20160406 Ver 2_Technical Proposal_20160404

WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
October 28, 2015
Ms. Kathy Dale
NC Division of Mitigation Services
217 West Jones Street, Suite 3307-A
Raleigh, NC 27603
RE: Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Proposal — Buckwater Mitigation Site
Neuse River Basin Cataloging Unit 03020201; Orange County, NC
In response to RFP 16-006477 — Full Delivery Project
Dear Ms. Dale:
As the authorized representative of Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands), I am pleased to present to
the NC Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) the following proposal to provide stream mitigation units in
the Neuse River Basin (Cataloging Unit 03020201) in response to RFP 16-006477. This proposal is a firm
offer from Wildlands and shall remain open for acceptance by the NC Department of Environmental
Quality (DEQ) until October 28, 2016, which is one year from the closing date of the above -referenced
RFP.
As a fully licensed engineering firm, Wildlands will serve as the contracting entity and lead designer with
Kee Mapping & Survey providing professional surveying services. The key individuals on the Wildlands
Team have worked together on numerous projects over multiple years and will operate smoothly as a
cohesive unit.
Wildlands is committed to creating an excellent ecological restoration project at the Buckwater
Mitigation Site and is proposing to provide 12,489 Stream Mitigation Units (SMUs).
Buckwater Creek and fourteen unnamed tributaries to Buckwater Creek have been degraded to
different extents by historic incision, timber harvesting, pond construction, channelization, and cattle
trampling. This project will focus on improving water quality and ecology through stream and habitat
restoration and enhancement, resulting in a decrease in nutrient and sediment loads from the project
site and improved fish habitat onsite. This site drains to the Eno River State Park.
The Wildlands Buckwater Mitigation Site submittal includes two original Technical Proposals, five copies
of the Technical Proposal, one CD -R of the Technical Proposal, one CD -R of the Project Area boundaries
in ArcGIS format, and three signed and sealed originals of the Cost Proposal. All paper contained within
this proposal is 100% recycled, 30% post -consumer content.
With our diverse, yet unified team we offerthe expertise, understanding, and commitment to ensure
this project's success.
Sinc el ,
Joh Hutton, ice President
W Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (P) 704.332.7754 • (F) 704.332.3306 • 1430 South Mint St, Suite 104 • Charlotte, NC 28203

EXECUTION OF PROPOSAL BY OFFEROR ( THIS MUST BE RETURNED WITH YOUR TECHINCAL PROPOSAL)
Therefore, in compliance with this Request for Proposals, and subject to all conditions herein, the undersigned offers
and agrees, if this proposal is accepted within one (1) year from the date of the opening, to furnish the subject services
per the attached Sealed Cost Proposal.
Offeror:
Check Appropriate Stalus—
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Business Owned/Controlled
Street or PO Box:
Vrican American
}
1430 S. Mint Street, Suite 104
Handicapped
oman Owned
}
}
Other Minority Specify:
}
City: Charlotte
State: North Carolina
Zip Code: 28203
Telephone Number:
Fax
Number:
[phone]
[phone]
Principal Place of Business if different from above (See General
City:
State:
ip Cade:
Information on Submitting Proposals, Item 18):
Will any of the work under this contract be performed outside the United States? If yes, describe
Yes
No
in an attachment with your offer.
X
N.C.G.S. § 133.32 and Executive Order 24 prohibit the offer to, or acceptance by, any State Employee of any gift from
anyone with a contract with the State, or from any person seeking to do business with the State. By execution of any
response in this procurement, you attest, for your entire organization and its employees or agents, that you are not aware
that any such gift has been offered, accepted, or promised by any employees of your organization.
Signature (A thorized Official):
itle:
D , UW��
President
Typed or Pri d Name:
Date:
Shawn D. Wilkerson
�b yf2 2pls
E -Mail address:
[e-mail]
Key Personnel/Individual Assigned To This RFP By The Offeror:
Shawn D. Wilkerson
itle:
President
E -Mail address:
[e-mail]
"THIS PAGE MUST BE SIGNED AND INCLUDED IN YOUR TECHNICAL PROPOSAL"
FAILURE TO SIGN AND RETURN THIS PAGE WITH YOUR OFFER WILL CAUSE YOUR OFFER TO BE REJECTED.
RFP 16-006477 Page 29 of 32

SECTION 10. LOCATION OF CONTRACT PERFORMANCE (INCLUDE IN TECHNICAL PROPOSAL)
WHERE SERVICE CONTRACTS WILL BE PERFORMED
In accordance with NC General Statue 143-59.4 (Session Law 2005-169), this form
is to be completed and submitted with the offeror's (technical) proposal / bid.
(THIS INFORMATION WILL NOT COUNT TOWARD THE 100 PAGE LIMIT REQUIRED FOR TECHNICAL PROPOSAL)
■■rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr�r�rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr�r������r�rrr■
Issuing Agency: Department of Environment aprd Natural Resources Division of Mitigation Services
Solicitation #: RFP 16--8664Y5 RFP 16-0 477
Agency Contract Person Kathy Dale Phone Number: 919-707-8451
Solicitation Title / Type of Service: For Full Delivery Projects To Provide Stream Mitigation Within Cataloginq Unit 03020201 Of The
Neuse River Basin As Described In The Scope Of Work
■■rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrTOBE
COMPLETED BY THE OFFEROR: Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
CITY&STATE: Charlotte, INC
Location(s) from which services will be performed by the Contractor:
SERVICE
CITY / PROVIDENCE / STATE
COUNTRY
Design
Charlotte, Raleigh, Asheville, NC
USA
Asheville, NC
USA
Locations from which services are anticipated to be performed OUTSIDE THE U. S. by the Contractor:
SERVICE ICITY/_PROVIDENCE/STATE COUNTRY
n/a
Location(s) from which services will be performed by subcontractor(s):
SERVICE
SUBCONTRACTOR
CITY/PROVIDENCE/STATE
COUNTRY
Survey
Kee Mapping and Surveying
Asheville, NC
USA
Location(s) from which services are anticipated to be performed OUTSIDE THE U. S. by the subcontractor(s):
SERVICE
SUBCONTRACTOR
CITY/PROVIDENCE/STATE
COUNTRY
n/a
(Attach additional pages if necessary)
RFP 16-006477
r�rr 1 V-"47' V ✓ Page 30 of 32

SECTION 11. ADDITIONAL OFFEROR INFORMATION (INCLUDE IN TECHNICAL PROPOSAL) (THIS INFORMATION
WILL NOT COUNT TOWARD THE 100 PAGE LIMIT FOR THE TECHNICAL PROPOSAL)
OFFERORS INFORMATION
Offerors Primary Contact (or Project Manager)
Name:
Shawn D. Wilkerson
Agency:
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Title:
President
Address:
1430 S. Mint Street, Suite 104
City:
Charlotte
ate/ Zip:
28203
elephone:
[phone]
Fax:
-NC/
[phone]
Email:
[e-mail]
Offerors Execution Address (Where the contract should be mailed for signature)
Name:
Shawn D. Wilkerson
Agency:
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Title:
President
Address:
1430 S. Mint Street, Suite 104
City:
Charlotte
tate/Zip:
NC/ 28203
Telephone:
[phone]
Fax:
[phone]
Email:
[e-mail]
Offerors Payment (Remit -To) Address (Where the checks should be mailed)
(This address should agree with the "Remit -To" address associated with the Contractor's Tax ID. This information
must be verified with the Contractor's Corporate Accounting Office)
Name:
Shawn D. Wilkerson
Agency:
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Title:
President
Address:
1430 S. Mint Street, Suite 104
City:
Charlotte
tate/ Zip:
NC/ 28203
Telephone:
[phone]
Fax:
[phone]
Email:
[e-mail]
RFP 16-006477 Page 31 of 32

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

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

SECTION 2
PLEASE NOTE—THIS ADDENDUM MUST BE RETURNED WITH YOUR TECHNICAL PROPOSAL
Check ONLY ONE of the following categories and if required, return one properly executed copy of this
addendum prior to bid opening time and date.
❑ Bid has already been mailed. Changes resulting from this addendum are attached.
❑ Bid has already been mailed. NO CHANGES resulted from this addendum.
❑X Bid has NOT been mailed and ANY CHANGES resulting from this addendum are included in our offer.
SECTION 3
Execute Addendum:
BIDDER: Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
ADDRESS (CITY & STATE): 1430
AUTHORIZED
. Mint Street, Suite 104, Charlotte, NC 28203
D,vVuj'
NAME & TITLE (TYPED): Shawn D. Wilkerson, President
TE: �d 1ti 1.01
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
INC DENR ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT
PROGRAM
PROGRAM
ATTN: KATHY DALE
ATTN: KATHY DALE
1662 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
217 W. JONES STREET, SUITE 3409-G
RALEIGH NC 27699-1662
RALEIGH NC 27603
IT IS THE OFFER'S RESPONSIBILITY TO CONTINUOUSLY CHECK FOR ADDENDA UP TO THE LAST
POSTED OPENING DATE/TIME AND TO ASSURE THAT ALL ADDENDA HAVE BEEN REVIEWED,
SIGNED AND RETURNED IF REQUIRED.
RFP 16-006477
Addendum No.1 Page 3 of 3

ATrACHMENTA
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 disquallfya
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 uselland cover), and are optimized to yield maximum functional gains.]
4- Does DMS agree with the proposed credit structure(s) described in the proposal?
6- 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

ATTACHMENTA
ADDENDUM# 1 FOR RFP 16-006477
Pege2of6

ATTACHMENTA
ADDENDUM# 1 FOR RFP 16006477
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://Portal.ncdenr.org/web/eep/rbrps/neuse
Assessment
Score
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 nroiect is also
located within the RWP area n/ease 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 ora

ATTACHMENTA
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
130-70% of the proposed footage exhibits significant, obvious incision. 6 points
of the proposed footage exhibits significant, obvious incision. 10 points
2.2 What is the proportion of active bank erosion for the existing condition of reaches proposed for channel modification? [Active bank erosion
includes surficial scour, hydraulic and mechanical failures, and other mass wasting from channel processes.]
active erosion. 4 points
active erosion. 10 points
active erosion. 20 points
For reaches proposed for restoration/enhancement, what is the percent of project length actively subject to onsite water quality or habitat
stressors that the design proposes to address? [Onsite means within or immediately adjacent to (within 30 ft ol) 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.]
of affected channel <30%. 1 point
Proportion of affected channel 30-70%. 4 points
Proportion of affected channel >70%. 8 points
2 4I What level of (negative) impact on water quality does the current land use within and immediately adjacent to the proposed easement have on
the project (i.e., impervious surfaces, nutrient inputs, sediment inputs or other land disturbing activities)?
BONUS: Comparing nutrient concentrations of influent to effluent demonstrates the nutrient removal function of a project site. Using a widely
accepted computer model (including simple spreadsheet tools), to what extent is the project predicted to reduce on-site nutrient inputs (total dissolved
2.5 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
Low (no evidence of nutrient, fecal coliform or sediment input via overland/stormwater flow into
the system). 1 point
Modeling estimates anticipated reductions of>60%total nitrogen and/or total phosphorus levels.
Moderate (only slight or limited evidence of nutrient, fecal coliform or sediment input via
Modeling estimates anticipated reductions of>60%total nitrogen and/or total phosphorus, and
overland/stormwater flow into the system). 6 points
describes specific pre- and post -construction monitoring protocols to document nutrient
High to Very High [moderate to strong evidence of nutrient, fecal coliform or sediment input via
overland/stormwater Flow into the system; evidence may include eroded banks, channel
aggradation/degradation, livestock access, degraded buffers, cropping or other land disturbances
right up to the stream banks, etc.] . 12 points
BONUS: Comparing nutrient concentrations of influent to effluent demonstrates the nutrient removal function of a project site. Using a widely
accepted computer model (including simple spreadsheet tools), to what extent is the project predicted to reduce on-site nutrient inputs (total dissolved
2.5 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
ADDENDUM# 1 FOR RFP 16-006477
3.0 Habitat and Conservation Connectivity Module [Maximum
Page 5.f6
3.1
BONUS: Proposed project boundaries are directly contiguous to (has a common boundary with) another protected property.
Proposed project easement shares at least one boundary with a conservation easement that is
not used for mitigation. 5 points
Proposed project easement shares at least one boundary with another mitigation property (DMS
projector approved Mitigation Bank site) with a permanent easement. 10 points
Section 4.0 -Design Module [Maximum Points =15]
4.1
To what extent does the proposal (and project design) address sediment supply and transport?
Proposal qualitatively describes sediment supply, storage and transport dynamics in a restoration
context. 1 point
Proposal qualitatively describes sediment supply and transport dynamics in a restoration context;
and proposal specifies, describes and justifies as appropriate for the project the methods that will
be used for quantitatively evaluating, simulating or analyzing sediment supply and transport
processes for existing and proposed conditions. Alternatively, Proposal qualitatively describes
sediment supply and transport dynamics in a restoration context and provides justification that no
quantitative methods will be necessary to support project design. 5 points
Proposal qualitatively describes sediment supply and transport dynamics in a restoration context;
and some assessment methods have been applied and background data are summarized in
proposal. Quantitative or analytical fools 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
t „ -^ � y r✓ r r1 � ,r r �
Section 5.0 - Implementation and Risk Module [Maximum Points =28]
5.1
Does the project provide:
Between 20 - 30% of the REP request (mitigation quantities)? 5 points
Between 30 - 50% of the REP request? 10 points
Page 5.f6

ATTACHMENT
ADDENDUM# 1 FOR RFP 16-006477
Does proposal address Federal Emergency Management Act (FEMA) regulated zones?
Proposal provides documentation concerning the status of FEMA regulated issues as it pertains
to the project (i.e. flood zone map, FEMA delegated authority or designated Floodplain Manager) -
2 points
does not occur in FEMA regulated zone, or occurs in FEMA regulated zone and submittal
s a detailed approach for how to address this. 6 points
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.]
total project footage is segmented by crossings, roadways, or utility rights of way. 1
total project footage is segmented by crossings, roadways, or
segmented by crossings, roadways, or
L is not affected by crossings, roadways, and/or utilities; or project with existing constraint
as or relocates the constraints or barriers such that the design is not significantly affected
constraint(s). 12 points
Section 6.0 -Quality Control [Maximum Points =15]
16.1 IlE perience 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 8 de

Q�A
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Mitigation Services
Pat McCrory, Governor Michael Ellison, Director Donald R. van der Wert, 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
Catalo in 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.
© Bid has NOT been mailed and ANY CHANGES resulting from this addendum are included in our offer.
RFP 16-006477
Addendum No.2 Page 1 of 2

SECTION 3
Execute Addendum:
BIDDER: Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
ADDRESS (CITY & STATE): 1430 S. Mint Street, Suite 104, Charlotte, NC 28203
AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE: �' " DATE: �b JL5
NAME & TITLE (TYPED): Shawn D. Wilkerson, President
Note: It is the offeror's responsibility to choose the appropriate delivery method to guarantee that
the offer is received by the Issuing Agency by the Opening Date/Time noted in the RFP.
DELIVERED BY US POSTAL SERVICE
(Mail at least 7 business days prior to Bid
Closing Date)
DELIVERED BY ANY OTHER MEANS (UPS I
FEDEX I 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 DATEITIME AND TO ASSURE THAT ALL ADDENDA HAVE BEEN REVIEWED,
SIGNED AND RETURNED IF REQUIRED.
RFP 16-006477
Addendum No.2 Page 2 of 2

r
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 - REVISIONSIADDITIONS
1. NCDMS would like to request an additional 60,000 stream credits in the Neuse 01.
This makes the total stream credit request 120,000.
2. The opening date for this RFP has been extended to 2:00 p.m. on October 28, 2015.
SECTION 2
PLEASE NOTE — THIS ADDENDUM MUST BE RETURNED WITH YOUR TECHNICAL PROPOSAL
Check ONLY ONE of the following categories and if required, return one properly executed copy of this
addendum prior to bid opening time and date.
❑ Bid has already been mailed. Changes resulting from this addendum are attached.
❑ Bid has already been mailed. NO CHANGES resulted from this addendum.
❑X Bid has NOT been mailed and ANY CHANGES resulting from this addendum are included in our offer.
RFP 16-006477
Addendum No.3 Page 1 of 2

SECTION 3
Execute Addendum:
BIDDER: Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
ADDRESS (CITY & STATE): 1430 SnMint Street, Suite 104, Charlotte, NC 28203 +
ALAUTHORIZED SIGNATURE: DATE:
NAME & TITLE (TYPED): John Hutton, Vice President
Note: It is the offeror's responsibility to choose the appropriate delivery method to guarantee that
the offer is received by the Issuing Agency by the Opening Date/Time noted in the RFP.
DELIVERED BY US POSTAL SERVICE
(Mail at least 7 business days prior to Bid
Closing Date)
DELIVERED BY ANY OTHER MEANS (UPS /
FEDEX / ETC.)
Su estion: 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
Catalo in Unit 03020201of 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: Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
ADDRESS (CITY & STATE): 1430 §. Mint Street, Suite 104, Charlotte, NC 28203
AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE: 32-1-b, DATE: 10 25 1 4,015;
awn D. Wilkerson, President
Note: It is the offeror's responsibility to choose the appropriate delivery method to guarantee that
the offer is received by the Issuing Agency by the Opening Date/Time noted in the RFP. 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 I FEDEX
(Mail at least 7 business days prior to Bid Closing
I 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 DATEITIME 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 03020201of 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/get 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.
XI Bid has NOT been mailed and ANY CHANGES resulting from this addendum are included in our offer.
RFP 16-006477
Addendum No.5 Page 1 of 2

SECTION 3
Execute Addendum:
BIDDER: Wildlands Engineering Inc.
ADDRESS (CITY & STATE): 1
AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE:
Suite 1
hn Huttoh. Vice President
NC 28203
Note: It is the offeror's responsibility to choose the appropriate delivery method to guarantee that
the offer is received by the Issuing Agency by the Opening Date/Time noted in the RFP. The USPS
does not deliver bids to the 217 W. Jones Street address. All bids are sent to the 1652 Mail Services
Center location which means your bid may not arrive on time.
DELIVERED BY US POSTAL SERVICE
DELIVERED BY ANY OTHER MEANS (UPS / FEDEX
(Mail at least 7 business days prior to Bid Closing
/ ETC.)
Date)
(Suggestion: Request Signature Receipt)
SEALED BID
SEALED BID
RFP 16-006477
RFP 16-006477
NCDEQ DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
NCDEQ DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
ATTN: KATHY DALE
ATTN: KATHY DALE
1652 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
217 W. JONES STREET, SUITE 3409-G
RALEIGH NC 27699-1652
RALEIGH NC 27603
IT IS THE OFFER'S RESPONSIBILITY TO CONTINUOUSLY CHECK FOR ADDENDA UP TO THE LAST
POSTED OPENING DATE/TIME AND TO ASSURE THAT ALL ADDENDA HAVE BEEN REVIEWED;
SIGNED AND RETURNED IF REQUIRED.
RFP 16-006477
Addendum No.5 Page 2 of 2

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

61*01116]01E'
PLEASE NOTE – THIS ADDENDUM DOES NOT HAVE TO BE RETURNED WITH YOUR TECHNICAL PROPOSAL
Check ONLY ONE of the following categories and if required, return one properly executed copy of this
addendum prior to bid opening time and date.
❑ Bid has already been mailed. Changes resulting from this addendum are attached.
❑ Bid has already been mailed. NO CHANGES resulted from this addendum.
❑X Bid has NOT been mailed and ANY CHANGES resulting from this addendum are included in our offer.
SECTION 3
Execute Addendum:
BIDDER: Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
ADDRESS (CITY & STATE): -14V q.AAint Street Suite 104 Charlotte, NC 28203
V
L
AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE: DATE: /U)
NAME & TITLE (TYPED): John Hutton, Vice President
Note: It is the offeror's responsibility to choose the appropriate delivery method to guarantee that
the offer is received by the Issuing Agency by the Opening Date/Time noted in the RFP.
DELIVERED BY US POSTAL SERVICE
(Mail at least 7 business days prior to Bid
Closing Date)
DELIVERED BY ANY OTHER MEANS (UPS /
FEDEX / ETC.)
(Suggestion: Request Signature Receipt)
SEALED BID
SEALED BID
RFP 16-006477
RFP 16-006477
NC DEPT ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
NC DEPT ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
ATTN: KATHY DALE
ATTN: KATHY DALE
1652 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
217 W. JONES STREET, SUITE 3409-G
RALEIGH NC 27699-1652
RALEIGH NC 27603
IT IS THE OFFER'S RESPONSIBILITY TO CONTINUOUSLY CHECK FOR ADDENDA UP TO THE LAST
POSTED OPENING DATE/TIME AND TO ASSURE THAT ALL ADDENDA HAVE BEEN REVIEWED,
SIGNIGNED AND RETURNED IF REQUIRED.
RFP 16-006477
Addendum No.6 Page 2 of 2

PART 1 - Executive Summary
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands) is proposing to provide 12,489 Stream Mitigation Units (SMUs),
for the service area for the Neuse River Basin, Cataloging Unit 03020201 at the Buckwater Mitigation
Site (Site) in Orange County, NC. Wildlands has recorded options to acquire conservation easements on
the Site. The project will involve restoration and enhancement on Buckwater Creek and fourteen
reaches on unnamed tributaries to Buckwater Creek.
As detailed in Part 5 of the Technical Proposal, the
proposed project will not only result in the creation of
mitigation units, but will also create significant
ecological improvement through exclusion of cattle
from the stream and through restoration of aquatic
and terrestrial (riparian) habitats. The project will also
decrease nutrient and sediment loads from the
watershed by connecting the onsite streams to their
floodplains and restoring native riparian buffers, which
will allow flood flows to disperse onto the floodplain.
The specific evaluation criteria outlined in the Division
of Mitigation Service's (DMS's) Request for Proposals
will be met as summarized in the following section.
The following is a summary of the enclosed proposal contents in the context of the Technical Proposal
Evaluation Criteria presented in the RFP. The location of the supporting material within the Technical
Proposal is also provided below. Our overall self -score is 100 points.
EVALUATION CRITERIA
1. For stream mitigation projects, does the Technical Proposal adequately document the historical
presence of stream(s) on the project site, and provide the drainage areas (acres) and provide
accurate, process -based descriptions of all project stream reaches and tributaries?
Yes. The historical presence of streams on the project site is documented by the inclusion of historic
aerial imagery in the Appendix that shows these features. The drainage area for each stream reach
is shown in Figure 5 -Watershed Map and provided in Table 5.2. Stream reach and tributary
descriptions are provided in Part 5, Section 5.2.2.
SCORE: Yes
2. Does the proposal adequately document the physical, chemical and/or biological impairments
that currently exist on the project site?
Yes. Please refer to Section 5.2.2.
SCORE: Yes
3. Does DMS agree with the overall mitigation approach (proposed levels of intervention)
presented?
Yes. Refer to Sections 5.3 and 5.4 and Figures. Wildlands has proposed restoration where
necessary to achieve maximum functional uplift while also considering enhancement as an
alternative. In many cases enhancement was selected. Restoration was generally selected when
incision and erosion were high, when sedimentation was prevalent, when a full riparian buffer
could not be obtained by leaving the channel in place, and/or when available floodplain was not
being accessed and excessive tree removal would not be needed to move the channel.
SCORE: Yes
Buckwater Mitigation Site - PART 1
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 1.1

4. Does DMS agree with the proposed credit structure(s) described in the proposal?
Yes. Please refer to Section 5.4 and Figures in the Appendix.
SCORE: Yes
S. Does the proposed project avoid significant adverse impacts to existing wetlands and/or streams?
Yes. Existing wetlands will be enhanced or avoided. Wetlands will be delineated prior to design in
order to lay out the stream pattern in a way that either improves wetland hydrology or minimizes
impact to existing wetlands. Streams will be hydrologically reconnected to wetlands, and there is
good potential for expansion of existing wetlands through improvements to hydrology and
vegetation. No wetland credit is being sought for this work. Refer to Section 5.3.
SCORE: Yes
6. Does the proposal adequately describe how the project will advance DMS watershed planning
goals?
Yes. Part 5 introduction and Section 5.1 and Table 5.1 discuss how the project fits within the goals
for the Falls Lake Watershed Plan, the Neuse River Basinwide Water Quality Plan, and the Neuse
River Basin Restoration Priorities.
SCORE: Yes
7. For any proposed Priority II restoration, are all the following elements included in the proposal OR
is Priority II stream restoration limited to "tie-ins" (designed tributary confluences)?
Priority II sections will be limited to tie-ins. Priority I stream restoration is the goal for every
restoration segment as discussed in Section 5.3.1.
SCORE- Yes
Section 1: Watershed Module
1.1 For proposed projects located outside of an LWP or RWP area, but within a TLW identified in
Table 1 of Attachment A as required, to what extent does the project support the CU -wide
watershed improvement objectives?
The proposed project addresses four of the CLI -Wide functional improvement objectives:
1) Reduce and control sediment inputs;
2) Reduce and manage nutrient inputs;
3) Augment designated Significant Natural Heritage Areas (directly abuts to one, see Section
5.2.6 and Figure 1);
4) The project is within a Water Supply Watershed, providing protection and improvement to a
Water Supply Waterbody (Falls Lake).
SCORE: 15
1.2 BONUS: Is the proposed project located within a LWP area?
The proposed project is not within an LWP area.
SCORE: N/A
1.3 BONUS: Does the proposed project meet priority goals of the LWP areas?
The proposed project is not within an LWP area.
SCORE: N/A
Buckwater Mitigation Site - PART 1
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 1.2

