The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20140332 Ver 1_BrownsSummit_96313_MY6_2022_20230213Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project Year 6 Monitoring Report Guilford County, North Carolina DMS Project ID No. 96313, DEQ Contract No. 5792 Permits: SAW-2014-01642, DWR No. 14-0332, RFP 16-005568 Cape Fear River Basin: 03030002-010020 l p; Project Info: Monitoring Year: 6 of 7 Year of Data Collection: 2022 Year of Completed Construction (including planting): 2017 Submission Date: February 2023 Submitted To: NCDEQ - Division of Mitigation Services 1652 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L February 10, 2023 Emily Dunnigan Project Manager NCDEQ- Division of Mitigation Services 217 West Jones St., Raleigh, NC 27603 Raleigh, NC 27603 8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600, Cary NC 27518 Office: 919.463.5488 1 Fax: 919.463.5490 Subject: Response to Task 12 Draft Year 6 Monitoring Report Comments for Browns Summit (DIMS #96313) Cape Fear River Basin; CU 03030002; Guilford County, North Carolina Contract No. 005792 Dear Ms. Dunnigan: Please find enclosed our responses to the Year 6 Monitoring Report Comments dated January 13, 2023 regarding the Browns Summit Creek Mitigation Project. We have revised the Year 6 Monitoring Report document in response to this review. Comment: Page 2: Revise to remove discussion of contracted WMUs and revise to indicate the adjusted wetland boundary is being proposed. Response: Revision has been made as requested. Comment: Section 2.0: The Maintenance Plan in the Approved Mitigation Plan describes the easement marking approach and indicates that any damaged markers will be repaired/replaced as needed. Please indicate in this section if the entire easement boundary has been inspected and meets boundary marking specifications and requirements. Verification that the entire conservation easement boundary has been inspected and is compliant needs to be documented in the report. Response: Michael Baker inspected the entire easement boundary during November 2022 and deemed compliant with the specifications and requirements. Comment: Section 2.1.1 Morphological Parameters and Channel Stability: Thank you for detailing the use of survey data from the MY 1 report rather than the baseline report. Response: You are welcome. Michael Baker will continue to report MY1 data to compare current monitoring year data. Comment: Section 2.3: Add hydroperiod and growing season dates. Response: Revision has been made as requested. Comment: Figure 4.1: Color code monitoring wells to indicate which are meeting success/not meeting success. Response: Revisions have been made as requested. Page 1 We Make a Difference I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L Comment: Table 6: Suggest removing the bare area/poor growth areas less than the mapping threshold from the table and CCPV. Response: Revisions have been made to both table 6 and the CCPV as requested. Digital files: Comment: Please submit gauge data for stream flow and groundwater gauges. Response: Gauge data will be included in the digital files as requested. One hard copy and one pdf copy along with updated digital files submitted via secure eFTP link are being provided. If you have any questions concerning the Year 6 Monitoring Report, please contact me at 919- 481-5703 or via email at Katie.McKeithan@mbakerintl.com. Sincerely, Kathleen McKeithan, PE, CPESC, CPSWQ, CFM Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. Page 2 Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project Year 6 Monitoring Report Guilford County, North Carolina DMS Project ID No. 96313, DEQ Contract No. 5792 Permits: SAW-2014-01642, DWR No. 14-0332, RFP 16-005568 Cape Fear River Basin: 03030002-010020 Report Prepared and Submitted by Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. NC Professional Engineering License 9 F-1084 I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. i BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313 JANUARY 2023, MONITORING YEAR 6 OF 7 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................I 2. METHODOLOGY.........................................................................................3 2.1 Stream Assessment.......................................................................................................................................3 2.1.1 Morphological Parameters and Channel Stability....................................................................................3 2.1.2 Hydrology................................................................................................................................................4 2.1.3 Photographic Documentation...................................................................................................................4 2.1.4 Visual Stream Morphological Stability Assessment................................................................................4 2.2 Vegetation Assessment.................................................................................................................................4 2.3 Wetland Assessment.....................................................................................................................................4 3. REFERENCES...............................................................................................5 APPENDICES Appendix A Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map and Directions Figure 2 Restoration Summary Map Figure 3 Reference Stream Locations Map Table 1 Project Components and Mitigation Credits Table 2 Project Activity and Reporting History Table 3 Project Contacts Table 4 Project Attributes Appendix B Visual Assessment Data Figure 4.1 & 4.2 Table 5 Table 6 Stream Station Photos Problem Areas Photos Vegetation Plot Photos* Appendix C Vegetation Plot Data* Table 7 Table 8 Table 9 Current Condition Plan View (CCPV) Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Vegetation Conditions Assessment CVS Density Per Plot* Vegetation Plot Summary* Stem Count for Each Species Arranged by Plot* MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313 JANUARY 2023, MONITORING YEAR 6 OF 7 Appendix D Stream Survey Data* Figure S Cross -sections * Table 10 Baseline Stream Summary* Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Table Ha Summary * Table 1-lb Stream Reach Morphology Summary* Appendix E Hydrologic Data Table 12 Verification of Bankfull Events Table 13 Flow Gauge Success" Table 14 Flow Gauge Success" Figure 6 * Flow Gauge Graphs" Table 16 Wetland Restoration Area Success Figure 7 Wetland Restoration Graphs (2022) Figure g Observed Rainfall Versus Historic Averages Hydrology Monitoring Station Photos Appendix F Adjust Wetland Boundary *Note: Due to monitoring year 4 and 6 requirements vegetation data and cross sections were not required. Therefore, data is intentionally left out of the monitoring report. The table of contents remain the same to keep numbering consistent for remaining monitoring years. **Note: Per IRT credit release meeting on April 20, 2022, flow gauges have been removed from the site. The table of contents remain the same to keep the numbering consistent among monitoring years. MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313 JANUARY 2023, MONITORING YEAR 6 OF 7 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. (Michael Baker) restored approximately 3,9O3 linear feet (LF) of jurisdictional stream and enhanced 2,478 LF of stream (of which 559 is for BMPs) along unnamed tributaries (UT) to the Haw River and restored over 4.44 acres of wetland (existing channel lengths). The unnamed tributary (mainstem) has been referred to as Browns Summit Creek for this project. All of these stream features are in the warm -temperature thermal regime. In addition, Michael Baker constructed two best management practices (BMPs) within the conservation easement boundary. The Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project (project) is located in Guilford County, North Carolina (NC) (Figure 1) approximately three miles northwest of the Community of Browns Summit. The project is located in the NC Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) subbasin 03-06-01 and the NC Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS) Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) 03030002-010020 (the Haw River Headwaters) of the Cape Fear River Basin. The purpose of the project is to restore and/or enhance the degraded stream, wetland, and riparian buffer functions within the site. A recorded conservation easement consisting of 20.2 acres (Figure 2) will protect all stream reaches, wetlands, and riparian buffers