20070834 Ver 1_Year 5 Monitoring Report_20080225

AMERICAN
\/\/etlands
& Natural Resource
Exchange
February 1, 2008
Ms. Jean Manuele
Field Office Manager
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
331 Heritage Trade Drive
Wake Forest NC 27587
Dear Jean:
Corporation
f FR 2 5 2('?J8
WATER CUAV 1
;; vNDS AND STORMWATER IRANGN
We have completed the 2007 monitoring year for the Deep Creek and Fisher River
Wetlands and Stream Mitigation Banks, and the preparation of the two Annual
Monitoring Reports. Our consultants, Soil & Environmental Consultants (S&EC),
conducted the monitoring and prepared the two reports. Enclosed are seven (7) copies
for your use and distribution to other members of the MBRT. If you need additional
copies, please either let me and I will send them to you.
Success criteria were met for the year 2007 for both wetland banks. This represents five
consecutive years of success and meets the conditions of the Banking Instrument.
Therefore, we are requesting that the remaining forty (40) percent of the credits be
released for use by the North Carolina Department of Transportation and the remaining
balance for sale to others as determined through the permitting process administered by
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The forty (40) percent release request consists of
fifteen (15) percent based on the interim success for year five and twenty five (25)
percent for meeting overall success criteria.
As you requested, we have thoroughly reviewed the comments of the MBRT on the 2006
Monitoring Reports, and they are addressed in the reports we are submitting. During the
monitoring activities we have spent considerable time in analyzing those comments and
we have tried to be responsive.
For the Fisher River Bank, a registered soil scientist has conducted an intensive
evaluation of the small area that was in question as to whether wetland success was being
achieved. Though soil and vegetative analysis it was concluded that wetland
characteristics are present. This is discussed in more detail within the report.
Great attention has been given to the monitoring and maintenance of the Deep Creek
Bank. Continuous work has been done in removing beaver populations and removal of
debris in the stream. One small area of the stream has been stabilized and the last
2 3 1 o Ballycairne Court R.eston,Virginia z o i 9 1
telephone 7o3.86o.oo45 fax 7o3.86o.oo4i
structure downstream has been reviewed and discussed with others as to the ability of
aquatic life migration. More detail of these activities is contained in the report.
Upon approval of the subject reports and release of the remaining credits, prompt action
will be taken to finalize the transfer all responsibilities for future activities to Piedmont
Land Conservancy, and American Wetlands will be relieved from any additional
responsibilities.
We appreciate all the time and sound guidance you and other members of the MBRT
have provided us throughout the years in restoring these two sites that once were
wetlands and functioning streams, but had been converted to intensive agricultural uses.
These lands are now functioning wetlands and streams, providing the multi-benefits to
the environment that is desirable.
Please let me know what we can do to expedite the acceptance of the Monitoring Reports
and the release of credits as requested above. Your assistance is greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
VLJA i R BEASLEY
President
Enclosures
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTQN,bNTORTyCA Ci Mg8402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO
Regulatory Division
Action ID Nos. 200121094 & 200121095, Fisher River Wetland & Deep Creek Wetland
& Stream Mitigation Banks
SEE DISTRIBUTION
Dear Colleague:
FER 9 5 7 118
DENR - VVA i L- u1..
This correspondence is in reference to the Fisher River and De* 8#" sTJRMWATEk H; M H
Mitigation Banks that are being American Wetlands. The Fisher River Mitigation Bank
consists of 99.81 acres and is located on the east side of SR 1338 (Fisher Valley Road),
adjacent to the west side of the Fisher River, in Bryan and Franklin Townships,
approximately 5-6 miles northwest of Dobson, Surry County, North Carolina. The Deep
Creek Mitigation Bank consists of 70.745 acres and is located on the west side of SR
1570 (Dinkins Bottom Road), south of U.S. Highway 421, southwest of Yadkinville,
adjacent to Deep Creek and one of its unnamed tributaries. The purpose of this letter is to
provide you with a copy of the January 2008, Annual Monitoring Reports entitled, Year
Five Monitoring Report for Fisher River Mitigation Bank and Year Five Monitoring
Report for Deep Creek Mitigation Bank, the associated cover letter from the Bank 1
Sponsor, Mr. Lamar Beasley with American Wetlands dated February 1, 2008, and to
request your review and comment on this report.
Enclosed are copies of the referenced documents. I plan on visiting the sites on
April 10th and have coordinated this meeting with most of you either via phone or email.
Should you be unable to attend, please let me know as I wish to start with the meeting
beginning at Deep Creek around 10 a.m.. In the event you are unable to attend the site
inspection, please provide your comments to me within 30 days of your receipt of the
