20160404 Ver 2_Edwards-Johnson_97080_MY5_2022_20221212

ID#* 20160404
Select Reviewer:
Erin Davis
Initial Review Completed Date 12/14/2022
Mitigation Project Submittal - 12/12/2022
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 Johnson Mitigation Site
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_MY5_2022.pdf 9.25MB
Please upload only one PDF of the complete file that needs to be submitted...
Signature
Print Name:* Lindsay Crocker
Signature: *

Monitoring Report – Year 5
FINAL VERSION
Edwards-Johnson Mitigation Project
Calendar Year of Data Collection: 2022
NCDEQ DMS Project Identification # 97080
NCDEQ DMS Contract # 6825
Neuse River Basin (Cataloging Unit 03020201)
USACE Action ID Number: SAW-2016-00883
NCDEQ DWR Project # 2016-0404V2
Johnston County, NC
Contracted Under RFP # 16-006477
Data Collection Period: September 2022
th
Submission Date: November30, 2022
Prepared for:
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
Prepared by:

th
November 30, 2022
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 11 Draft Monitoring Report Year 5 for the
Edwards-Johnson Mitigation Project, NCDEQ DMS Full-Delivery Project ID #97080, Contract #006825, Neuse
River Basin, Cataloging Unit 03020201, Johnston County, NC
Dear Ms. Crocker:
Water & Land Solutions, LLC (WLS) is pleased to present the Final Monitoring Report Year 5 for the Edwards-Johnson
Mitigation Project to the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) Division of Mitigation
Services (DMS). The Final Monitoring Report Year 5 were developed by addressing NCDEQ DMS’s review comments.

Under this cover, we are providing the Final Monitoring Report Year 5, 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 5 below. Each of the
DMS review comments is copied below in bold text, followed by the appropriate response from WLS in regular text:
Report:
1. DMS Comment: Reminder to include any site visit notes from the 10/21/22 IRT site walk at the end of this
report. These are typically approved via email from site attendees. WLS Response: Erin Davis stated that site
visit notes were not necessary for the site visit and to simply state that a site visit was conducted by the IRT
somewhere in the report. Language was added to the project summary section stating there was an IRT and
st
, 2022.
DMS site visit on October 21

2. DMS Comment: Update credit table to show three significant digits (3,023.100 shown on the credit ledger).
Stream footage is measured by the foot, but credit is shown to the thousandth. WLS Response: The credit
table was updated to show three significant digits for the total credits.

3. DMS Comment: There is mention of a red maple threshold for performance criteria in this report and in the
Mitigation Plan but is not a traditional performance requirement. There are also several plots that exceed
that threshold. Please provide explanation of where that criterion was established and explanation for
current condition in the narrative. WLS Response: The red maple threshold states that no red maple in a
vegetation plot will count for more than 20 percent of the total stems. This criterion was established in the
mitigation plan when red maple were included as a planted species. No red maples were noted in any
vegetation plots during MY5.

4. DMS Comment: Section 5.2 (p.7) and Figure 2 geomorphic tables and MY5 Cross-sections: The 2016
guidance establishes that BHR should not exceed 1.2 or 10% change per year at any measured riffles, but
this does not apply to pool cross-sections. Suggest removing BHR and % change BHR from riffle tables.

Consider also revising narrative on p. 7 referring to these changes in pool xs-6, which appear to be natural
geomorphologic processes for this site. It may also be relevant to explain that xs-7 is headwater, and
therefore some of the standard geomorphology measurements may not be relevant. WLS Response: WLS
agrees with the 2016 guidance that only riffle BHRs and associated changes above 10 percent are relevant.
Language on page seven was updated to remove pool cross-sections and corresponding BHRs. BHR for pools
was removed from riffle tables.

Electronic Deliverables:

1. Please submit a stream problem area shapefile or database. Any problem area indicated on the CCPV
should be submitted in digital format. WLS Response: The stream problem area shapefile is included in
the CCPV folder.

2. Please add wetland gauge symbology to CCPV. WLS Response: Wetland gauge symbology are on the
CCPV as small yellow circles.

3. Please submit cross section data. The morphology tables were submitted, cross section graphs and raw
data were not found. WLS Response: Raw cross-section data and graphs are included in the
Geomorphology folder.

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]

TableofContents
1 Project Summary ................................................................................................................................... 1
2 Project Background ............................................................................................................................... 1
2.1 Project Location, Setting, and Existing Conditions ....................................................................... 1
2.2 Mitigation Project Goals and Objectives....................................................................................... 1
2.3 Project History, Contacts, and Timeframe .................................................................................... 2
3 Project Mitigation Components ............................................................................................................ 2
3.1 Stream Mitigation Types and Approaches .................................................................................... 2
3.1.1 R1 Preservation ..................................................................................................................... 3
3.1.2 R2 Restoration ....................................................................................................................... 3
3.1.3 R3 (Upper Reach) Restoration .............................................................................................. 3
3.1.4 R3 (Lower Reach) Preservation ............................................................................................. 4
3.1.5 R4 Restoration ....................................................................................................................... 4
4 Performance Standards ........................................................................................................................ 4
4.1 Streams ......................................................................................................................................... 5
4.1.1 Stream Hydrology ................................................................................................................. 5
4.1.2 Stream Profiles, Vertical Stability, and Floodplain Access .................................................... 5
4.1.3 Stream Horizontal Stability ................................................................................................... 5
4.1.4 Streambed Material Condition and Stability ........................................................................ 6
4.1.5 Jurisdictional Stream Flow .................................................................................................... 6
4.2 Vegetation ..................................................................................................................................... 6
5 Monitoring Year 5 Assessment and Results .......................................................................................... 6
5.1 Stream Hydrology ......................................................................................................................... 6
5.2 Stream Horizontal & Vertical Stability .......................................................................................... 7
5.3 Jurisdictional Stream Flow Documentation .................................................................................. 7
5.4 Vegetation ..................................................................................................................................... 7
5.5 Wetlands ....................................................................................................................................... 8
6 References .......................................................................................................................................... 10

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 5a-d Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Table 5e Vegetation Condition Assessment
Photos Stream Station Photographs
Photos Vegetation Plot Photographs
Photos Stream Problem Area Photographs

Appendix C Vegetation Data
Table 6 Planted and Total Stem Counts
Table 6a Vegetation Mitigation Success Table

Appendix D Stream Measurement and Geomorphology Data
MY5 Cross-Sections
Table 7a Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 7b Cross-section Morphology Data
Table 7c Stream Reach Morphology Data

Appendix EHydrologic Data
Table 8 Verification of Flow Events
Figure 3a Hydrograph Data
Figure 3b Groundwater Gauge Data
Figure 4 Monthly Rainfall Data

Water & Land Solutions
1ProjectSummary
Water and Land Solutions, LLC(WLS)completed the constructionand plantingof 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 at35.7251°,
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 Projectinvolved the restoration, preservation,and permanent protection of four stream reaches (R1,
R2, R3, and R4) totaling 3,729 linear feet of streamsand their riparian buffers.WLS staff visited the site
several times throughout Monitoring Year 5(MY5) for monitoring activities. Data collectionoccurred in
March and September 2022. This report presents thedata for MY5. The Project meets the MY5success
criteria for stream hydrology,stream horizontal and vertical stability.The project meets the stems/acre
vegetation requirements, but all plots fail to meet height requirements.Based on these results, the Project
is expected to meet the Monitoring Year 6(MY6)success criteria in 2023.An IRT and DMS site visit was
st
conducted on October 21, 2022.
2ProjectBackground
2.1ProjectLocation,Setting,andExistingConditions
The Projectsite is locatedinthe Lower Buffalo Creek Priority Sub-watershed 030202011504study area of
the Neuse 01 Regional Watershed Plan, in the Wake-Johnston Collaborative Local Watershed Plan, and in
Targeted Local Watershed 03020201180050.
The catchment areais 223acres and has an impervious cover less than one percent. The dominant
surroundingland uses are agriculture and mixed forest. Prior to construction, some of the riparian buffers
wereless than 50feet wide.
2.2MitigationProjectGoalsandObjectives
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 werefurther defined in the 2013 Wake-Johnston
Collaborative LocalWatershed Plan and 2015 Neuse 01 Regional Watershed Plan and include:
Reducing sediment and nutrient inputs to the upper Buffalo Creek Watershed,
Restoring, preserving,and protecting wetlands, streams, riparian buffers,and aquatic habitat,
Implementing agricultural BMPs and stream restoration in rural catchments together as “project
clusters”.
The following site-specific goals were developed to address the primary concerns outlined in the LWP and
RWP and include:
Edwards-Johnson Mitigation Project
FINALMonitoring ReportYear 5 Page1