1.4 BONUS: Is the proposed project located within the RWP area?
The proposed project is not within an RWP area.
SCORE: 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?
The proposed project is not within an RWP area.
SCORE: N/A
1.6 BONUS: Does the proposed project meet priority goals of the RWP?
The proposed project is not within an RWP area.
SCORE: N/A
Section 2: Existing Conditions Module
2.1 What is the proportion of significant, obvious incision (BHR > —1.5) for reaches identified for
some level of channel modification?
Incision is shown on Figure 3 and discussed in Section 5.2.2. 73 percent of the total stream
length is incised.
SCORE: 10
2.2 What is the proportion of active bank erosion for the existing condition of reaches proposed for
channel modification?
Active bank erosion and scour is shown on Figure 3 and discussed in Section 5.2.2.
Approximately 47 percent of the existing stream length proposed for modification has active
bank erosion.
SCORE: 10
2.3 For reaches proposed for restoration/enhancement, what is the percent of project length
actively subject to onsite water quality or habitat stressors that the design proposes to address?
Livestock have access to approximately two-thirds of the site (Figure 3) and much of the
remainder has maintained vegetation and little to no riparian buffer. The percent of project
length subject to onsite water quality or habitat stressors that the design proposes to address is
greater than 80 percent.
SCORE: 8
2.4 What level of (negative) impact on water quality does the current land use within and
immediately adjacent to the proposed easement have on the project?
High to Very High. There are degraded buffers and maintained vegetation up to the stream bank
edge. Cattle have access to much of the channel streams and floodplains. Evidence in the form
of bank erosion and headcuts is prevalent. Please refer to Section 5.2
SCORE- 12
2.5 BONUS: Comparing nutrient concentrations of influent to effluent demonstrates the nutrient
removal function of a project site.
Nutrient reductions were estimated for this project using a simplified version of the Tar -Pamlico
Nutrient Calculation Sheet. The worksheet estimated that the total nitrogen (TN) would be
reduced by 39% and the total phosphorus would be reduced by 64%. A copy of the spreadsheet
results can be found in the appendix and the spreadsheet model is outlined in Part 5, Section
5.3.3.
SCORE 6
qW Buckwater Mitigation Site - PART 1
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 1.3

Section 3: Habitat and Conservation Connectivity Module
3.1 BONUS: Proposed project boundaries are directly contiguous to (has a common boundary with)
another protected property.
The project site falls within the St. Mary's Road Rural Historic District and the project parcels
abut to the Eno River/Cates Ford Slopes and Upland Significant Natural Heritage Area and the
Eno River State Park. Restoration of the riparian buffer will provide a riparian habitat connection
to these protected areas.
SCORE: 5
Section 4: Design Module
4.1 To what extent does the proposal (and project design) address sediment supply and transport?
Sediment supply and transport is discussed at the end of Section 5.3.2.
SCORE: 15
Section 5: Implementation and Risk Module
5.1 The proposed project provides:
The proposed project provides up to 12,489 SMUs, which is 10.4% of the final RFP mitigation
request. However, it does provide 20.8% of the original RFP mitigation request of 60,000 SMUs.
DMS may choose to award 5 points for this metric.
SCORE 0
5.2 Does proposal address Federal Emergency Management Act (FEMA) regulated zones?
Yes. Refer to Section 5.2.8.
SCORE: 6
5.3 Physical constraints or barriers (i.e. utilities, property lines, easements, managed areas, etc.)
that affect project design and effectiveness.
The length of crossings, utility easements, and reduced buffer is estimated to be 740 feet. The
existing length is estimated to be 16,180 If. Thus the physical constraints or barriers is 4.6
percent.
SCORE: 6
Section 6: Quality Control
6.1 Experience of Project Team (people actually completing work).
The Wildlands Team proposed for the Buckwater Mitigation Site consists of 14 professionals
with specialties specific to project evaluation, acquisition, design, construction, and monitoring.
Each of these 14 professionals has relevant technical background and experience in mitigation.
SCORE: 2
6.2 Quality Control Program
Wildlands' Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) program is outlined in Part 6 of the
proposal. Wildlands QA/QC Plan for each project includes checks and balances that cross
examines engineering and design methods, document preparation and delivery, and project
implementation.
SCORE: S
Buckwater Mitigation Site - PART 1
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 1.4

6.3 Vendor's History of Compliance with Required Federal, State and Local Permits
Wildlands has never had a permit violation. The proposal provides a multidisciplinary approach
to the project design that includes engineering, biological, hydrological, soils, and regulatory
review considerations. Please see Part 5 of the proposal.
SCORE: 0
TOTAL SCORE: 100 POINTS
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. is a leader in mitigation banking and ecosystem restoration. As a fully
licensed engineering firm, Wildlands will serve as the contracting entity and lead designer on a team
consisting of Wildlands and Kee Mapping & Surveying, PA (Kee) as professional surveyor. The Wildlands
Team has worked together on numerous projects over multiple years and is positioned to create a
timely and quality mitigation project.
In summary, the restoration plan for the site will include the following:
• Generation of 12,489 stream mitigation units;
• Protection for stream channels from further channel manipulation and vegetation management
for agricultural purposes;
• Elimination of the water quality impacts of cattle access to streams and floodplains;
• Reduction of sediment and nutrient loadings by filtering overland runoff;
• Enhancement of habitat functions through channel restoration and enhancement and riparian
wetland restoration and rehabilitation;
• Restoration of channel -floodplain connectivity;
• Improvements to water quality in Buckwater Creek of the Neuse River Basin; and
• Conservation of approximately 49 acres of restored land in perpetuity.
Buckwater Mitigation Site - PART 1
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Page 1.5

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

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

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

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

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

Lone Oak Mitigation Bank, Albemarle County, VA - Wildlands completed
the construction phase of the Lone Oak Stream Mitigation Bank near
Charlottesville, VA, in early 2011. The bank resulted in the restoration
and enhancement of approximately 38,000 LF of Ballinger Creek and
several tributary streams. Restoration of the site and removal of the
existing cattle operation is expected to aid in the removal of Ballinger
Creek from the state 303(d) list. The project included development of a
Banking Instrument and plans for permit submittals, development of
final design plans and specifications, construction observation, as -built
survey and the baseline monitoring report.
3.4 Lead Consultant and Team Members
Wildlands is a licensed engineering firm in NC and will act as prime consultant for this contract. Staff
from our Charlotte, NC; Raleigh, NC; and Asheville, NC offices will complete this project. Wildlands has
teamed with Kee to offer the best possible team to DMS. As indicated in Section 3.1, Wildlands will
select a specialty stream contractor from our provided list of qualified firms.
LEAD CONSULTANT
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. - Headquarters
Charlotte, NC Office Location
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104
WILDLANDS Charlotte, NC 28203
ENGINEERING (P) 704.332.7754 (F) 704.332.3306
Firm Contact:
TEAM MEMBERS
Shawn Wilkerson, President; [e-mail]
North Carolina S -Corporation
Federal Identification Number: 56-0651376
Raleigh, NC Office Location Asheville, NC Office Location
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225 167-B Haywood Road
Raleigh, NC 27609 Asheville, NC 28806
Kee Mapping and Survey, PA
5jP.O. Box 2566
j,Kee
Asheville, NC 28802 (P) 828-645-8275
01 Firm Contact:
Phillip Brad Kee, PLS
Brad@I<eemap.com
Services to be Provided: Professional surveying services
Project Manager Experience
Mr. Chris Roessler recently joined the Wildlands Engineering team and serves as a senior environmental
scientist for Wildlands' Raleigh, NC, office. With more than 19 years of experience in water resource
management, his duties include developing and executing ecosystem restoration and mitigation plans,
k4l, Buckwater Mitigation Site - PART 3
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Page 3.6

watershed planning documents, water quality modeling analyses, and stormwater management
measures. He has designed and contributed technical expertise on numerous successful stream
restoration projects around the country. His stormwater experience includes stormwater control
measure (SCM) design, site identification, and cost -benefit analysis. Mr. Roessler has experience in
public involvement and facilitation. He previously worked with the NC Division of Water Resources,
specializing in managing projects that involved multi -disciplinary teams of environmental scientists,
engineers, and stakeholders to address watershed -scale issues using Total Maximum Daily Loads.
Additional information on Mr. Roessler's experience is provided in Section 3.7.
3.6 Project Approach
The Wildlands Team takes a holistic, integrated approach to site restoration. The following text outlines
some key aspects of our multi -disciplinary project approach. Site-specific project plans are further
described in Part 5 of this proposal.
3.6.1 Site Selection
The Wildlands Team carefully selects project sites where ecological
restoration can be maximized. Our sites are reviewed by our
environmental scientists and engineers during the selection process to
ensure that ecological uplift can be achieved within regulatory
parameters related to floodplain management, protected species, and
existing wetland resources. We consult with the existing landowners to
explain the restoration process and the conservation easement
conditions. We review the site with our contractor to identify potential
construction challenges and opportunities.
3.6.2 Property Owner Coordination
Property owner coordination begins during the site selection stage and continues throughout the
project. We meet with families to understand the existing and future land use plans for the site. We
work to fully explain the restoration process and review site plans at the conceptual design stage and
final design stage with the property owners to make sure that their concerns are addressed. Our project
manager is the point of contact throughout the project so that the property owners always know who
can answer any questions that may arise.
3.6.3 Contractor Coordination
Wildlands draws on our contractor's construction expertise early in the project planning phase. We
consult with our contractor so that the project can be designed and constructed in an efficient and cost-
effective manner. We work to identify on-site materials that are native to the existing ecosystem and
that should be incorporated into the restoration project to best mimic natural systems for the site
locale. For example, cobble material embedded in excavated material on mountain stream sites can be
sorted and used for riffle construction. We also know that coordination and flexibility during
construction is the key to a successful restoration site.
3.6.4 Site Assessment
Numerous methods of assessment are used to quantify and qualify.
the site and upstream watershed's stability, nutrient loads, sediment w -.
transport, hydrologic and hydraulic properties, plant and animal
habitat, ecology, soil conditions and functional uplift potential. Our
assessment is carried out by surveyors trained in natural channel
assessment and by field scientists and engineers trained in stream
Buckwater Mitigation Site - PART 3
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 3.7

and wetland assessment and design who know what characteristics to look for that will aid in design.
Wildlands looks for predictors of future stability problems, such as upstream development and
concentrated overland flow paths.
3.6.5 Permitting
A project's schedule can be completely disrupted if the permitting for the project is not performed
correctly. The Wildlands Team understands the critical steps necessary for acquiring these permits in a
timely and efficient manner. Methods used to ensure a rapid permitting process include on-site
meetings with the various permitting agency representatives prior to design, as well as staying up-to-
date on the regulations associated with ecosystem restoration. These steps allow for the submittal of a
thorough and accurate permitting application for our projects.
3.6.6 Site Design
Once the existing conditions are documented and evaluated, the preferred alternative selected, and
base -mapping developed, a design discharge range is selected based on the project goals. Natural
channel design parameters will be developed based on reference reach data, hydraulic modeling, and
sediment transport assessment. Wildlands has five CFMs on staff who can evaluate design options to
optimize floodplain function and minimize off-site adverse flood elevation impacts. During the
preliminary design the plan view channel location is set, cross-sections for riffles and pools are designed,
and in -stream habitat and grade control structures are located. General grading limits, details, and
easement locations are included at this stage. Property owner input and contractor coordination help to
assure that the proposed design meets the multi -faceted design goals.
3.6.7 Construction
The Wildlands Team is familiar with the policies, procedures,
and practices necessary to construct natural channel design and
wetland restoration projects. Wildlands has provided
construction administration and observation services for over
28 miles of stream work and 152 acres of wetland work.
3.6.8 Monitoring
Monitoring is an important component to any stream restoration or enhancement work. The Wildlands
Team has experience in both developing monitoring plans for restoration projects and in implementing
those plans. Our monitoring plan experience includes as -built surveys and determining whether the
project has met its success criteria after the required time period.
3.7 Key Personnel Resumes (Prime and Sub)
This section provides resumes for the Wildlands project manager and the managing staff for our survey
subcontractor on this project. An additional description of the Wildlands project manager's abilities is
provided in section 3.5. Resumes for remaining personnel on the team are provided in Part 4.
Chris Roessler— Wildlands Project Manager
Mr. Roessler, who recently joined Wildlands' Raleigh office, is a senior environmental scientist with
more than 19 years of experience in water resource management.
JOB CLASSIFICATION: Senior Environmental Scientist
RESPONSIBILITIES FOR THIS PROJECT: Project Manager; Construction Oversight
PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATIONS: n/a
TOTAL YEARS EXPERIENCE: 19 years
Buckwater Mitigation Site - PART 3
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 3.8

EDUCATION: MEM, Water Resources, Duke University, 1996
BS, Geology, Washington and Lee University, 1991
ADDITIONAL TRAINING: HEC -RAS for Stream Restoration, NC State University, 2014
Mycoremediation Workshop, Mushroom Mountain, 2012
SWMM Model Training, Michael Baker Corporation, 2009
Natural Channel Design Training, West Virginia University, 2004
Intermediate Stormwater BMP Academy, NC State University, 2004
PROJECT EXPERIENCE AT PREVIOUS EMPLOYER PROJECT DETAILS PROJECT ROLE
Browns Summit Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site 5,200 SMUs; Project Manager
Guilford County, NC 2.5 WMUs
i
Flea Hill Stream Mitigation Site
2,700 SMUs Project Manager
Cumberland County, NC
Thomas Creek Stream Mitigation Site
5,700 SMUs Project Manager
Wake County, NC
Red Creek Stream Mitigation
5,000 SMUs Project Manager
Jackson County, MS
East Longview Stream Stabilization 1,000 feet Technical Lead
Prince William County, VA
Hylbrook Park Stream Stabilization
P 1,000 feet Technical Lead
Prince William County, VA
CUDD and Tinley Creek Stream Stabilizations
5,000 feet Technical Lead
Chicago, IL
Phillip Brad Kee, PLS — Surveyor Subconsultant
With 15 years of experience in Land Surveying, Mr. Kee has been a leader in providing high quality site
surveys for clients ranging from land developers to conservation agencies. Mr. Kee is experienced in
geomorphic assessment surveys, conservation easement surveys, boundary surveys for property net
verification, GPS control for NC State Plane survey work, easement platting, legal descriptions, and
easement monumentation. For projects large and small, Kee Mapping & Surveying uses the same care
and integrity to achieve accurate documentation.
PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATION/TRAINING: Professional Land Surveyor NC L-4647
PROJECT EXPERIENCE (WILDLANDS PROJECTS)
PROJECT DETAILS
PROJECT ROLE
Owl's Den Mitigation Site
2,400 SMUs and
Lincoln County, NC
8.0 WMUs
Project Surveyor
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
10,098 SMUs
Project Surveyor
Union County, NC
Agony Acres Stream and Buffer Mitigation Site
6,488 SMUs;
Guilford County, NC
3.0 BMUs
Project Surveyor
Little Pine Creek III Stream & Wetland Restoration
7,017 SMUs;
Project Surveyor
Project—Alleghany County, NC
1 1.4 WMUs
k4-1 Buckwater Mitigation Site - PART 3
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 3.9

DBE/HUB participation
Two of our potential contractors are woman -owned businesses: Land Mechanic Designs, Inc. and North
State Environmental, Inc.
k4l, Buckwater Mitigation Site - PART 3
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 3.10

PART 4 - Project Organization
4.1 Organizational Chart
The following illustrates the organization of personnel that will be assigned to this project.
Greg Turner, EI
Nicole Macaluso, PE, CFM
Nicole Macaluso, PE, CFM
Greg Turner, EI
Coy McKenzie
■ waoLANDs Charlotte, NC Office
■ WILaLANDs Raleigh, INC Office
■ WILOLANDsAsheville, NC Office
Engineering services will be
■ KEE MAPPING & suRYEy Asheville, INC Office performed ice coby
rpemployees of
orate entitles
4.2 Qualifications and Experience
Brief resumes presenting the qualifications, experience, and assigned project responsibilities of each
project team member are presented on the following pages. Resumes for the Wildlands project
manager, Mr. Chris Roessler, and for the project manager for Kee were presented in Part 3, Section 3.7.
Section 10 (Location of Contract Performance) of the RFP is included in the Execution Page & Addenda
section of the proposal.
Buckwater Mitigation Site - PART 4
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 4.1

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

Andrew Bick, PE, CFM
Mr. Bick, who recently joined Wildlands as the new Asheville team leader, has 26 years of experience in
ecological restoration, floodplain studies, stormwater BMP design, dam removal, and
hydrologic/hydraulic analysis. He has completed dozens of stream and wetland restoration designs in a
wide variety of settings, including some of the most high-profile and complex restorations in the
Southeast. He is very familiar with all phases of mitigation projects, from initial site identification
through design, permitting, construction and monitoring.
JOB CLASSIFICATION: Senior Water Resources Engineer; Asheville Team Leader
RESPONSIBILITIES FOR THIS PROJECT: QA/QC Manager
PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATIONS: Professional Engineer; Certified Floodplain Manager
TOTAL YEARS OF EXPERIENCE: 26 years
EDUCATION: MS, Civil Engineering, University of California, 1996
BS, Civil Engineering, Union College, 1989
ADDITIONAL TRAINING: Stormwater Wetland Design and Maintenance, 2011
Project Manager Boot Camp, 2003
Fluvial Geomorphology for Engineers, 2001
PROJECT EXPERIENCE AT WILDLANDS
Henry Fork Stream and Wetland Restoration
Catawba County, NC
Big Harris Mitigation Site
Cleveland County, NC
Western Stream Initiative
Various Counties in Western NC
PROJECT EXPERIENCE PRIOR TO WILDLANDS
Hogan Creek Stream Mitigation Site
Surry County, NC
Lick Creek Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
Greene County, TN
Friar Branch Stream Mitigation Site
Chattanooga, TN
Cane River Dam Removal and Restoration
Yancey County, NC
PROJECT DETAILS PROJECT ROLE
4,500 SMUs;
4.0 WMUs
26,032 SMUs
Over 10 projects;
total of 15,000 LF
Technical Review
Design
Technical Review
PROJECT DETAILS PROJECT ROLE
4,994 SMUs Project Manager
14,000 SMUs, 1.5
WMUs
7,300 LF, storm
water BMPs
2,650LF restored;
removal of 245 -
foot long dam
Project Manage
Project Manager
Project Manager
qW Buckwater Mitigation Site - PART 4
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 4.3

Andrea Eckardt
Ms. Eckardt has 17 years of experience in watershed management, environmental planning, permitting
and geographic information systems (GIS). She currently serves as the Senior Environmental Planner for
Wildlands. She specializes in environmental permitting, watershed management, project development
and implementation, citizen/agency facilitation, grant writing, conservation easement coordination and
GIS mapping. Ms. Eckardt has experience with municipal and state improvement projects, school and
university improvement projects, non-profit improvement projects and private development projects.
Ms. Eckardt has facilitated State Property Office coordination of easements for 484.23 acres of
conservation easements in NC.
JOB CLASSIFICATION:
Senior Environmental Planner
RESPONSIBILITIES FOR THIS PROJECT:
Categorical Exclusions; Conservation Easement Acquisition
15 full -delivery
Lead; GIS Coordinator
PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATIONS:
none
TOTAL YEARS OF EXPERIENCE:
17 years
EDUCATION:
MS, Environmental Science, Applied Ecology, Indiana
Box Creek Wilderness Area Stream Mitigation
University, 1996
Project Manager
BS, Biology, Wake Forest University, 1994
ADDITIONAL TRAINING:
Consultant Regulatory Workshop, 2007
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Financial Benefits of Conservation Easements: Conservation
Project Manager(existing
Programs and Tax Incentives for NC Landowners, 2006
Project Manager Boot Camp, 2005, 2014
Rockingham County, NC
Natural Resource Leadership Institute, 2001
PROJECT EXPERIENCE AT WILDLANDS
PROJECT DETAILS
PROJECT ROLE
Various Full -Delivery Projects
15 full -delivery
Categorical Exclusion,
Multiple Counties in NC
projects
Conservation Easement
Acquisition
Box Creek Wilderness Area Stream Mitigation
158,400 LF (30 miles)
Project Manager
Bank- Rutherford County, NC
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
4,900 SMUs;
Project Manager(existing
condition &
Rockingham County, NC
12.7 WMUs
design phase)
Crooked Creek #2 Restoration Project
5,672 SMUs;
Project Manager
Union County, NC
11.5 WMUs
(conceptual phase)
Burnetts Chapel Buffer Mitigation Site
Guilford County, NC
9.2 BMUs
Project Manager
West Fork Linville River Stream Restoration
Avery County, NC
5,200 LF
Permitting
Lone Oak Mitigation Bank
Permitting; Banking
Albemarle County, VA
38,000 LF
Instrument
k-611 Buckwater Mitigation Site - PART 4
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 4.4

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

Ian Eckardt
Mr. Eckardt has 11 years of experience in stream geomorphic assessments, stream classification,
wetland delineation, protected species surveys, sediment sampling and analysis, water quality
monitoring, groundwater monitoring, surveying, and vegetation assessment. He currently serves as
Environmental Scientist for Wildlands Engineering and is responsible for regulatory permitting, agency
correspondence, wetland delineations, geomorphic surveys and assessments, protected species surveys,
and post -construction monitoring.
JOB CLASSIFICATION:
Environmental Scientist
RESPONSIBILITIES FOR THIS PROJECT:
Categorical Exclusions; Permitting
PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATIONS:
none
TOTAL YEARS OF EXPERIENCE:
11 years
EDUCATION:
MS, Earth Science, University of North Carolina at Charlotte,
2007
BA, Geology, North Carolina State University, 2001
ADDITIONAL TRAINING:
Basic Processes in Hydric Soils, 2013
Advanced Problems in Hydric Soil Evaluation, 2013
Rosgen Level I, 2013
Surface Water Identification Training and Certification, 2013
NC WAM Certificate Training, 2010
Management of Invasives and Exotic Vegetation in Riparian
Areas, 2009
North Carolina Rare Plant Identification Workshops, 2007 &
2011
Delineation of Piedmont and Coastal Plain Jurisdiction
Wetlands, 2007
PROJECT EXPERIENCE AT WILDLANDS
PROJECT DETAILS PROJECT ROLE
Existing Conditions;Categorical
Agony Acres Stream and Buffer Mitigation Site 6,488 SMUs;
Exclusions;
Guilford County, NC
3.0 BMUs
Permitting; Monitoring
Existing Conditions;
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
10,098 SMUs Categorical Exclusions;
Union County, NC
__Permitting; Monitoring
Existing Conditions;
Owl's Den Mitigation Site
2,400 SMUs;
Categorical Exclusions;
Lincoln County, NC
8.0 WMUs
Permitting; Monitoring
Scaly Bark Restoration Site
Stanly County, NC
6,415 SMUs Monitoring
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
5,779 SMUs;
Catawba County, NC
Monitoring
7.0 WMUs
Burnetts Chapel Buffer Mitigation Site
Guilford County, NC
9.2 BMUs Monitoring
k4l, Buckwater Mitigation Site - PART 4
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 4.6

Nicole Macaluso, PE, CFM
Ms. Macaluso serves as a water resources engineer in the Wildlands Raleigh office. She has nine years of
experience working on a variety of projects including stream and wetland restoration, hydrologic and
hydraulic analysis, stormwater management, and erosion and sediment control. Ms. Macaluso's duties
include initial field data collection and site analysis, design development, oversight of construction plan
preparation, and post -construction monitoring of mitigation sites. She also serves as the lead hydraulic
modeler for the Raleigh office. She is responsible for preparing and modeling design and post -
construction stream conditions using HEC -RAS software, as well as the preparation of FEMA flood study
report documentation.
JOB CLASSIFICATION: Water Resource Engineer
RESPONSIBILITIES FOR THIS PROJECT: Design; Permitting
PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATIONS: PE, CFM
TOTAL YEARS OF EXPERIENCE: 9 years
EDUCATION: BS, 2006, Agricultural & Biological Engineering, Purdue
University
ADDITIONAL TRAINING: Hydraulic Modeling for Stream Restoration and Sediment
Transport, 2011
Erosion & Sedimentation Control Planning & Design Workshop,
2010
Total Station Survey Applications for Stream Restoration, 2008
Rosgen Level I —Applied Fluvial Geomorphology, 2007
Rosgen Level 11 - River Morphology and Applications, 2007
Rosgen Level III - River Assessment and Monitoring, 2012
PROJECT EXPERIENCE AT WILDLANDS PROJECT DETAILS PROJECT ROLE
Agony Acres Stream and Buffer Mitigation Site 6,488 SMUs; Lead Designer; Construction
Guilford County, NC 3.0 BMUs Oversight
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
Union County, NC
Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site
Johnston County, NC
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
Rockingham County, NC
10,098 SMUs Design; Construction Oversight;
Flood Study; CLOMR and LOMR
Existing Conditions Survey; Lead
18,527 SMUs; Designer; Flood Study;
67 WMUs Construction Document
Preparation
4,900 SMUs;
12.7 WMUs Hydraulic Modeling; LOMR
Jumping Run Creek Stream & Wetland Repair 4,400 LF
Harnett County, NC
Underwood Mitigation Site 6,192 SMUs;
Chatham County, NC 12 WMUs
k4l, Buckwater Mitigation Site - PART 4
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Design; Hydraulic Modeling; LOMR
Lead Designer; Flood Study;
Construction Document
Preparation; CLOMR
Page 4.7

