20150416 Ver 1 _Technical Proposal with Addendum _20161108

Execution Page
and Addenda

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Request for Proposal #: 16-006807
Title: Full Delivery Projects To Provide Stream Mitigation
Within Cataloging Unit 03050101 Of The Catawba River
Basin As Described In The Scope Of Work
Date of Issue: February 15, 2016
Proposal Opening Date: June 9, 2016
At 2:OOPM ET
Direct all inquiries concerning this RFP to:
Kathy Dale
DMS Purchasing Agent
Email: [e-mail]
Phone: [phone]

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
Request for Proposal #
16-006807
For internal State agency processing, including tabulation of proposals in the Interactive Purchasing System (IPS),
please provide your company's Federal Employer Identification Number or alternate identification number (e.g. Social
Security Number). Pursuant to North Carolina General Statute 132-1.10(b) this identification number shall not be
released to the public. This page will be removed and shredded, or otherwise kept confidential, before the
procurement file is made available for public inspection.
This page is to be filled out and returned with your proposal.
Failure to do so may subject your proposal to rejection.
ID Number:
13-5674528
Federal ID Number or Social Security Number
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
Vendor Name

RFP Number.' RFP 96-006807 Vendor:_ Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. _
EXECUTION
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
I NC DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
Refer ALL Inquiries regarding this RFP Request for Proposal # 16-006807
to: Kathy Dale Proposals will be publicly opened: June 9, 2016
E-MAIL: kathy.dale(a)ncdenr.gov Contract Type: Open Market
PHONE: [phone] Commodity No. and Description: 962-73
Restoration/Reclamation Services of Land and Other Properties
Using Agency: Division of Mitigation Services
Requisition No.:
In compliance with this Request for Proposals, and subject to all the conditions herein, the undersigned Vendor offers and
agrees to furnish and deliver any or all items upon which prices are bid, at the prices set opposite each item within the time
specified herein. By executing this proposal, the undersigned Vendor certifies that this proposal is submitted competitively
and without collusion (G.S. 143-54), that none of its officers, directors, or owners of an unincorporated business entity has
been convicted of any violations of Chapter 78A of the General Statutes, the Securities Act of 1933, or the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (G.S. 143-59.2), and that it is not an ineligible Vendor as set forth in G.S. 143-59.1. False certification
is a Class I felony. Furthermore by executing this proposal, the undersigned certifies to the best of Vendor's knowledge and
belief, that it and its principals are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible or
voluntarily excluded from covered transactions by any Federal or State department or agency. As required by G.S. §143-
48.5, the undersigned Vendor certifies that it, and each of its sub -Vendors for any Contract awarded as a result of this RFP,
complies with the requirements of Article 2 of Chapter 64 of the NC General Statutes, including the requirement for each
employer with more than 25 employees in North Carolina to verify the work authorization of its employees through the
federal E -Verify system. G.S. 133-32 and Executive Order 24 (2009) prohibit the offer to, or acceptance by, any State
Employee associated with the preparing plans, specifications, estimates for public Contract; or awarding or administering
public Contracts; or inspecting or supervising delivery of the public Contract 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,
Failure to execute/sign proposal prior to submittal shall render proposal invalid and it WILL BE REJECTED. Late
proposals cannot be accepted.
VENDOR:
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
STREET ADDRESS:
P.O. BOX:
ZIP:
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
27518
CITY & STATE & ZIP:
TELEPHONE NUMBER:
TOLL FREE TEL. NO-
O:Ca
Cary,
, North Carolina
919-463-5488
PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS ADDRESS IF DIFFERENT FROM ABOVE (SEE INSTRUCTIONS TO VENDORS ITEM #10):
PRINT NAME & TIT F PERSON SIGNING ON BEHALF OF VENDOR:
FAX NUMBER: I
I Robert W. ewis, E
919-463-5490
VENDCED SIGNATURE:
DATE:
E-MAIL:
05/L'5/2016
[e-mail]
Offer valid for at least 120 days from date of proposal opening, unless otherwise stated here: 120 days. After this time,
any withdrawal of offer shall be made in writing, effective upon receipt by the agency issuing this RFP.
ACCEPTANCE OF PROPOSAL
If any or all parts of this proposal are accepted by the State of North Carolina, an authorized representative of the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources shall affix his/her signature hereto and this document and all provisions of this Request For
Proposal along with the Vendor proposal response and the written results of any negotiations shall then constitute the written
agreement between the parties. A copy of this acceptance will be forwarded to the successful Vendor(s).
FOR STATE USE ONLY Offer accepted and Contract awarded this day of 20 , as indicated on the
attached certification, by (Authorized Representative of DEQ)
Ver: 7/1/15 Page 1 of 36

RFP Number. 96-006807 Vendor. Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
Table of Contents
1.0
PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND...,.........................................................................................3
2.0
VENDOR INFORMATION..........................................................................................................3
2.1
MANDATORY PRE -PROPOSAL CONFERENCE..............................................................................4
2.2
PROPOSAL QUESTIONS........................................................................................................4
2.3
PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL..........................................................................................................5
2.4
PROPOSAL CONTENTS .........................................................................................................6
2.5
IMPORTANT INFORMATION AND RESTRICTIONS.. .......................................................................
8
2.6
REQUIRED TEMPLATES FOR THIS RFP...........................................................................................9
2.7
DEFINITIONS, ACRONYMS, AND ABBREVIATIONS.......................................................................9
3.0
SCOPE OF WORK.................................................................................................................13
3.1
OBJECTIVES.... .......................... ................................... .......................... . .......... ...............
13
3.2
TASKS...................................................................................................................................14
3,3
PAYMENT SCHEDULE AND DESCRIPTION OF MILESTONES............................................17
3.4
PROJECT ORGANIZATION......_...........................................................................................1
7
3.5
TECHNICAL_ APPROACH......................................................................................................18
3.6
ACCEPTANCE OF WORK.....................................................................................................18
4.0
ADMINISTRATIVE TERMS .................. ..... ................. ..................................... ...................
...18
4.1
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL DOCUMENT.............................................................................18
4.2
CONTRACT TERM.................................................................................................................18
4.3
PRICING .............................. ......................................................................................... .........
.18
4.4
DOWNWARD PAYMENT ADJUSI"MENTS.............................................................................18
4.5
INVOICES... ........ ........................... ........... ........................ ................. ...........
18
4.6
PAYMENT TERMS..................................................................................................................19
4.7
PERFORMANCE OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES........................................................................19
4.8
NOTICE TO VENDORS REGARDING RFP TERMS AND CONDITIONS....................................19
4.9
INTERPRETATION OF TERMS AND PHRASES..............................................................................19
5.0
PROPOSAL_ EVALUATION PROCESS AND METHOD OF AWARD.... ........................................
20
5.1
CONFIDENTIALITY AND PROHIBITED COMMUNICATIONS DURING EVALUATION ...........20
5.2
PROPOSAL OPENING PROCESS...,. ................................................... ...................
20
5.3
EVALUATION PROCESS........................................................................................................20
5.4
EVALUATION CRITERIA .......................................................................................................21
5.5
METHOD OF AWARD.............................................................................................................22
6.0
REQUIREMENTS....................................................................................................................................22
6.1
FINANCIAL STABILITY...............................................................................:...........
2
6.2
AL ASSURANCE.................................................................................................:._.,�:_
6.3
VENDOR EXPERIENCE........................................................................................
23
6.4
REFERENCES...........:...................................................................:......................23
Ver: 7/1/15
Page 2 of 36

RFP Number: 16-006807 Vendor: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
6.5 ACCESS TO PERSONS AND RECORDS.........................................................................................23
6.6 BACKGROUND CHECKS.......................................................................................................23
6.7 PERSONNEL..........................................................................................................................24
6.8 VENDOR REPRESENTATIONS..............................................................................................24
7.0 CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION..............................................................................................24
7.1 PROJECT MANAGER AND CUSTOMER SERVICE.......................................................................24
7.2 REPORTS.............................................................................................................24
7.3 DISPUTE RESOLUTION.........................................................................................................24
7.4 CONTRACT CHANGES.........................................................................................25
7.5 CONTRACT ADMINISTRATOR.............................................................................................25
ATTACHMENT A: INSTRUCTIONS TO VENDORS..........................................................................26
ATTACHMENT B: NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL CONTRACT TERMS AND CONDITIONS ..........29
ATTACHMENTC: PRICING.............................................................................................................33
ATTACHMENT D: LOCATION OF WORKERS UTILIZED BY VENDOR...........................................34
ATTACHMENT E: CERTIFICATION OF FINANCIAL CONDITION....................................................35
ATTACHMENT F: ADDITIONAL VENDOR INFORMATION.....................................................36
ATTACHMENT G: TARGET LOCAL WATERSHED MAPS......................................................37
ATTACHMENT H: TECHNICAL EVALUATION SCORESHEET...............................................39
1.0 PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND
The mission of NCDMS is to provide cost-effective mitigation alternatives that improve the state's water
resources.
This RFP is soliciting Proposals from qualified Vendors for needed mitigation as described herein for the
NCDMS to successfully meet permit conditions mandated by the regulatory agencies.
Proposals shall be submitted in accordance with the terms and conditions of this RFP and any addenda
issued hereto.
This RFP is not an offer for a Contract, nor does the Department's acceptance of any Technical /Cost
Proposal guarantee a Contract with the Department. The Department reserves the right to reject any or all
proposals deemed not to be in the best interest of the State of North Carolina.
2.0 VENDOR INFORMATION
2.1 MANDATORY PRE -PROPOSAL CONFERENCE
A MANDATORY PRE -PROPOSAL CONFERENCE will be held to clarify all information contained within this
Request for Proposals (RFP) and to provide information relative to specific requirements. Vendor and/or his
representative must attend the scheduled Mandatory Pre -proposal Conference.
Ver: 7/1/15 Page 3 of 36

RFP Number.' 16-006807 Vendor: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
Attendance at this Pre -proposal Conference is a prerequisite for consideration of a bidder's offer.
Vendor and/or his representative must:
(1) arrive prior to the scheduled start time of the Pre -proposal Conference;
(2) sign -in on the attendance sheet: and
(3) sign -out upon completion of the Pre -proposal Conference.
Failure to comply with this requirernerit will cause offer to be rejected. The purpose of the pre -proposal
conference is for all prospective offerurs to acquaint themselves with the conditions and requirements of the
tasks to be performed. Submission of an offer snail constitute sufficient evidence of this compliance and no
allowance will be made for unreported conditions that a prudent offeror would recognize as affecting the
performance of the work called for in this solicitation. Offeror is cautioned that any information released to
offeror other than during the pre- proposal conference which conflicts with, supersedes, or adds to
requirements In this solicitation, must be confirmed by written addendum before it can be considered to be a
part of this solicitation document. Vendor bidding otherwise does so at his own risk.
Each offeror is permitted to send no more than (2) people to the conference. Only one (1) representative per
offeror is allowed to sign both the sign -in and sign -out sheet (the representative that signed in must also sign
out).
Only one (1) pre -determined, pre -proposal conference will be held; individual pre -proposal conferences are
not allowed.
PRE -PROPOSAL CONFERENCE LOCATION / DATE / TIME:
Location: NC Division of Mitigation Services
217 West Jones Street, Suite 1210
Raleigh, NC 27603
Date: March 3, 2016 Start Time: 10:00 AM
2.2 PROPOSAL QUESTIONS
Upon review of the RFP documents. Vendors may have questions to clarify or interpret the RFP in order to
submit the best proposal possible. To accommodate the Proposal Questions process, Vendors shall submit
all such questions by 5:00 PM on Thursday, March 17, 2016.
Written questions shall be e-mailed to [e-mail] by the date and time specified above.
Vendors should enter "RFP #16-006807: Questions" as the subject for the email. Questions submittals should
include a reference to the applicable RFP section and be submitted in a format shown below:
Reference I Vendor Question
RFP Section, Page Number i Vendor question...? I
Questions received prior to the submission deadline date, the State's response, and any additional terms
deemed necessary by the State will be posted in the form of an addendum to the Interactive Purchasing
System (IPS), http://www.ips,state.nc.us, and shall become an Addendum to this RFP. No information,
instruction or advice provided orally or informally by any State personnel, whether made in response to a
question or otherwise in connection with this RFP, shall be considered authoritative or binding. Vendors shall
rely only on written material contained in an Addendum to this RFP
Ver: 7/1/15 Page 4 of 36

RFP Number. 16-006807 Vendor: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
Contact with anyone working for or with the State regarding this RFP other than the State Contract Specialist
named on the face page of this RFP in the manner specified by this RFP shall constitute grounds for rejection
of said Vendor's offer, at the State's election.
2.3 PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL
Sealed proposals, subject to the conditions made a part hereof and the receipt requirements described
below, shall be received at the address indicated in the table below, for furnishing and delivering those items
or services as described herein.
F DELIVERED BY "US POSTAL SERVICE"
i Address as below:
RFP #16-006807
NC DEQ -DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
ATTN: KATHY DALE
1652 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699.1652
IF DELIVERED BY ANY OT ER MEANS
(UPS/FEDEX/ETC.)
Address as below:
RFP # 16-006807
NC DEQ -DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
ATTN: KATHY DALE
217 WEST JONES STREET, SUITE 3409-G
RALEIGH NC 27603
IMPORTANT NOTE: All proposals shall be physically delivered to the office address listed above on or
before the proposal deadline in order to be considered timely, regardless of the method of delivery. This is
an absolute requirement. All risk of late arrival due to unanticipated delay—whether delivered by
hand, U.S. Postal Service, courier or other delivery service is entirely on the Vendor. It is the sole
responsibility of the Vendor to have the proposal physically in this Office by the specified time and date of
opening. The time of delivery will be marked on each proposal when received, and any proposal received
after the proposal submission deadline will be rejected. Sealed proposals, subject to the conditions made a
part hereof, will be received at the address indicated in the table in this Section, for furnishing and
delivering the commodity as described herein.
Note that the U.S. Postal Service generally does not deliver mail to specified street address but to the
State's Mail Service Center. Vendors are cautioned that proposals sent via U.S. Mail, including Express
Mail, may not be delivered by the Mail Service Center to the agency's purchasing office on the due date in
time to meet the proposal deadline. All Vendors are urged to take the possibility of delay into account when
submitting a proposal. Attempts to submit a proposal via facsimile (FAX) machine, telephone or
electronic means, including but not limited to e-mail, in response to this RFP shall NOT be
accepted.
Vendors must follow the steps below when submitting their bid:
1) Submit two (2) signed, original executed Technical Proposal responses and five (5) photocopies (All
7 Must Be Placed in a 3 Ring Binder or Notebook and Include Section Tabs). Original responses
must be labeled. Photocopies should not include any financial or confidential information.
2) Submit your technical proposal in a sealed package. Clearly mark each package with the following
information: (1) Sealed Technical Proposal (2) the RFP number, (3) the Due Date and Time, (4)
Vendor Name and Address, (5) the River Basin and Cataloging Unit for which the proposal
response is being submitted, and (6) the Site Name and Type of Mitigation being proposed. Address
the package(s) for delivery as shown in the table above. If Vendor is submitting more than one (1)
proposal, each proposal shall be submitted in a separately sealed envelope and marked accordingly.
For delivery purposes, separately sealed envelopes from a single Vendor may be included in the same
outer package. Proposals are subject to rejection unless submitted with the information above included
on the outside of the sealed proposal package.
Ver: 7/1/15 Page 5 of 36

RFP Number.' 16-006807 Vendor: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
3) Submit two (2) signed, original executed cost proposal responses and two (2) photocopies (All 4
must be placed in one separately sealed envelope). All cost proposal response packages must be
clearly marked with (1) Sealed Cost Proposal (2) the RFP number, (3) the Due Date and Time, (4)
Vendor Name and Address, (5) the River Basin and Cataloging Unit for which the proposai
response is being submitted, and (6) the Site Name and Type of Mitigation being proposed. If
Vendor is submitting more than one (1) cost proposal option, each response shall be submitted in a
separately sealed envelope and marked accordingly. For delivery purposes, separately sealed
envelopes from a single Vendor may be included in the same outer package.
NOTE: All technical and cost proposals must constitute a firm, irrevocable offer for a period of
at least one (1) year beyond the specified "Opening Date" for this RFP.
4) Submit one (1) electronic copy of your proposal on a separate read-only CD's, DVD's or flash drive.
The files on this disc shall NOT be password protected, shall be in .PDF or .XLS format, and shall be
capable of being copied to other media including readable in Microsoft Word andlor Microsoft Excel.
The electronic copy of your proposal should not include any financial or confidential information.
5) Submit one (1) read-only CD's, DVD's or flash drive containing the ArcGIS format of the boundaries of
the proposed project. The CD should be clearly marked as "ArcGIS`. The boundary can be the
proposed easement(s). or general project area. NCDMS expects that the submitted file will match
closely the project area(s) shown in the project proposal location map. The file must be in ArcGIS
format and must be projected in the State Plane Coordinate System (NAD 83) using a base unit
of meters or fee. It is preferred that the .prj file holding the coordinate system information be included
in the file. The table for the ArcGIS file must contain the following:
• Site—Name- (List as named in proposal report)
• Company- (Vendor)
• Project—Type- (Stream, Wetland, Buffer or Combination)
• Coordinate—System- (SP Meters or SP Feet)
Ownership of the CDs and the contents become the property of NCDEQ-DMS.
2.4 PROPOSAL CONTENTS
Vendors shall populate all attachments of this RFP that require the Vendor to provide information and include
an authorized signature where requested. Vendor RFP responses shall include the following items and those
attachments should be arranged in the following order and separated by tabs:
a) COVER LETTER
b) TITLE PAGE: Include the company name, address, phone number and authorized representative along
with the Proposal Number.
c) EXECUTION PAGES and any ADDENDA released in conjunction with this RFP that requires the
Addenda to be returned. These must be completed and signed. Failure to comply will result in your bid
being disqualified.
d) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The executive summary shall consist of highlights of the general contents of
the proposal, and shall clearly state the anticipated mitigation type and amount of credits proposed. If the
Vendor is proposing multiple mitigation options, each option must be specifically described in this section.
e) CORPORATE BACKGROUND AND EXPERIENCE: This section shall include background information
on the firm submitting the proposal, the firm's ability to carry out all phases of the proposal, information
concerning similar mitigation projects completed in North Carolina and other states, the firm's office
location(s), the experience of the project manager, the firm's multidisciplinary approach to the project, the
resumes of key personnel for the primary Vendor and sub -vendors, and DBE/HUB participation.
Ver: 7/1/15 Page 6 of 36

RFP Number.' 16-006807 Vendor: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
f) PROJECT ORGANIZATION: This section must include the proposed staffing, deployment, and
organization of personnel to be assigned to this project. The Vendor shall provide information as to the
qualifications and experience of all executive, managerial, legal, and professional personnel to be
assigned to this project, including resumes citing experience with similar projects and the responsibilities
to be assigned to each person.
g) TECHNICAL APPROACH: This section shall include and be completed in the following sequence:
• Project Goals and Objectives- Specifically describe how the proposed project will address the
watershed goals identified in the River Basin Restoration Plan (RBRP) and/or Local Watershed Plan
(LWP) applicable to the project area, and the objectives that will be used to accomplish those goals.
RBRPs and LWPs can be found at: http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/EEP/rbrps searchable by river
basin. Unless otherwise specified in the RFP, the proposed ecological benefits and functional uplift the
project could provide may be determined at the discretion of the Vendor. If a proposed site addresses
more than one of the watershed goals, it will be taken into consideration in the site rating.
• Project Description- Provide a detailed description of the project including, but not limited to a
description of the site in its existing condition; watershed (including County and 14 -digit Hydrologic
Unit) and its condition; soils and geology; anticipated cultural resources, protected species issues, and
known site constraints (i.e. other easements, crossings, site access, etc.). Note: due to concerns
regarding waterfowl attraction in the vicinity of air transport facilities, the project description must
include a site location map that identifies any air transport facility located within 5 miles of the project
site. The presence of an air transport facility will not exclude the proposal from consideration.
■ The proposal shall include a map(s) preferably with topographic background that includes mapping
of channel stability features (i.e. Incision, bank instability, the occurrence of bedrock) and any
relevant features which have implications for describing impairments (e.g. ditching) and/or support
the proposed level of intervention. The map should also include a table which provides a reach
description.
Project Development — Describe in detail the means by which the proposed changes will be made.
Identify individual project reaches and the specific method in which the mitigation will be completed.
Describe in detail reasons for the anticipated activities and why these activities are warranted to the level
proposed. Clearly state the anticipated ecological uplift for each activity for each reach. Submittals for
restoration of both intermittent and perennial streams must provide sufficient documentation and
discussion of the net gain in function resulting from the proposed level of restoration as compared to
other levels of restoration. Modification of pattern, dimension and profile should not be assumed to be
the appropriate level of restoration for all degraded streams. The project development description must
include:
■ Where restoration is appropriate, Priority I restoration is strongly encouraged. It is understood that
Priority 11 restoration will sometimes be necessary for tie-ins and transitions, but if it is proposed as
the overall design approach for a given reach then at a minimum it must meet the criteria described
in the technical score sheet for this RFP.
■ A general description for all stream crossings, fords, roads etc. The description must include the
location, width, and type of crossing (ford, culvert, bridge etc.). Crossings that utilize bridges and/or
culverts with fencing that permanently prevent livestock access both upstream and downstream of
the crossing (so that livestock exclusion is not dependent on the use of gates) provide better
protection of the riparian area, and will therefore be awarded more points on the Technical
Proposal Evaluation Form.
Proposed Mitigation - Provide a description of the mitigation credits proposed. Include an explanation
of how the proposed credits were derived and a table of anticipated mitigation types and credits. The
table should include a total for each type of mitigation (i.e. restoration, rehabilitation, enhancement level
I and level 11, preservation, etc.) being offered. If multiple options are proposed, a table for each option
should be provided.
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
Ver: 7/1/15 Page 7 of 36

RFP Number 16-006807 Vendor: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
providing long term protection of the mitigation site. Based on the Federal Code of Regulations (Federal
Register/Vol. 73, No. 70/Thursday, April 10, 2008/ Rules and Regulations — Section 332.7 Management,
the long term protection may be provided through real estate instruments such as conservation
easements held by entities such as federal, tribal, state or local resource agencies, non-profit
conservation organizations, or private and 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 or
other suitable documentation of real property must be provided for each parcel.
• Project Phasing -- Provide a complete schedule for completing the tasks for the project as identified in
this RFI' Describe methods for completing these tasks. The proposed schedule must be based on
completion of the project (including the five (5) or seven (7) year monitoring period) within the ten (10)
year contract period The proposed schedule should be based on the number of months (from contract
issuance) needed to complete each of the tasks listed in the scope of work
SuccessCriteria — Identify specific performance standards that are anticipated to be utilized to measure
success of the project. The success criteria must be directly related to the anticipated ecological uplift
identified in paragraph Project Development above.
Quality Control — This section shall describe the Vendor's quality control program and other
procedures that will be used to ensure: 1) each deliverable (i.e. mitigation plan, baseline monitoring
document, monitoring report, etc.) is submitted in accordance with the schedule established in the
technical proposal, it follows the formats) established by NCUMS, it contains all required
information, and is grammatically/typographically correct; and 2) sufficient oversight is provided
during the construction phase so that the project is completed on schedule and is in compliance
with any required federal, state or local permit(s).
Maps diagrams, and/or photographs may be used to supplement the text and may be printed on one
side. However, the Technical Proposal shall not exceed a total of 50 pages printed front to back
(100 page limit) and shall be submitted within a three ring binder with section tabs. Photographs.
maps and diagrams will count toward the 100 pages. If a technical proposal does not meet all the
Department's requirements, it will be rejected and the corresponding sealed cost proposal will
not be opened.
h) ATTACHMENT A: INSTRUCTIONS TO VENDORS
i) ATTACHMENT B: NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL CONTRACT TERMS AND CONDITIONS
j) ATTACHMENT C: PRICING (Completed, Signed and Separately Sealed)
k) ATTACHMENT D: LOCATION OF WORKERS UTILIZED BY VENDOR (Completed and Signed)
1) ATTACHMENT E: CERTIFICATION OF FINANCIAL CONDITION (Completed and Signed)
in) ATTACHMENT F: ADDITIONAL VENDOR INFORMATION (Completed)
2.5 IMPORTANT INFORMATION AND RESTRICTIONS
a) The DMS recognizes that a Vendor(s) might not be able to find one site that 'provides the total amount of
mitigation requested for the cataloging unit listed above. Therefore, proposals may be submitted in any of
the following categories:
■ One or more sites providing all of the requested mitigation credits; or
■ One or more sites providing a portion of the requested mitigation credits.
b) Unless the Vendor states in both the cover letter and the Executive Summary of the technical proposal that
multiple mitigation options are being offered for a site, and specifically describes each option, the
Department shall only consider the full proposal amount and will not extend an offer to contract for less than
the full amount indicated in the proposal.
Ver: 7/1/15 Page 8 of 36

RFP Number: 96-006807 Vendor: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
c) Proposals will NOT be accepted using the following types of sites:
1. Property purchased with Clean Water Management Trust Fund monies
2. Property that is enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, Conservation Reserve
Program, Wetlands Reserve Program, or any other state or federal program that provides funds for
any of the tasks outlined in this RFP
3. Property that has been used for compensatory mitigation under Section 404 and/or 401 of the Clean
Water Act
4. Properties that are in the control of the State or currently in negotiation for compensatory mitigation
needs by any state agency
5. Properties that are controlled by any federal agency
6. Properties that have been timbered, filled, or manipulated (stream channel dredging or channel re-
alignment) in violation of federal or state rules or statutes.
d) Please note that the State of North Carolina will NOT accept fee simple title to any property as a result of
this RFP. As stated in Section 3.3, Task 2 of this RFP, long term protection of the selected properties must
be provided by a conservation easement held by the State of North Carolina as defined in the Federal
Code of Regulations (Federal register/Vol. 73, No. 70/Thursday, April 10, 2008/Rules and Regulations —
Section 332.7 Management.
2.6 REQUIRED TEMPLATES FOR THIS RFP (found on DMS website)
k DMS Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan Template and Guidance (October 2015)
As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report Template -February 2014
1t Stream and Wetland Monitoring Guidelines (February 2014)
k Annual Monitoring Template -April 2015
k Closeout Report Template v2.1 -March 2015
k Closeout Template Guidance v2.1 -February 2015
FWHA Categorical Exclusion
Stream Preservation Guidance (11/07/2011)
Format, Data Requirements, and Content Guidance for Electronic Drawings Submitted to DMS
version 2.0 -Sept. 2014
DMS Full Delivery Landowner Authorization Form -version 1.1 -adopted 28 June 2012
Full Delivery Conservation Easement Template -version 4-29-2015
$ EEP Invoice Guidelines (3-1-2014)
2.7 DEFINITIONS, ACRONYMS, AND ABBREVIATIONS
Adjusted Credit Cost—The Credit Cost of a Site divided by the Proposal Rating; units are Dollars per Wetland
Mitigation Credit, Stream Mitigation credits, Buffer Mitigation credits, or Nutrient Offset Credits.
Agencies — The regulatory and advisory units of the state and federal government in North Carolina which are
involved in permitting and/or commenting on proposed activities in wetlands, streams, or riparian areas and in
approving and/or commenting on proposed compensatory wetland, stream, riparian buffer or nutrient offset
mitigation.
As -Built Drawings — Scale drawings depicting the final configuration, dimensions, and locations of all pertinent
features of a Site after all implementation activities have been completed.
Baseline Monitoring Document —A written document, supplemented with graphics (including as -built
drawings), that describes in detail the implemented mitigation site, the goals established for the project, how it
was implemented, how it will be monitored, the amount of mitigation credits the project will generate, and the
criteria by which its success will be determined.
Cataloging Unit ("CU") — A geographic area representing part or all of a River Basin and identified by an 8 -
digit number as depicted on the "Hydrologic Unit Map — 1974, State of North. Carolina, published by the U.S.
Department of Interior, Geological Survey".
Categorical Exclusion — Categories of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect
on the human or natural environment and for which, therefore, neither an Environmental Assessment nor an
Environmental Impact Statement is required.
Categorical Exclusion Action Form and Document—An abbreviated environmental document, prefaced by
an Action Form, that briefly describes the mitigation site, the plan for its implementation, and documents that it
will have minimal or no impact on the environment. The Categorical Exclusion must be approved by the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA).
Ver: 7/1/15 Page 9 of 36

RFP Number: 16-006807 Vendor: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
Coastal Wetland -- As defined in North Caroiina General Statute 113-229(n)(3) and described in the CAMA
Handbook for Development in Coastal North Carolina -- Section 2(A)(4) found at:
http://Portal.ncdenr.org/web/cm/104
Closeout Report — A component of the final year of the Monitoring Report that provides an assessment of the
monitoring data collected from the entire monitoring period to demonstrate attainment of success criteria.
Conservation Easement — A restriction landowners voluntarily place on specified uses of their property to protect
its natural, productive, or cultural features. It is recorded as a written legal agreement between the landowner and
the "holder" of the easement. The State of North Carolina must receive from the landowner a conservation
easement as prepared and facilitated by the full delivery provider for all NC Division of Mitigation Services full
delivery projects.
Credit A unit of measure (e.g., a functional or a real measure or other suitable metric) representing the
accrual or attainment of aquatic functions at a compensatory mitigation site. as approved by the regulatory
agencies. The measure of aquatic functions is based on the resources restored (rehabilitated), established,
enhanced or preserved.
Credit Cost Notal bid cost divided by the number of offered credits for each type of mitigation,
Credit Release Schedule - The timeline established for the periodic release of mitigation credits based upon
the successful implementation of the approver! Mitigation Plan, including construction and post -construction
monitoring.
Department — The North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ)
Division of Financial Services — Contracting arm of NCDEQ,
DOA/P&C — The North Carolina Department of Administration, Division of Purchase and Contract.
Financial Assurance — Financial security assuring the ability of the provider to deliver the contracted for
mitigation credits. Financial Assurance must be provided through Performance Bonds, Letters of Credit or
Casualty insurance.
Hydrologic Unit ("HU") -- A geographic area representing a portion of a Cataloging Unit as depicted on the
"Hydrologic Unit Map —1974, State of North Carolina, published by the U.S. Department of Interior, Geological
Sunfey," and identified by a 14 -digit number.
Interagency Review Team (IRT) •- A group of federal, tribal, state, and/or local regulatory and resource agency
representatives that review documentation for, and advises the USAGE district engineer on the establishment
and management of a mitigation bank or an in -lieu fee program.
Intermittent Stream - A well-defined channel that contains water for only part of the year. typically during
winter and spring when the aquatic bed is below the water table. The flow may be heavily supplemented by
storm water runoff. An intermittent stream should score at least 19 points using the NC Division of Water
Quality Classification Manual, Version 4.11, 2010, effective September 1, 2010. This manual can be found at:
http://portal. ncd en r.org/web/wo/swp/ws/401 /waterresources/streamdeterm i nations
Jurisdictional Wetland - A wetland as defined in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual,
Local Watershed Plan — an NCDMS watershed plan that is conducted in specific priority areas (typically one
or more TLWs) where NCDMS and the local community have identified a need to address critical watershed
issues. Through this planning process, NCDMS collaborates with local stakeholders and resource
professionals to identify projects and management strategies to restore, enhance and protect local watershed
resources. LWPs can be found by County or River Basin at http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/EEP/rbrps
Long Term Protection — as defined in 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
of a mitigation site 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. The use of
conservation easements and/or restrictive covenants must receive prior approval by the United States Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE) — District Engineer. As noted in the Federal Code of Regulations, the USACE
District Engineer shall consider relevant legal constraints on the use of conservation easements and/or
restrictive covenants in determining whether such mechanisms provide sufficient protection.
Mitigation Plan —A written document, supplemented with graphics, which describes: the existing site
conditions, the goals and objectives of the project and other pertinent information. The Mitigation Plan is
developed and submitted prior to the implementation of the project.
Ver: 7/1/15 Page 10 of 36

RFP Number. 16-006807 Vendor: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
Monitoring Report — A written document, supplemented with graphics due on December 1 st of each year
during the five (5) or seven (7) year monitoring period following the completion of construction. This report
contains results of the measured success criteria as defined in the Baseline Monitoring Document.
NCDMS — The North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services.
Non -Riparian Wetland —An area underlain with hydric soils that is NOT located in a geomorphic floodplain or
natural crenulation and NOT contiguous to natural lakes greater than 20 acres in size or artificial
impoundments. Non -Riparian Wetlands are typically found on flats in interstream divides (pocosins), side
slopes (seeps), and in depressions surrounded by uplands (mafic depressions, lime sinks and Carolina Bays).
The hydrology of non -riparian wetlands is driven by precipitation and is characterized by groundwater being at
or near the surface for much of the year. Must meet US Army Corps of Engineers wetlands definition (33 CFR
328.3(b)).
Opening Date — The location, date, and time that the Sealed Technical Proposal and Sealed Cost Proposal
must be delivered to NCDMS. Proposals will not be accepted by NCDMS after the closing date/time.
Perennial Stream — A well-defined channel that contains water year round during a year of normal rainfall,
with the aquatic bed located below the water table for most of the year. A perennial stream should score at
least 30 points using the NC Division of Water Quality Stream Classification Manual, Version 4.11, 2010,
effective September 1, 2010. This manual can be found at:
http://portal.ncdenr.ora/weblwalswplws/401/waterresourceslstreamdeterminations
Preliminary Findings Report — An NCDMS report that is developed during the Local Watershed Planning
process that contains an evaluation of available data sources and an initial determination of watershed
conditions; identifies data gaps; and includes a plan for a detailed evaluation of the watershed and its water
quality, habitat and hydrologic functions.
Prior Converted Cropland —Areas defined by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (Section 512.15
of the National Food Security Act Manual, August 1988) as wetlands which were both manipulated (drained or
otherwise physically altered to remove excess water from the land) and cropped before 23 December 1985, to
the extent that they no longer exhibit important wetland values.
Project Area — For the purposes of this RFP, project area is defined as the area within the proposed
conservation easement for the project.
Project Milestones — A deliverable, such as a document or completed action that signifies that the endo of a
task in the Scope of Service.
Property— A Site may be comprised of one or more pieces of real Property owned by one or more individual.
Proposal — The response to the RFP from an interested Vendor consisting of a signed Sealed Cost Proposal
and a Sealed Technical Proposal.
Proposed Project - a site that is in a pre -construction state and that is not associated with, or a part of, an
approved (signed, fully executed) Mitigation Banking Instrument by the closing date of this RFP.
Proposal Rating ("PR") —A value (number) that is calculated for each Proposal based upon the evaluation of
the Proposal by the PRC. The PR is established by dividing the points scored by the total amount of potential
points.
Proposal Review Committee ("PRC") - A committee established by the NCDMS to review and evaluate each
Proposal received and to make recommendations to the NCDMS Director and Procurement Manager.
Release of Credits — means a determination by the USACE district engineer in consultation with the IRT, that
credits associated with an approved mitigation plan are available for sale or transfer as defined under the
Federal Guidance for the Establishment, Use and Operation of Mitigation Banks (Federal Register April 10,
2008, Volume 70, Number 73, pp 19594-19705).
RFP — Request for Proposals; the document issued by the Department to solicit Proposals from interested
Vendors.
Riparian Wetlands — An area that is underlain with hydric soils and located within a geomorphic floodplain or
natural crenulation, or contiguous with NATURAL water bodies greater than 20 acres in size.
River Basin — The largest category of surface water drainage; there are seventeen (17) river basins in North
Carolina.
Ver: 7/1/15 Page 11 of 36

RFP Number. 16-006807 Vendor: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
River Basin Restoration Priorities - A planning document prepared by the NCUMS that targets specific
watersheds (TL%/Vs) with descriptions of existing degradation and protection needs for restoration project
implementation. Unless otherwise stipulated in the RFF', NCDMS requires mitigation sites to be located in
these targeted local watersheds (i.e. hydrologic units).
Scope of Services — Ali services, actions, and physical work required by the Department to achieve the
purpose and objectives defined in the RFP; such services may include the furnishing of a11 required labor,
equipment, supplies and materials except as specifically stated.
Sealed Cost Proposal W The completed Sealed Cost Proposal form included in the RFP signed by the Vendor
specifying the total compensation requested for the performance of the specified scope of services as defined
by the RFP. If more than one Site is proposed, a separate Sealed Cost Proposal must be submitted for each
Site. If the Vendor is willing to offer multiple options (i.e, different quantities of mitigation at different credit
costs) for one proposed site, a separate Cost Proposal must be submitted for each option offered.
Service Area — 1) A geographic area where mitigation credits from a mitigation site can generally be utilized
to satisfy permit requirements. 2) A geographic area where a mitigation requirement can be satisfied.
Site — Property or properties identified by a Vendor in a Proposal as having potential to provide either wetland,
stream. buffer or nutrient offset mitigation. A proposed project shall describe mitigation activities that occur on
a single property parcel, or which occur on multiple property parcels. Project proposals shall demonstrate
hydrologic connectivity and/or habitat continuity such that the functional relationships between the project
components, encompassed within each parcel, is clearly evident. DMS shall have the sole discretion to
determine whether the project components have sufficient hydrologic connectivity and/or habitat continuity to
be considered in a single project proposal.
Stream Mitigation Credit o The unit of measurement of the extent of stream mitigation being offered in a
Proposal.
Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) —A 14 -digit Hydrologic Unit identified as a targeted area in the RFP.
These are preferred locations for mitigation projects because they may have environmental characteristics
that can be improved through restoration projects
Targeted Resource Area (TRA) — a unique or substantial important asset, opportunity, or function located
within a defined area. TRAs can include targeted assets or targeted opportunities. These are identified by
analyzing spatial data representing assets, problems, and opportunities that manifest as patches of
significance at a smaller scale than the 12- or 14 -digit hydrologic units. These are analogous to TLWs;
however, TRAs have defined boundaries based on an area of influence or an area of habitat extent NOT
necessarily defined by a watershed boundary.
Technical Proposal — One of the two parts of the Proposal which contains a technical description of the
proposed mitigation.
USACE — United States Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch, Wilmington District
USGS — United States Geological Survey.
Vendor A private agency, corporation, fern, organization, business, or individual offering to provide qualified
professional or specialized services to the Department; if two or more private agencies, corporations,
organizations, businesses or individuals join together in a prime vendor/sub-vendor relationship to submit a
proposal, the Department will consider the prime vendor to be the Vendor; only the Vendor may enter into a
contract with the Department (The words 'Vendor' and 'Contractor' are used interchangeably for this RFP).
Wetland Enhancement - means the manipulation of the physical, chemical and biological characteristics of a
site to heighten, intensify, or improve a specific aquatic resource function(s). Enhancement results in the gain
of selected aquatic resource function(s), but may also lead to a decline in other aquatic resource function(s).
Enhancement does not result in a gain in aquatic resource area.
Wetland Preservation - means the removal of a threat to, or preventing the decline of, aquatic resources by
an action in or near those aquatic resources. This term includes those activities normally associated with the
protection and maintenance of aquatic resources through the implementation of appropriate legal and physical
mechanisms. Preservation does not result in a gain in aquatic resource area or functions.
Wetland Restoration - means the manipulation of the physical, chemical and biological characteristics of a
site with the goal of returning natural/historic functions to a former or degraded aquatic resource. Wetland
restoration is divided into two categories: Re-establishment and Rehabilitation. See definition of Wetland Re-
establishment and Wetland Rehabilitation.
Ver: 711 P, 5 Page 12 of 36

RFP Number.' 16-006807 Vendor: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
Wetland Re-establishment — means the manipulation of the physical, chemical and biological characteristics
of a site with the goal of returning natural/historic functions to a former aquatic resource. Re-establishment
results in rebuilding a former aquatic resource and results in a gain in aquatic resource area and function.
Wetland Rehabilitation — means the manipulation of the physical, chemical and biological characteristics of a
site with the goal of returning most, if not all of the natural/historic functions to a degraded aquatic resource.
Rehabilitation results in a gain in aquatic resource function, but does not result in a gain in aquatic resource
area.
Wetland Mitigation Credit — The unit of measurement of the extent of wetland mitigation being offered in a
Proposal.
3.0 SCOPE OF WORK
3.1 OBJECTIVES
The Department desires to acquire 11,500 Stream Mitigation credits within the service area (see Attachment
G) for Cataloging Unit 03050101 of the Catawba River Basin.
River Basin
Cataloging Unit
Stream Credits
CU
CATAWBA
03050101
11,500
SPECIAL CONDITIONS:
Temperature Regime:
Warm -9,400 stream credits
Cool -2,100 stream credits
Mitigation Information and Restrictions
Stream Mitigation:
The definitions of stream restoration, enhancement levels i and II, and preservation are defined in the Stream
Mitigation Guidelines (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District, April, 2003) available on their
website.
For the purposes of this RFP (the technical proposal, and any contract(s) that may result from this RFP), the
amounts of mitigation proposed must be converted into stream mitigation credits that are calculated by the
following ratios:
Stream Restoration:
Stream Enhancement Level I:
Stream Enhancement Level II
Stream Preservation:
1 linear foot= 1 Credit;
1.5 linear feet = 1 Credit;
2.5 linear feet = 1 Credit;
10 linear feet = 1 Credit.
Ver: 7/1/15 Page 13 of 36

RFP Number. 16-006807 Vender: Michael Baker Engineering. Inc.
3.2 TASKS
TASK 1 DMS requires two (2) hard copies and one electronic copy of the deliverables for Task 1:
a) Conduct an on-site meeting with the IRT and DMS to discuss basic concepts of the proposed mitigation
plan and identify concerns or issues related to that plan. Concerns or issues identified must be
addressed prior to conveyance of the conservation easement or development of the formal mitigation
plan
b) Conduct an environmental screening to identify/survey potential protected species, archaeological sites,
historical architecture structures, contamination, etc of the site.
c) In addition, in accordance to USACE requirements, the Vendor will provide a signed and dated
DMS Full Delivery Landowner Authorization Form for each parcel AFTER contract has been
awarded and prior to the post contract on-site meeting with the IRT.
TASK 2 Property
Step One: Preliminary Process and Review
The Vendor shall electronically send the following five (5) items to the DMS Project Manager and State
Property Office (SPO) Manager Blane Rice Qlane.Rice(Wdoa.nc.gov) for review:
Draft Conservation Easement in Microsoft word document form
• Use the appropriate conservation easement template as defined in this RFP.
• The Vendor shall convey to the State of North Carolina the rights to all mitigation, including but not
limited to, stream, wetlands, riparian buffer; and nutrient offset mitigation credits derived from each
site and within the area of the conservation easement.
• The easement boundary must reflect the boundary provided within the technical proposal within
reason. Any variations must be communicated to the DMS Project Manager.
• The Vendor must provide a copy of the conservation easement to the landowner, and be aware of
tax implications such as NC General Statute 105-277.4 which addresses county agricultural
deferred taxes that may be incurred at closing.
Preliminary Survey Plat in Adobe FDF form
• All surveys shall meet the Standards of Practice for Land Surveying in North Carolina as described
in Title 21, Chapter 56, of the North Carolina Administrative Code. As such, surveys and digital
files shall be tied to the North Carolina State Plane Coordinate System NAD83 (NSRS2007).
• The survey title block shall read, "Conservation Easement Survey for the State of North Carolina,
Division of Mitigation Services." The title block shall also contain the project name, SPO number,
DMS IMS number, name of the owner, location, date surveyed, scale of the drawing, name,
address, registration number and seal of the professional land surveyor (PLS).
• A table of coordinates (northing and easting) for all property corners, numbered consecutively,
must be included on the plat. If multiple parcels comprise a single project, assign a unique number
for each property corner within the project.
• A table of metes and bounds for all lines must be included in the plat.
• The Vendor shall show the following that exist within 100 feet of the easement boundary: roads or
trails, property corners, nearby easements, dwellings, roadways, streams and creeks, manholes,
poles, and right-of-ways.
• The landowner(s) or his/her legal representative must sign the recorded plat.
• Access to the easement area must be shown, with location and width depicted by a dotted line and
note on the recorded plat.
3 Digital Easement File in AutoCAD (.dwg) and ArcMap (.shp) format
• The CAD and GIS files must contain a closed polygon layer of the conservation easement shape in
addition to the line work.
4. Copy of the attorney's report on title based on a 30 -year title search with all supporting deeds and
documentation
Each conservation easement conveyed must have good, marketable title free of liens and
encumbrances.
Ver: 7/1/15 Page 14 of 36

RFP Number. 96-006807
Vendor: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
5. Title attorney's "Schedule A" with any documents describing possible exceptions to title and exhibits.
Step Two: Approval for Closing
1. SPO and DMS will review and issue written approval to record after documents meet requirements.
2. The Vendor shall record the final approved easement and plat and obtain all necessary approvals from the
County Review Officer.
Step Three: Task 2 Pavment
The Vendor will complete the seven (7) listed deliverables along with invoice for Task 2 payment. Document
deliverables shall be submitted electronically to the DMS project manager and SPO Manager Blane Rice
(B lane. Rice(a-)doa.nc.4ov). Additionally, SPO requires one (1) hard copy of all the original documents and a
compact disk mailed to Blane Rice, NC Department of Administration, State Property Office, 1321 Mail Service
Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1321. Once received, SPO will issue authorization for payment.
1. Recorded Conservation Easement in Adobe PDF form
2. Recorded Survey Plat in Adobe PDF form
3. Updated digital easement file in AutoCAD (.dwg) and ArcMap (.shp) format
4. Final attorneys report on title based on 30 -year search with deeds and documentation.
5. Original title insurance policy shall be forwarded to SPO (Blane Rice) as soon as it is available.
6. Provide the name, address, phone number, and e-mail address (if available) of each grantor via electronic
communication to SPO and DMS.
7. Install survey monumentation and conduct boundary marking with the following specifications:
The Vendor shall set 5/8" rebar 30" in length with 3-1/4" aluminum caps on all easement corners.
Caps shall meet DMS specifications (Berntsen RBD5325, imprinted with NC State Logo # B9087 or
equivalent). After installation, caps shall be stamped with the corresponding number from the table
of coordinates on the survey.
The Vendor shall place a 6 -foot tall durable witness post at each corner in the conservation
easement boundary. Posts shall be made of material that will last a minimum of 20 years.
The Vendor shall attach a conservation easement sign to each witness post and place additional
signs at no more than 200 -foot intervals on long boundary lines. When applicable, the Vendor can
mark existing trees (>3dbh) with conservation easement signs and/or blaze property lines at
approximate eye level in lieu of line posts. Where applicable, established fence posts can be used
for placement of signage.
Allowances:
The vendor may elect to install monumentation and boundary marking during Task 5 preparation. No
payment for Task 5 will be approved prior to installation.
The original title insurance policy(ies) must be received prior to payment for the Task 5 deliverable.
The vendor may elect to complete Task 3 (site specific Mitigation Plan), including the requirement for
financial assurance prior to the completion of Task 2. Please be advised, however, that subsequent
failure of the vendor to convey an acceptable conservation easement to the State of North Carolina will
require the vendor to fully reimburse the State for any payment(s) made to the vendor for completion of
Task 3.
Recommendations:
The following recommendations are based on previous mitigation project experience. These practices are
proven to benefit overall project cost, save time, protect mitigation credit, and lend favor during regulatory
close-out consideration.
• Simplified project boundaries with lines greater than 200 feet and with fewer corners minimizes
encroachments, protects mitigation assets, lowers fencing costs, and makes it easier for adjacent
landowners to understand boundaries.
• Culverts are often preferred over ford crossings to encourage aquatic passage and minimize stream
impact.
Ver: 7/1/15 Page 15 of 36

