COX FARM

_? „a STATp o
?? a.w vd
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. Box 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 E. NORRIS TOLSON
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
December 23, 1998
Ms. Cyndi Bell
N.C. Department of Environment
And Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Dear Ms. Bell:
Subject: 1998 Annual Monitoring Report for the Cox Farm Mitigation Site.
Beaufort County.
Please find enclosed the 1998 annual monitoring report for the Cox Farm Mitigation Site.
In January 1999, a representative of the Planning and Environmental Branch will contact
the recipients of each report in order to facilitate a discussion of the annual monitoring
reports.
If you have any questions prior to these discussions, please contact Phil Harris, Natural
Systems Unit, at [phone]. Thank you for your continued support and cooperation.
Sincerely,
uoL ?a
V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D.,
Assistant Branch Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
cc: Phil Harris, PE, Natural Systems Unit Head
David Franklin, USACOE

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 1998
Cox Farm Mitigaflon Site
Beaufort County
Work Order # 6.1 52027T
SR 1712

Prepared Bar:
Natural Systems Unit
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
December 1998

I I

C

C

0
TABLE OF CONTENTS

5

?-11

11

1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 1
1.1 Project Description .......................................................................... 1
1.2 Purpose .......................................................................................... 1
1.3 Project History ................................................................................ 1
2.0 HYDROLOGY ............................................................................................3
2.1 Success Criteria .............................................................................. 3
2.2 Hydrologic Description .................................................................... 3
2.3 Results of Hydrologic Monitoring .................................................... 3
2.3.1 Site Data .............................................................................. 3
2.3.2 Climatic Data ........................................................................ 5
2.4 Conclusions .................................................................................... 5
3.0 VEGETATION ........................................................................................... 7
3.1 Success Criteria .............................................................................. 7
3.2 Vegetative Description .................................................................... 7
3.3 Results of Vegetative Monitoring .................................................... 7
3.4 Conclusions .................................................................................... 8
4.0 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS/ RECOMMENDATIONS ................................ 9

17
n

Fl
0

n

i
1

TABLES
TABLE 1 - 1997 HYDROLOGIC MONITORING RESULTS ........................................5
TABLE 2 -1998 HYDROLOGIC MONITORING RESULTS ................................ 5
TABLE 3 -VEGETATION MONITORING RESULTS .......................................... 7
FIGURES
FIGURE 1 - SITE LOCATION MAP ......................................................................................2
FIGURE 2 -WELL LOCATION MAP ....................................................................................4
FIGURE 3 - 30-70 PERCENTILE GRAPH ...........................................................6
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A - DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER PLOTS .................................10
APPENDIX B - SITE PHOTOS ...............................................................14
APPENDIX C - MONITORING PARTNERING MEETING MINUTES ...............16

F

F

r

1.0 INTRODUCTION
' 1.1 Project Description
' The Cox Farm Mitigation Site is located in Beaufort County approximately one mile east
of Leechville. The site, encompassing approximately 2 acres, is situated near the
Pungo River and can be accessed by SR 1712 (Figure 1). The site is designed to
create a non-riverine swamp forest community and provides mitigation for the impacts
associated with the paving of SR 1712.
' 1.2 Purpose
' in order to demonstrate successful mitigation, the Cox Farm site is monitored for both
wetland hydrology and vegetation. The following report describes the results of the
hydrologic and vegetative monitoring during the 1998 growing season at the Cox Farm
' Mitigation Site. Also included is a consecutive day analysis of the 1997 hydrologic
data. This analysis is provided as an addendum to the 1997 report, in which cumulative
days were incorrectly tallied to demonstrate hydrologic success.
' 1.3 Project History
March, April 1996 Site planted
' April 1996 Monitoring Wells Installed
April- November 1996 Hydrologic Monitoring
' May 1996 Vegetation Monitoring (1 mo.)
October 1996 Vegetation Monitoring (1 yr.)
' March- November 1997 Hydrologic Monitoring
September 1997 Vegetation Monitoring (2 yr.)
March- November 1998 Hydrologic Monitoring
' October 1998 Vegetation Monitoring (3 yr.)

1

F
I
I
I

I
I

I

I

I

I
I
I
I
i
O'
v
_Satterthwaite Poin
FIGURE 1
SITE LOCATION MAP

2.0 HYDROLOGY
1 2.1 Success Criteria
In accordance with federal guidelines for wetland mitigation, the success criteria for
hydrology states that the area must be inundated or saturated (within 12" of the
surface) by surface or ground water for at least 12.5% of the growing season. Areas
inundated less than 5% of the growing season are always classified as non-wetlands.
Zones inundated between 5% - 12.5% of the growing season can be classified as
' wetlands based on other factors such as the presence of hydrophytic vegetation and
hydric soils.
The growing season in Beaufort County begins March 13 and ends November 25.
These dates correspond to a 50% probability that air temperatures will drop to 28° F or
lower after March 13 and before November 25.' Thus the growing season lasts 256
' days; optimum wetland hydrology requires 12.5% of the growing season, or 32 days.
The site must also experience average climatic conditions in order for the hydrologic
data to be valid.
2.2 Hydrologic Description
' Two monitoring wells, one rain gauge, and one surface gauge were installed on the site
in 1996 (Figure 2). The automatic monitoring wells and rain gauges record both depth
to groundwater and rainfall, respectively. Daily readings are taken throughout the
growing season. 1998 marks the third year of hydrologic monitoring.
' Appendix A contains a plot of the water depth for each monitoring well and the surface
gauge for the 1998 growing season. Precipitation events are included on each
monitoring well graph as bars.
' 2.3 Results of Hydrologic Monitoring
2.3.9 Site Data
' The maximum number of consecutive days that the groundwater was within twelve
inches of the surface was determined for each well. This number was converted into a
percentage of the 256-day growing season.
' Because it is uncertain if all wetlands impacted by NCDOT highway projects meet
expected wetland hydrology, the monitoring well results are presented as a series of
percentage ranges. The following tables present both the actual consecutive day
' Soil Conservation Service, Soil Survey of Beaufort County, North Carolina, p.93.
3
t

I I

H
H
t
U
1

G'
H

1

_Ir - -
- -
11*90
sn
01 In
r.

