19940650 Ver 1_Complete File_19940923

1
?l
ANNUAL REPORT FOR 1999
Casey Tract Mitigation Site
Curdtuck County
Project No. 6.049009T
TIP No. R-2228

Prepared By:
Natural Systems Unit &
Roadside Environmental Unit
North Carolina Department of Transportation
December 1999

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY ......................................................1
1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................2
1.1 Project Description .................................... . 2
1.2 Purpose ............................................ .2
1.3 Project History .........................................2
2.0 HYDROLOGY ...............................................4.
2.1 Success Criteria ...................................... . 4
2.2 Hydrologic Description ................................. . 4
2.3 Results of Hydrologic Monitoring .......................... . 4
2.3.1 Site Data ....................................... . 4
2.3.2 Climatic Data .................................... .6
2.3.3 Hurricanes Dennis, Floyd, and Irene ...................9
2.4 Conclusions .......................................... .9
3.0 VEG ETATION ..............................................10
3.1 Success Criteria ...................................... 10
3.2 Description of Species .................................. 10
3.3 Results of Vegetation Monitoring ......................... 10
3.4 Conclusions ......................................... .11
4.0 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........... 12

TABLES
Table 1 - Hydrologic Monitoring Results ................................6
Table 2 - Vegetation Monitoring Results . .............................10

r1^1 Io=n
' Figure 1 - Site Location Map .......... 3
Figure 2 - Monitoring Well Location Map. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..5
Figure 3 - 1999 Hydrologic Monitoring Results .......................... 7
I Figure 4 - 30 - 70 Percentile Graph ................................... 8

APPENDICES
Appendix A - Depth to Groundwater Plots .............................13
' Appendix B - Site Photos .......................................... 24

11

11

f

h
I SUMMARY
' The following report summarizes the monitoring activities that have occurred in
the past year at the Casey Tract Mitigation Site. This is the second year the
vegetation has been monitored, and it is the first year the site has been
monitored for hydrologic success. The site must demonstrate both hydrologic
and vegetation success for a minimum of three years.
The Casey Tract site contains one surface gauge and nine monitoring wells. The
site also contains 3 vegetation monitoring transects.
' One major change in the hydrologic monitoring process is the use of local
weather station rainfall data for the site analysis. The daily rainfall on the well
data graphs is recorded at an Elizabeth City rain gauge, maintained by the NC
State Climate Office. This data is being used because past the existing on-site
rainfall gauges have proven unreliable. The site rain gauge will be replaced with
' more reliable equipment prior to the start of the 2000 growing season.
Hydrologic monitoring indicated that of the nine wells on site, seven showed
saturation for over 12.5% of the growing season as well as periods of inundation.
The two remaining wells showed saturation for less than 5% of the growing
season.
Vegetation monitoring was performed on the approximately 5 acres of marsh
creation on this site. Based on the results of the second year monitoring, an
' average area coverage of 36.3% was obtained from the two meter sample plots.
This is below the required area coverage stated in the success criteria. The
coverage has increased from 12.4% coverage obtained last year. Since there
' are target species throughout this site, we suggest continuing monitoring
vegetation for another growing season. NCDOT recommends that both the
method of vegetative monitoring and the vegetative success criteria be revised to
' reflect current standards. The vegetative success of the wetland site will be
determined by evaluation of (50) 1 square meter plots randomly distributed within
the site and located by GPS. Monitoring plots found to be located within the
open water channel will not be evaluated, and will not count to the final count of
plots. The vegetation component of the wetland site will be deemed successful if
the following criteria are met.
o
1. The average of all plots should have an 80% vegetative cover consisting
' of wetland herbaceous species, not including any invasive species.
2. A minimum of 75% of the plots shall contain the target (planted)
' specie.
Based on the monitoring results from the 1999 growing season, NCDOT
' recommends that hydrologic and vegetation monitoring continue.

u
Fj

it
u

1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Description
The Casey Tract Mitigation Site is located in Currituck County (Figure 1) and is
approximately 24 acres in size. It is designed to mitigate for the widening of NC
168; the project includes the creation of coastal marsh wetland and the
preservation of forested wetlands and forested upland areas.
The site was first monitored for vegetation in 1998. In August of 1998, NCDOT
installed monitoring wells to be used for hydrologic monitoring. The 1999 annual
monitoring report includes the results of both hydrologic (first year) and
vegetation (second year) monitoring for the site.
1.2 Purpose
In order to demonstrate successful mitigation, hydrologic and vegetative
monitoring must be conducted for a minimum of three consecutive years.
Success criteria are based on federal guidelines for wetland mitigation. These
guidelines stipulate criteria for both hydrologic conditions and vegetation survival.
The following report details the results of hydrologic and vegetative monitoring
during 1999 at the Casey Tract Mitigation Site as well as local climate conditions
throughout the growing season.
1.3 Project History
November 1997

1

January 1998
August 1998
October 1998
October 1999
November 1999
Site Constructed
Site Planted
Monitoring Wells Installed
Vegetation Monitoring (1 yr.)
Vegetation Monitoring (2 yr.)
Hydrologic Monitoring (1 yr.)

z:
Q:
\ k?
?. r
,?y..

':p0

IT t?'
:m

0
:N

r"a

ems;
Casey Mitigation Site

aL?'
1ALL
EQUESTRIAN RD

1 FIGURE I - Site Location Map

1

2.0 HYDROLOGY
2.1 Success Criteria
In accordance with federal guidelines for wetland mitigation, the success criteria
for hydrology states that the area must be inundated or saturated (within 12" of
the surface) by surface or groundwater for at least a consecutive 12.5% of the
growing season. Areas inundated for less than 5% of the growing season are
always classified as non-wetlands. Areas inundated between 5% - 12.5% of the
growing season can be classified as wetlands depending upon factors such as
the presence of wetland vegetation and hydric soils.
The growing season in Currituck County begins March 20 and ends November
13. These dates correspond to a 50% probability that temperatures will drop to
28°F or lower after March 20 and before November 13.' The growing season is
239 days; therefore, optimum hydrology requires 12.5% of this season, or at
least 30 consecutive days. Local climate must also represent average conditions
for the area.
2.2 Hydrologic Description
In August 1998, nine monitoring wells, one rain gauge, and one surface water
gauge were installed (Figure 2). The automatic monitoring wells record daily
readings of groundwater depth. Even though 1999 is the second year of
monitoring for the site, it is the first full growing season that the monitoring wells
have been in place.
The Casey Tract site involved the construction of a channel network connected
to Buckskin and Cowells Creeks and the lowering of site elevations to create
coastal marsh areas to the elevations of the coastal marsh Reference Ecosystem
areas. In addition, ditches were constructed to form hydrologic connections
between the roadside ditches and the ditch in the northern end of the site. This
connectivity will allow for tidal flushing of the constructed coastal marsh. This
should provide adequate hydrologic input from the adjacent creeks, groundwater,
and rainfall to sustain the necessary hydrology for coastal marsh wetland areas.
The hydrologic monitoring should show the reaction of the groundwater level to
specific rainfall events.
2.3 Results of Hydrologic Monitoring
' 2.3.1 Site Data
The maximum number of consecutive days that the groundwater was within
' twelve inches of the surface was determined for each well. This number was
converted into a percentage of the 239-day growing season. The results are

P
' Natural Resources Conservation Service, Soil Survey of Currituck County, North Carolina, p.71.
4

H-
I

r
n

t

LJ

4
$TA7- R v
\ Te
1
168

EOGE OF CREEK
IS PROPERTY LINE 9
rr ? Vc?.
TAGINb`
ell

J
1f .
MW-7
8 "t"SN
-4
W
M

4\
\ 9
J
\ Ir4
tiQ 1

Figure 2
Casey Tract Mitigation Site
Well Location Map

n
n

i
k

presented in Table 1. Appendix A contains a plot of the groundwater depth for
each monitoring well and the surface water depth recorded by the surface gauge.
The maximum number of consecutive days is noted on each graph. The
individual precipitation events, shown on the monitoring well graphs as bars,
represent data collected from an Elizabeth City weather station. This data was
provided by the NC State Climate Office. The rain gauge that is currently located
on the site will be replaced with a more accurate measuring device prior to the
beginning of the 2000 monitoring season, thus eliminating the need to use official
rainfall information on the monitoring well graphs.
Table 1
HYDROLOGIC MONITORING RESULTS
Monitoring"`
Well < 5% 5%_8% 8% 8% -' 12.5% >'12.5% Actual % Success Dates
MW-1 ? 20.0 Mar. 20- May 6
MW-2 55.2 May 2- Sep. 10
MW-3 21.8 Jun. 14- Aug. 4
MW-4 21.8 Jun. 14- Aug. 5
MW-5 ? 87.4 Mar. 20- Sep. 17
MW-6 ? 0 None
MW-7 33.5 Mar. 20- Jun. 7
MW-8 3.3 Jun. 28- Jul. 5
MW-9 ? 31.0 Mar. 20- Jun. 1
Figure 3 is a graphical representation of the hydrologic monitoring results.
The surface gauge has shown consistent surface water throughout the growing
season. Monitoring well 6 is located in the upland area of the site at the entrance
to the site, so it would not show hydrologic success at this elevated location.
Monitoring well 8 did not show success, but there were several non-consecutive
days of saturation during the first half of the growing season. Seven of the nine
monitoring wells indicated saturation within 12 inches of the surface or less for
over 12.5% of the growing season.
' Specific problems: The battery in monitoring well 1 was replaced in May, but the
well did not record any data, was pulled from the site in June, and was not
replaced. The well did record from the beginning of the growing season, and the
' well indicated hydrologic success for the site from March 20 to May 6.

2.3.2 Climatic Data
Figure 4 represents an examination of the local climate in comparison with
historical data in order to determine whether 1999 was "average" in terms of
climate conditions. The figure compares the rainfall from 1999 with that of
historical rainfall (data collected between 1948 and 1996). All rainfall data was
collected from the NC State Climate Office. The graph shows 1999 rainfall totals
from January 1999 through part of December 1999 which includes the growing
season for this site. Four of the first six months yielded below average monthly
rainfall totals, and from July forward monthly rainfall totals were above average.
6

I

t' EDGE OF CREEK 9G
.-' IS PROPERTY LINE ?k
.,~ s
4,. c
?. ' 9FFk
10 4'

?..•
-Ij
\ QUTF
.77
s
?9TF
\ 9
o `'o\
?Q \
02
Monitoring Wells
• Less than 5%
05%-8%
$%-12.5%
Greater than 12.5%
?8./'??s' ``'ice • /
r ?•
Figure ;
Casey Tract Mitigation Site
Hydrologic Monitoring Map

s
Q
Z
c
L V
m
CL
o w
M IJJ
A
d)
to
V
1
0aa
AON
loo
Ideg
6ny OR
ti
Inf' 0
co
c
w
unr
rn
rn
rn
Aew
AV
iew
qa,4
uer
FIGURE4
30-70 PERCENTILE GRAPH
O O CO ?D L M N r O
(ui) uopBvds39Jd

' 2.3.3 Hurricanes Dennis, Floyd, and Irene
The hurricane season of 1999 added several inches of water to the mitigation
' sites in the eastern part of the state. As shown by the monitoring well data in the
month of September, parts of Casey Tract were completely inundated for several
weeks. Because of the abnormal conditions that these hurricanes created,
hydrologic data for this time period does not count towards the success of the
site. However, the reaction of the site to such large storms is noteworthy.
1 2.4 Conclusions
' 1999 represents the first full growing season that the hydrologic data has been
examined. The monitoring wells on site have shown both saturation and
inundation for long periods of time. This is expected from a site built as a coastal
' marsh.

' 3.0 VEGETATION
1 3.1 Success Criteria
' Success Criteria states that there must be 50% survival rate and an area
coverage of at least 75% at the end of three years.

'l

I I

3.2 Description of Species
The following marsh grass species were planted in the Wetland Restoration
Area:
Zone 1: (0.63 acres)
Juncus effusus, Common Rush
Scirpus cyperinus, Woolgrass
Zone 2: (3.43 acres)
Cladium jamaicense, Saw Grass
Spartina cynosuroides, GiantCordgrass
3.3 Results of Vegetation Monitoring (2 year)
Table 2
VEGETATION MONITORING RESULTS

?
a? U U

N F= ¢ -
1,2 1P 16.2% 43.7%
2 2P 1.8% 7.0%
1,2 3P 19.2% 58.3%
AVG/TRAN 12.4% 36.3%
Notes from Report. Three 30 meter transects were established across the
mitigation site to include both zones. Along each transect, a 2-meter sample plot
was sampled every 6 meters. Transects #1 and #3 contained a combination of
juncus effuses, woolgrass, and sawgrass in most of the 2 meter square sample
plots. Transect #2 sample plots contained some sawgrass and some juncus.
Transect #2 not indicative of site. There is some panic grass regenerating
naturally across the site.
10

3.4 Conclusions
There were approximately 5 acres of marsh creation on this site. Based on the
results of the second year monitoring, an average area coverage of 36.3% was
obtained from the two meter sample plots. This is below the required area
coverage stated in the success criteria. The coverage has increased from 12.4%
coverage obtained last year. Since there are target species throughout this site,
NCDOT suggests continuing monitoring the vegetation for another growing
- season.
NCDOT recommends that both the method of vegetative monitoring and the
vegetative success criteria be revised to reflect current standards. The
vegetative success of the wetland site will be determined by evaluation of 50 one
square meter plots randomly distributed within the site and located by GPS.
' Monitoring plots found to be located within the open water channel will not be
evaluated, and will not count to the final count of plots. The vegetation
component of the wetland site will be deemed successful if the following criteria
are met.
1. The average of all plots should have an 80% vegetative cover
consisting of wetland herbaceous species, not including any invasive
species.
2. A minimum of 75% of the plots shall contain the target (planted)
specie.

