20160366 Ver 2_Technical Proposal_20160404

MARTIN DAIRY MITIGATION SITE
NEUSE 03020201
RFP 16-006477
TECHNICAL PROPOSAL
SUBmiTTED: OCTOBER 28, 2015 at 2:00 PM
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104, Charlotte, NC 28203
PHONE: [phone], Fax: [phone]
f,#j This report is printed on recycled paper
SUBMITTED M
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION
OF MITIGATION SERVICES

WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
October 28, 2015
Ms. Kathy Dale
NC Division of Mitigation Services
217 West Jones Street, Suite 3307-A
Raleigh, NC 27603
RE: Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Proposal — Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
Neuse River Basin Cataloging Unit 03020201; Orange County, NC
In response to RFP 16-006477 — Full Delivery Project
Dear Ms. Dale:
As the authorized representative of Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands), I am pleased to present to
the NC Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) the following proposal to provide stream mitigation units in
the Neuse River Basin (Cataloging Unit 03020201) in response to RFP 16-006477. This proposal is a firm
offer from Wildlands and shall remain open for acceptance by the NC Department of Environmental
Quality (DEQ) until October 28, 2016, which is one year from the closing date of the above -referenced
RFP.
As a fully licensed engineering firm, Wildlands will serve as the contracting entity and lead designer with
Turner Land Surveying, PLLC providing professional surveying services. The key individuals on the
Wildlands Team have worked together on numerous projects over multiple years and will operate
smoothly as a cohesive unit.
Wildlands is committed to creating an excellent ecological restoration project at the Martin Dairy
Mitigation Site and is proposing two options on the Site: Option 1 provides 2,692 Stream Mitigation
Units (SMUs) and Option 2 provides 2,134 SMUs.
Three unnamed tributaries to Buckwater Creek have been degraded by livestock trampling,
channelization, grazing, and lack of a riparian buffer. This project will focus on improving water quality
and ecology through stream and habitat restoration, the re -connection of streams to existing riparian
wetlands, and the development of riparian buffers. These activities will improve aquatic organism
habitat onsite and will result in a decrease in nutrient and sediment. loads from the project site.
The Wildlands Martin Dairy Mitigation Site submittal includes two original Technical Proposals, five
copies of the Technical Proposal, one CD -R of the Technical Proposal, one CD -R of the Project Area
boundaries in ArcGIS format, and three signed and sealed originals of the Cost Proposal. All paper
contained within this proposal is 100% recycled, 30% post -consumer content.
With our diverse, yet unified team we offer the expertise, understanding, and commitment to ensure
this project's success.
WWildlands Engineering, Inc. (P) 704.332.7754 • (F) 704.332.3306 • 1430 South Mint St, Suite 104 • Charlotte, NC 28203

EXECUTION OF PROPOSAL BY OFFEROR ( THIS MUST BE RETURNED WITH YOUR TECHINCAL PROPOSAL)
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 (1) year from the date of the opening, to furnish the subject services
per the attached Sealed Cost Proposal.
Offeror:
Check Appropriate Status—
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Business Owned/Controlled
Street or PO Box:
African American
}
1430 S. Mint Street, Suite 104
Handicapped
Woman Owned
}
}
Other Minority Specify:
}
City:
Charlotte
State:
North Carolina
Zip Code:
28203
Telephone Number:
Fax
Number:
[phone]
[phone]
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
No
in an attachment with your offer.
X
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.
Signatur Authorized Official):
itle:
DPresident
Typed oYPrinted Name:
Date:
Shawn D. Wilkerson
1p S 101
E -Mail address:
[e-mail]
Key Personnel/Individual Assigned To This RFP By The Offeror:
Shawn D. Wilkerson
itle:
President
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 16-006477 Page 29 of 32

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 I bid.
(THIS INFORMATION WILL NOT COUNT WARD THE 100 PAGE LIMIT REQUIRED FOR TECHNICAL PROPOSAL)
0NNNKN
NEENE
Issuing Agency: Department of Environ nt and Natural Resources Division of Mitigation Services
Solicitation #: -006477
Agency Contract Person Kath ale Phone Number: 919-707-8451
Solicitation Title I Type of Service: For Full Delivery Projects To Provide Stream Mitigation Within Cataloging Unit 03020201 Of The
Neuse River Basin As Described In The Scope Of Work
COMPLETED BY THE OFFEROR: Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
CITY & STATE: Charlotte, NC
Location(s) from which services will be performed by the Contractor:
SERVICE
CITY I PROVIDENCE / STATE
COUNTRY
Design
Charlotte, Raleigh, NC; Fairfax, VA
USA
Raleigh, NC
USA
Locations from which services are anticipated to be performed OUTSIDE THE U. S. by the Contractor:
SERVICE ICITY / PROVIDENCE / STATE COUNTRY
n/a
Locations from which services will be performed by subcontractors :
SERVICE
SUBCONTRACTOR
CITY / PROVIDENCE ISTATE
COUNTRY
Survey
Turner Land Surveying, PLLC
Raleigh, NC
USA
Location(s) from which services are anticipated to be performed OUTSIDE THE U. S. by the subcontractor(s):
SERVICE
SUBCONTRACTOR
CITY / PROVIDENCE ISTATE
COUNTRY
n/a
(Attach additional pages if necessary)
RFP 16-006477
ISI"r IV-VVVYIp
Page 30 of 32

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:
Shawn D. Wilkerson
Agency:
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Title:
President
Address:
1430 S. Mint Street, Suite 104
City:
Charlotte
tate/ Zip:
NC/ 28203
elephone:
[phone]
Fax:
[phone]
Email:
[e-mail]
Offerors Execution Address (Where the contract should be mailed for signature)
Name:
Shawn D. Wilkerson
Agency:
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Title:
President
Address:
1430 S. Mint Street, Suite 104
City:
Charlotte
tate/Zip:
NC/28203
elephone:
[phone]
Fax:
[phone]
Email:
[e-mail]
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:
Shawn D. Wilkerson
Agency:
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Title:
President
Address:
1430 S. Mint Street, Suite 104
City:
Charlotte
tate/ Zip:
NC/ 28203
Telephone:
[phone]
Fax:
[phone]
Email:
[e-mail]
RFP 16-006477 Page 31 of 32

r
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Mitigation Services
Pat McCrory, Governor Michael Ellison, Director Donald R. van der Vaart, Secretary
July 16, 2015
THIS ADDENDUM MUST BE RETURNED WITH YOUR TECHNICAL PROPOSAL
RFP NO.
16-006477
RFP TITLE:
Full Delivery Projects To Provide Stream Mitigation Within
Catalo in Unit 03020201of the Neuse River Basin
ADDENDUM NO.
01
USING
Division of Mitigation Services
AGENCY:
PURCHASER
KATHY DALE
OPENING
September 17, 2015 @ 2:00 P.M.
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 / ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
A. The Scoresheet has been revised for this RFP. Please use the one listed as Attachment A at the end of this
document for your bid submission.
B. In an effort to improve customer service and access to information, DMS has developed an online map of
targeted watersheds for each of the below referenced RFPs. The online map is intended to be an additional
tool for providers, and is NOT intended to substitute for information included in Attachment A of the RFP. If
there is any discrepancy between the RFP and the online mapping, the RFP shall prevail.
Please use the following link to access this map: RFP # 16-006477 (Neuse 03020201)
C. To view the presentations from the June 30th Neuse 01 Regional Watershed Plan stakeholder meeting
please go to the following webpage: http://i)ortal.ncdenr.org/web/eep/rbrps/neuse .
2. QUESTIONS & ANSWERS
Question 1: Can a firm which received a contract from EEP to perform a watershed plan in a river basin be allowed to
also respond to a full delivery RFP in that same basin?
Answer: The link in the RFP is accurate. It is also on the website now.
Question 2: A pre -solicitation for the Neuse 01 in 2014 indicated that significant amounts of stream, wetland
and riparian buffer credits would be needed. Only streams are requested in this RFP, with potential
for procurement of riparian buffer credits in the future. In the Neuse 01 a large percentage of
streams also have associated drained or degraded riparian wetlands. This RFP does not offer the
ability of providers to do anything but defer (or waste) potential riparian wetland credits when there
is high certainty of future need. Would DMS or DOT consider adding wetland credits to this RFP
given the future demands associated with known or highly predictable mitigation needs? If not,
would DMS consider adding a Special Condition similar to the one added for riparian buffer credits
for wetlands?
RFP 16-006477
Addendum No.1 Page 1 of 3

Answer: DMS does not have any wetland need for this RFP.
Question 3: Presumably most of the demand for the Neuse RFP is coming from the remaining segment of the
540 project. Much of this area is urban or suburban in nature with higher percentages of
impervious cover'. Some of the Atlas sites identified in the Regional Watershed Plan have over 12%
impervious. Please clarify the intent of establishing a impervious cap.
Answer: The areas with higher impervious cover are in need of more than just traditional stream
projects. At this time, DMS cannot get mitigation credit for BMP practices. DMS may consider
these areas in the
future.
Question 4: Incorrect RFP reference is cited at the bottom of Section 10 (Page 30) which is a submittal
page. Footer is incorrect on alternating pages throughout the RFP. Just for Neuse 01.
Answer: The correct RFP number on all the even pages should be RFP 16-006477 not
RFP 16-006476, Page 30 may be corrected by the bidder to reflect RFP 16-006477
(Please initial change) and submitted with your bid.
Question 5: Right now a project in the RWP can score a max of 30 points. If in an LWP a project can score a max
of 25 points. If in both RWP and LWP the max is still appears to be only 30 points. Is this the intent
or does the provider still get 10 points for 1.2 even though the question says to go directly to Bonus
question 1.4? Please clarify.
Answer: A provider can only get points for either being within an LWP or the RWP area- but not
both. So the max is 30 which would be applicable if they are located within the RWP area. If the
project is within an LWP that is also within the RWP area they should still only address Questions
1.4-1.6.
Question 6: Please clarify if woven wire or barbed wire fencing is required for livestock exclusion as stated in
paragraph 3 on page 17 of the RFP. Some new language under Recommendations on Page 13 states
that "the fence type established should be based on landowner and livestock needs." Will
electrified 5 -strand high tensile fencing be allowed when it is the best fencing for the site due to the
restored creek being in a high flood area and the landowner strongly prefers such fencing?
Answer: The RFP provides recommendations for Task 2 based on DMS experience with the IRT.
The provider
is provided flexibility regarding landowner preference of fencing type, but ultimately it is the
responsibility of the provider to ensure mitigation credit protection.
Question 7: Traditionally, preservation in full delivery projects have been encouraged for connectivity or
headwater preservation and made up a small percentage of the overall credits. Would a large scale
preservation project with little or no stream restoration or enhancement be considered under this
RFP? If a project contains a large amount of preservation, is there a limit to the percentage of the
overall project credits that may be developed from preservation?
Answer: No, the maximum amount of preservation DMS will accept is 20% of total length.
Question 8: It is recommended that NCDMS consider adding some amount of wetland to the RFP as many
potential stream restoration projects in the Neuse 01 have potential wetland components that
would fall within the easement area. This could help with economies of scale and help the state
procure better pricing on the projects. Or similar to what NCDMS is doing with Buffer Credits allow
an offering of an option for Wetland Credits.
Answer: DMS has no need for wetlands at this time.
Question 9: Priority 1 restoration in the flatter areas of the Neuse 01 may lead to needing more easement area
in order to prevent hydrologic trespass outside of the easement. Often, these areas would also lead
to wetland restoration. By including wetland mitigation needs in the RFP, projects in the lower
Neuse 01, which is geographically most similar to the impact area, become more feasible.
Answer: DMS has no need for wetlands at this time.
RFP 16-006477
Addendum No.1 Page 2 of 3

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.
SECTION 3
Execute Addendum:
BIDDER: Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
ADDRESS (CITY & STATE): 1430 S. Mint Street, Suite 104—, Charlotte, NC 28203
AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE: -D t Y'� V `' DATE: � V 513,0
NAME & TITLE (TYPED): Shawn D. Wilkerson, President
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 16-006477
RFP 16-006477
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 3409-G
RALEIGH INC 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 16-006477
Addendum No.1 Page 3 of 3

AITACHMENTA
ADDENDUM# 1 FOR RFP 16-006477
Important Notes/Guidance
1. Projects MUST be located within DMS Targeted Watersheds within Neuse 03020201 (Attachment A Table 1 and Map). Projects located within Local Watershed
Planning (LWP) or Regional Watershed Planning (RWP) HUCs may receive additional points, as noted in Section 1.0 of this Technical Proposal Rating Form.
2. Scores of "No" or 0 points for questions in Scoresheet Modules 1.0 through 6.0 (i.e., after the Overall MeriUPmposal Screening section) will NOT disqualify a
Provider's proposal.
3. Proposed Projects must be located within a catchment with no more than 12% Impervious Cover in the area draining to the project as measured at
the downstream limit of the project. Offeror must include the following information in the proposal: 1) Drainage Area, 2) % Impervious Cover and 3) the
method that was used to calculate the Impervious Cover for the project area.
Technical Proposal Evaluation Criteria
Neuse 03020201- Rating Form
Offeror:
Site Name:
River Basin/
Catalog Unit:
RFP Number:
Date of Site
Evaluation:
Type/Amt of
Mitigation Offered:
Proposal Review
Committee:
Alternate
Attendees:
Overall Merit (Proposal Screening)
Yes/No or N/A
1- For stream mitigation projects, does the Technical Proposal adequately document the historical presence of stream(s) on the project
site, and provide the drainage areas (acres) and provide accurate, process -based descriptions of all project stream reaches and
tributaries?
2- Does the proposal adequately document the physical, chemical andfor biological impairments that currently exist on the project
site?
3- Does DMS agree with the overall mitigation approach (proposed levels of intervention) presented? [The Technical Proposal
must demonstrate that the proposed mitigation activities are appropriate for existing site conditions and watershed characteristics (e.g.,
adjacent land useAand cover), and are optimized to yield maximum functional gains.]
4- Does DMS agree with the proposed credit structure(s) described in the proposal?
5- Does the proposed project avoid significant adverse impacts to existing wetlands andfor streams?
6- Does the proposal adequately describe how the project will advance DMS watershed planning goals?
7 -For any proposed Priority II restoration, are all the following elements included in the proposal OR is Priority 2 stream restoration
limited to "lie -ins" (designed tributary confluences)?
- 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 placement on excavated floodplain features.
- The slopes between the outer edge of floodplain grading and the terrace will be a minimum of 5:1.
Page 1 of 6

ATTACHMENTA
ADDENDUM# 7 FOR RFP 16-006477
Page Yaf6

ATTACHMENT
ADDENDUM# 1 FOR RFP 16-006477
All watershed planning documents pertinent to scoring, including 2015 Neuse 01 River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRPs),Regional Watershed Plan (RWP)
and Local Watershed Plans (LWPs) are available at the following hyperlink:
http://Porta1.ncdenr.org/web/eep/rbrps/neuse
Asse ssm e n t
Sco re
Section 1.0 - Watershed Module [Maximum Points= 30]
For Proposed Projects outside of RWP or LWP Area
1.1
For proposed projects located outside of an LWP or RWP area, but within a TLW identified in Table 1 of Attachment A as required, to what extent
does the project support the CU -wide watershed improvement objectives? 1—reduce & control sediment inputs; 2 --reduce & manage nutrient inputs;
3 --augment designated Significant Natural Heritage Areas; 4 --Contribute to protection of or improvements to a Water Supply Waterbody.)
Project addresses 1 of 4 functional Improvement objectives 2 points
Project addresses 2 or 3 of 4 functional improvement objectives B points
Project addresses 4 of 4 functional improvement objectives 15 points
For Proposed Projects within a LWP Area
1.2
BONUS: Is the proposed project located within a LWP area. If the answeris Yes but the oroiectis also
located within the RWP area Please only answerBONUS Questions 1.4-1.6 (LWPs are listed on the Neuse
Basin Page hyperlink above, see Attachment A for table and map with LWP areas)
Yes, the project is located within an LWP area. 10 points
1.3
BONUS: Does the proposed project meet priority goals of the LWP areas? Offeror must describe how a project contributes to goals to receive
points. (The following priorities relevant to this RFP are further discussed in the LWP Findings and Recommendations which are available at the Neuse
Basin hyperlink above ). 1 --reduces sediment loading; 2 --reduces nutrient loading; 3 --provides & improves instream habitat; 4 --provides & improves
terrestrial habitat; 5—Improves stream and bank stability; 6—improves hydrologic function; 7 --improves rare species habitat)
Addresses 1 of 7 LWP goals. 1 point
Addresses 2-3 of 7 LWP goals. 5 points
Addresses 4-5 of 7 LWP goals. 10 points
Addresses 6-7 of 7 LWP goals. 15 points
For Proposed Projects within the RWP Area
1.4
BONUS: Is the proposed project located within the RWP area. (see Attachment A for table and map with
RWP area)
Yes, the project is located within an RWP area. 10 points
1.5
BONUS: Is the proposed project located within a subwatershed that has been prioritized for Stream
Corridor Condition or Important Aquatic Habitat in the RWP? (See Figures 17 and 20 in the RWP
Preliminary Findings Report available on the Neuse Basin page hyperlink above)
Yes, the project is located within a subwatershed prioritized for Stream Corridor Condition or
Important Aquatic Habitat. 5 points
1.6
BONUS: Does the proposed project meet priority goals of the RWP? Offeror must describe how a project contributes to goals to receive
points. (The following priorities relevant to this RFP are further discussed in the RWP Preliminary Findings Report available at the Neuse Basin hyperlink
above). 1 --reduces sediment loading; 2 --reduces nutrient loading; 3 --improves stream and bank stability; 4 --improves hydrologic function; 5 --improves
riparian buffer condition.
Addresses 1 of 5 LWP goals. 1 point
Addresses 2-3 of 5 LWP goals. 5 points
Addresses 4-5 of 5 LWP goals. 15 points
Section 2.0 - Existing Conditions Module [Maximum Points =65]
Page 3 ore

ATTACHMENTA
ADDENDUM# 1 FOR REP 16-006477
2.1 (What is the proportion of significant, obvious incision (BHR> —1.6) for reaches identified for some level of channel modification?
of the proposed footage exhibits significant, obvious incision. 2 points
130-70% of the proposed footage exhibits significant, obvious incision. 6 points 1
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 and mechanical failures, and other mass wasting from channel processes.]
active erosion. 4 points
active erosion. 10 points
active erosion. 20 points
For reaches proposed for restoration/enhancement, what is the percent of project length actively subject to onsite water quality or habitat
stressors that the design proposes to address? [Onsite means within or immediately adjacent to (within 30 ft of) the proposed easement boundary.
2.3 Example stressors include pasture with direct livestock 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 row crops, maintained vegetation, or
impervious surfaces.]
2.4 What level of (negative) impact on water quality does the current land use within and immediately adjacent to the proposed easement have on
the project (i.e., impervious surfaces, nutrient inputs, sediment inputs or other land disturbing activities)?
Proportion of affected channel <30°%. 1 point
Modeling estimates anticipated reductions of >60% total nitrogen and/or total phosphorus levels.
Proportion of affected channel 30-70%. 4 points
Modeling estimates anticipated reductions of>60% total nitrogen and/or total phosphorus, and
Proportion of affected channel >70%. 8 points
describes specific pre- and post -construction monitoring protocols to document nutrient
2.4 What level of (negative) impact on water quality does the current land use within and immediately adjacent to the proposed easement have on
the project (i.e., impervious surfaces, nutrient inputs, sediment inputs or other land disturbing activities)?
BONUS: Comparing nutrient concentrations of influent to effluent demonstrates the nutrient removal function of a project site. Using a widely
accepted computer model (including simple spreadsheet tools), to what extent is the project predicted to reduce on-site nutrient inputs (total dissolved
2.6 nitrogen and/or phosphorus) from runoff flowing laterally into the proposed project easement -- with effluent measured/predicted at the immediate
downstream project boundary? Note: to receive credit, Provider must provide a reference for spreadsheet tool or model, describe assumptions, and
include maps/schematics as appropriate.]
Modeling estimates anticipated reductions of 30-60% in total nitrogen and/or total phosphorus
levels. 3 points
Low (no evidence of nutrient, fecal coliform or sediment input via overland/stormwater flow into
the system). 1 point
Modeling estimates anticipated reductions of >60% total nitrogen and/or total phosphorus levels.
Moderate (only slight or limited evidence of nutrient, fecal coliform or sediment input via
Modeling estimates anticipated reductions of>60% total nitrogen and/or total phosphorus, and
overland/stormwater flow into the system). 6 points
describes specific pre- and post -construction monitoring protocols to document nutrient
High to Very High [moderate to strong evidence of nutrient, fecal coliform or sediment input via
overland/stormwater flow into the system; evidence may include eroded banks, channel
aggradation/degradation, livestock access, degraded buffers, cropping or other land disturbances
right up to the stream banks, etc.] . 12 points
BONUS: Comparing nutrient concentrations of influent to effluent demonstrates the nutrient removal function of a project site. Using a widely
accepted computer model (including simple spreadsheet tools), to what extent is the project predicted to reduce on-site nutrient inputs (total dissolved
2.6 nitrogen and/or phosphorus) from runoff flowing laterally into the proposed project easement -- with effluent measured/predicted at the immediate
downstream project boundary? Note: to receive credit, Provider must provide a reference for spreadsheet tool or model, describe assumptions, and
include maps/schematics as appropriate.]
Modeling estimates anticipated reductions of 30-60% in total nitrogen and/or total phosphorus
levels. 3 points
Modeling estimates anticipated reductions of >60% total nitrogen and/or total phosphorus levels.
6 points
Modeling estimates anticipated reductions of>60% total nitrogen and/or total phosphorus, and
describes specific pre- and post -construction monitoring protocols to document nutrient
reductions directly attributable to proposed project. 15 points
Page 4 06