documents or immediately following our site inspections.
Thank you for your time and cooperation. If you have any questions, please do
not hesitate to contact me at the Raleigh Regulatory Field Office, telephone (919) 554-
4884, Ext. 24.
Sincerely,
Jean B. Manuele
Chief, Raleigh Regulatory
Field Office
Enclosure
DISTRIBUTION:
Mrs. Kathy Matthews
109 T.W. Alexander Drive
Durham,.North Carolina 27711
Mail Code E143-04
Ms. Marella Buncick
United States Fish and Wildlife Service .
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
Mr. John Domey
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
Mrs. Marla Chambers
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Habitat Conservation Program
112275 Swift Road
Oakboro, North Carolina 28129
2
Copy of Fisher River Mitigation Bank only:
Mr. Richard Everhart
Surry County District Conservationist
Natural Resources Conservation Service
Post Office Box 218
Dobson, North Carolina 27017
Copy Furnished:
Mr. Lamar Beasley
American Wetlands
2310 Ballycairne Court
Reston, Virginia 20191
3
oI - o83L?
Year Five Monitoring Report
for
Fisher River Mitigation Bank
S&EC Project No. 6169
Prepared for
American Wetlands & Natural Resources Exchange Corporation
January 2008
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
11010 Raven Ridge Road • Raleigh, North Carolina 27614 • Phone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
www.SudEC.com
Surry County, North Carolina
1.0 INTRODUCTION
' 1.1 Introduction
This monitoring report has been prepared by Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA (S&EC) in
' order to present and evaluate site monitoring data for the period January 1, 2007, through
December 31, 2007, for the Fisher River Wetland Mitigation Bank located in Surry County,
North Carolina. This report includes the following:
Project History
' Mitigation Components
Hydrologic Monitoring
' Vegetation Monitoring
Credit Ledger
Appendix A - Site Photos
' Appendix B - Hydrologic Data
Appendix C - Site Map
1.2 Project History
' The Fisher River Wetland Mitigation Bank is a Private-Commercial Bank, operated as a Debit
Bank and offers wetland and stream impact credits, solely for resource impacts by the North
Carolina Department of Transportation in the Upper Yadkin River Basin (Cataloging Unit
' 03040101). A conservation easement has been conveyed to Piedmont Land Conservancy.
The intent of the mitigation effort is to develop a Palustrine Forested Wetland (Cowardin),
' further classified as Headwater Forest Wetland (NCDEHNR 1996 Field Guide Report No. 96-
01), Piedmont-Mountain Bottomland Forest (Schafale & Weakley) with small areas of shrub-
bogs interspersed. This was done by restoring wetland hydrology to hydric soil areas as well as
' developing wetland hydrology in the near-hydric areas. In conjunction with the wetlands
restoration, 4,752 linear feet of stream, totaling 475 Stream Mitigation Units, were preserved.
' Construction for the Fisher River Wetland Mitigation Bank began in September 2002. The final
'
1
planting in (December 2002) included the planting of 16,500 seedlings in previously unplanted
areas and a partial inter-planting of the previously planted areas. Final seeding and mulching
' was completed in January 2003. The Land Quality section of NCDENR has released American
Wetlands from further review and inspection, based on their October 12, 2004 Inspection Report
certifying that the site had stabilized.
' Monitoring Years One through Four were performed by S&EC in 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006
respectively. Monitoring efforts for Years One through Four showed the site met both vegetativ
e
1
and hydrologic success criteria. Monitoring activities for Year Five were performed by S&EC
during the period January 1, 2007, to December 31, 2007.
Sixty percent of the mitigation credits have been released by the Mitigation Banking Review
Team (MBRT) (see attached credit ledger).
1.3 Mitigation Components
The following table lists the proposed wetland mitigation components:
Restoration (1:1) 25.5 acres 25.50 credits
Creation (3:1) 8.1 acres 2.70 credits
Enhancement (2:1) 0.91 acres 0.45 credits
Stream Preservation (10:1 for one-side of
stream corridor) 4752 linear feet 475 feet of credit
Total 34.51 acres 28.65 credits
The following table lists the actual acreage and potential credits, which were developed as a
result of implementation of the mitigation plan.
Restoration (1:1) 25.87 acres 25.87 credits
Creation (3:1) 9.05 acres 3.02 credits
Enhancement (2:1) 0.91 acres 0.45 credits
Stream Preservation (10:1 for one-side of
stream corridor) 4752 linear feet 475 feet of credit
Total 35.83 acres 29.34 credits
1.4 Response to MBRT Comments
' After completion and submittal of Year 4 Monitoring Report, a letter was received from the
MBRT summarizing comments and concerns regarding the results of the Year 4 Monitoring.
Two specific concerns were raised by the MBRT: 1) the results associated with two groundwater
' gauges which showed marginal success in regards to period of consecutive saturation and 2)
approximately half of the vegetation monitoring plots which achieved marginal individual
success.
' The MBRT further requested that the following be included in the next (2007) Monitoring
Report:

