20090688 Ver 1_Year 1 Monitoring Report_20140808

ILOQ
0q o6V
CHARLES WILLIAMS STREAM, WETLAND, AND BUFFER SITE
EEP Project No. 80
MONITORING YEAR 1 (2014)
Construction Completed February 2013
Planting Completed February 2014
Alamance County, NC
State Construction Project No. 07- 07125 -01A
RECEIVED
JUN 5 2014
NC ECOSYSTEM
ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
Prepared for the
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652
EE
L5 !,S lJ
V
F�A!l 8 2G14i]UALITY raoawur
FINAL REPORT June 2014

Prepared by:
�ENGO[NOEEIRING
1151 SE Cary Parkway, Suite 101
Cary, NC 27518
919.557.0929
www.ecologicaleng.com
G. Lane Sauls, Jr., Principal
Under Contract With:
SUNGATE
DESIGN GROUP
This assessment and report are consistent with NCDENR Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Template Version 1.4 (11/07/11) for EEP Monitoring Reports.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY /PROJECT ABSTRACT ...................................... ............................... 1
1.1 Goals and Objectives ............................................................................ ............................... 1
1.2 Background Summary .......................................................................... ............................... 1
1.3 Vegetation Condition and Comparison to Success Criteria ................. ............................... 2
1.4 Stream Stability /Condition and Comparison to Success Criteria ......... ............................... 3
1.5 Wetland Conditions and Performance Relative to Success Criteria .... ............................... 3
1.6 Other Information ................................................................................ ............................... 3
2.0 METHODOLOGY ............................................................................... ............................... 4
3.0 REFERENCES ..................................................................................... ...................I........... S
APPENDIX A. Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3. Project Contact Table
Table 4. Project Baseline Information and Attributes
APPENDIX B. Visual Assessment Data
Figure 2. Mitigation Components
Figure 3. Current Condition Plan View (CCPV)
Table 5. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Photograph Comparisons
APPENDIX C. Vegetation Plot Data
Planting List Summary
Table 7. Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary Table
Table 8. CVS Vegetation Metadata Table
Table 9. CVS Stem Count Total and Planted by Plot and Species
APPENDIX D. Stream Survey Data
Cross Section Plot Exhibits
Longitudinal Profile Plot Exhibit
Cross Section Pebble Count Exhibits
Table 10. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 11. Monitoring Data
APPENDIX E. Hydrology Data
Table 12. Verification of Bankfull Events
2013 -2014 Precipitation Data Chart

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY/ PROJECT ABSTRACT
The Charles Williams Stream, Wetland and Buffer Site, hereinafter referred to as the "Project Site" or "Site," is
located in Randolph County, North Carolina, within US Geological Survey (USGS) 8 -digit Hydrologic Unit Code
(HUC) 03030003 and NC Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) sub -basin 03 -06 -09 of the Cape Fear River Basin
(Figure 1). The project involved the restoration and /or enhancement of 1,850 linear feet of an unnamed
tributary (UT) to Sandy Creek, 2.2 acres of wetlands and 8.8 acres of riparian buffer. The Site is protected for
perpetuity under a conservation easement purchased from Mr. Charles Williams in 2006. Project restoration
components, activity and reporting history, contacts and attribute data are all provided in Appendix A.
1.1 Goals and Objectives
The Project's goals were to:
• reduce nutrient and sediment water quality stressors;
• provide for uplift in water quality functions;
• improve instream and wetland aquatic habitats, including riparian terrestrial habitats; and,
• provide for greater overall instream and wetland habitat complexity and quality.
Stream enhancement, the primary component, served as the dominant input for achieving this goal.
No restoration goals were identified in the Cape Fear River Basinwide Management Plan (NCDWQ, 2005) with
regard to the Sandy Creek watershed. There were no sources or stressors listed for the watershed area
associated with the Project Site. The NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR)
Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) develops River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP) to guide its
restoration activities within each of the state's 54 cataloging units. RBRPs delineate specific watersheds that
exhibit both the need and opportunity for wetland, stream and riparian buffer restoration. These watersheds
are called Targeted Local Watersheds (TLWs) and receive priority for EEP planning and restoration project
funds. The 2009 Draft Cape Fear River RBRP identified HUC 03030003020010, which includes the Project Site,
as a Targeted Local Watershed. The following information is taken directly from the RBRP. "...This is a largely
rural HU. The main stream, Sandy Creek, flows through Randolph County to Sandy Creek Reservoir, a drinking
water supply for Ramseur and Franklinville. As of 2006, the HU had no streams on DWQ's list of impaired
waters, however, the reservoir shows indications of high nutrient levels, likely related to the large number of
animal operations in the HU. The HU is a Water Supply Watershed and a long portion of Sandy Creek is
recognized by the State's Natural Heritage Program as a Significant Natural Heritage Area. EEP has been active
in the HU with five projects that include components of preserving wetlands (3 acres) and streams (5,100
linear feet) and restoring wetlands (15 acres) and streams (15,000 linear feet). Piedmont Land Conservancy has
also been active in protecting streamside buffers in the HU. Continued implementation of practices to reduce
nutrient inputs to Sandy Creek Reservoir is recommended for this HU."
1.2 Background Summary
The Project Site is situated in northeastern Randolph County, approximately four miles west of Liberty and six
miles north of Ramseur (Figure 1). It is bordered to the north and west by undeveloped land, the east by
Ramseur - Julian Road and the south by Sandy Creek. Northeastern Randolph Middle School is on the property
Monitoring Report Year 1 (2014) Page 1
Charles Williams Stream, Wetland, and Buffer Site, Randolph County
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP June 2014