ATTACHMENT
ADDENDUM# 1 FOR RFP 16-006477
3.0 Habitat and Conservation Connectivity Module [Maximum Points =10]
Page 50f 6
3.1
BONUS: Proposed project boundaries are directly contiguous to (has a common boundary with) another protected property.
Proposed project easement shares at least one boundary with a conservation easement that is
not used for mitigation. 5 points
Proposed project easement shares at least one boundary with another mitigation property (DMS
projector approved Mitigation Bank site) with a permanent easement. 10 points
Section 4.07 Design Module [Maximum Points =15]
4.1
To what extent does the proposal (and project design) address sediment supply and transport?
Proposal qualitatively describes sediment supply, storage and transport dynamics in a restoration
context. 1 point
Proposal qualitatively describes sediment supply and transport dynamics in a restoration context;
and proposal specifies, describes and justifies as appropriate for the project the methods that will
be used for quantitatively evaluating, simulating or analyzing sediment supply and transport
processes for existing and proposed conditions. Alternatively, Proposal qualitatively describes
sediment supply and transport dynamics in a restoration context and provides justification that no
quantitative methods will be necessary to support project design. 5 points
Proposal qualitatively describes sediment supply and transport dynamics in a restoration context;
and some assessment methods have been applied and background data are summarized in
proposal. Quantitative or analytical tools to be used for evaluating sediment supply and transport
for existing and proposed conditions are specified, described and justified as appropriate for the
project with the proposal. 15 points
y
Section 5.0 - Implementation and Risk Module [Maximum Points =28]
5.1
Does the project provide:
Between 20 - 30% of the REP request (mitigation quantities)? 5 points
Between 30 - 50% of the REP request? 10 points
Page 50f 6

ATTACHMENTA
ADDENDUM# 1 FOR RFP 16-006477
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 a detailed approach for how to address this. 6 points
ical constraints or barriers (i.e. utilities, culverts, property lines, easements, managed areas, etc.) that affect project design and
tiveness. [Percentages calculated based upon adding total linear footage of crossings, roadways, utilities, or reduced buffer; divided by
linear footage.)
>10% of the total project footage is segmented by crossings, roadways, or utility rights of way. 1
point
I5-10% of the total project footage is segmented by crossings, roadways, or utility rights of way. 3
points
5% of the total project footage is segmented by
crossings, roadways, or utility rights of way. 6
pints
Project is not affected by crossings, roadways, and/or utilities; or project with existing constraints
removes or relocates the constraints or barriers such that the design is not significantly affected
by the constraint(s). 12 points
Section 6.0 -Quality Control [Maximum Points =15]
6.1
Experience of Project Team (people actually completing work)
Project team contains at least two individuals with specialties specific to project evaluation,
acquisition, design, construction, and monitoring. 2 points
All of the above and at least two projects brought to successful regulatory closure with the
Interagency Review Team (IRT). 10 points
6.2
Quality Control Program
Proposal describes checks and balances that review engineering and design methods and
results, document preparation, and project implementation to be used in the proposed project. 2
points
Proposal includes a detailed QA/QC plan, including specific reviews of engineering and design
methods, sampling to validate results, document preparation and editing, and project
implementation to be used in the proposed project. 5 points
6.3 Vendor's History of Compliance with Required Federal. State and
has been notified of one permit violation within the past year. -Minus 15
has been notified of two or more permit violations within the past year. -Minus 30 points
TOTAL
Total Score (Maximum Possible = 163Points) _
Proposal Rating (Score x 0.01) _

e�
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Mitigation Services
Pat McCrory, Governor Michael Ellison, Director Donald R. van der Vaart, Secretary
July 17, 2015
THIS ADDENDUM MUST BE RETURNED WITH YOUR TECHNICAL PROPOSAL
RFP NO.
16-006477
RFP TITLE:
Full Delivery Projects To Provide Stream Mitigation Within
Cataloging Unit 03 202010 the Neuse River Basin
ADDENDUM NO.
02
USING
Division of Mitigation Services
AGENCY:
PURCHASER
KATHY DALE
OPENING
September 17, 2015 @ 2:00 P.M.
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-
1. CLARIFICATION TO QUESTIONS & ANSWERS
Question 1: In the Exhibits/Documents section there is a reference to Conservation Easement Template
dated 4-29-15. 1 don't see that one on the website? Please clarify.
SECTION 2
Answer: The link in the RFP is accurate. It is also on the website now.
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 16-006477
Addendum No.2 Page 1 of 2

SECTION 3
Execute Addendum:
BIDDER: Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
ADDRESS (CITY & STATE): 1430 S. Mint Street, Suite 104, Charlotte, NC 28203
AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE:— F" DATE:
NAME & TITLE (TYPED): Shawn D. Wilkerson, President
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 16-006477
RFP 16-006477
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 3409-G
RALEIGH NC 27699-1662
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 16-006477
Addendum No.2 Page 2 of 2

Q fA
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Mitigation Services
Pat McCrory Donald R. van der Vaart
Governor Secretary
September 2, 2015
THIS ADDENDUM MUST BE RETURNED WITH YOUR TECHNICAL PROPOSAL
RFP NO.
16-006477
RFP TITLE:
Full Delivery Projects To Provide Stream Mitigation Within
Cataloging Unit 0 0202010 the Neuse River Basin
ADDENDUM NO.
03
USING
Division of Mitigation Services
AGENCY:
PURCHASER
KATHY DALE
OPENING
October 28, 2015 @ 2:00 P.M. (New Opening Date)
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 2 - REVISIONS/ADDITIONS
1. NCDMS would like to request an additional 60,000 stream credits in the Neuse 01.
This makes the total stream credit request 120,000.
2. The opening date for this RFP has been extended to 2:00 p.m. on October 28, 2015.
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 16-006477
Addendum No.3 Page 1 of 2

SECTION 3
Execute Addendum:
BIDDER: Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
ADDRESS (CITY & STATE): 1430 S.)Mint Street Suite 104, Charlotte, NC 28203
AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE: DATE: 46 i15-
NAME & TITLE (TYPED): John Hutton, Vice President
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 16-006477
RFP 16-006477
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 3409-G
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 16-006477
Addendum No.3 Page 2 of 2

North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
Pat McCrory Donald R. van der Vaart
Governor Secretary
September 28, 2015
THIS ADDENDUM MUST BE RETURNED WITH YOUR TECHNICAL PROPOSAL
RFP NO.
16-006477
RFP TITLE:
Full Delivery Projects To Provide Stream Mitigation Within
Cataloging Unit 03 202010 the Neuse River Basin
ADDENDUM NO.
04
USING
Division of Mitigation Services
AGENCY:
PURCHASER
KATHY DALE
OPENING
October 28, 2015 @ 2:00 P.M.
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 additional information provided in this addendum notice.
SECTION 1 — IMPORTANT INFORMTION
The North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources has officially been changed to the
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality.
This Addendum is your notice that all parts of the RFP that refer to the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources or NC DENR will now be amended to refer to the North Carolina
Department of Environmental Quality or (NCDEQ).
All Proposals submitted in reference to this RFP should reflect this name change or they may be
subject to disqualification.
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.
X1 Bid has NOT been mailed and ANY CHANGES resulting from this addendum are included in our offer.
RFP 16-006477
Addendum No.4 Page 1 of 2

SECTION 3
Execute Addendum:
BIDDER: Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
ADDRESS (CITY & STATE): 1430 S. Mint Street, Suite 104, Charlotte, NC 28203
AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE: -W"' DATE: 5
hawn D. Wilkerson, President
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 DatelTime noted in the RFP. The USPS
does not deliver bids to the 217 W. Jones Street address. All bids are sent to the 1652 Mail Services
Center location which means your bid may not arrive on time.
DELIVERED BY US POSTAL SERVICE
DELIVERED BY ANY OTHER MEANS (UPS / FEDEX
(Mail at least 7 business days prior to Bid Closing
/ ETC.)
Date)
Suggestion: Request Signature Receipt)
SEALED BID
SEALED BID
RFP 16-006477
RFP 16-006477
NCDEQ DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
NCDEQ DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
ATTN: KATHY DALE
ATTN: KATHY DALE
1652 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
217 W. JONES STREET, SUITE 3409-G
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 16-006477
Addendum No.4 Page 2 of 2

North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
Pat McCrory Donald R. van der Vaart
Governor Secretary
October 19, 2015
THIS ADDENDUM MUST BE RETURNED WITH YOUR TECHNICAL PROPOSAL
RFP NO.
16-006477
RFP TITLE:
Full Delivery Projects To Provide Stream Mitigation Within
Cataloging Unit 03020201 of the Neuse River Basin
ADDENDUM NO.
05
USING
Division of Mitigation Services
AGENCY:
PURCHASER
KATHY DALE
OPENING
October 28, 2015 @ 2:00 P.M.
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 additional information provided in this addendum notice.
SECTION 1- Changes to Mitigation Plan Template
Included below is the link for the new mitigation plan template.
Providers may either use the old mit plan template (included in the RFP), or the new mit plan template
provided at the website listed below when responding to this RFP:
http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document library/qet file?p I id=60409&folderld=26509665&name=DLFE-118733 pdf
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 16-006477
Addendum No.5 Page 1 of 2

SECTION 3
Execute Addendum:
BIDDER: Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
ADDRESS (CITY & STATE): 1430 S
AUTHORIZED SIGNA
Suite 104, Charlotte, NC 28203
Vice President
E:
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. The USPS
does not deliver bids to the 217 W. Jones Street address. All bids are sent to the 1652 Mail Services
Center location which means your bid may not arrive on time.
DELIVERED BY US POSTAL SERVICE
DELIVERED BY ANY OTHER MEANS (UPS / FEDEX
(Mail at least 7 business days prior to Bid Closing
/ ETC.)
Date)
(Suggestion: Request Signature Receipt)
SEALED BID
SEALED BID
RFP 16-006477
RFP 16-006477
NCDEQ DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
NCDEQ DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
ATTN: KATHY DALE
ATTN: KATHY DALE
1652 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
217 W. JONES STREET, SUITE 3409-G
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 16-006477
Addendum No.5 Page 2 of 2

Environmental
Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
October 23, 2015
PAT MCCRORY
aovo,nor
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
SeCremry
THIS ADDENDUM DOES NOT HAVE TO BE RETURNED WITH YOUR TECHNICAL PROPOSAL
RFP NO.
16-006477
RFP TITLE:
Full Delivery Projects To Provide Stream Mitigation Within
Cataloging Unit 03020201of the Neuse River Basin
ADDENDUM NO.
06
USING
Division of Mitigation Services
AGENCY:
PURCHASER
KATHY DALE
OPENING
October 28, 2015 @ 2:00 P.M.
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 additional information provided in this addendum notice.
SECTION 1- Change to Language:
Page 17- Under 5.5 Current Ownership and Long Term Protection
Current Ownership and Long Term Protection - Identify the ownership of all parcels which will be affected by
the project. Include the landowners name and parcel number and the proposed method for providing long
term protection of the mitigation site. Based on the Federal Code of Regulations (Federal RegisterNol. 73,
No. 70/Thursday, April 10, 2008/ Rules and Regulations — Section 332.7 Management, the long term
protection may be provided through real estate instruments such as conservation easements held by entities
such as federal, tribal, state or local resource agencies, non-profit conservation organizations, or private land
managers; the transfer of title to such entities; or by restrictive covenants.
• In this section of the technical proposal it should be clearly stated that conveyance of a conservation
easement to the State is the method that will be used to provide long term protection of the mitigation site.
• A signed option agreement valid for a period of one (1) year from the closing date of this RFP must be
provided for each parcel. In addition, in accordance with the USACE requirements, the proposal must
include a signed and dated NCDMS Full Delivery Landowner Authorization Form for each parcel.
What Changed:
• A signed option agreement valid for a period of one (1) year from the closing date of this RFP or other
suitable documentation of real property interest must be provided for each parcel. In addition, in
accordance with the USACE requirements, the proposal must include a signed and dated NCDMS Full
Delivery Landowner Authorization Form for each parcel.
RFP 16-006477
Addendum No.6 Page 1 of 2

61*01116]01E'
PLEASE NOTE – THIS ADDENDUM DOES NOT HAVE TO 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.
SECTION 3
Execute Addendum:
BIDDER: Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
ADDRESS (CITY & STATE): -14V q.AAint Street Suite 104 Charlotte, NC 28203
V
L
AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE: DATE: /U)
NAME & TITLE (TYPED): John Hutton, Vice President
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 16-006477
RFP 16-006477
NC DEPT ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
NC DEPT ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
ATTN: KATHY DALE
ATTN: KATHY DALE
1652 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
217 W. JONES STREET, SUITE 3409-G
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,
SIGNIGNED AND RETURNED IF REQUIRED.
RFP 16-006477
Addendum No.6 Page 2 of 2

PART 1 - Executive Summary
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands) is proposing two options to provide Stream Mitigation Units
(SMUs) for the service area for the Neuse River Basin Cataloging Unit 03020201 at the Martin Dairy
Mitigation Site (Site) in Orange County, NC. Option 1 provides 2,692 SMUs and an 11.3 -acre
conservation easement and Option 2 provides 2,134 SMUs and a 9.5 -acre conservation easement.
Wildlands has recorded an option to acquire a conservation easement on the Site. The project will
involve restoration of up to three unnamed tributaries to Buckwater Creek, hereafter referred to as
Martin Dairy Creek, UTI, and UT2.
As detailed in Part 5 of the Technical Proposal, the
proposed project will not only result in the creation of
mitigation units, but will also provide significant
ecological improvement through the reforestation of
riparian buffers and the hydrologic reconnection of
Martin Dairy Creek to adjacent riparian wetlands. The
project will also enhance floodplain storage and
provide settlement zones for entrained sediment. The
project will restore aquatic and terrestrial (riparian)
habitat, and ensure the already started exclusion of
cattle from the stream and buffer.
The following is a summary of the enclosed proposal contents in the context of the Technical Proposal
Evaluation Criteria presented in the RFP. The location of the supporting material within the Technical
Proposal is also provided below. Unless otherwise noted, the score applies to both Options 1 and Option
2. Our overall self -score for Option 1 is 83 and for Option 2 is 94.
EVALUATION CRITERIA
1. For stream mitigation projects, does the Technical Proposal adequately document the historical
presence of stream(s) on the project site, and provide the drainage areas (acres) and provide
accurate, process -based descriptions of all project stream reaches and tributaries?
Yes. The historical presence of streams on the project site is documented by the inclusion of
historic aerial imagery in the Appendix that shows these features. The drainage area for each
stream reach is shown in Figure 5, Watershed Map and provided in Table 5.2. Stream reach and
tributary descriptions are provided in Part 5, Section 5.2.2.
SCORE: Yes
2. Does the proposal adequately document the physical, chemical and/or biological impairments
that currently exist on the project site?
Yes. Please refer to Section 5.2.2.
SCORF- Yes
3. Does DMS agree with the overall mitigation approach (proposed levels of intervention)
presented?
Yes. Refer to Sections 5.3 and 5.4 and Figures. Wildlands has proposed restoration on site due to
the level of incision and scour, the lack of a meander pattern, and a lack of bedform diversity.
SCORE: Yes
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site - PART 1
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 1.1

4. Does DMS agree with the proposed credit structure(s) described in the proposal?
Yes. Please refer to Section 5.4 and Figures in the Appendix.
SCORE: Yes
5. Does the proposed project avoid significant adverse impacts to existing wetlands and/or streams?
Yes. Existing wetlands will be avoided. Wetlands will be delineated prior to design in order to lay
out the stream pattern in a way that avoids existing wetlands. Streams will be hydrologically
reconnected to on-site wetlands, and there is potential for the existing wetlands to expand their
footprint. No wetland credit is being sought for this work. Refer to Section 5.3.
SCORE: Yes
6. Does the proposal adequately describe how the project will advance DMS watershed planning
goals?
Yes. Part 5 introduction and Section 5.1 and Table 5.1 discuss how the project fits within the goals
for the Falls Lake Watershed Plan, the Neuse River Basinwide Water Quality Plan and the Neuse
River Basin Restoration Priorities.
SCORE: Yes
7. For any proposed Priority II restoration, are all the following elements included in the proposal OR
is Priority II stream restoration limited to "tie-ins" (designed tributary confluences)?
Priority II sections will be used primarily as tie-ins but may be used at upstream limits as transition
reaches. These elements are discussed in the first paragraph of Section 5.3.1.
SCORE: Yes
Section 1: Watershed Module
1.1 For proposed projects located outside of an LWP or RWP area, but within a TLW identified in
Table 1 of Attachment A as required, to what extent does the project support the CU -wide
watershed improvement objectives?
The proposed project addresses three of the CU -Wide functional improvement objectives:
1) The proposed project will reduce and control sediment inputs; and
2) Reduce and manage nutrient inputs.
3) The project is within a Water Supply Watershed, providing protection and improvement to a
Water Supply Waterbody.
C.MPF• Q
1.2 BONUS: Is the proposed project located within a LWP area?
N/A. The proposed project is not within a LWP area
1.3 BONUS: Does the proposed project meet priority goals of the LWP areas?
N/A. The proposed project is not within a LWP area.
1.4 BONUS: Is the proposed project located within the RWP area?
N/A. The proposed project is not within a RWP area.
SCORE: N/A
SCORE: N/A
SCORE: N/A
k-611 Martin Dairy Mitigation Site - PART 1
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 1.2

1.5 BONUS: Is the proposed project located within a subwatershed that has been prioritized for
Stream Corridor Condition or Important Aquatic Habitat in the RWP?
N/A. The proposed project is not within a RWP area.
1.6 BONUS: Does the proposed project meet priority goals of the RWP?
N/A. The proposed project is not within a RWP area.
SCORE: N/A
SCORE: N/A
Section 2: Existing Conditions Module
2.1 What is the proportion of significant, obvious incision (BHR > -1.5) for reaches identified for
some level of channel modification?
Incision is shown on Figure 3 and discussed in Section 5.2.2. In Option 1, 71% of stream length is
obviously incised. In Option 2, 79% of stream length is obviously incised.
,;rORF- 10
2.2 What is the proportion of active bank erosion for the existing condition of reaches proposed for
channel modification?
Active bank erosion and scour is shown on Figure 3 and discussed in Section 5.2.2. In Option 1,
32% of existing stream length proposed for modification has active bank erosion. In Option 2,
35% of existing stream length proposed for modification has active bank erosion.
SCORE: 10
2.3 For reaches proposed for restoration/enhancement, what is the percent of project length
actively subject to onsite water quality or habitat stressors that the design proposes to address?
The entire length of reaches proposed for enhancement are adjacent to maintained vegetation.
Refer to Section 5.2
SCORE: 8
2.4 What level of (negative) impact on water quality does the current land use within and
immediately adjacent to the proposed easement have on the project?
High to Very High. There are degraded buffers and maintained vegetation up to the stream bank
edge. This has limited the ability to create stable streambanks with an established root system.
Please refer to Section 5.2
SCORF- 12
2.5 BONUS: Comparing nutrient concentrations of influent to effluent demonstrates the nutrient
removal function of a project site.
Nutrient reductions were estimated for this project using a simplified version of the Tar -Pamlico
Nutrient Calculation Sheet. The worksheet estimated that the total nitrogen (TN) would be
reduced by 54% and the total phosphorus would be reduced by 77%. A copy of the spreadsheet
results can be found in the appendix and the spreadsheet model is outlined in Part 5, Section
5.3.3.
SCORE: 6
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site - PART 1
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 1.3

