19970478 All Versions_Complete File_20040729

?&WAVI?al
.d
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Mr. Philip S. Harris, III, P.E., Manager
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development & Environmental Analysis
Office of Natural Environment
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Alan W. Klimek, P.E., Director
July 29, 2004
Martin County
DWQ Nos. 960214, 970478, 001520
RE: Huslcanaw Swamp Mitigation Site, Martin County, DWQ Nos. 960214, 970478,
001520
Dear Mr. Hams:
This correspondence is in reference to your letter dated July 7, 2004, regarding the Huskanaw Swamp Mitigation
site located in Martin County, North Carolina. This site is being utilized-by the North Carolina Department of
Transportation as compensatory mitigation for the US 64 Relocation (R-2112B, R-212B mod., R-2112BA & BB
mod., R-2112B mod.), the US 13/NC 11 road widening (R-218A) and the Bethel Bypass (R-218B).
By copy of this letter, we are notifying you that no further monitoring of the site will be required since the
construction and success criteria for the mitigation site has been met.
Thank you for your time and cooperation. If you have any questions, please contact Nicole Thomson at
919-715-3415.
S' ere ,
an W. Klimek, P.E.
JEH/njt
cc: Wilmington District, US Army Corps of Engineers
Mr. Mike Bell, US Army Corps of Engineers, Washington Field Office
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
Mr. Chris Militscher, USEPA
Mr. Travis Wilson, WRC
Mr. Mike Thomas, NCDWQ Washington Regional Office
Mr. Anthony Roper, P.E., Division 1 Engineer, 113 Airport Drive, Suite 100, Edenton, NC 27932
Mr. Clay Willis, Division 1 Environmental Officer, 113 Airport Drive, Suite 100, Edenton, NC 27932
Transportation Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650-
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] / FAX [phone] / Internet: htto://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
NorthCarohna
Naturally
of
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GovERNoR
', \-0 XA
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTNTNr OF TRANSPORTATION

July 7, 2004
Mr. Bill Biddlecombe
Washington Regulatory Field Office ACOE
P.O. Box 1000
Washington, NC 27889-1000
Re: Huskanaw Swamp Mitigation Site, Martin Coun _ St
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
WETLANDS/ 401 GROUP
JUL 13 2004
WATER QUAL.ITYSECT
- 11 ?2112B?R-212B mod., R-2112BA &BB mod., R-2112B mod., R-218A
-218 ction ID Nos. 199601404, 199501132, 198200031, DWQ Project Nos.
960214, 970478, 001520----? Cc?.
u4 V-9 U)o bo
As you are aware, the Department has monitored the Huskanaw Swamp Mitigation Site since its
construction in the winter of 1996-97. Located in Martin County, the site is approximately 87
acres in size. Hydrologic monitoring gauges were installed April 1997 and planting activities
began February 1998. NCDOT proposed to monitor the Huskanaw Swamp site for five years or
until success criteria were met; both hydrologic and vegetation monitoring were conducted each
year. After each growing season, annual monitoring reports were submitted to the appropriate
regulatory agencies.
Hydrologic success criteria stipulated that the site must be inundated or saturated within 12-
inches of the surface for a minimum of a consecutive 12.5% of the growing season. Thus for the
244-day growing season in Martin County, the criteria is a consecutive 31 days. Each individual
Annual Monitoring Report provides a summary of the hydrologic data (the percentage of the
growing season that saturation was indicated) at each groundwater gauge location for the past
five years of monitoring.
As the summary table in the 2003 Annual Monitoring Report indicates, most of the hydrologic
gauges have been consistently inundated or saturated at successful criteria levels for the majority
of the growing season since the site was constructed. The region rainfall ranging from above
average to below average. A more detailed analysis of site hydrologic conditions is provided
within each individual annual monitoring report.
After five years of vegetation monitoring, vegetation data for 2003 shows that the site has met
vegetative success criteria by yielding an average density of 589 trees per acre surviving. None
of the three individual vegetation plots had a survival density that was below the 5-year
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. WWWWWOT.ORG RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1598

requirement. Individual yearly monitoring data is provided within the annual monitoring reports
for each monitoring year.
During the annual monitoring report meeting on April 29, 2004, NCDOT and resource agencies
agreed that the Huskanaw Mitigation Site could be closed and that monitoring could be
discontinued. NCDOT requests that the appropriate resource agencies provide documentation
stating that no further monitoring is required and that the site is closed. If you have any questions
about this project, please contact Mr. Randy Griffin at [phone].
Sincerely,
Philip S. Harris, III, P.E., Manager
PDEA- Office of Natural Environment
cc: Mr. John Hennessy, NCDWQ
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
Mr. Chris Militscher, EPA
Mr. Travis Wilson, WRC
Mr. Don Conner, PE, Division engineer

AEI ICI UAL REPORT FOR 1999
1
i
1
1
Huskanaw Swam Mitigation Site
Martin County
1 Project # 6.099008T
TIP # R-21 11 WM
1
1
1

tip

y9 v,:
1
Prepared By.
1 Natural Systems Unit &
Roadside Environmental Unit
North Carolina-Department of Transportation
1 December 1999
1
1

j

L
r
C

F

?I

r

?I

s „a SfA7F
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 2201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
GOVERNOR
January 24, 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:
DAVID MCCOY
SECRETARY
Subject: 1999 Annual Monitoring Report for the Huskanaw Swamp Mitigation
Site, Martin County
Please find enclosed one copy of the 1999 Annual Monitoring Report for the Huskanaw
Swamp Mitigation Site. This report details the hydrologic and vegetation monitoring
activities from the past year at the site, currently in its second 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,
/ c ?-k
V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D.,
Assistant Manager
Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch
Cc: w/ attachment
David Franklin, USACE
JAnHennes .l.Q1 Q*
David Cox, NCWRC
w/o attachment
Bruce Ellis, NCDOT
r
' TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY ...................................................................................1
1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. 2
1.1 Project Description ......................................................................2
1.2 Purpose .......................................................................................2
1.3 Project History .................................................................2
1 2.0 HYDROLOGY ........................................................................................4
2.1 Success Criteria ...........................................................................4
' 2.2 Hydrologic Description .................................................................4
2.3 Results of Hydrologic Monitoring .................................................4
' 2.3.1 Site Data .........................................:...................4
2.3.2 Climatic Data.. .6
2.4 Conclusions ....................................................................9
' 3.0 VEGETATION .......................................................................................10
3.1 Success Criteria .........................................................................10
3.2 Description of Species ................................................................10
3.3 Results of Vegetation Monitoring ...............................................11
3.4 Conclusions ....................................................................12
4.0 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS/ RECOMMENDATIONS ............................13
F

IJ
1?

C

0

J

TABLES
TABLE 1 - HYDROLOGIC MONITORING RESULTS- (PRE-HURRICANE)....... 5
TABLE 2 - HYDROLOGIC MONITORING RESULTS- (POST-HURRICANE).... 5
P.'1/'?1 tPfC?
FIGURE 1 - SITE LOCATION MAP ....................................................................3
FIGURE 2 - WELL LOCATION MAP ..................................................................5
FIGURE 3 - 1999 HYDROLOGIC RESULTS ..............................................7
FIGURE 4 - 30-70 PERCENTILE GRAPH .................................................8
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A - DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER CHARTS .............................14
APPENDIX B - SITE PHOTOS ..............................................................18
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
h
I
I
I
I

SUMMARY
The following report summarizes the monitoring activities at the Huskanaw
Swamp Mitigation Site. Constructed in 1996, the site provides wetland mitigation
' for the relocation of US 64. 1999 reflects the second complete year that
monitoring has taken place on the site.
' The site is monitored with three monitoring wells and three vegetation plots.
One major change in the hydrologic monitoring process is the use of local
weather station rainfall data for the site analysis. The daily rainfall on the well
data graphs is recorded at the Williamston rain gauge, maintained by the NC
' State Climate Office. This data is being used because the existing on-site
rainfall gauges have proven unreliable. These site gauges will be replaced with
more reliable equipment prior to the start of the 2000 growing season.
Huskanaw Swamp received considerable rainfall during the month of September
due to Hurricanes Dennis, Floyd, and Irene. An additional section in the report
' describes the effects of these hurricanes on the site itself.
In the second year of hydrologic monitoring, one of the three wells indicated
' success for more than 12.5% of the growing season while the remaining two
indicated saturation for more than 9.4% of the season. These results.are similar
to those from 1998. Vegetation counts yielded a stem count of 552 trees per
' acre with all but two transects showing successful stem counts.
' Based on the monitoring results from the 1999 growing season, NCDOT intends
to continue monitoring the site.

r-

1

H

I

L

'l

1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Description
The Huskanaw Swamp Mitigation Site is located in north central Martin County
and encompasses approximately 112 acres. It is 0.95 miles west of the US 64-
US 64 Business Interchange, along SR 1405 (Figure 1). The site was originally
constructed in winter 1996-97; however, planting activities were not completed
until February 1998. Because construction activities were not completed prior to
the start of the 1997 growing season, the site is only in its second year of
monitoring.
The site serves as mitigation for the US 64 relocation and consists of restoration,
enhancement, and preservation. The site is designed to restore both wet
hardwood forest and swamp forest wetland communities. An additional area
preserves approximately 33 acres of swamp/ bottomland forested wetlands.
1.2 Purpose
In order to demonstrate successful mitigation, hydrologic and vegetative
monitoring must be conducted fora minimum of three years. Success criteria
are based on federal guidelines for wetland mitigation. These guidelines
stipulate criteria for both hydrologic conditions and vegetation survival. The
following report details the results of hydrologic and vegetation monitoring during
the 1999 growing season at the Huskanaw Swamp Mitigation Site. Included in
this report are analyses of both hydrologic and vegetative monitoring results as
well as local climate conditions throughout the growing season.
1.3 Project History
Winter 1996-97
April 1997
April- November 1997
February 1998
March- November 1998
October 1998
March- November 1999
October 1999
Site Constructed
Monitoring Wells Installed
Hydrologic Monitoring
Site Planted
Hydrologic Monitoring (1 yr.)
Vegetation Monitoring (1 yr.)
Hydrologic Monitoring (2 yr.)
Vegetation Monitoring (2 yr.)
2
u

I I
fl
n

I'