Dp;? LA 90 11 1 vtSp !ice

LA
m

\
i

N m

O

1 W r
W
1 I? 1 •

?
1
I ?

n
1

1 1
, „
t,? H V
t\ 1
,
E

1
y
?V /
I
I
~ ? 1
I
I
1 m I
'
N ?

O /
n

Ln W
I 00
/
I cn?
t? c-
NW - 1 LO
co
w
/ I
' -U?

1 1 n m . ' co
..

, ?
?
w
c 1 1 N ,' ? co v
+ r mC-
"
i \
1 co
u, tT
1 w
cr
1

0

?
A
r '
` f

J
PY
?#
l J ? rte,.,.

z a c ?
ar

Or O
O LU
? '
C U
f)

O ?

sv
,

v c
A /
V

1 1 ?
I`S

? 1
j? r?
c.
1 Q to
",
1 1 ? N
, 1 r
,
1
1 ,
1 1
,

'y

T,
1
•
I

1 '?
? 1 1 \
1 rt
1 -•
(7
1
1 1
1 D:
-O .u
(A 90
1 m

N ? --

_.. ..?.. [^?_?rail.-?l?-f?.?+-J?.s...?l.l..e-tel.-i.l l-?.1 1 ? { ! •.?-._.
UI
w = m m m = r = = m m m = m m = = m
? 11
' percentage for each gauge as well as the percentage range. The 1997 results are
presented in Table 1; Table 2 presents the data for 1998.

I

11
F

0
TABLE 1
1997 HYDROLOGIC MONITORINGRESULTS
Monitoring
Well < 5% 5%-8% 8%.-12.5% > 12.5% Actual %
CX-1 ? 12.5
CX-2 ? 14.5
TABLE 2
1998 HYDROLOGIC MONITORING RESULTS
Monitoring
Well < 5% 5%-8% 8%-12.5% > 12.5% Actual %
CX-1 ? 25.4
CX-2 ? 48.0
The surface water gauge indicated a consistent presence of surface water throughout
the growing season.
2.3.2 Climatic Data
Figure 3 is a comparison of 1997 and 1998 monthly rainfall to historical precipitation for
the area. The two lines represent the 30th and 70th percentiles of historical monthly
precipitation for Washington, North Carolina. The bars are monthly rainfall totals for
1997 and 1998. The historical data was provided by the National Climatic Data Center;
the recent rainfall data was provided by the State Climate Office at NC State University.
Because of data availability, the 1998 rainfall encompasses precipitation through
August.
During 1997, only two months (April and November) showed rainfall totals which were
higher than normal. The winter of 1998 showed higher rainfall totals than normal.
However, rainfall during the summer of 1998 was either normal or slightly below normal
for the area.
' 2.4 Conclusions
Though the winter of 1998 showed greater rainfall totals than normal, both wells on the
' site indicated wetland hydrology for at least 25% of the growing season. The site
showed wetland hydrology in both 1997 and 1998.

5

FIJI

fl

C
u

Ii

0

Q
t?
L
W
Z
W
L e
C 0
0
o
L
m
U.
X
Q
U

U
G yl
? I
U
r
n -
W o
m a)
QJ
U
L
L
r
C5
C
0
? C
co
f
co
T ?
(0
r
L ?/?y
L1
Q
m
--
L
C
f4
FIGURE 3
30-70 PERCENTILE GRAPH
co r-- (o LO et M N
(-UI) Uoijej! !3aJd

3.0 VEGETATION
3.1 Success Criteria
Success Criteria states that there must be a minimum of 320 trees per acre living for at
least three consecutive years.
3.2 Vegetative Description
The following species were replanted in the Wetland Restoration Area:
Juncus effusus, Common Rush
Taxodium distichum, Bald Cypress
Nyssa biflora, Swamp Tupelo
Quercus phellos, Willow Oak
Quercus nigra, Water Oak
Liriodendrum tulipifera, Tulip Tree
3.3 Results of Vegetative Monitoring
Table 3 gives the results of the vegetation monitoring for 1998.
TABLE 3
VEGETATION MONITORING RESULTS
L
= V
E d
L cc
N
Q N
L

k
o C.
U >+
;%
,. 0
-a
Ta
is
Cr I? m 10- H

1 2 22 24 36 453
2 6 24 30 36 567
AVERAGE DENSITY 510
Plot #1 contained a few volunteer pines and some broom sedge. Approximately 50% of
the plot is covered in Juncus. Plot #2 contained a few volunteer pines and
approximately 60% of this plot is covered with Juncus.
7

r
F

1

7

u

3.4 Conclusions
' There are approximately two acres of wetland mitigation on this site. Two vegetation
monitoring plots established throughout the planting areas. The third season
vegetation monitoring revealed an average density of 510 trees per acre, which is well
' above the 320 trees per acre minimum success criteria. Also, the average coverage of
Juncus effusus is estimated to be approximately 55% based on the data obtained from
the sample plots.

8

j

n

4.0 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS/ RECOMMENDATIONS

After three years of monitoring, the Cox Farm Mitigation Site has met wetland criteria in
' both hydrology and vegetation.
NCDOT would recommend discontinuing any monitoring of the site.

CI?I

H

9

1

F

APPENDIX A
I DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER PLOTS
1

J

10

n

I I

1

U
cc
E
U-
X
1 °

u

(-ui) uoi;e;idioaJd
(0 LO "T ce) 04 0

r

v G • ?";'7 ? c .}* Sit' !« i
d

4
k n

i

i
i
f
SI
i
i
i
i
i
i
s
f
-
0

F -
4
Vin- ??f l a!?
(l?'
? C' t l:
6r.-JoC __
gr-dac.-Il
-;
Kh-Iri??-c'r
8JJc- ?i _ i
GU- ?I V i/

LO O LO O LO O LO
' ?- N N
(•ui) jolempunojE) o; y;dea
_]
a
a?
?m
I ?
m'
a. U
rn ti
R ?
w
c:
c'
1

fl
1

I?