Section 3: Habitat and Conservation Connectivity Module
3.1 BONUS: Proposed project boundaries are directly contiguous to (has a common boundary with)
another protected property.
This site is not directly contiguous with another protected property.
SCORE 0
Section 4: Design Module
4.1 To what extent does the proposal (and project design) address sediment supply and transport?
Sediment supply and transport is discussed in Section 5.3.2.
SCORE: 15
Section 5: Implementation and Risk Module
5.1 The proposed project provides:
The proposed project provides up to 2,782 SMUs, which is approximately 2% of the RFP
mitigation requests.
SCORE: 0
5.2 Does proposal address Federal Emergency Management Act (FEMA) regulated zones?
Yes. Refer to Section 5.2.8
SCORE- 6
5.3 Physical constraints or barriers (i.e. utilities, property lines, easements, managed areas, etc.)
that affect project design and effectiveness.
Option 1 is affected by one crossing, representing 13% of the total stream length. Option 2 is not
disrupted by any crossings.
SCORE: Option 1 = 1
SCORE: Option 2 = 12
Section 6: Quality Control
6.1 Experience of Project Team (people actually completing work).
The Wildlands Team proposed for the Martin Dairy Mitigation Site consists of 13 professionals
with specialties specific to project evaluation, acquisition, design, construction, and monitoring.
Each of these 13 professionals, has relevant technical background and experience in mitigation.
SCORE- 2
6.2 Quality Control Program
Wildlands' Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) program is outlined in Part 6 of the
proposal. Wildlands QA/QC Plan for each project includes checks and balances that cross
examines engineering and design methods, document preparation and delivery, and project
implementation.
SCORE: 5
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site - PART 1
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 1.4

6.3 Vendor's History of Compliance with Required Federal, State and Local Permits
Wildlands has never had a permit violation. The proposal provides a multidisciplinary approach
to the project design that includes engineering, biological, hydrological, soils, and regulatory
review considerations. Please see Part 5 of the proposal. SCORE: 0
TOTAL SCORE:
Option 1 = 83
Option 2 = 94
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. is a leader in mitigation banking and ecosystem restoration. As a fully
licensed engineering firm, Wildlands will serve as the contracting entity and lead designer on a team
consisting of Wildlands and Turner Land Surveying, PLLC (Turner) as professional surveyor. The
Wildlands Team has worked together on numerous projects over multiple years and is positioned to
create a timely and quality mitigation project.
In summary, the restoration plan for the site will include the following:
• Generation of stream mitigation units;
• Protection for stream channels from further channel manipulation and vegetation management
for agricultural purposes;
• Reduction of sediment and nutrient loadings by filtering overland runoff through planted riparian
buffers and allowing flood flows access to riparian wetlands;
• Enhancement of habitat functions through channel restoration and enhancement and riparian
wetland restoration and rehabilitation;
• Restoration of channel -floodplain connectivity, and reconnection to riparian wetlands;
• Improvements to water quality in Buckwater Creek of the Neuse River Basin; and
• Conservation of up to 12 acres of restored land in perpetuity.
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site - PART 1
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 1.5
SAP,
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site - PART 1
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 1.5

PART 3 -Corporate Background and Experience
3.1 Corporate Background
The Wildlands Team is a multidisciplinary group of professionals that brings together the expertise
necessary to create outstanding ecological restoration projects in a timely and cost effective manner.
Wildlands, the primary offeror, is located in Charlotte, NC. Wildlands has offices in Charlotte, NC;
Raleigh, NC; Asheville, NC; Charleston, SC; and Fairfax, VA. Our 36 employees dedicated to
environmental restoration have positioned Wildlands as a leader in ecosystem restoration in the
southeastern United States.
Wildlands has teamed with Turner Land Surveying (Turner) for survey and easement services for the
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site. Turner is a full service professional land surveying firm located in Raleigh,
NC. Turner has provided topographic mapping, boundary, and construction surveying services in support
of 63 stream and wetland restoration projects throughout North Carolina. Of these, 49 have been for
DMS. Turner has worked on a variety of projects with Wildlands staff and their experience includes
geomorphic assessment surveys, conservation easement platting & monumentation, establishing site
control (conventional & GPS), creation of 3D -models for restoration projects built using GPS machine
control equipment, and as -built surveys. Early coordination and frequent communication ensures that
everyone understands their role in the project and can complete tasks in a timely and efficient manner.
Wildlands will use one of the following five contractors specializing in
stream work:
• Backwater Environmental, based in Pittsboro, NC
• Fluvial Solutions, Inc., based in Garner, NC
• Land Mechanic Designs, Inc., based in Willow Spring, NC
• North State Environmental, Inc., based in Winston Salem, NC
• River Works, Inc., based in Cary, NC
3.2 Ability to Complete all Phases of the Proposal
Wildlands' success is owed to the skills and abilities of its diverse and talented staff. Wildlands' staff
expertise includes planning, ecology, biology, economics, civil engineering, real estate, AutoCAD,
Geographic Information System (GIS), land management, environmental consulting, and habitat
construction. Our collection of professionals allows for a seamless approach to planning, permitting,
design, construction, and management of restoration projects. We fully understand the permitting
process at the federal, state, and local level. Wildlands has not been found to be out -of -compliance with
any required project permits. Wildlands has five NC Certified Floodplain Managers (CFMs) on staff to
address local, state, and FEMA floodplain permitting requirements. We have extensive experience with
categorical exclusions, 401/404 permitting, and sediment and erosion control plans.
3.3 Similar Projects
Wildlands has completed numerous projects involving stream restoration, wetland restoration, and
mitigation banking. Several of these projects are summarized below.
Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site, Johnston County, NC- Wildlands is
currently performing ecological restoration work at a site in Johnston
County, east of the Town of Four Oaks. The full -delivery project will
provide 18,527 SMUs and 67 Riparian WMUs on several unnamed
tributaries to the Neuse River for DMS. The project includes categorical
exclusion documentation, existing conditions assessment, landowner
OW Martin Dairy Mitigation Site - PART 3
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 3.1

coordination, conservation easement acquisition, stream and wetland
restoration design, permitting, construction, and seven years of post -
construction monitoring. Wildlands has completed the categorical
exclusion documentation, design, permitting, and easement acquisition
for this site. Construction of the project was completed in early 2014
and the project is currently in the second year of post -construction
monitoring.
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site, Person County, NC - Wildlands is currently
performing ecological restoration work at a site in Person County, south
of the Town of Hurdle Mills. The full -delivery project will provide 5,387
SMUs on Byrds Creek and five of its tributaries in the Falls Lake portion
of the Neuse River Basin for DMS. The project includes categorical
exclusion documentation, existing conditions assessment, landowner
coordination, conservation easement acquisition, stream restoration
design, permitting, construction, and five years of post -construction
monitoring. Wildlands has completed the categorical exclusion
documentation, permits, easement acquisition, and design for the site.
This project is currently in the second year of post -construction
monitoring.
Hopewell Stream Mitigation Site, Randolph County, NC- Wildlands is
developing a full -delivery project in Randolph County on unnamed
tributaries to Little River. The project will provide 7,463 SMUs for DMS
in the Yadkin River Basin. Stream restoration, enhancement, and
preservation will occur on 12,519 LF of perennial and intermittent
streams that are currently accessed by over 250 head of cattle. The
project includes existing site assessment, conservation easement
acquisition, permitting, stream restoration design, construction, and
seven years of post -construction monitoring of geomorphic stability and
vegetation. Construction was completed in November 2014 and the first
year of post -construction monitoring is underway.
Agony Acres Stream and Buffer Mitigation Site, Guilford County, NC-
Wildlands is currently performing ecological restoration work for DMS
at a full -delivery site in Guilford County, north of the Town of
Gibsonville. The project will provide 6,488 SMUs and 3.0 BMUs on four
unnamed tributaries to Reedy Fork in the Cape Fear River Basin. The
project includes categorical exclusion documentation, existing
conditions assessment, landowner coordination, conservation easement
acquisition, stream restoration design, permitting, construction, and
seven years of post -construction monitoring. Construction was
completed in summer 2014 and the first year of post -construction
monitoring is underway.
Bear Creek (Phillips Site) Stream Restoration, Chatham County, NC -
Wildlands finalized design and construction documents for a stream
restoration site near Siler City for DMS. The project includes restoration
work on 4,075 LF of Bear Creek and one unnamed tributary in the Cape
Fear River basin. The project includes design, permitting, bid assistance,
and construction administration. Bear Creek is located in a mapped
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site - PART 3
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 3.2

floodplain; Wildlands obtained the published hydraulic modeling from
the NC Division of Emergency Management and performed detailed
hydraulic modeling of the proposed restoration design to satisfy FEMA
requirements for a no -rise condition. Construction was completed in
August 2013 in accordance with State Construction Office (SCO)
procedures.
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site, Union County, NC-Wildlands is
developing a full -delivery project in rural Union County on Norkett
Branch and four tributaries. The project will provide 10,098 SMUs for
DMS in the Yadkin River Basin. The project includes existing site
assessment, conservation easement acquisition, permitting, stream
restoration design, construction, and seven years of post -construction
monitoring of geomorphic stability and vegetation. Detailed hydraulic
modeling was completed for CLOMR and LOMR approvals. Two storm
water Best Management Practices (BMPs) were constructed to treat
headwater agricultural runoff and will provide SMU credits. This project
is currently in the second year of post -construction monitoring.
Owl's Den Mitigation Site, Lincoln County, NC- Wildlands is developing
a full -delivery project in Lincoln County on two unnamed tributaries to
Howards Creek. The project will provide 2,400 SMUs on two tributaries
to Howards Creek in the Catawba River basin and 8.0 WMUs via wetland
enhancement, restoration, and rehabilitation. The project includes
categorical exclusion documentation, existing conditions assessment,
landowner coordination, conservation easement acquisition, stream
and wetland restoration design, permitting, construction, and seven
years of post -construction monitoring. Detailed hydrologic modeling
was completed to study wetland -groundwater connections.
Construction of this project was completed in the summer of 2015.
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site, Rockingham County, NC -
Wildlands is currently performing ecological restoration work at a site in
Reidsville, NC. The full -delivery project will provide 4,900 SMUs and 12.7
WMUs on Little Troublesome Creek, Irvin Creek, and one of its unnamed
tributaries in the Cape Fear River basin for DMS. The project includes
categorical exclusion documentation, existing conditions assessment,
landowner coordination, conservation easement acquisition, stream
and wetland restoration design, permitting, construction, and five years
of post -construction monitoring. Wildlands also performed detailed
hydraulic modeling of the proposed restoration design for CLOMR and
Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) submittals to satisfy FEMA
requirements. Fourth year monitoring of the project is currently
underway.
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site - PART 3
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Page 3.3

Scaly Bark Creek Restoration Site, Stanly County, NC - Wildlands is
currently performing ecological restoration work at a site near
Albemarle, NC. The full-delivery project will provide 6,415 SMUs on
Scaly Bark Creek and six unnamed tributaries in the Yadkin River basin
for DMS. The project includes categorical exclusion documentation,
existing conditions assessment, landowner coordination, conservation
easement acquisition, restoration design, permitting, construction, and
five years of post-construction monitoring. Wildlands successfully
completed CLOMR and LOMR packages for this project. This project is
currently in the fifth year of post-construction monitoring.
Underwood Mitigation Site, Chatham County, NC- Wildlands is
currently performing ecological restoration work at a site northeast of
Siler City, NC. The full-delivery project will provide 6,192 SMUs, 10.1
WMUs, and 1.9 Non-Riparian WMUs on South Fork Cane Creek and its
seven unnamed tributaries in the Cape Fear River basin for DMS. The
project includes categorical exclusion documentation, existing
conditions assessment, landowner coordination, conservation easement
acquisition, stream and wetland restoration design, permitting,
construction, and seven years of post-construction monitoring. Because
South Fork Cane Creek is located in a mapped floodplain, Wildlands
performed detailed hydraulic modeling of the proposed restoration
design to satisfy FEMA requirements. Wildlands has completed the
categorical exclusion documentation, easement acquisition, restoration
design, and construction. This project is currently in the third year of
monitoring.
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project, Union County, NC - Wildlands
completed ecological restoration work at a site in Union County,
southeast of the City of Charlotte. The project will provide 5,672 SMUs
and 11.5 WMUs on Crooked Creek and three unnamed tributaries in the
Yadkin River Basin. The project includes categorical exclusion
documentation, existing conditions assessment, Environmental
Resources Technical Report (ERTR), stream and wetland restoration
design, and construction oversight in accordance with State
Construction Office (SCO) requirements. Wildlands has completed the
categorical exclusion documentation, ERTR, design, and permitting for
the site. Construction was completed in 2015.
Little Pine Creek III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project, Alleghany
County, NC- Wildlands is currently performing ecological restoration
work located in the DMS Little River & Brush Creek Local Watershed
planning area. The design-bid-build project will provide approximately
7,017 SMUs and 1.4 WMUs on three unnamed tributaries to Little Pine
Creek. Site challenges include a wide variety of onsite stream types and
valley transitions, from Rosgen A- and B-type streams in the headwaters
of the project to Rosgen C- and E-type streams. The project involves a
variety of approaches including full restoration of stream dimension,
pattern, and profile; stream enhancement; stream preservation;
wetland enhancement; and wetland preservation. This project is
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site - PART 3
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 3.4

currently in the construction phase and Wildlands is providing
construction administration services in accordance with SCO
requirements.
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site, Catawba County, NC- Wildlands is currently
performing ecological restoration work at a site northwest of Lake
Norman in Catawba County, NC. The project will provide 5,779 SMUs
and 7.0 WMUs on unnamed tributaries to Lyle Creek in the Catawba
River basin. The project includes categorical exclusion documentation,
existing conditions assessment, landowner coordination, conservation
easement acquisition, stream and wetland restoration design,
permitting, construction, and seven years of post -construction
monitoring. Construction was completed in 2012 and fourth year
monitoring of the project is currently underway.
Malbone Wetland Mitigation, City of Virginia Beach, VA - This
Wildlands-designed wetland mitigation project was constructed by
North State Environmental during the summer of 2010 for the Virginia
Department of Transportation in Virginia Beach, Virginia. The site was
selected for enhancement and creation of three wetland types
(emergent, scrub -shrub, and forested) to mitigate for wetland impacts
resulting from the proposed widening of Princess Anne Road and the
construction of Nimmo Parkway. Approximately 24 acres of wetlands
were created or enhanced as a result of the project. This includes 16
acres of palustrine forested wetland creation, three acres of palustrine
emergent wetland creation, 0.1 acres of scrub -shrub wetland creation
and five acres of palustrine emergent wetlands enhancement. Key
elements of the project included soil classification and analysis,
groundwater monitoring well installation and monitoring, wetland
hydrologic modeling, grading design, permitting, construction document
development, construction oversight, as -built plan development,
baseline monitoring, and 10 years of post -construction monitoring.
West Fork Linville River Restoration, Avery County, NC- Wildlands
completed design and permitting for the restoration and enhancement
of a high elevation riparian system. Construction was completed in 2009
on approximately 5,200 LF of native trout channels in the Upper Linville
River Watershed. Several sections of the stream design focused on total
restoration of degraded stream corridors while other stream reaches
have been enhanced for trout habitat. The project design also included
elements of off -channel habitat enhancement and pond rehabilitation.
401/404 permits, conservation easements, and floodplain permits were
obtained for this project.
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site - PART 3
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Page 3.5

Lone Oak Mitigation Bank, Albemarle County, VA - Wildlands completed
the construction phase of the Lone Oak Stream Mitigation Bank near
Charlottesville, VA, in early 2011. The bank resulted in the restoration
and enhancement of approximately 38,000 LF of Ballinger Creek and
several tributary streams. Restoration of the site and removal of the
existing cattle operation is expected to aid in the removal of Ballinger
Creek from the state 303(d) list. The project included development of a
Banking Instrument and plans for permit submittals, development of
final design plans and specifications, construction observation, as -built
survey and the baseline monitoring report.
3.4 Lead Consultant and Team Members
Wildlands is a licensed engineering firm in NC and will act as prime consultant for this contract. Staff
from our Charlotte, NC; Raleigh, NC; and Fairfax, VA offices will complete this project. Wildlands has
teamed with Turner to offer the best possible team to DMS. As indicated in Section 3.1, Wildlands will
select a specialty stream contractor from our provided list of qualified firms.
LEAD CONSULTANT
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. - Headquarters
Charlotte, NC Office Location
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104
WILDLANDS Charlotte, NC 28203
ENGIN £ERIN G
(P) 704.332.7754 (F) 704.332.3306
Firm Contact:
Shawn Wilkerson, President, [e-mail]
North Carolina S -Corporation
Federal Identification Number: 56-0651376
Raleigh, NC Office Location Fairfax, VA Office Location
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225 9940 Main Street, Suite 202
Raleigh, NC 27609 Fairfax, VA 22031
TEAM MEMBERS
Turner Land Surveying, PLLC (woman -owned business)
RNER P.O. Box 41023
PWu�
SURVEYNG
Raleigh, NC 27629
(P) 919.827.0745
Firm Contact
Lissa Turner, PLS, CFS, President; [e-mail]
Services to be provided: Professional Surveying Services
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site - PART 3
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Page 3.6

3.5 Project Manager Experience
Ms. Angela Allen currently serves as a water resources engineer for Wildlands Engineering's Raleigh, NC,
office. She has 11 years of professional experience in water resources and civil engineering, including
stream restoration design, hydrologic and hydraulic modeling and analysis, water quality modeling,
biogeochemical cycling, surveying, stormwater control measure (SCM) design, mitigation plans, and
feasibility studies. She has been involved in the design of more than 37,000 LF of stream restoration and
enhancement work for municipalities, DOTS, the military, universities, and mitigation bankers.
Additional information on Ms. Allen's experience is provided in Section 3.7.
3.6 Project Approach
The Wildlands Team takes a holistic, integrated approach to site restoration. The following text outlines
some key aspects of our multi -disciplinary project approach. Site-specific project plans are further
described in Part 5 of this proposal.
3.6.1 Site Selection
The Wildlands Team carefully selects project sites where ecological
restoration can be maximized. Our sites are reviewed by our
environmental scientists and engineers during the selection process
to ensure that ecological uplift can be achieved within regulatory
parameters related to floodplain management, protected species,
and existing wetland resources. We consult with the existing
landowners to explain the restoration process and the conservation
easement conditions. We review the site with our contractor to
identify potential construction challenges and opportunities.
3.6.2 Property Owner Coordination
Property owner coordination begins during the site selection stage and continues throughout the
project. We meet with families to understand the existing and future land use plans for the site. We
work to fully explain the restoration process and review site plans at the conceptual design stage and
final design stage with the property owners to make sure that their concerns are addressed. Our project
manager is the point of contact throughout the project so that the property owners always know who
can answer any questions that may arise.
3.6.3 Contractor Coordination
Wildlands draws on our contractor's construction expertise early in the project planning phase. We
consult with our contractor so that the project can be designed and constructed in an efficient and cost-
effective manner. We work to identify on-site materials that are native to the existing ecosystem and
that should be incorporated into the restoration project to best mimic natural systems for the site
locale. For example, cobble material embedded in excavated material on mountain stream sites can be
sorted and used for riffle construction. We also know that
coordination and flexibility during construction is the key to a
successful restoration site.
3.6.4 Site Assessment
Numerous methods of assessment are used to quantify and qualify
the site and upstream watershed's stability, nutrient loads,
sediment transport, hydrologic and hydraulic properties, plant and
animal habitat, ecology, soil conditions and functional uplift
potential. Our assessment is carried out by surveyors trained in
t�V Martin Dairy Mitigation Site - PART 3
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
0 064f
Page 3.7

natural channel assessment and by field scientists and engineers trained in stream and wetland
assessment and design who know what characteristics to look for that will aid in design. Wildlands looks
for predictors of future stability problems, such as upstream development and concentrated overland
flow paths.
3.6.5 Permitting
A project's schedule can be completely disrupted if the permitting for the project is not performed
correctly. The Wildlands Team understands the critical steps necessary for acquiring these permits in a
timely and efficient manner. Methods used to ensure a rapid permitting process include on-site
meetings with the various permitting agency representatives prior to design, as well as staying up-to-
date on the regulations associated with ecosystem restoration. These steps allow for the submittal of a
thorough and accurate permitting application for our projects.
3.6.6 Site Design
Once the existing conditions are documented and evaluated, the preferred alternative selected, and
base -mapping developed, a design discharge range is selected based on the project goals. Natural
channel design parameters will be developed based on reference reach data, hydraulic modeling, and
sediment transport assessment. Wildlands has five CFMs on staff who can evaluate design options to
optimize floodplain function and minimize off-site adverse flood elevation impacts. During the
preliminary design the plan view channel location is set, cross-sections for riffles and pools are designed,
and in -stream habitat and grade control structures are located. General grading limits, details, and
easement locations are included at this stage. Property owner input and contractor coordination help to
assure that the proposed design meets the multi -faceted design goals.
3.6.7 Construction
The Wildlands Team is familiar with the policies, procedures, and
practices necessary to construct natural channel design and wetland
restoration projects. Wildlands has provided construction
administration and observation services for over 28 miles of stream
work and 152 acres of wetland work.
3.6.8 Monitoring
Monitoring is an important component to any stream restoration or enhancement work. The Wildlands
Team has experience in both developing monitoring plans for restoration projects and in implementing
those plans. Our monitoring plan experience includes as -built surveys and determining whether the
project has met its success criteria after the required time period.
3.7 Key Personnel Resumes (Prime and Sub)
This section provides resumes for the Wildlands project manager and the managing staff for our survey
subcontractor on this project. An additional description of the Wildlands project manager's abilities is
provided in section 3.5. Resumes for remaining personnel on the team are provided in Part 4.
Angela Allen, PE — Wildlands Project Manager
Ms. Allen has over 11 years of experience in executing a wide variety of water resources planning and
engineering projects.
JOB CLASSIFICATION: Water Resources Engineer
RESPONSIBILITIES FOR THIS PROJECT: Project Manager; Design; Construction Oversight
PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATIONS: Professional Engineer (NC)
TOTAL YEARS EXPERIENCE: 11 years
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site - PART 3
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Page 3.8

