NCDOT 7-98 R-2551 SAV Impacts & Monitoring

Brittingham, Cathy
From: Brittingham, Cathy
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2009 10:45 AM
To: 'ddanderson @ dot.state.nc.us'; 'pharris @ ncdot.gov'; 'rgriffin @ ncdot.gov'
Cc: 'Riddick, Thomas L'
Subject: CAMA Permit No. 7-98 temporary impact monitoring
RE: 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
Hello,
This e-mail is to document that on 4/7/09, DCM and NCDOT conducted a site visit of the temporarily impacted
areas for the above referenced project. DCM and NCDOT determined that the temporarily impacted areas have
reattained jurisdictional wetland status. Therefore, DCM now considers this outstanding permit issue to be
resolved.
As discussed at the 2/23/09 DCM-NCDOT meeting in Morehead City, DCM looks forward to continuing to
work with NCDOT to bring the unresolved permit issue related to submerged aquatic vegetation requirements
for the above referenced project to a positive resolution.
Sincerely,
Cathy Brittingham
Cathy Brittingham
Transportation Project Coordinator
N.C. Division of Coastal Management
1638 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1638
[phone] x238 telephone
[phone] FAX
cathy.brittingham([e-mail] **NEW**
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.
i

s
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
Unresolved submerged aquatic vegetation requirements
Environmental Assessment, 12/27/96
"...NCDOT further agrees to provide compensation for losses confirmed from the investigative approach
outlines above; the amount and nature of the compensation will be determined through multi-agency
discussions."
CAMA permit application and Field Investigation Report
The NCDOT permit application cover letter dated 10/9/97 states regarding Submerged Aquatic Wetland:
"The Department is committed to providing reliable data on this population that will be useful in
determination of losses due to construction and/or shading from the new bridge spans. The Department
agrees:
a. to conduct a definitive underwater survey to map the population, including measuring population
density and species composition,prior to construction (Summer 1997) to establish a pre-construction
community profile. Note: this work has been completed; reports are due in October.
b. 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 and
temporary bridge.
c. 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, based upon an
hypothesized shade-effect.
The Department further agrees to provide compensation for losses to SAVs confirmed from the investigative
approach outlined above, the amount and nature of the compensation to be determined through multi-agency
discussions."
CAMA Permit, 1998
Permit conditions
12) 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.
13) 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.
RK&K document, September 2003
In order to fulfill mitigation commitments associated with this project, a post-construction SAV survey
should be completed and a meeting conducted with resource agencies no later than three months following to
determine appropriate mitigation for impacts, if any."

•
DOT Comments, October 2005
No comments regarding SAVs.
DCM Comments, October 2006
DCM has not received any documentation from NCDOT that the submerged aquatic vegetation requirements
of CAMA Permit No. 7-98 have been satisfied. "In compliance with Condition Number 13 of the major
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 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. In compliance with Condition Number 14 of
the major CAMA permit modification issued on 9/23/98, NCDOT needs to carry out any and all mitigation
requirements resulting from this meeting. DWQ shall be involved in the negotiation of the mitigation plan.
NCDOT September 2008 comments
"The 2006 notes indicate that very little SAVs were present on the east approach. There were more SAVs at
the west connection. This project is not under construction to date. There should be no SAV impact from
the bridge because there are none present in the sound. The adjacent canals on Highway 64 are dominated
by Milfoil and Alligator Weed."
DCM November 2008 comments
The 9/2/08 response from NCDOT does not appear to satisfy the permit conditions related to SAV impacts
and mitigation.
Unresolved temporary impact monitoring requiremegts—
CAMA p- •. 't application and Field Investi• . ion ' : sort
According to t : field investigation re•s ,temporary • s of 1.88 acres of Palustrine .etlands will be
restored upon comp : ion of the . :sect and require strict • itoring.
According to the field i -sti: ion report, additional losses can b- . •ticipated in coastal wetlands from
damage caused dun• : constructio • d removal of tempor. ork brie_- While this area is to be restored,
strict monitorin: • ill be necessary to p ent erosion o .ermanent losses.
CAM• 'ermit, 1998
ew CAMA permit 7-98 issued by P ' on 1/20 `: contains a permit condition tha • ` ' .C.
i ' ion of Water quality has auth• ed the proposed proje ater Quality Ce .tion No. 316 D WQ
Project o. 970856), which w. . ssued on 11/26/97. Any violatio •f cone' '•ns of this certification wi •-
considered . 'olation of t• CAMA permit." The Water Quality C- .tion issued on 11/26/97 contains
the following co •stio•. "Up to 1.99 acres of temporary fill in -tlands wil .- required to build haul roads.
All temporary fill a ::al must be removed from const • on access areas. On : 27, 1997, DWQ
submitted a • • t restorati• • •olicy for temporary i • .act areas to DOT. We anticipate ' •'rig this policy to
Public No e before the end o •vember 199 and finalizing it prior to construction of this • •ject.
Resto . ion of temporary impact area •e conducted in accordance with the final version of this policy."
• major modification of CAMA • it -' : issued by DCM on 9/23/98 contains a permit condition that:
"The N.C. Division of Water qu- ' y has authoriz-• the proposed project Water Quality Certification No.
3167 (DWQ Project No. 9 s:56), which was issued on 26/97 and modified on 8/19/98. Any violation of

DCM Evaluation of NCDOT's CAMA Permit Commitment Review
SAV re•uire ents
There is no doc► entation in the CAMA permit file that the SAV requirements • 'this project have
been satisfied in a ordance with CAMA permit condition number 16. The MA Permit
Commitment Revie .ocument prepared by NCDOT dated 8/15/05 includ- a copy of a cover letter
dated 3/26/02 from Lin• -y Riddick to the USACE(Mike Bell)providi : the post construction survey
for SAV near the eastern to i inus of the new bridge over the Chowan Over. However, a copy of this
report was not provided to.the D CM-Raleigh Office and unfortunat- , DCM does not seem to have a
copy of the report. DOT is requ-:ted to provide DCM with a cop, 'of the post construction survey for
submerged aquatic vegetation(SA" near the eastern terminus .f the new bridge over the Chowan
River. In accordance with CAMA pe it condition number •, please ensure that-if SAV's have been
lost, the report also contains a mitigation . an to compens• e for the losses, in accordance with the
permit condition. CAMA permit condition n. ber 16 a o requires that "the mitigatiortpla0 must Jpp
approved by DEM and DCM." tao y
SEP 2 5 202,8
The RK&K report recommends that DOT pr- .are a mitig. 'on plan to comet##isii€e ''S'A i �lct`s:E M E N 1
The CAMA Permit Commitment Review • .cument prepare• by NCDOT dated 8/15/0§',states that:
"the SAV survey showed an impact on 4 sites for a total of 0.4,4 acre of SAV impact. The NCDOT
will propose to fund a SAV study in th, Chowan River basin to 'tigate for the impacts to SAVs from
this project. The proposal for this st :y will receive prior approva rom the DCM." DCM has not yet
received this proposal. It is critica that DOT forward it to DCM as I on as possible.
The NCDOT has performed b t ha pre-construction and a post-construc 'on SAV survey. Copies are
attached.
Tem•orar im.act mon' orin t re.uirements: Please refer to the DCM docu -nt titled: "DCM
Evaluation of NCDO s `CAMA Permits with Temporary Impact Monitoring ondition', dated April
20,2005."
R-2512B, BRID' E OVER PEMBROKE CREEK AND ASSOCIATED IMPR O VEMENTS TO
US 17, CAM• 'ERMIT NO. 89-96, CHOWAN COUNTY.
Same coin -nts as above for CAMA Permit number 88-96.
•
Due to i'sufficient and conflicting information,the NCDOT requested an interagency site in . tion to
try to •etermine 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
associated with this project, a post-construction SAV survey should be completed and a meeting
conducted with resource agencies no later than three months following to determine appropriate
mitigation for impacts, if any." In compliance with Condition Number 13 of the major 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 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. In
compliance with Condition Number 14 of the major CAMA permit modification issued on 9/23/98,
NCDOT needs to carry out any and all mitigation requirements resulting from this meeting. DWQ
shall be involved in the negotiation of the mitigation plan.
NCO Secns e Itcz;v 91a5/14
The 2006 notes indicate that very little SAVs were present on the east approach. There were more
SAVs at the west connection. This project is not under construction to date. There should be no SAV
impact from the bridge because there are none present in the sound. The adjacent canals on Highway
L64 are dominated by Milfoil and Alligator Weed.
Surface water mitigation requirements
• a letter dated 9/9/99, EEP accepted payment from NCDOT for mitigation requirements of 1047 feet
of s earn. Therefore, the surface water mitigation requirements of this project ha • •een
ki
satisfi
Wetland miti s. :on re•uirements SEP 2 5 2008
There are 4 wetlan• itigation sites for this project: Mashoes Road, Di al w am ,,Manteo Bypass
Bridge and White's St. u V. OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
RALEIGH
Three of the wetland mitigation 'tes, Mashoes Road, Dismal ' amp and Manteo Bypass Bridge, have
been closed out by DCM. In a lette •ated 2/17/06, DCM .: eed with NCDOT's recommendation to
discontinue monitoring at the Mashoes •ad Mitigation :rte. The Dismal Swamp mitigation site was
closed out by DCM through internal memo : dums • .ted 10/27/05, 12/16/05 and 6/22/06. The
Manteo Bypass Bridge mitigation site was clos- • t by DCM in a letter dated 7/21/06.
One of the wetland mitigation sites, White' tore, has 'of been closed out by DCM. DCM has
communicated internally about this requ-. in memorand ' dated 10/19/05 and 12/16/05. In a letter
dated 6/13/05,NCDOT requested tha •CM provide documen tion stating that no further monitoring
is required and that the site is close In a letter to DOT dated 5/ 45, DCM said: "DCM has a zero
tolerance policy for Phragmites 'ustralis in coastal wetland mitigatio ites. DCM does not allow
coastal wetland mitigation cr-•it for areas dominated by Phragmites. Th- onitoring report states
that Phragmites was foun• n 3 of the 30 plots monitored in 2004. DCM doe of agree that
monitoring can be discs tinued at this site unless the unsuccessful portions of th- ite (Phragmites-
dominated) are aban• •ned and suitable coastal wetland restoration is found nearby ake up the
difference." In a l er to DOT dated 4/22/04, DCM stated: "The low survival of plant-' sawgrass at
the site and do •'nonce of Echinochloa species suggests that the hydrology of the site is no avorable
for sawgrass ..if the hydrology of the site were appropriate for sawgrass,Echinochloa would n:
flourish." he CAMA Permit Commitment Review document prepared by RK&K dated 9/22/03
Page 4 of 19, 4 W -5/2006