F-7
L
7- 11
,l
?i

11
7
A
4.0 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
i In the first full year of monitoring, seven of nine monitoring wells indicated
saturation for more than 12.5% of the growing season. Vegetation monitoring
yielded an area coverage of 36.3% after two years.
Hydrologic monitoring will continue for a second year. Vegetation monitoring will
' continue (as noted in Section 3.4) in 2000 at the Casey Tract Mitigation Site.

0

IJ
I'
J

12

APPENDIX A
' DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER PLOTS

n

13

d
L
0
c
0
2
v
ca
L
H
d
N
ca
U
(uI) uol;e;ldlaaJd
(p LO ?t M N O
66-AON-£ 6
66-AON-90
66-330-0£
66-330-£Z
66-330-9 6
66-330-60
66-130-ZO
66-daS-SZ
66-daS-9 L
66-daS- 6
66-daS-b0
66-6ny-gZ
66-6nd-6Z
0
66-6nb-V ?
66-6n`d-LO
66-Inf -6£
66-Inf-VZ I
d
66-Inf-L6 0
66-Inf -06
66-Inf-£0 I
66-un0-gZ
66-unf-6l
o!
66-un£-u '
66-unf-SO
66-AeW-6Z
66-AeW-ZZ
66-AeW-9 6
66-AeW-90
66-AeW- W
66-jd`d-VZ
66-jdy-L 6
66-AV-0 L
66-jdV-£0
66-1eIN-LZ
66-aeW-OZ
(D ?n o U-) o o
(ui) aa3empunojE) of y;dad
?n o
N
i

N
m
L
c
O
U
LL
r
a
d
ca
U
(•ui) uoi;e;idi38-ld
cfl LO It co N o
66-AON-£ 6
66-AON-90
66.30-0£
66-130-£Z
66-330-9 6
66-330.60
66-P0-ZO
66-daS-SZ
66-daS-8L
66-daS- 6
66-daS-b0
66-6nb-gZ t
66-6ndqZ o

66-6ny-q
66-6nV-L0

66-Inf-6£ a?
66-Inf -bZ

66-Inf-L 6 d
66-Inf -06
66-Inf-£0
66-unr-gZ w
66-unr-66

66-unr-Z6 '
66-unr-50
66-AeW-6Z
66-AeW-ZZ
66-ABW-9 6
66-AeW-80
66-AeW- W
66-jdV-VZ
66-AV-L6
66-AV-O6
66-jdV-£0
66-JeW-LZ
66-1eW-OZ
?n o LO C) LO C) U7
N N
.ja;eM punojE) o; y;daa

M
Q
L
0
O
R
L
H
m
N
R
U
(-ut) uoi;ejidio8.1d
cD co N o
66-AON-£ 6
66-AON-90
66-330.0£
66-130-£Z
66-330-9 6
66.330-60
66.130-ZO
66-deS-SZ
66-daS-9L
66-daS- 6
66-daS-b0
66-End-gZ s

66.6nV-6Z C

66-End-V ?

66.6nV-LO

66-Inf-L£
66-Inf-vz

66-Inf-L6 d
o r'
O
66-Inf-u 2
66-Inf -£0
I
66-unr-gZ
66-unf-6L
o!
66-un£-Z6 '
66-unf-SO
66-AeW-6Z
66-ABW-ZZ
66-AeW-S6
66-AeW-90
66-AeW O
66-JdV-VZ
66-Jdd-L 6
66-Jdd-O 6
66-JdV-£O
66-JBW-LZ
66-JeW-OZ
?n o Lo o LO C)
N
(ui).ja;eM punojE) o; y;dea

v?
L
O
r
cv
L
cC
U
(-ui) uoi3e;idi38Jd
?p q4T M N
O

66-AON-£ L
66-AON-90
66-300-0£
66-300-£Z
66-300-9 L
66-300-60
66.300-ZO
66-daS-SZ
66-daS-g L
66-daS-66
66-daS-ti0
66-End-gZ
66-6nV-6Z a
66.6ny-V ?
66-6nV-10
66-Inf -6£
66-Inf-VZ
66-Inrl1 a
0
66-Inf -0L
66-Inf -£0
66-unf-9Z
66-unf-66
66-unr-u '
66-unr-SO
66-AeW-6Z
66-AaW-ZZ
66-AaW-9 6
66-AaW-90
66-AaW- W
66-j d`d-V Z
66-AV-L6
66-jdd-0 6
66-add-£0
66-JaW-LZ
66-aeW-OZ
Ln o to o ?n o
N
(uj).ja;eAA punojE) o; 43daa
i

m
C
0
c
O
U
L
U
(-ui) uoi;e;!dloa.Jd
CD Ln V M N O
66-AON-£ L
66-AON-90
66.130-0£
66-PO-£Z
66.330-91
C- 66-130-60
?- 66-130-ZO
66-daS-9Z
66-daS-8 L
66-deS-«
66-daS-b0
66-End-SZ
n
66-End-?Z o
66-find-V ?
66-End-LO
66-Inf-6£
66-Inf-vz
u ?
66Inf-LL ?n
L3 66-Inf-O6
N 66-Inf-£0
66-unr-gZ w
66-unrt6 a
x
66-unr-Z? '
66-unr.gO
66-AeW-6Z
66-AeW-ZZ
66-AeW-S L
66-AeW-80
66-AeW-W
66-Jdd-VZ
66-Jdd-L 6
66-Jdd-0 6
66-Jdd-£0
66-JeW-LZ
66-JeW-OZ
n o n o LO o
N
(ui).ja;eM punoJE) o; y}daa

cc
O
c
L
O
c
O
v
cv
`L
r
m
N
ca
U
(-ui) uoi;e;idi3aJd
?p LO V M N O

66-noN-£6
66-AON-90
66.330-0£
66-130-£Z
66-330-9 L
66-30-60
66-130-ZO
66-daS-SZ
66-daS-8 L
66-daS- 6
66-daS-b0
66-6nd-8Z s .
66-6nVgZ o

66-find-V ?
66-6ny-LO

66-Inf`6£
66-Inf -bZ

66-Inf -L6 a?
a `D
o ?
66-Inf -0l
66-Inf-£0
66-unr-9Z
42
66-unr-66
66-unr-Z6 '
66-unf-SO
66-AeW-6Z
66-AeW-ZZ
66-AeW-9L
66-AeIN-80
66-AeW- W
66-JdV-VZ
66-Jd`d-L 6
66-JdV-0 6
66-Jd`d-£0
66-JeW-LZ
66-JeW-OZ
O ?
O LO O LO N C) Ln N OM M IT i
i
(ui).ja;eM punojE) of yldaa

ti
O
-L
0
C
O
v
M
LL
F-
4)
cv
U
(-ui) uoi;e;!di38.1d
?p M N O
66-AON-£ L
66-AON-90
66-100-0£
66-130-£Z
66-130-9 L
66-130-60
66-130-ZO
66-deS-SZ
66-daS-8 L
66-daS-l6
66-daS-ti0
66-End-gZ s .
66-6nVgZ m
0
66-End-V?
66-End-L0
a?
66-Inf-6£
66-Inf-VZ
66-Inf -L6 0
66-Inf-o b 2
66-Inf-£0
66-unr-9Z
C
66-unf-66
66-unr-Z? '
f
66-unf-SO
66-AeW-6Z
66-AeW-ZZ
66-AeW-S6
66-AM-80
66-AeW- W
T 66-JdV-VZ
c?
z7 66-JdVq 6
0
00 66-AV-O6
66-Jd`d-£0
66 JeW-LZ
66-JeW-OZ
?n o LO o ?n o
N
(ui) jejeM punoJE) o; y;dap

00
R
C
-L
O
0
r
v
R
L
H
a?
N
R
U
(•ui) uoi;e;ldlOG.Jd
CD Ln M N ?- O
66-AON-£ L
66-AON-90
66-100-0£
66-10O•£Z
66-100-9 L
66.100-60
66.100-ZO
66-deS-SZ
;.?
66 daS 8 L
J' 66AeS-L L
66-daS-g0
66-6nd-8Z
66-6nd-LZ
66-6nd-VL
66-6nV-LO
66•Inf`L£
66-Inf-vz
m
66-Inf -LL v
? 66•Inf•O L
1 °
cu 66•Inf -£0
co -`? 66 unf''9Z
66.unf'-6L
66•unf -ZL
--- -- -" 66-unf-SO
66-AeW•6Z
66-AeW•ZZ
66-AeW-S 6
66-AeW-80
66-AeW-LO
66-jd`d-VZ
66-AV-LL
66-AV-O L
66-jdV-£0
66-JeW•LZ
66-JEW-OZ
LO o LO CD LO CD LO o
N N M
(ui) Ja;eM punoJE) o; y;daa
s
a
N
-a
a?
a?
co
C
o!
1

L
O
c
O
ca
L
N
c?
U
(•ui) uoi;e;idi38Jd
(p In M N r O

66-AON-£ 6
66-AON-90
66-PO-0£
66-PO-CZ
66-PO-9L
66-PO-60
66-PO-ZO
66-deS-SZ
66-daS-9
66-deS- 6
66-daS-b0
66-find-gZ s

66.6n`d-6Z aai
0
66-6nd-V ?

66-6nd-LO

66-Inf-6£
66-Inf-vz

66-InrlL d
G

66-Inf -06 2
66-Inf-£0
66-unr-gZ ?a
w
66-unr-6L
or
66-unf-n '
66-unf-SO
66-AeW-6Z
66-AeW-ZZ
66-AeW-S L
66-AeW-80
66-AM W
66-id`d-t,Z
66-jdb-L 6
66-jdV-0 6
66-jdV-£0
66-JeW-LZ
66-JeW-OZ
In 0 Ln 0 o
(ui) aajeAA punojE) o; yldaQ
i
T
d
v
N
U
R
LL
r
N
U
06
9
(•ui) y;daa ja;eM aoejjnS
66-AON-OZ
66-AON-9 L
66-AON-9 6
66-AON-9 6
66-AON-£ L
66-AON- 6 6
66-AON-60
66-AON-LO
66-AON-90
66-AON-£0
66-AON-W
66-PO-6C
66-130-62
66-130-LZ
66-130-SZ
66-330-£Z
66-PO-2 v
0
66-330-6 6
66-PO-L 6
66-PO-9 6
66-30011
66-P0-Z 6
66-330-0 6
66-330-80
66-330-90
66-33010
66-430-ZO
66-300- W
66-daS-6Z
66-daS-LZ
66-daS-SZ
66-deS-£Z
66-deS-6Z
66-daS-6?
0

APPENDIX B
SITE PHOTOS
24

Photo Point 1

Photo Point 3

Casey

1999
Photo Point 4 (Transect #2)
Photo Point 2

L

Casey
Photo Point 5
Photo Point 6
1 1999
DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMEI - ?O
FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT
1. APPLICANT'S NAME: N.C. DOT
2. LOCATION OF PROJECT SITE: NC 168, Moyock, Currituck County, Shingle Landing Creek
Photo Index - 1989: N/A 1984: N/A
State Plane Coordinates - X: 2828800 Y: 1021800
3. INVESTIGATION TYPE: CAMA/D&F
4. INVESTIGATIVE PROCEDURE: Dates of Site Visit - 9/6/94;9/12/94;9/21/94
Was Applicant Present - no;no;yes
5. PROCESSING PROCEDURE: Application Received - August 30, 1994
Office - Elizabeth City
6. SITE DESCRIPTION:
(A) Local Land Use Plan - Currituck County
Land Classification From LUP - Urban Transition & Developed
(B) AEC(s) Involved: PT, CW
(C) Water Dependent: Yes
(D) Intended Use: New bridge/road widening
(E) Wastewater Treatment: Existing - None
Planned - None
(F) Type of Structures: Existing - 2 lane bridge and road
Planned - 4 lane bridge and 5 lane road
(G) Estimated Annual Rate of Erosion: 0
Source - N/A
7. HABITAT DESCRIPTION: [AREA]
DREDGED FILLED OTHER
(A) Vegetated Wetlands
Coastal Wetlands 0.033 acres
Freshwater Wetlands 7.762 acres
(B) Non-Vegetated Wetlands 0.013 acres(shallow
water habitat)
(C) Public Trust Waters 0.07 acres (shading)
(D) Total Area Disturbed: 7.808 acres
(E) Primary Nursery Area: No
(F) Water Classification: SC Open: N/A
8. PROJECT SUMMARY: N.C. DOT proposes to widen NC 168 to a five lane facility from the
Virginia State line to SR 1215. This project includes the construction of a four-lane bridge at Shingle
Landing Creek in Moyock.
?II C ? 5 ? ?SiA1Fo
(1
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINAA
DEPARTMENT OF TkANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH. N.C 27611-5201
July 11, 1994
Office of Coastal Management
Department of Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
ATTENTION: John Parker
Dear Sir:

R. SAMUEL HUNT 111
SECRETARY
Subject: Currituck County, NC 168 from the Virginia State
Line to Barco. State Project No. 6.049001T, T.I.P
No. R-2228BB.
The N.C. Department of Transportation (NCDOT) is
proposing to widen NC 168 from the Virginia State Line to
Barco. The existing facility will be widened to a five-lane
shoulder facility throughout most of the project. Five-lane
curb and gutter sections are proposed through the more
developed communities of Moyock, Sligo, and Currituck. The
total project length is approximately 18.5 miles. This
project has been evaluated in a State Environmental
Assessment (7/28/93) and State Finding of No Significant
Impact (12/7/93).
The NCDOT is planning to construct this project in
stages. The first section extends from the Virginia State
Line to SR 1215. This section of the project will require
the placement of 109.0 cubic yards of fill below ordinary
high water, and the placement of fill in 7.808 acres of
wetlands.
Attempts have been made to avoid and minimize the
wetland impacts of this project during the planning stage.
It is clear that widening the existing roadway to a five-lane
section is the least damaging alternative design. The
widening has also been designed to transition from side to
side of the existing facility in order to minimize impacts to
existing development and natural resources.

