20160404 Ver 1_Technical Proposal_20160404

Edwards -Johnson l
Mitigation Pro'ect
Neuse River Basin (CU 03020201)
Johnston County, NC
RFP #16-006477
Proposal for Stream Mitigation Credits October 28, 2015 @ 2:00 p.m.
� P 1
IC
jl- w -
o
WATER & LAND SOLUTIONS Prepared for:
11030 Raven Ridge Rd, Ste 119, Raleigh, NC 27614 NC Division of Mitigation Services
waterlandsolutions.com 1 919-614-5111 Attn: Kathy Dale
v �, a 11tIQ a u o��� 217 W. Jones St., Ste 3307-A
��t Raleigh, NC 27603

Edwards -Johnson 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 D OLUTION
11030 Raven Ridge Rd, Suite 119, Raleigh, NC 27614
X919) 614-5111 1 walerlandsolutions_orm

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....................................................................................................40
5.1 Project Goals and Objectives......................................................................................................
23
5.2 Project Description......................................................................................................................26
5.3 Project Development..................................................................................................................33
Proposed Stream Mitigation Credit Summary........................................................................44
5.4 Proposed Mitigation...................................................................................................................43
Table 5-6
5.5 Current Ownership and Long Term Protection...........................................................................44
5.6 Project Phasing............................................................................................................................45
Project Phasing........................................................................................................................45
5.7 Success Criteria...........................................................................................................................46
6 Quality Control....................................................................................................................................51
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....................................................................................................40
Table 5-4
Total Annual Pollutant Loadings and Removal Estimates.......................................................42
Table 5-5
Proposed Stream Mitigation Credit Summary........................................................................44
Table 5-6
Current Land Ownership.........................................................................................................44
Table5-7
Project Phasing........................................................................................................................45

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 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:
V'�� -
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

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.
❑X 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 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
t
150
100
So
00.1O
t
-5O
-100
•1S0
�f00
0
Diagram for Priority II Question Above..
Izri.0'rity 11 flQoclplaiin 6anch
eradinp bc-timdaryminiimulrns
4493. 1C 17,
Ill f0 ot cltiairrtialtiridth
301ootbencl-4tiridth(Y.5timp ves€I-baizn+tlsvidt11)bey*P'bdtIIebelt4vidth.
100 200 300 400 r
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

ALG:'-UAA�
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

ALG:'-UAA�
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: 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
G�
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
GOVOrhnl-
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
secrefoo,
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
i
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
'Al
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 Edwards -Johnson 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 Edwards -Johnson
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 3,015 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 0 50 50
R2 1,208 0 0 0 1,208
R3 755 0 0 24 779
R4 978 0 0 0 978
Project Totals 2,941 0 0 74 3,015

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 3,015 stream mitigation credits (SMCs) utilizing a broad, balanced approach including restoration,
enhancement, preservation, and permanent protection to address most 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.
• 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]

Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project
1 Executive Summary
This executive summary highlights the proposed Edwards -Johnson 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 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.
The project is located in Johnston County, near the border of Wake County
The Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project will involve the potential restoration and preservation and
permanent protection of four stream reaches (Reaches R1, R2, R3, R4), totaling approximately 3,186 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

Edwards -Johnson 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, and limiting the number of stream crossings, thus providing the maximum
functional uplift and utilizing a watershed approach.
Some of the existing stream reaches have been degraded significantly as a result of historic and current
agricultural and silvicultural practices, and/or channelization. Some of the project stream reaches are
unstable, with documented active headcut migration and associated localized channel widening and
down -cutting. However, some of the project reaches have segments that are relatively un -impacted,
and as a result are stable and thus worthy of preservation. The vast majority of the project reaches have
adequate riparian buffers. However, the project reaches currently act as significant sources of sediment
and nutrient contamination to the project watershed, as well and 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
3,015 Stream Mitigation Credits (SMCs)
through Restoration and Preservation and
includes the treatment of all stream
reaches at the project site (111, R2, R3, and
R4). Treatment of R2, R4 and the
upstream portion of R3 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 to provide
the stream reach access to its floodplain.
This watershed contextual map depicts the project as
one of three that treats the Buffalo Creek watershed
All of the project stream reaches proposed for restoration are perennial or intermittent streams as
determined by the methodologies utilized to complete North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ)
Page 2 4

Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project
Stream Identification Forms. Preservation is proposed along R1 and the downstream portion of R3 before
its confluence with Buffalo Creek. Riparian buffers in excess of 50 feet in width will be preserved and/or
enhanced 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 R2,
R3, and R4 during field investigations. Some of these areas have been historically manipulated by
agricultural and silvicultural activities and have resulted in partial loss of wetland function. The function
of these degraded riparian wetlands will be improved significantly by implementing a Priority Level I
Restoration along Reach R2, upper R3 and R4 to restore hydrology (surface and subsurface), re-
establishing native riparian wetland vegetation, limited disturbance of upland soils, and permanently
protecting 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, 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

Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project
Table 1-1 Mitigation Credit Summary
R1
0
0
0
50
50
R2
1,208
0
0
0
1,208
R3
755
0
0
24
779
R4
978
0
0
0
978
Table 1-2 Project Reach Summary
R1 96 0.150 Perennial/Intermittent P C5
C5
R2 134 0.210 Perennial R(PI) G5c
C5
R3 (upper) 211 0.330 Perennial R(PI) E5(incised)
C5
R3 (lower) 232 0.363 Perennial P C5 / D5
C5/D5
R4 55 0.086 Perennial/Intermittent R(PI) G5c
C5
Project Total NCDMS Rating Form Scores3 = 114 (Total Points) and 1.14 (Proposal Rating)
Note 1: Watershed drainage area is 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

