20110187 Ver 1_Year 3 Monitoring Report_20140117

YEAR 3 (2013)
ANNUAL WETLAND MONITORING REPORT
SUMMIT SEEP NON - RIPARIAN WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
EEP Project # 94646 RFP # 16- 002835 Contract # 003244
Davidson County, North Carolina
Data Collected February 14, 2013 — November 13, 2013
PREPARED FOR:
rA_V_ �l
Isptem
t 11 l�l]
Y.�i[:NAM
L�7�
D
AL ITV
UCOVED DEC 1 920 3
NC Department of Environment & Natural Resources
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Raleigh, North Carolina
PREPARED BY:
/q
Restoration Systems, LLC
C_h'Hq,'y� ECCS.�.�.rt` .
1101 211
-p'tE ;vr 0 RA f',
NC 2760ite
Raleigh,
Summit Seep Non - Riparian Wetland Mitigation Site
Year 3 (2013) Annual Monitoring Document
December 2013
December 2013
Table of Contents

Table of Contents
Part 1: Executive Summary/Project Abstract
1 1 Project Goals & Objectives
12 Background Summary
1 3 Vegetation Assessment
1 3 1 Vegetation Success Criteria
1 3 2 Vegetative Problem Areas
1 3 3 Vegetative Contingency Plan
14 Wetland Assessment
14 1 Wetland Success Criteria
14 2 Wetland Contingency Plan
14 3 Wetland Problem Areas
1 5 Supporting Data
Part 2: METHODS
2 1 Hydrology
2 2 Vegetation
Part 3: CONCLUSIONS
3 1 Hydrology
3 2 Vegetation
Part 4: REFERENCES
Appendix A C
Figure 11
Table 1
Table 2
Table 3
Table 4
general Figures and Tables
Vicinity Map & Directions
Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Project Activity and Reporting History
Project Contacts
Project Baseline Information and Attributes
Appendix B Visual Assessment Data
Figure 2 Current Condition Plan View (CCPV)
Table 5 Vegetation Condition Assessment
Appendix C Vegetation Plot Data
Table 6 Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Table 7 CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Table 8 Planted & Total Stems /Acre Counts
Vegetation Monitoring Photographs
Appendix D Hydrology Data
Table 9 Wetland Gauge Attainment Data
Figure 3 Summit Seep 30 -70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall
2013 Groundwater Gauge Graphs
Appendix E 2013 Remedial Actions
Remedial Action Plan for Hydrology
NCEEP Correspondence
2
2
2
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
Cel
Summit Seep Non - Riparian Wetland Mitigation Site Table of Contents
Year 3 (2013) Annual Monitoring Document
December 2013

Part 1: Executive Summary/Proiect Abstract
1.1 Project Goals & Objectives
The 2009 Yadkin Pee -Dee River Basin Restoration Priorities document (NCEEP 2009) identified
stormwater runoff and other development impacts as likely contributors to turbidity and chlorophyll
violations within the Summit Seep Wetland Mitigation Site's Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) and 14-
Digit Cataloging Unit 03040103020010 The Summit Seep Wetland Mitigation Site (hereby referred to
as "Site ") was identified as a non - ripanan wetland restoration opportunity to improve water quality,
enhance flood attenuation, and to restore wildlife habitat within the TLW
The project goals address stressors identified in the TLW and include the following
• Remove nonpomt sources of pollution associated with vegetation maintenance including
a the cessation of broadcasting fertilizer, pesticides, and other agricultural chemicals into and
adjacent to Site drainage ditches, and
b providing a vegetated wetland to aid in the treatment of runoff
• Restore wetland hydro - periods that satisfy wetland jurisdictional requirements and approximate
the Site's natural range and variation
• Promote floodwater attenuation by filling ditches and enhancing groundwater storage capacity
• Restore and reestablish natural community structure, habitat diversity, and functional continuity
• Enhance and protect the Site's full potential of wetland functions and values in perpetuity
The project goals will be addressed through the following project objectives
• Providing 4 0 Non - riparian Wetland Mitigation Units (WW's), as calculated in accordance with
the requirements stipulated in RFP #16- 002835, by restoring 3 91 acres and enhancing 0 18 acres
of non - riparian wetland This will be accomplished by filling ditches, removing spoil castings,
excluding livestock, redirecting hydrology from a spring across the Site, and planting with native
forest vegetation
• Protecting the Site in perpetuity with a conservation easement
1.2 Background Summary
Located in western Davidson County and within the 14 -Digit Cataloging Unit 03040103020010, the Site
is approximately five miles southwest of Lexington, North Carolina (Figure 1, Appendix A) Within the
Southern Outer Piedmont physiographic province of North Carolina, the regional physiography is
characterized by dissected irregular plains, some low rounded hills and ridges, and low to moderate
gradient streams with mostly cobble, gravel, and sandy substrates (Gnffith et al 2002) The wetland
restoration and enhancement area is located upslope along the western edge of an unnamed tributary's
floodplain The project drains 35 6 acres and ultimately connects to North Potts Creek The 6 4 acre Site
sits on both sides of the unnamed tributary, of which 4 1 acres have been restored The North Carolina
Ecosystem Enhancement Program currently holds the conservation easement for the Site, the property is
owned by Hillcrest Acres, LLC
1.3 Vegetation Assessment
After planting was completed, six sample vegetation plots (10 -meter by 10- meter) were installed and
measured within the Site as per guidelines established in CVS -EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation,
Version 4 2 (Lee et al 2008) Vegetation plots are permanently monumented with 5 -foot metal t -posts at
each corner and half inch PVC at the origin In each sample plot, vegetation parameters to be monitored
include species composition and species density Visual observations of the percent cover of shrub and
herbaceous species will also be documented by photograph Vegetation plot information can be found in
Summit Seep Non- Ripanan Wetland Mitigation Site Page I
Year 3 (2013) Annual Monitoring Document
December 2013