. . S
NOTICE OF FILING OF
APPLICATION FOR CAMA MAJOR DEVELOPMENT
PERMIT AND WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION
The Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources hereby gives public
notice as required by NCOS 113A-119(b) and 143-215 3(a)(1)(c) that N.C. Department of
Transportation of Currituck County, filed an application on August 30, 1994, for a permit
from the Division of Coastal Management to develop in an Area of Environmental Concern
and for certification from the Division of Environmental Management that a discharge of fill
material in project wetlands will not violate applicable water quality standards.
According to said application N.C. Department of Transportation proposes to widen
NC 168 to a five-lane facility from the Virginia State Line to SR 1215. This project includes
the construction of a four-lane bridge at Shingle Landing Creek in Moyock.
A copy of the entire application and additional information may be examined (or
copies furnished upon request and payment of reproduction costs) during normal business
hours at the office of Dennis Hawthorn, Division of Coastal Management, located at 1367
US 17 South, Elizabeth City, N.C., 919/264-3901, and/or the office of Deborah Sawyer,
Division of Environmental Management, DEHNR Regional Field Office, Washington, N.C.,
919/946-6481.
The Division of Environmental Management proposes to take final action on this
water quality certification on or before October 21, 1994. The issuance of the CAMA Major
Development permit and the Section 401 Certification may deviate from this projected date
depending upon the nature of the comments submitted and subsequent hearings that may
result.
All persons desiring to make comments should do so in writing to Roger N. Schecter,
Director, Division of Coastal Management, P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, N.C., 27611, prior to
October 16, 1994 for consideration in the CAMA permit decision, and to Mr. John Domey,
Division of Environmental Management, P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, N.C., 27611, prior to
October 11, 1994 for consideration in the water quality certification decision. Later
comments on the CAMA application will be accepted and considered up to the time of permit
decision. Project modifications may occur based on review and comment by the public and
state and federal agencies. Notice of the permit decision ih this matter will be provided upon
request.
PUBLISHED ON: MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 1994
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO October 6, 1994
Regulatory Branch
Action ID No. 199304571 'Pee,
0 ??
Mr . John Dorney
k- %?
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of=??r'Po Environment, Health and 41
Natural Resources no
Post Office Box 29535
Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
Dear Mr. Dorney:
Enclosed is the application of North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) requesting for Department of the Army
authorization and a State Water Quality Certification to fill
0.033 acres of coastal wetlands, 0.081 acres of swallow habitat
and and to shade 0.07 acres of Public Trust Waters. NC DOT
proposes to widen NC 168 from Virgina State Line to Barcp,
Currituck County, SR 1215 TIP No. R-2228BB,. State Project No.
6.049001T. NC DOT is planning to contruct this project in three
phases, contruction of a new four lane bridge at Shingle Landing
Creek and widening of the existing roadway to five lanes betwwen
the Virgina State Line and SR 1215 and would also impact 7.762
acres of 404 wetlands. Your receipt of this letter verifies your
acceptance of a valid request for certification in accordance
with Section 325.2(b)(ii) of our administrative regulations.
We are considering authorizing the proposed activity pursuant
to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and we have determined
that a water quality certification is required under the
provisions of Section 401 of the same law. A Department of the
Army permit will not be granted until the certification has been
obtained or waived.
In accordance with our administrative regulations, in most
cases, 60 days after receipt of a request for certification is a
reasonable time for State action. Therefore, if you have not

-2-
acted on the request, or asked for an extension of time, by
December 6, 1994, the District Engineer will deem that waiver has
occurred.
Questions or comments may be addressed to Mr. Mickey Sugg ,
Washington Field Office, Regulatory Branch, telephone (919)
975-3607.
Sincerely,
rne Wr ' ht
Wef, Regu atory Branch
Enclosure
Copy Furnished (without enclosure):
Mr. John Parker
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
Post Office Box'27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
RECElft
ACT ? 1994
T6: John Dorney FNVIRpNM?T? SCES
Planning Branch ?fNG
• DIVISION OF ENVIRONMOITAL MANAGEMENT
CAMA/COE PERMIT APPLICATION REVIEW
WaRO PROJECT # 9S? OS •2-G WQ SUPERVISOR: THORPE/
REVIEWER: SAWYER DATE: APh I/,L
WETLAND INFORMATION FOR CENTRAL OFFICE TRACKING
PERMIT YR: 92 PERMIT NO.: COUNTY: ??••t?e.: -.
PROJECT NAME:N? a 6T: ? r4 $'
PROJECT TYPE: / PERMIT TYPE: E
COE.#: DOT #: RCD FROM CDA: ? DATE FROM CDA: 9X-3
REG OFFICE: WaRO RIVER UB BASIN #: i?rf
STREAM OR ADJACENT WATER BODY: cc."
CLASS: STREAK INDEX
OPEN OR CLO
WL IMPACT: WL TYPE:
WL REQUESTED: 7.3ae Al I
_1• _._(? ?.f?
HYDRO CNECT? : S RE: 'l
MITIGATION: MITI) I TYPE:
A,j. l(3r ,.MITIGATION S ZE:2:11 RATING Sl ACHED?
RECOMMENDATION: ISSUE 422!SUE/ DENY HOLD
STORMWATER PLAN REQ'D• IF YES, DATE
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: r
&( a- q--
APPRO
WATER QUALM CERT. (401)
CERT. REQ'D:
IF YES, TYPE:
SEWAGE DISPOSAL _ Q
TYPE OF DISPOSAL PROPOSED:/`
(EXISTING, PROPOSED, SEPTIC TANK ETC.)
TO BE PERMITTED BY:
(DEM, DHS, COUNTY)
IF BY DEM, IS SITE AVAILABLE AND PERMIT ISSUANCE PROBABLE:
WATER/WETLAND FILL
AREA OF FILL: WATER : • 0 /3 GAG • WETLAND : 7. 7 9f??
IS FILL ELIMINATING A SIGNIFICANT USE?
DREDGING
AREA TO BE DREDGED: -0
IS DREDGING ACTIVITY EXPECTED TO CAUSE A SIGNIFICANT LOSS OF
RESOURCE?
IS SPOIL DISPOSAL ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED?
MARINA
ARE THE FOLLOWING ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED? / U
SEWAGE DISPOSAL: MARINA SERVICES:
OXYGEN IN BASIN: CLOSURE OF SHELLFISHING WATERS:
CC: WaRO; Central Files; DCM Field Offices; COE Washington Office
i
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OR PERMIT RESTRICTIONS :
,.' DIVISION OF E71 ONM TA MANAGEMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Bill Moore, Environmental Engineer
Water Quality Section, WaRO
FROM: Deborah Sawyer, Environmental Technician
Water Quality Section, WaRO
SUBJECT: Dredge and Fill Reviews on Hold for Stormwater Review
Project: Q46 e '126 I :
Project No.: L 125- Z -? C--?
Date Received: ?- .
a? Date Comment: 1 v /?4
Description of Project:
Comments:
I

State of North Carolinas
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
October 24, 1994
Mr. Barney O'Quinn
Planning and Environmental Branch
NC DOT
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, N.C. 27611-5201
Dear Mr. O'Quinn:
Subject: Certification Pursuant to Section 401 of the Federal
Clean Water Act,
Proposed widening NC 168 from NC/VA line to Barco
Project # 94650, COE # 199304571
Currituck County
TIP No. R-222813B, State Project No. 6.049001T
11L Attached hereto is a copy of Certification No. 2937 issued to N.C. Department of
Transportation dated 24 October 1994.
If we can be of further assistance, do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
eston 1<Iowar . P.E.
Attachments
wgc2937
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Washington Field Office
Washington DEM Regional Office
Mr. John Dorney
Mr. Steve Benton, Division of Coastal Management
Central Files
r4*oA
[D IF= F1
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
NORTH CAROLINA
Currituck County
CERTIFICATION
THIS CERTIFICATION is issued in conformity with the requirements of Section 401 Public
Laws 92-500 and 95-217 of the United States and subject to the North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management Regulations in 15 NCAC 2H, Section .0500 to N.C. Department of
Transportation resulting in 7.81 acres of wetland impact in Cunituck County pursuant to an application
filed on the 23rd day of September of 1994 to widening NC 168 from the VA/NC state line to Barco.
The Application provides adequate assurance that the discharge of fill material into the waters
of Shingle Landing Creek in conjunction with the proposed development in Currituck County will not
result in a violation of applicable Water Quality Standards and discharge guidelines. Therefore, the
State of North Carolina certifies that this activity will not violate Sections 301, 302, 303, 306, 307 of
PL 92-500 and PL 95-217 if conducted in accordance with the application and conditions hereinafter
set forth.
Condition(s) of Certification:
That the activity be conducted in such a manner as to prevent significant
increase in turbidity outside the area of construction or construction
related discharge (increases such that the turbidity in the stream is 25 NTU's
or less are not considered significant).
Violations of any condition herein set forth shall result in revocation of this Certification. This
Certification shall become null and void unless the above conditions are made conditions of the
Federal 404 and/or Coastal Area Management Act Permit.
If this Certification is unacceptable to you, you have the right to an adjudicatory hearing upon
written request within thirty (30) days following receipt of this Certification. This request must be in
the form of a written petition conforming to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes and
filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh, N.C. 276 1 1-7447. Unless
such demands are made, this Certification shall be final and binding.
This the 24th day of October, 1994..
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
reston H aid, Jr. E.
WQC# 2937
State of Nortn uaroi na
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
James B, Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Roger N, Schecter, Director
Agj7f).
A-ftwo--ft"00001 A
L7EHNR
September 22, 1994
MEMORANDUM
r
R ECENED
VMSHINGTON OFFICE
vG 3 1994
V, aM
TO: Mr. A. Preston Howard, Director
Division of Environmental Management
FROM: John R. Parker, Jr.
Major Permits Processing Coordinator
SUBJECT: CAMA/DREDGE & FILL Permit Application Review
Applicant: N.C. Department of Transportation
Project Location: NC 168, Moyock, Currituck County, Shingle Landing Creek
Proposed Project: To widen NC 168 to a five-lane facility from the Virginia State Line
to SR 1215. This project includes the construction of a four-lane
bridge at Shingle Landing Creek in Moyock.
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and
return this form by October 13, 1994. If you have any questions regarding the proposed
project, please contact Dennis Hawthorn at [phone]. When appropriate, in-depth
comments with supporting data is requested.
REPLY This agency has no objection to the project as proposed.
This agency has no comment on the proposed project.
This agency approves of the project only if the recommended changes
are incorporated. See attached.
This agency objects to the project for reasons described in the
I attached comments.
Signed
J
Date 0 ? 6
1367 U.S. 17 South, Elizabeth City, North Carolina 27909 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 60% recycled/10% post-consumer paper
9 ? s
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TPANSPORTATI
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
August 16, 1994
Office of Coastal Management
Department of Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
ATTENTION: John Parker
Dear Sir:
? god
AUG 2 91994
SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY
Subject: Currituck County, NC 168 from the Virginia State
Line to Barco. State Project No. 6.049001T, T.I.P
No. R-2228BB.
The N.C. Department of Transportation (NCDOT) is
proposing to widen NC 168 from the Virginia State Line to
Barco. An application for CAMA permit authorization was
submitted on July 11, 1994. Mr. Dennis Hawthorne responded
by letter dated July 25, 1994 and requested additional
information. The NCDOT has coordinated these issues with Mr.
Hawthorne, and is providing the remaining required
information in this letter.
(1) A revised application form is enclosed, with the
applicant section filled out.
(2) A new plan sheet, number 38A depicts the proposed
new bridge at Shingle Landing Creek.
Three revised sheets are also enclosed: numbers 26, 30
and 31. Drainage pipes on these three sheets have been
slightly enlarged to improve drainage. Please substitute
these sheets in the application package you have already
received.
This additional information should complete the
application such that review can continue. By copy of this
letter, request is made to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
and the N.C. Division of Environmental Management for their
review to also continue. If you have any questions or need
additional information, please call Mr. Gordon Cashin at
[phone].