Greg Turner, EI
Mr. Turner serves as an environmental designer in the Wildlands Engineering Raleigh office. He has
more than four years of experience working on a variety of projects including stormwater SCM design,
hydrologic and hydraulic modeling, stream and wetland restoration design and monitoring, erosion and
sediment control, and wetland delineations. Mr. Turner also assists with the planning, design, and
monitoring of ecological engineering projects.
JOB CLASSIFICATION: Environmental Designer
RESPONSIBILITIES FOR THIS PROJECT: Design; Permitting
PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATIONS: Engineering Intern
TOTAL YEARS OF EXPERIENCE: 4 years
EDUCATION: BS, Biological Engineering with a Minor in Environmental
Science, North Carolina State University, May 2011
ADDITIONAL TRAINING: Project Manager Boot Camp, 2014
HEC -RAS for Stream Restoration Workshop, 2013
Wetland Delineation Workshop, 2013
PROJECT EXPERIENCE AT WILDLANDS PROJECT DETAILS PROJECT ROLE
Vile Creek Stream Mitigation Site
5,000 SMUs Design Assistance
Alleghany County, NC
Maney Farms Stream Mitigation Site
Chatham County, NC 4,748 SMUs
Holman Mill Stream Mitigation Site
Alamance County, NC 3,656 SMUs
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
Union County, NC 10,098 SMUs
Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site
Johnston County, NC
k4l, Buckwater Mitigation Site - PART 4
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
18,527 SMUs;
67.0 WMUs
Design Assistance
Design Assistance
Hydraulic Modeling; LOMR
Package
Post -construction Monitoring
Page 4.8

Coy McKenzie
Mr. McKenzie has 10 years of experience with natural resource field investigations, stream geomorphic
assessments, design, permitting, and monitoring. He currently serves as an Environmental Scientist for
Wildlands' Raleigh office, and is responsible for existing conditions assessment, GIS mapping,
construction plan production, and post -construction monitoring.
JOB CLASSIFICATION:
Environmental Scientist
RESPONSIBILITIES FOR THIS PROJECT:
Existing Conditions Survey; Design
PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATIONS:
none
TOTAL YEARS OF EXPERIENCE:
10 years
EDUCATION:
BS, Natural Resources — Ecosystem Assessment, NC State
University, 2000
ADDITIONAL TRAINING:
River Course I - Stream Classification and Assessment, 2002
Aquatic Insect Collection Protocols for Stream Mitigation and
Restoration, 2001
Wetland Identification and Delineation Workshop, 2001
PROJECT EXPERIENCE AT WILDLANDS
PROJECT DETAILS PROJECT ROLE
Candy Creek Stream Mitigation Site
Guilford County, NC
15,456 SMUs Existing Conditions Survey
Holman Mill Stream Mitigation Site
Alamance County, NC
3,656 SMUs Existing Conditions Survey
Agony Acres Stream and Buffer Mitigation Site 6,488 SMUs; Existing Conditions Survey;
Guilford County, NC
3.0 BMUs CADD Assistance
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site 4,900 SMUs;
Rockingham County, NC
Monitoring
12.7 WMUs
Burnetts Chapel Buffer Mitigation Site
Guilford County, NC
9.2 BMUs Monitoring
Underwood Mitigation Site
6,192 SMUs;
Chatham County, NC
Monitoring
12.0 WMUs
k4l, Buckwater Mitigation Site - PART 4
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 4.9

Kirsten Gimbert
Ms. Gimbert has over 11 years of professional experience in success monitoring for ecological
restoration projects. Ms. Gimbert's responsibilities include monitoring/assessments, design,
construction oversight, and project management for ecological restoration projects. She has been
involved with more than 23 monitoring projects for stream restoration and enhancement work in both
urban and rural settings across North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia.
JOB CLASSIFICATION: Environmental Scientist
RESPONSIBILITIES FOR THIS PROJECT: Monitoring Lead
PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATIONS: none
TOTAL YEARS OF EXPERIENCE: 11 years
EDUCATION: MS, Forestry and Natural Resources, Clemson University, 2004
BA, Earth Sciences, State University of New York at Fredonia,
2000
ADDITIONAL TRAINING:
Rosgen Level 1- III, 2007-2014
River Course 131: Assessment and Identification of Riparian
Vegetation, 2012
Stream Restoration Construction Training, 2006 and 2009
AutoCAD for Stream Monitoring and Restoration, 2006
NC WAM Certificate Training, 2010
Developments in Sediment and Erosion Control for
Mountainous Regions, 2004
Taxonomy and Pollution Ecology of Aquatic Insects, 2004
OSHA 10 Hour Safety Training (Jacobs), 2010
First Aid/CPR Certified (Jacobs), 2010
PROJECT EXPERIENCE AT WILDLANDS
PROJECT DETAILS PROJECT ROLE
Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site
18,527 SMUs; Existing Conditions
Johnston County, NC
67.0 WMUs Survey; Monitoring
Scaly Bark Restoration Site
Stanly County, NC
6,415 SMUs Monitoring
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Existing Conditions
Person County, NC
5,387 SMUs Survey; Monitoring
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation
Site 4,900 SMUs; Monitoring
Rockingham County, NC
12.7 WMUs
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
5,779 SM US;
Catawba County, NC
7.0 WMUs Monitoring
Malbone Wetland Mitigation Site
24 acres of wetland Monitoring
City of Virginia Beach, VA
Buckwater Mitigation Site - PART 4
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 4.10

Jason Lorch, GISP
Mr. Lorch has 13 years of professional experience in GIS analysis, Microstation/Geopak, CADD, and
stream and wetland mitigation design and analysis, and monitoring. His experience includes stream
determination, stream restoration design, stream monitoring, wetland monitoring, global positioning
systems (GPS) surveying, and calculating permit impacts. Mr. Lorch has worked on several stream and
wetland projects where he was responsible for creating plan sets, natural channel design, calculating
construction quantities, construction oversight, monitoring, permitting, checking the accuracy of survey
data, and surveying.
JOB CLASSIFICATION: CADD/GIS Analyst
RESPONSIBILITIES FOR THIS PROJECT: Existing Conditions Survey; Monitoring
PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATIONS: GIS Professional
TOTAL YEARS OF EXPERIENCE: 13 years
EDUCATION: BA, 2001, Geography- Environmental, University of Wisconsin
Milwaukee
ADDITIONAL TRAINING: NC Surface Water ID and Training Course, 2013
Assessment and Identification of Riparian Vegetation, 2012
Processes in Hydric Soils, 2005
USACE/ NCDWQ Consultant Regulatory Workshop, 2006
Advanced Stream Restoration Design, 2007
Stream Restoration Design Principles, 2006
NCSU Rosgen Stream Classification, 2006
Advanced Problems in Hydric Soil Evaluation, 2005
Piedmont Endangered Species Identification, 2004
PROJECT EXPERIENCE AT WILDLANDS PROJECT DETAILS PROJECT ROLE
Maney Farms Stream Mitigation Site
4,748 SMUs CADD Analyst
Chatham County, NC
Hopewell Stream Mitigation Site
7,463 SMUs CADD Analyst
Randolph County, NC
Agony Acres Stream and Buffer Mitigation Site 6,488 SMUs;
Guilford County, NC 3.0 BMUs Design Assistance
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
10,098 SMUs Existing Conditions Survey
Union County, NC
Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site 18,527 SMUs; Existing Conditions Survey;
Johnston County, NC 67.0 WMUs CADD; Construction
Documents
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site 4,900 SMUs; Existing Conditions Survey;
Rockingham County, NC 12.7 WMUs CADD; Construction
Documents
� Buckwater Mitigation Site - PART 4
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 4.11

Daniel Taylor
Mr. Taylor has 14 years of experience in mitigation property acquisition, natural channel design,
watershed assessment, field data collection, and construction management services. He has performed
existing condition surveys, prepared designs and permitting materials, and provided construction
oversight on over 28 miles of natural channel design projects throughout the Southeast.
JOB CLASSIFICATION: Construction Supervisor
RESPONSIBILITIES FOR THIS PROJECT: Construction Administration
PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATIONS: none
TOTAL YEARS OF EXPERIENCE: 14 years
EDUCATION: BS, Biological and Agricultural Engineering, North Carolina State
University, 1999
ADDITIONAL TRAINING: NCSU River Course 435: Management of Invasive and Exotic
Vegetation in Riparian Areas, 2013
Erosion & Sediment Control Planning and Design Workshop,
2007
Rogen Level I —Applied Fluvial Geomorphology, 2004
PROJECT EXPERIENCE AT WILDLANDS PROJECT DETAILS PROJECT ROLE
Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site 18,527 SMUs;
Johnston County, NC 67.0 WMUs Construction Administration
Bear Creek (Phillips Site) Stream Restoration 4,075 LF
Chatham County, NC
Underwood Mitigation Site 6,192 SMUs;
Chatham County, NC 12.0 WMUs
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site -,900 SMUs;
Rockingham County, NC 12.7 WMUs
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Person County, NC
k-60-1 Buckwater Mitigation Site - PART 4
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
5,387 SMUs
Construction Administration
Easement Acquisition
Coordination; Construction
Administration
Construction Administration
Easement Acquisition
Coordination; Construction
Administration
Page 4.12

Kenton Beal
Mr. Beal has two years of experience in various aspects of stream and wetland monitoring including:
geomorphic surveying, water quality testing, macroinvertebrate collection and identification, stream
identification, and biological assessment. He is also experienced with geospatial analysis, BMP
inspections, and vegetative maintenance. Mr. Beal currently serves as an environmental scientist for
Wildlands and is responsible for geomorphic stream assessment and monitoring, assisting with wetland
delineations, and technical report writing.
JOB CLASSIFICATION:
Environmental Scientist
RESPONSIBILITIES FOR THIS PROJECT:
Existing Conditions Survey
PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATIONS:
none
TOTAL YEARS OF EXPERIENCE:
2 years
EDUCATION:
BS, Environmental and Ecological Science, Elon University, 2013
ADDITIONAL TRAINING:
Surface Water Identification Training and Certification Class,
North Carolina Division of Water Resources, 2014
Basic Processes in Hydric Soils, North Carolina State University,
2014
Advanced Problems in Hydric Soil Evaluation, North Carolina
State University, 2014
Natural Communities and Rare Plants of the Uwharrie National
Forest, North Carolina National Heritage Program, 2014
PROJECT EXPERINCE AT WILDLANDS
PROJECT DETAILS PROJECT ROLE
Candy Creek Stream Mitigation Site
Existing Conditions
Guilford County, NC
15,456 SMUs
Survey
Henry Fork Stream and Wetland Mitigation
Site 4,500 SM Us; 4.0 Existing Conditions
Catawba County, NC
WMUs Survey
Agony Acres Stream and Buffer Mitigation Site 6,488 SM Us;
Guilford County, NC
3.0 BMUs Monitoring
Scaly Bark Mitigation Full Delivery Project
Stanly County, NC
6,415 SMUs Monitoring
Lyle Creek Mitigation Site
5,779 SMUS and
Catawba County, NC
7.0 WMUs Monitoring
Burnetts Chapel Buffer Mitigation Site
Guilford County, NC
9.2 BMUs Monitoring
Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site
18,527 SMUs and
Johnston County, NC
67 WMUs Monitoring
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
Person County, NC
5,387 SMUs Monitoring
k-611 Buckwater Mitigation Site - PART 4
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 4.13

PART 5 - Technical Approach
The Buckwater Mitigation Site (Site) is located in Orange County approximately 4.5 miles northeast of
Hillsborough (Figure 1). The Site is proposed to be approximately 49 acres and contains more than
16,000 linear feet of jurisdictional stream channels. The project is located within the DMS targeted
watershed for the Neuse River Basin Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03020201030030 and NC Division of
Water Resources (DWR) Subbasin 03-04-01 and is being submitted for mitigation credit in the Neuse
River Basin HUC 03020201. The project involves the restoration and enhancement of the mainstem of
Buckwater Creek and fourteen tributaries.
Buckwater Creek is classified by DWR as a WS -IV, NSW
water. WS -IV are waters used as sources of water supply
for drinking, culinary, or food processing purposes where
a WS -I, II or III classification is not feasible. These waters
are also protected for Class C uses, including secondary
recreation and biological integrity. WS -IV waters are
generally in moderately to highly developed watersheds
or Protected Areas. NSW stands for nutrient sensitive
waters. This is a supplemental classification intended for
waters needing additional nutrient management due to
being subject to excessive growth of microscopic or
macroscopic vegetation.
The 2009 Neuse River Basinwide Water Quality Plan lists major stressors in the Subbasin to be total
suspended solids, nutrients, and chlorophyll a. To address these stressors, the 2010 Neuse River Basin
Restoration Priorities (RBRP) highlights the importance of riparian buffers in stream restoration projects.
Riparian buffers retain and remove nutrients and total suspended solids, improving the health of water
supply waters. Of the 123 miles of streams in this HUC, 23% do not have adequate riparian buffers. The
RBRP states that "priority [restoration] projects should increase or improve buffers." This focus aligns
with the Neuse River Basin 03020201 goals of supporting the Falls Lake watershed plan. Falls Lake is the
receiving water supply water body for this project.
Restoration of streams on the Site will directly and indirectly address stressors identified in the RBRP by
creating stable stream banks, restoring meandering pattern, and restoring a forested buffer that will
connect to forested buffers upstream and downstream of the project area. This project will slow surface
runoff, increase retention times, and reconnect the streams to their historic floodplains and riparian
wetlands, which will reduce sediment and nutrient loading and the production of chlorophyll a. In
addition, restoration will provide and improve instream and terrestrial (riparian) habitats while
improving stream stability and overall hydrology. The Site will be fenced and approximately 49 acres of
land will be placed under permanent conservation easement to protect the Site in perpetuity.
Sources:
NC DMS. 2010. Neuse River Basin Restoration Priorities.
NC DWR. 2009 Neuse River Basinwide Water Quality Plan.
Buckwater Mitigation Site - PART 5
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 5.1

5.1 Project Goals and Objectives
The major goals of the proposed stream mitigation project are to provide ecological and water quality
enhancements to the Neuse River Basin while creating a functional riparian corridor at the site level,
providing floodplain habitat and ecological function, and restoring Piedmont Alluvial Forest and
Piedmont Bottomland Hardwood Forest as described by Schafale (2012). Specific enhancements to
water quality and ecological processes as related to the Cataloging Unit (CU) -wide functional goals are
outlined below in Table 5.1.
Table 5.1 Ecological and Water Quality Goals of the Mitigation Project
Goal
Objective
CU -Wide and RBRP Objectives Supported
Reduce and control sediment inputs;
Exclude cattle from
Install fencing around conservation
Reduce and manage nutrient inputs;
project streams.
easements adjacent to cattle pastures.
Contribute to protection of or
improvement to a Water Supply
Waterbody.
Reconstruct stream channels with stable
Reduce and control sediment inputs;
Stabilize eroding
dimensions. Add bank revetments and in-
Contribute to protection of or
stream banks.
stream structures to protect
improvement to a Water Supply
restored/enhanced streams.
Waterbody.
Construct stream channels that will
Reduce and control sediment inputs;
Improve the stability
maintain a stable pattern and profile
Contribute to protection of or
of stream channels.
considering the hydrologic and sediment
improvement to a Water Supply
inputs to the system, the landscape
Waterbody.
setting, and the watershed conditions.
Install habitat features such as
Improve potential for increased biological
Improve instream
constructed riffles, cover logs, and brush
integrity, as measured by benthic
habitat.
toes into restored/enhanced streams.
macroinvertebrate and fish communities
Add woody materials to channel beds.
(Class C designated use).
Construct pools of varying depth.
Reconstruct stream channels with
Reduce and control sediment inputs;
Reconnect channels
appropriate bankfull dimensions and
Reduce and manage nutrient inputs;
with floodplains and
depth relative to the existing floodplain.
Contribute to protection of or
riparian wetlands.
Remove existing berm to re -connect
improvement to a Water Supply
channel with adjacent wetlands.
Waterbody.
Reduce and control sediment inputs;
Restore and enhance
Reduce and manage nutrient inputs;
native floodplain
Plant native tree and understory species
Contribute to protection of or
vegetation.
in riparian zone.
improvement to a Water Supply
Waterbody; RBRP goal of establishing
riparian buffers along restoration reaches.
Permanently protect
Establish conservation easements on the
Contribute to protection of or
the project site from
improvement to a Water Supply
harmful uses.
site.
Waterbody.
5.2 Project Description
The following section describes the existing conditions at the Site in terms of geomorphic condition,
watershed, soils, geology, cultural resources, species of concern, regulated floodplain zones, and site
constraints.
Buckwater Mitigation Site - PART 5
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Page 5.2

5.2.1 Existing Site Conditions
The Site is located 4.5 miles northeast of Hillsborough in Orange County, NC. Much of the Site is
currently used for cattle pasture or hay fields, with some of the riparian areas in forest. St. Mary's Road
crosses the Site. To the south, the project parcels directly abut the Eno River State Park, a NC Natural
Heritage Program Managed Area, and to the Eno River/Cates Ford Slopes and Uplands, which is listed as
a significant Natural Heritage Area.
The Site contains Buckwater Creek and 14 unnamed tributaries to Buckwater Creek: T1, T2, T3, T4, T4A,
T413, T5, T6, T6A, T613, T7, T7A, T8, and T9. T4A, T413, upper T4, and T7A were identified as intermittent
streams on September 3, 2015, using the DWR Stream Identification Forms. All other evaluated Site
streams were identified as perennial. Copies of these forms are included in the Appendix. The streams
are all depicted on Figure 2. Details about the existing streams are provided in Section 5.2.2, below.
Historical aerial photographs were obtained from the Orange County Soil and Water Conservation office
for 1938, 1955, 1966, and 1972. Several ponds, including those along Buckwater Creek, T3, and T5 were
built between 1938 and 1955. The riparian buffer along Buckwater Creek was largely cleared in 1955 but
had limited trees in 1966. Terraces were apparently constructed in the 1950s adjacent to T4 and in the
1960s adjacent to T3. A road along T1 crossing Buckwater Creek was abandoned between 1955 and
1966. By 1972, a single line of trees had grown on much of Buckwater Creek. Lower T3 was still a
wetland in 1972; since then the channel was moved to the left side of the floodplain and the trees have
been cleared to convert it to pasture.
Before 1938 Buckwater Creek was apparently moved and held to the right side of floodplain upstream
from Walnut Hill Drive. This type of work was typically performed during this time period with a team of
mules and a drag pan. Buckwater Creek is not meandering across its wide floodplain in this area and
apparently has not since at least 1938.
The stream bed and banks of Buckwater Creek and its tributaries are degraded due to livestock and
historic channel manipulation. The results are banks trampled by livestock and incision that has led to
scour, mass wasting of bank material, and fining of bed material. Buckwater Creek is incised: 70% of its
length has bank height ratios greater than 1.5 (Figure 3). The outside bends of most of the project
reaches are actively eroding. The most common stream type classification is most nearly described as
transitioning between an incised and straightened Rosgen type E4 and a Rosgen type G4. Further
discussion of each project stream is provided below in Section 5.2.2. Cross section and reach -wide
pebble count results are located in the Appendix.
Streamside vegetation in the cattle pastures consists primarily of grasses such as fescue (Fescue spp.)
with some soft rush (Juncus effusus), straw-colored flatsedge (Cyperus strigosus), as well as horse nettle
(Solanum carolinense) and dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium). Also present are deer tongue
(Dichanthelium clandestinum), Japanese stiltgrass (Microstegium vimineum), Chinese privet (Ligustrum
sinense), poison ivy (Toxidendron radicans), and greenbrier (Smilax sp.). Some juvenile sweet gums
(Liquidambarstyraciflua) are present near the top of the left stream bank. Common tree species within
the project area include American beech (Fagus grandifolia), black walnut (Juglans nigra), mockernut
hickory (Carya tomentosa), red maple (Acer rubrum), red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), spice bush
(Lindera benzoin), and tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima). Tree of heaven is located along T7 and
Buckwater Creek near the confluence with T2.
Buckwater Mitigation Site - PART 5
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 5.3

5.2.2 Existing Conditions - Streams
Buckwater Creek
Buckwater Creek flows into the project area from an
upstream wooded parcel. The mainstem's
floodplain is managed as a combination of
woodlands and pasture from the upstream project
extent to Walnut Hill Drive, and as woodlands from
downstream of Walnut Hill Drive to the project
terminus. Cattle do not have direct access to the
stream channel but a single strand of high tensile
fence is present along 1,400 feet of the stream.
Trees are present along much of the reach but those
directly on the streambank are in jeopardy of falling
in due to bank erosion. A review of historic aerials
dating to 1938 depicts that the Site has been managed in roughly a similar condition since that time. It
appears that trees have been allowed to grow since at least 1972. The mainstem appears to have been
straightened for agricultural purposes as well due to its relatively straight alignments despite the
somewhat wide alluvial floodplain. Historic aerials are provided for review in the Appendix.
From the upstream project boundary to the Walnut
Hill Drive crossing, Buckwater Creek flows through a
mixed buffer subject to light grazing. For the first
392 feet, there is adequate buffer on both banks,
though the channel is deeply incised and trees along
the bank have significant erosion around their roots.
For the next 638 feet, the buffer becomes thin on
the left bank before it becomes entirely pasture for
the next 2,124 feet. The upper approximately 600
feet of the Site has gravel and cobble substrate, but
below this section, fine sediment begins to
accumulate on the channel bottom. By 1,030 feet
below the project start, the stream bed is typically
suffocated with fine sediment. Part of this fine sediment deposition is due to reduced channel slope, and
bank erosion appears to be the primary source of the fine sediment. The right bank has fairly consistent
tree coverage from start to finish on Buckwater Creek. The area beyond the right bank has apparently
not been used for pasture or cultivation. The stream is, for the most part, pushed up against the valley
slope on the right side. Downstream from Walnut Hill Drive, Buckwater Creek has more sinuosity but the
bank erosion is severe. The trees beyond the left bank are smaller and early successional species. This
area was formerly a hay field but has not been harvested for some time. Lower Buckwater Creek,
downstream from its confluence with UT1, has two small beaver impoundments and a lack of mature
vegetation. The lack of vegetation is in part due to previous clearing and maintenance, though beaver
activity may be more of a factor in recent decades. In late August 2015, algal growth in pools behind the
beaver dams was robust. The beaver dams slow the water and allow algae to use abundant nutrients,
the sources of which include cattle in streams, runoff from pasture with heavy cattle grazing and from
fertilized hay fields.
Buckwater Mitigation Site - PART 5
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 5.4

Throughout its length at the Site, Buckwater Creek has notable erosion on the outside bends. The banks
in these locations are vertical and lack vegetation; surficial scour is the primary manifestation though,
particularly in lower Buckwater Creek, mass wasting is also present.
Throughout the project length, Buckwater Creek
does not maintain a connection with its floodplain.
The stream exhibits high bank height ratios and low
width to depth ratios due to recent channel incision
(i.e., widening has, for the most part, not yet
occurred). Entrenchment ratios begin as moderate
(2.1) but decrease to 1.3 upstream from Walnut Hill
Drive and persist to the confluence with T1. Above
Walnut Hill Drive, the d50 of onsite riffles is very
coarse gravel and the stream substrate consists
predominantly of gravel and cobble. Below Walnut
Hill Drive, the d50 of onsite riffles is coarse gravel
and the stream substrate consists predominantly of
gravel and sand. The stream is most closely classified as a Rosgen G4c-type stream (cross sections (XS) 1-
4 and pebble count data are provided in the Appendix). The uppermost section is an incised B4c-type
stream and the lower section, below the confluence with T1, is an E4 stream type.
The floodplain is broad and alluvial, and is actively grazed. Cattle are adjacent to Buckwater Creek from
Walnut Hill Drive to approximately 1,800 feet upstream. Here, a single strand of high tensile fence is the
barrier between the pasture and the stream channel. Offline ponds are located in the left floodplain
both above and below Walnut Hill Drive.
T1
T1 enters the project area from the north as a largely
stable creek. The channel quickly becomes incised and
has eroding outside bends for 392 feet before it flows
beneath St. Mary's Road. The bridge over T1 is
scheduled to be replaced by NCDOT in the next 6
months. Downstream from St. Mary's Road, the
incised channel continues to the south for another 620
feet before it joins the mainstem of Buckwater Creek.
There is no riparian buffer on the left bank because of
a high transmission power line. The right bank has a
forested buffer and currently disconnected floodplain
that is 5 to 6 feet above the existing channel bottom.
The channel most nearly classifies as a Rosgen incised
E -type stream with low sinuosity. The floodprone
elevation at twice the estimated bankfull elevation
just reaches the relic floodplain on the right bank. A
cross sectional survey (XS5) was conducted on UT1 and is provided in the Appendix for review. The
location of the cross section is illustrated in Figure 2.
. .r
T2
T2 is a 607 -foot long reach that begins at the confluence of T3 and T4 and ends at Buckwater Creek,
approximately 400 feet downstream from the Walnut Hill Drive crossing. The majority of the length of
T2 is directly accessed by cattle and has a narrower valley. Due to frequent cattle access, many of the
Buckwater Mitigation Site - PART 5
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 5.5

streambanks are trampled and eroded. Several
headcuts are present in T2 and bank protection,
where present, is often Chinese privet (Ligustrum
sinense). Sedimentation in the channel is widespread
due to upstream erosion. T2 is a G4 -type stream with
bank height ratios greater than 2.0. A cross sectional
survey (XS7) was conducted on T2 and is provided in
the Appendix for review.
T3
T3 is a 2,045 -foot tributary that flows through existing
cattle pasture before joining T4 to form T2. The upper
reach within the project area is 836 feet and largely
stable. Bedrock provides bed and bank protection in
several locations, preventing cattle damage. Isolated
bank erosion is evident and the riparian buffer is very
sparse, with just a handful of trees present on either
bank.
Below the upper stable reach is a headcut that has
been arrested by a bedrock knickpoint. Below the
knickpoint is a section that has heavy cattle impacts
because the primary buildings for the cattle operation
are beyond the left bank. Consequently, this is an area
where cattle congregate and use the stream channel
as a wallow. The banks have been trampled and there
is very limited woody riparian vegetation.
The lower one third of T3 is an area where cattle
farmer manipulated the stream channel. Prior to the
1970s, this area was a wetland. The farmer moved the
channel to the left side of the pasture and removed
the wetland revegetation. A deeper channel has
helped to drain the pasture.
Lower T3 is an incised 134 -type stream with a high
width -to -depth ratio as a result of cattle trampling of
the streambanks. As a result, channel definition is
weak in many areas along T3 and mid -channel bars
are common.
A cross sectional survey (XS6) was conducted and is provided in the Appendix for review. The location of
the cross section is provided in Figure 2.
Riparian vegetation is very lacking, though there are isolated black willow and other species
Buckwater Mitigation Site - PART 5
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 5.6