in perpetuity. Examination of the available hydrology and soil data indicate the project will potentially provide numerous water quality and ecological benefits within the Haw River watershed and the Cape Fear River Basin. Based on the NCDMS 2009 Cape Fear River Basin Restoration Priority (RBRP) Plan, the Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project area is located in an existing targeted local watershed (TLW) within the Cape Fear River Basin (2009 Cape Fear RBRP), but is not located in a Local Watershed Planning (LWP) area. The restoration strategy for the Cape Fear River Basin targets specific projects, which focuses on developing creative strategies for improving water quality flowing to the Haw River in order to reduce non -point source (NPS) pollution to Jordan Lake. The primary goals of the project, set in the Mitigation Plan, are to improve ecologic functions and to manage nonpoint source loading to the riparian system as described in the NCDMS 2009 Cape Fear RBRP. These goals are identified below: • Create geomorphically stable conditions along the unnamed tributaries across the site, • Implement agricultural BMPs to reduce nonpoint source inputs to receiving waters, • Address known and obvious water quality and habitat stressors present on site, • Restore stream and floodplain connectivity, and • Restore and protect riparian buffer functions and corridor habitat. To accomplish these goals, the following objectives were identified: • Restore existing incised, eroding, and channelized streams by creating stable dimension and connecting them to their relic floodplains; Re-establish and rehabilitate site wetlands that have been impacted by cattle, spoil pile disposal, channelization, subsequent channel incision, and wetland vegetation loss; • Prevent cattle from accessing the conservation easement boundary by installing permanent fencing and thus reduce excessive stream bank erosion and undesired nutrient inputs; MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313 JANUARY 2023, MONITORING YEAR 6 OF 7 • Increase aquatic habitat value by improving bedform diversity, riffle substrate and in -stream cover; creating natural scour pools; adding woody debris and reducing sediment loading from accelerated stream bank erosion; • Construct a wetland BMP on the upstream extent of Reach R6 to capture and retain and for sediment to settle out of the water column; • Construct a step pool BMP channel to capture and disperse volumes and velocities by allowing discharge from a low density residential development to spread across the floodplain of Reach R4; thereby, diffusing energies and promoting nutrient uptake within the riparian buffer; • Plant native species within the riparian corridor to increase runoff filtering capacity, improve stream bank stability and riparian habitat connectivity, and shade the stream to decrease water temperature; • Control invasive species vegetation within the project area and, if necessary, continue treatments during the monitoring period; and • Establish a conservation easement to protect the project area in perpetuity. During Year 6 monitoring, visual site inspections were conducted throughout the year. Small areas of invasive species (Privet and Multiflora Rose) were treated on R1 and R2 during May 2022. Small pockets of privets are scattered throughout R1 and R2 and Michael Baker plans on a follow up treatment in the following monitoring year. One vegetation problem area (VPA) was discovered at the top of R6 left and right floodplain. It is observed that this area is approximately 0.03 acres and has low herbaceous survival and low tree vigor. In May 2022, Michael Baker added soil amendments to improve the soil quality in efforts that the native grasses surrounding the area will grow. Michael Baker plans to continue treating this area along with adding seed. These areas can be found on the CCPV in Appendix B. During Year 6 monitoring, the RI crest gauge did not document any bankfull events. This was partially due to ant infestation within the cork at the bottom of the gauge. The gauge was cleaned out and replaced to record bankfull events in future monitoring years. The site has already met the bankfull flow requirement of two bankfull events within two separate monitoring years in previous monitoring years (MY1 and MY2). Eight wells (total) have been installed in the wetland restoration areas. BSAW8 was installed during MY4 to gather additional data in adjacent wetlands. BSAW8 is located adjacent to wetland type 5 (Hydrologic reestablishment) where BSAW1 is located. BSAW8 data shows the wetland preforming well above success criteria. Seven of the eight are preforming successfully. One well did not meet success (BSAW2). BSAW2 historically has not met criteria; therefore, Michael Baker is proposing a wetland boundary line adjustment. The adjusted wetland boundary report can be found in Appendix F. Summary information/data related to the site 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 and in the Mitigation Plan available on the DMS website. Any raw data supporting the tables and figures in the Appendices is available from DMS upon request. This report documents the successful completion of the Year 6 monitoring activities for the post -construction monitoring period. Vegetation and stream cross sections are not required for monitoring year 6. The entire conservation easement boundary has been inspected and is compliant with the requirements. MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313 JANUARY 2023, MONITORING YEAR 6 OF 7 2. METHODOLOGY The seven-year monitoring plan for the Site includes criteria to evaluate the success of the stream and vegetation components of the Site. The methodology and report template used to evaluate these components adheres to the DMS monitoring report template document Version 1.5 (June 8, 2012), which will continue to serve as the template for subsequent monitoring years. The vegetation -monitoring quadrants follow CVS-DMS monitoring levels I and 2 in accordance with CVS-DMS Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version 4.1 (2007). Stream survey data was collected to a minimum of Class C Vertical and Class A Horizontal Accuracy using Leica TS06 Total Station and was georeferenced to the NAD83 State Plane Coordinate System, FIPS3200 in US Survey Feet, which was derived from the As -built Survey. The specific locations of monitoring features, such as vegetation plots, permanent cross -sections, reference photograph stations, crest gauges and flow gauges, are shown on the CCPV map found in Appendix B. Channel construction began in October 10, 2016 at the upstream extent of the site and worked in the downstream direction (begin on Reach 6 and ended with Reach 1). The construction was completed on March 8, 2017. Planting was installed as major reaches were completed and finalized by March 10, 2017. Minor supplemental planting occurred in March of 2018. The Monitoring Year 6 visual site assessment was collected in November 2022. Visual Assessment is contained in Appendix B. 2.1 Stream Assessment Historically, the Browns Summit site has been utilized for agriculture. Cattle have had direct access to the entire site. Ponds were located throughout the project, including within the alignment of Rl, R3, R4, and R6. Channelization was clearly confirmed by the historical aerial photo from 1937 and spoil piles were found along several of the reaches. The project involved the restoration and enhancement of the headwater system. Restoration practices involved raising the existing streambed and reconnecting the stream to the relic floodplain to restore natural flow regimes to the system. The existing channels abandoned within the restoration areas were filled to decrease surface and subsurface drainage and to raise the local water table. Permanent cattle exclusion fencing was provided around all proposed reaches and riparian buffers, except along reaches where no cattle are located. 