20160403 Ver 2_Tech Proposal_20160404

Pen Dell Mitigation Project
Neuse River Basin (CU 03020201)
Johnston County, North Carolina
RFP Number 16-006477
Proposal for Stream Mitigation Credits
October 28, 2015
2:00 PM
Prepared for:
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services
Attention: Kathy Dale
217 W. Jones St., Suite 3307-A
Raleigh, NC 27603
Prepared by:
4 WATER LAND SOLUTIONS
11030 Raven Ridge Rd, Suite 119, Raleigh, NC 27614
919) 614-5111 1 walerlandsolutions_corn

Table of Contents
1 Executive Summary...............................................................................................................................1
2 Financial Statement..............................................................................................................................5
Table1-2
3 Corporate Background and Experience................................................................................................
6
3.1 Primary Sub Contractors...............................................................................................................8
Summary of Field Investigations to Determine Intermittent/Perennial Status......................28
3.2 Resumes of Key Personnel..........................................................................................................15
Table 5-2
4 Project Organization...........................................................................................................................
22
5 Technical Approach.............................................................................................................................23
Vegetation Planting Species....................................................................................................41
5.1 Project Goals and Objectives......................................................................................................
23
5.2 Project Description......................................................................................................................27
5.3 Project Development..................................................................................................................34
Proposed Stream Mitigation Credit Summary........................................................................45
5.4 Proposed Mitigation...................................................................................................................45
Table 5-6
5.5 Current Ownership and Long Term Protection...........................................................................46
5.6 Project Phasing............................................................................................................................47
Project Phasing........................................................................................................................47
5.7 Success Criteria...........................................................................................................................48
6 Quality Control....................................................................................................................................53
Tables
Table 1-1
Mitigation Credit Summary.......................................................................................................4
Table1-2
Project Reach Summary............................................................................................................4
Table 5-1
Summary of Field Investigations to Determine Intermittent/Perennial Status......................28
Table 5-2
Existing Condition Cross-section Survey Data.........................................................................29
Table 5-3
Vegetation Planting Species....................................................................................................41
Table 5-4
Total Annual Pollutant Loadings and Removal Estimates.......................................................44
Table 5-5
Proposed Stream Mitigation Credit Summary........................................................................45
Table 5-6
Current Land Ownership.........................................................................................................46
Table5-7
Project Phasing........................................................................................................................47

Figures
Figures begin after Part 6. The pages are unnumbered but the figures are presented sequentially as listed
below.
Figure1................................................................................................................................. Project Location
Figure2..................................................................................................................... USGS Topographic Map
Figure3.................................................................................................................................. NRCS Soils Map
Figure4......................................................................................................................................... LiDAR Map
Figure5.................................................................................................................................. Floodplain Map
Figure6a....................................................................................................................1939 Aerial Photograph
Figure6b...................................................................................................................1949 Aerial Photograph
Figure6c....................................................................................................................1965 Aerial Photograph
Figure6d...................................................................................................................1988 Aerial Photograph
Figure7......................................................................................................................... Existing Hydrography
Figure 8.......................................................................................Channel Stability and Monitoring Features
Figure 9..................................................................................................................... Water Quality Stressors
Figure 10......................................................................................................... Proposed Mitigation Features
Appendices Section
Financial Statement (Only Included in the Original Technical Proposal)
Conservation Easement Option Agreement
Landowner Authorization Form
Technical Proposal Evaluation Criteria- Rating Form

Delinquency Prevention, Revenue, Transportation, and the Office of the Governor).
This prohibition covers those vendors and contractors who:
(1) have a contract with a governmental agency; or
(2) have performed under such a contract within the past year; or
(3) anticipate bidding on such a contract in the future.
For additional information regarding the specific requirements and exemptions, vendors and contractors are encouraged
to review Executive Order 24 and G.S. Sec. 133-32.
Executive Order 24 also encouraged and invited other State Agencies to implement the requirements and prohibitions
of the Executive Order to their agencies. Vendors and contractors should contact other State Agencies to determine if
those agencies have adopted Executive Order 24."
Revised 10/25/2010
SECTION 9. EXECUTION OF PROPOSAL BY OFFEROR
By submitting this proposal, the potential contractor certifies the following:
• This proposal is signed below by an authorized representative of the firm.
• It can obtain insurance certificates as required within 10 calendar days after notice of award.
• The cost and availability of all equipment, materials, and supplies associated with performing the
services described herein have been determined and included in the proposed cost.
• All labor costs, direct and indirect, have been determined and included in the proposed cost.
• The offeror has attended the mandatory conference/site visit and is aware of prevailing conditions
associated with performing these services.
• The offeror can and will provide the specified performance bond or alternate performance guarantee.
• The offeror acknowledges that on July 1, 2004 the State of North Carolina became a "tax exempt' entity
(Tax Exempt#400027).
• The potential contractor has read and understands the conditions set forth in this RFP and agrees to them
with no exceptions.
• The offeror certifies the following regarding:
• Debarment And Suspension — To the best of its knowledge and belief that it and its principals: are not
presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded
from covered transactions by any Federal, State, or local government agency;
a) have not within a 3 -year period preceding this proposal been convicted of or had a civil judgment rendered against
them for commission of fraud or a criminal offense in connection with obtaining, attempting to obtain, or
performing a public (Federal, State, or local) transaction or contract under a public transaction; violation of
Federal or State antitrust statutes or commission of embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, falsification or
destruction of records, making false statements, or receiving stolen property;
b) are not presently indicted for or otherwise criminally or civilly charged by a governmental entity (Federal, State,
or local) with commission of any of the offenses enumerated in paragraph (b) of this certification; and
C) havenot within a 3 -year period preceding this application/proposal had one or more public transactions
(Federal, State, or local) terminated for cause or default.
RFP 16-006476 Page 26 of 32

Lobbvina — To the best of his or her knowledge and belief, that:
a) No Federal, State or local government appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of the
undersigned, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any Federal,
b) State or local government agency; a member of Congress, North Carolina's General Assembly or local
government body; an officer or employee of Congress, North Carolina's General Assembly or local
government body, or an employee of a member of Congress, North Carolina's General Assembly or local
government body, in connection with the awarding of any Federal, State or local government contract,
the making of any Federal, State or local government grant, the making of any Federal, State or local
governmentloan, the entering into of any Federal, State or local government cooperative agreement, and the
extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal, State or local government
contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement.
c) If any funds other than Federal, State or local government appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid
to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency; a member of
Congress, North Carolina's General Assembly or local government body; an officer or employee of
Congress, North Carolina's General Assembly or local government body; or an employee of a member of
Congress, North
Carolina's General Assembly or local government body in connection with the Federal, State or local
government contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement, the undersigned shall complete and submit
Standard Form LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying" in accordance with its instructions.
Drug -Free Work Place Requirements — It will comply by:
a) Publishing a statement notifying employees that the unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensing,
possession or use of a controlled substance is prohibited in the grantee's workplace and specifying the actions
that will be taken against employees for violation of such prohibition;
b) Establishing a drug-free awareness program to inform employees about—
(1) The dangers of drug abuse in the workplace;
(2) The grantee's policy of maintaining a drug-free workplace;
(3) Any available drug counseling, rehabilitation, and employee assistance programs; and
(4) The penalties that may be imposed upon employees for drug abuse violations occurring in the
workplace;
c) Making it a requirement that each employee to be engaged in the performance of the grant be given a copy
of the statement required by paragraph (a) above;
d) Notifying the employee in the statement required by paragraph (a), above, that, as a condition of
employment under the grant, the employee will — (1) Abide by the terms of the statement; and (2) Notify the
employer of any criminal drug statue conviction for a violation occurring in the workplace no later than five
days after such conviction;
e) Notifying the agency within ten days after receiving notice under subparagraph (d)(2), above, from an
employee or otherwise receiving actual notice of such conviction;
f) Taking one of the following actions, within 30 days of receiving notice under subparagraph (d)(2), above
with respect to any employee who is so convicted —
(1) Taking appropriate personnel action against such an employee, up to and including termination; or
(2) Requiring such employee to participate satisfactorily in a drug abuse assistance or rehabilitation
program approved for such purposes by a Federal, State, or local health, law enforcement, or other
appropriate agency;
g) Making a good faith effort to continue to maintain a drug-free workplace through implementation of
RFP 16-006477 Page 27 of 32

paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), €, and (f), above. The offeror will comply with the provisions of the Equal
Employment Practices Act set out in Article 49A of Chapter 143 of the North Carolina General Statutes.
• The offeror will comply with the provisions of the Equal Employment Practices Act set out in Article 49A of
Chapter 143 of the North Carolina General Statutes.
• The offeror will comply, as applicable, with the provisions of the Wage and Hour Act, Occupational Safety and
Health Act of North Carolina, Controlled Substance Examination Regulation, Retaliatory Employment
Discrimination, Safety and Health Programs and Committees, Workplace Violence Prevention, and other
applicable provisions of Chapter 95 of the North Carolina General Statutes regarding labor standards.
• The offeror will comply with all applicable requirements of all other federal, state and local government laws,
executive orders, regulations and policies governing this program.
• The offeror is registered in NC E -Procurement @ Your Service or agrees to register within two days after
notification of contract award. Registration web site: httn://vendor.ncaov.com .
• The offeror as required by G.S. §143-48.5 (Session Law 2013-418), certifies that it, and each of its subcontractors
for any contract awarded as a result of this solicitation, complies with the requirements of Article 2 of Chapter 64 of
the NC General Statutes, including the requirement for each employer with more than 25 employees in North
Carolina to verify the work authorization of its employees through the federal E -Verify system.
(THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE WAS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK)
RFP 16-006476 Page 28 of 32

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: Water & Land Solutions, LLC
Check Appropriate Status—
Business Owned/Controlled
Street or PO Box: 11030 Raven Ridge Road
African American
}
Suite 119
Handicapped
}
Woman Owned
}
Other Minority Specify:
}
City: Raleigh
State: North Carolina
Zip Code: 27614
Telephone Number:
919-614-5111 Fax
Number:
N/A
Principal Place of Business if different from above (See General
City:
State:
Zip Code:
Information on Submitting Proposals, Item 18):
n
n
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.
Signature (Authorized Official):
Title:
[�
Offeror's Representative
Typed or Printed Name:
Date:
William Scott Hunt, III
10/28/2015
E -Mail address:
[e-mail]
Key Personnel/Individual Assigned To This RFP By The Offeror:
William Scott Hunt, III
Title:
Offeror's Representative
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 / bid.
(THIS INFORMATION WILL NOT COUNT TOWARD THE 100 PAGE LIMIT REQUIRED FOR TECHNICAL PROPOSAL)
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Issuing Agency: Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Mitigation Services
Solicitation #: RFP 16-006475
Agency Contract Person Kathy Dale Phone Number: 919-707-8451
Solicitation Title / 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:
CITY & STATE: Water & Land Solutions, LLC, 11030 Raven Ridge Road, Suite 119, Raleigh, NC 27614
Location(s) from which services will be performed by the Contractor:
SERVICE
CITY / PROVIDENCE / STATE
COUNTRY
Project management, stream analyses, permitting,
construction inspection, and monitoring
Raleigh, NC
USA
Raleigh, NC
USA
and construction inspection
Location(s) trom which services are anticipated to be pertormed QUTSIDE THE U. S. by the Contractor:
SERVICE ICITY / PROVIDENCE / STATE ICOUNTRY
Location(s) from which services will be performed by subcontractor(s):
SERVICE
SUBCONTRACTOR
CITY/PROVIDENCE/STATE
COUNTRY
Stream analyses, design, permitting,
WLS Engineering, PLLC
Raleigh, NC
USA
and construction inspection
Surveying, hydraulic/hydrologic
design, modeling, and permitting
Withers Ravenel
Cary, NC
USA
Construction and vegetation planting
River Works, Inc.
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/STATE COUNTRY
(Attach additional pages if necessary)
RFP 16-006476 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:
William Scott Hunt, III
Agency:
Water & Land Solutions, LLC
Title:
Offeror's Representative
Address:
11030 Raven Ridge Road, Suite 119
City:
Raleigh
State/ Zip:
NC/27614
Telephone:
919-614-5111
Fax:
N/A
Email:
[e-mail]
Offerors Execution Address (Where the contract should be mailed for signature)
Name:
William Scott Hunt, III
Agency:
Water & Land Solutions, LLC
Title:
Offeror's Representative
Address:
11030 Raven Ridge Road, Suite 119
City:
Raleigh
State/ Zip:
NC/27614
Telephone:
919-614-5111
Fax:
N/A
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:
Ashley L. Abernethy
Agency:
Water & Land Solutions, LLC
Title:
Principal
Address:
11030 Raven Ridge Road, Suite 119
City:
Raleigh
State/ Zip:
NC/27614
Telephone:
919-614-5111
Fax:
N/A
Email:
[e-mail]
RFP 16-006477 Page 31 of 32

AGA
-
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
Cataloging Unit 03020201 of 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-
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://portal.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.
0 Bid has NOT been mailed and ANY CHANGES resulting from this addendum are included in our offer.
SECTION 3
Execute Addendum:
BIDDER: Water & Land Solutions, LLC
ADDRESS (CITY & STATE): 11030 Raven Ridge Road, Suite 119, Raleigh, NC 27614
AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE: f DATE: 10/28/2015
NAME & TITLE (TYPED):William Scott Hunt, III, Offeror's Representative
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
INC DENR ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT
INC 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 INC 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

ATTACHMENT A
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 Merit/Proposal 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 and/or 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 use/land 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 and/or 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 "tie-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

Note: An answer of No in this section means the Technical Proposal is rejected.
Continue or Reject
IOD
"so
.100
-160
-tom~
Diagram for Priority II Question Above.
i € rlvrt[y �i flavciplait� b�rMtlt
1-1
1 010 2W 300 400 Sm
ATTACHMENT A
ADDENDUM# 1 FOR RFP 16-006477
Page 2of 6

ATTACHMENT A
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
Sc o 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 8 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 answer is Yes but the project is also
located within the RWP area please only answer BONUS 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 of 6

ATTACHMENT A
ADDENDUM# 1 FOR RFP 16-006477
2.1 lWhat is the proportion of significant, obvious incision (BHR > —1.5) for reaches identified for some level of channel modification?
<30% of the proposed footage exhibits significant, obvious incision. 2 points
30-70% of the proposed footage exhibits significant, obvious incision. 6 points
>70% 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.]
<30% active erosion. 4 points
30-70% active erosion. 10 points
>70% 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.]
What level of (negative) impact on water quality does the current land use within and immediately adjacent to the proposed easement have on
2'4 the project (i.e., impervious surfaces, nutrient inputs, sediment inputs or other land disturbing activities)?
Low (no evidence of nutrient, fecal coliform or sediment input via overland/stormwater flow into
the system). 1 point
Moderate (only slight or limited evidence of nutrient, fecal coliform or sediment input via
overland/stormwater flow into the system). 6 points
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
2.5 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
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
6 points
Proportion of affected channel >70%. 8 points
Modeling estimates anticipated reductions of >60% total nitrogen and/or total phosphorus, and
What level of (negative) impact on water quality does the current land use within and immediately adjacent to the proposed easement have on
2'4 the project (i.e., impervious surfaces, nutrient inputs, sediment inputs or other land disturbing activities)?
Low (no evidence of nutrient, fecal coliform or sediment input via overland/stormwater flow into
the system). 1 point
Moderate (only slight or limited evidence of nutrient, fecal coliform or sediment input via
overland/stormwater flow into the system). 6 points
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
2.5 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 of 6

ATTACHMENT A
ADDENDUM# 1 FOR RFP 16-006477
Section 3.0 Habitat and Conservation Connectivity Module [Maximum Points =10]
Section 4.0 - Design Module [Maximum Points =15]
4.1 ITo 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
Section 5.0 - Implementation and Risk Module [Maximum Points =28]
5.1 1 Does the project provide:
Between 20 - 30% of the RFP request (mitigation quantities)? 5 points
Between 30 - 50% of the RFP request? 10 points
Page 5 of 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
project or approved Mitigation Bank site) with a permanent easement. 10 points
Section 4.0 - Design Module [Maximum Points =15]
4.1 ITo 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
Section 5.0 - Implementation and Risk Module [Maximum Points =28]
5.1 1 Does the project provide:
Between 20 - 30% of the RFP request (mitigation quantities)? 5 points
Between 30 - 50% of the RFP request? 10 points
Page 5 of 6

5.2
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
ATTACHMENT A
ADDENDUM# 1 FOR RFP 16-006477
5.3 Physical constraints or barriers i.e. utilities culverts property lines easements managed areas etc.) that affect project design and
effectiveness. [Percentages calculated based upon adding total linear footage of crossings, roadways, utilities, or reduced buffer; divided by
total linear footage.]
>10% of the total project footage is segmented by crossings, roadways, or utility rights of way. 1
point
5-10% 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
points
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 1Experience 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
Page 6 of 6

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 03020201 of 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: Water & Land Solutions, LLC
ADDRESS (CITY & STATE): 11030 Raven Ridge Road, Suite 119, Raleigh, NC 27614
AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE:" DATE: 10/28/2015
NAME & TITLE (TYPED): William Scott Hunt, III, Offeror's Representative
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.2 Page 2 of 2

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 03020201 of 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: Water & Land Solutions, LLC
ADDRESS (CITY & STATE): 11030 Raven Ridge Road, Suite 119, Raleigh, NC 27614
AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE: DATE: 10/28/2015
NAME & TITLE (TYPED): William Scott Hunt, III, Offeror's Representative
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 03020201 of 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.
❑X 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: Water & Land Solutions, LLC
ADDRESS (CITY & STATE): 11030 Raven Ridge Road, Suite 119, Raleigh, NC 27614
AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE: 1 DATE.. 10/28/2015
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.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.
® 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: Water & Land Solutions, LLC
ADDRESS (CITY & STATE): 11030 Raven Ridge Road, Suite 119, Raleigh, NC 27614
AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE: DATE: 10/28/2015
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
CoLo-na
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
Sf[!T'7Ql:L'
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 03020201 of 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 Register/Vol. 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

SECTION 2
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.
® Bid has NOT been mailed and ANY CHANGES resulting from this addendum are included in our offer.
SECTION 3
Execute Addendum:
BIDDER: Water & Land Solutions, LLC
ADDRESS (CITY & STATE): 11030 Raven Ridge Road, Suite 119, Raleigh, NC 27614
AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE:
DATE: 10/28/2015
NAME & TITLE (TYPED): William Scott Hunt, III, Offeror's Representative
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
INC DEPT ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
INC 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 INC 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

October 28, 2015
NC Division of Mitigation Services
Attn: Kathy Dale
217 West Jones Street, Suite 3307-A
Raleigh, NC 27603
WATER & LAND
SOLUTIONS
11030 Raven Ridge Rd
Suite 119
Raleigh, NC 27614
waterlandsolutions.com
919-614-5111
RE: Proposal to Provide Stream Mitigation Credits Within Cataloging Unit 03020201 of the Neuse River Basin
through the Pen Dell Mitigation Project In Response to RFP 16-006477
Dear Ms. Dale:
Water & Land Solutions, LLC (WLS) is pleased to present the following proposal to provide stream mitigation credits in the
Neuse River Basin (Cataloging Unit 03020201) to the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS) in response
to RFP 16-006477. This proposal is a firm offer from WLS and shall be valid for a period of at least one (1) year from the
October 28, 2015 opening date for this RFP. All paper contained within this proposal is printed double -sided on recycled
paper with a minimum post -consumer content of 30 percent.
WLS has entered into contracts to purchase a conservation easement on acreage to comprise the Pen Dell Mitigation Project
Site, located in Johnston County, between the Archer Lodge Community and the Town of Wendell. The project site is located
in the NCDEQ (formerly NCDENR) Sub -basin 03-04-06, in the Lower Buffalo Creek Priority Sub -watershed 030202011504
of the Neuse 01 Regional Watershed Plan Study Area, and in the Targeted Local Watershed 03020201180050, all of the
Neuse River Basin. The project will involve restoration, enhancement, and preservation of stream and riparian buffer
functions along unnamed tributaries to Buffalo Creek, a tributary to the Little River, which is a tributary to the Neuse River.
As described more fully in the following Technical Proposal, the proposed restoration project not only has the potential to
provide at least 2,992 stream mitigation credits, but will also provide significant ecological improvements and functional
uplift through habitat restoration, and through decreasing nutrient and sediment loads from the project watershed. A single
technical option is being presented under this proposal to NCDMS for procuring mitigation credits from the proposed
project. This proposed technical option is listed below and is described in more detail in the Executive Summary Section of
the Technical Proposal:
R1
0
0
338
0
338
R2
0
280
0
0
280
R3
1,334
0
0
0
1,334
R4
440
500
0
0
940
R5
0
0
0
100
100
Project Totals
1,774
780
338
100
2,992

WLS staff have extensive restoration and mitigation implementation experience and we understand the most recent
requirements and standards applicable for restoration in this sub -basin of the Neuse River. Accordingly, WLS is in a strong
position to implement this proposed project in a timely and effective manner. In summary, this restoration project will
include the following:
• At least 2,992 stream mitigation credits (SMCs) utilizing a broad, balanced approach including restoration,
enhancement, preservation, and permanent protection to address all of the jurisdictional stream reaches in the
project watershed providing the maximum possible functional uplift and utilizing a watershed approach.
• Implementation of "project clusters", or combinations of different practices or measures, collectively for a combined
effect with the stream restoration, to include riparian wetland restoration, riparian buffer restoration, and various
best management practices.
• Removal of direct livestock access and associated impairments to surface waters along nearly 2,300 linear feet
(LF) of stream channel.
• Reduction of sediment and nutrient loadings caused by existing streambank erosion, and restoration of riparian
buffer corridors.
• Improved water quality for receiving waters by restoring riparian buffers to remove and treat nutrients and
sediment, by restoring and stabilizing streambanks to reduce erosion, and by restoring access for the project
stream reaches to active floodplains and associated riparian wetlands to better attenuate and treat stormflows.
• Improvements to aquatic, riparian, and wetland habitat functions for maximum uplift of the project site's
ecological functions.
In addition, this project is one of three projects, on properties owned by the same landowners, being submitted by WLS
under this RFP as a comprehensive watershed restoration effort. Each of these project sites involve a series of adjacent
direct headwater tributaries to Buffalo Creek, showing our diligent efforts to truly provide maximum ecological uplift
through a watershed approach. These multiple project sites are not being submitted by WLS under a single project proposal
solely to ensure strict compliance with the definition of a "site", as defined under this RFP.
This proposal and its contents are being submitted for the sole purpose of responding to the above-described RFP. WLS
greatly appreciates NCDMS's consideration of this proposal. We would appreciate the opportunity to complete the
presentation of this proposal to NCDMS through field review and discussion.
William "Scott" Hunt, III, PE will serve as the offeror's representative for WLS as defined under this RFP. Mr. Hunt's contact
information is listed below.
Sincerely,
Water & Land Solutions, LLC
William "Scott" Hunt, III, PE
Senior Water Resources Engineer
11030 Raven Ridge Road, Suite 119
Raleigh, NC 27614
Office Phone: [phone]
Mobile Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

