20160385 Ver 2_Year 2 Monitoring Report_2019_20200110

ID#* 20160385 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#:* 20160385
Existing IDY
Project Type: r DMS r Mitigation Bank
Project Name: Lake Wendell
County: Johnston
Document Information
Email Address:*
[e-mail]
Version:
*1
Existing Version
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Monitoring Report
File Upload: Lake Wendell_ 97081_MY2_2019.pdf 15.07MB
Rease upload only one RDFcf the conplete file that needs to be subnitted...
Signature
Print Name:* Lindsay Crocker
Signature:*

Monitoring Report – MY2
FINAL VERSION
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project
Calendar Year of Data Collection: 2019

NCDEQ DMS Project Identification # 97081
NCDEQ DMS Contract # 6826
Neuse River Basin (Cataloging Unit 03020201)
USACE Action ID Number: SAW-2016-00876
NCDEQ DWR Project # 2016-0385
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:

State of North Carolina | Environmental Quality | Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center | 217 W. Jones Street, Suite 3000 | Raleigh, NC 27609-1652
919 707 8976 T
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 Lake
Wendell Mitigation Project, NCDEQ DMS Full-Delivery Project ID #97081, Contract #6826, 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 Lake Wendell
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:

Riparian Buffer MY2:
1. DMS Comment: Table 2 (asset table) does not match MY1. Please update to match. WLS Response:
Table 2 was updated to match MY1.

2. DMS Comment: The high number of red maple volunteers portrayed in the vegetation plots was
discussed in the field. DMS suggested setting a realistic threshold height for volunteers to best
represent the site conditions. A 3’ threshold was discussed, and DMS has later learned that 12-18” may
be the regulatory direction. Because guidance is not specific, WLS may elect to keep vegetation table
as-is but seek clarification for future monitoring. WLS Response: WLS changed the threshold for counting
volunteers stems to a minimum of 18”. The text and corresponding tables were updated to reflect this
new threshold.

3. DMS Comment: The report indicates that red maple will be selectively thinned. As discussed in the
field, it may be impractical to thin these seedlings because they are very small. WLS Response: After the
threshold was changed per the comment above, the veg plots no longer have excessive stem counts for
red maple and therefore will not be selectively thinned. Natural recruitment will be monitored closely to
ensure that stem counts for red maple do not exceed 20% per plot.

4. DMS Comment: 5.1 Vegetation. The final paragraph describes an area of low stem density that is 0.02
acres (800 sf) as an area of concern. If this area will be replanted, just make a note in the following
monitoring report along with the number and species. This is also true of the kudzu area (note number
and species of tree). WLS Response: WLS has removed the low stem density area from this report and will
continue to monitor the areas in MY3. If kudzu control allows for replanting to occur, WLS will document
the number of trees and species in MY3.
5.DMS Comment: Vegetation success: although your mitigation plan states tree species must be planted
for success, please note that DWR rule states that volunteer hardwood trees and shrubs can be used to
meet success. 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 and were
species in the approved planting plan.
Stream Report MY2:
1.DMS Comment: See comments 2, 3, and 4 above and update accordingly. WLS Response: WLS has
updated the report per DMS’s request.
2.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: See
response from #5 above. The total number of planted and recruited stems is available in Table 7.
3.DMS Comment: Check the % change BHR for all XS, especially 3, 5, and 8 (these should not be negative).
WLS Response: WLS has updated all BHR’s to remove negative percentages.
4.DMS Comment: Note the x and y axis on your stream cross sections varies in scale significantly. It may
benefit your project to present all cross sections on a standard scale for comparison purposes for future
reports. WLS Response: WLS has updated the scales across all Lake Wendell cross sections to be
consistent on the x and y axis.
5.DMS Comment: Table 8- please clarify that measurement is height above bankfull. Please also provide
all bankfull events (include MY1) for documentation of bankfull credit release. WLS Response: All
bankfull events for the project were included in Table 8 and clarification on the measurements was added
per DMS’s request.
6.DMS Comment: As discussed in the field, DMS recommends monitoring the upper portion of R5 closely.
If there is sediment or vegetation removal, it is suggested it not occur after dormant season in MY2.
This should be reported in the summary if it is conducted. WLS Response: WLS will continue to monitor
R5 closely and will communicate with DMS and the NCIRT regarding any necessary maintenance to the
stream channel.
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. 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 –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.

Thank you for your work.

Lindsay Crocker
DMS

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 ........................................................................................................ 3
3.1 Stream Mitigation Types and Approaches .................................................................................... 3
3.1.1 R1 Restoration ........................................................................................................................... 3
3.1.2 R2 Restoration ........................................................................................................................... 3
3.1.3 R3 Restoration ........................................................................................................................... 3
3.1.4 R4 Preservation and Enhancement ........................................................................................... 4
3.1.5 R5 Restoration and Enhancement ............................................................................................ 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 ........................................................ 6
4.1.3 Stream Horizontal Stability ....................................................................................................... 6
4.1.4 Streambed Material Condition and Stability ............................................................................ 6
4.1.5 Jurisdictional Stream Flow ........................................................................................................ 6
4.2 Vegetation ..................................................................................................................................... 6
5 Monitoring Year 2 Assessment and Results ...................................................................................... 6
5.1 Stream Hydrology ......................................................................................................................... 7
5.2 Stream Horizontal & Vertical Stability .......................................................................................... 7
5.3 Streambed Material Condition and Stability ................................................................................ 7
5.4 Jurisdictional Stream Flow Documentation .................................................................................. 7
5.5 Vegetation ..................................................................................................................................... 7
5.6 Wetlands ....................................................................................................................................... 8
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 Pebble Count
Table 7a Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 7b Cross-section Morphology Data
Table 7c Stream Reach Morphology Data

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

Water & Land Solutions

Lake Wendell Mitigation Project Page 1
Final Monitoring Report Year 2
1 Project Summary
Water and Land Solutions, LLC (WLS) completed the construction and planting of the Lake Wendell
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 35.73739˚,
-78.3538°. The Project site is located in the NCDEQ Sub-basin 03-04-06, in the Upper Buffalo Creek Sub-
watershed 030202011502.
The Project involved the restoration, enhancement, preservation and permanent protection of five
stream reaches (R1, R2, R3, R4, and R5) and their riparian buffers, totaling 4,269 linear feet of streams
and 490,477 square feet of riparian buffers. Monitoring Year 2 (MY2) monitoring activities occurred June
through October of 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, streambed condition and
stability, stream flow, 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 Upper Buffalo Creek Sub-watershed 030202011502 study area of the
Neuse 01 Regional Watershed Plan, in the Wake-Johnston Collaborative Local Watershed Plan, and in
Targeted Local Watershed 03020201180050.
The project includes five stream reaches (R1, R2, R3, R4, and R5) which consisted of restoration,
enhancement, preservation and permanent protection of 4,269 linear feet of streams and 490,477 square
feet of riparian buffers. The catchment area is 102 acres and has an impervious cover less than one
percent. The dominant surrounding land uses are agriculture and mixed forest. Prior to construction,
livestock had access to all Project streams, except R4, and 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:
Water & Land Solutions

Lake Wendell Mitigation Project Page 2
Final Monitoring Report Year 2
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.
Establish Riparian Buffer Vegetation
Plant native species vegetation a minimum 50’
wide from the top of the streambanks with a
composition/density comparable to
downstream reference condition.
Physicochemical
(Level 4) Improve Water Quality Remove cattle from riparian corridor and
reduce fecal coliform bacteria levels.
Biology
(Level 5)
Improve Macroinvertebrate
Community and Aquatic Species
Health
Incorporate native woody debris into channel
and change DWR bioclassification rating from
‘Poor’ to a minimum ‘Fair’ by Monitoring Year
7.

