HomeMy WebLinkAbout20190869 Ver 1_Technical Proposal_20190516COPY
FN
I�
i
TECHNICAL
PROPOSAL
Morton Farms Stream and Wetland Mitigation
i, F
Site
k�-
RFP #16-007709
Granville County, North Carolina
January 9, 2019
Prepared by:
HDR Engineering Inc. of the Carolinas
555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900
Raleigh, NC 27601
919.232.6600
Jonathan Henderson, PE (Authorized
Representative)
Morton Farms Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
RFP# 16-007709: Cataloging Unit 03020101 of the Tar Pamlico River Basin
PART 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Technical Proposal includes information on the HDR Team, our technical approach including a detailed
description of the proposed site, the amount of proposed mitigation, the current ownership of the property, the
means by which the proposed changes will be made, the project schedule and the vegetative and hydrological
success criteria.
The Morton Farms Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site (Site) is located approximately 8 miles northwest of
Oxford in Granville County, NC. The Site contains 12 (twelve) riparian wetlands and 6 (six) unnamed tributaries
to Fox Creek (Index #28-4-1). The North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) classifies
Fox Creek WS -IV; NSW. Unnamed tributaries take on the classification of the nearest named stream; therefore,
Unnamed Tributary to Fox Creek (UTFC) and UTs 1-5 at the Site are also classified as WS -IV; NSW. The North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) has not identified elemental occurrences at the Site. Based on a
review of records from the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (NCSHPO), there are no historic
properties listed on the National Register within a one mile radius of the Site. On an adjacent parcel (Pin # 0984-
39-6468), the Smith -Morton House has been surveyed only (Site ID GV0419). A survey does not guarantee that
the Site is eligible for listing on the National Register and State law does not provide protection for properties
that are determined eligible but not listed in the National Register. This project is not expected to impact the
Smith -Morton House. The project parcel is owned by James Thomas Morton and Martha Davis Morton (Pin#
0985-20-2851). The property spans over 461 acres and is split into three pieces by Sunset Road. The 457 acre
adjacent parcel to the northwest is owned by Henry N. Thorp Jr and Mary Ellen Thorp (Pin# 0985-23-3759) and
is protected in perpetuity by a conservation easement held by the Tar River Land Conservancy. This Technical
Proposal documents two (2) Mitigation Options that the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (DMS)
may consider for contracting purposes. The Mitigation Options are detailed as follows:
Option 1:
Proposed Stream Mitigation
• UTFC — Restore dimension, pattern, profile and riparian buffer and cattle exclusion (fencing) to 2,866
existing feet of UTFC (restored length is expected to be the same as existing length). Enhancement II
through cattle exclusion (fencing) and buffer plantings of 140 existing feet of UTFC.
• UT 2 — Enhancement II through cattle exclusion (fencing) and buffer plantings along 187 existing feet
of UT 2.
• UT 3 — Enhancement II through cattle exclusion (fencing) and buffer plantings along 97 existing feet of
UT 3.
• UT 5 — Enhancement II through cattle exclusion (fencing) and buffer plantings along 75 existing feet of
UT 5.
Option 1 produces 50 more stream credits than the maximum requested in this RFP (i.e. Option 1 produces 3,050
SMU, this RFP requests 3,000 SMU). HDR is not requesting compensation for the 50 additional stream credits
proposed with Option 1.
FN
Morton Farms Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
RFP# 16-007709: Cataloging Unit 03020101 of the Tar Pamlico River Basin
Table ]a. Option 1 - Proposed Stream Mitigation
*HDR realizes that only 3,000 SMU 'IV will be contracted per requests of the RFP.
Optional: Additional Stream Credit Generation
Although not a request of the RFP, HDR would like to present the option for DMS to purchase additional
stream mitigation credits from the Site. Those additional credits are summarized as:
• UT 1 and UT 4 — These tributaries could produce additional credits, within the easement proposed for
Option 1, in excess of the requested credits in the RFP. Enhancement II credits could be generated
through cattle exclusion (fencing) and buffer restoration by reestablishing native vegetative.
*Table lb. Option 1— Optional Stream Credit
Restoration -1:1
Enhancement II - 2.5:1
Enhancement II - 3.5:1
Stream
Proposed Linear
Proposed Linear
Proposed Linear
Proposed Linear
SMU
Footage
SMU
Footage
Footage
SMU
SMU
Footage
UT Fox Creek
2,866 2,866
192 77
140 40
UT 2
1 0 0
187
75
Total Proposed
UT 3
353
97
39
UT 5
75
30
141
Sub -Total
2,866 2,866
359
144
140 40
Total Proposed
3,365
Linear Footage
Total SMUs
3,050
Percent Footage
Proposed for
85.2%
10.7%
4.2%
Mitigation
*HDR realizes that only 3,000 SMU 'IV will be contracted per requests of the RFP.
Optional: Additional Stream Credit Generation
Although not a request of the RFP, HDR would like to present the option for DMS to purchase additional
stream mitigation credits from the Site. Those additional credits are summarized as:
• UT 1 and UT 4 — These tributaries could produce additional credits, within the easement proposed for
Option 1, in excess of the requested credits in the RFP. Enhancement II credits could be generated
through cattle exclusion (fencing) and buffer restoration by reestablishing native vegetative.
*Table lb. Option 1— Optional Stream Credit
*Optional stream credit refers to stream credit that could be generated in excess of the amount requested in
this RFP, should DMS elect to purchase additional stream credit.
Proposed Wetland Mitigation
• W 1 — Rehabilitation of 0.24 acres of Headwater Forest through cattle exclusion (fencing), buffer
plantings and reconnecting floodwaters from UTFC.
• W2 — Enhancement of 0.21 acres of Bottomland Hardwood Forest through cattle exclusion (fencing)
and reconnecting floodwaters from UTFC.
• W3 — Enhancement of 0.59 acres of Bottomland Hardwood Forest through supplemental plantings to
improve vegetative structure and diversity.
• W4 — Rehabilitation of 0.07 acre of a Seep through cattle exclusion (fencing), buffer plantings and
reconnecting floodwaters from UTFC.
• W5 — Rehabilitation of 0.20 acre of Headwater Forest through cattle exclusion (fencing), buffer
plantings and reconnecting floodwaters from UTFC. .
• W6 — Rehabilitation of 0.78 acres of Bottomland Hardwood Forest through cattle exclusion (fencing),
reconnecting floodwaters of UTFC, and replanting with native species typical of a Bottomland
ii
FN
Restoration - 1:1
Enhancement ❑ - 2.5:1
Preservation - 5:1
Stream
Proposed Linear
Proposed Linear
Proposed Linear
SMU
Footage
SMU
Footage
SMU
Footage
UT 1
161 64
UT 4
192 77
Sub -Total
1 0 0
1 353 141
1 0 0
Total Proposed
353
Linear Footage
Total SMUs
141
*Optional stream credit refers to stream credit that could be generated in excess of the amount requested in
this RFP, should DMS elect to purchase additional stream credit.
Proposed Wetland Mitigation
• W 1 — Rehabilitation of 0.24 acres of Headwater Forest through cattle exclusion (fencing), buffer
plantings and reconnecting floodwaters from UTFC.
• W2 — Enhancement of 0.21 acres of Bottomland Hardwood Forest through cattle exclusion (fencing)
and reconnecting floodwaters from UTFC.
• W3 — Enhancement of 0.59 acres of Bottomland Hardwood Forest through supplemental plantings to
improve vegetative structure and diversity.
• W4 — Rehabilitation of 0.07 acre of a Seep through cattle exclusion (fencing), buffer plantings and
reconnecting floodwaters from UTFC.
• W5 — Rehabilitation of 0.20 acre of Headwater Forest through cattle exclusion (fencing), buffer
plantings and reconnecting floodwaters from UTFC. .
• W6 — Rehabilitation of 0.78 acres of Bottomland Hardwood Forest through cattle exclusion (fencing),
reconnecting floodwaters of UTFC, and replanting with native species typical of a Bottomland
ii
FN
Morton Farms Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
RFP# 16-007709: Cataloging Unit 03020101 of the Tar Pamlico River Basin
Hardwood Forest. Re-establishment of 0.14 acres of Bottomland Hardwood Forest by relocating UTFC
to the center of the valley adjacent to W6, filling the abandoned channel, and replanting with native
species.
• W7 - Rehabilitation of 0.47 acres of Bottomland Hardwood Forest through cattle exclusion (fencing),
reconnecting floodwaters of UTFC, and replanting with native species typical of a Bottomland
Hardwood Forest. Re-establishment of 0.1 acre of Bottomland Hardwood Forest through cattle
exclusion (fencing), restoration of wetland hydrology, and replanting with native species.
• W8 - Rehabilitation of 0.13 acres of Bottomland Hardwood Forest through cattle exclusion (fencing),
reconnecting floodwaters of UTFC and replanting with native species typical of a Bottomland
Hardwood Forest.
• W9 - Rehabilitation of 0.22 acres of Bottomland Hardwood Forest through cattle exclusion (fencing),
reconnecting floodwaters of UTFC and replanting with native species typical of a Bottomland
Hardwood Forest.
• W10 - Rehabilitation of 0.07 acres of Headwater Forest through cattle exclusion (fencing) and buffer
plantings.
• WI I - Rehabilitation of 0.80 acres of Bottomland Hardwood Forest through cattle exclusion (fencing),
reconnecting floodwaters of UTFC and replanting with native species typical of a Bottomland
Hardwood Forest. Re-establishment of 0.22 acres of Bottomland Hardwood Forest through cattle
exclusion (fencing), restoration of wetland hydrology, and replanting with native species.
• W12 - Rehabilitation of 0.09 acres of Bottomland Hardwood Forest through cattle exclusion (fencing),
reconnecting floodwaters of UTFC and replanting with native species typical of a Bottomland
Hardwood Forest.
Table I c. Option 1 - Proposed Wetland Mitigation
Wetlands Re-establishment 1:1
Rehabilitation -1.5:1
Enhancement - 3:1
Proposed
WMU
ProposAcreage
WMU
ProposAcreage
WMU
W1
0.24
0.16
W2
0.21
0.07
W3
0.59
0.19
W4
0.07
0.05
W5
0.20
0.13
W6 0.14
0.14
0.78
0.52
W7 0.10
0.10
0.47
0.31
W8
0.13
0.09
W9
0.22
0.15
W10
0.07
0.05
W11 0.22
0.22
0.80
0.53
W12
0.09
0.06
Sub -Total 0.46
0.46
3.07
2.05
0.80
0.26
Percent
Acreage 10.6%
Proposed for
gation
70.9%
18.5%
Total Acres Proposed for
Mitigation
4.33
2.77
Total Proposed WMU's
FN
Morton Farms Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
RFP# 16-007709: Cataloging Unit 03020101 of the Tar Pamlico River Basin
Optional Buffer Credits Per RFP
0 Option 1 produces 357,606 Buffer Mitigation Units (BMU) through restoration and enhancement of
399,771 square feet of riparian buffers.
Option 2
The primary purpose for proposing Option 2 is to afford DMS the opportunity to couple stream and
wetland mitigation credits from this RFP with buffer mitigation credits. Option 2 of this RFP (#16-
007709) however, is continl?ent upon either of the following contract award scenarios:
1. DMS award HDR Option 2 of this RFP (#16-007709) to contract stream units (3,000 SMU's),
wetland units (2.77 WMU's) AND a minimum of 610,000 buffer mitigation units, or
2. DMS award HDR Option 2 of this RFP (#16-007709) AND Option 2 associated with HDR's
proposal submittal for RFP #16-007711 (request for riparian buffer mitigation credits in CU
03020101 of the Tar Pamlico River Basin) that includes 610,000 BMU's.
Option 2 is only viable if DMS awards HDR buffer mitigation units as detailed in Scenarios 1 or 2 above.
Proposed Stream and Wetland Mitigation
Mitigation (both streams and wetlands) within Option 2 will mimic Option 1, with the exception of enhancement
along the tributaries available for optional stream credit. Optional stream credits will be expanded when
compared with Option 1 if DMS wishes to purchase credits in excess to those that are requested in this RFP.
The easement for Option 2 extends upstream along UT 2, UT 3, and UT 5 allowing enhancement through cattle
exclusion (fencing) and buffer plantings to be extended on these tributaries.
Table Id. Option 2 - Proposed Stream Mitigation*
*HDR realizes that only 3, 000 SMU's tivill he contracted per requests of the RFP.
Although not a request of the RFP, HDR would like to present the option for DMS to purchase additional
stream mitigation credits from the Site. Those additional credits are summarized as:
iv
FN
Restoration - 1:1
Enhancement II - 2.5:1
Enhancement II - 3.5:1
Stream
Proposed Linear
Proposed Linear
Proposed Linear
SMU
Footage
Footage
SMU
SMU
Footage
UT Fox Creek
2,866 2,866
140 40
UT 2
187
75
UT 3
97
39
UT 5
75
30
Sub -Total
2,866 1 2,866
359
144
140 40
Total Proposed
3,365
Linear Footage
Total SMUs
3,050
Percent Footage
Proposed for
85.2%
10.7%
4.2%
Mitigation
*HDR realizes that only 3, 000 SMU's tivill he contracted per requests of the RFP.
Although not a request of the RFP, HDR would like to present the option for DMS to purchase additional
stream mitigation credits from the Site. Those additional credits are summarized as:
iv
FN
Morton Farms Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
RFP# 16-007709: Cataloging Unit 03020101 of the Tar Pamlico River Basin
*Table le. Option 2 -Optional Stream Credit
*Optional stream credit refers to stream credit that could be generated in excess of the amount requested in
this RFP, should DMS elect to purchase additional stream credit.
Table 1f.' Option 2 - Proposed Wetland Mitigation
Wetlands Re-establishment 1:1
Restoration - 1:1
Enhancement 11- 2.5:1
Preservation - 5:1
Stream
ProposAcreage
WMU
ProposAcreage
WMU
Proposed Linear
Proposed Linear
Proposed Linear
0.16
SMU
Footage
SMU
Footage
SMU
Footage
UT 1
161 64
0.21
UT 2
W3
621 248
UT 3
0.59
564 226
W4
UT 4
0.07
192 77
UT 5
W5
233 93
0.20
Sub -Total
0 0
1,771 708
0 0
Total Proposed
0.78
1'771
Linear Footage
W7 0.10
0.10
0.47
Total SMUs
708
W8
*Optional stream credit refers to stream credit that could be generated in excess of the amount requested in
this RFP, should DMS elect to purchase additional stream credit.
Table 1f.' Option 2 - Proposed Wetland Mitigation
Wetlands Re-establishment 1:1
Rehabilitation -1.5:1
Enhancement - 3:1
Proposed
WMU
ProposAcreage
WMU
ProposAcreage
WMU
W1
0.24
0.16
W2
0.21
0.07
W3
0.59
0.19
W4
0.07
0.05
W5
0.20
0.13
W6 0.14
0.14
0.78
0.52
W7 0.10
0.10
0.47
0.31
W8
0.13
0.09
W9
0.22
0.15
W10
0.07
0.05
W11 0.22
0.22
0.80
0.53
W12
0.09
0.06
Sub -Total 0.46
0.46
3.07
2.05
0.80
0.26
Percent
Acreage 10.6%
Proposed for
gation
70.9%
18.5%
Total Acres Proposed for
Mitigation
4.33
2.77
Total Proposed WMU's
Buffer Credit
Option 2 is able to produce 612,047 Buffer Mitigation Units (BMU) through restoration and enhancement of
695,866 square feet of riparian buffers.
The technical proposal is printed on a minimum post -consumer content of 30 percent.
V
FN
Morton Farms Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
RFP# 16-007709: Cataloging Unit 03020101 of the Tar Pamlico River Basin
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..............................................................................................................I
PART 2
CORPORATE BACKGROUND AND EXPERIENCE.................................................................1
2.1
BACKGROUND OF FIRM......................................................................................................................
1
2.2
STATEMENT OF ABILITY.....................................................................................................................
1
2.3
SIMILAR MITIGATION PROJECTS COMPLETED....................................................................................
2
2.4
OFFICE LOCATIONS...........................................................................................................................
3
2.5
EXPERIENCE OF PROJECT MANAGER..................................................................................................
3
2.6
MULTIDISCIPLINARY APPROACH OF FIRM..........................................................................................
3
2.7
RESUMES OF KEY PERSONNEL............................................................................................................
4
2.8
DBE/HUB PARTICIPATION................................................................................................................
6
PART 3
PROJECT ORGANIZATION.......................................................................................................7
3.1
QUALIFICATIONS, EXPERIENCE, AND RESPONSIBILITIES......................................................................
7
PART 4 TECHNICAL APPROACH..........................................................................................................9
4.1
PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES.....................................................................................................
9
4.2
PROJECT DESCRIPTION....................................................................................................................
11
4.3
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT.................................................................................................................
25
4.4
PROPOSED STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION..............................................................................
29
4.5
CURRENT OWNERSHIP AND LONG TERM PROTECTION......................................................................
33
4.6
PROJECT PHASING...........................................................................................................................
33
4.7
SUCCESS CRITERIA..........................................................................................................................
36
PART 5 QUALITY CONTROL................................................................................................................ 39
5.1
QUALITY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM.....................................................................................................
39
5.2
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT POLICIES, PROCEDURES, AND PRACTICES .........................................
39
A
01
Morton Farms Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
RFP# 16-007709: Cataloging Unit 03020101 of the Tar Pamlico River Basin
LIST OF TABLES
Table la. Option 1 - Proposed Stream Mitigation.............................................................................. ii
*Table lb. Option 1 — Optional Stream Credit...................................................................................
ii
Table lc. Option 1 - Proposed Wetland Mitigation
........................................................................... iii
Table 1 d. Option 2 - Proposed Stream Mitigation*
........................................................................... iv
*Table le. Option 2 —Optional Stream Credit....................................................................................v
Table If Option 2 —Proposed Wetland Mitigation
............................................................................v
Table 2. Similar Mitigation Projects Completed by
HDR (*Projects have been successfully closed out).. 2
Table3. Organizational Chart........................................................................................................
7
Table 4. Existing Stream Conditions..............................................................................................16
Table 5a. NCSAM Rating Summary..............................................................................................19
Table 6. Functional Uplift Justification...........................................................................................21
*Table lb. Option 1 — Optional Stream Credit.................................................................................30
Table lc. Option 1 -Proposed Wetland Mitigation
..........................................................................31
Table 1 d. Option 2 - Proposed Stream Mitigation*
..........................................................................32
*Table le. Option 2 —Optional Stream Credit..................................................................................32
Table If. Option 2 — Proposed Wetland Mitigation
..........................................................................33
Table8. Project Schedule............................................................................................................34
FIGURES
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
Figure 2. Drainage Area Map
Figure 3. Land Use Map
Figure 4. NRCS Soils Map
Figures 5 — 5A. Time -Series of Historical Air Photos
Figure 6. Current Conditions Map
Figures 7A and 7B. Recent Air Photo with Proposed Mitigation Features
Figures 8 through 8C. Channel Stability Mapping
Figure 9. Site Floodplain and Water Quality Stressors
Figure 10. Pre -Monitoring Features
Figure 11. Watershed Planning Contextual Map
Figure 12. Planning Elements Map
Figure 13. Contour Map
APPENDIX
Appendix A. Soil Profile Logs
Appendix B. Memorandum of Option
Vii
FN
Morton Farms Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
RFP# 16-007709: Cataloging Unit 03020101 of the Tar Pamlico River Basin
PART 2 CORPORATE BACKGROUND AND
EXPERIENCE
It is anticipated that HDR will complete all phases of the project with the exception of surveying, legal,
construction, planting and fencing.