opposite of Sandy Creek, to the south. The Project Site can be accessed by using the following directions from
US Highway 64.
• Turn north on US 421 in Siler City, towards the Town of Liberty.
• Proceed approximately 9.5 miles and turn south (left) onto NC 49.
• Proceed approximately 0.7 miles along NC 49 and turn north (right) onto SR 2459 (Sandy Creek
Church Road).
• Follow Sandy Creek Church Road approximately 4.5 miles until it intersects with SR 2442
(Ramseur- Julian Road) and turn north (right),
• Follow Ramseur - Julian Road approximately 0.3 miles, crossing over Sandy Creek. The Charles
Williams Site is on the west (left) side of the roadway, immediately north of Sandy Creek.
Situated in the Piedmont physiographic province and the Cape Fear River Basin, the Project Site encompasses
18 acres of former pasture and existing riparian forest. Elevations across the Site range between approximately
550 and 560 feet above Mean Sea Level. The following chart depicts pre - implementation existing condition
information regarding the Site.
Pre - Implementation Existing Conditions Summ
Physiographic Province
Piedmont
County
Randolph
River Basin Name
Cape Fear
Property Owner Name
Charles Williams
USGS 8 -digit HUC
03030003
USGS 14 -digit HUC
03030002020010
Stream $01 Name
UT to Sandy Creek
NCDWQ Subbasin
03 -06 -09
Drainage Area
4.9 sq. mi.
Underlying Mapped Soil(s)
Chewacla loam
NCDWQ Score
(Perennial)
Drainage Class
Somewhat poorly drained
Rosgen Classification
C5
Hydric Status
B
Slope
0-2%
Available Water Capacity
Moderate to High
FEMA Classification
Zone AE
Exotic Vegetation Observed Multiflora rose (Rosa multifloro)
Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense)
1.3 Vegetation Condition and Comparison to Success Criteria
Vegetation success criteria is consistent with the US Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington Regulatory District's
guidance for stream and wetland mitigation and the NCDENR's guidance for riparian buffer credit. The USACE
guidance documents the survival of a minimum of 320 planted woody stems /acre after Monitoring Year 3
(MY3). A mortality rate of 10% will be allowed after MY4 assessments (288 stems /acre) and correspondingly,
MY5 assessments (260 stems /acre). The NCDENR guidance documents successful riparian buffer credit if at
least 320 native, planted, hardwood stems /acre (trees only) are surviving at the end of the MY 5.
Vegetation is currently being assessed using plot layouts consistent with the EEP /Carolina Vegetation Survey
(CVS) Level II Vegetation Protocol. Stem count data is ascertained from 12 permanently placed 10- meter 2
vegetation plots (Figure 2). Assessments included counts of both planted and natural stems. Due to the timing
of vegetation surveys, planted hardwood species that were unknown due to age, lack of bark formation,
wildlife browsing of buds, etc. were included in the stem counts. These species will be identified during MY2
monitoring activities. Based on the current monitoring effort, seven of eight vegetation plots met the
minimum success criteria established for MY3 stream /wetland mitigation criteria and 10 of 12 plots met the
Monitoring Report Year 1 (2014) Page 2
Charles Williams Stream, Wetland, and Buffer Site, Randolph County
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP June 2014

T T 1
criteria for riparian buffer credit. Appendices B and C depict more detailed information regarding the
vegetation condition, Including annual photograph comparisons
Due to °the random placement of vegetation plots, only one, of the, eight plots "associated with stream /wetland
credit is currently placed within the wetland enhancement area. The remaining seven plots are situated in non -
wetland areas; however, based on current site conditions, three plots (Vegetation Plots #3, #7, and #8) may
likely'be in wetland areas by MY4 assessments. The locations of the current plots will be reassessed during
MY4 activities
1:4 Stream Stability /Condition and' Comparison to Success Criteria
Enhancement (Level 1) of the UT utilized natural channel design methodologies consistent with Priority Level IV
stream restoration protocols. These protocols specifically Include the ,stabilization of the existing channel in
place. A minimum of two bankfull events must be documented within the standard five -year monitoring
period. In order for the hydrology -based monitoring to, be considered complete, the two events, must occur in
separate monitoring years
Bankfull events were recorded during November 2013 and March 2014. Evidence of these events consisted of
wrack material above the bankfull Indicators along the channel and cork shavings within the crest gage present
at approximately 36 and 30 Inches, respectively. Annual photograph comparisons of the stream channel are
,depicted In Appendix B and hydrologic data associated with this year's monitoring assessment is provided in
Appendix E.
1.5 Wetland Conditions and Performance Relative to Success Criteria
Wetland enhancement work was performed throughout the existing wetland areas. These wetlands were
severely degraded as a result of continuous soil compaction and grazing from livestock. The enhancement
work Included livestock removal via exclusion fencing and supplemental plantings Benefits Include water
quality Improvement by trapping nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorous, toxic substances and disease -
causing microorganisms Wetlands also slow and Intercept surface runoff, protect stream banks from erosion,
protect upland areas from flooding, as well as, provide valuable habitat for wildlife.
1.6 Other Information
Summary Information /data related to the occurrence of items such as beaver or encroachment and statistics
related to performance of various project and monitoring elements can be found in the tables and figures in
the report appendices Narrative background and supporting information formerly found in these reports can
be found in the Baseline Monitoring Report (formerly Mitigation Plan) and in the Mitigation Plan (formerly the
Restoration Plan) documents available on EEP's website. All raw data supporting the tables and figures in the
appendices is available from EEP upon request.
Boundary signage,along the conservation easement area Is limited and does not currently meet EEP,guidelines.
Monitoring Report Year 1 (2014)
Charles,Wi Ilia ms Stream, Wetland, and BufferSite, Randolph County
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP
Page 3
June 2014

