20110187 Ver 1_Year 5 Monitoring Report_20160224

YEAR 5 (2015)
ANNUAL WETLAND MONITORING REPORT
SUMMIT SEEP NON -RIPARIAN WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
DMS Project # 94646 RFP # 16-002835 Contract # 003244
Davidson County, North Carolina
Data Collected February— November 2015
1
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
Raleigh, North Carolina
1�.7�17:�.��1�7i�•ii
Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211
Raleigh, NC 27604
January 2016

Table of Contents
Part 1: Executive Summary/Project Abstract......................................................................................
l
1.1 Project Goals & Objectives...............................................................................................................1
Table 1.
1.2 Background Summary.......................................................................................................................
l
1.3 Vegetation Assessment......................................................................................................................
l
1.3.1 Vegetation Success Criteria........................................................................................................2
Table 4.
1.3.2 Vegetative Problem Areas..........................................................................................................2
1.3.3 Vegetative Contingency Plan.....................................................................................................
2
1.4 Wetland Assessment.......................................................................................................................... 2
1.4.1 Wetland Success Criteria............................................................................................................3
Vegetation Condition Assessment
1.4.2 Wetland Contingency Plan.........................................................................................................3
1.4.3 Wetland Problem Areas..............................................................................................................4
1.5 Supporting Data.................................................................................................................................4
Part2: Methods.......................................................................................................................................4
2.1 Hydrology..........................................................................................................................................4
2.2 Vegetation..........................................................................................................................................4
Part3: Conclusions.................................................................................................................................
4
3.1 Hydrology..........................................................................................................................................4
3.2 Vegetation..........................................................................................................................................5
Part4: References................................................................................................................................... 6
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
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
2015 Groundwater Gauge Graphs
Appendix E: 2013 Remedial Actions
Remedial Action Plan for Hydrology
NCDMS Correspondence
Appendix F: Additional Site Data
Restoration Plan Figure 3. Soils Map
Restoration Plan Figure 6. Contour Map
Preconstruction Site Photographs
Summit Seep Non -Riparian Wetland Mitigation Site Table of Contents
Year 5 (2015) Annual Monitoring Document

Part 1: Executive Summary/Project Abstract
1.1 Project Goals & Objectives
The 2009 Yadkin Pee -Dee River Basin Restoration Priorities document (NCDMS 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 -riparian 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 nonpoint 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 (WMU'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 03 040103 020010, 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 (Griffith 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 Division of Mitigation
Services 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 -DMS 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 -Riparian Wetland Mitigation Site Page 1
Year 5 (2015) Annual Monitoring Document

Appendix C. Year 5 (2015) stem count measurements indicate an average of 492 planted stems per acre
across the Site. In addition, each individual plot met success criteria.
1.3.1 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.
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.
1.3.2 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), year 4 (2014), or year 5 (2015) 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 caroliniana), and
800 river birch (Betula nigra). These trees remained vigorous during Year 5 (2015) monitoring.
During the spring of 2014, a mature sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua) fell in the southwest portion of
the easement, partially covering vegetation plot 5. Though several stems were killed, the tree does not
appear to be a threat to site success. Additionally, one area was observed to have poor growth during year
4 (2014) monitoring; much of the wetland enhancement area on the south edge of the Site is characterized
by reduced stem density and less vigorous trees than the remainder of the site. The lack of growth is likely
due to poor soils in the ditch -fill area. This area has improved during year 5 (2015) monitoring and is
trending toward success.
1.3.3 Vegetative Contingences
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).
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
Summit Seep Non -Riparian Wetland Mitigation Site Page 2
Year 5 (2015) Annual Monitoring Document

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.
1.4.1 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 5 (2015) Annual Monitoring Report, the Natural Resource Conservation Service (MRCS) growing
season is being used. Future monitoring data collection (documentation of bud burst and soil temperature)
will be used to verify the initiation of the growing season when conditions allow.
Summary of Monitoring Period/Hydrology Success Criteria by Year
1.4.2 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.
Summit Seep Non -Riparian Wetland Mitigation Site Page 3
Year 5 (2015) Annual Monitoring Document
Soil Temperatures/Date Bud Burst
Monitoring Period Used
7.5 Percent of
Year
Documented
for 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 (Acer
rubrum) and elderberry (Sambucus
February 14 -November 3
2013 (Year 3)
canadensis) and soil temperature of
20 days
(263 days)
48°F documented on February 14,
2013
No bud burst documented, soil
temperatures below biological activity
March 28 -November 3
2014 (Year 4)
17 days
threshold, NRCS growing season
(220 days)
used.
No bud burst documented, soil
temperatures below biological activity
March 28 -November 3
2015 (Year 5)
17 days
threshold, NRCS growing season
(220 days)
used
1.4.2 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.
Summit Seep Non -Riparian Wetland Mitigation Site Page 3
Year 5 (2015) Annual Monitoring Document