Appendix C Year 3 (2013) stem count measurements indicate an average of 573 planted stems per acre
across the Site In addition, each individual plot met success criteria
13 1 Vegetation Success Criteria
Characteristic Tree Species include woody tree and shrub species planted at the Site, observed within a
reference forest, or outlined for the appropriate plant community in Schafale and Weakley (1990) An
average density of 320 stems per acre of Characteristic Tree Species must be surviving in the first three
monitoring years Subsequently, 290 Characteristic Tree Species per acre must be surviving by the end of
year 4 and 260 Characteristic Tree Species per acre by the end of year 5 The Interagency Review Team
(IRT) may allow counting of acceptable volunteer species toward the 210 -tree per acre density upon
review and evaluation of the annual monitoring data
No single volunteer species (most notably red maple, loblolly pine, and sweet gum) will comprise more
than 20 percent of the total composition at years 3, 4, or 5 If this occurs, remedial procedures /protocols
outlined in the contingency plan will be implemented During years 3, 4, and 5, no single volunteer
species, comprising over 20 percent of the total composition, may be more than twice the height of the
planted trees If this occurs, remedial procedures outlined in the contingency plan will be implemented
If, within the first 3 years, any species exhibits greater than 50 percent mortality, the species will either be
replanted or an acceptable replacement species will be planted in its place as specified in the contingency
plan
13 2 Vegetative Problem Areas
The year 1 (2011) Annual Monitoring Report indicated problems with Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense)
and small carpgrass (Arthraxon hispidus) (not considered invasive) Invasive species treatments for
Chinese privet were completed in the spring of 2012 and will continue throughout the 5 year monitoring
period, as necessary Treatment of Chinese privet was effective and no occurrences of Chinese privet
were noted during year 3 (2013) monitoring
Supplemental planting by Carolina Silvics occurred in the winter of 2012/2013 with bare -root trees
including 800 American elm (Ulmus americana), 500 American hornbeam (Carpinus carolmtana), and
800 river birch (Betula nigra) These trees were doing well during Year 3 (2013) monitoring
No vegetation problem areas were identified within the Site during Year 3 (2013) Monitoring
1 3 3 Vegetative Contingency Plan
If vegetation success criteria are not achieved based on average density calculations from combined plots
over the entire restoration area, supplemental planting may be performed with tree species approved by
regulatory agencies Supplemental planting will be performed as needed until achievement of vegetation
success criteria
1.4 Wetland Assessment
Initially four groundwater monitoring gauges were installed at the Site After the completion of the
Baseline Monitoring Report, an additional monitoring gauge was installed on June 8, 2011 (Figure 2,
Appendix B)
Summit Seep Non - Riparian Wctland Mitigation Site Page 2
Year 3 (2013) Annual Monitoring Document
December 2013

Hydrological sampling was conducted throughout the growing season at intervals no greater than thirty
days, and was done so to satisfy the determination of jurisdictional hydrology success within the Site
(USEPA 1990) In addition, rainfall data will be used for comparison of groundwater conditions with
extended drought conditions Graphs of groundwater hydrology and precipitation from an onsite rain
gauge, supplemented with data from a nearby weather station, are included in Appendix D
14 1 Wetland Success Criteria
Target hydrological characteristics include saturation or inundation for 7 5 percent of the growing season,
which during average climatic conditions is from March 28— November 3 (220 days) (2002 NRCS WETS
Data) Restored/enhanced wetland areas are expected to support hydrophytic vegetation, if wetland
parameters are marginal as indicated by vegetation and/or hydrology monitoring, a jurisdictional
determination will be performed
Based on the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Regional Supplement (USACE 2010),
the growing season begins when biological indicators of plant growth (bud burst, emergence of herbs
from the ground, or elongation of leaves, etc ) has occurred, and/or the soil temperature indicates
microbial activity (soil temperature of 50 -55 degrees at a depth of 12 inches from the soil surface) For
the purpose of this year 3 (2013) Annual Monitoring Report, a growing season initiation of February 14,
2013 is being used to compare with the standard Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS)
published growing season dates Future monitoring data collection (documentation of bud burst and soil
temperature) will be used to verify the initiation of the growing season
Summary of Monitoring Period/Hydrology Success Criteria by Year
14 2 Wetland Contingency Plan
Hydrologic contingency may include floodplain surface modifications such as construction of ephemeral
pools, deep ripping of the soil profile, and installation of berms to retard surface water flows
Recommendations for contingency to establish wetland hydrology may be implemented and monitored
until hydrology success criteria are achieved
14 3 Wetland Problem Areas
There were no wetland problem areas observed during the 2013 monitoring season
Summit Seep Non - Ripanan Wetland Mitigation Site Page 3
Year 3 (2013) Annual Monitoring Document
December 2013
Soil Temperatures/Date Bud Burst
Monitoring Period Used for
7 5 Percent of
Year
Documented
Determining Success
Monitoring Period
March 28- November 3
2011 (Year 1)
--
17 days
(220 days)
Bud burst and soil temperatures
March 1- November 3
2012 (Year 2)
19 days
documented on March 1, 2012
(248 days)
Bud burst on red maple (Ater rubrum) and
elderberry (Sambucus canadensis) and soil
February 14- November 3 (263
2013 (Year 3)
°F
20 days
temperature of 48 documented on
days)
February 14, 2013
2014 (Year 4)
2015 (Year 5)
14 2 Wetland Contingency Plan
Hydrologic contingency may include floodplain surface modifications such as construction of ephemeral
pools, deep ripping of the soil profile, and installation of berms to retard surface water flows
Recommendations for contingency to establish wetland hydrology may be implemented and monitored
until hydrology success criteria are achieved
14 3 Wetland Problem Areas
There were no wetland problem areas observed during the 2013 monitoring season
Summit Seep Non - Ripanan Wetland Mitigation Site Page 3
Year 3 (2013) Annual Monitoring Document
December 2013

