20160405 Ver 2_Technical Proposal_20160404

EXECUTION OF PROPOSAL BY OFFEROR ( THIS MUST BE RETURNED WITH YOUR TECHINCAL PROPOSAL)
Therefore, in compliance with this Request for Proposals, and subject to all conditions herein, the undersigned offers
and agrees, if this proposal is accepted within one (1) year from the date of the opening, to furnish the subject services
per the attached Sealed Cost Proposal.
Offeror:
Check Appropriate Status—
Restoration Systems, i_i_C
Business Owned/Controlled
Street or PO Box:
African American
}
Handicapped
}
Woman Owned
}
1101 Haynes St., Ste. 211
Other Minority Specify:
}
City:
State:
Zip Code:
Raleigh
NC
27604
Telephone Number:
Fax
Number:
919.755.9490
919.755.9492
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:
A-.1
CEO
Typed or Printed Name:
Date:
George A. Howard
9/17/2015
E -Mail address:
[e-mail]
Key Personnel/Individual Assigned To This RFP By The Offeror:
ward Elis
Title:
Project Manager
E -Mail address:
[e-mail]
"THIS PAGE MUST BE SIGNED AND INCLUDED IN YOUR TECHNICAL PROPOSAL"
FAILURE TO SIGN AND RETURN THIS PAGE WITH YOUR OFFER WILL CAUSE YOUR OFFER TO BE REJECTED.
RFP 16-006477 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: Restoration Systems, LLC - Raleigh, NC
Location(s) from which services will be performed by the Contractor:
SERVICE
CITY / PROVIDENCE / STATE
COUNTRY
Stream Mitigation
Four Oaks, NC
USA
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
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:
Ward Elis
Agency:
Restoration Systems, LLC
Title:
Project Manager
Address:
1101 Haynes St., Ste. 211
Address:
CEO
City:
Raleigh
State/ Zip:
NC
27604
Telephone:
919.755.9490
Fax:
919.755.9492
Email:
[e-mail]
Offerors Execution Address (Where the contract should be mailed for signature)
Name:
Tiffani Bylow
Agency:
George A. Howard
Agency:
Restoration Systems, LLC
Title:
Accounts Receivable
Address:
CEO
Address:
1101 Haynes St., Ste. 211
1101 Haynes St., Ste. 211
City:
City:
State/ Zip:
Raleigh
NC
Raleigh
NC
27604
Telephone:
Fax:
919.755.9490
919.755.9490
Email:
919.755.9492
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:
Tiffani Bylow
Agency:
Restoration Systems, LLC
Title:
Accounts Receivable
Address:
1101 Haynes St., Ste. 211
City:
State/ Zip:
Raleigh
NC
Telephone:
Fax:
919.755.9490
919.755.9492
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: Restoration Systems, LLC
ADDRESS (CITY & STATE): 1101 Haynes St., Ste. 211, Raleigh, NC 27604
AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE: a;f
NAME & TITLE (TYPED)
George A. Howard - CEO
DATE: 9/17/2015
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.
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: Restoration Systems, LLC
ADDRESS (CITY & STATE): 1101 Haynes St., Ste. 211, Raleigh, NC 27604
AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE: "rte "
NAME & TITLE (TYPED): George A. Howard -CEO
DATE: 9/17/2015
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.
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.
© 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: Restoration Systems, LLC
ADDRESS (CITY & STATE): 1101 Haynes St., Ste. 211, Raleigh, NC 27604
AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE: �
NAME & TITLE (TYPED): George A. Howard - CEO
DATE: 10/28/15
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: Restoration Systems, LLC
ADDRESS (CITY & STATE): 1101 Haynes St., Ste. 211, Raleigh, NC 27604
L"'�-"
AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE_ 41-z
� DATE: 10/28/15
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.
❑X Bid has NOT been mailed and ANY CHANGES resulting from this addendum are included in our offer.
RFP 16-006477
Addendum No.5 Page 1 of 2

SECTION 3
Execute Addendum:
BIDDER: Restoration Systems, LLC
ADDRESS (CITY & STATE): 1101 Haynes St., Ste. 211, Raleigh, NC 27604
AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE_ Ca ,fir
DATE: 10/28/15
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.
❑X Bid has NOT been mailed and ANY CHANGES resulting from this addendum are included in our offer.
SECTION 3
Execute Addendum:
BIDDER: Restoration Systems, LLC
ADDRESS (CITY & STATE): 1101 Haynes St., Ste. 211, Raleigh, NC 27604
AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE:
NAME & TITLE (TYPED):
George A. Howard , CEO
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.
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

Cover Letter
Technical Proposal (RFP #16-006477)
FULL DELIVERY PROJECT
TO PROVIDE STREAM MITIGATION
IN THE NEUSE RIVER BASIN
CATALOGING UNIT 03020201
October 28, 2015
SEALED BID
RFP #16-006477
NC DIVISION OF MITITGATION SERVICES
ATTN: KATHY DALE
1652 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1652
Dear Ms. Dale:
Restoration Systems, L.L.C. is pleased to provide you with this Technical Proposal in response to the Request
for Proposals (RFP) #16-0006477 dated June 24, 2015. This submittal includes two original technical
proposals containing financial/confidential information, five hard copies of the technical proposal excluding
financial/confidential information, one original CD -R of the technical proposal excluding
financial/confidential information, and one CD -R containing shapefiles of the proposed project boundaries.
The cost proposal has been submitted in a separate envelope.
This technical proposal describes the Alliance Headwaters — Option A Stream Mitigation Site and is
designed specifically to assist in fulfilling North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality's restoration
goals.
Restoration Systems herein offers the following mitigation option:
6,657 Stream Mitigation Units (SMUs) (warm temperature)
If you, or your staff, have questions or comments regarding our proposal, please feel free to contact me at
your convenience at the number below. We look forward to working with the North Carolina Division of
Mitigation Services on this important project and are available for Site visits and technical review at your
discretion.
Sincerely,
RESTORATION SYSTEMS, L.L.C.
George A. Howard
Authorized Representative
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211
Raleigh, N.C. 27604
919-755-9490
PRINTED ON 30% POST CONSUMER RECYCLED PAPER

TECHNICAL PROPOSAL AND RESTORATION PLAN
ALLIANCE HEADWATERS — OPTION A
STREAM MITIGATION SITE
JOHNSTON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
(RFP #16-006477)
FULL DELIVERY PROJECT
TO PROVIDE STREAM MITIGATION
WITHIN CATALOGING UNIT 03020201 OF THE NEUSE RIVER BASIN
1`
1�
as
5
y
of
Prepared for:
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
Prepared by:
ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING &
RESTORATION
Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
And
Ecosystem Planning and Restoration, PLLC
559 Jones Franklin Road, Suite 150
Raleigh, NC 27606
OCTOBER 2015

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART 1:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..........................................................................................................4
PART 2:
FINANCIAL STATEMENT........................................................................................................5
PART 3:
CORPORATE BACKGROUND AND EXPERIENCE.....................................................................6
PART 4:
PROJECT ORGANIZATION....................................................................................................14
PART 5:
TECHNICAL APPROACH.......................................................................................................15
5.1.
Project Goals and Objectives......................................................................................................15
5.2.
Project Description......................................................................................................................16
5.3
Project Development..................................................................................................................23
5.4
Proposed Mitigation...................................................................................................................26
5.5
Current Ownership and Long Term Protection...........................................................................27
5.6
Project Phasing............................................................................................................................27
5.7.
Success Criteria...........................................................................................................................
28
PART 6:
QUALITY CONTROL..............................................................................................................
31
LIST OF TABLES
Table 5.1 Summary of Goals and Objectives for the Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Project...................................15
Table 5.2 Summary Information for Field Investigations to Determine Intermittent/Perennial Status.....................18
Table 5.3 Johnston County Soils Associated with the Project Site.............................................................................21
Table 5.4 Federally Protected Species for Johnston County.......................................................................................22
Table 5.5 Summary of Existing and Proposed Functional Ratings for the Project Reaches........................................26
Table 5.6 Proposed Mitigation Summary for the Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Project........................................27
Table 5.7 Project Phasing for the Project...................................................................................................................27
Table 5.8 Proposed Success Criteria for the Project...................................................................................................29
APPENDIX
Appendix A. Figures
Appendix B. Stream Assessment Data
Appendix C. NCDMS FEMA Floodplain Checklist
Appendix D. Photographic Log
Appendix E. Memorandum of Option Agreement/Land Authorization Form
Appendix F. Technical Proposal Evaluation Criteria Rating Form
Table of Contents
Allliance Headwaters — Option A Stream Mitigation Site
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-006477)

APPENDIX ITEMS
Appendix A. Figures
Figure 5.1. Hydrologic Unit Map
Figure 5.2. Vicinity Map
Figure 5.3. Existing Stream Reach Map
Figure 5.4. Water Quality Stressors
Figure 5.5a. Aerial Photography Map (1944)
Figure 5.5b. Aerial Photography Map (1953)
Figure 5.5c. Aerial Photography Map (1964)
Figure 5.5d. Aerial Photography Map (1989)
Figure 5.5e. Aerial Photography Map (2005)
Figure 5.6. Bank Erosion Hazard Index Map
Figure 5.7. Pre -Monitoring Features
Figure 5.8. USGS Topographic Map
Figure 5.9. LIDAR Map
Figure 5.10. NRCS Soils Map
Figure 5.11. FEMA Floodplain Map
Figure 5.12. Adjacent and Proximal Planning Elements Map
Figure 5.13. Air Transport Facility Map
Figure 5.14. Mitigation Practices Map
Appendix B. Stream Assessment Data
NCDWR Stream Forms
Cross Sections
Appendix C. NCDMS FEMA Floodplain Checklist
Appendix D. Photographic Log
Appendix E. Memorandum of Option Agreement/Land Authorization Form
Appendix F. Technical Proposal Evaluation Criteria Rating Form
Table of Contents
Allliance Headwaters — Option A Stream Mitigation Site
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-006477)

Technical Proposal (RFP #16-006477)
ALLIANCE HEADWATERS STREAM MITIGATION SITE
FULL DELIVERY PROJECT
TO PROVIDE STREAM MITIGATION
WITHIN CATALOGING UNIT 03020201 OF THE NEUSE RIVER BASIN
PART 1: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Restoration Systems (RS) is proposing the Alliance Headwaters
Project (Project) to provide stream mitigation in the Neuse River
Basin (Cataloging Unit 03020201) in response to RFP 16-006477. The
project is located in Johnston County, approximately six miles
southeast of Four Oaks and one mile east of US 701, within the DENR
subbasin 03-04-04 and the NCDMS targeted local watershed
03020201-150020.
The project will involve the restoration and enhancement of several
headwater systems that drain to Hannah Creek, all of which have
been ditched and channelized in the past for agricultural drainage
(Photo E1). Restoration practices will involve raising the streambeds
of the project streams and restoring the historic valley topography,
thereby restoring historic flow dynamics that have been lost through
ditching and drainage. Enhancement activities will include the
reconnection of remnant channel
features to the restored systems, treatment of invasive species, and
supplemental planting of wooded areas. These approaches will re-
establish naturally functioning headwater stream and wetland
systems to the site. Buffers in excess of 50 feet will be established
along all reaches, and all work will be protected by a perpetual conservation easement. A detailed narrative of the
proposed restoration and enhancement practices is provided in Part 5.3.
Photo E1. The Alliance Headwaters Site offers the
ability to greatly improve stream, wetland, and
floodplain function for more than a mile of
headwater streams in the Neuse River Basin.
Several options are being submitted as separate proposals for contracting of the Alliance Headwaters Project Site.
Sections 5.1 through 5.7 of this proposal describe all the stream reaches and mitigation approaches that can be
conducted on the Site. The table below, and the associated cost proposals, specify the stream reaches and areas that
are included with each proposal option. RS has taken this approach of separate proposal options to provide NCDMS
with the most flexibility in project selection and contracting.
Alliance Headwaters - Option A.
Mitigation Type(s) Reaches Included SMU's
Headwater Stream Restoration and
UT1, UT2, UT3, and UT4 6,657
Enhancement
Treatment of UT1, UT2, UT3, and UT4 will involve stream restoration practices that restore headwater system
and wetland functions to previously channelized streams by reconnecting hydrology, restoring appropriate
channel form and gradients, reconnecting floodplain functions, restoring riparian wetland functions, and
establishing a riparian buffer. Stream enhancement practices will involve removing drainage ditches, re-
establishing drainage patterns, reconnection of restored stream reaches to remnant channel features, removal
of non-native, invasive vegetation, and the supplemental planting of native riparian vegetation.
Alliance Headwaters— Option A Stream Mitigation Site page 4
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-006477)

PART 2: FINANCIAL STATEMENT
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Alliance Headwaters—Option A Stream Mitigation Site page 5
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-006477)

PART 3: CORPORATE BACKGROUND AND EXPERIENCE
Restoration Systems is a leading environmental restoration and mitigation banking firm with more than 50
completed mitigation banks and turn -key, permittee -responsible mitigation sites in ten states. Based in Raleigh,
North Carolina, RS was founded in 1998 to improve the quality of environmental restoration and mitigation. We
locate and acquire the best properties for our customers in critical areas before using advanced ecological
understanding to plan their restoration, enhancement and preservation. After conscientious construction, we
maintain and monitor the mitigation sites over the long term. RS' ecological restoration projects total over 115,000
acres of wetlands and prairies and 60 miles of streams, rivers and bayous. Each RS project or bank is protected in
perpetuity, by protective easements.
RS restores and protects land and water by purchasing a permanent easement or fee -simple interest from property
owners, and physically restoring the waterways, trees and vegetation to exceed current function and duplicate
historic conditions as closely as possible. As projects are put in place by RS and meet requirements for ecological
improvement, RS is issued "mitigation credits' by state and federal agencies that regulate development. Credits may
be purchased from RS by mitigation fee programs, public works projects, or commercial developers (including state
highway departments, airports, reservoir authorities, mining operations and builders) to meet their mitigation
obligations.
RS principals directed the North Carolina Department of Transportation's first turn -key mitigation bank in 1997, the
Barra Farms Mitigation Bank (623 acres). RS proceeded to sponsor the Bear Creek -Mill Branch Wetland Mitigation
Bank in 2002 (450 acres), and the Sleepy Creek Mitigation Site in 2000 (550 acres) for the NCDOT under their "Full -
Delivery" turn -key mitigation program. RS also performed all of the off-site mitigation for the Piedmont Triad
International Airport Authority's expansion to accommodate a regional hub for Federal Express. This site, known as
the Causey Farm Stream and Wetland Restoration Site, comprises over 7,700 linear feet of restored stream channel
and 10 acres of wetland restoration. It completed 5 years of monitoring for success in 2009 and has been used as a
training site for regulatory agencies.
Restoration Systems has implemented over thirty projects for the Division of Mitigation Services and its
predecessors, the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) and the NC Wetlands Restoration
Program. Examples of these projects include the innovative removal of both the Carbonton Dam (Chatham, Lee &
Moore Counties, NC) and Lowell Dam (Johnston County, NC) to generate more than 100,000 stream mitigation units,
the Haw River Wetland Restoration Site (29 wetland mitigation units), the Elk Shoals Stream Restoration Site (5,188
SMUs), the Lick Creek Stream Site (9,500 SMUs), the Gatlin Swamp Wetland Restoration Site (125 WMUs), the Lloyd
Farm Wetland and Stream Restoration Site (4,750 SMUs and 6 WMUs), and the Holly Grove Stream Restoration Site
(15,710 SMUs), among others. RS is also responsible for the completion of a number of riparian buffer restoration
projects in the Neuse, Cape Fear, and Tar -Pamlico river basins. Successful completion of these projects
demonstrates RS' ability to carry out all phases of full delivery projects.
RS received approval for the largest stream bank utilizing Natural Stream Channel Design in the nation in October of
2011. Over 100,000 linear feet of streams will be restored at The Katy Prairie Stream Mitigation Umbrella Bank
located just 32 miles northwest of downtown Houston, Texas making it not only the largest in the nation but the
first fully permitted stream mitigation bank in the state of Texas.
In 2009 RS had begun a land acquisition program which is designed to result in over 35,000 acres of restoration
property at strategic locations in South Louisiana. The Jesuit Bend Mitigation Bank is an RS -owned, 338 -acre
freshwater wetland mitigation bank. Located in Plaquemines Parish, 8 miles South of Belle Chasse, Louisiana, the
bank provides mitigation credits for wetland and aquatic resource impacts within the Deltaic Plane of southern
Louisiana.
Following the success of the first two retail nutrient banks in the United States (Wellons and Lane) RS has sponsored
the Chesapeake Bay's first large scale nutrient mitigation and non -point source abatement bank. The company holds
the second trading license in the watershed and the project now has available credits.
We are hopeful our company and our team meet your highest standards. Upon request, RS will gladly supply detailed
reference information and full details of any project listed below.
Alliance Headwaters—Option A Stream Mitigation Site page 6
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-006477)

