20160403 Ver 2_Year 3 Monitoring Report_2020_20201231

ID#* 20160403 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#:* 20160403
Existing IDI
Project Type: r DMS r Mitigation Bank
Project Name: Pen Dell
County: Johnston
Document Information
Email Address:*
[e-mail]
Version: * 1
Existing Version
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Monitoring Report
File Upload: Pen Dell _97079_MY3_2020.pdf 22.63MB
Rease upload only one PDF of the complete file that needs to be subrritted...
Signature
Print Name:* Lindsay Crocker
Signature:*

Monitoring Report- Year 3
FINAL VERSION
Pen Dell Mitigation Project
Calendar Year of Data Collection: 2020
NCDEQ DIMS Project Identification # 97079
NCDEQ DIMS Contract # 6824
Neuse River Basin (Cataloging Unit 03020201)
USACE Action ID Number: SAW-2016-00885
NCDEQ DWR Project # 2016-0403
Johnston County, NC
Contracted Under RFP # 16-006477
Data Collection Period: September -October 2020
Submission Date: December 11, 2020
Prepared for:
N-al
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 FORKS ROAD, SUITE 130, RALEIGH, NC 27615
(919) 614 - 5111 1 waterlandsolutions.com

WATER & LAND SOLUTIONS
772T SIX FORKS ROAD, SUITE 130, RALEIGH, NC 27615
(919) 614 - 5111 I waterlandsolutions.com
December 11, 2020
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 9 Draft Monitoring Report Year 3 for the Pen
Dell Mitigation Project, NCDEQ DMS Full -Delivery Project ID #97079, Contract #006824, 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 3 for the Pen Dell
Mitigation Project to the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) Division of Mitigation
Services (DMS). 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
DMS review comments is copied below in bold text, followed by the appropriate response from WLS in regular text:
1. The project states that all metrics met success, but one of the cross -sections and vegetation plots do
not. Revise to remove statement or add explanation for metrics not meeting. See comments from Lake
Wendell report. WLS Response: WLS has updated section 5 of the report to clarify the metrics which are
not meeting success criteria. Section 5.2 (Stream Horizontal & Vertical Stability) and section 5.5
(Vegetation) were updated with additional language and a explanation of the one cross section and one
vegetation plot that do not meet success criteria.
2. DMS Comment: Update rain report for October and November if possible. WLS Response: WLS updated
Figure 5 with the October and November rain total.
3. 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 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.
2. DMS Comment: Assign unique ID's to the photo station spatial features and resubmit these features,
ensuring that these ID's match the photo station ID's provided in the Monitoring Report. WLS Response:
The GIS shapefile containing the photo stations has been updated to include the unique ID in the attribute
table. The unique ID is also shown in appendix B on each photo.

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]

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............................................................................................. 2
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 Enhancement Level 11..............................................................................................................3
3.1.2 R2 Enhancement Level I...............................................................................................................3
3.1.3 R3 Enhancement Level I...............................................................................................................3
3.1.4 R4 Restoration.............................................................................................................................4
3.1.5 R5 Preservation............................................................................................................................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 3 Assessment and Results............................................................................................... 7
5.1 Stream Hydrology............................................................................................................................... 7
5.2 Stream Horizontal & Vertical Stability................................................................................................7
5.3 Streambed Material Condition and Stability......................................................................................7
5.4Jurisdictional Stream Flow Documentation........................................................................................8
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
Appendix D Stream Measurement and Geomorphology Data
Figure 2
Cross-section Data
Figure 3
Sediment Sample
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
Monthly Rainfall Data

Water & Land Solutions
0
1 Project Summary
Water and Land Solutions, LLC (WLS) completed the construction and planting of the Pen Dell Mitigation
Project (Project) full -delivery project for the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
(NCDEQ), Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) in April 2018. The Project is located in Johnston County,
NC between the Community of Archer Lodge and the Town of Wendell at 35.73125°,-78.35281°. The
Project site is located in the NCDEQSub-basin 03-04-06, in the Lower Buffalo Creek Priority Sub -watershed
030202011504.
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 5,064 linear feet of existing
streams and 633,803 square feet of riparian buffers (see buffer summary table below). WLS staff visited
the site several times throughout 2020. Monitoring Year 3 (MY3) data collection activities 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, streambed material condition and stability, and stream
flow. For stream horizontal and vertical stability, one cross section is not meeting requirements. One
vegetation plot is not meeting success requirements for vegetation. Based on these results, the Project is
expected to meet the Monitoring Year 4 (MY4) success criteria in 2021.
Buffer Project Areas and Assets
RCmverted to Nutri art
offset
Location
Jurisdictional Streams
Restoration type
Reach ID/
Component
Buffer Width
(it)
Creditable
A­[sQ•
Initial
Credit
Rado xa
%Full
Credit
Final Credit Ratio
(xa)
Riparian Buffer
Gedits [6MU]
Cun—tiblet.
Nutrient offset
Yes or No
Nutrient
offset: N
Ibs
Nutrient
offset: P
Ibs
20-19
75%
1.33333
0
0.001
0.000
Restoration
30-100
286,R88
1
100y,
1.00000
186958
0.001
0.000
Ruralor
101-200
33'Y,
3.00000
0
0.00C
0.000
Urban
Subject or NOnsubject
20-19
75'%
1.66657
0
0.00C
0.000
Enhancement
30-100
124,088
2
100!%
2.00000
61044
0.00C
0,000
101-2001
1 33%1
6.000001
01
D.06C
0,000
1
Location
Jurisdictional Streams
Restoration type
Reach ID/
Component
Buffer Width
(ft)
Creditable
Nea [A.
nitlal
Credit
Ratio lx1l
%Full
Credit
Final Credit Ratio
Ixa)
Riparian Buller
Credl%(BM U)
Rural
Subject
Preservation
20-29
10
75Y,
13.33333
0
30-100
222827
100%
10.00000
22283
101-200
33Y
30.00000
0
Nonsubje Ct
20-19
5
75!1,,
6.66657
0
30-100
lw%
5.00000
0
101-200
33'Y
15.00000
0
Urban
Subject or Nonsubject
20-29
3
-1 ,
4.00002
0
30-100
100'tl
3.00n.
0
101-200
33%
9.00000
0
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 catchment area is 156 acres and has an impervious cover of approximately one percent. The
dominant surrounding land uses are agriculture and mixed forest. Prior to construction, livestock had
access to R3 and R4, and the riparian buffers were less than 50 feet wide on all reaches except R5.
Pen Dell Mitigation Project Page 1
FINAL Monitoring Report Year 3

Water & Land Solutions 4
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:
Improve and/or remove existing stream
Improve Base Flow
crossings and restore a more natural flow
regime and aquatic passage.
Reconnect Floodplain / Increase
Lower BHRs from >2.0 to <1.2 and increase ERs
Floodprone Area Widths
at 2.2 or greater.
Improve Bedform Diversity
Increase riffle/pool percentage and pool -to -
pool spacing ratios.
Reduce BEHI/NBS streambank erosion rates
Increase Lateral Stability
comparable to downstream reference
condition and stable cross-section values.
Plant native species vegetation a minimum 50'
Establish Riparian Buffer Vegetation
wide from the top of the streambanks with a
composition/density comparable to
downstream reference condition.
Improve Water Quality
Remove cattle from riparian corridor and
reduce fecal coliform bacteria levels.
Improve Macroinvertebrate
Community and Aquatic Species
Incorporate native woody debris into channel
Health
2.3 Project History, Contacts, and Timeframe
The chronology of the project history and activity is presented in Appendix A Table 2. Relevant project
contact information is presented in Appendix A Table 3. Relevant project background information is
presented in Appendix A Table 4
Pen Dell Mitigation Project Page 2
FINAL Monitoring Report Year 3

Water & Land Solutions 4
3 Project Mitigation Components
Refer to Appendix B Figure 1 and Appendix A Table 1 for the project components/asset information. A
recorded conservation easement consisting of 15.95 acres protects and preserves all stream reaches,
existing wetland areas, and riparian buffers in perpetuity.
3.1 Stream Mitigation Types and Approaches
Stream restoration practices involved raising the existing streambed and reconnecting the stream to the
relic floodplain. Some portions of the existing degraded channels that were abandoned within the
restoration areas were filled to decrease surface and subsurface drainage and raise the local water table.
The project also included restoring, enhancing and protecting riparian buffers and riparian wetlands
within the conservation easement. Permanent cattle exclusion fencing was provided around all restored
reaches and riparian buffers, particularly along R3 and R4. 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 is 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 Enhancement Level II
Work along the R1 involved Enhancement Level II practices to improve the current channel condition and
aquatic function. This area has been historically disturbed through agricultural practices and the channel
exhibits limited morphology. Prior to construction, the existing channel experienced minimal bank
erosion and channel incision throughout most of its length. WLS planted native woody species vegetation
and restored the riparian buffer in excess of 50 feet within the conservation easement. Additionally, a
20-foot long culverted pipe crossing and the associated embankment was removed, and a water quality
treatment feature was installed outside of the conservation easement to reduce direct sediment and
nutrient inputs.
3.1.2 R2 Enhancement Level I
Work along R2 involved Enhancement Level I activities by slightly raising the bed elevation and excavating
floodplain benches. In -stream structures were installed to dissipate flow energies and protect
streambanks. In -stream structures included constructed riffles for grade control and aquatic habitat, and
log weirs/jams for encouraging step -pool formation, bank stability, and bedform diversity. Bioengineering
techniques such as geolifts and live stakes were also to protect streambanks and promote woody
vegetation growth along the streambanks. A water quality treatment feature was installed outside the
permanent conservation easement along the pond periphery to provide habitat diversity and capture fine
sediment and nutrients coming from the active agricultural field areas across Wendell Road. Riparian
buffers in excess of 50 feet were restored and protected along R2. Additionally, permanent fencing was
installed to permanently exclude livestock and reduce sediment and nutrient inputs.
3.1.3 R3 Enhancement Level I
Enhancement activities along R3 involved a Priority Level II restoration approach by slightly raising the
bed elevation along the upper section and providing an active floodplain area within the valley. In -stream
structures, such as log vanes, log steps, and log jam riffles were used to dissipate flow energy, protect
streambanks, and eliminate potential for future incision. Channel banks were graded to stable side slopes
and bioengineering techniques such as geolifts and live stakes were also be used to protect streambanks
and promote woody vegetation growth. Healthy mature trees or significant native vegetation were
Pen Dell Mitigation Project Page 3
FINAL Monitoring Report Year 3

