20160404 Ver 2_Year 4 Monitoring Report_2021_20211025

ID#* 20160404
Select Reviewer:
Erin Davis
Initial Review Completed Date 10/25/2021
Mitigation Project Submittal - 10/25/2021
Version* 2
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site?*
Type of Mitigation Project:*
Stream Wetlands Buffer Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:*
Lindsay Crocker
Project Information
ID#:* 20160404
Existing ID#
Project Type: • DMS Mitigation Bank
Project Name: Edwards Johnston
County: Johnston
Document Information
O Yes O No
Email Address:*
[e-mail]
Version:* 2
Existing Version
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Monitoring Report
File Upload: Edwards -Johnson _97080_MY4_2021.pdf 8.84MB
Please upload only one PDF of the complete file that needs to be submitted...
Signature
Print Name:* Lindsay Crocker
Signature: *

Monitoring Report —Year 4
FINAL VERSION
Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project
Calendar Year of Data Collection: 2021
NCDEQ DIMS Project Identification # 97080
NCDEQ DIMS Contract # 6825
Neuse River Basin (Cataloging Unit 03020201)
USACE Action ID Number: SAW-2016-00883
NCDEQ DWR Project # 2016-0404 V2
Johnston County, NC
Contracted Under RFP # 16-006477
Data Collection Period: September 2021
Submission Date: October 20th, 2021
Prepared for:
P C­.
Environmental
Quality
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
Prepared by:
WATER & LAND SOLUTIONS
7721 six rORKS ROAD, SUITE 130, RALEIGH, MC 27615
[phone] 1 waterlondsolotions.com

WATER & LAND SOLUTIONS
7721 SIX FORKS ROAD, SUITE 130, RALEIGH, NC 27615
(919) 614 - 5111 I waterlandsolutions.com
October 2011, 2021
INC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
Attn: Lindsay Crocker
217 West Jones Street, Suite 3000-A
Raleigh, INC 27603
RE: WLS Responses to NCDEQ DMS Review Comments for Task 10 Draft Monitoring Report Year 4 for the
Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project, NCDEQ DMS Full -Delivery Project ID #97080, Contract #006825, Neuse
River Basin, Cataloging Unit 03020201, Johnston County, INC
Dear Ms. Crocker:
Water & Land Solutions, LLC (WLS) is pleased to present the Final Monitoring Report Year 4 for the Edwards -Johnson
Mitigation Project to the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) Division of Mitigation
Services (DIMS). The Final Monitoring Report Year 4 were developed by addressing NCDEQ DMS's review comments.
Under this cover, we are providing the Final Monitoring Report Year 4, 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 4 below. Each of the
DIMS review comments is copied below in bold text, followed by the appropriate response from WLS in regular text:
Report:
1. DMS Comment: Add'V2'to the DWR project number on the title page (2016-0404 V2). WLS Response: V2
was added to the DWR project number on the title page.
2. DMS Comment: Clarify on the Legend for the Encroachment area (0.04 acres) to show planting year or
remove shapefile because there were also replanted areas in previous monitoring years that are not shown
(because this is considered no longer an encroachment). WLS Response: The encroachment area was
replanted in 2019 and is no longer an encroachment. The encroachment was removed from the CCPV.
3. DMS Comment: Please add the replanting to Table 2 and include the dates of any previous replants for
clarity. It may also be useful to show the size of the areas replanted since they are minimal in that table.
WLS Response: All the replants and acreage of areas replanted was added to Table 2.
4. DMS Comment: Clarify in the text where the substrate samples were taken (which reach). WLS Response:
Language was added to clarify that samples were taken on R2 near station 26+00.
5. DMS Comment: Update rain report for additional months if possible. WLS Response: September rain data
has been added to Figure 5.
Digital Deliverables:

DMS Comment: Please submit the features for the stream problem, encroachment, and low stem density
areas that are displayed in the CCPV. Please also ensure that these areas are reflected in Table 5 & 5a. If the
encroachment area is removed then this feature does not need to be included. WLS Response: Features for
the stream problem area and low stem density area are included in the CCPV folder of the E-Data. Both areas
are reflected in Table 5 and 5a.
Please contact me if you have any questions or comments.
Sincerely,
Water & Land Solutions, LLC
Emily Dunnigan
Water & Land Solutions, LLC
7721 Six Forks Road, Suite 130
Raleigh, NC 27615
Office Phone: [phone]
Mobile Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

Table of Contents
1 Project Summary...................................................................................................................................1
2 Project Background...............................................................................................................................1
2.1 Project Location, Setting, and Existing Conditions.......................................................................1
2.2 Mitigation Project Goals and Objectives.......................................................................................1
2.3 Project History, Contacts, and Timeframe....................................................................................2
3 Project Mitigation Components............................................................................................................2
3.1 Stream Mitigation Types and Approaches....................................................................................2
3.1.1 R1 Preservation.....................................................................................................................3
3.1.2 R2 Restoration.......................................................................................................................3
3.1.3 R3 (Upper Reach) Restoration..............................................................................................3
3.1.4 R3 (Lower Reach) Preservation.............................................................................................3
3.1.5 R4 Restoration.......................................................................................................................4
4 Performance Standards........................................................................................................................4
4.1 Streams......................................................................................................................................... 5
4.1.1 Stream Hydrology................................................................................................................. 5
4.1.2 Stream Profiles, Vertical Stability, and Floodplain Access....................................................5
4.1.3 Stream Horizontal Stability...................................................................................................5
4.1.4 Streambed Material Condition and Stability........................................................................6
4.1.5 Jurisdictional Stream Flow....................................................................................................6
4.2 Vegetation.....................................................................................................................................6
5 Monitoring Year 4 Assessment and Results.......................................................................................... 6
5.1 Stream Hydrology......................................................................................................................... 6
5.2 Stream Horizontal & Vertical Stability..........................................................................................7
5.3 Streambed Material Condition and Stability................................................................................7
5.4 Jurisdictional Stream Flow Documentation..................................................................................7
5.5 Vegetation.....................................................................................................................................7
5.6 Wetlands.......................................................................................................................................8
6 References............................................................................................................................................9

