion and eliminating livestock and livestock waste from the project area.
Restore proper channel form — Restoring stable channel dimension, pattern, and profile will
decrease unsightly bank erosion and restore a more "natural" aesthetic appearance to project
reaches.
Improved wetland
Priority Level I Restoration will restore wetland hydrology and active flows to areas that have been
function
historically manipulated. Native species of riparian wetland vegetation will be planted in the
wetland restoration areas as well. Livestock will be permanently excluded from these wetland
areas, which will eliminate the hoof shear, degradation of hydric soils structure, and nutrient inputs
associated with livestock.
Page 19
INTERNATIONAL

5.2. Project Description
The project is located in Alexander
County in the Community of Russell Gap.
The project site is located in the DENR
Sub -basin 03 -08 -32 and the TLW
03050101- 120010 of the Catawba River
Basin (Figure 1). The project includes
Davis Creek, UTs to Davis Creek, the
East Prong Lower Little River, and UTs to
East Prong Lower Little River, each of
which are tributaries to the Catawba
River. The East Prong Little River flows
into the Lower Little River, which is
included in the North Carolina Draft 2014
list of impaired waters for aquatic life
impairment. Davis Creek, the East Prong
Little River, and Lower Little River at its
confluence with the East Prong Lower
Little River, are listed as Class C waters.
Just outside of Taylorsville, Lower Little
River is listed as a WS -IV water. Baker
first visited the Russell Gap Stream
Mitigation site in September, 2014.
Each of the project reaches have been
heavily impacted from historic land use
practices, predominantly livestock
production, and other agricultural uses.
Within the project area, approximately 85
percent of the stream banks have
inadequate (less than 50 feet wide)
riparian buffers. Figure 16 shows the
most recent aerial photography with
clearly narrow and/or absent riparian
buffers. Livestock hoof shear and/or
shear stress have severely impacted the
stream banks along the project stream
reaches.
The lack of adequate and quality buffer
vegetation, past land use disturbances,
and current livestock activities present a
significant opportunity for water quality
and ecosystem improvements through the
implementation of this project.
The Russell Gap Stream Mitigation
Project will provide maximum
appropriate functional uplift to all reaches treated, and appropriately address all of the intermittent and perennial
stream reaches on the project property. All reaches within the proposed design are being addressed such that the
maximum net uplift for water quality, habitat, and stability for the site will be met. Reaches with mature forest are
proposed for enhancement or very limited tree removal. Buffer areas include significant areas greater than the
regulatory requirements.
Page 20
I N T E It N I T 10 it AL

Based on a review of the Natural Heritage Program (NHP) and the US Fish and Wildlife Service databases, there are
two currently listed threatened or endangered species known to occur in Alexander County, the bog turtle (Glyptemys
muhlenbergii), and dwarf - flowered heartleaf (Hexastylis naniflora). The northern long -eared bat (Myotis
septentrionalis), which has been recommended to be federally listed as endangered, is also known to occur in
Alexander County. The project site is not utilized by anadromous fish species.
The project is located within the Lookout Shoals Lake watershed (03050101110). According to the 2010 Catawba
River Basinwide Plan, agricultural uses in this area have recently shifted to include several small poultry farms. Issues
associated with the watershed include excess nutrients, and the impairments to aquatic life noted in the Lower Little
River. The 2010 Basinwide Plan states that the biological community within the Lower Little River watershed is
unstable due to environmental conditions. Significant amounts of fecal coliform bacteria were noted, as were signs
of a long -term drop in pH. The watershed drains into Lookout Shoals Lake (Elk Shoal Creek), which is the water
supply for the City of Statesville.
hi addition to the Brushy Mountain Macrosite, there are three additional Natural Heritage Elements in the vicinity of
the project: the Upper Fork Little River, Sugarloaf Mountain, and Bald Rock Mountain sites. Protection and
restoration of the Russell Gap Site will assist in maintaining a connection between these important, privately held
sites.
Figures 2 and 4 show the existing topography within the project area. Natural Resource Conservation Service (MRCS)
soils information for the project is shown in Figure 3. The proposed conservation easement area has the potential to
encompass more than 34 acres of land that includes livestock pastures and narrow forested buffer lands.
The streams on the project site were broken into 23 project reaches totaling approximately 10,659 linear feet of
existing streams, (R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, R8, R9, R10, RI I, R12, R13, R14, R15, R16, R17, R18, R19, R20,
R21, R22 and R23), based on drainage area breaks at confluences, changes in restoration/enhancement approach, or
changes in intermittent /perennial stream status.
Field evaluations determined that project reaches RI through R9, along with reaches RIO, R12, R14, RIB, R21, R22,
and R23 are perennial streams. Project Reaches RI 1, R13, R15, R16, R17, R19, and R20 were determined through
field evaluations to be intermittent streams. The presence of historic valleys for each of the project stream reaches can
be seen from LIDAR imagery for the site (Figure 4), and are obvious during field investigations.
Field evaluations of intermittent/perennial stream status were made in November 2014. These evaluations were based
on NCDWQ's Methodology for Identification of Intermittent and Perennial Streams and Their Origins, (v 4.11,
Effective Date: September 1, 2010) stream assessment protocols. Table 1 below presents the results of the field
evaluations along with the assessed status of each project reach. Copies of the supporting field forms are available
upon request.
Page 21
I N T E It W k T 1 0 It IL

Table 1. Summary Information for Field Investigations to Determine Intermittent /Perennial Status.
Projector
Reach
Designation
R1
�VVNCIDWQ
Existing Projec
Reach Length (ft)
Streamil
Classification Form
Score
Watershed
Area (acres)
77�1[
..
Analyses
Perennial
1,948
41.5
934
R2
178
30+
1,056
Perennial
R3
388
30+
2,227
Perennial
R4
1,770
41.25
806
Perennial
R5
256
42.0
154
Perennial
R6
591
38.5
186
Perennial
R7
1,494
38.5
288
Perennial
R8
437
38.5
333
Perennial
R9
421
35.5
352
Perennial
R10
455
30.5
17.3
Perennial
R11
473
23.0
14.1
Intermittent
R12
101
34.5
115
Perennial
R13
124
27.75
20.7
Intermittent
R14
511
35.0
22.4
Perennial
R15
84
25.25
18.7
Intermittent
R16
129
21.0
25.5
Intermittent
R17
109
21.0
26.2
Intermittent
R18
163
31.75
14.1
Perennial
R19
371
28.75
22.3
Intermittent
R20
77
28.75
16.6
Intermittent
R21
67
34.25
32.5
Perennial
R22
213
30.5
2.7
Perennial
R23
299
23.5
7.4
Perennial 3
Note 1: NCDWQ Stream Classification forms are available upon request for the streams listed above.
Note 2: Watershed drainage area is approximated based on topographic and LIDAR information at the downstream end of each reach.
Note 3: Reach R23 is a perennial stream that is spring /seep fed, but due to heavy disturbances cannot meet DWQ form scores for
biology or geomorphology indicators but clearly conveys flow year round.
Page 22
I N T E It W k 1 0 RIL

Visual inspections of the stream substrate
materials were conducted for each reach.
The project site consists of gravel /cobble
bed streams. Due to downcutting from
headcut migration, some reaches have
bedrock knickpoints controlling the grade
of the channel.
Since the project has the potential to
appropriately address erosion on all of the
intermittent and perennial stream reaches
on the project property, future supplies of
gravel and other sediment from on -site
channel erosion is expected to be reduced
significantly. However, a detailed
sediment transport analysis will be
conducted to confirm that if sediment is
being supplied to the project reaches it
will be adequately transported, thus
preventing aggradation. As part of the
formal design process, Baker will assess
the hydraulic forces to ensure that the channel bed will not aggrade nor degrade. Bed degradation (incision) can occur
without an adequate sediment supply if the design has excessive shear stress or stream power. Consequently,
constructed riffles will be incorporated in the design with larger rock sizes that will be immobile during storm events,
since bed material supply is not predicted to be sufficient to build riffles naturally. The constructed riffles will also
increase dissolved oxygen content, provide aquatic habitat and assurance that the restored channel will not degrade
over time. Further discussion of sediment transport analysis is provided in Section 5.3.
Baker conducted field studies to evaluate and document the existing conditions of the site, as well as each project
stream reach. These studies included field evaluations, photographic documentation, cross section surveys, GPS
surveys of pertinent site features. Field -work dependant sections of the NCEEP's Technical Proposal Evaluation
Criteria — Rating Form, CATAWBA 03050101— Stream Only — September 2014 for RFP# 16- 006177 and all of the
mapping and calculation of associated statistics in accordance with NCEEP's Guidance for the Submission of
Mapping and Associated Statistics in Technical Proposals were completed. Copies of the completed rating forms,
described above, are included in the appendices. The results of the existing condition cross section surveys and/or
visual field analysis were used to conduct geomorphic stream classification for the proj ect stream reaches. The results
of the existing condition cross sections surveys are summarized in Table 2. The results of the field evaluations and
GPS surveys of pertinent site features were used in conjunction with available GIS data to develop mapping as
required by the RFP.
Submitted figures include time - series historical aerial photography (Figures 8 and 9), recent aerial photography with
topography (Figures 2, 4, and 5) and proposed mitigation features /measures (Figure 6), pre- monitoring features
(Figure 7), channel stability mapping (Figure 10, 11 a, and 11 b), site floodplain alteration mapping (Figure 12), water
quality stressors mapping (Figure 13), watershed planning contextual mapping (Figure 14), and mapping of adjacent
and proximal planning elements (Figure 15) as required by the RFP.
Page 23
I N T E It W k T 1 0 It IL

Table 2. Summary of Existing Condition Cross section Survey Data.
Project
Reach
Designatiolni
Watershed
Drainage Ar
(acres) 11
Entren
F
idth/Depth Ratio
V
Typical Bank Height Ratio
R1
934
>6.4
7.3
1.1
R23
1,056
>2.2
<12
1.1
R3
2,227
2.5
9.4
1.0
R4
806
2.1
6.9
1.2
RS3
154
>2.2
>12
1.1
R6
186
1.4
4.0
2.7
R7
288
2.7
6.4
1.1
R83
333
1.4 -2.2
>12
1.0
R9
352
2.3
11.1
1.4
R103
17.3
>2.2
<12
1.0
R113
14.1
<1.4
<12
1.5
R123
115
>2.2
<12
1.3
R133
20.7
1.4 -2.2
>12
1.0
R14
22.4
1.2
4.0
2.0
R153
18.7
>2.2
<12
1.1
R163
25.5
1.4 -2.2
>12
1.2
R173
26.2
1.4 -2.2
>12
1.4
R183
14.1
1.4 -2.2
>12
1.0
R193
22.3
1.4 -2.2
>12
1.4
R203
16.6
1.4 -2.2
>12
1.2
R213
32.5
1.4 -2.2
>12
1.1
R223
2.7
<1.4
<12
1.7
R233
7.4
>2.2
>12
1.2
Note 1: Watershed drainage area is approximated based on USGS topographic and LIDAR information.
Note 2: Cross section locations are shown in Figure 7.
Note 3: Geomorphic parameters of these reaches are based on best professional judgment and quick field
measurements. Surveyed cross sections were not conducted on these reaches.
Page 24
I N T E It W k T 1 0 It 1L

R1 extends from the upstream terminus
of the project near Russell Gap Road,
downstream to the confluence with R14
near the downsteam property line. R1
has a stream length of approximately
1,948 feet, valley slope of 1 percent and
a drainage area of 934 acres. R1 appears
vertically stable, with coarse gravel
substrate within the riffles and bank
height ratios ranging from 1.0 to 1.2.
However, cattle have unrestricted access
to the streams and the streambanks lack
an adequate riparian buffer. Lateral
instability was observed throughout the
reach and active erosion is present on
approximately 40 - 50 percent of the
streambanks. The observed erosion is
typically in the form of bank scour and
slumping caused by an excess in near
bank shear stresses during storm events
and from the lack of woody vegetation
along the stream banks. A majority of
the R1 stream pattern meanders
throughout the valley floor, although the
presence of ditches and floodplain alterations suggest the stream has been manipulated. Hydric soils were identified
throughout the valley during the soils investigations, and the site likely supported a highly functioning riparian stream
and wetland system prior to human disturbances. The sinuosity is 1.13 and based on historical aerials, it appears that
channel straightening may have taken place in the past. R1 has very few mature trees along the streambanks; all
existing trees will be saved as part of the restoration design. Based on existing conditions and coarse gravel substrate,
R1 is classified as an slightly incised E4 stream type.
R2 begins at a culvert pipe crossing at Mount Olive Church Road and flows south to its confluence with R4. The
existing length of R2 is approximately 178 feet. R2 has a drainage area of 1,056 acres. Stream bank erosion on R2
is less than 10 percent, although it lacks woody vegetation along the stream banks. R2 has been slightly degraded
through the removal of the riparian buffer vegetation, the culvert pipe installation, and current cattle access. The
degree of incision along R2 is low, with bank height ratios near 1.1. Mature woody vegetation is absent along the
entire length of R2. Native species vegetation such as Tag alder are present along the streambanks and will be
transplanted as part of enhancement activities. R2's floodplain upstream of the conservation easement has been
altered to accommodate the road crossing and farm road access. R2 is actively subject to water quality stressors,
mainly in the form of cattle access and riparian buffers that are less than 5 feet in width. Based on existing conditions,
R2 has a Rosgen stream type classification of E4.
R3 begins at the confluence of R2 and R4. The drainage area for Reach R3 is approximately 2,227 acres. The existing
length of R3 is approximately 388 feet. Bank erosion on R3 is present on approximately 10 to 20 percent of the
streambanks. The observed erosion is typically in the form of localized bank scour caused by excessive near bank
shear stress during storm events, cattle hoof shear, and from the lack of woody vegetation along the stream banks.
R3 has been slightly degraded through the removal of the riparian buffer vegetation and through past floodplain
alteration and current cattle access. The degree of incision along R3 is minimal, with bank height ratios ranging from
1.0 to 1.1. Mature woody vegetation is absent along most of R3, with exception of the last 100 feet as it flows off the
property into a mature riparian buffer. The channel slope is just under 1 percent and flattens near the confluence with
R2. The reach is vertically stable as the substrate transitions from fine gravel to a bedrock feature near the downstream
terminus. The majority of R3 is actively subject to water quality stressors, mainly resulting from unrestricted cattle
Page 25
I N T E It N I T F 0 it AL

access and riparian buffers that are less
than 5 feet in width. This reach has a
Rosgen stream type classification of E4.
R4 begins upstream of R3 and flows
southwest for approximately 1,770 feet
past a culverted crossing to the confluence
with R2 and R3. The drainage area is
approximately 806 acres. Bank erosion on
R4 is present on approximately 30 to 40
percent of the streambanks. The observed
erosion is typically in the form of bank
scour caused by an excess in near bank
shear stresses during storm events, hoof
shear, and from the lack of woody
vegetation along the stream banks. R4 has
been degraded through the removal of the
riparian buffer vegetation and through past
channelization and current cattle access.
The degree of incision along R4 is
variable, with bank height ratios ranging
from 1.1 to 1.5. Mature woody vegetation
is absent along the entire length of R4.
R4's floodplain has been altered, as
evidenced by remant spoil piles
interspersed throughout its length. Portions of R4 are laterally unstable due to the lack of deep rooting vegetation.
Active bank erosion was observed along 30 — 40 percent of the streambanks and R4 no longer has access to its active
floodplain during smaller flood events. However, the observed bed stability has helped portions of the reach form
floodplain benches and inner berm features at a lower elevation within the channel. The entire length of R4 is subject
to active water quality stressors, mainly resulting from unresticted cattle access and riparian buffers that are less than
10 feet in width. The valley slope throughout R4 is approximately 1.2 percent and the reach is classified as a Rosgen
E4 stream type, but is moderately incised and does not have a higher sinuosity commonly associated with E stream
types.
R5 begins at a culvert crossing near the southernmost part of the project area and flows north for approximately 256
feet to the beginning of R6. The drainage area is approximately 154 acres. The channel is mostly stable with bank
height ratios ranging from 1.1 to 1.2. The riparian buffer consists of mature trees and shrubs mostly along the the
right streambank, but the vegetated buffer becomes marginal and insufficient as the reach transitions into an area that
has experienced recent logging activities. Bank erosion on R5 is present on approximately 30 percent of the
streambanks. The observed erosion is in the form of localized bank erosion caused by an excess in near bank shear
stresses during storm events. The floodplain has been altered in some location as shown by the presence of berms
adjacent to R5, likely resulting from the logging activities. The downstream portion of R5 is subject to active water
quality stressors, mainly in the form of riparian buffers that are less than 30 feet in width and cattle access.
R6 begins at the downstream of R5 and continues north for approximately 591 feet until its confluence near R18,
where R7 begins. The drainage area for R6 is approximately 186 acres. The channel is classified as a G4 stream type
and currently incised with bank height ratios ranging from 2.0 to 3.0. Multiple headcuts were observed throughout
its length and the channel is vertically unstable. The active channel appears to have been moved to the right edge of
the valley and an adjacent abandoned channel was observed in the lower part of the valley. The valley slope is
approximately 2.4 percent and the channel does not have access to its geomorphic floodplain, therefore it will likely
continue to degrade, contributing excess sediment to the watershed. This is evident through the bare vertical banks
and mass wasting that occurs for approximately 70 to 80 percent of the stream length. The riparian buffer has scattered
small trees and shrubs along the streambank, but has been recently disturbed and the vegetated buffer width is
insufficient. The observed erosion is both in the form of bank scour and mass wasting, from the lack of woody
Page 26
I N T E It N 1, T 10 it AL