To accomplish these site-specific goals, the following objectives will be measured and included with the
performance standards to document overall project success:
• Provide a floodplain connection to incised stream with BHRs that range from 1.0 – 1.2 and ERs
greater than 2.2 by removing a man-made pond, thereby promoting more natural flood flows,
• Improve bedform diversity by increasing scour pool spacing/depth variability every 4X-7X bankfull
channel widths,
• Increase benthic macroinvertebrate habitat value by changing the DWR bioclassification rating
from ‘Poor’ to ‘Fair’ after monitoring year 7,
• Reduce sediment loading from accelerated streambank erosion rates by decreasing BEHI/NBS
values to ‘Low’ and constructing Radius of Curvature Ratios (Rc) to 2X-3X bankfull channel widths,
• Improve pre-restoration water quality parameters by increasing dissolved oxygen concentrations
(DO), such that it meets a functioning level after monitoring year 7,
• Increase native species riparian buffer vegetation density/composition along streambank and
floodplain areas that meet requirements of a minimum 50-foot-wide and 210 stems/acre after
monitoring year 7,
• Improve aquatic habitat and fish movement through pond dam removal and the addition of in-
stream cover and native woody debris by increasing the existing biotic index to a higher
functioning level,
• Prevent cattle from accessing the conservation easement boundary by installing permanent
fencing and reducing fecal coliform bacteria from the pre-restoration levels.
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.
Water & Land Solutions

Lake Wendell Mitigation Project Page 3
Final Monitoring Report Year 2
3 Project Mitigation Components
Refer to Figure 1 and Table 1 for the project components/asset information. A recorded conservation
easement consisting of 11.97 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 and constructing a channel through a drained farm pond (Reach R3). 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
permanent fencing system consisting of woven wire fencing was installed to NRCS technical standards in
the pasture areas along and outside of the northern conservation easement boundaries of Reaches R1,
R2, and R3. The vegetative components of this project included stream bank, floodplain, and transitional
upland zones planting. The Site was planted with native species riparian buffer vegetation 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 Restoration
Due to the past manipulation and degraded nature of R1, a combination of Priority Level I/II Restoration
approaches were implemented along entire reach. A buried concrete pipe system was removed and the
stream channel was daylighted for approximately 200 feet to restore a more natural flow path and
hydrologic function. Downstream of a culvert crossing installation, a new meandering channel was
constructed, and remnant spoil piles were removed from the floodplain. In-stream structures, including
log vanes, log and rock riffles, log steps and log weirs, were installed to provide control grade as well as
dissipate flow energy, protect streambanks, and eliminate potential for future incision.
3.1.2 R2 Restoration
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 promoted the 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 and
stone 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. A few mature trees were protected
during construction and incorporated into the design. Bioengineering techniques such as vegetated
geolifts, brush layers, and live stakes were used to protect streambanks and establish woody vegetation
growth.
3.1.3 R3 Restoration
R3 restoration activities began immediately downstream from R2. In this area, a man-made farm 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 and vernal pools were created in the floodplain to provide habitat diversity, nutrient cycling,
Water & Land Solutions

Lake Wendell Mitigation Project Page 4
Final Monitoring Report Year 2
and improved treatment of overland flows. The existing drain-pipe under the dam was removed and a
new culverted pipe crossing was installed at a lower elevation to allow for aquatic passage while blending
with the natural valley topography.
3.1.4 R4 Preservation and Enhancement
R4 began immediately downstream from the new culverted crossing at R3. Preservation was proposed
along much of this reach since the existing stream and wetland system is mostly stable with a mature
riparian buffer due to minimal historic impacts. This approach will extend the wildlife corridor from the
boundary of Lake Wendell throughout the entire riparian valley, while providing a hydrologic connection
and critical habitat linkage within the catchment area. Enhancement Level II work was conducted along
a short portion of this reach to address the bank erosion and lateral instability that occurred during
Hurricane Matthew (October 10, 2016). Construction activities consisted of mechanized removal of the
downed trees and resetting the remaining live root balls along the streambank, and re-grading the stream
bank back to a stable dimension, installing erosion control matting, and supplemental riparian buffer
planting and live stakes.
3.1.5 R5 Restoration and Enhancement
A Priority Level I/II Restoration approach was for the upstream portion of the reach to improve stream
functions and water quality. The existing concrete pipe system was completely removed to allow for the
complete daylighting and raising of the stream bed elevation to reconnect the stream with its active
floodplain. The reach was restored using appropriate riffle-pool and step-pool morphology with limited
meander geometry. In-stream structures, including log weirs and woody and stone riffles will be used to
control grade, as well as dissipate flow energy, protect streambanks, and eliminate potential for future
incision. Restored streambanks will be graded to stable side slopes and the floodplain will be reconnected
to further promote stability and hydrological function. Work along the downstream portion of R5 involved
Enhancement Level II practices to improve the current channel condition and aquatic function.
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. Specific success criteria components
and evaluation methods are described in the table below.