T4
T4 is an 820 -foot reach that is heavily impacted by cattle. It
flows from the confluence of T4A and T413 and is
constrained by the high transmission power line to the right
and a farm road to the left. The lateral constraints are
particularly tight at the upstream end of T4, but the power
line is located further away moving downstream.
Numerous headcuts may be found in T4 and are being
prevented from travelling upstream by tree roots. Cattle
have trampled the banks and a prime feeding area is
located just 15 feet from the right bank. The farm road gets
as close as 5 feet from the left bank in the middle of T4.
T4 is a G -type stream channel in many locations through
which a headcut has migrated. Where this hasn't happened
along T4, trampled banks and sedimentation are present. A
cross-sectional survey (XS9) was conducted and is provided
in the Appendix for review. The location of the cross
section is provided in Figure 2.
T4A
As with T4, cattle impacts are pervasive along T4A. T4A
begins as a steep channel beneath the high transmission
power lines before it empties into a farm pond. Below the
pond, the channel is weakly defined due to the pond and
cattle trampling. Below a farm road, the channel empties
into a cattle -impacted wetland immediately beneath the
power lines. The pond on T4A has abundant algal growth
during the growing season, undoubtedly due to high
nutrient inputs from cattle manure. Below the farm road
crossing, as with T4, T4A is laterally constrained by the
power line on the right side and the farm road on the left
side.
T4B
T413 emanates from a forested catchment with
preservation -quality reaches. However, impacts are quickly
noticeable as it discharges from a farm road culvert and is
subject to direct cattle use. Headcuts are numerous and,
where present, the channel is incised. Elsewhere, trampled
banks and sedimentation are common. This alternating
incision and trampling is the case for the upper 413 -foot
section of T413. The lower 259 -foot section runs through a
cattle -trampled wetland directly below the high
transmission power lines. T413 is a G -type channel. A cross
sectional survey (XS9) was conducted and is provided in the
Appendix.
Buckwater Mitigation Site - PART 5
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 5.7

T5
T5 is a spring -augmented reach that begins at the
confluence of T6 and T6A, north of St. Mary's Road.
Initially, the reach is incised but stable with a bedrock
and cobble bottom. Downstream however, the channel
becomes incised and runs along the embankment that
forms the base for St. Mary's Road. Once below St.
Mary's Road, the channel hugs Walnut Hill Drive and at
the bottom, flows through a narrow gap between the
road and a spring -fed pond. An active headcut is moving
upstream and is currently between the upper end of the
pond and the road. Clay substrate slows the headcut
progress.
T5 is an incised E -type channel with low sinuosity. A cross sectional survey (XS11) was conducted and is
provided in the Appendix.
T6, T6A, and T6B
T6 and T6A join to form T5. T6A is a short 284 -foot
reach that forms below a 1 -acre farm pond. A headcut is
moving from T6A along the overflow spillway path to
the pond dam. Otherwise, the reach is largely stable
and has relatively minimal erosion, probably because
the pond upstream detains runoff. T6A is an incised B -
type channel. A cross sectional survey (XS10) was
conducted and is provided in the Appendix. The location
of the cross section is provided in Figure 2.
T6 is an approximately 1,843 -foot reach that begins
near a property line, beyond which is a small power line
and a forested area. T6 has stable sections that alternate with incised and eroding sections. The riparian
buffer is fairly minimal in most locations with isolated trees on the bank. Bedrock and tree roots serve as
knickpoints to arrest headcut progression. T6 is an incised E -type channel. A cross sectional survey
(XS12) was conducted and is provided in the Appendix.
T613 is a 122 -foot reach that is the downstream end of a farm swale. A headcut has migrated up the
lower end of T66 from T6. Erosion is evident along T613 though it appears to be at a slow rate. Cedar
roots are helping to hold the banks together. T613 above the project area is stable but receives runoff
from agricultural fields.
T7 and T7A
T7 is a tributary that flows north into the lower end of Buckwater Creek. T7 probably has most severe
incision in the project area, as evidenced by bank height ratios of nearly 5. Despite bad incision, bank
erosion has progressed more slowly because tree roots are helping to stabilize the banks. T7 is an
incised G -type channel. A cross sectional survey (XS13) was conducted and is provided in the Appendix.
The location of the cross section is provided in Figure 2.
Buckwater Mitigation Site - PART 5
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 5.8

T7A is a former pond area with a failed dam that joins T7
from the south. The pond dam apparently failed after a
headcut migrated through T7 and left a steep drop below
T7A.
T8
T8 is a tributary that flows south into upper Buckwater
Creek. The full length of T8 is incised; however, an active
and deeper headcut is approximately half way up its
length. As a result, incision in the lower half of T8 is more
pronounced.
T8 is an incised Eb-type channel. Its lack of sinuosity is
apparently because of a narrow valley. A cross sectional
survey (XS14) was conducted and is provided in the
Appendix for review. The location of the cross section is
provided in Figure 2.
T9
T9 is a tributary that drains through a spring -fed pond.
Consequently, it is for the most part stable. It has down
cut on the lower end, however, because it drains to
incised upper Buckwater Creek. The portion of T9 to be
included in the project will be only the proposed
easement width on Buckwater Creek.
5.2.3 Watershed Characterization
The Site is located within the Targeted Local Watershed 03020201030030 and DWR Subbasin 03-04-01.
All onsite tributaries drain to Buckwater Creek which is classified as Class WS -IV water by DWR. Class
WS -IV waters are used as water supply for drinking, culinary, and food processing purposes in
moderately to highly developed watersheds. These waters are also protected for Class C uses, which
include: secondary recreation, wildlife, fish consumption, aquatic life including propagation, survival and
maintenance of biological integrity, and agriculture. Secondary recreation includes wading, boating, and
other uses involving human body contact with water where such activities take place in an infrequent,
unorganized, or incidental manner.
Site topography, as indicated on the Hillsborough and Caldwell, NC USGS 7.5 minute topographic
quadrangles, shows mostly moderately sloped areas throughout the Site with some steep contours
along the upstream reaches (Figure 4). Drainage areas for the project reaches were delineated using 2 -
foot contour intervals derived from the North Carolina Floodplain Mapping Program's 2007 Light
Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) data (Figure 5). Land uses draining to the project reaches are primarily
managed herbaceous cover/pasture, forest, and low density residential. It has less than 1% impervious
area as determined by USGS StreamStats basin characteristics report. The watershed areas and current
land use are summarized in Table 5.2, below.
Buckwater Mitigation Site - PART 5
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 5.9

Table 5.2 Drainage Areas and Associated Land Use
5.2.4 Soils
The proposed project is mapped by the Orange County Soil Survey. Project area soils are described
below in Table 5.3. Figure 6 is a soil map of the Site. Most of the stream reaches are on Chewacla soils,
Buckwater Mitigation Site - PART 5
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 5.10
NCDWR Stream
Intermittent/
Watershed
Watershed
Reach Name
Identification
Predominant Land Use
perennial
Area (acres)
Area (sq. mi.)
Form Scores
Buckwater
63% forested; 32% managed
Creek — prj.
36
Perennial
2,316
3.62
herbaceous cover/pasture; 4% low
terminus
density residential; 0.3% impervious
76% forested; 21% managed
T1
37.5
Perennial
1,203
1.88
herbaceous cover/pasture; 3% low
density residential; 0.2% impervious
50% forested; 47% managed
T2
37
Perennial
204
0.32
herbaceous cover/pasture; 3% low
density residential; 0.2% impervious
85% managed herbaceous
T5
32.5
Perennial
115
0.18
cover/pasture; 15% forested
Drainage areas listed above are major subwatersheds in the project area. Those listed below are individual catchments.
69% managed herbaceous
cover/pasture; 15% forested; 4% low
T3
37
Perennial
129
0.20
density residential; 2% impervious;
1% open water
64% managed herbaceous
T4A
22.5
Intermittent
24
0.04
cover/pasture; 36% forested
95% forested; 5% managed
T46
25.5
Intermittent
35
0.05
herbaceous cover/pasture
Intermittent/
65% forested; 35% managed
T4
40.5
Perennial
87
0.14
herbaceous cover/pasture
53% managed herbaceous
T6
31
Perennial
26
0.04
cover/pasture; 46% forested; 1% low
density residential
88% managed herbaceous
T6A
33.5
Perennial
30
0.05
cover/pasture; 10% forested; 2%
open water
95% managed herbaceous
T66
27
Intermittent
8
0.01
cover/pasture; 5% forested
74% managed herbaceous
T7
30
Perennial
28
0.04
cover/pasture; 26% forested
69% managed herbaceous
T7A
23.5
Intermittent
3
0.01
cover/pasture; 31% forested
90% managed herbaceous
T8
30.5
Perennial
19
0.03
cover/pasture; 8% forested; 1% low
density residential; 1% impervious
71% managed herbaceous
cover/pasture; 17% forested; 8%
T9
31.5
Perennial
41
0.05
open water; 1% low density
residential; 1% impervious
5.2.4 Soils
The proposed project is mapped by the Orange County Soil Survey. Project area soils are described
below in Table 5.3. Figure 6 is a soil map of the Site. Most of the stream reaches are on Chewacla soils,
Buckwater Mitigation Site - PART 5
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 5.10

with some Herndon and Tatum on the upper end of a few of the upper reaches (T3, T4A, T413, and T8).
Appling and Helena soils are prevalent on the uplands around the project site.
Table 5.3 Project Soil Types and Descriptions
Soil Name
Description
This series consists of well drained and moderately well drained soils that formed on uplands in
Appling-
material that weathered from granite and gneiss. The surface layer is about 9 inches thick of a
Helena
brown sandy loam. The subsoil extends to a depth of 48-60 inches and contains sandy clay loam,
clay, or sandy clay that is yellow at the top and brown at deeper levels.
This series is found on flood plains along creeks and rivers. This soil is typically level and
somewhat poorly drained, in areas that frequently flood for brief periods. The surface layer is a 6 -
inch thick brown loam. The subsoil is 46 inches thick, and grades with depth from a mottled
Chewacla
yellowish -brown fine sandy loam to mottled yellow -brown -gray clay loam in the middle part, to a
loam
mottled gray sandy clay loam at the bottom. The underlying material to a depth of 60 inches is
mottled light gray, stratified sandy loam.
The permeability is moderate, the available water capacity is medium, and the shrink -swell
potential is low. Depth to bedrock is more than 60 inches. Depth to the seasonal high water table
is about 6 to 18 inches during late winter and early spring.
Gently sloping to moderately steep, well drained soils that have a surface layer of silt loam and a
Herndon-
subsoil of clay loam, silty clay loam, silty clay, and clay; on uplands. This series is typically well
Tatum
drained with medium runoff potential and no flooding. These soils formed in upland settings
Series
mainly from weathered slate. Depth to bedrock is more than 60 inches for the Herndon and 40-60
inches for the Tatum. Bedrock is exposed on upper T3 where Tatum soils are mapped.
Source: Orange County Soil Survey, USDA-NRCS, http://www.nres.usda.gov
5.2.5 Geology
The project is located in the Carolina Slate Belt of the Piedmont Physiographic Province. The Piedmont
Province is characterized by gently rolling, well rounded hills with long low ridges, with elevations
ranging from 300 —1,500 feet above sea level. The Carolina Slate Belt consists of heated and deformed
volcanic and sedimentary rocks. Specifically, the proposed project is located in felsic metavolcanic rock
(mapped CZfv) of the Carolina Slate Belt. This unit consists of light gray to greenish gray, felsic
metavolcanic rock interbedded with mafic and intermediate metavolcanic rock and is composed
primarily of feldspar, quartz, sericite, chlorite meta-argillite, and metamudstone (NCGS, 1985). This
information was obtained from geologic mapping; no field investigations of rock lithology were
performed.
Site investigations revealed sporadic visible bedrock in pastures or within the channel. With floodplain
soils having depths greater than 80 inches, grade control structures will be used in the stream design to
prevent further incision. There is potential to excavate native materials on site to use in constructed
riffles and other grade control structures. The weathered parent material of the Tatum silt loam series,
described above, would provide a well -mixed substrate with varying size classes.
Source: North Carolina Geological Survey (NCGS), 1985. Geologic map of North Carolina 1:500,000 scale.
5.2.6 Cultural Resources and Significant Natural Heritage Areas
The site is located within St. Mary's Road Rural Historic District according to the National Register with
the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). The project site is also located in close proximity to two
Historic Places: the Bacon Farm (OR0693) and the Walnut Hill Farm (OR1428) according to SHPO. The
Buckwater Mitigation Site - PART 5
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 5.11

archaeological site files at the North Carolina Office of State Archaeology (OSA) have not been reviewed
at this time. However, Wildlands reviewed the Architectural Survey and National Register Evaluation of
St. Mary's Road completed in 1999, and did not find any potential conflicts with the proposed mitigation
work. All appropriate cultural resource agencies will be contacted for their review and comment prior to
any land disturbing activity.
To the south, the project parcels directly abut the Eno River State Park, a NC Natural Heritage Program
Managed Area, and the Eno River/Cates Ford Slopes and Uplands, which is listed as a significant Natural
Heritage Area (Figure 1). Restoration of the riparian buffer will provide a riparian habitat connection to
these protect areas.
5.2.7 Threatened and Endangered Species
The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and NC Natural Heritage Program (NHP) databases were
searched for state and federally listed threatened and endangered plant and animal species in Orange
County, NC. There are currently 11 species listed as threatened or endangered at the federal level in
Orange County, NC (Table 5.4). The federally endangered listed species include the bald eagle
(Haliaeetus leucocepholus), dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon), triangle floater (Alasmidonta
undulata), brook floater (Alasmidonta varicose), atlantic pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni), yellow lampmussel
(Lampsilis cariosa), green floater (Lasmigona subviridis), savannah lilliput (Toxolasma pullus), carolina
creekshell (Villosa vauganiana), smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata), and the michaux's sumac
(Rhus michauxii). A pedestrian survey conducted on August 25-26, 2015 indicated that the site could
provide necessary habitat for the federally protected species but none were located at the time.
Wildlands will conduct a thorough review of the Site for all state -listed species upon award of contract.
Table 5.4 Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species in Orange County, NC
Buckwater Mitigation Site - PART 5
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 5.12
Federal
Species
Habitat
Status
Vertebrate
Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus
BGPA
Found in wetland habitat, rivers, large lakes or marshes, and near other open
leucocephalus)
water bodies.
Invertebrate
Dwarf Wedgemussel
E
Muddy sand, sand, and gravel bottoms of creeks and rivers with slow to
(Alasmidonta heterodon)
moderate currant and good water quality.
Triangle Floater (Alasmidonta
FSC
Streams and rivers in sand and gravel substrates
undulata)
Brook Floater (Alasmidonta
FSC
Consistently flowing water from small streams to large rivers with gravel or
varicose)
sand substrates. Generally found in riffles.
Atlantic Pigtoe (Fusconaia
FSC
Prefers relatively fast moving waters. Found in headwaters or rural
masoni)
watersheds. Prefers sand and gravel at tail end of riffles.
Yellow Lampmussel (Lampsilis
FSC
Prefers medium to large rivers with variety of substrates including sand, silt,
carioso)
cobble, and gravel.
Green Floater (Lasmigona
FSC
Found in streams, small rivers, and canals with low to medium gradients, small
subviridis)
pools and eddies, and fine gravel or sand bottom.
Savannah Lilliput (Toxolasma
FSC
Inhabits lotic streams and ponds and prefers mud or sand near banks.
pullus)
Carolina Creekshell (Villosa
FSC
Inhabits silty sand or clay along banks of small streams.
vauganiana)
Buckwater Mitigation Site - PART 5
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 5.12

Species
Federal
Habitat
Status
Vascular Plant
Smooth Coneflower (Echinacea
E
Open woods, cedar barrens, roadsides, dry limestone bluffs, and utility line
laevigata)
right-of-way. Prefers Magnesium rich soils underlain by mafic rock
Michaux's Sumac (Rhus
E
Grows in sandy soils in openings or thin woods. Dependent on some form of
michauxii)
disturbance for maintenance.
E=Endangered; FSC = Federal Species of Concern; BGPA= Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
5.2.8 Floodplain Compliance
'Buckwater Creek and T1 are mapped in a
ZOPPE E, I Zone AE Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA)
ti • �. on Orange County Flood Insurance Rate
Map (FIRM) Panel 9895. The mapped
portion of Buckwater Creek begins
upstream of Walnut Hill Drive and
w r=? * extends to the downstream limits of the
project. The mapped portion of T1
(named Buckwater Creek Tributary 2 on
' . IN
8 FIRM Panel 9895) begins upstream of St
Mary's Road and extends to the
confluence with Buckwater Creek. For
both mapped portions of Buckwater
Creek and T1, a detailed study has been performed with base flood elevations defined and delineated
floodway. The remaining portion of Buckwater Creek and its tributaries (T2 -T9) do not have detailed
hydraulic studies performed, but the downstream portions of said reaches confluent to Buckwater fall
within the SFHA. Effective hydraulic modeling for Buckwater Creek and T1 will be obtained from the NC
Floodplain Mapping Program. A no -rise condition will be pursued if compatible with stream restoration
and floodplain enhancement grading. If a no -rise condition is not attainable, then a CLOMR will be
prepared. Wildlands' engineers have successfully navigated the CLOMR process for several similar full -
delivery project sites. A LOMR will be completed as required after construction using as -built survey
data.
5.2.9 Site Constraints and Access
The Site includes three internal easement crossings, three external easement crossings, and three power
line utility easement crossings. Additionally, there are two existing NCDOT crossings (St. Mary's Road, T5
and T1) that may be considered external easement crossings. Wildlands has proposed crossing
alignments and negotiated option agreements which allow for restoration throughout the site. Crossings
and land negotiations are detailed below. All crossings are assigned a number and summarized in Table
5.5, below, and are depicted by number on Figures 2 and 7.
All streams proposed for mitigation credit provide the required 50 foot minimum riparian buffer for
Piedmont streams. The easement area will be marked per DMS Guidelines for Full Delivery Requirement
for Completion of Survey for Conservation Easements (version 13, August 2013).
The entire easement area can be accessed for construction, monitoring, and long term stewardship from
existing site access points located along St. Mary's Road, Walnut Hill Drive, and farm access roads
(Figure 7). Wildlands has executed option agreements to purchase conservation easements on the
Buckwater Mitigation Site - PART 5
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 5.13

properties. Per the RFP, the conservation easements will be the protection instruments and these will
be conveyed to the State of North Carolina.
Table 5.5 Easement Breaks and Crossings
No.
Width (ft)
Stream
Crossing Type
Access
Internal in easement. Longstanding 100 -foot wide
Buckwater
High transmission
Duke Power utility easement that would remain
1
100
Creek
power line utility
through this project. Cleared area is presently closer to
easement.
150 feet. Separately crosses Buckwater Creek and T46.
High transmission
Internal in easement. Longstanding 100 -foot wide
2
100
T413
power line utility
Duke Power utility easement that would remain
through this project. Cleared area is presently closer to
easement.
150 feet.
Buckwater
Internal in easement. 50 -foot wide Duke Power utility
3
50
Creek
Utility easement
easement that supplies power to Walnut Hill
subdivision. Expected to remain through this project.
External to easement, existing farm road that will
Culvert crossing —
remain. Proposal is to reroute stream through this
4
60
T3
fenced over
crossing, which will involve design and installation of a
new culvert. This crossing is not used by cows and is
gated.
Internal in easement. Necessary for vehicular traffic
5
60
T4
Culvert crossing —
and cattle passage between pastures. The crossing will
fenced over
be fenced on both sides to allow cattle passage, and
gates will be included.
Internal in easement. Necessary for vehicular traffic
6
60
T4A
Culvert crossing —
and cattle passage between pastures. The crossing will
fenced over
be fenced on both sides to allow cattle passage, and
gates will be included.
Internal in easement, existing farm road that will
7
30
T6
Ford crossing
remain. The ford will be stabilized and fenced on both
sides with gates exclude livestock from the easement.
Internal in easement. Necessary for vehicular traffic
8
30
T3
Culvert crossing —
and cattle passage back to barn. The crossing will be
fenced over
fenced on both sides to allow cattle passage, and gates
will be included.
No airports are known to exist within five miles of the Site.
5.3 Project Development
The Wildlands Team proposes to restore a high quality of ecological function to the streams and riparian
corridors on the Site. The project will be designed to avoid adverse impacts to existing wetlands or
riparian buffers. Different management objectives are proposed for different portions of the project
area. These activities are discussed below and summarized in Table 5.6. Figure 7 illustrates the
conceptual design for the Site.
5.3.1 Stream Mitigation Approach
The Buckwater Mitigation Site will involve the restoration and/or enhancement of fifteen reaches, as
well as the restoration and protection of their associated riparian buffers. As a result of the proposed
restoration and enhancement activities, approximately 16,180 linear feet of existing stream will be
restored or enhanced and 48.8 acres of riparian buffer will be restored or enhanced.
Buckwater Mitigation Site - PART 5
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 5.14

