20160404 Ver 1_Year 2 Monitoring Report_2019_20200110

ID#* 20160404 Version* 1
Select Reviewer:*
Mac Haupt
Initial Review Completed Date 01/13/2020
Mitigation Project Submittal - 1/10/2020
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site?* r Yes r No
Type of Mitigation Project:*
V Stream r Wetlands r- Buffer r- Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:*
LINDSAY CROCKER
Project Information
..................................................................................................................................................................
ID#:* 20160404
Existing IDY
Project Type: r DMS r Mitigation Bank
Project Name: Edwards Johnson
County: Johnston
Document Information
Email Address:*
[e-mail]
Version:
*1
Existing Version
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Monitoring Plans
File Upload: EdwardsJohnson_97080_MY2_2019.pdf 13.78MB
Rease upload only one RDFcf the conplete file that needs to be subnitted...
Signature
Print Name:* LINDSAY CROCKER
Signature:*
.,cry. �`��-aE,��•

Monitoring Report – Year 2
FINAL VERSION
Edwards-Johnson Mitigation Project
Calendar Year of Data Collection: 2019

NCDEQ DMS Project Identification # 97080
NCDEQ DMS Contract # 6825
Neuse River Basin (Cataloging Unit 03020201)
USACE Action ID Number: SAW-2016-00883
NCDEQ DWR Project # 2016-0404
Johnston County, NC
Contracted Under RFP # 16-006477
Data Collection Period: June-October 2019, Submission Date: December 2019

Prepared for:

North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652

Prepared by:

December 31, 2019
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
Attn: Lindsay Crocker
217 West Jones Street, Suite 3000-A
Raleigh, NC 27603
RE: WLS Responses to NCDEQ DMS Review Comments for Task 8 Draft Monitoring Report Year 2 for the
Edwards-Johnson Mitigation Project, NCDEQ DMS Full-Delivery Project ID #97080, Contract #006825, Neuse
River Basin, Cataloging Unit 03020201, Johnston County, NC
Dear Ms. Crocker:
Water & Land Solutions, LLC (WLS) is pleased to present the Final Monitoring Report Year 2 for the Edwards-Johnson
Mitigation Project to the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) Division of Mitigation
Services (DMS). The Final Monitoring Report Year 2 were developed by addressing NCDEQ DMS’s review comments.
Under this cover, we are providing one hard copy of the Final Monitoring Report Year 2, and the required digital data
for each (the .pdf copies of the entire updated reports and the updated digital data) via CDs. We are providing our
written responses to NCDEQ DMS’s review comments on the Draft Monitoring Report Year 2 below. Each of the
DMS review comments is copied below in bold text, followed by the appropriate response from WLS in regular text:
Report:
1.DMS Comment: Page 6, Stream Hydrology. DMS understands that 2 bankfull events were documented in
MY2. However, there must be two bankfull events in two separate years in order to achieve the bankfull
standard credit release. Because MY1 only had one bankfull event, and the monitoring device was not
installed until the end of MY1, that year is not eligible. Please update the report wording. WLS Response:
WLS has updated the wording on Page 6 of the report.
2.DMS Comment: Page 7, vegetation. The average performance standard is based on a per plot basis and not
an average. Update verbiage to reflect. WLS Response: WLS has updated the appropriate verbiage to reflect
the correct average performance standards.
3.DMS Comment: As discussed in the field, update wording to explain that replant area will be where low
density was discovered, rather than listing vegetation plots. WLS Response: Wording has been updated in
the report to reference low-density areas for replanting prior to March 2020.
4.DMS Comment: As discussed, there was a small encroachment area along R1 that was replanted in MY2.
Please provide the number of stems and species. WLS Response: The encroachment area was planted with
species from the approved planting list in the Mitigation Plan and totaled approximately 27 stems.
5.DMS Comment: Ensure that replant stock is in keeping with the Mitigation Plan species for MY3. WLS
Response: Re-planting will be done only with species from the approved plant list in the Mitigation Plan.
6.DMS Comment: The Mitigation Plan states that success is based on planted species, but the 2016 IRT
guidance does allow volunteers to be counted toward success, if they were on the planted list. It may be
prudent for WLS to note and / or present information that way if applicable. WLS Response: Volunteer
species will not be counted towards success in this report. In future reports they will be counted toward
success if they are surviving for at least two years, are at least 18” tall, and were species in the approved
planting plan. The total number of planted and recruited stems is available in Table 7.
7.DMS Comment: Section 5.6 location of the wetland gauges was discussed in field. Ensure this is in keeping
with DWR request. WLS Response: WLS has installed the necessary monitoring gauge per the DMS request. All
gauge data will be available for MY3.
8.DMS Comment: X5- check change from BHR (looks like it should be positive, not -10%). WLS Response: WLS
has checked all BHR’s to remove any negative percentages.
9.DMS Comment: Table 8- please clarify that measurement is height above bankfull. WLS Response: Table 8
measurement was clarified.
Digital Deliverables:
1.DMS Comment: Morphology - Please submit the spreadsheets that include the cumulative overlays of
the XS as shown in the report (all years). Include the particle distribution summary parameters in the
morph summary tables. Check BHR calcs for XS5 and note that the percent change in the BHR should
not be negative for that XS. WLS Response: WLS added the XS spreadsheets including the cumulative
overlays to the e-data submittal package. D50 particle distribution was added to the morphology
summary table and represents the average across the site for all riffles and pools.
2.DMS Comment: Calculation of XSA and Max depth are to completed using TOB in keeping with
methods specified in the Industry Technical Work group memorandum. For clarity make sure the
reader is aware that these methods are being employed. For example, please include a footnote to the
effect: “Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As-built (MY0) cross-sectional area as described in
the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document produced by the technical
industry work group consisting of the NCIRT, NCDMS, and Industry Practitioner sin NC (9/2018). The
remainder of the bankfull dimensions are calculated based on the current year's low bank height.” WLS
Response: WLS added footnote to all XS spreadsheets. Note: WLS uses MY1 in place of as-built (MY0) due
to issues of the as-built survey which were identified in MY1.
3.DMS Comment: Hydrology Data – Please make note of the gauge type (e.g. transducer, RDS etc.) used
in the excel data file. Please also label any probe or benchmark elevations, the raw and corrected
readings of the water elevations and any offsets applied. DMS needs to be able to clearly identify these
key elevations before incorporating these into the DMS database permitting independent
calculation/verification. The DMS Excel template is an example of what is needed for reference and is
required for use as part of RFPS within the last several years (available here:
https://ncdenr.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-
public/Mitigation%20Services/Document%20Management%20Library/Guidance%20and%20Template%
20Documents/7_Mon_Baseline_and_Annual_Rep_Tables%20-%20Jun%202017.xlsx).
WLS Response: WLS has updated the appropriate spreadsheet in the excel data file in accordance with the
template.
4.DMS Comment: Include precipitation data in the Hydrology files. WLS Response: WLS has added
precipitation data to the appropriate hydrology file.

5. DMS Comment: Conservation Easement Shapefile- We need to determine if there is an issue with the
Conservation easement file and the metes and bounds provided by the surveyor. DMS will review. WLS
Response: WLS confirmed metes and bounds provided by the surveyor are correct.

Table of Contents
1 Project Summary ................................................................................................................................... 1
2 Project Background ............................................................................................................................... 1
2.1 Project Location, Setting, and Existing Conditions........................................................................ 1
2.2 Mitigation Project Goals and Objectives ....................................................................................... 1
2.3 Project History, Contacts, and Timeframe .................................................................................... 2
3 Project Mitigation Components ............................................................................................................ 2
3.1 Stream Mitigation Types and Approaches .................................................................................... 2
3.1.1 R1 Preservation ..................................................................................................................... 3
3.1.2 R2 Restoration ....................................................................................................................... 3
3.1.3 R3 (Upper Reach) Restoration .............................................................................................. 3
3.1.4 R3 (Lower Reach) Preservation ............................................................................................. 3
3.1.5 R4 Restoration ....................................................................................................................... 4
4 Performance Standards ........................................................................................................................ 4
4.1 Streams ......................................................................................................................................... 5
4.1.1 Stream Hydrology ................................................................................................................. 5
4.1.2 Stream Profiles, Vertical Stability, and Floodplain Access .................................................... 5
4.1.3 Stream Horizontal Stability ................................................................................................... 5
4.1.4 Streambed Material Condition and Stability ........................................................................ 5
4.1.5 Jurisdictional Stream Flow .................................................................................................... 6
4.2 Vegetation ..................................................................................................................................... 6
5 Monitoring Year 2 Assessment and Results .......................................................................................... 6
5.1 Stream Hydrology ......................................................................................................................... 6
5.2 Stream Horizontal & Vertical Stability .......................................................................................... 6
5.3 Streambed Material Condition and Stability ................................................................................ 7
5.4 Jurisdictional Stream Flow Documentation .................................................................................. 7
5.5 Vegetation ..................................................................................................................................... 7
5.6 Wetlands ....................................................................................................................................... 7
6 References ............................................................................................................................................ 9

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A Background Tables and Figures
Table 1 Project Mitigation Components
Table 2 Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3 Project Contacts
Table 4 Project Information and Attributes

Appendix B Visual Assessment Data
Figure 1 Current Condition Plan View (CCPV)
Table 5 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Table 5a Vegetation Condition Assessment
Photos Stream Station Photographs
Photos Vegetation Plot Photographs

Appendix C Vegetation Plot Data
Table 6 Planted and Total Stem Counts

Appendix D Stream Measurement and Geomorphology Data
Figure 2 MY2 Cross-Sections
Figure 3 MY2 Pebble Count
Table 7a Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 7b Cross-section Morphology Data
Table 7c Stream Reach Morphology Data

Appendix E Hydrologic Data
Figure 4 Hydrologic Data
Figure 5 Rainfall Data
Table 8 Verification of Flow Events