0
11
n

¦
FIGURE 1
SITE LOCATION MAP
F-
L
rl
71

0
0

u
L!
l

H
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 a consecutive 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 factors such as the
presence of hydrophytic vegetation and hydric soils.
The growing season in Martin County begins March 16 and ends November 14.
The dates correspond to a 50% probability that temperatures will drop to 28° F or
lower after March 16 and before November 14.' The growing season is 244
' days; therefore the optimum duration for wetland hydrology is 30 consecutive
days. Local climate must. represent average conditions for the area.
2.2 Hydrologic Description
Three monitoring wells were installed on site in April of 1997 (Figure 2). The
' automatic monitoring wells record daily readings of the groundwater depth. The
1999 data represents the second full growing season for hydrologic monitoring.
Appendix A contains a plot of the groundwater depth for each monitoring well
during 1998. Rainfall is the primary hydrologic input for the Huskanaw site; the
monitoring well graphs are designed to show the reaction of the groundwater
' level to specific rainfall events.
2.3 Results of Hydrologic Monitoring
2.3.1 Site Data
The maximum number of consecutive days that the groundwater was within
twelve inches of the surface was determined for each well. This number was
' converted into a percentage of the 244 day growing season. Tables 1 and 2
show the hydrologic results for 1999.
Daily precipitation events, shown on each monitoring well graph, represent data
collected from a Williamston weather station. This data was provided by the NC
State Climate Office. The rain gauge that is currently on the site will be replaced
Soil Conservation Service, Soil Survey of Martin County, North Carolina, p.75.
4
11

11

E

n

1
0

11
n
0

1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1
Huskanaw Swamp 1
1
1
a `
Well Location Map
/ C? 1 1
/!?` /P yl 1
1
\ 1 1
1
-.. 1 1
1 ,
1 ,
1 1
1 ,
1 1
1 ,
1 ,
1
1
1

0
0

d
n
H
1

0

with a more accurate measuring device prior to the beginning of the 2000
monitoring season, thus eliminating the need to use official rainfall information on
the monitoring well graphs. While these rainfall amounts may not be exactly
equal to what was received on the site, they are representative of the rainfall
events for the area and can be used for a tentative comparison.
Table 1
HYDROLOGIC MONITORING RESULTS- 1999
FOR MARCH 16. 1999 -AUGUST 31. 1999 (PRE-HURRICANE INFLUENCE)
Monitoring ! <'-5%
Well 5% - 8% 8% - 12.5% > 12.5%; Actual
% Success Dates
HS-1 ? 13.1 Mar. 16- Apr. 16
HS-3 ? 9.4 Mar. 16- Apr. 7
HS-4 ? 9.8 Mar. 16- Apr. 7
Figure 3 is a graphical representation of the 1999 hydrologic results, as recorded
prior to the September hurricanes. It is this hydrologic data, recorded between
March 16, 1999 and August 31, 1999, which will determine the success of the
mitigation site. Groundwater levels recorded after September 1, 1999, were
influenced by extreme weather conditions, and should not be used to represent
success. Data collected after September 1, 1999 is presented in Table 2.
Table 2
HYDROLOGIC MONITORING RESULTS- 1999
FOR SEPTEMBER 1 - NOVEMBER 14. 1999 (POST-HURRICANE INFLUENCE)
Monitoring
Well <5% 5%-8% 8%-12.5% >12.5% Actual
% Success Dates
HS-1 ? 16.4 Sept. 5- Oct. 14
HS-3 ? 13.5 Sept. 5- Oct. 7
HS-4 ? 13.5 Sept. 5- Oct. 7
All three monitoring wells were saturated for at least one month in the aftermath
of hurricanes Dennis and Floyd. NCDOT realizes that the hydrologic results in
the wake of the September hurricanes will not count toward overall monitoring;
however, the reaction of the site to large storms is noteworthy.
There were no problems with the monitoring well units during the growing
season. All wells appeared to be functioning normally, even after the heavy
September rains.
' 2.3.2 Climatic Data
' Figure 4 is a comparison of monthly rainfall from winter 1998 and 1999 to
historical precipitation (collected between 1931 and 1998) for Williamston, NC.
This comparison gives one indication of how 1999 relates to historical data in
6

0

1

H

t ? -
t t
Huskanaw Swamp t t
1999 Hydrologic Monitoring
t Resul is
i
l? *ij f t 1
f ?.1 t
ff f 1 t
1 I t
I, ? 1 t
i t
1 t
t t
t ?.
FIGURE 3
1999 HYDROLOGIC R
V
c
v
c
m
Y
7
3
m
=SUL

I

p

L

1?

0
o
i - _ rs . ? , ?Cw•?W'?.?'x ? ? J? g Qc?+' eab. ?rit£.3 Y r'
`r?nj
}Y to - 1 ?: y E" .ti' ?1^l.
m`5 `1° Y +1?''3JSY1 ? Q
w "y, sk q9
?y G -t?! ? ? sr - ??•???erc}"?.?, . M1 ? $ r..- ?'4 ha ? ? .1 ?t s` C:
~ ' r4 w y1? s?? ?5 e ate t
do"
°' t. ,f? r '?:. v t ?-?'? Ti'F„'s?? ?£ "°. '4=' 'xw 2. `'1U-T s ff,"y5..•??$ 6
INOR
,iy ;M - 5 Uciz0,n,< ;£H? k.7LS?t, -L
•yY 8k ?S `^? A?'stA ?'Y'C'l ail ?:? S
3
CC`
J
z ?pIr; l a1!
ia4? c Y t r s
,.Tq A11114
YrY ' sc t 4 ti
€° 7
M M N N
(-ui) uoi;e:pdisaJd
II =
CL
s
I
C
a
s
0
M
NC
L6
0
r
1
w
co
0
0
r
FIGURE 4
30-70 PERCENTILE GRAPH

u
0

F

L

n

n
0
r
I

' terms of climate conditions. All data was provided by the NC State Climate
Office. Because data for the complete 1999 year was not available at the time
this report was published, the rainfall totals for December 1999 are not included.
The climate analysis in the 2000 Annual Report will include the rainfall data from
December 1999. Data for December 1998 is also provided, as was promised in
the 1998 Annual Report.
The months of February through August of 1999 saw very little rainfall in the
Williamston area. Monthly rainfall totals were below average or just inside the
average rainfall limits for the area. However, the hurricanes of September 1999
produced a combined total of 28.83 inches of rainfall in that month alone, with
another 6.66 inches of rainfall following in October. The month of November was
below average in rainfall totals, with only 1.82 inches recorded in the entire
month.
2.4 Conclusions
Extremely dry conditions in eastern North Carolina for the majority of the growing
season influenced lower groundwater levels on the Huskanaw site. Yet despite
' these conditions, all of the monitoring wells recorded saturation within one foot of
the surface for at least 9.4% of the growing season, with one well showing
saturation for a consecutive 13.1% of the season. These results are similar to
' the 1998 results, in which HS-1 recorded saturation for 19.8% of the growing
season while the remaining two wells recorded saturation for less than 12.5% of
the season.
' Following the severe weather in September 1999, the site was saturated for at
least a consecutive 33 days at each well. Even as the site received less and
' less rainfall during October and November, the wells. again showed saturation
just prior to the winter months.

1

n
9

L
I
u

0
I I

I I

C

' 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 Description of Species

17

The following planting communities were planted on the Site:
Zone 1: Wet Hardwood Forest (56.6 acres)
Fraxinus pennsylvanica, Green Ash
Quercus laurifolia, Laurel Oak
Quercus falcata var. pagodaefolia, Cherrybark Oak
Quercus michauxii, Swamp Chestnut Oak
Quercus phellos, Willow Oak
Quercus falcata, Southern Red Oak
Quercus nigra, Water Oak
Nyssa aquatica, Water Tupelo
Zone 2: Oak/Hickory Forest (19.2 acres)
Quercus albs, White Oak
Quercus nigra, Water Oak
Quercus falcata, Southern Red Oak
Carya tomentosa, Mockernut Hickory
Carya glabra, Pignut Hickory
Quercus palustris, Post Oak
Quercus falcata var. pagodaefolia, Cherrybark Oak
Quercus phellos, Willow Oak
Quercus michauxii, Swamp Chestnut Oak
Zone 3: Long Leaf-Oak/Hickory Forest (11.1 acres)
Pinus palustris, Longleaf Pine
Quercus marilandica, Blackjack Oak
Quercus phellos, Willow Oak
Quercus stellata, Post Oak
Carya tomentosa, Mockernut Hickory
Carya glabra, Pignut Hickory
Quercus michauxii, Swamp Chestnut Oak
Quercus albs, White Oak
Quercus nigra, Water Oak
Quercus falcata, Southern Red Oak
10

1

0

I
11

3.3 Results of Vegetation Monitoring (2 year)

O L
?
O
ee ? w Q
Y w X x_ a? O ° Y M L
at
w
3 m a a n
N
1 1 3 1 2 1 8 2 17 18 642
3 1 5 1 7 21 227
5 1 2 4 7 18 264
6 9 17 9 2 5 42 42 680
8 18 6 6 3 2 7 42 42 680
ZONE 1 AVERA GE DENSIT Y 499
4 4 5 6 9 2 2 28 34 560
7 5 3 7 14 11 40 40 680
ZONE 2 AVERAGE DENSITY 620
3 2 12 2 1 3 4 12 2 36 36 680
ZONE 3 AVERAGE DENSITY 680
TOTAL AVERAGE DENSITY 552
To determine plot density, the number of stems counted at the time of monitoring
is divided by the total number of trees planted in the plot. This number is then
multiplied by 680 stems per acre.
Density = Monitoring Count x 680 (stems per acre)
Planted Trees
Notes from Report: Site contained heavy competition in cut over areas. Plot 1 -
Volunteer poplar and red maple present, along with heavy fennel. Plot 2 -
Heavy bermuda grass present. Plot 3 - Plot difficult to count because of heavy
fennel competition. Volunteer red maple and poplar present. Plot 4 - Heavy
bermuda grass and some fennel present. Plot 5 - Some red maple, sweetgum,
and poplar present. Reed and fennel also identified. Plot 6 - Heavy trumpet
creeper in plot. A few red maples and some bermuda grass present. Plot 7 -
Heavy fennel and broomsedge in plot along with a few red maples. Plot 8 -
Volunteer sweetgums in plot along with fennel and bermuda grass.
11

p
1

0

0
u

3.4 Conclusions
A total of 87 acres was planted on this site. The second year vegetation
monitoring of the planted areas revealed an average density to be 552 trees per
acre, which is well above the minimum requirement of 320 trees per acre.