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

Edwards -Johnson 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 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

Edwards -Johnson 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

Edwards -Johnson 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 engineering 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 SPO 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

Edwards -Johnson 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

Edwards -Johnson 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

Edwards -Johnson 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

Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project
Pinch Gut Creek Restoration Project, NCDMS, Stokes County, NC
F
Y
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

Edwards -Johnson 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

Edwards -Johnson 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

Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project
3.2 Resumes of Key Personnel
WATER & LAND'
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 11), 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 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

Edwards -Johnson 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

Edwards -Johnson 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 7 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

Edwards -Johnson 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 SPO 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

Edwards -Johnson 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.
DIVER
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

Edwards -Johnson 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

Edwards -Johnson 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

Edwards -Johnson 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
Team Members
WATER & LAND"
(WLS) Water & Land Solutons, LLC SOLUTIONS
(WLSE) Water & Land Soollutoonns Engineering, PLLC
f�v
(RW) River Works, Inc. ■ 111114—
4
(WR) Withers Ravenel 0 WithersRavenel
WATER & LAND'
SOLUTIDN5
Marshall Wright, PLS (WR)
Kayne VanStell (WLS)
Jon Morgan (WLS)
Catherine Manner (WLS)
Jon Morgan (WLS)
Catherine Manner (WLS)
Kayne VanStell (WLS)
Adam McIntyre (WLS)
Scott Hunt, PE (WLS, WLSE)
Ashley Abemethy (W LS)
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 LEE© 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 Van Stell (WLS)
Marshall Wright, PLS (WR)
Jon Morgan (WLS)
Catherine Manner (WLS)
Ashley Abemethy (WLS)
Page 22 4

Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project
5 Technical Approach
5.1 Project Goals and Objectives
The Edwards -Johnson 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 three
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 Edwards -Johnson 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
Water & Land Solutions Page 23

Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project
streambed. Additionally, fish and wildlife habitat will be restored and protected through a
permanent conservation easement in excess of 50 feet along all stream reaches.
The project is located immediately downstream from 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
dam removal and in -stream restoration practices will improve habitat diversity (e.g. protect/restore
floodplain and riparian wetlands, provide deeper pools and backwater areas) and promote native
species propagation throughout the conservation easement. Additionally, agricultural BMPs will
be installed to remove direct nutrient 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 ammonia, nitrogen and phosphorus
from agricultural practices are entering a majority of the project reaches. High -functioning riparian
buffers will be improved and/or permanently protected to remove direct pollutant sources and filter
runoff prior to entering the project reaches.
Agricultural BMPs — As recommended under the
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, and small impoundments or basins to
treat agricultural runoff. Currently, the landowner
actively employs no -till planting and the use of
grassed waterways. Therefore, the addition of
treatment basins will be employed under this project.
Photo shows adjacent row crops draining directly
into riparian area. This area presents an
opportunity for installing an agricultural BMP.
Page 24 4

Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project
• 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 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.
Riparian Buffer Enhancement — A majority of the project reaches have a mature riparian buffer with
adequate widths on both sides of the streambank. However, streambanks are actively eroding in many
areas and contributing excess sediment into the system. A higher functioning riparian buffer will increase
woody root mass and density along the streambanks thereby decreasing bank erosion and sedimentation.
Additionally, sediment supplied from upstream sources will be deposited onto restored floodplain areas
and increasing 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
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.
Water & Land Solutions Page 25

Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project
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.
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, photo illustrates active bank erosion, poor channel
storage, and roughness. Incorporation of formation, and lack of floodplain connectivity
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 replanted as necessary throughout these stream and
wetland complexes. The riparian buffers and wetland microtopography will increase infiltration and
improve overall hydrogeologic function.
5.2 Project Description
The Edwards -Johnson Mitigation 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. Most of the project reaches have been impacted from
historic and current land use practices, including development, agriculture, and silviculture. Within the
project area, a majority of the streambanks have adequate (minimum 50 feet wide) riparian buffers.
Page 26 4

Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project
Figure 9, Water Quality Stressors, shows the most recent aerial photography with riparian buffers. The
past land use disturbances, minimal impervious cover and current agricultural practices present a
significant opportunity for water quality and ecosystem improvements through the implementation of
this project.
The Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project will provide the 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
these reaches with mature forests along their buffers are proposed 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 (Alosmidonta 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 mix 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 easement has the potential to encompass more than 10
acres of land that includes agricultural fields and forested buffer lands.
The streams at the project site were broken down into four reaches (R1, R2, R3 (upper and lower), and
114) totaling approximately 3,186 linear feet of existing streams, based on drainage area breaks at
confluences, changes in restoration/enhancement approaches, and/or changes in intermittent/perennial
stream status.
Field evaluations determined that project Reaches R2 and R3 are perennial streams. Project Reaches R1
and R4 were determined through field evaluations to be intermittent streams. 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 late August 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.
Water & Land Solutions Page 27

Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project
Table 5-1 Summary of Field Investigations to Determine Intermittent/Perennial Status
R1 495 29.75 96
Perennial/Intermittent
R2 1,007 45.00 134
Perennial
R3 (upper) 629 --- 211
Perennial
R3 (lower) 240 46.50 232
Perennial
R4 815 26.00 55
Perennial/Intermittent
Note 1: Watershed drainage area was approximated based on topographic
and UDAR information and
compared with USGS StreamStats 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 ends of the project. 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, and a man-made dam along R4.
Since the project has the potential to appropriately address 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. Consequently,
constructed log jam riffles may be incorporated into the proposed design with wood materials and
substrate material 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 RFP 16-006477, 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).
Page 28 4

Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project
Table 5-2 Existing Condition Cross-section Survey Data
R1 96 12.1 18.3 1.0
R2 134 1.6 7.9 2.0
R3 (upper) 211 2.9 6.2 2.1
R3 (lower) 232 3.2 6.6 1.4
R4 55 1.1 6.6 3.5
Note 1: Watershed drainage area was approximated based on topographic and VDAR 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.
R1 is a small perennial/intermittent headwater tributary that extends from the upstream terminus of the
project site near Wendell Road, downstream to the confluence with R2 and R4. R1 has a stream length
of approximately 495 feet, valley slope of 1.5 percent, and drainage area of 96 acres. R1 originates at the
outlet of a culverted pipe crossing that flows west from a small two -acre pond located immediately east
of the Old Johnson Road right-of-way. Based on preliminary site investigations, the existing pond in the
upper catchment appears to intercept overland flows and partial road drainage, as well as to help
attenuate storm events.
However, immediately west of the
pond, a four acre parking lot area
appears to be contributing an excess
supply of fine sediment material to the
downstream reaches. The channel in
this area is mostly stable and not
incised, although an active headcut
was observed towards the
downstream end of the reach.
Minimal streambank erosion and bed
scour was observed along most of the
reach, although the channel appears to
have been historically manipulated
near the northern property line.
Looking upstream at stable channel morphology and wood
In the upstream area, the channel is well recruitment along R1 preservation area.
defined as the slope flattens and the
degree of incision is low, with bank
height ratios near 1.1 and a very low sinuosity (k=1.05). Mature woody riparian vegetation is present
along the entire length of R1. Based on the existing channel conditions, R1 was classified as a C5 stream
type.
Water & Land Solutions Page 29

Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project
r R2 begins downstream of R1 and
` �c
r {, flows southwest for approximately
1,000 feet towards the confluence
with R4. The valley slope is
�'" •k.. approximately 1.2 percent and the
drainage area is 134 acres. R2 appears
to be vertically and laterally unstable,
�.�. �•!{, with active headcuts present and bank
.;° height ratios ranging from 1.5 to
` - greater than 2.0. The active erosion
was observed on 30 to 40 percent of
the streambanks. Most of the erosion
is in the form of downcutting and bank
scour caused by high near bank
Photo illustrates severe bank erosion and lateral instability stresses during storm flows and the
along R2. lack of deep rooting vegetation or
geologic grade control. The channel
sinuosity is 1.1 and minimal floodplain alterations were observed, although portions of the stream appear
to have been historically manipulated. The riparian buffer is at least 50 feet wide throughout its entire
length and 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 G5c stream
type.
R3 (upper reach) begins at the confluence
with R2 and R4 and continues to flow
southwest for approximately 630 feet. The
valley slope is approximately 1.3 percent
and the drainage area is 211 acres. The
upper reach of R3 appears to be both
vertically and laterally unstable, with active
headcuts present in and bank height ratios
ranging from 1.5 to greater than 2.0. The
active erosion was observed on 20 to 30
percent of the streambanks. Most of the
erosion is in the form of bank scour caused
by high near bank stresses during storm
flows and the lack of deep rooting
vegetation. The channel sinuosity is very
low (1.06) and the channel appears to have
been historically manipulated and relocated
to the right side of the valley.
Looking at poor bedform diversity and the lack of deep
rooting vegetation along R3.
Page 30 4

Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project
The lower portion of R3 continues for
approximately 240 feet before
transitioning into multi -thread
channel as it connects to the Buffalo
Creek floodplain. R3 has a drainage
area of approximately 232 acres and
the sinuosity remains very low
(k=1.08). The channel is mostly stable
along its downstream length and the
width of the native woody riparian
buffer vegetation is greater than 50
feet on both sides of the channel. The
slope flattens to 0.7 percent along this
reach segment, bank erosion is low
Photo looking downstream at stable stream and wetland and scour is localized along a few
complex along bottom of R3 near Buffalo Creek. meander bends. The valley floor
widens in this area and the stream has
a connection to its relic floodplain. Although the channel appears to have been manipulated some in the
past, as evidenced by small remnant spoil along its banks, the area has remained relatively undisturbed is
considered a high functioning stream and wetland system. The typical bank height ratio ranges from 1.0
to 1.2 and the channel is classified as a Rosgen C5/ D5 stream type.
R4 is a small intermittent headwater
tributary that begins at a culvert crossing
that flows underneath Wendell Road. The
channel flows west for approximately 800
feet before its confluence with R2 and R3. R4
has a drainage area of approximately 55
acres and a valley slope of 1.7 percent. The
upstream portion of the channel appears to
have been manipulated in the past and man-
made impoundment was built in the 1970s to
provide a water source for irrigating adjacent
agricultural fields. The pond depth at the
upstream base of the dam was measured at
approximately 3 to 4 feet deep.
There is an active headcut migrating towards
the pond dam that will be addressed during
Photo looking at existing impoundment and
floodplain manipulation along R4.
the restoration design. Moderate to severe bank erosion was observed downstream of the impoundment
and bank height ratios averaged well above 2.0. The reach has experienced downcutting for
approximately 50 percent of its length although the riparian buffer vegetation is greater than 50 wide
throughout the reach. R4 is classified as a Rosgen G5 stream type.
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,
Water & Land Solutions Page 31

Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project
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 valley floodplains, with Wedowee
sandy loam (WoD: 2 to 8 percent slopes) present along the 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 a significant portion
of R2, R3 and R4. It is anticipated that Priority Level I Restoration along R2, R3 (upper reach) and R4 in
conjunction with 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 (NRNP) within 4 miles of the project. The nearest Study
List site is the Batten-Boyette-Keyes House (HPO Site ID: JT0670) which is 1.8 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
North Carolina 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 7 miles northwest of the site.
FEMA Floodplain Compliance and Hydrologic Trespass
The downstream portion of R3 is located within a FEMA regulated floodplain. While it is not anticipated
that there will be issues associated with FEMA permitting or documentation, WLS will coordinate with the
local floodplain administrator as needed and prepare the required documentation to obtain approval for
any FEMA regulated impacts. In 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.
Page 32 4

Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project
5.3 Project Development
The Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project will involve the potential restoration, preservation and
permanent protection of four stream reaches (Reaches R1, R2, R3, R4) totaling approximately 3,186 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
protecting or enhancing riparian buffers alone all of the proiect stream reaches currently in agriculture,
and limiting the number of stream crossings, thus providing the maximum functional uplift and utilizing
a watershed approach. Some of the existing stream reaches have been degraded significantly as a result
of historic and current agricultural and silvicultural practices, including 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.
Some of the project stream reaches are unstable, with documented active headcut migration and
associated localized channel widening and down -cutting. The lower end of Project Reach R3, however, is
relatively undisturbed, and as a result fully stable and thus worthy of preservation. Most of the project
stream reaches have partially to fully forested areas of riparian buffer. Currently, some the reaches are
actively subject to water quality stressors, mainly in the form of excess sediment and nutrient inputs from
adjacent row crops and surrounding land use. The reaches also act as significant sources of sediment and
nutrient contamination to the project watershed, as well as the receiving waters.
Across the project site, approximately 55 percent of the total streambank length is experiencing
active bank erosion. Approximately 5 percent of the total stream length is actively subject to onsite
water quality stressors resulting from a lack of adequate riparian buffer widths, although significant
portions of the project are subject to nutrient and sediment inputs from adjacent row crops.
Approximately 72 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.
• 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.
Water & Land Solutions Page 33

Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project
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
the 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.
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
Page 34 4

Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project
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— Preservation
R1 begins downstream of a pipe culvert near the Wendell Road right-of-way. Based on preliminary site
investigations, the channel appears to have experienced some historic manipulation in this area.
However, the channel condition is currently stable and will likely maintain its proper form if the
surrounding land use does not change significantly and the downstream channel is fully restored. This
reach is classified as a Rosgen C5 stream type. Preservation is being proposed along this reach since the
existing stream has access to its floodplain and the adjacent wetlands appear to be functioning properly
within a mature riparian buffer. The preservation area will be protected in perpetuity through a
permanent conservation easement.
R2 — Restoration
Work along R2 will involve a Priority Level I Restoration by raising the bed elevation and reconnecting the
stream with its adjacent floodplain. R2 begins with a headcut that is actively migrating upstream towards
R1, near the Edwards -Johnson property line. In its current condition, the reach is severely incised with
bank height ratios averaging greater than 2.0. The reach currently exhibits lateral and vertical instability
as shown by active bank erosion and headcutting. This degradation is causing excess bank sediments to
enter the stream system and will likely continue, if a restoration strategy is not implemented, since most
of the vertical banks are either devoid of deep rooting vegetation or becoming undermined throughout
the reach.
The reach will be restored as a Rosgen C5 stream type using appropriate riffle -pool morphology with a
conservative meander planform geometry that accommodates the valley slope and width. This approach
Water & Land Solutions Page 35

Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project
will allow restoration of a stable channel form with appropriate bedform diversity, as well as improved
ecological function through increased aquatic and terrestrial habitats. It is anticipated that the design
criteria for the channel will be similar to stable streams in this geologic setting. In -stream structures will
be incorporated to control grade, dissipate flow energies, protect streambanks, and eliminate the
potential for upstream channel incision. In -stream structures will most likely include constructed riffles
as well as log j -hook vanes, and log weirs/jams for encouraging more natural riffle -pool sequences and
step -pool morphologies.
The restoration approach will also allow for mature trees or significant native vegetation to be protected
and/or incorporated into the design. Any larger trees will be identified during the existing conditions
survey and the proposed channel alignment will attempt to avoid damaging these trees whenever
feasible. When appropriate, 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.
Sections of the existing unstable channel will be filled to an elevation sufficient to connect the new
bankfull channel to its historic floodplain using suitable fill material excavated from borrow areas outside
of the riparian corridor. Riparian buffers in excess of 50 feet will be supplementally planted and protected
along all of R2 in order to provide the maximum possible functional uplift.
R3 — Restoration (upper reach)
R3 begins immediately downstream from R2
at its confluence with R4. As the slope
flattens, the existing channel appears to have
been straightened and moved to the right
(north) edge of the valley. Evidence of this
manipulation is clearly depicted on the LiDAR
Map (Figure 4). In its current condition, a
majority of the upstream section of R3 is
severely incised with bank height ratios
averaging greater than 2.1. Therefore, the
existing channel will be filled in and a new
channel will be relocated off-line within the
Photo taken looking up the valley at the abandoned natural valley bottom.
floodplain and remnant channel features along R3. The reach will be restored as a Rosgen C5
stream type with appropriate riffle -pool
morphology, before transitioning into multi -thread channels (DA stream type) further downstream.
Where feasible, portions of the channel will be tied into remnant drainage features in order to restore or
"reactivate" relic channel patterns to the system. This restoration approach will minimize disturbance to
native vegetation and soils, while also promoting a stable channel form with more natural diversity of
hydrologic conditions and habitats common to these stream and wetland complexes.
Page 36 4

Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project
The graphic above illustrates the surveyed cross-section along R3. The existing channel is degraded
and will be filled as shown. The new design channel will be relocated across the abandoned
floodplain within the valley bottom.
The design criteria for the new channel will be similar to stable streams in this geologic setting. It is
expected that over time, channel geometry will fluctuate naturally due to fine sediment deposition and
vegetation growth along the streambanks. In -stream structures, such as log vanes and log jam riffles will
be incorporated to encourage bedform diversity as well as dissipate flow energy, protect streambanks,
and eliminate potential for future degradation. Restored streambanks will be graded to stable side slopes
and the relic floodplain will be reconnected to further promote stability and hydrological function. These
activities 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 the abandoned channel fill areas to provide habitat diversity and improved
treatment of overland flows.
As with R2, it should be emphasized that mature trees or significant native vegetation areas will be
protected and/or incorporated into the design whenever feasible. Riparian buffers in excess of 50 feet
will be supplementally planted and protected within a permanent conservation easement along the
upstream section of R3. The proposed improvements and regenerative floodplain restoration approach
will provide the maximum possible functional uplift.
R3 — Preservation (lower reach)
As the valley widens further downstream, the existing slope flattens and multi -thread channel formations
were observed across the floodplain. In this transitional area near the confluence with Buffalo Creek, the
channel condition improves significantly. While the lower end of Reach R3 still appears to have been
historically manipulated and experiences frequent backwater conditions, it currently exhibits limited bank
erosion and only slight channel incision. Additionally, the existing stream has adequate access to its
floodplain and the adjacent wetlands appear to be functioning properly within a mature riparian buffer.
Consequently, WLS proposes to preserve and protect the remaining riparian buffer in excess of 50 feet
Water & Land Solutions Page 37
100
Riffle Cross -Section - R3
99
t Proposed Bankfull Channel
Exist[ngWater Surface
98
— — Existing Ground
97
i
�
96
� •
c
M
95
m
94
�
93
i t
92
91
1
41
90
0 20 40 60
8o 100 120
140 160 180 200
Station (ft)
The graphic above illustrates the surveyed cross-section along R3. The existing channel is degraded
and will be filled as shown. The new design channel will be relocated across the abandoned
floodplain within the valley bottom.
The design criteria for the new channel will be similar to stable streams in this geologic setting. It is
expected that over time, channel geometry will fluctuate naturally due to fine sediment deposition and
vegetation growth along the streambanks. In -stream structures, such as log vanes and log jam riffles will
be incorporated to encourage bedform diversity as well as dissipate flow energy, protect streambanks,
and eliminate potential for future degradation. Restored streambanks will be graded to stable side slopes
and the relic floodplain will be reconnected to further promote stability and hydrological function. These
activities 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 the abandoned channel fill areas to provide habitat diversity and improved
treatment of overland flows.
As with R2, it should be emphasized that mature trees or significant native vegetation areas will be
protected and/or incorporated into the design whenever feasible. Riparian buffers in excess of 50 feet
will be supplementally planted and protected within a permanent conservation easement along the
upstream section of R3. The proposed improvements and regenerative floodplain restoration approach
will provide the maximum possible functional uplift.
R3 — Preservation (lower reach)
As the valley widens further downstream, the existing slope flattens and multi -thread channel formations
were observed across the floodplain. In this transitional area near the confluence with Buffalo Creek, the
channel condition improves significantly. While the lower end of Reach R3 still appears to have been
historically manipulated and experiences frequent backwater conditions, it currently exhibits limited bank
erosion and only slight channel incision. Additionally, the existing stream has adequate access to its
floodplain and the adjacent wetlands appear to be functioning properly within a mature riparian buffer.
Consequently, WLS proposes to preserve and protect the remaining riparian buffer in excess of 50 feet
Water & Land Solutions Page 37

Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project
from both streambanks. This approach will also extend and protect the wildlife corridor from the
Edwards -Johnson property boundary near Buffalo Creek throughout the entire riparian valley, while
providing a natural hydrologic connection and critical habitat linkage within the catchment area. The
preservation area will be protected in perpetuity through a permanent conservation easement.
R4 — Restoration
Due to the degraded nature of Reach R4, a Priority Level I Restoration approach is proposed to improve
stream and wetland functions. The reach has a small catchment area (-55 acres) and originates at a
farm pond east of Old Johnson Road. Portions of the reach currently exhibit both lateral and vertical
instability, as shown by an active headcut and severe bank erosion. The stream channel was historically
manipulated and straightened as evidenced by the observed spoil piles, low sinuosity (k=1.03), and
unnatural connection with the mainstem near its confluence with R3. A small in-line, man-made
impoundment serves as an alternative irrigation source for the landowner's agricultural fields.
WLS will remove the impoundment and use the remnant spoil piles and abandoned dam materials
as suitable fill material to raise the existing streambed. The pond will be drained to allowthe remnant
stream channel to develop naturally on its own and passively reconnect the streams flow path to its active
floodplain. Given the current conditions, the stream will be restored as a Rosgen C5 stream type using
appropriate riffle -pool morphology with a conservative meander geometry. A new channel will be
constructed in this area before reconnecting with the proposed channel alignment further downstream.
This portion of the impounded reach has experienced sedimentation and floodplain alteration. Overtime,
this approach will also promote a more natural flow regime and lotic conditions that will restore adjacent
riparian wetland areas. Riparian buffers in excess of 50 feet will be restored and protected along all of
R4.
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, and impoundments or basins to treat agricultural runoff. Currently,
the landowner actively employs no -till planting and the use of grassed waterways, therefore, the addition
of treatment basins will be employed under this project.
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 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 decommissioned pond along R4 will be converted to a
wetland -type feature to intersect and treat runoff from the surrounding pastures and cropfields. Each of
the basins will be designed with low -maintenance weir outlets and the basins will be planted and included
Page 38 4

Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project
within the conservation easement area. This strategy will allow these BMPs 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.
Stream Crossing
The location of the proposed stream crossing is shown on the figures in the appendices. The proposed
conservation easement is broken at the proposed crossing location to best facilitate the landowner's use
of the property. The proposed stream crossing will be 20 feet wide and will be culverted. The proposed
culvert will be correctly sized to the appropriate design storm to ensure proper hydraulic function and
stream stability, as well as to encourage aquatic passage.
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.
Water & Land Solutions Page 39

Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project
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 virginiona
Salix nigra
Asimina triloba
Cornus amomum
Alnus serrulata
Corylus americana
Salix nigra
Chasmanthium
latifolium
Carex lurida
Carex crinita
Andropogon virginicus
Vernonia
noveboracensis
Lobelia cardinalis
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
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
Page 40 4

Edwards -Johnson 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 R2, R3, and R4
Based on preliminary field investigations, soil conditions are favorable for rehabilitating areas of partially
degraded existing riparian wetlands along R2, R3, and R4. These areas are shown on the Figure 7, Existing
Hydrography and total approximately 3.1 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. 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
disturbances, along with blending of microtopography, will provide significant functional uplift across the
project area.
Photo of hand auger boring sample in the R3 floodplain
showing hydric soils properties (redoximorphic features)
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).
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.
Water & Land Solutions Page 41

Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project
Expected Water Quality Benefits
Along the project stream reaches, over 90 percent of the streambanks currently have adequate (minimum
50 feet wide) riparian buffers. Where appropriate, the existing buffer areas for the project site will have
trees replanted to appropriate densities (i.e. the riparian buffers will be restored and/or 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.
WLS utilized the Spreadsheet Tool for Estimating Pollutant Loads (STEPL v4.3, 2015) to quantify how the
proposed project could 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 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— R4 3,186 1,123 208.1 1,384.6 341.7 171.1, 736.6, 226.9,
82.2% 53.2% 66.4%
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.
Although the numerical amounts of reductions can vary and contain a degree of uncertainty, all studies
reviewed by WLS conclude that stream restoration 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
Page 42 4

Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project
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, and agricultural and silvicultural practices. The maximum possible
ecological or functional uplift will be achieved by:
• 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 and sediment loading by incorporating agricultural BMPs and preventing
additional row crop agriculture and development near the project stream reaches and riparian
wetlands.
5.4 Proposed Mitigation
This technical proposal describes in detail the proposed stream mitigation approaches for the
Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project. The project will include restoration and preservation of
approximately 3,186 linear feet of existing streams. The proposed approach will potentially yield
more than 3,015 stream mitigation credits. The above scenario describes the stream credits
generated under Option A. 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.
Water & Land Solutions Page 43

Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project
Table 5-5 Proposed Stream Mitigation Credit Summary
Stream Preservation
495
10:1
50
Stream Restoration (PI)
1,208
1:1
1,208
Stream Restoration (PI)
755
1:1
755
Stream Preservation
240
10:1
24
Stream Restoration (PI)
978
1:1
978
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 Edwards -Johnson 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
William Odell Edwards September 18, 2015 24 months
Annie Laura G. Johnson Revocable Trust September 18, 2015 24 months
Note: A copy of the Memorandum of Option Agreement is provided in the appendices.
The property owners of the Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project grew up, work and live in the community
where the project is located. The project property is currently used for agriculture and timber 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 44 4

Edwards -Johnson 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
on
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 45

Edwards -Johnson 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 46 4

Edwards -Johnson 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 47

Edwards -Johnson 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 48 4

Edwards -Johnson 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 49

Edwards -Johnson 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 50 4

Edwards -Johnson 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 51

Edwards -Johnson 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 52 4

Legend
Conservation Easement
�•r
0
500
®r
Flowers Quadrangle
�r North Carolina - Johnston Co.
1�
0
1,000'
Feet
6 WATER &LAND
") SOLUTIONS
Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i -cubed
USGS FIGURE
Edwards -Johnson Topographic
Mitigation Project Map
NAn 1QR'2 gn11 zt.f. Planc 2