1.4.3 Wetland Problem Areas
There were no wetland problem areas observed during the 2015 monitoring season.
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 Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS)
website. All raw data supporting the tables and figures in the appendices is available from NCDMS 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 NCDMS 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 CVS/DMS 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 7, 2015.
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 on February 2l't, 2013 to correct the elevation of the ditch plug, ultimately restoring
groundwater levels throughout the Site. The Remedial Action Plan and correspondence with NCDMS can
be found in Appendix E.
Summit Seep Non -Riparian Wetland Mitigation Site Page 4
Year 5 (2015) Annual Monitoring Document

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 criteria.
3.2 Vegetation
Vegetation sampling across the Site was above the required average density with 492 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)
Planted Stems / Acre Counting Towards Success Criteria
Year 1 (2011)
Year 2 (2012)
Year 3 (2013)
Year 4 (2014)
Year 5 (2015)
Gauge
March 28
March 1
Feb. 14
March 28
March 28
364
Growing Season
Growing
Growing Season
Growing Season
Growing Season
405
Start
Season Start
Start
Start
Start
1
Yes / 37 days
Yes / 40 days
Yes / 58 days
Yes/ 96 Days
Yes/ 42 Days
486
(16.81 percent)
(16 percent)
(22 percent)
(43 percent)
(19 percent)
2
Yes / 73 days
Yes / 118 days
Yes / 211 days
Yes/ 102 Days
Yes/ 42 Days
364
(33 percent)
(47 percent)
(80 percent)
(46 percent)
(19 percent)
3
Yes / 23 days
Yes / 40 days
Yes / 105 days
Yes/ 100 Days
Yes/ 48 Days
(10 percent)
(16 percent)
(39 percent)
(45 percent)
(21 percent)
4
Yes / 67 days
Yes / 115 days
Yes / 232 days
Yes/ 99 Days
Yes/ 63 Days
(30 percent)
(46 percent)
(86 percent)
(45 percent)
(28 percent)
5
NA* / 4 days
No / 8 days
Yes / 71 days
Yes 54 Days
Yes 39 Days
(1.8 percent)
(3 percent)
(27 percent)
(24 Percent)
(17 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 criteria.
3.2 Vegetation
Vegetation sampling across the Site was above the required average density with 492 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
364
364
2
485
526
445
445
405
3
687
648
648
647
607
4
526
526
486
485
486
5
1133
1052
1093
768
728
6
607
405
405
404
364
Average of All
Plots (1-6)
640
600
573
519
492
Summit Seep Non -Riparian Wetland Mitigation Site Page 5
Year 5 (2015) Annual Monitoring Document

Part 4: REFERENCES
Griffith, G.E., J.M. Omernik, 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 -DMS Protocol for Recording
Vegetation. Version 4.2. North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Division of
Mitigation Services. 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 Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS). 2009. Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin Restoration
Priorities (online). Available: http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_librM/
get=file?uuid=081b34ec-8b4c-434f-9e25-57c713cb136c&groupId=60329 [February 19,
2010].North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS). 2011. Procedural Guidance and Content
Requirements for DMS Monitoring Reports (online). Available: http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/
document_ library/get file?p 1 id=1169848&folderld=2288101&name=DLFE-39268.pdf
[November 07, 2011].North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Raleigh, North
Carolina.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS). 2002. WETS Data Davidson County, Lexington NC —
4970 (online) Available: hqp://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 Seep Non -Riparian Wetland Mitigation Site Page 6
Year 5 (2015) Annual Monitoring Document

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 MitigatiQ�n Site Appendix A
Year 5 (2015) Annual Monitoring Document if
�

i.
I
r,
7
iJ" L �+ ;� I ._ ! _.• �j : � .',% �•'fir+ �-t .
Directions to Site from 1-85
- Take exit 88 and head south r
M1
-Take the first right on Clyde Fitzgerald Road
- Travel approx. 1.5 miles and turn left, East, onto��
Sam Sharp Rd.
- Travel approx. 0.25 miles, Site is located on right 10,4,°.
- NOTE: Permission from landowener is required to
access the Site - L r -' '`
F7
y l
.- T,
y .y , fl 1 I I,� ,,.•.�a f
ti
� may^. _ _i __ - - - •-,d ,�5' '.iJ / fi.
•
If
.
Project Area J� ,,� 'r`-
9,_1
,Rr I f
LaLkevke fi
0 0.5 1 2 3
_ r Miles
I
"
Axiom Environmental �
� 218 Snow Ave
Raleigh, NC 27603
VICINITY MAP & DIRECTIONS
SUMMIT SEEP NON -RIPARIAN WETLAND
MITIGATION SITE
Dw by.
KRJ
Date'.
Sept 2012
FIGURE
Davidson County, North Carolina
Project'.
=.~iom Environmental, In'.
10-001