RFP Number. 16-006807 Vendor: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
• Fence type established should be based on landowner and livestock needs. In general, vaell-built
fences will provide less opportunity for encroachment, better .maintenance, and long terra protection of
property.
• Carefully locating fences for long-term maintenance lessens impact to the conservation easement.
• Using the survey plat as baseline documentation for existing roads, paths, trails, or other items of note
provides a reference for long-term stewardship and landowners.
• Woven wire and multi -strand barbed wire fencing installed in accordance to NRCS standards are
proven fencing methods during project closeouts. Past projects with electrified high tensile have
experienced many difficulties during monitoring and closeout. The vendor should discuss fencing
options with landowners; however, continue to be cognizant of mitigation credit protection and long
term stewardship.
TASK 3 Develop a site-specific mitigation plan, as appropriate for each site and submit it to tire LAMS for
review, comment, and approval. Dfv1S requires three (3) hard copies and one (1) pc:f file on a
compact disc of the "Draft" mitigation plan After "Draft" approval. DMS requires five (5) hard
copies an.a one (1) pdf file on a compact disc (which can be sent electronically if preferred) of the
"Final Draft" mitigation pian which will be posted on the DMS Portal for review by the IRT.
Fallowing IR -r approval, DMS requires four (4) completed Pre -Construction Notice (PCN) forms
with DMS named as the permittee" and the Vendor as `agent". eight (8) hard copies and three (3)
compact discs with the .pdf files of the "F=inal" mitigation plan and the PCN. FINANCIAL
ASSURANCE is also due as part of this deliverable.
TASK 4 Secure all other necessary permits and/or certifications (i.e. Erosion and Sedimentation Control
permit, etc.). Submit one (1) copy of all applicable permits, certifications, etc. to DMS prior to
implementation of the earthwork portion of the mitigation project. Upon completion of earthwork,
notify DMS in writing of completion date and submit payment request (invoice)_
TASK 5 Complete planting of the mitigation site and i, -Stall all monitoring devices/plots. Vegetation must be
planted at least six months before vegetation monitoring activities are conducted at the end of the
growing season. Upon completion of planting and installation of monitoring devices/plots. notify
DMS in writing of completion date and submit payment request.
TASK 6 DMS requires three (3) hard copies of the "Draft" baseline monitoring docurnent and "Draft`' as -built
drawings. After, `Draft" approval. DMS requires three (3) hard copies and one (1) pdf file ori
compact disc (which can be. sent electronically if preferred) of the "Final' baseline monitoring
document and the as-builts. The as -built drawings shouid be submitted with the following criteria:
A. The as -built drawing is the final record of project construction and shall include:
a. Pre -Construction Pian design
b. As -built survey (on same sheets as Pre -Construction Plan design)
c. Must bear Professional Land Surveyor (PLS) seal
d. Annotation and corrections of the Pre -Construction Plan design
B. The as -built drawing must bear the designer's Professional Engineer's (PE) seal
TASKS 7-11 (5 years monitoring) or 7-13 (7 years monitoring) DMS requires five (5) hard copies and one (1)
.pdf formatted copy on a compact disc (which can be sent electronically if preferred) of the yearly
monitoring reports. Monitor the mitigation site as stipulated in the mitigation plan and baseline
monitoring report to assess the success of the restored site for a period of at least five (5) to seven
(7) years. Each annual monitoring report must tie submitted to the DMS by December 1 of the
year during which the monitoring was conducted. The 5th or 71h year monitoring report (or final year
in cases where monitoring has been extended beyond 5-7 years) must include a closeout report
that provides an assessment of the monitoring data collected from the entire monitoring period. The
contracted firm must attend closeout meetings and present final project to the IRT both in a
closeout meeting at a site to be named later and on the project site, following all DMS closeout
procedures and templates.
Ver: 7/1/15 Page 16 of 36

RFP Number. 16-006807 Vendor: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
3.3 PAYMENT SCHEDULE AND DESCRIPTION OF MILESTONES
Vendors will determine the appropriate Payment Schedule based on their mitigation types, regulatory
rules and guidance:
Project Milestones and Payment Schedule for a 7 -year monitoring
Project Milestones and Payment Schedule for a 6 -year monitoring
period
Task
Project Milestone Payment"
(% of Contract Value*)
1
Categorical Exclusion Document
5
2
Submit Recorded Conservation Easement on the Site
20
3
Mitigation Plan Final Draft and Financial Assurance
15
4
Mitigation Site Earthwork completed
15
5
Mitigation Site Planting and Installation of Monitoring Devices
10
6
Baseline Monitoring Report(including As -Built Drawings)'
5
7
Submit Monitoring Report #1 to DMS meets success criteria*'
5
8
Submit Monitoring Report #2 to DMS meets success criteria*'
5
9
Submit Monitoring Report #3 to DMS meets success criteria"'
5
10
Submit Monitoring Report #4 to DMS meets success criteria*'
5
11
Submit Monitoring Report #5 to DMS and complete project Close-
Out process meets success criteria*'
10
Submit Monitoring Report #6 to DMS meets success criteria*'
TOTAL
100
Project Milestones and Payment Schedule for a 7 -year monitoring
period
as
_
Project Milestone Payment"
(% of Contract Value*)
1
Categorical Exclusion Document
5
2
Submit Recorded Conservation Easement on the Site _
20
3
_
Mitigation Plan Final Draft and Financial Assurance
15
4
Mitigation Site Earthwork completed _
15
5
Mitigation Site Planting and Installation of Monitoring Devices
10
6
Baseline Monitoring Report(including As -Built Drawings)'
10
7
Submit Monitoring Report #1 to DMS meets success criteria*)'
5
8
Submit Monitoring Report #2 to DMS meets success criteria*'
2
9
Submit Monitoring Report #3 to DMS (meets success criteria*'
2
10
Submit Monitoring Report #4 to DMS (meets success criteria*'
2
11
Submit Monitoring Report #5 to DMS meets success criteria*'
2
12
Submit Monitoring Report #6 to DMS meets success criteria*'
2
13
Submit Monitoring Report #7 to DMS and complete project Close-
Out process meets success criteria*)'
10
TOTAL
100
^Vendor is only eligible for payment after DMS has approved the task/deliverable.
*If site fails to meet success criteria, as indicated in any monitoring report, payment of the monitoring task
may be made if a suitable contingency plan is submitted to and accepted by the RMS.
'For any year, beginning with delivery of task 6; if credits are withheld by the regulatory agencies or
credits are lost for other reasons, and deliverable payments have to be adjusted, then all future yearly
payments will be made following IRT yearly release of the credits.
3.4 PROJECT ORGANIZATION
Vendor shall describe the organizational and operational structure it proposes to utilize for the work described
in this RFP, and identify the responsibilities to be assigned to each person Vendor proposes to staff the work.
Ver: 7/1/15 Page 17 of 36

RFP Number.' 16-006807 Vendor: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
3.5 TECHNICAL APPROACH
Vendor's proposal shall include, in narrative, outline, and/or graph form the Vendor's approach to
accomplishing the tasks outlined in the Scope of Work section of this RFP. A description of each task and
deliverable and the schedule for accomplishing each shall be included.
3.6 ACCEPTANCE OF WORK
Acceptance of work by the State shall not be unreasonably withheld: but may be conditioners or delayed. as
required for reasonable reviev;f, evaluation, installation or testing, as applicable to the work or deliverable.
Final acceptance is expressly condit?ones won completion of all applicable assessment procedures. Should
the work or deliverables fail to meet any requirernents, acceptance criteria or otherwise fail to conform to the
rontract, the State may exercise any and all rights hereunder, including; for deliverables, such rights provided
by the Uniform Cornmercial Code as adapted in North Carolina,
4.0 ADMINISTRATIVE TERMS
4.1 REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL DOCUMENT
The RFP is comprised of the base RFP document, any attachments, and any addenda released before
Contract award. All attachments and addenda released for this RFP in advance of any Contract award are
incorporated herein by reference
4.2 CONTRACT TERM
The Contract shall have maximum term of up to 10 years, beginning on the date of contract award (the
"Effective Date"). The Vendor shall begin work under the Contract within seven (7) business (lays of the
Effective Date.
4.3 PRICING
Proposa) price shall constitute the total cost to Buyer for complete performance in accordance with the
requirements and specifications herein, including all applicable charges handling, administrative and other
similar fees. Vendor shall riot invoice for any amounts riot specifically allowed for in this RFP. Complete
ATTACHMENT C: PRICING FORM and include in Proposal.
4.4 DOWNWARD PAYMENT ADJUSTMENTS
Payment by the Department will be based on the number of credits the vendor is able to provide at the credit
price first established by the cost proposal pursuant to the proposal review process and credits identified in
the technical proposal. In order to ensure that the Department does not overpay at the end of the process,
periodic adjustments may be made so that the final total payment equals the final number of mitigation
credits, as determined by the IRT, delivered by the vendor multiplied by the original per credit price. Payment
adjustments may be made after the initial contract is executed based on the number of mitigation credits the
project is anticipated to provide as documented after contract execution, including but not limited to:
completion of the mitigation plan; site restoration (earthwork/planting), completion of the baseline monitoring
document; the post construction monitoring period, and/or after final determination/release of mitigation
credits by the IRT.
4.5 INVOICES
a) Invoices are to be submitted to the Contract Administrator after NCDMS approval of each individual
task/deliverable.
b) The Vendor must follow the NCDMS Invoice Guidelines dated March 1, 2014.
c) Final invoice must be received by the DEPARTMENT within 45 days after the end of the contract period.
d) Invoices must bear the correct contract number to ensure prompt payment. The Vendor's failure to
include the correct contract number may cause delay in payment.
e) Invoices must be submitted to the following address:
Ver: 7/1/15 Page 18 of 36

RFP Number. 16-006807 Vendor: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
Attn: Debby Davis
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
4.6 PAYMENT TERMS
a) The Vendor will be compensated at the rates quoted in the Vendor's Cost Proposal.
b) The Vendor will be paid net thirty (30) calendar days after the Vendor's invoice is approved by the State.
4.7 PERFORMANCE OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES
Vendor shall complete ATTACHMENT D: LOCATION OF WORKERS UTILIZED BY VENDOR. In addition to
any other evaluation criteria identified in this RFP, the State may also consider, for purposes of evaluating
proposed or actual contract performance outside of the United States, how that performance may affect the
following factors to ensure that any award will be in the best interest of the State:
Total cost to the State
Level of quality provided by the Vendor
Process and performance capability across multiple jurisdictions
Protection of the State's information and intellectual property
Availability of pertinent skills
Ability to understand the State's business requirements and internal operational culture
Particular risk factors such as the security of the State's information technology
Relations with citizens and employees
Contract enforcement jurisdictional issues
4.8 NOTICE TO VENDORS REGARDING RFP TERMS AND CONDITIONS
It shall be the Vendor's responsibility to read the Instructions, the State's terms and conditions, all relevant
exhibits and attachments, and any other components made a part of this RFP, and comply with all
requirements and specifications herein. Vendors also are responsible for obtaining and complying with all
Addenda and other changes that may be issued in connection with this RFP.
If Vendors have questions, issues, or exceptions regarding any term, condition, or other component within
this RFP, those must be submitted as questions in accordance with in the instructions in Section 2.2
PROPOSAL QUESTIONS. If the State determines that any changes will be made as a result of the points
raised, then such decisions will be communicated in the form of an RFP addendum. The State may also
elect to leave open the possibility for later negotiation of specific components of the Contract that have been
addressed during the question and answer period. Other than through this process, the State rejects and will
not be required to evaluate or consider any additional or modified terms and conditions submitted with
Vendor's proposal. This applies to any language appearing in or attached to the document as part of the
Vendor's proposal that purports to vary any terms and conditions or Vendors' instructions herein or to render
the proposal non-binding or subject to further negotiation. By execution and delivery of this RFP
Response, the Vendor agrees that any additional or modified terms and conditions, whether
submitted purposely or inadvertently, shall have no force or effect, and will be disregarded.
Noncompliance with, or any attempt to alter or delete, this paragraph shall constitute sufficient
grounds to reject Vendor's proposal as nonresponsive.
4.9 INTERPRETATION OF TERMS AND PHRASES
This Request for Proposal serves two functions: (1) to advise potential Vendors of the parameters of the
solution being sought by the Department; and (2) to provide (together with other specified documents) the
terms of the Contract resulting from this procurement. As such, all terms in the Request for Proposal shall be
enforceable as contract terms in accordance with the General Terms and Conditions. The use of phrases such
as "shall," "must," and "requirements" are intended to create enforceable contract conditions, In determining
Ver: 7/1/15 Page 19 of 36

RFP Number.' 16-006807 Vendor: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
whether proposals should be evaluated or rejected, the Department will take into consideration the degree to
which Vendors have proposed or failed to propose solutions that will satisfy the Department's needs as
described in the Request for Proposal. Except as specifically stated in the Request for Proposal, no one
requirement shall automatically disqualify a Vendor from consideration. However, failure to comply with any
single requirement may result in the Department exercising its discretion to reject a proposal in its entirety.
5.0 PROPOSAL EVALUATION PROCESS AND METHOD OF AWARD
5.1 CONFIDENTIALITY AND PROHIBITED COMMUNICATIONS DURING EVALUATION
During the evaluation period—from the date proposals are opened through the date the contract is
awarded—each Vendor submitting a proposal (including its representatives. sub -vendors and/or suppliers) is
prohibited from having any communications with any person inside or outside the using agency, issuing
agency, other government agency office, or body (including the purchaser named above, department
secretary, agency head. members of the general assembly and/or governor's office), or private entity, if the
communication refers to the content of Vendor's proposal or qualifications, the contents of another Vendor's
proposal, another Vendor's qualifications or ability to perform the contract, and/or the transmittal of any other
communication of information that could be reasonably considered to have the effect of directly or indirectly
influencing the evaluation of proposals and/or the award of the contract. A Vendor not in compliance with this
provision shall be disqualified from contract award, unless it is determined in the State's discretion that the
communication was harmless, that it was made without intent to influence and that the best interest of the
state would not be served by the disqualification. A Vendor's proposal may be disqualified if its sub -vendor
and supplier engage in any of the foregoing communications during the time that the procurement is active
(i.e , the issuance date of the procurement to the date of contract award). Only those discussions,
communications or, transmittals of information authorized or initiated by the issuing agency for this RFI`' or
general inquiries directed to the purchaser regarding requirements of the RFP (prior to proposal submission)
or the status of the contract award (after submission) are excepted from this provision.
5.2 PROPOSAL OPENING
Proposals will be received from each Vendor in two separate, sealed packages - the Technical Proposal and
the Cost Proposal, Each original of both proposals (Technical and Cost) shall be signed and dated by an
official authorized to bind the firm. Unsigned proposals will not be considered.
NOTE: No technical information shall be contained in the cost proposal. No cost information shall
be contained in the technical proposal. Inclusion of any cost information in the technical proposal and/or
any technical information in the cost proposal shall constitute sufficient grounds to reject Vendor's proposal.
All proposals must be received by the issuing agency no later than the date and time specified on the cover
sheet of this RFP.
At that date and time the package containing the technical proposals from each responding firm will be
publicly opened and the name of each Vendor announced publicly. A notation will also be made whether a
separate sealed cost proposal has been received. Cost proposals will be placed in safekeeping until opened
at a later date.
5.3 EVALUATION PROCESS
The State will conduct a Two -Step evaluation of the Proposals received
The State shall review all Vendor responses to this RFP to confirm that they meet the specifications and
requirements of the RFP. The State reserves the right to waive any minor informality or technicality in
proposals received.
All technical proposals will be evaluated prior to opening any cost proposal.
Upon completion of the technical evaluation, the cost proposals of those Vendors whose technical proposals
have been deemed acceptable will be publicly opened. The total cost offered by each firm will be tabulated
Ver 7/1/15 Page 20 of 36

RFP Number.' 96-006807
Vendor: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
and become a matter of public record. Interested parties are cautioned that these costs and their components
are subject to further evaluation for completeness and correctness and therefore may not be an exact
indicator of a Vendor's pricing position.
At their sole option, the evaluators may request oral presentations or discussion with any or all Vendors for
the purpose of clarification or to amplify the materials presented in any part of the proposal. Vendors are
cautioned, however, that the evaluators are not required to request presentations or other clarification—and
often do not; therefore, all proposals must be complete and reflect the most favorable terms available from
the Vendor.
Vendors are cautioned that this is a request for proposals, not a request to contract, and the State reserves
the unqualified right to reject any and all offers at any time if such rejection is deemed to be in the best
interest of the State.
The State reserves the right to reject all original offers and request one or more of the Vendors submitting
proposals to submit best and final offers (BAFOs), prepared in collaboration with the State after the initial
responses to the RFP have been evaluated and determined to be unsatisfactory.
Upon completion of the evaluation process, the State will make Award(s) based on the evaluation and post
the award(s) to IPS under the RFP number for this solicitation. Award of a Contract to one Vendor does not
mean that the other proposals lacked merit, but that, all factors considered, the selected proposal was
deemed most advantageous and represented the best value to the State.
5.4 EVALUATION CRITERIA
All qualified proposals will be evaluated and award made based on the following criteria considered, to result
in an award most advantageous tcrthe State. A proposal may be rejected during any phase of review if the
PRC determines that the proposal has not provided the requested information in the specified format, has
determined that the firm is not qualified to perform the services, and/or if it has been determined that the
proposal cannot provide the mitigation indicated in the proposal. Each proposal will be reviewed and
assigned a proposal rating prior to opening any cost proposal.
Proposals will generally be evaluated according to completeness, content, experience with similar projects,
ability of the offer or and its staff, and cost. Specific evaluation criteria are listed below.
Technical
a) Technical Proposals will be reviewed for length, format requirements and qualifications of firm and
project approach by the PRC. Only vendors who meet these initial qualifications will move forward.
b) Upon completion of the initial review, a field review and evaluation of the proposed site will be
conducted by the PRC.
c) Each Vendor will be scored based on the Technical Scoresheet located in Attachment H of this RFP
Price
a) Sealed cost proposals for all proposals still under consideration will be opened and tabulated.
b) The adjusted credit cost is a combined technical and cost measure. This is a best value determination
by NCDMS after evaluating all factors in the technical proposal and then evaluating the cost proposal.
The adjusted unit cost will be calculated and determined using the following formula:
Unit Cost . Proposal Rating (Technical Score)
Each site will be ranked by the lowest adjusted credit cost.
Ver: 7/1/15 Page 21 of 36

RFP Number 16-006807 Vendor: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
5.5 METHOD OF AWARD
The NCDtAS Procurement Manager and the Director, will analyze the ranked sites, determine the proposal
selections and submit recommendations to the Department and the Department of Administration, Purchase &
Contract section., as required, for approval, taking into account the following information:
• adjusted credit cost
■ credit cost
• available funds
■ mitigation creeds at the tirne of seiection
■ the best interest of the State of North Carolina
While the intent of this RFP is to award a Contract to single Vendor, the State reserves the right to make
separate awards to different Vendors for one or more line items, to riot award one or more line items or to
cancel this RFP in its entirety without awarding a Contract. if it is considered to be roost advantageous to the
State to do so.
6.0 REQUIREMENTS
This Section lists the requirements related to this RFP. By submitting a proposal the Vendor agrees to meet all
stated requirements in this Section as well as any other specifications, requirements and terms and conditions
stated in this RFP. If a Vendor is unclear about a requirement or specification or believes a change to a
requirement would allow for the State to receive a better proposal, the Vendor is urged and cautioned to submit
these items in the form of a question during the question and answer period in accordance with Section 2.1,
6.1 FINANCIAL STABILITY
Each Vendor shall certify it is financially stable by completing the ATTACHMENT E: CERTIFICATION OF
FINANCIAL_ CONDITION. The State is requiring this certification to minimize potential issues from
Contracting with a Vendor that is financially unstable. From the date of the Certification to the expiration of
the Contract, the Vendor shall notify the State within thirty (30) days of any occurrence or condition that
materially alters the truth of any staternent made in this Certification.
6.2 FINANCIAL ASSURANCE
The vendor must provide financial assurance in one of the following forms:
1) Performance Bonding — The vendor must provide security in the form of acceptable performance bonds
as described in the following paragraph to guarantee delivery of the maximum number of originally
contracted credits. The performance bonds must be obtained from a company licensed in North Carolina
as shown in the Federal Treasury Listing of Approved Sureties (Circular 570). The maximum allowable
amount provided by a surety may not exceed the "underwriting limitation" for the surety as identified in the
Federal Treasury Listing. Although this RFP is a request for mitigation and not construction, the
performance bonds shall follow the prescribed wording provided in N.C.G.S. § 44A-33. The vendor must
provide two performance bonds. The first bond must be for 100% of the total value of the contract and
must be in effect and submitted with the Task 3 deliverable before DMS will authorize payment for that
deliverable. The bond must remain in effect until the vendor has received written notification from the DMS
that the requirements of Task 6 (submittal of baseline monitoring report) have been met (the financial
assurance document must indicate that it is in effect through approval of task 6 and must include
the NCDEQ contract number). After the successful completion of Task 6, the bond can be retired and a
second bond, the Monitoring Phase Performance Bond (MPPB) must be substituted for the first. The
second bond must be for 25% of the value of the contract, which covers the monitoring period. The MPPB
can be reduced yearly concurrent with the payment schedule once the yearly mitigation credit is released
by the IRT. Therefore, the MPPB can be reduced to 20% of the contract value AFTER release of the
Ver: 7/1/15 Page 22 of 36

RFP Number.- 16-006807 Vendor: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
mitigation credit for monitoring year 1, to 18% of the contract value AFTER release of the mitigation credit
for monitoring year 2, continuing with a reduction of the MPPB by 2% of the contract value through
monitoring year 6. A MPPB of 10% of the contract value MUST be maintained through monitoring year 7
AND project close-out (including final determination/release of mitigation credits) by the IRT. When the 5 -
year Monitoring Payment Schedule is appropriate, the second bond must be for 30% of the contract
value and can be reduced accordingly following the payment percentages.
2) Letters of Credit- LOCs must be drawn from a reputable bank identified by the FDIC as "Well Capitalized"
or "Adequately Capitalized" and follow the submittal timing, contract amounts and schedules for reduction
as those described above for the performance bonds. Evergreen or irrevocable LOCs shall be required to
provide a 120 day notice of cancellation, termination or non -renewal.
3) Casualty Insurance on underlying performance of credits of mitigation, must follow the same submittal
timing, contract amounts and reduction schedules as those described above in performance bonds. The
insurance must contain the following information:
a. The "NCDEQ" must be named as the "Regulatory Body". NCDEQ shall have the sole right to place
a claim against the policy. NCDEQ shall have the sole right and obligation as the responsible
"regulatory body" to approve any claim settlement,
b. Initial insurance must be for a 10 year period.
6.3 VENDOR EXPERIENCE
In its Proposal, Vendor shall demonstrate experience with public and/or private sector clients with similar or
greater size and complexity to the State of North Carolina. Vendor shall provide information as to the
qualifications and experience of all executive, managerial, legal, and professional personnel to be assigned to
this project, including resumes citing experience with similar projects and the responsibilities to be assigned
to each person.
6.4 REFERENCES
The State reserves the right to request and verify references. Upon request references must be submitted
within 3 business days. Failure to provide references will cause your proposal to be rejected.
6.5 ACCESS TO PERSONS AND RECORDS
Pursuant to Item # 11 of the North Carolina General Terms and Conditions, The State Auditor and the using
agency's internal auditors shall have access to persons and records as a result of all contracts or grants
entered into by State agencies or political subdivisions in accordance with General Statue 147-64.7 and
Session Law 2010-194. Section 21 (i.e., the State Auditors and internal auditors may audit the records of the
Vendor during the term of the contract to verify accounts and data affecting fees or performance). Vendor
shall retain all records for a period of six (6) years following completion of the contract or until any audits
begun during this period are completed and findings released.
6.6 BACKGROUND CHECKS
Any personnel or agent of the Vendor performing services under any contract arising from this RFP may be
required to undergo a background check at the expense of the Vendor, if so requested by the State. These
background checks may be performed for the following:
(a) Any regulatory sanctions levied against Vendor or any of its officers, directors or its professional
employees expected to provide services on this project by any state or federal regulatory agencies
within the past three years or a statement that there are none. As used herein, the term "regulatory
sanctions" includes the revocation or suspension of any license or certification, the levying of any
monetary penalties or fines, and the issuance of any written warnings;
(b) Any regulatory investigations pending against Vendor or any of its officers, directors or its
professional employees expected to provide services on this project by any state or federal regulatory
agencies of which Vendor has knowledge or a statement that there are none.
Ver: 7/1/15 Page 23 of 36

Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
RFP Number: 16-006807 Vendor.-
6.7 PERSONNEL
Vendor shall not substitute key personnel assigned to the performance of this Contract without prior viritten
approval by the Contract Administrator. Vendor shall notify the Contract Lead of any desired substitution,
including the name(s) and references of Vendor's recommended substitute personnel. The State will
approve or disapprove the requested substitution in a timely manner. The State may, in its sole discretion,
terminate the services of any person providing services under- this Contract. Upon such termination, the
State may request acceptable substitute personnel or terminate the contract services provided by such
personnel.
6.8 VENDOR'S REPRESENTATIONS
a) Vendor warrants that qualified personnel shall provide services under this Contract in a professional
manner. "Professional manner" means that the personnel performing the services will possess the skill
and competence consistent with the prevailing business standards in the industry. Vendor agrees that it
will riot enter any agreement with a third party that may abridge any rights of the State under this
Contract. Vendor will serve as the prime vendor under this Contract and shall be responsible for the
performance and payment of all subvendor(s) that may be approved by the State. Names of any third
party vendors or subvendors of Vendor may appear for purposes of convenience in Contract documents;
and shall not limit Vendor's obligations hereunder. Vendor will retain executive representation for
functional and technical expertise as needed in order to incorporate any work by third party subvendor(s).
b) If any services, deliverables, functions, or responsibilities riot specifically described in this Contract are
required for Vendor's proper performance, provision and delivery of the service and deliverables under
this Contract, or are an inherent part of or necessary sub -task included within such service: they will be
deemed to be implied by and included within the scope of the contract to the same extent and in the
same manner as if specifically described in the contract. Unless otherwise expressly provided herein,
Vendor will furnish all of its own necessary equipment, management. supervision, labor, facilities,
furniture, computer- and telecommunications equipment. software, supplies and materials necessary for
the Vendor to provide and deliver the Services and Deliverables.
c) Vendor warrants that it has the financial capacity to perform and to continue perform its obligations under
the contract; that Vendor has no constructive or actual knowledge of an actual or potential legal
proceeding being brought against Vendor that could materially adversely affect performance of this
Contract: and that entering into this Contract is not prohibited by any contract: or order by any court of
competent jurisdiction.
7.0 CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION
7.1 PROJECT MANAGER AND CUSTOMER SERVICE
The Vendor shall designate and make available to the State a project manager. The project manager shall
be the State's point of contact for contract related issues and issues concerning performance, progress
review, scheduling and service. Vendor must complete a copy of ATTACHMENT F: Additional Vendor
Information and return with bid.
7.2 REPORTS
Reports shall be submitted well organized and easy to read. The Vendor shall submit the reports in a timely
manner and on a regular schedule as specified by this RFP.
7.3 DISPUTE RESOLUTION
The parties agree that it is in their mutual interest to resolve disputes informally. A claim by the Vendor shall
be submitted in writing to the State's Contract Lead for resolution. A claim by the State shall be submitted in
writing to the Vendor's Project Manager for resolution. The Parties shall negotiate in good faith and use all
reasonable efforts to resolve such dispute(s). During the time the Parties are attempting to resolve any
dispute, each shall proceed diligently to perform their respective duties and responsibilities under this
Contract. If a dispute cannot be resolved between the Parties within thirty (30) days after delivery of notice,
Ver: 7/1/15 Page 24 of 36

Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
RFP Number.- 16-006807 Vendor:
either Party may elect to exercise any other remedies available under this Contract, or at law. This term shall
not constitute an agreement by either party to mediate or arbitrate any dispute.
7.4 CONTRACT CHANGES
Contract changes, if any, over the life of the contract shall be implemented by contract amendments agreed
to in writing by the State and Vendor.
7.5 CONTRACT ADMINISTRATOR
Kristie Corson is designated as the contract administrator for the Department for the purposes of this RFP.
This Space is Intentionally Left Blank
Attachments to this RFP begin on the next page.
Ver: 7/1/15 Page 25 of 36

RFP Number.' 16-006807 Vendor, ---Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
ATTACHMENT A: INSTRUCTIONS TO VENDORS
1. READ, REVIEW AND COMPLY: It shall be the Vendor's responsibility to read this entire document, review all
enclosures and attachments, and any addenda thereto, and comply with all requirements specified herein,
regardless of whether appearing in these Instructions to Vendors or elsewhere in this RFP document.
2. LATE PROPOSALS: Late proposals, regardless of cause, will not be opened or considered, and will
automatically be disqualified from further consideration. It shall be the Vendor's sole responsibility to ensure
delivery at the designated office by the designated time.
3. ACCEPTANCE AND REJECTION: The State reserves the right to reject any and ali proposals, to waive any
informality in proposals and, unless otherwise specified by the Vendor, to accept any item in the proposal. If
either a unit price or an extended price is obviously in error and the other is obviously correct, the incorrect price
will be disregarded.
4. BASIS FOR REJECTION: Pursuant to 01 NCAC 05B .0501, the State reserves the right to reject any and all
offers, in whole or in part, by deeming the offer unsatisfactory as to quality or quantity, delivery, price or service
offered, non-compliance with the requirements or intent of this solicitation, lack of competitiveness, error(s) in
specifications or indications that revision would be advantageous to the State, cancellation or other changes in
the intended project or any other determination that the proposed requirement is no longer needed, limitation or
lack of available funds, circumstances that prevent determination of the best offer, or any other determination
that rejection would be in the best interest of the State.
5. EXECUTION: Failure to sign EXECUTION PAGE in the indicated space will render proposal non-responsive,
and it shall be rejected.
6. ORDER OF PRECEDENCE: In cases of conflict between specific provisions in this solicitation or in any contract
arising from it, the order of precedence shall be (high to low) (1) any special terms and conditions specific to this
RFP, including any negotiated terms; (2) requirements and specifications in Sections 4. 5 and 6 of this RFP: (3)
North Carolina General Contract Terms and Conditions in ATTACHMENT B: NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL
CONTRACT TERMS AND CONDITIONS; (4) Instructions in ATTACHMENT A: INSTRUCTIONS TO VENDORS;
and (5) Vendor's Proposal.
7. INFORMATION AND DESCRIPTIVE LITERATURE: Vendor shall furnish all information requested and in the
spaces provided in this document. Further, if required elsewhere in this proposal, each Vendor must submit with
their proposal sketches, descriptive literature and/or complete specifications covering the products offered.
Reference to literature submitted with a previous proposal or available elsewhere will not satisfy this provision.
Proposals that do not comply with these requirements shall be subject to rejection.
8. SUSTAINABILITY: To support the sustainability efforts of the State of North Carolina we solicit your cooperation
in this effort. Pursuant to Executive Order 156 (1999), it is desirable that all responses meet the following:
• All copies of the proposal are printed double sided.
• All Submittals and copies are printed on recycled paper with a minimum post -consumer content of 30%.
• Unless absolutely necessary, all proposals and copies should minimize or eliminate use of non -recyclable or
non -reusable materials such as plastic report covers, plastic dividers, vinyl sleeves, and GBC binding. Three -
ringed binders, glued materials, paper clips, and staples are acceptable.
• Materials should be submitted in a format which allows for easy removal, filing and/or recycling of paper and
binder materials. Use of oversized paper is strongly discouraged unless necessary for clarity or legibility.
9. HISTORICALLY UNDERUTILIZED BUSINESSES: Pursuant to General Statute §143-48 and Executive Order
#150 (1999), the State invites and encourages participation in this procurement process by businesses owned
by minorities, women, disabled, disabled business enterprises and non-profit work centers for the blind and
severely disabled.
Ver: 7/1/15 Page 26 of 36

RFP Number: 96-006807 Vendor: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
10. RECIPROCAL PREFERENCE: G.S. §143-59 establishes a reciprocal preference requirement to discourage
other states from favoring their own resident Vendors by applying percentage increases to any proposal by a
North Carolina resident Vendor_ The "Principal Place of Business" is defined as the principal place from which
the trade or business of the Vendor is directed or managed.
11. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION: To the extent permitted by applicable statutes and rules, the State will maintain
confidential trade secrets that the Vendor does not wish disclosed. As a condition to confidential treatment, each
page containing trade secret information shall be identified in boldface at the top and bottom as "CONFIDENTIAL"
by the Vendor, with specific trade secret information enclosed in boxes or similar indication. Cost information
shall not be deemed confidential under any circumstances. Regardless of what a Vendor may label as a trade
secret, the determination whether it is or is not entitled to protection will be determined in accordance with G.S.
§132-1.2. Any material labeled as confidential constitutes a representation by the Vendor that it has made a
reasonable effort in good faith to determine that such material is, in fact, a trade secret under G.S. §132-1.2.
Vendors are urged and cautioned to limit the marking of information as a trade secret or as confidential so far as
is possible.
12. PROTEST PROCEDURES: When a Vendor wishes to protest a Contract resulting from this solicitation that is
awarded by the Division of Purchase and Contract, or awarded by an agency in an awarded amount of at least
$25,000, a Vendor shall submit a written request addressed to the State Purchasing Officer at Purchase and
Contract, 1305 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1305. A protest request related to an award amount of
less than $25,000 shall be sent to the purchasing officer of the agency that issued the award. The protest request
must be received in the proper office within thirty (30) consecutive calendar days from the date of the Contract
award. Protest letters shall contain specific grounds and reasons for the protest, how the protesting party was
harmed by the award made and any documentation providing support for the protesting party's claims. Note:
Contract award notices are sent only to the Vendor actually awarded the Contract, and not to every person or
firm responding to a solicitation. Proposal status and Award notices are posted on the Internet at
https://www.ips.state.nc.uslips/ All protests will be handled pursuant to the North Carolina Administrative Code,
01 NCAC 05B.1519.
13. MISCELLANEOUS: Masculine pronouns shall be read to include feminine pronouns, and the singular of any
word or phrase shall be read to include the plural and vice versa.
14. COMMUNICATIONS BY VENDORS: In submitting its proposal, the Vendor agrees not to discuss or otherwise
reveal the contents of its proposal to any source, government or private, outside of the using or issuing agency
until after the award of the Contract or cancellation of this RFP. All Vendors are forbidden from having any
communications with the using or issuing agency, or any other representative of the State concerning the
solicitation, during the evaluation of the proposals (i.e., after the public opening of the proposals and before the
award of the Contract), unless the State directly contacts the Vendor(s) for purposes of seeking clarification or
another reason permitted by the solicitation. A Vendor shall not: (a) transmit to the issuing and/or using agency
any information commenting on the ability or qualifications of any other Vendor to provide the advertised good,
equipment, commodity; (b) identify defects, errors and/or omissions in any other Vendor's proposal and/or prices
at any time during the procurement process; and/or (c) engage in or attempt any other communication or conduct
that could influence the evaluation and/or award of the Contract that is the subject of this RFP. Vendors not in
compliance with this provision may be disqualified, at the option of the State, from the Contract award. Only those
communications with the using agency or issuing agency authorized by this RFP are permitted.
16. TABULATIONS: Proposal tabulations can be electronically retrieved at the Interactive Purchasing System (IPS),
https://www.igs.state.nc.uslips/BidNumberSearch. Click on the IPS BIDS icon, click on Search for Bid, enter the
proposal number, and then search. Tabulations will normally be available at this web site not later than one
working day after the proposal opening. Lengthy or complex tabulations may be summarized, with other details
not made available on IPS, and requests for additional details or information concerning such tabulations cannot
be honored.
16. VENDOR REGISTRATION AND SOLICITATION NOTIFICATION SYSTEM: Vendor Link NC allows Vendors to
electronically register free with the State to receive electronic notification of current procurement opportunities for
goods and services of potential interests to them available on the Interactive Purchasing System, as well as
notifications of status changes to those solicitations. Online registration and other purchasing information is
available at the following website http://www.r)andc.nc.gov/.
17. WITHDRAWAL OF PROPOSAL: a Proposal may be withdrawn only in writing and actually received by the office
issuing the RFP prior to the time for the opening of Proposals identified on the cover page of this RFP (or such
Ver: 7/1/15 Page 27 of 36

Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
RFP Number: 16-006807 Vendor:
later date included in an Addendum to the RFP). A withdrawal request must be on Vendor's letterhead and
signed by an official of the Vendor authorized to make such request. Any withdrawal request made after the
opening of Proposals shall be allowed only for good cause shown and in the sole discretion of the Division of
Purchase and Contract.
18. INFORMAL COMMENTS: The State shall not be bound by informal explanations, instructions or information
given at any time by anyone on behalf of the State during the competitive process or after award. The State is
bound only by information provided in this RFP and in formal Addenda issued through IPS
19. COST FOR PROPOSAL PREPARATION: Any costs incurred by Vendor in preparing or submitting otters ark.
the Vendor's sole responsibility; the State of North Carolina will not reimburse any Vendor for any costs
incurred prior to award.
20. VENDOR'S REPRESENTATIVE: Each Vendor shall submit with its proposal the name, address, and telephone
number of the person(s) with authority to bind the firm and answer questions or provide clarification concerning
the firm's proposal.
21. SUBCONTRACTING: Unless expressly prohibited, a Vendor may propose to subcontract portions of the work
to identified subvendor(s), provided that its proposal clearly describe what work it plans to subcontract and that
Vendor includes in its proposal all information regarding employees, business experience:, etcr for each proposed
subvendor that is required to be provided for Vendor itself.
22. INSPECTION AT VENDOR'S SITE: The State reserves the right to inspect, at a reasonable time, the
equipment/item, plant or other facilities of a prospective Vendor prior to Contract award, and during the Contract
term as necessary for the State determination that such equipment/item, plant or other facilities conform with the
specifications/requirements and are adequate and suitable for the proper and effective performance of the
Contract.
This Space is Intentionally Left Blank
Ver: 7/1/15 Page 28 of 36

RFP Number. 16-006807 Vendor: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
ATTACHMENT B: NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL CONTRACT TERMS AND CONDITIONS
1. PERFORMANCE AND DEFAULT: If, through any cause, Vendor shall fail to fulfill in timely and proper manner
the obligations under this contract, the State shall have the right to terminate this contract by giving written notice
to the Vendor and specifying the effective date thereof. In that event and subject to all other provisions of this
contract, all finished or unfinished deliverable items under this contract prepared by the Vendor shall, at the option
of the State, become its property, and the Vendor shall be entitled to receive compensation for units actually
produced, if any, in an amount determined by reducing the total amount due had the full number of Units been
produced pro rata, such that the ratio of the final compensation actually paid to the original total amount due
in accordance with Attachment C (as amended, if applicable) is equal to the ratio of the Units actually
generated to the total Units identified in Attachment C.
Notwithstanding any other provision in this agreement, Vendor shall not be relieved of liability to the State for
damages sustained by the State by virtue of any breach of this contract, and the State may withhold any payment
due the Vendor for the purpose of setoff until such time as the exact amount of damages due the State from such
breach can be determined. The State reserves the right to require at any time a performance bond or other
acceptable alternative guarantees from a successful Vendor without expense to the State.
In case of default by the Vendor, the State may procure the services necessary to complete performance
hereunder from other sources and hold the Vendor responsible for any excess cost occasioned thereby. In
addition, in the event of default by the Vendor under this contract, or upon the Vendor filing a petition for
bankruptcy or the entering of a judgment of bankruptcy by or against the Vendor, the State may immediately
cease doing business with the Vendor, immediately terminate this contract for cause, and may act to debar the
Vendor from doing future business with the State
2. GOVERNMENTAL RESTRICTIONS: In the event any Governmental restrictions are imposed which necessitate
alteration of the material, quality, workmanship or performance of the items offered prior to their delivery, it shall
be the responsibility of the Vendor to notify, in writing, the issuing purchasing office at once, indicating the specific
regulation which required such alterations. The State reserves the right to accept any such alterations, including
any price adjustments occasioned thereby, or to cancel the Contract.
3. AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS: Any and all payments to the Vendor are dependent upon and subject to the
availability of funds to the agency for the purpose set forth in this contract.
4. TAXES: Any applicable taxes shall be invoiced as a separate item.
a. G.S. §143-59.1 bars the Secretary of Administration from entering into Contracts with Vendors if the
Vendor or its affiliates meet one of the conditions of G. S. §105-164.8(b) and refuses to collect use tax
on sales of tangible personal property to purchasers in North Carolina. Conditions under G. S. §105-
164.8(b) include: (1) Maintenance of a retail establishment or office, (2) Presence of representatives in
the State that solicit sales or transact business on behalf of the Vendor and (3) Systematic exploitation
of the market by media -assisted, media -facilitated, or media -solicited means. By execution of the
proposal document the Vendor certifies that it and all of its affiliates, (if it has affiliates), collect(s) the
appropriate taxes.
b. All agencies participating in this Contract are exempt from Federal Taxes, such as excise and
transportation. Exemption forms submitted by the Vendor will be executed and returned by the using
agency.
c. Prices offered are not to include any personal property taxes, nor any sales or use tax (or fees) unless
required by the North Carolina Department of Revenue.
5. SITUS: The place of this Contract, its situs and forum, shall be North Carolina, where all matters, whether
sounding in Contract or tort, relating to its validity, construction, interpretation and enforcement shall be
determined.
Ver: 7/1/15 Page 29 of 36

RFP Number. 16-006807 Vendor: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
6. GOVERNING LAWS: This Contract is made under and shall be governed and construed in accordance with the
laws of the State of North Carolina, without regard to is conflict of laws rules.
7. PAYMENT TERMS: Payment terms are Net not later than 30 days after receipt of correct invoice or acceptance
of goods, whichever is later. The using agency is responsible for all payments to the Vendor under the Contract.
Payment by some agencies may be made by procurement card, if the Vendor accepts that card (Visa.
MasterCard, etc.) from other customers, and it shall be accepted by the Vendur for payment under the same
terms and conditions as any other method of payment accepted by the Vendor If payment is made by
procurement card, then payment may be processed immediately by the Vendor.
8. AFFIRMATIVE ACTION: The Vendor will take affirmative action in complying with all Federal and State
requirements concerning Lair employment anti employment of people with disabilities, and concerning the
treatment o' all employees without regard to discrimination by reason of race, color. religion, sex, national origin
or disability.
9. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INDEMNITY: Vendur shah hold and save the State, its officers, agents and
employees, harmless from liability of any kind, including costs and expenses, resulting from infringement of the
rights of any third party in any copyrighted material, patented or unpatented invention. articles, device or
appliance delivered in connection with this contract.
10. ADVERTISING: Vendor agrees not to use the existence of this Contract or the name of the State of North
Carolina as part of any commercial advertising or marketing of products or services. A Vendor may inquire
whether the State is willing to act as a reference by providing factual information directly to other prospective
customers.
11. ACCESS TO PERSONS AND RECORDS: During and after the terry; hereof, the State Auditor and any using
agency's internal auditors shall have access to persons and records related to this Contract to verify accounts
and data affecting fees or performance under the Contract, as provided in G.S. §143-49(9).
12. ASSIGNMENT: No assignment of the Vendor's obligations nor the Vendor's right to receive payment hereunder
shall be permitted.
However, upon written request approved by the issuing purchasing authority and solely as a convenience to the
Vendor, the State may:
a. Forward the Vendor's payment check directly to any person or entity designated by the Vendor, and
b. Include any person or entity designated by Vendor as a joint payee on the Vendor's payment check.
In no event shall such approval and action obligate the State to anyone other than the Vendor and the Vendor
shall remain responsible for fulfillment of all Contract obligations. Upon advance written request, the State may,
in its unfettered discretion, approve an assignment to the surviving entity of a merger, acquisition or corporate
reorganization, if made as part of the transfer of all or substantially all of the Vendor's assets. Any purported
assignment made in violation of this provision shall be void and a material breach of this Contract.
13. INSURANCE:
COVERAGE - During the term of the Contract, the Vendor at its sole cost and expense shall provide commercial
insurance of such type and with such terms and limits as may be reasonably associated with the Contract. As a
minimum, the Vendor shall provide and maintain the following coverage and limits:
a. Worker's Compensation - The Vendor shall provide and maintain Worker's Compensation Insurance, as
required by the laws of North Carolina, as well as employer's liability coverage with minimum limits of
$500,000.00, covering all of Vendor's employees who are engaged in any work under the Contract. If any work
is sub -contracted, the Vendor shall require the sub-Vendorto provide the same coverage for any of his employees
engaged in any work under the Contract.
Ver: 7/1/15 Page 30 of 36