vegetation along the stream banks and lack of natural grade control features. The floodplain has been altered as
indicated by the presence of a linear berm along the left stream bank. The entire length of R6 is actively subject to
water quality stressors, mainly in the form of cattle access and riparian buffers that are less than 10 feet in width.
R7 begins at the downstream end of R6 and flows north for approximately 1,494 feet to a culvert crossing at the
beginning of R8. The drainage area is approximately 280 acres. The channel is classified as an E4 stream type with
bank heights ratio ranging from 1.1 to 1.3. The reach is vertically stable with mostly small cobble substrate thoughout
its length. The riparian buffer consists of mostly herbaceous vegetation with a few shrubs interspersed along the
stream banks. Livestock have direct access to this entire reach. Bank erosion on R7 is present on approximately 20
to 30 percent of the streambanks. The observed erosion is in the form of localized bank scour caused by an excess in
near bank shear stresses during storm events, from the lack of woody vegetation along the stream banks, and from
hoof shear from direct livestock access to the stream. Portions of this reach's floodplain have been altered as shown
on historical aerials and through the soils investigations. The entire length of R7 is actively subject to water quality
stressors, mainly in the form of direct livestock access and riparian buffers that are less than 10 feet in width.
R8 begins at the end of the culvert crossing downstream of R7 and flows south through a forested area for
approximately 437 feet until another culvert crossing at the upstream of R9. The drainage area for R8 is approximately
330 acres. The channel is classified as a Rosgen B4 with bank height ratios ranging from 1.0 to 1.1. The channel is
stable throughout most of the reach and has mature riparian buffer along its stream banks. Livestock have direct
access to this reach. The right floodplain has been altered in the past, likely to accomodate the farm access road and
culvert crossing. The observed erosion is in the form of localized bank scour along the left bank caused by an excess
in near bank shear stresses during storm events.
R9 begins at the downstream end of R8 at a culvert crossing and flows north across open pasture for approximately
421 feet to the confluence with R3. The drainage area at the downstream terminus is approximately 352 acres. The
channel is moderately incised and classified as an E4 stream type with bank height ratios ranging from 1.1 to 1.5.
The valley in this location begins to widen and flatten as it reaches the confluence with R3. A few small headcuts
were observed, however the stream bed is fairly stable overall with a coarse gravel substrate observed thoughout its
length. The riparian buffer is lacking mature trees and only consists of herbaceous vegetation along the stream banks.
Livestock have direct access to this entire reach. Bank erosion on R9 is present on approximately 50 - 60 percent of
the streambanks. The observed erosion is in the form of localized bank scour and mass wasting caused by excessive
near bank shear stress during storm events, from the lack of woody vegetation along the stream banks, and from hoof
shear from direct livestock access to the stream. Portions of this reach's floodplain have been altered as shown on
historical aerials and through the soils investigations. The entire length of R9 is actively subject to water quality
stressors, mainly in the form of direct livestock access and the lack of a riparian buffer.
R10 begins as a small perennial headwater tributary at a spring along the toe of a slope and enters R1 after flowing
southeast for approximately 455 feet. R10 has a drainage area of approximately 17 acres. A headcut is present along
R10 near the confluence with R1. R10 is mostly stable, but the buffer is limited to mostly herbaceous vegetation with
a few scattered trees and shrubs along the stream bank. Bank erosion is limited to approximately 5 to 10 percent of
the stream length, however it appears the valley topography has been altered due to the remnant spoil areas and past
agricultural practices. R10 is actively subject to water quality stressors, mainly in the form of cattle access and riparian
buffers that are less than 10 feet in width. The reach is difficult to classify using the Rosgen classification type given
the variable bed and bank features but would most likely classify as an E4 stream type. However, the channel is mostly
stable and will not likely degrade rapidly due to the small drainage area and herbaceous vgetation along most of its
streambanks.
RI l is an small intermittent headwater tributary that begins from a spring above a perched culvert crossing and flows
eastward for approximately 473 feet. Of the 473 feet, the upper approximately 200 feet of RI l is intermittent based
on observed flows within a defined channel. The lower portion near the confluence with RI appears to have been
ditched and lacks natural channel features from excessive cattle trampling and herbacous vegetation. RI l has a
drainage area of approximately 14 acres. The upper reach is much steeper as the channel slope exceeds 6 percent
before flattening near the conflunce with R1. Headcuts are present along the upstream section of Rl l and the channel
has downcut significantly. Bank erosion along R11 is present mostly in the upper section in the form of bank scour
for approximately 50 to 60 percent. The riparian buffer in the lower section is limited to herbaceous vegetation with
a few scattered trees and shrubs along the stream bank. A small section along R11 downstream of an existing ford
Page 27
I N T E It M I T 10 it AL

type stream crossing, near its confluence with RI, serves as a livestock wallow area. Rl l is classified as an A4 stream
type in the upper reach and an E4 stream type in the lower reach. R11 has a bank height ratio range of 1.0 to greater
than 2.0.
R12 is a perennial headwater tributary that begins at a pipe culvert crossing along Russell Gap Road and flows
westward for approximately 101 feet to its confluence with Rl. R12 has a drainage area of approximately 115 acres.
A small headcut is present in the middle section of R12, below the existing road crossing. Bank erosion along R12
is present in the form of bank scour for approximately 40 to 50 percent. The floodplain has been altered along the
left bank as shown by the presence of a small berm. The riparian buffer is insufficient and limited to herbaceous
vegetation along the stream banks. The reach is moderately incised and is classified as a E4 stream type with bank
height ratios ranging of 1.3 to 1.5. The entire length of R12 is actively subject to water quality stressors, mainly in
the form of direct livestock access and riparian buffers that are less than 5 feet in width. An existing power line
crosses R12 along the right -of -way and runs to a service pole near an exsting barn. This utility line will remain.
R13 is a small intermittent headwater tributary that begins at a culvert crossing downstream of a stable channel reach,
with a mature riparian buffer. It flows eastward for approximately 124 feet until its condition worsens downstream
near another culvert crossing and the beginning of R14. Similar to R11, the channel slope is steep and ranges from 3
to 6 percent; however, a majority of the stream bed and banks are stable with natural grade control features. Bank
erosion along R13 is present in the form of bank scour for approximately 5 to 10 percent of the stream length. This
bank scour is located in isolated areas and is mostly near the culvert crossing or in areas where the valley topography
has been altered. The riparian buffer width is insufficient and vegetation is limited to a few scattered trees and shrubs
along the stream banks. R13 is classified as a Rosgen 134a stream type with bank height ratios ranging from 1.0 to
1.1.
R14 is a small perennial headwater tributary that begins at a culvert outlet at the end of R13 and flows southeastward
for approximately 511 feet to its confluence with Rl. R14 has a drainage area of approximately 23 acres at its
downstream terminus. Bank erosion along R14 is present in the form of bank scour for approximately 40 to 50 percent
of the stream length and is predominantly caused by downcutting and vertical instablility throughout most of the
upper reach. The lower section appears to have been widened and moved against the right toe of slope for
approximately 250 feet. The riparian buffer width is insufficient and is limited to herbaceous vegetation along most
of its reach. The entire length of R14 is actively subject to water quality stressors as cattle have unrestricted access
to the channel and adjacent wetland area. R14 is classified as a G4 stream type in the upper section with bank height
ratios of up to 4.0, and is classified as an E4 in the lower section.
R15 is a small intermittent headwater tributary that begins along a forested hillside and flows northward for
approximately 84 feet to its confluence with R4. R15 has a drainage area of approximately 19 acres. Bank erosion
along R15 is present in the form of bank scour for approximately 40 to 50 percent of the stream length and is
predominantly caused by hoof shear from direct livestock access. The riparian buffer is insufficient and limited to
herbaceous vegetation. R15 is difficult to classify using the Rosgen classification system since the channel and its
floodplain have been significantly altered but would appropriately be classified as an E4 stream type.
R16 is a small intermittent headwater tributary that originates from a forested hillside and flows east for approximately
238 feet and ends at a culverted farm road crossing. R16 is forested and mostly stable with some headcuts present.
Bank erosion along this reach is moderate to low.
R17 begins below the culvert at the end of R16 and continues to the confluence with R6. It has a drainage area of
approximately 26 acres. The R17 section begins to downcut almost immediately downstream of the existing farm
crossing before its confluence with R6. Bank erosion is present in the form of bank scour for approximately 20 to 30
percent of the stream length. Along R17 the riparian buffer is limited to herbaceous vegetation along the stream bank.
Livestock currently have direct access to R17. R17 is classified as a B4 stream type with bank height ratios ranging
of 1.3 to 1.5.
R18 is similar to R17. R18 is a small perennial headwater tributary that begins along a forested hillside and flows
east for approximately 163 feet until its confluence with R7. R18 has a drainage area of approximately 14 acres.
Bank erosion along R18 is low and present in the form of bank scour for approximately 5 to 10 percent of the stream
length. The riparian buffer is limited to herbaceous vegetation along the stream bank. Livestock currently have direct
Page 28
I N T E It N l T 10 it AL

access to this reach below the existing
farm crossing. R18 is classified as a B4
stream type with bank height ratios
ranging from 1.0 to 1.1.
R19 is a small intermittent headwater
tributary that begins at a spring head
along a hillside and flows east for
approximately 371 feet until it meets the
existing farm crossing at the beginning
of R20. R19 has a drainage area of
approximately 22 acres. Bank erosion
along R19 is moderate and present in the
form of bank scour for approximately 30
to 40 percent of the stream length. The
reach has experienced downcutting and
channel wideing has occurred
throughout its length. The riparian
buffer has been recently logged in this
area and is limited to herbaceous
vegetation with marginal shrubs and
trees along the stream bank. R20 is
classified as a B4a stream type with bank
height ratios ranging from 1.3 to 1.5.
R20 is a short reach that begins at the culvert crossing at the end of R19 and continues 77 feet to the conflunce with
R7. Livestock currently have direct access to this reach and the riparian buffer is limited to mostly herbaceous
vegetation. R20 is classified as a B4 stream type with bank height ratios ranging from 1.1 to 1.3.
R21 is similar to R16, R17, and R18. R21 is a small perennial headwater tributary that begins along a forested
hillside and flows west for approximately 67 feet until its confluence with R7. R21 has a drainage area of
approximately 33 acres. Bank erosion along R21 is low and is present in the form of localized bank scour for 5 to 10
percent of the stream length. The stream bed and banks are relatively stable until its confluence with R7. The riparian
buffer is comprised of herbaceous vegetation with a mix of trees and shrubs along the stream bank. Livestock
currently have access to this reach, but do not appear to gather in this area. R21 is classified as a B4 stream type with
bank height ratios ranging from 1.1 to 1.2.
R22 is a small perennial headwater tributary that begins at a hillslope seep and flows generally northeast for
approximately 213 feet to its confluence with R7. R22 has a drainage area of approximately 3 acres. R22 appears to
have been ditched and is currently incised and overly wide for its small drainage area. The natural topography in this
area appears to have been altered, likely to accomodate the road crossing and promote drainage. Bank erosion is
present in the form of localized bank scour and a large headcut was observed along its stream length. The channel
has been ditched and widened; therefore, excess shear stresses during storm events are low. The riparian buffer is
limited to herbaceous vegetation in and along the stream banks. Livestock currently have direct access to this reach
and trash was observed within the channel. R22 is difficult to classify using the Rosgen classification system since
the channel has been significantly altered but R22 would most appropriately be classified as a G4 stream type.
R23 is a small perennial headwater tributary that begins at a spring head along a hillside and flows generally northwest
for approximately 299 feet until its confluence with R9. R23 has a drainage area of approximately 7 acres. R23
appears to have been ditched and is overly wide and overly deep with bank height ratios ranging from approximately
1.1 to 1.3. Although the reach is slightly incised throughout all of its stream length, the bed and banks are mostly
stable. This is likely due the fact that the channel slope is relatively flat and the low flow channel has reformed within
the ditch bottom at its current bed elevation. The riparian buffer is limited to herbaceous vegetation in and along the
stream banks. Livestock currently have direct access to this reach, and use the upstream pool near the farm road
crossing as a wallowing area. R23 is difficult to classify using the Rosgen classification system since the channel has
Page 29
I N T E It M IT@Ak A!

been significantly altered by livestock and
channelization but R23 would most
appropriately be classified as a C4 stream
type.
While some of the drainage areas of the
headwater reaches are small, the fact that
some of the streams are spring fed, the
NCDWQ stream scores are all above 19,
and discussions with the landowners
regarding the flow histories of the streams,
led Baker to conclude that all of the
proposed UTs are appropriate for at least
Enhancement Level II practices.
Small patches of invasive vegetation
species including Multiflora rose and
Chinese privet exist within a few of the
riparian buffer areas.
As shown on Figure 3, soils around the
project reaches are dominated by Codorus
loam (0 -2 percent slopes, frequently
flooded) in the valley floodplains, with
Braddock and Hayesville clay loams (both
the 6 -15 percent and 15 -25 percent slope
phases) appearing along the upslope
tributaries. The area described as suitable
for riparian wetland restoration are within
the Codorus loam mapping unit. Codorus
loam is identified as a hydric soil in
Alexander County, North Carolina by the
NRCS in their " Hydric Soils of the United
States" listing (March 2014 revision).
An on -site investigation of the soils within
the project area was conducted on
November 5, 2014 by Baker's licensed
soil scientist, Scott King, LSS, PWS,
CPESC. Mr. King's findings indicate the
presence of hydric soils along virtually the
entire floodplain of Rl, along with
significant areas along the floodplains of
R4 and R9 as well (Figures 18 and 19). In
addition to the presence of Codorus loam,
significant inclusions of the associated Hatboro silt loam, a listed component to Codorus in floodplains, were
discovered as well (see Photo 8). Hatboro is also identified as a hydric soil by the NRCS. It dominates in the
floodplain around Rl, the area proposed for wetland restoration. It is anticipated that through Priority Level I
Restoration along Rl, Enhancement Level I along R4 and R9, the removal and permanent exclusion of livestock,
limited upland soil removal, and revegetation, hydrologic and vegetative wetland functions can be restored along the
described floodplains, allowing the associated wetlands to regain their historic functions. Hydric soil findings were
based on hand -turned soil auger borings and determinations from the "NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the
United States — A Guide for Identifying and Delineating Hydric Soils (Version 7.0, 2010) ".
Page 30
I N T E It N 1, T 10 it A!

As stated above, there are two federally listed Threatened species known to have occurred in Alexander County (bog
turtle and dwarf flowered heartleaf) as is the potentially listed northern long -eared bat. This project is not anticipated
to have a negative impact on these species, and may provide new habitat for the bog turtle. This project is not
anticipated to have any adverse impacts on cultural or historical resources. There are no sites currently listed on the
National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) within 5 miles of the project. The nearest Study List site is the Louis
Foote Davis House and Barn (AX0017) which is 0.95 miles from the project site. On -site investigations and
discussions with landowners have not revealed any potential resources of this type on the property. If the project is
awarded, Baker will contact the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (NC -HPO) to ensure that there will
be no cultural or historical resource impacts.
Based on a review using Google Earth, the nearest airports to the project site are the Southern Skies private, unpaved
field, 4.2 miles southeast of the project and Taylorsville Airfield, an unpaved facility 5.8 miles to the south of the site.
The nearest airport with a paved runway is the Wilkes County Airport, located 8.7 miles north of the site.
None of the proposed project reaches are located within a FEMA regulated floodplain. While it is not anticipated that
there will be issues associated with FEMA permitting or documentation, Baker will coordinate with the local
floodplain administrator as needed and prepare the required documentation to obtain approval for any FEMA
regulated impacts.
5.3. Project Development
The Russell Gap Stream Mitigation
Project will have the potential to include
the restoration, enhancement, and
protection of 23 stream reaches, their
associated riparian buffers, as well as
restoration through rehabilitation and re-
establishment of significantly degraded or
historic riparian wetlands. This broad,
balanced approach, utilizing the entire
range of practices, from Priority Level
I Restoration to Level II Enhancement,
is critical as it has the potential to
address all of the intermittent and
perennial stream reaches on project
property, including restoring riparian
buffers along all of the project stream
reaches currently in pasture, restoring
degraded riparian wetlands, and
reducing and limiting the number of
stream crossings, thus providing the
maximum functional uplift and
utilizing a watershed approach. This
project has the potential to restore and /or enhance approximately 10,659 LF of existing stream and more than 9 acres
of significantly degraded riparian wetlands (Figures 6, 18, and 19). The streams and wetlands to be restored or
enhanced have been impacted by channelization, loss of riparian buffers, past land use disturbances, and direct
livestock access (see Photos 1 through 17).
Approximately 33 percent of the total streambank length is experiencing active bank erosion and approximately 90
percent of the total stream length is actively subject to onsite water quality stressors resulting from direct livestock
access and a lack of mature riparian buffer. Approximately 20 percent of the total stream length exhibits significant,
obvious incision. The proposed project will improve provide floodplain access to all reaches undergoing restoration
or enhancement and will monitor floodplain access.
For any project reach along which Priority Level II Restoration will be utilized, the following elements will be
incorporated into the proposed design and construction:
Page 31
I N T E It N l T 10 it A!

• Floodplain bench excavation grading will extend a minimum of 1.5 bankfull widths beyond the stream belt
width such that meandering floodplains are not created.
• All proposed floodplains will be constructed such that they are over - excavated to accommodate replacement
of topsoil.
• Design and construction oversight measures will ensure the proper harvesting, segregating, stockpiling,
storage, handling, overall management and replacement of A and B soil horizon materials onto the excavated
floodplain.
• Constructed return slopes between the outer edge of the excavated floodplain and the terrace will be a
minimum of 5:1 or flatter
Baker will compile and assess watershed information including: drainage areas, historical land uses and development
trends, geologic setting, soil types, and terrestrial plant communities. Project reach designs will use appropriate field
investigations, hydraulic and hydrologic models, and regional curves to verify proposed bankfull channel dimensions.
Baker will use the results of the existing condition analyses along with reference reach data from previous projects to
develop a proposed stream restoration design for the project reaches. This design will utilize multiple restoration
design techniques and approaches that have been succesfully implemented on past projects, including Rosgen's
methodology, under which dimensionless ratios from the reference reach and past project experience are used to
restore stable dimension, pattern, and profile, as well as proper bankfull sediment - transport competency for the
proposed reach. The proposed project will provide increased floodplain access throughout the project area for all
Restoration and Enhancement Level I reaches and will be monitored to demonstrate floodplain function. The stream
channel design will include analysis of the hydrology, hydraulics, shear stress, sediment transport, and appropriate
channel dimensions. The hydrology and hydraulics will include analysis of the bankfull discharge, and comparison
of the reference reach ratios to design ratios from past projects under similar geomorphic settings which have proved
successful. The bankfull discharge will be used to develop the proposed channel dimension and to assess performance.
Sediment transport calculations and stream power analyses will be performed for the existing channels and the design
channels for comparison. Specifically, Baker will perform representative pebble counts and will collect pavement
and subpavement samples in order to evaluate bed material characteristics and sediment transport. The bed material
will be sieved and a grain size distribution developed. The results of the substrate analyses will be used to classify
the streams and to complete shear stress, sediment transport, and stability analyses. Baker will use the critical shear
stress and boundary shear stress analysis approaches to verify that the channels as designed will not aggrade nor
degrade. Sediment transport calculations will be performed for the existing channels and the design channels for
comparison.
In- stream structures will be constructed only from materials naturally found at the project site such as hardwood logs,
brush, rock, stone, and boulder materials. In order to ensure sustainability of those structures, Baker will only use
methods of structure design and construction that have proven successful on numerous past projects in the same
geographic region.
Baker has field verified that the project site has adequate, viable construction access, staging, and stockpile areas.
Note that crossings account for less than 1.5 percent of the proposed easement area. These same site access points
and features will be used for future access after the completion of construction. Where practicable, impacts to existing
native riparian buffer vegetation will be minimized. The use of native riparian buffer transplants will be maximized
as well. Any potential impacts to existing wetland areas will be avoided during construction, with only temporary,
minimal impacts expected as necessary for maximized permanent stream and wetland functional uplift.
R1— Restoration
Due to the degraded nature of Reach Rl, a Priority Level I Restoration approach is proposed for the entire reach to
fully restore stream and associated wetland functions. The reach currently exhibits lateral instability as shown by
active bank erosion and bank slumping. This systemic instability will likely continue since the existing channel has
mostly vertical banks that are devoid of deep rooting vegetation caused by cattle access and pasture grazing. The
Page 32
I N T E R N IT 10 it AL

channel will be raised to reconnect it to
the adjacent floodplain and hydric soils
area. This will promote more frequent
over bank flooding in areas of hydric
soils, thereby creating a better opportunity
for wetland re- establishment. The reach
will be designed as a Rosgen C4 stream
type. This reach lacks mature woody
vegetation; however any existing isolated
trees or shrubs will be protected or
transplanted if possible. Due to the
existing valley slope and valley floor
width, this reach will be restored through
the use of appropriate riffle -pool
morphology. A new meandering channel
will be constructed and the floodplain will
consist of native hardwood species
interspersed with riparian wetland
features. While formal design calculations
have not been completed, it is likely that
the design width/depth ratio for the
channel will be similar to similar streams in this geologic setting. It is expected that over time, the channel widths
will narrow due to fine sediment deposition and streambank vegetation growth. In- stream structures will be used to
control grade, dissipate energies, protect stream banks, and eliminate the potential for upstream channel incision. In-
stream structures will most likely include constructed riffles for grade control and habitat (a coarse gravel substrate
was observed in this channel section), and log vanes for increased bank stability and habitat diversity. Channel banks
will be graded to stable slopes, and the adjacent floodplain will be re- connected to further promote stability and re-
establishment of riparian vegetation. Bio- engineering techniques such as geolifts, root wads, toe wood, brush layers
and live stakes will also be used to protect restored stream banks and to promote woody vegetation growth along the
stream banks. The existing ditches and unstable channel will be filled to an elevation sufficient to connect the new
design channel to the historic floodplain along its entire length using suitable fill material excavated from construction
of the newly restored channels. Riparian buffers in excess of 50 feet will be restored and protected along all of R1.
Additionally, permanent fencing will be installed to exclude livestock and reduce sediment and nutrient inputs. The
existing piped stream crossings will remain to provide the landowner access to pastures on the western part of the
property. As necessary, Baker will improve these crossings to improve hydraulic functions and channel stability.
R2 — Enhancement II
Work along R2 will involve Enhancement Level II practices to maintain the stability of the channel. The existing
channel is stable with only isolated and limited bank erosion. Consequently, Baker proposes to slope, mat, and live
stake the stream banks in minimal localized areas where bank erosion is occurring, plant a riparian buffer, and
permanently exclude livestock through fencing.
R3 — Enhancement II
Work along R3 will involve an Enhancement Level II approach. R3 begins below an existing pipe crossing that will
serve as the southern site entrance. The channel slope is relatively flat in this location and the bed grade in R3 is
controlled by bedrock in the downstream section. R3 is mostly stable and only slightly incised. Enhancement Level
II activities will include stabilizing the existing stream bank using an in- stream structure to redirect higher flows away
from the left stream bank. The bed through this area will remain at its current elevation, and where appropriate, bio-
engineering measures will provide bank stabilization and aquatic habitat. Channel banks will be graded to stable
slopes and the appropriate bankfull channel geometry will be established. There are some mature trees along R3 that
will be preserved. Riparian buffers of at least 50 feet will be established and livestock will be permanently excluded
from the reach. This will remove the water quality stressors from the reach and provide for much improved water
quality throughout the project area, as well as decreased erosion and sediment loss from bank erosion.
Page 33
I N T E It N l T 10 it A!

