NCDOT 46-00 SAV Surveys

e„s SfAif. .
i t. r‘v
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
BEVERLY EAVES PERDUE , : EUGENE A.CONTI,JR.
GOVERNOR ®. SECRETARY
March 27, 2009 A - 1 y''-
Mr. Doug Huggett MAR ,,
North Carolina Division of Coastal Management D✓V. p 3 '2
400 Commerce Avenue F Co4s74 M 409
Morehead City, N.C. 27909 �t��G�A,ifi c
Subject: CAMA Commitment Review(B-3193, Permit#46-00)
Unresolved Project
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, B-3193, Permit#46-00"issue agreed upon during
the meeting held in the DCM Morehead City office on February 23, 2009.
The NCDOT agreed to submit written comments from Steve Mitchell confirming that the
SAV monitoring requirements are satisfied and no further work needs to be done. Steve
Mitchell forwarded an e-mail to you on March 25, 2009 stating that the site is in
compliance with the permit conditions. Consequently, the NCDOT considers this issue
resolved.
Again, thank you for your assistance in bringing these outstanding permit issues to a
positive resolution.
Sincerely,
6 )-i----:—
a^Gregory J. 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 WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE CENTER
RALEIGH NC,27699-1598 4701-116 ATLANTIC AVENUE
RALEIGH NC,27604

p, Ll6- 00
Brittingham, Cathy
From: Doug Huggett [[e-mail]]
Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2009 10:42 AM
To: Cathy Brittingham
Subject: [Fwd: B-3193]
Attachments: Doug_Huggett.vcf
this is all I could find from Steve Mitchell. It is not dated 3/25/09.
Original Message
Subject: B-3193
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 10:45:33 -0500
From: Mitchell, Steven R <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Doug,
It has been quite a while. Hope you are doing well.
Anyway, I was informed that you or someone in your shop needs information of Bridge 3193
constructed over Scranton Creek nearly seven years ago.
Ruppia maritima was found on both sides of the bridge termini in August of 1999. Scuba was
employed and grid lines were established at five (5) meter intervals using a 0.1 meter square
grid with a ten (10) meter separation of grids. I can find no hard copy of the report and
the source of this information is a file that I have. Ledger states DOT will survey for
education on future projects. Field note from drive by and observation of bridge replacement
completed by myself in July of 2006 indicate that the widgeon grass is still/again present on
both sides of Scranton Creek.
No other information is available.
Conversation with Jason Elliot 9/11/6. . . .indicated that no future action(s) were anticipated
on NCDOT's part.
Hope this helps, if not, let me know.
Steve Mitchell
N.C. Department of Transportation
Biological Surveys Unit
PDEA Environmental Resource Center
4701 Atlantic Avenue, Ste 116
Raleigh, N.C. 27604
919-431-6658
Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law and
may be disclosed to third parties.
*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.*
1

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. 46-00
FROM: Cathy Brittingham
DATE: 2/23/09
SUBJECT: TIP No. B-3193, Replacement of Bridge NO. 29 over Scranton Creek on US 264-NC 45,Hyde
County, CAMA Permit NO. 46-00
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.
NCDOT and DCM determined that based on the information available at this time, the requirements of permit
condition number 17 have been satisfied. NCDOT stated that the post-construction survey was performed by
the Biological Survey Unit of NCDOT-PDEA. The site investigation performed in 2006 indicated the presence
of Ruppia maritima on both sides of the creek.
NOTE: The Field Investigation Report does not mention SAV presence or potential impacts. This requirement
was a commitment offered by NCDOT in the permit application. The NCDOT cover letter states that since the
proposed bridge is to be built on the same alignment as the existing bridge, and since the proposed structure will
have 5 less structural bents in the water than the existing structure, it is reasonable to conclude that less SAV
habitat will be affected by the proposal. The temporary bridge may result in temporary impacts to SAV, but it
is also reasonable to anticipate that the population will adjust when the temporary pilings and the bridge deck
have been removed.
•
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