RFP Number. 16-006807
Vendor:
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
b. Commercial General Liability - General Liability Coverage on a Comprehensive Broad Form on an
occurrence basis in the minimum amount of $1,000,000.00 Combined Single Limit. (Defense cost shall be in
excess of the limit of liability.)
c. Automobile - Automobile Liability Insurance, to include liability coverage, covering all owned, hired and
non -owned vehicles, used in connection with the Contract. The minimum combined single limit shall be
$250,000.00 bodily injury and property damage; $250,000.00 uninsured/under insured motorist; and $2,500.00
medical payment.
REQUIREMENTS - Providing and maintaining adequate insurance coverage is a material obligation of the
Vendor and is of the essence of this Contract. All such insurance shall meet all laws of the State of North Carolina.
Such insurance coverage shall be obtained from companies that are authorized to provide such coverage and
that are authorized by the Commissioner of Insurance to do business in North Carolina. The Vendor shall at all
times comply with the terms of such insurance policies, and all requirements of the insurer under any such
insurance policies, except as they may conflict with existing North Carolina laws or this Contract. The limits of
coverage under each insurance policy maintained by the Vendor shall not be interpreted as limiting the Vendor's
liability and obligations under the Contract.
14. GENERAL INDEMNITY: The Vendor shall hold and save the State, its officers, agents, and employees, harmless
from liability of any kind, including all claims and losses accruing or resulting to any other person, firm, or
corporation furnishing or supplying work, services, materials, or supplies in connection with the performance of
this Contract, and from any and all claims and losses accruing or resulting to any person, firm, or corporation that
may be injured or damaged by the Vendor in the performance of this Contract and that are attributable to the
negligence or intentionally tortious acts of the Vendor provided that the Vendor is notified in writing within 30 days
that the State has knowledge of such claims. The Vendor represents and warrants that it shall make no claim of
any kind or nature against the State's agents who are involved in the delivery or processing of Vendor goods to
the State. The representation and warranty in the preceding sentence shall survive the termination or expiration
of this Contract.
15. INDEPENDENT VENDOR: Vendor shall be considered to be an independent vendor and as such shall be wholly
responsible for the work to be performed and for the supervision of its employees. Vendor represents that it has,
or will secure at its own expense, all personnel required in performing the services under this contract. Such
employees shall not be employees of, or have any individual contractual relationship with the Agency.
16. KEY PERSONNEL: Vendor shall not substitute key personnel assigned to the performance of this contract
without prior written approval by the State's assigned Contract Lead. The individuals designated as key
personnel for purposes of this contract are those specified in the RFP or Vendor's proposal.
17. SUBCONTRACTING: Work proposed to be performed under this contract by the Vendor or its employees shall
not be subcontracted without prior written approval of the State's assigned Contract Administrator. Acceptance
of a Vendor's proposal shall include approval to use the subvendor(s) specified therein in accordance with
paragraph 21 of Attachment A: Instructions to Vendor.
18, TERMINATION FOR CONVENIENCE: The State may terminate this contract at any time by 30 days' notice
in writing from the State to the Vendor. In that event, all finished or unfinished deliverable items prepared by the
Vendor under this contract shall, at the option of the State, become its property. If the contract is terminated by
the State as provided in this section, the State shall pay for services satisfactorily completed by the Vendor, less
payment or compensation previously made.
19. CONFIDENTIALITY: Any State information, data, instruments, documents, studies or reports given to or
prepared or assembled by or provided to the Vendor under this contract shall be kept as confidential, used only
for the purpose(s) required to perform this contract and not divulged or made available to any individual or
organization without the prior written approval of the State.
20. CARE OF PROPERTY: The Vendor agrees that it shall be responsible for the proper custody and care of any
property furnished it by the State for use in connection with the performance of this contract or purchased by or
Ver: 7/1/15 Page 31 of 36

RFP Number: 16-006807 Vendor: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
for the State for this contract, and Vendor will reimburse the State for loss or damage of such property while in
Vendor's custody.
21. PROPERTY RIGHTS: All deliverable items produced for or as a result of this contract shall be an become the
property of the State, and Vendor hereby assigns all ownership rights in such deliverables, including all
it telleCtual property rights, to the State; provided, however. that as to any preexisting works imbedded in such
deliverables, Vendor hereby grants the State a fully -paid, perpetual license: to copy. distribute and adapt the
preexisting works.
22. OUTSOURCING: Any Vendor or subvendor providing call or contact center services to the State of North
Carolina shall disclose to inbound callers the location from which the call or contact center services are being
provided.
If, after award of a contract, the vendor wishes to relocate or outsource any portion of the work to a location
outside the United States; or to corrtrac°t with a subvendor far the performance of any work, which subvendor and
nature of the work has not previously been disclosed to the State in writing, prior written approval must be
obtained from the State agency responsible for the contract.
Vendor shall give notice to the using agency of any relocation of the Vendoremployees of the Vendor,
subvendors of the Vendor, or other persons performing services under a state contract to a location outside of
the United States.
23. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS: Vendor shall comply with ali laws, ordinances, codes, rules, regulations, and
licensing requirements that are applicable to the conduct of its business. including those of federal, state, and
local agencies having jurisdiction and/or authority
24. ENTIRE AGREEMENT: This contract and any documents incorporated specifically by reference represent the
entire agreement between the parties and supersede all prior oral or written statements or agreements. This
RFP, any addenda thereto, and the Vendor's proposal are incorporated herein by reference as though set forth
verbatim.
All promises, requirements, terms, conditions, provisions, representations, guarantees, and warranties contained
herein shall survive the contract expiration or termination date unless specifically provided otherwise herein, or
unless superseded by applicable Federal or State statutes of limitation.
25. AMENDMENTS: This contract may be amended oniy by written amendments duly executed by the State and
the Vendor. The NC Division of Purchase and Contract shall give prior approval to any amendment to a contract
awarded through that office.
26. WAIVER: The failure to enforce or the waiver by the State of any right or of breach or default on one occasion or
instance shall not constitute the waiver of such right, breach or default on any subsequent occasion or instance.
27. FORCE MAJEURE: Neither party shall be deemed to be in default of its obligations hereunder if and so long as
it is prevented from performing such obligations as a result of events beyond its reasonable control, including
without limitation, fire, power failures, any act of war, hostile foreign action, nuclear explosion, riot, strikes or
failures or refusals to perform under subcontracts, civil insurrection, earthquake, hurricane, tornado, or other
catastrophic natural event or act of God.
This Space is Intentionally Left Blank
Ver: 7/1/15 Fuge 32 of 36

RFP Number. 16-006807 Vendor: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
ATTACHMENT C: PRICING
RFP# 16-006807
RFP TITLE: FULL DELIVERY PROJECTS TO PROVIDE STREAM MITIGATION CREDITS WITHIN
CATALOGING UNIT 03060101 OF THE CATAWBA RIVER BASIN
A Separate Sealed Cost Proposal Is Required For Each Proposed Site And For Each Option Proposed
For A Site.
Vendor Must List On The Front Of Each Sealed Cost Proposal Envelope, The Site Name/Location And
Option Number (If Applicable) Must Be Indicated.
All costs related to the mitigation offered must be included in this SEALED COST PROPOSAL. No
additional charges for travel, per diem, or cost of any services will be allowed. Cost will be a major factor
in the selection of proposals. ALL Sealed Cost Proposals will be compared to mitigation cost data
maintained by the NCDMS.
SITE NAME See Separate Sealed Envelope with Cost Proposal
OPTION (IF APPLICABLE)
PROPOSED COST
TOTAL CREDITS
CREDIT COST
TOTAL COSTS
GRAND TOTAL:
go
Printed Name of Authorized Representative
N/A
Company Name (Printed)
STREAM CREDITS
12
N/A
Signature of Authorized Representative
N/A
Date
Ver: 7/1/15 Page 33 of 36

RFP dumber: 16-006807 Vendor: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
ATTACHMENT D: LOCATION OF WORKERS UTILIZED BY VENDOR
In accordance with NC General Statute §143-59.4, the Vendor shall detail the location(s) at which performance will
occur, as well as the manner in which it intends to utilize resources or workers outside of the United States in the
performance of this Contract. The State will evaluate the additional risks, costs, and other factors associated with
such utilization prior to making an award. Please complete items a, b, and c below.
a) Will any work under this Contract be performed outside the United States? ❑ YES ® NO
If the Vendor answered "YES" above, Vendor must complete items 1 and 2 below:
1. List the location(s) outside the United States where work under this Contract will be performed by the
Vendor, any sub -Vendors, employees, or other persons performing work under the Contract:
2. Describe the corporate structure and location of corporate employees and activities of the Vendor, its
affiliates or any other sub -Vendors that will perform work outside the U.S..
b) The Vendor agrees to provide notice, in writing to the State, of the relocation of the
Vendor, employees of the Vendor, sub -Vendors of the Vendor, or other persons 0 YES ❑ NO
performing services under the Contract outside of the United States
NOTE: All Vendor or sub -Vendor personnel providing call or contact center services to
the State of North Carolina under the Contract shall disclose to inbound callers the
location from which the call or contact center services are being provided.
c) Identify all U.S. locations at which performance will occur: Cary and Asheville, North Carolina, USA
This Space is Intentionally Left Blank
Ver: 7/1/ 15 Page 34 of 36

RFP Number: 96-006807 Vendor:_Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
ATTACHMENT E: CERTIFICATION OF FINANCIAL CONDITION
Name of Vendor: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
The undersigned hereby certifies that: [check all applicable boxes)
® The Vendor is in sound financial condition and received an unqualified audit opinion for the latest audit of its
financial statements.
Date of latest audit: December 31, 2015
© The Vendor has no outstanding liabilities to the Internal Revenue Service or other government entities.
® The Vendor is not the subject of any current litigation or findings of noncompliance under federal or state law.
® The Vendor has not been the subject of any past litigation or findings of any past litigation or findings of
noncompliance under federal or state law that may impact in any way its ability to fulfill the requirements of
this Contract.
® He or she is authorized to make the foregoing statements on behalf of the Vendor.
If any one or more of the foregoing boxes is NOT checked, explain the reason in the space below:
/") I U f SLAUZ'a 14
Signature Date
Robert W. Lewis, PE Vice President / NC Office Executive
Printed Name
Title
[This Certification must be signed by an individual authorized to speak for the Vendor]
This Space is Intentionally Left Blank
Ver: 7/1/15 Page 35 of 36

RFP Number 16-006807 Vendor: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
ATTACHMENT F: ADDITIONAL VENDOR INFORMATION
VENDOR'S INH ORMATION
Vendors Primary Contact (or Project Manager)
Name:
Jacob 14 Byers, PE -
—
Agency.
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
Title:
_
NC Ecosystem Services Manager
Address:
797 Haywood Road, Suite 201
' City:
Telephone:
Email_
Asheville State/ Zip: rvC 27518.V_._�
828-412-6101 Fax: [phone]
Byers@mbakerintl,com
Vendors Execution Address (Where the contract should be mailed for signature)
Name:
Robert W. Lewis, PE
Agency:
_
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc,
Title:
Vice President / North Carolina Office Executive
Address: —
_ 8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
e
City:
r
Cary State/ Zip: NC 27518
Telephone:
919-481-5700
Fax: [phone] i
Email:
[e-mail]
Vendors Payment (Remit -To) Address (Where the checks should be mailed)
(This address should agree with the "Remit -To" address associated with the Vendor's Tax ID. This information
must be verified with the Vendor's Corporate Accounting Office)
Name:
10ichad Baker Engineerinu, inc.
�I
------___------
Agency:
ATTN; Michele O01117 -- --
-i
Title:
Address:
PO Box 360451
—
City
Pittsburgh
—� State/ Zip: PA T 15251-6451
Telephone: �—
724-495-4059
Fax:
Email:
'I
�
[e-mail]
Ver: 711115 Page 36 of 36

ATTACHMENT G
Catawba 03050101 Full Delivery RFP
*Thermal Regime abbreviations: Warm = W, Cool = Cl, Cold = Cd
Page 1 of 2
Targeted Watersheds with Warm and Cool Thermal Regimes
for CATAWBA RIVER BASIN • Cataloging Unit 03050101
HUC #
LWP
HUC #
LWP
HUC #
LWP
03050101030060 (W)
Partial
03050101120010 (W)
No
03050101180020 (W)
No
03050101040010(W)
Yes
03050101120030(W)
No
03050101040020(W)
Yes
03050101120040(W)
No
03050101050050(W)
No
03050101130010(W)
No
03050101060050(W)
Yes
03050101140010(W)
No
03050101080010(W)
Yes
03050101160040(W)
No
03050101070030(CI,Cd)
No
03050101080020(W)
Yes
03050101170010(W)
Yes
03050101030030(CI)
No
03050101090010(W)
No
03050101170020(W)
Yes
03050101070040(CI)
No
03050101090020(W)
No
03050101180010(W)
No
I 03050101060030(CI,Cd)
No
*Thermal Regime abbreviations: Warm = W, Cool = Cl, Cold = Cd
Page 1 of 2

N,
s
L
I
7
_
i
�
C -
IN
-
`
z
i
Al-
a
®
C g
••
_ ir
T'
A
_o
� O
O
_
i
�
C -
IN
-
`
z
i
a
®
C g
dh
r.,
t
C r!7
tef
to
c
r -L
id q1 V C
a U ;r 9
A OL,
N
O
N
N
0)
R
a

ATTACHMENT H
Important Notes/Guidance
1. Projects MUST be located within DMS Targeted Local Watersheds within Catawba 03050101 (Attachment G
Table and Map). Projects located within Local Watershed Planning (LWP) HUCs may receive additional points,
as noted in Section 1.0 of this Technical Proposal Rating Form (or "scoresheet").
2. BONUS questions in Scoresheet Modules 1.0 through 6.0 (after the Overall Merit/Proposal Screening
section) may receive additional points, but will NOT disqualify a Provider's proposal if unanswered or not
applicable.
Technical Proposal Evaluation Criteria
Catawba 03050101— Rating Form (Stream Only)
Offeror:
Site Name:
River Basin /
Catalog Unit:
RFP Number:
This completed form can be found in the Appendices Section.
Date of Site
Evaluation:
Type/Amt of
Mitigation
Offered:
Proposal
Review
Committee:
Alternate
Attendees:
G1werall Merit (proposal Screeniri ,
Yes/No
1 -For stream mitigation projects, does the Technical Proposal adequately document the historical presence of
stream(s) on the project site, and provide the drainage areas (acres) and provide accurate, process -based
descriptions of all project stream reaches and tributaries?
2 -Does the proposal adequately document the physical, chemical and/or biological impairments that
currently exist on the project site?
3 -Does DMS agree with the overall mitigation approach (proposed levels of intervention) presented?
[The Technical Proposal must demonstrate that the proposed mitigation activities are appropriate for existing
site conditions and watershed characteristics (e.g., adjacent land use/land cover), and are optimized to yield
maximum functional gains.]
4 -Does DMS agree with the proposed credit structure(s) described in the proposal?
5 -Does the proposed project avoid significant adverse impacts to existing wetlands and/or streams?
6 -Does the proposal adequately describe how the project will advance DMS watershed planning goals?
Page 1 of 6

ATTAC'HRAPNIT H
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)?
- f loodplairl bench grading will extend a rrlinirnuro :1.,5 bankfull widths beyond the stream belt -width (no
meandering flood f;lains — see Diagram helow)..
-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.
Note: An answer of No in this section means the Technical Proposal is rejected. Continue or Reject?
2W
- - Diagram for Priority II Question Above.
�-
Priority 11 floodplain bench
190
Cradine boundary minimums
100
€jI
f
ra0
U
- D.U. 90 � •� i'�._ �22A.6. x49.3. i
1 '*'i 12.3. ✓ �'f v "336 9. - 0
I
.D
t
-100
20 foot channelveldth
i
,
-150
200 +--�—
30 toot benchwidth(1.5 tiu»es channel vAdth)beyond the beNwidth.
— -� ---�
O 100 260 300 400 500
Section 1.0 - Watershed Module [35 Points Possible]
Projects Located outside of LWP
1
For proposed projects located outside of a Local Watershed Plan (LWP) area -- but within another targeted
HUC (TLW) -- to what extent does the project support the restoration goals? The following CU -wide and TLW
goals are documented in the Catawba River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP) reports (see links below): 1 -
protection of WS -classified waters draining to water supply reservoir(s) on Catawba River main stem; 2
reduced nutrient inputs to streams; 3 - reduced sediment inputs to streams; 4 - reduced fecal coliform inputs
to streams; 5 - restoration of degraded aquatic habitat; 6 - implementation of agricultural BMPs (e.g.,
livestock exclusion) in rural subwatersheds; 7 - improved stormwater management in urban/suburban
subwatersheds. [Provider's proposal must describe specific elements/features of the current site conditions
and proposed project design that will contribute substantially to meeting these goals. Because goals #6 and #7
are mutually exclusive, the maximum nornber of goals that can be addressed is six.]
Catawba RBRP (2007) - includes lower Catawba River Basin
Upper Catawba RBRP (2009)
Project addresses two or fewer goals. 1 point
Project addresses three or four goals. 3 points
Project addresses five goals. 10 points
Project addresses six goals. 15 points
Page 2 of 6

ATTACHMENT H
Projects Located within LWP
2
For projects located within a Local Watershed Plan (LWP) area, does the proposed project address stressors
and sources as identified in LWP Findings and Recommendations Summary reports (see left-hand side of
webpage link provided below)? [LWP HUCs within 03050101 are shown in Attachment G Table and Map.] To
receive points, Provider must describe in detail how the proposed project will contribute significantly to
addressing identified stressors. The priority stressors identified across LWP areas within the CU include: 1 -
unstable, eroding stream banks; 2 - lack of forested riparian buffers; 3 - stream channelization/modification;
4 - impervious cover (excessive stormwater velocities, peak flows); 5 - livestock access to streams; 6 -
excessive nutrient inputs; 7 - excessive sediment inputs; and 8 - fecal coliform bacteria.
Catawba LWP Findings & Recommendations Summaries
Project addresses three or fewer stressors. 5 points
Project addresses four or five stressors. 10 points
Project addresses six stressors. 15 points
Project addresses seven or eight priority LWP stressors. 20 points
Projects Located within or outside LWP (but still in a designated TLW)
3 Bonus: Does the project design include one or more structural BMPs (other than livestock exclusion fencing
and alternate watering) within or immediately upstream of the project easement such that nutrient and/or
sediment inputs or hydraulic stresses from outside the project easement are more effectively addressed? [In
rural subwatersheds, this would be agricultural BMPs; in urban/suburban watersheds, this would be
stormwater BMPs.]
Yes. 15 points
Section 2.0 - Existing Conditions and Functional Uplift Module [82 Points Possible]
1 Bonus: Project reach(es) are on or confluent to (directly discharge to) a 303d listed stream or waterbody.
Direct confluence = 3 points
Reach is 303d = 6 points
2 Bonus: Is the proposed project on WS -classified reach(es) upstream of a water supply intake or reservoir?
Yes = 6 points
3
What is the proportion of significant, obvious incision (BHR > —1.5) for reaches identified for some level of
channel modification?
<30% of the proposed footage exhibits significant, obvious incision. 2 points
30-70% of the proposed footage exhibits significant, obvious incision. 6 points
>70% of the proposed footage exhibits significant, obvious incision. 10 points
4
What is the proportion of active bank erosion for the existing condition of reaches proposed for channel
modification? [Active bank erosion includes surficial scour, hydraulic and mechanical failures, and other
mass wasting from channel processes.]
<30% active erosion. 4 points
30-70% active erosion. 10 points
>70% active erosion. 20 points
5
For reaches proposed for restoration/enhancement, what is the dominant buffer vegetation condition?
Small woody vegetation >30 feet in width (shrub, early successional trees). 4 points
Nage J OT 0

nTTnrunnPNT u
Page 4 of 6
Small woody vegetation <30 feet in width or an herbaceous dominated condition; or mature trees are
scattered and sparse within the proposed boundary (the proposed reach treatments could take place
with minimal impacts to mature trees). 12 points
No buffer vegetation, maintained cover, or grazed pasture; or impervious cover proposed for
removal. 20 points
6
For reaches proposed for restoration/enhancement, what is the percent of project length actively subject to
onsite water quality or habitat stressors that the design proposes to address? [Onsite means within or
immediately adjacent to (within 30 ft of) the proposed easement boundary. Example stressors include
pasture with direct livestock access, livestock exclusion but with poorly managed crossings, hydrologic bypass
of buffers (e.g. the drains, discharge outfalls, hydrologic connections to livestock wallows or CAFO ponds),
stormwater outfalls, adjacent row crops, maintained vegetation, or impervious surfaces.)
Proportion of affected channel <30%. 1 point
Proportion of affected channel 30-70%. 4 points
Proportion of affected channel >70%. 8 points
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 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. 12 points
Section 3.0 Habitat and Conservation Connectivity Module [24 Points Possible]
1
Ability to connect adjacent (having a common boundary with) natural habitats and extend wildlife
JBonus:
corridors.
Project as proposed provides an uninterrupted wildlife corridor from an adjacent
(contiguous) natural area with mature vegetation. 6 points
2
Bonus: Proposed project boundaries are directly contiguous to (have 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. 6 points
Proposed project easement shares at least one boundary with another mitigation
property (DMS project or approved Mitigation Bank site) with a permanent
easement. 12 points
3
Bonus: Ability to provide habitat improvement for identified Threatened and Endangered Species (federal or
state listed).
Page 4 of 6

ATTACHMENT H
Page 5 of 6
Moderate = potential for identified species to exist on project site, but no specific
design elements proposed to address species habitat. 2 points
High = proposed mitigation will restore or enhance potential habitat for identified
species by providing specific habitat elements required for listed species. 6 points
Section 4.0 - Design Module [26 Points Possible] - stream (SMus)
1
ITo what extent does the proposal (and project design) address sediment supply and transport?
Proposal qualitatively describes sediment supply, storage and transport dynamics
in a restoration context. 2 points
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 /'or 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.
8 points
Proposal qualitatively describes sediment supply and transport dynamics in a
restoration context; and some assessment methods have been applied and
background data are summarized in proposal. Quantitative or analytical tools to
be used for evaluating sediment supply and transport for existing and proposed
conditions are specified, described and justified as appropriate for the project with
the proposal. 16 points
2
Bonus For stream or buffer mitigation projects on first order streams (headwater drainages), do project
easements extend upstream toward drainage divides on all tributaries/reaches such that flow (whether
perennial, intermittent or ephemeral) in >90% of all upstream channels is captured within the project
easement(s)? [To receive points, Provider must include appropriate maps and calculations to demonstrate that
this criterion is met.]
Yes = 10 points.
Section 5.0 - Implementation and Risk Module [50 Points Possible]
I IDoes the proposed project provide
Between 25 - 50% of the RFP request (mitigation quantities)? 5 points
Between 51- 90% of the RFP request? 10 points
Greater than 90% of the RFP request? 20 points
2
Physical constraints or barriers (i.e. utilities, culverts, property lines, easements, managed areas, etc.) that
affect project design and effectiveness. [Percentages calculated based upon adding total linear footage of
crossings, roadways, utilities, or reduced buffer; divided by total linear footage.]
>10 % of the total project footage is segmented by crossings, roadways, or utility
rights of way. 1 point
5-10 % of the total project footage is segmented by crossings, roadways, or utility
rights of way. 3 points
< 5% of the total project footage is segmented by crossings, roadways, or utility
rights of way. 6 points
Page 5 of 6

ATTAC;HMFNT H
Page 6 of 6
Project is not affected by crossings, roadways, and/or utilities; or project with
existing constraints removes or relocates the constraints or barriers such that the
design is not significantly affected by the constraint(s). 15 points
3
What is the predominant land use/land cover within the watershed (contributing drainage area) upstream of
the proposed project site? [Predominant = 50% or greater of the drainage area upstream of the project
easement.
Urban/suburban (developed; overall imperviousness >5%), without stormwater
BMPs to treat flows influent to project reach(es) = 1 point [high
physical risk to project]
Urban/suburban (developed; overall imperviousness >5%), with stormwater BMPs
integrated into project design and/or immediately adjacent to easement to treat
most flows influent to project reach(es) = 5 points [moderate risk; possible
water quality and hydrologic uplift]
Agriculture, low-density rural residential, or private forested lands = 10
points [generally low risk; moderate to high water quality uplift potential]
Forested, undeveloped lands in long term (or permanent) conservation (e.g.,
National or State Parks and Forests, Natural Areas protected by Land Trusts) = 15
points [very low risk to project; possible habitat connectivity]
Section 6.0 - Quality Control Module [20 Points Possible]
1 ISimilar mitigation projects completed by the Offeror (through at least 3 years of monitoring).
Completed from 2 to 5 mitigation projects. 2 points
Completed more than 5 mitigation projects. 5 points
2
Experience of Project Team (people actually completing work).
Project team contains at least two individuals with specialties specific to project
evaluation, acquisition, design, construction, and monitoring, 2 points
All of the above and at least two projects brought to successful regulatory closure
with the Interagency Review Team (IRT). 10 points
3 JQualitV 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
TOTAL
Total Points (Maximum Possible = 232 Points) _
Proposal Rating ( Score x 0.01) _
Comments:
Page 6 of 6

Environmental
Quality
PAT MCCRORY
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
Division of Mitigation Services
March 21, 2016
THIS ADDENDUM MUSS'' BE RETURNED WITH YOUR TECHNICAL PROPOSAL
RFP NO.
16-006807
RFP TITLE:
Full Delivery Projects To Provide Strean Mitigation Within
Cataloging Unit 03050101 of the Catawba Fear River
Basin
ADDENDUM NO.
01
USING
Division of Mitigation Services
AGENCY:
PURCHASER
KATHY DALE
OPENING
June 9, 2016 @ 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- UPDATED LBNKS; WORDING CHANGES, QUESTIONS & ANSWERS AND NEW
DOCUMENT REQUIRED
UPDATED LINKS
The following links have been updated and should be used when preparing your proposal:
Link to project templates and guidance:
http://deg. nc.gov/aboutldivisions/m itigation-services/dms-vendors/rfp-forms-tem plates
Link to watershed planning documents:
http://deg.nc.nov/about/divisions/m itigation-services/dms-planning/watershed-planning-documents
Link to interactive TLW map:
Catawba 03050101 16-006807
WORDING CHANGES
RFP, page 1
Change Wording to: Offer valid for at least 60 days from date of proposal opening, unless otherwise stated here:
120 days. After this time, any withdrawal of offer shall be made in writing, effective upon receipt by the agency
issuing this RFP.
RFP, Section 2.3, Item 3.
Change Wording to: NOTE: All technical and cost proposals must constitute a firm, irrevocable offer for a
period of at least one hundred -twenty (120) days beyond the specified "Opening Date" for this RFP.
RFP 16-006807
Addendum No.1 Page 1 of 6

Environmental
Quality
PAT MCCRORY
Govmwr
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
RFP, Section 2.4, Item g). Current Ownership.....
Change Wording to: A signed option agreement valid for a period of at least one hundred -twenty (120) days
from the closing date of this RFP or other suitable documentation of real property must be provided for each
parcel.
QUESTIONS & ANSWERS
QUESTION 1-
Reference- Targeted Watershed Maps for above referenced RFP's-- Can DMS provide the GIS linework to
show where the dividing lines are between TLW's that have both cool and cold designations.
ANSWER:
That information is on the TLW interactive map for each RFP respectively, see link above.
QUESTION 2 -
Attachment H, Section 5.0, Question 1- As warm and cool streams do not necessarily connect, please consider
two separate breakdowns of points available per percentage of RFP request for warm credits and cool credits.
ANSWER:
The submittals will be scored as indicated the current RFPs.
QUESTION 3 -
RFP, Attachment G- There are three HUCs (03050101030010, 03050101020010. and 03050101070020) that
the legend on the map depicts as Targeted Local Watersheds, however they are not included in the table (Page 1
of 2, Attachment G). Please clarify.
ANSWER:
The three HUCs referred to in this question are not on the table or the map in the RFP.
QUESTION 4 -
RFP, Section 2.4, Page 8- Please clarify whether or not Attachments A and B need to be submitted within the
"Attachments" tabbed section. If so, do they count towards the page limit?
ANSWER:
Attachments A & B, as indicated in Section 2.4 are required to be submitted. No, they do not count
toward the page limit.
QUESTION 5 -
RFP, Attachment D- On page 8 of 36, the RFP states that attachment D needs to be "completed and signed."
However, there is not a signature line included on this attachment, please clarify.
ANSWER:
Sign at the bottom of Attachment D
QUESTION 6 -
RFP, Section 2.1- The RFP states that "Vendor and/or his representative" must attend the pre -proposal
conference. Can Vendor be represented by another company/ entity?
ANSWER:
No
RFP 16-006807
Addendum No.1 Page 2 of 6

Environmental
Quality
PAT MCCRORY
t;oveywr
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
QUESTION 7 -
Pre -proposal conference- At the pre -proposal conference, DMS indicated that the entire RFP should be
submitted as part of the Vendor's proposal. Should the entire RFP be submitted, or only the parts indicated in
Section 2.4? Will the RFP pages count toward the 100 -page limit? Under which tabbed section should it be
included?
ANSWER
Section 2.3 and 2.4 list everything that needs to be submitted
QUESTION 8 -
Pre -proposal conference; Section 2.4: Proposal Contents- The RFP indicates that "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 must be provided for each parcel." At the pre -proposal conference, DMS indicated that only
traceable proof of an option is required. Please confirm that a recorded Memorandum of Option will satisfy this
RFP submittal requirement.
ANSWER:
The submittal must be recorded in the respective county and show proof that the property in question
has been secured for the required timeframe.
QUESTION 9 -
RFP, Section 2.4, item G- Please clarify which portions of the proposal count toward the 100 -page limit: cover
letter, title page, Federal ID Number page, Execution Page, Addenda, Attachment A, Attachment B, Attachment
D, Attachment E, Attachment F, stream forms, LSS report, signed option agreements or memoranda of option.
ANSWER:
Any documents that are in the RFP for which you have to fill out and/or return do not count toward
the limit, everything else does.
QUESTION 10 -
RFP, Section 3.1- Is stream preservation allowed for this RFP? If so, is there a limit to the percentage of linear
footage or percentage of credits that preservation work can comprise? Does this percentage cap further apply to
warm, cool, or cold length or credit designations?
ANSWER:
Typically, DMS will consider up to 20% of the total stream length being made up of preservation for all
temperature regimes, as long as it follows the definition in the 2003 Stream Guidance.
QUESTION 11 -
RFP, Attachment C- Should the Vendor specify warm SMUs or cool SMUs on the Pricing form?
ANSWER:
No, DMS only accepts one price for any stream submittal
QUESTION 12 -
RFP, Attachment E- What constitutes an "unqualified audit opinion"? What level of audit is required?
ANSWER:
An unqualified opinion is an independent auditor's judgment that a company's financial records and
statements are fairly and appropriately presented, and in accordance with Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles (GAAP).
QUESTION 13 -
RFP, Section 3.2- Can DMS provide guidance on preference for 5 or 7 years of monitoring?
ANSWER:
No, the Vendor needs to determine the proper monitoring guidance to follow
RFP 16-006807
Addendum No.1 Page 3 of 5

Environmental
Quality
PAT MCCRORY
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
QUESTION 14 -
RFP, Execution Page, Page 1 & Section 2.3 item 3, Page 6 (top)- Page 1 states offer needs to be good for at
least 60 days, whereas on Page 6 states the proposals must be good for at least 1 year beyond the specified
"Opening Date". Which one of these is the correct time period for the offers?
ANSWER:
See clarification on this addendum, the proposals must be valid for 120 days after opening the
technical proposals.
QUESTION 15 -
RFP, Section 2.3, Items 4 and 5, Page 6- Can the proposals and the ArcGIS information be provided on a single
CD? ANSWER:
No, they must be two separate CDs.
QUESTION16-
RFP, Section 3.1, Page 13- Regarding stream credits requested, the special conditions section does not specify
the percentage of restoration level-- i.e. restoration, enhancement, preservation -- required for this RFP. Is there
a minimum percentage of restoration required for a project to qualify?
ANSWER:
No but typically, DMS will consider up to 20% of the total stream length being made up of
preservation, as long as it follows the definition in the 2003 Stream Guidance.
NEW DOCUMENT REQUIRED
The Department of Administration's. Division of Purchase and Contract is requiring a new form to be signed by all
Vendors before a State agency can issue a contract. Failure to sign and return this form with your RFP will result
in your bid being rejected. See Attachment A for a copy of this form.
SECTION 2
PLEASE NOTE — THIS ADDENDUM MUST BE RETURNED WITH YOUR TECHNICAL PROPOSAL
Check ONLY ONE of the following categories and if required, return one properly executed copy of this
addendum prior to bid opening time and date.
❑ Bid has already been mailed. Changes resulting from this addendum are attached.
❑ Bid has already been mailed, NO CHANGES resulted from this addendum.
© Bid has NOT been mailed and ANY CHANGES resulting from this addendum are included in our offer.
RFP 16-006807
Addendum No.1 Page 4 of 5

Environmental
Quality
SECTION 3
Execute Addendum:
BIDDER: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
ADDRESS (CITY & STATE)
8000 Regency ParkWAy.,,Cary, NC 27518
PAT MCCRORY
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE: DATE: May 12, 2016
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 16-006807
RFP 16-006807
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 16-006807
Addendum No.1 Page 6 of 5

ATTACHMENT A
ADDENDUM # 1
CERTIFICATION OF ELIGIBILITY
Under the Iran Divestment Act
Pursuant to G.S. 147-86.59, any person identified as engaging in investment activities in Iran,
determined by appearing on the Final Divestment List created by the State Treasurer pursuant
to G,S. 147-86.58, is ineligible to contract with the State of North Carolina or any political
subdivision of the State. The Iran Divestment Act of 2015, G.S. 147-86.55 et seq.* requires that
each vendor, prior to contracting with the State certify, and the undersigned on behalf of the
Vendor does hereby certify, to the following:
1. that the vendor is not identified on the Final Divestment List of entities that the State
Treasurer has determined engages in investment activities in Iran;
that the vendor shall not utilize on any contract with the State agency any subcontractor
that is identified on the Final Divestment List; and
that the undersigned is authorized by the Vendor to make this Certification.
Vendor: Michael 5areTfrigineering, Inc.
By:
Signature
Robert W. Lewis. PE
Printed Name
0"•/Z•2014.
Date
Vice President / NC Office Executive
Title
The State Treasurer's Final Divestment List can be found on the State Treasurer's website at the address:
https://www.nctreasurer.com/insid e-the-department/OpenGovernment/Pages/I ra n-Divestment-Act-Resou rces.aspx
and will be updated every 180 days. For questions about the Department of State Treasurer's Iran Divestment
Policy, please contact Meryl Murtagh at [e-mail] or [phone].
Note: Enacted by Session Law 2015-118 as G.S. 143C-55 et seq., but has been renumbered for codification at the
direction of the Revisor of Statutes.

Environmental
Quality
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
Pat McCrory Donald R. van der Vaart
Governor Secretary
March 29, 2016
THIS ADDENDUM MUST BE RETURNED WITH YOUR TECHNICAL PROPOSAL,
RFP NO.
16-006807
RFP TITLE:
Full Delivery Projects To Provide Stream Mitigation Within
i
Cataloging Unit 03050101 of the Catawba River Basin
ADDENDUM NO.
02
I USING
Division of Mitigation Services
AGENCY:
PURCHASER
KATHY DALE
OPENING
June 6, 2016 @ 2.00 P.M.
I 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 Information provided in this addendum notice.
SECTION 1- A. GENERAL_ INFORMATION & CHANGES
SECTION 2
The Division of Mitigation Services wishes to add 4 credits of Riparian Wetland to this
request. 100% of these credits must be restoration.
Please see new pricing sheet and technical score sheet attached
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 16-006807
Addendum No. 2 Page 1 of 2

SECTION 3
Execute Addendum:
BIDDER: Michael Baker Engineering; Inc,
ADDRESS (CITY & STATE): 8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600, Cary; NC 27518
AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE: % V 1 " DATE: May 12, 2016
NAME & TITLE (TYPED): Robert W. Lewis, PE Vice President / NC Office Executive
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 16-006807
RFP 16-006807
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,
SIGNED AND RETURNED IF REQUIRED.
RFP 16-006807
Addendum No. 2 Page 2 of 2

RFP Number: RFP 16-006807 Vendor: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
ATTACHMENT C: PRICING
RFP# 16-006807
RFP TITLE: FULL DELIVERY PROJECTS TO PROVIDE STREAM MITIGATION CREDITS WITHIN
CATALOGING UNIT 03060101 OF THE CATAWBA RIVER BASIN
A Separate Sealed Cost Proposal Is Required For Each Proposed Site And For Each Option Proposed
For A Site.
Vendor Must List On The Front Of Each Sealed Cost Proposal Envelope, The Site Name/Location And
Option Number (If Applicable) Must Be Indicated.
All costs related to the mitigation offered must be included in this SEALED COST PROPOSAL. No
additional charges for travel, per diem, or cost of any services will be allowed. Cost will be a major factor
in the selection of proposals. ALL Sealed Cost Proposals will be compared to mitigation cost data
maintained by the NCDMS.
SITE NAME See Attached Cost Proposal in Sealed Separate Envelope
OPTION (IF APPLICABLE) N/A
PROPOSED COST
GRAND TOTAL: N/A
N/A
Printed Name of Authorized Representative
N/A
Company Name (Printed)
N/A
Signature of Authorized Representative
N/A
Date
Ver: 7/1/15 Page 1 of 1
STREAM CREDITS
RIPARIAN WETLAND
CREDITS
TOTAL CREDITS
CREDIT COST
$/CREDIT
TOTAL COSTS
GRAND TOTAL: N/A
N/A
Printed Name of Authorized Representative
N/A
Company Name (Printed)
N/A
Signature of Authorized Representative
N/A
Date
Ver: 7/1/15 Page 1 of 1

ATTACHMENT H
(REVISED)
Important Notes/Guidance
1. Projects MUST be located within DMS Targeted Local Watersheds within Catawba 03050101 (Attachment G
Table and Map). Projects located within Local Watershed Planning (LWP) RUCs may receive additional points,
as noted in Section 1.0 of this Technical Proposal Rating Form (or "scores heet").
2. BONUS questions in Scoresheet Modules 1.0 through 6.0 (after the Overall Merit/Proposal Screening
section) may receive additional points, but will NOT disqualify a Provider's proposal if unanswered or not
applicable.
Technical Proposal Evaluation Criteria
Catawba 03050101 Rating Form
Offeror:
Site Name:
River Basin /
Catalog Unit:
RFP Number:
See Filled Out Form in Appendices Section
Date of Site
Evaluation:
Type/Amt of
Mitigation
Offered:
Proposal
Review
Committee:
Alternate
Attendees:
Overall Merit (Proposal Screening
Yes/No
1 -For stream mitigation projects, does the Technical Proposal adequately document the historical presence of
stream(s) on the project site, and provide the drainage areas (acres) and provide accurate, process -based
descriptions of all project stream reaches and tributaries?
2 -Does the proposal adequately document the physical, chemical and/or biological impairments that
currently exist on the project site?
3 -Does DMS agree with the overall mitigation approach (proposed levels of intervention) presented?
[The Technical Proposal must demonstrate that the proposed mitigation activities are appropriate for existing
site conditions and watershed characteristics (e.g., adjacent land use/land cover), and are optimized to yield
maximum functional gains.]
4 -Does DMS agree with the proposed credit structure(s) described in the proposal?
5 -Does the proposed project avoid significant adverse impacts to existing wetlands and/or streams?
6 -Does the proposal adequately describe how the project will advance DMS watershed planning goals?