Water & Land Solutions 4
protected and incorporated into the design and riparian buffers of at least 50 feet wide were established
along the entire reach. Additionally, permanent fencing was installed along with alternative watering
systems to exclude livestock and reduce direct sediment and nutrient inputs. The existing perched pipe
culverts were removed, and a new culverted stream crossing was installed at a lower elevation to help
improve flood flows and aquatic passage.
3.1.4 R4 Restoration
Work along R4 involved relocating the existing degraded channel towards the center of the valley and
implementing a Priority Level I Restoration approach by raising the bed elevation and reconnecting the
stream with its abandoned floodplain. This approach promotes more frequent over bank flooding in areas
with hydric soils, thereby creating favorable conditions for wetland enhancement. The reach was restored
as a Rosgen 'C5' stream type using appropriate riffle -pool morphology with a conservative meander
planform geometry that accommodates the natural 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. In -stream structures were incorporated to
control grade, dissipate flow energies, protect streambanks, and eliminate the potential for channel
incision. 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 restored and protected along the entire
length of R4. Mature trees and significant native vegetation were protected and incorporated into the
design. Additionally, shallow floodplain depressions were created to provide habitat diversity, temporary
sediment storage and improved treatment of overland flows.
3.1.5 R5 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 protected
in perpetuity through a permanent conservation easement. This approach will extend the wildlife corridor
from the project boundary throughout the entire riparian valley, while providing a hydrologic connection
and critical habitat linkage within the catchment area.
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.
Pen Dell Mitigation Project Page 4
FINAL Monitoring Report Year 3

Water & Land Solutions
0
Improve Base Flow
Duration and
Overbank Flows (i.e
channel forming
discharge)
Reconnect
Floodplain / Increase
Floodprone Area
Widths
Well device (pressure
transducer), regional
curve, regression
equations, catchment
assessment
Bank Height Ratio,
Entrenchment Ratio,
crest gauge
Maintain seasonal flow for a
minimum of 30 consecutive
days during normal annual
rainfall.
Maintain average BHRs at 1.2
and ERs at 2.2 or greater and
document out of bank and/or
geomorphically significant
flow events.
Create a more natural
and higher functioning
headwater flow regime
and provide aquatic
passage.
Provide temporary
water storage and
reduce erosive forces
(shear stress) in
channel during larger
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.
Increase Vertical and
Lateral Stability
Establish Riparian
Buffer Vegetation
BEHI / NBS, Cross -
sections and
Longitudinal Profile
Surveys, visual
assessment
CVS Level I & II
Protocol Tree Veg
Plots (Strata
Composition and
Density), visual
assessment
Decrease streambank erosion
rates comparable to
reference condition cross-
section, pattern and vertical
profile values.
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.
Reduce sedimentation,
excessive aggradation,
and embeddedness to
allow for interstitial
flow habitat.
Increase woody and
herbaceous vegetation
will provide channel
stability and reduce
streambank erosion,
runoff rates and exotic
species vegetation.
Removal of excess
nutrients, FC bacteria,
Improve Water
and organic pollutants
(Le• Quality N/A N/A
will increase 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 (01g5=0.66Q2) must also be documented during the monitoring
Pen Dell Mitigation Project Page 5
FINAL Monitoring Report Year 3

Water & Land Solutions 4
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 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 are only counted toward success if they are at least 18" tall, on
the approved planting list, and surviving for at least 2 years. 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.
Pen Dell Mitigation Project Page 6
FINAL Monitoring Report Year 3

Water & Land Solutions 4
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 and to document the site conditions. All the monitoring device locations are
depicted on the CCPV (Figure 1). MY3 monitoring results are provided in the appendices. The Project
meets the MY3 success criteria for stream hydrology and jurisdictional stream flow. For stream horizontal
and vertical stability, all the cross sections except XS-8 meet criteria. All vegetation plots except plot 7
meet the required success criteria (Figure 1).
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 (Qg5=0.66Q2) within the monitoring period, along with
floodplain access by flood flows, is being conducted using a crest gauge installed near the middle of Reach
R3 (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
MY3 (see table below). This event was documented using the described crest gauge and photography
(Appendix E Table 8). The documented occurrence of these flow events and three events during prior to
MY3 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 eight 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
appears to fall within acceptable ranges of the design parameters for all restored reaches. Only minor
channel adjustments in riffle slopes, pool depths and pattern were observed and therefore did not present
a stability concern or indicate a need for remedial action. One riffle cross section, XS-8 located at station
51+79, experienced a 20% change in bank height ratio over MY1 due to minor sediment deposition on the
banks and floodplain. Based on visual assessment and survey data this stream reach is stable from MY2
and is performing as designed. WLS will observe this area closely in MY4 for any further change.
5.3 Streambed Material Condition and Stability
A representative sediment sample was collected to assess streambed material condition and stability. The
dominant substrate for the project was verified as coarse sand. The post -construction riffle substrate
sampling indicated no significant change in streambed material condition or stability for MY3.
Pen Dell Mitigation Project Page 7
FINAL Monitoring Report Year 3

Water & Land Solutions 4
5.4 Jurisdictional Stream Flow Documentation
Jurisdictional stream flow documentation and monitoring of restored intermittent reaches is achieved
using a flow gauge (pressure transducer) within the thalweg of the channel towards the middle portion of
enhanced Reach R1 (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 (See Figure 4).
5.5 Vegetation
Vegetation monitoring for MY3 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
vegetation monitoring plot locations. Summary data and photographs of each plot can be found in
Appendix 3.
Plot 7 had an average stem density of 283 stems per acre which does not meet the year 3 minimum of
320 stems per acre. Plot 7 contains seven stems total, one stem below the requirement to meet success
criteria. Loss in stem density from MY1 to MY3 is due to a dense herbaceous layer. The surviving trees in
this area appear to have grown above the herbaceous vegetation. During MY4, Plot 7 will be monitored
closely.
The MY3 vegetation monitoring was also conducted utilizing visual assessment throughout the easement.
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 and no performance standards
for wetland hydrology success were proposed in the Mitigation Plan. One groundwater monitoring well
was installed during the baseline monitoring along Reach R4 (wetland gauge 2). Two additional
groundwater monitoring wells, including an additional one along Reach R4 (wetland gauge 1) and an
additional one along Reach R5 (wetland gauge 3) (reference), were installed after the first year of
monitoring in March of 2019. All groundwater monitoring wells are pressure transducers. The wells were
installed to document groundwater levels within restoration area and for reference and comparison to
the preservation areas, at the request of the NCIRT (DWR). Data for the gauges can be found in Appendix
E. Wetland gauges 1 and 2 are exhibiting a 10.6% and 17.6% max hydroperiod for the MY3 growing season.
This is less than the 52.4% max hydroperiod documented in the reference wetland.
Pen Dell Mitigation Project Page 8
FINAL Monitoring Report Year 3

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). Pen Dell Mitigation Project Final Mitigation Plan. NCDMS,
Raleigh, NC.
Pen Dell Mitigation Project Page 9
FINAL Monitoring Report Year 3

Appendices
FJ
Pen Dell Mitigation Project

Appendix A — Background Tables and Figures
FJ
Pen Dell Mitigation Project

Table 1. Mitigation Assets and Components
Pen Dell Mitigation Project (NCDEQ DMS Project ID# 97079)
Existing
Mitigation
As -Built
Project
Wetland
Footage
Plan
Footage or
Approach
Component
Position and
or
Footage or
Acreage
Restoration
Priority
Mitigation
Mitigation
(reach ID, etc.)'
HydroType'
Acreage
Stationing
Acreage
Level
Level
Ratio (X:1)
Credits
Notes/Comments
Constucted Riffle Above Road Crossing, Planted Buffer, Permanent Conservation
R1
1017
10+00 -20+17
1017
1017
Ell
Ell
2.5
407
Easement
R2
546
20+77 - 26+25
526
546
El
El
1.5
351
Planted Buffer, Exclusion of Livestock, Permanent Conservation Easement.
Channel Enhancement, Floodplain Grading, Planted Buffer, Exclusion of
R3
617
30+93 - 37+00
617
601
El
El
1.5
411
Livestock, Permanent Conservation Easement.
Full Channel Restoration, Planted Buffer, Exclusion of Livestock, Permanent
R4
1846
37+00 - 54+87
1779"
1724
R
R
1
1744
Conservation Easement.
R5
1176
56+26 - 68+02
1176
1176
P
P
10
118
Invasive Control, Permanent Conservation Easement.
Length and Area Summations by Mitigation Category
Restoration Level
Stream
(Iinearfeet)
Riparian Wetland
(acres)
Non -riparian
Wetland
(acres)
Riverine
Non-Riverine
Restoration
1779"
Enhancement
Enhancement 1
1143
Enhancement 11
1017
Creation
Preservation
1176
High Quality Pres
Overall Assets Summary
Overall
Asset Category
Credits"
Stream
RP Wetland
NR Wetland
Mitigation Credits are from approved Mitigation Plan, as verified by the as -built survey.
"Credits on R4 reduced by 35' for powerline ROW realized at As -Built

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Pen Dell Mitigation Project (NCDEQ DMS Project ID# 97079)
Elapsed Time Since grading complete: 2 yrs 6 months
Elapsed Time Since planting complete: 2 yrs 6 months
Number of reporting Years°: 3
Data Collection Completion or
Activity or Deliverable Complete Delivery
Project Contract xecu ion
N/A
3/16/2UIb
Final i iga ion Plan sunmittal
,Section 404 Generalegiona and Nationwide)Permit er ica ionN/A
1/12/2018
Begin Construction
1/29/2018
Miticiation Site Earthwork Completed
4/1/2018
Mitigation Site Planting Completed
N/A
4/6/2018
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 Monitori7q Report Submittal
6/23/2018
12/3/2018
Year 1 Monitoring Report Submittal
11/24/2018
12/4/2019
Year 2 Monitoring Report Submittal
12/31/2019
Year 3 Monitoring Report Submittal
12/11/2020
Year 4 Monitoring Report Submittal
7A
N/A
Year 5 Monitoring Report Submittal
Year 6 Monitoring Report Submittal
Year 7 Monitoring Report Submittal

Table 3. Project Contacts
Pen Dell Mitigation Project (NCDEQ DMS Project ID# 97079)
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]

Parameters
Reach 1
Reach 2
Reach 3
Reach 4
Reach 5
Length of reach (linear feet)
1017
546
617
1846
1176
Valley confinement (Confined, moderately confined, unconfined)
unconfined
mod. confined
unconfined
unconfined
unconfined
Drainage area (Acres and Square Miles)
63 acres, 0.1 sq mi
73 acres, 0.11 sq
mi
105 acres, 0.16 sq
mi
134 acres, 0.21 sq
mi
156 acres, 0.24 sq
mi
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral
Intermittent
Perennial/Intermitte
nt
Perennial
Perennial
Perennial
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
C, NSW
C, NSW
C;NSW
C, NSW
C, NSW
Stream Classification (existing)
G5c
E5(incised)
E5(incised)
E5(incised), F5
E5
Stream Classification (proposed)
C51b
C5
C5
C5
E5
Evolutionary trend (Simon)
I
II
III/IV
III/IV
I
FEMA classification
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
lZone AE
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
Categorical
Exclusion
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
Yes
Yes
Categorical
Exclusion
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No
N/A
Categorical
Exclusion