1. Data detailing the maximum number of consecutive days of saturation for all gauges
in all monitoring years (See Page 4), and
2. Include a copy of the site map showing the location of all gauges and monitoring
stations (See Appendix Q
The two (2) groundwater gauges in question may have experienced marginal success; however,
success was achieved despite drier-than-normal weather conditions in both 2006 and 2007. It
should be noted that the remaining eight (8) site gauges readily met hydrologic success criteria,
and, based on other site indicators of hydrology including hydric soil indicators and hydrophytic
vegetation, overall hydrology onsite is indicative of a functioning wetland.
' Regarding vegetative success concerns, while vegetation counts in some plots do not
individually meet overall density requirements, they are not representative of the entire site.
Based on plot specific topography and areas of standing water, growth of woody stems has been
inhibited in some areas; and while select plots show marginal success of 4 to 6 stems per plot,
the remaining plots onsite showed stem densities between 7 and 12 stems per plot. These
' densities are in excess of the desired mean count of 6.5 stems and, in fact, some of these plots are
well in excess of this mean. Accordingly, over the entire site the stem densities are estimated to
be well in excess of the 260 stems per acre minimum.
t 2.0 MONITORING
' This section includes information concerning; 1) hydrologic monitoring, 2) vegetative
monitoring, 3) an evaluation of site success, and 4) a credit ledger update.
' 2.1 Hydrologic Monitoring
Ten groundwater monitoring gauges (F1 through F10) were installed onsite in September 2001.
' Three gauges were also installed on the reference site. A rain gauge was also installed on the site
to collect rainfall data throughout the year.
' To achieve wetland hydrology, it is desired that saturation occur to within 12 inches of the
ground surface for approximately 16 or more consecutive days during the growing season, which
' is the equivalent of roughly 8.5% of the growing season. This duration is selected as the mean
and generally desired percentage, however, an individual gauge is deemed successful if it falls
within the range of 5 to 12% of the growing season or approximately 10 to 25 days.
' Hydrologic monitoring data for the 2007 monitoring year indicates that the site is successfully
experiencing conditions consistent with local jurisdictional wetlands. Data collected for the
' monitoring period are presented in graphical format in attachments to this report.
Data collected on this and other sites over the past several years indicated that the most likely
' times of the year in which soil saturation occurs in wetlands are during the winter and early
spring months. Rainfall patterns during the preceding winter and early spring months are the
most critical of the year relative to successful wetland hydrology for that year. Typically, once
' the growing season enters late spring through summer, shallow groundwater levels begin to fall
and also fluctuate rapidly due to high evapotranspiration rates and summer rainfall patterns. Fall
' is normally the driest portion of the year.
Rainfall patterns for the 2007 monitoring year indicate a much drier-than-normal year for the site
' as was evidenced by the exceptional drought which encompassed a majority of the state for most
of 2007. Total onsite rainfall during the 2007 growing season was measured at approximately
21.13 inches on the site gauge, as compared to the 30.34 inches reported as normal by the State
' Climate Office. Rainfall measured onsite during 2007 was approximately 4-inches less than
measured in 2006, again a drier-than-normal year by current standards. This data is included
with site rainfall data in Appendix B.