R4 — Enhancement I
The approach for R4 will be similar to the
approach described above for R3. Work
along R4 will involve Enhancement Level
I activities to provide additional
floodplain benching and encourage long-
term channel stability. The channel has
become slightly incised and the floodplain
has been significantly altered in some
locations, as evidenced by spoil piles.
Some sections of R4 have developed
small floodplain benches at a lower bed
elevation. In order to reduce further bank
erosion, additional floodplain benches
will be excavated to continue this positive
evolutionary process and reduce near
bank stressses at flows above the bankfull
discharge. In- stream structures will be
constructed in strategic locations to
increase aquatic pool habitat and to ensure
grade control. Channel banks will be
graded to stable slopes and the appropriate
bankfull channel geometry will be
established. There are very few mature trees along this reach, but sporadic shrubs exist along the stream banks. Any
of these native shrubs that are required to be removed for enhancement activities will be carefully excavated and
transplanted along the newly graded stream banks. Riparian buffers of at least 50 feet wide will be established and
livestock will be permanently excluded from the reach. The existing pipe stream crossing will remain near the bottom
of the reach to maintain long term site access.
R5 — Enhancement II
R5 begins at a headcut below an existing crossing that will be improved. Work along R5 will involve Enhancement
Level II practices to maintain the lateral stability of the channel. The existing channel is currently stable with only
isolated and limited bank erosion. Consequently, Baker proposes to slope, mat, and live stake the stream banks in
minimal localized areas where bank erosion is occurring, plant a riparian buffer in excess of 50 feet, and permanently
exclude livestock.
R6 — Restoration
The main channel for R6 appears to have been moved to the right edge of the valley floor. R6 is severely incised with
bank height ratios ranging from 2.0 to 3.0. During site investigations, a smaller remnant channel was observed parallel
to the main channel for approximately 300 feet, portions of which may be utilized to restore a portion of the historic
flow path. Work along R6 will involve incorporating the remnant channel where possible and a Priority Level I
Restoration to provide a historic channel reconnection within the low point of the valley. This approach will promote
long -term channel stability and reduce disturbance to the substrate material. There are very few mature trees along
this reach, and sporadic shrubs (e.g. tag alder) exist along the stream banks. Any of these native shrubs that are
required to be removed for restoration activities will be carefully excavated and transplanted along the newly restored
stream banks.
This reach will be designed as a Rosgen B4 stream type. This reach section will be restored through the use of
appropriate riffle -pool and riffle - step -pool morphology since the valley slopes often exceed 2 percent. These
techniques will allow restoration of a stable channel form with appropriate bedform diversity, as well as improved
channel function through improved aquatic habitat, active floodplain connection, and restoration of riparian and
terrestrial habitats. While formal design calculations have not been completed, the design width/depth ratio for the
channel will be similar to similar stream channels in this geologic setting. In- stream structures will be used to control
grade, dissipate energies, protect stream banks, and eliminate the potential for upstream channel incision. In- stream
Page 34
I N T E It N k T 10 it AL

structures will most likely include constructed riffles for grade control and riffle habitat (coarse gravel substrate was
observed in this channel section), log and boulder j -hook vanes, log rollers for step -pool formation, bank stability,
and habitat diversity. The bed elevation will be stepped down using appropriate in- stream structures at the downstream
end of R6 in order to provide a stable connection with the current bed of R7. Channel banks will be graded to stable
slopes, and the historic floodplain connection will be re- established to further promote stability and establish riparian
vegetation. Bio- engineering techniques such as geolifts, root wads, toe wood, brush layers and live stakes will also
be used to protect restored stream banks and to promote woody vegetation growth along the stream banks. The
existing, unstable channel will be filled to an elevation sufficient to connect the new bankfull channel to the historic
floodplain along its entire length using suitable fill material excavated from construction of the newly restored
channels. Riparian buffers in excess of 50 feet will be restored and protected along all of R6. Additionally, permanent
fencing will be installed to exclude livestock and reduce sediment and nutrient inputs. The proposed improvements
will provide the maximum possible functional uplift.
R7 — Enhancement I
Work along R7 will be similar to the
approach described above for R3. The
valley slope is consistently 2 percent
throughout R7 and the bed is largely
controlled by coarse gravel /cobble
substrate. R7 is moderately stable and only
slightly incised. Enhancement Level I
activities will include stabilizing the
existing stream bed and banks in localized
areas that are experiencing small headcuts
or bank erosion. The bed through this area
will remain at its current elevation and
where appropriate, in- stream structures
and planting measures will provide bank
stabilization and aquatic habitat. Channel
banks will be graded to stable slopes and
the appropriate bankfull channel geometry
will be established. There are very few
mature trees along R7, but those that do
exist will be preserved. Riparian buffers of
at least 50 feet will be established and
livestock will be permanently excluded
from the reach. This will address the water
quality stressors along this reach and provide for much improved water quality throughout the project area, as well as
decreased erosion and sediment loss from bank erosion. The existing piped stream crossing will remain at the
downstream of R7 to provide the landowner access to pasture and the southern property boundary. If necessary,
Baker will upgrade this crossing and correctly size the pipe to improve hydraulic functions and channel stability.
R8 — Enhancement II
R8 flows through a forested area and is bound by pipe crossings at both the upstream and downstream extents of the
reach. Work along R8 will involve Enhancement Level II practices to maintain the lateral stability of the channel.
The existing channel is currently stable with only isolated and limited bank erosion toward the bottom of the reach.
There is some evidence of floodplain alteration along the right bank, but the existing vegetation has become
established. Consequently, Baker proposes to remove existing spoil piles, install an in- stream structure near the
downstream crossing to reduce the near bank stress along the left steam bank. In minimal localized areas where bank
erosion is occurring, bank treatments will include sloping, matting, and live staking as well as planting a riparian
buffer in excess of 50 feet. Livestock do not currently have access to this area and will be permanently excluded as
part of the overall restoration efforts.
Page 35
I N T E R N IT 10 itAL

R9 — Enhancement I
Work along R9 will involve Enhancement
Level I activities to promote long -term
channel stability. The channel has
become slightly incised and the stream
banks have been impacted by cattle hoof
shear. Some sections of R9 have
developed small floodplain benches at a
lower bed elevation. In order to reduce
further bank erosion, in- stream structures
will be installed to help control grade and
reduce near bank stressses at flows above
the bankfull discharge. Channel banks
will be graded to stable slopes and the
appropriate bankf ill channel geometry
will be established. There are no mature
trees or shrubs along this reach. Riparian
buffers of at least 50 feet will be
established and livestock will be
permanently excluded from the reach.
The existing pipe stream crossing will
remain at the top of the reach to maintain
long -term site access.
R10 — Enhancement II
Work along R10 will involve Enhancement Level II practices to maintain and improve the stability of the channel.
The existing channel has isolated areas of limited bank erosion and channel incision near the confluence with RI.
Consequently, Baker proposes to slope, mat, and live stake the stream banks in minimal localized areas where bank
erosion is occurring, stabilize the stream bed using in- stream structures to arrest a headcut, and plant the riparian
buffer in excess of 50 feet, and permanently exclude livestock.
R11— Enhancement I
Work along RI l will involve Enhancement Level I practices to maintain and improve the stability of the channel.
The reach begins at a perched culvert pipe crossing and immediately downcuts until the steeper valley gradient begins
to flatten out further downstream. The existing channel has isolated areas of bank erosion and channel incision, most
of which occur in the upper section. The channel loses bed and bank features downstream of the ford crossing as it
flows to its confluence with R1. Consequently, Baker proposes to install grade control structures and arrest headcuts,
slope, mat, and live stake the stream banks in minimal localized areas where bank erosion is occurring, plant the
riparian buffer in excess of 50 feet, and permanently exclude livestock.
R12 — Enhancement II
Work along R12 will take a similar approach to work along R10 and will involve Enhancement Level II practices to
maintain and improve the stability of the channel. The existing channel begins at a culvert crossing along Russell
Gap Road and has isolated areas of limited bank erosion and channel incision. Consequently, Baker proposes to
slope, mat, and live stake the stream banks in minimal localized areas where bank erosion is occurring, stabilize the
stream bed using in- stream structures, plant the riparian buffer in excess of 50 feet, and permanently exclude livestock.
An existing power line crosses R12 along the right -of -way and runs to a service pole near an exsting barn. This utility
line will remain and lower growing vegeation will be planted in this area to avoid any long term maintance issues
near the easement boundary.
R13 — Enhancement II
Work along R13 will take a simialar approach to work along R12 and will involve Enhancement Level II practices to
maintain and improve the stability of the channel. The existing channel emerges from a stable forested headwater
valley and has isolated areas of limited bank erosion. The area has been historically disturbed through logging
Page 36
I N T E R N IT 10 itAL

practices and pasture use. Consequently, Baker proposes to slope, mat, and live stake the stream banks in minimal
localized areas where bank erosion is occurring, stabilize the stream bed using in- stream structures to arrest and
stabilize a headcut near the existing crossing, plant the riparian buffer in excess of 50 feet, and permanently exclude
livestock.
R14 — Restoration
R14 begins at the downstream terminus of
R13 near an existing pipe culvert crossing
and continues until the confluence with
R1. R14 is severely incised in the upstream
section with a bank height ratio —of up to
4.0. During site investigations, the
downstream channel appears to have been
ditched and moved to the right edge of the
valley floor for approximately 250 feet,
and becomes wider and flatter with less
discernable bed and bank features. Work
along R6 will involve a shallow Priority
Level I/II Restoration by raising the bed
elevation while sloping banks to provide a
floodplain bench within the existing
channel. This reach will be designed as a
Rosgen B4 stream type and transition to an
E stream type as the gradient flattens near
R1. This reach section will be restored
through the use of appropriate riffle -pool
and riffle - step -pool morphology since the
channel slope exceeds 3 to 6 percent in the
upper reach. These techniques will allow
restoration of a stable channel form with
appropriate bedform diversity, as well as improved channel function through improved aquatic habitat, active
floodplain connection, improving the existing wetland feature along the right floodplain of RI, and restoration of
riparian and terrestrial habitats. While formal design calculations have not been completed, the design width/depth
ratio for the channel will be similar to similar stream channels in this geologic setting. In- stream structures will be
used to control grade, dissipate energies, protect stream banks, and eliminate the potential for upstream channel
incision. In- stream structures will most likely include constructed riffles for grade control and riffle habitat (coarse
gravel substrate was observed in this channel section), log and boulder j -hook vanes, log rollers for step -pool
formation and fine sediment recruitment, bank stability, and habitat diversity. The bed elevation will be stepped down
using appropriate in- stream structures at the downstream end of R14 in order to provide a stable connection to R1.
Channel banks will be graded to stable slopes, and the historic floodplain connection will be re- established to further
promote stability and establishment of riparian vegetation. Bio- engineering techniques such as geolifts, brush layers
and live stakes will also be used to protect restored stream banks and to promote woody vegetation growth along the
stream banks. There are very few mature trees along this reach, therefore riparian buffers in excess of 50 feet will be
restored and protected along all of R14. Additionally, permanent fencing will be installed to exclude livestock and
reduce sediment and nutrient inputs. The proposed improvements will provide the maximum possible functional
uplift. The existing piped stream crossing near the downstream end of the reach will be removed.
R17, R19 — Enhancement I
Work along these reaches will take a similar approach to work along RI I and will involve Enhancement Level I
practices to maintain and improve the stability of the channel. The existing channels originate from steeper forested
headwater tributaries and have areas of limited bank erosion and channel incision. Consequently, Baker proposes to
slope, mat, and live stake the stream banks in areas where bank erosion is occurring, stabilize the stream beds using
in- stream structures to arrest and stabilize headcuts, provide bankfull benches were possible, plant the riparian buffer
Page 37
I N T E It N IT FA MA!

in excess of 50 feet, and permanently exclude livestock. The channels will be designed as a Rosgen B4 stream type
as they transition to main stem channel.
R15, R16, R18, R20, R21— Enhancement II
Work along these reaches will take a similar approach to work along R10, R13, and R8 and will involve Enhancement
Level II practices to maintain and improve the stability of the channel. The existing channels originate from steeper
forested headwater tributaries and have isolated areas of limited bank erosion and channel incision. Consequently,
Baker proposes to slope, mat, and live stake the stream banks in minimal localized areas where bank erosion is
occurring, stabilize the stream beds using in- stream structures to arrest and stabilize headcuts, plant the riparian buffer
in excess of 50 feet, and permanently exclude livestock. The existing crossings will remain along R18, and upstream
of R20 and the stream bed and banks stabilized within the areas of the crossings. These areas will be excluded from
the conservation easement and no credit will be requested for this area.
R22 — Restoration
Due to the degraded nature of R22, a
Priority Level I Restoration approach is
proposed for the reach to improve stream
functions and improve water quality. The
reach has a small drainage area that
originates from a hillslope seep and
maintains perennial flow. R22 begins just
downstream from a farm road crossing at
the confluence of R7, which is proposed
for enhancement. A large headcut is
present and the channel has been ditched
to divert flow from the road and contains
farm trash. Work along R22 will involve
a Priority Level I Restoration by raising
the bed elevation to provide a connection
to the historic floodplain. This reach will
be designed as a Rosgen B4 stream type.
This reach will be restored through the use
of an appropriate riffle -pool and riffle -
step -pool morphology since the channel
slope varies between 2 to 3 percent. These
techniques will allow restoration of a
stable channel form with appropriate
bedform diversity, as well as improved
channel function through improved
aquatic habitat, active floodplain
connection, and restoration of riparian and
terrestrial habitats. While formal design
calculations have not been completed, the
design width/depth ratio for the channel
will be similar to similar headwater stream
channels in this geologic setting. In-
stream structures will be used to control
grade, dissipate energies, protect stream
banks, and eliminate the potential for
upstream channel incision. In- stream
structures will most likely include
constructed riffles for grade control and riffle habitat (coarse gravel substrate was observed in this channel section),
log and boulder j -hook vanes, log rollers for step -pool formation and fine sediment recruitment, bank stability, and
habitat diversity. The bed elevation will be stepped down using appropriate in- stream structures at the downstream
Page 38
I N T E R N IT 10 itAL

end of R22 to provide a stable connection with R7. Channel banks will be graded to stable slopes, and the historic
floodplain connection will be re- established to further promote stability and establishment of riparian vegetation. Bio-
engineering techniques such as geolifts, brush layers and live stakes will also be used to protect restored stream banks
and to promote woody vegetation growth along the stream banks. There are very few mature trees along this reach,
therefore riparian buffers in excess of 50 feet will be restored and protected along its entire length.
R23 — Restoration
Work along this reach will take a very similar approach to work along R22 and will involve a Priority Level I
Restoration approach to restore stream functions and improve water quality. The reach has a very small drainage that
originates from a hill slope seep and appears to maintain perennial flow. R23 begins near a farm road crossing that
experiences frequent backwater ponding and serves as a cattle wallowing area. After considering the existing valley
slope and channel location, this reach will be restored through the use of appropriate riffle -pool and riffle- step -pool
morphology in conjunction with an offline water quality BMP feature.
The bed elevation will be stepped down using appropriate in- stream structures at the downstream end of R23 in order
to connect to the current bed elevation of R9 in a stable manner. Channel banks will be graded to stable slopes, and
the historic floodplain connection will be re- established to further promote stability and establishment of riparian
vegetation. Bio- engineering techniques such as geolifts, brush layers and live stakes will also be used to protect
restored stream banks and to promote woody vegetation growth along the stream banks. There are very few mature
trees along this reach, therefore riparian buffers in excess of 50 feet will be restored and protected along its entire
length.
BMP Considerations
As described above, the existing oversized channel along R23 will be raised to an elevation sufficient to connect the
restored channel to the active floodplain along its entire length. Within the right floodplain area along R23, a marginal
linear wetland feature has formed as a result of past ditching efforts. Baker proposes to incorporate the linear wetland
as a BMP water quality feature in order to remove livestock effluent. Establishing a wetland BMP with small tiered
cells will help capture and treat runoff from the stormwater that drains both the adjacent hillslopes before entering R9
and R3 further downstream. Traditional BMPs are often considered to treat stormwater runoff in urban settings, but
a properly- implemented BMP feature in this rural watershed can function properly with minimal risk and without
ti
_t
Photo 17. Photo looking up at R23 in the background showing direct
livestock access to the streams.
INTERNATIONAL
long term maintenance requirements. The
proposed BMP will capture runoff,
increase infiltration and groundwater
recharge, diffuse flow energies, and allow
nutrient uptake within the extended buffer
area.
A stable outlet channel will be constructed
to deliver the runoff to R9. In- stream
structures will be used to control grade,
dissipate energies, protect channel banks,
and eliminate the potential for upstream
channel incision. In- stream structures will
most likely include constructed riffles for
grade control and riffle habitat and rock
structures for step -pool formation, bank
stability, and habitat diversity. Channel
banks will be graded to stable slopes, and
an active floodplain connection will be re-
established to further promote stability and
establishment of riparian vegetation.
Livestock Exclusion
As previously described, direct livestock
access and the resulting erosion, sediment,
Page 39