Cathy Brittingham summary of mitigation requirements in permits,7/11/06
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
Status of submerged aquatic vegetation requirements: DCM has not received any
documentation from NCDOT that the submerged aquatic vegetation requirements of the
CAMA Permit have been satisfied. The CAMA permit commitment review document
prepared by RK&K dated 9/22/03 states: "In order to fulfill mitigation commitments
associated with this project, a post-construction SAV survey should be completed and a
meeting conducted with resource agencies no later than three months following to
determine appropriate mitigation for impacts, if any." In compliance with Condition
Number 13 of the major 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 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. In compliance with Condition Number 14 of the major CAMA
permit modification issued on 9/23/98, NCDOT needs to carry out any and all
mitigation requirements resulting from this meeting.
Status of surface water mitigation requirements: In a letter dated 9/9/99, EEP accepted
payment from NCDOT for mitigation requirements of 1047 feet of stream.
Status of wetland mitigation requirements: There are 4 wetland mitigation sites for this
project: Mashoes Road; Dismal Swamp; White's Store; and Manteo Bypass. In a letter
dated 2/17/06,DCM agreed with NCDOT's recommendation to discontinue monitoring
at the Mashoes Road Mitigation Site. Debits for R-2551 are: 13.1 acres SVM
restoration, 8 acres forest wetlands restoration, 122.9 acres SVM preservation and 76.2
acres forest wetland preservation =220.2 acres. The Dismal Swamp mitigation site was
closed out by DCM through internal memorandums dated 10/27/05, 12/16/05 and 2/3/06.
Debits for R-2551 are 1.5 acres SPH riverine. The Manteo Bypass Bridge mitigation site
was closed out by DCM in a letter dated XX/XX/XX. The entire site is restoration for a
permit violation associated with this project.
According to the NCDOT compensatory mitigation proposal dated 4/7/99: "vegetation
success will have been achieved when, at the end of the monitoring period, more than
50% of individual plants have survived and are growing, or growth of planted species has
achieved aerial coverage of at least 75% of the site." In a letter dated 6/13/05, NCDOT
requested that DCM provide documentation stating that no further monitoring is required

Fwd: SAV monitoring and mitigation CAMA permit conditions]
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`I994 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.
of 3 7/7/2006 11:19 AM

FF
• 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
of 3 7/7/2006 11:19 AM

FINAL REPORT
NEW CROATAN SOUND BRIDGE AQUATIC INVESTIGATION
An Inventory of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation
At the Western & Eastern Approaches to Proposed
Bridge on U.S. 64-264
State Project Number 8.T051401
T.I.P. Number R-2551
NCDOT Consulting Number 96-LM-10
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
October 29, 1997
L&M Project Number 96-024-10
Langley and McDonald, P.C.
Engineers 5544 Greenwich Road,Virginia Beach,VA 23462
Surveyors [phone] FAX: [phone]
Planners
Landscape Architects 201 Packets Court,Williamsburg,VA 23185
Environmental Consultants [phone] FAX: [phone]

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PROJECT INTRODUCTION 1
PROJECT METHODS 1
Croatan Sound Bridge Western Approach Survey and Sampling 1
Croatan Sound Bridge Eastern Approach Survey and Sampling 3
Croatan Sound Control Site Survey and Sampling 3
PROJECT RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 4
Croatan Sound Bridge Western Approach 4
Croatan Sound Bridge Eastern Approach 4
Croatan Sound Control Site 5
CONCLUSIONS 6
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1. Mean(Standard Error) Abundance of SAV (Widgeon grass)
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1. Locations of the New Croatan Sound Bridge and Control Site
FIGURE 2. Transect and Sampling Locations for Croatan Sound Bridge Western Approach
FIGURE 3. Transect and Sampling Locations for Croatan Sound Bridge Eastern Approach
FIGURE 4. Transect and Sampling Locations for Croatan Sound Control Site
FIGURE 5. SAV (Widgeon Grass) Biomass
FIGURE 6. SAV (Widgeon Grass) Shoot Lengths
FIGURE 7. SAV (Widgeon Grass) Density
APPENDIX 1
Sampling Data from the New Croatan Sound Bridge Submerged Aquatic Vegetation
(20 pages)
North Carolina Department of Transportation October 1997
Langley and McDonald,P.C.No. 96-024-10 Page i

PROJECT INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this study was to perform an inventory of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV)
at the location of the new Croatan Sound Bridge (Figure 1) as requested by Federal regulatory
agencies. The data generated from this study determined whether SAV populations existed and
their relative abundance compared to a distant control site. In addition it is intended to be
compared to post-construction SAV survey data (not part of this scope of work) to determine
whether either of the following conditions had a demonstrable effect on the SAV communities:
• 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 differences in factors such as storms, river flow, or regional water quality, a nearby
control site not affected by bridge construction activities is necessary. Only by comparing SAV
population levels over time at the bridge construction sites to population levels at the control site
can a determination be made as to whether any changes at the bridge sites are most likely due to
the effects of more general environmental conditions, or those arising from the bridge
replacement project itself. SAV sampling methodologies, sample collection and data analysis
• were the responsibility of Dr. Kenneth Moore of the Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS)
who was assisted by Ms. Betty Neikirk, M.A. (VIMS). Survey work and field sampling of the
western approach were conducted between August 4 and August 6, 1997, and on the eastern
approach between August 7 and August 8, 1997. Control site selection, survey work and field
sampling were conducted between August 11 and August 12, 1997.
PROJECT METHODS
Croatan Sound Bridge Western Approach Survey and Sampling
A total or seven transects ranging from 150 to 300 meters in length (as measured from the
adjacent shoreline) were established parallel to the center line of the new Croatan Sound Bridge
(Figure 1) . Transects were located as follows at the western approach (Figure 2):
• One transect was located along the centerline of the new bridge.
• Transects were positioned+10, +20, and +40 meters south of the centerline.
• Transects were positioned -10, -20, and -40 meters north of the centerline.
Each of these transects as well as the general shoreline features were located by Langley and
McDonald using Differential GPS survey together with HYPACK navigational software and an
on-board laptop computer mounted on L&M's 18-foot vessel manned with a captain and
North Carolina Department of Transportation October 1997
Langley and McDonald,P.C.No. 96-024-10 Page 1

