20160981 Ver 2_Year 1 Monitoring Report_20200121

ID#* 20160981 Version* 2
Select Reviewer:*
Mac Haupt
Initial Review Completed Date 01/21/2020
Mitigation Project Submittal - 1/21/2020
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site?* O Yes a No
Type of Mitigation Project:*
rJ Stream r Wetlands [Buffer ❑ Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:*
Jamey McEachran
Project Information
..................................................................................................................................................................
ID#:* 20160981
Existing IDY
Project Type: r DMS r Mitigation Bank
Project Name: Uale
County: Johnston
Document Information
Email Address:*
[e-mail]
Version: *2
Existing Version
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Monitoring Report
File Upload: Uz7le MY1 Report.pdf 7.81 MB
Rease upload only one PDFcf the conplete file that needs to be subrritted...
Signature
Print Name:* Ryan Medric
Signature:*

pres
January 21, 2020
Samantha Dailey
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Division
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
RE: Uzzle Year 1 Monitoring Report (SAW-2016-01973)
Ms. Dailey,
302 Jefferson St. Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
Corporate Headquarters
6575 West Loop South, Suite 300
Bellaire, TX 77401
Main: 713.520.5400
Please find attached the Uzzle Year 1 Monitoring Report. In Year 1, all four fixed vegetation plots
met the 320 stems per acre success criteria. Five bankfull events were recorded on the stage
recorder on LP1. Groundwater Well 1 recorded a one percent hydroperiod and Groundwater Well
2 recorded a 23 percent hydroperiod. RES expects the groundwater data to improve in following
years when a full water/growing seasons data is reported. There were a few pockets of Chinese
privet re -sprouts observed which will continue to be treated as necessary throughout the
monitoring period.
RES is requesting a 10% stream credit release (287.60 SMUs) for the completion of the Year 1
monitoring report. Please see enclosed the credit release timeline and an updated credit ledger.
Thank you,
Ryan Medric I Ecologist

UZZLE STREAM
MITIGATION SITE
JOHNSTON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
SA W-2016-01973
YEAR I MONITORING REPORT
Provided by:
fires
Bank Sponsor: EBX-Neuse I, LLC,
An entity of Resource Environmental Solutions
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
919-209-1056
January 2020

Table of Contents
1.0 Project Summary .................................................
1.1 Project Location and Description ..........
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives ................
1.3 Pro_ject Success Criteria .........................
Stream Success Criteria ...............................
Vegetation Success Criteria .........................
1.4 Project Components ..............................
1.5 Stream Design/Approach ......................
1.6 Construction and As -Built Conditions..
1.7 Year 1 Monitoring Performance (MY1)
Vegetation....................................................
Stream Geomorphology ...............................
StreamHydrology ........................................
Wetland Hydrology ......................................
2.0 Methods..............................................................
3.0 References...........................................................
Appendix A: Background Tables
Table 1: Project Mitigation Assets and Components
Table 2: Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3: Project Contacts Table
Table 4: Project Background Information Table
Figure 1: Site Location Map
Appendix B: Visual Assessment Data
Figure 2: Current Conditions Plan View
Vegetation Plot Photos
Monitoring Device Photos
Appendix C: Vegetation Plot Data
Table 5: Planted Species Summary
Table 6: Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary
Table 7. Stem Count Total and Planted by Plot Species
Appendix D: Stream Measurement and Geomorphology Data
Table 8. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 9. Cross Section Morphology Data Table
Cross -Section Plots
ADUendix E: HvdroloLyv Data
Table 10. 2019 Rainfall Summary
Table 11. Documentation of Geomorphically Significant Flow Events
Table 12. 2019 Max Hydroperiod
Table 13. Summary of Groundwater Monitoring Results
MY1 Groundwater Hydrographs
2
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
8
Uzzle 1 Year 1 Monitoring Report
Stream Mitigation Site January 2020

1.0 Proiect Summary
1.1 Project Location and Description
The Uzzle Stream Mitigation Site (the Site), a component of the Neu -Con Stream and Wetland Umbrella
Mitigation Bank, is located in Johnston County, North Carolina, approximately six miles southeast of
Clayton. Water quality stressors currently affecting the Site include livestock production, agricultural
production, and improper flow dynamics due to impervious surface runoff. The Site presents 5,897 linear
feet of stream restoration and enhancement generating 2,876 Stream Mitigation Units (SMU) along Little
Poplar Creek and two unnamed tributaries.
The Site is located in the Neuse River Basin within Cataloging Unit 03020201, TLW 03020201100040,
part of the Neuse Regional Watershed Planning (RWP) area, and the Wake -Johnston Collaborative Local
Watershed Plan (WJCLWP). As part of the RWP and WJCLWP, the Site is located in a sub -watershed
identified as High Priority for stream corridor restoration due to current surrounding land use, hydrologic
impairment due to stormwater runoff, and projected impact from highway development.
Originally, consisting of pasture land and wooded areas, the Site's total easement area is 27.3 acres within
the overall drainage area of 1,312 acres. Grazing livestock historically had access to all stream reaches
within the Site and the lack of riparian buffer vegetation, deep-rooted vegetation, and unstable channel
characteristics contributed to the degradation of stream banks throughout the Site. Prior to restoration work,
erosion and aggradation were especially prominent at the upstream end of the Site where Little Poplar Creek
enters via a culvert under HWY US-70.
The stream design approach for the Site was to combine the analog method of natural channel design with
analytical methods to evaluate stream flows and hydraulic performance of the channel and floodplain. The
analog method involves the use of a reference reach, or "template" stream adjacent to, nearby, or previously
in the same location as the design reach. The template parameters of the analog reach are replicated to create
the features of the design reach. The analog approach is useful when watershed and boundary conditions
are similar between the design and analog reaches. Hydraulic geometry was developed using analytical
methods to identify the design discharge.
The Site will be monitored on a regular basis throughout the seven-year post -construction monitoring
period, or until performance standards are met. Upon approval for closeout by the Interagency Review
Team (IRT), the Site will be transferred to the North Carolina Wildlife Habitat Foundation (NCWHF). The
NCWHF will be responsible for periodic inspection of the Site to ensure that restrictions required in the
Conservation Easement or the deed restriction document(s) are upheld. Endowment funds required to
uphold easement and deed restrictions will be negotiated prior to site transfer to the responsible party.
This site is co -located with a DWR Riparian Buffer Bank. The width of the riparian restoration and
enhancement areas where buffer or nutrient offset credits are generated will begin at the most landward
limit of the top of bank and extend landward to a distance of at least 50 feet perpendicular to the streams,
then again 151-200 feet from the top of bank. There will be no overlapping buffer crediting areas with
stream crediting areas between 51-150 feet from the top of bank.
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives
Through the comprehensive analysis of the Site's maximum functional uplift using the Stream Functions
Pyramid Framework, specific attainable goals and objectives will be realized by the Site. These goals
Uzzle 2 Year I Monitoring Report
Stream Mitigation Site January 2020

