NCDOT 19-02 Mitigation White Oak River

,
6— N33.43'W (DEED)
IN38'48'ID•W •
\ I
,\
\
CEDAR 90 \ T VITIGAT O \ SITE
P ' E & ' OST DELI \ FATIO \ vA9PI \ G
\
1
I
I
I
ao
,+ \� 1 \ I
p I \ Bey® — ,
�dr
\
1
.\ 1
k V�O�
\ N. o
Iti
j//� MARSH RESTORATION AREA ' �\ -
o e I / i�
CEDAR POINT MITIGATION SITE ,,i /'
PRERESTORATION CONDITIONS �`t I ' SC �, �, ,��
Upland (Including Peninsula) 1.14 ac , ..�....r.SN. .�.
Existing Marsh/Open Water , a IE rea„
13.20 ac : , „�/� �/ roan.3 WYrA�.
Total Size of Site 14.34 ac �u ^E
nuc,a wu w,waworrw.rt ur f
rrir, �r•ms....x.ra ��/,
[WINKIVit // _ /I/
POST RESTORATION CONDITIONS "a.-a i .=� '
Upland 0.34 ac °"���
oe
Existing Marsh/Open Water °� — i
r �
13.20 ac V. c / �G� �..� ��f
(Including Breakwater) _ .. `
\ �1
Low Marsh Restortation 0.38 ac , v��1`>� ���••,.�_�_•i�� — "
High Marsh Restoration 0.42 ac \ /���• /
(Including Peninsula) \ li:
\�� ==
Total Restoration 0.80 ac '
UMW WV
Permanent Impacts 0.038 cc ------` MINCN
Net Mitigation 0.762 ac 3 2 f
NC HtlY 24 —L EV— i
i ! 1
j ---++b
GRAPHIC SCALE ,\ -- --— — _ _
210 0 4'0 8'0 120

;;:r.••
,i0 •
. ,
_ a
1 .
......
....
. .,
.k.
L
f.. ..
. . . ._
. .,, .
.... ....— ,
41
.191k`r,,.• ."
f „••. -,
le • '
•,,- 1:-);4',.. ,
.,.
4* irL Pi, ••,i.,.:44.
.tit •a,. . .__.„
_ t" . .,. ,,, 4 •-, • -' - • ,
• ,..-
•,.k. , .W.
" ,
'1140411111111k
f 1,7 ' X
C
. .'
.-.
z.... .
' 11F 101.;.-
.... 4.4 Xi •
("..S.. ,..;"4,14 k .-.•. '
. ,.
4 -
, \ vC4 41
., ..,....
. 0 z
. 0 ••
,,• • , 11IP di...
r0
ik li
./ •

CEDAR POINT MITIGATION SITE (R-2I05WM)
FIGURE I: Existing Conditions
h>
o!y—
\N c'.. / ° 0.
y
(` I y
\1 b
4y• .PO o
O 1
\`1a 10> N41 �I•
gyp b ,l;1 \i;)
b /1,
b
4\?‘•,..
ttt 1y R
i o
\ ? , , MHW Line h N/F '� 0'
,1 ?„, JOHN.R.& 1 ° O
\ (2.5' Elevation) ° Los• B.JONES
r I ^° ° EDGE OF EXISTING o ., a`
I o{ ff� `' yb (� / bb. MARSH 0
I.KI ICI ti n c I' ' •°' . b.'L" ... ••.•• � � .•
WI �' '\ ° s� bb N/F
III - - - - • ♦•j �• yam+ ;i.Y _ -'.•. -•• ',0: _ h
I t� I 0 + .• :."it,.".'------ - '_'1 1� fl'- —b' JOHN.W.
I=I °' .' ,6'1' v 1> ref . -.-.•-.- ' 'pb.__--- —>e,�"
`\ • ,`�0h. 1��� pIyyr "y. •yam•
�� _'-• _ •'. '•yam e.
•
•
IITi b• q• 1
/`—\ •
/W
/ 4 •
^p
\b, •
•
q` q
'• .. PROPOSED R/11
�7 ', A,°'..�, .h'•. _ ' - :_ �- -1 •— 7%,7" ---�u`7. o- - '12 \_—_ _ _ —bo EXISTING R/W
H N
b y h d
1•
h
m b b_ ' 1� b GROW SCALE
(G
o b' 20' b 2b' lb'
0
N EXIST.EDGE OF PAVEMENT
o u
a a

,
DOT SITE INSPECTION REPORT
MITIGATION SITE NAME TIP# ONE ID# INSPECTION DATE
Cedar Point R-2105AB 016-001 8/26/2020
COUNTY #ACRES
Carteret 14.54
MONITORING ORGANIZATION INSPECTOR PHONE EMAIL ADDRESS
NCDOT Pete Stafford 919-878-9560 [e-mail]
INSPECTION ACTIVITIES: Complete all that apply. Describe location of visited areas if<100%.
Walked boundaries ❑YES ❑No El N/A Walked trails/roads ❑YES ❑No ❑■ N/A
Walked road frontage ❑YES ❑No ❑i N/A Walked interior El YES 0 No 0 N/A
Monitored from air ❑■ YES ❑No ❑N/A
Condition of boundaries ❑ ❑
Goon FAIR POOR
COMMENTS:
No natural or manmade changes observed. Site in good condition at time of inspection.
WHICH NATURAL ACTIVITIES/CHANGES HAVE TAKEN PLACE SINCE LAST MONITORING INSPECTION?
Check all that apply. Note location and extent. Wherever possible, note species of concern. Document
with photos.
❑FLOODING ❑FIRE ❑STORM DEARTH
MOVEMENT
['OTHER ACTIVITIES/
[INVASIVE EXOTIC [INSECT ❑ANIMAL CHANGES?
VEGETATION INFESTATION ACTIVITY (Please Explain)
ENO CHANGE
EXPLAIN:
No natural changes observed.
DOT Site Inspection Program

DOT SITE INSPECTION REPORT
WHICH MANMADE ACTIVITIES/CHANGES HAVE TAKEN PLACE SINCE LAST MONITORING?
Check all that apply. Note location and extent. Document with photos.
❑NEW STRUCTURE/
CONSTRUCTION ❑DUMPING OR STORING ❑NEW TRAILS OR ROADS
❑TIMBER HARVEST/ El EXCAVATION 0 ALTERATION TO DRAINAGE
(DREDGING,FILLING,GRADING,
VEGETATIVE CUTTING MINING) PATTERNS/WATER QUALITY
❑ SUBDIVISION ❑INDUSTRIAL,RESIDENTIAL,OR ❑LAND CLEARING
COMMERCIAL USE
❑MOTORIZED VEHICLE
DAMAGE ❑TRESPASS/VANDALISM ❑AGRICULTURAL USE
❑OTHER ACTIVITIES/CHANGES?
❑ENCROACHMENT FROM 0 ACTIVITY ON (Please Explain)
ADJACENT PROPERTY ABUTTING LAND 0 NO CHANGE
EXPLAIN:
No manmade changes observed.
REQUEST FOLLOW-UP BY PROGRAM MANAGER
FOR POSSIBLE VIOLATIONS. DYES ENO
Were corrective actions ONO EXPLAIN:
completed for previous DYES
inspection(s)? ❑N/A
Are you aware of any plans DYES o EXPLAIN:
that may affect property?
Are there concerns about EXPLAIN:
boundaries by adjacent DYES ■❑No
property owners?
Are there changes in land use EXPLAIN:
on adjacent property? EYES ONO
Are deed restrictions being OYES ONo EXPLAIN:
adhered to?
If new property owner,do ONO
they have a written copy of
the restrictions? DYES a N/A
ATTACHMENTS:
1)MAP OF PERMANENT PHOTO PLOTS
2)PHOTOGRAPHS WITH CAPTIONS
3)MAP AND PHOTOGRAPHS WITH CAPTIONS OF RELEVANT NATURAL AND MANMADE ACTIVITIES
4)OTHER(SPECIFY)
DOT Site Inspection Program

O UAS PHOTO Site: Cedar Point,ONEID:016-001,0.82 Ac.
ti•.
', 3
'. ''µ'kid. ,. ��A
' M 2
- © 4
'...
5
, L 0 ,
1
©`,
• ,I ,-
•
Legend \ r .7.
Site Track USDA ESA G°"Mew
5-bite View
NCDOT
l'Ig
" • ,. -� w - ; �° Stewardship Program Mitigation
�
, µ�... _ Site Reviews
f - A +...
}
Project Name
Cedar Point
° r
TIP No. R-2105AB
Division No. 2
'' f` • County: Carteret
Ile �" November 2020
°9.1r�.
RKiit
Feet Lat/Long: 34.6818,-77.1112
0 150 300 450 600

• A
Ale
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Michael F. Easley, Governor James H. Gregson, Director William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
September 11, 2008
Mr. Philip S. Harris, III, PE
NC Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Office of Natural Environment
1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1598
Re: Authorization to Discontinue Mitigation Monitoring
Cedar Point Mitigation Site, Carteret County
CAMA Permit No. 19-02
Dear Mr. Harris:
This correspondence is in response to your letter requesting the discontinuation of monitoring at
the Cedar Point Mitigation Site in Carteret County, dated April 3, 2008.
In our initial response of May 5, 2008, to your letter requesting the discontinuation of monitoring
at the Cedar Point Mitigation Site, we requested that NCDOT provide the results of a post-
restoration wetland delineation, an analysis of the amount of coastal wetlands restored relative to
the initial wetland delineation in accordance with Condition No. 2 of CAMA Permit No. 19-02,
and that NCDOT schedule an on-site meeting with the appropriate regulatory and resources
agencies.
On August 12, 2008, an interagency field review took place at the Cedar Point Mitigation Site.
A pre-construction and post-restoration wetland delineation drawing was provided during the site
review that appeared to accurately depict the Coastal Wetland restoration of the site. This
document satisfied Condition No. 2 of CAMA Permit No. 19-02.
Based on visual observations on August 12, 2008 and an evaluation of the success of the site, it
appears that the site restoration has been successful. DCM concurs with the results of the
wetland delineations that indicate that 0.38 acres of low marsh and 0.42 acres of high marsh have
been restored. DCM authorizes the discontinuation of monitoring. This authorization does not
eliminate the need to obtain written concurrence from the NC Division of Water Quality(DWQ),
the NC Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF), and the NC Wildlife Resources Commission
(WRC) as stipulated by Condition No. 27 of CAMA Permit No. 19-02 for the proposed use of
the site as mitigation for wetland impacts of future projects.
400 Commerce Avenue, Morehead City, North Carolina 28557-3421
Phone: [phone] \ FAX: [phone]\ Internet: www.nccoastalmanagement.net
An Equal Opportunity\Affirmative Action Employer—50%Recycled\10°o Post Consumer Paper