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A Background Tables and Figures
Table 1
Project Mitigation Components
Table 2
Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3
Project Contacts
Table 4
Project Information and Attributes
Appendix B Visual Assessment Data
Figure 1
Current Condition Plan View (CCPV)
Table 5
Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Table 5a
Vegetation Condition Assessment
Photos
Stream Station Photographs
Photos
Vegetation Plot Photographs
Appendix D Stream Measurement and Geomorphology Data
Figure 3 MY4 Pebble Count
Table 7a Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 7b Cross-section Morphology Data (skip in MY4)
Table 7c Stream Reach Morphology Data
Appendix E Hydrologic Data
Table 8
Verification of Flow Events
Figure 4a
Hydrograph Data
Figure 4b
Groundwater Gauge 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 Edwards -Johnson
Mitigation Project (Project) full -delivery project for the North Carolina Department of Environmental
Quality (NCDEQ), Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) in March 2018. The Project is located in Johnston
County, North Carolina between the Community of Archer Lodge and the Town of Wendell at 35.7251°,
78.35636°. The Project site is located in the NCDEQ Sub -basin 03-04-06, in the Lower Buffalo Creek
Priority Sub -watershed 030202011504.
The Project involved the restoration, preservation, and permanent protection of four stream reaches (R1,
R2, R3, and R4) totaling 3,729 linear feet of streams and their riparian buffers. WLS staff visited the site
several times throughout Monitoring Year 4 (MY4) for monitoring activities. Data collection occurred in
September 2021. This report presents the data for MY4. The Project meets the MY4 success criteria for
stream hydrology, stream horizontal and vertical stability, and vegetation. Based on these results, the
Project is meeting MY4 success criteria and is expected to meet the Monitoring Year 5 (MY5) success
criteria in 2022.
2 Project Background
2.1 Project Location, Setting, and Existing Conditions
The Project site is located in the Lower Buffalo Creek Priority Sub -watershed 030202011504 study area of
the Neuse 01 Regional Watershed Plan, in the Wake -Johnston Collaborative Local Watershed Plan, and in
Targeted Local Watershed 03020201180050.
The catchment area is 223 acres and has an impervious cover less than one percent. The dominant
surrounding land uses are agriculture and mixed forest. Prior to construction, some of the riparian buffers
were less than 50 feet wide.
2.2 Mitigation Project Goals and Objectives
WLS established project mitigation goals and objectives based on the resource condition and functional
capacity of the watershed to improve and protect diverse aquatic resources comparable to stable
headwater stream systems within the Piedmont Physiographic Province. The proposed mitigation types
and design approaches described in the final approved mitigation plan considered the general restoration
and resource protection goals and strategies outlined in the 2010 Neuse River Basin Restoration Priority
Plan (RBRP). The functional goals and objectives were further defined in the 2013 Wake -Johnston
Collaborative Local Watershed Plan and 2015 Neuse 01 Regional Watershed Plan and include:
• Reducing sediment and nutrient inputs to the upper Buffalo Creek Watershed,
• Restoring, preserving, and protecting wetlands, streams, riparian buffers, and aquatic habitat,
• Implementing agricultural BMPs and stream restoration in rural catchments together as "project
clusters".
The following site -specific goals were developed to address the primary concerns outlined in the LWP and
RWP and include:
• Restore stream and floodplain interaction and geomorphically stable conditions by reconnecting
historic flow paths and promoting more natural flood processes,
Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project
DRAFT Monitoring Report Year 4 Page 1

Water & Land Solutions
0
• Improve and protect water quality by reducing streambank erosion, nutrient and sediment inputs,
• Restore and protect riparian buffer functions and habitat connectivity in perpetuity by recording
a permanent conservation easement,
• Implement agricultural BMPs to reduce nonpoint source inputs to receiving waters.
To accomplish these site -specific goals, the following function -based objectives will be measured and
included with the performance standards to document overall project success as described in the table
below:
Improve Base Flow
Remove man-made pond dam and restore a
more natural flow regime and aquatic passage.
Reconnect Floodplain / Increase
Lower BHRs from >2.0 to 1.0-1.2 and maintain
Floodprone Area Widths
ERs at 2.2 or greater.
Improve Bedform Diversity
Increase riffle/pool percentage to 70/30 and
pool -to -pool spacing ratio 4-7X bankfull width.
Reduce BEHI/NBS streambank erosion rates
Increase Lateral Stability
comparable to downstream reference
condition and stable cross-section values.
Plant or protect native species vegetation a
Enhance Riparian Buffer Vegetation
minimum 50' wide from the top of the
streambanks with a composition/density
comparable to reference condition.
Install water quality treatment basins along
Improve Water Quality
the riparian corridor and reduce sediment and
nutrient levels.
Improve Macroinvertebrate
Incorporate native woody debris and bedform
Community and Aquatic Species
diversity into channel and change DWR
Health
bioclassification rating from `Poor' to a
minimum `Fair' by Monitoring Year 7.
2.3 Project History, Contacts, and Tirnefrarne
The chronology of the project history and activity is presented in Table 2. Relevant project contact
information is presented in Table 3. Relevant project background information is presented in Table 4.
3 Project Mitigation Components
Refer to Figure 1 and Table 1 for the project components/asset information. A recorded conservation
easement consisting of 10.96 acres protects and preserves all stream reaches, existing wetland areas, and
riparian buffers in perpetuity.
3.1 Stream Mitigation Types and Approaches
Stream restoration practices involved raising the existing streambed and reconnecting the stream to the
relic floodplain. Some portions of the existing degraded channels that were abandoned within the
restoration areas were filled to decrease surface and subsurface drainage and raise the local water table.
The project also included restoring, enhancing, and protecting riparian buffers and riparian wetlands
within the conservation easement. The vegetative components of this project included stream bank,
Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project
DRAFT Monitoring Report Year 4 Page 2

Water & Land Solutions 4
floodplain, and transitional upland zones planting. The Site was planted with native species riparian buffer
vegetation (Appendix C) and now protected through a permanent conservation easement. Table 1
(Appendix A) and Figure 1 (Appendix B) provide a summary of the project components.
3.1.1 R1 Preservation
Preservation was implemented along this reach since the existing stream and wetland system is mostly
stable with a mature riparian buffer due to minimal historic impacts. The preservation area is being
protected in perpetuity through a permanent conservation easement. This approach will extend the
wildlife corridor from the Buffalo Creek floodplain boundary throughout a majority of the riparian valley,
while providing a hydrologic connection and critical habitat linkage within the catchment area.
3.1.2 R2 Restoration
Work along R2 involved a Priority Level I Restoration approach by raising the bed elevation and
reconnecting the stream with its abandoned floodplain. This approach will promote more frequent over
bank flooding in areas with hydric soils, thereby creating favorable conditions for wetland re-
establishment. The reach was restored using appropriate riffle -pool morphology with a conservative
meander planform geometry that accommodates the valley slope and width. This approach allowed
restoration of a stable channel form with appropriate bedform diversity, as well as, improved biological
functions through increased aquatic and terrestrial habitats. Proposed in -stream structures included
constructed wood riffles for grade control and habitat, log j-hook vanes, and log weirs/jams for
encouraging step -pool formation energy dissipation, bank stability, and bedform diversity. Riparian
buffers greater than 50 feet were enhanced and will be protected along the entire length of R2. Mature
trees and significant native vegetation were protected and incorporated into the design.
Bioengineering techniques such as vegetated geolifts and live stakes were also used to protect
streambanks and promote woody vegetation growth along the streambanks. The existing unstable
channel was filled to an elevation sufficient to connect the new bankfull channel to its active floodplain
using suitable fill material excavated from the newly restored channels and remnant spoil piles.
Additionally, water quality treatment basins were installed to reduce direct sediment and nutrient inputs.
3.1.3 R3 (Upper Reach) Restoration
A Priority Level I Restoration approach was implemented for the upstream portion to improve stream
functions and water quality. Prior to restoration activities, the reach exhibited both lateral and vertical
instability, as shown by active headcuts and moderate bank erosion. A new single -thread meandering
channel was constructed off line in this area before reconnecting with multiple relic channel features and
the existing channel alignment farther downstream. In -stream structures, including log riffles, log weirs
and log vanes were used to dissipate flow energy, protect streambanks, and eliminate potential for future
incision. Shallow floodplain depressions and vernal pools were created or preserved in the floodplain to
provide habitat diversity, nutrient cycling, and improved treatment of overland flows. Restored
streambanks were graded to stable side slopes and the floodplain was reconnected to further promote
stability and hydrological function.
3.1.4 R3 (Lower Reach) Preservation
Preservation was implemented along this reach since the existing stream and wetland system is mostly
stable with a mature riparian buffer due to minimal historic impacts. The preservation is being protected
in perpetuity through a permanent conservation easement. This approach will extend the wildlife corridor
Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project
DRAFT Monitoring Report Year 4 Page 3