2.1.1 Morphological Parameters and Channel Stability Cross -sections were classified using the Rosgen Stream Classification System, and all monitored cross - sections fall within the quantitative parameters defined for channels of the design stream type. Morphological survey data are presented in Appendix D. A longitudinal profile was surveyed for the entire length of channel immediately after construction to document as -built baseline conditions for the Monitoring Year 0 only. Annual longitudinal profiles were not planned to be conducted during subsequent monitoring years unless channel instability has been documented or remedial actions/repairs are required by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) or DMS. However, during preparation of the MY monitoring report, it was discovered that the data provided by the construction contractor's survey subcontractor for as -built was of low quality and insufficient. The quality of the sealed as -built survey provided by the contractor was not discovered until the MY survey was overlain on top of the MY0 cross sections. The channel in reality had not fluctuated nearly as dramatically as shown in Figure 5 (cross section overlays) and has remained stable and is performing as designed. This has been documented through field inspections throughout MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313 JANUARY 2023, MONITORING YEAR 6 OF 7 subsequent monitoring years by Michael Baker and DMS staff. Due to the MYO survey quality discovered during MY1, Michael Baker proposed to utilize the detailed survey data and associated parameters collected during MY1 by a different surveyor as the basis of comparison through the monitoring phase of the project. This will ensure an accurate assessment of success and trends throughout the life of the project. The contractor had the site's longitudinal profile re -surveyed incase future comparisons are required. The longitudinal profile overlay was provided in previous reports. Additionally, per DMS request, bank height ratio is calculated by adjusting the bankfull line vertically to recreate the as -built cross -sectional area. Once the cross -sectional area is the same bank height ratio is calculated and recorded. After bank height ratio is recorded then previous bankfull elevation is set and the remaining data is calculated. However, in this case, due to a poor as -built survey we are referencing all calculations to the MY1 survey. This will help ensure that the cross -sections best represent the actual characteristics of the stream. 2.1.2 Hydrology To monitor on -site bankfull events, one crest gauge (crest gauge 91) was installed along RI's left bank at bankfull elevation. The crest gauge readings are presented in Appendix E. The site has meet the bankfull flow requirements of two bankfull events within two separate years. 2.1.3 Photographic Documentation Visual inspection of the site is conducted at a minimum of twice a year. Representative photographs for Monitoring Year 6 were taken along each Reach in March 2022 and are provided in Appendix B. 2.1.4 Visual Stream Morphological Stability Assessment The visual stream morphological stability assessment involves the qualitative evaluation of lateral and vertical channel stability and integrity and of in -stream structures throughout the project. Habitat parameters and pool depth maintenance are also evaluated and scored. During Year 6 monitoring, Michael Baker staff walked the entire project several times throughout the year, noting geomorphic conditions of the stream bed profile (riffle/pool facets), both stream banks, and in -stream structures. Representative photographs were taken per the Mitigation Plan, and locations of any SPAS were documented in the field for subsequent mapping on the CCPV figures. A more detailed summary of the results for the visual stream stability assessment can be found in Appendix B, which includes supporting data tables, as well as general stream photos. 2.2 Vegetation Assessment In order to determine if the success criteria were achieved, vegetation -monitoring quadrants were installed and are monitored across the site in accordance with the CVS-DMS Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version 4.1 (2007). The vegetation monitoring plots are a minimum of 2 percent of the planted portion of the Site with fourteen plots established randomly within the planted riparian buffer areas per Monitoring Levels I and 2. The sizes of individual quadrants are 100 square meters for woody tree species. 2.3 Wetland Assessment Eight (8) groundwater monitoring wells were installed across the site to document hydrologic conditions of the restored wetland area. The wetland gauges are depicted on the CCPV figures (Figure 2) found in Appendix B. Installation and monitoring of the groundwater stations have been conducted in accordance with the USACE standard methods. The growing season starts March 22 and ends November 13 with a hydroperiod of 237 days. MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313 JANUARY 2023, MONITORING YEAR 6 OF 7 3. REFERENCES Carolina Vegetation Survey (CVS) and NC Division of Mitigation Services (DMS). CVS-DMS Data Entry Tool v. 2.3.1. University of North Carolina, Raleigh, NC. Lee, M., Peet R., Roberts, S., Wentworth, T. 2007. CVS-DMS Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version 4.1. North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (DMS). 2012. Monitoring Requirements and Performance Standards for Stream and/or Wetland Mitigation. Version 1.5, June 8, 2012. North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (DMS). 2009. Cape Fear River Basin Restoration Priorities. Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A Classification of Natural Rivers. Catena 22:169-199. 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, NCDEQ. Raleigh, NC. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines, April 2003, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Wilmington District. MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 96313 JANUARY 2023, MONITORING YEAR 6 OF 7 Appendix A Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables To access the site from Raleigh, take Interstate 40 and head west on 1-40 towards Greensboro, for approximately 68 miles. Take the exit ramp to E. Lee St. (exit 224) towards Greensboro and continue for 2 miles before turning onto U.S. Highway 29 North. Once on U.S. Highway 29 North, travel north for approximately 10 miles before exiting and turning on to NC-150 West. Continue west on NC-150 for 5 miles. The project site is located along and between NC-150 and Spearman Rd., with access points through residences on Middleland Dr. and Broad Ridge Ct. The subject project site is an environmental restoration site of the NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) and is encompassed by a recorded conservation easement, but is bordered by land under private ownership. Accessing the site may require traversing areas near or along the easement boundary and therefore access by the general public is not permitted. Access by authorized personnel of state and federal agencies or their designees/contractors involved in the development, oversight and stewardship of the restoration site is permitted within the terms and timeframes of their defined roles. Any intended site visitation or activity by any person outside of these previously sanctioned roles and activities requires prior coordination with DMS. 7 Site Location r. GUILFORD Conservation Easement NCDMS TLW Note: Site is located within targeted local watershed 0303002010020. 1"W' �M��■�1� i� r�rt�itr•�>i��i�l►��j►`j�4i� i Guilford County � 0a 0 A t �a Figure 1 Site Location Project Vicinity Map Browns Summit (DMS# 96313) NCDEQ - Division of Mitigation Services N 0.5 0 0.5 Miles c Conservation Easement Restoration Feature Approach Restoration Enhancement I — Enhancement 11 — No Credit Wetland Mitigation Types 1 - Functioning, 3:1 credit ratio Rehabilitation ' 2 - Degraded, 1.5:1 credit ratio Rehabilitation - 3 - Partially Functioning, 1.5:1 credit ratio Rehabilitation 4 - Filled, 1:1 credit ratio Reestablishment - 5 - Hydrologic Reestablishment, 3.5:1 ratio Reach R2 (upper) Reach R1 r Reach T1 Reach R2 (lower) Reach T2 0 250 500 1,000 Figure 2 MichaelRestoration Summary Map I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L Feet Browns Summit Site (DMS #96313) jjq f ROCKINGHAM COUNTY claw Kiv.-�-- gtata Pr *• ti 7 Project Location Buckhorn Creek Haw River State Park 61 Project Location GUILFORD Reference Wetland COUNTY'Al'" Reference Stream Reaches - �. rs� �' �'� UT to Reedy Fork Major Roads Minor Roads`- Rivers/Streams°`�`` -`- #A ; Lakes/Ponds( L County Boundary Geology Carolina Slate Belt Wti}'i Charlotte and Milton Belts Analysis,'NC' 9r11 Boa-�d - _ti,� 2 1 0 2 Figure 3 MichaelReference Stream Locations Map INTERNATIONAL Miles Browns Summit Site d 0 o O es � az d o O Vl 7 h 7 N z d O N z U N 1. � 0 dd � C O � d iiiiii Hill Qr d o uU •^ p � � a � y Fi o w Cn cW � W N JW d � Q QI 0 a U Q a � O O � 00 O cl .