MEMORANDUM
TO: Permit File
FROM: Cathy Brittingham
TELEPHONE CONVERSATION WITH:
ON THIS DATE:
CAMA PERMIT NUMBER:
PROJECT NAME:
TIP NO:
FOLLOW-UP ACTION NEEDED:
SUMMARY: / •
4-r-(--- rixs-scr,-e dl�� g('v Ge Fl/i f o id o2 y� c>
/c I (' a clo7 o E oS i= c___fnn S fru c'1-- 1 z5,^
SA s0,v,i) 611-L67t 74T DCyti afro Ad 001 nice/o-e
4)Ast._ CeSvj-\ t p a►� Co a r fs0✓1 o P4-/A_52_ -C��S irLC io✓\
0\yd r5f- 1iv A� m,
(Ai So n-ee 1 s( of VA-Q ITb i 5 de Sur U`P 5-.
y

S 1!s
•
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 1 Affirmative Action Employer—50%Recycled 110%Post Consumer Paper

Please ask your appropriate staff to contact Cathy Brittingham at(919) 733-2293 x238 or via e-
mail at Cathy.Brittingham@'ncmail.net 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.Sollodiic nemail.net. Please also feel free to contact me at
[phone] or via e-mail at Doug Huggettr22;ncmail.net if you have any general questions or
concerns.
Sincerely,
ifJ
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 I 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 CONLMENTS/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 Permit Commitment Review
In a letter dated 7/21/05, EEP says it will adjust the transferred balance to the DOT Final Debit Ledger
for the Scuppernong River Mitigation Bank by deducting 6.0 acres/credits for this project. Although it
appears to be in conflict with the Tyrrell County land use plan, and possibly the Dare County land use
plan, the adjustment to the transferred balance for the Scuppernong River Mitigation Bank for impacts
of TIP No. R-3838/R-3839 is acceptable because permit condition No. 6 of CAMA Permit No. 88-99
specifically requires that: "the permittee shall purchase 6 credits from the Scuppernong River Corridor
Wetland Mitigation Bank." It appears as though DCM may have included this condition in the permit
in error, however that does not change the fact that it is a condition of the permit. The mitigation
requirements of this project have been met to DCM's satisfaction.
8. SR 1244 (VIRGINIA LEE BEACH ROAD) LOCATED OFF SR 1209 IN TYRRELL
COUNTY. CAMA PERMIT NO. 96-99.
In a letter dated 7/21/05, EEP says it will adjust the transferred balance to the DOT Final Debit Ledger
for the Scuppernong River Mitigation Bank by deducting 0.6 acres/credits for this project. The
�j mitigation requirements of this project have been met to DCM's satisfaction.
a
Q l d" 9. B-3193, REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE NO. 29 OVER SCRANTON CREEK ON US 264-NC
II
0r 15, HYDE COUNTY, LAMA PERMIT N0. 46-00.
CQSQ SAV monitoring requirements
According to the CAMA Permit Commitment Review document prepared by NCDOT dated 8/15/05:
"Pre-construction SAV survey was performed. Post-construction SAV survey has not been performed.
NCDOT proposes to perform the post-construction SAV survey and submit the survey upon
completion to the DCM for review." According to the RK&K CAMA Permit Commitment Review
document dated 9/22/03: "RK&K recommends that NCDOT .... submit a post-construction SAV
survey." The pre-construction submerged aquatic vegetation survey prepared by EcoScience dated
December 1999 states as follows in the conclusion: "On-site replacement of Bridge No. 029 is
expected to have little influence on SAV development in the immediate vicinity of the existing
structure. No SAV growth was noted under the existing structure, and this trend is expected to
continue after replacement. Placement of the temporary detour may result in short-term impacts to
localized populations, but the extent and distribution of widgeon grass in areas east of the bridge
suggest that re-colonization is likely after removal of the temporary structure. In addition, although
current velocities were not measured as part of this study, on-site observations indicate sufficient
flushing to eliminate temporary siltation and turbidity caused by construction of the replacement
bridge." It is critical that NCDOT submit the post-construction SAV survey to DCM and the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers in compliance with Condition No. 17 as soon as possible.
N° The post-construction survey was performed by the Biological Survey Unit of this office. The site
tves006 investigation performed in 2006 indicated the presence of Ruppia maritima on both sides of the creek.
The NCDOT is awaiting guidance for compliance of the CAMA Permit.
C€Ct\
yl6 Closeout letter from DCM dated 11/16/07 is attached. NCDOT has fulfilled all permit requirements at
1 this time.
Temporary impact monitoring requirements
Please refer to the DCM document titled: "DCM Evaluation of NCDOT's `LAMA Permit `iviCl' = y
Temporary Impact Monitoring Condition', dated April 20, 2005."
SEP252C
Page 7 of 19, 10/25/2006 DIV. OF OCASit'„_ MNIAGE'AEr
RALE1 J