I I
11

12

u

u

fl

0

n

4.0 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS/ RECOMMENDATIONS
After two years of monitoring, one of the three monitoring wells showed
saturation for more than 12.5% of the growing season while the remaining two
indicated saturation for 9.4% of the season. Vegetation monitoring yielded an
average plot density of 552 trees per acre, with six of eight plots showing
successful stem counts.
NCDOT intends to:
• Continue monitoring site hydrology through the growing season (March 16 to
November 14).
• Continue annual vegetation monitoring.
13

F

F

I l
n
n
0

n

'I
I

1
i
APPENDIX A
I DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER PLOTS

fl

1

fl

14

F

d

I

I

p

1
1
1
IT-
N
2
cn
c
cc
Y
N
3
2
(-ui) uoi;e;idiaaJd
0
0
N
T
C0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
T 00 (0 IT N O

7
i
i r T

I
f

0

a? c
c c
i
Q

I c

I
f =
66-AON-6O
66-AON-ZO
66-P0-9Z
66-P0-%
66-P0-Z6 6
66-PO-90
66-des-8Z
66-das-?Z
66-des-v? m
0
66-daS-LO
66-6ndq£
66-6nd-qZ
66-6nd-L?
66-6n`d-Ob ;
66-6nd-£O
66-Inf -1Z
U) '
66-inf-OZ
R m
66-Inf-£6 o ti
66-Inf°90 w
T I
66-unr-6Z (n
66-unr-ZZ I
66-unr-S 6
66-unf-80
66-unmo c
66-ABW-SZ
66-AeW-86
66-AeW- 6
66-AeW-yO - -
66-JdV-LZ
66-JdV-OZ
66-AV-C6
66-Jdd-9O
66-JeW-O£
66-JeW-£Z
66-JeW-96
LO O In O LO N N
i i
(-ui) ja;ennpunojE) o; y;dea

L_1

7

H

r

j

d
i

1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
M
N
O.
E
3
N
c
c?
Y
N
(-ui) uoi;e;idiaa-ld
0
0
N
r
O O O O O O
0
T- OO CO IT N O

c? ca -

o
LL =

0 _

Q

c _
U
L
D -

I(n

CY)
N

66-AON-60
66-AON-ZO
66.130-92
66-3P0-U
66-:P0-Z6 6
66-PO-90
66-daS-8Z
66-daS-6Z
66-daS-v 6
66-daS-LO
66-6nV-6£
66-6nV-VZ
66-6nV-L 6
66-6nV-0 6
66-6nV-£0
66-Inr-LZ
66-InP-OZ
66-Inf-£6
66-Inr-90
66-unr-6Z
66-unf-ZZ
66-unf-S6
66-unf-80
66-unmo
66-ABW-SZ
66-AeW-8 6
66-AeW- 6 L
66-ABW-VO
66-JdV-LZ
66-JdV-OZ
66-JdV-£ 6
66-JdV-90
66-JeW-O£
66-1eW-£Z
66-JeW-9 6
O t!7 O LO N N
i i
(-ui).ja;ennpuno.aE) o; y;dea

:I
M
cn
m =
R Im
00
?U.)
il!
c
I'

C

k

III

n

N
0.
3
ca
eo
Y
N
2
0
0
N
r
(-ui) uoi;e;idioaJd
° °o °° °o °o °°
Co co [t N O
0

r
a? -

I?
?N
N
f?
66-AON-60
66-AON-ZO
66-130-9Z
66-PO-6L
66-P0-Z L
66-PO-90
66-daS-BZ
66-das-?Z
66-des-q? Q
N
66-daS-LO
66.6nb-?£
66-6n`d-bZ
66-6nd-Lb
66-End-O? '
66-6nd-80 l
66-Inf-LZ j
66-Inf-OZ
66-Inf-£6 0 !, v
00
66-Inf-90 LO
66-unf-6Z
66-unf-ZZ
I
66-unf-S6
66-unf-80
66-unf-60
66-ABW-SZ
66-AeW-g '
66-AeW- 6
66-AeW-VO
66-Jdd-LZ
66-Jd`d-OZ
66-Jd`d-£ 6
66-JdV-90
66-1eW-0£
66-JeW-£Z
66-JeW-9 6
U-) O In O N N
(-ui) jejempunoiE) o; y;daa
I

n
u

J

0

I I

i

LI

I

APPENDIX B
SITE PHOTOS
18

r
n

fl
0

r
C

C

E

7

Huskanaw Swamp
Photo Point 5
Photo Point 2
Photo Point 4

0

n
L

I Huskanaw Swamp

Photo Point 6

r

u

Photo Point 8

u

1999
Photo Point 7
Photo Point 9

n

n

i
i
Huskanaw Swamp
1
st

i
Photo Point 10
1

RPEN
1 Photo Point 12

1 1999
Photo Point 11
Photo Point 13

7

7

0

L
b
4?ys
C
}
6
O h
o

0

?
(
r

tt ;
? l"fG Y"

\1
i
? t
\ \ r
i'
'f
J

F',
f
0
u

ri

D

1
u

?r

1

C?

H
n

u

0

0

0

.Z'
3 All ,
e^"??4
TATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 E. NORRIS TOLSON
GOVERNOR
Ms. Cyndi Bell
N.C. Department of Environment
And Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
December 23, 1998
SECRETARY
Dear Ms. Bell:
Subject: 1998 Annual Monitoring Report for the Huskanaw Swamp Mitigation
Site, Martin County.
Please find enclosed the 1998 annual monitoring report for the Huskanaw 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,
/
V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D.,
Assistant Branch Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
cc: Phil Harris, PE, Natural Systems Unit Head
David Franklin, USACOE

1
ANNUAL REPORT FOR 1998
Huskanaw Swamp Mitigation Site
Martin County
Project # 6.099008T
TIP # R-2111 WM
ZOaP
s?
NK?'
Prepared By-
Natural Systems Unit
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Decernbe r 19198

J
7
J
fl

I

u

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................
1.1 Project Description ...................................................................... 1
1
1.2 Purpose ....................................................................................... 1
' 1.3 Project History ................................................................. 1
2.0 HYDROLOGY ........................................................................................3
' 2.1 Success Criteria ..........................................................................
2.2 Hydrologic Description ................................................................ .3
.3
2.3 Results of Hydrologic Monitoring .................................................3
2.3.1 Site Data ............................................................ .3
2.3.2 Climatic Data ....................................................... 5
2.4 Conclusions .................................................................... 9
3.0 VEGETATION ........................................................................................10
3.1 Success Criteria ...:......................................................................10
3.2 Description of Species ......................
.10
3.3 Results of Vegetation Monitoring ...............................................11
3.4 Conclusions ...................................................................11
4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ..........................................................................12

n

r

TABLES
TABLE 1 - HYDROLOGIC MONITORING RESULTS- 1997 .............................5
TABLE 2 - HYDROLOGIC MONITORING RESULTS- 1998 ........................5
FIGURES
FIGURE 1 - SITE LOCATION MAP .................................................................2
FIGURE 2 - WELL LOCATION MAP ...............................................................4
FIGURE 3 -1997 HYDROLOGIC RESULTS ..........................................6
FIGURE 4 - 1998 HYDROLOGIC RESULTS ..........................................7
FIGURE 5 - 30-70 PERCENTILE GRAPH ..............................................8
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A - DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER CHARTS ...........................13
APPENDIX B - SITE PHOTOS ............................................................17
APPENDIX C - MONITORING PARTNERING MEETING MINUTES ........... 19
F
1

1.0 INTRODUCTION
' 1.1 Project Description
' The Huskanaw Swamp Mitigation Site is located in north central Martin County
and encompasses approximately 112 acres (Figure 1). It is 0.95 miles west of
' the US 64- US 64 Business Interchange, along SR 1405. The site serves as
mitigation for the US 64 relocation.
' The site consists of both jurisdictional wetlands and upland areas. The
restoration area comprises three acres of the site and is the only portion which
requires hydrologic monitoring. A portion of the site, approximately 87 acres,
was planted in 1998 and requires vegetation monitoring.
1.2 Purpose
In order to demonstrate successful mitigation, hydrologic and vegetative
monitoring must be conducted for a minimum of three years. The following
report details the results of hydrologic and vegetative monitoring during the 1998
growing season at the Huskanaw Swamp Mitigation Site. Also included is a
' consecutive day analysis of the 1997 hydrologic data. This analysis is included
as an addendum to the 1997 annual report, in which cumulative days were
incorrectly tallied in order to demonstrate hydrologic success.
' 1.3 Project History
' April 1997 Monitoring Wells Installed
April- November 1997 Hydrologic Monitoring
' November 1997 Site Constructed
February 1998 Site Planted
March- November 1998 Hydrologic Monitoring
October 1998 Vegetation Monitoring (1 yr.)

1

n

1

I

.. SSR 1308 ?,
w
dos, r •'-. .;? ._-,-
I
11
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

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 a consecutive 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 factors such as the
presence of hydrophytic vegetation and hydric soils.
' The growing season in Martin County begins March 16 and ends November 14.
The dates correspond to a 50% probability that temperatures will drop to 28° F or
lower after March 16 and before November 14.' The growing season is 242
' days; therefore the optimum duration for wetland hydrology is 30 consecutive
days. Also, local climate must represent average conditions for the area.
2.2 Hydrologic Description
' Three monitoring wells and one rain gauge were installed on site in April of 1997
(Figure 2). The automatic monitoring wells and rain gauges record daily readings
of both depth to groundwater and rainfall, respectively. Because the data for
' 1997 does not encompass a complete growing season, 1998 is considered the
first year of hydrologic monitoring. However, the 1997 data is used to show the
hydrologic progress of the site.
' Appendix A contains a plot of the groundwater depth for each monitoring well
during 1998. Data determined to be erroneous was omitted; therefore, some
gaps appear in the plots. Precipitation events are included on each 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 242 day growing season. Tables 1 and 2
show the results for 1997 and 1998, respectively.
Soil Conservation Service, Soil Survey of Martin County, North Carolina, p.75.
3

1

n
n

I ?