2.1 Background of Firm
For more than a century, HDR has partnered with clients to shape communities and challenge the boundaries of
what's possible. Our expertise spans 10,000 employees, in more than 225 locations around the world—and
counting. Our engineering, architecture, environmental and construction services bring an impressive breadth of
knowledge to every project. Our optimistic approach to finding innovative solutions defined our past and drives
our future.
HDR has been providing solutions in North Carolina since 1967. Locally, HDR maintains a staff of over 300
employees in four North Carolina offices. It takes the right experts, tools and integrated approach to drive
sustainable growth. Nationally, with more than 1,000 environmental professionals, we deliver high-performance
built environments that value the natural, economic and human considerations. Our No. 2 environmental sciences
ranking (Engineering News -Record) stems from providing clients with credible and defensible solutions for their
facility and infrastructure projects.
HDR's Ecological Restoration Group is comprised of four project managers with 50 years of combined
experience managing stream and wetland restoration projects, hydraulic designs, contract management,
contractor management, and construction site management. This group has built a reputation as one of the
strongest engineering and design firms in the stream and wetland restoration industry, particularly within the
Carolinas. HDR is committed to providing services above and beyond DMS's expectations while completing
the owner's obligations set forth in the RFP.
2.2 Statement of Ability
The HDR Team of professionals is composed of scientists and engineers with extensive experience in mitigation.
Kevin Williams and Ryan Smith will oversee the large majority of technical work and perform everyday
management of the project. Kevin and Ryan have combined to complete successful mitigation site designs on
47 sites throughout the southeastern United States. Between them, Kevin and Ryan have over 40 years of
experience restoring streams, wetlands buffers and natural landscapes. Chris Smith will lead the design,
construction plan development and construction management. Chris has 16 years of experience with stream
assessment, restoration and construction management. The Team's combined experience identifying, designing,
and implementing mitigation projects provide the background necessary to ensure quality work that is
environmentally beneficial and successful over the long-term.
In light of the range of demonstrated experience in compensatory mitigation in North Carolina (for both DMS
and non -DMS projects), the HDR team is uniquely qualified to successfully implement required tasks for the
proposed project.
1
r)R
Morton Farms Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
RFP# 16-007709: Cataloging Unit 03020101 of the Tar Pamlico River Basin
The HDR Team applies the most current agency guidelines and rules governing mitigation design,
implementation, and monitoring. As a full -delivery provider for DMS, the HDR Team is well -versed in the
DMS's required content and format requirements for consulting and design service deliverables. The HDR
Team has training and applied experience in Carolina Vegetative Survey (CVS) vegetation monitoring, native
and non-native plant identification, stream geomorphic measurements, and gauge installation, download, and
maintenance.
2.3 Similar Mitigation Projects Completed
HDR's Ecological Restoration Group and its personnel have successfully completed designs on over 265,000
linear feet of streams throughout the Southeastern United States. The following are examples of similar
mitigation projects to the proposed Site. HDR has completed successful project closeouts on four DMS projects
as indicated in the table below.
Table 2. Similar Mitigation Projects Completed by HDR (*Projects have been successfully closed out)
Mitigation Site Name
County/State
Stream (Restored/Enhanced) Linear Feet)
Wetland
(Acres)
Neighbor Bob
McDowell/ NC
5,860
2.1
Owen Farms
Transylvania/NC
8,600
2.6
Roses Creek
Burke/NC
5,477
Lynches River
Darlington/SC
14,500
140
Caton Creek
Berkeley/SC
23,743
113
Hunting Creek
Newberry/SC
13,939
UT Millers
Duplin/NC
2,679
8.7
College Park Rd.
Berkeley/SC
1,400
UT Neuse
Wayne/NC
2,130
Bachelors Delight
Onslow/NC
14,500
UT Eagle Creek
Union/KY
7,000
40
UT Lumber River*
Robeson/NC
4,285
UT Rocky River*
Cabarrus/NC
2,750
6.5
UT Bear Creek
Chatham/NC
4,877
0.4
Adkin Branch*
Lenoir/NC
10,140
Brown Marsh Swamp*
Robeson/NC
5,000
10
2
r)R
Morton Farms Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
RFP# 16-007709: Cataloging Unit 03020101 of the Tar Pamlico River Basin
HDR has an extensive knowledge base in restoring gravel bed systems using Natural Channel Design principals.
HDR personnel have reviewed a large portion of streams in the Tar -Pamlico River Basin while conducting
mitigation site searches. The site search provided an opportunity to understand current watershed stressors and
typical conditions of streams and wetlands within the basin.
HDR maintains a strong history of compliance with required Federal, State, and Local Permits within the past
year. No violations have been recorded for any of HDR stream restoration Full Delivery or On -Call Design
stream restoration projects to date.
2.4 Office Locations
HDR maintains the following offices within relatively close proximity to the Site: Raleigh, NC; Charlotte, NC;
Winston-Salem, NC; Newport News, VA, and Roanoke, VA. It is anticipated that the majority of work for this
project will be completed out of the Raleigh office.
2.5 Experience of Project Manager
Kevin Williams will be the project manager for the Site. Kevin has 20 years of experience in managing
mitigation projects and 29 years of experience as a group and project manager for hydraulic design projects.
Kevin is one of the most experienced and respected stream and hydraulic engineers in his field in this region,
proven by his ability to produce exemplary products for his clients within budget and within project schedules.
Kevin helped lead the way in spreading Natural Channel Design concepts throughout North Carolina in the late
1990's by managing some of the first stream restoration projects the DOT and Wetland Restoration Program
(WRP) undertook. He also created numerous stream design and analysis techniques such as three dimensional
modeling using Microstation, Geopak, and HEC -RAS which more accurately portrays restored site conditions,
leading to a more efficient design process, which provides clients/contractors a higher degree of confidence in
tabulated quantities.
2.6 Multidisciplinary Approach of Firm
The HDR Team is comprised of highly experienced personnel in the stream and wetland restoration industry.
The professional backgrounds of HDR's diversified team will provide a holistic approach to the Site design.
Kevin Williams and Ryan Smith (see resumes below) will oversee the vast majority of work to be done on the
project, and will be responsible for day-to-day management and completion of all work on the Site. Kevin and
Ryan have worked together on stream and wetland mitigation sites for over 16 years, including numerous
successful DMS design -bid -build and full delivery sites. Kevin's educational and professional background gives
him insight into the hydraulic and hydrologic process of streams and other open channels while managing stream
mitigation projects. Ryan's educational and professional background gives him insight into the restoration and
enhancement of physical and biological functions of entire ecosystems. HDR believes these two personnel have
a proven track record of meshing engineering concepts with sound biological restoration, while meeting project
goals and DMS's expectations.
Kevin and Ryan will be assisted by Chris Smith (Professional Engineer), Ben Furr (Professional Wetland
Scientist), Alex DiGeronimo (Engineer in Training) and Kenton Beal (Professional Wetland Scientist) during
the assessment, design, construction management and monitoring phases of the project.
141
r)R
Morton Farms Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
RFP# 16-007709: Cataloging Unit 03020101 of the Tar Pamlico River Basin
These key staff that will be involved with the project will participate in site visits and project approach meetings
both internally and with DMS. The work will begin based upon an approved approach with weekly
communication between key staff members to ensure the project is proceeding on schedule and on -budget. This
will provide an opportunity to identify any issues early and develop effective solutions. Project preparation,
design, and implementation will be completed in a sequential process as defined in the scope of work for the
Request for Proposal. This process will help ensure not only that quality is maintained but also that the project
yields the anticipated mitigation units.
2.7 Resumes of Key Personnel
2.7.1 HDR
Executive
Jonathan Henderson, PE, Raleigh NC Managing Principle — Jonathan has continuously performed work on
the open-end hydraulics contracts for NCDOT since 1996, in addition to preparing hydraulic designs as a part
of many roadway design projects. His 24 years of experience in roadway and hydraulic design include three
years of experience in state and municipal construction and maintenance with NCDOT and the Town of Chapel
Hill. Jonathan's design experience includes horizontal and vertical roadway alignment, pavement marking,
traffic control, roadway ditch analysis, curb and gutter sections, box culverts and storm drainage design on
various NCDOT projects. His experience also includes preparation of flood study reports using HEC -2, HEC -
RAS and flood modification reports to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
Technical
R. Kevin Williams, PE, PLS, CPESC, CPSWQ, CFM, Ecological Restoration Manager - Kevin graduated
from North Carolina State University in 1989 with a BS degree in Civil Engineering. He joined HDR in 2003,
specifically to lead the Ecological Restoration Group. Kevin is the overall manager for all ecological restoration
design projects. Kevin has extensive knowledge of the fluvial geomorphic processes of streams and rivers. He
has applied this knowledge to design over 47 projects totaling 182,000 linear feet of stream using Natural
Channel Design principals. Kevin was chosen to complete one of the first and most complex stream and wetland
restoration projects that the North Carolina Department of Transportation undertook. Kevin was the main
component for his previous employer to be chosen for the first round of on-call services for the North Carolina
WRP.
Kevin has successfully completed numerous sediment and erosion control plans and construction documents
(plan preparation) for his stream designs involving innovative techniques using Microstation and GEOPAK
(CAD based programming). The North Carolina Stream Restoration Institute/DMS used Kevin's construction
plans as primary example plans for their "Stream Restoration Construction Training" workshop for contractors
and consultants in 2005 and 2006. Kevin has extensive experience in construction and contractor management
through stream and wetland restoration projects and roadway construction projects. Kevin's training includes
Rosgen Levels 2 through 5, DMS/NCSU Sediment & Erosion Control for Stream Restoration, DMS/NCSU
Stream Restoration Construction Training, and NCSU Stormwater Wetland Workshop. Kevin is also an FAA
Certified Remote Pilot.
4
r)R
Morton Farms Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
RFP# 16-007709: Cataloging Unit 03020101 of the Tar Pamlico River Basin
Ryan V. Smith, CPESC, PWS, Lead Designer - Ryan graduated from North Carolina State University in 1999
with a BS degree in Natural Resources Ecosystem Assessment. Ryan joined HDR in 2005, specifically to
supplement stream and wetland design services. Ryan has managed projects and designs in stream and wetland
restoration for numerous private and public clients which include the DMS, South Carolina DOT, Mississippi
DOT, North Carolina DOT, Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Service, Tennessee Stream Mitigation
Program, Fort Bragg, municipalities and mitigation bankers. Ryan has extensive knowledge of the fluvial
geomorphic processes of streams and rivers through his training and the physical and biological evaluation of
hundreds of thousands of feet of stream channel for their restoration potential. These evaluations have included
determining the degree of channel degradation through sediment loss calculations, completing stability analyses
using Bank Height Erosion Indices and Near Bank Stress determinations, studying water quality through benthic
sampling and determining stresses on habitat within the watershed. These evaluations have come from numerous
sites and clients. Ryan has designed over 163,000 linear feet of stream using Natural Channel Design principals.
These designs have taken place in sand, small and large gravel, and boulder bed streams. Ryan completed
sediment transport competency and capacity validations on each design he has been involved.
Ryan has completed numerous construction plans, bid specifications, and sediment and erosion control plans for
stream and wetland mitigation projects. Ryan has been responsible for completing planting plans for numerous
stream, wetland, and buffer mitigation sites within various ecoregions throughout the southeastern United States.
Ryan has managed numerous stream and wetland restoration construction sites. Ryan has been the lead on
setting up and monitoring stream profiles, cross-sections, vegetation plots and groundwater gauges for numerous
stream and wetland mitigation projects. Ryan has extensive work conducting soils, hydrology, and vegetative
analyses, threatened and endangered species surveys, and natural resources documentation (Categorical
Exclusions, permit applications, technical documentation, etc.). Additionally, Ryan is trained in aquatic insect
collection protocols specifically for pre and post conditions of stream restoration sites.
Ryan is experienced in completing large scale technical documentation of site and watershed conditions, leading
meetings and making presentations to federal, state, municipal, and private entities. Ryan's educational
background and training has focused on stream restoration using Natural Channel Design concepts. Ryan is
proficient with Microstation, RIVERMorph, ArcGIS, Trimble GPS, Adobe Acrobat, and MS Office. Ryan's
training includes Rosgen Levels 1 through 4, NCSU Stream Restoration Institute River Courses 1 through 2,
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) Aquatic Insect Collection Protocols for Stream Mitigation
and Restoration, DMS/NCSU Stream Restoration Construction Training, DMS/NCSU Stream Restoration
Construction Training and NCSU Stormwater Wetland Workshop.
Yvette T. Mariotte, Senior Technician — Yvette earned a high school diploma in 1987 and since that time she
has had extensive on the job training in CAD plans production for water resources and transportation engineering
projects. Yvette joined HDR in 2001. Yvette is proficient in preparing plans for stream restoration projects,
bridge survey reports, erosion control plans and highway drainage projects utilizing MicroStation and GEOPAK
software. In addition to her drafting duties, Yvette is responsible for designer level computations for water
resources projects including drainage areas and runoff coefficients.
Christopher Smith, PE, Design Engineer - Chris graduated from North Carolina State University in 2003 with
a BS degree in Civil Engineering. Chris has been employed by HDR since 2004 and his utilization is dedicated
exclusively to the Ecological Restoration Group. Chris' skills set are utilized primarily for Natural Channel
5
r)R
Morton Farms Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
RFP# 16-007709: Cataloging Unit 03020101 of the Tar Pamlico River Basin
Design, stream assessments, construction plan development, HEC -RAS analyses, CLOMR/LOMR development
and floodplain compliance, and construction management. Chris' computer skills include HEC -RAS,
F1owMaster, RIVERMorph, MicroStation, GEOPAK, and MS Office. Chris' training includes Rosgen Levels 1
through 4, NCSU's Stream Morphology Assessment, NCSU's Natural Channel Design Principals, NCSU's
Installation of Construction Site Erosion and Sediment Control Devices, and North Carolina Construction Law
Seminar.
Benjamin N. Furr, PWS, Environmental Scientist — Ben graduated from North Carolina State University in
2003 with a BS in Natural Resources Ecosystem Assessment and in 2010 with an MBA. Ben joined HDR in
2011 to supplement stream and wetland restoration services and strengthen the firms permitting and natural
resource services. Ben has prepared and implemented stream and wetland mitigation plans for several projects
across North and South Carolina. As part of these projects, Ben was responsible for site assessment, design,
technical documentation, preparation of bid documents, construction oversight, and monitoring. Ben also has
extensive experience coordinating with regulatory agencies to gain concurrence regarding jurisdictional
determinations, stream, wetland, and buffer impacts, and threatened and endangered species issues. Ben's
educational and professional background has concentrated on geomorphological analysis of stream channels,
soils analysis, vegetative analyses, threatened and endangered species surveys, natural resources documentation
and permitting. He is proficient in the following software applications: MicroStation, ArcGIS, and Trimble
GPS. Ben's training includes Rosgen Levels 1 through 4, Basic Processes in Hydric Soils, Advanced Problems
in Hydric Soils, and Voluntary Land Conservation through Legal Agreements. Ben is also an FAA Certified
Remote Pilot and has experience utilizing drone technology for site assessments and monitoring.
Kenton Beal, PWS, Environmental Scientist — Kenton graduated from Elon University in 2013 with a BS in
Ecological and Environmental Science and obtained an MS in Environmental Science from the University of
Florida in 2018. Kenton joined HDR in 2017 with 5 years of experience in the stream and wetland mitigation
field. Kenton has experience in various aspects of the mitigation industry including: existing and reference site
geomorphic surveys and analysis, post -construction monitoring, geomorphic surveying, macroinvertebrate
collection and identification, water quality testing and vegetative maintenance. He is also experienced with
geospatial analysis, wetland and stream delineation, mitigation assessment, and geomorphic and biological
assessment. Kenton is also an FAA Certified Remote Pilot.
Alex DiGeronimo, Engineer in Training - Alex joined HDR as an intern in 2015 with a degree in Biological
Engineering from North Carolina State University. Over the past four years Alex has gained valuable experience
in the mitigation industry. His primary responsibilities include: existing site geomorphic surveys and analysis,
vegetative assessment and maintenance, construction oversight, post -construction geomorphic surveying, and
monitoring report preparation. He also has experience in: HEC -RAS analysis, LOMR preparation, stream and
wetland delineation, and erosion control.
2.8 DBE/HUB Participation
The HDR Team has no DBE or HUB Participation.
19
r)R
Morton Farms Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
RFP# 16-007709: Cataloging Unit 03020101 of the Tar Pamlico River Basin
PART 3 PROJECT ORGANIZATION
Table 3. Organizational Chart
3.1 Qualifications, Experience, and Responsibilities
The following is a list of staff, with relevant qualifications, experience and their responsibilities for work on the
proposed Site.
Jonathan Henderson — Managing Principle — Jonathan has been at HDR for 17 years and as the Raleigh
Managing Principle he currently oversees all design services provided by the company. Jonathan is the managing
principal for all mitigation work performed at HDR, including all work performed for the DMS. Jonathan's
responsibilities will include executing the full delivery contract with the DMS, executing the purchase of the
conservation easement with landowners, executing contracts with sub -consultants, ensuring that HDR staff is
fully able to meet the needs required by DMS for the Site, and providing an effective and safe work environment.
Kevin Williams — Group Manager — Kevin has been the group/project manager for mitigation projects at HDR
for 15 years. Kevin has managed the assessment, design, and implementation (construction oversight) of
numerous similar projects as the proposed Site. A sample of these projects include Owen Farms Stream and
Wetland Mitigation Site (DMS), Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site (DMS), UT Lumber River Stream
Mitigation Site (DMS), Adkin Branch Stream Restoration Project (DMS), Brown Marsh Swamp Stream and
Wetland Restoration Project (Restoration Systems DMS Full Delivery), UT to Crooked Creek Stream
Restoration Project (DMS), UT to Bear Creek Stream Restoration Project (DMS) and UT to Rocky River Stream
Restoration Project (DMS).
7
F3R
Organizational Chart
for
Morton Farms Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
Principal -In -Charge
Jonathan Henderson, PE
Ecological Restoration Manager
Kevin Williams, PE, PLS, CPESC, CPSWQ, CFM
Wetland Design and
Stream Restoration
Construction
Natural Systems
Monitoring
Investigations
Design and Modeling
Management
Ryan Smith, PWS
Ryan Smith, PWS
Ryan Smith, PWS
Alex DiGeronimo, EIT
Ben Furr, PWS
Chris Smith, PE
Chris Smith, PE
Kenton Beal, PWS
Kenton Beal, PWS
Alex DiGeronimo, EIT
Alex DiGeronimo, EIT
Ben Furr, PWS
Yvette Mariotte, Technician
3.1 Qualifications, Experience, and Responsibilities
The following is a list of staff, with relevant qualifications, experience and their responsibilities for work on the
proposed Site.
