NCDOT 88-96 Mitigation

e+.l.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
BEVERLY EAVES PERDUE EUGENE A.CONTI,JR.
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
March 27,2009
Mr.Doug Huggett
North Carolina Division of Coastal Management
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City,N.C.27909
Subject:CAMA Commitment Review(R-2512,Permit#88-96 and 89-96)
Unresolved Projects
Dear Mr. Huggett,
On behalf of the North Carolina Department of Transportation(NCDOT),I want to thank you and all
the Division of Coastal Management(DCM)staff who met with us to discuss unresolved issues
regarding NCDOT CAMA Permit commitments.This letter is written to confirm the"Unresolved
Projects,R-2512,Permit#88-96 and 89-96"issue agreed upon during the meeting held in the DCM
Morehead City office on February 23,2009.
The NCDOT and the DCM agree that to the best of our knowledge,the temporary impact issue is
resolved.Lindsey Riddick(NCDOT)has confirmed this based on his recollection of the project. The
SAV impact issue on the US 17 Bridge has not been determined. It was agreed by the DCM that a site
inspection would be performed to determine if SAVs have been restored in the area.This inspection
will be performed during the 2009 growing season.Progress reports will be forwarded to the NCDCM
upon completion. It was agreed in our meeting that if SAVs are present during the inspection,the
issue will be resolved and no further work will be required. If SAVs are not present during the
inspection,the NCDOT will offer satisfactory replacement mitigation.
Again,thank you for your assistance in bringing these outstanding permit issues to a positive
resolution.
Sincerely,
,..,. Gregory .Thorpe,PhD,Manager .
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
cc: Phil Harris,P.E.,NCDOT
Jim Gregson,NCDENR/DCM
Ted Tyndall,NCDENR/DCM
Cathy Brittingham,NCDENR/DCM
Steve Sollod,NCDENR/DCM
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] PROJECT DEVELOPMENT&
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT UNIT ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH-
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE CENTER
RALEIGH NC,27699-1598 WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG 4701-116 ATLANTIC AVENUE
RALEIGH NC,27604

RE: R-2512B,CAMA Permit No. 89-96,temporary impact monitoring
Subject:RE:R-2512B,CAMA Permit No.89-96,temporary impact monitoring
From:"Riddick,Thomas L"<[e-mail]>
Date:Fri,6 Mar 2009 10:14:46-0500
To:Cathy Brittingham<[e-mail]>,"Anderson,Deborah D"<[e-mail]>
Ok. I'm not aware of any at Pembroke, but I'm checking with the Division Construction Engineer. As for the
Chowan River,the eastern approach did have a temporary access parallel to the bridge with some small spurs
perpendicular. I'll check on the status of these areas. The western approach was high ground.
From: Cathy Brittingham [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, March 06, 2009 10:06 AM
To: Riddick,Thomas L; Anderson, Deborah D
Subject: Re: R-2512B, CAMA Permit No. 89-96, temporary impact monitoring
Hi Lindsey and Deborah,
Actually the permit conditions on these projects for monitoring of temporary wetland impacts were not
specific to DCM wetlands. The permit condition verbiage is the same in CAMA Permit No. 88-96
(Chowan River) and CAMA Permit No. 89-96 (Pembroke Creek). It states as follows:
"Wetland sites impacted by temporary construction access shall be monitored to insure that natural
revegetation is occurring. If a site is not revegetating within one year of the date the construction access
is removed,NCDOT shall plant the site with the original species that were present prior to the
construction."
DCM needs documentation for the permit files about whether there were ANY wetland sites impacted by
temporary construction access on these projects and if there were ANY wetland sites impacted by
temporary construction access on these projects,then are there ANY wetland sites impacted by temporary
construction access on these projects that have not revegetated and that have not been previously
reclassified as permanent impacts. If there are ANY wetland sites impacted by temporary construction
access on these projects that have not revegetated, and that have not been previously reclassified as
permanent impacts, then DOT needs to notify DCM to determine mitigation requirements.
If necessary, perhaps a site visit could be scheduled with NCDOT and DCM Field Representative Jim
Hoadley to survey the appropriate areas.
Thanks for your help,
Cathy
Riddick,Thomas L wrote:
Deborah and Cathy,
I am positive that there were no temporary impacts to DCM wetlands at either of these
LR
Original Message
1 of 2 3/6/2009 2:43 PM

RE:R-2512B,CAMA Permit No. 89-96,temporary impact monitoring
From: Anderson, Deborah D
Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 4:25 PM
To: Riddick, Thomas L
Subject: FW: R-2512B, CAMA Permit No. 89-96, temporary impact monitoring
Lindsey,
Will you verify this in an email to Cathy and me. Thanks.
Deborah
Original Message
From: Cathy Brittingham [mailto:Cathy.Brittingham@ncmail .net]
Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 2:05 PM
To: Anderson, Deborah D
Subject: R-2512B, CAMA Permit No. 89-96, temporary impact monitoring
RE: R-2512B, Bridge over Pembroke Creek and associated improvements to US 17, CAMA P
Hi Deborah,
At the 2/23/09 meeting with NCDOT and DCM staff you stated that you would check with :
Have you had a chance to verify this with Lindsey? If so, please let me know so that
Thanks,
Cathy
Cathy Brittingham
Transportation Project Coordinator
N.C. Division of Coastal Management
1638 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1638
(919) 733-2293 x238 telephone
(919) 733-1495 FAX
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Pi
Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Lai
Cathy Brittingham
Transportation Project Coordinator
N.C. Division of Coastal Management
1638 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1638
(919) 733-2293 x238 telephone
(919) 733-1495 FAX
E-mail correspondence to and from this address
may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law
and may be disclosed to third parties.
2 of 2 3/6/2009 2:43 PM

A7A
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Beverly Eaves Perdue,Governor James H. Gregson, Director Dee Freeman, Secretary
MEMORANDUM
TO: File for CAMA Permit No. 88-96
FROM: Cathy Brittingham
DATE: 2/23/09
SUBJECT: TIP No. R-2512,US 17 Bridge, Chowan River, Chowan County
On 2/23/09 there was a meeting with NCDOT and DCM staff at the DCM-Morehead City Office
to discuss unresolved CAMA permit commitments and conditions for nine NCDOT projects,
including this one.
Deborah Anderson reported that Lindsey Riddick told her that there were no temporary impacts
on this project. Lindsey was the Division Environmental Officer at the time this project was
constructed. After discussion, the group agreed that based on the evidence available at this time,
the requirement of CAMA permit condition number 18 for temporary impact monitoring has
been satisfied.
NCDOT will conduct a site visit to determine if the 0.5 acres of documented subaquatic
vegetation that was impacted by this project has regenerated. If the SAV has regenerated, then it
is possible that the requirement of CAMA permit condition number 16 for SAV mitigation can
be considered satisfied. NCDOT was reminded that there is a control site for this project.
3/o/0
See S 5e ter,- e n ' 1 &nti L i o(f //i S
Cori,f'h n lN'e CAM /
Rre o/Lio(N2 in ve_s. ar\ s
drir
c-r-r„fr\- ,f re AN ) Ve
1638 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1638
Phone: [phone]\FAX: [phone]\ Internet: www.nccoastalmanagement.net
An Equal Opportunity\Affirmative Action Employer—50%Recycled\10%Post Consumer Paper

TIP NO. R-2512, US 17 BRIDGE, CHOWAN RIVER, CHOWAN COUNTY, CAMA PERMIT 88-96.
Unresolved temporary impact monitoring requirements
CAMA Permit No. 88-96, issued 5/29/96
Condition No. 18 of CAMA Permit No. 88-96 requires that: "Wetland sites impacted by temporary
construction access shall be monitored to insure that natural revegetation is occurring. If a site is not
revegetating within one year of the date the construction access is removed, NCDOT shall plant the site with the
original species that were present prior to the construction."
RK&K CAMA Permit Commitment Review document dated 9/22/03
The RK&K document states that:"No temporary impacts occurred with this project as the project was
completed using top-down construction." However, the RK&K document also states that: "As stated in the
October 23, 1997 COE permit modification (Permit No. 199705883) and reiterated by Mr. Randy Turner,
NCDOT Project Management Team Leader, in a meeting on January 27, 2003, there were no temporary
impacts associated with this project. Attempts to restore temporary impacts were unsuccessful and these
impacts were subsequently calculated as permanent impacts and debited accordingly."
NCDOT CAMA Permits with Temporary Impact Monitoring Condition document dated 4/20/05
Requests an interagency inspection to determine compliance of the temporary condition of the permit. States
that monitoring is complete.
DCM CAMA Permits with Temporary Impact Monitoring Condition document dated 10/25/06
DOT needs to comply with permit conditions 18 (Permit No. 88-96) and 19 (Permit No. 89-96)by providing
DCM with a written statement for the permit file that reconciles the above conflicting information and certifies:
(1) whether there were any temporary impact areas on this project; and(2) if there were temporary impact areas
on this project, then are there any temporary impact areas on this project that have not revegetated and that have
not been previously reclassified as permanent impacts. If there are any temporary impact areas on this project
that have not revegetated, and that have not been previously reclassified as permanent impacts, then DOT needs
to notify DCM and contact DWQ and USACE to determine mitigation requirements. DCM was not able to
locate a copy of the above referenced October 23, 1997 COE modification, therefore NCDOT is requested to
provide a copy of it to DCM as supporting documentation.
DOT Comments, September 2008
"This is a 12 year old project. The project was completed in 2000. Both NCDCM and the NCDOT could not
find the files requested. Records cannot be found as to whether the restoration was done. In the review
document the NCDOT provided for the NCDCM on 4/20/05, the NCDOT requested a site inspection with the
NCDCM to determine, if possible, compliance. To our knowledge this site inspection has not been performed."
DCM Comments, November 2008
The following information is needed: (1)whether there were any temporary impact areas on this project; and
(2) if there were temporary impact areas on this project, then are there any temporary impact areas on this
project that have not revegetated. NCDOT and DCM should discuss how to proceed given that NCDOT has not
been able to obtain this information.
Unresolved submerged aquatic vegetation requirements
Permit No. 88-96, issued 5/29/96
CAMA permit condition number 16, requires that: "Surveys for submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) shall be
conducted prior to the initiation of construction activities in the Chowan River. The area shall again be
surveyed immediately after completion of the bridge. A report detailing the findings shall be submitted to DEM

for review. If SAVs have been lost, the report shall also contain a mitigation plan to compensate for the losses.
This mitigation must be approved by DEM and DCM."
RK&K CAMA Permit Commitment Review document dated 9/22/03
The RK&K report recommends that DOT prepare a mitigation plan to compensate for SAV impacts.
DCM e-mail to NCDOT dated 5/21/04
At the meeting on 4/15/04 regarding SAV monitoring and mitigation requirements for B-2531 in Craven
County, I committed to providing you with a listing of CAMA permits that contain permit conditions related to
requirements for monitoring and mitigation of SAV impacts. The results of a search of the CAMA permit files
back to 1994 is found below.
Condition No. 16, surveys for submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) shall be conducted prior to the initiation of
construction activities in the Chowan River. The area shall again be surveyed immediately after completion of
the bridge. A report detailing the findings shall be submitted to DEM for review. If SAVs have been lost, the
report shall also contain a mitigation plan to compensate for the losses. The mitigation plan must be approved
by DEM and DCM.
NCDOT CAMA Permit Commitment Review document dated 8/15/05
"The SAV survey showed an impact on 4 sites for a total of 0.494 acre of SAV impact. The NCDOT will
propose to fund a SAV study in the Chowan River basin to mitigate for the impacts to SAVs from this project.
The proposal for this study will receive prior approval from the DCM."
The NCDOT document includes a copy of a cover letter dated 3/26/02 from Lindsey Riddick to the USACE
(Mike Bell) providing the post construction survey for SAV near the eastern terminus of the new bridge over
the Chowan River. However, a copy of this report was not provided to the DCM-Raleigh Office.
DCM e-mail, July 2006
Steve Sollod and I (Cathy Brittingham) are preparing a status report for DOT and DCM on compliance with
outstanding mitigation permit conditions, including those referenced in the attached e-mail. Would you please
let me know what actions have occurred since our last meeting on 4/15/04 regarding the issue of SAV
monitoring and mitigation for the attached projects? The DCM status report that Steve and I are preparing is in
response to several documents that have been produced by DOT over the past years.....
DCM Comments, October 2006
There is no documentation in the CAMA permit file that the SAV requirements of this project have been
satisfied in accordance with CAMA permit condition number 16. DOT is requested to provide DCM with a
copy of the post construction survey for submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV)near the eastern terminus of the
new bridge over the Chowan River. In accordance with CAMA permit condition number 16, please ensure that
if SAV's have been lost, the report also contains a mitigation plan to compensate for the losses, in accordance
with the permit condition. CAMA permit condition number 16 also requires that: "the mitigation plan must be
approved by DEM and DCM."
DCM has not yet received a proposal for SAV mitigation. It is critical that DOT forward it to DCM as soon as
possible.
DOT document, September 2008
The NCDOT has performed both a pre-construction and a post-construction SAV survey. Copies are attached.
DCM Comments, November 2008
DCM has not yet received a mitigation proposal to compensate for SAV losses.

DCM Evaluation of NCDOT's
"CAMA Permits with Temporary Impact Monitoring Condition"
DIVISION ONE
1. TIP NO. R-2512, US 17 BRIDGE, CHOWAN RIVERHOWAN COUNTY CAMA
PERMIT NO. 88-967
The CAMA Permit Commitment Review document prepared by RK&K dated 9/22/03 states that: "No
temporary impacts occurred with this project as the project was completed using top-down
construction." However,the CAMA Permit Commitment Review document prepared by RK&K
dated 9/22/03 also states that: "As stated in the October 23, 1997 COE permit modification (Permit
No. 199705883) and reiterated by Mr. Randy Turner,NCDOT Project Management Team Leader, in a
meeting on January 27, 2003,there were no temporary impacts associated with this project. Attempts
to restore temporary impacts were unsuccessful and these impacts were subsequently calculated as
permanent impacts and debited accordingly." Furthermore,the CAMA Permits with Temporary
Impact Monitoring Condition document prepared by NCDOT dated 4/20/05 requests an interagency
inspection to determine compliance of the temporary condition of the permit although an interagency
inspection is not a requirement of this CAMA permit. DOT needs to comply with permit conditions 18
(Permit No. 88-96) and 19 (Permit No. 89-96)by providing DCM with a written statement for the
permit file that reconciles the above conflicting information and certifies: (1)whether there were any
temporary impact areas on this project; and(2) if there were temporary impact areas on this project,
then are there any temporary impact areas on this project that have not revegetated and that have not
been previously reclassified as permanent impacts. If there are any temporary impact areas on this
project that have not revegetated, and that have not been previously reclassified as permanent impacts,
then DOT needs to notify DCM and contact DWQ and USACE to determine mitigation requirements.
DCM was not able to locate a copy of the above referenced October 23, 1997 COE modification,
therefore NCDOT is requested to provide a copy of it to DCM as supporting documentation.
!V(QC I This is a 12 year old project. The project was completed in 2000. Both NCDCM and the NCDOT
(1/aal p� could not find the files requested. Records cannot be found as to whether the restoration was done. In
the review document the NCDOT provided for the NCDCM on 4/20/05,the NCDOT requested a site
inspection with the NCDCM to determine, if possible, compliance. To our knowledge this site
Sfa, inspection has not been performed.
2. R-2512B, BRIDGE OVER PEMBROKE CREEK AND ASSOCIATED IMPROVEMENTS
TO US 17, CAMA PERMIT NO. 89-96, CHOWAN COUNTY.
Same comments as above for CAMA Permit number 88-96.
This is a 12 year old project. The project was completed in1999. Both NCDCM and the NCDOT could
not find the files requested. Records cannot be found as to whether the restoration was done. In the
review document the NCDOT provided for the NCDCM on 4/20/05,the NCDOT requested a site
inspection with the NCDCM to determine, if possible,compliance. To our knowledge this site
inspection has not been performed.
3. R-2551, US 64-264 INCLUDING A NEW BRIDGE ACROSS THE CROATAN SOUND,
DARE COUNTY, CAMA PERMIT NO. 7-98
Page 2 of 7, titt217"±ffe6

DCM Evaluation of NCDOT's CAMA Permit Commitment Review
to provide DCM with an acknowledgement letter documenting that 5.58 acres of credits have been
debited from the successful coastal wetlands at Ballance Farm. After DCM receives this
acknowledgement letter from EEP, we will be able to send a letter to DOT acknowledging that DOT
has satisfied it's mitigation requirements for this project through successful coastal wetland mitigation
at the Ballance Farm mitigation site.
In the 2005 response,the NCDOT reported that the mitigation for this project had been performed. The
NCDOT requested to attend a site visit with the NCDCM to determine if any further mitigation was
necessary. The NCDCM did not contact the NCDOT about a site visit. The Ballance Farm was closed
out per a letter from NCDCM dated 9/21/07 (attached). All permit requirements for this project/permit
have been fulfilled. EEP was contacted to verify consultant's findings. The consultant verified success
of this project to Rita Mroczek. It should be noted that the EEP is managing these assets and
communication with the agencies is as agreed in the MOAs.
3. B-2536,BRIDGE 8 OVER COINJOCK BAY ON SR 1245, CURRITUCK COUNTY, CAMA
PERMIT#101-95.
In a letter of acceptance dated 7/21/05, EEP says it will deduct 0.68 acres of coastal marsh creation
from the transferred asset balance from the Ballance Farm mitigation site (0.17 acre impact x 2:1
mitigation ratio = 0.34 credits; 0.34 credits x 2:1 credit ratio (creation) = 0.68 mitigation credits
required. The mitigation requirements of this project have been met to DCM's satisfaction.
4. TIP NO. R-2512, US 17 BRIDGE, CHOWAN RIVER, CHOWAN COUNTY, CAMA
PERMIT NO. 88-96.
Wetland Mitigation Requirements
Wetland mitigation sites for this project are Company Swamp, Dismal Swamp and Pembroke Creek.
The wetland mitigation sites for this project have all been accepted as successful and closed out by
DCM. The Company Swamp Mitigation Bank was created by the NCDOT to compensate for
unavoidable wetland impacts occurring from NCDOT highway projects near the Roanoke River.
Company Swamp is a preservation bank and consists of 1031 acres located in Bertie County,North
Carolina. The Dismal Swamp mitigation site was closed out by DCM through internal memorandums
dated 10/27/05, 12/16/05 and 6/22/06. The Pembroke Creek mitigation site was closed out by DCM
through internal memorandums dated 10/27/05, 12/16/05 and 6/22/06. The wetland mitigation
requirements of this project have been met to DCM's satisfaction.
S . 1°
OF COP'S !r\G'
ON
Page 2 of 19, 10/25/2006

DCM Evaluation of NCDOT's CAMA Permit Commitment Review
SAV requirements
There is no documentation in the CAMA permit file that the SAV requirements of this project have
been satisfied in accordance with CAMA permit condition number 16. The CAMA Permit
Commitment Review document prepared by NCDOT dated 8/15/05 includes a copy of a cover letter
dated 3/26/02 from Lindsey Riddick to the USACE (Mike Bell)providing the post construction survey
for SAV near the eastern terminus of the new bridge over the Chowan River. However, a copy of this
report was not provided to.the DCM-Raleigh Office and unfortunately, DCM does not seem to have a
copy of the report. DOT is requested to provide DCM with a copy`of the post construction survey for
submerged aquatic vegetation(SAV)near the eastern terminus of the new bridge over the Chowan
River. In accordance with CAMA permit condition number 16, please ensure that-if SAV's have been
lost, the report also contains a mitigation plan to compensate for the losses, in accordance with the
permit condition. CAMA permit condition number 16 also requires that: "the mitigation 1, rust be
approved by DEM and DCM." 1 V L
SEP252c
The RK&K report recommends that DOT prepare a mitigation plan to compehsra AV it .Ct`sEMEN 1
The CAMA Permit Commitment Review document prepared by NCDOT dated 8/15/0 ';'s`tafes that:
"the SAV survey showed an impact on 4 sites for a total of 0.494 acre of SAV impact. The NCDOT
will propose to fund a SAV study in the Chowan River basin to mitigate for the impacts to SAVs from
this project. The proposal for this study will receive prior approval from the DCM." DCM has not yet
9
received this proposal. It is critical that DOT forward it to DCM as soon as possible.
The NCDOT has performed both a pre-construction and a post-construction SAV survey. Copies are
pi�0°� attached.
(t' r Temporary impact monitoring requirements: Please refer to the DCM document titled: "DCM
Evaluation of NCDOT's `LAMA Permits with Temporary Impact Monitoring Condition', dated April
20, 2005."
R-2512B,BRIDGE OVER PEMBROKE CREEK AND ASSOCIATED IMPROVEMENTS TO
US 17, CAMA PERMIT NO. 89-96, CHOWAN COUNTY.
Same comments as above for CAMA Permit number 88-96.
Due to insufficient and conflicting information,the NCDOT requested an interagency site inspection to
try to determine if the commitment had been met. No inspection has been scheduled with the NCDOT
by the NCDCM.
5. R-2551, WIDENING OF US 64-264 FROM WEST OF MANNS HARBOR TO SR 1105,
CONSTRUCTION OF NEW 4/5 LANE FACILITY FROM SR 1105 TO US 64-264/NC 345,
INCLUDING A NEW BRIDGE ACROSS THE CROATAN SOUND, DARE COUNTY, CAMA
PERMIT NO. 7-98
Submerged aquatic vegetation requirements:
DCM has not received any documentation from NCDOT that the submerged aquatic vegetation
requirements of CAMA Permit No. 7-98 have been satisfied. The CAMA permit commitment review
document prepared by RK&K dated 9/22/03 states: "In order to fulfill mitigation commitments
Page 3 of 19, 10/25/2006

DCM Evaluation of NCDOT's CAMA Permit Commitment Review
3. B-2536,BRIDGE 8 OVER COINJOCK BAY ON SR 1245, CURRITUCK COUNTY, CAMA
PERMIT#101-95.
In a letter of acceptance dated 7/21/05, EEP says it will deduct 0.68 acres of coastal marsh creation
from the transferred asset balance from the Ballance Farm mitigation site (0.17 acre impact x 2:1
mitigation ratio =0.34 credits; 0.34 credits x 2:1 credit ratio (creation) =0.68 mitigation credits
required. The mitigation requirements of this project have been met to DCM's satisfaction.
4. TIP NO. R-2512, US 17 BRIDGE, CHOWAN RIVER, CHOWAN COUNTY, CAMA
PERMIT NO. 88-96.
Wetland Mitigation Requirements
Wetland mitigation sites for this project are Company Swamp, Dismal Swamp and Pembroke Creek.
The wetland mitigation sites for this project have all been accepted as successful and closed out by
DCM. The Company Swamp Mitigation Bank was created by the NCDOT to compensate for
unavoidable wetland impacts occurring from NCDOT highway projects near the Roanoke River.
Company Swamp is a preservation bank and consists of 1031 acres located in Bertie County, North
Carolina. The Dismal Swamp mitigation site was closed out by DCM through internal memorandums
dated 10/27/05, 12/16/05 and 6/22/06. The Pembroke Creek mitigation site was closed out by DCM
through internal memorandums dated 10/27/05, 12/16/05 and 6/22/06. The wetland mitigation
requirements of this project have been met to DCM's satisfaction.
SAV requirements
There is no documentation in the CAMA permit file that the SAV requirements of this project
have been satisfied in accordance with CAMA permit condition number 16. The CAMA Permit
Commitment Review document prepared by NCDOT dated 8/15/05 includes a copy of a cover letter
dated 3/26/02 from Lindsey Riddick to the USACE(Mike Bell)providing the post construction survey
for SAV near the eastern terminus of the new bridge over the Chowan River. However, a copy of this
report was not provided to the DCM-Raleigh Office and unfortunately, DCM does not seem to have a
copy of the report. DOT is requested to provide DCM with a copy of the post construction survey
for submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) near the eastern terminus of the new bridge over the
Chowan River. In accordance with CAMA permit condition number 16,please ensure that if
SAV's have been lost,the report also contains a mitigation plan to compensate for the losses,in
accordance with the permit condition. CAMA permit condition number 16 also requires that:
"the mitigation plan must be approved by DEM and DCM."
The RK&K report recommends that DOT prepare a mitigation plan to compensate for SAV impacts.
The CAMA Permit Commitment Review document prepared by NCDOT dated 8/15/05, states
that: "the SAV survey showed an impact on 4 sites for a total of 0.494 acre of SAV impact. The
NCDOT will propose to fund a SAV study in the Chowan River basin to mitigate for the impacts
to SAVs from this project. The proposal for this study will receive prior approval from the
DCM." DCM has not yet received this proposal. It is critical that DOT forward it to DCM as
soon as possible.
Temporary impact monitoring requirements: Please refer to the DCM document titled: "DCM
Evaluation of NCDOT's `CAMA Permits with Temporary Impact Monitoring Condition', dated April
20, 2005."
Page 6 of 19, 10/25/2006

ArA
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Michael F. Easley,Governor Charles S. Jones, Director William G. Ross Jr.,Secretary
October 25, 2006
Philip S. Harris, III, PE, Manager
N.C. Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Harris:
Enclosed please find comments from the N.C. Division of Coastal Management(DCM) on the
following two documents submitted to DCM by the N.C. Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) on April 20, 2005 and August 15, 2005, respectively: "CAMA Permits with
Temporary Impact Monitoring Condition"; and"CAMA Permit Commitment Review." As you
know, in April 2002 DCM and NCDOT began a comprehensive effort to ensure that the
mitigation and monitoring conditions of the CAMA permits discussed in the attached documents
'are satisfied.
DCM regrets that it took over a year to provide the attached comments. However, substantial
progress has been made during this period to achieve resolution on many of the projects
discussed in these documents. There are a total of 43 projects with CAMA permits discussed in
the attached documents: 20 projects have mitigation conditions only; 10 projects have temporary
impact monitoring conditions only; and 13 projects have both mitigation conditions and
temporary impact monitoring conditions. Based upon the attached analysis, DCM has
determined that the mitigation and/or temporary impact monitoring conditions of 17 projects
have been completely satisfied.
There are 23 CAMA permits discussed in the attached documents with mitigation and/or
monitoring conditions that remain unsatisfied. Compliance with some of these projects is
imminent or well underway. However, many of these projects have significant outstanding
unresolved issues, and are of particular concern to DCM. I do not believe that a general meeting
is necessary to discuss these projects. Instead, I hope that our staffs can put an emphasis on
working together to resolve the outstanding issues as detailed in the attached documents.
1638 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1638
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: www.nccoastalmanagement.net
An Equal Opportunity\Affirmative Action Employer—50%Recycled\10%Post Consumer Paper

Please ask your appropriate staff to contact Cathy Brittingham at [phone] x238 or via e-
mail at t'[e-mail] to discuss next steps for projects within Division One.
To discuss next steps for projects within Divisions Two and Three contact Steve Sollod at(919)
733-2293 x230 or via e-mail at Steve.Sollodiancmail.net. Please also feel free to contact me at
[phone] or via e-mail at Doug.Huggettfiincmail.net if you have any general questions or
concerns.
Sincerely,
Doug Huggett
Major Permits and Consistency Coordinator
CC: Deborah Anderson
Cathy Brittingham
Linda Fitzpatrick
Randy Griffin
Charles Jones (w/o attachments)
Steve Sollod
Ted Tyndall (w/o attachments)

DCM Evaluation of NCDOT's CAMA Permit Commitment Review
SUMMARY
TIP#/ LOCATION/ DCM COMMENTS/RESPONSE
CAMA COUNTY
PERMIT #
DIVISION ONE
1 R-2304/ US 64/264, The wetland mitigation requirements of this project have been met to
27-92 Dare DCM's satisfaction. NCDOT is requested to provide DCM with
documentation demonstrating that the shellfish bed enhancement
requirements of this project have been satisfied in accordance with
permit condition 18 as soon as possible.
2 R-2228/ NC 168 from EEP contracted with a consultant to conduct a field delineation in
124-95 and Moyock to September 2006 of the successful coastal wetlands in the creation area at
139-94 Barco, Ballance Farm. After DCM verifies the consultant's findings,EEP will
Currituck need to provide DCM with an acknowledgement letter documenting that
5.58 acres of credits have been debited from the successful coastal
wetlands at Ballance Farm. After that,DCM will be able to send a
letter to NCDOT acknowledging that NCDOT has satisfied its
mitigation requirements for this project through successful coastal
wetland mitigation at the Ballance Farm mitigation site.
3 B-2536/ Coinjock Bay, The mitigation requirements of this project have been met to DCM's
101-95 Currituck satisfaction.
4 R-2512/ US 17 Bridge, The wetland mitigation requirements have been met to DCM's
88-96 Chowan River, satisfaction. There is no documentation in the CAMA permit file that
Chowan the SAV requirements of this project have been satisfied in accordance
with CAMA permit condition number 16. Please see the attached text
for details.
5 R-2551/ US 64-264, The surface water mitigation requirements of this project have been
7-98 Croatan Sound satisfied. In compliance with Condition Number 13 of the major
Bridge,Dare CAMA permit modification issued on 9/23/98,NCDOT needs to carry
out a post-construction inventory of submerged aquatic vegetation
during the first acceptable period(August-September). In compliance
with Condition Number 14 of the major CAMA permit modification
issued on 9/23/98,NCDOT needs to convene a meeting to assess
construction-related impacts to SAV habitat, and to determine an
appropriate monitoring and mitigation strategy, including scheduling, to
offset the loss of this habitat. NCDOT needs to carry out any and all
mitigation requirements resulting from this meeting.
DCM needs to make a visit to the White's Store mitigation site to
confirm that there are at least 0.42 acres of successful sawgrass areas to
provide mitigation at a 2:1 ratio for the 0.21 acres of impacts for this
project, the only project to be debited from this site to date.
6 K-4003/ Roanoke Island There is a conflict with the local land use plan for the proposed debit
7-98 MOD Visitor Center, from the Scuppernong River Wetland Mitigation Bank. Please see the
Dare attached text for details. DCM will continue to coordinate with NCDOT
to ensure that the mitigation requirements applied to the Roanoke Island
Mitigation Site are satisfied. DCM needs to make a site visit to confirm
compliance with condition 3 of the permit modification issued on 6/5/01
that states the permittee must restore any wetlands, waters or uplands
that are impacted within the 30-foot buffer by the work as described in
Condition No. 2 of this permit to their pre-project conditions.
Page 1 of 19, 10/25/2006

• .
DCM Evaluation of NCDOT's CAMA Permit Commitment Review
SUMMARY
TIP#/ LOCATION/ DCM COMMENTS/RESPONSE
CAMA COUNTY
PERMIT#
7 R-3838 &R- US 264, The mitigation requirements of this project have been met to DCM's
3839/ Dare/Hyde satisfaction.
88-99
8 Division SR 1244, The mitigation requirements of this project have been met to DCM's
Project/ Tyrrell satisfaction.
96-99
9 B-3193/ Scranton It is critical that NCDOT submit the post-construction SAV survey to
46-00 Creek,Bridge DCM and the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers in compliance with
29, US 264-NC Condition No. 17 as soon as possible. DCM needs to make a site visit
45,Hyde to ensure compliance with condition numbers 15 and 16 prior to
agreeing to closing out the site.
10 Division Montgomery DCM is awaiting an acknowledgement letter from EEP confirming that
Project/ Road, SR the debit ledger has been reconciled. EEP told DCM in August 2006
Violation 1149/1150, that they anticipate that construction of the Bishop Road mitigation site
Hyde will begin in Winter 2006/2007. Therefore,DOT has not satisfied the
mitigation requirements of this project. DCM has asked EEP to keep us
informed as to the progress of site implementation. DCM is eager to see
these impacts mitigated. DCM will continue to monitor progress of this
implementation effort.
11 R-2548/ US 64, The debit ledger provided by NCDOT does not indicate which portion of
166-00 Plymouth to the Great Dismal Swamp Mitigation Bank the 144 credits were
East of purchased from. NCDOT must provide DCM with a more detailed copy
Columbia, of the debit ledger that verifies that the mitigation bank credits for this
Tyrrell/ project come from the Timberlake Farm portion of the mitigation bank,
Washington in accordance with Condition No. 21. NCDOT must provide DCM with
a progress report on implementation of the on-site mitigation as soon as
possible, and begin submitting monitoring reports when appropriate in
accordance with Conditions No. 25 and 27. NCDOT should let DCM
know when we should expect to receive the first annual update on the
success of this wetland restoration area in accordance with Conditions
No. 2, 3,4 and 5 of the permit modification issued on 5/21/03. NCDOT
must also provide DCM with the exact GPS location of the mitigation
site.
12 F-4407/ Emergency The mitigation requirements of this project have been met to DCM's
38-02 Ferry Terminal, satisfaction.
Dare
Page 2 of 19, 10/25/2006

DCM Evaluation of NCDOT's
"CAMA Permits with Temporary Impact Monitoring Condition"
DIVISION ONE
1. TIP NO. R-2512, US 17 BRIDGE, CHOWAN RIVER, CHOWAN COUNTY, CAMA
PERMIT NO. 88-96
The CAMA Permit Commitment Review document prepared by RK&K dated 9/22/03 states that: "No
temporary impacts occurred with this project as the project was completed using top-down
construction." However, the CAMA Permit Commitment Review document prepared by RK&K
dated 9/22/03 also states that: "As stated in the October 23, 1997 COE permit-Modification(Permit
No. 199705883) and reiterated by Mr. Randy Turner, NCDOT Project Management Team Leader, in a
meeting on January 27, 2003, there were no temporary impacts associated with this project. Attempts
to restore temporary impacts were unsuccessful and these impacts were subsequently calculated as
permanent impacts and debited accordingly." Furthermore, the CAMA Permits with Temporary
Impact Monitoring Condition document prepared by NCDOT dated 4/20/05 requests an interagency
inspection to determine compliance of the temporary condition of the permit although an interagency
inspection is not a requirement of this CAMA permit. DOT needs to comply with permit conditions
18 (Permit No. 88-96) and 19 (Permit No. 89-96) by providing DCM with a written statement for
the permit file that reconciles the above conflicting information and certifies: (1) whether there
were any temporary impact areas on this project; and (2) if there were temporary impact areas
on this project,then are there any temporary impact areas on this project that have not
revegetated and that have not been previously reclassified as permanent impacts. If there are
any temporary impact areas on this project that have not revegetated, and that have not been
previously reclassified as permanent impacts,then DOT needs to notify DCM and contact DWQ
and USACE to determine mitigation requirements. DCM was not able to locate a copy of the
above referenced October 23, 1997 COE modification,therefore NCDOT is requested to provide
a copy of it to DCM as supporting documentation.
2. R-2512B,BRIDGE OVER PEMBROKE CREEK AND ASSOCIATED IMPROVEMENTS
TO US 17, CAMA PERMIT NO. 89-96, CHOWAN COUNTY.
Same comments as above for CAMA Permit number 88-96.
3. R-2551,US 64-264 INCLUDING A NEW BRIDGE ACROSS THE CROATAN SOUND,
DARE COUNTY, CAMA PERMIT NO. 7-98
The CAMA permit commitment review document prepared by RK&K dated 9/22/03 states: "RK&K
field-reviewed temporary impact areas with Mr. Midgett and Mr. Hernandez on January 15, 2003. The
temporary impact area associated with the work trestle located along the northwest bridge approach
appeared to be graded to wetland elevation. As completion of this project occurred in 2002, it is too
early to determine if these areas are reattaining jurisdictional status. Photographs of impact areas
located in the northwestern bridge quadrant taken in March 2003 are included below."
The CAMA permit commitment review document prepared by RK&K dated 9/22/03 states: "NCDOT
should continue annual monitoring at established mitigation sites as well as at temporary impact
areas....an agency meeting should be scheduled in 2005 (three years post-construction) to review the
status of temporary impact areas. As stated in WQC No. 3167 issued November 1997, all temporary
impact areas should be restored in accordance with the finalized DWQ restoration policy."
Page 2 of 7,k0/25/2006

[Fwd: SAV monitoring and mitigation CAMA permit conditions]
r--,
Subject: [Fwd: SAV monitoring and mitigation CAMA permit conditions]
From: Cathy Brittingham <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2006 11:07:18 -0400
To: Bruce Ellis <[e-mail]>
CC: "Deborah D. Anderson" <[e-mail]>, Steve Sollod <[e-mail]>
Hi Bruce,
Steve Sollod and I are preparing a status report for DOT and DCM on compliance with
outstanding mitigation permit conditions, including those referenced in the attached
e-mail. Would you please let me know what actions have occurred since our last
meeting on 4/15/04 regarding the issue of SAV monitoring and mitigation for the
attached projects? The DCM status report that Steve and I are preparing is in
response to several documents that have been produced by DOT over the past years.
Deborah Anderson is the primary contact person at DOT for this mitigation compliance
project, I believe, in case you have any internal questions. You are also welcome
to contact me. I think we are all hoping that we can come to closure with this!
Thanks,
Cathy Brittingham
Transportation Project Coordinator
N.C. Division of Coastal Management
1638 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1638
(919) 733-2293 x238 telephone
(919) 733-1495 FAX
Subject: SAV monitoring and mitigation CAMA permit conditions
From: Cathy Brittingham<[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 15:30:56 -0400
To: Bruce Ellis <[e-mail]>
CC: Doug Huggett<[e-mail]>, bill arrington<[e-mail]>, Lynn
Mathis<[e-mail]>, Steve Sollod<[e-mail]>, Ron Sechler
<[e-mail]>, Trish Murphey<[e-mail]>,Travis Wilson
<[e-mail]>, Mike Bell <[e-mail]>,Bill Biddlecome
<[e-mail]>, John Hennessy<[e-mail]>,Mike
Street<[e-mail]>
Bruce,
At the meeting on 4/15/04 regarding SAV monitoring and mitigation requirements for B-2531 in Craven
County,I committed to providing you with a listing of CAMA permits that contain permit conditions
related to requirements for monitoring and mitigation of SAV impacts. The results of a search of the
CAMA permit files back to 1994 is found below.
Also, it occurred to me that the Outer Banks Task Force Study of Storm Damage Reduction for
Ocracoke and Hatteras Islands, TIP No. R-3116, might be another potential source of funding for SAV
research due to the potential for SAV impacts from proposed DOT projects associated with the study. I
think the cost estimate for the study is$9.8 million to be spent over 5 years.
1 of 3 7/7/2006 11:19 AM

[Fwd:SAV monitoring and mitigation CAMA permit conditions]
• CAMA Permit No. 81-95, Neuse and Trent Rivers,Craven County: Condition No. 16, during the
construction phases of this project, the DOT will monitor and record all impacts to submerged
aquatic vegetation (SAV)habitat that occurs as a result of the permitted activity; and Condition
No. 17, prior to the expiration date of this permit, the DOT will develop and implement an
approved mitigation plan to compensate for SAV losses associated with this project. The plan
will be coordinated with and approved by the National Marine Fisheries Service, the N.C.
Division of Coastal Management, the N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries and the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers.
• CAMA Permit No. 88-96, Chowan River, Bertie &Chowan County: Condition No. 16, surveys
for submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) shall be conducted prior to the initiation of construction
activities in the Chowan River. The area shall again be surveyed immediately after completion of
the bridge. A report detailing the findings shall be submitted to DEM for review. If SAVs have
been lost, the report shall also contain a mitigation plan to compensate for the losses. The
mitigation plan must be approved by DEM and DCM.
• CAMA Permit No. 7-98, Croatan Sound and Spencer Creek,Dare County: Condition No. 14, a
post-construction inventory of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), similar to the study outlined
in the October 29, 1997 submerged aquatic vegetation study(prepared by Langley and McDonald,
P.C.), shall be carried out during the first acceptable period(August-September) immediately
following completion of the bridge construction phase of this project; and Condition No. 15,
within three months following completion of the SAV study described in Condition 14 above,the
permittee shall convene a meeting with representatives of the Division of Coastal Management,
the NC Wildlife Resources Commission, the NC Division of Marine Fisheries, the NC Division of
Water Quality,the US Army Corps of Engineers and the National Marine Fisheries Service. This
meeting will be for the purposes of assessing construction-related impacts to SAV habitat, and to
determine an appropriate monitoring and mitigation strategy, including scheduling, to offset the
loss of this habitat. The permittee shall carry out any and all mitigation requirements resulting
from this meeting.
• CAMA Permit No. 46-00, Scranton Creek, Hyde County: Condition No. 17, in order to properly
gauge the effect of construction on existing SAV habitat, and in accordance with the permittee's
application letter dated 7/19/99, the permittee shall conduct an underwater survey to establish
spatial distribution of SAV, species composition and population densities. This pre-construction
survey will serve as the base line for comparing a later post-construction survey. In order to
determine the effects of factors unrelated to construction activities, the permittee shall also
conduct similar surveys in a nearby "control" site. Results of the pre-construction survey will be
forwarded to DCM and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers when the report is published.
Please let me know if you have any questions or would like additional information.
Cathy Brittingham
Transportation Project Coordinator
NC Division of Coastal Management
1638 Mail Service Center
Raleigh,NC 27699-1638
[phone] X238 phone
[phone] FAX
2 of 3 7/7/2006 11:19 AM

Cathy Brittingham Notes 7/6/06
CAMA Permit No. 88-91 and 89-96
Wetland Impacts =
16.20 acres of Section 404 wetlands (8/7/96) +2.25 acres of Section 404 wetlands
(12/20/96) + 1.14 acres Section 404 wetlands + 1.85 acres Section 404 wetlands + 2.6
acres Section 404 wetlands=24.04 acres impacts
Wetland Mitigation=
103.8 acres preservation Company Swamp+ 13.3 acres preservation Company Swamp +
26 acres preservation Company Swamp = 143.10 acres preservation
2.69 acres BLH non-riverine Dismal Swamp+8.6 acres SPH riverine Dismal Swamp +
1.93 acres BLH non-riverine Dismal Swamp+3.89 acres BLH non-riverine Dismal
Swamp + 2.39 acres BLH non-riverine Dismal Swamp+4.725 acres SPH restoration
Pembroke Creek+2.6 acres SPH restoration Pembroke Creek=26.285 acres
restoration.
NOTE: CAMA Permit No. 88-96 also had SAV impacts with monitoring and mitigation requirements

<6A (C1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Cathy Brittingham
CC:
FROM: Melissa Carle
DATE: December 16, 2005 ,r„u ,c
SUBJECT: Pembroke Creek Mitigation Site, Getesillerqrs County
I agree that DCM can consider the Pembroke Creek Mitigation Site to be closed out. I have not
visited this site. However, the site has consistently met both hydrologic and vegetation success
criteria throughout the monitoring period. The mitigation performed at this site can be
considered successful based on the success criteria detailed in the Mitigation Plan.
Page 1 of 1

MEMORANDUM
TO: Cathy Brittingham
CC:
FROM: Melissa Carle
DATE: December 16, 2005
SUBJECT: Dismal Swamp Mitigation Site, Gates/Perquimans County
I agree that DCM can consider the Dismal Swamp mitigation site to be closed-out. I have not
visited this site. In April 2004, I noted that several of the monitoring wells along the outer edges
of the site had not consistently met the hydrologic success criteria. This issue was addressed at
the DOT Mitigation Site Review Meeting held later that month. I do not have detailed notes
from that meeting and I do not remember how the issue was resolved. However, the vast
majority of the site did consistently achieve success criteria and given that the site serves as
mitigation for impacts to 404 wetlands, I am willing to accept the site as successful if USACE
has already done so. I was unable to attend the Division I site visits in summer 2004. I believe
that Steve Sollod attended the site visits for DCM.
Page 1 of 1

Mitigation rrequirements were met for this project.Debits of 103.8 acres of
preservation for R-2512A,13.3 acres of preservation for R-2512 mod.,and
26.0 acres of preservation for R-2512 mod.were debited from the Company
Swamp in Bertie County.10.9 acres of non-riverine and 8.06 acres of
riverine wetlands were debited from the Dismal Swamp Mitigation Site..
Both pre-and post-construction SAV surveys were performed and submitted
to the DCM for review.The SAV survey showed an impact on 4 sites for a
1)Pre and post project SAV monitoring mitigation total of 0.494 acre of SAV impact.The NCDOT will propose to fund a SAV
required for any project related loss of SAVs.2) study in the Chowan River Basin to mitigate for the impacts to SAVs from
Temp.wetland impacts must be monitored for 1 this project.The proposal for this study will receive prior approval from the
year and if area has not re-attained jurisdictional No info in file that work has been done.For 3) DCM.Temp.impacts have been addressed in a separate document titled
status,a compensatory mitigation plan may be no info in file that mitigation efforts have been "CAMA Permits with Temporary Impact Monitoring Condition."Debit
r�� needed.3)Mitigation to be done in accordance completed,but believe that on site effort has Ledgers for the Company Swamp in Bettie Count and the Dismal Swamp
lUS 17 Bridge, ` with COE permit(18.6 acres total,5 acres been completed.1-3 years of monitoring Mitigation Site are attached.Also attached are sections from the SAV
R-2 Chowan River 11/3 restoration on site,rest at mitigation banks). _expected. surveys.
Per Jason Elliot,project completed in 1998;no info on mitigation of the 0.66
acres of swamp forest impact.Proposal to the DCM to offer restoration of
Prior to completion of project,DOT must develop 1.98 acres(3:1)of riverine wetlands within the same CU as the project.The
NC 11/NC 53, a plan to offset 0.66 acres of swamp forest NCDOT will request the EEP to accept this restoration to comply with the
B-2919 114-96 Pender/Bladen Black River 3/1,6/3 impact. _No info in file that work has been done. CAMA Permit.
Per Jason Elliot,remedial work completed in 2002 on the Deer Creek
Mitigation Site.Site doing very well;continued monitoring;only 2 more
Deer Creek mitigation site has been years required;proposed 2006 close-out.3.32 acres of tidal marsh impacts
constructed,but remedial actions are required on this project.2.64 acres to be taken from Deer Creek Mitigation Site and
R-2105 A Prior to project completion,a mitigation plan must and underway.At least 5 years of additional 0.68 acre taken from the Bogue Sound/Weeks Site.Debit Ledgers for the
8 B 146-96 Carteret NC 24 2/2 be developed and provided to DCM for approval. monitoring will be required. Deer Creek and Bogue Sound Site attached.
Mitigation plan has been approved.USMC Per Jason Elliot,remedial work at the USMC site was completed in 2002;
Prior to initiation of construction,a final marsh mitigation site is undergoing remedial monitoring underway;2 more years of monitoring.Stream mitigation was
Jacksonville compensatory mitigation plan shall be submitted actions.At least another 5 years of additional through the EEP.EEP Letter and monitoring reports for the USMC and
U-2107 77-97 Onslow Bypass 3/1 and approved by DCM/COE. monitoring will be required. Haws Run Mitigation Sites are attached.
DOT to grade 125x75 ft area to adjacent marsh
elevation,and monitor for 2 years to see if natural
vegetation is taking place-if it is not,DOT would
Bridge 70,Smith have to plant the area.Monitoring reports to be Restoration addressed in separate document titled"CAMA Permits with
101-97 101-97 Beaufort Creek 2/1 provided to DCM. No info in file that work has been done. Temporary Impact Monitoring Condition".
Per Jason Elliot,propose to close out Mashoes this year.Debit ledger for
Dismal Swamp show 1.5 acres of SPH Riverine Wetlands debited(2003
Report).0.128 acre of brackish marsh restoration constructed and in last
year of monitoring.EEP accepted and restored 1047 feet of stream for this
Believe that mitigation site(Mashoes Road project White's store mitigation of 1.4 acres of sawgrass mitigation credit
R-255188- US 64,Croatan Significant mitigation commitments relating to Site)completed.Monitoring efforts likely to 0.21 acre of impact.White's Store site is proposed for close out this year.
5208 7-98 Dare __Sound Bridge _1/1 bridge permit. continue for at least 3 more years. Permit and debit ledgers attached.
Unsure of status of rest area project.On-site
work likely has not been completed.Monitoring
likely to continue for 5 years.NOTE-A portion
of the preservation component of the mitigation Per Jason Elliot,on-site work complete;re-planting in February 2005;first
k-4003(B-7-98 Roanoke Island Additional mitigation,some from Mashoes Road, site accidentally cleared by DOT.Will need to year monitoring underway;Monitoring for 5 years.The NCDOT will request
5208 MOD Dare Visitor Center 1/1 some from Dismal Swamp Bank,some on site. revisit mitigation plan.: EEP to accept mitigation for this site using preservation.
•
it ..