0
0

C
Data from the site gauges indicates the longest consecutive period in which saturation occurred
(within 12 inches of the ground surface) during the growing season (March 16 to October 16)
ranged from 10 days to 48 days amongst the ten site gauges. Ten (10) of the ten (10) gauges
onsite met success criteria however, two (2) of those displayed marginal numbers (Gauges F3
and F 10).
Gauges F1, F2, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, and F9 met hydrologic success criteria with 25, 22, 48, 23,
26, 16, 19, and 20 consecutive days of saturation respectively. The two marginal gauges
(Gauges F3 and F10) did not meet the 8.5% mid-point criteria, however, they did attain
saturation within 12 inches of the ground surface for 5% of the growing season (10 days) and
therefore met success criteria.
Data collected from gauge F3 indicates ten (10) consecutive days of saturation within 12 inches
of the ground surface. In Monitoring Years One, Two, Three, and Four (2003, 2004, 2005, and
2006) gauge F3 experienced 49, 24, 21, and 8 days of consecutive saturation within 12 inches,
respectively. Data collected from gauge F10 similarly indicated ten (10) consecutive days of
saturation within 12 inches of the ground surface. In Monitoring Years One, Two, Three, and
Four (2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006) gauge F10 experienced 144, 38, 23, and 3 days of
consecutive saturation within 12 inches, respectively. Based on data previously collected from
this gauge in previous monitoring years, it is expected that the gauge would likely have
experienced the saturation necessary to meet hydrology had a more normal rainfall year (see
previous discussion) occurred and the preceding winter, early spring, and summer not been so
dry.
The number of consecutive days of saturation within 12 inches for each gauge throughout the
five year monitoring period is shown in the table below:
F1
F2
F3
F4
F5
F6
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
59 30 94 35 25
55 45 30 13 22
49 24 21 8 10
84 63 30 67 48
136 147 88 36 26
77 25 53 20 23

F7
F8
F9
F10
72 24 20 11 16
55 23 27 11 19
102 25 49 11 20
144 38 23 3 10
Based on concerns raised by the MBRT in 2006, additional investigations were conducted in the
vicinity of gauges F3 and F 10 on October 25, 2007 by NC Licensed Soil Scientist, Mike
Ortosky. As supported by the photos attached as Appendix D, soils in the immediate vicinity of
gauges F3 and F10 clearly displayed hydric soil indicators (gleyed matrix, iron reduction and
depletion, etc.) as well as indicators of wetland hydrology (oxidized rhizospheres, etc.). Gauge
F10 is within the original hydric soils as mapped on the site that had been converted through
agricultural drainage and gauge F3 is in a formerly non-hydric soils area that was created
through grading during site development. It is clear that both F10 and F3 now display the same
hydric characteristics after several years of seasonal saturation. It is our opinion that, despite
sporadic periods where the saturation of the upper 12 inches did not meet the technical criteria
for wetland hydrology, those areas (173 & F10) developed and maintained the soils and
vegetative character of a jurisdictional wetland and experienced the natural hydrologic variability
that native wetlands of similar landscape position in the area would have experienced. We
believe those areas of the site that are shown in the original plan as restored or created have been
and continue to be functioning wetlands.
While it is possible that the site is tending towards a somewhat drier ecosystem (based on a
' review of groundwater gauge data alone), it is more likely that groundwater gauge deficits are
the result of three consecutive drier than normal growing seasons. These conditions, which have
' been documented State-wide, have been observed at various other sites including both natural
undisturbed sites as well as restoration sites. Additionally the evaluation of wetland hydrology
and hydrologic regimes is predicated on conditions observed during years with normal rainfall
t patterns. Based on the rainfall data observed on site, (and confirmed by other sources) rainfall
over a significant portion of the five year monitoring period was well below normal. Yet, despite
drier than normal conditions gauge data indicated very positive results.
Based on the groundwater data collected to date, observed hydric soil indicators, and the overall
success of not just planted tree and shrub species but the numerous herbaceous wetland
volunteers there is no doubt whatsoever that the site has witnessed a hydrologic regime
indicative of desired wetland conditions. The fact that there is some variability across the site (in
terms of soil conditions, hydrology and vegetative success) would be expected considering the
natural variability of conditions observed on previously undisturbed sites. It is our opinion,
therefore, despite the variances in desired saturated conditions, that the entirety of the site has
and continues to perform as a functioning wetland system.
Accordingly, it is our opinion that hydrologic success was achieved during the 2007
Growing Season (Year Five) and throughout the five year monitoring period.
2.2 Vegetation Monitoring
' Success criteria for vegetation is based on the average number of live stems per acre across the
site as described in the Mitigation Plan where a mean density of 260 stems per acre is required at
the end of the five-year monitoring period. Additionally, it was desired that no single planted
species comprise greater than twenty percent (20%) of the surviving stems at the end of the
monitoring period.
Ten sample plots are located across the site adjacent to the groundwater monitoring devices. For
simplification of records, the sample plots were numbered the same as the monitoring gauges.
' Each plot is a square, 10 meters (32.8 feet) on each side (100 square meters, or approximately
1075 square feet).
' The following table indicates the total number of live stems in each sample plot as of September
5, 2007:
t Plot Numbers F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 T
Total Woody Stems 12 4 9 16 8 8 11 13 8 9 98
' The average stems per sample plot is 6.4 stems. The sample plot median is 6.5 stems. A review
of the sample plots (averaging 6.4 stems per plot) reveals a current (2007 - Year Five) site
' planting density of approximately 260 stems per acre.
During vegetation counts, plant volunteers were also counted and quantified. While identified as
' "volunteers," any number of these specimens might easily have been overlooked during previous
stem counts. When we include site volunteers within these stem counts we find the average
stems per sample plot of 9.8 stems. The sample plot median is 9 stems. A review of the sample
' plots including volunteers (averaging 9.8 stems per plot) reveals a current (2007 - Year Five)
site planting density of approximately 396 stems per acre.
Species diversity in monitoring plots is described in the following table:
Plot Number
Species F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 T %
American
Sycamore 1 1(3) 1 (1) 4 3 2 1 (1) 18 18.4%
River Birch 1 2(l) (4) 2 (2) 3 15 15.3%
Green Ash 3(2) 2(l) 2(2) 1 1(2) 2(l) 5 3(l) 28 28.6%
Oak,Swamp
Chestnut 2 2 2.0%
Oak,
Che bark 1 1 3 2 4 11 11.2%
Oak, Water 0 0.0%
Oak, Willow 1 1 1.0%
Black Gum 1 (1) 1 1 1 1 1 7 7.1%
Yellow Poplar (2) 3 (1) 6 6.1
Buttonbush 1 1
6
Black Willow (1) (3) (2) 6 6.1%
Red Maple (1) 1 1.0%
Silky Dogwood (1) 1 1.0%
Persimmon (1) 1 1.0%
Totals 12 4 9 16 8 8 11 13 8 9 98 100%
u