Restoration Systems' Existing
Projects
Project
State
River Basin
8 -Digit
HUC
Client
Year
Initiated
Status
Mitigation Type
Credits
1
Abbey Lamm
NC
Cape Fear
03030002
EEP
2014
Design
Stream
5,294
Riparian Wetland
1.3
2
Anderson
Swamp
NC
Tar-
Pamlico
03020102
EEP
2006
Closed Out
Non -Riparian Wetland
15.5
3
Angola Bay
NC
Lumber
03040203
Private
2004
Design
Wetland
750
4
Aycock Springs
NC
Cape Fear
03030002
EEP
2014
Design
Stream
3,610
Riparian Wetland
1.4
5
Bear Creek
NC
Neuse
03020202
NC DOT
2000
Close Out in
Process
Riparian Wetland
165.6
6
Big Bull Creek
NC
Neuse
03020201
EEP
2005
Closed Out
Buffer
35
7
Brogden Road
NC
Neuse
03020201
EEP
2005
Closed Out
Buffer
15
8
Brown Marsh
NC
Lumber
03040204
EEP
2006
Cloe Out in
Process
Stream
5,000
Non -Riparian Wetland
5
9
Burrows Cove
TN
Tenn I Elk
06030003
TN DOT
2009
Monitoring Year
Wetland
40
10
Butlers Branch
NC
Neuse
03020202
City of
Raleigh
2009
Monitoring Year
4
Nutrients
122,742
11
Cane Creek
NC
Broad
03050105
EEP
2006
Close Out in Process
Stream
6,748
Riparian Wetland
4.4
Non -Riparian Wetland
5
12
Carbonton Dam
NC
Cape Fear
03030003
EEP
2004
Close Out in
Process
Stream
90,494
13
Casey Dairy
NC
Neuse
03020202
EEP
2002
Closed Out
Buffer
72
14
Causey Farm
NC
Cape Fear
03030003
Fed -Ex
2003
Closed Out
Stream
7,000
Riparian Wetland
10
15
Columbus
Swamp
NC
Lumber
03040203
EEP
2007
Monitoring
onitoring Year
Wetland
32
16
Conetoe Creek
NC
Tar-
Pamlico
03020103
EEP
2005
Closed Out
Buffer
10
17
Cutawhiskie
NC
Chowan
03010204
EEP
2006
Close Out in
Stream
3,375Process
Wetland
12.3
18
Elk Shoals
NC
Catawba
03050101
EEP
2003
Closed Out
Stream
5,188
19
Fox Run
NC
Neuse
03020203
EEP
2009
4 Monitoring Year
Buffer
45
20
Frog Hollow
NC
Neuse
03020202
Global
Transpark
2008
Closed Out
Preservation
1,114
21
Gatlin Swamp
NC
Roanoke
03010107
EEP
2005
Closed Out
Non -Riparian Wetland
125
22
Gray Farm
NC
Catawba
03050101
EEP
2005
Closed Out
Stream
7,610
23
Haw River
NC
Cape Fear
03030002
EEP
2003
Closed Out
Riparian Wetland
31.55
24
Heath
NC
Neuse
03020202
EEP
2009
4 Monitoring Year
Buffer
60
Stream
4785
25
Herman Dairy
NC
Catawba
03050101
EEP
2010
Monitoring Year
Riparian Wetland
4
Non -Riparian Wetland
0.91
26
Holly Grove
NC
Cape Fear
03030002
EEP
2006
5 Monitoring Year
Stream
15,726
27
Jarman's Oak
NC
Cape Fear
03030001
EEP
2006
Close Out in
Process
Stream
6,640
Wetland
12
28
Lick Creek
NC
Cape Fear
03030004
EEP
2004
Closed Out
Stream
9,500
Alliance Headwaters—Option A Stream Mitigation Site page 7
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-006477)

29
1 Little Buffalo
NC
Neuse
03020201
JEEP
2005
Closed Out
Buffer
18.5
Stream
4,750
Riparian Wetland
3.3
30
Lloyd
NC
Cape Fear
03030001
EEP
2005
Closed Out
Non -Riparian Wetland
3.1
31
Lowell Mill Dam
NC
Neuse
03020201
EEP
2004
Closed Out
Dam Removal
34,990
32
Morgan Creek
NC
French
Broad
06010106
EEP
2006
Monitoring Year
5
Stream
4,083
Wetland
0.83
33
Pepperwood
Farm
NC
Neuse
03020201
EEP
2012
Design
Buffer
13.1
34
Salisbury
Wicomico
MD
Wicomico
02060007
Private
2006
Closed Out
Wetland
40
35
Sleepy Creek
NC
Neuse
03020202
NC DOT
2002
Close Out in
Process
Riparian Wetland
192
36
Sliver Moon
NC
Neuse
03020202
EEP
2011
Monitoring Year
Non -Riparian Wetland
14
37
Summit Seep
NC
Yadkin
03040103
EEP
2010
3 Monitoring Year
Riparian Wetland
4.1
38
Three Mile
Creek
NC
French
Broad
06010108
EEP
2007
Monitoring Year
5
Stream
8,021
Wetland
2.3
39
Vickis Thicket
NC
Neuse
03020202
EEP
2009
4 Monitoring Year
Buffer
28
40
Wall
NC
Cape Fear
03030003
EEP
2011
Monitoring Year
Buffer
11.3
41
Walnut Creek
NC
Neuse
03020203
EEP
2004
Closed Out
Buffer
25
Approved Banks
42
Bass Mountain
NC
Cape Fear
03030002
Bank
2005
Construction
Stream 5,748
43
Pond ton Mill
VA
James
02080206
Bank
2008
Monitoring Year
VA Nutrients 752
44
Cripple Creek
NC
Cape Fear
03030002
Bank
2008
Monitoring Year
Stream 4,5183
Wetland 7.85
45
Lane
NC
Neuse
03020201
Bank
2007
Closed/Sold Out
nutrients 96,648
Buffer 10.56
Stream 8,158
Wetland 33.5
46
Pancho
NC
Neuse
03020201
Bank
2009
Construction
Nutrients 25,503
Buffer 3.5
47
Warren Creek
TX
San Jacinto
12040102
Bank
2009
Construction
Stream 17,918
48
Wellons
NC
Neuse
03020201
Bank
2007
Closed/Sold Out
nutrients 73,804
Banks In Development
Riparian Wetland
TBD
49
Front Range
CO
Cache La
Poudre
10190007
Bank
2012
In -Development
Stream
TBD
Endangered Species
Habitat
TBD
50
Milburnie Dam
NC
Neuse
03020201
Bank
2009
In -Development
Stream
42,840
51
Salisbury III
MD
Wicomico
02130301
Bank
2009
In -Development
Stream
700
Wetland
9.61
East
Marsh (fresh)
273
52
Jesuit Bend
LA
Central
08090301
Bank
2010
Construction
Louisiana
BLH
51
Note: Credits are calculated differently for each Corps District. In general, the "Credits" column represents the total length of stream
restoration (feet), acreage of wetland restoration, acreage of buffer or pounds of nutrient offset.
Alliance Headwaters—Option A Stream Mitigation Site page 8
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-006477)

Work on this project will be performed primarily by staff from the following office locations:
ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING 8c
r r RESTORATION
Restoration Systems Ecosystem Planning and Restoration, PLLC
1101 Haynes Street 559 Jones Franklin Road
Suite 211 Suite 150
Raleigh, NC 27604 Raleigh, NC 27606
Project Manager Experience
Ward Elis has several years of Environmental Specialist and Project Management Experience. Ward has worked on
several Mitigation Feasibility Studies and currently is in charge of Mitigation Implementation Services.
Multidisciplinary Project Approach
Restoration Systems restores and protects land and water by purchasing a permanent conservation easement or
fee -simple interest from property owners, and physically restoring the waterways, trees and vegetation to exceed
current function and duplicate historic condition as closely as possible. This work requires a multidisciplinary
approach to project delivery. RS staff includes scientists, environmental planners, managers, real estate specialists,
and lawyers that manage all aspects of the project, from initial property identification to post -monitoring closeout
and transfer to the long-term steward. In addition, RS' team of contracted engineers, designers, scientists,
geomorphologists, surveyors, and construction contractors work together throughout the implementation phase of
the project to ensure a multidisciplinary approach that has resulted in an impressive list of successful completed
projects (see previous section).
Resumes of Key Personnel
George A. Howard
President
Education
• B.A., University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Publications / Professional Works
• Evidence for an extraterrestrial impact 12,900 years
ago that contributed to the megafaunal extinctions and the Younger Dryas
cooling. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA Sep
27, 2007; doi: 10.1073/pnas.0706977104. (In "Geophysics")
Evidence for an extraterrestrial impact origin of the Carolina Bays on the Atlantic Coast of North America
(Presentation PP42A-05). Joint Assembly of the American Geophysical Union. May 22-25. Acapulco,
Mexico.
Work Histor
United States Senate, Washington D.C. 1990-1996
• Responsible for Environmental public policy, particularly wetlands, water quality and species issues
Ecobank, Raleigh, NC 1996-1997
• Helped sponsor North Carolina's first successful large-scale mitigation bank, the 660 acre Cape Fear
Regional Mitigation Bank
Restoration Systems, LLC, Raleigh, NC 1998 — Current
• Produced the nation's first large scale dam removals for compensatory mitigation
• North Carolina's first large riparian wetland mitigation bank
• North Carolina's first "Full -Delivery" riparian buffer mitigation project
• Continuing efforts to improve Full -Delivery Mitigation processes
Special Appointments / Committee Memberships
National Mitigation Banking Association 2004 — Present
Alliance Headwaters—Option A Stream Mitigation Site page 9
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-006477)

• Serves on Board
Clean Water Trust Fund 2011— Present
• Serves on Board
2007 Appointment by Governor Michael Easley to NC Land and Water Study Commission
2011 Clean Water Trust Fund Board Appointment
John Preyer
Chief Operating Officer
Worth Creech
Site Construction Manager
Professional Licenses
NC Unlimited Building Contractors License
Education
• B.S. Industrial Technology, Construction, Appalachian State University
o Minor, Geography
Work History
Frederick W Creech General Contractors
• Superintendent
Restoration Systems, LLC
• Oversees construction
• Practices safety and efficiency for all sites
• Serves as liaison with surveyors and contractors
Awards / Certificates
• Rosgen Level I Certification
• NC Stormwater BMP Inspection & Maintenance Certificate
• NCEEP/NCSU Stream Restoration Construction Training Certificate
Ward Elis
Project Manager
Frinrntinn
2000-2001
2002 — Present
• B.S. Marine Biology, University of Maryland — College Park
• M.S. Marine Benthic Ecology, North Carolina State University
Work History
EcoScience Corporation, Raleigh, NC 1998-2205
• Wetland Delineations
Alliance Headwaters—Option A Stream Mitigation Site page 10
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-006477)
Professional Licenses
North Carolina Real Estate Broker License
Education
• B.A., University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
a
Work History
United States Senate, Washington D.C.
1992-1996
• Member of the Committee on Environment and Public
Works
Forbes for President, Bedminster, NJ
1996-1998
Restoration Systems, LLC, Raleigh, NC
1998 —
Present
• Oversees land acquisition and construction operations
Special Appointments / Committee Memberships
N.C. Coastal Federation, Newport, NC
2002—
2006
• Served on board
N.C. Wildlife Habitat Foundation, Greensboro, NC
1990—
2005
• Served on board
Worth Creech
Site Construction Manager
Professional Licenses
NC Unlimited Building Contractors License
Education
• B.S. Industrial Technology, Construction, Appalachian State University
o Minor, Geography
Work History
Frederick W Creech General Contractors
• Superintendent
Restoration Systems, LLC
• Oversees construction
• Practices safety and efficiency for all sites
• Serves as liaison with surveyors and contractors
Awards / Certificates
• Rosgen Level I Certification
• NC Stormwater BMP Inspection & Maintenance Certificate
• NCEEP/NCSU Stream Restoration Construction Training Certificate
Ward Elis
Project Manager
Frinrntinn
2000-2001
2002 — Present
• B.S. Marine Biology, University of Maryland — College Park
• M.S. Marine Benthic Ecology, North Carolina State University
Work History
EcoScience Corporation, Raleigh, NC 1998-2205
• Wetland Delineations
Alliance Headwaters—Option A Stream Mitigation Site page 10
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-006477)