Water & Land Solutions

Edwards-Johnson Mitigation Project
FINAL Monitoring Report Year 2 Page 1

1 Project Summary
Water and Land Solutions, LLC (WLS) completed the construction and planting of the Edwards-Johnson
Mitigation Project (Project) full-delivery project for the North Carolina Department of Environmental
Quality (NCDEQ), Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) in March 2018. The Project is located in Johnston
County, North Carolina between the Community of Archer Lodge and the Town of Wendell at 35.7251°,
78.35636°. The Project site is located in the NCDEQ Sub-basin 03-04-06, in the Lower Buffalo Creek
Priority Sub-watershed 030202011504.
The Project involved the restoration, preservation and permanent protection of four stream reaches (R1,
R2, R3, and R4) totaling 3,729 linear feet of streams and their riparian buffers. Monitoring Year 2 (MY2)
monitoring activities occurred between June and October 2019 (Table 2). This report presents the data
for MY2. The Project meets the MY2 success criteria for stream hydrology, stream horizontal and vertical
stability, and vegetation. Based on these results, the Project is expected to meet the Monitoring Year 3
(MY3) success criteria in 2020.
2 Project Background
2.1 Project Location, Setting, and Existing Conditions
The Project site is located in the Lower Buffalo Creek Priority Sub-watershed 030202011504 study area of
the Neuse 01 Regional Watershed Plan, in the Wake-Johnston Collaborative Local Watershed Plan, and in
Targeted Local Watershed 03020201180050.
The catchment area is 223 acres and has an impervious cover less than one percent. The dominant
surrounding land uses are agriculture and mixed forest. Prior to construction, some of the riparian buffers
were less than 50 feet wide.
2.2 Mitigation Project Goals and Objectives
WLS established project mitigation goals and objectives based on the resource condition and functional
capacity of the watershed to improve and protect diverse aquatic resources comparable to stable
headwater stream systems within the Piedmont Physiographic Province. The proposed mitigation types
and design approaches described in the final approved mitigation plan considered the general restoration
and resource protection goals and strategies outlined in the 2010 Neuse River Basin Restoration Priority
Plan (RBRP). The functional goals and objectives were further defined in the 2013 Wake-Johnston
Collaborative Local Watershed Plan and 2015 Neuse 01 Regional Watershed Plan and include:
• Reducing sediment and nutrient inputs to the upper Buffalo Creek Watershed,
• Restoring, preserving and protecting wetlands, streams, riparian buffers and aquatic habitat,
• Implementing agricultural BMPs and stream restoration in rural catchments together as “project
clusters”.
The following site-specific goals were developed to address the primary concerns outlined in the LWP and
RWP and include:
• Restore stream and floodplain interaction and geomorphically stable conditions by reconnecting
historic flow paths and promoting more natural flood processes,
• Improve and protect water quality by reducing streambank erosion, nutrient and sediment inputs,
Water & Land Solutions

Edwards-Johnson Mitigation Project
FINAL Monitoring Report Year 2 Page 2

• Restore and protect riparian buffer functions and habitat connectivity in perpetuity by recording
a permanent conservation easement,
• Implement agricultural BMPs to reduce nonpoint source inputs to receiving waters.
To accomplish these site-specific goals, the following function-based objectives will be measured and
included with the performance standards to document overall project success as described in the table
below:
Functional Category
(Level) Functional Goal / Parameter Functional Design Objective
Hydrology (Level 1) Improve Base Flow Remove man-made pond dam and restore a
more natural flow regime and aquatic passage.
Hydraulics (Level 2) Reconnect Floodplain / Increase
Floodprone Area Widths
Lower BHRs from >2.0 to 1.0-1.2 and maintain
ERs at 2.2 or greater.
Geomorphology
(Level 3)
Improve Bedform Diversity Increase riffle/pool percentage to 70/30 and
pool-to-pool spacing ratio 4-7X bankfull width.
Increase Lateral Stability
Reduce BEHI/NBS streambank erosion rates
comparable to downstream reference
condition and stable cross-section values.
Enhance Riparian Buffer Vegetation
Plant or protect native species vegetation a
minimum 50’ wide from the top of the
streambanks with a composition/density
comparable to reference condition.
Physicochemical
(Level 4) Improve Water Quality
Install water quality treatment basins along
the riparian corridor and reduce sediment and
nutrient levels.
Biology
(Level 5)
Improve Macroinvertebrate
Community and Aquatic Species
Health
Incorporate native woody debris and bedform
diversity into channel and change DWR
bioclassification rating from ‘Poor’ to a
minimum ‘Fair’ by Monitoring Year 7.

2.3 Project History, Contacts, and Timeframe
The chronology of the project history and activity is presented in Table 2. Relevant project contact
information is presented in Table 3. Relevant project background information is presented in Table 4.
3 Project Mitigation Components
Refer to Figure 1 and Table 1 for the project components/asset information. A recorded conservation
easement consisting of 10.96 acres protects and preserves all stream reaches, existing wetland areas, and
riparian buffers in perpetuity.
3.1 Stream Mitigation Types and Approaches
Stream restoration practices involved raising the existing streambed and reconnecting the stream to the
relic floodplain. Some portions of the existing degraded channels that were abandoned within the
restoration areas were filled to decrease surface and subsurface drainage and raise the local water table.
The project also included restoring, enhancing and protecting riparian buffers and riparian wetlands
within the conservation easement. The vegetative components of this project included stream bank,
floodplain, and transitional upland zones planting. The Site was planted with native species riparian buffer
Water & Land Solutions

Edwards-Johnson Mitigation Project
FINAL Monitoring Report Year 2 Page 3

vegetation (Appendix C) and now protected through a permanent conservation easement. Table 1 and
Figure 1 (Appendix A) provide a summary of the project components.
3.1.1 R1 Preservation
Preservation was implemented along this reach since the existing stream and wetland system is mostly
stable with a mature riparian buffer due to minimal historic impacts. The preservation area is being
protected in perpetuity through a permanent conservation easement. This approach will extend the
wildlife corridor from the Buffalo Creek floodplain boundary throughout a majority of the riparian valley,
while providing a hydrologic connection and critical habitat linkage within the catchment area.
3.1.2 R2 Restoration
Work along R2 involved a Priority Level I Restoration approach by raising the bed elevation and
reconnecting the stream with its abandoned floodplain. This approach will promote more frequent over
bank flooding in areas with hydric soils, thereby creating favorable conditions for wetland re-
establishment. The reach was restored using appropriate riffle-pool morphology with a conservative
meander planform geometry that accommodates the valley slope and width. This approach allowed
restoration of a stable channel form with appropriate bedform diversity, as well as, improved biological
functions through increased aquatic and terrestrial habitats. Proposed in-stream structures included
constructed wood riffles for grade control and habitat, log j-hook vanes, and log weirs/jams for
encouraging step-pool formation energy dissipation, bank stability, and bedform diversity. Riparian
buffers greater than 50 feet were enhanced and will be protected along the entire length of R2. Mature
trees and significant native vegetation were protected and incorporated into the design.
Bioengineering techniques such as vegetated geolifts and live stakes were also used to protect
streambanks and promote woody vegetation growth along the streambanks. The existing unstable
channel was filled to an elevation sufficient to connect the new bankfull channel to its active floodplain
using suitable fill material excavated from the newly restored channels and remnant spoil piles.
Additionally, water quality treatment basins were installed to reduce direct sediment and nutrient inputs.
3.1.3 R3 (Upper Reach) Restoration
A Priority Level I Restoration approach was implemented for the upstream portion to improve stream
functions and water quality. Prior to restoration activities, the reach exhibited both lateral and vertical
instability, as shown by active headcuts and moderate bank erosion. A new single-thread meandering
channel was constructed offline in this area before reconnecting with multiple relic channel features and
the existing channel alignment farther downstream. In-stream structures, including log riffles, log weirs
and log vanes were used to dissipate flow energy, protect streambanks, and eliminate potential for future
incision. Shallow floodplain depressions and vernal pools were created or preserved in the floodplain to
provide habitat diversity, nutrient cycling, and improved treatment of overland flows. Restored
streambanks were graded to stable side slopes and the floodplain was reconnected to further promote
stability and hydrological function.
3.1.4 R3 (Lower Reach) Preservation
Preservation was implemented along this reach since the existing stream and wetland system is mostly
stable with a mature riparian buffer due to minimal historic impacts. The preservation is being protected
in perpetuity through a permanent conservation easement. This approach will extend the wildlife corridor
Water & Land Solutions

Edwards-Johnson Mitigation Project
FINAL Monitoring Report Year 2 Page 4

from the Buffalo Creek floodplain boundary throughout a majority of the riparian valley, while providing
a hydrologic connection and critical habitat linkage within the catchment area.
3.1.5 R4 Restoration
The restoration of R4 involved raising the existing bed elevation gradually to reconnect the stream with
its active floodplain. Prior to restoration activities, the existing channel began experiencing backwater
conditions and sediment aggradation from a man-made pond. The failing dam and remnant spoil piles
were removed, and the pond was drained to reconnect the new stream channel with its geomorphic
floodplain. Channel and floodplain excavation in this reach segment included the removal of shallow
legacy sediments (approx. 12” depth) to accommodate a new bankfull channel and in-stream structures,
as well as a more natural step-pool morphology using grade control structures in the steeper transitional
areas. Shallow floodplain depressions were created to provide habitat diversity, nutrient cycling, and
improved treatment of overland flows. Riparian buffers greater than 50 feet were restored and protected
along all R4.
4 Performance Standards
The applied success criteria for the Project will follow necessary performance standards and monitoring
protocols presented in final approved mitigation plan. Annual monitoring and semi-annual site visits will
be conducted to assess the condition of the project throughout the monitoring period. Monitoring
activities will be conducted for a period of seven years with the final duration dependent upon
performance trends toward achieving project goals and objectives.
The following Proposed Monitoring Plan Summary from the approved final mitigation plan summarizes
the measurement methods and performance standards. Specific success criteria components and
evaluation methods follow.
Functional
Category
(Level)
Project Goal /
Parameter
Measurement
Method Performance Standard Potential Functional
Uplift
Hydrology
(Level 1)
Improve Base Flow
Duration and
Overbank Flows (i.e.
channel forming
discharge)
Remove man-made
pond, pressure
transducer, regional
curve, regression
equations, catchment
assessment
Maintain seasonal flow for a
minimum of 30 consecutive
days during normal annual
rainfall.
Create a more natural
and higher functioning
headwater flow regime
and provide aquatic
passage.
Hydraulics
(Level 2)
Reconnect
Floodplain / Increase
Floodprone Area
Widths
Bank Height Ratio,
Entrenchment Ratio,
crest gage
Maintain average BHRs at 1.2
and increase ERs at 2.2 or
greater and document
bankfull/geomorphically
significant flow events.
Provide temporary
water storage and
reduce erosive forces
(shear stress) in
channel during larger
flow events.