and pollutants are primary stressors for the Russell Gap Stream Mitigation Project Site. Permanent cattle exclusion
will be provided with fencing, installed to NRCS standards as required by the RFP, around all proposed mitigation
reaches, restored wetland areas, and riparian buffers.
Conservation Easement Boundary Marking
Immediately following site construction and planting, the conservation easement boundaries will be permanently
marked and posted. All boundary marking, posting and signage will be in accordance with the applicable NCEEP,
North Carolina State Properties Office, and State of North Carolina standards.
Restoration of Riparian Buffers
Riparian buffers in excess of 50 feet from the top of banks will be restored along all proposed stream restoration and
enhancement reaches, as previously discussed. The proposed vegetative plant selection for stream and wetland buffer
areas will incorporate native species that follow those described by Schafale and Weakley (1990) and tolerances cited
in WRP Technical Note VN- RS -4.1 (1997). The natural vegetation community will include the appropriate strata
(canopy, understory, shrub, and herbaceous species) based on an appropriate reference community. Within the four
different strata, especially for the canopy, a variety of species will be planted to create an appropriate, diverse plant
community as shown in Table 3.
Additionally, moderately - tolerant species are able to survive on soils that are saturated or flooded for several months
during the growing season. Flood- tolerant species are able to survive on sites in which the soil is saturated or flooded
for long indefinite periods during the growing season (WRP, 1997). Tree species planted across the stream banks,
wetland, floodplain, and upland areas will include a mixture of appropriate native species for the local piedmont and
mountain region and based on wetness conditions. Planting will be done at a density to achieve the vegetative success
criteria outlined in Part 5.7.
Table 3. Summary Information for Natural Vegetation Community.
:. .. .
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
Canopy
o
Riparian Buffer & Wetland
Wetland
Tolerance
FACW
Acer rubrum
Red maple
Canopy
Riparian Buffer & Wetland
FAC
Betula nigra
River Birch
Canopy
Riparian Buffer & Wetland
FACW
Quercus rubra
Red Oak
Canopy
Riparian buffer
FACU
Liriodendron tulipfera
Tulip poplar
Canopy
Riparian buffer
FACU
Platanus occidentalis
American Sycamore
Canopy
Riparian Buffer & Wetland
FACW -
Salixnigra
Black Willow
Canopy
Riparian Wetland
OBL
Carpinus carolinianum
Ironwood
Understory
Riparian Buffer & Wetland
FAC
Hamamelis virginiona
Witch -hazel
Understory
Riparian Buffer & Wetland
FACU
Halesia caroliniana
Silverbell
Understory
Riparian Buffer & Wetland
FAC
Asimina triloba
Paw paw
Understory
Riparian Buffer & Wetland
FAC
Cornus amomum
Silky Dogwood
Shrub Layer
Riparian Buffer & Wetland
FACW+
Salixnigra
Black Willow
Shrub Layer
Riparian Buffer & Wetland
OBL
Alnus serrulata
Tag Alder
Shrub Layer
Riparian Buffer & Wetland
FACW+
Salixsericea
Silky Willow
Shrub Layer
Riparian Buffer & Wetland
OBL
Corylus americana
Hazelnut
Shrub Layer
Riparian Buffer & Wetland
FACU
Chasmanthium latifolium
River oats
Herbaceous Layer
Riparian Buffer
FACU
Carex lurida
Lurid sedge
Herbaceous Layer
Riparian Buffer & Wetland
OBL
Carex crinita
Fringed sedge
Herbaceous Layer
Riparian Buffer & Wetland
OBL
Andropogon virginicus
Broom sedge
Herbaceous Layer
Riparian Buffer
FACU
Vernonia noveboracensis
New York Ironweed
Herbaceous Layer
Riparian Buffer
FACW
Juncus effuses
Soft stem rush
Herbaceous Layer
Riparian Wetland
OBL
Sagittaria latifolia
Arrow arum
Herbaceous Layer
Riparian Wetland
OBL
Page 40
I N T E It N A T 10 0 A L

Andropogon glomeratus
Bushy bluestem
Herbaceous Layer
Riparian Wetland
FACW
Eutrochium fistulosum
Joe -pye -weed
Herbaceous Layer
Riparian Wetland
FACW
Baker and River Works have a successful planting strategy which includes early successional, as well as climax
species. The vegetation selections will be interspersed throughout the project area so that the early successional
species may give way to climax species in all areas. The early successional species which have proven successful
include river birch, green ash, and sycamore. The successful climax species include red maple, and tulip poplar. The
wetland selections and all understory and shrub layer species are all considered to be climax species in both the
wetland and riparian buffer community.
It is understood that riparian buffer conditions at mature reference sites do not reflect those seen at planted or
successional buffer sites until the woody species begin to establish and compete with herbaceous vegetation. To
account for this, a riparian buffer planting with a combination of overstory and understory species, planted at 680
stems per acre, is typically utilized. Baker will also consider, via prescription in the mitigation plan, the revegetation
and supplemental planting of larger and older planting stock to modify species density and type. This consideration
will be utilized particularly to increase the rate of buffer establishment and buffer species variety, as well as to decrease
the planting /application costs. Examples might include the selective supplemental planting of older mast producing
species as potted stock in later years for increased survivability. This technique can be effective as it avoids sun scald
common with bareroot planting at initial revegetation.
As part of the proposed project, invasive exotic vegetation will be treated both to control its presence and reduce its
spread within the proposed conservation easement areas. These efforts will aid in the establishment of native riparian
species within the restored riparian buffer areas.
Restoration of Riparian Wetlands
On -site investigations of the soils in this area were conducted on November 5, 2014 by Baker's licensed soil scientist,
Scott King, LSS, PWS, CPESC. His findings indicate the presence of hydric soils along the floodplains of R1, R4,
and R9, totaling approximately 9.5 acres, within the proposed easement boundaries. Additionally, several areas of
significantly degraded, likely jurisdictional riparian wetlands, totaling approximately 2.0 acres were discovered within
these same hydric soils boundaries (Figures 18 and 19). The wetlands in these areas have been significantly impacted
by a combination of human manipulations and livestock impacts over many years.
Restoration of Riparian Wetlands Through Re- establishment Along R1
The soils along the floodplain of RI were identified as being hydric and a prime candidate for wetland restoration
through re- establishment. It is anticipated that through Priority Level I Restoration, removal and permanent exclusion
of livestock, limited upland soil removal, and re- vegetation, proper hydrology will be restored and allow the wetlands
along the RI floodplain to regain their historic functions. This area is shown on Figure 18 and totals approximately
6.7 acres. Based on Baker's findings described above, soil conditions along the floodplain of R1 are favorable for re-
establishing areas of historic riparian wetlands. Riparian wetland re- establishment will involve improving current
hydrologic conditions across the historic floodplain. An overbank flooding regime will be restored throughout the
area by restoring the appropriate bankfull channel geometry and stream pattern, and by raising the stream bed
elevation to reconnect the channel to its historic floodplain. It is anticipated that through Priority Level I Restoration,
removal of livestock, limited upland soil removal, and re- vegetation, the hydrology will be restored, which will allow
the wetland to regain its historic functions. This approach will provide significant hydrologic connection and
functional uplift across the project area.
Restoration of Riparian Wetlands Through Rehabilitation Along R1, R4, and R9
Based on Baker's findings described above, soil conditions are favorable for rehabilitating areas of significantly
degraded (poorly functioning) existing riparian wetlands along Rl, R4, and R9. These areas are shown on Figures
18 and 19 and total approximately 2.0 acres. Riparian wetland rehabilitation will involve improving current
hydrologic conditions across the historic floodplain utilizing Priority Level I Restoration along R1 and Enhancement
Level I along R4 and R9, the removal and permanent exclusion of cattle, and the restoration of the riparian buffer.
Where possible, an overbank flooding regime will be restored throughout the area by restoring the appropriate
bankfull channel geometry and stream pattern, through the removal of actively managed ditches, and by reconnecting
the channel to its historic floodplain. Based on field observations and landowner discussions, these degraded wetland
Page 41
I N T E It N k T 10 it AL

areas experience seasonal wetness for prolonged periods and conditions appear favorable to support wetland
hydrology and vegetation. This approach will provide significant hydrologic connection and functional uplift across
the project area.
Native riparian vegetation species will be established in both the restored stream buffer and wetland complexes
throughout the site. Proposed wetland plants will include wet tolerant species, such as: river birch (Betula nigra), red
maple (Acer rubum), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), black willow (Salix
nigra), ironwood (Carpinus carolinianum), silverbell (Halesia caroliniana), tag alder (Alnus sermlata), witch -hazel
(Hamamelis virginiana), paw paw (Asimina triloba), soft stem rush (Juncus effusus), arrow arum (Sagitteria latifolia),
and joe -pye weed (Eutrochium fistulosum).
Expected Water Quality Benefits
Along the project stream reaches, approximately 90 percent of the stream banks currently have inadequate (less than
50 feet wide) riparian buffers. In addition, livestock currently have unrestricted access to 18 of the 23 stream reaches,
partial access to 3 other stream reaches, and full access to all of the degraded wetland areas. Past research by others
has demonstrated that cattle grazing adjacent to streams can directly contribute contaminants such as sediment,
nutrients, and pathogens to the stream by fecal deposition and cattle traffic, and indirectly by cattle traffic stirring up
sediment, trampling streambanks, and increasing bank erosion (Kauffman et al., 1983; Kauffman and Kruger, 1984;
Marlow et al., 1987; Trimble, 1994; Trimble and Mendel, 1995; Belsky et al., 1999; Bagshaw, 2002; Sarr, 2002;
Chanasyk et al., 2010). Cooper et al. (1995) stated that the exclusion of cattle from riparian zones may act like a
riparian buffer, thereby reducing runoff and improving water quality. Miller et al. (20 10) concluded that the improved
environmental quality of cattle - excluded areas are the result of decreased runoff and greater infiltration due to greater
vegetation cover, more standing litter, decreased bare soil, and lower soil compaction. The proposed buffer areas for
the project site will have trees replanted to appropriate densities (i.e. the riparian buffers will be restored and
permanently protected). The leaves that these trees will drop every fall further increase the standing litter on the
ground, reducing runoff and increasing the previously noted water quality benefits.
Owens et al. (1996) stated that livestock exclusion from riparian areas reduced the sediment yield from a beef cattle
pasture by up to 40 percent, as documented over a 13 -year monitoring period. In addition to sediment reduction,
studies have shown that livestock exclusion results in reductions in nitrogen and phosphorus loads and exports. James
et al. (2007) have estimated that excluding pastured cattle from streams has resulted in a 32 percent reduction of in-
stream deposition of fecal phosphorous in Cannonsville Watershed of southeastern New York. Jones and Knowlton
(1999) noted 52 percent reductions in downstream total phosphorus after dairy cows and calves were fenced out of a
stream. Byers et al. (2005) concluded that cattle - grazed pastures with un- fenced streams contributed significant loads
of nutrients and other pollutants during base flow, as well as storm flow. Line et al. (1999) showed that an analysis
of 81 weeks of pre - exclusion and 137 weeks of post - exclusion fencing data documented 33, 78, 76 and 82 percent
reductions in weekly nitrate +nitrite, total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), total phosphorous (TP) and sediment loads,
respectively, from a 14.9 hectare pasture in the piedmont of North Carolina.
Although the numerical amounts of reductions vary from study to study, all studies reviewed by Baker conclude that
excluding livestock from riparian areas will significantly reduce pollutant loads, including sediment and nutrients.
Further, the reductions are comparable to those commonly accepted for the restoration of riparian buffers (average
removal efficiency of 60 to 70 percent according to Mayer et al., 2007).
To quantify how the proposed project would reduce sediment inputs into the Lower Little River watershed, Baker
utilized the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Region 5 model. The Region 5 Model is a
widely accepted computer based model used throughout the United States to determine sediment and nutrient load
reductions from the implementation of urban and agricultural BMPs, including but not limited to vegetated filter
strips, wetland detention, and bank stabilization/stream restoration. Model inputs include eroded stream bank length,
stream bank height, lateral recession rates, soil weight, and BMP efficiency. The model estimates that the project
would reduce sediment inputs to the watershed by 326 tons /year.
Page 42
I N T E R N IT 1 Q It IL

Functional Uplift
In their current conditions, the project reaches and riparian wetland areas are highly degraded as a result of past
channelization, land use disturbance, cattle access, and silvicultural practices. The maximum possible functional
uplift will be achieved by:
• Providing stable channel forms to reduce bank erosion and sedimentation.
• Restoring riparian wetlands along the project stream reaches.
• Restoring and enhancing riparian wetland and riparian buffer vegetation to promote native species, improve
vegetation densities, filter flood flows and runoff, and to improve riparian habitat value.
• Providing improved floodplain connection to dissipate flood energies, filter storm flows, and promote sediment
and debris deposition on the floodplain and banks.
• Restoring diverse aquatic and terrestrial habitats that are appropriate for the ecoregion and landscape setting.
• Restoring and extending wildlife corridors that connect to existing wooded areas and natural communities at the
periphery of the project site.
• Reducing nutrient, bacterial, and sediment loadings by permanently excluding cattle from the project reaches and
riparian wetlands.
5.4. Proposed Mitigation
This technical proposal describes the proposed stream mitigation and wetland restoration approaches for the Russell
Gap Stream Mitigation Project. The work will include restoration and enhancement of approximately 10,659 linear
feet of existing stream (Figure 6). This approach will potentially yield more than 8,000 warm water stream mitigation
credits. In addition, the project will also include the restoration of more than 9 acres of riparian wetlands using
wetland re- establishment and rehabilitation approaches. This scenario describes the credits generated for Option A.
The credits proposed for contract for Options B and C, are presented in the Project Mitigation Summary Table. Any
additional credits developed within the conservation easement areas above the contracted amount will be available to
NCEEP as part of the proposed project. The proposed amounts of stream mitigation are presented in Table 4 below.
Table 4. Proposed Stream Mitigation Credit Summary for the Russell Gap Stream Mitigation Project.
Option A.
R1 Stream Restoration 1,948 1:1 1,948
R2 Stream Enhancement Level II 196 2.5:1 78
R3 Stream Enhancement Level II 427 2.5:1 171
R4 Stream Enhancement Level 1 1,947 1.5:1 1,298
R5 Stream Enhancement Level II 282 2.5:1 113
R6 Stream Restoration 650 1:1 650
R7
Stream Enhancement Level 1
1,643
1.5:1
1,096
R8
Stream Enhancement Level II
481
2.5:1
192
R9
Stream Enhancement Level 1
463
1.5:1
309
R10
Stream Enhancement Level II
501
2.5:1
200
R11
Stream Enhancement Level 1
520
1.5:1
347
I N T E It W k T 1 0 HAL
Page 43

R12
Stream Enhancement Level II
111
2.5:1
44
R13
Stream Enhancement Level II
136
2.5:1
55
R14
Stream Restoration
562
1:1
562
R15
Stream Enhancement Level II
92
2.5:1
37
R16
Stream Enhancement Level II
142
2.5:1
57
R17
Stream Enhancement Level 1
120
1.5:1
80
R18
Stream Enhancement Level II
179
2.5:1
72
R19
Stream Enhancement Level 1
408
1.5:1
272
R20
Stream Enhancement Level 11
85
2.5:1
34
R21
Stream Enhancement Level II
74
2.5:1
29
R22
Stream Restoration
234
1:1
234
R23
Stream Restoration
329
1:1
329
Total Potential
11,530
8,206
Total Proposed for
11,530
8,150
Contract
Option B.
Page 44
INTERNATIONAL
Proposed
Project Reach
Type of Mitigation
Length (LF)
Ratio
Stream Credits
R1
Stream Restoration
1,948
1:1
1,948
R10
Stream Enhancement Level II
501
2.5:1
200
R11
Stream Enhancement Level 1
520
1.5:1
347
R12
I Stream Enhancement Level II
111
I 2.5:1
44
R13
Stream Enhancement Level II
136
2.5:1
55
R14
Stream Restoration
562
1:1
562
Total Potential
I
3,778
I
3,156
Total Proposed for
3,778
3,150
Contract
Page 44
INTERNATIONAL

R2
R3
R4
R5
R6
R7
R8
R9
R15
R16
R17
R18
R19
R20
R21
R22
R23
Total Potential
Total Proposed for
Contract
Option
Stream Enhancement Level II
Stream Enhancement Level II
Stream Enhancement Level I
Stream Enhancement Level 11
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement Level I
Stream Enhancement Level 11
Stream Enhancement Level I
Stream Enhancement Level 11
Stream Enhancement Level 11
Stream Enhancement Level I
Stream Enhancement Level 11
Stream Enhancement Level I
Stream Enhancement Level 11
Stream Enhancement Level II
Stream Restoration
Stream Restoration
C.
196
427
1,947
282
650
1,643
481
463
92
142
120
179
408
85
2.5:1
2.5:1
1.5:1
2.5:1
1:1
1.5:1
2.5:1
1.5:1
2.5:1
2.5:1
1.5:1
2.5:1
1.5:1
2.5:1
78
171
1,298
113
650
1,096
192
309
37
57
80
72
272
34
74
2.5:1
29
234
1:1
234
329
1:1
329
7,752
5,050
7,752
5,000
5.5. Current Ownership and Long -Term Protection
Baker proposes to transfer a conservation easement to the State of North Carolina for the Russell Gap Stream
Mitigation Project and for that conveyance to serve as the method that will be used for Long -Term Protection of the
mitigation site. Baker has entered into Option Agreements for the acquisition of a conservation easement with the
landowners of the Russell Gap Stream Mitigation Project (Table 5). The Option Agreements have been recorded with
the Alexander County Register of Deeds and are valid for a period of greater than or equal to one (1) year from the
closing date of this RFP. A copy of each of the Memorandum of Option Agreements are provided in the appendices,
and are summarized in Table 5 below. A copy of the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program Landowner
Authorization Form, signed by each of the project landowners is included in the appendices. The Option Agreements
allow Baker to proceed with the project and to restrict the land -use in perpetuity through a permanent conservation
Page 45
INTERNATIONAL

easement. Baker is prepared to close on the project area after contract award by NCEEP and will provide, at any
time, copies of the deeds of easement, titles, surveys, and any maps.
Table 5. Summary Information of Current Land Ownership for the Russell Gap Stream Mitigation Project.
Owners of • e
James M. and Rebecca H. Dupuis
Option Agreement Date
November 3, 2014
Duration
24 months
James R. and Mildred J. Herman
November 3, 2014
24 months
Christina H. and David S. Moose
November 3, 2014
24 months
Melinda H. and Randy B. St. Clair
November 3, 2014
24 months
Note: A copy of each Memorandum of Option Agreement is provided in the appendices.
The property owners of the Russell Gap Stream Mitigation Project grew up and live in the community where the
project is located. All of the properties are currently used primarily for livestock production. All of the landowners
are excited about the project, and have a strong desire to be good stewards of the land and protect it in perpetuity.
5.6. Project Phasing
Baker has extensive stream restoration experience, and understands the most recent mitigation requirements and
standards. Accordingly, Baker is in a strong position to implement this project in a timely and effective manner.
Upon contract execution for the Russell Gap Stream Mitigation Project, Baker will implement the project schedule
below.
Page 46
INTERNATIONAL
I Scheduled Completion Time
Scheduled Completion Date
Project Task I
(from ..
execution on
1,2015)
Task 1. CE Document
3 months
October 1, 2015
Task 2. Submit Recorded Conservation
4 months
November 1, 2015
Easement on the Site
Task 3. Mitigation Plan (Final Draft) and
9 months
April 1, 2016
Financial Assurance
Task 4. Mitigation Site Earthwork
1 year, 3 months
October 1, 2016
Completed
Task S. Mitigation Site Planting and
1 year, 5 months
December 1, 2016
Installation of Monitoring Devices
Task 6. Baseline Monitoring Report
1 year, 6 months
January 1, 2017
(including As -built Drawings)
Task 7. Submit Monitoring Report #1 to
2 Years, 5 months
November 30, 2017
NCEEP (meets success criteria)
Task 8. Submit Monitoring Report #2 to
3 years, 5 months
November 30, 2018
NCEEP (meets success criteria)
Task 9. Submit Monitoring Report #3 to
4 years, 5 months
November 30, 2019
NCEEP (meets success criteria)
Task 10. Submit Monitoring Report #4 to
5 years, 5 months
November 30, 2020
NCEEP (meets success criteria)
Task 11. Submit Monitoring Report #5 to
6 years, 5 months
November 30, 2021
NCEEP (meets success criteria)
Task 12. Submit Monitoring Report #6 to
7 years, 5 months
November 30, 2022
NCEEP (meets success criteria)
Task 13. Submit Monitoring Report #7 to
NCEEP and complete Project Close-
8 years, 5 months
November 30, 2023
out process (meets success criteria)
Page 46
INTERNATIONAL