N

U
1 m
LL
x
o
U
1
11

L_1

H

(•ui) uope;jdl3eJd
f? co Ul) IT M N O

»
i( S ?l vvw YT 3 f.
r w":T x .?A> c ,bT ? } } ,1
<
m .''t,
a
? 11

! 7f ?
f
- ?- 1 {
F r{ ? r7
1 F
1

k ?
1 . S k

4

i s
!
i
i

4
Cpl ?
i
V - t L
11? -u j
lVV 1?`, L

_nr -y
-r
N O N q-T 0 co O (N d' to co O J
i i r r r r r N
(•ui) je4empunojE) o; y;daa
t'
i?
(V
N'
N
i
i
Q1
N
'a U
m
CL CO
E : (-)
CO
U L
G
c
t

u

11

0
1

11

L
p

r

t

d
M ?
K (7
U L
L
? S
LL
ci
U `co
N

? Y

`T
`
?? IN r
t
S
.n}i

`
a
t_ -
+
?
s F
w

86-AO[ .
26 -

?•=-fir- --
ii nc
Cfl Iq N O 00 CO 'T N O N y
T T T T ?
(•ui) 41dad ioleM aaejjng
00
m
CD
M
d
Q
eEa
R
0

1

i?

7
L

7

0
H

F

t

7
L

1

APPENDIX B
SITE PHOTOS
14

11

L

H

i
Cox Farm

I

APPENDIX C
MONITORING PARTNERING MEETING MINUTES

u
0

H

16

1

E

1

7

I

i
' STATE OF NoKTH CAROLINA
' DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. 60X25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201
GOVERNOR
' December 4, 1998
' Dr. G. Wayne Wright, Chief
Regulatory Branch
' U.S. Army Corps of Engineer,
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 284C''

Dear avn_
E. NORRIS TOLSON
SECRETARY
' Re: NCDOT/Resource Agency Partnering Meeting - -lonitorinR Guideiincs
A meeting was held on July 22, 1998 in the NCDOT Pnotogrammetrv Conference
' Room in Raleign to discuss monitoring guidelines for the 1998 .tinnuai Monitoring
Reports. Please find attached a list of those in attendance and the meeting agenda.
' Following introductions, Charles Bruton described the purpose of the meeting and
opened the floor to David Franklin for any opening comments. David said he looked
forward to resolving any previous discrepancies in the 1997 Annual Monitoring Reports
' and discussing wavs to better present monitoring results in this year s monitoring reports.
Phil Harris moderated the meeting.
' HYDROLOGIC MONITORING
NCDOT and the Corps agreed wetland mitigation sites must meet the guideline
' for hydrology (1987 -Manual) using consecutive days and not cumulative days of the
locally designated Growing season. Wetland hydrology criteria in the 1987 Manual notes
that a site must be seasonally inundated or saturated (within 12 inches of the surface)
' greater than 12.E percent of the local growing season. NCDOT will re-evaluate the 1997
monitoring data to reflect consecutive days rather than cumulative days of the growing
' season.
Regarding monitoring well data, David wants to see compliance is met and that
' the sites are working. Phil noted that NCDOT is taking a close look at recurring
problems associated with monitoring well installation and maintenance. In cases where
hydrology was failing for a particular site, NCDOT would be unable to remediate the site
' until the following year due to seasonal constraints and the necessity to collect specific
hydrographic information. In discussing what was considered to be hvdroiogic success.
;Q

J
I

D

IJ

!I

H
n

H

F

David Franklin said the 1987 Manual was the official guideline. However, he went on to
suggest that the Corps would be interested to see a more detailed breakdown of the well
data and would not be opposed to hydrologic success based on a longer monitoring
period with less than a 12.5 % success criteria. He also mentioned well data that falls
below the 12 inch threshold may also be examined as a special case. Mike Bell suggested
site remediation should occur now rather than waiting until December. NCDOT, in
coordination with the Corps, will identify unsuccessful sites and work together to
determine how the site is failing and the best remediation techniques to implement.
VEGETATION MONITORING ISSUES
Due to NCDOT's demand for hardwood seedlings there is a shortage of seedlings
this vear and there was none available for remediation efforts. There is a minimum one
vear lead time for orderina seedlings. In a situation on a site where the well data is good
but the vegetation is not successful the Corps stated tney would review it on a site by site
basis. In cases of remediation. Charles said it was almost imt)ossible to grade and piam
site before the winter deadline.
' Randy Wise requested an extension of the August/September time period is
obtain the vegetation monitoring data for the sites. After discussing this issue, it Wl-
agreed that the marsh sites would be evaluated in August and the hardwood sites could
' evaluated as late as Ootober and 1`1ove:nber before leaf drop..The NCDOT will send a
"blanket" letter to the Corps to modifv all permits to reflect the revised vegetation
monitoring period. Phil mentioned that although there would be an extension of the
' monitoring period for vegetation, monitoring reports would continue to be completed and
distributed by the end of December. Randy said they often perform random site visits
throughout the year to see how vegetation is performing and would perform supplemental
planting if noted early enough in the growing season.
Ken Jolly asked who was responsible for downloading wells and did they look at
vegetation. Beth Smyre said the Geotechnical Unit downloaded well data and notified
her of any vegetation issues. The Corps requested that proposed remediation for
hydrology and vegetation be included in monitoring reports. NCDOT and the Corps will
coordinate any remediation measures. Randy expressed their commitment to remediate
vegetation as soon as possible.
The discussion turned toward planted versus volunteer species. The Corps does
' not want to see volunteer species included in survival rate calculations for planted
species. Randy noted the survival rate is set at 50% or higher. David wanted to make
sure that the sites meet the target species requirement in stems per acre, not a percentage
(except for older sites set up for percentage). David also wanted to see the distribution of
' species planted and volunteer. Randy said it is often difficult to identify certain species
during the first two years (several oak species often look alike as saplings). Generally it
' is easier to differentiate the species by the third year. The Corps wanted to know if there
was a way to identify the planted species at planting. However. the planting procedure is
E