•
DCM Evaluation of NCDOT's CAMA Permit Commitment Review
8. SR 1244 (VIRGINIA LEE BEACH ROAD) LOCATED OFF SR 1209 IN TYRRELL
COUNTY. CAMA PERMIT NO. 96-99.
In a letter dated 7/21/05, EEP says it will adjust the transferred balance to the DOT Final Debit Ledger
for the Scuppernong River Mitigation Bank by deducting 0.6 acres/credits for this project. The
mitigation requirements of this project have been met to DCM's satisfaction.
9. B-3193,REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE NO. 29 OVER SCRANTON CREEK ON US 264-NC
45,HYDE COUNTY, CAMA PERMIT NO. 46-00.
SAV monitoring requirements;,
According to the CAMA Permit Commitment Review document prepared by NCDOT dated 8/15/05:
"Pre-construction SAV survey was performed. Post-construction SAV survey has not been performed.
NCDOT proposes to perform the post-construction SAV survey and submit the survey upon
completion to the DCM for review." According to the RK&K CAMA Permit Commitment Review
document dated 9/22/03: "RK&K recommends that NCDOT .... submit a post-construction SAV
survey." The pre-construction submerged aquatic vegetation survey prepared by EcoScience dated
December 1999 states as follows in the conclusion: "On-site replacement of Bridge No. 029 is
expected to have little influence on SAV development in the immediate vicinity of the existing
structure. No SAV growth was noted under the existing structure, and this trend is expected to
continue after replacement. Placement of the temporary detour may result in short-term impacts to
• localized populations,but the extent and distribution of widgeon grass in areas east of the bridge
suggest that re-colonization is likely after removal of the temporary structure. In addition, although
current velocities were not measured as part of this study, on-site observations indicate sufficient
flushing to eliminate temporary siltation and turbidity caused by construction of the replacement
bridge." It is critical that NCDOT submit the post-construction SAV survey to DCM and the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in compliance with Condition No. 17 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."
10. SR 1149/1150,MONTGOMERY ROAD,HYDE COUNTY, CAMA VIOLATION ISSUED
9/18/00.
Construction of SR 1149/1150 was initiated without benefit of a CAMA permit and the NCDOT was
issued a violation notice by DCM on September 18, 2000, for unauthorized impacts to 0.016 acres of
coastal wetlands. In a consistency decision letter for DOT's project to complete widening of SR
1149/1150(Montgomery Road)(DCM#20050076) dated 10/6/05, DCM stated that: "In order to be found
consistent with North Carolina's coastal management program, DCM requires that the wetland
restoration for the 2.35 acres of non-riverine wetland and 0.03 acres of coastal marsh wetland impact
associated with this project be implemented as soon as possible. DCM remains very concerned that
wetland impacts incurred in 1999 have not yet been mitigated. Failure to quickly initiate this
mitigation could lead to the issuance of a notice of continuing violation to NCDOT."
DCM received a copy of a letter from DOT to EEP dated 8/24/06 stating that unavoidable impacts
from this and another project have been debited from the Bishop Road Mitigation Site. The letter
further requests that the EEP ledger be reconciled to reflect debits from the Bishop Road Mitigation
Page 10 of 19, 10/25/2006

d: SAV monitoring and mitigation CAMA permit conditions] 9015
t--)
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
<I'[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.
of 3 7/7/2006 11:19 AM

