20160404 Ver 2_Year 1 Monitoring Report_2018_20190301

Monitoring Report
FINAL VERSION
Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project
Monitoring Year 1
Calendar Year of Data Collection: 2018
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 # 2016-0404
Johnston County, NC
Contracted Under RFP # 16-006477
Data Collection Period: April -June 2018, Submission Date: March 2019
Prepared for:
I C'.1 -
Environmental
Quality
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
Prepared by:
WATER & LAND SOLUTIONS
7721 SIX FORKS ROAD, SUITE 130, RALEIGH, NC 27615
[phone] 1 waterlandsolations.com

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

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A Background Tables and Figures
Table 1
Project Mitigation Components
Table 2
Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3
Project Contacts
Table 4
Project Information and Attributes
Appendix B Visual Assessment Data
Figure 1
Current Condition Plan View (CCPV)
Table 5
Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Table 5a
Vegetation Condition Assessment
Photos
Stream Station Photographs
Photos
Vegetation Plot Photographs
Appendix C
Vegetation Plot Data
Table 6
Planted and Total Stem Counts
Appendix D Stream Measurement and Geomorphology Data
Figure 2
Baseline Cross -Sections
Figure 3
Baseline Longitudinal Profiles
Table 7a
Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 7b
Cross-section Morphology Data
Table 7c
Stream Reach Morphology Data
Table 8
Verification of Flow Events
Figure 4
Surface Flow Data

Water & Land Solutions
1 Project Summary
pl�
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' 43'
30.36" North and 78° 21' 22.90" West. The Project site is located in the NCDEQ Sub -basin 03-04-06, in
the Lower Buffalo Creek Priority Sub -watershed 030202011504 study area for the Neuse 01 Regional
Watershed Plan (RWP), and in the Targeted Local Watershed 03020201180050, all of the Neuse River
Basin.
The Project involved the restoration, preservation and permanent protection of four stream reaches (111,
R2, R3, and R4) and their riparian buffers, totaling approximately 3,729 linear feet of existing streams.
The Project construction and planting were completed in May 2018 and MY1 monitoring activities
occurred between May and November 2018 (Table 2). This report documents the completion of and
presents the data for the first year of monitoring (MY1). The Project meets the MY1 success criteria for
stream hydrology, stream horizontal and vertical stability, streambed material condition and stability, and
vegetation. Based on these results, the Project is expected to meet the Year 2 Monitoring success criteria
in 2019.
2 Project Background
2.1 Project Location, Setting, and Existing Conditions
The Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project (Project) site is located in the Lower Buffalo Creek Priority Sub -
watershed 030202011504 study area for the Neuse 01 Regional Watershed Plan (RWP), in the Wake -
Johnston Collaborative Local Watershed Plan, and in the Targeted Local Watershed 03020201180050, all
of the Neuse River Basin. The Project site is situated in the lower piedmont where potential for future
development associated with the 1-540 corridor and rapidly growing Johnston County area is imminent,
as described in the Regional Watershed Plan (RWP) for the Upper Neuse River Basin within Hydrologic
Unit (HU) 03020201.
The RWP identified and prioritized potential mitigation strategies to offset aquatic resource impacts from
development and provided mitigation project implementation recommendations to improve ecological
uplift within the Neuse 01 Sub -basin, which included traditional stream and wetland mitigation, buffer
restoration, nutrient offsets, non-traditional mitigation projects such as stormwater and agricultural
BMPs, and rare, threatened, or endangered (RTE) species habitat preservation or enhancement.
The project included four stream reaches (R1, R2, R3, and R4) which involved the restoration, preservation
and permanent protection of approximately3,729 linear feet of streams permanently protected by a
conservation easement. The catchment area is 223 acres and has an impervious cover less than one
percent. The dominant land uses are agriculture and mixed forest. Prior to Project 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
Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project
FINAL Monitoring Report Year 1 Page 1

Water & Land Solutions
pl�
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 (LWP) and 2015 Neuse 01 Regional Watershed Plan (RWP) 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,
• 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
Reconnect Floodplain / Increase
Floodprone Area Widths
Improve Bedform Diversity
Increase Lateral Stability
Enhance Riparian Buffer Vegetation
Improve Water Quality
Improve Macroinvertebrate
Community and Aquatic Species
Health
Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project
FINAL Monitoring Report Year 1
Remove man-made pond dam and restore a
more natural flow regime and aquatic passage.
Lower BHRs from >2.0 to 1.0-1.2 and maintain
ERs at 2.2 or greater.
Increase riffle/pool percentage to 70/30 and
pool -to -pool spacing ratio 4-7X bankfull width.
Reduce BEHI/NBS streambank erosion rates
comparable to downstream reference
condition and stable cross-section values.
Plant or protect native species vegetation a
minimum 50' wide from the top of the
streambanks with a composition/density
comparable to reference condition.
Install water quality treatment basins along
the riparian corridor and reduce sediment and
nutrient levels.
Incorporate native woody debris and bedform
diversity into channel and change DWR
bioclassification rating from 'Poor' to a
minimum 'Fair' by Monitoring Year 7.
Page 2

Water & Land Solutions 4
2.3 Project History, Contacts, and Timeframe
The chronology of the project history and activity is presented in Table 2. Relevant project contact
information is presented in Table 3. Relevant project background information is presented in Table 4. The
final mitigation plan and PCN were submitted to DMS September 29, 2017 for submission to the NCIRT.
The Section 404 General (Regional and Nationwide) Permit Verification was issued January 12, 2018.
Project construction started on March 23, 2018 and mitigation site earthwork and mitigation site planting
were completed on May 5, 2018, both by RiverWorks Construction. Trueline Surveying, PC completed the
as -built survey in June 2018. WLS completed the installation of baseline monitoring devices on May 14,
2018 and the installation of survey monumentation and conservation easement boundary marking on
August 13, 2018.
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 Project Mitigation Components
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,
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 and
Figure 1 (Appendix A) 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
Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project
FINAL Monitoring Report Year 1 Page 3

Water & Land Solutions 4
buffers greater than 50 feet were enhanced and will be protected along the entire length of R2. Mature
trees and significant native vegetation were protected and incorporated into the design.
Bioengineering techniques such as vegetated geolifts and live stakes were also used to protect
streambanks and promote woody vegetation growth along the streambanks. The existing unstable
channel was filled to an elevation sufficient to connect the new bankfull channel to its active floodplain
using suitable fill material excavated from the newly restored channels and remnant spoil piles.
Additionally, water quality treatment basins were installed to reduce direct sediment and nutrient inputs.
3.1.3 R3 (Upper Reach) Restoration
A Priority Level I Restoration approach was implemented for the upstream portion to improve stream
functions and water quality. Prior to restoration activities, the reach exhibited both lateral and vertical
instability, as shown by active headcuts and moderate bank erosion. A new single -thread meandering
channel was constructed offline in this area before reconnecting with multiple relic channel features and
the existing channel alignment farther downstream. In -stream structures, including log riffles, log weirs
and log vanes were used to dissipate flow energy, protect streambanks, and eliminate potential for future
incision. Shallow floodplain depressions and vernal pools were created or preserved in the floodplain to
provide habitat diversity, nutrient cycling, and improved treatment of overland flows. Restored
streambanks were graded to stable side slopes and the floodplain was reconnected to further promote
stability and hydrological function.
3.1.4 R3 (Lower Reach) Preservation
Preservation was implemented along this reach since the existing stream and wetland system is mostly
stable with a mature riparian buffer due to minimal historic impacts. The preservation is being protected
in perpetuity through a permanent conservation easement. This approach will extend the wildlife corridor
from the Buffalo Creek floodplain boundary throughout a majority of the riparian valley, while providing
a hydrologic connection and critical habitat linkage within the catchment area.
3.1.5 R4 Restoration
The restoration of R4 involved raising the existing bed elevation gradually to reconnect the stream with
its active floodplain. Prior to restoration activities, the existing channel began experiencing backwater
conditions and sediment aggradation from a man-made pond. The failing dam and remnant spoil piles
were removed and the pond was drained to reconnect the new stream channel with its geomorphic
floodplain. Channel and floodplain excavation in this reach segment included the removal of shallow
legacy sediments (approx. 12" depth) to accommodate a new bankfull channel and in -stream structures,
as well as a more natural step -pool morphology using grade control structures in the steeper transitional
areas. Shallow floodplain depressions were created to provide habitat diversity, nutrient cycling, and
improved treatment of overland flows. Riparian buffers greater than 50 feet were restored and protected
along all R4.
3.2 Wetlands Mitigation Types and Approaches
Wetland mitigation credits are not contracted or proposed for this project.
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
Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project
FINAL Monitoring Report Year 1 Page 4

Water & Land Solutions 4
be conducted to assess the condition of the project throughout the monitoring period. Monitoring
activities will be conducted for a period of seven (7) 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
Establish Riparian
Buffer Vegetation
Remove man-made
pond, well device
(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
CVS Level I & II
Protocol Tree Veg
Plots (Strata
Composition and
Density), 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
bankful I/geomorphical 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.
Within planted portions of
the site, a minimum of 320
stems per acre must be
present at year three; a
minimum of 260 stems per
acre must be present at year
five; and a minimum of 210
stems per acre must be
present at year seven.
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.
Increase woody and
herbaceous vegetation
will provide channel
stability and reduce
streambank erosion,
runoff rates and exotic
species vegetation.
Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project
FINAL Monitoring Report Year 1 Page S
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
organic matter critical
Biology Macroinvertebrate DWR Small Stream/ N/A
to provide in -stream
(Level 5) Communities and Qual v4 sampling, IBI
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.
Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project
FINAL Monitoring Report Year 1 Page S

