20160404 Ver 1_Year 3 Monitoring Report_2020_20201231

ID#* 20160883 Version* 1
Select Reviewer:*
Erin Davis
Initial Review Completed Date 01/04/2021
Mitigation Project Submittal-12/31/2020
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site?* O Yes a No
Type of Mitigation Project:*
rJ Stream r Wetlands [Buffer ❑ Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:*
Lindsay Crocker
Project Information
..................................................................................................................................................................
ID#:* 20160883
Existing 1W
Project Type: F 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 Report
File Upload: EdwardsJohnson_97080_MY3_2020.pdf 15.53MB
Rease upload only one R7F of the complete file that needs to be subrritted...
Signature
Print Name:* Lindsay Crocker
Signature:*

Monitoring Report —Year 3
FINAL VERSION
Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project
Calendar Year of Data Collection: 2020
NCDEQ DIMS Project Identification # 97080
NCDEQ DIMS 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: September — October 2020
Submission Date: December 11, 2020
i•`,.��
r.:.
v u
Prepared for:
N'r-0
Environmental
Quality
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
Prepared by:
WATER & LAND SOLUTIONS
7721 SIX rORKS ROAD, SUITE 130, RALEIGH, NC 27615
[phone] 1 waterlandsolutions.com

WATER & LAND SOLUTIONS
7721 SIX FORKS ROAD, SUITE 130, RALEIGH, NC 27615
(919) 614 - 5111 I waterlandsolutions.com
December 11, 2020
INC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
Attn: Lindsay Crocker
217 West Jones Street, Suite 3000-A
Raleigh, INC 27603
RE: WLS Responses to NCDEQ DMS Review Comments for Task 9 Draft Monitoring Report Year 3 for the
Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project, NCDEQ DMS Full -Delivery Project ID #97080, Contract #006825, Neuse
River Basin, Cataloging Unit 03020201, Johnston County, INC
Dear Ms. Crocker:
Water & Land Solutions, LLC (WLS) is pleased to present the Final Monitoring Report Year 3 for the Edwards -Johnson
Mitigation Project to the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) Division of Mitigation
Services (DIMS). The Final Monitoring Report Year 3 were developed by addressing NCDEQ DMS's review comments.
Under this cover, we are providing the Final Monitoring Report Year 3, and the required digital data for each (the .pdf
copies of the entire updated reports and the updated digital data) via electronic delivery. We are providing our
written responses to NCDEQ DMS's review comments on the Draft Monitoring Report Year 3 below. Each of the
DIMS review comments is copied below in bold text, followed by the appropriate response from WLS in regular text:
Report:
DMS Comment: The project summary states that the site is "mostly meeting" for MY3 vegetation, but the
report goes on to state that plots 3 and 4 are failing. Remove that statement in the summary as it is not
accurate or consider other comments below in revision. WLS Response: The word "mostly" was removed
from the project summary statement. WLS updated vegetation Plots 3 and 4 to include stems planted in MY3
and the plots are now meeting MY3 success criteria.
2. DMS Comment: Page 6 and 7. Last sentence of paragraph 5.1 is incorrect, please review and revise.
According to the table, confirm that there were 2 bankfull events in MY2 and 3 events in MY3. WLS
Response: The mitigation plan states, "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." As stated in the in the mitigation plan, the stream has met the
bankfull requirements. The sentence in 5.1 has been updated to better reflect the requirements of the
mitigation plan. Three bankfull events occurred in Year 2 and two bankfull events occurred in Year 3.
3. DMS Comment: The CCPV indicates areas of concern from MY2 were 0.43 (green shaded). Confirm that this
is the acreage that was replanted with the —245 plants (560 stems/acre)? Did WLS also replant the
encroachment area along upper RI (farm scallop)? If not, please add something to the text about the
condition of that area. WLS Response: The area on the CCPV that was replanted was —0.43 acres (green) and

was planted with —245 plants. The area of previous encroachment was planted in early 2019 and is in good
vegetated condition (yellow).
4. DMS Comment: It is suggested in the text that VP 3 and 4 do not meet success because MY2 planted species
were not included in the vegetative table and/or counted toward success. If this is true, update monitoring
data and report to report vegetation for MY3 (including replants). The IRT guidance on not counting
replants toward success is specific to MY5 and MY7 and does not apply in this case. WLS Response: WLS
misinterpreted the guidance in relation to counting newly planted stems. VP 3 and 4 are meeting success
criteria by including the newly planted stems. Table 6 and section 5.5 have been updated accordingly.
5. DMS Comment: Because the lower energy sections of this stream (R3 upper and lower) occur where the
stream flattens out, IRT has previously expressed concern regarding maintaining single thread and moving
sediment through the system. DMS and WLS should watch these sections closely, as the 20% increase in
bankfull area for pool at XS-6 may indicate sediment storage is out of balance there. Please provide any
additional thoughts on how those areas are developing and maintaining flow and sediment balance in the
report. WLS Response: XS-6 is located in a pool on R3 upper. It is expected for pools to fluctuate as sediment
is transported through the system, especially in a year of well above average rainfall. In comparison to the
overlay graph, XS-6 is very similar to the as -built surveyed condition. Due to the low number of points taken
during the MYO as -built survey, WLS opted to use MY1 to calculate bankfull areas which contributed to the
20% change. Based on MY0-MY1 survey, XS-6 pool accumulated sediment, which was flushed out during MY3
heavy flows. During the fall monitoring data collection and visual survey, R3 upper is a stable and functioning
as a single -thread stream system. R3 lower is maintaining stream flow throughout the year in a multi -threaded
stream system, very similar to that found at the Pen Dell (DMS Project #97079) R5 preservation section
located just north of the Project. WLS will continue to carefully monitor this channel segment.
6. DMS Comment: Update rain report for October and November if possible. WLS Response: WLS updated
Figure 5 with the October and November rain total.
DMS Comment: Confirm that the stream photos taken 3/2020 are still relevant for all streams in MY3. WLS
Response: All stream photos taken in March 2020 are still relevant for all locations in MY3. Photos were taken
during the spring visual survey visit prior to the growing season.
Digital Deliverables:
1. DMS Comment: Please provide the "stream problem area" and "encroachment area planted" shapefiles for
the current monitoring year that were included in Figure 1. WLS Response: The shapefiles for "stream
problem area" and "encroachment area planted" are included in the a -data.
2. DMS Comment: Include the visual assessment photos as JPEGS rather than a single PDF. WLS Response:
JPEGS of all photos are now included in the e-data.