5.7. Success Criteria
Baker has obtained regulatory approval for numerous stream'" '
and wetland mitigation projects (Permitee Responsible and -
both NCDOT and NCEEP full - delivery projects). The stream
and wetland restoration design and applied success criteria for
the project site will follow approved success criteria presented
in the mitigation plan, developed in compliance with the
NCEEP Mitigation Plan Template, Version 2.2, adopted June
8, 2012, as well as the Stream Mitigation Guidelines issued in
April 2003 and October 2005 by the USACE and NCDWQ. In
addition, the monitoring success criteria, practices, and
corresponding reporting will follow the NCEEP Stream and
Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Guidelines issued in February,
2014, the NCEEP As -built Baseline Monitoring Report Format,
Data Requirements, and Content Guidance issued in February,
2014, and the NCEEP Annual Monitoring and Closeout Reporting Format, Data Requirements, and Content Guidance
issued in February, 2014. Monitoring activities will be conducted for a period of 5 to 7 years with the final duration
dependent upon performance trends toward achieving project goals and objectives. An early closure provision may
be requested by Baker for some or all of the monitoring components. Early closure may only be obtained through
written approval from the regulatory agencies. Specific success criteria components are presented below.
Stream Restoration and Enhancement I Success Criteria
Stream Hydrology: Two bankfull flow events must be documented within the seven -year monitoring period. The
two bankfull events must occur in separate years. Otherwise, the stream monitoring will continue until two bankfull
events have been documented in separate years. In addition to the two bankfull flow events, two " geomorphically
significant" flow events (Qgs= 0.66Q2) must also be documented during the monitoring period. There are no temporal
requirements regarding the distribution of geomorphically significant flows.
Bank Height Ratios: BHR shall not exceed 1.2 within restored reaches of the stream channel. This standard only
applies to restored reaches of the channel where BHRs are corrected through design and construction.
Entrenchment Ratio: Entrenchment Ratio (ER) shall be no less than 2.2 (> 1.5 for `B" channels) within restored
reaches of the stream channel. This standard only applies to restored reaches of the channel where ERs are corrected
through design and construction.
Cross sections: Cross sections along representative meander wavelengths will be monitored for seven years, with
monitoring events occurring at a minimum during years 1, 3, 5, and 7. There should be little change in as -built
restoration cross sections. If changes occur, they should be evaluated to determine if they represent a movement
toward a more unstable condition (e.g., downcutting, erosion) or a movement toward increased stability (e.g., settling,
vegetative changes, deposition along the banks, decrease in width/depth ratio). Cross sections shall be classified using
the Rosgen Stream Classification method and all monitored cross sections should fall within the quantitative
parameters defined for channels of the design stream type.
Longitudinal Profiles: Longitudinal profiles will be developed to document the as -built condition for Restoration and
Enhancement Level I reaches. Bedforms observed should be consistent with those observed for channels of the design
stream type. Additional longitudinal profiles may be required if problems are identified during the monitoring period.
Visual Assessment: Visual monitoring of all sections of the project, to include representative photographic
documentation, will be conducted annually for each of the seven years of monitoring, and will be inclusive of the
Current Conditions Plan View (CCPV) and tables that house the visual assessment metrics. Visual assessments will
be undertaken of bank and bed stability, condition of in- stream structures, channel migration, headcuts, live stake
mortality, impacts from invasive plant species or animal species, and condition of pools and riffles. Inspections will
also include assessments of riparian buffer conditions. Photographs will be used to subjectively evaluate channel
aggradation or degradation, bank erosion, success of riparian vegetation and effectiveness of erosion control measures.
Longitudinal photos should indicate the absence of developing bars within the channel or excessive increase in
Page 47
I N T E It N I T 10 it AL

channel depth. Lateral photos should not indicate
excessive erosion or continuing degradation of the
banks. A series of photos over time should
indicate successional maturation of riparian
vegetation.
Stream Enhancement II Success Criteria
Success criteria for Enhancement II stream
reaches will follow the success criteria for
Visual Monitoring/Photo Reference Stations and
Vegetation Success Criteria as outlined herein.
Vegetation Success Criteria
Specific and measurable success criteria for plant
density on the project site will be based on the
recommendations found in the Wetlands Reserve
Program (WRP) Technical Note and correspondence from review agencies on recent NCEEP full - delivery projects.
The interim measures of vegetative success for the project will be the survival of at least 320, three - year -old planted
trees per acre at the end of Year Three of the monitoring period and at least 260, five- year -old, planted trees per acre
at the end of Year Five of the monitoring period. Final success criteria will be a density no less than 210, seven -year-
old planted stems per acre in Year Seven of monitoring. Planted vegetation must average eight feet in height (for
mountain counties) during Year Seven of monitoring. A listing of preferred species to be planted on the site is
provided in Part 5.3.
Method of Reporting on Success Criteria
In accordance with the approved mitigation plan, the baseline monitoring document and as -built monitoring report
documenting the stream mitigation will be developed within 60 days of the planting completion and monitoring
installation on the restored site. In addition, a period of at least 6 months will separate the as -built baseline
measurements and the first year monitoring measurements. The baseline monitoring document and as -built
monitoring report will include all information required by the current NCEEP templates and guidance referenced
above, including planimetric (plan view) and elevation (profile view) information, photographs, sampling plot
locations, a description of initial species composition by community type, and monitoring stations. The report will
include a list of the vegetation species planted and the associated planting densities.
The monitoring program will be implemented to document system development and progress toward achieving the
success criteria referenced above. At least 180 days will separate the completion of initial vegetation planting and
the initiation of first year monitoring. Stream morphology, stream hydrology, as well as vegetation, will be assessed
to determine the success of the mitigation. The monitoring program will be undertaken for seven years or until the
final success criteria are achieved, whichever is longer. For stream Enhancement II monitoring will be limited to
reference photos and assessment of vegetation survival.
Monitoring reports will be prepared in the fall of each year of monitoring and submitted to NCEEP by November 30
of each monitoring year. The monitoring reports will follow the current NCEEP monitoring report guidance and
templates, as specified in the RFP, and referenced above, and will include:
1. A detailed narrative summarizing the condition of the restored site and all regular maintenance activities
2. Project background information
3. As -built topographic maps showing location of vegetation sampling plots, permanent photo points, and
location of transects
4. CCPV map including monitoring features and any areas of concern or problem areas noted during monitoring
5. Photographs showing views of the restored site taken from fixed point stations
6. Geomorphic and sediment data
7. Hydrologic data
8. Vegetative data, as described below
9. Any geomorphic, hydrologic or vegetative problem areas
Page 48
1 N T E It M I T 10 it AL

10. A description of any damage done by animals or
vandalism
11. Wildlife observations.
Stream Mitigation Monitoring
The stream mitigation success criteria are defined above.
Hydrologic Monitoring: The hydrologic success criteria
are defined above under Stream Hydrology for streams.
Photo Reference Stations: Photographs will be used to
visually document restoration success. Reference
stations will be photographed for at least five years
following construction. Reference photos will be taken
once a year. Photographs will be taken from a height of
approximately five to six feet above grade. Permanent markers will be established to ensure that the same locations
(and view directions) on the site are monitored in each monitoring period.
Stream Hydrology and Floodplain Access: The occurrence of geomorphically significant events, bankfull events,
and floodplain access within the monitoring period will be documented by the use of crest gages and photographs.
The crest gages will be installed on the floodplain of and across the cross section of the restored channels as needed.
The crest gages will record the highest watermark between site visits, and the gages will be checked each time there
is a site visit to determine if a bankfull and/or geomorphically significant event has occurred. Photographs will be
used to document the occurrence of debris lines and sediment deposition on the floodplain during monitoring site
visits.
Cross sections: Representative meander wavelengths will be chosen for each Restoration and Enhancement Level I
reach that has discrete design criteria. Two permanent riffle cross sections and two permanent pool cross sections
will be installed along the chosen meander wavelength. Each cross section will be monumented on both banks. The
annual cross section survey will include points measured at all breaks in slope, including top of bank, bankfull, inner
berm, edge of water, and thalweg, if the features are present. Riffle cross sections will be classified using the Rosgen
stream classification system. Bank pin arrays will only be utilized if warranted for the monitoring of lateral erosion
at cross sections occurring in meander bend (typically pools).
Lateral Reference Photos: Reference photo transects will be taken at each permanent cross section. Photographs
will be taken of both banks at each cross section. The survey tape will be centered in the photographs of the bank.
The water line will be located in the lower edge of the frame and as much of the bank as possible will be included in
each photo. Photographers will make an effort to consistently maintain the same area in each photo over time.
Structure Photos: Photographs will be taken at representative in- stream structures (typically grade control structures)
along the restored streams. Photographers will make every effort to consistently maintain the same area in each photo
over time.
Vegetation Monitoring
The vegetative success criteria are defined above. Monitoring will take place during years 1, 3, 5, and 7. Successful
restoration of the vegetation on a mitigation site is dependent upon hydrologic restoration, active planting of preferred
canopy species, and volunteer regeneration of the native plant community. In order to determine if the criteria are
achieved, vegetation- monitoring quadrants will be installed across the restoration site, and monitored as directed by
the NCEEP monitoring guidance as referenced above. Vegetation monitoring will occur in the fall. Individual
quadrant data will be provided and will include individual - specific data on height, species, date planted, and grid
location; as well as a collective determination of density within the quadrant. Relative values will be calculated and
importance values will be determined. Individual seedlings will be marked so they can be found in succeeding
monitoring years. Volunteer species will be noted and their inclusion in quadrant data will be evaluated with NCEEP
on a case -by -case basis. The presence of invasive species vegetation within quadrants will also be noted, as will any
wildlife effects. At the end of the first growing season, species composition, density, and survival will be evaluated.
For each subsequent year, until the final success criteria are achieved, the restored site will be evaluated between July
and September.
Page 49
I N T E It N I T 10 it AL

Remedial Actions
In the event that the site or a specific component of the site fails to achieve the defined success criteria, Baker will
develop necessary adaptive management plans and/or implement appropriate remedial actions for the site in
coordination with NCEEP and the review agencies. Remedial action required will be designed to achieve the success
criteria specified previously, and will include a work schedule and monitoring criteria that will take into account
physical and climatic conditions.
Part 6. Quality Control
Quality is built around processes and procedures.
Baker's companywide Quality Management System
establishes those processes and procedures at three
different levels:
a. "Project Management - The Baker Way" —
Baker has established a standard structured
b.
C.
Project Delivery Process for all projects. This
process addresses every aspect of a project
and is the foundation for delivering a quality
product.
Project Management Plan (PMP) — The
foundation established in "The Baker Way" is
further defined with the Project Management Plan (PMP). Each project's PMP applies the Project Delivery
Process to specific project conditions and establishes the process for managing the project.
Project Specific Quality Management Plan ( PSQMP) — Project Managers prepare a PSQMP for each project
that defines project specific quality assurance and quality control procedures.
The first two levels of quality control will ensure that all aspects of this project are delivered according to schedule
established herein. The PSQMP for this project will establish and document various quality assurance reviews to
cross - examine all engineering and design methods, to set forth document preparation and delivery methods and
activities, and to ensure all deliverables are technically sound, follow the required NCEEP formats, contain all
required information, and are grammatically /typographically correct. Reviews will include:
a. Peer Reviews — Qualified and experienced individuals independent of the project will perform peer reviews.
The objective of these reviews will be to: assess the product versus NCEEP's requirements; spot check key
values; verify completeness and clarity; and determine if the design meets sound engineering practice.
b. Deliverable Reviews — Appropriate staff will review the entire submission for overall presentation, format,
uniformity, consistency, and completeness.
C. Constructability Reviews — Appropriate staff will perform constructability reviews relative to scope,
schedule, and acceptability. Results of the constructability review will be incorporated in the design to
optimize work and material use during construction, and to ensure the project is completed in compliance
with any required federal, state, or local permits.
The PSQMP also identifies when quality audits are performed to insure that the PSQMP is in place, is appropriate,
and is being followed. The PSQMP is kept simple and practical to ensure effectiveness. Central to effectively
implementing the PSQMP is ensuring that the project is appropriately staffed, both in terms of manpower and
experience. Time to perform quality control and quality assurance activities is an important consideration when
developing the project schedule.
During the construction phases, the Project Manager and the assigned Baker staff will be responsible for oversight of
construction activities. This will involve checking the contractor's adherence to design documents, making decisions
regarding field changes, and checking compliance with federal, state and local permits.
Page 50
I N T E It W k T 1 0 It IL

030401010101 7
Site Location
03050 1120020
�Gm
sue/
aka
03050101120010
040101 2
I:
Wilkes County
Alexander County
0304010201VO'i
0305010112003 '
Note: Site is located within targeted local
watershed 03050101120010.
Figure 1
Project Vicinity Map
Russell Gap Project
I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L
0 0.5 1 2
Miles

IV Sy
0 Conservation Easement`
y `' - 9 ' - i / {f 3 �� ♦��f JJJ n� ylye
-,Ate 1 4y4,k�4
dti _
•
dP
Al .. .P F, 1+ " ,14 ~ w.
Ift
-IMP IL
_ d - ` aiFj�e•!5, _ Fes, � � �q s� �. �... —
.� ,o �y
X16 �krll r6lty Jl
a -
Moravian Falls Quadrangle o n
Figure 2
Michael Baker 0 1,000 2,000 USGS Topographic Map
INTERNAINTERNATIONAL Feet Russell Gap Project

EcD
N EcD
EcD
BsD2
BsD2
BsD2 EcD
AMLA
Rau �1
1� BsC2 BsD2
i
BsD2
CsD E
RSA
s
EcD
_ c�
F
EcD
1
j
CsD
BsD2 A
EcD
3sD2
TfB
CsE
INTERNATIONAL
ReW
Conservation Easement
Soil Mapping Units
Ac E, Ashe - Cleveland Complex
- BsC2, Braddock and Hayesville clay loams (6 -15% slopes)
-
BsD2, Braddock and Hayesville clay loams (15 -25% slopes)
- CoA, Codorus loam
CsD, Cowee - Saluda Complex (8 -25% slopes)
_ CsE, Cowee - Saluda Complex (25 -60% slopes)
- DaA, Dan River and Comus soils
- EcD, Evard -Cowee Complex (8 -25 % slopes)
_ EcE, Evard -Cowee Complex (25 -60% slopes)
- TfB, Tate - French Complex (2 -10% slopes)
BsD2 BsD2
BsD2
BsC2
BsC2 \
BsD2
BsD2
/°
CoA
N
R3
AcE
rn
TfB
BsD2
ow
qw�
EcD
Figure 3
0 1,000 2,000 NRCS Soils Map
Feet Russell Gap Project

N y
'000: `
40,
PIP" Elevation
High : 1928
Low: 1184
QConservation Easement
IL
-T�
I _
.e
Figure 4
Michael Baker 0 1,000 2,000 UDAR Map
INTERNATIONAL Feet Russell INTERNATIONAL Gap Project

4
J
N,
Iii jI II �,
fi P y
.y y
Y
�� S ✓d
a
JJ O
.r
.r'
JKSryd�_ nl f�
Note: The site contains �o:
r FEMA- mapped flood plai
Figure 5
Michael Baker 0 1,000 2,000 Floodplain Map
INTERNATIONAL Feet Russell INTERNATIONAL

N Proposed Mitigation Features
- Restoration
- Enhancement I
- Enhancement 11
Conservation Easement
v
R14 Ak
R13 R12 1c
. n R4
R4
R2'
o�
1
INTERNATIONAL
R16
500 1,000
� Feet
Figure 6
Proposed Mitigation
Features
Russell Gap Project
r
Option A Mitigation Credit Summary
Enhancement Enhancement
Total Stream
Total Stre am
Restoration
Level I Stream Level II Stream
Credits
Credits
Stream Credits
(Proposed for
Credits Credits
(Potential)
Contract)
3,723
3,401 1,082
8,207
8,150
Option B Mitigation Credit Summary
Enhancement Enhancement
Total Stream
Total Stream
Restoration
Level I Stream Level II Stream
Credits
Credits
Stream Credits
Credits Credits
(Potential)
(Proposed for
Contract)
2,510
347 299
3,156
3,100
Option C Mitigation Credit Summary
Enhancement Enhancement
Total Stream
Total Stream
Restoration
Level I Stream Level II Stream
Credits
Credits
Stream Credits
Credits Credits
(Potential)
(Proposed for
Contract)
1,213
3,054 783
5,050
5,000
1
INTERNATIONAL
R16
500 1,000
� Feet
Figure 6
Proposed Mitigation
Features
Russell Gap Project

O Visual Bank Height Ratio Assessment
- Surveyed Cross Sections
\ _ y Conservation Easement
0 O
- Al
Y¢ is
O �
o .
�i
R14 0O
R13 R12
" O O Tp O
q ,
4 r -'
• # irk - .t x Ra
L
o l
0 .�
o Rte`
r _
44 A[\
C~
III � 0 d°
Ea
Michael Baker �-T
0 500 1,000 Figure 7
Feet Pre- Monitoring Features
I N T E A N AE T 1 0 N A L Russell Gap Project

v. t•
Iw r �m
Conservation Easement
i
r 1•
1
t
y y. t-
f ` •[ ! w f i r - t f y f
CO
IN
a G
Y r
aR
_
i
t t.
r �
ri
ur _
FF
-`ei
� � r .y�'• f e 7
0,
TI
A'
1 }
r d
r }
�.. -r J� ���a���'+4_s ":�� -1 t.#�F��` �_ l�J' � ,fir rt li {'i' {. +- � .'��•• � r `� l*�
r' r���ks��IF ;��r �e�'�� y�j.+��+:11 I {"� � f1'.�ld`d�,�,� .F --�4 ,•
�_IGG 1
-r '� } 1; f�,WyF r 7 F�'� „rT � '� � ;f .` �'�` r �"�' s � : t� • 'rye'.
Michael Baker Figure 8
0 750 1,500 1940 Aerial Photo
Feet Russell Gap Project
I N T� R N A T 1 D N A L

J
IAL
A
P;��/ Nn-
`. .° rf
i
h
off
i
RT'
4 ANN.
p
r
Figure 9
Michael Baker 0 750 1,500 1993 Aerial Photo
INTERNATIONAL Feet Russell INTERNATIONAL
-
' - i:1-
Conservation Easement
1
r
00�-
yr
1121
J
IAL
A
P;��/ Nn-
`. .° rf
i
h
off
i
RT'
4 ANN.
p
r
Figure 9
Michael Baker 0 750 1,500 1993 Aerial Photo
INTERNATIONAL Feet Russell INTERNATIONAL

N Incision
Not Incised (BHR - 1.0)
Slightly Incised (BHR = 1.1 -1.3)
Moderately Incised (BHR = 1.3 -1.5)
_ - — Severely Incised (BHR > 1.5)
Conservation Easement
Surveyed Cross Sections
Q - HeadCut
Bedrock
R14 p "
R13 R12
'�. � _ ;sue, �:' -- P°• s = r � - r
`+ V!7 "�► ^.
AL
jo
IL
R4
- $ - R23 -.
tV ET� 1
0 0 R21
r
0
R18
C
�.
R 16 ?"
b ".
Figure 10
Michael Baker 0 500 1,000 Channel Stability Map
Feet Incision and Bedrock Control
I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L Russell Gap Project