Cedar Point Mitigation Site page 2
CAMA Permit No. 19-02
If you have any questions or concerns contact Steve Sollod at 919-733-2293, extension 230 or
via e-mail at [e-mail].
Sincerely,
Douglas V. Huggett
Major Permits and Consistency Unit Manager
cc: Mr. Randy Griffin, NCDOT
Mr. Stephen Lane, DCM
Ms. Kathy Matthews, EPA
Ms. Trish Murphy,DMF
Ms. LeiLani Paugh, NCDOT
Mr. Ron Sechler, NMF
Mr. Steve Sollod,DCM
Mr. David Wainwright, DWQ
Mr. William Wescott, USACE
Mr. Travis Wilson, WRC

Re: Cedar Point Mitigation Site
Subject: Re: Cedar Point Mitigation Site
From: Stephen Lane <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 17:15:49 -0400
To: Steve Sollod<[e-mail]>
Hi Steve,
I consulted with Trish Murphy of NCDMF via telephone on August 25, 2008 and she concurred with
DCM's decision to allow the discontinuation of monitoring at the Cedar Point Mitigation Site in Carteret
County. Please let me know if you need any additional information regarding this site.
Thanks,
Stephen
Steve Sollod wrote:
<>Doug,
Attached for your review is a letter to NCDOT authorizing the discontinuation of monitoring at the
Cedar Point Mitigation Site in Carteret County.
Steve
Steve Sollod
Transportation Project Coordinator
NC Division of Coastal Management
1638 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1638
(919) 733-2293 X230 phone
(919) 733-1495 FAX
leferLe Co Ai v.,( Y1.o v r 5 0. S 1�/"
1 of 1 8/28/2008 8:12 AM

Re: Cedar Point
Subject: Re: Cedar Point
From: Stephen Lane <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 10:33:08 -0400
To: Steve Sollod<[e-mail]>
Hi Steve,
In accordance with our discussions and site visit on August 12, 2008, I recommend
that we accept the Cedar Point Mitigation Site final figures of 0.762 acres of
Coastal Wetland restoration credits and close out the site. I have left a voice mail
for Trish Murphy of DMF to solicit input from that agency regarding this site and
will let you know what I find out after I have a chance to discuss the site with her.
Thanks,
Stephen
Steve Sollod wrote:
Hey Stephen,
Condition #27 for the permit for the Cedar Point Mitigation Site (19-02) says that
concurrence from DMF and WRC (and the others of course) is needed - that the site
has been successful. I 'm not sure if the site is in Sean's or Trish's area. . .
Which one has it? Is it Sean's because it is on the south side of the Neuse
River? I guess we should send an e-mail request to DMF and WRC to ask if they
concur. . . I can do that. . . just let me know if it should be Sean or Trish.
Also, do the numbers on the delineation map that they gave look right to you? I
just want to get your opinion. They look okay to me. Net mitigation Low Marsh
0.38 + High Marsh 0.42 = 0. 762 acres. Steve
1 of 1 8/22/2008 10:41 AM

Unknown
Subject: Cedar Point Mitigation Site Visit
Start: Tue 8/12/2008 12:00 AM
End: Wed 8/13/2008 12:00 AM
Show Time As: Free
Recurrence: (none)
Thanks for getting back to me so quickly. It looks like everyone is okay with August 12th. We'll plan to meet at the store
parking lot across from the site at the NC 24 bridge in Swansboro at 10:00 a.m. I'll plan to see all of you then. If anything
comes up I can be reached 919-715-1438 or 919-669-2414 mobile. Thanks.
Jason Elliott
PDEA-NEU Engineering Group
[phone]
Hi all
You have a meeting scheduled with Randy Griffin to review the Cedar Point site on August 12th.
Since all the same people will be in attendance, can we combine the meeting to visit the Sawmill site
on the same day?
Please let me know if this works for you.
Thanks
LEiLani
1

•
Mitigation Site Field Review
Saw Mill and Cedar Point
Saw Mill Mitigation Site
On 8/12/08, an interagency field review took place at the Saw Mill Mitigation Site. In
attendance was, myself- Steve Sollod(DCM), Stephen Lane(DCM),David Wainwight
(DWQ),William Wescott(USACE), Kathy Matthews (EPA), Jason Elliot (NCDOT),
Randy Griffin (NCDOT), Leilani Pau (NCDOT), and others with NCDOT. Travis
Wilson (WRC) could not be at the meeting as he and his wife are having a baby.
The site generally looked good to the agencies. The marsh area, planted with Spartina
cynosuroides, was well established, although there were some other species like Wax
Myrtle in places. The target scale factor success criteria(>75% vegetative cover, not
including any invasive species)is shy of the value of 5 with a value of 4.5. The marsh
area was perhaps a little drier than we would have liked to see but(it is a wind-driven tide
area) generally, we were satisfied with the status of this area.
The remaining Bottomland Hardwood area looked reasonably good. There has
apparently been some gauge malfunction because some of the data appeared to be
erroneous. The placement of the reference wells was perhaps not ideal and despite the
malfunctioning gauges and the hydrology not reaching the criteria of within 10% of
reference, DWQ and the Corps seemed to be satisfied with the site.
During the conclusion of the field inspection I explained that DCM needs correspondence
from NCDOT summarizing how the mitigation commitments related to the Neuse River
Bridge and the New Bern Bypass are being satisfied. Leilani said that she thought DCM
had that information... I informed her that we had received an acceptance letter from
EEP addressing the mitigation for the New Bern Bypass, however,DCM had not
received correspondence that tied all of the commitments together, as the mitigation
commitments for both projects are tied together. (At this time,no debit ledger has been
submitted for debits to the Croatan Site for the Neuse River Bridge.) Leilani said that she
would provide my requested document.
Cedar Point Mitigation Site
On 8/12/08'an interagency field review took place at the Cedar Point Mitigation Site. In
attendance was, myself- Steve Sollod (DCM), Stephen Lane(DCM),David Wainwight
(DWQ),William Wescott (USACE), Kathy Matthews (EPA),Ron Sechler(NMF), Jason
Elliot (NCDOT), Randy Griffin (NCDOT), Leilani Pau (NCDOT), and others with
NCDOT. Travis Wilson (WRC)could not be at the meeting as he and his wife are
having a baby.

Mitigation Site Field Review Page 2
Saw Mill and Cedar Point
The coastal wetland vegetation appears to have filled in nicely. The upper marsh area is
mostly salicornia and some Spartina patens. Salicorina appears to be the dominant
species in the upper marsh area, even though S. patens was the planted species. The
coverage appeared to be better than what had been reported in the last annual monitoring
report. Although the scale factor in the annual report indicated a factor of 4, with
coverage of about 80%, based on visual observation during the field visit on 8/12/08, the
coverage looked better than 80%.
The channel located in the restored area next to NC 24 had a fairly wide area of open
water. I brought this up in conversation and a discussion ensued on the concerns and
merits of this area. Leilani and Randy pointed out that the channel was considered part of
the mitigation and that mitigation credit was expected for the open water in the channel.
Ron Sechler did not have any concerns with the open water area and indicated that it
provides habitat. As it turns out,there is an area beyond (and against)the breakwater that
has formed with shoaling and current bringing sand up to the breakwater that has become
vegetated with Spartina alternaflora. The formation of this coastal wetland area was
unanticipated and was not counted as part of the restoration (credit) for the site.
Although no additional credit is being requested by NCDOT, this area may make up for
the open water in the channel. Also,based on a document prepared by Cathy
Brittingham that summarizes DCM's previous practices and treatment of sites with open
water in channels (and the credit given for these areas) and a review of the project file, it
appears that giving mitigation credit for the open water of the channel is appropriate.
NCDOT provided a pre & post wetland delineation drawing that appeared to accurately
depict the restoration of the site. This document satisfied Condition#2 of CAMA permit
19-02, that required the submittal of the results of pre and post-construction wetland
delineations. It appears that the site restoration has been successful and Stephen Lane
and I are satisfied that the site may be closed out. NMF, DWQ, and the Corps also
appear to be satisfied with the site. DCM will contact DMF and WRC for their
comments on the site.

From: Elliott, Jason C f mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 10:54 AM
To: Steve Sollod ([e-mail]); David Wainwright([e-mail]); Wescott,
William G SAW; Travis Wilson ([e-mail]); Kathy Matthews
([e-mail]); smtp-Sechler, Ron
Cc: Stephen Lane ([e-mail]); Griffin, Randell W; Green, Matthew L
Subject: Cedar Point Site Visit
Good morning all,
We recently received a site visit request from DCM in order to close out monitoring at the Cedar Point
mitigation site and I would like to solicit available dates from you all in order to set up this meeting. Per the
request letter, we have completed the post-construction wetland delineation and will provide the results at the
on site meeting. Please submit to me at your earliest convenience the dates that you have available to meet
over the next month. Let me know if I've left anyone off the email list and I'll make sure that they receive it as
well. Thanks and let me know if you have any questions.
Jason Elliott
PDEA-NEU Engineering Group
[phone]
Please note that as of May 27,2008 my email
address has changed to [e-mail]
Steve Sollod
Transportation Project Coordinator
NC Division of Coastal Management
1638 Mail Service Center
6/16/2008 1:10 PN
I of 2

t
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual)
Project/Site: Cedar Point Mitigation Site Date: 6-5-08
Applicant I 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 alternfora 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: 1-4 (in.) Secondary Indicators:
Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 0 (in.) 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: very poorly drained
Taxonomy(Subgroup): thermic Typic Psammaquents Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No X
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
finches) Horizon fMunsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure,etc.
0-2 A 10YR 2/1 mucky sand
2-6 B 1 10YR 4/3 coarse sand/shells
6-18+ B2 10YR 2/1 Gley 1 3/5gy 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 Is the Sampling Point
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No Within a Wetland? Yes X No
Hydric Soils Present? 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:upland
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. Ivarurescens 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:
Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12"
Depth to Free Water in Pit: >20 (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: 18 (in.) 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 Typic Psarnmaquents Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No X
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
finches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure.etc.
0-12 A(fill) 1OYR 5/6 medium sand
12-20 B 10YR 6/3 fine sand
•
� I
Hydric Soil Indicators:
}
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed On Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other(Explain in Remarks)
rRemarks:
No Hydric indicators in sandy soil
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Is the Sampling Point
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X Within a Wetland? Yes No X
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No X
Remarks:

ATA
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Michael F. Easley,Governor James H. Gregson, Director William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
•
May 5, 2008
Mr. Philip S. Harris, III, PE
NC Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Office of Natural Environment
1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1598
Re: Cedar Point Mitigation Site, CAMA Permit No. 19-02
Carteret County
Dear Mr. Harris:
This letter is in response to your correspondence dated April 3, 2008 requesting to discontinue
monitoring and the regulatory release of the Cedar Point Mitigation Site in Carteret County.
A CAMA Major Permit was issued on February 12, 2002 to NCDOT for the replacement of a
deteriorating breakwater and restoration of coastal marsh with the intention of providing for
future wetland mitigation needs.
A tidal channel was excavated to improve the hydrology of the wetland restoration area. In
accordance with the DCM Field Investigation Report, approximately 2,718 square feet of low
marsh and 1,400 square feet of high marsh were excavated for the new tidal channel and low
marsh restoration. In addition, approximately 10,340 square feet of shallow bottom was
excavated and filled to install and obtain the necessary grade behind the breakwater, and
approximately 31,200 square feet of high ground was excavated adjacent to Highway 24 and
behind the new breakwater to install the tidal channel and restore the low coastal marsh.
In accordance with Condition No. 2 of CAMA permit No. 19-02, the results of a wetland
delineation, once hydraulic and vegetative success criteria are achieved, was to be submitted to
DCM for approval. Also, Condition No. 26 states that, "The final mitigation credits generated at
this site will be determined by the difference between the results of the pre and post-construction
wetland delineations required by Condition No. 2 of this CAMA permit."
In order to close out the site, please provide the results of a post-construction wetland delineation
and an analysis of the amount of coastal wetlands restored, and schedule an on-site meeting with
the appropriate agencies. Based on confirmation of the results and concurrence from the NC
Division of Water Quality(DWQ), the NC Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF), and the NC
Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC), DCM will then be able to authorize the discontinuation
of monitoring and closure of the site.
400 Commerce Avenue, Morehead City, North Carolina 28557-3421
Phone: [phone]\FAX: [phone]\Internet: www.nccoastalmanagement.net
An Equal Opportunity\Affirmative Action Employer—50%Recycled\10%Post Consumer Paper

Cedar Point Mitigation Site page 2
CAMA Permit No. 19-02
If you have any questions or concerns contact Steve Sollod at 919-733-2293, extension 230 or
via e-mail at [e-mail].
Sincerely,
Doug Huggett
Major Permits and Consistency Unit Manager
cc: Mr. Randy Griffin, NCDOT
Mr. Stephen Lane, DCM
Mr. Mike Marshall,DMF
Ms. Kathy Matthews, EPA
Mr. Steve Sollod, DCM
Mr. David Wainwright,DWQ
Mr. Garcy Ward,DWQ
Mr. William Wescott, USACE
Mr. Travis Wilson,WRC

Ammennimmin
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Michael F. Easley, Governor James H. Gregson, Director William G. Ross Jr.,Secretary
Apri 123, 2008
Mr. Philip S. Harris, III, PE
NC Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Office of Natural Environment
1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1598
Re: Cedar Point Mitigation Site, CAMA Permit No. 19-02
Carteret County
Dear Mr. Harris:
This letter is in response to your correspondence dated April 3,2008 requesting to discontinue
monitoring and the regulatory release of the Cedar Point Mitigation Site in Carteret County.
A CAMA Major Permit was issued on February 12, 2002 to NCDOT for the replacement of a
deteriorating breakwater and restoration of coastal marsh with the intension of providing for
future wetland mitigation needs.
A tidal channel was excavated to improve the hydrology of the wetland restoration area. In
accordance with the DCM Field Investigation Report, approximately 2718 square feet of low
marsh and 1400 square feet of high marsh were excavated for the new tidal channel and low
marsh restoration. In addition, approximately 10,340 square feet of shallow bottom were
excavated and filled to install and obtain the necessary grade behind the breakwater and
approximately 31,200 square feet of high ground were excavated adjacent to Highway 24 and
behind the new breakwater to install the tidal channel and restore the low coastal marsh.
In accordance with Condition No. 2 of CAMA permit No. 19-02, the results of a wetland
delineation once hydraulic and vegetative success criteria are achieve shall be submitted to DCM
for approval. Also, Condition No. 26 states that, "The final mitigation credits generated at this
site will be determined by the difference between the results of the pre and post-construction
wetland delineations required by Condition No. 2 of this CAMA permit."
In order to close out the site,please provide the results of a post-construction wetland delineation
and an analysis of the amount of coastal wetlands restored and schedule an on-site meeting with
the appropriate agencies. Based on confirmation of the results and concurrence from the NC
Division of Water Quality (DWQ),the NC Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF), and the NC
Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC), DCM will authorize the discontinuation of monitoring
and closure of the site.
400 Commerce Avenue, Morehead City, North Carolina 28557-3421
Phone: [phone] \ FAX: [phone]\ Internet: www.nccoastalmanagement.net
An Equal Opportunity\Affirmative Action Employer—50%Recycled\10 Post Consumer Paper

Cedar Point Mitigation Site page 2
CAMA Permit No. 19-02
If you have any questions or concerns contact Steve Sollod at 919-733-2293, extension 230 or
via e-mail at [e-mail].
Sincerely,
Douglas V. Huggett
Major Permits and Consistency Unit Manager
cc: Mr. Randy Griffin, NCDOT
Mr. Stephen Lane, DCM
Mr. Mike Marshall,DMF
Ms. Kathy Matthews, EPA
Mr. Steve Sollod,DCM
Mr. David Wainwright,DWQ
Mr. Garcy Ward,DWQ
Mr. William Wescott, USACE
Mr.Travis Wilson,WRC

Tom\
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F.EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
April 3, 2008
Mr. Doug Huggett
NC Division of Coastal Management APR 0 3 2008
Parker Lincoln Building L)IV OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
2728 Capital Boulevard
Raleigh, NC 27604
Re: Cedar Point Mitigation Site, Carteret County, State Project No. 6.16901T, TIP No.
R-2105AB, Action ID No. 200100396, DWQ Proj. #011850, DCM Permit No. 19-02
Mr. Huggett:
As you are aware, the Department has monitored the Cedar Point Mitigation Site since its
construction in March of 2002. Located in Carteret County, adjacent to both NC 24 and the
White Oak River in Swansboro, this 14.34 acre site provides upfront mitigation for future
wetland impacts in the White Oak River Basin. The site was excavated and planted with
Spartina alterniflora and Spartina patens in May of 2002; due to vegetation failure the site was
tilled and replanted in May of 2003. Hydrologic monitoring consisted of two surface water
gauges that were set to record surface water readings every hour. According to permit
conditions, NCDOT was required to monitor the Cedar Point Mitigation Site for five years or
until success criteria were met; with vegetation and hydrologic monitoring conducted annually.
After each growing season, annual monitoring reports were submitted to the appropriate
regulatory agencies via the Natural Environment Unit's (NEU)website:
http://www.ncdot.org/doh/preconstruct/pe/neu/Monitoring/MonitoringReports.html
After five years of coastal marsh vegetation monitoring, vegetation data for 2007 indicates that
the site has met the 80% frequency of targeted species criteria by yielding 100.0%. The
vegetative cover scale value of 4.0 is close to meeting the requirement of 5.0 for year five.
Annual monitoring data is provided within the monitoring reports submitted between 2002 and
2007.
The fifth year of hydrology monitoring indicates that the Deer Creek Mitigation Site is
functioning as a coastal marsh. The surface gauges indicate that the site is being flooded twice
daily during the growing season. Annual surface water monitoring data is provided within the
monitoring reports submitted between 2002 and 2007.
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

NCDOT requests that the appropriate resource agencies provide written documentation stating
that no further monitoring is required and that the site is closed. If you have any questions about
this project, please contact Mr. Randy Griffin at [phone].
Sincerely,
F-'etE1----TPhilip s, III, P.E., Unit Head
PDEA-Natural Environment Unit
cc: Mr. William Wescott, USACOE
Mr. David Wainwright, DWQ
Mr. Travis Wilson, WRC
Ms. Kathy Matthews, EPA
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
Mr. David Harris, P.E., NCDOT-REU
Mr. Jay Johnson, NCDOT-DEO
Mr. Ron Sechler, NOAA

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2007
_Aparpniiimui .11Wanierik,
*Nair -k a, Wig
IL
II-
iV. �',
r7r
0 •
Cedar Point Mitigation Site
Carteret County
TIP No. R-2105 AB
z`E gQO4'
OF TAB'
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

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 Site Construction
May 2002 Site Planted
June 2002 Surface Gauges Installed
June-December 2002 Hydrologic Monitoring (Year 1)
August 2002 Vegetation Monitoring (Year 1)
May 2003 Site Tilled and Supplemental Planting
March-November 2003 Hydrologic Monitoring (Year 2)
August 2003 Vegetation Monitoring (Year 1 Restart)
March-November 2004 Hydrologic Monitoring (Year 3)
July 2004 Vegetation Monitoring (Year 2)
March-November 2005 Hydrologic Monitoring (Year 4)
August 2005Veg-tation Monitoring (Year 3)
March-November 2006 Hydrologic Monitoring (Year 5)
June 2006 Vegetation Monitoring (Year 4)
March-November 2007 Hydrologic Monitoring (Year 6)
June 2007 Vegetation Monitoring (Year 5)
2

f
�3
,671
.;
\ fill
,, fe. * . . -
Cedar Point 771,/
Mitigation Site
,
" :.<<„,,,,,,,,,,..''''''''.. ti:'1.<1; '
�� Snb c �{C nsboro, N
'''.4) 41.21rj ‘1\
58
w
ie
S.
r-� a IiTi3CYOE �"'�'i!p " :.,43-
1.1
Punter J4 #''1 .Q '` 't€?.+ 9", VV ?' :'' air amir�g : ii _100% Eyea
Figure 1. Site Location Map

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.
4

1‘,
CP-SG1 st A
ar4p�
,.0RTh,4,9 Figure 2. Gauge Location Map
(* *1
3 Surface Gauge i inch eywls I oo f t
ICNI 50 0 100
5

•
Figure 3. Plot of Daily Flooding Pattern
Cedar Point Surface Gauges
Flooding Pattern
3.00
;#
��II 0,s.
2.50
N September 9, 2007
<2.00 September 8,2007 /0. Daily Flooding
•
y ? Daily Flooding /
cp1.50 t
lJJ e�
.‘111111h
1.00
i
0.50 r 0 .0 1K00 1
k
a
Al'141
0.00
6) O 0) 0) 0) 0) O) 0) O 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) CO 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0)
LO LO LO LO LU LP) LO LO LU LO LO LO LP) LI) LC) L() L() L() L1) LO U)
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O (5-3 O O O
Ln LC) LO LC) LO LO LO LC) LLB LC) LU in LO LC) LO LC) L() LO LA LO
O N 4 CO 00 O N V CO CO O N O N V CD CO O N V CO
O O O O O ‘— N N O 0 0 0 0
Time
MCP-SG1 —111—CP-SG2
6

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.