Water & Land Solutions

Lake Wendell Mitigation Project Page 5
Final Monitoring Report Year 2
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)
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 ERs at 2.2 or greater and
document out of bank and/or
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.
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
Removal of excess
nutrients, FC bacteria,
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
Water & Land Solutions
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project Page 6
Final Monitoring Report Year 2
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
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 species will be counted toward success if they are surviving for at least two years
and if they are species found on 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
Water & Land Solutions
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project Page 7
Final Monitoring Report Year 2
MY2 success criteria for stream hydrology, stream horizontal and vertical stability, jurisdictional stream
flow, and vegetation.
5.1 Stream Hydrology
Monitoring to document the occurrence of the bankfull events (overbank flows) and geomorphically
significant flow events (Qgs=0.66Q2) within the monitoring period, along with floodplain access by flood
flows, is being conducted using a crest gage installed near the downstream end of Reach R2 (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 two bankfull events occurred during MY2. These
events were documented using the described crest gage and photography (Table 8). The documented
occurrence of these two flow events and two events during MY1 satisfies the requirement of the
occurrence of two bankfull events (overbank flows) in separate years.
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, in-stream structure location/function, still closely match the profile design parameters and
MY0/baseline conditions (Appendix D). The MY2 plan form geometry and dimensions fall within
acceptable ranges of the design parameters for all restored reaches. Minor channel adjustments in riffle
slopes, pool depths and pattern were observed based on natural sediment migration and stream bank
vegetation establishment but did not present a stability concern or indicate a need for remedial action.
Minor piping was noted at one of the instream structures, which is typical for smaller stream systems and
is expected to resolve naturally as minor adjustments occur in the streambed at this location and is not a
threat to overall channel stability.
5.3 Streambed Material Condition and Stability
A representative sediment sample was collected in R3 at a constructed riffle to assess streambed material
condition and stability. The dominant substrate for the project was verified as coarse sand (Figure 2). 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 by
the installation of a flow gage (continuous-read pressure transducer) within the thalweg of the channel
towards the middle portion of the Reach R5 (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 monitoring 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 (See Figure 4).
5.5 Vegetation
Vegetation monitoring for MY2 was conducted utilizing the seven 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
Water & Land Solutions
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project Page 8
Final Monitoring Report Year 2
vegetation monitoring plot locations. Summary data and photographs of each Plot can be found in
Appendix 3.
The MY2 vegetation monitoring was also conducted utilizing visual assessment throughout the easement.
The results of the visual assessment did not indicate any negative changes to the existing vegetation
community. One area of concern was observed along R1 buffer as shown on the CCPV. This area was
utilized as a temporary staging area during construction and contains invasive vegetation (kudzu) along
the right buffer. The area was treated twice during the 2019 year, once in August and once in September.
Following the first treatment the percent cover of kudzu was reduced by 80 percent. This area will
continue to be treated during MY3 monitoring and documented in the subsequent annual report. If
needed, supplemental planting in the kudzu treatment area will be documented in the MY3 report.
5.6 Wetlands
Wetland mitigation credits are not contracted or proposed for this project. One groundwater monitoring
well (pressure transducer) was installed during the baseline monitoring within an existing wetland area
along Reach R4. The well was installed as a reference to document groundwater levels within the
preservation area (Figure 4). 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
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project Page 9
Final Monitoring Report Year 2
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
Report Format, Data Requirements, and Content Guidance. 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). Lake Wendell Stream and Riparian Buffer Mitigation Plan.
NCDMS, Raleigh, NC.
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project
Appendices
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project
Appendix A – Background Tables and Figures
Table 1. Mitigation Assets and ComponentsLake Wendell Mitigation Project (NCDEQ DMS Project ID# 97081) 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/CommentsR1839 10+00 -18+39 806839R PI/PII 1 806Full Channel Restoration, Planted Buffer, Exclusion of Livestock, Permanent Conservation EasementR2995 18+39 - 28+00 995992RPI 1 995Full Channel Restoration, Planted Buffer, Exclusion of Livestock, Permanent Conservation Easement. R31208 28+00 - 40+77 12081268RPI 1 1208Full Channel Restoration, Planted Buffer, Exclusion of Livestock, Permanent Conservation Easement. R4711 40+77 - 49+11 711702P- 10 71Livestock Exclusion, Invasive Control, Permanent Conservation Easement.R4 (middle)111 46+26 - 47+37 111111EII EII 2.5 44Bank Stabilization, Floodplain Debris Clearing, Invasive Control, Permanent Conservation Easement.R5 (upper)210 10+00 - 12+10 210210R PI/PII 1 210Full Channel Restoration, Planted Buffer, Exclusion of Livestock, Permanent Conservation Easement. R5 (lower)144 12+10 - 13+58 144147EII EII 2.5 58Enhancement, Planted Buffer, Exclusion of Livestock, Permanent Conservation Easement. Length and Area Summations by Mitigation CategoryOverall Assets SummaryStreamNon-riparian WetlandOverall(linear feet)(acres)Credits*Riverine Non-RiverineRestoration32193,392EnhancementEnhancement IEnhancement II 255Creation* Mitigation Credits are from the final approved mitigation plan, as verified by the as-built surveyPreservation711High Quality PresRP WetlandNR WetlandStreamRestoration LevelRiparian Wetland(acres)Asset Category
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 8/25/2017
Section 404 General (Regional and Nationwide) Permit Verfication N/A 10/5/2017
Begin Construction N/A 11/13/2017
Mitigation Site Earthwork Completed N/A 3/13/2018
Mitigation Site Planting Completed N/A 3/30/2018
Installation of Monitoring Devices Completed N/A 4/19/2018
Installation of Survey Monumentation and Boundary Marking N/A 6/7/2018
As-built/Baseline (Year 0) Monitoring Report Submittal 6/23/2018 12/3/2018
Year 1 Monitoring Report Submittal 11/24/2018 12/4/2019
Year 2 MonitoringReport Submittal 10/29/2019 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
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project (NCDEQ DMS Project ID# 97081)
Elapsed Time Since grading complete: 1 yrs 8 months
Elapsed Time Since planting complete: 1 yrs 8 months
Mitigation Provider
Primary Project POC
Water & Land Solutions, LLC
7721 Six Forks Road, Suite 130 Raleigh, NC 27615
Catherine Manner Phone: [phone]
Construction Contractor
Primary Project POC
RiverWorks Construction
114 W. Main Street, Suite 106, Clayton, NC 27520
Bill Wright Phone: [phone]
Survey Contractor (Existing
Condition Surveys)
WithersRavenel
115 MacKenan Drive, Cary, NC 27511
Primary 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 27520
Primary Project POC Curk T. Lane, PLS 919-359-0427
Planting Contractor
Primary Project POC
RiverWorks Construction
114 W. Main Street, Suite 106, Clayton, NC 27520
Bill Wright Phone: [phone]
Seeding Contractor
Primary Project POC
RiverWorks Construction
114 W. Main Street, Suite 106, Clayton, NC 27520
Bill Wright Phone: [phone]
Seed Mix Sources Green Resource
5204 Highgreen Ct., Colfax, NC 27235
Rodney Montgomery Phone: [phone]
Nursery Stock Suppliers Foggy Mountain Nursery (Live Stakes)
797 Helton Creek Rd, Lansing, NC 28643
Glenn Sullivan Phone: [phone]
Dykes & Son Nursery (Bare Root Stock)
825 Maude Etter Rd, Mcminnville, Tn 37110
Jeff Dykes Phone: [phone]
Monitoring Performers
Stream Monitoring POC
Vegetation Monitoring POC
Water & Land Solutions, LLC
7721 Six Forks Road, Suite 130 Raleigh, NC 27615
Emily Dunnigan Phone: [phone]
Emily Dunnigan Phone: [phone]
Table 3. Project Contacts
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project (NCDEQ DMS Project ID# 97081)
Reach 3 Reach 4 Reach 5
1121 955 354
unconfined unconfined unconfined
83 acres, 0.13 sq mi 102 acres, 0.16 sq
mi 10 acres, 0.02 sq mi
Perennial Perennial Intermittent
C;NSW C; NSW C; NSW
N/A pond E5 G5
C5 E5 C5b
N/A pond I II (lower), III (upper)
N/A Zone AE N/A
Wetland 3
N/A
Supporting Docs?
Categorical
Exclusion
Categorical
Exclusion
Categorical
Exclusion
Categorical
Exclusion
Categorical
Exclusion
Categorical
Exclusion
Categorical
Exclusion
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
33 acres, 0.05 sq mi 64 acres, 0.1 sq mi
Table 4. Project Information and Attributes
Project Name Lake Wendell Mitigation Project
County Johnston
Project Area (acres) 11.97
Reach 2
Length of reach (linear feet)850 952
Project Drainage Area (Acres and Square Miles)102 acres, 0.16 sq mi
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area <1%
CGIA Land Use Classification 2.01.03, 413, 4.99 (61% pasture, 31% mixed forest, 1% open
water)
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)35.7373910 N, -78.3538050 W
Planted Acreage (Acres of Woody Stems Planted)8.9
Project Watershed Summary Information
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral Perennial Perennial
NCDWR Water Quality Classification C; NSW C; NSW
Stream Classification (proposed)C5b C5
Stream Classification (existing)G5c E5/F5
Evolutionary trend (Simon)II II (upper), III/IV
(lower
FEMA classification N/A N/A
Wetland Summary Information
Parameters Wetland 1 Wetland 2
Size of Wetland (acres)N/A N/A
Wetland Type (non-riparian, riparian riverine or riparian non-riverine)
Mapped Soil Series
Drainage class
Soil Hydric Status
Source of Hydrology
Restoration or enhancement method (hydrologic, vegetative etc.)
Regulatory Considerations
Parameters Applicable? Resolved?
Water of the United States - Section 404 Yes Yes
Essential 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
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project
Appendix B – Visual Assessment Data
XY XY XY
XY XY
XY XY
XYXY
XY
XY
XY XY
XY XY XY
XY XY
XY XY
XYXY
XY
XY
XY XY
#*
^_
!>
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
Ó
Ó Ó Ó Ó Ó Ó
Ó
Ó Ó Ó Ó Ó
#0
Wetla
n
d