Water & Land Solutions 4
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 ((Dg,=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). Vertical
stability and floodplain access will both be evaluated by looking at Entrenchment Ratios (ER). The ER shall
be no less than 2.2 (>1.5 for "B" stream types) along the restored project stream reaches. This standard
only applies to restored reaches of the channel where ERs were corrected through design and construction.
4.1.3 Stream Horizontal Stability
Cross-sections will be used to evaluate horizontal stream stability. There should be little change expected
in as -built restoration cross-sections. If measurable changes do occur, they should be evaluated to
determine if the changes represent a movement toward a more unstable condition (e.g., downcutting,
erosion) or a movement towards increased stability (e.g., settling, vegetation establishment, deposition
along the streambanks, decrease in width/depth ratio). Cross-sections shall be classified using the Rosgen
Stream Classification method and all monitored cross-sections should fall within the quantitative
parameters defined for channels of the design stream type.
4.1.4 Streambed Material Condition and Stability
After construction, there should be minimal change in the particle size distribution of the streambed
materials, overtime, 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.
4.1.5 Jurisdictional Stream Flow
The restored stream systems must be classified as at least intermittent, and therefore must exhibit base
flow for some portion of the year 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 (7) feet in height at Year 5 of monitoring and ten (10) feet in
Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project
FINAL Monitoring Report Year 1 Page 6

Water & Land Solutions 4
height at Year 7 of monitoring. For all of the monitoring years (Year 1 through Year 7), the number of
Red maple (Acer rubrum) stems cannot exceed 20% of the total stems in any of the vegetation monitoring
plots.
4.3 Wetlands
Wetland mitigation credits are not contracted or proposed for this project. Wetland mitigation
performance standards are therefore not included in this section.
5 Monitoring Year 1 Assessment and Results
Annual monitoring was conducted during MY1 in accordance with the monitoring plan as described in the
approved mitigation plan and was intended to document the site improvements based on restoration
potential, catchment health, ecological stressors and overall constraints. All of the monitoring device
locations are depicted on the CCPV (Figure 1). MY1 monitoring results are provided in the appendices.
The Project meets the MY1 success criteria for stream hydrology, stream horizontal and vertical stability,
and streambed material. All vegetation plots meet interim success criteria except veg plot 3 which
appears to be experiencing prolonged wet conditions
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. Because the crest gage was installed after the submission of the Draft As -built Baseline
Monitoring Reports and Draft Monitoring Reports Year 1, only the described photographic measures will
be used for Year 1 stream hydrologic monitoring. At least one bankfull events occurred during MY1. This
event was documented using the described photography (Table 8). The documented occurrence of this
flow event satisfies the requirement of the occurrence of one of the two bankfull events (overbank flows)
and the one of the two "geomorphically significant" flow events (Qgs=0.66Q2) within the monitoring
period, along with floodplain access by flood flows.
5.2 Stream Horizontal & Vertical Stability
Visual assessment was utilized for assessment of MY1 horizontal and vertical stream stability. The visual
assessments for each stream reach concluded that the MY1 stream channel pattern and longitudinal
profiles, instream structure locations, still closely match the profile design parameters and MYO/baseline
conditions. The MY1 plan form geometry or pattern still appears to fall within acceptable ranges of the
design parameters for all restored reaches. Only minor channel adjustments in riffle slopes, pool depths
and pattern were observed and therefore did not present a stability concern or indicate a need for
remedial action.
5.3 Streambed Material Condition and Stability
A representative sediment sample was collected to assess streambed material condition and stability. The
dominant substrate for the project was verified as coarse sand. The post -construction riffle substrate
Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project
FINAL Monitoring Report Year 1 Page 7

Water & Land Solutions 4
sampling indicated no significant change (e.g., aggradation, degradation, embeddedness) in streambed
material condition or stability were observed during MY1.
5.4 Jurisdictional Stream Flow Documentation
Jurisdictional stream flow documentation and monitoring of restored intermittent reaches includes a
combination of photographic documentation and the installation of a monitoring gage (flow gage)
(continuous -read pressure transducers) within the thalweg (bottom) 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 the Johnston County weather station (COOP 317994),
approximately twenty miles south of the site. The monitoring gage data for MY1 is incomplete and will be
reconciled for MY2. The monitoring gage intended to document that the stream exhibited surface flow for
a minimum of 30 consecutive days throughout some portion of the year during a year with normal rainfall
conditions. WLS did observe stream flow along Reach R4, as well as along all of other project reaches,
during each pre- and post -construction site visit in 2018, with WLS staff visiting the site on a monthly basis.
These observations correspond do the monitoring flow gage documentation results at the nearby Lake
Wendell and Pen Dell Mitigation Project Sites.
5.5 Vegetation
Vegetation monitoring for MY1 was conducted utilizing the four (4) vegetation monitoring plots, with
monitoring conducted in accordance with the CVS-EEP Level I & II Monitoring Protocol (CVS, 2008) and
DMS Stream and Wetland Monitoring Guidelines (DMS, 2017). See Figure 1 in Appendix B for the
vegetation monitoring plot locations. The MY1 average surviving planted stem density is 496 stems per
acre, which exceeds the interim measure of vegetative success of at least 320 planted stems per acre at
the end of the third monitoring year. Summary data and photographs of each plot can be found in
Appendix 3. The MY1 vegetation monitoring was also conducted utilizing visual assessment along all of
the Project stream reaches. The results of the visual assessment did not indicate any significant negative
changes to the existing vegetation community.
An area of concern was observed along R3 buffer near veg plot 3 as shown on the CCPV. This area was
utilized as a partial haul road during construction and experienced prolonged wetness during planting
activities. Veg plot 3 stem density was approximately 283 stems per acre which is below the interim
success criteria. In addition, low stem density was observed along R4 near veg plot 4. These areas will be
watched closely during MY2 monitoring and any remedial actions, if necessary, will be documented in the
subsequent MY2 report. In addition, a slight buffer encroachment was observed along the R2 as shown
on the CCPV. The conservation easement is marked in this area and the landowner has been notified.
This area will be replanted in Winter 2019 and documented in the MY2 report.
5.6 Wetlands
Wetland mitigation credits are not contracted or proposed for this project. One groundwater monitoring
well was installed during the baseline monitoring within an existing wetland area along Reach R3. The
well data was unrecoverable and therefore an additional groundwater monitoring well was installed along
Reach R3 (preservation) after the first year of monitoring, in early January 2019. The wells were installed
to document groundwater levels within the stream and wetland restoration for reference and comparison
to the preservation areas, at the request of the NCIRT (DWR). No performance standards for wetland
hydrology success was proposed in the Mitigation Plan and therefore wetland mitigation monitoring is
not included for this project.
Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project
FINAL Monitoring Report Year 1 Page 8

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

Appendices
9
Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project

Appendix A — Background Tables and Figures
9
Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project

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

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project (NCDEQ DMS Project ID# 97080)
Elapsed Time Since grading complete: 0 yrs 7 months
Elapsed Time Since planting complete: 0 yrs 7 months
Number of reporting Years : 0
Activity or Deliverable
Data Collection
Complete
Completion or
Delivery
Project Contract Execution
N/A
3/18/2016
Final Mitigation Plan Submittal
9/29/2017
Section 404 General (Regional and Nationwide) Permit Verfication
1/12/2018
Begin Construction
3/23/2018
Mitigation Site Earthwork Completed
5/5/2018
Mitigation Site Planting Completed
N/A
5/5/2018
Installation of Monitoring Devices Completed
N/A
5/14/2018
Installation of Survey Monumentation and Boundary Marking
N/A
8/13/2018
As-built/Baseline Year 0 Monitoring Report Submittal
6/23/2018
12/3/2018
Year 1 Monitoring Report Submittal
11/24/2018
12/4/2018
Year 2 Monitoring Report Submittal
Year 3 Monitoring Report Submittal
Year 4 Monitoring Report Submittal
Year 5 Monitoring Report Submittal
Year 6 Monitoring Report Submittal
Year 7 Monitoring Report Submittal
Bolded items are examples of those items that are not standard, but may come up and should be included
Non -bolded items represent events that are standard components over the course of a typical project, but the one listed may not be all inclusive.
The above are obviously not the extent of potential relevant project activities, but are just provided as example as part of this exhibit.