• 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

Contacted Triangle Wetland Consultants for info.concerning NCDOT debits
for this project.NCDOT purchased 19.0 acres from the Scuppernong Bank.
1.05 acres were debited for another project by Division 1.17.95 acres
remained in the NCDOT Debit Ledger.There were no debits shown for R-
3838/R-3839 on the ledger.6.0 credits need to be debited from the ledger
for compliance of this permit.NCDOT will coordinate with the EEP to debit
No evidence in file that credits have or have these 6 credits to comply with p y the permit.Permit and concurrence from EEP
R-3838&R Purchase 6 credits from Scuppemong River not been purchased.Assume that this has been that mitigation has been accepted in compliance with CAMA Permit
3839 88-99 Dare/Hyde US 264 1/1,1/3 Mitigation Bank completed. attached.
0.6 acre of riverine restoration was not debited from the Scuppernong River
Bank ledger as the CAMA Permit required.The NCDOT will coordinate with^ No evidence in file that credits have or have the EEP to debit this 0.6 credit to comply with the permit.Concurrence from
V ) Division Virginia Lee Beach Purchase 0.6 credits from Scuppernong River not been purchased.Assume that this has been EEP that mitigation has been accepted in compliance with CAMA Permit
i Project 96-99 Tyrell Road 1/3 Mitigation Bank. completed. attached.
Temp.wetland impacts must be monitored for 3 Per Jason Elliot,monitoring complete.NEU has received the close-out letter
years and if area has not re-attained jurisdictional from agencies.Temp.impacts have been addressed in a separate
Bridge 11,NC status,a compensatory mitigation plan may be Appears that replanting has been completed. document titled"CAMA Permits with Temporary impact Monitoring
I B-3011 _111-99 Ponder 11/NC 53 3/1 needed. Still must monitor for 3 years. Condition."
1)Temp.wetland impacts must be monitored for
3 years and if area has not re-attained
jurisdictional status,a compensatory mitigation
plan may be needed.2)Permit required that
letter of commitment be provided before Bishop Road Mitigation Site supplied the mitigation for the 6,340 sqft of
construction begins and mitigation plan be coastal wetlands impacted(1:1).Temporary impacts have been addressed
Cuckold Creek,US developed and implemented prior to expiration of Letter of commitment received but may need to in a separate document titled"CAMA Permits with Temporary Impact
B-2806 29-00 Beaufort 264/NC 99 2/1 permit. be revised.5 years of monitoring likely. Monitoring Condition."Letter of Commitment attached.
1)Temp fill areas to be restored following project Per Jason Elliot,monitoring complete.NEU has received the close-out letter
completion.2)Temp wetland impacts must be from agencies.Temp.impacts have been addressed in a separate
monitored for 3 years and if area has not re- document titled"CAMA Permits with Temporary impact Monitoring
attained jurisdictional status,compensatory Condition."Pre-construction SAV survey was performed.Post-construction
mitigation plan may be needed.3)Pre and post Appears that pre-project survey has been done.SAV survey has not been performed.NCDOT proposes to perform the post-
project SAV surveys(not for mitigation purposes, No news on post-project survey(assuming construction SAV survey and submit the survey upon completion to the
but to learn for future projects.) project has been completed). DCM for review.
1.16 acres of marsh restoration at the Bogue Sound(Weeks Property)
Mitigation Site.Per Jason Elliot Cedar Point(up-front mitigation)and Deer
R-2105 Mitigation plan must be accepted by DCM prior to Mitigation proposal is close to being approved. Creek Sites are currently under monitoring and will be used for the R-2105
AA 52-00 Carteret/Onslow NC 24 widening 3/1,2/2 completion of the AA section of NC 24 widening At least 5 years of monitoring expected project.
RK&K performed a site inspection on February 6,2003.The site has been
graded to pre-existing contours as required by the permit conditions.RK&K
DOT required to regrade and reforest old Project appeared to be LET in mid 2001. conducted a random sampling of vegetation and found an average of 87.8%
Bridges 18 and 19 approaches after new bridge completed.NO Unsure of status of project or reforestation herbaceous cover and 9 stems of trees.The site is re-attaining jurisdictional
l B-3215 84-00 Onslow over NE Creek 3/1 reporting re
quired ng eq uired in permit, efforts. status.No monitoring or reports were required for this site.
1)Streambank reforestation for areas impacted
by relocation offered by DOT and made condition
of permit.2)Temp.wetland impacts must be Per Jason Elliot,project completed in 2002.Monitoring complete and NEU
monitored for 3 years and if area has not re- has received close-out letter from agencies.Temp.impacts have been
SR 1426,Bridge 6, attained jurisdictional status,a compensatory Bridge project probably completed in 2001.No addressed in a separate document titled"CAMA Permits with Temporary
B-2513 116-00 Brunswick Hood Creek 3/3 mitigation plan may be needed. info.in file on reforestation efforts. Impact Monitoring Condition."
5-7- ,s L 4 15 oS