Jonathan Henderson — Managing Principle — Jonathan has been at HDR for 17 years and as the Raleigh
Managing Principle he currently oversees all design services provided by the company. Jonathan is the managing
principal for all mitigation work performed at HDR, including all work performed for the DMS. Jonathan's
responsibilities will include executing the full delivery contract with the DMS, executing the purchase of the
conservation easement with landowners, executing contracts with sub -consultants, ensuring that HDR staff is
fully able to meet the needs required by DMS for the Site, and providing an effective and safe work environment.
Kevin Williams — Group Manager — Kevin has been the group/project manager for mitigation projects at HDR
for 15 years. Kevin has managed the assessment, design, and implementation (construction oversight) of
numerous similar projects as the proposed Site. A sample of these projects include Owen Farms Stream and
Wetland Mitigation Site (DMS), Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site (DMS), UT Lumber River Stream
Mitigation Site (DMS), Adkin Branch Stream Restoration Project (DMS), Brown Marsh Swamp Stream and
Wetland Restoration Project (Restoration Systems DMS Full Delivery), UT to Crooked Creek Stream
Restoration Project (DMS), UT to Bear Creek Stream Restoration Project (DMS) and UT to Rocky River Stream
Restoration Project (DMS).
7
F3R
Morton Farms Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
RFP# 16-007709: Cataloging Unit 03020101 of the Tar Pamlico River Basin
Ryan Smith — Project Manager/Lead Designer — Ryan has been HDR's lead stream designer for 13 years.
Ryan has managed or been the lead designer on numerous similar projects as the proposed Site. A sample of
these projects include Owen Farms Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site (DMS), Roses Creek Stream Mitigation
Site (DMS), UT Lumber River Stream Mitigation (DMS), Bachelors Delight Stream and Wetland Mitigation
Site (Weyerhaeuser Real Estate Development Company) and Adkin Branch Stream Restoration Site (DMS).
Ryan has completed construction oversight and monitoring on numerous sites for public and private clients.
Ryan will be responsible for collecting on-site biological and stream survey data, technical documentation,
stream and wetland design, planting plan design, construction oversight and management, and monitoring.
Christopher Smith, PE, Design Engineer — Chris has been with HDR as an environmental, hydraulic and
structural engineer for over 15 years. Chris has completed field surveys, geomorphic design and hydraulic
modeling on numerous streams in North Carolina, South Carolina, Mississippi, Tennessee, Texas and Kentucky.
Chris has managed construction on numerous stream and wetland mitigation sites including Roses Creek Stream
Mitigation Site (DMS), Lynches River Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site (SCDOT), UT Rocky River (DMS),
Adkin Branch Stream Restoration Site (DMS), Cattail Branch (City of Clinton), Brown Marsh Swamp Stream
and Wetland Restoration Site (Restoration Systems — DMS Full Delivery), and Robinson and Taylor Creek
Stream Restoration Site (TSMP). Chris has completed HEC -RAS no -rise models and CLOMR's on several
stream restoration sites. Chris will be responsible for managing on-site stream surveys, compilation of collected
data, stream design and analysis, completing a HEC -RAS model on the existing and proposed streams, sealing
construction documents, and managing construction of the proposed Site.
Ben Furr, PWS, Environmental Scientist — Ben has been with HDR as an environmental scientist for eight
years and has over 16 years of experience in the mitigation industry. He has completed field surveys, design,
construction oversight, and monitoring on stream and wetland sites throughout the Carolinas. Recently Ben has
conducted existing conditions assessments, developed mitigation plans, and monitored sites for DMS including
Owen Farms Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site, Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site, UT Millers Creek Stream
and Wetland Mitigation Site, UT Rocky River Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site, Adkin Branch Stream
Restoration Site, and UT Lumber River Stream Mitigation Site. Ben will be responsible for existing condition
assessments of streams and wetlands, wetland and planting plan design, technical documentation, and
monitoring.
Yvette T. Mariotte, Senior Technician — Yvette has been with HDR as a senior Microstation technician for
over 15 years. Yvette produces construction documents and graphics for all mitigation designs completed by
HDR's Ecological Restoration Group in Raleigh. Her work includes Roses Creek Stream Mitigation Site
(DMS), UT Millers Creek Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site (DMS), Lynches River Stream and Wetland
Mitigation Site (SCDOT), Adkin Branch Stream Restoration Project (DMS), Brown Marsh Swamp Stream and
Wetland Restoration Project (Restoration Systems — DMS Full Delivery), UT to Crooked Creek Stream and
Buffer Restoration Project (DMS), UT to Rocky River Stream Restoration Project (DMS). Yvette will be
responsible for producing graphics for technical documents and preparing construction documents for the
proposed Site.
9
r)R
Morton Farms Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
RFP# 16-007709: Cataloging Unit 03020101 of the Tar Pamlico River Basin
PART 4 TECHNICAL APPROACH
4.1 Project Goals and Objectives
The Site is located within the Fox Creek Watershed, USGS 14 -digit hydrologic unit 03020101010030. A Local
Watershed Plan has not been developed for this hydrologic unit.
4.1.1 Tar -Pamlico River Basin Restoration Priorities
According to the 2010 Tar -Pamlico River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP), the Tar -Pamlico River Basin
offers an array of assets including large forested tracts and conservation areas. Furthermore, the RBRP suggests
the most important priority for the watershed is to promote projects that re-establish riparian buffers and corridors
of substantial width to improve connectivity to protected areas. The RBRP lists the following restoration goals
for the Tar -Pamlico River Basin:
• Promoting nutrient reduction in municipal areas through the implementation of stormwater best
management practices;
• Promoting nutrient and sediment reduction in agricultural areas by restoring and preserving wetlands,
streams, and riparian buffers;
• Continuing targeted implementation of projects under the Nutrient Offset and Buffer programs, as well
as focusing NCDOT-sponsored restoration in areas where it will provide the most functional
improvement to the ecosystems; and
• Protecting, augmenting and connecting state -designated Natural Heritage Areas and other conservation
lands.
4.1.2 Tar -Pamlico River Basin Water Quality Plan
The entire Tar -Pamlico River Basin was classified as nutrient sensitive waters (NSW) by the North Carolina
Environmental Management Commission (EMC) in 1989. A NSW strategy was developed to help assess
progress towards meeting in -stream nutrient loading goals of a 30% reduction in total nitrogen (TN) loading and
no increase in total phosphorus (TP) loading from the 1991 baseline. The strategy is to be implemented by
WWTP dischargers, municipal stormwater programs and agriculture. Despite the fact that the targeted point and
nonpoint pollution sources have been able to meet their nutrient reductions, total nitrogen and total phosphorous
concentrations do not show a downward trend and loads have not fallen below the 1991 baseline load goals
(DWQ 2010).
The 2010 Tar -Pamlico River Basinwide Water Quality Management Plan (Water Quality Plan) was reviewed to
determine significant stressors in the Tar -Pamlico River Basin. Nutrient enrichment is considered the main water
quality stressor and has become the focus of regulatory and strategy related activities. The water quality plan
suggests a trend in the increase of organic nitrogen and recommends identifying sources and reducing inputs of
organic nitrogen throughout the basin.
The Upper Tar River Subbasin 03020101 was also examined in the Water Quality Plan. The subbasin has
experienced modest water quality improvements. In general, water quality is good but fecal coliform and
turbidity have been noted as stressors and organic nitrogen presence continues to rise in the subbasin. The
9
r)R
Morton Farms Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
RFP# 16-007709: Cataloging Unit 03020101 of the Tar Pamlico River Basin
subbasin provides habitat for the Tar River spinymussel and dwarf wedgemussel but increased urbanization and
other disturbances could increase pollutant delivery to important habitat. For this reason, protection of the upper
Tar River watershed is considered crucial for the continuation of the species.
4.1.3 Morton Farms Stream and Wetland Mitigation Goals
The following site specific goals and objectives were developed to address the primary basin stressors identified
within Sections 4.1.1 and 4.1.2 as well as site specific stressors:
Primary redundancies from watershed information listed above is that nutrient loading, sedimentation and fecal
pathogens associated with agriculture production are predominant stressors. The primary goals of this stream
and wetland restoration project focus on addressing those stressors. Goals and objectives include:
Reducing sediment, nutrient and pathogen sources that effect water quality.
2. Providing/enhancing flood attenuation.
3. Restoring and enhancing aquatic, semi -aquatic and riparian habitat.
4. Restoring and enhancing habitat connectivity with adjacent natural habitats.
These goals will be accomplished through the following objectives:
Reducing water quality stressors and providing/enhancing flood attenuation will be directly tied to
the following:
a) Restoring the existing degraded and incised Unnamed Tributary to Fox Creek (UTFC) as
primarily a Priority I restoration where bankfull and larger flows can access the currently
abandoned (from bankfull flows) floodplain and associated riparian wetlands, which will allow
nutrients, sedimentation, trash and debris from upstream runoff to settle from floodwaters. It is
anticipated that Priority II restoration will be utilized to tie the channel into the existing
landscape, presumably at the upstream and downstream extents of the Site. Restoring a stable
dimension, pattern, and profile will ensure the channel will transport and attenuate watershed
flows and sediment loads without aggrading or degrading. Priority I restoration should increase
flood interaction with the floodplain and riparian wetlands, in -turn increasing the capacity of
the Site to uptake nutrients from upstream waters.
b) Stabilizing channel banks by relocating the channel, placing stream structures to reduce
shearing forces on outside meander bends, and planting native vegetative species to provide
soil stability, thus reducing stream bank stressors.
c) Reducing point (i.e. cattle accessing the channel) and non -point source (i.e. stormwater runoff
through pastures) pollution associated with on-site agricultural operations by exclusionary
fencing from the wetlands, streams, and riparian buffers.
d) Reducing point and non -point pollution associated with on-site agricultural operations by
restoring/enhancing riparian wetlands and vegetative buffers on stream banks, adjacent
10
r)R
Morton Farms Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
RFP# 16-007709: Cataloging Unit 03020101 of the Tar Pamlico River Basin
floodplains and uplands. Establishing vegetative buffers will increase the treatment of nutrient
enriched surface runoff from adjacent pastureland.
e) Further limiting cattle access by stabilizing two existing fords on UTFC and installing gates on
each side of the crossings.
f) Restoring buffers adjacent to the streams and wetlands will assist in attenuating floodwaters, in
turn reducing stressors from upstream impacts.
g) Raising adjacent stream bed elevations to restore/enhance wetland hydrology and reconnect
floodwaters, allowing treatment of nutrients from basin inputs during bankfull and larger flows.
Restoring aquatic, semi -aquatic and terrestrial habitat will be directly tied to:
h) Restoration of a sinuous gravel bed channel that promotes riffles and pools, and accommodates
benthic macroinvertebrate and fish propagation. Additionally, woody materials such as log
structures, cover logs, overhanging planted vegetation and toe wood in submerged water will
provide a diversity of shading, bed form and foraging opportunities for aquatic organisms.
i) Restoring native vegetation to the stream channel banks, wetlands, and the adjacent riparian
corridor that is currently dominated by fescue grass will diversify flora and create a protected
habitat corridor that will provide an abundance of available foraging and cover habitat for a
multitude of amphibians, reptiles, mammals and birds.
j) Restoration/enhancement of wetland hydrology and introducing floodwaters back to the
historic floodplain and associated riparian wetlands will provide a diversity of habitats for semi -
aquatic flora and fauna.
k) Removal of existing non-native privet and multiflora rose and replanting with native vegetation
characteristic of a Piedmont Bottomland Forest.
1) Improving the stream crossing on UTFC to eliminate the backwater effect of the existing ford
and restore natural flows through the system.
4.2 Project Description
4.2.1 Location
The Site is located within the Carolina Slate Belt, approximately 3 miles northwest of Oxford, NC. No air
transport facilities are located within a five mile radius of the Site. See Figure 1 for Vicinity Map.
From Raleigh-Durham International Airport: I-540 east to exit 9 for NC -50 N/ Creedmoor Rd, turn left onto NC -
50 N/ Creedmoor Rd, go 14.6 miles; turn left onto Lake road, go 0.5 miles; turn right onto Stem Rd, go 0.2 miles;
continue onto Brogden Rd, go 5.4 miles; continue onto Main St, go 0.1 miles; turn right onto State Rte 1004/Old
NC 75, go 1.0 miles; turn left onto Culbreth Rd, go 7.0 miles; turn right onto US 158 E, go 1.7 miles; turn left
11
OR
Morton Farms Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
RFP# 16-007709: Cataloging Unit 03020101 of the Tar Pamlico River Basin
onto Hebron Rd, go 3.4 miles; turn left onto Sunset Rd and travel approximately 0.5 miles where the site is on
the right.
4.2.2 Existing Site Conditions
Channel Stability Mapping is provided on Figures 8 through 8C.
Field visits were conducted on December 7' and 19' of 2018. The
team, including engineers, biologists, and soil scientists, walked the
entire site making visual assessments, taking notes on the existing
condition of streams, wetlands, habitat, riparian buffers and
determining the potential for mitigation. Morphological data was
collected on UTFC which is proposed for restoration. If additional
data is needed it will be collected during the design phase.
4.2.2.1 CHANNEL AND FLOODPLAIN CHARACTERISTICS
Site floodplain alteration and water quality stressors are shown on Figure 9. Pre -monitoring feature locations
are shown on Figure 10.
UTFC
UTFC is the Site's dominant hydrologic feature. UTFC flows
through a well-defined alluvial floodplain. Elevations range
between approximately 495 ft MSL at the point at which
UTFC enters the Site and approximately 465 ft MSL at the
downstream end of the Site. UTFC enters the Site as a second
order, perennial stream (USGS 1997), flowing east to west
approximately 3,000 feet prior to exiting the Site. UTFC's
drainage area is approximately 544 acres (0.85 square miles)
at the downstream extent of the Site (Figure 2).
U1 PC; is primarily a gravel bed stream with sigmticant inputs
of fine sediments due to actively eroding banks, hoof shear on banks and sheet flow from unstabilized soils in
adjacent cattle pastures. Eroding banks are primarily a result of 1) a lack of deeply -rooted stream bank and
riparian vegetation and 2) cattle accessing the stream for shading and as a watering source. Hoof shear is evident
12
F)R
Morton Farms Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
RFP# 16-007709: Cataloging Unit 03020101 of the Tar Pamlico River Basin
from the upstream beginning of the Site to the downstream extent of the Site. Hoof shear and significant erosion
is evident when viewing aerial photography of the Site on several of the attached figures. Substantial loads of
fine sediments derived from bank scour and sheet flow through adjacent pastures has deposited in many of the
channel's riffles and pools.
Significant fecal and nutrient loads are entering UTFC and its tributaries as a result of direct cattle access to
streams and overland sheetflow from adjacent pastures. Evidence of this includes visual observation of cattle in
the stream channel during site visits and fecal matter along stream banks and within the stream channel. HDR
used equations and guidance set forth by DMS in the document titled "Quantifying Benefits to Water Quality
from Livestock Exclusion and Riparian Buffer Establishment for Stream Restoration" (June 15, 2016) to
estimate potential fecal load reductions that may result from proposed restoration activities at the Site. It is
estimated that cattle exclusion and establishment of a riparian buffer would decrease the fecal load of the Site
from between 4.04E+14 col/year to 4.30E+14 col/year dependent upon the mitigation option selected. HDR
also used equations set forth in the NC DEQ memorandum titled "Approval of Cattle Exclusion Nutrient
Reduction Practices" (April 5, 2017) as well as the document titled "NC Division of Water Quality —
Methodology and Calculations for determining Nutrient Reductions associated with Riparian Buffer
Establishment" to determine potential nitrogen and phosphorous reduction loads for the Site. Cattle exclusion
and establishment of a riparian buffer is estimated to reduce the nitrogen loads for the Site from between 709
lb/yr to 1,148 Ib/yr and reduce the phosphorous load for the site ranging from 78 lb/yr to 126 lb/yr dependent
upon the mitigation option selected.
Two ford crossings exist on UTFC within the Site (one at approximately 900 feet and one at approximately 1,900
feet downstream from the upstream most point of the Site). The ford crossing located approximately 900 feet
downstream from the beginning of the Site creates a backwater effect that extends approximately 200 feet
upstream. UTFC exhibits a mature riparian buffer on the left bank from the upstream most point of the project
to the first ford crossing. The right bank through this reach consists of a one tree buffer. Despite deeply rooted
riparian vegetation along the left bank, UTFC is incised through this reach and exhibits scour or mass wasting
along the majority of stream banks. UTFC exhibits low bank heights just upstream of UT 1 but scour remains
evident along the stream banks.
The large majority of channel displays little to no deeply rooted bank or riparian vegetation downstream of the
first ford crossing. When a woody buffer is present, it is commonly only one tree wide, with vegetation typically
sparse at best. Many of the trees within the one -tree buffer have been undercut because the channel has incised
below the rooting depth. The lack of a mature vegetated buffer and the substantial influence of hoof shear have
led to mass wasting of channel banks along the majority of channel length in both arc and tangent sections.
Figures 8 through 8C depict a channel stability analysis for UTFC. The analysis focuses on determining portions
of the channel that display moderate to high bank stress and correspondingly details scour or mass wasting. It
should be noted that the large majority of UTFC contains channel banks that depict moderate to substantial bank
erosion, evidenced by falling trees along the stream channel banks.
Four riffle cross-sections were collected along UTFC that are typical of the entire Site. This data is used to
display overarching morphological characteristics of the Site. Morphological data appears to confirm that the
channel is in a state of flux. All four cross-sections display morphological conditions that indicate a trend toward
instability evidenced by bank height ratios ranging from 1.51 to 2.19.
13
r)R
Morton Farms Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
RFP# 16-007709: Cataloging Unit 03020101 of the Tar Pamlico River Basin
Cross-section 1 is classified as a 134 type
channel, displaying a width -to -depth
ratio of 16.3 and entrenchment ratio of
1.57. The channel in this section is
incised and has been accessed by cattle
which have degraded and widended the
banks). The channel is also incised to the
point that it has abandoned its historic
floodplain as evidenced by a bank -
height ratio of 1.75.
❑asslflcation:. B4
UT Fox Creek: X5 I wldthdo-0epth Ratio 16,3
Entrenchmanc Ratio: 157
t G+nUnd—aanklull—FbndP.R BHR: 1-15
aa❑
5s.n -
�' 9a.0
9a°
91.0
p.0 5.0 10,0 15A 20.0 2S.0 30.0 35.0
olMd.e {ft}
Cross-section 2 is classified as an E4
UT Fox Creek• XS 2 ` '"``a"'n14
'
type channel with a width -to -depth ratio
W'IRaiiv: 35
dih-to-0epih i3%
Entrenchment Ratio: 4J3
rt•[xoVMd tBiRlflull �r Fppdpfpn! BHR: tAt
of 5.35. Although the cross-section
signifies an E type channel, geomorphic
95A
data reveals that the channel is actively
8900 �.
incising as evidenced by a bank height
ratio of 1.51. It appears that the channel
had overwidened at one point (towards
9''° '
the left bank) but has now deposited
�°°- ' - - -
0A SA 10.0 15.0 20.9 2S0 ?•BH 3S4 40A'
material on its left bank from mass
Oltbnte(W
wasting on the right bank. The channel has incised to the point that it has abandoned its historic floodplain as
evidenced by a bank -height ratio of 1.51.
Cross-section 3 is classified as an E4
type channel with a width -to -depth ratio
of 5.06 and entrenchment ratio of 2.45,
however this section is similar to Cross-
section 2 in that geomorphic data
reveals that the channel is actively
incising following a period of
overwidening. Incision is evidenced by
a bank height ratio of 2.19.