1.5 Supporting Data
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 NC Ecosystem Enhancement
Program ( NCEEP) website All raw data supporting the tables and figures in the appendices is available
from NCEEP upon request
Part 2: METHODS
2.1 Hydrology
Measurement of wetland hydrology was performed in accordance with traditional methods as per the
April 2003 USACE Wilmington District Stream Mitigation Guidelines Five continuously recording,
surficial monitoring gauges were installed in accordance with specifications in Installing Monitoring
Wells /Piezometers in Wetlands (NCWRP 1993) The fifth monitoring gauge was installed on June 8,
2011 per NCEEP recommendations received on May 31, 2011 Monitoring gauges were set to a depth of
approximately 24 inches below the soil surface Screened portions of each gauge were surrounded by
filter fabric, buried in screened well sand, and sealed with a bentonite cap to prevent siltation and surface
flow infiltration during floods Data will be downloaded at least every 30 days during the growing
season Additionally, an electronic rain water recording gauge was installed at the Site
2.2 Vegetation
Monitoring of planted vegetation follows the CVSINCEEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version
4 2 (Lee et al 2008) Six 10 -meter by 10 -meter vegetation plots were installed within the 4 1 acres of
restored / enhanced wetlands (Figure 2, Appendix B) Vegetation received a visual evaluation at least
once every thirty days and CVS data collection took place on July 22, 2013
Part 3: CONCLUSIONS
3.1 Hydrology
All groundwater gauges met success criteria based on the NRCS established growing season However,
the true growing season should be based on biological activity in the soil, measured by soil temperature
(50 -55 degrees at a depth of 12 inches from the soil surface) and bud burst, which is consistently early to
late February in the Piedmont of North Carolina If the growing season is presumed to extend from
February 14 to November 3 (263 days) then all five monitoring gauges far exceed success criteria, as
depicted in the following table Table 9 (Appendix D) gives gauge result data based on the biological
growing season in applicable years in addition to the NRCS growing season
Observations made during the 2012 growing season indicated that the original ditch plug and ditch
running along the southern portion of the Site had settled below anticipated levels This settling allowed
water from the spring to follow historic ditch paths instead of being dispersed throughout the Site as
planned This resulted in unsatisfactory inundation of the Site in the area of Gauge 5 Restoration
Systems implemented a remedial action plan to correct the elevation of the ditch plug, ultimately restoring
groundwater levels throughout the Site The Remedial Action Plan and correspondence with NCEEP can
be found in Appendix E
Summit Seep Non- Ripanan Wetland Mitigation Site Page 4
Year 3 (2013) Annual Monitoring Document
December 2013

Summary of Groundwater Gauge Results
* This gauge was installed in early June 2011, therefore, data from the beginning of the growing season is not available Based on the data form
other gauges, it is likely that this gauge would have met cnteria
3.2 Vegetation
Vegetation sampling across the Site was above the required average density with 600 planted stems per
acre surviving In addition, each individual plot was above success criteria
It should be noted that there were variations in species documented between Year 1 (2011) and Year 2
(2012) Multiple plants appear to have been misidentified during Year 1 (2011) monitoring The species
were corrected during Year 2 (2012) monitoring, resulting in differences in species identified within each
vegetation monitoring plot
Summary of Planted Vegetation Plot Results
Plot
Success Criteria Achieved / Max Consecutive Days During Growing Season (Percentage)
e
Gauge
Year 1 (2011)
Year 2 (2012)
Year 3 (2013) Feb
Year 4 (2014)
Year 5 (2015)
1
March 28 Growing
Growing Season
Growing Season
Year 4 (2014)
Year 5 (2015)
2
Season Start
Start
Start
1
Yes / 37 days
Yes / 40 days
Yes / 58 days
4
(16 81 percent)
(16 1 percent)
(22 1 percent)
2
Yes / 73 days
Yes/ 118 days
Yes/ 211 days
6
(33 18 percent)
(47 6 percent)
(80 2 percent)
3
Yes / 23 days
Yes / 40 days
Yes / 105 days
(10 45 percent)
(16 1 percent)
(39 9 percent)
4
Yes / 67 days
Yes/ 115 days
Yes / 232 days
(30 45 percent)
(46 4 percent)
(86 5 percent)
5
NA* / 4 days
No / 8 days
Yes / 71 days
(1 8 percent)
(3 2 percent)
(27 0 percent)
* This gauge was installed in early June 2011, therefore, data from the beginning of the growing season is not available Based on the data form
other gauges, it is likely that this gauge would have met cnteria
3.2 Vegetation
Vegetation sampling across the Site was above the required average density with 600 planted stems per
acre surviving In addition, each individual plot was above success criteria
It should be noted that there were variations in species documented between Year 1 (2011) and Year 2
(2012) Multiple plants appear to have been misidentified during Year 1 (2011) monitoring The species
were corrected during Year 2 (2012) monitoring, resulting in differences in species identified within each
vegetation monitoring plot
Summary of Planted Vegetation Plot Results
Plot
Planted Stems / Acre Counting Towards Success Criteria
Year 1 (2011)
Year 2 (2012)
Year 3 (2013)
Year 4 (2014)
Year 5 (2015)
1
404
445
364
2
485
526
445
3
687
648
648
4
526
526
486
5
1133
1052
1093
6
607
405
405
Average of All
Plots (1 -6)
640
600
573
Summit Seep Non - Riparian Wetland Mitigation Site Page 5
Year 3 (2013) Annual Monitoring Document
December 2013

Part 4: REFERENCES
Griffith, G E, J M Omermk, J A Comstock, M P Schafale, W H McNab, D R Lenat, T F MacPherson,
J B Glover, and V B Shelbourne 2002 Ecoregions of North Carolina and South Carolina
U S Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia
Lee, M T , R K Peet, S D Roberts, and T R Wentworth 2008 CVS -EEP Protocol for Recording
Vegetation Version 4 2 North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Ecosystem Enhancement Program Raleigh, North Carolina
North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) 1993 Installing Monitoring
Wells/Piezometers in Wetlands (WRP Technical Note HY -IA -3 1) North Carolina Department
of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Raleigh, North Carolina
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) 2009 Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin
Restoration Priorities (online) Available
http / /www nceep net / services /restplans/Yadkm— Pee— Dee_RBRP_2009_Final pdf [February 19,
2010] North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh, North
Carolina
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) 2011 Procedural Guidance and Content
Requirements for EEP Monitoring Reports (online) Available
http / /portal ncdenr org /c/ document _library/get_file9p_l_ id= 1169848 &folderld = 2288101 &name
=DLFE -39268 pdf [November 07, 2011] North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Raleigh, North Carolina
Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS) 2002 WETS Data Davidson County, Lexington NC —
4970 (online) Available
http //www wcc nres usda gov /ftpref /support/climate /wetlands /nc/37057 txt [October 2012]
Schafale, M P and A S Weakley 1990 Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina
Third Approximation North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation, N C Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources Raleigh, North
Carolina
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), United States Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA), North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), Natural Resources
Conservation Service (MRCS), and North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) 2003
Stream Mitigation Guidelines State of North Carolina
U S Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 2010 Interim, Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region (Version 2 0) U S
Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Environmental Laboratory, Vicksburg, MS
ERDC/EL TR -10 -9 163 pp
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) 1990 Mitigation Site Type Classification
(MIST) USEPA Workshop, August 13 -15, 1989 USEPA Region IV and Hardwood Research
Cooperative, NCSU, Raleigh, North Carolina
Summit Scep Non- Ripanan Wctland Mitigation Site Page 6
Year 3 (2013) Annual Monitoring Document
December 2013