1 j
Sincerely,
B. O` nn
_-Q-11-If
Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
BJO/gec
Attachment
cc: Mr. David Griffin, DCM, Elizabeth City
Mr. Davidd Lekson, COE, Washington
Mr. John Dorney, NCEHNR, DEM
Mr. N.L. Graf, FHWA, Attn: Mr. Roy Shelton
Mr. Kelly Barger, PE, Program Development Branch
Mr. Don Morton, PE, State Highway Engineer-Design
Mr. A.L. Hankins, PE, Hydraulics Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, PE, State Roadway Design Engineer
Please type or print. Carefully describe all anticipated
development activities, including construction, excava-
tion, filling, paving, land clearing, and stonnwater con-
trol. If the requested information is not relevant to your
project, write N/A (not applicable). Items 1-4 and 8-9
must be completed for all projects.
1 APPLICANT
Nor Carolina Der?artment o ranspor ion
a. Name 5 ,.,1 n, n L L; i P F
Address P. 0. Box 25201
City Raleigh State NC
Zip 27611 Day phone [phone]
If you plan to build a marina, also complete and
attach Form DCM-MP-2.
-b: Is the proposed activity maintenance of an
existin?thject, new work, or both?
c. Will the project be for community, private, or
commercial use?
Public transportation
d. Describe the planned use of the project.
Public transportation
Landowner or X Authorized agent
b. Project name (if any) N/A
c. If the applicant is not the landowner, also give the
owner's name and address.
See Permit
2 LOCATION OF PROPOSED
PROJECT
4 LAND AND WATER
CHARACTERISTICS
a. Size of entire tract
b. Size of individual lot(s) N/A
c. Elevation of tract above mean sea level or
National Geodetic Vertical Datum
+/- 10 ft. NGVO 1929
d. Soil type(s) and texture(s) of tract
a. Street address or secondary road number
NC 168
b. City, town, community, or landmark
Movock
c. County Currituck
d. Is proposed work within city limits or planning
jurisdiction? Yps
e. Name of body of water nearest project
Shingle Landing Creek
3 DESCRIPTION AND PLANNED USE
OF PROPOSED PROJECT
a. Describe all development activities you propose (for
example, building a home, motel, marina, bulkhead,
or pier). Widening of NC 168 from SR-1215
to Virginia Stagg ling -
e. Vegetation on tract
f. Man-made features now on tract Nr. 168
g. What is the CAMA Land Use Plan Classification of
the site? (Consult the local land use plan.)
Conservation Transitional
Developed Community
X Rural Other
h. How is the tract zoned by local government?
i. How are adjacent waters classified?
j. Has a professional archaeological survey been
carried out for the tract? If so, by whom?
4/89
? ``i' Ln II ? z ? .
• I ?
z
V
-\
-? II ,
I I
,
0 in
?
\ ? ?,? ? o l l I , _j Gn
o
z wa
04

I I
, 01
Ij ? _ z a ?
1 1

? ? , l I ?I i
w
? II II 1 I
I
s
?? i,
it I
II I
mil ow

? I
to °°I I I,
~ I oL i I 11 w Rio
N ?I II ?i -j
N
a ! 1 I I oo
lui 2: ?
I I l
a ,
y a
00 I e
i
/
II I? ?
?
cj I - II I` No s ?
? a\x
oo i II Il \7 W/ IQ
x:r

QT) i 11 I N S? (9)
I II ? ? I
I

II po
I-,
,``
•
- ,(I
Lil I II
ca
o
I l II H ?, 00 w
Ii II ?n ?
i
II II II ? = a z
M81 ° H

I?
II II
11
II II
it
II 94 CL.
w E-40
o

I
?
II
II o._ a,zo
o o
?- ° o z w
?"' I
iI it
II II
II o
,A
I ? II II a a
? H
v

I
tn
I ?
II
II
ll
II a

?, z a
I ? II it
N I
' a I ? II
II II
II
? I ? II
I I
I ?
II II
II
I
I II II ? ..,
II
I it it
I
?
?
I II I ? I
II ? I
U
II
ii
it ,
? ?'I I II II ? ? V
?
? III,
n II II
ii
11 -?
?
g ii o II
? III II 'll p ?; = ,
w IIa II 11 N 3
?
a I I ?
? I I ?. II
II ?:II
JI tl
n -
oe
? s
II
c II n
II I
II n
u ss
w ? ? ?o
II ? it ? ? ?
\.
II
it
II
1 ?„
N =_
? ? ?
?????•?? II II x ?

`oil'
U
= I ? it
it II
II

II w

r
?? o _

?
11
I I II II ' '? ''
LL4

I
I Na
IJl J II
(! \- - ; ;1x3
` o
cn
I J II I `
., H
C
L P-4 o

s rn
Cy ? ? •?
N
q
?- III I fn q1o -?
M? Hopup w
O
0 c°oW I I I ???
? srvll s?x3 p z E+ O O
4
/
A V
V
CV)
i? II UQ a w
I w
a z a

WI II ! a N
-?
o
I II
II
I
V)

I II
III I
I
°r
a z
J
3 II
11 1
I w
3
i
I II I I
"
''
1 II i .
?
II I I - .

1 ? III _
I I ?;
=
l
I! I
i a
'A _

J C3 tA
~
~

In
Z I I

i C•I

I _
=
? -?
?.
?

~ I i
I YI I ?.
I u? I
I = o
z

a
I <I
I Ul I Q I
I I
I
ICI X
w
IJI o f r w
? ? ??
I p l
`^I Q -
I
I I
I Y
= w ?n
? ?
? ?
?I
I°-? I
I I
1 I
1 = o

i I
i
I
I-
i
I
t
I L.L
-Please type or print. Carefully describe all anticipated
development activities, including construction, excava-
tion, filling, paving, land clearing, and stonnwater con-
trol. If the requested information is not relevant to your
project, write N/A (not applicable). Items 1-4 and 8-9
must be completed for all projects.
1 APPLICANT
Nor Carolina Department o ranspor ion
a. Name _R . i n nL L; ; P F
Address P. 0. Box 25201
City Raleigh State NC
Zip 27611 Day phone [phone]
Landowner or X Authorized agent
b. Project name (if any)
N/A
c. If the applicant is not the landowner, also give the
owner's name and address.
See Permit
If you plan to build a marina, also complete and
attach Form DCM-MP-2.
-ty. Is the proposed activity maintenance of an
existin Nro'ect, new work. or both?
c. Will the project be for community, private, or
commercial use?
Public transportation
d. Describe the planned use of the project.
Public transgortation
4 LAND AND WATER
CHARACTERISTICS
a. Size of entire tract
b. Size of individual lot(s) N/A
c. Elevation of tract above mean sea level or
National Geodetic Vertical Datum
+/- 10 ft. NGVD 1929
2 LOCATION OF PROPOSED
PROJECT
a. Street address or secondary road number
NC 168
b. City, town, community, or landmark
Moyock
c. County Currituck
d. Is proposed work within city limits or planning
jurisdiction? yps
e. Name of body of water nearest project
Shingle Landing Creek
3 DESCRIPTION AND PLANNED USE
OF PROPOSED PROJECT
a. Describe all development activities you propose (for
example, building a home, motel, marina, bulkhead,
or pier). Widening of NC 168 from SR-1215
to Virginia States ling.-
d. Soil type(s) and texture(s) of tract
e. Vegetation on tract
f. Man-made features now on tract NC 1 F;R
g. What is the CAMA Land Use Plan Classification of
the site? (Consult the local land use plan.)
Conservation Transitional
Developed Community
X Rural Other
h. How is the tract zoned by local government?
i. How are adjacent waters classified?
j. Has a professional archaeological survey been
carried out for the tract? If so, by whom?
4/89
Y f
0
x.n
0
lJ1
v
0
v7
4
I
i
L?
-4-
c
0
i
T
O
r
D
1
Q
n a

o
"A 0
OL rll r

T
?Q!
?nW IPA C?
Srj
F-? W
`
w
?- Lu Z
U G rn v N
N L-)j
ll?

u?

a
c
/
CL

a
CCD)
U
d
[e
-lq
d
z

oc
(5
LU
till
CiFf
C-
9
I ?
Q
I .' • d
o?
I .\N 'U3

\ t?7
er't ?.-
Ii
I"
I ? w?
i Z ?
1
I
c 4
z
I N
1 I `r cr
I c'z
L
IL) LLJ
itl
_C
cn C7 p H '4-a H
a N z? U o 0? ?. ?
?N pc,z?-+O ?o ? O
?-- ? ' (j A U p -W
cr)
O >
z .Q
W ;X
O ?W
•
N
W Q O
7 0
w a
d
N
Y
i
i
i

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
jAN"
ANNUAL REPORT FOR 200
c?'/ l C)(d 56
0

Casey Tract Mitigation Site
Currituck County
Project No. 6.049009T
TIP No. R-2228

Prepared By:
Natural Systems Unit & Roadside Environmental Unit
North Carolina Department of Transportation
December 2000

f
1

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY .........................................................................................................
1.0 Introduction .............................................................................................3
1.1 Project Description ........................................................................3
1.2 Purpose .......................................................................................3
1.3 Project History ..............................................................................3
2.0 Hydrology ................................................................................................. 5
2.1 Success Criteria ............................................................................5
2.2 Hydrologic Description ..................................................................5
2.3 Results of Hydrologic Monitoring ....................................................6
2.3.1 Site Data ............................................................................. 6
2.3.2 Climatic Data .....................................................................10
2.4 Conclusions .................................................................................10
3.0 Vegetation: Casey Mitigation Site ..........................................................13
3.1 Success Criteria ...................:......................................................13
3.2 Description of Species .................................................................13
3.3 Results of Vegetation Monitoring ...................................:............13
3.4 Conclusions ................................................................................15
4.0 Overall Conclusions and Recommendations .........................................16
TABLES

Table 1 - Hydrologic Monitoring Results ............................................................. 6
Table 2 - Vegetation Monitoring Results ...........................................................13
Table 3 - Vegetation Random Plots ..................................................................14
FIGURES

Figure 1 - Site Location Map .............................................................................4
Figure 2 - Monitoring Gauge Location Map ........................................................ 8
Figure 3 -Open Water Map ................................................................................. 9
Figure 4 - 2000 Hydrologic Monitoring Maps ....................................................11
Figure 5 - 30 - 70 Percentile Graph .................................................................12
APPENDICES
Appendix A - Depth to Groundwater Plots .......................................................16
Appendix B - Site Photos ................................................................................. 27

I SUMMARY
The following report summarizes the monitoring activities that have occurred in
the past year at the Casey Tract Mitigation Site. This is the third year the
vegetation has been monitored, and it is the second year the site has been
monitored for hydrologic success. The site must demonstrate both hydrologic
and vegetation success for five years.
The Casey Tract contains four surface gauges, one rain gauge and six
monitoring gauges. An Infinities rain gauge was installed and programmed to
start recording data on August 30, 2000. Surface gauge 3 was replaced and
programmed to start recording data on April 26, 2000. The site also contains 3
vegetation monitoring transects.
r The daily rainfall on the gauge data graphs is recorded at an Elizabeth City rain
gauge, maintained by the NC State Climate Office. This data is being used
because the original on-site rainfall gauge was replaced in August 2000 with a
more reliable rain gauge. Rain data from the Elizabeth City rain gauge is being
used in order to be consistent while comparing rainfall data to groundwater data
' during the growing season.
Hydrologic monitoring indicated that of the ten gauges on site, eight indicated
inundation or saturation for over 12.5% of the growing season. Monitoring gauge
' 5 indicated saturation between 8 and 12.5%. Monitoring gauge 3 is located in
the upland portion of the site; therefore, saturation occurred for less than 5% of
the growing season. The NCDOT recommends removing gauge 3 from the site
due to its location in the upland area.
In December 2000, NCDOT representatives delineated the open water at the
Casey Tract. Existing open water comprises approximately 1.4 acres of the site.
According to the original plan sheets, open water comprised approximately 0.9
acres. This is a gain of 0.5 acres of open water. See Figure 3 for a
' representation of the discrepancy between the existing open water and the
original open water on-site. Although additional area is noted by open water than
' the original mitigation plan, and based on the added fisheries benefits of having
the channel on-site, the Department would submit to include this area in the
calculation of the entire site. This is also consistent with other similar marsh
I mitigation sites that are currently in place.
Vegetation monitoring was performed on the approximately 5 acres of marsh
' creation on this site. Based on the results of the third year monitoring, the
percent frequency of target specie is 92.6%. Coverage has increased since last
year's monitoring. This is above the required frequency (70%) stated in the
' success criteria. The vegetative marsh success of the wetland site will be
determined in accordance with NMFS Guidelines. Monitoring plots found to be
located within the open water channel will not be evaluated, and will not count to

the final count of plots. The vegetation component of the wetland site will be
deemed successful if the following criteria are met.

r

i

CIS

u

1
1

1. At year five, the average of all plots should have a scale value of 5
(75% vegetative cover) consisting of wetland herbaceous species, not
including any invasive species.
2. A minimum of 70% of the plots shall contain the target (planted)
specie.
Based on the monitoring results from the 2000 growing season, NCDOT
recommends that hydrologic and vegetation monitoring continue.

1

1
t

11

1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Description
The Casey Tract Mitigation Site is located in Currituck County (Figure 1) and is
approximately 24 acres in size. It is designed to mitigate for the widening of NC
168; the project includes the creation of coastal marsh wetland and the
preservation of forested wetlands and forested upland areas.
The site was first monitored for vegetation in 1998. In August of 1998, NCDOT
installed monitoring gauges to be used for hydrologic monitoring. In December
2000, NCDOT representatives delineated the open water at the Casey Tract.
Existing open water comprises approximately 1.4 acres of the site. According to
the original plan sheets, open water comprised approximately 0.9 acres. This is
a gain of 0.5 acres of open water. The 2000 annual monitoring report includes
the results of both hydrologic (second year) and vegetation (third year)
monitoring for the site.
1.2 Purpose
In order to demonstrate successful mitigation, hydrologic and vegetative
monitoring must be conducted for five consecutive years. Success criteria are
based on federal guidelines for wetland mitigation. These guidelines stipulate
criteria for both hydrologic conditions and vegetation survival. The following
report details the results of hydrologic and vegetative monitoring during 2000 at
the Casey Tract Mitigation Site as well as local climate conditions throughout the
growing season.
1.3 Project History
November 1997
January 1998
August 1998
October 1998
October 1999
November 1999
August 2000
November 2000
December 2000
Site Constructed
Site Planted
Monitoring Gauges Installed
Vegetation monitoring (1 yr.)
Vegetation Monitoring (2 yr.)
Hydrologic monitoring (1 yr.)
Vegetation Monitoring (3 yr.)
Hydrologic Monitoring (2 yr.)
Open Water Delineated
r

O z 1v
p I, Y
? y
?'.
AYCGVI -
SSR 1315 .y

r
_ yo-
y
i

? ?
s 1 66 =,_: ? -
, Snowden ..--
?,6e Casey Mitigation Site I

.
.
R
,, ~..' '^ w-..•..--.,..-?._•.. 166,...-...
..
?'

t
\
?
`. ..
CHERRY
o es
S)i
\
,
_
.
` g
.,HESTNU
?
•\\ HICKCR"

a

c
.. .. SSR t204 _.? ....._.?.._..

?
,7af
Comer
4 ? S MARSHALL

iRiA.Y.