Water & Land Solutions
Restore stream and floodplain interaction and geomorphically stable conditions by reconnecting
historic flow paths and promoting more natural flood processes,
Improve and protect water quality by reducing streambank erosion, nutrient and sediment inputs,
Restore and protect riparian buffer functions and habitat connectivity in perpetuity by recording
a permanent conservation easement,
Implement agricultural BMPs to reduce nonpoint source inputs to receiving waters.
To accomplish these site-specific goals, the following function-based objectives will be measured and
included with the performance standards to document overall project success as described in the table
below:
Functional Category
Functional Goal / ParameterFunctional Design Objective
(Level)
Remove man-made pond dam and restore a
Hydrology (Level 1)Improve Base Flow
more natural flow regime and aquatic passage.
Reconnect Floodplain / Increase Lower BHRs from >2.0 to 1.0-1.2 and maintain
Hydraulics (Level 2)
FloodproneArea WidthsERs at 2.2 or greater.
Increase riffle/pool percentage to 70/30 and
Improve Bedform Diversity
pool-to-pool spacing ratio 4-7X bankfull width.
Reduce BEHI/NBS streambank erosion rates
Increase Lateral Stabilitycomparable to downstream reference
Geomorphology
condition and stable cross-section values.
(Level 3)
Plant or protect native species vegetation a
minimum 50’ wide from the top of the
Enhance Riparian Buffer Vegetation
streambanks with a composition/density
comparable to reference condition.
Install water quality treatment basins along
Physicochemical
Improve Water Qualitythe riparian corridor and reduce sediment and
(Level 4)
nutrient levels.
Incorporate native woody debris and bedform
Improve Macroinvertebrate
Biology diversity into channel and change DWR
Community and Aquatic Species
(Level 5)bioclassification rating from ‘Poor’ to a
Health
minimum ‘Fair’ by Monitoring Year 7.
2.3ProjectHistory,Contacts,andTimeframe
The chronology of the projecthistory and activityis presented in Table 2. Relevant project contact
information is presented in Table 3. Relevant project background information is presented in Table 4.
3ProjectMitigationComponents
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.
3.1StreamMitigationTypesandApproaches
Stream restoration practices involved raising the existing streambed and reconnecting the stream to the
relic floodplain. Some portions of theexistingdegraded channels that were abandoned within the
restoration areas were filled to decrease surface and subsurface drainage and raise the local water table.
Edwards-Johnson Mitigation Project
FINALMonitoring ReportYear 5 Page 2

Water & Land Solutions
The project also includedrestoring, enhancing,and protecting riparian buffers and riparian wetlands
within the conservation easement. The vegetative components of this project includedstream bank,
floodplain, and transitional upland zones planting. The Site was planted with native species riparian buffer
vegetation (Appendix C) and now protected through a permanent conservation easement. Table 1
(Appendix A)and Figure 1(Appendix B) provide a summary of the project components.
3.1.1R1 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
protectedin 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.
3.1.2R2 Restoration
Work along R2 involved a Priority Level I Restorationapproachby 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 reachwas 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 energydissipation, 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 wasfilled 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.
3.1.3R3 (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 exhibitedboth lateral and vertical
instability, as shown by active headcutsand moderate bank erosion. A new single-thread meandering
channel was constructed offline in this area before reconnecting with multiple relic channel features and
the existing channel alignment farther downstream. In-stream structures, including log riffles, log weirs
and log vanes were used to dissipate flow energy, protect streambanks, and eliminate potential for future
incision. Shallow floodplain depressions and vernal pools were created or preserved in the floodplain to
provide habitat diversity, nutrient cycling, and improved treatment of overland flows. Restored
streambanks weregraded to stable side slopes and the floodplain wasreconnected to further promote
stability and hydrological function.
Edwards-Johnson Mitigation Project
FINALMonitoring ReportYear 5 Page3

Water & Land Solutions
3.1.4R3 (Lower Reach) Preservation
Preservation was implemented along this reach since the existing stream and wetland system is mostly
stable with a mature riparian buffer due to minimal historic impacts. The preservation is being protected
in perpetuity through a permanent conservation easement. This approach will extend the wildlife corridor
from the Buffalo Creek floodplain boundary throughout a majority of the riparian valley, while providing
a hydrologic connection and critical habitat linkage within the catchment area.
3.1.5R4 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 gradecontrol structures in the steeper transitional
areas. Shallow floodplain depressions werecreated 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.
4PerformanceStandards
The applied success criteria for the Project will follow necessary performance standards and monitoring
protocols presented in final approved mitigation plan. Annual monitoring and semi-annual site visits will
be conducted to assess the condition of the project throughout the monitoring period. Monitoring
activities will be conducted for a period of seven years with the final duration dependent upon
performance trends toward achieving project goals and objectives.
The following Proposed Monitoring Plan Summary from the approved final mitigation plan summarizes
the measurement methods and performance standards. Specific success criteria components and
evaluation methods follow.
Functional
Project Goal / Measurement Potential Functional
Category Performance Standard
ParameterMethodUplift
(Level)
Remove man-made
Improve Base Flow Create a more natural
pond, pressure Maintain seasonal flow for a
Duration and and higher functioning
Hydrology transducer, regional minimum of 30 consecutive
Overbank Flows (i.e. headwater flow regime
(Level 1)curve, regression days during normal annual
channel forming and provide aquatic
equations, catchment rainfall.
discharge)passage.
assessment
Provide temporary
Maintain average BHRs at 1.2
Reconnect water storage and
Bank Height Ratio, and increase ERs at 2.2 or
Hydraulics Floodplain / Increase reduce erosive forces
Entrenchment Ratio, greater and document
(Level 2)Floodprone Area (shear stress) in
crest gaugebankfull/geomorphically
Widthschannel during larger
significant flow events.
flow events.
Pool to Pool spacing, Increase riffle/pool Provide a more natural
Improve Bedform riffle-pool sequence, percentage and pool-to-pool stream morphology,
Diversitypool max depth ratio, spacing ratios compared to energy dissipation and
Longitudinal Profilereference reach conditions.aquatic habitat/refugia.
Edwards-Johnson Mitigation Project
FINALMonitoring ReportYear 5 Page 4

Water & Land Solutions
Functional
Project Goal / Measurement Potential Functional
Category Performance Standard
ParameterMethodUplift
(Level)
Geomorphology BEHI / NBS, Cross-Decrease streambank erosion Reduce sedimentation,
(Level 3)sections and rates comparable to excessive aggradation,
Increase Vertical and
Longitudinal Profile reference condition cross-and embeddedness to
Lateral Stability
Surveys, visual section, pattern and vertical allow for interstitial
assessmentprofile values.flow habitat.
Within planted portions of
the site, a minimum of 320 Increase woody and
CVS Level I & II
stems per acre must be herbaceous vegetation
Protocol Tree Veg
present at year three; a will provide channel
Establish Riparian Plots (Strata
Geomorphology
minimum of 260 stems per stability and reduce
Buffer VegetationComposition and
(Level 3)
acre must be present at year streambank erosion,
Density), visual
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
Physicochemical Improve Water pollutants will increase
N/AN/A
(Level 4)Qualitythe hyporheic exchange
and dissolved oxygen
(DO) levels.
Increase leaf litter and
Improve Benthic organic matter critical
DWR Small Stream/
Biology Macroinvertebrate to provide in-stream
Qual v4 sampling, IBIN/A
(Level 5)Communities and cover/shade, wood
(MY7)
Aquatic Healthrecruitment, 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.
4.1Streams
4.1.1Stream 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 (Q=0.66Q) must also be documented during the monitoring
gs2
period. There are no temporal requirements regarding the distribution of the geomorphically significant
flows.
4.1.2Stream 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 within riffles 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).
4.1.3Stream Horizontal Stability
Cross-sections will be used to evaluate horizontal stream stability. There should be little change expected
in as-built restoration cross-sections. If measurable changes do occur, they should be evaluated to
determine if the changes represent a movement toward a more unstable condition (e.g., downcutting,
erosion) or a movement towards increased stability (e.g., settling, vegetation establishment, deposition
Edwards-Johnson Mitigation Project
FINALMonitoring ReportYear 5 Page 5

