19960987 Ver 1_Mitigation Information_20071201

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2007
Cedar Point Mitigation Site
ss
Carteret County
TIP No. R-2105 AB 0n1,i/,- /wi?iC??€e- .
v
Prepared By:
Natural Environment Unit & Roadside Environmental Unit
North Carolina Department of Transportation
December 2007
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 ................................................................................................. 7
2.4 Conclusions .........................................................................................................7
3.0 VEGETATION ........................................................................................................ 8
3.1 Success Criteria ................................................................:................................. 8
3.2 Description of Species ......................................................................................... 8
3.3 Results of Vegetation Monitoring ......................................................................... 9
3.4 Conclusions ............................................................................:..........................10
4.0 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS/ RECOMMENDATIONS .........................................10
FIGURES
Figure 1. Site Location Map ............................................................................................ 3
Figure 2. Gauge Location Map ........................................................................................ 5
Figure 3. Plot of Daily Flooding Pattern ...........................................................................6
TABLES
Table 1. Vegetation Monitoring Results .......................................................................... 9
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A. GAUGE DATA GRAPHS
APPENDIX B. SITE PHOTOS AND PHOTO AND PLOT LOCATIONS MAP
SUMMARY
The Cedar Point Mitigation Site, located in Carteret County, serves as mitigation for
marsh impacts within the White Oak River Basin. Located adjacent to NC 24, the site
was constructed in 2002 and is in its sixth year of hydrology and fifth'year of vegetation
monitoring following construction. The site was monitored in 2007 for both hydrologic
and vegetation success.
Hydrologic monitoring consisted of examining the data from two onsite surface gauges.
The primary hydrologic input is surface water from an onsite channel that is connected
to open water. Therefore, the hydrologic success criteria are based on site flooding.
The site must flood with the same frequency and duration as adjacent marsh systems.
The sixth year of hydrology monitoring indicates that the. Cedar Point Mitigation Site is
functioning as planned. The surface gauges indicate that the site is being flooded twice
daily during the growing season. An examination of the water levels over a two-day
period (Figure 3) illustrated that the hydrologic success criteria has been met.
The site was tilled and replanted in May of 2003. Vegetation on site has improved
greatly as seen in the photos. Frequency and coverage are on track for the fifth year of
monitoring. Spartina alterniflora is coming in naturally throughout the site.
Based on the hydrologic monitoring, the Cedar Point Mitigation Site met the success
criteria for the site during the 2007-growing season. The site has demonstrated
hydrologic success for six consecutive years. NCDOT proposes to discontinue
hydrology and vegetation monitoring for the Cedar Point Mitigation Site.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Description
The Cedar Point Mitigation Site is located in Carteret County adjacent to both NC 24
and the White Oak River (Figure 1). The site was designed as an, emergent marsh. A
constructed channel within the site promotes tidal exchange within the mitigation area.
1.2 Purpose
In order to demonstrate successful mitigation, both the hydrologic and vegetation
conditions of the new site must be monitored. This report details the hydrologic and
vegetation monitoring on the Cedar Point Mitigation Site in 2007; this is the sixth year
for hydrology monitoring and fifth year of vegetation monitoring following construction.
1.3 Project History
March-May 2002
May 2002
June 2002
June-December 2002
August 2002
May 2003
March-November 2003
August 2003
March-November 2004
July 2004
March-November 2005
August 2005Veg
March-November 2006
June 2006
March-November 2007
June 2007