�, I M h N D\ b D\ O\ _ m m M0� V1 M D\ D\ 7 N V1 nj c� Y Q v' M N + 4 N + y+j a O V� 00 V� .y V� O O O O C) N OJ OJ OJ N pq y O �O 7 M+ M M++++ +� O O O O O M O O �-�+ F. b o 'O M W N O ° z HIm B 0 d a� 8Az mi�r G m r -11 y •° � 0 U 3 o � a 0 3 p 0 �� a 0 33333 on sJ �� d a W W m c a Fq �y � � v - U- Z O O co Z af W Or C7 � C7 u _ Z_ Q Q' Q W Y O Z W H of Z W V H w 5 o N m w z J w Z � V Of W � m O Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 96313 Activity or Report Scheduled Completion Data Collection Complete Actual Completion or Delivery Mitigation Plan Prepared not specified in proposal Summer 2015 May 1, 2015 Mitigation Plan Amended not specified in proposal Summer 2015 September 17, 2015 Mitigation Plan Approved December 4, 2014 Winter 2015 November 2, 2015 Final Mitigation Plan with PCN (minor revisions requested in approval letter) not specified in proposal Winter 2015 January 29, 2016 Final Design - (at least 90% complete) not specified in proposal September 20, 2016 Construction Begins not specified in proposal October 10, 2016 Temporary S&E mix applied to entire project area June 1, 2015 March 10, 2017 Permanent seed mix applied to entire project area June 2, 2015 March 10, 2017 Planting of live stakes June 3, 2015 March 10, 2017 Planting of bare root trees June 3, 2015 March 10, 2017 End of Construction May 4, 2015 March 8, 2017 Survey of As -built conditions (Year 0 Monitoring -baseline) June 3, 2015 Spring 2017 July 1, 2017 Baseline Monitoring Report* May 7, 2017 Spring 2017 November 30, 2017 Year 1 Monitoring December 1, 2017 November 2017 January 8, 2018 Year 2 Monitoring December 1, 2018 November 2018 December 31, 2018 Year 3 Monitoring December 1, 2019 November 2019 February 12, 2020 Year 4 Monitoring December 1, 2020 November 2020 February 11, 2021 Year 5 Monitoring December 1, 2021 November 2021 January 27, 2022 Year 6 Monitoring December 1, 2022 November 2022 Invasive Treatment May 5, 2022 Year 7 Monitoring December 1, 2023 * Monitoring schedule completion dates updated based on completion of construction. MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313) DECEMBER 2022, MONITORING YEAR 6 OF 7 Table 3. Project Contacts Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 96313 Designer Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. 8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600 Cary, NC 27518 Contact: Katie McKeithan, Tel. 919-481-5703 Construction Contractor 6105 Chapel Hill Road River Works, Inc. Raleigh, NC 27607 Contact: Stephen Carroll, Tel. 919-428-8368 Planting Contractor 6105 Chapel Hill Road River Works, Inc. Raleigh, NC 27607 Contact: Stephen Carroll, Tel. 919-428-8368 Seeding Contractor 6105 Chapel Hill Road River Works, Inc. Raleigh, NC 27607 Contact: Stephen Carroll, Tel. 919-428-8368 Seed Mix Sources Green Resources, Rodney Montgomery 336-215-3458 Nursery Stock Suppliers Dykes and Son, 931-668-8833 Mellow Marsh Farm, 919-742-1200 ArborGen, 843-528-3204 Live Stakes Suppliers Foggy Mountain Nursery, 336-384-5323 Monitoring Performers Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. 8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600 Cary, NC 27518 Contact: Stream Monitoring Point of Contact Katie McKeithan, Tel. 919-481-5703 Vegetation Monitoring Point of Contact Katie McKeithan, Tel. 919-481-5703 Surveyers Kee Mapping and Surveying, 828-575-9021 MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313) DECEMBER 2022, MONITORING YEAR 6 OF 7 Table 4. Project Attributes Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 96313 Project Information Project Name Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project County Guilford Project Area (acres) 20.2 Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude) 36.237 N,-79.749 W Project Watershed Summary Information Physiographic Province Piedmont River Basin Cape Fear USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit and 14-digit 03030002 / 03030002010020 NCDWR Sub -basin 3/6/2001 Project Drainage Area (acres) 438 Project Drainage Area Percent Impervious 1% CGIA Land Use Classification 2.01.01.01, 2.03.01, 2.99.01, 3.02 / Forest (53%) Agriculture (39%) Impervious Cover (1%) Unclassified (7%) Reach Summary Information Parameters Reach RI Reach R2 Reach R3 Reach R4 Reach R5 Length of Reach (hnear feet) 1,290 748 1,454 1,296 536 Valley Classification (Rosgen) VB VII VII V1I VII Drainage Area (acres) 438 299 242 138/95 24 NCDWR Stream Identification Score 35.5 35.5 41.5 41.5/25 28.5 NCDWR Water Quality Classification C; NSW Morphological Description (Rosgen stream type) E Be incised Be incised Gc Be Evolutionary Trend IncisedE--)Gc--)F Be--)G--)F Be--)G--)F GAF BC--)G Underlying Mapped Soils CnA CnA CnA, PpE2 CnA, CkC CkC Drainage Class Somewhat Poorly Drained Somewhat Poorly Drained Somewhat Poorly Drained and Well Drained Somewhat Poorly Drained and Well Drained Well Drained Soil Hydric Status Hydric Hydric Partially Hydric Partially Hydric Upland Average Channel Slope (ft/ft) 0.0069 0.0068 0.0095 0.017 0.023 FEMA Classification N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Native Vegetation Community Piedmont Headwater Stream Forest Percent Composition of Exotic/Invasive Vegetation 25% 15% 5% <5% <5% Parameters Reach R6 Reach TI Reach T2 Reach T3 Reach T4 Length of Reach (hnear feet) 442 145 283 70 117 Valley Classification (Rosgen) VII VII VII V1I VII Drainage Area (acres) 61 55 47 41 10 NCDWR Stream Identification Score 18 26.75 27.25 19 - NCDWR Water Quality Classification C; NSW Morphological Description (Rosgen stream type) Be incised E incised F E incised - Evolutionary Trend Be--)G--)F E--)G--)F Be--)G--)F E--)G--)F Underlying Mapped Soils CkC CnA CnA, PpE2 CnA CkC Drainage Class Well Drained Somewhat Poorly Drained Somewhat Poorly Drained and Well Drained Somewhat Poorly Drained Well Drained Soil Hydric Status Upland Hydric Partially Hydric Hydric Upland Average Channel Slope (ft/ft) 0.014 0.024 0.022 0.02 - FEMA Classification N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Native Vegetation Community Piedmont Headwater Stream Forest Percent Composition of Exotic/Invasive Vegetation 5% 10% 1 10% 10% 10% Regulatory Considerations Regulation Applicable Resolved Supporting Documentation Waters of the United States — Section 404 Yes Yes Categorical Exclusion (Appendix B) Waters of the United States — Section 401 Yes Yes Categorical Exclusion (Appendix B) Endangered Species Act No N/A Categorical Exclusion (Appendix B) Historic Preservation Act No N/A Categorical Exclusion (Appendix B) Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) No N/A Categorical Exclusion (Appendix B) FEMA Floodplain Compliance 1 No 1 N/A I Categorical Exclusion (Appendix B) Essential Fisheries Habitat No I N/A I Categorical Exclusion (Appendix B) MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313) DECEMBER 2022, MONITORING YEAR 6 OF 7 Appendix B Visual Assessment Data QConservation Easement ® Flow Gauge - Photo Location QCrest Gauge Vegetation Plots Monitoring Wells • Pass Fail Cross Sections Streams by Mitigation Type — Restoration — Enhancement I — Enhancement II — No Credit Wetlands by Mitigation Type Q 1 - "Functioning", 3:1 credit ratio Rehabilitation - 2 - Degraded, 1.5:1 credit ratio Rehabilitation - 3 - Partially Functioning, 1.5:1 credit ratio Rehabilitation - 4 - Filled, 1:1 credit ratio Reestablishment 5 - Hydrologic Reestablishment, 3.5:1 credit ratio i s: VP6 VP5 Reach T3 Reach R4 (lower) VP4 X5 PL25 _ PL26 Reach R4 (upper) VP3 ` VP2 Reach R6 ;fit ,�� PL29 BSFL1� - PL36 ��\'. PL30 PL37 � e 0 PL34 PL33, X2 .. X3jw— PL35 i, PL31 _ i PL38 0 X7 PL 9 P' PL3z Reach T4 4 \T jar P1 Reach R5 Ma l G phic Informat r ,,.A I N 11B Figure 4.2 0 125 250 500 Current Conditions Michael Baker Plan View I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L Feet Browns Summit Site (DMS #96313) i O O +�•+ bD G L N '6 GC O y � O � d p i I —I Y 0. i. 70 ♦+ O O O O C w o d d � d i O F Y Y i i H za W � � a o Y72 CC,' LYE. Q A F. �Oi `c' za aQ O O O C y i U cz� W O S O O It y ca y Y i i U y E a QQ O 2 i O +�•+ bD G w° cz L N '6 GC d O d O � d O i � Y i. 70 ♦+ O O O O C w o d i � G s F YE a Y O O O O o i i H za s W � O ti U O O TY.' N 'O O N O sue, Cam. O U ti A �.o��no Via' a5 •o o uq yZ c u 7sCa o i, •0 �N/ M ��4 Q �C' X. Q O O C� G CZ �Q O � o 6 O i O yD i U O Pr W S O O � GC 0 d �a U U N M N N M 7 o � i Y Cyr 7 Q O O � W O UGC V1 0 Z W W z 0 z W w W Y m W U 2 M M M 0 O z H U w O of a U w Of IL z O_ H O 10 w Y w w U cG G z Z O Of 0o I- LL O Q W c� z E O z cO G i O +�•+ bD G L N '6 GC d O y O � d 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O i � Y i. 70 ♦+ O O O O C w i � G s F F Y Y i i H za W � O a o Y 72 o o .a E a > , J A x 0 o uq a a a _ ° >' 'Y ,� •o ° o ,� a v '`� R W- 4" yam' .j ': .