EDUCATION:
MS, Biological and Agricultural Engineering, North Carolina State
Wayne County, NC
University, 2006
Maney Farms Stream Mitigation Site
BS, Biological Systems Engineering, Virginia Tech, 2004
ADDITIONAL TRAINING:
Rosgen Level I, 2006
Hopewell Stream Mitigation Site
NC DOT Erosion and Sediment Control Level II Certification, 2010
Randolph County, NC
Hydraulic Modeling for Stream Restoration and Sediment Transport,
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site - PART 3
2011
PROJECT EXPERIENCE AT WILDLANDS
PROJECT DETAILS PROJECT ROLE
Holman Mill Stream Mitigation Site
Alamance County, NC
3,656 SMUs Assistant Project Manager
Hoosier Dam Mitigation Bank
Chatham County, NC
18,500 SMUs Assistant Project Manager
Hopewell Stream Mitigation Site
Randolph County, NC
7,463 SMUs Project Engineer
Falling Creek Mitigation Bank
20,000 SMUs;
Wayne County, NC
47 WMUs Assistant Project Manager
Foust Creek Mitigation Site
4,708 SMUs; Project Engineer;
Alamance County, NC
3.3 WMUs Construction Oversight
David Turner, PLS — Surveyor Subconsultant
Mr. Turner has performed land surveying and project management for over 19 years. He has held
positions of increasing responsibility culminating with his licensure as a Professional Land Surveyor in
North Carolina in 2005. Since 2004, he has worked with numerous stream and wetland restoration
design engineers, which has allowed him to gain a depth of restoration knowledge and experience. Mr.
Turner's responsibilities include management of field operations, data management, safety training, and
maintaining field equipment. He has strong experience supporting civil engineering, environmental
design, land development, cadastral mapping, construction, and property conveyance projects through
land surveying. In addition to stream and wetland survey work, his years of surveying also include
multiple conservation easements, 3D machine control models, boundaries, ALTA/ACSM land title
surveys, recombination/ subdivisions, construction stakeouts, topographic surveys, as -built surveys,
wetland delineation surveys, and municipal surveys.
PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATION/TRAINING: Professional Land Surveyor NC L-4551
PROJECT EXPERIENCE AT TURNER PROJECT DETAILS
Falling Creek Mitigation Bank
20,000 SMUs;
Wayne County, NC
47 WMUs
Maney Farms Stream Mitigation Site
4,748 SMUs
Chatham County, NC
Hopewell Stream Mitigation Site
Randolph County, NC
7,463 SMUs
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site - PART 3
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
PROJECT ROLE
Project Surveyor
Project Surveyor
Project Surveyor
Page 3.9

PROJECT EXPERIENCE AT TURNER PROJECT DETAILS PROJECT ROLE
Foust Creek Mitigation Site 4,708 SMUs; Project Surveyor
Alamance County, NC 3.3 WMUs
Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site 18,527 SMUs;
Johnston County, NC 67.0 WMUs Project Surveyor
3.8 DBE/HUB participation
Our surveyor and two of our potential contractors are woman -owned businesses: Turner Land
Surveying, PLLC; Land Mechanic Designs, Inc.; and North State Environmental, Inc.
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site - PART 3
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 3.10

PART 4 - Project Organization
4.1 Organizational Chart
The following illustrates the organization of personnel that will be assigned to this project.
NORTH CAROLINA
DIVISION OF
MITIGATION SERVICES
Principal-in-ChargeProject Manager
John Hutton Ange a Allen, PE
CkA/QC Manager
Mike Fowler, PE
■ WILDLANDs Charlotte, NC Office
■ WILDLANDs Raleigh, NC Office
■ wILDLANDs Fairfax, VA Office
■ Engineering serviceswill be
TURNER LAND SURVEYINCs Raleigh, NC Office performed by employees of
licensed corporate entities
4.2 Qualifications and Experience
Brief resumes presenting the qualifications, experience, and assigned project responsibilities of each
project team member are presented on the following pages. Resumes for the Wildlands project
manager, Ms. Angela Allen, and for the project manager for Turner were presented in Part 3, Section
3.7. Section 10 (Location of Contract Performance) of the RFP is included in the Execution Page &
Addenda section of the proposal.
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site - PART 4
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 4.1

John Hutton
Mr. Hutton is Vice President and Senior Project Manager for Wildlands and has 15 years of experience in
the assessment and restoration of streams and wetlands. He serves as the senior technical advisor for
wetlands restoration within the firm. Mr. Hutton has managed numerous large-scale restoration
projects for a variety of public and private clients throughout the Southeast including over 20 miles of
restored stream and over 350 acres of restored wetlands. He has been responsible for all aspects of
stream and wetland restoration projects including site searches, feasibility studies, mitigation planning,
mitigation design, construction management, and post construction monitoring. Mr. Hutton has also
served as project manager on a number of watershed and water quality projects throughout the
Southeast.
JOB CLASSIFICATION: Vice President/Senior Project Manager
RESPONSIBILITIES FOR THIS PROJECT: Principal -in -Charge
PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATIONS: none
TOTAL YEARS OF EXPERIENCE: 15 years
EDUCATION:
MS, 2000, Biological Sciences, Old Dominion University
BSA, 1996, Botany, University of Georgia
ADDITIONAL TRAINING:
RiverMorph Application Training, 2005
Rosgen Levels I through IV, 2001- 2004
Wetland Identification and Delineation Course, 2000
Wetland Construction and Restoration, 2001
PROJECT EXPERIENCE AT WILDLANDS
PROJECT DETAILS
PROJECT ROLE
Agony Acres Stream and Buffer Mitigation Site 6,488 SMUs;
Guilford County, NC
3.0 BMUs
Project Manager
Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site
18,527 SMUs;
Johnston County, NC
67.0 WMUs
Project Manager
Hoosier Dam Mitigation Bank
Chatham County, NC
18,500 SMUs
Project Manager
Underwood Mitigation Site
6,192 SMUs;
Principal in Charge
Chatham County, NC
12.0 WMUs
Malbone Wetland Mitigation
24 acres of wetland
Project Manager
City of Virginia Beach, VA
Cannon Creek Mitigation Site
Berkeley County, SC
16,000 SMUs
Project Manager
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site - PART 4
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 4.2

Mike Fowler, PE
Mr. Fowler has 23 years of experience in watershed planning, stormwater management, stream and
wetland restoration, and design of stormwater management systems. At Wildlands, he serves as a
senior project manager and technical advisor for watershed planning, stormwater management, and
ecological restoration projects.
JOB CLASSIFICATION: Senior Project Manager
RESPONSIBILITIES FOR THIS PROJECT: QA/QC Manager
PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATIONS: Professional Engineer
TOTAL YEARS OF EXPERIENCE: 23 years
EDUCATION:
MS, 1991, Environmental Engineering Sciences, University of
Florida
BSA, 1987, Civil Engineering, Virginia Tech
ADDITIONAL TRAINING:
N.C. State University Stream Restoration Program:
RC 101— Stream Morphology Assessment
RC 201— Natural Channel Design Principles
RC 302 — HEC -RAS for Stream Design
RC 401— Construction Practices for Stream Restoration
Rosgen Levels I through III, 2000 - 2006
Fluvial Geomorphology for Engineers, 2005
PROJECT EXPERIENCE AT WILDLANDS
PROJECT DETAILS PROJECT ROLE
Agony Acres Stream and Buffer Mitigation Site
6,488 SMUs;
QA/QC
Guilford County, NC
3.0 BMUs
Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site
18,527 SMUs; QA/QC
Johnston County, NC
67.0 WMUs
Neuse 01 Regional Watershed Plan (Phase 1)
Wake and Johnston Counties, NC
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Person County, NC
Hoosier Dam Mitigation Bank
Chatham County, NC
580 square mile area QA/QC
5,387 SMUs QA/QC
18,500 SMUs
Senior Technical
Review
k4l, Martin Dairy Mitigation Site - PART 4
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 4.3

Andrea Eckardt
Ms. Eckardt has 17 years of experience in watershed management, environmental planning, permitting
and geographic information systems (GIS). She currently serves as the Senior Environmental Planner for
Wildlands. She specializes in environmental permitting, watershed management, project development
and implementation, citizen/agency facilitation, grant writing, conservation easement coordination and
GIS mapping. Ms. Eckardt has experience with municipal and state improvement projects, school and
university improvement projects, non-profit improvement projects and private development projects.
Ms. Eckardt has facilitated State Property Office coordination of easements for 484.23 acres of
conservation easements in NC.
JOB CLASSIFICATION:
Senior Environmental Planner
RESPONSIBILITIES FOR THIS PROJECT:
Categorical Exclusions; Conservation Easement Acquisition
Lead; GIS Coordinator
PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATIONS:
none
TOTAL YEARS OF EXPERIENCE:
17 years
EDUCATION:
MS, Environmental Science, Applied Ecology, Indiana
University, 1996
BS, Biology, Wake Forest University, 1994
ADDITIONAL TRAINING:
Consultant Regulatory Workshop, 2007
Financial Benefits of Conservation Easements: Conservation
Programs and Tax Incentives for NC Landowners, 2006
Project Manager Boot Camp, 2005, 2014
Natural Resource Leadership Institute, 2001
PROJECT EXPERIENCE AT WILDLANDS
PROJECT DETAILS PROJECT ROLE
Categorical Exclusion,
Various Full -Delivery Projects
15 full -delivery
Multiple Counties in NC
projects Conservation Easement
Acquisition
Box Creek Wilderness Area Stream Mitigation
Bank - Rutherford County, NC
158,400 LF (30 miles) Project Manager
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site 4,900 SMUs; Project Manager(existing
condition &
Rockingham County, NC
12.7 WMUs
design phase)
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
5,672 SMUs; Project Manager
Union County, NC
11.5 WMUs (conceptual phase)
Burnetts Chapel Buffer Mitigation Site
Guilford County, NC
9.2 BMUs Project Manager
West Fork Linville River Stream Restoration
5,200 LF Permitting
Avery County, NC
Lone Oak Mitigation Bank
Permitting; Banking
Albemarle County, VA
38,000 LF
Instrument
t4 Martin Dairy Mitigation Site - PART 4
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 4.4

Robert Bugg, ALC
Mr. Bugg is a seasoned real estate broker and land acquisition professional with a 12 -year history as a
Realtor® focusing primarily on land acquisition and entitlement for development and mitigation. In his
career he has purchased, sold, or brokered over $50M in real estate. He is one of only 36 brokers in the
state of North Carolina to hold the esteemed Accredited Land Consultant (ALC) designation which
required over 90 hours of class time and over $10M in land sales.
Mr. Bugg has been responsible for identification, land owner negotiation, and closure of conservation
easements and land use agreements on over 1,000 acres representing 94,000 feet of stream mitigation,
25 acres of buffer mitigation, 92 acres of wetlands mitigation, and over $37M in full delivery awards. In
addition to helping identify and close easements for Wildlands, Mr. Bugg is also responsible for our
mitigation credit sales to local developers from our existing mitigation banks.
JOB CLASSIFICATION: Director of Land Acquisition
RESPONSIBILITIES FOR THIS PROJECT: Conservation Easement Acquisitions
PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATIONS: NC & SC Realtor° Broker, Accredited Land Consultant, Unlimited
NC General Contractor's License
TOTAL YEARS OF EXPERIENCE: 12 years
EDUCATION: BA, The University of the South, Sewanee, TN, 1990
PROJECT EXPERIENCE AT WILDLANDS
PROJECT DETAILS
PROJECT ROLE
Reedy Creek Stream Restoration Project
Conservation Easement
Charlotte, NC
28,000 SMUs
Acquisition
Agony Acres Stream and Buffer Mitigation Site
6,488 SMUs;
Conservation Easement
Guilford County, NC
3.0 BMUs
Acquisition; Realtor
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
Conservation Easement
Union County, NC
10,098 SMUs
Acquisition; Realtor
Owl's Den Mitigation Site
2,400 SMUs;
Conservation Easement
Lincoln County, NC
8.0 WMUs
Acquisition; Realtor
Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site
18,527 SMUs;
Conservation Easement
Johnston County, NC
67.0 WMUs
Acquisition; Realtor
Burnetts Chapel Buffer Mitigation Site
Conservation Easement
Guilford County, NC
9.2 BMUs
Acquisition
Cannon Creek Mitigation Site
Conservation Easement
Berkeley County, SC
16,000 SMUs
Acquisition
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site - PART 4
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 4.5

Ian Eckardt
Mr. Eckardt has 11 years of experience in stream geomorphic assessments, stream classification,
wetland delineation, protected species surveys, sediment sampling and analysis, water quality
monitoring, groundwater monitoring, surveying, and vegetation assessment. He currently serves as
Environmental Scientist for Wildlands Engineering and is responsible for regulatory permitting, agency
correspondence, wetland delineations, geomorphic surveys and assessments, protected species surveys,
and post -construction monitoring.
JOB CLASSIFICATION:
Environmental Scientist
RESPONSIBILITIES FOR THIS PROJECT:
Categorical Exclusions; Permitting
PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATIONS:
none
TOTAL YEARS OF EXPERIENCE:
11 years
EDUCATION:
MS, Earth Science, University of North Carolina at Charlotte,
2007
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
BA, Geology, North Carolina State University, 2001
ADDITIONAL TRAINING:
Basic Processes in Hydric Soils, 2013
10,098 SMUs
Advanced Problems in Hydric Soil Evaluation, 2013
Rosgen Level I, 2013
Permitting; Monitoring
Surface Water Identification Training and Certification, 2013
2,400 SMUs;
NC WAM Certificate Training, 2010
Lincoln County, NC
Management of Invasives and Exotic Vegetation in Riparian
Categorical Exclusions;
Areas, 2009
North Carolina Rare Plant Identification Workshops, 2007 &
Scaly Bark Restoration Site
2011
Delineation of Piedmont and Coastal Plain Jurisdiction
6,415 SMUs
Wetlands, 2007
PROJECT EXPERIENCE AT WILDLANDS
PROJECT DETAILS
PROJECT ROLE
Agony Acres Stream and Buffer Mitigation Site
6,488 SMUs;
Existing Conditions;Categorical
Guilford County, NC
3.0 BMUs
Exclusions;
Permitting; Monitoring
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
Existing Conditions;
Union County, NC
10,098 SMUs
Categorical Exclusions;
Permitting; Monitoring
Owl's Den Mitigation Site
2,400 SMUs;
Existing Conditions;
Lincoln County, NC
8.0 WMUs
Categorical Exclusions;
Permitting; Monitoring
Scaly Bark Restoration Site
Stanly County, NC
6,415 SMUs
Monitoring
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
5,779 SMUs;
Catawba County, NC
7.0 WMUs
Monitoring
Burnetts Chapel Buffer Mitigation Site
Guilford County, NC
9.2 BMUs
Monitoring
t4 Martin Dairy Mitigation Site - PART 4
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 4.6

Greg Turner, EI
Mr. Turner serves as an environmental designer in the Wildlands Engineering Raleigh office. He has
more than four years of experience working on a variety of projects including stormwater SCM design,
hydrologic and hydraulic modeling, stream and wetland restoration design and monitoring, erosion and
sediment control, and wetland delineations. Mr. Turner also assists with the planning, design, and
monitoring of ecological engineering projects.
JOB CLASSIFICATION: Environmental Designer
RESPONSIBILITIES FOR THIS PROJECT: Design; Permitting
PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATIONS: Engineering Intern
TOTAL YEARS OF EXPERIENCE: 4 years
EDUCATION: BS, Biological Engineering with a Minor in Environmental
Science, North Carolina State University, May 2011
ADDITIONAL TRAINING: Project Manager Boot Camp, 2014
HEC -RAS for Stream Restoration Workshop, 2013
Wetland Delineation Workshop, 2013
PROJECT EXPERIENCE AT WILDLANDS PROJECT DETAILS PROJECT ROLE
Vile Creek Stream Mitigation Site
5,000 SMUs Design Assistance
Alleghany County, NC
Maney Farms Stream Mitigation Site
Chatham County, NC 4,748 SMUs
Holman Mill Stream Mitigation Site
Alamance County, NC 3,656 SMUs
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
Union County, NC
Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site
Johnston County, NC
10,098 SMUs
18,527 SMUs;
67.0 WMUs
Design Assistance
Design Assistance
Hydraulic Modeling; LOMR
Package
Post -construction Monitoring
k4l, Martin Dairy Mitigation Site - PART 4
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 4.7

Coy McKenzie
Mr. McKenzie has 10 years of experience with natural resource field investigations, stream geomorphic
assessments, design, permitting, and monitoring. He currently serves as an Environmental Scientist for
Wildlands' Raleigh office, and is responsible for existing conditions assessment, GIS mapping,
construction plan production, and post -construction monitoring.
JOB CLASSIFICATION:
Environmental Scientist
RESPONSIBILITIES FOR THIS PROJECT:
Existing Conditions Survey; Design
PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATIONS:
none
TOTAL YEARS OF EXPERIENCE:
10 year
EDUCATION:
BS, Natural Resources — Ecosystem Assessment, NC State
University, 2000
ADDITIONAL TRAINING:
River Course I - Stream Classification and Assessment, 2002
Aquatic Insect Collection Protocols for Stream Mitigation and
Restoration, 2001
Wetland Identification and Delineation Workshop, 2001
PROJECT EXPERIENCE AT WILDLANDS
PROJECT DETAILS PROJECT ROLE
Candy Creek Stream Mitigation Site
Guilford County, NC
15,456 SMUs Existing Conditions Survey
Holman Mill Stream Mitigation Site
3,656 SMUs Existing Conditions Survey
Alamance County, NC
Agony Acres Stream and Buffer Mitigation Site 6,488 SMUs; Existing Conditions Survey;
Guilford County, NC
3.0 BMUs CADD Assistance
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site 4,900 SMUs;
Rockingham County, NC 12.7 WMUs Monitoring
Burnetts Chapel Buffer Mitigation Site
Guilford County, NC
9.2 BMUs Monitoring
Underwood Mitigation Site
6,192 SMUs;
Chatham County, NC
Monitoring
12.0 WMUs
k4l, Martin Dairy Mitigation Site - PART 4
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 4.8

Kirsten Gimbert
Ms. Gimbert has over 11 years of professional experience in success monitoring for ecological
restoration projects. Ms. Gimbert's responsibilities include monitoring/assessments, design,
construction oversight, and project management for ecological restoration projects. She has been
involved with more than 23 monitoring projects for stream restoration and enhancement work in both
urban and rural settings across North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia.
JOB CLASSIFICATION:
Environmental Scientist
RESPONSIBILITIES FOR THIS PROJECT:
Monitoring Lead
PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATIONS:
none
TOTAL YEARS OF EXPERIENCE:
11 years
EDUCATION:
MS, Forestry and Natural Resources, Clemson University, 2004
BA, Earth Sciences, State University of New York at Fredonia,
2000
ADDITIONAL TRAINING:
Rosgen Level I- III, 2007-2014
River Course 131—Assessment and Identification of Riparian
Vegetation, 2012
Stream Restoration Construction Training, 2006 and 2009
AutoCAD for Stream Monitoring and Restoration, 2006
NC WAM Certificate Training, 2010
Developments in Sediment and Erosion Control for
Mountainous Regions, 2004
Taxonomy and Pollution Ecology of Aquatic Insects, 2004
OSHA 10 Hour Safety Training (Jacobs), 2010
First Aid/CPR Certified (Jacobs), 2010
PROJECT EXPERIENCE AT WILDLANDS
Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site
Johnston County, NC
Scaly Bark Restoration Site
Stanly County, NC
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Person County, NC
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Rockingham County, NC
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
Catawba County, NC
Malbone Wetland Mitigation Site
City of Virginia Beach, VA
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site - PART 4
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
PROJECT DETAILS PROJECT ROLE
18,527 SMUs; Existing Conditions
67.0 WMUs Survey; Monitoring
6,415 SMUs Monitoring
5,387 SMUs Existing Conditions
Survey; Monitoring
4,900 SMUs; Monitoring
12.7 WMUs
5,779 SMUs; Monitoring
7.0 WMUs
24 acres of wetland Monitoring
Page 4.9