2.0 METHODOLOGY
This monitoring report follows methodology consistent with EEP's Procedural Guidance and Content
Requirements for EEP Monitoring Reports (Version 1.4, dated 11/07/11), available at EEP's website
(http://www.nceep.net).
All surveys were performed via total station and survey grade Global Positioning System (GPS). Each survey
point has three - dimensional coordinates and is geo- referenced. Longitudinal profile station was developed
based on the design stationing and follows the UT from the northern to the southern property boundary
(upstream to downstream) as depicted on the survey plat.
Particle size distribution protocols followed the Wolman Pebble Count Procedure, which requires an observer
with a metric ruler measure particles based on their intermediate axis. This information is correlated into a
graph depicting a particle size analysis of the cross section.
Vegetation assessments were conducted using the CVS -EEP protocol (Version 4.2). As part of this protocol,
vegetation is assessed using 100- meter 2 plots, or modules. The scientific method requires that measurements
be as unbiased as possible, and that they be repeatable. Plots are designed to achieve both of these objectives;
in particular, different people should be able to inventory the same plot and produce similar data (Lee et. al.,
2006).
According to Lee et. al. (2006), there are many different goals in recording vegetation, and both time and
resources for collecting plot data are extremely variable. To provide appropriate flexibility in project design,
the CVS -EEP protocol supports five distinct types of vegetation plot records, which are referred to as levels in
recognition of the increasing level of detail and complexity across the sequence. The lower levels require less
detail and fewer types of information about both vegetation and environment, and thus are generally sampled
with less time and effort (Lee et. al., 2006). Level 1 (Planted Stem Inventory Plots) and Level 2 (Total Woody
Stem Inventory Plots) inventories were completed on all 12 of the vegetation plots at the Project Site.
A crest gage was installed near the downstream end of the Site along the UT. This gage will verify the on -site
occurrences of bankfull events. In addition to the crest gage, observations of wrack and deposition will also
serve to validate gage observations, as necessary. Documentation of the highest stage during the monitoring
interval will be assessed during each Site visit and the gage will be reset. The data related to bankfull
verification will be summarized in each year's report. Based on the elevation of the crest gage, any readings
observed higher than 22 inches on the gage will reflect a bankfull or above bankfull event.
Monitoring Report Year 1 (2014) Page 4
Charles Williams Stream, Wetland, and Buffer Site, Randolph County
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP June 2014

3.0 REFERENCES
Lee, Michael T., R.K. Peet, S.D. Roberts and T.R. Wentworth, 2006. CVS -EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation,
Version 4.0 (http://cvs.bio.unc.edu/methods.htm).
NCDENR Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) , 2005. Cape Fear River Basinwide Management Plan. Available at:
http:Z/portal.ncdenr.org/web/`wq/ps/bpu/basin/capefear.
NCDENR Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 2013. Charles Williams Stream, Wetland, and Buffer Site Baseline
Monitoring Document and As -built Baseline Report. Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP.
NC State Climate Office, 2014. Daily Precipitation Data from Siler City Airport (SILR), Chatham County (vvw v.nc
climate.ncsu.edu).
US Army Corps of Engineers, US Environmental Protection Agency, NC Wildlife Resources Commission and NC
Department of Environment Division of Water Quality, 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines.
Monitoring Report Year 1 (2014)
Charles Williams Stream, Wetland, and Buffer Site, Randolph County
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP
Page 5
June 2014

APPENDIX A.
Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables

TI, wbtecr wole i1WI[a^welrpnmenlal reaw Wan YhddwM1mlNR ECOry{Um Nhrrcement ervem e ft --� N
ffall,nd lcwapmPnudl,y'ar+cortl+d convrvWcn N [ +m+^r.Wlr barewM 4taro anew Prnaln l �' _
m+:Mp. Accetslnpt ine marrep[ +e trmnK a.ea: nen ar alonaere wana.x nou qa.d
a e,erarare aaceu by P g —al "Hc l: na, pl mMd. AcM bya.0 -Iiecl pw:ennd of -.We and rodaral
aRndesw wAdetlpen /eancawj Imvhed In Ow development wmiCtA and %g ardship at the - �._.. •+ _ °� W E
rnror,eon vte it pwnia aE wal`ne+e seems andemArwnr, NrMi defined rrYev 4,yeer.Wdsib !,
riu,Wanw wtray br„ry pwaan autLde eR,e PreylanlY f,nc,lon rWetwN,rliNlea repairer prior f ell fief � 'i ✓� �.,>�L ;� �.
coo.Mnaaw. +nlh [[I u
�dCWq iSti S
i
y 1 - 0 1,000
2,000 N F
ee e t
'Its
Conseation Easement �
/
^± .✓ ` �w.t. a��t SWW V Creek Church Road
- Ere I : � _-�'`� •_.� � t
., - roc' (:fit
-- "t � lam• �'�h �- � -LojL
GUILFORD
.x,
ALAMANCE.jY
CNNsrvaler.e lN.an / ` - .
sretmeeneauer aa. - -
Diraeiona
The Hgect Ste can be aooessed by uvng fie following 6mclms Yom US Highway 64
Ttm rarlh on US 421 in Sian City, towards the low of Ub6m
Proceed pproxornalety 9 5 mks end ern souls (ish) orno NC 49
Proceed apprownstely 0 7 miles don9 NO 4e and urn nalt (ngN)
C11♦AM mro SR 2459 (Sally Creek Cluch Road).
_ Fallow Sandy Creek Chwch Road appfG7umetely 4 5 mitt
RANDOLPH 1 ndl h use•. sects wkh SR 2442 (Ramsow Agian Road) sell tun noM (rigN),
Follow Rsms*wJJkn Road ppro7dmatsly 0 3 mica, rrWaYg over Sandy Creek
I _ - The Che.lea NA e— Site is m he veto, gab) idn of to roadway, i mnWelaly rtdls d Ssr* Creel,
PrapandDy. ECOLOGICAL ENGINEERING Charles Williams Site
1161 Sr. Cary Parkway, Suite 101
Coey,NC27518 &Wtk Vicinity Map
919-657-0929 Randolph County, NC FIGURE
Prepared For: NCEEP EEP Contract No. D08035S 1
217 West Jones St.
Suite 3MA �r71 July 2013
Raleigh, NC 27603 Sourco: USGS Quadrangle Maps (Grays Cha l)