ATTACHMENT H
(REVISED)
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.
Note: An answer of No in this section means the Technical Proposal is rejected. Continue or Reject?
200
Diagram for Priority II Question Above. -
�-
Priority 11 floodplain baneh
160
eroding boundary minimums
100
j
WW
so
0
_0.0. 10 _ �/ `4\ 0 224..6, �� 449,3.10.0
112.3.
--
i i
-50
�° g
.100
20 foot channetwidth
-150
30 foot benchwidth(1.5timesclhannelwidth)beyondthebenwidtli.
-200
O 160 200 360 400 500
Section 1.0 - Watershed Module [35 Points Possible]
Projects Located outside of LWP
1
For proposed projects located outside of a Local Watershed Plan (LWP) area -- but within another targeted
HUC (TLW) -- to what extent does the project support the restoration goals? The following CU -wide and TLW
goals are documented in the Catawba River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP) reports (see links below): 1 -
protection of WS -classified waters draining to water supply reservoir(s) on Catawba River main stem; 2 -
reduced nutrient inputs to streams; 3 - reduced sediment inputs to streams; 4 - reduced fecal coliform inputs
to streams; 5 - restoration of degraded aquatic habitat; 6 - implementation of agricultural BMIPs (e.g.,
livestock exclusion) in rural subwatersheds; 7 - improved stormwater management in urban/suburban
subwatersheds. [Provider's proposal must describe specific elements/features of the current site conditions
and proposed project design that will contribute substantially to meeting these goals. Because goals #6 and #7
are mutually exclusive, the maximum number of goals that can be addressed is six.]
Catawba RBRP (2007) - includes lower Catawba River Basin
Upper Catawba RBRP (2009)
Project addresses two or fewer goals. 1 point
Project addresses three or four goals. 3 points
Project addresses five goals, 10 points
Project addresses six goals. 15 points

ATTACHMENT H
(REVISED)
Projects Located within LWP
2
For projects located within a Local Watershed Plan (LWP) area, does the proposed project address stressors
and sources as identified in LWP Findings and Recommendations Summary reports (see left-hand side of
webpage link provided below)? [LWP HUCs within 03050101 are shown in Attachment Table and Map.] To
receive points, Provider must describe in detail how the proposed project will contribute significantly to
addressing identified stressors. The priority stressors identified across LWP areas within the CU include: 1 -
unstable, eroding stream banks; 2 - lack of forested riparian buffers; 3 - stream channelization/modification;
4 - impervious cover (excessive stormwater velocities, peak flows); 5 - livestock access to streams; 6 -
excessive nutrient inputs; 7 - excessive sediment inputs; and 8 - fecal coliform bacteria.
Catawba LWP Findings & Recommendations Summaries
Project addresses three or fewer stressors. 5 points
Project addresses four or five stressors. 10 points
Project addresses six stressors. 15 points
Project addresses seven or eight priority LWP stressors. 20 points
Projects Located within or outside LWP (but still in a designated TLW)
3 Bonus: Does the project design include one or more structural BMPs (other than livestock exclusion fencing
and alternate watering) within or immediately upstream of the project easement such that nutrient and/or
sediment inputs or hydraulic stresses from outside the project easement are more effectively addressed? [In
rural subwatersheds, this would be agricultural BMPs; in urban/suburban watersheds, this would be
stormwater BMPs.]
Yes. 15 points
Section
2.0 - Existing Conditions and Functional Uplift Module [107 Points Possible]
1
Bonus: Project reach(es) are on or confluent to (directly discharge to) a 303d listed stream or waterbody.
Direct confluence = 3 points
Reach is 303d = 6 points
2
Bonus: Is the proposed project on WS -classified reach(es) upstream of a water supply intake or reservoir?
Yes = 6 points
3
What is the proportion of significant, obvious incision (BHR > "1.5) for reaches identified for some level of
channel modification?
<30% of the proposed footage exhibits significant, obvious incision. 2 points
30-70% of the proposed footage exhibits significant, obvious incision. 6 points
>70% of the proposed footage exhibits significant, obvious incision. 10 points
4 What is the proportion of active bank erosion for the existing condition of reaches proposed for channel
modification? [Active bank erosion includes surficial scour, hydraulic and mechanical failures, and other
mass wasting from channel processes.]
<30% active erosion. 4 points
30-70% active erosion. 10 points
>70% active erosion. 20 points

ATTACHMENT H
(REVISED)
5
For reaches proposed for restoration/enhancement, what is the dominant buffer vegetation condition?
Small woody Vegetation >30 feet in width (shrub, early successional trees). 4 points
Small woody vegetation <30 feet in width or an herbaceous dominated condition; or mature trees are
scattered and sparse within the proposed boundary (the proposed reach treatments could take place
with minimal impacts to mature trees). 12 points
No buffer vegetation, maintained cover, or grazed pasture; or impervious cover proposed for
removal. 20 points
6
For reaches proposed for restoration/enhancement, what is the percent of project length actively subject to
onsite water quality or habitat stressors that the design proposes to address? [Onsite means within or
immediately adjacent to (within 30 ft of) the proposed easement boundary. Example stressors include
pasture with direct livestock access, livestock exclusion but with poorly managed crossings, hydrologic bypass
of buffers (e.g. the drains, discharge outfalls, hydrologic connections to livestock wallows or CAFO ponds),
stormwater outfalls, adjacent row crops, maintained vegetation, or impervious surfaces.]
Proportion of affected channel <30%. 1 point
Proportion of affected channel 30-70%. 4 points
Proportion of affected channel >70%. 8 points
7
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 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. 12 points
8
For proposed wetland restoration/rehabilitation projects: existing condition of predominant wetland
vegetation community. [Predominant means covering >50% of the area proposed for restoration and/or
enhancement.]
Wetland vegetation is present but is managed to prevent appropriate wetland
community. 2 points
Wetland vegetation is absent. 5 points
9
Confidence in existing wetland hydrologic condition and uplift potential.
Hydrologic modifications to wetlands are described, but their location and extent
are not clearly depicted. 1 point
Hydrologic modifications to wetlands are described, and the effects and extents
are clearly defined. 10 points
Hydrologic modifications to wetlands are described, and the effects and extent are
clearly defined and are supported with field data and/or modeled results. 20
points

ATTACHMENT H
(REVISED)
Section 3.0 Habitat and Conservation Connectivity Module [24 Points Possible]
1
Bonus: Ability to connect adjacent (having a common boundary with) natural habitats and extend wildlife
corridors.
Project as proposed provides an uninterrupted wildlife corridor from an adjacent
(contiguous) natural area with mature vegetation. 6 points
-T
2
Bonus: Proposed project boundaries are directly contiguous to (have 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. 6 points
Proposed project easement shares at least one boundary with another mitigation
property (DMS project or approved Mitigation Bank site) with a permanent
easement. 12 points
3
Bonus: Ability to provide habitat improvement for identified Threatened and Endangered Species (federal or
state listed).
Moderate = potential for identified species to exist on project site, but no specific
design elements proposed to address species habitat. 2 points
High = proposed mitigation will restore or enhance potential habitat for identified
species by providing specific habitat elements required for listed species. 6 points
Section 4.0 - Design Module [81 Points Possible]
1
ITo what extent does the proposal (and project design) address sediment supply and transport?
Proposal qualitatively describes sediment supply, storage and transport dynamics
in a restoration context. 2 points
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.
8 points
Proposal qualitatively describes sediment supply and transport dynamics in a
restoration context; and some assessment methods have been applied and
background data are summarized in proposal. Quantitative or analytical tools to
be used for evaluating sediment supply and transport for existing and proposed
conditions are specified, described and justified as appropriate for the project with
the proposal. 16 points

ATTACHMENT H
(REVISED)
2
Bonus For stream or buffer mitigation projects on first order streams (headwater drainages), do project
easements extend upstream toward drainage divides on all tributaries/reaches such that flow (whether
perennial, intermittent or ephemeral) in >90% of all upstream channels is captured within the project
easement(s)? [To receive points, Provider must include appropriate maps and calculations to demonstrate that
this criterion is met.]
Yes = 10 points.
3
Presence/extent of hydric soils and/or hydric soil indicators, as described by a Licensed
Soil Scientist.
The proposal documents, through soil borings and profile descriptions, established
listed hydric soils and/or the presence of listed hydric soil indicators (A Guide for
Identifying and Delineating Hydric Soils, Version 7.0, 2010) for most (65-85%) of
the proposed wetland area, and shows the locations of the borings on the wetland
area map = 1 point
The proposal documents, through soil borings and profile descriptions, established
listed hydric soils and/or the presence of listed hydric soil indicators ( A Guide for
Identifying and Delineating Hydric Soils, Version 7.0, 2010) for>85% of the
proposed wetland area, and shows the locations of the borings on the wetland
area map = 15 points
4 IRisk of hydrologic failure.
Most, but not all of the drainage alterations on site and in proximity are being
restored to restore wetland hydrology, but some features (due to their proximity
and/or size) leave uncertainty as to their impact on estimated wetland mitigation
credit yields = 5 points
All drainage features capable of significantly supporting restored wetland
hydrology are thoroughly addressed in the proposal to support proposed wetland
hydrology = 10 points
All drainage features capable of significantly supporting restored wetland
hydrology are thoroughly addressed in the proposal to support proposed wetland
hydrology, which is further supported with hydrologic modeling of the site =
15 points.
5 Uncertainty of origin and extent of overburden.
Overburden exists; origin is unknown, but is less than one feet deep on average =
1 point
Overburden exists, is generally no greater than 0.5 ft in depth, and its origin is
documented to be primarily from anthropic manipulation (e.g., dredge material,
ditching side -cast, deliberate row crop crowning) = 5 points
Proposed wetland features are generally devoid of overburden, with hydric
indicators appropriate to the setting and soil series dominating the A or B horizons
= 10 points

ATTACHMENT H
(RFVIRFni
6 JAppropriate wetland hydroperiod for performance criteria.
Success hydroperiod exceeds the 5% minimum and is appropriate for the setting
and landscape position = 5 points
Success hydroperiods are based on a thorough modeling effort of the site such
that a pre/post water budget is estimated and is appropriate for the setting and
landscape position = 10 points
Success hydroperiods are based on a thorough modeling effort of the site such
that a pre/post water budget is estimated and is appropriate for the setting and
landscape position, AND modeled results are supported with local reference gauge
data = 15 points
Section 5.0 - Implementation and Risk Module 150 Points Possible]
1 Does the proposed project provide
Between 25 - 50% of the RFP request (mitigation quantities)? 5 points
Between 51 - 90% of the RFP request? 10 points
Greater than 90% of the RFP request? 20 points
2
Physical constraints or barriers (i.e. utilities, culverts, property lines, easements, managed areas, etc.) that
affect project design and effectiveness. [Percentages calculated based upon adding total linear footage of
crossings, roadways, utilities, or reduced buffer; divided by total linear footage.]
>10 % of the total project footage is segmented by crossings, roadways, or utility
rights of way. 1 point
5-10 % of the total project footage is segmented by crossings, roadways, or utility
rights of way. 3 points
< 5% of the total project footage is segmented by crossings, roadways, or utility
rights of way. 6 points
Project is not affected by crossings, roadways, and/or utilities; or project with
existing constraints removes or relocates the constraints or barriers such that the
design is not significantly affected by the constraint(s).
15 points
3
What is the predominant land use/land cover within the watershed (contributing drainage area) upstream of
the proposed project site? [Predominant = 50% or greater of the drainage area upstream of the project
easement.]
Urban/suburban (developed; overall imperviousness >5%), without stormwater
BMPs to treat flows influent to project reach(es) _
1 point [high physical risk to project]
Urban/suburban (developed; overall imperviousness >5%), with stormwater BMPs
integrated into project design and/or immediately adjacent to easement to treat
most flows influent to project reach(es) = 5 points [moderate risk; possible
water quality and hydrologic uplift]
Agriculture, low-density rural residential, or private forested lands =
10 points [generally low risk; moderate to high water quality uplift potential]
Forested, undeveloped lands in long-term (or permanent) conservation (e.g.,
National or State Parks and Forests, Natural Areas protected by Land Trusts) _
15 points [very low risk to project; possible habitat connectivity]

ATTACHMENT H
(RF\/pzi=m
Section 6.0 - Quality Control Module [20 Points Possible]
1 ISimilar mitigation projects completed by the Offeror (through at least 3 years of monitoring).
Completed from 2 to 5 mitigation projects. 2 points
Completed more than 5 mitigation projects. 5 points
2
Experience of Project Team (people actually completing work).
Project team contains at least two individuals with specialties specific to project
evaluation, acquisition, design, construction, and monitoring. 2 points
All of the above and at least two projects brought to successful regulatory closure
with the Interagency Review Team (IRT). 10 points
3 lQuality 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
TOTAL
Total Points (Maximum Possible = 317 Points) =
Proposal Rating ( Score x 0.01) =
Comments:

I�
Environmental
Quality
PAT MCCRORY
air
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
SPartarr
Division of Mitigation Services
May 11, 2016
—IMI I = ,re% QC o=TI IDAICn WITH Vni IR TFCHNICAL PROPOSAL
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- BID OPENING DATE CHANGED
This addendum hereby serves as notice of a change in the Bid Opening Date for this proposal.
The new opening date is June 16, 2016 at 2:00 pm in Room 1210 of the Green
Square Building.
SECTION 2
PLEASE NOTE — THIS ADDENDUM DOES NOT HAVE TO BE RETURNED WITH YOUR TECHNICAL PROPOSAL
Check ONLY ONE of the following categories and if required, return one properly executed copy of this
addendum prior to bid opening time and date.
❑ Bid has already been mailed. Changes resulting from this addendum are attached.
❑ Bid has already been mailed. NO CHANGES resulted from this addendum.
❑X Bid has NOT been mailed and ANY CHANGES resulting from this addendum are included in our offer.
RFP 16-006807
Addendum No -2 Page 1 of 2
RFP NO.
16-006807
RFP TITLE:
Full Delivery Projects To Provide Stream Mitigation Within
Cataloging Unit 03050101 of the Catawba River Basin
ADDENDUM NO.
03
USING
Division of Mitigation Services
AGENCY:
PURCHASER
KATHY DALE
OPENING
June16, 2016 @ 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- BID OPENING DATE CHANGED
This addendum hereby serves as notice of a change in the Bid Opening Date for this proposal.
The new opening date is June 16, 2016 at 2:00 pm in Room 1210 of the Green
Square Building.
SECTION 2
PLEASE NOTE — THIS ADDENDUM DOES NOT HAVE TO BE RETURNED WITH YOUR TECHNICAL PROPOSAL
Check ONLY ONE of the following categories and if required, return one properly executed copy of this
addendum prior to bid opening time and date.
❑ Bid has already been mailed. Changes resulting from this addendum are attached.
❑ Bid has already been mailed. NO CHANGES resulted from this addendum.
❑X Bid has NOT been mailed and ANY CHANGES resulting from this addendum are included in our offer.
RFP 16-006807
Addendum No -2 Page 1 of 2

1#
Environmental
Quality
SECTION 3
Execute Addendum:
BIDDER: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
ADDRESS (CITY & STATE): 8000
, Suite 600, Cary, NC 27518
PAT MCCRORY
Governor
DONALD R. VAN DER VAART
Secretary
AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE: ✓ 'J ' DATE: May 13, 2016
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 16-006807
RFP 16-006807
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 1
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, SIGNIGNED AND
RETURNED IF REQUIRED.
RFP 16-006807
Addendum No. 2 Page 2 of 2

Cover Letter
W,

I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L
June 16, 2016
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
Attn: Kathy Dale, 217 West Jones Street, Suite 3409-G
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600, Cary NC 27518
Office: 919-463-5488 1 Fax: [phone]
RE: Proposal to Provide Stream and Wetland Mitigation Credits through the Russell Gap Stream Mitigation Project,
RFP #16-006807, Catawba River Basin Cataloging Unit 03050101
Dear Ms. Dale:
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. (Michael Baker) is pleased to present to the North Carolina Department of Environmental
Quality; Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS) the following proposal to provide warm water stream mitigation credits
and riparian wetland mitigation credits in the Catawba River Basin (Cataloging Unit 03050101) in response to RFP 16-
006807. This proposal is a firm offer from Michael Baker and shall remain open for acceptance by NCDMS for a period of
120 days from the opening date of June 16, 2016 for the above -referenced RFP. All paper contained within this proposal
is printed double -sided and has a post -consumer recycled content of at least 30 percent.
Michael Baker has entered into contracts to purchase a conservation easement on acreage to comprise the Russell Gap
Stream Mitigation Project, which is in Alexander County, in the Russell Gap Community. The project site is located in the
NCDMS Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) 03050101-120010 (formerly 03-08-32) of the Catawba River Basin. The project
will involve restoration and enhancement of stream and riparian buffer functions and restoration of riparian wetlands
along Davis Creek, unnamed tributaries (UTs) to Davis Creek, the East Prong Lower Little River, and UTs to the East Prong
Lower Little River, tributaries to the Catawba River. Michael Baker has been monitoring this project site since 2014. Since
monitoring began, obvious functional decline primarily in the form of bank erosion and increased water quality stressors,
is evident in just two years. This demonstrates that the system is trending towards further functional decline unless action
is taken on this valuable resource.
As described more fully in the following Technical Proposal, the proposed restoration project will not only provide 100%
of the requested warm water stream mitigation credits and 100% of the requested riparian wetland mitigation credits,
but will also accomplish ecological improvements through habitat restoration and a decrease in nutrient and sediment
loads from the watershed. The mitigation summary is listed below and are described in more detail in the Executive
Summary Section of the Technical Proposal:
Project Mitigation Summary Table
�Jil[aiFTal:f 1!i�7 Page 1
I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L
Total
Total
Total Riparian
Reaches
Riparian
Restoration
Enhancement
Enhancement
Total
Stream
Wetland
Included
Wetland
Stream
Levell
Level 11
Stream
Credits
Restoration
Stream
Restoration
Credits
Stream
Credits
(Proposed
Credits
Credits
Credits
Credits
(Potential)
for
(Proposed for
(Potential)
Contract)
Contract)
R1, R2, R3, 114a,
R4, R5, R6, R7,
R8, R9, R10, R11,
R12, R13, R14,
R15, R16, R17,
5.6
4,490
3,620
1,312
9,422
9,400
4.0
R18, R19, R20,
R21, R22, R23,
R24, R25, R26,
and W1
�Jil[aiFTal:f 1!i�7 Page 1
I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L

We Make a Difference
Michael Baker has extensive restoration and mitigation implementation experience and understands the most recent
requirements and standards applicable for restoration in this sub -basin of the Catawba River. We have extensive
experience in restoring prior converted wetlands. Accordingly, Michael Baker is in a strong position to implement this
proposed project in a timely and effective manner. In summary, this restoration project will include the following:
9,400 warm water stream credits utilizing a broad, balanced approach including restoration, enhancement, and
permanent protection to address the vast majority of the stream reaches in the project watershed, providing the
maximum possible functional uplift and utilizing a watershed approach.
4.0 riparian wetland credits utilizing riparian wetland restoration through re-establishment approaches to provide
maximum functional uplift and permanent protection.
Removal of direct livestock access and associated impairments to surface waters along more than 12,500 linear feet
(LF) of stream channel.
Reduction of sediment and nutrient loadings from streambank erosion and restoration of riparian buffers and riparian
wetlands.
Improved water quality by allowing restored stream buffers to remove nutrients and sediment, while stream
restoration and bank stabilization will reduce erosion in the stream channel, and allow streams to access restored
floodplains and riparian wetlands.
Improvements to aquatic, riparian, and wetland habitat functions for maximum uplift of the site's ecological function.
The information provided in this proposal is being submitted for the sole purpose of responding to the above -referenced
request for proposals. We greatly appreciate your consideration of this proposal and look forward to hearing from you
regarding NCDMS's decision. We would appreciate the opportunity to complete the presentation of this proposal to
NCDMS through a field visit and discussion.
Sincerely,
Robert W. Lewis, PE
Vice President/ North Carolina Office Executive
[e-mail] PH: 919-481-5700
I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L
Jacob M. Byers, PE
NC Ecosystem Services Manager
[e-mail] PH: 828-412-6101
Page 2

Parts 1-6

Part 1. Executive Summary
Russell Gap Stream Mitigation Project
Catawba River Basin + RFP #16-006807 • Cataloging Unit 03050101
This Executive Summary outlines the proposed Russell Gap Stream
Mitigation Project (Russell Gap), presented by Michael Baker
Engineering, Inc. (Michael Baker). The project will provide stream -
and wetland mitigation credits in the Catawba River Basin
(Cataloging Unit 03050101) in response to RFP 16-006807. The - -
project is located in Alexander County, in the Russell Gap
community. The project site is located in the North Carolina
Department of Environmental Quality Targeted Local Watershed -
(TLW) 03050101-120010 (formerly 03-08-32) of the Catawba River
Basin. The project will involve restoration of stream, wetland, and
riparian buffer functions along Davis Creek, unnamed tributaries
(UTs) to Davis Creek, the East Prong Lower Little River, and UTs to;,
the East Prong Lower Little River. Davis Creek flows directly into the
East Prong Lower Little River on the project property. The East Prong Lower Little River drains to the Lower Little River
approximately 1.5 miles southwest of the downstream end of the project. The Lower Little River flows into the Catawba
River at the headwaters of Lookout Shoals Lake, near Millersville.
The project will involve the restoration, enhancement, and protection of 27 stream reaches, totaling approximately
12,500 linear feet of existing streams, (111, R2, R3, 114a, R4, R5, R6, R7, R8, R9, R10, R11, R12, R13, R14, R15, R16, R17,
R18, R19, R20, R21, R22, R23, R24, R25, and R26) that are part of the Russell Gap project drainage area. In addition,
significantly degraded riparian wetlands will be restored, utilizing a wetland re-establishment approach by
implementing Priority Level I Restoration, livestock removal, and re -vegetation. This broad, balanced approach, utilizing
the entire range of practices, from Priority Level I Restoration to Level II Enhancement, is critical as it addresses all of
the intermittent and perennial stream reaches on the project property, including restoring riparian buffers along all
of the proiect stream reaches currently in pasture, restoring non-functioning historical riparian wetlands, protecting
and enhancing existing wetlands, and reducing and limiting the number of stream crossings. Thus, the project
provides the maximum functional uplift utilizing a watershed approach. The existing stream reaches and riparian
wetlands have been significantly impacted by past and present unrestricted livestock access and/or channelization for
agricultural drainage associated predominantly with cattle pastures. The project has primarily cleared stream reaches
and wetland areas with small, partially forested areas. Numerous project stream reaches are unstable, with active
headcut migration, widening, and down -cutting. Livestock have access to 25 of the 27 stream reaches and access to all
of the degraded wetland areas (See Figure 13). The vast majority of the project reaches lack adequate riparian buffers.
Currently, the project reaches act as sources of sediment and nutrient contamination to Davis Creek, the East Prong
Lower Little River, impaired portions of the Lower Little River, and ultimately the Catawba River. Michael Baker has been
monitoring this project site since 2014. Since monitoring began, obvious functional decline primarily in the form of bank
erosion and increased water quality stressors, is evident in just two years. This demonstrates that the system is trending
towards further functional decline unless action is taken on this valuable resource.
The following is a brief description of the proposed treatments of all of the stream reaches on the project site.
Treatment of R1, R6, R9, R12, R14, R20, and R25 will involve restoration practices. All of the reaches proposed for
restoration practices are perennial streams as determined by the methodologies utilized to complete North Carolina
Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) Stream Identification Forms. Level I Enhancement is proposed for Reaches R2,
R3, R4, R7, R10, R11, R13, and R19. The appropriate bankfull geometry will be restored and the stream bed will be raised
or bankfull benches will be excavated where needed to provide the stream reach access to its floodplain. In -stream
structures will be installed to provide grade control, protect streambanks, and encourage bedform diversity. Level II
Enhancement is proposed for R4a, R5, R8, R15, R16, R17, R18, ,R21, R22, R23, R24, and R26 based on the current
condition of the reach or due to the fact that the reach is an intermittent headwater channel. Level II Enhancement
practices will primarily focus on planting and permanent livestock exclusion along with the spot stabilization of eroding
banks and the arresting of any headcuts.
FrIVITIRMT.7 ".- M M Page 3
1 N TE RN R T I O N RL

Mussell Gap Stream Mitigation Project
Catawba River Basin • RFP #16-006807 • Cataloging Unit D3050101
Wetland restoration will involve wetland re-establishment approaches. Significantly degraded wetlands exist along R1,
R4, and R9. Wetland functions along the floodplains of these stream reaches will be restored, through wetland re-
establishment by implementing stream restoration (Priority Level I along R1 and R9) and stream enhancement
(Enhancement Level I along R4) through the wetland restoration areas to restore proper hydrology, re-establish a native
riparian wetland vegetation community, and permanently exclude livestock to protect both restored soil structure and
vegetation. Although wetland functions will be restored along R1, R4, and R9, credit is being sought only for the wetland
restoration area along R1 (W1).
Livestock will be permanently excluded from all of the project areas. Buffers in excess of 50 feet will be established along
all proposed reaches. In addition, existing functional wetlands will be incorporated inside the conservation easement to
protect them in perpetuity. An agricultural structural Best Management Practice (BMP) in the form of a constructed
wetland will be installed in an area currently used as a wallow near the upstream end of R9. This BMP will help to remove
pollutants from runoff prior to entering the stream. Livestock will be excluded from this BMP removing a direct source
of nutrients and sediment.
All work will be protected by a perpetual conservation easement. Detailed narratives of the proposed restoration and
enhancement practices are provided in Part 5.3. Our proposed mitigation is summarized in the table below, and specific
design approaches and details are described in more narrative detail in the Technical Approach:
Mitigation Summary
Mitigation Type(s) Reaches Included Stream Wetland
Credits Credits
(Warm)
Stream Restoration, Enhancement I and II
Wetland Restoration
R1, R2, R3, R4a, R4, R5, R6, R7, R8, R9, 1 9,400
R10, R11, R12, R13, R14, R15, R16, R17,
R18, R19, R20, R21, R22, R23, R24, R25,
and R26 (All reaches) and W1.
El
This approach includes the treatment of all stream reaches at the project site. Treatment of R1, R6, R9, R12, R14,
R20, and R25 will involve primarily Priority Level I Restoration practices. All of the reaches proposed for restoration
practices are perennial streams as determined by the methodologies utilized to complete NCDWR Stream
Identification Forms. Level I Enhancement is proposed for Reaches R2, R3, R4, R7, R10, R11, R13, and R19. The
appropriate bankfull geometry will be restored and the stream bed will be raised or bankfull benches will be
excavated where needed to provide the stream reach access to its floodplain. In -stream structures will be installed
to provide grade control, protect streambanks, and encourage bedform diversity. Level II Enhancement is proposed
for R4a, R5, R8, R15, R16, R17, R18, R21, R22, R23, R24, and R26 based on the current condition of the reach, the
potential functional uplift, or due to the fact that the reach is an intermittent headwater channel. Level II
Enhancement practices will primarily focus on planting and permanent livestock exclusion along with the spot
stabilization of eroding banks and the arresting of any headcuts. This project would meet 100 percent of both the
9,400 warm water stream credits and 4.0 riparian wetland credits requested in this RFP.
This approach includes the restoration of existing wetland areas located on the project site through wetland re-
establishment. Hydric soils are present along the floodplains of R1, R4, and R9, as confirmed by Michael Baker's
licensed soil scientist (LSS). These areas have been manipulated by human and livestock activities, resulting in
significant loss of wetland function. These significantly degraded riparian wetlands will be restored by implementing
Priority Level I Restoration along Reach R1 and R9 and Enhancement Level I along R4 to restore proper hydrology, re-
establishing a native riparian wetland vegetation community, and permanently excluding livestock to protect both
restored soil structure and vegetation.
Michael Baker

Russell Gap Stream Mitigation Project
Catawba River Basin + RFP #16-006807 + Cataloging Unit 0305010 i
Mitigation Credit Summary
Project Mitigation Summary Table
Project Reach Summary Table
Project
Reach
Designation
Watershed
Drainage
Area (acres) 1
Watershed
miles) 1nage Area
(Drainage
Stream Status
Based on
Field
Analyses
Mitigation
Type 2
Existing Channel Type
(Rosgen
Classification)
Proposed Channel
Type (Rosgen
Classification)
Total
934.0
Total
Perennial
R
E4 (poor condition)
C4
Total
Riparian
Reaches Included
Riparian
Restoration
Enhancement
Enhancement
Total
Stream
Wetland
Perennial
Wetland
Stream
Level I
Level II
Stream
Credits
Restoration
Ell
Restoration
Credits
Stream Credits
806.0
Credits
(Proposed
Credits
E4b (poor condition)
Credits
R54
154.0
Stream Credits
(potential)
for
(Proposed
CO
(Potential)
186.0
0.29
Perennial
R
Contract)
for
R7
288.0
0.45
Perennial
EI
E4b (poor condition)
C4b/E4b
Contract)
R1, R2, R3, R4a,
0.52
Perennial
Ell
C4
C4
R9
352.0
R4, R5, R6, R7,
Perennial
R
E4 (poor condition)
C4
R 10
17.3
0.03
R8, R9, R1O, R11,
EI
E4b (poor condition)
C4b/E4b
R11
14.1
0.02
Intermittent
R12, R13, R14,
G4
B4/C4
R124
115.0
0.18
Perennial
R
R15, R16, R17,
5.6
4,490
3,620
1,312
9,422
9,400
4.0
R18, R19, R2O,
R14
22.4
0.04
Perennial
R
G4
B4/E4
1321, 1122, 1323,
18.7
0.03
Intermittent
Ell
E4
E4
R164
R24, R25, R26,
0.04
Intermittent
Ell
B4
B4
R174
26.2
and W1
Intermittent
Ell
E4
E4
R184
14.1
0.02
Project Reach Summary Table
Project
Reach
Designation
Watershed
Drainage
Area (acres) 1
Watershed
miles) 1nage Area
(Drainage
Stream Status
Based on
Field
Analyses
Mitigation
Type 2
Existing Channel Type
(Rosgen
Classification)
Proposed Channel
Type (Rosgen
Classification)
R1
934.0
1.46
Perennial
R
E4 (poor condition)
C4
R24
1056.0
1.65
Perennial
EI
E4 (poor condition)
C4b/E4b
R3
2227.0
3.48
Perennial
EI
E4 (poor condition)
C4b/E4b
R4a4
716.0
1.12
Perennial
Ell
E4b
E4b
R4
806.0
1.26
Perennial
EI
E4b (poor condition)
C4b/E4b
R54
154.0
0.24
Perennial
Ell
CO
CO
R6
186.0
0.29
Perennial
R
G4
CO
R7
288.0
0.45
Perennial
EI
E4b (poor condition)
C4b/E4b
R84
333.0
0.52
Perennial
Ell
C4
C4
R9
352.0
0.55
Perennial
R
E4 (poor condition)
C4
R 10
17.3
0.03
Perennial
EI
E4b (poor condition)
C4b/E4b
R11
14.1
0.02
Intermittent
EI
G4
B4/C4
R124
115.0
0.18
Perennial
R
E4 (poor condition)
C4
R134
20.7
0.03
Intermittent
EI
C4
C4
R14
22.4
0.04
Perennial
R
G4
B4/E4
R154
18.7
0.03
Intermittent
Ell
E4
E4
R164
25.5
0.04
Intermittent
Ell
B4
B4
R174
26.2
0.04
Intermittent
Ell
E4
E4
R184
14.1
0.02
Intermittent
Ell
E4
E4
R194
22.3
0.03
Perennial
EI
CO
CO
R2 04
8.9
0.01
Perennial
R
G4
B4

Russell Gap Stream Mitigation Project
Catawba River Basin + RFP #16-006807 + Cataloging Unit 030501 C 1
Project Watershed
Stream Status
Existing Channel Type
Proposed
Watershed
Reach Drainage Area
Based on Mitigation
(Rosgen
Channel Type
Designation (acres) 1
DrainageArea Field Type Z
Classification)
(Rosgen
(miles) 1nage
Analyses
B4
Classification)
R214 32.5
0.05
Perennial Ell
B4
R224 2.7
0.00
Perennial Ell
B4
B4
R234 3.6
0.01
Intermittent Ell
E4
E4
R244 7.2
0.01
Intermittent Ell
E4
E4
R254 29.0
0.05
Perennial R
E4b (poor condition)
C4b
R264 31.5
0.05
Perennial Ell
E4b
E4b
Project Total NCDMS Rating Form Scores3 = 226 (Total Points) and 2.26 (Proposal Rating) Note 1: Watershed drainage
area is estimated based on topographic and LIDAR information at the downstream end of each reach. Note 2: R=
Restoration, E1=Level 1 Enhancement, E11=Level2 Enhancement. Note 3: Project Total NCDMS Rating Form Scores are the
Total Points and Proposal Rating, respectively, as determined using the Ecosystem Enhancement Program's "Technical
Proposal Evaluation Criteria — Rating Form', for the project. Note 4: Stream types of these reaches are based on best
professional judgment and quick field measurements. Surveyed cross sections were not conducted on these reaches.
Part 2. Financial Statement — See Attachment E, Certification of Financial Condition.
Part 3. Corporate Background and Experience
Michael Baker Corporation (Michael Baker) is one of the largest professional service firms, LZME=
consistently ranked among the top 8 percent of U.S. engineering practices by Engineering News- I N T E R N A T 1 o N A L
Record (ENR). Michael Baker was founded in 1940 as a civil engineering and surveying firm.
Having recently merged with Integrated Mission Solutions (IMS), the combination of Michael Baker and IMS has created
a company with over $1.0 billion in revenue and a platform with global reach. Today, with over 6,000 professional
employees in the United States and abroad, Michael Baker successfully serves the Buildings, Civil, Environmental, and
Transportation markets. The company recently became part of Michael Baker International, which provides high-end
engineering, development, intelligence, and technology solutions with global reach and mobility.
Michael Baker has demonstrated the ability to work with local, state and federal regulatory agencies in the permitting,
design, and construction of wetland, stream, and riparian buffer restoration projects. We have worked extensively on
numerous full -delivery projects for the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS) and the North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT). With nearly 90 North Carolina employees working full-time on projects, Michael
Baker has the manpower and expertise to successfully carry out existing projects as well as secure and carry out new
projects. Michael Baker operates in North Carolina as Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. and has environmental staff in
Charlotte, Asheville, Cary, and Greensboro.
Ability to Carry Out All Phases of Proposal: The Michael Baker team has extensive experience in all aspects of full -delivery
restoration work, having completed many projects for NCDMS, the Clean Water Management Trust Fund, the North
Caroline Department of Transportation, and entities in other states. Michael Baker has teamed with River Works and Kee
Mapping & Surveying who have a long history of cooperation on full -delivery projects, so NCDMS can rely on the smooth
function of our team as we undertake the proposed project. Michael Baker understands the regulatory and financial
constraints associated with full -delivery projects and has shown the ability to meet mitigation credit goals and project
schedules.
Specifically, Michael Baker has identified the proposed project site and secured the necessary landowner options. The
Michael Baker Team will obtain the necessary easements, identify site constraints, and ensure site access. Michael Baker
has unparalleled experience in stream and wetland restoration design, having completed hundreds of projects that
translate into over 190 miles of stream restoration and over 3,000 acres of wetlands. Based on this experience, we are
familiar with all documentation requirements necessary to proceed with these types of projects. Michael Baker will obtain
the necessary environmental approvals and is experienced in developing Categorical Exclusions (CE) for mitigation
projects.
Michael Baker

Recssell Gap Stream Mitigation Project
Catawba River Basin • RFP #16-006807 • Cataloging Unit D3050101
Michael Baker will coordinate with state and local officials to resolve any regulatory floodplain issues associated with the
restoration efforts. Once permits are issued, the Michael Baker Team will restore the site based on the concepts described
herein. River Works has extensive experience in constructing restoration projects and has a good relationship with Michael
Baker's design and construction observation personnel. Finally, once construction has been completed, Michael Baker will
follow and utilize the current NCDMS monitoring guidelines and templates to conduct the required monitoring activities
and develop monitoring reports. Throughout the monitoring process, Michael Baker will ensure that the site meets
NCDMS mitigation credit goals. Michael Baker has undertaken monitoring in many areas throughout North Carolina and
is familiar with the site-specific needs of the project.
Primary Sub Contractor
The primary subcontractor to Michael Baker on North Carolina restoration projects is River Works, IVER'.",
Inc. River Works offers clients a construction contractor with the specialized expertise to
implement environmental restoration designs. The foremen and operators on the River Works team work primarily on
environmental restoration projects, and as such, have a thorough understanding of construction sequencing, erosion and
sedimentation control, water diversion, and vegetation requirements. River Works has extensive experience constructing
stream and wetland restoration projects, including the re -vegetation of restoration sites.
River Works also has extensive experience selecting and planting appropriate vegetative buffers using live stakes, bare
roots, transplants, and containerized native plant species. River Works takes great care in selecting plant material and
temporary and permanent seed mixtures specifically matched to the environment of the site. They provide on-site
supervision during planting operations to ensure that plant materials are of suitable quality, and that the materials are
planted appropriately according to each species' moisture tolerance, soil condition needs, and stage of growth.
Kee Mapping & Surveying is proud to offer comprehensive professional land surveying and mapping
services for North Carolina. Their main focus is providing clients with top quality mapping and _s. --: =_=_ ee
surveying solutions. Kee Mapping and Surveying was founded in 2007 with the goal of becoming one
of North Carolina's top Professional Land Surveying and Mapping organizations. Kee Mapping and Surveying specializes
in GIS mapping, boundary, topographic, and conservation easement surveys for a wide variety of projects. With an in
depth knowledge of local, state and federal requirements, Kee Mapping and Surveying provides sound advice and
accurate results in an efficient manner.
Project Manager Experience
- Jacob (Jake) Byers, PE will be the Project Manager. Jake has 10 years of experience with
t. environmental and natural resources restoration and management specializing in
streams, and wetlands. He has wide ranging experience as a leader and as part of a
team in stream and wetland mitigation, geomorphic assessment, restoration design,
sediment transport, stormwater analysis, design, and management. His expertise
includes BMPs, water quality, hydrology and hydraulics, sedimentation and erosion
control, site search and feasibility, planning, permitting, surveying, construction
oversight, and project management of multiple projects in a variety of geographic
settings in throughout the eastern United States. He has served as project manager,
project engineer, and designer for numerous restoration projects. He is currently the
project manager for the NCDMS Candiff Creek Restoration project and leads the NC
Ecosystem Services Team for Michael Baker.
Similar Stream and Wetland Restoration Project Experience
Michael Baker has extensive experience in stream, wetland, and riparian buffer restoration. We have initiated over 400
projects in the past seven years, and have restored more than 1 million feet of streams and 3,000 acres of wetlands. We
have successfully completed 5 years of monitoring on 10 NCDMS mitigation projects and have successfully brought 6
NCDMS projects to regulatory closure. Several examples of projects are highlighted on the following pages.
UNTIRRIMM Page 7
1 N TE RN R T I O N RL

Mussell Gap Stream Mitigation Project
Catawba River Basin • RFP #16-006807 • Cataloging Unit D3050101
Pinch Gut Creek Restoration Project, NCDMS, Stokes County, NC. Michael Baker restored over 10,500 LF of
perennial stream channel in northwestern Stokes County. Streams on the site had been degraded primarily due to
agricultural practices and cattle access. The project involved restoring six tributaries that drain a headwater catchment
approximately 1.7 square miles in size. Rosgen Priority Level I and II approaches were used to restore access to an active
floodplain. In -stream structures were used to provide stream stability, as well as to improve aquatic habitat and fisheries.
The restored riparian buffers adjacent to the streams are protected through permanent fencing that excluded cattle and
livestock. Michael Baker conducted watershed analyses, performed existing condition and reference reach surveys,
prepared 401/404 permitting documents, developed construction documents, and provided construction oversight.
Construction of the project was completed in 2008, five years of project monitoring were completed, and the project
regulatory closeout was successfully completed in the summer of 2013.
Pinch Gut Creek restoration work during construction and five years after.
Candiff Creek Restoration Project, NCDMS, Surry County, NC. Michael Baker restored, enhanced and preserved
over 7,038 LF of degraded streams near Siloam, NC to provide mitigation credits and to improve water quality and stream
habitat on Candiff Creek and unnamed tributaries to Candiff Creek using natural channel design techniques. The project
streams had been heavily impacted from past agriculture activities. The streams were deeply incised and overly wide.
Bank erosion was severe throughout the majority of the project reaches. The project was completed in 2012 and is
currently in the fifth year of post -construction monitoring. The project included existing condition surveys, data analyses,
design development based on reference reaches, permitting, construction plans and specifications, on-site construction
management, and project management. The project design was based on Rosgen Priority Level I approach for restoring
incised stream channels. It included channel geometry and planform modifications based on reference reach data,
reconnecting the channel with its historic floodplain, in -stream structure installation, streambank stabilization, bio-
engineering and riparian vegetation planting and management.
Michael Baker
Views of Candiff Creek before and 4 years after restoration.
4 .
^y■, amu';
i.
Pinch Gut Creek restoration work during construction and five years after.
Candiff Creek Restoration Project, NCDMS, Surry County, NC. Michael Baker restored, enhanced and preserved
over 7,038 LF of degraded streams near Siloam, NC to provide mitigation credits and to improve water quality and stream
habitat on Candiff Creek and unnamed tributaries to Candiff Creek using natural channel design techniques. The project
streams had been heavily impacted from past agriculture activities. The streams were deeply incised and overly wide.
Bank erosion was severe throughout the majority of the project reaches. The project was completed in 2012 and is
currently in the fifth year of post -construction monitoring. The project included existing condition surveys, data analyses,
design development based on reference reaches, permitting, construction plans and specifications, on-site construction
management, and project management. The project design was based on Rosgen Priority Level I approach for restoring
incised stream channels. It included channel geometry and planform modifications based on reference reach data,
reconnecting the channel with its historic floodplain, in -stream structure installation, streambank stabilization, bio-
engineering and riparian vegetation planting and management.
Michael Baker
Views of Candiff Creek before and 4 years after restoration.

Mussell Gap Stream Mitigation Project
Catawba River Basin • RFP #16-006807 • Cataloging Unit D3050101
UT to Cane Creek Restoration Project, NCDMS, Alamance County, NC. As part of a NCDMS full -delivery project,
Michael Baker restored approximately 3,400 LF and enhancing approximately 2,900 LF of perennial and intermittent
stream channel in southeast Alamance County, North Carolina. The streams have been degraded primarily by agricultural
practices and associated cattle access. The project involved restoring two tributaries that drain headwater catchments of
452 acres and 80 acres, respectively. Rosgen Priority Level I and II Restoration approaches were part of the design to
restore access to an active floodplain. Enhancement Level I and 11 are also being employed to stabilize the streambanks
and profile. In -stream structures were included to provide stream stability and improve aquatic habitat and fisheries. The
restored riparian buffers adjacent to the streams will be protected through permanent fencing that excludes livestock.
Michael Baker conducted watershed analyses, performed existing condition and reference reach surveys, prepared the
mitigation plan, permitted the project, and provided construction oversight. Construction of the project was completed
in the summer of 2014 and the project is currently in monitoring year 3.
UT to Cane Creek existing conditions and during the first year after construction.
Upper Silver Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Project, NCDMS, Burke County, NC. Michael Baker restored
or enhanced 5,186 LF of perennial stream channel along Silver Creek and three unnamed tributaries (UT1, UT2, and UT3)
and restored, enhanced or created approximately 9.14 acres of wetlands that had been previously disturbed in Burke
County, NC. The streams and wetlands at this site had previously been disturbed by area gold mining operations, livestock,
and channelization. Streams at this site were restored by using a Rosgen Priority Level I approach and raising the channel
so that flows greater than bankfull can access the floodplain. This approach included developing a meandering channel
that had log and boulder structures installed to improve stability and to improve channel habitat. The stream restoration
approach also raised the groundwater level, thereby restoring wetland hydrology. Limited overburden was removed in
wetland areas where upland soils had been deposited. Stream channel buffers and wetlands were seeded with native
vegetation and trees were planted throughout the project easement area to develop a native forest habitat. Michael Baker
conducted watershed analyses, performed existing condition and reference reach surveys, prepared a mitigation plan,
prepared and submitted environmental permits, and provided construction oversight. Construction of the project was
completed December 2014, and the project is currently in monitoring year 2.
Upper Silver Creek existing conditions and during the first year after construction.
Michael BakerPage 9

Russell Gap Stream Mitigation Project
Catawba River Basin + RFP #16-006807 + Cataloging Unit 03050101
UT to Cooks Creek Mitigation Site, Mount Airy/Surry County Airport, Surry County, NC. Michael Baker restored,
enhanced and preserved over 5,200 LF of incised streams near Dobson, NC. The goal of the project was to provide stream
mitigation credits to offset impacts to jurisdictional stream channels associated with airport expansion and to improve
water quality and stream stability on an unnamed tributary to Cooks Creek using natural channel design techniques. The
project was completed in 2012 and is currently in the fourth year of post -construction monitoring. The project included
existing condition surveys, data analyses, design development based on reference reaches, permitting, construction plans
and specifications, on-site construction management, and project management. The project design was based on Rosgen
Priority Level I and II approaches for restoring incised stream channels. It included channel geometry modifications based
on reference reach data, bankfull benches, in -stream structure installation, streambank stabilization, bio -engineering and
riparian vegetation planting and management.
Views of UT to Cooks Creeks before and after restoration
Multidisciplinary Project Approach:
The goal of ecosystem restoration is to return the maximum amount of hydrologic and biological functioning to a degraded
stream and/or wetland system, given land use and landform constraints. Michael Baker's environmental scientists,
geomorphologists, geologists, soil scientists, and surveyors lead the efforts to document the existing conditions of the
projects site and document impairments and constraints. Engineers, designers, soil scientists, and biologists then develop
restoration designs that provide the maximum functional uplift within the site constraints. Planning personnel lead the
efforts for CE tasks and permitting requirements. Hydrologists and hydraulic engineers prepare models and analyses to
evaluate Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) requirements, flooding conditions, and sediment transport.
Several staff on the project organization chart have significant experience with regulatory review, including project close
out. Construction specialists perform constructability reviews to ensure designs are practical and can be constructed
efficiently. Construction experts, including foremen, equipment operators, laborers and vegetation specialists ensure that
sound, innovative and cost effective construction is employed in a timely manner. They are able to adapt to various
environmental and site conditions. After construction, surveyors and environmental scientists perform as -built and
monitoring surveys to document project conditions during the monitoring period. This multidisciplinary approach to
projects has been a primary factor in Michael Baker's successful track record with ecosystem restoration projects.

Recssell Gap Stream Mitigation Project
Catawba River Basin • RFP #16-006807 • Cataloging Unit D3050101
Resumes of Key Personnel:
Jacob (Jake) Byers, PE, NC Ecosystem Services Manager I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L
Project Role: Mr. Byers will serve as the Project Manager, Engineer of Record and lead designer for this project.
Education: BS, Biological Engineering, NC State University, 2007
Professional Registrations: Professional Engineer, NC, #039201, 2012; NCDOT Erosion & Sediment Control/Stormwater
Certification, #3179, 2012; USDA NRCS TSP, #TSP -14-9877
Continuing Education: Rosgen I, Rosgen II, Rosgen III
Mr. Byers serves as the Ecosystem Restoration Team Manager, with more than ten years of experience with analysis and
design of stream and wetland restoration projects and stormwater BMP projects. He has extensive experience as a leader
and as part of a team, in design and project management, client and agency technical coordination, sediment transport,
geomorphic assessment, construction oversight and inspection, and environmental permitting for numerous projects
along the east coast. Mr. Byers has served as project manager and Engineer of Record for a number of restoration projects
in North Carolina and the eastern US. He is currently the project manager for the NCDMS Candiff Creek Stream Restoration
Project. He has successfully designed and implemented stream restoration projects in varying physiographic provinces
from headwater coastal plain streams to large mountain rivers.
Robert (Bobby) Lewis, PE, NC Office Executive
Project Role: Mr. Lewis will be the Offeror's Representative for this project.
Education: BS, Civil Engineering, NC State University, 1995
Professional Registration: Professional Engineer, NC, #026992
Mr. Lewis joined Michael Baker after serving NCDOT for over 20 years in various leadership and engineering roles,
including Chief of Staff, Division Engineer, and Division Maintenance Engineer. His experience in administering,
implementing, and managing NCDOT's Capital Improvement Plan and Maintenance Program, provides him a unique
understanding of the quality and attention to detail that clients expect in project execution. His leadership experience will
significantly enhance his ability to ensure the best service and design solutions are provided for this project.
Kristi Suggs, Environmental Scientist
Project Role: Ms. Suggs will lead the development of the CE, permitting, and assist with post -construction monitoring.
Education: BS, Animal and Veterinary Science, WV University, 1995; MS, Earth and Environmental Resource Management,
University of SC, 2005
Continuing Education: Wetland Delineation and Jurisdictional Determination, 2008; Intermittent and Perennial Stream
Identification for Regulatory Applications, 2007; NC Stream Assessment Method (NCSAM) and NC Wetland Assessment
Method (NCWAM), 2016
Ms. Suggs has over 16 years of experience in watershed management, environmental compliance and planning, water
quality studies, and geographic information systems (GIS). As an environmental scientist for Michael Baker, she specializes
in environmental permitting, mitigation, watershed assessments and management, water quality planning, project
development and implementation, citizen/agency facilitation, and GIS mapping. She has served as the project manager
for the Town Creek, Big Cedar, Little River, and UT to Town Creek projects for NCDMS.
Scott King, LSS, PWS, Environmental Specialist
Project Role: Mr. King will assist with design, monitoring, and construction inspection.
Education: MS, Soil Science, NC State University, 2006; BS, Biology, The College of William of Mary, 1996
Professional Registrations: Licensed Soil Scientist, North Carolina, 2008; Professional Wetland Scientist, 2009 #1908
Continuing Education: NCSU Stream Restoration Program River Course workshops 101, 201, 401, 131, and 161, NCDWR's
Intermittent and Perennial Stream Identification for Riparian Buffer Rules, Rosgen I
Mr. King has a wide range of experience in the environmental field, specializing in water quality projects. He provides a
broad array of environmental services including stream and wetland restorations, GIS analysis, wetland delineations, soil
evaluations, stormwater BMP projects, and environmental permitting. He has worked on most of Michael Baker's
currently active stream restoration projects and is managing several NCDMS projects for Michael Baker, including UT to
Cane Creek and Thomas Creek. Mr. King previously worked as a watershed planner at the DMS, as a researcher in the
Department of Soil Science at NC State University, and as an environmental consultant specializing in wetlands issues.