Geomorphology
(Level 3)

Improve Bedform
Diversity
Pool to Pool spacing,
riffle-pool sequence,
pool max depth ratio,
Longitudinal Profile
Increase riffle/pool
percentage and pool-to-pool
spacing ratios compared to
reference reach conditions.
Provide a more natural
stream morphology,
energy dissipation and
aquatic habitat/refugia.
Increase Vertical and
Lateral Stability
BEHI / NBS, Cross-
sections and
Longitudinal Profile
Surveys, visual
assessment
Decrease streambank erosion
rates comparable to
reference condition cross-
section, pattern and vertical
profile values.
Reduce sedimentation,
excessive aggradation,
and embeddedness to
allow for interstitial
flow habitat.
Water & Land Solutions

Edwards-Johnson Mitigation Project
FINAL Monitoring Report Year 2 Page 5

Geomorphology
(Level 3) Establish Riparian
Buffer Vegetation
CVS Level I & II
Protocol Tree Veg
Plots (Strata
Composition and
Density), visual
assessment
Within planted portions of
the site, a minimum of 320
stems per acre must be
present at year three; a
minimum of 260 stems per
acre must be present at year
five; and a minimum of 210
stems per acre must be
present at year seven.
Increase woody and
herbaceous vegetation
will provide channel
stability and reduce
streambank erosion,
runoff rates and exotic
species vegetation.
Physicochemical
(Level 4)
Improve Water
Quality N/A N/A
Reduction of excess
nutrients and organic
pollutants will increase
the hyporheic exchange
and dissolved oxygen
(DO) levels.
Biology
(Level 5)
Improve Benthic
Macroinvertebrate
Communities and
Aquatic Health
DWR Small Stream/
Qual v4 sampling, IBI
(MY3, MY5, MY7)
N/A
Increase leaf litter and
organic matter critical
to provide in-stream
cover/shade, wood
recruitment, and
carbon sourcing.
Note: Level 4 and 5 project parameters and monitoring activities will not be tied to performance standards nor
required to demonstrate success for credit release.
4.1 Streams
4.1.1 Stream Hydrology
Two separate bankfull events must be documented within the seven-year monitoring period. These two
bankfull events must occur in separate years. Otherwise, the stream monitoring will continue until two
bankfull events have been documented in separate years. In addition to the two bankfull flow events, two
geomorphically significant flow events (Qgs=0.66Q2) must also be documented during the monitoring
period. There are no temporal requirements regarding the distribution of the geomorphically significant
flows.
4.1.2 Stream Profiles, Vertical Stability, and Floodplain Access
Stream profiles, as a measure of vertical stability will be evaluated by looking at Bank Height Ratios (BHR).
The BHR shall not exceed 1.2 along the restored project reaches. This standard only applies to the restored
project reaches where BHRs were corrected through design and construction. In addition, observed
bedforms should be consistent with those observed for channels of the design stream type(s).
4.1.3 Stream Horizontal Stability
Cross-sections will be used to evaluate horizontal stream stability. There should be little change expected
in as-built restoration cross-sections. If measurable changes do occur, they should be evaluated to
determine if the changes represent a movement toward a more unstable condition (e.g., downcutting,
erosion) or a movement towards increased stability (e.g., settling, vegetation establishment, deposition
along the streambanks, decrease in width/depth ratio). Cross-sections shall be classified using the Rosgen
Stream Classification method and all monitored cross-sections should fall within the quantitative
parameters defined for channels of the design stream type.
4.1.4 Streambed Material Condition and Stability
After construction, there should be minimal change in the particle size distribution of the streambed
materials, over time, given the current watershed conditions and future sediment supply regime. Since the
Water & Land Solutions
Edwards-Johnson Mitigation Project
FINAL Monitoring Report Year 2 Page 6
streams are predominantly sand-bed systems with minimal fine/coarse gravel, some coarsening is
anticipated after restoration activities, however significant changes in particle size distribution are not
expected. Streambed material condition is supplementary and is not part of success criteria.
4.1.5 Jurisdictional Stream Flow
The restored stream systems must be classified as at least intermittent, and therefore must exhibit base
flow with at least 30 days of continuous flow during a year with normal rainfall conditions as described in
the approved mitigation plan.
4.2 Vegetation
Vegetative restoration success for the project during the intermediate monitoring years will be based on
the survival of at least 320, three-year-old trees per acre at the end of Year 3 of the monitoring period
and at least 260, five-year-old, trees per acre at the end of Year 5 of the monitoring period. The final
vegetative restoration success criteria will be achieving a density of not less than 210, seven-year-old
stems per acre in Year 7 of monitoring. Planted vegetation (for projects in coastal plain and piedmont
counties) must average seven feet in height at Year 5 of monitoring and 10 feet in height at Year 7 of
monitoring. Volunteer stems will only be counted toward success if they are surviving for at least 2
years, are at least 18” tall, and are species from the approved planting list. For all of the monitoring years
(Year 1 through Year 7), the number of Red maple (Acer rubrum) stems cannot exceed 20 percent of
the total stems in any of the vegetation monitoring plots.
5 Monitoring Year 2 Assessment and Results
Annual monitoring was conducted during MY2 in accordance with the monitoring plan as described in the
approved mitigation plan to document the site conditions. All monitoring device locations are depicted
on the CCPV (Figure 1). MY2 monitoring results are provided in the appendices. The Project meets the
MY2 success criteria for stream hydrology, stream horizontal and vertical stability. Vegetation plots 1 and
2 meet the required success criteria, plots 3 and 4 do not.
5.1 Stream Hydrology
Monitoring to document the occurrence of the two required bankfull events (overbank flows) and the two
required geomorphically significant flow events (Qgs=0.66Q2) within the monitoring period, along with
floodplain access by flood flows, is being conducted using a crest gauge, installed on December 12, 2018,
on the floodplain of and across the dimension of the restored channel at the left top of bank of Reach R2,
immediately upstream of the confluence of Reach R2 and R4 (Figure 1), to record the watermark
associated with the highest flood stage between monitoring site visits. Photographs are also being used
to document the occurrence of debris lines and sediment deposition on the floodplain during monitoring
site visits. At least three bankfull events occurred during MY2. These events were documented using the
described photography (Table 8).
5.2 Stream Horizontal & Vertical Stability
Visual assessment was utilized for assessment of MY2 horizontal and vertical stream stability. The visual
assessments for each stream reach concluded that the MY2 stream channel pattern and longitudinal
profiles, instream structure locations, still closely match the profile design parameters and MY0/baseline
conditions. The MY2 plan form geometry or pattern still appears to fall within acceptable ranges of the
design parameters for all restored reaches.
Water & Land Solutions

Edwards-Johnson Mitigation Project
FINAL Monitoring Report Year 2 Page 7

Per IRT request, a new cross section (X8) was added across R3 that spans the floodplain, 50 linear feet
below X6 to document any changes in sediment migration and channel morphology. Cross section 7 was
also extended on R3 to include more of the left floodplain.
One area of significant erosion was found during the visual assessments. This area is approximately 15ft
long and occurs in a pool at a meander bend of R4 at approximately STA 18+00. Photographs of the area
can be found in Appendix B. This area will be monitored closely in MY3 to determine if remedial action
will be needed. Overall, only minor channel adjustments in riffle slopes, pool depths and pattern were
observed and therefore did not present a stability concern or indicate a need for immediate remedial
action.
5.3 Streambed Material Condition and Stability
A representative sediment sample was collected to assess streambed material condition and stability. The
dominant substrate for the project was verified as coarse sand. The post-construction riffle substrate
sampling indicated no significant change in streambed material condition or stability during MY2.
5.4 Jurisdictional Stream Flow Documentation
Jurisdictional stream flow documentation and monitoring of restored intermittent reaches is achieved
using a flow gage (continuous-read pressure transducers) within the thalweg of the channel towards the
middle portion of the Reach R4 (Figure 1). Additionally, to determine if rainfall amounts are normal for the
given year, precipitation data was obtained from CLAY Central Crops Research Station in Johnston County,
approximately nine miles southwest of the site. The flow gage documented that the stream exhibited
surface flow for a minimum of 30 consecutive days throughout some portion of the year during a year with
normal rainfall conditions (Figure 4).
5.5 Vegetation
Vegetation monitoring for MY2 was conducted utilizing the four vegetation monitoring plots, with
monitoring conducted in accordance with the CVS-EEP Level I & II Monitoring Protocol (CVS, 2008) and
DMS Stream and Wetland Monitoring Guidelines (DMS, 2017). See Figure 1 in Appendix B for the
vegetation monitoring plot locations. Summary data and photographs of each plot can be found in
Appendix B.
Areas of low stem density were identified during MY1 in the vicinity of Plots 3 and 4 and were replanted
in April 2019 (Figure 1) with approximately 176 stems with species from the approved planting list from
the mitigation plan. In addition, a slight buffer encroachment along R2 was replanted with approximately
27 stems with species from the approved planting list from the mitigation plan and was left un-disturbed
during MY2.
In MY2 Plots 3 and 4 failed to meet the year 3 minimum of 320 stems per acre. For Plot 3, loss in stem
density from MY1 to MY2 is due to increased wetness and a dense herbaceous layer. Plot 4 saw a low
survivability due to poor subsoil planting conditions.
The MY2 vegetation monitoring was also conducted utilizing visual assessment throughout the easement.
Two areas of concern were found (VPA1 and VPA2) adjacent to Plots 4 and 3 respectively (Figure 1). Minor
soil sloughing is occurring in VPA1 and will be addressed with fill and re-grading prior to replanting.
Additionally, poor subsoil planting conditions occur throughout the area (pH ~5.5). Containerized trees
will be used in replanting of the area to increase survivability to MY3. VPA2 has experienced increased
Water & Land Solutions

Edwards-Johnson Mitigation Project
FINAL Monitoring Report Year 2 Page 8

wetness and a dense herbaceous layer. Before replanting, areas of dense herbaceous layers will be strip
or spot treated with herbicide to allow for better tree establishment. Replanting of both VPA1 and VPA2
will occur prior to March 15th to meet success criteria for MY3 with species from the approved planting
list from the mitigation plan. The results of the visual assessment did not indicate any additional
significant negative changes to the existing vegetation community.
5.6 Wetlands
Wetland mitigation credits are not contracted or proposed for this project. One groundwater monitoring
well was installed during the baseline monitoring along Reach R3. An additional groundwater monitoring
well was installed along Reach R3 in early January 2019 (Figure 4). All groundwater monitoring wells are
pressure transducers. Per NCIRT correspondence, an additional well was to be installed in the wetland
preservation area near station 37+00. Data for the additional well will be available in MY3. These wells
were installed to document groundwater levels within the restoration area for reference and comparison
to the preservation areas, at the request of the NCIRT (DWR). No performance standards for wetland
hydrology success was proposed in the Mitigation Plan and therefore wetland mitigation monitoring is
not included for this project.