address the excess nutrient input, streambank erosion, and sedimentation that were identified as major
watershed stressors in the 2010 Neuse RBRP..
The Site goals are:
• Improve water transport from watershed to the channel in a non -erosive manner in a stable
channel;
• Improve water quality within the restored channel reach and downstream water sources by
reducing sediment and nutrient loads, and increasing dissolved oxygen levels;
• Improve flood flow attenuation on -site and downstream by allowing for overbank flows and
connection to the active floodplain; and
• Improve ecological processes by reducing water temperature, improving terrestrial and
aquatic habitat, and restoring a native plant community.
The Site objectives to address the goals are:
• Design and construct stable stream channels with appropriate pattern, dimension, and profile
based on reference reach conditions;
• Permanently exclude livestock from stream channels and their associated buffers;
• Add in -stream structures and bank stabilization measures to protect restored and enhanced
streams;
• Reduce bank height ratios and increase entrenchment ratios to reference reach conditions;
• Maintain and improve forested riparian buffers to at least 50 feet on both sides of the channel
along all reaches with a coastal plain hardwood riparian community;
• Treat exotic invasive species; and
• Establish a permanent conservation easement on the Site.
Limitations to achieving these watershed goals arise by remaining constrained to our Site boundaries.
While we are restoring the habitat and streams to stable and effective conditions that achieve our goals
within the Site parcels, we are unable to influence the effect of poor riparian buffers and livestock impact
in other areas within the watershed. However, through this Site's connectivity with other projects in the
watershed and responsible stewardship of current restoration projects, overall watershed functionality and
health will improve to meet the RBRP goals.
1.3 Project Success Criteria
The Site follows the USACE 2003 Stream Mitigation Guidelines and the "Wilmington District Stream and
Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update" dated October 24, 2016. Cross section and vegetation plot data
will be collected in Years 0, 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7. Stream and wetland hydrology data and visual monitoring
will be reported annually.
Stream Success Criteria
Four bankfull flow events must be documented within the seven-year monitoring period. The bankfull
events must occur in separate years. Otherwise, the stream monitoring will continue until four bankfull
events have been documented in separate years.
There should be little change in as -built cross -sections. If changes do take place, they should be evaluated
to determine if they represent a movement toward a less stable condition (for example down -cutting or
erosion), or are minor changes that represent an increase in stability (for example settling, vegetative
changes, deposition along the banks, or 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. Bank height ratio shall not exceed
Uzzle 3 Year I Monitoring Report
Stream Mitigation Site January 2020

1.2, and the entrenchment ratio shall be no less than 2.2 within restored reaches. Channel stability should
be demonstrated through a minimum of four bankfull events documented in the seven-year monitoring
period.
Digital images will be used to subjectively evaluate channel aggradation or degradation, bank erosion,
success of riparian vegetation, and effectiveness of erosion control measures. Longitudinal images should
not indicate the absence of developing bars within the channel or an excessive increase in channel depth.
Lateral images should not indicate excessive erosion or continuing degradation of the banks over time. A
series of images over time should indicate successional maturation of riparian vegetation.
Vegetation Success Criteria
Specific and measurable success criteria for plant density within the riparian buffers on the Site will follow
IRT Guidance. Vegetation monitoring plots will be a minimum of 0.02 acres in size, and cover a minimum
of two percent of the planted area and there will be a minimum of four plots. Vegetation monitoring will
occur between July 1st and leaf drop. The interim measures of vegetative success for the site will be the
survival of at least 320 planted three-year old trees per acre at the end of Year 3, 260 five-year old trees
at the end of Year 5 that are at least 7 feet tall, and the final vegetative success criteria will be 210 trees
per acre with an average height of 10 feet at the end of Year 7. Height measurement success criteria do
not apply to the understory trees or shrubs. Volunteer trees will be counted, identified to species, and
included in the yearly monitoring reports, but will not be counted towards the success criteria of total
planted stems. Additionally, no species may account for over 50 percent of total stems at a given plot.
1.4 Project Components
The Site is comprised of two easement sections, separated by a newly built ford crossing along Little Poplar
Creek. The stream reaches include Little Poplar Creek (LP1, LP2, LP4, LP5, and LP7) and two unnamed
tributaries (LP3 and LP6), split into seven reaches by treatment type and location. The stream mitigation
components are summarized below. Mitigation credits presented below are based upon the Approved
Mitigation Plan. The Project is co -located with a DWR Riparian Buffer Bank. The width of the riparian
enhancement areas where buffer credits are generated begin at the most landward limit of the top of bank
and extend landward to a distance of at least 50 feet perpendicular to the streams and from 151 — 200 feet.
The buffer from 50 — 150 feet is used to generate credit using the non-standard buffer credit calculation.
Therefore, there is no overlap of buffer crediting areas and stream crediting areas.
Uzzle 4 Year 1 Monitoring Report
Stream Mitigation Site January 2020