Russell Gap Stream Mitigation Prgiect
Catawba River Basin • RFP #16-006807 • Cataloging Unit D3050101
Kathleen (Katie) McKeithan, PE, CPESC, CPSWQ, CFM, Senior Engineer
Project Role: Ms. McKeithan will assist with designs and construction inspection for this project.
Education: BS, Biological Engineering, NC State University, 1998
Professional Registrations: Professional Engineer, NC #028432; Certified Professional in Erosion and Sediment Control,
2005, 2546; Certified Professional Storm Water Quality, 2003, 135; Certified Floodplain Manager, North Carolina, 2010,
NC -10-0359; USDA NRCS TSP, #TSP -14-9852; NCDOT Level III: Designer of Erosion and Sediment Control Plans, #3121
Continuing Education: NCSU Forestry Identification of Intermittent and Perennial Streams and Their Origins, NCSU Aquatic
Insect Collection, Rosgen I, Rosgen II, Rosgen III, Rosgen IV.
Ms. McKeithan has 18 years of experience in the environmental field including stream and wetland restoration, planning,
design and construction inspection, erosion and sedimentation control, greenway planning and design, BMPs,
sustainability, and remediation projects. Ms. McKeithan has extensive knowledge of NCDMS projects, templates and
procedures and currently serves as the project manager for the Brown Creek Tributaries and Flea Hill projects for NCDMS.
Richard Darling, Senior Environmental Scientist
Project Role: Mr. Darling will assist with stream and wetland analysis and will provide senior review of protected species
surveys, permits, and monitoring reports.
Education: MS, Biological Science, Florida State University, 1986; BS, Zoology, University of Melbourne, 1983
Professional Registration: Certified Ecologist (Ecological Society of America #421)
Continuing Education: USACE Wetland Delineation, NCWAM, Rosgen I, NC Stream Identification, Aquatic Insect Collection
Mr. Darling is a senior environmental scientist with over 31 years of multi -disciplinary experience in natural resources
consulting. His background includes extensive technical direction and project management for environmental studies
including numerous protected species surveys, wetland delineations, riparian buffer determinations, wetland and stream
evaluations, Section 404/401 permitting and mitigation, documentation per the National and State (NC, FL, GA, and SC)
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA) requirements (EA, EIS). Recent focus has included stream evaluation and
classification, design of stream restoration and enhancement projects, and local watershed planning.
Micky Clemmons, Senior Environmental Scientist
Project Role: Mr. Clemmons will assist with designs, permitting and construction inspection for this project.
Education: MS, Biology, Western Carolina University 1987; BS, Marine Biology, UNC at Wilmington, 1984
Continuing Education: Rosgen I, Rosgen II, Rosgen III, Rosgen IV
Mr. Clemmons is a senior environmental scientist with Michael Baker. His responsibilities include stream restoration
design, aquatic ecology projects and project management. Prior to joining Michael Baker, Mr. Clemmons worked for 18
years with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) as a fisheries biologist and was the WRC's first Stream
Restoration Coordinator. With many years of experience in fisheries biology and management, stream ecology, and fluvial
geomorphology, Mr. Clemmons is experienced in conducting projects that optimize habitat value and benefit aquatic
species. Mr. Clemmons has been the project manager for many varied stream restoration and enhancement projects
throughout North Carolina and other eastern states.
Lucas Babbitt, PE, CFM, Water Resources Engineer
Project Role: Mr. Babbitt will provide design QA/QC for the project.
Education: MS, Water Resources Engineering, Colorado SU, 2005; BS, Civil Engineering, Colorado SU, 2004
Professional Registrations: Professional Engineer, CO, 2008, 42636; Certified Floodplain Manager, CO, 2007, 2704
Mr. Babbitt has experience in water resources engineering with responsibilities in project management, engineering
analysis, engineering design, and construction management. He has successfully directed and designed multiple projects
including stream restoration projects, large-scale stormwater master plans, watershed master plans, and flood control
projects. His areas of expertise include watershed planning, watershed and geomorphic assessments, watershed
hydrology, river mechanics, and natural channel design. Mr. Babbitt has managed and worked on multiple stream
restoration projects and watershed planning studies ranging from highly urbanized watersheds to rural areas. He has been
responsible for managing construction fees up to $5 million dollars and has a proven track record with resource, time, and
budget management.
Michael Baker Page 12

Russell Gap Stream Mitigation P1 giect
Catawba River Basin • RFP #16-006807 • Cataloging Unit D3050101
Dwayne Huneycutt, Environmental Scientist
Project Role: Mr. Huneycutt will lead the monitoring effort and yearly monitoring reports and will assist with stream and
wetland analysis.
Education: BS, Earth Science, UNC at Charlotte, 2001
Professional Registration: Wetland Certification Training, 2002
Continuing Education: NCDWR Methodology for Identification of Intermittent and Perennial Streams
Mr. Huneycutt has 16 years of experience in environmental planning, land use planning, hydrologic analysis, and fluvial
geomorphologic analysis. At Michael Baker, he provides technical support in the design, construction, and monitoring of
stream and wetland restoration and enhancement projects. He is also experienced in project management and
assessment for use in stormwater planning and water quality improvements.
Bill Wright, Vice President
Project Role: Mr. Wright will serve as the Construction Manager.
Education: BS, Agronomy, NC State University, 1974
Professional Registration: North Carolina General Contractors License 54912 (Building, Highway), H (Excavation and
Grading), PU (Water and Sewer Lines), and PU (Water Purification and Sewage Disposal)
Continuing Education: River Restoration Design Implementation by Wildland Hydrology, 1994
Mr. Wright joined the River Works team as Vice President in February 2007. He has been involved in a construction
management and project estimating capacity for over 216,000 feet of stream and 1,780 acres of wetlands improvements
while working at River Works. Prior to joining River Works, Mr. Wright served six years as manager of the Stream
Restoration and Wetland Construction Program at Shamrock Environmental Corporation.
Phillip Todd, Project Development Coordinator
Project Role: Mr. Todd will assist with project development from the construction aspect for this project.
Education: Master of Public Administration, NC State University, 2002; BS, Biology, NC State University, 1993
Continuing Education: Rosgen I, Rosgen II, Rosgen III
Mr. Todd joined River Works in October 2011 as Project Development Coordinator. Prior to coming to River Works, Mr.
Todd worked over 6 years with an engineering firm where he served as program manager, project manager, technical
expert and resource agencies coordinator for stream restoration, wetland restoration, planting plans, stream monitoring,
wetland delineation, stream delineation, environmental permitting and NEPA documentation.
George Morris, Vegetation Specialist
Project Role: Mr. Morris will lead the effort for all vegetation and planting components of the project.
Education: BS, Agriculture and Plant Science, University of Delaware at Newark, 1985
Professional Registrations: NC Pesticide Applicators License (subclass L and A) #5440, NC Landscape Contractors'
Registration, Registered Professional Plantsman
Mr. Morris oversees soil bioengineering and riparian buffer, wetland, and BMP planting for restoration projects. He also
oversees invasive plant species removal for various projects. Mr. Morris has a strong background in horticulture and
landscaping with native plant species.
Nathan Carter, Site Superintendent
Project Role: Mr. Carter will be a site superintendent during construction for this project.
Mr. Carter joined the River Works team as a site superintendent in October 2007 and has been the superintendent for
dozens of stream and wetland restoration projects. Prior to joining River Works, Mr. Carter served 7 years as project
superintendent for the Remediation Construction Program at Shamrock Environmental Corporation. This work included
supervision of all site activities in construction of municipal waste landfills and closures in NC, SC, VA, MI and TN. Other
work included the supervision of cleanup of environmentally impacted areas, the installation of storm drain systems, tank
removal and stream restoration.
M M Page 13
1N T E R N A T 1.Q 4 AL

Russell Gap Stream Mitigation Project
Catawba River Basin e RFP #16-006807 e Cataloging Unit 03050101
Brad Kee, CFS, PLS, Survey
Project Role: Mr. Kee will oversee and lead the effort for all surveying for this project.
Education: BS, GIS, Appalachian State University in 1997; Surveying Technology,
Asheville—Buncombe Technical Community College, 2003
Professional Registrations: Professional Land Surveyor, NC 4647; Certified Floodplain Surveyor, NC -204
Mr. Kee began his career as a GPS Technician at Dinosaur National Monument. He then became a GIS Technician for
Analytical Surveys, Inc., a private provider of data conversion and computerized mapping services to the GIS industry. Mr.
Kee's love for the outdoors influenced his decision to become a land surveyor in 1999. He has over 16 years of experience
in GIS mapping and land surveying as well asa dedicated and skilled staff that add to the increased success of the company.
Nolan Carmack, CFS, PLS, Survey
Project Role: Mr. Carmack will support the surveying for this project.
Education: BS, Geography from Appalachian State University, 2006; Associates Degree in Survey Technology, 2011
Professional Registrations: Certified Floodplain Surveyor, NC -202; Professional Land Surveyor, NC 5076
Mr. Carmack moved to Asheville to complete his Associates Degree in Survey Technology in order to further his knowledge
in the field. He is a licensed professional in North Carolina and Tennessee as well as a Floodplain Surveyor.
DBE/HUB Participation: Michael Baker does not have an agreement with a DBE/HUB certified firm for this project.
Part 4. Project Organization:
Qualifications & Responsibilities: For all personnel assigned to this project, please see the resumes in Part 3.
Proposed Staffing, Deployment & Organization
I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L
I RobertLewis,PE(B.}
I- 9. �� I- F III
Lucas Babbitt, PE, CFM (B} Richard Darling (B) Jacob Byers, PE (B)
Jacob Byers, PE (B)
Kathleen McKeithan, PE, CPESC,
CPSWC4 CFM (B)
Scott King, LSS, PWS (B)
Kristi Suggs (B)
Micky Clemmons(B)
Jacob Byers, PE (B)
Kathleen McKeithan, PE,
CPESC, CPSWQ, CFM (B)
Brad Kee, CFM, PES (K)
Richard Darling (B)
Scott King, LSS, PWS (B)
Bill Wright(RW)
Nolan Carmack, CFM, PES (K)
Dwayne Huneycutt(B)
Kristi Suggs (B)
Phillip Todd (RW)
Jacob Byers, PE (B)
Micky Clemmons (B)
ScottKing, LSS, PWS (B)
George Morris (RW)
Kristi Suggs (0)
Nathan Ca rte r (RW)
I
Brad Kee, CFM, PLS (K) Dwayne Huneycutt (B)
Nolan Carmack, CFM, PLS (K)
Scott King, LSS, PWS (B)
Kristi Suggs (B)
I` (R) Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
17
,4'Vlg,— (RW)RiverWorks,Inc.
(K) Kee Mapping&cSurveying
Michael Baker
Jacob Byers, PE (B)
Kathleen McKeithan, PE, CPESC,
CPSWC4 CFM (B)
Scott King, LSS, PWS (B)
Kristi Suggs (B)
Micky Clemmons(B)

1
� � k
_P y
L � u
Russell Gap Stream Mitigation Prgieet
Catawba River Basin • RFP #16-006807 • Cataloging Unit D3050101
Personnel with Similar Experience: Shown in the table below are team personnel who worked on the projects in Part 3.
WY
a)
4J
c
++
41
v
Y
•O
Cu
i
v
O
cu
v
eOi
a
.c
v
V
H in
U
O
++
�'
V
=
0
Z,
>
—
c
ra
0
Z,
o c
,�
O O
I^
t
UQ
O
v
O
++
O
v
0
tA
O
++
Name
ao°Jc
ua
Ma)
CL
Cu
CC
D�
Jacob Byers, PE
•
Scott King, LSS, PWS
•
Kathleen McKeithan, PE, CPESC, CPSWQ, CFM
•
Micky Clemmons
•
Richard Darling
•
Kristi Suggs
•
Dwayne Huneycutt
•
Bill Wright (Riverworks)
•
Phillip Todd (Riverworks)
•
George Morris (Riverworks)
•
Nathan Carter (Riverworks)
•
Brad Kee, CFS, PLS (Kee)
•
•
Nolan Carmack, CFS, PLS (Kee)
•
•
•
•

Part 5. Technical Approach
Mussell Gap Stream Mitigation Project
Catawba River Basin • RFP #16-006807 • Cataloging Unit D3050101
5.1. Project Goals & Objectives
The Russell Gap Stream Mitigation Project will provide numerous water quality and ecological benefits on-site and within
the Davis Creek and East Prong of the Lower Little River Watersheds, which drain to the Catawba River and then into
Lookout Shoals Lake, a drinking water supply for the City of Statesville. While many of these benefits are limited to the
project area, others, such as nutrient removal, sediment reduction, and improved aquatic and terrestrial habitat, have
more far-reaching effects, potentially extending downstream to the Catawba River and beyond. Implementing this project
on a stream draining into the 303(d) listed Lower Little River (which is also classified as a Water Supply (WS) IV in its lower
reaches) will meet five of the seven major CU -wide functional improvement goals by:
• Reducing nutrient inputs;
• Reducing sediment input;
• Reducing fecal coliform inputs;
• Restoring, improving, and protecting degraded aquatic habitat; and
• Implementing agricultural BMPs and stream restoration in predominantly agricultural/rural watersheds.
As stated previously, the project is located within TLW 03050101-120010. Expected improvements to water quality,
hydrology, and habitat are outlined below as project goals.
NCDMS's broad focus points include maintaining and enhancing
NCDMS's broad focus includes:
water quality, restoring hydrology, and protecting fish and wildlife
habitat. The Russell Gap Stream Mitigation Project meets each of Maintaining and enhancing water quality
these broad focus points. It will enhance water quality by reducing Restoring hydrology
nutrient and sediment inputs through the project area. Hydrology Protecting fish and wildlife habitat
will be restored to wetland restoration areas by implementing
Priority Level I Restoration to raise the existing stream bed, and aquatic and terrestrial habitat will be protected through
livestock exclusion and a permanent conservation easement in excess of 50 feet along all proposed stream and wetland
restoration/enhancement areas.
The project is located adjacent to the Brushy Mountain Macrosite, which was included in the Inventory of the Significant
Natural Areas of Alexander County NCNHP (2012). NCNHP no longer lists macrosites as Significant Natural Areas, but the
macrosite still retains its largely undeveloped character. There are also three Significant Natural Areas in the immediate
vicinity of the project area: Upper Fork Little River, Brushy Mountains; Sugarloaf Mountain; and Bald Rock Mountain (see
Figure 15). The proposed project would extend the area covered by the Brushy Mountain Macrosite downstream to a
riparian wetland/stream complex.
The NCNHP 2012 report states that the Brushy Mountain macrosite is home to populations of pink thoroughwort
(Fleischmannia incarnate) and striped garlic (Allium cuthbertii), both of which are a state listed threatened species, as well
as Wright's cliff -brake (Pellaea wrightiana), which is state listed as endangered. The project will improve potential habitats
for these species throughout the project area, continuing the wildlife corridor from the macrosite. In addition, the state
listed threatened Rafinesque's big -eared bat - Mountain subspecies (Corynorhinus rafinesquii rafinesquii) is listed as having
occurred in Alexander County. The project will protect and preserve high-quality in -stream and riparian habitat on multiple
reaches through a permanent conservation easement. This will extend the wildlife corridor from the upland areas of the
Brushy Mountain Macrosite along a riparian valley with hydric soils, providing additional habitat diversity to the area.
Potential habitat for the bog turtle (Glyptemys muhlenbergii), which is state listed as threatened and federally listed as
threatened due to similarity of appearance (T/SA), will also be restored by wetland restoration within the proposed
riparian buffers, and protected through livestock exclusion and a permanent conservation easement. As stated previously,
the documented hydric soils along areas of the project reaches will provide valuable habitat for bog turtle and other state -
listed species. A structural wetland BMP and agricultural BMPs in the forms of fencing livestock water boxes will be
installed to remove direct nutrient and sediment contamination from the project streams and wetlands.
Michael Baker

Russell Gap Stream Mitigation Prgiect
Catawba River Basin • RFP #16-006807 • Cataloging Unit D3050101
Michael Baker
Nutrient removal
e riparian stream buffer —Excess nutrients and pollutants in the form of fecal coliform, phosphorus
7and
rogen from cattle waste and other agriculture practices are entering the project reaches without
flowing through adequate riparian buffers. Fully functioning riparian buffers will be established and
permanently protected to filter runoff containing excess nutrients and pollutants before entering the
project reaches.
Livestock exclusion — Cattle have unrestricted access to 25 of the 27 stream reaches (See Figure 13) and all
of the degraded wetland areas. Exclusion of livestock through easements and permanent fencing would
remove a direct source of nutrients and fecal coliform inputs to the aquatic resource.
Structural wetland BMP —A wetland BMP will be constructed in the wallow area near the upstream extents
of R9. This BMP will remove nutrients though plant uptake and microbial activity. Cattle will be excluded
from the BMP to prevent direct pollutant inputs.
Sediment removal
Restore proper channel form — Streams with proper dimension, pattern, and profile will efficiently
transport sediment and allow for deposition on point bars and on the floodplain. In addition, the design
will prevent degradation by arresting and repairing headcuts, dissipating energy over proper riffle and pool
and/or step -pool, sequences, and by dissipating stream energy with overbank flooding for storms greater
than bankfull.
Construct in -stream structures — In -stream structures such as cross vanes, single arm vanes, and j -hooks
divert shear stress from the banks to the center of the channel during storm events thus reducing bank
erosion. Based on preliminary site assessments, stream bank erosion is a main contributor of sediment and
Total Suspended Solids within the project area and to downstream reaches.
Livestock exclusion — Stream banks are eroding from livestock access to the streams. Livestock will be
excluded from the stream and wetland areas with construction of a permanent fence system encompassing
the conservation easement areas.
Restore riparian stream buffer — 26 of the 27 project reaches are lacking a mature, wide riparian buffer. As
a result, stream banks are actively eroding and introducing sediment to the stream. A restored riparian
buffer will increase root mass within stream banks, thus decreasing bank erosion and sedimentation.
Stream bank bioengineering —Construction of geolifts, brush mattresses, brush layers, installation of live
stakes, and other bioengineering practices will re-establish a healthy root mass along the stream banks,
thus preventing erosion and excess sediment delivery to the stream.
Improved
Restore proper channel form — Restored channel dimension, pattern, and profile will ensure adequate bed
substrate and
load and suspended sediment transport according to sediment supply, valley type and valley slope.
in -stream cover
Appropriate sediment transport will ensure riffle substrate is adequately transported and excessive
degradation or aggradation does not occur.
Construct in -stream structures — Construction of in -stream structures, which are designed to improve
bedform diversity, increase dissolved oxygen, and trap detritus, will improve in -stream cover and aquatic
habitat.
Livestock exclusion — Exclusion of livestock will reduce in -stream sediment from bank erosion, which
impairs channel substrate and destroys habitat for macro -invertebrates. Excess nutrients from cattle waste
will also be eliminated.
Reduce water
Restore riparian stream buffer — A restored and protected riparian stream buffer will increase shading of
temperature
the project stream reaches. The increased shade will decrease water temperatures.
Stream bank bioengineering— Bioengineering such as geolifts and stream bank live staking will provide tree
canopy and shading to the stream and reduce water temperatures.
Michael Baker

Russell Gap Stream Mitigation Project
Catawba River Basin + RFP #16-006807 + Cataloging Unit 03050101
Michael Baker
Improve aquatic
Aquatic habit will be improved from each previously listed goal. If all goals are achieved, the project will
habitat
realize maximum aquatic habitat improvement and ecological uplift.
Improved
Riparian buffers and restored riparian wetlands will decrease runoff rates and increase infiltration of
floodwater
precipitation into the local ground water. In addition, the restored stream reaches will have increased access
retention
to their floodplains, which will be wider, allowing floodwater energy to dissipate over the floodplain and
floodwater retention time to increase.
Restoration of
Riparian buffer planting and streambank bioengineering will improve terrestrial habitat throughout the
terrestrial habitat
entire conservation easement.
Improved
Restore riparian wetland and stream buffer vegetation — Areas where the riparian wetland and stream
aesthetics
buffer vegetation has been removed, are being heavily grazed by livestock, have low plant diversity, or are
of low quality will be replanted with native riparian vegetation. Removing exotic plant species and planting
native woody and herbaceous plants will greatly improve site aesthetics.
Livestock exclusion — Livestock exclusion will reduce unsightly bank erosion and livestock waste from the
project area.
Restore proper channel form — Restoring stable channel dimension, pattern, and profile will decrease
unsightly bank erosion and restore a more natural aesthetic appearance to project reaches.
Improved
Priority Level I Restoration will restore wetland hydrology and active flows to areas that have been
wetland function
historically manipulated. Enhancement Level I activities will also improve degraded riparian wetland though
no credit is being requested for these areas. Native species of riparian wetland vegetation will be planted.
Livestock will be permanently excluded from the wetland areas, which will eliminate hoof shear, degradation
of hydric soils structure, and nutrient inputs associated with livestock. Existing jurisdictional wetlands inside
of the conservation easement will also be planted with native wetland species to provide further functional
uplift.
Michael Baker

Russell Gap Stream Mitigation Project
Catawba River Basin + RFP #16-006807 + Cataloging Unit 03050101
5.2. Project Description
The project is located in Alexander County in
the community of Russell Gap. The project site
is located in the TLW 03050101-120010 of the
Catawba River Basin (Figure 1). The project
includes Davis Creek, UTs to Davis Creek, the
East Prong Lower Little River, and UTs to East
Prong Lower Little River, each of which are
tributaries to the Catawba River. The East Prong
Little River flows into the Lower Little River,
which is included in the North Carolina 2014 list
of impaired waters for aquatic life impairment
(303(d)). Davis Creek, the East Prong Little
River, and Lower Little River at its confluence
with the East Prong Lower Little River, are listed
as Class C waters. Just outside of Taylorsville,
Lower Little River is listed as a WS -IV water.
Michael Baker first visited the Russell Gap
Stream Mitigation site in September 2014 and
has been monitoring the site since. Continued
degradation mainly in the form of bank erosion
and increased livestock pressure is evident
throughout the majority of the project.
Each of the project reaches have been heavily
impacted from historic land use practices,
predominantly livestock production, and other
agricultural uses. Within the project area,
approximately 85 percent of the stream banks
have inadequate (less than 50 feet wide)
riparian buffers. Figure 16 shows the most
recent aerial photography with clearly narrow
and/or absent riparian buffers. Livestock hoof
shear, lack of deep rooted woody vegetation
and storm flow shear stresses have severely
impacted the stream banks along the project
stream reaches.
The lack of adequate and quality buffer
vegetation, past land use disturbances, and
current livestock activities present a significant
opportunity for water quality and ecosystem
functional uplift through the implementation of
this project.
The Russell Gap Stream Mitigation Project will
provide maximum possible functional uplift to all reaches, and appropriately addresses all of the intermittent and
perennial stream reaches on the project property. All reaches within the proposed design are being addressed such that
the maximum uplift for water quality, habitat, and stability for the site will be achieved. Reaches with mature native trees
are proposed for enhancement or very limited tree removal. Buffer areas include significant areas wider than the
regulatory requirements.
FOTIRRIM Page 20
1 N T E R 9 A T 1© N A L

Russell Gap Stream Mitigation Project
Catawba River Basin + RFP #16-006807 • Cataloging Unit 03050101
Based on a review of the Natural Heritage Program (NHP) and the US Fish and Wildlife Service databases, there are three
currently listed threatened or endangered species known to occur in Alexander County, the bog turtle (Glyptemys
muhlenbergii), the northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) and dwarf -flowered heartleaf (Hexastylis naniflora).
The project site is not utilized by anadromous fish species. Habitat for both the dwarf -flowered heartleaf and the bog
turtle include bogs and wetlands along riparian corridors. Bog turtle habitat also includes old saturated drainage ditches
like the ones included within the conservation easement between R4 and R9. This project will improve and protect both
habitats for these threatened species.
According to the 2010 Catawba River Basinwide Plan, the project is located within the Lookout Shoals Lake watershed
0305010110. Issues associated with the watershed include excess nutrients, and the impairments to aquatic life noted in
the Lower Little River. The 2010 Basinwide Plan states that the biological community within the Lower Little River
watershed is unstable due to environmental conditions. Significant amounts of fecal coliform bacteria were noted, as were
signs of a long-term drop in pH. The Lower Little River watershed drains into Lookout Shoals Lake (Elk Shoal Creek), which
is the water supply for the City of Statesville.
The project is also located in the Lower Little River Targeted Local Watershed (03050101-120010) as stated previously.
This watershed is labeled as the Lower Little River in the 2009 Upper Catawba River Basin Restoration Priorities. This
document states that major aquatic stressors are degraded or non-existent buffers, sediment inputs from unstable
streambanks, and agricultural practices. The proposed project will address each of the these stressors providing the
maximum amount of functional uplift and is consistent with the river basin restoration goals for the Upper Catawba River
Basin.
In addition to the Brushy Mountain Macrosite, there are three additional Natural Heritage Elements in the vicinity of the
project: the Upper Fork Little River, Sugarloaf Mountain, and Bald Rock Mountain sites. Protection and restoration of the
Russell Gap site will assist in maintaining a connection between these important, privately held sites.
Figures 2 and 4 show the existing topography within the project area. NRCS soils information for the project is shown in
Figure 3. The proposed conservation easement area has the potential to encompass more than 38 acres of land that
includes livestock pastures and narrow forested buffer lands.
The streams on the project site were broken into 27 project reaches totaling approximately 12,500 LF of existing streams,
(R1, R2, R3, R4a, R4, R5, R6, R7, R8, R9, R10, R11, R12, R13, R14, R15, R16, R17, R18, R19, R20, R21, R22, R23, R24, R25,
and R26), based on being separate streams, drainage area breaks at confluences, changes in restoration/enhancement
approach, or changes in intermittent/perennial stream status.
Field evaluations determined that project reaches R1 through R10, along with reaches R12, R14, R19, R20, R21, R22, R25
and R26 are perennial streams. Project Reaches R11, R13, R15, R16, R17, R18, R23, and R24 were determined through
field evaluations to be intermittent streams (Figure 17). The presence of historic valleys for each of the project stream
reaches can be seen from LIDAR imagery for the site (Figure 4), and are obvious during field investigations.
Field evaluations of intermittent/perennial stream status were made in November 2014 and May 2016. These evaluations
were based on the North Carolina Division of Water Quality's (NCDWQ, now known as the North Carolina Division of Water
Resources, NCDWR) Methodology for Identification of Intermittent and Perennial Streams and Their Origins, (v 4.11,
Effective Date: September 1, 2010) stream assessment protocols. Table 1 below presents the results of the field
evaluations along with the assessed status of each project reach. Copies of the supporting field forms are available upon
request.
Page 21
1 N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L

Russell Gap Stream Mitigation Prgiect
I Aft'
� Catawba River Basin • RFP #16-006807 • Cataloging Unit 03050101
Table 1. Summary Information for Field Investigations to Determine Intermittent/Perennial Status.
Project Reach
Designation
Existing Project
Reach Length (ft.)
NCDWQ StreamWatershed
Classification Form
Score 1
Drainage
Area (acres) Z
Stream Status Based on Field
Analyses
R1
1947
41.50
934.0
Perennial
R2
177
30+
1056.0
Perennial
R3
388
30+
2227.0
Perennial
R4a
560
30+
716.0
Perennial
R4
1771
41.25
806.0
Perennial
R5
256
42.00
154.0
Perennial
R6
684
38.50
186.0
Perennial
R7
1396
38.50
288.0
Perennial
R8
437
38.50
333.0
Perennial
R9
421
35.50
352.0
Perennial
R1O
371
30.50
17.3
Perennial
R11
481
23.00
14.1
Intermittent
R12
86
34.50
115.0
Perennial
R13
124
27.75
20.7
Intermittent
R14
512
35.00
22.4
Perennial
R15
84
25.25
18.7
Intermittent
R16
129
21.00
25.5
Intermittent
R17
110
21.00
26.2
Intermittent
R18
164
29.00
14.1
Intermittent
R19
454
36.75
22.3
Perennial
R2O
206
35.00
8.9
Perennial
R21
67
34.25
32.5
Perennial
R22
202
30.50
2.7
Perennial
R23
375
27.25
3.6
Intermittent
R24
169
26.50
7.2
Intermittent
R25
422
39.50
29.0
Perennial
R26
548
41.00
31.5
Perennial
Note 1: NCDWQ Stream Classification forms are available upon request for the streams listed above.
Note 2: Watershed drainaqe area is approximated based on topographic and LIDAR information at the downstream end of each reach.

Russell Gap Stream Mitigation Project
Catawba River Basin + RFP #16-006807 + Cataloging Unit 03050101
Visual inspections of the stream substrate materials
were conducted for each reach. The project site
consists of gravel/cobble bed streams. Due to
downcutting from headcut migration, some reaches
have bedrock knickpoints controlling the grade of
the channel. In addition, pebble counts were
conducted on reaches R1, R4, R6, and R9 in the
locations of surveyed cross sections. This data
shows that the critical shear stress along the
channel bed in the current condition is significantly
greater than the shear stress required to initiate
motion of the largest particles found in the riffle
pebble counts. Along all four reaches analyzed, the
existing critical shear stress would initiate the
motion of a particle more than twice the diameter
of the largest particle in the pebble count. This is
evidence that the reaches would continue to
degrade without intervention unless bedrock or
culverts are controlling the channel bed elevations.
These are preliminary calculations and more
detailed calculations, modeling and analysis will be
conducted during the design phase of the project.
This will include a more detailed sediment size distribution including bar samples, entrainment and competance
calculations using Watershed Assessment of River Stability and Sediment Supply (WARSSS) methodologies, and a Bedload
Assessment in Gravel -bedded Streams (BAGS) analysis to provide converging lines of evidence of the current conditions
of the system and stability of the system as designed from a sediment transport view point.
The project will address erosion on all of the unstable intermittent and perennial stream reaches on the project properties
and future supplies of gravel and other sediment from on-site channel erosion is expected to be reduced significantly.
Consequently, constructed riffles will be incorporated in the design with larger rock sizes that will be immobile during
storm events. The constructed riffles will also increase dissolved oxygen content, provide aquatic habitat and assurance
that the restored channel will not degrade over time. Further discussion of sediment transport analysis is provided in
Section 5.3.
Michael Baker conducted field studies to evaluate and document the existing conditions of the site, as well as each project
stream reach. These studies included field evaluations, photographic documentation, cross section surveys, GPS surveys
of pertinent site features. Field -work dependant sections of the NCDMS's Technical Proposal Evaluation Criteria Catawba
03050101 Rating Form for RFP# 16-006807 and all of the mapping and calculation of associated statistics in accordance
with NCDMS's Guidance for the Submission of Mapping and Associated Statistics in Technical Proposals were completed.
Copies of the completed rating forms, described above, are included in the appendices. The results of the existing
condition cross section surveys and/or visual field analysis were used to conduct geomorphic stream classification for the
project stream reaches and preliminary sediment transport analysis. The results of the existing condition cross sections
surveys are summarized in Table 2. The results of the field evaluations and GPS surveys of pertinent site features were
used in conjunction with available GIS data to develop mapping.
Submitted figures include time -series historical aerial photography (Figures 8 and 9), recent aerial photography with
topography (Figure 5) and proposed mitigation features/measures (Figure 6), pre -monitoring features (Figure 7), channel
stability mapping (Figure 10, 11a, and 11b), site floodplain alteration mapping (Figure 12), water quality stressors mapping
(Figure 13), watershed planning contextual mapping (Figure 14), and mapping of adjacent and proximal planning elements
(Figure 15).

Russell Gap Stream Mitigation Project
Catawba River Basin + RFP #16-006807 + Cataloging Unit 03050101
Table 2. Summary of Existing Condition Cross section Survey Data.
Project Reach
Designation
Watershed Drainage
Area (acres) 1
Entrenchment Ratio
Width/Depth Ratio
Typical Bank Height Ratio
R1
934.0
>6.4
7.3
1.2
R23
1056.0
>2.2
<12
1.1
R3
2227.0
2.5
9.4
1.0
R4a3
716.0
2.3
<12
1.2
R4
806.0
2.1
6.9
1.2
R53
154.0
>2.2
>12
1.1
R6
186.0
1.3
4.0
2.7
R7
288.0
2.7
6.4
1.1
R83
333.0
>2.2
>12
1.0
R9
352.0
2.3
11.1
1.4
R103
17.3
>2.2
<12
1.1
R113
14.1
<1.4
<12
1.5
R123
115.0
>2.2
<12
1.3
R133
20.7
1.4-2.2
>12
1.0
R14
22.4
1.2
4.0
4.0
R153
18.7
>2.2
<12
1.2
R163
25.5
1.4-2.2
>12
1.2
R173
26.2
>2.2
>12
1.1
R183
14.1
>2.2
<12
1.0
R193
22.3
1.4-2.2
>12
1.4
R203
8.9
1.3
<12
2.0
R213
32.5
1.4-2.2
>12
1.1
R223
2.7
1.4-2.2
<12
1.7
R233
3.6
>2.2
<12
1.2
R243
7.2
>2.2
<12
1.0
R253
29.0
>2.2
<12
1.2
R263
31.5
>2.2
<12
1.0
Note 1: Watershed drainage area is approximated based on USGS topographic and LIDAR information. Note 2: Cross section
locations are shown in Figure 7. Note 3: Geomorphic parameters of these reaches are based on best professional judgment and quick
field measurements. Surveyed cross sections were not conducted on these reaches.

R1 extends from the upstream terminus of the
project near Russell Gap Road, downstream to the
confluence with R14 near the downsteam property
line. R1 is a perennial channel with a stream length
of approximately 1,947 feet, valley slope of 1
percent and a drainage area of 934 acres. R1 does
not appear to be incising any further rapidly and
has coarse gravel substrate within the riffles and
bank height ratios ranging from 1.0 to 1.2. This is
likely due to the culverts controlling the grade
along the reach preventing further downcutting.
Preliminary sediment transport analysis shows
that the current stream channel will initiate the
movement of particle much larger then the largest
particles found in the samples. Cattle have
unrestricted access to the streams and the
streambanks lack an adequate riparian buffer.
Lateral instability was observed throughout the
reach and active erosion is present on
approximately 50 - 60 percent of the streambanks.
The observed erosion is typically in the form of
Russell Gap Stream Mitigation PY iect
Catawba River Basin • RFP #16-006807 • Cataloging Unit D3050101
bank scour and slumping caused by an excessive near bank shear stress during storm events; direct, unrestricted livestock
access; and from the lack of woody vegetation along the stream banks. A majority of the R1 stream pattern meanders
throughout the valley floor; although, the sinuosity is low for a channel in this valley and floodplain alterations suggest
the stream has been manipulated. Hydric soils were identified throughout the valley during the soils investigations, and
the site likely supported a highly functioning riparian stream and wetland system prior to human disturbances (See Hydric
Soils Report in Appendices). The existing sinuosity is 1.13 and it is likely that channel straightening may have taken place
prior to 1940. R1 has very few mature trees along the streambanks; however, all existing trees will be saved as part of the
restoration design to the extent possible. Based on existing conditions and coarse gravel substrate, R1 is classified as an
incised E4 stream type.
R2 begins at a culvert pipe crossing at Mount Olive Church Road and flows south to its confluence with R4. The existing
length of R2 is approximately 177 feet. R2 has a drainage area of 1,056 acres. Stream bank erosion on R2 is 30 to 40
percent and it lacks woody vegetation along the stream banks. R2 has been degraded through the removal of the riparian
buffer vegetation, the culvert pipe installation, and current cattle access. R2 is slightly incised, with BHRs near I.I. Mature
woody vegetation is absent along the entire length of R2. Native species vegetation such as tag alder are present along
the streambanks and will be transplanted as part of enhancement activities. R2's floodplain upstream of the conservation
easement has been altered to accommodate the road crossing and farm road access. R2 is actively subject to water quality
stressors, mainly in the form of cattle access and riparian buffers that are less than 5 feet in width. Based on existing
conditions, R2 has a Rosgen stream type classification of E4.
R3 begins at the confluence of R2 and R4. The drainage area for Reach R3 is approximately 2,227 acres. The existing length
of R3 is approximately 388 feet. Bank erosion on R3 is present on approximately 20 to 30 percent of the streambanks. The
observed erosion is typically in the form of localized bank scour caused by excessive near bank shear stress during storm
events, cattle hoof shear, and lack of woody vegetation along the stream banks. R3 has been degraded through the
removal of the riparian buffer vegetation, past floodplain alteration, and current cattle access. The degree of incision
along R3 is minimal, with a BHR of 1.0. Mature woody vegetation is absent along most of R3, with exception of the last
100 feet as it flows off the property into a mature riparian buffer. The channel slope is just under 1 percent. The reach is
vertically stable as the substrate transitions from fine gravel to a bedrock feature near the downstream terminus. The
majority of R3 is actively subject to water quality stressors, mainly resulting from unrestricted cattle access and riparian
buffers that are less than 5 feet in width. This reach has a Rosgen stream type classification of E4 in poor condition.
Michael BakerPage 25

Mussell Gap Stream Mitigation Project
Catawba River Basin • RFP #16-006807 • Cataloging Unit D3050101
R4a begins at the upstream eastern terminus of the
project at a property line as an E4b perennial
channel. The reach flows inside the proposed
conservation easement for approximately 560 feet.
There is a section of 114a not included within the
conservation easement due to an existing barn and
road which the landowners continue to use. The
stream reach outside of the proposed conservation
easement is predomitately stable and no further
landuse changes are expected that may have
detrimental effects to the remainder of R4a. R4a has
minor bank erosion where livestock access the
stream. Streambanks are vegetated with alders but
only for a width of approximately 5 to 10 feet.
R4 begins upstream of R3 and flows southwest for
approximately 1,771 feet past a culverted crossing to
the confluence with R2 and R3. The drainage area is
approximately 806 acres. Bank erosion on R4 is
present on approximately 30 to 40 percent of the
streambanks. The observed erosion is typically in the form of bank scour caused by an excess in near bank shear stresses
during storm events, hoof shear, and the lack of woody vegetation along the stream banks. R4 has been degraded through
the removal of the riparian buffer vegetation, past channelization, and cattle access. The degree of incision along R4 is
variable, with SHRs ranging from 1.1 to 1.5. Mature woody vegetation is absent along the entire length of R4. R4's
floodplain has been altered, as evidenced by remant spoil piles interspersed throughout its length. Portions of R4 are
laterally unstable due to the lack of deep rooting vegetation. R4 no longer has access to its active floodplain during flood
events. However, the observed bed stability has helped portions of the reach form floodplain benches and inner berm
features at a lower elevation within the channel. The entire length of R4 is subject to active water quality stressors, mainly
resulting from unresticted cattle access and absent riparian buffers. The valley slope throughout R4 is approximately 1.2
percent and the reach is classified as a Rosgen E4b stream type, but is in in poor condition, moderately incised and does
not have a higher sinuosity commonly associated with E stream types.
R5 begins at a culvert crossing near the southernmost part of the project area and flows north for approximately 256 feet
to the beginning of R6. The perennial channel has a drainage area of approximately 154 acres. The channel is a mostly
stable C4b stream type with BHRs ranging from 1.1 to 1.2. The riparian buffer consists of mature trees and shrubs mostly
along the the right streambank, but the vegetated buffer becomes marginal and insufficient as the reach transitions into
an area that has experienced recent logging activities. Bank erosion on R5 is present on approximately 30 to 40 percent
of the streambanks. The observed erosion is in the form of localized bank erosion caused by an excess in near bank shear
stresses during storm events. The floodplain has been altered in some locations as shown by the presence of berms
adjacent to R5, likely resulting from the logging activities. The downstream portion of R5 is subject to active water quality
stressors, mainly in the form of riparian buffers that are less than 30 feet in width and cattle access.
R6 begins at the downstream of R5 and continues north for approximately 684 feet until its confluence near R18, where
R7 begins. The drainage area for R6 is approximately 186 acres. The channel is classified as a G4 stream type and currently
incised with BHRs ranging from 2.0 to 3.0. Multiple headcuts were observed throughout its length and the channel is
vertically unstable. The active channel appears to have been moved to the right edge of the valley and an adjacent
abandoned channel was observed in the lower part of the valley. The valley slope is approximately 2.4 percent and the
channel does not have access to its geomorphic floodplain; therefore, it will likely continue to degrade, contributing excess
sediment to the watershed. This is evident through the bare vertical banks and mass wasting that occurs for approximately
90 to 100 percent of the stream length. The riparian buffer has scattered small trees and shrubs along the streambank,
but has been recently disturbed and the vegetated buffer width is insufficient. The observed erosion is both in the form
of bank scour and mass wasting, from the lack of woody vegetation along the stream banks and lack of grade control
features.
Page 26
INTERNATIONAL

The floodplain has been altered as indicated
by the presence of a linear berm along the left
stream bank. The entire length of R6 is actively
subject to water quality stressors, mainly in
the form of cattle access and riparian buffers
that are less than 10 feet in width.
R7 begins at the downstream end of R6 and
flows north for approximately 1,396 feet to a
culvert crossing at the beginning of R8. The
drainage area is approximately 288 acres. The
channel is classified as an E4b stream type in
poor condition with SHRs ranging from 1.1 to
1.3. The reach is vertically stable with mostly
small cobble substrate thoughout its length.
The riparian buffer consists of mostly
herbaceous vegetation with a few shrubs
interspersed along the stream banks.
Livestock have direct access to this entire
reach. Bank erosion on R7 is present on
approximately 30 to 40 percent of the
streambanks. The observed erosion is in the
Russell Gap Stream Mitigation Project
Catawba River Basin + RFP #16-006807 + Cataloging Unit 03050101
form of bank scour caused by an excess in near bank shear stresses during storm events, the lack of woody vegetation
along the stream banks, and hoof shear from direct livestock access to the stream. Portions of this reach's floodplain have
been altered as shown on historical aerials and through the soils investigations. The entire length of R7 is actively subject
to water quality stressors, mainly in the form of direct livestock access and riparian buffers that are less than 10 feet in
width.
R8 begins at the end of the culvert crossing downstream of R7 and flows north through a forested area for approximately
437 feet until another culvert crossing at the upstream of R9. The drainage area for R8 is approximately 333 acres. The
channel is classified as a Rosgen C4 with BHRs ranging from 1.0 to 1.1. The channel is stable throughout most of the reach
and has mature riparian buffer along the left stream banks though the right buffer is less than 50 feet wide and contains
some invasive species. Livestock have direct access to this reach. The right floodplain has been altered in the past, likely
to accomodate the farm access road and culvert crossing. The observed erosion is in the form of localized bank scour along
the left bank.
R9 begins at the downstream end of R8 at a culvert crossing and flows north across open pasture for approximately 421
feet to the confluence with R3. The drainage area at the downstream terminus is approximately 352 acres. The channel is
moderately incised and classified as an E4 stream type with BHRs ranging from 1.1 to 1.5. The valley in this location begins
to widen and flatten as it reaches the confluence with R3. A few small headcuts were observed and bank erosion is evident
along 50 to 60 percent of the stream banks. The channel has a coarse gravel substrate observed thoughout its length. The
riparian buffer is lacking mature trees and only consists of herbaceous vegetation along the stream banks. Livestock have
direct access to this entire reach. Portions of this reach's floodplain have been altered as shown on historical aerials and
through the soils investigations. The entire length of R9 is actively subject to water quality stressors, mainly in the form of
direct livestock access and the lack of a riparian buffer. Existing riparain wetlands exist in the vicinity of R9. These wetlands
have formed in the bottom of drainage ditches that have been historically excavated with the likely purpose of draining
wetlands.
R10 begins as a small perennial headwater tributary at a spring along the toe of a slope and enters R1 after flowing
southeast for approximately 371 feet. R10 has a drainage area of approximately 17.3 acres. Two headcuts are present
along R10. One near the confluence with R1 and one near the top of R10. R10 has been heavily impacted by cattle and
the buffer is limited to mostly herbaceous vegetation with a few scattered trees and shrubs along the stream bank. Bank
erosion is evident on approximately 30 to 40 percent of the stream length; however, it appears the valley topography has

Russell Gap Stream Mitigation Project
Catawba River Basin + RFP #16-006807 • Cataloging Unit 03050101
been altered due to the remnant spoil areas and past agricultural practices. R10 is actively subject to water quality
stressors, mainly in the form of cattle access and riparian buffers that are less than 10 feet in width. The reach is difficult
to classify using the Rosgen classification type given the variable bed and bank features but would most likely classify as
an E4b stream type in poor condition. This channel and associated wetlands will continue to degrade without intervention
due to headcuts and livestock access.
R11 is an small intermittent headwater tributary that begins from a spring above a perched culvert crossing and flows
eastward for approximately 481 feet. Of the 481 feet, the upper approximately 200 feet of R11 is intermittent based on
observed flows within a defined channel. The lower portion near the confluence with R1 appears to have been ditched
and lacks natural channel features from excessive cattle trampling and herbacous vegetation. R11 has a drainage area of
approximately 14.1 acres. The upper reach is much steeper as the channel slope exceeds 6 percent before flattening near
the conflunce with R1. Headcuts are present along the upstream section of R11 and the channel has downcut significantly.
Bank erosion along R11 is present mostly in the upper section in the form of bank scour for approximately 50 to 60 percent.
The riparian buffer in the lower section is limited to herbaceous vegetation with a few scattered trees and shrubs along
the stream bank. A small section along 1111 downstream of an existing ford type stream crossing, near its confluence with
R1, serves as a livestock wallow area. R11 is classified as an G4 stream type in the upper reach and an E4 stream type in
the lower end of the reach. R11 has a BHR range of 1.0 to greater than 2.0.
R12 is a perennial headwater tributary that begins at a pipe culvert crossing along Russell Gap Road and flows westward
for approximately 86 feet to its confluence with R1. R12 has a drainage area of approximately 115 acres. A headcut is
present in the middle section of R12, below the existing road crossing. Bank erosion along R12 is present in the form of
bank scour for approximately 50 to 60 percent. The floodplain has been altered along the left bank as shown by the
presence of a small berm. The riparian buffer is insufficient and limited to herbaceous vegetation along the stream banks.
The reach is moderately incised and is classified as a E4 stream type in poor condition with BHRs ranging of 1.3 to 1.5. The
entire length of R12 is actively subject to water quality stressors, mainly in the form of direct livestock access and lack of
riparian buffers. An existing power line crosses R12 along the road right-of-way and runs to a service pole near an exsting
barn. This utility line will remain. The conservation easement will abut the utility easement.
R13 is a small intermittent headwater tributary that begins downstream of a stable channel reach with a mature riparian
buffer. It flows eastward for approximately 124 feet until its condition worsens downstream near another culvert crossing
and the beginning of R14. R13 has been heavily impacted by livestock and has stream banks have been severly trampled.
Bank erosion along R13 is present in the form of bank scour for approximately 5 to 10 percent of the stream length. This
bank scour is located in isolated areas and is mostly near the culvert crossing or in areas where the valley topography has
been altered. The riparian buffer width is insufficient and vegetation is limited to a few scattered trees and shrubs along
the stream banks. R13 is classified as a Rosgen C4 stream type with BHRs ranging from 1.0 to I.I.
R14 is a small perennial headwater tributary that begins at the downstream end of R13 and flows southeastward for
approximately 512 feet to its confluence with R1. R14 has a drainage area of approximately 22.4 acres at its downstream
terminus. Bank erosion along R14 is present in the form of bank scour for approximately 50 to 60 percent of the stream
length and is predominantly caused by downcutting and vertical instablility throughout most of the upper reach. The lower
section appears to have been widened and moved against the right toe of slope for approximately 250 feet. The riparian
buffer width is insufficient and is limited to herbaceous vegetation along most of its reach. The entire length of R14 is
actively subject to water quality stressors as cattle have unrestricted access to the channel and adjacent wetland area.
R14 is classified as a G4 stream type in the upper section with BHRs of up to 4.0 and is classified as an E4 in the lower
section.
R15 is a small intermittent headwater tributary that begins along a forested hillside and flows northward for approximately
84 feet to its confluence with R4. R15 has a drainage area of approximately 18.7 acres. Bank erosion along R15 is present
in the form of bank scour for approximately 20 to 30 percent of the stream length and is predominantly caused by hoof
shear from direct livestock access. The riparian buffer is insufficient and limited to herbaceous vegetation. R15 is difficult
to classify using the Rosgen classification system since the channel and its floodplain have been significantly altered but
would most appropriately be classified as an E4 stream type.
M M M Page 28
1 N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L