I.
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Charles Williams Stream, Wetland and Buffer Site / 80
Mitigation
Nitrogen Phosphorus
Stream Riparian Wetland Non - riparian wetland Buffer Nutrient Nutrient
Offset offset
Type R
RE R
RE R RE
Totals
1.233 1
1.1
336430
Project Components
Restoration or
Restoration
Mitigation
Project Component
Stationing/Location
Existing Footage/ Acreage Approach
Restoration
Footage or
Ratio
E uivalent
Acreage
Stream Enhancement
10+00 to 27 +53
1,850 linear feet
El
RE
1,233
1.5 1
Riparian Wetland
areas east and west of U T
2.2 acres
E
RE
1.1
2 1
Enhancement
toy andy Creek
Buffer Restoration
Sandy Creek and UT to
201,481 square feet
R
R
201,481
1 1
TOB - 50'
Sandy Creek
Buffer Restoration (50'
Sandy Creek and UT to
119,203 square feet
R
R
119,203
1 : 1
100 )
Sandy Creek
Buffer Restoration (101'
S andy C reek and U T to
63,704 square feet
R R
15,926
4:1
200')
S andy Creek
Component
Buffer (square
Restoration Level
Stream (linear feet)
Riparian Wetland (acres)
Non - riparian Wetland (acres)
Upland (acres)
feet)
Riverine Non- riverme
Restoration
384.208
Enhancement
2.2
Enhancement 1
1,850
Enhancement II
Creation
Preservation
HQ Preservation
BMP Elements
Element
Location
Purpose/Function
Notes
BMP Elements
BR = Bioretention Cell; SF = Sand Filter; SW = Stormwater Wetland; WDP = Wet Detention Pond; DDP = Dry Dentention Pond; FS = Filter Strip; S =
Grassed Swale; LS = Level Spreader; NI = Natural Infiltration Area; FB = Forested Buffer.

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Charles Williams Stream Wetland and Buffer Site/ 80
Charles Williams Stream Wetland and Buffer Site 180
Elapsed Time Since Grading Complete (Feb 2013): 1 year, 1 month
Elapsed Time Since Planting Complete (Feb 2014): 1 month
Number of Reporting Years: 1
Activity or Report Data Collection Complete
Mifi ation Plan September-08
Completion or Delivery
May-09
Final Design - Construction Plans
November -09
Jenny S. Fleming, PE
April -12
Construction
Firm Information/ Address
Riverworks, Inc.
February-13
Temporary S &E Mix Applied to Entire Project Area
(919) 459 -9001
Hauling Contractor
January-13
Permanent Seed Mix Applied to Entire Project Area
5434 Amick Road, Julian, NC 27283
January-13
Live Stake Plantings Applied
Firm Information/ Address
Carolina Sitvics, Inc. (bare -rooted & containerized)
January-13
Bare- rooted Planting Applied
[phone]
Riverworks, Inc. (livestakes only)
February-14
Baseline Monitoring Document
June -13
Seeding Contractor
July -13
Year 1 Monitoring
rJarch 14
Kenneth L. Strader
May -14
Year 2 Monitoring
Green Resource, LLC (336) 855&363
Nursery Stock Suppliers give stakes only)
Native Roots N ursery (910) 3858385
Year 3 Monitoring
NC Forest Service Tree Nursery (919) 731 -7988
Foggy Mo unlain Nursery (336) 3845323
Year 4 Monitoring
Mellow Marsh Farm (919) 742 -1200
Monitoring Performer
Firm Information/ Address
Year 5 Monitoring
1151 SE Cary Parkway, Suite 101, Cary, NC 27518
Lane Sauls (stream, vegetation & wetland)
[phone]
Year 6 Monitoring (vegetation only)
Table 3. Project Contact Table
Charles Williams Stream Wetland and Buffer Site 180
Designer
Firm Information/ Address
Ecological Engineering, L1P
1151 SE Cary Parkway, Suite 101, Cary, NC 27518
Jenny S. Fleming, PE
[phone]
Construction Contractor
Firm Information/ Address
Riverworks, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 800, Cary, NC 27518
Bill Wright
(919) 459 -9001
Hauling Contractor
Firm Information/ Address
Stadler Fencing, Inc.
5434 Amick Road, Julian, NC 27283
(336) 697 -7005
Planting Contractor(s)
Firm Information/ Address
Carolina Sitvics, Inc. (bare -rooted & containerized)
908 Indian Trail Road, Edenton, NC 27932
Mary- Margaret S. McKinney, RF, PWS
[phone]
Riverworks, Inc. (livestakes only)
8000 Regency Parkway, Suife800, Cary, NC 27518
George Moms
(919) 459 -9001
Seeding Contractor
Firm Information/ Address
Strader Fencing, Inc.
5434 Amick Road, Julian, NC 27283
Kenneth L. Strader
[phone]
Seed Mix Sources
Green Resource, LLC (336) 855&363
Nursery Stock Suppliers give stakes only)
Native Roots N ursery (910) 3858385
NC Forest Service Tree Nursery (919) 731 -7988
Foggy Mo unlain Nursery (336) 3845323
Mellow Marsh Farm (919) 742 -1200
Monitoring Performer
Firm Information/ Address
Ecological Engineering, LLP
1151 SE Cary Parkway, Suite 101, Cary, NC 27518
Lane Sauls (stream, vegetation & wetland)
[phone]

1
Table 4. Project Baseline Information and Attributes
Charles Williams Stream Wetland and Buffer Site/ 80
-•rojec -Information
Project Name
Charles Williams Streann Wefland and Buffer Site
County
Randolph
Project Area
- 18 acres
Project Coordinates (latitude'and longitude)
�,Prqjle(;�Wate shed Summary,
Physiographic Province
35 °49'31 95" North/,79 °39'02 64 "' West
fqrmation
Piedmont
River Basin
Cape Fear
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit 03030003
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14 -digit r 03030003020010
DWQ Subbasm
03-06.09
Project Drainage Area
4 9 sq mi
Probed Drama eArea Percentage of Impervious Area
5 to 6%
CGIA Land Use Classification
Reach Summaty.Informatibn
Length of Reach
Agnculhiral Land
1,753 linear feet
Valley Classification
Valley Type VIII
DrainageArea
4 9,sq mi
NCDWQ Stream ID Score
'50
NCDWQ,Water'Quality Classification
WS -III
Morphological Descripb on, (stream type)
C5
Evolutionary Trend
C- G -F -E-C
Underlying Mapped'Sods
Chew acla loam
Drainage Classification
Poody drained
Sod Hydric Status
Hydnc B
Slope
O to 2%
FEMA Classification
Zone AE
Native Vegetation Community
Piedmont Alluvial Forest
Percent Composition of Exotic InvasiveSpecies
Less than 5%
Weiland
1 96,acres
and Type
Rivenne
rof
ped Soil Series
Chewacla loam
inage Classification
Somewhat poody,draned
Hydnc Status
Hydnc B
Source of Hydrology
Overbank flooding,
Hydrologic Im airment
Rone
Native Vegetation Community
Piedmont Alluvial Forest
Percent, Composition of Exotic Invasive Species
Less than 5%
-Regulatory,.Considerations
Waters of the United States —Section '404
Resolved
Waters of the United States - SectionA01
Resolved
Endangered Species Act
Resolved
Historic Preservation Act
Resolved
Coastal Zone/Area Management Acts (CZMAICAMA)
N of Applicable
FEMA,FIood lain Compliance
Resolved
Essential Fisheries Habitat
Not Applicable