n
n
0

I

0

so labor intensive now it would make it impossible to do so. The 50 foot by 50 toot
' monitoring plots are chosen and staked in the field after planting has occurred. The
Corps wants NCDOT to note the unwanted volunteer species and to identify possible
remediation to make sure these species do not dominate the site. The NCDOT and the
' Corps agreed that the distribution of species is such that no species dominates more than
20 % of the distribution. Red maple and sweet gum are generally not to be planted to
insure good numbers of target species.
' HYDROLOGIC SUCCESS CRITERIA
' The incorporation of reference systems in determining success was discussed.
David concluded that if a particular site failed under the 1987 Manual Guidelines, then
' NCDOT had the option of comparing site parameters to reference site parameters in
determining success. The purpose of reference systems was to allow NCDOT a second
ontion in achieving success. The determination of a reference system with its success
criteria would need to be addressed in the mitigation plan. The use of the
hvdrogeomorphic system (HGM) was also discussed. The Coms is not Going to use
HGiV1 as a reference system, out will nrobably looj: at it as a too!. There are no guiaeiines
' out yet on HGM.
The use oi'20-80 versus 30-70 probability graphs, as defined by WETS. was
ear rain data to the historical data for tii,-
discussed. These graphs compare the specific ,,
mitigation site area. The MRCS and N VETS use the 30-70 probability graphs ana
NCDOT would like to use these as well. It was decided to use the 30-70 information and
' to ao to the nearest aaae station as long as the source was cited. David determined that if
a site's hvdroloa,,- performs at 12.51o, then hvdrolo6c success has been achieved. If a
site performs in the 5% to 1?.5%. range. then there is "marginal" hydrologic success. if
this trend continues. then the entire success criteria for the site will be reviewed.

The target percentage for hydrological success should be included in the permit
and shown in the mitigation plan. The Corps will be willing to negotiate on the success
of the site, but include adequate information in the permit and the mitigation plan.
Charles Bruton suggested placing monitoring wells in the impacted wetland areas
to assess and compare to mitigation areas. David wanted to insure that the best
mitigation site attainable is created. David also asked that well performance be broken
out in the report.
An interim report was given on iViud Creek. It was noted that wells placed in the
reference wetland and wells placed in the created wetland were an inappropriate method
to determine hydrologic success because the difference in soil type, hydrology. and cover
type.
Mike Bell discussed results of a workshop he attended on monitoring wells. He
also discussed the use of piezometers.

u

Ll

IJ

4
There was no further discussion and the meeting adjourned. Please advise if you
have any questions regarding the meeting, minutes, or agenda.
Sincerely.
?j.
V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D.
Assistant Branch Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
VCBiei
Attachment

J

I?

u

1
1
1
July 23, 1998-9:30 (car Cantury Canter in Photographic Conference Room
NCDOTiResource Agency Partnering Meeting to Discuss Monitoring issues
AGENDA
Introductions
Purpose & Goals of Ifeeting
Standardize the monitoring reports
Ilvcb•ologic Monitoring
Consecutive vs. Cumulative day--
Data interpretation
t "e,jetation ,Monitoring Issu_ .
Planted vs. Voluntary piani_
Monitoring timetramc
Success Lrueru,
Geographical consiacrallo'"
Reierence systems
Rlonituring Report Presentation
Text
Figures to be included
Tables
Photographs
Submittal dates
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