11
1
11
1
11
11
1
1 1
/
f
r r ? ?? 1
fl I
? I
I ? M
? 1 1
?? 1 1
q••b xy \qry? y\? I
?.L'16Cw 'V'?xl? ?IJS?
41 1
?1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1
Q
:ME
O
Q
O
W
W
W
i
N
w
c?
w

u

,7

k

11
n
n

C

i

u
Table 1
HYDROLOGIC MONITORING RESULTS- 1997
Monitoring
Well < 5% 5%-8% 8%-12.5% > 12.5% Actual %
HS-1 ? 6.2
HS-3 ? 2.1
HS-4 ? 2.9
Table 2
HYDROLOGIC MONITORING RESULTS- 1998
Monitoring
Well < 5% 5%-8% 8%-12.5% > 12.5% Actual %
HS-1 ./ 19.3
HS-3 ? 8.3
HS-4 ? 11.2
Figures 3 and 4 are graphical representations of the 1997 and 1998 hydrologic
results, respectively. Wells highlighted in blue indicate wetland hydrology for
more than 12.5% of the growing season. Wells highlighted in red show
hydrology between 8% and 12.5% of the season, while those highlighted in
green show wetland hydrology between 5% and 8% of the growing season.
2.3.2 Climatic Data
Figure 5 is a comparison of monthly rainfall from 1997 and 1998 to historical
precipitation for the area. The two lines represent the 30th and 70th percentiles of
monthly rainfall for the Williamston, NC area. These percentiles are based on
monthly rainfall collected in Williamston between 1931 and 1996. The bars are
the monthly rainfall totals for 1997 and 1998. The historical data was collected
from the National Climatic Data Center; the 1997 and 1998 rainfall is provided by
the State Climate Office of North Carolina. Because of data availability, the 1998
rainfall encompasses precipitation through November. The 1999 annual report
will include a 30-70 percentile graph with the monthly rainfall from December
1998.
In general, 1997 rainfall was average or below average for the area. In 1998,
four of eleven months had above average precipitation.
5

k

i

0
0

E

C

0
0

0

0

r
L
r

C
I
I

1
Il
1
11
?i
II
1
1
11
1
Qer // 11 II
-API
1 1 ??
/ / 1 1
/ / ? ??- J II 11
1 1
1
cr-
= N t? 1
S S I?
?? ? 11 11
? I FI 1
]uz?us sl 1
?1 1
1 I
1 1
1 1
1 1
1
i--
0
a
Z
i
W
DC
L?-
F
L

C
0
0

C
G

H

if '
L

1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1
/ , a 1 1
/?/ // // ?? 11 11 a!e
, ? 1 1
/ t 1
s? I ,1 1
oll
10
g ??"w ?b? rov y`?? l
ii "TE?.u261x? ?at? `? .asc ov¢y ?e
' SiZ "t"om a6.^..us 1 1
41 1
?1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1
w
w
c?
a
0
S
rn
a-
w
l?_
J

C

I

1

s
a
rLn
V
~ z
M ?
O- O
E
U ?
C
t6
Y
N
3
--c
Tr.
MIMI
O O co 1- CD to lk;r M N r O
r
(•ui) uoi;ewd139.1d
U
O
Q
O
Z
U
O
Fii-
) ?I
cl)

7
v
C
0
c
a
a
Q
C?
G
N
l?
c
O
M
I I
25
c
co
rn
rn
cu
rn
rni
i
FIGURE 5
30-70 PERCENTILE GRAPH

7

J

1

2.4 Conclusions
' Hydrology has improved considerably in one year. In 1997, only one well
indicated hydrology for over 5% of the growing season. In 1998, all wells
showed hydrology for more than 8% of the growing season with one well above
' 12.5%. The Williamston area was considerably dryer in 1997 than in 1998.

L

r

1

7

9

C

u

I I

I

3.0 VEGETATION

?I

F

L

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 Description of Species
The following planting communities were planted on the Site:
Zone 1: Wet Hardwood Forest (56.6 acres)
Fraxinus pennsylvanica, Green Ash
Quercus laurifolia, Laurel Oak
Quercus falcata var. pagodaefolia, Cherrybark Oak
Quercus michauxii, Swamp Chestnut Oak
Quercus phellos, Willow Oak
Liriodendron tulipfera, Tulip Poplar
Quercus nigra, Water Oak
Quercus, Swamp Red Oak
Zone 2: Oak/Hickory Forest (19.2 acres)
Quercus alba, White Oak
Quercus nigra, Water Oak
Quercus falcata, Southern Red Oak
Carya tomentosa, Mockernut Hickory
Carya glabra, Pignut Hickory
Quercus palustris, Post Oak
Zone 3: Long Leaf-Oak/Hickory Forest (11.1 acrs)
Pinus palustris, Longleaf Pine
i Quercus marilandica, Blackjack Oak
Quercus velutina, Black Oak
' Quercus stellata, Post Oak
Carya tomentosa, Mockernut Hickory
Carya glabra, Pignut Hickory

10

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

3.3 Results of Vegetation Monitoring (1 year)

O 5 ?"r ^? 'o s v
.? ?• O O CC i?.i 5 Y V O ey t? ?/

°
a. C7 U ?n ? ? ? ? GQ cn ? 0.t pq ?1 ? + f i A
1 4 2 1 8 15 18 567
2 10 1 1 4 10 2 28 33 577
3 1 8 1 4 14 21 453
4 4 6 2 11 1 24 34 480
5 1 3 6 10 18 378
6 11 12 11 2 2 38 39 663
7 4 1 2 2 12 4 9 34 40 578
8 18 6 6 2 1 2 4 39 41 647
AVE RAGE D ENSITY 543
Site contained heavy competition in cut over areas. The remaining field areas
contained broom sedge and dog-fennel.
3.4 Conclusions
A total of 87 acres was planted on this site. The first year vegetation monitoring
of the planted areas revealed an average density to be 543 trees per acre, which
is well above the minimum requirement of 320 trees per acre.
11
1

L
Ll

1

4.0 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS/ RECOMMENDATIONS
' Continue monitoring site hydrology through the growing season (March 16 to
November 14).
' Continue annual vegetation monitoring.

1

12

1

n

1

I
U

APPENDIX A
I DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER PLOTS

13

I
I
I
I

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

(-ui) uoijelidloa-ld
L LO
'T 'IT M M N N r- O O
-------------

i

86-noN-66
86-AON-£0
86-300-9Z
86-100-8 6
86-300-0 6
86-100-ZO
86-daS-t7Z
86-daS-9 6
86-daS-80
86-6nV-6£
86-6nd-£Z
86-6ny-9 6
86-6ny-LO
86-Inf-O£
86-Inf -ZZ
86-Inf-b b
86-Inf -90
86-unf-8Z
86-unf-OZ
86-unf -Z6
86-unf-b0
86-AeW-LZ
86-AeW-6
86-AeW-6 L
86-Ae[N-£0
86-jdV-9Z
86-jdV-L6
86-jdV-60
86-add- ?0
86-J INI Z
86-JeW-96
7
2
Q.
E
ca
m
c
ca
Y
N
7
Lo O LO O U-) O LO
N N
aalempunoi!D of y;dea
L
CL
a?
0
a?
L_
s
m
a?
m
-a _
as m
C. N
rl-
U
tq w
d m
ca
0
c
cu

7
LI'

u

n

fl

d

M
N
2
E
ctt
can
3
e?
c
ea
N
2
(•ui) uoi;ejidioaJd
L to LO LO
Ili . IT M M N N ?- ?- 6 0
cn o L o cn o
N
( ui) aalempunoa!D o; y;dap
86-noN-6 L
86-nON-£0
86-10O-9Z
86-100-8 L
86-00-0 L
86-100-ZO
86-daS-bZ
86-daS-9 L
86-daS-80
86-6nd-L£
86-bny-EZ
86-6nV-5 L
86-6nV-LO
86-Inf-O£
86-Inf-ZZ
86-Inf-ti L
86-Inf -90
86-unf-8Z
86-unf-OZ
86-unf -ZL
86-unf-b0
86-AeW-LZ
86-AeW-6 L
86-AeW- L L
86-AeW-£0
86-Jd`d-5Z
86-Jdy-L L
86-Jdy-60
96-AV-Lo
86-JeIN-bZ
86-JeW-U L
N
i
a?
o,
la
m
L
(D
m ?
U)
E o
m !LO
d 'U
a
0
42
c
cu

1

1

t
lqt
2
3
3
c?
ea
Y
N
3
(•ui) uoi;elidioaad
U? Lq U? U? U?
d rP M M N N T T O o

,i

-
-- ----------

?n o In o In
? T T
(•ui) jalempunojE) o? y;daQ
86-noN-66
86-AoN-60
86-10O-9Z
86-100-8 L
86-100-0 L
96-100-ZO
86-daS-17z
86-daS-9

86-deS-g0 Q
0
86-6ny-L£

86-6ny-CZ D"
86-6ny-9 L Ir
86-6ny-LO ;
co
86-Inf-O£

86-Inf -ZZ

86-Inf -bL ?. U-
E 0

86-Inf-90
86-unr-gZ o
86-unr-OZ
86-unf-ZL

86-unf-i70
86-AeIN-LZ
86-AeW-6 L -
86-AeW-L L
86-AeW-80
86-JdV-5Z
86-adV-LL
86-Jdy-60
86-AV-LO
86-JeW-bZ
86-JeW-9L
0
N
i

J
I

n

0

n

11

1

APPENDIX B

SITE PHOTOS
H
0

I I
11

1

17

1

? Huskanaw Swamp

.54 rT tZ!.
I

r..

14,

him wmiai

-41
Wi.x
I

0

r
1
0

APPENDIX C
MONITORING PARTNERING MEETING MINUTES
F

L

19

J

n

d

7

I

r
C
y yTA?..
air
STATE OF NOKTH CAROLINA
' DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 E. NORws TOLSON
GOVERNOR SECRE7ARY
' December 4, 1998
' Dr. G. Wayne Wright, Chief
Regulatory Branch
' U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 284C--
Deal- Wavne?
' Re: NCDOT/Resource Agency Partnering MeetinL) - Vlonitorinq GuidelinCs
A meeting was held on July 22. 1998 in the NCDOT Photogrammetry Conference
' Room in Raleigh to discuss monitoring auidelines for the 1998 Annual 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 Repons
' and discussing ways to better present monitoring results in this year's monitoring renorns.
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 12.5 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
hvdrographic information. In discussing what was considered to be hydrologic success.
1

L
i

I

7

j

0

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. vlike 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 year and there was none available for remediation efforts. There is a minimum one
year lead time for ordering seedlings. In a situation on a site where the well data is good
but the vegetation is not successful the Coms stated they would review it on a site by site
basis. in cases of remediation, Charles said it was almost imnossible to grace and piant
site before the winter deadline.
' Randv Wise requested an extension of the August/September time penou
obtain the vegetation monitoring data Tor the sites. After discussing this issue, it w`:
agreed that the marsh sites would be evaluatea in August and the hardwood sites could ,
' evaluated as late as October and November before leaf drop. The NCDOT-will send a
"blanket" letter to the Corps to modify 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 vear 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

I?

E

0

I

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 "No 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, they.
' 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
option 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
hydrogeomorphic system (HGM) was also discussed. The Corns is not going to use
HGVi as a reference system, out will prooabiv tool: at it as a tool. There are no guidein,-?
' out vet on HGM.
The use of 20-80 versus 30-70 probability graphs, as defined by WETS. was
' discussed. These graphs compare the specific year rain data to the historical data ror ti;:
mitigation site area. The MRCS and N VETS use the 30-70 probability graphs and
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 Iona as the source was cited. David determined that if
a site's hydrology performs at 12.5%, then hydrologic success has been achieved. if a
site performs in the 5% to 12.5% range, then there is "marginal" hvdrologic 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 Nfud 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.

n

?II

4
There was no further discussion and the meeting adjourned. Please advise if you
have any questions regarding the meeting, minutes, or agenda.
Sincerely.
L
V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D.
Assistant Branch Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
VCB/el
Attachments

n

II

July 22, 1998-9:30 @ Century Center in Photographic Conference Room
NCDOT/Resource Agency Partnering Meeting to Discuss i'vlon4oring Issues
GENnA
hurotluctions
Purpose & Goals of,,Weeting
Standardize the monitoring reports
11vtlrologic Monitoring
Consecutive vs. Cumulative days
Data interpretation
I c veuition Monitoring tssu.
Named vs. Voluntary r3iani:
Monitoring timetrame
Success criteria
Geographical consideration,
Reference systems
AiUnitoring Report Presentation
Text
Figures to be included
Tables
Photographs
Submittal dates

H

7

1

I

11

! A,:G
r4A

Ge:v 5

t

e-Y

NC 'go
!