R
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e

G
a
g
e
Cr
e
s
t

G
a
g
eXS-4XS-5XS-1XS-3XS-8XS-2XS-6XS-76
5
23
7
1
4404/404930/526485/404728/526688/526526/404566/32310+0011+0012+0013+0013+5810+0011+0012+0013+0014+0016+0017+0019+0020+0022+0023+0024+0025+0026+0027+0029+0030+0031+0032+0033+0034+0036+0039+0040+0041+0042+0043+0045+0046+0047+0048+0049+0015+0018+0021+0028+0035+0037+0038+0044+0049+15FIGURE1Lake Wendell Mitigation ProjectJohnston County, North Carolina
NAD 1983 2011 State Plane
North Carolina FIPS 3200 FT US
Current Conditions
Plan View
Monitoring Year 2
Legend
Conservation Easement
Fence Line
#0 Crest Gage
!>Flow Gage
Wetland Gage
^_Stream Reference Site Location
Cross Section Pins
Cross Sections
XY Photo Points
CVS Plot Origin
CVS Plots
Success Criteria Met
Water Quality Features
Top of Streambank
Culvert Pipes
Pre-Construction Wetlands (1.16 acres)
#*Stream Structural Issue
Kudzu Area (0.13 acres)Stream Mitigation Type
Restoration
Enhancement II
Preservation
0 230 460
Feet ±
NCDMS Contract No. 6826
NCDMS Project No. 97081
December 2019
MY2
R1
R5
R2
R3
R4
CulvertCulvert
Culvert
Aerial: Google Earth Winter 2019Flow GageMinor Piping around Log Vane
Access point:
35.73764°
78.34884°
Table 5.Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Project Lake Wendell Mitigation Project (NCDEQ DMS Project ID# 97081)
Reach ID R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Assessed Length 4221
1. Bank 1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth
and/or scour and erosion 100%0 0 100%
*2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear
sustainable and are providing habitat.
100%0 0 100%
3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 100%0 0 100%
0 0 100%0 0 100%
2. Engineered
Structures 1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.68 68 100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the
sill. 41 41 100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.24 25 96%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not
exceed 15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring
guidance document)
16 16 100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining ~ Max Pool Depth : Mean
Bankfull Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
base-flow.
16 16 100%
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Adjusted % for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
Totals
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub-
Category Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As-built
Table 5a.Vegetation Condition AssessmentProject Lake Wendell Mitigation Project (NCDEQ DMS Project ID# 97081) Planted Acreage18.91. Bare AreasVery limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material. 1 acre Solid light blue 00.000.0%2. Low Stem Density AreasWoody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4, or 5 stem count criteria.0.1 acresPattern and Color00.000.0%00.000.0%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 Color00.000.0%00.000.0%Easement Acreage2124. Invasive Areas of Concern4Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).1000 SF orange hatched 10.131.1%5. Easement Encroachment Areas3Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).none yellow hatched 00.000.0%% of Planted AcreageTotalCumulative TotalVegetation CategoryDefinitionsNumber of PolygonsMapping ThresholdCCPV DepictionCombined AcreageCCPV DepictionNumber of PolygonsCombined Acreage% of Easement AcreageVegetation CategoryDefinitionsMapping Threshold
R1, facing upstream, Sta 11+50, June 11, 2018 (MY-00)R1, facing upstream, Sta 11+50,KĐƚŽďĞƌϭϰ͕ϮϬϭϵ(MY-0Ϯ)R1, facing downstream,^ƚĂϭϭнϱϬ͕KĐƚŽďĞƌϭϰ͕ϮϬϭϵ;DzͲϬϮͿ R1, facing downstream, Sta 11+50, June 11, 2018 (MY-00)
R1, facing upstream, Sta 13+50, April 27, 2018 (MY-00)R1, facing upstream, Sta 13+50, KĐƚŽďĞƌϭϰ͕ϮϬϭϵ(MY-0Ϯ)R1, facing downstream,^ƚĂϭϯнϱϬ͕KĐƚŽďĞƌϭϰ͕ϮϬϭϵ;DzͲϬϮͿ R1, facing downstream, Sta 13+50, April 27, 2018 (MY-00)
R1, facing downstream, Sta 17+50, April 27, 2018 (MY-00)R1, facing downstream, Sta 17+50,KĐƚŽďĞƌϭϰ͕ϮϬϭϵ (MY-0Ϯ)R1, facing upstream, Sta 17+50, April 27, 2018 (MY-00)R1, facing upstream, Sta 17+50, KĐƚŽďĞƌϭϰ͕ϮϬϭϵ (MY-0Ϯ)
R2, facing downstream, ^ƚĂϭϴнϱϬ͕KĐƚŽďĞƌϭϰ͕ϮϬϭϵ;DzͲϬϮͿR2, facing downstream, Sta 18+50, April 30, 2018 (MY-00)R2, facing upstream, Sta 26+Ϭ0,KĐƚŽďĞƌϭϰ͕ϮϬϭϵ(MY-0Ϯ)R2, facing upstream, Sta 26+00, April 27, 2018 (MY-00)
R2, facing downstream, Sta 27+50, April 27, 2018 (MY-00)R2, facing downstream, Sta 28+00, KĐƚŽďĞƌϭϰ͕ϮϬϭϵ (MY-0Ϯ)R2, facing upstream, Sta 28+25, April 27, 2018 (MY-00)R2, facing upstream, Sta 28+00, KĐƚŽďĞƌϭϰ͕ϮϬϭϵ (MY-0Ϯ)
R3, facing downstream, Sta 32+00, April 27, 2018 (MY-00)R3, facing downstream, Sta 28+00, KĐƚŽďĞƌϭϰ͕ϮϬϭϵ(MY-0Ϯ)R3, facing downstream, Sta 37+75, April 27, 2018 (MY-00)R2, facing downstream, Sta 37+75, KĐƚŽďĞƌϭϰ͕ϮϬϭϵ(MY-0Ϯ)
R3, facing upstream, Sta 39+50, March 20, 2018 (MY-00)R3, facing upstream, Sta 39+50, KĐƚŽďĞƌϭϰ͕ϮϬϭϵ (MY-0Ϯ)R4, facing downstream, Sta 40+00, March 20, 2018 (MY-00)R4, facing downstream, Sta 40+00, KĐƚŽďĞƌϭϰ͕ϮϬϭϵ (MY-0Ϯ)
R4, facing downstream, Sta 44+00, August 21, 2015 (MY-00)R4, facing downstream, Sta 44+00, KĐƚŽďĞƌϭϰ͕ϮϬϭϵ (MY-0Ϯ)R5, facing downstream, Sta 10+00, April 27, 2018 (MY-00)R5, facing downstream, Sta 10+00,KĐƚŽďĞƌϭϰ͕ϮϬϭϵ (MY-0Ϯ)
R5, facing upstream, old flow gage, Sta 13+50, Apr 27, 2018 (MY-00)R5, facing upstream, Sta 13+50, KĐƚŽďĞƌϭϰ͕ϮϬϭϵ (MY-0Ϯ)
Veg Plot 1 (MY-0)Veg Plot 2 (MY-0)Veg Plot 1(MY-0)Veg Plot 2 April 27, 2018 (MY-00)
Veg Plot 3 (MY-0)Veg Plot 4 (MY-0)Veg Plot 3 (MY-0)Veg Plot 4 April 13, 2018 (MY-00)
Veg Plot 5 (MY-0)Veg Plot 6(MY-0)Veg Plot April 13, 2018 (MY-00)Veg Plot 6 April 13, 2018 MY-00)