Mitigation Plan Credits
Pre- Design
Mitigation
Stationing
Mitigation
Base
Reach
Construction Length
Type
(Design)
Ratio
SMUs
Length (LF) (LF)
LPl
Restoration
1+24
to
07+53
766 629
1:1
629
LP2
Enhancement II
07+53
to
23+72
1,619 1,619
1 : 2.5
648
LP3
Enhancement II
0+50
to
1+92
142 142
1 : 2.5
57
LP4
Enhancement II
23+72
to
29+31
559 559
1 : 2.5
223
LP5
Enhancement II
29+31
to
36+45
714 714
1 : 2.5
286
LP5
Enhancement II
37+06
to
52+50
1,544 1,544
1 : 2.5
618
LP6
Enhancement II
0+22
to
4+00
378 378
1 : 2.5
155
LP7
Enhancement II
52+50
to
55+62
312 312
1 : 2.5
128
Totals
6,034 5,897
2,736
Credit Loss in Required Buffer
-150
Credit Gain for Additional Buffer
289
Total Adjusted SMUs
2,876
*SMUs are adjusted in accordance with Section XI(C)- "Procedures to Calculate Credits for Non-standard Buffer Widths",
published in the October 2016 Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update. A detailed description
of the methodology and calculations is described in the Mitigation Plan.
1.5 .S'tream Design/Approach
Stream restoration and enhancement efforts along the tributaries at the Uzzle Stream Mitigation Site were
accomplished through analyses of geomorphic conditions and watershed characteristics. The design
approach applied a combination of analytical and reference reach -based design methods that meet
objectives commensurate with both ecological and geomorphic improvements. For Reach LP1, natural
design concepts were applied and verified through rigorous engineering analyses and modeling. The
objective of this approach is to build a geomorphically stable channel that provides habitat improvements
and ties into the existing landscape.
The Uzzle Stream Mitigation Site has been broken into the following reaches:
Reach LP1 (Priority I Restoration)
Reach beginning downstream of US HWY 70 at the northern project limits flowing south to Reach LP2.
Wooded active pasture was located adjacent to the reach. Priority I Restoration was performed along Reach
LP1 to address channel degradation and bank erosion caused by cattle access and high energy storm flows
from the upstream culvert. The design approach included meandering the channel within the natural valley,
aligning the channel with the upstream culvert, backfilling the existing stream, reconnecting the channel to
its floodplain, and excluding livestock from the stream. A minimum 50-foot buffer was established and
planted with native riparian vegetation. Woody debris and grade control structures were installed along the
bed to improve in -stream habitat and stability. The watershed that drains to the upper end of the project is
approximately 1,124 acres, and land use is primarily agricultural. The drainage area at the downstream end
of the reach is 1,174 acres.
Uzzle 5 Year I Monitoring Report
Stream Mitigation Site January 2020

Reaches LP2, LP3, LP4, LP5, LP6, and LP7 (Enhancement H)
Treatment of these reaches included treatment of invasive vegetation, debris removal, pocketed areas of
supplemental planting, and livestock exclusion. A minimum 50-foot buffer was established along the reach
and was planted with native riparian vegetation where existing vegetation was non-native or limited density.
The drainage area at the downstream end of the reaches is 1,312 acres. A rock ford crossing was constructed
at the crossing in the middle of Reach LP5. Both Reaches LP5 and LP6 right bank have less than 50 feet
buffers, but they run parallel to a 50 feet utility easement corridor that is fully vegetated maintained
herbaceous cover with some foot paths.
1.6 Construction and As Built Conditions
Stream construction and planting was completed in May 2019. The Uzzle Mitigation Site was built to design
plans and guidelines. Project credits are based on design centerline, but as -built stream lengths are shown
on Table 1. The as -built survey was included in the Baseline Monitoring Report and includes a redlined
version.
1.7 Year I Monitoring Performance (MYI)
The Uzzle Year 1 Monitoring (MY1) activities were performed in December 2019. All Year 1 Monitoring
data is present below and in the appendices. The Site is on track to meeting vegetation and stream interim
success criteria.
Ve etg ation
Monitoring of the four permanent vegetation plots was completed during December 2019. Vegetation data
are in Appendix C, associated photos are in Appendix B, and plot locations are in Appendix B. MYI
monitoring data indicates that all plots are exceeding the interim success criteria of 320 planted stems per
acre. Planted stem densities ranged from 688 to 971 planted stems per acre with a mean of 789 planted
stems per acre across the permanent plots. A total of 15 species were documented within the plots.
Volunteer species were noted in one plot, with an average of 40 species per acre. The average stem height
in the vegetation plots was 1.6 feet.
Visual assessment of vegetation outside of the monitoring plots indicates that the herbaceous vegetation is
becoming well established throughout the project. There are a few pockets of Chinese privet that are re -
sprouting in the downstream section of the easement. RES will continue to administer treatments, as
necessary, throughout the monitoring period.
Stream Geomorphology
Geomorphology data for MY1 was collected during December 2019. Summary tables and cross section
plots are in Appendix D. Overall the baseline cross sections and profile on the restoration reach relatively
match the design. The cross sections on the Enhancement II reaches were included to monitor the changes
in dimension post cattle exclusion and riparian planting. This year's conditions show that shear stress and
velocities have been reduced for all restoration/enhancement reaches. All reaches were designed as very
coarse sand bed channels and remain classified as very coarse sand bed channels post -construction.
Visual assessment of the stream channel was performed to document signs of instability, such as eroding
banks, structural instability, or excessive sedimentation. The channel is transporting sediment as designed
and will continue to be monitored for aggradation and degradation.
Uzzle 6 Year I Monitoring Report
Stream Mitigation Site January 2020