Please contact me if you have any questions or comments.
Sincerely,
Water & Land Solutions, LLC
Catherine Manner
Water & Land Solutions, LLC
7721 Six Forks Road, Suite 130
Raleigh, NC 27615
Office Phone: [phone]
Mobile Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

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.............................................................................................4
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........................................................................6
4.1.5 Jurisdictional Stream Flow....................................................................................................6
4.2 Vegetation.....................................................................................................................................6
5 Monitoring Year 3 Assessment and Results.......................................................................................... 6
5.1 Stream Hydrology......................................................................................................................... 6
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.....................................................................................................................................8
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
Table 6b
Re -Plant List
Appendix D Stream Measurement and Geomorphology Data
Figure 2
MY3 Cross -Sections
Figure 3
MY3 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
0
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. WLS staff visited the site
several times throughout Monitoring Year 3 (MY3) for monitoring activities. Data collection occurred
between September and October 2020 (Table 2). This report presents the data for MY3. The Project meets
the MY3 success criteria for stream hydrology and stream horizontal and vertical stability. Two low -stem -
density areas totaling approximately 0.43 acres were replanted in February 2020. Based on these results,
the Project is meeting MY3 success criteria and is expected to meet the Monitoring Year 4 (MY4) success
criteria in 2021. Vegetation problem areas are present but minimal.
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:
Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project
FINAL Monitoring Report Year 3 Page 1

Water & Land Solutions
0
• 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,
• 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:
Improve Base Flow
Remove man-made pond dam and restore a
more natural flow regime and aquatic passage.
Reconnect Floodplain / Increase
Lower BHRs from >2.0 to 1.0-1.2 and maintain
Floodprone Area Widths
ERs at 2.2 or greater.
Improve Bedform Diversity
Increase riffle/pool percentage to 70/30 and
pool -to -pool spacing ratio 4-7X bankfull width.
Reduce BEHI/NBS streambank erosion rates
Increase Lateral Stability
comparable to downstream reference
condition and stable cross-section values.
Plant or protect native species vegetation a
Enhance Riparian Buffer Vegetation
minimum 50' wide from the top of the
streambanks with a composition/density
comparable to reference condition.
Install water quality treatment basins along
Improve Water Quality
the riparian corridor and reduce sediment and
nutrient levels.
Improve Macroinvertebrate
Incorporate native woody debris and bedform
Community and Aquatic Species
diversity into channel and change DWR
Health
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.
Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project
FINAL Monitoring Report Year 3 Page 2

Water & Land Solutions 4
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
vegetation (Appendix C) and now protected through a permanent conservation easement. Table 1
(Appendix A) and Figure 1 (Appendix B) 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.
Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project
FINAL Monitoring Report Year 3 Page 3

Water & Land Solutions 4
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
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.
Improve Base Flow
Remove man-made
Create a more natural
Duration and
pond, pressure
Maintain seasonal flow fora
and higher functioning
Overbank Flows (i.e.
transducer, regional
minimum of 30 consecutive
headwater flow regime
channel forming
curve, regression
days during normal annual
and provide aquatic
discharge)
equations, catchment
rainfall.
passage.
assessment
Provide temporary
Reconnect
Maintain average BHRs at 1.2
water storage and
Floodplain / Increase
Bank Height Ratio,
and increase ERs at 2.2 or
reduce erosive forces
Floodprone Area
Entrenchment Ratio,
greater and document
(shear stress) in
Widths
crest gauge
bankfull/geomorphically
channel during larger
significant flow events.
flow events.
Pool to Pool spacing,
Increase riffle/pool
Provide a more natural
Improve Bedform
riffle -pool sequence,
percentage and pool -to -pool
stream morphology,
Diversity
pool max depth ratio,
spacing ratios compared to
energy dissipation and
Longitudinal Profile
reference reach conditions.
aquatic habitat/refugia.
Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project
FINAL Monitoring Report Year 3 Page 4

Water & Land Solutions 4
BEHI / NBS, Cross- Decrease streambank erosion Reduce sedimentation,
(Level 3) Increase Vertical and
sections and
rates comparable to
excessive aggradation,
Lateral Stability
Longitudinal Profile
reference condition cross-
and embeddedness to
Surveys, visual
section, pattern and vertical
allow for interstitial
assessment
profile values.
flow habitat.
Within planted portions of
CVS Level I & II
the site, a minimum of 320
Increase woody and
Protocol Tree Veg
stems per acre must be
herbaceous vegetation
Establish Riparian
Plots (Strata
present at year three; a
will provide channel
Buffer Vegetation
Composition and
minimum of 260 stems per
stability and reduce
Density), visual
acre must be present at year
streambank erosion,
five; and a minimum of 210
runoff rates and exotic
assessment
stems per acre must be
species vegetation.
present at year seven.
Reduction of excess
nutrients and organic
Improve Water
N/A
N/A
pollutants will increase
(Level 4) Quality
the hyporheic exchange
and dissolved oxygen
(DO) levels.
Increase leaf litter and
Improve Benthic
DWR Small Stream/
organic matter critical
Biology Macroinvertebrate
Qual v4 sampling, IBI
N/A
to provide in -stream
(Level 5) Communities and
(MY3MYSMY7)
, ,
cover/shade, wood
Aquatic Health
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 (01�5=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
Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project
FINAL Monitoring Report Year 3 Page 5

Water & Land Solutions 4
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 planted trees per acre at the end of Year 3 of the monitoring
period and at least 260, five -year -old, planted 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 planted 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 12" 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 3 Assessment and Results
Annual monitoring was conducted during MY3 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). MY3 results are provided in the appendices. The Project meets the MY3 success
criteria for stream hydrology, stream horizontal and vertical stability, and vegetation. Stream Hydrology
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. Two bankfull events occurred during MY3 (see table below). These events were documented
using the described photography (Table 8). The documented occurrence of these two flow events in MY3
Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project
FINAL Monitoring Report Year 3 Page 6

Water & Land Solutions 4
and the three events during MY2 satisfies the requirement of the occurrence of four bankfull events
(overbank flows) in at least two separate years.
5.2 Stream Horizontal & Vertical Stability
Visual assessment and monitoring of 8 permanent cross sections were utilized for assessment of MY3
horizontal and vertical stream stability. The visual assessments for each stream reach concluded that the
MY3 stream channel pattern and longitudinal profiles, instream structure locations, still closely match the
profile design parameters and MYO/baseline conditions. The MY3 plan form geometry or pattern still fall
within acceptable ranges of the design parameters for all restored reaches. One cross section, XS-6 (pool)
located at station 29+56, exhibited a 20% change in bank height ratio when compared to MY1 data (BHR
for pools is not used to determine stability). This is due to the movement of sediment throughout the
stream system and is common in pools. It is not an indication of instability in the reach, based on visual
assessment.
One area of erosion found during the visual assessments of MY2 totaling approximately 15 linear feet and
located in a pool at a meander bend of R4 at approximately STA 18+00 has stabilized and no remedial
action is needed. This area will continue to be monitored in MY4. An additional area on the right bank of
R2 located at the transition of R1 to R2 at station 16+13 has approximately 10 linear feet of undercut bank
and was noted during the spring 2020 visual assessment. This area is where the transition from
preservation to restoration occurred. This area stabilized throughout MY3 and will continue to be
monitored in MY4. Photographs of the two areas can be found in Appendix B. Overall, only minor (non -
systemic) 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 very coarse sand. The post -construction riffle substrate
sampling indicated no significant change in streambed material condition or stability during MY3.
5.4 Jurisdictional Stream Flow Documentation
Jurisdictional stream flow documentation and monitoring of restored intermittent reaches is achieved
using a flow gauge (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 gauge 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).
Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project
FINAL Monitoring Report Year 3 Page 7

Water & Land Solutions
0
5.5 Vegetation
Vegetation monitoring for MY3 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 MY2 in the vicinity of Plots 3 and 4 and were replanted
in February 2020 (Figure 1) with approximately 245 stems with species from the approved planting list
from the mitigation plan. The planting list and quantities are included in Appendix C. Plots 3 and 4 now
meet required success criteria with 324 and 445 stems/acre, respectively.
The MY3 vegetation monitoring was also conducted utilizing visual assessment throughout the easement.
One area of concern located on the left bank of R2 totaling approximately 0.35 acres was noted.
Replanting of the area using containerized trees to increase survivability will occur prior to March 15t" to
meet success criteria for MY4 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. Two additional groundwater
monitoring wells are installed along Reach R3 near station 33 + 75 and 37 + 00 (Figure 4). 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. The well data are presented in the appendices.
Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project
FINAL Monitoring Report Year 3 Page 8