11 released to mitigate for wetland impacts, subject to permit approval by the U.S. Army Corps of
* Number of volunteers shown in parentheses
There are fourteen (14) different woody species represented within the ten (10) sample plots, ten
(10) of which were originally planted onsite. Only one species (Green Ash) comprises over 20%
of the total stand counted. Of the 435 stems per acre that were originally planted, approximately
260 stems per acre remain after the fifth growing season (not including volunteers), which
represents an overall survival rate of approximately 60%. When the numerous volunteers within
each plot are included in our stem counts, the overall site density is approximately 396 stems per
acre.
The vegetative component of the mitigation effort has met total stem and diversity criteria
throughout the five year monitoring period.
2.3 Monitoring Success - Year Five (2007)
According to site data collected during 2007 and throughout the five year monitoring
period, both hydrologic and vegetative success criteria have been met for the Fisher River
Mitigation Site during Year Five (2007) and throughout the monitoring period.
This year's monitoring confirms the previously observed high correlation of site rainfall and
depth to soil saturation on the site. As a result of the successful restoration of wetland
hydrology, both the planted and volunteer species, continue to flourish onsite. This will ensure
the restoration of the type of diverse bottomland hardwood wetland ecosystem that occupied the
site prior to agricultural conversion of the site.
2.4 Credit Ledger
The Credit/Debit Ledger that follows indicates the number of credits that were granted for Fisher
River Wetlands Mitigation Bank. The ledger also indicates the number of credits that have been
Engineers. Sixty percent (60%) of wetland credits have been released since construction. The
releases were based on the approval of the Conservation Easement and the recording of a
' perpetual conservation easement, both of which have been accomplished, and successful
monitoring for the past four years. By meeting the success criteria as documented in this report
the final forty percent (40%) of credits should be released.

CREDIT
TYPE
WETLANDS STREAM
Restoration Creation Enhancement Total Total Feet
TOTAL APPROVED CREDITS FOR PROJECT 25.87 3.02 0.45 29.34 475.00
APPROVED CREDITS
Date
Issued
Released Credits
Percent
10/8/2003 Easement Recorded 15.0 3.88 0.45 0.07 4.40 71.25
8/6/2004 1 st Year Monitoring 10 2.59 0.3 0.05 2.94 47.5
7/2/2005 2nd Year Monitoring 10 2.59 0.3 0.05 2.94 47.5
5/30/2006 3rd Year Monitoring 10 2.59 0.3 0.05 2.94 47.5
8/16/2007 4th Year Monitoring 15 3.88 0.45 0.07 4.40 71.3

Total 60.00 15.53 1.80 0.29 17.62 285.00
PROJECT DEBITS
Date
Issued
Project USACE
ID

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
UNUSED CREDIT BALANCE DEFICIT
Date 8/5/2004 6.47 0.75 0.12 7.34 118.75
7/2/2005 9.06 1.05 0.17 10.28 166.25
5/30/2006 11.65 1.35 0.22 13.22 213.8
8/16/2007 15.53 1.8 0.29 17.62 285.0

Appendix A
Site Photos
Appendix A
A photograph of each of the ten (10) sample plots is included below. Each view is from
the southeast corner of the plot toward the northwest corner where the groundwater
monitoring gauge is located. The photos were taken during the 2007 growing season.