CAMA Permit No. 88-96
TIP No. R-2512A
Chowan River
Bertie and Chowan Counties
CAMA Permit No. 88-96 was issued for TIP No. R-2512A located in Bertie and Chowan
Counties. The project is for improvements to US 17 from west of the Chowan River to
US 17 Business, east of Edenton. The LET Date for the project was 9/17/96 with a
completion date of 8/3/00. This project is complete and an interagency inspection is
requested to determine compliance of the temporary impact condition of the permit.
c + C A IMrn S- -1--c op 0 r.-0
\NT ack-
6 c nl I C lco Ce: n`A 1 T1 OA
\\
b !icon

,-/ '.\,. A , , . , ....,.. ; ,., . ':, ,:. , ,41-,..tti./0:.,..ti.
lifil
, A ,,,,I
t"? , ' P I :'! 4 . s a ;'-' i S-t, ;ti ,' a.•� i1�• � '.
Benton , ',E� . . r ' '0.- � 4 , ` 4•• �►, . ,
kr �,x R 2512 A 1/
1/2 MILE ' •
r CAMA#88-96 / f
i; t _ Chowan River • { F ,
�gy Bertie/Chowan Co.
.,..,, .... ... V"
Y $ -, I 3i,+ 1 )ems
ti
,ww , " " ► ` ' *ti .fie %..
•
W j►E.* •9 •p ,r... •t '^_ �.'R.ry 010- 'Y'4 ,, p l�.- y am ,
,R ,7 I'L f ' 1, 4i4"' ) irk •• F
',.klyn.f!*A".y,•�•t ✓Crory Y. _. i •� , ,. ! - - ti .•y. g.s
.. ?._ •, r!# ♦ . ` „.. a•aof , I ,4 kf is { ,1
i
•
•
•
�- Syr : ." -
4M✓
•All , , ,Ir ., .
,, Fil 1,.4.T: , v., ./• . :
: .,4_,,,.. . .,4 .i ,'
, , . ,iiii...t:
ri-- ?, si., , , i
111111404
•
to f +,y 't .! ��`.
•
!.5 E
" ) •
t. ' ._

0 6° 1'0. 0" 07 0' 30. 0"W 0 6°40'0. 0"W 07•° 9' 30.pp0' W
I I 1 1 I �`1I I I I 1/ Q I I I 11 I L 4 1 l l l• ., • \i tiiittLf„-----.. . _1
+IIh-
—1411:46. — -410- aiii. --:.."- 1 An ------.'---/ ,652 " - .-. '-
-*11110- „„.- -- 'WA, aigb- lip -116.- • k's_c
rie
_AV"-•-
\ ` `r — ` dr- f
_ +44- .+6- . _ c4 • ( ,� &
Al*. � E-
-fi .411... -. • 1 r _
Ali-• _Ay_ -41i- 740,... 76 -4110- ,....... oc: '-'- ii_ lirdpit x• \ -* �
o� rWr ..� - ,,, . J . _ 4. AmiL. Ell, / -
�.O
t+, ‘...1 -4*- .46,_ -ider• _sal" +-- -0.- - -*". 4-- _ii,'-:--- 7,.„. 1 % i in
_ .,�- ..... „ ter- 4 4-
-- ..�.- ._ �,•�� r b -
--Jib' _ .+ - ,.yl,..• - .. fi fib M .�'"
a ,e
•
41:416,
I
� _�1,,Q' - mill,.- _ ..�w• `" r • , ti� _6.
1-5
..._-diii -41b. -"*" -AL\ flit' \\ ‘,.,f;-,v-i 47 /
B M t 3.6 ,�, _ '` - "' " •
• . ' - -°lli� .ale.
- -• --'' -
/' '' - - -+111t- -ally- ,, _ �.. ••3 -+IIF� �'. 7 . ` —
/r .lig- iY� - - °- - ter` I -;-
\ — ° - .Ji1,...�y ,,.6- �. ♦ ®r j -
Z • + f r ..r.m- + -� dam- - - - = . � i......
—
o • • -.4b- i ,+Wr -,arsr �. - 40, "' -. �.ti f�Y� I
M '„• -ram . - 1 � - ` , ._ y� - —t �- — -- k - - .
a- , 1'• r, - _.— — 'MI- r- O
2cr
Ali.
ri-Iti ' ~ -- - �- �Y, �- �-_ - __ - _ - + - - _��
' — _Am, + - �ISN Aid- - .+�.. Ai._ 4 - illy. .-
—, t . I �4. - " — -4- - —-6,- — —4- .•— -,4-, -b, - 11" ---Yi•E
`', -yip: -k�r -1w- _ _ —
1 I I 10h"41'0.do"W I 1 I I I I I 1 I I07'6°40' 30.b0"'W I I 1 I I
1 1 1- I I I I I 1076°140'o.do"W I I I I -4r I 1 uis.39' 30.b0"IW I r-
Name:EDENHOUSE Location: 036°03'22.1" N 076°40'22.2" W
Date:4/15/105 Caption: R-2512A
. Scale: 1 inch equals 1000 feet Cama#88-96
Copyright( ',Maptech,Inc.

76 44'0.0 " I761 42'0.0 " IIj761 40'0.0?" IiII761 38'0.0?"
el /k —
`i ( . � 1 . i' "aa
—
, ',1_;;',.., , 0 „outli,
yr
Z - �` ` Z
In
c 'M — --�` o r - �. a. of o
- • �I V \ ".• J� ;x —
�n . a If E Fes' .•1 . ..\ . ,jam, ` sJ i
x�,� - b-- -- . -—"+ —
r `�� : �' Pr11 '.TM Z
C r —lea— ,� _ , _0 L' '''.-04,,•-:., 4 - . •mx � of 1.
`,i \ . _ •
4:,
_ ) :
, .
te__
s
7< \ = _ ct. �. I�( ,� ^J .: � �-1 —
f • \ - - 4cam " '� ! e,
^`r • F,DEM�l1,
o u 2
O , '\ - _ - -
1f
-
-
-
-
•
— �. _
O y, .s�— 2 30... 4-•-•'*\.::%4-.:-:-:tr_%'..-i:-:*-•2-..:-:•.:*.-*.1A-4'-.....:-:--.i s
/' •
` �c !ot.reYa � y �� \ F r - _Z _ HOevn Tv
Ory
--1 al .w to 's. ,
fa i• - - __• ' � - Oi
. a
0
\--. .Q -J • \ N
0
0 s
TA
_ �76d 44'0.00"W .76�42'0.00"W I I I 1 I I °076d 40'0.00"W � � 676�38'0.00"W
)
- Name: EDENHOUSE Location: 036°03'32.8" N 076°41' 17.6" W
Date: 3/21/105 Caption: R-2512A/CAMA#88-96
Scale: 1 inch equals 4000 feet Bertie/Chowan Counties
Hwy 17 Improvements/Bridge over Chowan River
Copyright 7,Maptech,Inc.

Page: 1 Document Name: untitled
DDS1 PROJ MASTER SCHEDULE-GEN/ENG ASSIGNMENTS OFFICIAL TIP: R-25124
UPDATED: 09/29/00 OFY CFY PFY AUTH RPE: BLEVINS
WBS: 34441. 1 .2 PLAN RPDE: HAMIDI
PROJ: 8T010602 DSG SPE: FOFARIA
FA PROJ: DPI-0199 (005) R/W 95 95 SPDE: DAVIS
COUNTY: BERTI-CHOWA DIV: 01 CON 99 96 DSPEE:
CITY: %COMP DATE COMP P&E UNIT:
ROUTE: US017 R/W PLAN: 100 04 24 95 C P&E ENG: MCINNIS
LENGTH/MI : 002 .424 FINAL PLAN: 090 04 16 96 C LOCATION: MCKNIGHT
LENGTH/KM: 003 . 900 STR PLAN: 100 04 18 96 C PHOTO: DIXON
#STR/TYPE: 3 SX HYDRO: PEF
TYPE PROJ: # PARCELS: 003 TRFE: BOURNE
TYPE: 044 # RELOCATEES: PERMIT NS UNIT: TURNER
STATUS : ACQ TIME: 009 PERMIT NS SPEC:
BORROW: BEG MILEPOST: STR COOR: FRYE
PRODUCTION SCHEDULE T. I. P. SCHEDULE STR FRM: W S A
R/W: R/W : 04 24 95 C RDY FRM: WILBUR SMITH
LET: LET : 09 17 96 C RES E:
COMP: 08 03 00 C RIVER BASIN:
UTL IMPACT: L MPO: MITIGATION SITE:
DESCRIPTION: US 17 BRIDGE 38 OVER CHOWAN RIVER
ENTER-DDS2 PF1-PREV SCR PF2-UPDATE PF3-PRINT PF4-PLAN PF5-PMMI PF7-BKWD PF8-F
(2/Noto-1)--- -
e
Date: 2/25/2005 Time: 08 :29 : 02 AM

Page: 1 Document Name: untitled
DDS7 PERMITS AND AGREEMENTS INFORMATION OFFICIAL PAGE
"'IP NUM: R-2512A PROD LET: PERMIT SP: TURNER
ROJ NUM: 8T010603 TIP LET: 09-17-96 P & E ENG: MCINNIS
WBS NO: 34441 . 1.2 DIVISION: 01 HYDRO: PEF
COUNTY: BERTI-CHOWA MIT SITE:
RIV BASIN:
DESCRIPT: US 17 BRIDGE 38 OVER CHOWAN RIVER
STATUS :
ACTIVITY OUT IN
350 U S C G PERMIT SECTION 9 03-08-96 C 08-01-96 C
360 CORP OF ENGS 404 PERMIT 03-15-96 C 08-09-96 C
380 STATE 401 WATER CERTIF 03-15-96 C 05-21-96 C
390 STATE CAMA PERMIT 03-08-96 C 05-29-96 C
ENTER-DATES (DDS8) PF1-PREVIOUS SCREEN PF3-PRINT
Date: 2/25/2005 Time: 08 : 29 :22 AM

TEMPORARY
PROJECT IMPACT
CAMA COMPLETION MONITORING
TIP# PERMIT# WATER BODY COUNTY DATE COMPLETION CONCLUSIONS
Bertie/ Monitoring complete - Needs site
2512A 88-96 Chowan River Chowan 8/3/2000 8/3/2003 inspection with DCM
Monitoring complete - Needs site
R-2512B 89-96 Pembroke Creek Chowan 11/29/1999 11/29/2002 inspection with DCM
Monitoring complete - Needs site
B-2805 101-97 Smith Creek 'Beaufort 5/15/1998 5/15/2001 inspection with DCM
7-98 (Minor Croatan
Mod. Issued Sound/Spencer A=6/20/03 A=6/20/06 Monitoring complete - Needs site
R-2551 5/1/00) Creek Dare B=7/2/03 B=7/2/06 inspection with DCM
COE closed out site in 2004 as
compliant; need DCM close out
B-3011 111-99 Moore's Creek Pender 11/30/2001 11/30/2004 confirmation
11/25/03; based
on Beau. Co. soil
survey; 5 of 10
years at 28 Monitoring complete - Needs site
B-2806 29-00 Cuckold's Creek Beaufort 8/30/2001 degree F. temp. inspection with DCM
6/7/05 (3rd Year Roadside Environmental has OK'd this
B-3193 46-00 Scranton Creek Hyde • 6/7/2002 Monitoring) project for site inspection
Monitoring complete-restoration
signed off by DCM as successful
B-2513 116-00 Hood Creek Brunswick 6/7/2002 6/7/2005 and compliant with permit
Roadside Environmental inspected
this site on 3/7/05; site is under
(projected for construction; DCM will be notified
NE Cape Fear Aug./Sept. of Aug./Sept. of upon completion of project and start of
R-2633C 130-00 River New Hanover 2005) 2008 monitoring

CAMA Permit No. 88-96
TIP No. R-2512A
Chowan River
Bertie and Chowan Counties
CAMA Permit No. 88-96 was issued for TIP No. R-2512A located in Bertie and Chowan
Counties. The project is for improvements to US 17 from west of the Chowan River to
US 17 Business, east of Edenton. The LET Date for the project was 9/17/96 with a
completion date of 8/3/00. This project is complete and an interagency inspection is
requested to determine compliance of the temporary impact condition of the permit.

•
•
Permit k County Location Mitigation Conditions • Outcome 2 7-92 Dare US 641264 Extensive mitigation commilr, nls ) /
Most work complete. Additional remedial actions ongoing on �. R.•+ 3�)
one site.
3,143 sl coastal wetlands Impacted. Permit Appears the required up-Iron)commitment letter was not
required that
letter bf commitment b prove eJ submitted,although DOT did later appear to hire a firm to ` f _ O�(� k�
7P 95 New l lanovor Molls Creek,SR 1100 before e• lopeendconstructioni begins and mitigation tan search for mitigation sites. No Into In the file that sites were 7 k
be developed and Implemented prior to ever located/constructed.
expiration of permit.
7.700 sl coastal wetlands Impacted. Permit ,� f
•
required that feller of commitment be provided •
Commitment teller submitted 5/3195. No Into in file that work _ � l ]
30 95 Carteret Collie Creek Bridge belore construction begins end mitigation plan /V-\ ` V c"A'A. 4-t;
be developed and Implemented prior to lip been do e. G4( 'c'expiration of permit. 1ri J 1 e _2 /3/Fes,
In ellorl to expedite permit Issuance,permit was
issued and required that a mitigation plan be
developed,completed and showing success in Most/all riles have been constructed. Monitoring must lake •
accordance with monitoring plan. This place until al hve .
8I-95 Craven Heusi]Iliver Bridge requirement must be met before any permits NOTE: 1st t leastsectio New Bern Bypass scheduled for 2003 let, �j C �'
can be Issued for the New Bern Bypass project In violation ol permit conditions. �' J~ [� i
• (also a condition of 404 and 401-permits).
Further details contained in 2/9/01 and 2/12/01
memos(attached). - • .
Prior to project completion,a mitigation plan for
Br.0,SR 1245, 0.19 acres of coastal wetland Impacts must be 7 ,..2-----
101.95 Cunlluck Coinjock Bay provided to DCM/COE. Bridge work apparently No Info In file that work has been done. ►/ r7C
done In 1997.
No work may begin until mitigation plan
Tulls Creek at Coinjock Appears that mitigation will lake place al Balance Farm N L 161( 4t,,—rr (1-i ft,
124.95 Cvrriluck developed and approved by DCM(3:1 for — 1'"j r -
Bay Mitigation Site(coastal wetlands). r� .L
coastal wetlands,2;1 lor•404 wetlands). -
2.800 sl coastal wetlands Impacted. Permit- ,r/� ,��, 5
133.95 Carlerel SR 1300 Meninron Rd. required that mlligallon plan be developed end No Info in file that work has been done. p
implemented prior to expiration of permit.
50.96 Carteret Bridges Street Some Impacts utilized a mitigation bank,rest to Appears that Bogue Sound Mitigation Site approaching sign- Li ()
Extension come from Bogue Sound Millyation Site oil alter 6 years of monitoring.
U5 17 bridge,Chowari . 1) Pre end post project SAV monitoring. 3
Chowan ver Mitigation required for any project-relate)loss of No into in file that work has been lane. �/ - s-
sAv s d
2) letup.wetland Impacts must be monitored
for 1 years,and II area has not re•altalned Nolnfo in file that monitoring has been done
jurisdictional status,a compensatory mitigation
plait may be needed. ,:i
3) Mitigation to be done in accordance with No into in file Oral mitigation aborts have been completed,but
COE permit(18.6 acres total,5 acres believe that on site effort has been completed. 1•3 years o1
restoration on site,rest al mitigation banks). monitoring expected.
NC 11/1lC 53,Black Prior to completion of project,DOT must . • �
114-96 Pender/Oladendevelop a plan to offselt 0.68 acres of swamp No info in file that work has been done. --- l , •_ -Oil
River barest impact. • •h
• Prior to project completion,a mitigation plan Deer Creek mitigation site has been constructed.but
I. 146.96 Carteret NC 24 must be developed andprovided l0 DCM for remedial actions are required and underway. Al least 5 years — p_N {
1iprovni, p of additional nronllodnQ will bri tngnlrod. j V 11

r r
_A y7 0
R-2512 CAMA Permit No ,•
Executive Summary
NCDOT constructed a bridge replacement as part of the project to upgrade US
17 in Chowan and Bertie Counties (T.I.P. Project No. R-2512). Bridge No. 38 is located
on the Chowan River on the borders of Bertie and Chowan Counties. NCDOT received
the initial CAMA permit in May of 1996 and the COE permit in August 1996. Several
permit modifications reflecting additional impacts and required mitigation occurred
between 1996 and 1997. RK&K conducted a field review of the project site with Mr.
Sterling Baker, NCDOT District 3 Engineer for Division 1, in January 2003. No
temporary impacts occurred with this project as the project was completed using top-
down construction. NCDOT mitigated for permanent wetland impacts through the
Dismal Swamp and Pembroke Creek Mitigation Sites. NCDOT completed the bridge
project in the spring of 1999. In fulfillment of permit requirements, Landmark Design
Group, acting for NCDOT, prepared a report dated February 2002 detailing the results of
a post-construction survey for SAV impacts in the Chowan River. In order to complete
permit requirements, NCDOT should prepare a mitigation plan to compensate for SAV
impacts resulting from the bridge construction projects and continue monitoring the
Dismal Swamp and Pembroke Creek Mitigation Sites until success criteria are met.
Monitoring gauge problems at the Pembroke Creek Site should be addressed. NCDOT
should update DCM on the progress of mitigation and monitoring activities associated
with R-2512 as correspondence from DCM dated April 29, 2002 states that DCM has no
record of mitigation for this project.
Project Description
NCDOT constructed a bridge replacement as part of the project to upgrade US
17 in Chowan and Bertie Counties (R-2512). Bridge No. 38 is located on the Chowan
River on the borders of Bertie and Chowan Counties. This project resulted in multiple
wetland impacts, some of which were high quality wetlands. The original CAMA permit
application, dated March 8, 1996, states that no coastal wetlands occurred within the
project impact area; however, mitigation for Section 404 wetland impacts was addressed
by the COE in an Individual Permit application, dated March 15, 1996. DCM issued a
CAMA major development permit (No. 88-96) on May 29, 1996 for the Chowan River at
1 US 17 bridge crossing and a permit (No. 88-96) on June 26, 1996 for Pembroke Creek
at US 17 bridge crossing. DCM issued a modification on January 2, 1997 as well as a
modification and renewal of permit No. 88-96 on February 25, 2000.
The COE issued an individual permit (No. 199400991) on August 9, 1996
permitting impacts to 16.20 ac of 404 wetlands and 0.22 ac of open waters of the United
1 States adjacent to Chowan River, Pembroke Creek, and the associated tributaries.
Several permit modifications reflecting additional impacts and required mitigation
occurred between 1996 and 1997. DWQ issued a WQC (No. 3066) on May 21, 1996.
No temporary impacts occurred as the project was completed using top-down
construction. The US 17 bridge was opened to traffic in the spring of 1999.
1

Project Timeline
• May 21, 1996: WQC Certification No. 3066 issued.
• May 29, 1996: CAMA Permit No. 88-96 issued.
• June 2, 1996: CAMA Permit No. 88-96 issued.
• August 9, 1996: COE Permit No. 199400991 issued.
• December 20, 1996: Pre-construction SAV survey report completed.
• November 1998: Construction of Dismal Swamp Mitigation Site and Pembroke
Creek Mitigation Sites completed.
• Spring 1999: US 17 Bridge completed.
• May 3, 2001: COE Notification of Unauthorized Activity for Permit No. 199400991
issued.
• February 2002: Post-construction SAV survey report completed.
• January 14, 2003: RK&K field-review completed.
Permit Commitments
CAMA Permit No. 88-96 issued 5/29/96 (Chowan River at US 17 bridge crossing)
16) Surveys for submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) shall be conducted prior to
the initiation of construction activities in the Chowan River. The areas shall again
be surveyed immediately after completion of the bridge. A report detailing the
findings shall be submitted to DEM for review. If SAVs have been lost, the report
shall also contain a mitigation plan to compensate for the losses. This mitigation
plan must be approved by DEM and DCM.
17) Compensatory wetland mitigation shall be in accordance with the Corps of
Engineers. DCM shall be copied on the approved ratio, location, size and
method of debit (restoration, enhancement, creation and preservation).
18) Wetland sites impacted by temporary construction access shall be monitored
to insure that natural revegetation is occurring. If a site is not revegetating within
one year of the date the construction access is removed, NCDOT shall plant the
site with the original species that were present prior to the construction.
CAMA Permit No. 496 issued 6/2/96 (Pembroke Creek at US Hwy 17 bridge
crossing)
18) Compensatory wetland mitigation shall be in accordance with the Corps of
Engineer's requirements. DCM shall be copied on the approved ratio, location,
size and method of debit restoration, enhancement, creation and preservation.
2

19) Wetland sites impacted by temporary construction access shall be monitored
to insure that natural revegetation is occurring. If a site is not revegetating within
one year of the date the construction access is removed, NCDOT shall plant the
site with the original species that were present prior to the construction.
COE Permit No. 199400991 issued 8/9/96
Permits impacts to 16.20 ac of 404 wetland impacts and 0.22 ac of open water
impacts.
Permit Conditions
e) Mitigation will be debited from the Dismal Swamp Mitigation Site in the form of
2.69 ac of non-riverine wetlands and 8.6 ac of riverine wetlands. All work is to be
halted if not complete by 4/1/97.
f) Restore, monitor, and maintain 5 acres of riverine wetlands adjacent to
Pembroke Creek. All plantings must be complete by 4/1/98.
I) Mitigation for 10.38 ac of high quality riverine wetlands will be debited from the
Company Swamp Mitigation Bank (Bertie County) as 103.8 ac.
n) Pre- and post-construction SAV surveys must be conducted at the bridge site.
Report with results will be submitted to COE within 60 days after construction
completion. The report must contain a mitigation plan if data shows that any
SAVs have been lost. Report will be approved by DWQ and COE.
o) Temporary road access will be removed within 30 days of project completion.
If site is not being recolonized (80% areal coverage) with native wetland
vegetation within one year, site will be replanted.
COE Permit No. 199400991 modified 12/20/96
Permits clearing and maintaining an additional 2.25 ac of 404 wetlands adjacent
to Chowan River, Pembroke Creek, and unnamed tributaries and authorizes
changing artificial reef enhancement requirements (Condition t) from mandatory
to elective requirements.
Permit Conditions
a) The NCDOT will mitigate the project impacts by restoring 1.93 acres of non-
riverine wetlands at the Dismal Swamp Mitigation Site (DSMS) in Gates and
Perquimans County and by debiting 13.3 acres of riverine wetlands from the
Company Swamp Mitigation Bank in Bertie County.
b) The mitigation work undertaken at the DSMS pursuant to the plan entitled,
"Compensatory Mitigation Plan: N. C. Department of Transportation US 17
Widening, Edenton to Hertford Traffic Improvement Project (TIP): R-2208A
Chowan and Perquimans Counties, North Carolina", dated April 1995, and will be
commenced immediately and implemented concurrently with all phases of
construction activities authorized by this permit modification to the extent
3

necessary to construct, monitor and maintain 1.93 acres of non-riverine wetlands
to the satisfaction of the Corps of Engineers. All work within waters and/or
wetlands authorized by this permit modification shall cease if planting is not
undertaken in accordance with the mitigation plan. Any deviation from this
schedule must be approved by the Wilmington District, U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Regulatory Branch.
c) Once the acreage at the DSMS utilized to satisfy condition (a.) above has
been identified, NCDOT shall survey it, and provide the Corps of Engineers a
copy of the survey. NCDOT shall maintain the acreage described in this
paragraph in the condition achieved by implementation of the mitigation plan, and
approved by the Corps of Engineers, in perpetuity.
COE Permit No. 199400991-Notification of Unauthorized Activity/Permit
Nonompliance issued 5/3/01
COE cited NCDOT for placing bridge material in wetlands along eastern side of
Chowan River. Requires restoration or permit modification by 5/18/01.
COE Permit No. 199706721 modified 10/31/97
Permits construction of interchange ramps within 1.14 ac of 404 wetlands.
Permit Conditions
a) NCDOT will mitigate the project impacts by restoring 2.39 acres of non-
riverine wetlands at the Dismal Swamp Mitigation Site (DSMS) in Gates and
Perquimans County. The mitigation work undertaken at the DSMS pursuant to
the plan entitled, "Compensatory Mitigation Plan: N. C. Department of
Transportation US 17 Widening, Edenton to Hertford Traffic Improvement Project
(TIP): R-2208A Chowan and Perquimans Counties, North Carolina", dated April
1995, and will be commenced immediately and implemented concurrently with all
phases of construction activities authorized by this permit modification to the
extent necessary to construct, monitor and maintain 2.39 acres of non-riverine
wetlands to the satisfaction of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. Any deviation
from the mitigation site construction schedule must be approved by the Corps,
Regulatory Division.
b) The permittee shall identify and survey the acreage at the DSMS utilized to
satisfy condition (a.) above and provide a copy of the survey to the Corps,
Washington Regulatory Field Office, NCDOT Project Manager, within 30 days of
the date of this permit modification.
e) Within two weeks of the date of this permit modification, the permittee shall
provide the Corps, NCDOT Project Manager, Washington Regulatory Field
Office, with an updated version of the "NCDOT Mitigation Ledger" documenting
utilization of the Dismal Swamp Mitigation site.
4

COE Permit No. 199706722 modified 10/23/97
Permits construction of 4-foot deep lateral ditches resulting in impacts to 1.85 ac
of 404 wetlands.
Permit Commitments
a) NCDOT will mitigate the project impacts by restoring 3.89 acres of non-
riverine wetlands at the Dismal Swamp Mitigation Site (DSMS) in Gates and
Perquimans County. The mitigation work undertaken at the DSMS pursuant to
the plan entitled, "Compensatory Mitigation Plan: N. C. Department of
Transportation US 17 Widening, Edenton to Hertford Traffic Improvement Project
(TIP): R-2208A Chowan and Perquimans Counties, North Carolina", dated April
1995, and will be commenced immediately and implemented concurrently with all
phases of construction activities authorized by this permit modification to the
extent necessary to construct, monitor and maintain 3.89 acres of non-riverine
wetlands to the satisfaction of the Corps of Engineers. Any deviation from the
mitigation site construction schedule must be approved by the Wilmington
District, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch.
b) The permittee shall identify and survey the acreage at the DSMS utilized to
satisfy condition (a.) above and provide a copy of the survey to the U. S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Washington Regulatory Field Office, NCDOT Project
Manager, within 30 days of the date of this permit modification.
e) Within two weeks of the date of this permit modification, the permittee shall
provide the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington Regulatory Field Office,
NCDOT Regulatory Project Manager with an updated version of the "NCDOT
Mitigation Ledger" documenting utilization of the Dismal Swamp Mitigation site.
COE Permit No. 199705883 modified 10/23/97
Modification addresses unsuccessful attempts by NCDOT to restore temporary
impacts from haul roads and construction pads and re-classifies these areas as
permanent impacts.
Permit Conditions
a) The mitigation work to restore wetlands at the Pembroke Creek site will be
undertaken as referenced in the August 20, 1997, letter from Mr. H. Franklin Vick
to Mr. Michael F. Bell, to the extent necessary to restore, monitor and maintain
2.6 acres of riverine wetlands to the satisfaction of the Corps of Engineers. The
permittee will submit a final compensatory mitigation plan and construction
schedule within 45 days of the date of this permit modification. If the plan is not
approved by the Corps of Engineers within 60 days of the date of this permit
modification, the permittee shall cease all work within wetlands associated within
this permit action.
b) The permittee shall identify and survey the acreage at the Pembroke Creek
site utilized to satisfy condition (a.) above and provide a copy of the survey to the
5

U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington Regulatory Field Office, NCDOT
Project Manager, within 30 days of the date of this permit modification.
e) The permittee will further mitigate the 2.6 acres of high quality riverine
wetland losses adjacent to the Chowan River by debiting 26.0 acres from the
Company Swamp Mitigation Bank in Bertie County.
f) Within two weeks of the date of this permit modification, the permittee shall
provide the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington Regulatory Field Office,
NCDOT Regulatory Project Manager, with an updated version of the "NDCDOT
Mitigation Ledger" documenting utilization of the Pembroke Creek Mitigation site.
WQC No. 3066 issued 5/21/96
Conditions of Certification
6) Temporary construction access fill shall be removed immediately after
construction has been complete in the area. If trees are removed, NCDOT shall
revegetate with the same species (or others with DEM approval) within one year
after project completion.
9) Borrow and waste areas shall not be in wetlands.
10) Land clearing in wetlands shall conform to Method II (no clearing beyond toe-
of-slope).
11) Surveys for SAV shall be conducted prior to the initiation of construction
activities in the Chowan River. The area shall again be surveyed immediately
after completion of the bridge. A report detailing the findings shall be submitted
to DEM for review. If SAV have been lost, the report shall also contain a
mitigation plan to compensate for the losses. This mitigation plan must be
approved by DEM.
12) Compensatory wetland mitigation shall be in accordance with the COE.
DEM shall be copied on the approved ratio, location, size and method of debit
(restoration, enhancement, creation and preservation).
Mitigation Status
Reports documenting the status of pre- and post-construction surveys of SAV are
included in NCDOT files as follows:
• Draft Final Report Chowan River Aquatic Investigation: (An Inventory of
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation at the Eastern Approach to Existing and
Proposed Bridge Number 38 on U.S. 17, Chowan, N.C.) dated 12/20/96; and
• Final Report Post-Construction Survey of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation of
the Chowan River dated February 2002 prepared by LandMark Design
Group.
6

The 2002 SAV survey report documents the absence of vegetation under the old bridge
as in 1996. Beneath the new bridge, there was a loss of 672 m2 of SAV and 436 m2 of
emergent macrophytes, both likely due to shading. South of the new bridge, the SAV
bed was reduced by 203 m2 and emergent vegetation was reduced by 687 m2 . This
loss was likely due to construction and staging activities. The report did not include a
mitigation plan to replace SAV and emergent vegetation losses. In an interview on
December 2, 2002 with Mr. Lindsey Riddick, NCDOT Environmental Supervisor, he
stated that NCDOT is waiting for agency comments on how to mitigate for SAV impacts.
The Dismal Swamp Mitigation Site is located on the Gates and Perquimans
County line and consists of 344 ac of non-riverine BLH mitigation and 37 ac of riverine
SPH mitigation. The debit ledger included in the fourth year (2002) monitoring lists 10.9
BLH credits and 8.06 SPH credits debited for R-2512. The monitoring report states 4 of
23 gauges are not meeting expected success criteria of saturation or inundation within
12 inches for 12.5% of the growing season. The remaining five gauges located on the
site are meeting the specific success criteria set forth. Vegetation exceeded success
criteria with an average of 482 trees per acre, above the requirement for 320 trees per
acre. Success criteria require the site be monitored for a minimum of five years or until
success criteria are met. NCDOT plans to continue monitoring this site in 2003.
The Pembroke Creek Mitigation Site fourth year (2002) monitoring report lists
7.325 ac of SPH restoration credits debited. (4.725 ac in Phase I and 2.6 ac in Phase II )
for R-2512. The report documents that three out of four monitoring gauges are meeting
project-specific success criteria of groundwater within 20% of reference area. All
gauges met COE 1987 guidance for wetland hydrology (saturated/inundated for 12.5%
of the growing season). One reference gauge experienced problems and produced
invalid readings. Vegetation exceeded success criteria with an average density of 543
trees per acre (320 trees per acre required). Success criteria require the site to be
monitored for a minimum of five years or until success criteria are met. NCDOT plans to
continue monitoring in the 2003 growing season and examine the monitoring gauge and
associated area that are presently not meeting success criteria for problems.
The NCDOT "master" debit ledger documents 143.1 BLH and SPH preservation
credits from the Company Swamp Mitigation Bank located in Bete County, North
Carolina. RK&K was unable to locate a monitoring report for this site.
As stated in the October 23, 1997 COE permit modification (Permit No.
199705883) and reiterated by Mr. Randy Turner, NCDOT Project Management Team
Leader, in a meeting on January 27, 2003, there were no temporary impacts associated
with this project. Attempts to restore temporary impacts were unsuccessful and these
impacts were subsequently calculated as permanent impacts and debited accordingly.
Recommendations
NCDOT should develop a mitigation plan to compensate for the SAV losses
associated with this project. Monitoring of the Dismal Swamp and Pembroke Creek
Mitigation Sites should continue through 2003 or until success criteria are met.
Monitoring gauge problems at the Pembroke Creek Site should be addressed.
It appears that all mitigation requirements associated with this project have been
appropriately debited. NCDOT should update DCM on the progress of mitigation and
7

monitoring activities associated with R-2512. Correspondence from DCM dated April 29,
2002 states that DCM has no record of mitigation or monitoring efforts for this project
and refers to the requirement of temporary impact monitoring. According to NCDOT and
the COE modification (No. 199705883) dated October 23, 1997, temporary impacts were
reclassified as permanent impacts and mitigated for through mitigation banks.
8

Casey Tract mitigation sites in 2003. Agency approval should be obtained before
discontinuing vegetative monitoring for the Casey Tract Mitigation Site.
CAMA Permit No. 88-96 issued 5/29/96 and 6/2/96
TIP No. R-2512
Chowan and Bertie Counties
Project Name: US 17 Bridge, Chowan River
Project Description: US Hwy 17 bridge crossings at the Chowan River and Pembroke
Creek.
Recommendations: NCDOT should develop a mitigation plan to compensate for the
SAV losses as stated in Condition 16 of Permit No. 88-96. Monitoring of the Dismal
Swamp and Pembroke Creek Mitigation Sites should continue through 2003 or until
success criteria are met. Monitoring gauge problems at the Pembroke Creek Site
should be addressed.
It appears that all mitigation requirements associated with this project have been
appropriately debited. NCDOT should update DCM on the progress of mitigation and
monitoring activities associated with R-2512. Correspondence from DCM dated April 29,
2002 states that DCM has no record of mitigation or monitoring efforts for this project
and refers to the requirement of temporary impact monitoring. According to NCDOT and
the COE modification (No. 199705883) dated October 23, 1997, temporary impacts were
reclassified as permanent impacts and mitigated for through mitigation banks.
Hydrology success criteria on the Ballance Farm Mitigation Site should be clarified with
resource agency personnel. According to the monitoring report, hydrology must be
similar to the associated reference wetlands and depths predicted in the calculated
water budget. The monitoring report presents data with respect to the jurisdictional
wetland criteria (saturation or inundation for 12.5(3/0 of the growing season); however, it is
unclear from the monitoring report how hydrology at the mitigation and reference sites
are to be quantitatively compared.
CAMA Permit No. 7-98 issued 1/20/98
TIP No. R-2551 (B-5208)
Dare County
Project Name: US 64, Croatan Sound Bridge
Project Description: US 64/264 beginning at the intersection of US 64/264, 1.9 miles
west of Manns Harbor, and extends eastward to the intersection of NC 345 and US
3

#1,11T o�. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT,CORPS OF ENGINEERS RECEIVED
1 :: - y P.O.BOX 1890 20��
11WILMINGTON.NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890 SEP
�.GZJ`oSrATES REPLY TO NV.OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
ATE5 U� ATTENTION OF:
September 9, 2004 RALEIGH
Regulatory Division
RECEIVED
Action ID No. 200010328
SEP 3 2004
thY,OF COASTAL IJANAGEMEMT
RALEIGH
Mr. Philip S. Harris, III, P.E., Manager
North Carolina Depat tment of Transportation
Project Development &Environmental Analysis
Office of Natural Environment1548 Mail Service Center _ r r
Raleigh,North Carolina 27699-1548 1�1
Dear Mr. Harris: MorGheac City 5O
M
This correspondence is in reference to your letter dated July 29, 2004, regarding the
Dismal Swamp Mitigation Site in Gates/Perquimans Counties,North Carolina. This site is being
utilized by the North Carolina Department of Transportation as compensatory mitigation for TIP
projects.
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 have been met.
Thank you for your time and cooperation. Questions should be directed to Mr. Michael
Bell, NCDOT Coordinator/Regulatory Project Manager at the Washington Regulatory Field
Office, telephone [phone], extension 26.
Sincerely,
E. David Franklin
Chief,NCDOT Team

Copies Furnished:
Mr. Doug Huggett
Division of Coastal nagement
North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources
1638 Mail Service Center
Raleigh,North Carolina 27699-1638
Mr. John Dorney
Water Quality Section
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Depai tinent of Environment
and Natural Resources
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
Ms. Becky Fox
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/EAB
1349 Firefly Road
Whittier,North Carolina 28789
Mr. Pete Benjamin
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh North Carolina 27636-3726
Mr. Ron Sechler
National Marine Fisheries Service
Pivers Island
Beaufort,North Carolina 28516
Mr. Travis Wilson
Eastern Region Highway Project Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
1142 I-85 Service Road
Creedmore,North Carolina 27522
Mr. Chris Militscher
U.S. EPA, Raleigh Office
310 New Bern Avenue, Room 206
Raleigh,North Carolina 27601
2