Stream Hydrology
The stage recorder on LP1 recorded five bankfull events in MY1. The highest event was 1.21 feet above
the top of bank and occurred in July 2019. There has been at least one bankfull event in on year of
monitoring. The gauge location can be found on Figure 2, a photo is in Appendix B, and the hydrology
data is in Appendix E.
Wetland Hydrology
Two groundwater wells were installed in June 2019 to monitor wetland hydrology in the existing wetland
on site. Groundwater Well 1 recorded a 1% hydroperiod and Groundwater Well 2 recorded a 23%
hydroperiod. RES expects the hydroperiods to increase in future monitoring years when early growing
season data is included. Groundwater well locations can be found on Figure 2 and the data is in
Appendix E.
2.0 Methods
Stream monitoring was conducted using a Topcon GTS-312 Total Station. Three-dimensional coordinates
associated with cross-section data were collected in the field (NAD83 State Plane feet FIPS 3200).
Morphological data were collected at eight cross -sections. Survey data were imported into CAD, ArcGIS®,
and Microsoft Excel® for data processing and analysis. The stage recorder includes an automatic pressure
transducer flow gauge. The flow gauge was installed within the channel and will record water depth at an
hourly interval. A surveyed elevation was recorded at the bed and top of bank at the stage recorder elevation
to detect bankfull events.
Vegetation success is being monitored at four permanent monitoring plots. Vegetation plot monitoring
follows the CVS-EEP Level 2 Protocol for Recording Vegetation, version 4.2 (Lee et al. 2008) and includes
analysis of species composition and density of planted species. Data are processed using the CVS data entry
tool. In the field, the four corners of each plot were permanently marked with PVC at the origin and metal
conduit at the other corners. Photos of each plot are to be taken from the origin each monitoring year.
Wetland hydrology is monitored to document maintenance of jurisdictional groundwater levels in the
stream restoration area (as requested by NCIRT). This is accomplished with two automatic pressure
transducer gauges (located in groundwater wells) that record daily groundwater levels. One automatic
pressure transducer is installed above ground for use as a barometric reference. Gauges are downloaded
quarterly and wetland hydroperiods are calculated during the growing season. Gauge installation followed
current regulatory guidance. Visual observations of primary and secondary wetland hydrology indicators
are also recorded during quarterly site visits.
Uzzle 7 Year I Monitoring Report
Stream Mitigation Site January 2020

3.0 References
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual,
Technical Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Harman, W., R. Starr, M. Carter, K. Tweedy, M. Clemmons, K. Suggs, C. Miller. 2012. A Function -
Based Framework for Stream Assessment and Restoration Projects. US Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Washington, DC EPA 843-K-12-006.
Lee Michael T., Peet Robert K., Roberts Steven D., and Wentworth Thomas R., 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol
for Recording Vegetation Level. Version 4.2
Peet, R.K., Wentworth, T.S., and White, P.S. (1998), A flexible, multipurpose method for recording
vegetation composition and structure. Castanea 63:262-274
Resource Environmental Solutions (2018). Uzzle Stream Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan.
Rosgen, D. (1996), Applied River Morphology, 2nd edition, Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, CO.
Schafale, M.P. 2012. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina, Third Approximation.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, NCDENR, Raleigh, NC.
US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 2003. April 2003 NC Stream Mitigation Guidelines.
USACE. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Atlantic
and Gulf Coastal Plain Region (Version 2.0), ed. J. S. Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar, and C. V. Noble.
ERDC/EL TR-10-20. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center.
USACE. 2016. Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update.
Uzzle 8 Year 1 Monitoring Report
Stream Mitigation Site January 2020