7)2403
CAl`1 A {'- ow.>�"
B-3193 CAMA Permit No. 46-00
Executive Summary
NCDOT constructed a bridge replacement project (T.I.P. Project No. B-3193) for
Bridge No. 29 over Scranton Creek in Hyde County, North Carolina. The Scranton Creek
Bridge Mitigation Site was planted in 2002 and was designed as mitigation for wetland
impacts associated with bridge project B-3193. The mitigation encompasses
approximately 0.60 ac total of wetland restoration. The restoration effort involved the
removal of the temporary roadway fill related to the detour. The restoration area was
revegetated with bottomland hardwood species. The area is being monitored to ensure
that it re-attains wetland jurisdictional status. No hydrologic monitoring is required for this
project; however, vegetation monitoring is required for three years. The mitigation areas
are 0.5 to 1 foot below adjacent wetland elevations and the substrate also appears to
have mineral soils. This indicates that the B-3193 restoration areas were not built to
satisfy Condition 15 of CAMA Permit No. 46-00. None of the planted tree species are
surviving, likely due to the low elevation of the mitigation areas. The B-3193 restoration
areas are not re-attaining wetland jurisdictional status. RK&K recommends that NCDOT
schedule an agency meeting to discuss remedial actions and submit a post-construction
SAV survey. NCDOT should also continue monitoring the mitigation site.
Project Description
NCDOT constructed a bridge replacement project for Bridge No. 29 over
Scranton Creek in Hyde County, North Carolina. The project consisted of replacing the
bridge on the existing alignment and constructing a temporary detour immediately east.
The temporary detour is to be removed, graded back to pre-construction contours and
elevations, then replanted. According to Mr. Lindsey Riddick, NCDOT Environmental
Supervisor, this project resulted in 0.25 ac permanent wetland impacts and 0.34 ac
temporary wetland impacts.
Project Timeline
• March 17, 2000: CAMA Permit No. 46-00 issued.
• March 2002: Project site planted.
• March 10, 2003: RK&K field review completed.
Permit Commitments
CAMA Permit No. 46-00 issued 3/17/00
15) Temporary fill areas are to be returned to pre-project contours and elevations.
These areas will be undercut below the adjacent marsh elevation (minimum 1') and
refilled to adjacent wetland elevation with suitable wetland or organic substrate to
ensure revegetation of the impacted areas.
16) Due to the possibility that compaction and/or other site alterations might prevent
the temporary wetland impact area from re-attaining wetland jurisdictional status, the
permittee shall provide an annual update on the wetland areas temporarily impacted
1