Legend
0 Conservation Easement
Soil Map Units (NRCS Data from Web Soil
Survey)
DoA: Dorian fine sandy loam, 0-2% slopes,
0 (HYDRIC B)
GeB: Gilead sandy loam, 2-8% slopes
GoA: Goldsboro sandy loam,0-2% slopes,
(HYDRIC B)
0 MaB: Marlboro sandy loam, 2-8% slopes
WATER &LAND
SOLUTIONS
NoB: Norfolk loamy sand, 0-2% slopes
- UcB: Uchee loamy coarse sand, 2-6%
slopes
- UcC: Uchee loamy coarse sand, 6-12%
slopes
0 WoB: Wedowee sandy loam, 2-8% slopes
0 WoD: Wedowee sandy loam, 8-15% slopes
® Wt: Wehadkee loam, 0-2% slopes, (HYDRIC
A)
'000
IIIFFeet
Edwards -Johnson
Mitigation Project
GoA
NRCS
Soils Map
NAD 1983 2011 State Plane
WoB
GoA
FIGURE

Legend
Existing Streams
R1
R2
R3
R4
2 ft Contours
Major
Minor
Floodplain Alterations
Conservation Easement
FEMA Floodzone
AE
I
270
CD
M
N
500
260
q*rN
0
N
!',Oko(ource:Esri, DigitalGlJe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographies, CNES/Airbus
S, Up,DA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstLLo�an
—
,,6,6the GIS User Community
FIGURE
4 WATER & LAND Edwards -Johnson Floodplain
SOLUTIONS Mitigation Project Map
NAD 1983 2011 State Plane 5

Legend
Conservation Easement
rJ+t pp L
13 z, -
.X
Poop,
L-
tri 6 !r . ` It
0 500 �. 1;000 a - Source: Johnston County Soil
Feet
and Water Conservation District
APPROXIMATE SCALE (www.johnstonnc.com/Mainpage.cfm?category_ level_ id=704)
i
TM FIGURE
4 WATER & LAND Edwards -Johnson hot Aerial
SOLUTIONS Mitigation Project Photograph
NAD 1983 2011 State Plane 6a
North Carolina Fl PS
3200 FT US

Legend t
Conservation Easement
r
qp
Am
r
N
0 500 1,000 Source: Johnston County Soil
Feet and Water Conservation District
}
APPROXIMATE SCAL (www.johnstonnc.com/Mainpage.cfm?category—level—id=704)
Ad
TM FIGURE
WATER & LAND Edwards -Johnson hot Aerial
SOLUTIONS Mitigation Project Photograph
NAD 1983 2011 State Plane 6b
North Carolina Fl PS
3200 FT US

Legend
"Conservation Easement
A
4
6 WATER & LAND
") SOLUTIONS
r
r�
4 �
1,000 Source: Johnston County Soil
Feet and Water Conservation District
(www.johnstonnc.com/Mainpage.cfm?category level_ id=704)
1965 Aerial FIGURE
Edwards -Johnson Photograph
Mitigation Project
NAD 1983 2011 State Plane 6C
1 North Carolina Fl PS
3200 FT US

Legend
Conservation Easement
A.
I
N 4`
0 500 1,000 Source: Johnston County Soil
Feet and Water Conservation District
(www.johnstonnc.com/Mainpage.cfm?category /evel_id=704)
TM 1988 Aerial FIGURE
WATER & LAND Edwards -Johnson
SOLUTIONS Mitigation Project Photograph
NAD 1983 2011 State Plane 6d
North Carolina Fl PS
3200 FT US

18
Legend
Conservation
Easements '
. rA
Mitigation Type ` -�� , r � j R1
Preservation f •
♦-
Restoration (P 1) _
Proposed BMPs y
(Ag)
R2
R3
4 WATER &LAND
SOLUTIONS
Feet
- I 44_111�
R4 •� : % aim
•
FIGURE
Edwards -Johnson Proposed
Mitigation Project Mitigation Features
10
NAD 1983 2011 State Plane
North Carolina Fl PS
3200 FT US

Filed in JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
CRAIG OLIVE, Register of Deeds
Filed 09/21/2015 03:40:34 PM
DEED BOOK: 4658 PAGE: 698-702
INSTRUMENT # 2015466381
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 a n d
between Annie Laura G. Johnson Revocable Trust, Annie Laura G.
Johnson, Trustee ( " G r a n t o r " ) a n d 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.
1. The term of the Option commenced on September 18, 2015, and shall expire on September
18, 2017.
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.
GRAN OR: ,
By: Ce I_45
Print acme: h, /l/ �- w�ai
Title: l (` �(a,-
STATE
' -
STATE OF NORTH �RO INA
COUNTY OF l�fX��
I, �e � ,a Notary Public of the County and State aforesaid, certify
that Annie Laura G. Johnson Revocable Trust, Annie Laura G. Johnson, Trustee appeared before me this
day and acknowledged that he/she voluntarily executed the foregoing instrument. I have received
satisfactory evidence of the principal's identity in the form of
This the 18th day of September, 2015.
[AFFIX NOTARIAL STAMP -SEAL]
STEPHANIE E. SWOPE
NOTARY PUBLIC
Johnston County
North Carolina
My Commission Expires 7-11.2018
Official Signature of Notary Public
�'lL� , Notary Public
Notary Public's Name Printed or Typed
My Commission Expires: -2— i r-- - O is
11