•
1 J , o gunny Sidae j f, .'l\
1 .,• -10 orr • i'o
`� �� ,� i °,; Figure
9 v 5 , 7NiPoR < Locations of the
r - -� •.2_,o �Co. I ower;� c j New Croatan Sound Bridge
• d N\ 40 X,SIMIAN /�• /( • - and
Ramp `- - 5 r /� =�(1 IU Control Site
. I , e -, „ . v . - - ...1 , ,y),,,\... ....' '.:7,_ ..__,..____—_-
•
/3 2 ` ♦ ?y1...„.1,• ��:.1� i. 1t» Sandy P
ATE_ , �� ♦ \�
.....i.,..' ,is
SOUN-�_-'a FE 9 1 ( 7.4,_ , „,,...:.. - '
\`// � !• r�1V \ �\ 4 ,
i� b Nave k ' \7 s ,-9,•
\ \ :TA- -"I- '',' \‘ ,..;.„..,,,..,,,, ,„
Burnsi. Headquartere 1 /\\ I2 (His •rival Site) . II• 1 •y:\\-(. \��"''
7 ' \\\\ _-CalifoYiiia �" ' * .•'Iii 2
\\,....\\\8
•
wilit
\\\\ 8 - — Q _-•i• / ••)1 Manteo\ o` • e �60
(), \ \ 2 - - - - Ar
Well Field) , '�� -` A.
\\ l a ,. \ BM
v6•�
B \�v N - .t�-eeSLL ,. v•8
7 2
LiQnta, s y , -
\ -
\ y _ -... - - - - _ -
Ma°nns 3 e io1 s s 1 _ _ _ =
Harbor " , -a- - "
lin
•
M
S -- _ \ 1 s% 1 pe L/MV4gYgLKN M. - _
- ---
/ ,
�- 4e o r NTRROL SITE ', ' - C u ,%
- -- - ° 1- Fleetw od Point
11 l; s.",
O
,g , , _-
8
..,-- . _ _ .5.__ ._ :,,,.: \,, 8 1 I\
1 C •`mac. ,0
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
0 2000 4000
[- Langley and McDonald, P.C.
Engineers - Surveyors - Planners
Landscape Architects - Environmental Consultants
VIRCINIA BEACH WILLIAMSBURC
Project No. 96-24-10 Dwg. No. 25,165X

Figure 2 C
'Q O Transect and Sampling
J'4 Locations for
Croatan Sound Bridge
S Western Approach
Fb �/O
tvtosEci_40
2eo
qp , OE)
240 - \ soo TRANSEci-20 TRANSECT O OF PROP.GRID
220 { iRANSECt-10 540 lcEN7ERLINE
200 �, 320 '..
1e0 �' �. 240 300
160 jR0 240 260 2M\. 140 �' iRANSE0.T.10
140 ,.0_,,
220 \
120 180 2a ,t20
..� `20D 22p 100 t40... iRAN5EC7• .20
_ t� t� / 200 60 120 ,_`
120 80 1 • e0 100
p 00 100 20 1 t •\ �` •� 1TA p115ECT 440
80
1 -;,� 20 a 50 *Or'60 ,./0 _ �/ �o - �.` �90 too
• � _ _. / moo
MEAN MON WATER(ELEV.0.239m1
APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF SAV „
\
\
VISUAL PERCENT COVER AT LEGEND
CORE SAMPLE SITES TRANSECT
0% —I— VISUAL PERCENT COVER STATION (VPC) G//� GRAPHIC SCALE IN METERS
ALONG TRANSECT
1-;':0%
-4—CORE AND (VPC) i
;ii 21-40% ALONG TRANSECT 0 40 80
41- 60% NOTES:
61--80% I. CONTOUR INTERVAL IS 0.25 METERS. Langley and McDonald, P.C.
81 100% 2. BASED ON NAD 83 NORTH CAROLINA STATE Engineers — Surveyors — Planners
PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM (METERS). Landscape Architects — Environmental Consultants
VIRGINIA BEACH
3. VERTICAL DATUM NGVD29. WIWAMSBURG
Project No. 96-24-10 Dwg. No. 25,162X

environmental specialist. NCDOT provided centerline staking of the bridge as well as vertical
control at the bridge sites. Vertical control was transferred to the control site by L&M personnel.
Mean high water (MHW) was determined by NCDOT to be 0.238 m above the National
Geodetic Vertical Datum 1929 (NGVD29).
Using GPS and HYPACK, marked buoys were placed at 50 meter intervals along each transect
prior to sampling. Two research divers using SCUBA placed a negatively buoyant line along the
length of each transect until water depths exceeded 1.5 m below NGVD29. Known distributions
of SAV in other regions and preliminary surveys in this area suggested that SAV would be
found shallower than this depth.
At 10 m intervals along each transect, a 0.1 m 2 sampling ring was placed on the bottom and a
visual estimate of percent cover of each SAV species within the ring was made and recorded.
General observations of the conditions between each sampling point were also recorded. A total
of 175 bottom cover observations were made over the 7 transects (Appendix 1).
Additional quantitative data was obtained by hand coring (0.18m 2) the center of the
observational ring to a depth of 20 cm at approximately three locations along each transect where
SAV were present. No core samples were taken along transects that did not have SAV. 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 sound water through a
0.5 cm mesh wire sieve. The intact SAV from each sample, including all aboveground and
belowground plant material, was placed in a water tight plastic bag, labeled, 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 aboveground and belowground biomass, 3) species
density, and 4) shoot lengths. A total of 16 cores of SAV were sampled and analyzed for SAV at
the western approach site (Appendix 1).
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, wiped free of epiphyton, separated by
species, if necessary, and counted. Shoots were separated into aboveground and belowground
(roots and rhizomes) material and an arbitrary sub-sample of 20 shoots was measured for
aboveground shoot lengths. Biomass 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 four hours and
weighed.
North Carolina Department of Transportation October 1997
Langley and McDonald,P.C.No.96-024-10 Page 2

Croatan Sound Bridge Eastern Approach Survey and Sampling
A total of seven transects ranging from 100 to 250 meters in length (as measured from the
adjacent shoreline) were established parallel to the centerline of the new Croatan Sound Bridge
(Figure 1). Transects were located as follows at the eastern approach site (Figure 3):
• One transect was located along the centerline of the new bridge.
• Transects were positioned+10, +20, and +40 meters north of the centerline.
• Transects were positioned -10, -20, and -40 meters south of the centerline.
Each of these transects and shoreline features were established and surveyed as previously
described for the western approach site. Sampling, including depth measurements, SAV cover
estimates and biomass samples, was also conducted in the same manner. A total of 215 SAV
bottom cover observations were made (Appendix 1), but because of the lack of SAV observed at
this site only two (2) biomass samples were obtained. Macrophyte vegetation was measured and
analyzed as described previously.
Croatan Sound Control Site Survey 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 across the Croatan Sound, 2) it must contain similar SAV, and 3) it must be
isolated from other disturbances (eg. marinas, boat ramps). To accomplish this, a series of
survey dives were conducted at a variety of sites at least 1 km from the bridge site. Only one
control site was established (Figure 1) since the bridge corridor surveys as well as other survey
dives along both the eastern and western shorelines of the Croatan Sound revealed all the SAV
beds to be similar with only one species present, widgeon grass (Ruppia maritima).
Five (5) transects were located within the control site, spaced 20 m apart to cover the same base
width (80 m) as the bridge approach study areas (Figure 4). Each of these transects and shoreline
features were established and surveyed as previously described for the western and eastern
approach sites. Sampling, including depth measurements, SAV cover estimates and biomass
samples, was also conducted in the same manner. A total of 66 SAV bottom cover observations
were made (Appendix 1), and 12 biomass samples were obtained. Macrophyte vegetation was
measured and analyzed as described previously.
North Carolina Department of Transportation October 1997
Langley and McDonald,P.C.No.96-024-10 Page 3