I
Figure 1
Site Location Map
4
?p
• N?
PEt4lAM1D
'D HALS„EAC
' SSR t70•S?. _.
RED'+VOOp. ,.
SS7
vI
\L7'1
tt?
1

H

ii

C

H

11

7

2.0 HYDROLOGY
2.1 Success Criteria
In accordance with federal guidelines for wetland mitigation, the success criteria
for hydrology states that the area must be inundated or saturated (within 12" of
the surface) by surface or groundwater for at least a consecutive 12.5% of the
growing season. Areas inundated for less than 5% of the growing season are
always classified as non-wetlands. Areas inundated between 5% - 12.5% of the
growing season can be classified as wetlands depending upon factors such as
the presence of wetland vegetation and hydric soils.
The growing season in Currituck County begins March 20 and ends November
13. These dates correspond to a 50% probability that temperatures will drop to
28°F or lower after March 20 and before November 13.' The growing season is
239 days; therefore, optimum hydrology requires 12.5% of this season, or at
least 29.88 consecutive days (rounded to 30 days). A consecutive 8% would be
equivalent to 19.12 days (rounded to 19 days) and a consecutive 5% would be
equivalent to 11.95 days (rounded to12 days). Local climate must also represent
average conditions for the area.
2.2 Hydrologic Description
In August 1998, six groundwater monitoring gauges, one rain gauge and three
surface water gauges were installed (Figure 2). In August 2000, the original rain
gauge was replaced with an Infinities rain gauge. The automatic monitoring
gauges record daily readings of groundwater depth. Three of these
groundwater-monitoring gauges are located within the reference wetland on site.
The Casey Tract site involved the construction of a channel network connected
to Buckskin and Cowells Creeks and the lowering of site elevations to create
coastal marsh areas to the elevations of the coastal marsh Reference Ecosystem
areas. In addition, ditches were constructed to form hydrologic connections
between the roadside ditches and the ditch in the northern end of the site. This
connectivity will allow for tidal flushing of the constructed coastal marsh. This
should provide adequate hydrologic input from the adjacent creeks, groundwater,
and rainfall to sustain the necessary hydrology for coastal marsh wetland areas.
The hydrologic monitoring should show the reaction of the groundwater level to
specific rainfall events.
According to the Casey Tract Mitigation Plan, the ditch cutting through the site
should have been constructed as a four foot ditch with a bottom elevation of
approximately -0.3 feet msl, with side slopes graded to an approximate elevation
of 0.4 feet above msl. NCDOT has requested that the Locations and Surveys
1 Natural Resources Conservation Service, Soil Survey of Currituck County, North Carolina, p.71.

1

0

Branch survey the Casey Tract to determine if construction of the site complies
with the Mitigation Plan.
In December 2000, NCDOT representatives delineated the open water at the
Casey Tract. To delineate the open water, NCDOT assumed all areas inside the
wrack line and lacking vegetation represented inundated areas. Existing open
water comprises approximately 1.4 acres of the site. According to the original
plan sheets, open water comprised approximately 0.9 acres. This is a gain of 0.5
acres of open water. Figure 3 illustrates the discrepancy between the existing
open water and the.original open water on-site. The thick black line represents
the original open water at the Casey Tract; however, the fingers breaking off from
the main ditch are not shown. All of the area outlined in red represents the
existing open water.
The measurements show that there is an additional area of open water on the
site in comparison to the original plan sheets. However as is the case with other
marsh mitigation areas, several resource agencies often request that the
Department incorporate additional swales/shallow channels for fisheries
enhancement throughout the site. This is often not shown in the original
mitigation plan, but is added during the design or construction phase of the
project. It is understood by all, that the lower elevations of these swales will
prevent the target species from surviving. It has also been the case that when
these swales are added that the area of the site that is inundated with water is
not subtracted from the total area of the site, due to the benefits that are provided
by there presence. This being the case, the Department would submit to leave
the additional area occupied by the open water in the calculation of the mitigation
area.
2.3 Results of Hydrologic Monitoring
2.3.1 Site Data
The maximum number of consecutive days that the groundwater was within
twelve inches of the surface was determined for each gauge. This number was
converted into a percentage of the 239-day growing season. The results are
presented in Tabled. Appendix A contains a plot of the groundwater depth for
each monitoring gauge and the surface water depth recorded by the surface
gauges. The maximum number of consecutive days is noted on each graph.
The individual precipitation events, shown on the monitoring well graphs as bars,
represent data collected from an Elizabeth City weather station. This data was
provided by the NC State Climate Office. The Infinities rain gauge currently
located on the site was installed in August 2000; therefore, the Elizabeth City
rainfall information was used on the monitoring gauge graphs. Figure 4
represents the hydrologic monitoring results.
6

Table 1
HYDROLOGIC MONITORING RESULTS
Monitoring
Gai e <5% 5%-8% 8%-12.5% 12.6% Actual % " Success Dates ,
MG-1 ? 83.3 Mar 25-Oct 9
MG-2 ? 91.2 Mar 25-Oct 28
MG-3 ? 0.4 Jun 29, Se 5, Se 26
MG-4 RG ? 87.4 Mar 20-Oct 14
MG-5 RG ? 7.9* Jul25-Au 12
MG-6 RG ? 89.5 Mar 20-Oct 19
RG refers to the reference gauges located in the reference wetland.
* This discrepancy is due to rounding 19.12 days down to 19 days.
The surface gauges have shown consistent surface water throughout the
growing season. Monitoring gauge 3 is located in the upland area of the site at
the entrance to the site, so it would not show hydrologic success at this elevated
location. Monitoring gauge 5, located in the reference wetland, indicated
' saturation within 12 inches of the surface for 19 consecutive days. Four of the
six monitoring gauges indicated saturation within 12 inches of the surface or less
for over 30 consecutive days of the growing season.

1
7,

fl

r

t

}
c

i
W
U

1
l O t
1
1
®? t
? r
? I
I
I
N I
O I
v I/ I
r
I r h
rvYUr? I ?
I I
I r ??
j I I
r
Figure 2
Monitoring Gauge
Location Map
8
1
1
1
1
Y
i
1
1
1
1
1
t
1
1
1
1
1
H
U
U

-0
13
O?c
O O
_[3
c
r?
W o

? t
c
N c
n
x Cl
w o
1
i
I
I
i
I

? i
I I
I 1
Figure 3
Open Water Map
9

Specific problems: Surface gauge 3 stopped recording data on April 5. The
gauge was replaced and programmed to begin recording data on April 26.
The battery in surface gauge 4 was replaced in October, however the gauge did
not record any data from September 3 to October 5 and from October 17 through
the remainder of the growing season. The gauge did record from the beginning
of the growing season and indicated inundation at the site.
2.3.2 Climatic Data
Figure 5 represents an examination of the local climate in comparison with
1 historical data in order to determine whether 2000 was "average" in terms of
climate conditions. The figure compares the rainfall from 2000 with that of
historical rainfall (data collected between 1946 and 1983). All rainfall data was
collected from the,NC State Climate Office. The graph shows 2000 rainfall totals
from January 2000 through November 2000, which includes the growing, season
for this site. February, March and October exhibit rainfall totals well below the
average monthly rainfall totals, while July and November were slightly below.
April, May, June and August exhibit above average totals. January and
September were within the average range.
2.4 Conclusions
2000 represents the second full growing season that the hydrologic data has
been examined. The monitoring gauges on site have shown saturation and
inundation for long periods of time. This is expected from a site built as a coastal
marsh.
NCDOT representatives delineated the open water at the Casey Tract. Existing
open water comprises approximately 1.4 acres of the site. According to the
original plan sheets, open water comprised approximately 0.9 acres. This is a
gain of 0.5 acres of open water. Although additional area is noted by open water
and based on the fisheries benefits of having the channel on-site, the
Department would submit to include this area in the calculation of the entire site.
This is also consistent with other similar marsh mitigation sites that are currently
in place.

1
1 10
1
1

t
1

1

I
N
c
?
N
V,

17

^
c rg
C ?,

f i
Figure 4
Hydraulic Monitoring Map
11
1
L
C.
m
SLR
V
C
G> i (?
cm
M ti
cc
N
M W
co

nON
too
3deS
6ny
OR
O
O
fl-
Inr I
O
co
t I
unr
c
2
ABVV
AV
iew
qa=l
war
0) 00 1- CO Cn C9 N *- O
(ui) uoijejidiaaad
C
cu
O
O
O
N
N
,-r

1
1
A

3.0 VEGETATION: CASEY MITIGATION SITE (YEAR 3 OF 5)
3.1 Success Criteria
The vegetative marsh success of the wetland site will be determined in
accordance with NMFS Guidelines. Monitoring plots found to be located within
the open water channel will not be evaluated, and will not count to the final count
of plots. The vegetation component of the wetland site will be deemed
successful if the following criteria are met.
1. At year five, the average of all plots should have a scale value of 5
(75% vegetative cover) consisting of wetland herbaceous species, not
including any invasive species.
2. A minimum of 70% of the plots shall contain the target (planted)
specie.
3.2 Description of Species
The following marsh grass species were planted in the Wetland Restoration
Area:
Zone 1: (0.63 acres)
Juncus effusus, Common Rush
Scirpus cyperinus, Woolgrass
Zone 2: (3.43 acres)
Cladium jamaicense, Saw Grass
Spartina cynosuroides, Giant Cordgrass
3.3 Results of Vegetation Monitoring
Transects

C?

•-- N M
dI) bQ bq

U U U

N H
1.2 1P 16.2% 43.7% 68.3%
2 0 7.0% 17.5%
1,2 3P 19.2% 58.3% 51.6%
AVG/TRAN 12.4% 36.3% 45.8%
13

Site Notes: Three 30 meter transects were established across the mitigation site
to include both zones. Along each transect, a 1 meter sample plot was sampled
every 6 meters. Transects #1 contained a combination of: sawgrass in all the
plots; juncuses and cattails in 2 of the plots; and black willow, scirpus, woolgrass,
and smartweed in one of the plots. Transect #2 sample plots contained:
sawgrass in two plots; and juncus, scirpus, robustus, cypernerius and smartweed
in one plot. The 6m plot is located at the edge of channel and the Om plot is in
open water. Visual observation of the surrounding area indicates transect #2
continues not to be indicative of site. Transect #3 contained: juncus in 4 plots;
smartweed in two plots; aster, big cordgrass and cattails in one of the plots. The
6m plot is located at the edge of channel and the Om plot is in open water. As
expected the percentage of coverage has increased.
11 Random Plots

1
1
1

1

W

N

a

O Q
V

?4 y??
u

8
v, d
?

3
vi
7

°, 8

otes
? ? ?

? ?
2 6 Open water
2 7 0.0 Open water
- -

2 10 1 5.0 ? ? ? Aster
2 it 5.o
?
?
2
12
O.O
Open water
2 13 _
0.. _ water
Open
2 14 3.. ? ?
? ? ?

2
2 18 0.0 Open ater
-
2 20 4.0
r
r Smartweed
21 -
0.0 Open water
2,2 0.0 Open water
-
-
23 0.0 Open water
? r
2 25 0.5 Other iuncus. edge onen water
2 1 26 4.0
r
?

2 28 0.. Open water
1 29 3..
r
?
2 30 ? r r
2 31 0.0 Onen water

2 33 0.5 Other iuncus. smar weed
2 34 2.0 ? ? ?
2 35 0.0 Open water
2 36 3.0 ? ?
Smartweed

1 38 1 3..
?
?
? ?
2 40 0.0 Open water
41 3.0
?
? tweed
42 0.0
43 4.0 ? ?
44 4.0 ? ?
2 45 5.0 ? ? ?

14
1
1
I

W

z

O

"

s

`

d

q

e C .r

<

a 8
v°i ?

e

W;
V ri, e<
e
ffi

?

e<
E
y 8
2 46
w
2 47 4.
?
?
?
2 3.0 ? ? ?
S..rtwc.d
2 0.0 water
Open
50 2.0 ? ? ? Aster
? ? ?
? ? ?
Pine
2 0.0 - water
Open
2 ? ? ? ? Aster
2 4.0 ? ? ?
1.0 ? ? Sad es nine
2 5.0
?
?
? Aster
2 3,0
?
?
?
1 R LO ? ?
2 Bald -ea
2 0.0 water
0-
2 ? ?
2 62 3. ? ? Edge of o en water
? ?
2 64 3.0 ? ? ? Pine
2 65 0.2 ? ?
2 66 5.0 ? ? ? w d switch
2 67 3.0 ? ? Aster ick eral
2 68 5.0 ? ? ? Pickeral

1
69
4.0 ? ?