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
8

cn -1 w
< a@ s m •
z ' a \2 w
° & z e
/ ( \ ©
/ 1 / k7 « CD
\ ) \ § g @2 % % \ % 2bb22G « % % J « JG2Ge = wcea = e � m@4 CD c
§ ^ < ƒ CD (7
e f ° �k _ o
-0 CD « /.
[. / I = «
$ �� $ ' 3
CD
/0 R e P@ R f & 9 x g x g P & m m 2 % % m g m f g g g m 0
eeeeeeooeoee000000000 eo 0000ScmeFacbr - k
y o
2. 3
co 2 =
s % Sat ap ten g
7 X o
/ $ _
0
/ & % K & % & & & w % & % & & % s & & & & % % & % & % Sataallmm7a / 3
c =
3
- ) a \ \ \ % & % & & & & % % 4\ 4\ 4\ & % % S % % & % & & % % Frequenc
= c y
\ 2 222 / 22 / QO /
\ t Ut U \ \ \ / \ \ \
m I R m m m 9
k
/
3
c
_
\ Comments
s
c
_
j
s
3.
_
/
0

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.
to

APPENDIX A
GAUGE DATA GRAPHS

APPENDIX B
SITE PHOTOS AND
PHOTO AND PLOT LOCATIONS MAP

Cedar Point
,
r,..'"
,
l'4,, ,
: ..4/,',.. 4•-';:-:4. '4'4*-4''I ' V."
., ' •
. ,tt..., , •""' ., •:,,,,,,,k-k ",'Zilt:„4',„
'''''"i'f,''''"14..'":, '`it'4'' '' 1,4,-Pfl`r: '' " •,.:A,.# ,, ,tot 1, ' ••,..1,*:''' *:'""t',*...r.i''"•t''.4-1 ''''''!..f" ,9' t,, L'''' - -.r•-,r°`;.°. .'-'1"." •-' .:,/,'„'‘..1.'; i' • • .;.:1,'"-4''...".'" i '.• '' *.;* .•'*".4'4;1 •
.„.1.01'.14-4475,i;.-,.'- P",-',..,, ." - -•-?.,0 -.,:-..,,,:...',i ,.,.,.. 4,, ,'"iLl:44;:ts:-,;,,,...,:i „:„:,•.
,.--zIk.k,.', tti - - ., .L„e ..^.-,c,,,-044. 4.4 •'- ' 1:'''''' ''-
i 4•.'4'*; 4:144-.,,...4';
:, „.,,'•,,,..i..',,,•-:.-4';','",-vii,,, .,'''''' ..,-,°:*.‘",•,.,",
41. ••,,,,.,,,..4,„ • „..;,..-,,,,,,,,,T,7,,,7!:. ..„,„ ,: ' ...,„ "ine.,;',5,70,;..1,v,„„...,4,,,4Y, tr,,, r,,„ v,,
. . ..
.
„'„'-'.'-.'''.'„"1"7r,„.-."4:!"-e:,.‘-',",,.:,.t,,I„';•i4f•t-4.-'k-..,`..r.-01.•:.11...-**.r..;:..,-'%,,...,‘.t,.*,A•.",!.,...1'....1,.'',7..4..'0.,,.10"«..:;",•`,•!,4, :,..;,Af-‘*,,••'-0•i u7•‘1- •k',',t''*,,',.,."e;i•,..v..I.tL44;.,',,t..:'.-,'.,$7.''' -k'-i".•,,.r•,,L'",t,,.e,-.74',.;'-.*-.W.f,,..,.'.t.,...,.1;i„,''-'-4,L..,..,,I.,,...t.
. r,„, ,' '. . . • -f:...:
..,s:-,„•.,..„.,.4..,•."i,zg,','.".a
.,•.
'.'",sst5:;,-,, Airi.. .---,,,, —„,,,,,,I, .,,,.,A. -., .. . - — ' •K%
,.;7'.1:,..Pri..—...,..7.-';',.‘,-..„-.7.-r,4!"-•:',.;'*., .•,c. ''....,-*.4--•4,0.1,- . „,..„4.,,,...4*:4
. . ,
Photo 1 Photo 2
. .
, .
• *'- ,i--•=Az.
-- ..t...,..*,....,..,..-.......r_...
,•-'7,.:;.,,." •,...
''. '1,1' ',.".,!'tt't,"4.' t'': •.' 1•A:if", I
1:"":'4:::'744,,,i1.')'''',,*4*-44!'1410".fi'l,t^.$2,,,,.'ZI:14irl''''IltiVet4ti;„t*'"rtii':;*;..'171'''';''*',.i•",,‘'."'t' '3.'*" 's li:',.!,t,t ;",
,0 41,„1.}:•%0;,,,,rf,itt•VA*4'4'4'.'''•Sii):•',..144,4J'''4A.4'i "'..4' j''''el..'".' '
';•1,f ' '•'":(";4",'!"4`' :.*.45*•1 t ,:t'.'•.,' .Y, #It'''k,.,.-:?''* .7"rt;:*: 4' t- .,:' •"t ,J,4,'Ire'4.tt,i'''''';'-ttr;":''',,',.•„, I'.,ifeilzt`r,1
,•44. *"*..,..PV4A71: 'wi L
•,. 4:'fc,47*.;"-0 ,'3 '7 ^;44 ..,'4, ‘7. "..,z t-4,44r i-.1:1:''4 li, '''tf','5;,f.'11'*, T1 tt,f0
1.k.-
4
'''''?-1 '*-. '-' 4Z7;:eri ''''* .1%'4,74-1':4
.,...^-0.4P,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,t1 „\ 4,-,,x,r,i'...r,---...„..-,..r ......,....,,,iyepit,,,*,- „.1--,°,.. iv, •:.... r ......---,,,'a,-....,,•,c,,c...),!••
r-r. .; il,,,k,„:••,,,,,,,,,,,..i„.,......0. .1.1".,„, ,./: .r,... ..°,;..wt° **°•*'-',,,:•°;-.,....•-kiTV.,..lioq.i lc.4
a ter...v-1...w,.v:7'4,, , 1.. .,o,-.e}A,—AA.•••1'4.• .-•
P
Photo 3Photo 4
. ...
- aitir
.,...
,.
Photo 5
July 2007

CEDAR POINT MITIGATION SITE
2007 Photo and random 1;
Plot Locations
•0 18
12
22
5
20
132�
5
Q 3
2
56 8
7
{P PHOTO LOCATIONS 5 14
• RANDOM PLOT LOCATIONS 4 3 2 I
0

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2004
jpariminmisiwgroP
iirposirar
AvortromiAny .
rmivilievarerigrom
Saar
Cedar Point Mitigation Site
Carteret County
Project No. 6.16901T
TIP No. R-2105 AB
©g R7H C
490�
Of ot*
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 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 9
3.1 Success Criteria 9
3.2 Description of Species 9
3.3 Results of Vegetation Monitoring 10
3.4 Conclusions 11
4.0 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS/ RECOMMENDATIONS 11
FIGURES
FIGURE 1. SITE LOCATION MAP 3
FIGURE 2. GAUGE LOCATION MAP 5
FIGURE 3. PLOT OF DAILY FLOODING PATTERN 6
FIGURE 4. 30-70 PERCENTILE GRAPH 8
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A. GAUGE DATA GRAPHS
APPENDIX B. SITE PHOTOS AND PHOTO POINT LOCATIONS

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 third year of monitoring following construction. The
site was monitored in 2004 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 twice daily with the same frequency and duration as adjacent marsh
systems.
An examination of the water levels over a two-day period illustrates that the site floods
twice daily in average to above average climatic conditions (Figure 3). The two days in
the plot were chosen at random and are representative of typical conditions during the
growing season.
Vegetation has improved greatly since the site was replanted in May 2003. The
frequency and average percent cover is on track for the second year of monitoring.
Spartina alterniflora is coming in naturally in higher elevations outside of the silt fence.
A silt fence was installed during construction to prevent erosion. It will be removed prior
to the start of the growing season.
NCDOT will continue to monitor for hydrology and vegetation at 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 2004; this is the third year
that the site has been monitored following construction.
1.3 Project History
March-May 2002 Site Construction
May 2002 Site Planted
June 2002 Surface Gauges Installed
June-December 2002 Hydrologic Monitoring (1 yr.)
August 2002 Vegetation Monitoring (1 yr.)
May 2003 Site Tilled and Supplemental Planting
March-November 2003 Hydrologic Monitoring (2 yr.)
August 2003 Vegetation Monitoring (1yr. Restart)
March-November 2004 Hydrologic Monitoring (3 yr.)
July 2004 Vegetation Monitoring (2 yr.)
2

I v
',, ,,,,,,
.44
.. .117".''''
II / I. ‘...
-- - _ t, • ,f,../
"....* ,
4
-
i / ,.JI \ , I'• V&A-'- i 'K. 'N 4.
I ,,1:7z I.1 \ t-- •i ? .•., I
.V
ILI--.,........).......44 o.I.
?,' 1 /
v
# 0.1...,„.-
$ '''', 6 r-,., OC.,'0'—
1
,et l.,t
•N ik. ''. ef _clots --
-. •'
...lip -,.. --.
.1,,Irr** *land /
1 r'
--l4s:tt'''Y''''. ''.:IS''• ....
( '''''
,-.5`...'" 1 i V.7.1 • -'-`41,7% , i.• \ ,,...,
r / i
/ ' ''e' :I . , i ,'1, ...
ij /
--_*-,
.-I ,"' 4el.'4'747'.o ,.I..e5
S w- nb.'o'
'-r.>a'
• '
i
„ 1) ) S4/ - /
"
/ - ' i
--- [• , \ . , _ ...."'.r••,•...
...$...—
,I1 ---
'.,
/ , ,II 5V11 - Nt5•% ,i
,/ \\ % /' , i Cedar Point ./- IIII';II''t-• Mitigation Site-
I ••,-,•-' , „ ..„.
40 ig_ . ... •..
. _,". '. I.•-' 1 "II
ra\---
d'9,./:''''\ '' 'I' 11:11 I -- to' , •'4°**Itill'o. e Jlo.
/ "... R. IL--.;,:r.e *ii.'",'IN 4 N.04+ .4.•;,.., , 1 .
•"."'' ..., ' .„ ... t'.‘ ;-.''•IiII't:i e.'475;61*I Ittt4I'Ii4.t.'t.t`,;';"1:,:::" \1 ......—'C".• • -\ ..t, ,"'" ,,.... ,tt vr yk ..! , , ,,--„
....
_
, -, ..4„ ., ',.'41
.;,I'' 4.';-a• k'',.k',..„11' ) '' I% II %
7
Prt-,!a 44 Set % ma, -,00 I''i• a-, s '11 * ' 2
.t.., ,
' ; ",-..) 'I'l • - '.1,,k
'',J\ T \ 'It -...
',,,,k,
, \ \J.,- '
..„, __ _ . ,,,o' ,.'
) ....,
', '-- -•.• 4. '•
I• • , 4Ii.
o .4 c-'
I'st i L.,,, , 41' , '-'911- r \ 1 - on'•
'-''' '' It• 'I't'It".0 ',* ViAti4•1°C1
i ,./1 -, :,tp•,,,,00.
,
11 _HJ39rc bicrt .,.- - ILI 4.02 L'i&lad
•• t t ,. ,
i'lk000po:
i
Figure 1. Site Location Map
3

2.0 HYDROLOGY
2.1 Success Criteria
Though most mitigation sites are monitored according to federal wetland hydrology
criteria, NCDOT and cooperating agencies decided that the Cedar Point Mitigation Site
should be evaluated using different criteria. This is due mainly to the fact that the site is
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.
4