4
�i • -
. a F. $iafi • _ • __
1
Reach I Existing Stream
R1
R2
1948
178
R3
R4
388
1770
R5
256
R6
591
R7
1494
R8
437
R9
421
R10
455
R11
473
R12
101
R13
124
R17 109
R18 163
R19 371
R20 77
R21 67
R22 213
R23 299
1. The estimated bank
/-i , r
A
Bank Scour
—0-5%
—5 -10%
—10-20%
20-30%
30 -40
—40-50%
—50-60%
90 -100
QConservation Easement
Surveyed Cross Sections
0 HeadCut
0 Bedrock
Feet Streambank Erosion - Bank Scour
I N T E R N A T I O N A L Russell Gap Project
IL
�l
�$
R4
R15
f
R2 ,'
1'
vri4
ET�
o�
1 '
Dam Bank Erosion
0 .,
Bank Scour %
Mass Wasting %
BHR
'r
40 -50%
0 -5%
30 -40%
0%
1.1
`✓ .
10-20%
10 -20%
1.0
'
30-40%
10-20%
1.2
30 -40%
5-10%
1.1
R20
90 -100%
70-80%
2.7
20-301%
10-201%
1.1
0
5 -10%
50-60%
0%
4050 %
1,0
1.4
0
0 '
5 -10%
0%
1.0
-
50 -60%
0%
1.5
40 -509/6
01/6
13
e°
40 -50%
30-40%
2.0
R17 '
40 -50%
0%
1.1
5 -10%
0%
1.2
-- - R16
20-30%
0 -5%
1.4
0 0
5-10%
0%
1.0
0
r -F
30-40%
5-10%
1.4
5 -101/.
0%
1.2
5 -10%
0%
1.1
20-30%
5-101/o
1.7
0 -5%
0%
1.2
,carriages are calculated for both banks combined
Figure 11a
0 500
1 000
Channel Stability Map
Feet Streambank Erosion - Bank Scour
I N T E R N A T I O N A L Russell Gap Project

NMass Wasting
0%
_ - y
—0-5%
i" — 5 -10
10-20%
t'
—30-40%
—40-50%
70 -80%
} S A
INC �= '� i, di�,�+ �. 0 Conservation Easement
Surveyed Cross Sections
HeadCut
- ' Bedrock
r'
R14
R13 R12
r
R22
Stream Bank Erosion T
Reach Existing Stream Length Bank Scour % Mass Wasting % BHR 0
R1 1948 40 -50% 30110% 1.1
R2 178 0-5% 0% 1.1
R3 388 10 -20% 10 -20%
R4 1770 3040% 10-20% 1.2
R5 256 30-40% 5-10% 1.1
R6 591 90 -100 1/6 70 -809/6 2.7
R7 1494 20 -30% 1 10 -20% 1.1
R8 437 5 -10% 0% 1.0
R9 421 50-60% 40 -509% 1.4 0 0
R10 455 5 -10% 0% 1.0 0
R11 473 50-601/. 0% 1.5 j
R12 101 40 -50% 0% 1.3 R18 r J
R13 124 5 -10% 0%
A 40-509/6 v', f
R 14 511 30110 % 2.0
R15 84 40 -50% 0% 1.1 R17 -
R16 129 5 -10% 0% 1.2
R17 109 20-30% 0-5% 1.4 -
R18 163 5 -10% 0% 1.0 R16' 00 -
R19 371 30-409/6 5-10 % 1.4
R20 77 5 -109/o 0 1.2
R21 67 5 -10% 0% % 1.1
R22 213 20 -309/. 5-101/6 1.7
R23 299 0 -5% 0% 1.2 -
1. The estimated bank erosion percentages are calculated for both banks combined
Figure 11b
Michael Baker 0 500 1,000 Channel Stability Map
Feet Streambank Erosion - Mass Wasting
I N T E R N A T I O N A L Russell Gap Project

N
\ \`- -
�r
:1
R12
R14
c t R13
r�
mar _
a a
e-
0
�i
yr
J
Floodplain Alteration
Reach Existing Stream Length Altered Unaltered
R1 1948 50% 50%
R2 178 100%
R3 388 100%
Flood Alteration
— Altered
Unaltered
QConservation Easement
Berm
Ditch r
_ — Spoil Area
j�
�t
' R4
R23 �y
+ +,
i
r�
_ 1
"
R4
1770
50%
50%
R20 ,
-
.,
r. 8211 -
-.
R16 e•s. *` -.
-
4
_
X
i
R5
R6
258
591
10%
100%
90%
100%
75%
50%
. -
f4�
_
R7
1494
R8
437
100%
R9
421
25%
R10
455
50%
R11
473
20%
80%
25%
100 %
R12
101
75%
R13
124
R14
511
30%
70%
100 %
R15
84
100%
R16
129
R17
109
100%
100%
70% -
R18
163
R19
371
30%
R20
77
100% +
R21
67
100%
R22
213
100%
R23
299
100 %Y
Michael Baker
INTERNATIONAL
0 500 1,000
Feet
Figure 12
Floodplain Alteration Map
Gap
Russell Ga Project
1

1
r 1 K
4� 011
R1
a
R14
R13 R12
f'
Water Quality Stressor
— Buffer ( >30')
— Livestock Access and Narrow Buffer
QConservation Easement
i
ateNO
7.
z ���+�. _ .•_ ,8y 3;. -1..y ter; � .r.
R4
r.
R15
A, +
i
44 O`er Z91 r ,
n I —
R15
Rib
455 100%
473 100%
101 100%
124 I.M.
ftW
1 '
R20 ., r
- f R21 -
1. Buffer is considered narrow if the buffer along the LB or RB is less than 30' -
Michael Baker Figure 13
0 500 1,000 Water Quality Stressor Map
Feet Russell Gap Project
INTERNATIONAL p 1
6 '
Water Quality Stressors
Livestock
Reach
Existing
Access and
Namow Buffer
Buffer ( >30')
Stream Length
Narrow Buller
( <30')
R1
1948
100%
R2
178
100%
R3
388
759/.
259/.
R4
1770
100%
R5
256
100%
n I —
R15
Rib
455 100%
473 100%
101 100%
124 I.M.
ftW
1 '
R20 ., r
- f R21 -
1. Buffer is considered narrow if the buffer along the LB or RB is less than 30' -
Michael Baker Figure 13
0 500 1,000 Water Quality Stressor Map
Feet Russell Gap Project
INTERNATIONAL p 1

Watershed Planning
Targeted Local Watershed 03050101120010
Conservation Easement
N
A
J Site Location C
Figure 14
Michael 0 0.5 1 Watershed Planning
Miles Contextual Map
I N T E R N A T I O N A L Russell Gap Project

Planning Elements
® Existing EEP Projects
Brushy Mountains Macrosite
- Significant Natural Heritage Area (SNHA) r
Natural Heritage Element Occurrence (NHEO)
Managed Area
Conservation Easement
0 L1 I *I • IJr hN4
kA I
. I4 0
J L
G _
rr
k � � '" y
Site Location _
P �
k _ 'i
- —
sa_
_ Sf5
I � of •M � �� � 4
r
f �. i Copyright: © 2013 National Geographic Society
Figure 15
Michael Baker 0 1 2 Adjacent and Proximal
Miles Planning Elements Map
I N T E R N A T I O N A L Russell Gap Project

N
r
A . ;Zq
4
R14
} c R13 R12
�7 Y�f
Stream Classification
Perennial
Intermittent
Conservation Easement
IL
a-
L R15
r�
R2
R3
a a
R3
Q- F4�
v
yr
` r C•
Ati
r
a
R
Figure 17
Michael Baker 0 500 1,000 Intermittent and Perennial
Feet Stream Status
I IN T E R N A T 1 0 N A L Russell Gap Project

N k.
t`
L
r �y
i -
Existing Wetlands (apx. 1.4 ac total, 1.2 in Easement)°
Hydric Soil (apx. 8.7 ac total, 6.7 ac in Easement)
Conservation Easement _ "t
4 Ir
-lk "-
Michael Baker Figure 18
0 200 400 Wetlands and Hydric Soils
AT 10 N� L
I N T E R N Feet Russell Gap Project - North

r r.
aT Wl
dw
OIL
Y
a
•aE - .y ! v
7i mil. '� '�- � •
i
I Existing Wetlands (apx. 1.2 ac total, 0.8 ac in Easement)
Hydric Soil (apx. 4.6 ac total, 2.8 ac in Easement)
Conservation Easement '' r
Figure 19
Michael - 0 250 500 Wetlands & Hydric Soils
INTERNATIONAL Feet Russell Gap Project - South
INTERNATIONAL

Appendices Section
Financial Statement (Only Included in Original Technical Proposal)
Conservation Easement Option Agreement
NCEEP Landowner Authorization Form
NCEEP Technical Proposal Evaluation Criteria — Rating Form
IN 1'9011A?10MA.L

rvo.: or
xFaaacoardaaed�: 1t /a/20/a as e1:02:15 PH
Alaxandar�NGen papa 1 ore is
svnludn Y. "Ina. MplKar at Deader
F11N
-578 - 105- 11222,'�p// EXIIBITD
W"
NON- STANDARD
FEE: $25.00
Pmpered by and Rerun:
Chriaupher A. Tamaic,PE, CFM, ENV SP
Micheal Bak. Fnglaverlog. hoc,
797 Heywocd Rd, Suite 201
Asheville. NC 28906
MEMORANDUM OF OPTION TO PIJRC14ASE CONSERVATION EASEMENT
THIS MEMORANDUM FOR OPf10Ne PURCHASE CONSERVATION EASEMENT
Mamrm m
dun') is made and entered into this � y of bJeL. 2QM by and Mwxn jeEM M. Duouts
and Rebecea H. Dupuis. private landowner rCrnnur') and MICHAEL BAWER ENGINEERING,
INC., a coq. -d. organized in the aura of New York with offeas n 797 Haywood Rd, Suite 201,
Ashe 71q NC2S906 (Baker').
WHEREAS, Grant. alt Baker have entered Win a main Opien to Puchm Couearvation
Eas®ent (the "Option) dated t4w3 . 2014 pursuant to which Grantor granted in Dak., its suaaaota
and avaigas, mm option an pursh'se, a conservation statement (the "Eaeenent) over certain real property
locYed In Alex, County, North Carolina, which property is more pWicularly described on the
anached Dgyibii DI (Ilbe'Property') and
WHEREAS, The prtia enter into this Memorandlm for ft pulp— of arcing (arch amstn
tame and eonditimu of the Option and to provide constructive notice of the Option;
NOW,THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, the partiae hereby agree a Wallis.
1. The mm of the Option sentiment ced mlqe+ewber3. 2014 and shell expire mi
2. All of dbc provisions act forth in the Option are Incorporated in this Memorandum by
imerence.
3. The Option shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of to parties end their
oopeotive heirs, succenson and assignta.
(SIGNATURES AND NOTARY ACKNOWLEDGMENTS APPEAR ON FOLLOWING PAGES]
GRANTOR:
Mecca
Print Name: I ecca H DIOC)
Title: CU_T)f f
SPATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTYOF 111U.nafl
1, - , the undarsignad Notary Public of to County and State
aforeseid,eetifylhat i� percomllyappeacWbef.emelbisdey,
ncknowledgiug to me that heishe voluntarily signed and executed the foregoing document. 1 have
rmeived a.tiafacurq evidence ofthe person's idrntiry in the form old`' Drivers IlCe e
Witmw myhnd and Nolarid sump m ml. this 3 dxy of,S)ove .2014.
J~ IA
R. Lfrr
Official Si ofN.I. -y SL
r� n Priuted Name: r02rNolmy Public
My CommifIms�ionF.Pirea: 'J-Iy Q
[AFPI NC'fRIN19[ M. L]
NlrRlb[ic
Akwndef Coun AC
IN WITNESS WHEREOF,1he parries have duly a —led this Mcammmdlm as of the data fin,
above wrillca.
GRANTEE: /
Print Name: WICL14M ��AT-1117
Till: 9tn'yw& & der lerx&A'1AL
STATEOF Y)Aia Ala­' 4R�Ltaat /i'tv'Or' 0-
COUNTY OF L1LC�
L .a`• Y . 4,c .. Notary Public orate County and State aforesaid, do hereby
certify that " '/ p—.Iiy tame before me this day and KkrmwledgM
Ihsl hNahe ia/ / O6 .:,:.. ,fbf! ,_.1[ //d[Michacl Baker F.ngincering, loco s North CemSna profeseioml
caapondon, and slut he acknoxiedged to me thel he.vlunlarily signed 1h<foregoing doctunent f. she
purposes Iherdn erpessed end in the rep enn.livr+ pwity so suted,//F�l have received satisfactory
evidutceefthepersonsidentiry in the form of �LA4,,�-4.4 f.(iJ�.sd.L
Witness my land and official seal. ibis the .�f�day af�,iG 2014.
_„
,zC_ u�
OGml Signatu ofNoary
Printed Name: A Notary Public
My C.nrmuion Espirce: *416W
[AFFIX NOTARIAL STAMP -SEAL]
�),
die "R,y�
u�x'^°"tiix
�Exnwn�'
GRANTOR:
lit* �fflcf
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF !�
1, 1 S , the undersigned Notary Publicofdbe County and Sime
afo mid. certify the[ fte'M42& M DLA P personally appeared bef ste this day,
acknowledging to me than ha'ahe velmuriiy signed and saecuted the foregoing docameaL shave
received smisfaemry evidence of the person's identity in the form of NC J) Nej; hcense
Witness rqy hard and Notarial etemp o eeel, thin day ofNO J2fY�i°.Ic .2o14.
dfi,At >? J,u(
Orrioial Si ofNOary�
Pdwed Ns m, 1 c r Notary Public,
My Commission Expires: r,� 19 -19
[AFFIX
QNr*rY ](�r , NC

FAUHUT DI
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY —
AERIAL PHOTO SHOWING BOUNDARY OF EASEMENT
rvw: rend
a.00rd.a: ova /zow .r srav: as rn
F•• a, : ses -oo P,ge t ar to
e:ni::�ra, non„ a.zterar ar peach
Fll,e
X578 Po87 -104
NON- STANDARD
FEE: $25.00
Prcparod by and Renmts:
Christopher A. Tomsic, PE, CFM, ENV SP
Michael Dsk. Engineering, Ina
797 Haywood Rd, Suite 201.
Asheville, NC 28806
MEMORANDUM OF OPTION TO PURCHASE CONSERVATION EASEMENT
THIS MEMORANDUM FOR OPTION,,��''99 PURCHASE CONSERVATION EASEMENT
(" Memomndum"} u made end tittered inm this T�dey of , jQJ4, by end between j2— R. Herman
and Mildred J. Herman, private land— (°G —(&l and MICHAEL B4KER ENGINEERING,
INC, a corporation organized in dte state of New York whit offices at 797 Heywood Rd., Suite 201,
Asheville, NC 28806 ( "Baker").
WHEREAS, Grantor and Baker have entered into a certain Option to Purchase Conservation
Easenscnt (the "Option') dated N., 3 . 2014 pursuant to which Grantor granted to Baker, its successms
and assigns, an option to purchase a conservation assmnent (the "Easement') over certain reel property
located in Alexander County, North Carolina, which property is more particularly described on the
attached i it Dl (the "Property -)and
WHEREAS, The parties enter into this M— randum Por the purpose of setting forth certain
lamrs end caaditioru of the Option and to provide wnstructise r.I- of the Option;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, the ponies hereby agree as follows.
I __t The term of the Option rrcnmrncetl on htoJP.,1ar,� 2014 and sunll expire oo H•vrMbr�
2 All of the provisions set fartb in the Optimt are inrraporeted in this Marerandum by
reference.
3. The Option shall be binding upon and inure to the beaefrt of the partite and their
rearrccli -bens, au—sans and assigns.
[SIGNATURES AND NOTARY ACKNOWLEDGMENTS APPEAR ON FOLLOWING PAGES)
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have duly executed this Memorandum as of die data first
above written,
GRANTEE: —Z ��,- �-. -,�
By:.,... ,. ._ VS" ...
Print Name: IVILLA4* aeaGr`t•l2id�'ZS
Title: �iLr St�•4AdlI( .IG*517,�arJL+,t r fbr4ea u,
STATE OF
COUNTY OFne
(,J
1, ��Pw' �, �r. /:i � II ti a Notary Public of the County and 3mte atbresaid, do hreby
certify that /ur,Pii:.s:s..djfltl personally came bef me this day and acknowledged
rust hc(sbe isl /JJ,;xa e �fifhlichocl Baker Engineering, Inc. a North Carolina professional
avnporution, and that he acknowledged to me that he voluntarily signed the foregoing document Ibnhe
Purposer rherein -p- -.d and in the tepreunwtiv µcity ao stated. 1 have received natr,l nary
evidence of thcperwn's ideality in Ihe>nrm of„ �i1t <t.C. ,}� l�W,d L. _.
W ilness my hand and official seal, this die 3ralay of •i r �gy,_ , 201J.
Official Signat�f N�ol-
Printed Name: _- t<.•.%tJ�I L Cw E Notary Public
My Commiasism Expires: DF -7—
(AFFIX NOTARIAL STAMP -SEAL]
F j'F• �gY +7j � -.