OR
CWalRcaticn- E4
UT Fox Creek: X5 3 wldth-t�tmpth Ret,,: 546
Entrenchment Ratio: IA5
_Ground -t 0ank[ull �FkmdFrone anR:2-19
96.0
g,,,�
43.0
f
n>I.0
0-0 Ina 70.0 30.0 4n❑ 511° 60A
asi,v Iftl
14
Morton Farms Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
RFP# 16-007709: Cataloging Unit 03020101 of the Tar Pamlico River Basin
Cross-section 4 is classified as an E4
type channel with a width -to -depth ratio
of 7.18 and entrenchment ratio of 3.56.
This cross-section is typical of several
reaches, including Cross-sections 2 and
3, which appear to indicate that the
channel had incised, then widened and is
now incising again. Incision of the
channel is evidenced by a bank height
ratio of 1.85. Incision of the channel
prevents above bankfull flows from
accessing the historical floodplain.
55.0
$ axn
WO
UT Fox Creek: XS 4 `easIan: E4
wam�e-oest�h R,no: ?.Is
Entrenchment Hallo: 3.55
—GV -.d —H-U.1l—Fkwdpro RHR'I.85
G-0 SIR WD LID 2aa 25.11 JUD 3sR 40.0 45.D 5D.13
iRi
It is anticipated that in undisturbed conditions, entrenchment ratios of UTFC should be much higher (meaning
that flood flows should have greater access to the channels broad, well defined floodplain) with bank -height
ratios approaching 1.0. Existing cross-sections of the channel clearly show that the bankfull elevation is well
below the historic floodplain elevation (i.e. existing top of ground). Morphological data of the existing conditions
of UTFC confirms that the channel is in a state of flux. It appears that the channel is incising through the
landscape and beginning to over widen in an attempt to scour a floodplain closer to the bankfull elevation.
UT's 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5
All unnamed tributaries (UT) to UT Fox Creek are first order tributaries that flow through active cattle pasture
before entering the floodplain of UTFC. These streams are mostly stable with a narrow vegetated buffer
(predominantly one -tree buffer or sparse herbaceous layer) along both sides of each tributary. The major impact
to each of the UT's is cattle access which has damaged sections of channel banks. UT 1, UT 2, UT 3, and UT 5
are not incised and appear to be connected to their adjacent floodplains, with the exception of the tie-in locations
to UTFC. UT 4 is incised with bank -height ratios above 2.0.
Biologicalpairment
As noted above, the majority of streams on the Site have various physical impairments that include:
• Substantial fine and coarse sediment loads from bank failure and mass wasting,
• Continual maintenance of riparian buffers and denudation of deep rooted vegetation from those buffers,
• Fecal and nutrient loading into the channels from unabated access of cattle and sheet flow through
pasture lands adjacent to streams on-site.
• Hoof shear of channel banks and bed form from cattle access and wading, and
• Agricultural machinery access.
15
FN
Morton Farms Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
RFP# 16-007709: Cataloging Unit 03020101 of the Tar Pamlico River Basin
These physical impairments will have a significant effect on water quality and biological integrity of the Site.
Effects of physical impairment include:
• Silting of habitat for fish species and other macrobenthos in the stream channels,
• Loss of essential bed form features,
• Potential of increased loading of nutrients and pathogens to all stream systems on-site due to
maintenance of fields within riparian areas and access of cattle to stream channels,
• Abandonment of floodplain interaction (i.e. channel incision) reduces the ability of the Site to uptake
and store nutrients and other pollutant inputs,
• Denudation of riparian vegetation substantially reduces potential woody debris inputs to the channel
that are vital for aquatic propagation and cover habitat, and
• Denudation of riparian vegetation reduces semi -aquatic and terrestrial habitat corridors through the Site.
Historical Presence of Streams
Table 4. Existing Stream Conditions
Reach
Historical Presence
DA (Acres)
DWQ Score
Impairment
UTFC
Topological crenulations in the valley (USGS)
544
39
Incised/entrenched, cattle and equipment
(Figure 2); LiDAR topographical breaks within
access, sparse and impacted buffer
valley (Figure 13)
UT 1
Topological crenulations in the valley (USGS)
43
29
cattle access, impacted buffer
(Figure 2); LiDAR topographical breaks within
UTFC Floodplain (Figure 13)
UT 2
Topological crenulations in the valley (USGS)
19
32.5
cattle and equipment access, narrow buffer
(Figure 2); LiDAR topographical breaks within
in downstream portion, stream incision
UTFC Floodplain (Figure 13)
near confluence with UTFC
UT 3
Topological crenulations in the valley (USGS)
11
28.5
cattle access, narrow buffer, stream
(Figure 2); LiDAR topographical breaks within
incision near confluence with UTFC
UTFC Floodplain (Figure 13)
UT 4
Topological crenulations in the valley (USGS)
162
32
cattle access, narrow buffer, stream
(Figure 2); LiDAR topographical breaks within
incision
UTFC Floodplain (Figure 13)
UT 5
Topological crenulations in the valley (USGS)
18
28.5
cattle and equipment access, narrow
(Figure 2); LiDAR topographical breaks within
buffer, stream incision near confluence
UTFC Floodplain (Figure 13)
with UTFC
16
OR
Morton Farms Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
RFP# 16-007709: Cataloging Unit 03020101 of the Tar Pamlico River Basin
According to the study conducted by NCDWQ, streams in the Carolina Slate Belt- Area B with drainage areas
greater than 37.5 acres have a perennial probability of 50 percent (FHWA, 2008). UTFC, UT 1, and UT 4 have
drainages over 37.5 acres and scored as perennial during site visits. UT 3 and UT 5 have drainage areas less than
37.5 acres; however, both appear to be spring fed. UT 2 scored as intermittent near its entry into the project
boundary but transitions to a perennial stream approximately 200 feet from the property boundary and
downstream of hillside seepage evident during site visits. All tributaries were flowing when observed during
field visits in December 2018.
4.2.2.2 WETLANDS
Wetland types discussed below and presented in Table 5b are
based off of the general wetland types as described in the
North Carolina Wetland Assessment Method (NC WAM) user
manual. Twelve (12) wetland (or relic wetland) areas are
present on-site (W1 through W12). Cattle have unrestricted
access to all wetlands at the Site with the exception of W3,
which has served to significantly alter the ground surface
condition and vegetative communities within each wetland.
W1, W5, and W10 are Headwater Forests located adjacent to
first order tributaries (UT 1, UT 2, and UT 4). The portion of
W1 on the west side of UT 1 is dominated by sedges (Carex
spp.), common rush (Juncus effusus), and fescue (Festuca sp.)
and is part of an active cattle pasture. The east side of W1 is
dominated by sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciva), river birch
(Betula nigra), and willow oak (Quercus phellos). W5 and
W 10 are also in active cattle pasture and dominated by sedges,
common rush, and fescue. Woody vegetation is found only at
the edges of these wetlands along the adjacent tributaries.
Surface water was observed within each wetland. Hydric soil
indicators included a depleted matrix.
W2 is a Bottomland Hardwood Forest adjacent to UTFC. W2
is the only N
vegetation. Vegetation within W2 consists of river birch,
sweetgum, willow oak, and green ash (Fraxinus
pennsylvanica). Surface water and drainage patterns were
observed within W2. Hydric soil indicators included
depleted matrix. Cattle have full access to W2 and routinely
use the area for water and shading as evidenced by cattle
tracks and fecal matter throughout the wetland. W3 is a
narrow wetland that appears to have been excavated along
the toe of slope at the edge of the adjacent agricultural field
(row crops). A small berm is located along the entire north
side of W3, which collects runoff from the adjacent field and
OR
17
Morton Farms Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
RFP# 16-007709: Cataloging Unit 03020101 of the Tar Pamlico River Basin
causes it to pond in W3. Breaks in the berm at various locations allow water to drain from W3 into W2 and
other portions of UTFC's riparian area/floodplain during and after heavy rain events. Various sedges and
common rush dominate the W3 with tag alder (Alnus serrulata) and black willow (Salix nigra) scattered
throughout. It appears that W3 should be a Bottomland Hardwood Forest but due to human manipulation it is
currently a Freshwater Marsh that inadvertently treats runoff from the adjacent field before it enters UTFC. W4
is a small Seep along the lower slope adjacent to UTFC. W4 is lacking woody vegetation and is dominated by
pasture grasses and sedges.
W6, W7, W8, W9, W 11, and W 12 are Bottomland Hardwood Forests adjacent to UTFC; however, due to human
manipulation and cattle activity these wetlands have both altered hydrology and an altered vegetative community
which is now dominated by pasture grasses, sedges, and common rush. Canopy trees are sparsely scattered
throughout W6 and W7, consisting mostly of sweetgum, red maple (Acer rubrum), and river birch. Standing
water was observed within each of these wetlands and depleted matrix was the primary hydric soil indicator.
Soil texture is finer (i.e. clay loam and sandy clay loam) along the outer portion of the floodplain and coarsens
(loam and sandy loam) closer to UTFC. The majority of wetlands within the floodplain of UTFC are located
along the outer half of the floodplain in the finer textured soils. A portion of W1 1, near the downstream extents
of the Site, appears to have formed in a relic meander scroll of UTFC. This portion of W1 1 exhibits standing
water throughout with vegetation predominantly along only edges of the wetland. A ditch drains out of the relic
meander scroll, carrying surface water from W 11 into UTFC. A ditch is also present at the eastern extents of
W7 and appears to have been dug to drain water from W7 into UTFC, as evidenced by spoil piles adjacent to
the ditch.
UTFC is incised as it flows adjacent to this
series of wetland communities (W6 —
W 12), likely affecting wetland hydrology
along the margins of these wetlands, as
suggested by the Skaggs Method of
determining lateral drainage effects
(Skaggs 2005). The Skaggs Method
suggests that UTFC may have a lateral
drainage effect between 47 feet and 68 feet
from existing top of bank. Relic wetland
areas that display hydric soils (i.e. currently lacking wetland hydrology) are present along the edges of W7 and
W 11. It appears that the lack of hydrology maybe due to the drainage effect of UTFC combined with the ditches
that drain W7 and W1 1. W6, W9, and W12 are less impacted by the drainage effect of UTFC because they are
located in a narrow floodplain on the north side of UTFC and are fed by groundwater that seeps out of the toe of
slope of the adjacent hillsides. The existing wetland portion of Wl l also appears to have a shallower restrictive
layer than the relic portions of W 11. The shallow restrictive layer minimizes the lateral effect of UTFC within
the existing wetland.
One additional degradation of hydrologic input to most wetlands on-site stems from the incision of UTFC which
has severed close to bankfull flows from accessing the adjacent floodplain and associated wetlands. Reduction
18
F)R
Morton Farms Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
RFP# 16-007709: Cataloging Unit 03020101 of the Tar Pamlico River Basin
of flood flows from accessing these wetlands reduces hydrologic inputs to the wetlands when compared with
natural conditions.
Soil profiles were collected in representative wetland/relic wetland areas and sealed by Nicholas Howell (NC
License #1294), a licensed soil scientist with Land Management GroupJA Davey Company. Soil profile logs are
provided in Appendix A.
4.2.2.3 FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENTS
NC WAM and the North Carolina Stream Assessment Method (NC SAM) were used to assess the functions and
values of a representative sampling of wetlands and streams throughout the project area. NC WAM wetland
types within the Site include Seep, Headwater Forest, and Bottomland Hardwood Forest. NC WAM and NC
SAM recognize three major functions (Hydrology, Water Quality, and Habitat) that are rated based on several
sub -functions. Cattle have direct access to all of the stream footage on-site. Cattle access and degraded riparian
buffers resulted in low functional ratings in one or more of the three major categories for all streams on-site.
Low functional ratings indicate that these streams fail to provide the benefits of a reference system. UTFC, UT
2, and UT 3 scored low in all major functional categories due to due to significant channel degradation, cattle
access, and lack of riparian buffer. UT 4 was the only stream on-site that scored medium overall due to a narrow
riparian buffer along portions of the right bank and availability of in -stream habitat. Eliminating cattle access
and restoring riparian buffers would raise the overall core for all tributaries on-site substantially. A summary of
NC SAM ratings are provided below in Table 5a.
Table 5a. NCSAM Rating Summary
Stream ID
NCSAM Stream
Category
NCSAM
Overall Rating
Hydrology
Water
Quality
Habitat
UTFC
Pa3
Low
Low
Low
Low
UT 1
Pal
Low
Medium
Low
Low
UT 2
Pal
Low
Low
Low
Low
UT 3
Pb 1
Low
Low
Low
Low
UT 4
Pb2
Medium
Low
Medium
Medium
UT 5
Pal
Low
Low
Low
Medium
Most of the wetlands within the Site are degraded Bottomland Hardwood Forests located adjacent to UTFC. The
exception being W1, W5, and W10 which are degraded Headwater Forests primarily associated with first order
tributaries, and W4 which is a Seep adjacent to UTFC. Overall NC WAM ratings were low for the majority of
wetlands onsite due to cattle disturbance, altered surface and subsurface water storage, and disturbed vegetative
communities. W2 was the only wetland on-site with a high overall rating due to an improved vegetative structure
and composition and improved ground surface condition compared to other wetlands on-site. A summary of NC
19
r)R
Morton Farms Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
RFP# 16-007709: Cataloging Unit 03020101 of the Tar Pamlico River Basin
WAM ratings are provided below in Table 5b. Individual NC WAM and NC SAM data forms are available upon
request.
Table 5b. NCWAM Rating Summary
Table 6 is based on the DMS Technical Review Scoresheet Guidelines (August 2018) and summarizes the
uplift potential for each functional stressor identified on-site. The Site provides High or Very High uplift
potential for seven out of ten on-site functional stressors.
20
OR
NCWAM
NCWAM
Water
Wetland ID
Hydrology
Habitat
Wetland Type
Overall Rating
Quality
W1
Headwater Forest
Low
Low
Medium
Low
Bottomland
W2
High
High
High
Low
Hardwood Forest
Bottomland
W3
Low
Low
Medium
Low
Hardwood Forest
W4
Seep
Low
Low
Low
Low
W5
Headwater Forest
Low
Low
Low
Low
Bottomland
W6
Low
Low
High
Low
Hardwood Forest
Bottomland
W7
Low
Low
High
Low
Hardwood Forest
Bottomland
WS
Medium
Medium
Medium
Low
Hardwood Forest
Bottomland
W9
Low
Low
Medium
Low
Hardwood Forest
W10
Headwater Forest
Low
Medium
Low
Low
Bottomland
Wil
Low
Low
Medium
Low
Hardwood Forest
Bottomland
W12
Low
Low
High
Low
Hardwood Forest
Table 6 is based on the DMS Technical Review Scoresheet Guidelines (August 2018) and summarizes the
uplift potential for each functional stressor identified on-site. The Site provides High or Very High uplift
potential for seven out of ten on-site functional stressors.
20
OR
Morton Farms Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
RFP# 16-007709: Cataloging Unit 03020101 of the Tar Pamlico River Basin
Table 6. Functional Uplift Justification
Functional
Functional Stressor
Functional Uplift Potential
Category
Non-functioning
riparian
Very High — Majority of buffer is in active cattle pasture and lacks woody vegetation.
buffer/wetland
Restored buffer has potential to exceed 75' on both sides of the channels throughout the site.
vegetation
High — Majority of stream banks on-site are actively eroding and runoff from adjacent
Sediment
pasture is also contributing sediment to the system. Restoration of UTFC and its riparian
buffer should successfully treat sediment issues on-site.
Water Quality
High — Cattle have direct access to streams and wetlands on-site. Excluding cattle and
Nutrients
restoring riparian buffers should reduce Nitrogen loads by approximately 709.2 lb-N/yr
(Option 1) or 1,148 lb-N/yr (Option 2). Phosphorous loads should be reduced by
approximately 77.5 lb-P/yr (Option 1) or 126 lb-P/yr (Option 2).
High — Cattle have direct access to streams and wetlands on-site. Excluding cattle and
Fecal Coliform
restoring riparian buffers should reduce fecal loads by approximately 4.04E+14 col/yr
(Option 1) or 4.30E+14 col/yr (Option 2).
High — Bankfull flows are currently contained within the existing channel and adjacent
Peak Flows
wetlands and riparian buffer are degraded. Priority I restoration of UTFC, restoration of
wetlands, and replanting riparian buffers should attenuate peak flows.
Moderate — One of the existing ford crossings on UTFC is creating a backwater effect
Hydrology
Artificial Barriers
upstream for approximately 200'. Stabilizing the ford crossing to restore natural flow
through UTFC should eliminate the backwater effect.
Moderate — UTFC is incised throughout the Site, exhibiting BHR of 1.5 to 2. 1, and two
Ditching/Draining
ditches drain portions of W7 and W 11. Priority 1 restoration of UTFC and plugging ditches
on-site should restore interactions of surface water, groundwater, and throughflow.
Moderate — One of the existing ford crossings is affecting aquatic habitat but not
Habitat
substantially inhibiting aquatic passage. Stabilizing the ford should improve aquatic habitat
Fragmentation
in UTFC by restoring natural flows and eliminating the existing backwater effect. Option 2
would also eliminate two ford crossings (one on UT 2 and one on UT 3)
Limited Bedform
High — High sediment loads and cattle access have resulted in inconsistent and poorly
Habitat
Diversity
formed bedform diversity. Restoration of UTFC should restore natural bedform diversity
and improve habitat for all aquatic life stages.
Absence of Large
High — LWD is sparse and inconsistent. Restoration of UTFC would include placement of
Woody Debris
LWD within the channel for grade control, stream bank protection, and aquatic habitat.
(LWD)
LWD may also be placed within wetland areas to provide cover and foraging habitat.
21
r)R
Morton Farms Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
RFP# 16-007709: Cataloging Unit 03020101 of the Tar Pamlico River Basin
4.2.2.3 BEAVER DAMS
No beaver activity has been observed within the site.
4.2.2.4 EXISTING RIPARIAN BUFFER VEGETATION
The majority of buffers along Site streams and wetlands are currently utilized as active cattle pasture. Woody
vegetation is generally scattered within the project boundary except for a mature canopy at the upstream extent
of UT 2 and a buffer that ranges from 50 to 100 feet in the left (descending) floodplain of UTFC upstream of the
ford crossing. Vegetation along UTFC consists of species such as red maple, river birch, sweetgum, green ash,
ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana) and black willow. Shrub and herbaceous vegetation consists of Chinese privet
(Ligustrum sinense), tag alder, green ash, multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), common rush, sedges and fescue.
Buffers along the disturbed reaches of UTs 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 exhibit a one tree buffer that consists of one or a
combination of the following species: sweetgum, red maple, river birch and black willow. Chinese privet,
multiflora rose, and tag alder are also present.
A mature buffer is present along the upstream portion of UT 2 which consists of white oak (Quercus alba),
southern red oak (Quercus falcata), sweetgum, hickory (Carya spp), eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana)
and ironwood.
Site wetlands are located within the floodplain/riparian areas of UTFC and are generally devoid of canopy and
sub -canopy species. Herbaceous vegetation consists of common rush, fescue and sedges. When present, canopy
species consist of sweetgum, river birch, tag alder and ironwood. Shrub species within wetlands on-site are
typically dominated by tag alder and Chinese privet.