Water & Land Solutions 4
from the Buffalo Creek floodplain boundary throughout a majority of the riparian valley, while providing
a hydrologic connection and critical habitat linkage within the catchment area.
3.1.5 R4 Restoration
The restoration of R4 involved raising the existing bed elevation gradually to reconnect the stream with
its active floodplain. Prior to restoration activities, the existing channel began experiencing backwater
conditions and sediment aggradation from a man-made pond. The failing dam and remnant spoil piles
were removed, and the pond was drained to reconnect the new stream channel with its geomorphic
floodplain. Channel and floodplain excavation in this reach segment included the removal of shallow
legacy sediments (approx. 12" depth) to accommodate a new bankfull channel and in -stream structures,
as well as a more natural step -pool morphology using grade control structures in the steeper transitional
areas. Shallow floodplain depressions were created to provide habitat diversity, nutrient cycling, and
improved treatment of overland flows. Riparian buffers greater than 50 feet were restored and protected
along all R4.
4 Performance Standards
The applied success criteria for the Project will follow necessary performance standards and monitoring
protocols presented in final approved mitigation plan. Annual monitoring and semi-annual site visits will
be conducted to assess the condition of the project throughout the monitoring period. Monitoring
activities will be conducted for a period of seven years with the final duration dependent upon
performance trends toward achieving project goals and objectives.
The following Proposed Monitoring Plan Summary from the approved final mitigation plan summarizes
the measurement methods and performance standards. Specific success criteria components and
evaluation methods follow.
Improve Base Flow
Duration and
Overbank Flows (i.e.
channel forming
discharge)
Reconnect
Floodplain / Increase
Floodprone Area
Widths
Improve Bedform
Diversity
Increase Vertical and
Lateral Stability
Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project
DRAFT Monitoring Report Year 4
Remove man-made
pond, pressure
transducer, regional
curve, regression
equations, catchment
assessment
Bank Height Ratio,
Entrenchment Ratio,
crest gauge
Pool to Pool spacing,
riffle -pool sequence,
pool max depth ratio,
Longitudinal Profile
BEHI / NBS, Cross -
sections and
Longitudinal Profile
Surveys, visual
assessment
Maintain seasonal flow for a
minimum of 30 consecutive
days during normal annual
rainfall.
Maintain average BHRs at 1.2
and increase ERs at 2.2 or
greater and document
ba n kfu I I/geo m o rp h i ca I ly
significant flow events.
Increase riffle/pool
percentage and pool -to -pool
spacing ratios compared to
reference reach conditions.
Decrease streambank erosion
rates comparable to
reference condition cross-
section, pattern and vertical
profile values.
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.
Provide a more natural
stream morphology,
energy dissipation and
aquatic habitat/refugia.
Reduce sedimentation,
excessive aggradation,
and embeddedness to
allow for interstitial
flow habitat.
Page 4

Water & Land Solutions
0
Within planted portions of
CVS Level I & II
the site, a minimum of 320
Increase woody and
Protocol Tree Veg
stems per acre must be
herbaceous vegetation
Establish Riparian
Plots (Strata
present at year three; a
will provide channel
Buffer Vegetation
Composition and
minimum of 260 stems per
stability and reduce
Density), visual
acre must be present at year
streambank erosion,
five; and a minimum of 210
runoff rates and exotic
assessment
stems per acre must be
species vegetation.
present at year seven.
Reduction of excess
nutrients and organic
Improve Water
N/A
N/A
pollutants will increase
Quality
the hyporheic exchange
and dissolved oxygen
(DO) levels.
Increase leaf litter and
Improve Benthic
DWR Small Stream/
organic matter critical
Biology Macroinvertebrate
Qual v4 sampling, IBI
N/A
to provide in -stream
(Level 5) Communities and
(MY3MYSMY7)
, ,
cover/shade, wood
Aquatic Health
recruitment, and
carbon sourcing.
Note: Level 4 and 5 project parameters and monitoring activities will not be tied to performance standards nor
required to demonstrate success for credit release.
4.1 Streams
4.1.1 Stream Hydrology
Two separate bankfull events must be documented within the seven-year monitoring period. These two
bankfull events must occur in separate years. Otherwise, the stream monitoring will continue until two
bankfull events have been documented in separate years. In addition to the two bankfull flow events, two
geomorphically significant flow events (Qg5=0.66Q2) must also be documented during the monitoring
period. There are no temporal requirements regarding the distribution of the geomorphically significant
flows.
4.1.2 Stream Profiles, Vertical Stability, and Floodplain Access
Stream profiles, as a measure of vertical stability will be evaluated by looking at Bank Height Ratios (BHR).
The BHR shall not exceed 1.2 along the restored project reaches. This standard only applies to the restored
project reaches where BHRs were corrected through design and construction. In addition, observed
bedforms should be consistent with those observed for channels of the design stream type(s).
4.1.3 Stream Horizontal Stability
Cross -sections will be used to evaluate horizontal stream stability. There should be little change expected
in as -built restoration cross -sections. If measurable changes do occur, they should be evaluated to
determine if the changes represent a movement toward a more unstable condition (e.g., downcutting,
erosion) or a movement towards increased stability (e.g., settling, vegetation establishment, deposition
along the streambanks, decrease in width/depth ratio). Cross -sections shall be classified using the Rosgen
Stream Classification method and all monitored cross -sections should fall within the quantitative
parameters defined for channels of the design stream type.
Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project
DRAFT Monitoring Report Year 4 Page 5

Water & Land Solutions 4
4.1.4 Streambed Material Condition and Stability
After construction, there should be minimal change in the particle size distribution of the streambed
materials, over time, given the current watershed conditions and future sediment supply regime. Since the
streams are predominantly sand -bed systems with minimal fine/coarse gravel, some coarsening is
anticipated after restoration activities, however significant changes in particle size distribution are not
expected. Streambed material condition is supplementary and is not part of success criteria.
4.1.5 Jurisdictional Stream Flow
The restored stream systems must be classified as at least intermittent, and therefore must exhibit base
flow with at least 30 days of continuous flow during a year with normal rainfall conditions as described in
the approved mitigation plan.
4.2 Vegetation
Vegetative restoration success for the project during the intermediate monitoring years will be based on
the survival of at least 320, three -year -old planted trees per acre at the end of Year 3 of the monitoring
period and at least 260, five -year -old, planted trees per acre at the end of Year 5 of the monitoring period.
The final vegetative restoration success criteria will be achieving a density of not less than 210, seven-
year -old planted stems per acre in Year 7 of monitoring. Planted vegetation (for projects in coastal plain
and piedmont counties) must average seven feet in height at Year 5 of monitoring and 10 feet in height
at Year 7 of monitoring. Volunteer stems will only be counted toward success if they are surviving for at
least 2 years, are at least 12 inches tall, and are species from the approved planting list. For all of the
monitoring years (Year 1 through Year 7), the number of Red maple (Acer rubrum) stems cannot exceed
20 percent of the total stems in any of the vegetation monitoring plots.
5 Monitoring Year 4 Assessment and Results
Annual monitoring was conducted during MY4 in accordance with the monitoring plan as described in the
approved mitigation plan to document the site conditions. All monitoring device locations are depicted
on the CCPV (Figure 1). MY4 results are provided in the appendices. The Project meets the MY4 success
criteria for stream hydrology, stream horizontal and vertical stability, and vegetation.
5.1 Stream Hydrology
Monitoring to document the occurrence of the two required bankfull events (overbank flows) and the two
required geomorphically significant flow events (Qgs=0.66Q2) within the monitoring period, along with
floodplain access by flood flows, is being conducted using a crest gauge, installed on December 12, 2018,
on the floodplain of and across the dimension of the restored channel at the left top of bank of Reach R2,
immediately upstream of the confluence of Reach R2 and R4 (Figure 1), to record the watermark
associated with the highest flood stage between monitoring site visits. Photographs are also being used
to document the occurrence of debris lines and sediment deposition on the floodplain during monitoring
site visits. Two bankfull events occurred during MY4 (see table below). These events were documented
using the described photography (Table 8). The documented occurrence of two flow events in MY3 and
the three events during MY2 satisfies the requirement of the occurrence of four bankfull events (overbank
flows) in at least two separate years
Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project
DRAFT Monitoring Report Year 4 Page 6