0.0T �°p d DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY Q
e�477A% WILMINGTON DISTRICT,CORPS OF ENGINEERS
kJ =' U
>,� ,= 4 P.O.BOX 1890
a mffM WILMINGTON.NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
`GyTf f.Q`P REPLY TO
U STArEs OF P' ATTENTION OF.
September 9, 2004
Regulatory Division S F IV
Action ID No. 199400991 SEP 1 3 2004
ON.OF COASTALLIMA vAGEMEi T
RAL
Mr. Philip S. Harris, III, P.E., Manager
North Carolina Depai tment of Transportation s 1
Project Development & Environmental Analysis -. ° __
IVED
Office of Natural Environment SEP 2 7 2004
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh,North Carolina 27699-1548 OM OF COASTAL I -AGEMEW
FEIGN
Dear Mr. Harris:
This correspondence is in reference to your letter dated July 7, 2004, regarding the
Pembroke Creek Mitigation Site in Chowan County,North Carolina. This site is being utilized
by the North Carolina Department of Transportation as compensatory mitigation for TIP
projects.
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 have been met.
Thank you for your time and cooperation. Questions should be directed to Mr. Michael
Bell, NCDOT Coordinator/Regulatory Project Manager at the Washington Regulatory Field
Office, telephone[phone],extension 26.
Sincerely,
E. David Franklin
Chief,NCDOT Team

Copies Furnished:
Mr. Doug Huggett .
Division of Coastal anagement
North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources
1638 Mail Service Center
Raleigh,North Carolina 27699-1638
Mr. John Dorney
Water Quality Section
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh,North Carolina 27699-1650
Ms. Becky Fox
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/EAB
1349 Firefly Road
Whittier, North Carolina 28789
Mr. Pete Benjamin
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh North Carolina 27636-3726
Mr. Ron Sechler
National Marine Fisheries Service
Pivers Island
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516
Mr. Travis Wilson
Eastern Region Highway Project Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
1142 I-85 Service Road
Creedmore, North Carolina 27522
Mr. Chris Militscher
U.S. EPA, Raleigh Office
310 New Bern Avenue, Room 206
Raleigh,North Carolina 27601
2

•
nStArt
44, RECEIVED
% ; JUI 302004
Oi'l.OF COASTAL
RALEIGH
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
•
MICHAEL F.EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
July 29, 2004
Mr. Bill Biddlecombe
Washington Regulatory Field Office ACOE
P.O. Box 1000
Washington,NC 27889-1000
Re: Dismal Swamp Mitigation Site, Gates/Perquimans Counties, State Project No.
6.129003T,TIP No. R-2208WM(see below for project nos. for site), USACE Action ID Nos.
199401492, 199400991, 199500023, 199504770, 199304571, 199400838, 199706721,
199706722, 199502334; DWQ Project Nos. 94203, 960280, 991270, 95122, 970098, 970856,
991270; CAMA Project Nos. 88-96, 124-95, 89-96, 62-97, 7-98
Dear Mr. Bill Biddlecombe,
As you are aware,the Department has monitored the Dismal Swamp Mitigation Site since its
construction in the summer of 1996.Monitoring was restarted in March of 1999 after phase 2 of
construction work and phase 2 of tree planting. Located in Gates and Perquimans Counties, this
612-acre site is designed to provide non-riverine and riverine restoration along with some
preservation. Hydrologic gauges were installed February 1997 and phase 2 tree planting occurred
February 1999.NCDOT proposed to monitor the Dismal Swamp site for at least five years or
until the 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.
The following roadway projects have been debited from this site: R-2208 (A&Amod); R-2512
(A/B, A/B mod, & B mod), R-2515 A, R-2228 A, R-2404 B/C, R-2551, K-4003, SR-1180, SR-
1135, SR Flat Branch.
Hydrologic success criteria stipulated that the site must be inundated or saturated within 12-
inches of the surface for a consecutive 12.5%of the growing season.The growing season is 232
days in New Hanover County; therefore,the criterion is a consecutive 29 days. The Annual
Report for 2003 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 for this site have been consistently inundated or saturated for the majority of each
growing season since phase 2 of site construction. In the spring of 2002, five surface water
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] PARKER LINCOLN BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS . 2728 CAPITAL BOULEVARD
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT ORG RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1598

gauges were installed to illustrate surface water levels in the riverine area of the mitigation site.
The region has experienced above to below average rainfall. 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 463 trees per acre surviving.None of
the four planting zones had a survival density that was below the 5-year requirement. Yearly
monitoring data is provided within the annual monitoring reports submitted between 1998 and
2003.
During the annual monitoring report meeting on April 29, 2004,NCDOT and resource agencies
agreed that the Dismal Swamp Mitigation Site could be closed and that monitoring could be
discontinued. A site review was held on July 27,2004 with representatives from NCDOT,
CAMA, USCOE, WRC, USFWS, and EPA. It was decided at this site review that the Dismal
Swamp mitigation site could be closed and monitoring 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
� � g
PDEA- Office of Natural Environment
cc: Mr. John Hennessy, NCDWQ
Ms. Nicole Thomson,NCDWQ
Mr. Mike Bell, USACOE
Mr. Travis Wilson, WRC
Mr. Chris Militscher,EPA
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
Ms. Lynn Mathis, CAMA
Mr. Steve Sollod, CAMA
Mr. Tommy Douglas,NCDOT
Mr. Freddie Wescott,NCDOT
Mr. Jason Elliot,NCDOT
Mr. Clay Willis,NCDOT
Mr. Ron Sechler,NOAA

"
i + \tt
00_.)
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA No/ Al C 0 5T
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION /
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
July 29, 2004
Mr. Bill Biddlecombe
Washington Regulatory Field Office ACOE
P.O. Box 1000
Washington,NC 27889-1000
Re: Dismal Swamp Mitigation Site, Gates/Perquimans Counties, State Project No.
6.129003T, TIP No. R-2208WM (see below for project nos. for site), USACE Action ID Nos.
199401492, 199400991, 199500023, 199504770, 199304571, 199400838, 199706721,
199706722, 199502334; DWQ Project Nos. 94203, 960280, 991270, 95122, 970098, 970856,
991270; CAMA Project Nos. 88-96, 124-95, 89-96, 62-97, 7-98
Dear Mr. Bill Biddlecombe,
As you are aware, the Department has monitored the Dismal Swamp Mitigation Site since its
construction in the summer of 1996. Monitoring was restarted in March of 1999 after phase 2 of
construction work and phase 2 of tree planting. Located in Gates and Perquimans Counties, this
612-acre site is designed to provide non-riverine and riverine restoration along with some
preservation. Hydrologic gauges were installed February 1997 and phase 2 tree planting occurred
February 1999. NCDOT proposed to monitor the Dismal Swamp site for at least five years or
until the 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.
The following roadway projects have been debited from this site: R-2208 (A&Amod); R-2512
(A/B, A/B mod, &B mod),R-2515 A, R-2228 A, R-2404 B/C, R-2551, K-4003, SR-1180, SR-
1135, SR Flat Branch.
Hydrologic success criteria stipulated that the site must be inundated or saturated within 12-
inches of the surface for a consecutive 12.5%of the growing season. The growing season is 232
days in New Hanover County; therefore, the criterion is a consecutive 29 days. The Annual
Report for 2003 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 for this site have been consistently inundated or saturated for the majority of each
growing season since phase 2 of site construction. In the spring of 2002, five surface water
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] PARKER LINCOLN BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 2728 CAPITAL BOULEVARD
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1598

gauges were installed to illustrate surface water levels in the riverine area of the mitigation site.
The region has experienced above to below average rainfall. 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 463 trees per acre surviving. None of
the four planting zones had a survival density that was below the 5-year requirement. Yearly
monitoring data is provided within the annual monitoring reports submitted between 1998 and
2003.
During the annual monitoring report meeting on April 29, 2004,NCDOT and resource agencies
agreed that the Dismal Swamp Mitigation Site could be closed and that monitoring could be
discontinued. A site review was held on July 27,2004 with representatives from NCDOT,
CAMA, USCOE, WRC, USFWS, and EPA. It was decided at this site review that the Dismal
Swamp mitigation site could be closed and monitoring 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,
f r CC
Philip S. Harris, III, P.E.,Manager
PDEA- Office of Natural Environment
cc: Mr. John Hennessy, NCDWQ
Ms. Nicole Thomson,NCDWQ
Mr. Mike Bell, USACOE
Mr. Travis Wilson, WRC
Mr. Chris Militscher, EPA
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
Ms. Lynn Mathis, CAMA
Mr. Steve Sollod, CAMA
Mr. Tommy Douglas,NCDOT
Mr. Freddie Wescott,NCDOT
Mr. Jason Elliot,NCDOT
Mr. Clay Willis,NCDOT
Mr. Ron Sechler,NOAA

°F d DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Irra
iN.� WILMINGTON DISTRICT,CORPS OF ENGINEERS
a = � P.O.BOX 1890
WILMINGTON.NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
2Tfo ,,f?`P REPLY TO
B TATrs o ATTENTION OF:
September 9, 2004
Regulatory Division
Action ID No. 200010328
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
Dear Mr. Harris:
This correspondence is in reference to your letter dated July 29, 2004, regarding the
Dismal Swamp Mitigation Site in Gates/Perquimans Counties,North Carolina. This site is being
utilized by the North Carolina Department of Transportation as compensatory mitigation for TIP
projects.
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 have been met.
Thank you for your time and cooperation. Questions should be directed to Mr. Michael
Bell,NCDOT Coordinator/Regulatory Project Manager at the Washington Regulatory Field
Office, telephone [phone], extension 26.
Sincerely,
E. David Franklin
Chief,NCDOT Team

Copies Furnished:
Mr. Doug Huggett
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources
1638 Mail Service Center
Raleigh,North Carolina 27699-1638
Mr. John Dorney
Water Quality Section
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh,North Carolina 27699-1650
Ms. Becky Fox
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/EAB
1349 Firefly Road
Whittier,North Carolina 28789
Mr. Pete Benjamin
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh North Carolina 27636-3726
Mr. Ron Sechler
National Marine Fisheries Service
Pivers Island
Beaufort,North Carolina 28516
Mr. Travis Wilson
Eastern Region Highway Project Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
1142 I-85 Service Road
Creedmore,North Carolina 27522
Mr. Chris Militscher
U.S. EPA,Raleigh Office
310 New Bern Avenue, Room 206
Raleigh,North Carolina 27601
2

Company Swamp Mit.Plan ` Ratios TIP DEBIT TIP DEBIT TIP DEBIT
Bertie Co.
Habitat Acres at Start: Acres Remaining Prey.to 2-96 U-2226 R-2112B
BLH&SPH Preservation 1031.42 572.43 55.50 158.06 9.1 95.35
Habitat Units(ac.x47.90) HU's at Start: HU's Remaining Prey.to 2-96 U-2226 R-2112B
BLH &SPH 49405.02 29379.94 59.47 7571.07 435.89 4567.27
TIP DEBIT TIP DEBIT
R-2512 mod R-2208 A
26 14.93

r . .
TIP DEBIT TIP DEBIT TIP DEBIT TIP DEBIT TIP DEBIT TIP DEBIT TIP DEBIT TIP DEBIT
R-2512A R-2112B mod R-2512 mod. R-2228BB R-2404C U-2720 R-2512 mod R-2208 A
103.8 13.95 13.3 0.1 24.4 15* 26 14.93
R-2512A R-2112B mod R-2512 mod. R-2228BB R-2404C
4972.02 668.21 637.07 4.79 1168.76

1.4 Debit Ledger
Because of its size, the Dismal Swamp Mitigation Site will provide mitigation for several
highway projects. Table 1 shows the projects that this site is providing mitigation for, as
of November 2003.
Table 1. DISMAL SWAMP DEBIT LEDGER
BLH Non-Riverine SPH Riverine Total Acres
Total Acres at Site 485 58 543
TIP Pro'ect Debits
R-2208A 39.71 6.09 45.8
R-2512A&B 2.69 8.06 10.75
R-2515A 20.6 - 20.6
R-2228A - 0.88 0.88
R-2512A&B 1.93 - 1.93
R-2404B&C 52.66 4.26 56.92
R-2208A mod 14.93 - 14.93
R-2512B mod 2.39 - 2.39
R-2512A/B mod 3.89 - 3.89
R-2551 - 1.5 1.5
R-2515A 0.46 - 0.46
Division Project Debits
Unnamed project 0.34 - 0.34
SR-1180 0.22 - 0.22
SR-1135 1.4 - 1.4
SR Flat Branch - 0.95 0.95
Remaining Acres at Site 343.78 _ 36.26 380.04
* 69 acres of upland not included on debit ledger.
1.5 Permit Related Requirements
There are no additional permit special conditions pertaining to the success criteria of the
site that must be met in order for the site to be deemed successful.
5

Table 3. HYDROLOGIC MONITORING RESULTS (1999- 2002)
Monitoring Expected % 1999 2000 2001 2002
Gauge Results Results Results Results
DS-2 > 12.5% 19.0 91.4 15.5 25.0
DS-3 5%-12% 6.0 14.2 8.6 20.7
DS-4 5%-12% 2.6 12.1 4.7 6.5
DS-5 > 12.5% 12.9 21.5 10.8 23.7
DS-6 > 12.5% 29.0 21.5 9.9 21.1
DS-7 > 12.5% 0 5.2 2.6 .43
DS-8 > 12.5% 20.3 88.4 12.5 3.0
DS-9 > 12.5% 20.3 89.2 12.9 18.1
DS-10 > 12.5% 12.9 24.6 2.2 22.8
DS-11 > 12.5% 14.6 66.4 15.1 24.6
DS-12 5%-12% 0 12.1 3.0 6.5
DS-13 > 12.5% 1.3 8.2 4.7 15.6
DS-14 > 12.5% 2.1 12.1 6.0 20.3
DS-15 > 12.5% 19.8 90.1 16.8 27.2
DS-16 > 12.5% 3.0 25.9 9.1 20.7
DS-17 > 12.5% 27.1 99.6 18.1 31.0
DS-18 > 12.5% 25.4 94.8 17.2 30.2
DS-19 > 12.5% 26.3 61.2 15.9 27.6
DS-20 > 12.5% 12.5 13.4 9.1 21.1
DS-21 > 12.5% 12.9 90.1 12.5 24.1
DS-22 > 12.5% 6.5 62.1 12.1 10.3
DS-23 > 12.5% 22.4 37.5 8.6 25.4
DS-24 > 12.5% 6.5 12.5 7.3 9.5
DS-25 0%-5% 0 5.3 2.6 1.3
DS-26 5%-12% 0 12.9 7.3 15.5
DS-27 > 12.5% 1.3 12.1 3.9 12.5
io

Not Not Not
DS-28 > 12.5% Installed Installed Installed 23.3
Not Not Not
DS-29 > 12.5% Installed Installed Installed 25.4
Average Average Below Average to
to Below to Below Average Below
Average Average Average
Table 3 represents hydrologic data in percentages from previous years (1999-2002).
2.3.2 Climatic Data
Figure 4 is a comparison of monthly rainfall for the period of November 2002 through
November 2003 to historical precipitation (collected between 1972 and 2003) for
Elizabeth City, North Carolina. This comparison gives an indication of how 2003 relates
to historical data in terms of climate conditions. The NC State Climate Office provided
all offsite data.
For the 2003-year, November (02'), February, March, April, May, June, and September
experienced above average rainfall. The months of January and November recorded
below average rainfall for the site. December (02'), July, August, and October,
experienced average rainfall. Overall, 2003 experienced an average to above average
rainfall year.
2.4 Conclusions
For the 2003-year, eighteen of the twenty-three groundwater gauges met or exceeded
the expected 12.5% jurisdictional wetland criteria. All four of the gauges in the upper
landscape position met the success criteria of 5%-12.5%, while the gauge in the upland
area reported saturation for less than 5% of the growing season, as expected.
The surface gauges in the riverine area demonstrated periods of inundation throughout
the growing season. Gauge (SG-2), which is located in the stream, revealed periodic
flooding. This gauge (SG-2) experienced malfunctions and also could not be
downloaded due to hurricane debris during portions of the growing season. Gauge (SG-
6) also experienced malfunctions throughout the growing season; therefore, no data is
available for this gauge. Groundwater gauge (DS-29) is installed adjacent to (SG-6)
and meets the success criteria for 27.6% of the growing season. Groundwater gauges
(DS-28) and (DS-8), which are installed in the riverine area, both met success for 22.8%
of the growing season. These three groundwater gauges (DS-8, DS-28, and DS-29), as
well as the available surface gauge data show periodic inundation, which indicates a
riverine system.
NCDOT proposes to discontinue hydrologic monitoring at the Dismal Swamp Mitigation
Site.

Site Notes:
Zone 1: Other species noted: smartweed, fennel, foxtail, ragweed, goldenrod, red
maple, Juncus sp., switchgrass, cattail, pine, and Bermuda grass. Evidence of deer
browsing.
Zone 2: Other species noted: sweetgum, goldenrod, and pine. Evidence of deer
browsing.
Zone 3: Other species noted: pine, fennel, broomsedge, sweet gum, woolgrass,
goldenrod, smartweed, foxtail, red maple, ragweed, various grasses, Baccharis
halimifolia, Panicum sp., Juncus sp., switchgrass, Aster sp., pokeberry, Bermuda grass,
and grapevine. Evidence of deer browsing.
Zone 4: Other species noted: switchgrass and smartweed. Evidence of deer browsing.
3.4 Conclusions
Of the 612 acres on this site, approximately 576 involved tree planting. There were
forty-eight plots established throughout the planting areas, encompassing all plant
communities. The 2003 vegetation monitoring revealed an average total density of 463
trees per acre, which is well above the minimum success criteria of 260 trees per acre.
NCDOT proposes to discontinue vegetation monitoring on the Dismal Swamp Mitigation
Site.
18

4.0 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS/ RECOMMENDATIONS
The Dismal Swamp Mitigation Site has shown success for the fifth consecutive
monitoring year. Vegetation plots located in both phases reveal high tree survival. The
total density average is 463 trees per acre, which is well above the success criteria of
260 trees per acre.
For the 2003 year, hydrology monitoring resulted in twenty-three of the twenty-eight
gauges having met or exceeded their expected jurisdictional wetland criteria for the
growing season.
The surface gauges in the riverine area demonstrated periods of inundation throughout
the growing season. Gauge (SG-2), which is located in the stream, revealed periodic
flooding. This gauge (SG-2) experienced malfunctions and also could not be
downloaded due to hurricane debris during portions of the growing season. Gauge (SG-
6) also experienced malfunctions throughout the growing season; therefore, no data is
available for this gauge. Groundwater gauge (DS-29) is installed adjacent to (SG-6)
and meets the success criteria for 27.6% of the growing season. Groundwater gauges
(DS-28) and (DS-8), which are installed in the riverine area, both met success for 22.8%
of the growing season. These three groundwater gauges (DS-8, DS-28, and DS-29), as
well as the available surface gauge data show periodic inundation, which indicates a
riverine system.
The 2003-monitoring year represents the fifth consecutive year that the site has been
monitored for hydrology and vegetation. The monitoring results have shown that the
site has succeeded in meeting the established success criteria, therefore NCDOT
proposes to discontinue hydrology and vegetation monitoring on the Dismal Swamp
Mitigation Site.
19

•
c:;.R 6.1_,3
1.4 Debit Ledger
Because of its size, the Dismal Swamp Mitigation Site will provide mitigation for several
highway projects. Table 1 shows the projects that this site is providing mitigation for, as
of November 2003.
Table 1. DISMAL SWAMP DEBIT LEDGER
BLH Non-Riverine SPH Riverine Total Acres
Total Acres at Site 485 58 543TIP Project Debits ,
R-2208A 39.71 6.09 45.8
: : 172.69 /-$.06 10.75
R-2515A 20.6 20.6
- 0.88 0.88
R-2512A&B 0.93 1.93
R-2404B&C 52.66 4.26 56.92
R-2208A mod 14.93 14.93
R-2512B mod ✓ 2.39 2.39
.. 3 ;.
R-2551 - 1.5 1.5
0.46 - 0.46
Division Project Debits
Unnamed project 0.34 - 0.34
SR-1180 0.22 - 0.22
SR-1135 1.4 - 1.4
SR Flat Branch - 0.95 0.95
Remaining Acres at Site 343.78 36.26 380.04
* 69 acres of upland not included on debit ledger.
1.5 Permit Related Requirements
There are no additional permit special conditions pertaining to the success criteria of the
site that must be met in order for the site to be deemed successful.
LZ
V13
1- S
5

Company Swamp Mit.Plan Ratios TIP DEBIT TIP DEBIT TIP DEBIT
Bertie Co.
Habitat Acres at Start: Acres Remaining Prey.to 2-96 U-2226 R-2112B
BLH&SPH Preservation 1031.42 572.43 55.50 158.06 9.1 95.35
Habitat Units(ac.x47.90) HU's at Start: HU's Remaining Prey.to 2-96 U-2226 R-2112B
BLH&SPH 49405.02 29379.94 59.47 7571.07 435.89 4567.27
I
I
I

-(iip., ,,
�*' �.r2( cep�� j.q3°� � `,`�� `
;:i DEB P, DEBFFA�T[P DEBiT. . , QEBI', ,;t;TIR DFB41 Px O.F� TIP.L1EBlF J, [ll?D R f ' V
R-2512AL/ R-2112B mod. R-2512 mod. R-2228BB R-2404C U-2720 R-2512 mod R-2208 A
103.8 13.95 13.3 0.1 24.4 15* 26 14.93
R-2512A R-2112B mod. R-2512 mod. R-2228BB R-2404C
4972.02 668.21 C1
637.07 4.79 1168.76
0
1
•
II

e„.STAY[y Art,
,,,„„ s
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
March 26, 2002
Mr.Michael F.Bell,P.W.S.,R.P.M.
U.S.Army Corps of Engineers
Washington Regulatory Field Office
P.O.Box 1000
Washington,NC 27889-1000
SUBJECT: SAV Survey as Required by Department of the Army Permit No. 199400991
for:Proposed Improvements to US-17(Including a New Bridge Over the
Chowan River) from West of the Chowan River to West of US-17
Business,East of Edenton; Bertie&Chowan Counties; TIP No.R-
2512A; State Project No. 8.T010602.
As required by Special Condition"n"of the above referenced Department of the Army
Permit issued on August 9, 1996,please find attached the post construction survey for submerged
aquatic vegetation(SAV)near the eastern terminus of the new bridge over the Chowan River.
Thank you for time and assistance with this project. If you have any further questions,
you may contact me at(919)733-7844, extension 304.
Sincerely,
T.Lindsey Riddick,Jr.
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
CC: File-R-2512
Ms. Sara Winslow,NCDMF
Mr.John Hennessy,NCDWQ
Mr.Ron Sechler,NMF
Mr.David Cox,NCWRC
Mr.Bill Arrington,NCDCM
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548

_ _
ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2003
diumpwAsili war iikir.t-
orkif-,- -Ntillia-111111 ....Alps.
imonorak am VaalVIA VP MAP'
ietoitiroraltrailibkiN036616;ii
Vaip.11611W
Nu-
Pembroke Creek Mitigation Site
Chowan County
Project No. 8.T010602 - 5-ew .befic6-,1
TIP No. R-2512 c ,, /
I n T� US 1 T ;01 i t C 7 it ci, 1 VVtoi-Jar
ceory!--i-er. cAmA- Pm," •4- Am_ Fr- q 6 .
9_2,tiotr C �,, 'tom 0:
00
o ab15`S PZ
v 1. /l �1 t Noki IN a It.
Vey 'I INS 9 ._. ifir- 4,
S
(' ( QUA �^ ,�/� �(-1, �^A It 3 ^ ? off`
r\ C J-I 1` 1 l/0 ` 1 { �.-9`-1-�O V Fyl p11�A�Se
u1 CO3 h-7
Prepared By:
Office of Natural Environment&Roadside Environmental Unit
— ' North Carolina Department of Transportation
December 2003

4.0 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS/ RECOMMENDATIONS
The Pembroke Creek Mitigation Site was monitored for hydrology and vegetation
for the fifth consecutive year in 2003. The hydrologic data indicates that the site
has consistently met the success by jurisdictional standards, as well as those
outlined in the mitigation plan. Vegetation monitoring for the site revealed that all
three planting zones met the minimum requirement for tree survival, with the site
having a 487 trees per acre overall surviving density.
Based upon the results of the fifth year of monitoring data, NCDOT proposes to
discontinue hydrology and vegetation monitoring on the Pembroke Creek
Mitigation Site.
o rnigAA rt) (es 4-
14

1.4 Debit Ledger
The Pembroke Creek Mitigation Site has provided mitigation for several highway
projects. Table 1 shows the projects that this site is providing mitigation for since
completion.
Table 1. Pembroke Creek Mitigation Site Debit Ledger
Pembroke Mit. Plan TIP DEBIT TIP DEBIT
Creek
Chowan
s Acre
Habitat AAcr Start: Rema Wing R-2512A/Bmod
SPH Restoration 4.725 0 4.725
TOTAL 4.725 0 4.725
Pembroke Mit. Plan TIP DEBIT TIP DEBIT
Creek II
Chowan
Habitat AAcresStar Rema Wing R-2512 B mod R-2404C
SPH Restoration 4.949 0 2.6 2.349
TOTAL 4.949 0 2.6 2.349
4

R-2404, R-2512 & R-2208 PROJECT
BERTIE CHOWAN & PERQUIMANS COUNTIES SCHEDULE
MAP
COMPLETE COMPLETE COMPLETE
T.LP.NO./D.S.R.NO. R-2208 A R-2208 B R-2208 BA
Z STATE PROJECT NY IP F 1 6.03900 IT 6129001 T 6.129001T
PROJECT ENGINEER CASEY CASEY CASEY
0 PROJECT DESCRPTION US 17 FROM EDENTON BYPASS US 17-HERTFORD BYPASS
TO HERTFORD BYPASS (BRIDGE OVER PEROUIMANS BRIDGE OVER PEROUIMANS RIVER
I RIVER NOT INCLUDED(
t!J COUNTY /DIVISION CHOWAN-PEROUIMANS/I PEROUIMANS/I PEROUIMANS/I
LENGTH 8.20 MI. 3.79 MI. 0.550 MI.
W _TYPE OF CONTRACT TURNKEY TURNKEY STRUCTURE
REMARKS BARNHILL CONTRACTING CO.
aQ GLOVER CONSTRUCTION CO. T.A.LOVING CO. CONTRACTOR:T.A.LOVING
BEGIN R/W ACQUISITION IT.I P.1 10-92 8-90 8-87
IL BEGIN R/W ACQUISITION (PRODUCTION(
O PROPOSED LETTING(T.I.P.) 7-95 12-91 3-92
PROPOSES LETTING tPROOUCTIONI
to EST.COMP.DATE(T.I.P.) 7-98 5-93 12-93
a ESTIMATED R/W COST 16.220.000 $ 1.800.000
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST I 12,400,000 14,100.000 A 5,800,000
LU
F--
0
<IC 0
a ,.. , �.
�+
LLJ
rc ' 50. Ppt a S sa:
lle
a �1)VINO••' RIMER \ 1YSE ,,P�'tl'�JC
�, <_ ;. N
A
H `� pp \ CPPb qua
W Ii N
O �`' �` 4�A�sss .+Ms`� i ams -s.� / r r/'—� sn's., m�w I�
Q I la
Z _ -a.�`i
Ti
(� F
-J
a t
W
I
U fl p g IC�OMPLETE COMPLETE COMPLETE _ COMPLETE
N T.I.P. O. H-2404 AA
STATE NPR PO./ROJECT NO.S.R.NP.E.1 6.0190047 6.01900AT 6.01900 T �190t1� ��b�� I B.T010 8.-p 060 B
I- 2
U PROJECT ENGINEER SPEER SPEER BLEVINS BLEVINS BLEVINS BLEVINS
US 17(WINDSOR BYPASS) US 17(WINDSOR BYPASS( US (7 FROM E OF SR 1503 US IT FROM E OF NC 45 BRIDGE OVER CHOWAN RIVER EDENTON BYP.,E.OF CHOWAN
W PROJECT DESCRPTtON FROM US 13-17 TO EAST FROM E OF SR 1300 TO RIVER TO US II BUS.E OF
6 OF SR 1300 US 17 E.OF SR 1503 TO E.OF NC 45 TO W OF CHOWAN RIVER ANC APPROACHES ON US 17 EDENTON
Q LUUNIY / DIVISION LENGTH 83ElRTIE/I pQRTIE/I 2B[ARTIE/I EE99RTBTBIEEIlAA/I BIRTIE-CHOWAN/I CHOeWAN/)
d TYPE OF CONTRACT TURNKEY .UANKLY TURNKEY �TURN1cE1Y TURNKEY 6}URNKtY
REMARKS CONTRACT:TIDEWATER CONST. CONTRACT:ENGLISH CONST.
BEGIN R/W ACOUISI I ION IT.I.P.I FY-06 FY-06 6-96 9-95 4-95 10-95
BEGIN RIR ACQUISITION (PRODUCTION)
PROPOSED LETTING IT,LP.) FY-08 FY-08 9-98 10-97 9-96 10-96
PROPOSEDR$ Oo LETTING(PRODUCTION( pp0p
ESTIIMATED COMP.
DATE 1-0 II I IS0,000 I 1,550.000 12,280000 12�06,000 8-00 1550.000 A & B 4-00
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST 4 2�.400.000 123.800.000 16,KG&000 $ 9,800.000 4 45,000,006 1 i 23.400.000
I UPDATED• 718103
•
•
•
•

.4. .�.N/'� .., aSNVtil d0 1
0
I
11 'i 41 4,4 '10'1 4; i i'; / 1 * i')1 .
/ i t `. li. b}. R of #� 'J, r (rt( a r� k �b4 Oer --
y
_ 111 ip.
r �,� � � a � ��.. !t '�' iiii
k,, "� N.S. � � r {
Wi' l
YY S
,i
3$4 -1A ,,, , i i } $ r , ' F
v ,, t ,,,,,,,k ,, 4 :0 ,1
*- "',4, ,,t , ,-,,,, / , ' 11 '' - , i 1 . .1.1 l'' 's '• .,, ? 'it —1,' 't4,4 rlic
t x
,‘•°- , ,", tif,,,,,,t( , ,, ,4' -. -,‘ t vw OaSi
F+ t 9
ti
• ftrik
T
,„,t , ,, , t4c, ,z .4.4 tk, ,, '", ,, t,' k ,, i; : ', , , . :: ' ' '',.:. 44-4'-''. '' -
Ar � 40 ,44 "Tf zT
4
r � 1 i
t f ' ' .1 .A. '. * 7 i V' ' 1 ' 4' ' I
a e . lit p T N
ii
1 7 "h arsrOrtj
} g y g I
M3IA3 � �1N3W1IWIN ® 3
cg:O 1 J I d NY W V 3
r w
e
,a .,.,,
' tv ;+@ s11 41 � ':0. . + -+dr l}�4•9ti.f.:�-a w. ., .t.,yE� Y• y f
' ^w 7 I
F ar K * T AltrpMF
era»,....•. n i 414114191Mitea6
.. - .ws.�.... ....saSwW,.eF meo-ase. �wx�s;:....._ ..
re."uw�rw:,f.
*As F.1..'i.A r r ..

111
INTRODUCTION
Rummel, Klepper, and Kahl, LLP conducted a review of the North Carolina
Department of Transportation's (NCDOT) mitigation commitments to the Division of
Coastal Management (DCM) for 33 transportation related projects. The project period
spanned the ten-year period from 1992 through 2002. RK&K thoroughly researched
files located in the PD&EA Branch of NCDOT as well as NCDOT archive files to locate
Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA), United States Army Corps of Engineers (COE)
and Division of Water Quality (DWQ) permits as well as mitigation plans and monitoring
reports, where applicable. Following this background review, RK&K personnel
1111 conducted interviews with PD&EA personnel regarding specific projects. RK&K then
visited NCDOT Division and/or District offices as necessary to acquire as much
supplemental information as possible. Field visits to project sites consisted of visits to
temporary impact areas and any transportation projects containing on-site mitigation not
documented in annual NCDOT monitoring reports or mitigation bank debit ledgers.
The following report summarizes RK&K's findings. Each of the 33 projects is
described beginning with an executive summary of the project. The summary is followed
by a timeline listing dates that NCDOT received CAMA, COE and DWQ permits as well
as any significant dates pertaining to mitigation. The timeline is followed by a listing of
commitments quoted directly from the permits. Commitments are sorted into categories
by permits and subsequent modifications and/or refinements that affect compensatory
S mitigation. This list represents documentation retrieved from NCDOT files. RK&K was
unable to locate all permits and modifications for all 33 projects. Permits or
modifications that did not address mitigation are not included in the list. Following permit
commitments, each project contains an update on the mitigation status and
recommendations of actions necessary to satisfy project commitments. It is possible
that additional measures have been taken by NCDOT to complete DCM mitigation
commitments and this information was not available at the time of RK&K's review.
Documentation of mitigation credits debited for specific projects is included, if applicable.
Throughout this document, reference to the "master" debit ledger refers to the wetland
debit ledger maintained by Mr. Phil Harris, P.E., Manager, NCDOT Office of Natural
5 Environment.
S
S
S
S
S
S
N

CAA A ec'm i Al()
F61---?6 0160k
R-2512 CAMA Permit No. 88-96
Executive Summary
NCDOT constructed a bridge replacement as part of the project to upgrade US
17 in Chowan and Bertie Counties (T.I.P. Project No. R-2512). Bridge No. 38 is located
on the Chowan River on the borders of Bertie and Chowan Counties. NCDOT received
the initial CAMA permit in May of 1996 and the COE permit in August 1996. Several
permit modifications reflecting additional impacts and required mitigation occurred
between 1996 and 1997. RK&K conducted a field review of the project site with Mr.
Sterling Baker, NCDOT District 3 Engineer for Division 1, in January 2003. No
temporary impacts occurred with this project as the project was completed using top-
down construction. NCDOT mitigated for permanent wetland impacts through the
Dismal Swamp and Pembroke Creek Mitigation Sites. NCDOT completed the bridge
project in the spring of 1999. In fulfillment of permit requirements, Landmark Design
Group, acting for NCDOT, prepared a report dated February 2002 detailing the results of
a post-construction survey for SAV impacts in the Chowan River. In order to complete
permit requirements, NCDOT should prepare a mitigation plan to compensate for SAV
impacts resulting from the bridge construction projects and continue monitoring the
Dismal Swamp and Pembroke Creek Mitigation Sites until success criteria are met.
Monitoring gauge problems at the Pembroke Creek Site should be addressed. NCDOT
should update DCM on the progress of mitigation and monitoring activities associated
with R-2512 as correspondence from DCM dated April 29, 2002 states that DCM has no
record of mitigation for this project.
Project Description
NCDOT constructed a bridge replacement as part of the project to upgrade US
17 in Chowan and Bertie Counties (R-2512). Bridge No. 38 is located on the Chowan
River on the borders of Bertie and Chowan Counties. This project resulted in multiple
wetland impacts, some of which were high quality wetlands. The original CAMA permit
application, dated March 8, 1996, states that no coastal wetlands occurred within the
project impact area; however, mitigation for Section 404 wetland impacts was addressed
by the COE in an Individual Permit application, dated March 15, 1996. DCM issued a
CAMA major development permit (No. 88-96) on May 29, 1996 for the Chowan River at
{ US 17 bridge crossing and a permit (No. 88-96) on June 26, 1996 for Pembroke Creek
at US 17 bridge crossing. DCM issued a modification on January 2, 1997 as well as a
modification and renewal of permit No. 88-96 on February 25, 2000.
The COE issued an individual permit (No. 199400991) on August 9, 1996
permitting impacts to 16.20 ac of 404 wetlands and 0.22 ac of open waters of the United
States adjacent to Chowan River, Pembroke Creek, and the associated tributaries.
Several permit modifications reflecting additional impacts and required mitigation
occurred between 1996 and 1997. DWQ issued a WQC (No. 3066) on May 21, 1996.
No temporary impacts occurred as the project was completed using top-down
construction. The US 17 bridge was opened to traffic in the spring of 1999.
I
1

Project Timeline
• May 21, 1996: WQC Certification No. 3066 issued.
• May 29, 1996: CAMA Permit No. 88-96 issued.
• June 2, 1996: CAMA Permit No. 88-96 issued.
• August 9, 1996: COE Permit No. 199400991 issued.
• December 20, 1996: Pre-construction SAV survey report completed.
• November 1998: Construction of Dismal Swamp Mitigation Site and Pembroke
Creek Mitigation Sites completed.
• Spring 1999: US 17 Bridge completed.
111
• May 3, 2001: COE Notification of Unauthorized Activity for Permit No. 199400991
issued.
• February 2002: Post-construction SAV survey report completed.
• January 14, 2003: RK&K field-review completed.
Permit Commitments
CAMA Permit No. 88-96 issued 5/29/96 (Chowan River at US 17 bridge crossing)
16) Surveys for submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) shall be conducted prior to
the initiation of construction activities in the Chowan River. The areas shall again
be surveyed immediately after completion of the bridge. A report detailing the
findings shall be submitted to DEM for review. If SAVs have been lost, the report
111 shall also contain a mitigation plan to compensate for the losses. This mitigation
plan must be approved by DEM and DCM.
N 17) Compensatory wetland mitigation shall be in accordance with the Corps of
Engineers. DCM shall be copied on the approved ratio, location, size and
method of debit (restoration, enhancement, creation and preservation).
111 18) Wetland sites impacted by temporary construction access shall be monitored
to insure that natural revegetation is occurring. If a site is not revegetating within
one year of the date the construction access is removed, NCDOT shall plant the
site with the original species that were present prior to the construction.
11 CAMA Permit No. 88-96 issued 6/2/96 (Pembroke Creek at US Hwy 17 bridge
crossing)
18) Compensatory wetland mitigation shall be in accordance with the Corps of
Engineer's requirements. DCM shall be copied on the approved ratio, location,
size and method of debit restoration, enhancement, creation and preservation.
I
2

19) Wetland sites impacted by temporary construction access shall be monitored
to insure that natural revegetation is occurring. If a site is not revegetating within
one year of the date the construction access is removed, NCDOT shall plant the
site with the original species that were present prior to the construction.
COE Permit No. 199400991 issued 8/9/96
Permits impacts to 16.20 ac of 404 wetland impacts and 0.22 ac of open water
impacts.
Permit Conditions
e) Mitigation will be debited from the Dismal Swamp Mitigation Site in the form of
2.69 ac of non-riverine wetlands and 8.6 ac of riverine wetlands. All work is to be
halted if not complete by 4/1/97.
f) Restore, monitor, and maintain 5 acres of riverine wetlands adjacent to
Pembroke Creek. All plantings must be complete by 4/1/98.
I) Mitigation for 10.38 ac of high quality riverine wetlands will be debited from the
Company Swamp Mitigation Bank (Bertie County) as 103.8 ac.
n) Pre- and post-construction SAV surveys must be conducted at the bridge site.
Report with results will be submitted to COE within 60 days after construction
completion. The report must contain a mitigation plan if data shows that any
SAVs have been lost. Report will be approved by DWQ and COE.
o) Temporary road access will be removed within 30 days of project completion.
If site is not being recolonized (80% areal coverage) with native wetland
vegetation within one year, site will be replanted.
COE Permit No. 199400991 modified 12/20/96
Permits clearing and maintaining an additional 2.25 ac of 404 wetlands adjacent
to Chowan River, Pembroke Creek, and unnamed tributaries and authorizes
changing artificial reef enhancement requirements (Condition t) from mandatory
to elective requirements.
Permit Conditions
a) The NCDOT will mitigate the project impacts by restoring 1.93 acres of non-
riverine wetlands at the Dismal Swamp Mitigation Site (DSMS) in Gates and
Perquimans County and by debiting 13.3 acres of'riverine wetlands from the
Company Swamp Mitigation Bank in Bertie County.
b) The mitigation work undertaken at the DSMS pursuant to the plan entitled,
"Compensatory Mitigation Plan: N. C. Department of Transportation US 17
Widening, Edenton to Hertford Traffic Improvement Project (TIP): R-2208A
Chowan and Perquimans Counties, North Carolina", dated April 1995, and will be
commenced immediately and implemented concurrently with all phases of
construction activities authorized by this permit modification to the extent
3
I

necessary to construct, monitor and maintain 1.93 acres of non-riverine wetlands
to the satisfaction of the Corps of Engineers. All work within waters and/or
wetlands authorized by this permit modification shall cease if planting is not
undertaken in accordance with the mitigation plan. Any deviation from this
schedule must be approved by the Wilmington District, U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Regulatory Branch.
c) Once the acreage at the DSMS utilized to satisfy condition (a.) above has
been identified, NCDOT shall survey it, and provide the Corps of Engineers a
copy of the survey. NCDOT shall maintain the acreage described in this
paragraph in the condition achieved by implementation of the mitigation plan, and
approved by the Corps of Engineers, in perpetuity.
NCOE Permit No. 199400991-Notification of Unauthorized Activity/Permit
Nonompliance issued 5/3/01
COE cited NCDOT for placing bridge material in wetlands along eastern side of
Chowan River. Requires restoration or permit modification by 5/18/01.
COE Permit No. 199706721 modified 10/31/97
Permits construction of interchange ramps within 1.14 ac of 404 wetlands.
Permit Conditions
a) NCDOT will mitigate the project impacts by restoring 2.39 acres of non-
riverine wetlands at the Dismal Swamp Mitigation Site (DSMS) in Gates and
Perquimans County. The mitigation work undertaken at the DSMS pursuant to
the plan entitled, "Compensatory Mitigation Plan: N. C. Department of
Transportation US 17 Widening, Edenton to Hertford Traffic Improvement Project
(TIP): R-2208A Chowan and Perquimans Counties, North Carolina", dated April
1995, and will be commenced immediately and implemented concurrently with all
phases of construction activities authorized by this permit modification to the
extent necessary to construct, monitor and maintain 2.39 acres of non-riverine
wetlands to the satisfaction of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. Any deviation
from the mitigation site construction schedule must be approved by the Corps,
Regulatory Division.
b) The permittee shall identify and survey the acreage at the DSMS utilized to
satisfy condition (a.) above and provide a copy of the survey to the Corps,
Washington Regulatory Field Office, NCDOT Project Manager, within 30 days of
the date of this permit modification.
e) Within two weeks of the date of this permit modification, the permittee shall
provide the Corps, NCDOT Project Manager, Washington Regulatory Field
Office, with an updated version of the "NCDOT Mitigation Ledger" documenting
utilization of the Dismal Swamp Mitigation site.
I
4