Water & Land Solutions
along the streambanks, decrease in width/depth ratio). Cross-sections shall be classified using the Rosgen
Stream Classification methodand all monitored cross-sections should fall within the quantitative
parameters defined for channels of the design stream type.
4.1.4Streambed MaterialCondition and Stability
Pebble counts or streambed material samples will not be collected per the DMS Pebble Count Data
Requirements memo sent on October 19, 2021.The IRT reserves the right to request pebble count
data/particle distributions if deemed necessary during the monitoring period.
4.1.5Jurisdictional 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.
4.2Vegetation
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 and10feet 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 12inchestall, 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
20percentof the total stems in any of the vegetation monitoring plots.
5MonitoringYear5AssessmentandResults
Annual monitoring was conducted during MY5in 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). MY5results are provided in the appendices. The Project meets the MY5success
criteria for stream hydrology, stream horizontalandvertical stability. The project meets the stems/acre
vegetation requirements, but all plots failedto meet height requirements.
5.1StreamHydrology
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
th
floodplain access by floodflows, 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. Onebankfull event occurred during MY5(see table below). Thisevent wasdocumented using
the described photography (Table 8). The documented occurrence of two flow eventsin MY3and the
threeflowevents during MY2 satisfies the requirement of the occurrence of four bankfull events
(overbank flows) inat least twoseparate years.
Edwards-Johnson Mitigation Project
FINALMonitoring ReportYear 5 Page6

Water & Land Solutions
Bankfull Events Table
Monitoring YearDocumented Bankfull EventsRequirement Met
2 3 No
3 2 Yes
4 2 Yes
5 1 Yes
5.2 StreamHorizontal&VerticalStability
Visual assessment and monitoring of eight permanent cross sections wereutilized for assessment of MY5
horizontal and vertical stream stability. The visual assessments for each stream reach concluded that the
MY5 stream channel pattern and longitudinal profiles, instream structure locations, still closely match the
profile design parameters and MY0/baseline conditions. The MY5 plan form geometry or pattern still fall
within acceptable ranges of the design parameters for all restored reaches.
An area on the right bank of R2located at the transition of R1 to R2 at station 16+13 has approximately
10 linear feet of undercut bankand was noted during a MY3visual assessment(SPA1). This area is where
the transition from preservation to restoration occurs. This area was planted with livestakesin MY4and
has stabilizedthroughout MY4/MY5 and will continue to be monitored in MY6. Photographs of thearea
can be found in Appendix B. Cross-section 7 is ina headwater system and standard geomorphological
measurements are not necessarily relevant for stability. 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.Maximum riffle depths are expected
to fluctuate slightly throughout the monitoring period as the channels adjust to the new flow regime. It
is expected over time that some pools may accumulate fine sediment and organic matter,however, this
may not be an indicator of channel instability.
5.3JurisdictionalStreamFlowDocumentation
Jurisdictional stream flow documentation and monitoring of restored intermittent reaches is achieved
using aflow 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 fromCLAY CentralCrops Research Station in Johnston County,
approximately nine miles southwest of the site.The flowgauge documentedthat the stream exhibited
stth
surface flow for 139consecutive daysfromJanuary 1through May 19, 2022, during a year with normal
rainfall conditions(Figure 3).
5.4 Vegetation
Vegetation monitoring for MY5 was conducted utilizing the four vegetation monitoring plots, with
monitoring conducted in accordance with the CVS-EEP Level I & II Monitoring Protocol (CVS, 2008) and
DMS Stream andWetland Monitoring Guidelines (DMS, 2017). See Figure 1 in Appendix B for the
vegetation monitoring plot locations. Summary data and photographs of each plot can be found in
Appendix B.
Edwards-Johnson Mitigation Project
FINALMonitoring ReportYear 5 Page 7

Water & Land Solutions
The four vegetationplots met the required success criteria at year 5of 260 stems per acre. The vegetation
plots had a range of 323to 769stems per acre (including appropriate volunteers). All four vegetation plots
failed to meet the MY5 height requirement of seven feet. Height averages across plots ranged from4.1
feetto 6.5 feet. Shading from existingmature canopy, wet soil conditions,and supplemental plantings
during recent monitoring yearshave resulted in reducedheight growth(see table below).All plots mostly
consist of trees less than seven feet high, buteach has a coupleof treesgreater than seven feet.During
MY6 tree heights will continue to be recorded and no remedial actionisbeing proposed at this time.Red
maple did not account for more than 20 percent of stems in any vegetation plot.
Vegetation Plot Tree Height Summary Table
Average Tree # Of Trees atOr Max Tree Height
Plot# Of Trees
Height (ft)Above 7 (ft)(ft)
1135.1312.0
286.5320.0
374.118.0
4105.7313.0
nd
, 2022, to document tree survival in the recently
A random vegetation plot was surveyed on November22
planted low stem density area (VPA-1). See table below for results.
Random Vegetation Plot DataTable
SpeciesNumber of StemsHeight (ft)
Tulip Poplar23.9, 1.9
River Birch32.8, 4.9, 6.4
Silky Dogwood12.3
Sycamore14.9
Total7Average Height: 3.9
The MY5 vegetation monitoring was conducted utilizing visual assessment throughout the easement.An
area of pine establishment (~0.82acres) wasnoted during the IRT site visit in October 2022. Pine in this
nd
area werethinnedon November22, 2022, using hand toolsto allow desirable planted and volunteer
species to establish. Future management in this area will be documented in annual reportsas needed.
The results of the visual assessment did not indicate any additional significant negative changes to the
existing vegetation community.
5.5 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. Twoadditional groundwater monitoring
wells areinstalled along Reach R3 near station 33 + 75 and37 + 00(Figure 3). These wells were installed
to document groundwater levels within the restoration area for reference and comparisonto the
preservation areas, at the request of the NCIRT (DWR). No performance standards for wetland hydrology
success wereproposed in the Mitigation Plan and therefore wetland mitigation monitoring is not included
for this project.The well data are presented in the appendices.Groundwater gauge 1 exhibited a max
consecutive hydroperiod of 71 daysduring the growing seasonor 31.28 percent. Groundwater gauge 2
exhibited a max consecutive hydroperiod of9 days during the growing season or 3.96 percent.
Edwards-Johnson Mitigation Project
FINALMonitoring ReportYear 5 Page 8

Water & Land Solutions
Groundwater gauge 3 exhibited a max consecutive hydroperiod of 59 days during the growing season or
26.0 percent.
Edwards-Johnson Mitigation Project
FINALMonitoring ReportYear 5 Page9

Water & Land Solutions
6References
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
FINALMonitoring ReportYear 5 Page10

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

Full Channel Restoration, Pond Removal, Invasive Control, Permanent Conservation Easement.
3,023.100
OverallCredits*
Asset CategoryStreamRP WetlandNR Wetland
* Mitigation Credits are from the final approved mitigation plan, as verified by the as-built survey.
Table 1. Mitigation Assets and Components
Wetland
Non-riparian
Edwards-Johnson Mitigation Project (NCDEQ DMS Project ID# 97080)
(acres)
Riparian Wetland
ExistingMitigationAs-Built
AcreageStationingAcreageLevelLevelRatio (X:1)Credits*Notes/Comments
RiverineNon-Riverine
2
Stream
(linear feet)(acres)
HydroType
1
Length and Area Summations by Mitigation CategoryOverall Assets Summary
R161110+00 -16+11611611P-1061Invasive Control, Permanent Conservation Easement.R2100716+11 - 27+9411831180RPI11183Full Channel Restoration, Invasive Control, Permanent Conservation Easement.R481510+0
0 - 19+36951936RPI/PII1951
ProjectWetlandFootagePlanFootage orApproach
R3 (upper62927+94 - 36+09815853RPI1815Full Channel Restoration, Invasive Control, Permanent Conservation Easement.
R3 (lower)24036+09 - 37+39130149P-1013Invasive Control, Permanent Conservation Easement.
ComponentPosition andorFootage orAcreageRestorationPriorityMitigationMitigation
(reach ID, etc.)
Restoration Level
Restoration2949EnhancementEnhancement IEnhancement IICreationPreservation741High Quality Pres

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Edwards-Johnson Mitigation Project (NCDEQ DMS Project ID# 97080)
Elapsed Time Since grading complete:4 yrs 5 months
Elapsed Time Since planting complete:4 yrs 5 months
0
Number of reporting Years:
5
Data Collection Completion or
Activity or DeliverableCompleteDelivery
Project Contract ExecutionN/A3/18/2016
Final Mitigation Plan SubmittalN/A9/29/2017
Section 404 General (Regional and Nationwide) Permit VerficationN/A1/12/2017
N/A
Begin Construction3/23/2018
N/A
Mitigation Site Earthwork Completed5/5/2018
Mitigation Site Planting CompletedN/A5/5/2018
Installation of Monitoring Devices CompletedN/A5/14/2018
Installation of Survey Monumentation and Boundary MarkingN/A8/13/2018
As-built/Baseline (Year 0) Monitoring Report Submittal6/23/201812/3/2018
Year 1 Monitoring Report Submittal11/24/201812/4/2018
N/A3/2019
Replant Encroachment (~0.04 acres)
10/18/201912/31/2019
Year 2 Monitoring Report Submittal
N/A2/2020
Replant Low Stem Density Areas (~0.43 acres)
10/14/201911/3/2020
Year 3 Monitoring Report Submittal
N/A2/2021
Replant Low Stem Density Area (~0.35 acres)
9/15/202110/20/2021
Year 4 Monitoring Report Submittal
9/13/202211/30/2022
Year 5 Monitoring Report Submittal
N/AN/A
Year 6 Monitoring Report Submittal
N/AN/A
Year 7 Monitoring Report Submittal