Various arasses
2 70 3,0 ? ? A-,
2 71 3.0 ? ?
72 5 0 ? ? ? ?
73 3.0 ? ? Cattail smartweed
74 2.0 ? ? Switch arass
75 3.0 ? ? Cattail- Dine
R
2 76 4.0 ? ?
77 2.0 ? ?
78 4.0 ? ?
2 7 3.0 ? ? ? Edge of oven water
? ? Cassia. vine

Plots with Desired %necie
Sum Scale Value 163.6
of Plots Counted 54.00
? JX 3.03
r r
l
Site Notes: Due to interference from the mature tree line with the GPS, the
following plots were located approximately: 43, 47, 51-53, 55, 56, 59, 64, 68-70,
73, 75, and 77. Marsh grasses are present throughout the site. Coverage has
increased since last year's monitoring.
3.4 Conclusions
-' • Percent Frequency of Target Specie (Common Rush, Woolgrass, Saw grass
and Giant Cordgrass) 92.6%
Frequency of 70% required.
• Vegetative Cover Scale Value 3.03
Scale Value of 5 required for year 5.
Approximately 5 acres of this site involve marsh grass plantings. The vegetative
coverage does not meet the success criteria; however, it continued to increase
1
15
1
and is on track for the third year of monitoring. The percent frequency of target
species exceeds the minimum requirement and percent coverage continues to
increase.
4.0 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
In the second full year of monitoring, four of six monitoring gauges indicated
saturation for more than 12.5% of the growing season and one indicated
saturation between 8 and 12.5 %. The NCDOT recommends removing
monitoring gauge 3 (less than 5% hydrologic success) from the site due to it's
location in the upland portion of the site. Vegetation monitoring yielded a percent
frequency of target specie of 92.6%.
NCDOT representatives delineated the open water at the Casey Tract. Existing
open water comprises approximately 1.4 ac of the site. According to the original
plan sheets, open water comprised approximately 0.9 acres. This is a gain of 0.5
acres of open water. Although additional area is noted by open water and based
on the fisheries benefits of having the channel on-site, the Department would
submit to include this area in the calculation of the entire site. This is also
consistent with other similar marsh mitigation sites that are currently in place.
Hydrologic monitoring will continue for a third year, and vegetation monitoring will
continue for a fourth year in 2001 at the Casey Tract Mitigation Site.
11
IJ

1

1
16
1

1
APPENDIX A

1
t

1
11

DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER PLOTS
17
a
i
i
i
QTR
V
ca
rn
c
c
O
v
ca
L
t`
a
d
W
V
(ui) uoi;e;idioaJd
'IQ LQ LIQ
co N N *- r O O
00-nON-LO
00-100-OE
00-100-ZZ
00-100-t, L
00-100-90
00-dag-8Z
00-dag-OZ
00-dag-Z L
00-dag-t,0
00-6nd-LZ
00-find-6 L
00-find- l L
00-find-£0
00-Inf -9Z
00-Inf -8l
00-Inf -0l
00-Inf -Z0
00-unr-tq
00-unf -9l
00-unf -80
00-ken- LE
00-AeW-EZ
00-AeW-S L
00-AeW-LO
00-jdd-6Z
00-add- L Z
00-add-E L
00-add-50
00-JeW-8Z
00-JLW-OZ
v
r
o
LO O U") O LO O N O LO 0
(ui) ja;empunoaE) o; y;dea
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
N
C?
O)
ca
c
O
O
v
ca
H
a
a?
N
U
(ui) uoi;e;id!Oaad
L Ln
C+) N N r O O
00-AON-LO
00-100-06
00-100-EE
00-100-b L
00-300-90
00-deS-8Z
00-daS-OZ
00-daS-Z L
00-daS-b0
00-find-L?,
00-find-6 L
00-find- L l
00-find-00
00-Inf -9z
00-Inf -8l
00-Inf -0L
00-Inf -Z0
00-unf-t,3
00-unf -9 L
00-unf-80
00-AelN-L6
00-AeW-£Z
00-AeW-9 L
00-AeIN-LO
00-add-6Z
00-add- L Z
00-add-£ L
00-jdd-SO
00-aeW-9Z
00-aeW-OE
LO
N
d ?
0
I
i
LO O LO O LO O N O Ln O
i i i
(ui) aa;empunoa!D o; y;dad
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
M
C?
O
ca
rn
c
O
O
v
ca
L
d
N
ca
U
(ui) uoijejidi3QJd
Lq Lq Lq
Ch N N r T O O
00-AON-LO
00-100-0£
00-100-zz
00-100-t, L
00-100-90
00-daS-SZ
00-daS-Oz
00-daS-Z L
o0-daS-t,o
00-6nV-Lz
00-find-6 L
00-find- L L
00-6nd-00
00-Inr-9Z
0o-Inr-8 L
o0-Inf -o L
00-Inf -Z0
00-u n r-t,Z
00-unf -9 L
00-unf-90
o0-AeW- L c
o0-AeW-EZ
o0-AeUV-9 L
o0-Aen-L0
00-Jdd-6Z
00-add- L Z
00-Jdd-S L
00-Jdd-90
00-JEA-93
00-Jew-oz
m
c+-a
L
Q
a?
0
m

Ln O Ln O LO O N O LO 0
T
1 T
I 1 I 1 1 I
(ui) ja;empuno.ig of yldod
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
C?
N
c
i
O
O
v
O
H
N
O
V
(w) uoilelidioaad
LIq LO Lq
co N N ? r O O
00-nON-LO
00-100-0£
00-100-66
00-100-t, L
00-100-90
00-deS-8Z
00-daS-OZ
00-daS-Z L
00-daS-t,0
00-6nV-LZ
00-6ny-6 L
00-bnd- L L
00-6nV-£0
00-Inf -9z
00-Inf -8 L
00-I n f -0 L
00-Inf -Z0
00-unf -tZ
00-unr-9 L
00-unr-80
00-Meld- L£
00-AeIN-£z
00-Am-9 L
00-AeW-LO
00-adb-6Z
00-ad`d- L Z
00-add-£ L
00-jdy-90
00-JBN-9Z
00-JBN-OFI
d'
Q
a?
0
a
U
73
Q
(D
I ?
d ?
D ,
c
O
U
N
I
LO O L O LO O N O ? O?
(ui) aalempunoaE) of y;dad
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
19
0
rn
rn
c
0
O
v
ca
LL
r
N
t0
U
(ui) uoilelidioaad
LO Lq
Co N N r r O O
00-AON-LO
00-100-0£
00-100-33
00-100-b L
00-100-90
00-daS-8z
00-daS-OZ
00-daS-Z L
00-daS-ti0
00-6nV-LZ
00-6nV-6 L
00-0nV-LL
00-6ny-£0
00-Inf -9Z
00-Inf -8l
00-Inf -0l
00-Inf -Z0
00-unf -bZ
00-unf -9l
00-unf -80
00-Ae W- L £
00-A,an-6;3
00-AeIN-S L
00-AeIN-LO
00-jdd-6Z
00-AV-Le,
00-Adb-E L
00-add-50
00-1eW-9Z
00-Jun-03
a
a?
0
a
a>
LD
ca g
o ,
c
0
C?
.Q
U
N
CL
I
LO O LO O LO O N O LO 0
(ui) jalempunoi!D of yldea
i
co
C7
M
rn
c
O
O
U
H
N
co
U
(ui) uoilel!dioaJd
LI? Lq Lq
co N N r r O O
00-AON-LO
00-100-08
00-100-ZZ
00-100-1? L
00-100-90
00-dag-SZ
00-daS-OZ
00-deS-Z L
00-daS-t,0
00-bnV-/Z
00-6ny-6 L
00-6nd-LL
00-6nV-EO
00-Inf -9Z
00-Inf -8l
00-Inf -0l
00-Inf -Z0
00-unf -t Z
00-unf -9L
00-u n f -80
00-AeW-L£
00-AeIN-BZ
00-AeW-S L
00-AeW-LO
00-jdV-6Z
00-AV-LE
00-jdv-E L
00-ady-90
00-aeW-BZ
00-JBW-OZ
LO
1-
as CD
o ?
I
LO O LO O LO O N O0 M 0
i
(ui) jojempunoaE) of y;dea
1
1
1
1
1
T
ca
v
cv
L
cn
v
co
L
H
N
U
00-AON-LO
00-100- L E
00-100-£3
00-100-91
00-100-80
00-100- L O
00-daS-EZ
00-daS-9 l
00-daS-80
00-daS- L O
00-End-b3
00-find-L L
00-find-60
00-find-30
00-Inf -93
00-Inf -8l
00-Inf -0l
00-Inf -80
00-unf -53
00-u n f -8 L
00-unf -0l
00-unf -£0
00-Am-93
00-AeIN-6 L
00-Aen- l L
00-AeW-b0
00-jdd-9Z
00-jdd-6 L
00-add- L L
00-add-t,0
00-Jen-L3
00-ieW-03
0
a?
(D
ca cz
o ?
v)
0 N 0 LO 0 LO
co C\j
(ui) y;dea je;eM eoelinS

N
d
ca
d
v
ca
16-
0
cn
v
ca
H
a?
ca
U
00-AON-LO
00-100-0£
00-100-33
00-10O-b L
00-100-90
00-daS-9z
00-daS-Oz
00-daS-Z L
00-daS-t,0
00-6nV-L3
00-6ny-6 L
00-6nd- L L
00-6nV-£0
00-Inf -9Z
00-Inf -8l
00-Inf -0 L
00-Inf -Z0
00-unf -1?Z
00-unr-9L
00-unf -80
00-?? W - L £
00-AeW-£Z
00-??W-S L
00-ABW-LO
00-AV-6z
00-AV-Le
00-ady-£ L
00-jdy-50
00-jen-8Z
00-jen-Oz
0
CD
co
a?
M
o
Z3
U)
N o L o Ln C\j
(u!) y;daa joluM aoelinS

M
d
ca
V
N
v
cv
H
m
N
V
00-AON-LO
00-100-0£
00-10O-ZZ
00-100-tl l
00-100-90
00-daS-8z
00-daS-Oz
00-daS-Z L
00-des-b0
00-End-LZ
00-find-6 L
00-find- l L
00-End-£0
00-Inf -9Z
00-Inf -8l
00-Inf -0l
00-Inf -z0
00-unr-t,?,
00-unr-9 L
00-unf -80
00-AeW-L£
00-AeW-£z
00-Aen-S l
00-Aen-LO
00-Jdd-6z
00-add- LZ
00-Jdd-£ L
00-Jdd-SO
00-Jew-87,
00-Jew-OE
0
N
0
N
CO
(D
U
co
U)
I I
LO 0 T 0 LO
N N r
(ui) yldea je;eM aoeiinS

RCT
co
U
ca
L
N
v
c?
H
a>
U)
00-nON-LO
00-100-0£
00-100-ZZ
00-100-t L
00-100-90
00-daS-8Z
00-daS-OZ
00-daS-z l
00-daS-b0
00-6nd-LZ
00-find-6 L
00-find- L l
00-find-£0
00-Inf -9Z
00-I n f -8 L
00-I n f -0 l
00-Inf -Z0
00-unf -t,z
00-unf -9L
00-unf -80
00-Ae W- l £
00-ken-£Z
00-Aen-9 L
00-AeW-LO
00-add-6Z
00-add- l Z
00-add-£ L
00-add-90
00-JaW-8Z
00-aleW-OZ
0
m
c+a
0
m
U
ca
M
7 U)
I
LO o LO C) LO
N N r
(ui) y}dea joluM aoulinS

u
I

0

[I
L
APPENDIX B
SITE PHOTOS
27

?J
{ 1
i
Photo 5: Grasses within site

1?y
xs?- iiplF?aR7Pw??};,,, ..y

FW;+
:

a
5. , >

Photo 4: Grasses within site
?a v
tics
1
Photo 6

Photo 3: Grasses within site
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2000

Casey
Photo 7
! 7 J 1:Cr
tit
+10 1

Photo 8
fia l& ?.

Casey
s?

. I a J
rl
a`f a. -? LL
a
? U
t
r
1
1 1?.

C

U
?- P
1

O
CL ;
!