CEDAR POINT MITIGATION SITE
101(
404p
CP-SG �► �■'''��
Figure 2. Gauge Location Map

m
Surface Water Depth(in.) C
a.
N W W
C n O (11 O (T O UN l O (T (3
30-Sep-2004 7iW
cT
30-Sep-2004
O
30-Sep-2004 a p
30-Sep-2004 0 K
o
-n
m
30-Sep-2004 o 0
C.
30-Sep-2004 A �.
30-Sep-2004
m
30-Sep-2004 M
N
30-Sep-2004 Q-
MI
n ‘.G
f 30 Sep 2004 a m 'O
CD
0 30-Sep-2004 O PC/ O.
13
30-Sep-2004 co N 0
g
-- chi co 7
CD 01-Oct-2004 =m 0 ..
III al
01-Oct-2004 c
'D
CID co
01-Oct-2004 N
N
01-Oct-2004 2 O
0
01-Oct-2004 o m
o i
N
01-Oct-2004 co o
4
01-Oct-2004
01-Oct-2004
01-Oct-2004
01-Oct-2004
01-Oct-2004
01-Oct-2004

2.3.2 Climatic Data
Figure 4 is a comparison of monthly rainfall (November 2003- August 2004) to historical
precipitation for the area. The rainfall data for the months of September-November
2004 were not available, therefore were not included in the graph. The two lines
represent the 30th and 70th percentiles of monthly precipitation for Morehead City, NC.
These percentiles represent monthly rainfall data collected between 1973 and 2004.
The State Climate Office of North Carolina at NC State University provided the data.
For the 2004-year, December (03') and February experienced above average rainfall.
The months of January, March and May recorded below average rainfall for the site.
November (03'), April, June, July, and August experienced average rainfall. Overall, the
site met the hydrologic criteria in a year of average climate conditions. However,
precipitation is not the primary hydrologic input for the site; thus, 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.
NCDOT will continue hydrology monitoring at Cedar Point Mitigation Site.

Figure 4. 30-70 Percentile Graph
30-70 Percentile Graph
Morehead City, NC
v s
7
At'h.
3
•a �
d I
a 1
No Rainfall data for Sept-Nov.
_t
-3 r I
51
Nov 03' Dec 03' Jan 04' Feb 04' Mar 04' Apr 04' May Jun 04' Jul 04' Aug 04' Sep 04' Oct 04' Nov 04' Dec 04'
Date
e2003 Rainfall 2004 Rainfall —30 percentile —70 Percentile
8

3.0 VEGETATION: CEDAR POINT MITIGATION SITE
(YEAR 2 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

Cn
(� O C W
Z
O N Z 0 CD
'* < C DO93 a) `.<
n Cr C m CD
O c w (-, co NJ N N NJ N N N N j N —, —. —+ Plot Ot# Cl)
O C 0 CO OD —7 O O1 4. co N co Co CO J Q) (J) A co N o O (b -1 O (J1 - ( N =
0 0
CD Cn O m n) Cl)
(n co o0
CD O O
C)
CD Cu -0 CD
(n c o CO
0CD
.•*
O 01 Cn G) CJt ? (Jl CO CO W CJ) ? U) A (J) W (.J O ? CO -A O 4, O A CD Scale Factor -.
n o 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 06 0 �
O 7
✓ g
g ° mil Spartina patens =
0 o 0
co =•
111111 IIIIII 111111 111111 111111 111111 IIIIII 111111 ® um 1 olul <<I! 111111 mlll mlll Ilml 1(111 111111 111111 111111 ioiii uml mul Spartina alterniflora CQ
o
0
o CoOo viol uml Hill ® uum uuu u011 mu uuu nu in ow vim uou Ilml non uou Imo uml lc uc Frequency
o
a
Co 0 0 Co Co Co
co -o -o m DJ m
(13
CD CD m FL/ m
G) 0 0 0
a 0 0 0
c
Cu) m
CD a) ? c c
a ClC.
Cl
Comments

3.4 Conclusions
Vegetation on the Cedar Point Site has improved greatly since tilling, replanting, and
fertilization in May 2003. This can be seen in photos 1, 2, and 5. Frequency and
coverage are on track to meet the success criteria. Spartina alterniflora is coming in
naturally in higher elevations, outside of the silt fence.
A silt fence was installed during construction to prevent erosion. It will be removed prior
to the start of the growing season.
NCDOT will continue to monitor vegetation on the Cedar Point Mitigation Site.
4.0 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS/ RECOMMENDATIONS
The third 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) illustrates that the site is flooding twice daily under average climatic
conditions. The two days in the plot were chosen at random and represent typical
conditions during the growing season.
Vegetation has improved greatly since the site was replanted in May of 2003. The
frequency and average percent cover is on track for the second year of monitoring.
Spartina alterniflora is coming in naturally in higher elevations, outside of the silt fence.
A silt fence was installed during construction to prevent erosion. It will be removed prior
to the start of the growing season.
NCDOT will continue to monitor for hydrology and vegetation at the Cedar Point
Mitigation Site.
>>

APPENDIX A
GAUGE DATA GRAPHS

APPENDIX B
SITE PHOTOS AND PHOTO POINT LOCATIONS

•
Cedar Point
43,3
4-4
._ " ..„..a........
Photo 1 Photo 2
x-ti , '�
's z�. ;biz � : 4 5 pra d r -• •^
•
•
Photo 3 Photo 4
ro ;;o
•
;
Photo 5
2004

CEDAR POINT MITIGATION SITE
2004 Photo and Random
Plot Locations 24
2
28
2 2•
5
s me
Ige 6 4
q
0 PHOTO LOCATIONS

Surface Water Elevation (in)
o 0n o 01 o cn o CM o CWJI
01-Jan-2004 --
10-Jan-2004
20-Jan-2004
29-Jan-2004
08-Feb-2004
17-Feb-2004
27-Feb-2004
07-Mar-2004 --
t
17-Mar-2004
26-Mar-2004
05-Apr-2004
14-Apr-2004
24-Apr-2004 0
04-May-2004 CD
C.
a)
13-May-2004
0
23-May-2004 cn
01-Jun-2004
11-Jun-2004
v _
20-Jun-2004 o
I30-Jun-2004
09-JuI-2004
19-Jul-2004 ' co
28-Jul-2004
-
07-Aug-2004
17-Aug-2004
26-Aug-2004
05-Sep-2004
14-Sep-2004
24-Sep-2004
03-Oct-2004
13-Oct-2004
22-Oct-2004
01-Nov-2004
10-Nov-2004
20-Nov-2004
29-Nov-2004

•
R-2105WM CAMA Permit No. 19-02
Executive Summary
NCDOT constructed the Cedar Point Mitigation Site (T.I.P. Project No. R-
2105WM) to provide upfront mitigation for impacts associated with NCDOT projects.
NCDOT received CAMA Permit No. 19-02 in February 2002 and completed construction
of the mitigation site in May 2002. NCDOT has completed the first year of monitoring on
the site. Results indicate that the site is meeting hydrologic success criteria, but the site
will need to be replanted in 2003 due to the lack of vegetative cover. Monitoring of the
mitigation site as well as reference areas/biological benchmarks should continue for five
years or until success criteria are achieved. This data will be used by resource agencies
upon future NCDOT request to debit the mitigation site. Any temporary impacts to
coastal wetlands should be monitored and DCM should be updated on the jurisdictional
status three years following construction (2005). NCDOT should make all requested
changes to the Cedar Point Final Mitigation Planning Report. Upon completion of the
five-year monitoring period or the achievement of success criteria, NCDOT should
perform a post-construction wetland delineation to determine the amount of wetland
credit available on the site.
Project Description
NCDOT developed the Cedar Point Mitigation Site to provide upfront mitigation
for impacts associated with NCDOT projects. The site is located adjacent to the White
Oak River, at the northeast corner of the bridge from Cedar Point to Swansboro in
Cartaret County, North Carolina. According to Randy Griffith, Head of the NCDOT
Natural Environment Engineering Unit, the 13 ac tidal marsh site consists of
approximately 12 ac of preservation and 1 ac of restoration.
Project Timeline
• January 14, 2002: WQC No. 3274 issued.
• January 29, 2002: COE General Permit Verification (NWP 27) received.
• February 12, 2002: CAMA permit No. 19-02 issued.
• May 2002: Site construction completed.
Permit Commitments
CAMA Permit No. 19-02 dated 2/12/02
1) This permit does not convey or imply approval of the suitability of this property for
compensatory wetland mitigation for any particular project. The use of any portion of
this site as compensatory mitigation for future projects will be determined on a case-
by-case basis during the CAMA permit review and consistency process.
2) The permittee shall conduct a wetland delineation to determine the amount of low
marsh and the amount of high marsh currently on the site prior to the initiation of
construction and once again after the site has achieved its hydrologic and vegetative
1

success criteria. The results of these wetland delineations shall be submitted to
DCM for approval.
3) Mitigation or other remedial actions may be required for permanent impacts to
coastal wetlands if the mitigation site fails to meet its hydrologic and vegetative
success criteria within 5 years of project construction.
4) Mitigation or other remedial actions may be required for temporarily impacted
coastal wetlands that have not re-attained jurisdictional wetland status within 3 years
of project construction.
5) The permittee shall minimize the need to cross wetlands in transporting
equipment to the maximum extent practicable. Mats will be used when crossing
wetlands to minimize temporary wetland impacts.
Note: DCM will not require mitigation for the approximately 0.237 ac of shallow
bottom habitat that is being filled to construct the project.
26) The final mitigation credits generated at this site will be determined by the
difference between the results of the pre- and post-construction wetland delineations
required by Condition No. 2 of this CAMA permit.
27) If this site is to be used as mitigation for future project impacts, written
concurrence must be obtained from DCM, DWQ, DMF and WRC that post-
construction monitoring demonstrates that hydrologic and vegetative success criteria
have been met. Although annual monitoring reports to DCM, DWQ, DMF and WRC
will not be required, hydrologic and vegetative monitoring data shall be made
available to review agencies at such time as the site is proposed for use as
mitigation.
Note: Mitigation credit for marsh restoration will not be allowed for the footprint of the
new breakwater structure.
Note: If this site is to be used as mitigation for future project impacts, the permittee
should revise the Cedar Point Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Planning Report
currently dated November 2000. The revised report should include the final
approved site plan as described in the permit application package dated 9/7/01,
including the supplemental letter dated 11/20/01, and the attached workplan
drawings (7): five dated as received on 9/28/01 and two dated as received on
11/19/01. The Cedar Point Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Planning Report should
also be revised to include any conditions of the CAMA permit and should also
include an as-built report.
Note: If this site is to be used as mitigation for future project impacts, the entire
mitigation site of approximately 14.34 ac covered by this permit shall be protected in
perpetuity in its restored state according to the approved final mitigation plans and
shall be owned by the permittee or its approved designee. An appropriate
conservation easement, deed restriction or other appropriate instrument shall be
attached to the title for the subject property and a copy of such provided to DCM.
2