Appendix B —Visual Assessment Data
FJ
Pen Dell Mitigation Project

Table 5. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Project Pen Dell Mitigation Project (NCDEQ DMS Project ID# 97079)
Reach ID R1, R2, R3, R4, R5
Assessed Length 5126
Number
Numberwith
Footage with
Adjusted %for
Stable,
Number of
Amount of
%Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Major Channel
Channel Sub
Performing as
Total Number
Unstable
Unstable
Performing as
Woody
Woody
Woody
Ca o
Ca o
Metric
Intended
in As -built
Segments
Footage
Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
V etation
1. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth
and/or scour and erosion
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appear
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
sustainable and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
2. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
37
37
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the
sill.
32
32
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
13
13
100%
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence doenot exceed
3. Bank Protection
15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance
9
9
100%
document)
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankf
Depth rafio> 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.
37
37
100%

Table 5a. Vegetation Condition Assessment
Project Pen Dell Mitigation Project (NCDEQ DMS Project ID# 97079)
Planted Acreage 10.1
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
% of Planted
Ve etation Cateqory
Definitions
Threshold
De fiction
Pol ons
Acrea a
Acrea e
1. Bare Areas
Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material.
1 acre
Pattern and
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
Pattern and
0
0.00
0.0%
Color
Total
0
0.00
0.0%
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.
Q25 acres
Color
0
0.00
0.0%
Cumulative Total
0
0.00
0.0%
Easement Acreaae' 15.95
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
% of Easement
Vecietation Cateciory
Definitions
Threshold
Depiction
Acrea a
Acrea e
4. Invasive Areas of Concern'
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
1000 SF
Pattern and
_.L2!X2ons
0
0.00
0.0%
Color
5. Easement Encroachment Areas'
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
none
Pattern and
0
0.00
0.0
Color

{
1`
PS-3, R2, facing upstream at crossing, Sta 23+00, April 27, 2018 (MY-00)
8 7
m
j °° .
x
A•, .r
w-
i' 1 '
�r
LO 0A
PS-4, R3, facing downstream, Sta 31+00, April 27, 2018 (MY-00)
PS-3, R2, facing upstream at crossing, Sta 23+00, March 10, 2020 (MY-03)
vvi

ter.:
x xi'.�,,. 11�� i v '� sr :�', ✓1 �=�"�5 �.�;�1 ,�"r .v'�I �s �f:� r I cy r�..�, r - -
�kx+ra_�-
"" 5','�y;z:y `' '•G� 9 t'.,' a - rp �� - 1
_—
Oki
AV I
m��a�
U & j
� I
r ^4 s4
PS-5, R3, facing upstream, Sta 34+00, April 27, 2018 (MY-00) PS-5, R3, facing downstream, Sta 34+00, March 10, 2020 (MY-03)
Arx� pppyyy
NN
-A Ilk
I 3
V
--� — -�
�y 's
IAWA
C x4'._ '1 j y p kiti
r ,; r•• -£ � v � 4' � r��� f E�I 11� � XL-y ° I✓p r yl�..- � Y r :.
a 5 -
_� ,• ,err 5�. d�� �q �tl fY � �r � k} '\ � i � �it� 1�-�l
PS-6, R4, facing upstream, Sta 43+50, April 27, 2018 (MY-00) PS-6, R4, facing upstream, Sta 43+50, March 10, 2020 (MY-03)

"'i �' XMI
! '"1
`:. _•
PS
mLl_
PS-7, R4, facing upstream, Sta 47+00, April 27, 2018 (MY-00)
04
ir
t>r
k
a A ,
S
�. � �:� 4 ai � ' ter,•
f
L Y jY�
L �
1 �
-
t
.!
PS-7, R4, facing upstream, Sta 47+00, March 10, 2020 (MY-03)
� e
E.
t�
3 FL 1?
4� a J, -
s `i sa �✓ r '- .. I,id�' � I
j a
r'
PS-8, R4, facing upstream, Sta 52+00, March 10, 2020 (MY-03)

Eat
4
-y
7- W-4-:
e,:�, y1 ark.
.o-
°
PS-9, R5, facing upstream, near Sta 62+00, Sept 1, 2015, 2018 (MY-00) - PS-9, R5, facing upstream, Sta 62+00, March 10, 2020 (MY-03)

& Z
�_ •{ c !/vim 3e -
! r
,y. ¢ �d
x Tx
. , �7N
v:w s
Veg Plot 5, April 12, 2018 (MY-00) Veg Plot 5, October 13, 2020 (MY-03)
61
ow
�, - -. •�e- �`, - - ?�'�"° � ;'"1r'. -� �''', ,-.fib �t
k"�:
�: -gyp ,•.,3 � r - y f.,- -
\r
Veg Plot 6, April 12, 2018 (MY-00) Veg Plot 6, October 13, 2020 (MY-03)

f --��=' _
- �_ �
_ _
.. t
-4
•' +� - � ' y. gam- "�'' _
� �-
A
��. ♦ .:
'F'• _ f .- -. _emu .. ��''�� ew,.r � • �_
.. �r Y _ .��.. _..

Appendix C — Vegetation Plot Data
FJ
Pen Dell Mitigation Project

Table 6: CVS - Pen -Del Mitigation Protect
Current Plot Data (MY3 2020)
Annual Means
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
002-01-0001
002-01-0002
002-01-0003
002-01-0004
002-01-0005
002-01-0006
002-01-0007
MY3 (2020)
MY2 (2019)
MY1 (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
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
Acer rubrum
Tree
10
8
1 1
6
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
3
3
30
3
3
14
4
4
122
3
3
3
Alnus serrulata
Tag Alder, Smooth Ald
Shrub Tree
1
1
1
1 1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Betula nigra
River Birch, Red Birch
Tree
2
2
2
1 1
1
2 2
2
1
1
1
3
3
3
9
9
9
9
9
9
11
11
11
14
14
14
Carpinus caroliniana
Shrub Tree
1 1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
5
5
5
5
5
5
9
9
10
10
10
10
Carya
Hickory
Tree
1
1
Corpus amomum
Silky Dogwood
Shrub Tree
2 2
2
1 1
1
3
3
3
4
4
4
6
6
6
6
6
6
Diospyros virginiana
American Persimmon,
Tree
1 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash, Red Ash
Tree
1
1
1
1 1
11
21 2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2 2
2
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Ilex verticillata
Winterberry
Shrub Tree
3 3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Undera benzoin
Northern Spicebush
Shrub Tree
1 1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
13
13
13
Liquidambar styraciflua
Sweet Gum, Red Gum
Tree
3
5
4
2
14
5
1
3
Uriodendron tulipifera
Tree
1
1
1
1 1
5
2
2
6
2
2
2
5
5
5
13
13
13
Magnolia virginiana
Shrub Tree
1 1
1
1 1
1
2 2
2
1
1
1
2 2
2
7
7
7
6
6
6
8
8
8
14
14
14
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore, Plane -tree
Tree
2 2
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
1 1
1
11
11
11
11
11
11
14
14
14
14
14
14
Populus deltoides
Tree
1
Quercus michauxii
Basket Oak, Swamp C
Tree
2
2
2
3 3
3
2 2
2
3
3
3
10
10
10
9
9
9
11
11
11
9
9
Quercus nigra
Water Oak, Paddle Oal
Tree
1
1
1
1
21 2
2
1
1
1
4
4
5
4
4
4
3
3
3
9
9
9
Quercus phellos
Willow Oak
Tree
2 2
2
1 1
1
1
1
1
1 1
1
5
5
5
6
6
6
8
8
8
8
8
8
Rhus copallinum
Shrub Tree
3
Rosa palustris
Swamp Rose
Shrub Vine
4
39
Salix nigra
Black Willow
Tree
1
1
7
Salix sericea
Silky Willow
Shrub Tree
2
1
2
Sambucus canadensis
Common Elderberry
IShrubTree
5
3
Ulmus alata
Winged Elm
ITree
4
4
Ulmus rubra
Slippery Elm, Red Elm
Tree
2
3
Viburnum nudum
Southern Wild Raisin, jShrub
Tree
1
1
1
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
8
8
13
8 8
31
12
12
25
13
13
20
9
9
9
20
20
20
7 7
11
77
77
12
78
78
10
100
100
27
132
132
13
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
7
7
7
7
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
6
6
8
5 5
8
8 8
11
8 8
9
5
5
5
10 10
10
5 5
6
15 15
18
15
15
20
15 15
23
16 16
16
323.7
526.1
323.7
125
485.6
101
526.1
809.4
364.2
364.2
364.2
809.4
809.4
283.3
445.2
445.2
745.8
450.9
450.9
612.8M
S79.11
161
763.1
763.1

FJ
Appendix D — Stream Measurement and Geomorphology Data
Pen Dell Mitigation Project

Project Name
Pen Dell Mitigation Project
Project ID
97079
ReachlD
R2
Cross Section ID
XS-1
Field Crew
E. Dunnigan, K. Obermiller
Dimension Data Summary: MY3 2020
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
287.2
Low Bank Height Elevation (ft)
287.1
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.3
Low Bank Height (ft)
1.2
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
Bankfull X-section Area (ft2)
5.3
% Change Bank Height Ratio
0.0%
Looking Downstream
XS-1 Riffle, STA 19+31
Baseline MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 — — Bankfull Elevation Floodprone Area
290
289
-
288 -
—
w
0
287
------------------------------------ -------------- ------
to
286
285
284
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
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.
Pen Dell Mitigation Project Water and Land Solutions
DMS Project #97079 Annual Monitoring Report
October 2020 Monitoring Year 3 of 7

Project Name
Pen Dell Mitigation Project
Project ID
97079
ReachlD
R2
Cross Section ID
XS-2
Field Crew
E. Dunnigan, K. Obermiller
Dimension Data Summary: MY3 2020
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
278.3
Low Bank Height Elevation (ft)
278.4
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
0.9
Low Bank Height (ft)
1.0
Bank Height Ratio
1.1
Bankfull X-section Area (ft2)
4.1
% Change Bank Height Ratio
10.0%
Looking Downstream
XS-2 Riffle, STA 23+51
Baseline MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 — — Bankfull Elevation Floodprone Area
281
280
y 279
w
v
0 278
-------------- ---------------- --------------
r
LV 277
276
275
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Width (feet)
Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on MY 1 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 MYI.
Pen Dell Mitigation Project Water and Land Solutions
DMS Project 497079 Annual Monitoring Report
October 2020 Monitoring Year 3 of 7