GRANTOR:
By: /M /L s.a,l J'Kws.x. .
Print Name: /n;Ldr�ia. Vdal
Title:
STATE.. OFNORTH CAROLINA
t oumTOFAlexan
i, the aade>rigeed Notary Public ofd. County awl Stale
afma"mdfy1tstmt\6,cM r "-eny)okn pmaonally."w d before me ibis day,
adnowledgiug to m, that Whe vdunw ly signed and exeeuted the foregoing d—c.L II.-
rwdwd satisfactory evidence of the pemn's identity in the form ofAI C. I ,riQA.CS IICM1r?
Wimcm myhmd and Notarial stamp m seal, this doy of AJ O1�-mk)c.f 21114.
)VA 9N
Official 5igrmjjfNuuy
Printed Nmoe: relay Pahlic
My E [AFF Ddef CC
ERHfBIT DI
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY —
AERIAL PHOTO SHOWING BOUNDARY OF EASEMENT
GRANTOR:
BY _ ree>4 PLI� yd --
PrinsNoma: YAj— �?A- es n,n
Tide
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF AncC f
the mdersigned Notary Publi —rdw County cud State
efmwid, waif, that petaonelly appeared before me"dry,
mlmowledgirtgto methat 1 Jshe volunt 7, sgned ana executed the ronTtamg doeumeot I have
received mtisfectmy avid —fthe ptssou's Wemity in the hform o r/W Dri wi,6 hr e o
ri?
Witness my, boaad Notarial stampol, tis J dayor OV 2014.
d (Plt-114,P.NAm,"l
Official Signemra; fNotary
Printed Name: ZJi0f) ,Notary Public
MYCommisaioo Fepha:S" "19
[nFFix O>�OB��
►nobly Public
AoDtler CDU , NC

Mcard7'."I2 /a(/2M4 et 12:55:17 M
Alva . L.50 Pape I of I5
Y, Xin.. rwete
alr of Dead.
MIF
-578 ­69-86
NON- STANDARD
FEE: $25.00
Prepared by and Retunc
Chriatopher.A. Tartaric, PE, CFM; ENV SP
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
797 Haywood Rd, Suite201
Aabcville, NC 28806
MEMORANDUM OF OPTION TO PURCHASE CONSERVATION EASEMENT
THIS MEMORANDUM FOR OPTIQN7'O PURCHASE CONSERVATION EASEMENT
( "Memorandum ") is made and entered into Ihie y of NeJ 2014, by and balwem Christian H. Moose
and David S. Masse private Inadmarm' ("G1mlor') end MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC, a
corporation organ zed m the -wt- ufNew York wilb of teal at 797 Heyo ood Rd, Suite 201, Asheville,
NC 28806 ( "Baker ).
WHEREAS, Grantor and Baker have entered into a certain Option to Pmmlmse Conservation
Easement (the "Option') dated NW.3 . 2014. pursuant (o which Gamine granted to Baker, Its aviceessocs
and assig m, an nplion to purclu ea a conservation easement (the "EasementI over, certain rend property
lomted I. 9!> .U' Country, North Garohna, which Property is note partimlarly described on the
.mched Exln i III .(the'Troperty ")and
WTIEREAS, The parties enter into this Memoandum for the purpose of se(nug forth certaio
term.. end mndidms of flw Optim and w provide con divc twice bf the Optim,
NOW, THEREFORE, m consideration of the f going, the peetia hereby agree as follows.
I. The tam of the Option rnmmenme on Aiay..,W.3.2014 and shall expare on IYere�Wal
flf �ap/C• 1Vaw,•b+�3
2. All of die provirions set forth in the Option are ineoMamted in this Memorandum by
refaaace.
3. The Option shell be binding upon and IAUre in the benefit of the parties and their
reapscbve heirs, swusems and saps..
(SIGNATURES AND NOTARY ACKNOWLEDGMENTS APPEAR ON FOLLOWING PAGES]
GRANTOR:
ey: ,
PrintName: ___
Title: L.tiisvf
STATE Of' NORTH CAROLINA.
COUNTYOFAleyar ec
L Y the undersigned Notary Public ofthe County and State
aforesaid, certify [bat 01f1 H./ 0()Le peaanallyappmlW before' me then day,
acknowledging to me that hetsbe volunterily signed and executed the foregoing document. I have
received Satisfactory evidence ofthe person's identity m the fomof NC Qfj lent )l ' y)Gp
Witness my, bond and Newrial .tamp or seal, this day of JNrb �, 2014.
OfficialSigmn ofNorery
Primed Noma: I.1 i_ ,h Notary Public
My Commission Exphes: 9., 1"1 -IQ.
[AFT L
N010rY bile
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have duly executed this Memorandum as of the date Just
above written .
GRANTEE:
Official Signatilre ofNotmy
Prim Name: Y(",4Aj Vr
Printed Name: �� c Notary Public
Title:
5'I'.4TE OF
'i76f,LCGrL.
COUNTY OF
, e Nuwry Public of the County and Smte aforesaid, do hereby
certify the < - ///
personally came before me (his day and acknowledged
that haashe is %i/1Dt 1' & ad(,,, „/0 7ichael Baker Engineering, Inn. a Norlb C—Ii.. professi—I
corporation, and that he acknowledged to me (hat he vuianwrily sigtrcd the fnmgoing document for the
purposes therein expressed and in the rep i t ti�'R p��a,c.it,y s�o,zstated. 1 have received sa(isfectary
avid. ofthe person's identity in the form of
; 7 L°t' {11,11.
Witness my hand and official seal, this 36day of ,00,9, _2014.
Official Signatilre ofNotmy
Printed Name: �� c Notary Public
My Commissim Expires:
lc)0 5
[AFFIX NOTARIAL STAMP -SEAL]
If
—Sy9ti
AIV
GRANTOR;
By: .12.1 o AD,-
PrierNam<: .n u•// .ism., %'bra+ –�- -.
Title: 00_
STATE. OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OFA C)(a
1, 112AQSC r)ge r the undersigned Notary Public of the County and State
aforesaid, certify Cher Lllf�.�1�lfi�wxlh00SP. peaonadlyappaaredbeforemethi eday,
acknowledging to me that helshe volunw ily signed and executed the foregoing doesment. 1 have
received satisfactory evidence of the person's identity in the form offVC (kIV Pf S J I f,Y YLCW
Witness toy Mid and Notarial aemp or send, this a71day[�of OJ QrvI , 2014.
S 1 A5b; S4 K .lit RMl/T!
Official Signar ofNotsry
Printed Name: a"n of : Notary Public
My Commission Expirepps: �' 19 -1 q J
[AFFI N p�YSTBAL]
}ary Public
aexaw- Court , NC

ERII AIT DI
LEGAL DESCRIFfION OF PROPERTY —
AERIAL PHOTO SHOWING BOUNDARY OF EASEMENT
paeordad: 11/06/401/ at 12160:13 PN
Paa sac: Rai. Pape I of to
alaxan0ar /10
panda
FileN !n ly. Nlma Raplabr 0T
-578 X51 -68rV�l ERRIBITD
NON- STANDARD
FEE: $25.00
Prepared byaad Ream:
Chrkaphc A. Temais, PE, CFM, ENV SP
Mltdmd Bak. Engineering, h..
797 Haywood Rd, Suite 201
Aakeville, NC 28906
MEMORANDUM OF OPTION TO PURCHASE
THIS MEMORANDUM FOR OPTIO PURCHASE CONSERVATION EASEMENT
("Merncaandmo'l to merle and entered into Ric of �¢'. 2016_ by sad between Mdiade lL St Clair
and Read, B. St Oeir. private letdowner ("Gent.'l and MICHAEL BARER ENGINEERING, INC.,
a .Massafan organimd in the state of New Yolk with off— at 797 Haywood R.L. Suite 201, Aahevillq
NC 28806 ("Bakal.
WHEREAS, Chart., and Rata Mere: mtexed imo a arlain Option to Purchase Conservation
Eeamomt (One "Optiodl dated Y&J.1 . 2014, pursuant to wldch Grantor Stained m Bat., its wsceesaop
and assigns, an option to purchase a conservation easa0enl (the "Eesemern'l ov. certain real pmpenty
imatad in A], Spd¢ County, North Carolina, which pmpeny is more particularly tksenlrtd on the
amebed Exhe' (tha "Propely'7and
WHEREAS, The panics inter into This Memorandum for the purpose of sating forth certain
terms and cu dn'tions of the Option and to provide constructive notice of the Optima;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consid —lion of One folmping, the parties hereby agme eb fathers
1. 4 The lam of the Option rnmmenced on KLfc bv3. 2014 and sball en,i. on ItLesale l
2
2. All of the provisions set forth in the Option are incorporatal in this Memomnd,on by
safe taut,
3. Thu Option shall ha binding upon and inure to the bme:fit of she panics and their
respecd- hairs, sutzacdra and sudi s.
]SIGNATURES AND NOTARY ACKNOWLEDGMENTS APPEAR ON FOLLOWING PAGES]
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The parties have duly exauted this Umremndum as of the date first
above wri0ao.
GRANTEE:
BY:
Print Nam..I�I.L, fps�'llJt� 11
Title: .d51 /f — 1P4'S?LY�i+hh1'7�L�fN"L�
STATE OF VIChM
CCRINfY OF _
Nbrary W bik of the County and State aF id. do hereby
conifytha l / /G., 11 ,re %.�i:eiN/
personally came before me this day and acknowledged
that hel he is /E + --An'! �!^'= 1SIMichael Baker Engineering, I- a North Carolhu psoftainne
corpnmtim, and that he acknowledged to me that he voluntarily signed the foregoing document for the
pmpmes thendn expressed and in the represenlative,CapacitX :staled. 1hsyer ived aatiefacmry
evidmceofthepwaon 'sidentityinihelmmof�:'.fii .lt-0 tdfM.t.L
Wimps my hand and official sal, this the.,, 0 dyyay of jg !.Aj __, 2014.
A C 74.CfJ_d
fHficial Si amre /of�// f
Primed Neme: L. /N+/ %-'LF =�/Jf' .Notary public
My Commission F pirm:
] ,STAMPSF.AJ]
\ try{
�7fA!!Cti'y/

GRANTOR:
BY: tLk"1
Print Neme: AP1e {�O� 9 -7l ('6 1i
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF J4 t %
1, - ,the undersigned Notary Public of the County and State
aforesaid, certify that Owl personally appeared before one this day,
acknowledging to me that h el a trolummily Biped ad executed the foregoing document. I have
rweived ssrisfec:ory evidence ofihe peraon'e idrnrity in the form. of`1/(' �'j JPYS �i W�P
Wimess my hood and Nmerial st-pp� u� seal, this � day afNOVP�2014.
!
Official Signamr6WNo ary
Primed Name: y(/yprNotery Public
My Commissiio�on�� Expires: 3 -19 - I g _'
(AFFI OTAJSDI� tI.GfIf6 Ll
AlBxonde, Public
Coup ,tom'
EXHIBIT DI
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY -
AERIAL PHOTO SHOWING BOUNDARY OF EASEMENT
GRANTOR:
BY�.- lLgctlCJ
Print Name:. of &iii&a r
Title: b(L, rte
STATE' OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY rOFAI P.XU l'Y er
I, Dtdtgnfyti R-1�- ,lraae' _,me undersigned Notary Public of the County and Stare
aforesaid, certify that t{ClYY 11C1t personally appeared lief me this day,
acknowledging 0 me that hdJ h Ivolunamily signed and executed the foregoing document. I have p
received satisfectoryevidence of'he person's identity in the form n£NC �Y1dPP.`. rtC.Pi'J:�f',
Witness my hand and Notarial staraporsual, this_L day of/UoUP'"hmp_y 2014.
Official Signature o otary ,
Printed Name: i:'. ^ ' C (rTNotary Public
My Commitaumnn E,xpims: -
[AF OX N 'f.4lLttt�
Alexondery Publk
County NC

NORTH CAROLINA ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
LANDOWNER AUTHORIZATION FORM
PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRITION:
Deed look: >r'- Page: Z` 50 Canary- i} 12xo.rrdt
Pucellli Number: - 38`t3 II 81SC1
street Addreu: 2 o r e e l l 640
f1�o. E. v,•r, �.I15 AIG'. sec sr/
Propery Owner ( pleaee priah P eo v c tq H •
Property Owner (please print): -3C. rm r s fYl Des-,s
The undersigned, registered property owMr(r) of the above property, do hereby authorize
Chr.',+.:gbnt Q f rnsic of AEI It[ At Bake. s av,int) Inc.
(Comr actor/A'geuflPreject�fanager)r (Name of Contra ctor /Agent k9r�7i\gen�1y)
to uke all adiom ncetuary, for the - aatian of the property sir • potential stream, wetland and/or
riparian bnRer mitigation project, including conducting stream andlor wetland determinations and
delineations, as well a Issuance and acceptance of any required permit(s) or ecrtMcation(s). 1
agree to allow regulatory agencies, including the US Army Corps of Engfacers, to visit the property
as part oftheme environmental reviews.
Property Owners(g Address: 51V) 1ie ¢ h Pet L o .
(if diifereut from above)
Mr,rav:a„ r'rn IIS Iv1 C_ ZF,F S`i
rn� //i7 /�
Property Owner Telephone Number: So9e-( O�J35 -01o3I
Prop.1ytheme Telephone Number: 5, ;4-�7�J •� 7
We hereby certify the above Information to be true and accurate to the hest of tar knowledge.
.grAtpedyOwmLfr,Culbori2W Signature) (Date)
1A), pem jj af' 113-1V
(Property Owner Authorized Sig rare)
(Date)
'Nana: of full delivery staff nernlsa(ful] -0elivrrid) or PEP projecl manager (design- bid- bmld).
'Name of company (full- deliveries) or Ecosystem Enhncncemenl Program (design - bid - build).
NORTH CAROLINA ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
LANDOWNER AUTHORIZATION FORM
PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRITION:
Deed took: _ 5 6 I Page: 21 8 Cnnnty: Al e.t «�d.. ,r
P.,MIDNumber: (-+-12-
Street Address: A4 F. d 1 i y P C-v, u= L, 12 d
fyla, .s;an F., It 1J C 2 F.G S•-�
Property Owner (please print: L ,m t S Her ­
Properly Owner (plea. prior): J'A ' I d, r d1 h� N e , v,-,
The underdgned, registered property owtur(x) of the above property, do hereby authorize
Crtr.S'I-p�hP.r Q
Joel m g r of "t ickAel P .Lr.
t(Com W r 1Vr
g werr,� InC
(Name ofCont -tor /Ageot FirmlAZemay')
to take W actions aesesury for the evaluation of the property as a potential dream, wetland and/or
riparian buffer Mitigation project, including conducting strum and/or wetland determinations and
delfneelioas, as well as issuance and acceptance of any required permlt(s) or certlfieatoe(s). 1
agree to allow regulatory agencies, including the US Army Corps of Fugineera, to visit the property
u part of these environmental reviews.
Property Ownere(s) Address: 3S ➢N {.
(if differeaffrom above)
i
Property Owner Telephone Number, +r' .) sr o_3 j -Sit i
Property Owner Telephone Number:
We hereby certify the Wove information to be true and accurate to the beat *four knowledge.
(Pr�erriyQDwcer�mnllrized SIB NNre) , � (Unto)
(Property Osvn- d�Authorlud 4lguafure) � (Date)
;Name of full delivery staff member (full-deliveries) m EF.P project nvumger (design-bid- build).
:Name ofeompany (fulkieliveries)tar Ecosystem Enhancement Program (design-bid-build).
NORTH CAROLINA ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
LANDOWNER AUTHORIZATION FORM
PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRITION:
Deed Book: 561 Page: ZIP County: A 14,e -de �
Purcell lD Number: 36+-L 0 49(,4.
Street Addrear: Wrorr PA +-,. 0-d .
Mr,, x..115 _ ,.IC 2 & sj
Property Owner (Plural, print: 3.-.c v ti e r ns a _
Properly Owner(please print): W1 I d r l d P . 14 e e- _ ,,,
The undersigned, registered property owner(s) of the above property, do hereby ■mhorim
Cwr. <_4 -jI' . A.Ie,. s,� of y{�I tine/ l5 -l'r. � u t. .,S Inc
(COm "C'W Agenl/P.Jeet !lfawaga) (Na ... f Contractor /Agent Fhalf ge.cy)
to take all actions necessary for the evaluation of the property as a potential stream, wetland and/or
riparian bvfkr mitigation project, Including conducting stream and/or wetland determfoa400s and
deft ndwr, as wetl as iuumm and aceeptance otany required p.n it(s) or mrtlfimdm(* l
agree to allow regulatory agencies, Including the US Army Corps of Engineers, to visit the property
as part ofthese errviroomentsI reviews.
PropertyO— rs(s)Addreu: "35.`:,`3 N�( C'iivr
(if dtlfereat from above)
Wf or � F:, 1(5 n1C 2 B65`E
i
Property OwuerTelephone Number: ee.9.3
Property OusurrTelephone Number:
We hereby certify lbe above information to be true and accurate to the beg ofeur knowledge.
(( opertv Osroe Aumo!nzed Srgnature) y� yry(Date)
(Properly 0-4fatlibrized Signature) tom( )at,)
'Name of full delivery staff mamba (full lelivenes) or FEP project manager (design- bid - build).
Name of eompmy (full- deliveries) or Fiosystem Fnhanconent Program (dmign-bid•build).
NORTH CAROLINA ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
LANDOWNER AUTHORIZATION FORM
PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRITION: �1
Deed l000k: S ✓L) Page: 's-- I ,� County: /- !e*_
Parcel ID Number: 4 EA Z S 8 0 1 S_
Street Address: X11 Q 1 i. P C l-i v v c i t K d
Property Owwer(pleaveprim: �c, eS �. He.,
Property Owoer(pleaae print): fell , j r ed Q I A r
The undersigned, registered property owner(s) of the above properly, do herelsyanthorin
ChrrS 4u e.'•I. IewtS(cl of )V imogeI &z:g,-1 =e, 7 rIrte.
(Clomraclor/ geuWrojeel Manage r) (Name ofC.MraelorlAgent of rm/�j
to take all aedom neceasory for the evaluation of The properly as u potential stream, wetland and/or
riparian buffer ra tgation project, including conducting stream and/or wetland deferminatlom and
deliundnm, as wall as issuance and acceptance of any required permit(s) or cerdlicatba(s). I
agree to allow regulatory' agencies, Including the ITS Army Corps of Engine-., to visit the property
as part of these ensironmemal reviews.
Prroperty OwMrs(s) Address: -3 s ✓?� iM ( () f.vo. (A -C t 1? rJ
(ifdiflereat from above)
Property Owner Telephone Number: $t J 4 63 -7.1710
Properly 0ancrTelephone Number:
We hereby certify the above Information to be true and accurate to the best of our knowledge.
P ., raw HLw�.,„.i. �
( o16ppertr OwaerA therhed Signature)
2r,irL�J� i ]t /A /_
(Ropesty�rAnehnriz ripn,mre) MAW
;Name of fWl delivery staff member (full-deliverlea) m FEP project mansgvc (design- bidbuild).
'Nacre of company (full - deliveries) or Ecosystem Enhancement Program (design- bid - build).

NORTH CAROLINA ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
LANDOWNER AUTHORIZATION FORM
PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRITION: /�
Deedllook• 561 Page: 2� County: 41- exAyjeyr
Parcr11DNambO.- !? "4Z bzi W+9I
Srreel Addresr: `3167- Mob OI•yr e- L"v,c,-, r2d
Moray`cn � nj[ 2 bS—�
Property Owner (please print.. ,0, —e $ li . H a I nA,
ProPrrty Owner(pleaaepdnt): rvl d,ed P. He ✓✓„a. -,
Theundttmgned, roodered property owner(') of the above property, do hereby authorize
Cnr;slentiarATvnc Hof iM1;rk,eI &Ake, F 3 : fnC
{Contanor /ApeMfproject Manager) (Nameaf Comrarmr /Agent FirA/Agenq�)
to take all Actions necessary for the evaluatma of the property as a potential stream, wetland and/or
riparian boner mitigation project, including conducting Areas and/or wetland determiutions and
deliucations, as well as Issuance and aceeptance ofany required perndt(s) or certification(s). I.
agree to allow rcyulamry agenda, including the US Army Corps of Engineers, to visit the property
as pat of these eoNroamenul reviews.
Property Ow..(s) Address: 359 3 $14 . 01 u C. ), v. 1+. sad
(if different from above)
�4'Isravlar F., flc nIC 2A6 s�•
Property Owner Telephone Number! N a G
Property Owner Telephone Number.
We hereby certify the above information to be. true and accurate to the best of our knowledge.
(#Mperty Uvraer Authorized Slpp urn a) (Date)
f1/1.Y626- E'�&-r!#ei�.v_- ..:t.. /l� 7 r�N -
(PropersyOwnWAuthorized Sfgnarore) (Date)
Name ot'fbll delivery scoff member (full - deliveries) or EEP project manager ( dmign- hid - build).
'Name ofeompvry ( full- delivrnes)or Ecosystem Y;nhancemnd Program (design -lord- build),
NORTH CAROLINA ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
LANDOWNER .AUTHORIZATION FORM
PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRITION: A �1
Deed Book: 4'-IZ Page: 'y� County: df
Parcel IUNumber:_ 636`47- S6 c`f7 Z j
Street Address: n„SSEII (,ch Qsl.
9Por—.s„ Qk fI.0 Z- (,5
Property Owner (Please print: ry'd Imw><�, i-I Si C.. I « , ,,-
Property Owner (please print): 1`C +^/9 Sr rS. i+ C -lair
The undersigned, registered property owner(s) of the above property, do hereby authorize
Gny.57�.,Ol+r, �� :Ms -iL of Yi�lch�.r�i �eKCa _ c�vreeyl l/ r.ra� 1..�
(Contractor Agent/ProJect Manager) (Name of Contractor /Agent T Ageoc
to take all action oeeessary, for the evaluation of the property as a potential strain, 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 permlt(s) or cerliRcallon(s). I
agree to allow regulatary agencies, including the US Army Carps of Engineers, to visit the property
es part of these environmental reviews.
PropcM Own —(,) Address: 24) '2- M { C (v e 4 H+/ v -c L, 'jZd _
(if different from above)
Ir,y Iorti villa /JC "L C' °I
Property Owner Telephone Number: r � r (,
.21 -• I t� I' 1 Ont (tyr i
Property Owner Telephone Number: ndD'fiat k-,-Y� I1__ 6m4
We hereby certify the above information to be true cad accurate to the bell of our knowledge.
1
11 J (
(i4(A, ,% jl 14
(Property Owner Authorized Signature) (Date)
(Property ner Aumhorized'Slgaature) (Date)
Name of mil &ivory smfl merntbcr (I'ulldch Oits) or EEP project mawuer (design- hiJ-bm1d).
:N.- of compaay (fulldeliecrirr) or Ecosystem Enhanecnicnl Program (dcai6,r- bid- hm1d).
NORTH CAROLINA ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
LANDOWNER AUTHORIZATION FORM
PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRITION:
Deed Book :. 47 Page: 244 ; County: Alex.,Ae.r
P.— ADNumber:. 38`6 )2 3oiS
street Address:
tlna r Are: r, �,..IIS K�C 2 eb s'•(
Property Owner (passe print: GVm r, 5 }„mac. I on Cp
Property Owner (Please prino; Dasr.: cj S. KA.. Se
The undersigned, registered properly owners) of the above property, do hereby authorize
�hrls}sTol+tr A. J n.�:,slje of dlieh.yf �i «�4r F_ilii „e.� )ne
(Contrattori ReeeVPsoject Manager) (NameofCoMnclor/AVat F Age ry) 5/
to take all action necessary for the evaluation of the property a potential stream, wetlaad and/or
riparian buffer. mitigation project, including conducting abeam and/or wetland determinations and
delineations, as well as Issuance and aceeptanceofany required permit(s) or certifieadoo('). I
agreeto allow regulatory agencies, including Tile US Amory Corm of Engineers, to visit the property
as part of these environmental reviews.
Property Owo rs(s) Address; JI d 19 P A u I Pear w a "fe r e Rat .
(NdiNereot from above)
/
Property Owner Telephone Number: 00q' u:z -�g4t3
Property Owner Telephone Number: 7D N -,� 3 5
We hereby certify the above information to be true and accurate to the bat of our luowledge.
a/� 11 -J -14
(Property lZW.O oriaed Slgnemre) (Date)
(Properly Owner A 0sarized Signature) (Hate)
'Name of full delivery staRmemtier (full-deliveries) or EEP project manager (design - bid - build).
)Name of -.p y (full-deliveries) or Ecosystem Enhancement Program (design- bid - build).