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Summit Seep Non -Riparian Wetland Mitigation Site Contract # 003244
Summit Seep Non -Riparian Wetland MitigatiQ�n Site Appendix A
Year 5 (2015) Annual Monitoring Document if
�
Mitigation Credits
Non -riparian
Riparian
Nitrogen
Phosphorous
Stream
Wetland Wetland
Buffer
Nutrient Offset
Nutrient Offset
Type
R RE
R
RE R
RE
Totals
3.91
0.09
Project Components
Existing
Restoration —
Restoration
Project Component
Stationing /
Footage/Acre
Approach
or- Restoration
Footage or
Mitigation Ratio
-or- Reach ID
Location
age
(PI,PII etc.)
Equivalent
Acreage
Non -riparian
NA
3.91
NA
Restoration
3.91
1:1
restoration
Non -riparian
NA
0.18
NA
Enhancement
0.18
2:1
enhancement
Component Summation
Non -
Restoration
Stream
Riparian Wetland riparian
Buffer (square Upland (acres)
Level
(linear feet)
(acres) Wetland
feet)
(acres)
Riverine Non-Riverine
Restoration
0
0 0 3.91
0
0
Enhancement
0 0 0.18
0
0
Enhancement 1
0
Enhancement 11
0
A&Ek
Creation
0 0 0
E0
l
Preservation
0
0 0 0
High Quality
0
0 0 0
0
Preservation
Summit Seep Non -Riparian Wetland MitigatiQ�n Site Appendix A
Year 5 (2015) Annual Monitoring Document if
�

Table 2: Project Activity and Reporting History
Elapsed Time Since Grading Complete: 4 Years and 7 Months
Elapsed Time Since Planting Complete: 4 Years and 7 Months
Number of Reporting Years: 5 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
Lloyd Glover; 919.422.3392
ongoing
Year 2 2012) Monitoring
Oct -2012
Nov -2012
Remedial Action for Hydrology
Willow Spring, NC 27592-7756
Feb -2013
Su lemental Planting 2,000 stems
1.888.888.7158
Feb -2013
Year 3 2013 Monitoring
Nov -2013
Nov -2013
Year 4 2014) Monitoring
Sept -2014
Nov -2014
Year 5 2015 Monitoring
Sept -2015
Nov -2015
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, Inc.
Grant Lewis; 919.215.1693
218 Snow Ave. Raleigh, NC 27603
Summit Seep Non -Riparian Wetland MitigatiQ�n Site Appendix A
Year 5 (2015) Annual Monitoring Document if
�

Table 4: Proiect Baseline Information & Attributes
Summit Seep Non -Riparian Wetland Mitigation Site Contract # 003244
Project Information
Project Name Summit Seep
County Davidson
Project Area (acres) 6.4
Project Coordinates (latitude and 35.76130, 80.33430
longitude)
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province
Southern Outer Piedmont
River Basin
Yadkin
USGS Hydrologic Unit
8 -digit
3040103
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)
35.6
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 -riparian, riparian riverine or
riparian non riverine) Non -riparian
Mapped Soil Series Armenia silt loam
Drainage class Class A
Soil Hydric Status Hydric
Source of Hydrology Natural Seep
Hydrologic Impairment Ditches
Native vegetation community Low Elevation Seep
Percent composition of exotic invasive 0%
vegetation
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 LAMA)]
No
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
No
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No
Summit Seep Non -Riparian Wetland MitigatiQ�n Site Appendix A
Year 5 (2015) Annual Monitoring Document if
�

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 5 (2015) Annual Monitoring Document

Gauge 2
�,i'r ,�� • I ! ` tw
'v
•.
+4s Legendsa
{{
Vegetation
/` Gauges
7-
A -
�
■Veg Plot 1
AN-
Veg Gauge 5
' Plot 2
Gauge 1
a
•h
■
.�
Gauge 3 • Veg
Plot 3
M:
L,
Veg
Veg Plot 4
■
Plot 5
Veg
. ■
Gauge 4 Plot 6Ahr
Gauge 2
�,i'r ,�� • I ! ` tw
'v
•.
+4s Legendsa
{{
Vegetation
/` Gauges