• Wetland and Stream Mitigation Site Searches
Michael Baker Engineering, Cary, NC 2005-2013
• Wetland, Stream and Riparian Buffer Mitigation Site Searches
• Mitigation Feasibility Studies
Restoration Systems, Raleigh, NC 2013 — Present
• Wetland, Stream and Riparian Buffer Mitigation Site Searches
• Mitigation Implementation Services
Resumes for Ecosystem Planning and Restoration
Kevin Tweedy, PE, Principal Water Resources Engineer
Education:
MS, Biological and Agricultural Engineering, North Carolina State University, 1998
BS, Agricultural Engineering, Virginia Tech, 1995
Professional Continuing Education:
13 Fluvial Geomorphology for Engineers by Wildland Hydrology, 2000
13 Rosgen I, Applied Fluvial Geomorphology, 1999
01 Rosgen II, River Morphology and Applications, 2011
'33 Rosgen III, River Assessment and Monitoring, 2011
&A Rosgen IV River Restoration/ Natural Channel Design, 2011
Professional Registrations:
�a' Professional Engineer, NC, #027337, 2001
Professional Engineer, MS, #17995, 2007
01 Professional Engineer, MD, # 41601, 2012
0 Professional Eneineer. TX. # 113620. 2013
03 Professional Engineer, WV, # 020146, 2013
Qualifications and Experience:
Mr. Tweedy is a specialist in ecosystem assessment, stream restoration, wetland restoration, watershed
management, and stormwater management. He has served as project manager, project engineer, and senior
engineer for well over 150 watershed and ecosystem restoration projects across North Carolina and the
Southeastern US. As a stream restoration specialist, Mr. Tweedy has served as the Project Engineer/Engineer of
Record for over 130 stream restoration projects, totaling to approximately 550,000 feet of stream restoration design.
This vast experience includes restoration and stabilization of systems ranging from large rivers to small headwater
streams, from rural to urban watersheds, and from high gradient cold water streams to low gradient coastal systems.
Designs have often involved a holistic ecosystem approach, combining stream and wetland elements and restoring
hydrologic connections across the larger riparian system. Other areas of detailed experience include stormwater
management and treatment systems, hydrologic modeling, groundwater hydrology, best management practices,
ecosystem monitoring, and environmental education.
William A. Harman, PG, Principal Geomorphologist
Education:
MA, Geography and Earth Science, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, 1996
BS, Geography, Appalachian State University, 1991
Work Experience:
3 Principal, Ecosystem Planning and Restoration, 2012 to present
Principal, Stream Mechanics, 2010 to present
Vice President and Ecosystem Restoration Technical Services Manager, Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.,
2006-2010
13 Principal and Founder of Buck Engineering, 2000-2006
ry
Founder and Chairman of the Board of River Works, 2005-2006
rm
Extension Associate, NC Cooperative Extension Service, 1996-2000
.3 Natural Resources Extension Agent, NC Cooperative Extension Service, 1991-1996
Alliance Headwaters—Option A Stream Mitigation Site page 11
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-006477)

Professional Registrations:
3 Professional Geologist, NC, #1844, 1996
&A Professional Geologist, TX, #11467, 2013
Qualifications and Experience:
Mr. Harman is a co-founder and Senior Fluvial Geomorphologist of EPR. He participates in stream restoration
projects by providing function -based stream assessments, design support, quality assurance and control, and other
services. Mr. Harman is also the owner of Stream Mechanics where he developed the Natural Channel Design Review
Checklist and Stream Functions Pyramid Framework. These tools are now used by agencies and practitioners
throughout the United States. Mr. Harman teaches stream restoration workshops to federal, state, and local
agencies, universities, and private engineering firms. Prior to forming Stream Mechanics and EPR, he was Vice
President of Ecosystem Restoration with Michael Baker Corporation. In the course of his 23 -year career, he has
participated in hundreds of stream restoration projects, representing a wide variety of settings and techniques. He
has authored or co-authored numerous peer reviewed journal articles, proceeding papers, and a natural channel
design handbook. He has also developed regional curves and reference reach data sets in many regions throughout
the United States.
Emmett Perdue, PE, Water Resources Engineer
Education:
BS, Environmental Science, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 2001
MS, Environmental Engineering, North Carolina State University, 2005
Professional Continuing Education:
• Rosgen I, Applied Fluvial Geomorphology, 2005
• Rosgen II, River Morphology and Applications, 2007
ON Rosgen III, River Assessment and Monitoring, 2007
ON Rosgen IV, River Restoration/Natural Channel Design, 2011
Professional Registrations:
03
Professional Engineer, NC, # PE036254, 2010
• Professional Engineer, GA, # PE034913, 2010
• Professional Engineer, SC, # PE030882, 2013
8 Professional Engineer, FL, # PE076522, 2013
0 Professional Engineer, TX, # PE115022, 2013
'1' Georgia Erosion Control Level II Design Professional, GA, 0000061306, 2010
Qualifications and Experience:
As a Water Resources Engineer with over 9 years of experience, Mr. Perdue specializes in the design of stream and
ecosystem restoration projects. His areas of expertise include stream determinations, ecosystem restoration
approaches, and best management practices (BMP) design and implementation, particularly regarding stormwater
applications. Mr. Perdue's technical experience includes the use of CAD, GPS, GIS, and HEC -RAS for the design of
wetland and stream restoration projects. Mr. Perdue has conducted existing and reference reach surveys, natural
channel design, construction estimates and quantity calculations, permitting, construction management/supervision
and monitoring services on numerous projects across North Carolina and the Southeastern US.
Erin Bennett, EI, Water Resources Specialist
Education:
MS, Biological Engineering, North Carolina State University, 2013
BS, Biological Engineering, North Carolina State University, 2011
Professional Continuing Education:
13A Rosgen I, Applied Fluvial Geomorphology, (scheduled 2015)
M Rosgen II, River Morphology and Applications, (scheduled 2015)
Alliance Headwaters—Option A Stream Mitigation Site page 12
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-006477)

Professional Registrations:
ry
Engineering Intern, NC, # A-25652, 2011
Qualifications and Experience:
Ms. Bennett joined EPR in 2013. As an Environmental Specialist and Engineer Intern at EPR, she works on stream
and wetland restoration, mitigation feasibility analysis, research projects, watershed assessment projects, as well as
highway improvement planning and construction design. Ms. Bennett has experience in performing site
assessments for ecosystem restoration projects, geomorphic surveys, evaluating and designing erosion and
stormwater control measures, and developing design plan components for stream restoration, landscaping, and
stormwater projects.
Thomas Barrett, RF, Senior Environmental Specialist
Education:
MS, Forest Management, Soil Science minor, North Carolina State University, 2004
MS, Environmental Health, East Carolina University, 1997
BS, Forest Management, North Carolina State University, 1995
Professional Continuing Education:
ON
Rosgen I, Applied Fluvial Geomorphology, 2003
Rosgen II, River Morphology and Applications, 2003
ON Rosgen III, River Assessment and Monitoring, 2003
Rosgen IV, River Restoration/Natural Channel Design, 2003
Professional Registrations:
• Registered Forester, NC, #1426
• Pesticide Applicator, NC, # 028-19493
• Certified Stormwater BMP Inspection and Maintenance Professional, NC, #1678
8 Certified Residential Rain Garden Professional, NC, #002
Qualifications and Experience:
Mr. Barrett joined EPR in March of 2015. As a Senior Environmental Specialist with over 14 years of experience, Mr.
Barrett specializes in natural resource investigations and stream restoration projects. His areas of expertise include
stream and wetland determinations, biological assessments, and ecosystem restoration with an emphasis on the
use of vegetation. Mr. Barrett's technical experience includes the use of global positioning systems (GPS),
geographic information systems (GIS) analysis, preparation of natural resource documents, and data management
using a wide range of computer software. Mr. Barrett has conducted numerous natural resource investigations
including stream and wetland inventories, protected species surveys, and biological inventories on federal lands.
Additionally, Mr. Barrett has experience with stream restoration projects including existing condition and reference
reach surveys, natural channel design, construction management, reforestation and monitoring services. He has
extensive experience with projects across North Carolina and South Carolina and has worked on projects in Georgia,
Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia.
Matt Koon, Water Resources Technician
Education:
MA, Architectural Drafting and Design, Triangle Tech Institute, 1996
Qualifications and Experience:
Mr. Koon has more than ten years of experience in MicroStation and AutoCad. As an Environmental Technician
and CADD Analyst at EPR, he works on stream and wetland restoration, pond mitigation, and watershed projects,
as well as highway improvement planning and construction design. Mr. Koon has also had training in design and
construction drawings. He has extensive experience in the compilation of cadastral maps, using survey data and
aerial photography, and has been responsible for the training and supervision of more than 10 CADD mapping
technicians.
Alliance Headwaters—Option A Stream Mitigation Site page 13
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-006477)

PART 4: PROJECT ORGANIZATION
The Restoration Systems' project team for implementation of the Alliance Headwaters Option A Stream Mitigation
Site is comprised of the following personnel and subcontractors:
■ Ward Elis will serve as project manager, overseeing all aspects of implementation from landowner contact
through monitoring. Ward will be the primary contact for the DMS on this project.
Worth Creech will be serving as construction manager. Worth is a licensed general contractor and will
provide implementation and contractor oversight for construction activities undertaken by Restoration
Systems throughout the lift of the project.
■ Kevin Tweedy and the professional staff at EPR will serve as project designer for the site. EPR will also
provide monitoring services throughout the project life.
Resumes for the personnel described above as well as all other Restoration Systems' personnel who provide day-to-
day oversight and expertise on each of our projects are included in the preceding Qualifications Section — Part 3.
Alliance Headwaters—Option A Stream Mitigation Site page 14
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-006477)

PARTS: TECHNICAL APPROACH
5.1. Project Goals and Objectives
The Project will provide numerous water quality and ecological benefits within the Hannah Creek and Neuse River
watersheds. Promoting nutrient and sediment reduction in agricultural areas by restoring and preserving wetlands,
streams, and riparian buffers is a major goal for the entire Neuse River basin, as described in the Neuse River Basin
Restoration Priorities (RBRP) document developed by NCDMS (2015). Water quality concerns from agricultural
lands, animal operations, and disturbed buffers are specific concerns listed for HUC 03020201-150020 (Hannah
Creek) in the Neuse River RBRP (2015). In the 2010 RBRP document for the Neuse River, the Hannah Creek
watershed is described as 54% agricultural land use, with 44 permitted animal operations. Buffer and wetland
restoration projects were considered high priority for this watershed.
In the Neuse River Basinwide Water Quality Plan (NCDWQ, 2009), Hannah Creek, from NC 96 to confluence with Mill
Creek (the reach where the Project is located) is recommended for the implementation of conservation practices on
agricultural lands. This segment of Hannah Creek is also designated as a Significant Natural Heritage Area (SNHA) by
the NC Natural Heritage Program. Hannah creek contains a mature swamp forest that extends approximately 12
miles, and represents one of the few remaining swamp forests of any significant length in the County.
As part of the proposed Project, headwater streams will be stabilized and restored, and riparian buffers will be
restored and protected. This proposed work will provide significant reductions in nutrients and sediment to Hannah
Creek, and ultimately the Neuse River. Reductions in sediment will be achieved by restoring ditched and channelized
headwater streams to their proper function, and reconnecting and enhancing the headwater channels that currently
exist. Reductions in nutrients will be achieved through the restoration of riparian buffers that filter runoff and
promote nutrient uptake, and through the restoration and enhancement of adjacent riparian wetland areas that
promote denitrification and increased filtration. Reductions in nutrients and sediments will be achieved by
establishing restoring and enhancing the headwater channels and reestablishing a riparian buffer that filter overland
runoff.
Project goals and associated objectives are summarized in Table 5.1 below:
Table 5.1 Summary of Goals and Obiectives for the Alliance Headwaters Mitieation Proiect
Alliance Headwaters—Option A Stream Mitigation Site page 15
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-006477)
Current
Proposed
Goals
Objectives
Functional
Functional
Status
Status
Goals Specific to the Neuse River and Hannah Creek Watershed Discussed in the
RBRP (NCDMS, 2010 and 2015) and Neuse River Basinwide Plan (NCDW0' 2009)
Nutrient
• Restoration and enhancement of minimum 50 -foot
Reductions from
riparian buffers along all project reaches.
Agricultural Lands
. Protection of riparian buffers with a perpetual
conservation easement.
Not
Functioning
• Reducing the amount of land in active row crop
Functioning
agriculture.
• Decreasing drainage to restore wetlands, promoting
higher water table conditions, and denitrification.
Sediment
. Restoration of stabilized headwater stream systems.
Reductions from
. Restoration of riparian buffers to filter runoff.
Agricultural Lands
. Increase distance between active farming operations
Not
Functioning
and receiving waters.
Functioning
• Stabilization of gullies and ditches.
Additional Goals to Benefit Hannah Creek Significant Natural Heritage Area
Alliance Headwaters—Option A Stream Mitigation Site page 15
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-006477)

Improved Aquatic
. Restoration of appropriate bed form diversity,
Habitats
headwater stream/wetland form, and in -stream
structures to provide appropriate habitat.
• Restoration of self-sustaining stream/wetland
Not
Functioning
headwaters.
Functioning
• Restoration of riparian buffer vegetation to provide
organic matter and shade.
Improved
. Restore connectivity to historic remnant channel
Connectivity
features.
Not
Functioning
• Improved connectivity to Hannah Creek.
Functioning
5.2. Project Description
Overview
The Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Project is located in the Hannah Creek watershed of the Neuse River Basin,
particularly in the NCDENR subbasin 03-04-04 and the NCDMS targeted local watershed 03020201-150020 (Figure
5.1). The Project is located in Johnston County, approximately six miles southeast of Four Oaks and one mile east of
US 701 (Figure 5.2). The project will involve the restoration of channelized streams, the enhancement of existing
headwater streams, and the restoration of stream and riparian buffer functions on up to four unnamed tributaries
(UTs) to Hannah Creek.
Several options are beina proposed for contractina of the Alliance Headwaters Proiect Site. Sections 5.1 throuah 5.7
of this proposal describe all the stream reaches and mitigation approaches that can be conducted on the Site. Part
1 (Executive Summary) and the associated cost proposals specify the stream reaches and areas that are included with
each proposal option. RS has taken this approach of several oroaosal options to provide NCDMS with the most
lexibility in proiect selection and contracting.
The project area encompasses approximately 16 acres of land that
consists of drained agricultural fields and natural, mixed hardwood
timber land. The area has been drained bythe installation of ditches
and the channelization of streams and headwater wetlands (Photo
1 and Appendix 1). By restoring and enhancing the headwater
streams and the associated riparian buffers, the area will provide
improved water quality to receiving waters, and improved habitat
for biota.
The Project area includes four unnamed tributaries (UTs) to Hannah
Creek (designated UT1, UT2, UT3, and UT4) as shown in Figure 5.3.
Hannah Creek is listed by the NCDWR as a class "C; NSW", indicating
that the streams support aquatic life and secondary recreational
uses. These waters also carry the nutrient sensitive waters (NSW)
designation, meaning that such waters are subject to excessive
growth of microscopic or macroscopic vegetation. Due to this NSW
classification, the restoration and enhancement of the proposed
streams, adjacent wetlands, and riparian buffers, followed by their
permanent conservation, will ensure the protection of the stream
systems from future growth and development in the Neuse River basin.
Photo 1. The Alliance Headwaters Site offers the
ability to greatly improve stream, wetland, and
floodplain function for more than a mile of
headwater streams in the Neuse River Basin.
The primary impairments to the four UTs include channelization, loss of hydrologic connection, increased nutrient
concentrations, and sedimentation, which have resulted from the conversion of forest land to intensive agricultural
crop production (Figure 5.4). Following this conversion, existing stream channels and headwater wetland systems
were channelized and additional ditches were installed to effectively drain the property for crop production. This
conversion process started before aerial photography was available, but the historical photos starting at 1939 to
2005 depict the changes to the land clearly (Figures 5.5a — 5.5e). As a result of this land conversion and
channelization process, the headwater channels do not occupy their original locations. The original headwater
Alliance Headwaters—Option A Stream Mitigation Site page 16
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-006477)

channels (UT1, UT2, UT3, and UT4) have been replaced by channelized ditches within the agricultural fields and
adjacent forests. However, some remnant headwater stream
segments do still remain and, though disconnected,
give insight into how the historic stream and
}�
wetland systems on the property may have
functioned. These remnant headwater drainages
were identified in the forests that occur upstream
(to the west) of UT3 and UT4 (Photo 2). Old stream
channels are present downstream (on adjacent
J
properties) of UT1, UT2, UT3, and UT4, that used to
i+aA i ti
t-� 4i..y..
be connected to these UTs prior to any land
disturbance activities (Photos 3 and 4). Although
these reference areas have been modified by past
drainage activities and timber harvesting, they
provide information that can be used to develop
appropriate restoration designs. These areas will be
�v t 4
reconnected to the proposed restoration reaches as
Will
part of the proposed project.
Photo 2. Remnant drainage patterns located near UT3.
A visual estimate of bank erosion hazard indexes
Note the moss line.
(BEHI) was completed for all of the UTs during site
investigations. The majority of the site has a low to
moderate BEHI rating, with only a small section of channel (UT3) containing a very high rating (Figure 5.6). BEHI and
near bank stress assessments will be formally conducted prior
to restoration activities, as discussed in Part 5.3.
The project is situated in a rural area of southern Johnston County. The land use within the project watershed is
comprised of approximately 35% agricultural croplands, 60% forested lands, and the remainder being allocated to
residential home sites. The project is located in close proximity (< 6 miles) to two major interstates (1-95 and 1-40)
and within one mile of US Highway 701. Due to this geographic position, the potential for future development is
high, highlighting the importance of protection. Additionally, the project lies within several miles of the extensive
stream and wetland complex formed by Hannah Creek, Mill Creek, and the Neuse River. Due to the potential for
future development and its proximity to an extensive stream and wetland system, this project provides a unique
opportunity to restore and enhance an important a headwater riparian system.
Photo 3. Stream channel that lies in the forest downstream (to the north) of UTs 1 and 2 and provides a downstream
hydrologic connection to these UTs.
Alliance Headwaters—Option A Stream Mitigation Site page 17
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-006477)