I+fi
}} F -?,
?7 Ir
( 1
c,s
Plot F1 - September 5, 2007
Plot F2 - September 5, 2007
Plot F3 - September 5, 2007
Plot F4 - September 5, 2007
Plot F5 - September 5, 2007
Plot F6 - November 28, 2007

g5iv.
#5i 3?
2
i?P dy J?,?
Plot F7 - September 5, 2007
Plot F8 - November 28, 2007
Mil IN I
Plot F9 - September 5, 2007
Plot F10 - November 28, 2007
1
1
n

n

1
1
C
C
Appendix B

-- LO-unf -5Z

- --- LO-unf -8

- LO-unf -[
I
I
LO-unr-t,
I
-
LO-AeW-8Z

ti
O - LO-AeW-?Z
O I I
C j LO-AeW-t, ?
)
?

M - L0-AeW-L
1¦Y ?
0 - - Lp-adV-0£

O I
O -' LO-ady-EZ
¦.
*00 N •O
LO-ady-g L
LO
CL
¦.
LO-ady-g L

.
U.
?? =
,m
? - -' LO-ady-Z O
I
_ ® LO-aeW-9Z O L.L.
-

' ? LO-aeW-6 ? O
m I
-Z I U.

O
LO-aeW-S
-
N
m
L 4.0 LO-gaj-9Z
-
i, II T
' LO-gOJ-6 ?

I
LO-qaj-Z

L C?
LO-gaj-5
?

'i LO-uef -6Z

? O
• LO-uef -ZZ
?
O
LO-uer-5

LO-uer-g
i ?
i I
LO-uer- i

L O LO LO LO LO LO
' lr-- N co
(aa a:pns punojB Anojaq)
sa Liaui `ia}aM o} Li}daa
/•\
ti
O
.? N
00
¦? 0
.?.i A-+
O
N
0
? •tA
L
E
0
V
L ?
L ?
MENEM
¦? 0
*MJ
um ME
0
2
?I
illl
? N co
(aoe:pns punojB AnoI eq)
sagoui `jo4eM o4 g4dea
LO-0a0-0£
LO-Oa(]-CZ
10-090-9
LO-090-6
LO-OE)(]-Z
LO-naN-SZ
LO-AON-9 I
LO-noN- ? I
LO-AON--V
LO-100-92
LO-100-[Z
.0
L
LO-100- a
LO-100-L C
i
O
LO-d9S-0£
0
LO-daS-£Z O
LO-daS-9 O
LO-daS-6 0
LO-daS-Z
LO-6nV-9Z
LO-6nV-6 [
LO-6rnd-Z
LO-6ny-S
LO-Inf -6Z
LO-Inr-ZZ
LO-Inf -9
LO-Inf -9
LO-Inf -[

LL
L.L
M
L.L
N
U.
r
U.
T
p...
LD-unf -5Z
LD-unf -8 L
LD-unf -L L
a
LO-unr-t,
- LO-Aew-8Z

O LO-Aew-LZ

LO-AeMtL

LO-Aew-L
W ?
LO-Jdy-OE

O
O LO-Jdy-CZ

N O
'

LO-ady-g L ?.
O
a r

}+ LO-ady-g U.

