NCDOT 7-98 Mashoe Rd Mitigation Site

' DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
4-(--,.- -F, 7 % WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
`, i P.O.BOX 1890
�, WILMINGTON,NORTH CAROLINA28402-1890
,. RECT.WED
sf.ii,o, IN REPLY REFER TO April 13, 2006
Regulatory Division APR 2006
DIV.OF COM: M4NAGEME
KI
Action ID No. 199502334 RALErf.H
Dr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director, PDEA
N.C. Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh,North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
Reference the Department of the Army(DA)permit issued to you on March 5, 1998,
associated with the widening of approximately 10 miles of U.S. Highway 64-264, including
constructing a new bridge over the Croatan Sound and adjacent marshes, from US Highway 64-
264 west of Manns Harbor to NC 345 south of Manteo, in Dare County,North Carolina(TIP No.
R-2552, Federal Aid Project No.NHF-64(6), State Project No. 8.T051401). Also reference your
subsequent written request dated March 23, 2006, for a permit modification to modify the
requirements of special condition e. in the USACE permit to you described above.
The original special condition(e)required that mitigation work for marsh and non-
riverine bottomland hardwood wetlands be undertaken at the Mashoes Road mitigation site
pursuant to the plan entitled"Mitigation Plan, Mashoes Road Mitigation Site." The Mashoes
Road mitigation plan had previously stated that a 0%tolerance for Phragmites australis would
be allowed in the coastal marsh site following construction. As indicated in the yearly
monitoring reports,Phragmites has been treated at the site yearly and NCDOT has made every
effort possible to control the spread of Phragmites throughout the site. Your modification
request proposes that we eliminate the 0%tolerance requirement for Phragmites.
In association with this proposal,the land and waters of the Mashoes Road Mitigation
Site will be transferred to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) as part of the project
mitigation plan and will be integrated into the overall refuge lands system as part of the Alligator
River National Wildlife Refuge. These lands will be subject to management actions that will
provide the highest quality natural wildlife habitat possible. Management actions which will be
used by the FWS include,but are not restricted to,use of prescribed fire to mimic natural fire
regimes and control of invasive and exotic species such as Phragmites. The FWS will see that
the lands of the Mashoes Road Mitigation Site will be maintained and managed under the
mission and purpose statement of the National Wildlife Refuge System.

The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System is to administer a national network of lands
and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish,
wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present
and future generations of Americans.
On August 9, 2005, an interagency site visit to the Mashoes Road Mitigation Site was
attended by staff from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE),North Carolina Department
of Transportation(NCDOT),North Carolina Division of Coastal Management(CAMA),
Ecosystem Enhancement Program(EEP),North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
(WRC),U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), Environmental Protection Agency(EPA), and
the North Carolina Division of Water Quality(DWQ). At that time, all the agencies except for
DCM were in agreement that the mitigation site had met its goals and success criteria and that
the site could be considered closed and that no further monitoring shall be required. DCM by
letter dated February 17, 2006 agreed that based on the FWS statement of management intent for
the site that upon transfer to the FWS the area would no longer need to be monitored and they
would except the mitigation as a special exception due to the FWS demonstrated interest in
acquiring the site, including control of Phragmites, and their success in controlling Phragmites
in similar adjacent areas.
This modification request was coordinated with the appropriate State and Federal
agencies and the coordination revealed no objections to this modification request. Therefore,
special condition (e) of the referenced permit shall remain in full force and effect with the
exception that references to the control of Phragmites australis shall be replaced with the
following language:
-As of the date of this permit modification, The NC Department of Transportation is no
longer responsible for the control of Phragmites australis on the Mashoes Road mitigation site.
It is understood that all conditions of the original permit remain applicable and that the
expiration date is unchanged. In addition,by copy of this letter,we are notifying you that no
further monitoring of the site will be required.
Any questions regarding this correspondence may be directed to Mr. Bill Biddlecome,
NCDOT Coordinator/Regulatory Project Manager at the Washington Regulatory Field Office,
telephone [phone], extension 26.
Sincerely,
John E. Pulliam, Jr.
Colonel, U.S. Army
District Engineer
2

r
Copies Furnished:
rs. Cathy Brittingham
Division of Coastal Management Mr. Ron Sechler
1638 Mail Service Center National Marine Fisheries Service
Raleigh,North Carolina 27699-16387 101 Pivers Island
Beaufort,North Carolina 28516
Mr. John Hennessy
Water Quality Section Mr. Chris Militscher
Division of Environmental Management C/O FHWA
North Carolina Department of Environment U.S. Environmental Protection
and Natural Resources Agency
1650 Mail Service Center Raleigh Office
Raleigh,North Carolina 27699-1650 310 New Bern Avenue, Room 206
Raleigh,North Carolina 27601
Mr. Travis Wilson
Eastern Region Highway Project Mr. Mike Bryant
Coordinator U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Habitat Conservation Program P.O. Box 1969
1142 I-85 Service Road Manteo,North Carolina 27954
Creedmoor,North Carolina 27522
Mr. Pete Benjamin Mr. Mac Haupt
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service North Carolina Ecosystem
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement Enhancement Program
Post Office Box 33726 1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh,North Carolina 27636-3726 Raleigh,North Carolina 27699-1652
3

RECEIVED
dM StAu
MAR 3 0 2006
kjo Div.OF COfiW" �4+�.4NAGEMEt (
RALE!CH
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ry
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F.EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
March 23,2006
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Washington Regulatory Field Office
P.O. Box 1000
Washington,NC 27889-1000
Attention: Mr. Bill Biddlecome
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:
Subject: Permit Modification; US 64/264 Bridge over Croatan Sound, Dare
County; TIP No. R-2551 &K-4003; State Project No. 8.T051401; Action
ID 199502334; DWQ Project Nos. 970856 &000964; DCM Permit No. 7-
98.
The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) issued a Section 404 Individual
Permit(IP) on March 4, 1998 for the construction of the subject projects. The special
conditions of the IP required the North Carolina Department of Transportation to
compensate for a portion of the unavoidable wetland impacts by providing the following:
restore 8.0 ac. of previously affected palustrine forested wetlands,preserve 76.20 ac. of
palustrine forested wetlands,restore 13.10 ac. of previously affected estuarine marsh
wetlands, and preserve 122.90 acres of estuarine marsh wetlands at the Mashoes Road
mitigation site in Dare County.
As you are aware,the Department constructed the mitigation site in the Spring of
1999 and planting was completed in Spring of 2001. Currently,the site has completed
the fourth year of post-construction monitoring.
As was documented in the 2004 Annual Monitoring Report and discussed at the
2004 Mitigation Monitoring Report Meeting on May 5, 2005,NCDOT has proposed to
closeout the Mashoes Road mitigation site. During the monitoring report meeting, the
N.C. Division of Coastal Management(NCDCM) expressed a concern that 108 of 160 --
marsh vegetation plots monitored in 2004 contained Phragmites australis. According to
Special Condition e. in the original permit dated March 4, 1998,mitigation work for
marsh and non-riverine bottomland hardwood wetlands will be undertaken at the
Mashoes Road mitigation site pursuant to the plan entitled "Mitigation Plan, Mashoes
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] PARKER LINCOLN BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 2728 CAPITAL BOULEVARD
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548

r
Road Mitigation Site". The Mashoes Road mitigation plan had previously stated that a
0%tolerance for Phragmites would be allowed in the coastal marsh site following
construction. As indicated in the monitoring report,Phragmites has been treated at the
site yearly. NCDOT has made every effort possible to control the spread of Phragmites
throughout the site. The Department requests that the USACE modify the permit to allow
Phragmites australis at the Mashoes Road mitigation site. NCDOT also requests that the
USACE consider the Mashoes Road mitigation to be closed and that no further
monitoring shall be required.
During an interagency site review on August 9, 2005, the site visit attendees
agreed that the site was successful and had met it goals with the exception of controlling
Phragmites. All of the agencies except for NCDCM also agreed that NCDOT could
close out the site. Since that meeting,NCDOT has proposed to NCDCM that the site be
closed out contingent upon the site being transferred to the U.S. Fish&Wildlife Service
(USFWS) and included in their land management program. The site will be integrated
into the overall refuge lands system as part of the Alligator River National Wildlife
Refuge. The site will also be subject to management actions that will provide the highest
quality natural wildlife habitat possible. Please see the attached USFWS letter dated
October 27, 2005 stating that the site will be incorporated into their land management
plan.
After reviewing the proposal from USFWS,NCDCM has provided a closeout
letter to NCDOT for the Mashoes Road mitigation site so long as the conditions stated in
the letter are met. Please see the attached NCDCM letter dated February 17, 2006 stating
that the site will be considered closed.
Thank you for all of your help with this project. If you have any questions or
would like additional information,please contact Mr. Randy Griffin of my staff at(919)
715-1425.
Sincerely,
R,--tclGregoThorpe, Ph.D., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
cc: Mr. John Hennessy,NCDWQ
Mr. Travis Wilson,NCWRC
Ms. Kathy Matthews,USEPA Mr. Ronald Mikulak,USEPA—Atlanta, GA
Mr. Clarence W. Coleman, P.E., FHWA
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
Mr. Ron Sechler, NMFS
Mr. Michael Street,NCDMF
Ms. Cathy Brittingham,NCDCM

Ms. Wanda Gooden,NCDCM
Dr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. Anthony Roper, P.E., Division 1 Engineer
Mr. Clay Willis,Division 1 Environmental Officer
Mr. Scott McLendon, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Majed Alghandour, P. E.,Programming and TIP
Mr. Art McMillan,P.E., Highway Design
Mr. Carl Goode, PE, Human Environment Unit Head
Mr. Bill Gilmore, PE, NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program