Appendix A
Background Tables

Table 1. Uzzle - Mitigation Assets and Components
Existing
Mitigation
Footage
Plan
Mitigation
As -Built
or
Footage or
Mitigation
Restoration
Priority
Mitigation
Plan
Footage or
Project Segment
Acreage
Acreage
Category
Level
Level
Ratio (X:1)
Credits
Acreage
Comments
Full Channel Restoration, Planted Buffer, Exclusion of Livestock, Permanent
LP1
766
629
Warm
R
1
1.00000
629.00000
629
Conservation Easement
Exclusion of Livestock, Permanent Conservation Easement, Supplemental
LP2
1619
1619
Warm
Ell
NA
2.50000
647.60000
1619
Planting
Exclusion of Livestock, Permanent Conservation Easement, Supplemental
LP3
142
142
Warm
Ell
NA
2.50000
56.80000
142
Planting
Exclusion of Livestock, Permanent Conservation Easement, Supplemental
LP4
559
559
Warm
Ell
NA
2.50000
223.60000
559
Planting
Exclusion of Livestock, Permanent Conservation Easement, Supplemental
LP5
714
Warm
Ell
NA
2.50000
285.60000
714
Planting
Exclusion of Livestock, Permanent Conservation Easement, Supplemental
LP5
1544
Warm
Ell
NA
2.50000
617.60000
1544
Planting
J78
Exclusion of Livestock, Permanent Conservation Easement, Supplemental
LP6
378
Warm
Ell
NA
2.50000
151.20000
378
Planting
Exclusion of Livestock, Permanent Conservation Easement, Supplemental
LP7
312
Warm
Ell
NA
1 2.50000
124.80000
312
Planting
Project Credits
Restoration Level
Stream
Riparian Wetland
Non -Rip
Wetland
Coastal
Marsh
Warm
Cool
Cold
Riverine
Non-Riv
Restoration
629.000
Re-establishment
Rehabilitation
Enhancement
Enhancement I
Enhancement II
2107.200
Creation
Preservation
Total
2736.200
Credit Loss in Buffer
-150
Credit ain in Buffer
289
Totaljus e s
2876

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Uzzle Mitigation Site
Elapsed Time Since grading complete: 7 months
Elapsed Time Since planting complete: 7 months
Number of reporting Years :
Activity or Deliverable
Data Collection
Complete
Completion or
Delivery
Restoration Plan
NA
Dec-18
Final Design — Construction Plans
NA
Apr-19
Stream Construction
NA
May-19
Containerized, bare root and B&B plantings for reach/segments 1 &2
NA
May-19
As -built (Year 0 Monitoring — baseline)
May-19
Jul-19
Year 1 Monitoring
Dec-19
Dec-19
Year 2 Monitoring
Year 3 Monitoring
Year 4 Monitoring
Year 5 Monitoring
Year 6 Monitoring
Year 7 Monitoring
= The number of reports or data points produced excluding the baseline

Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Uzzle Mitigation Site
Designer
WK Dickson and Co., Inc. / 720 Corporate Center Dr., Raleigh,
NC 27607
Primary project design POC
David Perry
Construction Contractor
KBS Earthwork Inc. / 5616 Coble Church Rd., Julian, NC
27283
Construction contractor POC
Kory Strader [phone]
Survey Contractor
Matrix East, PLLC / 906 N. Queen St., Suite A, Kinston, NC
28501
Survey contractor POC
Chris Paderick, PLS
Planting Contractor
H&J Forestry
Planting contractor POC
Matt Hitch
Seeding Contractor
KBS Earthwork Inc. / 5616 Coble Church Rd., Julian, NC
27283
Contractor point of contact
Kory Strader [phone]
Seed Mix Sources
Green Resource [phone]
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Arborgen [phone]
Monitoring Performers
RES / 302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110, Raleigh, NC 27605
Stream Monitoring POC
Ryan Medric [phone]
Vegetation Monitoring POC
Ryan Medric [phone]

Table 4. Project Background Information
Project Name
Uzzle
County
Johnston
Project Area (acres)
27.3
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)
Latitude: 35.4754 N Longitude:-78.3117 W
Planted Acreage (Acres of Woody Stems Planted)
3.6
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province
Coastal Plain
River Basin
Neuse
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit
03020201
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14-digit
03020201100040
DWR Sub -basin
03-04-02
Project Drainage Area (Acres and Square Miles)
1,312 ac (2.05 sqmi)
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area
6%
CGIA Land Use Classification
Forest (49%) Agriculture (28%) Residential/Urban
(16%)
Reach Summary Information
Parameters
LP1
LP2
LP3
LP4
LP5
LP6
LP7
Length of reach (linear feet)
629
1619
142
559
2258
378
312
Valley confinement (Confined, moderately confined, unconfined)
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
Drainage area (Acres and Square Miles)
1124
1174
23
1202
1296
42
1312
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral
P
P
I
P
P
I
P
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
---
---
---
---
Stream Classification (existing)
E5
E5
G5
C5
E5
G5
C5
Stream Classification (proposed)
E5
--
Evolutionary trend (Simon)
FEMA classification
AE
AE
AE
AE
AE
AE
AE
Regulatory Considerations
Parameters
Applicable?
Resolved?
Supporting
Docs?
Water of the United States - Section 404
Yes
Yes
SAW-2016-
01973
Water of the United States - Section 401
Yes
Yes
DWR # 16-
0981
Endangered Species Act
Yes
Yes
USFWS
(Corr. Letter)
Historic Preservation Act
Yes
Yes
SHPO (Corr.
Letter)
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA or CAMA)
No
N/A
N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
Yes
Yes
No -Rise Cert
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No
N/A
N/A

ISadj'c Rd
s
�µ® r
�t
Ryb
Legend
Gor,l
Conservation Easement
w
r
�s Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri
Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC,
�4 OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
N
Date: 6/25/2019
Figure 1 - Site Location Map
w e Drawn by: RTM
49W
0 500
Uzzle Stream Mitigation Site
s 1,000 Checked by: BPB rLmsJohnston County, North Carolina
1 inch = 1,000 feet
Feet

Appendix B
Visual Assessment Data

Uzzle MY1 Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos
Vegetation Plot 1
Vegetation Plot 3
Vegetation Plot 2
Vegetation Plot 4

Uzzle Monitoring Device Photo
Stage Recorder (LP I)