Table 3. Project Contacts
Edwards-Johnson Mitigation Project (NCDEQ DMS Project ID# 97080)
Water & Land Solutions, LLC
Mitigation Provider
7721 Six Forks Road, Suite 130, Raleigh, NC 27615
Primary Project POCCatherine Manner Phone: [phone]
RiverWorks Construction
Construction Contractor
114 W. Main Street, Suite 106, Clayton, NC 27520
Primary Project POCBill Wright Phone: [phone]
WithersRavenel
Survey Contractor (Existing
Condition Surveys)
115 MacKenan Drive, Cary, NC 27511
Primary Project POCMarshall Wight, PLS Phone: [phone]
True Line Surveying, PC
Survey Contractor (Conservation
Easement, Construction and As-
Builts Surveys)
205 West Main Street, Clayton, NC 27520
Primary Project POCCurk T. Lane, PLS 919-359-0427
RiverWorks Construction
Planting Contractor
114 W. Main Street, Suite 106, Clayton, NC 27520
Primary Project POCBill Wright Phone: [phone]
RiverWorks Construction
Seeding Contractor
114 W. Main Street, Suite 106, Clayton, NC 27520
Primary Project POCBill Wright Phone: [phone]
Green Resource
Seed Mix Sources
5204 Highgreen Ct., Colfax, NC 27235
Rodney Montgomery Phone: [phone]
Foggy Mountain Nursery (Live Stakes)
Nursery Stock Suppliers
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]
Water & Land Solutions, LLC
Monitoring Performers
7721 Six Forks Road, Suite 130, Raleigh, NC 27615
Stream Monitoring POCEmily Dunnigan Phone: [phone]
Vegetation Monitoring POCEmily Dunnigan Phone: [phone]

Table 4. Project Information and Attributes
Project NameEdwards-Johnson Mitigation Project
CountyJohnston
Project Area (acres) 11.0
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)35.7245361 N, -78.3570806 W
Planted Acreage (Acres of Woody Stems Planted)3.69
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic ProvincePiedmont
River BasinNeuse
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit03020201
DWR Sub-basin30406
Project Drainage Area (Acres and Square Miles)223 acres, 0.35 sq mi
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area 2.30%
2.01.03, 2.99.05, 413, 4.98 (33% crops/hay, 16% pasture, 51%
CGIA Land Use Classification
mixed forest)
Reach Summary Information
ParametersReach 1Reach 2
Reach 3 (upper)Reach 3 (lower)Reach 4
Length of reach (linear feet)6111173
7701301176
Valley confinement (Confined, moderately confined, unconfined)unconfinedunconfined
unconfinedunconfinedunconfined
120 acres, 0.19 sq
211 acres, 0.33 sq 223 acres, 0.35 sq
Drainage area (Acres and Square Miles)96 acres, 0.15 sq mi
55 acres, 0.09 sq mi
mi
mimi
Perennial, Intermittent, EphemeralIntermittentPerennial
PerennialPerennialIntermittent
NCDWR Water Quality ClassificationC; NSWC; NSW
C;NSWC; NSWC; NSW
Stream Classification (existing)C5G5c
E5(incised)E5(incised)G5c/Pond
Stream Classification (proposed)C5C5
C5C5, D5C5
Evolutionary trend (Simon)IIII/IV
IVVIII/IV
FEMA classificationN/AN/A
N/A Zone AEN/A
Wetland Summary Information
ParametersWetland 1Wetland 2
Wetland 3
Size of Wetland (acres)N/AN/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
ParametersApplicable?Resolved?
Supporting Docs?
Categorical
Water of the United States - Section 404YesYes
Exclusion
Categorical
Water of the United States - Section 401YesYes
Exclusion
Categorical
Endangered Species ActNoYes
Exclusion
Categorical
Historic Preservation ActNoN/A
Exclusion
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA or CAMA)NoN/A
N/A
Categorical
FEMA Floodplain ComplianceYesYes
Exclusion
Categorical
Essential Fisheries HabitatNoN/A
Exclusion

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

16+13
10+13
17+00
18+00
11+00
19+00
12+00
20+00
13+00
21+00
22+0014+00
15+00
23+00
16+00
24+00
25+0017+00
4
S-
X
26+00
18+00
27+00
19+00
19+36
28+00
29+00
30+00
-8
S
X
31+00
32+00
33+00
34+00
37+00
36+00
35+00

Woody
Stabilizing
Vegetation
Adjusted % for
Woody
Stabilizing
Vegetation
Footage with
Woody
Stabilizing
Vegetation
Number with
Intended
% Stable,
Performing as
Footage
Unstable
Amount of
00100%00100%11099%0099%00100%00100%11099%0099%
Unstable
Segments
Number of
Totals
in As-built
Total Number
44100%99100%99100%
Stable,
Number
Intended
Performing as
not
include undercuts that are modest,
1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour and erosionBanks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely. Does NOTappear sustainable
and are providing habitat.Bank slumping, calving, or collapseStructures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.2222100%Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance
of grade across the sill. Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.66100%Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does exceed 15%. (See guidance
for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document) Pool forming structures maintaining ~ Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth ratio >base-flow.
Channel Sub-CategoryMetric3. Mass Wasting1. Overall Integrity2. Grade Control2a. Piping3. Bank Protection4. Habitat
1. Scoured/Eroding2. Undercut
Table 5dVisual Stream Morphology Stability AssessmentProjectEdwards-Johnson Mitigation Project (NCDEQ DMS Project ID# 97080) Reach IDR4Assessed Length 936 Major Channel Category1. Bank
*2. Engineered Structures

05)
05)
(MY
(MY
2022
2022
1,
1,
April
April
upstream,
downstream,
facing
facing
R1,
R1,
Reach
Reach
1,
2,
PS
PS
01)
00)
(MY
(MY
2018
2018
6,
12,
Dec
April
upstream,
downstream,
facing
facing
R1,
R1,
Reach
Reach
1,
2,
PS
PS

05)
05)
(MY
(MY
2022
2022
1,
1,
April
April
18+00,
17+00,
Sta
Sta
upstream,
downstream,
facing
facing
R2,R2,
Reach
Reach
4,
3,
PS
PS
00)
00)
(MY
(MY
2018
2018
23,
23,
April
April
18+00,
17+00,
Sta
Sta
upstream,
downstream,
facing
facing
R2,
R2,
Reach
Reach
3,
4,
PSPS

05)
05)
(MY
(MY
2022
2022
1,
1,
April
,
April
19+50
20+75,
Sta
Sta
upstream,
downstream,
facing
facing
R2,
R2,
Reach
Reach
6,
5,
PS
PS
00)00)
(MY
(MY
2018
2018
17,
23,
Sept
April
19+50,
20+75,
Sta
Sta
upstream,
downstream,
facing
facing
R2,
R2,
Reach
Reach
6,
5,
PS
PS

05)
05)
(MY
(MY
2021
2022
10,
1,
April
March
24+50,
21+00,
Sta
Sta
downstream,
downstream,
facing
facing
R2,
R2,
Reach
Reach
8,
7,
PS
PS
00)00)
(MY(MY
20182018
23,23,
AprilApril
21+00,24+50,
StaSta
downstream,downstream,
facingfacing
R2,R2,
ReachReach
7,8,
PSPS

05)
05)
(MY
(MY
2022
2022
1,
1,
April
April
32+00,
25+75,
Sta
Sta
upstream,
downstream,
facing
facing
R3,
R2,
Reach
Reach
9,
10,
PS
PS
02)
00)
(MY
(MY
2019
2018
14,
23,
April
October
32+00,
25+75,
Sta
Sta
upstream,
downstream,
facing
facing
R2,
R3,
Reach
Reach
9,
10,
PS
PS

05)05)
(MY
(MY
2022
2022
1,
1,
April
April
13+00,
13+00,
Sta
Sta
upstream,
downstream,
facing
facing
R4,
R4,
Reach
Reach
11,
11,
PS
PS
00)
00)
(MY
(MY
2018
2018
11,
11,
June
June
13+00,
13+00,
Sta
Sta
upstream,
downstream,
facing
facing
R4,
R4,
Reach
Reach
11,
11,
PS
PS