A/7A
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Michael F. Easley, Governor Charles S. Jones, Director William G. Ross Jr.,Secretary
February 17, 2006
Philip S. Harris, III, P.E.
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
N.C. Department of Transportation
1583 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1583
RE: Mashoes Road Wetland Mitigation Site, Dare County, Coastal Area Management Act
(CAMA) Permit No. 7-98,TIP No. R-2551 and TIP No. K-4003.
Dear Mr. Harris:
This letter is in response to your correspondence dated 6/13/05 to the N.C. Division of Coastal
Management (DCM) regarding the regulatory release of the Mashoes Road Wetland Mitigation Site
in Dare County. This 399-acre site provides coastal marsh restoration and preservation, forested
wetlands restoration and preservation, open water, and forested upland hummocks. The site is
designed to mitigate for impacts incurred by the improvements to US 64/264 in Dare County from
US 264 in the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge to NC 345 south of Manteo, including new
bridges across Spencer Creek and the Croatan Sound (TIP No. R-2551, CAMA Permit No. 7-98)
and the Roanoke Island Visitor Information Center and Rest Area (TIP No. K-4003, modification to
CAMA Permit No. 7-98).
The mitigation plan states that: "This species [Phragmites australis] will be excluded from the
coastal marsh restoration area Phragmites will also be totally controlled on the coastal marsh
site following construction." In a letter to the N.C. Department of Transportation (NCDOT) dated
5/2/05, DCM expressed our concern that 108 of the 160 vegetation plots monitored in 2004
contained Phragmites australis. This letter also informed NCDOT that DCM does not allow
CAMA Coastal Wetland mitigation credit for areas dominated by Phragmites.
On 8/9/05, DCM staff attended an interagency site visit with NCDOT to the Mashoes Road
Wetland Mitigation Site. The following other state and federal agencies were also represented: the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP), NCDOT,
Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and N.C. Division of Water Quality (DWQ). The site visit attendees
agreed that the site has met its goals and success criteria,except for the fact that it is dominated by
Phragmites. All of the agencies agreed that NCDOT has done everything reasonable to control the
Phragmites. However, DCM did not agree that a site dominated by Phragmites can be considered
acceptable mitigation for CAMA Coastal Wetland impacts.
1638 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1638
Phone: [phone]\FAX: [phone]\ Internet: http://dcm2.enr.state.nc.us
An Equal Opportunity\Affirmative Action Employer—50%Recycled\10%Post Consumer Paper

•
In a letter dated 10/27/05, USFWS provided a statement of management intent for the Mashoes
Road Wetland Mitigation Site. Specifically, the USFWS 10/27/05 letter states that: "Land and
waters of the Mashoes Road Mitigation Site, upon transfer to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
will be integrated into the overall refuge lands system as part of the Alligator River National
Wildlife Refuge. These lands will be subject to management actions that will provide the highest
quality natural wildlife habitat possible...."
Based upon the statement of management intent contained within the 10/27/05 USFWS letter, DCM
will agree with NCDOT's recommendation to discontinue monitoring at this site. While DCM does
not typically accept coastal marsh dominated by Phragmites as mitigation for CAMA Coastal
Wetland impacts, this site is being considered as a special exception due to the USFWS'
demonstrated interest in acquiring the site, their dedication to long-term management of the site,
including control of Phragmites, and their success in controlling Phragmites in similar adjacent
areas.
DCM cautions NCDOT that the decision to agree with the recommendation to discontinue
monitoring at this site should not be interpreted as a change from our position that a mitigation site
that is dominated by Phragmites is not suitable mitigation for impacts to CAMA Coastal Wetlands.
DCM is only agreeing with NCDOT's recommendation to discontinue monitoring at this site due to
the statement of management intent contained within the 10/27/05 USFWS letter, and our belief that
this will ensure that the site provides high quality coastal marsh habitat in the long-term.
Please contact Cathy Brittingham at [phone] x238 or via e-mail at
[e-mail] is you have any questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
Jv
Doug Huggett
Major Permits and Consistency Coordinator
CC: Mike Bryant, USFWS
Bill Biddlecome, USACE
Randy ri1fin, NCDOT
Melissa Carle, DCM
Wanda Gooden, DCM
Mac Haupt, EEP
Jim Stanfill, EEP

MEMORANDUM
TO: Cathy Brittingham
CC:
FROM: Melissa Carle
DATE: December 16, 2005
SUBJECT: Mashoes Road Mitigation Site,Dare County
I agree that the Mashoes Road Mitigation Site can be closed out. While it is not DCM policy to
accept coastal marsh dominated by Phragmites australis as mitigation for CAMA wetland
impacts, I believe that this site can be considered a special exception. The United States Fish
and Wildlife Service have demonstrated their interest in acquiring the site and their dedication to
long-term management of the site, including control of Phragmites. This should ensure that the
site provides high quality coastal marsh habitat over the long run.
Page 1 of 1

�,,, NT OF
P i
l
O�ti �Q
.'•' ,� United States Department of the Interior
�^ ch3. � FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE RECEIVED
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge OCT v I 2005
Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge
Post Office Box 1969
Manteo, North Carolina 27954 DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
[phone] 473-1668(fax) PDEA•OFFISE OF NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
October 27, 2005
Mr. Philip S. Harris Ill, PE CPM
NCDOT - Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
Natural Environment Unit Head
1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1598
Dear Mr. Harris:
We have been advised of the current status of the Mashoes Road Mitigation Site adjacent to
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge. It is our understanding that prior to a land transfer
action as part of the project mitigation plan, various agencies require a statement of
management intent from the refuge.
Land and waters of the Mashoes Road Mitigation Site, upon transfer to the U. S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, will be integrated into the overall refuge lands system as part of the Alligator
River National Wildlife Refuge. These lands will be subject to management actions that will
provide the highest quality natural wildlife habitat possible. Land based management actions
will be implemented so as to prevent degradation in quality of adjacent waters from these
actions. Examples of management actions include, but are not restricted to, use of prescribed
fire to mimic natural fire regimes and control of invasive and exotic species such as Phragmites.
All management actions will be contingent upon availability of funds and staffing.
From the National Wildlife Refuge System Act of 1997, "The mission of the National Wildlife
Refuge System is to administer a national network of lands and water for the conservation,
management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and
their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of
Americans." Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge was established for the purpose of
protecting natural resources, the conservation of threatened and endangered species, and
providing habitat for migratory birds and other wildlife. Lands of the Mashoes Road Mitigation
Site will be maintained and managed under the same mission and purpose statements.
If you need additional information, please call us at [phone].
Sincerely,
70;C_ &v,,, 1—
Mike Bryant
Project Leader

Re:Mashoes Road mitigation site,Dare County
Subject: Re: Mashoes Road mitigation site, Dare County
From: Randy Griffin <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 06:54:47 -0400
To: Cathy Brittingham <[e-mail]>
CC: Byron Moore <[e-mail]>, Jason Elliott <[e-mail]>, Lynn Mathis
<[e-mail]>, Wanda Gooden <[e-mail]>, Melissa Carle
<Melissa.carle @ ncmail.net>
Cathy,
I have been in contact with Dennis Stewart, USFWS, since our meeting on
Ballance Farm. I have requested something in writing. I have not received
it yet, but hope to see something soon. I was hoping once we secured this
information that we would provide it to CAMA and in return receive a
close-out letter. I also will need to modify the 404 permit on this
project, but was also going to include the USFWS letter with that request
also.
I will touch back with Dennis this morning. Let me know if this sounds OK.
Thanks,
Cathy Brittingham wrote:
Randy, Byron and Jason
In a meeting on 9/13/05, we discussed closing out the Mashoes Road
mitigation site. Prior to the meeting, Melissa and I talked with Doug
Huggett about whether we can close out the Mashoes Road site despite the
large amount of Phragmites present. The initial response is no, we
cannot. A mitigation site with a large amount of Phragmites is not
suitable mitigation for impacts to coastal wetlands. However, USFWS has
expressed a desire to own the Mashoes Road site and to control the
Phragmites. USFWS has demonstrated success controlling the Phragmites
on their adjacent property using prescribed burning. Therefore, DCM
will agree to close out the Mashoes Road mitigation site if DOT can
secure a written document from USFWS expressing their intent to own and
manage the Mashoes Road mitigation site in perpetuity.
Have you had any success in securing the written documentation from
USFWS? Without the written documentation from USFWS as described above,
DCM does not agree to close-out this site. In addition to sending this
e-mail, do you need us to put this in writing as a response to your
close-out letter request dated 6/13/05 ?
Please let me know how you would like to proceed.
Thanks,
Cathy Brittingham
Transportation Project Coordinator
NC Division of Coastal Management
1638 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1638
(919) 733-2293 X238 phone
(919) 733-1495 FAX
Randy Griffin <[e-mail]>
Natural Environment Engineer
Project Development&Environmental Analysis
1 of 1 2/2/2006 9:47 AM

White's Store/Mashoes Road/NC 12 Hatteras
Subject: White's Store/Mashoes RoacSNC 12 Hatteras
From: Jason Elliott<[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 07:25:44 -0400
To: Cathy Brittingham<[e-mail]>, Melissa Carle<[e-mail]>
CC: Byron Moore <[e-mail]>
Cathy/Melissa,
Good morning. I wanted to check with you to see if a decision
had been made yet regarding closing out the subject sites. I
have received closeout letters for these sites from DWQ and
verbal okay from Corps. Please let me know at your earliest
convenience as to whether or not we can consider these sites
closed.
Jason
1 of 1 2/7/2006 3:49 PM

ea
0 •
..STATE.
:V I il4) GENE
a.w..•
V
j i
01
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA JUL 1 2 2005
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Morehead City DCM
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
June 13, 2005
Mr. Doug Huggett t,, --
NC Division of Coastal Management 0-6 2005
Parker Lincoln Building JUL
2728 Capital Boulevard DIY OFGDASIwJ1.F.�acr�+c��l
Raleigh,NC 27604 R�LflGH
Re: Mashoes Road Mitigation Site, Dare County, State Project No. 8.T051402, TIP No..
R-2551WM & K-4003, Action ID No. 199502334, DWQ Project Nos. 970856 &000964,
DCM Permit No. 7-98
Mr. Doug Huggett:
As you are aware, the Department has monitored the Mashoes Road Mitigation Site since its
construction in winter of 1998. Located in Dare County, approximately i miles north of Manns
Harbor on SR 1113 (Mashoes Road). This 399-acre site provides SVM restoration and
preservation, forest wetlands restoration and preservation, open water, and forested upland
hummocks. The Mashoes Road site provides compensatory mitigation f'r impacts associated
with R-2551 and K-4003. The west side of the site was planted with bottom land hardwood
species in Spring of 1999 and hydrologic monitoring gauges were installed throughout the entire
site in March of 19'.` The east side of the site was constructed in 1999 iut was not planted at
that time in an attempt to control Phragmites. The east side of the site was planted with marsh
grass in the spring of 2001. NCDOT proposed to monitor the Mashoes ?oad mitigation site for
five years or until success criteria were met; with both hydrological and egetation monitoring
conducted each year. After each growing season, annual monitoring reports were submitted to the
appropriate regulatory agencies.
Hydrologic success criteria stipulated that the forested wetland (west side) 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 258-day growing season in Dare County, the criteria is a consecutive 32
days. In the coastal marsh wetland (east side), success criteria include saturation or inundation
within 12-inches of the surface for 25% of the growing season or statistically the same as the
reference ecosystem. Table 1 provides a summary of the hydrologic data(the percentage of the
growing season that saturation was indicated) at each groundwater gauge location and surface
water gauge location for the past five years of monitoring.
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.NCDOT.ORG RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1598