r
by this project. This annual update will consist of photographs provided during the
agency monitoring report meeting and a brief report on the progress of these
temporarily impacted areas in re-attaining jurisdictional status. Three years after
project completion, the permittee shall schedule an agency field meeting with DCM,
DWQ, and WRC to determine if the wetland areas temporarily impacted by this
project have re-attained wetland jurisdictional status. If at the end of three years the
wetland areas temporarily impacted by this project have not re-attained wetland
jurisdictional status, NCDOT and the above listed agencies shall determine whether
a compensatory wetland mitigation plan will be required.
17) In order to properly gauge the effect of construction on existing SAV habitat, and
in accordance with the permittee's application letter dated July 19, 1999, 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 will
be forwarded to DCM and the COE when the report is published.
Mitigation Status
NCDOT issued a monitoring report for B-3193 in December 2002. This
monitoring report states that the planted tree species are surviving by visual observation.
To verify these findings, RK&K conducted a site review of B-3193 on March 10, 2003.
Photographs of this visit are included below. The site was planted in March 2002 with
bottomland hardwood species. During the site review, RK&K counted no surviving trees.
The mitigation areas were 0.5 to 1 foot below adjacent wetland elevations and the
substrate also appears to have mineral soils. This indicates that the B-3193 restoration
areas were not built to satisfy Condition 15 of CAMA Permit No. 46-00. Likely due to the
low elevation of the mitigation areas, none of the planted tree species are surviving. The
B-3193 restoration areas are not re-attaining wetland jurisdictional status. These finding
are not consistent with the NCDOT Scranton Creek Monitoring Report dated December
2002.
According to Mr. Lindsey Riddick, NCDOT Environmental Supervisor, a pre-
construction SAV survey was conducted; however, no post-construction SAV survey has
been conducted. Condition 17 of CAMA Permit No. 46-00, has not been satisfied.
2

SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION SURVEY
REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE NO. 029
OVER SCRANTON CREEK (B-3193)
HYDE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
Prepared for:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation
Raleigh, North Carolina
NO8 ��
Prepared by: c0A5T� 200i
,MANAGEMENT
EcoScience
EcoScience, Corporation
612 Wade Avenue, Suite 200
Raleigh, North Carolina 27605
December 1999

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION 1
METHODOLOGY 3
EXISTING CONDITIONS 9
PROJECT RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 10
CONCLUSIONS 12
REFERENCES 13
APPENDIX
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1 . Project Location 2
Figure 2. SAV Transects and SAV Concentrations 4
Figure 3. Reference Transect and SAV Concentrations 6
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1 . SAV Summary Data 7-8

SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION SURVEY
BRIDGE NO. 029 OVER SCRANTON CREEK(B-3193)
HYDE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
INTRODUCTION
EcoScience Corporation has been contracted by the North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) to perform an inventory of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) within construction
limits for replacement of Bridge No. 029 over Scranton Creek along US 264 - NC 45 in Hyde
County, North Carolina (Figure 1). The existing facility was constructed in 1955 and consists of
reinforced concrete deck with an asphalt surface on steel I-beams; the substructure is reinforced
concrete caps on timber piles with timber end bents. The bridge is approximately 91 meters(m)(300
feet [ft]) in length and approximately 7.9 m (26 ft) in cleared roadway width.
Bridge No. 029 will be replaced in existing location. The new bridge will mimic the existing
structure in terms of length,but will have a cleared roadway width of 9.8 m(32 ft). Approach work
will extend approximately 140 m (460 ft) north and south of the new facility.
A temporary on-site detour bridge will be constructed approximately 12 m (40 ft) east (upstream)
of the existing bridge in order to maintain traffic during replacement construction. The temporary
detour structure will be removed after project completion. Details on this replacement project and
the existing environment in the vicinity of Bridge No. 029 can be found in a recent Categorical
Exclusion report prepared by NCDOT (NCDOT 1997).
The purpose of this study was to determine the presence or absence of SAV within the immediate
vicinity of the existing structure and proposed on-site detour. The location and extent of SAV within
the footprint area were determined and mapped, along with identification of characteristic species,
estimations of relative abundance (bed density expressed as percent cover), and above ground
biomass (expressed as grams [g]/m2). Since populations of SAV are known to fluctuate with time
and in response to a number of environmental factors (temperature, salinity, water quality, etc.) a
control, or reference site unaffected by proposed construction activities was located approximately
165 m (540 ft) east of the present alignment. By comparing SAV population changes over time
between reference and the construction area,a determination can be made as to whether changes are
related to environmental conditions or directly attributable to bridge replacement activities.
-1-