05)05)
(MY(MY
20222022
1,1,
AprilApril
14+00,17+00,
StaSta
upstream,upstream,
facingfacing
R4,R4,
ReachReach
12,13,
PSPS
00)
00)
(MY
(MY
2018
2018
11,
11,
June
June
17+00,
14+00,
Sta
Sta
upstream,
upstream,
facing
facing
R4,
R4,
Reach
Reach
13,
12,
PS
PS

05)05)
(MY(MY
20222022
13,13,
SeptemberSeptember
1,2,
PlotPlot
VegVeg
00)00)
(MY(MY
20182018
14,14,
MayMay
1,2,
PlotPlot
VegVeg

05)05)
(MY(MY
20222022
13,13,
SeptemberSeptember
3,4,
PlotPlot
VegVeg
00)00)
right
(MY(MY
the
to
20182018
14,14,
corner
at
MayMay
3,4,
origin
PlotPlot
*plot
VegVeg

05)
(MY
2022
22,
November
Plot,
Veg
Random
05)
(MY
2022
22,
November
Plot,
Veg
Random

05)
04)
(MY
(MY
2022
2021
13,
15,
September
September
R2,
R2,
on
on
Erosion
Erosion
SPA1,
SPA1,
04)
03)
(MY
(MY
2021
2020
15,
17,
March
September
R2,
R2,
on
on
Erosion
Erosion
SPA1,
SPA1,

Appendix C:
Vegetation Plot Data
Table 6: Planted and Total Stem Counts
Table 6a: Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary

(2018)
4
allT
0.10
333
15
62
11777
(2018)MY0
4
allTPnoLSP
0.10
222111
22
2
Means
(2019)MY1
4
allTPnoLSP
0.10
Annual
31
41152217111
(2020)MY2
4
allTPnoLSP
0.10
111111222666
11
34744
(2022)MY3
4
allTPnoLSP
0.10
111
222222222333444
MY5
22
0004
1
allTPnoLSP
01
0.02
1114464444444454442253312
111111111111222444444888111111
1
1
0003003
1
allTPnoLSP
2022)
01
0.02
222222888666666777888111111333444444555888
003
(MY5
2
2
Data
Plot
0002
1
allTPnoLSP
01
0.02
Current
111222
3332225553333338810777
1
22
0001003
1
allTPnoLSP
01
0.02
444111224111115
444112223222991199988977810101066955744677810101588129913111117121212
003
13132488137710101015383862333345333351494997707070
526.1526.1971.2323.7323.7526.1283.3283.3404.7404.7404.7607384.5384.5627.3333.9333.9455.3333.9333.9516495.7495.7981.4708.2708.2708.2
PnoLSP
ACRE
Typecountcount
(ares)
(ACRES)
TreeTreeTreeTree111TreeTreeTreeTreeTree
per
size
Stem
size
Species
TreeShrubShrubTreeShrubTreeTreeTreeTreeShrubShrub
e
k
Stems
h
C
BuShrub
Oa
y
Ald
ElmTree
treeTree
GumTree
BirchTree
%
AshTree
tide
%
%
10
Red
NameSpecies
Red
10
Swamp
RedPaddle
10
Red
s
y
Plane
Smooth
DogwoodShrub
k
High
Persimmon,
SpicebushShrub
Elderberr
SumacShrub
Elm,
than
Oa
than
Oak,
Oak,
Ash,Gum,
than
WillowTree
Birch,
Count DogwoodShrub
Alder,
less
more
less
%by
RiverFloweringWinterberrBlack
TagWaterStaghornSlippery
by
by
Stem
10
but
by
Total
a
and
y
NameCommon
tulipiferrequirements,requirements
styracifluaSweet
canadensisCommon
virginianaAmerican
halimifoliaSilverling,
Densit
Johnsoncaroliniana
occidentalisSycamore,
pennsylvanicaGreenmichauxiiBasketnigraphellosWillow
Planted
requirementsrequirements,
benzoinNorthern
meetmeet
amomumSilkyflorida
nigrarubra
6:
serrulata
for
Scientific
copallinumtyphina
rubrumnigra
toto
verticillata
Table EdwardsAcerAlnusBaccharisBetulaCarpinusCornusCornusDiospyrosFraxinusIlexLinderaLiquidambarLiriodendronPlatanusQuercusQuercusQuercusRhusRhusSalixSambucusUlmus Color ExceedsExceedsFailsFails

Table6a:VegetationPlotMitigationSuccessSummaryTable
Height
SuccessAveragePercent
PlantedVolunteers/TotalSuccess
Plot#CriteriaStemRed
Stems/AcreAcreStems/AcreCriteria
MetHeight(ft)Maple
Met
1526243769Yes5.1No0%
2324121445Yes6.5No0%
328340323Yes4.1No0%
4405121526Yes5.7No0%
Project
385132516Yes5.3No0%
Average

Appendix D:
Stream Measurement and
Geomorphology Data
Figure 2: MY5 Cross-Sections
Table 7a: Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 7b: Cross-section Morphology Data
Table 7c: Stream Reach Morphology Data

7
of
5
Report
Solutions
Year
Land
Monitoring
and
Monitoring
Water
Annual
Floodprone Area
ted based on the current year's low bank height.
Looking Downstream
ing Parameter document produced by the technical industry work group
Bankfull Elevation
MY5
Width (feet)
MY3
XS-1 Riffle, STA 18+77
MY2
1.41.24.9
0.90
244.2244.0
10.0%
MY1
Edwards-Johnson Mitigation Project97080R2XS-1K. Obermiller, C. Durham
Baseline MY0
²)
consisting of the NCIRT, NCDMS, and Industry Practitioner sin NC (9/2018). The remainder of the bankfull dimensions are calcula
Project
051015202530354045
248247246245244243242
Mitigation
MY1 used in place of as-built (MY0) due to issues with the as-built survey standards identified during MY1.
* Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on MY1 cross-sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitor
Elevation (feet)
#97080
Project NameProject IDReach IDCross Section IDField CrewDimension Data Summary: MY5 2022Bankfull Elevation (ft)Low Bank Height Elevation (ft)Bankfull Max Depth (ft)Low Bank Height (ft)Bank
Height Ratio Bankfull X-section Area (ft% Change Bank Height Ratio
**
Johnson
Project
2022
EdwardsDMSApril

7
of
5
Report
Solutions
Year
Land
Monitoring
and
Monitoring
Water
Annual
Floodprone Area
ted based on the current year's low bank height.
Looking Downstream
ing Parameter document produced by the technical industry work group
Bankfull Elevation
MY5
Width (feet)
MY3
XS-2 Pool, STA 21+14
MY2
1.92.06.5
N/AN/A
240.7240.7
MY1
Edwards-Johnson Mitigation Project97080R2XS-2K. Obermiller, C. Durham
Baseline MY0
²)
consisting of the NCIRT, NCDMS, and Industry Practitioner sin NC (9/2018). The remainder of the bankfull dimensions are calcula
Project
051015202530354045
244243242241240239238
Mitigation
MY1 used in place of as-built (MY0) due to issues with the as-built survey standards identified during MY1.
* Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on MY1 cross-sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitor
Elevation (feet)
#97080
Project NameProject IDReach IDCross Section IDField CrewDimension Data Summary: MY5 2022Bankfull Elevation (ft)Low Bank Height Elevation (ft)Bankfull Max Depth (ft)Low Bank Height (ft)Bank
Height Ratio Bankfull X-section Area (ft% Change Bank Height Ratio
**
Johnson
Project
2022
EdwardsDMSApril

7
of
5
Report
Solutions
Year
Land
Monitoring
and
Monitoring
Water
Annual
Floodprone Area
ted based on the current year's low bank height.
Looking Downstream
ing Parameter document produced by the technical industry work group
Bankfull Elevation
MY5
Width (feet)
MY3
XS-3 Pool, STA 16+43
MY2
2.32.5
N/AN/A
11.0
239.2239.4
MY1
Edwards-Johnson Mitigation Project97080R4XS-3K. Obermiller, C. Durham
Baseline MY0
²)
consisting of the NCIRT, NCDMS, and Industry Practitioner sin NC (9/2018). The remainder of the bankfull dimensions are calcula
Project
051015202530354045
242241240239238237236
Mitigation
MY1 used in place of as-built (MY0) due to issues with the as-built survey standards identified during MY1.
* Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on MY1 cross-sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitor
Elevation (feet)
#97080
Project NameProject IDReach IDCross Section IDField CrewDimension Data Summary: MY5 2022Bankfull Elevation (ft)Low Bank Height Elevation (ft)Bankfull Max Depth (ft)Low Bank Height (ft)Bank
Height Ratio Bankfull X-section Area (ft% Change Bank Height Ratio
**
Johnson
Project
2022
EdwardsDMSApril