.
Table 1. Summary of Hydrologic Monitoring Data, 2001-2004
Monitoring000 , f 2001 " 2002 . 2003 i4 '2004 I
Gauge is ,'lesu>s Results„r . Results Results...
MR-S1 (ref) 82.6 20.9 36.1 78.1 100.00
MR-S2 89.5 76.7 56.6 22.3 29.5
MR-S3 (ref) 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
MR-S4 (ref) 100.0 100.0 37.7 100.0 100.0
MR-S5 74.4 14.7 36.1 100.0 73.7
MR-S6 100.0 100.0 38.4 100.0 100.0
MR-57 (ref) 100.0 100.0 36.1 100.0 100.0
MR-S8 100.0 100.0 100.0 87.0 100.0
MR-G9 (ref) 81.4 48.4 36.1 100.0 100.0
MR-G10 (ref) 100.0 100.0 31.4 64.7 44.2
MR-Gil. 18.2 21.3 50.0 100.0 100.0
MR-G 12 45.0 100.0 36.1 89.1 35.7
MR-G13 (ref) 69.0 63.6 16.7 89.1 83.7
MR-G14 100.0 22.0 50.0 100.0 100.0
MR-G15* N/A 13.6 36.1 100.0 100.0
MR-G16* N/A 14.3 36.1 100.0 100.0
MR-G17* N/A 18.2 50.4 100.0 81.0
MR-G18* N/A 99.2 54.0 100.0 100.0
MR-G19* N/A 99.2 36.1 100.0 90.4
Climate Average Average Average Average Average
Conditions Rainfall Rainfall Rainfall Rainfall Rainfall
*Gauges 15 through 19 were not installed until 2001
After five years of marsh vegetation monitoring, vegetation data for 2004 shows that the site has
met the 70% frequency of targeted species criteria by yielding 100%. The vegetative cover scale
value of 4 8 is very close to meeting the requirement of 5.0 for year five. The site has been
treated yearly in an attempt to control the Phragmites. After five years of bottomland hardwood
vegetation monitoring, vegetation data for 2004 shows that the site has met vegetative success
criteria by yielding an average density of 482 trees per acre surviving. Individual yearly
monitoring data is provided within the annual monitoring reports submitted between 1999 and
2004.
During the annual monitoring report meeting on May 5, 2005, NCDOT and resource agencies
agreed that the Mashoes Road Mitigation Site could be closed and that monitoring could be
discontinued.NCDOT requests that the appropriate resource agencies provide documentation
stating that no further monitoring is required and that the site is closed. All remaining credits at
this site have been transferred to the Ecosystem Enhancement Program per the Memorandum of
Agreement dated July 22, 2003. If you have any questions about this project,please contact Mr.
Randy Griffin at(919) 715-1425.

Sincerely,
Philip S. Harris, III, P.E., Unit Head
PDEA-Natural Environment Unit
cc: Mr. Bill Biddlecome,USACOE
Ms. Christina Breen, DWQ
Mr. Travis Wilson, WRC
Mr. Chris Militscher,EPA
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
Mr. David Harris, P.E.,NCDOT-REU
Mr. Clay Willis,NCDOT-DEO
Mr. Ron Sechler,NOAA
Mr. Bill Gilmore, EEP

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2004
..„,tairmen inwhilN, .
vmst.1.1 ...ik,Arir
witiparomm4 744
*ail It
lit
_.,_ F
r
Mashoes Road Mitigation Site
Dare County
Project No. 8.T051402
TIP No. R-2551WM
04 .R,„ 4,4
ti 9o,
ySyr
a
o
s
r �,
v�~l ,f 10''��J
Prepared By:
Office of Natural Environment&Roadside Environmental Unit
North Carolina Department of Transportation
December 2004

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION 2
1.1 Project Description 2
1.2 Purpose 2
1.3 Project History 4
2.0 HYDROLOGY 5
2.1 Success Criteria 5
2.2 Hydrologic Description 5
2.3 Results of Hydrologic Monitoring 7
2.3.1 Site Data 7
2.3.2 Climatic Data 10
2.4 Conclusions 10
3.0 VEGETATION 12
3.1A Success Criteria (Trees) 12
3.1 B Success Criteria (Marsh Grasses) 12
3.2A Description of Species 12
3.2B Description of Species 13
3.3A Results of Vegetation Monitoring 13
3.4A Conclusions (Tree Area) 17
3.4B Conclusions (Marsh Area) 17
4.0 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS/ RECOMMENDATIONS 18

TABLES
TABLE 1 - 2004 HYDROLOGIC MONITORING RESULTS 8
TABLE 2 - 2004 VEGETATIVE MONITORING RESULTS (TREE AREA, 13
WEST SIDE)
TABLE 3 - 2004 VEGETATIVE MONITORING RESULTS (MARSH 14
GRASS AREA, EAST SIDE)
FIGURES
FIGURE 1 - SITE LOCATION MAP 3
FIGURE 2 - MONITORING GAUGE LOCATION MAP 6
FIGURE 3 - 2004 HYDROLOGIC MONITORING RESULTS 9
FIGURE 4 - 30-70 PERCENTILE GRAPH 11
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A- GAUGE DATA GRAPHS
APPENDIX B - PHOTO AND VEGETATION PLOT LOCATIONS &
SITE PHOTOS

SUMMARY
The following report summarizes the monitoring activities that have occurred in
the past year at the Mashoes Road Mitigation Site. Construction began on this
site in 1998. The west side of Mashoes Road was completed in early 1999 and
was planted with trees; this area was replanted in the Winter of 2000-01. The
east side of Mashoes Road was completed in the fall of 1999 but was not planted
due to attempts to control Phragmites. The east side of the site was planted with
marsh grass in the spring of 2001. The site must demonstrate hydrologic and
vegetation success for a minimum of five years or until the project is deemed
successful.
The site contains nine groundwater-monitoring gauges on the west side, ten
surface gauges on the east side and one rain gauge. On the east side, there are
a total of 167 random vegetation plots and the west side has five permanent
vegetation plots.
The daily rainfall data depicted on the monitoring gauge graphs is recorded from
an on-site rain gauge. Historical rainfall data used for the 30-70 percentile was
recorded at the Manteo Rain Gauge, maintained by the NC State Climate Office.
Hydrologic monitoring indicated that the site is continuing toward success. Under
average conditions for 2004, all nine of the groundwater gauges exceeded the
jurisdictional hydrologic success for at least 12.5% of the growing season. All ten
of the surface gauges showed steady tidal influence that maintained a water
elevation above zero under normal conditions for at least 25% of the growing
season.
Vegetation monitoring on the west side (tree area) of the restoration area yielded
482 trees per acre, which is above the 290-tree requirement. A frequency of
73.1% for the targeted vegetative species was found on the east side (marsh
grasses area) of the site. A vegetative scale value of 4.6 was recorded.
Per the letter from the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) to NCDOT
dated August 25, 2004, the EEP has accepted the transfer of all off-site
mitigation projects. The EEP will be responsible for fulfilling the remaining
monitoring requirements and future remediation for this project.

1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Description
The Mashoes Road Wetland Mitigation Site is located north of Manns Harbor in
Dare County (Figure 1). It is bounded by US 64-264 to the south, the Alligator
River National Wildlife Refuge to the west, the Croatan Sound to the east, and is
bisected into east/west by SR 1113 (Mashoes Road).
A significant portion of the site (254 acres) was classified as a coastal marsh and
fell under the jurisdiction of the N.C. Division of Coastal Management. Another
portion (107 acres) was classified as forested wetlands. The remainder of the
site consisted of a 15-acre pond, borrow pits and cleared uplands from a sand
mining operation, as well as some forested uplands.
The site encompasses approximately 399 acres and is designed as a mitigation
site primarily for the new Croatan Sound Bridge between Manns Harbor and
Manteo; TIP Projects R-2551 and K-4003 (USACE Action ID No. 199502334).
1.2 Purpose
In order to demonstrate successful mitigation, hydrologic and vegetative
monitoring must be conducted for a minimum of five years or until success
criteria are fulfilled. 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 2004 at the Mashoes Road Mitigation Site.
Included in this report are analyses of both hydrologic and vegetative monitoring
results, as well as local climate conditions throughout the growing season.

Figure 1. Site Location Map
'7�
't
Mashoes Road Fteeds Point
Mitigation Site
Croatan: ound
Ak
Location Gauges
..x.i44.i.i.i...i..i
+.. -....•.. MAN.....♦
stiv.
ff'�4I••.Oi.� "A«•*•
•.:::::: a`. wee".
.i••.•*�••�. ��••••••11.�i�S••••••�•4
}VS:.:.•.••. ,Redstone Point
If
si I
\'erg ',',o
i j
li r
i1OO7LOLom .Stm u tr
io, ' 64
r
3

1.3 Project History
Winter 1999 West Side Construction Complete
Spring 1999 Wetland Trees Planted (West Side)
Spring 1999 East Side Construction Complete
March 1999 Monitoring Gauges Installed (Entire Site)
March — November 1999 Hydrologic Monitoring (Entire Site, Year 1)
October 1999 Vegetation Monitoring (West Side, Year 1)
March — November 2000 Hydrologic Monitoring (Entire Site, Year 2)
October 2000 Vegetation Monitoring (West Side, Year 2)
October 2000 Phragmites Treated
March — November 2001 Hydrologic Monitoring (Entire Site,
(Restart Year 1)
April 2001 Phragmites Treated
May 2001 Marsh Grasses Planted
August 2001 Tree Vegetation Monitoring (Restart Year 1)
August 2001 Marsh Vegetation Monitoring (Year 1)
March — November 2002 Hydrologic Monitoring (Year 2)
July 2002 Tree Vegetation Monitoring (Year 2)
July 2002 Marsh Vegetation Monitoring (Year 2)
November 2002 Phragmites Treated
March — November 2003 Hydrologic Monitoring (Year 3)
October 2003 Phragmites Treated
October 2003 Tree Vegetation Monitoring (3 yr.)
October 2003 Marsh Vegetation Monitoring (3 yr.)
March — November 2004 Hydrologic Monitoring (Year 4)
September 2004 Tree Vegetation Monitoring (Year 4)
September 2004 Marsh Vegetation Monitoring (Year 4)
4