Cattle have caused significant degradation to the onsite streams. Upper Buckwater Creek, T2, T2, T4,
and T7 in particular have reaches which have sustained severe impacts and are in various stages of
instability as described in Section 5.2.2. There is reason to believe that several of the channels have
relocated in the past to maximize available space and provide drier pasture conditions. Upper
Buckwater Creek and Lower T3 show the clearest evidence of relocation.
Carefully considered mitigation approaches are provided in the following section for each of the project
streams. Following, Wildlands' general approaches to mitigation are discussed.
Buckwater Creek — Restoration and Enhancement
Work on the upper portion of Buckwater Creek will involve Enhancement Level II practices for 392 feet
focused on stabilizing eroding stream banks. The outside bends are generally vertical and eroding, so
where accessibility is viable, they will be sloped and matted. The coarse channel substrate and bedform
diversity are generally good, so a more minimal approach is preferred.
At the confluence with T8, access to Buckwater Creek improves on both stream banks. Additionally,
bank erosion becomes more severe. As such, an Enhancement Level I approach is proposed to improve
overall channel stability. The bed will be gradually raised to reduce channel incision and the eroding
outside bends will be stabilized with structures and bank sloping.
At the end of the Enhancement Level I section, a floodplain opens beyond the left streambank, with
minimal trees. Wildlands proposes to transition
to a Priority Level I restoration in order to
improve channel dimension, pattern, and profile.
Priority Level I restoration of Buckwater Creek
will continue for the next 3,177 feet. To do this,
several obstacles will be addressed the first of
which is a failed dam across the floodplain. The
existing channel runs through a hand -laid portion
of the dam; however, a restoration channel could
be rerouted around the earthen north end of the
dam. Farm ponds upstream and downstream of
Walnut Hill Drive will be removed so that the
stream can use its available floodplain.
At the confluence with T1 to the downstream
project extent, Buckwater Creek shows less bank erosion and greater channel stability. Low beaver dams
in this reach may help with bank stability, but in general do not appear to pose much of a problem.
Wildlands will manage beaver closer to construction and may do so if they present a problem before
then. Wildlands proposed Enhancement Level II in this reach to stabilize eroding streambanks through a
combination of structure placement and bank sloping and matting.
T1— Restoration and Enhancement
The project reach on T1 begins upstream of St. Mary's Rd. where the reach becomes incised and outside
bends are vertical and eroding. Wildlands proposes to stabilize the eroding streambanks and gradually
raise the streambed to reduce incision and transition to downstream Priority Level I restoration.
As previously mentioned, the bridge crossing at St. Mary's Rd. is scheduled for replacement in the near
term. This should increase the stream hydraulic capacity below the bridge. Downstream from St. Mary's
Rd. the channel is incised and relatively straight, with no riparian buffer on the left bank due to the
power line easement. Wildlands proposes to move the channel using Priority Level I restoration and tie
Buckwater Mitigation Site - PART 5
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 5.15

in to this floodplain, which will also give the reach a full buffer on both sides. The existing floodplain has
mature trees that will be designed around in order to minimize tree loss. Restoration will continue to
the confluence with Buckwater Creek. Wildlands will coordinate with NCDOT about raising the bed a
foot or two below the new bridge.
T2 - Restoration
T2 displays a variety of impacts, including banks trampled by cattle, incision, Chinese privet on the
streambanks, and sedimentation. Considering that it will also need to connect to Buckwater Creek,
which is proposed for Priority Level I restoration, full Priority Level I restoration will be applied to T2.
Cattle will be permanently excluded from the channel. Invasive species, including abundant privet, will
be treated.
T3 — Restoration and Enhancement
Beginning at the upstream end, T3 is fairly stable despite being part of an active pasture. The upper 836
feet of channel will be stabilized and protected through Enhancement Level II practices. Cattle will be
fenced out of the easement, eroding banks will be sloped and matted, and native riparian vegetation
will be planted.
Below a bedrock knickpoint in the vicinity of farm buildings, the channel definition becomes poor due to
cattle trampling of the banks. Additionally, according to the farmer, the lower end of T3 has been moved
to the side of the valley many decades ago. Below the farm road, T3 is markedly incised and actively
eroding as it approaches its confluence with T4. Consequently, a Priority Level I approach is proposed for
the lower 1,368 feet of T3.
T4A — Restoration and Enhancement
T4A enters the project area from underneath a transmission line easement. The channel upstream from
the project area is steep and somewhat unstable. The pond into which this channel flows receives a high
nutrient load from cattle waste in the catchment pastures. This pond will be removed and connected
with the stable downstream channel. Because of
T4A is intermittent, Enhancement Level I is
proposed for channel enhancement work through
the old pond bed, followed by Enhancement Level II
below the pond. Cattle will be excluded from the
reach.
After T4A passes through a culvert beneath a farm
road, it joins a trampled wetland area beneath the
power line. Wildlands proposes Priority Level I
restoration to route lower T4A through an existing
overflow channel between the farm road and utility
easement. Though the buffer in this location will be
less tnan 5U Leet, it wiii nave some existing canopy
and channel length will be added. This will preserve existing shading and seed sources. Upper T4 and
T4A are the only intermittent channels for which restoration is proposed. Without restoration, these
reaches would not have riparian buffers due to the transmission line and farm road proximities.
T4B — Enhancement
T413 begins in reference -quality channels in a forested catchment and enters the site from a culvert
beneath a mostly abandoned farm road. Cattle impacts and headcuts are evident in T4A. Wildlands
proposes Enhancement Level I to provide a stable channel cross section where bank trampling has
occurred, as well as corrective measure to arrest headcuts in upper T4B. As it flows beneath the power
Buckwater Mitigation Site - PART 5
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 5.16

line, the T413 channel becomes difficult to recognize due to cattle trampling. Here, cattle will be
excluded.
T4 - Restoration
T4A and T413 join just above a farm road. A culvert
will be added and the crossing will be stabilized.
Priority Level I restoration will be used to move the
channel away from the farm road and provide a
buffer on the left bank. Cattle will be excluded
from the easement. T4 will extend for 856 linear
feet before joining with restored T3.
T5 — Restoration and Enhancement
T5 is best explained beginning from the
downstream end. Here, the channel flows through
a narrow gap between a spring -fed farm pond and
Walnut Hill Drive. A headcut has moved through
this area and is progressing towards St. Mary's
Road. Priority Level I restoration is proposed to
move the channel away from Walnut Hill Drive and
through the area where the pond is located.
Removing the pond will be necessary to provide a
riparian buffer on both banks, as well as floodplain
connection. This portion of the project will include
the spring in the easement and provide a clean
water source for the downstream reaches.
T5 flows along St. Mary's Rd. upstream from the culvert. The channel can be moved into an available
field beyond the left bank. Priority Level I restoration is feasible to a riffle underlain by bedrock just
downstream from the confluence of T6 and T6A.
T6 - Enhancement
T6 begins at the project limit and extends downstream for 1,843 linear feet through widely varying
conditions. Some section are stable, while others include headcuts and bank erosion. Enhancement
Level II practices are proposed to stabilize the vertical eroding banks, remove headcuts, and provide
grade control. The existing ford crossing will be stabilized by adding native rock in the riffle below the
crossing. This method will also be used to stabilize the headcuts along T6. Invasive species including
privet will be treated.
T6A - Enhancement
T6A emanates from a pond and flows southeast for approximately 284 feet before joining T6. A headcut
migrating up the pond overflow channel from T6A and bank erosion will be will be stabilized.
Enhancement Level II practices will be used to accomplish these tasks.
T7 — Restoration and Enhancement
T7 is an unstable channel that has cattle trampling impacts on the lower end, deep incision in the
middle, and a combination of headcuts and cattle impacts in the upper end. Level I Enhancement will be
implemented to provide channel stabilization for the first 166 feet. At this point a spring increases the
channel's streamflow. Accordingly, Priority Level I restoration is proposed to reconnect the channel with
its floodplain and fully stabilize the system to its confluence with lower Buckwater Creek.
Buckwater Mitigation Site - PART 5
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 5.17

T7A — Enhancement
The headcut that initiated below the failed dam pond and upstream erosion below its path will be
stabilized using Enhancement Level I practices.
T8 - Enhancement
T8 is deeply incised in its lower half and less incised in its upper half. Enhancement Level I practices will
be employed to eliminate headcuts by raising the bed to restore the profile. Bank erosion will be
reduced using bank sloping and structures.
T9 - Enhancement
T9 will be stabilized with Enhancement Level II measures by raising the bed to tie in to Buckwater Creek,
which is slated for a raised bed through Enhancement Level I practices in this reach.
Design Approach
All restored reaches on the project will be designed
to create new stable, functional stream channels
based on reference reach and sediment transport
analyses. Dimension, pattern, and profile will be
designed to allow for frequent overbank flooding,
provide stable bank slopes, and enable biological
lift. This approach will provide hydrologic
connectivity between creeks and floodplains and
will also create vertical and lateral stability.
Removing invasive vegetation and establishing
stable bank slopes will allow for a native and
diverse riparian zone to grow which will improve
nutrient removal. A diverse bedform will provide
habitat for an increased number of species of
insects, fish, and amphibians. This diverse bedform
will be established using instream structures
appropriate for the geomorphic setting such as log weirs, log vanes, and constructed riffles. Hardwood
trees may be able to be harvested from upland areas around the property for log and wood structures.
Wildlands will begin the project by identifying the best design approach to meet the stated project
objectives and implement the appropriate degree of intervention. A combination of analog, empirical,
and analytical design approaches will potentially be used. Reference streams will be identified and will
serve as one of the primary sources of information on which designs are based. Modeling and other
detailed analyses will be used as appropriate to develop or verify designs. Wildlands has developed a
general approach to be used as the basis for stream restoration design. The design approach, which is
tailored to each site, continues to develop as additional projects are implemented. Some of the key
elements of the methods are described below.
Generally, stream designs will be based on a design discharge range which, in most cases, will be an
approximation of the bankfull discharge but will be selected to meet the objectives of the design. The
discharge will be determined through detailed hydrologic analyses using the best available information
such as local or regional stream gage records, empirical regional stream flow estimates, hydrologic
modeling results, and reference stream flows. Other discharges (such as baseflow or flows to support
instream habitat features) will also be considered during the design process based on the specific
project objectives. The design will be refined or validated with sediment transport analysis.
Buckwater Mitigation Site - PART 5
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 5.18

All areas within the conservation easement subject
to livestock intrusion will be fenced with woven wire
or four -strand barbed wire fencing, or as appropriate
for site conditions, to eliminate livestock grazing and
re-establish a native riparian buffer. Conservation
easement areas not subject to livestock intrusion will
be marked per DMS guidelines. Native riparian
buffers that are 50 feet from the proposed top of
bank will be planted along all restored and enhanced
streams on the Site.
In very few instances, the riparian buffer may be less
than 50 feet due to unavoidable constraints. These
areas include: T3 in the vicinity of the farm buildings; T4A and T4 between the high transmission power
line and the farm road and T6 along the power line running parallel to St. Mary's Road. In all, the stream
length where the buffers are expected to be less than 50 feet will be less than 2 percent of the total
stream length. In many instances, the buffer planting will extend beyond the required 50 -foot minimum
buffer (Figure 7).
5.3.2 Sediment Transport
Sediment transport is an extremely complicated process and the appropriate level of analysis must be
determined for each specific design. This determination is based on watershed assessment, local stream
observations, reference conditions, and other sources of information. Generally, these assessments will
lead to one of two levels of sediment transport analysis and a corresponding design approach. For
streams that are gravel or cobble bed sites and have a low bed load, threshold channels can be designed
based on discharge and sediment transport competence analysis. These channels are not expected to be
prone to excessive morphologic change and the project objectives will include that channel slope,
geometry, and bedforms do not change significantly over time. Other streams, including those with sand
or silt bed material and those that have a moderate to high bedload will require more detailed sediment
transport studies and must be designed as alluvial channels. These conditions must be considered when
establishing design objectives as alluvial channels are expected to adjust their slope, geometry, and
bedforms over time. In these cases a capacity analysis with data collection and/or detailed modeling is
an important component of the design. However, alluvial channels will most often be designed with
controls at key locations to prevent rapid, significant change.
5.3.3 Nutrient Reduction
The STEPL model (Spreadsheet Tool for Estimating Pollutant Loads) was used to estimate the reduction
in Total Nitrogen (TN) and Total Phosphorus (TP) associated with converting the managed pasture land
to a hardwood forest through the establishment of riparian buffers on this project. Estimates indicate a
reduction in TN by 39% and TP by 64%. This equates to an annual load reduction of 12.9 lbs of TN and
5.6 lbs of TP. This nutrient reduction associated with the restoration project will contribute to the Falls
Lake nutrient reduction goals.
5.3.4 Vegetation Plan
The Site will be planted following construction of the project. The project area will be planted and
seeded with a combination of early and later successional native vegetation chosen to create a
bottomland hardwood forest similar to reference communities. The planting plan will be developed to
restore appropriate strata (canopy, understory, shrub, and herbaceous layers). The canopy will be
restored through planting of bare root trees. The understory and shrub layers will be restored through a
Buckwater Mitigation Site - PART 5
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 5.19

combination of planting bare root, low growth species and installing live stake shrub species. The
herbaceous layer will be restored by seeding the disturbed area with a native seed mix with an emphasis
placed on creating good soil contact to encourage germination.
5.4 Proposed Mitigation
The Site will be a combination of stream restoration, and stream enhancement level I and II. 12,489
SMUs are proposed (Table 5.6, Figure 7). The mitigation credit calculation was derived using the US
Army Corps of Engineers' Stream Mitigation Guidance and was based on Wildlands' conceptual design
for maximum ecological uplift. Given the existing conditions of the stream channels, the disturbance
factors, and the constraints, management objectives for each reach have been established. The
management objective, the mitigation type, and proposed amount of stream mitigation is presented
below.
Table 5.6 Mitigation Units proposed for the Buckwater Mitigation Site
Buckwater Mitigation Site - PART 5
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 5.20
Type of
Length
Mitigation Units
Reach
Management Objectives
Ratio
Mitigation
(feet)
(SMUs)
Buckwater
Stabilize vertical banks, install structures.
Enhancement
11
392
2.5:1
157
Repair erosion with in -stream structures and bank
Enhancement
Buckwater
grading as needed. Raise bed. Establish native
638
1.5:1
425
riparian buffer.
1
Restore appropriate dimension, pattern, and
profile with Priority 1 restoration. Install habitat
Buckwater
structures, allow bankfull floodplain access.
Restoration
3,192
1:1
3,192
Priority 2 restoration to be used to transition the
stream to existing invert tie-ins. Fence out
livestock. Establish native riparian buffer.
Buckwater
Power easement in line above.
Restoration
60
1 0
0
Buckwater
Repair erosion with in -stream structures and bank
Enhancement
1,105
2.5:1
442
grading as needed. Establish native riparian buffer.
11
Buckwater
Power easement in line above.
Enhanilement
125
0
0
Repair erosion with in -stream structures and bank
Enhancement
T1
grading as needed. Raise bed. Establish native
392
1.5:1
261
riparian buffer.
1
Move away from power line. Restore appropriate
dimension, pattern, and profile with Priority 1
restoration. Install habitat structures, allow
T1
bankfull floodplain access. Priority 2 restoration to
Restoration
672
1:1
672
be used to transition the stream to existing invert
tie-ins. Fence out livestock. Establish native
riparian buffer.
Priority Level I restoration, including livestock
T2
exclusion fencing.
Restoration
662
1:1
662
T3
Livestock exclusion fencing.
Enhan11ement
2.5:1
334
836
Priority Level 1 restoration, including moving
1:1
T3
channel in to former location.
Restoration
1,231
1,231
T3
Priority Level 1 restoration
Restoration
137
1:1
137
Priority Level I restoration, including moving
T4
channel away from farm road.
Restoration
856
1:1
856
T4A
Livestock exclusion, pond removal
Enhancement
180
1.5:1
120
T4A
Livestock exclusion, channel definition.
Enhan11ement
226
2.5:1
90
Buckwater Mitigation Site - PART 5
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 5.20

5.5 Current Ownership
The Site is located on ten parcels owned by seven sets of landowners summarized in Table 5.7. Option
Agreements for the general project area shown on Figure 7 have been signed by the property owners
and a Memorandum of Option is recorded for each parcel at the Orange County Register of Deeds.
These Memorandum of Options are valid for a minimum of one year from the closing date of RFP 16-
006477. The landowners have signed the Landowner Authorization Form allowing the United State Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE) to enter the Site for assessment purposes prior to execution of the Option.
Copies of the first two pages of the recorded Memoranda of Option and the Landowner Authorization
Forms are included in the Appendix. Wildlands has included only the first two pages of the Memoranda
of Option due to space limitations in the RFP; however, the Memoranda of Option are public records
available both the online and in person at the Orange County Register of Deeds. The landowners, parcel
identification numbers, and deed book and page number for the Memoranda of Option are summarized
in Table 5.7. Wildlands is proposing that the final conservation easement will be held by the State of
North Carolina and will provide long term protection of the site.
Buckwater Mitigation Site - PART 5
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 5.21
Type of
Length
Mitigation Units
Reach
Management Objectives
Ratio
Mitigation
(feet)
(SMUs)
T4A
Priority Level I restoration.
Restoration
144
1:1
144
Livestock exclusion, headcut stabilization, channel
Enhancement
T413
definition.
I
451
1.5:1
301
Segment beneath the high transmission power
Enhancement
T4B
line.
11
259
0
0
Livestock exclusion, remove invasive species,
Enhancement
T5
establish native riparian buffer.
II
271
2.5:1
108
Move away from roads and remove pond. Restore
appropriate dimension, pattern, and profile with
T5
Priority 1 restoration. Install habitat structures,
Restoration
1,164
1:1
1,164
allow bankfull floodplain access. Establish native
riparian buffer.
Livestock exclusion, bank stabilization, grade
Enhancement
T6
control, establish native riparian buffer
II
1,843
2.5:1
737
T6A
Headcut and bank stabilization
Enhancement
11
284
2.5:1
114
Livestock exclusion, headcut and bank
Enhancement
T6B
stabilization.
II
122
2.5:1
49
Restore appropriate dimension, pattern, and
profile with Priority 1 restoration. Install habitat
T7
structures, control invasive species, establish
Restoration
648
1:1
648
native riparian buffer.
Livestock exclusion, bank stabilization, restore
Enhancement
T7
profile, establish native riparian buffer.
I
151
1.5:1
111
Exclude livestock, bank stabilization, restore
Enhancement
T7A
profile, establish native riparian buffer.
I
193
1.5:1
129
Bank stabilization, restore profile, grade control,
Enhancement
T8
establish native riparian buffer.
I
566
1.5:1
377
T9
Bank stabilization, raise bed.
Enhancement
70
2.5:1
28
Total
- - -
12,489 SMUs
5.5 Current Ownership
The Site is located on ten parcels owned by seven sets of landowners summarized in Table 5.7. Option
Agreements for the general project area shown on Figure 7 have been signed by the property owners
and a Memorandum of Option is recorded for each parcel at the Orange County Register of Deeds.
These Memorandum of Options are valid for a minimum of one year from the closing date of RFP 16-
006477. The landowners have signed the Landowner Authorization Form allowing the United State Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE) to enter the Site for assessment purposes prior to execution of the Option.
Copies of the first two pages of the recorded Memoranda of Option and the Landowner Authorization
Forms are included in the Appendix. Wildlands has included only the first two pages of the Memoranda
of Option due to space limitations in the RFP; however, the Memoranda of Option are public records
available both the online and in person at the Orange County Register of Deeds. The landowners, parcel
identification numbers, and deed book and page number for the Memoranda of Option are summarized
in Table 5.7. Wildlands is proposing that the final conservation easement will be held by the State of
North Carolina and will provide long term protection of the site.
Buckwater Mitigation Site - PART 5
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 5.21

Table 5.7 Property Owners for the Buckwater Mitigation Site
Property Owner
Parcel ID Number
Memorandum of Option Deed Book (DB)
and Page Number (PG)
Darin and Katie Little
9895069322
DB: RB6024 PG: 539-544
Darin and Katie Little
9895065083
DB: RB6024 PG: 539-544
Bacon Family Farmlands, LLC
9895079332
DB: RB6008 PG: 500-504
Bacon Family Limited Partnership
9895099042
DB: RB6008 PG: 505-510
Doug and Pat Crabtree
9895269592
DB: RB6028 PG: 346-351
Crabtree Farmlands, LLC
9895256668
DB: RB6028 PG: 352-357
Kandace Gotwals
9895258426
DB: RB6029 PG: 559-563
Donna Mayfield and Dave Sheets
9895282714
DB: RB6020 PG: 38-45
Donna Mayfield and Dave Sheets
9895464642
DB: RB6020 PG: 38-45
Pelham and Mary Jacobs
9895381829
DB: RB6029 PG: 553-558
5.6 Project Phasing
The Wildlands Team has experience handling tightly -scheduled projects with a number of stakeholders.
We understand the importance of clear communication and adherence to deadlines. We will establish
additional internal deadlines to keep the project milestones on track. Each task will be staffed with the
appropriate technical and management staff to ensure quality and timely completion. Table 5.8 provides
a summary of the major project milestones.
Table 5.8 Project Schedule for the Buckwater Mitigation Site
Project Milestone
Proposed Time to
Completion
(from date of NTP)
Proposed Completion
Date (assuming NTP on
January 28, 2016)
Task 1. CE Document
3 months
April 28, 2016
Task 2. Submit Recorded Conservation Easement on the Site
1 year, 6 months
July 28, 2017
Task 3. Mitigation Plan Approved by DMS
1 year, 6 months
July 28, 2017
Task 4. Mitigation Site Earthwork Completed
2 years
January 28, 2018
Task 5. Mitigation Site Planting & Installation of Monitoring
Devices
2 years, 4 months
May 28, 2018
Task 6. Baseline Monitoring Report (Including As -Built
Drawings) Approved by DMS
2 years, 8 months
September 28, 2018
Task 7. Submit Monitoring Report #1 to DMS*
2 years, 10 months
November 30, 2018
Task 8. Submit Monitoring Report #2 to DMS*
3 years, 10 months
November 30, 2019
Task 9. Submit Monitoring Report #3 to DMS*
4 years, 10 months
November 30, 2020
Task 10. Submit Monitoring Report #4 to DMS*
5 years, 10 months
November 30, 2021
Task 11. Submit Monitoring Report #5 to DMS*
6 years, 10 months
November 30, 2022
Task 12. Submit Monitoring Report #6 to DMS*
7 years, 10 months
November 30, 2023
Task 13. Submit Monitoring Report #7 to DMS* and complete
Close -Out Process
1 8 years, 10 months
November 30, 2024
*Meets success criteria (schedule progression has been developed assuming that the site meets success
criteria each monitoring year)
5.7 Success Criteria and Monitoring Plan
The stream restoration performance criteria for the Site will follow approved performance criteria
presented in the DMS Mitigation Plan Template (version 2.3, December 18, 2014), the DMS Stream and
Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Guidelines (February 2014), and the Stream Mitigation Guidelines issued
in April 2003 by the USACE and DWR. Annual monitoring and semi-annual site visits will be conducted to
k4 Buckwater Mitigation Site - PART 5
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 5.22

assess the condition of the completed project. The stream restoration sections of the project will be
assigned specific performance criteria components for hydrology, vegetation, and geomorphology. The
stream enhancement sections of the project will be assigned specific performance criteria components
for vegetation. Performance criteria will be evaluated throughout the (up -to) seven years of post -
construction monitoring. If all performance criteria have been successfully met and at least two bankfull
events and at least two other geomorphically significant events have occurred during separate years,
Wildlands may propose to terminate stream and/or vegetation monitoring after five years. An outline of
the performance criteria components follows.
5.7.1 Stream Morphological Parameters and Channel Stability
Dimension
Riffle cross sections on the restoration reaches should be stable and should show little change in
bankfull area, entrenchment ratio, and width -to -depth ratio. All riffle cross sections should fall within
the parameters defined for channels of the appropriate stream type. If any changes do occur, these
changes will be evaluated to assess whether the stream channel is showing signs of instability. Changes
in the channel that indicate a movement toward stability or enhanced habitat include a decrease in the
width -to -depth ratio in meandering channels or an increase in pool depth. Remedial action would not be
taken if channel changes indicate a movement toward stability.
In order to assess channel dimension performance, permanent cross sections will be installed per DMS
Stream and Wetland Monitoring Guidelines (February 2014). Each cross section will be permanently
marked with pins to establish its location. Cross section surveys will include points measured at all
breaks in slope, including top of bank, bankfull, edge of water, and thalweg. Annual cross section and
bank pin survey (if applicable) will be conducted in monitoring years one, three, five, and seven.
In addition to the above geomorphic surveys, at least
three sets of hydraulic geometry measurements will be
conducted within each distinct design reach following a
flow event that corresponds with a geomorphically
significant discharge (Qgs) event as described in the DMS
Stream and Wetland Monitoring Guidelines (February
2014). Within each reach, a representative wavelength
will be assessed using hydraulic measurements within
riffle and pool cross sections and along water surface
slopes. Measurements can occur at any time during the
seven year monitoring period.
Profile and Pattern
Longitudinal profile surveys will not be conducted during the seven year monitoring period unless other
indicators during the annual monitoring indicate a trend toward vertical and lateral instability. If a
longitudinal profile is deemed necessary, monitoring will follow standards as described in the DMS
Annual Monitoring and Closeout Reporting Template (February 2014) and the 2003 USACE and DWR
Stream Mitigation Guidance for the necessary reaches.
Substrate
Substrate materials in the restoration reaches should indicate a progression towards or the maintenance
of coarser materials in the riffle features and smaller particles in the pool features.
A reach -wide pebble count will be performed in each restoration reach each year for classification
purposes. A pebble count will be performed at each surveyed riffle to characterize the pavement.
Buckwater Mitigation Site - PART 5
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 5.23

5.7.2 Hydrology
Stream
Two bankfull flow events, occurring in separate years, must
be documented on the restoration reaches within the seven-
year monitoring period. In addition, two other
geomorphically significant events must be documented. For
these purposes, a geomorphically significant event is a flow
event that is at least 66% of the 2 -year recurrence interval
flow. The 2 -year recurrence interval flow will be estimated
using USGS regression equations that are appropriate for the
Site location in the NC Piedmont. The confirmation that such
an event has occurred will be based on measurements of
stage converted to discharge with a stage -discharge relation
developed with a hydraulic model. Stream monitoring will
continue until success criteria in the form of two bankfull
events in separate years and two additional geomorphically significant events have been documented.
Bankfull events will be documented using photographs and either a crest gage or a pressure transducer,
as appropriate for site conditions. The selected measurement device will be installed in the stream
within a surveyed riffle cross section. The device will be checked at each site visit to determine if a
bankfull event has occurred. Photographs will also be used to document the occurrence of debris lines
and sediment deposition.
5.7.3 Vegetation
The final vegetative success criteria will be the survival of 210 native species stems per acre in the
riparian corridor at the end of the required monitoring period (year seven). The interim measure of
vegetative success for the site will be the survival of at least 320 native species stems per acre at the end
of the third monitoring year and at least 260 stems per acre at the end of the fifth year of monitoring. If
this performance standard is met by year five and stem density is trending towards success (i.e., no less
than 260 five year old stems/acre), monitoring of vegetation on the site may be terminated with written
approval by the USACE in consultation with the NC Interagency Review Team. The extent of invasive
species coverage will also be monitored and controlled as necessary throughout the required
monitoring period (year five or seven).
Vegetation monitoring quadrants will be installed across the restoration site to measure the survival of
the planted trees. The number of monitoring quadrants required and frequency of monitoring will be
based on the DMS monitoring guidance documents. Vegetation monitoring will occur in the fall and will
follow the CVS -DMS Protocol for Recording Vegetation (2008) or another DMS approved protocol.
5.7.4 Other Parameters
Photo Reference Stations
Photographs will be taken once a year to visually document stability for seven years following
construction. Permanent markers will be established and located with GPS equipment so that the same
locations and view directions on the site are photographed each year. Photos will be used to monitor
restoration reaches as well as vegetation plots.
Longitudinal reference photos will be established at regular intervals along the channel by taking a
photo looking upstream and downstream (usually at tail of riffle feature). Cross sectional photos will be
taken of each permanent cross section looking upstream and downstream. Reference photos will also
be taken for each of the vegetation plots. Representative digital photos of each permanent photo point,
Buckwater Mitigation Site - PART 5
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 5.24

cross section and vegetation plot will be taken on the same day of the stream and vegetation
assessments are conducted. The photographer will make every effort to consistently maintain the same
area in each photo overtime.
Photographs should illustrate the site's vegetation and morphological stability on an annual basis. Cross
section photos should demonstrate no excessive erosion or degradation of the banks. Longitudinal
photos should indicate the absence of persistent bars within the channel or vertical incision. Grade
control structures should remain stable. Deposition of sediment on the bank side of vane arms is
preferable. Maintenance of scour pools on the channel side of vane arms is expected.
Visual Assessments
Visual assessments will be performed along stream reaches on a semi-annual basis during the seven
year monitoring period. Problem areas will be noted such as channel instability (e.g. lateral and/or
vertical instability, instream structure failure/instability and/or piping, headcuts), vegetation health (e.g.
low stem density, vegetation mortality, invasive species or encroachment), beaver activity, or livestock
access. Areas of concern will be mapped and photographed accompanied by a written description in the
annual report. Problem areas with be re-evaluated during each subsequent visual assessment. Should
remedial actions be required, recommendations will be provided in the annual monitoring report.
eenthic Macroin vertebrates
If required by DWR as part of the project's permitting process, benthic macroinvertebrate sampling will
be performed on the restored site. Any required sampling will be performed using DWR Standard
Operating Procedures for Benthic Macroinvertebrates, October 2012.
5.7.5 Reporting Performance Criteria
Using the DMS As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report Template (February 2014), a baseline monitoring
document and as -built record drawings of the project will be developed on the restored site. Complete
monitoring reports will be prepared in the fall of monitoring year one, three, five, and seven and
submitted to DMS. In monitoring years two, four, and six, a brief summary of the site along with photos,
current condition plan view (CCPV) map, and applicable hydrology data will be prepared and submitted
to DMS. These annual monitoring reports will be based on the DMS Annual Monitoring Report Template
(April 2015). The monitoring period will extend seven years beyond completion of construction or until
performance criteria have been met per the criteria stated in the DMS Stream and Wetland Mitigation
Monitoring Guidelines (February 2014).
5.7.6 Maintenance and Contingency Plans
The Wildlands Team will develop necessary adaptive measures or implement appropriate remedial
actions in the event that the site or a specific component of the site fails to achieve the success criteria
outlined above. The project -specific monitoring plan developed during the design phase will identify an
appropriate threshold for maintenance intervention based on the monitored items. Any actions
implemented will be designed to achieve the success criteria specified previously, and will include a
work schedule and updated monitoring criteria.
Buckwater Mitigation Site - PART 5
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 5.25