Veg Plot 7(MY-0)Veg Plot 7 April 13, 2018 (MY-00)
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project
Appendix C – Vegetation Plot Data
EEP Project Code 1.  Project Name: Lake WendellTable 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 T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all TAcer negundoTree11Acer rubrumTree212223222422266166662777Alnus serrulataTag Alder, Smooth AldeShrub Tree1 1 1111111333222333Betula nigraRiver Birch, Red Birch Tree111444333222111111111999121212Carpinus carolinianaShrub Tree 1 1 12 2 2333444555Cornus amomum Silky Dogwood Shrub Tree111111222222333Diospyros virginiana American Persimmon, Tree222222222222Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash, Red Ash Tree111111111111444444444Ilex verticillataWinterberry Shrub Tree111Lindera benzoin Northern Spicebush Shrub Tree888Liquidambar styraciflua Sweet Gum, Red Gum Tree20155409Liriodendron tulipiferaTree1 1 12 2 2222111222888131313272727Magnolia virginianaShrub Tree111111222111111111777888888Platanus occidentalis Sycamore, Plane‐tree Tree111111111444111333111111121212181818Prunus serotinaShrub Tree22Quercus michauxii Basket Oak, Swamp ChTree1 1 1444111111777777777Quercus nigraWater Oak, Paddle OakTree111222 111 444444999Quercus phellos Willow Oak Tree4 4 4222222111999101010111111Rosa palustrisSwamp Rose Shrub Vine1Salix nigraBlack Willow Tree18 8 30 10 10 12 13 13 30 13 13 16 13 13 20 10 10 12 10 10 10 77 77 130 83 83 150 125 125 1258810668779667779888666131316131316151515323.7 323.7 1214 404.7 404.7 485.6 526.1 526.1 1214 526.1 526.1 647.5 526.1 526.1 809.4 404.7 404.7 485.6 404.7 404.7 404.7 445.2 445.2 751.6 479.8 479.8 867.2 722.7 722.7 722.7Stem countCurrent Plot Data (MY2 2019)Scientific Name Common Name Species Type001‐01‐0001 001‐01‐0002 001‐01‐0003 001‐01‐0004 001‐01‐0005 001‐01‐0006 001‐01‐0007Annual MeansMY2 (2019) MY1 (2018) MY0 (2018)size (ares)size (ACRES)Species countStems per ACRE10.0210.0210.0210.0210.0210.0210.0270.1770.1770.17
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project
Appendix D – Stream Measurement and Geomorphology Data
Project NameLake Wendell Mitigation ProjectProject ID97081Reach IDR1Cross Section IDX1Field CrewK. Obermiller, E. DunniganBankfull Elevation (ft)287.5Low Bank Height Elevation (ft)287.4Bankfull Max Depth (ft)0.6Low Bank Height (ft)0.5Bank Height Ratio <1.0Bankfull X-section Area (ft²)2.0% 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 industrywork 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.2852862872882892902912922930 10203040506070Elevation (feet)Width (feet)X1 Riffle, STA 14+76 Baseline MY0MY1MY2Bankfull ElevationFloodprone AreaLake Wendell Mitigation ProjectDMS Project #97081October 2019Water and Land SolutionsAnnual Monitoring ReportMonitoring Year 2 of 7
Project NameLake Wendell Mitigation ProjectProject ID97081Reach IDR2Cross Section IDX2Field CrewK. Obermiller, E. DunniganBankfull Elevation (ft)276.1Low Bank Height Elevation (ft)276.1Bankfull Max Depth (ft)1.3Low Bank Height (ft)1.3Bank Height Ratio 1.0Bankfull X-section Area (ft²)4.1% 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 groupconsisting 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.2732742752762772782792802810 10203040506070Elevation (feet)Width (feet)X2 Pool, STA 20+67 Baseline MY0MY1MY2Bankfull ElevationFloodprone AreaLake Wendell Mitigation Project DMS Project #97081 October 2019Water and Land SolutionsAnnual Monitoring ReportMonitoring Year 2 of 7
Project NameLake Wendell Mitigation ProjectProject ID97081Reach IDR2Cross Section IDX3Field CrewK. Obermiller, E. DunniganBankfull Elevation (ft)263.0Low Bank Height Elevation (ft)263.1Bankfull Max Depth (ft)1.0Low Bank Height (ft)1.1Bank Height Ratio 1.1Bankfull X-section Area (ft²)4.1% Change Bank Height Ratio10.0%Looking DownstreamDimension 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 groupconsisting 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.** MY1 used in place of as-built (MY0) due to issues with the as-built survey standards identified during MY1.2602612622632642652662672680 10203040506070Elevation (feet)Width (feet)X3 Riffle, STA 27+95 Baseline MY0MY1MY2Bankfull ElevationFloodprone AreaLake Wendell Mitigation ProjectDMS Project #97081October 2019Water and Land SolutionsAnnual Monitoring ReportMonitoring Year 2 of 7
Project NameLake Wendell Mitigation ProjectProject ID97081Reach IDR3Cross Section IDX4Field CrewK. Obermiller, E. DunniganBankfull Elevation (ft)254.3Low Bank Height Elevation (ft)254.4Bankfull Max Depth (ft)1.5Low Bank Height (ft)1.6Bank Height Ratio 1.1Bankfull X-section Area (ft²)8.5% 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.Looking 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 industrywork 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 20192502512522532542552562572580 10203040506070Elevation (feet)Width (feet)X4 Pool, STA 35+00 Baseline MY0MY1MY2Bankfull ElevationFloodprone AreaLake Wendell Mitigation ProjectDMS Project #97081October 2019Water and Land SolutionsAnnual Monitoring ReportMonitoring Year 2 of 7
Project NameLake Wendell Mitigation ProjectProject ID97081Reach IDR3Cross Section IDX5Field CrewK. Obermiller, E. DunniganBankfull Elevation (ft)251.4Low Bank Height Elevation (ft)251.4Bankfull Max Depth (ft)0.8Low Bank Height (ft)0.8Bank Height Ratio 1.0Bankfull X-section Area (ft²)2.8% 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 groupconsisting 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.2482492502512522532542552560 10203040506070Elevation (feet)Width (feet)X5 Riffle, STA 37+32 Baseline MY0MY1MY2Bankfull ElevationFloodprone AreaLake Wendell Mitigation ProjectDMS Project #97081October 2019Water and Land SolutionsAnnual Monitoring ReportMonitoring Year 2 of 7