Jason Lorch, LISP
Mr. Lorch has 13 years of professional experience in GIS analysis, Microstation/Geopak, CADD, and
stream and wetland mitigation design and analysis, and monitoring. His experience includes stream
determination, stream restoration design, stream monitoring, wetland monitoring, global positioning
systems (GPS) surveying, and calculating permit impacts. Mr. Lorch has worked on several stream and
wetland projects where he was responsible for creating plan sets, natural channel design, calculating
construction quantities, construction oversight, monitoring, permitting, checking the accuracy of survey
data, and surveying.
JOB CLASSIFICATION:
CADD/GIS Analyst
RESPONSIBILITIES FOR THIS PROJECT:
Existing Conditions Survey; Monitoring
PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATIONS:
GIS Professional
TOTAL YEARS OF EXPERIENCE:
13 years
EDUCATION:
BA, 2001, Geography- Environmental, University of Wisconsin
7,463 SMUs
Milwaukee
ADDITIONAL TRAINING:
NC Surface Water ID and Training Course, 2013
Assessment and Identification of Riparian Vegetation, 2012
6,488 SMUs;
Processes in Hydric Soils, 2005
Guilford County, NC
USACE/ NCDWQ Consultant Regulatory Workshop, 2006
Design Assistance
Advanced Stream Restoration Design, 2007
Stream Restoration Design Principles, 2006
NCSU Rosgen Stream Classification, 2006
Existing Conditions Survey
Advanced Problems in Hydric Soil Evaluation, 2005
Piedmont Endangered Species Identification, 2004
PROJECT EXPERIENCE AT WILDLANDS
PROJECT DETAILS
PROJECT ROLE
Maney Farms Stream Mitigation Site
4,748 SMUs
CADD Analyst
Chatham County, NC
Hopewell Stream Mitigation Site
7,463 SMUs
CADD Analyst
Randolph County, NC
Agony Acres Stream and Buffer Mitigation Site
6,488 SMUs;
Guilford County, NC
3.0 BMUs
Design Assistance
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
10,098 SMUs
Existing Conditions Survey
Union County, NC
Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site
18,527 SMUs;
Existing Conditions Survey;
Johnston County, NC
67.0 WMUs
CADD; Construction
Documents
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
4,900 SMUs;
Existing Conditions Survey;
Rockingham County, NC
12.7 WMUs
CADD; Construction
Documents
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site - PART 4
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 4.10

Daniel Taylor
Mr. Taylor has 14 years of experience in mitigation property acquisition, natural channel design,
watershed assessment, field data collection, and construction management services. He has performed
existing condition surveys, prepared designs and permitting materials, and provided construction
oversight on over 28 miles of natural channel design projects throughout the Southeast.
JOB CLASSIFICATION:
RESPONSIBILITIES FOR THIS PROJECT:
PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATIONS:
TOTAL YEARS OF EXPERIENCE:
EDUCATION:
Construction Supervisor
Construction Administration
none
14 years
BS, Biological and Agricultural Engineering, North Carolina State
University, 1999
ADDITIONAL TRAINING:
NCSU River Course 435: Management of Invasive and Exotic
Vegetation in Riparian Areas, 2013
Erosion & Sediment Control Planning and Design Workshop,
2007
Rogen Level I —Applied Fluvial Geomorphology, 2004
PROJECT EXPERIENCE AT WILDLANDS
PROJECT DETAILS PROJECT ROLE
Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site
18,527 SMUs; Construction
Johnston County, NC
67.0 WMUs Administration
Bear Creek (Phillips Site) Stream Restoration
Construction
Chatham County, NC
4,075 LF
Administration
Underwood Mitigation Site
Easement Acquisition
6,192 SMUs;
Chatham County, NC
Coordination; Construction
12.0 WMUs
Administration
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation
Site 4,900 SMUs; Construction
Rockingham County, NC
12.7 WMUs Administration
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Easement Acquisition
5,387 SMUs Coordination; Construction
Person County, NC
Administration
k4l, Martin Dairy Mitigation Site - PART 4
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 4.11

PART 5 - Technical Approach
The Martin Dairy Mitigation Site (Site) is located in Orange County approximately eight miles northeast
of Hillsborough, NC and eight miles south of Caldwell, NC (Figure 1). The project is located within the
DMS targeted watershed for the Neuse River Basin Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03020201030030 and
NC Division of Water Resources (DWR) Subbasin 03-04-01 and is being submitted for mitigation credit in
the Neuse River Basin 03020201. The project involves the restoration of up to three tributaries to
Buckwater Creek.
The 2009 Neuse River Basinwide Water Quality
Plan lists major stressors in the Subbasin to be
total suspended solids, nutrients, and
chlorophyll a. To address these stressors, the
2010 Neuse River Basin Restoration Priorities
(RBRP) highlights the importance of riparian
buffers in stream restoration projects. Riparian
buffers retain and remove nutrients and total
suspended solids, improving the health of Water
Supply Waters (WSW). Of the 123 miles of
streams in this HUC, 23% do not have adequate
riparian buffers. The RBRP states that "priority
[restoration] projects should increase or
improve buffers." This focus aligns with the
Neuse River Basin 03020201 goals of supporting the Falls Lake watershed plan (the receiving water
supply water body for the Site).
Restoration of streams on the Site will directly and indirectly address stressors identified in the RBRP by
creating stable stream banks, restoring meandering pattern, and restoring a forested buffer that will
connect to forested buffers upstream and downstream of the project area. This project will slow surface
runoff, increase retention times, provide shade to streams, and reconnect the streams to their historic
floodplains and riparian wetlands, which will reduce sediment and nutrient loading and the production
of chlorophyll m In addition, restoration will provide and improve instream and terrestrial (riparian)
habitats while improving stream stability and overall hydrology. Up to 11.3 acres of land will be placed
under permanent conservation easement to protect the Site in perpetuity.
Sources:
NC DMS. 2010. Neuse River Basin Restoration Priorities.
NC DWR. 2009 Neuse River Basinwide Water Quality Plan.
5.1 Project Goals and Objectives
The major goals of the proposed stream mitigation project are to provide ecological and water quality
enhancements to the Neuse River Basin while creating a functional riparian corridor at the site level,
providing floodplain habitat and ecological function, and restoring Piedmont Alluvial Forest and
Piedmont Bottomland Hardwood Forest as described by Schafale (2012). Specific enhancements to
water quality and ecological processes as related to the Cataloging Unit (CU) -wide functional goals are
outlined below in Table 5.1.
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site - PART 5
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 5.1

Table 5.1 Ecological and Water Quality Goals of the Mitigation Project
Goal
Objective
CU -Wide and RBRP Objectives Supported
Reconstruct stream channels with stable
Reduce and control sediment inputs (CU -
Stabilize eroding
dimensions. Add bank revetments and in-
Wide); Contribute to protection of or
stream banks.
stream structures to protect
improvement to a Water Supply
restored/enhanced streams.
Waterbody (CU -Wide).
Construct stream channels that will
Reduce and control sediment inputs (CU -
Improve the stability
maintain a stable pattern and profile
Wide); Contribute to protection of or
of stream channels.
considering the hydrologic and sediment
improvement to a Water Supply
inputs to the system, the landscape
Waterbody (CU Wide).
setting, and the watershed conditions.
Install habitat features such as
Improve instream
constructed riffles, cover logs, and brush
Contribute to protection of or
habitat.
toes into restored/enhanced streams.
improvement to a Water Supply
Add woody materials to channel beds.
Waterbody (CU -Wide).
Construct pools of varying depth.
Reconstruct stream channels with
Reduce and control sediment inputs (CU -
Reconnect channels
appropriate bankfull dimensions and
Wide); Reduce and manage nutrient
with floodplains and
depth relative to the existing floodplain.
inputs (CU -Wide); Contribute to
riparian wetlands.
Remove existing berm to re -connect
protection of or improvement to a Water
channel with adjacent wetlands.
Supply Waterbody (CU -Wide).
Reduce and control sediment inputs (CU -
Wide); Reduce and manage nutrient
Restore and enhance
plant native tree and understory species
inputs (CU -Wide); Contribute to
native floodplain
protection of or improvement to a Water
vegetation.
in riparian zone.
Supply Waterbody (CU -Wide); RBRP goal
of establishing riparian buffers along
restoration reaches.
Permanently protect
Establish conservation easements on the
Contribute to protection of or
the project site from
site.
improvement to a Water Supply
harmful uses.
Waterbody (CU -Wide).
5.2 Project Description
The following section describes the existing conditions at the Site in terms of geomorphic condition,
watershed, soils, geology, cultural resources, species of concern, regulated floodplain zones, and site
constraints.
5.2.1 Existing Site Conditions
The Site was previously an active dairy farm. After dairy operations ceased and cattle were removed
from the Site, land use transitioned to horse pasture and hay production. Vegetation on site is
dominated by Johnson grass and other pasture grasses. The Site contains an unnamed tributary to
Buckwater Creek, hereafter referred to as Martin Dairy Creek, and two unnamed tributaries to Martin
Dairy Creek (UT1 and UT2). Martin Dairy Creek flows south through the site, and has one easement
break for a driveway culvert crossing located across from Lipscomb Grove Church Road. UT1 flows south
into Martin Dairy Creek at the north end of the site and UT2 flows west into Martin Dairy Creek
downstream of Lipscomb Grove Church Road. The streams are depicted in Figure 2. Details about the
existing streams are provided in Section 5.2.2, below.
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site - PART 5
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 5.2

5.2.2 Existing Conditions - Streams
Martin Dairy Creek
Martin Dairy Creek has a 789 -acre watershed that
drains silviculture, forest, and agricultural land. It flows
into the project area from an upstream wooded parcel,
travels through a managed pasture for the entirety of
the project limits, and then exits the project area into a
wooded parcel. As shown in the Appendix, aerial
photographs from 1938 — 2014 depict the site in this
managed pasture condition with the stream
maintaining its location, indicating the site was used for
a livestock operation and/or agriculture since before
1938 (photos provided by Orange County Soil and Water Conservation District). The lack of sinuosity on
Martin Dairy Creek indicates that it was straightened for agricultural purposes prior to 1938.
The stream bed and banks of Martin Dairy Creek are degraded due to stressors from the livestock
operation previously run on the Site. Trampling of banks by livestock and mass wasting of bank material
led to incision and widening of the stream and fining of bed material. Martin Dairy Creek is moderately
incised over 75% of its length with bank height ratios ranging from 1.4 in non -incised sections to 1.9 in
the more incised sections (Figure 3). This incision has separated the creek from the riparian wetlands
located on the right floodplain (western side). These riparian wetlands are partially drained by toe
ditches located on the valley edge. The incision of the downstream reach of Martin Dairy Creek has
created a blockage to aquatic organism passage at the culvert in the easement break at the center of the
project. The drop from the downstream invert of the culvert to the streambed is greater than one foot.
Small benches within the channel of Martin Dairy Creek appear to have formed from sloughed banks.
This slough material along with aggradation has built benches along a majority of the stream length. The
benches, being one foot wide or less, do not provide adequate shear stress relief during high flows,
which results in continued bank erosion on the upper half of the stream banks. Currently, Martin Dairy
Creek exhibits scour along 31% of the reach. The stream will likely continue to widen in order to create
the necessary floodplain at the existing bench elevation if there is no intervention. This will increase
sediment delivery downstream for many years. Martin Dairy Creek stream type classification is most
nearly described as transitioning between an incisedand straightened Rosgen type E4 and C4 stream
throughout the project as the top width widens and narrows. It's Simons Evolutionary Stage is Stage II:
Widening. Cross-sections 2, 3, and 4 are located along Martin Dairy Creek. Cross-section locations are
shown on Figure 2. Cross-section and reach -wide pebble count results are located in the Appendix.
Streamside vegetation consists primarily of pasture grasses such as fescue (Fescue spp.), smartweed
(Polygonum), Johnson grass (Sorghum halepense), and purple lovegrass (Eragrostis eragrostis) with
some broom sedge (Carex scoparia), golden rod (Solidage altissima), ironweed (Vernonia altissima),
multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), and cardinal flower (Lobelia cardinalis). There are also some young
sweet gums (Liquidambarstyraciflua), red maple (Acer rubrum), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), and
small black willows (Salix nigra) present near the top of the stream bank.
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site - PART 5
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 5.3

scour on the banks during the growing season.
UT1
UTI is a steep intermittent channel (2.9% slope) that
enters the Site at the northern end. Its 91 -acre
watershed drains silviculture, managed pasture, and
forest. This reach is characterized by minor incision
(BHR <_ 1.5) on 32% of the stream length, and has a
small baseflow channel in the streambed
(approximately 1 foot wide by 1 foot deep). Like
Martin Dairy Creek, The bench in the channel is not
adequate enough to reduce shear stress, so there is
potential for the channel to actively widen over time.
The banks are severely overgrown with grasses,
rushes, and invasive species. This vegetation prevents
The stream has been impacted from historic cattle
operations through trampling of banks, in a similar manner to Martin Dairy Creek. UT1 classifies as a
straightened Rosgen type E4b channel and is in Simons Evolutionary Stage II: Widening. Cross-section 1,
depicting UT1, is located in the Appendix. The location of the cross-section illustrated in Figure 2.
The species composition of the streamside vegetation is the same as on Martin Dairy Creek, with a
higher concentration of multiflora rose and common rush (Juncus effuses).
UT2
UT2 enters the site via a culvert under Schley Road. It then
flows west to its confluence with Martin Dairy Creek. The
217 -acre watershed of UT2 drains agricultural and forested
land, including adjacent livestock operations. This reach has a
greater percentage of incision by length than others on the
Site (54% of the stream length), with bank height ratios
averaging 2.1. Nearly half of the streambank exhibit signs of
active scouring (48%). It is overwidened and the vegetation
within the channel has hindered the natural hydrology,
causing stagnancy at base flow. The channel bottom of this
straightened reach is choked with cattail (Typha latifolia) and
common rush. The stream banks and floodplain areas have similar vegetation composition to Martin
Dairy Creek. The channel is in Simon's Evolutionary Stage II: Widening, and the channel is most closely
classifies as an incised Rosgen type E4. A cross-sectional survey (cross-section 5) was conducted on UT2
and is provided in the Appendix for review. The location of the cross-section is provided in Figure 2.
5.2.3 Watershed Characterization
The Site is located within the Targeted Local Watershed 03020201030030 and DWR Subbasin 03-04-01
in Orange County. Martin Dairy Creek and its unnamed tributaries drain to Buckwater Creek, which is
classified as Class WS -IV water by DWR. Class WS -IV waters are used as supply for drinking, culinary, and
food processing purposes in moderately to highly developed watersheds. These waters are also
protected for Class C uses, which include: secondary recreation, wildlife, fish consumption, aquatic life
including propagation, survival and maintenance of biological integrity, and agriculture. Secondary
recreation includes wading, boating, and other uses involving human body contact with water where
such activities take place in an infrequent, unorganized, or incidental manner.
The Site topography, as indicated on Hillsborough and Caldwell USGS 7.5 -minute topographic
quadrangles, shows moderately sloped areas throughout the Site (Figure 4). The western project border
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site - PART 5
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 5.4

abuts the valley wall, and the eastern border is adjacent to Schley Road. Drainage areas and the percent
impervious for the project reaches were delineated using USGS North Carolina StreamStats Version 3.0.
The watershed boundaries were imported into ArcGIS and confirmed against the North Carolina
Floodplain Mapping Program's 2007 Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) data (Figure 5). Land uses
draining to the project reaches are primarily managed herbaceous cover/pasture and forest with
impervious acreage less than one percent. The watershed areas and current land use are summarized in
Table 5.2, below
Table 5.2 Drainage Areas and Associated Land Use
5.2.4 Soils
The proposed project is mapped by the Orange County Soil Survey. Project area soils are described
below in Table 5.3. Figure 6 is a soil map of the Site.
Table 5.3 Project Soil Types and Descriptions
Soil Name
NCDWR
This series is found at the base of the valley walls along Martin Dairy Creek. This soil is
Herndon silt
typically well drained with low runoff, no flooding, and convex in shape. The surface layer is a
Reach
Stream
Intermittent/
Watershed
Watershed
This series is found on the floodplains of Martin Dairy Creek and UT2. This soil is typically
Chewacla loam
level, poorly drained, and frequently floods. The surface layer of the series is a loam. It then
transitions between a silt clay loam, loam, and clay loam over its depth of greater than 80
Predominant Land Use
Name
Identification
Perennial
Area (acres)
Area (sq. mi.)
on backslopes and sideslopes of hills and ridges. The surface layer is a silt loam that
Form Scores
bedrock between 50 and 80 inches deep.
Martin
59% forested; 40.6% managed
Dairy
36.75
Perennial
789
1.23
herbaceous crops/pasture/grassland;
Creek
0.4% impervious
92% forested; 7.6% managed herbaceous
UT1
19.25
Intermittent
91
0.14
crops/pasture/grassland; 0.4% impervious
52% forested; 47.5% managed
UT2
30.75
Perennial
217
0.34
herbaceous crops/pasture/grassland;
0.5% impervious
5.2.4 Soils
The proposed project is mapped by the Orange County Soil Survey. Project area soils are described
below in Table 5.3. Figure 6 is a soil map of the Site.
Table 5.3 Project Soil Types and Descriptions
Soil Name
Description
This series is found at the base of the valley walls along Martin Dairy Creek. This soil is
Herndon silt
typically well drained with low runoff, no flooding, and convex in shape. The surface layer is a
loam
silt loam that transitions to a silt clay loam and then a silt clay. The soil is greater than 80
inches deep.
This series is found on the floodplains of Martin Dairy Creek and UT2. This soil is typically
Chewacla loam
level, poorly drained, and frequently floods. The surface layer of the series is a loam. It then
transitions between a silt clay loam, loam, and clay loam over its depth of greater than 80
inches.
This series is found along the western side of Martin Dairy Creek. This soil is typically well
drained with medium runoff potential and no flooding. The soil is level and generally located
Tatum silt loam
on backslopes and sideslopes of hills and ridges. The surface layer is a silt loam that
transitions to a clay loam between 8 and 50 inches. It then transitions to weathered paralithic
bedrock between 50 and 80 inches deep.
Source: Orange County Soil Survey, USDA-NRCS, http://www.nres.usda.gov
5.2.5 Geology
The Site is located in the Carolina Slate Belt of the Piedmont Physiographic Province. The Piedmont
Province is characterized by gently rolling, well rounded hills with long low ridges, with elevations
ranging from 300 —1,500 feet above sea level. The Carolina Slate Belt consists of heated and deformed
volcanic and sedimentary rocks. Specifically, the proposed project is located in felsic metavolcanic rock
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site - PART 5
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 5.5

(mapped CZfv) of the Carolina Slate Belt, which corresponds to the Uwharrie Formation's felsic
volcaniclastic rocks and portions of the Cid Formation's rhyolitic-rhyodactic units. This unit consists of
light gray to greenish gray, felsic metavolcanic rock interbedded with mafic and intermediate
metavolcanic rock and is composed primarily of feldspar, quartz, sericite, chlorite meta-argillite, and
metamudstone (NCGS, 1985;Horton and Zullo, 1991).The felsic metavolcanic rock can be expected to
weather more easily and into smaller particles than more weather -resistant mafic or intrusive rock. This
is represented in the small gravel substrate found on the Site.
No bedrock outcrops were observed in the floodplain or in the channel during preliminary site visits.
With floodplain soils having depths greater than 80 inches, grade control structures will be used in the
stream design to prevent further incision. There is potential to excavate native course materials on site
to use in constructed riffles and other grade control structures. The weathered parent material in the
Tatum silt loam series, described above, would provide a well -mixed substrate with varying size classes.
Source:
North Carolina Geological Survey (NCGS), 1985. Geologic map of North Carolina 1:500,000 scale.
Horton, J. Wright and Victor A. Zullo (Eds.). 1991. The Geology of the Carolinas. Knoxville, Tennessee: The
University of Tennessee Press.
5.2.6 Cultural Resources and Significant Natural Heritage Areas
The southern border of the Site is adjacent to the Saint Mary's Road Rural Historic District according to
The National Register with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) (Figure 1). No listed sites occur
within the project area. The archaeological site files at the North Carolina Office of State Archaeology
(OSA) have not been reviewed at this time. All appropriate cultural resource agencies will be contacted
for their review and comment prior to any land disturbing activity.
5.2.7 Threatened and Endangered Species
The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and NC Natural Heritage Program (NHP) databases were
searched for federally listed threatened and endangered plant and animal species in Orange County, NC.
There are currently 11 species listed as threatened or endangered at the federal level in Orange County,
NC (Table 5.4). The federally endangered listed species include the bald eagle (Haliaeetus
leucocephalus), dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon), triangle floater (Alasmidonta undulata),
brook floater (Alasmidonta varicose), atlantic pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni), yellow lampmussel (Lampsilis
cariosa), green floater (Lasmigona subviridis), savannah lilliput (Toxolasma pullus), carolina creekshell
(Villosa vauganiana), smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata), and the michaux's sumac (Rhus
michauxii). A pedestrian survey conducted on September 3, 2015, indicated that the site could provide
necessary habitat for the federally protected species but none were located at the time. Wildlands will
conduct a thorough review of the Site for all federal- and state -listed species upon award of contract.
Table 5.4 Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species in Orange County, NC
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site - PART 5
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 5.6
Federal
Species
Habitat
Status
Vertebrate
Bald eagle (Haliaeetus
BGPA
Found in wetland habitat, rivers, large lakes or marshes, and near other open
leucocephalus)
water bodies.
Invertebrate
Dwarf wedgemussel
E
Muddy sand, sand, and gravel bottoms of creeks and rivers with slow to
(Alasmidonta heterodon)
moderate currant and good water quality.
Triangle floater (Alasmidonta
FSC
Streams and rivers in sand and gravel substrates.
undulata)
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site - PART 5
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 5.6