Water & Land Solutions 4
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
FINAL Monitoring Report Year 3 Page 9

Appendices
FJ
Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project

Appendix A — Background Tables and Figures
FJ
Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project

Table 1. Mitigation Assets and Components
Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project (NCDEQ DMS
Project ID# 97080)
Existing
Mitigation
As -Built
Project
Wetland
Footage
Plan
Footage or
ApproacTRa
Component
Position and
or
Footage or
Acreage
Restoration
Prioritytion
Mitigation
(reach ID, etc.)'
HydroType2
Acreage
StationingAcreage
Level
LevelX:1
Credits*
Notes/Comments
R1
611
10+00 -16+11
611
611
P
61
Invasive Control, Permanent Conservation Easement.
Full Channel Restoration, Invasive Control, Permanent Conservation
R2
1007
16+11-27+94
1183
1180
R
PI
1
1183
Easement.
Full Channel Restoration, Invasive Control, Permanent Conservation
R3 (upper
629
27+94-36+09
815
853
R
PI
1
815
Easement.
R3 (lower)
240
36+09 - 37+39
130
149
P
10
13
Invasive Control, Permanent Conservation Easement.
Full Channel Restoration, Pond Removal, Invasive Control, Permanent
R4
815
10+00 - 19+36
951
936
R
PI/PII
1
951
Conservation Easement.
Length and Area Summations by Mitigation Category
Restoration Level
Stream
(linear feet)
Riparian Wetland
(acres)
Non -riparian
Wetland
(acres)
Riverine
Non-Riverine
Restoration
2949
Enhancement
Enhancement I
Enhancement II
Creation
Preservation
741
High Quality Pres
Overall Assets Summary
Overall
Asset Category
Credits*
Stream
3,023
RP Wetland
NR Wetland
* Mitigation Credits are from the final approved mitigation plan, as verified by the as -built survey

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project (NCDEQ DMS Project ID# 97080)
Elapsed Time Since grading complete: 2 yrs 6 months
Elapsed Time Since planting complete: 2 yrs 6 months
Number of reporting Years : 3
Activity or Deliverable
Data Collection
Complete
Completion or
Delivery
Project Contract xecu ion
Final i iga ion Plan Submittal
Section enera(Regional and Nationwide)Permit erica ion
Begin Construction
3/23/2018
Mitigation Site Earthwork Completed
=
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
Year 3 Monitoring Report Submittal
Year onitoring Report Submittal
Year 5 Monitoring Report Submittal
Year 6 Monitoring Report Submittal
Year 7 Monitoring Report Submittal

Table 3. Project Contacts
Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project (NCDEQ DMS Project ID# 97080)
Mitigation Provider
Water & Land Solutions, LLC
7721 Six Forks Road, Suite 130, Raleigh, NC 27615
Primary Project POC
Catherine Manner Phone: [phone]
Construction Contractor
RiverWorks Construction
114 W. Main Street, Suite 106, Clayton, NC 27520
Primary Project POC
Bill Wright Phone: [phone]
Survey Contractor (Existing
WithersRavenel
Condition Surveys)
115 MacKenan Drive, Cary, NC 27511
Primary Project POC
Marshall Wight, PLS Phone: [phone]
Survey Contractor (Conservation
True Line Surveying, PC
Easement, Construction and As-
Builts Surveys)
205 West Main Street, Clayton, NC 27520
Primary Project POC
Curk T. Lane, PLS 919-359-0427
Planting Contractor
RiverWorks Construction
114 W. Main Street, Suite 106, Clayton, NC 27520
Primary Project POC
Bill Wright Phone: [phone]
Seeding Contractor
RiverWorks Construction
114 W. Main Street, Suite 106, Clayton, NC 27520
Primary Project POC
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
Water & Land Solutions, LLC
7721 Six Forks Road, Suite 130, Raleigh, NC 27615
Stream Monitoring POC
Emily Dunnigan Phone: [phone]
Vegetation Monitoring POC
Emily Dunnigan Phone: [phone]

Table 4. Project Information and Attributes
Project Name
Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project
County
Johnston
Project Area (acres)
11.0
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)
35.7245361 N,-78.3570806 W
Planted Acreage (Acres of Woody Stems Planted)
3.69
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province
Piedmont
River Basin
Neuse
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit
03020201
DWR Sub -basin
30406
Project Drainage Area (Acres and Square Miles)
223 acres, 0.35 sq mi
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area
12.30%
CGIA Land Use Classification
2.01.03, 2.99.05, 413, 4.98 (33% crops/hay, 16% pasture,
51 % mixed forest)
Reach Summary Information
Parameters
Reach 1
Reach 2
Reach 3 (upper)
Length of reach (linear feet)
611
1173
770
Valley confinement (Confined, moderately confined, unconfined)
unconfined
unconfined
unconfined
Drainage area (Acres and Square Miles)
96 acres, 0.15 sq mi
120 acres, 0.19 sq
mi
211 acres, 0.33 sq
mi
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral
Intermittent
Perennial
Perennial
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
C; NSW
C; NSW
C;NSW
Stream Classification (existing)
C5
G5c
E5(incised)
Stream Classification (proposed)
C5
C5
C5
Evolutionary trend (Simon)
I
III/IV
IV
FEMA classification
N/A
N/A
N/A
Wetland Summary Information
Parameters
Wetland 1
Wetland 2
Wetland 3
Size of Wetland (acres)
N/A
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?
Supporting Docs?
Water of the United States - Section 404
Yes
Yes
Categorical
Exclusion
Water of the United States - Section 401
Yes
Yes
Categorical
Exclusion
Endangered Species Act
No
Yes
Categorical
Exclusion
Historic Preservation Act
No
N/A
Categorical
Exclusion
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA or CAMA)
No
N/A
N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
Yes
Yes
Categorical
Exclusion
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No
N/A
Categorical
Exclusion
Reach 3 (lower) I Reach 4
130 11176
unconfined lunco
223 acres, 0.35 sq 155 acres, 0.09 sq mi
Perennial II ntermittent
C; NSW IC; NSW
L?1",
Zone AE
III►/0V

Appendix B —Visual Assessment Data
FJ
Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project