Appendix A: General Figures and Tables
Figure 1 Vicinity Map & Directions
Table 1 Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table 2 Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3 Project Contacts
Table 4 Project Baseline Information and Attributes
Summit Seep Non - Riparian Wetland Mitigation Site
Year 3 (2013) Annual Monitoring Document
December 2013
Appendix A

Dw by FIGURE
VICINITY MAP & DIRECTIONS KRJ
Axiom Environmental SUMMIT SEEP NON - RIPARIAN WETLAND Date
218 Snow Ave Sept 2012
MITIGATION SITE
Raleigh, NC 27603
Davidson County, North Carolina Project.
Axiom Environmental, Inc. 10 -001

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Summit Seep Non - Riparian Wetland Mitigation Site Contract # 003244
Summit Seep Non - Ripanan Wetland Mitigation Site Appendix A
Year 3 (2013) Annual Monitoring Document
December 2013
Mitigation Credits
Riparian
Non- riparian
Nitrogen
Phosphorous
Stream
Wetland
Wetland
Buffer
Nutrient Offset
Nutrient Offset
Type
R
RE
R
RE
R
RE
f
-
Totals
3 91
009
Project Components
Existing
Restoration —
Restoration
Project Component
Stationing /
Footage /Acr
Approach
or- Restoration
Footage or
Mitigation Ratio
-or- Reach ID
Location
eage
(PI,PII etc)
Equivalent
Acreage
Non - riparian
NA
391
NA
Restoration
391
1 1
restoration
Non - riparian
NA
018
NA
Enhancement
018
21
enhancement
Component Summation
Restoration Level
Stream
Wetland (acres)
Buffer (square
Upland (acres)
linear feet)
feet)
Riverme
Non-
Riverme
Restoration
0
0
3 91
0
0
Enhancement
11VIAM
0
18
0
0
Enhancement 1
0
u
k
Enhancement II
0
Creation
VISM
0
0
Preservation
0
0
0
!
0
High Quality
0
0
0
0
Preservation
Summit Seep Non - Ripanan Wetland Mitigation Site Appendix A
Year 3 (2013) Annual Monitoring Document
December 2013

Table 2: Project Activity and Reporting History
Elapsed Time Since Grading Complete 2 Years and 7 Months
Elapsed Time Since Planting Complete 2 Years and 7 Months
Number of Reporting Years 3 Years
Summit Seep Non - Riparian Wetland Mitigation Site Contract # 003244
Activity or Report
Data Collection Complete
Completion or Delivery
CE Document
NA
Oct -2010
Conservation Easement
Apr -2011
Apr -2011
Mitigation Plan
NA
Nov -2010
Construction
NA
Apr -2011
Bare Root Planting
NA
Apr -2011
Baseline Monitoring Document
Apr -2011
June -2011
Year 1 (2011) Monitoring
Sep -2011
Nov -2011
Invasive Species (Chinese privet)
Treatment
ongoing
Year 2 (2012) Monitoring
Oct -2012
Nov -2012
Remedial Action for Hydrology
Feb -2013
Supplemental Planting (2,000 stems)
ArborGen
Feb -2013
Year 3 (2013) Monitoring
Nov -2013
Nov -2013
Table 3: Project Contacts
Summit Seep Non - Riparian Wetland Mitigation Site Contract # 003244
Firm
POC & Address
Designer.
Axiom Environmental, Inc
Grant Lewis, 919 215 1693
218 Snow Ave Raleigh, NC 27603
Lloyd Glover, 919 422 3392
Construction Contractor.
Land Mechanics, Inc
780 Landmark Road
Willow Spring, NC 27592 -7756
Planting Contractor:
Restoration Systems, LLC
Worth Creech, 919 334 9114
1101 Haynes St Suite 211 Raleigh, NC 2604
Lloyd Glover, 919 422 3392
Seeding Contractor
Land Mechanics, inc
780 Landmark Road
Willow Spring, NC 27592 -7756
Nursery Stock Suppliers
ArborGen
1 888 888 7158
Baseline Data Collection
Axiom Environmental, Inc
Grant Lewis, 919 215 1693
218 Snow Ave Raleigh, NC 27603
Restoration Systems, LLC
Ray Holz, 919 604 9314 and
Vegetation Monitoring
and Axiom Environmental,inc
Grant Lewis, 919 215 1693
218 Snow Ave Raleigh, NC 27603
Restoration Systems, LLC
Ray Holz, 919 604 9314 and
Wetland Monitoring.
and Axiom Environmental, NC
Grant Lewis, 919 215 1693
218 Snow Ave Raleigh, NC 27603
Summit Seep Non - Riparian Wetland Mitigation Site Appendix A
Year 3 (2013) Annual Monitoring Document
December 2013