� Qi �Q •• °D o � .j a o i O Pr W S O O � GC t O Z d �a U U N M N C N M 7 o � i Y Cyr 7 Q O O � W O UGC V1 0 Z W W z 0 z W w W Y m W U 2 M M M 0 O z U w O of a U w O Of IL z O_ H O 10 w Y w w U cG G z Z O Of 0o I- LL O Q W c� z E O z cO G i d � O � O 3 d = o � � o o � 3 ° d � O O z� o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O i � i. 7♦+ O O O O 0 � woo w i � G s F F Y Y i i H za � � W U O 64 O .Y' 'O O U y�o.a 21 o5 ti ? ai o A �� o onoa a5 M b A F N •o o uq 14 Pir �Q •• °D o � .j a o O Pr W S O O � GC 12 t O Z ZQ d �a U U N M N C N M 7 o � i Y Cyr 7 Q O ZQ O � wl 7 UGC V1 0 z E W W z 0 z W w W Y m W U 2 M M M 0 O z H U w O of a U W O Of IL z O_ H O H W Y W w U cG G z Z O Of 0o I- LL O Q W c� z of O z cO G i d � O � O 3 d = o � � o o � 3 ° d � O O z� o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O i � i. 70 ♦+ O O O O C Jpo w o d �, i � G �= ID s F Y Y i i H za W � � 5u on o 10 3 on �' N ° C. Q bD .� N S 'R o Y Q p N tUC m i N tC ° O LYE. Q o 5 In 10 F N U J •o o uq a' aa g.s'3 '� ° �' 'tea '�' ': '� v '�' •� w v P. �Q •• °D o � .j a o O Pr W S O O GCIt O d �a U U N M N N M 7 o � i Y Cyr 7 Q O O O � W UGC 0 Z W W z 0 z W w W Y m W U 2 M M M 0 O z U w O of a U w O Of IL z O_ H O 10 w Y w w U cG G z Z O Of 0o w O Q W c� z E O z cO G i d � O � O 3 d = o � � o o � 3 ° d � O O z� o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O i � i. =♦+ O O O O O � woo w s F Y Y i i H za s72 W � U ti a o Y M bA � U p � F U � U U� U � W m .� U U �'• � U YJ U O a Q Y � E o o C4, ° ZCZ �Q = o O d �a U U N M N N M 7 i Yy = Q O O V1 0 z E W W z 0 z W w W Y m W U 2 M M M 0 O z U w O of a 0 U w 0 Of IL z O_ H O H w Y w w U cG G z Z O Of 0o LL O Q W c� z of O z cO G i O O +�•+ bD G L N '6 GC d O y O � d ° o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O i � Y i. 70 ♦+ O O O O C w o d i � G AM s F Y Y i i H za W � U a o � Y Q p N tUC m i N � tC O Q LY�i Q M bA � U p � F U � U U� U � W m .� U U �'• � U YJ U O a Q z °° o Z a w �a �Q •• °D o � .j a o i O Pr W S O O � GC t O Z d �a U U N M N C N M 7 o � i Y Cyr 7 Q O O 0 Lr- W W z 0 z W w W Y m W U 2 M M M 0 O z U w O of a 0 U w 0 Of IL z O_ H O 10 w Y w w U cG G z Z O Of 0o LL O Q W c� z of O z cO G i O +�•+ bD G L N .O GC U O y O � U O i � Y s F Y Y i i H za N Oa i 2 O Q u o E Y P. �Q •• °D o � .j a o a •o i O g � `' � O P W H O O It _ It O t O 0 Qi Z U �a U U N M N C N M 7 o � d d U U � 7 Q O O O O U O � GUC y 7 i. O U y 70 ♦+ O O O O C w o d i � G i� R ■ i 1� Tof I- i O +�•+ bD G w° CZ L N '6 GC d O y O � d zCZ E a CZ O O O O O O O O o O i � i. 70 ♦+ O O O O C w o d i � G s F Y Y i i H za s W '., 7s � U ti a o Y72 tC O Q LY�i Q o 5 M bA U p F U U U U W m U U E U k U O a 15 CZ �Q •• °D o � .j a o i O Pr W S O O � GC It ID O t O Z d �a U U N M N C N M 7 o � i Y Cyr 7 Q O O 0 Z W W z 0 z W w W Y m W U 2 M M M 0 O z U w O of a 0 U w Of IL z O_ H O 10 w Y w w U cG G z Z O Of 0o I- LL O Q W c� z E O z cO G i O +�•+ bD G L N '6 GC d O y O � d ° o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O i � Y i. 70 ♦+ O O O O C w o d i � G s F Y Y i i H za W � U W 14"21 /� M bA � U p � F U � U U� U � W m .� U U�'• � U YJ U O a P. CZ �Q •• °D o � .j a o O Pr W S O O � GC t O Z d �a U U N M N C N M 7 o � i Y Cyr 7 Q O O V1 0 Z W W z 0 z W w W Y m W U 2 M M M 0 O z H U w O of a U w O Of IL z O_ H O 10 w Y w w U cG G z Z O Of 0o w O Q W c� z E O z cO G i O +�•+ bD G L N '6 GC d O d O � d O i � Y a i. 70 ♦+ O O O O C w i � G s F F i H za W � U 72 o M bA � U p � F U � U U� U � W m .� U U �'• � U YJ U O a a' a _ O � >' � 'Y ,� � :� •o � U � � v '`� 4" � � o � .j ': .� •�' ° F � � W � � W i � � � ,�' W ° r� °Cw � G � Vi Ir°i W N N � � P°- G � Cf° °U a` CZ �Q •• °D o � .j a o i t O Z d �a U U N M N C N M 7 o � i Y Cyr 7 Q O O � W i UGC V1 0 Z W W z 0 z W w W Y m W U 2 M M M 0 O z H U w O of a U w O Of IL z O_ H O 10 w Y w w U cG G z Z O Of 0o w O Q W c� z E O z cO G i O +�•+ bD G L N '6 GC d O y O � d 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O i � Y i. 70 ♦+ O O O O C w i � G s F F Y Y i i H za W � O M bA � N p � F U � U U� U � W m .� U U �'• � U YJ U O a 21 •� of F � 0.l � � 0.l i x, � ti � W ° v� G' U � '~ � ir°J W i a�i � on L'.° � � a° c°i P. .. �Q •• °D o � .j a o O Pr W S O O � GC d o o d i .o •a � �-Y �F�.+1 d �a U U N M N N M 7 o � i Y Cyr 7 Q O ZQ O 0 z E W W z 5 z W LL W Y m W U 2 M M M 0 O z H U w O of a U w O Of IL z O_ H O H w Y w w U cG G z Z O Of 0o w O Q W (7 z of O z cO G Table 6. Vegetation Conditions Assessment Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 96313 Planted Acreage' 20.24 Mapping CCPV Number of Combined % of Planted Ve etation Cateaory Definitions Threshold Depiction Polygons Acreage Acrea e Very limited cover of both 1. Bare Areas woody and herbaceous 0.1 acres N/A 0 0.00 0.0% material. Woody stem densities 2. Low Stem Density clearly below target levels Areas based on MY3, 4, or 5 0.1 acres N/A 0 0.00 0.0% stem count criteria. Total 0 0.00 0.0% Areas with woody stems of 3. Areas of Poor a size class that are 0.25 acres N/A 0 0.00 0.0% Growth Rates or Vigor obviously small given the monitoring year. Cumulative Totall 0 1 0.00 1 0.0% Easement Acreage 20.24 Mapping CCPV Number of Combined a Easement Ve etation Cateaory Definitions Threshold Depiction Polygons Acreage Acrea e 4. Invasive Areas of Areas or points (if too small to a render as polygons at map 1000 SF N/A 0 0.00 0.0% Concern scale). 5. Easement Areas or points (if too small to s render as polygons at map none N/A 0 0.00 0.0% Encroachment Areas scale). 1 = Enter the planted acreage within the easement. This number is calculated as the easement acreage minus any existing mature tree stands that were not subject to supplemental planting of the understory, the channel acreage, crossings or any other elements not directly planted as part of the project effort. 2 = The acreage within the easement boundaries. 3 = Encroachment may occur within or outside of planted areas and will therefore be calculated against the overall easement acreage. In the event a polygon is cataloged into items 1, 2 or 3 in the table and is the result of encroachment, the associated acreage should be tallied in the relevant item (i.e., item 1,2 or 3) as well as a parallel tally in item 5. 4 = Invasives may occur in or out of planted areas, but still within the easement and will therefore be calculated against the overall easement acreage. Invasives of concern/interest are listed below. The list of high concern spcies are those with the potential to directly outcompete native, young, woody stems in the short-term (e.g. monitoring period or shortly thereafter) or affect the community structure for existing, more established tree/shrub stands over timeframes that are slightly longer (e.g. 1-2 decades). The low/moderate concern group are those species that generally do not have this capacity over the timeframes discussed and therefore are not expected to be mapped with regularity, but can be mapped, if in the judgement of the observer their coverage, density or distribution is suppressing the viability, density, or growth of planted woody stems. Decisions as to whether remediation will be needed are based on the integration of risk factors by EEP such as species present, their coverage, distribution relative to native biomass, and the practicality of treatment. For example, even modest amounts of Kudzu or Japanese Knotweed early in the projects history will warrant control, but potentially large coverages of Microstegium in the herb layer will not Iikley trigger control because of the limited capacities to impact tree/shrub layers within the timeframes discussed and the potential impacts of treating extensive amounts of ground cover. Those species with the "watch list" designator in gray shade are of interest as well, but have yet to be observed across the state with any frequency. Those in red italics are of particular interest given their MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DIMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313) DECEMBER 2022, MONITORING YEAR 6 OF 7 Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project — Stream Stations Photos Photos take May 5, 2022 (All photos are viewing upstream) Photo Point 1— Station 63+75, Reach 1 Photo Point 2 — Station 61+50, Reach 1 Photo Point 3 — Station 58+75, Reach 1 Photo Point 5 — Station 56+75, Reach 1 MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96313) DECEMBER 2022, MONITORING YEAR 6 OF 7 Photo Point 4 — Station 57+85, Reach 1 Photo Point 6 — Station 55+00, Reach 1 Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project — Stream Stations Photos Photos take May 5, 2022 (All photos are viewing upstream) Photo Point 7 — Station 53+50, Reach 1 Photo Point 9 — Station 11+25, Reach T1 Photo Point 11 — Station 46+00, Reach 2 MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96313) DECEMBER 2022, MONITORING YEAR 6 OF 7 Photo Point 8 — Station 51+75, Reach 1 Photo Point 10 — Station 49+00, Reach 2 Photo Point 12 — Station 44+75, Reach 2 Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project — Stream Stations Photos Photos take May 5, 2022 (All photos are viewing upstream) Photo Point 13 — Station 43+75, Reach 2/Reach T2 Photo Point 15 — Station 41+50, Reach 3 Photo Point 17 — Station 36+00, Reach 3 MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96313) DECEMBER 2022, MONITORING YEAR 6 OF 7 Photo Point 14 — Station 42+25, Reach 3 Photo Point 16 — Station 36+25, Reach 3 Photo Point 18 — Station 35+00, Reach 3 Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project — Stream Stations Photos Photos take May 5, 2022 (All photos are viewing upstream) Photo Point 19 — Station 33+00, Reach 3 Photo Point 21 — 31+50, Reach 3 Photo Point 23 — Station 10+25, Reach T3 Photo Point 20 — Station 32+00, Reach 3 Photo Point 22 — Station 28+75, Reach 3/T3 MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96313) DECEMBER 2022, MONITORING YEAR 6 OF 7 Photo Point 24 — Station 26+50, Reach 4 Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project — Stream Stations Photos Photos take May 5, 2022 (All photos are viewing upstream) Photo Point 25 — Station 24+50, Reach 4 Photo Point 27 — Station 22+50, Reach 4 Photo Point 29 — Station 11+00, Reach T4 Photo Point 26 — Station 24+00, Reach 4 Photo Point 28 — Station 21+50, Reach 4/T4 MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96313) DECEMBER 2022, MONITORING YEAR 6 OF 7 Photo Point 30 — Station 19+50, Reach 4 Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project — Stream Stations Photos Photos take May 5, 2022 (All photos are viewing upstream) Photo Point 31 — Station 19+10, Step Pools Photo Point 33 — Station 16+75, Reach 4 Photo Point 35 — Station 15+00, Reach 6, Step Pools Photo Point 32 — Station 18+00, Reach 4 Photo Point 34 — Sta. 15+75, Reaches 4, 5 and 6 Photo Point 36 — Station 14+50, Reach 6, BMP MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96313) DECEMBER 2022, MONITORING YEAR 6 OF 7 Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project — Stream Stations Photos Photos take May 5, 2022 (All photos are viewing upstream) Photo Point 37 — Station 11+90, Reach 6, BMP Photo Point 39 — Station 15+00, Reach 5 Photo Point 38 — Station 10+50, Reach 6, Step Pools MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96313) DECEMBER 2022, MONITORING YEAR 6 OF 7 Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project — Problem Areas Photos Invasive treatments on RI Right floodplain (8/10/2022) Invasive treatments on R1 left floodplain (8/10/2022) Invasive treatments on RI right floodplain (8/10/2022) Invasive treatments on RI left floodplain (8/10/2022) Invasive treatments on R2 (8/10/2022) MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96313) DECEMBER 2022, MONITORING YEAR 6 OF 7 Invasive treatments on R3 (8/10/2022) Appendix C Vegetation Plot Data *No Vegetation plot monitoring was required for Year 6. Appendix D Stream Survey Data *No cross-section survey was required for Year 6. Appendix E Hydrologic Data Table 12. Verification of Bankfull Events Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No ID. 96313 Date of Collection Reachl Crest Gauge (feet ABOVE bankfull) Approximate Date of Occurrence (Source: on -site rain gauge) Method of Data Collection Year 1 Monitoring (2017) 6/7/2017 0.46 4/25/2017 Crest Gauge Measurement 10/3/2017 0.22 8/17/2017 Crest Gauge Measurement Year 2 Monitoring (2018) 3/22/2018 0.35 2/7/2018 Crest Gauge Measurement 10/22/2018 0.4 9/16/2018 (Hurricane Florance) Crest Gauge Measurement 11/16/2018 0.78 10/26/2018 Crest Gauge Measurement Year 3 Monitoring (2019) 3/28/2019 0.74 1/24/2019 Crest Gauge Measurement 10/17/2019 0.94 6/8/2019 Crest Gauge Measurement Year 4 Monitoring (2020) 2/10/2020 0.91 1/24/2020 Crest Gauge Measurement 11/6/2020 1.49 7/23/2020 Crest Gauge Measurement Year 5 Monitoring (2021) 7/l/2021 1.43 6/11/2021 Crest Gauge Measurement 10/21/2021 1.01 9/22/2021 Crest Gauge Measurement Year 6 Monitoring (2022) No Crest Gauge Reading MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 96313) DECEMBER 2022, MONITORING YEAR 6 OF 7 ITI � - ) j _m m § - [), ; !;$ 0- ;! 2 )!\ f| 4)i;| \i)7! ITI |n ]( { ![4t) , ))\f{ /\2k/ ;;;;))AA; O N N N N O N I N I I I N O Nr7� N N N N O N N N N O N_ N N O _ ai W N O N a N O) N O O N (� 00 N L O) O .-. i+ V 1.6 Q CN CN t N OD � M 0p N N N O i N N O V/ //Q/�� I M � N E m W CN �+ oM E I N O j N ❑ N J7 M 3 N N O N MML rl � LO _ � N v � O N LO N N � O N in I N N v C 3 � ► N m v s� N N y o v ti N N N tv �� O N s L^r CN tv N C Cl) G O N - 0 — N N O O N O O C CN N C CN N O N N O N O N O N O i 7 O N O N O O N r y (ui).la;empunojE) o; y;daa (•u!) pe;uiea w O FZ w O OC Ln 0 w C a 0 z O 1O OC Q Z K } O C7 Ln Z Z w K w Y O z w Z K c w V c N N Y ON Co Ln cr J Ln W Z m V O V 2mo N N CDN C V N d U _ 0 C 0 O O ,C C 3 N w N m m U' w W U' w N O N N N � N O C14 N N � N N O N N N � N O N 00 N N N O 00 N_ N = O N O O N O N No }r N 00 i N ON r r CD= M Q '^ N 0 O M �i co ++ N N O N N N O N ♦A NddC o o V CD N m MO N W N O N N � � b0 S� N by c CJ O N L" O N LO N + O N N Ln s. � E N O u m J M N _0 r O N M N O\ N O LO O LO O LO O O LO O LO O LO O LO O Ln O Ln O O O N N co N N M M Ln � s. Cui) Ilejuiem (ui) aa;empunoaE) o; y;daa w N }a � 0 w N � O .NM.. N U n w Z w N p � N U O a N K N O w N � � m U } Z Q I W Cn C7 Z N N O �? m c-I m Ql O Z U w_ O a cV) G H U W a O Z � O� z LU < W O } Z W � W O W H Z w Z FD = O w U LU = � N N Y � O N co N N (D C U (D U N � 0) C 0) C O O N 2 3 2 2 (2)N CD U' (AM N U) N M am)C U' (A w o w 04 N N N O N N N N O N N \ N N O N N N N O N 0 N N M N O 00 J, N_ a1 N QIL N O }r N L N O O }r N 00 C14 N O = r N O N 0 Cl) `� CD G M� o W M N N CD EN O N O N ♦ ) N Ln V � ^N LO Ori Q N N 3 L U m m N N - N O N N Y O N tx tx a S� Ntx O CJ O N O N O O Ln N N ter N O � E N O m J 0 � N N � c N r p N_ oC N r� 0 Lo O Lo O Lo O O Ln O Ln O O O Ln Ln O Ln O Ln O O O N N M ? N N (`') (`') Ln Sr Cui) Ilejuiem (ui) ao;empunoaE) o; y;doa b�A w n N N Q O 0 w � N � nl N n M Z 01 N O c-I F N N o a w z O } U Q I W N C7 Z N N O �? m m Ql O Z U W_ O O_ Cn 0 U W O_ O z � o � z LU < W O } C7 Z W � W O W H Z w Z FD = O w U LU = � N N Y � O N m N LU = J Cn W Z m 2 � w U_ O U m n N N C U N U Cl) � 0C O 0C O N 2 3 N U) N 2 am)C 2 (2)N CD U' (AM m U' (A w o w 04 N N N O N N N N O N N \ N N O N N N N O N 00 N N a1 N O N Q N_ a1 N Q N O N }r L N O O }r N C14 M o N = m +'' O Cl) N 0 O G `� o M� W Cl) +_+ N N N O N 00 O N ♦A N LO N N 3 O2 Q L U � m m N N - N O O N � L tx O Cr tx tx CJ O N O N N O r Ln N N ter N O O LO � E N O m J 0 � N N c N r O N_ oC N r� 0 117 O 117 O 117 O O Ln O Ln O Ln O O Ln O Ln O Ln O O O N N M N N C? C? Ln Sr ('u1) Ilejuiem (ui) aa;empunoaE) o; y;daa bD w }a 0 a N w N � M O � M N u a+ � w Z w , O � N F g o F U K }LL Z Q I W N C7 Z N N O �? m m lD Ql O Z U W_ O a Cn 0 U W a 0 Z � O � z LU < W O } C7 Z W � W O W H Z w Z FD = O w U LU = � N N Y � O N m N N C N U U � C O 0) C O N 2 3 2 (2)N CD U' (AM N (n a)2 m am)C U' (A W o w 04 N N N O N N N N O N N \ N N O N N N N O N 00 N N a1 N O N N_ a1 N Q N O }r N L N O O }r N 00 (Q N O = N + N O Cl) N 0 O G `� o M� W M co N N CD E N O N O N ♦A N V/ � LO C 0 N N 3 Q L U o � m m N N - N O O N � L tx O Cr tx tx CJ O N 0 N O r Ln N N N O O LO ter C E N O m � N N c N r O N_ oC N r� 0 Lo O Lo O Lo O O Ln O Ln O Ln O O Ln O Ln O Ln O O O N N M N N C? C? Ln Sr ('ui) Ilejuiem (ui) ao;empunoaE) o; y;doa b�A w N � I� N O � M N ~ M O\l M U w N c-I N � i Z w N O � O N a O K N F � m � � U Z Q I W N C7 Z N N O �? m m Ql O Z U w O a 0 U W a 0 Z � O � z LU < W O } C7 Z W � W O W H Z w Z FD = O w U N (D C U (D U � 0) C 0) C O O N 2 3 2 2 (2)N CD U' (AM N U) N m am)C U' (A w o w N N O N N N � N O N N \ N N O N N N � N O N co N N 0) N O 00 N_ a1 N Q N O }r N_ L N O O }r N CN N LO O = N N O M N +' Cl)} N 0 n r '^ 0 N O G m06 M en�i co N N O N N co ° o nLO m u m c-I m lD Q1 O Z U w O a U W a 0 Z � O � z LU < W O } C7 Z W � W O W H Z w Z FD = O w U N (D C U N U (D � 0) C 0) C O O N 2 3 2 2 (2)N CD U' (AM N U) N m am)C U' (A w o w N N O N N N � N O N N \ N N O N N N � N O N 00 N N a1 N O 00 N_ a1 N Q N O N }r L N O O }r N (Q N CO O r N O N 0 Cl) MUM O o W M +_+ N N N O N C)N ♦A N N LO O N 3 Q N CD 2 L U com N N - N CD O N � L tx O Cr tx tx CJ CDN O N CD r Ln � N N ter N O O LO N O m N N c N r C) N_ oC N r� 0 LO O LO CD LO CDO CDLn CDLn CDLn CD LO O LO CD LO O O O N N Cl) N N C? C? Ln Sr ('ui) Ilejuiem (ui) ao;empunoaE) o; y;doa b�A w ° � M N m m lD Ql O Z U w_ O a Cn 0 U W a 0 Z � O � z LU < W O } C7 Z W � W O W H Z w Z FD = O w U LU = 2 N N Y N (D C U (D U n � 0) C 0) C O O N 2 3 2 2 (2)N CD U' (AM N U) N m am)C U' (A W o w N N O N N N � N O N N \ N N O N N N � N O N 0 N N a1 N O 00 N_ a1 N Q N O }r N M L N O