Photo 4. Stream channel that lies in the forest downstream (to the north) of UTs 3 and 4 and provides a downstream
hydrologic connection to these UTs.
Perennial/Intermittent Status
Field evaluations of intermittent/perennial stream status were made in September 2015. These evaluations were
based on North Carolina Division of Water Quality's (NCDWQ) Methodology for Identification of Intermittent and
Perennial Streams and Their Origins, stream assessment protocols. Reach UT1 was determined to be a perennial
stream and UT2, UT3 and UT4 were determined to be intermittent, as indicated by the stream scores presented in
Table 5.2 (copies of the supporting field forms may be found in Appendix 2). Both UT1 and UT2 are supported by
strong groundwater springs at the heads of each stream reach. UT3 has a small spring -fed pond that flows into it.
Table 5.2 Summary Information for Field Investigations to Determine Intermittent/Perennial Status
Note 1: NCDWQ Stream Classification forms are provided in Appendix 2 for the stream listed above.
Note 2: Watershed area is approximate using topography, stream flow direction, ground truthing of drainage
features, & GIS.
* Streams contain spring fed features.
Alliance Headwaters—Option A Stream Mitigation Site page 18
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-006477)
Existing
NCDWQ Stream
Watershed
Stream Status
Stream
Project
Impervious
Classification
Drainage Area
Based on Field
Designation
Stream
Form Score 1
(acres) Z
Cover N
Analyses
Length (ft)
UT1
4,320
36.5*
600
< 5
Perennial
UT2
56
28*
140
< 5
Intermittent
UT3
3,185
19.5*
266
< 5
Intermittent
UT4
352
19
150
< 5
Intermittent
Note 1: NCDWQ Stream Classification forms are provided in Appendix 2 for the stream listed above.
Note 2: Watershed area is approximate using topography, stream flow direction, ground truthing of drainage
features, & GIS.
* Streams contain spring fed features.
Alliance Headwaters—Option A Stream Mitigation Site page 18
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-006477)

Existing Reach Conditions
EPR staff conducted field investigations to evaluate and document the existing conditions of the site as well as each
project stream reach. These studies included cross-section surveys, photographic documentation, soil borings, and
documentation of other observed site conditions and stressors.
Additional resources including USGS topographic maps, LIDAR, soil
survey information, and historic aerial photographs were reviewed
throughout the site investigation process. The results of these
investigations are summarized in the paragraphs below and
collected field data are provided in Appendix 2.
Reach UT1
Reach UT1 exists as a channelized ditch that bisects the agricultural
field shown in Figure 5.3 and Photo 5. After leaving the agricultural
field, UT1 drains into roadside ditch (along Old Williams Road) and
flows east toward Joyner Bridges Road. UTI picks up additional
flow from a spring -fed pond outlet that empties into the roadside
ditch near the intersection of the two roads. UT1 passes under
Joyner Bridges Road through two, 24 -inch reinforced concrete
pipes (Photo 6). UT1 continues east after passing under the road,
where it borders the edge of another agricultural field before it
intersects with UT2. Adjacent to UT1 is an existing livestock feedlot
along this section of the channel (Photo 7). After its confluence
with UT2, UT1 makes a 90° turn to the north, where it flows
through a pipe (under a farm road) into a man-made depression,
before finally flowing into a small pond adjacent to the woods.
Cross sections of UT1 were measured in September 2015 and their
locations are shown on Figure 5.7. Cross section measurements for
UT1 ranged from 8.4 to 24 feet for widths and 2.5 to 4.6 feet for
depths (Appendix 2).
Reach UT1 is shown as a solid "blue -line" stream starting near the
center of the existing agricultural field on the USGS topographic
quadrangle map (Figure 5.8), and also as an intermittent stream on
the Johnston County Soil Survey. Review of the historical aerials
(Figures 5.4a — 5.4e) and LIDAR (Figure 5.9) also helped to confirm
the presence of a channel and its historic location. Based on field
evaluations of intermittent/perennial status through the use of
North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) stream
assessment protocols, the existing reach would be considered an
intermittent stream channel within the upper agricultural field to
its intersection with Old Williams Road. This stream classification
is due to the extensive ditch network in and around the project
area, creating an artificially small watershed area within the
agricultural field. However, once UT1 flows into the roadside ditch
along Old Williams Road, the drainage area increases from
approximately 40 acres to over 400 acres. Field evaluations of
intermittent/perennial status via NCDWR stream assessment
protocols and the watershed analysis indicate the existing UT1
reach achieves perennial status from this intersection to the
downstream terminus of the project.
Photo 6. View of Reach UT1 where crosses under
Joyner Bridges Road via a 24" reinforced concrete
Photo 7. View south across Reach UT1 towards
adjacent property owner who has a small number of
pigs. Note: Minimal herbaceous riparian buffer.
Alliance Headwaters—Option A Stream Mitigation Site page 19
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-006477)

Rcnrh I IT')
Reach UT2 within the project area is a short, channelized ditch that
flows from a pond outlet into UT1 from the south (Figure 5.3 and
Photo 8). Due to its length, only one cross section was surveyed for
this reach (Figure 5.7). The channel was determined to be 11.5 feet
wide and 2.8 feet deep.
UT2 is shown as a solid "blue -line" stream on the USGS topographic
quadrangle map (Figure 5.8), and as an intermittent stream on the
Johnston County Soil Survey. It has a significant drainage of over
100 acres near its confluence with UT1 and also supports a series
of ponds upstream of the project area. Based on field evaluations
of intermittent/perennial status through the use of NCDWR's
stream assessment protocols, the existing UT2 reach would be
considered an intermittent stream. However, the limited channel
length for assessment along with the severely manipulated
hydrology surrounding the reach has a significant impact on the
NCDWR rating. Improving site conditions will result in this reach
achieving a perennial rating. Additionally, LIDAR mapping shows
the distinctive drainage pattern for UT2 along its course from south to north, further justifying a perennial status
following restoration activities (Figure 5.9).
Photo 8. UT2 at the confluence with UT1. The
existing UT2 channels is a short segment of ditch that
drains from an upstream pond into UT1.
Reach UT3
Reach UT3 begins as a small wooded headwater system before transitioning to a channelized stream (Figure 5.3).
When the adjacent farm field to the east was converted, a perimeter ditch was constructed around the field to
provide drainage. When UT3 reaches the current field edge and perimeter ditch, flow drops into the perimeter
ditch, which flows north to the corner of the agricultural field (Photo 9). At the corner of the field, the ditch makes
a 90° turn to the east through a black corrugated pipe. After passing through the pipe, UT3 continues along the
north side of the agricultural field toward the confluence with a spring -fed pond (Photo 10). At the confluence with
the pond, the channel flows north through another black corrugated pipe into the woods. Cross section locations
for UT3 ranged from 5.0 to 9.5 feet for widths and 2.0 to 3.1 feet
for depths (Figure 5.7 and Appendix 2).
UT3 is not shown on the USGS topographic quadrangle map
(Figure 5.8), nor the Johnston County Soil Survey. However, due
to its watershed drainage area (266 acres) and the extensive
drainage patterns and old channels observed in the field, there is
substantial evidence that there was once a channel present in this
location. Based on field evaluations of intermittent/perennial
status through the use of NCDWR's stream assessment protocols
and the presence of upstream and downstream features (i.e.
drainage patterns and old channels), the existing UT3 reach would
be considered an intermittent stream.
Photo 9. UT3 looking north along the perimeter
ditch adjacent to the field (right side of photo).
Alliance Headwaters—Option A Stream Mitigation Site page 20
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-006477)

Photo 10. Looking south at the confluence of UT3
and a spring -fed pond and its outlet.
Ronrh I ITA
Reach UT4 currently exists as a ditch that flows into UT3
from the west (Figure 5.3 and Photo 11). It has a
drainage area similar to UT2, but its hydrology has been
severely manipulated through drainage ditches. Cross
section surveys showed that the ditch was
approximately 2 feet wide and 0.4 feet deep (Figure 5.7
and Appendix 2).
UT4 is shown as a solid "blue -line" stream on the USGS
topographic quadrangle map (Figure 5.8), and as an
intermittent stream on the Johnston County Soil Survey.
Based on field evaluations of intermittent/perennial
status and through the use of NCDWR's stream
assessment protocols and the presence of upstream and
downstream features located in the field (i.e. drainage
patterns and old channels), the existing UT4 reach would
be considered an intermittent stream.
Soils
Soils mapped within in the project area are primarily
comprised of the Lynchburg, Goldsboro, and Leaf series,
which account for approximately 93% of area shown in
Figure 5.10. All of the existing reaches (UTs 1, 2, 3, and
4) are underlain by a combination of these three soils.
Soils on the periphery of the existing reaches are
comprised of the Dogue and Norfolk series. A list of soils
found within in the project area are listed in Table 5.3.
Through soil borings, evidence of previous soil
Photo 11. UT4 looking east toward the field and UT3. conditions, including buried horizons, oxidized
rhizospheres, depleted matrices, and redox
concentrations were evaluated across the site. This soil boring information combined with the historical aerial
photographs, illustrate the significant land use changes that have occurred to both the streams and wetlands over
the last 75 years within the project area. It is likely that stream and wetland systems were prevalent along all of the
project reaches (UT1, UT2, UT3, and UT4), as hydric soil conditions were documented along all of these historic
valleys and drainage ways. Additionally, remnants of these stream and wetland systems are still evident in the
adjacent properties, both upstream and downstream.
Table 5.3 Johnston County Soils Associated with the Project Site
Soil Map Unit
Map Symbol
Drainage Class
Hydric Status
Do ue fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 % slopes
r,
Photo 10. Looking south at the confluence of UT3
and a spring -fed pond and its outlet.
Ronrh I ITA
Reach UT4 currently exists as a ditch that flows into UT3
from the west (Figure 5.3 and Photo 11). It has a
drainage area similar to UT2, but its hydrology has been
severely manipulated through drainage ditches. Cross
section surveys showed that the ditch was
approximately 2 feet wide and 0.4 feet deep (Figure 5.7
and Appendix 2).
UT4 is shown as a solid "blue -line" stream on the USGS
topographic quadrangle map (Figure 5.8), and as an
intermittent stream on the Johnston County Soil Survey.
Based on field evaluations of intermittent/perennial
status and through the use of NCDWR's stream
assessment protocols and the presence of upstream and
downstream features located in the field (i.e. drainage
patterns and old channels), the existing UT4 reach would
be considered an intermittent stream.
Soils
Soils mapped within in the project area are primarily
comprised of the Lynchburg, Goldsboro, and Leaf series,
which account for approximately 93% of area shown in
Figure 5.10. All of the existing reaches (UTs 1, 2, 3, and
4) are underlain by a combination of these three soils.
Soils on the periphery of the existing reaches are
comprised of the Dogue and Norfolk series. A list of soils
found within in the project area are listed in Table 5.3.
Through soil borings, evidence of previous soil
Photo 11. UT4 looking east toward the field and UT3. conditions, including buried horizons, oxidized
rhizospheres, depleted matrices, and redox
concentrations were evaluated across the site. This soil boring information combined with the historical aerial
photographs, illustrate the significant land use changes that have occurred to both the streams and wetlands over
the last 75 years within the project area. It is likely that stream and wetland systems were prevalent along all of the
project reaches (UT1, UT2, UT3, and UT4), as hydric soil conditions were documented along all of these historic
valleys and drainage ways. Additionally, remnants of these stream and wetland systems are still evident in the
adjacent properties, both upstream and downstream.
Table 5.3 Johnston County Soils Associated with the Project Site
Soil Map Unit
Map Symbol
Drainage Class
Hydric Status
Do ue fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 % slopes
DoA
Moderately Well
Hydric B (Roanoke inclusions)
Goldsboro sandy loam, 0 to 2 % slopes
GoA
Moderately Well
Hydric B (Rains inclusions)
Leaf silt loam, 0 to 2 % slopes
Le
Poorly
Hydric A
o
Lynchburg sandy loam, 0 to 2 /o slopes
Ly
Somewhat Poorly
Y
Hydric B (Grantham, Rains, & Toisnot
inclusions)
Norfolk loamy sand, 0 to 2 % slopes
I NoA
Well
Non -Hydric
Alliance Headwaters—Option A Stream Mitigation Site page 21
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-006477)