Appendix C
Vegetation Plot Data

Table 5. Planted Species Summary
Common Name
Scientific Name
Total Stems
Planted
Water Oak
Quercus ni ra
1,800
Swamp Chestnut Oak
Quercus michauxii
1,100
Sycamore
Platanus occidentalis
900
Bald Cypress
Taxodium distichum
800
Willow Oak
Quercus phellos
700
Blackgum
Nyssa sylvatica
700
Green Ash
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
600
Silky Dogwood
Cornus amomum
600
River Birch
Betula ni ra
500
Overcup Oak
Quercus lyrata
400
Tulitree
Driodendron tuli i era
400
Flowering Dogwood
Cornus orida
400
Buttonbush
Cephalanthus occidentalis
300
Persimmon
Diospyros vir iniana
300
American Hazelnut
Corylus americana
300
Total
9,800
Planted Area*
4.83
As -built Planted Stems/Acre
2,029
* Includes 1.3 acres of supplemental planting
Table 6. Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary
Success
Average
Planted
Volunteer
Total
Plot #
Criteria
Stem Height
Stems/Acre
Stems/Acre
Stems/Acre
Met?
(ft)
1
728
0
728
Yes
1.5
2
971
0
971
Yes
1.6
3
688
0
688
Yes
1.7
4
769
162
931
Yes
1.7
Project Avg
789
40
830
Yes
1.6

Table 7. Stem Count Total and Planted by Plot Species
Uzzle
Current Plot Data (MY1 2019)
Annual Means
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species
Type
05302019-01-0001
05302019-01-0002
05302019-01-0003
05302019-01-0004
MYl (2019)
MYO (2019)
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
2
2
2
5
5
5
1
1
1
8
8
8
10
10
10
Cephalanthus occidentalis
common buttonbush
Shrub
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
2
2
2
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
8
8
8
5
5
5
Cornus florida
flowering dogwood
Tree
1
1
1
Diospyros virginiana
common persimmon
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
11
2
2
2
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
7
7
7
6
6
6
Liquidambar styraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
1
1
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
3
4
4
7
8
8
8
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum
Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
3
3
3
13
13
13
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
7
7
7
12
12
12
18
18
18
Quercus
oak
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
35
35
35
Quercus lyrata
overcup oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
11
2
2
2
1
1
1
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
6
6
6
1
1
1
Quercus nigra
water oak
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
4
4
4
8
8
8
Taxodium distichum
bald cypress
Tree
4
4
4
5
5
5
4
4
4
3
3
3
16
16
16
16
16
16
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACREI
18
18
18
24
24
24
17
17
17
19
19
23
78
78
82
127
127
127
1
1
1
1
4
4
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.10
0.10
10
10
101
91
91
91
111
111
11
81
81
101
141
141
151
15
15
15
7281
7281
7281
9711
9711
9711
6881
6881
6XXI
7691
7691
9311
7891
7891
8301
1285
12851
1285

Appendix D
Stream Measurement and
Geomorphology Data

Table 8. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Uzzle Mitigation Site - Reach LP1
Parameter
Gauge
Regional Curve
Pre -Existing Condition*
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design
Monitoring Baseline
Dimension and Substrate - Shallow Only
LL
UL
Eq.
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Med
Max
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
---
---
---
---
---
7.6
---
---
---
10.8
---
---
12.2
---
---
---
12.2
---
12.0
12.3
---
12.5
---
2
Floodprone Width (ft)
---
---
150.0
---
---
---
>50
---
---
>50
---
---
---
150.0
---
>50
---
---
>50
---
2
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
---
---
--
---
1.6
---
---
1.3
---
---
1.4
---
---
---
1.3
---
0.9
1.0
---
1.1
---
2
'Bankfull Max Depth ft
---
---
2.1
---
---
---
1.8
---
---
2.0
---
---
---
1.6
---
1.4
1.5
---
1.6
---
2
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ftZ
--
--
---
1 12.4
1 ---
14.7
15.8
15.5
---
11.7
1 12.7
1
13.7
2
Width/Depth Ratio
4.6
7.9
9.4
9.6
10.6
12.0
13.4
2
Entrenchment Ratio
19.7
>2.2
>2.2
12.3
>4
>4.3
2
'Bank Height Rati
1.1
---
---
---
1.0
---
---
1.1
---
---
---
1.0
---1
1.0
1 ---
I ---
1 1.0
2
Profile
Shallow Length (ft)
5
---
---
18
---
---
5
---
---
23
---
---
---
---
---
10.9
33.2
32.1
67.8
16.3
9
Shallow Slope (ft/ft)
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
0.0001
0.0097
0.0042
0.0314
0.0121
9
Pool Length (ft)
20
---
---
45
---
---
11.6
---
---
45.6
---
---
---
---
---
10.0
23.1
20.0
40.0
8.8
11
Pool Max depth (ft)
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
--
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
Pool Spacing (ft)
35
---
---
56
---
---
37.2
---
---
55.7
---
---
---
---
---
27.0
64.7
60.5
102.0
22.4
11
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
4
---
---
16
---
---
9
---
---
57
---
---
17
---
63
17
---
---
63
---
---
Radius of Curvature (ft)
18
---
---
37
---
---
10
---
---
28
---
---
20
---
45
20
---
---
45
---
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
2.4
---
---
4.9
---
---
0.9
---
---
2.6
---
---
1.6
---
3.7
1.6
---
---
3.7
---
---
Meander Wavelength (ft)
56
---
--
100
---
---
49
---
---
170
---
---
51
---
131
51
---
---
131
---
---
Meander Width Ratio
0.5
---
---
2
---
---
1.6
---
5.3
---
---
1.4
---
5.2
1.4
---
---
5.2
---
---
Transport parameters
Reach Shear Stress (competency) Ib/f2
---
---
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
--
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/mZ
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
E5
E4/5
E5
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
---
---
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
---
---
Valley length (ft)
560
842
560
---
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
852
995
691
---
Sinuosity (ft)
1.52
1.18
1.23
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
--
0.29
---
---
Channel slope (ft/ft)
0.0055
0.003
0.0039
---
3 Bankfull Flood lain Area acres
---
---
---
---
4% of Reach with Eroding Bank
---
---
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Othe
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
* -Reach was split into 4 segments for the purpose of pre-existing data collection.
1 - The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile. 2 -For projects with a proximal USGS gauge in -line with the project reach (added bankfull verification -rue).
3. Utilizing XS measurement data produce an estimate of the bankfull floodplain area in acres, which should be the area from the top of bank to the toe of the terrace riser/slope.
4 -Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey for comparison to monitoring data; 5. Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3