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

improvement of the total delivery process to enhance quality, productivity, and customer satisfaction.
We are continually improving the QC process so that our latest products and services are better than the
previous ones.
6.1 Deliverables
Schedule is established during the scoping phases of a project and it is the project manager's
responsibility to maintain the schedule. A work plan is developed at the outset of a project and shared
internally with team members so that milestone deadlines and work requirements are clearly outlined.
Review time is built into this internal schedule to ensure that adequate review takes place.
The QA form, which is maintained by the QA/QC manager, is established at the beginning of the project
and is maintained throughout the life of the project. Reviews of technical data, design parameters,
reports, plan sheets, hydraulic models, and supporting calculations are tracked on the form. Included on
this form are requirements that a professional staff member, who is not involved in the project on a
day-to-day basis review the design calculations, hydraulic models, reports, plans, and all other types of
project deliverables. Conformance with DMS report templates are also integrated into the QA review
process.
6.2 Construction
Wildlands team members are familiar with the policies, procedures, and practices necessary to
construct natural channel design and wetland restoration projects. Wildlands has provided construction
administration and observation services of over 28 miles of stream work and 152 acres of wetland work.
We believe that project implementation is the ultimate key to a successful project and, to achieve this, it
is extremely important to have our most experienced staff members involved on all construction
projects. Our team knows how to oversee construction so that the project is completed on time and in
compliance with all federal, state, and local permits. Several members of the team have assisted with
construction services for the DMS restoration sites, many of which have performed successfully for
three years or more:
Table 6.1 Wildlands Team Member Construction Oversight Experience
0
L
0
Y
�
T
�
�
U
Z
Project Details
Devil's Racetrack Mitigation Site
18,527 SMUs; 67 WMUs
x
x
Byrds Creek Mitigation Site
5,387 SMUs
x
x
Hopewell Mitigation Site
7,463 SMUs
x
Agony Acres Mitigation Site
6,488 SMUs; 3.0 BMUs
x
x
Bear Creek (Phillips Site) Restoration Project —
Design, Bid, Build
4,075 LF stream
x
Norkett Branch Mitigation Site
10,098 SMUs
x
Little Troublesome Creek Mitigation Site
4,900 SMUs, 12.7 WMUs
x
x
Underwood Mitigation Site
6,192 SMUs; 12.0 WMUs
x
Jumping Run Creek Stream & Wetland Repair -
1,300 LF stream
x
x
Design, Bid, Build
Buckwater Mitigation Site - PART 6
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Page 6.2

N \
�� 1 03020101 ' ` ;fl �F
03020201010040
I �a
4 r�'
/
1/ ----- ...
---
I I,
/ ' ittle River ° `%
-
CyUplands
od 0 020 020 40
03020201020030
.. /"
c j, strict
..... ...
CS
no er/C es
02 010 03 F r SI pes a� 1 Upl ds /
030 020 30 0 �'
o Iver 9 P k /
/ Hillsborough 1, . �'' j / 302 01 00 3010201 300
W/op Sp e
j -
03 Q00 06
0 202 105 10
' e
3.
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
W I L D L A N D S Buckwater Mitigation Site
ENGINEERING 0 2.5 Miles Neuse River Basin 03020201
I I I I I
Orange County, NC
County Boundary
Project Site
-��
�— roo Ic Unit Code (
:
101D 0A30 {
7/1 Targeted Local Watershed
Significant Natural Heritage Areas
INC Natural Heritage Program Managed
Areas
Water Supply Watershed
NC Historic Preservation Areas
-�
r
Local Watershed Plan
• • • • 303d Listed Streams
Water Features
03 02 02 10
in Airports
r
/
D3020201 01
/
020 10 02
`
L-1 i�r t ran /Dur m)
-
uafic• abita
Oran CU y
en S ce �
j
_
�FOfr t Cie
N \
�� 1 03020101 ' ` ;fl �F
03020201010040
I �a
4 r�'
/
1/ ----- ...
---
I I,
/ ' ittle River ° `%
-
CyUplands
od 0 020 020 40
03020201020030
.. /"
c j, strict
..... ...
CS
no er/C es
02 010 03 F r SI pes a� 1 Upl ds /
030 020 30 0 �'
o Iver 9 P k /
/ Hillsborough 1, . �'' j / 302 01 00 3010201 300
W/op Sp e
j -
03 Q00 06
0 202 105 10
' e
3.
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
W I L D L A N D S Buckwater Mitigation Site
ENGINEERING 0 2.5 Miles Neuse River Basin 03020201
I I I I I
Orange County, NC

r +'
- rJI
Project Site
♦x'. + ¢ 'W, R _ Proposed Conservation Easement
ae t r r '; Existing Stream Crossings
PowerIine Easement from Deed
Powe�rline
from Deed
yw — Cross Sections
e.1+ .,4 •A �► �.�•, --xt Existing Streams
r ..y @VN2
r +
s
• s t ; r, �. � � _ "e r;•• Project Streams
r�r< y � �
rte'', Perennial
—_,. Intermittent
:
w
H �
v
r
V KAI
n . C'
t 4t
+ �; r•,• f
�:
„
x.
r-
x rt "s : y ,
1 r.. '
v =
,
's
OF
gym•
-
b via
1!
' Y 4,
It
�
t
,
Y
1
ti
� � bit �:, ��- � •� � � ' � r-' � • .
p • �: +
F ,
+y� C^ y �`.''1ir'G �{j.1 .`d� i P ' Y• ;Y _ � - 4x
A- jM
�►lk
WILD LANDS Figure 2 Site Map
ENGINEERING 0 400 Feet Buckwater Mitigation Site
i i i I Neuse River Basin 03020201
Orange County, NC

..« ;s � � .. �,� `r• �+. rte.. r r ;�;.:
O
t - �• _ ,
O .
`..: '
�*%} +40 it o -e'
a-� ,u. f ■ "
k
It ♦
t �,• r
ZA
40
O
•� 0
IL
s
� t � ` �, �,..f►` � is �°'` � °� ti•t �� 1 : � ' ,
io �
i
IF
Farm Pond
14
to 4
Ai ■
F I
r Project Site
S e°� r Proposed Conservation Easement
Maintained Land/ Adjacent Row Crops
Direct Livestock Access
Powerline Easement from Deed
Powerline from Deed
Incision
Active Bank Erosion
O Cattle Trampling
Bedrock
0 Head cut
Existing Streams
Project Streams
Perennial
—° Intermittent
Percentage of Channel with:
Reach
Active Bank
Dire ct
Adjacent Row Crops/
Incision
Erosion
Livestock
Maintained Vegetation
Access
Buckwater Creek
73%
47%
3%
53%
T1
100%
56%
0%
0%
T2
60%
35%
100%
0%
T3
48%
36%
95%
0%
T4
609/
46%
1005,
0%
T4A
0%
20%
100%
0%
T48;
50%
70%
100%
0%
T5
63%
23%
0%
100%
T6
72%
24%
0%
100%
T6A
84%
61%
0%
100%
T7
82%
71%
100%
0%
WA
33%
34%
100%
0%
T8
100%
22%
0%
89%
T9
0%
15%
0%
0%
�,, WILD LANDS Figure 3 Floodplain Alteration and Channel Stability Map
li� ENGINEERING 0 400 Feet P Buckwater Mitigation Site
Neuse River Basin 03020201
Orange County, NC

r
Sh �%�Aj VWAj`c%'t,
i AK-SN't , I
mn

W I LD L AN D S Figure 5 Watershed Map
ENGINEERING 0 700 Feet Buckwater Mitigation Site
i i i I t
Neuse River Basin 03020201
Orange County, NC

WI LD LANDS Figure 6 Soils Map
ENGINEERING 0 500 Feet Buckwater Mitigation Site
i i i I t
Neuse River Basin 03020201
Orange County, NC

a l*
fT
i ,irF�
,•t �1 l
a riw
4 • t ° �. •
?war ,' .. - � I►' �� ' ^i � '
o
A%* (� !t°l ,.. , i�r. ar,- r. � � 'I"._'� �� �� - `,�#�'. ®r,�rf•?�.wir•r
sear°r
}
_.
3
e
r
, Y
• s
/� rte.*AL
4
` �T` y
Y
t ,rte
s'= M
f a
40.
Fill
I
.. k •�. i
1•
C `
WILDLANDS
\� ENGINEERING 0 400 Feet
l i i i l
1 i 1
Pro ect Site
r Proposed Conservation Easement
Internal Crossings
Easement Break
Powerline Easement from Deed
Powerline from Deed
Existing Streams
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I
Stream Enhancement II
k x '
1 i
t
F' 4
4
1.
Figure 7 Concept Map
Buckwater Mitigation Site
Neuse River Basin 03020201
Orange County, NC

Z,fz
This MemaraDdum of option jthis"Memorandum') Is between Kandace K. Ootwais f'Optionor'},
and MLDLANDS ENGINEERING, INC., a North Carolina Corporation ('Optionea"J.
Tin memorandum will become effective when all parties have ssgned it. The date of this
Memorandum will be the date this Memorandum is Signed by the Last party to sign It.
Oplronor dues herebrglue and grant W Opt—the right and option to purchase a conservation
cement on a portion or real property comprised of approdmately 10 acres located' at 1111 Walnut Hit
Drive in HIIK4amugh, orange County, North Carolina, recorded In that county's Register Of Deeds at Book
4151, Page 24f (Hae 'Pmperrn. The property Is also idemift,d at Parte) Identification Number
9R95�"2 s and Kshown on Attachment A.
I14
his optlaneaplres on July 31, 2018.
The provisions set forth in a written Asmara n for Opdon to Purchase Corrservallon Ex4emcmI
between the parties with an effective date of,� /� 2015 are hereby Incorporated
in this memorandum.
Each Party K signing this memorandum on the date staked below that party's signature.
2'4�— ?—
uraerdo,s 4+ �i:'4� gra jl•TpL'E✓]
RECORDING REQUESTEQ BY
AND WHEN RECORDED MNL TO
WiWlands Engineering, Inc.
1430 South Mint Street' Suite 104
Chadatte, NC 28203
Attention: Ire Knight Caffery
W ro 9 90117-0110 SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE
MEMORANDUM OF OPTION
'this Memorandum of Op
tion (this "Memorandum') Is between Bacon FarnRy {"Optionor), and
WILDLANDS ENGINEERING, INC, a North Carolina [mporatlon ('Optionee"),
This memorandum wdl became effective when all parties have signed it. The date of this
Memoianduln will be the date this Memorandum Is signed by the last party to sign it.
Optionor does hereby ghrc and grant to Clptionee the right and option to purchasea conservation
easement on a portion of real property comprised of 89.45 aeras located off St. M.W. Road in
Hillsborough, Orange County, North Carolina, recorded In that county's Register Of Deeds at Boric 1536,
Page 133 (the "Property"}, The Property Is alw Identified as Parcel 10 Number 9895098042 and K shown
on Attachment A.
This option expires on August 31, 2017.
The provKlons set forth In a written Agreeme I for 0 Ito to Purchase Conservation Easement
between the parties with an effective date of 4 2415 am hereby Incorporated
In this memorandum.
Each party 13 signing this memorandum on the dale stated below that party's signature.
/ IC7-
I� pl�lll'�I
�iae, raF6a� 55� r,e
RECORDING REQUESTED By
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
Wlldlands EN:nee.rinB Inc,
24,4055nth MIAs Street, Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 2WO3
Aitcntlon: lee Knight Caffery
SPACEABOVc :1-6LINE FOR RELDRQEA'S[i5E
MEMORANDUM OF QPTIDN
This Marnorandumol'Option{this'd o odum")Is BpI—PEURAMT. and MARY9.IACOHS
CmOptlaoatm), and WR:DLANDS ENGINEERING, INC,'a North Carolina. taporatlon ("Opdanee"),
This
memoranda. will benne of edhv when all parties have signed is The date of this
Memorandum will be the date this MemoraMum is signed "a last party to sign It.
0ptinno, don herebygire and grant to Uptionea the iiiht and option to purchase a mnsenrallon
—ant on a P(Mbd of real property mmprned of approximately 14,2 atlas hated at 4416 SL Mary's
Road In Hillsborough„ Orange County, North Carollon. recorded In that mualy'.s Reenter of Deeds at Book
IS87, Page 34 {the 'Pmpertlf]. The Property Is aim Identified as Parcel Identification Numbor
,r
THIS optlon�nexples or, ONarkh" ntA
#1, 7A18,
The prMislons set forth In a written Agmamem Option to Purchase Conservation Sasemem
between the parties with an effeClwe date of LI_ 2035 are hereby 6Marporated
in rhh mernaranRten.
Each party u signing Ibis memorandum en the date stated below un i pants signature.
?F z-
`frfs W11111111101111111
sema000+acop�rn ivn ,�,app
oe�im :YE arum �V
{{ttarra M ,r4
PREPARED BY
AND RETURN TCh
Lee Knight Caffery, Esq.
Wlidiands EngineerEng, lnC.
1430 South Mint Street, State 104
Charlotte, NC 28263
PIN 9995079332,M8 SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE
MEMORANDUM OF OPTION
This Memorandum of Option (this "Memorandum"j Is between Bacon Family Farmlands, I.I.C. a
North Carolina limited liability company ('Opltonar"}, and WILOLANDS ENGINEERING. INC.,. a North
Carolina corporation {"Optimnen'},
This memorandum will become effective when all parties have signed it The date of this
Memorandum will be the date this Memorandum Is signed by the last party to sign it.
Optionor does hereby give and grant to Optionee the right and option to purchase a conservation
easement on a portion of a parcel of real property owned by Optionor Iotated off St. Mary's Road In
Hillshorcugh, Orange County, North Carolina, recorded in that CDunWs Register of Deeds at Book 5798,
Page 141 (the "Pmper'tyr'j. The Property Is also idemiRed as Parcel ID Number 9895079332 and I, shown
on Attachment A.
This option shall expire on August 31, 2017.
The ProvlSiOns set Forth In a mitten Agreement for Option to Purchase Conservation Easement
between the parties with an effective date of July 32, 2015 are hereby incorporated In this memorandum.
Each party Is signing this memorandum on the date stated below that party's signature.
I��I'��U��111��B4N�ll�l�
9k;�58i� Ppr�ie39
rove a3a. M rra
as
RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
Wddtands Engineering, Ino.
14305outh Min. Street, Salle 106
Charlotte,. NC 38103
Altentloa: Lee KNghtcaffery,
SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER -5 USE
MEMORANDUM OF OPnDN
This MemaraDdum of option jthis"Memorandum') Is between Kandace K. Ootwais f'Optionor'},
and MLDLANDS ENGINEERING, INC., a North Carolina Corporation ('Optionea"J.
Tin memorandum will become effective when all parties have ssgned it. The date of this
Memorandum will be the date this Memorandum is Signed by the Last party to sign It.
Oplronor dues herebrglue and grant W Opt—the right and option to purchase a conservation
cement on a portion or real property comprised of approdmately 10 acres located' at 1111 Walnut Hit
Drive in HIIK4amugh, orange County, North Carolina, recorded In that county's Register Of Deeds at Book
4151, Page 24f (Hae 'Pmperrn. The property Is also idemift,d at Parte) Identification Number
9R95�"2 s and Kshown on Attachment A.
I14
his optlaneaplres on July 31, 2018.
The provisions set forth in a written Asmara n for Opdon to Purchase Corrservallon Ex4emcmI
between the parties with an effective date of,� /� 2015 are hereby Incorporated
in this memorandum.
Each Party K signing this memorandum on the date staked below that party's signature.
2'4�— ?—
uraerdo,s 4+ �i:'4� gra jl•TpL'E✓]
RECORDING REQUESTEQ BY
AND WHEN RECORDED MNL TO
WiWlands Engineering, Inc.
1430 South Mint Street' Suite 104
Chadatte, NC 28203
Attention: Ire Knight Caffery
W ro 9 90117-0110 SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE
MEMORANDUM OF OPTION
'this Memorandum of Op
tion (this "Memorandum') Is between Bacon FarnRy {"Optionor), and
WILDLANDS ENGINEERING, INC, a North Carolina [mporatlon ('Optionee"),
This memorandum wdl became effective when all parties have signed it. The date of this
Memoianduln will be the date this Memorandum Is signed by the last party to sign it.
Optionor does hereby ghrc and grant to Clptionee the right and option to purchasea conservation
easement on a portion of real property comprised of 89.45 aeras located off St. M.W. Road in
Hillsborough, Orange County, North Carolina, recorded In that county's Register Of Deeds at Boric 1536,
Page 133 (the "Property"}, The Property Is alw Identified as Parcel 10 Number 9895098042 and K shown
on Attachment A.
This option expires on August 31, 2017.
The provKlons set forth In a written Agreeme I for 0 Ito to Purchase Conservation Easement
between the parties with an effective date of 4 2415 am hereby Incorporated
In this memorandum.
Each party 13 signing this memorandum on the dale stated below that party's signature.
/ IC7-
I� pl�lll'�I
�iae, raF6a� 55� r,e
RECORDING REQUESTED By
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
Wlldlands EN:nee.rinB Inc,
24,4055nth MIAs Street, Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 2WO3
Aitcntlon: lee Knight Caffery
SPACEABOVc :1-6LINE FOR RELDRQEA'S[i5E
MEMORANDUM OF QPTIDN
This Marnorandumol'Option{this'd o odum")Is BpI—PEURAMT. and MARY9.IACOHS
CmOptlaoatm), and WR:DLANDS ENGINEERING, INC,'a North Carolina. taporatlon ("Opdanee"),
This
memoranda. will benne of edhv when all parties have signed is The date of this
Memorandum will be the date this MemoraMum is signed "a last party to sign It.
0ptinno, don herebygire and grant to Uptionea the iiiht and option to purchase a mnsenrallon
—ant on a P(Mbd of real property mmprned of approximately 14,2 atlas hated at 4416 SL Mary's
Road In Hillsborough„ Orange County, North Carollon. recorded In that mualy'.s Reenter of Deeds at Book
IS87, Page 34 {the 'Pmpertlf]. The Property Is aim Identified as Parcel Identification Numbor
,r
THIS optlon�nexples or, ONarkh" ntA
#1, 7A18,
The prMislons set forth In a written Agmamem Option to Purchase Conservation Sasemem
between the parties with an effeClwe date of LI_ 2035 are hereby 6Marporated
in rhh mernaranRten.
Each party u signing Ibis memorandum en the date stated below un i pants signature.
?F z-
`frfs W11111111101111111
sema000+acop�rn ivn ,�,app
oe�im :YE arum �V
{{ttarra M ,r4
PREPARED BY
AND RETURN TCh
Lee Knight Caffery, Esq.
Wlidiands EngineerEng, lnC.
1430 South Mint Street, State 104
Charlotte, NC 28263
PIN 9995079332,M8 SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE
MEMORANDUM OF OPTION
This Memorandum of Option (this "Memorandum"j Is between Bacon Family Farmlands, I.I.C. a
North Carolina limited liability company ('Opltonar"}, and WILOLANDS ENGINEERING. INC.,. a North
Carolina corporation {"Optimnen'},
This memorandum will become effective when all parties have signed it The date of this
Memorandum will be the date this Memorandum Is signed by the last party to sign it.
Optionor does hereby give and grant to Optionee the right and option to purchase a conservation
easement on a portion of a parcel of real property owned by Optionor Iotated off St. Mary's Road In
Hillshorcugh, Orange County, North Carolina, recorded in that CDunWs Register of Deeds at Book 5798,
Page 141 (the "Pmper'tyr'j. The Property Is also idemiRed as Parcel ID Number 9895079332 and I, shown
on Attachment A.
This option shall expire on August 31, 2017.
The ProvlSiOns set Forth In a mitten Agreement for Option to Purchase Conservation Easement
between the parties with an effective date of July 32, 2015 are hereby incorporated In this memorandum.
Each party Is signing this memorandum on the date stated below that party's signature.