Water & Land Solutions

Edwards-Johnson Mitigation Project
FINAL Monitoring Report Year 2 Page 9

6 References
Doll, B.A., Grabow, G.L., Hall, K.A., Halley, J., Harman, W.A., Jennings, G.D., and Wise, D.E. 2003. Stream
Restoration A Natural Channel Design Handbook.
Harrelson, Cheryl C; Rawlins, C.L.; Potyondy, John P. 1994. Stream Channel Reference Sites: An Illustrated
Guide to Field Technique. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-245. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 61 p.
KCI Associates of NC, DMS. 2010. Using Pressure Transducers for Stream Restoration Design and
Monitoring.
Lee, M., Peet R., Roberts, S., Wentworth, T. CVS-NCEEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version 4.1,
2007.
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Mitigation Services, Wildlands
Engineering, Inc. 2015. Neuse 01 Regional Watershed Plan Phase II. Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Mitigation Services, 2017. Annual
Monitoring Report Format, Data and Content Requirement. Raleigh, NC.
Rosgen, D. L., 1994. A Classification of Natural Rivers. Catena 22: 169-199.
Rosgen, D.L., 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology Books, Pagosa Springs, CO.
Schafale, M. P., and A. S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the natural communities of North Carolina,
third approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. NCDENR Division of Parks and
Recreation. Raleigh, NC.
United States Army Corps of Engineers. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
Technical Report Y-87-1. Environmental Laboratory. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station. Vicksburg, MS.
___. 1997. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Research Program. Technical Note VN-RS-4.1. Environmental
Laboratory. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS.
___. 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines, April 2003, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Wilmington District.
Water and Land Solutions, LLC (2017). Edwards-Johnson Mitigation Project Final Mitigation Plan.
NCDMS, Raleigh, NC.

Edwards-Johnson Mitigation Project
Appendices

Edwards-Johnson Mitigation Project
Appendix A – Background Tables and Figures

Table 1. Mitigation Assets and ComponentsEdwards-Johnson Mitigation Project (NCDEQ DMS Project ID# 97080) ExistingMitigation As-BuiltProject Wetland FootagePlan Footage orApproachComponent Position and orFootage or Acreage Restoration Priority Mitigation Mitigation(reach ID, etc.)1HydroType2Acreage Stationing AcreageLevel Level Ratio (X:1) Credits* Notes/CommentsR1611 10+00 -16+11 611611P- 10 61Invasive Control, Permanent Conservation Easement.R21007 16+11 - 27+94 11831180RPI 1 1183Full Channel Restoration, Invasive Control, Permanent Conservation Easement.R3 (upper629 27+94 - 36+09 815853RPI 1 815Full Channel Restoration, Invasive Control, Permanent Conservation Easement.R3 (lower)240 36+09 - 37+39 130149P- 10 13Invasive Control, Permanent Conservation Easement.R4815 10+00 - 19+36 951936R PI/PII 1 951Full Channel Restoration, Pond Removal, Invasive Control, Permanent Conservation Easement.Length and Area Summations by Mitigation CategoryOverall Assets SummaryStreamNon-riparian WetlandOverall(linear feet)(acres)Credits*Riverine Non-RiverineRestoration29493,023EnhancementEnhancement IEnhancement IICreation* Mitigation Credits are from the final approved mitigation plan, as verified by the as-built surveyPreservation741High Quality PresRP WetlandNR WetlandStreamRestoration LevelRiparian Wetland(acres)Asset Category
Elapsed Time Since grading complete:1 yrs 6 months
Elapsed Time Since planting complete:1 yrs 6 months
Number of reporting Years0:2
Data Collection Completion or
Activity or Deliverable Complete Delivery
Project Contract Execution N/A 3/18/2016
Final Mitigation Plan Submittal N/A 9/29/2017
Section 404 General (Regional and Nationwide) Permit Verfication N/A 1/12/2017
Begin Construction N/A 3/23/2018
Mitigation Site Earthwork Completed N/A 5/5/2018
Mitigation Site Planting Completed N/A 5/5/2018
Installation of Monitoring Devices Completed N/A 5/14/2018
Installation of Survey Monumentation and Boundary Marking N/A 8/13/2018
As-built/Baseline (Year 0) Monitoring Report Submittal 6/23/2018 12/3/2018
Year 1 Monitoring Report Submittal 11/24/2018 12/4/2018
Year 2 Monitoring Report Submittal 10/18/2019 12/31/2019
Year 3 Monitoring Report Submittal N/A N/A
Year 4 Monitoring Report Submittal N/A N/A
Year 5 Monitoring Report Submittal N/A N/A
Year 6 Monitoring Report Submittal N/A N/A
Year 7 Monitoring Report Submittal N/A N/A
Bolded items are examples of those items that are not standard, but may come up and should be included
Non-bolded items represent events that are standard components over the course of a typical project, but the one listed may not be all inclusive.
The above are obviously not the extent of potential relevant project activities, but are just provided as example as part of this exhibit.
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Edwards-Johnson Mitigation Project (NCDEQ DMS Project ID# 97080)
Mitigation Provider Water & Land Solutions, LLC7721 Six Forks Road, Suite 130, Raleigh, NC 27615Primary Project POC Catherine Manner Phone: [phone]
Construction Contractor RiverWorks Construction114 W. Main Street, Suite 106, Clayton, NC 27520Primary Project POC Bill Wright Phone: [phone]
Survey Contractor (Existing
Condition Surveys)
WithersRavenel
115 MacKenan Drive, Cary, NC 27511Primary Project POC Marshall Wight, PLS Phone: [phone]
Survey Contractor (Conservation
Easement, Construction and As-
Builts Surveys)
True Line Surveying, PC
205 West Main Street, Clayton, NC 27520Primary Project POC Curk T. Lane, PLS 919-359-0427
Planting Contractor RiverWorks Construction114 W. Main Street, Suite 106, Clayton, NC 27520Primary Project POC Bill Wright Phone: [phone]
Seeding Contractor RiverWorks Construction114 W. Main Street, Suite 106, Clayton, NC 27520Primary Project POC Bill Wright Phone: [phone]
Seed Mix Sources Green Resource5204 Highgreen Ct., Colfax, NC 27235Rodney Montgomery Phone: [phone]
Nursery Stock Suppliers Foggy Mountain Nursery (Live Stakes)797 Helton Creek Rd, Lansing, NC 28643Glenn Sullivan Phone: [phone]Dykes & Son Nursery (Bare Root Stock)825 Maude Etter Rd, Mcminnville, Tn 37110Jeff Dykes Phone: [phone]
Monitoring Performers Water & Land Solutions, LLC7721 Six Forks Road, Suite 130, Raleigh, NC 27615Stream Monitoring POC Emily Dunngian Phone: [phone]Vegetation Monitoring POC Emily Dunnigan Phone: [phone]

Table 3. Project Contacts
Edwards-Johnson Mitigation Project (NCDEQ DMS Project ID# 97080)
Reach 3 (upper) Reach 3 (lower) Reach 4
770 130 1176
unconfined unconfined unconfined
211 acres, 0.33 sq
mi
223 acres, 0.35 sq
mi 55 acres, 0.09 sq mi
Perennial Perennial Intermittent
C;NSW C; NSW C; NSW
E5(incised) E5(incised) G5c/Pond
C5 C5, D5 C5
IV V III/IV
N/A Zone AE N/A
Wetland 3
N/A
Supporting Docs?
Categorical
Exclusion
Categorical
Exclusion
Categorical
Exclusion
Categorical
Exclusion
N/A
Categorical
Exclusion
Categorical
ExclusionEssential Fisheries Habitat No N/A
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA or CAMA)No N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance Yes
Water of the United States - Section 401 Yes Yes
Yes
Endangered Species Act No Yes
Historic Preservation Act No N/A
Restoration or enhancement method (hydrologic, vegetative etc.)
Regulatory Considerations
Parameters Applicable? Resolved?
Water of the United States - Section 404 Yes Yes
Drainage class
Soil Hydric Status
Source of Hydrology
Size of Wetland (acres)N/A N/A
Wetland Type (non-riparian, riparian riverine or riparian non-riverine)
Mapped Soil Series
Evolutionary trend (Simon)I III/IV
FEMA classification N/A N/A
Wetland Summary Information
Parameters Wetland 1 Wetland 2
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial
NCDWR Water Quality Classification C; NSW C; NSW
Stream Classification (proposed)C5 C5
Stream Classification (existing)C5 G5c
Table 4. Project Information and Attributes
Project Name Edwards-Johnson Mitigation Project
County Johnston
Project Area (acres) 11.0
Reach 2
Length of reach (linear feet)611 1173
Project Drainage Area (Acres and Square Miles) 223 acres, 0.35 sq mi
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area 2.30%
CGIA Land Use Classification 2.01.03, 2.99.05, 413, 4.98 (33% crops/hay, 16% pasture,
51% mixed forest)
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude) 35.7245361 N, -78.3570806 W
Planted Acreage (Acres of Woody Stems Planted)3.69
Project Watershed Summary Information
Valley confinement (Confined, moderately confined, unconfined) unconfined unconfined
Drainage area (Acres and Square Miles)
Piedmont
Reach Summary Information
Parameters Reach 1
River Basin Neuse
DWR Sub-basin 30406
Physiographic Province
03020201USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit
96 acres, 0.15 sq mi 120 acres, 0.19 sq
mi