Table 3. Project Contacts
Edwards-Johnson Mitigation Project (NCDEQ DMS Project ID# 97080)
Mitigation Provider
Water & Land Solutions, LLC
11030 Raven Ridge Road, Suite 200, Raleiqh, NC 27614
Primary Pro'ect POC
William Scott Hunt III PE Phone: [phone]
Construction Contractor
RiverWorks Construction
114 W. Main Street, Suite 106, Clayton, NC 27520
Primary Pro'ect POC
Bill Wri ht Phone: [phone]
Survey Contractor (Existing
WithersRavenel
Condition Survevs)
115 MacKenan Drive, Cary, NC 27511
Primary Pro'ect POC
Marshall Wight, PLS Phone: [phone]
Survey Contractor (Conservation
True Line Surveying, PC
Easement, Construction and As-
Builts Survevs)
205 West Main Street, Clayton, NC 27520
Primary Prosect 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 Prosect POC
Bill Wri ht Phone: [phone]
Seed Mix Sources
Green Resource
5204 Hiqhqreen Ct., Colfax, NC 27235
RodneyMont omer 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
11030 Raven Ridqe Road, Suite 200, Raleiqh, NC 27614
William Scott Hunt, III, PE Phone: [phone]
Stream Monitoring POC
Vegetation Monitoring POC
lWilliam Scott Hunt, III, PE Phone: [phone]
Wetland Monitoring POC
IWilliam Scott Hunt, III, PE Phone: [phone]

Parameters
Reach 1
Reach 2
Reach 3 (upper)
Reach 3 (lower)
Reach 4
Length of reach (linear feet)
611
1173
770
130
1176
Valley confinement (Confined, moderately confined, unconfined)
unconfined
unconfined
unconfined
unconfined
unconfined
Drainage area (Acres and Square Miles)
96 acres, 0.15 sq mi
120 acres, 0.19 sq
211 acres, 0.33 sq
223 acres, 0.35 sq
55 acres, 0.09 sq mi
mi
mi
mi
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral
Intermittent
Perennial
Perennial
Perennial
Intermittent
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
C; NSW
C; NSW
C;NSW
C; NSW
C; NSW
Stream Classification (existing)
C5
G5c
E5(incised)
E5(incised)
G5c/Pond
Stream Classification (proposed)
C5
C5
C5
C5, D5
C5
Evolutionary trend (Simon)
I
III/IV
IV
V
III/IV
FEMA classification
N/A
N/A
N/A
Zone AE
N/A
Wetland Summary Information
Parameters
Wetland 1
Wetland 2
Wetland 3
Size of Wetland (acres)
N/A
N/A
N/A
Wetland Type (non-riparian, riparian riverine or riparian non-riverine)
Mapped Soil Series
Drainage class
Soil Hydric Status
Source of Hydrology
Restoration or enhancement method (hydrologic, vegetative etc.)
Regulatory Considerations
Parameters
Applicable?
Resolved?
Supporting Docs?
Water of the United States - Section 404
Yes
Yes
Categorical
Exclusion
Water of the United States - Section 401
Yes
Yes
Categorical
Exclusion
Endangered Species Act
No
Yes
Categorical
Exclusion
Historic Preservation Act
No
N/A
Categorical
Exclusion
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA or CAMA)
No
N/A
N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
Yes
Yes
Categorical
Exclusion
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No
N/A
Categorical
Exclusion

Appendix B — Visual Assessment Data
9
Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project

Table 5. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Project Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project (NCDEQ DMS Project ID# 97080)
Reach ID R1, R2, R3 (upper) and R3 (lower)
Assessed Length 3609
* Please make Note that the calculation for bank footage uses the total bank footage in the reach not the linear footage of channel.
Therefore the denominator is 2 times the channel length in the calculation.
For the above example this would be 430 divided by 5000 feet of bank = 91
Formulas exist in the cells above
Number
Numberwith
Footage with
Adjusted % for
Stable,
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Major Channel
Channel
Performing as
Total Number
Unstable
Unstable
Performing as
Woody
Woody
Woody
Cate or
Sub -Cate or
Metric
Intended
in As -built
Segments
Footage
Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
1. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth
and/or scour and erosion
0
0
100%
0
0
100
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting
2. Undercut
appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest,
0
0
100%
0
0
100
appear sustainable and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100
2. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
46
47
98
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the
sill.
24
24
100
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
11
11
100
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not
3. Bank Protection
exceed 15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring
14
14
100
guidance document)
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth : Mean
4. Habitat
Bankfull Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
11
12
92
base -flow.
* Please make Note that the calculation for bank footage uses the total bank footage in the reach not the linear footage of channel.
Therefore the denominator is 2 times the channel length in the calculation.
For the above example this would be 430 divided by 5000 feet of bank = 91
Formulas exist in the cells above

Table 5a. Vegetation Condition Assessment
Project Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project (NCDEQ DMS Project ID# 97080)
Planted Acreage' 3.6
CCPV
Number of
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
% of Planted
Ve etation Category
Definitions
Threshold
Depiction
Polygons
Acreage
Acrea e
Pattern and
Pattern and
4. Invasive Areas of Concern"
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
1000 SF
1. Bare Areas
Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material.
1 acre
0.0%
0
0.00
0.0%
Color
Color
2. Low Stem Density Areas
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4, or 5 stem count criteria.
0.1 acres
solid light blue
2
0.26
7.2%
Total
2
0.26
7.2%
Pattern and
3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small given the monitoring year.
0.25 acres
0
0.00
0.0%
Color
Cumulative Total
2
0.26
7.2%
Easement Acreage 10.97
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
% of Easement
Ve etation Cateaory
Definitions
Threshold
Depiction
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
Pattern and
4. Invasive Areas of Concern"
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
1000 SF
0
0.00
0.0%
Color
5. Easement Encroachment Areas'
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
none
yellow hatched
1
0.05
1.4%

33
s SY
33(( a q, - ,r "�- - '•- Tr —
^
r ¢:
r�
N�
e �I
Reach R1, facing upstream, April 12, 2018 (MY -00) Reach R1, facing upstream, December 6, 2018 (MY -01)
���' �,� ,q�. it t `a' M „_�'� - � � ry �•.�.. - � S'y" ,! �i1 I �' :-�. I:ati.
!
r:
r -
' � I
v _
• �� � � -_� � r � _'� \�X'—�' � /tel �.• _ _ ,-
`T y .
Reach R1, facing upstream, April 12, 2018 (MY -00) Reach R1, facing downstream, December 6, 2018 (MY -01)

vx F. .fir
{ t Y
4 ,
� -a
n
Reach R2, facing downstream, Sta 18+00, April 23, 2018 (MY -00)
1
1
y s a
r
Reach R2, facing upstream, Sta 17+00, Dec 6, 2018 (MY -01)
,r E j
V,r
Reach R2, facing downstream, Sta 18+00, Dec 6, 2018 (MY -01)

s
Reach R2, facing upstream, Sta 21+00, April 23, 2018 (MY -00)
jr,'
� ti ��i �, � ^ � i '�. -� • , � � � J .ern.
°'F-
.i�
Reach R2, facing downstream, Sta 20+00, Dec 6, 2018 (MY -01)
Reach R2, facing upstrel`a///!!mrrrwww, Sta 21+00, Dec 6, 2018 (MY -01)
3
k.
i fry,/.tE 77�.`� y,- fii<i
�l
`' by
� d � r y
! ��'4
�� �
n�,f
'Q
m
s ��eet s
Reach R2, facing downstream, Sta 20+00, Sept 17, 2018 (MY -00)
3 �! 5>•p�Y''i)r'
!
r
I
s
Reach R2, facing upstream, Sta 21+00, April 23, 2018 (MY -00)
jr,'
� ti ��i �, � ^ � i '�. -� • , � � � J .ern.
°'F-
.i�
Reach R2, facing downstream, Sta 20+00, Dec 6, 2018 (MY -01)
Reach R2, facing upstrel`a///!!mrrrwww, Sta 21+00, Dec 6, 2018 (MY -01)

A
4S_ -
A.
Reach R2, facing upstream, Sta 26+00, April 23, 2018 (MY -00) Reach R2, facing upstream, Sta 26+00, Dec 6, 2018 (MY -01)
M a a
�f
R" � n�y� ,a 1 � � �nY � i, a. _ � v� � �M'p G •a B 's''�.�F .'
J'b
�+ jc �i � � } ,,��z�,� dl � �i - %IIS ���_� ` �S �� . w �� P -5R '.�J� -. --� �3: �$ � .�_,�.�y/- `,A:.�•�. _� .'
a
v
0
• S .Jti�� ,,gg D a.
a
ti y 5
.tr
' r
3 �
f
�`.::.' . F. ,y,. :. ,, � -...- .d .' �..., � T>' � �-•;ice , _ _
Reach R3, facing downstream, Sta 32+00, April 19, 2018 (MY -00) Reach R3, facing downstream, Sta 32+00, June 11, 2018 (MY -01)

4•
I
k a�
7
Reach R4, facing downstream, Sta 13+00, June 11, 2018 (MY -00)
Reach R4, facing upstream, Sta 13+00, Dec 6, 2018 (MY -01)
* � t
r
� '
Reach R4, facing upstream, Sta 13+00, Dec 6, 2018 (MY -01)

Reach R4, facing upstream, Sta 17+00, Dec 6, 2018 (MY -01)
s ' � tar, -•
�.•�� � -
.. -
Reach R4, facing upstream, Sta 17+00, Dec 6, 2018 (MY -01)