Pen Dell Mitigation Project
1 Executive Summary
This executive summary highlights the proposed Pen Dell Mitigation Project, presented by Water & Land
Solutions, LLC (WLS). The project will provide stream mitigation credits in the Neuse River Basin
(Cataloging Unit 03020201) in response to RFP 16-006477. The project site is located in the NCDEQ
(formerly NCDENR) Sub -basin 03-04-06, in the Lower Buffalo Creek Priority Sub -watershed
030202011504, study area for the Neuse 01 Regional Watershed Plan (RWP), and in the Targeted Local
Watershed 03020201180050, all of the Neuse River Basin. The project will involve restoration,
enhancement, and preservation of stream and riparian buffer functions along unnamed tributaries to
Buffalo Creek, a tributary to the Little River, which is a tributary to the Neuse River.
10
r
w
x
ID
Q
m
e
� t �
LAKEAEf+f4ElL•RLY 2�
/ �4r
C1 �
Co p
20 0� 0.5' 1
0 Milesr Miles
❑ Neuse River Basun I TLW. 03020201180050 ` LWF-2009-55 Project Location
The project is located within Johnston County, near the border of Wake County
The Pen Dell Mitigation Project will involve the potential restoration, enhancement, preservation and
permanent protection of five stream reaches (Reaches R1, R2, R3, R4, R5), totaling approximately 4,550
linear feet of existing streams, as well as implementation of "project clusters", or combinations of
different practices or measures, collectively for a combined effect with the stream restoration, to include
riparian wetland restoration, riparian buffer restoration, and various best management practices (BMPs).
Water & Land Solutions Page 1

Pen Dell Mitigation Project
This comprehensive approach utilizes the entire suite of stream mitigation practices, from Priority Level
I Restoration to Preservation, and appropriately addresses all of the intermittent and perennial stream
reaches at the project site, including restoring riparian buffers along all of the project stream reaches
currently in agriculture or pasture, permanent livestock exclusion, and limiting the number of stream
crossings, thus providing the maximum functional uplift and utilizing a watershed approach.
Many of the existing stream reaches have been degraded significantly as a result of historic and current
agricultural and silvicultural practices, including unrestricted cattle access, and/or channelization. Many
of the project stream reaches are unstable, with documented active headcut migration and associated
localized channel widening and down -cutting. However, one of the project reaches is relatively
unimpacted, and as a result is stable and thus worthy of preservation. Most of the project stream reaches
have been completely or partially cleared, with small, partially forested areas of riparian buffer. The vast
majority of the project reaches lack adequate riparian buffers. Livestock currently have unrestricted
access to two of the five stream reaches, and full access to a majority of the riparian areas. Currently, the
project reaches act as significant sources of sediment and nutrient contamination to the project
watershed, as well as the receiving waters.
In addition, this project is one of three
project sites, on properties owned by the
same landowners, being submitted by WLS
under this RFP as a comprehensive
watershed restoration effort. Each of
these project sites involve a series of
adjacent direct headwater tributaries to
Buffalo Creek, showing our diligent efforts
to truly provide maximum ecological uplift
through a comprehensive watershed
approach. These multiple project sites are
not being submitted by WLS under a single
project proposal solely to ensure strict
compliance with the definition of a "site",
as defined under this RFP.
Our proposed mitigation will produce
2,992 Stream Mitigation Credits (SMCs)
through Restoration, Enhancement Levels
I and 11, and Preservation and includes the
treatment of all stream reaches at the
project site (R1, R2, R3, R4, and R5).
Treatment of R3 and the lower portion of
R4 will primarily utilize Priority Level I
Restoration practices. The appropriate
restoration treatment along these reaches
will include restoring appropriate bankfull
geometry and the stream bed will be raised
Page 2
This watershed contextual map depicts the project as
one of three that treats the Buffalo Creek watershed
9
4
RFP Submittals
Catchment Areas Treated
0 Edwards Johnson
Lake Wendell
0 Pen Dell
CDC
a.
Buffalo
Creek
a
� Nf+
Feet
This watershed contextual map depicts the project as
one of three that treats the Buffalo Creek watershed
9

Pen Dell Mitigation Project
to provide the stream reach access to its floodplain.
All of the project stream reaches proposed for restoration are perennial streams, as determined by the
methodologies utilized to complete North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) Stream
Identification Forms. Enhancement Level I will involve restoring appropriate bankfull geometry to the
upper portion of Reach R4, and raising the stream bed where necessary, to provide the stream access to
its floodplain. Enhancement Level II is proposed for R1 based on the current condition of the reach as
an intermittent headwater channel. Enhancement Level II activities will primarily focus on vegetation
planting, along with stabilization of isolated bank erosion, attenuating and treating storm flows from
adjacent agricultural fields, and installing agricultural (BMPs) to reduce direct sediment and nutrient
inputs. Preservation is proposed along R5 below Lake Wendell Road before its confluence with Buffalo
Creek. Livestock will be permanently excluded from Reaches R3 and R4 and a portion of R2. Riparian
buffers in excess of 50 feet in width will be restored along each side of all proposed project reaches, with
all work to be protected by a permanent conservation easement.
Our technical approach also includes the improvement of riparian wetland hydrology predominantly
through rehabilitation. Areas of soils that are likely hydric were observed along the floodplains of R3 and
R4 during field investigations. Some of these areas have been historically manipulated by agricultural
and silvicultural activities and have resulted in significant loss of wetland function. The function of these
degraded riparian wetlands will be improved significantly by implementing a Priority Level I Restoration
along Reach R3 and R4 to restore hydrology (surface and subsurface), re-establishing native riparian
wetland vegetation, limited disturbance of upland soils, and permanently excluding livestock to protect
soil structure and vegetation root zone. WLS acknowledges that per the RFP and subsequent addenda,
no wetland mitigation credits are being requested by NCDMS. As such, WLS is not formally requesting
any compensation for wetland mitigation credits that could potentially be provided by this project. WLS
is only providing this information to describe how the restoration practices will maximize the functional
uplift for the project reaches and their corresponding riparian wetlands.
Agricultural BMPs, including treatment basins or impoundments and alternative watering sources, will
also be implemented collectively with the above practices or measures as part of the "project clusters".
Our proposed mitigation option is summarized below. Details regarding the specific design and
mitigation approaches are more thoroughly discussed and described in narrative form under Part 5 —
Technical Approach.
Water & Land Solutions Page 3

Pen Dell Mitigation Project
Table 1-1 Mitigation Credit Summary
R1 0 0
R5 0 0 0 100 100
Table 1-2 Project Reach Summary
R1 63 0.098 Intermittent Ell G5c C5
R2 83 0.130 Perennial/ EI E5 (incised)/ E5/C5
�— Intermittent Pond
R3 102 0.160 Perennial R (PI) E5 (incised)/F5 C5
R4 129 0.202 Perennial EI/ R (PI) E5 (incised)/F5 E5/C5
R5 147 0.230 Perennial P E5 E5
Project Total NCDMS Rating Form Scores3 = 123 (Total Points) and 1.23 (Proposal Rating)
Note 1: Watershed drainage area was estimated based on USGS topographic and LiDAR information at the
downstream end of reach.
Note 2: R= Restoration, E1= Enhancement Level 1, Ell= Enhancement Level 11, and P= Preservation.
Note 3: Project Total NCDMS Rating Form Scores are the Total Score (Points) and Proposal Rating, respectively,
as determined for the project using the NCDMS's "Technical Proposal Evaluation Criteria, Neuse 03020201 –
Rating Form" (Attachment A, Addendum 1 for RFP16-006477, issued July 16, 2015).
Page 4 4

Pen Dell Mitigation Project
2 Financial Statement
Confidential financial statement is only included in the appendices of the original technical proposal.
Water & Land Solutions Page 5

Pen Dell Mitigation Project
3 Corporate Background and Experience
Firm Background
Water & Land Solutions (WLS) is a mitigation provider that concentrates on the production and delivery
of high quality mitigation units and services to clients across multiple regions of the United States.
Founded in 2014, WLS was started with the purpose of combining the key components of high quality and
successful mitigation sites, including the technical expertise for mitigation site development, the
understanding of land management, and the expertise in environmental economics and finance. Through
its inception WLS has identified, targeted and employed some of the most well-respected practitioners in
the mitigation industry who have specifically focused their careers on all of the required aspects and
stages of successful mitigation project implementation. Beyond our focus to improve ecological function
of impaired systems, WLS has a specific mission to positively impact people in our industry and the general
public through education, partnership, and relationship building. In just over a year since establishment,
WLS has grown to a staff of seven people with offices in Dallas, Texas and Raleigh, North Carolina.
Individuals making up the WLS staff have been recognized by our industry colleagues and peers as leaders
in the development, management, design, permitting, construction, and monitoring of mitigation
projects. Our projects and opportunities that we are currently pursuing include projects in North Carolina,
South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, and Ohio.
Unlike many larger multidisciplinary firms that are diversified into numerous industries, WLS's sole focus
is on implementing high quality and successful mitigation projects. WLS staff have demonstrated the
ability to work successfully with local, state, and federal regulatory agencies in permitting, design,
construction, monitoring, and closeout of stream, wetland, and riparian buffer restoration projects. We
have worked extensively on numerous full -delivery projects for the North Carolina Division of Mitigation
Services (NCDMS). In addition to our current staff, WLS maintains partnerships with multiple firms that
can provide support with skill sets and services unique to the mitigation industry, on an as -needed basis,
should the need arise.
WLS is strategically structured to focus on the development of mitigation projects. The WLS concept
includes a family of companies that were created to work together, with each company focusing on its
respective strength. Water & Land Solutions, LLC represents the project management and financial
component of the WLS family. Water & Land Solutions, LLC owns and manages the conservation
easements and contracts for each mitigation project and maintains the necessary legal and insurance
requirements needed to successfully manage projects. WLS Engineering, PLLC represents the engineering
component of the WLS family. Owned and operated by a licensed engineer, this firm practices and
oversees all technical services that constitute engineering services. WLS Engineering, PLLC is licensed with
the North Carolina Board of Examiners for Engineering and Surveyors (License Number P-1480), is
organized with the North Carolina Department of the Secretary of State, and is managed by William Scott
Hunt, III, PE, member and organizer.
Page 6 4

Pen Dell Mitigation Project
Firm Office Locations
WLS's home office is in Raleigh, North Carolina and we also maintain a single person office in Dallas,
Texas. WLS also employs part time assistance from a project partner in Columbus, Ohio on an as -
needed basis. WLS's goal is to maintain a moderate-sized presence to ensure company leadership
remains actively involved in all project work, while concurrently maintaining the high level of
quality desired and deserved by our clients. Unlike most firms that maintain a primary goal of
company profit growth, WLS's primary goal is to focus on project success and client satisfaction.
As a small company, we are better able to positively impact people inside and outside of the
industry: partners in the industry such as landowners, and individuals in the general public that
have the opportunity to learn about the value of ecological restoration.
Ability to Carry Out All Phases of Proposal
WLS staff are able to bring vast and varied experience to bear, having worked full-time in the North
Carolina mitigation industry since its inception nearly 20 years ago. Scott Hunt led one of the most
successful statewide ecosystem restoration teams while at Michael Baker International, where he
served as Ecosystem Restoration Technical Services Manager. Adam V. McIntyre has started and/or
led environmental divisions for several firms that practice in the mitigation industry, including one
of the most successful ecosystem restoration construction firms while he served as Vice President
of Operations for Backwater Environmental. Kayne Van Stell has been recognized as a leading
designer and project manager within the industry for over a decade, having helped to grow Buck
Engineering into a nationally recognized industry leader. As co-founder of WLS, Ashley L. Abernethy
brings a detailed and expert economic management approach to the mitigation industry that helps
to maximize efficiency to project implementation.
WLS has assembled an impressive team of turn -key expertise in response to this RFP. The WLS
team consists of Water & Land Solutions, LLC, WLS Engineering, PLLC, WithersRavenel, and River
Works, Inc. Our team has extensive experience with all aspects and components of full -delivery
and other restoration projects, having completed many projects for NCDMS, the Clean Water
Management Trust Fund (CWMTF), and public and private clients across the country.
WLS staff and River Works, Inc. (River Works) have a long history of cooperation and partnership
on full -delivery projects, so NCDMS can rely on the smooth function of our team as we undertake
the proposed project. In addition, WLS staff have worked directly with the WithersRavenel survey
and engineering staff on numerous projects involving existing conditions assessments, stream
restoration, BMP designs, conservation easement platting and deed recordation, as well as site
development projects and hydrology/hydraulics engineering projects. This past experience and
direct coordination will allow for the seamless integration between tasks involving hydrologic and
hydraulic modeling and design, FEMA flood studies, and topographic mapping and land surveying
activities.
WLS has identified the proposed project site and has secured the necessary options to purchase a
conservation easement from the applicable landowners. The WLS team will obtain the necessary
conservation easements, identify site constraints, and ensure site access. WLS staff has vast
experience in every aspect of stream, wetland, and riparian buffer restoration and mitigation,
having worked full time in the industry since its inception in North Carolina in the 1990s. Based on
Water & Land Solutions Page 7

Pen Dell Mitigation Project
this experience, we are familiar with all documentation requirements necessary to proceed with
these type of projects. WLS will apply for and obtain the necessary permits and approvals required
for project implementation. WLS staff are experienced with developing the Categorical Exclusions
for mitigation projects. The WLS team will coordinate with the required local, state, and federal
agencies to resolve any FEMA issues associated with the restoration efforts. Once permits are
received, the WLS team will restore the project site based on the concepts described herein. While
selecting the lowest bid for project construction may maximize overall project profits, WLS
recognizes the value in selecting a high quality contractor early in the process to partner with on
the construction of our projects. River Works has extensive experience in constructing restoration
projects and has a great, long-standing relationship with WLS leadership.
Finally, once construction has been completed, WLS will follow and utilize the current NCDMS
monitoring guidelines and templates to conduct the required monitoring activities and to develop
the annual monitoring reports. Throughout the monitoring process, WLS will ensure that the site
meets NCDMS credit goals. WLS staff have provided mitigation monitoring services across all of
North Carolina and we are familiar with the site-specific needs of this project. The WLS team
understands the regulatory issues and financial constraints, as well as the challenges associated
with full -delivery mitigation projects, and we have proven our ability to meet contracted mitigation
credit goals and project schedules.
3.1 Primary Sub Contractors
11% WithersRavenel WithersRavenel will serve as the surveyor for the WLS Team and will also
°llI.Ie..11`11 provide hydrology/hydraulics en ineering and modeling support as well
as FEMA permitting and coordination support for this project. Founded in 1983 by Hamilton E.
"Tony" Withers and Samuel F. Ravenel, WithersRavenel is now an Employee Stock Ownership Plan
(ESOP) company. Their tight -knit community of 138 employee -owners excel at providing water
resources, geomatics, environmental, and land planning services. They have nine North Carolina
Professional Land Surveyors on staff; and 13 survey crews who are supported by state-of-the-art
electronic total station equipment and a Leica High -Density Laser Scan Station. Survey crews use
Global Positioning Systems (GPS) such as Trimble and Leica equipment capable of performing
survey -grade static or real-time kinematic data collection missions simultaneously on the Global
Navigation Satellite System (GNSS).
All of WithersRavenel survey crews have extensive experience working on multiple types of
projects, including horizontal and vertical control networks and data collection for the design and
construction of roadways, residential and commercial developments, water and wastewater
systems, stormwater systems, public greenways, private golf courses and natural resource projects.
Their staff have worked closely with NCDMS and NCSPO on numerous full delivery mitigation projects and
activities involving conservation easement platting and permanently marking conservation easement
boundaries. They understand the critical importance of collecting detailed and accurate survey
information throughout the project life cycle which includes existing conditions mapping, as -built
surveys, and post -construction performance monitoring and analyses.
WithersRavenel also offers a full suite of hydrology/hydraulics engineering services, including those
associated with the design, specification, permitting and construction of stream restoration
Page 8 4

Pen Dell Mitigation Project
projects. Their hydrology/hydraulics engineers have completed numerous FEMA flood studies and
implemented corrective measures for streams throughout North and South Carolina. They have
secured dozens of Conditional Letters of Map Revision (CLOMR) and Letters of Map Revision (LOMR)
from FEMA for public and private sector clients, and they are accustomed to integrating H&H, scour,
and floodplain management strategies into the design of pedestrian facilities, bridges, restoration
corridors, and culvert systems. Their proven process starts with acquisition of the proper models;
followed by development of the existing conditions, corrected effective, and proposed
improvement models; and ending with completing the MT -2 forms, providing public notifications,
and applying for certification of no impact to structures. Their Certified Floodplain Managers (CFM)
understand when it is appropriate to follow this procedure and how to successfully secure No
Impact Certifications.
DIVER River Works, Inc. will serve as the primary construction contractor for this project
because WLS recognizes the value in selecting a high quality contractor as a
partner early in the process, as we view full -delivery as a true design -build process. River Works is
a specialized construction firm with expertise in stream, wetland, and riparian buffer restoration
and mitigation projects, including the re -vegetation of such projects. Since its inception in 2003,
River Works has become a premier contractor in North Carolina and throughout the Mid -Atlantic,
Southeast, Southwest, and Rocky Mountain areas of the United States. River Works also provides
other services including the construction of storm water BMPs and living shorelines, native species
vegetative establishment and management, and dam removal.
River Works is a devoted and trusted partner to federal, state, and local government agencies,
mitigation bankers, full delivery providers, and engineering design firms. River Works consists of
40 full-time employees, who make up four construction crews, and one dedicated vegetative
establishment and management crew. The River Works leadership team has over 90 years of
extensive experience in project planning, design, and construction. To our diverse client base, River
Works brings unique expertise, industry knowledge, and specialized equipment to complete the
most challenging restoration projects on time and within budget.
River Works' foremen and operators work primarily on environmental restoration projects, and as
such, have a thorough understanding of construction sequencing, sedimentation and erosion
control, water diversion, and vegetation requirements. River Works also has proven experience
selecting and planting appropriate native species vegetation as live stakes, bare roots, transplants,
and containerized stock for the successful restoration of vegetated buffers. River Works takes great
care in selecting plant material and temporary and permanent seed mixtures specifically matched
to the project site environment. They provided appropriate on-site supervision during planting
operations to ensure that plant materials are of suitable quality and are appropriately stored,
transported, handled, and installed according to each species' moisture tolerance, soil condition
needs, and stage of growth.
Since 2003, River Works has re-established the structure and function of ecosystems in over 95
miles of stream and 2,866 acres of wetlands, including 57 design -build projects. Project highlights
include constructing one of the largest stream and wetland restoration projects ever built in the
eastern United States — over six miles of restored channel in a low gradient coastal plain valley and
Water & Land Solutions Page 9

Pen Dell Mitigation Project
430 acres of adjacent wetlands. The company has also built streams in diverse areas such as highly
urban environments and on university campuses.
Project Manager Experience
Mr. Kayne Van Stell will be the project manager for this project. Kayne has extensive experience
with stream, wetland, and riparian buffer restoration projects, and has managed all aspects of full -
delivery projects for NCDMS across all of North Carolina, including mountain, piedmont, sandhills,
and coastal plain projects. He fully understands all technical aspects and contractual requirements
for full -delivery projects. Most recently, Mr. Van Stell served as the project manager for the Browns
Creek Tributaries Restoration Project, the UT to Cane Creek Restoration Project, and the UT to Mill
Swamp Stream and Wetland Restoration Project. Kayne has successfully navigated the regulatory
closeout of the Pinch Gut Creek and Duke Swamp Mitigation projects in recent years.
Similar Mitigation Projects in North Carolina and Other States
WLS staff have significant experience with stream, wetland, and riparian buffer restoration. Our
staff have been involved with the entire suite of services for hundreds of mitigation projects over
nearly two decades. This experience equates to the successful restoration of hundreds of
thousands of feet of stream and thousands of acres of wetlands. In addition, WLS staff have
successfully completed five years of monitoring on more than five NCDMS mitigation projects
and have successfully navigated and managed the regulatory closeout of four NCDMS full -delivery
projects in recent years. Several project examples are highlighted below:
Monteith Park Mitigation Site, Charlotte/Mecklenburg Stormwater Services, Huntersville, NC
Monteith Park before (left) and one year after restoration (right)
WLS staff developed what is considered to be one of the most unique watershed restoration
projects in the mitigation industry. The Monteith Park Mitigation Site (MPMS) is the only project
to date in North Carolina that utilized a watershed restoration approach to generate additional
mitigation credits at ratios above and beyond those typically awarded for stream and wetland
restoration credits. The MPMS was identified as one of the highest ranked stream restoration
Page 10 4

Pen Dell Mitigation Project
reaches in the McDowell Creek Watershed of Mecklenburg County, NC. The project involved the
Rosgen Priority Level I restoration of 3,550 linear feet of stream, 1.1 acres of wetland restoration,
and the retrofit design and installation of five Stormwater Control Devices (bioretention basins) in
an attempt to restore watershed hydrology to predevelopment conditions. WLS staff (Adam
McIntyre and Ashley Abernethy) identified the project in 2008 and have led project management
duties on all aspects of the project throughout its entirety. Mr. McIntyre led resource agency
coordination, including the combination of Mecklenburg County, City of Charlotte, NCDWR, and
USACE guidance and protocols to negotiate the additional credit ratios and associated values for
the project. Mr. McIntyre led conceptual planning and assisted in the design of the mitigation
project. Ms. Abernethy was the construction manager for the project (completed in July 2014) and
has also led efforts to develop stream/wetland restoration and environmental education for the
Monteith Park Community Residents. This complex mitigation project continues to be a highly
successful example of how ecosystem restoration, that involves technical, legal, political, and
educational aspects, can be implemented in rapidly developing watersheds.
Spindletop Bayou Mitigation Bank, Ecosystem Renewal, Chamber County, TX
WLS is currently partnered with Ecosystem
Renewal and EcoGenesis on a wetland and
stream mitigation bank in Liberty and
Chambers Counties, Texas. The proposed
460 -acre bank site will restore over 400
acres of riparian and non -riparian wetlands
and 10,000 linear feet of 1st order
headwater streams. The proposed property
has been highly impacted by agricultural
practices (rice and sorghum production)
since the 1930's. This project will provide
significant uplift to aquatic and terrestrial
habitats as well as water quality
improvements to Spindletop Bayou.
WLS has led coordination efforts with the
Spindletop Bayou involves over 400 acres of wetland USACE-Galveston District IRT, assisted in the
restoration and 10,000 If of stream restoration overall credit assessment, determination,
and generation, and full restoration design of
the mitigation bank site. The proposed design will be finalized in the Fall of 2015 and construction
will likely occur in Summer 2016.
Water & Land Solutions Page 11