Lid"
Il��l�ll�li(I�l�ll
Re
�sr P s�2
crawl Pe.�u nn ire
ra:wwtr oi'd:.e°A.!tS."w. co.rm�
RECORDING REQUESTED By
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO;.
Wlldlarsds Engineering, Inc.
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203
Atten[bn: Lae Knight Caffery
SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE
MEMORANDUM OF OPTION
ThisMemorandum of Option jthis "amorandum") Is between CRABTREE FARM LLC
("Optionor"I, and WILDLANDS ENGINEERING, IMNC.. a North Carolina eorpa ,ton ["Optional"}.
This memorandum will become effective when all parties have signed it. The data of this
Memorandum twill be the date this Memorandum Is signed by the last party to sign It.
Optionor does hereby give and grant to Option" the right and option to purchase a (onscnration
easement on a portion of real property --prised of located of St. Marys Read in Hillsborough, Orange
County, North Carolina, femrded In that County's Register of Deeds at gook 3599, Page 516 (the
"Properly"). The Property Is also identified as Parcel IdentiRcatlon Number 9895256688 and is shown on
Attachment A_ y�r,
This option explres on July 31, 2018.
The provisions sell forth In a written Agreement or Optlan to Purchase Conservation Easement
between the parties with an effective date of t —ZL 2015 are hereby incorporated
In this memorandum.
Each Party Is signing this memorandum on the date salted below that partys signature.
rys Illi jPjjlm[.j11v1
a -
�:R68829oP:rGg-
a. ire
r.t. an. alai hS w. r
RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND WHEN RECORDED MAUL TO:
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104
Charlotte,NC 28203
Attention: Lee Knight Caffery
SPACE ABOVE THIS UNE FOR RECORDER'S USE
q8 452Pa7 ray MEMORANDUM OF OPTION
This Memorandum of Option (this "Memorandu m'J is between David L Sheets, Christa A. Rlker�
Sheets, Donna 5. Mayfield and Andrew M. Mayfield, individuals, ("Optionor"), and WILDLANOS
ENGINEERING, INC., a North Carolina corporation ("Optlonee'[.
This memorandum will become effective when ail parties have limned iL The date of this
Memorandum wilt be the date this Memorandum is signed by the last party to sign It.
Optionor does hereby give and grant to Optinnee the right and option to purchase aconservatbn
easement on the property comprised two parcels of approxlmatety 221.47 aces and 20.96 acres located
on St. Marys Road In Hillsborough, Orange County, North Carolina, recorded In that coumys Register of
Deeds at gook 4798, Page 258 and Book 4798, Book 256 {the "Property"}, The Property is also identified
as Parc t ID Numbers 9895478632 and 9895282714 and is shown on Attachment A.
This option shall expire on September 3D, 20i8.
The provisions set forth In a written Agreement for Option to Purchase Canservatlon Easement
between the parties with an effective date of Sv 201.E are hereby
incorporated in this memorandum.
Lim'
fl����llll�lll�lllll
&trT�p 4, ire
RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
1434 South Mint Street,Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203
Attention; Lee Knight Caffery
SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDERS USE
MEMORANDUM OF OPTION
This Memorandum of Option (this "Memorandum") Is between M. DOUGLAS CRASTREE and
PATR,OA R. CRABTREE ["Optionor^}, and WILDLANDS ENGINEERING, INC.., a North Carolina corporation
(`Optlonee"}.
This memorandum will become effective when all parties have signed It. The date of this
Memorandum will be the date this Memorandum Is signed by the last party to sign it.
Optionor dues hereby give and grant to Optlanm, the right and option to purchase a conservation
easement on the property comprised of approximately 18.3 acres located off SL Mary's Road In
Hlgsborough, Orange County, North Carolina, recorded In that county's Register of Deeds at Book 2034,
Page 527 (the "Property"). The Property Is also Identified as Patcel ID Number 9895269592 and is shown
on Attachment A. F'
This option shall expire on July 31, 2018.
The provisions At forth in a written Agreement for O t! n to Purchase Conaervatian Easement
between the parties with an effective date of ,ze 20y5_ are hereby
imnrporated In this memorandum.
Each parry Is signing this memorandum on the date stated below that party's signature.
4
0
Iwtllplljl1lllllll
04-' gErr P� ie ahr rra
rate �!I
Oil
R ECORDI NG REQUESTEO BY
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
1434 South Mint Street, Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28283
Attention: Lee Knight Caffery
SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE
MEMORANDUM OF OPTION
This Mernu—cl.rn of Option (this "Memorandum") is between DARIN E. UTILE and KATHLEEN
M. UTILE ("Optlonor"6.anrd WILDLANDS ENGINEERING"INC.., a North Carolina corpcatlon ('Opticnee").
This memorandum will become effective when all parties have signed it- The dale of this
Memorandum will he the date this Memorandum Is signed by the last party to sign It.
Optfenor does hereby give and grant to Option" the right and option to purchase a conservation
easementon the property two parcels of real property comprised of approximately 20 acres, collectively,
located at 601 Walnut Hill Dr. In Hillsborough, Orange County, North Carolina, recorded in that county s
Register of Deeds at Book 3972, Page 360and Book 3487, Page 333 {the "property"). The Property Isalso
Identified as Parcel ID Numbers 9895469322 and 9895065483 and is shown on Attachment A.
This option shall expire on July 32, 2018. ft
The provl53ons At forth in a mitten Agreement for ❑ n tD Purchase Cnnservat on Easement
between the parties with an effective date of � // 20 % are hereby
incorporated in this memorandum.
Each party Is signing this memorandum on the date stated below that partyys signature-

NORTH CAROLINA ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
LANDOWNEII AtrMORIZATION FORM
PROPERTY LEGAL DFSCRITION:
Deed Eaok: LSIb PavDet lab eo®rr: O.M.
Pared ID Number 9895OM43
Streef Address: SC vf.ry's Rord, Eat, Nartb Carolbm
Property Owner (pMast,•. Priotj. An. Hollowell
Property O» aer (pkus.e print): Barr EPen Rad ic—ld
The emiecri—od. regetered property --(a) of the .have property, da hereby anthorice
Wildlands hmgineerimg, fmc, FW[ Delivery PrTide¢, the NC Department of Enyire.menl aad
,'IatLrai Resamr{aw, and IIDr li.! Army Corps of Eagincm-Their rmpfayees, .!encs nr ..signs to
hast rntona:ble.re= to the abavr re[erenn-d praprrty for the two]uliom of the properly as ■
Iwlemthtl dreamt, wetland aodlor ri(wrlam heffrr milig-atiao proj«I, iucludiog rmnductiogstream
..dear wet3aod determiaaTiom aoJ delinra:aus,>iv rrel4 ss issaauae and acceptance of any required
permitf,)arrcnif tins(.)
Prnprrry Cwners(r) Address:: 2909 St. Mary's Rd., Hfllsborough, NC 272-M
(kf dihferemt from .bare)
Proptrtr Owncr TeMphaev Nmmber. 252-3584340
Property Owacr Tekph—Namben }38-21-3ZLE
V Wee bcrehy certify The.bore i.furmmtinm to he hpa aad sernnte to the beat of mylamr Lcowledge.
C' 4>0__-6
(tPJsjoPer'q'
Sipmlmrs)
(Date)
(Datte)
p/rated
//l
(Pra perq
hnEhor-rued S'
IDatn)
`Name of full dell—y company
NORTH CAROLINA ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
LANDOWNER AUTHORIZATION FORM
PROPERTY LEGAL OF,SCRITIGN:
Deed Bnok; 3599 Page: 516 County: Orange
Parcel ID Nutuker: 95952.966ti8
Street Address: Off SI, Mary's Road, Hillsbora nigh, NC
Property Owner (ph ww print): Crabtree Farm LLC (Doug Crabtree,. manager)
Property darter (pl— print):
The mmdcrsigned, registered property oworr(s) of the abase propene, do hereby out horie,
Wildtaads F.gimcering, Inc„Full De]Kcry Pm0dmrr, the NC Depurlme.t of Eev'ir runral and
Nataral Resources, and Ibc 1:S Army Corps of Enginccrt, their empinyres. agents or assigns m
have reasonable across to the above referenced properly for the eyatualinn of rhe property as a
polcafi.l stream. wellood undfor riparian buffer mhigmt5an pmjmc. including conducting strcato
andfor wetland dote minalimts and delineation, as well as issmonce and aeceplaoce of any required
p{rnrit(s) ern^rtiDcu.tion(sj.
Property Ovv. r (s) ,Udm.: Doug Cnhtrre (manager),.. 4211 Sl. hdary's Rd., HFIlsbomngh. NC
27278
(Tf,limmot from above)
Property Owner Telephone Number: Doug Crabtree (manager) 919-732-3932
Property Owner Telephone lumber:
IAWr hereby eerdfy the a6ave informalion to Le tan• and arc urate to the hest of mylour Imowledge.
(Property Owner A th.rnedfSiignature) - /lr)
Property O.—A thori2ed nature) (Date)
'Nana of fall d N-ty campony
NORTH CAROLINA ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
LANDOWNER AUTHORIZATION FORM
PROPERTY LEGAL DESC'RITION:
11-4 Book: 2037 Page: 527 Coaaty: Orange
Parcel ID Number: 9895269$92
Street Add rex : Off St. Mary's Rand, HFlhhorough, NC
Property Owrxr(please print): Douglas aad Pal Crabtree
Property 0-- (pl­ prime:_
The undersigned, registered property --r(s) of The shore property, Jo- bmb) aulhorime
Wild load., r.gin i.g, lac., Full Delivery Provider', the NC Department or£nvirou—ni and
Nalnral Rcsaurraa, aad she 1: S ATatt• Corps 9f Enginrars, Ihrir {mplorYrs, .gest. s�Y assigns In
have reasonable access in the above rcfemneed propvrty for The—luarion or the properly as a
potential stream, wetland amdlar riparian duffer mitigaliun projecl, inmludirsgcmndnctieg sl reanf
andlor wetland dcrerminatiuna and delierariuns. as well as issuanm and acrcptaner of nes inquired
permitfs) or certiSeotion(s).
Property Owmera(m) Addrsa+.s: 4211 St. Mary's Rd., Hillshorough, NC 27238
(IfdlHemal from above)
Property Owner Teephone Number. Doug Crabirre - 919432.-3432
Property fywner Telephone Number.
UW. hereby certify The above informstin. to be true and accurate To the hest of myl..e k— hedge.
(Pmperryv Owner Aml�hajrited Signature) ^f --to)
roperly Owmer urhn b Signatu.rey / � Y"�N)
Name o{ full drlivwy company
:NORTH CAROLINA ECOSYSTEM ENIIANCEMENTPROGRAM
LANDOWNER AUTHORIZATION FORM
PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRITION:
Decal kiosk: 3551 Page: 211 Comely: Orange
Parcel ED Number: 9S9525S436
Sheet Add moa: II I I walnut 113]1 Dr., Fllllsbalrough, NC 27278
Properly Owner (please print: Kondare fC Gornals
Properly Owner (Phut- prior):_ _
ne mndersigned, n•gisl... d proprrtx owner(.) of The above property, du 11{reby aulbarkn
WFldlsods Engineering, Inc., Full Delivery Pr—[der', the NC department of Environment and
Natural Resources, and the US Army Corps of Engineers, their emptoyce% agents or assigns to
have rvtisanahlu acce. w the above referenced property far The evaluation or the property w a
petcntial stream, wetlandandlor riparian buffer mitigation project, including conducling mMa01
a Wor wetland determinations aad delincaiions, ms well as Fssaanm and acccptumrr of any mquired
permil(s) or cerlificution(s).
Propene Ovaersfs) Address:
()fdlHumml from .hose)
Property Owner Telephone Number. 919-604-274)5
Property Owner Telephone Number.
11Wn hereby certify The mbove information to be true and accurate to the best of mylour knawkdge.
.1” ./"lIzals
{Property Owner Au(horGnd Signa[mru) (Dhte)
(Properly Owner Autborbed Signalmrc) (D.I.)
'Namn offuil delivery tympany

,NORTH CAROLINA ECOSYSTEM ENIIANCEMENT PROGRAM
LANDOWNER AUTHORIZATION FORM
PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRITION':
[iced Sink: 1,997 Page,:N Cnuoty: Oruagc
Parcel 11) Math- 9895381929
Slreel Addrrxs: 4416 SL Mary`s Road, 1Glhborough, NC
Property Owner (phase print): Pelltant T. sad Mary B, Jacobs
Tha t u l-igned, rcglslered properl+ owner(s) of the alsssre property, do hereby aulheriee.
W iWl-cl, F g caring Inc..Full Dellvery Provid o r. the NC D,partment n£ Ent i .nitre. and
halura2 R . - atx , ad th US Arm Corps cf E g errs, the! play-, ag to or assigns to
hav, noble ace s in the whore ref e..ced property far the a olomlion of the property m u
pule to.1 arream, wetland aadlor riparian b. Mr mitigation p-im including conducting etrcam
andlorwciland delc minoticas and dclineatiaos, as well as isaaance and amplance of any required
permil(s) or cenificati-1s).
Property Owaerr(s) Addrv:aa:
I irdiffere a from alwyc)
Property O..ee 7'elephpne N'umh-- 'JIMI .9164
Me herchy certify Ihxabm•e informalion to be True and accurate to the hese of myfoor knowledge.
(Praparty Owner ofeed3ignatarc) [Onix)
i iW1 4!,:{Z� fdt6 J /0-I1 wX'—
[prnpnty'Qwoer Amhoriard Signatorc) (Onix)
Nome of full delivery company
NORTH CAROLINA ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
LANDOWNER AUTHORIZATION FORM
PROPERTY LEGAL DE-SCRITION:
Deed Book: 3972, 3697 Page: 360, 333 Counly: Onage
Pared ID Number: 999'5069322, 4895065093
Street Address: 601 Wulnul 11111 Dr., Rillsbarough, NC 27278
Property O-er (please print): Darin E. and Kathleen M. Little
Property Owner (please print):
The undenigned, registered property awncr(s) of the above property, do herchy authorise
Wlldlo tail Englnerdog, Int„ Full LM1%cry Prtwider', [Ire NC Department or Environment and,
Natural Resources, and the US Army Corps of Eugineen, their ensployres, agents or assigns to
have remnable acm, to the oboi'e ref rencsrl property fpr the eealuattlal of the property' as N
potential stream, w-ctlund andfur riparian buffer mitigation project, including cunduclAg stream
andfor wvitand dewtuiAatlons and dcltuaatloos, as well as h,-- and aceeplaace of any required
Krmi[(s) or crniftrnlipnfal.
Properly 0.-0) Address:
(if different from b.,c)
Property Owoar Telephouc Yum ber. 919-219-9398
1"roperty Owner 7'clrphaor Num her:.
I(We hereby cerllfy the shove lufarmatiaa Io Ste stir and a.,cararr In thx hc-cl of mvtour knowledge.
IP rti-Owner AuthofiwdSignatumI (Date)
2, f �Z-- 10— K-- .-
(Property Owner Authorized Slgnalure) {Dale)
'Name, of full delimy company
IA—N-IDOVi--'��ER AL—URORIFATIO , FORA
PROPE]RWY I_£GhI DESCRI- ION_
0�CAB[.s6_. Std Pale: Of CraDtg: OlmaD_-t
Farrel ID g995 -f1 ¢93`421
neet:Address.:' :L ldara'r Road. Eno,NC_
Prorpren- f}vl-razr ipl-a printl: &Ito F -E-% Farmlands F1ClBeujamin ln3nsca_ taan oil
Erupt -r3 Cr—rpk—
�i The m_afers�-goed.lr-ixtrrdpsupertyo%-iter(sjit4dtealmwzpoperts..dabzrrbiwidsarire
7tiiIAL2ds.E�P,Anuldnr Inc- Full IR-Esen-Frwider,z7r_NCBep2rLnearofEnTir-mmentand
Natural Re-sourcmandr§eLgAlmvClr. ofEmgineft3.duck emp5ntie-ap movms4 sto
hnroc ri�aoab&e art� to At ahrr a rererea.ced praperty forah: c-, Ouatian ofrite proprm-> a
pmen—li =eizL,7rrftnd aad'or nparbn buffer prof ECL udnding rozAtt Sing-s9ile3m
3md'n.T walland cW edons 2md drain: b—)Tm u Ta itU as 6somce and ampranr-a of ari - regsuad
perilliMSf or ECVl Bratiaof5X
PropeMQsrfus_yS'IAddress: Broj aIrv- J-3h-on,foaaspmr J) - Saint Andrem Cram, Burbim.-NC
1?11I`
eirrddfereot Ertm ar'Srtse'i
PTT:T• try C' ETTdtp3ane tiuml, r.. 91!50419-_,1'9IBtojam5a Ahnstlz maaN--tTl
fr;Lv O.nEr ielcpbone Num:l,,.T:
P4."z berebs ezrifft, th rabare info rm-k-&,u. m be w e and szEur2lcla tae hest of ma:our kno
NORTH CAROLINA ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
LANDOWNER AUTHORIZATION FO"I
PROPERTY LEGAL DmcRrnON:
Deed Soak; 4798 Page: 356 and 254 Conary: ortaee
Parcel ID Number: 9995674631 and 98952 8 2 7 1 4
Street Address: SI, M-y's Road, Rldsharough, NC
Property Owner (plea. print): D -id I -Sheen had Christ. A.IM-4heeta
Property Dworr (please printf: DnPaa 8. ht yddd and And yew M. Mayndd
Th, underdgned, reentered property awnxrf) of We lb- properly, da hereby aulharue
Wildlaod, Engineering. tae., lord lkli-y 17a.ads•.e, the NC Deparlmeat of EnHrenmeul and
Natural Rewurces, and the US Army Corp, of Eadtaters., their empky"%agenism asslgnr to
hate reasonable acrrsr Io the ¢bora referenced property for Th, evaiuetioa of the property a, a
yateotlal sve.em, wetland andlar rlpxtaa boner mlNgatian project, todudingcoodurtlng stream
aodlor ottlmad ducrmiaadona and dellne,tlons, as well m inuaaea and aeceptane ,of any required
permtl(a)ore nInesticu(r),
Properly Ownnnlal Address: 5032 Wenhayin lane, Trlaf y, NC 27376
(if different from 0-)
104 Summit Woad Cl., Holly Sprlaes, NC 27546
Property Owner TNephone Number. 33OA07-4570
Property Owner Tthphone Natal- 919-6054248
amnif a to be tree and
rt*.1
e7e-;
aeeun[e m the bur of l�urlcnawledge.
Id 19/17
(Pit rtatq
4e
fD 1 IS
Io IIS
( perry , Ignararc)
{Dale]
'Nome of 0 delivery oampurp

NC DWQ Stream ldeafirtcatpon Form Veni.. 4.11 _ ON
-1 qA ZLfrrim.
ProfstN6pa:
w. L•
i.auade:
kodarata
2
Fraluakv, ks
canarcy: cr..n„-_s..—
konpiwm:
��.
Total Pdnla:
sasamnar+e.sredmmamr
ei }Pd Mx rq• tjP
-- _—
Slrcsm 6dandlnaElPn(epeda.wiap
EphwnenB bnatmldPnf;Aetmr�rl
-•- -
(Nh.r pn
ae. DuWtlarart [wvdwl..
A. 43anma a 5obMtd= .5 9
Absenl Weak
ModorapP
sironA
4. CantlmAy of OWbed ell tar*
D 7
2
2
S
B. Dapwglorel 6e�a Pr bamPea
D
Y
sod, a ap poy,
--'n"ae.--.
0 r
x
GtJ
4 PerGW eua_dekoem waahkb _
D f
- 2
S. Hilo
6.AdnWrcYct AooQ
D 1
2
S
n. t%yo�pny hennboachm
p - 1
-
1
r. Racani asuulal depp>IlA
•Huck
o
2
S
a
lA rn
tS
11. taeome or ler oNercltaisid
.�,ei. oeeMP. en na newt; a®dkowNoin n, mr1W
pp.D
9. pkdo amirP! �
D -
t
7.fi
10. NOMaI vueay
D 4.6
_
t
13
11, Suoond a greeblr Pftriwmtpl
MW dlkameare nN nhA unn'wa.'-- nr �......e
�nD
�`
NC DWQ Strum Idmillieation Form Version 4,11
Absent
® -
Weak
I
kodarata
2
SiraiQ
2. S..."of cNm P -
fiPopnis:PoIntr
�TIW�I
-
D'
0
ElNnanrre'I btn+mmani
72
,PZYn•
a Aclhfthm k,
rnr�
e,o- ga+nnow:
f2 IrGSWfe t8e'aeepr 2
13 non oaldanq badnfin D � S
A4 Iasi Mlm 1.S
_ p
15 Sed.muit pat or rgfyw _ 4_ 7
IIMI•
rP.ifna[ulnpin dPanaiiieOgartLnQ —2 _
20. MacdxnMns lnamarraray all qel -0 _ 7
2Y. Ahiir: fdrinrsan _ _ _ �+ Y
22. Fhh _ D
2irNiphbmta_
2E. D
X YVanaitl OiaMa m stiearobefl _ FACW= 0..76. OR o L6
•P�.nrfel ehmne imy Woba Nvtlle9 WiyoPna no Oc Aee.P.]6drmiyd.
Skkech:
NC QW Stream Ideniirmtiun Form Veaslon til
oam: 9dLlu{� Prolrr•DSka: {IPS tanade:
EWalapwr. ki'. caP�: �,. w�garda:
nr�rws zx«nrae r moan t>atelwr "oun (tarda
F:M. vzw' '17�'ti F;h— i NkarMMM a.P Bard name: TI
A.GeIXna a d= 17”,
ra CanW etelpp�net Wderid bank
Absent
® -
Weak
I
kodarata
2
SiraiQ
2. S..."of cNm P -
D
9. IMkenaN afro Use: ea. Mlepeq, abp-pod,
,n,miapea aeamnaa
<. Peetip a4a PiWaemai}hapkta
_
-
D'
0
t
1
a
2
F.
a Aclhfthm k,
6
2
S
B. Dapwglorel 6e�a Pr bamPea
D
Y
2
8
7. Stx nt �hrvla!
9
2
S
S. Hilo
(P
r
2
S
p. Cwsde owsioi
�
D
1
l.a
t-0. Flehed M
D
'1
tS
11. taeome or ler oNercltaisid
.�,ei. oeeMP. en na newt; a®dkowNoin n, mr1W
pp.D
j
er a8
9E7M
lixem[denitrtcatiusMoanVbtsion<.Ilrvepcirslto: �,I,,,I,.CPunty: fJn.l�_wR 8bsen netornlnsifon lW' 57 FpMma i inwr,niaam� .a. DospAym.: T3 '
crow auowcai= _ Y
w17.ti.MBasui'
is a+_rarer della

X
NC.. - DWQ Slrcam idrnf rication Form Version 4.11 APi S
©➢f.: 9I31yp�� rrel.wasx.: i+�rlWJa LyaWda: fu5) M
1CP, Cowry: Ch++1C LeWlWds: 9d 03177 t..
iofal PRlnls: _ ---
SPaamueelwl➢kNmE'rev =I.=="
reum LbianuNanun{ti pMr
Y=r➢a Y=30' L{G,5 ERM of Mnat"L= eramm ay auedanorar. T4 I/P break
B_H miagy Soniofal• I
__ Pm]eeuglfR: $arly.�r•
Latllud➢: is. Is?wd_
f;v➢Instar: Y+3
cRueery: d7YW1�....
12 Pmaenra al nowk r
p
F
2
5
13. IrRry pdGlunph: N,glp
ITLn=f
,�
3
lBna
fy
t5 SWemwH on plane tN dahela _
u
4.6
1'S
ra. Urparr.+lad+A irroeF.
p
C.5
-
7�
11. Anil-livscrl ovld�n�N50I McIx {adp7
C. BIo�yl5uWoLaf =.. l i+ �
-
tEl. FLrpu➢ meta In 51roe1nprd
,� --
o
1 b. FJ10d WIaM rAa N➢ReanYfed�
1
20 .gy xwa
n
q
3
--- -- — --•g
°
1
1.5
23.
_- •Y
-
1
1-5
74 . .--
PS, ASI pa
n
p
f
38. %@OrrA if➢t�n In Zl-; Md
FACN7=o.?5; C9L=LMf
S O=0
15
.._ W➢aan n�aY des h°Nar94'af eNq OnrnrepN.aaaR
35 a'inr➢W.
�
Skated: 5 .l. o! kAk.d en ryrj0-
NC DWylif _M_r m lgenuficel en Form Version 4.11 ISP 13
011e: ?�3 �LrlJ _ _ Prafa°Le$ilb: a (M1� —_ Lalituda: '7•i.14 a'i; A7
Ei+ahwlar. !<1} Ccunlr: dF=•_ '�0n�nad0 79.tr117�1 rr
Tot.] Pdnro: Stresal Ef➢ee �frcroonsY DGwr
ranleave rffrx3a- a
rrma s• ZS. Il EPleenwma l ➢amit[e ParamJal e,R tl➢itl/Yrme: T4B
MC DM Stream ldentiCcai inn Form Version 4.11
r3.e➢: 9h/,�➢r s Pr.lorvcn.: 13arFM.r,, utero.: - -
Emeuier. 3 e. 1➢I r 5
Kls c cannfy;
d`a=i I.onppoaa:
Fotal Prefa811 M� — -
r v rtlran r P z . $ s EpMm 1 Rie➢auaehf ➢a tan
NC MQStream ldeatit;eatboa Form Version 4.11
Ossa: FYJr�rax5
__ Pm]eeuglfR: $arly.�r•
Latllud➢: is. Is?wd_
f;v➢Instar: Y+3
cRueery: d7YW1�....
I-0ngltudr: 7a. u;SYYs
Tots! Points;
ysrmarmasrrme..x 3i S
stream n.urmoe➢iian {e - •�
Snn«n.ral kderaal Pmem
r -
ara*daa.*x i5
�.youawrm=. u s 1
a 1.11 In W.,snaed
nuJ upland planta In An. bed
sod+ith°➢+,nou eMmapya�awrt n) 0
swIwku
—
rJ�as n
0
tem peals in➢Ueanihad
M Mieerm mry oras Ce 1dw9Aa7 R°ry pummrtrnW. Sae P 36 r
Skcich: Srw..f �w�»-. ri Sl i'"kr,�x ('ci rn na..lw..st G.i%

. NC D" Stream Idt"M 5- OU Form Venkm 4.11
1
aam_ ��yl>~r`
I'IoJeeySti: gu6.,.p.,
tarmda; ser rarer, ,v
Exaluela,;
Ce,nty:
--�.
Tolad Fafnla•.�
yg ,yN y 1
lima lx..yn -J'f
Sb— pnbrmdnallon(Cjm4u �i
Epbarnanl hlimfainf
Ma ,
uµ ewd/rooulc T6
mnaxarry
Sketch:
NOD ,$fream I&WIfilmhon Farm Versfun 4.11
Sala' DaJrf eelr Pra'"nSka: I.arturb: y to f 5 0
EMualo,: 1'l; County: lr..,. LanpttuAe:
Total Polnta: %9 oalT37
Slwmb:a. kern N[nnebera Srrwm pa4 ao W,Uo anal o"M
li iea diaa' 27 E➢#M+na I Ifw Parpmil eq, gyapr.Wse T68
d. H olp�. (Subtnlal =�j S 1
97, Pre_ of naaryOCve � U � S T /% '��7
15'Swjment on pan�ey
aaQ
ske+eh:, f, ,,.rte adJ
f wrr F•7 .. wlv, ,1...,.. �,,.6 .v..1rRv L.J ,.•'
NC D+W StImm [det116rafion Fano Verakn 4.11 S
taetr g131wrs v" _ ProJwGlfBim: �Cu,�r laulndw
Evarualw: Caunly. _
Crmi.�— W°prude:
TtMaf PohtOe:
1Saeam4etbatlaaYunslPerR 'tJ3 S Epbam Inftit hntd o nil a
_ as Qeisdfvamor T6A
NC/OW Sla+mam [dent#Jkatinn Form
Vaxrdoa 4.[1�}
pad: °]IS�L61 a
(
R,alaca3ra: EA1.YW.1�
6arlude: a,6, ME
9Y h/
_ _ _ ��
Cowls, ar.�e
arneam ✓7o'tvmrinanon fel
Epinmeral lnirmltmnl
Wnpa,ap; T 4.4D
ff7 y,
Ematuamr: i+g
Sm,��Kyyy
rx l9.v la ]fi• �
ppm.,
e.e 4o'afaVar,: T7
A. ia.
fa Co[tWfIRY [c -o boa bank
�Fbaent Wwk
Abdonm
84n[g
and
2.9kaga�ty al chennol uk�y lhw
p 7
6 t
R
3,1444N mel sanclu�e: a%. nr!1m-R�aF,
s
d, R�rlicJo ssamrin�ain subsGa[e
p 1
2
5. RF:hYVreSCt °apdplo
d' 1
2
3
B. Co Wsnb,nal has a dorlres_
0
2
3
T. Race:E a41Yfil dcgo_5'its
t.
2
3
__
a. Heerrnitf _
_
U 1
'3
®'. cirsan tenlyd
0
t
1.5
fa. Nararef,epey_
11. 5000nd of �re&a'.wrlue GSWud
(yp=.
�,�a9
--
a,riwril aedaw sm ml rde0; eee p mend
dray = S
�Oq
_I`u6lotel
1E2. fYevfxa of f)asol6w
0 t
2
v l
°
F_M1Cw=p.T5; OBL=
oNer i�dixrl:.9rn xanw..s
$kakdl: 2 z y wl
# I
Li