APPENDIX B.
Visual Assessment Data

Vegetation Plot 1
485 planted stems /ac
728 total stems/ac
Vegetation Plot 2
202 planted stemslac 01110N���
890 total stems/ac
- Vegetation Plot 4
364 planted stems/ac
Vegetation Plot 3 445 total stemslac
404 planted stemslac
1,781 total stemslac
Vegetation Plot 5 °f " ' &' ' LEGEND
404 planted stemslac
404 total stemslac Conservation Easement Boundary
Cross Section
Vegetation Plot 6
607 planted stems/ac Crest Gage
607 total stems/ac
Jurisdictional Wetlands (Enhancement)
In- Stream Structures
Cross Vane (stable)
DLog Vane (stable)
Rootwad (stable)
Vegetation Plots
Vegetation Plot 7
364 planted stems/ac
� Vegetation Plot meeting 320 planted
364 total stems/ac stems/acre threshold
Vegetation Plot not meeting 320
planted stems/acre threshold x
Other
'W E
Vegetation Plot 8 Invasive Area of Concern
323 planted stemslac 'S
323 total stem Map Source: 411512 Earth
Imagery Date 4115!2013
200 feet
CURRENT CONDITIONS PLAN VIEW
ORLOGICAL Charles Williams Stream, Wetland, and Buffer Site, Randolph County, NC FIGURE 3a
INEERING EEP Project No. 80 June 3, 2014

I ►
E
o
N `y
N
� N
N �
Q � �
3
T w m
� C A
0
Q OHO m
g s 3
E
th
c
� J d
� y
N N E
j ¢ �
� z
eC
H
?I§I§121RIJIc�,II�I ? I?I *ImI - ImImIMI
o l o l o
< I� I m I m II I I a I� I m I m I M 1
Y_
U N
a �
6 15
$ c
U 2, C > > CT
a O o Cn in U Y O L N OL
e a c�
a A m vii m �' a
z _
a S 5 g
g R a _w
U ' o A
e
j a m U FE
m Uco
m w co

Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment
Charles`WiIIiams Stream, Wetland, and Buffer Site/ 80
Planted Acreage
116,acres
Vi�qetiati 'on g •
t•
cr
Bare Areas
Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous
01 acres Na
Na
Na
Na
material
Low Stem Density
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels
01 acres Na
Na
Na
Na
Areas
based on MY 3; 4, or 5,stem count criteria
Areas with woody stems of a size class that are
Total
0 25 acres Na
Na
Na
Na
Na
Na
Areas of Poor Growth
Na
Rates or Vigor
obviously smalligiven the monitoring year
Cumulative Total
Na
Na
Na
18 acres
Estimated Acreage.
p•
••
Yegetation Cate•ory
• . o • . •.
••
.,g.
., �.
Invasive Areas;oP
Areas or pants (if too small to render, as °polygons at
1 000,SF See,CCPV
3
<1 acres
<1 %
Concern
map scale)
Easement
Areas or points (if too small to render,as polygons at
1,000 SF
See CCPV
1
0 2'acres
<1%
Encroachment Areas
map scale

Charles Williams Stream, Wetland, and Buffer Site! 80
Annual Photograph Comparison
Vegetation Plot 1
Facing Southwest
Vegetation Plot
Facing Soubw
Vegetal
Facing
Vegetal
Facing
Vegetal
Facing
Baseline MYO (June 2013)
MY1 (March 2014)

Ali!

�. Ir
3
r
v
t ' � r. ,�•r Q
r
• k
1.
t
!`;��i�P
I

��
v=
�"�,
. .,,, ..
1 ,:
:�I'
x.,v,.
rc'
�:'' e.
. (-� 'k
�f �Y .
. _;�
'+
r
P �L,
. ;,;,i`.
• '��
-� - -'
�' � - r'..�,.t
v ,
r
i . _.
� � --
_
.
. _;�
'+
r
P �L,
. ;,;,i`.
• '��
-� - -'
�' � - r'..�,.t
v ,

APPENDIX C.
Vegetation Plot Data

PLANTING LIST ASCERTAINED FROM EEP
Sanely C_rPPk 1rharli -n Williamsl
Species
P
Type
YP
Riparian
(fit %
Wetland
Qt
-/.
Nurse
Nursery
Betula nigra
2 -0 BR
300
100%
100
11%
NCFS
Carya glabra
2 -0 BR
100
3%
NCFS
Carya tomentosa
2 -0 BR
200
7%
NCFS
Fraxinus pennsy/vanica
2 -0 BR
275
9%
100
11%
NCFS
Liriodendron tulipifera
2 -0 BR
400
13%
NCFS
Platanus occidentalis
2 -0 BR
225
7%
200
23%
NCFS
Quercus fa/cata var. pagodiafolia
2 -0 BR
300
10%
100
11%
NCFS
Quercus nigra
2 -0 BR
100
11%
NCFS
Quercus phellos
2 -0 BR
1 600
20%
200
23%
NCFS
Quercus rubra
2 -0 BR
300
10%
NCFS
Rmelanchier arborea
1 -gal
25
1 %
Native Roots
Carpinus caroliniana
1 -gal
85
3%
Native Roots
Chionanthus virginicus
1 -gal
64
2%
Native Roots
Diospyros virginiana
2 -0 BR
200
7%
NCFS
flex verticillata
1 -gal
37
4%
Native Roots
Magnolia virginiana
1 -gal
38
4%
Native Roots
3,074
100%
875
100%
Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Charles Williams Stream, Wetland, and Buffer Site! 80
Threshold Vegetation Plot ID Strearn/Wetland Vegetation Buffer Vegetation Survival Tiract Mean
Survival Threshold
1 Yes Yes
2 No No
3 Yes Yes
4 Yes Yes
5 Yes Yes
6 Yes Yes Stream /Wetland Veg. = 67%
7 Yes Yes Buffer Veg. = 100%
8 Yes Yes
9 n/a Yes
10 n/a Yes
11 n/a No
12 n/a Yes
N ote:
All Vegetation Plots aside from Plots #1 and #2 exhibit unidentified planted hardwood stems. These counts were
included in the MY1 assessments. Species identification will be conducted on those unknown stems during the growing
season associated with MY2 activities.