V?
' (vh%VlC
-Do 7

i 11v
' ?-vi5 ^•°o cr

l
p s
v

1 -
_
a. v 1 G` ?.. z

1 - 'k:cC C, ! _ l

' C A.'n e, v ' 3 i C: - - ?
`

,9
c

(?(4) 733
/ (Z j;G)
733-

7_77 7 :o

0

u

1

[7

RECEIVED
rya . o- MAR 1 1997
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TP ANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
March 11, 1997
Ms. Cyndi Bell
N.C. Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Div. of Water Quality
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
Dear Ms. Bell:
GARLAND B. GARRETT J R.
SECRETARY
The Annual Monitoring Report for the Cox Farm Mitigation Site is attached hereto. The site is
located in Beaufort County on SR 1712, approximately 0.75 miles from US 264. Hydrologic and
vegetative monitoring will be conducted for a minimum of three years. Vegetative success
criteria calls for minimum mean density of 320 trees/acre of approved target species surviving.
Success criteria for hydrology states that the area must be continuously inundated or saturated
(within 12" of the surface) by surface or ground water for at least 12.5% of the growing season.
The attached report describes the first year of monitoring.
If you have any questions, please contact me at [phone] ext. 209.
Sincerely,
?Z? fa-"?
Thomas E. Devens, P.E.
Wetland Mitigation Coordinator
Planning and Environmental Branch
attachment
¦p
cc: Mr. Mike Bell
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
P.O. Box 1000
Washington, NC 27889-1000
Mr. Terry Moore
N.C. Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Div. of Coastal Management
43 Washington Square Mall
Washington, NC 27889
ANNUAL REPORT for 1996
COX FARM
Beaufort County
Work Order # 6.152027T
SR 1712
Prepared by:
Permits and Mitigation Unit
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
March 1997
TABLE OF CONTENT
1.0 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................1
1.1 Project Description ......................................................................................1
1.2 Purpose ........................................................................................................1
2.0 HYDROLOGY ..........................................................................:.............................1
2.1 Success Criteria ........................................................................................... l
2.2 Hydrologic Description ...............................................................................1
2.3 Results of Hydrologic Monitoring .............................................................. 2
3.0 VEGETATION ....................................................................................................... 4
3.1 Success Criteria ........................................................................................... 4
3.2 Vegetative Description ................................................................................ 4
3.3 Results of Vegetative Monitoring ............................................................... 4
4.0 CONCLUSIONS .....................................................................................................6
4.1 Hydrology ................................................................................................... 6
4.2 Vegetation ................................................................................................... 6
5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................ 7
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1 - Number of Days Achieving Wetland Hydrology (3/13 TO 11/25) ........................................2
TABLE 2 - Percent of the Growing Season Wetland Hydrology Was Achieved (3/13 TO 11/25) ..........2
TABLE 3 - Number of Days Wetland Achieving Wetland Hydrology (3/13 to 9/3) ................................3
TABLE 4 - Percent of the Growing Season Wetland Hydrology Was Achieved (3/13 to 9/3) .................3
TABLE 5 - Vegetation Planted ..................................................................................................................4
TABLE 6 - Vegetative Monitoring Results - Tree Species .......................................................................4
TABLE 7 - Vegetative Monitoring Results - Grass species ......................................................................5
LIST OF FIGURE
FIGURE 1 - Site Location Map ............................................................................ 8
.....................................
FIGURE 2 - Well Location Map ...............................................................................................................9
APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1 - DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER PLOTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Description
The Cox Farm Mitigation Site is located in Beaufort County approximately one mile east of
Leechville. The site, encompassing approximately 2 acres, is situated near the Pungo River and
can be accessed by SR 1712 (Figure 1).
1.2 Purpose
Monitoring of the Cox Farm site is required to demonstrate successful mitigation. Monitoring of
wetlands for success criteria falls under two categories: hydrology and vegetation. The following
report describes the results of the hydrologic and vegetative monitoring during 1996 at the Cox
Farm Mitigation Site.
2.0 HYDROLOGY
2.1 Success Criteria
In accordance with federal guidelines for wetland mitigation, the success criteria for hydrology
states that the area must be continuously inundated or saturated (within 12" of the surface) by
surface or ground water for at least 12.5% of the growing season. The growing season in
Beaufort County begins March 13 and ends November 25. The dates marking the start and end
of the growing season were based on Table 2 of the Soil Survey of Beaufort County, North
Carolina (p. 93). The survey was conducted by the Soil Conservation Service. These dates
correspond to a 50% probability that air temperatures will drop to 28° or lower after March 13
and before November 25. Thus the growing season is 256 days. Therefore, the minimum
consecutive duration for wetland hydrology is 32 days.
2.2 Hydrologic Description
Two monitoring wells, one rain gauge, and one surface gauge were installed on site (Figure 2).
Data was collected on a daily basis. Rain data and depth to groundwater readings were recorded
by automatic monitoring wells and gauges. Two monitoring wells (CX-1 and CX-2) were
installed and began recording depth to groundwater readings on April 16. The rain gauge and
surface gauge were installed and began readings on May 10. Monitoring of the site continued
until November 19.
Appendix 1 contains a plot of the water depth for each monitoring well and surface gauge.
Precipitation events are included on each graphs bars.
1
2.3 Results of Hydrologic Monitoring
The total number of days and the maximum consecutive number of days that the groundwater
was within twelve inches of the surface was determined for each well. This number was
converted into a percentage of the 256-day growing season. The number of consecutive days is
often interrupted by a small period of 1 to 3 days. This has a significant impact on calculating
the percentage of the growing season that the water level is within 12 inches of the ground
surface. The results are presented in Tables 1 and 2.
Rainfall from Hurricane Fran had a large impact on the elevation of the groundwater table.
Between September 4 and September 6, over eight inches of rain fell. Since rainfall of this
magnitude is not typical, the depth to groundwater recorded from September 4 onward may be
abnormally high. Thus, the data was evaluated in two ways. First, data from March 13 to
November 25 (the entire growing season) was analyzed. Next, data from March 13 to September
3, (prior to Hurricane Fran) was analyzed. The results are presented in Tables 3 and 4.
Number of
TABLE 1
inQ Wetland
(3/13 to 1
CX-1 133 _ ..............
76 ................................
76 ::::::
CX-2 141 81 81
Average 137.0 78.5 78.5
Percent of the
TABLE 2
Season Wetland Hvdr,
Was Achieved
13 to 11/25)
CX-1 51.9 29.6 29.6
CX-2 55.0 31.6 31.6
Average 53.4 30.6 30.6
2
TABLE 3
Number of Days Achieving Wetland Hydrology (3/13 to 9/3)
CX-1 57 12 46
CX-2 67 14 31
Average 62.0 13.0 38.0
NA-Not Available
Percent of the
TABLE 4
Season Wetland Hvd
Was Achieved (3/13 to 9/3)
CX-1 22.2 4.6 17.9
CX-2 26.1 5.4 12.1
Average 24.1 5.0 15.0
NA-Not
3
3.0 VEGETATION
3.1 Success Criteria
Success criteria states that there must be a minimum mean density of 320 trees/acre of approved
target species surviving for at least three years.
3.2 Vegetative Description
Mitigation includes restoration of the wetland tree and grass species found in Table 5.
TABLE 5 - Vegetation Planted
Common Rush Juncus effusus
Baldcypress Taxodium distichum
Swamp Tupelo Nyssa Mora
Willow Oak Quercus phellos
Water Oak Quercus nigra
Tulip Tree Liriodendrum tulipifera
The site was planted in March and April 1996. The site was monitored one month after planting
in May 1996 and after the first growing season in October 1996.
3.3 Results of Hydrologic Monitoring
The initial number of trees within in each vegetative plot was counted in April 1996. The
number of trees surviving within each plot after the first growing season was 'counted in October
1996. The results of the monitoring are presented in Table 6 and Table 7.
4
TABLE 6 - Vegetative Monitoring Results - Tree
1 36 31 86.1 586
2 36 25 69.4 472
Average 360 28.0 77.8 529.0
TABLE 7 - Vegetative Monitorine Results - Grass Snecies