4.2.3 Watershed Conditions and Land Use
The Site is located within the 03020101010030 14 -digit Hydrologic Unit of Cataloging Unit 03020101 of the
Tar -Pamlico River Basin. The Site drains to Fox Creek (Index #28-4-1) and consists of six unnamed tributaries
(UTFC, UT 1, UT 2, UT 3, UT 4, and UT 5). Fox Creek is classified as WS -IV; NSW. There are no 303(d)
listed waters at the Site. Figure 12 depicts adjacent and proximal planning elements to the Site. Land use within
the UTFC watershed upstream of the Site is dominated by agricultural (57 percent) and forest (37
percent). Pasture on the Site accounts for approximately 20 percent of the watershed. The remainder of the
watershed (6 percent) is comprised of residential property, roads and open water (Figure 3).
4.2.4 Geology
The Site is located in the Carolina Slate Belt of the Piedmont
(USGS, 2012). The Carolina Slate Belt consists mostly of rocks
originally deposited by volcanic eruption and sedimentation. The
name Carolina Slate is derived from the low grade metamorphism
that gives the rocks their slaty cleavage (Rogers, 2010).
4.2.5 Soils
Soil series depicted in the Granville County Soil Survey are
shown on Figure 4. The majority of lands within the UTFC
floodplain and associated riparian wetlands are mapped as
OR
22
Morton Farms Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
RFP# 16-007709: Cataloging Unit 03020101 of the Tar Pamlico River Basin
Chewacla and Wehadkee soils and Helena sandy loam. Soil profiles were collected in representative
wetland/relic wetland areas and sealed by Nicholas Howell (NC License #1294), a licensed soil scientist with
Land Management GrouplA Davey Company. Mr. Howell confirmed that the soil profiles he collected were
consistent with the Chewacla soil series. Soil profile logs are provided in Appendix A.
Chewacla and Wehadkee soils 0 to 2 percent slopes (ChA)- These soils are poorly to somewhat poorly drained
with moderate permeability and moderate water capacity. Chewacla soil is formed on slightly higher ridges on
floodplains while Wehadkee is formed in the lower swales of floodplains.
Helena sandy loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes (HeB)- These soils are moderately well drained and generally located
on piedmont uplands at the interstream divides, head of drainageways, depressions, and the lower hill slopes.
These soils are typically found along gentle slopes and display a slow permeability and moderate water capacity.
4.2.6 Water Resources
Site tributaries drain to Fox Creek (Stream Index # 28-4-1) through a well buffered corridor approximately 0.5
mile west of the Site on the project parcel (Figure 11).
Fox Creek is classified as WS -IV; NSW. Unnamed tributaries take on the classification of the nearest named
stream; therefore, UTFC and UTs 1-5 at the Site are also classified as WS -IV; NSW. A classification of WS -IV
signifies waters used as sources of water supply for drinking, culinary, or food processing purposes where a
more protective WS -I or 11 classification is not feasible. Class WS- IV waters are also protected for Class C uses
which include: secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish consumption, aquatic life including propagation,
survival and maintenance of biological integrity, and agriculture. A classification of NSW is a supplemental
classification intended for waters needing additional nutrient management due to being subject to excessive
growth of microscopic or macroscopic vegetation (NCDEQ, 2018).
4.2.7 Adjacent Protected Property
The project parcel is owned by James Thomas Morton and Martha Davis Morton (Pin# 0985-20-2851). The
parcel covers over 461 acres and is split into three pieces by Sunset Road. The 457 acre adjacent parcel to the
northwest is owned by Henry N Thorp Jr and Mary Ellen Thorp (Pin# 0985-23-3759) and is protected in
perpetuity by a conservation easement held by the Tar River Land Conservancy (Figure 12).
4.2.8 Jurisdictional Streams and Wetlands
Six unnamed tributaries to Fox Creek are located within the Site's proposed conservation easement. A NCDWQ
Stream Identification Form (NCDENR, 2010a) was completed for each UT. All UT's are considered perennial
and scored above 28.5 for their entire presence within the project boundary.
A jurisdictional determination has not been completed for the Site; however conditions on the Site have been
assessed to determine the extent of potential wetlands. Wetland indicators such as hydric soil, hydrophytic
vegetation, and surface water were present in areas identified as WI through W12. WI through W12 are existing
wetlands located adjacent to tributaries on-site. All wetlands are degraded due to cattle access, stream incision,
and human manipulation. Portions of W7 and WI I are drained by adjacent, incised tributaries and man-made
ditch features (Figure 9). W3 appears to be manipulated, formed by the excavation of material from the low
23
r)R
Morton Farms Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
RFP# 16-007709: Cataloging Unit 03020101 of the Tar Pamlico River Basin
elevation areas of the row -crop field (Figure 9). A jurisdictional determination will be completed on the Site as
part of the Mitigation Plan.
4.2.9 Protected Species
The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists four species as Threatened or Endangered in
Granville County: dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon), yellow lance (Elliptio lanceolata), Atlantic
River harpella (Ptilimnium viviparum) and smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata). Records at the North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) do not indicate an occurrence of a federally threatened or endangered
species on the Site. Based on preliminary site assessments, the Site provides habitat for dwarf wedgemussel in
silt depositional areas near banks and under root mats; however, occurrence of this species on-site is unlikely
given the channel instability and high sediment loads in UTFC. Records at the NHP do not indicate that any
protected species elemental occurrences are located within one mile of the Site. HDR will coordinate with the
USFWS regarding threatened and endangered species during Mitigation Plan development.
Natural Heritage Program
NHP has not identified elemental occurrences at the Site; however, NHP identified the Goshen Gabbro Forest
(approximately 4 miles northwest of the site) and Fox Creek (.5 miles downstream of the proposed easement
boundary) as Significant Natural Heritage Area. Fox Creek is a part of the Upper Tar River Aquatic Habitat area
(NHP 2013).
4.2.10 Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
There are no properties listed on the National Register within a one mile radius of the Site (NCSHPO, 2010).
On an adjacent parcel (Pin # 0984-39-6468), the Smith -Morton House has been surveyed only (Site ID GV0419).
Survey of the homes was likely done to identify and gather data on the community's historic resources. A survey
does not guarantee that the Site is eligible for listing on the National Register and State law does not provide
protection for properties that are determined eligible but not listed in the National Register.
4.2.11 Floodplain Compliance
Review of the Floodplain Mapping Program website and the effective Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Map
Number 3720098500J Effective Date April 16, 2007 indicates the Site streams are not included as part of any
flood hazard region.
4.2.12 Constraints
UTFC will tie into existing elevations at the upstream and downstream extents of the project. Several bedrock
outcroppings were observed in the channel during Site investigations. A geotechnical investigation may be
conducted during Mitigation Plan development to assist with design, however bedrock is not ultimately expected
to be a constraint during implementation because channel inverts will be raised significantly compared with
existing conditions. Two existing ford crossings on UTFC will be maintained in approximately the same
locations but will be stabilized to improve flow. Fencing and gates will be installed on both sides of the crossing
to control access and restrict cattle from water resources.
24
r)R
Morton Farms Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
RFP# 16-007709: Cataloging Unit 03020101 of the Tar Pamlico River Basin
4.3 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
The Proposal documents two (2) Mitigation Options that HDR has determined may best suit the DMS's goals
for the proposed cataloging unit. The Mitigation Options are detailed as follows:
4.3.1 Proposed Stream Mitigation
Two mitigation options are proposed on the Site. Option 1 and 2 propose Priority I restoration along the majority
of UTFC (aside from upstream and downstream tie-ins) and provide the opportunity to enhance UT 1 — UT 5
through cattle exclusion and replanting the buffer. Option 2 affords DMS the option of expanding the easement
upstream along UT 2, UT 3, and UT 5 to capture additional stream enhancement and buffer restoration.
UT Fox Creek Restoration — Option 1 and Option 2
Mitigation options 1 and 2 involve restoration of UTFC for approximately 2,866 feet throughout the Site. The
channel is incised and degraded for the majority of the Site, exhibiting significant amounts of sediment loss
(from channel banks and invert) and nutrient and fecal pathogen (from cattle) loading to on-site and downstream
receiving waters. Proposed restoration activities include restoring bank height ratios to 1.0 — 1.2 through Priority
I restoration, providing bankfull benches as restored channels tie to the existing channel (at upstream and
downstream extents of restoration), restoring natural location and spacing of riffle -pool sequences, installation
of log and rock structures for grade control and habitat improvement, restoration of a vegetated riparian buffer,
and removal of cattle from the channel and riparian buffer. The existing ford crossings will be stabilized in their
current locations to improve flow and fencing and gates installed to control access. The easement will ensure
that the ford crossings are the only crossings of UTFC at the Site.
It is anticipated that restoration of a stable dimension, pattern and profile will provide uplift in physical, chemical
and biological function to the UTFC and downstream receiving waters by 1) substantially reducing sediment
(both fine and coarse) loads from the channel bank and invert, 2) creating stable and productive in -stream habitat
through a planform geometry that promotes riffles and pools, 3) introducing woody materials into the channel
such as vegetated soil lifts, toe wood, and log structures that will provide refuge habitat for fish and semiaquatic
species, foraging habit for macrobenthos, channel depth variability, stream shading and invert stabilization 4)
connecting bankfull flows to its abandoned floodplain through Priority I restoration will decrease channel shear
stress, promote attenuation of flood waters across the broad floodplain, drop and store suspended solids on the
floodplain, filter nutrients, pathogens, pesticides and other pollutants, and connect above bank flows to adjacent
wetlands and riparian buffers. The final bankfull channel size will be determined during development of the
Mitigation Plan; however preliminary data suggests that the channel will be designed as moderately low width -
to -depth ratio C type channels that convey the bankfull discharge.
Restoration of a riparian buffer through the UTFC easement area will promote terrestrial, aquatic and
semiaquatic foraging, propagation, and cover habitat; and will enhance the floodplains ability to uptake nutrients
and settle other pollutants from above bankfull events.
UT Fox Creek Enhancement II — Option 1 and Option 2
Mitigation options 1 and 2 involve enhancing the upstream 140 linear feet of UTFC. This reach of UTFC is not
incised because it is upstream of a nick point. This reach also displays stable channel dimensions, plan and
25
r)R
Morton Farms Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
RFP# 16-007709: Cataloging Unit 03020101 of the Tar Pamlico River Basin
profile. Cattle have accessed the channel and impacted the banks, therefore Enhancement II is proposed and
will be achieved through fencing and planting native vegetation within the riparian buffer.
UT 2, UT 3, and UT 5 Enhancement II — Option 1 and Option 2
Mitigation Options 1 and 2 involve enhancing UT 2 (187 feet), UT 3 (97 feet), and UT 5 (75 feet) by excluding
cattle through fencing and planting native vegetation within the riparian buffer. The UT's are proposed as
Enhancement II because the morphological conditions are relatively stable, however cattle have access to these
tributaries and the riparian buffer is mostly limited to herbaceous vegetation and scattered trees/shrubs.
Exclusionary fencing to restrict cattle from the stream and riparian buffer will allow for the channels to maintain
a stable dimension, pattern and profile while removing water quality stressors related to the cattle operation.
Planting native vegetation within the riparian buffer will increase nutrient filtration and will enhance terrestrial
and semi -aquatic habitat.
Available for Optional Stream Credit: UT 1 and UT 4 —via. Option 1
Enhancement II will be achieved on UT I (161 feet) and UT 4 (192 feet) by excluding cattle through fencing and
planting native vegetation within the riparian buffer. The UT's are proposed as Enhancement II because the
morphological conditions are relatively stable, however cattle have access to these tributaries and the riparian
buffer is mostly limited to herbaceous vegetation and scattered trees/shrubs. Exclusionary fencing to restrict
cattle from the stream and riparian buffer will allow for the channels to maintain a stable dimension, pattern
and profile while removing water quality stressors related to the cattle operation. Planting native vegetation
within the riparian buffer will increase nutrient filtration and will enhance terrestrial and semi -aquatic habitat.
Available for Optional Stream Credit: UT 1, UT 2, UT 3, UT 4, and UT 5 —via. Option 2
Option 2 affords the opportunity to achieve Enhancement II on UT I (161 feet), UT 2 (621 feet), UT 3 (564 feet),
UT 4 (192 feet), and UT 5 (233 feet). Enhancement activities and functional uplift is the same as discussed
above.
4.3.2 Proposed Wetland Mitigation
Two mitigation options are proposed on the Site. Wetland mitigation approaches are the same for Option 1 and
2.
Prior site disturbances have resulted in the loss and/or degradation of characteristic function through several
riparian wetlands. The majority of wetlands are currently in active cattle pasture which has promoted hydrologic
alteration of the Site and resulted in diminished nutrient uptake/transformation and sediment retention. The
consequence of these impacts is the rapid delivery of pollutants to down -gradient waters. In addition, flood
attenuation and wildlife habitat has also been compromised. The proposed project will seek to restore these
functions by re-establishing UTFC to its historic elevation, which will restore and/or enhance wetland hydrology
to the floodplain and allow stream flows to access the floodplain during greater than bankfull events. Filling
ditches that drain the western portions of W7 and W1 1 will also restore and/or enhance wetland hydrology within
these areas. UTFC adjacent to W6 will likely be relocated toward the center of the valley as part of restoration
activities and the relic channel will be filled and restored as an extension of W6.
26
OR
Morton Farms Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
RFP# 16-007709: Cataloging Unit 03020101 of the Tar Pamlico River Basin
Wetlands on-site are also impacted by cattle. Cattle access has resulted in altered or significantly degraded
vegetative structure and surface storage/retention within and immediately adjacent to wetlands. As part of
restoration and enhancement activities, cattle exclusion fencing will be installed to prevent access to site
wetlands and buffers. Wetlands and immediate upland buffers will be planted with native vegetation
characteristic of a Bottomland Hardwood Forest. Planting densities of bare root species at approximately 700
trees per acre are anticipated for the restored wetland areas and upland buffers. Fertilizers will not be used within
the wetland restoration areas.
Habitat function within the restored wetlands may be enhanced by the placement of large woody debris
throughout the floodplain. Woody debris serves as a food source for a variety of insects, which in turn creates a
foraging opportunity for small mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians. The woody debris also provides much
needed cover habitat for reptiles and amphibians to protect them from predation.
Approximately 4.32 acres of riparian wetlands will be restored or enhanced at the Site.
Reference Wetlands
It is anticipated that existing wetlands along Fox Creek and its tributaries upstream of the Site will be utilized
for purposes of selecting appropriate vegetation and determining the hydroperiod necessary to obtain wetland
hydrology at the Site.
4.3.3 All Mitigation Options
Riparian By
A riparian buffer populated with native vegetative species will be provided on each side of the channels through
the Site. The buffer width will average between 75'-100' along both sides of streams on-site which is 50 —100%
greater buffer area than required. HDR will flag and survey trees 12 inches and greater within the restored
streams buffer's to ensure protection of mature vegetation during design and subsequent construction. Portions
of the existing buffer that is removed to facilitate restoration of the channels will be replanted with native
vegetation characteristic of a Piedmont Bottomland Forest (Schafale & Weakley 1990). Restored wetlands will
also be planted with native vegetation characteristic of a Piedmont Bottomland Forest.
The desired plant community and species types will be established by utilizing a reference forest system, but
may include species found within the wooded forest along the existing channel and downstream of the UTFC
and upstream of the UT's. Planting densities of bare root species at approximately 700 trees per acre are
anticipated for the restored vegetative buffer. Soil amendments may be added during and following construction
to promote grass and tree growth within the disturbed areas on-site. Signs will be posted along the easement
boundary to clearly demarcate the easement boundary for the landowners.
Stream Crossings
Currently there are four ford crossings on the Site used for the movement of farm equipment and cattle (2 along
UTFC, one on UT 2 and one on UT 5 (Figure 6)). Mitigation Option 1 includes stabilizing the two crossings on
UTFC. Mitigation Option 2 includes stabilizing the two crossings on UTFC and the removal of the crossings on
UT 2 and UT 5. The remaining site crossings on UTFC will be fenced and gated to restrict cattle access. Total
27
r)R
Morton Farms Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
RFP# 16-007709: Cataloging Unit 03020101 of the Tar Pamlico River Basin
linear footage (LF) dedicated to crossings is approximately 60 LF. This constitutes less than two (2) percent of
the total footage proposed for mitigation. The conservation easement will break at both crossings.
Cattle Management Plan
A Cattle Management Plan has been discussed with the landowner such that water will be provided to cattle and
pastures usage rotated without allowing cattle direct access to UTFC and tributaries. Gates will be installed at
all crossings to restrict cattle access to Site water features.
It is anticipated that proposed fencing meets the Woven Wire Fence Specification 02-14-12 provided on DMS's
portal developed by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service
(USDA, 2012). Per the specification, the woven wire fence proposed is 39 inches high with a barb wire strand
5 inches above the woven wire. Fence posts are allowed at 12 foot spacing across panels and 8 foot spacing at
brace assemblies.
Easement Boundary Protection
A fence will be placed on the land owner's side of the easement boundary. Marking will be provided in the form
of signage and fencing will demarcate the bounds of the conservation easement.
Invasive Removal and Riparian Vegetation Planting
Invasive and nuisance species such as privet and multiflora rose were observed during field investigations and
will be cleared, grubbed and treated if necessary to ensure that re -colonization is deterred.
A planting plan will be completed that reintroduces native species to zones along the channel and its associated
floodplain that currently have little vegetation or are dominated by non-native pasture grasses. The vegetated
buffer will extend through the required 50 foot stream buffer to the proposed conservation easement boundary.
Vegetation to be planted on the channel banks will be species that root quickly to help add stability to the already
disturbed soils in and adjacent to the channel. Vegetation to be planted in the floodplain zone will be
characteristic of a Piedmont Bottomland Forest (Schafale & Weakley 1990). Plantings will focus on vegetation
which will provide long-term foraging and habitat for wildlife.
Planting of a riparian buffer zone on-site will benefit both aquatic and terrestrial flora and fauna as existing
woody vegetation along the stream banks is sparse throughout most of the site. A mature, vegetated buffer zone
will filter nutrients from sheet flow and overbank flows, provide cover and foraging areas for terrestrial animals,
provide new habitat for a diversity of local vegetation that will voluntarily root inside of the undisturbed
easement, provide woody debris to the restored stream channel to promote aquatic life propagation and cover,
and provide a wildlife corridor for terrestrial animals, amphibians, and aquatic fauna.
28
r)R
Morton Farms Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
RFP# 16-007709: Cataloging Unit 03020101 of the Tar Pamlico River Basin
4.4 PROPOSED STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION
This proposal details two Mitigation Options that are described below:
Option 1:
Proposed Stream Mitigation
• UTFC — Restore dimension, pattern, profile and riparian buffer and cattle exclusion (fencing) to 2,866
existing feet of UTFC (restored length is expected to be the same as existing length). Enhancement II
through cattle exclusion (fencing) and buffer plantings of 140 existing feet of UTFC.
• UT 2 — Enhancement II through cattle exclusion (fencing) and buffer plantings along 187 existing feet
of UT 2.
• UT 3 — Enhancement II through cattle exclusion (fencing) and buffer plantings along 97 existing feet of
UT 3.