Project NameLake Wendell Mitigation ProjectProject ID97081Reach IDR4 (Preservation)Cross Section IDX6Field CrewK. Obermiller, E. DunniganBankfull Elevation (ft)242.2Low Bank Height Elevation (ft)242.9Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2.7Low Bank Height (ft)3.4Bank Height Ratio 1.0Bankfull X-section Area (ft²)11.2% 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 workgroup 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.2382392402412422432442452460 10203040506070Elevation (feet)Width (feet)X6 Riffle, STA 43+92 Baseline MY0MY1MY2Bankfull ElevationFloodprone AreaLake Wendell Mitigation ProjectDMS Project #97081October 2019Water and Land SolutionsAnnual Monitoring ReportMonitoring Year 2 of 7
Project NameLake Wendell Mitigation ProjectProject ID97081Reach IDR4 (Preservation)Cross Section IDX7Field CrewK. Obermiller, E. DunniganBankfull Elevation (ft)241.9Low Bank Height Elevation (ft)241.9Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2.9Low Bank Height (ft)2.9Bank Height Ratio 1.0Bankfull X-section Area (ft²)12.3% 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 workgroup 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.2382392402412422432442452460 10203040506070Elevation (feet)Width (feet)X7 Pool, STA 44+14 Baseline MY0MY1MY2Bankfull ElevationFloodprone AreaLake Wendell Mitigation ProjectDMS Project #97081October 2019Water and Land SolutionsAnnual Monitoring ReportMonitoring Year 2 of 7
Project NameLake Wendell Mitigation ProjectProject ID97081Reach IDR5Cross Section IDX8Field CrewK. Obermiller, E. DunniganBankfull Elevation (ft)283.9Low Bank Height Elevation (ft)283.9Bankfull Max Depth (ft)0.7Low Bank Height (ft)0.7Bank Height Ratio 1.0Bankfull X-section Area (ft²)2.1% Change Bank Height Ratio0.0%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 industrywork 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.** MY1 used in place of as-built (MY0) due to issues with the as-built survey standards identified during MY1.2802812822832842852862872880 10203040506070Elevation (feet)Width (feet)X8 Riffle, STA 12+35 Baseline MY0MY1MY2Bankfull ElevationFloodprone AreaLake Wendell Mitigation ProjectDMS Project #97081October 2019Water and Land SolutionsAnnual Monitoring ReportMonitoring Year 2 of 7
Lake Wendell
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 < .063 610
Very Fine .063 - .125 12 4
Fine .125 - .25 93
Medium .25 - .50 13 5
Coarse .50 - 1.0 18 4
Very Coarse 1.0 - 2.0 17 12
Very Fine 2.0 - 2.8 11 1
Very Fine 2.8 - 4.0 1
Fine 4.0 - 5.6 42
Fine 5.6 - 8.0 44
Medium 8.0 - 11.0 25
Medium 11.0 - 16.0 111
Coarse 16 - 22.6 16
Coarse 22.6 - 32 18
Very Coarse 32 - 45 10
Very Coarse 45 - 64 15
Small 64 - 90 5
Small 90 - 128 3
Large 128 - 180 1
Large 180 - 256
Small 256 - 362
Small 362 - 512
Medium 512 - 1024
Large-Very Large 1024 - 2048
Bedrock > 2048
Total 100 100
Cumulative D16 0.11 0.2
D35 0.38 1.7
D50 0.73 12
D65 1.3 22
D84 3.5 41
D95 9.4 83
MY2             Riffle             Pool
Channel materials Channel materials
D16 = 0.64 D16 = 0.062
D35 = 10 D35 = 0.55
D50 = 21 D50 = 1.4
D84 = 57 D84 = 19
D95 = 97 D95 = 26
SILT/CLAY
SAN
GRAVEL
COBBLE
BOULDER
BEDROCK
silt/clay sand gravel cobble boulder
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
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 Lake Wendell Mitigation Project MY2
weighted percent Riffle Pool # of particles
65% riffle 35% pool
Table 7a. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project (NCDEQ DMS Project ID# 97081)
Parameter
Pre -Restoration
Condition
Reference
Reach Data
Design
As -Built/
Baseline
Reach ID: R1
Dimension (Riffle)
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Bankfull Width (ft)
5.0
7.0
4.5
8.3
5.9
5.9
6.0
Floodprone Width (ft)
6.1
18.7
10.0
20.0
14.0
30.0
25.3
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.5
0.7
0.8
1.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
0.8
1.5
0.9
1.3
0.6
0.6
0.7
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ft)
2.5
2.8
3.0
5.0
2.7
2.7
2.7
Width/Depth Ratio
5.3
17.7
6.2
14.2
13.0
13.0
12.3
Entrenchment Ratio
1.2
9.9
7.1
8.4
2.4
5.1
4.2
Bank Height Ratio
1.1
2.3
0.9
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
6.2
38.2
9.5
22.7
10.0
30.0
11.3
31.2
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.016
0.037
0.009
0.015
0.020
0.035
0.017
0.036
Pool Length (ft)
4.1
7.9
6.1
8.7
7.0
10.0
5.5
12.5
Pool Max Depth (ft)
1.1
2.3
1.8
2.4
1.1
1.6
1.2
1.7
Pool Spacing (ft)l
26.4
1 83.9
1 14.4
22.3
1 11.8
35.5
7.7
33.3
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
11.0 32.0
23.4 29.0 30.0
45.0 25.0 51.0
Radius of Curvature (ft)
8.0 50.0
11.2 17.5 15.0
25.0 11.0 36.0
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
1.6 10.0
1.6 2.5 2.0
3.0 2.1 4.2
Meander Wavelength (ft)
20.0 100.0
43.4 65.1 30.0
44.8 23.0 56.0
Meander Width Ratiol
2.2 1 6.4
3.9 1 4.5 1 5.1
7.6 4.1 7.4
Transport Parameters
Boundary Shear Stress (lb/fe)
---
---
0.67
---
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankful
---
---
2.00
---
Stream Power W/m2)
---
---
42.00
---
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
G5c
E5/C5
B5c
B5c
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
3.7
4.5
4.0
4.0
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
10.0
---
10.0
10.0
Sinuosity
1.05
1.1 - 1.3
1.10
1.10
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
0.025
0.020
0.025
0.026
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)l
0.027
1 0.020
0.025
1 0.027