Table 4: Project Baseline Information & Attributes
Summit Seep Non - Riparian Wetland Mitigation Site
Contract # 003244
Project Information
Project Name
Summit Seep
County
Davidson
Project Area (acres)
64
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)
35 76130, 80 33430
Protect Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province
Southern Outer Piedmont
River Basin
Yadkin
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8 -digit
T3040103
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14 -digit
3040103020010
DWQ Sub -basin
3/7/2004
Project Drainage Area, Total Outfall (acres)
51 5
Groundwater Treated by Site (acres)
356
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious
Area
<3%
CGIA Land Use Classification
Cropland and Pasture
Wetland Summary Information
Parameters
Wetland 1
Size of Wetland (acres)
4 1
Wetland Type (non- nparan, riparian riverme or
riparian non riverme)
Non - riparian
Mapped Soil Series
Armenia silt loam
Drainage class
Class A
Soil Hydnc Status
Hydric
Source of Hydrology
Natural Seep
Hydrologic Impairment
Ditches
Native vegetation community
Low Elevation Seep
Percent composition of exotic invasive vegetation
0%
Regulatory Considerations
Regulation
Applicable?
Resolved?
Supporting
Documentation
Waters of the United States — Section 404
Yes
Yes
Yes, Appendix A
Waters of the United States — Section 401
Yes
Yes
Yes, Appendix -A
Endangered Species Act
No
Historic Preservation Act
No
Coastal Zone Management Act [CZMA/Coastal Area
Management Act (CAMA)]
No
FEMA Floodplam Compliance
No
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No
Summit Sccp Non - Riparian Wetland Mitigation Site Appendix A
Year 3 (2013) Annual Monitoring Document
December 2013

Appendix B: Visual Assessment Data
Figure 2 Current Condition Plan View (CCPV)
Table 5 Vegetation Condition Assessment
Summit Seep Non - Riparian Wetland Mitigation Site Appendix B
Year 3 (2013) Annual Monitoring Document
December 2013

Axiom Environmental
218 Snow Ave
Raleigh, NC 27603
A. , .. ._ �' -., ,, u.. I
D— by FIGURE
CURRENT CONDITIONS PLANVIEW WGL /KRJ
SUMMIT SEEP WETLAND RESTORATION SITE Date 1
Dec 2013
Davidson County, North Carolina 2
Project.
11 10 -001

Table 5: Vegetation Condition Assessment
Summit Seen Non - Riparian Wetland Mitigation Site Contract # 003244
Planted Acreage - 6 9 acres (Entire Easement)
Vegetation Category
Mapped
CCPV
Number of
% of planted
Acreage
Symbol
Polygons
Acreage
No areas of vegetation concern were
Areas of Concern
observed at the Site during year 3
NA
NA
NA
0%
(2013) monitoring
No areas of invasive species
Exotic Invasive Species
concern were observed at the Site
NA
NA
NA
0%
during year 3 (2013) monitoring
Summit Seep Non - Riparian Wetland Mitigation Site Appendix B
Year 3 (2013) Annual Monitoring Document
December 2013

Appendix C: Vegetation Plot Data
Table 6 Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Table 7 CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Table 8 Planted & Total Stem Counts
Vegetation Plot Photos
Summit Seep Non - Riparian Wetland Mitigation Site Appendix C
Year 3 (2013) Annual Monitoring Document
December 2013

Table 6: Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Summit Seen Non- Rmarian Wetland Mitigation Site Contract # 003244
Plot
Planted Stems / Acre Counting Towards Success Criteria
Date Prepared
Year 1 (2011)
Year 2 (2012)
Year 3 (2013)
Year 4 (2014)
Year 5 (2015)
1
404
445
364
Metadata
Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of project(s) and
project data
2
485
526
445
Plots
List of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems, dead stems, missing,
etc )
3
687
648
648
Damage
List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and percent of total
stems impacted by each
4
526
526
486
Planted Stems by Plot and Spp
A matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species for each plot, dead and
missing stems are excluded
5
1133
1052
1093
project Name
Summit See
6
1 607
405
405
areas m
16,592
Average of All Plots
(1 -6)
640
600
573
Table 7. CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Summit Seep Non - Riparian Wetland Mitigation Site Contract # 003244
Report Prepared B •
Corn Faquin
Date Prepared
9/16/2013 15 52
database name
cvs- eep- entrytool -v2 2 7 mdb
database location
S \Projects\Projects (Existing) \Summit Seep \Task 7- Monitoring
computer name
SPARE
file size
37326848
Metadata
Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of project(s) and
project data
Prol, planted
Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year This excludes live
stakes
Proj, total stems
Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre, for each year This includes live
stakes, all planted stems, and all natural /volunteer stems
Plots
List of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems, dead stems, missing,
etc )
Vigor
Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots
Vigor by Spp
Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species
Damage
List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and percent of total
stems impacted by each
Damage by Slip
Damage values tallied by type for each species
Damage by Plot
Damage values tallied by type for each plot
Planted Stems by Plot and Spp
A matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species for each plot, dead and
missing stems are excluded
ALL Stems by Plot and spp
A matrix of the count of total living stems of each species (planted and natural volunteers
combined) for each plot, dead and missing stems are excluded
Project Code
Summit
project Name
Summit See
Description
Non-Riparian Wetland Mitigation Site
River Basin
Yadkin -Pee Dee
areas m
16,592
Required Plots calculated
6
Sampled Plots
6
Summit Seep Non - Riparian Wetland Mitigation Site Appendix C
Year 3 (2013) Annual Monitoring Document
December 2013