COE Permit No. 199706722 modified 10/23/97
Permits construction of 4-foot deep lateral ditches resulting in impacts to 1.85 ac
111 of 404 wetlands.
Permit Commitments
a) NCDOT will mitigate the project impacts by restoring 3.89 acres of non-
riverine wetlands at the Dismal Swamp Mitigation Site (DSMS) in Gates and
Perquimans County. The mitigation work undertaken at the DSMS pursuant to
the plan entitled, "Compensatory Mitigation Plan: N. C. Department of
Transportation US 17 Widening, Edenton to Hertford Traffic Improvement Project
(TIP): R-2208A Chowan and Perquimans Counties, North Carolina", dated April
1995, and will be commenced immediately and implemented concurrently with all
phases of construction activities authorized by this permit modification to the
extent necessary to construct, monitor and maintain 3.89 acres of non-riverine
wetlands to the satisfaction of the Corps of Engineers. Any deviation from the
mitigation site construction schedule must be approved by the Wilmington
District, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch.
b) The permittee shall identify and survey the acreage at the DSMS utilized to
satisfy condition (a.) above and provide a copy of the survey to the U. S. Army
111 Corps of Engineers, Washington Regulatory Field Office, NCDOT Project
Manager, within 30 days of the date of this permit modification.
111 e) Within two weeks of the date of this permit modification, the permittee shall
provide the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington Regulatory Field Office,
NCDOT Regulatory Project Manager with an updated version of the "NCDOT
Mitigation Ledger" documenting utilization of the Dismal Swamp Mitigation site.
COE Permit No. 199705883 modified 10/23/97
Modification addresses unsuccessful attempts by NCDOT to restore temporary
impacts from haul roads and construction pads and re-classifies these areas as
permanent impacts.
Permit Conditions
a) The mitigation work to restore wetlands at the Pembroke Creek site will be
• undertaken as referenced in the August 20, 1997, letter from Mr. H. Franklin Vick
to Mr. Michael F. Bell, to the extent necessary to restore, monitor and maintain
2.6 acres of riverine wetlands to the satisfaction of the Corps of Engineers. The
permittee will submit a final compensatory mitigation plan and construction
schedule within 45 days of the date of this permit modification. If the plan is not
approved by the Corps of Engineers within 60 days of the date of this permit
modification, the permittee shall cease all work within wetlands associated within
•
this permit action.
111 b) The permittee shall identify and survey the acreage at the Pembroke Creek
site utilized to satisfy condition (a.) above and provide a copy of the survey to the
5
1:a

I
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington Regulatory Field Office, NCDOT
Project Manager, within 30 days of the date of this permit modification.
e) The permittee will further mitigate the 2.6 acres of high quality riverine
wetland losses adjacent to the Chowan River by debiting 26.0 acres from the
Company Swamp Mitigation Bank in Bertie County.
f) Within two weeks of the date of this permit modification, the permittee shall
provide the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington Regulatory Field Office,
NCDOT Regulatory Project Manager, with an updated version of the "NDCDOT
Mitigation Ledger" documenting utilization of the Pembroke Creek Mitigation site.
WQC No. 3066 issued 5/21/96
Conditions of Certification
6) Temporary construction access fill shall be removed immediately after
construction has been complete in the area. If trees are removed, NCDOT shall
revegetate with the same species (or others with DEM approval) within one year
after project completion.
9) Borrow and waste areas shall not be in wetlands.
10) Land clearing in wetlands shall conform to Method II (no clearing beyond toe-
of-slope).
11) Surveys for SAV shall be conducted prior to the initiation of construction
activities in the Chowan River. The area shall again be surveyed immediately
after completion of the bridge. A report detailing the findings shall be submitted
to DEM for review. If SAV have been lost, the report shall also contain a
mitigation plan to compensate for the losses. This mitigation plan must be
approved by DEM.
12) Compensatory wetland mitigation shall be in accordance with the COE.
DEM shall be copied on the approved ratio, location, size and method of debit
(restoration, enhancement, creation and preservation).
Mitigation Status
Reports documenting the status of pre- and post-construction surveys of SAV are
included in NCDOT files as follows:
• Draft Final Report Chowan River Aquatic Investigation: (An Inventory of
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation at the Eastern Approach to Existing and
Proposed Bridge Number 38 on U.S. 17, Chowan, N.C.) dated 12/20/96; and
• Final Report Post-Construction Survey of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation of
the Chowan River dated February 2002 prepared by LandMark Design
Group.
6

I ,
The 2002 SAV survey report documents the absence of vegetation under the old bridge
as in 1996. Beneath the new bridge, there was a loss of 672 m2 of SAV and 436 m2 of
emergent macrophytes, both likely due to shading. South of the new bridge, the SAV
bed was reduced by 203 m2 and emergent vegetation was reduced by 687 m2 . This
loss was likely due to construction and staging activities. The report did not include a
mitigation plan to replace SAV and emergent vegetation losses. In an interview on
December 2, 2002 with Mr. Lindsey Riddick, NCDOT Environmental Supervisor, he
stated that NCDOT is waiting for agency comments on how to mitigate for SAV impacts.
The Dismal Swamp Mitigation Site is located on the Gates and Perquimans
County line and consists of 344 ac of non-riverine BLH mitigation and 37 ac of riverine
SPH mitigation. The debit ledger included in the fourth year (2002) monitoring lists 10.9
BLH credits and 8.06 SPH credits debited for R-2512. The monitoring report states 4 of
23 gauges are not meeting expected success criteria of saturation or inundation within
12 inches for 12.5% of the growing season. The remaining five gauges located on the
site are meeting the specific success criteria set forth. Vegetation exceeded success
criteria with an average of 482 trees per acre, above the requirement for 320 trees per
acre. Success criteria require the site be monitored for a minimum of five years or until
success criteria are met. NCDOT plans to continue monitoring this site in 2003.
The Pembroke Creek Mitigation Site fourth year (2002) monitoring report lists
7.325 ac of SPH restoration credits debited. (4.725 ac in Phase I and 2.6 ac in Phase II )
for R-2512. The report documents that three out of four monitoring gauges are meeting
project-specific success criteria of groundwater within 20% of reference area. All
gauges met COE 1987 guidance for wetland hydrology (saturated/inundated for 12.5%
of the growing season). One reference gauge experienced problems and produced
invalid readings. Vegetation exceeded success criteria with an average density of 543
trees per acre (320 trees per acre required). Success criteria require the site to be
monitored for a minimum of five years or until success criteria are met. NCDOT plans to
continue monitoring in the 2003 growing season and examine the monitoring gauge and
associated area that are presently not meeting success criteria for problems.
The NCDOT "master" debit ledger documents 143.1 BLH and SPH preservation
credits from the Company Swamp Mitigation Bank located in Bertie County, North
Carolina. RK&K was unable to locate a monitoring report for this site.
As stated in the October 23, 1997 COE permit modification (Permit No.
199705883) and reiterated by Mr. Randy Turner, NCDOT Project Management Team
Leader, in a meeting on January 27, 2003, there were no temporary impacts associated
with this project. Attempts to restore temporary impacts were unsuccessful and these
impacts were subsequently calculated as permanent impacts and debited accordingly.
Recommendations
NCDOT should develop a mitigation plan to compensate for the SAV losses
associated with this project. Monitoring of the Dismal Swamp and Pembroke Creek
Mitigation Sites should continue through 2003 or until success criteria are met.
Monitoring gauge problems at the Pembroke Creek Site should be addressed.
It appears that all mitigation requirements associated with this project have been
appropriately debited. NCDOT should update DCM on the progress of mitigation and
7
1

FINAL REPORT S,C? '
POST-CONSTRUCTION SURVEY OF
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION OF THE
CHOWAN RIVER:
T, `` An Inventory of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation
nC1u at the Eastern Approach to
CM p
t,,J l Existing Bridge Number 38 on U.S. 17, Chowan, NC
LL State Project Number 8. T010602 RE
D
R- V Corn_ I1 TIP Number R-2512
1 re a \y Ai C O Q ) - NCDOT Consulting Number 00-LM-13
icu use- \5r( g,OO5 SEP 2 5 20 �
J Issue Date: February 2002 DIV. OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
RALEIGH
l. w 1
ADDENDUM: SAV REPORT
Fl 'r .a� ;l TIP# R-2512 A&B
i, - v .. CAMA PERMIT # 88-96
, r
. - *, _ - _,
1 �
.A �-"'� _ -
, y
i
yj6. na ••. _
r
-er
�_ '
.-- -_.__ ,. . ....r; �-x ---
h�P��OE NORTH CgRO`�
z
m 0
0
S
7QT�FHT OF TRANS'?

FINAL REPORT
POST-CONSTRUCTION SURVEY OF
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION OF THE
CHOWAN RIVER:
An Inventory of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation
at the Eastern Approach to
Existing Bridge Number 38 on U.S. 17, Chowan, NC
State Project Number 8. T010602
TIP Number R-2512
NCDOT Consulting Number 00-LM-13
LandMark Design Group Project Number 1960024-313.00
Issue Date: February 2002
Prepared for:
Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
One South Wilmington Street, Room 462
Raleigh, NC 27611
4.
4,4
NORTH C,qO�
v
* *
oZ
O
p'ye,\1 OF TQ AN5,00-
LANDMARK
DESIGN GROUP
Engineers • Planners • Surveyors • Landscape Architects • Environmental Scientists
5700 Six Forks Road,Suite 201,Raleigh, NC 27609 [phone] FAX:[phone]
5544 Greenwich Road,Suite 200,Virginia Beach,VA 23462 [phone] FAX:[phone]
LMDGrFitandmarkdg.corn

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
PROJECT INTRODUCTION
PROJECT METHODS 3
Existing Bridge Site Survey and Sampling 3
Control Site Survey and Sampling e 4
PROJECT RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .4
Bridge Site 5
Control Site 5
CONCLUSIONS 6
APPENDIX 1
Sampling Data
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1. Locations of new US 17 Bridge, Bridge and Control Site Sampling Areas
FIGUJRE 2. Transect and Sampling Locations for the Control Site
FIGURE 3. Transect and Sampling Locations for the Bridge Site
FIGURE 4. Average Percent Cover of all Control Site Samples by Depth
FIGURE 10. Average Percent Cover of all Bridge Site Samples by Depth
•
- LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1. Relationship Between Percent Cover Estimates and Biomass Density of SAV Species
TABLE 2. Mean (Standard Error) abundance of SAV and Emergents in all Samples by Depth
Interval
TABLE 3. Mean (Standard Error) abundance of SAV and Emergents in all Samples
TABLE 4. Mean (Standard Error) abundance of SAV and Emergents in Samples with that
Species Present

e I
FINAL DRAFT
POST-CONSTRUCTION SURVEY
OF THE EXTENT
OF SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION
IN THE CHOWAN RIVER
AFTER CONSTRUCTION OF BRIDGE#38
TIP No. R2512
State Work Order No. 8. T010602
(LMDG NO. 1960024-313.00)
February, 2002
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Post-construction surveys of submerged aquatic-vegetation (SAV's) in the Chowan River were
conducted immediately adjacent to Bridge#38 and on an upstream control site (located approximately
1.2 km north) to determine whether the new bridge's construction, or demolition of the previous bridge
had an adverse affect on SAV's in the vicinity of these construction and demolition activities.
Post-construction surveys of aquatic vegetation in the Chowan River were conducted in August 2001,
this data was compared to identical surveys conducted prior to the bridge construction in September,
1996. A series of 11 underwater transects located parallel to the centerline of the new bridge location
at the bridge site and 5 parallel underwater transects at the control site located perpendicular to shore
were used to quantify the bottom cover, biomass and density of submerged and emergent vegetation as
well as the elevation of the river substrate. These surveys were then used to identify any changes that
might be related to demolition/construction activities or shading caused by the new bridge structure.
The control and bridge sites were found to support robust beds of SAV consisting of wild celery
(Vallisneria americana) and southern naiad or bushy pondweed(Naias guadelupensis) in 1996 and
again in 2001. An emergent macrophyte, water willow(Decodon verticillatus), was also found growing
in similar locations during both surveys at both sites. The abundance of SAV at the control site was
greater in 2001 compared to 1996 indicating that environmental and water quality conditions in the
region have remained good over the past five years. Similarly, SAV abundances in areas adjacent to
the new bridge were found to be greater in 2001 compared to 1996.
Overall, the construction of U.S. 17 Bridge Number 38 over the Chowan River caused impacts to SAV
and emergent vegetation that were generally limited to the area immediately under the new bridge and
south of the new bridge. The area beneath the old bridge remains devoid of SAV as it did in 1996.
Immediately below the new bridge,there was a complete loss of SAV and nearly complete loss of
emergent macrophytes. An area of approximately 672 m2 of SAV was lost beneath the new bridge,
while loss of emergent macrophytes totaled 436 m2. The depth to the substrate (as measured from
mean high water elevation of 0.24m,NGVD29), beneath the new bridge was relatively unchanged
except within 10 meters of the shoreline, where the depths increased by 0.1 to 0.9 meters. It should be
LandMark Design Group Page 1
Chowan River Aquatic Investigation February, 2002

noted that bridge piles were installed in this area. Shading from the new bridge structure is likely the
principal factor limiting SAV re-growth immediately under the new construction, as bottom depths and
sediment type were similar to adjacent vegetated areas except for the most landward 10 meters.
South of the new bridge, the SAV bed was reduced by about 203 m2, while the bed of emergent
macrophytes was reduced by 687 m2. The depth to the substrate did not change substantially in this
area between 1996 and 2001. The losses in this area may have been due to staging or other
construction activities, since neither the control site nor the north side of the new bridge reflect similar
losses. No other post-construction, area-wide impacts on aquatic vegetation could be detected.
PROJECT INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this investigation was to satisfy a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Submerged Aquatic
Vegetation(SAV)permit condition and assess the health of the population of SAV immediately
adjacent to the newly constructed Bridge Number 38 on US 17 over the Chowan River. The data
generated from this study were compared to the pre-construction SAV survey data(collected at the
same sample points by LandMark Design Group,Inc. (LMDG) before construction in 1996)to
determine whether any of the following conditions had a demonstrable effect on the SAV community:
• The demolition of the old bridge.
• Construction of the existing new bridge.
• Post-construction shading caused by the new bridge.
• Recent weather conditions.
A "control site"was identified, located by survey and inventoried for SAVs as part of the previous
study in 1996. The control site was needed because SAV communities fluctuate significantly over time
due to such natural conditions as unusually wet or dry years. As such, post-construction monitoring
was performed at the control site and was compared to pre-construction data to determine whether
post-construction observations at the "bridge site"are most likely due to natural conditions or those
arising from the bridge replacement project. The control site selected was located approximately 1.2
km north of the bridge site. Site selection criteria were: 1) It was remote from the access, staging and
construction areas but in the general vicinity of the bridge site on the Chowan River, 2) it contained
SAV, and 3)it was isolated from other potential disturbances (e.g. marinas, boat ramps).
As done in 1996, LMDG performed this work in conjunction with Dr. Kenneth A. Moore, a Professor
at the Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS). Dr. Moore performed the pre-construction
sampling and specializes in SAV and salt marsh ecology and ecophysiology. Ms. Betty Neikirk, a
scientist also of the Virginia Institute of Marine Science, assisted Dr. Moore.
All field efforts related to the pre-construction survey were performed on September 16-19, 1996 (Site
selection and SAV field sampling). Field sampling for the post-construction survey was conducted on
August 20th & 21 St, 2001. For consistency, the same survey locations, sampling methodology, control
site, and laboratory analysis used in the original study were used in the current study.
LandMark Design Group Page 2
Chowan River Aquatic Investigation February, 2002

PROJECT METHODS
Existing Bridge Site Survey and Sampling
The same 11 transects used during the pre-construction survey were used during the post-construction
survey. Each transect continued channel ward for a distance of between 10 and 35 meters. All
transects ran parallel to the centerline of the new bridge. Transects were located as follows:
• B 1 through B4 were positioned, 60, 40, 20 and 10 meters south of the centerline of the new
bridge, respectively.
• B5 through B11 were positioned, 0 (centerline of new bridge), 10,20, 30.25 (center line of old
bridge), 40.25, 60.25 and 80.25 meters north of the centerline of the new bridge, respectively.
The transect locations were originally selected in 1996 by LandMark Design Group and marked with
PVC pipe. Transect locations were intentionally selected to inventory SAV along the centerline and
outer edges of each bridge as well as possible staging areas of construction and areas immediately
outside the staging area(s). Transects were located by survey methods in the 1996 study by the North
Carolina Department of Transportation under the supervision of Randy Midgett, Assistant Resident
Engineer.
For the current project, LMDG relocated the transect locations in the field using the state plane
coordinates from the pre-construction survey and Differential GPS (DGPS), together with HYPACK
navigational software and an on-board laptop computer. Once the transects were relocated, PVC pipes
were installed at the landward and seaward ends of each transect. On a few occasions, the stakes from
the original survey were found at the base of the newly.placed PVC pipes. Sampling was conducted
from LandMark Design Group's 18-foot vessel outfitted with a captain/project manager and an
environmental scientist. Two divers using SCUBA placed a negatively buoyant rope along the length
of each transect, marked to identify observation and sampling locations.
Divers estimated percent cover visually by placing a 0.1 m2 stainless steel wire ring on the bottom along
each transect line and boat personnel recorded cover estimates. Observations were made every 5
meters along the transects and included percent cover and species composition. A total of 88
observations were made over the 11 transects.
Additional comparative quantitative data were obtained by hand coring (0.018m2) the center of each
observational ring to a depth of approximately 20 cm at every other sampling point along each transect.
Each core, (intact sediments and SAV),was brought to the support vessel where the sediments were
removed by washing river water through a 0.5 cm mesh wire sieve. The intact SAV from each sample,
including all aboveground and belowground plant material, were placed in a watertight plastic bag,
sealed and placed on ice in a cooler. The plant material was maintained on ice until subsequent
analyses within 48 hours for 1) species presence, 2) species biomass and 3) species density. A total of
31 cores of SAV were sampled and analyzed.
LandMark Design Group Page 3
Chowan River Aquatic Investigation February, 2002

Water depths were recorded at each sampling location using a rod graduated to millimeters. Water
surface elevations were compared to a mean high water (MHW; +0.24m,NGVD29)temporary
benchmark established by the NCDOT engineers prior to the post-construction SAV inventory. Water
depths from pre and post-construction surveys were used to determine whether bridge construction
activities affected the near-shore bottom profile. The water elevation for the two days of post-
construction sampling never differed from 0.44 meters above MHW. A northwest wind,approximately
10-12 knots was persistent throughout the field sampling.
Control Site Survey and Sampling
The control transects were relocated using Differential GPS (DGPS),together with HYPACK
navigational software and an on-board laptop computer. Four out the five control transects had the
PVC from the original survey still on location. These pipes were rechecked for accuracy and used
accordingly for field sampling.
Divers and surface personnel utilized the methods described for the bridge site. Percent cover
estimates and biomass cores were sampled at 10 meter and 20 meters interval,respectively, along each
of the five (5), 100 meter long transects. A total of 57 cover estimates and 26 biomass cores were
sampled at the control site.
Methods used for the preparation, storage, processing and analyses of the SAV samples were identical
to those used for samples from the bridge site.
PROJECT RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Weather and Temporal Affects Between 1996 and 2001
As with the Existing and Proposed Bridge Number 38, Pre-Construction Survey, conducted on
September 16-19, 1996 (L&M Project Number 96-24-02)percent cover estimates proved to be useful
metrics for quickly measuring the relative abundance of SAV in the Control and Bridge study areas.
Therefore the cover measures reported here can reasonably be used to quantify the actual biomass and
density of the SAV vegetation. Both SAV species including wild celery (Vallisneria americana) and
southern naiad or bushy pondweed(Naias guadelupensis), which were reported in 1996,were again
found in 2001. An emergent macrophyte, water willow (Decodon verticillatus), was also found
growing in the same approximate locations as 1996. Linear least square regression of cover estimates
vs. measured SAV species biomass and density (Table 1) were very similar to that determined in 1996
for wild celery reflecting similar SAV shoot density for that species over the time course of the two
studies. The relationships between bottom cover and biomass or density for southern naiad in 2001
were nearly twice that found in 1996. This reflected a much more robust overall canopy development
for that species in 2001 compared to 1996. This may be due to sampling in 2001 occurring one month
earlier than in 1996 (September 16-19, 1996)vs. (August 20-21, 2001). However, a decrease in naiad
abundance had been noted in the 1996 study from a preliminary visit in August 1996, which occurred
before Hurricane Fran passed through the area in early September, 1996. Naiads have relatively weak
stems and can easily be broken and dislodged by strong storm wave activity. Therefore,the generally
lower 1996 naiad biomass and densities may have been due to a combination of sampling later in the
growing season and the impacts of that storm event.
LandMark Design Group Page 4
Chowan River Aquatic Investigation February, 2002

Control Site
Submersed and emergent vegetation in the control site in 2001 consisted almost entirely of naiads and
water willow in very similar distributional patterns to that found in 1996. The area vegetated with
water willow which was located near shore (Figure 2) encompassed nearly the same area as found in
1996. This might be expected, as water willow plants are quite robust perennials that will generally
only be lost through physical disturbance. This patch of water willow did not fall within any of the
transect samples and therefore was not sampled. Qualitatively it appeared unchanged from that
observed in 1996.
The abundance of naiads in 2001 was greater than that found in 1996. Abundances were markedly
higher at depths shallower than lm MHW(Figure 2; Figure 4) especially in areas within 50m of shore.
Overall, SAV bottom cover was also much higher in 2001 compared to 1996 (73%vs. 47%; Table 3
this report and Table 3 the 1996 report)and cover within the naiad vegetated areas was also higher in
2001 (85 vs. 70; Table 4 this report and Table 4 the 1996 report). Naiad abundances in 2001 were
generally higher in the control site vs. the bridge study site (Tables 2, 3, 4). This pattern was also
found in 1996 and may reflect that the bridge site possesses a narrower littoral zone and relatively more
wave exposed substrate than any specific impacts of construction activities. Several patches of the
wild celery were observed in the control site in 2001, whereas none were found in 1996. This may
reflect a general increase in abundance of this species in the region. The individual transects were
generally terminated at 100 meters from shore at water depths of just over 1.0 meter(Appendix 1;
Figures 4 to 8). However, as in 1996,the naiad populations at the control site continued channel ward
an additional distance beyond the end of the sampling transects. Transect C4 was continued for an
additional 50m to a depth of 1.16m in this study and naiads were still present, although with cover
reduced to 30% (Appendix 1). Similar qualitative distributions channel ward of 100m were noted in
1996. Overall, the abundance and condition of the SAV and emergent species at the control site in
August,2001 suggest that there has been generally favorable environmental and water quality
conditions in this region of the Chowan River that have maintained abundances over the past 5 years.
The higher abundance observed in 2001 could be due to favorable environmental and water quality
conditions, sampling earlier in the growing season, lack of a substantial hurricane, or some
combination of these factors.
Bridge Site
The distribution and abundance of SAV and emergent vegetation at the bridge site were found to be
somewhat different in 2001 compared to 1996 (Figure 3). Although the same three species were found
in 1996 (water willow, wild celery, southern naiad), wild celery was found in much greater abundances
in 2001 and naiad and water willow much less (Table 2; Figure 10). For example, wild celery
vegetation covered approximately 11%of the study areas bottom in 1996 vs. 32% in 2001 (Table 3).
In contrast naiads covered approximately 24% of bottom in 1996 and only 6% in 2001. Water willow
also decreased significantly from 10%to 2%. Within individual patches the density and biomass of
wild celery (1705 per m2 and 90 g per m2; Table 4) were somewhat greater than that reported in 1996
(1120 per m2 and 73g per m2). Density and biomass of the remaining naiad and water willow patches
(Table 4) were similar to that found in 1996 (3775 per m2 and 19g per m2 in 2001 vs. 3794 per m2 and
LandMark Design Group Page 5
Chowan River Aquatic Investigation February, 2002

,
17g per m2 in 1996 for naiad), (358 per m2 and 3356g per m2 in 2001 vs. 362 per m2 and 3367g per m2
in 1996 for water willow).
An examination of the individual bridge study site transects (Figures 11-20) reveals a general
expansion of SAV north of the new bridge structure (B7, B9, B 10, B 11),no vegetation present under
the new bridge (B4, B5, B6), and site specific increases and decreases south of the new bridge (B1,B2,
B3). Transect B8 (Appendix 1), which is located under the centerline of the portion of the old bridge
that was left in place was unvegetated both in 1996 and 2001.
Physical disruption of the bottom in the bridge site study area appeared minimal. Some construction
debris including pipes and shoreline armor stone, as well as sediment control curtains, which
apparently washed in from the shoreline, was found littering the sub-tidal bottom in the vicinity of the
new bridge. North of the old bridge the previous bulkhead was still present and several of the survey
stakes from the 1996 survey were still in place. No difference in bottom profiles or other impacts could
be detected. Comparisons of bottom depth contours along the bridge transects between 1996
(Appendix 1; 1996 report) and 2001 (Appendix 1; this report) indicated that there were only a few
measurable differences in bottom depths under and south of the new bridge between the pre-and post-
construction phases. These were only observed within the shoreward 10m or less sections of transects
B3, B4, B5 and B6, which were located under or immediately adjacent to the new bridge structure.
Bottom depths here increased by approximately 0.75m or less and did not exceed the bottom depths of
other bridge site transects where SAV were still growing. No qualitative differences in sediment types
were apparent between unvegetated areas under, or vegetated areas adjacent to, the bridge. The 5m
sampling location of transect B3, located adjacent to, but not under the new bridge (Appendix 1; Figure
2) was found to have increased slightly in depth and the vegetation cover to have changed from 100%
water willow to 90% wild celery and 10%naiad. Changes in the area of the water willow beds may
have been due to physical disruption during construction, and the shoreline configuration showed some
modest realignment and loss of this emergent species both under and south of the new bridge (Figure
2). Re-growth of water willow has been much slower and in some areas between transects B1, B2 and
B3 it has been replaced with the SAV wild celery. The re-growth of wild celery and naiads into the
physically disrupted zones of transects B 1, B2 and B3 is significant since it indicates that the SAV
populations in the area have had time to re-colonize disrupted areas since construction. Underwater
light readings were not measured under the new bridge but a distinct decrease in light at the bottom
could readily be observed. Given the present bottom depths 50cm below MHW or greater under the
new bridge, it is very likely that total daily light availability for SAV growth is below the compensation
point for long term survival.
Conclusions
Overall, the construction of U.S. 17 Bridge Number 38 over the Chowan River caused impacts to SAV
and emergent vegetation that were generally limited to the area immediately under the new bridge and
south of the new bridge. The area beneath the old bridge remains devoid of SAV as it did in 1996.
Immediately below the new bridge,there was a complete loss of SAV and nearly complete loss of
emergent macrophytes. An area of approximately 672 m2 of SAV was lost beneath the new bridge,
while loss of emergent macrophytes totaled 436 m2. The depth to the substrate (as measured from
mean high water elevation of 0.24m,NGVD29), beneath the new bridge was relatively unchanged
except within 10 meters of the shoreline, where the depths increased by 0.1 to 0.9 meters. It should be
LandMark Design Group Page 6
Chowan River Aquatic Investigation February, 2002

noted that bridge piles were installed in this area. Shading from the new bridge structure is likely the
principal factor limiting SAV re-growth immediately under the new construction, as bottom depths and
sediment type were similar to adjacent vegetated areas except for the most landward 10 meters.
South of the new bridge, the SAV bed was reduced by about 203 m2, while the bed of emergent
macrophytes was reduced by 687 m2. The depth to the substrate did not change substantially in this
area between 1996 and 2001. The losses in this area may have been due to staging or other
construction activities, since neither the control site nor the north side of the new bridge reflect similar
losses. No other post-construction, area-wide impacts on aquatic vegetation could be detected.
LandMark Design Group Page 7
Chowan River Aquatic Investigation February, 2002

Table 1. Relationships between percent cover estimates and biomass or density of SAV species
(combined sites).
SPECIES Independent Dependent Coefficient of
Variable Variable Regression Equation Determination
(X) (Y) (r2)
Southern Naiad % Cover Biomass (g m 2) Y= 0.75 * X 0.62
Southern Naiad % Cover Density (#m2) Y= 112.3 * X 0.60
Wild Celery % Cover Biomass(g m2) Y= 1.26 * X 0.74
Wild Celery % Cover Density (g m2) Y=21.7 * X 0.59
Table 2. Mean (Standard Error) abundance of SAV and emergents in all samples by depth interval.
SITE SPECIES 0-50 cm 51-100 cm 101-151 cm
Bridge Southern Naiad 1 (1) 12 (4) 2 (1)
Bridge Wild Celery 37 (12) 56 (8) 11 (4)
Bridge Water Willow 11 (6) 0 (0) 0 (0) _
Control Southern Naiad 52 (14) 88 (4) 79 (7)
Table 3. Mean (Standard Error) abundance of SAV and emergents in all samples
SITE SPECIES Cover DENSITY BIOMASS
2 g m-2
Bridge Southern Naiad 6 (2) 2186 (798) 11 (4)
Bridge Wild Celery 32 (4) 1045 (220) 55 (13)
Bridge Water Willow 2 (1) 36 (31) 336 (238)
Control Southern Naiad 73 (6) 9119 (1012) 62 (7)
Table 4. Mean(Standard Error) abundance of SAV and emergents in samples with that species present.
SITE SPECIES Cover DENSITY BIOMASS
(%) #m2 gm2
Bridge Southern Naiad 29 (6) - 3775 (1175) 19 (6)
Bridge Wild Celery 64 (6) 1705 (220) 90 (18)
Bridge Water Willow 38 (7) 358 (175) 3356 (552) J
Control Southern Naiad 85 (4) 9119 (1012) 62 (7)
LandMark Design Group Page 8
Chowan River Aquatic Investigation February, 2002

Figure 4. Average Percent Cover of All Control Site Samples by Depth
CONTROL SITE 1996
it
100��%,� >; ,-r = r�
> 80 ,
0 70 -
U 601: ;
2 50� / _ _.-
O 40- 7
m30� it III
20� '
10 0 _t �,
0-50 51-100 101-150
DEPTH INTERVAL (cm)
CONTROL SITE 2001
n
100
. et90 -` -
> 80
70 r::
0 60 -..4.---
. 2 50 r
. 0 30 i, l C ■Ndad
m 20E
�f I
10 1f. l '
0 '
0-50 51-100 101-150
DEPTH INTERVAL (cm)

.
Figure 5. Control Site, Transect Cl
T R ANS E CT Cl — 1996
100 s 5 `'mtw4 ' r5,s,^,zgtt ,
9° 01,..:
80 x = '
70 £'' i _r
.� r r,
0 U 60 z
50 y
40 P01,4.-,,,,,, w`. ■Ncicd
0 20 eillii1C2‘._ 1 2 30 :;...0;:-_,ai!i*'',.f-,.-.-:-,y,:. ....,_ - 1 r '4--,.,
10 , f
0
II !` !I 1' r
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
DISTANCE FROM SHORE
TRANSECT Cl — 2001
1 oo f0'44,2**11' --- '' -- , - e- ' "''''''''5--
_, 80 k 0-'141:44,'_.
_ r 7 r
> 70 7"
OO 60 at — [ 1- ® I■Ncicd
. 2 50 ` "` s 1
0 ftlir.i ' I
40
ado 301 0 et., , j.
20 ,tflk E
1
0 „.
1, , '` I!
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1'00
DISTANCE FROM SHORE

Figure 6. Control Site, Transect C2
TRANSECT C2 - 1996
rah*' - k
eg
> 70y
O 60 :05: olowiA'''' '-'41:41'.: ,
2 50
o
mrAV:',,*-'-1,44.,1, . I [ ; I UNacd
30 , , i . t . ,
0 20 1 0 rj:,...4.-4,IL;:::,irxtH) ; :(
0 I. ._ I If 1` '
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
DISTANCE FROM SHORE
TRANSECT C2 - 2001
90-i , ' I
80-v 1
c I r.
> 70-7
O 50-
G 40-7
2 30� f ■Naas
a4 20 -
1
10-7 ,.. . . - r. i ; , .
o --
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
DISTANCE FROM SHORE

.
•
Figure 7. Control Site, Transect C3
TRANSECT C3 - 1996
90 F
W 80
50 _ j
O =fi AI ! 1
40 • r
m 30 lI ■Ndad
0 20 ! '
t.
10 — -- .r 1
0 -I'
__ 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
DISTANCE FROM SHORE
TRANSECT C3 - 2001
i 00 OA-,.--1,---------,--, - 1 ,
cx 80 ` k 4 � -
u, 70 � z
0 60
U
2 50 ,0 1 ;
40 i
30 , i m ;
' ` j ®Ndad
20 �. Y
c
10 t b
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
DISTANCE FROM SHORE

Figure 8. Control Site, Transect C4
TRANSECT C4 - 1996
100
f
•
IX
80 r
j 70
OV 60 (- 1
2 50� k
O •G 40 :. i
O t
� ! � ■Na cd
m 30 4 - � n P
10 ,.
s- I
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
DISTANCE FROM SHORE
TRANSECT C4 - 2001
100-
90 z.. t
80 l_ '
. ' . --'..- i • r [
W 70--/
OO 60 iU
1"
0• 50
• t r
• 40 - , A Nd cd
m30-'j ( ►•• f : 1`
20 1 t [ •
10-� t i
0 - - - .i .�; I�. II -.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
DISTANCE FROM SHORE

.
Figure 9. Control Site, Transect C5
TRANSECT C5 - 1996
100-- - —
90 �' •4�
80 : 0.
ce
0 70 _ i . ' l
U 60
2 50 E i
40 i l 1
-, r ii
■Ndcd
ae 20 :z. � i ! j
10 `11 ,
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
DISTANCE FROM SHORE
TRANSECT C5 - 2001
90 •c � z £._ e i ;-„Mt
80 *i. ''
W 70 ' x r y T�
60 0 -4' .
O0 50 4
40 ,
m 30 I- m; .. ®Naal
°4 20
10rk
. 0 I: 1' i'
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
DISTANCE FROM SHORE

Figure 10. Average Percent Cover of All Bridge Site Samples by Depth
BRIDGE SITE 1996
50_V
W / ® _
40� /
UO 1 ❑Water Willow
2 30J,4 IN Wild celery
fi ` ■Naod
O 20
1 -0
0
0-50 51-100 101-150
DEPTH INTERVAL (cm)
BRIDGE SITE 2001
x
cx) e.r3, / :'tom 1 ham
ce
w 50 / 7 ' T-3- tom'a—' 'I
OV .�4fr ". „ ❑Water Willow
0 40 v 4� .;. ■Wild celery
30 IS,: •Nadd
co20 . 4 "
a' om;,
0
0-50 51-100 101-150
DEPTH INTERVAL (cm)

Figure 11. Bridge Site, Transect B1
T R ANS E CT B 1 - 1996
100 - ,
90 � wq t h kfiA
�� }roxxc ,sae �'+-?s
ex W 80 =-
WAT-
I e. ❑Wafer willow
2O f t �r; f- 4 ■Wild cdery
V ' , Naai
m •
30 �; ' ' I ! i
a' 20 i i
10 A. I
0 _ i !
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
DISTANCE FROM SHORE
TRANSECT B 1 - 2001
100
ce 80 .vl _
> 70 3 _ ,
Oe
U 60 ,, Ma ❑Wafer willow
S+""tom" Ir, `«
O2 50 6.-, rt , �ti3•\MIdcelery
m 40 ' , _ . l Ndcd
O 30
m w
a° 20
10
0 '1111 ,I Ii II
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
DISTANCE FROM SHORE

Figure 12. Bridge Site, Transect 2
TRANSECT B2 - 1996
_: a ;
---
> 70 W 80 x:"' vl�r
'a
�,
OU 60 =I
❑Wct er wi I I ow
2 50f, .
O .• 40 ■W I d cel er y
• 30
` I ®Ndcd
O 20 ;. (
10 ;-. .'-
-
0 ] , •
it, P, ,
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
DISTANCE FROM SHORE
TRANSECT B2 - 2001
_,
90 - ' ems"
W 80 ;;4. '
> 70
O `: '° ,
60 .�
50 ❑Water willow
• 40 ' IUWildcelery
O 30 F IINdcd
m t�- t---- : f is
O 20 4 f
10 '`' E
0 I ,
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
DISTANCE FROM SHORE

Figure 13. Bridge Site, Transect B3
TRANSECT B3 - 1996
{k:� Z Ada t �j� ih. �J
W X�:-�.r? .' 'Y' '.,
90 A -+
_ W 80 ME-
OU 60 , ���
❑
O 50 Water wi I I owI
40 Ei ■WIdadery
■Nd cd
liti
0 20
10 ,
0 1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
DISTANCE FROM SHORE
TRANSECT B3 - 2001
100 ;' e" P.r,
90 �,-,
L 80 r
> 70 tat *+k r-i•_,,, r
0 . ❑Water w I I ow
60 i .j
O F ,.,
1 ■Ndad
m 30
ae 20
r
10 i yi
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
DISTANCE FROM SHORE

Figure 14. Bridge Site, Transect B4
TRANSECT B4 - 1996
100
90 Y
80
O 70 _
U 60-'� ❑WcerwiIIow
2 50
a_- i ! ■Wild celery
40 ■Naafi
O 30 ' t.
, 0 20
0 - ;; it .7
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
DISTANCE FROM SHORE
TRANSECT B4 - 2001
3
J/ ,fry ., ,,,a
w 80-� ` i -
70 �, t ��,r �Sr .;
U 60 s
50 /�� ��"� � � � � t�'` CI Water willow
O 40-' A�h `,1 �� _ ■Wild celery
m 30 - . ®Naiad
e 20-7 z-
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
DISTANCE FROM SHORE

Figure 15. Bridge Site, Transect B5
TRANSECT B5 - 1996
100 _ A
- ck w 80
O
U 60 ." ❑Wcte( Wi I I ow
O 50 ■Wldcelery
40 - OilNdcrl
Om 30 r �'`
o
20
10 I I
If i`
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
DISTANCE FROM SHORE
TRANSECT B5 - 2001
' ma's s :� r'ntIMSM
' tea N ',..)--'-6, _@-c"' E4:,' -i FW80 -" a '
60 may -' ' ❑Water wi I l ow
rive-
O f 1p3.- 4 .114 ■Nd of
o y
10 --
O
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
DISTANCE FROM SHORE

Figure 16. Bridge Site, Transect B6
TRANSECT B6 - 1996
100 .,
90
> 70
O 60
50 u ❑Water wi I I ow
G 40 I ■Wi l d cel er y
m 30 1PIP ®Nacd
20 i '
I ;.
0 .
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
DISTANCE FROM SHORE
TRANSECT B6 - 2001
ai
90 r/ / z 4 _
_ 80 J' %/ k}+3 4'';. " * �x • :,;p ,�.o 1, k r -`�
() 60 2 50 //, 4- xr T ^ r, r a,Y . e ; ❑WcQer willow
0 40 / — 44- , ■Wild celery
P
co• 30 % %.o . � ,q ,�.� -w ,
■Na cd
O 20-' /
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
DISTANCE FROM SHORE

Figure 17. Bridge Site, Transect B7
TRANSECT B7 — 1996
El 80 ,- ,N .:_a
•67 00 O z a a , a �z r ;*t. -}ys,7A
[ P� 'u rE ti''*a5.vffi M:,r4 w'" . ''s
4�, a� ❑Wcter wl I I ow
O 50 t,c;t• 4p y 5 't 1!> F- S�T fat 1■W l d oei V Y
40 . E
10
0 `-
0 5 10 15
DISTANCE FROM SHORE
TRANSECT B7 — 2001
ter ,:. _
#� 74:
90LEZNBKilki
cx 80 w
��`'Y
❑WGter wi I I Ow
�,: y
0 4 0 , ■Wi I d oei er
40 x ■Ndai
m 30 I
,Q 20
10 -:
0 __--, .:
0 5 10 15
DISTANCE FROM SHORE

Figure 18. Bridge Site, Transect B9
TRANSECT B9 - 1996
100 R r- P
90 "'
4--J
c, 80 =;
> 70 ,-
o
• 60 ;1 ❑Wcter willow
50 i ■WiIdcelery
O 40 i ;.: ®Ndai
an 30 _,
ae 20 ...,
10 :,, I , .
``i 1
0 i
0 5 10 15 20 25
DISTANCE FROM SHORE
TRANSECT B9 - 2001
8 F �u ti
a
90
W 80 1� °4 .�;t '; "_`
> 70 i f .� _ zi
8 O
60 - ❑Wder willow
040 �" ' ■\MIdoelery
Al' L �i Yiy ,i'-'
0 30 W - 1`. liNdc i
co
ae 20 Oli -7
10
0 1 1 1
0 5 10 15 20 25
DISTANCE FROM SHORE

•
Figure 19. Bridge Site, Transect B10
TRANSECT B1O - 1996
100�
90� r
ce 80 1;-
0 70_7
-i
U 60 - )! t ❑Wrier willow
2 50 1-1 1-I I 1 I•Wildceler
p , Y
40 JI Ndai
p 30
20 '
10 •
0 1if
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 34
DISTANCE FROM SHORE
TRANSECT B10 - 2001
100
90
80
70 -
0 60
02
50
40 zr�' El wl I Iow
m 30 ■WId oeiery
e 20 y j ®Ndads'
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 34
DISTANCE FROM SHORE

Figure 20. Bridge Site, Transect B11
TRANSECT B11 - 1996
'� 1':v _-"`R--- +.cl t'6e L".r�nia ' t Sii�`r�F
90 - _ - f
°` i
U 60 4; �. „ ❑Wrier willow
50 z
O v-6k k. 1, T r: VVIId ery
p 40 — f towi r Nd CCl
- ae 20 4 ,
to i!
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
DISTANCE FROM SHORE
T R ANS E CT B11 -2001
100 ;ems a fl;r
s� ,; ,m 80 ,
U ,`' �� Weer willow
y
O 50 ����. �` �,�d �Wildaeler
0 40 � ;. `�. -t% Ndad
m 30 r
20
10 lote
p
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
DISTANCE FROM SHORE