_ ! ••- ,+fir
Legend _ 1 • rt "'IF 6;'
{Conservation Easement � }�Y� ' . � �' ', , - .u� `Crest Gauge
+
� Flow Gauge � _ ' -
0 Photo Points - Rd _ X x
Stream Problem Area �gC�
0 Encroachment Area Planted (0.04 acres)�aK6 „y
�{ Stream Reference Site Location
Water Quality Features` r
Pre -Construction Wetlands (2.4 acres)
--- Top of Streambank
Stream Mitigation Type
Preservation "'• s - Stream Bank Erosion
Restoration
Restoration (Field Adjustment) '- . R2
CVS Plots "
0 Success Criteria Met ! '+ •' �`' '`
_ o
0 Success Criteria Not Met
Low Stem Density Areas o °'
Planted o 0PS-5 Xs_�
No (0.35 acres) o N
Yes (0.43 acres) N fN
3-41
Stream Bank Erosion g N PS-7
O O+
aU9e 7 SM+ r^ 7 PS-9
t eC) o �� 7� A. ;y PS 12
R3 (upp0— —
BPS-13o 4
0 PS-
0
M
0, o 1 ' PS-10 R4
WrR3 (lower)/o met/anh
6i.
Ilk
U.
a t
R1
F I. PS-1v�
PS-3
Access point:
35.72617'
78.35283°
ELL— � - T � ��� t-- '� Aerial: Google Earth Winter 2019 w
TM NCDMS Contract No. 6825 Current Conditions FIGURE
WATER & LAND Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project NCDMS Project No. 97080 Plan View
SOLUTIONS Johnston County, North Carolina December 2020 Monitoring Year 3
MY3 NAD 1983 2011 State Plane
North Carolina FIPS 3200 FT US

Table 5. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Project Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project (NCDEQ DMS Project ID# 97080)
Reach ID R1, R2, R3 (upper) and R3 (lower)
Assessed Length 3609
Number
Number with
Footage with
Adjusted % for
Stable,
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Major Channel
Channel
Performing as
Total Number
Unstable
Unstable
Performing as
Woody
Woody
Woody
Cate o
Sub-Cateaory
Metric
Intended
in As -built
Segments
Foota a
Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
1. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth
and/or scour and erosion
1
15
100%
0
0
100
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear
1
10
100%
0
0
100
sustainable and are providing habitat.
13. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
2
25
100%
0
0
100
2. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
47
47
100
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the
sill.
24
24
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
11
11
100
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not
3. Bank Protection
exceed 15 % . (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring
14
14
100
guidance document)
Pool forming structures maintaining — Max Pool Depth : Mean
4. Habitat
Bankfull Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
12
12
100
base -flow.

Table 5a. Vegetation Condition Assessment
Project Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project (NCDEQ DMS Project IN 97080)
Planted Acreage 3.6
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
% of Planted
Ve etation Category
Definitions
Threshold
Depiction
Polygons
Acreage
Acrea e
Pattern and
1. Bare Areas
Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material.
1 acre
0
0.00
0.0%
Color
2. Low Stem Density Areas
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4, or 5 stem count criteria.
0.1 acres solid light blue
1
0.35
9.7%
Total
1
0.35
9.7%
Pattern and
3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small given the monitoring year.
0.25 acres
0
0.00
0.0%
Color
Cumulative Total
1
0.35
9.7%
Easement Acreage 10.97
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
% of Easement
Ve etation Category
Definitions
Threshold
Depiction
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
Pattern and
4. Invasive Areas of Concern
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
1000 SF
0
0.00
0.0%
Color
Pattern and
5. Easement Encroachment Areas3
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
none
0
0.00
0.0%
Color
1 = 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 are those
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 timeframes that 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 be
mapped, if in the judgement of the observer their coverage, density or distribution is suppressing the viability, density, or growth of planted woody stems. Decisions as to whether remediation will be needed are based on the integration of
risk 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 will
warrant control, but potentially large coverages of Microstegium in the herb layer will not likley trigger control because of the limited capacities to impact tree/shrub layers within the timeframes discussed and the potential impacts of treating
extensive 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 in red italics are of particular interest given
their extreme dsktthreat 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 symbology
scheme 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, the
point 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.

PS-1, Reach R1, facing upstream, April 12, 2018 (MY-00) PS-1, Reach R1, facing upstream, March 10, 2020 (MY-03)
IL
PS-2, Reach R1, facing downstream, Dec 6, 2018 (MY-01) PS-2, Reach R1, facing downstream, March 10, 2020 (MY-03)

PS-3, Reach R2, facing upstream, Sta 17+00, April 23, 2018 (MY-00)
t.
�' 1, Vw'
;;eLdy
i
PS-3, Reach R2, facing upstream, Sta 17+00, March 10, 2020 (MY-03)
r Y fuai>I 4 iil L I��� ` 57

AMR, 75Y,
f
PS-5, Reach R2, facing downstream, Sta 19+50, Sept 17, 2018 (MY-00)
,:
c.
_- -
-momrw
PS-6, Reach R2, facing upstream, Sta 20+75, April 23, 2018 (MY-00)
PS-5, Reach R2, facing downstream, Sta 19+50 , March 10, 2020 (MY-03)

AR
PS-7, Reach R2, facing downstream, Sta 21+00, April 23, 2018 (MY-00)
PS-8, Reach R2, facing downstream, Sta 24+50, March 10, 2020 (MY-03)

4111
jilt
PS-9, Reach R2, facing upstream, Sta 25+75, April 23, 2018 (MY-00)
A Mk
� w �
RAW
PS-10, Reach R3, facing downstream, Sta 32+00, April 19, 2018 (MY-00)
fig;¢ I
)
r
y + t
S.
ay
� I _
.s
PS-9, Reach R2, facing upstream, Sta 25+75, March 10, 2020 (MY-03)
i
F �
A.
PS-10, Reach R3, facing downstream, Sta 32+00, March 10, 2020 (MY-03)

r. As p ,
x- `4
r -s
PS-11, Reach R4, facing upstream, Sta 13+00, June 11, 2018 (MY-00)
5
c
.f
PS-11, Reach
R4, facing downstream, Sta 13+00, June 11, 2018 (MY-00)
ClW
1
a..
1
t 4
d
PS-11, Reach R4, facing downstream, Sta 13+00, March 10, 2020 (MY-03)

,
PS-12, Reach R4, facing upstream, Sta 14+00, June 11, 2018 (MY-00)
PS-13, Reach R4, facing upstream, Sta 17+00, June 11, 2018 (MY-00)
PS-12, Reach R4, facing upstream, Sta 14+00, March 10, 2020 (MY-03)

v
Lq-a— "L**' A
ll
w ti
A ism
Veg Plot 1, May 14, 2018 (MY-00) Veg Plot 1, October 13, 2020 (MY-03)
t `}
S i «:.•, a it .. f '
• �. �.°' � � -- -.� fir_ - ���-.•}.•
Veg Plot 2, May 14, 2018 (MY-00) Veg Plot 2, October 13, 2020 (MY-03)

,. i yy i
WPM,wy • • 4 qji�:�¢ `' s —
`RZ'h ':':1¢pJ'p`.• + 1 wv' ���IW�w:;R C.,,Ti. .'vN'l y:•:.'
Y �;r ��,... � � 5i'`` "i s� i r; _ v }�dR ! 3.,yFa fr 8!f a•' $ &�W 7 f,5
14
't ¢
w
r _ �
Veg Plot 3, May 14, 2018 (MY-00) Veg Plot 3, October 13, 2020 (MY-03)
Mn
I i ww"
L F
T:
a r x
7 ,,
Veg Plot 4, May 14, 2018 (MY-00) Veg Plot 4, October 13, 2020 (MY-03)
*plot origin at corner to the right

Appendix C — Vegetation Plot Data
FJ
Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project