Edwards-Johnson Mitigation Project
Appendix B – Visual Assessment Data

^_
^_
ÓÓ Ó Ó Ó Ó Ó Ó Ó Ó Ó
Ó
Ó
Ó Ó
Ó Ó
Ó Ó
Ó
Ó
Ó
Ó Ó
Ó Ó
Ó
Ó
Ó
Ó
Ó
Ó
Ó
#0 kj
XY
XY
XY
XY XY
XY
XYXY XY
XY
XY
XY
XY
!>Wendell RdL a ke W e n d e ll R d
35+0016+1317+0018+0020+0022+0023+0024+0025+0026+0027+0031+0032+0033+0010+1311+0012+0013+0014+0015+0019+3619+0021+0028+0029+0030+0034+0016+0017+0018+0019+00 XS-8X
S-7 XS-6XS-3XS-1
XS-5XS-4X
S
-
2
4
1
3
2
485/202
485/404
242/202
849/526
FIGURE1Edwards-Johnson Mitigation ProjectJohnston County, North Carolina NAD 1983 2011 State PlaneNorth Carolina FIPS 3200 FT US
Current ConditionsPlan ViewMonitoring Year 2
Legend
Conservation Easement
#0 Crest gage
!>Flow GageWetland Gage
^_Stream Reference Site Location
Cross Sections
XY Photo Points
CVS Plot OriginsCVS Plots
Success Criteria Met
Success Criteria Not MetWater Quality F eaturesTop of StreambankPre-Construction Wetlands (2.4 acres)Low Stem Density Area (0.43 acres)
kj Stream Problem Area
Stream Miti gatio n Type
Preservation
Restoration
Restoration (Field Adjustment)
0 230 460Feet ±
NCDMS Contract No. 6825NCDMS Project No. 97080December 2019MY2
Access poin t:35.72617 °78.35283 °
Ae rial: G oog le Ea rth Winte r 20 19
R1
R2
R3 (u pper)
R3 (lower)
R4 Flow GageWetland Reference Gage 236+0037+00Wetland Gage 1
Stream Ba nk Erosion
VPA1
VPA2
Wetland Gage 3
Table 5.Visual Stream Morphology Stability AssessmentProjectEdwards-Johnson Mitigation Project (NCDEQ DMS Project ID# 97080) Reach IDR1, R2, R3 (upper) and R3 (lower)Assessed Length 36091. Bank 1. Scoured/ErodingBank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour and erosion115100%00100%*2. UndercutBanks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are providing habitat.0 0 100% 0 0 100%3. Mass WastingBank slumping, calving, or collapse0 0 100% 0 0 100%1 15 100% 0 0 100%2. Engineered Structures1. Overall IntegrityStructures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs. 47 47 100%2. Grade ControlGrade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill. 24 24 100%2a. PipingStructures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms. 11 11 100%3. Bank ProtectionBank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document) 14 14 100%4. HabitatPool forming structures maintaining ~ Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base-flow.12 12 100%Number of Unstable SegmentsAdjusted % for Stabilizing Woody VegetationAmount of Unstable FootageTotals% Stable, Performing as IntendedNumber with Stabilizing Woody VegetationFootage with Stabilizing Woody VegetationMajor Channel CategoryChannelSub-CategoryMetricNumber Stable, Performing as IntendedTotal Number in As-built
Table 5a. Vegetation Condition AssessmentProject Edwards-Johnson Mitigation Project (NCDEQ DMS Project ID# 97080) Planted Acreage13.61. Bare AreasVery limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material. 1 acrePattern and Color0 0.00 0.0%2. Low Stem Density AreasWoody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4, or 5 stem count criteria. 0.1 acres solid light blue 2 0.43 11.9%2 0.43 11.9%3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates or VigorAreas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small given the monitoring year. 0.25 acresPattern and Color0 0.00 0.0%2 0.43 11.9%Easement Acreage210.974. Invasive Areas of Concern4Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale). 1000 SFPattern and Color0 0.00 0.0%5. Easement Encroachment Areas3Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale). nonePattern and Color0 0.00 0.0%CCPV DepictionNumber of PolygonsCombined Acreage% of Easement AcreageVegetation Category DefinitionsMapping Threshold% of Planted AcreageTotalCumulative TotalVegetation Category DefinitionsNumber of PolygonsMapping ThresholdCCPV DepictionCombined Acreage1= Enter the planted acreage within the easement. This number is calculated as the easement acreage minus any existing mature tree stands that were not subject to supplemental planting of the understory, the channel acreage,crossings or any other elements not directly planted as part of the project effort.2= The acreage within the easement boundaries.3= Encroachment may occur within or outside of planted areas and will therefore be calculated against the overall easement acreage. In the event a polygon is cataloged into items 1, 2 or 3 in the table and is the result of encroachment,the associated acreage should be tallied in the relevant item (i.e., item 1,2 or 3) as well as a parallel tally in item 5.4= Invasives may occur in or out of planted areas, but still within the easement and will therefore be calculated against the overall easement acreage. Invasives of concern/interest are listed below. The list of high concern spcies arethose with the potential to directly outcompete native, young, woody stems in the short-term (e.g. monitoring period or shortly thereafter) or affect the community structure for existing, more established tree/shrub stands over timeframesthat are slightly longer (e.g. 1-2 decades). The low/moderate concern group are those species that generally do not have this capacity over the timeframes discussed and therefore are not expected to be mapped with regularity, but can bemapped, if in the judgement of the observer their coverage, density or distribution is suppressing the viability, density, or growth of planted woodystems. Decisions as to whether remediation will be needed are based on the integration ofrisk factors by EEP such as species present, their coverage, distribution relative to native biomass, and the practicality of treatment. For example, even modest amounts of Kudzu or Japanese Knotweed early in the projects history willwarrant control, but potentially large coverages of Microstegium in the herb layer will not likley trigger control because of the limited capacitiesto impact tree/shrub layers within the timeframes discussed and the potential impacts of treatingextensive amounts of ground cover. Those species with the "watch list" designator in gray shade are of interest as well, but have yet to be observed across the state with any frequency. Those inred italicsare of particular interest giventheir extreme risk/threat level for mapping as points where isolated specimens are found, particularly ealry in a projects monitoring history. However, areas of discreet, dense patches will of course be mapped as polygons. The symbologyscheme below was one that was found to be helpful for symbolzing invasives polygons, particulalry for situations where the conditon for an area is somewhere between isolated specimens and dense, discreet patches. In any case, thepoint or polygon/area feature can be symbolized to describe things like high or low concern and species can be listed as a map inset, in legend items if the number of species are limited or in the narrative section of the executive summary.
Reach R1, facing upstream, April 12, 2018 (MY-00)
Reach R1, facing , , 2018 (MY-0 )
Reach R1, facing upstream,(MY-0
Reach R1, facing downstream, (MY-0 )
Reach R2, facing upstream, Sta 17+00, April 23, 2018 (MY-00)Reach R2, facing upstream, Sta 17+00, (MY-0 )
Reach R2, facing downstream, Sta 18+00, April 23, 2018 (MY-00)Reach R2, facing downstream, Sta 18+00, (MY-0 )
Reach R2, facing downstream, Sta 20+00, Sept 17, 2018 (MY-00)Reach R2, facing downstream, Sta 20+00, (MY-0
Reach R2, facing upstream, Sta 21+00, April 23, 2018 (MY-00)Reach R2, facing upstream, Sta 21+00, MY-0 )
Reach R2, facing downstream, Sta 25+00, (MY-0 )
Reach R2, facing downstream, Reach R2, facing downstream, Sta 21+00, April 23, 2018 (MY-00)
Reach R2, facing downstream, Sta 25+00, April 23, 2018 (MY-00)
Reach R2, facing upstream, Sta 26+00, April 23, 2018 (MY-00)Reach R2, facing upstream, Sta 26+00, (MY-0 )
Reach R3, facing downstream, Sta 32+00, April 19, 2018 (MY-00)Reach R3, facing downstream, Sta 32+00, (MY-0 )
Reach R4, facing upstream, Sta 13+00, June 11, 2018 (MY-00)Reach R4, facing upstream, Sta 13+00, (MY-0
Reach R4, facing downstream, Sta 13+00, June 11, 2018 (MY-00)Reach R4, facing downstream, Sta 13+00, (MY-0 )
Reach R4, facing upstream, Sta 17+00, June 11, 2018 (MY-00)
Reach R4, facing upstream, Sta 15+00, June 11, 2018 (MY-00)
Reach R4, facing upstream, Sta 17+00, (MY-0 )
Reach R4, facing upstream, Sta 15+00, (MY-0 )
Veg Plot 1 (MY-0 )
Veg Plot 2 (MY-0 )
Veg Plot 1 ay 14, 2018 (MY-00)
Veg Plot May 14, 2018 (MY-00)
Veg Plot 3 (MY-0 )
Veg Plot 4 (MY-0 )
Veg Plot 3 May 14, 2018 (MY-00)
Veg Plot 4 May 14, 2018 (MY-00)
*plot origin at corner to the right