7
of
5
Report
Solutions
Year
Land
Monitoring
and
Monitoring
Water
Annual
Floodprone Area
ted based on the current year's low bank height.
Looking Downstream
ing Parameter document produced by the technical industry work group
Bankfull Elevation
MY5
Width (feet)
MY3
XS-4 Riffle, STA 16+97
MY2
1.01.05.2
0.97
3.0%
238.6238.6
MY1
Edwards-Johnson Mitigation Project97080R4XS-4K. Obermiller, C. Durham
Baseline MY0
²)
consisting of the NCIRT, NCDMS, and Industry Practitioner sin NC (9/2018). The remainder of the bankfull dimensions are calcula
Project
051015202530354045
242241240239238237236
Mitigation
MY1 used in place of as-built (MY0) due to issues with the as-built survey standards identified during MY1.
* Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on MY1 cross-sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitor
Elevation (feet)
#97080
Project NameProject IDReach IDCross Section IDField CrewDimension Data Summary: MY5 2022Bankfull Elevation (ft)Low Bank Height Elevation (ft)Bankfull Max Depth (ft)Low Bank Height (ft)Bank
Height Ratio Bankfull X-section Area (ft% Change Bank Height Ratio
**
Johnson
Project
2022
EdwardsDMSApril

7
of
5
Report
Solutions
Year
Land
Monitoring
and
Monitoring
Water
Annual
Floodprone Area
ted based on the current year's low bank height.
Looking Downstream
ing Parameter document produced by the technical industry work group
Bankfull Elevation
MY5
Width (feet)
MY3
XS-5 Riffle, STA 28+24
MY2
1.51.54.7
1.02
2.0%
234.1234.2
MY1
Edwards-Johnson Mitigation Project97080R3XS-5K. Obermiller, C. Durham
Baseline MY0
²)
consisting of the NCIRT, NCDMS, and Industry Practitioner sin NC (9/2018). The remainder of the bankfull dimensions are calcula
Project
051015202530354045
237236235234233232231
Mitigation
MY1 used in place of as-built (MY0) due to issues with the as-built survey standards identified during MY1.
* Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on MY1 cross-sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitor
Elevation (feet)
#97080
Project NameProject IDReach IDCross Section IDField CrewDimension Data Summary: MY5 2022Bankfull Elevation (ft)Low Bank Height Elevation (ft)Bankfull Max Depth (ft)Low Bank Height (ft)Bank
Height Ratio Bankfull X-section Area (ft% Change Bank Height Ratio
**
Johnson
Project
2022
EdwardsDMSApril

7
of
5
Report
Solutions
Year
Land
Monitoring
and
Monitoring
Water
Annual
Floodprone Area
ted based on the current year's low bank height.
Looking Downstream
ing Parameter document produced by the technical industry work group
Bankfull Elevation
MY5
Width (feet)
MY3
XS-6 Pool, STA 29+56
MY2
1.51.85.6
N/AN/A
232.9233.2
MY1
Edwards-Johnson Mitigation Project97080R3XS-6K. Obermiller, C. Durham
Baseline MY0
²)
consisting of the NCIRT, NCDMS, and Industry Practitioner sin NC (9/2018). The remainder of the bankfull dimensions are calcula
Project
051015202530354045
236235234233232231230
Mitigation
MY1 used in place of as-built (MY0) due to issues with the as-built survey standards identified during MY1.
* Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on MY1 cross-sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitor
Elevation (feet)
#97080
Project NameProject IDReach IDCross Section IDField CrewDimension Data Summary: MY5 2022Bankfull Elevation (ft)Low Bank Height Elevation (ft)Bankfull Max Depth (ft)Low Bank Height (ft)Bank
Height Ratio Bankfull X-section Area (ft% Change Bank Height Ratio
**
Johnson
Project
2022
EdwardsDMSApril

7
of
5
Report
Solutions
Year
Land
Monitoring
and
Monitoring
Water
Annual
Floodprone Area
Looking Downstream
Bankfull Elevation
MY5
Width (feet)
MY3
XS-7 Riffle, STA 33+18
MY2
0.60.54.7
0.82
230.4230.3
18.0%
MY1
Edwards-Johnson Mitigation Project97080R3 (Multi-Thread Channel)XS-7K.Obermiller, C. Durham
Baseline MY0
²)
consisting of the NCIRT, NCDMS, and Industry Practitioner sin NC (9/2018). The remainder of the bankfull dimensions are calculated based on the current year's low bank height.
Project
0102030405060708090
235234233232231230229
Mitigation
MY1 used in place of as-built (MY0) due to issues with the as-built survey standards identified during MY1.
* Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on MY1 cross-sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document produced by the technical industry
work group
Elevation (feet)
#97080
Project NameProject IDReach IDCross Section IDField CrewDimension Data Summary: MY5 2022Bankfull Elevation (ft)Low Bank Height Elevation (ft)Bankfull Max Depth (ft)Low Bank Height (ft)Bank
Height Ratio Bankfull X-section Area (ft% Change Bank Height Ratio
** ***X7 right and left pins extended per request after MY1
Johnson
Project
EdwardsDMS

7
of
5
Report
Solutions
Year
Land
Monitoring
and
Monitoring
Water
Annual
ted based on the current year's low bank height.
Floodprone Area
Looking Downstream
ing Parameter document produced by the technical industry work group
Bankfull Elevation
Width (feet)
XS-8 Riffle, STA 30+50
MY5
0.70.71.04.7
0.0%
233.2233.2
MY3
Edwards-Johnson Mitigation Project97080R3 (Multi-Thread Channel)XS-8K. Obermiller, C. Durham
MY2
²)
consisting of the NCIRT, NCDMS, and Industry Practitioner sin NC (9/2018). The remainder of the bankfull dimensions are calcula
Project
020406080100120140
236235234233232231
Mitigation
MY2 used in place of as-built (MY0) for BHR calculations.
* Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on MY1 cross-sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitor
Elevation (feet)
#97080
Project NameProject IDReach IDCross Section IDField CrewDimension Data Summary: MY5 2022Bankfull Elevation (ft)Low Bank Height Elevation (ft)Bankfull Max Depth (ft)Low Bank Height (ft)Bank
Height Ratio Bankfull X-section Area (ft% Change Bank Height Ratio
** ***XS-8 was added during MY1 post-monitoring site visit
Johnson
Project
2022
EdwardsDMSApril

-
-
C5
4.7
26.01.17
0.0120.013
As-Built/
Baseline
C5
4.7
0.4926.01.17
31.000.0110.012
---
4.5
0.0150.015
E5/C5
1.1 - 1.3
Reference
Reach DataDesign
--
G5
4.1
26.01.16
0.0110.012
Condition
0.40.80.81.60.6-0.6-
4.47.24.58.37.7-8.9-1.31.50.91.30.9-1.2-3.35.13.05.05.0-5.0-8.215.26.214.212.0-16.0-4.310.07.18.42.2-3.6-1.11.60.91.11.0-1.0-3.96.06.18.76.09.06.29.91.21.31.82.41.11.51.11.61.62.91.62.52.03.02.13.52.
36.43.94.53.08.04.47.6
MinMaxMinMaxMinMaxMinMax
30.070.010.020.020.050.032.0-17.044.09.522.710.030.012.034.022.039.014.422.330.055.011.836.128.023.429.028.051.027.046.011.319.111.217.515.025.013.029.031.045.043.465.155.0100.035.088.0

0.0110.0130.0090.0150.00.00.00.0
Pre-Restoration
)
2)2)
2
Sinuosity
Pool Length (ft)
Riffle Length (ft)
Pool Spacing (ft)
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
Bankfull Width (ft)
Bank Height Ratio
Width/Depth Ratio
Pool Max Depth (ft)
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
Entrenchment Ratio
Meander Width Ratio
Floodprone Width (ft)
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
Stream Power (W/mRosgen ClassificationBankfull Velocity (fps)
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
Radius of Curvature (ft)
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
Meander Wavelength (ft)
Boundary Shear Stress (lb/ft
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
ParameterReach ID: R2 Dimension (Riffle)ProfilePatternTransport ParametersAdditional Reach Parameters
----2.00-----
E5/C5
As-Built/ Baseline
---
Reference
Reach DataDesign
-------
C5E5/C5E5/C5
4.14.5--
20.0----1.211.1 - 1.3-
Pre-
0.0100.015-0.0120.015-
Condition
5.57.24.58.3----0.40.80.81.6----0.50.90.91.3----4.15.03.05.0----8.215.26.214.2----4.212.07.18.4----1.11.10.91.1----7.538.29.522.7----4.17.96.18.7----1.21.41.82.4----1.62.91.62.5----2.26.43.94.5----