Table 8. CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Charles Williams Stream, Wetland, and Buffer Site/ 80
Report Prepared By
Lane Sauls
Date Prepared
3/17/2014 16:39
database name
SandyCreekChadesWilliams _80_RandolphCounty —Year O.mdb
P:110000 Consultants110227 Sungate110227 -017_Chades Williams Monitoring\CVS
database location
Database
computer name
LSAULSPC
file size
62709760
WORKSHEETS DESCRIPTION OF DO
Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of projects) and
Metadata
project data.
Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year. This excludes
Proj, planted
live stakes.
Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre, for each year. This includes live
Proj, total stems
stakes, all planted stems, and all natural /volunteer stems.
List of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems, dead stems, missing,
Plots
etc.).
Vigor
Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots.
Vigor by Spp
Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species
List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and percent of total
Damage
stems impacted by each.
Damage by Spp
Damage values tallied by type for each species.
Damage by Plot
Damage values tallied by ty pe for each plot.
A matrix of the count of PLAN TED living stems of each species for each plot. dead and
Planted Suns by Plot and Spp
missing stems are excluded.
A matrix of the count of total living stems of each species (planted and natural volunteers
ALL Stems by Plot and spp
combined) for each plot; dead and missing sterns are excluded.
PROJECT ,.
80
Project Code
project Name
Sandy Creek - Charles Williams
Description
Stream, Welland and Buffer
River Basin
Cape Fear
length(ft)
1,753
stream -to -edge width (ft)
5 lo 12
area (sq m)
1,302
Required Plots (calculated)
12
Sampled Plots
12

N
F
GC
Q
a
d
u
c u
V S
E °<
A
`3
�E
a �
� o �
� � s
- r
a � �
E E
its m,�
IN
UNIN1IM11111101
A1111111111111110No
mm
I
I
��111��111
11�1����mm
��11�11�111111�1���
x1111
01111111111111mm
1111111�1��
��
mm
U1111111111111imm
mm
so
w,
Himillillimillilm
mu
nillimmillimimimw
No
F
�1�111�1111�1�1��
mp
n11111111111111MM
Me
M1111111111111IN
No
M11111111111111IN
mm
���111�1�11111I
me
No
11111millilillim
mm
U1111IN1111111111
IN
Im
� o �
� � s
- r
a � �
E E
its m,�

APPENDIX D.
Stream Survey Data

Cross Section Plot Exhibits
Cape Fear
station
Elevation
12.0
552.8
UTSardy Creek, MY -01
552.7
20.3
551.7
21.7
XS 1, Rifle, STA. 14.41
23.2
551.1
24.7
ea mi �
E
4.9
551.2
28.3
551.1
29.6
2/2612014
31.4
551.6
35.2
552.3
E. Hajnos. R. Robd
553.0
61.4
553 5
66.5
554 4
552.7
II Cross Sectional Area:
225
II Width:
22.6
IIII&Wn-th Prone Area Elevation:
554.4
Prone Width:
54.5
1 6
epth at Bankfull:
1 0
S;Z T
C5 Phobgraph facing downstew @ XS 1
Ratio:
22.7
2.9
1.0
UT to Sandy Creek, Cross Section 1, Riffle, Station: 14+41
560
559
558 -
- -- -- - -
- --
- -
1 557
-
-- - - - - --
--
-__-
556
--
As -Built 2013
555 - -- -- -
-- -- - --
- - - -- - - --
...........
...... ..................................... ........... ....
-� MY1 2/26/14
554
553
����� ���
-
Baseline Bankfull Monitoring Datum
552 -
-
- --
- - --
•••••• Floodprone Area
551 - - - --
- -
550
-
0 10
20 30
40
50 60 70
Distance (feet)
0.0
554.5
12.0
552.8
16.9
552.7
20.3
551.7
21.7
551.2
23.2
551.1
24.7
551.1
26.3
551.2
28.3
551.1
29.6
551.2
31.4
551.6
35.2
552.3
47.5
553.0
61.4
553 5
66.5
554 4

River Basin:
Cape Fear
Watershed:
UTSandy Creek, MY -01
XS ID: XS 2, Glide, STA. 19+36
n e Area ( 4.9
2126/2014
E. Hapos, R. Rohl
UT to Sandy Creek, Cross Section 2, Run, Station: 19 +36
560
558
556
�¢ 554
552
550
548
0.0
552.9
MINA
552.8
II Cross Sectional Arai
32.8
It Width:
20.5
Prone Area Elevation:
5556
Prone Width:
De at Bankfull:
200+
2.8
Depth at Banldull:
1.6
Depth Ratio:
129
chment Ratio:
Hei ht Ratio:
>10
1
UT to Sandy Creek, Cross Section 2, Run, Station: 19 +36
560
558
556
�¢ 554
552
550
548
0.0
552.9
7.9
553.6
14.1
553.1
18.5
552.8
20 1
552.2
21.8
551.2
23.5
550.4
24.7
550.0
27.0
550.7
294
550.9
32.5
550.9
34.8
551.0
35.3
551.2
37.4
552.2
39 5
552.9
47.0
553.1
57.4
552.9
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Distance (feet)
CS I PhoNraph facing doxnstean @ XS 2
As -Built 2013
--r♦ -- MY1 2/26/14
-- Baseline Bankfull Monitoring Datum
•••••• Floodprone Area