0

of
(Qr 9) 733 -- Erc4 u 64-3°),
i / (Z *O)
(q/?? :733- 7?4141,r 3e 9
7-157
,Al
r -:?
q) 73-

X33-.:?=?

it

n

11

0

0

n

H

0
0

1

11

1

1
t
ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2001
Huskanaw Swamp Mitigation Site
Martin County
Project No. 6.099008T
TIP No. R-2111 WM
Natural Systems Unit & Roadside Environmental Unit
North Carolina Department of Transportation
December 2001

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY .............................................
1.0 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................2
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .........................................................................2
1.2 PURPOSE ..................................................................................................2
1.3 PROJECT HISTORY ..................................................................................2
1.4 DEBIT LEDGER .........................................................................................4
2.0 HYDROLOGY .......................................................................................................5
2.1 SUCCESS CRITERIA ................................................................................5
2.2 HYDROLOGIC DESCRIPTION ..................................................................5
2.3 RESULTS OF HYDROLOGIC MONITORING ...........................................5
2.3.1 Site Data ..........................................................................................5
2.3.2 Climatic Data ...................................................................................7
2.4 CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................................10
3.0 VEGETATION: HUSKANAW MITIGATION SITE ............................................11
3.1 SUCCESS CRITERIA ..............................................................................11
3.2 DESCRIPTION OF SPECIES ..................................................................11
3.3 RESULTS OF VEGETATION MONITORING ..........................................12
3.4 CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................................13
4.0 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................14
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Site Location Map ......................................................................................3
Figure 2. Huskanaw Swamp Site Gauge Location Map ............................................6
Figure 3. Huskanaw Swamp Site 2001 Hydrologic Monitoring Results .....................8
Figure 4. Huskanaw Swamp 30-70 Percentile Graph, Williamston, NC ....................9
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Huskanaw Swamp Mitigation Site Debit Ledger ........................................4
Table 2. 2001 Hydrologic Monitoring Results ..........................................................7
Table 3. Vegetation Monitoring Statistics, by zone and plot ..................................12
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A HYDROLOGIC GRAPHS (2001)
APPENDIX B SITE PHOTOS (2001)
Summary
The following report summarizes the monitoring activities at the Huskanaw Swamp
Mitigation Site. This site was constructed in 1996 to provide wetland mitigation for the
relocation of US 64. The site is monitored using three hydrologic monitoring gauges
and eight vegetation plots. The year 2001 reflects the fourth complete year that
monitoring has taken place on the site.
During the 2001 monitoring season all of the three monitoring gauges showed
saturation for more than 12.5% of the growing season, with one gauge showing
saturation for 16.0% of the season and two gauges showing saturation for 13.1 % of the
growing season. This is the fourth consecutive year in which all groundwater gauges
located on the site have met the minimum hydrologic success criteria of 8% for
"transitional areas" as defined in the mitigation plan, dated October, 1994.
The vegetation plots yielded an average plot density of 557 trees per acre, with all but
one of the eight plots showing very successful stem counts. All of the plots exceed the
typical fourth year standard of 290 trees per acre. This is the fourth consecutive year in
which average plot density has exceeded the minimum criteria for success.
The daily rainfall data depicted on the monitoring gauge graphs is recorded from an on-
site rain gauge that was installed on May 23, 2000. Historical rainfall data used for the
30-70 percentile was recorded at the Williamston rain gauge, maintained by the NC
State Climate Office. All three monitoring gauges showed saturation for more than
12.5% of the growing season during months of normal or below normal rainfall in 2001.
Based on the hydrologic and vegetation success observed over the past four years, the
NCDOT believes that this site has met its design objective to restore both wet
hardwood forest and swamp forest wetland communities. The NCDOT recommends
that all monitoring activities be discontinued at this site.
1.0 Introduction
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Huskanaw Swamp Mitigation Site is located in north central Martin County and
encompasses approximately 112 acres. It is approximately 0.95 miles west of the US
64 - US 64 Business Interchange, along SR 1405 (Figure 1). The site was originally
constructed in the winter of 1996-97. However, planting activities were not completed
until February 1998. Since construction activities were not completed before the start
of the 1997 growing season, the fourth year of monitoring at the site has just been
completed.
The site serves as mitigation for the US 64 relocation and consists of restoration,
enhancement, and preservation. The site is designed to restore both wet hardwood
forest and swamp forest wetland communities. An additional area preserves
approximately 33 acres of swam p/bottomland forest wetlands.
1.2 PURPOSE
In order to demonstrate successful mitigation, hydrologic and vegetative monitoring
must be conducted for a minimum of three years. Success criteria are based on federal
guidelines for wetland mitigation. These guidelines stipulate criteria for both hydrologic
conditions and vegetation survival. The following report details the results of
hydrologic and vegetation monitoring during the 2001 growing season at the Huskanaw
Swamp Mitigation Site. Included in this report are analyses of both hydrologic and
vegetative monitoring results as well as local climate conditions throughout the growing
season and site photographs.
1.3 PROJECT HISTORY
Winter 1996-97
April 1997
April- November 1997
February 1998
March- November 1998
October 1998
March- November 1999
October 1999
March- November 2000
September 2000
May 2001
March- November 2001
July 2001
Site Constructed
Monitoring Gauges Installed
Hydrologic Monitoring
Site Planted
Hydrologic Monitoring (1 yr.)
Vegetation Monitoring (1 yr.)
Hydrologic Monitoring (2 yr.)
Vegetation Monitoring (2 yr.)
Hydrologic Monitoring (3 yr.)
Vegetation Monitoring (3 yr.)
On-site Agency Meeting
Hydrologic Monitoring (4 yr.)
Vegetation Monitoring (4 yr.)
2
sf .u
r
? us
_ ILL:. tl ? M
e? -0 ? gyfp.
?. ?•ILZ •?6 A
tl? s xt?`"??
"t
tLS p ? j?a y
y
U N C '.
_ co
N
r 1?a
140
4k
f f
+?g ? 5 o z??af
""•ti. OE
W
IJJ
J
H
Mn
W
0
T
L-
(D
D)
C3
W
J
.Q
C
O
CD
G
Q
E
U)
fQ
Y
N
2
r
d
Q
tQ
ED CD
°
co C) o
T
N
T
T
IL
Q N
co m
T
N N
T

T
T O
O
N E rn
r ? m
.Q

Q -a
a o
f T N
? O
M
W
T
N [Q
0
Q

N O
T O O
N E M
co
m
N O
O
T M
N co

fn
O T
Y I 1 LO 1 1
M O

O .O
L
'C:
C)
O
C)
O

N
Ck
O

CO =
Q?
L '?
O
O
O
i O C
m
d d E
O
FL Q1

C
O
O
O
O
O
Cfl
O
O O
Q O m
O
O ,
L O O N O Z N J
CD Q m

O O O C) C)
O Co C) -a

O
O O
CO ri T o
U') M
M CM CD 3
co
V cn
Q N
2

c c
r c
cc
i o
aL 0 °a =
E r U
-j
m N N N -j
m CL
N ~
(D (D R N
L a
in =
W a U,
It
2.0 Hydrology
2.1 SUCCESS CRITERIA
In accordance with federal guidelines for wetland mitigation and the wetland mitigation
plan (entitled "North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) US 64 Wetland
Restoration and Conservation Management Plan, Edgecombe and Martin Counties",
dated October 1994) 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
a consecutive 12.5% of the growing season. This success criteria was agreed upon as
part of the special conditions set forth by the Corps of Engineers (COE) through their
issuance of permits for NCDOT's TIP projects R-2112 and R-218A (Action ID Numbers
199400663 and 199501132). Also included in the success criteria, is the following:
areas inundated less than 5% of the growing season are always classified as non-
wetlands, while zones inundated between 5% - 12.5% of the growing season can be
classified as wetlands based on factors such as the presence of hydrophytic vegetation
and hydric soils.
The growing season in Martin County begins March 16 and ends November 14. The
dates correspond to a 50% probability that temperatures will remain above 28° F or
higher after March 16 and before November 14.' The growing season is 244 days;
therefore, the minimum duration for 12.5% of the growing season to have wetland
hydrology is 31 consecutive days.
2.2 HYDROLOGIC DESCRIPTION
Three monitoring gauges were installed on site in April of 1997 (Figure 2). Rainfall is
the primary hydrologic input for the Huskanaw site. The automatic monitoring gauges
record daily readings of the groundwater depth. The 2001 data represents the fourth
full growing season for hydrologic monitoring.
2.3 RESULTS OF HYDROLOGIC MONITORING
2.3.1 Site Data
The maximum number of consecutive days that the groundwater was within twelve
inches of the surface was determined for each gauge. This number was converted into
a percentage of the 244 day growing season (March 16 - November 14). It is this
hydrologic data which will determine the hydrologic success of this mitigation site.
There were periods of battery failures for gauges (HS-3 and HS-4); however, ample
data was collected to determine hydrologic success. There were no other problems
noted with the monitoring gauge units during the growing season. Table 2 shows the
1 Soil Conservation Service, Soil Survey of Martin County. North Carolina, p.75.
5
1
l 1
1 t ?
r
0 U)