..+ - - I- � �N � � pis �� �• � . ��� � R�
y
a
v
74
QT—
i�
Veg Plot 3 May 14, 2018 (MY -00) Veg Plot 3 November 5, 2018 (MY -01)
..)S
}�
aw-
� C I
Veg Plot 4 May 14, 2018 (MY -00) Veg Plot 4 November 5, 2018 (MY -01)
*plot origin at corner to the right

Appendix C — Vegetation Plot Data
9
Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project

Table 6. MY1 Stem Counts
Edwards -Johnson Mitieation Proiect (NCDED DMS Proiect ID# 970801 Current Plot Data (MY1-20181 Annual Means
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
003-01-0001
PnoLS P -all
T PnoLS
003-01-0002
P -all
T PnoLS
003-01-0003
P -all
T
003-01-0004
PnoLS P -all T
MYO(2018)
MYl(2018)
PnoLS
P -all T PnoLS P -all
T
Acer rubrum
Red Maple
Tree
2
2
11
5
1
1
1
1
2 2
17
Alnus serrulata
Tag Alder, Smooth Alder, Hazel Alder
Shrub Tree
3
3
3
Betula nigra
River Birch, Red Birch
Tree
3
3
3
2
2
2
1 1
1
1 1 1
8
8
8
7 7
7
Carpinus caroliniana
Ironwood
Shrub Tree
2
2
2
2 2
2
Cornus amomum
Silky Dogwood
Shrub Tree
2
2
2
3 3
3
8
8
8
5 5
5
Diospyros virginiana
American Persimmon, Possumwood
Tree
1
1
1
1 1
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash, Red Ash
Tree
1
1
2
1
1
1
2 2 2
4
4
4
41 41
5
Ilex verticillata
Winterberry
Shrub Tree
1
11
1
Lindera benzoin
Northern Spicebush
Shrub Tree
3
3
3
4
4
4
1 1 1
11
11
11
8 8
8
Liquidambar styraci0ua
Sweet Gum, Red Gum
Tree
3
1
4
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip Tree
Tree
3
6
2
7
7
7
11
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore, Plane -tree
Tree
3
3
3
1
1
1
1 1
2
2 2 2
10
10
10
7 7
8
Quercus michauxii
Basket Oak, Swamp Chestnut Oak
Tree
3
3
3
4
4
4
3 3
3
Quercus nigra
Water Oak, Paddle Oak
Tree
21 2
2
1
6
6
6
2 2
2
Quercus phellos
Willow Oak
Tree
21
2
21
4
4
41
1
2 21 4
7
7
7
8 8
10
Rhus typhina
Staghorn Sumac
Shrub
1
1
Salix nigra
Black Willow
Tree
6
6
Sambucus canadensis
Common Elderberry
Shrub Tree
5
5
Ulmus rubra
Slippery Elm, Red Elm
Tree
2
2
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACREI
19
91
768.91
19
1
0.02
91
768.91
38
111
15381111111111111111111111111111111
15
61
15 23
1
0.02
61 81
607.031 930.8111111111111111111111111111111
7 7 22
1
0.02
41 41 81
283.31 890.3
8 8 14
1
0.02
51 5F-811
323. 323.71 566.611
70
70 70
49 491
97
4 4
0.10 0.10
1-2–F-121 121 111
11
17
708.21 708.21 708.2111111111111111111111
495.7
981.4
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%

9
Appendix D — Stream Measurement and Geomorphology Data
Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project

Project Name
Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project
Project ID
97080
Reach ID
R2
Cross Section ID
X1
Field Crew
C. Manner, A. McIntyre
DIMENSION DATA SUMMARY: MY1 2018
Low Top of Bank Elevation (ft)
244.2
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
5.2
XS Area Change from As -built (%)
-5.8%
Bankfull Width (ft)
7.7
Max Depth (ft)
1.1
Mean Depth (ft)
0.7
Width/Depth Ratio
11.4
Flood Prone Area Width (ft)
32.0
Entrenchment Ratio
4.2
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
NM
247
246
m
0 245
ca
.T 244
LU
243
242
0
X1 Riffle, STA 18+77
Looking Downstream
Baseline MYO MY1 — — Bankfull Elevation (Low TOB) Floodprone Area
------------------------------------------------------------------- y --------------------------
10
17
Width (feet)
30
M
Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project Water and Land Solutions
DMS Project #97080 Annual Monitoring Report
December 2018 Monitoring Year 1 of 7

Project Name
Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project
Project ID
97080
Reach ID
R2
Cross Section ID
X2
Field Crew
C. Manner, A. McIntyre
DIMENSION DATA SUMMARY: MY1 2018
Low Top of Bank Elevation ft
241.3
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
6.1
XS Area Change from As -built %
-8.8%
Bankfull Width ft
13.3
Max Depth ft
1.6
Mean Depth ft
0.5
Width/Depth Ratio
28.8
Flood Prone Area Width ft
30.7
Entrenchment Ratio
2.3
Bank Height Ratio
0.9
245
244
243
m
242
0
241
CD
M 240
239
238
to
X2 Pool, STA 21+14
Looking Downstream
Baseline MYO MY1 — — Bankfull Elevation (Low TOB) Floodprone Area
10
20
Width (feet)
30
Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project Water and Land Solutions
DMS Project #97080 Annual Monitoring Report
December 2018 Monitoring Year 1 of 7

Project Name
Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project
Project ID
97080
Reach ID
R4
Cross Section ID
IX3
Field Crew
I C. Manner, A. McIntyre
DIMENSION DATA SUMMARY: MY1 2018
Low Top of Bank Elevation (ft)
239.7
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
11.0
XS Area Change from As -built (%)
6.7%
Bankfull Width (ft)
9.3
Max Depth (ft)
2.3
Mean Depth ft
1.2
Width/Depth Ratio
7.9
Flood Prone Area Width (ft)
40.4
Entrenchment Ratio
4.3
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
245
244
243
242
m
= 241
0
240
w 239
238
237
236
0
X3 Pool, STA 16+43
Baseline MYO MY1 — — Bankfull Elevation (Low TOB)
10
Looking Downstream
Floodprone Area
--------------- - - - - -�'--------------------------------------
20
Width (feet)
30
.N
50
Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project Water and Land Solutions
DMS Project #97080 Annual Monitoring Report
December 2018 Monitoring Year 1 of 7

Project Name
Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project
Project ID
97080
Reach ID
R4
Cross Section ID
X4
Field Crew
C. Manner, A. McIntyre
DIMENSION DATA SUMMARY: MY1 2018
Low Top of Bank Elevation (ft)
238.8
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
5.2
XS Area Change from As -built (%)
-5.2%
Bankfull Width (ft)
8.2
Max Depth (ft)
1.0
Mean Depth (ft)
0.6
Width/Depth Ratio
13.0
Flood Prone Area Width (ft)
38.2
Entrenchment Ratio
4.7
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
Looking Downstream
X4 Riffle, STA 16+97
Baseline MYO MY1 — — Bankfull Elevation (Low TOB) Floodprone Area
245
244
243
242
241
C
a
240
239
W----------- ------- -------------------- � --- --- ------------------
238
237
236
0 10 20 30 40
Width (feet)
Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project Water and Land Solutions
DMS Project #97080 Annual Monitoring Report
December 2018 Monitoring Year 1 of 7

Project Name
Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project
Project ID
97080
Reach ID
R3
Cross Section ID
X5
Field Crew
C. Manner, A. McIntyre
DIMENSION DATA SUMMARY: MY1 2018
Low Top of Bank Elevation (ft)
234.3
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
5.3
XS Area Change from As -built (%)
-12.9%
Bankfull Width (ft)
8.0
Max Depth (ft)
1.3
Mean Depth (ft)
0.7
Width/Depth Ratio
12.1
Flood Prone Area Width (ft)
44.8
Entrenchment Ratio
5.6
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
Looking Downstream
X5 Riffle, STA 28+24
Baseline MYO MY1 — — Bankfull Elevation (Low TOB) Floodprone Area
238
237
236
c 235
>--------------------------------------
-- -- ----- ----------------
234
W
233
232
0 10 20 30 40 50
Width (feet)
Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project Water and Land Solutions
DMS Project #97080 Annual Monitoring Report
December 2018 Monitoring Year 1 of 7

Project Name
Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project
Project ID
97080
Reach ID
R3
Cross Section ID
X6
Field Crew
C. Manner, A. McIntyre
DIMENSION DATA SUMMARY: MY1 2018
Low Top of Bank Elevation (ft)
233.4
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
5.6
XS Area Change from As -built (%)
-23.4%
Bankfull Width (ft)
14.3
Max Depth (ft)
1.0
Mean Depth (ft)
0.4
Width/Depth Ratio
36.5
Flood Prone Area Width (ft)
44.5
Entrenchment Ratio
3.1
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
X6 Pool, STA 29+56
Baseline MYO MY1 — — Bankfull Elevation (Low TOB) Floodprone Area
236
235
,2 234
c
o ----------------------- ----------------------- -
-------- --------- ---
233
as
LU
232
231
0 10 20 30 40 50
Width (feet)
Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project Water and Land Solutions
DMS Project #97080 Annual Monitoring Report
December 2018 Monitoring Year 1 of 7