N ?' t

cm

t- C ° J
s
0 C:)
00

i

O
S
CL ? 11 I
i
I

i if

2000

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2007
Casey Tract Mitigation Site
Currituck County
Project No. 6.049001T
TIP No. R-2228
Prepared By:
Natural Systems Unit & Roadside Environmental Unit
North Carolina Department of Transportation
December 2001
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY .....................................................................
1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................... 2
.1 Project Description ......................................................................... 2
.2 Purpose ........................................................................................2
.3 Project History ............................................................................... 2
.4 Debit Ledger ....................................................................3
2.0 Hydrology .................................................................................................. 5
1 Success Criteria ............................................................................ 5
2 Hydrologic Description ................................................................... 5
3 Results of Hydrologic Monitoring ....................................................6
.3.1 Site Data .............................................................................. 6
.3.2 Climatic Data ........................................................................ 8
4 Conclusions .................................................................................... 8
3.0 Vegetation: Casey Mitigation Site ..........................................................11
.1 Success Criteria .........................................................:................ 11
.2 Description of Species .................................................................. 11
.3 Results of Vegetation Monitoring ................................................12
.4 Conclusions ............................................................................... 13
4.0 Overall Conclusions and Recommendations .......................................... 14
TABLES
Table 1 - Hydrologic Monitoring Results ............................................................. 6
Table 2 - Vegetation Random Plots .................................................................. 12
FIGURES
Figure 1 - Site Location Map .............................................................................. 4
Figure 2 - Monitoring Gauge Location Map ........................................................ 7
Figure 3 - 2001 Hydrologic Monitoring Results .................................................. 9
Figure 4 - 30 - 70 Percentile Graph .................................................................. 10
Figure 5 - Photo, Random Plot Locations and Planting Plan ............................ 29
APPENDICES
Appendix A - Depth to Groundwater Plots ........................................................15
Appendix B - Site Photos .................................................................................. 26
SUMMARY
The following report summarizes the monitoring activities that have occurred in
the past year at the Casey Tract Mitigation Site. This is the fourth year the
vegetation has been monitored, and it is the third year the site has been
monitored for hydrologic success. The site must demonstrate both hydrologic
and vegetation success for five years.
The Casey Tract contains four surface gauges, one rain gauge and six
groundwater-monitoring gauges. The site also contains 3 vegetation monitoring
transects.
Hydrologic monitoring indicated that of the ten gauges on site, eight indicated
inundation or saturation for over 12.5% of the growing season, while monitoring
gauge 5, located in the reference wetland, indicated inundation or saturation for
2.5%. Monitoring gauge 3 is located in the upland portion of the site, therefore,
saturation occurred for less than 5% of the growing season. The NCDOT
recommends removing gauge 3 from the site because it is located in the upland
portion of the site.
Vegetation monitoring was performed on the approximately 3.5 acres of marsh
creation on this site. Based on the results of the fourth year of monitoring, the
percent frequency of target specie is 94.1 %. This is above the required
frequency (70%) stated in the success criteria. The vegetative marsh success of
the wetland site will be determined in accordance with NMFS Guidelines.
Monitoring plots found to be located within the open water channel will not be
evaluated, and will not count to the final count of plots. The vegetation
component of the wetland site will be deemed successful if , at year five, the
average of all plots have a scale value of 5 (75% vegetative cover) consisting of
wetland herbaceous species, not including any invasive species, and a minimum
of 70% of the plots contain the target (planted) specie.
Based on the monitoring results from the 2001 growing season, NCDOT
recommends that hydrologic and vegetation monitoring continue.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Description
The Casey Tract Mitigation Site is located in Currituck County (Figure 1) and is
approximately 24 acres in size. It is designed to mitigate for the widening of NC
168; the project includes the creation of coastal marsh wetland and the
preservation of forested wetlands and forested upland areas.
The site was first monitored for vegetation in 1998. In August of 1998, NCDOT
installed monitoring gauges to be used for hydrologic monitoring. The 2001
annual monitoring report includes the results of both hydrologic (third year) and
vegetation (fourth year) monitoring for the site.
1.2 Purpose
In order to demonstrate successful mitigation, hydrologic and vegetative
monitoring must be conducted for five consecutive years. Success criteria are
based on federal guidelines for wetland mitigation. These guidelines stipulate
criteria for both hydrologic conditions and vegetation survival. The following
report details the results of hydrologic and vegetative monitoring during 2001 at
the Casey Tract Mitigation Site as well as local climate conditions throughout the
growing season.
1.3 Project History
November 1997
January 1998
August 1998
October 1998
October 1999
November 1999
August 2000
November 2000
December 2000
July 2001
March -November 2001
Site Constructed
Site Planted
Monitoring Gauges Installed
Vegetation Monitoring (1 yr.)
Vegetation Monitoring (2 yr.)
Hydrologic Monitoring (1 yr.)
Vegetation Monitoring (3 yr.)
Hydrologic Monitoring (2 yr.)
Open Water Delineated
Vegetation Monitoring (4 yr.)
Hydrologic Monitoring (3 yr.)
2
1.4 Debit Ledger
Casey Tract Mit. Plan
Curntuck Co.
Ratios TIP DEBIT
Habitat Acres at Start: Acres Remaining
FWM Creation 5.5 0 0.00
FWM Preservation 11.9 0 0.00
SPH Preservation 4 0 0.00
Upland Mgmnt 2.4 0 0.00
TOTAL 23.8 0 0.00
*DCM No. 124-95,139-94
Corps Action ID No. 199504770
DWQ No. 2937, 3016
R-2228A,
BA,BB*
5.5
11.9
4
2.4
3
Figure 1
Site Location Map
4
2.0 HYDROLOGY
2.1 Success Criteria
In accordance with federal guidelines for wetland mitigation, the success criteria
for hydrology states that the area must be inundated or saturated (within 12" of
the surface) by surface or groundwater for at least a consecutive 12.5% of the
growing season. Areas inundated for less than 5% of the growing season are
always classified as non-wetlands. Areas inundated between 5% - 12.5% of the
growing season can be classified as wetlands depending upon factors such as
the presence of wetland vegetation and hydric soils.
The growing season in Currituck County begins March 20 and ends November
13. These dates correspond to a 50% probability that temperatures will drop to
28°F or lower after March 20 and before November 13.' The growing season is
239 days; therefore, optimum hydrology requires 12.5% of this season, or at
least 29.88 consecutive days (rounded to 30 days). A consecutive 8% would be
equivalent to 19.12 days (rounded to 19 days) and a consecutive 5% would be
equivalent to 11.95 days (rounded to12 days). Local climate must also
represent average conditions for the area.
2.2 Hydrologic Description
Six groundwater-monitoring gauges, one rain gauge and four surface water
gauges are installed at the Casey Tract (Figure 2). In August 2000, the original
rain gauge was replaced with an Infinity rain gauge. The automatic monitoring
gauges record daily readings of groundwater depth. Three of these
groundwater-monitoring gauges are located within the reference wetland on site.
The Casey Tract site involved the construction of a channel network connected
to Buckskin and Cowells Creeks, which are tributaries to Tull Creek and the
lowering of site elevations to create coastal marsh areas to the elevations of the
coastal marsh Reference Ecosystem areas. In addition, channels were
constructed to form hydrologic connections between the roadside ditches and
the channel in the northern end of the site. This connectivity will allow for tidal
flushing of the constructed coastal marsh. This should provide adequate
hydrologic input from the adjacent creeks, groundwater, and rainfall to sustain
the necessary hydrology for coastal marsh wetland areas. The hydrologic
monitoring should show the reaction of the groundwater and surface water levels
to specific rainfall and tidal events.
' Natural Resources Conservation Service, Soil Survey of Currituck County, North Carolina, p.71.
5
2.3 Results of Hydrologic Monitoring
2.3.1 Site Data
The maximum number of consecutive days that the groundwater was within
twelve inches of the surface was determined for each gauge. This number was
converted into a percentage of the 239-day growing season. The results are
presented in Table 1. Appendix A contains a plot of the groundwater depth for
each monitoring gauge and the surface water depth recorded by the surface
gauges. The maximum number of consecutive days is noted on each graph.
The individual precipitation events, shown on the monitoring well graphs as
bars, represent data collected from the Infinities rain gauge installed on site in
August 2000. Figure 4 represents the hydrologic monitoring results.
Table 1
HYDROLOGIC MONITORING RESULTS
Monitoring -
Gauge < 5% 5%-B% 8%-12.5% 12.5% Actual % Success Dates
MG-1 ? 30.1 May 11-Jul 21
MG-2 ? 53.6 May 12-Set 16
MG-3 ? 0 None
MG-4 RG ? 27.2 May 12-Jul 15
MG-5 RG ? 2.5 Sept 21-Sept 26th
MG-6 RG ? 27.6 May 12-Jul 16
RG refers to the reference gauges located in the reference wetland.
The surface gauges have shown consistent surface water throughout the
growing season. Monitoring gauge 3 is located in the upland area of the site at
the entrance to the site, therefore it would not show hydrologic success at this
elevated location. Monitoring gauge 5, located in the reference wetland,
indicated saturation within 12 inches of the surface for 5 consecutive days. Four
of the six monitoring gauges indicated saturation within 12 inches of the surface
or less for over 30 consecutive days of the growing season.

U
7 9
t ?1 'r`. VVVjjj
d iJ?r
P
a
a
5
ba
t
c"
s
` i

ca
L
O
ca
U
O
J
N
O>
N 'L
O
C3) o
L L -a
rl-
Specific problems encountered during 2001 with the monitoring gauges are
listed below. However, these problems did not affect the hydrologic success of
the site.
SG-2 stopped recording data on September 27, 2001. The gauge was
replaced and programmed to begin recording data on October 3.
SG-4 was found to contain bad data in March 2001. The gauge was
replaced and programmed to record data starting on March 9, 2001.
MG-5 stopped recording data on February 9, 2001. The gauge was reset to
record data starting on March 9, 2001.
2.3.2 Climatic Data
Figure 5 represents an examination of the local climate in comparison with
historical data in order to determine whether 2001 was "average" in terms of
climate conditions. The figure compares the on-site rainfall from 2001 with that
of historical rainfall (data collected between 1946 and 1983). The graph shows
2001 rainfall totals from January 2001 through November 2001, which includes
the growing, season for this site. April, October and November exhibit rainfall
totals well below the average monthly rainfall totals, while January, February,
July and September were slightly below. March, May, June and August were
within the average range.
2.4 Conclusions
2001 represents the third full growing season that the hydrologic data has been
examined. The monitoring gauges on site have shown saturation and inundation
for long periods of time. The monthly rainfall totals are in the average to below
average range. The surface gauges showed periodic inundation from October
20 to November 20 when small amounts of precipitation were recorded. The
surface gauges were recording the wind tide effects from the adjacent creeks.
This is expected from a site built as a coastal marsh.
a
co
C
'S, t y : t 0
11 i
bA` LL=
s
s
r
f
r
? r
? 45
^s n?¢
YAW. Maa
r w..-
"go
noN
It
s
a.
cv
L
m
c
V
L
N
CL
0
ti
0
M
V
R
L
d
U
N
L
330
LL
ides
6ny
0
0
Inf
0
0
co
d
unr
0
c
cu
o-
0
Aew N
AV
Jew
q9A
uer
m co ti Co LO I- M N O
(ui) uoi;e;idpaid
3.0 VEGETATION: CASEY MITIGATION SITE
(YEAR 4 MONITORING)
3.1 Success Criteria
The vegetative marsh success of the wetland site will be determined in
accordance with NMFS Guidelines. Monitoring plots found to be located within
the open water channel will not be evaluated, and will not count toward the final
count of plots. The vegetation component of the wetland site will be deemed
successful if the following criteria are met.
1. At year five, the average of all plots should have a scale value of 5
(75% vegetative cover) consisting of wetland herbaceous species, not
including any invasive species.
2. A minimum of 70% of the plots shall contain the target (planted)
species.
3.2 Description of Species
The following marsh grass species were planted in the Wetland Restoration
Area:
Zone 1: (0.63 acres)
Juncus effusus, Common Rush
Scirpus cyperinus, Woolgrass
Zone 2: (2.83 acres)
Cladium jamaicense, Saw Grass
Spartina cynosuroides, Giant Cordgrass
Ii
3.3 Results of Vegetation Monitoring
Random Plots

ia .y
use:
Not
I 2.0 Black 2rass. mar weed Y' water

3 3.0
J
!
?

Foltis
r
0 Willow-
ir r tAster
- 5.0 J ! ? Bl.rk Iw
0 Black Willow PtIli 'u rn rr r '
p J ? J
? ! Cattail Smartweed Black grass, Goldenrod
! J

I I en water
12 Oven water
13 Oven water
14 Onen water
15 5.0 J ? Bald ress Black Willow. Lobllolv ine Juncus acaminat"s
16 5,0 ? ? Cattail. Smartweed Black rass Goldenrod S. atrovirens
17 5.0 ? J Cattail
18 5.0 J ? !
Cattaol w
19 p J ? !
p J ! Baldcypress- Black w Smartweed
J ?
p ! ? ? Fennel- Red Maple
Open water
24 5.0 Goldenrod
2 en water
26 en water
27 5.0 J J !
Cattail, Black w Scirous %D-
28 ! ! ! i h li i l'
29 5.0 J ! ? Catta6l. Smartweed-
Jancus so.
30 Open water
31 4.0 J ? J Smartweed- i v'r rs
32 ODen water
J ? ?
Aster
so.- Black ?rass
34 5 0 J ? t
v
Raeweed- Aster so.. Cattail
15 One. water
36 5.0 J ? Cattail, Asters Juncus tenuts
37 5.0 J ! Wax Mr tle Fennel Jutrcus s Sesbania So.
38 5.0 J J Cattail. Smartweed atrovirens Black grass. Scir us so.
39 5.0 J ? Bac haris halimi olia
40 en water
41 5.0 J ? martweed Eleocharis so.
42 5.0 ! ? Asters .Iris Prilimniums Juncus eradi
43 50
J
!
J Uimnitim so.- Smartweed
J !
45 l open water

Site Notes: Marsh grasses are present throughout the site. Coverage has
increased since last year's monitoring.
atus
12

? !
47 0- w.te

48
5.0 ? ! J
Ptilimnh-,
49 Onen water

50
5.0 J ! J
Prili-h- S.-t-d

S)
SA) ? J ?
52 5A)
!
J
J artweed
53 q J J !
54 4.0
J
! Smartweed- June-
55
56 5.0
J
?
!
J !
58 5.0
J
?
J
J
Ii
59 Onen water
60 Onen water
J J J
J ?
63 O.e. -are,
64
65
? J
67 5A
!
!
J
...
Ph--ites
? J ! J
69 O.e. water
70 Onen water
J ? ! J
! !
73 0-n -Ie
74 Open water
75 Onen water
7
77 50 ! J !
79 Onen water

79 J J
lass
J J J

4

V
214.0

3.4 Conclusions
Percent Frequency of Target Species (Common Rush, Woolgrass, Saw grass
and Giant Cordgrass) 94.1%
Frequency of 70% required.
Vegetative Cover Scale Value 4.59
Scale Value of 5 required for year 5.
Approximately 3.5 acres of this site involved marsh grass plantings. The
vegetative coverage does not meet the success criteria; however, the coverage
continued to increase and is on track for the fourth year of monitoring. The
percent frequency of target species exceeds the minimum requirement, and the
percent coverage continues to increase.
13
4.0 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
In the third full year of monitoring, eight of ten monitoring gauges indicated
saturation for more than 12.5% of the growing season. The NCDOT
recommends removing monitoring gauge 3 (less than 5% hydrologic success)
from the site due to its location in the upland portion of the site. Vegetation
monitoring yielded a percent frequency of target specie of 94.1 %.
Hydrologic monitoring will continue for a fourth year, and vegetation monitoring
will continue for a fifth year in 2002 at the Casey Tract Mitigation Site.
14
APPENDIX A
DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER PLOT
15
a?
ca
C?
c
•L
O
c
O
v
ca
L
F-
m
V)
U
(ul) uol;e;idioaad
LO LO LO
N N -. - O O
6O-AOWU
6O-AON-6Z
GO-AOW 6
6O-AOWSO
W-130-8Z
10-130-OZ
W-130-Z6 6
60-130-VO
60-daS-9Z
60-&S-q6
60-&S-O l
60-&S-ZO
60-6nV-SZ
lO-gnV-L l
1O-6nV-60
60-6nV-60
l0-Inf-VZ
6O-Inf-%
6O-Inf-80
6O-unf -0£
6O-unf-ZZ
6O-unf -V[
6O-unf-90
6O-AgN-U
lO-AgNgZ
60 huv 6
w-hw-SO
lO-AV-LZ
6O-AV-66
lO-adV-6 6
6O-AV-£0
WRTY-9Z
m
f0
0
C-
a?
I
CD
LL
(2
N
U)
C7
C
co
o%
1
V'
LO o LO O Ln C) Ln C) LO O LO
N N ch ch V
(°uI) aa}ennpunoaE) o; yjdaa
N
CD
O
CO
G
y.+
V
ca
L
H
O
ca
U
(ui) uoi;e;idiDOJd
Lq Lq LO
N N 6 0
LO-AON-6Z
LO-^ON-LZ
LO-noN-£ L
LO-AON-90
LO-PO-8Z
LO-130-OZ
LO-130-Z L
LO-1a010
L0-&S-9Z
LO-deS-8 L
LO-daS-O L
LO-daS-ZO
L0-6nV-SZ
LO-6nd-LL
LO-6nd-60
LO.6n`d-LO
LO-Inf-VZ
LO-Inf -9L
LO-Inr-80
LO-unf-0£
L0-unf-ZZ
LO-unf-vL
LO-unf-90
LO-AeW-6Z
LO-AeW-v
LO-AeW-£ L
LO-AeW-SO
LO-AV-LZ
Lo-AV-6L
LO-add-L L
LO-AV-£0
LO-JEW-9Z
a
a?
0
a)
N
U
2i
ca
w
C
o'
1
I'-
LO C) LO o LO C) LIB (D LO o LO
N N ch M
(-ui) aa;ennpunoaE) of y;daQ
M
a?
R
0
m
C
L-
0
.C
O
U
R
O
0
(ul) uol;e;ldloaad
LO LO LO
CV N r- -- O O
LO-AOWE
L O-AOW LZ
60-^o N-£ L
60-noN-SO
LO-100-9Z
LO-300-OZ
L 0-PO-Z L
LO-100-VO
LO-daS-9Z
L O-&S-9 L
LO-&S-OL
LO-daS-ZO
LO.6nV-SZ
L0-6nV-LL
LO-6nd-60
60-6ntl-LO
LO-Inf-VZ
LO-Inf-9L
LO-Inf-90
LO-unf -0£
LO-unf -ZZ
LO-unf -V6
LO-unr-90
LO-AeW-6Z
LO-AeW-LZ
LO-AeW-£L
LO-AeW-SO
LO-jdV-LZ
LO-jdd-6 L
LO-jdVg6
LO-add-£0
LO-Jew-9Z
I-
w
w
co
w N
1C CO
? N
co
m
C
1