. '
.... lz 4 /

J

!/
Ag/
A 1 1
l t 1
/ 40
9i i

0

?6' t l

1
jy /? j t
1 1
/ 1 1
Q.
U) 40,
ca l / ? 1 1
cQ r
? ?/ ? ,
? 11 0 11

N ?
?
O
1 s 1
3 f./ 1 1
N /
?
a 1U 1
? 1 1
1
LL / / ? 1 1

/
0 1

0 1
0 }1
T
x ?? ? t
1
1
1
l
1
s

Table 2. 2001 Hydrologic Monitoring Results
8%- Number Actual Success
g Gauge <5% 5%-8% 12.5% > 12.5% Consecutive % Dates
Da s
39 Mar 16 - Apr 23
HS-1 ? 39 16.0 May 22 - Jun 29
HS-3 ? 32 13.1 Mar 16 - Apr 16
HS-4 ? 32 13.1 Mar 16 - Apr 16
hydrologic results for 2001. HS-1 had two periods with 39 consecutive days. (Figure 3
is a graphical representation of the hydrologic monitoring results. See Appendix A for
hydrologic Graphs.)
Appendix A contains charts of the groundwater depth for each monitoring gauge during
2001. These monitoring gauge graphs are designed to show the reaction of the
groundwater level to specific rainfall events. If the gauge shows saturation for 5% or
greater of the growing season, the maximum number of consecutive days is noted on
each graph.
A rain gauge was installed during the 2000 growing season. Daily precipitation events,
shown on each monitoring gauge graph, represent data from the onsite rain gauge.
2.3.2 Climatic Data
Figure 4 is a comparison of monthly rainfall for the period of November 2000 through
October 2001 to historical precipitation (collected between 1931 and 2000) for
Williamston, North Carolina. This comparison gives an indication of how 2001 .relates
to historical data in terms of climate conditions. All off-site data was provided by the
NC State Climate Office. Data for January 2001 is unavailable. Because data for the
complete 2001 year was not available at the time this report was published, the rainfall
totals for November and December 2001 are not included.
2001 monthly rainfall for the site fluctuated around the average rainfall for this site.
February, April, August, September, and October experienced below average rainfall.
The months of March, May, and July all recorded average rainfall for the site. June
was the only month to experience above average rainfall. No data is available for
January, November or December; however, the site meets hydrologic success criteria
without these data.
All three monitoring gauges showed saturation for more than 12.5% of the growing
season during months of normal or below normal rainfall in 2001.
7
N
N
r'
L
C0
G
0
0
2
O
O
N
N
Q
m
co
C
(Q
Y
G7
2
M
L
3
.t
I
t
o L
N co ? C
O = U
O y n U V (n O I /I ?1
00
L
t
t
v
l
?a 1
I?A/I !I! ' 1
I 4
/sO 1 ° 1 1
ICI 11
I?I / 1 1 n_
I? / 1 1
/ / 1 1
I I / t F
I I ! t 1
/ I ? 1 1
I I ? 1 1
I I ? l t
? II ! 1 1
1 l
!! 1 1
f? ? !! 1 1
!
/w/ ! 1 t
/? ! 1 1
/? ! 1 1
/ 1 1
/ l 1
/ / ! 1 a 1
f/ 1 a 1
/! j vi Il
1 1
! a l
! ! 1
LL
t
1
1
1
1
t
1
1
1
1
1
ti
i
00

F ;
?}n
r.
D
O

Z QX

r
?
4X`
' a -

Ca
?. CY)

n `

C .r
?
(n l
W - - a_

,
-
0 _
-CU

Q C>

co

- ty

CQ
l `; t Q
C
Co

s t - - O
O
ttt
'

cu
L t ? cc
G

h

?

N
r
O
r -r
00 CO d
N
O
(•ui) uoi;e4ldioa.ld
2.4 CONCLUSIONS
In 2001, all of the monitoring gauges recorded saturation within one foot of the surface
for at least 12.5% of the growing season, with gauge, HS-1, showing saturation for
16.0% of the season and the other two gauges, HS-3 and HS-4, showing saturation for
13.1% of the growing season. These results are similar to the 1999 results, in which
HS-1 recorded saturation for 13.1% of the growing season while the remaining two
gauges recorded saturation for at least 9.4% of the season and the 2000 results in
which HS-1 recorded saturation for 21.7% of the season, with the other two gauges,
HS-3 and HS-4, showing saturation for 11.5% and 9.4% of the growing season.
All of the gauges met the 12.5% minimum in 2001 during months with normal to below
normal rainfall. This is the fourth consecutive year in which all groundwater gauges
located on the site have met the minimum hydrologic success criteria of 8% for
"transitional areas" as defined in the mitigation plan, dated October, 1994.
10
3.0 Vegetation: Huskanaw Mitigation Site (Year 4 Monitoring)
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 DESCRIPTION OF SPECIES
The following tree species were planted on the site:
Zone 1: Wet Hardwood Forest (56.6 acres)
Fraxinus pennsylvanica, Green Ash
Quercus laurifolia, Laurel Oak
Quercus fa/cats var. pagodaefolia, Cherrybark Oak
Quercus michauxii, Swamp Chestnut Oak
Quercus phellos, Willow Oak
Quercus falcata, Southern Red Oak
Quercus nigra, Water Oak
Nyssa aquatica, Water Tupelo
Zone 2: Oak/Hickory Forest (19.2 'acres)
Quercus alba, White Oak
Quercus nigra, Water Oak
Quercus falcata, Southern Red Oak
Carya tomentosa, Mockernut Hickory
Carya glabra, Pignut Hickory
Quercus palustris, Post Oak
Quercus falcata var. pagodaefolia, Cherrybark Oak
Quercus phellos, Willow Oak
Quercus michauxii, Swamp Chestnut Oak
Carya cordiformis, Bitternut Hickory
Zone 3: Long Leaf-Oak/Hickory Forest (11.1 acres)
Pinus palustris, Longleaf Pine
Quercus mardandica, Blackjack Oak
Quercus phellos, Willow Oak
Quercus stellata, Post Oak
Carya tomentosa, Mockernut Hickory
Carya glabra, Pignut Hickory
Quercus michauxii, Swamp Chestnut Oak
Quercus albs, White Oak
Quercus nigra, Water Oak
Quercus falcata, Southern Red Oak
Carya cordiformis, Bitternut Hickory
11
3.3 RESULTS OF VEGETATION MONITORING

Q .a .c O ee ?. ? ? F+ ? cc O ce >,

'7'
U
T.. C)
C z
w
++
..i
y

. a
U
U
t:
3
3
a.
a
3
as
a
a
3
a. 25
t~
H
A
1 1 3 2 1 5 3 3 17 18 642
3 1 4 1 2 1 9 21 291
5 1 2 1 7 11 18 416
6 7
I 15 7 3 1 1 34 42 550
8 TT 8 6 3 1 3 39 42 631
ZONE 1 AVE RA GE DE NSI TY 506
2 4 4 3 6 8 2 5 2 30 34 600
7 7 4 7 11219 1 40 40 680
ZONE 2 AVERAGE DENSITY 640
3 2 121 1 1 1 1 3 1 5) 1101 2 1 1 1341361 642
ZONE 3 AVERAGE DENSITY 642
TOTAL AVERAGE DENSITY 557
Table 3. Vegetation Monitoring Statistics, by zone and plot
Site Notes:
Zone 1: Other species noted: broomsedge, Juncus sp., blackberry, grapevine, fennel,
sumac, red maple, sweetgum, tulip poplar, holly, various grasses, trumpet creeper,
volunteer pine, ragweed, and horse-nettle. River birch noted in plot 3.
Zone 2: Other species noted: 'broomsedge, sicklepod, bermuda grass, fennel,
ragweed, red maple, and sweetgum. White oak noted in plots 4 and 7. Swamp white
oak and pignut hickory also noted in plot 4.
Zone 3: Other species noted: broomsedge, ragweed, fennel, poplar, Aster sp., and
bermuda grass. Average tree height is 5 to 7 feet. No red maple or sweetgum noted.
Overall: Broomsedge throughout site. Red maple and sweetgum throughout cut over
areas.
12
3.4 CONCLUSIONS
A total of 87 acres on this site involved tree planting. The 2001 vegetation monitoring
of the planted areas revealed an average density of 506 trees per acre for Zone 1, 640
trees per acre for Zone 2, and 642 trees per acre for Zone 3. All zones exceed the
minimum requirement of 320 trees per acre.
It was noted in last year's comments from the agencies that red maple and sweetgum
were invading the site and could affect the desired species. Based on the plot data,
red maple and sweetgum have not affected the success of the planted trees.
13
4.0 Overall Conclusions and Recommendations
One of the three monitoring gauges showed saturation for more than 16.0% of the
growing season while the remaining two indicated saturation for 13.1 % of the
season during normal to below normal rainfall months. This is the fourth
consecutive year in which all groundwater gauges located on the site have met the
minimal hydrologic success criteria, as stated in the associated permits.
Vegetation monitoring yielded an average plot density of 557 trees per acre, with all
but one of the eight plots showing successful stem counts. All of the plots exceed
the typical fourth year reduced standard of 290 trees per acre. This is the fourth
consecutive year in which average plot density has exceeded the minimal criteria
for success, as stated in the associated permit.
RECOMMENDATIONS
• Based on the hydrologic and vegetation success observed over the past four years,
the NCDOT proposes to discontinue monitoring of the Huskanaw Mitigation site.
14
APPENDIX A
DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER CHARTS
r?
N
2
CL
cEa
co
3
ea
c
ea
Y
N
2
(•ui) uoi4ejidi3ald

c7 M N N ?- r- O O
- - - - = 6O-noN-V6
6O-AOWSO

= W-1301Z
60-330-86

_ 60.330.60

60-deS-0£

. > . 60•deS•6Z

60-dos-Z6

t.
- -
= 60-daS-£p
o

a
j
- 6O.6nd-SZ -a

60-find-% a?

g 6p-6nVIO

60-Inf U r-
-a - , vb
{>. 60-Inr-OZ d
,-,
m

L 60-Inm• ?.
U
w
_ 60-Inf -Z0 can
t 60-unf'-£Z
60-unf -n

-r rn ! 60-unNo v

i whw-a '
-A
wn
60
60-AeW-60
i 60-AV-0£
= 60-adVgZ
6O-AV-Z6

60-add•£0
co

- 60-aeW-96

d'
LO o U? C) N
(-uf).iajennpunoa!D 03 43dea
M
N
2
Q-
m
3
ca
c
R
Y
N
T?
i
(-uI) uoaje;Idloaad
U? U? U? L
CO M N N ?- O O

L LO-AOWSO
a?
m m W-P0-LZ

i 60.30-86

60-330-60
I
60-&S-0£

60-deS-6Z
60AeS-z6

_ = 60-&S-£0
= 60-Bnd-SZ

4 ,,= > t > --------- ------ -------
60-6nd-96
? a
60-Bnd-1O
-
:- 60-Inf-6Z

- 60-Inf-OZ
l 4-
K. - - 60-Inf-66
60-Inf-ZO
x
60-unf-£Z

-un"-
..:.., _ 60
60-unf-SO
60-ReW-LZ
- 60-?eW-86

1
60-neW-60
60-AV-0£
60-add-6Z
- 60-AV-Z6
60-ad`d-£0

60-JeW-SZ
i

L O L? OD LO N
i
(-ui) aa;ennpunw!q of yjdaa
m
0
L
Q
a?
N
o:
co
V)
2
ti
m
U
co
LO
c
ca
o!
le
Ch
Q.
R
3
co
3
ca
c
«s
Y
N