2.0 HYDROLOGY
2.1 Success Criteria
In accordance with federal guidelines for wetland mitigation, the success criteria
for hydrology in the forested wetland (west side) state that the area must be
inundated or saturated (within 12 inches of the surface) by surface or ground
water for at least 12.5% of the growing season. Areas inundated 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 other factors, such as the presence of hydrophytic vegetation
and hydric soils.
In the coastal marsh wetland (east side), success criteria include saturation or
inundation within 12 inches of the surface for at least 25% of the growing season,
or statistically the same as the reference ecosystem.
The growing season in Dare County begins March 13 and ends November 25.
The dates correspond to a 50% probability that temperatures will drop to 28° F or
lower after March 13 and before November 25.1 The growing season is 258 days;
therefore the optimum duration for wetland hydrology is 32 days. Also, local
climate must represent average conditions for the area.
2.2 Hydrologic Description
Historically, the wetlands on this tract were part of the coastal marsh of the
surrounding area. The primary sources of hydrology are tidal flushing of the
system and groundwater. After an extensive study of the site's hydrology, it was
concluded that filling of the ponds, and grading down of the upland areas would
elevate soils to a level that would saturate the soil stratum within the required
twelve inches or even flood the area during high tides. It was predicted that this
would be sufficient to restore wetland hydrology.
Six groundwater-monitoring gauges, eight surface gauges, and one rain gauge
were installed in 1999 (Figure 2). Three more groundwater-monitoring gauges
were installed during 2001 to evaluate potential drainage by the side canal. Also,
two additional surface gauges were added to the coastal marsh wetland area.
The rain gauge and monitoring gauges recorded daily readings of rainfall and
depth to groundwater, respectively. The surface gauges record tidal conditions
eight times daily; however, only one representative reading was used for
graphing and statistical purposes in this report.
Natural Resources Conservation Service, Soil Survey of Dare County,North Carolina,p.69.
5

MASHOES ROAD MITIGATION SITE
DARE COUNTY \
\
0 \
MR-S3
MR-S5 \
MR-84
MR-36
_ — 0
- :----- ,-_-_- ------- -----_-,a - -_-._ -
MR-S1,,,------
.... --It' MR-819 (NEW)
0 .„.,
i ' MR-S18 (NEW) 0 •'-skoo
r/ 7
MR-S7
0 \,,, 0
MR-S2 ...„..„*.... --„----.„..-,..,.-....-
n , • ---.,...., ,z....,
MR-G14 El .
...., •,-=',..-q ,
_....---
.._,...,..-,' -, -....
---. -N1R-G13 . .
MR-G10
MR-G12 MR-Gil
0 SURFACE WATER GAUGE
El GROUNDWATER MONITORING GAUGE
IIII RAIN GAUGE FIGURE 2: MONITORING GAUGE LOCATIONS
6

2.3 Results of Hydrologic Monitoring
2.3.1 Site Data
For groundwater monitoring gauges on the west side of the mitigation site, the
maximum number of consecutive days that the groundwater was within twelve inches of
the surface was determined for each gauge. For surface gauges, the ground surface
was used (elevation zero) to give a better representation that the east side of Mashoes
Road was receiving daily tidal flooding. This number was converted into a percentage
of the 256-day growing season. Table 1 presents the 2004 results. In the table, "MR"
refers to Mashoes Road Mitigation Site, "S" refers to surface gauges, and "G" refers to
groundwater gauges. Reference gauges and new gauges are indicated.
In order to meet the success criteria for hydrology, the surface water gauges need to
maintain a water elevation above 0 for at least 25% of the growing season. Since the
criteria in the mitigation plan were unclear whether hydrology should be met in
maximum consecutive days or total days, the table (Table 1) shows both sets of data
(All ten gauges met the hydrology criteria using maximum consecutive and total days in
2004).
Appendix A contains a plot of the groundwater depth for each monitoring gauge. The
maximum number of consecutive days that the gauge met success above the 12-inch
depth is noted on each graph. Data determined to be erroneous was omitted; therefore,
some gaps appear in the plots. Precipitation events are included on each graph as
bars.

Table 1. 2004 HYDROLOGIC MONITORING RESULTS
Maximum
Monitoring < 5% ° 8— 12.5% ° Consecutive Total
Gau e 5 -8% > 12.5% Days Da s Success Dates
g >25% y
MR-S1 (ref) 100 100
MR-S2 29.5 61.7
MR-S3 (ref) 100 100
MR-S4 (ref) 100 100
MR-S5 73.7 99.7
MR-S6 100 100
MR-S7 (ref) 100 100
MR-S8 100 100
MR-G9 (ref)+ X 100 March 13-Nov 25
MR-G10 (ref)+ X 44.2 March 13-July 4
Aug 19-Nov 25
MR-G11+ X 100 March 13-Nov 25
March 13-May 17
MR-G12+ X 35.7 May 19-Aug 18
Sept 17-Nov 25
MR-G13 (ref)+ x 83.7 March 13-Oct 14
MR-G14+ X 100 March 13-Nov 25
MR-G15+ X 100 March 13-Nov 25
MR-G16+ X 100 March 13-Nov 25
MR-G17+ X 81 May 1-Nov 25
MS-S18 X 100 100 March 13-Nov 25
MS-S19 X 90.4 100 March 13-Nov 25
+Gauge met success criterion during an average rainfall month (February, April, May,
July, and November).
Notes:"MR" denotes Mashoes Road Site gauges.
"S" denotes surface gauges.
"G" denotes groundwater gauges.
"ref' denotes gauges in reference wetlands.
Figure 3 provides a graphical representation of the hydrologic results. Gauges
highlighted in blue indicate wetland hydrology for more than 12.5% of the growing
season. Gauges highlighted in red show hydrology between 8% and 12.5% of the
season, while those in green indicate hydrology between 5% and 8% of the season.
8

•
MR,43
MR.65
MR+44
MR46
•
MR.41.9 (NEW) ,
i MR41.8 (NEW) • ''..,
• b1R47
• •
-----
\
--.--- - ILIR-G1.6 (NE-07) . • ... • .--_,...,
llikR61-1
.,-- - 111R-61.7 (NEW) arEIV- ,• '').'-4, .-
., ....,
MR•0.14 . . , ,.....,,
, 1 MR.439 •••::".. .,
a ..,,,,. .,.......,.„, -,... ....:.,,
MRP413 "....-----..... „....,......- -...-. ...•-•-.''''' III
MR.4210
MR4312 MR-Gil
Figure 3. 2004 Hydrologic Monitoring Gauge Results
HYdrulugY Results
44), Rain Gauge
* 0 Surface Gauge
1\
•• %
Not to Raab
9

2.3.2 Climatic Data
Figure 4 provides an examination of the local climate in comparison with historical data
in order to determine whether 2004 was "average" in terms of climate conditions. The
two lines represent the 30th and 70th percentiles of monthly precipitation for Manteo, NC.
The bars are monthly rainfall totals for 2003 and 2004. The historical data was
collected from the State Climate Office of North Carolina.
For the 2004-year, November (03'), January, March, and October experienced below
average rainfall. The months of February, April, May, July, and November all recorded
average rainfall for the site. December (03'), June, August, and September
experienced above average rainfall. The rainfall data from the onsite rain gauge was
used for the months of September-November. Overall, 2004 experienced an average
rainfall year.
2.4 Conclusions
For the 2004 monitoring year, all nine of the groundwater gauges exceeded the
jurisdictional hydrologic success for at least 12.5% of the growing season. All ten of the
surface gauges showed steady tidal influence that maintained a water elevation above
zero under normal conditions for at least 25% of the growing season.
The overall monitoring results show that the site performed successfully from a
hydrological standpoint in 2004.
EEP will begin monitoring the hydrology at the Mashoes Road Mitigation Site in 2005.
10

FIGURE 4. 30-70 Percentile Graph
Mashoes Road 30-70 Percentile Graph
Manteo,NC,Monthly Rainfall
14
12
10
c
c 8
70th Percentile
6 30th Percentile Used the onsite rain
• • gauge for Sept-Nov 04 4
2
Nov 03' Dec 03' Jan 04' Feb 04' Mar 04' Apr 04' May 04' Jun 04' Jul 04' Aug 04' Sep 04' Oct 04' Nov 04' Dec 04'
DATE
i 2003 Rainfall 2004 Rainfall —30th Percentile —70th Percentile
11

3.0 VEGETATION: MASHOES ROAD MITIGATION SITE
(YEAR 4 MONITORING)
3.1A Success Criteria (Trees)
NCDOT will monitor the site for five years or until success criteria are met. A 320-stems
per acre survival criterion for planted seedlings will be used to determine success for
the first three years. The required survival criterion will decrease by 10% per year after
the third year of vegetation monitoring (i.e., for an expected 290 stems per acre for year
4, and 260 stems per acre for year 5). The number of plants of one species will not
exceed 20% of the total number of plants of all species planted.
3.1 B Success Criteria (Marsh Grasses)
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 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) species.
3.2A Description of Species
The following species were planted in the Wetland Restoration Area:
Zone 1: Wetland Tree Reforestation (2.7 acres)
Taxodium distichum, Baldcypress
Quercus phellos, Willow Oak
Nyssa sylvatica var. sylvatica, Blackgum
Fraxinus pennsylvanica, Green Ash
Quercus nigra, Water Oak
Zone 2: Wetland Tree Reforestation (4.3 acres)
Taxodium distichum, Baldcypress
Fraxinus pennsylvanica, Green Ash
Quercus nigra, Water Oak
Quercus phellos, Willow Oak
12