Figure 3
Transect and Sampling
Locations for
Croatan Sound Bridge
Eastern Approach
•
•
\ _— \ • APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF SAV
260 2�0^ . j�6 "
7W _- 110.—.. 80...._____.�_ -,.`�`
/
-
. o TRANSECT +40 •
1 1 1 1- 1 1 f- 1 1 1- 1--1- 1 1 1 1 !_ 1 -1---1--1_1`1 `1 ! 1 "'t'-'1' 1 1• t1O0�F1 T 1 1.-1-i ✓ i
-`llla-_._�1`•r4a- --.� y too -,,"pp eo -~'"4a�.._ \•. �t o TRANSECT+20
1-.L_I I I 1 11-i-T_)-`.: i- I.._ I 1'-1 I i``{ 1- 1 I I 1 I I P.I`'l
�`�- •-�--,_ •4�'\. \ ' TRANSECT+10
•
--400� -a0 80 -..40 20 •
1....1 1 I' 3 I 1-"J-.,I I I I I I �I.,I t I l l �i``1'.
too -----ea_ 60`` _ 40'- 20 \ •4 -�10 TRANSECT 0(CENTERLINE OF PROP. BRIDGE).
I I I I 11-",-1 y I I I A 1 I `I-_I I P..` T- X'T-»t'x909739.7 n41a96.e , X77-140-.X9098525 Y2416947
80s.
_ -- 0 TRANSECT-108 ----�. TRANSUR*-10A
I I I e0 I \I I. 1 r-I -L- --r , / ,-
.--
80 �� -•-4a-_- - TRANSECT-208 JEO�.' 1 so�� r'(-- k ' •c •TRANSECT-20A -
I I I�I I I I F I ( 1 I l` /I!/�,.I`:1•'( 1 I I,1, -r-r-" .
1
1---1 + .4-1`Y(..._TRANSECT-40 '
•
\ MEAN HIGH WATER (ELEV.. 0.238m)
\
i 1
O \ I .
O-
N
V '
0
G
Z VISUAL PERCENT COVER
'CD AT CORE SAMPLE SITES LEGEND `
TRANSECT GRAPHIC SCALE IN METERS
0% —1--VISUAL PERCENT COVER STATION (VPC)
EllALONG TRANSECT
1-20% -CORE AND (VPC) 1 0 40 80
41r . --' 21-40% ALONG TRANSECT
41-60% NOTES: -- Langley and McDonald, P.C.
'1 61-80% 1. CONTOUR INTERVAL IS 0.25 METERS. - .
2. BASED ON NAD 83 NORTH CAROLINA STATE _,= Engineers - Surveyors - Planners
Landscape Architects - Ennvironmentall Consultants
81-100% PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM (METERS). \ i VIRGINIA BEACH WIWAMSBURG
3. VERTICAL DATUM NGVD29.
Project No. 96-24-10 Dwg. No. 25,163X

C' Figure 4
C Transect and Sampling
Locations for
7- Croatan Sound Control Site
1 '9
• I 4/
•
•
I MEAN HIGH WATER (ELEV.= 0.238m)
10 C
C./
/p0 O
APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF SAV
j</-
' /
X 903,076.15 (E) ' / •
Y 241,309.12 (N) ..,/ . .......... .0
T
i/ ko �9'LS VISUAL PERCENT COVER
F00, AT CORE SAMPLE SITES
o
\� ' �/ •A o% LEGEND
-9
0 Q0 NS. 1-20% TRANSECT
` ' 21-40% �— VISUAL PERCENT COVER STATION (VPC)
ti4 r .,:,,-
�'p O •• ALONG TRANSECT
AD T�1� —1 �p0 41-60% —� CORE
AD (VPC)
TRANSECT
9
'1 SF`0 61-80%
� .
RO �
2' GA, R7 81-100% NOTES:
"P-1ti ` /•0 1. CONTOUR INTERVAL IS 0.25 METERS.
SF `?
6� 2. BASED ON NAD 83 NORTH CAROLINA STATE
//A O2' RSs PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM (METERS).
4'S�, 60 3. VERTICAL DATUM NGVD29.
02,
cO 0
GRAPHIC SCALE IN METERS
O
>• 0 20 40
O
[4 Langley and McDonald, P.C.
Engineers — Surveyors — Planners
Landscape Architects — Environmental Consultants
VIRGINIA BEACH WILLIAMSBURG
Project No. 96-24-10) Dwg. No. 25164X

PROJECT RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Croatan Sound Bridge Western Approach
SAV vegetation was found growing within the western approach site at shallow depths
(maximum of-50 cm NGVD29 but usually -25 cm or less) in a 10-20 m width band extending
up to 30 m from the existing shoreline (Figure.2). The shoreline consisted of a narrow fringing
beach and eroding tidal marsh which was vegetated with a variety of salt tolerant species
including saltmarsh cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora), big cordgrass (Spartina cynosuriodies),
saltmeadow cordgrass (Spartina patens) ,and needlegrass rush (Juncus romerianus). The SAV
beds were vegetated with only one species, widgeon grass, which is a species tolerant of a wide
range of salinity conditions. Salinities recorded here during the field sampling were 10-12 ppt or
about 1/3 that of ocean water. Within the SAV zone, the vegetation was growing in a mosaic of
intermittent patches from 5m to 10m in diameter which were separated by several meters of
unvegetated sandy bottom. Approximately 1591m2 of bottom within the 80m width western
approach was vegetated in such a manner with widgeon grass. The bottom areas where
vegetation was present consisted of a thin veneer of sand underlain with relic marsh peat to
depths of at least 20 cm.
This was consistent with other erosional characteristics of the shoreline which suggests that the
marsh along this site has been continually retreating, leaving submerged peat deposits in the
shallow water. The widgeon grass vegetation was firmly rooted into the peat, supporting the
supposition that the solid substrate enables the widgeon grass to withstand strong wave activity
which may be present at times. The ratio of belowground to aboveground biomass of the SAV
was nearly 2:1 here (Table 1). In more quiescent areas, widgeon grass would typically have
below:above biomass ratios of 1:1 or less. August should be a period of maximum annual
biomass for widgeon grass in this region yet the aboveground biomass (11.2 g m 2; Fig. 5), mean
shoot lengths (5.2 cm; Fig. 6) and densities (3700 m-2; Fig. 7) were quite small in comparison to
that noted in other areas, such as the control site. This relatively low size and density may be
controlled, in large part, by erosional (physical) factors.
Croatan Sound Bridge Eastern Approach
In contrast to the western approach site, the eastern approach site shoreline was largely
unvegetated with SAV (Figure 4). Only one small patch of 32m2 was found within a small,
shallow, relatively protected marsh embayment. Biomass, density and shoots lengths are
comparable to the SAV vegetation observed within the western approach site (Table 1; Figs. 5 to
7). The shoreline here consisted of saltmarsh which was generally of the same mix of emergent
marsh species as the western approach shore. The lack of SAV at this site may be due in part to
the exposure and active erosion of the marsh shoreline, as well a relative narrow nearshore zone.
Large blocks of submerged, eroded marsh peat were found adjacent to the shore throughout the
study area at water depths of up to 2 meters. This indicates active erosion has occurred here in
the recent past. A survey of shoreline areas both north and south of the eastern approach site
North Carolina Department of Transportation October 1997
Langley and McDonald,P.C.No. 96-024-10 Page 4

Table 1. Mean (Standard Error) Abundance of SAV (Widgeon Grass)
Aboveground Belowground
Site Biomass Biomass Total Biomass Density Shoot Length Bottom Cover
g m-2 g m-2 g m-2 # m-2 cm
Western Approach 11.2 (0.5) 20.7 (1.4) 31.9 (1.8) 3,686 (148) 5.2 (1.1) 37 (1)
Eastern Approach 11.3 (2.2) 34.9 (5.5) 46.3 (3.3) 3,268 (971) 6.3 (2.0) 55 (7)
Control Site 69.7 (6) 63.0 (3.6) 132.8 (8.7) 9,149 (422) 12.8 (10.1) 81 (2)

Figure 5. SAV (Widgeon Grass) Biomass
�r a
140
120-
fpp
}
100-
CTI
80- •Aboveground
h
■Belowground
2
60- ¢
Z _
40-H
20-
Western Approach Eastern Approach Control Site
STUDY SITES

Figure 6. SAV (Widgeon Grass) Shoot Lengths
14-
12
E 10-.
ta i
I t
'^ i
V
z 8-
W
J I-
0
N g .0
z
Q
2 4
: 77 '
Western Approach Eastern Approach Control Site
STUDY SITES