Water & Land Solutions 4
5.2 Stream Horizontal & Vertical Stability
Visual assessment and monitoring of 8 permanent cross sections were utilized for assessment of MY4
horizontal and vertical stream stability. The visual assessments for each stream reach concluded that the
MY4 stream channel pattern and longitudinal profiles, instream structure locations, still closely match the
profile design parameters and MYO/baseline conditions. Cross-section surveys were not required for MY4
per the mitigation plan, they will be completed in MY5.
An area on the right bank of R2 located at the transition of R1 to R2 at station 16+13 has approximately
10 linear feet of undercut bank and was noted during a MY3 visual assessment (SPA1). This area is where
the transition from preservation to restoration occurred. This area was planted with livestakes and has
stabilized throughout MY4 and will continue to be monitored in MY5. Photographs of the area can be
found in Appendix B. Overall, only minor (non -systemic) channel adjustments in riffle slopes, pool depths
and pattern were observed and therefore did not present a stability concern or indicate a need for
immediate remedial action.
5.3 Streambed Material Condition and Stability
A representative sediment samples were collected on R2, near station 26+00, to assess streambed
material condition and stability. The dominant substrate for the project was verified as very coarse sand.
The post -construction riffle substrate sampling indicated no significant change in streambed material
condition or stability during MY4.
5.4 Jurisdictional Stream Flow Documentation
Jurisdictional stream flow documentation and monitoring of restored intermittent reaches is achieved
using a flow gauge (continuous -read pressure transducers) within the thalweg of the channel towards the
middle portion of the Reach R4 (Figure 1). Additionally, to determine if rainfall amounts are normal for the
given year, precipitation data was obtained from CLAY Central Crops Research Station in Johnston County,
approximately nine miles southwest of the site. The flow gauge documented that the stream exhibited
surface flow for 196 consecutive days from January 15t through July 15t", 2021, during a year with normal
rainfall conditions (Figure 4).
5.5 Vegetation
Vegetation plot surveys were not required during MY4 per the mitigation plan, surveys will continue in
MY5. The MY4 vegetation monitoring was conducted utilizing visual assessment throughout the
easement. One area of concern located on the left bank of R2 totaling approximately 0.35 acres was noted
in MY3. Replanting of the area using containerized trees to increase survivability occurred on February I't
2021, to meet success criteria for MY5 with species from the approved planting list from the mitigation
Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project
DRAFT Monitoring Report Year 4 Page 7

Water & Land Solutions 4
plan (see table below for species planted). The results of the visual assessment did not indicate any
additional significant negative changes to the existing vegetation community.
Planted Species Table
5.6 Wetlands
Wetland mitigation credits are not contracted or proposed for this project. One groundwater monitoring
well was installed during the baseline monitoring along Reach R3. Two additional groundwater monitoring
wells are installed along Reach R3 near station 33 + 75 and 37 + 00 (Figure 4). These wells were installed
to document groundwater levels within the restoration area for reference and comparison to the
preservation areas, at the request of the NCIRT (DWR). No performance standards for wetland hydrology
success were proposed in the Mitigation Plan and therefore wetland mitigation monitoring is not included
for this project. The well data are presented in the appendices. A gauge malfunction resulted in the loss
of data from July 14th, 2021, to September 14th, 2021, for groundwater gauges 2 and 3. A malfunction
with groundwater gauge 3 also resulted in lost data from January 29t" to March 17t". The malfunctioning
gauges were repaired on September 14th, 2021.
Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project
DRAFT Monitoring Report Year 4 Page 8

Water & Land Solutions 4
6 References
Doll, B.A., Grabow, G.L., Hall, K.A., Halley, J., Harman, W.A., Jennings, G.D., and Wise, D.E. 2003. Stream
Restoration A Natural Channel Design Handbook.
Harrelson, Cheryl C; Rawlins, C.L.; Potyondy, John P. 1994. Stream Channel Reference Sites: An Illustrated
Guide to Field Technique. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-245. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 61 p.
KCI Associates of NC, DMS. 2010. Using Pressure Transducers for Stream Restoration Design and
Monitoring.
Lee, M., Peet R., Roberts, S., Wentworth, T. CVS-NCEEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version 4.1,
2007.
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Mitigation Services, Wildlands
Engineering, Inc. 2015. Neuse 01 Regional Watershed Plan Phase II. Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Mitigation Services, 2017. Annual
Monitoring Report Format, Data and Content Requirement. Raleigh, NC.
Rosgen, D. L., 1994. A Classification of Natural Rivers. Catena 22: 169-199.
Rosgen, D.L., 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology Books, Pagosa Springs, CO.
Schafale, M. P., and A. S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the natural communities of North Carolina,
third approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. NCDENR Division of Parks and
Recreation. Raleigh, NC.
United States Army Corps of Engineers. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
Technical Report Y-87-1. Environmental Laboratory. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station. Vicksburg, MS.
1997. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Research Program. Technical Note VN-RS-4.1. Environmental
Laboratory. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS.
2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines, April 2003, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Wilmington District.
Water and Land Solutions, LLC (2017). Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project Final Mitigation Plan.
NCDMS, Raleigh, NC.
Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project
DRAFT Monitoring Report Year 4 Page 9

Appendices
FJ
Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project

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

E
E
W
w
0
0
N
N
LL
o
U
U
0
E
E
E
€
m
a
a
w
w
>
o
0
0
0
m
U
U
E
N
>
;
N
U
m
m
U
>
>
0
a
m
0
0
m
0
m
m
m
E
m
m
o
o
w
o
d
0
0
U
U
0
m
m
m
m
m>
N
U
U
N
U N
m
m
LL
LL
LL U
M
_
a
a
a
a
a
a
[if
01
a
of
N
V
M
M
�
O
�
M
N
V
O
O
c0
T
O
M
M
O
N
M
M
O
r
m
O
N
N
�
O_