MinMaxMinMaxMinMaxMinMax
30.080.010.020.0----22.050.014.422.3----22.028.023.429.0----11.319.111.217.5----27.060.043.465.1----
Restoration
0.0110.0140.0090.015----
)
2)2)
2
Table 7a. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Sinuosity
Pool Length (ft)
Riffle Length (ft)
Pool Spacing (ft)
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
Bankfull Width (ft)
Bank Height Ratio
Width/Depth Ratio
Pool Max Depth (ft)
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
Entrenchment Ratio
Edwards-Johnson Mitigation Project (NCDEQ DMS Project ID# 97080)
Floodprone Width (ft)Meander Width Ratio
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
Stream Power (W/mRosgen ClassificationBankfull Velocity (fps)
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
Radius of Curvature (ft)
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
Meander Wavelength (ft)
Boundary Shear Stress (lb/ft
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
ParameterReach ID: R1 (Preservation)Dimension (Riffle)Additional Reach Parameters
ProfilePatternTransport Parameters

-
-------
As-Built/Baseline
-
------
0.492.00
29.00
--
4.0
DataDesign
0.0150.015
E5/C5
1.1 - 1.3
Reference Reach
-----
E5
4.1
37.01.21
0.0080.009
Condition
4.47.24.58.3----0.40.80.81.6----0.50.90.91.3----3.35.33.05.0----8.020.06.214.2----3.08.07.18.4----1.0-0.91.1----5.08.06.18.7----1.31.71.82.4----1.62.91.62.5----6.48.53.94.5----
MinMaxMinMaxMinMaxMinMax
30.070.010.035.0----11.022.09.522.7----22.039.014.422.3----28.040.023.429.0----11.019.011.217.5----27.050.043.465.1----
0.0080.0090.0090.015----
Pre-Restoration
)
2)2)
2
Sinuosity
Pool Length (ft)
Riffle Length (ft)
Pool Spacing (ft)
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
Bankfull Width (ft)
Bank Height Ratio
Width/Depth Ratio
Pool Max Depth (ft)
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
Entrenchment Ratio
Floodprone Width (ft)
Meander Width Ratio
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
Stream Power (W/mRosgen Classification
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
Radius of Curvature (ft)
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
Meander Wavelength (ft)
Boundary Shear Stress (lb/ft
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
ParameterReach ID: R3 (lower) Preservation
Dimension (Riffle)ProfilePatternTransport ParametersAdditional Reach Parameters
---
C5
4.5
34.01.16
0.0090.011
As-Built/Baseline
C5
5.7
0.512.0034.01.20
28.900.0090.011
----
4.5
DataDesign
0.0150.015
E5/C5
1.1 - 1.3
Reference Reach
--
-
4.1
34.01.20
0.0070.009
E5 incised
Condition
4.47.24.58.38.2-8.818.41.01.80.81.60.7-0.30.61.52.30.91.31.0-0.41.03.33.05.05.6-4.75.58.215.26.214.212.0-14.371.84.310.07.18.43.78.01.54.31.11.70.91.11.0-1.01.18.013.06.18.78.011.07.010.01.42.01.82.4
1.42.01.11.61.61.62.52.03.02.54.26.43.94.53.35.15.17.6
MinMaxMinMaxMinMaxMinMax
30.070.010.035.030.080.027.038.033.055.09.522.712.033.010.030.022.039.014.422.325.051.011.835.528.023.429.025.045.030.045.010.011.217.512.022.015.025.027.043.465.130.042.030.044.8
0.0070.0090.0090.0150.00.00.00.0
Pre-Restoration
)
2)2)
2
Sinuosity
Pool Length (ft)
Riffle Length (ft)
Pool Spacing (ft)
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
Bankfull Width (ft)
Bank Height Ratio
Width/Depth Ratio
Pool Max Depth (ft)
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
Entrenchment Ratio
Floodprone Width (ft)
Meander Width Ratio
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
Stream Power (W/mRosgen Classification
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
Radius of Curvature (ft)
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
Meander Wavelength (ft)
Boundary Shear Stress (lb/ft
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
ParameterReach ID: R3 (upper)
Dimension (Riffle)ProfilePatternTransport ParametersAdditional Reach Parameters

--
-
C5
4.5
16.01.14
0.0170.017
As-Built/
Baseline
C5
4.5
0.482.0016.01.15
24.500.0170.017
Design
--
--
C5
4.0
0.0150.015
1.1 - 1.2
Reference
Reach Data
--
-
7.0
G5c
16.01.06
0.0190.018
Condition
MinMaxMinMaxMinMaxMinMax
15.8-3.05.03.6-5.5-
Pre-Restoration
)
2)2)
2
Sinuosity
Pool Length (ft)4.06.64.57.06.89.46.08.7
Riffle Length (ft)17.044.05.113.913.031.012.027.0
Pool Spacing (ft)38.087.010.030.022.050.019.041.0
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)0.0190.0270.0170.0260.00.00.00.0
Bankfull Width (ft)6.9-4.58.36.6-8.8-
Bank Height Ratio1.7-0.91.11.0-1.0-
Width/Depth Ratio5.6-10.314.212.0-14.3-
Pool Max Depth (ft)1.92.21.11.71.11.61.11.6
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
Entrenchment Ratio1.0-2.05.03.810.04.3-
Floodprone Width (ft)6.1-10.035.025.070.038.0-Meander Width Ratio--3.94.53.35.33.06.0
Channel Beltwidth (ft)--23.429.022.035.019.031.0
Stream Power (W/mBankfull Velocity (fps)
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)3.1-0.91.30.7-1.0-
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)--1.62.51.83.02.13.4
Radius of Curvature (ft)--11.217.512.020.010.019.0
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)2.4-0.81.60.5-0.6-
Meander Wavelength (ft)--43.465.140.060.034.077.0
Boundary Shear Stress (lb/ft
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
ParameterReach ID: R4 Dimension (Riffle)ProfilePatternTransport ParametersAdditional Reach Parameters

MY5
MY4
MY3
significant shifts from baseline
ill not typically be
data, dimensional data or profile data indicate
Pattern data will not typically be collected unless visual
MY2
baseline conditions
Pattern and Profile data w
profile data indicate significant deviations from
collected unless visual data, dimensional data or
MY1
C5
1.17
0.0120.013
Baseline
1234274613293588
6.29.91.11.62.13.54.47.6
MinMaxMinMaxMinMaxMinMaxMinMaxMinMax
11.836.1
0.0170.029
/
S%
/
Be%
d95
/
/
G%
/
B%
d84
/
/
Sinuosity (ft)
BF slope (ft/ft)
P%
Pool Length (ft)
/
d50
Riffle Length (ft) C%
Pool Spacing (ft)
/
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
/
Biological or Other
Pool Max depth (ft)
Meander Width Ratio
Channel Beltwidth (ft)Rosgen Classification
Ru% G%
d35
//
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
Radius of Curvature (ft)
/
Meander Wavelength (ft)
Ri%
d16
3
3
Sa%
/
% of Reach with Eroding Banks
2
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
SC%
3
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
ParameterReach ID: R2
ProfilePatternAdditional Reach Parameters
MY5
MY4
ill not typically be
baseline conditions
collected unless visual data,
Pattern data will not typically be dimensional data or profile data
MY2MY3
Pattern and Profile data w
profile data indicate significant deviations from
collected unless visual data, dimensional data or
Table 7c. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Summary
C5
1.210.01
0.012
--------------------
BaselineMY1
MinMaxMinMaxMinMaxMinMaxMinMaxMinMax
Edwards-Johnson Mitigation Project (NCDEQ DMS Project ID# 97080)
/
S%
/
Be%
d95
/
/
G%
/
B%
d84
/
/
Sinuosity (ft)
BF slope (ft/ft)
P%
Pool Length (ft)
/
d50
Riffle Length (ft) C%
Pool Spacing (ft)
/
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
/
Biological or Other
Pool Max depth (ft)
Meander Width Ratio
Channel Beltwidth (ft)Rosgen Classification
Ru% G%
d35
//
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
Radius of Curvature (ft)
/
Meander Wavelength (ft)
Ri%
d16
3
3
Sa%
/
% of Reach with Eroding Banks
2
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
SC%
3
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
ParameterReach ID: R1 (Preservation)ProfilePatternAdditional Reach Parameters