Project Name
Pen Dell Mitigation Project
Project ID
97079
ReachlD
R3
Cross Section ID
XS-3
Field Crew
E. Dunnigan, N. Childs
Dimension Data Summary: MY3 2020
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
260.4
Low Bank Height Elevation (ft)
260.4
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.1
Low Bank Height (ft)
1.2
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
Bankfull X-section Area (ft2)
4.3
% Change Bank Height Ratio
0.0%
Looking Downstream
XS-3 Riffle, STA 32+84
Baseline MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 — — Bankfull Elevation Floodprone Area
269
268
267
266
w
265
0
264
r
263
w
262
261
260
259
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
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.
Pen Dell Mitigation Project Water and Land Solutions
DMS Project 497079 Annual Monitoring Report
October 2020 Monitoring Year 3 of 7

Project Name
Pen Dell Mitigation Project
Project ID
97079
ReachlD
R3
Cross Section ID
XS-4
Field Crew
E. Dunnigan, N. Childs
Dimension Data Summary: MY3 2020
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
260.2
Low Bank Height Elevation (ft)
260.1
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.8
Low Bank Height (ft)
1.7
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
Bankfull X-section Area (ft2)
7.8
% Change Bank Height Ratio
0.0%
Looking Downstream
XS-4 Pool, STA 33+35
Baseline MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 — — Bankfull Elevation Floodprone Area
267
266
265
264
w 263
0 262
r
261
w260
--------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------
259
258
257
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
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.
Pen Dell Mitigation Project Water and Land Solutions
DMS Project 497079 Annual Monitoring Report
October 2020 Monitoring Year 3 of 7

Project Name
Pen Dell Mitigation Project
Project ID
97079
ReachlD
R4
Cross Section ID
XS-5
Field Crew
E. Dunnigan, K. Obermiller
Dimension Data Summary: MY3 2020
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
250.7
Low Bank Height Elevation (ft)
250.7
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.5
Low Bank Height (ft)
1.5
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
Bankfull X-section Area (ft2)
6.9
% Change Bank Height Ratio
0.0%
Looking Downstream
XS-5 Pool, STA 44+13
Baseline MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 — — Bankfull Elevation Floodprone Area
253
252
y 251
d------------------------
------------------------- ---- -----------------
0 250
r
w 249
248
247
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
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.
Pen Dell Mitigation Project Water and Land Solutions
DMS Project 497079 Annual Monitoring Report
October 2020 Monitoring Year 3 of 7

Project Name
Pen Dell Mitigation Project
Project ID
97079
ReachlD
R4
Cross Section ID
XS-6
Field Crew
E. Dunnigan, K. Obermiller
Dimension Data Summary: MY3 2020
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
249.3
Low Bank Height Elevation (ft)
249.3
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
0.8
Low Bank Height (ft)
0.8
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
Bankfull X-section Area (ft2)
3.0
% Change Bank Height Ratio
0.0%
Looking Downstream
XS-6 Riffle, STA 45+16
Baseline MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 — — Bankfull Elevation Floodprone Area
253
252
y 251
w
0 250
r
w 249
248
247
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
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.
Pen Dell Mitigation Project Water and Land Solutions
DMS Project 497079 Annual Monitoring Report
October 2020 Monitoring Year 3 of 7

Project Name
Pen Dell Mitigation Project
Project ID
97079
ReachlD
R4
Cross Section ID
XS-7
Field Crew
E. Dunnigan, K. Obermiller
Dimension Data Summary: MY3 2020
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
242.0
Low Bank Height Elevation (ft)
241.9
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
2.6
Low Bank Height (ft)
2.5
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
Bankfull X-section Area (ft2)
10.7
% Change Bank Height Ratio
0.0%
Looking Downstream
XS-7 Pool, STA 50+71
Baseline MYO -MY1 —MY2 MY3 — — Bankfull Elevation Floodprone Area
244
243
242
--- ----------7----
------------------------------------------------
w
0 241
to 240
239
238
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
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 bankfu# dimensions are calculated based on the current year's low bank height.
" MY7 used in place of as -built (MY0) due to issues with the as -built survey standards identified during MY7.
Pen Dell Mitigation Project Water and Land Solutions
DMS Project #97079 Annual Monitoring Report
October 2020 Monitoring Year 3 of 7

Project Name
Pen Dell Mitigation Project
Project ID
97079
ReachlD
R4
Cross Section ID
XS-8
Field Crew
E. Dunnigan, K. Obermiller
Dimension Data Summary: MY3 2020
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
240.8
Low Bank Height Elevation (ft)
240.7
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
0.8
Low Bank Height (ft)
0.6
Bank Height Ratio
< 1.0
Bankfull X-section Area (ft2)
2.9
% Change Bank Height Ratio
20.0%
Looking Downstream
XS-8 Riffle, STA 51+79
Baseline MYO MY1 —MY2 MY3 — — Bankfull Elevation —Floodprone Area
244
243
}
a�
w
242
0
241
---------------------
-------------- --------------------------
---
to
240
239
238
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
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 bankfu# dimensions are calculated based on the current year's low bank height.
" MY7 used in place of as -built (MY0) due to issues with the as -built survey standards identified during MY7.
Pen Dell Mitigation Project Water and Land Solutions
DMS Project #97079 Annual Monitoring Report
October 2020 Monitoring Year 3 of 7

Pen Dell
Figure 3: Pebble Count
Date Collected 9/21/2018 10/18/2019 9/30/2020
MY 1 MY? MY3 MY4 MYS MY6 MY7
MATERIAL I PARTICLE
SIZE (mm)
Total #
Total #
Total #
Total #
Total #
Total #
Total #
Sig= Silt / Clay
< .063
7
11
18
Very Fine
.063-.125
5
3
6
Fine
.125 - 25
11
10
17
S A N Medium
25-.50
12
10
Coarse
.50-1.0
13
15
26
Very Coarse
1.0-2.0
22
4
2
-----1
Very Fine
2.0-2.8
14
2
ao 10
Very Fine
2.8-4.0
6
2
Q-O
Fine
4.0-5.6
1
2
`-.. ,o
Fine
5.6-8.0
1
7
2
r Medium
8.0-11.0
1
5
6
Medium
11.0-16.0
2
91
11
0000
Coarse
16-22.6
2
9
9
0 0d.
� Coarse
22.6 - 32
5
00, 0_.0
VeryCoarse
32-45
3
4
2
VeryCoarse
45-64
1
1
'\J
Small
64 - 90
1
Small
90 - 128
COBBLE
Large
128-180
Large
180-256
O O.
Small
256-362
Small
362-512
Medium
512-1024
O,.
rge-Very Lar
1024-2048
BEDROCK IBedrock
>2048
1001
1001
100
Total
Cumulative
MY3
D16
0.16
0.14
0.062
D35
0.5
0.52
0.2
D50
1.1
1.2
0.64
D65
1.7
7.7
0.95
D84
4
18
14
D95
22
35
20
Riffle I
Pool
Channel materials
Channel materials
D16 =
0.062
D16 =
0.14
D35 =
0.24
D35 =
0.19
D50 =
0.91
D50 =
0.24
D65 =
11
D65 =
0.62
D84 =
171
D84 =
0.85
D95 =
221
D95 =
1.2
Weighted pebble count by bed features Pen Dell Mitigation Project
65% riffle 35% pool
weighted percent —Riffle Pool —# of particles
100%
90%
80%
70%
w
60%
c
50%
d
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
30%
25%
D
ro'
20% a
m
15% m
0
10% m
(o
m
5% �
m
0% r(D
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
particle size (mm)

Table 7a. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Pen Dell Mitigation Project (NCDEQ DMS Project ID# 97079)
Parameter
Pre -Restoration
Condition
Reference
I Reach Data
Design
As -Built/ Baseline
Reach ID: R1 (Ell)
Dimension (Riffle) Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Bankfull Width (ft) 4.4
6.6
4.5
8.3
5.7
-
11.1
Floodprone Width (ft) 15.9
42.0
10.0
20.0
15.0
30.0
49.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.4
0.8
0.8
1.6
0.5
-
0.6
Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 0.5
0.9
0.9
1.3
0.6
12
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft) 1.9
42
3.0
5.0
2.7
7.0
Width/Depth Ratio 82
152
62
14.2
12.0
17.7
Entrenchment Ratio 1.4
22
7.1
8.4
2.6
5.3
4.4
Bank Height Ratio 0.7
Profile
Riffle Length (ft) 6.2
1.5
382
0.9
9.5
1.1
22.7
1.0
-
1.0
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.016
0.037
0.009
0.015
Pool Length (ft)
4.1
7.9
6.1
8.7
Pool Max Depth (ft)
1.1
2.3
1.8
2.4
Pool Spacing (ft)
26.4
83.9
14.4
22.3
Pattern 7111111111111111
Channel Beltwidth (ft) 11.0 32.0 23.4 29.0
Radius of Curvature (ft) 8.0 50.0 11.2 17.5
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft) 1.6 10.0 1.6 2.5
Meander Wavelength (ft) 20.0 100.0 43.4 65.1
Meander Width Ratio 22 6.4 3.9 4.5
Transport Parameters
Boundary Shear Stress flbe)l
1
1 0.50
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfulli
1
1 2.00
Stream Power (W/M2)1
1
1 36.90
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
G5c
E5/C5
C5
C5
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
2.7
4.5
3.7
3.7
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
13.0
-
13.0
13.0
Sinuosity
1.03
1.1 - 1.3
1.10
1.05
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
0.017
0.020
0.017
0.017
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.017
0.020
0.017
0.017
Parameter
Condition
I Reach Data
Design
As -Built/ Baseline
Reach ID: R2 (El)
imension i e
in
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Bankfull Width (ft)
9.5
4.5
8.3
6.8
-
7.8
9.5
Floodprone Width ft
13.7
10.0
20.0
15.0
30.0
13.0
13.7
Bankfull Mean Depth ft
0.9
0.8
1.6
0.5
-
0.5
0.9
Bankfull Max Depth ft
0.9
0.9
1.3
0.7
0.8
0.9
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ft2
5.9
3.0
5.0
3.6
4.2
5.9
Width/Depth Ratio
15.2
62
142
13.0
14.6
15.2
Entrenchment Ratio
1.4
7.1
1 8.4
22
1 4.4
1 1.4
2.9
Bank Height Ratiol
1.9
0.9
1 1.1
1 1.0
1.0
1.9
Profil
Riffle Length ft
5.9
27.7
9.5 22.7
-
Riffle Slope ft/ftt2.0
0.029
0.009
0.015
Pool Length (ft)
7.8
6.1
8.7
Pool Max Depth ft
3.8
1.8
2.4
1
Pool Spacing ft
17.0
51.0
14.4
22.3
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
13.0
37.0
23.4 29.0
Radius of Curvature ft
7.0
29.0
11.2 17.5
Rc:Bankfull Width ft/ft
1.2
4.9
1.6 2.5
Meander Wavelength ft
42.0
121.0
43.4 65.1
Meander Width Ratiol
2.3
1 6.3
1 3.9 1 4.5
Transport Parameters
Boundary Shear Stress (lb/ft2)
0.51
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
2.00
Stream Power W/m2)
36.10
Additional Reach Parameters
Ros en Classification
E5rE5/C5
E5/C5
E5/C5
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
274.5
41
41
Bankfull Dischar a cfs
160-160
160
Sinuosi
107
- 1.3
107
107
Water Surface Slo Channel ft/ft
0016020
0.016
0.016
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.017
0.020
0.017
0.017