Protected Species
Table 5.4 lists the species found in Johnston County that are protected under the Federal Endangered Species Act.
Potential habitat does not exist or is unlikely to exist within the project limits for the listed species. If the project is
awarded, RS will contact the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the NC Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) to
ensure that there will be no impacts to protected species.
Table 5.4 Federally Protected Species for Johnston County
Scientific Name
Common Name
Federal Status
Habitat Present
Biological
Conclusion
Alasmidonta heterodon
Dwarf wedgemussel
E
No
No effect
Elliptio steinstansana
Tar River spinymussel
E
No
No effect
Picoides borealis
Red -cockaded woodpecker
E
No
No effect
Rhus michauxii
Michaux's sumac
E
No
No effect
Notes: E —Endangered denotes a species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range.
T— Threatened denotes a species that is likely to become an endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
No potential habitat is known to exist on the project site. The proposed project will occur in existing agricultural
fields which are intensively managed for soybeans and other crops. The likelihood of any habitat occurring on the
project site is extremely low; however, the project will be evaluated further if the project is awarded by NCDMS.
Any critical habitats that are identified will be protected in close coordination with US Fish and Wildlife Service and
the NC Wildlife Resources Commission.
FEMA
Upon review of the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) National Flood Insurance Program's Digital
Flood Insurance Rate Mapping (DFIRM) panel 3720158800J effective December 2, 2005; the downstream terminus
of UT1 and UT2 of the project exists within the 0.2 Percent Chance Annual Flooding Zone (Zone X) associated with
Hannah Creek (Figure 5.11). Work associated with this project would not be regulated nor would the work influence
the flood elevations associated with this zone.
Review of the preliminary DFIRM panel 3720158800K dated April 30, 2014 indicates the downstream terminus of
UT1 and UT2 of the project will be within the 1.0 Percent Chance Annual Flooding Zone (Zone AE) of Hannah creek.
Upon this mapping becoming effective, the project will be regulated and the grading of the project will influence the
mapping of Zone AE and Zone X. The elevations of these zones are being established from Hannah Creek with the
project reaches existing in the backwater of Hannah Creek, therefore the project will not influence the determination
of the flooding elevations. The completed NCDMS Floodplain Requirements Checklist can be found in Appendix 3.
At the time of the project's execution, the FEMA mapping will be reviewed to determine the effective mapping.
Once the effective mapping is determined, the local floodplain manager for Johnston County will be contacted and
appropriate action undertaken.
Cultural and Historic Resources
This project is not anticipated to have any adverse impacts on cultural or historical resources. On-site investigations
and discussions with landowners have not revealed any potential resources of this type on the property. The site's
location to proximal planning elements is illustrated in Figure 5.12. If the project is awarded, RS will contact the NC
State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) to ensure that there will be no cultural or historical resource impacts.
Alliance Headwaters—Option A Stream Mitigation Site page 22
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-006477)

Air Transport Facilities
There is one air transport facility located within five miles of the project site. The nearest air transport facility to the
project site is a private airport (Massengill Airport — NC76) which is located approximately 4.5 miles southwest of
the project site (Figure 5.13). The closest public airport is the Johnston Regional Airport located approximately 12
miles to the north of the project site.
Existing Easements and Constraints
No easements or significant constraints have been identified for the project. However, a 30 -foot wide section at the
upstream portion of UT1 will be left out of the conservation easement to provide access to the remainder of the
parcel. This will have no effect on the conservation easement itself.
5.3 Project Development
The plan for the Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Project involves the restoration of headwater stream and riparian
buffers to four UTs. As a result of the proposed restoration activities, approximately 7,748 LF of stream will be
restored and approximately 16 acres of riparian buffer will be restored. The headwater streams to be restored have
been impacted by channelization, extensive ditching both on the project and in the upper portions of their
watershed, drainage of adjacent forested wetland areas, removal of riparian buffers, and through intensive
agricultural production practices.
Stream Restoration Approaches
For all restoration reaches, BEHI and near bank stress assessments will be formally conducted prior to restoration
activities, to estimate the amount of sediment currently being lost from bank erosion. The universal soil loss
equation, or similar estimate model, will also be used to estimate the loss of sediment to receiving streams from
overland runoff. These estimates of sediment loss under existing conditions will be compared to the conditions
expected after restoration, to estimate the effectiveness of the project in reducing sediment inputs. These results
will be presented in the Mitigation Plan Document for the project.
Reach UT1
Rather than the construction of a defined channel, the current channelized stream will be filled and the streambed
raised to topographic contours that approximate the pre -drained condition (Figure 5.14). A small, low flow channel
feature will be constructed to form a flow path for restored flows. The channel will be sized based on reference
channel information and regional curve information, and will allow flows during rainfall events to easily spread onto
the adjacent floodplain. The pond that is currently located along the proposed alignment of UT1, at the intersection
of Old Williams Road and Joyner Bridge Road, will be filled in to restore the local topography to a similar condition
as before the pond was constructed. Since the restored system must pass underneath Joyner Bridge Road, the valley
near the pond outlet will be lowered such that the stream can enter the existing culvert (i.e. Priority 2 restoration
approach). Downstream of the road, the valley will be graded to carry the flow exiting the road culvert (i.e. Priority
2) with the depth of grading decreasing downstream until the restored stream is reconnected with the natural
topography (i.e. Priority I restoration approach). The restored system will connect with the wooded stream channel
that is relatively stable at the downstream end of the proposed UT1 restoration reach.
Field drainage ditches adjacent to UT1 will be filled and graded to drain as diffuse flow toward the restored system
through the restored riparian buffer, thereby reducing the input of sediment and nutrients to downstream receiving
waters. The restored headwater system will be approximately 100 to 120 feet wide along its entire length, allowing
for buffers in excess of 50 feet along the entire length of restored UT1. Since the restoration of a small, shallow
headwater system is proposed, the entire floodplain corridor is expected to exhibit wetland hydrology after
restoration.
Reach UT2
The restoration approach for UT2 will be very similar to the approach described above for lower UT1. UT2 will enter
the project site through a culvert that will be installed underneath a new farm road proposed along the southern
Alliance Headwaters—Option A Stream Mitigation Site page 23
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-006477)

property boundary. The valley below the culvert will be graded to accommodate the restored UT2 system (i.e.
Priority 2) with grading decreasing downstream to reconnect to the natural floodplain elevation. The restored UT2
channel will be similar to that described above for UT1— a small, low flow channel feature that allows storm flows
to easily spread onto the adjacent wetland floodplain. Like UT1, the restored headwater system will be
approximately 100 to 120 feet wide along its entire length, allowing for buffers in excess of 50 feet along the entire
length of restored UT2. Since the restoration of a small, shallow headwater system is proposed, the entire floodplain
corridor is expected to exhibit wetland hydrology after restoration.
Reach UT3
The restored segment of UT3 will begin at the current field edge, as shown in Figure 5.14, and will extend down to
the confluence with UT4. Since the restored reach of UT3 will connect with a remnant, historic channel in the woods,
the restored UT3 will be raised to the elevation of the historic floodplain. Since the field areas along the historic UT3
valley have been farmed and graded in the past, some grading may be required to restore the natural topography
of the valley. The restored segment of UT3 below the confluence with UT4 will flow towards the woods to the north.
Since there is an existing pond along the historic valley alignment, the pond will be filled and the natural valley
topography restored. UT3 will flow through this restored valley section before flowing in its wooded channel at the
property line.
The ditch that runs along the western field edge (i.e. the channelized section of UT3 and UT4 that flows north) will
be filled so that all drainage follows historic flow paths along the restored UT3 and UT4. The restored channel form
for UT3 will be similar to the form described above for UT1, and reference information collected from the historic
remnant channel in the woods will be used to guide the design of an appropriate restored channel.
Like UT1, the restored headwater system will be approximately 100 to 120 feet wide along its entire length, allowing
for buffers in excess of 50 feet along the entire length of restored UT3. Since the restoration of a small, shallow
headwater system is proposed, the entire floodplain corridor is expected to exhibit wetland hydrology after
restoration.
Raarh 11T4
The restoration approach for UT4 will be very similar to the approach described for UT3. The restored section of
UT4 will connect with a remnant historic channel in the woods, and will therefore be raised to the elevation of the
historic floodplain.
Like UT1, the restored headwater system will be approximately 100 to 120 feet wide along its entire length, allowing
for buffers in excess of 50 feet along the entire length of restored UT4. Since the restoration of a small, shallow
headwater system is proposed, the entire floodplain corridor is expected to exhibit wetland hydrology after
restoration.
Stream Enhancement Approaches
Stream enhancement approaches are proposed along the upper headwater reaches of UT3 and UT4 (Figure 5.14).
These reaches emanate as old drainage patterns in a mixed pine/hardwood forest where the hydrology has been
significantly changed through lateral and perimeter ditching. Enhancement of these areas will primarily involve
reconnecting the hydrology in the wooded areas to their counterparts in the restored reaches, incorporating more
wood into the stream enhancement reaches to mimic reference systems, treating any invasive species, and
supplementing native vegetation with addition plantings. Hydrologic reconnection will be achieved by filling or
grading the ditch that is currently carrying UT3 and UT4 north, along the western side of the agricultural field. This
will allow stream flow and groundwater to move into the restoration reaches. Additional enhancement work will
focus on the removal of invasive plant species and the replanting planting of appropriate native species in those
areas.
Riparian Buffers Restoration
Riparian buffers in excess of 50 feet will be restored along both banks of all proposed stream mitigation reaches for
up to 16 protected acres. Species selection for re -vegetation of stream buffer areas will generally follow those
suggested by Schafale and Weakley (1990) for a Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp (Brownwater Subtype), and
Alliance Headwaters—Option A Stream Mitigation Site page 24
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-006477)

tolerances cited in WRP Technical Note VN -RS -4.1 (1997). Tree species planted across the floodplain and wetland
areas will likely include a mixture of the following species which have been observed on the site: river birch (Betula
nigra), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), various oaks (Quercus spp.), poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), American
elm (Ulmus American), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), black willow (Salix nigra), tag alder (Alnus serrulata), and
buttonbush (Cepholanthus occidentalis). Planting will be done at a density to achieve the vegetative success criteria
outlined in Section 5.7.
Riparian Wetland Restoration
While not proposed as part of this full delivery proposal, restoration and enhancement of riparian wetland areas
adjacent to the stream channels will be an important component of the ecosystem restoration design plan for the
site. RS plans to develop the adjacent wetlands, outside of the full delivery conservation easement, for other
mitigation needs in the area. Restoration and enhancement of wetlands as part of the protected stream corridor
will maximize the improvements that can be achieved for the functional uplift of water quality and riparian habitat.
Wetland hydrology will be restored or enhanced by raising and reconnecting the restored stream beds to an active
wetland floodplain, promoting higher water table conditions and more frequent overbank flooding. Lateral field
ditches will be filled and plugged to decrease drainage losses in wetland mitigation areas. Wetland vegetation
species will be planted that are appropriate for the region and expected hydrologic conditions. This proposed future
wetland restoration/enhancement work will enhance and compliment the water quality and ecological benefits of
the proposed stream restoration work.
Stream Crossings
One existing crossing on UT1 at Joyner Bridge Road will remain in place after restoration. This crossing is
approximately 70 feet long, and consists of two, 24 -inch reinforced concrete pipes. The existing reinforced concrete
pipes will be extended an additional 30 feet to accommodate a new farm road that will run along the southern
property boundary (location of the road has yet to be determined). This road will replace the road that currently lies
further north, through the middle of the agricultural field and bisecting the current UT1 and UT2. A 25 -foot -long
corrugated plastic pipe will be installed underneath the new road at the start of reach UT2, to accommodate its
flows. By installing the new road and removing the existing one, the total number of stream crossings on the project
Site will be reduced from three to two, allowing increased connectivity to the receiving tributary systems on Hannah
Creek.
Easement Monuments
Since no livestock are present on the site or anticipated in the future, no fencing is proposed for the conservation
easement boundary. The easement will be monumented with witness posts, as described in the NCDMS guidance
document Survey Requirements for Full Delivery Projects (8/13/13).
Expected Water Quality Benefits
Within the project restoration areas, none of the project stream reaches have any natural riparian buffers. Row
crops are grown as closely as possible to the existing ditches and streams, resulting in direct discharge of nutrients,
pesticides, and sediment to the streams and receiving waters. Typically, 50 -foot (15 -meter) buffers reduce nitrogen
loads by approximately 70 percent (from Mayer et al., USEPA, 2005). Based on this, it can be estimated that nitrogen
reductions of approximately 70 percent are attainable for the proposed project.
Similarly, sediment contributions from runoff and bank erosion are being deposited directing in the project streams
and receiving waters. The proposed work described here will restore riparian buffers along all stream reaches,
providing for increased settling and filtering of sediment from runoff. Stream and ditches that are currently quite
deep, incised, and eroding in some areas will be filled and stabilized, removing those sources of sediment. Because
of the restoration design of small headwater stream/wetland systems, and sediment that does reach the streams
will likely be deposited on the adjacent floodplain during storm events, resulting in a significant reduction of
sediment loss from the site. It should also be mentioned that wetland restoration is proposed for future mitigation
work on the site (not proposed as part of this full delivery project), and this would remove a significant portion of
the site from agricultural production.
Alliance Headwaters—Option A Stream Mitigation Site page 25
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-006477)

Functional and Ecological Uplift
In their current condition, the project reaches are severely degraded, as described in detail in Section 5.2. Of the
impairments present on the site, past channelization and complete loss of riparian buffers are the most severe,
resulting in channel instability and erosion, lack of bedform diversity, expected high levels of nutrients sediment,
loss of wetland function, and lack of riparian vegetation. Ecological uplift will come from restoring the project stream
streams to a stable, functioning condition, restoring appropriate stream form and wetland connections, restoring
natural vegetation, and reconnecting the restoration areas with remnant headwater streams. In -stream structures
will ensure channel stability and improve aquatic habitats. Restored riparian buffers will provide woody debris and
detritus for aquatic organisms. Restored buffers will also provide shade, reduce water temperatures, and increase
dissolved oxygen concentrations, which should all benefit aquatic life, as well as restoration of diverse aquatic and
terrestrial habitats that are appropriate for the ecoregion and landscape setting. Up to 16 acres of riparian buffer
will be restored and/or protected as part of the proposed project.
Based on field evaluations of the project stream reaches and the descriptions of the proposed mitigation practices
that are described in this section, functional ratings were developed for the existing and proposed conditions of the
project reaches (Table 5.5), following the methodology and definitions described in Harman, et al., 2012.
Table 5.5 Summary of Existing and Proposed Functional Ratings for the Project Reaches
5.4 Proposed Mitigation
Several options are beina proposed for contractina of the Alliance Headwaters Proiect Site. Sections 5.1 throuah 5.7
of this proposal describe all the stream reaches and mitigation approaches that can be conducted on the Site. Part
1 (Executive Summary) and the associated cost proposals specify the stream reaches and areas that are included with
each proposal option. RS has taken this approach of several proposal options to provide NCDMS with the most
lexibility in project selection and contractin
Alliance Headwaters—Option A Stream Mitigation Site page 26
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-006477)
Stream
Reaches
UT1
UT2
UT3
UT4
Functional Category
Exist.
Prop.
Exist.
Prop.
Exist.
Prop.
Exist.
Prop.
Hydrology 1
FAR
FAR
FAR
FAR
FAR
F
FAR
F
Hydraulics z
NF
F
NF
F
NF
F
NF
F
Geomorphology 3
NF
F
NF
F
NF
F
NF
F
Physiochemica14
NF
F
NF
F
NF
F
NF
F
Biology S
NF
F
NF
F
NF
F
NF
F
Note 1: Hydrology — all reaches are listed as Functioning At -Risk (FAR) in their existing condition. The hydrology of UT1 and
UT2 will remain FAR after restoration because of modifications to their watersheds above the project site. UT3 and
UT4 are predicted to go from FAR to Functioning (F) after restoration, because the restoration reaches will connect
with historic channel features that are functioning.
Note 2: Hydraulics — all restoration reaches are incised and channelized and are no longer connected to their adjacent
floodplains, and are therefore listed as Not Functioning (NF). Restoration practices will restore proper floodplain
connection and channel hydraulics. Groundwater and surface water connections will also be restored.
Note 3: Geomorphology — all reaches exhibit significantly larger and deeper channels than would naturally occur. Channel
instability is apparent in all reaches to varying degrees, therefore all reaches are listed as Not Functioning (NF).
Restoration practices will restore stable headwater stream/wetland systems that are self-sustaining over time.
Note 4: Physiochemical — While no water quality sampling data have been collected, water quality is assumed to be
impaired and Not Functioning (NF) due to row crop agriculture directly adjacent to all restoration reaches.
Restoration practices will restore riparian buffers and wetlands, providing water quality benefits.
Note 5: Biology — Preliminary observations of aquatic life indicate very little presence of aquatic life in each of the proposed
restoration reaches, therefore, the reaches are all considered to be NF. Restoration practices will restore
appropriate habitats, reduce sediment and nutrient loads, and provide increased shading and organic material
inputs.
5.4 Proposed Mitigation
Several options are beina proposed for contractina of the Alliance Headwaters Proiect Site. Sections 5.1 throuah 5.7
of this proposal describe all the stream reaches and mitigation approaches that can be conducted on the Site. Part
1 (Executive Summary) and the associated cost proposals specify the stream reaches and areas that are included with
each proposal option. RS has taken this approach of several proposal options to provide NCDMS with the most
lexibility in project selection and contractin
Alliance Headwaters—Option A Stream Mitigation Site page 26
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-006477)