• UT 5 — Enhancement II through cattle exclusion (fencing) and buffer plantings along 75 existing feet of
UT 5.
Option 1 produces 50 more stream credits than the maximum requested in this RFP (i.e. Option 1 produces 3,050
SMU, this RFP requests 3,000 SMU). HDR is not requesting compensation for the 50 additional stream credits
proposed with Option 1.
Table 1 a. Option 1 - Proposed Stream Mitigation
*HDR realizes that only 3,000 SMU's will be contracted per regzzests of tiie RFP.
Optional: Additional Stream Credit Generation
Although not a request of the RFP, HDR would like to present the option for DMS to purchase additional
stream mitigation credits from the Site. Those additional credits are summarized as:
• UT 1 and UT 4 — These tributaries could produce additional credits, within the easement proposed for
Option 1, in excess of the requested credits in the RFP. Enhancement II credits could be generated
through cattle exclusion (fencing) and buffer restoration by reestablishing native vegetative.
29
OR
Restoration -1:1
Enhancement II - 2.5:1
Enhancement II - 3.5:1
Stream
Proposed Linear
Proposed Linear
Proposed Linear
SMU
Footage
Footage
SMU
SMU
Footage
UT Fox Creek
2,866 2,866
140 40
UT 2
187
75
UT 3
97
39
UT 5
75 1
30
Sub -Total
2,866 1 2,866
1 359 1
144
140 1 40
Total Proposed
3,365
Linear Footage
Total SMUs
3,050
Percent Footage
Proposed for
85.2%
10.7%
4.2%
Mitigation
*HDR realizes that only 3,000 SMU's will be contracted per regzzests of tiie RFP.
Optional: Additional Stream Credit Generation
Although not a request of the RFP, HDR would like to present the option for DMS to purchase additional
stream mitigation credits from the Site. Those additional credits are summarized as:
• UT 1 and UT 4 — These tributaries could produce additional credits, within the easement proposed for
Option 1, in excess of the requested credits in the RFP. Enhancement II credits could be generated
through cattle exclusion (fencing) and buffer restoration by reestablishing native vegetative.
29
OR
Morton Farms Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
RFP# 16-007709: Cataloging Unit 03020101 of the Tar Pamlico River Basin
*Table lb. Option 1— Optional Stream Credit
*Optional stream credit refers to stream credit that could be generated in excess of the amount requested in
this RFP, should DMS elect to purchase additional stream credit.
Proposed Wetland Mitigation
• WI — Rehabilitation of 0.24 acres of Headwater Forest through cattle exclusion (fencing), buffer
plantings and reconnecting floodwaters from UTFC.
• W2 — Enhancement of 0.21 acres of Bottomland Hardwood Forest through cattle exclusion (fencing)
and reconnecting floodwaters from UTFC.
• W3 — Enhancement of 0.59 acres of Bottomland Hardwood Forest through supplemental plantings to
improve vegetative structure and diversity.
• W4 — Rehabilitation of 0.07 acre of a Seep through cattle exclusion (fencing), buffer plantings and
reconnecting floodwaters from UTFC.
• W5 — Rehabilitation of 0.20 acre of Headwater Forest through cattle exclusion (fencing), buffer
plantings and reconnecting floodwaters from UTFC. .
• W6 — Rehabilitation of 0.78 acres of Bottomland Hardwood Forest through cattle exclusion (fencing),
reconnecting floodwaters of UTFC, and replanting with native species typical of a Bottomland
Hardwood Forest. Re-establishment of 0.14 acres of Bottomland Hardwood Forest by relocating UTFC
to the center of the valley adjacent to W6, filling the abandoned channel, and replanting with native
species.
• W7 — Rehabilitation of 0.47 acres of Bottomland Hardwood Forest through cattle exclusion (fencing),
reconnecting floodwaters of UTFC, and replanting with native species typical of a Bottomland
Hardwood Forest. Re-establishment of 0.1 acre of Bottomland Hardwood Forest through cattle
exclusion (fencing), restoration of wetland hydrology, and replanting with native species.
• W8 - Rehabilitation of 0.13 acres of Bottomland Hardwood Forest through cattle exclusion (fencing),
reconnecting floodwaters of UTFC and replanting with native species typical of a Bottomland
Hardwood Forest.
• W9 - Rehabilitation of 0.22 acres of Bottomland Hardwood Forest through cattle exclusion (fencing),
reconnecting floodwaters of UTFC and replanting with native species typical of a Bottomland
Hardwood Forest.
• W10 - Rehabilitation of 0.07 acres of Headwater Forest through cattle exclusion (fencing) and buffer
plantings.
• WI I - Rehabilitation of 0.80 acres of Bottomland Hardwood Forest through cattle exclusion (fencing),
reconnecting floodwaters of UTFC and replanting with native species typical of a Bottomland
IM
OR
Restoration - 1:1
Enhancement 11 - 2.5:1
Preservation - 5:1
Stream
Proposed Linear
Proposed Linear
Proposed Linear
SMU
Footage
SMU
Footage
SMU
Footage
UT 1
161 64
UT 4
192 77
Sub -Total
0 0
353 141
0 0
Total Proposed
353
Linear Footage
Total SMUs
141
*Optional stream credit refers to stream credit that could be generated in excess of the amount requested in
this RFP, should DMS elect to purchase additional stream credit.
Proposed Wetland Mitigation
• WI — Rehabilitation of 0.24 acres of Headwater Forest through cattle exclusion (fencing), buffer
plantings and reconnecting floodwaters from UTFC.
• W2 — Enhancement of 0.21 acres of Bottomland Hardwood Forest through cattle exclusion (fencing)
and reconnecting floodwaters from UTFC.
• W3 — Enhancement of 0.59 acres of Bottomland Hardwood Forest through supplemental plantings to
improve vegetative structure and diversity.
• W4 — Rehabilitation of 0.07 acre of a Seep through cattle exclusion (fencing), buffer plantings and
reconnecting floodwaters from UTFC.
• W5 — Rehabilitation of 0.20 acre of Headwater Forest through cattle exclusion (fencing), buffer
plantings and reconnecting floodwaters from UTFC. .
• W6 — Rehabilitation of 0.78 acres of Bottomland Hardwood Forest through cattle exclusion (fencing),
reconnecting floodwaters of UTFC, and replanting with native species typical of a Bottomland
Hardwood Forest. Re-establishment of 0.14 acres of Bottomland Hardwood Forest by relocating UTFC
to the center of the valley adjacent to W6, filling the abandoned channel, and replanting with native
species.
• W7 — Rehabilitation of 0.47 acres of Bottomland Hardwood Forest through cattle exclusion (fencing),
reconnecting floodwaters of UTFC, and replanting with native species typical of a Bottomland
Hardwood Forest. Re-establishment of 0.1 acre of Bottomland Hardwood Forest through cattle
exclusion (fencing), restoration of wetland hydrology, and replanting with native species.
• W8 - Rehabilitation of 0.13 acres of Bottomland Hardwood Forest through cattle exclusion (fencing),
reconnecting floodwaters of UTFC and replanting with native species typical of a Bottomland
Hardwood Forest.
• W9 - Rehabilitation of 0.22 acres of Bottomland Hardwood Forest through cattle exclusion (fencing),
reconnecting floodwaters of UTFC and replanting with native species typical of a Bottomland
Hardwood Forest.
• W10 - Rehabilitation of 0.07 acres of Headwater Forest through cattle exclusion (fencing) and buffer
plantings.
• WI I - Rehabilitation of 0.80 acres of Bottomland Hardwood Forest through cattle exclusion (fencing),
reconnecting floodwaters of UTFC and replanting with native species typical of a Bottomland
IM
OR
Morton Farms Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
RFP# 16-007709: Cataloging Unit 03020101 of the Tar Pamlico River Basin
Hardwood Forest. Re-establishment of 0.22 acres of Bottomland Hardwood Forest through cattle
exclusion (fencing), restoration of wetland hydrology, and replanting with native species.
W12 - Rehabilitation of 0.09 acres of Bottomland Hardwood Forest through cattle exclusion (fencing),
reconnecting floodwaters of UTFC and replanting with native species typical of a Bottomland
Hardwood Forest.
Table I c. Option I - Proposed Wetland Mitigation
Wetlands Re-establishment 1:1
Rehabilitation
-1.5:1
Enhancement -
3:1
Proposed Acreage
AC
WMU
Proposed Acreage
AC
WMU
Proposed Acreage
AC
WMU
W1
0.24
0.16
W2
0.21
0.07
W3
0.59
0.19
W4
0.07
0.05
W5
0.20
0.13
W6 0.14
0.14
0.78
0.52
W7 0.10
0.10
0.47
0.31
W8
0.13
0.09
W9
0.22
0.15
W10
0.07
0.05
W11 0.22
0.22
0.80
0.53
W12
0.09
0.06
Sub -Total 0.46
0.46
3.07
2.05
0.80
0.26
Percent
Acreage 10.6%
Proposed for
gation
70.9%
18.5%
Total Acres Proposed for
Mitigation
4.33
2.77
Total Proposed WMU's
Optional Buffer Credits Per RFP
• Option 1 produces 357,606 Buffer Mitigation Units (BMU) through restoration and enhancement of
399,771 square feet of riparian buffers.
Option 2
The primary purpose for proposing Option 2 is to afford DMS the opportunity to couple stream and
wetland mitigation credits from this RFP with buffer mitigation credits. Option 2 of this RFP (#16-
007709) however, is contingent upon either of the following contract award scenarios:
1. DMS award HDR Option 2 of this RFP (#16-007709) to contract stream units (3,000 SMU's),
wetland units (2.77 WMU's) AND a minimum of 610,000 buffer mitigation units, or
2. DMS award HDR Option 2 of this RFP (#16-007709) AND Option 2 associated with HDR's
proposal submittal for RFP #16-007711 (request for riparian buffer mitigation credits in CU
03020101 of the Tar Pamlico River Basin) that includes 610,000 BMU's.
31
F)R
Morton Farms Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
RFP# 16-007709: Cataloging Unit 03020101 of the Tar Pamlico River Basin
Option 2 is only viable if DMS awards HDR buffer mitigation units as detailed in Scenarios 1 or 2 above.
Proposed Stream and Wetland Mitigation
Mitigation (both streams and wetlands) within Option 2 will mimic Option 1, with the exception of enhancement
along the tributaries available for optional stream credit. Optional stream credits will be expanded when
compared with Option 1 if DMS wishes to purchase credits in excess to those that are requested in this RFP.
The easement for Option 2 extends upstream along UT 2, UT 3, and UT 5 allowing enhancement through cattle
exclusion (fencing) and buffer plantings to be extended on these tributaries.
Table Id. Option 2 - Proposed Stream Mitigation*
*HDR realizes that only 3,000 SMU's will be contracted per requests q/'the RFP.
Although not a request of the RFP, HDR would like to present the option for DMS to purchase additional
stream mitigation credits from the Site. Those additional credits are summarized as:
*Table I e. Option 2 —Optional Stream Credit
Restoration -1:1
Enhancement II - 2.5:1
Enhancement II - 3.5:1
Stream
Proposed Linear
Proposed Linear
Proposed Linear
Proposed Linear
SMU
Footage
SMU
Footage
Footage
SMU
SMU
Footage
UT Fox Creek
2,866 2,866
621 248
140 40
UT 2
187
75
UT 4
UT 3
192 77
97
39
UT 5
75
30
1,771 708
Sub -Total
2,866 2,866
359
144
140 40
Total Proposed
3,365
Total SMUs
Linear Footage
708
Total SMUs
3,050
Percent Footage
Proposed for
85.2%
10.7%
4.2%
Mitigation
*HDR realizes that only 3,000 SMU's will be contracted per requests q/'the RFP.
Although not a request of the RFP, HDR would like to present the option for DMS to purchase additional
stream mitigation credits from the Site. Those additional credits are summarized as:
*Table I e. Option 2 —Optional Stream Credit
*Optional stream credit refers to stream credit that could be generated in excess of the amount requested in
this RFP, should DMS elect to purchase additional stream credit.
32
OR
Restoration - 1:1
Enhancement 11 - 2.5:1
Preservation - 5:1
Stream
Proposed Linear
Proposed Linear
Proposed Linear
SMU
Footage
SMU
Footage
SMU
Footage
UT 1
161 64
UT 2
621 248
UT 3
564 226
UT 4
192 77
UT 5
233 93
Sub -Total
0 0
1,771 708
0 0
Total Proposed
1'771
Linear Footage
Total SMUs
708
*Optional stream credit refers to stream credit that could be generated in excess of the amount requested in
this RFP, should DMS elect to purchase additional stream credit.
32
OR
Morton Farms Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
RFP# 16-007709: Cataloging Unit 03020101 of the Tar Pamlico River Basin
Table 1f.' Option 2 -Proposed Wetland Mitigation
Wetlands Re-establishment 1:1
Rehabilitation -1.5:1
Enhancement - 3:1
Proposed
WMU
ProposAcreage
WMU
ProposAcreage
WMU
W1
0.24
0.16
W2
0.21
0.07
W3
0.59
0.19
W4
0.07
0.05
W5
0.20
0.13
W6 0.14
0.14
0.78
0.52
W7 0.10
0.10
0.47
0.31
W8
0.13
0.09
W9
0.22
0.15
W10
0.07
0.05
W11 0.22
0.22
0.80
0.53
W12
0.09
0.06
Sub -Total 0.46
0.46
3.07
2.05
0.80
0.26
Percent
Acreage 10.6%
Proposed for
gation
70.9%
18.5%
Total Acres Proposed for
Mitigation
4.33
2.77
Total Proposed WMU's
Buffer Credit
Option 2 is able to produce 612,047 Buffer Mitigation Units (BMU) through restoration and enhancement of
695,866 square feet of riparian buffers.
4.5 CURRENT OWNERSHIP AND LONG TERM PROTECTION
James Thomas Morton and Martha Davis Morton (Pin# 0985-20-2851). Long term protection of the property is
proposed through a conservation easement. The conservation easement is proposed to be transferred to the State
of North Carolina. Attached in Appendix B is a signed Memorandum of Option between the property owners
and HDR.
4.6 PROJECT PHASING
The proposed project schedule is presented below. This schedule does not account for delays due to weather,
resource agency coordination delays through permitting, or any other matters beyond the control of the HDR
Team.
33
r)R
Morton Farms Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
RFP# 16-007709: Cataloging Unit 03020101 of the Tar Pamlico River Basin
Table 8. Project Schedule
Task
Project Milestone
Months from Contract Execution
1
Categorical Exclusion
—3
2
Submit Recorded Conservation Easement on the Site
—12
3
Mitigation Plan Approved by DMS and Financial Assurance
—13
4
Mitigation Site Earthwork Completed
—18
5
Mitigation Site Planting and Installation of Monitoring Devices
—19
6
Baseline Monitoring Report (including As -Built Drawings)
Approved by DMS
—20
7
Submit Monitoring Report #1 to DMS (meets success criteria)
—32 (December 1St following
m lementation8
implementation) -
8
Submit Monitoring Report #2 to DMS (meets success criteria)
—44 (December 1St, 2 years following
implementation)
9
Submit Monitoring Report #3 to DMS (meets success criteria)
—56 (December 1 It, 3 years following
implementation)
10
Submit Monitoring Report #4 to DMS (meets success criteria)
—68 (December 1 It, 4 years following
implementation)
11
Submit Monitoring Report #5 to DMS (meets success criteria)
—80 (December 1 It, 5 years following
implementation)
12
Submit Monitoring Report #6 to DMS (meets success criteria)
—92 (December 1St, 6 years following
implementation)
13
Submit Monitoring Report #7 to DMS (meets success criteria) and
complete project Close -Out process
—104 (December 1St, 7 years following
implementation)
The Scope of Work is comprised of thirteen tasks, each with a detailed deliverable. Completion of each task
will be considered completion of a Project Milestone as noted in the Project Schedule.
Task I — Environmental Screening
HDR will conduct an on-site meeting with DWR and DMS to discuss the basic concepts of the proposed
mitigation plan and identify concerns or issues related to that plan. HDR will address concerns prior to
completion of Task 2.
An environmental screening of the Site will be completed as part of the scope of work. This will include the
identification for potential protected species, archaeological sites, historical architecture structures, and
environmental contamination within the Site. The screening will be conducted in a manner to determine whether
the mitigation will significantly impact cultural, historic, or recreational resources. The environmental screening
will be provided to DMS based on the latest guidelines as stipulated in this RFP, which is "Environmental Screen
and Documentation Guidelines for Division of Mitigation Services Projects, Revised November 2018".
34
OR
Morton Farms Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
RFP# 16-007709: Cataloging Unit 03020101 of the Tar Pamlico River Basin
Task 2 — Submit Recorded Conservation Easement on the Site
The Site will be protected in perpetuity through a Conservation Easement (DMS Conservation Easement
Template dated 05/05/2017). A topographic survey of the Site will be obtained, which will be used to identify
the location of the existing stream channel as well as the existing ground features. The location of the existing
features will be utilized in conjunction with a preliminary stream alignment to set the Conservation Easement.
The Conservation Easement will be recorded and conveyed to the State of North Carolina via guidelines detailed
in the 08/13/13 version of the Full Delivery Requirements for Completion of Survey for Conservation
Easements.
HDR will follow guidelines detailed in the RFP under "Task 2 Property" to establish the Conservation easement.
Task 3 — Mitigation Plan Avvroved by DMS
A Site Specific Mitigation Plan will be developed which follows the outline detailed in DMS Stream and Wetland
Mitigation Plan Template and Guidance adopted June 2017. The Site Specific Mitigation Plan will be submitted
to DMS for review, comment, and approval. After DMS approval, HDR will submit the "Final Draft" Mitigation
Plan to be posted for review by the IRT. Once approved by the IRT, HDR will complete the Pre -Construction
Notice (PCN) form for the Site and provide the Final Mitigation Plan and PCN form to DMS.
HDR will provide financial assurance (a performance bond for 55% of the total value of the contract) as part of
the deliverable for Task 3. This financial assurance will remain in effect until HDR has received written
notification from DMS that the requirements of Task 6 have been met.
Task 4 — Mitigation Site Earthwork Completed
All permits necessary for restoration of the Site will be obtained prior to construction. It is anticipated that a
USACE Section 404 (Nationwide Permit #27) permit, a NCDWQ 401 Water Quality Certification, and a NC
Division of Land Quality Sedimentation and Erosion Control permit may be required. One copy of all applicable
permits will be submitted to DMS prior to implementation of earthwork.
Implementation of the approved Site Specific Mitigation Plan will begin once permits are acquired. Construction
of the Site will be accomplished through a cooperative effort between the HDR Team and an experienced stream
restoration contractor. Utilizing an experienced stream restoration contractor assures quality construction,
economical construction, as well as the know-how in stream restoration construction techniques. The HDR
Team will be onsite throughout the duration of construction to ensure compliance with the plans and
specifications. HDR will notify DMS in writing of the Task 4 completion date and will submit an invoice.
Task 5 — Mitigation Site Planting and Installation of Monitoring Devices
Planting of the Site will be completed according to the planting plan within the Final Mitigation Plan. At this
time, monitoring devices/plots will be installed according to the CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation —
Version 4.2. Formal monitoring will begin six months after the completion of the planting activities. HDR will
notify DMS in writing of Task 5 completion date and will submit an invoice.