Edwards Johnson Mitigation Project
Table 6: Planted and Total Stem Counts
Current Plot Data (MY3 2020)
Annual Means
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
003-01-0001
003-01-0002
003-01-0003
003-01-0004
MY3 (2020)
MY2 (2019)
MYl (2018)
MYO (2018)
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
Acer rubrum
Tree
4
4
1
1
5
2
1
2
17
1
1
1
Alnus serrulata
Tag Alder, Smooth AU
Shrub Tree
3
3
3
Betula nigra
River Birch, Red Birch
Tree
4
4
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
8
8
8
6
6
6
7
7
7
8
8
8
Carpinus caroliniana
Shrub Tree
2
2
2
Cornus amomum
Silky Dogwood
Shrub Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
5
5
5
4
4
4
5
5
5
8
8
8
Cornus florida
Flowering Dogwood
Shrub Tree
2
Diospyros virginiana
American Persimmon,
Tree
1
1
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash, Red Ash
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
4
4
4
Ilex verticillata
Winterberry
Shrub Tree
1
1
1
Lindera benzoin
Northern Spicebush
Shrub Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
4
4
4
4
4
4
8
8
8
11
11
11
Liquidambar styraciflua
Sweet Gum, Red Gum
Tree
2
1
1
4
7
4
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tree
2
1
3
3
3
3
3
6
2
11
7
7
7
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore, Plane -tree
Tree
5
5
5
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
10
10
10
8
8
9
7
7
8
10
10
10
Quercus michauxii
Basket Oak, Swamp Ch
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
Quercus nigra
Water Oak, Paddle Cal
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
6
6
6
Quercus phellos
Willow Oak
Tree
3
3
3
1
1
1
4
4
4
3
3
3
8
8
10
7
7
7
Rhus copallinum
Shrub Tree
Rhus typhina
Staghorn Sumac
Shrub
1
Salix nigra
Black Willow
Tree
2
6
Sambucuscanadensis
Common Elderberry
Shrub Tree
1
1
5
Ulmus rubra
Slippery Elm, Red Elm
ITree
2
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
13
13
19
9
9
12
8
8
10
11
11
12
41
41
53
33
33
51
49
491
97
70
70
70
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
4
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
51
51
71
51
51
7
5
5
7
6
6
7
9
9
12
9
9
13
11
11
17
12
12
12
526.1
526.1
768.9
364.2
364.2
485.6
323.7
323.7
404.7
445.2
445.2
485.6
414.8
414.8
536.2
333.9
333.9
516
495.7
495.7
981.41
708.21
708.21
708.2

Table 6b: February 2020 Replanting List
Quantity
Species
Type
50
eetula nigra
bare root
50
Plantanus occidentalis
bare root
25
Quercus michauxii
bare root
50
eetula nigra
1 gallon
20
Quercus michauxii
1 gallon
25
Acer rubrum
1 gallon
25
Liriodendron tulipifera
1 gallon

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

Project Name
Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project
Project ID
97080
ReachlD
R2
Cross Section ID
XS-1
Field Crew
E. Dunnigan, N. Childs
Dimension Data Summary: MY3 2020
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
244.5
Low Bank Height Elevation (ft)
244.4
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.3
Low Bank Height (ft)
1.2
Bank Height Ratio
0.9
Bankfull X-section Area (ft2)
4.9
% Change Bank Height Ratio
10.0%
Looking Downstream
XS-1 Riffle, STA 18+77
Baseline MYO MY1 —MY2 MY3 — — Bankfull Elevation Floodprone Area
248
247
y 246
w
0 245
r
w 244
243
242
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Width (feet)
* 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 (912018). The remainder of the bankfull dimensions are calculated based on the current year's low bank height.
MY1 used in place of as -built (MYO) due to issues with the as -built survey standards identified during MY1.
Edwards Johnson Mitigation Project Water and Land Solutions
DMS Project 497080 Annual Monitoring Report
October 2020 Monitoring Year 3 of 7

Project Name
Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project
Project ID
97080
ReachlD
R2
Cross Section ID
XS-2
Field Crew
K. Obermiller, E. Dunnigan
Dimension Data Summary: MY3 2020
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
241.1
Low Bank Height Elevation (ft)
241.1
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.9
Low Bank Height (ft)
1.9
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
Bankfull X-section Area (ftz)
6.5
Change Bank Height Ratio
0.0%
Looking Downstream
XS-2 Pool, STA 21+14
Baseline MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 — — Bankfull Elevation Floodprone Area
244
243
a) 242
0 241
-------------------------------------------
------------------ ----------------- ---
VV
d
w 240
239
238
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Width (feet)
*Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on MY7 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 (912018). 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 MY7.
Edwards Johnson Mitigation Project Water and Land Solutions
DMS Project 497080 Annual Monitoring Report
October 2020 Monitoring Year 3 of 7

Project Name
Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project
Project ID
97080
ReachlD
R4
Cross Section ID
XS-3
Field Crew
E. Dunnigan, N. Childs
Dimension Data Summary: MY3 2020
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
239.5
Low Bank Height Elevation (ft)
239.5
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
2.3
Low Bank Height (ft)
2.3
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
Bankfull X-section Area (ftz)
11.0
Change Bank Height Ratio
0.0%
Looking Downstream
XS-3 Pool, STA 16+43
Baseline MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 — — Bankfull Elevation Floodprone Area
242
241
a) 240
0 239
d
w 238
237
236
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Width (feet)
*Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on MY7 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 (912018). 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 MY7.
Edwards Johnson Mitigation Project Water and Land Solutions
DMS Project 497080 Annual Monitoring Report
October 2020 Monitoring Year 3 of 7

Project Name
Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project
Project ID
97080
ReachlD
R4
Cross Section ID
XS-4
Field Crew
E. Dunnigan, N. Childs
Dimension Data Summary: MY3 2020
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
238.9
Low Bank Height Elevation (ft)
238.9
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
0.9
Low Bank Height (ft)
1.0
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
Bankfull X-section Area (ftz)
5.2
Change Bank Height Ratio
0.0%
Looking Downstream
XS-4 Riffle, STA 16+97
Baseline MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 — — Bankfull Elevation Floodprone Area
242
241
a) 240
0 239
d
w 238
237
236
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Width (feet)
*Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on MY7 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 (912018). 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 MY7.
Edwards Johnson Mitigation Project Water and Land Solutions
DMS Project 497080 Annual Monitoring Report
October 2020 Monitoring Year 3 of 7

Project Name
Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project
Project ID
97080
ReachlD
R3
Cross Section ID
XS-5
Field Crew
E. Dunnigan, N. Childs
Dimension Data Summary: MY3 2020
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
234.3
Low Bank Height Elevation (ft)
234.4
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.4
Low Bank Height (ft)
1.5
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
Bankfull X-section Area (ftz)
4.7
Change Bank Height Ratio
0.0%
Looking Downstream
XS-5 Riffle, STA 28+24
Baseline MYO —MY1 — MY2 MY3 — — Bankfull Elevation Floodprone Area
237
236
y
v
235
0
234
------------------- -
--------------------------
-------
d
w
233
232
231
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Width (feet)
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 (912018). The remainder of the bankfu# 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.
Edwards Johnson Mitigation Project Water and Land Solutions
DMS Project #97080 Annual Monitoring Report
October 2020 Monitoring Year 3 of 7