Appendix 1: All sampling data from the Chowan River, N.C., inventory of submerged aquatic vegetation. August 21-22, 2001. Page 1
SITE TRANSECT DISTANCE BOTTOM Wild Celery Water Willow Southern Naiad
FROM SHORE DEPTH COVER DENSITY BIOMASS COVER DENSITY BIOMASS COVER DENSITY BIOMASS
(m) (cm MHW) (%) (#/m2) (g/m2) (%) (#/m2) (g/m2) (%) (#/m2) (g/m2)
BRIDGE B1 -1.3 34 0 0 0
BRIDGE B1 0 27 0 25 0
BRIDGE B1 5 -31 60 1,870 124 25 110 2,575 15 ns ns
BRIDGE B1 10 -61 100 0 0
BRIDGE B1 15 -76 85 3,135 37 0 0 0 15 2,585 29
BRIDGE B1 20 -87 90 0 10
BRIDGE B1 25 -97 75 990 31 0 0 0 10 2,310 14
BRIDGE B1 30 -120 0 0 0
BRIDGE B1 35 -144 0 0 0
BRIDGE B2 0 28 0 0 0
BRIDGE B2 5 -14 50 1,375 124 50 605 4,137 0 0 0
BRIDGE B2 10 -26 50 50 0
BRIDGE B2 15 -65 100 1,595 246 0 0 0 0 0 0
BRIDGE B2 20 -86 40 0 40
BRIDGE B2 25 -96 20 605 17 0 0 0 40 5,170 21
BRIDGE B2 30 -98 0 0 80
BRIDGE B2 35 -112 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 1,595 6
BRIDGE B2 40 -121 0 0 0
BRIDGE B2 45 -131 0 0 0
BRIDGE B3 -5 17 0 0 0
BRIDGE B3 0 -25 40 0 0
BRIDGE B3 5 -62 90 1,870 50 0 0 0 10 10,450 59
BRIDGE B3 10 -79 0 0 20
BRIDGE B3 15 -87 40 1,760 30 0 0 0 40 1,485 9
BRIDGE B3 20 -109 0 0 0
BRIDGE B3 25 -105 50 1,540 39 0 0 0 0 110 1
BRIDGE B3 30 -111 10 0 0
BRIDGE B3 35 -116 0 0 0
BRIDGE B4 -5 -1 0 0 0
BRIDGE B4 0 -51 0 0 0
BRIDGE B4 5 -85 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BRIDGE B4 10 -93 0 0 0
BRIDGE B4 15 -101 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Appendix 1: All sampling data from the Chowan River, N.C., inventory of submerged aquatic vegetation.August 21-22, 2001. Page 2
SITE TRANSECT DISTANCE BOTTOM Wild Celery Water Willow Southern Naiad
FROM SHORE DEPTH COVER DENSITY BIOMASS COVER DENSITY BIOMASS COVER DENSITY BIOMASS
(m) (cm MHW) (%) (#/m2) (g/m2) (%) (#/m2) (g/m2) (%) (#/m2) (g/m2)
BRIDGE B4 20 -107 0 0 0
BRIDGE B4 25 -110 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BRIDGE B4 30 -118 0 0 0
BRIDGE B4 35 -130 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BRIDGE B4 40 -131 0 0 0
BRIDGE B5 -3 -36 0 0 0
BRIDGE B5 0 -74 0 0 0
BRIDGE B5 5 -66 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BRIDGE B5 10 -100 0 0 0
BRIDGE B5 15 -110 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BRIDGE B5 20 -116 0 0 0
BRIDGE B5 25 -116 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BRIDGE B5 30 -135 0 0 0
BRIDGE B6 0 -14 0 0 0
BRIDGE B6 5 -61 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BRIDGE B6 10 -76 0 0 0
BRIDGE B6 15 -89 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BRIDGE B6 20 -101 0 0 0
BRIDGE B6 25 -111 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BRIDGE B6 30 -120 0 0 0
BRIDGE B6 35 -131 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BRIDGE B7 0 -88 100 0 0
BRIDGE B7 5 -96 100 2,860 128 0 0 0 0 110 1
BRIDGE B7 10 -106 100 0 0
BRIDGE B7 15 -121 20 220 9 0 0 0 0 0 0
BRIDGE B8 0 24 0 0 0
BRIDGE B8 10 -99 0 0 0
BRIDGE B9 -10 -21 0 0 0
BRIDGE B9 -5 -40 100 0 0
BRIDGE B9 0 -50 100 0 0
BRIDGE B9 5 -83 100 1,430 194 0 0 0 0 0 0

Appendix 1:All sampling data from the Chowan River, N.C., inventory of submerged aquatic vegetation. August 21-22, 2001. Page 3
,
SITE TRANSECT DISTANCE BOTTOM Wild Celery Water Willow Southern Naiad
FROM SHORE DEPTH COVER DENSITY BIOMASS COVER DENSITY BIOMASS COVER DENSITY BIOMASS
(m) (cm MHW) (%) (#/m2) (g/m2) (%) (#/m2) (g/m2) (%) (#/m2). (g/m2)
BRIDGE B9 10 -95 100 0 0
BRIDGE B9 13 -96 100 0 0
BRIDGE B9 15 -112 100 1,320 107 0 0 0 0 0 0
BRIDGE B9 20 -122 30 0 0
BRIDGE B9 25 -126 10 0 0
BRIDGE B10 0 -42 10 0 0
BRIDGE B10 5 -52 100 2,145 143 0 0 0 0 0 0
BRIDGE B10 10 -54 100 0 0
BRIDGE B10 15 -65 100 0 0
BRIDGE B10 17 -71 90 1,210 54 0 0 0 0 0 0
BRIDGE B10 20 -84 100 0 0
BRIDGE B10 25 -94 100 2,970 96 0 0 0 0 0 0
BRIDGE B10 30 -106 50 0 10
BRIDGE B10 34 -117 10 0 0
BRIDGE B10 36 -126 10 0 0
BRIDGE B11 0 -57 5 0 0
BRIDGE B11 5 -64 100 4,510 245 0 0 0 0 55 2
BRIDGE B11 10 -80 90 0 10
BRIDGE B11 15 -82 10 385 13 0 0 0 90 8,855 37
BRIDGE B11 20 -88 80 0 20
BRIDGE B11 25 -96 10 825 18 0 0 0 60 8,800 32
BRIDGE B11 30 -111 0 0 30
BRIDGE B11 33 -119 0 0 20
BRIDGE B11 35 -122 5 0 0
CONTROL C1 0 28 0 0 0
CONTROL C1 10 -40 0 0 30
CONTROL C1 20 -52 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 1,375 15
CONTROL C1 30 -64 0 0 100
CONTROL C1 40 -85 0 0 0 0 0 0 90 2,970 18
CONTROL C1 50 -94 0 0 80
CONTROL C1 60 -96 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 23,870 164
CONTROL C1 70 -103 0 0 80
CONTROL Cl 80 -106 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 3,410 24

Appendix 1:All sampling data from the Chowan River, N.C., inventory of submerged aquatic vegetation. August 21-22, 2001. Page 4
SITE TRANSECT DISTANCE BOTTOM Wild Celery Water Willow Southern Naiad
FROM SHORE DEPTH COVER DENSITY BIOMASS COVER DENSITY BIOMASS COVER DENSITY BIOMASS
(m) (cm MHW) (%) (#/m2) (g/m2) (%) (#/m2) (g/m2) (%) (#/m2) (g/m`L)
CONTROL C1 90 -109 0 0 100
CONTROL C1 100 -113 0 0 0 0 0 0 90 4,675 34
CONTROL C2 0 44 0 0 0
CONTROL C2 10 -15 0 0 40
CONTROL C2 20 -16 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 7,755 90
CONTROL C2 30 -30 0 0 100
CONTROL C2 40 -67 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 880 5
CONTROL C2 50 -73 0 0 100
CONTROL C2 60 -86 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 3,685 19
CONTROL C2 70 -93 0 0 100
CONTROL C2 80 -98 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 8,635 73
CONTROL C2 90 -103 0 0 100
CONTROL C2 100 -106 0 0 0 0 0 0 90 7,480 43
CONTROL C3 0 0 0 0
CONTROL C3 10 -26 0 0 0
CONTROL C3 20 -34 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 7,865 56
CONTROL C3 30 -41 0 0 100
CONTROL C3 40 -51 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 13,695 92
CONTROL C3 50 -60 0 0 100
CONTROL C3 60 -66 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 13,805 76
CONTROL C3 70 -71 0 0 100
CONTROL C3 80 -77 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 8,360 74
CONTROL C3 90 -82 0 0 90
CONTROL C3 100 -86 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 8,470 69
CONTROL C4 0 -5 0 0 0
CONTROL C4 10 -41 0 0 0
CONTROL C4 20 -47 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 12,815 69
CONTROL C4 30 -54 0 0 100
CONTROL C4 40 -62 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 14,135 111
CONTROL C4 50 -73 0 0 100
CONTROL C4 60 -76 0 0 0 0 0 0 90 15,950 84
CONTROL C4 70 -79 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 3,245 24
CONTROL C4 80 -83 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 12,650 65

Appendix 1:All sampling data from the Chowan River, N.C., inventory of submerged aquatic vegetation.August 21-22, 2001. Page 5
SITE TRANSECT DISTANCE BOTTOM Wild Celery Water Willow Southern Naiad
FROM SHORE DEPTH COVER DENSITY BIOMASS COVER DENSITY BIOMASS COVER DENSITY BIOMASS
(m) (cm MHW) (%) (#/m2) (g/m2) (%) (#Im2) (g/m2) (%) (#/m2) (g/m2)
CONTROL C4 90 -86 0 0 100
CONTROL C4 100 -91 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 13,530 96
CONTROL C4 130 -102 0 0 60
CONTROL C4 150 -116 0 0 30
CONTROL C5 0 5 0 0 0
CONTROL C5 10 -43 0 0 0
CONTROL C5 20 -56 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 12,210 100
CONTROL C5 30 -64 0 0 100
CONTROL C5 40 -70 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 7,975 46
CONTROL C5 50 -77 0 0 70
CONTROL C5 60 -80 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 18,315 118
CONTROL C5 70 -87 0 0 100
CONTROL C5 80 -91 30 880 13 0 0 0 70 4,840 28
CONTROL C5 90 -96 0 0 90
CONTROL C5 100 -102 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 4,510 29

'
1 '
_ .
. . ..
-, ,..... , ,, •
-----__7;_z___i_/____I____ ,____., ,.,.• -„„,. . .-• eI= ,.. ,,.‘•,.. ;;•,,, /
3i.-•--'-'''`- ----:------j•-•'''''' --"'''''''''‘' s''. !' l Vs'4; - le?---- .
. , •„;/ , ... ,• , . .-. ' ' ,',,''------7--- ---', I-i::,,-----' - --- -----' '. '''' - '- ---'-2, ;-4c - ' • •
I -IIIII'',-;''-''.°T-1-4.,‘' :•-`4).II-.
- '-','"i
e
I-- rI-'' 1 , , \ \ N; 7 „ ,•I.. Z. l' •,..,/-...i.e0".r ,
.. A, ,
,
' s L'_:. =•,'"f:,t.i.'__,',/! . -!E'F. --.
\ 1 ....,....• - --„.
--,' . s, 4
' 'C./ 1 • ',."' . •.'.,.;' . ,
•'7 ' N'' '''S(,.
,,,-%
C.'„...,77—; i,,'..,
I' 1 'X.'r\ i AI\ /44.1, ___.,,., , -„,,. , -.----A%-„, .., . - ,.:.,-4-..:4--,-.,, ,,---.,<,:;-:,...-.-.-7,.,-:-,.,,,,-.,•_;:,;-::,-- ,<,,,-..—
' 9° ‘/ "V. ''' ''' ;I II''''-• .-' ..---..--''.,,;;I-'%'..(:-,•-•:=-;,-, ..-I-'4I?-;;I:-'i,3:'-%,II,''''.&.'" „_,.....I‘
III.-I I / I\, If , / •'''' /;-' , '4::-,,,,,,_,,,,,•if ;,-L.,..., ,
,_ I,, /I/ ,,....
I-I`r'' ' .1-i------,-; ;''..-.,-
.. _
_J- 'w , :Li"- .: : --,)::"_,:--7-...,,,,, ''_,:;,.-:=-‘5.:.:
.-K I. --,,--:''`I II iii • •-1'7., ,t:).1....,I1-.,.,;5;•,:;,___,., I •I ' . . 4..-. .- , ,,:•--,:.•; . --• •:.,',::e tr,..-,q,.,••';•:.'!..i'.,..,_,,_4___.-,,--2I',:=•.,.--,•t•••••,:::•s.,:,. 0.';,.••••• :.-
----...-- . ._.—.._ .
- . `,,
,_--, ,; .,./(
.,..- - .:.
• ..t
•
c• ,
M ; _-,,,,_1,••,;,..,
.--1-.",,',0,-,•;-7,-1;..'•:.r.',4,•i-I:i'-eI:::.k 4......•.;-P,',:-. ,•:.1.,%,"•-••••:,,,.........,,,,,..,:•••_.;:•.-5,,,.., ,..-..f-..-,•,••,:-...:-.:-_,,;/,.:-,.....,,,,•,.•..,,.••.-,.,:.
). :),
••• .i
.
- ,, "...-"-ia s' :k,
,,,,,,,----•,, I I'v.,
• !-:,' ) .S•:';-,,.,/. .t).:,?•-:'-,-'.. I) I ...,,,,, :-..„.",-4,:-..,,•....eel,,,,,,e,-,-,..••,-.1,,5','-'-',-;-'1"-;•.--',.---.''---,:•-•-:C8:',--;',',Z----.I'44,-,',F,''','-':•--',",':',.';',!--;•.-,.'-;?.-,',,,--0-:`-',"';'-'-'
''‘'., .,-,.,..-r.;•,;-"';', 0:,,,?,..,,.:',24.-..eillc-,t,'-''',:.,,..,,,,:1,;•:r,alte-.-; ;.?):;,,.,-/:J",,..T....,,,,,-,,,,,,,,,,%.".,;.;',,4„:-. -,,i., ,e'.1,2;i4I.!::*;,-,-..-: •,, ,,,,,t;,:-',',„i'l,':;.•,,'..,,;-z,. .',,,'...,,,,:•::'
' ®I \f' *.' -N' , . . I.k I I),- ':4.-.--X, 0-,--,7 1)
- _
--... .
,, , ,
.c. .•___ . •,, ,
.-,.. ,. , ..\. ... ,i‘,) -‘..,\.', ..:,:,..,„ :.,,•\,"iu,..,, '. ,/-(I.,,,,,,,,,...; ,.:::-...-77,..1:::,--,-;-,1,),,,,,(,.:`,:,::,,-_-:.,4•.(.......„,--..,------_,,„-:7 l'.\11::;?...'L i.:.-.,'-4:':,'..:,4''..`::::;.:..':.'''''"'...... .,".14.''''';':''''''''''''''.:›. ..2.0..' ''''''\'''..,....F.'.!.4': 'r.,1,,:.i'f..L'::';',..,..,'''-'-,'.,',:'..,'''.....'..,!,....:!q!.':.-::::-.....,..: ',....
,,,7 .:. ,.,....,:':'„,',.,..,....03 ;,:,':OrC..:IS'k:f;Y,';',:e.‘.,..::.:;;..1f.e:;.'.:..,:::,.:. ''.,-.,f'.;..''...,'L.;.'.':..;':.:i :: i:-.1.':':',, ',:!-,5:1:-'".•,;.',.':::',',,,'.: ::::'-:-.,'..,...''.::.--.
,
_,?.' :"I.,• ..'':;'!;.••••••.f:' ,."..!)'''.r,,,..!; ;.'.,;% ;:.g.'..;t.'1'.1.,.'1'.i.lk,tnIr.S'.'4.-4••;Zi::: ::....";•$•.';.'):•• ••'.. .751c<41..'.1.4" ',I•3(.47...',...;ii.;:i:?1%,f,',N.,,••..L.'••••••', ..IzII;.',.:-•;;',....',;:.',7.7',..'t•,..'.L.'1.r,',..,.'•::•;.
. . .
.''''''s :. .1....'!'''.. ''.'..;.\.. .",-;,:•:4)fi-1). 11;'-(.7.-'- 7
_--------____' L
;6;;;.k..';'''''''''''';'''''''''''.. ''+'.f.3:-...I'.;:A:*;''..“).../.;...iri.7';'•*;•:''t;'1.I.:L;;W ,%:1.';' •''i;:q-'.',,...';:•.:Z;:;'''''.".' -'.''A;7i11:2''..njifi.';';''';!).5,f'', ..'...1,V,!:5••••;;..;,•,.:7,--..,',..;';••• ;:?..S.,'•';',"-'•;••••..;•:.'.•
3, • ,•, •,....:,,,,,/..._,, ,, ______ ••• ...,• ;,,,,,,i.t.,;:t•;",,; .7. ...-,,,k,,,t.,„•?:V.f.,.....kki4,'i''-. .,••f‘'.44.;,L'I.I.,1•:.... .?:!.;,i'''.'..''';':;;:•(4".:5..'77'ff;,.;•'''.'••'.''',2';'., ''.7I,'''''......1.: _•;,•,•• ••;•/;,•••'•:'::'.'..:J.•I';•.......,....••••
'--.I:',...7‘....-;-.Mtl,• '•...;,"•;74,,,,,',I,J.,•-•;,./,,p ,•„••••••••••-.7••‘• ',...-•••••••,,,,,;-.7.,4„:7'. ...„!•...?.;",!).".;7••••7„,;;,?1,7,;•,•?...1.:,,,,,.,:,..f.:,...;,,,,;......;,:,....;,;--,1:4,,,,,,,,,,..;,--.x...,-;,..x,..,,,.;,‘:z.:...:14 „ :,.....-,,L..-',„„'''..-,,...,.',.if,17- 4,14., ..f-?:,---4,..,_-.._--,-,,:,.,,-
1 .')1.';,, , ''T%:..-::;-.i I '1, 4,'k%;?i; !'--i-''-.-'-.%.;:' ,:X..i.1.:S.431::'3: 'Xf.i.j'''*:.',;.'-.:Y:i.'',4:1 :t41,43'441,,,**.')4,ifq1;'i„'''WL:.'4;;',47A:AFA,':":4-Iff4.:.r...i. ,e,.Hri -l'i•-:;k:>.;0'.: :‘;',.T ft.J.;i.:,•Tf!t";....::::;:';I:t.r.,': :
I
-,....,,,,....-L-6.,-,tzt44,,,,,,,1,:x.,+,.,,,,,z,,,,,,,,,,;s4.,,,,,?;;;;„,,Le-, ,,,c-.0.-„,c4.4i,1,,,, ,,,.,?..,-L:w.-.,,,,,,4*.t-..44,;;;;',4,p':.,',?.;;,!;:,?;;;;.,1.1.kt.lty;.5.,,,,,:e.T.:4,1.:.; .: 7.,_4,_:,:-:;::::,:k‘f.,-,,.?-;'-i;`,•2e:f.,:,1.,,:!...,.,:• .:'.-.:',.:',..:.,-.:
q,
$4.'',, •,,. ;:.:-.J.I:r.•,5fr;..it:....#;-L-, .•::.,?:,'1.;'.-.ier-fr.:....,,S.,,,,'::‘;,."..4..v._,-„5,,:'./.,,,,..T.V....1.:;',,.. .p.::t.'..:::;,?,,T5,4W36,0, -r0V.-;:7:..e1.2, ls,;;, ..e.(4-$0;',...ik7.429'•;,?;•,-;•.rg•,..,,g,,,,,,;',,,,,,;,p1,,,,,,.;:.-,-;- .,-,..7.:)44..ni,:c. ".-4:-.:;.;•,' ,..k11,:::•:.....:.-:r.,;,,,:..,1:,,,.,:
.. -.,,, _. ;. ,,.M_,,,,,:•.7,,N .:.,.. .,,.., '.. p;•;i;....3,1.•'....,,,,..,,,,. .;;-!=y,..,',.. .,;;;,,'',„,,,;,,..it.,',.:Ii'',, ,;II.t.'. ...:8t.',I.,',;,,,,;:2.,b ,:g.'''':'1.:..}i0,?....i4I1-4..Ii Ai21-;.'2;•P';'' ';lai:: :!;.:*.‘41::Y.gfLA,*.Y.'219;%'.:714'34' ;''f4' 5';''' '!..4.1::; ''''''':;'''''''''K''''''''''''
'1'.' .._, i.--. ;;;, ' 4 N ,% '. .',. Ici. - i_t,,..., ,L..,,,,..,"c,'=j•I•..,••„.4......2.,;.••;,.,..'•;....;•P::;-:;•%-;".."i••5.-,.•e;:-..'-"7".1:::4'.7I'i,',17.t.%;;4:•.,41;.:...fIa3..I.7.!,,I.t..... .:f.g.',.:IP; t:-.74,-;5.;;'),;;;;I'.7..?:?•,:;t7;:,:trIi;',;;Igkis,... .0.,S.:7.:-.F.,7:1:!.‘4,,I., -,01;-41,-•',..,.,.,...,,,..„;•,,.,,,,,,....,.,,•:-..,,.,,,,..;,,..,•7,I.•,..„,„•••••,,72.,,,_•
-", • ,e.n -.--• I,; ( I - . '-----' ' '''"s''''''''''''s' '''''''''''''''' ‘i':*;,'-e I•:`,..;9;-.:',"-,,V,•.718-:.:A,;..-4-',./,':::-,'is:.c-',.:'•4- ,,,-7.),,-;',-cfEe'-';''4'...I.:, '".?'4,-,...',',,i)/5,y,1,0S-q--:•.-I.'4I-..,%-4:-.4 -•,;:,,,,,e,-.-,--,-...194- -.-,-,-.,,,-'-'---'-,-,,,:-:,;-.',.
'. -14 -,%5: ilt,I-1.-I;a `, •...--,,/..----z,•):•-••,:-.I.--.0.-- -, i••.,•-•.,..--,,,-••••-•.,....,•-• f,-.,:s.,-..4.:,•:.,,,,,,i,-.,,,,..;.--,, .,.:,..,4 .,...,.,, ..L,,...7.I,.,f;;•%c•:••,.,,..X.Ir:,‘-;..7.N1.7.-.74'4,...:Z.V.N,?,28',N., . ,..., ",,,-;••7;:,:- ..4........4•I,44,,,,t..5.t...i....,-.,,,.
• i_.,,,, I ;I ,/1 -g',,, ,,__... -,,,,,,r4A.--.;,.,.'"'r' , ):NI_L,,,-,\ 'z-; ,-e,J-it;',6,:-.il--;',.:1,IfI.k.'.* ,''''f-I,P'...:e:--7'-'-i'er.z% 'Z'''''''.110::f.---,;5'''',,-',..01I2I-%t-i'',.'.." -.0.'N;IlgiUki").t•-t:,,,f.I.04:P.';''...Y-‘,AL :q:;.:Z4I-igulei‘.;,A'-';:-,iLl ',.-s,tiI;%,.,;,.:.';'.;';-.:.';-'5."?k...2-4-'44I'if.'.'e'ff:',.?0;1'.-f- I'':-;'''....‘,I
, .
.
' '.:i.. , •.- •..... . ,•.-.141),0;k_4..-„i'.3',74I-. ;-.:e.-,:;,;.;1'..-iy.,--,s/x,-J-4: -:•.-1-:-,:e•-4';',.;':-.4-.,...2-.1,,,,;, ,.-..I.I'.re;.. .1---:,-;..--"F-0;,;;;111..4.';.‘e--,1,,,,:e....„-sle,,,, ,,,. •••-?:-5•5'...,,,:st.:ifilee.'ett.A.,.?..);;,1,•.....,''--i•:,--..,......;,;;Ye-",,07-1.;;0.-;,-3.-,,,,..,;.‘;;,,,:,,,,-;),:g2,-.. ,-,-.;-..:
'. , -"e_'---,:,:: i‘,..,j1--:I i I' ° %, 4I''. a-'-.F"' I LI,''':rri."I'/I'- I ''I;ri',C•Zi:X:.;;K!.;.;),'":7.:I/-:'‘...-404:;?45,:*#-',...- -.12,--? I''?Pi:iVO'4'°iMk`I- :`I,S1`;,'LleWI:I'l'ij,_'-glS,z'I'Sl-,&,-4,,A),1-'4?,:i.,,,i'kFai°,,,44r.,CAI4IIIVI,VOI,',,g.,LV,.'; ',,,t ;'-;.n?'Z;.::'..Me.ei. ZI.2-',I,;',I. 1,-.5-,1'.,: '
4,,„.„,,..1!;..,11'.',..;,__:;30)!L ,„,..1_1.,,e,,,,""•:-.‘,,......;;:ii,..,.11,,,,/.,II...";:\,,,A,f/v.;,,,,...,..:::_r_1:1,7,,,,,,,,,,....^-'...::,,,,,.',,,,.....r.r..":.' 7 ......,,i;41;,„:..4.::::i.,,,g,.,.-iiii;;;.,.:7i,...,...,:g.:......,f:....t,.:,,,71,..i..:,;val-.',.,,,S,.i.i'!%.',"..,.":::::.,1!ip.t.:..g;;:ki).1A.I,;:.:;:l.!3.,..e.,A,O.c.„;...,..;;57°.,,,k,,4::,,!:i.t.,..:;...,:‘,:.i.,'i,....i!.tj:.FI;:':;;.;,...!_I:.,;c;•;,?...L-'L'I2!:'.'i;,.::..:-._',..,,.....,:!.„i;:;',-S.'',t)-,4'....:'•':.;..5..er:,..ez..„..L.;!.,..tl!;:z.i:-,o,.:,;I:;:,';:::..;,,„,1;,:.i...,‘,,'';•,,I,...-.t.'II,,,y,;c.5',:j;;;:,',„:,;f`,.,.k:!.,;4Lrtlu.i',I.,:.;it:„';;'..!tt..;1',';;,l.?;:;!:.'Fi;it.H..,•;.t.fyi..;,...4:'i:::,,-,c:;;'rt,,t;.::-I4,,...,cLI,,i,t,"1,3„.I'I':',:fge,i.,.:..!;::....4t_l'I.:;cs'‘,4.4.:,,,,,.„:,..,)...:,::...::'r'ji';:,;„ieId,r..'I:..:.4,,..;-!?....f.;;.:,..fk..:67;,2:,...r.,:,...,„.L,Lr.;"V.;N7ktst,.e;!..i:,.,y,^..4.z:_,,,,..0IIti.„•,„;..„:7;!...„:II',.....,....1„I'lt,'!-_,,..:_,,ki,II45;.:`-:...ri,.•.;:i-s'iffii..I.ilfte,','''!,,,,I15-1,':;.,,.,,,,;(....i.,.:._.::::.:!..."..,,,,,i,',;.11':';:i...!1.:',".....;;;I::".,
•.., ,.. ....•
:"'Is.
'I's.. ..,•::'; --;',.1...1
._.
• ,.q1.,(.i_ -I 'I- '•''IIk \ci - ° l'iW-3';$2,41V3P-111-I'Il....:PkYI:::: In•Zi':i?III.);;'.,'"•••'' ''',I‘KI'l'I•4?:•;••!;11-,!....;:!;,:;--;;WII,•F-I.'Il:',f;4-r,•: •-"•...5-•,-,.IIR•z!P•• ;;I:g.:$.::-:`ktt:::M',-,.,...-f-'•AIII,l'›::/.;: 14I-f;A:i."-.Vi,:,:t:fri; -'•, ;I:3,-k?7,IP',"•-,, I01,.I.745.,•.fl-,4?-'2•:(I,--.:•..,,,,,,':;:];'',
// --''''-''' '-:_g _. ..): .,k- •" _• -
-,-'"'''•,..?'4'•`40.-•?.;;',I,7,,,.c..Y.'4........... e.,,,,.-,,,,of..:;•.*::::...71:%1,:,t.,,-..,,,,b,1.-,#P,".I.`',.4.-0,..',.,,,,,...t.le:-.,..,,d;.;,...,-,,,,;,:.;r1.,:;.:•.-,,,,;,-,,.,... .,
,i - --,';',i,.. I-;-:1,- ' , ..,''',''\ ' g _ .,..A.,:;,,,,..:,,,,:_;:(...:,::;.-::::',...,?,..,,,v,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,..":,,.....,,,,,,,.„pt,',..>:,,-,,,?...4,,q,-,s,0.-,,,,,-,,.•yL.,••.._i,,..eree,,,,gp;r,..,•-,:.4.--i,e''-, !-.1.," -''4i."'',P,Il'c''I''''',"c!* 4'.'s-,fLr"-,,,--:W-4;':'''''''''''''''''''''^':-'''''''''''-';I`""-'-''''''
r ‘?k";''''' "r."..,i''''''','.9.7.7'IL..•I%'',...'•,...',7.."t'•'•.-•;'.'•'''''''s'"'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''417..-'...AVIsc".:.N..I•I'•i';,,,,,...'i 4,0:-.+7,•• ::.'..., ...:ii j-fit..1-,v,•••4Np..-:.:4Ii.,!‘,‘4,( '..,•4;• • .-,,,,;,.,'F.„kr..;.!./.,;:q.,,,..;-..-',I.I',.7-
- ____,..1';:;:k: '''''''''''''1'...,••); 4''.?.,•--/VI,4,-;•-' i IN:. - (0:27.:::‘,II,If.`'.:Vf•I.3II.W,..!!-,"'..,-":;;; . ..-!:•,,A.,-'.'"W.,,II.'.••,,rI:•I':•::•-•::::,r;I:. ::!'''-:.;P;I‘iir•';41.i,...7'.•;,:i'..V3i...7,...<7V..•,.-N-7,.--e ,;:er,-A- ;a:..--i,-74':3-,`ZIL4Q7...1-"-ce.-4,!--e',-• -,:,'•-.-,. .....: -44y 4.".1,,,,,-4-,...-'12,,X,,,..N.,',.',:.Ii2.':'"....
7.-'----- I 7'-- . -11:2'I-' / .--1-'''-2'-/'I, It-, I''-- ' :-' '''''%%''...;14 5:.::;1;i;e:',..:'::'''':,:-.',.i ';,.,:.4' .f.!..1.:;. ::: ',.k'glril..4.71;:,0g:',•L';2'34:ti,5,1*.I.0:5.31;., .'.:; ...?..;;:f.tg.44.V.VZ* :':.0.*:".1.:4f0'4...,,'k.1..;';VV!:11,1).;42 ._...... ..'..A.,'Xtt'fr..4';'..Z4;,
'.),,i;....,-, ----A.,..'4,/ ..= ,,....,i,--..,--kyi:_,,,,...:_iK. 7.77,-t-77... -, ...y.r.•I;i::‘.-4.;•.ti:.:-,!:;,•,.....::,4','::::',I•.:::::::-:••:-.,.,.k...3::.Sti; „:::.:.;•=1:::4:,",,h,1.-•...,.:4,70t755:1•40.447 i'.,:,,,;:, :/...-..3r.fr›,!_•%?i,___ 1:,,,_;:if,' i_.,_,:i- '7_'7,/...„47cr._.,...,,,...., .,_77,,,,,,
.-,•'.7'''. [ (-- FrIT7-11)'1.1 `,ATik f ' , ' , k. , -1 i.
,
,
I ',, 1 I 11 _ ri,),:,yr :f. . , 1, i r P ' i I." ,.. . , ' . , —.2-1,-: 11 c. :.,'it"A 1 . ir 1 .. 1r ', i., • / I rr i ,. t , , - 1-,, (c ,,:„.
. - ' - ' -..'- Ail. I ki IFI 1 1 : it I k 141 I I'I. (4 'Is, I- ,,;::-,r,.../I. ' ' 7 , ' • ! '-''•--,7, \i, II; , I_ .70 I.',I I i I: AI I I 1/:.1 f:i ,' I I 11 ,..''' '
,
, 1 t. ,f ri, /ip . ,--1 -4 I ,, ., . . 1 . , -1.1 ...., .., ,.•_.; ,o.,[ ', i 1 1 i. . - 1 i , t , 1 I f
' cli f 1 ,4 ,, , ,)-1 i I, 1 .',UL It"lh,s i .1 - • / I I 1 ;• 'E:511 '.'
-• , ' 1, r , , z.., , i_.../- 'll'',.''',, ,t 1 4 i tp: , ' . :4 ,. -.-, -..;•.' (Fs_ '', f- . f ,
' • , i T i- 1 ' 1. If/. lk if ,.- L. I ,f I, ( p f i; ', .-, 1 •, , - ' ! I c)1! '; `,.,-..;.---, I :i...-:‘c' ,.1 . ..._?.,-..NIVi 1, i . , — .',.•.. ' L, 1 'I
6, fl '1T;i1ri.,-.1 : 1',\_,- 'I I,-','',:.,-/ 1 - 1 ' . ,, 1,,,,2-C +, - ',_.k.,-.,-'_c_-:;:%' ,. .. ; -4--i,:,-,0}:okfriN i t ,.1,1,f ,,I ili i 0 c.7)r-'
I '
? 'r rIHI/1-1 i If. i#' 'I. I\.- \ '''../'' ti 2:
/041 I, I . \ ,I. ", 1 . I; : I/\`:----- - ' ,,,,;1, 7-, ,,Pirv) ,.,e )i, ,k .1'., , Ir,..-\,,! t 1
-----1. . ' )c.:',
ip,p i,p i It ,p 11-,Ir ,r,J ,,-,i ,. 4; i li''.--/, i.i: ./'- . 1 , :1 I ot,„fg :.. ..'‘. ) . 1 ''' ' if 'til -' 1.---'-'''''-' (/'-"'"---:1----,4
44/1 - i 1 .k II, 1/47,•I , :, ;till. ' -,-/ /I ' I
, f,i ,LI , Ilf.ii,. 4 ,,LLL:11).t. -ii oii,,,t,i,: • : 1 _, .„--, ,-,-, i , pay.: . f f ' '' .1 / e,...... •-
__ .. . if _ I ir i,.I, f . ,•, f-1, ,.I II,,,, ,i_11:i:ir,. ._„_,_,,.._.,' 1..._j__ ). ' ,-(I /'r••Vt '.' ,''.' .,
,''- 1• 1 I •• '. . _47,L______,,',-• ,,_•i______ i',1_•• I -
• I • - I.•1 ' 11 16, 1 0 f-1,--FI- ,1::.I /'i 4:1I --,1'.. . . _i____I -<_rzi: „-_
1, ri ,:- '+' i• ;HP; h ' l -hr--- ,, L'f:-. '''-1 -7'--1! ' [iI' l--, ‘I ''' 1 ' ' 1.
\, : , , ' •r-i , i' 1. w f ', ir.,t ir r f'' 1 ,, ', ',IF f.,1 IL iv If, i( li .. ,. L_....1 .,t,:.1-. _::IL III,, I J,! II, ) ,:,',_,p-',•;',";"I tIg‘.‘,.ib
(
\ • • ' I li J 11 If"I r'f Li I-t I-1- : ,ofr. -i Ir.•1 ',' • 1 ''[ If 1 [ ik -,',1 ; '. "I 1.:1----10_,:L._,W2iV, Mtlir.- „.„,-,,,..• : - ,[11 ir', . V " '.
\ " t ih'r- 1, 4-1,1ri. -4 l• ',i 4 .,f14 it-14 IL., l'i - I ,+! i,- ---:-':-. )-- T .•-•t:.•., '-,i d' • .. ),, -:-• ' I
,L , , ,i,'4"•-'. kl.t .-, 4.., L 4-.:f, ,I ,..vi , ,. —I •--1,--j---p7,nv.,_,:i,' ., . 1 ,1 , , ., ' )-( 1
.I, 1-1,,., , , 0; ., ..;!.-_,,_ -„_;,,,..J,L,•_ ,.._- .- .,, ,....,..-i If: , _f,- ., • ' - ..I '
- \ - i I r i II . ' ip 1.:if:-Ip!i.ri r,,i v' ..i. L Ir 'ir l• •f--r A.I(L -' zr '' 'i. k..,,c.iir-T--•-•->-,i1,. ••1-'.. '.1 L.'T 1 1 I „I,-(i‘ s , : :.. --..,_ _._)1.,,-..J.)
• • Iii: 4_ , 1 I . • il',-,i; ., •Ik- I,, If-4, fl , f ,, III • i 711I ir 1 'J ., LI : ••••••• - _, •
- \ .. ' .1 41 I I., L-•-,1.,-,, ik•0 If ,I. ' '' '' ' i'!1-----12—•.—•_-_— it:4: ''',. • '•."I' Ir If-1 I , II, I I' -171.
\ , .. .1, ,IP I II I ,I ,t f I +,,'ri fl' ,rILI• i.k , ,-, f i•1 , ir - -TE : __,-1,, A 1 Ik 1,F
\ • II 1.1r ,k 1 “ f f'if 1.f, I 1 1 ' •rf.'.' 1,if 1 I. I,k I If I 1 ol,i1L_:.1. • TY. 11--If I. '\\I,, .' ' );--- f.,, ;
i
1 1 1 — . .,,/ It . . it ' ,- . .-•-.. .a,' ' , , ', ,. _ • --,' \ 4,-
.--,:i)
. \ • - , LI-IF 7,,.1, -, 1 ,_ 1t, To if---.91: • 1,--_•_•i , ' I II )'';`,I, II'l-,74,'Ir 11 "..•..,',, •.1,:.
'f IkI IF .11: i ,If j Ir,r: , I 1 1 l'Ir '.`.1 ill- •f--• i'•- •: ik r ;.SI
7, 3 _.1 --.__.___,__,__________________
9 2 0 f I g --:,-,,,,,r•,;>, FIGURE 1
— •
I g tscl /F '''',-;\ EXISTING BRIDGE NO. 38 LANDMARK
z ...
— m *
',.) SAMPLING LOCATIONS FOR THE
> 10 q t ?_3 1
6 GI 0 4 st.
,.,..
BRIDGE lc CONTROL SITES DFSIGN GROLIF'
" ,..
h. • , ,,,-
1 8 N-,,,,,,, „,,, Proiect Development&Environmental Analysis Branch-hiCDOT
EnOkuen ' Pisemtre • Surveyors • Landscape Architects •ErrAronmentel&dentists
chi:mark Picrth Caroline
AROMA!EACH,VA . VII-UPAISSURG,VA a SUFFOLK,VA • RALEIGH,NC

z
0N0
Nd14
n I ��
3 p
i.
n-A
a
P
vy
1 C,,4D v O;
Z
m
An Zy
od yD rOn mZ ZDm N00
OC CD pn - r= mC�
z> r 0
m mmDD-mm
—
ZmCmo R.Z 7Oz
in
Kbr1Zmur � e 13
003yO y
''1 maA
m
x zm m c�
(n m
marA*imv�ri z
K
m
D D 3 d g
ZD=y2o 2
D
zm c
co
FIGURE 2 LANDMARK
Transect and Sampling
Locations for the Control Site 1)F. 1 �'���
Engineers Planners Surveyors
Environmental Scientists Landscape Architects

r
Z
1
O
1/4
.a� d
1t
?) \ Ilk
;Q \ ; , Z 9@ O i C v J
ei.iD
D �i�yZyrAi o o z ogll 93 r
i j a❑tea N yc
63
in ra-mi S� !^ zo
o
o
o O• a a xi n m xi
N -u
m Z
o
-10
o
Amr)Z)Od 00
cn
(n oilce)od Z
�-1_ >A
—Ir71E—IDm c0i c
IAXImnJ n
m
.�i0in Aom z 2
a a om
in hf V t7
a N N D 0
S C
b tJ
Hil z FIGU E 3 LANDMARK
Transect and Sampling �� I��N �� ��( )L1 I
o
Locations for the Bridge Site
Engineers Planners Surveyors
Environmental Scientists Landscape Architects

76 45'56", 36 04'.52"
1358 VIl ? i III •_-11t L
• branch 4anding s , �'" :' Q 12o4J 11 • �. w-.4
+ „ ^� k111200 , _v , i r
L -c `�=ram �
120124. t CD ,Aiil 4r1 4.... 1
1�-� t
,, .-e_ ' ,.. Ix-4-- -- (1239 Litir,... ,
1
ata:
v./ vitir —7"natriallsigs7 aPPF 4r ,
Blackrock ys 1»n`x 1 ' "-3 BASIN 8 PIER SITE �I I I 7 � � ,`.--,
._.1361 u . 1114 -
. - ..g. '. . '� -0 TWIN PIER SITE + ` ,-;-, -`..
• n OTl-� -t-
•`=....cam-ti y.s ° ,-;. z-- ai. c* < .3 F�" '.' '�?
■ _ r-x "E.i' x `.` D iv _3 J - g .{^s•J„r- s..�r+'ec"•- 32
1501 I -- ,, ;- �� {. �- -'4 -:tom. _,_
= :n '?�- az�x .� •�� � '<-�''l '�'a `� `�'��F` a..`:•�y'�`" �'gtvnr'� ;ys.i�
�-• ,..„:_ � � � �- � v r � _em:4417:;E:iii;
UNI,irill 1 t I II I
;;:A..;
ED
w.::
:-:_
:_
:- ...
„i
4-'---t:77-7
-- 15013t-s+, �- "� + �" .r-7...- s. 7 ..+•n� x '' -a... y�� ' :w.
.' c)1.....
l•.:
-' .„,..„4„......3-4....--- -07....,.,0„:
/ '�-'� ..� - N ° r *g 3 yr `_-,t x5 ' '`' �" _
,R++? 'S'Gr ST � Y, clay �'I+sb ' 3s a i f-' "'"._.! _3 .a,
4-.a.�. 4 ..e., .r- - � -w- -m- .3 s.L r .a ^' z-F. y+, 112D �y
c- i » f -_ ._ r=� # �.F � ,� _ �= '' 1119J 1129 1131
` •r "' 74i.• .- 'fiv.. ..- +" a ,'. - 'tie ` •b•-.a:.- •7,..t. y -
1502 _�.,.+. , .:&•� +'`� r ,,r..'�.,,�`x'�v`.1 ..,..-< „ S. ,. .. _ .",5. M��i''4y u.: ,,,�c�` =- - - � u`� � i-�` cs-'- .a-.
r e
Av,ca• P P� ^� R nn J/�� �_ i_ rz a �s s
_ z� r F - „ 1�i i f 1 -..- -. cis 3; i
ec-
'� 1.1502 1 a=?.Y-4 .4z-2�. ,.st z-4--- _; l,'" `,"Y" `�, 3 -,+_ �, 1-. _;' i:.�_ .,�.s -' -. r--.1
' Ir ti `•-lu, .`' r i..��%' •... -..z0 - T �,-.rN�" -«. x , `�
-- - '£. •f'� - n a'i ram 'i 'ice = '. ..'.a,=,.,k - F " -- Z` `tir. 3- ,.i r ,^'
Scale .47
cr
�. .� try`' +! ,g�'.:"Syv..F_ a� zr� w "-"b"><" c �' _ - "'�- = - "� '
Q�ai 3000 ft lI
i _ '4r, ..`"'E.,.,_ ->z '-. `` wfi� ' _
Map created using Freasion Mapping 3.G `- r _ -
�-�� �' � _- �- e-76 32 48', 35 59'10"
Copynght 1997,Chicago Map Corporation&TRIUS,Inc.
SCALE: NOTED
DATE 7,6/99
1 DRW BY
I PJW Rt1g510N: GATECI-11(BY
1 rrr T ',rim% ' 1 F r. _ /"', I '` ON
% WAFF CONTRACTING, INC.
/ ; V i\ 1\ !V iL'V I ., ,i-',i� , I •,'1I ��" EAenton. North G�rolina
�" J I ' J '' T. C. C. - CHOWAN RIVER BRIDGE
NORTHEdenton - Chowan County - North Caroline
(r`e`"`only I LOCATION MAC
FILE NO.: ' DRAWING NUMBER: PAGE:
I I of 3