Note: It is strongly recommended that the permittee monitor reference areas or
biological benchmarks concurrently with the mitigation area in order to provide
adequate data to determine success.
COE General Permit Verification (NWP 27) dated 1/29/02
Permit authorizes the permanent impact of 0.06 ac of wetlands and conversion of
0.018 ac of existing marsh to open water. The Cedar Point Mitigation Site will result
in a net total of 0.78 ac of restored coastal marsh (after compensatory mitigation)
including 0.36 ac of smooth cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora) and 0.42 ac of
saitmeadow (Spartina patens) wetlands.
WQC No. 3274 dated 4/28/00
Permit authorizes the replacement of degraded breakwater and removal of existing
fill to restore low marsh.
Mitigation Status
NCDOT completed construction of the Cedar Point Mitigation Site located in
Cartaret County, North Carolina in May 2002. The 2002 monitoring report represents
the first year of monitoring. Hydrologic success for this site is dependent upon twice
daily flooding, consistent in elevation and duration to that area located outside the
mitigation area. Both surface gauges on site met this success criteria. Vegetation on
the site is not yet meeting the success criteria set forth in the mitigation plan requiring a
frequency value of 0.5 and average percent cover value of 80%. NCDOT plans to
evaluate soils on site and replant the site in 2003. Hydrologic monitoring on the site is
required for three years and vegetative monitoring of the site is required for five years or
until success criteria are met.
Recommendations
NCDOT should continue to monitor the Cedar Point Mitigation Site as well as
reference areas and/or biological benchmarks for five years or until success criteria are
achieved. If not revised already, NCDOT should make the requested changes to the
Cedar Point Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Planning Report. Upon completion of the
five-year monitoring period or the achievement of success criteria, NCDOT should
perform a post-construction wetland delineation to determine the amount of wetland
credit available on the site. While not required in the CAMA permit, annual monitoring
reports would provide the necessary data for resource agencies to review should
NCDOT request future debits from the mitigation site. Temporary impact areas should
be monitored and NCDOT should update resource agencies on the jurisdictional status
of temporary impact areas three years following construction (2005).
3

CAMA Permit No. 97-01 issued 8/3/01
Division 2 Project (TIP No. N/A)
Pamlico County
Project Name: SR 1343
Project Description: Improvement project on SR 1343 consisting of paving, widening
and replacing Bridge No. 8 over the South Prong of the Bay River.
Recommendations: RK&K recommends that NCDOT continue monitoring the
temporarily impacted wetland areas and evaluate the ditches to determine if fill
elevations are correct.
CAMA Permit No. 148-01 issued 11/19/01
Division 2 Project (TIP No. N/A)
Beaufort County
Project Name: SR 1727
Project Description: Roadway paving project on SR 1727 (Loop Road) at Wright
Creek.
Recommendations: NCDOT should ensure that DCM has been updated on the status
of the Loop Road Mitigation Site and provide as-built plans to DCM if it has not already
done so.
NCDOT should monitor vegetation on the marsh restoration site for five years and
hydrology for three years. Annual monitoring reports should be provided to DCM and
other resource agencies, as appropriate. In addition, the status of any temporary
impacts resulting from construction should be monitored with updates provided to DCM
and a final determination of their jurisdictional status given at the end of three years.
CAMA Permit No. 19-02 issued 2/12/02
TIP No. R-2105 WM
Carteret County
Project Name: Cedar Point Mitigation Site
Project Description: Project provides upfront mitigation for impacts associated with
NCDOT projects. The site is located adjacent to the White Oak River, at the northeast
corner of the bridge from Cedar Point to Swansboro.
13

Recommendations: NCDOT should continue to monitor the Cedar Point Mitigation Site
as well as reference areas and/or biological benchmarks for five years or until success
criteria are achieved. If not revised already, NCDOT should make the requested
changes to the Cedar Point Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Planning Report. Upon
completion of the five-year monitoring period or the achievement of success criteria,
NCDOT should perform a post-construction wetland delineation to determine the amount
of wetland credit available on the site. While not required in the CAMA permit, annual
monitoring reports would provide the necessary data for resource agencies to review
should NCDOT request future debits from the mitigation site. Temporary impact areas
should be monitored and NCDOT should update resource agencies on the jurisdictional
status of temporary impact areas three years following construction (2005).
14

Cedar Point
TIP Number R-2105 DOT Division 2
COE Permit County Carteret
CAMA Permit River Basin White Oak
Total Acreage 14.34
Start Year
Monitoring Year 2
Comment Year 2004
Does DOT Propose Close-Out? Does DCM Agree?
Wetland Specialist Notes
The hydrologic criteria call for comparison to a reference marsh,but there are not reference gauges. Also,
both gauges are in the southernmost section of the site,near the canal. How do we know that hydrology in
the northern section is appropriate to support the target species?
Notes from last year suggested that the site would be replanted in 2003,but there is no mention of this in
the report. Was the site replanted? Spartina patens,in particular,seems to be having touble becoming
established at this site. This species is sensitive to high salinity(prefers brackish waters)and can not
tolerate as high of water as Sartina alterniflora. Were both species planted throughout the site? Plots in
the southern half fo the site seem particularly bare. Is this related to inappropriate hydrology/saliniy
levels?
(Melissa Carle 4/13/2004)
DOT Project Coordinator Notes
Construction of this site was authorized by CAMA Permit No. 19-02. It serves as mitigation for future
unidentified marsh impacts in the White Oak River Basin.
According to the project description,the Cedar Point site provides mitigation to offset impacts from
improvements to NC 24,as well as future impacts in the White Oak River Basin. However,I was under
the impression that the entire Cedar Point site was intended for future impacts,and that mitigation to
offset impacts from improvements to NC 24 had been provided elsewhere. DCM has not approved the
use of the Cedar Point site as mitigation for any specific projects. Please explain.
I agree with DOT's proposal to continue hydrologic and vegetation monitoring for this site.
The CAMA permit includes a note stating that DOT should revise the Cedar Point Mitigation Site Final
Mitigation Planning Report currently dated November 2000 if this site is to be used as mitigation for
future project impacts. The note includes specific recommended changes to the mitigation planning
Wednesday,July 2l,2004 Page 3 of 26

Cedar Point
report,including an as-built report. This information has not yet been received by DCM. Though it is
not required,it is still highly recommended.
(Cathy Brittingham -From memo dated 4/30/2004)
DOT Field Rep Notes
Appears to be headed in the right direction.
(Bil Arrington 4/14/2004)
DCM Field Rep Note
Final Comments
Bill Arrington comments that this site appears to be headed in the right direction. Monitoring will
continue.
(4/22/2004)
Action Items
NONE REQUIRED.
•
Wednesday,July 21,2004 Page 4 of 26

Re:Cedar Point-final mitigation plan
Subject: Re: Cedar Point- final mitigation plan
Date: Thu, 06 May 2004 11:33:28 -0400
From: Cathy Brittingham <[e-mail]>
Organization: NC DENR DCM
To: Phillip Todd<[e-mail]>
CC: Dave Timpy <[e-mail]>,
Randy Griffin <[e-mail]>, bill arrington <[e-mail]>,
Melissa Carle <[e-mail]>
Phillip,
Attached please find a copy of CAMA Permit No. 19-02 authorizing
construction of the Cedar Point Mitigation Site. Please note especially
that the CAMA permit includes a note stating that DOT should revise the
Cedar Point Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Planning Report currently
dated November 2000 if this site is to be used as mitigation for future
project impacts. The note includes specific recommended changes to the
mitigation planning report, including an as-built report. This
information has not yet been received by DCM. Though it is not
required, it is still highly recommended.
NOTE: If this site is to be used as mitigation for future project
impacts, the permittee should revise the Cedar Point Mitigation Site
Final Mitigation Planning Report currently dated November 2000. The
revised report should include the final approved site plan as described
in the permit application package dated 9/7/01, including the
supplemental letter dated 11/20/01, and the attached workplan drawings
(7) : 5 dated as received on 9/28/01, and 2 dated 11/19/01. The Cedar
Point mitigation site Final Mitigation Planning Report should also be
revised to include any conditions of this CAMA permit and should also
include an as-built report.
Sincerely, f1,- Qa T rn
Cathy / ei n' V✓�
Phillip Todd wrote:
g/3a/01(
> At yesterday's monitoring meeting, it was recommended that NCDOT
> complete a final mitigation plan. I need to know what needs to
> be changed/revised as I updated it with the new "spit" back in
> Nov/Dec 2000. The only item the plan does not include is the
> wetland delineation. Is there something more you think should be
> added?
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
Name: Cedar Point Mitigation Site, 19-02.doc
Cedar Point Mitigation Site, 19-02.doc Type: WINWORD File (application/msword)
Encoding: base64
1 of 2 5/6/04 11:33 AM

lit, ad CC_Lvt
ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2003
ItarrimmlloWiat
lkor
Amis
Vt.W*44114
irkiegovaribijormi. leap,"
111611-410"1149/6•
Ski100
1111111W
Cedar Point Mitigation Site
Carteret County
Project No. 6.16901T
TIP No. R-2105 AB
of ATM 0
4.
y fp
a
L.o
4
F'p1 OF t"
Prepared By:
Office of Natural Environment & Roadside Environmental Unit
North Carolina Department of Transportation
December 2003

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 9
3.1 Success Criteria 9
3.2 Description of Species 9
3.3 Results of Vegetation Monitoring 10
3.4 Conclusions 11
4.0 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS/ RECOMMENDATIONS 11
FIGURES
FIGURE 1. SITE LOCATION MAP 3
FIGURE 2. GAUGE LOCATION MAP 5
FIGURE 3. PLOT OF DAILY FLOODING PATTERN 6
FIGURE 4. 30-70 PERCENTILE GRAPH 8
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A. GAUGE DATA GRAPHS
APPENDIX B. SITE PHOTOS AND PHOTO POINT LOCATIONS