Pen Dell Mitigation Project
Pinch Gut Creek Restoration Project, NCDMS, Stokes County, NC
Pinch Gut Creek before (left) and five years after restoration (right).
WLS staff, formerly with Michael Baker Engineering, helped to restore over 10,500 linear feet of
perennial stream channel in northwestern Stokes County, North Carolina. Streams on the site had
been severely degraded primarily due to agricultural practices and cattle access. The project
involved restoring six tributaries that drain a headwater catchment approximately 1.7 square miles
in size. Rosgen Priority Level I and II approaches were used to reconnect the streams to their active
floodplain. In -stream structures were used to provide stream stability, as well as to improve
aquatic habitat and fisheries. The restored riparian buffers adjacent to the streams are protected
through permanent fencing that excluded cattle and other livestock. WLS staff conducted
watershed analyses, performed existing condition and reference reach surveys, prepared 401/404
permitting documents, developed construction documents, and provided construction oversight.
Construction of the project was completed in 2008, five years of performance monitoring were
completed, and the project regulatory closeout was successfully completed in the Summer of 2013.
UT to Cane Creek Restoration Project, NCDMS, Alamance County, NC
UT to Cane Creek before (left) and one year after restoration (right).
Page 12 4

Pen Dell Mitigation Project
As part of an NCDMS full -delivery project, WLS staff, formerly with Michael Baker Engineering,
helped to restore approximately 3,400 linear feet and enhanced approximately 2,900 linear feet of
perennial and intermittent stream channels in southeastern Alamance County, North Carolina. The
streams were degraded primarily as a result of agricultural practices and associated cattle access.
The project involved restoring two tributaries that drained headwater catchments, 452 acres and
SO acres, respectively. Rosgen Priority Level I and II Restoration approaches were utilized to
reconnect streams with their active floodplain. Enhancement Level I and II were also employed to
stabilize the streambanks and bed features. In -stream structures were included in the design to
provide stream stability and improve aquatic habitat and fisheries. The restored riparian buffers
adjacent to the streams were protected through permanent fencing that exclude livestock and an
alternative livestock watering system was provided. WLS staff conducted a watershed analysis,
performed existing conditions and reference reach surveys, and prepared the mitigation plan.
Construction of the project was completed in the Summer of 2014.
UT to Mill Swamp Stream and Wetland Restoration Project, NCDMS, Onslow County, NC
Under a NCDMS full -delivery contract, WLS
staff, formerly with Michael Baker
Engineering, successful designed and
oversaw construction activities for 1,513
linear feet of single thread channel, 2,093
linear feet of multi -thread channel, and 4.0
acres of riparian wetlands in the White Oak
River Basin. In addition, the project
enhanced 600 linear feet of stream and
excluded cattle from an intermittent
tributary that flows into the project area.
The project is located in the Inner Coastal
Plain Physiographic Region, which has a
long history of aquatic resource
degradation caused by agricultural
practices such as ditching, draining, and
watershed hydromodifications.
As part of the design and permitting
considerations for the project, WLS staff
worked extensively with the NCDMS and IRT
to determine what restoration approach
would be appropriate for the headwater
stream and wetland system based on the
current coastal plain mitigation guidance
and functional uplift potential at the site.
WLS staff helped perform detailed field UT to Mill Swamp before (top) and one year after
assessments, which included jurisdictional restoration (bottom).
wetland delineations, hydrologic analyses,
Water & Land Solutions Page 13

Pen Dell Mitigation Project
geomorphic surveys, stream determinations for intermittent and perennial status, and a
delineation and investigation of hydric soil units. Based on the existing conditions analyses, a
unique design plan was developed for the site which involved removing spoil piles and filling the
highly degraded channel to restore a shallow, broad or diffuse flow path across the relic floodplain
and allow the channel to adjust naturally on its own after construction. This creative headwater
restoration approach raised the local water table and greatly improved aquatic and terrestrial
habitat by providing in -stream cover through the addition of woody debris and brush piles. WLS
staff also sought to minimize unnecessary disturbances to ecologically functioning areas that were
prevalent within the stream corridor. On-site woody material was stockpiled and incorporated back
into the system whenever possible, and a revegetation plan was developed to remove invasive
plant species and improve the riparian stream buffers with native vegetation species.
To meet one of the NCDMS's RBRP project goals, WLS implemented an agricultural BMP to reduce
nonpoint source inputs into the restoration area. A wet pond was installed to capture runoff from
adjacent farm fields and to thereby increase filtering capacity through sediment and nutrient
settling, demonstrating the application of innovative/non-traditional restoration. The pond also
serves as a site amenity that creates aquatic habitat and recreational opportunities for the local
community.
The project construction was completed in June 2013 and the project is currently in its second year
of successful post -construction performance monitoring, and is on track for the contracted
mitigation credits over the seven year monitoring period.
Multidisciplinary Project Approach
The goal of ecosystem restoration is to return the maximum level of hydrologic and biological
functioning to a degraded stream, wetland, and/or riparian buffer corridor, considering the
associated land use and landform constraints. The WLS team of scientists, engineers, surveyors,
and biologists lead the efforts to document the existing conditions at the project site and document
the impairments and constraints. Our team then works closely together to develop restoration
designs that provide optimum functional uplift, again considering site constraints, as well as to
coordinate the efforts for the Categorical Exclusion tasks and other permitting efforts. Hydrologists
and hydraulic engineers prepare models and analyses to evaluate FEMA requirements, flooding
conditions, and sediment transport.
WLS's senior staff have significant experience with regulatory review, including project closeout, as
demonstrated by having successfully brought four NCDMS full -delivery projects to regulatory
closure. Construction specialists perform constructability reviews with the project designer to
ensure designs are practical and can be constructed efficiently. Our team's construction experts,
including foremen, equipment operators, laborers and vegetation specialists ensure that sound,
innovative and cost effective construction is employed in adherence with the project schedule.
When needed, the WLS construction team is able to adapt easily to various environmental and site
conditions. After construction, our team's surveyors and designers perform as -built and monitoring
surveys to document project conditions during the monitoring period. This multi -disciplinary
approach has been a primary factor in our successful track record with ecosystem restoration
projects.
Page 14 4

Pen Dell Mitigation Project
3.2 Resumes of Key Personnel
A WATER & LAND"
f� SOLUTIONS
Kayne M. Van Stell, Ecosystem Restoration Specialist
Mr. Van Stell has over 15 years of experience working on a wide variety of ecosystem restoration,
compensatory mitigation, water resources, and civil engineering projects. He has extensive site
design and project management experience that includes developing construction plans and
specifications while providing technical assistance for clients, stakeholders and contractors on
numerous projects throughout the United States. He has completed all levels of Rosgen natural
channel design (Levels I through IV) and has expertise with natural systems surveys such as stream
and wetland delineations, geomorphic and ecological assessments, conservation easement mapping,
and is proficient with numerous GIS, CADD, and H&H modeling software programs.
Project Responsibilities: Mr. Van Stell will serve as the project manager and will lead the design and
construction administration.
Education: BS Biology/Ecology, Northern Michigan University, 1997.
Continuing Education: Applied Fluvial Geomorphology (Level 1), River Morphology and Applications
(Level II), River Assessment and Monitoring (Level III), and River Restoration and Natural Channel
Design (Level IV) with Dave Rosgen.
Professional Memberships: North Carolina Environmental Restoration Association (NCERA), North
Carolina Association of Environmental Professionals (NCAEP).
William "Scott" Hunt, III, PE, Senior Water Resources Engineer
Mr. Hunt is an accomplished natural resources engineer with more than 23 years of civil engineering
experience, specializing in stream, wetland, and habitat restoration, conservation and stewardship.
He is an avid, conservation -minded outdoorsman with passionate vision and a genuine desire to
strike a balance between sound engineering principles and environmental stewardship in order to
promote and implement improvements to the conservation of natural resources. Mr. Hunt most
recently served as ecosystem restoration technical services manager and lead engineer responsible
for the management of more than 20 ecosystem restoration staff, clients, and services across North
Carolina, as well as national and regional level coordination of ecosystem restoration technical,
business development and marketing services. Mr. Hunt's career includes ecosystem restoration
design, civil engineering site design, storm drainage design, stormwater management design,
wireless telecommunications tower site design, and utility and erosion control design for a variety of
public and private sector projects across the Southeast. Scott successfully navigated and managed
the regulatory closeout of four NCDMS full -delivery projects in recent years.
Project Responsibilities: Mr. Hunt will serve as the professional engineer of record (under WLS
Engineering, PLLC), the senior technical advisor and QA/QC coordinator, and the offeror's
representative as defined under this RFP.
Education: BS Civil Engineering, North Carolina State University, 1992.
Water & Land Solutions Page 15

Pen Dell Mitigation Project
Professional Registration: Professional Engineer, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, and
Georgia.
Continuing Education: Applied Fluvial Geomorphology (Level 1), River Morphology and Applications
(Level II), River Assessment and Monitoring (Level III), and River Restoration and Natural Channel
Design (Level IV) with Dave Rosgen; Stormwater BMP Inspection and Maintenance, North Carolina
Cooperative Extension.
Professional Memberships: North Carolina Environmental Restoration Association (NCERA), Current
Vice -President.
Adam V. McIntyre, Watershed Hydrologist, CEO
Mr. McIntyre has been in the environmental resource management business for more than 16 years,
specializing in the identification, planning, design, permitting and construction of mitigation sites
throughout the United States. In addition to mitigation Mr. McIntyre has been active in reviewing
land tracts to identify potential environmental hurdles, assist in the planning and development of
various projects to maximize land value and protect environmental features, and the permitting of
those sites to expedite the process. Mr. McIntyre has successfully completed over 200 mitigation,
permitting, and delineation projects throughout North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, New
Jersey, and Texas, as well as reviewing opportunities in Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Ohio,
and Virginia. Mr. McIntyre has used his technical experience and personal/professional skills to
develop partnerships and relationships with government officials, clients, and investors in the
mitigation arena. Mr. McIntyre has been involved in developing reference stream attributes and
regional curves in North and South Carolina. Mr. McIntyre has attended the four fluvial
geomorphology Natural Channel Design courses offered by Dave Rosgen along with presenting at
workshops and conferences involving stream and wetland mitigation. Mr. McIntyre maintains
experience in all phases of watershed restoration planning, design, construction, and monitoring. In
addition, Mr. McIntyre has worked with multiple government entities to develop an efficient, low-
risk, and highly successful mitigation procurement process in order to help these entities meet their
mitigation needs.
Project Responsibilities: Mr. McIntyre will assist with the existing conditions analyses and
assessment, design, permitting, and construction inspection.
Education: BS Natural Resources, North Carolina State University, 1999.
Continuing Education: Applied Fluvial Geomorphology (Level 1), River Morphology and Applications
(Level II), River Assessment and Monitoring (Level III), and River Restoration and Natural Channel
Design (Level IV) with Dave Rosgen.
Professional Memberships: National Mitigation Banking Association (NMBA), North Carolina
Environmental Restoration Association (NCERA), Past Vice -President, South Carolina Mitigation
Association (SCMA), Executive Board.
Ashley L. Abernethy, Environmental Economist, Restoration Specialist, COO
Ms. Abernethy is the co-founder and Chief Operating Officer of Water & Land Solutions and has been
in the environmental economics field for more than 5 years, specializing in valuing and securing
Page 16 4

Pen Dell Mitigation Project
funding sources for restoration projects. Ms. Abernethy has a unique combination of education and
experience in environmental economics, ecosystem restoration, and Natural Resources Damage
Assessment (NRDA), which she uses to develop high-quality restoration projects in an economically
efficient manner. Ms. Abernethy has been active in reviewing land tracts to determine management
practices and restoration opportunities that improve ecological integrity while generating revenue
and cost -savings for landowners and mitigation credit consumers.
Project Responsibilities: Ms. Abernethy will serve as the senior financial advisor and QA/QC
coordinator, and will assist with the existing conditions analyses and assessment, permitting, and will
lead the monitoring efforts.
Education: BS Zoology, North Carolina State University, 2006; MEM, Environmental Economics, Duke
University.
Continuing Education: Applied Fluvial Geomorphology (Level 1) and River Morphology and
Applications (Level II) with Dave Rosgen.
Professional Memberships: National Mitigation Banking Association (NMBA), Society for Ecological
Restoration (SER), South Carolina Mitigation Association (SCMA).
Jon G. Morgan, Project Scientist
Mr. Morgan is a project scientist specializing in stream, wetland, and habitat restoration,
conservation and stewardship. He is a lifelong outdoorsman who cares about the conservation and
preservation of our natural resources. Mr. Morgan most recently served for seven years as a Master
Officer with the Law Enforcement Division of the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, in
Wake County. He worked closely with the public, landowners, outdoorsmen and sportsman to
conserve and protect the natural resources of North Carolina. In addition to the enforcement of the
state's wildlife law, Mr. Morgan also worked diligently to educate the public and landowners about
our ecosystems and the issues created by an increasing urban environment. He also assisted NCWRC
biologists with wildlife population counts and wildlife disease control.
Project Responsibilities: Mr. Morgan will assist with the existing conditions field surveys, analyses
and assessment, permitting, and monitoring efforts.
Education: BA Sociology, North Carolina State University, 2011.
Professional Memberships: National Mitigation Banking Association (NMBA), North Carolina
Environmental Restoration Association (NCERA).
Catherine A. Manner, Project Scientist
Ms. Manner is a project scientist specializing in stream, wetland, and habitat restoration,
conservation and stewardship. She has a passion for improving the health and quality of surrounding
watersheds. Ms. Manner most recently served as an Environmental Consultant for ICF International
where she worked in the Environmental & Planning Division. She assisted with Tier 2 Environmental
Site Specific Reviews for the FEMA and HUD New Jersey Hurricane Sandy Project.
Project Responsibilities: Ms. Manner will assist with the existing conditions field surveys, analyses
and assessment, permitting, and monitoring efforts.
Water & Land Solutions Page 17

Pen Dell Mitigation Project
Education: BS Environmental Science, Concentration in Hydrology and Double Minor in Geology and
Geography, University of Delaware, 2015.
Professional Memberships: North Carolina Water Resources Association (NCWRA).
Marshall Wight, PLS, Surveyor
Mr. Wight is professional surveyor with expertise in mapping, designing, and analyzing stream
projects in a variety of geographical areas as well as soil and concrete testing. He has completed
more than 130 stream and wetland restoration projects involving mitigation and monitoring reports,
and construction layout and oversight. For these projects, he typically conducted cross-sectional and
longitudinal profiles, boundary surveys, conservation easements, and deed research. He also
provided existing conditions mapping, as -built surveys, monitoring surveys, design support, and bed
material analyses as needed. He has extensive experience working with NCDMS and NCSPO on
numerous mitigation projects involving conservation easement platting and overseeing the
implementation of boundary signage that conform with state standards and specifications. In
addition to surveying, Mr. Wight has experience with project management, field crew supervision,
setting control networks, processing and organizing field data, budgeting, scoping, and quality
control.
Project Responsibilities: Mr. Wight will serve as the professional land surveyor of record and will
oversee all surveying activities.
Education: BS Agriculture Environmental Technology, North Carolina State University, 2001.
Professional Registration: Professional Land Surveyor, North Carolina.
Professional Certifications: NC State Cooperative Extension Workshop: Bio -retention Design, April
2008; NC State Cooperative Extension Workshop: Advanced Stormwater BMP Design, December
2008.
Hunter Freeman, PE, LEED AP, Project Manager
Mr. Freeman leads sustainable stormwater management planning and implementation projects for
WithersRavenel. He has 15 years of stormwater engineering experience, specializing in permitting
and execution of Low Impact Development (LID) strategies. He has designed hundreds of BMPs in
the piedmont and coastal plain of North Carolina, and has also assisted with regulatory and
programmatic efforts to promote sustainable design concepts. He recently completed STORM -EZ, a
comprehensive stormwater computation tool used by NCDEQ to streamline the stormwater
permitting processes and encourage LID designs. He is an also active a member of the ASCE National
LID Standing Committee and serves on numerous stormwater advisory committees and workgroups
within North Carolina.
Project Responsibilities: Mr. Freeman will provide hydrology/hydraulics engineering and
modeling support and FEMA permitting and coordination support.
Page 18 4

Pen Dell Mitigation Project
Education: BS Engineering, Vanderbilt University, 1998.
Professional Registration: Professional Engineer, North Carolina; Certified Stormwater BMP
Inspection & Maintenance Professional.
Professional Memberships: Wake County Stormwater Task Force, 2006; Brunswick County Low
Impact Development Technical Advisory Committee; New Hanover County Low Impact Development
Technical Advisory Committee; Wake County Stormwater Ordinance Implementation Team,
Member.
Eric Reardon, PE, Project Engineer
Mr. Reardon has over 24 years of experience as a project engineer with 8 years specializing in
transportation projects. These projects include sidewalks, greenways, roadways, airports, railway
and seaport terminals, and related work in site development. He has been involved with
transportation projects from preliminary alignment studies to final construction documents
incorporating alignment design, hydrology & hydraulic analysis and design, and erosion control
permitting. He has also worked on stormwater management plans for private and public projects
throughout North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and South America.
Project Responsibilities: Mr. Reardon will provide hydrology/hydraulics engineering and
modeling support and FEMA permitting and coordination support.
Education: BS Civil Engineering, University of Tennessee, 2002; AAS Civil Engineering Technology,
Mowhawk Valley Community College, 1990.
Professional Registration: Professional Engineer, North Carolina; Certified Floodplain Manager.
1VEIT
Bill Wright, Executive Vice President
Mr. Wright serves as Executive Vice President at River Works. Mr. Wright joined the River Works
team in 2007, and has been involved in a construction management and project estimating capacity
for over 307,478 linear feet of stream and 2,401 acres of wetland work while working at River Works.
Prior to coming to River Works, Mr. Wright served 6 years as construction manager of the Stream
Restoration and Wetland Construction Program at another environmental restoration company. Mr.
Wright has more than 30 years of experience in the construction, environmental, and soil and water
conservation fields. This experience includes project estimating, management, equipment and
material procurement; client relations and assistance; program development and marketing; and
budget responsibility. Mr. Wright has an extensive background in site grading, utility installation,
landfill construction, stream restoration and enhancement, wetland construction, pond
construction, and BMP installation.
Project Responsibilities: Mr. Wright will serve as the Construction Manager for construction
activities.
Education: BS Agronomy, North Carolina State University, 1974.
Water & Land Solutions Page 19

Pen Dell Mitigation Project
Professional Registration: North Carolina General Contractors License (Building, Highway, H
(Excavation and Grading), PU (Water and Sewer Lines), and PU (Water Purification and Sewage
Disposal)).
Continuing Education: River Restoration Design Implementation Course (Level V) by Dave Rosgen of
Wildland Hydrology, 1994.
Phillip Todd, Vice President
Mr. Todd serves as Vice President of River Works, Inc. He joined the River Works team in October
2011. Mr. Todd pursues strategic growth opportunities, oversees development of projects from
project identification for bid to start of construction, performs constructability review, serves as
client manager, and project management when needed. Prior to coming to River Works, Mr. Todd
worked for 6 years at an engineering firm where he was Vice President. He pursued new business
development opportunities, and he served as program manager, project manager, technical expert,
and resource agencies coordinator. Mr. Todd specialized in wetland restoration, planting plans,
stream monitoring, wetland and stream delineation, environmental permitting and NEPA
documentation. His work experience also includes over 11 years with the NC Department of
Transportation where he managed stream and wetland mitigation site identification searches,
feasibility studies, and mitigation/restoration plan development including conversations with
landowners about the benefits of mitigation.
Project Responsibilities: Mr. Todd will serve as the Project Construction Development Coordinator.
Education: Master of Public Administration, North Carolina State University, 2002; BS Biology, North
Carolina State University, 1993.
Continuing Education: Applied Fluvial Geomorphology (Level 1), River Morphology and Applications
(Level II), River Assessment and Monitoring (Level III), and River Restoration and Natural Channel
Design (Level IV) with Dave Rosgen.
George Morris, Botanist/Vegetation Specialist
Mr. Morris joined River Works in November 2004. Mr. Morris oversees planting activities and
projects for River Works including riparian buffer, wetland and stormwater BMP in addition to
assisting the construction site superintendents with soil bioengineering. He also oversees invasive
plant species removal for various projects. Mr. Morris has an extensive background in horticulture
and landscaping with native plant species. Mr. Morris has over 35 years of experience in the
environmental industry, including over 19 years with environmental restoration of native plant
communities and over 20 years with removal of invasive species vegetation. Prior to working with
River Works, Mr. Morris was an Environmental Scientist for an environmental restoration planting
company where his primary responsibilities were oversight of installation of bioengineering and
riparian buffer plantings for stream and wetland restorations, as well as design and installation of
BMP's and rain gardens. He also owned Landscape Sanctuaries, specializing in the use of native and
aquatic species in landscape situations. Mr. Morris was also Superintendent of Grounds at Davidson
College and oversaw the day to day maintenance of the college campus and athletic fields as well as
the selection, planting, and accessioning of plants in the Davidson College Arboretum. He is a
certified NC Landscape Contractor, certified Stormwater BMP Inspection and Maintenance
Page 20 4