Parameter
Pre -Restoration
Condition
Reference
Reach Data
Design
As -Built/
Baseline
Reach ID: R3
Dimension (Riffle)
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Bankfull Width (ft)
7.4
-
4.5
8.3
7.8
-
7.1
Floodprone Width (ft)
10.4
39.4
10.0
35.0
17.0
35.0
19.8
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.8
-
0.8
1.6
0.6
-
0.4
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.6
0.9
1.3
0.7
0.8
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
5.0
3.0
5.0
4.4
3.1
Width/Depth Ratio
11.0
62
14.2
14.0
16.3
Entrenchment Ratio
1.4
7.1
8.4
2.2
4.5
2.8
Bank Height Ratio 12
Profile
2.0
0.9 1.1 1.0
1.0
1.0
Riffle Length (ft) 11.0
41.0
9.5 22.7 12.0
33.0 12.0
30.0
Riffle Slope (ft/ft) 0.012
0.012
0.009 0.015 0.015
0.022 0.013
0.029
Pool Length (ft) 3.5
7.9
6.1 8.7 8.0
10.5 7.0
9.8
Pool Max Depth (ft) 2.8
-
1.8 2.4 1.4
2.0 1.1
2.0
Pool Spacing (ft) 3.5
Pattern
9.6
14.4 22.3 25.0 55.0 13.0
48.0
Channel Beltwidth (ft) 29.0
53.0
23.4 29.0 25.0 45.0 25.0 45.0
Radius of Curvature (ft) 9.0
40.0
112 17.5 16.0 23.0 15.0 25.0
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft) 12
5.4
1.6 2.5 2.0 3.0 1.5 3.0
Meander Wavelength (ft)l 52.0
77.0
43.4 65.1 30.0 44.8 30.0 44.8
Meander Width Ratiol 3.9
72
3.9 4.5 3.3 5.7 3.5 7.1
Transport Parameters
Boundary Shear Stress (Ibft2
0.52
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfulli
2.00
Stream Power (W/M21
130.40
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
E5 incised (Pond)
E5/C5
E5/C5
E5/C5
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
2.7
4.5
4.4
4.4
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
19.0
-
19.0
19.0
Sinuosity
1.05
1.1 - 1.3
1.12
1.12
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
0.012
0.015
0.015
0.015
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.013
0.015
0.015
0.015
Parameter
r condition
Reach
Data
Design
Baseline
Reach ID: R4
iff-
ri-m-ens-Ion7ffiTf7e I
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
ax
Min
Max
Bankfull Width ft
6.0
4.5
8.3
7.8
8.3
8.6
Floodprone Width (ft)
35.0
10.0
35.0
17.0
45.0
25.0
56.0
Bankfull Mean Depth ft
1.3
0.8
1.6
0.6
0.5
0.6
Bankfull Max Depth ft
1.8
0.9
1.3
0.8
0.9
1.1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft)
12.3
3.0
5.0
4.7
4.1
52
Width/Depth Ratio
4.4
62
14.2
13.0
13.1
18.1
Entrenchment Ratio
6.1
7.1
1 8.4
2.2
1 5.8
1 3.0
1 6.5
Bank Height Ratiol
1.5
0.9
1 1.1
1 1.0
1
1 1.0
1 1.1
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
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)
13.0
41.0
23.4
29.0
35.0
50.0
28.0
59.0
Radius of Curvature (ft)l
7.9
28.9
11.2
17.5
16.0
25.0
12.0
23.0
Rc:Bankfull Width ft/ft
1.3
4.8
1.6
2.5
2.0
3.0
1.9
3.3
Meander Wavelength ft
36.0
101.0
43.4
65.1
55.0
80.0
52.0
77.0
Meander Width Ratiol
2.2
1 6.8
3.9
4.5
4.5
6.4
4.7
8.5
Transport Parameters
Boundary Shear Stress Ib/ft2
0.49
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
2.00
Stream Power W/mZ
32.00
Additional Reach Parameters
Ros en Classification
E5/F5700
05
C5
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
1.9
4.9
4.9
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
23.0
23.0
23.0
Sinuosi
1.14
3
1.18
1.18
Water Surface SlopeChannel ft/ft
0.013
0.012
0.012
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.012
0.012
0.013

Table 7b. Monitoring Data - Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross Sections)
Cross Section 1 (Riffle)
Cross Section 2 (Riffle)
Parameters
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Bankfull Width (ft)
11.1
10.5
9.3
8.6
7.8
7.0
7.5
7.6
Floodprone Width (ft)
49.0
49.2
51.5
51.5
23.0
25.0
24.0
24.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.5
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.2
1.0
1.1
1.3
0.8
0.9
0.8
0.9
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft')
7.0
5.3
5.3
5.3
4.2
4.1
4.1
4.1
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
17.7
20.7
16.4
13.9
14.6
11.4
14.0
13.9
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
4.4
4.7
5.5
6.0
2.9
3.6
3.2
3.2
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
d50 (mm)
N/a
1.5
5.1
0.9
N/a
1.5
5.1
0.9
Cross Section 3 (Riffle)
Cross Section 4 (Pool)
Parameters
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Bankfull Width (ft)
7.1
7.1
8.9
8.2
9.2
8.6
8.6
9.1
Floodprone Width (ft)
19.8
24.0
19.8
25.4
29.6
30.0
29.6
26.1
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.5
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.9
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
0.8
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.7
1.6
1.7
1.8
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft')
3.1
4.3
1 4.3
4.3
1
1
9.2
7.8
7.8
7.8
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
16.3
13.6
18.1
15.8
9.2
9.1
9.6
10.6
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
2.8
3.4
2.2
3.1
3.2
3.5
3.4
2.9
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.0
d50 (mm)
N/a
1.5
5.1
0.9
N/a
0.4
0.7
0.2
Cross Section 5 (Pool)
Cross Section 6 (Riffle)
Parameters
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Bankfull Width (ft)
10.0
10.9
19.7
12.0
8.6
7.9
7.7
6.7
Floodprone Width ft
53.0
53.5
53.0
53.0
63.0
63.0
61.0
60.6
Bankfull Mean Depth ft
0.7
0.6
0.3
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
Bankfull Max Depth ft
1.5
1.6
1.6
1.5
0.9
0.7
0.8
0.8
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft')
6.9
6.9
6.9
6.9
4.1
3.0
3.0
3.0
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
14.4
17.3
1 56.3
1 20.9
1
1
1 18.1
1 21.0
1 20.0
1 14.8
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
5.2
4.9
2.7
4.4
6.5
8.0
7.9
9.1
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
<1
1.0
1
1.0
d50 mm
N/a
0.4
1 0.7
0.2
N/a
1.5
5.1
0.9
Cross Section 7 (Pool)
Cross Section 8 (Riffle)
Parameters
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Bankfull Width (ft)
10.0
10.3
9.9
8.1
8.1
7.7
8.5
9.1
Floodprone Width ft
38.0
51.0
32.0
34.7
27.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
Bankfull Mean Depth ft
1.3
1.3
1.1
1.3
0.5
0.5
0.3
0.3
Bankfull Max Depth ft
3.0
3.2
2.7
2.6
0.8
0.9
0.7
0.8
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft')
13.4
10.7
10.7
10.7
4.4
2.9
2.9
2.9
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
7.5
8.2
1 9.2
1 6.1
1
1
1 15.0
14.2
1 24.8
1 28.4
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
3.8
5.0
3.2
4.3
3.3
4.0
2.9
2.7
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.0
<1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
< 1.0
d50 mm
N/a
0.4
0.7
0.2
N/a
1.5
5.1
0.9

Table 7c. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Summary
Pen Dell Mitigation Project (NCDEQ DMS Project ID# 97079)
Parameter
Baseline
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
Reach ID: R1 (Ell)
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)l
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
Radius of Curvature (ft)
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
Meander Wavelength (ft)
6= Meander Width Ratio - -
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C5
Sinuosity (ft)
1.03
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
0.017
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 Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other

Parameter
Baseline
MY1 MY2 MY3
MY4
MY5
Reach ID: R2 (El)
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)j
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
Radius of Curvature (ft)
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
Meander Wavelength (ft)
6m= Meander Width Ratio -
-
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
(Pond)
Sinuosity (ft)
1.07
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
0.016
BF slope (ft/ft)
0.017
3Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
3SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / B% / Be%
3d16/d35/d50/d84/d95
2% of Reach with Eroding Bank
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
F
Biological or Other

Parameter
Baseline
MY1
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
Reach ID: R3 (El)
Min
Max Min Max Min Max Min
Max Min Max Min Max
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
12
0.013
30
0.029
Pool Length (ft)
7
9.8
Pool Max depth (ft)
1.1
2
Pattern and Profile data will not typically
collected unless visual data, dimensional
profile data indicate significant deviations
baseline conditions
be
data or
from
Pool Spacing (ft)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
13
25
48
45
Radius of Curvature (ft)
15
25
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
1.5
3
Meander Wavelength (ft)
30
44.8
6mmMeander Width Ratiol
3.5
7.1
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C5
Sinuosity (ft)
1.12
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
0.015
BF slope (ft/ft)
0.015
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: 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
44 Pattern and
collected unless
profile data indicate
59
23
3.3
Profile data will not typically be
visual data, dimensional data or
significant deviations from
baseline conditions
Pool Spacing (ft)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
18
28
Radius of Curvature (ft)
12
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
1.9
Meander Wavelength (ft)
52
77
6momMeander Width Ratiol 4.7
Additional Reach Parameters
8.5
rMM
Rosgen Classification C5
Sinuosity (ft) 1.18
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft) 0.012
BF slope (ft/ft) 0.013
RI% / Ru% / P% / G% / 5%
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