WATER & LAND SOLUTIONS, LLC, a
North Carolina Limited Liability Company
By: QJ4,4,
n
Print Name:
Title: 000Principal
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF 2`+Z_q_)
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*ccaapac so stated. I h vc received satisfactory
evidence of the principal's identity in the form of ��JI w �IGQ{�SsZ_
This the 18th day of September, 2015.
[AFFIX NOTARIAL STAMP -SEAL]
STEPHANIE E. S FIE
NOTARY PUBLIC
Johnston County
North Carolina
My Commission Expires 7.11-2013
Official Signature of Notary Public
Notary Public
Notary Public's Name Printed or Typed
My Commission Expires: � ` I) , eol $
12

Legend
Stream
%•� : Parcel Boundaries
Annie Laura G Johnson Revoc Tr
PIN: 179100-19-2336
Parcel Acreage: 17.75 AC
THIS MAP IS NOT A CERTIFIED SURVEY
AND HAS 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. It is the user's responsibility to obtain proper survey
data, prepared by a licensed surveyor, where required by law.
N Edwards-Johnson WATER & LAND
0 250 500 Mitigation Project
Feet Johnston County, NC SOLUTIONS
ExhibitA

Filed in JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
CRAIG OLIVE, Register of Deeds
Filed 09/21/2015 03:40:34 PM
DEED BOOK: 4658 PAGE: 693-697
INSTRUMENT ## 2015466380
Real Estate Excise Tax $0.00
Deputy/Assistant Register of Deeds lkirby
R.XHTRTT n
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 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 onthe
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 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.
GRANT pry
By: a U
Print Name: Cti S
Title: 1
STATE OF NORTH CA OLIN
J
COUNTY OF d D OS-
I, i, QQi 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 fo in instrument. I have re etved satisfactory evidence of the principal's identity in the
form of
This the 18th day of September, 2015.
[AFFIX NOTARIAL STAMP -SEAL]
STEPHANIE E. SWOPE
NOTARY PUBLIC
Johnston County
North Carolina
My Commission Expires 7-11.2018
Official Signature of Notary Public
c 5TCela'?;e e , otary Public
Notary Public's Name Printed or Typed
My Commission Expires: 7-11- Z0/';i�
11

WATER & LAND SOLUTIONS, LLC, a
North C olina Linpited iability Company
By:
Print Name: fish lec, L ..-4be� n e�hu
Title: C OT jn a Da�
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
)
COUNTY OF
I, S�oddie F22r , the undersigned Notary Public of the County and
State aforesaid, cdrtify 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 FFca��acso stated. I have reQeived satisfactory
evidence of the principal's identity in the form of -Z / 1 SS
A
This the 18th day of September 2015.
[AFFIX NOTARIAL STAMP -SEAL]
ESTEPHANIE E. SWOPE
OTARY PUBLIC
ohnston County
North Carolina
ission Expires 7-11-2018
_44Qa4l�L_p �.
Official Signature of Notary Public
I �PG�eNotary Public
Notary Public's Name Printed or Typed
My Commission Expires:
12
)_I)_ 1z3

Legend
Stream
•• : Parcel Boundaries
-------------
.••
William Odell Edwards ••
PIN: 179100-09-9826
Parcel Acreage: 58.68 AC
THIS MAP IS NOT A CERTIFIED SURVEY
AND HAS 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 surrey 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.
N
0
500 1,000
Feet
Edwards -Johnson
Mitigation Project
Johnston County, NC
WATER & LAND
6,) SOLUTIONS
Exhibit A

NORTH CAROLINA ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
LANDOWNER AUTHORIZATION FORM
PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRITION:
Deed Book: 04094 Page: 0770 County: Johnston
Parcel ID Number: 179100-19-2336, containing 17.75 acres, more or less
Street Address: 2182 Wendell Road
Wendell, NC 27591
Property Owner (please print): Annie Laura G. Johnson (Annie Laura G. Johnson Revocable Trust)
Property Owner (please print): 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: 489 Old Johnson Road
(if different from above)
Wendell, NC 27591
C-1 11
Property Owner Telephone Number: /) �l �� 5 — 71 "
Property Owner Telephone Number:
Me hereby certify the above information to be true and accurate to the best of my/our knowledge.
FAI MN ;W<A
(Property Owner Authorized Sigr a jure) (Date)
N/A N/A
(Property Owner Authorized Signature) (Date)
'Name of full delivery company

NORTH CAROLINA ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
LANDOWNER AUTHORIZATION FORM
PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRITION:
Deed Book: 01900 Page: 0478 County: Johnston
Parcel ID Number: 179100-09-9826, containing 58.68 acres, more or less
Street Address: Lake Wendell Road
Wendell. NC 27591
Property Owner (please print): William Odell Edwards
Property Owner (please print): 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:
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)
'Name of full delivery company
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:
Edwards -Johnson 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:
3,015 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
t
150
100
So
00.1O
t
-5O
-100
•1S0
�f00
0
Diagram for Priority II Question Above..
Izri.0'rity 11 flQoclplaiin 6anch
eradinp bc-timdaryminiimulrns
4493. 1C 17,
Ill f0 ot cltiairrtialtiridth
301ootbencl-4tiridth(Y.5timp ves€I-baizn+tlsvidt11)bey*P'bdtIIebelt4vidth.
100 200 300 400 r
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 = 42 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
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
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 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
1 Point
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 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
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 IDoes 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 IDoes 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