35
r)R
Morton Farms Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
RFP# 16-007709: Cataloging Unit 03020101 of the Tar Pamlico River Basin
Task 6 — Baseline Monitoring Document Annroved by DMS
A Baseline Monitoring Document will be developed in accordance with the As -built Baseline Monitoring Report
Format, Data, and Content Requirement document adopted June, 2017. A vegetation monitoring plan will be a
component of the mitigation plan and will follow the CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation — Version
4.2. A set of As -Built Drawings for the Site will be prepared as well. The As -built information will be collected
during and after construction through a combination of redline plans, marked up during construction, and field
surveys. The Baseline Monitoring Document and the As -Built Drawings will be submitted to DMS. Following
approval of the draft, HDR will submit the "Final" Baseline Monitoring Document and the As-builts.
Tasks 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 & 13 — Submit Monitoring Roort to DMS
The Site will be monitored as outlined in the Baseline Monitoring Document in order to assess the success of
the restored Site and the Monitoring Report will follow the format established in the Annual Monitoring Report
Format, Data Requirements, and Content Guidance document adopted June, 2017. The Site will be monitored
annually for a duration of 7 years. Annual monitoring reports will be produced and submitted to DMS by
December 191 of the year for which monitoring was conducted. The seventh year monitoring report will include
a Closeout Report that provides an assessment of the monitoring data collected from the entire monitoring period.
At the end of the monitoring period HDR will provide a project Closeout Report to DMS that follows the format
established in the DMS Closeout Report Template — Version 2.2 dated January, 2016.
4.7 SUCCESS CRITERIA
The performance standards shall be consistent with the requirements described in Federal rule for compensatory
mitigation project sites as described in the Federal Register Title 33 Navigation and Navigable Waters Volume
3 Chapter 2 Section § 332.5 paragraphs (a) and (b). Additionally, the October 24th, 2016 "Notification of
Issuance of Guidance for Compensatory Stream and Wetland Mitigation Conducted for Wilmington District"
will be used to not only to determine monitoring requirements but also success criteria. Criteria below are
preliminary conceptual success criteria and may change upon approval of the final mitigation plan.
4.7.1 Streams
The restored stream reaches are proposed to be monitored for geomorphic activity. Annual fall/winter
monitoring will include development of channel cross-sections on riffles in addition to visual observation of
channel stability. A longitudinal profile of the thalweg, water surface, bankfull, and top of bank, will be collected
during the as -built survey of the constructed channel.
Stream Dimension
General maintenance of a stable cross-section and hydrologic access to the floodplain features over the course
of the monitoring period will generally represent success in dimensional stability. Some changes in dimension
(such as lowering of bankfull width -to -depth ratio) should be expected. Riffle sections should generally maintain
a Bank Height ratio approaching 1.0 — 1.2, with some variation in this ratio naturally occurring, and display an
entrenchment ratio of no less than 2.2. Both ratios should display no more than 10 percent change from year-
to-year. Pool sections naturally adjust based on recent flows and time between flows; therefore, more leeway
on pool section geometry is expected.
36
r)R
Morton Farms Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
RFP# 16-007709: Cataloging Unit 03020101 of the Tar Pamlico River Basin
Bank pins may be installed and should display no more than 10 percent variation in width over as -built conditions
and year-to-year. No individual measurements should exceed 20 percent variance over as -built conditions over
the monitoring time frame.
Stream Pattern and Profile
Pattern features should show little adjustment over the standard 7 year monitoring period. The profile should not
demonstrate significant trends towards degradation or aggradation over a significant portion of a reach.
Substrate and Sediment Transport
There should be an absence of any significant trend in the aggradational or depositional potential of the channel.
Hydraulics
All stream channels will maintain an ordinary high water mark (OHWM) through monitoring. A minimum of
two bankfull events must be documented within the 7 year monitoring period. The two bankfull events shall
occur within separate years. Continuous surface water flows of at least 30 consecutive days may be required.
Macroinvertebrate and Water Quality
HDR will coordinate with resource agencies to determine if site specific monitoring protocols and success
criteria for the Site are required.
4.7.2 Wetland Hydrology
Hydroperiods for reestablished wetlands (i.e. W6, W7, and W11) will be established in the Mitigation Plan but
will not be less than five percent of the growing season. Should wetland hydrology fail to meet success criteria
as outlined in the Mitigation Plan for the Site, HDR will evaluate the potential causes of failure and provide
DMS with their remediation proposal. The remediation proposal will detail corrective actions and/or
maintenance actions proposed and an implementation schedule. Upon review and approval of the remediation
proposal by DMS, HDR will implement the necessary corrective measures.
4.7.3 Vegetation
Vegetation requirements state that there must be a minimum of 320 planted stems per acre surviving after year
three, 260 stems per acre after year five, and 210 stems per acre after year seven. Trees should average 7 feet in
height at year five and 10 feet in height at year seven. Should the performance criteria outlined above not be
met during the monitoring period, HDR will provide DMS with their remediation proposal, detailing corrective
actions and/or maintenance actions proposed and an implementation schedule for said actions, planned to meet
the criteria. Upon review and approval of said corrective measures by DMS, HDR will implement the necessary
corrective measures.
4.7.4 Noxious Species
Noxious species will be identified and controlled so that none become dominant or alter the desired community
structure of the proposed Site. If noxious plants are identified as a problem in the proposed Site, HDR will
develop a species-specific control plan for approval by DMS prior to implementation.
37
r)R
Morton Farms Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
RFP# 16-007709: Cataloging Unit 03020101 of the Tar Pamlico River Basin
Through coordination with DMS during the 7 -year monitoring period, HDR, where necessary, will remove, treat,
or otherwise manage undesirable plant or animal species, including physical removal, use of herbicides, live
trapping, confining wires, or nets.
4.7.5 Success Criteria Methodologies and Reporting
Monitoring of the Site will be performed until success criteria are met as defined in the restoration plans and the
permits. Results will be documented on an annual basis, with the associated reports submitted to DMS as
evidence that goals are being achieved. Both HDR and DMS in coordination with the appropriate regulatory
agencies will determine when the performance standards have been achieved at the Site. If standards are not
met, HDR will perform appropriate remedial activities to satisfy DMS. If the monitoring of the Site demonstrates
that the Site is successful by year five and no concerns have been identified, HDR will propose to terminate
monitoring of the Site and forego the monitoring requirements of years six and seven. In general, the restoration
success criteria, and required remediation actions, are based on the Wilmington District Stream and Wetland
Compensatory Mitigation Update (USACE et al. 2016) and the Annual Monitoring Report Format, Data
Requirements, and Content Guidance (NCDMS 2017).
4.7.6 Frequency
All draft monitoring reports will be submitted to DMS's designated representative for coordination with the
appropriate regulatory agencies by December l st of each year. The year of construction may have two submittals,
one being the As -Built drawings and the second being the First Year Annual Monitoring Report. If monitoring
reports indicate any deficiencies in achieving the success criteria on schedule, a remedial action plan will be
included in the annual monitoring reports. Implementation of the remedial plan will be HDR's responsibility.
HDR will be available to coordinate any agency site visits; both before and after restoration activities have been
completed. Vegetative monitoring will be conducted between July 1 st and leaf drop of each monitoring year.
OR
Morton Farms Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
RFP# 16-007709: Cataloging Unit 03020101 of the Tar Pamlico River Basin
PART 5 QUALITY CONTROL
5.1 QUALITY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
HDR has a detailed QA/QC process that has been refin
create a comprehensive review of all project phases. 01
r
CSC Review
Process 41F QHALITV CHECKING ♦{
Detailed checking occurs •
between Originatorand Checker
to verifythe accuracy of
informationrelativetotheArm r
intended purpose.rthe delk— he to the QC R -m- to
#
If
INITKL C]C REVIEW
ac reriens 0are co nd uZI by experienced perso n nel who are not
invoked in prod uc in6 the dac u rnents a r d i—tte invoked in provdinr
these'these renews provde impartial assessments andallow
personnel to consder projmt ohjmtires as well as technical detaik.
COMMENT kBOLUTION
Upon completion of the Qr reviewactrrities and receipt of the
0 rev iewcommerrts,the 0rginaw reviews the comments and rakes
necessa N c ha rges and additions tothe orgire I document.
Toverifythattheintentoft hereview commentshasbeen l
addressed,the O.0 Reviewerreviesrs the revised document
0 and dis cusses comment res olutions withthe Originator,
❑is cipli ne Lead, and/or Projed Man 2ger.
APPROVAL OF DIYARABLE
O The ProjectManagerverifia that the 4C review
process has been followed and approves the
deliverable fors ubmittal orus e.
the following:
r)R
ed into detailed checklists and color coded markups to
Lr Team will dedicate staff to independently review the
methodologies developed for field studies and
perform a thorough technical edit of each deliverable
associated with this contract. We will implement a
QA/QC program that begins at project
commencement and continues throughout the project
duration. Our Team's Quality Management System
(QMS) outlines in detail our practices for planning,
managing people, client satisfaction, practice
management, managing sub -consultants and for
continual improvement. Designed to eliminate the
potential for errors, our QMS promotes quality
practices with the goals of. 1) reducing the risk and
consequences of errors, 2) improving productivity
and efficiency, 3) increasing client confidence and
loyalty and 4) supporting regulatory compliance.
5.2 CONSTRUCTION
MANAGEMENT POLICIES,
PROCEDURES, AND PRACTICES
HDR believes that the overall success of a mitigation
project not only requires a well thought out and
engineered design, but quality construction must
occur and incorporate the important details of the
plans. Construction Management Policies,
Procedures, and Practices (CMPPP) have been
developed to ensure that the project is constructed
correctly and completely. HDR has a vested interest
in the overall success of the project and, as the party
responsible for the Site we implement CMPPP to
ensure that the final product is constructed according
to plans.
The CMPPP of HDR includes, but is not limited to,
Morton Farms Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
RFP# 16-007709: Cataloging Unit 03020101 of the Tar Pamlico River Basin
Elevation Verification - We prepare and provide to both the contractor and field personnel a Proposed Profile
Data Table. The table contains elevations of features and structures from which the contractor can construct and
the designer field representative can check elevations of thalweg invert, bankfull, top riffle, bottom riffle, sills,
cross vanes, and other channel features for compliance with design plans. The contractor is notified immediately
of any locations that are not within acceptable tolerance of design elevations, so adjustments can be made before
acceptance. Channel lengths and structures that are constructed, adjusted, and accepted are noted in Daily
Inspection Logs. Completing this information on a daily basis ensures that the project is moved along in an
efficient manner without requiring the contractor to go back and rework sections that had already been
completed. Allowing the contractor as much information and feedback at the beginning and during the project
ensures that the construction schedule will be met or exceeded.
Channel and Floodplain Dimension Verification - As part of our design plan package, we include a Construction
Staking Detail and a Suggested Stream Construction Layout Procedure. The Construction Staking Detail directs
and illustrates to the contractor the required staking procedure to utilize. The Suggested Stream Construction
Layout Procedure directs and illustrates to the contractor the correct staking for the base width of channel and
bankfull lines. The designer field representative will check the bankfull lines, thalweg alignment and base widths
before and after channel shaping has taken place. The contractor will be informed of any discrepancies
immediately so as to ensure that the contractor does not have to backtrack over already completed channel
sections.
Structure Installation Verification - As stated previously, all structures are staked (head of structure) in the field
prior to construction; details of structures to be used are located in the plan sheets and depict appropriate structure
lengths and angles. Locations and horizontal angles are flagged by the contractor. The designer field
representative reviews location and angles of structures, making adjustments as needed. As structures are
constructed, elevations, horizontal angles, and vertical slopes are checked for compliance by the designer field
representative. Any discrepancies are made known to the contractor immediately so that he can correct
immediately.
Erosion and Sediment Control (E&SC) Measure Installation and Maintenance - Part of our procedure, is to
ensure that the contractor has installed the E&SC measures as per the approved plans prior to beginning
construction. All structures are checked on a weekly basis and after any rainfall event. Evidence of turbidity
within flowing water is observed and noted on a daily basis. Any turbidity noted is immediately relayed to the
contractor and a solution to lessen turbidity is implemented. Items that are reviewed, constructed, and
adjustments made to each day are noted in our Daily Inspection Logs and kept on file. Communication between
the contractor and construction manager is a continuous process to ensure soil stability.
40
r)R
NC %
PROJECT SITE
j _ Sunset Rd •
S Mike Ra
S
'T��
L
Oxford
1
1
1
1
f
1 -
1 ,
1 �
1
i
y
1
LEGEND
Property Boundary
I K 1 9
VICINITY MAP
MORTON FARMS STREAM & WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
0 2 I GRANVILLE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Miles FIGURE 1
LEGEND
Property Boundary
Project Streams `; ~�=itr,• `.
■ UT to Fox Creek- 544 Ac
IL....■ � 1
-
UTI- 43 Ac
UT2- 19 Ac
UT3- 11 Ac #0000♦♦♦
UT4- 162 Ac ; # ♦♦♦ '
UT5- 18 AC ......������•••' �r� ♦�'C7
PC
Downstream i f■ Project
of
X
DRAINAGE AREA MAP
MORTON FARMS STREAM & WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
F)l A I I I I I GRANVILLE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
0 1,000 2,000 Feet FIGURE 2
-4
J Y
LEGEND �f'f`- V_
UT to Fox Creek- 544 Ac t }�
~ ,
Property Boundary s � � • =�� "'`
Agricultural- 57%
Forested- 37%
- Residential- 5%
Open Water- 1%bt
�`
Downstream Extent of Project ►�� , .
W `'A
.Jm 4 e
ofj��w
y.
r�
♦4°
LAND USE MAP
MORTON FARMS STREAM & WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
F)l A GRANVILLE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
0 1,000 2,000 Feet FIGURE
i
CaB c.!.
HeB
\ CeC2
W
_X
:CeC2
ApB
CaB
ApB
PaE
-, b VaC
VaC
CeC
VaB - --
'a
-
VaB VaB
LEGEND
Property Boundary
ApC - Appling sandy loam, 6-10% slopes
TaE -Tatum loam, 10-25% slopes
Project Streams
CaB - Cecil sandy loam, 2-6% slopes
VaB - Vance sandy loam, 2-6% slopes
CeC2 - Cecil sandy loam, 6-10% slopes
VaC - Vance sandy loam, 6-10% slopes
Downstream Extent of Project
ChA - Chewacla & Wehadkee soils, 0-2% slopes
ii
W - Water
NRCS SOILS
HeB - Helena sandy loam, 2-6% slopes
WeB - Wedowee sandy loam, 2-6% slopes
AaA -Altavista loam, 0-3% slopes
n PaE - Pacolet sandy loam, 10-25% slopes
WeC - Wedowee sandy loam, 6-10% slopes
APB - Appling sandy loam, 2-6% slopes
—
-ILA
&A yrs .w
NRCS SOILS MAP
MORTON FARMS STREAM & WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
I I
GRANVILLE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
/�'�
0 500 1,000 Feet
FIGURE 4
•- a
A
f
rrr_ 4
EN aft
t }
Legend
L Property Boundary _
Downstream Extent of Project
2018 AERIAL PHOTO MAP
MORTON FARMS STREAM & WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
/1�!\I I GRANVILLE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
0 600 1,200 Feet FIGURE 5
14
ti
c
A
f
rrr_ 4
EN aft
t }
Legend
L Property Boundary _
Downstream Extent of Project
2018 AERIAL PHOTO MAP
MORTON FARMS STREAM & WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
/1�!\I I GRANVILLE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
0 600 1,200 Feet FIGURE 5
i k 'wN,.
Va, L.00A
teeit
LW -1
-eGEND
Property Boundary
Downstream Extent of Project
all
4r
NCCGIA
HISTORIC PHOTO 1998
MORTON FARMS STREAM & WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
GRANVILLE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
0 600 1,200 Feet FIGURE 5A
FEZ
A
" T
JA
000(
004,
-
'
L,-
0 225 450 Feet
'AWF0"
LEGEND
Property Boundary
Proposed Easement- Option 1
IL - - -
Proposed Easement- Option 2
Existing Wetlands
Drained Hydric Soils
Perennial Stream
Intermittent Stream
Existing Ford Crossing
Downstream Extent of Project
CURRENT CONDITIONS MAP
MORTON FARMS STREAM & WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
GRANVILLE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
FIGURE 6
2017 Aerial Photography
*Average buffer widths range from 75-100'
Y � M
�=,W
�O
110
1
F r
y
kv,
I
AdLl
tv
PROPOSED MITIGATION FEATURES MAP - OPTION 2
MORTON FARMS STREAM & WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
0 200 I 400 GRANVILLE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Feet FIGURE 76
N"
Property Boundary
Proposed Easement- Option 2- 21.5 Ac
Granville County Contours (T)
0
Existing Ford Crossing- Upfit
0
Existing Ford Crossing- Removal
Downstream Extent of Project
Project Streams- TOB
Restoration- 1:1
Enhancement - 2.5:1
Enhancement - 3.5:1
Available for optional stream credit
Wetlands
Re-establishment- 1:1
Rehabilitation- 1.5:1
kv,
I
AdLl
tv
PROPOSED MITIGATION FEATURES MAP - OPTION 2
MORTON FARMS STREAM & WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
0 200 I 400 GRANVILLE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Feet FIGURE 76
LEGEND Channel Stability Calculations for Streams Proposed for Treatment
Existing Existing
Property Boundary Stream Stream Length 5treambank Approach Incision (LF) Scour (LF) Mass Wasting (LF)
r — (LF) Length (LF)
Proposed Easement Option 1 Channel Left bank Right bank Left bank Right bank
UT to Fox
Proposed Easement Option 2 Creek 2,866 5,732 R/E2 2,756 1,389 1,417 1,524 1,344
Total 2,866 5,732 2,756 r 2,806 2,868
Downstream Extent of Project Percentage of Stream Length Proposed for Mitigation 96%
Percentage of Steambank Length Proposed for Mitigation 49% 50%
Existing Wetlands n '
Drained Hydric Soils
Existing Streams
Bedrock _
Incision
Mass Wasting
Ilk
Scour k ;
3
N
W
0 225 450 Feet
CHANNEL STABILITY MAPPING (OVERVIEW)
MORTON FARMS STREAM & WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
GRANVILLE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
FIGURE 8
.PPK
OW
op
iw
..Wo
•
W12
•
00
oll .
,Ppv
........
.01
146 W_
As
-Wigs-
W9
Wil
00, W8
00,
All W10
00,
lo�
00,
Ad
A. A& it 2017Aerial PhotoaraDhv
w
IOU
�00
OftO.
.PPK
OW
op
iw
..Wo
•
W12
•
00
oll .
,Ppv
........
.01
146 W_
As
-Wigs-
W9
Wil
00, W8
00,
All W10
00,
lo�
00,
Ad
A. A& it 2017Aerial PhotoaraDhv
Proposed•. -
�. 4r
Existing Wetlands id
Drained
Existing Streams 4v
Bedrock
^,
a
,Incision
Mass Wasting
Scour
40
•
_
kuV-V
t
r J rr A. R
c.
MAI
r
.y
-
c
irill,.
PX
s x Gre
evf
,.• �° N.
rW8_.
W10 - J.,
r'
♦
�"
00"
-
t ♦ r""
_ 2017 Aerial Photoarap
ExistingStrearns
Existing Wetlan♦
ds
Bedrock
oo
o.