3.2B Description of Species
The following plant communities were planted in the Marsh Grass Area:
Zone 1: (approximately 11.92 acres)
Cladium jamaicense, Sawgrass
Zone 2: (approximately 0.42 acres)
Juncus roemerianus, Black Needle Rush
3.3A Results of Vegetation Monitoring
TABLE 2: 2004 VEGETATIVE MONITORING RESULTS (TREE AREA, WEST SIDE)
_ a,
� U
C N
U)
i C G)
Y Cl) fa f6 d
O 2 Et
C 3 > Q)
ZG) 0 '6 V 47 10 i6
oN
O 2 = f6 as
a (� § m m H H o
1 1 11 1 5 3 20 40 340
2 17 4 10 4 35 40 595
ZONE 1 AVERAGE 468
I 2 3 8 1 27 36 49 500
4 10 12 2 24 32 510
5 4 7 12 1 24 35 466
ZONE 2 AVERAGE 492
TOTAL AVERAGE 482
Site Notes: Other species noted: Scirpus americanus, sawgrass, black needle rush,
Bidens sp., ragweed, Baccharis halimifolia, fennel, phragmites, redbay, cattail, golden
rod, wax myrtle, Atlantic white cedar, red maple, big cordgrass, broomsedge, pine, and
Pluchea sp.
13

CO
r
m
N
O
0
m^
CO CO CO CO CO CO Co CO 00 00 CO CO CO v v V V - —I V V V -4 O) O) O) C7) C) O) CD O) CD CD U1 cn Cn cn cn U1 cn CP Cn cn 4,
N O CO CO V CT cn A co N A O CO W J CD cn A co N O CD CO J CT) cn A co N -+ O CO Co V CT cn A CO N AO CD
A Cn ACn co cnAACnCnU1 (n cn cn U1 cn A (n cn O cn A Cn A A cn CD cn cn CnA A 01 (n cn co CP 4, U1Cn (n
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
m
0
z
m RI F-I cal n�u. u�ur.�'�"'ll III I iI !al iim �I I I I ,':q `�,.I 0
G)
5I-"' '- '''I FI al '-I�I. 1""`I II I' I I GI FI L141 a -=1 a1 al al ,-I
cn
CO O O o
0 0 0
CO CO CO
d
a co
coa
cn
cn
cn
cn
C3

ZONE
W W W W W W W W W N) NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJC) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 ,, 0 0 Plot
CO —I CT Cn A W N —, O CD CO �I Q) cn A CO N) O CO CO �I O) cn A co NJO O co —1 cn cn A W N —, O cD (b v (n Cn A W
W U) A 0) CP A cn A 0) A A (n A N Cr A 0) cn (n A cn cn 0) cn O Cn Cn 0) cP cn A cn A 0) CP cn (n cn 0) cn In A cn Scale Factor
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0
Black Needle Rush
�J "f .'•f .r 21 � ,L'J I ._; Sawgrass
• L : . __, Frequency
co 0 0 0
v c_ c_ c_
J1 O O O_ O_
0 -.
10 co CO CO
O O O
c C C C
a D . D
a a a
co Cn co
7

-c
N
Q-'
O -p
Uco d N T
u. Z ca =
W ik z y
. a 3 d
0
a c) m cn u Notes
139 4.0 a I
140 5.0 ----__�j1
141 3.0 f� I
142 4.0
143 5.0
144 4.0
145 5.0 1 I I
146 3.0
147 3.0 g =4
148 5.0 1---_gj I
149 5.0 a1
150 4.0 A
151 3.0 in
152 5.0 g
153 4.0 --_'�j
154 5.0 7: 1 LL
155 4.0 = 1
156 5.0
157 5.0 - I1
158 5.0
159 5.0 1
160 5.0 = LL
161 5.0 =p I
162 5.0 ;-=U 1
163 5.0 g1
164 5.0 -_-gil
165 5.0 7I
166 5.0 --1I
167 5.0 1
Frequency/Percentage Plots
with Desired Species 73.1%
Sum Scale Value 743
Total#of Plots 160
Vegetative Cover(Scale Value) 4.6
Site Notes: The following species were also noted in the monitoring plots. The number
of plots the species was found in is following the species in parentheses (i.e. 58 plots
contain Scirpus sp.)
Scirpus sp. (58), phragmites (108), Juncus sp. (23), goldenrod (9), Spartina patens (6),
nutsedge (15), Polygonum sp. (11), Aster sp. (3), Panicum sp. (3), broomsedge (1),
pennywort (3), Baccharis sp. (1), fennel (3), Pluchea sp. (1), and big cordgrass (1).
16

3.4A Conclusions (Tree Area)
Of the 399 acres on this site, approximately 7 acres involved tree planting. The west
side of the site has become well vegetated with marsh grasses. There were five plots
established throughout the planting areas, encompassing all plant communities. The
2004 vegetation monitoring revealed an average density of 482 trees per acre, which is
well above the 290 trees per acre required by the success criteria.
3.4B Conclusions (Marsh Area)
• Percent Frequency of Target Species 73.1%
Frequency of 70% required.
• Vegetative Cover Scale Value 4.6
Scale Value of 5 required for year 5.
Of the 399 acres on this site, approximately 12.34 acres involved marsh grass planting.
There were 167 random plots established throughout the planting areas, encompassing
all plant communities. These plots were located with GPS. The vegetative coverage
and frequency appear to be on track for year four.
EEP will begin monitoring the vegetation at the Mashoes Mitigation Site in 2005.
17

4.0 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS/ RECOMMENDATIONS
The 2004-year represents the sixth full growing season (the fourth official season) that
the hydrologic data has been examined. All nine groundwater-monitoring gauges
exceeded the jurisdictional wetland hydrology for 12.5% of the growing season. When
considering maximum cumulative days, all ten surface gauges met the 25%
requirement of daily flooding onsite during this same period. The overall monitoring
results show that the site performed successfully from a hydrology standpoint.
Vegetation monitoring on the west side (tree area) of the restoration area yielded 482
trees per acre, which is well above the 290-tree requirement. A frequency of 73.1% for
the targeted vegetative species was found on the east side (marsh grasses area) of the
site. A frequency of 70% is required. A vegetative scale value of 4.6 was recorded
(scale value of 5 is required by year 5).
Per the letter from the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) to NCDOT dated
August 25, 2004, the EEP has accepted the transfer of all off-site mitigation projects.
The EEP will be responsible for fulfilling the remaining monitoring requirements and
future remediation for this project.
18

APPENDIX A
GAUGE DATA GRAPHS

APPENDIX B
PHOTO AND VEGETATION PLOT LOCATIONS, SITE PHOTOS

I. '"I 7''' I'''...,'.
.,.!,.-...,. ,. ....-..., .....,,,...
Dare County, North Carolina
Mashoes Road Mitigation Site _ 1
Planting Plan
Morzh Area
C=1 SAWORASS
OM BLACK NEEDLERUSH 1
...-
.________,........
...."
: ,(Will101 .
--
..., - .
(.7'7' .......
........-
.,!is.0.•.....r-.,i,mop pe--
. ,
,--- ....,,,... ...„
....0 ...smell\
.011111111121111111116
ananuasersa.
reil811011r4111111/,' '41k.:
0
...sesesamo
ignitirg'. i
a
..isineautore ,aor
.d"ollig" Ado,'
'''."-----
Aligralt.w
itaDdr ' .,•
\\\_
V&A ZONE 2
. - .

i ,.,
...
(.1)
1— bf)
0..* z
—1L0
. CLia_ D
! - - Ll...-4 F--
i A
Ztl-
ic.., .
rr ci
42r--1 0
I' 1-1-
*-11... .........1
CL
oin,eS)
..L
..r...
X <I:
0
}......LL
(:).
i_CSI
LiiP CD
i WC) T
0
V c I 7.,,,,III o
01 'd
JO!
9.i. ii \ • 4 10, --i \ ( \
...c, ,
, , ... • k , ,
4 :
V 'r
A
Z VC'
0 to >
.100 . 'A z ,F,
% t
\
\S\ . \ ik
\ ', \
il- k
, ‘,. ,,,,4., - i 44, ,
4. 4 4 •
* ‘s:e
z
• Int
I! ' s.,,• * all, ii, .s.
re,, • '
. ,
„....
A
,-
.....-

•
MASHOES ROAD
a •
{
PhotoPhoto 2 1
j
•
4 , t S M
Photo 3 Photo 4
^ 4 a g�� ei[ �` ,^ax .,,w».rr ,, ¢' �w ,a > •d.P e'AN ry . , ark" ,dai!" .d P f
v� a § �� f tt SF} �L� �` E D�gf,s � i r•y, {, a q t S'!
4.2+ .. nt ,+a k 9.4 'x5 0- '' •.j `'�', ,V ^ ��) 'q' ,, � ?''.: 3..
{�� §44 �` �. � 16 gp,V' I
� >� ti �'{' t�ril t '° �i�. ✓ S t�4 4 f i � 4 °f �1j r4:y m
k;S x" f q ',4 . S ,gip,' 44 A J' °F k i•,�� y�,¢, ' , ,� "' 3 ''
�,? a 4i , t .AS u phi •, i K
¢q.,,,,-,..,,,..1,,,,. .,„,,,,,,,,„,,,,,„
,„ ,, a. ,. +p} y x: iMV 3 -iSlt} ��i.�:[•a,
8 � r{ 5 Awl . �.t i tr n Si, io"� {3t� xv. f ,'�#�, _`sL`
ism i�
Photo 5 Photo 6
2004

Photo 7 Photo 8
Photo 9
2004

Proposed Prescribed Burn at Mashoes Road Mitigation Site
•
Subject: Proposed Prescribed Burn at Mashoes Road Mitigation Site
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 10:27:17 -0500
From: Steve Sollod<[e-mail]>
Organization: NC DENR DCM
To: Kelly VanDruten <[e-mail]>
CC: Byron Moore <[e-mail]>, Doug Huggett<[e-mail]>
Based on a review of our files, the Mashoes Road Site Mitigation Plan,
and the USFWS Prescribed Fire Plan, it appears there is low risk in
allowing USFWS to perform a prescribed burn on the preservation portion
of the Mashoes Road Mitigation site. Our only concern is protection of
the 13 .10 acre restoration area on the north side of Mashoes Road and
the 8.00 acre restoration area on the south side.
We recommend that USFWS also receive endorsement from the NC Division of
Water Quality in addition to NCDOT and USACE. The Division of Coastal
Management does not object to the proposed prescribed burn.
If you have any questions or concerns you can contact me at 919-733-2293
Ext. 240.
Steve Sollod
NC Division of Coastal Management
Steve Sollod<[e-mail]>
Transportation Project Coordinator
NC Division of Coastal Management
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
1 of 1 3/31/04 10:23 AM