U')
(-ul) uol;elldhead
Ln Ln U? ?n
M co N N r ?- O O
6O-noN-V 6
1 6O-AOWSO

i
W-330-LZ
I
60-??0-8 6
-
W-130-60
s ?O-deS-O£
?O-deS-6Z
- : 6O-deS-Z6
I . 6O-deS-£0
6O-6nd-SZ

r. 6O-6nb-g

60-6nV-LO
6O-Inf -6Z

6O-Inf -0Z

6O-Inm-

- 6O-Inr-ZO
f r r 6O-unP-£Z

?O-unr-n
.}, ! .
aD i 6O-unf-SO
i. = '. W-AeW-LZ

;' LO-AeW-86
i
!
i s

WAeW-60
i 6O-AV-0£
6O-add-6Z
6O-AV-Z6

l,0-add-£0

60-aeW-SZ
60-aeW-9 6
-.
O U') N
(-ul) ae}ennpunoj!D o; y;dea
cc
0
APPENDIX B
SITE PHOTOS AND
PHOTO AND PLOT LOCATIONS MAP
HUSKANAW SWAMP
Photo 1
Photo 2
Photo 3
Photo 5
k:.
Photo 4
Photo 6

70
ZjC- j t
<b -
tel. ?`:5 ? `? • ? -
r 3
r
of
f

4
1

1
1
I ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2000

1

1
Huskanaw Swamp Mitigation Site
Martin County
1 Project No. 6.099008T
TIP No. R-2111 WM

e
1
1
1
t
Prepared By:
Natural Systems Unit & Roadside Environmental Unit
North Carolina Department of Transportation
December 2000

1

1
11

I
1

t
1

1
t
1
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 .............................................................
2.3.1 Site Data ............................................................................... ..4
.. 4
2.3.2 Climatic Data ......................................................................... ..6
2.4
3.0 Conclusions ............................................................................................
VEGETATION ........................................................................... .. 9
10
3.1
3.2 Success Criteria ......................................................................................
Description of Species ............................................................................ 10
10
3.3 Results of Vegetation Monitoring ............................................................ 11
.? 3.4 Conclusions ............................................................................................ 12
1
I
1
1
z
1
1
4.0 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS/ RECOMMENDATIONS .................13

w
1
1
1

r

TABLES
t TABLE 1 - HYDROLOGIC MONITORING
RESULTS ..........................................6

FIGURES
FIGURE 1- SITE LOCATION
MAP .......................................................................3
I FIGURE 2- GAUGE LOCATION
MAP ..................................................................5
FIGURE 3 - 2000 HYDROLOGIC
RESULTS .......................................................7

FIGURE 4 - 30-70 PERCENTILE
GRAPH ...........................................................8

FIGURE 5 - PHOTO AND PLOT LOCATIONS
MAP ..........................................21

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A - DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER
-- CHARTS ...................................14
APPENDIX B - SITE PHOTOS AND PHOTO AND PLOT LOCATIONS
MAP...18

i
r
1
1
I
1

SUMMARY
The following report summarizes the monitoring activities at the Huskanaw
Swamp Mitigation Site. This site was constructed in 1996 to provide wetland
mitigation for the relocation of US 64. The site is monitored with three
monitoring gauges and three vegetation plots. The year 2000 reflects the third
complete year that monitoring has taken place on the site.
One of the three monitoring gauges showed saturation for more than 21.5% of
the growing season while the remaining two indicated saturation for 11.5% and
9.4% of the season. This is the third year in a row in which all groundwater
gauges located on the site have met the minimal hydrologic success criteria.
Though all of the gauges are not meeting the 12.5% threshold, each gauge on
the site has consistently met the minimal criteria of 8% - 12.5%. This range of
success falls within the "transitional areas" as defined in the mitigation plan,
dated October 1994.
Vegetation monitoring yielded an average plot density of 574 trees per acre, with
each of the eight plots showing successful stem counts. This is the third year in
a row in which average plot density has exceeded the minimal criteria for
success.
The daily rainfall data depicted on the monitoring gauge graphs is recorded from
an on-site rain gauge that was installed on May 23, 2000. Additional rainfall data
used for the 30-70 was recorded at the Williamston rain gauge, maintained by
the NC State Climate Office.
Based on the hydrologic and vegetation success observed over the past three
years, the NCDOT feels that this site has met its design objective to restore both
wet hardwood forest and swamp forest wetland communities.
Therefore the NCDOT requests a review of this site and a consultation with COE
personnel to determine the jurisdictional extent of the transitional areas. The
overall success for this site will remain unresolved until a determination is made.
At which time, if the COE concurs with the above conclusions, then the NCDOT
recommends that all monitoring activities be discontinued at this site.
i
1
1

1
t
1
1
1
t
t
LAI
1

1.0 Introduction
1.1 Project Description
The Huskanaw Swamp Mitigation Site is located in north central Martin County
and encompasses approximately 112 acres. It is approximately 0.95 miles west
of the US 64 - US 64 Business Interchange, along SR 1405 (Figure 1). The site
was originally constructed in the winter of 1996-97. However, planting activities
were not completed until February 1998. Since construction activities were not
completed before the start of the 1997 growing season, the site has just now
completed its third year of monitoring.
The site serves as mitigation for the US 64 relocation and consists of restoration,
enhancement, and preservation. The site is designed to restore both wet
hardwood forest and swamp forest wetland communities. An additional area
preserves approximately 33 acres of swamp/ bottomland forest wetlands.
1.2 Purpose
In order to demonstrate successful mitigation, hydrologic and vegetative
monitoring must be conducted for a minimum of three years. Success criteria
are based on federal guidelines for wetland mitigation. These guidelines
stipulate criteria for both hydrologic conditions and vegetation survival. The
following report details the results of hydrologic and vegetation monitoring during
the 2000 growing season at the Huskanaw Swamp Mitigation Site. Included in
this report are analyses of both hydrologic and vegetative monitoring results as
well as local climate conditions throughout the growing season.
1.3 Project History
Winter 1996-97
April 1997
April- November 1997
February 1998
March- November 1998
October 1998
March- November 1999
October 1999
March- November 2000
September 2000
Site Constructed
Monitoring Gauges Installed
Hydrologic Monitoring
Site Planted
Hydrologic Monitoring (1 yr.)
Vegetation Monitoring (1 yr.)
Hydrologic Monitoring (2 yr.)
Vegetation Monitoring (2 yr.)
Hydrologic Monitoring (3 yr.)
Vegetation Monitoring (3 yr.)
1
?'`?SSR1139 ? -
Huskanow Swamp
Stte Locotion Map - ??
r?
?_; ssFiisas
Alii
`m
a -
r
a, a°hT `. 3t
x ell
m x
Ms,
h - ?
All S.
N-I
?I ass
e?
zoce ass 1 !`? -
S 4 : 00
Figure
3
1
2.0 Hydrology
2.1 Success Criteria
In accordance with federal guidelines for wetland mitigation and the wetland
mitigation plan (entitled "North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
US 64 Wetland Restoration and Conservation Management Plan, Edgecombe
and Martin Counties", dated October 1994) 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 a consecutive 12.5% of the growing season.
This success criteria was agreed upon as part of the special conditions set forth
by the Corps of Engineers (COE) through their issuance of permits for NCDOT's
_ TIP projects R-2112 and R-218A (Action ID Nos. 199400663 and 199501132).
Also included in the success criteria, is the following: areas inundated less than
5% of the growing season are always classified as non-wetlands, while zones
inundated between 5% - 12.5% of the growing season can be classified as
wetlands based on factors such as the presence of hydrophytic vegetation and
hydric soils. Consultation with COE personnel will be undertaken to determine
jurisdictional extent of these transitional areas.
The growing season in Martin County begins March 16 and ends November 14.
The dates correspond to a 50% probability that temperatures will drop to 28° F or
lower after March 16 and before November 14.' The growing season is 244
days; therefore, the optimum duration for wetland hydrology is 30 consecutive
days.
2.2 Hydrologic Description
Three monitoring gauges were installed on site in April of 1997 (Figure 2).
Rainfall is the primary hydrologic input for the Huskanaw site. The automatic
monitoring gauges record daily readings of the groundwater depth. The 2000
data represents the third full growing season for hydrologic monitoring.
2.3 Results of Hydrologic Monitoring
2.3.1 Site Data
' The maximum number of consecutive days that the groundwater was within
twelve inches of the surface was determined for each gauge. This number was
converted into a percentage of the 244 day growing season (May 16 - August
31). It is this hydrologic data which will determine the success of this mitigation
site.
' Soil Conservation Service, Soil Survey of Martin County, North Carolina, p.75.
4
C

w
1

1
I
1
1
1
A

1

1
1

1 1
1
Huskanaw Swamp 1 1 g
? l
:Gauge Location Maps
1
1 0
1 1
O O`
M
\ 1 1
1 1
t 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
Figure 2 1
1

1
There were no problems with the monitoring gauge units during the growing
season. Table 1 shows the hydrologic results for 2000.
Table 1. H drolo is Monitorin RESULTS - 2000
Monitorin
g Gauge < 5% 5%0 - 80/6 86/6 - 12.5% > 12.5% Actual
% Success
Dates
HS-1 ? 21.7 Mar 16 - May 7
HS-3 ? 11.5 Apr 14 - Apr 6
HS-4 ? 9.4 Apr 9 - May 6
(Figure 3 is a graphical representation of the hydrologic monitoring results)
Appendix A contains charts of the groundwater depth for each monitoring gauge
during 2000. These monitoring gauge graphs are designed to show the reaction
of the groundwater level to specific rainfall events. The maximum number of
consecutive days are noted on each graph.
Daily precipitation events, shown on each monitoring gauge graph, represent
data collected from the Williamston weather station as well as data from the
onsite rain gauge. A new rain gauge was to be installed prior to the beginning of
the 2000 growing season, thus eliminating the need for weather station data on
the monitoring gauge graphs. However, the rain gauge was not actually installed
until late May. While the rainfall amounts recorded from the weather station may
not be exactly equal to what was received on the site, they are a local
representative and can be used for a tentative comparison.
2.3.2 Climatic Data
Figure 4 is a comparison of monthly rainfall from winter the of 1999 and the
entire growing season of 2000 to historical precipitation (collected between 1931
and 1999) for Williamston, North Carolina. This comparison gives an indication
of how 2000 relates to historical data in terms of climate conditions. All off-site
data was provided by the NC State Climate Office. Because data for the
complete 2000 year was not available at the time this report was published, the
rainfall totals for December 2000 are not included. Data for December 1999 is
a included in Figure 4, as was promised in the 1999 Annual Report.
Monthly rainfall for the Williamston area fluctuated around the average rainfall for
this site. February, March, and July saw below average rainfall. The months of
January, April, May, June, August, and September all recorded average or
above average rainfall for the site. October was an extremely dry month with no
recorded rainfall.