LO-ady-Z L
O 1
T

LO-Jew-gZ O LJL

'i LO-Jew-6L O
r co
LO-Jew-Z L
O
V LO-Jew-S
tQ
L LO-gaj-gZ U.
Q
> LO-gaJ-6 L

?
i LO-qaj-Z L
L C'
? LO-qazl-5
' -
L. LO-Uef
6Z
0
•E LO-uef -ZZ
O
LO-uef -5 L
k

r
LO-uer-g
I
LO-uer- L
L O LO LO LO
N co

(aaepns punoaf molaq)
d'
sayaui `aajeM o} yldea
ti
O
N
L
00
¦- O
O
N
A
O
? •tA
L
A Q
E
O
V
L
s?
•-
.? O
O
m
I
i
i
I
i a
I
i
b
II
l
i
x
LO U,) I
I ? N co
(93sjjns punoA nnojeq)
setpui `aajeM of q}dea
LO-0@G-OE
LO-O@(]-CZ
LO-090-91
LO-094-6
LO-O9Q-Z
LO-AON-SZ
LO-AON-9 L
LO-AON- L L
LO-AON-t,
LO-t00-9Z
LO-100-1Z
•L
LO-100-t, L 0.
LO-100-L C
•L
O
LO-daS-OE
O
LO-daS-£Z
LO-daS-9 L O
m
LO-daS-6 D
LO-daS-Z
LO-6nd-9Z
LO-6nd-6 L
LO-6ny-Z L
LO-find-S
LO-Inf -6Z
LO-Inf -ZZ
LO-Inf -5 L
LO-Inf -9
LO-Inp- L

0
T-
LL
LL
00
LL
ti
LL
LL

i
LO-unf -5Z

LO-unf -8 ?
I
LO-unf -?
LO-unr-t,
i
LO-AeW-9Z
LO-AeW-?Z
W 00MM,%%
O
O
LO-AeW-L
N
_ LO-add-0£
AMA
LO-adV-£Z
O)o
¦?
?'¦?
.O
LO-ady-9 G)

O
LO-ady-6
N =
LO-add-Z O
? O
LO-aeW-9Z
LO-aeW-6 O

Rt LO-aeW-Z? 0
L
LO-aeW-S
?
MENEM
IMM
LO-ga=l-9Z
LO-qGJ-6
L Aw
MMMM'
LO-gaj-Z
LO-gaj-5
Li LO-uef -6Z
m LO-uef -ZZ
LO-uer-9
LO-uer-g

I
LO-uer-
C o Un

ui `e
o
sau N L

e e
?al1 O

uie
?21

/C ie
I.a
a O
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
m
ti
W
O
O
N
OL
V
? Q
O
O
N
M
tQ
L ?
LL
M LO N L LO
N V- O
sauoui `eiea IleluieU AI1ea
LO-aad- ?£
LO-aaa-tZ
LO-aaa-L ?
LO-aaa-0 t,
LO-aaa-£
LO-noN-9Z
LO-AON-61
LO-noN-U
LO-AON-9
LO-100-6Z
LO-IaO-ZZ C
MIN SIMON
10-100-91 D.
LO-10O-8
L
LO-100- ? AMEN
LO-daS-,VZ O
y-
LO-daS-L ? O
IMMI m
LO-daS-O 0
LO-daS-£
MEN
IMM
LO-6n`d-LZ
MEN LO-6nV-OZ
MEN
LO-6nV-£
MEN - LO-6ny-9
LO-Inf -0£
LO-Inf-£Z
10-Inf -91
LO-Inf -6
LO-Inf -Z
O
Supplemental Precipitation Data from the State Climate Office
Normal Monthly Data from the State Climate Office - Elkin Station
Jan Feb Mar Anr Mav June Jul Auty Sent Oct Nov Dec Total
Normal Monthly
Precipitation
inches 4.25 3.69 4.68 4.22 4.46 4.39 4.27 4.15 4.41 3.63 3.17 3.38 48.7
Fisher Monthly
Precipitation
inches 2007 3.4 2.11 4.29 2.92 2.27 5.32 2.53 2.02 3.84 6.54 35.29
Normal Daily Data from the State Climate Office - Elkin Station
Day Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
1 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.15 0.14 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.14 0.13 0.11 0.1
2 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.15 0.14 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.14 0.13 0.11 0.1
3 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.15 0.13 0.11 0.1
4 0.13 0.13 0.15 0.14 0.14 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.15 0.13 0.11 0.1
5 0.13 0.13 0.15 0.14 0.14 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.15 0.13 0.11 0.1
6 0.13 0.13 0.15 0.14 0.14 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.15 0.13 0.11 0.1
7 0.13 0.13 0.15 0.14 0.14 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.15 0.13 0.11 0.1
8 0.13 0.13 0.15 0.14 0.14 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.15 0.12 0.11 0.1
9 0.14 0.13 0.15 0.14 0.14 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.15 0.12 0.11 0.1
10 0.14 0.13 0.15 0.14 0.14 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.15 0.12 0.11 0.1
11 0.14 0.13 0.15 0.14 0.14 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.15 0.12 0.11 0.1
12 0.14 0.13 0.15 0.14 0.14 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.15 0.12 0.11 0.1
13 0.14 0.13 0.15 0.14 0.14 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.15 0.12 0.11 0.11
14 0.14 0.13 0.15 0.14 0.14 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.15 0.12 0.11 0.11
15 0.14 0.13 0.15 0.14 0.14 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.15 0.12 0.11 0.11
16 0.14 0.13 0.15 0.14 0.14 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.15 0.11 0.11 0.11
17 0.14 0.13 0.16 0.14 0.14 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.15 0.11 0.11 0.11
18 0.14 0.13 0.16 0.14 0.14 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.15 0.11 0.1 0.11
19 0.14 0.13 0.16 0.14 0.14 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.15 0.11 0.1 0.11
20 0.14 0.13 0.16 0.14 0.15 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.15 0.11 0.1 0.11
21 0.14 0.13 0.16 0.14 0.15 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.15 0.11 0.1 0.11
22 0.14 0.13 0.16 0.14 0.15 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.15 0.11 0.1 0.11
23 0.14 0.13 0.15 0.14 0.15 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.15 0.11 0.1 0.11
24 0.14 0.14 0.15 0.14 0.15 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.11 0.1 0.12
25 0.14 0.14 0.15 0.14 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.11 0.1 0.12
26 0.14 0.14 0.15 0.14 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.11 0.1 0.12
27 0.14 0.14 0.15 0.14 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.11 0.1 0.12
28 0.14 0.14 0.15 0.14 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.11 0.1 0.12
29 0.14 0.14 0.15 0.14 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.11 0.1 0.12
30 0.14 0.15 0.14 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.11 0.1 0.12
31 0.13 0.15