ReportingTable 2. Project Activity and
Mitigationa DMS
gradingElapsed Time Since
plantingElapsed Time Since
reportingNumber of
Activity or Deliverable
Project Contract Execution
Project ID# 0:0
Data Collection Completion or
Complete Delivery
N/A 3/18/2016
Final Mitigation Plan Submittal
N/A
9/29/2017
Section 404 General (Regional and Nationwide) Permit Verfication
N/A
1/12/2017
Begin Construction
N/A
3/23/2018
Mitigation Site Earthwork Completed
N/A
5/5/2018
Mitigation Site Planting Completed
N/A
5/5/2018
Installation of Monitoring Devices Completed
N/A
5/14/2018
Installation of Survey Monumentation and Boundary Marking
N/A
8/13/2018
As-built/Baseline (Year 0) Monitoring Report Submittal
6/23/2018
12/3/2018
Year 1 Monitoring Report Submittal
11/24/2018
12/4/2018
Year 2 Monitoring Report Submittal
10/18/2019
12/31/2019
Year 3 Monitoring Report Submittal
10/14/2019
11/3/2020
Year 4 Monitoring Report Submittal
9/15/2021
10/20/2021
Year 5 Monitoring Report Submittal
N/A
N/A
Year 6 Monitoring Report Submittal
N/A
N/A
Year 7 Monitoring Report Submittal
N/A
N/A
Replant Encroachment (-0.04 acres)
3/2019
Replant Low Stem Density Areas (-0.43 acres)
2/2020
Replant Low Stem Density Area (-0.35 acres)
2/2021

3. Project Contacts
MitigationTable
a DIVIS Project ID# 0:0
Mitigation Provider
Water & Land Solutions, LLC
7721 Six Forks Road, Suite 130, Raleigh, NC 27615
Primary Project POC
Catherine Manner Phone: [phone]
Construction Contractor
RiverWorks Construction
114 W. Main Street, Suite 106, Clayton, NC 27520
Primary Project POC
Bill Wright Phone: [phone]
Survey Contractor (Existing
WithersRavenel
Condition Surveys)
115 MacKenan Drive, Cary, NC 27511
Primary Project POC
Marshall Wight, PLS Phone: [phone]
Survey Contractor (Conservation
True Line Surveying, PC
Easement, Construction and As-
Builts Surveys)
205 West Main Street, Clayton, NC 27520
Primary Project POC
Curk T. Lane, PLS 919-359-0427
Planting Contractor
RiverWorks Construction
114 W. Main Street, Suite 106, Clayton, NC 27520
Primary Project POC
Bill Wright Phone: [phone]
Seeding Contractor
RiverWorks Construction
114 W. Main Street, Suite 106, Clayton, NC 27520
Primary Project POC
Bill Wright Phone: [phone]
Seed Mix Sources
Green Resource
5204 Highgreen Ct., Colfax, NC 27235
Rodney Montgomery Phone: [phone]
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Foggy Mountain Nursery (Live Stakes)
797 Helton Creek Rd, Lansing, NC 28643
Glenn Sullivan Phone: [phone]
Dykes & Son Nursery (Bare Root Stock)
825 Maude Etter Rd, Mcminnville, Tn 37110
Jeff Dykes Phone: [phone]
Monitoring Performers
Water & Land Solutions, LLC
7721 Six Forks Road, Suite 130, Raleigh, NC 27615
Stream Monitoring POC
Emily Dunnigan Phone: [phone]
Vegetation Monitoring POC
Emily Dunnigan Phone: [phone]

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

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

0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
�
o
o
�
o
N
t0
O
V
N
V
N
A
Q
Q
A
N
N
O
N
�
6I
a• -p
O
O
(0
N
O
C
N '2
E
N
Q
O
N N
A
A
E L
6
o
6
O o
C E
w W
L
Q
N o
O
w
C
W
o 0
E
L
m
-
a
U
a
'
m
m
2E o
E
o
�
3
N O S
N
0I
w
co
-
oI pO
o
! 2
o� N
N
�_ o
of
U
N o
6I F
0>
L ZI O
Q
O
a+
N
O
4
y U
N
N
E (O
N O
6I '6
d N
3
a N
a
U
N
Q
N
6I
-�
L N N
3
o
3 A
Y o
N O
N N OQ
w
N A
N
O
N
N
O o
a
O N
O W N
E
O H O
U)
0 u,
in
U a
m m o�
O Y N
a m s
c
c
W
y
O
0
O
O
O
u
N
7
cli
i
O
N
E
N
vi
V

0
0
0
0
0
o
1
1
O
1
0
0
0
0
O
LO
LO
O
LO
O
Cl)
Cl)
O
Cl)
0
0
0
0
0
o
O
O
R
R
U
0
0
0
�
O
N
0
R
�
R
N
U
�
C
�
�
O
O
U
o
E
�
N
O
�
N
V
�
m
}
(6
C
�
Q
Q
�
R
R
Q
N
y
N
L
m
�
�
�
O
U
�
�
N
O
�
R
R
L
N
O
U
�
Q
�
N
N
p
O
U
�
O
O
o
�
>
�
Q
`o
a�
`o
w
VI
N
R
�
Q
C
c
�
N
p
O
R
p
N
m
J
Q
fV
1M
0
O
0
0
o
0
O
O
0
O
O
0
O
R
O
O
R
O
O
O
Uo
O
O
O
O
�
N
R
Q
C
O
m
Q
N
R
Q
C
O
m
Q
C
N
O
E
w
O
C
C
N
O
E
w
O
C
r
o
O
Q
0
w
m
Q
O
2-
O
w
m
Q
N
w
¢
C
U
O
EC
U
�
�N
O
R
O
R
�
�
w
U
Q
<
c
c
N
>
N
w E
R
y
R
s
w
w
V
10

L
CL
Fei
bjo
yam' : ;'?' • c
X a S s
V) 1• .r i _ N
a
•`�wY' .� ' ai r §, Mgr :. of :. /; , 5y! - F+.
!
t
f00
AMV
� N
-�,: � � � tiff � .. •. 'i ;'� �
_ a t
C:
(i.0
C _ _ w q.0
go
� U
I
cg
��- '-l�Si. �d� ,i , � �f. �7rti� . .. ��';�•.. .+I.N,. r; 4.. i .. OkM.�.xW'Y{k:

- .z; � ::f'•��3_ ,f, o .,�" - " i.:::Y' fir,: ,� .
rV
��--tryp�`l. V b�_. '.I .�� �. T�`',^{ ' l � � _-_�•�``t �'; `�—�E:�r r—t:.�� I:1'
w�� r
CL
bn
7V a .. rl
Sr
_ •,F, -yam N �A.it` [

li
r
NIK
r,4
ON
r
r,4
W-
r
m
V)
b.0
fAJ,r,4
r
c
V)

;., .. sue.. ..
V3.
w 0-
_ o
r
r
NOW
WAN u
i
'r f
',zt,Y
4
y�Lg7.
r
s
�+ r
u

n
v �
k� " _'bg
x �� it },�
♦ .'Ij�` '
7 '�6♦
a y
�
y •1
0
44 I
OO
0
0
c-I
0
M
*
r-i
�I
0
bn
.Y
b
U
�l P�
cr
cr
-i

;-'^mac•?;_,,,,[.
_ :.r'-
�
C
i
f
G
� �
�•
�f C
_
�
c
+
-
'I
r
E
}' I
1
_ ,• 1
v
�
1
1
p
� I�
_
CZ
�
9.q✓�
-
S
-
YY =
1
C
�
G
_
N
c-I
c
i