I t
ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2003
arlorn11111111 OWAITAS .
idiVil I 4-- ' . Isar
orip.......ixr4,0: 6 Witill
WAIL
Mashoes Road Mitigation Site
Dare County
Project No. 8.T051402
TIP No. R-2551WM
C/�—MA (9,cm,-}- No _ 7— 9
xoxrN
4y
Oe
4. 9
O
't iq
� 1s
Prepared By:
Office of Natural Environment&Roadside Environmental Unit
North Carolina Department of Transportation
December 2003

;9o3
e0-d
Table 1. Mashoes Road Debit Ledger
Habitat Acres at Acres TIP Debit TIP Debit
Start Remaining R-2551 K-4003
$ 7i11 SVM Restoration 13.1 _ 0 13.1 0
Forest Wetlands 8 0 8 0
Restoration
SVM Preservation 253.86 130.96 122.9 0
Forest Wetland 106.88 29.32 76.2 1.36
Preservation
Open Water 15.53 15.53 0 0
Upland Hummocks 1.48 1.48 0 0
Total: 398.85 177.29 220.2 1.36
1.5 Permit Requirements
The Mashoes Road Mitigation Site was constructed primarily to compensate for impacts
to TIP Project R-2551 (USACE Action ID No. 199502334). Permit commitments stated
that Phragmites australis would be totally controlled in the marsh area.
The permit was modified in 2000, which allowed for marsh planting to be extended to
the spring of 2001. This gave NCDOT additional time to further treat for phragmites.
The site was treated for Phragmites in 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003. The planting of
marsh grasses at the site was completed in Spring 2001.
4

. r
3.4A Conclusions (Tree Area)
Of the 399 acres on this site, approximately 7 acres involved tree planting. This side
(Westside) of the site has become well vegetated with marsh grasses. There were 5
plots established throughout the planting areas, encompassing all plant communities.
The 2003 vegetation monitoring revealed an average density of 574 trees per acre,
which is well above the 320 trees per acre required by the success criteria.
3.4B Conclusions (Marsh Area)
• Percent Frequency of Target Species 77.0%
Frequency of 70% required.
• Vegetative Cover Scale Value 4.5
Scale Value of 5 required for year 5.
Of the 399 acres on this site, approximately 12.34 acres involved marsh grass planting.
There were 167 random plots established throughout the planting areas, encompassing
all plant communities. These plots were located with GPS. The northern side of the
site was treated for phragmites in April 2001 and in October 2003. The vegetative
coverage does not currently meet the success criteria. However, the vegetative
coverage and frequency do appear to be on track for year three.
Phragmites at the Mashoes Road Mitigation Site has been treated continuously
throughout the monitoring cycle. It appears that the herbicide treatments have been
somewhat successful in that the percent frequency of target species is above the 70%
required at the end of the 5-year monitoring cycle. Phragmites is and will continue to be
a nuisance at this site but the target vegetation is present. NCDOT will continue to treat
and monitor the phragmites at the Mashoes Road Mitigation Site.
NCDOT will continue vegetation monitoring at the Mashoes Road Mitigation Site.
19

•
4.0 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS/ RECOMMENDATIONS
The 2003-year represents the fifth full growing season (the third official season) that the
hydrologic data has been examined. All nine groundwater-monitoring gauges exceeded
the jurisdictional wetland hydrology for 12.5% of the growing season. When considering
maximum cumulative days, nine of the ten surface gauges met the 25% requirement of
daily flooding onsite during this same period. Only one of the gauges did not meet the
criteria of 25% (22.3% for Gauge S2). The overall monitoring results show that the site
performed successfully from a hydrology standpoint.
Vegetation monitoring on the west side (tree area) of the restoration area yielded 574
trees per acre, above the 320-tree requirement. A frequency of 77.0% for the targeted
vegetative species was found on the east side (marsh grasses area) of the site. A
frequency of 70% is required. A vegetative scale value of 4.5 was recorded.(scale value
of 5 is required by year 5).
NCDOT will continue to monitor the site for both hydrologic and vegetation success at
the Mashoes Road Mitigation Site.
3 .7? acAr-e.s
51-( aas __aS4 J 1)-1-91 1,
/p '7 a s w-e-1-/a► .I.
3f aches 15-ac-vNe porNd 100
U�� a�lc a fires �Aa,r,
20

[ •
Q1(.cQ c 1-e)` a S
11
11
F
MITIGATION PLAN
MASHOES ROAD MITIGATION SITE
DARE COUNTY
STATE PROJECT NO. 8T051401
TIP PROJECT NO. R-2551
I
MAY 1998
PREPARED FOR:
' NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL BRANCH
ENVIRONMENTAL UNIT
P.N. 94028.45
I
RESOURCE
SOUTHEAST, LTD.
ENGINEERS o SCIENTISTS o PLANNERS
1513 WALNUT STREET, SURE 250 0 CARY, NC 27511
[phone] o FAX[phone]

I .
restoration area. Aerial cover of vegetation surrounding these wells will also be compared with
the restoration area using similar plot sizes.
6.5 Contingency Plans
6.5.1 Plant Survival
The coastal marsh restoration area northeast of Mashoes Road should be successful. Sawgrass
and black needlerush are tolerant to salt exposure and mortality rates should be low. New
plantings of sawgrass, needlerush and other coastal marsh species, will be planted to replace
unsuccessful plantings as necessary.
The forested wetland southwest of Mashoes Road should also be successful with low mortality
rates, however, unsuccessful trees and other plantings will be replaced by new plantings of
wetland tree and/or shrub species as needed. Salt exposure is not expected to be a problem in the
forested wetland restoration area.
6.5.2 Weed Invasion
Weed invasions into the wetland restoration areas will be evaluated. Appropriate action will be
taken with noxious tree species which become established in the forested restoration wetlands.
Noxious tree species are defined by the USACOE to include red maple, loblolly pine, and
sweetgum. Species of concern in the coastal marsh area includes Phragmites australis. This
species will be excluded from the coastal marsh restoration area. Phragmites currently located on
the site will be treated with herbicides prior to construction. Herbicides will be applied
according to their labels. Phragmites will also be totally controlled on the coastal marsh site
•
following construction.
6.5.3 Trash Dumping Activities
Previous trash dumping on the site was a result of public access and a lack of surveillance by the
previous owner. After completion of grading and planting, the entire mitigation site will be
physically inaccessible to the public. The elevation and hydrology will be similar to that of the
adjacent, undisturbed areas which do not provide access for vehicles. Departmental personnel
have observed the entire length of Mashoes Road (from the mitigation site to its end) on
numerous occasions. No dumping of trash or debris was noted. Therefore, with the exception of
small items that may be discarded (as along any road), no significant debris dumping is expected
at the Mashoes Road Mitigation Site after site grading is completed.
6.6 Disposition of Mashoes Road Mitigation Site
The NCDOT will maintain ownership of the Mashoes Road Mitigation Site until all mitigation
activities are complete and the site is determined to be successful. The NCDOT proposes to deed
the property to the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge as required by the wetlands permit.
Mitigation Plan-Mashoes Road Mitigation Site
P.N.94028.45;TIP Project No.R-2551
May 1998 38

•
6.7 Mitigation Ratios
Mitigation ratios in accordance with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (USEPA) draft
mitigation guidelines suggest the following ratios:
Restoration 2:1
Creation 3:1
Enhancement 4:1
Preservation 10:1
•
— In addition, other significant habitats within the mitigation property will be preserved. These
_ areas add to overall diversity and richness of the Mashoes Road Mitigation Site. Mitigation
ratios proposed for these areas are shown below:
Upland Preservation 10:1
Open Water Preservation 10:1
6.7.1 Mitigation Values
The proposed Mashoes Road Mitigation Site is a highly valuable property possessing many
unique characteristics. Improved wetland functions and values resulting from this coastal marsh
restoration includes bank/shoreline stabilization and aquatic life value (Appendix C). The
forested wetland restoration provides improved functions and values as wildlife habitat and
aquatic life value. Functions and values lost from impacts by the bridge project include value as
- wildlife habitat, bank/shoreline stabilization, and aquatic life value for similar coastal marsh and
_ forest communities. Some of these are related to the mitigation types presented above and some
are more difficult to quantify. Below we have attempted to categorize the unique contributions
and values being obtained from mitigation by utilizing this property.
Restoration
• Acquisition of the property by the NCDOT has ceased a legally permitted mining
operation (sand mining) from further destruction of the mitigation site;
• NCDOT has assumed reclamation responsibility of the now defunct sand mining
operation (Appendix D);
• Mitigation will restore valuable estuary habitats. High carbon productivity of
estuary habitats ranks just below that of rain forest.
Enhancement
• The property is adjacent to the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge, therefore
enhancing the Refuge;
Mitigation Plan-Mashoes Road Mitigation Site
P.N.94028.45;TIP Project No.R-2551
May 1998 39

• The property is adjacent to the Croatan Sound and is bordered by lands already in
public ownership enhancing the Sound;
• The property is located along the `Atlantic Flyway' and south of the Chesapeake
Bay, enhancing wildlife values;
• The large pond on the mitigation property classified as "Waters of the United
States" will be enhanced by restoring wetlands on the sand mining site, increasing
its attractiveness to waterfowl;
• A residence located on the property will be removed;
• Other currently undeveloped building sites will not be developed and will be
restored to coastal marsh habitat;
• Dumping on the site will stop;
Site restoration will include removal of`white goods" and other debris dumped
on the site.
I
Preservation
• Estuary wetlands preserved;
• Upland hummocks, rare in these estuarine habitats, are preserved;
• Property is within easy public access;
• Property provides access to the Sound.
Other Uncategorized Issues/Values
• Erosion of Taxbase - The Mashoes Road Mitigation Site is another loss of taxable
property in Dare County which has extensive public ownerships, specifically
federal; however, there is some possibility that upon deeding the property to the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the county will receive payments in lieu
of taxes from the United States Department of the Interior.
• Acquisition of the property by the NCDOT has ensured that the remaining 18.6
hectares (46 acres) of an existing legal mining permit will not be implemented and
thus impacting additional native coastal marsh and forested wetland habitats;
• Acquisition of the property by the NCDOT assures that no further residential
development will occur on the disturbed sand mining areas;
• Acquisition of the property by the NCDOT assures that no commercial or
industrial development will occur on the disturbed sand mining areas;
Based on the guidelines and these additional values, the following mitigation can be obtained
from this mitigation site:
1
— Mitigation Plan-Mashoes Road Mitigation Site
P.N.94028.45;TIP Project No.R-2551 40
May 1998