Edwards-Johnson Mitigation Project
Appendix C – Vegetation Plot Data

CVS Project Code 3.  Project Name: Edwards Johnson Mitigation ProjectTable 6PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all TAcer rubrum Tree 1 1 3 21152217111Alnus serrulata Tag Alder, Smooth AldeShrub Tree333Betula nigra River Birch, Red Birch Tree444111111 666777888Carpinus caroliniana Shrub Tree222Cornus amomum Silky Dogwood Shrub Tree 2 2 2 2 2 2444555888Cornus florida Flowering Dogwood Shrub Tree 22Diospyros virginiana American Persimmon, Tree111Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash, Red Ash Tree111111 222444445444Ilex verticillata Winterberry Shrub Tree111Lindera benzoin Northern Spicebush Shrub Tree111222 111444888111111Liquidambar styraciflua Sweet Gum, Red Gum Tree213174Liriodendron tulipifera Tree 1 1 2 11 7 7 7Platanus occidentalis Sycamore, Plane‐tree Tree444111112222889778101010Quercus michauxii Basket Oak, Swamp ChTree 2 2 2222333444Quercus nigra Water Oak, Paddle OakTree 1 1 1111222666Quercus phellos Willow Oak Tree 3 3 33338810777Rhus copallinum Shrub TreeRhus typhina Staghorn Sumac Shrub1Salix nigra Black Willow Tree 1 1 2 6Sambucus canadensis Common Elderberry Shrub Tree5Ulmus rubra Slippery Elm, Red Elm Tree213 13 21 10 10 12 5 5 12 5 5 6 33 33 51 49 49 97 70 70 7066106684473349913111117121212526.1 526.1 849.8 404.7 404.7 485.6 202.3 202.3 485.6 202.3 202.3 242.8 333.9 333.9 516 495.7 495.7 981.4 708.2 708.2 708.2size (ACRES)Species countStems per ACRE10.02 0.02Annual MeansMY2 (2019) MY1 (2018) MY0 (2018)0.100.0210.0240.1040.10Stem countsize (ares)14Current Plot Data (MY2 2019)Scientific Name Common Name Species Type003‐01‐0001 003‐01‐0002 003‐01‐0003 003‐01‐00041

Edwards-Johnson Mitigation Project
Appendix D – Stream Measurement and Geomorphology Data

