Loading...
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