Project Name
Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project
Project ID
97080
Reach ID
R3 Multi -Thread Channel
Cross Section ID
X7
Field Crew
C. Manner, A. McIntyre
DIMENSION DATA SUMMARY: MY1 2018
Low Top of Bank Elevation (ft)
230.7
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
4.7
XS Area Change from As -built (%)
4.4%
Bankfull Width (ft)
18.1
Max Depth (ft)
0.3
Mean Depth (ft)
0.3
Width/Depth Ratio
69.7
Flood Prone Area Width (ft)
31.1
Entrenchment Ratio
1.7
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
X7 Riffle, STA 33+18
Baseline MYO MY1 — — Bankfull Elevation (Low TOB) Floodprone Area
233
232
CD
12
0 231
as
LU
230
229
0 10 20 30
Width (feet)
Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project Water and Land Solutions
DMS Project #97080 Annual Monitoring Report
December 2018 Monitoring Year 1 of 7

Table 7a. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Edwards-Johnson Mitigation Project (NCDEQ DMS Project ID# 97080)
Parameter
Pre-
Restoration
Condition
Reference
Reach Data
Design
As-Built/ Baseline
Reach ID: R1 (Preservation)
Dimension (Riffle)
Min
Max
Min Max Min Max Min Max
Bankfull Width (ft)
5.5
7.2
4.5 8.3 - - -
Floodprone Width (ft)
30.0
80.0
10.0 20.0 - - -
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.4
0.8
0.8 1.6 - - -
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
0.5
0.9
0.9 1.3 - - -
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
4.1
5.0
3.0 5.0 - - -
Width/Depth Ratio
8.2
15.2
6.2 14.2 - - -
1
Entrenchment Ratio
4.2
12.0
7.1 8.4 - - -
Bank Height Ratiol
1.1 1
1.1
0.9 1.1 1 - - -
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
7.5
38.2
9.5 22.7 - - - -
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.011 0.014
0.009 0.015 - - -
Pool Length (ft)
4.1
7.9
6.1 8.7 - - -
Pool Max Depth (ft)
1.2
1.4
1.8 2.4 - - - -
Pool Spacing (ft)l
22.0 1
50.0
14.4 22.3 - - - -
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
22.0
28.0
23.4 29.0 - - - -
Radius of Curvature (ft)
11.3
19.1
11.2 17.5 - - - -
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
1.6
2.9
1.6 2.5 - - - -
Meander Wavelength (ft)
27.0
60.0
43.4 65.1 - - - -
Meander Width Ratiol
2.2
6.4
3.9 4.5 - - - -
Transport Parameters
Boundary Shear Stress (Ib/ft2)
-
- - -
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
-
- -
Stream Power (W/m2)
-
- -
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C5
E5/C5 E5/C5 E5/C5
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
4.1
4.5 -
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
20.0
--- -
Sinuosity
1.21
1.1 -1.3 -
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)l
0.010
1 0.015 1 -
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)l
0.012
1 0.015 1 -

Parameter
Pre-Restoration
Condition
Reference
Reach Data
Design
As-Built/
Baseline
Reach ID: R2
Dimension (Riffle)
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min Max
Min
Max
Bankfull Width (ft)
4.4
7.2
4.5
8.3
7.7
8.9
Floodprone Width (ft)
30.0
70.0
10.0
20.0
20.0 50.0
32.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.4
0.8
0.8
1.6
0.6
0.6
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.3
1.5
0.9
1.3
0.9
1.2
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
3.3
5.1
3.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
Width/Depth Ratio
8.2
15.2
6.2
14.2
12.0
16.0
Entrenchment Ratiol
4.3
10.0
7.1
8.4
2.2
3.6
Bank Height Ratiol
1.1
1 1.6
1 0.9
1 1.1
1 1.0
1.0
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
17.0
44.0
9.5
22.7
10.0 30.0
12.0
34.0
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.011
0.013
0.009
0.015
0.010 0.022
0.017 0.029
Pool Length (ft)
3.9
6.0
6.1
8.7
6.0 9.0
6.2
9.9
Pool Max Depth (ft)
1.2
1.3
1.8
2.4
1.1 1.5
1.1
1.6
Pool Spacing (ft)l
22.0
1 39.0
14.4
22.3
30.0 55.0
11.8
36.1
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
28.0
23.4
29.0
28.0 51.0
27.0
46.0
Radius of Curvature (ft)
11.3
19.1
11.2
17.5
15.0 25.0
13.0
29.0
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
1.6
2.9
1.6
2.5
2.0 3.0
2.1
3.5
Meander Wavelength (ft)
31.0
45.0
43.4
65.1
55.0 100.0
35.0
88.0
Meander Width Ratio
2.3
6.4
3.9
4.5
3.0 8.0
4.4
7.6
Transport Parameters
Boundary Shear Stress (Ib/ft2)
-
-
0.49
-
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
-
-
2.00
-
Stream Power (W/m2)
-
-1
31.00
-
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
G5
E5/C5
C5
C5
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
4.1
4.5
4.7
4.7
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
26.0
-
26.0
26.0
Sinuosity
1.16
1.1 -1.3
1.17
1.17
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)l
0.011
0.015
0.011
0.012
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)l
0.012
1 0.015
1 0.012
1
0.013

Parameter
Pre-Restoration
Condition
Reference
Reach Data
Design
As-Built/
Baseline
Reach ID: R3 (lower) Preservation
Dimension (Riffle)
Min
Max
Min Max
Min Max Min Max
Bankfull Width (ft)
4.4
7.2
4.5 8.3
- - - -
Floodprone Width (ft)
30.0
70.0
10.0 35.0
- -
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.4
0.8
0.8 1.6
- - - -
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
0.5
0.9
0.9 1.3
- - - -
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ft2
3.3
5.3
3.0 5.0
- - - -
Width/Depth Ratio
8.0
20.0
6.2 14.2
- - -
Entrenchment Ratio
3.0
8.0
7.1 8.4
- - - -
Bank Height Ratiol
1.0
1 -
0.9 1.1
1 - - -
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
11.0
22.0
9.5 22.7
- - -
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.008 0.009
0.009 0.015
- - -
Pool Length (ft)
5.0
8.0
6.1 8.7
- - - -
Pool Max Depth (ft)
1.3
1.7
1.8 2.4
- - - -
Pool Spacing (ft)l
22.0
1 39.0
1 14.4 1 22.3
1 - I -
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
28.0
40.0
23.4 29.0
-
Radius of Curvature (ft)
11.0
19.0
11.2 17.5
- -
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
1.6
2.9
1.6 2.5
- - - -
Meander Wavelength (ft)
27.0
50.0
43.4 65.1
- -
Meander Width Ratiol
6.4
1 8.5
1 3.9 1 4.5
- - - -
Transport Parameters
Boundary Shear Stress Ib/ft2)
-
-
0.49 -
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
-
-
2.00 -
Stream Power W/m2)
-
-1
29.00 -
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
E5
E5/C5
-
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
4.1
4.0
-
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
37.0
-
-
Sinuosity
1.21
1.1 -1.3
-
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)l
0.008
1 0.015
1 - I-
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)l
0.009
1 0.015
1 - I -

Parameter
Pre-Restoration
Condition
Reference
Reach Data
Design
As-Built/
Baseline
Reach ID: R3 (upper)
Dimension (Riffle)
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Bankfull Width (ft)
4.4
7.2
4.5
8.3
8.2
8.8
18.4
Floodprone Width (ft)
30.0
70.0
10.0
35.0
30.0
80.0
38.0
27.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.0
1.8
0.8
1.6
0.7
0.6
0.3
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.5
2.3
0.9
1.3
1.0
1.0
0.4
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
3.3
3.0
5.0
5.6
5.5
4.7
Width/Depth Ratio
8.2
15.2
6.2
14.2
12.0
14.3
71.8
Entrenchment Ratio
4.3
10.0
7.1
8.4
3.7
8.0
4.3
1.5
Bank Height Ratiol
1.1 1
1.7
1 0.9
1 1.1
1 1.0
1.0
1 1.0
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
33.0
55.0
9.5
22.7
12.0
33.0
10.0
30.0
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.007 0.009
0.009
0.015
0.011 0.014
0.020 0.035
Pool Length (ft)
8.0
13.0
6.1
8.7
8.0
11.0
7.0
10.0
Pool Max Depth (ft)
1.4
2.0
1.8
2.4
1.4
2.0
1.1
1.6
Pool Spacing (ft)l
22.0 1
39.0
14.4
22.3
25.0
51.0
11.8
35.5
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
28.0
23.4
29.0
25.0
45.0
30.0
45.0
Radius of Curvature (ft)
10.0
11.2
17.5
12.0
22.0
15.0
25.0
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
1.6
1.6
2.5
2.0
3.0
2.5
4.2
Meander Wavelength (ft)
27.0
43.4
65.1
30.0
42.0
30.0
44.8
Meander Width Ratiol
6.4
3.9
4.5
3.3
5.1
5.1
7.6
Transport Parameters
Boundary Shear Stress (Ib/ft2)
-
-
0.51
-
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
-
-
2.00
-
Stream Power (W/m2)
-
-1
28.90
-
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
E5 incised
E5/C5
C5
C5
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
4.1
4.5
5.7
4.5
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
34.0
-
34.0
34.0
Sinuosity
1.20
1.1 -1.3
1.20
1.16
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)l
0.007
0.015
0.009
0.009
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)l
0.009
1 0.015
1 0.011
1
0.011