- - Mitigation Type Wetland Type Area
hectares (acres)
Restoration:
Coastal Marsh 5.30 (13.10)
Forested Wetlands 3.24 (8.00)
Preservation:
Coastal Marsh 102.74 (253.86)
• Forested Wetlands 43.25 (106.88)
Other Areas :
Open Water 6.28 (15.53)
Forested Upland 0.60 (1.48)
Hummocks
Total Site 161.41 (398.85)
6.7.2 US 64/264 Improvements and Croatan Sound Bridge (TIP Project No. R-2551)
Unavoidable Project Impacts
Coastal Marsh 4.97 hectares (12.29 acres)
Forested Wetlands 3.08 hectares ( 7.62 acres)
Total 8.05 hectares (19.91 acres)
I
i Given the many non-quantifiable values of the Mashoes Road Mitigation Site as noted above, the
NCDOT proposes to provide compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts to coastal marsh
and forested wetlands resulting from the construction of the US 64/264 Improvements and
Croatan Sound Bridge (TIP Project No. R-2551). The compensatory mitigation will come
through restoration, and preservation.
For every acre of impact anticipated, the Department commits at least 11 acres of mitigation,
including at least 1:1 restoration and 10:1 preservation in each of the community categories. The
result of this commitment is that 5.30 hectares (13.10 acres) of marsh will be restored and 49.7
hectares (122.90 acres) of existing marsh will be preserved as mitigation for the anticipated 4.97
hectares (12.29 acres) of marsh impacts; and 3.24 hectares (8.00 acres) of palustrine forest will
be restored and 30.84 hectares (76.20 acres) of palustrine forest impacts.
Mitigation Plan-Mashoes Road Mitigation Site
P.N.94028.45;TIP Project No.R-2551
May 1998 41
.:a

i -
6.7.3 Surplus Mitigation
The above mitigation values of the Mashoes Road Mitigation Site and the unavoidable impacts
will leave 53.0 hectares (130.96 acres) of existing marsh and 12.42 hectares (30.68 acres) of
palustrine forests available for any future actions by the NCDOT (i.e. permit modifications)
associated with the subject project that could require supplemental mitigation, subject to
approval by the appropriate federal regulatory agencies.
•
Mitigation Plan-Mashoes Road Mitigation Site
P.N.94028.45;TIP Project No.R-2551 42
May 1998

� -
I 7.0 CONCLUSIONS
Based upon the information developed in this mitigation plan, the following conclusions are
r- presented:
1. The 161.41 hectare (398.85 acre) Mashoes Road Mitigation Site currently consists of
43.25 hectares (106.88 acres) of forested wetlands, 102.74 (253.86 acres) of coastal
marsh wetlands, 0.60 hectares (1.48 acres) of forested uplands, 15.53 acres of"Waters of
the United States", and 8.54 hectares (21.10 acres) of disturbed areas such as borrow pits,
roads, ditches and other areas along on the property.
_ 2. Insufficient water is currently available to the restoration area due to the presence of fill
from the sand mining operation.
- 3. Restoration of the forested wetlands hydrology can be accomplished by lowering of
surface elevations to that of the adjoining forested wetlands and establishment of a
hydrologic connection with the adjoining forested wetlands.
4. Restoration of coastal marsh hydrology can be accomplished by the lowering of surface
elevations to that of the adjoining coastal marsh and establishment of a hydrologic
connection with the adjoining coastal marsh.
5. Following grading and hydrological modifications, the site can be planted with
appropriate vegetation to restore coastal marsh and forested wetlands with functions
similar to those in the reference ecosystems.
6. Total mitigation areas on this site total 381.84 acres including:
13.10 acres from coastal marsh restoration,
253.86 acres from coastal marsh preservation,
8.00 acres from forested wetlands restoration,
106.88 acres from forested wetland preservation
381.84 total mitigation acres available
17.01 acres from other habitats.
398.85 total acres
.7. Project impacts will total 8.05 hectares (19.91 acres); 4.97 hectares (12.29 acres) of
coastal marsh and 3.08 hectares (7.62 acres) of forested wetlands. An average mitigation
ratio of 11:1 is proposed for this project including a 1:1 ratio for direct replacement
(restoration) and 10:1 for preservation.
8. Remaining mitigation acres available for supplemental mitigation or other projects
include 53.0 hectares (130.96 acres) for coastal marsh preservation and 12.4 hectares
(30.68 acres) for forested wetlands preservation.
Mitigation Plan-Mashoes Road Mitigation Site
P.N.94028.45;TIP Project No.R-2551
May 1998 43

•
111 9. The final implementation plan will include planting specifications and design and
construction drawings for the restoration area.
10. Control of identified noxious tree weed species and elimination of Phragmites australis
on the site will be continued throughout the five year monitoring period.
a
a
a
y
Mitigation Plan-Mashoes Road Mitigation Site
P.N.94028.45;TIP Project No.R-2551
May 1998 44

_ _JAN-05-'98 MON 1E:01 ID:PLANNING AND ENV IRON TEL NO: t4779 P02 "`
. . •
ems
1.9
1
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B.HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
GOVERNOR P,O.Box 25201,Raleigh,N.C.27611-5201 SECRETARY
December 18, 1997
Michael F. Bell, Project Manager
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Washington Regulatory Field Office
P.O. Box 1000
Washington, North Carolina 27889-1000
Dear Mr. Bell:
SUBJECT: Mitigation Topics Related to the individual Permit Application for
the Proposed Improvements to US 84-264 from West of Manns
Harbor to South of Manteo, Including a New Croatan Sound
Bridge in Dare County; TIP No. R-2551; State Project No. 8.T051401;
Federal Aid No. NHF-64(6)
The Regulatory Branch recently communicated a number of questions and
concerns regarding the Department's proposed Mashoes Road Mitigation
Plan. These comments were conveyed during informal telephone
discussions between Mike Bell and Randy Turner, and subsequently during a
meeting between David Lekson, Bell and Turner at the Washington
Regulatory Field Office on December 17, 1997. The following information is
submitted in an effort to address these issues.
• Restoration vs. Creation; The question was raised about the technical
accuracy of referring to the mitigation implementation as "restoration".
There appears to be some information in the record which suggests
that, at least portions of the areas to be "restored", may actually be
historical upland landscapes. If true, this reality would require that (at
least a portion of) the implementation effort must be redefined as
"creation", not "restoration". In this regard, some of the language in the
mitigation plan implies knowledge that the disturbed portions of the
site were former wetland areas (page 27). In the absence of specific
evidence that these areas were historically wetlands, it would be
advisable to use terminology such as "disturbed site", etc.
The Department recognizes the distinction. The revised mitigation plan
will address this issue in adequate detail. However, tile issue may be
academic. in the final analysis, the significance of distinguishing between
restoration and creation lies In the mitigation ratios which are required, In

JAN-05-'98 MON 16:02 ID:PLANNING AND ENUIRON TEL NO: 4779 P03
Page 2
December 18, 1997
Michael F. Bell
this instance, the Department is proposing a revised ratio which should
satisfy either a creation or restoration concept (see below).
• Credits vs. Simple Replacement Ratios: The Corps has pointed out that,
strictly speaking, the "credit" language Is applicable only to mitigation
bank concepts. Furthermore, in transitloning from a credit formula to
a simple acre:acre ratio, concern was expressed that more than the 1:1
replacement ratio would be necessary to satisfy concerns voiced
among most review agencies.
Questions about the proposed mitigation ratio to be used at the Mashoes
Road Mitigation Site stem from the Department's attempt to develop a
credit formula, which is Inclusive of all habitat zones. This concept has
been used more often with mitigation banks, but it remains a valid
methodology for recognizing the essential multi-compartmental aspects of
mitigation sites, It Is generally recognized, for example, that upland
buffers are often integral parts of the ecological complex and while it is
difficult for regulatory agencies to provide credit for uplands in a wetland
mitigation scheme, these same regulators often agree that the upland
zones can (and do) play an important role In the functionality of the overall
site.
Given the level of objections from the environmental reviewers, the
Department proposes modifications to the mitigation ratios at the
Mashoes Road site. For every acre of Impact anticipated, the Department
commits at least 11 acres of mitigation, including at least 1:1 restoration
and 10:1 preservation in each of the community categories. The result of
this commitment is that 13.10 acres of marsh will be restored and 122.90
acres of existing marsh will be preserved as mitigation for the anticipated
12.29 acres of marsh impacts; and 8.00 acres of palustrine forest will be
restored and 76.2o acres of palustrine forest will be preserved as mitigation
for the anticipated 7.62 acres of palustrine forest impacts. This will leave
130.96 acres of existing marsh and 30.68 acres of palustrine forests available
for any future actions (i.e. permit modifications) associated with the
subject project that could require supplemental mitigation.
• Site Elevation & BMPs: The Corps feels strongly that final site elevation
ranks high among the likely reasons for mitigation site failures. For this
reason the Corps strongly emphasizes that the late planning/design
efforts focus on this Important site feature. Another aspect of site
construction that has concerned the Corps is the arbitrary adherence
to BMPs (for protection of surface waters) In mitigation projects
without some process that evaluates particular BMPs for compatibility
with this type construction. In other words, should there be some re-
interpretation of BMPs. One example cited by the Corps: silt fences
that might be installed at the interface between existing marsh and
proposed marsh are likely to result in an accumulation of slit and

_....-_..JAN-05—'98 MON 16:04 I D:PLANNING AND ENU I RON TEL NO: 21779 PO4
Page 3
December 18, 1997
Michael F. Bell
sediment along the line separating existing from proposed marsh.
When the fence Is removed, the small berm of sediment could serve as
a barrier to sheet flow of water across the entire marsh complex.
The Department acknowledges the importance of final grade on the
overall success potential of the mitigation site. This topic will be given
special consideration during the final planning and design efforts that are
underway. The Corps' recommendation that specific BMPs be reevaluated
for their applicability in mitigation site construction Is a useful suggestion
and will be given serious study by the multi-disciplinary mitigation team
for this and future projects.
• Miscellaneous Monitoring Plan Concerns: Schedule for submittal of
Annual Monitoring Reports must be specified and must be submitted
NLT December 31 of any year. As-Built reports must be submitted
within 90 days of completion of implementation.
The Department will specify that all monitoring reports be issued NLT
December 31 of each year and that As-Built reports will be submitted
within 90 days of completion of implementation.
• Miscellaneous Success Criteria Topics: The Corps is insistent that a 5-year
monitoring program be implemented. For vegetation success the
Corps strongly recommends the following standards for evaluating
vegetation success (after 5 years):
-80% areal coverage for herbaceous zones
•260 trees per acre
u q h. er ' n�fr'3. ze roirt',0 a e,I,:+foiC yr i'h i t�fr;ri �Gii
4 ii11,p' +i l;,!t•
trurn ., ,,..np.,
; .:,.
ri
,.,!
+
' r l ' .Qp r, I� � , I 5 l, � ii i flil ,..1P.:011frLi),i 1p1 lSe„„ , o � ,, i�� yI Ib,Il i f t 1iL „„, 4 p . ,;;";A" ! iill
!:. ' Ps,P1P91 te ;0: �4 � q ; ,9I F ' ,gif ' k i rsI.i i,IF4I4`aii i,
.. t in y , y0 f' " Y 1! , h•,iF; r, t 4/00
Hydrological success in each community zone should be measured by
how well the monitoring data confirm that the marsh has experienced
regular inundation, or saturation (to within 12" of surface) for 25% of
the growing season; and the forest has experienced irregular
inundation, or saturation (to within 12" of surface) for 12.5% of the
growing season. Should either community zone fail to conform to
these success criteria, then at a minimum, they both must have
demonstrated, through an analysis of comparative hydrological
monitoring data, that inundation and/or saturation in the experimental
zones (implementation zones) do not differ significantly from that In
the control zones (reference ecosystems).