Species
Federal
Habitat
Status
Brook floater (Alasmidonta
FSC
Consistently flowing water from small streams to large rivers with gravel or
varicose)
sand substrates. Generally found in riffles.
Atlantic pigtoe (Fusconaia
FSC
Prefers relatively fast moving waters. Found in headwaters or rural
masoni)
watersheds. Prefers sand and gravel at tail end of riffles.
Yellow lampmussel (Lampsilis
FSC
Prefers medium to large rivers with variety of substrates including sand, silt,
cariosa
cobble, and gravel.
Green floater (Lasmigona
FSC
Found in streams, small rivers, and canals with low to medium gradients, small
subviridis)
pools and eddies, and fine gravel or sand bottom.
Savannah lilliput (Toxolasma
FSC
Inhabits lotic streams and ponds and prefers mud or sand near banks.
pullus)
Carolina creekshell (Villosa
FSC
Inhabits silty sand or clay along banks of small streams.
vauganiana)
Vascular Plant
Smooth coneflower (Echinacea
E
Open woods, cedar barrens, roadsides, dry limestone bluggs, and utility line
laevigata)
right-of-way. Prefers magnesium rich soils underlain by mafic rock.
Michaux's sumac (Rhus
E
Grows in sandy soils in openings or thin woods. Dependent on some form of
michauxii)
disturbance or maintenance.
E=Endangered; BGPA = Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act; FSC = Federal Species of Concern
5.2.8 Floodplain Compliance
Martin Dairy Creek and its tributaries are not FEMA mapped streams within the
Site, as illustrated on the Orange County Flood Insurance Rate Map Panel 9896.
Therefore, no modeling will be required for this project. Martin Dairy Creek
becomes mapped at its confluence with Buckwater Creek, downstream of the
project site. Wildlands will coordinate with Orange County to determine if a
floodplain development permit is required.
5.2.9 Site Constraints and Access
There are two options listed in this proposal for the Martin Dairy Mitigation Site.
The conceptual design for Option 1 at the Site includes one internal easement
break on Martin Dairy Creek that is approximately 350 feet wide (Figure 7a). This
easement break includes a 60" Corrugated Metal Pipe culvert under a driveway.
Though there is an easement break on the project, the project remains
hydrologically continuous. It is the same stream system upstream and
downstream of the project. It will not limit aquatic organism passage from one
side of the project to another. The break, being landowner access to a house, is
not likely to have land use changes in the future that would adversely affect the
stream system. The culvert pipe is elevated compared to the channel invert
downstream and will allow for Priority 1 restoration design of Martin Dairy Creek.
The conceptual design for Option 2 (Figure 7b) only includes the southern portion
of the site. As it begins below the driveway crossing, it has no easement breaks.
There is one overhead electric power line that crosses Martin Dairy Creek within the project area at the
easement south of the driveway across from Lipscomb Grove Church Road. Wildlands proposes to
relocate the line so that the utility and any associated utility easement falls outside of the proposed
conservation easement.
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site - PART 5
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Page 5.7

All streams proposed for mitigation credit provide the required 50 foot minimum riparian buffer for
Piedmont streams. The easement area will be marked per DMS Guidelines for Full Delivery Requirement
for Completion of Survey for Conservation Easements (version 13, August 2013).
The entire easement area can be accessed for construction, monitoring, and long term stewardship from
existing site access points located along Schley Road (Figures 7a and 7b). Wildlands has executed option
agreements to purchase conservation easements on the properties. The conservation easement
agreements will ensure the right of entry abilities of Wildlands, its contractors, and the future easement
holder in any future land transactions.
No airports are known to exist within five miles of the Site.
5.3 Project Development
The Wildlands Team proposes to restore a high quality of ecological function to the streams and riparian
corridors on the Site. The project will be designed to avoid adverse impacts to existing wetlands or
riparian buffers occur. Management objectives proposed for the Site are discussed below and
summarized in Table 5.5. Figures 7 and 7b illustrate the two options of conceptual design for the Site.
5.3.1 Stream Mitigation Approach
Historic livestock access has caused significant degradation to the onsite streams. Martin Dairy Creek,
UT1, and UT2 have sustained severe impacts and are in various stages of instability and recovery as
described in Section 5.2.2. Martin Dairy Creek is located in the center of the valley but is unusually
straight given the alluvial nature of the system, and may have been relocated in the past to maximize
available pasture land. Full restoration, using a Priority 1 approach, is proposed on Martin Dairy Creek.
As there is not a significant headcut on this reach at the project boundary, restoration may begin with a
transitional reach of Priority 2 restoration to lift the stream back onto the historic floodplain. Benches
designed on the transitional Priority 2 reach will have a minimum width of 1.5 times the bankfull
channel width beyond the stream's belt width; no meandering floodplains will be constructed. In these
areas, 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 floodplain will be over -excavated to accommodate replacement of topsoil. Slopes on the
outer edge of the floodplain grading and the terrace will be a minimum of 5(H):1(V). As soon as possible,
the design will transition to Priority 1, and the stream will be designed to meander and avoid existing
wetlands. Existing wetlands will be delineated prior to the design process to insure this. The perched
culvert on the driveway crossing will allow for a Priority 1 approach to be continued downstream of the
easement break.
Re -connecting Martin Dairy Creek to the floodplain will
provide hydrologic reconnection to the riparian
wetlands. This connectivity will provide flood flow
storage, habitat, and water quality benefits to the Site.
The Priority 1 restoration approach is expected to result
in a raised water table, which may increase the acreage
of wetlands on site (no credit is being sought for wetland
rehab). Using a Priority I approach will raise the
streambed below the culvert crossing. The culvert
currently acts as a barrier to fish passage. Raising the
channel bed will remove this as a barrier and allow fish
access to the upper reaches of Martin Dairy Creek and
UT1. Altering the dimension of Martin Dairy Creek and
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site - PART 5
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 5.8

re-establishing a meander pattern will reduce erosion potential in the system, thereby reducing
sediment and nutrient delivery downstream. Existing
A Priority I approach is proposed for the UT1 tributary. This will allow for connection of UT1 to the new
elevation of the restored Martin Dairy Creek channel bed. It will provide UT1 access to its floodplain,
which will reduce the potential for further incision and widening of UT1 and sedimentation of Martin
Dairy Creek. It will also reestablish a riffle pool sequence that is absent in the existing stream, which
improves instream nutrient cycling and provides habitat for aquatic organisms. Restoring UT1 will aid in
the removal of multiflora rose from the stream system. A Priority I restoration approach is also
recommended for UT2. Restoration with grade control structures will greatly reduce the potential for
further incision and widening of this reach. Working within the channel will also allow for the removal of
the invasive cattails, and the addition of habitat features and reestablishment of riffle pool sequences,
which is absent in the existing stream system. Both UT1 and UT1 may have short sections of Priority II to
tie into the existing upstream channel grades. These sections will be approached as described in the
Martin Dairy Creek discussion above.
All restored reaches on the project will be designed to create new stable, functional stream channels
based on reference reach and sediment transport analyses. Dimension, pattern, and profile will be
designed to allow for frequent overbank flooding, provide stable bank slopes, and enable biological lift.
This approach will provide hydrologic connectivity between creeks and floodplains and will also create
vertical and lateral stability. Removing invasive vegetation and establishing stable bank slopes will allow
for a native and diverse riparian zone to grow which will improve nutrient removal. A diverse bedform
will provide habitat for an increased number of species of insects, fish, and amphibians and will also
increase denitrification in the hyporheic zone. This diverse bedform will be established using instream
structures appropriate for the geomorphic setting such as log sills, log vanes, and constructed riffles.
Channel material will be harvested during construction to be used in the newly constructed channels.
Riffle material may also be harvested on the Site from weathered bedrock as described in Section 5.2.5.
Wildlands will begin the project by identifying the best design approach to meet the stated project
objectives and implement the appropriate degree of intervention. A combination of analog, empirical,
and analytical design approaches will potentially be used. Reference streams will be identified and will
serve as one of the primary sources of information on which designs are based. Modeling and other
detailed analyses will be used as appropriate to develop or verify designs. Wildlands has developed a
general approach to be used as the basis for stream restoration design. The design approach, which is
tailored to each site, continues to develop as additional projects are implemented. Some of the key
elements of the methods are described below.
Generally, stream designs will be based on a design discharge range which, in most cases, will be an
approximation of the bankfull discharge but will be selected to meet the objectives of the design. The
discharge will be determined through detailed hydrologic analyses using the best available information
such as local or regional stream gage records, empirical regional stream flow estimates, hydrologic
modeling results, and reference stream flows. Other discharges (such as baseflow or flows to support
instream habitat features) will also be considered during the design process based on the specific
project objectives. The design will be refined or validated with sediment transport analysis.
The proposed conservation easement area is no longer subject to livestock intrusion since the
retirement of the dairy farm, and will be marked per DMS guidelines. Native riparian buffers a minimum
of 50 feet from the proposed top of bank will be planted along all restored streams on the Site.
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site - PART 5
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 5.9

5.3.2 Sediment Transport
Sediment transport is an extremely complicated process and
the appropriate level of analysis must be determined for each
specific design. This determination is based on watershed
assessment, local stream observations, reference conditions,
and other sources of information. Generally, these
assessments will lead to one of two levels of sediment
transport analysis and a corresponding design approach. For
streams that are gravel or cobble bed sites and have a low
bed load, threshold channels can be designed based on
discharge and sediment transport competence analysis. These
channels are not expected to be prone to excessive morphologic change and the project objectives will
include that channel slope, geometry, and bedforms do not change significantly over time. Other
streams, including those with sand or silt bed material and those that have a moderate to high bedload
will require more detailed sediment transport studies and must be designed as alluvial channels. These
conditions must be considered when establishing design objectives as alluvial channels are expected to
adjust their slope, geometry, and bedforms over time. In these cases a capacity analysis with data
collection and/or detailed modeling is an important component of the design. However, alluvial
channels will most often be designed with controls at key locations to prevent rapid, significant change.
The reach -wide pebble count on Martin Dairy Creek indicates the mean particle size is a fine gravel (10
mm). Due to high existing shear stress within the channel (average of 0.78 lbs/ftz), the stream can
currently move very coarse gravel (<_ 64 mm) during bankfull events. This disparity in existing grain size
versus threshold grain size (grain size predicted to move based on channel shear stress) is an indicator of
the instability of the stream bed and the high likelihood of continued scour. The restored channel's
dimension and profile will be designed to reduce shear stress within the system. Grade control and
constructed riffles will be designed with bed material larger than the threshold grain sizes in order to
provide long-term bed stability. This approach along with the aforementioned modeling will guide
additional design decisions to reduce scour, incision, and erosion of the channel bed and banks.
5.3.3 Nutrient Reduction
On-site nutrient reduction will be achieved by converting managed pasture fields to a restored stream
and wetland complex, establishing consistent 50 -foot wide riparian buffers along both banks, reducing
particulate nutrient loads associated with streambank erosion, and enhancing instream nutrient cycling
through the re-establishment of a riffle pool sequence. An estimate of the percent reduction in nitrogen
(TN) and phosphorus (TP) was made using a simplified version of the Tar -Pamlico Nutrient Calculation
Sheet, which estimates typical nutrient loading. Pre -project conditions reflected managed pasture while
post -project conditions modeled the project area as wooded. It was assumed that riparian areas within
the project easements that are currently pasture will become wooded pervious areas. Nutrient removal
rates were based on standard removals listed in the Tar -Pamlico Nutrient Calculation Sheet. The
worksheet estimated that the land use conversion through the stream restoration project would result
in a 54% reduction of TN and a 77% reduction of TP. This equates to an annual load reduction of 5.7 lbs
of TN and 2.5 lbs of TP for Option 1. Estimates for Option 2 indicate the same percentage reduction in
TN and TP as Option 1. This equates to an annual load reduction of 4.8 lbs TN and 2.1 lbs TP. This
nutrient reduction associated with the restoration project will contribute to the Falls Lake nutrient
reduction goals.
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site - PART 5
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 5.10

5.3.4 Vegetation Plan
The Site will be planted following construction of the project. The project area will be planted and
seeded with a combination of early and later successional native vegetation chosen to create a
Piedmont Bottomland Hardwood Forest similar to reference communities. The planting plan will be
developed to restore appropriate strata (canopy, understory, shrub, and herbaceous layers). The canopy
will be restored through planting of bare root trees. The understory and shrub layers will be restored
through a combination of planting bare root, low growth species and installing live stake shrub species.
The herbaceous layer will be restored by seeding the disturbed area with a native seed mix with an
emphasis placed on creating good soil contact to encourage germination.
5.4 Proposed Mitigation
The Martin Dairy Mitigation Site offers two restoration plan options. Option 1 includes the restoration of
Martin Dairy Creek upstream and downstream of the easement break shown in Figure 7a, and the
restoration of UT1 and UT2. This option provides 2,692 SMUs (Table 5.5a, Figure 7a) and has an 11.3 -
acre conservation easement. Option 2 includes the restoration of the downstream portion of Martin
Dairy Creek, south of the easement break, and the restoration of UT2. This option provides 2,134 SMUs
and includes a 9.5 -acre conservation easement (Table 5.5b, Figure 7b). The mitigation credit calculation
was derived using the US Army Corps of Engineers' Stream Mitigation Guidance and was based on
Wildlands' conceptual design for maximum ecological uplift. Given the existing conditions of the stream
channels, the disturbance factors, and the constraints, management objectives for each reach have
been established. The management objective, the mitigation type, and proposed amount of stream
mitigation is presented below.
Table 5.5a Mitigation Units proposed for the Martin Dairy Mitigation Site — OPTION 1
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site - PART 5
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 5.11
Type of
Length
Mitigation Units
Reach
Management Objectives
Ratio
Mitigation
(feet)
(SMUS)
Restore appropriate dimension, pattern, and profile
with Priority 1 restoration. Install habitat structures,
Martin
allow bankfull floodplain access. Short sections of
Dairy Creek
Priority 2 restoration to be used to transition the
Restoration
2,438
1:1
2,438
stream to match project limit inverts. Establish
native riparian buffer.
Restore appropriate dimension, pattern, and profile
with Priority 1 restoration. Install habitat structures,
allow bankfull floodplain access. Short sections of
UTI
Priority 2 restoration to be used to transition the
Restoration
58
1:1
58
stream to match existing inverts. Establish native
riparian buffer.
Restore appropriate dimension, pattern, and profile
with Priority 1 restoration. Install habitat structures,
allow bankfull floodplain access. Priority 2
UT2
restoration to be used to transition the stream to
Restoration
196
1:1
196
existing invert tie-ins. Establish native riparian
buffer.
Total
- - -
2,692 SMUs
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site - PART 5
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 5.11

Table 5.5b Mitigation Units proposed for the Martin Dairy Mitigation Site — OPTION 2
5.5 Current Ownership
The Site is located on three parcels owned by one landowner summarized in Table 5.6: Ted H Martin.
Option Agreements for the general project area shown on Figures 7a and 7b have been signed by the
property owner and a Memorandum of Option is recorded for each parcel at the Orange County
Register of Deeds. These Memoranda of Option are valid for a minimum of one year from the closing
date of RFP 16-006477. The landowners have signed the Landowner Authorization Form allowing the
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to enter the Site for assessment purposes prior to
execution of the Option. Copies of the first two pages of the recorded Memoranda of Option and the
Landowner Authorization Forms are included in the Appendix. Wildlands has included only the first two
pages of the Memoranda of Option due to space limitations in the RFP; however, the Memoranda of
Option are public records available both the online and in person at the Orange County Register of
Deeds. The landowners, parcel identification numbers, and deed book and page number for the
Memoranda of Option are summarized in Table 5.6. Wildlands is proposing that the final conservation
easement will be conveyed to the State of North Carolina and will provide long term protection of the
Site.
Table 5.6 Property Owners for the Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
Property Owner
Parcel ID Number
Type of
Length
9896-85-2137
Mitigation Units
Reach
Management Objectives
Mitigation
(feet)
Ratio
(SMUs)
Restore appropriate dimension, pattern, and
profile with Priority 1 restoration. Install habitat
Martin Dairy
structures, allow bankfull floodplain access. Short
Creek
sections of Priority 2 restoration to be used to
Restoration
1,938
1:1
1,938
transition the stream to match existing inverts.
Fence out livestock. Establish native riparian
buffer.
Restore appropriate dimension, pattern, and
profile with Priority 1 restoration. Install habitat
structures, allow bankfull floodplain access.
UT2
Priority 2 restoration to be used to transition the
Restoration
196
1:1
196
stream to existing invert tie-ins. Fence out
livestock. Establish native riparian buffer.
Total
---
2,134 SMUs
5.5 Current Ownership
The Site is located on three parcels owned by one landowner summarized in Table 5.6: Ted H Martin.
Option Agreements for the general project area shown on Figures 7a and 7b have been signed by the
property owner and a Memorandum of Option is recorded for each parcel at the Orange County
Register of Deeds. These Memoranda of Option are valid for a minimum of one year from the closing
date of RFP 16-006477. The landowners have signed the Landowner Authorization Form allowing the
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to enter the Site for assessment purposes prior to
execution of the Option. Copies of the first two pages of the recorded Memoranda of Option and the
Landowner Authorization Forms are included in the Appendix. Wildlands has included only the first two
pages of the Memoranda of Option due to space limitations in the RFP; however, the Memoranda of
Option are public records available both the online and in person at the Orange County Register of
Deeds. The landowners, parcel identification numbers, and deed book and page number for the
Memoranda of Option are summarized in Table 5.6. Wildlands is proposing that the final conservation
easement will be conveyed to the State of North Carolina and will provide long term protection of the
Site.
Table 5.6 Property Owners for the Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
Property Owner
Parcel ID Number
Memorandum of Option Deed Book (DB) and Page Number (PG)
Ted H Martin
9896-85-2137
DB: 5932 PG: 171
Ted H Martin
9896-83-0483
DB: 5932 PG: 171
Ted H Martin
9896-83-9111
DB: 5932 PG: 171
5.6 Project Phasing
The Wildlands Team has experience handling tightly -scheduled projects with a number of stakeholders.
We understand the importance of clear communication and adherence to deadlines. We will establish
additional internal deadlines to keep the project milestones on track. Each task will be staffed with the
appropriate technical and management staff to ensure quality and timely completion. Table 5.7 provides
a summary of the major project milestones.
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site - PART 5
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 5.12