1 25 75 100
2 20 80 100
Average 36.0 78.0 100.0
• Site overgrown with panic grass.
• Bald cypress is showing signs of stress. This could be due to recent cold weather.
• Juncus, even though being overgrown with panic grass, is healthy and is showing signs of
spreading.
5
4.0 CONCLUSIONS
4.1 Hydrology
Based on Scenario I (March 13 through November 25) the following observations are made:
• Both monitoring wells had their highest number of consecutive days counted after Hurricane
Fran.
• The groundwater was within twelve inches of the surface for at least 12.5% of the growing
season in both wells.
Based on Scenario 2 (March 13 through September 4), the following conclusions were made:
• If the total number of nonconsecutive days is used, CX-1 and CX-2 recorded water levels
within a foot of the ground surface for 22.2% and 26.1 %, respectively.
• If the maximum number of consecutive days is used, CX-1 and CX-2 recorded water levels
within a foot of the ground surface for 4.6% and 5.4% of the growing season, respectively.
• If breaks of 1 to 3 days are ignored, CX-1 and CX-2 recorded water levels within a foot of
the ground surface for 13.3% and 6.7% of the growing season, respectively.
• CX-2 was damaged and was unable to collect data from 5110 to 6/13. The unavailable data
may have shown that the well met the 12.5% success criteria.
• The monitoring began on April 16, almost one month after the growing season began. The
groundwater elevations are typically higher in the early months of the growing season, before
transpiration and evaporation lower the water levels. The site may have attained wetland
hydrology for a larger percent of the growing season if data was available from March 13
onward.
4.2 Vegetation
The average survival rate in both vegetation plots was 77.8%. This is equivalent to 529
trees/acre, greater than the 320 tree/acre minimum success criteria. The Juncus effusus is doing
well and is established on an average of 23% of the area.
6
5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
• Continue annual monitoring of site hydrology through the growing season (March 13 to
November 25).
• Continue annual vegetative monitoring.
7
APPENDIX 1
DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER PLOTS
(ui) uoi;ElidiaaJd
et N O
O (0 v N O
E
M a-
u_ X
O V
V
I
I
I ,
I '

o In o in o
i N
(ui).ja;empunaE) o; y;daQ
ZL-LL
Z- L L
£Z-0 L
£ L-M
£-0 L
£Z-6
£ L-6 FL?,
£-6
L
4Z-8 m o
CL
ti 8 vi 'Q
im
R
D
5Z-L
5L-L ?
m
0
c
5-L c
5Z-9 i
9 L-9
9-9
9Z-9
9 L-5
9-9
9Z-4
9L-ti
N
(u!) uoge;idlOOM
E
LL N
X
x
O V
V
V N O
'- ? `- co co V N O
1
C ,
C- '
r
r
r
u? o LO o ,O o
N
(ui) ja;empunaE) 01 y;dea '
ZL-lL
Z-
£Z-0l
£ 1-01
£-01
£Z-6
i N
£ 1-6 U
£-6
tiZ-8 n
? o
?I
`m
CL
E
4 8 y ''
0
9Z-L '
91-L I m
m
0
c
9-L
9Z-9
51-9
y9
M-9
31-9
?-9
3Z-b
. 91-V
LO
N
(ui) uoi;e;idiaaJd
?! N O
`- O co a N O
E
LL M
O V
V
J
C
C
f
U-) O U-) o U') o Lo o u> o
N N - N
(ui) jejeM aae}ing;o y;dap
ZL-LL
Z-L L
£Z-0 L
£L-0L
£-0 L
£Z-6
£ L-6
£-6
4Z-8 0?
x,
? U
14-8
d
4-8 E O ?
? c
9Z-L
I
9 L-L
9-L
9Z-9
91-9
9-9
9Z-9
9L-9
9-9
9Z-b
9 Hr
N
C
V
o .O P.4
03
r- P.4
0 v as ,?" w c
a' V ?
1!?J r
1

c• e

SC u

1 g, m f ?'Q N'
s

1?

2

3 \

O y
f
?I

I
n '• r
Pro

4XI
,J
6
/ 9_.
0
I 6.1
-/h
O \
J
L!
m

I I I p I I
6' b
I 2'` E
^
i }i\ v-

m
16
Y F
.
eI \ ? \nI I \ °

pl p: AEI I ?aa. 1 ? 2
16 I B 75
.eJ •
a Z?I ?, \
•
I ? I
m
I
G ? y 1
a
?I
NI . bI I f. / _I 2
1.3
.I

Q h
p ? :
`?I ? ?I ? N
$I o a
.

'x•16 -

N
?I
2? dI
\ b1- \
.2 .3 ? \ aN
\? •9 m S4I 1 rv '-

\ ?I ?J
6 \
,?- ? ?I .9 \ I

_
L 1.5
?I
Q
t mI $I nI
?
a.0 2 /
/? / m ?I ?I -7 6 ? ?I SSI
r N
I ?I o

i
?t

` N
..
1
W S
V) 1

1

ml
1
,
!
P, 1 1
I
1?
r
• 1
N 1?-
/?1 1 "? 1
0?

ul
I:
% .
r.
to
J
z a
t o

a?
tD
Co u')
c0-
, - S

.
00
'
x
rn '
'
C '
U
00 '
• ? n
0 ?
?
Q-
?
M

cc to
00 /
r
'

Z
W .

' O

r O
ti'1
' N
'
r tt

'
r tU
r
I
r
r
r
1?

O ?
to

G
O
d

IJ \

i > i
M
M ,Q
3 ?. LCl
?
? O
N
O
? 00

Cr W W
°? N

o
n' a I I I
a-
38?4J
---
------------ Ml. TO US
-------------- 264' _
1 li ?
1 , O
Y 1 1
•;`? 11 1
)Ss
1 `/
1
11 `,
+I.
.s
t
N
W
a
00
0,11
r;
A?
9?
,
,
,
1
1 ,
t
1 ; 40
t ,
I , 1
1 1
1 ? 1
N m 1 ,
d
M t?f1
r-
+-
N "q \
? .1 Nl
x ?
`O
J r:

1
1
t 1 a
I ?
0
lw
It
A n•l
Q
O
r ?1 S'-
` , W
N
F-
4 ?
d5 N
a a (CHORD)
R=462.0 _ _ , '
_r 6„a STATE D
>a,? nn
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
January 26, 1998
Ms. Cyndi Bell
N.C. Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Div. of Water Quality
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
Dear Ms. Bell:
The Annual Monitoring Report for the Cox Farm Mitigation Site is attached hereto. The site is
located in Beaufort County on SR 1712, approximately 0.75 miles from US 264. Hydrologic and
vegetative monitoring will be conducted for a minimum of three years. Vegetative success
criteria calls for minimum mean density of 320 trees/acre of approved target species surviving.
Success criteria for hydrology states that the area must be continuously inundated or saturated
(within 12" of the surface) by surface or ground water for at least 12.5% of the growing season.
The attached report describes the first year of monitoring.
If you have any questions, please contact me at [phone] ext. 209.
Sincerely
,41-52
Thomas E. Devens, P.E.
Wetland Mitigation Coordinator
Planning and Environmental Branch
attachment
Ef Ii,ED

cc: Mr. Mike Bell
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
P.O. Box 1000
Washington, NC 27889-1000
Mr. Terry Moore
N.C. Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Div. of Coastal Management
43 Washington Square Mall
Washington, NC 27889
Mr. David Franklin
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
P.O.Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890