The technical proposal describes the proposed mitigation approaches for the Alliance Headwaters Mitigation
Project. The work described in this proposal includes a total of 7,478 LF of stream restoration and enhancement.
The mitigation approaches described will yield at least 6,657 warm temperature stream mitigation units (SMU's).
Table 5.5 below summarizes the mitigation approaches, lengths, mitigation ratios, and mitigation credits that are
expected from the project. Any additional credits developed within the conservation easement areas, will be
available to NCDMS as part of the proposed project.
Table 5.6 Proposed Mitigation Summary for the Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Project
Project
Reach
Type of Mitigation
Length (ft)
Ratio
SMU's
UT1
Stream Restoration
2,830
1:1
2,830
UT2
Stream Restoration
930
1:1
930
UT3
Stream Enhancement II
1,036
2.5:1
414
UT3
Stream Restoration
1,780
1:1
1,780
UT4
Stream Enhancement II
332
2.5:1
133
UT4
Stream Restoration
570
1:1
570
Totals
7,478
6,657
5.5 Current Ownership and Long Term Protection
RS has entered into an Agreement for the acquisition of a conservation easement with the landowner of the Alliance
Headwaters Project. The Option Agreement has been recorded at the Johnston County Courthouse. A copy of the
Memorandum of Option Agreement is provided in Appendix 4. Restoration Systems will hold the agreement to
purchase for 18 months before the agreement expires. The Option Agreement allows RS to proceed with the project
and to restrict the land -use in perpetuity through a conservation easement. Conveyance of a conservation easement
to the State is the method that will be used to provide long term protection of the mitigation site. Restoration
Systems will remain responsible for project implementation and achievement of success criteria.
Owner Name
William Frank Lee
M & B Lee, LLC
M & B Lee, LLC
5.6 Project Phasing
PIN#
159900423303
159900529471
159900814425
Upon contract issuance for implementation of the Alliance Headwaters Mitigation Project, RS is prepared to
implement the project schedule below:
Table 5.7 Project Phasing for the Project
Alliance Headwaters—Option A Stream Mitigation Site page 27
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-006477)
Project Task
Scheduled Completion Time
(from date of contract execution)
Task 1.
CE Document
3 months
Task 2.
Submit Recorded Conservation Easement
4 months
Task 3.
Mitigation Plan (Final Draft) and Financial
8 months
Assurances
Task 4.
Mitigation Site Earthwork Completed
1 year, 6 months
Task 5.
Mitigation Site Planting and Installation of
1 years, 9 months
Monitoring Devices
Task 6.
Baseline Monitoring Report including As -Built
1 year, 10 months
Alliance Headwaters—Option A Stream Mitigation Site page 27
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-006477)

Project Task
Scheduled Completion Time
(from date of contract execution)
Task 7. Submit Monitoring Report #1 to NCDMS
2 years, 8 months
Task 8. Submit Monitoring Report #2 to NCDMS
3 years, 8 months
Task 9. Submit Monitoring Report #3 to NCDMS
4 years, 8 months
Task 10. Submit Monitoring Report #4 to NCDMS
5 years, 8 months
Task 11. Submit Monitoring Report #5 to NCDMS
6 years, 8 months
Task 12. Submit Monitoring Report #6 to NCDMS
7 years, 8 months
Task 13. Submit Monitoring Report #7 to NCDMS and
Complete Close -Out
8 years, 8 months
5.7. Success Criteria
Monitoring requirements and success criteria outlined in the latest guidance by NCDMS dated February 2014
(Stream and Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Guidelines) will be followed and are briefly outlined below. Monitoring
data collected on the site will include reference photos, plant survival analyses, channel stability analyses, and
biological data if specifically required by permit conditions.
Stream morphology and riparian vegetation is proposed to be monitored for a period of seven years with
measurements completed and a report submitted in year 1, year 3, year 5, and year 7. Additionally, in year 2, year
4, and year 6, at a minimum a brief narrative of site developments, a representative photo log, and a Current
Condition Plan View (CCPV) will be submitted, barring any need for supplemental reporting. If monitoring
demonstrates the site is successful by year 5 and no concerns have been identified, RS may propose to terminate
monitoring at the site and forego monitoring requirements for years 6 and 7. Early closure will only be provided
through written approval from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) in consultation with the
Interagency Review Team (IRT). Annual monitoring reports will be submitted to the NCDMS by RS no later than
November 30 of each monitoring year.
Stream Monitoring
Stream monitoring will include monitoring of the hydrologic and geomorphic functions of UT1, UT2, UT3, and UT4.
Hydrology will be measured using crest gauges and an on-site precipitation recorder, while being further
supplemented with photos of flood indicators. Geomorphic monitoring will include the survey of channel cross-
sections and substrate analysis on riffles and pools for each sub -reach. A representative meander length will be
chosen and two riffle and two pool cross sections will be established. Pebble counts will be conducted based on the
overall percentage of the sub -reaches riffle and pool makeup. A water surface slope analysis will be performed
within the surveyed meander length. Longitudinal profiles will be conducted during the as -built survey. However
subsequent monitoring years will not be included unless the channel demonstrates bank or bed instability, in which
case, longitudinal profiles may be required by the USACE along reaches of concern to track changes and demonstrate
a return to stability. These data will be summarized and reported according to NCDMS's guidance titled Annual
Monitoring and Closeout Reporting Format, Data Requirements, and Content Guidance dated February 2014.
Riparian Vegetation Monitoring
After planting has been completed in winter or early spring, an initial evaluation will be performed to verify planting
methods and to determine initial species composition and density. Supplemental planting and additional
modifications will be implemented, if necessary.
During quantitative vegetation sampling, sample plots (100 square meters) will be installed within the site as per
guidelines established by the Level 1 and 2 protocols in CVS -DMS Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version 4.2 (Lee
et al. 2008). In each sample plot, vegetation parameters to be monitored include species composition and species
density. Visual observations of the percent cover of shrub and herbaceous species will also be documented by
photograph. Riparian vegetation plant survival will be deemed successful if density levels of 260 native stems/acres
are achieved in year 5 and 210 native stems/acre are achieved in year 7 (unless monitoring of the site is terminated
Alliance Headwaters—Option A Stream Mitigation Site page 28
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-006477)

at the end of year 5). Volunteer stems may be considered on a case-by-case basis in determining overall vegetation
success; however, volunteer stems will be counted separately from planted stems.
Visual Assessment Monitoring
A visual assessment of the entire project will be conducted on an annual basis. The culmination of this data will be
presented in the Current Condition Plan View (CCPV) with supporting documentation presented in the tables
outlined by NCDMS's guidance titled Annual Monitoring and Closeout Reporting Format Data Requirements, and
Content Guidance dated February 2014. Specifically, problem areas of vegetation, in -stream structures, and channel
migration will be noted and documented with photos. After NCDMS's review of the documentation, additional
monitoring protocols may be required to ensure project success can be achieved.
Success Criteria
Monitoring and success criteria for stream restoration should relate to project goals and objectives. From a
mitigation perspective, several of the goals and objectives are assumed to be functionally elevated by restoration
activities without direct measurement. Other goals and objectives will be considered successful upon achieving
vegetation success criteria. Table 5.9 summarizes stream success criteria related to goals and objectives.
Table S.8 Pronosed Success Criteria for the Proiect
Goals
Objectives
Success Criteria
Goals Specific to the Neuse River and Hannah Creek Watershed Discussed in the
RBRP (NCDMS, 2010 and 2015) and Neuse River Basinwide Plan (NCDWQ, 2009)
Restoration and enhancement of
• Vegetation success criteria of 260 native
minimum 50 foot riparian buffers along
stems/acre in Year 5 and 210 native
all project reaches.
stems/acre in Year 7.
Nutrient Reductions
• Geomorphic cross sections indicate stable
from Agricultural
Decreased water table depths and
sections (shallow channels) over the
Lands
increased saturation, to promote
monitoring period.
denitrification.
• Water table gauges and wells document high
water table conditions.
Protection of riparian buffers with a
• Recordation of a conservation easement
perpetual conservation easement.
meeting NCDMS guidelines.
Restoration appropriate aquatic in-
• Pebble counts indicating coarsening of bed.
stream habitat.
. Visual documentation of stable channel
condition and in -stream structures.
of riparian buffer
• Vegetation success criteria of 260 native
Sediment ReductionsRestoration
from Agricultural
communities.
stems/acre in Year 5 and 210 native
Lands
stems/acre in Year 7.
Reduce sediment loads to downstream
• Geomorphic cross sections indicate stable
receiving waters from bank erosion
sections over the monitoring period.
Additional Goals to Benefit Hannah Creek Significant Natural Heritage Area
Restoration of appropriate channel and
• Geomorphic cross-sections that document a
bed form diversity and in -stream
variety of channel depths and forms.
Improved Aquatic
structures to provide appropriate
• Visual documentation of in -stream structure
Habitats
habitat.
stability during annual monitoring.
Restoration of self-sustaining
• Geomorphic cross sections indicate stable
headwater stream/wetland systems.
sections over the monitoring period.
Alliance Headwaters—Option A Stream Mitigation Site page 29
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-006477)

Alliance Headwaters—Option A Stream Mitigation Site page 30
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-006477)
• Water table gauges and wells document high
water table conditions.
Restoration of riparian buffer vegetation
• Vegetation success criteria of 260 native
to provide organic matter and shade.
stems/acre in Year 5 and 210 native
stems/acre in Year 7.
• Recordation of a conservation easement
meeting NCDMS guidelines.
Reconnecting restoration reaches with
. Geomorphic cross sections indicate stable
remnant headwater channels.
sections over the monitoring period.
Improved
Restoration and protection of riparian
• Vegetation success criteria of 260 native
Connectivity
buffers that connect to existing wooded
stems/acre in Year 5 and 210 native
areas.
stems/acre in Year 7.
• Recordation of a conservation easement
meeting NCDMS guidelines.
Alliance Headwaters—Option A Stream Mitigation Site page 30
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-006477)

PART 6: QUALITY CONTROL
Our core business at RS is full -delivery ecosystem restoration (usually within the context of compensatory
mitigation); as such, our projects are repeatedly scrutinized, and more importantly, our compensation is tied directly
to project quality. Thus, quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) are of the utmost importance to our
compensation and reputation.
The RS QA/QC program is made up of a broad range of measures, both general and specific, to ensure that all
deliverables submitted to the contracting organization meet projected schedules, follow appropriate formats, and
comply with applicable laws, regulations, and permits.
General Measures:
1633 Staff Qualifications— Restoration Systems employs personnel who are trained and/or experienced in varied
specific aspects of environmental restoration. Examples include regulatory affairs, permitting, design,
geomorphology, chemistry, biology, soils, Geographic Informational Systems (GIS), invasive species
management.
ii Field Training— Staff members attend periodic workshops for training in pertinent topics to improve and/or
maintain necessary skills related to stream/wetland design and construction. Restoration Systems
periodically holds internal workshops and field study days lead by experienced staff members to ensure
that the team of Project Managers is up-to-date on current practices and technology. Staff members have
also attended stream and wetland restoration workshops, including those held by NCSU's Stream
Restoration Institute (SRI), focusing on proper procedures related to stream restoration practices.
ba Internal Experience - Office staff members periodically attend workshops lead by professional organizations
in order to remain current on best practices. All projects are backed by a support team. Senior level
professionals are consulted at all times to successfully guide the process from start to finish.
Specific Measures:
e'a Proiect Implementation - The core of RS's project implementation QA/QC program utilizes points of task
changeover within the restoration process. Procedural verification steps at each of these changeover points
provide opportunities for control and correction, minimizing waste while ensuring a project meets its
objectives.
Quality Control - ecosystem restoration projects
o Site evaluation
identify and document site constraints that will affect restoration objectives, design and
construction
0 Design evaluation
■ verify design meets objectives and is practicable given construction constraints and site-
specific conditions
0 Construction plan evaluation
■ ensure construction plan is consistent with permit conditions and efficiently implements
design (i.e., limits number of phases)
0 Construction environmental and permit compliance
■ routine inspection of construction activities to ensure environmental compliance and that
all work is performed according to specifications and limitations of acquired permits
0 Design and construction reconciliation
■ reconcile construction drawings with implementation routinely, especially before
transitioning between construction phases
0 Construction drawing and as -built reconciliation
Alliance Headwaters—Option A Stream Mitigation Site page 31
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-006477)

■ verify the accuracy of as -built drawings and reconcile with construction drawings, noting
deviations and their explanations
Site close out
■ confirm planting was performed at with appropriate species composition and density
■ check that all excess construction materials have been removed and all
features/structures are in a completed condition
1� Assignment of specific tasks and responsibilities — Specific tasks that occur throughout the life of a project
are assigned to specific individuals who are trained and/or experienced to perform that task. All
arrangements are overseen by senior management.
Project implementation QA/QC program is a collaborative effort between the Project Manager (PM) and
Construction Manager (CM). Either the project manager or the construction manager (or both) will be on-site during
construction hours to ensure environmental compliance and the appropriate implementation of the project's design.
L'+ Deliverable Preparation — a series of measures are taken in the preparation of deliverables to ensure each
product meets the expectations of the customer in a timely manner.
o Checklists and Templates— RS staff has developed internal guidelines, checklists and templates for
the preparation of all deliverables to ensure compliance with appropriate requirements and
schedules. Checklists are created to ensure that all required paperwork is included when
assembling submittal packages and for easy delegation of workflow.
Peer Review of Documents — All submitted deliverables are reviewed by several qualified
individuals. Once a document has been generated internally or received from an assigned
consultant, it is entered into a three -round process of internal review. It is first reviewed by staff
members with experience in editing, and then the document is passed on to staff members with
specific expertise in a given area to further ensure accuracy. Finally, where applicable, maps and
diagrams are reviewed by an experienced GIS Manager for accuracy. Once all comments have
been made, the document is edited and distributed for a final round of review by staff members
and the assigned Project Manager before packaging.
0 Project Managers' Meetings — All managers meet weekly to update company management on the
status of each project, including the projected future timeline of tasks.
o Protect Coordination and Tracking — Restoration Systems' Project Manager and Construction
Manager utilize appropriate computer software to produce a Gantt chart for each project. These
charts graphically display the schedule for each project and are used to identify potential delays,
overload points, and other issues related to schedules. Each chart is reviewed weekly at the
Project Managers' meeting.
Alliance Headwaters—Option A Stream Mitigation Site page 32
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-006477)