Site Construction
Site Planted
Surface Gauges Installed
Hydrologic Monitoring (Year 1)
Vegetation Monitoring (Year 1)
Site Tilled and Supplemental Planting
Hydrologic Monitoring (Year 2)
Vegetation Monitoring (Year 1 Restart)
Hydrologic Monitoring (Year 3)
Vegetation Monitoring (Year 2)
Hydrologic Monitoring (Year 4)
tation Monitoring (Year 3)
Hydrologic Monitoring (Year 5)
Vegetation Monitoring (Year 4)
Hydrologic Monitoring (Year 6)
Vegetation Monitoring (Year 5)
2
M
Q
C?
G
C
O
yr
cu
U
O
J
O
U)
r
d
L
LL
2.0 HYDROLOGY
2.1 Success Criteria
Mitigation sites are often monitored according to federal wetland hydrology criteria,
however, NCDOT and cooperating agencies decided that the Cedar Point Mitigation
Site should be evaluated using different criteria. This is due to the site being located on
the coast and it receives its primary hydrologic input from an onsite channel that is
connected to open water. The site's flooding regime, if it is consistent with that outside
of the mitigation area, will determine hydrologic success. The site must be flooded twice
daily and have the same elevation and duration as flooding outside of the mitigation
area in order to be considered successful. The site will be monitored for three years or
until success criteria are met. Local rainfall is monitored to ensure site success in
average local climate conditions, though rainfall is not the primary hydrologic input.
2.2 Hydrologic Description
Due to the site's proximity to the White Oak River, as well as the constructed channel
designed to increase tidal exchange, the Cedar Point Site is monitored by surface water
gauges (Figure 2). These gauges should indicate if the site is flooded twice daily as is
required for success. The flooding regime of the site is expected to be the same as that
measured for the biological benchmarks for Spartina alterniflora, since it can reflect
long-term tidal fluctuations. A rain gauge was not installed as surface water is the
primary hydrologic input to this site.
2.3 . Results of Hydrologic Monitoring
2.3.1 Site Data
Appendix A contains plots of data recorded at both of the surface gauges on the site.
The plots show the depth of surface water recorded by each gauge.
Figure 3 is a surface water plot of the data recorded at both gauges over a two-day
period. This figure illustrates that flooding occurs twice daily as required in the permit
conditions. The two days in the plot were chosen at random and are representative of
conditions throughout the growing season.

r
^a Ty??? Figure 2: Gauge Location Map
.? q
'y
t 0 Surf ce Gauge r i:xh cquats I(W ko
.. IN) StT 0 160
OF Ti2A
- Now" F'cct
5
c
N
^cu
I..L
c
0
0
LL
-ca
D
O
O
CL
M
L
69:69:ZZ
69:69:OZ
I
69:69:81
o - 69:69:91
N ? ?C
j 69:69:b1
v
j L 69569:Z1
(n Cc] i 69:69:01
f 69:69:80
69:69:90
N j yA.. 69:69:170 0
9 69:69:ZO C)
696900 E
v
----------------------- =------------------1
69:69:ZZ
N
= p 69:69:OZ U
d L 1
69:69:81 I
.a
69:69:96
U
CD -E
A a 69:69:tit
0 69:695Z 1
m 1 69:69:01
69:69:80
69:69:90
69:69:110
69:69:ZO
_r -
69:69:00
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
o LQ o LQ o LQ o
ri N 6Z OAVN ('l1) uoi;enal3 0 0
onjl
110
LL

2.3.2 Climatic Data
Precipitation is not the primary hydrologic input for the site; therefore, it is expected that
the site would show the required flooding regardless of area rainfall totals.
2.4 Conclusions
The surface gauges indicate that the site is being flooded. twice daily during the growing
season. An examination of the water levels over a two-day period (Figure 3) illustrates
that the site floods twice daily under average climatic conditions. The two days in the
plot were chosen at random and are representative of typical conditions during the
growing season.
This is the sixth consecutive year that the site hydrology has met the success criteria;.
therefore, NCDOT proposes to discontinue hydrologic monitoring.
7
3.0 VEGETATION: CEDAR POINT MITIGATION SITE
(YEAR 5 MONITORING)
3.1 Success Criteria
The site will be considered a success if the calculated value for frequency is 5.0 and the
calculated value for average percent cover is at least 80% by the end of the fifth
growing season.
3.2 Description of Species
The following species were planted in the Wetland Restoration Area:
Spartina alterniflora, Smooth Cordgrass
Spartina patens, Salt Meadow Hay
s
3.3 Results of Vegetation Monitoring
Table 1. Veaetation Monitorina Results

k
a

L
w
V
t6
y
v)
C
•I?r
W
Q
M
C
vii 0

?
i
.