River Basin:
Cape Fear
Watershed:
UTSendr Creek, MY -01
XS ID:
XS 3, Run, STA. 23.49
Drainage Area (sq mi):
4.9
Date
2/26/2014
F
E. Hajros, R. Racal
0.0
551.6
17.3
551.8
nal Ar
r
245
178
vation:
554
211a
l:
2.6
Depth at Banktull:
1 4
Depth Ratio:
129
- -
,8
1
0.0
551.6
17.3
552.0
18.8
551.6
21.3
550.1
22.6
549.2
23.9
549.0
25.5
549.0
26.7
549.3
27.8
550.0
31.2
550.9
33.1
550.8
37.2
550.6
39.6
551.8
45.8
552.5
58.8
551.8
UT to Sandy Creek, Cross Section 3, Glid% Station: 23 +49
560
558
556
0 554
a
552
W
550
548
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Distance (feet)
70
CS 1 Photograph facing downstream @ XS 3
As -Built 2013
-Ar- MY1 2/26/14
- -- Baseline Bankfull Monitoring Datum
•••••• Floodprone Area

4
Cape Fear
shed: UT Sandy Creek, MY -01
XS 4, Rifle, STA. 27 +14
e Area ( mi 49
2/26+2014
E. Hans, R. Robol
0.0
551.0
III alien:
551.6
11 Cross Sectional Ar
378
II Width:
24 5
Prone Area Elevati
Prone Width:
554.5
200•
at Bankfull:
D th at Banldull:
th Ratio:
2.9
1.5
15.8
chment Ratio:
40
0.4
0.0
551.0
11.2
551.1
169
5515
23.3
5516
26.0
550.7
27.7
549.8
285
548.7
304
548.7
31.9
548.8
33.1
548.9
34 7
5492
359
549.8
36 2
549.9
44.5
550.7
48.6
5519
574
5519
638
5521
UT to Sandy Creek, Cross Section 4, Riffle, Station: 27 +14
560
558
in 556
554
c
0
552
�+ 550
548
546
Stream T C5 1 Phobgraph facing downstream @ XS 4
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Distance (feet)
I
70
As -Built 2013
—t- MY1 2/26/14
- -- Baseline Bankfull Monitoring Datum
•••••• Floodprone Area
i

Longitudinal Profile Plot Exhibit
r
O
O
O
C1 O
lC �
d
d U)
w Y
d
O `
CL v
T
C
c0
cn
H
0
O
0
(I)
0
o
00
N
m
O m
O
(fl
N
m
O
O
N
O
0
N
N
O C
O O
O '«
N {�
O
0
00
M
O
0
v
O
O
N
H
O
(O u7 V CO N O O O r-- - O `
u7 u7 u7 u7 0 L u7 V
LO LO 0 to u7 U-) u7 u7 u7 N u7
(U) u01jen013
o �
F- c
m
m
E
m
3 �
`o
t
m �
c
w m
m
• •
o �
N N
a
c 7
m �
m
a' m
i
Z eUBA
ssaO
d
r,
6wssoiO
e84S
I
�
C'
�oueA SE
3JO
ra
0
O
0
(I)
0
o
00
N
m
O m
O
(fl
N
m
O
O
N
O
0
N
N
O C
O O
O '«
N {�
O
0
00
M
O
0
v
O
O
N
H
O
(O u7 V CO N O O O r-- - O `
u7 u7 u7 u7 0 L u7 V
LO LO 0 to u7 U-) u7 u7 u7 N u7
(U) u01jen013
o �
F- c
m
m
E
m
3 �
`o
t
m �
c
w m
m
• •
o �
N N
a
c 7
m �
m
a' m

4 •
Cross Section Pebble Count Exhibits
D50 029m
D84 055 mm
I 15mm
D60 0.16 mm
D84 050 mm
D95 10 mm
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0.01
Cumulative Percent
0.1 1 10 100 1000
Particle Size(mn)
Individual Class Percent
100%
80% - --
70%
60%
V 50%
40% .-- __._____ —_ —_— —. —___
30% ■ 2014 MY 1 (March 2014)
V 20%
10%
g nv1R? 4e: 4'i4^7 env
C O 0 0 M• N M rl N N N O
Particle Size("
100%
90%
80%
70%
a 60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10% -
0%
OA1
0.1
Cumulative Percent
1 10
Particle Size (mm)
Individual Class Percent
100%
90% _ - --
80%
60%
50% - -
40% _ _. —.
30% 0 201 MY 1 (March 2014)
20%
10%
D%
fyNNNO rOeOnO�Ory f0'O10N^N1��V��
O C O d
Particle Size (nn)