Project Name
Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project
Project ID
97080
ReachlD
R3
Cross Section ID
XS-6
Field Crew
E. Dunnigan, N. Childs
Dimension Data Summary: MY3 2020
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
233.0
Low Bank Height Elevation (ft)
233.3
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.4
Low Bank Height (ft)
1.7
Bank Height Ratio
1.2
Bankfull X-section Area (ftz)
5.6
Change Bank Height Ratio
20.0%
Looking Downstream
XS-6 Pool, STA 29+56
Baseline MYO —MY1 MY2 MY3 — — Bankfull Elevation Floodprone Area
236
235
y 234
-
0 233
----------------------------------------------------------------
m
w 232
231
230
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Width (feet)
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 (912018). The remainder of the bankfu# 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.
Edwards Johnson Mitigation Project Water and Land Solutions
DMS Project #97080 Annual Monitoring Report
October 2020 Monitoring Year 3 of 7

Project Name
Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project
ProjectID
97080
Reach ID
R3 (Multi -Thread Channel)
Cross Section ID
XS-7
Field Crew
E. Dunnigan, N. Childs
Dimension Data Summary: MY3 2020
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
230.7
Low Bank Height Elevation (ft)
230.6
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
0.4
Low Bank Height (ft)
0.4
Bank Height Ratio
0.9
Bankfull X-section Area (ftz)
4.7
Change Bank Height Ratio
10.0%
Looking Downstream
XS-7 Riffle, STA 33+18
Baseline MYO —MY1 - MY2 MY3 - - -Bankfull Elevation — Floodprone Area
235
234
y 233
0 232
m
w 231
---------------------------------------
---------------------------
------
-- ------------------------------------
230
229
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Width (feet)
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 (912018). The remainder of the bankfu# 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.
"" X7 right and left pins extended per request after MY1
Edwards Johnson Mitigation Project Water and Land Solutions
DMS Project #97080 Annual Monitoring Report
October 2020 Monitoring Year 3 of 7

Project Name
Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project
ProjectID
97080
Reach ID
R3 (Multi -Thread Channel)
Cross Section ID
XS-8
Field Crew
E. Dunnigan, N. Childs
Dimension Data Summary: MY3 2020
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
233.2
Low Bank Height Elevation (ft)
233.2
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
0.7
Low Bank Height (ft)
0.7
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
Bankfull X-section Area (ftz)
4.7
Change Bank Height Ratio
0.0%
Looking Downstream
XS-8 Riffle, STA 30+50
-MY2 MY3 — — Bankfull Elevation —Floodprone Area
236
235
m
234
c
0
233
---- ----
------- --- -------------------
----------
--------------------
--------- ------
w
232
231
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Width (feet)
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 (912018). The remainder of the bankfu# dimensions are calculated based on the current year's low bank height.
" MY2 used in place of as -built (MY0) for BHR calculations.
"'XS-8 was added during MY1 post -monitoring site visit
Edwards Johnson Mitigation Project Water and Land Solutions
DMS Project #97080 Annual Monitoring Report
October 2020 Monitoring Year 3 of 7

Edwards -Johnson
Figure 3: Pebble Count
Date Collected 9/21/2018 10/18/2019 9/30/2020
MY 1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
MATERIAL PARTICLE
SIZE (mm)
Total #
Total #
Total #
Total #
Total #
Total #
Total #
SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay
<.063
7
5
4
Very Fine
.063-.125
4
6
2
Fine
.125-.25
14
7
20
S A N
Medium
.25-.50
19
8
=LMACoarse
.50 -1.0
19
20
19
Very Coarse
1.0-2.0
19
13
17
Very Fine
2.0-2.8
7
7
1
30 �0 �,
7 VeryFine
2.8-4.0
4
7
2
,0 �
01
Fine
4.0-5.6
2
7
2
Fine
5.6-8.0
4
11
Medium
8.0-11.0
1
3
7
Medium
11.0 - 16.0
1
6
9
c
Coarse
16-22.6
1
4
2
00^ 0J
Coarse
22.6 - 32
2
3
1
Very Coarse
32-45
1
0 00 �p
Very Coarse
45 - 64
2
_
Small
64-90
Small
90 - 128
COBBLE
Large
128 - 180
Large
180-256
Small
256 - 362
Small
362 - 512
Medium
512 - 1024
Q.
Large -Very Large
1024-2048
BEDROCK
Bedrock
> 2048
11001
1001
100
Total
Cumulative
MY3
D16
0.16
0.2
0.18
D35
0.36
0.66
0.69
D50
0.62
1.1
1.2
D65
1.1
2.5
4
D84
2.4
7.8
11
D95
N/A
19
19
Riffle
Pool
Channel materials
Channel materials
D16 =
0.51
D16 =
0.15
D35 =
1.1
D35 =
0.2
D50 =
1.7
D50 =
0.25
D65 =
6.2
D65 =
0.78
D84 =
9.8
D84 =
14
D95 =
151
D95 =
49
Weighted pebble count by bed features Edwards-Jonhson Mitigation Project
70% riffle 30% pool
weighted percent Riffle Pool -# of particles
100%
90%
80%
70%
L
60%
C_
50%
C
40%
a
30%
20%
10%
0%
0.25
0.2 m
cQ'
m
Q
0.15
ID
0.1
m
o'
0.05 a,
v
0 m
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
particle size (mm)

Table 7a. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project (NCDEQ DMS Project ID# 97080)
Parameter
Pre -
Restoration
Condition
Reference
Reach Data
Design
As -Built/ Baseline
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 ftZ
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 Ratiol
1.1
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)l
22.0
1 50.0
1 14.4
1 22.3
1 -
-
-
-
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 Ratiol
2.2
6.4
3.9
4.5
-
-
-
-
Transport Parameters
Boundary Shear Stress Ib/ftZ'
-
-
-
-
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankful
-
-
-
-
Stream Power(W/m2)
-
-
-
-
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C5
E5/C5
E5/C5
E5/C5
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
4.1
4.5
-
-
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
20.0
---
-
-
Sinuosity
1.21
1.1 - 1.3
-
-
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)l
0.010
0.015
-
-
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)l
0.012
1 0.015
1-
-

Parameter
Pre -Restoration
Condition
Reference
Reach Data
Design
As -Built/
Baseline
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 (ff)
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)l
22.0
1 39.0
1 14.4
1 22.3
1 30.0
1 55.0
1 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 Ratiol
2.3
6.4
3.9
4.5
3.0 1 8.0
4.4
7.6
Transport Parameters
Boundary Shear Stress Ib1fe"
-
-
0.49
-
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankful
-
-
2.00
-
Stream Power W/M2
-
-
31.00
-
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
G5
E5/C5
C5
C5
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
4.1
4.5
4.7
4.7
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
26.0
-
26.0
26.0
Sinuosity
1.16
1.1
-1.3
1.17
1.17
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)l
0.011
0.015
0.011
0.012
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)l
0.012
1 0.015
1 0.012
1
0.013