LO o m o LO C) LO o LO (D LO
N N M (h V V
(•ul) jolennpunoaE) o; y;dea
ca
C
L-
0
O
C.1
ca
L
m
ca
U
(uI) uolje;Idlaaad
LO L
N N r- ?--• O O
LO-AON-6Z
LO-AOW LZ
L 0-noN-£ L
LO-AON-SO
LO-Po-oz
LO-430-OZ
LO-100-Z L
LO-130-VO
LO-doS-9Z
LO-doS-8 L
LO-diS-O L
LO-doS-ZO
L0-6ny-SZ
L 0-6nd-L L
LO-6ny-60
L0-6ntl-LO
LO-Inf -bZ
LO-Inf-9L
LO-Inf-80
LO-unf-0£
LO-unf-ZZ
LO-unf-bL
LO-unf-90
LO-ALW-6Z
whw-LZ
LO-hw L
LO hlwsO
LO-jdV-LZ
L O-AV-6 L
LO-add-L L
LO-AV-£0
LO-aeW-9Z
m
R
0
L
a?
LO
N
CO
N
d'
C7
?a
c
m
ry
1
o?
LO o to o LO o LO C) U') CD LO
.-• N N M M VS' V
(-uI) aaaempunojE) o; yjdaa
CD
tC
C
L
O
F+
.E
0
v
F-
d
R
U
(ui) uoi;epoloald
LO
N N c e- O O
LO-AO WR
LO-AOW V
LO-AO N-£L
LO-AOWSO
LO-130-OZ
LO-13O-OZ
WPO-Z L
LO-130-VO
LO-daS-9Z
Lo-dos-8L
LO-daS-OL
LO-&S-ZO
LO-Bnd-SZ
LO.6ny-LL
LO-Bnd-60
LO-6n`d-LO
LO-Inr.vz
LO-Inf-%
LO-Inf-80
LO-unr-0£
LO-unr-ZZ
LO-unf -n
LO-unf-90
LO-AeW-6Z
LO-AeW-LZ
mhw-£ L
LO-AeW-SO
LO-AV-LZ
LO-Jdd-6 L
LO-Jdy- LL
LO-AV-£O
LO-JEW-9Z

6
a>
o!
Q o
CO N
N
?
co
? N
LO
C?
m
c
. Fa
Of
1
In O O LO O O LO C? LO
N D M V V
(•uI) Jalennpunoa!D of y;daa
(uI) uoilelldl39ad
LO LO LO
N N <- . O O
T
O
ca
of
c
•L
O
c
O
u
p
H
O
N
ca
U
lO-AON-6Z
6O-AOW 6Z
6O-noN-£ l
l0-AON-SO
60-100-92
60-100-OZ
60-100-2 6
10-130-VO
60-&S-9Z
6o-&S-q6
60-&S-O[
60-&S-ZO
60-6ny-SZ
60-6nV-L6
60-6ntl-60
60-6nV 60
60-Inrtz
60-Inf-96
60-Inf-90
60-unf-0£
60-unf-ZZ
60-unf-n
60-unf-90
6O-AM-6Z
whw-6Z
whw-£ 6
w-Am-SO
60-AV-LZ
6 0-AV-6 6
60-ad`d- 6 6
60-AV-£0
60-RIW-9Z
a?
0

C7
cu
c
o%
1
N
LO CD LO Q Lf) CD LO CD U') CD U')
.- r N N C7 M
(•ui) ,aalennpunoaE) of ylda4
P
6
vI
W
ca
V
0)
V
m
It
N
V
p
L
H
as
ca
U
LO-AOWE
LO-noN-LZ
LO-^ON-£L
LO-AOWSO
W.Polz
LO-430-OZ
LO-100-Z L
LO-Polo
LO-&S-9Z
Lo-&S-SL
LO-&S-O L
L0-&S-ZO
LO-6nV-SZ
L0-6n`d-L L
LO-6nV-60
LO-6n`d-LO
LO-Inr-VZ
LO-Inf-9L
LO-Inf-so
LO-unf-0£
LO-unf-ZZ
LO-unf-n
LO-unf-90
LO-AeW-6Z
LO-AeW-v
LO-AeW-£ L
LO-AeW-SO
LO-jdd-LZ
LO-AV-6L
LO-add- L L
LO-AV-£0
LO-JeW-9Z
m
0
v
00
w
0
CD
U)
a?
a?
U
cII
U)
I

CD to o LO o LO CD
M N N
('u!) ylda(5 JaleM aoepnS
N
m
ca
0
m
v
R
ca
L
F-
U
I
Co LO
Cl) N
CD LC) CD Lo
N c
(•uI) u;da® .ialeM aoelinS
LO-AOWU
LO-noN-LZ
LO-nON-£ L
LO-AOWSO
LO-3aO-9Z
WIDO-OZ
LO-130-Z L
LO-IaO-b0
LO-daS-9Z
Lo-&S-SL
L0-&S-O L
LO-daS-ZO
LO.6nV-SZ
LO.6nd-L L
LO.6nd-60
LO-6nb-LO
LO-Inf-VZ
LO-Inf -9L
LO-Inf-80
LO-unf-0£
LO-unf-ZZ
LO-unf-V L
LO-unf-9O
LO-AeW-6Z
LO-AeW-LZ
LO-AeW-£ L
LO-AeW-SO
L O-AV-LZ
LO-jdd-6 L
LO-AV-L L
LOAV-£0
LO-jeW-9Z
0
d
w
ns
0
m
c?
r>
N
CO
N
N
C?
U)
r
a>
0
L
a>
ca
a>
U
(6
co
M
N
IT
0
N
m
cc
Cl)
C)
r
cc
fJ
LO-AON-6Z
LO-n®N-LZ
LO-^ON-£L
LO-noN-90
LO-130-8Z
LO-130-OZ
W -430-U
L
W-130-to
LO-daS-9Z
LO-daS-8 L
LO-daS-OL
LO-daS-ZO
LO-End-SZ
LO-6nd-LL
LO-6nd-60
LO.6n`d-LO
LO-Inr.vz
L0-Inf-9L
LO-Inf-80
LO-unf-0£
LO-unf-ZZ
LO-unr-n
40-unf-90
WA WE
LO-hw-LZ
whw-£ L
LO-.AeW-50
LO-JdV-LZ
LO-Jdd-64
LO-Jdd- L L
LO-JdV-£0
LO-JeW-9Z
m
R
0
Cl)
00
Ll
M
Cl)
6
U)
Z;_
a?
m
co
a?
U
m
D
U)
I
N
CD LO o to o Lo c?
co N N
(-uI) y;da® njuM aoe}LnS
C?
U)
3
C)
U)
L)
L
d
«s
U
LO-oa(1-VO
L O-AOWSZ
LO-noN-9 L
LO-^ON-LO
LO-10O-6Z
LO-10O-OZ
W-100- L L
L 0-P0-ZO
LO-daS-£Z
LO-daS-bL
LO-daS-90
LO-Bny-LZ
LO-6ny-8 L
LO-find-60
LO-Inf-L£
LO-Inf-ZZ
LO-Inf -£ L
LO-Inf-b0
LO-unf -SZ
L 0-u n r-9 L
L O-u n f-LO
LO-AEN-6Z
LO-AeW-OZ
LO-AeW- LL
LO-AeIN-ZO
LO-Jdy-£Z
L 0-AV-y L
LO-Jdy-SO
LO-JeW-LZ
m
v
c?
U
m
't
N
CD U') CD Lo C)
M N N .n o ?
(uI) yadea aaleM aoepnS
Photo I

ti
44,
Photo 2
+6 ?r,
k
r

Photo 4
Photo 5 Photo 6

l4 ( ?
! k
n 1 7?,
°?•, .? ??.'4 .fir 5 :? 3-:;
Photo 7
Photo 8
28
i

?i.
c
a
m
v
C04
w1i
V
a
?s

r'
'''
l
CL-
le
4

,
r

{

L
LL
µSTNFo
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
April 7, 2003
Mr. Doug Huggett
Division of Coastal Management
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611-7687

LYNDO TIPPETT
SECI?
ZIP', 19
lJ?
sFc?
Re: Casey Mitigation Site, Currituck County, State Project No. 6.049001 T,
TIP No. R-2228, CAMA Permit No. 132-94 No, USACE Action ID No. 199504770
Dear Mr. Huggett,
As you are aware, the Department has monitored the Casey Mitigation Site since its
construction in November 1997. Located in Currituck County, the site provides
approximately 24 acres of creation of coastal marsh wetland and the preservation of
forested wetlands and forested upland areas. The site is designed to mitigate for the
widening of NC 168. The site was first monitored for vegetation in 1998. In August of
1998, NCDOT installed monitoring gauges to be. used for hydrologic monitoring.
NCDOT has been monitoring Casey Mitigation Site for vegetation for 5 consecutive
years, while monitoring hydrology for 4 consecutive years. After each growing season,
annual monitoring reports were submitted to the appropriate regulatory agencies.
Hydrologic success criteria stipulated that the site must be inundated or saturated within
12-inches of the surface for a minimum of a consecutive 12.5% of the growing season.
Thus for the 239-day growing season in Currituck County, the criteria is a consecutive 30
days. Table 1 provides a summary of the hydrologic data (the percentage of the growing
season that saturation was indicated) at each groundwater gauge location for the past four
years of monitoring. The surface water gauge indicated the consistent presence of surface
water throughout each growing season; data from this gauge is not included here.
As the summary data indicates, the site has been consistently inundated or saturated for
the majority of each growing season since the site was constructed. All gauges met the
success criteria of 12.5% with the exceptions of gauges 6 and 8. Gauge 6 is located on
upland, and Gauge 8 is located on a berm behind the site. The region has experienced
several years of average rainfall totals with some exceptions. A more detailed analysis of
site hydrologic conditions is provided within each individual annual monitoring report.
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] PARKER LINCOLN BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 2728 CAPITAL BOULEVARD
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE. WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE. NC.US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1598
Because areas of the site are dominated by surface water input, three of the original
groundwater monitoring gauges (CT-2, 3, and 5) were placed with half of the gauge
below the ground surface and half of the. gauge above ground.
Tahle I. Summarv of Hvdrologic Monitorina Data. 1999-2002
Monitoring '
Gauge 1999
Results 2000
Results 2001
Results 2002
Results
CT-1 20.0 83.3 30.1 53.6
CT-2 S) 55.2 * * 100
CT-3 S) 21.8 * * 100
CT4 21.8 91.2 53.6 39.3 .
CT-5 (S 87.4 * * 76.2
CTCW-6 0 A 0 .42
CTCW-7 33.5 , 87.4 27.2 38.9
CTCW-8 3.3 7.9 2.5 3.4'
CTCW-9 31.0 89.5 27.6 38.9
Climate
Conditions Average
Rainfall Average
to above
average
rainfall Below
average
rainfall Above
average
Rainfall
* During 2000-2001, these gauges were recorded as surface gauges and there is no % data
recorded for this period, however the gauges showed consistent presence of surface water
throughout the growing season.
NOTES: "S" refers to combined surface water/groundwater monitoring gauges.
"CTCW" refers to gauges in reference areas.
After five years of vegetation monitoring, the site has met the percent frequency of target
species at 73.3%, which is above the 70% requirement. The planted area is well within
the 75% vegetative cover requirement and revealed a scale value of 4.23. The only
vegetation problems noted over the past five seasons were excessive flooding caused by
Hurricane Floyd in 1999. Yearly monitoring data is provided within the annual
monitoring reports submitted between 1998 and 2002.
NCDOT and USAGE agreed that Casey Mitigation Site could possibly be closed and that
monitoring could be discontinued after an agency site visit. It is understood that USACE
will set up this meeting with the appropriate agencies to evaluate the success of the site
and the possibility of closing the Casey Mitigation Site. If all agencies agree after the site
visit, NCDOT requests that the appropriate resource agencies provide documentation
stating that no further monitoring is required and that the site is closed. If you have any
questions about this project, please contact Mr. Randy Griffin at [phone]. Thank
you for your continued support and cooperation.
Sincerely,
Philip S. arris, III, P.E., Manager
PDEA- Office of Natural Environment
cc: file
Mr. Mike Bell, USACE
Mr. David Franklin, USACE
Mr. John Hennessy, NCDWQ
Mr. Travis. Wilson, NCWRC
Mr. Randy Griffin, NCDOT-PDEA
Mr. David Harris, NCDOT- REU
Mr. Tommy Douglas, NCDOT- Geotechnical Unit

1