Pen Dell Mitigation Project
Professional and licensed NC Landscape and Aquatic Pesticide Applicator. Mr. Morris serves on the
board for the North Carolina Invasive Plant Council, also representing the landscape industry on that
same council.
Project Responsibilities: Mr. Morris will oversee all project planting and vegetation management.
Education: BS Agriculture and Plant Science, University of Delaware at Newark, 1985.
Professional Registration: North Carolina Pesticide Applicators License (Sub -class L and A), North
Carolina Landscape Contractors Registration, Registered Professional Plantsman.
River Works Site Superintendents
River Works currently has four site superintendents who lead our field construction activities. Each
of these site superintendents has worked with River Works since 2008, and each has proven
experience leading the construction of full -delivery project construction. Due to the uncertainty
associated with scheduling future full -delivery project construction activities far in advance, it is
difficult to predict which site superintendent would lead site construction. Therefore, the following
table summarizes the experience of each site superintendent:
Donnie O'Bryant 22 72,002 590
Nathan Carter 25 78,588 1,458
Steve Shore 18 102,354 206
Robert Lucas 34 33,791 125
* Denotes which are while working as a site superintendent at River Works
DBE/HUB Participation
WLS does not have an agreement with a DBE/HUB certified firm for this project.
Water & Land Solutions Page 21

Pen Dell Mitigation Project
4 Project Organization
Qualifications and Responsibilities
For all personnel assigned to this project, please see the resumes in Part 3 for description of
qualifications and responsibilities.
Proposed Staffing, Deployment, and Organization
Marshall Wright, PLS
Kayne VanStell (W
Jon Morgan (WL
Catherine Manner (l
Jon tvbrgan (WLS)
Catherine Manner (WLS)
Kayne VanStell (WLS)
Adam McIntyre (WLS)
Scott Hunt, PE (WLS, WLSE)
Ashley Abernethy (WLS)
Scott Hunt, PE (WLS, WLSE) Kayne VanStell (WLS)
Ashley Abernethy (WLS)
Kayne VanStell (WLS)
Adam McIntyre (WLS)
Scott Hunt, PE (WLS, WLSE)
Ashley Abernethy (WLS)
Hunter Freeman, PE LEED AP(WR)
Eric Reardon, PE (WR)
Scott Hunt, PE
(WLS,WLSE)
Bill Wright (RW)
Phillip Todd (RW)
George Morris (RW)
Kayne VanStell (WLS)
Adam McIntyre (WLS)
Scott Hunt, PE (WLS, WLSE)
Marshall Wright PLS (WR)
Kayne VanStell (WLS)
Marshall Wright PLS (WR)
Jon Morgan (WLS)
Catherine Manner (WLS)
Ashley Abernethy (WLS)
Page 22 4
WAU'R & LAND
(WLS) Water & Land Solutions, LLC ". " 's
(WLSE) Water & Land Solutions Engineering, PLLC
ol���io�gg
(RW) Rver Works, Inc. ■�
(WR) Withers Ravenel 4A WithersRavenel
WATEN & LAND
SOLUTIONS
Marshall Wright, PLS
Kayne VanStell (W
Jon Morgan (WL
Catherine Manner (l
Jon tvbrgan (WLS)
Catherine Manner (WLS)
Kayne VanStell (WLS)
Adam McIntyre (WLS)
Scott Hunt, PE (WLS, WLSE)
Ashley Abernethy (WLS)
Scott Hunt, PE (WLS, WLSE) Kayne VanStell (WLS)
Ashley Abernethy (WLS)
Kayne VanStell (WLS)
Adam McIntyre (WLS)
Scott Hunt, PE (WLS, WLSE)
Ashley Abernethy (WLS)
Hunter Freeman, PE LEED AP(WR)
Eric Reardon, PE (WR)
Scott Hunt, PE
(WLS,WLSE)
Bill Wright (RW)
Phillip Todd (RW)
George Morris (RW)
Kayne VanStell (WLS)
Adam McIntyre (WLS)
Scott Hunt, PE (WLS, WLSE)
Marshall Wright PLS (WR)
Kayne VanStell (WLS)
Marshall Wright PLS (WR)
Jon Morgan (WLS)
Catherine Manner (WLS)
Ashley Abernethy (WLS)
Page 22 4

Pen Dell Mitigation Project
5 Technical Approach
5.1 Project Goals and Objectives
The Pen Dell Mitigation Project (project) will provide numerous water quality and ecological benefits
within the Buffalo Creek Watershed, which drains to the Little River, which eventually drains to the Neuse
River. While many of these benefits are limited to the project area, others, such as nutrient removal,
sediment reduction, and improved aquatic and terrestrial habitat, have more far-reaching effects,
potentially extending downstream to the Neuse River. The project will meet the general restoration and
protection goals outlined in the 2010 Neuse River Basin Restoration Priority Plan (RBRP). More
specifically, three out of the four functional goals and objectives outlined in the Wake -Johnston
Collaborative Local Watershed Plan (LWP) as well as the Neuse 01 RWP will be met by:
• Reducing sediment and nutrient inputs to the Buffalo Creek Watershed.
• Restoring, preserving and protecting wetlands, streams, riparian buffers and aquatic habitat.
• Implementing agricultural BMPs and stream restoration in rural catchments together as "project
clusters".
In an effort to revise its watershed prioritization process, NCDMS is currently developing a RWP for the
Upper Neuse River Basin within Hydrologic Unit (HU) 03020201. The purpose of the Neuse 01 RWP is to
identify and prioritize potential mitigation strategies to offset ecological impacts from development and
provide mitigation project implementation recommendations to improve ecological uplift within the RWP.
The project recommendations include traditional stream and wetland mitigation, buffer restoration,
nutrient offset, and non-traditional mitigation projects, including stormwater and agricultural BMPs; and
rare, threatened, or endangered (RTE) species habitat preservation or enhancement (Neuse 01 RWP —
Phase II, 2015).
As stated previously, the project site is located in the NCDEQ Sub -basin 03-04-06, in the Lower Buffalo
Creek Priority Sub -watershed 030202011504 study area for the Neuse 01 RWP and in the Targeted Local
Watershed 03020201180050, all of the Neuse River Basin. The project is situated in the lower piedmont
where potential for future development associated with the rapidly growing Wendell and Johnston
County areas is imminent, as described in the RWP. The USGS 2011 National Land Cover Data (NLCD) GIS
Dataset was used to estimate the impervious cover and dominant land use information for the project
catchment area. Currently, the catchment area has an impervious cover estimated to be less than one
percent and the dominant land uses are agriculture and mixed forest. As recommended in the Neuse 01
RWP, this project provides the perfect opportunity to implement "project clusters", or combinations of
different practices or measures, collectively for a combined effect with the stream restoration, to include
riparian wetland restoration, riparian buffer restoration, and various BMPs, ahead of the described
development
NCDMS's broad focus points include maintaining and enhancing water quality, restoring natural
hydrology, and protecting fish and wildlife habitat. The Pen Dell Mitigation Project meets each of these
broad focus points. The project will improve water quality by reducing nutrient and sediment inputs from
the project area. The natural flow regime will be restored to riparian wetlands and floodplain areas by
implementing Priority Level I Restoration to raise the existing streambed. Additionally, fish and wildlife
Water & Land Solutions Page 23

Pen Dell Mitigation Project
habitat will be restored and protected through livestock exclusion and a permanent conservation
easement in excess of 50 feet along all stream reaches.
The project is located immediately east of Lake Wendell which is classified as a Natural Heritage Natural
Area (NCNHP, 2015). Currently, the surrounding headwater tributaries that flow directly into Buffalo
Creek are largely undeveloped on parcels that are privately owned. The proposed project would extend
the wildlife corridor and protect aquatic and terrestrial habitat in the area through a permanent
conservation easement. Rare aquatic species such as the Least Brook Lamprey (Lampetra aepyptera) are
known to occur in the Lower Buffalo Creek Sub -watershed. The in -stream restoration practices will
improve habitat diversity (e.g. protect/restore floodplain and spring -fed wetlands, provide deeper pools
and backwater areas) and promote native species propagation throughout the conservation easement.
Additionally, agricultural BMPs such as livestock fencing and watering systems will be installed to remove
direct effluent inputs and pollutant contamination from the project streams and wetlands.
Expected ecological benefits and functional uplift to water quality, hydrology and habitat are outlined
below as part of the project implementation goals described in the Neuse 01 RWP — Phase II. Developing
goals and objectives that directly relate to a sites functional improvement is a critical path for
implementing a successful restoration project.
Benefits Related to Water Quality Functions
Pollutant Removal
Riparian buffer — Currently excess nutrients and
pollutants such as fecal coliform, ammonia,
nitrogen and phosphorus from cattle waste and
agricultural practices are entering a majority of the
project reaches without adequate riparian buffers.
High -functioning riparian buffers will be
established and permanently protected to remove
direct pollutant sources and filter runoff prior to
entering the project reaches.
Photo shows lack of mature riparian buffer and
Agricultural BMPs — As recommended under the deep rooting vegetation.
Neuse 01 RWP, various agricultural BMPs will be
implemented under a "project cluster" approach to provide various levels or methodologies of pollutant
removal. When implemented collectively along with stream, riparian buffer, and riparian wetland
restoration, agricultural BMPs can be effective at reducing nutrients and pollutants, particularly sediment
loadings, and therefore provide additional ecological uplift to a project. The agricultural BMPs that are
best suited for use at this project site include no -till planting, grassed waterways, restricted grazing,
livestock fencing, alternate watering sources for livestock, and small impoundments or basins to treat
agricultural runoff. Currently, the landowner actively employs no -till planting and the use of grassed
waterways and restricted or rotational grazing. Therefore, livestock exclusion fencing, providing alternate
watering sources for livestock, and the addition of low maintenance treatment basins will be employed
under this project.
• Livestock exclusion — Portions of the project area have been heavily grazed by livestock or
disturbed for agricultural purposes. Cattle currently have unrestricted access to two of the five
Page 24 4

Pen Dell Mitigation Project
project stream reaches, and access to the degraded wetland areas. Excluding cattle from the
conservation easement with permanent fencing would eliminate a direct pollutant source to the
riparian corridor. Removing livestock by restoring a natural stream and wetland system with
native buffer vegetation will also greatly improve site aesthetics throughout the project corridor.
Alternate watering — Providing a permanent watering source and shade for livestock well outside
of the riparian buffer corridor will further "train" cattle to keep out of the conservation easement
boundaries and well away from the restored stream corridors, which will also assist with
eliminating a direct pollutant source to the riparian corridor.
Water quality BMPs— Water quality BMPs in the form of treatment basins, impoundments, and/or
constructed wetland features will capture and treat runoff from the surrounding active cattle
pastures and/or agricultural fields before it reaches the restored riparian buffer corridor and
stream channel. These basins will increase infiltration and groundwater recharge, diffuse flow
energies, and allow nutrient uptake within the extended buffer area.
Sediment Transport and Stream Stability
Proper channel form — Streams with proper dimension, pattern, and profile will efficiently transport and
deposit sediment (point bars and floodplain storage) relative to the stream power and load that is supplied
from banks and uplands. Stream channels that are appropriately sized to convey bankfull discharges will
greatly improve channel stability by reducing active bank erosion (lateral stability) and bed degradation
(vertical stability; i.e. headcuts/downcutting/incision) which contributes excess sediment loading to
downstream waters.
In -stream structures— In -stream structures such as log vanes, j -hooks, woody/logjam riffles, and log weirs
help to control grade and reduce bank erosion by diverting shear stress away from streambank during
storm events. Based on preliminary site assessments, streambank erosion is a main contributor of
sediment and Total Suspended Solids (TSS) within the project area.
Livestock exclusion — Excluding cattle from the conservation easement with permanent fencing would
eliminate hoof shear and bank trampling, which currently contributes excess sediment to downstream
waters.
Riparian buffer restoration — A majority of the project reaches are lacking a mature riparian buffer with
adequate widths on both sides of the streambank. Streambanks are actively eroding in many areas and
contributing excess sediment into the system. A restored riparian buffer will increase woody root mass
and density thereby decreasing bank erosion and sedimentation. Additionally, sediment supplied from
upstream sources will be deposited onto restored floodplain areas and establishing native vegetation will
greatly reduce overland flow velocities.
Streambank bioengineering— Bioengineering practices such as live staking, brush layering, and vegetated
soil lifts will help re-establish lateral bank stability and prevent further bank erosion and sedimentation.
Benefits Related to Ecological Functions
Improved substrate and habitat
Proper channel form — Boundary conditions, climate, and geologic controls influence stream channel
formation and how sediment is transported through its watershed. Appropriate channel capacity and bed
material size will ensure sediment supply is more evenly distributed, such that excessive degradation and
Water & Land Solutions Page 25

Pen Dell Mitigation Project
aggradation does not occur. Adequately
transporting fine-grain sediment will prevent
embeddedness and create interstitial habitat
and in -stream cover within riffle areas.
Terrestrial habitat — Vegetation planting and
incorporation of woody debris material will
greatly improve terrestrial habitat throughout
the riparian buffer corridor.
In -stream structures — Installing appropriate
in -stream structures with natural features such
as toe wood, vegetation transplants, and cover
logs will improve bedform diversity and recruit
detritus to provide in -stream refugia and
bedform habitat within the project area.
Photo of direct livestock access in stream and
evidence of increased pollutants
Livestock exclusion — Excluding cattle from the conservation easement with permanent fencing would
eliminate hoof shear and bank trampling, which currently contributes excess sediment to downstream
waters.
Reduce water temperature
Riparian buffer — A functional riparian buffer will improve thermal regulation (stream shading) along the
project reaches and reduce water temperatures and increase DO levels.
Streambank bioengineering— Bioengineering practices such as live staking, brush layering, and vegetated
soil lifts will provide rapid tree growth and bank shading to reduce water temperatures and increase DO
levels.
Benefits Related to Hydrological Functions
Improved floodplain processes
A Priority Level I Restoration approach will reconnect channels with active and/or relic floodplains and
improve stream and wetland hydrology to areas that have been degraded and/or been historically
manipulated. Livestock will be permanently excluded from the project area to eliminate hoof shear,
degradation of hydric soils texture and structure, and nutrient inputs.
Improved floodwater retention and storage
The restored streams will be raised and reconnected to their active or relic floodplains to spread higher
flow energies onto the floodplain thereby increasing retention time, storage, and roughness.
Incorporation of vernal pools, depressional areas, and other constructed floodplain wetland features will
provide additional retention, storage and habitat diversity and uplift. Native species riparian vegetation
will be established throughout these stream and wetland complexes. The restored riparian buffers and
wetland microtopography will increase infiltration and improve overall hydrogeologic function.
Page 26 4

Pen Dell Mitigation Project
5.2 Project Description
The project is located in Johnston County between the Community of Archer Lodge and the Town
of Wendell. The project site is located in the NCDEQSub-basin 03-04-06, in the Lower Buffalo Creek
Priority Sub -watershed 030202011504, study area for the Neuse 01 RWP and in the Targeted Local
Watershed 03020201180050, all of the Neuse River Basin (Figure 1, Project Location). The project
reaches are all unnamed tributaries to Buffalo Creek. Buffalo Creek flows southeast to its
confluence with the Little River near Micro, North Carolina. The Little River drains southeast to its
confluence with the Neuse River in Goldsboro, North Carolina. Buffalo Creek (Lake Wendell) is
listed by the NCDEQ Division of Water Quality (NCDENR DWQ, 5/1/1988) as C and NSW waters from
the project area all the way downstream to its confluence with the Little River.
WLS first visited the project site in August 2015. Each of the project reaches, except Reach R5, has
been heavily impacted from historic and current land use practices, including livestock production,
agriculture, and silviculture. Within the project area, approximately 60 percent of the streambanks
have inadequate (less than 50 feet wide) riparian buffers. Figure 9, Water Quality Stressors, shows
the most recent aerial photography with clearly narrow and/or absent riparian buffers. Livestock
intrusion and associated hoof shear have severely impacted the streambanks along some the
project stream reaches.
The lack of adequate and quality buffer vegetation, past land use disturbances, minimal impervious
cover and current agricultural and livestock practices present a significant opportunity for water
quality and ecosystem improvements through the implementation of this project.
The Pen Dell Mitigation Project will provide maximum appropriate functional uplift to all project
stream reaches in the catchment, and will appropriately address all of the intermittent and
perennial stream reaches on the project property. All reaches are being addressed through the
proposed design such that the maximum net ecological uplift for water quality, habitat, and stability
will be met. The treatment of reaches with mature forests along their buffers are proposed for
Preservation with limited tree removal and control of invasive species vegetation. Some of these
buffers include significant areas greater than the regulatory requirements.
Based on a review of the Natural Heritage Program (NHP) and US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
database, there are currently three listed threatened and endangered species known to occur in
Johnston County, the Red -cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), Dwarf wedgemussel
(Alasmidonta heterodon), and Tar River spinymussell (Elliptio steinstansana). The project site is not
known to support anadromous fish species.
The project is located within the Lower Buffalo Creek Priority Sub -watershed 030202011504,
according to the 2015 Neuse 01 RWP — Phase II Report. The land use within the project area is
comprised of forested and mixed agricultural lands (mostly pasture with some cropland), with very
small percentage of low density residential use. Figure 2, USGS Topographic Map, illustrates the
existing topography of the project area. Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) soils
information for the project area is show on Figure 3, NRCS Soils Map. The proposed conservation
Water & Land Solutions Page 27

Pen Dell Mitigation Project
easement has the potential to encompass approximately 16 acres of land that includes agricultural
fields, livestock pastures, and forested buffer lands.
The streams at the project site were broken down into five reaches (111, R2, R3, R4, R5) totaling
approximately 4,550 linear feet of existing streams, based on drainage area breaks at confluences,
valley length along an existing pond, changes in restoration/enhancement approaches, and/or
changes in intermittent/perennial stream status.
Field evaluations determined that Reaches R2, R3, R4, and R5 are perennial streams. Reach R1 was
determined through field evaluations to be an intermittent stream. The presence of historic valleys
for each of the project stream reaches can clearly be seen from LiDAR imagery (Figure 4, LiDAR
Map), and are obvious through field observation.
Field evaluations of intermittent/perennial stream status were made in early September 2015
during moderate drought conditions, prior to significant rainfall events in early October 2015.
These evaluations were based on NCDWQ's Methodology for Identification of Intermittent and
Perennial Streams and Their Origins, (v4.11, Effective Date: September 1, 2010) stream assessment
protocols. The table below presents the results of the field evaluations along with the assessed
status of each project reach. Copies of the supporting field forms are available upon request.
Table 5-1 Summary of Field Investigations to Determine Intermittent/Perennial Status
R1
845 20.25 63
Intermittent
420 28.20 83
Perennial/
R2
Intermittent
R3
1,140 37.25 102
Perennial
R4
1,150 --- 129
Perennial
R5
995 47.00 147
Perennial
Note 1:
Watershed drainage area was approximated based on topographic and LiDAR information and
compared with USGS Stream5tats at the downstream end of each reach.
Visual inspections of the streambed substrate materials were conducted for each of the project stream
reaches and bed materials were sampled both upstream and downstream of the existing farm pond.
These reaches were observed to be predominantly sand bed, with some small gravel materials. Due to
downcutting associated with headcut migration, most grade control along the project reaches appears to
be provided by root mass, a man-made dam, and an existing culvert crossing.
Since the project has the potential to appropriately address active erosion along Reaches R2, R3, and R4,
future supply of sediment from on-site streambank erosion is expected to be reduced significantly.
However, a more detailed sediment transport analysis will be conducted to quantify sediment is being
supplied to the downstream perennial reaches, and if it will be transported adequately, thus preventing
excessive aggradation. During the formal design process, WLS will assess the hydraulic design forces to
ensure that the channel bed will not aggrade nor degrade. Bed degradation (incision) can occur without
an adequate sediment supply if the design channel has excessive shear stress or stream power.
Page 28 4

Pen Dell Mitigation Project
Consequently, constructed riffles may be incorporated into the proposed design with smaller rock sizes
and wood materials that will be immobile during storm events, since the sediment supply is not predicted
to be sufficient to rebuild riffles naturally. The constructed riffles will also increase dissolved oxygen
content, provide aquatic habitat and assurance that the restored channel will not degrade over time.
Further discussion of sediment transport analysis is provided in Section 5.3.
WLS conducted field investigations to evaluate and document the existing conditions at the project site,
as well as for each of the project stream reaches. These investigations included evaluating channel
conditions, riparian buffer vegetation assessment, photographic documentation, and cross-section
surveys. Field work dependent sections of the NCDMS's "Technical Proposal Evaluation Criteria, Neuse
03020201 — Rating Form" (Attachment A, Addendum 1 for RFP16-006477, issued July 16, 2015) were
completed as well. Copies of the completed rating forms are included in the appendices. The results of
the existing condition cross-section surveys and the visual field analyses were used to conduct geomorphic
stream classification for each of the project stream reaches. The results of the existing condition cross-
sections surveys are summarized in the table below. The results of the field evaluations were used in
conjunction with available GIS data to develop the mapping required under this RFP.
Figures include: Project Location (Figure 1), USGS Topographic Map (Figure 2), NRCS Soils Map (Figure 3),
LiDAR Map (Figure 4), Floodplain Map (Figure 5), Aerial Photographs (time series historical aerial
photography) (Figures 6a, 6b, 6c, and 6d), Existing Hydrography (Figure 7), Channel Stability & Monitoring
Features (Figure 8), Water Quality Stressors (Figure 9), and Proposed Mitigation Features (Figure 10).
Table 5-2 Existing Condition Cross-section Survey Data
R1
63
4.1
32.9
1.0
R2
83
11.9
4.1
1.5
R3
102
1.4
11.0
2.0
R4 (upper)
---
6.6
7.4
1.0
R4 (lower)
129
6.3
4.1
1.8
R5
147
11.3
2.0
1.3
Note 1: Watershed drainage area was approximated based on topographic and LiDAR information and
compared with USGS StreamStats at the downstream end of each reach.
Note 2: Cross-section locations are shown on Figure 8, Channel Stability & Monitoring Features.
Note 3: Geomorphic parameters for project reaches are based on best professional judgment and rapid field
measurements. The R2 cross-section was taken upstream of the existing impoundment before backwater
conditions.
Water & Land Solutions Page 29