Parameter
Pre -Restoration
Condition
Reference
Reach Data
Design
As -Built/
Baseline
Reach ID: R3 (lower) Preservation
Dimension (Riffle)
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Bank -full Width (ft)
4.4
7.2
4.5
8.3
-
-
-
-
Floodprone Width (ft)
30.0
70.0
10.0
35.0
-
-
-
-
Bank -full Mean Depth (ft)
0.4
0.8
0.8
1.6
-
-
-
-
Bank -full Max Depth (ft)
0.5
0.9
0.9
1.3
-
-
-
-
Bank -full Cross Sectional Area ft2)
3.3
5.3
3.0
5.0
-
-
-
-
Width/Depth Ratio
8.0
20.0
6.2
14.2
-
-
-
-
Entrenchment Ratio
3.0
8.0
7.1
8.4
-
-
-
-
Bank Height Ratiol
1.0
1 -
1 0.9
1.1
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)
5.0
8.0
6.1
8.7
-
-
-
-
Pool Max Depth (ft)
1.3
1.7
1.8
2.4
-
-
-
-
Pool Spacing (ft)l
22.0
1 39.0
1 14.4
1 22.3
1 -
I -
-I
-
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)
1.6
2.9
1.6
2.5
-
-
-
-
Meander Wavelength (ft)
27.0
50.0
43.4
65.1
-
-
-
-
Meander Width Ratiol
6.4
1 8.5
1 3.9
1 4.5
1 -
I -
-
-
Transport Parameters
Boundary Shear Stress Ib/ft2)
-
-
0.49
-
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bank -full
-
-
2.00
-
Stream Power W/m2)
-
1 29.00
-
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
E5
E5/C5
-
-
Bank -full Velocity (fps)
4.1
4.0
-
-
Bank -full Discharge (cfs)
37.0
-
-
-
Sinuosity
1.21
1.1 -1.3
-
-
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)l
0.008
1 0.015
1 -
I -
Bank -full Slope (ft/ft)l
0.009
1 0.015
1 -
I -

Parameter
Pre -Restoration
Condition
Reference
Reach Data
Design
As -Built/
Baseline
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 (ff)
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 Ratiol
1.1
1
1.7
1 0.9
1 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)l
22.0
1
39.0
1 14.4
1 22.3
1 25.0
1
51.0
1 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 Ratiol
6.4
3.9
4.5
3.3 1
5.1
5.1
7.6
Transport Parameters
Boundary Shear Stress Ib/fe"
-
-
0.51
-
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankful
-
-
2.00
-
Stream Power W/M2
-
-
28.90
-
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
E5 incised
E5/C5
C5
C5
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
4.1
4.5
5.7
4.5
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
34.0
-
34.0
34.0
Sinuosity
1.20
1.1
- 1.3
1.20
1.16
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)l
0.007
0.015
0.009
0.009
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)l
0.009
1 0.015
1 0.011
1 0.011

Parameter
Pre -Restoration
Condition
Reference
Reach Data
Design
As -Built/
Baseline
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 ft)
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 Ratiol
1.7
1 -
0.9
1 1.1
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)l
38.0
1 87.0
1 10.0
1 30.0
1 22.0
1 50.0
1 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 - I - 1 3.9 1 4.5 1 3.3 1 5.3 3.0 6.0
Transport Parameters
Boundary Shear Stress Ib/ff)
-
-
0.48
-
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
-
-
2.00
-
Stream Power W/mZ)
-
1 24.50
1-
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
G5c
C5
C5
C5
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
7.0
4.0
4.5
4.5
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
16.0
-
16.0
16.0
Sinuosity
1.06
1.1 - 1.2
1.15
1.14
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)l
0.019
0.015
0.017
0.017
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)l
0.018
1 0.015
1 0.017
1 0.017

Table 7b. Monitoring Data - Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross Sections)
Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project (NCDEQ DMS Project ID# 97080)
Cross Section 1 (Riffle)
Cross Section 2 (Pool)
Cross Section 3 (Pool)
Parameters
Base
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
7.8
8.4
13.3
5.8
6.1
9.2
9.3
8.7
7.8
Floodprone Width (ft)
32.0
32.0
34.0
34.0
31.0
30.7
31.0
31.0
40.0
40.4
40.0
40.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.8
0.5
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.2
1.3
1.2
1.3
1.7
1.6
1.8
1.9
2.0
2.1
2.3
2.3
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ftZ)5.2
4.9
4.9
4.9
6.7
6.5
6.5
6.5
10.4
11.0
11.0
11.0
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
15.9
11.4
15.0
12.4
10.6
27.8
5.1
5.8
8.2
7.9
6.8
5.5
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
3.6
4.2
4.0
4.4
3.7
2.3
5.4
5.1
4.3
4.3
4.6
5.1
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.9
<1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
d50 (mm
N/a
0.8
1.8
1.7
N/a
0.4
0.3
0.3
N/a
0.4
0.3
0.3
Cross Section 4 (Riffle)
Cross Section 5 (Riffle)
Cross Section 6 (Pool)
Parameter
Base
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
9.6
8.8
8.0
6.8
6.8
10.4
14.3
25.7
5.8
Floodprone Width (ft
38.0
38.2
38.0
38.0
38.0
44.8
44.0
44.0
44.0
44.5
44.0
44.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.4
0.2
1.0
Bankfull Max Depth (ft
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.3
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.1
1.0
1.4
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ftZ)5.4
5.2
5.2
5.2
5.5
4.7
4.7
4.7
7.7
5.6
5.6
5.6
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
14.3
13.0
13.0
17.8
14.3
12.1
9.9
9.9
14.1
37.1
117.0
6.0
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
4.3
4.7
4.6
4.0
4.3
5.6
6.4
6.5
4.2
3.1
1.7
7.6
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.2
d50 (mm)
N/a
0.8
1.8
1.7
N/a
0.8
1.8
1.7
N/a
0.4
0.3
0.3
Cross Section 7 Riffle
Cross Section 8 Riffle
Parameter
Base
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
28.5
N/A
N/A
24.8
24.7
Floodprone Width ft
27.0
31.7
64.0
59.1
N/A
N/A
135.8
131.0
Bankfull Mean De th ft
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.2
N/A
N/A
0.2
0.2
Bankfull Max Depth ft
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.4
N/A
N/A
0.8
0.7
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ft2
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.7
N/A
N/A
4.7
4.7
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
71.8
69.7
158.9
174.2
N/A
N/A
130.6
131.4
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
1.5
1.7
2.4
2.1
N/A
N/A
5.5
5.3
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.1
0.9
N/A
N/A
1.0
1.0
IJ
d50 mm
N/a
0.8
1.8
1.7
N/A
0.8
1.8
1.7
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

Table 7c. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Summary
Edwards -Johnson Miti ation Project NCDEQ DMS Project ID# 97080
Parameter
Baseline
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
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)
-
-
Pattern and Profile data will not typically be
collected unless visual data, dimensional data or
profile data indicate significant deviations from
baseline conditions
Pool Spacing (ft)
-
I -
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft) - -
Radius of Curvature (ft) - -
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft) - -
Meander Wavelength (ft) - -
Meander Width Ratio - -
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C5
Sinuosity (ft)
1.21
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
0.01
Pattern data will not typically be
collected unless visual data,
dimensional data or profile data
BF slope (ft/ft)
0.012
Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95
2% of Reach with Eroding Bank
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Othe

Parameter
Baseline
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
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 and Profile data will not typically be
collected unless visual data, dimensional data or
profile data indicate significant deviations from
baseline conditions
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 Ratiol 4.4 7.6
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C5
Sinuosity (ft)
1.17
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
0.012
Pattern data will not typically be collected unless visual
data, dimensional data or profile data indicate significant
shifts from baseline
BF slope (ft/ft)
0.013
Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
3SC%/ Sa%/ G%/ C%/ B%/ Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95
Z% of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other,