Russell Gap Stream Mitigation Project
Catawba River Basin + RFP #16-006807 • Cataloging Unit 03050101
R16 is a small intermittent headwater tributary that originates from a forested hillside and flows east for approximately
129 feet and ends at a culverted farm road crossing. R16 is forested and some headcuts are present. Bank erosion along
this reach is moderate to low. R16 would be classified as a B4 stream type.
R17 begins below the culvert at the end of R16 and continues to the confluence with R6. It has a drainage area of
approximately 26.2 acres. The R17 section begins to downcut before its confluence with R6. Bank erosion is present in
the form of bank scour for approximately 10 to 20 percent of the stream length. Along R17 the riparian buffer is limited
to herbaceous vegetation along the stream bank. Livestock have direct access to R17. R17 is classified as an E4 stream
type with BHRs ranging of 1.1 to 1.2.
R18 is similar to R17. R18 is a small intermittent headwater tributary that begins along a forested hillside and flows east
for approximately 164 feet until its confluence with R7. R18 has a drainage area of approximately 14.1 acres. A headcut
exist upstream of the farm road. Bank erosion along R18 is low and present in the form of bank scour for approximately
5 to 10 percent of the stream length. The riparian buffer is limited to herbaceous vegetation along the stream bank.
Livestock have direct access to this reach below the existing farm crossing. R18 is classified as a B4 stream type with BHRs
ranging from 1.0 to 1.1.
R19 is a small perennial headwater tributary that begins at a spring head along a hillside and flows east for approximately
454 feet until its confluence with R7. R19 has a drainage area of approximately 22.3 acres. Bank erosion along R19 is
moderate and present in the form of bank scour for approximately 50 to 60 percent of the stream length. The reach has
experienced downcutting and channel wideing has occurred throughout its length. Severe headcuts exist along the upper
portions of the reach. The riparian buffer has been logged in this area and is limited to herbaceous vegetation with
marginal shrubs and trees along the stream bank. R19 is classified as a CO stream type with BHRs ranging from 1.3 to 1.5.
R20 is a perennial reach that flows from a steep wooded hillside for approximately 206 feet to its confluence with R19.
R20 has a series of severe headcuts likely due to past logging activities. Currently, the lower end of R19 is filled with brush
debris from logging. R20 is incsised and streambank erosion is evident for 50 to 60 percent of its length. R20 would be
classified as a G4 streamtype.
R21 is similar to R16, R17, and R18. R21 is a small perennial headwater tributary that begins along a forested hillside and
flows west for approximately 67 feet until its confluence with R7. R21 has a drainage area of approximately 32.5 acres.
Bank erosion along R21 is low and is present in the form of localized bank scour for 5 to 10 percent of the stream length.
The stream bed and banks are relatively stable until its confluence with R7. The riparian buffer is comprised of herbaceous
vegetation with a mix of trees and shrubs along the stream bank. Livestock currently have access to this reach. R21 is
classified as a B4 stream type with BHRs ranging from 1.1 to 1.2.
R22 is a small perennial headwater tributary that begins at a hillslope seep and flows generally northeast for approximately
202 feet to its confluence with R7. R22 has a drainage area of approximately 3 acres. R22 appears to have been ditched
and is incised and overly wide for its small drainage area. The natural topography in this area appears to have been altered,
likely to accomodate the road crossing and promote drainage. Bank erosion is present in the form of localized bank scour
and a large headcut was observed along its stream length. The channel has been ditched and widened; therefore, excess
shear stresses during storm events are low. The riparian buffer is limited to herbaceous vegetation in and along the stream
banks. Livestock have direct access to this reach and trash was observed within the channel. R22 is difficult to classify
using the Rosgen classification system since the channel has been significantly altered but R22 would most appropriately
be classified as a B4 stream type.
R23 is a small intermittant tributary that begins at a spring head at the upstream extents of the channel. R23 flows for
along a hillside and flows generally northwest for approximately 375 feet until its confluence with R11. R23 has a drainage
area of approximately 3.6 acres. R23 was likely excavated as a drainage ditch to drain riparian wetlands adjacent to R1 but
is now functioning as a stream channel. This is evident from bed material sorting, the presence of base flow, and obvious
bed and banks among other factors. Although the reach is slightly incised throughout all of its stream length, the bed and
banks are mostly stable. This is likely due the fact that the channel slope is relatively flat and the low flow channel has
reformed within the ditch bottom at its current bed elevation. The riparian buffer is limited to herbaceous vegetation in
and along the stream banks.
- M M M Page 29
1 N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L

Russell Gap Stream Mitigation Project
Catawba River Basin + RFP #16-006807 + Cataloging Unit 03050101
R23 is difficult to classify using the Rosgen
classification system since the channel has been
significantly altered by livestock and
channelization, but R23 would most
appropriately be classified as a E4 stream type.
R24 is a small intermittent channel that begins
at a hillside spring head and flows east for
approximately 169 feet to its confluence with
R1. The drainage area for R23 is only 7.2 acres
but the presence of flow along with channel bed
and banks is obvious. Cattle have direct access
to this reach and no woody vegetation exist
along its entirety. R24 would most
appropriately be classified as an E4 stream type.
R25 is a perennial channel that flows from a
wooded section west for 422 feet to its
confluence with R7. R25 has a series of headcuts
that caused the channel to become moderately
incised. A clogged culvert also caused flow to be
diverted around the pipe and is causing
additional erosion. Bank erosion along R25 is
approximately 40 to 50 percent. Cattle have
direct access to this reach and an adequate
riparian buffer is absent. R25 would be classified
as an E41b stream type.
R26 is a small perennial headwater channel
flowing from a wooded hillside near the eastern
most portion of the project. Livestock currently
access this stream and use it for watering.
Sparse woody vegetation exist along the stream
banks though is insufficient. The drainage area
for R26 is 31.5 acres. This channel is primarly
stable but needs riparian buffers and livestock
exclusion.
Even though some of the drainage areas of the
headwater reaches are small, some of the
streams are spring fed, NCDWR stream scores are all above 19, and discussions with the landowners regarding the flow
histories of the streams, led Michael Baker to conclude that all of the proposed UTs are appropriate for at least
Enhancement Level II practices.
Small patches of invasive vegetation species including multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora) and Chinese privet (Ligustrum
sinense) exist within a few of the riparian buffer areas.
As shown on Figures 3, 18, and 19 and in the hydric soils report, soils around the project reaches are dominated by Codorus
loam (0-2 percent slopes, frequently flooded) in the valley floodplains with Braddock and Hayesville clay loams (both the
6-15 percent and 15-25 percent slope phases) appearing along the upslope tributaries. The areas described as suitable for
riparian wetland restoration are within the Codorus loam mapping unit. Codorus loam is identified as a hydric soil in
Alexander County by the NRCS in their "Hydric Soils of the United States" listing (March 2014 revision).
An on-site investigation of the soils within the project area was conducted on November 5, 2014 and on April 14, 2016 by
Michael Baker's licensed soil scientist, Scott King, LSS, PWS. Mr. King's findings indicate the presence of hydric soils along
M 0 Page 30
1 N T E R N A T 1© N A L

Mussell Gap Stream Mitigation Project
Catawba River Basin • RFP #16-006807 • Cataloging Unit D3050101
a large portion of the floodplain of R1, along with significant areas along the floodplains of R4 and R9 as well (Figures 18,
19, and hydric soils report).
In addition to the presence of the NRCS-mapped Codorus loam (Figure 3), substantial inclusions of the associated Hatboro
silt loam, a listed component to Codorus in floodplains, were discovered as well (see Photo 8). Both Codorus (a fine -loamy,
mixed, active, mesic Fluvaquentic Dystrudept) and Hatboro (a fine -loamy, mixed, active, nonacid, mesic Fluvaquentic
Endoaquept) are identified as hydric soils by the NRCS for Alexander County, NC. Hatboro dominates in the floodplain
around R1, the area proposed for wetland restoration. It is anticipated that through Priority Level I Restoration along R1
and R9, Enhancement Level I along R4, removal and permanent exclusion of livestock, and revegetation that hydrologic
and vegetative wetland functions can be restored along the described floodplains, allowing the associated wetlands to
regain their historic functions. Hydric soil findings were based on hand -turned soil auger borings and determinations from
the "NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States — A Guide for Identifying and Delineating Hydric Soils (Version
7.0, 2010)".
As stated above, there are three federally listed Threatened species known to have occurred in Alexander County (bog
turtle, northern long-eared bat and dwarf flowered heartleaf). This project is not anticipated to have a negative impact
on these species, and will likely provide new habitat for all three species. This project is not anticipated to have any adverse
impacts on cultural or historical resources. There are no sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places within 5
miles of the project. The nearest Study List site is the Louis Foote Davis House and Barn (AX0017) which is 0.95 miles from
the project site. On-site investigations and discussions with landowners have not revealed any potential resources of this
type on the property. If the project is awarded, Michael Baker will contact the North Carolina State Historic Preservation
Office (NC-SHPO) to ensure that there will be no cultural or historical resource impacts.
Based on a review using Google Earth, the nearest airports to the project site are the Southern Skies private, unpaved
field, 4.2 miles southeast of the project and Taylorsville Airfield, an unpaved facility 5.8 miles to the south of the site. The
nearest airport with a paved runway is the Wilkes County Airport, located 8.7 miles north of the site.
None of the proposed project reaches are located within a FEMA regulated floodplain. While it is not anticipated that
there will be issues associated with FEMA permitting or documentation, Michael Baker will coordinate with the local
floodplain administrator as needed and prepare the required documentation to obtain approval for any FEMA regulated
impacts.
5.3. Project Development
The Russell Gap Stream Mitigation Project will
include the restoration, enhancement, and
protection of 27 stream reaches, their associated
riparian buffers, as well as restoration through
re-establishment of significantly degraded or
historic riparian wetlands. This broad, balanced
approach, utilizing the entire range of practices,
from Priority Level I Restoration to Level II
Enhancement, is critical to providing the
maximum functional uplift. Our proposed
watershed approach has the potential to
address all of the intermittent and perennial
stream reaches on the protect property
including restoring riparian buffers along all of
the project stream reaches, restoring degraded
riparian wetlands, and reducing and limiting
the number of stream crossings. This project has
the potential to restore and/or enhance
approximately 12,500 LF of existing stream and
more than 5.6 acres of significantly degraded
riparian wetlands (Figures 6, 18, and 19).

Russell Gap Stream Mitigation Project
Catawba River Basin + RFP #16-006807 + Cataloging Unit 03050101
The streams and wetlands to be restored or
enhanced have been impacted by channelization,
loss of riparian buffers, past land use disturbances,
and direct livestock access (see Photos 1 through
17).
Approximately 51 percent of the total streambank
length is experiencing active bank erosion and
over 95 percent of the total stream length is
actively subject to onsite water quality stressors
resulting from direct livestock access and a lack of
mature riparian buffer. Approximately 50 percent
of the total stream length exhibits significant,
obvious incision. The proposed project will provide
or improve floodplain access to all reaches
undergoing Restoration or Enhancement Level I.
For any project reach along which Priority Level II
Restoration will be utilized, the following elements
will be incorporated into the proposed design and
construction:
• Floodplain bench excavation grading will extend a minimum of 1.5 bankfull widths beyond the stream belt width such
that meandering floodplains are not created.
• All proposed floodplains will be constructed such that they are over -excavated to accommodate replacement of
topsoil.
• Design and construction oversight measures will ensure the proper harvesting, segregating, stockpiling, storage,
handling, overall management and replacement of A and B soil horizon materials onto the excavated floodplain.
• Constructed return slopes between the outer edge of the excavated floodplain and the terrace will be a minimum of
5:1 or flatter.
Michael Baker will compile and assess watershed information including: drainage areas, historical land uses and
development trends, geologic setting, soil types, and terrestrial plant communities. Project reach designs will use
appropriate field investigations, hydraulic and hydrologic models, and regional curves to verify proposed bankfull channel
dimensions. Michael Baker will use the results of the existing condition analyses along with reference reach data from
previous projects to develop a proposed stream restoration design for the project reaches. This design will utilize multiple
restoration design techniques and approaches that have been successfully implemented on past projects, including
natural channel design methodology, under which dimensionless ratios from the reference reach and past project
experience are used to restore stable dimension, pattern, and profile, as well as proper sediment -transport for the
proposed reach. The proposed project will provide increased floodplain access throughout the project area for all
Restoration and Enhancement Level I reaches and will be monitored to demonstrate floodplain function. The stream
channel design will include analysis of the hydrology, hydraulics, shear stress, sediment transport, and appropriate channel
dimensions. The hydrology and hydraulics will include analysis of the bankfull discharge and comparison of the reference
reach ratios to design ratios from past projects under similar geomorphic settings which have proved successful. The
bankfull discharge will be used to develop the proposed channel dimension and to assess performance. Sediment
transport calculations and stream power analyses will be performed for the existing channels and the design channels for
comparison. Specifically, Michael Baker will perform representative pebble counts and will collect bar samples, pavement
and subpavement samples in order to evaluate bed material characteristics and sediment transport. The bed material will
be sieved and a grain size distribution developed. The results of the substrate analyses will be used to classify the streams
and to complete shear stress, sediment transport, and stability analyses. Michael Baker will use the critical shear stress
and boundary shear stress analysis approaches to verify that the channels as designed will not aggrade nor degrade.
Additionally a BAGS analysis will be conducted to provide converging lines of evidence that the stream channels as
designed will provide the proper sediment transport. Sediment transport calculations will be performed for the existing
channels and the design channels for comparison.

Russell Gap Stream Mitigation Project
Catawba River Basin + RFP #16-006807 • Cataloging Unit 03050101
In -stream structures will be constructed only from materials naturally found at the project site such as hardwood logs,
brush, stone, and boulder materials. In order to ensure sustainability of those structures, Michael Baker will only use
methods of structure design and construction that have proven successful on numerous past projects in the same
geographic region.
Michael Baker has field verified that the project site has adequate, viable construction access, staging, and stockpile areas.
Note that crossings account for less than 1.5 percent of the proposed easement area. These same site access points and
features will be used for future access after the completion of construction. Where practicable, impacts to existing native
riparian buffer vegetation will be minimized. The use of native riparian buffer transplants will be maximized as well. Any
potential impacts to existing wetland areas will be avoided during construction, with only temporary, minimal impacts
expected as necessary for maximized permanent stream and wetland functional uplift.
R1— Restoration
Due to the degraded nature of Reach R1, a Priority Level I Restoration approach is proposed for the entire reach to fully
restore stream and associated wetland functions. The reach currently exhibits lateral instability as shown by active bank
erosion and bank slumping. This systemic instability will likely continue since the existing channel has mostly vertical banks
that are devoid of deep rooting vegetation caused by cattle access and pasture grazing. The channel will be raised to
reconnect it to the adjacent floodplain and hydric soils area. This will promote more frequent over bank flooding in areas
of hydric soils, thereby creating a better opportunity for wetland re-establishment. The reach will be designed as a Rosgen
C4 stream type. This reach lacks mature woody vegetation; however, any existing isolated trees or shrubs will be
protected or transplanted if possible. Due to the existing valley slope and valley floor width, this reach will be restored
through the use of appropriate riffle -pool morphology. A new meandering channel will be constructed and the floodplain
will consist of native hardwood species and riparian wetland features. While formal design calculations have not been
completed, it is likely that the design width/depth ratio for the channel will be similar to comparable streams in this
geologic setting. It is expected that over time, the channel widths will narrow due to fine sediment deposition and
streambank vegetation growth. In -stream structures will be used to control grade, dissipate energy, protect stream banks,
and eliminate the potential for upstream channel incision. In -stream structures will most likely include constructed riffles
and grade control j -hook vanes for grade control and habitat (a coarse gravel substrate was observed in this channel
section), and log vanes for increased bank stability and habitat diversity. Channel banks will be graded to stable slopes,
and the adjacent floodplain will be re -connected to further promote stability and re-establishment of riparian vegetation.
Bio -engineering techniques such as geolifts, root wads, toe wood, brush layers, and live stakes will also be used to protect
restored stream banks and to promote woody vegetation growth along the stream banks. The unstable channel will be
filled to an elevation sufficient to connect the new design channel to the historic floodplain along its entire length using
suitable fill material excavated from construction of the newly restored channels. Riparian buffers in excess of 50 feet will
be restored and protected along all of R1. Additionally, permanent fencing will be installed to exclude livestock and reduce
sediment and nutrient inputs. The existing piped stream crossings will remain to provide the landowner access to pastures
on the western part of the property. As necessary, Michael Baker will improve these crossings to improve hydraulic
functions and channel stability.
R2 — Enhancement I
Work along R2 will involve Enhancement Level I practices to improve the stability and bedform diversity of the channel.
Michael Baker proposes to excavate bankfull benches, slope streambanks, install in -stream structures, mat, and live stake
the stream banks, plant a riparian buffer, and permanently exclude livestock through fencing. While credit will not be
requested for the section of R2 outside the conservation easement near the existing farm road and barn, this area will be
addressed and fenced.
R3 — Enhancement I
Work along R3 will involve an Enhancement Level I approach. The channel slope is relatively flat in this location and the
bed grade in R3 is controlled by bedrock in the downstream section. Enhancement Level I activities will be similar to R2.
There are some mature trees along R3 that will be preserved. Riparian buffers of at least 50 feet will be established and
livestock will be permanently excluded from the reach. This will remove the water quality stressors from the reach and
provide for much improved water quality throughout the project area, as well as decreased erosion and sediment loss
from bank erosion.
Michael BakerPage 33

Russell Gap Stream Mitigation Project
Catawba River Basin + RFP #16-006807 + Cataloging Unit 03050101
The downstream terminus of R3 will tie to an
existing wooded area.
R4a — Enhancement II
114a is a primarily stable reach that begins in a
wooded section of headwater stream. This
reach does not have an adequate riparian
buffer and livestock have unrestricted access.
Work along 114a will involve Enhancement Level
II practices to maintain the stability of the
channel. The existing channel is stable with only
isolated and limited bank erosion.
Consequently, Michael Baker proposes to
slope, mat, and live stake the stream banks in
minimal localized areas where bank erosion is
occurring, plant a riparian buffer in excess of 50
feet, and permanently exclude livestock.
R4 — Enhancement I
The approach for R4 will be similar to the
approach described above for R2 and R3. Work
along R4 will involve Enhancement Level I
activities to provide additional floodplain
benching and encourage long-term channel stability. The channel has become incised and the floodplain has been
significantly altered in some locations, as evidenced by spoil piles. Some sections of R4 have developed small floodplain
benches at a lower bed elevation. In order to reduce further bank erosion, additional floodplain benches will be excavated
to continue this positive evolutionary process and reduce near bank stresses at flows above the bankfull discharge. In -
stream structures will be constructed in strategic locations to increase aquatic pool habitat and to ensure grade control.
Channel banks will be graded to stable slopes and the appropriate bankfull channel geometry will be established. There
are very few mature trees along this reach and sporadic shrubs exist along the stream banks. Any of these native shrubs
that are required to be removed for enhancement activities will be carefully excavated and transplanted along the newly
graded stream banks. Riparian buffers of at least 50 feet wide will be established and livestock will be permanently
excluded from the reach. The existing pipe stream crossing will remain near the bottom of the reach to maintain long
term site access. This crossing will serve as the main site access to reaches south of Mount Olive Church Road.
R5 — Enhancement II
R5 begins at a headcut below an existing crossing that will be improved. Work along R5 will involve Enhancement Level II
practices to maintain the lateral stability of the channel. The existing channel is currently stable with only isolated areas
of limited bank erosion. Consequently, Michael Baker proposes to slope, mat, and live stake the stream banks in minimal
localized areas where bank erosion is occurring, plant a riparian buffer in excess of 50 feet, and permanently exclude
livestock.
R6 — Restoration
The main channel for R6 appears to have been moved to the right edge of the valley floor. R6 is severely incised with
BHRs ranging from 2.0 to 3.0. During site investigations, a smaller remnant channel was observed parallel to the main
channel for approximately 300 feet, portions of which may be utilized to restore the historical flow path. Work along R6
will involve incorporating the remnant channel where possible and a Priority Level I Restoration to provide a historic
channel reconnection within the low point of the valley. This approach will promote long-term channel stability. There
are very few mature trees along this reach and sporadic shrubs (e.g. tag alder) exist along the stream banks. Any of these
native shrubs that are required to be removed for restoration activities will be carefully excavated and transplanted along
the newly restored stream banks. This reach will be designed as a Rosgen C4b stream type.
_ Page 34
1 N T E R 9 A T 1© N A L

Mussell Gap Stream Mitigation Project
Catawba River Basin • RFP #16-006807 • Cataloging Unit D3050101
This reach will be restored through the use of appropriate riffle -pool and riffle -step -pool morphology since the valley
slopes often exceed 2 percent. These techniques will allow restoration of a stable channel form with appropriate bedform
diversity, as well as improved channel function through improved aquatic habitat, active floodplain connection, and
restoration of riparian and terrestrial habitats. While formal design calculations have not been completed, the design
width/depth ratio for the channel will be similar to comparable stream channels in this geologic setting. In -stream
structures will be used to control grade, dissipate energy, protect stream banks, and eliminate the potential for upstream
channel incision. In -stream structures will most likely include constructed riffles for grade control and riffle habitat; log
and boulder j -hook vanes; and log rollers for step -pool formation, bank stability, and habitat diversity. The bed elevation
will be stepped down using appropriate in -stream structures at the downstream end of R6 in order to provide a stable
connection with the current bed of R7. Channel banks will be graded to stable slopes, and the historic floodplain
connection will be re-established to further promote stability and establish riparian vegetation. Bio -engineering
techniques such as geolifts, root wads, toe wood, brush layers and live stakes will also be used to protect restored stream
banks and to promote woody vegetation growth along the stream banks. The existing, unstable channel will be filled to
an elevation sufficient to connect the new bankfull channel to the historic floodplain along its entire length using suitable
fill material excavated from construction of the newly restored channels. Riparian buffers in excess of 50 feet will be
restored and protected along all of R6. Additionally, permanent fencing will be installed to exclude livestock and reduce
sediment and nutrient inputs. The proposed improvements will provide the maximum possible functional uplift.
R7 — Enhancement I
Work along R7 will be similar to the approach
described above for R2, R3, and R4. The valley slope
is consistently 2 percent throughout R7 and the bed
is largely controlled by coarse gravel/cobble
substrate. Enhancement Level I activities will
include stabilizing the existing stream bed and
banks. The bed through this area will primarily
remain at its current elevation and where
appropriate in -stream structures, bankfull
benching, and planting measures will provide grade
control, bank stabilization and aquatic habitat.
Channel banks will be graded to stable slopes and
the appropriate bankfull channel geometry will be
established. There are very few mature trees along
R7, but those that do exist will be preserved to the
extent possible. Riparian buffers of at least 50 feet
will be established and livestock will be
permanently excluded from the reach. This will
address the water quality stressors along this reach
and provide for much improved water quality
throughout the project area, as well as decreased
erosion and sediment loss from bank erosion. The existing piped stream crossing will remain at the downstream of R7 to
provide the landowner access to pasture and the southern property boundary. If necessary, Michael Baker will upgrade
this crossing and correctly size the pipe to improve hydraulic functions and channel stability.
R8 — Enhancement II
R8 flows through a forested area and is bound by pipe crossings at both the upstream and downstream extents of the
reach. Work along R8 will involve Enhancement Level II practices to maintain the lateral stability of the channel. The
existing channel is stable with only isolated and limited bank erosion toward the bottom of the reach. There is some
evidence of floodplain alteration along the right bank, but the existing vegetation has become established. Consequently,
Michael Baker proposes to remove existing spoil piles, install an in -stream structure near the downstream crossing to
reduce the near bank stress along the left steam bank. In minimal localized areas where bank erosion is occurring, bank
treatments will include sloping, matting, and live staking as well as planting a riparian buffer in excess of 50 feet. Livestock
will be permanently excluded as part of the overall restoration efforts.
Michael Baker

Russell Gap Stream Mitigation Project
Catawba River Basin + RFP #16-006807 + Cataloging Unit 03050101
R9 — Restoration
Work along R9 will involve Priority Level I
Restoration to provide the maximum amount
of functional uplift and promote long-term
channel stability. Appropriate dimension,
pattern and profile will be restored to this
reach. The channel has become slightly incised
and the stream banks have been impacted by
cattle hoof shear. In -stream structures will be
utilized to improve bedform diversity, provide
grade control, and to protect restored
streambanks. There are no mature trees or
shrubs along this reach. Riparian buffers of at
least 50 feet will be established and livestock
will be permanently excluded from the reach.
The existing pipe stream crossing will remain at
the top of the reach to maintain long-term site
access. In addition to restoring R9, two linear
wetland features will be protected inside the
conservation easement and planted with native
wetland species. Also a stormwater wetland
structural BMP will be constructed in the
wallow near the upstream extent of R9 that
supplies water to the linear wetland. The BMP will improve water quality by increasing nutrient uptake by plants in the
wetland prior to entering into the stream channels. Cattle will be permanently excluded from R9, the wetland features
and the BMP.
R10 — Enhancement I
Work along R10 will involve Enhancement Level I practices to improve the stability of the channel. The existing channel
has been heavily impacted by livestock and is vertically unstable. Consequently, Michael Baker proposes to construct a
channel with the appropriate bankfull geometry though bank sloping and bankfull benching, install in -stream structures
for grade control and repair headcuts, mat and live stake the stream banks, and plant the riparian buffer in excess of 50
feet, and permanently exclude livestock. The existing riparian wetlands along R10 will also be protected and improved
through re-establishing a native wetland vegetation community.
R11— Enhancement I
Work along R11 will involve Enhancement Level I practices to maintain and improve the stability of the channel. The reach
begins at a perched culvert pipe crossing and immediately downcuts until the steeper valley gradient begins to flatten out
further downstream. The existing channel has areas of bank erosion and channel incision, most of which occur in the
upper section. The channel loses bed and bank features downstream of the ford crossing as it flows to its confluence with
R1. Consequently, Michael Baker proposes to install grade control structures to step down the outfall and arrest headcuts,
slope, provide bankfull benches, mat and live stake the stream banks in areas where active bank erosion is occurring, plant
the riparian buffer in excess of 50 feet, and permanently exclude livestock. Where the valley flattens out near the
confluence with R1, appropriate channel geometry will be established and a stable connection to R1 will be made.
R12 — Restoration
Work along R12 will consist of Priority I restoration. The existing channel begins at a culvert crossing along Russell Gap
Road. R12 is incised and has areas of severe bank erosion. The correct bankfull channel geometry will be established and
the channel bed will raised. Where R12 flows into R1, R12 will transition into R1 using grade control structures to promote
the long term stability of R12 and to ensure aquatic organism passage. Streambanks will also be matted and livestaked.
The riparian buffer will be planted in excess of 50 feet, and livestock will be permanently exclude. An existing power line
easement crosses R12. The conservation easement will abut the powerline easment to avoid conflicts.
M Page 36
1 N T E R 9 A T 1© N A L

Russell Gap Stream Mitigation PY ject
Catawba River Basin • RFP #16-006807 • Cataloging Unit D3050101
R13 — Enhancement I
Work along R13 will take a similar approach to work along R1O and will involve Enhancement Level I practices to improve
the stability of the channel. The existing channel emerges from a stable forested headwater valley and has been heavily
trampled by cattle. The area has also been historically disturbed through logging practices and pasture use. Consequently,
Michael Baker proposes to re-establish the proper bankfull geometry, slope, mat, and live stake the stream banks, stabilize
the stream bed using in -stream structures to arrest and stabilize headcuts, plant the riparian buffer in excess of 50 feet,
and permanently exclude livestock.
R14 — Restoration
R14 begins at the downstream terminus of R13
and continues until the confluence with R1. R14
is severely incised in the upstream section with
a BHR of up to 4.0. During site investigations,
the downstream channel appears to have been
ditched and moved to the right edge of the
valley floor for approximately 250 feet, and
becomes wider and flatter with less discernable
bed and bank features. Work along R14 will
involve a hybrid of Priority Level I and II
Restoration by raising the bed elevation while
sloping banks to provide a floodplain bench
within the existing channel in the upstream
section of this reach. This section will be
designed as a Rosgen B4 stream type and
transition to an E4 stream type as the gradient
flattens near R1. This reach will be restored
through the use of appropriate riffle -pool and
riffle -step -pool morphology since the channel
slope exceeds 3 to 6 percent in the upper reach.
These techniques will allow restoration of a
stable channel form with appropriate bedform
diversity, as well as improved channel function through improving aquatic habitat, activating floodplain connection,
improving the existing wetland feature along the right floodplain of R1, and restoring aquatic and terrestrial habitats.
While formal design calculations have not been completed, the design width/depth ratio for the channel will be similar to
comparable stream channels in this geologic setting. In -stream structures will be used to control grade, dissipate energies,
protect stream banks, and eliminate the potential for upstream channel incision. In -stream structures will most likely
include constructed riffles for grade control and riffle habitat (coarse gravel substrate was observed in this channel
section), log and boulder j -hook vanes, boulder cross vanes, and log rollers for step -pool formation and fine sediment
recruitment, bank stability, and habitat diversity. The bed elevation will be stepped down using appropriate in -stream
structures at the downstream end of R14 in order to provide a stable connection to R1. Channel banks will be graded to
stable slopes, and the historic floodplain connection will be re-established to further promote stability and establishment
of riparian vegetation. Bio -engineering techniques such as geolifts, brush layers, and live stakes will also be used to protect
restored stream banks and to promote woody vegetation growth along the stream banks. There are very few mature trees
along this reach, therefore riparian buffers in excess of 50 feet will be restored and protected along all of R14. Additionally,
permanent fencing will be installed to exclude livestock and reduce sediment and nutrient inputs.
The proposed improvements will provide the maximum possible functional uplift. The existing piped stream crossings near
the upstream and downstream ends of the reach will be removed.
R15, R16, R17, R18, R21, R22, R23, R24, R26 — Enhancement II
Work along these reaches will take a similar approach to work along Enhancement Level II reaches to maintain and
improve the stability, habitat, and function of the channel. Many of the existing channels originate from steeper forested
Michael Baker

Russell Gap Stream Mitigation Project
Catawba River Basin + RFP #16-006807 + Cataloging Unit 03050101
headwater tributaries and have isolated areas of limited bank erosion and channel incision. Consequently, Michael Baker
proposes to slope, mat, and live stake the stream banks in minimal localized areas where bank erosion is occurring,
stabilize the stream beds using in -stream structures to arrest and stabilize headcuts, plant the riparian buffer in excess of
50 feet, and permanently exclude livestock. The existing crossings will remain along R18 and R19 and will be improved as
necessary. These areas will be excluded from the conservation easement and no credit will be requested for these areas.
R19 — Enhancement I
Work along R19 will take a similar approach to work along R11 and will involve Enhancement Level I practices to maintain
and improve the stability of the channel. The existing channel originates from a steep, forested headwater valley and has
areas of bank erosion and channel incision. Consequently, Michael Baker proposes to slope, mat, and live stake the stream
banks in areas where bank erosion is occurring, stabilize the stream bed using in -stream structures to arrest and stabilize
headcuts, provide bankfull benches were possible, plant the riparian buffer in excess of 50 feet, and permanently exclude
livestock. The channel will be designed as a Rosgen C4b stream type.
R20 — Restoration
Work along R20 will take a similar approach to work along R14 and will involve a hybrid or Priority Level I and II Restoration
techniques. Numerous large headcuts exist along this reach which originates from a steep headwater valley. Grade control
structures will be installed to repair headcuts and to allow for aquatic organism passage. The bed elevation will be raised
and the banks sloped and bankfull to provide an active floodplain to allow for energy dissipation from storm flows. The
stream will also be matted, live staked, and riparian buffers in excess of 50 feet will be planted to ensure long-term
stability. Any existing native tree disturbance will be avoided to the extent possible during construction. Any trees that
do require removal will be utilized for in -stream structures or bio -engineering. Livestock will be permanently excluded
from this reach. The channel will be designed as a Rosgen B4 stream type.
R25 — Restoration
Work along this reach will involve a Priority
Level I Restoration approach to restore stream
functions and improve water quality. The reach
originates in a wooded area and is incised and
has areas of severe bank erosion. An existing
clogged culvert is present on this reach. This
culvert will be removed. This channel will be
designed as a C4b and the appropriate bankfull
geometry and step -pool morphology will be
established on this reach to provide the
maximum functional uplift. The bed elevation
will be stepped down using appropriate in -
stream structures throughout the reach to
provide grade control, improve aquatic habitat,
and increase dissolved oxygen. Channel banks
will be graded to stable slopes, and the historic
floodplain connection will be re-established to
further promote stability and establishment of
riparian vegetation. Bio -engineering techniques
such as geolifts, brush layers, and live stakes will
also be used to protect restored stream banks
and to promote woody vegetation growth along
the stream banks. There are very few mature trees along this reach therefore, riparian buffers in excess of 50 feet will be
restored and protected along its entire length.

1� -z
YAW A. _ �•R M
a:
.�oLe�
Photo 17. Photo looking up the linear wetland feature
near R9 and direct livestock access to the streams and
wetlands.
Russell Gap Stream Mitigation Project
Catawba River Basin + RFP #16-006807 + Cataloging Unit 03050101
BMP Considerations
As described above, the existing willow area near the upstream
end of R9 will be converted to a structural wetland BMP to
provide improved runoff treatment prior to entering the
project streams. The BMP will utilize native wetland plants to
uptake nutrients from cattle and other agricultural activities.
Water that is detained and treated in this wetland will either
infiltrate into the soil, evaporate, or be released into the
downstream linear wetland feature through an outlet
structure. Livestock will be excluded from the linear wetland
feature as well as the BMP.
Livestock Exclusion
As previously described, direct livestock access and the
resulting excessive erosion, sediment, and pollutants are
primary stressors for the Russell Gap Stream Mitigation Project
Site. Permanent cattle exclusion will be provided with fencing,
installed to NRCS standards as required by the RFP, around all
proposed mitigation reaches, restored wetland areas, and
riparian buffers where livestock have access.
Conservation Easement Boundary Marking
Immediately following site construction and planting, the
conservation easement boundaries will be permanently
marked and posted. All boundary marking, posting and signage
will be in accordance with the applicable NCDMS, North
Carolina State Properties Office, and State of North Carolina
standards.
Restoration of Riparian Buffers
Riparian buffers in excess of 50 feet from the top of banks will
be restored along all proposed stream restoration and
enhancement reaches, as previously discussed. The proposed
vegetative plant selection for stream and wetland buffer areas
will incorporate native species that follow those described by
Schafale and Weakley (1990) and tolerances cited in Wetlands
Research Program (WRP) Technical Note VN -RS -4.1 (1997). The
natural vegetation community will include the appropriate
strata (canopy, understory, shrub, and herbaceous species)
based on an appropriate reference community. Within the four
different strata, a variety of species will be planted to create an
appropriate, diverse plant community as shown in Table 3.
Additionally, moderately -tolerant species are able to survive on soils that are saturated or flooded for several months
during the growing season. Flood -tolerant species are able to survive on sites in which the soil is saturated or flooded for
long indefinite periods during the growing season (WRP, 1997). Tree species planted across the stream banks, wetlands,
floodplains, and upland areas will include a mixture of appropriate native species for the local region and based on wetness
conditions. Planting will be done at a density to achieve the vegetative success criteria outlined in Part 5.7.
- = Page 39
1 N T E R N A T 1© N A L

Russell Gap Stream Mitigation Project
Catawba River Basin + RFP #16-006807 + Cataloging Unit 03050101
Table 3. Summary Information for Natural Vegetation Community.
Botanical Name
Common Name
Strata
Distribution
Wetland
Tolerance
Acer rubrum
Red maple
Canopy
Riparian Buffer & Wetland
FAC
Betula nigra
River Birch
Canopy
Riparian Buffer & Wetland
FACW
Quercus rubra
Red Oak
Canopy
Riparian Buffer
FACU
Liriodendron tulipfera
Tulip poplar
Canopy
Riparian Buffer
FACU
Platanus occidentalis
American Sycamore
Canopy
Riparian Buffer & Wetland
FACW-
Salix nigra
Black Willow
Canopy
Riparian Wetland
OBL
Carpinus carolinianum
Ironwood
Understory
Riparian Buffer & Wetland
FAC
Hamamelis virginiana
Witch -hazel
Understory
Riparian Buffer & Wetland
FACU
Halesia caroliniana
Silverbell
Understory
Riparian Buffer & Wetland
FAC
Asimina triloba
Paw paw
Understory
Riparian Buffer & Wetland
FAC
Cornus amomum
Silky Dogwood
Shrub Layer
Riparian Buffer & Wetland
FACW+
Salix nigra
Black Willow
Shrub Layer
Riparian Buffer & Wetland
OBL
Anus serrulate
Tag Alder
Shrub Layer
Riparian Buffer & Wetland
FACW+
Salix sericea
Silky Willow
Shrub Layer
Riparian Buffer & Wetland
OBL
Corylus americana
Hazelnut
Shrub Layer
Riparian Buffer & Wetland
FACU
Chasmanthium latifolium
River oats
Herbaceous Layer
Riparian Buffer
FACU
Carex lurida
Lurid sedge
Herbaceous Layer
Riparian Buffer & Wetland
OBL
Carex crinito
Fringed sedge
Herbaceous Layer
Riparian Buffer & Wetland
OBL
Andropogon virginicus
Broom sedge
Herbaceous Layer
Riparian Buffer
FACU
Vernonia noveboracensis
New York Ironweed
Herbaceous Layer
Riparian Buffer
FACW
Juncus effuses
Soft stem rush
Herbaceous Layer
Riparian Wetland
OBL
Sagittaria latifolia
Arrow arum
Herbaceous Layer
Riparian Wetland
OBL
Andropogon glomeratus
Bushy bluestem
Herbaceous Layer
Riparian Wetland
FACW
Eutrochium fistulosum
Joe-pye-weed
Herbaceous Layer
Riparian Wetland
FACW
Michael Baker and River Works have a successful planting strategy which includes early successional, as well as climax
species. The vegetation selections will be interspersed throughout the project area so that the early successional species
may give way to climax species in all areas. The early successional species which have proven successful include river birch
and red maple. The successful climax species include red oak, sycamore, and tulip poplar. The wetland selections and all
understory and shrub layer species are all considered to be climax species in both the wetland and riparian buffer
community.
It is understood that riparian buffer conditions at mature reference sites do not reflect those seen at planted or
successional buffer sites until the woody species begin to establish and compete with herbaceous vegetation. To account
for this, a riparian buffer planting with a combination of overstory and understory species, planted at 680 stems per acre,
is typically utilized. Michael Baker will also consider, via prescription in the mitigation plan, the revegetation and
supplemental planting of larger and older planting stock to modify species density and type. This consideration will be
utilized particularly to increase the rate of buffer establishment and buffer species variety, as well as to decrease the
planting/application costs. Examples might include the selective supplemental planting of older mast producing species
as potted stock in later years for increased survivability. This technique can be effective as it avoids sun scald common
with bare root planting at initial revegetation.
As part of the proposed project, invasive exotic vegetation will be treated within the proposed conservation easement
areas. These efforts will aid in the establishment of native riparian species within the restored riparian buffer areas.