Project NameEdwards-Johnson Mitigation ProjectProject ID97080Reach IDR2Cross Section IDX1Field CrewK. Obermiller, E. DunniganBankfull Elevation (ft)244.4Low Bank Height Elevation (ft)244.3Bankfull Max Depth (ft)1.2Low Bank Height (ft)1.3Bank Height Ratio 0.9Bankfull X-section Area (ft²)4.9% Change Bank Height Ratio10.0%Looking Downstream** MY1 used in place of as-built (MY0) due to issues with the as-built survey standards identified during MY1.Dimension Data Summary: MY2 2019* Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on MY1 cross-sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document produced by the technical industry work group consisting of the NCIRT, NCDMS, and Industry Practitioner sin NC (9/2018). The remainder of the bankfull dimensions are calculated based on the current year's low bank height.2412422432442452462472480 10203040Elevation (feet)Width (feet)X1 Riffle, STA 18+77 Baseline MY0MY1MY2Bankfull ElevationFloodprone AreaEdwards‐Johnson Mitigation ProjectDMS Project #97080October 2019Water and Land SolutionsAnnual Monitoring ReportMonitoring Year 2 of 7
Project NameEdwards-Johnson Mitigation ProjectProject ID97080Reach IDR2Cross Section IDX2Field CrewK. Obermiller, E. DunniganBankfull Elevation (ft)241.0Low Bank Height Elevation (ft)241.0Bankfull Max Depth (ft)1.8Low Bank Height (ft)1.8Bank Height Ratio 1.0Bankfull X-section Area (ft²)6.5% Change Bank Height Ratio0.0%Looking Downstream** MY1 used in place of as-built (MY0) due to issues with the as-built survey standards identified during MY1.Dimension Data Summary: MY2 2019* Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on MY1 cross-sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document produced by the technical industry work group consisting of the NCIRT, NCDMS, and Industry Practitioner sin NC (9/2018). The remainder of the bankfull dimensions are calculated based on the current year's low bank height.2382392402412422432442450 10203040Elevation (feet)Width (feet)X2 Pool, STA 21+14 Baseline MY0MY1MY2Bankfull ElevationFloodprone AreaEdwards‐Johnson Mitigation ProjectDMS Project #97080October 2019Water and Land SolutionsAnnual Monitoring ReportMonitoring Year 2 of 7
Project NameEdwards-Johnson Mitigation ProjectProject ID97080Reach IDR4Cross Section IDX3Field CrewK. Obermiller, E. DunniganBankfull Elevation (ft)239.7Low Bank Height Elevation (ft)239.7Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2.3Low Bank Height (ft)2.3Bank Height Ratio 1.0Bankfull X-section Area (ft²)11.0% Change Bank Height Ratio0.0%Looking Downstream** MY1 used in place of as-built (MY0) due to issues with the as-built survey standards identified during MY1.Dimension Data Summary: MY2 2019* Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on MY1 cross-sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document produced by the technical industry work group consisting of the NCIRT, NCDMS, and Industry Practitioner sin NC (9/2018). The remainder of the bankfull dimensions are calculated based on the current year's low bank height.2362372382392402412422430 10203040Elevation (feet)Width (feet)X3 Pool, STA 16+43 Baseline MY0MY1MY2Bankfull ElevationFloodprone AreaEdwards‐Johnson Mitigation ProjectDMS Project #97080October 2019Water and Land SolutionsAnnual Monitoring ReportMonitoring Year 2 of 7
Project NameEdwards-Johnson Mitigation ProjectProject ID97080Reach IDR4Cross Section IDX4Field CrewK. Obermiller, E. DunniganBankfull Elevation (ft)238.8Low Bank Height Elevation (ft)238.7Bankfull Max Depth (ft)1.0Low Bank Height (ft)0.9Bank Height Ratio 0.9Bankfull X-section Area (ft²)5.2% Change Bank Height Ratio10.0%Looking Downstream** MY1 used in place of as-built (MY0) due to issues with the as-built survey standards identified during MY1.Dimension Data Summary: MY2 2019* Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on MY1 cross-sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document produced by the technical industry work group consisting of the NCIRT, NCDMS, and Industry Practitioner sin NC (9/2018). The remainder of the bankfull dimensions are calculated based on the current year's low bank height.2362372382392402412422430 10203040Elevation (feet)Width (feet)X4 Riffle, STA 16+97 Baseline MY0MY1MY2Bankfull ElevationFloodprone AreaEdwards‐Johnson Mitigation ProjectDMS Project #97080October 2019Water and Land SolutionsAnnual Monitoring ReportMonitoring Year 2 of 7
Project NameEdwards-Johnson Mitigation ProjectProject ID97080Reach IDR3Cross Section IDX5Field CrewK. Obermiller, E. DunniganBankfull Elevation (ft)234.2Low Bank Height Elevation (ft)234.3Bankfull Max Depth (ft)1.4Low Bank Height (ft)1.5Bank Height Ratio 1.1Bankfull X-section Area (ft²)4.7% Change Bank Height Ratio10.0%** MY1 used in place of as-built (MY0) due to issues with the as-built survey standards identified during MY1.Dimension Data Summary: MY2 2019Looking Downstream* Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on MY1 cross-sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document produced by the technical industry work group consisting of the NCIRT, NCDMS, and Industry Practitioner sin NC (9/2018). The remainder of the bankfull dimensions are calculated based on the current year's low bank height.2312322332342352362372380 10203040Elevation (feet)Width (feet)X5 Riffle, STA 28+24 Baseline MY0MY1MY2Bankfull ElevationFloodprone AreaEdwards‐Johnson Mitigation ProjectDMS Project #97080October 2019Water and Land SolutionsAnnual Monitoring ReportMonitoring Year 2 of 7
Project NameEdwards-Johnson Mitigation ProjectProject ID97080Reach IDR3Cross Section IDX6Field CrewK. Obermiller, E. DunniganBankfull Elevation (ft)233.5Low Bank Height Elevation (ft)233.4Bankfull Max Depth (ft)1.0Low Bank Height (ft)0.9Bank Height Ratio 0.9Bankfull X-section Area (ft²)5.6% Change Bank Height Ratio10.0%Looking Downstream** MY1 used in place of as-built (MY0) due to issues with the as-built survey standards identified during MY1.Dimension Data Summary: MY2 2019* Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on MY1 cross-sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document produced by the technical industry work group consisting of the NCIRT, NCDMS, and Industry Practitioner sin NC (9/2018). The remainder of the bankfull dimensions are calculated based on the current year's low bank height.2302312322332342352362370 10203040Elevation (feet)Width (feet)X6 Pool, STA 29+56 Baseline MY0MY1MY2Bankfull ElevationFloodprone AreaEdwards‐Johnson Mitigation ProjectDMS Project #97080October 2019Water and Land SolutionsAnnual Monitoring ReportMonitoring Year 2 of 7
Project NameEdwards-Johnson Mitigation ProjectProject ID97080Reach IDR3 (Multi-Thread Channel)Cross Section IDX7Field CrewK. Obermiller, E. DunniganBankfull Elevation (ft)230.7Low Bank Height Elevation (ft)230.8Bankfull Max Depth (ft)0.4Low Bank Height (ft)0.5Bank Height Ratio 1.1Bankfull X-section Area (ft²)4.7% Change Bank Height Ratio10.0%Looking Downstream** MY1 used in place of as-built (MY0) due to issues with the as-built survey standards identified during MY1.***X7 right and left pins extended per request after MY1* Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on MY1 cross-sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document produced by the technical industry work group consisting of the NCIRT, NCDMS, and Industry Practitioner sin NC (9/2018). The remainder of the bankfull dimensions are calculated based on the current year's low bank height.Dimension Data Summary: MY2 20192282292302312322332342350 102030405060708090Elevation (feet)Width (feet)X7 Riffle, STA 33+18 Baseline MY0MY1MY2Bankfull ElevationFloodprone AreaEdwards‐Johnson Mitigation ProjectDMS Project #97080October 2019Water and Land SolutionsAnnual Monitoring ReportMonitoring Year 2 of 7
Project NameEdwards-Johnson Mitigation ProjectProject ID97080Reach IDR3 (Multi-Thread Channel)Cross Section IDX8Field CrewK. Obermiller, E. DunniganBankfull Elevation (ft)238.1Low Bank Height Elevation (ft)238.1Bankfull Max Depth (ft)0.8Low Bank Height (ft)0.8Bank Height Ratio 1.0Bankfull X-section Area (ft²)4.7% Change Bank Height Ratio0.0%Looking Downstream*X8 added during MY1 post-monitoring site visit Dimension Data Summary: MY2 20192302312322332342352362370 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140Elevation (feet)Width (feet)X8 Riffle, STA 30+50 MY2Bankfull ElevationFloodprone AreaEdwards‐Johnson Mitigation ProjectDMS Project #97080October 2019Water and Land SolutionsAnnual Monitoring ReportMonitoring Year 2 of 7
Figure 3: Edwards‐Johnson
Pebble Count
Date Collected 9/21/2018 10/18/2019
MY 1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
MATERIAL PARTICLE SIZE (mm)Total #Total #
Silt / Clay < .063 75
Very Fine .063 - .125 46
Fine .125 - .25 14 7
Medium .25 - .50 19 8
Coarse .50 - 1.0 19 20
Very Coarse 1.0 - 2.0 19 13
Very Fine 2.0 - 2.8 77
Very Fine 2.8 - 4.0 47
Fine 4.0 - 5.6 27
Fine 5.6 - 8.0 4
Medium 8.0 - 11.0 13
Medium 11.0 - 16.0 16
Coarse 16 - 22.6 14
Coarse 22.6 - 32 23
Very Coarse 32 - 45
Very Coarse 45 - 64
Small 64 - 90
Small 90 - 128
Large 128 - 180
Large 180 - 256
Small 256 - 362
Small 362 - 512
Medium 512 - 1024
Large-Very Large 1024 - 2048
Bedrock > 2048 100 100
Total
Cumulative D16 0.16 0.2
D35 0.36 0.66
D50 0.62 1.1
D65 1.1 2.5
D84 2.4 7.8
D95 N/A 19
MY2
Channel materials Channel materials
D16 = 0.53 D16 = 0.067
D35 = 0.93 D35 = 0.13
D50 = 1.8 D50 = 0.3
D84 = 12 D84 = 3.2
D95 = 21 D95 = 7.5
            Riffle             Pool
SILT/CLAY
SAN
GRAVEL
COBBLE
BOULDER
BEDROCK
silt/clay sand gravel cobble boulder
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 weighted percent of particles in rangepercent finer thanparticle size (mm)
Weighted pebble count by bed features Edwards-Jonhson Mitigation Project
MY2
weighted percent Riffle Pool # of particles
70% riffle 30% pool
Parameter
Reach ID: R1 (Preservation)
Dimension (Riffle)Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Bankfull Width (ft)5.5 7.2 4.5 8.3 - - - -
Floodprone Width (ft)30.0 80.0 10.0 20.0 - - - -
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)0.4 0.8 0.8 1.6 - - - -
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)0.5 0.9 0.9 1.3 - - - -
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)4.1 5.0 3.0 5.0 - - - -
Width/Depth Ratio 8.2 15.2 6.2 14.2 - - - -
Entrenchment Ratio 4.2 12.0 7.1 8.4 - - - -
Bank Height Ratio 1.1 1.1 0.9 1.1 - - - -
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)7.5 38.2 9.5 22.7 - - - -
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)0.011 0.014 0.009 0.015 - - - -
Pool Length (ft)4.1 7.9 6.1 8.7 - - - -
Pool Max Depth (ft)1.2 1.4 1.8 2.4 - - - -
Pool Spacing (ft)22.0 50.0 14.4 22.3 - - - -
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)22.0 28.0 23.4 29.0 - - - -
Radius of Curvature (ft)11.3 19.1 11.2 17.5 - - - -
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)1.6 2.9 1.6 2.5 - - - -
Meander Wavelength (ft)27.0 60.0 43.4 65.1 - - - -
Meander Width Ratio 2.2 6.4 3.9 4.5 - - - -
Transport Parameters
Boundary Shear Stress (lb/ft2)
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (W/m2)
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
Sinuosity
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)0.012 0.015 -
Table 7a. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Edwards-Johnson Mitigation Project (NCDEQ DMS Project ID# 97080)
-
-
0.010 0.015 - -
1.21 1.1 - 1.3 -
-
4.1 4.5 --
20.0 ----
E5/C5C5E5/C5 E5/C5
-
--- -
---
----
As-Built/ Baseline
Pre-
Restoration
Condition
Reference
Reach Data Design
Parameter
Reach ID: R2
Dimension (Riffle)Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Bankfull Width (ft)4.4 7.2 4.5 8.3 7.7 8.9
Floodprone Width (ft)30.0 70.0 10.0 20.0 20.0 50.0 32.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)0.4 0.8 0.8 1.6 0.6 0.6
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)1.3 1.5 0.9 1.3 0.9 1.2
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)3.3 5.1 3.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Width/Depth Ratio 8.2 15.2 6.2 14.2 12.0 16.0
Entrenchment Ratio 4.3 10.0 7.1 8.4 2.2 3.6
Bank Height Ratio 1.1 1.6 0.9 1.1 1.0 1.0
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)17.0 44.0 9.5 22.7 10.0 30.0 12.0 34.0
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)0.011 0.013 0.009 0.015 0.010 0.022 0.017 0.029
Pool Length (ft)3.9 6.0 6.1 8.7 6.0 9.0 6.2 9.9
Pool Max Depth (ft)1.2 1.3 1.8 2.4 1.1 1.5 1.1 1.6
Pool Spacing (ft)22.0 39.0 14.4 22.3 30.0 55.0 11.8 36.1
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)28.0 23.4 29.0 28.0 51.0 27.0 46.0
Radius of Curvature (ft)11.3 19.1 11.2 17.5 15.0 25.0 13.0 29.0
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)1.6 2.9 1.6 2.5 2.0 3.0 2.1 3.5
Meander Wavelength (ft)31.0 45.0 43.4 65.1 55.0 100.0 35.0 88.0
Meander Width Ratio 2.3 6.4 3.9 4.5 3.0 8.0 4.4 7.6
Transport Parameters
Boundary Shear Stress (lb/ft2)
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (W/m2)
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
Sinuosity
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.011 0.015 0.011 0.012
G5 E5/C5 C5 C5
4.1 4.5 4.7 4.7
--31.00 -
0.012 0.015 0.012 0.013
26.0 -26.0 26.0
1.16 1.1 - 1.3 1.17 1.17
--0.49 -
--2.00 -
Pre-Restoration
Condition
Reference
Reach Data Design
As-Built/
Baseline
Parameter
Reach ID: R3 (lower) Preservation
Dimension (Riffle)Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Bankfull Width (ft)4.47.24.58.3----
Floodprone Width (ft)30.0 70.0 10.0 35.0 ----