Appendix E — Hydrologic Data
FJ
Pen Dell Mitigation Project

Table 8. Verification of Flow Events
Greater than Bankfull
Date of Data
Date of
(Bkf) or Qgs (Q2*0.66)
Photo/
Measurement
Requirement
Collection
Occurrence
Method
Stage?
Notes
above bankfull
Met
Observed
9/17/2018
9/16-9/17/2018
indicators of stage
Bkf
Photos
NA
No
(wrack lines) after
sotrm event
11/21/2018
9/16-9/17/2018
Crest Gauge
Bkf
Photos
No
7/26/2019
7/24/2019
Crest Gauge
Bkf
Photos
.11 ft
No
2/7/2020
Unknown
Crest Gauge
Bkf
Photos
.85 ft
Yes
10/13/2020
Unknown
Crest Gauge
Bkf
Photos
.13 ft
Yes
2/7/2020 10/13/2020

Figure 4:
Pen Dell R1 Flaw Gauge
1.6
103 days consecutive flow: 111120 - 4/12/20
1.4
1.2
a�
L
1
G 0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
WIN"'
I
WRIM11M,941M,
IM
IRM
�
Lq'
i WL_ai 06
��
bkAiiri.l
xL-_&Us%.— _ A L ..IM Y I-M .7 8'^7L
0W1
��I W1In�����������MEIaPM
r 1ij
I 7�1P1.
IN�itt
�W�■�q
N
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 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
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 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
N [_D O M n N l_4 Q�l M n -1 W N 0 C' [Y n O 0_0
r-1 Cif N N r-4 N N N r-1 P aH [Y1 eK N r-I N
� � � u�5 � � ^
Daily Rainfall Stream Depth Flow Limit
*Longest consecutive days of flow: 103 days, January 1, 2020 - April 12, 2020.
0
w
5
a
L
V
-10
L
a
ar
0 -15
a�
M
-20
0
U -25
Pen Dell R4 Groundwater Gauge 1
,_
24 dais - 10 57%of erowine season
4
3.5
a�
2.5 c
0.5
0
-30 .II _III
J.
III
I.
111
1J 1_.III
L_
' "
1 -
J L. "
.
..
Ll .
. .
1_
..
dl-
III
I
J
III I.
1
I_ ■ 1
0 0
N N
0
N
0
N
0
N
0
N
0
N
0
N
0
N
0
N
0
N
0
N
0
N
0
N
0
N
0
N
0
N
0
N
0 0
N N
0
N
0
N
0
N
0
N
0
N
0
N
0
N
0 0
N N
0
N
0
N
0
N
0
N
0
N
0
N
0
N
0
N
0
N
0
N
0
N
0
N
0
N
0
N
0
N
0
N
0 o
N N
0
N
o
N
0
N
0
N
0
N
0
N
0
N
N
[_D
r-1
ro
N
0
rn
l�D
rn
r-I
0
N
1,-
N
M
N
-1
T
-1
0
N
N
T
0
rl
CO
N
C.
(n
n
r-1
r_-[
N
W
N
a
r_-I
r-I
W
r-I
Ln
N
N
rl rl
r!
eel
rl
N
N
N
N
M
fYl
M
[+'7
u7
I-
Ln
I-
Ln
a
-_
to
—
(D
(D
N
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiDailyRainfall
Groundwater Depth
(inches)
Ground
Level
12" Below
Surface
Growing
5easor
5
4.5
4
3.5 cNi
L
V
3
2.5 4T
c
2 2
-
1.5 0
1
0.5
a

Pen Dell R4 Groundwater Gauge 2
5
0
-25
-30
0 0
N
0
N
0
N
0
N
o
N
O
N
0
N
0
N
o
N
O
N
o
N
O
N
o
N
O
N
o
N
O
N
o
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
CD
O O
N N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
N m
O
rn
n
N
m
Q_7
m
n
r�-I
W
N
m
O
rn
n
O
0_0
r-I
r-I
N
N
rn
ro
N
ko
rI_
rI_
00
00
67
67
r-I
Daily Rainfall
Sensor
Depth
{inches}
Ground
Level
12" Below
Surface
Growing
Season
Pen Dell Groundwater Gauge 3 (Reference Wetland)
2
119 days - 52.42%of growing season
0
rn
a�
-2
c
t
-4
a
a�
❑
-6
a�
3
-g
c
o
-10
L7
-12
-14
L
IL
0
N
0
N
0 0
N N
0
N
0
N
0
N
0
N
0
N
0
N
0 0 0
N N N
0
N
0
N
0
N
0
N
0
N
0
N
0
N
0
N
O
N
0
N
O 0
N N
0
N
0
N
0
N
0
N
0
N
0
N
0 0 0
N N N
0
N
0
N
0
N
0
N
0
N
0
N
0
N
O
N
N
0 m
n
N
k
T
m�_
0000
N
lO
O
m
n
O
0_0
r-I
r-I N
N
m
CO
u7 �O
r-
r-
00
00
a)
a)
r-I
Daily Rainfall
Sensor
Depth (inches)
Ground Level
12" Below
Surface
Growing
Season
5
4.5
4
N
3.5
3
2.5
2
a
1.5 'm
1
0.5
0
5
4.5
4
3.5 ai
3
2.5 42
c
2
a
1.5 .F
1
0.5
0

Figure 4
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
Pen Dell R4 Wetland Gauge 1
M
16.74%
10.57%
Pen Dell R4 Wetland Gauge 2
NA
19.38%
17.62%
Pen Dell Reference Wetland
94.70%
19.82%
52.42%
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

Figure 5: Monthly Rainfall Data
Pen Dell Mitigation Project (NCDEQ DMS Project ID# 97079)
MY3 2020
30-70 Percentile Rainfall Graph
Clayton, NC (CLAY - Central Crops Research Station)
10
9
8
7
5 6
c
0
m 5 -
'ii
'u
a
4 -
3 -
2 -
1 -
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
**

Monitoring Report- Year 3
FINAL VERSION
Pen Dell Mitigation Project (Riparian Buffer Mitigation)
Calendar Year of Data Collection: 2020
NCDEQ DIMS Project Identification # 97079
NCDEQ DIMS Contract # 6824
Neuse River Basin (Cataloging Unit 03020201)
USACE Action ID Number: SAW-2016-00885
NCDEQ DWR Project # 2016-0403
Johnston County, NC
Contracted Under RFP # 16-006477
Data Collection Period: September —October 2020
Submission Date: December 11, 2020
Prepared for:
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 FORKS ROAD, SUITE 130, RALEIGH, NC 27615
(919) 614 - 5111 1 waterlandsoluilons.com

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 Riparian Buffer Mitigation Types and Approaches....................................................................... 2
3.1.1 Tree and Shrub Planting Approaches.................................................................................... 3
3.1.2 Temporary and Permanent Seeding Approaches................................................................. 3
3.1.3 Invasive Species Vegetation Treatment................................................................................3
4 Performance Standards........................................................................................................................3
4.1 Vegetation.....................................................................................................................................3
5 Monitoring Year 3 Assessment and Results..........................................................................................4
5.1 Vegetation.....................................................................................................................................4
6 References............................................................................................................................................ 5
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A Background Tables
Table 1 Project Attributes
Table 2 Project Areas and Asset Summary
Table 3 Project Contacts
Appendix B Visual Assessment Data
Figure 1 Current Condition Plan View (CCPV)
Table 4 Vegetation Condition Assessment
Photos Vegetation Plot Photographs
Appendix C Vegetation Plot Data
Table 5 Planted and Total Stem Counts
Appendix D NC DWR Correspondence and Approvals

Water & Land Solutions
0
1 Project Summary
Water and Land Solutions, LLC (WLS) completed the construction and planting of the Pen Dell Mitigation
Project (Project) full -delivery project for the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
(NCDEQ), Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) in April 2018. The Project is located in Johnston County,
NC between the Community of Archer Lodge and the Town of Wendell at 35.731250,-78.352810. The
Project site is located in the NCDEQSub-basin 03-04-06, in the Lower Buffalo Creek Priority Sub -watershed
030202011504.
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 5,064 linear feet of streams
and 633,803 square feet of riparian buffers. WLS staff visited the site several times throughout Monitoring
Year 3 (MY3) for monitoring activities. MY3 data collection occurred between September and October
2020 (Table 2). This report presents the data for the MY3. The Project meets the MY3 success criteria for
vegetation. Based on these results, the Project is expected to meet the Monitoring Year 4 (MY4) success
criteria in 2021.
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 the
Targeted Local Watershed 03020201180050.
The catchment area is 156 acres and has an impervious cover of approximately one percent. The
dominant surrounding land uses are agriculture and mixed forest. Prior to construction, livestock had
access to Reaches R3 and R4, and the riparian buffers were less than 50 feet wide on all reaches except
R5.
2.2 Mitigation Project Goals and Objectives
The following riparian buffer mitigation site -specific goals were developed:
• 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 objectives will be measured and included with the
performance standards to document overall project success:
• Increase native species riparian buffer vegetation density/composition along streambank and
floodplain areas that meet requirements of a minimum 50-foot-wide and 260 stems/acre after
monitoring year 5,
• Prevent cattle from accessing the conservation easement boundary by installing permanent
fencing and reducing fecal coliform bacteria from the pre -restoration levels.
Pen Dell Mitigation Project (Riparian Buffer Mitigation)
FINAL Monitoring Report Year 3 Page 1