Parameter
Reach ID: R2
Dimension (Riffle)Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Bankfull Width (ft)5.9 9.5 4.5 8.3 6.8 6.8 6.1
Floodprone Width (ft)13.7 14.1 10.0 20.0 15.0 30.0 46.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)0.6 0.7 0.8 1.6 0.5 0.5 0.6
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)0.9 1.0 0.9 1.3 0.7 0.7 0.9
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)4.2 5.9 3.0 5.0 3.6 3.6 3.5
Width/Depth Ratio 8.2 15.2 6.2 14.2 13.0 13.0 10.8
Entrenchment Ratio 1.4 2.2 7.1 8.4 2.2 4.4 7.5
Bank Height Ratio 1.8 1.9 0.9 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)5.9 27.7 9.5 22.7 10.0 30.0 9.9 33.3
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)0.015 0.029 0.009 0.015 0.015 0.020 0.016 0.033
Pool Length (ft)3.9 7.8 6.1 8.7 7.9 9.8 5.4 13.6
Pool Max Depth (ft)2.0 3.8 1.8 2.4 1.1 1.6 1.2 1.9
Pool Spacing (ft)17.0 51.0 14.4 22.3 22.0 48.0 13.0 37.1
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)13.0 37.0 23.4 29.0 30.0 45.0 25.0 47.0
Radius of Curvature (ft)7.0 29.0 11.2 17.5 15.0 25.0 9.8 30.3
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)1.2 4.9 1.6 2.5 2.0 3.0 2.5 4.2
Meander Wavelength (ft)42.0 121.0 43.4 65.1 30.0 44.8 29.0 17.0
Meander Width Ratio 2.3 6.3 3.9 4.5 5.1 7.6 4.4 7.9
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)
Pre-Restoration
Condition
Reference
Reach Data Design
As-Built/
Baseline
--0.51 -
--2.00 -
0.017 0.020 0.017 0.019
16.9 -16.9 16.9
1.14 1.1 - 1.3 1.17 1.15
0.016 0.020 0.018 0.019
E5/F5 E5/C5 C5 C5
4.1 4.5 4.7 4.0
--29.10 -
Parameter
Reach ID: R3
Dimension (Riffle)Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Bankfull Width (ft)9.5 - 4.5 8.3 7.8 7.8 7.9
Floodprone Width (ft)13.7 - 10.0 35.0 17.0 35.0 59.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)0.6 - 0.8 1.6 0.6 0.6 0.5
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)0.9 - 0.9 1.3 0.7 0.8 0.8
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)5.9 - 3.0 5.0 4.4 4.4 3.7
Width/Depth Ratio 15.2 - 6.2 14.2 14.0 14.0 16.8
Entrenchment Ratio 1.4 - 7.1 8.4 2.2 4.5 7.4
Bank Height Ratio 1.8 - 0.9 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)- - 9.5 22.7 12.0 33.0 10.0 30.0
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)- - 0.009 0.015 0.015 0.022 0.020 0.035
Pool Length (ft)- - 6.1 8.7 8.0 10.5 7.0 10.0
Pool Max Depth (ft)- - 1.8 2.4 1.4 2.0 1.1 1.6
Pool Spacing (ft)- - 14.4 22.3 25.0 55.0 11.8 35.5
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)- - 23.4 29.0 25.0 45.0 30.0 46.0
Radius of Curvature (ft)- - 11.2 17.5 16.0 23.0 15.0 27.0
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)- - 1.6 2.5 2.0 3.0 2.5 4.2
Meander Wavelength (ft)- - 43.4 65.1 30.0 44.8 21.0 49.0
Meander Width Ratio - - 3.9 4.5 3.3 5.7 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)
Pre-Restoration
Condition
Reference
Reach Data Design
As-Built/
Baseline
(Pond)
--0.52 -
--2.00 -
N/A (Pond)E5/C5 C5 C5
2.7 4.5 4.4 4.0
--29.80 -
0.016 0.020 0.017 0.015
-0.020 0.018 0.016
16.9 -16.9 16.9
-1.1 - 1.3 1.18 1.17
Parameter
Reach ID: R4
Dimension (Riffle)Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Bankfull Width (ft)6.2 - 4.5 8.3 6.2 8.5 6.2
Floodprone Width (ft)44.1 - 10.0 35.0 17.0 35.0 17.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)1.0 - 0.8 1.6 0.7 0.9 0.7
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)1.8 - 0.9 1.3 0.8 0.9 0.8
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)6.2 - 3.0 5.0 6.2 6.2 6.2
Width/Depth Ratio 6.3 - 6.2 14.2 12.0 12.0 12.0
Entrenchment Ratio 7.1 - 7.1 8.4 1.8 5.3 1.8
Bank Height Ratio 1.0 - 0.9 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.0
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)9.5 21.9 9.5 22.7 12.0 33.0 9.5 21.9
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)0.013 0.022 0.009 0.015 0.013 0.022 0.013 0.022
Pool Length (ft)6.1 8.5 6.1 8.7 8.0 10.5 6.1 8.5
Pool Max Depth (ft)2.0 2.2 1.8 2.4 1.4 2.0 2.0 2.2
Pool Spacing (ft)18.0 44.0 14.4 22.3 25.0 55.0 18.0 44.0
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)29.0 53.0 23.4 29.0 25.0 45.0 29.0 53.0
Radius of Curvature (ft)12.0 20.0 11.2 17.5 16.0 23.0 12.0 20.0
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)1.9 3.2 1.6 2.5 2.0 3.0 1.9 3.2
Meander Wavelength (ft)52.0 77.0 43.4 65.1 30.0 44.8 52.0 77.0
Meander Width Ratio 4.7 8.5 3.9 4.5 3.3 5.7 4.7 8.5
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)
Pre-Restoration
Condition
Reference
Reach Data Design
As-Built/
Baseline
--0.49 -
--2.00 -
0.015 0.020 0.015 0.015
23.7 -23.7 23.7
1.25 1.1 - 1.3 1.25 1.25
0.014 0.020 0.014 0.014
E5 E5/C5 E5 E5
3.2 4.0 3.2 3.2
--29.00 -
Parameter
Reach ID: R5
Dimension (Riffle)Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Bankfull Width (ft)2.3 - 4.5 8.3 4.4 4.4 4.3
Floodprone Width (ft)3.3 - 10.0 35.0 15.0 30.0 24.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)0.6 - 0.8 1.6 0.4 0.4 0.4
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)0.8 - 0.9 1.3 0.5 0.5 0.7
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)1.4 - 3.0 5.0 1.5 1.5 1.6
Width/Depth Ratio 3.5 - 10.3 14.2 13.0 13.0 12.1
Entrenchment Ratio 1.5 - 2.0 5.0 3.4 6.8 5.5
Bank Height Ratio 3.3 - 0.9 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)15.7 37.1 5.1 13.9 13.0 31.0 10.3 37.0
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)0.019 0.027 0.017 0.026 0.015 0.027 0.017 0.027
Pool Length (ft)3.1 11.0 4.5 7.0 6.8 9.4 4.7 8.5
Pool Max Depth (ft)2.1 2.3 1.1 1.7 1.1 1.6 1.1 1.5
Pool Spacing (ft)11.0 36.0 10.0 30.0 22.0 44.0 8.7 33.3
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)- - - - - - - -
Radius of Curvature (ft)- - - - - - - -
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)- - - - - - - -
Meander Wavelength (ft)- - - - - - - -
Meander Width Ratio - - - - - - - -
Transport Parameters
Boundary Shear Stress (lb/ft 2)
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)
Pre-Restoration
Condition
Reference
Reach Data Design
As-Built/
Baseline
--0.48 -
--2.00 -
G5 B5 B5 B5
4.7 4.0 4.5 4.5
--24.30 -
0.026 0.025 0.027 0.025
0.025 0.025 0.027 0.024
4.5 -4.5 4.5
1.03 1.1 - 1.2 1.25 1.06