ANNUAL REPORT for 1997
COX FARM
Beaufort County
Work Order # 6.152027T
SR 1712
REZIVED
Prepared by:
Permits and Mitigation Unit
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
January 1998
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................1
1.1 Project Description ...................................................................................... l
1.2 Purpose ........................................................................................................1
2.0 HYDROLOGY .......................................................................................................1
2.1 Success Criteria ........................................................................................... l
2.2 Hydrologic Description ................................................................................ l
2.3 Results of Hydrologic Monitoring .............................................................. 2
3.0 VEGETATION ....................................................................................................... 2
3.1 Success Criteria ........................................................................................... 2
3.2 Vegetative Description................................................................................. 2
3.3 Results of Vegetative Monitoring ............................................................... 3
4.0 CONCLUSIONS .....................................................................................................4
4.1 Hydrology ................................................................................................... 4
4.2 Vegetation ...................................................................................................4
5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................ 4
i?

LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1 -HYDROLOGIC MONITORING RESULTS ............................................................2
TABLE 2 -VEGETATION PLANTED ............................................................................................2
TABLE 3 - VEGETATION MONITORING RESULTS-Tree Species ..................................3
TABLE 4 - VEGETATION MONITORING RESULTS- Grass Species ...............................3
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE I - Site Location Map ...........................................................................................................5
FIGURE 2 - Well Location Map .........................................................................................................6
APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1 - DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER PLOTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Description
The Cox Farm Mitigation Site is located in Beaufort County approximately one mile east of
Leechville. The site, encompassing approximately 2 acres, is situated near the Pungo River and
can be accessed by SR 1712 (Figure 1).
1.2 Purpose
Monitoring of the Cox Farm site is required to demonstrate successful mitigation. Monitoring of
wetlands for success criteria falls under two categories: hydrology and vegetation. - The following
report describes the results of the hydrologic and vegetative monitoring during 1997 at the Cox
Farm Mitigation Site.
2.0 HYDROLOGY
2.1 Success Criteria
In accordance with federal guidelines for wetland mitigation, the success criteria for hydrology
states that the area must be inundated or saturated (within 12" of the surface) by surface or
ground water for at least 12.5% of the growing season. The growing season in Beaufort County
begins March 13 and ends November 25. The dates marking the start and end of the growing
season were based on Table 2 of the Soil Survey of Beaufort County, North Carolina (p. 93).
The survey was conducted by the Soil Conservation Service. These dates correspond to a 50%
probability that air temperatures will drop to 28° or lower after March 13 and before November
25. Thus the growing season is 256 days.
2.2 Hydrologic Description
Two monitoring wells, one rain gauge, and one surface gauge were installed on site (Figure 2).
Data was collected on a daily basis. Rain data and depth to groundwater readings were recorded
by automatic monitoring wells and gauges. Two monitoring wells (CX-1 and CX-2) were
installed and began recording depth to groundwater readings on April 16, 1996. The rain gauge
and surface gauge were installed and began reading on May 10, 1996. Monitoring of the'site
continued until November 19, 1=996. Monitoring for the second year began on March 13, 1997
and continued throughout the growing season (November 25, 1997).
Appendix 1 contains a plot of the water depth for each monitoring well and surface gauge.
Precipitation events are included on each graph as bars.
2.3 Results of Hydrologic Monitoring
The total number of days that the groundwater was within twelve inches of the surface was
determined for each well. This number was converted into a percentage of the 256-day growing
season. The results are presented in Table 1.
TABLE 1
HYDROLOGIC MONITORING RESULTS
................................... .............................
M i lri< ? ell» »»»

:::::::: :
:.:.:::
.
::::.: .............................................................................
> > PCB c rit` of t-b .G. 5 as ii

::::::
.
:::::: ...............................................................................................
...................
roto ' i irit ria 11 ti > > > < >«««>
.Y:::::::::::: ......... ........::::.:::..............
..
:::::
1
-
CX 1
44. Yes
CX-2 45.3 Yes
Average 44.7 Yes
3.0 VEGETATION
3.1 Success Criteria
Success criteria states that there must be a minimum mean density of 320 trees/acre of approved
target species surviving for at least three years.
3.2 Vegetative Description
Mitigation includes restoration of the wetland tree and grass species found in Table 2.
TABLE 2
Vegetation Planted
Common Rush Juncus effusus
Bald Cypress Taxodium distichum
Swamp Tupelo Nyssa Mora
Willow Oak Quercus phellos
Water Oak Quercus nigra
Tulip Tree Liriodendrum tulipifera

The site was planted in March and April 1996. The site was monitored one month after planting
in May 1996 and after the first growing season in October 1996. Monitoring for the second
growing season occurred September 1997.
2
3.3 Results of Vegetative Monitoring
The initial number of trees within in each vegetative plot was counted in April 1996. The
number of trees surviving within each plot after the second growing season was counted in
September 1997. The results of 1997 monitoring are presented in Table 3 and Table 4.
TABLE 3 -
Vegetative Monitoring Results - Tree Species
..................................
>P ifi
... ??....... E?:: .
........................
...:..::.:..::::::

::>::>::»::»s s::»>::»»>:<:>::: .............................................................
'Preps P.Aii te?<>
.:. .................................:...................:.
.............................................................
.....:.... ..........................................:.......