Parameter
Pre-Restoration
Condition
Reference
Reach Data
Design
As-Built/
Baseline
Reach ID: R4
Dimension (Riffle)
Min Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min Max
Bankfull Width (ft)
6.9 -
4.5
8.3
6.6
8.8
Floodprone Width (ft)
6.1 -
10.0
35.0
25.0
70.0
38.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
2.4 -
0.8
1.6
0.5
0.6
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
3.1 -
0.9
1.3
0.7
1.0
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
15.8 -
3.0
5.0
3.6
5.5
Width/Depth Ratio
5.6 -
10.3
14.2
12.0
14.3
Entrenchment Ratio
1.0 -
2.0
5.0
3.8
10.0
4.3
Bank Height Ratio
1.7 -
0.9
1.1
1.0
1.0
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
17.0 44.0
5.1
13.9
13.0
31.0
12.0 27.0
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.019 0.027
0.017
0.026
0.016 0.027
0.015 0.027
Pool Length (ft)
4.0 6.6
4.5
7.0
6.8
9.4
6.0 8.7
Pool Max Depth (ft)
1.9 2.2
1.1
1.7
1.1
1.6
1.1 1.6
Pool Spacing (ft)l
38.0 1 87.0
10.0
30.0
22.0
50.0
19.0 41.0
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
- -
23.4
29.0
22.0
35.0
19.0 31.0
Radius of Curvature (ft)
- -
11.2
17.5
12.0
20.0
10.0 19.0
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
- -
1.6
2.5
1.8
3.0
2.1 3.4
Meander Wavelength (ft)
- -
43.4
65.1
40.0
60.0
34.0 77.0
Meander Width Ratio
- I -
3.9
4.5
1 3.3
1 5.3
3.0 6.0
Transport Parameters
Boundary Shear Stress (Ib/ft2)
-
-
0.48
-
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
-
-
2.00
-
Stream Power (W/m2)
-
-1
24.50
-
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
G5c
C5
C5
C5
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
7.0
4.0
4.5
4.5
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
16.0
-
16.0
16.0
Sinuosity
1.06
1.1 -1.2
1.15
1.14
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)l
0.019
0.015
0.017
0.017
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)l
0.018
1 0.015
1
0.017
1 0.017

Table 7b.
Monitoring Data - Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters
Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project (NCDEQ DMS Project ID# 97080)
- Cross Sections)
Cross Section 1 (Riffle)
Cross Section 2 (Pool)
Cross Section 3 (Pool)
Cross Section 4 (Riffle)
Cross Section 5 (Riffle)
Parameters
Base
MY1
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Base
MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
MY+ Base
MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
MY+ Base
MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
MY+ Base
MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Bankfull Width (ft)
8.9
7.7
8.4
13.3
9.2
9.3
8.8
8.2
8.8
8
Floodprone Width (ft)
32
32
31
30.7
40
40.4
38
38.2
38
44.8
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.5
1.1
1.2
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.7
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.2
1.1
1.7
1.6
2
2.3
1
1
1
1.3
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ftp
5
5.2
6.7
6.1
10.4
11
5.5
5.2
5.5
5.3
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
16
11.4
10.6
28.8
8.2
7.9
14.313
14.3
12.1
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
3.6
4.2
3.7
2.3
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.7
4.3
5.6
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio1
1
0.9
0.9
1
1
1
1
1
1
d50 (mm)
N/a
N/a
N/a
N/a
N/a
N/a
N/a
N/a
N/a
N/a
Cross Section 6 (Pool)
Cross Section 7 (Riffle)
Parameters
Base
MY1
MY2 MY3 MY4 I MY5 MY+
Base
MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
MY+ Base
MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
MY+ Base
MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
MY+ Base
MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Bankfull Width (ft)
10.4
14.3
18.4
18.1
Floodprone Width (ft)
44
44.5
27
31.7
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.7
0.4
0.3
0.3
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.4
1
0.4
0.3
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (fe)
7.7
5.6
4.7
4.7
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
14
36.5
71.8
69.7
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
4.2
3.1
1.5
1.7
Bankfull Bank Height Rati4
1
1
1
1
d50 (mm)
N/a
N/a
N/a
N/a

Table 7c. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Summary
Edwards-Johnson Mitigation Project (NCDEQ DMS Project ID# 97080)
Parameter
Baseline MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
Reach ID: R1 (Preservation)
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
Pool Length (ft)
Pool Max depth (ft)
Pool Spacing (ft)
Pattern and Profile data will not typically be
collected unless visual data, dimensional data or
profile data indicate significant deviations from
baseline conditions
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
Radius of Curvature (ft)
-
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
-
Meander Wavelength (ft)
-
Meander Width Ratio
Additional Reach Parameters
-
Rosgen Classification
C5
Sinuosity (ft)
1.21
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
0.01
BF slope (ft/ft)
0.012
3Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
3SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / B% / Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95
2% of Reach with Eroding Bank
Channel Stability or Habitat Metri
Biological or Othe

Parameter
Baseline MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
Reach ID: R2
Min
Max Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Profile
Riffle Length (ft
12
34
Riffle Slope (ft/ft 0.017
0.029
Pool Length (ft
6.2
9.9
Pool Max depth (ft
1.1
1.6
Pool Spacing (ft
11.8
36.1
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft
27
46
Radius of Curvature (ft
13
29
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft
2.1
3.5
Meander Wavelength (ft
35
88
Meander Width Ratio
4.4
7.6
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C5
Sinuosity (ft
1.17
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft
0.012
BF slope (ft/ft
0.013
3Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
3SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / B% / Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84Id95
2% of Reach with Eroding Bank
Channel Stability or Habitat Metri
Biological or Other!

Parameter Baseline MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
Reach ID: R3 (upper)
Min Max Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Profile
Riffle Length (ft) 10 30
Riffle Slope (ft/ft) 0.02 0.035
Pool Length (ft) 7 10
Pool Max depth (ft) 1.1 1.6
Pool Spacing (ft) 11.8 35.5
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft) 30 45
Radius of Curvature (ft) 15 25
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft) 2.5 4.2
Meander Wavelength (ft) 30 44.8
Meander Width Ratio 5.1 7.6
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification C5
Sinuosity (ft) 1.16
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft) 0.009
BF slope (ft/ft) 0.011
3Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
'SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / B% / Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95
2% of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other

Parameter
Baseline MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
Reach ID: R4
Min Max Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
12 27
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.015 0.027
Pool Length (ft)
6 8.7
Pool Max depth (ft)
1.1 1.6
Pool Spacing (ft)
19 41
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
19 31
Radius of Curvature (ft)
10 19
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
2.1 3.4
Meander Wavelength (ft)
34 77
Meander Width Ratio
6=Ei
3 6
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C5
Sinuosity (ft)
1.14
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
0.017
BF slope (ft/ft)
0.017
3Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
'SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / B% / Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95
2% of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other

I
I
I I VIII
I
I I
I
I I
MY1 - Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project, Sediment Sample
70% riffle 30% pool
tweighted percent
Riffle Pool
# of particles
100%
silt/clay sand
gravel cobble
boulder
20%
90%
18%
80%
16%
70%
14%
cQ'
CD
CL
60%
12%
CD
c
CD
50%
10%
CD
40%
8%
21
30%
6%
a
20%
4%
10%
2%
v
0%
0%
(DD
0.01 0.1
1 10 100
1000
10000
particle size (mm)
Size (mm)
Size Distribution
Type
D16 0.16
mean 0.6
silt/clay
7%
D35 0.36
dispersion 3.9
sand
75%
D50 0.62
skewness 0.00
gravel
18%
D65 1.1
cobble
0%
D84 2.4
boulder
0%
D95 #N/A
I
I
I I VIII
I
I I
I
I I

Table 8. Verification of Flow Events
Edwards.lohnson Mitigation Project (NCDEO DMS Project IDM 97080)
Greater than Bankfull(Bkf)or
Date of Data Collection Date of Gec,-
Method Ogs (02`0.66) Stage? Photo/ Notes
Observed indicators of bankfull stage (wrack
9/17/2018 9/18-9/17/2018
Bkf Photos
lines) after storm event
F
9117/2018

Monthly Rainfall Data
Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project (NCDEQ DMS Project ID# 97080)
MY1 2018
30-70 Percentile Rainfall Graph
Smithfield, NC (COOP 317994)
70%
IG
Jan -18
3.63
9
3.11
Feb -18
2.60
4.79
1.79
Mar -18
3.35
5.74
8
Apr -18
1.81
7
3.83
May -18 1
c 6
4.68
8.68
0
3.05
1 5.50
m
Jul -18
4.14
5
5.4
Aug -18
.2-
6.21
7.98
m
a`
2.97
5.15
3
Oct -18
1.63
2
1 1.55
Nov -18
1
3.58
4.83
Dec -18
**
**
O
Jan -18 Feb -18 Mar -18 Apr -18 May -18 Jun -18 Jul -18 Aug -18 Sep -18 Oct -18 Nov -18
Date
Observed Rainfall -30th Percentile -70th Percentile
*30th and 70th percentile rainfall data collected from weather station (COOP 317994) in Smithfield, NC.
**Incomplete Month
Month
30%
70%
Observed
Jan -18
3.63
6.07
3.11
Feb -18
2.60
4.79
1.79
Mar -18
3.35
5.74
4.12
Apr -18
1.81
3.84
3.83
May -18 1
2.74
4.68
8.68
Jun -18
3.05
1 5.50
1.25
Jul -18
4.14
7.08
5.4
Aug -18
3.36
6.21
7.98
Sep -18
2.97
5.15
9.87
Oct -18
1.63
3.81
1 1.55
Nov -18
1.54
3.58
4.83
Dec -18
**
**
**