Cross Section:
r
3
2014 MY 1 Wadi 2014)
SWC
sid
0062
4
8%
8%
Sad
Very line said
0125
12
24%
32%
irw sad
075
14
28%
60%
medhm sad
0.5
12
24%
84%
coarse sad
1.0
5
10%
94%
very coarse sand
20
3
6%
100%
Very ine eel
40
0
0%
100%
Gravel
ire avel
57
0
0%
100%
ire a+d
80
0
0%
100%
median gravel
11.3
0
0%
103%
madam gavel
16.0
0
0%
100%
coarse el
22.3
0
0%
109%
co>me"d
32
0
0%
103%
very coarse avel
45
0
0%
100%
very coarse avd
64
0
0%
100%
Cobble
snarl cobble
90
0
0%
100%
median cobble
128
0
0%
100%
large c4btie
160
0
0%
10D%
vey cobble
256
0
0%
100%
Balder
smell balder
362
0
0%
100%
smal balder
512
0
0%
100%
madam balder
1024
0
0%
1017%
1024
large balder
2048
0
0%
1 100%
Bedeck
ba*wk
40096
0
bedrock
40096
TOTAL %of whole mum
50
100%
TOT AL %or wholes rrtj
D50 03mm
DBQ 0 50 mm
096 1 4 mm
D50 0 3 mm
084
040M
095 0.6 mm
100%
90%
80%
70%
a 60%
i 50%
40%
� 30%
20%
10%
0%
0.01
Cumulative Percent
01 1 10 100 1000
Patick Size(mit)
Individual Class Percent
100%
90% _
80%
70%
6G%
V 50%
7 40%
30% -- 0 201 MY 1 (Ma ¢h 2014)
20%
10%
M r^r44R4 ^. 4 M:M
^lo..NVrn r.. ry 33X
O O O N r1 N T N M N
Particle Sim (1111)
Cumulative Percent
100%
90% { - _ -_ - -T._
� 70%
60% —2014 MY 1 (March 2014)
i 50%
� 40% it
30%
20%
10%
0%
0.01 0 1 1 10 100 1000
Particle Size ( mrn) —
Individual Class Percent
100%
sox —
BO%
+� 70%
3 096
5
10 •2014 MY 1 (March 2014)
30%
20% %
0% -
Nryry,n000novnror4)N vomo,o .�e�va
o
a
Particle Size(rii
2014 MY 1 (Mad, 2014)
him %
SWClay
silticlay
0.062 1
7
14%
14%
Sad
very messed
0.125
10
20%
34%
ire sad
025
13
25%
6D%
medium sad
0.5
16
32%
92%
coarse sad
1.0
2
4%
%%
Vey marsesad
20
2
4%
100%
very ine gavel
4.0
0
0%
100%
ire gravel
5.7
0
0%
100%
ire gavel
8.0
0
0%
100%
median avei
11.3
0
0%
100%
Gravel
melon gravel
160
0
0%
100%
coarse gavel
223
0
0%
10D%
—gravel
32
0
0%
100%
very coarse gavel
45
0
0%
100%
very coarse gravel
64
0
0%
100%
small cobble
90
0
0%
100%
cobble
medum cdxle
128
0
0%
10D%
cobble
160
0
0%
100%
vary Im7e cobble
256
0
0%
100%
Balder
Snell balder
362
0
0%
100%
small balder
512
0
0%
100%
medum balder
1024
0
0%
100%
large balder
2048
1 0
0%
100%
Bedrock
bedrock
40096
0
0%
100%
TOT AL %or wholes rrtj
50
1 96
D50 0 3 mm
084
040M
095 0.6 mm
100%
90%
80%
70%
a 60%
i 50%
40%
� 30%
20%
10%
0%
0.01
Cumulative Percent
01 1 10 100 1000
Patick Size(mit)
Individual Class Percent
100%
90% _
80%
70%
6G%
V 50%
7 40%
30% -- 0 201 MY 1 (Ma ¢h 2014)
20%
10%
M r^r44R4 ^. 4 M:M
^lo..NVrn r.. ry 33X
O O O N r1 N T N M N
Particle Sim (1111)
Cumulative Percent
100%
90% { - _ -_ - -T._
� 70%
60% —2014 MY 1 (March 2014)
i 50%
� 40% it
30%
20%
10%
0%
0.01 0 1 1 10 100 1000
Particle Size ( mrn) —
Individual Class Percent
100%
sox —
BO%
+� 70%
3 096
5
10 •2014 MY 1 (March 2014)
30%
20% %
0% -
Nryry,n000novnror4)N vomo,o .�e�va
o
a
Particle Size(rii

I�
I
NINE
1NINE
11111
M11111111
Mill
11111
milli
milli
mill
1
11111
MIIIIIIII
Mill
NINON
mill
IN
11111
11111
111111
MINNIE
NINE
IIIII
I
NINE
NINE
ME
.1111111
MINE
I
NINE
111111111
NINE
oil
milli
MEN
11111
1111111111
loll
IIII
III
e0
milli
Imillill
I
NINE
Mill
11
IN
MINE
IIIII
NINE
I�
I

NINE
milli
4 °
mill
y
7
IBM
y
d
C
d
`m
C c
C '^
Y
.2 WON y
milli
cc milli
=a
m
m V1
m �
m �
m '3 `
C
N
m
y C
MR if
y
E3 E m' m
N W
D
cc aR��'o
C
m � o
ae E o 0
a N 'oi E n
O �
u�
H �
� N
o v v
N
� V U
tO H o
v ° a
c
E
t
v
15
� S
�s
� o
r
9 �
c 3
E 5
e-
s -
� of
E �
5 �
Y
s _ _
m
- - o
U �
Q
S b
m E
o
S
S c3'
U
� c 2
� w
S]

�E
E a
55 p
l�
� � d
gE�
e
E�aT=
i
a �x
s
na��f
g f i s i
®111111111111111111111
®111111111111111111111
®111111111111111111111
®I
I
I I
I I
I I
I i
11111111111
8111111111
�
11111111111
®111111111111111111111
9111111111111111111111
®111111111111111111111
®111111111111111111111
� ®111111111111111111111
®111111111111111111111
®111111111111111111111
-
®110901111111111111111
919090699911iliiiiiill
-
®IIIIIIIIIi11111111111
®111111111111111111111
�
. -
= ®111111111111111111111
=
®111111111111111111111
-
� ®111111111111111111111'
-
®190909119111111111111'
-
9100999999111111111111
®111111111111111111111
- ..
-_
®111111111111111111111
_
_
� ®111111111111111111111
®111111111111111111111
®111111111111111111111
®190988991111111111111,
-
919098091911�'��l��1111'�
®111111111111111111111
®IIIIIIIIIIIII----
1111
®1111111111111
IIII
- =
_
®1111111111111:
IIII
®1111111111111
IIII
1110110011111
moll
I11
81�9��0��9111111i�
�
�11
_
1
�E
E a
55 p
l�
� � d
gE�
e
E�aT=
i
a �x
s
na��f
g f i s i

.-a rat
E:}
e $ e of - i B
lee e
e �s ei

APPENDIX E.
Hydrology Data

Table 12. Verification of Bankfull Events
Charles Williams Stream, Wetland, and Buffer Site 180 - UT to Sandy Creek: 1,850 linear feet
Date of Data Collection Date of Occurrence Method Photo # (if available)
11/6/2013 unknown Crest Gage Not Available
3/6/2014
unknow n
Visual On -site (wrack)
N of Av ailable
8
H
m
v 6
5
= 4
0 3
E
a 2
1
0
Charles Williams Stream, Wetland, and Buffer Site 180
2013 -2014 Precipitation Data
,AQJ �Jy` �������� `�e��o`������a�Ja��°�J��
Month - Year
®Amount (in.)
70%
30%