I
I
•
•
•c AREA # I PROPOSED FOR BRIDGE II
DECKING land - 31,250 S.F. i
::= D. 7Z o.c
Access roads (dirt) I I
:_ I 1
AREA #6 PROPOSED FOR BRIDGE : J
I •• DECKING land - 1800 s.f. NU� y= i;
•d. e r
ii,: i
r o - - I
Waff Shop r:;:.///////// ////// ---� 7 I —
EXISTING BASIN rI =; I
L. ; f EXISTING BASIN :;J j= I
I
:
..___._.___________\._____----- ---
Existing / �': __
concrete �' = '• ='
deck 7::- "
Existing shoreline (approx.)
_
•••` rr J I
,-f`, AREA # 2 PROPOSED FOR BRIDGE
�` . J JI
_ _ DECKING land - 46,350 SF.
EXISTING STORAGE AREA 'A' ` r . /I D a�area - 219,250 s.f. •
• L) AM
IM
WA Existing Shoreline (approx.)__�11M
AREA #5 PROPOSED FOR BRIDGE rWA
DECKING water - 7,120 S.F. //� I AREA # 3 PROPOSED FOR BRIDGE NORTH
0. /le Uc ...a Existing DECKING water - 4,c145 S.F. I tali
CHOWANRIVER
"'%/�r concrete 0, / I c�c
Ng decking scALE: r=zoo
DATE:
:
I 7/76/99
NA
DRW BY: PJW REVISION: DATE:
q DSN BY:
CMK BY: WAFF CONTRACTING, INC.
q
AREA #4 PROPOSED FOR SWING SPAN 9u'
BRIDGE SECTION rater - 5,720 s.f. T. C. Ca - CHOWAN RIVER BRIDGE
EGe .an - Cho a County- No th C.vli u
1-1--' 21,A\ OF 15A1\ AA- pp f�� 7 ATFO71 ,\ V BASIN & PIERS AREA
FILE NO.: I DRAWING NUMBER: PAGE:
aof.3
C:IFllas-99W,sclWaM Basin 62 R.VCD 7/16/1999

\ J/`\ .
Z
•
\ \\ Z '
\ 7
\ 7
7
\ 4Acces5 road (dirt)
\ AREA #7 PROPOSED FOR BRIDGE
DECKING land - 6,230 5.f.
O, ILI al.
AREA #10 PROP��SED FOR BRIDGE DECKING land - 2,c170 5.f.
•
i / ♦ ♦• ♦ `
•
♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ AREA #8 PROPOSED FOR DECK SECTIONS
♦ ♦ ♦ , permitted arca, water - 10,580 5.f.
V
♦ ♦ 0, z'-1 a c.
♦ ♦
CHOWAN RIVER V •
FLOW — AREA #q PROP05ED FOR DECK SECTIONS NORTH
permitted area, water - 14,400 5.f. Irdea«i.yi
0, 3 3 c -- SCALE: 1"=200
OATE: 7/16/99
DRW BY: REVISION-PJW DATE:
CNK BY: WAFF CONTRACTING, INC.
DSN Br-
Edenton, North C.roh,,.
_ T. C. C. - CHOWAN-RIVER BRIDGE
I p Ede conC ..Co.rty NorthT �I�A\ r,Oi TW \ 7 _\� TWIN 1'IEK5 AREA
FILE NO.: DRAWING NUMBER: PAGE:
Of 3_
=:IF1las-99IMisclWarf Bash 92 Rood 7/16/1999

RECEIVED
SEP 2 5 2008
OIV OF COASTAL MANAGE114E
RALEIGH NT
FINAL REPORT
CHOWAN RIVER AQUATIC INVESTIGATION:
(An Inventory of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation At the Eastern Approach
to Existing and Proposed Bridge Number 38 on U.S. 17, Chowan, N.C.)
State Project Number 8.T010602
T.I.P. Number R-2512
NCDOT Consulting Number 96-LM-02
Prepared for:
Permits and Wetland Mitigation Unit
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
One South Wilmington Street, Room 462
Raleigh,NC 27611
Issue Date
April 30, 1997
L&M Project Number 96-24-02
Langley and McDonald, P.C.
Engineers
Surveyors 5544 Greenwich Road,Virginia Beach VA 23462
Planners [phone] Fax[phone]
Landscape Architects 201 Packets Court,Willamsburg,VA 23185
Environmental Consultants [phone] Fax[phone]

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PROJECT INTRODUCTION 1
PROJECT METHODS 1
Existing Bridge Site Survey Control and Sampling 1
Control Site Selection , Survey Control and Sampling 3
PROJECT RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 4
Bridge Site 4
Control Site 5
CONCLUSIONS 6
APPENDIX 1
Sampling Data
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1. Locations of US 17 Relocation, Bridge and Control Site Sampling Areas
FIGURE 2. Transect and Sampling Locations for the Bridge Site
FIGURE 3. Transect and Sampling Locations for the Control Site
FIGURE 4. Average Percent Cover of All Bridge Site Samples by Depth
FIGURE 5. Average Percent Cover of All Control Site Samples by Depth
FIGURE 6. Percent Cover at Centerline of New Bridge (Transect B5)
FIGURE 7. Percent Cover Ten Meters South of New Bridge (Transect B4)
FIGURE 8. Percent Cover Ten Meters North of New Bridge (Transect B6)
FIGURE 9. Percent Cover at Control Site (Transect C4)
FIGURE 10. Percent Cover at Control Site (Transect C2)
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1. Relationship Between Percent Cover Estimates and Biomass Density of SAV Species
TABLE 2. Mean Percent Cover (Standard Error) of SAV and Emergents in All Samples by Depth
Interval
TABLE 3. Mean (Standard Error)Abundance of SAV and Emergents in All Samples
TABLE 4. Mean (Standard Error) Abundance of SAV and Emergents in Samples with
Vegetation Only
North Carolina Department of Transportation April 30, 1997
Langley and McDonald, P.C. No. 96-024-02 Page i

PROJECT INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this study was to satisfy a condition related to Submerged Aquatic Vegetation
(SAV) specified in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit agreed to by the North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) as a consequence of the replacement of Bridge Number
38 on U.S. 17 over the Chowan River (Figure 1). The condition reads as follows:
• "to conduct a definitive underwater survey to map the population including measuring
population density and species composition, prior to construction (Summer 1996) to
establish a pre-construction community profile."
The data generated from this study will be compared to post-construction SAV survey data (not
part of this current study) to determine whether any of the following conditions had a
demonstrable effect on the SAV community:
• The demolition of the existing Bridge.
• Construction of the new bridge.
• Post-construction shading caused by the new bridge.
Because SAV communities fluctuate significantly over time due to seasonal variability or year-to-
year changes in such natural conditions as river flow and regional water quality, a nearby control
study site not affected by bridge construction was selected for evaluation. Only by comparing
SAV population levels over time at the eastern shoreline of the bridge construction site to
population levels at the control site can a determination be made as to whether any changes at the
bridge site are most likely due to natural conditions or those arising from the bridge replacement
project. SAV sampling methodologies, sample collection and data analysis were the responsibility
of Dr. Ken Moore who was assisted by Betty Neikirk, Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences. Site
selection and survey work was conducted on September 16 and 17, 1996 while field sampling was
conducted on September 17 through 19, 1996.
PROJECT METHODS
Existing Bridge Site Survey Control and Sampling
A total of 11 transects, each approximately 30 meters in length (as measured from the adjacent
shoreline) were established prior to sampling at the "bridge site" parallel to the center line of the
proposed new bridge. Transects were located as follows (Figure 2):
• B 1 through B4 were positioned, respectively, 60, 40, 20 and 10 meters south of the
center line of the new bridge.
• B5 through B 11 were positioned, respectively, 0 (center line of new bridge) 10, 20,
30.25 (centerline of existing bridge), 40.25, 60.25 and 80.25 meters north of the center
line of the new bridge.
North Carolina Department of Transportation April 30, 1997
Langley and McDonald, P.C. No. 96-024-02 Page 1

Transect locations were intentionally selected to inventory SAV along the centerline and outer
edges of each bridge as well as possible staging areas of construction and areas immediately
outside the staging area(s). Each of these transects was located by survey prior to sampling by the
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) under the supervision of Randy Midget,
Assistant Resident Engineer. Stakes were placed on the shore at or near the vertical elevation of
mean high water (mhw), 10 meters seaward of mhw and 30 meters seaward of mhw. The NCDOT
determined mhw to be 0.240 meters above the National Geodetic Vertical Datum 1929
(NGVD29). All depths were corrected to NGVD29.
SAV sampling was conducted by two research divers using SCUBA with surface support from
two additional research personnel on Langley and McDonald's 18 foot vessel. A negatively
buoyant, fiberglass survey line was placed along the length of each transect, perpendicular from
shore to the 30 m stake, or beyond to the seaward extent of SAV growth. At 5 meter intervals a
0.1 m -2 stainless steel wire ring was placed on the bottom and a visual estimate of percent cover of
each SAV species within the ring was made and recorded. Because of extremely poor visibility
due to very high river turbidity from upriver flooding due to Hurricane Fran, an underwater dive
light was used to illuminate the bottom area within the ring. Average water elevations were
almost 0.5 meters higher than mhw. The average water elevation during the study period was
0.62m compared to mhw of 0.24m. A total of 78 observation were made over the 11 transects. If
SAV extended beyond the established 30 m transects SAV sampling was continued to the seaward
limits of occurrence.
Additional quantitative data were obtained by hand coring (0.18 m2) the center of the observational
ring to a depth of approximately 20 cm at every other sampling point along each transect (eg.
typically 5, 15 and 25 meters from shoreline). Each core, including intact sediments and SAV,
was brought to the surface and transported to the support vessel where the sediments were
removed by gently washing with river water through a 0.5 cm mesh wire sieve. The intact SAV
from each sample, including all aboveground and belowground plant material, were placed in a
water tight plastic bag, sealed and placed on ice in a cooler. The plant material was maintained on
ice until subsequent analysis within 48 hours for 1) species present, 2) species biomass and 3)
species density. A total of 30 cores of SAV were sampled and analyzed for SAV at this study site
(Appendix 1). Emergent macrophyte vegetation which was observed growing at several locations
within the study area was similarly sampled.
Bottom depths (measured as cm below the water surface ) were recorded at each sampling point at
the time of SAV sampling using a rod graduated to millimeters. The time of each depth elevation
measurement was recorded and the actual bottom elevations were determined by comparison to a
fixed tidal marker to correct for changes in water surface elevations over time and to relate the
relative depth measurements to the fixed datum (NGVD29).
Macrophyte vegetation samples were washed with tap water in the laboratory to remove attached
sediments and detrital or other allochthonous material, separated by species into subsamples, and
individual shoots were counted. Each species specific subsample including both aboveground and
belowground material was placed in individual aluminum foil packets, allowed to air dry for up to
seven days at 25 °C, then oven dried at 60 °C for 4 hours.
North Carolina Department ofTransportation April 30, 1997
Langley and McDonald, P.C. No. 96-024-02 Page 2

Control Site Selection, Survey Control and Sampling
The location of the control site was determined using the following criteria: 1) It must be remote
(at least 1 km) from the access, staging and construction areas but in the general vicinity of the
bridge site on the Chowan River, 2) it must contain similar SAV, and 3) it must be isolated from
other disturbances (e.g. marinas, boat ramps). To accomplish this, a series of survey dives were
conducted at a variety of sites at least 1 km north of the bridge construction area along an area of
undeveloped, mostly hardwood swamp shoreline. An appropriate area of similar depths which
was vegetated with the dominant SAV observed at the bridge site was selected. The channelward
limits of SAV growth are generally limited by light availability and therefore depth. None of the
candidate control sites contained the less abundant SAV found at the bridge site.
At the selected control site, depth soundings revealed that the slope of the bottom was much more
gradual than that of the bridge site and therefore the SAV extended much further channelward.
When SAV are stressed, or when year-to-year variability in SAV occurs it is many times the
deeper, more light-limited areas which are affected. Therefore, in order to have the control site
encompass a depth range similar to the bridge site it was decided to extend each of the control site
transects to a distance of 100 meters from the shoreline to where water depths generally exceeded
1.0 m depth (Figure 3). In addition, as survey dives revealed the SAV to be relatively consistent
within this study area, the transects were extended to 40 meters apart to provide a better overall
measure of relative abundance in the area. Measurements of percent cover were made at 10 meter
intervals from the shoreline and biomass cores taken at 20 meter intervals because of the larger
area to be sampled. It was concluded that little capacity to measure SAV abundance at the control
site would be lost by expanding the sampling distances two-fold because of the relatively
consistent SAV cover observed in survey dives throughout the control site. However, the number
of sampling points and therefore costs would be kept similar to that proposed in the scope of work.
The control transects were located using Differential GPS (DGPS), together with HYPACK
navigational software and an on-board lap-top computer. Vertical elevation was transferred to a
reference stake from the bridge site using the sea surface as a transfer plane. The shoreward, study
area baseline was first established with a measuring tape. A right angle prism and tape measure
was then used to establish the shoreward point of each transect at mhw (0.24m NGVD29), as well
as the seaward point which was fixed at 100 meters from mhw. Reference stakes of PVC pipe
were placed at the shoreward and seaward points of each transect and DGPS was used to record
their locations. Adjacent to the stakes at the shoreward point of each transect permanent metal
stakes were placed in the bottom to facilitate post-construction re-survey work.
SAV sampling was conducted by divers and surface support personnel using methods described
for the bridge site. Percent cover estimates and biomass cores were sampled at 10 meter and 20
meters intervals, respectively, along each of the five (5), 100 meter long transects. A total of 78
cover estimates and 30 biomass cores were sampled at the control site (Appendix 1). In addition,
general observations were made by a diver channelward of the end of several of the 100 meter
transects.
North Carolina Department of Transportation April 30, 1997
Langley and McDonald, P.C. No. 96-014-02 Page 3

All biomass samples were washed free of sediments, stored in airtight bags on ice and processed in
the laboratory within 48 hours. Methods used for the analysis of the SAV samples were identical
to those used in the bridge site.
PROJECT RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Bridge Site
The U.S. 17 Bridge site was vegetated with both SAV and emergent macrophytes to distances of
approximately 30 to 45 meters from shore and to depths of approximately 1.1-1.2 meters. The
shoreline consisted of either deteriorating timber bulkhead (north of existing bridge) or concrete
nibble revetment (south of the existing bridge). The SAV population consisted of two species,
Vallisneria americana (wild celery or freshwater eelgrass) and Najas guadelupensis (southern
naiad or bushy pondweed). An emergent macrophyte, Decodon verticillatus (water willow or
swamp-loosestrife) was growing at the shallowest depths south of the bridge. Taxodium distichum
(bald cypress) was also found sparsely throughout the study area.
Percent cover estimates proved to be useful metrics for measuring quickly the relative abundance
of SAV at a number of locations, even under conditions of extreme turbidity. Linear least square
regressions of cover estimates vs. SAV species biomass and density demonstrated coefficients of
determination (r2) greater that 0.85 in all cases (Table 1). These values indicate that greater than
85% of variation in biomass and density could be accounted for by the use of percent cover
estimates. The summaries of density and biomass presented here were, however, developed using
only the actual core data and were not extrapolated from the cover estimates.
The distribution and abundance of each species varied throughout the entire study area. Naiads
were most abundant at depths of greater than 0.5 meters where their total bottom cover was
approximately 30-40 % (Table 2) and they were found throughout the study area. Overall, they
covered approximately 24% of the bottom of all the quadrats sampled (Table 3). However the
bottom landscape consisted of a mosaic of vegetated and unvegetated patches of SAV. Within the
naiad vegetated patches the average bottom cover of this species was 53% with a mean density of
approximately 3800 shoots per square meter (m-2) and a biomass of 17.3 g m 2 (Table 4). This
species has been observed to have quite low light requirements in other areas and therefore it was
not unusual to find it growing to the greatest depths of all the species present here. Naiads were
found along all the transects except B7 and B8. Transect B8 is directly beneath the centerline of
existing U.S. 17 while B7 is 10 meters south of B8.
Qualitative comparison of the naiad populations during this study period (September 17-19 1996)
with that of a preliminary survey dive on August 9, 1996, suggests a decrease in abundance at the
bridge site over the late summer period. It is likely that this decrease was due to both normal
seasonal dieback in abundance as well as to the impacts of Hurricane Fran which passed through
the area during early September. Naiads have relatively weak stems and can easily be broken and
dislodged by strong storm wave activity. In addition, water column turbidity and surface water
elevations during the study period were unusually high as a result of considerable watershed
North Carolina Department of Transportation April 30, 1997
Langley and McDonald, P.C. No. 96-024-02 Page 4

Table 1 Relationships between % cover estimates and biomass and density of SAV species.
SPECIES Independent Dependent Coefficient of
Variable Variable Regression Equation Determination
(X) (Y) (r2)
Southern Naiad % Cover Biomass (g m12) Y = 0.307 *X 0.87
Southern Naiad % Cover Density (# m-2) Y= 68.1 *X+ 180 0.85 _
Wild Celery % Cover Biomass (g m-2) •Y = 1.26 *X+ 1.48 0.95
Wild Celery % Cover Density (#m-2) Y = 20.3 *X+ 12.1 0.91
Table 2. Mean % cover(Standard Error) of SAV and emergents in all samples by depth interval.
SITE SPECIES 0-50 cm 51-100 cm 101-151 cm
BRIDGE Southern Naiad 0 (0) 33 (7) 37 (6)
Wild Celery 20 (11) 13 (5) 5 (3)
Water Willow* 40 (13) 5 (4) 0 (0)
CONTROL Southern Naiad 17 (10) 53 (7) 72 (5)
* Emergent species.
Table 3. Mean (Standard Error) abundance of SAV and emergents in all samples.
SITE SPECIES COVER (SE) DENSITY (SE) BIOMASS (SE)
# m-2 gm-2
BRIDGE Southern Naiad 24 (4) 827 (223) 9.8 (2.3)
Wild Celery 11 (3) 101 (46) 17.0 (6.9)
Water Willow* 10 (3) 23 (11) 561.1 (262.7)
CONTROL Southern Naiad 47 (5) 1228 (264) 16.0 (2.8)
* Emergent species.
Table 4. Mean (Standard Error) abundance of SAV and emergents in samples with vegetation only
SITE SPECIES COVER (SE) DENSITY (SE) BIOMASS (SE)
% # m-2 gm-2
BRIDGE Southern Naiad 53 (5) 3794 (625) 17.3 (3.0)
Wild Celery 49 (9) 1120 (367) 72.9 (17.8)
Water Willow* 94 (6) 362 (56) 3366.5 (800.2)
CONTROL Southern Naiad 70 (4) 4090 (451) 24.4 (3.4)
* Emergent species.

flooding following the hurricane. No light was apparent on the bottom, even at mid-day, at
stations where bottom elevations were deeper than -0.5 meters (NGVD29). Therefore most of the
naiad shoots were existing in the dark throughout the entire four day study period and possibly for
a considerable period preceding sampling. Given these growing conditions it is likely that these
naiad populations and perhaps other SAV species in the region may have experienced a decrease
in abundance as a result of this storm event.
Wild celery comprised approximately 11 % of the bottom cover within the bridge study area
(Table 3). Its abundance generally decreased with depth, with average bottom cover of 20% at
depths less than 50 cm, 13 % at depths between 51 and 100 cm and 5% at depths greater than 100
cm (Table 2 and Figure 4). It generally occurred in monospecific patches and was seldom
observed growing with other species. It was especially abundant adjacent to the filled approach of
the existing bridge (Transects B7 and B9), but did not occur under the open-pile bridge structure.
It was also found adjacent to the bulkhead to the north of the bridge and in few small patches
along the shoreline south of U.S. 17. When it occurred it was usually quite dense, covering
approximately 49% of the bottom within individual patches with a mean density of 1120 shoots m-
2 and a mean biomass of 72.9 g m 2 (Table 4).
Water willow is a perennial emergent herb common in tidal and non-tidal freshwater areas
throughout the eastern U.S. The population here was quite robust with erect, woody stems and
individual plants of over one meter in height found adjacent to the shoreline south of the bridge at
depths less than 50 cm. Mean biomass exceeded 3360 g m 2 and it occurred in monospecific
stands with an average cover of 94% and density of 362 shoots m-2 (Table 4). Overall,
approximately 10% of the bottom sampled within the study area was covered with water willow
(Table 3), however, a bottom cover of 40% was calculated for depths less than 50 cm (Table 2).
The distribution of species within the subaqueous pre-construction area of the repleacement bridge
(estimated using transects B4, B5 and B6; Appendix 1) paralleled that of other transects to the
north and south (Figures 6, 7 and 8). This specific area was vegetated with patches of water
willow which extended seaward approximately 5 meters from the existing shoreline, a zone of
wild celery from 10 to 15 meters from shore, and finally a zone of naiads continuing from 15
meters to 40 meters from shore where depths exceeded 1.3 meters. The biomass of water willow,
wild celery and naiad were estimated to be approximately 382, 14 and 5 g m 2, respectively, within
the currently vegetated 20 meter by 35 meter area lying within the new bridge right-of-way
(calculated from data in Appendix 1).
•
Control Site
The control site was vegetated nearly totally with naiads, although water willow was observed in
one section of the study area. However this patch of water willow did not fall within any of the
transect samples and therefore it was not sampled quantitatively except for one instance where
below-ground roots and stems were collected. Qualitatively, the water willow population at the
control site appeared similar in density and biomass to that found at the bridge site.
North Carolina Department of Transportation April 30, 1997
Langley and McDonald, P.C. No. 96-024-02 Page 5

. .
Figure 4. Average Percent Cover of All Bridge Site Samples by Depth
!
•
1 ',••.:;•'-sz- ,,,' 1
70 I r '`--• ''''',;.
T -•'ci,,,0 I
. ,4:40.4-,;.,.••.,,,, i
607••-tiff:e.„'"4,,41,,,Is;,,,.-„p,,'- ...„111°P 7..!''':•''''''',.:"...:':!4--,'''''' --
'''.01Ifqii74-0,4410.1e' ,, -:
-rgri,14110•4,41:4 if„:#,..1,'*
,Avos. •>I.,-....0....1.,6k ..E.,..f,' _ ;> ,:-VJ,,4 1,+-4...--ilirk-43re- • -
.•,',':,:•ri 1
0 :6"efigg,t4A gle
:-•',.:::,,,f,li
L-711;*40,44,Velsstitild:?,371
4()
__Z
0 ItfliciAlf • ' ''' . '' ''.'''''4 ' I
. '
f—, 4:' A P;Oi -41.0 44? •.: ',-''- 7 i%::'• • , ' •,•'; I
,,,ts,jr,,,,„44,,,,,§thoi..4 , ,,-..•- 4:y%; ,-...: ;t7,1-,,:.„,'., ' ,,, , ,, • 1.::„.
CO 30Z_ :.; 1''4 ek:'tiV ' '''',/*.",d.',i'd'i'-'4C:''.'"‘''.• .;•', -'-''.,1':-',10.,;;44",.;''Zi.'.. ,.."..:,',.,..„..,1..';%.kilo!
..7. ' JA ' .94.'":'•114n'r ' ''I• ••5';'• .':'-' 1":,',,'"-'-'4..e....,.11.:;,,,...,. • • -. ......::‘:)!../....;0. , I
,: fr-4I-'•te.A.--,-- ',...,014,1,„,..+".- •.•,;,• ) ,%.•'.•'.'•et,c,.„*:e...,,,.. ;,.. • -..,,,...,..t.„,4 -1 Al.;14'. ;:....--;••••„',.,.:"":4+.''.'''01. :,- '•• - ..:,* ..i.4.2.5r'',..--,7,4, ...2 •', ,..-,, .:45..." :
V 'P'Y' ..:`1:4;3-t•,:A 14''''''.'''".... ''',.,:'''.''....''':.•-. ..:V"..;l'"Ii:t.47.(' ':; ,..::.':C...Trir';''.
7
l'It:421,41'11;;;:'.''•','--"'''.''I'1-4.11...A-5.:3:11',7'...,,•.'' '''.i..;'-..''I.,..1.0.4 i ,
20— .' 1,.. — 'i•• ',A.'. .'•`r•-'••"•,•'•• ,41,4?'.47,1.4,,.'., i• ' ' „. '`'!,• , 1 rf:Ltili;-;4:'''' .1..-:'';`,'':'.'':.',.,1*-It't.NVVP ie.-''..1' .• ' x .."-,1'41 •I
,,. -4.,-01t,'":41'l'r'....;•:'Z'e:-.."1,;::•%:';'...,.'f.,i:j.":14,-.-‘'•-'.J! ',, ., . ''',,., :,..,1„:1; 1
Vjd...!,i4.7:::,,..„0,:,...,•v",.;: ,-,',..,'1::.z't,'.t.''',.."•:..,-,'',:‘''''- ..:',`')"-'''''"'-'4:'
;V'.`1.:ittf.,Vitt.:-rt...;;:'';.:,:',..7.7'1;,'41.7cY'r.X..:,-Ti54"..''' '•...417(: ,`;':.;.)ii:16,',4 I
..,..1:-..:,7312.:•".' tj: ';'';'.;..:':".;;:',;,,i;'f,::''44;1' .:.',2;'":....'".'.'''''':•:',itt ,iy,'„,,,f^`,"-6.'„...."'`;:49.4 '''-4.••! - •..,.'-..;;;;.4`.i.-,0.,;4'. '-' '.; ,,,` ••;.zi•••••„.. i',.,_ '4--
1 0 -t',1/4- ,.1,.'''.,):;:.:1,.:(;:i/ei';'. . ..:';';;',. b,i,•.; ,7.,,CA'.,,:.;,.'..,..:: ...-.." ,' -,g,,..,,f-,P'"
.4?;,,,,44,1,,,,-, ,.....,,...,,,z1,...' fp' ' , ,A,7,',::....,Lot4.....1','::'• , r ,"
4.44; 0644,4*-1. :,. . 44 1 % :.i..0f.F:14?::':;' ‘..,,t';•.-;,:,;•;:q_bY,„p,lin'Y
4,:,- 40.411Aci , .1....1;.4;.,....r:;.•'17.,-, ...a.',...441.tr-1!;:l-',0•1''',,..irck, '..-v
0 i's''' ."
0-50 51-100 101-150
DEPTH INTERVAL(cm)
E Southern naiad •Wild celery 0 Water willow

Figure 5. Average Percent Cover of All Conrol Site Samples by Depth
• ✓F.`1,7r 1 K,1
..rFo.wx � c" 1 1 s
77 .3 F TI;1t� i.V c
t J 1
70-V fa g.%*1 1 1�11l4 FIB.C1
'q
/ Iirggu,__`oo'S 'gy11t li.titst.a'n"'IS}4
aja
60- / t a it rp a`Y r °to Yd 44tfigki 2�
fig..`# ,.,. 5� .4.1 i,4 4,I r
g �4�{ Nl h rl
', titxT 4sn #J i ,0734 1 t s ?f ! t* r 5�
g42r I
v • 54 (e. Zvi r U 1
r ,K
i ,.
O• 0—' M -w . ' ,,img. �.,;u + ' ' @ rf � -#Ei tlrali . .
o 1 43 ,7� " a S l 4• 30— gii- y. .� yi F
{ . . �
•
ri ins ' ", rt � vp i 01i X , � ��� 3 N
/ 7004.1
Y. irl as yr. o . 4 .as
20 it . ' . c '
,_ .-i-. .i 3" z K ,�'41 ..-11 r 1' 1..,riw Y et ia P '1
,*
•.,7 74-1,,,,,,. .,-*,,e4,tik ,:fiime.....mo.#4,,,,:o...4.,1.4$3wiato-rmystimp.4
alow
10 a4 = dal, a� ,.. r ,`;i
rU n445 • "' ci'Ve !r!....,fk '�,r._. yFhP
V
0-50 51-100 101-150
DEPTH INTERVAL (cm)
1
®Southern naiad

Figure 6. Percent Cover at Centerline of New Bridge
(Transect B5)
90
80 1
IX70 {
Zr1- : ' ' -I
O 60_
C 50 1
E.
G 40 -
30 l E •• ,�
M f � '� ,eJi
� • 'e
20 ` 'y
•
i
10�] {)t �i �9
a
,41
0
5 10 15 20 25 30
DISTANCE FROM SHORE
®Southern naiad t Wild
celery 0 Water willow

r
Figure 7. Percent Cover Ten Meters South of New Bridge
(Tansect B4)
1
100— ritiil
90
-;s �qe
80--'
ceNk
�,,,Lof q
ry
� C ' C60 J ; f— .k a- 4 Sl 14.
�r ` . rM1 DO
0,,,,,,o.,,,., _Q r .eiyr • 4 ..*a kt a '.F l ,�,..0.14t4 4.py `
E 1 �k. � i i' .ubY x ,$ :Kt '�ylFt •i ;rug '4i {
e ,-,--,i ,--- k.ixt,..,...0,k,... .,„,,v,!„,u,.,,,,,,,"....,,.,:„*.
y t
1Wfti !
ti v.
.
n.
v,i,.J1,,,. ,
20--7 0.? ./1-' ,,„vrtzzt.i....ww,10446,,ros •,,,N,,'Iyri,,Non.,42.4,..'„,'It•
40,
-.try iP40 *.9 ,4-0•,k ii, rM1ti c':•.••t P xl�:.,-.5...., :[' r ,t�1�• 3 4,o N..
K e ,er. 1 4 „, S
ss,•41 1 y tr e fir t 'f k.3 ° t s k i ,,..- ae�'
U , Z
5 10 I5 20 25 30 35 40
DISTANCE FROM SHORE
■Southern naiad ■Wild celery 0 Water willow

Figure 8. Percent Cover Ten Meters North of New Bridge
(Transect B6)
e/ 1
100 ),
90 ! .a• 9 4
Y ire
V.i
80 14r• �
• — 4
e
W € 4t
•
kayf:
5Oa ��fib;
Q 40 l')NrrT '
CO iA wa54• , r4
pt r
� ° 1 f 5 1°. 1 f C A F .7
20 ' tfi : ° Ea i t '
1, 1' 1 . >, { ;,
w_ 4 10 it ° .pgr, b h f '{7 ft
j �. s. � F C ,i 1 F rih y
t.S Y'. - t .t y 7x
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
DISTANCE FROM SHORE
®Southern naiad ■Wild celery 0 Water willow

The naiad population at the control site was somewhat more robust, both in biomass (24.4 vs. 17.3
g m-2) and cover (70 vs 53 %) compared to the bridge site (Figure 5), although shoot densities
were more comparable (4090 vs. 3794 shoots m 2; Table 4). One possible explanation for these
differences between the sites may be that the littoral zone at the bridge site was much narrower
(steeper slope) and more exposed than that of the control site allowing for less dissipation of wave
activity during recent storms. The control site was located in a large, shallow embayment which
appeared protected to some degree by wooded swamp areas to the north and south. However
abundant loose naiad shoots were observed in the shallowest areas at the control site, suggesting
that recent storm activity may have impacted this site also. Individual naiad shoots consist of
multi-branching, lax stems which may be broken off by storm activity resulting in a decrease in
both biomass and cover but maintaining generally consistent shoot densities.
Naiads were also found at depths of less than 50 cm at the control site, in contrast to the bridge site
where only wild celery and water willow were observed at these depths (Table 2). However, the
broad shallow slope at the control site provided a wide area for naiad growth in this depth range
(Figures 9 and 10), in comparison to the bridge site where the zone of comparable depths was
much narrower. In addition, wave reflection from the bulkhead to the north of the existing U.S. 17
bridge and broken concrete and rubble along the shoreline south of the bridge may have limited
naiad growth in these areas.
The individual transects at the control site were terminated at 100 meters from shore at water
depths of just over 1.0 meter. This encompassed nearly the entire depth range of SAV observed at
the bridge site. However, naiad populations continued seaward an additional, undetermined
distance beyond the end of the control area sampling transects. Observations made by the research
diver another 30 to 50 meters seaward of the end of several of the transects revealed the presence
of reduced density naiad vegetation to a depth of 1.45 meters. This is comparable to the seaward
depth limits of naiads at the bridge site which occurred, in comparison, only 30 to 40 meters from
shore.
CONCLUSIONS
The area proposed for demolition of the existing U.S. 17 highway bridge and construction of a
new span was determined to support populations of SAV and emergent macrophytes in relatively
abundant density, bottom cover and total plant biomass. No vegetation was found to be growing
under the existing Rt. 17 bridge structure. Light limitation by bridge shading may be a likely
cause as sediments under the bridge appeared comparable to those of adjacent areas. All three of
the macrophyte species are not uncommon for this region, but the presence of SAV, in particular,
suggests that relatively good water quality conditions exist in this section of the Chowan River.
The relative abundance and depth distribution of the most widely occurring SAV species at the
bridge site, the southern naiad, was comparable to that found growing in the control site which
was just over 1 km to the north. Slightly lower biomass and cover values observed for naiads at
the bridge site compared to the control site may be due to site specific differences, or may have
North Carolina Department of Transportation April 30, 1997
Langley and McDonald, P.C. No. 96-024-02 Page 6

Figure 9. Percent Cover at Control Site
(Transect C4)
100i,,.
• '{ .r
•
80�.
a /
w 70 • i
U 60
50 /
J/ .'. IJ9A O
�O 40 / • 4�
alZ 3 0 / xli
1
20-
10 Li.:
c
O O O O O O s Do cN
DISTANCE FROM SHORE
®Southern naiad

Figure 10. Percent
(Transect CoverC2)at Control Site
100
Ty
80 t
0
LLnn {
� 0 {��
•��i
n
i
0 40 / w
30—�/ a
1
10 '�
�Sia c hti � #'c
ff T tdl `,IC � Ik-k� Oi� 0 0 o
IO Oi O 'O O N^-. DISTANCE FROM SHORE
■Southern naiad

been a result of recent hurricane activity, as biomass appeared much higher at the bridge site
during a preliminary survey dive which was conducted in this same area before the storm event.
This apparent change over a relatively short period of time underscores the more exposed nature of
the bridge site, the relative steepness of the shoreline and the temporal variability of SAV in this
region. In both the bridge and control sites the naiads were most abundant at depths between 0.5
and 1.5 meters.
A second SAV species, wild celery, was common at depths of less that 1.0 meters along those
transects adjacent to the existing bridge and within the right-of-way of the proposed bridge. It was
not found at the control site. Its presence may be related to the shoreline configuration created by
the rip-rapped U.S. 17 bridge approach which extends somewhat seaward of the adjacent shoreline
areas, and is likely having some effect on wave or current fields in this area.
An emergent species, water willow, although observed at the control site was only sampled at the
bridge site. Qualitative observations, however, suggested that the populations at both sites were
comparable in both density and biomass. Like both of the SAV species it too is a clonal species
which primarily spreads vegetatively and it, in particular, forms distinct patches along the
shoreline.
Light availability, which is primarily related to water depth, appears to be the principal
determinant of SAV occurrence at the existing Rt. 17 bridge site. Because of apparently high
levels of turbidity in this region of the Chowan River, SAV are limited to depths of less than 1.25
to 1.5 meters in the vicinity of the two sampling sites. Since light in the water column is
attenuated exponentially with depth, small changes in depth can have a significant impact on SAV
growth and survival. Therefore any increase in bottom depths to greater than 1.5 meters, as a
result of construction at the site, will likely result in permanent loss of SAV. Care should be
taken, therefore, that bottom profiles within the currently vegetated zone are not altered.
The occurrence of wild celery may be related to local conditions created by the rip-rapped
approach of U.S. 17 to the existing bridge which extends seaward of the adjacent shoreline. If this
apparently, previously filled area is to be removed it must be graded to appropriate depths to
provide SAV habitat. Wild Celery, however, may not rapidly recolonize this new substrate given
its life history of expanding into new habitat slowly, predominantly by vegetative growth. This
species provides abundant waterfowl food in the winter and is "one of the more important SAV
species" for waterfowl (Field Guide to the Submerged Aquatic Vegetation of Chesapeake Bay,
USFWS, undated). However, it may not recolonize this substrate before the naiad species does,
since naiads spreads more aggressively. Given this scenario we would recommend that NCDOT
explore with the regulatory agencies whether the approach to U.S. 17 could remain in place as a
mitigation measure since it acts as a modest breakwater and sediment trap for adjacent shallow
water areas, thereby possibly allowing for the continued existence of the wild celery association.
North Carolina Department of Transportation April 30, 1997
Langley and McDonald, P.C. No. 96-024-02 Page 7

r
Appendix 1: All sampling data from the Chowan River,N.C.,inventory of submerged aquatic vegetation. September 16-19, 1996(Page 1).
SITE TRANSECT DISTANCE BOTTOM Wild Celery Southern Naiad Water Willow
FROM SHORE DEPTH COVER DENSITY BIOMASS COVER DENSITY BIOMASS COVER DENSITY BIOMASS
(m) (m) (%) (#/m2) (g/m2) (%) (#/m2) (g/m2) (%) (#/m2) (g/m2)
BRIDGE B1 0 0.30 0 0 0
BRIDGE B 1 5 -0.41 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.0 0 0 _ 0.0
BRIDGE B1 10 -0.58 0 80 0
BRIDGE BI 15 -0.84 0 0 0.00 90 3070 17.2 0 0 0.0
BRIDGE B1 20 -0.91 0 100 0
BRIDGE B1 25 -1.03 0 0 0.00 70 2357 11.6 0 0 0.0
BRIDGE B1 30 -1.27 0 30 0
BRIDGE Bl 35 -1.45 0 0 0
BRIDGE B2 0 0 0 0
BRIDGE B2 5 -0.15 0 0 0 00 0 0 0.0 100 548 3382.4
BRIDGE B2 10 -0.25 0 0 100
BRIDGE B2 15 -0.57 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.0 50 274 4049.6
BRIDGE B2 20 -0.86 0 80 0
BRIDGE B2 25 -0.95 0 0 0.00 100 10745 45.4 0 0 0.0
BRIDGE B2 30 -1.01 0 100 0
BRIDGE B2 35 -1.08 0 0 0.00 90 4386 25.5 0 0 0.0
BRIDGE B2 40 -1.20 0 70 0
BRIDGE B2 45 -1.39 0 30 0
BRIDGE B3 0 0.00 0 0 0
BRIDGE B3 5 -0.55 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.0 100 274 59589
BRIDGE B3 10 -0.73 90 0 0
BRIDGE B3 15 -0.95 0 0 0.00 60 4386 2-1.7 0 0 0.0
BRIDGE B3 20 -1.12 0 80 0
BRIDGE B3 25 -1.07 10 333 6.74 80 5646 23 5 0 0 0.0
BRIDGE B3 30 -1.14 0 60 (1
BRIDGE B4 0 0 0 0
BRIDGE B4 5 0.01 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.0 100 439 1400.1
BRIDGE B4 10 -0.39 0 0 0
BRIDGE B4 15 -0.93 30 889 43.14 20 1042 3.8 0 0 0.0
BRIDGE B4 20 -1.07 0 60 0
BRIDGE B4 25 -1.08 0 0 0.00 60 3618 18.6 0 0 0.0
BRIDGE B4 30 -1.21 0 70 0
BRIDGE B4 35 -1.23 0 70 0
BRIDGE B4 40 -1.29 0 70 0
BRIDGE B5 0 0 0 0
BRIDGE B5 5 -0.29 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0
BRIDGE B5 10 -0.91 0 0 0
BRIDGE B5 15 -1.03 75 1167 80.97 10 439 1.6 0 0 0.0
BRIDGE B5 20 -1.15 0 25 0
BRIDGE B5 25 -1.17 0 0 0.00 30 2302 7.6 0 0 0 0
BRIDGE B5 30 -1.23 0 20 0

.
)
. i
Appendix 1: All sampling data from the Chowan River,N.C.,inventory of submerged aquatic vegetation. September 16-19, 1996(Page 2).
'
SITE TRANSECT DISTANCE BOTTOM Wild Celery Southern Naiad Water Willow
FROM SHORE DEPTH COVER DENSITY BIOMASS COVER DENSITY BIOMASS COVER DENSITY BIOMASS
(m) (m) (%) (N/m2) (g/m2) (%) (#/m2) (g/012) (%) (#/m2) (g/m2)
BRIDGE B6 0 0.00 0 0 100
BRIDGE B6 5 -0.25 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.0 100 274 2041.5
BRIDGE B6 10 -0.77 55 0 0
BRIDGE B6 15 -0.97 0 0 0.00 30 4769 9.5 0 0 0.0
BRIDGE B6 20 -1.07 0 10 0
BRIDGE B6 25 -1.21 0 0 0.00 25 987 3.2 0 0 0.0
BRIDGE B6 30 -1.17 0 25 0
BRIDGE B6 35 -1.35 0 0 0
BRIDGE B7 0 -0.90 10 0 0
BRIDGE B7 5 -1.03 25 444 36.13 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0
BRIDGE B7 10 -1.10 50 0 0
BRIDGE B7 15 -1.23 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0
BRIDGE B8 0 -0.77 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0
BRIDGE B8 10 -0.99 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0
• BRIDGE B9 -10 -0.24 100 1222 102.68 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0
BRIDGE B9 -5 -0.22 100 0 0
BRIDGE B9 0 -0.35 100 0 0
BRIDGE B9 5 -0.69 100 3056 144.94 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0
BRIDGE B9 10 -1.00 0 40 0
BRIDGE B9 12 -1.10 0 0 0
BRIDGE B 10 0 -0.37 0 0 0
BRIDGE B10 5 -0.51 0 0 0.00 80 6962 34.3 0 0 0.0
BRIDGE BIO 10 -0.52 50 30 0
BRIDGE B10 15 -0.55 0 0 0
BRIDGE BIO 17 -0.64 0 0 0.00 5 1206 4.3 0 0 0.0
BRIDGE B I 0 20 -0.78 0 10 0
BRIDGE BIO 25 -0.84 0 0 0.00 60 3180 26.9 0 0 0.0
BRIDGE B10 30 -0.97 0 70 0
BRIDGE BIO 34 -1.21 0 0 0
BRIDGE B11 0 -0.41 0 0 0
BRIDGE B11 5 -0.62 30 833 95.61 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0
BRIDGE B I 1 10 -0.73 5 0 0
BRIDGE B11 15 -0.78 0 0 0.00 30 3454 10.7 0 0 0.0
BRIDGE B11 20 -0.83 0 80 0
BRIDGE B 11 25 -0.91 0 0 0.00 40 5921 25.2 0 0 0.0
BRIDGE B11 30 -1.01 5 25 0
BRIDGE B11 33 -1.20 2 0 0
CONTROL Cl 0 0.33 0 0 0 •
CONTROL CI 10 -0.40 0 0 0
CONTROL Cl 20 -0.56 0 0 0.00 10 1316 5.8 0 0 0.0

n nnnnnnnnnnn nnnnnnnnnnn nnnnnnnnnnn nnnnnnnn
0 00000000000 00000000000 00000000000 00000000
0 00000000000 00000000000 00000000000 00000000
P
N
a.
n nnnnnnnnnnn nnnnnnnnnnn nnnnnnnnnnn
X
t nonnonno
o A A A A A A A A A A A W W W W W Li, id, S., SA, W W I,) N is.) N IV Is) N NI N NJ IVr r ,-+ y
tra n --
- w
�p 0 O o0
p 0 �O 0 C C ... 4.. W 0 O O b 0 C C to A.0 W N p S. g 00000000....1
O 0 0 000000 H
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O OM
[[[111N777 C
5
to 0 oboo 0000000 obo obboob0 :- !. 00boob ? r- �- - 0000 tzil 5
ON b yp e0 Co J J Os U 4o W b Co e0 J .4 M to A A N N O C c ,O DD e0 Ot W N is.) N .- c O SO tO 00 O\ E ~O
N O W 0 �1 W tA, t0 .-• t0 N .-. to A to O W OS Os 0 03 A to W O J Os O t0 O A to A N .+ -.l N Os W �1 Ot 0
X .�y
CG.
lD
C) ay
C O o C O C C O C O O C o O O C O O o O c C O C O o O O O O O 0 O O O O C O O O O CI O
vrii
�+
Cn
P•
<
d G .
a 7 a• o.
O O O O O O O O O O O O O C O O O 0 O N to
rt Oy
Cr
5
LT) l t , .
0 0 0 0 0 0 O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ii. 0 Q 0 0 c a, o 0 0 0 0 0 o o 0 o c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O O 0 0 O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 CD O 0 0 13.,,E ---•
CA M
n
n <
tpp 0
C S.C. 00 0 b 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 Q Q o Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C C C 0e 0 0 0 \ O ry '"-'
0000 0 0 O 00000 O O O O O O O O a �J
O .
=
Cn
C7 to .
o b
A W N W J to Ot W W A CI D. MI C
A 00 0 0 O W O 0000 A O A W 00 CI twit W a A N A N y , 5
.tz co
c. Ot
N lD Vo
W N A o 0 o rN+ A N W p ..-, W a A r oo O7 "'
w Ct iw C o O in O N D. O of tO t0 o A O W to t0 ' A .0
C O't �1 tJ .- w ' M A N to Na
CA
w
cro
CD
n
w
n
0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 o c o 0 o c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O o 0 0 0 0 0 o e
Xi
o
smg
C O O C O 0 0 0 C o o O C C 0 O o 0 0 0 0 0 9 y o
q 8
G_ 1
0 PPPPPPP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 �+, o 0 0 0 € 0
o c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N• O C C C P.,
•
y
1 r ..

e
Appendix 1: All sampling data from the Chowan River,N.C.,inventory of submerged aquatic vegetation. September 16-19, 1996(Page 4).
• r
SITE TRANSECT DISTANCE BOTTOM Wild Celery Southern Naiad Water Willow
FROM SHORE DEPTH COVER DENSITY BIOMASS COVER DENSITY BIOMASS COVER DENSITY BIOMASS
(m) (m) (%) (#/m2) (g/m2) (%) (#/m2) (g/m2) (%) (#/m21 (g/m2)
CONTROL C5 10 -0.46 0 20 0
CONTROL C5 20 -0.62 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0
CONTROL C5 30 -0.68 0 0 0
CONTROL C5 40 -0.77 0 0 0.00 30 603 6.7 0 0 0.0
CONTROL C5 50 -0.79 0 0 0
CONTROL C5 60 -0.85 0 0 0.00 60 1151 13.9 0 0 0.0
-
CONTROL C5 70 -0.89 0 50 0
CONTROL C5 80 -0.95 0 0 0.00 60 548 1.6 0 0 0.0
CONTROL C5 90 -1.01 0 60 0
CONTROL C5 100 -1.06 0 0 0.00 70 603 1.6 0 0 0.0
•Belowground root and stem material.