Pen Dell Mitigation Project
R1 is a small intermittent headwater
tributary that extends from the
upstream terminus of the project site,
downstream to the confluence with R2.
R1 has a stream length of approximately
845 feet, valley slope of 1.6 percent, and
drainage area of 63 acres. R1 originates
near the northern property line and
flows southwest to a culverted pipe
crossing at the Wendell Road right-of-
way. The channel is not incised and
currently experiencing mostly stable
conditions along its entire length. The
R1 riparian buffer has been degraded
through the removal of the woody
riparian buffer vegetation along the both R1 photo looking at lack of mature riparian buffer.
banks. According to the landowner, the
channel was historically manipulated in this area to accommodate agricultural drainage, however it
appears to fall within the natural valley signature as shown on the LiDAR Map (Figure 4). The channel
formation is somewhat poor and the degree of incision is low, with bank height ratios near 1.0 and a very
low sinuosity (k=1.03). Since mature woody vegetation is absent along the entire length of R1, the reach
is actively subject to water quality stressors, mainly in the form of direct nutrient inputs and minimal
riparian buffer widths. Based on the existing channel conditions and anthropogenic disturbances, R1
resembles a Rosgen C5 stream type.
R2 begins downstream of R1 at a
culverted pipe crossing near the
Wendell Road right-of-way and
continues to flow southwest for
approximately 420 feet toward an
existing farm pond. The valley slope in
this area is approximately 1.7 percent
and the drainage area is 83 acres. R2
appears to be vertically and laterally
unstable prior to reaching the
backwater conditions created from a
man-made dam. An active headcut is
present and bank height ratios range
from 1.3 to greater than 2.0. The active
Photo illustrates active bank erosion and active erosion was observed on 50 to 60
headcutting along R2. percent of the streambanks. Most of
the erosion is in the form of bed and
bank scour caused by high erosive forces exiting the culvert during storm flows. Prior to reaching the
existing farm pond further downstream, the channel sinuosity is approximately 1.05. Currently, the pond
Page 30 4

Pen Dell Mitigation Project
appears to intercept some overland flow and helps to attenuate storm events, while reducing sediment
supply and transport capacity to the downstream reaches. Cattle do not have entire access to this stream
reach, however the riparian buffer is infrequently narrow (less than 50 feet) across 50 percent of its length.
R2 has a few mature trees interspersed along the streambanks; any trees of significance will be saved and
incorporated as part of the restoration design. Based on the existing conditions and coarse sand/fine
gravel substrate, R2 is classified as an incised E5 stream type.
R3 begins downstream of the R2 farm
pond and flows southwest through
existing pastureland for approximately
1,140 feet. The channel has been piped
to accommodate a private road
crossing. Prior to the farm pond
construction, the natural valley slope in
this area was approximately 1.4
percent. R3 has a drainage area of
approximately 102 acres. Moderate to
severe bank erosion was observed along
the upstream portion of the incised
channel and bank height ratios typically
exceed 2.0. Currently, two corrugated
plastic pipes are perched and exposed
under an existing farm crossing
approximately 650 feet further
downstream.
Photo of R3 looking downstream showing cattle access and
severely degraded stream banks.
The reach has experienced severe downcutting for approximately 50 percent of its length and has become
laterally unstable. The riparian buffer is limited to mostly herbaceous vegetation with a few mature trees
interspersed throughout the floodplain and upland areas. R3 is actively subject to water quality stressors,
mainly in the form of cattle access, nutrient and sediment inputs, and minimal riparian buffer widths. R3
is classified as an incised E5/ F5 stream type in the upstream section, however the condition improves
slightly as the valley slope flattens and stream bed and banks become more stable towards the
downstream end.
Water & Land Solutions Page 31

Pen Dell Mitigation Project
R4 begins at the downstream end of
R3 and continues for approximately
1,150 feet towards Lake Wendell
Road. R4 has a valley slope of 1.2
percent and drainage area of 129
4 _ acres. The valley floor widens slightly
LL�
in this area and a majority of the
upper section has a connection to its
active floodplain. The channel is
vertically stable along much of its
upper length, however the riparian
buffer vegetation width is less than 30
feet on both sides of the streambanks.
Additionally, some of the upper areas
Photo looking upstream at R4 (lower) stream conditions. The of R4 are experiencing localized
incised channel has eroding banks and narrow buffer widths. streambank erosion along a few
meander bends and numerous
headcuts were observed throughout the reach. Further downstream, it appears the channel has
experienced past manipulation and excess aggradation was observed prior to an active headcut near an
existing fenceline. At this location, the channel is downcutting and becomes moderately to severely
incised with bank height ratios generally range from 1.5 to 2.0. R4 is actively subject to water quality
stressors, mainly in the form of cattle access, sediment and nutrient inputs, and minimal riparian buffer
widths. The channel is classified as an incised Rosgen E5/F5 stream type.
R5 begins at the culvert pipe outlet near s
the Lake Wendell Road right-of-way and
flows for approximately 995 feet to its
confluence with Buffalo Creek. R5 has a ... �I
drainage area of approximately 147 Y .
acres and a valley slope just under 1
percent. The channel is mostly stable
along its entire length and the width of
the native woody riparian buffer
vegetation corridor is greater than 50
feet on both sides of the channel. The -
bank erosion is very low and minimal
bed scour was observed along the a `"
reach. The stream channel has a natural
connection to its floodplain in this area
and existing riparian wetlands were
observed throughout the reach. Cattle Photo looking downstream along R5 preservation area.
Note the stable banks, bedform diversity, and native
do not have access to this reach and wood recruitment.
historically this area has remained
relatively undisturbed. The typical bank height ratio ranges from 1.0 to 1.2 and the channel is classified
as a Rosgen E5 stream type.
Page 32 4

Pen Dell Mitigation Project
While some of the drainage areas of the headwater project stream reaches are small, the NCDWQ stream
scores are all well above 19, and discussions with the landowners regarding flow histories of the streams,
lead WLS to conclude that all of the project stream reaches are suited to the proposed restoration and/or
enhancement practices.
Small patches of invasive species vegetation including Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) and Japanese
Stiltgrass (Microstigium vimineum) were observed within the existing riparian buffer areas.
As shown on Figure 3, NRCS Soils Map, existing soils around the project reaches are dominated by
Wehadkee loam (Wt: 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded) in the lower valley floodplains, with
Wedowee sandy loam (WoD: 2 to 8 percent slopes) present along the upper valley and upslope areas.
The areas described as suitable for riparian wetland restoration are within the Wehadkee loam mapping
unit. Wehadkee loam is identified as a hydric soil in Johnston County, North Carolina by the NRCS in the
"Hydric Soils of the United States" listing (March 2014).
A preliminary on-site investigation of the soils within the project area was conducted in October 2015 by
WLS staff scientists. The findings indicate the possible presence of hydric soils along significant portions
of R3 and R4. It is anticipated that Priority Level I Restoration along R3 and the lower portion of R4 in
conjunction with permanent livestock exclusion, minimal soil removal, and revegetation, will significantly
improve hydrologic and vegetative conditions across the floodplain and allow the degraded wetlands to
regain their natural function. Hydric soil findings were based on hand -turned soil auger borings and
determinations from the "NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States —A Guide for Identifying
and Delineating Hydric Soils (Version 7.0, 2010)". If the project is awarded, a detailed hydric soils
delineation will be conducted by a Licensed Soil Scientist (LSS) during the existing conditions assessment
to determine jurisdictional waters of the US (WOTUS).
As noted above, there are currently three listed threatened and endangered species known to occur
in Johnston County, the Red -cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), Dwarf wedgemussel
(Alasmidonta heterodon), and Tar River spinymussell (Elliptio steinstansana). The project site is not
anticipated to have a negative impact on these species. Additionally, the project is not anticipated
to have any adverse impacts on cultural or historic resources. There are no sites currently listed
on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) within 3 miles of the project. The nearest Study
List site is the Batten-Boyette-Keyes House (HPO Site ID: JT0670) which is 1.6 miles from the project
site. On-site investigations and discussions with the landowners have not disclosed any potential
resources of this type on the property. If the project is awarded, WLS will coordinate with the NC
State Historic Preservation Office (NCSHPO) to ensure that there will be no cultural or historical
resource impacts as a result of restoration activities.
Based on a review using Google Earth, the nearest airport to the project site is the Raleigh East
Airport which is located approximately 6 miles northwest of the site.
FEMA Floodplain Compliance and Hydrologic Trespass
The downstream portion of R5 is located within a FEMA regulated floodplain (mapped Zone AE). While it
is not anticipated that there will be issues associated with FEMA permitting or documentation, since this
reach is proposed for preservation only, WLS will coordinate with the local floodplain administrator as
needed and prepare the required documentation to obtain approval for any FEMA regulated impacts. In
Water & Land Solutions Page 33

Pen Dell Mitigation Project
addition, the project will be designed so that any increase in flooding will be contained within the project
boundary and will not impact adjacent landowners, therefore hydrologic trespass will not be a concern.
5.3 Project Development
The Pen Dell Mitigation Project will involve the potential restoration, enhancement, preservation and
permanent protection of five stream reaches (Reaches R1, R2, R3, R4, R5) totaling approximately 4,550
linear feet of existing streams (Figure 10, Proposed Mitigation Features). This comprehensive approach
utilizes the entire suite of stream mitigation practices, from Priority Level I Restoration to Preservation,
and appropriately addresses all of the intermittent and perennial stream reaches at the project site,
including restoring riparian buffers along all of the proiect stream reaches currently in agriculture or
pasture, permanent livestock exclusion, and limiting the number of stream crossings, thus providing the
maximum functional uplift and utilizing a watershed approach. Many of the existing stream reaches
have been degraded significantly as a result of historic and current agricultural and silvicultural practices,
including unrestricted cattle access and/or channelization.
In addition, this project is one of three projects, on properties owned by the same landowners, being
submitted by WLS under this RFP as a comprehensive watershed restoration effort. Each of these project
sites involve a series of adjacent direct headwater tributaries to Buffalo Creek, showing our diligent efforts
to truly provide maximum ecological uplift through a comprehensive watershed approach. These multiple
project sites are not being submitted by WLS under a single project proposal solely to ensure strict
compliance with the definition of a "site", as defined under this RFP.
Many of the project stream reaches are unstable, with documented active headcut migration and
associated localized channel widening and down -cutting. The Project Reach R5 below Lake Wendell
Road, however, has been relatively undisturbed, and as a result fully stable and thus worthy of
preservation. Most of the project stream reaches have been completely or partially cleared, with small,
partially forested areas of riparian buffer. The vast majority of the project reaches lack adequate riparian
buffers. Livestock currently have unrestricted access to two of the five stream reaches and the riparian
buffer areas. Currently, the project reaches act as significant sources of sediment and nutrient
contamination to the project watershed, as well as the receiving waters.
Across the project site, approximately 32 percent of the total streambank length is experiencing
active bank erosion and approximately 71 percent of the total stream length is actively subject to
onsite water quality stressors resulting from direct livestock access and lack of adequate riparian
buffer widths. Approximately 31 percent of the total stream length exhibits significant, obvious
incision.
The proposed project will provide adequate floodplain access to all stream reaches. For any project reach
along which Priority Level II Restoration must be utilized, the following elements will be incorporated into
the proposed design and construction:
• Floodplain bench excavation grading will extend a minimum of 1.5 bankfull widths beyond the
stream belt width such that meandering floodplains are not created.
• All proposed floodplains will be constructed such that they are over -excavated to accommodate
replacement of topsoil.
Page 34 4

Pen Dell Mitigation Project
• Design and construction oversight measures will ensure the proper harvesting, segregating,
stockpiling, storage, handling, overall management and replacement of A and B soil horizon
materials onto the excavated floodplain.
• Constructed return slopes between the outer edge of the excavated floodplain and the terrace
will be a minimum of 5:1 or flatter.
WLS will compile and assess watershed information including: drainage areas, historic and current land
uses and development trends, geologic setting and landscape controls, soil types, and terrestrial plant
communities. WLS will compare the results of the existing conditions analyses along with reference data
from previous project implementation to determine the degrees of impairment and functional losses as
they relate to physical and biological processes, as well as aquatic resources. In order to develop an
appropriate design approach for the project reaches, the restoration potential must be determined to
maximize the highest functional uplift based on the hydrology, hydraulics, geomorphology,
physiochemical, and biological hierarchy (Harman, 2012). The design will utilize hybrid stream restoration
approaches (Skidmore, 2001) that have been successfully implemented on past projects. This includes
using process based analytical tools when appropriate, as well as Rosgen's methodology, under which
dimensionless ratios from reference reach data (analog) and past project experience (empirical) are
analyzed in order to develop design criteria.
The proposed project will provide increased floodplain access throughout the project area for all
Restoration reaches and will be monitored to demonstrate successful floodplain function. The stream
channel design will include analysis of the hydrology, hydraulics, shear stress, sediment transport, and
bankfull channel dimensions. WLS will consider three methods (field indicators if present, published
regional curve information, and hydraulic modeling) for estimating bankfull discharge. The hydrology and
hydraulics analysis will evaluate a range of significant flow discharges and flood frequency curves to help
determine an appropriate bankfull discharge. The bankfull discharge will be used to select than an
appropriate channel geometry and help monitor long-term performance.
Sediment transport calculations and stream power analyses will be performed for both the existing
degraded channels and the proposed design channels. WLS will assess the stream's transport competency
and capacity in order to quantify the stream's ability to move its sediment load. Small alluvial channels in
Eastern Piedmont (Raleigh Belt) may have a relatively low sediment supply (i.e., rural first order stream
with an upstream impoundment) with fine grained material, and therefore complex sediment transport
calculations or models may not be necessary. However, it is still critically important to perform watershed
reconnaissance and estimate how much sediment is being supplied to the project reaches by determining
load rates from both within the channel (bed/banks) and upland sources.
WLS will perform quantitative channel assessments that include pebble counts, collecting sediment
samples (pavement/sub-pavement, bar), and predicting streambank erosion rates using the BANCS
Method (BEHI/NBS) in order to evaluate bed and bank material characteristics and estimate sediment
yields. The bed material will be sieved and a grain size distribution developed. The results of the substrate
analyses will be used to classify the streams, and complete critical shear stress calculations required for
designing slopes/depths and predicting channel stability. Other observation methods, such as dendro-
geomorphic studies (bank root mass), bank pins/profiles, cross-section surveys, and time -series aerial
photography may also be used as a comparative analysis.
Water & Land Solutions Page 35

Pen Dell Mitigation Project
Additionally, WLS will calculate stream power and compare the results to stable reference and published
values to reduce uncertainties. If the results fall outside common stable ranges for similar stream types
and slopes, multiple design iterations and methods, such as the Copeland Stability Curve, HEC -RAS -SAM
modeling program, will be run to confirm that sediment loads can be transported adequately through the
system without containing excess energy in the channel and verify that the design will not excessively
aggrade or degrade.
In -stream structures are utilized for grade control, streambank protection, and improving bedform
diversity and habitat. All in -stream structures will be constructed from materials naturally found at the
project site such as hardwood trees, trunks/logs, brush/branches, gravel, stone, and small boulder
materials. In order to ensure sustainability of those structures, WLS will use methods of structure design
and construction that have proven successful on numerous past projects in the same geographic region.
WLS may also incorporate bioengineering practices, when appropriate, that use biodegradable materials
and fabrics, uncompacted soils, live plant cuttings, and native vegetation to stabilize streambanks.
Bioengineering treatments will provide initial bank stability that allows for the quick establishment of
deep-rooted vegetation along the eroding streambanks. Once established, these live, dormant plant
cuttings will provide long-term stability to the treated areas.
WLS has field verified that the project site has adequate, viable construction access, staging, and stockpile
areas. Note that physical constraints or barriers, such as stream crossings, account for less than three
percent of the proposed total project footage within the conservation easement area. These same
existing site access points and features will be used for future access after the completion of construction.
Where practicable, impacts to existing native riparian buffer vegetation will be minimized. The use of
native species riparian buffer transplants will be maximized as well. Any potential impacts to existing
wetland areas will be avoided during construction, with only temporary, minimal impacts expected only
as necessary for maximized permanent stream, wetland, and riparian buffer functional uplift.
R1— Enhancement Level II
Work along R1 will involve Enhancement Level II practices to maintain and improve the stability of the
channel. This area has been historically disturbed through pasture use and agricultural practices.
Currently the existing channel has limited bank erosion and channel incision throughout its length.
Consequently, WLS proposes to plant native woody vegetation and restore the riparian buffer in excess
of 50 feet that will be permanently protected within the conservation easement. Additionally, agricultural
BMPs will be installed to reduce direct sediment and nutrient inputs.
R2 — Enhancement Level I
R2 begins at a culvert pipe outlet near the Wendell Road right-of-way. In the upstream location, R2 is
severely incised with bank height ratios greater than 1.5. The reach currently exhibits lateral and vertical
instability as shown by active bank erosion and headcutting. Work along R2 will involve Enhancement
Level I activities by slightly raising the bed elevation and reconnecting the stream with its adjacent
floodplain using suitable fill material excavated from the newly restored channels and remnant spoil piles
on-site. In -stream structures will be incorporated to control grade, dissipate flow energies, and protect
streambanks. In -stream structures will most likely include constructed riffles for grade control and riffle
habitat, log j -hook vanes, and log weirs/jams for encouraging step -pool formation, bank stability, and
Page 36 4

Pen Dell Mitigation Project
bedform diversity. Bioengineering techniques such as geolifts, brush layers, and live stakes will also be
used to protect streambanks and promote woody vegetation growth along the streambanks.
During site investigations, it appeared the reach generally flows through the low point of the valley before
reaching the headwaters of an existing farm pond. As the valley slope flattens slightly, the existing channel
begins experiencing backwater conditions and aggradation from the man-made pond. The existing pond
is approximately one acre in size and serves as a watering source in support of the landowner's farm
operation. The existing riser pipe and outlet structure will be inspected, analyzed, and modified if
necessary, to ensure adequate base flow to the downstream reaches, as well as appropriate storm flow
capacity. This portion of the impounded reach has experienced some sedimentation and floodplain
alteration. Shallow vernal pools and an agricultural BMP will be added along the pond periphery to
provide habitat diversity and improved treatment of overland flows. Riparian buffers in excess of 50 feet
will be restored and protected along all of R2. Additionally, an existing culverted stream crossing will be
removed and permanent fencing will be installed to permanently exclude livestock and reduce sediment
and nutrient inputs. The proposed restoration activities will provide significant functional uplift along the
reach.
R3 — Restoration
R3 begins downstream from R2 at culverted crossing along a private driveway. Due to the past
manipulation, cattle access and degraded nature of R3, a Priority Level I Restoration approach is proposed
for the reach to improve stream functions and water quality. The upstream portion of the reach is
currently oversized and exhibits mostly lateral instability, as shown by severe bank erosion. The reach will
be restored as a Rosgen C5 stream type using appropriate riffle -pool morphology with conservative
meander geometry. Work along R3 will involve raising portions of the existing channel where possible
and providing a historic floodplain reconnection within the bottom of the valley.
The design width/depth ratio for the new channel will be similar to stable streams in this geologic setting.
It is expected that over time, channel widths will narrow slightly over time due to fine sediment deposition
and vegetation growth along the streambanks. As with upper R2, in -stream structures, such as log vanes,
log steps, and log jam riffles will be used to control grade as well as dissipate flow energy, protect
streambanks, and eliminate potential for future incision. Channel banks will be graded to stable side
slopes and the floodplain will be reconnected to further promote stability and hydrological function.
This portion of the reach has experienced some historic floodplain alteration and is mostly devoid of
mature woody vegetation. Any mature trees or significant native vegetation will be protected and
incorporated into the design and riparian buffers of at least 50 feet wide will be established along the
entire reach. Additionally, permanent fencing will be installed along with alternative watering systems to
exclude livestock and reduce direct sediment and nutrient inputs. An improved stream crossing will be
installed at a lower elevation to help reconnect the stream with its active floodplain and blend with the
natural topography. The crossing improvements will be made outside of the easement to maintain long
term site access. These proposed improvements will provide the maximum possible functional uplift.
R4 — Enhancement Level I (upper reach)
The work along R4 will involve Enhancement Level I practices to maintain and improve the stability of the
channel. This area has been historically disturbed through pasture use and agricultural practices.
Water & Land Solutions Page 37

Pen Dell Mitigation Project
Currently the existing channel is experiencing moderate bank erosion and slight channel incision
throughout 30 percent of its length. In order to reduce further bank erosion, in -stream structures will be
installed at strategic locations to increase bedform diversity, improve aquatic pool habitat, and provide
grade control. Restored streambanks will be graded to stable slopes, floodplain benches will be graded
when necessary, and appropriate bankfull geometry will be restored. There are a few mature trees and
shrubs interspersed along this reach. Any native vegetation will be avoided or carefully transplanted along
the newly graded streambanks. Riparian buffers of at least 50 feet will be established and livestock will
be permanently excluded from the reach.
R4 — Restoration (lower reach)
This lower section of R4 begins at an active headcut near an existing fenceline. In its current condition, a
majority of the downstream reach is moderately to severely incised, with bank height ratios averaging
greater than 1.5 for over 400 feet of its length. Therefore, the existing stream bed elevation will be raised
to reconnect the stream with its active floodplain. The reach will be restored as a Rosgen C5 stream type
using appropriate riffle -pool morphology. This approach will allow restoration of a stable channel form
with appropriate bedform diversity, as well as improved ecological function through increased aquatic
and terrestrial habitats.
The design criteria for the new channel will be similar to stable streams in this geologic setting. It is
expected that over time, channel widths will narrow over time due to fine sediment deposition and
vegetation growth along the streambanks. In -stream structures, such as log vanes and logjam riffles will
be used to provide bedform diversity as well as dissipate flow energy, protect streambanks, and eliminate
potential for future incision. Restored streambanks will be graded to stable side slopes and the relic
floodplain will be reconnected to further promote stability and hydrological function. This approach will
promote more frequent over bank flooding in areas with existing hydric soils, thereby creating favorable
conditions for wetland enhancement and re-establishment. Additionally, shallow vernal pools will be
created in depressional areas to provide habitat diversity and improved treatment of overland flows.
As with R3, it should be emphasized that mature trees or significant native vegetation will be protected
and/or incorporated into the design whenever feasible. Riparian buffers in excess of 50 feet will be
restored and protected within a permanent conservation easement along the entire reach. The proposed
improvements will provide the maximum possible functional uplift.
R5 — Preservation
R5 begins immediately downstream from the Lake Wendell road at an existing outlet pipe. Based on field
investigations, the reach is classified as a Rosgen E5 stream type. Preservation is being proposed along
this reach since the existing stream and wetland system is mostly stable with a mature riparian buffer as
a result from minimal historic impacts. The preservation area will be protected in perpetuity through a
permanent conservation easement. This approach will extend the wildlife corridor from the confluence
with Buffalo Creek throughout the entire riparian valley, while providing a more natural hydrologic
connection and critical habitat linkage within the catchment area.
Page 38 4