NC DWQ Str m Ed"arkallon Form Venlon 4.11 IU - U. p 7
Q�37�20 f Prp}aeNBirs gar�a.�r IsOtudl: '6b. 1-164
Eraluawr, �(� 'Caunly: (k.�lt �.� [anClnWa: 79, tl146!
TOUI
sdbe hwlk lMonlexe SIrw1N Da Wr1au11na'[wtcl9 vn•1 oth.
dx
OR pxaQ` ZvI.'S Ephpr —1 irtGnAhllmnt Pq wj an Nw twpap: T7A
12. Pi—d of nasaM,w
sketch:
NC 17_ WQ SIrrsm Id -[We tion Form,. Version 4,11 (y/+
Paha =rls�xafs __._ Pro;xlf9hr: awA1w.L� laneutla:
Eva3uaallr: kg swath: Longlulll:
TSYvanl>t tlnkadirrp '3naul Lkbmina9/on (gkde ens Alhar
ax rpm _ nvttpNYx 51.5 - Eplutmarll 1r0rrohWa01 n�Al •4, (pa+rlNalan T9
NC 1) - Strawm ]dantitralkn Rorm Venlon 4.1.1 Dl 3 flrf F.
01b:
P004MI13Ra: 1�4e F•wr.rar
LeOdrda:
Evalwlar. XP,
i:ir...,t
Lmglluek: -�
Tpvtal Polo
FEE
ax i9 ar' ax.Ar
Si— 6atprat3wWan [alyda anal
Ep1pm•nl knrrmlMud Para M)
00—
•4. GbaSJA1.a: T8
A I.M1Mxnlnme e
17-Preaanw of Oaeagavr __ 0 +{j)
13_Iren aTpAnlOg beaeria
_ ¢
1.5
FEE
.a.Sei-beaatl
e.
C. 13h1� (SunldA
i9. Fibrwn row• in showMad
16. Rmmtl upJpfq Aalta hl aArsgrMoe
2D. L1eu4Aaftlnoe Mafe phldkpY Mtd arugaro) ..
3
g
2
- y
y
2
U
' 0
5
1
2
3
Yt.P��AiaAlnla•.
_.
D.4
1
1.S
ti
Q
_
1
1.5
24, — _
0-5
1
4.S
0
2B.1A "'Ap" la•nlarr�pd
"lawwlrl elrodme m.p 4a Pa Mf4riYap utlg otlm taefltpw. ase Ik 35 W
_
FACW'=0.761 P6L=1.5 INMr•
1.5
Soh
rifFle
--------------------
_ sa
ss
0 is 20 3o as sg
Width (ft)
u=(.I
B.kfall Dimenslons Flood Dimenslons 10aher1e15
'utee (it.,) 23.5 W!rood pmne area (ld
11.4 wldth (fl)a 2.1 enhencM1merM1ratb
1.1 n depth (1) 5 3 lav bank height (fl) -- iM1restald grein
2.1 max depth (fl) 2.5 row bank M1eight redo
I'd padmeter (') ROSgea sh—h Type
1we
134 hyd—h. radlus(ft( -- MlssAg:., Slnuosily, 050,.lana.
U widd,-de d, rano
Bapkfell Flow Flow Resistance Forces &Pow
gcity (Ns) — ugM1ne — pe(%)
-- dbicharge rata (cis) -- Arcy-Weisbach Mc. -- ss (Iblsg.R )
-- Fmutle number — ce(aGgr ulu' -- shear velocity (Ns)
— relative g ss -- and siren power (IbM/s)

rM�e
rROe
96
9 94
—
0 10
Banklull Dimenslals
a
28.9 ree (fl.aq.)
20 WidN(tt)
Flood Dimenslons
20.0 W Hood P.. (ft)
Jo Ira
M..'lals
— D50 (mm)
15.1 witlN (fl)
1.8 n d
99
9 ,9 29
WitlN (fl)
Banklull Dimensions Flood Dimensions
21.0ree (fl.aq.) 1].o W -1
129 wltlN(fl)a 13 entrelwM1menl ratio
1.6 an depth (ft) 4.3 low bank height (ft)
20 max IePN(ft) 2.2 bw bank M1elIi retro
wetted padmeter (ft)
1.4 hytlmalic radius (fl)
] 9 witlN-tlepN ratio
Banklull Flow Flow Resistance
— ily (Ns) — ougM1ness
-- M1arge rata (Gs) -- Arcy-Weisbach frit.
-- Froutle number -- lector ulu'
— rela5ve roughness
49 69 6a
Matedels
-- D84 (mm)
-- thre.hok greln sbe (mm):
Rosgen Stream Two
FALSE Mlaeing:,, .-ft. 050, elope
Forces B P—er
— nal slope (%)
--as (IMaq.ft)
-- shear verlocity (Pos)
-- and shm power (IbIN/s)
raffle
0 10 20 30 40 50 80 70 e0 90
wa,gi)
Banklull Dimenslons Flood Dimenslons Materiels
31.1 ree (fl.al) 30.0 W hood pmne area
1.9 =(fl)a 23 entrenchment mtb -- lti (m )
t.9 n Oapth (ft) 4.9 bank he 111 (1) -- Nreshold gain..¢e (mm):
2.] max deplh (fl) 1.0 bw bank height itio
T
wetletl pareheter (ft) R.Sgan Stream ype
118] hydaulicradlus (tt) -- MlssNg:., Sln...ily, 050, slope.
89 witlN-tle.,.lo
Banklull Flow Flow Resistance Forces & Pow
oc4(Ns) — ughne — pe(1)
-- discharge rale (Ms) -- Arcy-Weisbach fdc. (IMSA.R )
-- I`.—number — ce.1.1 ulu' -- shear velocity(Pos)
— relaLve g ss -- and strm power (IbM/s)
rROe
96
—
0 10
Banklull Dimenslals
a
28.9 ree (fl.aq.)
20 WidN(tt)
Flood Dimenslons
20.0 W Hood P.. (ft)
Jo Ira
M..'lals
— D50 (mm)
15.1 witlN (fl)
1.8 n d
1.3 entrenchment rake
4.0 low bank height (fl)
— th (mm)
--- threshold gaih ova (mm):
2 3 max depN (ft)
.11)
2.0 bw bank height ratio
0 10
Banklull Dimenslons
48.2ree (fl.sq)
20 WIMh (M1) 30
Flood Dimenslons
pa (ft)
2000 W floodrone are
00 So
Materlels
— (mm)
DSo
210 -Ti
depth (tt)
entrencM1meM mtb
4.0 bank height (fl)
-- D84 (mm)
-- Nreshold gainsbe
bank
3.1 2 max depth 111
1.3 bw height itio
Rosgen Stream Type
wetmtl padmeter (a)
2.1till—lit rad1u. III
92 witlN-tlepN rano
— ty (Ns)
-- barge role (cls)
-- Froutle number
— MlasAg:.. Slnuo.ily, 050,.1ape.
Banklull Flow
Flow Resistance
Forces & P—er
— ocity (1Vs)
— ugM1ness
— pe
-- barge ala (cls)
— Arcy-Welhit.
-- ss)
(INblsq.ft
-- Fmutle number
.1.1N
— ce (aGor ulu'
— relaLveroughne.s
— t velocity
—d (Pos)
-- ansNn power
raffle
0 10 20 30 40 50 80 70 e0 90
wa,gi)
Banklull Dimenslons Flood Dimenslons Materiels
31.1 ree (fl.al) 30.0 W hood pmne area
1.9 =(fl)a 23 entrenchment mtb -- lti (m )
t.9 n Oapth (ft) 4.9 bank he 111 (1) -- Nreshold gain..¢e (mm):
2.] max deplh (fl) 1.0 bw bank height itio
T
wetletl pareheter (ft) R.Sgan Stream ype
118] hydaulicradlus (tt) -- MlssNg:., Sln...ily, 050, slope.
89 witlN-tle.,.lo
Banklull Flow Flow Resistance Forces & Pow
oc4(Ns) — ughne — pe(1)
-- discharge rale (Ms) -- Arcy-Weisbach fdc. (IMSA.R )
-- I`.—number — ce.1.1 ulu' -- shear velocity(Pos)
— relaLve g ss -- and strm power (IbM/s)
dfAe
96
—
0 10
Banklull Dimenslals
a
28.9 ree (fl.aq.)
20 WidN(tt)
Flood Dimenslons
20.0 W Hood P.. (ft)
Jo Ira
M..'lals
— D50 (mm)
15.1 witlN (fl)
1.8 n d
1.3 entrenchment rake
4.0 low bank height (fl)
— th (mm)
--- threshold gaih ova (mm):
2 3 max depN (ft)
.11)
2.0 bw bank height ratio
wetmtl
111.5di..
RWE Stream Typa
((ft)
i.
aA hytlaulic rediae (fl)
84 ­tlepN ratio
FALSE Mis.ing. Slnuo.11y, b5o, slope
Banklull Flow
Flow Resistance
Forces S Pow
— ty (Ns)
-- barge role (cls)
-- Froutle number
-- rougM1ness
—cy-Weis .M1 kit.
dor lu'
-- ce(eclu
— relaLverougbness
— channel slope (%)
---
h
--- sear I. velocity (Pos)
-- and strm power (IblNs)
raffle
0 10 20 30 40 50 80 70 e0 90
wa,gi)
Banklull Dimenslons Flood Dimenslons Materiels
31.1 ree (fl.al) 30.0 W hood pmne area
1.9 =(fl)a 23 entrenchment mtb -- lti (m )
t.9 n Oapth (ft) 4.9 bank he 111 (1) -- Nreshold gain..¢e (mm):
2.] max deplh (fl) 1.0 bw bank height itio
T
wetletl pareheter (ft) R.Sgan Stream ype
118] hydaulicradlus (tt) -- MlssNg:., Sln...ily, 050, slope.
89 witlN-tle.,.lo
Banklull Flow Flow Resistance Forces & Pow
oc4(Ns) — ughne — pe(1)
-- discharge rale (Ms) -- Arcy-Weisbach fdc. (IMSA.R )
-- I`.—number — ce.1.1 ulu' -- shear velocity(Pos)
— relaLve g ss -- and strm power (IbM/s)

riffle
w 90
o to 20 30 4g 59
Width (ft)
unlet
Bankfull Dimenslons Flood Dimenslons Materlels
3 :8 0 cc
ee (fleet) 5.0 W fid Pratte area (ft) -- D50 (mm)
3wltlN (fl) ar 1 3 entrencM1NeM mtb -- )
depth (R) 2.it ow bank height (fl) -- dt.— Nreshold gains@e
1.0 max depth (fl) 2.9 bw bank M1eight alio
wyd. perimeter (ft) RDsgan Scream Type
4 7 hydaalic radlus (fl) FALSE MlssMg:., Slnuo.ity, 050, slope.
4� witlN4epN ratio
Bankfull Flow Flow Resistance Farces & P—er
— ocity (Ns) — ugM1ness — pe (%)
Arcy-WelsbacM1 hit. -- ss (Iblaq.ft)
-- Froud. tle number — ceMGer ulu' — shear velocity (Ns)
— relaLveroughness -- and sNn power (IbM/s)
dXle
D 10
9 W 30
a
40 50
Bankfull Dimensions
Flood Dlmensions
D 10
0 WdR
40
o 0
Bankfull Dimensions
Flood Dimensions
Mated.ls
5 8 ree (fl.,,)
22.0 W (rood p.-... (ft)
2.9 — bank height ratio
12.4 W,d,(ft)a
18 entre�wM1menl collo
-- D34 (mm)
can depth (R)
1.0 max d"" (X)
2.3 low bank height (R)
2.3 krw bank height retro
— th.— green size (mm):
Ill waned perimeter (R)
Bankfull Flow
— ny (Ns)
Rosgan Stream T—
OS hldreulic radius (ft)
22 d witlN-tleplM1 coria
-- M1arge rate (Gs)
-- Froutle number
-- Mis.ing:.. Sinuawty, DSD,.lope
Bankfull Flow
-- M1arge rate (Gs)
-- Froutle number
Flow Resistance
ough—e
— Arcy-Weisbach frit.
— lacier ulu'
-- relahve roughness
Fomes B P—er
— nal slope (%)
-- as (Iblaq.ft)
-- shear verlocity (Ns)
-- and shm power(It-)
riffle
w 90
o to 20 30 4g 59
Width (ft)
unlet
Bankfull Dimenslons Flood Dimenslons Materlels
3 :8 0 cc
ee (fleet) 5.0 W fid Pratte area (ft) -- D50 (mm)
3wltlN (fl) ar 1 3 entrencM1NeM mtb -- )
depth (R) 2.it ow bank height (fl) -- dt.— Nreshold gains@e
1.0 max depth (fl) 2.9 bw bank M1eight alio
wyd. perimeter (ft) RDsgan Scream Type
4 7 hydaalic radlus (fl) FALSE MlssMg:., Slnuo.ity, 050, slope.
4� witlN4epN ratio
Bankfull Flow Flow Resistance Farces & P—er
— ocity (Ns) — ugM1ness — pe (%)
Arcy-WelsbacM1 hit. -- ss (Iblaq.ft)
-- Froud. tle number — ceMGer ulu' — shear velocity (Ns)
— relaLveroughness -- and sNn power (IbM/s)
9 94
90
0 10 z0 3c 40 re
WidN (n)
Bankfull Dimenslons Flood Dimenslons Materlels
4, "­­ .
9e ree ") 9.0 W (rota prone area (ft)
T.2 witlN (fl)1.3 entrencM1meM coria -- D81 (mm)
0) depth (ft) 2.) bank height (%) — Nreahoid grain size (mm):
09 max depth (fl) 3.1 bw bank M1eight alio
wenetl perimeter (ft) Rosgan Stream iyya
O.Shytlaslic radlus (ft) FALSE MlssMg:., Slnuoslty, 050, slo,
.
tOS witlN-tlepN rade
Bankfull Flow Flow Resistance Forces & P—er
ocity (Ns) —Amug1, e --pe (%)
-- dblcharge ata (cis) -- y-Welsbach Mc. -- ss (Iblag.R )
-- Froutle number — I., ulu' -- shear velocity (Ns)
rel— —g — -- and siren power(It—)
D 10
9 W 30
a
40 50
Bankfull Dimensions
Flood Dlmensions
Materlels
.ree (fl.aq.)
170
S7 wltlN (fl).
14.0 W — prone area (ft)
1.4 entre�wM1menl aXo
D86
can depth (R)
3.5 low bank height (R)
-- (mm)
-- thre.hok galn.ize (mm):
1 2max depth (X)
2.9 — bank height ratio
10.5 wetted perimeter (R)
Rosgan Stream T-
0 9 hydaulic radius (tt)
-
10 a -deem rend
— Mis.ing:.. Slnua.ity, DSD, slope
Bankfull Flow
— ny (Ns)
Flow Resistance
— ougM1ness
Mc.
Forces B P—er
— nal slope P/=1
-- M1arge rate (Gs)
-- Froutle number
-- Amy -Weisbach
-- lector ulu'
— relahve roughness
-- ss (IbIazI.R)
-- shear velocity (Ns)
-- and sWn power (IbHds)
9 94
90
0 10 z0 3c 40 re
WidN (n)
Bankfull Dimenslons Flood Dimenslons Materlels
4, "­­ .
9e ree ") 9.0 W (rota prone area (ft)
T.2 witlN (fl)1.3 entrencM1meM coria -- D81 (mm)
0) depth (ft) 2.) bank height (%) — Nreahoid grain size (mm):
09 max depth (fl) 3.1 bw bank M1eight alio
wenetl perimeter (ft) Rosgan Stream iyya
O.Shytlaslic radlus (ft) FALSE MlssMg:., Slnuoslty, 050, slo,
.
tOS witlN-tlepN rade
Bankfull Flow Flow Resistance Forces & P—er
ocity (Ns) —Amug1, e --pe (%)
-- dblcharge ata (cis) -- y-Welsbach Mc. -- ss (Iblag.R )
-- Froutle number — I., ulu' -- shear velocity (Ns)
rel— —g — -- and siren power(It—)

riMe
o t6 Wielh(ft) 38 0
Banklull Dimenslons Flood Dimenslons Materlels
261
ree (fl.sg.) 5.7 Wlrocd pove
r—a(ft)
4.4 wltlN (ft) 1.3 entrench—rano
Oapth (ft) 4.8 ow bank height (ft) — threshold grain size (mm):
0 8 max depth (ft) 6.6 bw bank hepghl alio
Nwetted padme,er (ft) Rosgan 51ream iyya
8.5 hydaukc radius (fl) FALSE MlssMg:., Slnuoslty, 058, slope.
15 widen -dept ratio
BankUl Flow Flow Resistance Forces 8 Pow
-- diocity (Ws) — ugnne — pe(%)
schargeala (Ms) -- ArtY-Wels F.—Mcior l., lu. -- as(IMaz1.R)
-- Fmnumber — ceulu' -- shear velocity (Ws)
— relaLve g ss -- and sinn power (IbM/s)
dme
96
6 6
BankNll Dlmansla,s
6 WMN(X)
Flood Dimenslons
6 6 a
Ma[ezlels
5.2 x-aecibn area (fl.aq.)
4.8 witlN (fl)
8.8 W 1—prone area (X)
1.] aXo
— DW (mm)
1.1 can depth (ft)
11 dept
entrenchment
4.1low bank hNght (fl)
24 bw bank M1eigM
--- th—ld 9reib size (mm):
max (fl)
waded Pamneez (ft)
reiio
Rosgan Stream Two
0.8 hyd— I. radio. (ft)
4.4 witlNtlepN ratb
Flow Resistance
— Misaing:. Slnuoslty, b5o, slope
Banklull Flow
Flow Respslance
Forces S Pow
— tymg-7
M1arge
frit.
anon Islope (%)
-- role Isla)
-- Fmutle number
— cY-WeisbacM1
— ce(ecbr ulu'
--- ss llMsq.tt)
--- shear velocity IWO
— relahveroughness
— unt sVm Power (IbMls)
riMe
o t6 Wielh(ft) 38 0
Banklull Dimenslons Flood Dimenslons Materlels
261
ree (fl.sg.) 5.7 Wlrocd pove
r—a(ft)
4.4 wltlN (ft) 1.3 entrench—rano
Oapth (ft) 4.8 ow bank height (ft) — threshold grain size (mm):
0 8 max depth (ft) 6.6 bw bank hepghl alio
Nwetted padme,er (ft) Rosgan 51ream iyya
8.5 hydaukc radius (fl) FALSE MlssMg:., Slnuoslty, 058, slope.
15 widen -dept ratio
BankUl Flow Flow Resistance Forces 8 Pow
-- diocity (Ws) — ugnne — pe(%)
schargeala (Ms) -- ArtY-Wels F.—Mcior l., lu. -- as(IMaz1.R)
-- Fmnumber — ceulu' -- shear velocity (Ws)
— relaLve g ss -- and sinn power (IbM/s)
dHle
96
92
o
Banklull Dimenslons
2,6 ea (ftsg.)
to Wam lX)
Flood Dimenslons
11.6 W (rood prone area (ft)
2a v6
Materlels
3:8 wl T) th
078 apN (fl)
29 entrencM1MeM alb
3.2 ow bank hepght (fl)
-- D84 (mm)
-- Nreslwld gainsbe
69 max depth lfli
3.6 bw bank height alio
Rosgan 51ream Type
wetletl padmeter (X)
e6 hydaulicradius(fl)
56 witlm-tlepN rano
1.0 bw bank neigh
— MlssMg:., Slnuoslty, 056, slppa.
Banklull Flow
Flow Resistance
Forces 8 1-11
((ft)
0 fi hydmahc rad—ma (tt)
13s wiam-tlepm ono
egnnesa
— Pe (1)--
ss
d-harge ala lMa)
— ArcY-WelsbacM1 hip.
--. QblagA)
-- Fmutle number
— ceMcior ulu'
— relaLverougnness
— shear velocity lWsj
-- and stn power (IbM/s)
riMe
o t6 Wielh(ft) 38 0
Banklull Dimenslons Flood Dimenslons Materlels
261
ree (fl.sg.) 5.7 Wlrocd pove
r—a(ft)
4.4 wltlN (ft) 1.3 entrench—rano
Oapth (ft) 4.8 ow bank height (ft) — threshold grain size (mm):
0 8 max depth (ft) 6.6 bw bank hepghl alio
Nwetted padme,er (ft) Rosgan 51ream iyya
8.5 hydaukc radius (fl) FALSE MlssMg:., Slnuoslty, 058, slope.
15 widen -dept ratio
BankUl Flow Flow Resistance Forces 8 Pow
-- diocity (Ws) — ugnne — pe(%)
schargeala (Ms) -- ArtY-Wels F.—Mcior l., lu. -- as(IMaz1.R)
-- Fmnumber — ceulu' -- shear velocity (Ws)
— relaLve g ss -- and sinn power (IbM/s)
rime
96
0 19
Bankroll Dimensio
Wd�lX1
Flood Dimenspon
30 46
Materlels
S4 ree (fl.aq.)
93
3).0 W fla�E prone
4.0
area (1) -- D. (mm)
=(fl)a
e.] can dept ()
1—b.nk h.ghl
3.3 low bank neigh
(ft) -- Nreslwk Bain size (mm):
13 max deem (X)
1.0 bw bank neigh
I—
_
18.] Ped
Rosgan Stream
((ft)
0 fi hydmahc rad—ma (tt)
13s wiam-tlepm ono
— Misaing: g:,, Slnuoslty, b58, slope
Banklull Flow
— nyougnness
Flow Resistance
Forces B Pow
— nal slope "I
Mc.
-- M1arge rote (Ms)
-- Fmutle number
-- Amy-WelsbacM1
-- (actor'
— relahveroughness
-- ss (16lazI.R)
-- she arvelocity lWs)
-- unt sim, power (IbIWs)
riMe
o t6 Wielh(ft) 38 0
Banklull Dimenslons Flood Dimenslons Materlels
261
ree (fl.sg.) 5.7 Wlrocd pove
r—a(ft)
4.4 wltlN (ft) 1.3 entrench—rano
Oapth (ft) 4.8 ow bank height (ft) — threshold grain size (mm):
0 8 max depth (ft) 6.6 bw bank hepghl alio
Nwetted padme,er (ft) Rosgan 51ream iyya
8.5 hydaukc radius (fl) FALSE MlssMg:., Slnuoslty, 058, slope.
15 widen -dept ratio
BankUl Flow Flow Resistance Forces 8 Pow
-- diocity (Ws) — ugnne — pe(%)
schargeala (Ms) -- ArtY-Wels F.—Mcior l., lu. -- as(IMaz1.R)
-- Fmnumber — ceulu' -- shear velocity (Ws)
— relaLve g ss -- and sinn power (IbM/s)

M 92
0 10 WL h(X) 30 a0
Bankfull Dime Flood Dimens ns W.H.I.
2.0 ree (ft.,) 8.0 W 0wd prone area (1)
2.0 wltliM1 (ft)a 3.0 entreiwM1menl mtlo -- D86 (mm)
1.0 mean depth 11) 3.3 low bank height (ft) -- tbre.hod green size (mm):
1, max dap. (ft) 2.2 bw bank height— retro
4 3 pamoate, (ft) Rosgen Slmam T—
bydreulicradius(ft) -- MI—g:,, Sipuaft. D50,.lope
2.0 witlM-tlepiM1 ratio
Baekfull Flow Flow Resislaece Forces 8 P-11
ity oughness — nal slope(%)
-- M1arge rel. (cts) — Nrcy-Weisb 11111. -- ss(Iblaq.ft)
-- Froutle number — reel., ulu -- shear verlocky(Pos)
-- relative roughness -- and shm power(IbIN/s)
lluckwater Above Walnut Hill Dr
Pebble Count Particle
Distribution
Gravel
Cobble
Boultler
�.�1: BedrocN
ffff
.
a
Preliminary Nutrient Reduction Model for Buckwater Mitigation Site
Estimated Nutrient Reduction from the Establishment of the Riparian Buffer
Type of Laud C.—
Nutrient Loading Reduction Summary
TN Ib r TP IIb/yr
Pre -Project 33.10 8.82
Post- .1- 20.1) 3.18
%Reduction
Nutrient Loading Reduction Summary
TN Ib r TP IIb/yr
Pre -Project 33.10 8.82
Post- .1- 20.1) 3.18
%Reduction

p
�j
4�J
YEAR:1938 IN
Buckwater Mitigation Site MORE

a ' �
Ila
eP
YEAR: 1955 I N
Buckwater Mitigation Site

lk
r
.` lei
or
- A
r
M.0 SAW Ju
YEAR: 1966 I N
Buckwater Mitigation Site
tlw�l
401
44

r7m,mllp
f/
Nip