°o
,,� cn� O ��� �alO
l
N N
Y
CL
o o
s d OD
{ tV o vN
4.
p r u
*i
k ! 1
G, cc
p 00a 00
� c-I c-I
0
N N
(. � -' � , >� � � 4 nn~r �•„ i�-,gyp" � } R r� ���� ` �
t fi N st N
i`}
r k 1
d }yam ; �3n �� �,{fr fi k -+� f' �`.. _ : F �i, � " �7• iti::
yl

-'F' — it � :4-��:.. lX'. `-•, -
�, V7
�
O
I
N
O
N
Q
*.Y
w
= r

►,
e0
O
� cI
c-I
N
O
N
Ln
= c-I
O
E
O
Q
O
(O
N
Ln
N
4.1
ry .. l/1
O
U
O
(0
20
N
4.1
J
Q
d
>
¢
N N
6 C
_
r D

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

fflSilt/Clay
<.063
7
5
4
21
Very Fine
.063 -.125
4
6
2
1
a e3
Fine
125 - .25
14
7
20
14
OANO,
Medium
.25-.50
19
8
7
Coarse
.50 - 1.0
19
20
19
24
Very Coarse
1.0 - 2.0
19
13
17
1
aOe �v=
Very Fine
2.0 -2.8
7
7
1
4
� �&
V`,� (' �^00
Very Fine
Fine
2.8-4.0
4.0 - 5.6
4
2
7
7
2
2
2
1
Fine
5.6-8.0
4
11
6
Medium
8.0 - 11.0
1
3
7
5
n
00
Medium
11.0 - 16.0
1
6
9
11
U
Coarse
16 - 22.6
1
4
2
3
00 )
Coarse
22.6 - 32
2
3
1
O ����%%�--''
Very Coarse
32-45
1
Very Coarse
45 - 64
2
M6
Small
64 - 90
Small
90 - 128
COBBLE
Large
128-180
Large
180-256
Small
256 - 362
Small
362 - 512
Medium
512 - 1024
Large -Very Large
1024-2048
BEDROCK
Bedrock
> 2048
Total
100
1 00
100
100
0
0
0
■
■
0.16
0.36
0.2
0.66
0.18
0.69
0.062
0.24
0.62
1.1
1.2
0.61
■'
1.1
2.5
4
0.94
2.4
7.8
11
9.7
N/A
19
19
15
Riffle
''0
Pool
Channel materials
Ji
a
Channel materials
Weighted pebble count by bed features Edwards-Jonhson Mitigation Project
70% riffle 30% pool
weighted percent -Riffle -Pool -# of particles
100%
90%
80%
70%
w
60%
c
c
50%
d
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
30%
25% F
m
ro'
20% a
m
0
15%
0
10% m
ro
m
5%
CC
0% m
0-01 0-1 1 10 100 1000 10000
particle size (mm)
silt/claV
sand
qravQl
cobble
boulder
I
I

O
O
O
O
7
O
O
O
M
O
O
co
V
N
M
W
r
O
-
N
M
U
�
O
O
O
N
O
O
w
9
t0
N
O
O
CO
O
O
N
W
O
O
O
W
M
O
u�
O
M
N
O
(O
N
M
N
M
V
O
0
0
0�
O
O
O
O
OO
O
O
O
O
O
N
M
O
W
w
V
O
O
cl
O
7
_
tp
7
O
O
w
f�
O
O
Lo
N
N
O
O
O
O
W
�
N
Lo
(h
W
O
N
0
W
N
N
O
�
W
N
N
N�
7
M
�
O
cR
w
O
N
w
u�
O
co
V
N
cO
w
In
ui
0
0
O
N
O
O
M
O
m
O
O
�j-
N
O
V
M
M
N
M
O
w
N
O
O
M
O
O
M
V
N
O
O
V
OM
O
M
W
7
�
M
N
m
M
N
cu
L
L
L
L
O.
R
L
L
L
L
N
L
v
O
2i
N
❑❑
N
Q
ID
'"
R
u)
c
o
w
a)R
N
C❑
L=
J
O
X
R
u)
j
(nL—
i
N
U
N
(n
n—
O
'�
L
-o
U
c�
c
N
a
o
o
-o
.N
w
c
Y
R
m
O
w
Y
C
m
O
R
R
R
L
O
N
R
NO
w❑
c
w
O.
f6
O
Y
C
N
W
o-L
m
C
N
O
R
Y
O
m
w
A
m
o
U
aRi
w
E
u)
a
m
u)N
N
m
U
E
E
E
R
m
R
w
Y
R
a
CON
�
m
0 o
N
C
=
N
=
m
=
o.
R
N
a o
a
R
a
X
R
.+
a
¢
.....
.....
U
W
U
W
M
O
t0
M
O
N
V
r
V
M
O'q
Iq
7
Iq
c6
O
N
Lo
V
W
N
N
O
W
N
N
N
lo
c0
V
co
U
Lo
o
0
c0
w
O
N
w
w
O
W
V
V
N
�o
7
w
�n
w
o
0
O
N
O
c0
w
O
N
O
N
w
V
O
O
w
0
I�
O
co
O
O
Lo
'o
N
coO
co
O
W
N
w
N
O
(O
O
U
v
N
O
M
O
N
O
O
0
6
7
W
7
I�
0
O
7
N
N
N
N
C
O
2i
❑❑
Q
O_
w
N
O.
O
N
❑
U
R
3
R
_O
C
L
-p
N
w
.N
.0
R
u)
c
O
w
C
R
N
C❑
L=
N
J
X
(n
N
m
j
ij
cu
3
N
U
(n
O
O_
O
L
d
U
j
N
N
a
`y
,
mo
U
w
m
O
w
Y
u)
C
m
O
R
R
N
R
L
O
£
C
w
O.
f6
N
Y
C
w
d
L
m
N
Y
O
m
LL
c
R
R
m
O
U
m
a'
N
N
R
E
u)
R
d'
m
(n
w
m
U
N
E
d
m
m
a
s
CO
,N
N
N
a
(n
a
0 o
=
m
c
a
N
n
=
o
N
L
N
N
C
1
R
3
a o
a
R
a
¢