Pen Dell Mitigation Project
BMP Considerations
WLS plans to include agricultural BMPs as one of the practices or measures to be implemented as
part of a "project cluster" approach, as recommended under the Neuse 01 RWP. When
implemented collectively along with stream, riparian buffer, and riparian wetland restoration,
agricultural BMPs can be effective at reducing pollutants, particularly sediment loadings, and
therefore provide additional ecological uplift to a project. The agricultural BMPs that are best
suited for use at this project site include no -till planting, grassed waterways, restricted grazing,
livestock fencing, alternate watering sources for livestock, and impoundments or basins to treat
agricultural runoff. Currently, the landowner actively employs no -till planting and the use of
grassed waterways and restricted or rotational grazing. Therefore, livestock exclusion fencing,
providing alternate watering sources for livestock, and the addition of treatment basins will be
employed under this project. The provision of permanent fencing to exclude livestock is discussed
in the following section.
WLS will provide a permanent watering source for livestock at the project site through the
installation of livestock drinkers and associated watering infrastructure. All of the livestock
watering stations will be designed and located in direct coordination with the landowner and the
Johnston County Soil and Water Conservation District and/or NRCS staff to ensure that adequate
watering facilities are provided. The watering stations will be located outside of the conservation
easement boundaries and well away from the restored stream corridors.
Water quality BMPs in the form of treatment basins or impoundments will be designed and
constructed to capture and treat runoff from the surrounding active cattle pastures and/or
agricultural fields before it reaches the restored riparian buffer corridor and stream channel. These
basins will increase infiltration and groundwater recharge, diffuse flow energies, and allow nutrient
uptake within the extended buffer area. The treatment basins will be excavated along non -
jurisdictional flat or depressional areas where ephemeral drainages intersect with the proposed
restored stream corridor.
Additionally, areas along the footprint of the existing pond will be modified to and utilized as a BMP
feature to intersect and treat runoff from the surrounding pastures, cropfields, and road right-of-
ways. A small basin will be designed with low -maintenance weir outlets and the basin will be
planted with appropriate native species vegetation outside the conservation easement area. This
strategy will allow the BMP to function properly with minimal risk and without long term
maintenance requirements. A stable outlet channel will be constructed to deliver runoff to the
receiving restored project stream reach and pond area.
Stream Crossings and Livestock Exclusion
The locations of the proposed stream crossings are shown on the figures in the appendices. The proposed
conservation easement is broken at each of these proposed crossing locations to best facilitate the
landowner's use of the property. All of the proposed stream crossings will be culverted and the proposed
culverts will be correctly sized to the appropriate design storm to ensure proper hydraulic function and
stream stability, as well as to encourage aquatic passage. The proposed stream crossings will range in
width from 20 feet wide to 30 feet wide. For the stream crossings that are intended to be utilized
immediately after construction by the landowner, the proposed culverts will be installed during
Water & Land Solutions Page 39

Pen Dell Mitigation Project
construction. For the stream crossings that are intended to be utilized for future access, culverts will not
be installed during construction. At these future crossing locations, the stream will be restored or
enhanced across the easement break using the same techniques as the remainder of that project reach.
As previously discussed, direct livestock access and the resulting sedimentation, erosion, and pollutants
are one of the primary stressors for the project site. Permanent livestock exclusion from the applicable
conservation easement areas will be provided with fencing, installed to NRCS standards. The permanent
fencing will be installed to maximize the length of straight fence lines and minimize the number of fence
corners. At the active culverted stream crossings, the permanent livestock exclusion fencing will be
installed along both the upstream and downstream limits of the conservation easement "alley' or break
to prevent livestock from accessing the stream from the actual crossing.
Conservation Easement Boundary Marking
Immediately following site construction and planting, the conservation easement boundaries will be
permanently marked and posted. All boundary marking, posting, and signage will be in accordance with
the applicable NCDMS, NCSPO, and State of North Carolina standards.
Restoration of Riparian Buffers
Riparian buffers extending a minimum of 50 feet from the top of the streambanks will be restored along
all proposed stream restoration and enhancement project reaches. The proposed plant selection for
stream buffer areas will include appropriate native species vegetation described by Schafale and Weakley
(1990) and will adhere to the tolerances cited in WRP Technical Note VN -RS -4.1 (1997). The proposed
natural vegetation community will include appropriate strata (canopy, understory, shrub, and herbaceous
species) based on an appropriate reference community. Within each of the four strata, a variety of species
will be planted to ensure an appropriate, diverse plant community as shown in the table below.
Moderately -tolerant vegetation species are able to survive on soils that are saturated or flooded for
several months during the growing season. Flood -tolerant vegetation species are able to survive on soils
that are saturated or flooded for long, indefinite periods during the growing season (WRP, 1997).
Vegetation species planted along the streambanks, floodplain, wetland areas, and upland areas will
include a mixture of native species plants appropriate for the piedmont region, with the selection also
based on expected wetness conditions. Site planting will be conducted at a density to achieve the
vegetative success criteria described in Section 5.7.
Page 40 4

Table 5-3 Vegetation Planting Species
Fraxin us
pennsylvanica
Betula nigra
Quercus michauxii
Quercus pagoda
Platanus occidentalis
Acer rubrum
Liriodendron tulipifera
Quercus nigra
Quercus phellos
Diospyros virginiana
Carpinus caroliniana
Hamamelis virginiana
Salix nigra
Asimina triloba
Cornus amomum
Alnus serrulata
Corylus americana
Salix nigra
Chasmanthium
latifolium
Carex lurida
Carex crinita
Andropogon virginicus
Vernonia
noveboracensis
Lobelia cardinalfish
Andropogon
glomeratus
Eutrochium fistulosum
Green Ash Canopy
River Birch
Canopy
Swamp Chestnut
Canopy
Oak
FACW
Cherrybark Oak
Canopy
American Sycamore
Canopy
Red Maple
Canopy
Tulip -poplar
Canopy
Water Oak
Canopy
Willow Oak
Canopy
Persimmon
Understory
Ironwood
Understory
Witch -hazel
Understory
Black Willow
Understory
Paw Paw
Understory
Silky Dogwood
Shrub Layer
Tag Alder
Shrub Layer
Hazelnut
Shrub Layer
Black Willow
Shrub Layer
River oats Herbaceous Layer
Lurid sedge
Fringed sedge
Broom sedge
New York Ironweed
Cardinal flower
Bushy bluestem
Joe-pye-weed
Herbaceous Layer
Herbaceous Layer
Herbaceous Layer
Herbaceous Layer
Herbaceous Layer
Herbaceous Layer
Herbaceous Layer
Pen Dell Mitigation Project
Riparian Buffer
FACW
Riparian Buffer
FACW
Riparian Buffer
FACW
Riparian Buffer
Riparian Buffer
Riparian Buffer
Riparian Buffer
Riparian Buffer
Riparian Buffer
Riparian Buffer
Riparian Buffer
Riparian Buffer
Riparian Buffer
Riparian Buffer
Riparian Buffer
Riparian Buffer
Riparian Buffer
Riparian Buffer
Riparian Buffer
FACW
FACW
FAC
FACU
FAC
FACW
FAC
FAC
FACU
OBL
FAC
FACW
OBL
FACU
OBL
FACU
Riparian Buffer
OBL
Riparian Buffer
OBL
Riparian Buffer
FACU
Riparian Buffer
FACW
Riparian Buffer
FACW
Riparian Buffer
FACW
Riparian Buffer FACW
WLS utilizes a successful planting strategy that includes early successional, as well as climax species. The
vegetation selections will be mixed throughout the project planting areas so that the early successional
species will give way to climax species as they mature over time. The early successional species which
have proven successful include river birch, green ash, and sycamore. The climax species that have proven
successful include red maple and tulip poplar. The understory and shrub layer species are all considered
to be climax species in the riparian buffer community.
WLS recognizes that riparian buffer conditions at mature reference sites are not reflected at planted or
successional buffer sites until the woody species being to establish and compete with herbaceous
vegetation. To account for this, a riparian buffer planting strategy that includes a combination of
overstory and understory species, planted at a density of 680 stems per acre, is typically utilized. WLS will
also consider, via prescription in the mitigation plan, the revegetation and supplemental planting of larger
Water & Land Solutions Page 41

Pen Dell Mitigation Project
and older planting stock to modify species density and type. This consideration will be utilized particularly
to increase the rate of buffer establishment and buffer species variety, as well as to decrease the
planting/application costs. Examples might include selective supplemental planting of older mast
producing species as potted stock in later years for increase survivability. This technique can be effective
as it avoids sun scald common with bare root planting at initial revegetation.
During the project implementation, invasive species exotic vegetation will be treated both to control its
presence and reduce its spread within the conservation easement areas. These efforts will aid in the
establishment of native riparian vegetation species within the restored riparian buffer areas.
Restoration of Riparian Wetlands along R3 and R4
Based on preliminary field investigations, soil conditions are favorable for rehabilitating areas of
significantly degraded existing riparian wetlands along R3 and R4. These areas are shown on the Figure
7, Existing Hydrography and total approximately 2.7 acres. Riparian wetland rehabilitation is expected to
occur in areas of drained hydric soils by improving current hydrologic conditions and overbank flooding
across the historic floodplain as a direct result of implementing Priority Level I Restoration, removing
cattle from the riparian area which will improve soil structure, and restoration of the riparian buffer.
Additionally, the restoration approach will improve the hyporheic zone interaction and both biological
and chemical processes associated with aquatic functions of the stream. These activities, including
minimal grading and blending of microtopography, will provide significant functional uplift across the
project area.
Photo of hand auger boring sample in the R4 floodplain
h h d" 7 d h"
In addition, native riparian vegetation
species will be established throughout the
restored stream and wetland complexes.
Proposed plantings will include wet
tolerant species such as river birch (Betula
nigra), red maple (Acer rubrum), green
ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), sycamore
(Plantanus occidentalis), black willow
(Salix nigra), ironwood (Carpinus
carolinianum), tag alder (Alnus serrulata),
paw paw (Asimina triloba), soft stem rush
(Juncus effusus), arrow arum (Sagitteria
latifolia) and joe-pye weed (Eutrochium
fistulosum).
s owing y ric soy s properties (re ox�morp is features) While it is understood the NCDMS is not
seeking wetland mitigation credits under this proposal, the project area will benefit greatly from the
restoration of riparian wetland hydrology and improved ecological function along the floodplains of the
project stream reaches where Priority Level I Restoration approaches are implemented. The project site
is located in an agricultural setting in the Lower Piedmont, within a Priority Sub -watershed as described
in the Neuse 01 RWP, where smaller headwater stream and wetland restoration projects are highly
recommended and prioritized.
Page 42 4

Pen Dell Mitigation Project
Expected Water Quality Benefits
Along the project stream reaches, approximately 76 percent of the streambanks currently have
inadequate (less than 50 feet wide) riparian buffers. In addition, livestock currently have unrestricted
access to two of the five project reaches. The proposed buffer areas for the project site will have trees
replanted to appropriate densities (i.e. the riparian buffers will be restored and permanently protected).
The leaves that these trees will drop every fall will further increase the standing litter on the ground,
reducing runoff and increasing the previously noted water quality benefits. While it is generally
understood that streams can remove, transport and cycle nutrients along with organic materials
(physiochemical functions), watershed ecologists are now studying the complex factors that influence the
rates and/or distances of nutrient uptake across various riparian systems (Fisher et al. 1998).
Extensive research has demonstrated that cattle grazing adjacent to streams can directly contribute
contaminants such as nutrients, sediments and pathogens to the stream by fecal deposition, and indirectly
by cattle traffic stirring up sediment, trampling streambanks, and increasing bank erosion (Kauffman et
al., 1983; Kauffman and Kruger, 1984; Marlow et al., 1987; Trimble, 1994; Trimble and Mendel, 1995;
Belsky et al., 1999; Bagshaw, 2002; Sarr, 2002; Chanasyk et al., 2010). Cooper et al. (1995) stated that the
exclusion of cattle from riparian zones can act like a riparian buffer, thereby reducing runoff and improving
water quality. Miller et al. (2010) concluded that the improved environmental quality of the cattle -
excluded areas are the result of decreased runoff and increased infiltration due to greater vegetation
cover, more standing litter, decreased bare soil, and lower soil compaction.
Additionally, Owens et al. (1996) stated that livestock exclusion from riparian areas reduced the sediment
yield from a beef cattle pasture by up to 40 percent, as documented over a 13 -Year monitoring period.
Beyond sediment reduction, studies have shown that livestock exclusion results in reductions in nitrogen
and phosphorus loads and exports. James et al. (2007) have estimated that excluding pastured cattle
from streams has resulted in a 32 percent reduction of in -stream deposition of fecal phosphorous in
Cannonsville Watershed in southeastern New York. Jones and Knowlton (1999) noted 52 percent
reductions in downstream total phosphorous after dairy cows and calves were simply fenced out of a
stream. Byers et al. (2005) concluded that cattle -grazed pastures with un -fenced streams contributed
significant loads of nutrients and other pollutants during base flow, as well as during storm flows. Line et
al. (1999) showed that an analysis of 81 weeks of pre -exclusion and 137 weeks of post -exclusion fencing
data documented 33, 78, 76, and 82 percent reductions in weekly nitrate+nitrate, total Kjeldahl nitrogen
(TKN), total phosphorous (TP) and sediment loads, respectively, from a 14.9 hectare pasture in the
piedmont of North Carolina.
As a comparison to these studies, WLS utilized the Spreadsheet Tool for Estimating Pollutant Loads (STEPL
v4.3, 2015) to quantify how the proposed project would reduce pollutant loads into the Buffalo Creek
Watershed. The STEPL model was developed for the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA, Tetra Tech, 2010) and is used throughout the United States to determine sediment and nutrient
load reductions from the implementation of urban and agricultural BMPs, including, but not limited to,
vegetated filter strips, wetland detention, and bank stabilization/stream restoration. Model inputs
include eroded streambank length, streambank height, lateral recession rates, soil weight, and BMP
type/efficiency applicable to the agricultural piedmont area. The project reaches and sites were first
estimated individually, and then grouped together as project clusters, given the proximity and similar land
Water & Land Solutions Page 43

Pen Dell Mitigation Project
usage, in order to demonstrate the maximum ecological uplift. The summary of total annual pollutant
loadings and removal estimates are shown in the table below.
Table 5-4 Total Annual Pollutant Loadings and Removal Estimates
R1— R5 4,550 1,356 69.3 635.2 194.8 50.6, 353.8, 127.2,
73.0% 55.7% 65.3%
Note 1: Soil Texture Class is predominantly Loam, sandy clay loam.
Note 2: Average Bank heights in scour areas ranged 2 to 3 feet.
Note 3: Lateral Recession Rates (ft/yr) ranged from slight category (0.01 to 0.05) to moderate (0.06 to 0.20)
Note 4: Agricultural BMP input used for streambank stabilization/restoration and cattle exclusion fencing.
Although the numerical amounts of reductions can vary and contain a degree of uncertainty, all studies
reviewed by WLS conclude that stream restoration in conjunction with excluding livestock from riparian
areas will significantly reduce pollutant loads, including sediment and nutrients. Furthermore, the
reductions are comparable to those commonly accepted for the restoration of riparian buffers as
discussed above (average removal rate of up to 60 to 70 percent according to Mayer et al., 2007).
Nutrient Management
Plants thrive on nutrients, which are delivered primarily from chemical fertilizers, manure, and sewage
sludge. Applying fertilizer is a common agricultural practice essential for crop production that provides
nutrients such as nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium in order to achieve optimum crop yields. However,
improper application can cause excess nutrient inputs and water quality problems both locally and to
downstream waters. Additionally, it has been well documented that the cost of applying excess fertilizers
can be prohibitive for farming operations. Nutrient management is the practice of using nutrients
conservatively for optimum economic benefit, while minimizing impact on the environment.
As part of a comprehensive watershed restoration strategy, WLS is coordinating closely with the project
landowner and their farm management company to better estimate actual fertilizer and pesticide
application rates in an effort to more accurately quantify inputs to all the project sites. The landowners
currently employ GPS -based soil sampling and corresponding soil amendment application technologies as
a regular part of their farming processes on most of their agricultural fields. Collecting this type of
information, both in the agricultural areas and riparian zones, will help us gain a better understanding of
how implementing these restoration projects, along with progressive farm management, can ultimately
improve water quality within the Buffalo Creek Watershed.
Anticipated Ecological Uplift
In their current conditions, the project stream reaches are highly degraded as a result of past
channelization, land use disturbance, livestock access, and agricultural and silvicultural practices. The
maximum possible ecological or functional uplift will be achieved by:
Page 44 4

Pen Dell Mitigation Project
• Providing stable channel forms to reduce streambank erosion and sedimentation.
• Restoring riparian wetlands along the project stream reaches.
• Restoring and enhancing riparian wetland and riparian buffer vegetation to promote native
species establishment, improve vegetation densities, filter flood flows and runoff, and to improve
riparian buffer habitat value.
• Providing improved floodplain connection to dissipate flood energies, filter storm flows, and
promote sediment and debris deposition on the floodplains and streambanks.
• Restore diverse aquatic and terrestrial habitats that are appropriate for the ecoregion and
landscape setting.
• Restoring and extending wildlife corridors that connect to existing wooded areas and natural
communities at the periphery of the project site.
• Reducing nutrient, bacterial, and sediment loading by permanently excluding livestock and
eliminating row crop agriculture from the project stream reaches and riparian wetlands.
5.4 Proposed Mitigation
This technical proposal describes in detail the proposed stream mitigation approaches for the Pen Dell
Mitigation Project. The project will include restoration, enhancement, and preservation of approximately
4,550 linear feet of existing streams. The proposed approach will potentially yield more than 2,992 stream
mitigation credits. The stream mitigation credits proposed for contract are presented below in the Project
Stream Mitigation Credit Summary Table. Any additional mitigation credits developed within the
conservation easement areas beyond the contracted amounts or types will be available to NCDMS as part
of the proposed project.
Table 5-5 Proposed Stream Mitigation Credit Summary
Stream Enhancement
845
2.5:1
338
Level II
Stream Enhancement
420
1.5:1
280
Level
Stream Restoration (PI)
1,334
1:1
1,334
Stream Enhancement
750
1.5:1
500
Level
Stream Restoration (PI)
440
1:1
440
Stream Preservation
995
10:1
100
Water & Land Solutions Page 45

Pen Dell Mitigation Project
5.5 Current Ownership and Long Term Protection
WLS proposes to transfer a conservation easement to the State of North Carolina for this project. The
conveyance will serve as the legal mechanism that will be used to provide Long -Term Protection of the
mitigation site. WLS has entered into an option to purchase a conservation easement from the
landowners of the properties to comprise the Pen Dell Mitigation Project. These option agreements have
been executed and recorded with the Johnston County Register of Deeds and are valid for a period of
greater than or equal to one year from the closing date of this RFP. A copy of each Memorandum of
Option to Purchase Conservation Easement agreements are provided in the appendices, and are
summarized in the table below. A copy of the NCDMS Landowner Authorization Form, signed by each of
the project landowners, is also included in the appendices. The option agreements described above allow
WLS to proceed with the project and to restrict the land use in perpetuity through a permanent
conservation easement. WLS is prepared to close on the project conservation easements after contract
award by NCDMS and will subsequently provide, at any time, copies of the recorded deeds of easement,
titles, surveys, and associated mapping.
Table 5-6 Current Land Ownership
Randy Edwards September 18, 2015 24 months
William Odell Edwards September 18, 2015 24 months
Note: A copy of the Memorandum of Option Agreement is provided in the appendices.
The property owners of the Pen Dell Mitigation Project grew up, work and live in the community where
the project is located. The project property is currently used for agriculture and livestock production. The
landowners make their livelihood farming the property and have a strong desire to continue improving
their stewardship of the land and protect it in perpetuity. As a result of the development of this proposal,
and the necessitated coordination and education of the landowners with regards to mitigation
implementation process, the landowners have taken a strong interest in future mitigation projects as well.
Specifically, the project landowners are interested in and are pursuing the purchase of adjoining properties
in the Buffalo Creek Watershed and they desire to implement mitigation projects on these future properties
as a stewardship and water quality improvement endeavor. This action will help to fortify a comprehensive
watershed approach with regards to maximizing ecological uplift on all of Buffalo Creek tributaries that
are on the subject properties.
Page 46 4

Pen Dell Mitigation Project
5.6 Project Phasing
WLS staff have extensive stream restoration experience, and understand the most current
requirements and standards applicable to mitigation projects. As a result, WLS is in a strong
position to implement this project in a timely and effective manner. Upon project contract
execution, WLS will follow the project schedule below, as required under this RFP:
Table 5-7 Project Phasing
Task 1. Categorical Exclusion
3 months
April 1, 2016
Document
Task 2. Submit Recorded
Conservation
6 months
July 1, 2016
Easement on the Site
Task 3. Mitigation Plan (Final Draft)
9 months
October 1, 2016
and Financial Assurance
Task 4. Mitigation Site Earthwork
1 year, 2 months
March 1, 2017
Completed
Task 5. Mitigation Site Planting and
1 year, 3 months
April 1, 2017
Installation of Monitoring Devices
Task 6. Baseline Monitoring
Reporting (Including As -built
1 year, 4 months
May 1, 2017
Drawings)
Task 7. Submit Monitoring Report #1
1 year, 11 months
November 30, 2017
to NCDMS (meets success criteria)
Task 8. Submit Monitoring Report #2
2 year, 11 months
November 30, 2018
to NCDMS (meets success criteria)
Task 9. Submit Monitoring Report #3
3 year, 11 months
November 30, 2019
to NCDMS (meets success criteria)
Task 10. Submit Monitoring Report
4 year, 11 months
November 30, 2020
#4 to NCDMS (meets success criteria)
Task 11. Submit Monitoring Report
5 year, 11 months
November 30, 2021
#5 to NCDMS (meets success criteria)
Task 12. Submit Monitoring Report
6 year, 11 months
November 30, 2022
#6 to NCDMS (meets success criteria)
Task 13. Submit Monitoring Report
#7 to NCDMS and complete Project
7 year, 11 months
November 30, 2023
Closeout Process (meets success
criteria)
Water & Land Solutions Page 47