Table 8. Planted and Total Stems
Summit Seep
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Pnol-S = Planted excluding livestakes
P -all = Planting including livestakes
T = All planted and natural recruits including livestakes
T includes natural recruits
Current Plot Data (MY3 2013)
Annual
Means
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
Summit -RS -0001
Summit -RS -0002
Summit -RS -0003
Summit -RS -0004
Summit -RS -0005
Summit -RS -0006
MY3 (2013)
MY2 (2012)
MY1 (2011)
MYO (2011)
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
Pnol-S
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
2
2
Asimina triloba
pawpaw
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
4
4
4
9
9
9
14
14
14
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
9
9
9
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
5
5
5
6
6
6
19
19
19
9
9
9
Celtis laevigata
sugarberry
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Celtis occidentalis
common hackberry
Tree
3
3
3
Cornus
dogwood
Shrub or Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
1
1
2
Diospyros virginiana
common persimmon
Tree
2
2
34
19
3
3
52
22
5
5
32
10
10
159
10
10
84
9
9
28
11
11
11
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
4
1
1
1
4
1
1
9
1
1
4
Gleditsia triacanthos
honeylocust
Tree
1
Juglans nigra
black walnut
Tree
1
1
Juniperus virginiana
eastern redcedar
Tree
1
1
5
Liquidambar styraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
26
13
4
17
10
70
66
13
Pinus taeda
loblolly pine
Tree
1
2
3
4
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
1
1
1
7
7
7
15
15
15
14
14
14
11
11
11
10
10
10
Pyrus calleryana
Callery pear
Exotic
2
2
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
1
1
1
5
5
5
1
1
1
4
4
4
11
11
11
12
12
12
15
15
15
15
15
15
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
Tree
1
1
1
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
6
6
4
4
4
7
7
7
13
13
13
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
5
5
5
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
Salix nigra
black willow
Tree
1
1
Sambucus canadensis
Common Elderberry
Shrub
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Ulmus alata
winged elm
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
Ulmus americana
American elm
Tree
3
1
1
6
2
2
9
6
13
13
25
16
16
49
18
18
53
8
8
8
8
8
8
Unknown
Shrub or Tree
1
1
1
Stem coun
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species coun
Stems per ACRE
9
9
76
11
11
48
16
16
76
12
12
51
27
27
84
10
10
22
851
85
357
891
891
271
95
951
133
101
101
101
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
6
6
6
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
6
6
11
6
6
8
8
8
10
6
6
12
9
9
11
3
3
6
14
14
22
13
13
15
9
9
12
11
11
11
364.2
364.2
3076
445.2
445.2
1942
647.5
647.5
3076
485.6
485.6
2064
1093
1093
3399
404.7
404.7
890.3
573.3
573.3
2408
600.3
600.3
1828
640.8
640.81897
1
681.2
68 1.2
681.2
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Pnol-S = Planted excluding livestakes
P -all = Planting including livestakes
T = All planted and natural recruits including livestakes
T includes natural recruits

Summit Seep
2013 (Year 3) Vegetation Monitoring Photographs
Taken July 2013
Summit Seep Non- Riparian Wetland Mitigation Site Appendix C
Year 3 (2013) Annual Monitoring Document
December 2013

Summit Seep
2013 (Year 3) Vegetation Monitoring Photographs
Taken July 2013
Summit Seep Non - Riparian Wetland Mitigation Site Appendix C
Year 3 (2013) Annual Monitoring Document
December 2013

Appendix D: Hydrology Data
Table 9 Wetland Gauge Attainment Data
Figure 3 Summit Seep 30 -70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall
2013 Groundwater Gauge Graphs
Summit Seep Non - Riparian Wetland Mitigation Site Appendix D
Year 3 (2013) Annual Monitoring Document
December 2013

Table 9. Ground Gauge Attainment Data
Summit Seep Non - Riparian Wetland Mitigation Site Contract # 003244
Summit Seep Non - Ripanan Wetland Mitigation Site Appendix D
Year 3 (2013) Annual Monitoring Document
December 2013
Success Criteria Achieved / Max Consecutive Days During Growing Season (Percentage)
Gauge
Year 1 (2011)
Year 2 (2012)
Year 2 (2012)
Year 3 (2013) Feb.
Year 3 (2013)
March 28 — NRCS
March 1
March 28 — NRCS
14
March 28 — NRCS
Year 4 (2014)
Year 5 (2015)
Growing Season
Growing Season
Growing Season
Growing Season
Growing Season
Start
Start
Start
Start
Start
1
Yes / 37 days
Yes / 40 days
Yes / 16 days
Yes / 58 days
Yes / 29 days
(16 81 percent)
(16 1 percent)
(7 3 percent)
(22 1 percent)
(13 1 percent)
2
Yes / 73 days
Yes/ 118 days
Yes / 92 days
Yes/ 211 days
Yes / 169 days
(33 18 percent)
(47 6 percent)
(41 8 percent)
(80 2 percent)
(76 5 percent)
3
Yes / 23 days
Yes / 40 days
No / 15 days
Yes / 105 days
Yes / 63 days
(10 45 percent)
(16 1 percent)
(6 8 percent)
(39 9 percent)
(28 5 percent)
4
Yes / 67 days
Yes / 115 days
Yes / 81 days
Yes / 232 days
Yes / 190 days
(30 45 percent)
(46 4 percent)
(36 8 percent)
(86 5 percent)
(86 0 percent)
5
NA* / 4 days
No / 8 days
No / 8 days
Yes / 71 days
Yes / 29 days
(1 8 percent)
(3 2 percent)
(3 6 percent)
(27 0 percent)
(13 1 percent)
Summit Seep Non - Ripanan Wetland Mitigation Site Appendix D
Year 3 (2013) Annual Monitoring Document
December 2013

7
6
5
U
Q
r-i
G
4
0
E
w 3
c
n
Figure 3: Summit Seep 30 -70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall in 2013
Data from WETS Station: LEXINGTON, NC4970
® 2011 Rainfall
� 2012 Rainfall
� 2013 Rainfall
30th Percentile
70th Percentile
Summit Seep Non - Riparian Wetland Mitigation Site Appendix D
Year 3 (2013) Annual Monitoring Document
December 2013

bA
O
L ^
3 A
� M
D O
O N
M
� L
(ui) s;unowy pe;uiea
�n o Un O in o vi o
M P�1 N N O O
c
0
m
a)
V)
to
c >
3 0
0 Z
c
w
10/29/13
10/19/13
10/9/13
9/29/13
9/19/13
9/9/13
8/30/13
8/20/13
8/10/13
7/31/13
7/21/13
7/11/13
7/1/13
6/21/13
6/11/13
6/1/13
5/22/13
5/12/13
5/2/13
4/22/13
4/12/13
4/2/13
3/23/13
3/13/13
3/3/13
2/21/13
2/11/13
2/1/13
N O 00 to V NON V 10 000 NQ 1D 000 N:T w 000 1D 000
r-1 I -- IV -' 1 N N N N N T P11 M M m 1�
(ui) banal jajempunojg
f�C
10/29/13
10/19/13
10/9/13
9/29/13
9/19/13
9/9/13
8/30/13
8/20/13
8/10/13
7/31/13
7/21/13
7/11/13
7/1/13
6/21/13
6/11/13
6/1/13
5/22/13
5/12/13
5/2/13
4/22/13
4/12/13
4/2/13
3/23/13
3/13/13
3/3/13
2/21/13
2/11/13
2/1/13
N O 00 to V NON V 10 000 NQ 1D 000 N:T w 000 1D 000
r-1 I -- IV -' 1 N N N N N T P11 M M m 1�
(ui) banal jajempunojg