_, - JAN-05-'98 MON 16:05 ID:PLANNING AND ENUIRON TEL NO: 4779 PO5 - -
Page 4
December 18, 1997
Michael F. Bell
Discussion of ditch connections (top of page 32) is ambiguous. More
specific information is needed such as how will connections be made
and where, specifically, will these connections occur.
Should any aspect of the monitoring program confirm a failure, or
imminent failure, the recommended sequence of remedial events given
on page 30 and elsewhere should be revised to place greater emphasis
on fairly Immediate consultation with the Corps and review agencies.
The Department agrees that, after 5 years of monitoring, if 80% areal
coverage has not been achieved In the herbaceous zones, there may be a
problem. Accordingly, the Department agrees with this success criteria, as
well as the success criteria for the forested zone. The Department also
concurs with the noxious weed species conditions.
While at first glance the hydrological success criteria appear to be severe
for the marsh zone, it is probably reasonable given the community type
being restored (created). The Department is confident It will be able to
emulate the hydrological regime of the adjacent marsh, which appears to
be a healthy, thriving system. The only reservation the Department has in
agreeing with these hydrological success criteria is that the target values
are theoretical. While wetlands research may suggest that the vast
majority of non-tidal marsh complexes exhibit hydrological criteria equal to
or larger than the 25% target, it is reasonable to predict that some highly
successful-highly functional marsh communities do not achieve the 25%
hydroperiod. However, the Department Is comfortable with this condition
since provision is made that, should these criteria not be strictly met, if the
site hydrology (determined from monitoring data) is statistically the same
as the reference ecosystem (and plants are succeeding), success will have
been achieved. The Department concurs with the hydrological success
criteria for the forested zone also.
The sequence of remedial events listed on page 30 and elsewhere will be
reiterated to emphasize the need to consult with the environmental
community before undertaking arbitrary changes in the mitigation sites.
• Planting Plan & Related Topics: The Corps expressed concern that newly
planted trees would be subjected to extremely harsh micro-
environmental effects. The site is comprised of a psammic substrate
which will not hold sufficient water to sustain the young trees.
Furthermore, nutrients are likely to leach through this soil rapidly. The
Corps strongly recommends consideration be given to soil amendment
at individual plant sites, and other measures to Counteract the negative
site conditions.
Boundaries separating tree species, or mix of species should be located
on the basis of micro-habitat (wetter zones, etc.), rather than arbitrarily.

JAN-25-'99 MON 16:07 ID:PLANNING AND ENUIRON TEL NO: #779 P06
•
Page 5
December 18, 1997
Michael F. Bell
Species should then be assigned to these subordinate zones on the basis
of differential tolerances for such micro-habitat conditions. For
example, it would be reasonable to plant Nyssa sylvatica var. biflora in a
wetter area than, say, Quercus nigra. Further study needs to be given
the intended use of Carya aquatica, Quercus mlchauxii, Q. pagodaefolia,
Nyssa aquatica, Fraxinus pennsylvanica and Q. Lyrata in the forested
zone. After consideration of the matter, if the Department decides to
recommend the use of these species, some justification should be
provided. The Corps Is not in favor of planting Liriodendron tuiipifera in
the mitigation site.
Statements in the mitigation plan (e.g. Page 32) which specify that
species will be planted "dependent upon their availability" provides too
large a loop hole for allowing market availability (as dictated by one or
more vendors) to determine species composition of mitigation site.
The Department will address the concerns about micro-environmental
stresses on the planted trees. The Roadside Environmental unit will
consider the implications of this concern In developing specifications to
planting contractors. The Roadside Environmental Unit will also give
serious thought to the list of tree species recommended in the mitigation
plan in light of what Is known about the existing and proposed conditions
at the mitigation site. A species list will be formulated based upon a re-
examination of this Issue by Roadside Environmental and P & E biological
staff. The Department will not authorize the planting of yellow poplar at
the site. Once the species list is finalized, a justification for the species will
be Included in the revised mitigation plan.
The Department agrees fully with the Corps' admonition that the
boundaries of the subordinate plant zones within the forested area should
be based upon ecological rationales and not for arbitrary reasons.
The Department acknowledges that market availability may be important
at any point in time and may, in fact, limit the availability of one or more
species. In anticipation of this contingency, an alternate species list will be
developed from which a species substitution could be made.
• Functionality: Very little attention is paid to functionality of proposed
mitigation within each community type.
The Department will examine this topic more fully in the mitigation plan
revisions. However, it is obvious that the strongest, perhaps most valuable
function to be served by the complex Is a wildlife and aquatic life function.

JAN-05-'98 MON 16:08 ID:PLANNING AND ENUIRON TEL NO: 4779 P0? -__
Page 6
December 18, 1997
Michael F. Bell
• Miscellaneous: Miscellaneous editorial comments and suggestions.
1. Mitigation plan uses word "aerial" throughout discussion of success
criteria and monitoring of vegetation. Word should be "areal".
2. Reference to "USACOE 1987 manual guidelines" as one of the ideals to
achieve with hydrology and vegetation (page 33) should be deleted.
3. Control of successional growth within mitigation areas may be a
subject which should be given serious consideration. If decision is
made to use herbicides in controlling excessive growth of
"volunteer" species, It Is imperative that chemicals selected are
environmentally safe.
The Department will make the recommended changes. in fact, a global
review will be performed to ensure that changes identified in preceding
bullets are incorporated throughout the document. The issue of
controlling successional growth of unspecified plants will be evaluated
during each annual field visits for recording vegetation success data. If it
appears that successional growth may be limiting the growth or
performance of the planted species, the Department will choose a
horticulturally and biologically sound method which addresses this
concern.
• Concerns were raised about the possibility of future, random dumping
activities, similar to what transpired at the site earlier (and repeatedly)
this year.
Previous dumping on the site was a result of public access and a lack of
surveillance by the previous owner. After completion of grading and
planting, the entire mitigation site will be physically inaccessible to the
public. The elevation and hydrology will be similar to that of the adjacent,
undisturbed areas which do not provide access for vehicles. Departmental
personnel have observed the entire length of Mashoes Road (from the
mitigation site to its end) on numerous occasions. No dumping of trash or
debris was noted. Other than possible small items that may be discarded
(as along any road), no significant debris dumping Is expected.
• The Corps expressed some concern that actual construction plans would
not be available until after the Issuance of the Individual Permit.
It is important to point out that the Department Is busy developing
construction plans which implements planning requirements. As soon as
the above recommended changes are made to the mitigation plan these
changes will be communicated immediately to the design team. It is
anticipated that construction plans will be available for review NLT July
1998. As indicated In the Section 404 application, the Mashoes Road
Mitigation Site will be fully planted and multi-year monitoring data will be
in hand well before the subject highway project is completed. The
Department has made significant efforts to produce a mitigation package

.JAN-05-'98 MON 16: 10 ID:PLANNING AND ENUIRON TEL NO: 4779 P06
Page 7
December 18, 1997
Michael F. Bell
that will accomplish several objectives, i.e., provide appropriate
compensation for anticipated wetland impacts; restore a dysfunctional
ecosystem to full functionality in a sensitive environmental setting; and
remove the threat of continued development from an important natural
area.
• Enhancement of Littoral Zone at Impoundment: As a follow-up to a
recommendation by the Environmental Protection Agency, the Corps
requested the Department give consideration to improving/establishing
a functional littoral zone along the southern shoreline of the large
Impoundment at the mitigation site.
The Department has anecdotal information that suggests that the existing
southern shoreline is characterized by a steep slope. If this is confirmed,
the estimated volume of fill that would be necessary to establish a gently
sloping littoral zone, facilitating the development of a rich benthic
community, makes this approach impracticable. However, there is some
possibility that grading of the existing berm, which separates the large and
small Impoundments, could create a more gentle slope to the existing
drop-off. This would require that some of the proposed marsh restoration
area be sacrificed to this concept. The Department does not recommend
this option, but is interested in the Corps feed-back.
The Department hopes the responses and commitments provided above
will serve to allay any concerns that the Corps may have regarding the
potential success of the Mashoes Road Mitigation Site. The Department is
committed to making this mitigation site a success and looks forward to
working closely with the corps and other agencies In this endeavor.
Thank you for your time and cooperation. Please call David Schiller if you
have any questions or comments.
Sincerely,
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning & Environmental Branch
HFV/mrt
cc: Ms. Cyndi Bell, DWG
Ms. Debra Sawyer, DWo
Mr. Doug Huggett, DCM

- - JAN-05-'96 MON 16: 11 ID:PLANNING AND ENUIRON TEL NO: #779 P0=
Page 8
December 18, 1997
Michael F. Bell
Ms. Lynn Mathis, XCM
Mr. Ron Sechler, NMFS
Ms. Sara Winslow, DMF
Mr. David COX, NCWRC
Mr. Randy Wise, P.E., NCDOT
Mr. Randy Turner, NCDOT
M . David Schiller, NCDOT