vai

1

7
U.

N

C

E
ci
1 5.0 ? ?
2 5.0 ? ? Marsh-elder
3 5.0 ? ? Glasswort
4 5.0 J ? Glasswort
5 Open Water
6 Open Water
7 4.0 ? ? Nlarsh•elder
8 5.0 ? ' ?
9 Open Water
10 5.0 ? ?
11 5.0 ? J GlaswM
12 4.0 ? ? Glasswort
13 4.0 ? J
14 5.0 ? ?
15 5.0 ? J ?
16 5.0 ? ?
17 2.0 J J
18 5.0 ? ?
19 5.0 ? ? Marsh-elder
20 3.0 ? J
21 5.0 J ? GlaswAxt
22 2.0 ? J Glasswort
23 2.0 J ?. GlaswM
24 2.0 ? ?
25 4.0 J ?
26 3.0 ? ?
27 3.0 ? ?
28 5.0 ? J
29 1.0 ? ? Glasswort
30 3.0 ? ?

Frequency (Peroentage of Plot s 100.0°/a
with Desired Species)
Sum Scale Value 107.0
Total Number at Plots 27
V alive Cover Scale Value 4

Site Notes: Other species noted: glasswort and marsh-elder. Site was monitored during high tide.
9
3.4 Conclusions
Percent Frequency of Target Species 100%
Frequency of 80% required for year 5.
Vegetative Cover Scale Value 4
Scale Value of 5 required for year 5.
The site was tilled and replanted in May of 2003. Vegetation on site has improved
greatly as seen in the photos. Frequency and coverage are on track for the fifth year of
monitoring. Spartina alterniflora is coming in naturally throughout the site.
NCDOT proposes to discontinue vegetation monitoring at the Cedar Point Mitigation
Site.
4.0 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS/ RECOMMENDATIONS
The sixth year of hydrology monitoring indicates that the Cedar Point Mitigation Site is
functioning as planned. The surface gauges indicate the site is being flooded twice
daily during the growing season. An examination of the water levels over a two-day
period (Figure 3) illustrates the site is flooding twice daily under normal conditions. The
two days in the plot were chosen at random and represent typical conditions during the
growing season.
The site was tilled and replanted in May of 2003. Vegetation on site has improved
greatly as seen in the photos. Frequency and coverage are on track for the fifth year of
vegetation monitoring. Spartina alterniflora is recruiting naturally into the site.
The site does not technically meet the vegetation success criteria scale value of 5. The
site is however functioning as a coastal marsh as designed.
Based on hydrologic and vegetative monitoring, the Cedar Point Mitigation Site met the
success criteria for the site during the 2007-growing season. The site has
demonstrated hydrologic success for six consecutive years and vegetation success for
five years. NCDOT proposes to discontinue hydrology and vegetation monitoring at the
Cedar Point Mitigation Site.
10
APPENDIX B
SITE PHOTOS AND
PHOTO AND PLOT LOCATIONS MAP

Cedar Point
T ?

1.- i
f tis y
II

Photo 1
1
41
Photo 5
July 2007
• y
Photo 2
Photo 4

CEDAR POINT MITIGATION SITE
2007 Photo, and Random/
Plot Locations
18
fi 12
2.2
20
5
P
2
56 B
7
PHOTO LOCATIONS 14
RANDOM PLOT LOCATIONS 3 2 I
P
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project / Site: Cedar Point Mitigation Site Date: 6-5-08
Applicant / Owner: NCDOT County: Carteret
Investigator: M. Worth Calfee State: NC
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes X No . Community ID: Wet
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes No _X Transect ID: 1
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No X Plot ID: Wet Form 1
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Spartina alterniflora Herb OBL 9.
2. Salicornia depressa Herb OBL 10.
3. 11.
4. 12.
5. 13.
6. 14.
7.. 15.
8.. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). % 100
Remarks:
salt marsh community
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs. Primary Indicators:
Other X Inundated
X Saturated in Upper 12"
X No Recorded Data Available Water Marks
_ Drift.Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits
x Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: 14 (in.) Secondary Indicators:

Depth to Free Water in Pit: Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: 0 (in.) x FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
SOILS
-
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Carteret sand Drainage Class:_ ygry poorly drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): thermic Typic Psammaquents Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No X
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) ( Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-2 A IOYR 2/1 mucky sand
2-6 B 1 l OYR 4/3 coarse sand / shells
6-18+ B2 10YR 2/1 Gley 13/5gy_ common sandy clay
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon X High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
x Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
x Aquic Moisture Regime Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
x Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes X No
Is the Sampling Point
Within a Wetland? Yes X No
Remarks:
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project / Site: Cedar Point Mitigation Site Date: 6-5-08
Applicant / Owner: NCDOT County: Carteret
Investigator: M. Worth Calfee State: NC
Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes X No Community ID:unland
is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes No _X Transect ID: 1
Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No X Plot ID: UP Form I
(explain on reverse if needed)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Mvrica cerifera Shrub FAC+ 9.
2. Iva fi urescens Shrub FACW+ 10.
3.Spartina patens Herb FACW 11.
4. 12.
5. 13.
6. 14.
7.. 15.
8.. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). % 100
Remarks:
Hummock species in salt marsh
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
- Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators:
Other _ Inundated
-Saturated in Upper 12"
X No Recorded Data Available _ Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: _ Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: none (in.) Secondary Indicators:
Depth to Free Water in Pit: >20 (in:) Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Water-Stained Leaves

Depth to Saturated Soil: 18 (in.) Local Soil Survey Data
x FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Spoil area
SOILS

Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Carteret sand Drainage Class:_ very poorly drained
Taxonomy (Subgroup): thermic T is Psamma uents Confirm Mapped Type? Yes_ No X
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors
i (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure. etc.
0-12 A (fill) 10YR 5/6 medium sand
12-20 B 10YR 6/3 fine sand
I Hydric Soil Indicators:
i
_ Histosol _ Concretions
_ Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Solis
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gieyed or Law-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
No Hydric indicators in sandy soil
i

I
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No X
Is the Sampling Point
Within a Wetland? Yes_ No X
Remarks:
O? 0.9 QV p O,Z
- _ ?- - - 31V3S OIHdVH`J
bZ ApH ON
Y
m I E
n
7w1mO lD 77m / , ? 1 °fm"'wv u'"'aawmi s mwm'?nn
L ? , / ? j \ ?.wx on oc+n .on meal
Yn S1,Bl1 O a11w lA TMI° WTY
/ e
,k 1 a .
OD Z9L'0 UOI-? D61-E1W -?eN
OD 8£0'0 S-.ODdwl -?uaUDwJad
OD 08.0 UO)+DJO-?SGH 1D+01
(Dlnsuiua(j 6ulPnloul)
0D Zb'0 UOI-.DJO+sad UsJDw u61H
OD 8£'0 UOI-?D-.JO?SG?j I.ISJDVI M01
' (J2+DM)1DAJ8 6U1Pnloul)
OD OZ'£I Ja4DM Uado/gSJDw 664S1x3
OD b£ 0 pUDldn
SN01118N00 NOIIV2JO1S3a 1SOd
OD b£'bl
' a4-1S :.O 9Z1S ID-?ol
OD OZ
£1 Je-?DM uedo/gSJDW 6U4SIx3
OD bl'I (Dinsuluad 6Ulpnloul) pUDldn
SNOI118N00 NOI-CvdolS383b4
311S NOIIVOIIIW 1NIOd 8V030
G 1V3HV NOI1V80IS3d HS8VW
age .'k \ o
Nlk
ryl \ \
of ,0?? \ \ \ \\ • -
I a ?\ \
®\ 41'0 'ham°'d'///
Is' l - _ gym.°' \ I \
ONiddVn NOUVIN 1Ia iSOd \/8 Idd \
IIIS NOUVO11IW 1N Od dVG-?D \
I

II
•_______ __________ ----
(0330) iN 1
M. £ b. £ f N - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -?
1