O }r N (Q N I` O = r N O Cl) `� N 0 p G M� o W M +_+ N N EN O N O N ♦A N N i Ln N N 3 O2 O L U com N N - a) CD O N � L tic O Cr tx tx CJ CDN O N CD r Ln N N N O O LO ter N O m N N c N r p N_ oC N r� 0 117 O 117 O 117 O O Ln O Ln O O O Ln Ln O Ln O Ln O O O N N M N N M M Ln Sr ('u1) �lejuiea (ui) as;ennpunoa� o; y;daa b�A w 0 � ei N w N � � O ~ m rn � N \ w N Z w N O O � a � w o m c-I m Ql O Z U w O a 0 U W a 0 Z � O � z LU < W O } C7 Z W � W O W � Z w Z FD = O w U LU = � N N Y � O N m N N C N U (D U W � 0) C 0) C O O N 2 3 2 C 2 N CD U' (A N U) m N m N N U' (A w o w N r N O N N N N O N N \ N N r O N N N r N O N c N N M N O co N_ O) N Q N O }r N L N O O }r N r 00 (Q N = 2 W N O M N 0 O o W M co +_+ rn N EN O N O N ♦A N ,w L" O �n YLO N N 3 O0 Q L- U C) m m N N - N C O N N O N � L O Cr W S� N O CJ O N O N O Ln N N N O ter E N O m LN N N _0 c r O N_ M oC N r� 0 O 117 O lf) O O Lo O Ln O O O Lo Ln O Ln O Ln O r O (D O r r N N co r N N C? C? Ln r Sr Cui) liquiem (ui) ao;empunoaE) o; y;doa b!A w 0 n N w NO N ~ m rn w N � Z w N OO N a O K N F � M � U } Z Q I W N C7 Z N N O �? m c-I m Ql O Z U W_ O a N 0 U W a 0 Z � O � z LU < W O } C7 Z W � W O W H Z w Z FD = O w U LU = � N N Y � O N m N N '6 U N U LL W C C N j N 0 3 C C N CDw U' N (n m N mU' N N w W (.'Jw N N O N N N � N O N N \ N N O N N N � N O N c N N 0) N O 00 N_ a1 N Q N O }r N m L N O O }r N 00 N LL 0LU r i� O NO 0 Cl) o N N CD O N O N ♦A N Ln V / � LO to / N N 3 O2 O L U o m m N N - N O N N Y O N L tx O Cr tx tx S� N O CJ O N O N O r Ln : N N ter N O O LO � E N O m N _0 r O N_ oC N r� 0 117 O 117 O 117 O O Ln O Ln O Lo O Lo O O Lo O Lo O O O N N M N N (`') (`') Ln Sr ('u1) �lejuiea (ui) as;ennpunoa� o; y;daa b�A w N O � O � u o J � Y � c� 0 C Z Q I W N C7 Z N N O �? m m Ql O Z U W O D_ Ln 0 U W O_ 0 Z �LU D O � z � W O } C7 Z W � W O W � Z w Z FD = O w U LU = � N N Y � O N m N tMU101*4&Wli0:fllilflIKlL4FiIFi:IFi[3i1-IF-AW 8.0 6.0 2.0 0.0 Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project MV6 Observed Rainfall versus Historic Averages boa "e +Guiford County Historic Average (45.84) +Historic 30%Probable (28.59) —Historic 70%Probable (55.21) --E--Observed Project Rainfall (42.75 in) Michael Baker Engineering, INC. Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project (DMS Project NO. ID 96313) December 2022, Monitoring Year 6 of 7 Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project — Hydrology Monitoring Stations Photos Photos taken on (11/8/2022) unless noted different Manual Crest Gauge — Reading 3/22/22 (No Reading) Wetland Well 1 — Reach 4, Station 25+00 Wetland Well 3 — Reach 1, Station 52+00 MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96313) DECEMBER 2022, MONITORING YEAR 6 OF 7 Manual Crest Gauge Wetland Well 2 — Reach 2, Station 47+00 Wetland Well 4 — Reach 1, Station 55+00 Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project — Hydrology Monitoring Stations Photos Photos taken on (11/8/2022) unless noted different Wetland Well 5 — Reach 1, Station 58+00 Wetland Well 7 — Reach 1, Station 63+50 MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC BROWNS SUMMIT CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 96313) DECEMBER 2022, MONITORING YEAR 6 OF 7 Wetland Well 6 — Reach 1, Station 61+00 Wetland Well 8 — Reach 4, Station 23+00 Appendix F Adjusted Wetland Boundary Report INTERNATIONAL Memorandum Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project NCDMS Project ID No. 96313, NCDEQContract No.5792 USACE Action ID: SAW-2014-01642 NCDWR No.14-0332 Cape Fear River Basin: 03030002-010020 Recorded By: Terry Burhans, PWS, CPSS WETLAND BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT MEMORANDUM This memorandum as suggested by the interagency Review Team (IRT) serves as a wetland boundary adjustment to restored wetlands proposed in the original Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project. The Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan, prepared by Michael Baker Engineering in January of 2016, originally proposed to restore 3,3846 linear feet (LF) of jurisdictional stream, enhance 2,535 LF of stream and restore a total of 4.44 acres of wetland within the Haw River Headwaters Targeted Loacal Watershed (TLW) 03030002-010020. The location of the project is shown on the Project Vicinity Map (Figure 1). Credit Ratios for the original proposed features are included in the attached Restoration Summary Map (Figure 2). Background During the development and continued monitoring of the Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project, Eight (8) groundwater monitoring wells total have been installed within the proposed wetland mitigation areas. BSAW8 was installed during MY4 to gather additional data in adjacent wetlands. BSAW8, shown on the Wetland Areas Map (Figure 3) is located adjacent to wetland type 5 (Hydrologic reestablishment) where BSAW1 is located. BSAW8 data shows the wetland preforming well above success criteria. Seven of the eight are preforming successfully. One well, BSAW2 historically has not met criteria; therefore, Michael Baker plans to adjust the boundary of the proposed wetland restoration around this well and extend wetland boundaries in other areas where restoration has occurred within the conservation easement at a lower credit ratio to equal the contracted WMUs and avoid a loss of credits (Table 1). TABLE 1. Adjusted Wetland Areas Area Ratio Credits Original Wetlands (Riparian, Restoration) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------+------------------------ R (1- functioning wetlands) 1 1.53 ---------------------------------- 3:1 ------------------------------- 0.51 ! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------! R (2- degraded wetlands) 1 ------------------------! 0.43 --------------------------------- 1.5:1 -------------------------------! 0.29 ! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------! R (3 - partially functioning wetlands) 1 ------------------------! 1.76 --------------------------------- 1.5:1 -------------------------------! 1.17 r------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------r------------------------ R (4 - filled wetlands) 1 0.45 --------------------------------- 1:1 0.45 r------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------r------------------------ R (5 - hydric soils) 1 0.27 --------------------------------- 3.5:1 0.08 r-------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------r---------------------------------------------------------- Original Proposed Totals 1 4.44 2.50 Adjusted Wetlands (Riparian, Restoration) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------ R (1-functioning wetlands) 1.53 3:1 0.51 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+------------------------+---------------------------------- R (2-degraded wetlands) 0.43 1.5:1 --------------------------------- 0.29 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- R (3 - partially functioning wetlands) ------------------------ 2.55 ---------------------------------- 1.5:1 -------------------------------- 1.70 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+------------------------ R (4 -filled wetlands) 0 -------------- 1:1 0. 0 0.00 R (5 - hydric soils) 0.27 - 3.5:1 0.08 r----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+------------------------ Adjusted Totals 4.78 ---------------------------------- ------------------------------- 2.58 Riparian Wetland Credit Difference the adjusted restored wetland boundary within the conservation easement. Field Investigations Field investigations were conducted in November of 2022 to verify the presence of indicators of wetland soil, wetland hydrology and hydrophytic vegetation in the proposed added wetland restoration areas. Soil bores were performed to confirm the locations and presence of hydric, marginal and upland soils on the landscape. The presence of hydric soils, combined with hydrology and vegetation and GIS analysis aided in the determination of Page 1 of 2 Browns Summit Creek Restoration Project InterOffice Memorandum Adjusted Wetland Restoration Areas As noted above, an area of filled wetlands around monitoring well BSAW2 has not met ground water hydrology establishment criteria. As such, area around this well that was previously proposed as a restoration wetland (type 4— filled wetland) has been removed as credit toward Riparian wetland mitigation units (1:1 ratio). Alternatively, areas identified during field investigations on November 10, 2022 were determined to qualify as having at least partially functioning restored wetlands (restoration type R-3; credit 1.5:1). Soils within these wetland restoration areas were hydric and the areas expressed wetland