ATTACHMENT B
Important Notes /Guidance
1. Projects MUST be located within EEP Targeted Watersheds within Catawba 03050101 (Attachment A Table and Map). Projects located
within Local Watershed Planning (LWP) HUCs may receive additional points, as noted in Section 1.0 of this Proposal Rating Form
(Attachment B). As also noted in Section 1.0 of this Rating Form, projects located within any of 10 designated HUCs within the Lake
Rhodhiss water supply watershed (in upper Catawba 03050101) may also receive additional points based on their ability to address
sediment and nutrient loading to streams. [See Attachment A for Table and Map of Lake Rhodhiss "bonus HUCs "]
2. Providers are strongly encouraged to conduct their own self- scoring evaluation of the project(s) they submit, using this Rating Form.
Please submit your self- scored form with your proposal.
3. The provider must explicitly state in their proposal that any proposed PH will meet the PH criteria specified in the first section of the score
sheet (see below, including Diagram) or include a completed, self- scored rating form with an entry of "Yes" for this question *. In either
case this will constitute contractual commitment to those PH specifications.
4. Providers are strongly encouraged to provide all of the mapping and statistics included in the document "Guidance and Submission of
Mapping and Associated Statistics in Technical Proposals — version 1.0 — adopted 5 July 2012 ", but must minimally include the mapping
and associated statistics as they apply for metric items 1, 3, 4, 8 cited in the first table in the document. The watershed maps (items 7 and
8) in the mapping table in this same document must be provided as well.
Technical Proposal Evaluation Criteria - Rating Form
CATAWBA 03050101— Stream Only — September 2014
Offeror:
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
Site Name:
Russell Gap Stream Mitigation Project
River Basin/
Catawba River Basin /Cataloging Unit 03050101 - 120010
Cataloging Unit:
RFP Number:
16- 006177
Date of Site
Evaluation:
Type /Amount of
Mitigation Offered:
Proposal Review
Committee:
Alternate Attendees:
Yes /No or
N/A
Does the option comply with RFP requirements (including minimum % of credits from Restoration)?
Yes
For stream mitigation projects, does the Technical Proposal adequately document the historical presence
Yes
of stream(s) on the project site, and provide the drainage area (SM) and the classifications of all stream
reaches?
For proposals that include wetland mitigation, does the technical proposal adequately document hydric
N/A
soil profile characteristics through soil boring logs prepared by a Licensed Soil Scientist?
For proposals that include wetland mitigation, are all hydroperiod success criteria proposed in excess of
N/A
5 %?
Does the proposal adequately document the biological and /or physical impairment that currently exists
Yes
on the project site? Examples: physical manipulation of wetlands (ditching, draining, placement of fill
materials); departure from reference vegetative community.
Do the proposal and site conditions leave EEP confident that the proposed levels of intervention are
Yes
appropriate for a minimum of 85% of proposed footage and /or acreage?
Do the proposal and site conditions leave EEP confident that the proposed stream type and /or wetland
Yes
community targets are appropriate for a minimum of 85% of the proposed footage and /or acreage?
Does EEP agree with the proposed overall credit structure as described in the proposal?
Yes
RFP 16- 006177 Page 1 of 7

Are the stated project goals and objectives directly linked to expected benefits to the aquatic resource?
Yes
(Note: Proposals that contain project goals that simply define the type of work to be performed and not
the functional uplift to be achieved will be rejected.
*For any proposed Priority II restoration, are all the following elements included in the proposal?
Yes
- Floodplain bench grading will extend a minimum 1.5 bankfull widths beyond the stream belt -width (no
meandering floodplains —see Diagram below).
- The floodplain will be over - excavated to accommodate replacement of topsoil.
- The design and construction oversight will ensure the management of topsoil to include the harvest
and segregated stockpiling of A and B soil horizons for re- application on excavated flood features.
- The slopes between the outer edge of floodplain grading and the terrace will be a minimum of 5:1.
Note: An answer of No to any question in this section means the Technical Proposal is rejected.
Continue
Continue or Reject
zoo Diagram for Priority II Question Above.
Priority 11 floodplain bench
1660 Grading boundary minimums
100
50
0 0 -0.70 % , b _­,224 -6. 1 f x 448 3, 1 10
! 'Y112.3.- '\ "' Y336_9-
-100 20 foot channehvidth
-150 30 foot bench veldth(1.5tinies channel vidth)beyondthebelt width.
-200
0 100 200 300 400 5M
Section 1.0 - Watershed Module [50 points possible]
Note: The last two questions in this Section (1.4a and b) apply only to those proposed projects that are located within
the Lake Rhodhiss Watershed bonus HUCs (10 total) in the upper Catawba0l subbasin [see Table and Map in
Attachment A].
1.1
For proposed projects located within an LWP watershed, to what extent does the project meet priority goals
of the LWP areas? Offeror must clearly describe how a project contributes to these goals to receive points.
Priority LWP goals in the RFP service area include: managing stormwater runoff; reducing fecal coliform inputs;
improving /restoring riparian buffers; reducing sediment loading (and turbidity impairment); improving stream
stability; improving stream habitat; reducing nutrient loading; and protecting water supply reservoirs.
Addresses one of 8 LWP goals. 2 points
No - 0
Addresses 2 to 4 of 8 LWP goals. 5 points
Addresses 5 to 6 of 8 LWP goals. 10 points
Addresses 7 to 8 of 8 LWP goals. 16 points
RFP 16- 006177 Page 2 of 7

1.2
Is the proposed project identified within an LWP Project Atlas (in the upper Catawba)?
Atlases can be found by clicking on links at left below.
Lower Creek Project Atlas
Hunting Creek Protect Atlas
Muddy Creek Protect Atlas
Implements 25% to 50% of an Atlas- recommended project 4 points
No - 0
Implements >50% of an Atlas- recommended project 8 points
Implements All of an Atlas- recommended project 12 points
1.3
For proposed projects located within a TLW, to what extent does the project support the major CU -wide
functional improvement goals? These CU -wide goals for the Catawba include: restoration of nutrient- and
sediment /turbidity- impaired waters; protection of riparian buffers and /or aquatic habitat in headwater
reaches of asset -rich local watersheds; improved stormwater management in predominantly urban
watersheds; implementation of agricultural BMPs and /or stream restoration in predominantly
agricultural /rural watersheds.
Addresses one of 4 goals. 2 points
Addresses 2 of the goals. 4 points
Addresses 3 or 4 of the goals. 6 points
6 pts, See p. 17
ADDRESSES GOALS
1, 2 AND 4
1.4a
For proposed projects located within one (or more) of the 10 Lake Rhodhiss'bonus HUCs' (see Map and
Table in Attachment A), to what extent does the project address sediment and nutrient loading to streams?
Assign points as prescribed below based on the number of project site or design features (proposal elements)
that address sediment and /or nutrient inputs. Sediment and nutrient reduction factors /strategies include the
following: (1) significant re- establishment of riparian buffer (of at least 50 -ft width) on both sides of the
stream channel; (2) significant reduction in the area /extent of eroded stream banks; (3) significant increase in
connection of stream channel to floodplain (points /areas of floodplain access significantly increased); (4)
creation or restoration of adjacent riparian wetland area(s); (5) removal /exclusion of livestock from significant
portion of project reach(es); (6) presence of extensive and active adjacent agricultural operations (livestock
and /or crop production within short distances upstream and /or immediately adjacent /contiguous to project
site) -- providing opportunity for treatment of affected runoff and subsurface flow; (7) stormwater BMPs
immediately adjacent /contiguous to project site (integrated into project design and /or extant within short
distance outside of project area, treating runoff with direct connection to project riparian zone); (8) proposal
explicitly describes how newly constructed portions /features of the project will reduce nutrients and /or
sediment entering steam(s) from a significant percentage of the contributing lateral drainage.
Project proposal provides one or two of the 8 pollutant reduction elements. 1 point
N/A - 0
Project proposal provides three to five of the 8 pollutant reduction elements. 2 points
Project proposal provides five or six of the 8 pollutant reduction elements. 5 points
Project proposal provides seven or eight of the pollutant reduction elements. 10 points
1.4b
Does the proposal use a widely used /accepted computer model (including spreadsheet -based
methodologies) to quantify reductions in sediment and /or nutrient loading attributable to project features?
Yes = 6 points; No = 0 points.
Yes - 6 pts
See p. 42
RFP 16- 006177 Page of 7

Section 2.0 - Existing Conditions Module [63 points possible]
2.1
What is the proportion of significant, obvious (BHR >1.5) incision for reaches identified for some level of
channel modification?
20 -40% of the proposed footage exhibits significant, obvious incision. 4 points
4 pts, See p. 31
>40 -60% of the proposed footage exhibits significant, obvious incision. 8 points
>60 -80% of the proposed footage exhibits significant, obvious incision. 6 points
>80% of the proposed footage exhibits significant, obvious incision. 10 points
2.2
What is the proportion of active bank erosion for the existing condition of reaches proposed for channel
modification? Active bank erosion includes surficial scour, hydraulic toe erosion, mechanical failures, and
other mass wasting from channel processes.
10 -20% of active erosion. 4 points
>20 -40% of active erosion. 10 points
10 pts, See p. 31
>40 -60% of active erosion. 18 points
>60% of active erosion. 25 points
2.3
Buffer Vegetation Condition - What is the dominant buffer vegetation condition? (Near Bank Line is defined as
trees on top of bank that may exhibit some breaks, but with enough continuity to form a discernable line.
Break constitutes —50 feet or more. Maintained vegetation will include managed herbaceous or woody
vegetation maintained as a monoculture or state of low diversity for agricultural or horticultural purposes in
which natural communities are suppressed by mechanical or chemical means.)
Non - Mature Woody Vegetation >30 feet in width (shrub, early successional trees). 4 points
Non - mature woody vegetation <30 feet in width or a herbaceous dominated condition
with some mature trees sufficient to form a defined near bank native tree line with
minimal breaks in the canopy. 8 points
Herbaceous dominated with frequent breaks (continuous segments rarely exceed 10%
of the option footage) in native canopy trees in the near bank region or mature trees
are scattered and sparse within the proposed boundary such that the proposed reach
treatments could take place with minimal impacts to mature trees. 12 points
No vegetation, or grazed or maintained vegetation, or impervious cover. 20 points
20 pts, See p.20
2.4
What is the extent of footage actively subject to onsite (within the proposed easement) water quality
stressors that the design proposes to address? Examples can include pasture with direct livestock herd access,
livestock exclusion but with poorly managed crossings, hydrologic bypass of buffers (e.g. the drains, discharge
outfalls, hydrologic connections to livestock wallows or CAFO ponds), stormwater outfalls, adjacent ( <15 feet)
row crop, maintained vegetation, or impervious surfaces.
Proportion of effected channel 20 -40 %. 1 point
Proportion of effected channel >40 -60 %. 2 points
Proportion of effected channel >60 -80 %. 5 points
Proportion of effected channel >80 %. 8 points
8 pts, See p. 31
RFP 16- 006177 Page of 7

Section 3.0 - Design Module [24 points possible]
3.1
Does the proposed project provide
Between 30 - 50% of the RFP request? 2 points
Between 51 - 90% of the RFP request? 5 points
5 pts, See p. 4
Greater than 90% of the RFP request? 12 points
3.2
Buffer Integrity is a measure of the riparian zone's structural and /or functional effectiveness to remove
nutrients and sediment (among others) from runoff. To what level does the project propose to reestablish
buffer on site? (NOTE: A break is defined as any discontinuity of the proposed buffer vegetation such as to
accommodate cattle crossings, fords, utilities, and etc.)
Project proposes to reestablish buffer on both sides along 25 % -50% of project length
with only one or no breaks / narrowings that are less than the minimum required buffer
widths. 1 points
Project proposes to reestablish buffer on both sides along 51 % -90% of project length
with no breaks / narrowings that are less than the minimum required buffer widths. 2
points
Project proposes to reestablish buffer on both sides along 91% -100% of length with no
breaks or narrowings that are less than minimum required width of 50 feet and is
contiguous with or connects to existing forested riparian wildlife corridors. 6 points
6 pts, See p. 32
3.3
Floodplain Connection is important for the settling and filtration of sediment and other pollutants. To what
level does the project propose to provide floodplain access ?)
Project proposes to provide floodplain access at one or two points in the project area. 1
point
Project proposes to increase floodplain access throughout the project area. 2 points
Project proposes to increase floodplain access throughout the project area, and to
demonstrate floodplain function (i.e., via monitoring). 6 points
6 pts, see p. 31
Section 4.0 — Habitat and Conservation Continuity Module [18 points possible]
4.1
Ability to connect adjacent (having a common boundary with) natural habitats and provide wildlife corridor.
Project as proposed restores an interrupted corridor from an adjacent natural area with
mature vegetation but does provide some continuity from the habitat area for
terrestrial species. 1 points
Project as proposed provides an uninterrupted wildlife corridor from an adjacent
natural area with mature vegetation. 2 points
Project as proposed provides an uninterrupted wildlife corridor from an adjacent
natural area with mature vegetation; and proposal proposes to restore specific habitat
elements required for listed species. 6 points
6 pts, See p. 17
RFP 16- 006177 Page of 7

4.2
Ability to provide habitat improvement for identified Threatened and Endangered Species. (This includes
any State or Federal listed T &E species.)
High = 6; Moderate = 3 ; Low = 0
6 pts, See p. 17
THE PROJECT HAS THE POTENTIAL TO RESTORE /IMPROVE HABITAT FOR STATE LISTED THREATENED AND ENDANGED SPECIES
4.3
Proposed project boundaries are directly contiguous (having a common boundary with) to another
protected property.
Proposed project easement shares at least one boundary with another conservation
easement that is not used for mitigation. 2 points
No - o
Proposed project easement shares at least one boundary with another mitigation
property (EEP, Bank, etc.) 6 points
Section 5.0 - Implementation and Risk Module [15 points possible]
5.1
Does proposal address Federal Emergency Management Act (FEMA) regulated zones?
Proposal provides documentation concerning the status of FEMA regulated issues as it
pertains to the project (i.e. flood zone map, FEMA delegated authority or designated
Floodplain Manager). 2 points
Project does not occur in FEMA regulated zone, or occurs in FEMA regulated zone and
submittal provides documentation of the approach of how to address it. 5 points
5 pts, See p. 31
PROJECT IS NOT IN A FEMA REGULATED FLOODPLAIN
5.2
How does the proposed design comport with anticipated regulatory review?
51 -90% of all reaches within the proposed design are being addressed such that the
maximum net uplift for the site has been met. Areas of mature forest and wetlands are
being avoided. Reaches with mature forest are proposed for enhancement or propose
limited tree removal. 2 points
>90 % of all reaches within the proposed design are being addressed such that the
maximum net uplift for water quality, habitat, and stability for the site has been met.
Reaches with mature forest are proposed for enhancement or very limited tree
removal. Buffer areas include significant areas greater than regulatory requirement. 5
points
5 pts, See p. 43
5.3
Physical constraints or barriers (i.e. utilities, property lines, easements, managed areas, etc.) that effect
project design and effectiveness. (Selection is based upon the prevalence of described factors within the
site. Percentages calculated based upon adding total linear footage of crossings, roadways, utilities, or
reduced buffer divided by total linear footage.)
< 10% of the total linear footage segmented by crossings, roadways, and utility right of
ways. 2 points
2 pts, See p. 32
Project not affected by crossings, roadways, and /or utilities. Project with existing
constraints removes or relocates constraints such as crossings, roadways, utilities, etc.
such that design is not dictated by the constraint. 5 points
Section 6.0 - Quality Control [20 points possible]
6.1
Similar mitigation projects completed by the Offeror that have finished at least 3 years of monitoring.
Completed from 2 to 5 mitigation projects. 2 points
Completed more than 5 mitigation projects. 5 points
5 pts, See p. 8
RFP 16- 006177 Page 6 of 7

RFP 16- 006177 Page 7 of 7
6.2
Experience of Project Team (People actually completing work)
Project team contains at least 2 individuals with specialties specific to project
evaluation, acquisition, design, construction, and monitoring. 1 points
All the above and at least 3 other individuals with relevant technical backgrounds and
experience in mitigation. 2 points
All of the above and at least 2 projects brought to successful regulatory closure (i.e.
credit yield is +/ -5% of proposed). 5 points
5 pts, See p. 8
6.3
Multidisciplinary Team Approach to Project.
Proposal provides an approach to project design that includes engineering and
biological considerations. 2 points
Proposal provides a multidisciplinary approach to project design that includes
engineering, biolo ical hydrologic, soils and regulatory review considerations. 5 points
g� ,
5 pts, see p. 11
6.4
Quality Control Program
Offeror describes in the proposal checks and balances that cross examines engineering
and design methods, document preparation and delivery, and project implementation
to be used in the proposed project. 2 points
Offeror provides quality control /quality assurance plan that includes checks and
balances that cross examines engineering and design methods, document preparation
and delivery, and project implementation to be used in the proposed project. 5 points
5 pts, see p. 50
6.5
History of Compliance with Required Federal, State and Local Permits within the past year.
EEP has been notified of 1 permit violations within the past year. - MINUS 15 points
-0
EEP has been notified of 2 permit violations within the past year. - MINUS 20 points
-0
EEP has been notified of more than 2 permit violations within the past 2 years. - MINUS
25 points
-0
Total Points (Maximum Possible = 190 Points) =
115
Proposal Rating ( Score x 0.01) =
1.15
Comments:
RFP 16- 006177 Page 7 of 7

Wa,
;fie +��p� �`:�+'����'
"IF 10"
lk