Groundwater Gauge Data
Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project (NCDEO DMS Project ID# 97080)
MY1 2018
Annual Precip Total
Max Consecutive Hydroperiod: Saturation within 12 Inches of Soil
WETS 30th Percentile
Surface (Percent of Growing Season)
Monitoring Gauge Name
WETS Station: 317994 - Smithfield Growing Season: 4/6-11/4 (227
Normal
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Mean
Edwards -Johnson Reference Wetland
M M
Annual Precip Total
0
WETS 30th Percentile
42.7
WETS 70th Percentile
51.8
Normal
Y
_ Impoundment
X% above or below success criteria
N/A Not available - Gage pulled or yet to be installed by this phase
M Malfunction. Data Overwritten or Unretrievable

WATER & LAND SOLUTIONS
7721 SIX FORKS ROAD, SUITE 130, RALEIGH, NC 27615
(919) 614 - 5111 1 waterlandsolutions.com
March 01, 2019
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
Attn: Lindsay Crocker
217 West Jones Street, Suite 3000-A
Raleigh, NC 27603
RE: WLS Responses to NCDEQ DMS Review Comments for Task 6 Draft Baseline Monitoring Report and Task 7
Draft Monitoring Report Year 1 for the Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project, NCDEQ DMS Full -Delivery Project ID
#97080, Contract #6825, Neuse River Basin, Cataloging Unit 03020201, Johnston County, NC
Dear Ms. Crocker:
Water & Land Solutions, LLC (WLS) is pleased to present the Final Baseline Monitoring Report and Final Monitoring Report
Year 1 for the Edwards -Johnson Mitigation Project to the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ)
Division of Mitigation Services (DMS). The Final Baseline Monitoring Report and the Final Monitoring Report Year 1 were
developed by addressing NCDEQ DMS's review comments.
Under this cover, we are providing the required three (3) hard copies of the Final Baseline Monitoring Report and the Final
Monitoring Report Year 1, and the required digital data for each (the .pdf copies of the entire updated reports and the
updated digital data) via CDs. We are providing our written responses to NCDEQ DMS's review comments on the Draft
Baseline Monitoring Report and Draft Monitoring Report Year 1 below. Each of the DMS review comments is copied below
in bold text, followed by the appropriate response from WLS in regular text:
Field Notes:
DMS Comment: Update posts and/or signage up to specifications in the lower wooded section. Ensure
locations are correct. WLS Response: All conservation easement boundary marking has been re -installed and/or
corrected to meet or exceed the specifications as set forth in the NCDEQ DMS "Survey Requirements for Full Delivery
Projects", Version 08/13/13, with the installation including the following:
• Posts:
■ Type: Steel U -channel.
■ Length: 8 foot total length, with posts drive -installed approximately 2 feet deep to provide an
installed height of approximately 6 feet above the ground.
■ Weight: 2lbs/ft.
■ Coating: Factory coated with dark green enamel and at least 6 inches of the top of the post painted
bright yellow.
• Signs:
■ Type: Standard NCDEQ DMS aluminum conservation easement signs supplied by Voss Signs.
■ Spacing: Signs installed at each conservation easement corner, approximately 1 foot outside of each
conservation easement corner marker. Signs installed as necessary along conservation easement
boundary lines, between conservation easement corners, such that the maximum sign spacing
interval is 200 feet.
• Post attachment: 3/8" aluminum drive rivets.
DMS Comment: If desired for future reports, extend XS -7 further across the headwater valley to capture
potential future stream movement. Update cross section to reflect this in MYO and baseline if desired. WLS
Response: WLS will plan to extend the horizontal limits of Cross Section 7 at Reach R3 Lower, as suggested, during
Monitoring Year 2 to more completely span the headwater stream valley for monitoring potential stream dimension
adjustments.
DMS Comment: GPS wetland reference gauge and locate in proper location on CCPV and provide updated
shapefile. WLS Response: WLS has field located the wetland reference gauge as shown on the updated CCPV map. We
have included the wetland gauge location with the GIS shapefiles in the correct projections.
DMS Comment: Crest gauge shown in field is not shown on CCPV. Capture this shape and add to CCPV and
provide shapefile. WLS Response: WLS has field located the crest gauge as shown on the updated CCPV map. We
have included the crest gauge location with the GIS shapefiles in the correct projections.

Electronic Deliverables:
• DMS Comment: DMS does not need Adobe files of any tables or graphs because they are available in the report
in that format. Remove from deliverable submittals. Raw files are required. WLS Response: WLS will removed
Adobe pdf files from future deliverable submittals as requested.
• DMS Comment: Hydro folder in support file appears to be from another project. Update. WLS Response: The
correct data had been added to the Hydro Folder as requested.
• DMS Comment: Provide the wetland reference gauge, crest gauge from MYO; provide encroachment shapefile,
vegetative areas of concern for MY1. WLS Response: WLS has included referenced features with the GIS shapefiles
in the correct projections as shown on CCPV.
• DMS Comment: Provide a shapefile of the stream asset that matches the asset table (from Mitigation Plan
shapes). This asset file should match the linear feet of credit in the original asset table and be broken out and
attributed (in the attribute table) by stream reach just like the Table 1. WLS Response: WLS has corrected the
shapefile and verified the stream lengths match the assets presented in Table 1.
• DMS Comment: The As -built center line does not match the as -built table (Table 1). Update shapefile to cut
out any asset outside the easement and attribute each feature to match Table 1 in the attribute table. WLS
Response: WLS has corrected the shapefile and verified the stream lengths match the assets presented in Table 1.
• DMS Comment: As a note, once DMS receives and approves GIS data for asset and monitoring features, the only
shapes that will be required in future submissions are vegetative areas of concern. WLS Response: WLS
appreciates the clarification and will make sure to provide the correct GIS data as required for the future submissions.
As -Built Report:
1. DMS Comment: Add the DWR number on the cover page (DWR 2016-0404). WLS Response: The NCDEQ DWR
Project Number (NCDEQ DWR Project # 2016-0404) has been added as requested to the cover page for the As -built
Baseline Monitoring Report and Monitoring Report Year 1 where previously missing.
2. DMS Comment: Page 1 and 2, WLS lists 3,781 linear feet of stream, but the numbers in the tables don't add up
to that. Where is that number from? Please correct and update. WLS Response: WLS has corrected and verified
the stream lengths match the assets presented in Table 1.
3. DMS Comment: Page 1 and 2, the LWP goals and site-specific goals are duplicated on these pages. Remove the
sets in the Project Objective and just keep in the Mitigation Objective section. WLS Response: The referenced
language regarding LWP goals and site specific goals have been removed from Section 1 Project Summary as requested.
4. DMS Comment: Page 3, the Objectives and Performance standards listed in this bullet list do not match the
Mitigation Plan. See page 2S and S2 of your Mitigation Plan. Why is WLS proposing to add items to document
project success? You can use these same tables from Mitigation Plan in all your future reports to avoid
confusion if desired. WLS Response: Sub -section 2.2 Mitigation Project Goals and Objectives and Section 4
Performance Standards have been revised as requested to match those in the approved final mitigation plan, including
the addition of the referenced tables from the approved final mitigation plan.
S. DMS Comment: Page 2, 2.3 this first paragraph contains dates that don't match the dates on the Table 2.
Update table and/or section to reflect accurate dates that match. WLS Response: All references to dates in each
of the As -built Baseline Monitoring Reports and Monitoring Reports Year 1 and in Table 2, have been checked and
edited/corrected as necessary for consistency, as requested.
6. DMS Comment: Page 2, 2.3, paragraph 2, please remove first two sentences and reference to WLS contract as
this is not relevant to report and does not match asset table in Mitigation Plan or As -built, nor does it reflect
project assets. WLS Response: The referenced sentences have been removed from the Sub -section 2.3 Project
History, Contacts, and Timeframe as requested.
7. DMS Comment: Page 11, 6.1, the dates in this first paragraph don't match the dates on Table 2. Update table
and/or section to reflect accurate dates that match. WLS Response: All references to dates in each of the As -built
Baseline Monitoring Reports and Monitoring Reports Year 1 and in Table 2, have been checked and edited/corrected
as necessary for consistency, as requested.
B. DMS Comment: Page 11, 6.3.1.1, Does WLS want to indicate this field change decision was discussed via phone
with Andrea Hughes or the update to a wider easement because of decision? OK as is, just thought it might be
good for record if desired. WLS Response: WLS edited the referenced language Sub -section 6.3.1.1 Stream
Horizontal Pattern & Longitudinal Profile, as suggested, to read as follows: "During project construction, the alignment
of the lower end of R3 and the corresponding conservation easement boundaries were revised slightly from what was
proposed to in the approved final mitigation plan. This section of R3 was restored by re -diverting the reach flow to
the historic abandoned multi -thread channel (approximate stations 33+07.35 to 37+43.92), rather than constructing
the new single thread alignment proposed in the approved final mitigation plan. This field adjustment restored a more
natural diffuse flow pattern within the topographic low -point of the valley while minimizing disturbance to existing
jurisdictional wetlands and native species vegetation in this area. The described field adjustment was discussed by
phone with and approve by Andrea Hughes (USACE, NCIRT) in early May 2018 immediately prior to implementation.
See appendices for as -built plans."