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 second year of monitoring following construction.
The site was monitored in 2003 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 twice daily with the same frequency and duration as adjacent marsh
systems. ---4,0,,, 062 vi/a
An examination of the water levels over a two-day period illustrates that the site floods
twice daily in average to above average climatic conditions (Figure 3). The two days in
the plot were chosen at random and are representative of typical conditions during the
growing season.
Data interruptions from both surface gauges (July 28-September 23) were caused by
limitations in the storage capabilities of the gauges. Currently, the surface gauges are
set to record hourly water levels. Future downloads will reflect 3-hour intervals, thus
alleviating the data interruption problem.
Due to minimal planted vegetation observed during 2002, supplemental planting was
performed in May 2003. Subsequently, vegetation survival appears to be improving.
NCDOT will continue to monitor for hydrology and vegetation at 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.
The Cedar Point Site provides mitigation to offset impacts from improvements to NC 24,
as well as for future impacts in the White Oak River Basin.
1.2 Purpose
In order to demonstrate successful mitigation, both the hydrologic and vegetation
conditions of a new site must be monitored. This report details the hydrologic and
vegetation monitoring on the Cedar Point Mitigation Site in 2003; this is the second year
that the site has been monitored following construction.
1.3 Project History
March-May 2002 Site Construction
May 2002 Site Planted
June 2002 Surface Gauges Installed
June-December 2002 Hydrologic Monitoring (1 yr.)
August 2002 Vegetation Monitoring (1 yr.)
May 2003 Site Tilled and Supplemental Planting
March-November 2003 Hydrologic Monitoring (2 yr.)
August 2003 Vegetation Monitoring (1 yr. Restart)
2

t
%---
Kl
r`" �', R ,<, � - n
U_ r ,,_ € pt%
{ of---,.-v , li Jeri'
'r'ra7.f !f / i1' ,=r fry f
I
7
f �y .,`' ` ff �f
+ n r t dd�y r ,4 aSwanaboro r , f ,
Jor
� �f 1rlt�. �ACC'� j•. `k i. r{ t 7'' p' I _...
4
ti-`
., 4,f \ Yip +t 5 �1 - try Cedar Point — fir`
f
�`ti �l 1 '4 1 ion Site —c y
� Mitigation
Fr,\Nf ,� ' M t _ r
-11S
033
-�, 0 ,,, f
}
r� V' r
.1 A ,J' '\ hy,, - lei!Minari ,, i = ?7 S y. + 4I,.,.
�t 1 LL.,, 3, s
! tp r•r' ,,
`
? ,� '--.
r
Li39rc Ei:rc tiirlm Ci.uaaf
Figure 1. Site Location Map
3

2.0 HYDROLOGY
2.1 Success Criteria
Though most mitigation sites are monitored according to federal wetland hydrology
criteria, NCDOT and cooperating agencies decided that the Cedar Point Mitigation Site
should be evaluated using different criteria. This is due mainly to the fact that the site is
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 the mitigation area, will determine hydrologic success. The site must be flooded
twice daily and have the same elevation and duration as flooding outside 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 (selected at random). This figure is to illustrate 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.
4

CEDAR POINT MITIGATION SITE
X:4 '')/6/1
l' ir 'A ‘
.kv vA 4 \
PA 4 , ),,:fn
)0} „ s- ty -
4( .\)- ,,p 7(‘ 0*-, - :,
44% N'' :‘
l . „kr
),) r
CP_SG � �oaf
�
u ire
Figure 2. Gauge Location Map
ix) oat
et'fat &C" ‘t- 11( 7:--
U‘;,(, ,6,-/ALO't ilf-/e-t^-2 / 1414 o'(9-1'
it ,)
5

Figure 3. Plot of Daily Flooding Pattern (2-day period shown)
Cedar Point Surface Gauges
Flooding Pattern
35
30 October 1,2003 October 2,2003
Daily Flooding Daily Flooding
25
t
20
a) 15
m 10
5
co
0
co co co co co co co co co co co co co co co co co co co co co co co co
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O coo 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
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
U U U U U U U U U U U V U U U U () U U U f)
N N N N N N N N N N N N
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
Date
—0—CP-SGI -f-CP-SG2
6 .

2.3.2 Climatic Data
Figure 4 is a comparison of monthly rainfall (November 2002- August 2003) to
historical precipitation for the area. The rainfall data for the months of (September-
November 2003) were not included in the graph. The two lines represent the 30th and
70th percentiles of monthly precipitation for Morehead City, NC. These percentiles
represent monthly rainfall data collected between 1972 and 2003 that was provided by
the State Climate Office of North Carolina at NC State University.
For the 2003-year, March, April, May, June, July, September, and October experienced
above average rainfall. The months of December (02') and January recorded below
average rainfall for the site. November (02'), February, August, and November
experienced average rainfall. Overall, the site met hydrologic criteria in a year of
average to above average climate conditions. However, precipitation is not the primary
hydrologic input for the site; thus, 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 in average to above average climatic conditions (as
required for success criteria). The two days in the plot were chosen at random and are
representative of typical conditions during the growing season.
Data interruptions (July 28-September 23) were caused by limitations in the storage
capabilities of the surface gauges. Currently, the surface gauges are set to record
hourly water levels. Future downloads will reflect 3-hour intervals, thus alleviating the
data interruption problem. Gauge (SG-1) was found washed away; therefore, the gauge
was not downloaded for the period from March 13-July 27.
NCDOT will continue hydrology monitoring at Cedar Point Mitigation Site.
flow c 6-AA M-54-- CA3411.1- eliA1-6(1:64-);1 6L4'‘d aluML1197-1-
,a6 h(wAj'6 Gad

Figure 4. 30-70 Percentile Graph
30-70 Percentile Graph
Morehead City,NC
15
13
11
9
c
7
c
0
,o 5
o.
CI L.
3
o
a
1 No Rainfall data for Sept-Nov.
-1
-3
-5
Nov 02' Dec 02' Jan 03' Feb 03' Mar 03' Apr 03' May Jun 03' Jul 03' Aug Sep 03' Oct 03' Nov 03' Dec 03'
Date
2002 Rainfall mu2003 Rainfall 30 percentile —70 Percentile
8

3.0 VEGETATION: CEDAR POINT MITIGATION SITE
(YEAR 1 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
9

< -I CD 71 W
CA
v Z w p N
<• c Li m D
Cam < a� CD
0o CI) (D w N N N N N N N N N) N --� -� -- -, -, -, CO 0,, �l a, Cn A co N -- plot i$ to
CD -0 O co CO "--.I (3) 01 A co N o co co v O) an A Cc) N -, O
O s«
(n o c) rr
a0i ( Er,'"
N
cts CD
o 0
< C
g' 4 v � C
E.
CD
ww � wwowwwcnwv, - -, -, woAwwNoo -moo -> Nww ScaleFactor CD
so O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 so 0 0 o .o
O
G' =
w """ Spartina patens
0
0
0
C o inns uun unn nim inoi oim o0o non MI unn inm nnu inns nnu mm uuu mni inm non nib uuu loin nmi non Spaartinaa a lterniflora
\ o
1 i c, co (C
Nco 0 Inm nml non nml NHIIIIII' RE null uml uuu uml non mm II011 non uuu or mN mm null RE or cull mul Frequency
O
t a
f.-- CA CA CO CO CO CO
(D a (D aD (3 ()
G) G) G) G) G) G)
a a O O a s
7 7 77 77
CI a a s a s
` J 1 S
Comments

3.4 Conclusions
The site was tilled and fertilized and supplemental planting was performed on the site in
May 2003. Subsequently, vegetation survival appears to be improving. Frequency and
coverage are on track. Spartina alterniflora is coming in naturally at higher elevations
outside the silt fence.
NCDOT will continue to monitor vegetation on the Cedar Point Mitigation Site.
4.0 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS/ RECOMMENDATIONS
The second year of hydrology monitoring indicates that the Cedar Point Mitigation Site
is functioning as expected. 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 is flooding twice daily in average to above
average climatic conditions (as required by the success criteria). The two days in the
plot were chosen at random and represent typical conditions during the growing season.
Due to minimal planted vegetation observed during 2002, supplemental planting was
performed in May 2003. Subsequently, vegetation survival appears to be improving.
NCDOT will continue to monitor for hydrology and vegetation at the Cedar Point
Mitigation Site.
>>

APPENDIX A
GAUGE DATA GRAPHS

Cedar Point
•
,
mow.m.. , �e .. .�.�,
erg . „
•
,,4 .. . 4,`,4' -,. t`'w': 4 e ;
.
Photo 1 Photo 2
d ie
�.;waen,• `3'"",r" ,T'Fff'.: . -sue ..,"-ts ai °'°,��'-'#
t mYa
2 6 C 1�, p,- T _, ,
o.
Photo 3 Photo 4
L
1_
Photo 5
2003

CEDAR POINT MITIGATION SITE
Photo and Random 1:
Plot Locations
.0 18
2
12
22
, 5
„ .
20
V ,
1:-
,. iltV0 t12131
[ -
2:
la° ,e (0-1".e:A690) . •#4 fl
, •
32 k:0,1 OIL( 44464fr,0
6 8
7 7iboff,47:1 ot-,
4
0 PHOTO LOCATIONS 111111r 0/41

•
ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2002
otaingiumniownwit .
Fagg
g1/4-limigg: 0444
ialkikovik inerira*V" v
1641111r
NPR
Cedar Point Mitigation Site
Carteret County
Project No. 6.16901T
TIP No. R-2105 AB
%oars
Q 9,
s
•0
99 �,
OF 'Spa
Prepared By:
Office of Natural Environment & Roadside Environmental Unit
North Carolina Department of Transportation
December 2002

•
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 first year of monitoring following construction. The
site was monitored in 2002 for both hydrologic and vegetation success.
Hydrologic monitoring consisted of examining the data from two onsite surface gauges.
Because the site receives its primary hydrologic input from an onsite channel that is
connected to open water, the criteria for hydrologic success is based on site flooding.
The site must be flooded twice daily and be flooded with the same frequency and
duration as adjacent marsh systems. The 2002 data showed that the site flooded twice
daily, and that the site did so in average climatic conditions.
Vegetation monitoring indicated vegetation failure on the site. Though the final percent
frequency and percent cover values were not calculated, the site indicated minimal
vegetative cover. Following an examination into the vegetation failure, NCDOT has
plans to replant the site in 2003.
Hydrologic monitoring will continue in 2003. Following the replanting of the site, NCDOT
will begin new vegetation monitoring.

3.0 VEGETATION
3.1 Success Criteria
The site will be considered a success if the calculated value for frequency is 0.5 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
3.3 Results of Vegetation Monitoring
The site was monitored in August 2002, and minimal planted vegetation was
observed. Therefore, no values were calculated for frequency and percent
cover.
3.4 Conclusions
The Cedar Point Mitigation Site does not currently meet vegetation success
criteria. NCDOT plans to gather and test soil samples and to further evaluate the
vegetation failure. The site is scheduled to be replanted in 2003.
9

4*
3.4 Conclusions
The site was tilled and fertilized and supplemental planting was performed on the site in
May 2003. Subsequently, vegetation survival appears to be improving. Frequency and
coverage are on track. Spartina alterniflora is coming in naturally at higher elevations
outside the silt fence.
NCDOT will continue to monitor vegetation on the Cedar Point Mitigation Site.
4.0 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS/ RECOMMENDATIONS
The second year of hydrology monitoring indicates that the Cedar Point Mitigation Site
is functioning as expected. 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 is flooding twice daily in average to above
average climatic conditions (as required by the success criteria). The two days in the
plot were chosen at random and represent typical conditions during the growing season.
Due to minimal planted vegetation observed during 2002, supplemental planting was
performed in May 2003. Subsequently, vegetation survival appears to be improving.
NCDOT will continue to monitor for hydrology and vegetation at the Cedar Point
Mitigation Site.