Russell Gap Stream Mitigation Project
Catawba River Basin + RFP #16-006807 • Cataloging Unit 03050101
Restoration of Riparian Wetlands
On-site investigations of the soils in this area were conducted on November 5, 2014 and May 5, 2016 by Michael Baker's
licensed soil scientist, Scott King, LSS, PWS. His findings indicate the presence of hydric soils along the floodplains of R1,
R4, and R9, totaling approximately 8.9 acres, within the proposed easement boundaries. Additionally, several areas of
significantly degraded, likely jurisdictional riparian wetlands, totaling approximately 1.7 acres were delineated within
these same hydric soils boundaries (Figures 18 and 19). The wetlands in these areas have been significantly impacted by
a combination of human manipulations and livestock impacts over many years.
W1— Restoration/Re-establishment
The soils along the floodplain of R1 were identified as being hydric and a prime candidate for wetland restoration through
re-establishment. It is anticipated that through Priority Level I Restoration, removal and permanent exclusion of livestock,
and re -vegetation, proper hydrology will be restored and allow the wetlands along the R1 floodplain to regain their historic
functions. This area is shown on Figure 18 and totals approximately 5.6 acres. Based on Michael Baker's findings described
above, soil conditions along the floodplain of R1 are favorable for re-establishing areas of historic riparian wetlands.
Riparian wetland re-establishment will involve improving current hydrologic and vegetative conditions across the historic
floodplain. An overbank flooding regime will be restored throughout the area by restoring the appropriate bankfull
channel geometry and stream pattern and by raising the stream bed elevation to reconnect the channel to its historic
floodplain. It is anticipated that through Priority Level I Restoration, removal of livestock, and re -vegetation the hydrology
will be restored which will allow the wetland to regain its historic functions. This approach will provide significant
hydrologic connection and functional uplift across the project area.
Restoration of Riparian Wetlands Along R4 and R9
Based on Michael Baker's findings described above, soil conditions are favorable for restoring areas of hydric soil along R4
and R9 in addition to small pockets of significantly degraded (poorly functioning) existing wetlands throughout the project
site. Riparian wetland restoration in these areas will involve improving current hydrologic conditions across the historic
floodplain, the removal and permanent exclusion of cattle, and the restoration of the riparian buffer. Where possible, an
overbank flooding regime will be restored throughout the area by restoring the appropriate bankfull channel geometry
and stream pattern and reconnecting the channel to its historic floodplain. Based on field observations and landowner
discussions, these degraded wetland areas experience seasonal wetness for prolonged periods and conditions appear
favorable to support wetland hydrology and vegetation. These areas area not being requested for riparian wetland credit
but will provide significant hydrologic connection and functional uplift across the project area.
Native riparian vegetation species will be established in both the restored stream buffer and wetland complexes
throughout the site. Proposed wetland plants will include wet tolerant species, such as: river birch (Betula nigra), red
maple (Acer rubum), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), black willow (Salix nigra), ironwood (Carpinus carolinianum),
silverbell (Halesia caroliniana), tag alder (Alnus serrulate), witch -hazel (Hamamelis virginiana), paw paw (Asimina triloba),
soft stem rush (Juncus effuses), arrow arum (Sagitteria latifolia), and joe-pye weed (Eutrochium fistulosum).
Expected Water Quality Benefits
Along the project stream reaches, greater than 85 percent of the stream banks have inadequate (less than 50 feet wide)
riparian buffers. In addition, livestock have unrestricted access to 25 of the 27 stream reaches and full access to all of the
degraded wetland areas. Research has demonstrated cattle grazing adjacent to streams can directly contribute
contaminants such as sediment, nutrients, and pathogens to the stream by fecal deposition and cattle traffic, and
indirectly by cattle traffic stirring up sediment, trampling streambanks, and increasing bank erosion (Kauffman et al., 1983;
Kauffman and Kruger, 1984; Marlow et al., 1987; Trimble, 1994; Trimble and Mendel, 1995; Belsky et al., 1999; Bagshaw,
2002; Sarr, 2002; Chanasyk et al., 2010). Cooper et al. (1995) stated that the exclusion of cattle from riparian zones may
act like a riparian buffer thereby reducing runoff and improving water quality. Miller et al. (2010) concluded that the
improved environmental quality of cattle -excluded areas are the result of decreased runoff and greater infiltration due to
greater vegetation cover, more standing litter, decreased bare soil, and lower soil compaction. The proposed buffer areas
for the project site will have trees replanted to appropriate densities (i.e. the riparian buffers will be restored and
permanently protected). The leaves that these trees will drop every fall further increase the standing litter on the ground,
reducing runoff and increasing the previously noted water quality benefits.
- Page 41
1 N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L

Russell Gap Stream Mitigation Project
Catawba River Basin + RFP #16-006807 • Cataloging Unit 03050101
Owens et al. (1996) stated that livestock exclusion from riparian areas reduced the sediment yield from a cattle pasture
by up to 40 percent, as documented over a 13 -year monitoring period. In addition to sediment reduction, studies have
shown that livestock exclusion results in reductions in nitrogen and phosphorus loads and exports. James et al. (2007)
have estimated that excluding pastured cattle from streams has resulted in a 32 percent reduction of in -stream deposition
of fecal phosphorous in Cannonsville Watershed of southeastern New York. Jones and Knowlton (1999) noted 52 percent
reductions in downstream total phosphorus after dairy cows and calves were fenced out of a stream. Byers et al. (2005)
concluded that cattle -grazed pastures with un -fenced streams contributed significant loads of nutrients and other
pollutants during base flow, as well as storm flow. Line et al. (1999) showed that an analysis of 81 weeks of pre -exclusion
and 137 weeks of post -exclusion fencing data documented 33, 78, 76 and 82 percent reductions in weekly nitrate+nitrite,
total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), total phosphorous (TP) and sediment loads, respectively, from a 14.9 hectare pasture in the
piedmont of North Carolina.
Although the numerical amounts of reductions vary from study to study, all studies reviewed by Michael Baker conclude
that excluding livestock from riparian areas will significantly reduce pollutant loads, including sediment and nutrients.
Further, the reductions are comparable to those commonly accepted for the restoration of riparian buffers (average
removal efficiency of 60 to 70 percent according to Mayer et al., 2007).
To quantify how the proposed project would reduce sediment inputs into the Lower Little River watershed, Michael Baker
utilized the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Region 5 model. The Region 5 Model is a widely
accepted computer based model used to determine sediment and nutrient load reductions from the implementation of
urban and agricultural BMPs, including but not limited to vegetated filter strips, wetland detention, and bank
stabilization/stream restoration. Model inputs include eroded stream bank length, stream bank height, lateral recession
rates, soil weight, and BMP efficiency. The model estimates that the project would reduce sediment inputs to the
watershed by 326 tons/year.
To quantify nutrient reductions, Michael Baker utilized the North Carolina Agricultural Nutrient Assessment Tool (Version
2.02, NC State University. Raleigh, NC.). This tool utilizes two separate North Carolina -specific models, the Phosphorus
Loss Assessment Tool and the Nitrogen Loss Estimation Worksheet to evaluate nutrient loss in agricultural settings. It
particular, they were designed to estimate the nutrient loss reductions to be expected through the implementation of
commonly installed agricultural BMPs (such as buffers). For this project, the site was divided into two sections: the higher
slope headwater stream areas and the lower slope valley areas, with each section being evaluated independently. The
tool showed that by stabilizing stream bank erosion, removing direct livestock access from the streams, wetlands, and
riparian buffers, and by planting hardwood trees, phosphorus loss from the site can be dramatically reduced on the site
as whole by approximately 98 percent, while nitrogen loss can be reduced by approximately 47 percent.
Additionally, to better document water quality improvements for the project, surface water samples will be collected at
3 stream locations onsite prior to construction, and then again at those same locations annually throughout the project
monitoring period. Samples will be analyzed for TP, TKN, NO3 and Nitrite NO2 by a certified independent laboratory as per
the appropriate EPA methodology.
Functional Uplift: In their current conditions, the project reaches and riparian wetland areas are highly degraded as
a result of past channelization, land use disturbance, cattle access, and silvicultural practices. The maximum possible
functional uplift will be achieved by:
• Providing stable channel forms to reduce bank erosion and sedimentation.
• Restoring riparian wetlands along the project stream reaches.
• Restoring and enhancing riparian wetland and riparian buffer vegetation to promote native species, improve
vegetation densities, filter flood flows and runoff, and increase riparian habitat value.
• Providing improved floodplain connection to dissipate flood energies, filter storm flows, and promote sediment and
debris deposition on the floodplain and banks.
• Restoring diverse aquatic and terrestrial habitats that are appropriate for the ecoregion and landscape setting.
• Restoring and extending wildlife corridors that connect to existing wooded areas and natural communities at the
periphery of the project site.
• Reducing nutrient, bacterial, and sediment loadings by permanently excluding cattle from the project reaches and
riparian wetlands and through the implementation of structural BMPs.
_ I = 0 Page 42
1 N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L

r .
:=
Russell Gap Stream Mitigation Prgiect
1 w rs. Catawba River Basin • RFP #16-006807 • Cataloging Unit D3050101
5.4. Proposed Mitigation:
This technical proposal describes the proposed stream mitigation and wetland restoration approaches for the Russell Gap
Stream Mitigation Project. The work will include restoration and enhancement of approximately 12,500 LF of existing
stream (Figure 6). This approach will yield more than 9,400 warm water stream mitigation credits. In addition, the project
will also include the restoration of more than 5.6 acres of riparian wetlands using wetland re-establishment. Any additional
credits developed within the conservation easement areas above the contracted amount will be available to NCDMS as
part of the proposed project. The proposed amounts of stream and wetland mitigation are presented in Table 4 below.
Table 4. Proposed Stream and Wetland Mitigation Credit Summary for the Russell Gap Stream Mitigation Project.
•.
rJ eTzlrei <..i,. 4s] z�
"1975
Credits
R1
Stream Restoration
1:1
1975
R2
Stream Enhancement Level 1
180
1.5:1
120
R3
Stream Enhancement Level 1
395
1.5:1
263
R4a
Stream Enhancement Level II
600
2.5:1
240
R4
Stream Enhancement Level 1
1850
1.5:1
1233
R5
Stream Enhancement Level II
270
2.5:1
108
R6
Stream Restoration
752
1:1
752
R7
Stream Enhancement Level 1
1500
1.5:1
1000
R8
Stream Enhancement Level II
481
2.5:1
192
R9
Stream Restoration
463
1:1
463
R1O
Stream Enhancement Level 1
400
1.5:1
267
R11
Stream Enhancement Level 1
500
1.5:1
333
R12
Stream Restoration
90
1:1
90
R13
Stream Enhancement Level 1
125
1.5:1
83
R14
Stream Restoration
525
1:1
525
R15
Stream Enhancement Level II
92
2.5:1
37
R16
Stream Enhancement Level II
140
2.5:1
56
R17
Stream Enhancement Level II
110
2.5:1
44
R18
Stream Enhancement Level II
170
2.5:1
68
R19
Stream Enhancement Level 1
480
1.5:1
320
R2O
Stream Restoration
225
1:1
225
R21
Stream Enhancement Level II
70
2.5:1
28
R22
Stream Enhancement Level II
202
2.5:1
81
R23
Stream Enhancement Level II
375
2.5:1
150
R24
Stream Enhancement Level II
170
2.5:1
68
R25
Stream Restoration
460
1:1
460
R26
Stream Enhancement Level II
600
2.5:1
240
Total Stream Potential
13,200
9,422
Total Stream Proposed for Contract
13,200
9,400
W1
Riparian Wetland Restoration
5.6
1:1
5.6
Total Wetland Potential
5.6
5.6
Total Wetland Proposed for
Contract
4.0
4.0

Russell Gap Stream Mitigation Prgiect
Catawba River Basin • RFP #16-006807 • Cataloging Unit D3050101
5.5. Current Ownership and Long -Term Protection
Michael Baker proposes to transfer a conservation easement to the State of North Carolina for the Russell Gap Stream
Mitigation Project and for that conveyance to serve as the method that will be used for long-term protection of the
mitigation site. Michael Baker has entered into Option Agreements for the acquisition of a conservation easement with
the landowners along the Russell Gap Stream Mitigation Project (Table 5). The Option Agreements have been recorded
with the Alexander County Register of Deeds and are valid for a period of greater than or equal to one (1) year from the
closing date of this RFP. A copy of each of the Memorandum of Option Agreements are provided in the appendices, and
are summarized in Table 5 below. A copy of the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services Landowner Authorization
Form has been signed by each of the project landowners. The Option Agreements allow Michael Baker to proceed with
the project and to restrict the land -use in perpetuity through a permanent conservation easement. Michael Baker is
prepared to close on the project area after contract award by NCDMS and will provide, at any time, copies of the deeds
of easement, titles, surveys, and any maps as required.
Table S. Summary Information of Current Land Ownership for the Russell Gap Stream Mitigation Project.
•
Note: A copy of each Memorandum of Option Agreement is provided in the appendices.
The property owners of the Russell Gap Stream Mitigation Project grew up and live in the community. All of the properties
are used primarily for livestock production. All of the landowners are excited about the project and have a strong desire
to be good stewards of the land and protect it in perpetuity.
5.6. Project Phasing
Michael Baker has extensive stream restoration experience and understands the most recent mitigation requirements and
standards. Accordingly, Michael Baker is in a strong position to implement this project in a timely and effective manner.
Upon contract execution for the Russell Gap Stream Mitigation Project, Michael Baker will implement the project schedule
below.
Scheduled Completion Time
Duration of Agreement
Option Agreement D.te
James M. and Rebecca H. Dupuis
November 3, 2014
36 months
James R. and Mildred J. Herman
November 3, 2014
36 months
Christina H. and David S. Moose
November 3, 2014
36 months
Melinda H. and Randy B. St. Clair
November 3, 2014
36 months
Linda Lowe and Gail Bumgarner
June 2, 2016
24 months
Note: A copy of each Memorandum of Option Agreement is provided in the appendices.
The property owners of the Russell Gap Stream Mitigation Project grew up and live in the community. All of the properties
are used primarily for livestock production. All of the landowners are excited about the project and have a strong desire
to be good stewards of the land and protect it in perpetuity.
5.6. Project Phasing
Michael Baker has extensive stream restoration experience and understands the most recent mitigation requirements and
standards. Accordingly, Michael Baker is in a strong position to implement this project in a timely and effective manner.
Upon contract execution for the Russell Gap Stream Mitigation Project, Michael Baker will implement the project schedule
below.
Scheduled Completion Time
Scheduled Completion Date (assuming
IMP.roject Task M1
(from ..
• ..
hm�
Task 1. CE Document
3 months
January 1, 2017
Task 2. Submit Recorded Conservation
9 months
July 1, 2017
Easement on the Site
Task 3. Mitigation Plan (Final Draft) and
9 months
July 1, 2017
Financial Assurance
Task 4. Mitigation Site Earthwork
1 year, 3 months
January 1, 2018
Completed
Task S. Mitigation Site Planting and
1 year, 5 months
March 1, 2018
Installation of Monitoring Devices
Task 6. Baseline Monitoring Report
(including As -built Drawings)
1 year, 7 months
May 1, 2018
Task 7. Submit Monitoring Report #1 to
3 years, 2 months
December 1, 2019
NCDMS (meets success criteria)
Task 8. Submit Monitoring Report #2 to
4 years, 2 months
December 1, 2020
NCDMS (meets success criteria)
Task 9. Submit Monitoring Report #3 to
5 years, 2 months
December 1, 2021
NCDMS (meets success criteria)

Russell Gap Stream Mitigation Prgiect
Catawba River Basin • RFP #16-006807 • Cataloging Unit D3050101
ect Task
Proi (.&I
Scheduled Completion Time
Scheduled Completion Date (assuming
(from ..
October
Task 10. Submit Monitoring Report #4 to
6 years, 2 months
December 1, 2022
NCDMS (meets success criteria)
Task 11. Submit Monitoring Report #5 to
7 Years, 2 months
December 1, 2023
NCDMS (meets success criteria)
Task 12. Submit Monitoring Report #6 to
8 Years, 2 months
December 1, 2024
NCDMS (meets success criteria)
Task 13. Submit Monitoring Report #7 to
NCDMS and complete Project Close-
9 years, 2 months
December 1, 2025
out process (meets success criteria)
5.7. Success Criteria
Michael Baker has obtained regulatory approval for numerous
stream and wetland mitigation projects (Permitee Responsible and
both NCDOT and NCDMS full -delivery projects). The stream andY
wetland restoration design and applied success criteria for theqcc
n
project site will follow approved success criteria presented in the
mitigation plan, developed in compliance with the NCDMS Stream
and Wetland Mitigation Plan Template and Guidance (October.
2015), as well as the Stream Mitigation Guidelines issued in April `
2003. In addition, the monitoring success criteria, practices, and
corresponding reporting will follow the NCDMS Stream and Wetland
Mitigation Monitoring Guidelines issued in February, 2014, the
NCDMS As -built Baseline Monitoring Report Format, Data {
Requirements, and Content Guidance issued in February, 2014, and
the NCDMS Annual Monitoring and Closeout Report Template v2.1, March 2015, and Closeout Template Guidance v2.1,
February 2015. Monitoring activities will be conducted for a period of 5 to 7 years with the final duration dependent upon
performance trends toward achieving project goals and objectives. An early closure provision may be requested by
Michael Baker for some or all of the monitoring components. Early closure may only be obtained through written approval
from the regulatory agencies. Specific success criteria components are presented below.
Stream Restoration and Enhancement I Success Criteria
Stream Hydrology: Two bankfull flow events must be documented within the seven-year monitoring period. The two
bankfull events must occur in separate years. Otherwise, the stream monitoring will continue until two bankfull events
have been documented in separate years.
Bank Height Ratios: BHR shall not exceed 1.2 within restored reaches of the stream channel. This standard only applies
to restored reaches of the channel where BHRs are corrected through design and construction.
Entrenchment Ratio: Entrenchment Ratio (ER) shall be no less than 2.2 (> 1.4 for "B" channels) within restored reaches
of the stream channel. This standard only applies to restored reaches of the channel where ERs are corrected through
design and construction.
Cross Sections: Cross sections along representative meander wavelengths will be monitored for seven years, with
monitoring events occurring at a minimum during years 1, 3, 5, and 7. There should be little change in as -built restoration
cross sections. If changes occur, they should be evaluated to determine if they represent a movement toward a more
unstable condition (e.g., downcutting, erosion) or a movement toward increased stability (e.g., settling, vegetative
changes, deposition along the banks, decrease in width/depth ratio). Cross sections shall be classified using the Rosgen
Stream Classification method and monitored cross sections should fall within the quantitative parameters defined for
channels of the design stream type.
0 Page 45
1 NTE R9ATI©NAL

Russell Gap Stream Mitigation Project
Catawba River Basin + RFP #16-006807 • Cataloging Unit 03050101
Longitudinal Profiles: Longitudinal profiles will be developed to document the as -built condition for Restoration and
Enhanceent Level I reaches. Bedforms observed should be consistent with those observed for channels of the design
stream type. Additional longitudinal profiles may be required if problems are identified during the monitoring period.
Visual Assessment: Visual monitoring of all sections of the project, to include representative photographic
documentation, will be conducted annually for each of the years of monitoring, and will be inclusive of the Current
Conditions Plan View (CCPV) and tables that house the visual assessment metrics. Visual assessments will be undertaken
of bank and bed stability, condition of in -stream structures, channel migration, headcuts, live stake mortality, impacts
from invasive plant species or animal species, and condition of pools and riffles. Inspections will also include assessments
of riparian buffer conditions. Photographs will be used to subjectively evaluate channel aggradation or degradation, bank
erosion, success of riparian vegetation and effectiveness of erosion control measures. Longitudinal photos should indicate
the absence of developing bars within the channel or excessive increase in channel depth. Lateral photos should not
indicate excessive erosion or continuing degradation of the banks. A series of photos over time should indicate
successional maturation of riparian vegetation.
Stream Enhancement II Success Criteria
Success criteria for Enhancement II stream reaches will follow the success criteria for
Visual Monitoring/Photo Reference Stations and Vegetation Success Criteria as outlined herein.
Vegetation Success Criteria
Specific and measurable success criteria for plant density on the project site will be based on the recommendations found
in the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) Technical Note and correspondence from review agencies on recent NCDMS full -
delivery projects. The interim measures of vegetative success for the project will be the survival of at least 320, three-
year-old planted trees per acre at the end of Year Three of the monitoring period and at least 260, five-year-old, planted
trees per acre at the end of Year Five of the monitoring period. Final success criteria will be a density no less than 210,
seven-year-old planted stems per acre in Year Seven of monitoring. A listing of preferred species to be planted on the site
is provided in Part 5.3.
Wetland Restoration Success Criteria
Wetland Hydrology: Ground water levels will be within 12 inches of the soil surface for a minimum of 12 percent of the
growing season.
Method of Reporting on Success Criteria
In accordance with the approved mitigation plan, the baseline monitoring document and as -built monitoring report
documenting the stream mitigation will be developed within 60 days of the planting completion and monitoring
installation on the restored site. In addition, a period of at least 6 months will separate the as -built baseline measurements
and the first year monitoring measurements. The baseline monitoring document and as -built baseline report will include
all information required by the current NCDMS templates and guidance referenced above, including planimetric (plan
view) and elevation (profile view) information, photographs, sampling plot locations, description of initial species
composition by community type, and monitoring stations. The report will include a list of the vegetation species planted
and the associated planting densities.
The monitoring program will be implemented to document system development and progress toward achieving the
success criteria referenced above. At least 180 days will separate the completion of initial vegetation planting and the
initiation of first year monitoring. Stream morphology, stream hydrology, as well as vegetation, will be assessed to
determine the success of the mitigation. The monitoring program will be undertaken for five to seven years or until the
final success criteria are achieved. For stream Enhancement II monitoring will be limited to reference photos and
assessment of vegetation survival.
Monitoring reports will be prepared in the fall of each year of monitoring and submitted to NCDMS by December 1 of each
monitoring year. The monitoring reports will follow the current NCDMS monitoring report guidance and templates, as
specified in the RFP, and referenced above, and will include:
1. A detailed narrative summarizing the condition of the restored site and all regular maintenance activities;
2. Project background information;
1111 T"IT1111"W", M1 M Page 46
1 N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L

Mussell Gap Stream Mitigation Project
Catawba River Basin • RFP #16-006807 • Cataloging Unit D3050101
3. As -built topographic maps showing location of vegetation sampling plots, permanent photo points, and location
of transects;
4. CCPV map including monitoring features and any areas of
concern or problem areas noted during monitoring;
5. Photographs showing views of the restored site taken from fixed
point stations;
6. Geomorphic and sediment data as required;
7. Hydrologic data;
8. Vegetative data, as described below;
9. Any geomorphic, hydrologic or vegetative problem areas;
10. A description of any damage done by animals or vandalism; and
11. Wildlife observations.
Stream Mitigation Monitoring
The stream mitigation success criteria are defined above.
Hydrologic Monitoring: The hydrologic success criteria are defined above under Stream Hydrology for streams.
Photo Reference Stations: Photographs will be used to visually document restoration success. Reference stations will be
photographed for at least five years following construction. Reference photos will be taken once a year. Photographs will
be taken from a height of approximately five to six feet above grade. Permanent markers will be established to ensure
that the same locations (and view directions) on the site are monitored in each monitoring period.
Stream Hydrology and Floodplain Access: The occurrence of bankfull events, and floodplain access within the monitoring
period will be documented by the use of crest gages and photographs. The crest gages will be installed on the floodplain
of and across the cross section of the restored channels as needed. The crest gages will record the highest watermark
between site visits, and the gages will be checked each time there is a site visit to determine if a bankfull and/or
geomorphically significant event has occurred. Photographs will be used to document the occurrence of debris lines and
sediment deposition on the floodplain during monitoring site visits.
Wetland Hydrology: Automated groundwater monitoring stations will follow the USACE standard methods found in the
WRP Technical Notes (ERDC TN -WRAP -00-02, July 2000). A rain gauge will also be installed to provide precipitation data
for the site during the monitoring period. Monitoring stations will be installed and monitored in the agreed upon locations
described in the approved mitigation plan. Monitoring of wetland hydrology will take place annually.
Cross Sections: Representative meander wavelengths will be chosen for each Restoration and Enhancement Level I reach
that has discrete design criteria. Permanent riffle and pool cross sections will be installed along the chosen meander
wavelengths with the number and location of each cross section to be determined based on the length of the reach and
described in the approved mitigation plan. Each cross section will be monumented on both banks. The cross section
survey will include points measured at all breaks in slope, including top of bank, bankfull, inner berm, edge of water, and
thalweg, if the features are present. Riffle cross sections will be classified using the Rosgen stream classification system.
Bank pin arrays will only be utilized if warranted forthe monitoring of lateral erosion at cross sections occurring in meander
bend (typically pools).
Lateral Reference Photos: Reference photo transects will be taken at each permanent cross section. Photographs will be
taken of both banks at each cross section. The survey tape will be centered in the photographs of the bank. The water
line will be located in the lower edge of the frame and as much of the bank as possible will be included in each photo.
Photographers will make an effort to consistently maintain the same area in each photo over time.
Structure Photos: Photographs will be taken at representative in -stream structures (typically grade control structures)
along the restored streams. Photographers will make every effort to consistently maintain the same area in each photo
over time.
Vegetation Monitoring
The vegetative success criteria are defined above. Successful restoration of the vegetation on a mitigation site is
dependent upon hydrologic restoration, planting of preferred canopy species, and volunteer regeneration of the native
M Page 47
INTERNATIONAL

Russell Gap Stream Mitigation Project
Catawba River Basin + RFP #16-006807 • Cataloging Unit 03050101
plant community. In order to determine if the criteria are achieved, vegetation -monitoring quadrants will be installed
across the restoration site and monitored as directed by the NCDMS monitoring guidance as referenced above. Vegetation
monitoring will occur in the fall. Individual quadrant data will be provided and will include individual -specific data
onspecies, date planted, and grid location; as well as a collective determination of density within the quadrant. Relative
values will be calculated and importance values will be determined. Individual seedlings will be marked, so they can be
found in succeeding monitoring years. Volunteer species will be noted and their inclusion in quadrant data will be
evaluated with NCDMS on a case-by-case basis. The presence of invasive species vegetation within quadrants will also be
noted, as will any wildlife effects. At the end of the first growing season species composition, density, and survival will be
evaluated. For each subsequent year, until the final success criteria are achieved, the restored site will be evaluated
between July and October.
Remedial Actions
In the event that the site or a specific component of the site fails to achieve the defined success criteria, Michael Baker
will develop necessary adaptive management plans and/or implement appropriate remedial actions for the site in
coordination with NCDMS and the review agencies. Remedial action required will be designed to achieve the success
criteria specified previously and will include a work schedule and monitoring criteria that will take into account physical
and climatic conditions.
Part 6. Quality Control
Quality is built around processes and procedures. Michael Baker's companywide Quality Management System establishes
those processes and procedures at three different levels:
a. "Project Management - The Michael Baker Way' — Michael Baker has established a standard structured Project
Delivery Process for all projects. This process addresses every aspect of a project and is the foundation for
delivering a quality product.
b. Project Management Plan (PMP) —The foundation established in "The Michael Baker Way" is further defined with
the PMP. Each project's PMP applies the Project Delivery Process to specific project conditions and establishes
the process for managing the project.
C. Project Specific Quality Management Plan (PSQMP) — Project Managers prepare a PSQMP for each project that
defines project specific quality assurance and quality control procedures.
The first two levels of quality control will ensure that all aspects of this project are delivered according to schedule
established herein. The PSQMP for this project will establish and document various quality assurance reviews to cross-
examine all engineering and design methods, set forth document preparation and delivery methods and activities, and
ensure all deliverables are technically sound, follow the required NCDMS formats, contain all required information, and
are grammatically/typographically correct. Reviews will include:
a. Peer Reviews — Qualified and experienced individuals independent of the project will perform peer reviews. The
objective of these reviews will be to: assess the product versus NCDMS's requirements, spot check key values,
verify completeness and clarity, and determine if the design meets sound engineering practice.
b. Deliverable Reviews — Appropriate staff will review the entire submission for overall presentation, format,
uniformity, consistency, and completeness.
C. Constructability Reviews —Appropriate staff will perform constructability reviews relative to scope, schedule, and
acceptability. Results of the constructability review will be incorporated in the design to optimize work and
material used during construction, and to ensure the project is completed in compliance with any required federal,
state, or local permits.
The PSQMP also identifies when quality audits are performed to insure that the PSQMP is in place, appropriate, and being
followed. The PSQMP is kept simple and practical to ensure effectiveness. Central to effectively implementing the PSQMP
is ensuring that the project is appropriately staffed, both in terms of manpower and experience. Time to perform quality
control and quality assurance activities is an important consideration when developing the project schedule.
During the construction phases, the Project Manager and the assigned Michael Baker staff will be responsible for oversight
of construction activities. This will involve checking the contractor's adherence to design documents, making decisions
regarding field changes, and checking compliance with federal, state and local permits.
Michael BakerPage 48

Figures
III

18 --
r
03A40101 2
30401010104 `~ti
J} Wilkes County
II r
f
Alexander County
Site Location dp X44
03` 401020 010
0 50101120010 f
16 +�
' �" 03050_ 11}20020 -�1 03050112003
s
'
Not Site is located within targeted local
-= watershed 03050101120010.
Figure 1
/ �Loca
Project Vicinity Map
i �16 Russell Gap Project
64 /
Michael Baker
901�5aw %
INTERNATIONAL
Alexander County����-�`�� _ �� 0 0.5 1 2
Miles

Conservation Easement
.1327
t Olive
--Chi Ce
t
Rip
"N
RZ
19
CO R25
t r
c.Vi.
dt
B M,,.r2,+�
r f
ZI
�.,
Moravian Falls Quadrangle _XO y Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i -cubed
Figure 2
Michael Baker 0 1,000 2,000 USGS Topographic Map
Feet Russell Gap Project
I N T E R N AT I O N A L

CsD
EcD
CsE
CsD
EcD
BsD2
BsD2
&JO
CoA
EcD
BsD2
EcD
N
DaA
2
�j Conservation Easement
Soil Mapping Units
- Ac E, Ashe-Cleveland Complex
- BsC2, Braddock and Hayesville clay loams (6-15% slopes)
- BsD2, Braddock and Hayesville clay loams (15-25% slopes)
- CoA, Codorus loam (NRCS-listed Hydric Soil)
CsD, Cowee-Saluda Complex (8-25% slopes)
- CsE, Cowee-Saluda Complex (25-60% slopes)
- DaA, Dan River and Comus soils
EcD, Evard-Cowee Complex (8-25% slopes)
- EcE, Evard-Cowee Complex (25-60% slopes)
_ TfB, Tate -French Complex (2-10% slopes)
R25
BsD2
p EcE
EcD
Figure 3
Michael Baker 0 1,000 2,000 NRCS Soils Map
Feet Russell Gap Project
I N T E R N AT I O N A L
BsD2'- BsD2
B-
a
Q�
BsD2
Be
BsC2
BsD2
CoA
Q-�
EcD
BsD2
R25
BsD2
p EcE
EcD
Figure 3
Michael Baker 0 1,000 2,000 NRCS Soils Map
Feet Russell Gap Project
I N T E R N AT I O N A L

0 1,000 2,000
Feet
I N T E R N AT 1 0 N A L
Elevation
High : 1928
Low: 1184
0 Conservation Easement
Figure 4
UDAR Map
Russell Gap Project

y •�t♦ _.�+; P ' _ {��-�_��4'2 IIt 4, Y t 4 �- � 4' t "�,Y}1 I� I
1 y {
1 5 l
� I —��. a!}r�-,fir i I � r -if (/'. � 5tk �I t1,�Y �+IiI75i� � tr 111YS•
1rfZ I ' •,�st\ 11; 4\1�!4 �� � �I�I7 51t,4 � i1 5'
Note:contain,
X1'1 I ••'• •••• .
- — � ��M1I f f d . I :.-v'' tl � 1'41, l� F i.�l;'���f�� =r•'

I
IVII%Mfl
14a�l
1004M%1111�1
I N
T
E
R
N
A
T 1
0
N
A L
7-1
R22
0
R7
'R21
R18
R17
...... .....
0 500 1,000
� Feet
0 Visual Bank Height Ratio Assessment
Conservation Easement
Surveyed Cross Sections
R4a
R4
R 5
1%
Figure 7
Pre -Monitoring Features
Russell Gap Project

r N
' , C
v
-,k
77 r
x +
i r
. I r
y- 4
' . � ax M ri` t ri •r �d .r.,�° f t � � �,' y � f,+'��"•, J 4
zf
J.
At
Op ZI
_ Le ay 4 ap Y Pyp'Z, f g
0 Conservation Easement i
Figure 8
Michael Baker 0 750 1,500 1940 Aerial Photo
Feet Russell Gap Project
I N T E R N AT I O N A L

Conservation Easement
N
A
Figure 9
Michael Baker 0 750 1,500 1993 Aerial Photo
Feet Russell Gap Project
I N T E R N AT I O N A L

NChannel Incision
Reach Existing Stream Length Not Incised - BHR - 1.0 Slightly Incised - BHR = 1.1-1.3 Moderately Incised - BHR = 1.3-1.5 Severely Incised - BHR> 1.5 BHR @ Cross Section Observed BHR Range
R1 1947 100% 1.2 1.1-1.2
R2 177100% 1.1-1.2
R3 388 100% 1.0 1.0-1.1
i Y R4a 560 100% 1.1-1.2
R4 1771 50% 50% 1.5 1.1-1.5
R5 256 100% 1.1-1.2
R6 684 100% 2.7 2.0-3.0
R7 1396 100% 1.1 1.1-1.3
R8 437 100% 1.0-1.1
R9 421 50% 50% 1.5 1.1-1.5
R10 371 100% 1.0-1.1
R11 481 20% 80% 1.0-2.0
R12 86 100% 1.3-1.5
R13 124 100% 1.0-1.1
R14 512 30% 70% 4.0 1.0-4.0
R15 84 100% 1.1-1.2
R16 129 100% 1.1-1.2
R10 ; R17 110 100% 1.1-1.2
R18 164 100% 1.0-1.1
R19 454 100% 1.3-1.5
R20 206 100% 1.1-1.3
' R21 67 100% 1.1-1.2
R22 202 50% 50% 1.2-2.5
R23 375 100% 1.1-1.3
R24 169 100% 1.0-1.1
R25 422 50% 50% 1.1-1.5
" - R26 548 100% 1.0-1.1
R1
ET -
R12
■
Vf; Y
R4
R15
- . R2
R3 -
R9
R22
R25
R7
R4a
ARMWb�1,
R20
R21
R19
0 Conservation Easement
R18
Surveyed Cross Sections
HeadCut 0.
{
a' O R17 ice'
Bedrock
6
IncisionR6
R16
Not Incised (BHR - 1.0)
Slightly Incised (BHR = 1.1-1.3) ' "'
Moderately Incised (BHR = 1.3-1.5) R5
Severely Incised (BHR > 1.5)
Figure 10
Michael Baker 0 500 1,000 Channel Stability Map
Feet Incision and Bedrock Control
I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L Russell Gap Project

.
Stream Bank Erosion
N
Reach
EAsting Stream Length Bank Scour %
Mass Wasting %
BHR
R1
1947 50-60%
30-40%
1.2
R2
177 30-40%
5-10%
1.2
R3
388 20-30%
10-20%
1.0
R4a
560 0-5%
0%
1.2
R4
1771 30-40%
10-20%
1.2
R5
256 30-40%
5-10%
1.1
R6
684 90-100%
70-80%
2.7
R7
1396 30-40%
10-20%
1.1
=
R8
437 5-10%
0%
1.0
R9 421 50-60% 40-50% 1.4
R10 371 30-40% 5-10% 1.1
R11 481 50-60% 10-20% 1.5
R12 86 50-60% 10-20% 1.3
R13 124 5-10% 0% 1.0
O R14 512 50-60% 30-40% 4.0
4 R15 84 20-30% 0% 1.2
R16 129 5-10% 0% 1.2
R17 110 10-20% 0-5% 1.2
�, � R1 _ _ R18 164 5-10% 0% 1.0
R19 454 50-60% 5-10% 1.4
R20 206 50-60% 10-20% 2.0
R21 67 5-10% 0% 1.1
R22 202 5-10% 0-5% 1.7
0 R23 375 10-20% 0-5% 1.2
R24 169 0-5% 0-5% 1.0
R14 1 R25 422 40-50% 10-20% 1.2
R26 548 5-10% 0% 1.0
O'2 1. The estimated bank erosion percentages are calculated for both banks combined
It
R4a
t
M
SIE
a Conservation Easement
Surveyed Cross Sections
HeadCut
QBedrock
Bank Scour
0-5%
5-10%
10-20%
20-30%
30-40%
40-50%
50-60%
90-100%
W,
I N T E R N AT 1 0 N A L
R15
R4
R4
R20
,_
DO 0 O ;� R21
!R1 -
R18..
Figure 11a
500 1,000 Channel Stability Map
Feet Streambank Erosion - Bank Scour
Russell Gap Project

Stream Bank Erosion
N � Reach EAsting Stream Length Bank Scour % Mass Wasting % BHR
R1 1947 50-60% 30-40% 1.2
R2 177 30-40% 5-10% 1.2
R3 388 20-30% 10-20% 1.0
R4a 560 0-5% 0% 1.2
R4 1771 30-40% 10-20% 1.2
R5 256 30-40% 5-10% 1.1
R6 684 90-100% 70-80% 2.7
R7 1396 30-40% 10-20% 1.1
R8 437 5-10% 0% 1.0
R9 421 50-60% 40-50% 1.4
R10 371 30-40% 5-10% 1.1
R11 481 50-60% 10-20% 1.5
_ R12 86 50-60% 10-20% 1.3
R13 124 5-10% 0% 1.0
Q R14 512 50-60% 30-40% 4.0
o R15 84 20-30% 0% 1.2
R16 129 5-10% 0% 1.2
i R17 110 10-20% 0-5% 1.2
R18 164 5-10% 0% 1.0
R19 454 50-60% 5-10% 1.4
F " R20 206 50-60% 10-20% 2.0
R21 67 5-10% 0% 1.1
R22 202 5-10% 0-5% 1.7
o R23 375 10-20% 0-5% 1.2
R24 169 0-5% 0-5% 1.0
R25 422 40-50% 10-20% 1.2
R26 548 5-10% 0% 1.0
A ages are calculated for both banks combined
1. The estimated bank erosion percent
Er"O"
1
°
r
Rc
1 o R25
t
Conservation Easement ' F
Surveyed Cross Sections
R20 s.'AL
HeadCut
® Bedrock
Mass Wasting h19 o O o R21
0% w
0-5% R18
5-10%
V' °
10-20% •.ltd
30-40%
R6
;
70-80% oo.
d
Figure 11 b
Michael0 500 1,000 Channel Stability Map
Feet Streambank Erosion - Mass Wasting
I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L Russell Gap Project

R24 ! R1
R23
R12
R11 � i
ri R 14,
n�
R4a
k�s�� y • y. � i l .
i . ® R26
—
NConservation
Easement
Berm
*,
Ditch
Spoil Area
..�
Flood Alteration
Altered
•
T
Unaltered
R24 ! R1
R23
R12
R11 � i
ri R 14,
n�
R4a
k�s�� y • y. � i l .
i . ® R26
0 - - 0:F.01 NJ Figure 12
0 500 1,000 Floodplain Alteration Map
Gap Project
Feet Russell Ga
INTERNATIONAL j
T
,
R4
�iV
n
1F
5:
"sY
,i
4
7
Floodplain Alteration
/
Reach Existing Stream Length
Altered
Unaltered
" �
r
R1
1947
50%
50%
R2
177
100%
4' �;� F'"+M
e#
R3
388
30%
70%
.�`
. r
~�
R4a
560
100%
"�
R4
1771
50%
50%
�
R5
256
10%
90%
V°��'
R6
684
100%
R7
1396
100%
r •N
R8
437
100%
�E"`
!,�
R9
421
100%
R10
371
50%
50%
4
y► 'rt 3 .G t.:.
R11
481
20%
80%
t
R12
86
75 /0
25%
R13
124
100%
" R17
4MV
R14
512
70%
30%
'
R16�`
R15
84
100%
R16
129
100%
rAd
R17
110
100%
R18
164
100%
}- }
R19
454
30%
70%
R20
206
100%AL
•' Y
r
R21
R21
67
100%
. Ptr
r .
R22
202
100%
R23
375
100%
R24
169
100%
,
R25
422
40%
60%
R26
548
100%
0 - - 0:F.01 NJ Figure 12
0 500 1,000 Floodplain Alteration Map
Gap Project
Feet Russell Ga
INTERNATIONAL j

Watershed Planning
Conservation Easement
Targeted Local Watershed 03050101120010
N
R/
VA ' 7
�] U F
- y
7 Site Location C
Figure 14
Michael Baker 0 0.5 1 Watershed Planning
Miles Contextual Map
I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L Russell Gap Project

w _
'h
Planning Elements
• Existing EEP Projects
Conservation Easement
Brushy Mountains Macrosite _ }�
- Significant Natural Heritage Area (SNHA)
r '
Managed Area ._ � � �,, s 1Jo
..F�-�
Natural Heritage Element Occurrence (NHEO)
a
AIMS
u�wd�nr � a 0
ip
2.
' ilFisiW"I' _• _ '
i
F.
h Site Location
_ t .e. ...:- � '. ._` may( •i
.. _ E -I. ndnia 0"�'�"�-� _.. ,rl,�i —_ _. J. tw 9 � �'M • _ - __.
Y
1. Upper Fork Little River
�¢ 1
Brushy Mountains 1 r'
2. Sugarloaf Mountain
3. Bald Rock Mountain -
Copyright: © 2013 National Geographic Society
Figure 15
Michael Baker 0 1 2 Adjacent and Proximal
Miles Planning Elements Map
I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L Russell Gap Project

R 1 i
Appro>amate Longitudinal Forest Continuity
Reach Existing Stream Length Discontinuous Forest Length LB Discontinuous Forest Length RS Discontinuous Forest Length
R1 1947 1947 1947 100%
R2 177 177 177 100%
R3 388 317 317 82%
R4a 560 210 210 38%
R4 1771 1771 1771 100%
R5 256 256 0 50%
R6 684 591 500 80%
R7 1396 1494 1028 90%
RS 437 0 0 0%
R9 421 421 421 100%
- R10 371 371 371 100%
R11 481 378 378 79%
R12 86 86 86 100%
R13 124 124 100 90%
R14 512 512 512 100%
R15 84 84 84 100%
R16 129 0 0 0%
R17 110 110 110 100%
R18 164 164 164 100%
R19 454 355 265 68%
R20 206 95 95 46%
R21 67 67 60 95%
R22 202 202 202 100%
R23 375 375 375 100%
R24 169 169 169 100%
R25 422 325 325 77%
R26 548 548 548 100%
Totals 12541 88.9% 81.5%
R4a
NTIi
Ile
INN
ASW
4 ���lu M1 i' 3 tr, ,��'� ?i5i'y e �'�C. •�Ift y
< . R4
R2
R3 `
R4 I
R3
R9
R22
R8
R25
R7 A
R20
rho � "E'• ' e
r n+
-r I
R17
.I R6
Approximate Existing Forested Buffer Widths
01 0-10' 10-20' 20-30' >30'
Reach Existing Stream Length Total Stream Bank Length LB RS LB RB LB RB LB RS LB RB ` ' ; S yr 3 '
R7 1947 3894 100% 100%�,-
R2 177 354 100% 100%
f � ti
R3
i
R3 388 776 75% 75% 25% 25% I RCJ ,- ��J }i�3� i F�• �Y��, �. p 4
R4a 560 1120 60% 60% 40% 40% (iayT t •r
R4 1771 3542 100% 95% 5% R16 ,>1,
R5 256 512 100% 100% ?� r�i �� L�,. i�. r�,r �,�1• N I t �� p
R6 684 1368 100% 10% 90%
R7 1396 2792 100% 70% 30%
R8 437 874 20% 100% 80% i1 a II �ilre t 1'��
R9 421 842 100% 100%
R10 371 742 100% 100%
R11 481 962 90% 90% 10% 10%
R12 86 172 100% 100%
R13 124 248 100% 100%
R14 512 1024 100% 100%
R15 84 168 100% 100%
R16 129 258 100% 100%
R17 110 220 100% 100%
R18 164 328 95% 95% 5% 5%
R19 454 908 40% 40% 60% 60%
R20 206 412 40% 40% 60% 60%
R21 67 134 10% 100% 90%
R22 202 404 100% 100%
R23 375 750 100% 100% Q Conservation Easement
R24 169 338 100% 100%
R25 422 844 60% 60% 20% 20% 40%
R26 548 1096 100% 100%
Totals 12541 25082 10301 8971 1301 1044 0 0 0 87 940 2439
41.1% 35.8% 5.2% 4.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 3.7% 9.7%
Michael Baker
Figure 16
0 500 1,000 Riparian Buffer Analysis
Feet p Project Russell Ga Pro
INTERNATIONAL J
5
4
x
;! 2
I
RII
ISI 4.
4- R13
R12
,� y
i e-
y
AV
Appro>amate Longitudinal Forest Continuity
Reach Existing Stream Length Discontinuous Forest Length LB Discontinuous Forest Length RS Discontinuous Forest Length
R1 1947 1947 1947 100%
R2 177 177 177 100%
R3 388 317 317 82%
R4a 560 210 210 38%
R4 1771 1771 1771 100%
R5 256 256 0 50%
R6 684 591 500 80%
R7 1396 1494 1028 90%
RS 437 0 0 0%
R9 421 421 421 100%
- R10 371 371 371 100%
R11 481 378 378 79%
R12 86 86 86 100%
R13 124 124 100 90%
R14 512 512 512 100%
R15 84 84 84 100%
R16 129 0 0 0%
R17 110 110 110 100%
R18 164 164 164 100%
R19 454 355 265 68%
R20 206 95 95 46%
R21 67 67 60 95%
R22 202 202 202 100%
R23 375 375 375 100%
R24 169 169 169 100%
R25 422 325 325 77%
R26 548 548 548 100%
Totals 12541 88.9% 81.5%
R4a
NTIi
Ile
INN
ASW
4 ���lu M1 i' 3 tr, ,��'� ?i5i'y e �'�C. •�Ift y
< . R4
R2
R3 `
R4 I
R3
R9
R22
R8
R25
R7 A
R20
rho � "E'• ' e
r n+
-r I
R17
.I R6
Approximate Existing Forested Buffer Widths
01 0-10' 10-20' 20-30' >30'
Reach Existing Stream Length Total Stream Bank Length LB RS LB RB LB RB LB RS LB RB ` ' ; S yr 3 '
R7 1947 3894 100% 100%�,-
R2 177 354 100% 100%
f � ti
R3
i
R3 388 776 75% 75% 25% 25% I RCJ ,- ��J }i�3� i F�• �Y��, �. p 4
R4a 560 1120 60% 60% 40% 40% (iayT t •r
R4 1771 3542 100% 95% 5% R16 ,>1,
R5 256 512 100% 100% ?� r�i �� L�,. i�. r�,r �,�1• N I t �� p
R6 684 1368 100% 10% 90%
R7 1396 2792 100% 70% 30%
R8 437 874 20% 100% 80% i1 a II �ilre t 1'��
R9 421 842 100% 100%
R10 371 742 100% 100%
R11 481 962 90% 90% 10% 10%
R12 86 172 100% 100%
R13 124 248 100% 100%
R14 512 1024 100% 100%
R15 84 168 100% 100%
R16 129 258 100% 100%
R17 110 220 100% 100%
R18 164 328 95% 95% 5% 5%
R19 454 908 40% 40% 60% 60%
R20 206 412 40% 40% 60% 60%
R21 67 134 10% 100% 90%
R22 202 404 100% 100%
R23 375 750 100% 100% Q Conservation Easement
R24 169 338 100% 100%
R25 422 844 60% 60% 20% 20% 40%
R26 548 1096 100% 100%
Totals 12541 25082 10301 8971 1301 1044 0 0 0 87 940 2439
41.1% 35.8% 5.2% 4.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 3.7% 9.7%
Michael Baker
Figure 16
0 500 1,000 Riparian Buffer Analysis
Feet p Project Russell Ga Pro
INTERNATIONAL J

7
R1
R12
Y
IYII%A
WWI
UO
Conservation Easement
Stream Status
Perennial
Intermittent
R4a
R22
R20
R21
R19
R18
R6
R5
............
Figure 17
0 500 1,000 Intermittent and Perennial
Feet Stream Status
Russell Gap Project

- .. � �', Icy - • ,.
l 4,'�
e
Wry•.
(Area within CE)
Ilf
s-;
y 1.
se
— I Y
r
Conservation Easement
Existing Wetland Areas (0.88 ac total, 0.79 ac within CE)
f
M Hydric Soil Within Easement (6.18 acres)
Hydric Soil Surveyed (7.25 acres total)
Figure 18
Michael Baker 0 200 400 Wetlands and Hydric Soils
I N T E R N AT 1 0 N A L Feet Russell Gap Project - North

�., y jf �+ yf`Aq•.Y a y '{ ', A ,;��a.• 4 ���. •r��
1 ft,4,
y�
t r Tom+•-. ��- �sv � _. >•i� Xr',1 ' � r ,tn
� w e
r
-
"'�_ y w h'p(X1+�`ri�re'A�'i_j%.,"ii`t .1r fi i, re Y;ari M"itr r r
FAV,
'�a d
7 r fi3r. Q �}.�jtp{ybw' i Moa
1 !Tfi S r 1
`-` r. J d F �.o,��+•f{+aP.777.Mi6.1
'�".`y?}i�r1' 'I�,Rk�I.l "Y��i,w���5 � f^'
o
V7.i'.rLIN.;1
�j "t- `4 •�y ;A". i'�#�'!'Y fry. t l'.E r' 4�YT ' rlN' "� tyw�i y1�,'#4" iii s Tom,
°
'v;jr���1'•,�1
1.
�l�"�yt
Ile
.� t c'� " •a' y r ��r ct�li 'p1C,`' �o C( I
Conservation Easement
.0" Existing Wetlands (1.33 ac total, 0.88 ac within CE)
Hydric Soil (apx. 4.6 ac total, 2.7 ac in Easement)
> f,
w
# NC @OlneMam N;, Ceniter for Geegraph"ic Inform' tion and Anal sis, NC 911
Figure 19
Michael Baker 0 200 400 600 800 Wetlands & Hydric Soils
I N T E R N AT 1 0 N A L Feet Russell Gap Project - South

Appendices
Section

ATTACHMENT H
(REVISED)
Important Notes/Guidance
1. Projects MUST be located within DMS Targeted Local Watersheds within Catawba 03050101 (Attachment G
Table and Map). Projects located within Local Watershed Planning (LWP) HUCs may receive additional points,
as noted in Section 1.0 of this Technical Proposal Rating Form (or "scoresheet").
2. BONUS questions in Scoresheet Modules 1.0 through 6.0 (after the Overall Merit/Proposal Screening
section) may receive additional points, but will NOT disqualify a Provider's proposal if unanswered or not
applicable.
Technical Proposal Evaluation Criteria
Catawba 03050101 Rating Form
Offeror:
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
Site Name:
Russell Gap Stream Mitigation Project
River Basin /
Catalog Unit:
Catawba River Basin 03050101
RFP Number:
16-006807
Date of Site
Evaluation:
2014-2016 / Completed by: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
Type/Amt of
Mitigation
9400 Warm Stream Credits
Offered:
4.0 Riparian Wetland Credit
Proposal
Review
Committee:
Alternate
Attendees:
Overall Merit (Proposal Screening)
Yes/No
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?
y
2 -Does the proposal adequately document the physical, chemical and/or biological impairments that
currently exist on the project site?
y
3 -Does DMS agree with the overall mitigation approach (proposed levels of intervention) presented?
[The Technical Proposal must demonstrate that the proposed mitigation activities are appropriate for existing
site conditions and watershed characteristics (e.g., adjacent land use/land cover), and are optimized to yield
maximum functional gains.]
Y
4 -Does DMS agree with the proposed credit structure(s) described in the proposal?
y
5 -Does the proposed project avoid significant adverse impacts to existing wetlands and/or streams?
y
6 -Does the proposal adequately describe how the project will advance DMS watershed planning goals?
Y