Table 5: Vegetation Condition Assessment
Summit Seen Non -Riparian Wetland Mitigation Site Contract # 003244
Planted Acreage - 6.9 acres
Entire Easement
Vegetation Category
Description
Mapped
CCPV
Number of
% of planted
Acreage
Symbol
Polygons
Acrea e
Poor growth in wetland
enhancement area on southern
Green
Areas of Concern
edge of site. This area has
0.09
Crosshatch
1
1.3%
improved since previous years
and is trending toward success.
No areas of invasive species
Exotic Invasive Species
concern were observed at the
NA
NA
NA
0%
Site during year 5 (2015)
monitoring.
Summit Seep Non -Riparian Wetland Mitigation Site Appendix B
Year 5 (2015) Annual Monitoring Document

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 5 (2015) Annual Monitoring Document

Table 6: Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Summit Seep Non -Riparian Wetland Mitigation Site
Contract # 003244
Plot
Corri Faquin
Planted Stems / Acre Counting Towards Success Criteria
7/20/2015 12:28
database name
Year 1 (2011)
Year 2 (2012)
Year 3 (2013)
Year 4 (2014)
ED -PC
Year 5 (2015)
1
404
445
364
364
Proj, total stems
364
2
485
526
445
445
Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species.
405
3
687
648
648
647
Planted Stems by Plot andSpp
607
4
526
526
486
485
Summit See
486
5
1133
1052
1093
768
Required Plots (calculated)
728
6
607
405
405
404
364
Average of All
Plots (1-6)
640
600
573
519
492
Table 7. CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Summit Seen Non -Riparian Wetland Mitisation Site Contract # 003244
Report Prepared By:
Corri Faquin
Date Prepared
7/20/2015 12:28
database name
RS-SummitSee -2015-A-v2.3.l.mdb
database location
\\ae-sbs\Share\CVS database\2015
computer name
ED -PC
Me size
37130240
Metadata
Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of project(s)
and project data.
Proj, 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 Spp
Damage values tallied by type for each species.
Damage by Plot
Damage values tallied by type for each plot.
Planted Stems by Plot andSpp
A matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species for each plot;
dead and missingstems 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 5 (2015) Annual Monitoring Document

Table 8. Total and Planted Stems by Plot and Species
CVS Prosect Code Summit. Proiect Name: 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 (MY5 2015)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
Summit -RS -0001
PnoLS P -all T
Summit -RS -0002
PnoLS P -all T
Summit -RS -0003
PnoLS P -all T
Summit -RS -0004
PnoLS P -all T
Summit -RS -0005
PnoLS P -all T
Summit -RS -0006
PnoLS P -all T
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
Asimina triloba
pawpaw
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1 1
1
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
Celtis laevigata
sugarberry
Tree
Celtis occidentalis
common hackberry
Tree
Cornus
dogwood
Shrub or Tree
1
1
1
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
2
Diospyros virginiana
common persimmon
Tree
2
2
16
12
3
3
23
14
1
1
42
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
1
1
1
1
Gleditsia triacanthos
honeylocust
Tree
Juglans nigra
black walnut
Tree
Juniperus virginiana
eastern redcedar
Tree
1
Liquidambar styraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
23
6
6
18
8
Pinus taeda
loblolly pine
Tree
5
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
31
3
3
1
1
1
7 7
7
Pyrus calleryana
Callery pear
Exotic
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
1
1
1
5
5
5
1
1
1
4
4
41
1
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
1
11
11
1
11
1
1
1
1
Salix nigra
black willow
Tree
Sambucus canadensis
Common Elderberry
Shrub
1 1
1
Ulmus alata
winged elm
Tree
1
1
1
Ulmus americana
American elm
Tree
2
1
1
1
2
2
7
1
7
111
11
14
Unknown
lShrub or Tree
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
91
6
364.2
91
1
0.02
6
364.2
48
8
1942
ill
6
445.2
171
1
0.02
6
445.2
31
9
1255
15
8
607
15
11
0.02
8
607
40
8
1619
12
6
485.6
12
0.02
6
485.6
45
11
18211
181
8
728.41
181
1
0.02
8
728.41
81
10
32781
91 71"
1
0.02
3 3
364.21 364.21
17
4
688
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