Figure 7. SAV (Widgeon Grass) Density
A- -
./
� {{
10000-°' i
i
9000
8000- ! j
7000-
N
-- 6000- a
Z 5000-
W
Z 4000-
u
2 3000-
2000- ,
1000 /.
t�,f1%: g..
r tf 1
I
Western Approach Eastern Approach Control Site
STUDY SITES

revealed that widgeon grass was present in numerous, intermittent patches along much of the
Croatan Sound shoreline. Like the western approach site, this may be related to suitable
substrate for rooting in an exposed environment.
Croatan Sound Control Site
The control site was located along the western shoreline of the Croatan Sound, approximately
0.97 km south of the western approach site, and was well vegetated with widgeon grass. The site
was situated along a reach of undeveloped marsh shoreline of similar composition to that of the
two bridge sites, and it was far removed from potential man-made disturbances. Bottom cover,
biomass, densities, shoot lengths, and bottom cover of SAV were greater here than at either of
the bridge study areas (Table 1; Figs. 5 to 7). However, the beds at all three sites were similar in
many respects including the water depths at which the SAV were growing and the bottom
substrate type within the beds. The SAV covered approximately 673m2 of nearshore bottom
within the 80 m wide control site.
Widgeon grass beds typically produce many elongated "reproductive" shoots during the summer
in mid-Atlantic coastal regions. Unlike many "true" seagrasses which pollinate underwater,
widgeon grass must release pollen onto the surface, where it is held up by the water's surface
tension until it is intercepted by the female flowers that extend to the surface during periods of
low tide. While no reproductive shoots were observed within either of the bridge sites, a number
of reproductive shoots were observed within the control area. These shoots averaged 25 to 50 cm
in length and comprised approximately 15-20% of the shoots in the samples where they
occurred. Therefore, the overall mean SAV biomass and shoot lengths at this site were much
greater than that of the other study areas (Table 1; Figs. 5 and 6). Non-reproductive shoots at this
control site were much shorter and more consistent with the vegetation sampled within the
eastern and western approach sites, although the densities of the shoots were generally higher
(Fig. 7).
Other patches of widgeon grass containing many reproductive shoots were also observed at a
number of locations along both east and west shorelines of the sound. Therefore, the beds found
at this control site were not unusual for this region. Typically, reproductive shoots do not occur
in relatively exposed sites, suggesting that the exposure of the control site may be somewhat less
than that of either of the approach sites where no reproductive shoots were found. Otherwise,
this site appears very similar to the bridge sites although the abundance of SAV is higher here.
Although widgeon grass is a perennial species which grows vegetatively, beds can demonstrate
wide annual fluctuations in abundance due to a variety of physical, chemical and biological
factors. The SAV at this control site should respond in a similar manner to the bridge sites to
changes in regional conditions such as storm events and hurricanes, or to reductions in water
quality within the sound. As such, it should serve as a good control with which to assess
potential bridge construction related impacts relative to more general fluctuations in local
population abundance.
North Carolina Department of Transportation October 1997
Langley and McDonald,P.C.No. 96-024-10 Page 5

CONCLUSIONS
The nearshore zone of the Croatan Sound bridge western approach supported a population of
SAV vegetated exclusively with widgeon grass, which extended over an area of approximately
1591m2. Widgeon grass is an ecologically important SAV species which is a valuable food
source for overwintering waterfowl species. Its name is adapted from the American widgeon, a
North American duck commonly found feeding on SAV beds of this species. The widgeon grass
growing here was limited to the shallowest areas where depths were less than -50 cm NGVD29.
The nearshore zone of the Croatan Sound eastern approach site was nearly unvegetated with
SAV, although a small 32m2 bed of widgeon grass was found along the northern edge of the
study area. SAV vegetation at both approach sites was typical of SAV beds observed nearby
along the shorelines.
A SAV control site was established along an 80 m reach of shoreline on the Croatan Sound
approximately 0.97 km south of the western approach area. Although the SAV vegetation here
was determined to be of greater density and area biomass than either of the two approach sites, it
was characterized by the same monotypic beds of widgeon grass which were found to be
growing within similar depth zones and on similar substrates as that found at the bridge sites.
Because of these characteristics the area was determined to be a suitable control site with which
• to assess bridge construction related impacts.
The low abundance of SAV at both approaches to the proposed bridge were most likely due to
the erosive environment present. The distribution of SAV growing within the western approach
of the proposed bridge was patchier and not as great as that observed at the control site nor other
areas observed in the immediate vicinity, but was within the ranges observed along the western
shoreline. The eastern approach was virtually devoid of SAV, while areas to the north and south
had more SAV. Changes in bottom type or depths may preclude SAV survival, or possible
recolonization of SAV at the approaches to the proposed bridge after construction, due to the
physically stressed (erosive) environment.
North Carolina Department of Transportation October 1997
Langley and McDonald,P.C.No.96-024-10 Page 6

Page 1
Appendix 1: Sampling Data from the New Croatan Sound Bridge Submerged Aquatic Investigation. August 4-11, 1997.
SITE TRANSECT DISTANCE BOTTOM ABOVEGROUND BELOWGROUND TOTAL
FROM SHORE DEPTH COVER DENSITY BIOMASS BIOMASS BIOMASS
(m) (m) (%) (#/m2) (g/m2) (g/m2) (g/m2)
Western Approach C-40 0 +0.18 0
Western Approach C-40 10 -0.23 0
Western Approach C-40 20 -0.36 0
Western Approach C-40 30 -0.35 0
Western Approach C-40 40 -0.40 0
Western Approach C-40 50 -0.41 0
Western Approach C-40 60 -0.39 0
Western Approach C-40 70 -0.38 0
Western Approach C-40 80 -0.35 0
Western Approach C-40 90 -0.38 0
Western Approach C-40 100 -0.40 0
Western Approach C-40 110 -0.44 0
Western Approach C-40 120 -0.46 0
Western Approach C-40 130 -0.49 0
Western Approach C-40 140 -0.48 0
Western Approach C-40 150 -0.44 0
Western Approach C-40 160 -0.45 0
Western Approach C-40 180 -0.47 0
Western Approach C-40 185 -0.46 0
Western Approach C-40 190 -0.45 0
Western Approach C-40 200 -0.48 0
Western Approach C-40 210 -0.50 0
Western Approach C-40 220 -0.49 0

Page 2
SITE TRANSECT DISTANCE BOTTOM ABOVEGROUND BELOWGROUND TOTAL
FROM SHORE DEPTH COVER DENSITY BIOMASS BIOMASS BIOMASS
(m) (m) (%) (#/m2) (g/m2) (g/m2) (g/m2)
Western Approach C-40 230 -0.47 0
Western Approach C-40 240 -0.47 0
Western Approach C-40 247 -0.40 30 1,648 4.2 6.1 10.3
Western Approach C-40 250 -0.35 30
Western Approach C-40 260 -0.28 30 1,043 3.9 6.2 10.1
Western Approach C-40 270 -0.31 40 2,856 12.4 13.7 26.0
Western Approach C-40 280 -0.37 20
Western Approach C-40 290 -0.43 0
Western Approach C-40 300 -0.60 0
Western Approach C-20 0 +0.24 0
Western Approach C-20 10 -0.27 0
Western Approach C-20 20 -0.30 0
Western Approach C-20 30 -0.33 0
Western Approach C-20 40 -0.43 0
Western Approach C-20 50 -0.45 0
Western Approach C-20 60 -0.41 0
Western Approach C-20 70 -0.39 0
Western Approach C-20 80 -0.43 0
Western Approach C-20 90 -0.44 0
Western Approach C-20 100 -0.44 0
Western Approach C-20 110 -0.41 0
Western Approach C-20 120 -0.40 0
Western Approach C-20 130 -0.43 0
Western Approach C-20 140 -0.41 0

Page 3
SITE TRANSECT DISTANCE BOTTOM ABOVEGROUND BELOWGROUND TOTAL
FROM SHORE DEPTH COVER DENSITY BIOMASS BIOMASS BIOMASS
(m) (m) (%) (#/m2) (g/m2) (g/m2) (g/m2)
Western Approach C-20 150 -0.41 0
Western Approach C-20 160 -0.42 0
Western Approach C-20 170 marsh
Western Approach C-20 180 -0.38 0
Western Approach C-20 185 -0.39 0
Western Approach C-20 190 -0.10 0
Western Approach C-20 200 +0.12 0
Western Approach C-20 210 -0.06 0
Western Approach C-20 220 -0.23 0
Western Approach C-20 230 -0.42 0
Western Approach C-20 240 -0.47 0
Western Approach C-20 250 -0.47 0
Western Approach C-20 260 -0.49 0
Western Approach C-20 270 -0.48 0
Western Approach C-20 280 -0.62 0
Western Approach C-20 290 -0.96 0
Western Approach C-20 300 -1.08 0
Western Approach C-10 0 +0.24 0
Western Approach C-10 10 +0.01 0
Western Approach C-10 20 -0.07 25 3,185 10.7 19.4 30.2
Western Approach 'C-10 30 -0.15 0
Western Approach C-10 40 -0.23 0
Western Approach C-10 50 -0.37 0
Western Approach C-10 60 -0.39 0