Table 9. Monitoring Data - Cross Section Morphology Data Table
Project Name (Uzzle)
Cross Section 1 (Pool - LP1)
Cross Section 2 (Riffle - LP1)
Cross Section
3 (Riffle
- LP1)
Cross Section 4 (Pool - LP1)
Cross Section 5 (Riffle - Reach 2 - Ell)
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
Bank -full Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-Bankfull Area
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
232.3
232.2
231.0
230.9
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
No Morphological Parameters were determined fo
the Enhancement II reaches
Bank Height Ratio
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
Thalweg Elevation
230.1
230.2
1
1
230.9
230.81
1
229.4
229.31
1
1
227.4
227.7
Low TOB Elevation
Low TOB Max Depth ft
232.E
2.5
232.6
2.3
232.3
1.4
232.2
1.4
231.0
1.6
231.0
1.7
230.2
2.9
230.2
2.5
Low TOB Cross Sectional Area(ft)
19.1
19.4
11.7
11.2
13.7
14.8
18.5
16.6
Floodprone Width
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
>50
>50
>50
>50
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
Bank -full W dth
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
12.5
13.1
12.0
12.1
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
Entrenchment Ratio
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
>4.0
>3.8
>4.3
>4.2
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
Cross Section 6 (Riffle
- LP5
- Ell)
Cross Section 7 (Riffle - LP5
- Ell)
Cross Section 8 (Run - LP7 - Ell)
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
Bank -full Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-Bankfull Area
No Morphological Parameters were determined fo
the Enhancement II reaches
No Morphological Parameters were determined for
the Enhancement II reaches
No Morphological Parameters were determined
for the Enhancement II reaches
Bank Height Ratio
Thalweg Elevation
Low TOB Elevation
Low TOB Max Depth ft
Low TOB Cross Sectional Area ft2
Floodprone Width'
Bank -full Width'
Entrenchment Ratio'
- Uses the as -built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bank -full elevation
- Uses the current years low top of bank as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation
Note: The smaller the channel the closer the survey measurements are to their limit of reliable detection, therefore inter -annual variation in morphological measurement (as a percentage) is by default magnified as channel size decereases. Some of the variability above is the result of this factor and some is due to the large amount of depositional
sediments observed.

Upstream
Downstream
235
Uzzle - Reach LP1 - Cross Section 1 - Pool - Restoration
234
233
�
c
°
232
—
—
—
—
—
—
— —
—
—
—
—
—
—
a�
w
231
230
229
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
Distance (ft)
MYO-2019 MY1-2019
30 33 36 39 42 45 48
— — — Low TOB
3X Vertical Exaggeration
Cross Section 1 (Pool)
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
Banktull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-Banktull Are
---
---
Bank Height Ratio
---
---
Thalweg Elevation
230.1
230.2
Low TOB Elevation
232.6
232.6
Low TOB Max Depth (ft)
2.5
2.3
Low TOB Cross Sectional Area (ft)
19.1
19.4
Floodprone Width
---
---
Bankfull Width
---
Entrenchment Ratio
---
---

Upstream
Downstream
Uzzle - Reach LP1 - Cross Section 2 - Riffle - Restoration
235
234
233
c
° 232
>
a�
w 231
230
229
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Distance (ft)
MYO-2019 MY1-2019 — — — Low TOB — Bankfull 3X Vertical Exaggeration
Cross Section 2
(Riffle)
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-Bankfull Area
232.31
232.2
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
T halweg Elevation
230.9
230.8
Low T OB Elevation
232.3
232.2
Low T OB Max Depth (ft)
1.4
1.4
LowTOB Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
11.7
11.2
Floodprone Width
>50
>50
Bankfull Width
12.5
13.1
Entrenchment Ratio
>4.0
>3.8

Upstream
Downstream
Uzzle - Reach LP1 - Cross Section 3 - Riffle - Restoration
234
233
232
c
° 231
—
—
— —
— —
—
— —
—
—
— —
— —
— —
a�
w 230
229
228
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Distance (ft)
MYO-2019 MY1-2019 — — - Low TOB — Bankfull
3X Vertical Exaggeration
Cross Section 3
Riffle)
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-Bankfull Area
231.00
230.9
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.1
T halweg Elevation
229.4
229.3
Low T OB Elevation
231.0
231.0
Low T OB Max Depth (ft)
1.6
1.7
Low TOB Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
13.7
14.8
Floodprone Width
>50
>50
Bankfull Width
12.0
12.1
Entrenchment Ratio
>4.3
>4.2