Table 8. Total and Planted Stems by Plot and Species (continued)
CVS Proiect Code Summit. Proiect Name: 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
Annual Means
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
MY5 (2015)
PnoLS P -all T
MY4 (2014)
PnoLS P -all T
MY3 (2013)
PnoLS P -all T
MY2 (2012)
PnoLS P -all T
MY1 (2011)
PnoLS P -all T
MYO (2011)
PnoLS P -all T
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
2
Asimina triloba
pawpaw
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
9
9
9
14
14
14
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
Tree
5
5
51
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
19
19
191
9
9
9
Celtis laevigata
sugarberry
Tree
11
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
1
1
1
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
2
4
2
Diospyros virginiana
common persimmon
Tree
6
6
107
7
7
153
10
10
159
10
10
84
9
9
28
11
11
11
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
1
1
2
1
1
7
1
1
9
1
1
4
Gleditsia triacanthos
honeylocust
Tree
1
Juglans nigra
black walnut
Tree
1
Juniperus virginiana
eastern redcedar
Tree
1
1
1
1
5
Liquidambar styraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
61
176
70
66
13
Pinus taeda
loblolly pine
Tree
5
5
3
4
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
151
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
14
14
14
11
111
11
10
10
10
Pyrus calleryana
Callery pear
Exotic
1
2
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
11
111
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
12
12
12
15
15
151
15
15
15
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
Tree
5
5
5
61
6
6
6
6
6
4
4
4
7
7
7
13
13
13
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
3
3
3
3
3
3
5
5
5
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
Salix nigra
black willow
Tree
1
Sambucus canadensis
lCommon Elderberry
Shrub
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
21
2
2
Ulmus alata
winged elm
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Ulmus americana
American elm
Tree
14
14
31
14
14
20
16
16
49489
18
53
8
8
8
8
8
8
Unknown
Shrub or Tree
;89
1
1
1
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
74
13
499.11
74
6
0.15
13
499.11
262
17
17671
77
131
519.31
77
6
0.15
131
519.31
421
17
2840
85
141
573.31
85
6
0.15
141
573.31
357
221
24081
131
600.31
6
0.15
131
600.31
271
151
18281
95
91
640.81
95 133
6
0.15
91 121
640.81 897.11
101
Ill
681.21
101 101
6
0.15
11 11
681.21 681.2
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

M"

Appendix D: Hydrology Data
Table 9. Wetland Gauge Attainment Data
Figure 3. Summit Seep 30-70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall
2015 Groundwater Gauge Graphs
Summit Seep Non -Riparian Wetland Mitigation Site Appendix D
Year 5 (2015) Annual Monitoring Document

Table 9. Ground Gauge Attainment Data
Summit Seep Non -Riparian Wetland Mitigation Site Contract # 003244
Summit Seep Non -Riparian Wetland Mitigation Site Appendix D
Year 5 (2015) Annual Monitoring Document
Success Criteria Achieved / Max Consecutive Days During Growing Season (Percentage)
Year 1 (2011)
Year 2 (2012)
Year 2 (2012)
Year 3 (2013)
Year 3 (2013)
Year 4 (2014)
Year 5 (2015
Gauge
March 28 —
March 1
March 28 —
Feb. 14
March 28 —
March 28
March 28
NRCS Growing
Growing
NRCS Growing
Growing Season
NRCS Growing
Growing Season
Growing Season
Season Start
Season Start
Season Start
Start
Season Start
Start
Start
1
Yes / 37 days
Yes / 40 days
Yes / 16 days
Yes / 58 days
Yes / 29 days
Yes/ 96 Days
Yes/ 42 Days
(16.81 percent)
(16.1 percent)
(7.3 percent)
(22.1 percent)
(13.1 percent)
(43 percent)
(19 percent)
2
Yes / 73 days
Yes / 118 days
Yes / 92 days
Yes/ 211 days
Yes / 169 days
Yes/ 102 Days
Yes/ 42 Days
(33.18 percent)
(47.6 percent)
(41.8 percent)
(80.2 percent)
(76.5 percent)
(46 percent)
(19 percent)
3
Yes / 23 days
Yes / 40 days
No / 15 days
Yes / 105 days
Yes / 63 days
Yes/ 100 Days
Yes/ 48 Days
(10.45 percent)
(16.1 percent)
(6.8 percent)
(39.9 percent)
(28.5 percent)
(45 percent)
(21 percent)
4
Yes / 67 days
Yes / 115 days
Yes / 81 days
Yes / 232 days
Yes / 190 days
Yes/ 99 Days
Yes/ 63 Days
(30.45 percent)
(46.4 percent)
(36.8 percent)
(86.5 percent)
(86.0 percent)
(45 percent)
(28 percent)
5
NA* / 4 days
No / 8 days
No / 8 days
Yes / 71 days
Yes / 29 days
Yes 54 Days
Yes 39 Days
(1.8 percent)
(3.2 percent)
(3.6 percent)
(27.0 percent)
(13.1 percent)
(24 Percent)
(17 Percent)
Summit Seep Non -Riparian Wetland Mitigation Site Appendix D
Year 5 (2015) Annual Monitoring Document