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)0.40.80.81.6----
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)0.50.90.91.3----
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)3.35.33.05.0----
Width/Depth Ratio 8.0 20.0 6.2 14.2 ----
Entrenchment Ratio 3.08.07.18.4----
Bank Height Ratio 1.0-0.91.1----
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)11.0 22.0 9.5 22.7 ----
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)0.008 0.009 0.009 0.015 ----
Pool Length (ft)5.08.06.18.7----
Pool Max Depth (ft)1.31.71.82.4----
Pool Spacing (ft)22.0 39.0 14.4 22.3 ----
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)28.0 40.0 23.4 29.0 ----
Radius of Curvature (ft)11.0 19.0 11.2 17.5 ----
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)1.62.91.62.5----
Meander Wavelength (ft)27.0 50.0 43.4 65.1 ----
Meander Width Ratio 6.48.53.94.5----
Transport Parameters
Boundary Shear Stress (lb/ft2)
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (W/m2)
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
Sinuosity
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.008 0.015 - -
E5 E5/C5 - -
4.1 4.0 - -
- - 29.00 -
0.009 0.015 - -
37.0 - - -
1.21 1.1 - 1.3 - -
- - 0.49 -
- - 2.00 -
Pre-Restoration
Condition
Reference
Reach Data Design
As-Built/
Baseline
Parameter
Reach ID: R3 (upper)
Dimension (Riffle)Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Bankfull Width (ft)4.4 7.2 4.5 8.3 8.2 8.8 18.4
Floodprone Width (ft)30.0 70.0 10.0 35.0 30.0 80.0 38.0 27.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)1.0 1.8 0.8 1.6 0.7 0.6 0.3
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)1.5 2.3 0.9 1.3 1.0 1.0 0.4
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)3.3 3.0 5.0 5.6 5.5 4.7
Width/Depth Ratio 8.2 15.2 6.2 14.2 12.0 14.3 71.8
Entrenchment Ratio 4.3 10.0 7.1 8.4 3.7 8.0 4.3 1.5
Bank Height Ratio 1.1 1.7 0.9 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)33.0 55.0 9.5 22.7 12.0 33.0 10.0 30.0
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)0.007 0.009 0.009 0.015 0.011 0.014 0.020 0.035
Pool Length (ft)8.0 13.0 6.1 8.7 8.0 11.0 7.0 10.0
Pool Max Depth (ft)1.4 2.0 1.8 2.4 1.4 2.0 1.1 1.6
Pool Spacing (ft)22.0 39.0 14.4 22.3 25.0 51.0 11.8 35.5
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)28.0 23.4 29.0 25.0 45.0 30.0 45.0
Radius of Curvature (ft)10.0 11.2 17.5 12.0 22.0 15.0 25.0
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)1.6 1.6 2.5 2.0 3.0 2.5 4.2
Meander Wavelength (ft)27.0 43.4 65.1 30.0 42.0 30.0 44.8
Meander Width Ratio 6.4 3.9 4.5 3.3 5.1 5.1 7.6
Transport Parameters
Boundary Shear Stress (lb/ft2)
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (W/m2)
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
Sinuosity
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.007 0.015 0.009 0.009
0.009 0.015 0.011 0.011
34.0 -34.0 34.0
1.20 1.1 - 1.3 1.20 1.16
E5 incised E5/C5 C5 C5
4.1 4.5 5.7 4.5
--28.90 -
--0.51 -
--2.00 -
Pre-Restoration
Condition
Reference
Reach Data Design
As-Built/
Baseline
Parameter
Reach ID: R4
Dimension (Riffle)Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Bankfull Width (ft)6.9 - 4.5 8.3 6.6 8.8
Floodprone Width (ft)6.1 - 10.0 35.0 25.0 70.0 38.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)2.4 - 0.8 1.6 0.5 0.6
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)3.1 - 0.9 1.3 0.7 1.0
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)15.8 - 3.0 5.0 3.6 5.5
Width/Depth Ratio 5.6 - 10.3 14.2 12.0 14.3
Entrenchment Ratio 1.0 - 2.0 5.0 3.8 10.0 4.3
Bank Height Ratio 1.7 - 0.9 1.1 1.0 1.0
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)17.0 44.0 5.1 13.9 13.0 31.0 12.0 27.0
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)0.019 0.027 0.017 0.026 0.016 0.027 0.015 0.027
Pool Length (ft)4.0 6.6 4.5 7.0 6.8 9.4 6.0 8.7
Pool Max Depth (ft)1.9 2.2 1.1 1.7 1.1 1.6 1.1 1.6
Pool Spacing (ft)38.0 87.0 10.0 30.0 22.0 50.0 19.0 41.0
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)- - 23.4 29.0 22.0 35.0 19.0 31.0
Radius of Curvature (ft)- - 11.2 17.5 12.0 20.0 10.0 19.0
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)- - 1.6 2.5 1.8 3.0 2.1 3.4
Meander Wavelength (ft)- - 43.4 65.1 40.0 60.0 34.0 77.0
Meander Width Ratio - - 3.9 4.5 3.3 5.3 3.0 6.0
Transport Parameters
Boundary Shear Stress (lb/ft2)
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (W/m 2)
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
Sinuosity
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.019 0.015 0.017 0.017
0.018 0.015 0.017 0.017
16.0 -16.0 16.0
1.06 1.1 - 1.2 1.15 1.14
G5c C5 C5 C5
7.0 4.0 4.5 4.5
--24.50 -
--0.48 -
--2.00 -
Pre-Restoration
Condition
Reference
Reach Data Design
As-Built/
Baseline
ParametersBase MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+Bankfull Width (ft) 8.9 7.7 8.6 8.4 13.3 5.8 9.2 9.3 8.7Floodprone Width (ft) 32.0 32.0 34.0 31.0 30.7 31.0 40.0 40.4 40.0Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.8 0.5 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.3Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.7 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.1 2.3Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)5.2 4.9 4.9 6.7 6.5 6.5 10.4 11.0 11.0Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 15.9 11.4 15.0 10.6 27.8 5.1 8.2 7.9 6.8Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio 3.6 4.2 4.0 3.7 2.3 5.4 4.3 4.3 4.6Bankfull Bank Height Ratio 1.0 <1.0 0.9 <1.0 <1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0d50 (mm) N/a 0.8 1.8 N/a 0.4 0.3 N/a 0.4 0.3ParametersBase MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+Bankfull Width (ft) 8.8 8.2 8.2 8.8 8.0 6.8 10.4 14.3 25.7Floodprone Width (ft) 38.0 38.2 38.0 38.0 44.8 44.0 44.0 44.5 44.0Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.4 0.2Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.1 1.0Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)5.4 5.2 5.2 5.5 4.7 4.7 7.7 5.6 5.6Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 14.3 13.0 13.0 14.3 12.1 9.9 14.1 37.1 117.0Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio 4.3 4.7 4.6 4.3 5.6 6.4 4.2 3.1 1.7Bankfull Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 <1.0 0.9d50 (mm) N/a 0.8 1.8 N/a 0.8 1.8 N/a 0.4 0.3ParametersBase MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+Bankfull Width (ft) 18.4 18.1 27.2 N/A N/A 24.8Floodprone Width (ft) 27.0 31.7 64.0 N/A N/A 135.8Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.3 0.3 0.4 N/A N/A 0.2Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 0.4 0.3 0.2 N/A N/A 0.8Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)4.7 4.7 4.7 N/A N/A 4.7Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 71.8 69.7 158.9 N/A N/A 130.6Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio 1.5 1.7 2.4 N/A N/A 5.5Bankfull Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.0 1.1 N/A N/A 1.0d50 (mm) N/a 0.8 1.8 N/A 0.8 1.8Table 7b. Monitoring Data - Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters – Cross Sections)Edwards-Johnson Mitigation Project (NCDEQ DMS Project ID# 97080)Cross Section 6 (Pool)Cross Section 7 (Riffle) Cross Section 8 (Riffle)Cross Section 1 (Riffle) Cross Section 2 (Pool) Cross Section 3 (Pool)Cross Section 4 (Riffle) Cross Section 5 (Riffle)
Parameter
Reach ID: R1 (Preservation)
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)--
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)--
Pool Length (ft)--
Pool Max depth (ft)--
Pool Spacing (ft)--
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)--
Radius of Curvature (ft)--
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)--
Meander Wavelength (ft)--
Meander Width Ratio --
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
Sinuosity (ft)
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
BF slope (ft/ft)
3Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
3SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / B% / Be%
3d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 /
2% of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
0.01
Baseline MY1
C5
1.21
Table 7c. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Summary
Edwards-Johnson Mitigation Project (NCDEQ DMS Project ID# 97080)
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
0.012
Pattern and Profile data will not typically be
collected unless visual data, dimensional data or
profile data indicate significant deviations from
baseline conditions
Parameter
Reach ID: R2
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)12 34
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)0.017 0.029
Pool Length (ft)6.2 9.9
Pool Max depth (ft)1.1 1.6
Pool Spacing (ft)11.8 36.1
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)27 46
Radius of Curvature (ft)13 29
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)2.1 3.5
Meander Wavelength (ft)35 88
Meander Width Ratio 4.4 7.6
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
Sinuosity (ft)
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
BF slope (ft/ft)
3Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
3SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / B% / Be%
3d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 /
2% of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
0.013
0.012
MY5Baseline MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4
C5
1.17
Parameter
Reach ID: R3 (upper)
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Profile
Riffle Length (ft) 10 30
Riffle Slope (ft/ft) 0.02 0.035
Pool Length (ft) 7 10
Pool Max depth (ft) 1.1 1.6
Pool Spacing (ft) 11.8 35.5
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft) 30 45
Radius of Curvature (ft)15 25
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft) 2.5 4.2
Meander Wavelength (ft) 30 44.8
Meander Width Ratio 5.1 7.6
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
Sinuosity (ft)
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
BF slope (ft/ft)
3Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
3SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / B% / Be%
3d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 /
2% of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
0.011
1.16
0.009
MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
C5
Baseline
Parameter
Reach ID: R4
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Profile
Riffle Length (ft) 12 27
Riffle Slope (ft/ft) 0.015 0.027
Pool Length (ft) 6 8.7
Pool Max depth (ft) 1.1 1.6
Pool Spacing (ft) 19 41
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft) 19 31
Radius of Curvature (ft)10 19
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft) 2.1 3.4
Meander Wavelength (ft) 34 77
Meander Width Ratio 3 6
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
Sinuosity (ft)
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
BF slope (ft/ft)
3Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
3SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / B% / Be%
3d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 /
2% of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
0.017
1.14
0.017
MY4 MY5
C5
Baseline MY1 MY2 MY3
Edwards-Johnson Mitigation Project
Appendix E – Hydrologic Data
Date of Data Collection Date of Occurrence Method
Greater than Bankfull (Bkf) or
Qgs (Q2*0.66) Stage? Photo/ Notes Measurement
9/17/2018 9/16-9/17/2018
Observed indicators of bankfull stage (wrack
lines) after storm event Bkf Photo
7/26/2019 7/24/2019 Crest Gage Bkf Photo 2.5 inches
8/20/2019 unknown Crest Gage Bkf Photo 2.8 inches
9/6/2019 9/5/2019 Crest GageBkfPhoto 2.5 inches
9/6/2019 9/5/2019
Observed indicators of bankfull stage (wrack
lines) after storm event Bkf Photo NA
7/26/2019 8/20/2019
9/17/2018
9/17/2018
7/26/2019 8/20/2019
9/6/2019 9/6/2019
Table 8. Verification of Flow Events
Edwards-Johnson Mitigation Project (NCDEQ DMS Project ID# 97080)
Figure 4 - Groundwater Gauge Data
Edwards-Johnson Mitigation Project (NCDEQ DMS Project ID# 97080)
MY2 2019
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Mean
Edwards-Johnson Wetland Gage 1 M 6.17%
Edwards-Johnson Reference Wetland Gage 2 M 39.21%
Annual Precip Total NA
WETS 30th Percentile 42.7
WETS 70th Percentile 51.8
Normal Y
Impoundment
X% above or below success criteria
N/A Not available - Gage pulled or yet to be installed by this phase
M Malfunction, Data Overwritten or Unretrievable
Monitoring Gauge Name
Max Consecutive Hydroperiod: Saturation within 12 Inches of Soil
Surface (Percent of Growing Season)
WETS Station: 317994 - Smithfield Growing Season: 4/6-11/4 (227
days)
Figure 4:
IA
1-2
7n 01
I}
Edwards -Johnson Flow Gage - Rd
Consecutive flow - 73 days: 413J2019.6J24/2019
-0 '1 L�
-{
i
_�
Y
_
■
J
■
■
_
■
L
L�
■
OY
Y
.i
DD
Oi
�Daik�
Rainfall
—Stream
Depth
—bottom
of Pool
3
2.5
'w
ap 3 �
c
0.5
0

Figure 5: Monthly Rainfall Data
Edwards-Johnson Mitigation Project (NCDEQ DMS Project ID# 97080)
MY2 2019
*30th and 70th percentile rainfall data collected from weather station (COOP 317994) in Smithfield, NC.
**Incomplete Month
Month 30%70%Observed
Jan-19 3.63 6.07 4.26
Feb-19 2.60 4.79 4.8
Mar-19 3.35 5.74 3.57
Apr-19 1.81 3.84 5.15
May-19 2.74 4.68 1.69
Jun-19 3.05 5.50 4.5
Jul-19 4.14 7.08 5.63
Aug-19 3.36 6.21 2.11
Sep-19 2.97 5.15 2.91
Oct-19 1.63 3.81 4.58
Nov-19 1.54 3.58 **
Dec-19 ******
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Jan-19 Feb-19 Mar-19 Apr-19 May-19 Jun-19 Jul-19 Aug-19 Sep-19 Oct-19 Nov-19Precipitation (in)Date
30-70 Percentile Rainfall Graph
Clayton, NC (CLAY - Central Crops Research Station)
Observed Rainfall 30th Percentile 70th Percentile