Water & Land Solutions 4
2.3 Project History, Contacts, and Tirnefrarne
The Project will provide riparian buffer mitigation credits in accordance with North Carolina
Administrative Code (NCAC), "Consolidated Buffer Mitigation Rule", Rule 15A NCAC 02B .0295, effective
November 1, 2015. Riparian buffer mitigation site viability was confirmed by DWRs April 28, 2016 letter
entitled "Site Viability for Buffer Mitigation & Nutrient Offset — Pen Dell Located Near 2505 Wendell Rd,
Wendell, NC, Johnston County'. The referenced viability letter specified for Reach R1 that riparian buffer
credits being only being allowed outside of 25 feet off the top of stream banks. The described site viability
confirmation included a determination by DWR that Project Reaches R2, R3 (Includes Project Reach R4)
and R5 were either intermittent or perennial. A request for Stream Origin/Buffer Applicability
Determination for Project Reach R1, as required in the referenced viability letter, was submitted to DWR
on June 10, 2016. On June 20, 2016 and June 21, 2016 DWR performed the requested determination and
Reach R1 was determined to be intermittent, as communicated in the DWR June 22, 2016 letter entitled
"Subject: Buffer Determination Letter, NBRO #16-180 Johnston County", therefore confirming Reach R1's
eligibility for riparian buffer mitigation. See Appendix D for DWR correspondence and approval letters.
The final mitigation plan and PCN were submitted to DMS September 29, 2017 for submission to DWR
and the NCIRT. The Section 404 General (Regional and Nationwide) Permit Verification was issued January
12, 2018. Project construction started on January 29, 2018 and mitigation site earthwork was completed
on April 1, 2018, and mitigation site planting was completed on April 6, 2018, both by RiverWorks
Construction. Trueline Surveying, PC completed the as -built survey in June 2018. WLS completed the
installation of baseline monitoring devices on April 19, 2018 and the installation of survey monumentation
and conservation easement boundary marking on June 7, 2018. Monitoring year 1 occurred between April
and November 2018. Monitoring year 2 occurred in between November 2018 and October 2019.
Monitoring Year 3 occurred between September 2020 and October 2020.
The project background and attribute summary are presented in Table 1. Refer to Figure 1 and Table 2 for
the project areas and buffer asset information. Relevant project contact information is presented in Table
3.
3 Project Mitigation Components
3.1 Riparian Buffer Mitigation Types and Approaches
Riparian buffer mitigation included restoring, enhancing and preserving the riparian buffer functions and
corridor habitat. The project included planting to re-establish a native species vegetation riparian buffer
corridor, which extended a minimum of 50 feet from the top of the streambanks along each of the project
reaches, as well as permanently protecting those buffers with a conservation easement. Many areas of
the conservation easement had riparian buffer widths greater than 50 feet established along one or both
streambanks to provide additional functional uplift. The only exception is at the upstream end of Reach
R2, where the width of the proposed left riparian buffer varies between 20 feet and 29 feet from the right
top of bank. This narrow area of proposed riparian buffer is due to the site constraint caused by an existing
residential driveway. For project reaches proposed for restoration and enhancement, the riparian buffers
were restored through reforestation of the entire conservation easement with native species riparian
buffer vegetation. For project reach sections proposed for preservation, the existing riparian buffers are
permanently protected via the conservation easement. A significant area of the existing northern riparian
Pen Dell Mitigation Project (Riparian Buffer Mitigation)
FINAL Monitoring Report Year 3 Page 2

Water & Land Solutions 4
buffer for Reach R2 was incorrectly described as "Native hardwood forest, closed canopy" in the
referenced site viability letter, as this area of the buffer was a fescue lawn. WLS proposed this area for
riparian buffer restoration in the approved mitigation plan (Figure 11 Riparian Buffer Mitigation).
Additionally, permanent fencing was installed along with alternative watering systems to exclude livestock
from the restored riparian buffer and conservation easement areas. Table 1 and Figure 1 (Appendix A)
provide a summary of the project components.
3.1.1 Tree and Shrub Planting Approaches
The riparian buffer planting zones for the project included the streambanks, floodplain, riparian wetland,
and upland transitional areas. The as -built planting boundaries are shown on the as -built vegetation plans
in Appendix E and Figure 1. Proposed plantings were conducted using native species bare -root trees and
shrubs, live stakes, and seedlings. Proposed plantings predominantly consisted of bare -root vegetation
and were generally planted at a total target density of 680 stems per acre. WLS implemented a riparian
buffer planting strategy that includes a combination of overstory, or canopy, and understory species. The
site planting strategy also included early successional, as well as climax species. The vegetation selections
were mixed throughout the project planting areas so that the early successional species will give way to
climax species as they mature over time.
3.1.2 Temporary and Permanent Seeding Approaches
Permanent seed mixtures of native species herbaceous vegetation and temporary herbaceous vegetation
seed mixtures were applied to all disturbed areas of the project site. Temporary and permanent seeding
were conducted simultaneously at all disturbed areas of the site during construction utilizing mechanical
broadcast spreaders. The as -built re -vegetation plan lists the utilized species, mixtures, and application
rates for permanent seeding.
3.1.3 Invasive Species Vegetation Treatment
During the project construction, invasive species exotic vegetation was either mechanically removed or
chemically treated both to control its presence and reduce its spread within the conservation easement
areas. During MY3 vegetation assessment, no areas of concern was observed within the conservation
easement boundary. Any areas identified during MY4 will be treated and documented in the subsequent
annual report.
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 five years. Specific success criteria components and evaluation
methods are described below.
4.1 Vegetation
Measurements of the final vegetative restoration success for the project will be achieving a density of not
less than 260, five -year -old planted stems per acre in Year 5 of monitoring. This final performance criteria
shall include a minimum of four native hardwood tree species or four native hardwood tree and native
shrub species, where no one species is greater than 50 percent of the stems. Native hardwood tree and
Pen Dell Mitigation Project (Riparian Buffer Mitigation)
FINAL Monitoring Report Year 3 Page 3

Water & Land Solutions 4
native shrub volunteer species will be included to meet the final performance criteria of 260 stems per
acre. Volunteer species are only counted if they are at least 12" tall. Volunteer species will only be
included if surviving for at least two years and are included were included in the approved planting plan.
In addition, diffuse flow of runoff shall be maintained in the riparian buffer areas.
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 and was intended to document the site improvements based on restoration
potential, catchment health, ecological stressors and overall constraints. All the monitoring device
locations are depicted on CCPV (Figure 1) and MY3 monitoring data results are listed in the appendices.
The Project meets the MY3 success criteria for vegetation.
5.1 Vegetation
Vegetation monitoring for MY3 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
vegetation monitoring plot locations. All veg plots meet the vegetative success criteria of at least 260
planted stems per acre at the end of MY5 and the site is on trajectory to remain successful. Summary data
and photographs of each plot can be found in Appendix 3.
Pen Dell Mitigation Project (Riparian Buffer Mitigation)
FINAL Monitoring Report Year 3 Page 4

Water & Land Solutions
0
6 References
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.
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). Pen Dell Stream and Riparian Buffer Mitigation Plan. NCDMS,
Raleigh, NC.
Pen Dell Mitigation Project (Riparian Buffer Mitigation)
FINAL Monitoring Report Year 3 Page 5

Appendices
FJ
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project (Riparian Buffer Mitigation)

FJ
Appendix A — Background Tables
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project (Riparian Buffer Mitigation)

Table 1. Buffer Project Attributes
Project Name
Pen Dell Mitigation Project
Hydrologic Unit Code
03020201
River Basin
Neuse
Geographic Location (Lat, Long)
35*43' 52.51" N 78*21' 10.12" W
Site Protection Instrument (DB, PG)
85,148
Total Credits (BMU)
0
Types of Credits
Riparian Buffer
Mitigation Plan Date
Nov-18
Initial Planting Date
Mar-18
Baseline Report Date
Nov-18
MY1 Report Date
Dec-18
MY2 Report Date
Dec-19
MY3 Report Date
Dec-20
MY4 Report Date
MY5 Report Date

Table 2. Buffer Project Areas and Assets
RIPARIAN BUFFER (15A NCAC
Initial
Location Jurisdictional Streams Restoration Type
Reach Buffer Width Total Area Creditable Credit %Full Credit Final Credit Ratio Riparian Buffer to Nutrient
ID/Component (ft) (sf) Area (sf)* (x:l) Credits Offset (Yes
Ratio (x:1)
or Nonsubject
I Restoration
or Nonsubject
lRestoration
or Nonsubject
JEnhancement
or Nonsubject
JEnhancement
or Nonsubject
lEnhancement
Restoration
1 0-1001
286,888
286,888
101-200
20-29
Cattle Exc. Enh
0-100
124,088
124,088
101-200
SUBTOTALS
410,976
ELIGIBLE PRESERVATION AREA
136,992
Location
Jurisdictional Streams
Restoration Type
Reach
ID/Component
Buffer Width
(ft)
Total Area
(sf)
Creditable
Area (sf)*
Initial
Credit
Ratio x:1
% Full Credit
Final Credit Ratio
(x:1)
Riparian Buffer
Credits
Rural
Subject
Preservation
20-29
10
75%
13.33333
0.000
Rural
Subject
Preservation
Preservation
0-100
222,827
136,992
10
100%
10.00000
13,699.200
Rural
Subject
Preservation
101-200
10
33%
30.30303
0.000
Rural
Nonsubject
Preservation
20-29
5
75%
6.66667
0.000
Rural
Nonsubject
Preservation
0-100
5
100%
5.00000
0.000
Rural
Nonsubject
Preservation
101-200
5
33%
15.15152
0.000
Urban
Subject or Nonsubject
Preservation
20-29
3
75%
4.00000
0.000
Urban
Subject or Nonsubject
Preservation
0-100
3
100%
3.00000
0.000
Urban
Subject or Nonsubject
Preservation
101-200
3
1 33%
9.09091
0.000
SUBTOTALS 136,992 13,699.200
TOTALS 1 5 1 362,631.200
*Area eligible for preservation may be no more than 25% of total area, where total area is back -calculated with the equation R+E/0.75.
*Buffers must be at minimum 20' wide for riparian buffer credit buffers must be 50' wide for nutrient offset credit
*When preservation areas exceed the total eligible preservation area, select the areas with the best credit ratios as the creditable areas.
If Converted to Nutrient
Offset
Nutrient
Offset: N
(Ibs)
Nutrient
Offset: P (Ibs)
0.000
14,970.199
-
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
14,970.199
0.000
Regulatory direction for Riparian Buffer in this table follows NCAC rule 15A NCAC 02B .0295, effective November 1, 2015.
Regulatory direction for Nutrient Offset in this table follows Nutrient Offsets Payments Rule 15A NCAC 02B. 0240, amended effective September 1, 2010 and
DWR-1998. Methodology and Calculations for determining Nutrient Reductions associated with Riparian Buffer Establishment.
N.O. calculation based on effectiveness in 30 years, with DWR's 146.40 Ib/ac P; and 2,273.02 Ib/ac N. The N credit ratio used is 19.16394 sf per pound. The P credit ratio used is 297.54097 sf per pound.
6) Cut up asset feature layer by reach, and attribute feature name by adding column to asset table.
7) Add a field for buffer area and run the calculate geometry tool in the GIS attribute table (in square feet).
8) Add blocks of rows for each buffer component (by reach and restoration level) in excel table as necessary and as portrayed in GIS attribute table.
FILLIBLE CELLS, leave blank if N/A
Regulatory direction for Riparian Buffer in this table follows NCAC rule 15A NCAC 02B .0295, effective November 1, 2015.
Regulatory direction for Nutrient Offset in this table follows Nutrient Offsets Payments Rule 15A NCAC 02B. 0240, amended effective September 1, 2010 and
DWR —1998. Methodology and Calculations for determining Nutrient Reductions associated with Riparian Buffer Establishment.
N.O. calculation based on effectiveness in 30 years, with 146.40 Ib/ac P; and 2,273.02 Ib/ac N. The N credit ratio used is 19.16325 sf per pound. The P credit ratio used is 297.54098 sf per pound.