Z
s 4
u
C
m
w
= 3
Oz
0
Figure 3. Summit Seep 30-70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall (2011-2015)
Data from WETS Station: Lexington, NC 4970 and onsite rain gauge
� 2011 Rainfall
� 2012 Rainfall
� 2013 Rainfall
� 2014 Rainfall
� 2015 Rainfall
30th Percentile
70th Percentile
Summit Seep Non -Riparian Wetland Mitigation Site Appendix D
Year 5 (2015) Annual Monitoring Document

12
10
8
6
4
2
0
c -2
-4
> 6
J -8
-10
3 -12
v -14
3 16
° -18
-20
-22
-24
-26
-28
-30
-32
-34
-36
-38
-40
Summit Seep Groundwater Gauge 1
Year 5 (2015 Data)
w w 4�:, 4� A un to U, U, un M M M M M V V V V V W W W W W i0 1.0 i0 i0 i0
N W In N N In N N 4� N N W l0 N N \ \ \ \ \ \
In N W 4�:, O \ N W 4�:, O \ N V W 1,0 W 1,0 \ O M N W \ \ U7 N N N
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ N \ \ \ \ N \ \ \ \ \ In i-. V \
Un Un In In In
Ln Ln U.n Un In Ln Ln Un Ln Un Ln Un U.n Un Ln U.n U.n Un Ln Ln U.n Un U.n U.n Un Ln Ln Ln
Ul In In
1.8
1.6
1.4
c
1.2
C
3
1.0 E
a
m
0.8 c
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0

12
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
> -4
d
-6
a, -8
m
3 -10
_ -12
3
o -14
-16
-18
-20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
Summit Seep Groundwater Gauge 2
Year 5 (2015 Data)
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
w W A Ln Ln U, In U, M m M M m v v v v v ao oa ao ao ao io a 1 r r N r r r
NW M F-� F+ N W M F-� I--+ N W In N I--+ N N In F-� F-� N N A H+ N N N W l0 I--� N N \ \ \ \ \ \
Ul N W -P. O \ N W P. O W 1.0 \ N v W lO \ O M N W \ \ In 'I W lO N N N N
(n N v \
VI In In In In
In Ln Ln U7 Ln Ln In Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ul Ln Ln Ul Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln In Ln Ln In Ln Ln Ln
Ul U, Ul
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0

12
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
> -8
-10
-12
m -14
3 -16
-18
o -20
-22
-24
-26
-28
-30
-32
-34
-36
-38
-40
-42
-44
-46
Summit Seep Groundwater Gauge 3
Year 5 (2015 Data)
W W -P, A A A A In In Un In Ln of of M of M J J J J J W W W W W 1.0 1.0 1.0 lD lD
N W M N N N W M N N N W lin F\-� N N N lin F\-� 1\-� N N ? N I\-� N N W LOO N N N
In N W P. O N W A O I--' J W 1.0 W 1.0 O of N W In j W 1.0 F-+ N N N
F� F� In F-� N F-� F� Ul F� N F-� F-� In F� F� N N In F-� F� F� F-� U1 F-� F-� F� F� \
Ul Ul
Un Ln LP
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
c
3
0
1.0 E
4T
0.8 .S
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0

12
10
8
6
4
2
0
c -2
-4
> -6
J -8
;+ -10
3 -12
v -14
-16
-18
-20
-22
-24
-26
-28
-30
-32
-34
-36
-38
-40
Summit Seep Groundwater Gauge 4
Year 5 (2015 Data)
Begin Growing Season
March 28Nov
End Growing Season
3
rA
63 Days
Nll
W W
N W a) F\-� F\-� N W 00)
Ln F-� N o0 -P.O --N
F.- F.- Ln F.-F.-F.-F.-Ui
V7 V7 Ui Ln Ln Ln
U'n
F\-�
F.-
Ln
Ul
F\-�
00
F.-
V7
Ul
N
.P
N
U,
U,
W
O
N
Ln
m 0)
(A F\-�
F-�
U'i F\-�
WWWW
0)
F\-�
V
N
0)
N
W
F\-�
M
N
W
F\-�
V V
LnF\-�
In N
WWWW
v
F\-�
j
F. -F.
V
N
W
-F.
V
N
W
-V7
00 00 00
\P F\-� F\-�
O M
F. -F. -F.
Ln In
00
N
N
-F.
W
00
N
W
-In
W
t0 tD t0 lD
W ko F\-� N
Ul
V7 F. -N
U'i U'i
t0 r r r r r r
N \ \ \ \ \ \
j W W N N N
F\-� F\-� F-- \ \ \ N
V7 V7 V7 V7 V7 U'i
1.8
1.6
1.4
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0