3.5
3.0
2.5
c
2.0 OE
a
m
w
c
ac
1.0
0.5
0.0
Summit Seep Groundwater Gauge 2
Year 3 (2013 Data)
12
10
Begin Growing Season
-- - --
- -- - - -- — __..._..__ —_ -- -- - -
-- -- End Growing Season
8
February 14
Nov 3
6
4
2
0
c_
-2
>
-4
W
v --
-6
—
8
Y
3 10
211 days
c
-12
Q -14
-16
-18
-20
-22
-
-24
"11
-26
-28
-30
ILA
-32
--
-34
N N N W W W A A A
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
Ln Ul lP 0) 01 M V V V V 00
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
00 00 l0 l0 lD N N F+
\ \ \ \ \ O O O
N W N N N N N
N N W N
N W lD N \ \ \
LO
l0 l0 1D N N
lD lD
W N N W W
W W W W W W
W W
W W W W W W W W
W W W
W W
3.5
3.0
2.5
c
2.0 OE
a
m
w
c
ac
1.0
0.5
0.0

12
Summit Seep Groundwater Gauge 3
Year 3 (2013 Data)
10 -
6
4
Begin Growing wing Season
February 14
-- - -- – --
End Growing Season
Nov 3
3.5
I
2
--
3.0
0
T it
_
-2
Bit
-4
105 Days i
c
-6
3
10
-
53 Days
W
-12
—
2.0
0
E
M
-14
a
-16
18
M
c
1.5
-22
cc
-24
-26
-28
1.0
-30
-32
-34
-36
0.5
-38
-40
-42
1
-44
--
IL
-46
N N N W W W A A A Un Ul V7 Ol 01 0) V V V V 00
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
N W h+ N N N N N N N N W N
W W \ N N \ N N \ I--+ F-� \ N F-� N O
w W N w N W w N w N W w N W w Uj W N W
W w w w w w w w w w w w w w
00 00 l0 l0 l0 I-- N N
\ \ \ \ \ O O O
N W l0 F+ N \ \ \
O O \ l0 LO lD I-+ N
W
N W w W W
w w w w w � r
w w
0.0

d0
O
ea
L ^
3 �
O O
O N
L �
CJ M
D
(ui) s;unowy lle;uiea
Li 0 1n o vi O Li o
M M N N -4 r-1 O O
N OW lDV NON V W W 0 N d W W 0 Nlzt 10000 N-zt 10 W0
1 1l 711- 1- N N N N N T T T T Tll�
(ui) lanalialempunojg
10/29/13
10/19/13
10/9/13
9/29/13
9/19/13
9/9/13
8/30/13
8/20/13
8/10/13
7/31/13
7/21/13
7/11/13
7/1/13
6/21/13
6/11/13
6/1/13
5/22/13
5/12/13
5/2/13
4/22/13
4/12/13
4/2/13
3/23/13
3/13/13
3/3/13
2/21/13
2/11/13
2/1/13

T
GA
O
s. ^
� Q
C �
� O
O N
(� M
CL Y"
(ul) siunowd lle;ulea
o r c
- o c
NOWID V NON '�t LOW 0NC1D W ON[F ID GOON VlO OOON�
(ul) lanai jalempunag
10/29/13
10/19/13
10/9/13
9/29/13
9/19/13
9/9/13
8/30/13
8/20/13
8/10/13
7/31/13
7/21/13
7/11/13
7/1/13
6/21/13
6/11/13
6/1/13
5/22/13
5/12/13
5/2/13
4/22/13
4/12/13
4/2/13
3/23/13
3/13/13
3/3/13
2/21/13
2/11/13
2/1/13

Appendix E: 2013 Remedial Actions
Remedial Action Plan for Hydrology
NCEEP Correspondence
Summit Seep Non - Riparian Wetland Mitigation Site Appendix E
Year 3 (2013) Annual Monitoring Document
December 2013

Natural Resource
Restoration & Conservation
January 17, 2013
Paul Wiesner
Western Project Manager
N C Ecosystem Enhancement Program
5 Ravenscroft Dr., Suite 102
Asheville, NC 28801
Subject Remedial Action Plan for hydrology at Summit Seep Non - Riparian Wetland Mitigation
Site [EEP Project ID #946461
Dear Mr Wiesner,
Section 3.1 of the Year 2 Monitoring Report for Summit Seep recognized observations made
during the 2012 growing season which indicated that ditch plugs placed during construction had
settled. Further observations made during the dormant season indicate that in addition to settling
ditch plugs, historic ditches filled during construction have settled as well. As a result,
Restoration Systems preformed multiple transect topographic surveys to determine the degree of
conveyance the historical ditches were having on the Site (Figure 1). Our findings showed that
overall settling of historical ditches is having a drastically larger influence on surface hydrology
being conveyed off Site than anticipated. The settling in combination with historic micro
topography due to agricultural activities is clearly conveying surface hydrology from the hillside
seeps and rain events through the Site and into the unnamed tributary As a result the time frame
for surface water infiltration has been drastically decreased
Year 2 rain and groundwater gauge data clearly show a direct correlation between rain events
and groundwater saturation with 12 inches of the surface The Site has seen remarkable results
where gauges are successful and it is our conclusion that minimizing the conveyance of surface
hydrology and thus increasing the infiltration duration will undoubtedly result in hydrological
success Thus, it is the goal of our remedial action plan to minimize surface water conveyance,
with minimal impact to the Site as possible Figure 2 outlines the location were RS plains to
mimic historic floodplain topography by connecting crown elevations in three locations on Site.
Elevations will tie directly into existing crown elevations (Figure 3). This approach is the least
invasive option available, and will undoubtedly minimize the conveyance of surface hydrology.