Table 3. Project Contacts
Pen Dell Mitigation Project (NCDEQ DMS Project ID# 97079)
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]

FJ
Appendix B — Visual Assessment Data
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project (Riparian Buffer Mitigation)

Table 4. Vegetation Condition Assessment
Project Pen Dell Mitigation Project (NCDEQ DMS Project ID# 97079)
Planted Acreage' 10.1
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
% of Planted
Vetietation Catetiory
Definitions
Threshold
De iaion
Acrea a
Acrea g
1. Bare Areas
Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material.
1 acre
Pattern and
Color
_Lagons
0
0.00
0.0 %
2. Low Stem Density Areas
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4, or 5 stem count criteria.
0.1 acres
Pattern and
0
0.00
Color
Total
0
0.00
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
Pattern and
Color
0
0.00CumulativeTotal
tj
0
0.00
Easement Acreanet 15.95
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
% of Easement
Vetietation Catetiory
Definitions
Threshold
Depiction
Acrea a
ea. e
. Invasive Areas of Concern4
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
1000 SF
Pattern and
_Z&gons
0
0.00
0.0%
Color
Pattern and
5. Easement Encroachment Areas
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
none
0
0.00
0.0
Color

& Z
�_ •{ c !/vim 3e -
! r
,y. ¢ �d
x Tx
. , �7N
v:w s
Veg Plot 5, April 12, 2018 (MY-00) Veg Plot 5, October 13, 2020 (MY-03)
61
ow
�, - -. •�e- �`, - - ?�'�"° � ;'"1r'. -� �''', ,-.fib �t
k"�:
�: -gyp ,•.,3 � r - y f.,- -
\r
Veg Plot 6, April 12, 2018 (MY-00) Veg Plot 6, October 13, 2020 (MY-03)

f --��=' _
- �_ �
_ _
.. t
-4
•' +� - � ' y. gam- "�'' _
� �-
A
��. ♦ .:
'F'• _ f .- -. _emu .. ��''�� ew,.r � • �_
.. �r Y _ .��.. _..

FJ
Appendix C — Vegetation Plot Data
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project (Riparian Buffer Mitigation)

Table 5: CVS - Pen -Del Mitieation Proiect
Current Plot Data (MY3 2020)
Annual Means
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
002-01-0001
002-01-0002
002-01-0003
002-01-0004
002-01-0005
002-01-0006
002-01-0007
MY3(2020)
MY212019)
MY1(2018)
MYO 12018)
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
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
Acer rubrum
Tree
10
8
1
1
6
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
3
3
30
3
3
14
4
4
122
3
3
3
Alnus serrulata
Tag Alder, Smooth Ald
Shrub Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Betula nigra
River Birch, Red Birch
Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
3
3
3
9
9
9
9
9
9
11
11
11
14
14
14
Carpinus caroliniana
Shrub Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
5
5
5
5
5
5
9
9
10
10
10
10
Ca rya
Hickory
Tree
1
Corpus amomum
Silky Dogwood
Shrub Tree
2
2
2
1 1
1
3
3
3
4
4
4
6
6
6
6
6
6
Diospyros virginiana
American Persimmon,
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
11
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash, Red Ash
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2 2
2
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Ilex verticillata
Winterberry
Shrub Tree
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Undera benzoin
Northern Spicebush
Shrub Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
13
13
13
Liquidambar styraciflua
Sweet Gum, Red Gum
Tree
3
5
4
2
14
5
3
Uriodendron tulipifera
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
5
2
2
6
2
2
2
5
5
5
13
13
13
Magnolia virginiana
Shrub Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
2 2
21
7
7
7
6
6
6
8
8
8
14
14
14
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore, Plane -tree
Tree
2
2
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
1 1
1
11
11
11
11
11
11
14
14
14
14
14
14
Populus deltoides
Tree
1
Quercus michauxii
Basket Oak, Swamp 0
Tree
2
2
2
3
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
10
10
10
9
9
9
11
11
11
9
9
9
Quercus nigra
Water Oak, Paddle Oa
Tree
1
1
1
1
21
2
2
1
1
1
4
4
5
4
4
4
3
3
3
91
9
9
Quercus phellos
Willow Oak
Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 1
1
5
5
5
6
6
6
8
8
8
8
8
8
Rhus copallinum
Shrub Tree
3
Rosa palustris
Swamp Rose
Shrub Vine
4
39
Salix nigra
Black Willow
Tree
1
7
Salix sericea
Silky Willow
Shrub Tree
2
1
2
Sambucus canadensis
Common Elderberry
Shrub Tree
5
3
Ulmus alata
Winged Elm
Tree
4
1
4
Ulmus rubra
Slippery Elm, Red Elm
Tree
2t578.11
Viburnum nudum
Southern Wild Raisin,
Shrub Tree
1
1
1
Stem count
(ares)
(ACRES)
count
per ACRE
8
8
13
8
8
31
12
12
25
13
13
20
9
9
9
20
20
20
7 7
11
77
77
129
78
78
106
132
132
132size
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
7
7
7size
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.17
0.17
0.17Species
6
6
8
5
5
8
8
8
9101010556
15
15
18
15
15
20
16 16
16Stems
323.7
323.7
526.1
3
323.7
1255
485.6
1012
526.1
526.1
809.4
364.2
364.2
364.2
809.4
809.4
809.4
283.3
445.2
445.2
445.2
745.8
450.9
450.9
612.8
763.1
763.1

FJ
Appendix D — NC DWR Correspondence and Approvals
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project (Riparian Buffer Mitigation)

Water Resources
[NVIPONMENi AL GUALITY
April 28, 2016
Scott Hunt
Water & Land Solutions, LLC
11030 Raven Ridge Rd, Suite 119
Raleigh, NC 27614
(via electronic mail)
PAT MCCRORY
Grmwntnr
DONAL❑ R. VAN DER VAART
seer t-
S. JAY ZIMMERMAN
Director
DWR Project #: 2016-0403
Re: Site Viability for Buffer Mitigation & Nutrient Offset — Pen Dell
Located near 2505 Wendell Rd, Wendell, NC
Johnston County
Dear Mr. Hunt,
On April 8, 2016, Katie Merritt, with the Division of Water Resources (DWR), assisted you and
others from Water & Land Solutions, LLC at the proposed Pen Dell Mitigation Site (Site) in
Wendell, NC. The Site is located in the Neuse River Basin within the 8-digit Hydrologic Unit
Code 03020201. The Site is being proposed as part of a full -delivery stream restoration project
for the Division of Mitigation Services (RFP #16-006477). The Interagency Review Team (IRT)
was also present onsite. At your request, Ms. Merritt performed a site assessment of features onsite
to determine suitability for buffer and nutrient offset litigation. Features are more accurately shown
in the attached maps signed by Ms. Merritt on April 25, 2016. If approved, mitigating this site could
provide stream mitigation credits, riparian buffer credits and/or nutrient offset credits.
Ms. Merritt's evaluation of the features from Top of Bank (TOB) out to 200' for buffer and nutrient
offset mitigation pursuant to Rule 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (effective November 1, 2015) and Rule
15A NCAC 02B .0240 is provided in the table below:
Feature
Classification
"Subject
Adjacent Land uses
Buffer
2Nutrient
Mitigation Type/Comments
to Buffer
Credit
Offset Viable
Rule
Viable
at 2,273
Ibs acre
R1 (wood
Undetermined
n/a
Active and pre-existing
n/a
Yes
Restoration for nutrient offset outside
line to road)
conveyance
row crap;
of 25' on both sides of conveyance w/
Land use along the
plantings and easement starting at TDB
conveyance consisted
back max 200';
of a +/- 25' narrow
Need stream determination by DWR if
forested fringe w/
pursuing buffer credit; if feature is a
canopy from 1999-
stream, feature is viable for buffer
2010
restoration per 15A NCAC 02B .0295
(o)(3) outside of 25' on both sides of
conveyance.
State ❑fNorth Camlma I E,nvironmenlaI Quiity I Wit lerResaartes
1617 Mai] service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699.1617
919 807 6300

Pen Dell Mitigation Site
April 28, 2016
Page 2 of 2
R2 (Wendell
Rd to below
pond)
stream
Yes
Native hardwood
forest, closed canopy
Yes
No
Preservation per 15A NCAC 02B .0295
(0)(5)
R3 (dirt path
stream
Yes
All pasture actively
Yes
Yes
entire 50' from TOB and within all
crossing to
grazed by cattle with
clusters of closed canopy hardwoods=
Lake
mix of Native
Enhancement per 15A NCAC 02B .0295
Wendell Rd
hardwood forest
(6); outside of forested areas (pine tree
canopy
clustered areas are not viable for credit)
=Restoration
R5
Stream
Yes
Native hardwood
Yes
No
Preservation per 15A NCAC 02B .0295
forest, closed canopy
I
f (0)(5)
'Subjectivity calls were determined using the 1:24.000 scale quadrangle topographic map prepared by USGS and the most
recent printed version of the soil survey map prepared by the NRCS
'For nutrient offset viability to be determined, the landowner must provide proof in writing that the land is being used for
agriculture or has been used for agriculture previously (prior to rule baseline). Dates, supported by photos or other
written records, must he included to confirm that the uses of the open fields onsite are/were for hay crop cultivation/row
crop/cattle.
Maps showing the project site and the features are provided and are signed by Ms, Merritt on
April 25, 2016. This letter should be provided in all future mitigation plans for this Site. In
addition, all vegetative plantings, performance criteria and other mitigation requirements for
riparian restoration, enhancement and preservation must follow the requirements in 15A NCAC
02B .0295 to be eligible for buffer and/or nutrient offset credits. Where buffer and nutrient
offset credits are viable in the same area, only one credit type is allowed to be generated for
credit, not both.
For any areas depicted as not being viable for nutrient offset credit, one could propose a different
measure other than riparian restorationlenhancement, along with supporting calculations and
sufficient detail to support estimates of load reduction, for review by the DWR to determine
viability for nutrient offset according to 15A NCAC 02B .0240.
Please contact Katie Merritt at (919)-807-6371 if you have any questions regarding this
correspondence.
Sincerely,
i
Karen Higgins, Supervisor U `
401 and Buffer Permitting Brhfich
K.A.H/km
Attachments: Site Aerial Map, USGS Topographic Map, 1999 Aerial Photo, 2010 Aerial Photo
cc: File Copy (Katie Merritt)
DMS —Jeff Schaffer (via electronic mail)

Legend
Conservation Easement L-»�`_ 1i� Flowers Quadrangle
North Carolina - Johnston Co.
t ��
Kq
� IL
a Joe
■lop,
.+•-� —_�
a goo 1,10oo
Feet
�j Copy right:©2o1.3 hlat,', -aI Geograp h sv0iefy, i-c11bed
NNVI�- 1419S-11Y USGS FIGURE
WATER & LANbm Pen Dell Topographic
SOLUTIONS Mitigation Project Map 2
NAD 1983 2011 State Plane

s
.,a.. *' K -,r"
�t
Image € 2016 DigitalGlobe
GOL)(,Ilc earth

qw
Goo gle-earth