MY5
MY4
MY3
significant shifts from baseline
ill not typically be
data, dimensional data or profile data indicate
Pattern data will not typically be collected unless visual
MY2
baseline conditions
Pattern and Profile data w
profile data indicate significant deviations from
collected unless visual data, dimensional data or
MY1
C5
1.14
0.0170.017
68.736
Baseline
12271941193110193477
1.11.62.13.4
MinMaxMinMaxMinMaxMinMaxMinMaxMinMax
0.0150.027
/
S%
/
Be%
d95
/
/
G%
/
B%
d84
/
/
Sinuosity (ft)
BF slope (ft/ft)
P%
Pool Length (ft)
/
C% d50
Riffle Length (ft)
Pool Spacing (ft)
/
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
/
Biological or Other
Pool Max depth (ft)
Meander Width Ratio
Channel Beltwidth (ft)Rosgen Classification
Ru% G%
/ d35
/
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
Radius of Curvature (ft)
/
Meander Wavelength (ft)
Ri%
d16
3
3
Sa%
/
% of Reach with Eroding Banks
2
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
SC%
3
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
ParameterReach ID: R4 ProfilePatternAdditional Reach Parameters
MY5
MY4
MY3
significant shifts from baseline
ill not typically be
data, dimensional data or profile data indicate
Pattern data will not typically be collected unless visual
MY2
baseline conditions
Pattern and Profile data w
profile data indicate significant deviations from
collected unless visual data, dimensional data or
MY1
C5
1.16
0.0090.011
710
Baseline 1030304515253044.8
1.11.62.54.25.17.6
MinMaxMinMaxMinMaxMinMaxMinMaxMinMax
0.020.03511.835.5
/
S%
/
Be%
d95
/
/
G%
/
B%
d84
/
/
Sinuosity (ft)
BF slope (ft/ft)
P%
Pool Length (ft)
/
d50
Riffle Length (ft) C%
Pool Spacing (ft)
/
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
/
Biological or Other
Pool Max depth (ft)
Meander Width Ratio
Channel Beltwidth (ft)Rosgen Classification
Ru% G%
d35
//
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
Radius of Curvature (ft)
/
Meander Wavelength (ft)
Ri%
d16
3
3
Sa%
/
% of Reach with Eroding Banks
2
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
SC%
3
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
ParameterReach ID: R3 (upper)
ProfilePatternAdditional Reach Parameters

Appendix E: Hydrologic Data
Table 8: Verification of Flow Events
Figure 3a: Hydrograph Data
Figure 3b: Groundwater Gauge Data
Figure 4: Monthly Rainfall Data

Table 8
Edwards-Johnson Mitigation Project (NCDEQ DMS Project ID# 97080)
Greater than Bankfull (Bkf) or
MonitoringQgs (Q2*0.66 = 50.66 CFS)
YearDate of Data CollectionDate of OccurrenceMethodStage?Photo/ NotesMeasurement
Observed indicators of bankfull stage (wrack
MY19/17/20189/16-9/17/2018BkfPhoto
lines) after storm event
7/26/20197/24/2019Crest GaugeBkfPhoto.25 ft
8/20/2019unknownCrest GaugeBkfPhoto.28 ft
MY2
9/6/20199/5/2019Crest GaugeBkfPhoto.25 ft
Observed indicators of bankfull stage (wrack
9/6/20199/5/2019BkfPhotoNA
lines) after storm event
2/7/20202/6/2020Crest GaugeBkf & QgsPhoto.85 ft
MY3
8/4/20208/4/2020Crest GaugeBkf & QgsPhoto0.5 ft
1/13/2021unknownCrest GaugeBkfPhoto0.95 ft
MY4
7/13/2021unknownCrest GaugeBkfPhoto0.7 ft
Observed indicators of bankfull stage (wrack
MY54/1/2022unknownBkfPhotoN/A
lines) after storm event
4/1/20224/1/2022

Figure3a:
EdwardsJohnsonFlowGaugeR4
139daysofconsecutiveflow
1/1/225/19/22
2.54
EndofMY5Data
3.5
2
3
2.5
(feet)
1.5
(inches)
2
Depth
Rainfall
1
1.5
Stream
Daily
1
0.5
0.5
00
1/1/20224/9/20225/7/20226/4/20227/2/2022
1/15/20221/29/20222/12/20222/26/20223/12/20223/26/20224/23/20225/21/20226/18/20227/16/20227/30/20228/13/20228/27/20229/10/20229/24/202210/8/202211/5/202212/3/2022
10/22/202211/19/202212/17/202212/31/2022
DailyRainfallStreamDepthFlowLimit
*Longest consecutive days of flow: 139 days, January 1, 2022 – May 19, 2022.
EdwardsJohnsonGroundwaterGauge1
MaxConsecutiveHydroperiod:71days
52.5
31.28%ofGrowingSeason
EndofMY5Data
0
2
5
(inches)
1.5
10
(inches)
Depth
15
Rainfall
1
Daily
20
Groundwater
0.5
25
300
1/1/20224/9/20225/7/20226/4/20227/2/2022
1/15/20221/29/20222/12/20222/26/20223/12/20223/26/20224/23/20225/21/20226/18/20227/16/20227/30/20228/13/20228/27/20229/10/20229/24/202210/8/202211/5/202212/3/2022
10/22/202211/19/202212/17/202212/31/2022
DailyRainfallGroundwaterDepthGroundLevel12"BelowSurfaceGrowingSeason

EdwardsJohnsonGroundwaterGauge2(Reference)
MaxConsecutiveHydroperiod:9days
52.5
3.96%ofGrowingSeason
EndofMY5Data
0
2
5
(inches)
1.5
10
(inches)
Depth
15
Rainfall
1
Daily
20
Groundwater
0.5
25
300
1/1/20224/9/20225/7/20226/4/20227/2/2022
1/15/20221/29/20222/12/20222/26/20223/12/20223/26/20224/23/20225/21/20226/18/20227/16/20227/30/20228/13/20228/27/20229/10/20229/24/202210/8/202211/5/202212/3/2022
10/22/202211/19/202212/17/202212/31/2022
DailyRainfallGroundwaterDepthGroundLevel12"BelowSurfaceGrowingSeason
EdwardsJohnsonGroundwaterGauge3(Reference)
MaxConsecutiveHydroperiod:
52.5
59days,26.0%ofGrowingSeason
EndofMY5Data
0
2
5
(inches)
1.5
10
(inches)
Depth
15
Rainfall
1
Daily
20
Groundwater
0.5
25
300
1/1/20224/9/20225/7/20226/4/20227/2/2022
1/15/20221/29/20222/12/20222/26/20223/12/20223/26/20224/23/20225/21/20226/18/20227/16/20227/30/20228/13/20228/27/20229/10/20229/24/202210/8/202211/5/202212/3/2022
10/22/202211/19/202212/17/202212/31/2022
DailyRainfallGroundwaterDepthGroundLevel12"BelowSurfaceGrowingSeason

Figure 3b - Groundwater Gauge Data
Edwards-Johnson Mitigation Project (NCDEQ DMS Project ID# 97080)
MY5 2022
Max Consecutive Hydroperiod: Saturation within 12 Inches of Soil
Surface (Percent of Growing Season)
Monitoring Gauge Name
WETS Station: 317994 - Smithfield Growing Season: 4/6-11/4 (227 days)
2018201920202021202220232024Mean
Edwards-Johnson Wetland Gauge 1M6.17%6.61%64.76%31.28%
Edwards-Johnson Reference Wetland Gauge 2M39.21%84.14%5.29%3.96%
Edwards-Johnson Reference Wetland Gauge 3N/AN/A37.00%6.61%26.00%
Annual Precip TotalNA
42.7
WETS 30th Percentile
51.8
WETS 70th Percentile
NormalY

Figure 4: Monthly Rainfall Data
Edwards-Johnson Mitigation Project (NCDEQ DMS Project ID# 97080)
MY5 2022
3070PercentileRainfallGraph
Clayton,NC(CLAYCentralCropsResearchStation)
7.00
6.00
5.00
(in)
4.00
3.00
Precipitation
2.00
1.00
0.00
Oct21Nov21Dec21Jan22Feb22Mar22Apr22May22Jun22Jul22Aug22Sep22Oct22Nov22Dec22
Date
ObservedRainfall30thPercentile70thPercentile
*30thand70thpercentilerainfalldatacollectedfromweatherstationCLAYCentralCropsResearchStationinClayton,NC.
**IncompleteMonth
Month30%70%Observed
Oct212.084.084.19
Nov212.054.231.52
Dec212.575.542.45
Jan222.724.625.31
Feb222.264.091.63
Mar223.305.034.19
Apr222.164.202.35
May222.654.585.75
Jun222.415.000.97
Jul223.886.364.6
Aug223.176.035.45
Sep222.936.126.24
Oct222.084.082.38
Nov222.054.23**
Dec222.575.54**