! '
•
,,:i .,, , ,,, - f al -----
.-li# 6-:;..--- A: fi, .-:.'t--:',-_---, - ' I
• I
'1 't .---..)s,t'' ''z' ,-.."A.•
' '''.ii, ---i.,':-'r'l ,,'-`2'''''7,-- = ... ' /,, i. .' \\ L\-•••-, '..P-..- ---"'(, .
, .?
( 4, ',.• ,
, 4' • ,,,,, i _e, 11,1::.
- .7.f ""\ ' Fb \./- ( ', .1-L-,_'''-.1,fr-'""'-"""'= "': , ' .14'. ..117-44.'•••••04,k4V4tekiittl.:•-_-,:='•
''‘ji •
L i • i r,,,---' ,-,,L'-' (',11 ,-,). • • -Lfii------...)).-.... i.'.-,.,..i 3-1'' ''.N.t•M'i 1Q-K:75.:',Y,W.6.••,! c...'; .-,---
..,
1 ; ./ ' ., • ,- , . , ,L.-, ' - I '.I ; II )1.',..,=-S!,.--;.,. y.,-,. (..7e • '• • •‘.•:•-•,..i,.-.,,,:,.4 - •v47,74'7,0'41 J:•••.„, •••i17.4.!:,73„I-_-•', t: 1 1 t ;'';;5',,..0)•'-:".;1"-•;•1 •bl,„ Xt•• 7: ,'''',.:-...,,:•.::•;',..:,• •'''•- •;;;'54'7:;-4-2;"0411 .''..7..6.:,..-fzP':-"P--.4.•":;',,, :a .."
, . .0 • '..e.;.., ,'','''-/:' ,- _-=',',. r'''.•„ t e%;.y,:,:::,1,1e'V!":,';'. l'-',!',W,i,,',A,i.,4:44,4'.9',W, . . .Mj:4:',''...:,.",,'.!,,.!- ..,,-.:"----- .
• ;'''' 7,7=f,1,1 ›, '-='---,7j)..,. \ ',-J(,-:._ i -
! ! A -'-•-:, ,,.\"--"I ,•C•,':';•••.•,;".3;"tOn'ir",.. ,t•;•;.!. ,A,t4,-;%."",',::,19,;9'1•r1",„.„.,.--;.;• ' Z-,_,,',--•,•73?....?!....;•!,r.'4',t,P';'.If,?•••.,7:'.,•.i.-'..-'•'.'k- -
`‘•.„•- •', • • co l .• i•;',' 7, •i.,-.';,•'-',••'.:.--"'-'••;•_)-.."7.:1:11-li"1`71,1E",137;".•-•,. '71;ectr,N.t.CC:::-'W•i:1,2„,e'"'"„ , •'''',,..t.1-1,,k-,K.,,,,,7","?,,c',3,:;:z,V/0.$9:',1-,e5:7.7,.':-;EP!-•:--.,•
o "-_--L,,..'.t •.•;r,'',"' .-"-: ',,, .•• 4.471,!..• ,•,.,3.7 .1f,r4-1,1*,,.1361, ...: ••,.....--44.4, ', ',... • : ..,,,VCI....,.2;e!.....:,,,=',...,",,,,,;"L '',:,,,0::',71'.,,' ---,--
. '. f 4 ....- ---7 /!:-:,•.:41.,:e i4t3;;;;'":43:gil,.:ft..;:ft-t4g •`,.....r.',;',.,,,.1.47 ,-4:.?,'....!. :,...r.,-,'-',..:''..:2:437-::',:f:;,,,,%,-,',,,,,-,.:,„-5
tv• , I, --,...,_47'..
--,1!P.., -..:-. ' . ,. .... _, g ',...:,'..:.-.:,,,,.--.'.,,,,,:,.. !"..:,..!,.4.0.a.p,-;;Iz.-3f,01,044,d$,.,..(9 7,..,•:,,,,e,..;-•,,,Vdtti,•,;' ' c•'.-• '-' •-.!-'',' •'•,..• ,,J7", ...
..-•
\ .t...-?•i . \ ''..•'•-;::5--ri '...1:-‘- - ' " ---,-:•,;::: ''','.',: c.14..'*'„z•*,-1,..•• ---,v tr,--,44,...,f,P,-...wzf:-.,..‘,., ,..,‘,'..o.;t,.,,f,,,,,...v.:11.-. ..-,,.- c"... -....., -,., :,,, , .• ,
i ''',1 i\ J. -il , . ...,.,..,..,,,,,,,,,,....;,,,,,,,4,.. .,,,,,,,..,,,,,....4.4.-1,,,,,,,, --,-,-,„. ,,,,,,,,„0.,,,,,..4•-•,,,,,,,:-..,,,,,-.-- ,.- .- ...-- .- • --
i,.., ...„;,:„.-:,;..-...,,,,,,,..7;1•,.,,,,*,,,-...,,..,-,-".i,..,•-----:,,,,, ,.-- •--,...4.5- ,i!,,ai.-,,..-,A,.....-4,,,,,,,,,,, ' ' ' • . ' '. '
,. .,•,...,,,....'„...,,,,,,,,...•.... 4;44,..'44''''A.PS:?,''....;:l'4'''''''''.1r.'''''ig,'4!'''f.:,W.q.''''''''''I'''' '
• '‹ 'i ,
,, k...-- ,..7--) ,-,,, •s'„ i / -
: ) l ;'-'5 , ((-•!..,.%.' / , :-'''.--=:,,:,>''',-.6-..-- ,, , ':'..,.;;,fi,. .;:qi-i.,,,,;S•in.:‘'..-.';';;7.%Z;Z.,,-',-45:07i,..„„:,:!*Air.,.e).:k;gi.;e'yi'S:i'f,'S..,;...?!Wc.V.VillilAts,„,,:4;k1, l!L•t,',:,,..:,:'...„-.,:V .:',;, ''',:.:'f'....:;'4::ifi.',1',, ' .
1.. ..4"k''.:12 :' 'A ‘,''', .,. %,::4 :'.:---,-"1,:,-_--i ,,,, ,a1 4.4,:&''.iiP.45.17`.;;;;,:t0.‘e.:IZZ,,:rA;;;',.;.5.10; ,,,t,Z,24,;',,.:41,:t.4::::•,,t:.',.;11,S,rfg.".14:,%14.:,.:/;,_,".!::3 PI.S'Y'r..!,:"'"5'.PS:.144.... fit:tti*::::':- ''
I ...A. )(Li).' '' '‘'''",, .,._)'IT:I- 'i''.;' C.- : AIM'7'4. ''''"*.ti"4„..."U '4 •l'''Z•';' ."''',,h'.1...".:14,' '...4,4:4;•,•:!>.1`,i ,"I''':;n:4'4 '.•'/,'.:0•;"'"•,"-•'....7,;: ',,W••''''. "4''''''''''',39.'•.•
•,,,,,;..,.-„.•./ ', _.,",./;,,','..,;.:277),,/.-=-_,----,7 --,- '',-,,,--,''.,3'-'"•--..;.•;- '.lc;-r•-'•• " ;,,,•'• /.," ..:)..1:5',..4!&--;f.'"4:";'4'••'_:,•X'f."K.''71-'''''-*7 .•'1••••V""'•‘;'1.'3•4''.110'41P1'6•••'9.'"'''',b1'......7f;;"-; t''7.C;••••!•;'1'4'{'?";.:':''-
"'" , -- 4,•!.
',""" ',-,141 ,-'''',--*,-;:/le '-':.',".--.', 42,- .7-•,' iArc ',....,,* ...-34,,,,":".mt,..;•:,,.-ex'
•--,.:v4,. 1 .c.. .7.---, .,-=-- ,,-,• ..,•*4„„. . ,,,,,•:, ,Kw.0. ., •,''-'4,,,*76:7:4':,-,;..1,11.4,:.5,3.7.:;;,,,:c--,*.,-..:vi.p.,4-4:-4:,,,-.6,:,:v,:,.. .-4..,;,...4„,1;:t..,;,%,,,,;;.,•.,,
. / .;,',. • i --- \ :- •,•-:,,..,,,,s;:g.'4,50t-• N.w•-,7i,,•$' ,,,Y•ivq:' ••- .., A•' ;.tt''''01.,1". .73%. tyM,-,, ,k,i •444-14.?..';','41%;Atilp..,',.::?4...•=•_.-
) ,-1' 'I ''.,%,--.1 I' '';r4A-'1, \ --..-i,-..--t;•2,,iiL.,--4,4-=:;'kf- ,,IiI "1.',11f-?:,,tee, .„.•;„...,T•.„' ,' ...44,...,4.V.,44.4.,•:4;'.,....,,4:',:c'''ri:: .4,:esg,,„..' -,-4,„,,,_.,,Ip•l''F, •s%:,-rig',,^. ,„,..;?,,"-?,...,,V:,*,,,51,;:;::,,';',.
**- , '":•4:',,i..., .... _p..;,..!(..'1/,,Liirk..' i.--- ,:,.,,,q;. ,..-....,.?,-.:,,,:,::::.....":,S,;;,?..:*.'s,:,*d-r-, 'i'-„,. rtp. . F..4',-.„.„ ...,k..• pg,Lr9.41..g.7/:.4,4:L....,- "-mi" .?..i0-ipi‘-ri--;.,,,,.iv3-3,,,„,..,. ..„."'91.11.,,,y..4is'Airirret-Li,s,77,,,,-4,,K:.,':
f•-., -2.4-k.,j›..i--.:,..!):./?,..i;,-.,,,.s.'.- ..,,-.;.,-..,. ..;„_&.,:-A--.„:-;.,:..--:.,:4;.-:-ii,---,z,,...,.e:ri.-:; ..*4:4-4 ..;: tt -,-,:i•tt., .,..••••:-..,,,.6,..t...r.',.,.404..---4414-:if-si.r.:**.Teoi •,,•-••?-4;,,..4..);-414-.-i‘v.iFgq-,-,-;:,--'-','-w-wir,--frIvit,zre-----:'.
1 ,, ..., ..4 %.,., „-:_]. ..„1, „,.; 61.4...i-ii-•.i.L.,•........-.4ir:•;-- v-.-f.,--...i.-41-,:41c.F49,eriii,.::--kitiaiwor-4,tiqA1*Ats•r-•ii-44 /4"fr;AO,:44','.0c6-4i:Vsy'-'10,LWO:eifift'''-rei14-5t:''f,--°.'ii "ii.
,,,, ,,,:4 .,.." • '.,:-,,_ ;fq. -=-171,,.,-.-2.c ,.-.:J,....,,,'',';'.....1-4.,',;:,,::::',,?,=.:'-'-'4'.,,4e,C...-•;,:',..,•,,,.0.1.'NAY,e4•,,,fly,c,.-',•••lirif,',' P•44'„••4-9•49 i4/4'' , z_,6... .4, "...-.26.,.'.1-,..,4:e.,,,. :vv.,. •,i,,„,......t..-,,
t i.:: . . i 0".s.'. ''.'.'s.,,'.:j; c0 't,-,...,--.,- iC--•••---,'„-i';'-'!"..1•?3"2-.:'..;•.'2::%•:;,'•.r.'..k.t."••',"..9,;'.:',...i,7-';;,;:•:4.7.(-1i.,",•:),'AIA:74t,1%,,,flp., '' IA,'''',1.4.,''.7/: ,„,„ -4&,,..,7-W.:74.,, ,fr'47:-.4,-, .;,;,•53.,,01. ..0,.'1.290.:4.,. .t.,441.1,1:304,......:;i,Ag2M/;.,:ri:::'
.',S0'..‘ ,..,': 1 ..:1 CF:',,‘".s. * './,';5;::33:94.i.aVOni-'.;(1',i;':.-V.:Si". ..!.1');?:.44;""A'.0 "..it:' ;:r": .., 4,.. 45r2fS:,, ..,,k.tgliltnai. "•';',i_ii.14:44.t" •• ..,Z1.14,1i*i&4114,4-5.A.,4t4Akei'ZIOV;W:iT:q•
- •.;g-, ..., ..,,r4r,,\a.:-.Z.:4, , ,...1.)::,:-),'.'' .'.',11,i-s-cyPf7,?..t:•-..-•'. .,-1: :..;,:.,:z •;),:i:.:1:7'-',ifV.M.,.,4.......-Mp.M.',,,, ,,•?4,...43:Wili.0,A,v.,": t•-•.,tiv.vw..3,1;r...„ .4,4,4p,v,‘40.-..!-..:,.
) ,,--":,:::,. . 1 ‘,.-,f.:,:. ,,,,,F.7,:k .O'N,..i.4-..•.' , •,...2,5i kv.,--,,.!.....„„ti,..,.,,,,,;. ..,• .,.,..,asi.. a?.,,k,,i,,;0.,,:t.,,,L,,j,„;;',.:„.ii,,,,i,,,,,,:;;„.;;;:‘;,§-,..?4,it,„,;;;-4-44m...Arilit-Atii",,,:: iitty„v.twV.-i,,,,i,s,v•kt,..-0,„-•-,i--ogg_.1;„.„117p;,.•Fi,ik -.0.,,,,,..4, ,,.FielApix.,....i.fj.,:r.,.•.
.. ,::--,..' 1.,_.-0 tt.0 :.-,:li4 \',, .k). (t,1./iri'i*i_ettrii I .- ' i:''''4•.,ih;IVTL ...irtgt;•.-ti:-iii ,.;:':.::.:.;•:.1.-4•,.,1- .1...i,-;,-;;AWItli,'.:•,itits3„W'i,',i'. .4tZ-FAItti'°,79.,.,41.,14flt-iff-Vf,U1.-4•• ;i.“*i*.:" .-4`i-"Ii-o-iii.-MAI'''''-glfi'5:4:4--.1
,_,..-, i')iii, ir-,,,, '4'1' 3 -",),,,,r4, r,-.,,,,,g__,--.-€.3,,Eu i ,-, 1:P.,gii7,-,,,,e0,01,41-hie4N43-?--:•.01,-.1'45iik,e,f4R*Itiegi- -'.. ,--. 4'.1-,•'-wttir-*151:rif•tg&pw.4;40),..'1_,:Ors,:m.:. ..':. ,f-tgtrt-,w,MirgiW,-..-r
r-_. -.,,-,i,x :e :11''':, -- .,.-_,-.: ,`.‘.Y.S(,,'J.---1- 4- 44W" ,4;'$.:1..,;••••lv-$.(5?),.5c$,#;!,r'i4,S74-ila.3*4 444'4:i?;,344,.....'it,',,v,:ct-V,VAVArbq.1.-f04.:-'' ‘.-.g4"''' ;:';44?)...1`-likk'sfre?'-i°44i":--
,_____._) .,,,,,,_-_,h'.--i''', h:'II:r•-L.-i) _ ,,,4c.,,,., I":cr,-, ..z• .--t,;i4of; '.„..-4:::,... ..,•iv....4,-.. ..4:,,,,,,..,--,7,!-- -,-,a.,,,,4t..,41,wx,,,.F,A.-:;44.,,, k,i,"",/... .:1,..,11..Yr:'',---rftv--40'24?_•-,epy.0-:%-tp,o;z; , pki ,--ker`--,,---•iriis-e'; Iti-....i.'•
. . im # (.!..T.-.7-11--., .,,,-",;4,,\',..-f•\ ,-- 0 ://4,41V?"•;!‘ •V-.17:iii"Aitle-o.:'".'..",;-•"••0'i,s7.1!,z;I:40,,,,*•lit.' p...17/A77g,,,,,,;::!,•z•-;•_ ,-...7W,Mifip,A,,•,., 4,_- c.$1,- -27•114'.43,,,,,,Atc,,--.0',AVet./k.7.i.t.f._-_,
b )::' '"V•-••,r.7..-1, .'- / C ,,7.li 44' -4,7•1,•,•" ,,,:,(4,,•,,• '•,,,•,319;?". •••';:',,,,r1•,.4.1,...0,,,,,,,Wit 't •r•:',1"::• i.,,....weli..0.,,Lti. .r..w-r.L-.7,,,, .43.7.c",..p.„-,-.:24,,.,--,L-r..,',;-,,,c,••v.-ti, .
i• -.,,ritt ,,, c_-_:<-•...,.-..-,1 ,Ti.r.,,, 4.---,--r-..e,‘ r . ---.... < -,r. . .,..40.-.7,--.--,4%., .,,-,--. r.-„:,;-,1-,,,-,,,,_.•;:.:,,-;::-.:...„."- ;-,-, .. -4,...... • -..,.‘...-r:: ,,,'}-,,,,-.,-,- -;v-s4-f:&(,,:if,'ilz, .... '10.6 hifets-lif,ifk.-i!, T:iiN'Y'(4%.-.I'-'..'
.--. '''"'‘.-Tt ,' 11.-'-W'112.C-7-'. ''-'11','Th.''' \,., 07-1;Ct-.if4;541St 6.f::;:',%{*...f,t)",!;k:.: '''''c..-A';',Cii,.., -•.i-i,i:•'--.-i-iL,Tsi4t.3.3.*.-.0,. .. 4,,,,,t... ir-" : :fi.i.;?,,-..t-Fr.., :,:*:.,.,' V"Art,-.`,...,—':;-,,,.7!?,ik...'..7,M14g5tqgsre,:1-4y.1,5,it,„.-.,-,.•
-2' '''''''':,•• : '-"'.•.. ,,i';':t1:iL) -:::".--,-' .•-- ',44:54?,),' -,';A;.:4‘.t...:,:;:,,':',-, • .-,A::';,',;1',..1.-,,, • • ••,.,..7-,. ,,,;•,-.47(11.t..;,,,r,S,,.'-,..?•:,,,,,,:‘,1:/.,,,f :',..Lt,,.444;f•:', .:;,,''',7,..,..,'::.-,:',,.C.,;1-,v;,',,,...1:11'2.-''',',-,.-,!=Z :',-,,-.-L.--,_,
Aitl '''''' c.:.:),,/ ,,,_..1..-_,...Z.I.Z.17i/_,,,,,-1- i,,,,, .,,.7 ,:-., •-,..,,•...-.,?..,:..-:',.......plr,,..,v.:,.:- .-',.-:.'.,.- .''':'-'-' ' '-- "'/:-.P'... '--.','-',:,,,. :-',.?:' ..-4-e,!•.-.V.P?-:4:ii,.,:',?.1,;-...;:-....--.2-----'
- ..,.-_,Igy),-.-._ : -77,....,;,:::,.....,: -__ , ; . 1,40): :::•/,,y•... ,-,........„-,: • . .,. :,. - .,.. , . ' ' •'1,....r.'''''':,..'..,--'''''' :' . r Al C
:7-7,.... - . _ ,. .. . sc,")T, /,':,_.. .. ''':- -- • , - , p - _4,11 ' r r r ' - -- . r - : • -
. .
-...-- -
„.......- ,- . ,, .
_,..„ •
, :, I - r r ' '- c,.. -- • ---- .:,-;.,,,,,-,,,,.,,,,,,,,-, , -,..,,,r,.,--:.,,,:‘,,,,,-.-, ,r_.,...,.;,-.;..,'..,,i..4::,,. .,---.-. , , 1
' -r" ' ' „..--' r.., '- • L ' ' - '• -4 ' : 13 ' .:..--:,.3i;1:',;;;i:;,'-; 'z"z•I'l''''- -"g::'-''.'i,i5.7,4a.'40::: ,:','.. .-s.)i..%:':,..i.;,....:: :;:,..';::-,-ii,.,:.:•:.',....;-:;::',',,,'..•,_,r-i'.:•H'' LI ,7.:• ,•_ ,„-,..-I:-.
, `to -,•,.• 401.!-••,-.>:•.,•,•,,,,, ,. ,- ,n,,,,,5 ss..,_.. . - - -r,,,,-:.4_, -,--c- t I ---ir-- r
,, ... .- : ..:,.- .. , , . -,........, --,e,,,, . - ,.- _.x. - ,- ,...._ ..,,,,,,,.,,,,,-...,•..-,,,,,,,,(,,,, 4.. •,..k"-.,-).,'••• ) 1) `--':-"i-. 1 i i,I .:;_'-.;,1":,' •-N
41 ir, ----, --:- ,,-,----------....... -..k.,..-i.• i ,
'''' r' • - r ..,40.....,:d-, • i , , , i , , i, t t ik r f .*...-i „ii.•.,
-i . i . ,- , :', • i-i i;,iiiii., : ,,,/"-.- \ ,, ,,, ,, , - .. ' i-, , . __...,-t-T . ..cj .i.,,, -i . i i• ' 40AN,,4%,*.14veir.,.;,...,,,,$,LL .,,i.i:.,i,.:;L. ci ,.. , i ,it ,,t ,joi,,, t. ,k 1 ic.0 1 t,,,.,,,,„.., .i...,,,,
. .i . . :, i.,.i v, •,,..-;:.;:i.,-i-,:i..;,-,..-..:-.-, -.i,i,ie., ' • ' . n / - lk.„441.-.:,P. „ -i.:-,.--4, I p ,i IF 4 1 ip I If .- -i.,•-=:--'•
---\,
-7 '\ •ii'i.i .''.-.-';','.'i.,ii,kN5:-,iili f'--(•-i:i-i-• • ' .--- . i - . I ' ' .1$1-**- -,..- .r`..' i tl f• t, f ' It ,* tit HI r I li IP Izi -•
• I I'. .l'. .-..-,... ''' --,5;'r,•:' '''''''f ' ','- --1:', 'r . .--,/i.,-..i....,;'-. ,,-._:',-'1'-:;irIFJ--_-,, ,_,•ii,'-_,i-.'-',--f..'''';',''...''''..riT,v.4-,1-1:, ii-4-----.,14't-,_-'-!;',rt't. t J-1,- Lf'I t.-111i-r-t--,k---if
,,,. • fs..,;•!).„;.,-.:-:,,,,').,qp, >),)1z)--,1:i.,:)..f,:s.f-,4-,;::,-,'-).!,`,..1-.f .;f'. ', j . -,',-_;;;,:-,'';-:;:i::;.,'•,f.;,::-1', 11- ) 'k ‘. 1 it ii j\''..t.li-R-",,,,-. I 't i 1 1 1[1 1,_r„........_,. 1 !,, 1 i #,'j,1' #
. ' '.r Z ' .. . , ' r ' :/4 e'..." .. leiti‘j ,":,:::'-;'.''• • '' ID ; i ''':' ' 1,. •I 'I- IL' r 1 I. I.-,•4,--,-,,, -.ft 1 1 i it,.A--y '141gf. iiki.t1 iff+1 t
„,‘• :' : :' ' '..' ' ' ' ''' ' . ''' ''.1' ' ' -...';....:r.;:\.,:44:4 tl': IS,C.l' '!.‘,.'1:' '' ' ' '. -;:..ffk...,, ,..k:'' li I lOr 4 ,'. IL' I, If .1 It,' 1.11', T,,4 --01/i/Inik ,P iy II I Lif iillf ii'if
, . „.....;x...,,,, ,,.;iy.:40,,,ti,.X.,•"., '4,.,'''.,.'-'. ' 4„,,,Itiiit,''''''' ,' I ft pip Ir ip ,l1 Li
, '.' , : 'l• ' .::::Ill'-'5•.,..cl,r,l;',-.,'-Ill,Fl-1,-.'-;:f'll'll-:..)':?Il-,'i'-'-i-r,,e...'-,';',-I.II- .,, ' .44,..",..4,41,,itu-... ,:1.., 4 4 f,H, ,p 1 • 10 If I:li , J i[,p f\lfr(Lit It 1 j..; ,IP 1 1 1L,0.11- 1,LI ilri i i;itil ifr I 01
' ' l ll : / • ll ll -- I .2. 'I'll- - \ 'IP" 1' - ' g' ih Lof I f ' '? HI It " fl,,, ',I:10—X' - 0 i'-, f i r'r t f ,ki f , '
,,.7' ' ' ,-.- • ) 4 ..' 't,gp2t,f1 f 1 ; ip-. If I, I, 1 . i f III I'.fl"\NI . 1 ik 1 it 4--f-, ' lip 'IJI f .i ,,L iii.
' ' -- ,.. • : ' ' . .:- .- . '• . ': r ', :'•' .i.':,::'.(''' 'T I L. IL .1''rt: '\ r illl-lrl ,pl 1:3 I IF'1; IF I#i i,t'. ir li-k.--.'ir i,-IV I-r--"•;',Ii -,. l'P', t-k', I t 1 i ,''..kaf .*- ,4,4-,-1.-"'-.)'...:7 .
; , ' '; .. ,,- • . . r '. ' . ' . .' .,,, ' :,41,1 i 1 if r i.I''' '''.. , 1,[ i f f L 1 , / i t/i , v i,L,,_.A..--.--.--,il fr Ii_ f I, I I t , 1 r+a ii ,,,,,, 1 ,
r
/
j.;.„.,-;.,-:-.-....--,,,-7/.11„.._
/ ----,„2/iip it 1 ...--.:3:2:_k.., • 1 --
• ir i ii i ii. L . - IL - iri - 1 , ,_-...;-- ) .f• ---,,-:„,---,t ,i. .1j.k.._---,...--r.:-W, _. .:-
. - -±',...- ' _ ,/' ;:-',) it i_'f 1 0 Lip/ • 1 .!... 1/14 iii .ik 41'...., I!. t_144.J., ,1L( L.--:j .,, ,./,,,,, ..'' . '
'' ' ' ' \ ' Ji J'' )- It ' I i[ I ill i i I lAl,, 1 I'i I , I' '. I , I I 1 t IIt 1 .C--i ,1 ,, --' / .. . .1 i,.,
. . ,, -,,,_ .,,,i ,i , ,t , ' ,ii 1 y , i ‘,• 'r [0,1, I- -,i\ ( ,,,,`: (. .: -." '- v, f_-_-,_.., .;,. /..;•,'. (..:i--
# 1 I3 fr.
1.
' ' '''T. ' ' ' .r : ' ' "r' ir I' ' f q . I t I i i ' i 1 1 1 \I 1 : .>.'D 7 : •.. e
' o '.. -. , -.- . ..' ..--. . ' '' , ."' z' ,' r ' ) f 11.1 th L'f Ifi 11 1F1 4, /I, i i ...-„,-- -,,,1:•`' ts-- /
- ,:- , , ' 1 1 k ' t I ir i! ik i! it f __!-I z • ,---- i - '4 --"----,....-
1 ' i 1 - I - , •
i ) 1 ,) iti; IP /j4 )..1,-.'-7,7 \•,, ,.... _. , ,\.
.,- . . -
. , ,i ' ' ,fr ifr I t ,P1...4., I, I*, , I-it :. ,.s. •pi -
1 --
1 I 1p ,fr L > ,,41-if--,--- i )Y-:---- I, l' . . . .
I , I : , I :
-- ,
i ..-1-• - -
\,___ ------ __— - 'r, I,, 4441 ik i t •
, - /.i: , ir ,p i ; . ,k.41 iir„ ir ,ii y ,i t,, , ,, - ..(-..y\ • 0 _,._ ../ -i. 7----„...........„---, . __-i--;t i i i
' '----- i " I • k 114--1-- -
, ,' r It A p, 1.p'p IP ILI .l. [I 7 . ii % •.) ;I 1 /i i 1 ir 1, il-, 1- T 1 , r I7 ' I '- tki h----4-...4 \L-L.iti I . c , , L i . • L
, _----- - . ' !- -1----t • ' .L, t t 1, 1 I i,',--.: iv:. ..c.f, -...., r i ''''-'• IT t f!'i ! i' I I 1 . .1 il,i t f
/7 vi.) , h,,,_1:.,* , 1,1: k k t I 1-' ;••., -•"-
' 1 '[' t' r r ilf f IF il T1 , - /,' •
. \ .......,.7.4.3 \\t,\.,..
' i 1 ' 'I' f IL t .) 1 1 1 )1 •• ) :),• • 4., • • ------- I sh-' ,..---.........-::-. --f.„ ., .i. r 1
, .. *.: s . \\ "-,.,• //—*-'' . x •\ ,-)
IL '' I ip I i ,IP, r 11-- 1-1 ;41' ..-.., ,' ''..,
i , 1 11-iirii i r ri , L
• , ,, ; • .) c---) --
7 1 it"11} I,-• . I , ,I ,. 'f i i :.-'!,1 'j fi l'i i'' ,-') ((-----7-------___ ----"' , f- , , , , ,, .ir i i , ,„ , , f i , t . kt .• .. ,
,
j
•,k ' . • ' • j - ' I , 41 ,i./ . if i t I f I ' t I t I 1 , 1 11,1, •',4 s
• •••.. ,,
NA, 1:)ci • ., .. ..... . ...
---L---. 4 1-) 1 ' 1 I • I '":I tx ,- I ! 1 • ;
7 . -'"-- --• >z 'Y t t I* 1 I I' 'r 11-•'.- t I It t It r ;' •• ''k -
7,, 47,,,_, I II - •:'•-•.r."7 ,-, :••"1
•. ( { t f i 1[1' I ,
-,3 ) ...;,,,,_. :---i (., ,, .,, / s. : i ,
) ' • , 1, - , ; ,, k I , ,.,,......., -...._-..,
- 1 ' it , r I I 1 / Ii. ' fir.' '- .' '.-- '4 - i *. . _ ' I , I IL 1 It it,( 1 "I ft 1,
. .
• 4.-,,, ...- .. , ...s7 ' !
1 I # , I ,,..,-, .i
4. ' _-•\o,,CID• ,7' . (--:, :\ c ( ''' .
. 7 • /. ) I a, !, if_ /
1, id' -`,
11';' .,,, ; - e'_,,,,-,:-. • il % ...\ .-4,.,i\ -t_,,, , .....„ n . .r.) ... ,
i f ),"1" . '
. \ : ' 11 ti Hflr-I + 1-''• ) --f,[' • ,)- I '-.'.••4 •' -•,.._ .1_4.,,,. I•. . • ( \\__1 '\,'..,',J..-,'_-..i.-•)' )-•,-.--.-,---ip tik--.N,..,-)../?--1
. 1
.-- -- • 1 s•-, •. LI I
,)f
s ) !• • .-__ ‘ i ....., ' :\ )1.- f i
/ -' if f .! • 1,----,.
I I. lh li' 1 II: 'ir I t II I'JH:1-'ft' 'i- 1 j' (1'. - 0" ',,,'- „ ' /.il : i '-'1 ,. ,1 , % I i,..L 1H t i' .);•i(i
P-T-----;,-41 1- -,i-f---,---,.:- - -,-. \ \J f H. I t . .. , IV--'s, ,jig
/ /r IF 1 t ., , i, lr if . 41 1p 1-''i[ i_. iti. , - r• , .-:,-, ,r,,,,,/,iii: : . ,--,----,\-• ._ .. i...-,\• „r; -r i ,--.--, -, -j- j-j---7:77, 7. ,,--1-7.-; _ 4.,„::#r,,... :.:•y- t '''
- i'.,,,,, • ,rt 11.1.If t 4,,,,,k , I .-
, 1 i, I ', 11-t rt r , It, ,/ • ,(" '
p, ,f . , , Ir It/ f r i • ;,---i) l• -._.
ifj
' 1.: ' '' ',',' I i-1 I iL I i . q i 1•',.) .4- -.
k r,, * if \ - ,,- i, / (.. /, . A,. 1... •., ,, ..: L.,,i,,i 1,[ ii, , , ,f tr• ., i. it. I .i. ,. ,1•..2.-41,,,;
/i .• ' / i. r • It I xi 1 0, r
', ' • , '. a \1 \,7-1, :\ -, '.'f I 1 ri r[fk 1 1 ). r t '•-•"?
1 • I .) ,) ' •-- 1 1. ' 1
/ ' I ' t 1) I i if:f/t TI; 1 k '1 I ' 1( ' •'' Ci:' *.),:-' f ' ‘....,, 1 If I tl I I : • .,c ' II i' ,, f it
, i
' 1 It i v k 11, ir'l ,' i if/1 it I\ 1, 1' 1 i f p P I, l ..--• .. . I ---• ) 1 la"- • \..-t... -I ,-7-5/il p. : 1 NIV k, 1 I
i ,: ..',7-' ,. I ,,, • r. 1,, .. c.-.,..,4,.. , , --,_. ,......,,-,,i... , f I t) 1 I,L ' t
I, ,4 II'1 fi l'i L14'1:- ±2ii„,-- ...-f.-------r . 1 .. ) t f it).• :•.• ..-. . r 1 ---,' t r tk I 1
i 'I's• ' t‘ iv Ir p I I 4 1 -', IP- , ./. . •-• 1 g 7- 1,-":"- -\\-- ''. . ' •'‘i 1 ;(---1 ,r(.... ,11 ,p -I LI 1. .,..--,,
, ,[I r t- 1 I If ; - l , ,1 'Ir.' -. ----1 ..' ' ' ''" 1 '.- il t f 't• i
. ,. - ., ,.,L ,,y"---,., , _,_,,,,L.----,--!-1
1 i I .{ ,_ ,. .. ..'. ,, ' , .1 - .
cir f • fr 1
•- ( ,i i , 4 4 1 It ,P 'r ,p ,p\tr iyi t p q- i I, .-' i '
\ cid In ll r 1 , h--' ip -E Li ' ,p1 ,04, [ •:. . e , • L .) I, .,--,AL-9 .. 1, ,q):, I ''0,11. ili,
--.-, •f•1-biittpi „1 k.,f.!,ii; ,...:, ,c. ....: •/ , , 1
i if , ,,k I Li , 4 ILI J. ,b. i ! 1 '11;11 ,. I f 1 ll I;.: , •,..-) •--1-7.4 , ! 1,.),,,,,y,• is i 1„.‘,,v, ,, .1 ,tf..2 'i Yfifit'
.„ p 4_.,) 4.___,Idi_ip , IL;::z..4 7:,,/:_l_ ot •-''.. '';;;•: 1 I I t .'.:\ !', ! . _iilL_____4::::.:-.\•.1 _ ,j;.' I .
, ..,r. ii[ ,,, 11-,R 1T ti,, 1 xi 1 •,, R- IL 1 , i,I- I. -1 T Tr 1,.,.. ", ... _-_..., ,,e-4.,.....„,i , ;\ 1 ., , ..• .y ii-ye77....7,71,,,:.
'', (.4i'l, !kJ L.I I '1 rp ll I'fr - 4`f / ' lr j #I r' # tt 1 ,1 ,'-;t i -7. tri t ,Ttil , ) i f('. .ir- ----14 r,1 \)r.-
f i If I IF II 1 t( li ! ,, gl, .),....k.,,.i.:_,_ , .j,, ,,, it __/..) ..„_,7./1, 11 (, ,'
, ("--/•-<-._, l'I .:, )m
''. I ii I I f i,r, i-- 1.i 1 1 [ 1 I 1.' 1 rj. I [ * ./1,1 ; \. 9! i!,-,0,12._i v., i-hr-.). _.,...._ _ ,[, ,r -e \—. .,:i
[ . , , if I _ , , ir , , - , I ri ) '. `f ' ' ' i 'L.) . .,, d.' •
...:• ))fet'-f-' i
1 '- . I n ll p p I 1 IP 1 I , ,l' J. t 1 I 'V ' l, 14- '"--1---i--77r-k 4' ,p-'' L-1-0 ,1 F, '-=;- , • ° . 1 10 --
P t, 1 T-1 1, , 1 , „ pi II, 1 I f 1 .-,,i, , 1 1 4-ip 1. i 0 ,p 4 i A s; o!,..., . ,,._.4....1,11.,t_ ,-..k,,-, J- ,.., • if , _f.,'... ...... '.- ..i,.-1.(
\ ', k i 1 li 1# r f 1 i ,I,.1 is i r t , , I, , d(iir• _i z r• ,'it_ i (dr-,-._:._-k4,. 4 ,,I-F7-1-1 it i ,rr- .!.i i, i i. .. . -• ..------,_. If-J,L,
[ '[ . -'• ,1 . . .
\\ ,LI It' t 1 t,,1 ' t i t, i t i t I 1 t q ,i i 1,, ili r 1 if t-1 t i t i if\il.id; ••__...2_." ',L,I:,...").L--1.-,11/'1 I - -(t t L it ilri i 1,I..;.l--, ',..•.•• . . '.... **. -'
Tr-if -,-LL-LA,--1.1 - ,L\ ' io .4 ,,..r----- • . --i • ,•-.,
k I t 1 I'Ll11 'r ''''Lllit:'1' If. 1 i\I t i'L: -i'l' i lir, ' - -)--' \'0-- • ''' \I) `
__
, 1, ,[ f t i , 4 , i L IL I,i,.. i.i , 1,. i , --si: : :,,,_,...,2_\,, ,
iii..\.,i , ' :• ,
N \t: ' ' ir I t k # 'Il. 1)1 It I I'l). 'II: . lifi''..-:' - )'i ,) ll, , : kr' .'f.\‘,.,j41 ' 'f. r •,...•
; i i', C.,
- I t IL 1 1 1 '1 ll' f. I.,I , . # ,11 I 1 I' ., I.6I . :ii,77-• 4,rtr /T‘ r ,4 i ‘ ' C''r *a --
X 8 T ? g H ..,39 ----.
off,„--. FIGURE 1
R 2 z §' ," EXISTING BRIDGE NO. 38
po P g qt 2!Pl t SAMPLING LOCATIONS FOR TILE LANDMIRK a (4 o 4 El % BRIDGE & CONTROL SITES DESIGN GRI tIP
to La
,,,• . i
NA' 5 ..iy,c, ,,,,fr Pro#ect Development a EnvItonmentei Analysis Bunch-NCDOT
r tin.
Engineare
Choate%Nerth C • Planners • Surveyors • Landscape Archtlecte •Ern/In:mental Sdentlets
ream
AMNIA!EACH,VA • WILLIABANARICI,VA • INLIFFOLX,VA • RALEIGH,NC
-----