Table 5.7 Project Schedule for the Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
Project Milestone
Proposed Time to
Completion
(from date of NTP)
Proposed Completion
Date (assuming NTP on
January 28, 2016)
Task 1. CE Document
3 months
April 28, 2016
Task 2. Submit Recorded Conservation Easement on the Site
1 year, 6 months
July 28, 2017
Task 3. Mitigation Plan Approved by DMS
1 year, 6 months
July 28, 2017
Task 4. Mitigation Site Earthwork Completed
2 years
January 28, 2018
Task 5. Mitigation Site Planting & Installation of Monitoring
Devices
2 years, 4 months
May 28, 2018
Task 6. Baseline Monitoring Report (Including As -Built
Drawings) Approved by DMS
2 years, 8 months
September 28, 2018
Task 7. Submit Monitoring Report #1 to DMS*
2 years, 10 months
November 30, 2018
Task 8. Submit Monitoring Report #2 to DMS*
3 years, 10 months
November 30, 2019
Task 9. Submit Monitoring Report #3 to DMS*
4 years, 10 months
November 30, 2020
Task 10. Submit Monitoring Report #4 to DMS*
5 years, 10 months
November 30, 2021
Task 11. Submit Monitoring Report #5 to DMS*
6 years, 10 months
November 30, 2022
Task 12. Submit Monitoring Report #6 to DMS*
7 years, 10 months
November 30, 2023
Task 13. Submit Monitoring Report #7 to DMS* and complete
Close -Out Process
1 8 years, 10 months
November 30, 2024
*Meets success criteria (schedule progression has been developed assuming that the site meets success criteria
each monitoring year)
5.7 Success Criteria and Monitoring Plan
The stream restoration performance criteria for the Site will follow approved performance criteria
presented in the DMS Mitigation Plan Template (version 2.3, December 18, 2014), the DMS Stream and
Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Guidelines (February 2014), and the Stream Mitigation Guidelines issued
in April 2003 by the USACE and DWR. Annual monitoring and semi-annual site visits will be conducted to
assess the condition of the completed project. The stream restoration sections of the project will be
assigned specific performance criteria components for hydrology, vegetation, and geomorphology. The
stream enhancement sections of the project will be assigned specific performance criteria components
for vegetation. Performance criteria will be evaluated throughout the (up -to) seven years of post -
construction monitoring. If all performance criteria have been successfully met and at least two bankfull
events and at least two other geomorphically significant events have occurred during separate years,
Wildlands may propose to terminate stream and/or vegetation monitoring after five years. An outline of
the performance criteria components follows.
5.7.1 Stream Morphological Parameters and Channel Stability
Dimension
Riffle cross sections on the restoration reaches should be stable and should show little change in
bankfull area, entrenchment ratio, and width -to -depth ratio. All riffle cross sections should fall within
the parameters defined for channels of the appropriate stream type. If any changes do occur, these
changes will be evaluated to assess whether the stream channel is showing signs of instability. Changes
in the channel that indicate a movement toward stability or enhanced habitat include a decrease in the
width -to -depth ratio in meandering channels or an increase in pool depth. Remedial action would not be
taken if channel changes indicate a movement toward stability.
In order to assess channel dimension performance, permanent cross sections will be installed per DMS
Stream and Wetland Monitoring Guidelines (February 2014). Each cross section will be permanently
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site - PART 5
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 5.13

marked with pins to establish its location. Cross section surveys will include points measured at all
breaks in slope, including top of bank, bankfull, edge of water, and thalweg. Annual cross section and
bank pin survey (if applicable) will be conducted in monitoring years one, three, five, and seven.
In addition to the above geomorphic surveys, at least
three sets of hydraulic geometry measurements will be
conducted within each distinct design reach following a
flow event that corresponds with a geomorphic
significant discharge (Qgs) event as described in the DMS
Stream and Wetland Monitoring Guidelines (February
2014). Within each reach, a representative wavelength
will be assessed using hydraulic measurements within
riffle and pool cross sections and along water surface
slopes. Measurements can occur at any time during the
seven year monitoring period.
Profile and Pattern
Longitudinal profile surveys will not be conducted during the seven year monitoring period unless other
indicators during the annual monitoring indicate a trend toward vertical and lateral instability. If a
longitudinal profile is deemed necessary, monitoring will follow standards as described in the DMS
Annual Monitoring and Closeout Reporting Template (February 2014) and the 2003 USACE and DWR
Stream Mitigation Guidance for the necessary reaches.
Substrate
Substrate materials in the restoration reaches should indicate a progression towards or the maintenance
of coarser materials in the riffle features and smaller particles in the pool features.
A reach -wide pebble count will be performed in each restoration reach each year for classification
purposes. A pebble count will be performed at each surveyed riffle to characterize the pavement.
5.7.2 Hydrology
Stream
Two bankfull flow events, occurring in separate years, must be documented on the restoration reaches
within the seven-year monitoring period. In addition, two other geomorphically significant events must
be documented. For these purposes, a geomorphically
significant event is a flow event that is at least 66% of,
the 2 -year recurrence interval flow. The 2 -year
recurrence interval flow will be estimated using USGS
regression equations that are appropriate for the Site
location in the NC Piedmont. The confirmation that
such an event has occurred will be based on
measurements of stage converted to discharge with a
stage -discharge relation developed with a hydraulic
model. Stream monitoring will continue until success
criteria in the form of two bankfull events in separate
years and two additional geomorphically significant
events have been documented.
Bankfull events will be documented using photographs and either a crest gage or a pressure transducer,
as appropriate for site conditions. The selected measurement device will be installed in the stream
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site - PART 5
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 5.14

within a surveyed riffle cross section. The device will be checked at each site visit to determine if a
bankfull event has occurred. Photographs will also be used to document the occurrence of debris lines
and sediment deposition.
5.7.3 Vegetation
The final vegetative success criteria will be the survival of 210 native species stems per acre in the
riparian corridor at the end of the required monitoring period (year seven). The interim measure of
vegetative success for the site will be the survival of at least 320 native species stems per acre at the end
of the third monitoring year and at least 260 stems per acre at the end of the fifth year of monitoring. If
this performance standard is met by year five and stem density is trending towards success (i.e., no less
than 260 five year old stems/acre), monitoring of vegetation on the site may be terminated with written
approval by the USACE in consultation with the NC Interagency Review Team. The extent of invasive
species coverage will also be monitored and controlled as necessary throughout the required
monitoring period (year five or seven).
Vegetation monitoring quadrants will be installed across the restoration site to measure the survival of
the planted trees. The number of monitoring quadrants required and frequency of monitoring will be
based on the DMS monitoring guidance documents. Vegetation monitoring will occur in the fall and will
follow the CVS -DMS Protocol for Recording Vegetation (2008) or another DMS approved protocol.
5.7.4 Other Parameters
Photo Reference Stations
Photographs will be taken once a year to visually document stability for seven years following
construction. Permanent markers will be established and located with GPS equipment so that the same
locations and view directions on the site are photographed each year. Photos will be used to monitor
restoration reaches as well as vegetation plots.
Longitudinal reference photos will be established at regular intervals along the channel by taking a
photo looking upstream and downstream (usually at tail of riffle feature). Cross sectional photos will be
taken of each permanent cross section looking upstream and downstream. Reference photos will also
be taken for each of the vegetation plots. Representative digital photos of each permanent photo point,
cross section and vegetation plot will be taken on the same day of the stream and vegetation
assessments are conducted. The photographer will make every effort to consistently maintain the same
area in each photo over time.
Photographs should illustrate the site's vegetation and morphological stability on an annual basis. Cross
section photos should demonstrate no excessive erosion or degradation of the banks. Longitudinal
photos should indicate the absence of persistent bars within the channel or vertical incision. Grade
control structures should remain stable. Deposition of sediment on the bank side of vane arms is
preferable. Maintenance of scour pools on the channel side of vane arms is expected.
Visual Assessments
Visual assessments will be performed along stream reaches on a semi-annual basis during the seven
year monitoring period. Problem areas will be noted such as channel instability (e.g. lateral and/or
vertical instability, instream structure failure/instability and/or piping, headcuts), vegetation health (e.g.
low stem density, vegetation mortality, invasive species or encroachment), beaver activity, or livestock
access. Areas of concern will be mapped and photographed accompanied by a written description in the
annual report. Problem areas with be re-evaluated during each subsequent visual assessment. Should
remedial actions be required, recommendations will be provided in the annual monitoring report.
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site - PART 5
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 5.15

Benthic Macroinvertebrates
If required by DWR as part of the project's permitting process, benthic macroinvertebrate sampling will
be performed on the restored site. Any required sampling will be performed using DWR Standard
Operating Procedures for Benthic Macroinvertebrates, October 2012.
5.7.5 Reporting Performance Criteria
Using the DMS As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report Template (February 2014), a baseline monitoring
document and as -built record drawings of the project will be developed on the restored site. Complete
monitoring reports will be prepared in the fall of monitoring year one, three, five, and seven and
submitted to DMS. In monitoring years two, four, and six, a brief summary of the site along with photos,
current condition plan view (CCPV) map, and applicable hydrology data will be prepared and submitted
to DMS. These annual monitoring reports will be based on the DMS Annual Monitoring Report Template
(April 2015). The monitoring period will extend seven years beyond completion of construction or until
performance criteria have been met per the criteria stated in the DMS Stream and Wetland Mitigation
Monitoring Guidelines (February 2014).
5.7.6 Maintenance and Contingency Plans
The Wildlands Team will develop necessary adaptive measures or implement appropriate remedial
actions in the event that the site or a specific component of the site fails to achieve the success criteria
outlined above. The project -specific monitoring plan developed during the design phase will identify an
appropriate threshold for maintenance intervention based on the monitored items. Any actions
implemented will be designed to achieve the success criteria specified previously, and will include a
work schedule and updated monitoring criteria.
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site - PART 5
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 5.16

PART 6 - Quality Control
The Wildlands Team takes pride in the quality of services that we deliver to our clients. We strive to
exceed our clients' expectations. In order to maintain the highest level of quality, Wildlands has an
established Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) protocol that every member of our staff follows.
At the beginning of a project, the necessary level of QA/QC is determined based on the size and
complexity of the project. At a minimum, the project manager and an assigned QA/QC manager will
function to control the quality of the project. The project manager provides day-to-day QA/QC and may
assign task leaders to provide task -specific quality control (QC) functions. The QA/QC manager is a
knowledgeable senior staff member who is not assigned to function in a lead capacity on other areas of
the project. This allows the QA/QC manager clear, objective views of the quality of work.
Our QC program includes established procedures for processes
W "' " performed from project inception through implementation and
°h""'°
success monitoring of the project. For example, Wildlands has
developed standardized checklists and pre -defined procedures
for activities such as field surveys of stream cross-sections and
hew�fg
bili
profiles, pebble counts, benthic surveys, bank stability
assessments, natural channel design, permitting, contract
RnexoE•!
Om
document preparation, post -construction baseline survey, and
.
post construction monitoring. The checklists are largely based
on the most current DMS guidelines to ensure that all required
Ripon • ItlPtlon Ruv
tuMa-ii Kr Y mmG�Ml
7,
information is included in the correct format. Task leaders
rxa-eoY prnawe rnnn�agn x.ce++
twxnmiop. xeangw�
assigned for each activity train project team members in the
pa mpc B�
4aM
�l Lll�C MM .,a W-
�
application of these procedures. The task leaders assist the
project manager by providing day-to-day QC functions, such as
YpP pain
ioubreFl�Ywmpiswl
n
a.
establishing clear decisions and directions to team members in
the field, checking the completeness and accuracy of checklists,
constant supervision, and documentation of all decisions,
assumptions, and recommendations. The role of the project
manager in QC is to monitor and maintain project schedule and
budget, the have,
address any concerns client may constantly
assess company resources, and review all of the checklists.
Ril�ln LR.W
4YY
During the conceptual and preliminary design stages, the
project manager and the task leader will perform a review of
the design data, plans, technical specifications, and construction estimate for accuracy, correct
approach, and general overall quality of the product before submission to the client. The project
manager will perform a similar review at final design as will the QA/QC manager. During the
construction phase, the project manager and the construction task manager will regularly meet to
provide updates and discuss any issues. The goal of the QC process is to provide the highest quality
product to our client by completing tasks correctly the first time. By only completing procedural
processes once, it helps ensure that we deliver the best products at a minimum cost to our clients.
CIA is performed to confirm that the QC program is effectively enforced, and to provide feedback on
further developments needed in the QC program. The QA/QC manager leads the CIA program; however,
the project manager, task leaders, and project team staff also play large roles. It is each person's
responsibility to notify the QA/QC manager whenever discrepancies and inefficiencies are found in the
set of procedural activities that make up the QC process. The objective of QA is the continual
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site - PART 6
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 6.1

improvement of the total delivery process to enhance quality, productivity, and customer satisfaction.
We are continually improving the QC process so that our latest products and services are better than the
previous ones.
6.1 Deliverables
Schedule is established during the scoping phases of a project and it is the project manager's
responsibility to maintain the schedule. A work plan is developed at the outset of a project and shared
internally with team members so that milestone deadlines and work requirements are clearly outlined.
Review time is built into this internal schedule to ensure that adequate review takes place.
The QA form, which is maintained by the QA/QC manager, is established at the beginning of the project
and is maintained throughout the life of the project. Reviews of technical data, design parameters,
reports, plan sheets, hydraulic models, and supporting calculations are tracked on the form. Included on
this form are requirements that a professional staff member, who is not involved in the project on a
day-to-day basis review the design calculations, hydraulic models, reports, plans, and all other types of
project deliverables. Conformance with DMS report templates are also integrated into the QA review
process.
6.2 Construction
Wildlands team members are familiar with the policies, procedures, and practices necessary to
construct natural channel design and wetland restoration projects. Wildlands has provided construction
administration and observation services of over 28 miles of stream work and 152 acres of wetland work.
We believe that project implementation is the ultimate key to a successful project and, to achieve this, it
is extremely important to have our most experienced staff members involved on all construction
projects. Our team knows how to oversee construction so that the project is completed on time and in
compliance with all federal, state, and local permits. Several members of the team have assisted with
construction services for the DMS restoration sites, many of which have performed successfully for
three years or more:
Table 6.1 Wildlands Team Member Construction Oversight Experience c c
o
M
—
3 �
a
Project
x
Details e
a
Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site
18,527 SMUs; 67 WMUs x x
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
5,387 SMUs x x
Hopewell Mitigation Site
7,463 SMUs x x
Agony Acres Mitigation Site
6,488 SMUs; 3.0 BMUs x x
Bear Creek (Phillips Site) Restoration Project — Design, Bid,
Build
4,075 LF stream x
Owl's Den Mitigation Site
2,400 SMUs; 8.0 WMUs x
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
4,900 SMUs, 12.7 WMUs x x
Underwood Mitigation Site
6,192 SMUs; 12.0 WMUs x x
Foust Creek Mitigation Site
4,708 SMUs; 3.3 WMUs x
x
Jumping Run Creek Stream & Wetland Repair— Design,
1,300 LF stream x x
Bid, Build
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site - PART 6
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 6.2

L--_: County Boundary
- Project Site
} _ i Hydrologic Unit Code (14 Digit)
Targeted Local Watershed
b Significant Natural Heritage Areas
NC Natural Heritage Program Managed Areas
Water Supply Watershed
0 NC Historic Preservation Areas
Local Watershed Plan
• • • • • 303d Listed Streams
Water Features
Airports
03k020101
0302029J010040
010020
0
r
D 2
0
D32.21 00
0 J �'
d
le i ran D
t
�L ch. 'a 6&
\ Q en ce I
!- ittle River
Irian La Uplands
C serv cy .� 030 20
�� e ree Pre rve I,-
03020201'020030 03020201020030 c
•
Hil
1 no ' er/C es
30 2 30
0 rd SI es a tl u141 s
Oo 1
02 01 004 30 1 0
pe pa
r - r
A 4 •z
b
\' \ 03 02 05 10
J 03000206010 \
a03 00
060,076 02
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
kkxtv�,Wl L D LAND S Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
ENGINEERING 0 2.5 Miles
I I I I I Neuse River Basin 03020201
Orange County, NC

Project Site
Proposed Conservation Easement
+`='i Powerline (Based on GPS Data)
`" ' ' ♦� Cross Sections
i♦�♦ '• Project Streams
Perennial
1 j �
Intermittent
z
y M i r XS3
e '
114 QFC X r T 1 !
' r tti
WILDLANDS
% P I ENGINEERING 0 300 Feet
I I I
Figure 2 Site Map
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
Neuse River Basin 03020201
Orange County, NC

{
1 Y
1 ; ♦ 1
'r win
4 a.r.—.r.r.r.r.r.rr.r.r.r.r.....r..l
�.
---------------
i
♦ i
• � i �i
■1
,.
♦�,♦ 1 �,
U'Psoomb Grope
GhuCo� �d
Reach
Percent Incised
Percent Scour
Martin Dairy
75%
31%
UT1
32%
0%
UT2
54%
48%
IL
J114
'b
Figure 3 Floodplain Alteration and Stressors Map
�OtV, W I L D L A N D S 0 350 FMartin Dairy Mitigation Site
Feet E N G' N E E R' N G Neuse River Basin 03020201
I i i i I
Orange County, NC

J�
Project Site
� -Proposed Conservation Easement
farA
f
fills, o and Idwel 7. ogr phi ai
WILDLANDS
kt� E N G I N E E R I N G
ti,,rn • •
i
0/-%L
Figure 4 Topographic Map
0 800 Feet p Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
Neuse River Basin 03020201
Orange County, NC

Figure 5 Watershed Map
WILD LANDS 0 1000 FMartin Dairy Mitigation Site
, Feet E N G I N E E R I N G Neuse River Basin 03020201
1 1 1 1 1
Orange County, NC

Figure 6 Soils Map
W I L D L A N D S 0 300 Feet Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
E N G' N E E R' N G Neuse River Basin 03020201
l i i i l
Orange County, NC

1
1
1
1
1
1
Al
I
Project Site
r Proposed Conservation Easement
Powerline (Based on GPS data)
Powerline Relocation
Stream Restoration
•7,�
Vii}; i •Utility Poles
�1IL Outside of
Irv,
ii
i; •1
i
i
i •
i
� 1
i + +*
Figure 7a Concept Map - Option 1
witv'WILDLANDS Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
E N G I N E E R I N G 0 300 Feet Neuse River Basin 03020201
l i i i l
Orange County, NC
i
1
i
I
Project Site
r Proposed Conservation Easement
Powerline (Based on GPS data)
Powerline Relocation
Stream Restoration
•7,�
Vii}; i •Utility Poles
�1IL Outside of
Irv,
ii
i; •1
i
i
i •
i
� 1
i + +*
Figure 7a Concept Map - Option 1
witv'WILDLANDS Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
E N G I N E E R I N G 0 300 Feet Neuse River Basin 03020201
l i i i l
Orange County, NC

x _ Project Site
..a w
L. —A Proposed Conservation Easement
Powerline (Based on GPS data)
Powerline Relocation
Stream Restoration
1 r 1 49. _
ova
1 � 1
1 f 1
1 , %
i
>� gra at i uk;, � 1 1 • •
00
71
1 1
1
r t P 1
' i 1
1
.�..��6.0
i ..%
lb
i
i
Figure 71 Concept Map - Option 2
W I L D L A N D S Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
E N G I N E E R I N G 0 300 Feet Neuse River Basin 03020201
l i i i l
Orange County, NC

LT
r
A4 04 1�
4

212 o
c Cie
cz
�e
Z D
P� , s ly
y
a DI
ea
C2 ,$ o
C2
cz
v.�
t
YEAR: 1955 N
Martin Dairy Mitigation Site y

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11 OP2
Date;Latitude:
Pro'7 ectlSite: �rRn 36, t z7K {
Evaluator. f�(� County. Gru„ L Longitude: '71, vu,`
Total Points:
Stream is at Feast intermittent Stream Determination (circle one) Other
if>_ 19 or erennfafif>30" 216.75 Ephemeral Intermittent � e.g. Quad Name: Martin D
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal =fes_)
Absent
Weak
Moderate
I" Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
2
ripple -pool sequence
0
1
CD
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
2
2
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
2
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
2
&. Headcuts
®
1
2
9. Grade control
0
0.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.6
11. Second or greater order channel
a
No = 0
Y
artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
8. H drolo Subtotal = r
12, Presence of Ba' flow
1
2
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
1
14. Leaf litter
0.5
15, Sediment on plants orEdebris
0.5
1
16. Organic debris lines o
0.5
Q1
17. Soil based evidence oEatNho=
0
yr
85=3
Strong
0
3
3
3
3
3
1.5
1.5
11
3
0
1.5
1.5

NC DWO Stream Tdentifiratinn Fn,-.., Vora:.... n t I
Date: r} i. t; 0l
f
Project/Site: 1' 7
G✓r.� k,r
Latitude: S6'� 75f
Evaluator: !'jB � f !(
County: p u �q
Longitude: z y 00 q
Total Points:
1
14. Leaf litter
Stream is at least intermittent % Z 5
Stream Determination (circle one)
Ephemeral
Other U i I
/f>_ 19 or erennlal if>_ 30'
Intermittent Perennial
e.g. Quad Name:
M. veornor nolo (Subtotal =- i � t
la Continuity of channel bed and bank
Absent
0
Weak
1
Moderate
2
Strong
ca)
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
14. Leaf litter
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
(y
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
N
-2-3
1.5
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
(j
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
_0__
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
&
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
0.5
2
3
9. Grade control,
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
Notes:
11. Second or greater order channel
Yes = 3
B- Hvrirnlnnv rRnhfnfal = 2 c
12. Presence of Baseflow
0 0
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
C 1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
15 1
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0 5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
o =
Yes = 3
1
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
(-2)1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
5
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0}
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
40,+
1
2
3
22. Fish
(pi
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
%Q
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0)
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0 1
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75;
OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:
fn
f
I(�
'