ParametersBase MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+Bankfull Width (ft) 5.8 5.5 10.4 6.1 7.9 7.0 6.6 6.8 6.4Floodprone Width (ft) 23.1 23.0 21.7 45.0 45.0 49.0 46.0 45.0 50.0Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 0.7 0.6 0.6 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.1 1.1 1.0Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2.3 2.0 2.0 4.6 4.1 4.1 3.5 3.5 3.5Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 14.6 13.2 55.2 8.0 14.2 12.0 12.7 13.0 11.9Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio 4.3 4.2 2.1 7.5 5.7 7.0 7.5 6.8 7.8Bankfull Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1d50 (mm) N/a 0.8 21.0 N/a 0.6 1.4 N/a 0.8 21.0ParametersBase MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+Bankfull Width (ft) 14.2 14.3 14.2 7.9 7.3 8.4 6.7 7.0 8.6Floodprone Width (ft) 68.0 68.0 68.0 59.0 59.0 49.0 49.0 49.0 49.0Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.6 0.6 1.6 0.5 0.5 0.3 1.6 1.6 1.3Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 1.6 1.6 1.5 0.8 0.8 0.8 2.5 2.6 2.7Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)8.5 8.5 8.5 3.7 2.7 2.7 10.8 11.2 11.2Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 23.8 24.4 23.8 16.8 15.1 25.2 4.2 4.4 6.7Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio 4.8 4.8 4.8 7.4 8.0 5.8 7.3 7.0 5.7Bankfull Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 <1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0d50 (mm) N/a 0.6 1.4 N/a 0.8 21.0 N/a 0.8 21.0ParametersBase MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+Bankfull Width (ft) 13.1 12.7 10.7 4.3 4.6 4.9Floodprone Width (ft) 44.0 44.0 44.0 24.0 20.0 23.0Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 1.2 1.3 1.2 0.4 0.5 0.4Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 2.9 2.8 2.9 0.7 0.6 0.7Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)15.4 12.3 12.3 1.6 2.1 2.1Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 10.9 9.6 9.3 12.1 10.1 11.3Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio 3.4 3.5 4.1 5.5 4.3 4.7Bankfull Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.0d50 (mm) N/a 0.64 1.35 N/a 0.8 21Cross Section 7 (Pool) Cross Section 8 (Riffle)Table 7b. Monitoring Data - Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters – Cross Sections)Cross Section 1 (Riffle) Cross Section 2 (Pool) Cross Section 3 (Riffle)Cross Section 4 (Pool) Cross Section 5 (Riffle) Cross Section 6 (Riffle)
Parameter
Reach ID: R1
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)11.3 31.2
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)0.017 0.036
Pool Length (ft)5.5 12.5
Pool Max depth (ft)1.2 1.7
Pool Spacing (ft)7.7 33.3
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)25 51
Radius of Curvature (ft)11 36
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)2.1 4.2
Meander Wavelength (ft)23 56
Meander Width Ratio 4.1 7.4
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
G5c
1.05
0.026
0.0265
Table 7c. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Summary
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project (NCDEQ DMS Project ID# 97081)
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5Baseline MY1
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) 9.9 33.3
Riffle Slope (ft/ft) 0.016 0.033
Pool Length (ft) 5.4 13.6
Pool Max depth (ft) 1.2 1.9
Pool Spacing (ft) 13 37.1
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft) 25 47
Radius of Curvature (ft)9.8 30.3
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)2.5 4.2
Meander Wavelength (ft) 29 17
Meander Width Ratio 4.4 7.9
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
MY3 MY4 MY5
0.019
0.019
C5
1.15
Baseline MY1 MY2
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: R3
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 46
Radius of Curvature (ft)15 27
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)2.5 4.2
Meander Wavelength (ft) 21 49
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
0.0153
MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5Baseline
0.016
C5
1.17
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: R4
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)9.5 21.9
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)0.013 0.022
Pool Length (ft)6.1 8.5
Pool Max depth (ft)2 2.2
Pool Spacing (ft)18 44
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)29 53
Radius of Curvature (ft)12 20
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)1.9 3.2
Meander Wavelength (ft)52 77
Meander Width Ratio 4.7 8.5
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
MY4 MY5
E5
MY1 MY2
1.25
0.014
MY3
0.015
Baseline
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: R5
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)10.3 37
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)0.017 0.027
Pool Length (ft)4.7 8.5
Pool Max depth (ft)1.1 1.5
Pool Spacing (ft)8.7 33.3
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
0.025
0.024
MY5Baseline MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4
B5
1.06
Pattern and Profile data will not typically be
collected unless visual data, dimensional data or
profile data indicate significant deviations from
baseline conditions
Lake Wendell 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 Height above bankfull
8/16/2018 8/3/2018 Crest Gauge Bkf, 3" above FP elevation Photos
9/17/2018 9/16-9/17/2018
Oberserved visual indicators (wrack lines)
of stage after storm Bkf Photos
11/21/2018 9/16-9/17/2018 Crest Gauge Bkf Photos
7/26/2019 7/24/2019 Crest Gauge Bkf Photos 3.25 in
8/20/2019 uknown Crest Gauge Bkf Photos 4.5 in
8/16/2018 9/17/2018
9/17/2018 9/17/2018
9/17/2018 11/21/2018
7/26/2019
8/20/2019
Table 8. Verification of Flow Events
Figure 4: Hydrograph Data (Pressure transducer)
Figure 4: Groundwater Gauge Data
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project (NCDEQ DMS Project ID# 97081)
MY2 2019
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Mean
Lake Wendell Reference Wetland 95.20% 53.52%
86 Consecutive Days Meeting Criteria of Saturation Within 12" of Surface During Growing Season (4/06/2019-6/30/2019)
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
*January-November
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 5: Monthly Rainfall Data
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project (NCDEQ DMS Project ID # 97081)
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 2.43
Feb-19 2.60 4.79 2.45
Mar-19 3.35 5.74 1.48
Apr-19 1.81 3.84 3.28
May-19 2.74 4.68 1.67
Jun-19 3.05 5.50 3.34
Jul-19 4.14 7.08 5.26
Aug-19 3.36 6.21 4.05
Sep-19 2.97 5.15 3.66
Oct-19 1.63 3.81 3.24
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