Cedar Point Mitigation Site
Location: Carteret County
NCDOT Division: Division II
DCM Field Office: Morehead City
Year Constructed: 2002
Size: 0.76 acre
Mitigation Type(s): Tidal marsh
Total Restoration: 0.76 acre (0.34 acre low marsh + 0.42 acre high marsh)
Total Creation: 0
Total Enhancement: 0
Total Preservation: 0
Geographic Service Area: White Oak River Basin
2002 Annual Report: Year 1
This is the first year of monitoring for this site. DCM staff noted large bare areas and
dead plants on the site during a site visit in August 2002. The site will be replanted in
2003 once the area is tilled and the soil is amended.
2003 Annual Report: Year 2

Re:Cedar Point--Field Adjustments for Elevations
Subject: Re: Cedar Point-- Field Adjustments for Elevations
Date: Fri, 03 May 2002 09:22:59 -0400 •
From: Randy Griffin <[e-mail]>
Organization: North Carolina Department of Transportation
To: "Timpy,David L SAW" <[e-mail]>
CC: "'Phillip Todd" <[e-mail] Bill Arrington <[e-mail]>,
Byron Moore <[e-mail]>, Charles Cox <[e-mail]>,
"Franklin, David SAW" <[e-mail]>,
"John Hennessy (E-mail)" <[e-mail]>,
"Kelly Williams (E-mail)" <[e-mail]>,
"Jay Johnson (E-mail)" <[e-mail]>,
"Cathy Brittingham (E-mail)" <[e-mail]>,
Jason Peterson <[e-mail]>, Reed Smith <[e-mail]>,
"Charles Bruton,Ph.D." <[e-mail]>,
Phil Harris <[e-mail]>
Dave,
I appreciate your input on this project. Until I talked to you yesterday afternoon (5/2/02), there had been
no final decision made to alter the elevations at the Cedar Point Mitigation Site in Carteret County. As I
explained to you yesterday, the Department received a call on Tuesday 4/30/02 from Bill Arrington,that
CAMA was concerned with the elevations that the contractor had graded at the site and whether or not the
site would flood twice a day with the tide. I made arrangements to meet the Resident Engineer on
Wednesday 5/1/02 to review the proposed elevations and the existing (adjacent) marsh elevations. Based
on that survey, I agreed that the proposed elevations were high in relation to the adjacent marsh. CAMA
asked that we lower the elevations. At that time, I told CAMA that we could make adjustments with
Division/Contractor as long as the COE was on-board and fully aware of the situation. That is when Bill
left you a message around lunch time on 5/1/02. Since we were not able to talk to you, the Department put
the proposal on hold until such conversations took place. Once I talked with you by phone on Thursday
5/2/02 and thought that you were also in agreement (authorized), I called the Resident Engineer and asked
that the Contractor proceed with the revised elevations. If we are not authorized to proceed per our
conversation, please advise ASAP.
The reason that I am outlining the events of this week, is that I feel the Department has been very diligent
in communicating with the permitting agencies on this project. While I agree the desire is to not have so
many changes in elevations on a mitigation site, the Department is trying to deal with the situation based
on past experience and to achieve the most successful site as possible. I am very confused on what further
coordination/communication needs to take place in the future. No final decisions were made until the
agencies were contacted.
Per your e-mail the required permit modification will be processed and to your office by 5/30/02. As far as
the implementation/documentation, we will construct/plant/monitor the mitigation site like all the rest. I
hope that this will provide sufficient information when the Department proposes to use this for mitigation
in the future.
Thanks. Have a great weekend.
1 of 2 5/31/02 2:17 PM

Re:Cedar Point--Field Adjustments for Elevations
Randy Griffin <[e-mail]>
Transportation Engineer III
Project Development&Environmental Analysis
2of2 5/31/02 2:17 PM

RE: Cedar Point--Field Adjustments for Elevations
Subject: RE: Cedar Point-- Field Adjustments for Elevations
Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 13:33:39 -0500
From: "Timpy, David L SAW" <[e-mail]>
To: "'Phillip Todd" <[e-mail]>
CC: Bill Arrington <[e-mail]>, Byron Moore<[e-mail]>,
Randy Griffin <[e-mail]>, Charles Cox <[e-mail]>,
"Franklin, David SAW" <[e-mail]>,
"John Hennessy (E-mail)" <[e-mail]>,
"Kelly Williams (E-mail)" <[e-mail]>,
"Jay Johnson (E-mail)" <[e-mail]>,
"Cathy Brittingham (E-mail)" <[e-mail]>
Phillip,
Thanks for the notification. According to your email,the proposed project elevations have been changed based on the field
meeting held on May 1,2002 attended by NCDOT and CAMA. This is the second revision to the elevations on this project site
since construction began earlier this year. A permit modification for these changes is needed and should be submitted to this
office NLT May 30,2002. This request should reflect all revisions to date and include revised drawings,revised mitigation plan,
and revised acreages of restored coastal marsh. The need for the recent field adjustments for elevations is understood given the
circumstances. However,in the future,it is requested that any changes to any project authorized by this office be coordinated
prior to the changes taking place. Otherwise,the NCDOT may be found in violation of its permit.
As you are aware,this project is authorized under NWP 27. It is not a compensatory mitgation project required to offset wetland
impacts associated with a NCDOT project.As we have discussed previously,should the NCDOT include this site as part of a
compensatory mitigation proposal,complete and thorough documentation,including as-built plans,of all the construction work
will be needed prior to a permit decision regarding this site. The elevation errors recently discovered may generate an inaccurate
assessment of pre-project conditions. Use of this site for future compensatory mitgation may be jeopardized if the pre-project
conditions have not been accurately established.
Dave Timpy
Original Message
From:Phillip Todd[mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent:Wednesday,May 01,2002 4:57 PM
To:Dave Timpy
Cc:Bill Arrington;Byron Moore;Randy Griffin;Charles Cox
Subject:Cedar Point--Field Adjustments for Elevations
This email documents field adjustments to the elevations for
marsh restoration at the Cedar Point Mitigation Site off NC 24 in
Carteret County. Earlier today(May 1,2001),Bill Arrington of
DCM and Randy Griffin and Byron Moore of NCDOT met on site to
review the elevations graded to by the contractor.
The original elevations presented in the mitigation plan for the
site called for grading the bottom of the channel to-0.65 feet
with the top of bank being up to 0.35 feet. The site would grade
1 of 2 5/31/02 2:17 PM

RE:Cedar Point--Field Adjustments for Elevations
out with a top elevation of marsh being 2.0 feet. However,due
to lesson learned at Deer Creek and suggestions from DCM,NCDOT
revised the design plans such that the bottom of the channel
would be 0 feet elevation and the top of the channel would be 1.0
feet.
It appeared when reviewing the elevations for the site that the
elevations would be"too high"not support low marsh vegetation.
Therefore,the decision was made between Bill,Byron,Randy and
the resident engineer that the bottom elevation of the channel
would be-1.0 feet and the top of bank would be 0.0 feet in
elevation. The site would grade out toward NC 24 to 1.2 feet in
elevation in order to prevent undermining of the roadway. Toward
the existing marsh,the site would grade to 0.7 feet in
elevation.
The elevations of the proposed marsh adjacent to the breakwater
structure was also revised from what was depicted on the final
design plans. It was decided that the elevation adjacent to the
breakwater structure would be 1.0 feet and be graded to match the
existing marsh elevation of 0.7 feet. The elevation of the
existing breakwater(soil)is 2.0 feet.
This information came from conversations with Randy earlier today
and a fax copy of the revised cross section. I hope that I have
been able to convey the details accurately with this email. If
not,I ask that Bill,Byron or Randy please correct the details
with a reply email.
2 of 2 5/31/02 2:17 PM

Re:O d r 'oiru,confirmation of delineation
RECEIVE0
Subject: Re: Cedar Point, confirmation of delineation APR 2 7 2004
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 09:28:09 -0500
iV
From: Bill Arrington <[e-mail]> a a
To: Phillip Todd<[e-mail]> _ V �'
Hi Phillip,
Thanks for meeting with me last week. Your maps of the wetlands look
good. I concurr that the wetland delineation is correct. Thanks for
getting it done before work on the mitigation site began. I think these
maps will save future communication.
Have a good Easter weekend,
Bill
Phillip Todd wrote:
>Bill:
>I wanted to write and affirm what we discussed last Fri, March 22 '
>at Cedar Point. The delineation located using GPS looked good,
>and DCM is okay with the delineation.
>Thanks.
>Phillip
D

. SM / ^
to 1/4 0 •
! . '� `
•
. /
0
93
jC i` - 'l
„....A., ± •
•
•
•
•
`. . , "
•
' / \ .. •
•
•
•
•
•
•
" ..
\C'' N
ti ••
c - N± • `
rel
4 ±N, •
_
•
sr•
. \ N,� . . ' .ie. / .
/
N\
�.,, o
w
_.
SCALE I' z 50'

L, EUAK f U1IN lvii 1 lull IUIV .D1 1 L. .
/ . . � �
•
.3FL \ AT=10N 2 / 15 / 02 • . . ,± -;., i
/ /. . .
I��� ; . o
i"± N
c \ „ 1 rsi
•
. r'.
•
• - ."./J /-
•
•
:. ut1 • • 1
/�i 'w
w
i
f �. .. •
A
•
•
�, ±. " • OPEN WATER o
• •
•
.i • o
±/).,,
•
o
r
� •
�r
/
/

Cedar Point
Subject: Cedar Point
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 11:39:12 -0500
From: Bill Arrington <[e-mail]>
Organization: NC DENR DCM
To: Phillip Todd<[e-mail]>
CC: Cathy Brittingham<[e-mail]>,
Kelly Williams <[e-mail]>,
Charles S Jones <[e-mail]>,
Bill Gilmore <[e-mail]>
Hi Phillip,
I talked with Cathy today. She agreed that it is not necessary to send
the marsh delineations at this time. Cathy did think that it may be
advantageous to DCM and DOT to have the delineations reviewed and agreed
upon at this time. This would provide documentation for DCM and DOT
records to prevent discrepancies when mitigation credits are requested.
A scaled plat with high and low marsh areas shown should be adequate for
review. A scale of 1" to 50 Feet or less would be preferred.
Call me if you have questions or concerns.
Bill
1 of 1 4/5/02 11:25 AM

r
dar Point,meeting permit condition#2
Subject: Cedar Point,meeting permit condition#2
Date:Thu, 21 Feb 2002 12:19:37 -0500
From: Phillip Todd<[e-mail]>
Organization: North Carolina Department of Transportation
To: bill arrington<[e-mail]>,
Cathy Brittingham<[e-mail]�
I delineated the site last Fri afternoon (Feb 15) . I GPSed the
coordinates; in what format should the data be presented to DCM?
Please advise about how NCDOT can meet this permit condition
without several interat ions. Thanks.
4/4/02 4:56 PM