NC DWQ Streain Identification Foran Version 4.11
ppb
Date- `?4/1-o15
Project/Site:
Latitude: i
Evaluator:
County: or -A.1,
Longitude: •79, 90 Vi t Gd
Total Points:
Stream is at least Intermittent
7
Stream Determination (circ a orae .
Ephemeral
Other
UT2
if 19 or erenniallf � 3w a
Intermittent ( erenniai
e.g. quad Name:
A. Geomor holo (Subtotal =__1 q .5 )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
10* Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
3
ripple -pool se uence
0
1
C2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
5. Active/rolict floodplain
-Depositional
0
Q
2
2
ti
3
6 bars or benches
1
7. Recent alluvial deposits
CEJ
1
2
2
3
$. Neadcuts
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
.5
1
3
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
J
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
e
No = 0
lv6s
artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. H drolo Subtotal
12. Presence of 13aseflow
0
102
13. iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
3
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
`0
1
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
es
1.5
C. Biology Subtotal = 7,-L5=_)
18. Fibrous roots in strearnbed
32}
1
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
��
1
2
0
21. Aquatic Mollusks
f
1
2
3
22. Fish
0.5
1
3
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
1
1 5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
ACW 0,7 OBL 1.5 Other = 0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods,
See p. 35 of manual_
Notes:
Sketch:

rlfge
rifFle
Materials
95
6.8 x,I,n rea (1,q)86.]
9 .5
96
--------------------- ___ ---------------------- ___---------- ______-----.
93.5
9.0 witlth (h)
9.6
z-
9d
-----------------------------------------------
---- ___ -------__-_______-----------____-_----------_-_-__-----.---_--______-_-------
-
2.6
Iww bank haieht (ft)
38
90
o 10 20 30 'm 50 60 ]o
Width (ft)
12
1.5
92
0 10
20 30 40
W 60 70
wn Im
Width (R)
0 t0 20 30 40 50 60
Bankfull Dimensions
Bankfull Dimensions
Flood Dimensions
Materials
4.3x-secgon area (ft.aq.)
200.0 W I prone area (ft)
10 D50 Riffle (mm)
5.9 width in)
33.] entranchmend rag.
48 D84 ad" (mm)
0.7 can depth (ft)
2.8 low bank height (ft)
57 1 -grain sire
1.9 max depth (fl)
1.5 low bank high
reit,
Forces & Power
6.5 wetted pad.-, (ft)
It-
0.15
Rosgen Stream Type
0.7 hyd-h. radlua (R)
channel slope (%)
b
8.3 width -depth raga
resistance factor ulu'
0.83
Bankfull Flow
Flow Resistance
Forces & Power
5.] vel.city(1.)
0.033 Manning',,r Fhnesa
28fi channel slope (%)
24.5 tllscharge rate h fia)
0.15 D'Arcy-W6.bach frit.
1.16 shear stress (IWsq.R.)
1.25 Froud. number
7.3 resistance factor Wu'
4.6 relative rougM1nesa
0.77 shear velo.iry (Ns)
7.4 unit atrm power (IW.)
rlfge
96
Materials
95
6.8 x,I,n rea (1,q)86.]
9 .5
---------------------
--------------------- ___ ---------------------- ___---------- ______-----.
93.5
9.0 witlth (h)
9.6
93
48
w 92
-
2.6
Iww bank haieht (ft)
38
90
o 10 20 30 'm 50 60 ]o
Width (ft)
Bankfull Dimensions
its -aadba area (ft.aq.)
io.6 width(R)
0.8 can depth (%)
1.8 max depth (ft)
115 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.8 hyd-h. radma (ft)
13.1 Wdtlld.pth ego
Bankfull Flow
25 vel..lty(Ns)
22.4 dlschargerate(cfs)
0.50 Froud. number
Flood Dimensions
35.7 W nootl prone area (ft)
3.3 a ntrenchmen[reti.
3.4 low bank height (fl)
1.9 low bank height ratio
Flow Resistance
().033 Mannings mugM1neas
0.14 D'Arcy-Weisbach Mc.
7.5 Iwa.wno. factor Wu'
5,2 relative roughness
Materiels
10 D50 Rif .. (mm)
48 DU Riffle(mm)
10 th-hold grain size (mm):
Rosgen Stream Type
C4
Forces &Pow
043 channel slope (h)
0.21 sh.........hy lsq.fl.)
0.33 shear velocityr(IR
0.55 unit stns power (Ib/fVs)
riffle
Is
Flood Dimensions
Materials
95
6.8 x,I,n rea (1,q)86.]
9 .5
---------------------
--------------------- ___ ---------------------- ___---------- ______-----.
93.5
9.0 witlth (h)
9.6
93
48
DM Me (mm)
-
2.6
Iww bank haieht (ft)
38
th,.h.ld grain
12
1.5
low bank height redo
-
9195
91
102 wetted padmeter (ft)
0 t0 20 30 40 50 60
Bankfull Dimensions
50 80 70 80 90 100 110 120
WidM(ft)
Bankfull Dimensions
Flood Dimensions
Materials
6.8 x,I,n rea (1,q)86.]
W food wane area (ft)
10
D50 sins (mml
9.0 witlth (h)
9.6
trencM1ment ratio
48
DM Me (mm)
0.8 ""depth (ft)
2.6
Iww bank haieht (ft)
38
th,.h.ld grain
1.7 max depth (ft)
1.5
low bank height redo
102 wetted padmeter (ft)
0 t0 20 30 40 50 60
Bankfull Dimensions
Rosgen
Stream Type
0.] hydraulic r.dl.e(1)
22.1 section area (Idep.)
200.0 W Oood prone area (ft)
E4
13.0 width(R)
11.9 witlth-0epth ratio
48 D.R" (mm)
1.7 can depth (ft)
3.3 low bank height (R)
Bankfull Flow
Flow Resistance
Forces & Power
4.5 velocity (Na)
30.8 discharge
It-
0.15
Mannings roughness
D'Arcy-Weisbach frit.
1.85
0.77
channel slope (%)
ra h,N)
098 F -de number
].2
resistance factor ulu'
0.83
shearstress(IbNq.R.)
shear velociy(we)
--- Missing:,, Sinuosity, D50,
48
relative Ioughn..
4
unit sam po..r(Ibf .)
rirna
108
g
0 t0 20 30 40 50 60
Bankfull Dimensions
70 80 90 1p0
Width (R)
Flood Dimensions
110 120
130 too 150 160 170 180 190 -
Materials
22.1 section area (Idep.)
200.0 W Oood prone area (ft)
10 D50 Riffle (mm)
13.0 width(R)
15A entrenchment redo
48 D.R" (mm)
1.7 can depth (ft)
3.3 low bank height (R)
58 threshold grain sire (mm):
3.3 max depU (ft)
1.0 lav bank height rat.
14.9 wetted padmater(ft)
Rosgen Stream Type
1.5 hydraulic radius(ft)
--- Missing:,, Sinuosity, D50,
7.6 width -depth reg,
Bankfull Flow
Flow Resistance
Forces & Pow
7.1 vel.city(fNs)
9.031 Mannings mughneea
127 ch ... e1 snipe (%)
15].0 dlscM1arge rate (cfs)
0.10 D'Arcy-Weisbach hit.
1.18 sha.r.tres dwaq.ft.)
1.03 Froud. number
9.1 resistance fadorWu-
10.8 relative roughness
o.78 shear v.lociry (Ns)
9,8 unit orm power (IbM a)

rifge
96
Materials
16.1 x -section area (ftsq.)
200.0 W flood prone area (ft)
w nt
140 width(ft)
14.3 entrenchment ratio
4a D. Ri.. (mm)
1.2 can depth (fl)
3.4 low bank height (ft)
31 threshold gain size
0 10 20 40 50 80
Witlth (ft)
Bankfull Dimensions
Flood Dimensions
Materials
16.1 x -section area (ftsq.)
200.0 W flood prone area (ft)
10 D50 Riffle. (mm)
140 width(ft)
14.3 entrenchment ratio
4a D. Ri.. (mm)
1.2 can depth (fl)
3.4 low bank height (ft)
31 threshold gain size
2.4 max death (ft)
1.4 low bank height ratio
15.2 walled perimeter (ft)
Rosgen Stream Type
1.1 hydrualic di- (n)
0 10
C4
12.2 width -depth no
Bankfull Dimensions
Flood Dimensions
Bankfull Flow
Flow Resistance
Forces & Power
4.7 velociy(Wr)
0.032 Mannings roughness
0.94 nal slope 1%)
75.9 dl --rate (cfs)
0.12 D'Hrcy-Welsbach Mc.
0.62 shear stress(INsq.ft.)
0.80 Froud. number
8.3 esistance factor ulu'
7.3 relative roughness
0.57 shear vebciry (Ns)
3.2 unit strm power (IW,)
riffle
se
0 9
_
92
90
0 10
20 30
width (fi)
40 50
Bankfull Dimensions
Flood Dimensions
Materials
5.7 x- -in, area (ft.")
12.7 W flootl prone area (ft)
10 D50 Riffle (mm)
5.7 width (h)
2.2 entrenchment redo
48 D84 Riffle (mm)
1.0 eon depth (ft)
3.0 low Dankn In (ft)
37 th-Infd grain a -(mm):
1.4 max depth (ft)
2.1 low bank height ratio
88 wetted .dm (ft)
Rosgen Stream Type
0.8 hydreulic radius (ft)
E4
5.7 width -depth retro
Bankfull Flow
Flow Resistance
Forces & Power
4.8 vel ty(Ns)
0.033 Mannings roughness
1.43 channel slope (%)
27.1 11,-,p-(cfs)
0.13 D'_'Weisbach frit.
0.74 shear slress(Iblsq.ft.)
0.92 Froud. number
T4 resistance fader ulu`
6.3 relative roughness
0.62 shear v.loclry(Ns)
4.2 unit strm pow. OwI )

100
90
80
0 70
0
60
50
U
y 40
v
30
20
10
0
Martin Mainstem
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
Silt/Clay Sand
Gravel
Cobble
Boulder
Bedrock
Or
pp
• If
X ,
0.01 0.1 1 10 too 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
Reach Summary ---m--- Riffle Summary --.* • Pool Summary

Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
Pre-Proiect Nutrient Loadine Estimate (Option 11
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
Type of Land Cover
Easement
S.M. Formula
Average EMC of TN
Column
Average EMC of TP
Column
77%
Acreage
(0.46 + 8.31)
(mg/L)
(2) * (3) * (4)
(mg/L)
(2) * (3) * (6)
Transportation impervious
0.0L
0.46
2.60
0.00
0.19
0.00
Roof impervious
J.0t,
0.46
1.95
0.00
0.11
0.00
Managed pervious
(lawn/landscape)
0.00
0.46
1.42
0.00
0.28
0.00
Managed pervious
(cropland)
0.00
0.46
4.25
0.00
1.23
0.00
Managed pervious (pasture)
11.30
0.46
2.04
10.60
0.62
3.22
Wooded pervious
00
0.46
0.94
0.00
0.14
0.00
Area taken up by BMP
0.46
1.95
0.00
0.11
0.00
Fraction Impervious (1) =
0.00
TN Load (Ib/yr) =
10.60
TP Load (Ib/yr) =
3.22
TN Export
TP Export
Total Project Area =
11.30
0.94
0.29
(Ib/ac/yr) _
(Ib/ac/yr) _
Post-Proiect Nutrient Loadine Estimate (Option 11
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
Type of Land Cover
Easement
S.M. Formula
Average EMC of TN
Column
Average EMC of TP
Column
77%
Acreage
(0.46 + 8.31)
(mg/L)
(2) * (3) * (4)
(mg/L)
(2) * (3) * (6)
Transportation impervious
0.0L
0.46
2.60
0.00
0.19
0.00
Roof impervious
0.00
0.46
1.95
0.00
0.11
0.00
Managed pervious
(lawn/landscape)
0.00
0.46
1.42
0.00
0.28
0.00
Managed pervious
(cropland)
0.00
0.46
4.25
0.00
1.23
0.00
Managed pervious (pasture)
?.00
0.46
2.04
0.00
0.62
0.00
Wooded pervious
0.46
0.94
4.89
0.14
0.73
Area taken up by BMP
0.46
1.95
0.00
0.11
0.00
Fraction Impervious (1) =
0.00
TN Load (Ib/yr) =
4.89
TP Load (Ib/yr) =
0.73
TN Export
TP Export
Total Project Area =
11.30
0.43
0.06
(Ib/ac/yr) _
(Ib/ac/yr) _
Nutrient Loading Reduction Summary (Option 1)
TN (Ib/yr)
TP (Ib/yr)
Pre -Project
10.60
3.22
Post -Project
4.89
0.73
Reduction
54%
77%

Martin Dairy Mitigation Site
Pre-Proiect Nutrient Loadine Estimate (Option 21
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
Type of Land Cover
Easement
S.M. Formula
Average EMC of TN
Column
Average EMC of TP
Column
77%
Acreage
(0.46 + 8.31)
(mg/L)
(2) * (3) * (4)
(mg/L)
(2) * (3) * (6)
Transportation impervious
0.0L
0.46
2.60
0.00
0.19
0.00
Roof impervious
J.0t,
0.46
1.95
0.00
0.11
0.00
Managed pervious
(lawn/landscape)
0.00
0.46
1.42
0.00
0.28
0.00
Managed pervious
(cropland)
0.00
0.46
4.25
0.00
1.23
0.00
Managed pervious (pasture)
9.50
0.46
2.04
8.91
0.62
2.71
Wooded pervious
x.00
0.46
0.94
0.00
0.14
0.00
Area taken up by BMP
).00
0.46
1.95
0.00
0.11
0.00
Fraction Impervious (1) =
0.00
TN Load (Ib/yr) =
8.91
TP Load (Ib/yr) =
2.71
TN Export
TP Export
Total Project Area =
9.50
0.94
0.29
(Ib/ac/yr) _
(Ib/ac/yr) _
Post-Proiect Nutrient Loadine Estimate (Option 21
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
Type of Land Cover
Easement
S.M. Formula
Average EMC of TN
Column
Average EMC of TP
Column
77%
Acreage
(0.46 + 8.31)
(mg/L)
(2) * (3) * (4)
(mg/L)
(2) * (3) * (6)
Transportation impervious
0.0L
0.46
2.60
0.00
0.19
0.00
Roof impervious
0.00
0.46
1.95
0.00
0.11
0.00
Managed pervious
(lawn/landscape)
0.00
0.46
1.42
0.00
0.28
0.00
Managed pervious
(cropland)
0.00
0.46
4.25
0.00
1.23
0.00
Managed pervious (pasture)
?.00
0.46
2.04
0.00
0.62
0.00
Wooded pervious
0.46
0.94
4.11
0.14
0.61
Area taken up by BMP
0.46
1.95
0.00
0.11
0.00
Fraction Impervious (1) =
0.00
TN Load (Ib/yr) =
4.11
TP Load (Ib/yr) =
0.61
TN Export
TP Export
Total Project Area =
9.50
0.43
0.06
(Ib/ac/yr) _
(Ib/ac/yr) _
Nutrient Loading Reduction Summary (Option 2)
TN (Ib/yr)
TP (Ib/yr)
Pre -Project
8.91
2.71
Post -Project
4.11
0.61
Reduction
54%
77%

NORTH CAROLINA ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
LANDOWNER AUTHORIZATION FORM
PROPERTY LEGAL DESCI2ITION:
Deed Book: 4973 Page: 348 & 341 County: Orange
Parcel ID Number: 9896830483, 9896839111, and 9896852137
Street Address: 7205 Schley Road, Hillsborough, NC 27278
Property Owner (please print): Ted and Ruby Martin
The undersigned, registered property owner(s) of the above property, do hereby authorize
Wildlands Engineering, Inc., the NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources, and the
US Army Corps of Engineers, their employees, agents or assigns to have reasonable access to the
above referenced property for the evaluation of the property as a potential stream, wetland and/or
riparian buffer mitigation project, including conducting stream and/or wetland determinations and
delineations, as well as issuance and acceptance of any required permit(s) or certification(s).
Property Owners(s) Address: same
(if different from above)
Property Owner Telephone Number: 919-732-3560
I/We hereby certify the above information to be true and accurate to the best of my/our knowledge.
S
(Property n/iAuthorized Signature) (Date)

RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203
Attention: Robert W. Bugg
L>pu
20150408000063600 MEMO
Bk:RB5932 P9:171
04/08/2015 02:32:04 PM 1/4
FILED Mark Chilton
Register of Deeds, Orange Co,NC
Recording Fee: $26.00
NC Real Estate TX: $.00
SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE
MEMORANDUM OF OPTION
THIS MEMORANDUM OF OPTION (this "Memorandum") is made and entered into as of the
date of the last execution, which date is the 30 day of /lac+,-zh , 2015 by and between Ted
H. Martin and wife Ruby Martin ("Optionor"), and WILDLANDS ENGINEERING, INC., a North Carolina
corporation ("Optionee").
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, Optionor and Optionee have entered into that certain Agreement for Option to
Purchase Conservation Easement dated as of an even date with this Memorandum (the "Option
Agreement");
WHEREAS, the Conservation Easement area described in the Option Agreement pertains to real
property comprised of three parcels totaling approximately 53.06 acres, located at 7205 Schley Road,
Hillsborough North Carolina, in �#he County of Orange. Tax Parcel Numbers are: 9896830483.
9896839111 and 9896852137 " dbe Conservation Easement area is more specifically described on
Attachment A, attache ereto and made a part hereof (the "Property"); and
WHEREAS, this Memorandum supersedes the Memorandum of Option between Optionor and
Optionee recorded in the Orange County Register of Deeds at Book 5890, Page 167 and Book 5738,
Page 312.
NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which are
hereby acknowledged, Optionor does hereby grant unto Optionee an option ("Option") to purchase a
Conservation Easement on the Property upon the following the terms and conditions:
The Term of the Option shall expire on December 31, 2016.

2. This Memorandum is subject to all conditions, terms and provisions of the Option
Agreement, which is hereby adopted and made a part hereof by reference to the same in the same
manner as if all the provisions of the Option Agreement were copied herein in full.
3. In the event of a conflict between the terms of the Option Agreement and this
Memorandum, the Option Agreement shall prevail. Reference should be made to the Option Agreement
for a more detailed description of all matters contained in this Memorandum.
4. The Option Agreement and the terms and conditions contained herein and within the
Option Agreement shall be binding upon the heirs, successors and assigns of the Optionor and Optionee.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Optionor and Optionee have executed this Memorandum effective as
of the date first written above.
OPTIONEE:
WILDLANDS ENGINEERING, INC., a North
Carolina orporation
By: ,-� > -%44-IL"_
Stfghn D. Wilkerson, President
Date: .Z4 D -, U 1.5
WINSTON 19429310 2
OPTIONOR:
By: Ted H. Martin and wife Ruby Martin
By: c
Print Name:
Date: :5 1
By.
Print Name: ��y 1 1 7 /Y1 A grf//
Date:

V�II5932 173 3/4
�I�I��u�JJWlII I I�IIIIIIIII II
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF OrC?2
I certify that the following person(s) personally appeared before me this day, each acknowledging
to me that he or she voluntarily signed the fore document for the purpose stated therein and in the
capacity indicated: 'i e d 1--/. /YJ ar4i,
name(s) of principal(s)
Date: 3 - 2 6 - a o/S
FROBERi W :BUGGty
CouN0TARY PULIC
orthC�ronaCoun
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF dre+n1)e
(official sig.6iJiture of Notary)
1-4OUer4 w, ) , Notary Public
(Notary's printed or type ame)
My commission expires: S - a 3 - 20/
I certify that the following person(s) personally appeared before me this day, each acknowledging
to me that he or she voluntarily signed the foregoing document for the purpose stated therein and in the
capacity indicated:
Date: 3 - 2,6- a0/S
ROBERT W. BUGG
NOTARY PUBLIC
(cftgl l pburg County
North Carolina
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF I)Aec1;/P-1�4
name(s) of principal(s)
(offici6l signature of Notary)
obe, 4 w ��� Notary Public
(Notary's printed or typed nape
My commission expires:
�? -.2.3 - 20/.01
I certify that the following person(s) personally appeared before me this day, each acknowledging
to me that he or she voluntarily signed the foregoindocument fo the purpose stated therein and in the
capacity indicated: S�U�✓� /.
name(s) of principal(s)
Date: 3- 30-
ROBERT
D'
RO BBT W.
BUGG
Mecklenburg County
North Carolina
W INSTON 1942931 v 1
(officialA nature 6f Notary)
Aob 01,4 L✓- 6",r,, Notary Public
(Notary's printed or typed` 2ifiie)
My commission expires: §"11-3-.�?oi6

Exhibit A
Hallin/Martin land Swap
;/, WI LD LANDS 0 100 200 400 Feet Neuse 03020201
�/ ENGINEERING I I I � I 1 � I I
Orange County, NC
KEB-3/16/1015
moa
—moa
—o
^r
—mom
7N
^f*1
—ten m
—.-m