Appendix A. Figures
Figure 5.1. Hydrologic Unit Map
Figure 5.2. Vicinity Map
Figure 5.3. Existing Stream Reach Map
Figure 5.4. Water Quality Stressors
Figure 5.5a. Aerial Photography Map (1944)
Figure 5.5b. Aerial Photography Map (1953)
Figure 5.5c. Aerial Photography Map (1964)
Figure 5.5d. Aerial Photography Map (1989)
Figure 5.5e. Aerial Photography Map (2005)
Figure 5.6. Bank Erosion Hazard Index Map
Figure 5.7. Pre -Monitoring Features
Figure 5.8. USGS Topographic Map
Figure 5.9. LIDAR Map
Figure 5.10. NRCS Soils Map
Figure 5.11. FEMA Floodplain Map
Figure 5.12. Adjacent and Proximal Planning Elements Map
Figure 5.13. Air Transport Facility Map
Figure 5.14. Mitigation Practices Map
Alliance Headwaters—Option A Stream Mitigation Site Appendices
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-006477)

03020201130030
030202011
03020201150010
03030006020010
C
,000
0201100 50
03020201140010
03020201150020 "I,—\
PROJECT LOCATION
03020201150030
030202( 10010
030202011400
03020201150050
1
J
sg Rd
03020201150040
Legend "
F—lConservation Easement
03020201150040
Q14 -Digit HUC
03020201170010
0 1 2 3 4 5 ALLIANCE HEADWATERS PREPARED FOR:
HYDROLOGIC UNIT MAP
Mlles
PREPARED BY:
FIGURE 5.1 JOHNSTON COUNTY, NCA
ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING &
RESTORATION

.'ONS
rr,
lvdlR.
PEACH ORCHARD RD
Church Ru
`o
J
Lee's PROJECT LOCATION
U)
�!'c'n Strickler
W oad sRd
dQ�r
ossr
03
a
Legend
W
Roads
Z
O
rook( Qon„
Conservation Easement
k Forest Rd
w°° 'o
PREPARED FOR:
ALLIANCE HEADWATERS
0 0.5 1 2
Miles
VICINITY MAP
PREPARED BY:
FIGURE 5.2
JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING &
RESTORATION

UT3 0
x Q
- m
r' I
UT3
d
^' +� �
4 �♦
Legend
F-01"
Conservation Easement >(
Existing Streams
PREPARED FOR:
0 325 650 1,300 ALLIANCE HEADWATERS
Feet EXISTING STREAM REACH MAP
PREPARED BY:
FIGURE 5.3 JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING &
�� RESTORATION

UT3
UT1
*4. - UT2
UT1
Legend --
Conservation Easement
PREPARED FOR:
0 325 650 1,300 ALLIANCE HEADWATERS
Feet HISTORICAL AERIAL MAP (1965)
PREPARED BY:
FIGURE 5.513 JOHNSTON COUNTY, NCy' y'ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING &
RESTORATION

Legend
Conservation Easement
0 325 650 1,300
Feet
FIGURE 5.5C
UT3
UT4
UT3
ALLIANCE HEADWATERS
HISTORICAL AERIAL MAP (1971)
JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
UT1
W
UT2
P.
IR
L.
PREPARED FOR:
M—-
om
PREPARED BY:
ECOSYSTEM
. PLANNING &
RESTORATION

UT41
ti
WIVE 10 1
UT3 I Im
X T1
�JUT24r,
A
UT1
%
R
-
��- sk
4! N
77
j
Legend
F-1 Conservation Easement U-1
PREPARED FOR:
0 325 650 1,300 ALLIANCE HEADWATERS
Kiiiii?-00000000" Feet HISTORICAL AERIAL MAP (2005)
PREPARED BY:
FIGURE 5.5E JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC EcOSYSTEM
PLANNING &
RESTORATION

to
91
0
T
UT3 i
UT2
UT1 ' �� •
1231
Legend .� _ •
f0
Conservation Easement •�
0 325 650 1,300
ALLIANCE HEADWATERS PREPARED FOR:
Feet USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
M— -
PREPARED BY:
FIGURE 5.8 JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING &
RESTORATION

JF
UT3
y
jr
Legend
0 Conservation Easement
—Proposed Streams
Elevation (FT)
High : 162
— Low : 95
10 325 650
FIGURE 5.9
1,300 ALLIANCE HEADWATERS
!9 Feet LIDAR MAP
JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
UT2
PREPARED FOR:
M—_
om
PREPARED BY:
ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING &
RESTORATION
r
u
PREPARED FOR:
M—_
om
PREPARED BY:
ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING &
RESTORATION

96
C
P
I
ep
Rd
vi 0,1
Legend
Conservation Easement 0*
♦
Water Supply Watersheds (WSW)
q..j
Strategic Habitat Areas
Protected State Lands
ow
Significant Natural Heritage Areas (SNHAs) ♦
0 1 2 3 4 5 ALLIANCE HEADWATERS PREPARED FOR:
ADJACENT AND PROXIMAL PLANNING ELEMENTS MAP
Miles
PREPARED BY:
FIGURE 5.12 JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING &
I RESTORATION

s
PROJECT LOCATION
eR�
OVA
1iarne� t'
Legend
'
Conservation Easement
Is Massengill Airport
5 Mile Radius from Project Center
0 1 2 3 4 5
ALLIANCE HEADWATERS
AIR TRANSPORT FACILITY MAP
PREPARED FOR:
Mlles
PREPARED BY:
FIGURE 5.13
JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING &
RESTORATION

U T4
Legend
Conservation Easement
Stream Enhancement II
Stream Restoration
Property Boundary
0 325 650
FIGURE 5.14
1,300
M Feet
UT3
UT3
UT1
UT1
__� UT2
I
IL r
ALLIANCE HEADWATERS
MITIGATION PRACTICES MAP
JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
PREPARED FOR:
PREPARED BY:
ECOSYSTEM
. PLANNING &
RESTORATION

Appendix B. Stream Data
NCDWR Stream Forms
Cross Sections
Alliance Headwaters—Option A Stream Mitigation Site Appendices
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-006477)

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date:
Project/Site:
Latitude:
Evaluator:
County:
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream Determination (circle one)
Other
Stream is at least intermittent
Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial
e.g. Quad Name:
if> 19 or perennial if >: 30*
2
3
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1' Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No
= 0
Yes = 3
Sketch:
artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
1 0.5
1 1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
0
No = 0
Yes = 3
1.5
C. Biology (Subtotal =
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75;
OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date:
Project/Site:
Latitude:
Evaluator:
County:
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream Determination (circle one)
Other
Stream is at least intermittent
Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial
e.g. Quad Name:
if> 19 or perennial if >: 30*
2
3
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1' Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No
= 0
Yes = 3
Sketch:
artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
1 0.5
1 1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
0
No = 0
Yes = 3
1.5
C. Biology (Subtotal =
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75;
OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date:
Project/Site:
Latitude:
Evaluator:
County:
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream Determination (circle one)
Other
Stream is at least intermittent
Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial
e.g. Quad Name:
if> 19 or perennial if >: 30*
2
3
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1' Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No
= 0
Yes = 3
Sketch:
artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
1 0.5
1 1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
0
No = 0
Yes = 3
1.5
C. Biology (Subtotal =
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75;
OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date:
Project/Site:
Latitude:
Evaluator:
County:
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream Determination (circle one)
Other
Stream is at least intermittent
Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial
e.g. Quad Name:
if> 19 or perennial if >: 30*
2
3
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1' Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No
= 0
Yes = 3
Sketch:
artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
1 0.5
1 1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
0
No = 0
Yes = 3
1.5
C. Biology (Subtotal =
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75;
OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

ALLIANCE HEADWATERS
JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
0.00
0.00
1.00
-2.00
-3.00
-4.00
-5.00
Cross Section 1-1
5.00 10.00
Cross Section 1-2
0.00 5.00 10.00
0.00
-1.00
-2.00
-3.00
-4.00
-5.00
Cross Section 1-3
0.00 5.00 10.00
0.00
-1.00
-2.00
-3.00
-4.00
-5.00
UT 1 Cross Section Summary
15.00
15.00
15.00
0.00
0.00
-1.00
-2.00
-3.00
-4.00
-5.00
FIELD VISITS - SEPTEMBER 2015
Cross Section 1-4
5.00 10.00
0.00
0.00
-1.00
-2.00
-3.00
-4.00
-5.00
15.00
Cross Section 1-5
5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00
0.00
0.00
-1.00
-2.00
-3.00
-4.00
-5.00
Appendix 2
Cross Section 1-6
5.00 10.00
15.00

ALLIANCE HEADWATERS
JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
UT 2 Cross Section Summary
Cross Section 2-1
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00
0.00
-1.00
-2.00
-3.00
-4.00
-5.00
Appendix 2
FIELD VISITS — SEPTEMBER 2015

ALLIANCE HEADWATERS
JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
0.00
0.00
-1.00
-2.00
-3.00
-4.00
-5.00
Cross Section 3-1
5.00 10.00
UT 3 Cross Section Summary
15.00
Cross Section 3-2
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00
0.00
-1.00
-2.00
-3.00 Le. -i
-4.00
-5.00
Cross Section 3-3
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00
0.00
-1.00
-2.00
-3.00
-4.00
-5.00
Appendix 2
FIELD VISITS — SEPTEMBER 2015

ALLIANCE HEADWATERS
JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
UT 4 Cross Section Summary
Cross Section 4-1
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00
0.00
-1.00
-2.00
-3.00
-4.00
-5.00
Appendix 2
FIELD VISITS — SEPTEMBER 2015

Appendix C.
NCDMS FEMA Floodplain Checklist
Alliance Headwaters—Option A Stream Mitigation Site Appendices
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-006477)

EEP Floodplain Requirements Checklist
This form was developed by the National Flood Insurance program, NC Floodplain
Mapping program and Ecosystem Enhancement Program to be filled for all EEP projects.
The form is intended to summarize the floodplain requirements during the design phase of
the projects. The form should be submitted to the Local Floodplain Administrator with
three copies submitted to NFIP (attn. State NFIP Engineer), NC Floodplain Mapping Unit
(atm. State NFIP Coordinator) and NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program.
Project Location
Name of project:
Alliance Headwaters
Name if stream or feature:
UT to Hannah Creek
County:
Johnston
Name of river basin:
Neuse
Is project urban or rural?
Rural
Name of Jurisdictional
municipality/county:
Johnston County, Unincorporated Areas
DFIRM panel number for
entire site:
3720158800J
Consultant name:
Emmett Perdue, Ecosystem Planning and Restoration
Phone number:
919.388.0787
Address:
559 Jones Franklin Rd
Raleigh NC
20151021_Lee Proposal _FEMA Floodplain Checklist 0-23-12.doex Page 1 of 4

Design Information
Provide a general description of project (one paragraph). Include project limits on a
reference orthophotograph at a scale of 1" = 500".
Restoration of a headwater system in Johnston County. The downstream terminus of the
project exists within the 500 year floodplain (Zone X) of Hannah Creek. The project will
have no effect on the existing floodplain mapping.
Summarize stream reaches or wetland areas according to their restoration priority.
Alliance Creek Reach Summary Table
Reach
Length
Priority
UT 1
2358.8
One/Two (Restoration)
UT 2
771.6
One/Two Restoration
UT 3
1035.6
Three Enhancement
UT 3
1485.8
One/Two (Restoration)
UT 4
332.1
Three Enhancement
UT 4
1479.9
One/Two (Restoration)
Floodplain Information
Is project located in a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA)?
t" Yes r No
If project is located in a SFHA, check how it was determined:
r'
r- Detailed Study
r Limited Detail Study
r Approximate Study
r Don't know
List flood zone designation: Zone X
Check if applies:
r AE Zone
Floodway
Non -Encroachment
r None
r A Zone
20151021_Lee Proposal FEMA Floodplain Checklist v4-23-12.docx Page 2 of 4

r Local Setbacks Required
r No Local Setbacks Required
If local setbacks are required, list how many feet:
Does proposed channel boundary encroach outside floodway/non-
encroachment/setbacks?
r Yes t: No
Land Acquisition (Check)
F State owned (fee simple)
r Conservation easment (Design Bid Build)
FW Conservation Easement (Full Delivery Project)
Note: if the project property is state-owned, then all requirements should be addressed
to the Department of Administration, State Construction Office (attn: Herbert Neily,
[phone]
Is community/county participating in the NFIP program?
r Yes r No
Note: if community is not participating, then all requirements should be addressed to
NFIP (attn: State NFIP Engineer, [phone])
Name of Local Floodplain Administrator: Berry Gray
Phone Number: 919.989.5150
Email: [e-mail]
Floodplain Requirements
This section to be filled by designer/applicant following verification with the LFPA
R, No Action
F No Rise
R, Letter of Map Revision
r Conditional Letter of Map Revision
F ther Requirements
List other requirements:
None
20151021_Lee Proposal FEMA Floodplain Checklist v4-23-12.docx Page 3 of 4

None
Name: Emmett Perdue
Title: Water Resources Engineer
Signature:
Date: 10/23/15
20151021 Lee Proposal—FEMA Floodplain Checklist v4-23-12.docx Page 4 of 4

Appendix D.
Photographic Log
Alliance Headwaters—Option A Stream Mitigation Site Appendices
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-006477)

ALLIANCE HEADWATERS
JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
UT 1: Upstream portion of ditched network facing South; approximate
location of Cross Section 1-1.
UTI: Downstream portion standing on farm road facing south toward Cross
Section 1-6.
Appendix 1
FIELD VISITS -SEPTEMBER 2015
UT1: Upstream portion of ditched network facing North; approximate
location of Cross Section 1-2.
UT1: Downstream portion standing on farm road facing north toward
project terminus.