Pen Dell Mitigation Project
5.7 Success Criteria
WLS staff have obtained regulatory approval for numerous stream and wetland mitigation projects
(Permittee Responsible and both NCDOT and NCDMS full -delivery projects). The stream restoration
design and applied success criteria for the project will follow necessary performance standards and
monitoring protocols presented in the approved mitigation plan, developed in compliance with the NCDMS
Mitigation Plan Template Guidance, adopted October 2015, as well as the USACE Stream Mitigation
Guidelines issued in April 2003 and Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources; Final Rule,
issued in 2008. In addition, the monitoring success criteria, practices, and corresponding reporting will
follow the NCEEP Stream and Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Guidelines issued February, 2014, the NCEEP
As -built Baseline Monitoring Report Format, Data Requirements, and Content Guidance issued in February,
2014, the NCEEP Annual Monitoring Report Format, Data Requirements, and Content Guidance, issued
April, 2015, the NCEEP Closeout Report Template, Version 2.1, adopted March, 2015, and the NCEEP
Closeout Template Guidance, Version 2.1, adopted February, 2015.
Monitoring activities will be conducted for a period of five to seven years with the final duration dependent
upon performance trends toward achieving project goals and objectives. An early closure provision may
be requested by WLS for some or all of the monitoring components, understanding that early closure may
only be obtained through written approval from the regulatory agencies. Specific success criteria
components are presented below.
Stream Restoration and Enhancement Level I Success Criteria
Stream Hydrology: Two separate bankfull events must be documented within the seven-year monitoring
period. These two bankfull events must occur in separate years. Otherwise, the stream monitoring will
continue until two bankfull events have been documented in separate years. In addition to the two bankfull
flow events, two "geomorphically significant" flow events (Qg,=0.66Q2) must also be documented during
the monitoring period. There are no temporal requirements regarding the distribution of the
geomorphically significant flows.
Bank Height Ratio: Bank Height Ratio (BHR) shall not exceed 1.2 along the restored project reaches. This
standard only applies to the restored project reaches where BHRs were corrected through design and
construction.
Entrenchment Ratio: Entrenchment ratio (ER) shall be no less than 2.2 (>1.5 for "B" channels) along the
restored project stream reaches. This standard only applies to restored reaches of the channel where ERs
were corrected through design and construction.
Cross -Sections: Cross-sections along representative meander wavelengths of the project stream reach(es)
will be monitored for seven years, with monitoring events occurring at a minimum during Years 1, 3, 5, and
7. There should be little change expected in as -built restoration cross-sections. If measurable changes do
occur, they should be evaluated to determine if the changes represent a movement toward a more
unstable condition (e.g., downcutting, erosion) or a movement towards increased stability (e.g., settling,
vegetation establishment, deposition along the streambanks, decrease in width/depth ratio). Cross-
sections shall be classified using the Rosgen Stream Classification method and all monitored cross-sections
should fall within the quantitative parameters defined for channels of the design stream type.
Page 48 4

Pen Dell Mitigation Project
Longitudinal Profiles: Longitudinal profiles will be developed to document the as -built conditions of the
Restoration and Enhancement Level I project stream reaches. Observed bedforms should be consistent
with those observed for channels of the design stream type(s). Additional longitudinal profiles may be
required if problems are identified during monitoring.
Visual Assessment: Visual monitoring of the project will include representative photographic
documentation and will be conducted annually for each of the seven years of monitoring. The visual
monitoring will be used to support the development of the Current Conditions Plan View (CCPV) and tables
that organize the visual assessment metrics. Visual assessment will be conducted to monitor streambed
and streambank stability, condition of in -stream structures, horizontal stream channel migration, headcuts,
live stakes and other bioengineering vegetation mortality, impacts from invasive species plants and/or from
animals, and condition of pools and riffles. This visual monitoring will also include assessment of riparian
buffer conditions. Photographs will be used to subjectively document, compare, and analyze stream
channel aggradation or degradation, streambank erosion, success of riparian vegetation establishment,
and effectiveness of sedimentation and erosion control measures. Longitudinal project reach photos
should document the absence of developing bars within the stream channel or excessive increase in
channel depth or width. Lateral project reach photos should document the absence of excessive erosion
and the lack of continuing degradation of the streambanks. Comparison of a series of the successional
visual assessment photos taken over time should demonstrate maturation of the restored riparian
vegetation.
Stream Enhancement Level II Success Criteria
Success criteria for Enhancement Level II of the project stream reaches will follow the success criteria for
Visual Monitoring/Photo Reference Stations and Vegetative Success Criteria as outlined herein.
Vegetation Success Criteria
Specific and measurable success criteria for restored plant density at the project site will be based on the
recommendations presented in the Wetland Reserve Program (WRP) Technical Note and WLS's recent
experience and correspondence with review agencies on NCDMS full -delivery projects. Measures of
vegetative restoration success for the project during the intermediate monitoring years will be the survival
of at least 320, three-year-old planted trees per acre at the end of Year 3 of the monitoring period and at
least 260, five-year-old, planted trees per acre at the end of Year 5 of the monitoring period. The final
vegetative restoration success criteria will be achieving a density of not less than 210, seven-year-old
planted stems per acre in Year 7 of monitoring. Planted vegetation (for projects in coastal plain and
piedmont counties) must average seven feet in height at Year 5 of monitoring and ten feet in height at Year
7 of monitoring. A listing of preferred woody vegetation species to be planted at the site is provided in
Part 5.3.
Method of Reporting on Success Criteria
In accordance with the approved mitigation plan, the baseline monitoring document and as -built
monitoring report documenting the stream mitigation will be developed within 60 days of the completion
of planting and monitoring device installation at the restored project site. In addition, a period of at least
six months will separate the as -built baseline measurements and the first year monitoring measurements.
Water & Land Solutions Page 49

Pen Dell Mitigation Project
The baseline monitoring document and as -built monitoring report will include all information required by
the current NCDMS templates and guidance referenced above, including planimetric (plan view) and
elevation (profile view) information, photographs, sampling plot locations, a descriptions of initial
vegetation species composition by community type, and location of monitoring stations. The report will
include a list of the vegetation species planted, along with the associated planting densities.
The monitoring program will be implemented to document development of the stream system and the
progress toward achieving the success criteria referenced above. Monitoring activities will be conducted
such that at least 180 days will separate the completion of the initial vegetation planting and the initiation
of first year monitoring. Stream morphology, stream hydrology, as well as vegetation, will be assessed to
document the success of the implemented mitigation. The monitoring program will be followed for seven
years or until final success criteria are achieved, whichever is longer. For Enhancement Level II stream
reaches, the monitoring will be limited to reference photographs and assessment of vegetation survival.
Annual monitoring reports will be prepared in the fall of each monitoring year and will be submitted to
NCDMS by the November 30 deadline for each monitoring year. The monitoring reports will follow the
current NCDMS monitoring report guidance and templates, as specified under this RFP, and referenced
above, and will include:
1. A detailed narrative summarizing the condition of the restored project site and the all regular
maintenance activities.
2. Project background information.
3. As -built topographic maps showing location of vegetation sampling plots, permanent photo points,
and location of transects.
4. CCPV map including monitoring features and any areas of concern or problem areas notes during
monitoring.
5. Photographs showing views of the restored project site taken from the fixed photopoint stations.
6. Geomorphic and stream sediment data.
7. Hydrologic data.
8. Vegetation data, as described below.
9. Any geomorphic, hydrologic or vegetative problem areas.
10. A description of and areas of damage caused by animals or vandalism.
11. Wildlife observations.
Steam Mitigation Monitoring
The stream mitigation success criteria are defined above.
Hydrologic Monitoring: The hydrologic success criteria are defined above under Stream Hydrology for
streams.
Photo Reference Stations: Photographs will be used to visually document restoration success. The
restored project site will be photographed annually from the photo reference stations for at least five years
following construction. The reference photos will be taken once per year and will be taken from a
consistent height of approximately five to six feet above grade. Permanent makers will be established for
each photo reference station to ensure that the reference photos will be taken each year from the same
locations and view directions.
Page 50 4

Pen Dell Mitigation Project
Stream Hydrology and Floodplain Access: The occurrence of geomorphically significant events, bankfull
events, and floodplain access by flood flows during the monitoring period will be documented through the
use of crest gages and photographs. The crest gages will be installed on the floodplain of and across the
dimension of the restored channels as needed for monitoring. The crest gages will record the watermark
associated with the highest flood stage between monitoring site visits. The gages will be checked each
time WLS staff conduct a site visit to determine if a bankfull and/or geomorphically significant flow event
has occurred since the previous gage check. Photographs will be used to documents the occurrence of
debris lines, wracking, and sediment deposition on the floodplain during the monitoring site visits.
Cross -Sections: Representative meander wavelengths will be selected for each Restoration and
Enhancement Level I project stream reach that has specific design criteria. Two permanent riffle cross-
sections and two permanent pool cross-sections will be located along the selected meander wavelength.
Each of the cross-sections will be monumented on both streambanks to facilitate repetition each year. The
annual cross-section surveys will include points measured at all breaks in slope, including top of bank,
bankfull, inner berm, edge of water, and thalweg, for each of the said features that are present. Riffle
cross-sections will be classified using the Rosgen Stream Classification system. Bank pin arrays will only be
installed and utilized if warranted for the monitoring of lateral erosion at cross-sections occurring in
meander bends, typically at pools.
Lateral Reference Photos: Reference photos will be taken annually from the same locations and
orientations at each permanent cross-section. Photographs will be taken of both streambanks at each
cross-section. A survey tape stretched between the permanent cross-section monuments/pins will be
centered in each of the streambank photographs. The photographs will be taken such that the waterline
will be oriented in the lower edge of the frame and as much of the streambank as possible will be included
in each photo.
Structure Photos: Photographs will be taken annually at representative in -stream structures, typically
grade control structures, along the restored project stream reaches. The in -stream structure photographs
will be taken from consistent locations and orientation each year.
Vegetation Monitoring
The vegetation monitoring success criteria are defined above. Monitoring will be conducted during Years
1, 3, 5, and 7. Successful restoration of the vegetation at a mitigation site is dependent upon successful
hydrologic restoration, active planting of preferred canopy vegetation species, and volunteer regeneration
of the native plant community. In order to determine if these criteria are successfully achieved, vegetation
monitoring quadrants will be established across the restored project site, and monitored as required by
NCDMS monitoring guidance as reference above. Vegetation monitoring will be conducted in the fall of
each monitoring year. Data will be collected at each individual quadrant and will include specific data for
monitored stems on height, species, date planted, and grid location, as well as a collective determination
of the survival density within that quadrant. Relative values will be calculated and importance values will
be determined. Individual planted seedlings will be marked at monitoring baseline setup so that those
stems can be found and identified consistently each successive monitoring year. Volunteer species will be
noted and their inclusion in quadrant data will be evaluated with NCDMS on a case-by-case basis. The
presence of invasive species vegetation within the monitoring quadrants will also be noted, as will any
wildlife effects. At the end of the first growing season, species composition, density, and survival will be
Water & Land Solutions Page 51

Pen Dell Mitigation Project
evaluated. For each subsequent monitoring year, the restored site will be evaluated between July and
September, until the final success criteria are achieved.
Nutrient Reduction Monitoring
As described in detail in Section 5.3, WLS utilized the Spreadsheet Tool for Estimating Pollutant Loads
(STEPL v4.3, 2015) to quantify how the proposed project would reduce pollutant loads into the Buffalo
Creek Watershed. Based on preliminary model estimates, in conjunction with results from other
referenced studies, WLS expects that implementation of this project will significantly reduce pollutant
loads, including sediment and nutrients. WLS proposes to use pre- and post -restoration water quality
sampling to document water quality improvements directly related to sediment, phosphorus, and/or
nitrogen reductions. WLS understands that such monitoring performance standards are not required to
demonstrate success for credit release. We do, however, have great interest in collecting and analyzing
nutrient monitoring data based on the goals and objectives of the project. We believe selecting applicable
monitoring and evaluation methods will help us develop a more function -based assessment and improve
our project implementation process, thereby helping us to contribute positively to the advancement of the
practice of ecosystem restoration.
The proposed water quality sampling and testing will be conducted prior to construction in order to
establish and document baseline conditions. After completion of construction, samples will be collected
and analyzed concurrent with the monitoring baseline activities, as well as during each of the required
monitoring years. Sampling locations and protocols will be repeatable with the specific intent of
documenting nutrient reductions directly attributable to the implementation of the project. WLS
anticipates sampling and testing for nitrates (NO3), nitrites (NO2), and/or ammonia (NH3), along the
project reaches using standard equipment, evaluation methodologies and protocols, as prescribed by EPA
and approved by NCDMS and the IRT. We will utilize the cadmium reduction method and/or the nitrate
electrode method for this sampling and analysis. For the cadmium reduction method, WLS anticipates that
we will utilize a newer colorimetric immunoassay technique for nitrate screening. The visual monitoring
protocols described herein will also be utilized in support of the nutrient reduction monitoring. This will
include photographic documentation of eutrophication (algal blooms) reductions, where feasible.
Remedial Actions
In the event that specific component(s) of the restored project site fails to achieve the defined monitoring
success criteria, WLS will develop necessary adaptive management plans and/or will implement
appropriate remedial actions for the site in coordination with NCDMS and the review agencies.
Appropriate remedial action will be developed to achieve the necessary success criteria previously
specified, and will include a work schedule, strategy, and monitoring criteria that will consider physical and
climatic conditions.
Page 52 4

Pen Dell Mitigation Project
6 Quality Control
WLS takes pride in the quality of our products and the satisfaction of our customers and clientele. To
reach this high standard of quality, we have developed a system to ensure that products and reports are
developed to meet agreed-upon standards and requirements in a timely fashion. This system involves
three aspects: work plan, communications plan, and quality management plan.
Work Plan
The project manager will develop a work breakdown structure that outlines the tasks needed to
produce the end product. These tasks are further divided into subtasks that will be scheduled and
executed individually in order to comply with the schedule set forth in the previous section. The
work breakdown structure allows the project manager to estimate the time and resources required
to complete the work. The work breakdown structure also allows the project manager to identify
the proper staff to work on each subtask. The staffing plan ensures that key staff are aware of and
committed to duties and deadlines associated with their respective tasks.
Communications Plan
The project manager will also develop a communications plan that facilitates productive and efficient
communication pathways between the various project partners and staff members. Team members
will know who to contact for various aspects and when those communications need to occur.
Regular, planned communications are important to decrease schedule delays, avoid duplication of
efforts, and to allow time to correct any errors that may arise.
Quality Management Plan
The quality management plan clearly identifies the standards set forth by NCDMS and describes how
the project manager and team members will meet or exceed these standards. The plan details
quality objectives, key project deliverables, quality roles and responsibilities, and the process for
identifying and rectifying non -conformances. The quality management plan helps the project
manager determine if processes are being followed and products being produced to the highest
standards.
These three aspects of quality control will ensure that all aspects of this project are delivered according
to the schedule established herein. The Quality Management Plan for this project will establish and
document various quality assurance reviews to cross-examine all engineering and design methods, to set
forth document preparation and delivery methods and activities, and to ensure that all deliverables are
technically sound, follow NCDMS formats, contain all required information, and are grammatically and
typographically correct. Reviews will include:
Peer Reviews
Staff who are independent of a respective subtask will perform peer reviews. The objective of these
reviews will be to assess the product versus NCDMS's requirements, spot check key values, verify
completeness and clarity, and to determine if the design meets sound engineering practice.
Water & Land Solutions Page 53

Pen Dell Mitigation Project
Deliverable Reviews
The project manager and a member of the company leadership team will review the entire submission for
overall presentation, format uniformity, consistency, and completeness.
Constructability Reviews
All members of the WLS leadership team have extensive experience in construction oversight. At least
one member of the leadership team will perform constructability reviews relative to scope, schedule, and
acceptability. Results of the constructability review will be incorporated into the design to optimize work
and material used during construction, and to ensure the project is completed in compliance with required
federal, state, or local permits. During the construction phase of the project, the WLS Project Manager will be
responsible for oversight of construction activities. This will involve checking the contractor's adherence to design
documents, making decisions regarding field changes, and checking compliance with federal, state, and local
permits.
Page 54 4

m

Legend
0 conservation Easemen
.733
r�
r
500
Flowers Quadrangle
North Carolina - Johnston Co.
y
1
(7.
f
•
s 1
1 Xo;
O Feet
i4
6iWATER &LAND
SOLUTIONS
•
• a
C
Pen Dell
Mitigation Project
Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic`
USGS
Topographic
Map
NAD 1983 2011 State Plane
FIGURE

Legend
Q Conservation Easement
Ra: Rains sandy loam, 0-2% slopes
Soil Map Units (NRCS Data from Web Soil
UcC: Uchee loamy coarse sand, 6-12% slopes
Survey)
VrA: Varina loamy sand, 0-2% slopes
DoA: Dorian fine sandy loam, 0-2% slopes,
0
0 VrB: Varina loamy sand, 2-6% slopes
(HDYDRIC B)
W: Water
0 GeB: Gilead sandy loam, 2-8% slopes
WoB: Wedowee sandy loam, 2-8% slopes
0 Ly: Lynchburg sandy loam, 0-2% slopes, (HYDRIC B)
0 WoD: Wedowee sandy loam, 8-15% slopes
MaB: Marlboro sandy loam, 2-8% slopes
0 Wt: Wehadkee loam, 0-2% slopes, (HYDRIC A)
0 NoA: Norfolk loamy sand, 0-2% slopes
NoB: Norfolk loamy sand, 2-6% slopes
Ly
Wt
MaB
WoB
DoA
W WoD
DoA
WoD VrA
WoB
MaB
VrB
Ra
W
DoA
Wt WoB
WoD
UcC
WoB
Nob
WoB
Wt
Wt
N
DoA
0 500 1,000'
Feet
GeB
WOB Wt
WoD
Do/ WOB
FIGURE
WATER & LAND
Pen Dell
NRCS
Soils Map
SOLUTIONS
Mitigation Project
3
NAD 1983 2011 State Plane

Legend
Q Conservation Easement
NC Floodplain
Mapping Program
LiDAR
Window Size: 12.000 J
Elevation (ft)
a
334.7-375
309-334.7
- 293.8 - 309
280.2 - 293.8
267.1 -280.2
253.9 - 267.1
240.4 - 253.9
' 206.9 - 240.4
J� J
`r�
•
. II
0 40
lo
' 0 500 1,000
%P Feet
ff
6 WATER &LAND
") SOLUTIONS
ITMM6, "4
r
Pen Dell
Mitigation Project
FIGURE
LiDAR Map
NAD 1983 2011 State Plane 4
North Carolina Fl PS
3200 FT US

Legend LAI
Existing Streams
R1
R2
R3
R4
R5
0 Floodplain Alterations
0 Conservation Easement
2 ft Contours
Major
Minor
FEMA Floodzone
� AE
R1
Abandoned Road Bed
} r R3:
tR 41 y`
✓�0 •� �r�
► R5
0 500 1,000
Feet
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX.
Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community
TM
WATER & LAND Pen Dell Floodplain FIGURE
SOLUTIONS
Mitigation Project Map
NAD 1983 2011 State Plane 5
North Carolina Fl PS
3200 FT US

Legend
Q Conservation Easement
N
0 500C 1,000 Source: Johnston County Soil
Feet and Water Conservation District
(www.johnstonnc.com/Mainpage.cfm?category-leve/­id=704)
WATER &LAND Pen Dell 1939 Aerial FIGURE
SOLUTIONS Mitigation Project Photograph
NAD 1983 2011 State Plane 6a
North Carolina FIPS 3200 FT US

Legend
Q Conservation Easement
N
0 500 1,000 Source: Johnston County Soil
Feet and Water Conservation District
(www.johnstonnc.com/Mainpage.cfm?category—/eve/­id=704)
WATER &LAND Pen Dell 1949 Aerial FIGURE
SOLUTIONS Mitigation Project Photograph
NAD 1983 2011 State Plane 6b
I F North Carolina FIPS 3200 FT US

Legend
= Conservation Easement
TM
WATER &LAND
j
SOLUTIONS
Pen Dell
Mitigation Project
Source: Johnston County Soil
and Water Conservation District
(www.johnstonnc.com/Mainpage.cfm?category-level-id=704)
1965 Aerial
Photograph
NAD 1983 2011 State Plane
North Carolina Fl PS
3200 FT US
FIGURE
C�•7

Legend
Q Conservation Easement
N
0 500 1,000 Source: Johnston County Soil
Feet and Water Conservation District
(www.johnstonnc.com/Mainpage.cfm?category-leve/­id=704)
TM
WATER &LAND Pen Dell 1988 Aerial FIGURE
SOLUTIONS Mitigation Project Photograph
NAD 1983 2011 State Plane 6d
North Carolina FIPS 3200 FT US

Legend
Existing Streams
Reach, Classification
R1, Intermittent
R2, Perennial
R3, Perennial
R4, Perennial
R5, Perennial
Conservation Easement
Catchment Area
DCM Mapped
Wetlands
Human Impacted
Hydric Soils
Dorian fine sandy loam,
Hydric B
Wehadkee loam, Hydric A
Catchment Area: 147 acres
Impervious Cover: 0.86%
Dominant Land Use: Agriculture (49% pasture/crops)
and Forest (27% deciduous/evergreen/mixed)
Wo
0 500 `� 1,000
Feet
WATER &LAND
SOLUTIONS
R5
Pen Dell
Mitigation Project
R1
ace-ograpnics, urjtonmrous uwZ'u'H�., VJhtiJ,HLAI
id the&GlS User Community
FIGURE
Existing
Hydrography
NAD 1983 2011 State Plane 7
North Carolina FIPS 3200 FT US

Appendices Section
Financial Statement (Only Included in Original Technical Proposal)
Conservation Easement Option Agreement
Landowner Authorization Form
Technical Proposal Evaluation Criteria — Rating Form

Filed in JOHNSTON COUNTY, NO
CRAIG OLIVE, Register of deeds
Filed 04/21/2015 03:40:34 PM
GEES BOCK: 4658 PAGE: 713-717
INSTRUMENT # 2015466384
Real Estate Excise Tax $0.00
Deputy/Assistant Register of Deeds lkirby
EXHIBIT D
Prepared by and Return:
Water & Land Solutions
11030 Raven Ridge Road, Suite 119
Raleigh, NC 27614
MEMORANDUM OF OPTION TO PURCHASE CONSERVATION EASEMENT
THIS MEMORANDUM FOR OPTION TO PURCHASE CONSERVATION EASEMENT
("Memorandum") is made and entered into this 18th day of September of 2015, by and
between PEN DELL LLC, Randy Edwards ("Grantor") and WATER & LAND
SOLUTIONS, LLC, allorth Carolina limited liability company located at 11030 Raven Ridge Road, Suite
119, Raleigh, North Carolina 27614 ("WLS").
WHEREAS, Grantor and. WLS have entered into a certain Option to Purchase Conservation
Easement (the "Option") dated September 18, 2015, pursuant to which Grantor granted to WLS, its
successors and assigns, an option to purchase a conservation easement (the "Easement") over certain real
property located in Johnston County, North Carolina, which property is more particularly described on the
attached Exhibit. A the "Property") and
WHEREAS, The parties enter into this Memorandum for the purpose of setting forth certain terms
and conditions ofthe Option and to provide constructive notice ofthe Option;
NOW, THEREFORE, inconsideration of the foregoing, the parties hereby agree as follows.
The term ofthe Option commenced on September 18, 2015, and shall expire on September
l8, 2017.
2. All of the provisions set forth in the Option are incorporated in this Memorandum by
reference.
3. The Option shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit ofthe parties and their respective
heirs, successors and assigns.
[SIGNATURES AND NOTARY ACKNOWLEDGMENTS APPEAR ON FOLLOWING PAGES]
1161