MI
Page 4
SITE TRANSECT DISTANCE BOTTOM ABOVEGROUND BELOWGROUND TOTAL
FROM SHORE DEPTH COVER DENSITY BIOMASS BIOMASS BIOMASS
(m) (m) (%) (#/m2) (g/m2) (g/m2) (g/m2)
Western Approach C-10 70 -0.37 0
Western Approach C-10 80 -0.35 0
Western Approach C-10 90 -0.38 0
Western Approach C-10 100 -0.38 0
Western Approach C-10 110 -0.42 0
Western Approach C-10 120 -0.40 0
Western Approach C-10 130 -0.35 0
Western Approach C-10 140 -0.28 0
Western Approach C-10 150 -0.11 80 5,327 19.0 38.2 57.2
Western Approach C-10 160 +0.26 0
Western Approach C-10 180 +0.16 0
Western Approach C-10 185 -0.03 80 10,160 29.7 33.5 63.3
Western Approach C-10 190 -0.05 40
Western Approach C-10 200 -0.28 0
Western Approach C-10 210 -0.47 0
Western Approach C-10 220 -0.43 0
Western Approach C-10 230 -0.49 0
Western Approach C-10 240 -0.48 0
Western Approach C-10 250 -0.49 0
Western Approach C-10 260 -0.67 0
Western Approach C-10 270 -0.89 0
Western Approach C-10 280 -1.06 0
Western Approach C-10 290 -1.17 0
Western Approach C-10 300 -1.23 0

Page 5
SITE TRANSECT DISTANCE BOTTOM ABOVEGROUND BELOWGROUND TOTAL
FROM SHORE DEPTH COVER DENSITY BIOMASS BIOMASS BIOMASS
(m) (m) (%) (#/m2) (g/m2) (g/m2) (g/m2)
Western Approach Centerline 0 +0.24 0
Western Approach Centerline 10 -0.04 0
Western Approach Centerline 20 -0.20 0
Western Approach Centerline 30 -0.12 30 3,515 8.7 17.4 26.1
Western Approach Centerline 40 -0.37 0
Western Approach Centerline 50 -0.20 30 3,185 12.3 25.6 37.9
Western Approach Centerline 60 -0.27 0
Western Approach Centerline 70 -0.44 0
Western Approach Centerline 80 -0.44 0
Western Approach Centerline 90 -0.21 30 2,691 9.4 21.3 30.6
Western Approach Centerline 100 -0.17 80 7,634 27.4 93.6 121.0
Western Approach Centerline 110 -0.10 70
Western Approach Centerline 115 -0.05 100
Western Approach Centerline 120 marsh
Western Approach Centerline 130 marsh
Western Approach Centerline 140 marsh
Western Approach Centerline 150 marsh
Western Approach Centerline 160 +0.15 0
Western Approach Centerline 170 -0.03 0
Western Approach Centerline 180 -0.18 20 934 3.2 3.2 6.4
Western Approach Centerline 190 -0.33 0
Western Approach Centerline 200 -0.46 0
Western Approach Centerline 210 -0.50 0
Western Approach Centerline 220 -0.48 0
Western Approach Centerline 230 -0.50 0

Page 6
SITE TRANSECT DISTANCE BOTTOM ABOVEGROUND BELOWGROUND TOTAL
FROM SHORE DEPTH COVER DENSITY BIOMASS BIOMASS BIOMASS
(m) (m) (%) (#/m2) (g/m2) (g/m2) (g/m2)
Western Approach Centerline 240 -0.57 0
Western Approach Centerline 250 -0.86 0
Western Approach Centerline 260 -1.01 0
Western Approach Centerline 270 -1.09 0
Western Approach Centerline 280 -1.18 0
Western Approach Centerline 290 -1.28 0
Western Approach Centerline 300 -1.36 0
Western Approach Centerline 310 -1.39 0
Western Approach Centerline 320 -1.54 0
Western Approach Centerline 330 -1.64 0
Western Approach Centerline 340 -1.88 0
Western Approach Centerline 350 -2.07 0
Western Approach C+10 0 +0.24 0
Western Approach C+10 10 -0.10 25 3,735 10.3 11.1 21.4
Western Approach C+10 20 -0.25 25 3,021 8.7 8.2 16.9
Western Approach C+10 30 -0.39 0
Western Approach C+10 40 -0.42 0
Western Approach C+10 50 -0.46 0
Western Approach C+10 60 -0.52 0
Western Approach C+10 70 -0.57 0
Western Approach C+10 80 -0.82 0
Western Approach C+10 90 -0.99 0
Western Approach C+10 100 -1.07 0
Western Approach C+10 110 -1.21 0

Page 7
SITE TRANSECT DISTANCE BOTTOM ABOVEGROUND BELOWGROUND TOTAL
FROM SHORE DEPTH COVER DENSITY BIOMASS BIOMASS BIOMASS
(m) (m) (%) (#/m2) (g/m2) (g/m2) (g/m2)
Western Approach C+10 120 -1.25 0
Western Approach C+10 130 -1.36 0
Western Approach C+10 140 -1.41 0
Western Approach C+10 150 -1.51 0
Western Approach C+20 0 +0.24 0
Western Approach C+20 10 -0.05 20 3,789 10.4 11.0 21.4
Western Approach C+20 20 -0.26 0
Western Approach C+20 30 -0.34 0
Western Approach C+20 40 -0.44 0
Western Approach C+20 50 -0.47 10 2,032 3.2 4.6 7.8
Western Approach C+20 60 -0.56 0
Western Approach C+20 70 -0.77 0
Western Approach C+20 80 -0.92 0
Western Approach C+20 90 -0.97 0
Western Approach C+20 100 -1.11 0
Western Approach C+20 120 -1.25 0
Western Approach C+20 140 -1.41 0
Western Approach C+20 150 -1.54 0
Western Approach C+40 0 +0.23 0
Western Approach C+40 10 -0.09 0
Western Approach C+40 20 -0.13 40 4,221 5.8 17.7 23.5
Western Approach C+40 30 -0.36 0
Western Approach C+40 40 -0.43 0

Page 8
SITE TRANSECT DISTANCE BOTTOM ABOVEGROUND BELOWGROUND TOTAL
FROM SHORE DEPTH COVER DENSITY BIOMASS BIOMASS BIOMASS
(m) (m) (%) (#/m2) (g/m2) (g/m2) (g/m2)
Western Approach C+40 43 -0.42 40
Western Approach C+40 50 -0.60 0
Western Approach C+40 60 -0.68 0
Western Approach C+40 70 -0.89 0
Western Approach C+40 80 -0.93 0
Western Approach C+40 90 -1.09 0
Western Approach C+40 100 -1.19 0
Western Approach C+40 150 -1.64 0
Eastern Approach C+40 0 +0.24 0
Eastern Approach C+40 5 +0.06 0
Eastern Approach C+40 10 -0.09 0
Eastern Approach C+40 15 -0.14 0
Eastern Approach C+40 20 +0.00 50 2,581 12.9 31.1 44.0
Eastern Approach C+40 23 +0.08 60 3,954 9.8 38.8 48.6
Eastern Approach C+40 25 +0.06 0
Eastern Approach C+40 30 +0.13 0
Eastern Approach C+40 35 marsh
Eastern Approach C+40 40 marsh
Eastern Approach C+40 45 marsh
Eastern Approach C+40 50 +0.13 0
Eastern Approach C+40 55 +0.05 0
Eastern Approach C+40 60 -0.21 0
Eastern Approach C+40 65 -0.29 0
Eastern Approach C+40 70 -0.32 0

Page 9
SITE TRANSECT DISTANCE BOTTOM ABOVEGROUND BELOWGROUND TOTAL
FROM SHORE DEPTH COVER DENSITY BIOMASS BIOMASS BIOMASS
(m) (m) (%) (#/m2) (g/m2) (g/m2) (g/m2)
Eastern Approach C+40 75 -0.15 0
Eastern Approach C+40 80 -0.12 0
Eastern Approach C+40 85 -0.05 0
Eastern Approach C+40 80 -0.01 0
Eastern Approach C+40 95 -0.03 0
Eastern Approach C+40 100 -0.19 0
Eastern Approach C+40 105 -0.39 0
Eastern Approach C+40 110 -0.50 0
Eastern Approach C+40 115 -0.52 0
Eastern Approach C+40 120 -0.54 0
Eastern Approach C+40 125 -0.54 0
Eastern Approach C+40 130 -0.51 0
Eastern Approach C+40 135 -0.48 0
Eastern Approach C+40 140 -0.52 0
Eastern Approach C+40 145 -0.57 0
Eastern Approach C+40 150 -0.62 0
Eastern Approach 'C+40 155 -0.66 0
Eastern Approach C+40 160 -0.69 0
Eastern Approach C+40 165 -0.72 0
Eastern Approach C+40 170 -0.75 0
Eastern Approach C+40 175 -0.76 0
Eastern Approach C+40 180 -0.77 0
Eastern Approach C+40 185 -0.77 0
Eastern Approach C+40 190 -0.76 0
Eastern Approach C+40 195 -0.69 0