Parameter
Baseline
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
Reach ID: R3 (upper)
Min
IMax
Min IMax
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
Pattern and Profile data will not typically be
collected unless visual data, dimensional data or
profile data indicate significant deviations from
baseline conditions
Pool Spacing (ft)
11.8
35.5
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft) 30 45
Radius of Curvature (ft) 15 25
Re:Bankfull width (ft/ft) 2.5 4.2
Meander Wavelength (ft) 30 44.8
6mmMeander Width Ratiol 5.1 7.6
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C5
Sinuosity (ft)
1.16
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
0.009
Pattern data will not typically be collected unless visual
data, dimensional data or profile data indicate
significant shifts from baseline
BF slope (ft/ft)
0.011
Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / B% / Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95
Z% of Reach with Eroding Bank
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other

Parameter
Baseline
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
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
Pattern and Profile data will not typically be
collected unless visual data, dimensional data or
profile data indicate significant deviations from
baseline conditions
Pool Spacing (ft)
19
41
1
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
LL
6om Meander Width Ratiol 3 6
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C5
Sinuosity (ft)
1.14
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
0.017
Pattern data will not typically be collected unless visual
data, dimensional data or profile data indicate
significant shifts from baseline
BF slope (ft/ft)
0.017
Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / B% / Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95
2% of Reach with Eroding Bank
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other

Appendix E — Hydrologic Data
FJ
Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project

Table 8
Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project (NCDEQ DMS Project ID# 97080)
Greater than Bankfull (Bkf) or
Date of Data Collection
Date of Occurrence Method
Qgs (Q2*0.66) Stage?
Photo/ Notes
Measurement
Meets Requirment
9/17/2018
9/16-9/17/2018 Observed indicators of bankfull stage (wrack
Bkf
Photo
No
lines after storm event
7/26/2019
7/24/2019 Crest Gauge
Bkf
Photo
.25 ft
No
8/20/2019
unknown Crest Gauge
Bkf
Photo
.28 ft
No
9/6/2019
9/5/2019 Crest Gauge
Bkf
Photo
.25 ft
No
9/6/2019
9/5/2019 Observed indicators of bankfull stage (wrack
Bkf
Photo
NA
Yes
lines) after storm event
2/7/2020
2/6/2020 Crest Gauge
Bkf
Photo
85 .ft
Yes
8/4/2020
8/4/2020 Crest Gauge
Bkf
Photo
0.5 ft
Yes
y
lk
�t,
f'aURf 1 ..11]
8/4/2020

Figure 4: Groundwater Gauge Graphs
3
2.5
2
a
1.5
a
v
0
E 1
v
Edwards -Johnson Flow Gauge - R4
165 days of flow: 1/1/20 - 6/13/20
-0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
N
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
N
0
0
0 0
N
\
N
N
\
N
\
N
\
N
\
N
\
N
\
N
\
N
\
N
\
N
\
N
\
N
\
N
\
N
\
N
\
N
\
N
\
N N
\ \
�
un
Gt
N
tD
c-I
u1
N
rD
O
M
r
'-1
n
Ln
Q1
N
tD
Ol
CO r
N
rl
rl
N
N
M
rn
Ln
%D
ID
r`
n
00
00
(n
O
0) e-I
� Daily Rainfall —Stream Depth Flow Limit
0
-2
t -4
c
-6
L
aai -8
v -10
Y
-12
o -14
V'
-16
-18
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cj rq 0000000000000000000000
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
N Q\i 6 rn O rn O r, N N ai w N Q\1 W M O n � q 0000 7 e q 0\0 Ln
\ \ e1 N M \ 'I N N n 'I ci N \ \ 14 N M \ e q N N \ '-I ei N \ \
'i �--4 \ \ \ N \ \ \ M \ \ \ \ \ \ vY \ \ \ W
14 'i ci N N N M M CO a a u1 u1 u1 ID %D lD
Daily Rainfall Groundwater Depth Ground Level 12" Below Surface Growing Season
4
3.5
3
a
s
2.5 c
2 Z
c
1.5
m
1 �
0.5
0
Edwards Johnson Groundwater Gauge 1
4
3.5
3
0.5
0

Edwards Johnson Groundwater Gauge 2
25
191
days, 84.14% of the Growing Season
4
20
3.5
ar
15
3
w
c_
v
C
-
«
10
2.5
c_
aai
5
—
2
w
a
c
«
0
'm
1.5
c
0
-5
10
Z11
4V
1
.m
Q
0.5
-15
I
I
I
lid
-20
0
0
0
0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0
0
0 0
0 0
0
0
0
N
N
N N N
N N
0
N
N
0
N
N
0
N
0
N N
N N N
N
N N
N
N
tDD
O f n n
to -4 N
N l\D
-4rl
I N
O\1
CO
N
N
e\-4
N
0000 N
rl
W O m n
e-I M a -I N
O
e-I N
0000
N N
c n Cnn
n
t\D ^
n n 0`0 0000
0) 0)
Daily
Rainfall
Groundwater Depth
-,Ground
Level
12" Below Surface
Growing Season
Edwards Johnson Groundwater Gauge 3
10 4
v 5
s
U
C
L 0
a
W
0
W
m -5
3
v
c
0
0 -10
-15
.. � .� . U
0
0
O O
O O
O
O
N
O CO
14
e-I
CO -4
e-I N
R4 days_ 17.on%nf the Growina Seasnn
O O
CD
CD
O
O
0
N
N
N N
N
CD N
N
CD N
N
N CD
N
r- N
n
rn
can
n
v 0
N M
M
v
n
U)
n
tD
O O
0 N
CD N N
N N
N t`D
O r\n
n
1�
rn
00
n 0
Daily Rainfall Groundwater Depth Ground Level 12" Below Surface
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
n
o
a
n
00
00
Cn
Cn
o
rl
Growing Season
I: i
m
1 0
0.5
0

Figure 4b - Groundwater Gauge Data
Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project (NCDEQ DMS Project ID# 97080)
MY3 2020
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)
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
Mean
Edwards -Johnson Wetland Gauge 1
M
6.17%
6.61%
Edwards -Johnson Reference Wetland Gauge 2
M
39.21%
84.14%
Edwards -Johnson Reference Wetland Gauge 3
N/A
N/A
37.00%
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 - Gauge pulled or yet to be installed by this phase
M Malfunction, Data Overwritten or Unretrievable

Figure 5: Monthly Rainfall Data
Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project (NCDEQ DMS Project ID# 97080)
MY3 2020
30-70 Percentile Rainfall Graph
Clayton, NC (CLAY - Central Crops Research Station)
14
12
10
c
8
0
EL
u 6
GJ
a
4 -
2 -
0 -
Jan-20 Feb-20 Mar-20 Apr-20 May-20 Jun-20 Jul-20 Aug-20 Sep-20 Oct-20 Nov-20 Dec-20
Date
Observed Rainfall 30th Percentile 70th Percentile
*30th and 70th percentile rainfall data collected from weather station CLAY - Central Crops Research Station in Clayton, NC.
**Incomplete Month
Month
30%
70%
Observed
Jan-20
2.72
4.62
5.87
Feb-20
2.26
4.09
5.67
Mar-20
3.30
5.03
3.34
Apr-20
2.16
4.20
4.56
May-20
2.65
4.58
3.49
Jun-20
2.41
5.00
6.26
Jul-20
3.88
6.36
5.26
Aug-20
3.17
6.03
12.75
Sep-20
2.93
6.12
7.49
Oct-20
2.08
4.08
2.13
Nov-20
2.05
4.23
6.19
Dec-20
2.57
5.54
**