1 6
f
1

171
11

1

1

1
1
1 1
1 1.
Huskanaw Swomp
1 w
1 1 ?
2000 Hydro/d.ogPc Monitor-ing Results
1 1
N :\•
1
1 1 dffi?
/ f ? 1 1
?? ! 1 1
w
t }/ .? Oyu
R
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
Figure 3 1
I

n
F--.,,

J
1
0

t

1
t
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
i
1
1
1
i
1
i
1
s
a
ca
L
N
C
N
L
Z
a
o =
O H
M E
CL ca
3 ?
ch
3
ea
c
c?
Y
H!
3
U
N
O
Z
N
U ?
O m
U
U
a
CL o
am
U) I
I
I
a?
rn -
Q U
am
M
7
7
c ,
o 00
c cd
? c
M
0
0
0
N
co
c
co
Q
rn
rn
ccu T
C
^Y
)
LL
c
CO
N O co w N O
T T (.Ul) Uoi}eqidloaJd

1
2.4 Conclusions
All of the monitoring gauges recorded saturation within one foot of the surface for
at least 9.4% of the growing season, with one gauge HS-1 showing saturation for
21.7% of the season and the other two gauges, HS-3 and HS-4, showing
saturation for 11.5% and 9.4% of the growing season. These results are similar
to the 1999 results, in which HS-1 recorded saturation for 13.1% of the growing
season while the remaining two gauges recorded saturation for at least 9.4% of
the season.
Though all of the gauges are not meeting the 12.5% threshold, each gauge on
the site has consistently met the minimal criteria of 8% - 12.5%. This range of
success falls within the "transitional areas" as defined in the mitigation plan,
dated October 1994. Based on the criteria and the 2000 hydrologic results,
consultation with COE personnel is desired to determine the jurisdictional extent
of these transitional areas and the overall success for this site.
1

11

t

i

II,
p
1

1

1

Pi

L

3.0 VEGETATION
1 3.1 Success Criteria
In accordance with federal guidelines for wetland mitigation and the wetland
mitigation plan, dated October 1994, which was agreed upon as part of the
special conditions of the associated permits, the success criteria for vegetation
states that there must be a minimum of 320 trees per acre living for at least
three consecutive years.
3.2 Description of Species

1
11

1

1
1

The following planting communities were planted on the site:
Zone 1: Wet Hardwood Forest (56.6 acres)
Fraxinus pennsylvanica, green ash
Quercus laurifolia, laurel oak
Quercus falcata var. pagodaefolia, cherrybark oak
Quercus michauxii, swamp chestnut oak
Quercus phellos, willow oak
Quercus falcata, southern red oak
Quercus nigra, water oak
Nyssa aquatica, water tupelo
Zone 2: Oak/Hickory Forest (19.2 acres)
Quercus alba, white oak
Quercus nigra, water oak
Quercus falcata, southern red oak
Carya tomentosa, mockernut hickory
Carya glabra, pignut hickory
Quercus palustris, post oak
Quercus falcata var. pagodaefolia, cherrybark oak
Quercus phellos, willow oak
Quercus michauxii, swamp chestnut oak
Zone 3: Long Leaf-Oak/Hickory Forest (11.1 acres)
Pinus palustris, longleaf pine
Quercus marilandica, blackjack oak
Quercus phellos, willow oak
Quercus stellata, post oak
Carya tomentosa, mockernut hickory
Carya glabra, pignut hickory
Quercus michauxii, swamp chestnut oak
Quercus albs and nigra, white and water oak
Quercus falcata, southern red oak
10

f

fJ

1

A
1
1
?I
t

3.3 Results of Vegetation Monitoring
(See Appendix B for Site Photos and a Photo and Plot Locations Map)
J

O
? L
o
O bl L
?
C w
O
Q ? ,= O ? L ? L ? V 4. EC ?

Z
O r..

O
a

a:

6?

¢

3
?
Cd
r.a
V
O

O L

U
L
C?
r..,
C?
r..

v

1 1 3 3 1 4 4 3 18 18 1680
1 1 5 1 3 11 21 6
5 2 1 6 9 18 340
6 7 14 9 6 1 37 42 599
8 18 6 6 3 2 7 42 42 680
ZONE 1 AVERAGE DENSITY 531
TOTAL AVERAGE DENSITY 574
Site Notes:
Zone 1: Additional species observed include broomsedge (Andropogon
virginicus), tulip poplar (Liodendron tulipifera), sweetgum (Liquidambar
styraciflua), red maple (Acer rubrum), bald cypress (Taxodium distichum),
cottonwood (Populus deltoides), river birch (Betula nigra), blackgum (Nyssa
sylvatica), tall cane (Arundmaria g?gantea), pines (Pmus sp.), trumpet creeper
(Campsis radicans), and sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia). Standing water was
observed in plots 3 and 5. Evidence of deer grazing was observed in plot 8.
Zone 2: Additional species observed include broomsedge, sicklepod, bermuda
grass (Cynodon dactylon), ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia), and red maple.
Zone 3: Growth and success of desired species looks great!
Consensus of Observations: Broomsedge is present throughout the site. Red
maple and sweetgum are prevalent throughout cut over areas.

11
1
1

1

fl

1
I
1
1
J
1

F11
3.4 Conclusions
Vegetation monitoring yielded an average plot density of 574 trees per acre, with
eight of eight plots showing successful stem counts. This is the third year in a
row in which average plot density has exceeded the minimal criteria for success.
A total of 87 acres was planted on this site. The vegetation monitoring of the
planted areas revealed an average density of 531 trees per acre for Zone 1, 630
trees per acre for Zone 2, and 680 trees per acre for Zone 3. All zones exceed
the minimum requirement of 320 trees per acre.
It was noted in last year's comments from the agencies that red maple and
sweetgum were invading the site and could affect the desired species. Based on
the 2000 plot data, the invasion of red maple and sweetgum has not affected the
success criteria of the planted trees.
1

1

1

J
12

F1
' 4.0 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS/ RECOMMENDATIONS
1 •One of the three monitoring gauges showed saturation for more than 21.5% of
the growing season while the remaining two indicated saturation for 11.5% and
9.4% of the season. This is the third year in a row in which all groundwater
gauges located on the site have met the minimal hydrologic success criteria, as
stated in the associated permit's conditions.
• Vegetation monitoring yielded an average plot density of 574 trees per acre,
with eight of eight plots showing successful stem counts. This is the third year in
a row in which average plot density has exceeded the minimal criteria for
success, as stated in the associated permit's conditions.
• Based on the hydrologic and vegetation success observed over the past three
years, the NCDOT feels that the Huskanaw Mitigation Site has met its design
objective to restore both wet hardwood forest and swamps forest wetland
communities.
Recommendations
• The NCDOT requests a review of this site and a consultation with COE
personnel to determine the jurisdictional extent of the transitional areas. The
overall success for this site will remain unresolved until a determination is made.
At which time, if the COE concurs with the above conclusions, then the NCDOT
recommends that all monitoring activities be discontinued at this site.

1

J

13

t
it
U
1
1

n
J
t
1

1

7

APPENDIX A

I DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER CHARTS

1
14

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
T -
N
Ch
2
Q
E
cc
co
3
co
C
Y
N
(-uI) uollel!dloaJd
U? U?
N N r T
O
O
00-AON-V L
00-AON-90
00-3?0-LZ
00-130-SL
00400-60
00-daS-0£
00-deS-LZ
00-daS-Z L
00-daS-£0
00-6nd-SZ
00-gnd-9 L
00-6nd-LO
00-In(-6Z
00-InMZ
00-Inf -L L
00-In(-ZO
00-unf-£Z
00-un"L
00-un(-90
00-AeW-LZ
00-AeW-S L
00-ABW-60
00-Jdb-0£
00-Jdd-LZ
00-Jdd-Z L
00-Jdd-£0
00-JBW-SZ
00-Jew-9L L
0
N
D
Ch
m
C\j
U
w
U)
CO
C
ca
m
I
o LO o LO
- T T
(-u) jolumpunoJE) o; 44daa '

M
N
2
R
3
cn
cc
c
ca
W
2
N
(-ui) uoi4e4ldi3aad
Iq
N T T o
O
00-AON-O L
00-AON-90
00430-LZ
00430-9t
00-330-60
00-daS-O£
00-deS-LZ
00-deS-Z l
00-daS-£0
00-6ny-9Z
00-6ny-9 L
00-6ny-LO
00-Inr-6Z
00-Inr-OZ
00-Inr-L L
00-Inf-Z0
00-unr-£Z
00-unr-#L
00-unr-90
00-AeW-LZ
00-AeW-B L
00-AeW-60
00-jdy-0£
00-Jdy-LZ
00-jdy-Z L
00-jdy-£0
00-JeW-9Z
00-jeW-9 L
0
N
0
-a
C?
Cn
2
m
U
w
U)
c
I
LO C> LO o LO
T T
(-ui) je}empunoa!D of yldea
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
v
N
2
Q
3
cn
c
ca
N
2
N
(-ui) uoilelldhaJd
IQ
N o
O
00-AON-b L
00-AON-90
00-400-LZ
00-430-SL
00-00-60
00-daS-OS
00-daS-LZ
00-daS-Z L
00-daS-£0
00-find-9Z
00-6nd-9 L
00-6nd-LO
00-Inf 6Z
00-Inf-OZ
00-Inf-LL
00-Int-ZO
00-unf-£Z
00-un"l
00-unf 90
00-ABW-LZ
00-AaW-8 L
00-ABW-60
00-idb-OE
00-idd-LZ
00-idd-Z L
00-idtl-£0
00-jaw-9Z
00-JBW-9 L
0
N

LL
o CO
LO
U)
45
C
ca
LA C Lc) o
r
(-u) je4vmpunojE) o4 y4dea '

1

I-]
C'

APPENDIX B
' SITE PHOTOS
AND
' PHOTO AND PLOT LOCATIONS MAP

1
1

1
1 18

I

1

Huskanaw Swamp 04-

Yn ti?f :il?g is !r eia , , rp ri
x

t 1? E
vrY C ?/:

f 6
? A

P
•?f.
1
Photo 3

r r

,C

Photo 5
PfIOtO 2

i.Y' : '( ? ?T 1 f
Photo 4
A:
r
m
Photo 6

1

?
?l.T,$
tt44
L
M1?
fC? Y ?t ,
' X?Photo 7

Huskanaw Swamp
+r "R?

! J
}k

Photo 9

,r
Photo 8

31,
= 10

1

1

' Figure 5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

o e ?
Q ` U
Q5 ? b
U
J
r- o v,
r
O ? Q o c.
-t ti o
c -
I
y/
d r,
,i

21

n

u

1

I

1

1

H

1
?I

1

1
1
1
11

1

1