9. DMS Comment: Table 1. If you are using Mitigation Plan numbers for the assets on this project, update total
Stream Linear feet to match that (2,949 instead of 2,934). WLS Response: WLS has corrected and verified the
stream lengths match the assets presented in Table 1.
10. DMS Comment: Add a footnote below Table 1 indicating that you will use Mitigation Plan numbers for project
assets. WLS Response: The following footnote has been added to Table 1 as suggested: "Mitigation Credits are from
the final approved mitigation plan, as verified by the as -built survey."
11. DMS Comment: Page 12, Vegetation section and Revegetation Plan in As -Built drawings: Please indicate the
area that was planted (how much area planted and where on map) and if there were any changes from the
planting plan. This should be where you show any substitutions. For instance, 'winterberry' was not on
planting plan but in Table 6 as planted, and the vegetation plots are only showing 9 of the proposed 19 plants
proposed. Use a red line if they were not all used and add any substitutions. This will be helpful with
volunteers (of the same planted species) if you need to meet success with them in the future. Can add a table
if this would be helpful. WLS Response: WLS Response: The Revegetation Plan Sheets in the as -built plan set depict
the as -built planted areas correctly, as depicted with the planting zone hatching, as shown in the planting zone legend
on each sheet. The planting schedule on the Revegetation Plans has been "redlined", as requested, to reflect the
referenced plant substitutions (a total of 1 species deletion and 3 species substitutions).
12. DMS Comment: Morphological Table R3 (Upper), it appears you may have the max and min of the dimensions
parameters switched (max showing min and vis versa). Double check this is correct. WLS Response: WLS has
corrected the stream dimensions min/max in the morphological tables.
MY1 Report:
1. DMS Comment: See comments 1-7,9, and 10 from MYO report above and update MY1 with same. WLS Response:
The referenced DMS comments listed and addressed herein, along with the corresponding edits, corrections, and
additions made to the As -built Baseline Monitoring Reports, have also been addressed and made, respectively, as
appropriate, to the Monitoring Reports Year 1 Reports as requested.
2. DMS Comment: Page 1, last paragraph: first paragraph contains dates that don't match the dates on the Table
2. Update table and/or section to reflect accurate dates that match. WLS Response: All references to dates in
each of the As -built Baseline Monitoring Reports and Monitoring Reports Year 1 and in Table 2, have been checked and
edited/corrected as necessary for consistency, as requested.
3. DMS Comment: Page 7, Bankfull events, please reference Table 8 for verification of bankfull events. Also, you
state that there were 2 events but only one is showing in the table. Table 8 in the notes sections should contain
notes (Example: how much rain occurred that date, what elevation was the crest gauge showing). Update and
clarify. WLS Response: The requested reference to Table 8 has been added to Sub -section 5.1 Stream Hydrology, as
requested, and the sub -section has been edited for clarification as follows: "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 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.
Because the crest gage was installed after the submission of the Draft As -built Baseline Monitoring Reports and Draft
Monitoring Reports Year 1, only the described photographic measures will be used for Year 1 stream hydrologic
monitoring. At least one bankfull events occurred during MY1. This event was documented using the described
photography (Table 8). The documented occurrence of this flow event satisfies the requirement of the occurrence of
one of the two bankfull events (overbank flows) and the one of the two "geomorphically significant" flow events
(Qgs=0.66Q2) within the monitoring period, along with floodplain access by flood flows."
4. DMS Comment: Page 7, jurisdictional stream flow, you can't state in a report that the site meets success criteria
for flow when your monitoring device was not functioning. This was stated on Page 1 and Page 6. Revise report
to state that this success criteria is not met or unknown for flow. WLS Response: WLS has removed the two noted
references to meeting the jurisdictional stream flow success criteria (due to flow gage malfunction), and the following
sentence has been added to the end of Sub -section 5.4 Jurisdictional Stream Flow Documentation for clarification:
"WLS did observe stream flow along Reach R4, as well as along all of other project reaches, during each pre- and post -
construction site visit in 2018, with WLS staff visiting the site on a monthly basis. These observations correspond do
the monitoring flow gage documentation results at the nearby Lake Wendell and Pen Dell Mitigation Project Sites."
5. DMS Comment: Page 8, first paragraph states that there were no negative changes to vegetation with visual
assessment but then goes on to describe some negative changes. Suggest removing this sentence as it is
misleading. WLS Response: The referenced sentence in Sub -section 5.5 Vegetation was revised as requested to read
as follows: "The results of the visual assessment did not indicate any significant negative changes to the existing
vegetation community.".
6. DMS Comment: Page 8, wetland gauge: the installation and monitoring of this device was agreed to by WLS
and DWR, although DMS advised WLS that they were not contractually required. WLS documented
understanding of installing 2 gauges on this project in their comment responses to the IRT. Can WLS provide
email or correspondence from DWR / IRT showing that a lesser number of gauges were accepted for inclusion

in the MYO and/or MY1 report? WLS Response: WLS has revised the referenced Wetlands Subsection of the As -built
Baseline Monitoring Report and Monitoring Report Year 1 to explain that the two requested and agreed upon
groundwater monitoring wells have been installed, as follows: "One groundwater monitoring well was installed during
the baseline monitoring within an existing wetland area along Reach R3. The well data was unrecoverable and
therefore an additional groundwater monitoring well was installed along Reach R3 (preservation) after the first year
of monitoring, in early January 2019. The wells were installed to document groundwater levels within the stream and
wetland restoration for reference and comparison to the preservation areas, at the request of the NCIRT (DWR)."
7. DMS Comment: Table 6, There are more species showing as planted on this table between MYO and MY1. What
is going on? Any mis-identification should be footnoted at bottom of table for clarification. Why is Red Maple
shown as planted? QA/QC both of these tables. WLS Response: For Monitoring Year 0/Baseline, the referenced
table is "Table 6., Planted Stem Counts", and for Monitoring Year 1, the referenced table is "Table 6., Planted and Total
Stem Counts". As such, the differences in the species types and numbers reported in the referenced tables between
Monitoring Year 0/Baseline and for Monitoring Year 1 reflects stem mortality and volunteer stem recruitment. WLS
does not believe that there are any species mis-identification. Red maple was planted as proposed in the final approved
mitigation plans.
8. DMS Comment: Geomorph data: XS -6 (pool) is showing signs of aggrading, but this is not discussed in the
verbiage for this report. Do you have any concerns or feel that it is necessary to mention this in the report
along with an explanation as to why this is not a big deal? WLS Response: WLS is not concerned about the
adjustments to the referenced pool cross section, as it appears to be a minor channel adjustment towards the expected
and desired stream dimension and stability. WLS used the new method for calculating adjusted BHRs. The adjusted
bankfull elevation using the comparable as -built cross-sectional is approximately two tenths and therefore the BHR
would be —0.87 (<1). The morph table parameters have been updated to reflect this change.
9. DMS Comment: Tables after 7c. are not filled out with MY1 data. Update report. WLS Response: WLS is not
sure what the issue is with the "worksheets" following Table 7C in the version of the
EJ_97080_MY1_Annual_Rep_Tables.xls file DMS received, as the original WLS file has all of the appropriate data filled
in and presented on the referenced "worksheets". Please use re -submitted version of the referenced file.
10. DMS Comment: Groundwater gauge data: is this a malfunction or purposeful omission? WLS Response: The
groundwater monitoring gage was not installed correctly by WLS and therefore no data was collected for Monitoring
Year 1. WLS has resolved this issue and groundwater monitoring will be conducted for all subsequent monitoring
years.
Other Comments:
DMS Comment: There is a lot of repetition of verbiage from the mitigation plan, which is good but cumbersome.
Much of the written information could be made into bullets or tables for a faster update of future reports and
ease of reading in terms of monitoring success. This may be a suggestion for future reports? (Example you
have a table in the Mitigation Plan that could replace all of Sections 4 (Table 22 in mitigation plan) and the
'Functional Uplift' column could be replaced with Monitoring Success where you indicate the number of
monitoring features and their success results in lieu of verbiage. No response required here. WLS Response:
WLS will definitely take these recommendations into consideration for future reports and we sincerely appreciate the
guidance.
Please contact me if you have any further questions or comments.
Sincerely,
Water & Land Solutions, LLC
William "Scott" Hunt, III, PE
Vice President of Technical Operations
7721 Six Forks Road, Suite 130
Raleigh, NC 27615
Office Phone: [phone]
Mobile Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]