Page 10
SITE TRANSECT DISTANCE BOTTOM ABOVEGROUND BELOWGROUND TOTAL
FROM SHORE DEPTH COVER DENSITY BIOMASS BIOMASS BIOMASS
(m) (m) (%) (#/m2) (g/m2) (g/m2) (g/m2)
Eastern Approach C+40 200 -0.57 0
Eastern Approach C+40 205 -0.45 0
Eastern Approach C+40 210 -0.41 0
Eastern Approach C+40 215 -0.68 0
Eastern Approach C+40 220 -0.84 0
Eastern Approach C+40 225 -1.01 0
Eastern Approach C+40 230 -1.12 0
Eastern Approach C+40 235 -1.19 0
Eastern Approach C+40 240 -1.26 0
Eastern Approach C+40 245 -1.30 0
Eastern Approach C+40 250 -1.33 0
Eastern Approach C+40 255 -1.38 0
Eastern Approach C+40 260 -1.41 0
Eastern Approach C+20 0 +0.24 0
Eastern Approach C+20 5 -0.21 0
Eastern Approach C+20 10 -0.47 0
Eastern Approach C+20 15 -0.55 0
Eastern Approach C+20 20 -0.60 0
Eastern Approach C+20 25 -0.64 0
Eastern Approach C+20 30 -0.59 0
Eastern Approach C+20 35 -0.58 0
Eastern Approach C+20 40 -0.60 0
Eastern Approach C+20 45 -0.59 0
Eastern Approach C+20 50 -0.54 0

Page 11
SITE TRANSECT DISTANCE BOTTOM ABOVEGROUND BELOWGROUND TOTAL
FROM SHORE DEPTH COVER DENSITY BIOMASS BIOMASS BIOMASS
(m) (m) (%) (#/m2) (g/m2) (g/m2) (g/m2)
Eastern Approach C+20 55 -0.51 0
Eastern Approach C+20 60 -0.51 0
Eastern Approach C+20 65 -0.59 0
Eastern Approach C+20 70 -0.62 0
Eastern Approach C+20 75 -0.70 0
Eastern Approach C+20 80 -0.81 0
Eastern Approach C+20 85 -0.92 0
Eastern Approach C+20 80 -0.99 0
Eastern Approach C+20 95 -1.00 0
Eastern Approach C+20 100 -1.01 0
Eastern Approach C+20 105 -1.08 0
Eastern Approach C+20 110 -1.06 0
Eastern Approach C+20 115 -1.04 0
Eastern Approach C+20 120 -1.06 0
Eastern Approach C+20 125 -1.07 0
Eastern Approach C+20 130 -1.10 0
Eastern Approach C+20 135 -1.02 0
Eastern Approach C+20 140 -1.13 0
Eastern Approach C+20 145 -1.17 0
Eastern Approach C+20 150 -1.28 0
Eastern Approach C+20 155 -1.33 0
Eastern Approach C+20 160 -1.41 0
Eastern Approach C+10 0 +0.24 0
Eastern Approach C+10 5 -0.29 0

Page 12
SITE TRANSECT DISTANCE BOTTOM ABOVEGROUND BELOWGROUND TOTAL
FROM SHORE DEPTH COVER DENSITY BIOMASS BIOMASS BIOMASS
(m) (m) (%) (#/m2) (g/m2) (g/m2) (g/m2)
Eastern Approach C+10 10 -0.52 0
Eastern Approach C+10 15 -0.61 0
Eastern Approach C+10 20 -0.59 0
Eastern Approach C+10 25 -0.59 0
Eastern Approach C+10 30 -0.63 0
Eastern Approach C+10 35 -0.68 0
Eastern Approach C+10 40 -0.76 0
Eastern Approach C+10 45 -0.82 0
Eastern Approach C+10 50 -0.87 0
Eastern Approach C+10 55 -0.92 0
Eastern Approach C+10 60 -0.93 0
Eastern Approach C+10 65 -0.92 0
Eastern Approach C+10 70 -0.94 0
Eastern Approach C+10 75 -1.00 0
Eastern Approach C+10 80 -1.07 0
Eastern Approach C+10 85 -1.15 0
Eastern Approach C+10 80 -1.22 0
Eastern Approach C+10 95 -1.31 0
Eastern Approach C+10 100 -1.32 0
Eastern Approach C+10 105 -1.34 0
Eastern Approach C+10 110 -1.37 0
Eastern Approach Centerline 0 -0.49 0
Eastern Approach Centerline 5 -0.69 0
Eastern Approach Centerline 10 -0.17 0

Page 13
SITE TRANSECT DISTANCE BOTTOM ABOVEGROUND BELOWGROUND TOTAL
FROM SHORE DEPTH COVER DENSITY BIOMASS BIOMASS BIOMASS
(m) (m) (%) (#/m2) (g/m2) (g/m2) (g/m2)
Eastern Approach Centerline 15 -0.57 0
Eastern Approach Centerline 20 -0.69 0
Eastern Approach Centerline 25 -0.70 0
Eastern Approach Centerline 30 -0.74 0
Eastern Approach Centerline 35 -0.80 0
Eastern Approach Centerline 40 -0.88 0
Eastern Approach Centerline 45 -0.95 0
Eastern Approach Centerline 50 -1.02 0
Eastern Approach Centerline 55 -1.08 0
Eastern Approach Centerline 60 -1.14 0
Eastern Approach Centerline 65 -1.23 0
Eastern Approach Centerline 70 -1.26 0
Eastern Approach Centerline 75 -1.28 0
Eastern Approach Centerline 80 -1.31 0
Eastern Approach Centerline 85 -1.36 0
Eastern Approach Centerline 80 -1.39 0
Eastern Approach Centerline 95 -1.44 0
Eastern Approach Centerline 100 -1.50 0
Eastern Approach C-10a 0 +0.24 0
Eastern Approach C-10a 1 -0.42 0
Eastern Approach C-10a 5 -0.64 0
Eastern Approach C-10a 10 -0.60 0
Eastern Approach C-10a 15 -0.62 0
Eastern Approach C-10a 20 -0.74 0

Page 14
SITE TRANSECT DISTANCE BOTTOM ABOVEGROUND BELOWGROUND TOTAL
FROM SHORE DEPTH COVER DENSITY BIOMASS BIOMASS BIOMASS
(m) (m) (%) (#/m2) (g/m2) (g/m2) (g/m2)
Eastern Approach C-10a 23 -0.92 0
Eastern Approach C-10a 25 +0.05 0
Eastern Approach C-I0a 28 +0.21 0
Eastern Approach C-10b 40 -1.09 0
Eastern Approach C-10b 45 -1.16 0
Eastern Approach C-10b 50 -1.20 0
Eastern Approach C-10b 55 -1.28 0
Eastern Approach C-10b 60 -1.32 0
Eastern Approach C-10b 65 -1.38 0
Eastern Approach C-10b 70 -1.44 0
Eastern Approach C-10b 75 -1.48 0
Eastern Approach C-10b 80 -1.49 0
Eastern Approach C-20a 0 +0.00 0
Eastern Approach C-20a 1 -0.15 0
Eastern Approach C-20a 5 -0.68 0
Eastern Approach C-20a 10 -0.66 0
Eastern Approach C-20a 15 -0.57 0
Eastern Approach C-20a 20 -0.45 0
Eastern Approach C-20a 25 -0.15 0
Eastern Approach C-20a 30 -0.56 0
Eastern Approach C-20a 35 -0.87 0
Eastern Approach C-20a 40 -0.95 0
Eastern Approach C-20a 45 -0.80 0

Page 15
SITE TRANSECT DISTANCE BOTTOM ABOVEGROUND BELOWGROUND TOTAL
FROM SHORE DEPTH COVER DENSITY BIOMASS BIOMASS BIOMASS
(m) (m) (%) (#/m2) (g/m2) (g/m2) (g/m2)
Eastern Approach C-20a 50 -0.75 0
Eastern Approach C-20a 55 -0.83 0
Eastern Approach C-20a 60 -0.50 0
Eastern Approach C-20a 65 +0.10 0
Eastern Approach C-20a 67 +0.21 0
Eastern Approach C-20b 0 +0.24 0
Eastern Approach C-20b 1 -0.54 0
Eastern Approach C-20b 3 -1.32 0
Eastern Approach C-20b 5 -1.36 0
Eastern Approach C-20b 10 -1.40 0
Eastern Approach C-20b 15 -1.47 0
Eastern Approach C-20b 20 -1.47 0
Eastern Approach C-20b 25 -1.43 0
Eastern Approach C-20b 30 -1.38 0
Eastern Approach C-20b 35 -1.34 0
Eastern Approach C-20b 40 -1.31 0
Eastern Approach C-20b 45 -1.32 0
Eastern Approach C-20b 50 -1.35 0
Eastern Approach C-20b 55 -1.38 0
Eastern Approach C-20b 60 -1.44 0
Eastern Approach C-40 0 marsh
Eastern Approach C-40 2 +0.11 0
Eastern Approach C-40 3 +0.10 0