........
.....
.....
..
.....
.....
rn
a
o
o
�
�
O
N
O
N
N
c0
M
YN
RN
N
O
O
N
(V
N
N
n
(V
V
M
N
U
o
N
N
N
O
N
O)
O
N
E
O)
N
O)
O)
O
N
�
O
O
O)
V
V
N
M
O
O
O
1?
O
9
M
O
O
O
O
O
V
V
0
0
M
N
M
O
�
N
LL'
of
Er
1
">O
a
N
N
t0
N
L
r
r
m
a
m
N
.�
-O_
O
L
>>
00
Q
O.
(n
O
C
=
N
X
t0
E
N
J
U)
J
X
U)
O
N
O
s
Y
Im
O
O
2
G!
m
O
O
j
Y
N>
N
11J
E
N
O
w
Y
O
m
i
LL
N
m
O
co
U)a
m
U
of
E
E
N
m
N
w
N
a
N
m
E
N
M
`
IL
a
N
K
c
�
N
_
V
O
(O
O
N
N
M
O
O
O
O
N
O
O
N
N
O
O
O
(O
O)
o
c
0
U
v
M
c
0
0
N
N
O
O
V
V
O
O
r
N
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O)
m
U
ui
N
O
N
N
M
N
O
N
N
N
N
N
M
N
O
N
N
N
N
O
N
O)
O
N
O)
N
O
O
N
V
N
O
Q)
W
N
O
O
M
N
O
r
O
00
O
O
O
O
c
N
r
O)
O
x
x
x
x
o
m
o
m
o
m
L
L
m
L
N
L
L
of
E
w
a
pN
pN
¢
a
d
o�
wl
J
o
d
J
mo
m
m
'>o
t
a
o
m21
(A
c
o
=
N
x
m
p
E
N
o
(n
x
(n
m
N
m
i
r">>O_'NO
O
O
O
U—
t>0
N
.N
d
U
N
0
U
—
Y
"O
L
E
N
N
O
m
O
j
Y
y
N
N>
r`
W
m
O
LL
U
(p
m
N
'O
N
N
f/%
O
E
E
A
m
O
t0
O
Y
a
O
N
m
G!
Q-
LL
(0
m
yOj
O
w
a'
N
y
E
(n
A
a
of
m
(/7
N
c
N
m
U
E
m
c
—
E
u
w
2
Y
(
a
m
.N
(n
t
°
c
m
0
o
cL
m
c
m
y
E
N
o
m
x
v

O
O
r-
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
O
00
(h
O
M
I'-
O
N
O
CD
CD
0
0
0
0
w
(O
O
(n
M
M
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
00
00
O
(n
(
M
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
CDO
m
CDO
M
O
O
O
In
(n
M
CDCDI-
N
M
Oui
00
O
lC,
V3
(n
CD
LO
V
CD(O
O
O
(O
O
In
I�
O
O
co
O
O
00
O
O
O
O
O
m
(O
N
O
O
M
N
M
M
O
(O
N
N
N
CD
M
O
In
L
Lo
M
O
(O
M
O
N
O
O
N
O
I--
O
W
co
co
CD
coN
I-
N
LO
(O
N
CD
LO
LO
In
O
U
o
0
(n
O
w
O
O
M
O
O
Lo
O
V
N
O
V
O
o
0
O
O
O
M
O
N
O
In
O
N
�
��
M
O
O
N
(O
N
Oco
O
N
O
U
O
CD
(0
O
O
(O
O
O
O
O
V
W
(O
O
I�
O
O
O
O
O
O
(O
(O
N
M
2
6
t`
O
V
W
CD
w
.0
.O
.O
��
p
w
Q
O
:rD
`
LD
C
L
0)
Q
'6_
7
L
0)
0
w
0
N
N
N
0
Q
Q
N
a1
N
O
N
0
0
N
�>_
N
.NV
C
O
C
X
(6
0
L
N
J
(n
J
X
(n
N>
>
U
0
)
i
Y
Q
O
L
_
a0
00
w
N
d
0
U
7
00
D
C
m
m
N
0
a
Y
N
0
Y
C>
LLJ
d
L
m
N
i
(n
O
N
s'
0
m
c
N
(U
m
o
m
°1
in
a
i
m
6
m
m
0
E
v
m
w
U
d
m
N
(n
Y
0
0
C
m
N
i
0
C
Q
(>6
Vy
N
OL
R
C
i
0
o
a
a
Q

m
m
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
o
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
o
M
OR
V
M
In
O
M
00
O
V
qO
(O
N
I-
N
In
In
O
In
V
In
M
1-
-
O
I�
M
M
00
(O
O
M
N
OD
N
(O
V
O
N"T
O
In
0
0
M
A
N
C?
d)
M
O
V
M
T
Ili:(O
O
V
d)
O
N
I-
V
O
Ili
O
In
M
0')
N
O
O
a5
N
O
(\I
M
O
m
O
W
V
Z
O
O
r-
V
Z
'IfN
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
(O
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
(O Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
(O
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
O
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
O Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
O
7
d)
In
00
T7
O
M
00
O
1-
V
I-
m
M
O
I- �
N
M
O
I-
(O
M
-
(O
to
to
-
O
(O
'ITO
V
6
(O
N
M
O
O
V
c)
In
W
W
In
V
O
M
W
O
I�
V
I�
O)
V
00 W
OD
uj
N
W
I�
(O
O
to
O
q
In
M
M
M
M
O
(O
O-
V
m
M
N
O')
0
0
V
O')
In
to
M
to
W
M
O
V
O
W
r
M
r-
M
O
00 Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
00
O
(O
N
N
O
OD
"T
O
V
In
O Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
O
V
00
I-
r
M
r
O
a5
W
O
(O
O
In
M
(`'
O
2 Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
W
M
O
(O
O
M
V
Z
��
W
�rMj
I
O
In
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
(O
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
(O Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
(O
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
O
_
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
O Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
O
W
O
M
d)
"I:
V
m
1-
M
O
to
O)
N06
W
O
O
r M
I�
(`�')
O-
Iq
V
V
O
d)
m
O
O
.
In
V
N
L
0
0
'ITI�
N
O
(O
(O
N
d)
O
d)
00
N
O
M
O
N
0
M
00 N
O
V
N
I�
00V
�
OR
�r�j
O
V
V
O
W
m
O
In
V
O
N
0
0
0
'ITIn
N
'
r
M
d)
V
N
O
00
N
N
M
O
N
I-
O
00
M
Q
I�
r
O
q
I:
M
O
�
V
�
V
�
O
W
�rMj
O
�
In
M
V
�
O M
M
O
O
V�
O
d)
(O
N
N
E
(O
O
N
00
O
M
O
V
M
m
O
N
M
V
I-
W
to
O
N
00
04
O
In
M
M
Z
00
O
In
V
Z M
N
O
O
V
Z
�rMj
��
N
O
O
O
N
_
_
_
_
NO
O
O
O
N _
_
_
_
N
O
O
O
cu
cu
cu
cu
cu
0)
0)
Q
t
C
d
t
m
O
U
U
U
Q
0)
Q
0)
d
Q
t
C
d
t
0)
O U
U
U
Q
0)
0-
0)
d
Q
t
C
d
t
m
O
Lo
d
-
3
0)
C
C
a5
X
a5
07
C
t=
0)
f6
d
-
3
0)
C
C
m
X
m
07
C
E
t
0)
=
f6 -
d 3
0)
C
C
a5
X
a5
(p
C
E
0)
_
Y
O
0)
O
t
y.
Y
O
0)
�
O
t
y.
Y
O
0)
�
O
t
Y
Q
U
d
�
Q
U
d
Q
U
d
C
m
O
3
Y
C
m
m
O
7
Y
C
cu
m
cu
m
O
cu
O
(�
(�
-
LL
C
cu
m
CO
N
O
Y
-
3
3
Y
LL
C
a5
cu
m
N
O
Y
-
3
3
Y
LL
C
cu
m
m
O
Y
3
Y
m
U
C
m
!-
m
m
U
C
05
C
CU
U
m
m
—m
m
m
—m
m
m
—co
m
m
1=
m
1=
m
1=
o0
m
m
m

m E
_
m
E_ h
U
a° o o
3
a
m a
a
o
a°°
m. °
a �^ 2
ro a
10
d
E~
o
3 m
�
wo
w
K
C7 v
=
� a
—
y
N
e
C
°
3
N
o
a
�
a
a
a
Q
co
CD XM
cn
� � IIIIIIIIIIII
11111111
III
�OEM,III
� O
U, o
�I
1
ME
11
Cy 11111
- 1111
11
`1 U M 11111
�
= 1111
R W 11111
11111
1111
• 1111
•
11
11
C aO �
+° R 11111
Jm
JIN
111111
111
IN
MINIM
11111
W L
~ a
1,111
INN
11111
111
111
o
-
o
-