hyrology indicators such as surface water, saturation, iron deposits, water - stained leaves, hydrogen sulficde odor and oxidized rhizospheres along living roots. Additionally, likely-hydophytic vegetation was also noted including sedges (Corex lurida), black willow (Solix nigro), green bulrush (Scirpus otrovirens), American sycamore (Plotonus occidentolis), and Smooth alder (Alnus serruloto). These areas identified on the November 10, 2022 field visit were deemd to qualify for a wetland restoration ratio of 1.5:1 toward WMUs. Table 1 summarizes the net gain of 0.08 WMUs after Wetland Boundary Readjustment. It should be noted that these adjusted wetland areas are located within the existing Conservation Easement and had not previously been included as wetland areas in any existing jurisdictional determinations, nor had they been proposed as wetland restoration areas with the original project proposal. These areas are also fenced off from cattle in the vicinity. Best Regards 4l44 I erry Burhans, PWS, CPSS Inclusions Figure1 Project Vicinity Map............................................................................................................................................ 3 Figure 2 Restoration Summary Map.................................................................................................................................4 Figure3 Wetland Areas Map............................................................................................................................................ 5 Figure 4 Adjusted Wetland Restoration Areas Map.........................................................................................................7 SitePhotographs.................................................................................................................................................9 SoilDescription Form........................................................................................................................................14 Wetland Boundary Adjustment Memorandum SAW-2014-01642 DWR 3885 Page 2 of 2 November 29, 2022 To access the site from Raleigh, take Interstate 40 and head west on 1-40 towards Greensboro, for approximately 68 miles. Take the exit ramp to E. Lee St. (exit 224) towards Greensboro and continue for 2 miles before turning onto U.S. Highway 29 North. Once on U.S. Highway 29 North, travel north for approximately 10 miles before exiting and turning on to NC-150 West. Continue west on NC-150 for 5 miles. The project site is located along and between NC-150 and Spearman Rd., with access points through residences on Middleland Dr. and Broad Ridge Ct. The subject project site is an environmental restoration site of the NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) and is encompassed by a recorded conservation easement, but is bordered by land under private ownership. Accessing the site may require traversing areas near or along the easement boundary and therefore access by the general public is not permitted. Access by authorized personnel of state and federal agencies or their designees/contractors involved in the development, oversight and stewardship of the restoration site is permitted within the terms and timeframes of their defined roles. Any intended site visitation or activity by any person outside of these previously sanctioned roles and activities requires prior coordination with DMS. 7 Site Location r. Conservation Easement NCDMS TLW Note: Site is located within targeted local watershed 0303002010020. 1"W' r�rt�Itltili,��A1•��j�`j��ZEN Guilford County ighway 150 ff�� J- GUILFORD �� Figure 1 Site Location Project Vicinity Map Browns Summit (DMS# 96313) NCDEQ - Division of Mitigation Services N INTERNATIONAL 0.5 0 0.5 Miles Conservation Easement Restoration Feature Approach Restoration, 1:1 Reach R1 Enhancement I, 1.5:1.'x Enhancement II, 2.5:1 BMP, 1.5:1 Wetland Mitigation Types 1 - "Functioning", 3:1 credit ratio �1 2-Degraded, 1.5:1 credit ratio - 3 - Partially Functioning, 1.5:1 credit ratio 4 - Filled, 1:1 credit ratio 5 - Hydrologic Reestablishment, 3.5:1 ratio i Reach R2 (upper) _- ' Reach R3 (lower) Reach R6 ; INTEIII NAT10NAL Reach R4 ��,� .. •Jil-.may it L — }� Reach T1 tizv �i�,.r4F Reach R2 (lower) Reach T2 ► Reach R3 (upper) Reach T3 0 250 500 1,000 Figure 2 Restoration Summary Map Feet Browns Summit Site (DMS #96313) Legend Q Groundwater Monitoring Wells Conservation Easement Cross Sections Stream Centerline Top of Bank Wetland Restoration Areas - Existing Jurisdictional Wetlands XS.8 BSAW1 r 0 k_w. yak .d OW w 0 125 250 500 Figure 3A. Browns Summit Creek -Michael Baker I N T E R N A T 1 D N A L Feet Restoration Site Wetland Areas (Upper) Legend Groundwater Monitoring Wells Conservation Easement Cross Sections BSAW7— Stream Centerline 0 I'l Top of Bank Wetland Restoration Areas BSAW6 j,__ Lcy, Existing Jurisdictional Wetlands 46. BS 5 AR" Alk A P �� BS 3 -4 �kLO OF" jov 0 125 250 500 Figure 3B. -Michael Baker Browns Summit Creek I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L Feet Restoration Site Wetland Areas (Lower) Legend 0 Groundwater Monitoring Wells Conservation Easement Cross Sections Stream Centerline Top of Bank Existing Jurisdictional Wetlands Wetland Restoration Areas Additional Wetland Restoration Areas Soil Borings O Hydric O Marginal O Upland O Representative Hydric Topo Major Topo Minor Wetland Restoration II Area Added (0.414 acres) A 0 XS7`}1O O �)ZAL_O / 0 50 100 200 Figure 4A. Browns Summit Creek -Michael Baker I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L Feet Restoration Site Adjusted Wetland Restoration Areas Legend 0 Groundwater Monitoring Wells Conservation Easement Cross Sections Stream Centerline Top of Bank Wetland Restoration Areas Removed Wetland Restoration Areas ■ Existing Jurisdictional Wetlands Additional Wetland Restoration Areas Topo Major Topo Minor 40 _. V —..—BSAW2— �---- Wetland Restoration — — — Area Removed — —••—•• (0.450 acres) �l 1 0 50 100 200 Figure 4B. Browns Summit Creek -Michael Baker I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L Feet Restoration Site Adjusted Wetland Restoration Areas Brown Summit Creek Restoration Project NCDMS Project ID No. 96313, NCDEQ Contract No. 5792 USACE Action ID: SAW-2014-01642 NCDWR No. 14-0332 Cape Fear River Basin: 03030002-010020 ,.r!+i`'�'i bn - ti ,f r 'I.�• � } �' �,� - i � , ice, •.:-'x' • ✓ 'OS0 Photo 2. Hydric Soil present throughout added wetland restoration area. INTERNATIONAL Brown Summit Creek Restoration Project NCDMS Project ID No. 96313, NCDEQ Contract No. 5792 USACE Action ID: SAW-2014-01642 NCDWR No. 14-0332 Cape Fear River Basin: 03030002-010020 r -�-A ! a i�.'S h� ��r .+ • r w x WE Photo 3. Hydric Soil present throughout added wetland restoration area. +. r jL �no,_, eq Photo 4. Hydric Soil present throughout added wetland restoration area. INTERNATIONAL Brown Summit Creek Restoration Project NCDMS Project ID No. 96313, NCDEQ Contract No. 5792 USACE Action ID: SAW-2014-01642 NCDWR No. 14-0332 Cape Fear River Basin: 03030002-010020 ie. 7 41 70 � t Photo 5. Hydric Soil present throughout added wetland restoration area. r jL 40 s _ Photo 6. Hydric Soil present throughout added wetland restoration �area. INTERNATIONAL Brown Summit Creek Restoration Project NCDMS Project ID No. 96313, NCDEQ Contract No. 5792 USACE Action ID: SAW-2014-01642 NCDWR No. 14-0332 Cape Fear River Basin: 03030002-010020 Am Ok IL � -- a� p � , .,• � .. *'� w_ ,�.••;j:(+sty. r� I �Iior r r '-i •. 4'- .fit Photo 7. Hydric Soil present throughout added wetland restoration area. -, Ar MY Of OF vp� -44 Photo 8. Hydric Soil present throughout added wetland restoration area. r- INTERNATIONAL Brown Summit Creek Restoration Project NCDMS Project ID No. 96313, NCDEQ Contract No. 5792 USACE Action ID: SAW-2014-01642 NCDWR No. 14-0332 Cape Fear River Basin: 03030002-010020 AID, rl i t ,k YO T� 1 Photo 9. Hydric Soil present throughout added wetland restoration area. 4b 7%'�* 4,1 .. + .',• � _ .yam v M f Photo 10. Hydric Soil present throughout added wetland restoration area. INTERNATIONAL Soil Description Form Project: Browns Summit Restoration Project County: Guilford County, NC Date: November 10, 2022 Staff: Terry Burhans PWS, CPSS, Drew Powers I N T E R N AT 1 0 N A L Boring Horizon Depth Texture Matrix Color Mottle Colors (Abundance / Size / Contrast) Notes 1 O 0-4 Loam 10YR 3/1 Water table A 4-7 Silt loam 10YR 5/1 7.5YR 5/4 at 4" below B 9-15+ Clay loam 10YR 5/1 7.5YR 5/4 Surface. 7.5YR 5/6 2 O 0-2 Loam 7.5YR 3/1 A 2-7 Silt loam 10YR 4/2 10YR 5/4 B 7-15+ Silt loam 10YR 5/1 10YR 4/4 2.5Y 5/2 3 O 0-1 Loam 10YR 3/1 A 1-12 Silt Loam 10YR 8/1 5YR 6/8 10YR 6/2 B 12-15+ Silt Loam 10YR 7/1 7.5YR 5/8