I
I N
LEGEND
TRANSECT
RIP-MP, ss _ f.. VISUAL PERCENT COVER STATION (VPC)
ALONG TRANSECT
- CONCRETE
S�a ;�'. REMAINS
• -�- CORE AND (VPC�
.ss
Sn•..•S.:• ALONG SEC
ki;!•'4 s SAV uMfTS
• .�'.41 �\�_ POST-CONSTRUCTION
•
cu
. a`�i`r#'��a r SAV uMfTS in L v.
cu
-�: +a4�643 4'1 PRE-CONSTRUCTION o i
+r rrrr • a
#�tt.t04#il+ll:04-444i!#l�fi�4� I* t *I SWAMP-LOOSETRIfE PRE do POST CONSTRUCTION v• aL
ed" �yy��-a`rrrr�»r'�ry� umtrs ff u
•.�.ji,!#'##`ir#r#r#rarar#r#ra!#r#rar#r# PRE AftE U�--+t•'4+i,4ii++#y##+#+iy#,a#+a+#+4y#y#;ai#-4#y#yam �aracr�
IV
• ; � r+trrrrrrrrr NOTES
s 'w 4,44$44,4�#R4,4444414.404�R..N.r.i40#`4Fr COORDINATES SHOWN ARE IN METERS AND ARE REFERRED TO d
SRA SEGO Gt, N4'4' #!lql�r4*e!.l�l01l�#!i�! =#is.+`lii+:��+ THE NORTH CAROLINA STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM CNAD83)• J
I N �w rr+r#r#*VIM liw4w#t*#'4r#�#� *#y #�,#� *t COORDINATES IDENTIFYING THE LOCATION OF THE IRON PINS A of
iy}1�*y#iii *R 4�+��:1 „##i;.###„*F4�4R �4�„4+ m¢sren svw• ., -.__* ,.. SET AT THE '0 POINTS' OF THE TRANSECTS WERE ESTABLISHED
;~#�+1#_ #rA4�$44 4;AVIy�R4171.4 RVIV •.-., _ �b USING DGPS EQUIPMENT CAPABLE OF SUB-METER ACCURACY AND (^7
�y�� + ����.��� A-- - `- ARE INTENDED TO AID IN THE RECOVERY OF THE PINS IN E -P
72agg e°°4# ~�lel� ��v�ti le4 24$6 _. FUTURE RECONNAISSANCE. �n
iiiiiiiii•iiiiiiiidiiiiiiiiiiiii i C
#t.!��tR}w.it4w:i ekaki#wf+a4r4.--i-4. M��4�#.4��..-.... ..-'.-,▪ -,, d
`R `aiRgg #4;t0R 41SS 4+�#F#4��+w�a;i f��i�+4�4;�+\iRa4W Wit-: Ti
. � l��+F+►;~w+ li4i!t+!4�t;1�!#!iR*!i!#ii!l.ia��i4��i�i�++Y'ii L
•+Z5.101�r�y�Y��4rr y�'�i iriVir'��rhry•#�i-.r 51 ` Cu d
-i:jr r24.042.11"014r#r+r#rara*#r#r#►# #r#r#r#r#F#r#r#r#r+r# #r#ra�# #mil#" 1. v +�
G2 i iyiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiyiiiiii iiii�iii C C
GS 4�4a444l$01�t+a4 40 4 4F4 W:b a4w4ei i 4114�14a.41014 k 4 p� 0,
SRANS� rm.!.
Rtt!liR�!1-Se'"t l�R!#rtttt* 'i0*1*61lt#•44q*g3b*11��r4�411 F�l� C E
'iiiA\'�\\\\\\S\\ L..I 0,
\\'\ar\\\Sa.\ 1 \ \......................................................
i\\\i\\S\\ i\ a.\\\ 0
L
1 �4F44a�a4#r#!#�4�4+#14�41�if��r4 414F�1#�4!#!r#!#�` ...b-r#i >
I
`0i#i4ir0kiki4i4i4 Ort14.7440 01047i4i4iai4i i4i+ � *ibiby w
�� a_a,a.. a..��a.a-R��a.a. rt.a.� .-►a'a44a�a.4 a.-•
"4i4�ari4w# i�4�.4�+wi~a4i t^�y �i i i # t 4iiii'
• ii _ iM-'-41•yi4*i+ k/..... 4iii4i�i
„ a ri`4�41�4w4��a 4i4a4t 4 4ia4F4�4�4:
SRANSEGS G3 # ii4\ #ia ii4+ia#+ �;i+4;##i#�i,i,
r� +rapta�4***-4 /11-44 0i#iai4a4i44 46
•
ii 4 .iii#iii0iaii.ii~
r444E4rrl4rrrrrra 0
Z !ii# ai4 # ii+iy+i # 44 # `
\m :iw4aRi14itia.qfi►4i4w4i4%1; i. N
i.a.a'.. 444<a.'. ...# SAV LIMITS pi
&i#r#1i4 heet4�+}V POST-CONSTRUCTION
Am i
mob- . - 0
;. ..... r„4 4 v.4ir t 0i4i4.♦ i
0 U
1.rar+air#r+F#r#r+r4r#ra ilbo
* r4r4i#iri+46iwiF;+riF4*eF+it4w4f•. I I I r N
b— tri14,0144i 4 i 4 iNS II i 4 4 4 i ~4i01+4
''°" iiii i c
4i�4r4s4a. ittAttitt4w4w4a�eliti4rtittl4 Attfiii -I p 0
: +'+w w+4#4#*a44"44 r#�$60160 +w�r#F+�+'r way 6 r++� o
SAV LIMITS / ^ + .,.._
t c4 PRE-CONSTRUCTION 4 00,0r*4 i 4 i# i6i # 4 a i #a a aria#�41111111:,1 �J 0
NSEG �i'r#i#i4iiiri4iiiii4it�ti4a a y i•i i a+,a i i i a N (n A 4 # i4iiRii# 4 #44#i• :: (q C
VI SR `440�4ti4w4'44w4a4`4w1i4�4�I$bi I.4+4w0014 00' �, -{ C 0
70
r�At!l4laF#F4wa�4li!�aki44R�!tii4�ib'4 -. 0 0
i�i;iiliiiiiliii ` ~�- 0
� tNtititi -
#4i#i4i4i4iki41%04440-4-"•+' ▪ •
J
u
SRP'NS.GI C5
GRAPHIC SCALE IN METERS
I 7.111614111."117
0 25 50

"I ' `
I
;0N
I
LEGEND
c.\.1n,-o-,N4-.4.`-,F1-;-‘,s',•...t I,.5.„_-1':6442-i-4--i4."0M4 0I 7-.14_1.-_.-414_4,,K_-..k...Wi1,,','.,.tt-i.0 O40i-,--Ai.4,i.7eV-I-\,.-.1in-,7.4-"-::--.-I4.V:1--$"._I40 z-l4.ta,.:,.F"i.tw1.r"-U\P
op
TRANSECT u,
1 " -r--V---:-e--,r-----,e,.--.:-.---,-
--r-,
--
e-r,
-+— VISUAL PERCENT COVER STATION (VPC) U
ALONG TR4NSECT +'
4-- CORE AND (VPC) N t
ALONG TRANSECT i u
i
a Q
`_` SAV UM1fS L °i
a
dr, '�'��! ��i- POST-CONSTRUCTION d
+2rr��+sr:rr J- SAV LIMITS I
,� i A �!`' '*4-WZ-S ,#. J PRE-CONSTRUCTION
ss ; -# ,
urns /`' i "� . 1i+iJ5'`, k 4 SWAMP-LOOSETRIFE, POST CONSTRUCTION ^ C
01,1
/ r, W SWAMP-LOOSETRIFE PRE CONSTRUCTION T'
. :+ k. N
My WITS • NOTE i
coiarrarcrrou `* ' I o
" 8,
COORDINATES SHOWN ARE IN METERS AND ARE REFERRED TO CuC C
+�W
.� ��• r W THE NORTH CARDLINA STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM CNADB3). m o,
COORDINATES IDENTIFYING THE LOCATION OF THE IRON PINS G E
G " W SET AT THE '0 POINTS' OF THE TRANSECTS WERE ESTABLISHED w
0
sF �SFG� 4 l .� It
USING DGPS EQUIPMENT CAPABLE OF SUB-METER ACCURACY AND
� < ARE INTENDED TO AID IN THE RECOVERY OF THE PINS IN C
I '1 `9;. w 7 �� FUTURE RECONNAISSANCE, w
' 1' r -.1 \
c� r'� __�
�s r 4g-, _ 'ti,..r w war whn oars Nwe OF SURVEY
T Nf 4�'" �' F.GT ���#'�i` � , Ij�� ELEV. aaxi(w�wyl
,a DE S 0., ,1 1, - F0.ar•0f* �Y
I r
O , �� r.'�*y. #y .#�#l;i�# yam NEM N M WAIEFt MOTS
NI �. ^pS�EGA 03 a'-trAN�I fN64.11r * =,ti * ELEV.-a24r(nawan)
0 ,. •cr S s�G. r�11ii#i�'! +ma y r`� C} • Q� _
' #�#� = t a
`. SAV LIMITS = -.:. +a 4 -*,„-=---j urns or
FE
POST-CONSTRUCTION '_ •'��1�4 i�� ''vLs �
ttie" 441, . .st _IA
Gj ;- 1,4;40- ., a * m
Q 44S,tWViA'Ti.N.,-rIIP-a.-
136
1
�� SAV UMffS I W W +
PRE-CONSTRUCTION 91 r, W
LJ
SFGs �L__- 0 0
u-LO OF r n 4-
v ► PRE-rOarnucrwa ( (n
I I a) c
C uI o
c :7,
0
o
70
GRAPHIC SCALE IN METERS
0 25 50

IL i '
Figure 3
Transect and Sampling
Locations for the Control Site
RIP-RAP
S..
ClCEINCRETE
'0 POINT' 4S„ REMAINS
•
•S�.`.S•.•
IRON PIN SET
N 259076 .'" Si
E 817809 1,'.'S �•.
♦ 1..
.01
62N /,%
•• APPRmOMATE SNORE nr
10
' TRANSEC ylGs'PICS) //
ao" °'S C2 '0 POINT'
C. IRON PIN SET
/� N 259042
ATY"" ' 1
E 817833
e•
FORESTED SVAMP LM Ak t Jjl
7t 4t
t � LEGEND
to
TRANSECT
+ VISUAL PERCENT
ZRF'NSCC — ALONG TRANSECT COVER STATION (VPC)
S c2 C3 '0 POINT'
LIMITS OF • � IRON PIN SET
1 SV&/Q-LI ISESTRIFE / E 817816
—.— CORE AND (VPC)
ALONG TRANSECT
to
n g
to g
tt
(TYPICAL) G(TYPICAL)
Ito"'
D \______________
C4 '0 POINT'
IRON PIN SET
N 258970
Z.
817870
71
CA
l:C%
%+4 lay SRPKS
%OP' // C5 '0 POINT'
/ IRON PIN SET
/ N 21589267864
17864
E 87864
In
7 V .,
7FD GRAPHIC SCALE IN METERS
:: ZRPNS�G� CS ii
NOTE, Z5 bd
COORDINATES SHOVN ARE IN METERS AND REFER TO THE
NORTH CAROUNA STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM (NAD83).
a COORDINATES IDENTIFYING THE LOCATION OF THE IRON PINS
SET AT THE '0 POINTS' OF THE TRANSECTS VERE ESTABLISHED
USING DGPS EQUIPMENT CAPABLE OF SUB-METER ACCURACY AND Langley and McDonald, P.C.
ARE INTENDED TO AID IN THE RECOVERY OF THE PINS IN
FUTURE RECONNAISSANCE,
EEngineers - Surveyors - Planners
Landscape Architects - Environmental Consultants
VIRGINIA BEACH WILLIAMSBURG
+
Project No. 96-24-02(4) Drrg. No.24823CX

4
Figure 2
Transect and Sampling
Locations for the Bridge Site16
., \
BIA '0 POINT' b
AT BULKHEAD _\
$, \ O
3T •
•
<RP�S�G BIO '0 PAINT' ` i i
AT BULKHEAD
•
PROPOSED AL3GlRENT PER
/B9 '0 POINT' j STET 12 NEW BRIDGE PLANS.
. .0 RIP-RAP AT BULKHEAD r % P
s tv-
-(C'.PNS�G — JS�, \ �fr i r ,
\ <% `o, LEGEND
P�SEG� r'� 40 �� TRANSECT
�� `� �e rt '0 POINT' 74
---F— VISUAL PERCENT COVER STATION (VPC)
,,�5 ��PN�G B7 :; ` ALONG TRANSECT
Ss � ` ` �� '0 POINT' •.;\\ .0 PAINT' \ % CORE AND (VPC)
•
PNS�G �e B4 �� ALONG TRANSECT
�R ��Pt%ss' • t,0\, / PAINT' \ .
�-` B3
"� `0, G��`' '0 POINT' \k
lc,- oM ,P,,ry.:• Pt\s 4 t / \.ih
of 0,' y m<
wo
vseoscldel 0 ARP " F G�$� Aa \
cl ..0\, PAS UNITS of l/�J/ B2 \
.{ �, \, �R SWAMP-LmsESTRIFEJ ,0 POINT'
\\O\, ✓ MEAN HIGH WATER LIMITS
4 \O\ •• ELEV, (N 021M GVD29)
� .II
,o\, 1.4' RP�SRG�$2 :• lc BI '0 POINT'
* $.
GRAPHIC SCALE IN METERS
III
1
0 25 50
NOTE,
COCRDINATES SHOWN ARE IN METERS AND REFER TO THE
10
NORTH CAROLINA STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM (NAD83).
COORDINATES IDENTIFYING THE LOCATION OF THE IRON PINS
SET AT THE '0 POINTS' OF THE TRANSECTS WERE ESTABLISHED
USING DGPS EQUIPMENT CAPABLE OF SUB-METER ACCURACY ANDLE Langley and McDonald, P.C.
ARE INTENDED TO AID IN THE RECOVERY OF THE PINS IN
FUTURE RECONNAISSANCE.
Engineers - Surveyors - Planners
Landscape Architects - Environmental Consultants
VIRGINIA BEACH WAWAMSBURG
Project No. 96-24-02(4) Dwg. No.24823BX

i -..-1-.--__--,- s.
.st� I 7 __
l-... _ - aw )✓ I s -Yw
i/
,,
5
Figure 1x�` I � l L W' —
I I =- " y - _di — .l „_ W s t
, . ^\ CI 5 Z I _
I _
. � W- - ii `� -- Locations of US 17 Relocation
• �\ 1 I W- - �- - %Sand.its - - .r i xs.s
ti ' _ = ,\_ ; ,�,, --- Bridge and Control Site
_� G! I I _ I Sampling Areas
_/ i"
11 /
I _ I w� =n�-:. �-'tip
•
)( l( - - -�. _ andpi
T T �, Q we
•
e�iy cONTR°L SITE . 'PROX.) al- .�_ - _-A--' ._� 1 Y. 1•�,:-------*
�� s" - a j� - _ >
'-'-‘,41:
J _ _ _ 4 \ L _ - __ = -L,x� sandpit X j—.- u
,:
�_ . �� \ - - y�-,Y•-_ _^�' ---�- -- \ 1 I DTI i %� _4.. Il -- _.w
1 .I i - J u fly I.�+ lr
{.1 _, — �* C `'�` J �r EDENTAPLi __ --�-/. a� - �-u u� �' - / TIONALF(SH HATCI�IERY )„ �
e
•
•
•
•
- a� s n` � •If:::•'BM _ siEck ___- ___ \ \BRIDGESITE;SAMPLINGA=EA(APPROX.) ^�. - I- -'-_ 6L--�---� •. ) IEETON:______ o '' _ w \ � E
9 , � - __ L7,O
/..>0000.00,00/?4\ 'cl -
JI - - _a- - emu_ - - ... - .-� - -_ --- - -- - — —_—•�� _
IIIILIN
ti '_ 9 1 _ - -a.__ _ .� '- ` .._ - - - _ .4- - -
�1; -Eden house':'., .� \ B 'b'-_-,>` -,u.- -`- - - ,-.� - -,,,� -t- _ .. -w'_''="—''M� - _ -. -''''\ __ _ - - _
\ -`; � ~ .... = Eden •US - _ &'_- -46. _ - �-� -. -v
s.;. Poi e \ - _-_ - -
>,-:r -•� •' - - _ �!- _ -yam - _ .�. 'a� -a-_ -'A-
' IICh .-. `."e-'�- / _4. ;j�'s "r..ur- �'r J� ln• - .'• - _ - -. - - ._ - -wr -
.�v.. i• �> - - -
ter•- - - _ - "u�_ _ -` -+W-�„�"'e - _ - - - -. .-. - -.
9.0 -s 1 1: G, --
�� .,‘,1 /1 T' '1 i •: - - -4,-_-�'- -'y- -4- L_16- -W�- -46- _ ----'4-
• vB M 8.3 w _ r ,,,_ �-. - - _
ti raj J ; ` y- � -_- �/"�"�� - - = _
.I I� ��� •
` ' ohm \ I
%\ . ,c �'l 6 GRAPHIC SCALE IN k,s�r
I
\(�5ol) J I �, / el.91, I I
^1 \` •o Light•
0 2000 I 0
C
A I
6 / i Langley and McDonald
\ Engineers - Susrve
,'� / _/ - ,,\ - �� h I [2
aP - Environmental Consultants
Landsc a Architects
/ I \ 4
.' I. VIRgNIA BEACH NAWAMSBURG
Project No. 96-24-02(4) Dvrg. No. 24823AX

CA/IA- ref.'m 17 /Vd -
Wetlands Mitigation Banking Systems:
A Means of Compensating for Wetlands
Impacts
Paul C. Voigt and Leon E. Danielson,
Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics
North Carolina State University
EXCERPT
TN Company Swamp Mitigation Bank was created by the North Carolina Department of
Transportation to compensate for unavoidable wetland impacts occurring from NCDOT
highway projects near the Roanoke River. Company Swamp is a preservation bank and
consists of 1031 acres located in Bertie County,North Carolina(Pfeifer 1995). The bank
may be used to compensate for impacts outside the 'watershed'in which the bank is
located. On average the impact sites that use this bank for compensation have been 100
miles from the bank site. The bank may only be used for in-kind replacement of
bottomland hardwood habitat.
AREP96-2 November 1996
3/19/97 Judy Bridges

u7VN _ .•. ._ E - - J-
• CO Perm,`-
/
-3-
1 . The permittee shall contact the Corps of Engineers,
Washington Regulatory Field Office NCDOT Regulatory Project
Manager and provide him with the opportunity to attend the yearly
mitigation monitoring efforts.
k. The permittee will submit the yearly mitigation
mcnito+:ng reports within 64 Calendar days of each assessment
period.
1. The permittee will mitigate the 10.38 acres of high
quality riverine wetland ?oases by debiting 103 . 8 acres from the
Company Swamp mitigation Hank in Sertie County.
m. The permittee will retain a ten foot barrier median
through the Wetlands on the east side of the Chowan River from
Station 4+900 to Station 5+340 .
n. Surveys for submerged Aquatic Vegetation ,SAVV) shall be
conducted prior to the initiation of construction activities in
the Chowan River. The area will again 'be surveyed immediately
after completion of the bridge. A report detailing the results
shall be submitted to Corps of Engineers within 60days after
completion of the bridge. If SAVe have been lost, the report
shall also contain a mitigation plan to compensate for the
losses . This plan must be approved by DwQ and the corps,
o. The temporary road accesses will be removed within 30
days of the completion of the project . The wetland sites
impacted by temporary construction access shall be monitored to
insure that native wetland vegetation is recolonizing the sites .
If a site has not achieved Sot areal coverage of native
vegetation within one year of the date the construction access is
removed, ?COOT shall plant the site with the apeciea that were
present prior to the construction.
p. Work barges shall be floated into place end then Bunk.
Additionally, work channels will not be dredged, nor "kicked" by
prop wash, to access any work site . Work barges will be manned
in accordance with JS Coast Guard specifications.
41. The ^ ittf1�
recovery shallo,- cp and ir,ti.e�:er:t a data
e ov,�{}ery program for the historic arc�ieological site 1 2
(Edenhcuv+ee) which wes determined eligible g. for inclusion c4:. U
d e���1ble i..cl.Ls..or, ::r: L-he
National Register of Historic Places. The recovery program must
be approved by the N. C. Division of Archives and History and
completed before construction takes place,

c=a : •-•:-7:-
. ..-t _ •
i;•.: *.••••••.:••:1:::::.F* ,-,---•
-. : - •,,,‘ of.North Carolina
, ..,t4e-x' 4!•:" --'ule
:- - ailment of Environment,
alth and Natural Resources . ".
. .. . vision of Environmental Managerr,en1 ..,,=,. •!. 4 °
. ils:4i.4.1,164:317, If 47 ,.••
• •,. - NtA.'
,,.......,............e.., PR,
.iy James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor . . ..garritpro2,./tviiraski- .erts=agnrcrnairto,'• . ' • ' 'Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary. LLD I= fr-I NJ 1-1
i .
, . . : A. Preston.Howard, Jr., RE., Director
. _
i. May 21, 1996
. .
. .
.
. : • - •
. .
. Mr. Michael Bell
.
. •Corps of Engineers
• P.O. Box 1000 .
Washington,NC 27889-1000
•
• Dear Mr. Bell;
The Division of Environmental Management(DEM) is issuing Water Oriality
Certification No. 3066 to the N.C. Department of Transportation for in:prclvomi‘z lc, (s_iS
17 cTIP No. R-251.2). A condition of the Certification il::for a COE appro 1,L'.d v..k.1 1 I r j
con-lpensatory mitigation package. Mr. Eric Galamb spoke to Mr. Randy 'Turner on May
17, ') . Mr. Turner verbally agrzi.d to a 10:1 debit of the Company Swamp:1\1.11;.,,;;.;ion
th,,,...piCypOsed 7.5:1. DEM suggests that this ba a condition of the 4404
:-„,lect.
The .1_,, : .-!ed to remove the Ovaburdai on the oust and v,.c,z,i : id 1/4-:s or
Pembroke C •.:1. :c.Division of Forest.Resources has pro\ided DOT with a plantin!! li.q
for this lot, . .J.IFI\.1 sagg.ests that the COE permit require this additiemJ mitigation
,,vith a stli-:(..ess critx•Tia of 3-20 stems re:-acre surviving three years aft.,:r pi
All other mitigation proposed by DOT is acceptable to Dli.M provii.Ld th,_;r,:. is ;, I f): 1
debit of the Company Swamp, and the additional restoration of the overburden area fa
Pembroke Creek.
Should you haw any questions, please contact Mr. Erie Galamb at (919) 733-17S6.
• .
• Sineereiy,
•
• • 3 cihri Dormsy 7 i
r. • . Biological Supervisor
EG/mpk
cc: John Parker; DCM
John Hefner; USFW S
Randy Turner: 1)0T
. .
Division ,:it Eft.i f onrnellat: l'..lanagE:mant • Er:',.,rocIrneilta 7k:ienc.:es Erzin,..1-1
•
4401 Reedy Creek Rd., Raleigh. NC: 27626-05 .; • Telephorii :31‘?-7:3-3-'7 a ill • FAX 91.9-733-..:ic)5D
An Equftl C-N.:9;.-,rtorieci Mirrnatt:e Ac.-:',7‘ Errs ,'.9r E,:,:.:% re::.-:-k..-..' • -.--•.--.7.z.r:',.';',-, ra:-..er
.- ----- ---- ----

f
_ 1
•
•
0. North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N.Salisbury Street,Raleigh,North Carolina 27604-1188,919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood,Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: John R. Parker, Jr., Inland "404" Coordinator
Dept. of Environment, Health, &Natural Resources
FROM: Franklin T. McBride, Manager �4dI- i d.c
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: May 8, 1996
SUBJECT: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Public Notice for Action ID No.
199400991, review of application for North Carolina Department of
Transportation(NCDOT)to fill approximately 0.22 acres of waters and
16.20 acres of wetlands to widen US 17, from west of the Chowan River
to just east of Edenton, Chowan and Bertie counties,North Carolina.
Staff biologists with the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission(NCWRC) have
reviewed the information provided by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Our comments
are provided in accordance with certain provisions of the Clean Water Act of 1977 (33
U.S.C. 466 et seq.) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act(48 Stat. 401, as
amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
The proposed project involves construction of a Chowan River bridge and
widening existing US 17 from just east of the Chowan River to just east of Edenton to a
four-lane freeway. Impacts to wetlands and waters includes the filling of 0.22 acres of
surface waters and the filling of 16.20 acres of'404' wetlands adjacent to the Chowan
River , Pembroke Creek and their unnamed tributaries. Mitigation proposed by NCDOT
for these impacts involves debiting the Company Swamp Mitigation Bank at a 7.5:1 ratio
for the impacts to wetlands adjacent to the Chowan River and Pembroke Creek and
debiting the Dismal Swamp Mitigation site for the remainder of the impacts at a 2:1 ratio.
We participated in the interagency field review on January 11, 1996 and have
subsequently reviewed the additional information provided by Mr. Randy Turner. We
remain concerned about wetland avoidance issues in the areas of Pembroke Creek and the
Chowan River. These wetland systems have high functional values and are providing
important fish and wildlife habitat.
111_.v r12
Questions were raised by the resource agencies regarding an alignment's o t L,£'
north on the west of Pembroke Creek to use a disturbed area for the new cons ion (a
NCDOT responded that this was not feasible. We concur with this conclusio owe ;l4 �
9

Memorandum 2 May 8, 1996
we feel that NCDOT should restore the disturbed area as this is a direct result of the
original US 17 construction.
We requested that NCDOT investigate extending the new causeway, east of the
Chowan River to avoid wetlands. NCDOT responded that this is not feasible due to
added costs and design problems. We concur that the added costs do not justify the
wetland savings. We do feel that NCDOT should retain a barrier median through the
wetlands on the east side of the Chowan River and taper to the standard median in
uplands. We also feel that NCDOT should install pipe arches in the existing fill
causeway. These floodplain wetlands were significantly altered when the original US 17
was constructed and in absence of an avoidance option for this valuable swamp forest,
NCDOT should restore the hydrologic connectivity across the existing fill.
In addition to the mitigative measures discussed above,we recommend the
following conditions be include in the '404' permit:
1. No in-water work shall be conducted in Pembroke Creek during the period
February 15 to June 30.
2. The applicant or the contractor shall not dredge work canals in the Chowan
River.
3. Work barges shall be floated into place and then sunk. They shall not be sunk
then dragged into place.
4. Wet concrete shall not be allowed to contact the water in, Pembroke Creek, the
Chowan River, Albemarle Sound or their tributaries. Water inside coffer
dams or casings that has been in contact with wet concrete should only be
returned to the river when it no longer poses a threat to aquatic organisms.
5. Construction staging areas shall be situated in uplands, specifically not in
wetlands.
6. Temporary construction access structures shall be removed immediately after
construction has been complete.
7. Wetland sites impacted by temporary construction access shall be monitored to
insure that natural revegetation is occurring. If a site is not revegetating
within one year of the date the construction access is removed, NCDOT shall
plant the site with the original species that were present prior to the
construction.
8. Turbidity curtains or casings shall be installed around any bottom disturbing
• activities and shall remain in place until sediments have settled.
9. Borrow and waste areas shall not be allowed in wetlands.
10. Cleared and maintained areas in wetlands shall be included in wetland impact
totals and shall be mitigated.
11. Surveys for Submerged Aquatic Vegetation(SAV) shall be conducted prior to
the initiation of construction activities in the Chowan River. The area shall
again be surveyed after construction is complete and a report detailing the

Memorandum 3 May 8, 1996
findings shall be submitted to the resource agencies for review. If SAVs have
been impacted,NCDOT shall provide acceptable mitigation.
We have no objection to the issuance of the '404' permit for this project provided
our recommendations are included as conditions of the permit.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this permit application.
If we can be of any further assistance please call David Cox,Highway Project
Coordinator, at [phone].
cc: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh
Mike Bell, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington
John Dorney, Water Quality Section, DEM, DEHNR

1 N.
_:
1 _„.., 4 ,, . - i „,„4,,.,,
iv ......: i.
4 , -,_ , erN 1 ' w 4:::_z„_...
,' „. t_, .i.Zet_. ,4.16, ,,q k,.." iii; -,-., ,,,..1 '''' 3,
t r .
:/ North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street,Raleigh,North Carolina 27604-1188,919-733-3391
Charles R.Fullwood,Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: John R. Parker, Jr., Coordinator
Major Permits Processing Section
Division of Coastal Management, DEHNR `D
FROM:
Franklin T. McBride,Manager / �'�� "'8 - f
•
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: April 19, 1996
SUBJECT: CAMA/Dredge and Fill PAmit Application for NCDOT bridge replacement
project on US 17 at bridg over the Chowan River, Chowan and Bertie
counties. J
Staff biologists with the Wildlife Resources Commission have completed a review of the
project with regards to associated
ance with acts nrovisions o f he Coastal Area resources
Managem nt Otr
- comments are provided in accord p
(G.S. 113A-100 through 113A-128), and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act(48 Stat. 401, as
amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.).
The applicant proposes to replace bridge#48 located on US 17 over the Chowan River,
with a new wider, high-rise bridge. This construction is a portion of the US 17 improvements
from west of the Chowan River to US ft of 404ss, east vegetated wetlands.
proposed
Chowan Riverct d
result in the filling of approximate.} 261,489. the Environmental Management
is classified as class B, and nutrient sensitive waters (NSW)by
Commission and is closed to shellfishing.
The Chowan River and Albemarle Sound are used by numerous species of resident and
anadromous fish as spawning, rearing, feeding and escape areas. Increased turbidity in these
survival.
results s in the and theiodsttourbancece caused byt, and brdge construction equipmminish ent cang dalso hinder
survival. Turbidity and the
the movement of anadromous fish.
We remain concerned over potential impacts to the aquatic environments of the Chowan
River and Albemarle Sound and the associated wetlands. However, we will not oppose the
issuance of the applicable permits with the following conditions:
1. The applicant or the contractor shall not dredge work canals in the Chowan River.

•
2. Work barges shall be floated into place and then sunk. They shall not be sunk then
dragged into place.
3. Wet concrete shall not be allowed to contact the water in the Chowan River,
Albemarle Sound or their tributaries. Water inside coffer dams or casings that has
been in contact with wet concrete should only be returned to the river when it no
longer poses a threat to aquatic organisms.
3 4. Construction staging areas shall be situated in uplands, specifically not in wetlands.
5. Temporary construction access structures shall be removed immediately after
construction has been complete.
(,, 6. Wetland sites impacted by temporary construction access shall be monitored to insure
that natural revegetation is occurring. If a site is not revegetating within one year of
the date the construction access is removed,NCDOT shall plant the site with the
original species that were present prior to the construction.
7. Turbidity curtains or casings shall be installed around any bottom disturbing activities
and shall remain in place until sediments have settled.
8. Wetland mitigation shall be provided for impacts to `404' wetlands in accordance with
the conditions of the individual `404' permit.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide input into this permit application review. If you
need further information on these comments, please contact me at(919) 528-9886.
cc: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh
John Dorney, Division of Environmental Management
Ron Sechlar,National Marine Fishery Service, Beaufort
Sarah Winslow, Division of Marine Fisheries
Mike Bell, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington

ate of North Carolina
gibepartment of Environment,
,, Health and Natural Resources r 12 C.IA
Division of Marine Fisheries
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor p EE I-1 N Fl
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Bruce L. Freeman, Director
MEMORANDUM:
TO: John R. Parker, Jr., DCM Major Permits Processing Coordinator
THROUGH: P. A. Wojciechowski /'As -
FROM: Sara E. Winslow, Biologist Supervis
SUBJECT: NC DOT - Hwy 17 at Bri4e #38 - Chowan and Bertie County
DATE: March 27, 1996
The following comments by the North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries are
provided pursuant to General Statute 113-131.
Chowan River functions as a spawning and nursery area for blueback herring and
alewife. American shad, hickory shad, striped bass, white perch, yellow perch, catfishes and
other commercially and recreationally important species also utilize the area. These waters
are classified Nutrient Sensitive Waters.
The Division approves of this project with the following modifications. A
construction moratorium associated with the bridge construction is requested. The requested
s-� time frame is 15 February through 30 June. This will ensure the environmental integrity of
,6^ , . the area is protected during critical times of usage by the above mentioned species.
This agency is also concerned with the possible impact to SAVs associated with the
bridge construction. However, the pre and post construction assessment should be adequate.
The Division is concerned with the filling of ±261,489 sq. ft. of wetlands. The
importance of wetlands is well documented. Even though not addressed in the Bio-report,
this agency has received notification of the proposed mitigation plan for the loss of these
wetlands. The proposed mitigation ratio varies from 2:1:1 to 7.5:1 depending on the wetland
quality. The proposed mitigation ratio is quite adequate, but not on site.
P.O. Box 769, Morehead City, North Carolina 28557-0769 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper

Page 6
March 12, 1996 •
• Mr. Hawthorne
- approximately 2 acres of wetland
would result from the additional expenditure of 53
million. The Department strongly believes that the anticipated additional costs for such
work is not practicable. This expenditure conservatively represents between 4 and 5 %
of the total project cost (construction, right of way and mitigation costs combined).
• Question (9): If the bridge is extended west as recommended in #8, can't the
proposed lateral service road through wetlands (stations 1+520 to 1+620) be
eliminated, permitting the occupants of Parcel#2 to utilize their existing driveway,
which will pass under the new bridge deck ?
Response: Constructing a service road under an extended Chowan River bridge
would necessitate raising the bridge above what would be required to merely extend the
bridge (see response#8 for discussion of bridge extension and elevation of bridge
surface). Based upon current design standards, a 15-foot vertical clearance would be
required under the bridge for a service road. This translates into a requirement to
elevate the bridge approximately 5.1 feet above.the proposed road surface elevation in
order to accommodate a service road under the bridge. Obviously, this additional
elevation would translate into larger fill requirements west of the bridge section and
would result in larger impacts to adjacent properties, including wetlands lying west of
station 1+520. The costs and impacts associated with this design modification would
be impracticable.
• Issue (10): Pre-construction and post-construction surveys of the SA V zone on
the east side of the Chowan River will be required so that pre-construction
population data can be contrasted with post-construction. profiles (for mitigation
purposes).
Response: Underwater surveys, conducted during the Environmental Assessment
investigation, revealed the presence of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAVs) in the
shallows along the east shore of the Chowan River. The Department is committed to
providing reliable data on this population that will be useful in determinations of losses
due to construction activities and shading from the new bridge span. The Department
has agreed:
1. to conduct a definitive underwater survey to map the population, including
measuring population density and species composition, prior to construction
(Summer 1996) to establish a pre-construction community profile.
2. to conduct post-construction monitoring to ascertain losses, if any, that may result
from construction activities, including impacts from vertical bridge supports and
from sunken work barges.
3. to negotiate a reasonable monitoring program that is intended to elucidate a
correlation between actual population declines
with the new bridge, based upon an hypothesized shade-effect. the juxtaposition

•
.0,STATE co
ti 1• gg ig/‘
4M '
Nan ��
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
March 8, 1996
Mr. Terry Moore, District Manger ;,,
Division of Coastal Management
Washington Field Office
N. C. Department of Environment, Health
and Natural Resources G
1424 Carolina Avenue gr. +d`
Washington, North Carolina 27889
Dear Mr. Moore:
SUBJECT: CAMA Major Development Permit Application for: Proposed
Replacement of Bridge No. 38 over the Chowan River (Bertie and Chowan
Counties) and Associated Improvements to US 17 in Chowan County;
TIP No. R-2512; State Project No. 8.T010603; Federal Aid No. DPI0199(005)
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (Department) is proposing to replace
the existing bridge over the Chowan River on US 17, as part of overall plans to improve and
upgrade US 17 in Bertie and Chowan Counties. The bridge structure, which was built in 1953, is
scheduled for replacement starting in August 1996. The replacement structure will be built
slightly south (downstream) of the existing alignment. This will allow traffic to utilize the existing
facility until construction of the new bridge is completed, at which time the existing bridge will be
demolished and removed.
The new bridge, a reinforced concrete, multiple fixed-span structure, will replace an aging
swing-span bridge. As a result of this action, navigational clearances will increased from 80 feet
to 200 feet (horizontally). The new structure will provide a vertical clearance of 65 feet at the
navigational channel. Compared to the 347 variable-length spans on the existing structure, the
new bridge will require no more than 73 spans, eliminating a large number of vertical supports
from the water column and benthic substrate of the Chowan River.
In an attempt to avoid a portion of the bottomland wetlands which lie east of the Chowan
River and due to the presence of undesirable subsoils, the Department is extending the bridge
approximately 1,200 feet east of the Chowan River. This land trestle will span a portion of the
Reedy Point Swamp wetlands. At the eastern terminus of the land trestle, a+/-1,500 foot long
p,

Page Two
Mr. Terry Moore
March 8, 1996
fill-section will impact a fringe of the Reedy Point Swamp wetlands. Based upon instructions
from your office, the Major Development Permit application addresses the Chowan River crossing
and all wetlands which lie contiguous to the bridge span, resulting in a"high ground to high
ground" application. The basis for the CAMA permit is that the Chowan River and adjacent areas
have been identified as Areas of Environmental Concern (AECs), specifically, Public Trust
Waters, Estuarine Waters and Estuarine Shoreline AECs.
Underwater surveys, conducted during the Environmental Assessment investigation,
revealed the presence of submerged aquatic vegetation in the shallows along the east shore of the
Chowan River. The Department is committed to providing reliable data on this population that
will be useful in determinations of any losses due to construction activities and shading from the
new bridge span. The Department has agreed:
1. to conduct a definitive underwater survey to map the population, including measuring
population density and species composition, prior to construction (Summer 1996) to establish
a pre-construction community profile.
2. to conduct post-construction monitoring to ascertain losses, if any, that may result from
construction activities, including impacts from vertical bridge supports and from sunken work
barges.
3. to negotiate a reasonable monitoring program that is intended to elucidate a correlation
between actual population declines (if any occur) and the juxtaposition with the new bridge,
i.e., shade-effect.
A Section 404 Individual Permit is being sought concurrently from the U. S. Army Corps
of Engineers (COE). In accordance with the 1990 Memorandum to Agreement between the
Environmental Protection Agency and the COE, the Department has proposed mitigation for all
wetland impacts that will result from the proposed widening of US 17 from west of the Chowan
River to US 17 Business, east of Edenton (R-2512). There are no Coastal Wetlands in the project
impact area.
In compliance with Section 9 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, the Department has
applied to the U. S. Coast Guard for a permit in accordance with Title 33, Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 115.
The Department is requesting that the proposed project be authorized under a Coastal
Area Management Act permit. In order to insure that critical project schedules are met, the
Department respectfully requests that you expedite your field review and submittal of bio-report.

Page Three
Mr. Terry Moore
March 8, 1996
I have attached CAMA Major Development Permit application forms MP-1, MP-2, and MP-5, as
well as engineering site drawings. Copies of the Environmental Assessment and the Finding of
No Significant Impacts are also enclosed.
If you have any questions regarding this project, please contact Mr. M. Randall Turner,
Division 1 Environmental Officer at [phone] or [phone].
Sincere ,
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/mrt
Attachments
cc: Mr. John R. Parker, DCM, Raleigh
Mr. Ann B. Deaton, US Coast Guard
Mr. G. T. Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Kelly Barger, P.E., Program Development
Mr. D. R. Morton, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. J. L. Smith, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. D. R. Conner, P.E., Division 1 Engineer
Mr. James A. McInnis, Jr., P.E., Planning& Environmental Engineer
Mr. M. Randall Turner, NCDOT, Division 1

I
I
I
FINAL REPORT ON THE
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
COMPANY SWAMP MITIGATION BANK,
BERTIE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Prepared by:
R. Wilson Laney, Dennis L. Stewart, Gerald R. McCrain,
Carol Mayes, and V. C. Bruton
Issued By
U. S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Raleigh, North Carolina
September 1988

1 - 1
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
BETWEEN
•
NORTH CAROLINA WILDLIFE RESOURCES COMMISSION ,
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ,
NORTH CAROLINA NATURE CONSERVANCY, AND
U. S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into on the date
hereinbelow last written , by and between the State of North
Carolina , acting by and through th.e Wildlife Resources Commis—
sion (WRC ) and the Department of Transportation ( NCDOT ) ; the
United States of America , acting through the U. S. Department of
the Interior , Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) ; and the North
Carolina Nature Conservancy ( NCNC) .
WHEREAS, the USFWS is authorized to enter into agreements
with the State of North Carolina in accordance with the
provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act , 16 U . S. C.
Sections 661 et seq . ; and
WHEREAS, under existing provisions of law the WRC and
NCDOT are. authorized to enter into agreements with the FWS ; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of this Memorandum of Understanding is
to establish a Mitigation Bank for mitigating unavoidable fish
and wildlife habitat losses associated with future NCDOT projects
in bottomland hardwood wetlands ; and
WHEREAS, the Company Swamp Tract within the Roanoke River
Basin has been identified by WRC and NCNC as one 'of the best
bottomland hardwood sites remaining in North Carolina , in
imminent danger of being clearcut and converted to forestry
monoculture , and of top priority for protection from develop—
ment ;
NOW , THEREFORE , it is mutually agreed among the four
parties that the following general provisions are adopted and
will be implemented upon acquisition of the Company Swamp Tract .
General Provisions
1 . The term of the agreement shall be for a period of thirty
(30 ) years . The agreement shall be automatically renewed a
maximum of two (2) times unless a party hereunto , upon six
( 6 ) months written notice , advises the other parties of its
intent to terminate the agreement .
•
2. The WRC will manage the mitigation bank site in perpetuity .
A management plan identifying initial and long—range habitat
improvement measures featuring nongame and old—growth timber
values will be developed by WRC and presented to all parties
for concurrence , and implemented by WRC . When finalized ,
tern I r7 1[lQg

1 -2
—2—
the management plan will be attached to this MOU as Appenaix
A. Acquisition and initial management costs will be paid by
the project sponsor , NCDOT.
3 . The parties to the MOU will use the U. S. Fish and Wildlife
Service ' s Habitat Evaluation Procedures ( HEP ) to determine
credits and debits to be applied to the mitigation bank for
all projects greater than five (5 ) acres . For projects less
than five ( 5 ) acres , mitigation will be on an acre—for—acre
basis . '
4 . An interagency review team consisting of qualified biologists
representing USFWS ( serving as chairman) , WRC, NCDOT and
• other agencies with interests in the mitigation bank will
determine habitat units and the average annual habitat units
( AAHU ' s) to be initially credited to the mitigation bank and
shall determine future debits and credits to the mitigation
bank .
5 . Mitigation from the bank will be used only to offset
unavoidable impacts on fish and wildlife when the applicant
can demonstrate to the satisfaction of all parties to the
MOU that there are no available or practical onsite mitiga—
tion alternatives .
6. The mitigation bank will be used for mitigating unavoidable
impacts associated with future NCDOT projects occurring •
in North Carolina on bottomland hardwood wetland habitat
types . For the purposes of this agreement , bottomland
hardwood wetlands are defined as follows : Palustrine
forested broad—leaved deciduous/needle—leaved deciduous/ •
needle—leaved evergreen semipermanently or seasonally or
temporarily flooded wetlands . Also , wildlife losses will
be offset only by wildlife credits and fisheries losses will
be offset only by fisheries credits .
7 . The mitigation bank will not be used to offset any project
impacts on Federally—listed endangered species .
8 . If future projects requiring mitigation occur within the
mitigation bank site and the bank is to be debited for such
projects , then the debits will equal twice the AAHU ' s caused
to be lost by the project .
9 . The USFWS will provide data sheets for each credit or debit
transaction to all parties to the MOU for signature concur—
rence . No credits or debits can be applied until all
parties concur with the FWS data sheet analysis . Such
concurrence , substantiations of reasons for noncurrence ,
or requests for additional review time must be forwarded
to the Raleigh office of USFWS within 30 working days after
receipt of the data sheet . If no response from a party is
received within this time frame , it will be deemed- to

_���_ - -
l•. 1-3
I -3-
Iindicate concurrence by that party . Copies of signed • trans—
action data sheets will be held as a permanent record by
USFWS and NCDOT. An annual summary of credits and debits
1 will be prepared by the USFWS on a calendar year basis and
provided to each party .
1 10 . Ten ( 10 ) years after implementation of the management plan
a complete evaluation of the management program will be made
by the interagency review team using HE?, or a mutually
1 agreeable and credible methodology . A preliminary analysis
of the effectiveness of the management program will be
conducted five (5 ) years after its implementation .
1 11 . This MOU does not eliminate the applicant' s or agency' s
responsibilities under all applicable Federal , State and
local laws and/or regulations .
1 12. Amendment or modification of the MOU may be proposed at any
time , but will not be adopted unless agreed to by all
1 parties . If proposed revisions are not agreed to within one
( 1 ) year after submission , then the party proposing the
revision may elect to terminate its participation in this
agreement at the end of such one year period .
1
IN WITNESS THEREOF , the parties have caused this agreement
to be executed on the date hereinbelow last written :
I
1V
xecutive Director D to
N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
Et:' e e., "."k-- — 9 i�i'r
Sec; - ar
y Date
1 N. C. Department of Transportation
1 .../tz:r:=7Zo•
0r.-)---
Director ate
INorth Carolina Nature Co servancy
SEP 3 1985
R gional Dire for Date
4thg144:: —
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service