c
a
v
J
d
m
3
v
c
3
O
LM
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
-12
-14
-16
-18
-20
-22
-24
-26
-28
-30
-32
-34
-36
-38
-40
-42
-44
Summit Seep Groundwater Gauge 5
Year 5 (2015 Data)
W W 4� 4� 4� A 4� U, In Ln In In M M M M Ql lD lD 1.0 lD
N W 0\l N I\-+ N W 0\l F\-� I\-+ N W LnN N N N LnN N N N I\-+ F\+ N N W l\D N N N \ \ \ \ \ \
In N \ N W A0 \ N W A0 \ N v W lD W lD \ O M N W \\ In -J W lD N N N N
N N In In N N N N In In N N N N In In In \ \ \ N
U'i U'i U'i U'i U'i U'i U'i U1 U'i U'i U'i In In In In Ul In In In U'i U'i U'i U'i U'i U1 U'i U'i U'i
1.8
1.6
1.4
c
1.2 Y
c
3
O
1.0 Q
m
C
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0

Appendix E: 2013 Remedial Actions
Remedial Action Plan for Hydrology
NCDMS Correspondence
Summit Seep Non -Riparian Wetland Mitigation Site Appendix E
Year 5 (2015) Annual Monitoring Document

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 #94646]
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 Glitch 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 havina 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 10cations on Site.
Elevations will tie directly into existing crown elevations (Figure 3). This approach is the ]east
invasive option avaiIab] e, and wi]] undoubtedly minimize the conveyance of surface hydrol-ogy.
Pilot Mill • 1101 Haynes St., Suite 211 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • mm-.restorationsystems.com • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone]

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, Carpinus caroliniana, 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 1/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

• •
Veg Plot 1
• 0
Veg Plot 2
Point I
sa�b Sharpe
�Segmenl
AF
Point Al
• Point I
Veg Plot 3
Segment 1
Segment 2
Point I� zzz
0 Point A
�• �% _ 4,.
0.
}
RESTORATION
SYSTEMS I LLC
1101 HAYNES ST, SUITE 211
RALEIGH, NC 27604
PHONE: [phone]
FAX : [phone]
Prepared For:
1'�llll�ll 1�t11
L
i�
� U
O U)
U
Q i
E
LL O
0-
0 F N
Project: Summit Seep
ID: EEP ID 94646
Drawn By: RJH
Date:
Jan 2013
Scale: 1 inch = 83 feet
Figure:
Figure
1
Transect Suvery Elevations
Segment 1
Point Elevation
A
0
B
-1.4
Location of Historic Ditch
C
-0.73
D
-0.98
E
-1.18
F
-1.77
Location of Historic Ditch
G
-1.33
H
-1.68
1
-1.91
Segment 2
Point Elevation
A
0
B
C
-0.26
-0.59
Location of Ditch Plug
D
-0.08
E
-0.35
F
-0.58
G
-0.99
H
-1.18
1
-0.67
Segment 3
Point Elevation
A
0
B
-0.52
C
-0.7
D
E
F
-0.87
-1.27
-1.25
Location of Ditch Plug
G
-1.15
H
-0.8
I
-0.9
• •
Veg Plot 1
• 0
Veg Plot 2
Point I
sa�b Sharpe
�Segmenl
AF
Point Al
• Point I
Veg Plot 3
Segment 1
Segment 2
Point I� zzz
0 Point A
�• �% _ 4,.
0.
}
RESTORATION
SYSTEMS I LLC
1101 HAYNES ST, SUITE 211
RALEIGH, NC 27604
PHONE: [phone]
FAX : [phone]
Prepared For:
1'�llll�ll 1�t11
L
i�
� U
O U)
U
Q i
E
LL O
0-
0 F N
Project: Summit Seep
ID: EEP ID 94646
Drawn By: RJH
Date:
Jan 2013
Scale: 1 inch = 83 feet
Figure:
Figure
1