Upstream
Downstream
233
Uzzle - Reach LP1 - Cross Section 4 - Pool - Restoration
232
231
1
° 230
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
a�
w 229
228
227
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60 63
Distance (ft)
MYO-2019 MY1-2019 — — — Low TOB
3X Vertical Exaggeration
Cross Section 4 Pool
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-Bankfull Area
---
---
Bank Height Ratio
---
---
T halweg Elevation
227.4
227.7
Low T OB Elevation
230.2
230.2
Low T OB Max Depth (ft)
2.9
2.5
Low TOB Cross Sectional Area (ft')
18.5
16.6
Floodprone Width
---
---
Bankfull Width
---
Entrenchment Ratio
---
---

Upstream
Downstream
Uzzle - Reach LP2 - Cross Section 5 - Riffle - Enhancement II
230
229
228
c
g 227
-qqm
OWN
>
a�
000-
w 226
225
224
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Distance (ft)
MYO-2019 MY1-2019
3X Vertical Exaggeration
Cross Section 5 Riffle
Base
I MYl
r MY2
I MY3
I MYS
I MY7
MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-Bankfull Area
No Morphological Parameters were determined forthe Enhancement 11 reaches
Bank Height Ratio
T halweg Elevation
Low T OB Elevation
Low TOB Max Depth (ft)
Low TOB Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
Floodprone Width
Bankfull Width
Entrenchment Ratio

Upstream
Downstream
225
Uzzle - Reach LP5 - Cross Section 6 - Riffle - Enhancement II
224
223
222
c
0
221
w
220
219
218
0 3 6 9 12 15
18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Distance (ft)
MYO-2019-MY 1-2019
3X Vertical Exaggeration
Cross Section 6 Riffle)
Base
I MYl
MY2 I
MY3 I MY5
MY7 I
MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-Bankfull Area
No Morphological Parameters were determined for the Enhancement 11reaches
Bank Height Ratio
T halweg Elevation
Low T OB Elevation
Low TOB Max Depth (ft)
Low T OB Cross Sectional Area (ft')
Floodprone it
Bankfull Width
Entrenchment Ratio

Upstream
Downstream
Uzzle - Reach LP5 - Cross Section 7 - Riffle - Enhancement II
219
218
217
c
° 216
a�
w 215
214
213
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Distance (ft)
MYO-2019 MY1-2019
3X Vertical Exaggeration
Cross Section 7 Ritlle
Base
MYl
MY2
I MY3
I MYS
I MY7
I MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-Bankfull Area
No Morphological Parameters were determined for the Enhancement 11 reaches
Bank Height Ratio
T halweg Elevation
Low TOB Elevation
Low T OB Max Depth (ft)
Low TOB Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
Floodprone Width
Bankfull Width
Entrenchment Ratio

Upstream
Downstream
215
Uzzle - Reach LP7 - Cross Section 8- Run - Enhancement II
214
213
c
° 212
w 211
210
209
0 3 6 9 12 15
18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Distance (ft)
MYO-2019 MY1-2019
3X Vertical Exaggeration
Cross Section 8 Run
Base
I MYl
I MY2 I
MY3 I
MY5
MY7 I
MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-Bankfull Area
No Morphological Parameters were determined for the Enhancement 11 reaches
Bank Height Ratio
T halweg Elevation
Low T OB Elevation
Low T OB Max Depth (ft)
Low T OB Cross Sectional Area (ft')
Floodprone Width
Bankfull Width
Entrenchment Ratio

Appendix E
Hydrology Data

Table 10. 2019 Rainfall Summary
Month
Average
Normal Limits
Clayton Station
Precipitation
30 Percent
70 Percent
January
4.24
3.24
4.93
4.74
February
3.64
2.51
4.34
5.11
March
4.57
3.44
5.33
3.84
April
3.24
1.99
3.92
8.47
May
4.17
2.91
4.96
0.92
June
4.14
2.70
4.97
6.08
July
5.43
3.48
6.53
6.35
August
4.58
3.05
5.49
2.23
September
4.54
2.26
5.55
2.94
October
3.16
1.89
3.81
5.18
November
2.95
1.86
3.55
3.56
December
3.05
2.02
3.65
0.80
Total
47.71
31.35
57.03
50.22
Table 11. Documentation of Geomorphically Significant Flow Events
Number of Bankfull
Maximum Bankfull
Date of Maximum Bankfull
Year
Events
Height (ft)
Event
Stage Recorder LPI
MY120191
1 5
1.21
7/23/2019
'Installed on 31-May

Table 12.
2019 Max Hydroperiod (Growing Season 18-Mar through 6-Nov, 233 days)
Consecutive
Cumulative
Well ID
Occurrences
Hydroperiod
Hydroperiod
Da s
Y
Days
Y
(%)
(%)
GW11
2
1
15
6
15
GW21
53
1 23
105
1 45
8
I Groundwater wells installed on 4-June
Table 13.
Summary of Groundwater Monitoring Results
Uzzle
Well ID
H droeriod (%)
Year 1
2019
Year 2
2020
Year 3
2021
Year 4
2022
Year 5
2023
Year 6
2024
Year 7
2025
GW1
1
GW2
23

MY1 2019 Uzzle GW1
10 6.0
Grow
ng Season
0
5.0
N
d
4.0
-10
o
v
d
�i
3.0 p
-20
W
L
W
++
�
•Q
•L
2.0 a
-30
0
,L^
V
1.0
-40
0.0
-50
J F M A M J J A S O N D
Months
Clayton Daily Rainfall GW1