Mar 16

pr 0.15

May

un 0.13

Jul 0.14

Aug

ept 0.11

Oct 16 0.13
Total Rainfall
during Growing
Season
SCO Normal
Precipitation during
Growing Season
(inches)

.46

.22

.46

.39

.27

.15

.41

.98

0.34
2007 Fisher
Precipitation during
Growing Season
(inches)

.91

.92

.27

.32

.53

.02

.84

.32

1.13

1

1
1

H

P
Appendix C
1
F-L
5001
76

¦ 4. . A

115, "?? 22
f r \ I.? r,_... ? 1
rZ
r
Q IfuYds ? ? J r '. t
Project Number: Map Title:
G I G9 Flcgure I - USGS Map
Project Manager:
JER Fisher River
Wetland Mitigation Bank
Scale: 5urry County, NC
2000'
Date: Source:
JANUARY 2008 Bottom Quadrangle
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
11010 Raven Ride Rd.- Raleigh, NC 27614
(919) 8465900 • [phone]
Web Page' www.SandEC.com
03AO2ddV 31V0 NOlda0S0
I 10 I G79AA DNI?JOilNOA SNd f0/6Z/L SONIMVNOlllfe-Sv
:'ON }aayS :al}!1 }aa4S
,002=.1 9GNHIl;]M Nb'3I'N;1A :)N `.UNno:) x2!NnG
:aloOS :}ua!I0 :uoi}ooo3
191 ?'OavWs'bmm
L9669C8 (616) :-d • 0065968 (616) :O-Ild • Y19LZ a-!1-0 qWX V!-I-H • PPo8 a8P!8 -A-H 01011
GNJ • W W oh r
:uMOJp :pau6!saa 'I Nd9 N O UV J Ill W a NVlig/V1 Vd 'S'JuVIinSUOD jV3UOlWuoJjeu3 78 jJo$
6919 c ggAl"J 'c ggPG J
}oafoJd :}oafojd
?J

O
M
CE)

>•
fr
O Z
Sz
M
°o O
z - CSC
0
o C) 77
C) O
M O

J
J
W
Q 7
W O O
IL/
w
0
V
l1J
0
0
?
_I ? z
LL

?
p[ Z
E
p Q O M
> LL- O
_
z ?- z
O
C)
o
M

? N
L
1=
In E
L
L E
E
o ?
-N
_ -N
o? -
O >
L
Ln
In
W ? y

Appendix D
1
O
LL-
O
m
O
U_
L
O
`^O
V 1
m
a?
m
c?
0
U_
L
,yO
W
O
n.?
m
U'
O
U_
L
,yO
W
1
(S)
m
m
0
a
U_
L
O
CD
?Q('?
V I
a
r?
o?
?w
c ai
0
w

0
N
C
O
bA
O
C
c? G
3 .o
?oc
> ao