Segment 2 +
Area of Dis; 0.15 acre
r
�I
r r
y
A!.��.4 t, , r .04 � t*
A.
All
Veg Plot 1 rPe loci _ �y •` - . �r
4 E
Veg Plot 2
• s �
a
♦�A.
Segment 3
Area of Dis; 0.14 acre •.�' - , ,i,�' ,.-
Unnamed Tributary w
r A.
Awl
Veg Plot 3 • •
•
Veg Plot 4
•
Veg Plot 4
Segment 1
Area of Dis; 0.16 acre
i
y" W _
f .i,� r
i W
)• 1
r 1
N• Y
w
Veg Plot 6
r "
4
r• ; Y#r
Legend
Conservation Easement ;;j Area of Land Disturbance .45acre
Unnamed Trib Wetland Restoration Area 4.1 acres
Location of Regrading
RESTORATION
SYSTEMS I LLC
1101 HAYNES ST, SUITE 211
RALEIGH, NC 27604
PHONE: [phone]
FAX : [phone]
Prepared For:
Ell
1'�1117d1�E1;1,
i�
� O
U Q
Q 4—
O
•T
0 (�
N �
E
N
Project: Summit Seep
ID: EEP ID 94646
Drawn By: RJH
Date: Jan 2013
Scale: 1 inch = 83 feet
Figure:
Figure
2

Segment 1 Elevation
0
Proposed Grade
v
Proposed Grade
c
'F3
� -2 8 @ Vry
C E F G H
-Site Elevation 0 -1.2 1 -4.73 -0.98 -1.18 -1.77 -1.13 -1.37 -1.6
Proposed Grade
0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1
-12
-1-4
A 8
-4--Site Elevation 0 -0.26
0
d
ti
c -0.2
F
G
U -0-4
-0.08
-0.35
-0.6
-0.99
¢r
a
-1.2
-1.4
A
--*--Site Elevation
0
Segment 2 Elevation
C
d
E
F
G
-0.59
-0.08
-0.35
-0.58
-0.99
Segment 3 Elevation
Proposed Grade
I"I �
-1.18 -0.67
Proposed Grade
B C Q E F G H
-0.52 -0.7 -0.87 -1.27 -1.25 -1.1S -0.8 -0.9
RESTORATION
SYSTEMS I LLC
1101 HAYNES ST, SUITE 211
RALEIGH, NC 27604
PHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
Prepared For:
F�F
�' ll 711 �E117�I1t
U)
o_
C90 }'
ca
O W
C -)70
M
.F��Lnn
0 V
0
a) a)
E u)
O O
ry 0O
Project: Summit Seep
ID: EEP ID 94646
Drawn By: RJH
Date: Jan 2013
Scale: No to Scale
Figure:
Figure
3

Raymond Holz
From: Wiesner, Paul <[e-mail]>
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
[phone] Mobile
[e-mail]
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[mai Ito: [e-mail]]
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 .pdf of photos
taken of the work. Please follow up if you have any specific questions, 919.604.9314)
All the best,
GZ:
From: Wiesner, Paul [mai Ito: [e-mail]]
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
[phone] Mobile
[e-mail]
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[mailto:[e-mail]]
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. 1 will be in most of next week.
Sincerely,
Raymond Holz

Appendix F: Additional Site Data
Restoration Plan Figure 3. Soils Map
Restoration Plan Figure 6. Contour Map
Preconstruction Site Photographs
Summit Seep Non -Riparian Wetland Mitigation Site Appendix F
Year 5 (2015) Annual Monitoring Document

ArA
e
7.
Background imagery source:
2009 Davidson Co Aerials from
NConeMap.com, soil data from
NRCS Soil Data Mart.
0 60 120 240 360 480
Feet
Prepared for: Project:
Ar. ` SUMMIT SEEP
Aw— F,*ngn+ental, Davidson County, NC
"
DdB
Legend
DdB
i
Road
Easement Area
Soil Series
ArA -Altavista fine sandy loam - 5% hydric
DdB - Davidson loam
- DdD - Davidson loam
- DdE - Davidson loam
- MeB - Mecklenburg loam
= MeD - Mecklenburg loam
Title: Drawn by: MDT
Date: DEC 2010 FIGURE
SOILS MAP Scale: 1:2000 3
Project No.: 10-017

Preconstruction Site Photographs
Panoramic view of Site looking across the existing pasture to the Northeast.
Panoramic view of Site looking across the existing pasture, along the UT to North Plots Creek.
Persimmon sapling found in existing pasture.
Among many, a crawfish hole located on Site.
Summit Seep Non -Riparian Wetland Mitigation Site Appendix F
Year 5 (2015) Annual Monitoring Document