«:»>::»::»»: »:<::>::>::>::»»:>:::»>:<:>:<:>>::>
................. ...............................................................
::>::>:»>:>1! u i itier rl T e s ::»><
.:::::.:::....:................::.................::::::..:::
...............................................................
....................
.: ..........:::.:::.:::.:::
>::>::>:<:>ss>»»:'3
....................................... ; .................... ....................................................
P remit' . tt ..:::.::.::.::><:
:::::::..::ii ......... .... ?k...:B.........
...................................................

:.::.::.;:.::.::.::.::.:.:
e .
................................................... ...................................
:><:>::
:.::::: 1
..............................

CS1G7`? :::<
................................
1 36 23 639. 435
2 36 28 77.8 529
Average 360 25.5 70.8 482
TABLE 4 -
Vegetative Monitoring Results - Grass Species
pxC?3E:.TTC?t .;ES?fS ?YIi::k17 lx <. TA
..::::.:::..::::..::..::.: 3ftil:f?YIA
.:::::::::.::::::::::::::.:::::::::::::..::.
1 55% 10% 65.0%
2 50% 15% 65.0%
Average 53% 13% 65.0%
• Site still has signs of panic grass scattered throughout; however, it does not appear to be as
bad as last year's monitoring report.
• Bald cypress is growing well; however, some are showing signs of deer browsing.
• Juncus is very healthy, showing excellent signs of spreading.
• There are still signs of scattered tree bark (organic material) throughout the site. This slow
decomposition may have caused a nitrogen problem to planted trees.

3
4.0 CONCLUSIONS
4.1 Hydrology
• The groundwater was within twelve inches of the surface for at least 12.5% of the growing
season in both wells (44.1 % and 45.3 %, respectively).
• Monitoring well CX-2 did not begin to collect at the start of the growing season and was
found to be defective. The well was replaced and was set to begin recording data on May 22.
• According to the well data in late September through November 25, it can be determined that
a malfunction occurred in the data collection of the rain gauge. The rain . gauge will be
replaced before the start of the next growing season.
4.2 Vegetation
The average survival rate in both vegetation plots was 70.8%. This is equivalent to 482
trees/acre, greater than the 320 tree/acre minimum success criteria. The Juncus effusus is doing
well and is established on an average of 53% of the area.
5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
• Continue annual monitoring of site hydrology through the growing season (March 13 to
November 25).
• Continue annual vegetative monitoring.
4
(-A
ON
-v ° rn
C, Q°
rn
4
1
n
W
i
0
O
f..
d
b
16
r
.o r
J? N
-t- A
14 r, f
U'l
/.o
Ln W ,
w-
?A t - t
NW ? t t
? ,t i rm 1v w
1 t
1 ? 1
1 t
1 1
i
1 ,
1 ,
1 ,
1 ,
1 ,
t
1 ,
I
d

7?b

v"' ; > JC
R

;i ` '

i
^7 1
1 (?
l??
1 ? m
' N
11
- 1

' ;*sz S17 Ol 7iY sfc-_
' __-_-_--------
-

D
;v ----
-
-u
0'0
O *

m
co
N 0
?
Ln O
d W
lJ1
U
1
? o
fit
? o
r.
r
r
«V r
r
m r
11 ?
N '
H ?
o
o ;
N r?
m
zz 00
O ' Ln
.s '
w 'v "C
O o
fT1 r' oo
i 0-)
i
LAJ
X
OD*
C31 C-
`o
G LA
Ln
p fl
u ° z
I
r G\
it G
W tv n j
a?
s
,s
r -rl
r
'rl
i r -
1 i
m
-+
.
i"

1s
,J
lA
co
n
m
i
Cox Farm
d
t0
L
€a
to 2
LL
x?y
o ?
V ?
3
N
(ui) uogeydiOwd

8L-LL
62-01
-O L
6-0 L
6Z-6
6 L-6
6-6
0£-8
a?
OZ-8
C7
0 L-8 2
L£-L
d ?
LZ-L
10
L L-L d
- ? m
0 0
L-L c
LZ-9 '
L L-9
L-9
ZZ-S
Z V9
Z-9
ZZ-b
Z VV
Z-b
£Z-£
£ L-£
N
N N O 117 O
(ui) Ja;eM among jo cadaa
(ul) uol;e dmJd
u> u> to Ui v>
Cl) M N N O
?MrM
e0 ?
LL
X
x V
0
v

O
8l- l l
S-ll
62-01
6VOl
6-01
6Z-6
6l6
6-6
X
U
0£-9
OZ-9
s
_ g
A y
01-8 o
r ?
l0
l£-L m
CL v
lZ-L y
d
ll-L
1-L
m
m
LZ-9
c
L V9
V9
ZZ-9
Zls
Z-G
ZZ-e
Z vt
Z-b
£Z?
£1e
In
N
iA O N O N
(ul) ia;empunoig o; Ladea
m N
LL. K
K V
O
v
(ui) ja;empunoig o; wdea

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 DAVID MCCOY
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
January 14, 2000
Mr. Mike Bell
US Army Corps of Engineers
Washington Regulatory Field Office
Post Office Box 1000
Washington, North Carolina 27889-1000
Dear Mr. Bell:
Subject: 1999 Annual Monitoring Report for Cox Farm Mitigation Site, Beaufort
County
Please find enclosed one copy of the 1999 Annual Monitoring Report for the Cox Farm
Mitigation Site. This report details the hydrologic and vegetation monitoring activities
from the past year at the site, currently in its fourth year of monitoring.
A meeting to discuss this and other sites evaluated by the Washington and Wilmington
Regulatory Field Offices has been scheduled for Friday, February 18, 2000 at 9:00am in
Room 470 of the Transportation Building. Representatives from NCDOT and various
other agencies will be in attendance.
If you should have any questions prior to this meeting, please contact Beth Smyre,
Natural Systems Engineer, at [phone]. Thank you for your continued support and
cooperation. -
Sincerely,
'1/ e4L ??
V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D.,
Assistant Manager
Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch
Cc: w/ attachment
David Franklin, USACE (1)
Kelly Williams, NCDCM (2)
k6 Hennessy, NCDWQ (1)
David Cox, NCWRC (1)
w/o attachment
Bruce Ellis, NCDOT
1
a