No work will be done in monitoring areas, and RS has set aside 2,100 bare root saplings to
vegetate disturbed and bare areas throughout the Site, a seed mix will also be used to reestablish
herbaceous material as quickly as possible All bare root saplings are of species originally
planted, and include a combination of Ulnuts Americana, Carp►ntts carohniana, and Betula
nigra Sediment and erosion control plans are needed on projects where land - disturbing activity
is greater than one (1) acre (Article 4 Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973), anticipated
land impacts for the remedial action plan will be no greater than '/z an acre (Figure 2), thus a
S &E control permit is not needed The project's original construction contractor (Land
Mechanics) will be performing the repair which is anticipated to take one day.
If you have any questions please feel free to contact me via e-mail or telephone at 919.755 9490
Sincerely,
Raymond Holz
Restoration Systems
1101 Haynes St Suite 211
Raleigh, NC
27604
Attachments
Figure 1 Topographic Transect Survey
Figure 2. Remedial Action Plan — Plan View
Figure 3 Remedial Action Plan — Cross Sections

M'Legend
Unnamed Trib
Conservation Easement
Wetland Restoration 4.1 acres
1101 HAVNES ST, SUITE 211
RALEIGH, NC 27604
PHONE : [phone]
FAX : [phone]
Prepare6 For:
�cn
� U
O O
rn
U �
Q �
� L
f�
ry 0
O
Q
H
N
Summit Seep
ID, EEP ID 94646
I)m— ev_ RJH
Date. Jen 2013
S a 1 inch = 83 feet
Figure
Figure
1

1101 HAMS ST, SUITE 211
RALEIGH. NC 27601
PHONE* 919.755.9090
FAx: [phone]
Pfappre0 for
c O
O
Qa
O
c� c
N a
E
O
ry
1
9
PraBC1 Summit Seep
ID EEP ID 94606
D— By RJH
Dale Jan 2013
S.. 1 -h = 83 feet
Fgura.
Figure
2

(Proposed Grade
0
-0.2 - -
-0.4 --
-0.6
-0.8
-1
-1.2
-1.4
A
F-;;:7s-te Elevation 0
0 C D E F I G H 1
-1.2 -0.73 -0.98 f -1.18 -1.77 I -1.13 -1.37 -1.6
Segment 2 Elevation
i
i
Proposed Grade
B C D E F ' G H 1
6.26 -0.59 -0.08 -0.35 -0.58 -0.99 -1.18
-0.67
�I
Segment 3 Elevation
0
-0.2
IN
-0.4 - _ Proposed Grade
C
-0.6 - - --
Y
-0.8
'O
O _
W -1.4 _
A B C D E F G H 1
tSiteElevation 0 -0.52 -0.7 -0.87 -1.27 -125 -1.15 -0.8 -0.9
1101 HAYNES 11 SUITE 211
RALEIGH, NC 27604
PHONE : [phone]
FAX [phone]
Pr9p�laE For:
V)
C
O
m
C W
O
U O
Q
(6
L
4)
O O
O
^^L
CL
Prge =,
summit seep
ID EEP 1094646
.,a- Et' RJH
Dna Jan 2013
S.k No to Stale
Fgure
Figure
3
r
Y
�
•� o
I
I
Y-2
M
_.._._...
A
t5ite Ekvation
o
(Proposed Grade
0
-0.2 - -
-0.4 --
-0.6
-0.8
-1
-1.2
-1.4
A
F-;;:7s-te Elevation 0
0 C D E F I G H 1
-1.2 -0.73 -0.98 f -1.18 -1.77 I -1.13 -1.37 -1.6
Segment 2 Elevation
i
i
Proposed Grade
B C D E F ' G H 1
6.26 -0.59 -0.08 -0.35 -0.58 -0.99 -1.18
-0.67
�I
Segment 3 Elevation
0
-0.2
IN
-0.4 - _ Proposed Grade
C
-0.6 - - --
Y
-0.8
'O
O _
W -1.4 _
A B C D E F G H 1
tSiteElevation 0 -0.52 -0.7 -0.87 -1.27 -125 -1.15 -0.8 -0.9
1101 HAYNES 11 SUITE 211
RALEIGH, NC 27604
PHONE : [phone]
FAX [phone]
Pr9p�laE For:
V)
C
O
m
C W
O
U O
Q
(6
L
4)
O O
O
^^L
CL
Prge =,
summit seep
ID EEP 1094646
.,a- Et' RJH
Dna Jan 2013
S.k No to Stale
Fgure
Figure
3

Raymond Holz
From: Wiesner, Paul <paul.wiesner @ncdenr.gov>
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 8:38 AM
To: Raymond Holz
Subject: RE: Summit Seep Remedial Action Plan EEP Project # 94646
Thanks for the update Raymond.
Paul Wiesner
Western Project Manager
N.C. Ecosystem Enhancement Proeram
5 Ravenscroft Dr., Suite 102
Asheville, NC 28801
(828)273 -1673 Mobile
paul.wiesner @ncdenr.gov
E -mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to
third parties.
From: Raymond Holz [ma i Ito: rholz(brestorationsystems.com]
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 2:27 PM
To: Wiesner, Paul
Cc: Pearce, Guy; Worth Creech
Subject: RE: Summit Seep Remedial Action Plan EEP Project # 94646
Paul,
We finished the remedial work at Summit Seep (EEP Project ID 94646) yesterday with the planting of 2,000 bare root
saplings (a mixture of American elm, river birch and American hornbeam were used). I have attached a .pcIf of photos
taken of the work. Please follow up if you have any specific questions, 919.604.9314)
All the best,
RH
From: Wiesner, Paul [ mailto: paul.wiesnerCcbncdenr.gov]
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2013 8:48 AM
To: Raymond Holz
Cc: Pearce, Guy
Subject: FW: Summit Seep Remedial Action Plan EEP Project # 94646
Raymond,
This looks good. Please send me a quick e -mail when the remedial work has been completed.
Guy,
This remedial action plan will go in the file and IMS will be updated to note this anticipated work.
Thanks

Paul Wiesner
Western Project Manager
N.C. Ecosystem Enhancement Program
5 Ravenscroft Dr., Suite 102
Asheville, NC 28801
(828)273 -1673 Mobile
paul.wiesner @ncdenr.gov
E -mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to
third parties.
From: Raymond Holz [ma i Ito: rho I z(& restorationsystems. com]
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 4:41 PM
To: Wiesner, Paul
Cc: Worth Creech
Subject: Summit Seep Remedial Action Plan EEP Project # 94646
Paul,
Please see the attached Remedial Action Plan for Summit Seep, a hard copy of the signed letter was put in the mail
today. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me at 919.604.9314. i will be in most of next week.
Sincerely,
Raymond Holz