IN 'WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have duly executed this Memorandum as of the date first
above written.
GRANT
By: Z�-
Print Name: ® "ni'd
Title: e Gtr6'i el, ­
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF JTC,4 ';(_)
I, Notary Public of the County and State aforesaid, certify
that PEN DELL LLC, Randy Edwards appeared before me this day and acknowledged that he/she
voluntarily executed the for ing instrument. I hav received satisfactory evidence of the principal's
identity in the form of _ LJZCI i j
This the 18th day of September, 2015.
[AFFIX NOTARIAL STAMP -SEAL]
=STEPHANIE=County
M
Official Signature of Notary Public
nr2 e --(;-"3'E' Notary Public
Notary Public's Name Printed or Typed
My Commission Expires: -7—
[AFFIX
7—
11

WATER & LAND SOLUTIONS, LLC, a
North C r©line LiTitedii iility Company
By:
Print N me:
Title: L00Z204(
STATE OF NORTH CAROL AA
COUNTY OF 2S —_
11'f ( c .'� , the undersigned Notary Public of the County and
State aforesaid, certify that Ashley Abernethy appeared before me this day, acknowledging to me that
he/she is Chief Operations Officer of Water & Land Solutions, LLC a North Carolina limited liability
company, and that he/she acknowledged to me that he/she voluntarily signed the foregoing document for
the purposes therein expressed and in the representative caF cit so stated. I I)aye��ivvedsatisfactory
evidence of the principal's identity in the form of 1 �.�2SS Lit ds
This the l 8th day of September, 2015.
[AFFIX NOTARIAL STAMP -SEAL]
STEPHANIE €. SWOPE
NOrapv P= SLIC
Johnston County
North Carolina
my Commission Ex fires 7.1 f-r�76
Ag�� IF
Official Signature of Notary Public
otary Public
Notary Public's Name Printed or Typed
My Commission Expires: - — i, 1— ec') 1-8
12

Legend
...,: Parcel Boundaries
Streams
...............
................................+...,.............................
,....... :
....................
...........
,.,,, ,.:
r, ..+.
Randy Edwards
PIN, 179200-11-3515 William Odell Edwards
*; Parcel Acreage: 107,23 AC ; .` PIN: 179200-31-3929
Parcel Acreage: 70.07 AC :
• rrr
.•
r"r
• RR'
f
rr
V
,i
� rR"
s
l'V
0 500
R"•
e"•r
rr
William Odell Edwards
PIN: 179100-09-9826
Parcel Acreage: 58.68 AC
Pen Dell
1,000 Mitigation Projekt
Feet Johnston County, NC
Exhibit A
THIS MAP IS NOT A CERTIFIED SURVEY
AND IIAS NOT BEEN REVIEWED BY A
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGENCY FOR
COMPLIANCE WITH ANY APPLICABLE
LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATION
This map and all data contained within are supplied as is with no
warranty. Water & Land Solutions, LLC expressly disclaims
responsibility for damages or liability from any claims that may arise
out of the use or misuse of this map. It is the sole responsibility of
the user to determine if the data on this map meals the user's
needs. This map was not created as survey data, nor should it be
used as such. It is the user's responsibility to obtain proper survey
data, prepared by a licensed surveyor, where required by law.
4 WATER &LAND
SOLUTIONS

Filed in JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
CRAIG OLIVE, Register sof Deeds
Filed 09/21/2015 03:40:34 PM
DEED BOOK: 4658 PAGE: 708-712
INSTRUMENT # 2015466383
Real Estate Excise Tax $0.00
Deputy/Assistant Register of Deeds lkirby
EXHIBIT D
Prepared by and Return:
Water & Land Solutions
11030 Raven Ridge Road. Suite 119
Raleigh, NC 27614
MEMORANDUM OF OPTION TO PURCHASE CONSERVATION EASEMENT
THIS MEMORANDUM FOR OPTION TO PURCHASE CONSERVATION EASEMENT
("Memorandum") is made and entered into this 18th day of September of 2015, b y a n d
between Edwards Trust, William Odell Edwards ("Grantor") and
WATER & LAND SOLUTIONS, LLC, allorth Carolina limited liability company located at 11030 Raven
Ridge Road, Suite 119, Raleigh, North Carolina 27614 ("WLS").
WHEREAS, Grantor and WLS have entered into a certain Option to Purchase Conservation
Easement (the "Option") dated September 18, 2015,.pursuant to which Grantor granted to WLS, its
successors and assigns, an option to purchase a conservation easement (the "Easement") over certain real
property located in Johnston County, North Carolina, which property is more particularly described on the
attached Exhibit A (the "Property") and
WHEREAS, The parties enter into this Memorandum for the purpose of setting forth certain terms
and conditions ofthe Option and to provide constructive notice ofthe Option;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration ofthe foregoing, the parties hereby agree as follows.
The term of the Option commenced on September 18, 2015, and shall expire on September
18, 2017.
2. All of the provisions set forth in the Option are incorporated in this Memorandum by
reference.
3. The Option shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties and their respective
heirs, successors and assigns.
[SIGNATURES AND NOTARY ACKNOWLEDGMENTS APPEAR ON FOLLOWING PAGES]
10

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have duly executed this Memorandum as of the date first
above written.
Lff ., 051
, �.
:.f �'�'�
.•
STATE OF NORTH CAROLfPA
COUNTY OF
�a Notary Public of'the County and State aforesaid, certify
that Edwards Trust, William Odell Edwards appeared before me this day and acknowledged that he/she
voluntarily executed the fare.,going instrume t. I have, received satisfactory evidence of the principal's
identity in the form of C1CV I I
This the 18th day of September, 2015.
[AFFIX NOTARIAL STAMP -SEAL]
STEPHANIE E. SWOPE
NOTARY PUBLIC
Johnston County
North Carolina
My Commdssw Ex ire$ 7-11.2Uto +
Official Signature of Notary Public
otary Public
Notary Public's Name Printed or Typed
My Commission Expires: 7--11 - Fz> i -%
11

WATER & LAND SOLUTIONS, LLC, a
North Ca puna Li n tied liability Company
By:
Print Name:
Title:
STATE OF NORTH CARO
COUNTY OF
the undersigned Notary Public of the County and
State aforesaid, certify that Ashley Abernethy appeared before me this day, acknowledging to me that
he/she is Chief Operations Officer of Water & Land Solutions, LLC a North Carolina limited liability
company, and that he/she acknowledged to me that he/she voluntarily signed the foregoing document for
the purposes therein expressed and in the representative capacitg,so stated. I have received satisfactory
evidence of the principal's identity in the form of �ku
This the 18th day of September, 2015,
[AFFIXNOTARIAL STAMP -SEAL]
STEPHANIE E. SWOPE
NOTARY PUBLIC
Johnston County
North Carolina
My Commission Expires 7-11-2018
Official Signature of Notary Public
otary Public
Notary Public's Name Printed or Typed
My Commission Expires: -7-11-227—At
12

Legend
Parcel Boundaries
Streams
..................................Y
j..............................................................
..............
.......a
.......
i
...........
——
Randy Edwards ! .
PIN: 179200-11-3515 William Odell Edwards
�•` Parcel Acreage: 107.23 AC PIN: 179200-31-3929
Parcel Acreage: 70.07 AC
r Y.
y Y + ...............
. ...... !�
• •Y Y
•i
:
William Odell Edwards
PIN: 179100-09-9826
Parcel Acreage: 58.88 AC
Pen Dell
0 500 1,000 Mitigation Project
Feet Johnston County, NC
Exhibit A"')
THIS MAP IS NGI" A CERTIFIED SURVEY
AND HAS NOT BEEN REVIEWED BY A
LOCAL GOVERNMENT A0ENCY FOR
COMPLIANCE WITH ANY APPLICABLE''
LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATION
This map and ail data contained within are supplied as is with no
warranty. Water & Land Solutions, LLC expressly disclaims
responsibility for damages or liability from any eJaims that may arise
out of the use or misuse of this map. it is the sole responsibility of
the user to determine if the data on this map meets the user's
needs. This map was not created as survey data, nor should it be
used as such. It is the user's responsibility to obtain proper survey
data, prepared by a licensed surveyor, where required by law
6 WATER & LAND
SOLUTIONS

Filed in JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
CRRIG OLIVE, Register of needs
Filed 09/21/2015 03:40:34 RM
DEE© BOOK: 4658 AAG1: 718-722
INSTRUMENT # 2015466385
Real Estate Excise Tax $0.00
Deputy/Assistant Register of Deeds lkirby
EXHIBIT ❑
Prepared by and Return:
Water & Land Solutions
11030 Raven Ridge Road, Suite 119
Raleigh, NC 27614
MEMORANDUM OF OPTION TO PURCHASE CONSERVATION EASEMENT
THIS MEMORANDUM FOR +OPTION TO PURCHASE CONSERVATION EASEMENT
("Memorandum") is made and entered into this 18` day of September of 2015, b y a n d b e t w e e n
William Odell Edwards ("Grantor") and WATER &LAND SOLUTIONS,
LLC, a North Carolina limited liability company located at 11030 Raven Ridge Road, Suite 119, Raleigh,
North Carolina 27614 ("WLS").
WHEREAS, Grantor and WLS have entered into a certain Option to Purchase Conservation
Easement (the "Option") dated September 18, 2015, pursuant to which Grantor granted to WLS, its
successors and assigns, an option to purchase a conservation easement (the "Easement") over certain real
property located in Johnston County, North Carolina, which property is more particularly described on the
attached Exhibit A (the "Property") and
WHEREAS, The parties enter into this Memorandum for the purpose of setting forth certain terms
and conditions ofthe Option and to provide constructive notice ofthe Option;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, the parties hereby agree as follows.
The term ofthe Option commenced on September 18, 2015, and shall expire on September
18, 2017.
2. All of the provisions set forth in the Option are incorporated in this Memorandum by
reference.
3. The Option shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties and their respective
heirs, successors and assigns.
[SIGNATURES AND NOTARY ACKNOWLEDGMENTS APPEAR ON FOLLOWING PAGES]
10

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have duty executed this Memorandum as of the date first
above written.
STATE OF NORTH CAROL A
COUNTY OF , 2 S
iLn
I, r t � �_ _ e �� Notary Public of the County and State aforesaid, certify
that William Odell Edwards appeared before me this day and acknowledged that he/she voluntarily
executed the- instrut nt. 1 ave received satisfactory evidence of the principal's identity in the
form of M ALP Ci. -c) n
This the 18th day of September, 2015.
[AFFIX NOTARIAL STAMP -SEAL]
STEPHANIE E SWOPS
NOTARY PUBLIC
Johnston County
North Carolina
y Commission Expires 7-11-2418
r
Official Signature of Notary Public
:Q <,Notary Public
Notary Public's Name Printed or Typed
My Commission Expires: 7-11 -24-') IF
11

WATER & LAND SOLUTIONS, LLC, a
North C rolina Li ited Liability Company
Ey.
Print me:
Title:06 r`
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF:
I,the undersigned Notary Public of the County and
State aforesaid, certify that Ashley Abernethy appeared before me this day, acknowledging to me that.
he/she is Chief Operations Officer of Water & Land Solutions, LLC a North Carolina limited liability
company, and that he/she acknowledged to me that he/she voluntarily signed the foregoing document for
the purposes therein expressed and in the representati�vepcapac so, stated. I have geived satisfactory
m Vim_
evidence of the principal's identity in the forof 1
This the 18th day of September, 2015.
[AFFIX NOTARIAL STAMP -SEAL]
STEPHANIE E. S'a"sIOPE
NOTARY PUBLIC
Johnston County
North Carolina
My Commission Expires 7-11.201 B
Official. Signature of Notary Public
t-- Notary Public
Notary Public's Name Printed or Typed
My Commission Expires:
12

Legend
Parcel Boundaries
Streams
....................
...............
r..R../.................................R.......
...........................r............., R.:
. +,
.
�• R
Randy Edwards
PIN: 1792(14-11-3515 William Odell Edwards
Parcel Acreage: 107.23 AC PIN; 179200-31-3929
Parcel Acreage: 70.07 AC
t
i
� r
//• .,rrrrrrrr
•r
:
•'+�.• William Odell Edwards
�. ,,•' • PIN: 179100-09-9826,
Parcel Acreage: 58.68 AC
+i
R
N Pen Dell
0 500 1,000 Mitigation Project
Feet Johnston County, NC
Exhibit A
THIS MAP IS NOT A CERTIFIED SURVEY
AND I -IAS NOT BEEN REVIEWED BY A
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGENCY FOR
COMPLIANCE WITH ANY APPLICABLE
LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATION
This map and all data contained within are supplied as is with no
warranty. Water & Land Solutions, LLC expressly disclaims
responsibility for damages or liability from any claims that may arise
out of the use or, misuse of this map. It is the sole responsibility of
the user to determine if the data on this map meets the user's
needs, This map was not created as survey data, nor should it be
used as such. H is the users responsibility to obtain proper survey
data, prepared by a licensed surveyor, where requdred by law,
WATER &LAND
SOLUTIONS

NORTH CAROLINA ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
LANDOWNER AUTHORIZATION FORM
PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRITION:
Deed Book: 03534 Page: 0823 County: Johnston
Parcel ID Number: 179200-11-3515, containing; 107.23 acres, more or less
Street Address: 2643 A Wendell Road
Wendell NC 27591
Property Owner (please print): Randy Edwards {PEN DELL, LLQ
Property Owner (please print): NIA
The undersigned, registered property owner(s) of the above property, do hereby authorize
Water & Land Solutions—LLC
Full Delivery Provider', the NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources, and the US
Array 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: 2505 Wendell Road
(if different from above)
Wendell, NC 27591
Property Owner Telephone Number: 919-449-6437
Property Owner Telephone Number:
FWe hereby certify the above information to be true and accurate to the best of my/our knowledge.
(Property Owndr (Authorized Signature) (Date)
(Property Owner Authorized Signature)
'Name of full delivery company
(Date)

NORTH CAROLINA ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
LANDOWNER AUTHORIZATION FORM
PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRiTION:
Deed Book: 03478 Page: 0920 County: Johnston
Parcel ID Number: 179200-31-3929, containing 70.07 acres, more or less
Street Address: Wendell Road
Wendell, NC 27591
Property Owner (please print): William Odell Edwards (Edwards Trust)
Property Owner (please paint): N/A
The undersigned, registered property owner(s) of the above property, do hereby authorize
Water & Land Solutions, LLC
Full Delivery Provider', 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: 100 Salem Church Road
(if different from above)
Wendell, NC 27591
Property Owner Telephone Number:
Property Owner Telephone Number: N/A
I/We hereby certify the above information to be true and accurate to the best of my/our knowledge.
(Property Owner Authorized Signature) (Date)
(Property Owner Authorized Signature) (Date)
'Name of full delivery company

NORTH CAROLINA ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
LANDOWNER AUTHORIZATION FORM
PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRITION:
Deed Book: 01906 Page: 0478 County: Johnston
Parcel ID Number: 179100-09-9826, containing 58.68 acres, more or less
Street Address: Lake Wendell
Wendell, NC 27591
Property Owner (please print): William Odell Edwards
Property Owner (please print): NIA
The undersigned, registered property owner(s) of the above property, do hereby authorize
Water & Land Solutions, LLC
Full Delivery Providerl, the NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources, and the SUS
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: 100 Salem. Church Road
(if different from above)
Wendell, NC 27591
Property Owner Telephone Number:
Property Owner Telephone Number:
Me hereby certify the above information to be true and accurate to the best of my/our knowledge,
(Property Owner Authorized Signature)
(Property Owner Authorized Signature)
'Name of full delivery company
(Date)
N/A
(Date)

ATTACHMENT A
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 Merit/Proposal 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:
Water & Land Solutions, LLC
Site Name:
Pen Dell Mitigation Project
River Basin/
Neuse River Basin/Cataloging Unit 03020201
Catalog Unit:
RFP Number:
RFP 16-006477
Date of Site
Evaluation:
10/15/2015
Type/Amt of
Mitigation Offered:
2,992 Stream Mitigation Credits (SMCs)
Proposal Review
Water & Land Solutions Self Scoring Exercise
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
Yes
tributaries?
2- Does the proposal adequately document the physical, chemical and/or biological impairments that currently exist on the project
site?
Yes
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.,
Yes
adjacent land use/land cover), and are optimized to yield maximum functional gains.]
4- Does DMS agree with the proposed credit structure(s) described in the proposal?
Yes
5- Does the proposed project avoid significant adverse impacts to existing wetlands and/or streams?
Yes
6- Does the proposal adequately describe how the project will advance DMS watershed planning goals?
Yes
7 -For any proposed Priority II restoration, are all the following elements included in the proposal OR is Priority 2 stream restoration
limited to "tie-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).
Yes
- 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

ATTACHMENT A
ADDENDUM# 1 FOR RFP 16-006477
Note: An answer of No in this section means the Technical Proposal is rejected.
Continue or Reject Continue
IOD
"so
.100
-160
-tom~
Diagram for Priority II Question Above.
i € rlvrt[y �i flavciplait� b�rMtlt
1-1
1 010 2W 300 400 Sm
Page 2of 6

ATTACHMENT A
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
Sc o re
Section 1.0 - Watershed Module [Maximum Points= 30] Section 1.0 Total = 30 Points
For Proposed Projects outside of RWP or LWP Area N/A - Project is in RWP
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 8 points
Project addresses 4 of 4 functional improvement objectives 15 points
For Proposed Projects within a LWP Area N/A - Project is in RWP
1.2
BONUS: Is the proposed project located within a LWP area. If the answer is Yes but the project is also
located within the RWP area please only answer BONUS 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 Yes
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
Yes - 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
Yes - 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
Yes - 15 Points
Section 2.0 - Existing Conditions Module [Maximum Points =65] Section 2.0 Total = 51 Points
Page 3 of 6

ATTACHMENT A
ADDENDUM# 1 FOR RFP 16-006477
2.1 lWhat is the proportion of significant, obvious incision (BHR > —1.5) for reaches identified for some level of channel modification?
<30% of the proposed footage exhibits significant, obvious incision. 2 points
30-70% of the proposed footage exhibits significant, obvious incision. 6 points
>70% of the proposed footage exhibits significant, obvious incision. 10 points
6 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.]
<30% active erosion. 4 points
30-70% active erosion. 10 points
>70% active erosion. 20 points
10 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.]
What level of (negative) impact on water quality does the current land use within and immediately adjacent to the proposed easement have on
2'4 the project (i.e., impervious surfaces, nutrient inputs, sediment inputs or other land disturbing activities)?
Low (no evidence of nutrient, fecal coliform or sediment input via overland/stormwater flow into
the system). 1 point
Moderate (only slight or limited evidence of nutrient, fecal coliform or sediment input via
overland/stormwater flow into the system). 6 points
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 12 Points
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
2.5 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
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
6 points
Proportion of affected channel >70%. 8 points
8 Points
What level of (negative) impact on water quality does the current land use within and immediately adjacent to the proposed easement have on
2'4 the project (i.e., impervious surfaces, nutrient inputs, sediment inputs or other land disturbing activities)?
Low (no evidence of nutrient, fecal coliform or sediment input via overland/stormwater flow into
the system). 1 point
Moderate (only slight or limited evidence of nutrient, fecal coliform or sediment input via
overland/stormwater flow into the system). 6 points
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 12 Points
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
2.5 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
15 Points
reductions directly attributable to proposed project. 15 points
Page 4 of 6

ATTACHMENT A
ADDENDUM# 1 FOR RFP 16-006477
Section 3.0 Habitat and Conservation Connectivity Module [Maximum Points =10]
Section 3.0 Total = 0 Points
Section 4.0 - Design Module [Maximum Points =15] Section 4.0 Total = 15 Points
4.1 ITo 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 15 Points
for existing and proposed conditions are specified, described and justified as appropriate for the
project with the proposal. 15 points
Section 5.0 - Implementation and Risk Module [Maximum Points =28] Section 5.0 Total = 12 Points
5.1 1Does the project provide: No - 0 Points
Between 20 - 30% of the RFP request (mitigation quantities)? 5 points
Between 30 - 50% of the RFP request? 10 points
Page 5 of 6
3.1
BONUS: Proposed project boundaries are directly contiguous to (has a common boundary with) another protected property. No - 0 Points
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
project or approved Mitigation Bank site) with a permanent easement. 10 points
Section 4.0 - Design Module [Maximum Points =15] Section 4.0 Total = 15 Points
4.1 ITo 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 15 Points
for existing and proposed conditions are specified, described and justified as appropriate for the
project with the proposal. 15 points
Section 5.0 - Implementation and Risk Module [Maximum Points =28] Section 5.0 Total = 12 Points
5.1 1Does the project provide: No - 0 Points
Between 20 - 30% of the RFP request (mitigation quantities)? 5 points
Between 30 - 50% of the RFP request? 10 points
Page 5 of 6

5.2
ATTACHMENT A
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 I Yes - 6 Points
provides a detailed approach for how to address this. 6 points
5.3 Physical constraints or barriers i.e. utilities culverts property lines easements managed areas etc.) that affect project design and
effectiveness. [Percentages calculated based upon adding total linear footage of crossings, roadways, utilities, or reduced buffer; divided by
total linear footage.]
>10% of the total project footage is segmented by crossings, roadways, or utility rights of way. 1
point
5-10% 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
6 Points
points
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] Section 6.0 Total = 15 Points
6.1 1Experience 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 Yes - 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
Yes - 5 Points
implementation to be used in the proposed project. 5 points
No - Minus 0 Points
Page 6 of 6