ALLIANCE HEADWATERS
JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
UT2: Standing in UT1 looking south towards pond on adjacent property.
The vegetation was too dense to see in this photo but a head cut is forming.
UT3: Drainage pattern leading downstream from headwaters.
FIELD VISITS -SEPTEMBER 2015
UT3: Upstream forested headwater drainage.
UT3: Ditched section between forested headwaters and farm road running
North-South; approximate location of Cross Section 3-2.
Appendix 1

ALLIANCE HEADWATERS
JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
UT3: Severe erosion in northwest corner.
FIELD VISITS -SEPTEMBER 2015
UT3: Channel between pond and road just before it turns south and heads
through a HDPE pipe and off the property.
UT3: Channel just as the reach comes through the HDPE pipe and leaves the UT4: Upstream portion of the stream facing west; approximate location of
property to the south. Cross Section 4-1.
Appendix 1

ALLIANCE HEADWATERS
JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
UT4: Upstream portion of reach facing east; approximate location of Cross
Section 4-1.
UT4: Channel winding through drained wetland just before exiting forest
and connecting with the ditched UT3.
Appendix 1
FIELD VISITS -SEPTEMBER 2015

Appendix E.
Memorandum of Option Agreement/Land Authorization Form
Alliance Headwaters—Option A Stream Mitigation Site Appendices
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-006477)

RETURN:
Restoration systems, [[C
wara tlib
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211
Raleigh, Murch Carolina zi604
NORTH CAROLINA
Filed in JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
CRAIG UELvE. magaimter of Deed
Filed 10/27/2015 03'27:09 PM
DEED BOOR: 4675 PRGE: 148-151
INSTRUMENT # [015469958
Raal Estata Exz:�a iax sn.00
DZp0tr7Alwi-taut Register of Deeds jracine
MEMORANDUM OF
JOHNSTON COUNTY AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE
OF CONSERVAI7ON EASEMENT
RES'1'uxA'1'1U1N SYST'E1V1S, LLU, a Nonh Carolina limited liability company, as
Buy-ci; mud M & B Lee, LLC; a North Camlina 1iuutrd liability company, as Seller, fol and in
consideration of the sum of Une Dollar and OU/l UU ($1.00) and other good and valuable
consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, have entered into
an Agreement for Purchase and Sale of Conservat;o.. EasCiuCnt to Yuiehaae and Sell comm vatim,
easements pertaining to approximately twelve point tour (12.4) acres, more or less, consisting of
a portion of Sellc.',i seal pioperty located in Smithfield Township, Johnntoi, County, North
Carolina, as shown on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
The provisions set forth in a written Agreement for Purchase and Sale of Conservation
Eazcinent dated the 27`h day of Omobc,; 2015, bmwccu the part►ca, aie hcicby inruipuiatcd into
this Memorandum by reference.
WITNESS our hands and seals, this the 27th day of October, 2015
BUYER:
RESTO ,4,TION S TEMS,
Name���h r
Title: G rr

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF VIA K> -
I vertify that the full0Wing pM30„ pe►60ually appeamd befo,e me this day; each
acknowledging Lo me LhaL he or she voluntarily signed the foregoing document for the purpose
stated therein and in the capacity indicated:
...
Witness my hand and official seal, Lhis day of Q..M,ajj>" V , 2015.
9 Norary's Official Sigaara„-e
August w -_
07
201 COMM!`GLtii Ivc a K G6 L
RY Pvw��� Nvru,y'a P; „red Typui7Name
My commission expires:
Off'e,rl Seal)

WITNESS my hand and seal to thin MeiiimauduL„ of Agreement for Purchase and Sale of
Coubr, vatim, basement, this the :)EL- _day of , , 2015,
SELLERS -
(SEAL) _ (SEAL)
Landowner Name/.j ! (P. HJud)
Member -Manager for M&B Lee, LLC:
STATE uF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY Or,�,
I certify that the following person personally appea,ed before me this day, each
aeknu W ledging to me that he or she voluntarily signed the foregoing document fol the vurpvSc
stated therein and in the capacity mdieated:
Membe-Ma„ager for M&B Lee, LLC
Witness my hang and official seal, this day of 0,TVBZ—= 2015,
`AION
`�W
QP?”
Au�a et yN
EUI a
COU0. •
"-*' :PN, YAP -�� '
(ficial Seal)
117
ZLZ
orary's UJJicial Sigiiani,e
Nota; yy 'S P; i,ard n, Typed lvame
My commission expires: - ' OO ;

E
m �
y
m
w �
� � 3
Zm
D d
y
C
U d
U
W
J
m
Q
z
d
2
z
z
D
0
z
0
U)
z
0
�o
zP:
z
z
a�
N_ LL
Q
t -
m
o .l.
CD
L W
O
co
N
0

RE i uRM:
Restoration Syztem�. CCC
Ward Elis
11u1 Flaynea JtreeT, toile Z11
Rdleigh, NortR Carolind Z/604
NuR'M CAROLINA
Filed in JUMNSTON COUNIT, NC
CRAIG OLIVE, Register of Deeds
Fled 10/Z77Z015 03:21:09 PIS
DEhO BOOK: 4675 PAGE: 152-155
IMSTRUMEAT # Z015459959
Real Estate Exz:su Tax $0.00
Deputr7Ass,t,tant R�gistcr of uuwds iraei,
MEMUKANDUM OF
JOHNS I UN UUUN I Y AuFLr:1vihN'r FOR PURCHASE AND SALT:
OF CONSERvATION EASEMENT
RESTORATION SYSTEMS, LLC, a North Cuioluna limard lability cvwpany, a3
Buyer, and William Frank Lee as Seller, for and in consideration of the sum of One Dollar and
00/100 ($1.00) aid utha good and valuable comideiation, the ieccipt and suff cieucy of which
are hereby acknowledged, have entered into an Agreement for Purchase and Sale of Conservation
Easement to purchase and sell conservation easements pertaining to approximately three point six
two (3.62) acres, more or less, consisting of a pon'.oi of Selle,'S seal property located 'n
Smithfield Township, Johnston county, North Carolina, as shown on Exhibit A attached hereto
and mrorpoiamd hcicm by ufc,u jcc.
The provisions set forth in a written Agreemeit fo, Puiehazc and Sale of Co,,3a vation
Easement dated the 27`h day of uctober, 2015, between the parties, are hereby incorporated into
th,a Mrmoiaudum by uftiricc.
WITNESS our hands and seals_ this the 27th day of Uctob ,; 2015
BUYER:
REST TIy SYSTE , L
Tide: C

STATE OF NORTH uAROLINA W
COUNTY OF iX w F—
I ce►tify that the following person personally appeared betore me this day, each
acknowledging to nice that he o, she voluntarily signed the foregoing document for the purpose
stated therein and in the capacity indicated:
Witueaa ,,,y hmid acid official seal, thi3a7_ day of Q;nMe F— 6015.
```��\1\I�II11/////
"� 0Q N D H'"
1
J
Q
Notary s ficial Signarure
�o
AuguSi S
07
2016.,.
Flo 1,4-
co
`���
"''�iTgRY PV
Norary "s Primed or Typeil Name
VAN
//lillllt\
�7
My commission expires:
(ficial Seal)

WITNESS my hand and seal to this Memo,a,,dum of Agreement for Purchase and Sale of
Conse. vat�e,L EabeiLirut, this the ' _ day of (IUzafg, 2015.
ShLLER:
(SEAL)
Landowner Nance`'' 4 -A- LA- (PI il,ted)
S i ATE uF NORTH CARuLINA
COUNTY OF r
I certity that the following person persoi.ally appealed before me this day, each
acknowledging tu ane that he or she voluntarily signed the foregoing docume.,t fe, the purpose
stated therein and in the capacity i„ 1cated:
Lauduwne, Name
Witness my hand and official seal, 27-fday of Cz , 2015.
(Official Seal)
```�$s��uuttn�
Vxd
��.- -
jNr7ta
s �ccaT Signazure
9 MdZo_
un
V
-s
.,,,Vti'Q
Notary Primed or TypeU Name
My commission expires: A.,q _
(Official Seal)

NORTH CAROLINA ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
LANDOWNER AUTHORIZATION FORM
PRUPERTY LEGAL DE+'SURITIUN:
Deed Book: a3So7Page: Q0kD County: St � A)
PaaceltDNuaaabea: ��� + /!M00- 17- 6'1005810Y5
St. eee Add. ns: NSD �1ok 6 ft
6M%, A)1, ;704
Property owner (please print):
Property Uwner (please print): 1A+-&'
The undersigned, registered property owner(s) of the above property, do hereby authorize
Reatmat;v.a Syste.aaa, LLC, the NC Department of Ea, ,;amuaaeaat and Natuaal Rnuuarea, 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
a;pax;au buffea .0;t;gat;vu pavject, ;uclud;ug conduct;ug ataca.0 aud/m wetland deteaua;aaation5 and
delineations, as well as issuance and acceptance of any required permit(s) or certification(s).
Property Owners(s) Address: --qgg Ntk omom 46
(if different from above) _
*ae-qv�)Vl' ;12py
Property Uwner Telephone Number: q 31 Tz
Property Uwner Telephone Number
I/We hereby certify the above iuforaaaaGon tu be taue mud accurate to the best of my7our Knowledge.
(Pro erty Owner A16itiorized Signature) (Date)
(PiLupeaty Ownea Autho.;eed S;guatuae) (Late)

Appendix F.
Technical Proposal Evaluation Criteria Rating Form
Alliance Headwaters—Option A Stream Mitigation Site Appendices
Technical Proposal (RFP # 16-006477)

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:
Restoration Systems
Site Name:
Alliance Headwaters Site — Option A (UT1, UT2, UT3, and UT4)
River Basin/
Neuse 03020201-150020
Catalog Unit:
RFP Number:
16-006477
Date of Site
Evaluation:
Type/Amt of
6,657 SMU's
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
Yes — see Part S.2
tributaries?
2- Does the proposal adequately document the physical, chemical and/or biological impairments that currently exist on the project
Yes — see Parts 5.1
site?
and S.2
3- Does DMS agree with the overall mitigation approach (proposed levels of intervention) presented? [The Technical Proposal
See Part 5.3
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?
See Part 1, and Table
5.6
Yes — see Part 5.2 and
5- Does the proposed project avoid significant adverse impacts to existing wetlands and/or streams?
5.3
Yes —see Part 5.1
6- Does the proposal adequately describe how the project will advance DMS watershed planning goals?
See Part 5.3 — Priority
7 -For any proposed Priority II restoration, are all the following elements included in the proposal OR is Priority 2 stream restoration
2 is limited to tie-ins
limited to "tie-ins" (designed tributary confluences)?
at two crossings.
- 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.
All other conditions
- The design and construction oversight will ensure the management of topsoil to include the harvest and segregated stockpiling of A
listed here will be
and B soil horizons for placement on excavated floodplain features.
met.
- 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
210 Diagram for Priority II Question Above.
Priority 11 fioodPiain bench
1501 eradirrL boundary minimums
100
SQ
17.0. 10 f ' ` f tel, �1►,,224-6. } � r .Z 449-3. 1 -O
_ 1123.-
12'31,- Y 3369. - s
1* � P► r
-50
.100
FU toot cFsanrtiel,,•.icltlti
1517 30 foot benchviidth{1.5,times tl�arin�l��ridth}beyiYricith�k7�it4.idth.
_21701
0 100 200 301D 400 Sm
Page 2of 6

ATTACHMENT A
ADDENDUM# 1 FOR RFP 16-006477
All watershed planning documents pertinent to scoring, including 2015 Neuse 01 River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRPs),Regional Watershed Plan (RWP)
and Local Watershed Plans (LWPs) are available at the following hyperlink :
http://porta1.ncdenr.org/web/eep/rbrps/neuse
Asse ssm e n t
Sco re
Section 1.0 - Watershed Module [Maximum Points= 30]
For Proposed Projects outside of RWP or LWP Area
1.1
For proposed projects located outside of an LWP or RWP area, but within a TLW identified in Table 1 of Attachment A as required, to what extent
does the project support the CU -wide watershed improvement objectives? 1 --reduce & control sediment inputs; 2 --reduce & manage nutrient inputs;
3 --augment designated Significant Natural Heritage Areas; 4 --Contribute to protection of or improvements to a Water Supply Waterbody.)
Project addresses 1 of 4 functional improvement objectives 2 points
Project addresses 2 or 3 of 4 functional improvement objectives 8 points
First 3 objectives will be met, but project is not in a WS waterbody. See Part 5.1.
-
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 proiect 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
N/A
Addresses 2-3 of 7 LWP goals. 5 points
N/A
Addresses 4-5 of 7 LWP goals. 10 points
N/A
Addresses 6-7 of 7 LWP goals. 15 points
N/A
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
N/A
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
N/A
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
N/A
Addresses 2-3 of 5 LWP goals. 5 points
N/A
Addresses 4-5 of 5 LWP goals. 15 points
N/A
Section 2.0 - Existing Conditions Module [Maximum Points =65]
Page Sof 6

ATTACHMENT A
ADDENDUM# 1 FOR RFP 16-006477
2.1 What 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
ed for
>70% of the proposed footage exhibits significant, obvious incision. 10 points 10 pts. All reached propos
restoration have BHR > os
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 10 pts. Approximately 62% of the
restoration reaches exhibit active
erosion. See Figure 5.6.
>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.]
Proportion of affected channel <30%. 1 point
Proportion of affected channel 30-70%. 4 points
Proportion of affected channel >70%. 8 points
8 pts. Approximately 82% of the
reaches are directly adjacent to
agricultural fields. See Figure 5.4.
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
12 pts. Crops are grown up to the
High to Very High [moderate to strong evidence of nutrient, fecal coliform or sediment input via edges of the existing channels, and
overland/stormwater flow into the system; evidence may include eroded banks, channel bank erosion is common.
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 4of 6

ATTACHMENT A
ADDENDUM# 1 FOR RFP 16-006477
Page Sof 6
Section 3.0 Habitat and Conservation Connectivity Module [Maximum Points =10]
Does proposal address Federal Emergency Management Act (FEMA) regulated zones?
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
N/A
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
N/A
Section 4.0 - Design Module [Maximum Points =15]
6 pts. See Section 5.2.
4.1
�To what extent does the proposal (and project design) address sediment supply and transport?
provides a detailed approach for how to address this. 6 points
Proposal qualitatively describes sediment supply, storage and transport dynamics in a restoration
context. 1 point
5.3
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
5 pts. See Part 5.3.
effectiveness. [Percentages calculated based upon adding total linear footage of crossings, roadways, utilities, or reduced buffer; divided by
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
total linear footage.]
Section 5.0 - Implementation and Risk Module [Maximum Points =28]
5.1
Does the project provide:
Between 20 - 30% of the RFP request (mitigation quantities)? 5 points
N/A
Between 30 - 50% of the RFP request? 10 points
N/A
Page Sof 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
6 pts. See Section 5.2.
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 pts. Only crossing through the
points
easement will be on UT1. See Part
5.3.
Page Sof 6

ATTACHMENT A
ADDENDUM# 1 FOR RFP 16-006477
Comments:
Page 6of 6
Project is not affected by crossings, roadways, and/or utilities; or project with existing constraints
removes or relocates the constraints or barriers such that the design is not significantly affected
by the constraint(s). 12 points
Section 6.0 - Quality Control [Maximum Points =15]
6.1
Experience of Project Team (people actually completing work)
Project team contains at least two individuals with specialties specific to project evaluation,
acquisition, design, construction, and monitoring. 2 points
All of the above and at least two projects brought to successful regulatory closure with the
Interagency Review Team (IRT). 10 points
10 pts. See Part 3.
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
10 pts. See Part 6.
6.3
Vendor's History of Compliance with Required Federal, State and Local Permits.
DMS has been notified of one permit violation within the past year. -Minus 15 points
N/A
DMS has been notified of two or more permit violations within the past year. -Minus 30 points
N/A
TOTAL
Total Score (Maximum Possible = 163 Points) =
85
Proposal Rating (Score x 0.01) =
0.85
Comments:
Page 6of 6