IIIII
NO
IIIII
NO
NO
Hill
:aom
1111111
III
ism
It�i��
III
III
I
I
11111
rNO
' ;
Hill
1111111
III
ioilo
III
III
I
I

Appendix E — Hydrologic Data
FJ
Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project

Observed indicators of bankfull stage (wrack
9/17/2018
9/16-9/17/2018
lines) after storm event
Bkf
Photo
7/26/2019
7/24/2019
Crest Gauge
Bkf
Photo
.25 ft
8/20/2019
unknown
Crest Gauge
Bkf
Photo
.28 ft
9/6/2019
9/5/2019
Crest Gauge
Bkf
Photo
.25 ft
9/6/2019
9/5/2019
Observed indicators of bankfull stage (wrack
Bkf
Photo
NA
lines) after storm event
2/7/2020
2/6/2020
Crest Gauge
Bkf & Qgs
Photo
.85 ft
8/4/2020
8/4/2020
Crest Gauge
Bkf & Qgs
Photo
0.5 ft
1/13/2021
unknown
Crest Gauge
Bkf
Photo
0.95 ft
7/13/2021
unknown
Crest Gauge
Bkf
Photo
0.7 ft
1/13/2021 7/13/2021

Figure 4a:
2.5
►A
1.5
t
C
1
0
E
0.5
0
Edwards -Johnson Flow Gauge - R4
196 days of consecutive flow: 1/1/21- 7/15/21
-0.5
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
�--�
II
O\1
N
l\O
N
l\O
O)
M
r,
c\i
0000
N
lOO
O
M
n
O
ci
N
c-I
N
c-I
N
\
N
\
N
\
-1
\
-1
m
ci
N
c-I
N
N
m
m
L
l\O
r,n
n
0000
0000
0\1
5
0
U
-5
C
L
Q 10
OJ
r)
o -20
L
0
-25
Daily Rainfall Stream Depth Flow Limit
Longest consecutive days of flow: 196 days, January 1, 2021 - July 15, 2021
Edwards Johnson Groundwater Gauge 1
Max Consecutive Hydroperiod: 147 days, 64.76% of
4
3.5
3
Ln
2.5 U
C
2 Z
c
ru
of
1.5 >-
0
1
0.5
0
3.5
3
2.5 --
N
U
U
2
C
1.5 of
a
1 0
[1a.7
0
O
O O
0 0
r1j0
O
r1j0 0
O O
0 0
O O
r140
O
O
0
N
O
N
O
0
O
O O
0 0
O
0
0
O
N
O
N
O
N
N N
N
N N
N N
N
N
N
N
N
N N
N
N
N
N
c\-I
\
L! O\1
c-I N
N
c-I
l\O N
N c-I
l\O O\1
N \
M
fV
n
\
c\-I
N
\
0000
c-I
N lOO
\ c-I
O
m
M
ci
n
N
O
c-I
ci ci
N
N m
m
Lfl
l0
I,
n
00
00
Ol
Daily Rainfall
Groundwater
Depth
Ground
Level
12" Below
Surface
Growing Season
Max Consecutive Hydroperiod:
147 days,
April
6, 2021
- August
30,
2021,
64.76 % of Growing
Season

Edwards Johnson Groundwater Gauge 2- (Reference)
Last Datadueto
5
0
v
s3
c
a -10
a
-20
4a
-25
3.5
3
m
1 ❑
0.5
_ate
L
III IL
0
+--� -i
C4 Cpp4
-i
Cpp4
ri
rl rl
Cpp4
-i
Cpp4
C4
-i
C4
ri
N
ri
C4
rl
Cpp4
rl
Cpp4
rl
Cpp4
Cpp4
C4
C4
pNp
C4
pNp
C4 i`!
C4
O
pNp
C4
O
pNp
C4
O
Cq
pNp
i`A
CD
C4
C4
C4
C4
pNp
N
r-I
C4
r-I
Fzr-
C4
C4
C4
Ln
C4
k
r-I
��pp
r-I
pp
C•Y
rl
C4
In
lLD
n
n
000
C*
Cr.
Daily
Raiff an
—
Groundwater
depth
Ground
Leve'
12"
Below Surface
—Grv,,
n;
Season
Max Consecutive Hydroperiod: 12 days, April 6, 2021 - April 17, 2021, 5.29 % of Growing Season
Edwards Johnson Groundwater Gauge 3 (Reference)
Last Data d ueto
5
0
L
a,
s -5
La
C
L
� 'ZO
a
r3
-15
� -20
{`a
-2-5
IS
3
m
C
m
1 a
0.5
_'J ■1 _ 1 IL ■■ a
��
�J L� 1. ■ 1
1_
III IL
_ _ _ IL
■_ ■�_
1 L
■ r iJ
-
-
r-I r-I r-I
CV CppV CppV
r-I
r-I r-I r-I r-I
CppV CppV Cpp`1 C`1
r-I
CppV
r-I
CV
r-I
r-I
N
rl
CppV
rl
CV
rl
CppV
rl
CppV
rl
CppV
rl rl
CppV
O C`! C
pNp
C`!
N CV C4 O
C4
O
pNp
N
N
C4
O
C4
C4
C4
pNp
CV C4
InsIn poyy
ri C'1
-1
��pp ��pp
C4 -1 C'1
�Fr�
CY
_
C*4
4-
{pp
ri
��pp
ri
pp
LTI
rl
, p
C 4 ri
ref- ref-
i
ice* fl'7 r+'Y
�'
Ln
Lo
1'4
f'4
CU
DO o5
Daily Rainfal
Groundwater depth
Ground
Level
12"
Below
Surface
—Growng5eason
Max Consecutive Hydroperiod: 15 days, April 6, 2021 - April 20, 2021, 6.61 % of Growing Season
All Gauges are Pressure Transducers

Edwards -Johnson Wetland Gauge 1 M 1 6.17% 1 6.61% 164.76%1
Edwards -Johnson Reference Wetland Gauge 2 M 39.21 % 84.14% 5.29%
Edwards -Johnson Reference Wetland Gauoe 3 N/A N/A 37.00% 6.61 %
Annual Precip Total NA
WETS 30th Percentile 42.7
WETS 70th Percentile 51.8
Normal Y

Figure 5: Monthly Rainfall Data
Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project (NCDEQ DIVIS Project ID# 97080)
30-70 Percentile Rainfall Graph
Clayton, NC (CLAY - Central Crops Research Station)
9
8
7
6
c
5
C
.2
m
Q 4
i
a
3
2
1
0
Jan-21 Feb-21 Mar-21 Apr-21 May-21 Jun-21 Jul-21 Aug-21 Sep-21 Oct-21 Nov-21 Dec-21
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%L
Jan-21
Feb-21
Mar-21
Observed
®i
Apr-21
May-21
Jun-21
Jul-21��
Aug-21 ®®i
Sep-21
Oct-21 ®i
Nov-21
Dec-21 ®�®