Page 16
SITE TRANSECT DISTANCE BOTTOM ABOVEGROUND BELOWGROUND TOTAL
FROM SHORE DEPTH COVER DENSITY BIOMASS BIOMASS BIOMASS
(m) (m) (%) (#/m2) (g/m2) (g/m2) (g/m2)
Eastern Approach C-40 5 -0.51 0
Eastern Approach C-40 10 -0.59 0
Eastern Approach C-40 15 -0.58 0
Eastern Approach C-40 20 -0.47 0
Eastern Approach C-40 25 -0.61 0
Eastern Approach C-40 30 -0.56 0
Eastern Approach C-40 35 -0.55 0
Eastern Approach C-40 40 -0.47 0
Eastern Approach C-40 45 -0.56 0
Eastern Approach C-40 50 -0.71 0
Eastern Approach C-40 55 -0.75 0
Eastern Approach C-40 60 -0.82 0
Eastern Approach C-40 65 -1.06 0
Eastern Approach C-40 70 -1.09 0
Eastern Approach C-40 75 -1.11 0
Eastern Approach C-40 80 -1.14 0
Eastern Approach C-40 85 -1.20 0
Eastern Approach C-40 80 -1.22 0
Eastern Approach C-40 95 -1.33 0
Eastern Approach C-40 100 -1.36 0
Eastern Approach C-40 105 -1.37 0
Eastern Approach C-40 110 -1.42 0
Eastern Approach C-40 115 -1.42 0
Eastern Approach C-40 120 -1.41 0
Eastern Approach C-40 125 -1.40 0

Page 17
SITE TRANSECT DISTANCE BOTTOM ABOVEGROUND BELOWGROUND TOTAL
FROM SHORE DEPTH COVER DENSITY BIOMASS BIOMASS BIOMASS
(m) (m) (%) (#/m2) (g/m2) (g/m2) (g/m2)
Eastern Approach C-40 130 -0.79 0
Eastern Approach C-40 135 -0.30 0
Eastern Approach C-40 140 -0.92 0
Eastern Approach C-40 145 -1.20 0
Eastern Approach C-40 150 -1.65 0
Eastern Approach C-40 155 -1.68 0
Eastern Approach C-40 155 -1.69 0
Control Site 0 0 +0.24 0
Control Site 0 1 +0.19 80
Control Site 0 2.5 +0.08 100 10,435 24.6 76.4 101.0
Control Site 0 5 +0.00 80 10,160 21.2 45.4 66.6
Control Site 0 6 -0.07 80
Control Site 0 10 -0.24 0
Control Site 0 15 -0.39 0
Control Site 0 20 -0.56 0
Control Site 0 25 -0.74 0
Control Site 0 30 -0.86 0
Control Site 0 35 -0.86 0
Control Site 0 40 -0.91 0
Control Site 0 45 -1.05 0
Control Site 0 50 -1.09 0
Control Site 0 100 -1.27 0
Control Site 20 0 +0.00 0

Page 18
SITE TRANSECT DISTANCE BOTTOM ABOVEGROUND BELOWGROUND TOTAL
FROM SHORE DEPTH COVER DENSITY BIOMASS BIOMASS BIOMASS
(m) (m) (%) (#/m2) (g/m2) (g/m2) (g/m2)
Control Site 20 5 -0.05 0
Control Site 20 10 -0.12 0
Control Site 20 12.5 -0.08 100 17,739 86.0 146.9 232.9
Control Site 20 15 -0.17 80
Control Site 20 17.5 -0.20 80 8,568 24.6 49.9 74.6
Control Site 20 20 -0.27 0
Control Site 20 25 -0.49 0
Control Site 20 30 -0.60 0
Control Site 20 35 -0.63 0
Control Site 20 40 -0.72 0
Control Site 20 45 -0.82 0
Control Site 20 50 -0.94 0
Control Site 20 100 -1.19 0
Control Site 40 0 +0.00 0
Control Site 40 2.5 +0.06 100 13,950 252.3 124.7 376.9
Control Site 40 5 -0.09 100 8,458 74.9 65.8 140.8
Control Site 40 10 -0.19 80 12,851 39.3 58.4 97.7
Control Site 40 15 -0.28 0
Control Site 40 20 -0.43 0
Control Site 40 25 -0.43 0
Control Site 40 30 -0.57 0
Control Site 40 35 -0.72 0
Control Site 40 40 -0.85 0
Control Site 40 45 -0.92 0

Page 19
SITE TRANSECT DISTANCE BOTTOM ABOVEGROUND BELOWGROUND TOTAL
FROM SHORE DEPTH COVER DENSITY BIOMASS BIOMASS BIOMASS
(m) (m) (%) (#/m2) (g/m2) (g/m2) (g/m2)
Control Site 40 50 -0.92 0
Control Site 40 100 -1.09 0
Control Site 60 0 +0.00
Control Site 60 5 +0.00 100 10,819 156.2 78.3 234.5
Control Site 60 10 -0.20 30 1,867 8.2 8.3 16.5
Control Site 60 15 -0.33 20 989 2.9 3.9 6.7
Control Site 60 20 -0.57 0
Control Site 60 25 -0.60 0
Control Site 60 30 -0.69 0
Control Site 60 35 -0.74 0
Control Site 60 40 -0.80 0
Control Site 60 45 -0.83 0
Control Site 60 50 -0.86 0
Control Site 60 100 -1.00 0
Control Site 80 0 +0.00
Control Site 80 5 +0.08 100 2,746 76.5 20.2 96.8
Control Site 80 10 -0.06 80 11,204 70.0 78.2 148.2
Control Site 80 15 -0.21 0
Control Site 80 20 -0.35 0
Control Site 80 25 -0.47 0
Control Site 80 30 -0.57 0
Control Site 80 35 -0.65 0
Control Site 80 40 -0.72 0

Page 20
SITE TRANSECT DISTANCE BOTTOM ABOVEGROUND BELOWGROUND TOTAL
FROM SHORE DEPTH COVER DENSITY BIOMASS BIOMASS BIOMASS
(m) (m) (%) (#/m2) (g/m2) (g/m2) (g/m2)
Control Site 80 45 -0.78 0
Control Site 80 50 -0.80 0
Control Site 80 100 -0.92 0

US 64-264 Improvements,
New Croatan Sound Bridge,
From US 264 West of Manns Harbor to
NC 345 South of Manteo,
Dare County
Federal Aid Project NHF-64(6)
State Project 8.T051401
TIP Project R-2551
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
AND
PROGRAMMATIC SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION AND APPROVAL
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
N. C. Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Submitted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)and 49 U.S.C. 303
/2 Z 7-94 o � -�: �.
RuA141---
Date f,. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
i
Date r, Nichol. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator, FHWA

\ 1a
al `�le
E. Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV)
NCDOT has committed to the following concerning SAV:
• To conduct a definitive underwater survey to map the populations(s), including
measuring population density and species composition, prior to construction to
establish a pre-construction community profile.
• 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.
• 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, based upon an hypothesized shade-effect.
NCDOT further agrees to provide compensation for losses confirmed from the
investigative approach outlined above; the amount and nature of the compensation will be
determined through multi-agency discussions.
F. Best Management Practices (BMP's) for High Quality Waters (HOW's)
"Best Management Practices" for High Quality Waters, including the
implementation of stringent erosion and sedimentation control measures, will be adhered
to during construction.
G. Hazardous Materials
The existing US 64-264 intersection at the west terminal of the project will be
realigned to avoid the northside canal. This realignment will likely impact one UST site.
This site will be reevaluated prior to right of way acquisition to fully determine the UST
status.
H. Archaeological Sites
One archaeological site noted in this report (Site 31DR76)will be impacted by the
recommended Alternative B. A data recovery plan will be developed and implemented for
the site.
No underwater archaeological investigations were conducted as part of the initial
intensive archaeological survey of the area. Once an alignment is established during the
design phase of the project and the locations of piers are known with more certainty,
NCDOT will consult with the State Historic Preservation Office and conduct a survey of
the area.