Incision o o. o oo oo W1
Mass Wasting
�30
Scour
W4
Upstream Extent of Backwater W2
o.
oo
Ooo oo
if F
,�; }9 ar il: i r�� lir Y i �. .4 # it /%i!tf J s ' ♦ ♦
oo
o
W5
00
00
W3 o,
3
40'
,, 7-7 -
q
J#
40P
Downstream Extent of Backwater
4
4#
201-7
Aerial-Photo-waph
Cattle Access and Buffer Condition- Option 1 and Option 2
"I
Existing
Existing
Option 2
BufferType
Stream
Length-
Length-
Approach
Cattle Access %
Dominant Buffer
S9%
Option 1(LF)
Option 2(LF)
Small woody {30'
438
12%
UT to Fox
2,886
2,886
RfE2
14496
Pasture
UTI
161
161
E2
14496
Small woadyz 30'
187
375
E2
14496
Pasture
UT2
433
E2
14496
Mature forest
UT3
97
661
E2
14496
Pasture
UT4
192
192
E2
14496
Small woody ¢ 34'
UT5
85
348
E2
14496
Small woody <34'
Total
3,648
5,416
100%
"I
Y
r , �Z
Gj
�f�4• %`°
LEGEND
" Property Boundary
t. ' ' Proposed Easement- Option 1
c k Proposed Easement- Option 2
Existing Wetlands
- p Existing Streams
i
y + Downstream Extent of Project
40
57
Flood plainAlterations
W12 Wil
Direct Cattle Access
Ivio
00
10 Row Crops
Ditches
Existing Ford Crossing
162
Alft
SITE FLOODPLAIN AND WATER QUALITY STRESSORS
MORTON FARMS STREAM & WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
o zoo aoo Feet LTJ GRANVILLE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
FIGURE 9
Option 1
Option 2
BufferType
Existing Length
9b
Existing Length
%
Pasture
3,174
S9%
3,922
79%,
Small woody {30'
438
12%
651
13%
r0ature
0
0
133
9%
Y
r , �Z
Gj
�f�4• %`°
LEGEND
" Property Boundary
t. ' ' Proposed Easement- Option 1
c k Proposed Easement- Option 2
Existing Wetlands
- p Existing Streams
i
y + Downstream Extent of Project
40
57
Flood plainAlterations
W12 Wil
Direct Cattle Access
Ivio
00
10 Row Crops
Ditches
Existing Ford Crossing
162
Alft
SITE FLOODPLAIN AND WATER QUALITY STRESSORS
MORTON FARMS STREAM & WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
o zoo aoo Feet LTJ GRANVILLE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
FIGURE 9
1:)@foJd 10 lu@IX3 we@JISUMOG ++
SUOU301 @I!IOJd•r
` -'00
LS ♦�
i
i
i
-' oimsweaJIS
.. -
em '010 kkm 99 zkm 41
... ._...,10
we
.10 f '
ze 10
• • •AljadOJd
- .• II r '
wo
.' 9M + . '
I
I'
ON
£M
SM-'`
to
-
zM 11 PM
km N
Agdea0ojoud le.ueV Z tOZ
.+r.
•
X,,:
- * -
'moi - s
=, —La
flu
,�;
•
1p
p� Yfi moi+ r.i Property Boundary
Tar River Watershed
14 Digit HUCs
z Targeted Local Watersheds (TLWs)
fkAL
Downstream Extent of Project
Creek WatershedStreams Creeks
• E
03 0101010030 •
Mot
" 1
et
i5
,,n. y-
3
it11.0'
r, aP/
csk a !aF
w
*�%4-.-
47 se fig, 1 ** r �J11 �t
,
a
aAV
Fir� .
Ar
, t$ • � 5
q
k. -j'. � �a .�, .�!AX
_ ;yam �rg•
gow
iL
LSA " �• '" . �00—A- r --
S +�
AL
'Tip�'� 1w � S' �., • y �.
-4,
2017 Aerial Photoaraoh v
LEGEND
Property Boundary
Natural Heritage Areas
and Conservancy Easement
JCs
✓atershed
-ton House
FEZ
0 1.5 3
Miles
i
PLANNING ELEMENTS MAP
MORTON FARMS STREAM & WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
GRANVILLE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
FIGURE 12
L' Ow �i�; 4x t _ •F' ,� 'rte �,�
-.� - _ iS
W --I
ar
11164
f � �'� 1 C is 114m
41
42.
i
i r ♦t ,
Ile County Contours
LMG
LAND MANAGEMENT GROUP
r- *
Project Site: I Morton DMS
Date:
12/19/2018
County: Granville
Job#:
LMG18.476
Location: Sunset Road, Oxford
State: NC
Soil Series: Chewacla loam
Data Point: 113oringl
Soil Classification: Fine -loamy, mixed, active, thermic Fluvaquentic Dystrudepts
OWT: +11. SHWT: 1 6"
Slope: 1 1-2%
1 Landscape: Flood plane depression
Elevation: Drainage;
Very poorly drained
Permeability: low to moderate at depth
Vegetation: Sparsely vegetated, some hardwoods, compaction from cattle traffic
Hydric Soil Indicator(s): F3 and F6
Horizon Depth (in) Matrix
Mottles
Texture Structure Consistence
Notes
A 0-4 10YR 4/2
10YR 4/6
SiL sbk
fr, ss, sp
Common prominent redox
concentrations along pore linings
and in the matrix
Bg1 4-15 10YR 5/2
10YR 4/6
SCL sbk
fr, ss, sp
Common prominent redox
concentrations along pore linings
and in the matrix
Very fine grained sands
Bg2
15-25
1 2.5Y 6/2
2.5Y 6.4
SL sbk
fr, ns, np
common distinct and prominent
concentrations
Medium grained sands
10YR 5/6
10YR 2/1
Iron Nodules
2.5Y 7/1
common distinct depleation
C 25-35 2.5Y 6/2
2.5Y5/6
SL sbk
common distinct and prominent
concentrations
Common Gravels
2.5Y 5/1
common distinct depleation
Comments:
Described By;
NPH
Observed water was ponded on surface, soil
at depth appeared to dry up. Only the upper
foot appeared to be saturated. Boring
terminated at gravel layer
s.
x'
LG
LAND MANAGEMENT GROUP
Project Site: Morton DMS
Date: 12/19/2018
County: Granville
Job#: LMG18.476
Location: Sunset Road, Oxford
State: NC
Soil Series: Helena sandy loam
Data Point: Boring 2
Soil Classification: Fine, mixed, semiactive, thermic Aquic Hapludults
OWT: 43" SHWT:
<6"
Slope: 1-2%
1 Landscape:
I micro rise in floodplane
Elevation:
Drainage:
moderately well
Permeability:
moderate
'Vegetation: grasses
-Hydric Soil Indicator(s): None
Horizon Depth (in) Matrix
Mottles
Texture Structure Consistence Notes
A 0-4 10YR 5/3
10YR 4/6
L sbk vfr, ns, np cocentrations from cattle
compaction
E 4-13 10YR 6/4
SL sbk vfr, ns, np
Bt 13-36 10YR 5/6
10YR 5/8
SCL sbk fr, ss, sp distinct concentrations
BCg 36-42 2.5Y6/1
10YR 5/6
SCL sbk fr, ss, np common prominent redox
concentrations
10YR 5/4
C 42-48 2.5Y 5/4
2.5Y 6/1
SL ma fr, ns, np prominent depleations
10YR 5/6
distinct concentrations
Comments:
Described By: NPH
Appears to be a natural deposition of non
hydric soils within the floodplane of the
wetland system
f}
,Ygtr... .
ti� � � y �y RS3ta� � • f.f e
"`P Tom.-. •.._-.__"9 -
tLMG
LAND MANAGEMENT GROUP
nesJT-+r*
Project Site: Morton DMS Date: 12/19/2018
County: Granville Job#: LMG18.476
,Location: Sunset Road, Oxford State: NC
Soil Series: Chewacla loam Data Point: Boring 3
:Soil Classification: Fine -loamy, mixed, active, thermic Fluvaquentic Dystrudepts
oWT: +1* / >36" SHVVT: <61. Slope: 1-2%
Landscape: I
Flood plane depression
Elevation: Drainage: Very poorly drained
Permeability:
moderate
Vegetation: Sparsely vegetated, some hardwoods, compaction from cattle traffic
Hydric Soil Indicator(s): F3 and F6
Horizon Depth (in) Matrix Mottles
Texture Structure Consistence
Notes
A 0-4 10YR 4/2 10YR 4/6
SiL sbk fr, ss, sp
Common prominent redox
concentrations along pore linings
and in the matrix
Bg1 4-11 10YR 5/2 10YR 4/6
SCL sbk fr, ss, sp
Common prominent redox
concentrations along pore linings
and in the matrix
Very fine grained sands
Bg2
11-30 1 2.5Y 6/2 10YR 5/4
SCL sbk fr, ss, sp
common prominent concentrations
Medium grained sands 10YR 5/8
Bg/C 30-36 2.5Y 6/2 2.5Y5/4
SCL/LS sbk fr, ss, sp
common distinct and prominant
concentrations
10YR 5/8
LS on ped faces
Comments:
Described By: NPH
Observed water was ponded on surface, soil
at depth appeared to dry up. Only the upper
3-4 inches appeared to be saturated. Auger
hole had no water to 36 inches below ground
surface4.
r0Vk"t
''°?��rt� a{ �•
-1^94 _Z:
%kx-t
- r.9
tLMG
LAND MANAGEMENT GROUP
i 04V/EYi 1:01n muiv
Project Site: I Morton DMS Date: 12/19/2018
County: Granville lob#: LMG18.476
Location: Sunset Road, Oxford State: NC
Soil Series: Chewacla loam Data Point: Boring 4
Soil Classification: Fine -loamy, mixed, active, thermic Fluvaquentic Dystrudepts
0W7: 3" SHWT:
<6"
Slope: 1-3%
Landscape: Flood plane / seep
Elevation:
Drainage:
Very poorly drained
Permeability: moderate to rapid
Vegetation: mixed herbacious
Hydric Soil Indicator(s): F3 and F6
Horizon Depth (in) Matrix Mottles
Texture Structure Consistence
Notes
A 0-4 10YR 4/2 10YR 4/6
L sbk to gr fr, ss, sp
Common prominent redox
concentrations along pore linings
and in the matrix
Bg 4-13 10YR 5/2 10YR 4/6
VFSL sbk fr, ss, np
Common prominent redox
concentrations along pore linings
and in the matrix
C 13-30 10YR 6/6 10YR 5/6
LS MA vfr, ns, np
common distinct and prominent
concentrations
7.5YR 5/8
medium and coarse grained sands
Comments!
Described By: INPH
Hit a rock at 30 inches
.�,�rs
f ffi� S011
4PtiS P:}1
17 7 rr 1 f1 ii ��' m 41� r Ls
C JL
"9 ,
rA
No w'-
tLMG
LAND MANAGEMENT GROUP
11 nsrFv
Project Site: Morton DMS Date: 12/19/2018
County: Granville Job#: LMG18.476
Location: Sunset Road, Oxford State: NC
'Soil Series: Chewacla loam 1 Data Point: 1 Boring 5
Soil Classification: Fine -loamy, mixed, active, thermic Fluvaquentic Dystrudepts
CIWT: +1 / 13" SHWT:
<6"
Slope: 12-3%
1 Landscape: Seep
Elevation:
Drainage:
I Very poorly drained
Permeability: moderate
'Vegetation: mixed herbacious
Hydric Soil Indicator(s): F3
Horizon Depth (in) Matrix I Mottles
Texture Structure Consistence Notes
A 0-4 10YR 4/2
L sbk fr, ss, np
Bg 4-14 5Y 5/2 10YR 4/6
SCL sbk fr, ss, sp
common prominent concentrations
fine grained sands
Bw 14-30+ 10YR 5/4 10YR 5/8
SCL sbk fr, ss, np
common distinct concentrations
medium grained sands
common gravels
Comments:
Described By: INPH
Boring terminated due to shallow rocks. OWT^"
was at 13" and ponded on the surface.
Compacted surface from cattle traffic?4"'�
'-�a`; Solt
tl �Y Noy �4
�4 `A 1 X94.
yyL as
tLMG
LAND MANAGEMENT GROUP
neufY* ,
Project Site: I Morton DMS
Date: 12/19/2018
County: Granville
Jobb: LMG18.476
Location: Sunset Road, Oxford
State: NC
Soil Series: Chewacla loam
Data Point: lBoring6
Soil Classification: Fine -loamy, mixed, active, thermic Fluvaquentic Dystrudepts
ovka: 29" SHWT:
<12"
Slope: 1-2%
1 Landscape: I Floodplane undulating
Elevation:
Drainage:
poorly drained
Permeability: moderate
Vegetation: mixed herbacious
Hydric Soil Indicator(s):
F3
Horizon Depth (in)
Matrix
Mottles
Texture Structure Consistence
Notes
A 0-3
10YR 4/2
10YR 4/6
FSL sbk fr, ss, np
common prominent concentrations
Bg1 3-12
10YR 5/2
10YR 3/6
SL sbk fr, ns, np
common prominent concentrations
Bg2 12-23
2.5Y 6/2
10YR 5/6
SCL sbk fr, ss, np
common distinct and prominent
concentrations
2.5Y 6/4
BCg 23-30+
5Y 5/2
10YR 5/6
SL sbk vfr, ns, np
common prominent concentrations
common round gravels
Comments:
Described By: INPH
Boring terminated due to shallow rocks.,,,,,
ti
� jl. •J 1
V1
u '
t !► 'S ���'Vf,, sr
•R mo
ami C�`
4LMG
LAND MANAGEMENT GROUP
a r%a%r"
(Project Site: Morton DMS
Date: 12/19/2018
County: Granville
Job#: LMG18.476
(Location: Sunset Road, Oxford
State: NC
Soil Series: Chewacla loam
Data Point: Boring 7
Soil Classification: Fine -loamy, mixed, active, thermic Fluvaquentic Dystrudepts
'DWT: 30" SHWT:
12"
Slope: 1-2%
1 Landscape:
I Relict depositional bar
'Elevation:
Drainage:
I poorly drained
Permeability:
moderate
'Vegetation: mixed herbacious
'Hydric Soil Indicator(s): F3
Horizon Depth (in) Matrix
Mottles
Texture Structure Consistence
Notes
A 0-4 10YR 4/2
10YR 3/6
SiL gr vfr, ss, np
Common prominent redox
concentrations along pore linings
and in the matrix
Bg1 4-10 10YR 5/2
7.5YR 3/6
SiL sbk vfr, ss, np
Common prominent redox
concentrations along pore linings
and in the matrix
Bg2 10-17 2.5Y 6/2
10YR 5/6
SL sbk fr, ss, np
common prominent redox
concentrations
10YR 3/6
BCg 17-31 2.5Y 5/2
7.5YR 4/6
SL sbk vfr, ns, np
common prominent redox
concentrations
10YR 5/4
Cg 31-36 10YR 5/2
10YR 4/6
LS MA vfr, ns, np
common prominent redox
concentrations
Comments
Described By: NPH
drained from eroded secondary drain south
of the existing channel
il-
//� `Yf •w Sfh ltl•,
i l
I!i +• `f,.''�b f'; i�ix ��„v�'-moi ,�� �� ��r. ,3' 7
ya.0 ej
r 1294 �'
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIggqIIIII�IqqIIIIqIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIUIII�IIIi
Coo ID: 009293970005 Type: CAP
Recorded: 01/04/2019 ai 08:49:28 ATI
Fee Amt: $26.00 Pape 1 of 5
Granvll,le County, NC
Kathy M. Tavlor Ran of Ceeds
-1712,,279-283
RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO.
HDR Lngineering, Inc. of the Carolinas
555 Fayetteville St, Suite 900
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Attention: Kenton Beal
MEMORANDUM OF OPTION
THIS MEMORANDUM OF OPTION (this "Memorandum") is made and entered into as of date of the last
execution, which is the 31" day of December, 2028, by and between James Thomas Marton, a free
trader; and Martha Davis Morton, widowed ("Optionor"), and HDR ENGINEERING, INC. OF THE
CAROLINAS, a North Carolina corporation ("Optionee'),
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, Optionor and Optionee have entered into that certain Option Agreement dated as of an even
date with this Memorandum (the "Option Agreement"); and
WHEREAS, the Option Agreement pertains to certain premises in Granville Courlty. Nortl
1 Carolina said
premises being more specifically described on the attached Exhibit 1, attached hereto and made a part
hereof (the "Property'); and
Now, therefore, Optionor and Optionee desire to create notice of the Option Agreement in the Public
Records of Granville Count by the following recitations:.
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the sum of TEN DOLLARS IS10.001 in cash paid by
Optionee to Optionor, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, (which amount is non-refundable and
shall be retained by Optionor), Optionor does hereby grant unto Optionee an option ("Option") to
purchase the Property upon the fallowing terms and conditions:
1. The Option Agreement and Option shall expire on November 30.2020.
2. This Memorandum is subject to all conditions, terms, and provisions of the Option Agreement,
which is hereby adopted and made part hereof by reference to the same in the same manner as
if all the provisions of the Option Agreement were copied herein in full.
3. The Option Agreement and the terms and conditions contained herein and within the Option
Agreement shall be binding upon the heirs, successors and assigns of the Optionor and
Optionee.
[EXECUTION PAGES TO FOLLOW]
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Optionor and Optionee have executed this Memorandum effective as of the
date first written above.
OPTIONEE:
HDR ENGINEERING, INC. OF THE CAROLINAS
By:
Print Namey - 9"
Title:
Date:
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF WAKE
certify that the following person(s) personally app red d�f�r me this das�, each qCknowled ing tome
that he or she signed the foregoing document: �n .. ;1 P, _,I. .-�b`
Na {s) of prin
7cipal(s)
Date: ' f -/9 � 1��ttj
P� L
Notary Public
[Official Seal]
2 aOTAR t"
Y
jDUBO"
�. �Cj
Print Narne
My commission expires:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Optionor and Optionee have executed this Memorandum effective as of the
date first written above.
OPTIO R
Print Na e
Title:
Date: 3 -
STATE OF 1 '[ C
COtJNTY OF -tf
I certify that the following person(s) personally appeared before me this day, each acknowledging to me
that he or she signed the foregoing document:
Name(s) of principal(s)
Date: t Z-13- 2a _
Nota u is
I Laufie E.ltueton Print Narb/ir Gr !Y'eJ7�l
NOTARYMBLIC
GOT&oa.Nor� tats
4cnuA%sI�FF My commission expires:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Optionor and Optionee have executed this Memorandum effective as of the
date first written above.
OPTIONO
YT.
1A t1. 1 F ,l
Print Natn': xld�v�fL Qt t i r�� bi
Title:
Date: Id 1---d 7-O
STATE OF "Ok-Tf'1 d)? 1 1W)q
COl1NTY0F V,9&I'W —
I certify that the following persons[ personally appeared before me this day, each acknowledging to me
that he or she signed the foregoing document: AA0+
Name(s) of principal(s)
Date: loZl/.� I/ S
Milt ilt !b4 Nota
[official Seal] 'i" '1
r(j Print Name:
wffAfIY
PUBLIC My commission expires: DM4
N
h
O
4
N
w
u
t
4