ATTACHMENT H
(REVISED)
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.
Y
Note: An answer of No in this section means the Technical Proposal is rejected. Continue or Reject?
200 Diagram for Priority II Question Above.
� Priority 11 floodplain b—ch
ISO grading bo%Anclary minimums
00
ww
sds
O.O. 10_..,,224.6. mss' 449.3. 1 C,
\ r'
112.3. - /" 'Y 336.9. - a
100
20 foot channelviclih
Aim
30 foot bench width (1.5JuEnes channel width) beyond the bef width.
y
1
.2na
O 160 200 300 460 sm
Section 1.0 - Watershed Module [35 Points Possible]
Projects Located outside of LWP
1
For proposed projects located outside of a Local Watershed Plan (LWP) area -- but within another targeted
HUC (TLW) -- to what extent does the project support the restoration goals? The following CU -wide and TLW
goals are documented in the Catawba River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP) reports (see links below): ) -
protection of WS -classified waters draining to water supply reservoir(s) on Catawba River main stem; 2 -
reduced nutrient inputs to streams; 3 - reduced sediment inputs to streams; 4 - reduced fecal coliform inputs
to streams; 5 - restoration of degraded aquatic habitat; 6 - implementation of agricultural BMPs (e.g.,
livestock exclusion) in rural subwatersheds; 7 - improved stormwater management in urban/suburban
subwatersheds. [Provider's proposal must describe specific elements/features of the current site conditions
and proposed project design that will contribute substantially to meeting these goals. Because goals #6 and #7
are mutually exclusive, the maximum number of goals that can be addressed is six.]
Catawba RBRP (2007) - includes lower Catawba River Basin
Upper Catawba RBRP (2009)
Project addresses two or fewer goals. 1 point
Project addresses three or four goals. 3 points
Project addresses five goals. 10 points 10 - 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Project addresses six goals. 15 points

ATTACHMENT H
(REVISED)
Projects Located within LWP
2
For projects located within a Local Watershed Plan (LWP) area, does the proposed project address stressors
and sources as identified in LWP Findings and Recommendations Summary reports (see left-hand side of
webpage link provided below)? [LWP HUCs within 03050101 are shown in Attachment G Table and Map.] To
receive points, Provider must describe in detail how the proposed project will contribute significantly to
addressing identified stressors. The priority stressors identified across LWP areas within the CU include: 1 -
unstable, eroding stream banks; 2 - lack of forested riparian buffers; 3 - stream channelization/modification;
4 - impervious cover (excessive stormwater velocities, peak flows); 5 - livestock access to streams; 6 -
excessive nutrient inputs; 7 - excessive sediment inputs; and 8 - fecal coliform bacteria.
Catawba LWP Findings & Recommendations Summaries N/A
Project addresses three or fewer stressors. 5 points
Project addresses four or five stressors. 10 points
Project addresses six stressors. 15 points
Project addresses seven or eight priority LWP stressors. 20 points
Projects Located within or outside LWP (but still in a designated TLW)
3
Bonus: Does the project design include one or more structural BMPs (other than livestock exclusion fencing
and alternate watering) within or immediately upstream of the project easement such that nutrient and/or
sediment inputs or hydraulic stresses from outside the project easement are more effectively addressed? [In
rural subwatersheds, this would be agricultural BMPs; in urban/suburban watersheds, this would be
stormwater BMPs.]
Yes. 15 points Yes, 15
Section 2.0 - Existing Conditions and Functional Uplift Module [107 Points Possible]
1
Bonus: Project reach(es) are on or confluent to (directly discharge to) a 303d listed stream or waterbody.
0
Direct confluence = 3 points
Reach is 303d = 6 points
2
Bonus: Is the proposed project on WS -classified reach(es) upstream of a water supply intake or reservoir?
Yes = 6 points 6 Yes, See Section 5.2
3
What is the proportion of significant, obvious incision (BHR > —1.5) for reaches identified for some level of
channel modification?
<30% of the proposed footage exhibits significant, obvious incision. 2 points
30-70% of the proposed footage exhibits significant, obvious incision. 6 points 6 37%
>70% of the proposed footage exhibits significant, obvious incision. 10 points
4
What is the proportion of active bank erosion for the existing condition of reaches proposed for channel
modification? [Active bank erosion includes surficial scour, hydraulic and mechanical failures, and other
mass wasting from channel processes.]
<30% active erosion. 4 points
30-70% active erosion. 10 points 10 51%
>70% active erosion. 20 points

ATTACHMENT H
(REVISED)
5
For reaches proposed for restoration/enhancement, what is the dominant buffer vegetation condition?
Small woody Vegetation >30 feet in width (shrub, early successional trees). 4 points
Small woody vegetation <30 feet in width or an herbaceous dominated condition; or mature trees are
scattered and sparse within the proposed boundary (the proposed reach treatments could take place
with minimal impacts to mature trees). 12 points
No buffer vegetation, maintained cover, or grazed pasture; or impervious cover proposed for
20
removal. 20 points
6
For reaches proposed for restoration/enhancement, what is the percent of project length actively subject to
onsite water quality or habitat stressors that the design proposes to address? [Onsite means within or
immediately adjacent to (within 30 ft of) the proposed easement boundary. Example stressors include
pasture with direct livestock access, livestock exclusion but with poorly managed crossings, hydrologic bypass
of buffers (e.g. the drains, discharge outfalls, hydrologic connections to livestock wallows or CAFO ponds),
stormwater outfalls, adjacent row crops, maintained vegetation, or impervious surfaces.]
Proportion of affected channel <30%. 1 point
Proportion of affected channel 30-70%. 4 points
8 Proportion of affected channel >70%. 8 points
7
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 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
12
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
98% P Reduction
directly attributable to proposed project. 12 points
8
For proposed wetland restoration/rehabilitation projects: existing condition of predominant wetland
vegetation community. [Predominant means covering >50% of the area proposed for restoration and/or
enhancement.]
Wetland vegetation is present but is managed to prevent appropriate wetland
community. 2 points
Wetland vegetation is absent. 5 points
5
9
Confidence in existing wetland hydrologic condition and uplift potential.
Hydrologic modifications to wetlands are described, but their location and extent
Hydric Soils
are not clearly depicted. 1 point
Hydrologic modifications to wetlands are described, and the effects and extents
Report and
Wetland
are clearly defined. 10 points
Restoration
Section
Hydrologic modifications to wetlands are described, and the effects and extent are
clearly defined and are supported with field data and/or modeled results. 20
10
points

ATTACHMENT H
(REVISED)
Section 3.0 Habitat and Conservation Connectivity Module [24 Points Possible]
1
Bonus: Ability to connect adjacent (having a common boundary with) natural habitats and extend wildlife
corridors.
ject as proposed provides an uninterrupted wildlife corridor from an adjacent
V
ntiguous) natural area with mature vegetation. 6 points
6
2
Bonus: Proposed project boundaries are directly contiguous to (have 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. 6 points
Proposed project easement shares at least one boundary with another mitigation
property (DMS project or approved Mitigation Bank site) with a permanent
0
easement. 12 points
3
Bonus: Ability to provide habitat improvement for identified Threatened and Endangered Species (federal or
state listed).
Moderate = potential for identified species to exist on project site, but no specific
Bog Turtle
design elements proposed to address species habitat. 2 points
High = proposed mitigation will restore or enhance potential habitat for identified
Dwarf Flowers
Heuit Leaf
species by providing specific habitat elements required for listed species. 6 points
6
Section 4.0 - Design Module [81 Points Possible]
1
To what extent does the proposal (and project design) address sediment supply and transport?
F -
Proposal qualitatively describes sediment supply, storage and transport dynamics
in a restoration context. 2 points
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.
8 points
Proposal qualitatively describes sediment supply and transport dynamics in a
Pebble Counts,
restoration context; and some assessment methods have been applied and
Shear Stress
background data are summarized in proposal. Quantitative or analytical tools to
Analysis vs
Shields Curve
WARSS, BAGS
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. 16 points
16

ATTACHMENT H
(REVISED)
2
Bonus For stream or buffer mitigation projects on first order streams (headwater drainages), do project
easements extend upstream toward drainage divides on all tributaries/reaches such that flow (whether
perennial, intermittent or ephemeral) in >90% of all upstream channels is captured within the project
easement(s)? [To receive points, Provider must include appropriate maps and calculations to demonstrate that
this criterion is met.]
Yes = 10 points. 1 0
3
Presence/extent of hydric soils and/or hydric soil indicators, as described by a Licensed
Soil Scientist.
The proposal documents, through soil borings and profile descriptions, established
listed hydric soils and/or the presence of listed hydric soil indicators (A Guide for
Identifying and Delineating Hydric Soils, Version 7.0, 2010) for most (65-85%) of
the proposed wetland area, and shows the locations of the borings on the wetland
area map = 1 point
The proposal documents, through soil borings and profile descriptions, established
listed hydric soils and/or the presence of listed hydric soil indicators ( A Guide for
Identifying and Delineating Hydric Soils, Version 7.0, 2010) for >85% of the
proposed wetland area, and shows the locations of the borings on the wetland
area map = 15 points
15
4 Risk of hydrologic
failure.
Most, but not all of the drainage alterations on site and in proximity are being
restored to restore wetland hydrology, but some features (due to their proximity
and/or size) leave uncertainty as to their impact on estimated wetland mitigation
credit yields = 5 points
All drainage features capable of significantly supporting restored wetland
hydrology are thoroughly addressed in the proposal to support proposed wetland
hydrology = 10 points
10
All drainage features capable of significantly supporting restored wetland
hydrology are thoroughly addressed in the proposal to support proposed wetland
hydrology, which is further supported with hydrologic modeling of the site =
15 points.
5 Uncertainty of origin and extent of overburden.
Overburden exists; origin is unknown, but is less than one feet deep on average =
1 point
Overburden exists, is generally no greater than 0.5 ft in depth, and its origin is
documented to be primarily from anthropic manipulation (e.g., dredge material,
ditching side -cast, deliberate row crop crowning) = 5 points
Proposed wetland features are generally devoid of overburden, with hydric
indicators appropriate to the setting and soil series dominating the A or B horizons
= 10 points
10

ATTACHMENT H
(REVISED)
6 JAppropriate wetland hydroperiod for performance criteria.
Success hydroperiod exceeds the 5% minimum and is appropriate for the setting
and landscape position = 5 points
5
Success hydroperiods are based on a thorough modeling effort of the site such
that a pre/post water budget is estimated and is appropriate for the setting and
landscape position = 10 points
Success hydroperiods are based on a thorough modeling effort of the site such
12% min.
that a pre/post water budget is estimated and is appropriate for the setting and
landscape position, AND modeled results are supported with local reference gauge
data = 15 points
Section 5.0 - Implementation and Risk Module [50 Points Possible]
1 Does the proposed project provide
Between 25 - 50% of the RFP request (mitigation quantities)? 5 points
Between 51- 90% of the RFP request? 10 points
Greater than 90% of the RFP request? 20 points 20
2
Physical constraints or barriers (i.e. utilities, culverts, property lines, easements, managed areas, etc.) that
affect project design and effectiveness. [Percentages calculated based upon adding total linear footage of
crossings, roadways, utilities, or reduced buffer; divided by total linear footage.]
>10 % of the total project footage is segmented by crossings, roadways, or utility
rights of way. 1 point
5-10 % of the total project footage is segmented by crossings, roadways, or utility
rights of way. 3 points
< 5% of the total project footage is segmented by crossings, roadways, or utility
rights of way. 6 points
6
Project is not affected by crossings, roadways, and/or utilities; or project with
existing constraints removes or relocates the constraints or barriers such that the
design is not significantly affected by the constraint(s).
15 points
3
What is the predominant land use/land cover within the watershed (contributing drainage area) upstream of
the proposed project site? [Predominant = 50% or greater of the drainage area upstream of the project
easement.]
Urban/suburban (developed; overall imperviousness >5%), without stormwater
BMPs to treat flows influent to project reach(es) _
1 point [high physical risk to project]
Urban/suburban (developed; overall imperviousness >5%), with stormwater BMPs
integrated into project design and/or immediately adjacent to easement to treat
most flows influent to project reach(es) = 5 points [moderate risk; possible
water quality and hydrologic uplift]
Agriculture, low-density rural residential, or private forested lands =
10 points [generally low risk; moderate to high water quality uplift potential]
10
Forested, undeveloped lands in long-term (or permanent) conservation (e.g.,
National or State Parks and Forests, Natural Areas protected by Land Trusts) _
15 points [very low risk to project; possible habitat connectivity]

ATTACHMENT H
(REVISED)
Section 6.0 - Quality Control Module [20 Points Possible]
1 Similar mitigation projects completed by the Offeror (through at least 3 years of monitoring).
Completed from 2 to 5 mitigation projects. 2 points
Completed more than 5 mitigation projects. 5 points 5
2
Experience of Project Team (people actually completing work).
Project team contains at least two individuals with specialties specific to project
evaluation, acquisition, design, construction, and monitoring. 2 points
All of the above and at least two projects brought to successful regulatory closure
with the Interagency Review Team (IRT). 10 points
10
3 lQuality 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
5
J
TOTAL
226
Total Points (Maximum Possible = 317 Points) _
Proposal Rating ( Score x 0.01) =
2.26
Comments:

Pe: CR
eo.�ded� o2/25/2of® at 13:21:33 an
PlexanderiaNcee Peae i of a
III. In N. Hlnea na8tatar nI aeada
-588 -1226-1229
V*
NON-STANDARLG
FEE: $25.00
AMENDMENT TO MEMORANDUM OF OPTION
TO PURCHASE CONSERVATION EASEMENT
THIS AMENDMENT TO MEMORANDUM FOR OPTION TO PURCHASE
Co\ SERVATION EASEMENT ('°Amendment") is made sod entered into this _ n9 _ day cf
January, Y916, by and between James M1[. Dupuis and Achceca H. Dupuis ("Grantor') and.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.,. Neva York corporation, with an office at 797
Haywood Roan Ste. 201, Asheville, NC 28806 (`Raker"),
WHEREAS, Grsrttorand Baker have entered into that certain Option to Purehaso
Con .I,.. Easement (the "Option")dated November 3. 2614, 3—
for
to which Gtor
Raated to Siker' its successors and assigns, an option to purchase a lerx purchase— easement (Ne
cL-asemenf') over certain real property located in. Alexander County, North Carolina, which
property is more particularly des.€ibed on the attached Exhibit I (the "Property") and
WHEREAS, Grantor and Baker filed. Memorandum R,r Optimt t. Purchase
Conszna[ion Easement at Book 578, Page 105, Alexander County Registry (the
"Memorandum ) for the pup— of giving record notice efthe Option: and
WHEREAS, the paries enter into this Amendment forth. propose fscttig forth
'crmin changes to rhe terms and ...dniuns ofthe Option and to provide c n. curet vc —ice of
the.,ucn hnnges;
NOW, THEREFORE, in .... ide..tien oHhe foregoing, the parties hereby agree as
follows
1. Th,tcrm ofthe Option emeonenced on November 3,2014 and shall expire on November
,3L 2n17.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
Drp.6 pcnonally ap eorad before ethic day_
COUNrY of viler
evidence, end acknowledged to rue that he valumanly signed the foregoing document for the
S fitl ✓i ,,cjg h° , the
undersigned Notary Public, certify that Rebecca
H. Dupuis personall, appeared me this
day, proved her identity to me by satist'actory
-de.e_ and acknowledged to me that she xolumari
l y si grad the foreping document for the
pumosestated therein.
Witness my hand and Notarial stamp
r "` 1 �
or seal this the _L_ day of 1120.
I
Q Ie
�eSlafry R $afOger
NW
Notary Prblj
Notary Public
AezanderCount,NC
Desianf K Srt ale/
Typed or Pirilued Name efN y
My Commission Fxphos: 5�' 74–! g
STATE OF NORTH 'C,A,,ROLINA
COUNTY OF Vll/NWG
L 4ikw4, �Ait lljol w the undersigned Notary Public ofthe
County and State aforesaid, certify that Q 1-r,– VV kmC ,
personally appzatul bcfoe me this day, acknowledging m me drat he is V CGL Pr-Stdeyui—
ofMichuel Baker Engineering, Inc., a New York corporanrn and that he acknowicdged to
that be vrlsmr ly signed the foregoing dc—n— for the purposes b—na exprossed and in the
repro manive capacity" stated. ,�rsF
Witness myhandand Not," stamp or seal, this t"4 /dray o€�jkrWIN 2&.
rt'O.,;-N
Notary Public
ry Pulilv",`'G I�ukCtic+.n M Wtl{l'to&Ln
�k�COUN, Typod or Pnntud Num, of Notary
My Commission Expires: �-Zk, 1R
2. All ofthe provisions set forth in the Option, asamended, are incorporated in this
Amendmcnr by reference.
3. The Option shall he binding upon and inure t, the benefit of the partes anddeir
respective heirs, successors and assigns,
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, theparties have duly executed this Amendment as ofthe
date first above —
ft—GRANTOR: GRANTEE:
MIC14AELBAKF NGINEERING,INC.,
dam � M. Dupuis a New or�ratFio T
Reb— H- Dupuis ,J _
Print Namyy; rypeEPT W L.:�•S
Title:y "n 'PE6 S be rT
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF At e ynP1ApY
" c ( ,rhe undersigned Notary Tooke, certify that James M.
Drp.6 pcnonally ap eorad before ethic day_
ro
pved his identity -to me by sansfactory
evidence, end acknowledged to rue that he valumanly signed the foregoing document for the
purpose au,ted therein.
Who— my hand and Notarial stamp or seal this the 1i day of Fpm, 201t,
Destalty R SoMger
Notary
Not Publi
Pubflc
Alexander County NC
n1; c .rrn r
TypM orAi ed Name of Nml®ry
My Commission Expires:? -19-19

�o�n
�a.a: my Z/2016 .t rz ..r on
'e aur: ast.oa Yaaa r er qze
ni—d— ue
-588 1230-1233
auyha w Dna a�:�m:
.»a stwre,J�-
liiniryfk n,non.11P
NON-STANDARD
FEE: $25.00
AMENDMENT TO MEMORANDUM OF OPTION
TO PURCHASE CONSERVATION EASEMENT
THIS AIYIF.NDNI"ENT TO MEMORANDUM FOR OPTION TO PURCHASE
CONSERVATIONEASEMENT ("Amendment") is made and catered into this 29 dayof
.Tanuary, 2016, by and be[wccn James R. Herman and Mildred J. Herman ("Granmr'1 and
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., a New York corporation, with an of ice at 797
Haywood Road, Ste. 201, Asheville, NC 28306 ("Baker'')_
WHEREAS, Grantor and Baker have ortercd into that certain Option to Purchase
Conservation Fasament (the "Option") dated November g, 2014, pursuant to which Grantor
grsm,M m Bakcr, its a.,.a., and asci fou, as option to purchase a conservation casement (Ihe
"Easement") ower certain rent property located in Alexander County, North Cmolina, which
property ix more pnttindarly, described on the attached Exhilih 1 (the "Propcdy„') and
WHEREAS. Creator and Raker fled a Memorandum for Option to Purchase
Conservation Easfinent at Book 575, Yage 87, Alexander County Registry (the "Memoranduru")
t'or [he puryose of giving record nonce of the Option; and
W HF.REAS, the pmtics enter into thin Amendment for the purpose of setting forth
certain changes to the terms and conditions of the Option and to provide constructive notice of
the Option changes:
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration ofthe foregoing, the paries hereby agree ns
follows:
1. The term of Ere Option commenced on November 3, 2014 and shall expire on November
30, 2017.
STATE. OF NORTH CAROLTNA
COUNTY OF A.1efAe f
� YCl n the undersigned Notary Public. certify tbstt Mildred
J. Herman personally ppcared bcfo me this day, proved her identity to me by satisfactory
evidence, and acknowledged to me that she valuntarily signed rhe foregoing document for the
pnrpoae stated therein.
Witness my hand and Namrial stanyt ar seal thisthe day of �P%ll�, 20L
ties{any R Serager YZ
MU{ply Pdb ICNoTny Pnblie
9it3Xpnde(i)ODD,NC 3
�.-,(1nl SLIO({P✓
Typedor Printed Nam�iaz ofN aryy
My Comrins[on Expires: S- 19-14
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF NOW
I, 4g&t5rrl M pgWta'Y%,aA , the [mdersigned Notary PnMie nfthe
County and Stare aforesaid, cenify that Ko art V4 • varlt
p—molly appeared hefore me this day, aekmowledging to me that he isIli
4-
ofMlchael Baker Engineering, Inc., a Now York corpot ition, read that he acknowledged to me
that he voluntarily signed the foregoing document for the purposes therein expressed and in the
represontmiva capacity sa stated.
Witness my hand and Notarial stamp or seal, this ��day of y�,PtJ , 20W
n M ��M�
4a NOTARy tom✓
e��, ty�r orr:a� Notary Pubhc
1 �P�ueLio a� KaW leen M MWc;ii E ,
1'rF COLLN�� Typed or Printed Name arNotary
My Commission Expires:
2. All of rhe provisions set forth in the Option, as omendcd, are incorporated in this
Amendment by rete mcg.
3. The Option shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties and their
respective heirs, successors and assigns.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have duly executed this Amendment as of the
date first above written.
GRANTOR:
GRANTEE:
o f ��v!
MICH,kEL BAIGE • NCINE ERING,INC.,
'Samfs R. Hfmtan
a NeYOY COY roti n
By. ry'
MildrrA J- � an
r�- ABT Let-,
Prue Nam�e// I
P eid"bad
Title: Irs.E T'
STATF. OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF AII P
1„�\�IL1Yl �C ,the
nndersigoed \Diary Pahlic, certify that lames R.
Herman pers-nally a pfare me this
day, proved his idennry tome by satisfactory
evidence, and acknowledged to me [hal he vnlumanly signed the foregoing document. fox the
purpose snded therein,
Witness my hand and Notarial stamp
or seal tltis theme day of ,If A , 201,6
ln ya5proer
�taryPlNomryPubider
EN.
County, NC
Oyr. n11 { sC.PUgpr-
e
Typed or Pri f ted Nome of'Nandy
My Commission Expires:'5- I9- I9

'ececaea az/as/aura et
ni..:nd:ris�ao Pee. t .fart as rn
.Nr..en
-568 ea1218--1122`21
Y/' F
Pnve�d bMwJ boom:
AinPY R lann,al.t�P
Piliali. NC 3'IWe
JON-STANOARO
FEE: $25.00
AMPNDMENT TO MEMGIAN DUM OF OPTION
TO PURCHASE CONSERVATION EASEMENT
THIS AMENDMENT TO MEMORANDUM FOR OPTION TO PURCHASE
CONSERVATION EASEMENT ("Amendment") is made and entered in,. this �._ day c f
January, 2016, by and between Chrlslina H. Mouse and. Daerd S. Mnnsa ("Comtor") and
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., a New Ynrk corporation, with an offire .1791
Haywood Road, St, 201, Ashcvi llc, NC 2H8061"Baker�.
WHEREAS, Gmnmr and Baker have entered into that certain Option to Purchase
Conservation Easement (the "Option") dated Nuaember 3, 2014, purl an[ to which Grantor
.anted to Baker, its successors and assigns, an option m purchase n en —rnion --.t (thc
Easement") over certain real property located in Alexander County, North Carolina, which
property is more pa,tsmitdy described on the attached Exhibit 1(the "Property") and
WHEREAS, Gran[or and Baker filed. Memorandum for Option to purchase
Conservation Easement al Bnok 57[i. Pattc fi4, Alexander CW my RcEistN (the "Memorandnni')
Y
the purpose of giving reu,rd notice of the. Option; and
WHEREAS, the Perrin toter into this Amendment for the purpose or seumg forth
certain changes to the terms and conditions of the Option and m provide onnstmmive notice of
the Option changes:
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, the Parties hereby agree as
fid_
L. The term of the Option co—.d on November, 3, 2014 and aha31 expire on N.—ber
70, 2017.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF fA1?y;C1Y1a{'
I, 11CA`p\�,�.. SCC(7U21' the undersigned Notary Public, certify that David S_
Moose personally uppeated bef�s day, proved his identityto me by satisfactory
evidence, and acknowledged to me that he voluntarily signed the foregoing decrmrent for the
purpose stated therein_
Witness my hand and hotatial stamp or scat this the _Lday of ", 1
01,
DestanyRScroger V
NataryPublie NotuyPubl:e
Alexander CPuniy, NC
�P`>atl.+nht Q 54f6CSf
Typed or Print d Name oFN ry
My Commission Expires: 9i— \ 15 —14
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF Wflk&
1, KpAM
Notary Public of the
hn
Cennty and SatePsN,
wned
c
personally appeared before me this day. acknowledging
to methal he is V{rte, Dreealenf
of Michael Baker Engine .ring, Inc., a New
Y,rk corporation, and that he acknowledged to me
that he voltmtarily signed the f agoing document
for the purposes themtn expressed and in the
tepreeentat"t capacity so stated.
witness my hand and Notarial stamp
orsenl,this ledayof rckyMA's20L
1,5 couwe';
Nokery Public
�Pu�BL\Y?�
SliE'CO&
�p..{Ltlt.�rt !fir MLy/etft,nw
Typed or Printed Name efNotay
My Commission Expires:
^_. All o£the provisions set forth in the Option, as amended, are incorporated in this
Amendment by reference.
3. 'Ilio Option shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit ofthe parties and their
respective heirs, succe_csnts and assigns.
LN'WITNESS WTiEREOF, the parties have duly executed this Amendment as fthe
dare firstabove rine
R: GRANTEE:
MICHAEL DA.,- GINEERING, INC.,
uish H Moose n New Yor arorafi n
Hy
avid S. Moos.
Prim Name: I�aerRT y�- LEw�S
Title: 4, r_e AT
S'T'ATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY�OsF, Al xan6er
1.IX;.1ODll S{rU OZI� .the undecsip ud Nmary Public, certify that Christina
H. Moose personally appeared b of me this day-, proved her identity tome by smisfnctory
evidence, end acknowledged m me that she vmuntarily signed the f roguing document for thc.
pu'pa'e stated therein.
Wimcss my hand and Nptarial ,tamp —al this the day of FF 2011
Destany R 5crager awro
Notary oust T4,dary pnb`
AlexanderCun ,NC , C, w R �CYpCPr
Typcci.Prined NameofN ry
My Commission Expi— 2 - � 4 - l9

'eZa:aa/,tvc-te ox ":,a:. m
Lee nmr: n51.m Pege 1 0{ 4
Ne E.r, nc
Fllep
'5$8 -1222-1225
PrePweHh -atr.wl r
q
Ballcyn& Uiaon, LLP
Aolnrh. NC3raV:
JON -STANDARD
FEE: $25.00
AMENDMENT TO MEMORANDUM OF OPTION
TO PURCHASE CONSERVATION EASEMENT
THIS AMENDMENT TO MEMORANDUM FOR OPTION TO PURCHASE
CONSERVATION EASE..\IENT ("Amendment") is made and entered into this .29 day of
January, 2016, by and between Melinda H. St Clair and Randy B. St Clair ("Grantor") and
MICHAEL BAKER ENGIN ERRING, INC., a New York corpor'ati—, with an ort,- at 747
Haywood Road, Ste. 201, Asheville, NC 28806 ("Baker").
WHEREAS, Grants and Baker have cnlered into that ccnam Option to Purchase
Conservation Easement (the "Option') dated November 3.2014, pursuant m which Grantor
grained ro Baker, its sncnegsars vnd assign' an option n parcltase a cansefvaiiort cesemunl (the
"Ea"na'a"') over eerlain real ptopeny foaled in Alexander County, North C ... line, which
properly is mors pazticularly described oo the attached Exhibit 1 (the "Properly") and
WHEREAS, Grantor and Baker filed aMerr—ilum for Option to Purchase
Conservation Easement a1 Book 576. Page. 5t, Alexander County Registry (the "Memotaodtun"'1
for
the propose .f giving record notice of the Option: and
WHEREAS, the parties enter int. this Amendment for the purpose of seuing lard,
certain changes to the terms and canditie- of the Option and m provide our—we mice of
the Option chnage,;
NOW, THEREFORE, in cuosideration of the foregoing, the parties hereby agree as
forr_.
I- The term o€the Option commenced on November 3, 2019 and shall expire ria November
30,1017.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF WIDA'6C
I, 1i `i CToQY 1' , the undersigned N.n y Public, certify that Randy B.
51 Clair personally ap eared before tin this day, proved
his identity (c or, by satisfactory
evidence, and acknowledged to me that he voltmtarily signed the foregoing document for the
purpose stated I, ... in.
Witness my hand and Notarial stamp or seal this the day oof 22", I, 2011,
DesharryRSCrager
Notary PubfiC
AlexanderCounty,NC
l+/✓!GQ'��
arc R bli d
S�PS�i)Y\\l R SW22Y "
Typed or Prtnt rl NameofN' ry
My Commission Expires:
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF VJCiVel
1, VM1IP&N1-lwyfil,tft the. undersigned Notary Public ofth,
County and Stwc. afuresaicf,certify That 12,j2&yt W. IA31 S
personally appeared before me this day,acknowledging to me that he is )It!E Pr''[
ofMichacl Baker Engineering, Inc., a New York corporation, and that he acknowledged to me
that he voluntarily sigmcdthe foregoing J.—rot for the purposes therein expressed and in the
rep[esenfalive capacity so stated.
Wimess my hand and N,I-rl stamp ox seal, this J j ay ofrte, 2(&
M MoS
Notary Public
�, Rue><t� a° ' ILdliYileevl M. WICILei�inan
4kP COU
Typed or Printed Nam, of Nataty
My Commission Expires: 2Z6 Iii
2. All of the previsions set forth in the Option, as amended, are incorporated in this
Amcodmenc by r,fercn-
3. The Option shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties and their
respective heirs, --is and assigns,
L\' WTTNESS WI♦EREOF, the. parties have duly executed this Amendment as of ere
date fast above written.
GRANTOR: GRANTEE:
Yi �wuda. 7 i'ulf'(XX.ln MICHAEL BAKER E INEERING INC.,
hlehnda H. St Clair a New y per
Rand B. SLC1.11 /J 1
Print Nam'yPIy rte 6EWr tN LEWS
Title: Y'�C 26s ra 6 T'
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF AV XatYkT
I, n aii imilLy Q S{C( (1f .theund—igned Nowry Public, certify that Melinda
H.6Y Clair personn]ty ppcur ,this day, preved her ideutity to me by satixfactory
,video and acknowledged to in, that she voluntarily signed the foregoing document for the
purpose sIwcd 11,"ia,
W'itncss ny hand and Notn ial stamp or seal this the __)_ day of
Desiany R Scroger I
Ntlfa AUbIIC No try Public
Alexander Coun , NC k ICY e
Typed or Print dNama oflIonkry
My Commissio,,Expires:S— 14 14

Tvae: sIEYN
girded: a 02/lata as oa;gt :2r aH
"e a E29
: /Oq Pepv a or a
nlaaemder
asntamin N. Hines neais[er or Desai
Fllea
-590 Pa1993-1998
M�---r-'A�OT
! O p77e�. 'i-t� �,r Ec4c$c- CD�Su✓w.}r`on
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the ponies have dWy aexomd Ihna Memorandum ea oftNe date that
.Mc. wrinen.
GRANTEE:
By:
1 ,�
Prial Name: I-6FP4 W. LEWIS
Till.: V165 YRGd t�brdT
STATE OF ��
COUNTY OP—WA�C__
r
L
,a Notary Public ofthe County and Smte af—id, do hoehy
certify thal ki
Lfam,—
that hOshe is
f Michael Bakm Fngincoiag, Inc. a New York prufoci—I corpontion,
aced drar he acknowledged
ro one tNal Ne volunmriFy signed the foregoing dncmnem fur the purposes
thnem o,pressed and in the represci'rla,�i L'i1�vqe{�cca.�p'`aci+n' so s,alo& I hate rxeived satisfactory evidence of the
prmcipat'a idoonty in the form of yrlyd,�re'/
Witness my hand and official seal, this thedsy of -l"
Orriie. Signature of Nm.,
Prinood Name. a��.l "r. orary Nblic
My Cmnmission Expires: 0,1', 9j k �
[AFFIX ,NDTARTAL STAMP -SEAL]
9g� F. �R
WJ DT ARH `et
� r
64-2018. O.
4. GDBtiyG ?
�+f COON
EXHIBIT D
Prepared by and Return
Imxh By..
Mielncl Bakes Engwering, Ina
7971aywnnd Road
AM—.1k NC 28906
MEMORANDUM OF OPTION TO PURCHASE CONSERVATION EASEMENT
THIS MEMORANDUM FOR OPTION TO PURCHASE CONSERVATION EASEMENT
I"Mennnnd-1 m nude and cooed into this '� day of T '20h. by and baov-e Rini ,W
Rumeasner and I.inda Iswe,. pirate lando—("Gmnwr) and MICHAEL BARER ENGINEERING,
a New York mtporation ("Bake.P').
WHEREAS, Giant., and Raker have emaad into n vsrnuin Option to Putehaae Con—tion
E—ml (thee"Opkion") dated a 2016, lana— to whiff Oraour grunted to Baker, its sureessam
and asvgns, un option w Purchase a consra .- essemem (the "Es ev—i-t") ovn cenain real pn jp y
1—not in Aieaaader County, Noah Camliaa, which prapeny is more panioalariy described cn the
anachod }�{rjpj1�411the "Pa peey") .1
WHEREAS, The pa— Iota into thin Marr>orardum forth. purpose of seeing. forth conal. remu
and cotrddtioms ofabe Option and w provide cmistnrcolve notice of the Option:
NOW,. THEREFORE, in «nnsidrraanon of the 14gn.ig, the paries herehy aggx as folluw'a
I. The lean ofthe Opuon cmtmrrmed..-7- 1. 1a 2q l6 and dwll expire on e. dal
2019.
2- All of the previaiw set lbnh in the Option arc incorportad in this Memo Auar by
ref
3. The [ipsion shall be bindmg aprnr and irusre w the benefit of rhe paaies and their respective
dein. sacoes— anal—gas.
[SIGNATURES AND NOTARY ACKNOWLEDGMENTS APPEJ R ON FOLLOWING PAGES
By: A'11 M n7
Priv Name: L ! L
TiBc:
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OFAk) dnjer
L d. tmdompied Nou" Public of the County and Swo
of id,eertiryrNet f011 L'&jMW-1M1 po-nallyii,redbefh—Iiiisday,
ackymwledIang tow that Wsl lumanly signed and tmapned the fraogoing dommrml I leve
«s 'uxd wtisf tory evidr ofthe pfinsapal-s idmti* io dw f of
p:l o en"Ae
Witness my hand and Notarial sounPasq this�day r ! iL '2016.
ala
OfYiend Si afNota y
PN-- N-- n R f i , Notary Public
NI, Cnmmissitm Epi— R- fes 1>i
TAFFIX NOTARIAL STAMP -SEAL]
11e,'On R5
Afexonder�Ph �

CRANTOR:
$y�
Ay.- yerk
STATE OF
COUNTY OF
Rub Gea Simaemar
I, itsr'\ ft„��
,the undersipsod Notary Public ofthe County and Srate
aforesaid certify thatL��ss.�l�t.a
petsrmally appeared before me this day,
ackiimledging m me that helshcvolanlarilyai—land --ted the foregoing document Ihzve
received satisfactoryevidencc of the pnacipa]'s
"S Orio Lsc
identity in the form of
Witness my hand and Notarial
stamp or seal, this+day of MCG j 2015.
�✓� !J �pmfo ,t.�
.� ro. Laws
OfCrcial 5 aline
//f''N�ola/ry T�
Printed Name . CC�CA.N rI.C�C/:yJEYltazy Public
i
/�
My Commission Cxprtes: n214Lx'
AFFIX NOTARIAL STAMP -SEAL]
CAROLYN D. CLEMENTS
Notary PULIic . Stale of Naw Yerk
No. d1-CL6151165
Q-Iffi.d In Qtaeg. County
Ny Commission Ezpires on �(
Catawba 03050101
Rub Gea Simaemar
eM Lmde Lowe
Rin se'a Wou
E �
.� ro. Laws
Pn' 99447BNI05
nab, mi8,lrF wriwacvrurwa Fwrvey I
N
o m 9au Eahiba DI
FM Laws Farm W.
INTERNATIONAL

Hydric Soils Investigation
Russell Gap Mitigation Site
Alexander County, NC
Prepared by:
INTERNATIONAL
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway — Suite 600
Cary, NC 27518
Scott E. King, LSS
May 12, 2016

Introduction
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. conducted a hydric soils investigation along the floodplain of
Davis Creek in Alexander County, NC for the purpose of identifying potential opportunities for
historic wetland restoration as part of a proposed mitigation project for the NC Division of
Mitigation Services (DMS). More specifically, the investigation was to confirm of the presence
and location of any hydric soils found on site. Currently, the apx. 10 -acre subject area being
investigated is open grassland used as pasture for cattle.
Methodology
Prior to the field investigation, the NRCS soils layer was reviewed for the site (Figure 1), along
with the NRCS' most recent compilation of hydric soils for Alexander County, North Carolina
(Dec. 2015). Codorus loam (0-2% slopes), an NRCS-listed Hydric Soil, was found to be mapped
throughout much of the floodplains of the subject area. Codorus loams are taxonomically
categorized as fine -loamy, mixed, active, mesic Fluvaquentic Dystrudepts. Additionally, the
Hatboro loam series (fine -loamy, mixed, active, nonacid, mesic Fluvaquentic Endoaquepts) is
listed as the most common component soil series of Codorus in its Map Unit Description.
Hatboro is also listed as a Hydric Soil for Alexander County by the NRCS. Additionally, the USGS
map for the site was also reviewed (the Moravian Falls Quadrangle — Figure 2). It identifies a
solid blue -line stream named Davis Creek as running through the subject area valley, which is
bounded by Russell Gap Road to the east and a steep hill slope to west coming off of Davis
Mountain.
Hand -turned soil auger borings and soils analyses were conducted throughout the subject area,
and the subsequent hydric soil boundary was marked with 78 points captured with a Topcon
Positioning Systems backpack GPS unit (GRS-1 model) providing sub -meter accuracy. Hydric
soils were identified using the NRCS document "Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United
States: A Guide for Identifying and Delineating Hydric Soils, Version 7.0, 2010". Numerous
borings were taken within the floodplain to establish the hydric soils boundary, and seven
representative boring descriptions and locations are provided in this report.
Results and Conclusions
The on-site field investigation was conducted on April 14, 2016. Extensive areas of hydric soils
were discovered within the subject area, totaling 7.25 acres, of which 6.18 acres are within the
proposed project easement (Figure 3). Both the Codorus loam and Hatboro loam soils were
found within the project assessment area, though Hatboro was dominant within the lower
floodplain adjacent to the existing stream.
2

Soils meeting hydric status were described by one or more of the following hydric soil indicators
described below:
F3 Depleted Matrix:
A layer that has a depleted matrix with 60 percent or more chroma of 2 or less and that has a
minimum thickness of either:
a. 5 cm (2 inches) if the 5 cm is entirely within the upper 15 cm (6 inches) of the soil, or
b. 15 cm (6 inches), starting within 25 cm (10 inches) of the soil surface.
F6 Redox Dark Surface:
A layer that is at least 10 cm (4 inches) thick, is entirely within the upper 30 cm (12 inches) of
the mineral soil, and has:
a. Matrix value of 3 or less and chroma of for less and 2 percent or more distinct or
prominent redox concentrations occurring as soft masses or pore linings, or
b. Matrix value of 3 or less and chroma of 2 or less and 5 percent or more distinct or
prominent redox concentrations occurring as soft masses or pore linings.
F8 Redox Depressions:
In closed depressions subject to ponding, 5 percent or more distinct or prominent redox
concentrations occurring as soft masses or pore linings in a layer that is 5 cm (2 inches) or more
thick and is entirely within the upper 15 cm (6 inches) of the soil.
Furthermore, three categories of hydric soil were discovered on site:
1. Hydric soils appropriate for restoration. These are the areas that meet one or more hydric
soil indicators and appear to have been hydrologically impacted by stream downcutting and/or
the ditching or straightening of various stream sections and connecting tributaries. They
appear to be most suitable for wetland restoration through re-establishment with the Priority
Level I restoration of Davis Creek and the restoration or enhancement of several of its
tributaries, which will restore groundwater hydrology and increase flooding frequency to these
areas. The impact caused by long-term use as cattle pasture would also repaired by the
exclusion of cattle and the planting of wetland vegetation within the riparian buffer. This is the
dominant hydric soils category found on site and totals 6.62 acres of the total 7.25 acres
identified on site.
2. Hydric soils located within a likely existing jurisdictional wetland. These areas are shown as
existing wetlands in Figure 3 and are generally located in depressions or swales within the
floodplain. The boundaries for these areas were captured using GPS. Given the extent of cattle
impact and the management of the area as pasture, these are areas that appear most suitable
for wetland rehabilitation through the exclusion of cattle and the planting of wetland
vegetation. This hydric soils category totals 0.63 acres of the total 7.25 acres identified on site.
3

3. Historic or 'buried' hydric soils. These are altered soil areas that have been clearly impacted
by human activity through the intentional addition of fill soil material on the soil surface. Most
notably observed along Russell Gap Road and around the adjacent powerline poles, this
material would appear to have been placed to build up the road grade during construction. Fill
soil was also found around the animal pen on the northern portion of the field, and on top of
vehicle paths, particularly in the built-up stream crossing. Sediment deposition was also
observed along the toe -of -slope of the western edge of the field, likely from erosion caused by
the clearing of the adjacent hillslope for use as pasture. Generally, these areas were excluded
from the hydric soil delineation boundary presented in Figure 3, though a very narrow area
associated with the vehicle stream crossing (mostly located outside of the proposed easement)
was included.
11

BsD2
n IN
QProposed Project Easement
Soil Mapping Units
Ac E, Ashe-Cleveland Complex
- BsC2, Braddock and Hayesville clay loams (6-15% slopes)
- BsD2, Braddock and Hayesville clay loams (15-25% slopes)
_ CoA, Codorus loam (NRCS-listed Hydric Soil)
CsD, Cowee-Saluda Complex (8-25% slopes)
- CsE, Cowee-Saluda Complex (25-60% slopes)
- DaA, Dan River and Comus soils
EcD, Evard-Cowee Complex (8-25% slopes)
- EcE, Evard-Cowee Complex (25-60% slopes)
- TfB, Tate -French Complex (2-10% slopes)
BsD2
EcE"
EcE
BsD2
0 250 500
Feet
I N T E R N AT 1 0 N A L
Bs
Figure 1
NRCS Soils Map
Russell Gap Project
EcD,,q*
0 250 500
Feet
I N T E R N AT 1 0 N A L
Bs
Figure 1
NRCS Soils Map
Russell Gap Project

Proposed Project Easemen;-7,
t
14
lk
`, -`
!SSS' • 0 w
�X
1327
r
tn
1
Moravian Falls Quadrangle
Copy rig ht:©2013�NafioralGe graphic Society, i -cubed
Figure 2
Michael Baker 0 500 1,000 USGS Topographic Map
INTERNATIONAL Feet Russell Gap Project

7
N. o .
'7 K ,
6
d Yy
s
,.
LL�
`L 6
4 Existing Stream
Crossing
Ylll
r y `
• 3
•
o
Proposed Conservation Easement o
o
A Representative Soil Boring Locations ®`
• Hydric Soil Boundary GPS point
Existing Wetland Areas (0.63 ac total, 0.60 ac within CE)
Surveyed Hydric Soil Boundary (7.25 ac total, 6.18 ac within CE)
NRCS-Mapped Hydric Soils:
Codorus loam (0-2% slopes) enter for Geographic, nf.©rmation and Analysis, NC 911
Michael 0 200 400 Figure 3
Feet Hydric Soils
I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L Russell Gap Project

Soil Description Form
Project: 4hA v-Ae SJK
County: VMichael Baker
Date: ;J1Nd((o
I N T E R N AT I O N A L
Staff: S, 11(4r5 I 1. Q yp�q
Boring Horizon Depth
iv
Texture / Structure %
Consistence
Matrix Color
Mottle Color(s)
(Quantity/size/Contrast)
a-
LlAr
I
&t
to 2 31Z
2,S'YIZ 512 0
2
H& c m r
Z-
EfrL
/AK
6 v 2 (o Z
e-
2q
4D- 3 N
sr c 4gr
lt(gf,
e ss.
(0 Y Z 9Z
11 Cf 4L
3- N
131L I
S
42,
44Z.
2 L(16, m
3 0-314
Sir
IU Y' 3
3 e -M
-1`/
L 1,4A
LC13
loye Z
Z.a
Y 11, L
I- a S 8 c
IiJN'
S"
2
S-
?,5-Ye/G
10 - I
i
SS
`� -
k
U-
i
r S
o
-
R — a
(
rti
� s
oY i
G3 F
-"
•C
s
2
IDY2 4l Z
2.
s C
- -�"
<io
r
10 111
2.s K a
0A
r
I
D R I
& c1 In
2 "
s
z
r-
1 5 Z
w b l
Y2Id
60
G A
i�-.44
r
1 a. t' �. -._
3 3
-
L
2
to t2 13
2. a
Y G w 10
t_
2,
j0 s 2
r
V2 -
,�: ►�i4'yrd� soy ( 1

q� IJ / Soil Description Form
I�
Project: 6-A
County: Ab-xle��
Date: (,i I L l {C7
Staff: S I4�y
aw
K1
I N T E R N AT 1 0 N A L
Boring HorizongDep,th
Texture / Structure /
Consistence
Matrix Color
Mottle Color(s)
(Quantity / Size / Contrast)
L 5r ,
U 2
3 2
2,5 Y2 t4 ,C '
S•
( R
8
i t. �
ID
5 2
5Y 5 vi c I
n
'I;4—/
4
Si r l r r
Olf
32
5
Sly L,
r.
I�
I-1 2
2• S 8 t
'L t?
ID YR5
3
Y R & I to r—
(2
I
2_
7 & c —

•
� v
zol
( ■•
0