•
''
',tow*CC) - . ' x . c - I f .•''..
•
• b --. •S
•
VJ '41 _ F t
11 Y.. .4a1
•
•
V.
7 s...
•
gM 4�W i
Ring ` gQntdn' ;
- •,� .�.'. a aC - .. r. .'• s4�+r:'�. _s
I
ce
- --- — :S." BRIbGE#29
•r 6.< acranton I LO ATION j •
..\\. . • ..._
�� � - i
:� r l s
•
a
y? ;I ".
•
Iv:
• I -. J/ lr ter+ /
ILJ�'10 s, v'7• ; ref �.�/ ,i--
y
•
} •-_.A,4 1 I I I _ N. !r '� _.,,.
1 I , r fr7!
.tom •••5 /e '.1-:_.'' ..•
7,y .. ..
•
49 •
iiik,4w w a1� `�� _ 2400 ft. 0 2400 n.
N.rr - - - - 1:28,800
fared USOS Tepepaphic Quadrangles(Scranton and Pacer.NC) -
Own.by
MAF FIGURE
EcoScience SITE LOCATION MAP Ckdby:
lidCorporation Bridge #29 over Scranton Creek AVM
r 12[wd.Awn.Mar an Date: 1
""11M IN, Hyde County, North Carolina Pro ct Nov,ss9 I
a'amxV r..oioga Z�r
98-024.01

METHODOLOGY
Survey work and field sampling were conducted August 24 to 27, 1999. This initial sampling effort
was interrupted by Hurricane Dennis which hit the North Carolina coast on August 27 - 28, 1999.
Work was completed September 14 and 15, 1999. Study protocols were developed by project
managers Dr. Jerry McCrain and Mr. A.P. Smith of EcoScience Corporation. Field sampling was
conducted with assistance from EcoScience biologists,Mr.Adam McIntyre and Mr. Edward Swab.
In addition to formal training as a botanist and ecologist,Dr. McCrain is certified as an Open Water
SCUBA Instructor with the Professional Association of Diving Instructors (PADI # 8458). Mr.
Smith has a Master of Science degree in Coastal Biology and 11 years of experience as an
environmental consultant; in addition,he is a certified SCUBA diver(project manager resumes are
found in Appendix A).
General shoreline features were located in all four bridge quadrants using Trimble ProXRS Global
Positioning System(GPS) equipment with sub-meter accuracy. Stakes were placed on the shore at
or near estimated normal water level to serve as reference points for initiation of underwater
transects. These reference points were also located with GPS equipment. A series of transects were
established perpendicular to the shoreline extending from the reference points across the creek at 10-
m(33 ft) intervals from the existing bridge(Figure 2). Three transects were established east of the
existing bridge in consideration for placement of the temporary detour structure, and two transects
were positioned west of the facility. Transect coordinates can be found in Appendix B.
Vertical control has been established by NCDOT for the existing bridge. Normal water level is 0.21
m(0.7 ft)National Geodetic Vertical Datum 1929 (NGVD29). Elevational corrections were made
in relation to the nearest control point established by NCDOT at the northwest corner of the bridge
(Station 16+13.60, BM-2, -BL- Point#5 = 5.66 ft NGVD).
A negatively buoyant metric survey line was extended across the entire creek system between
reference points. Positioning of the line was undertaken from a 5.8-m (19-ft) vessel manned by
EcoScience personnel. The vessel and top side crew provided support for underwater observations
and conducted depth measurements using a graduated centimeter (cm) rod.
Widgeon grass(Ruppia maritima)was the only SAV species found to occur in underwater transects.
Dense concentrations of wind blown floating fragments of the grass were identified along several
inshore areas. However, only rooted specimens were sampled and quantified as part of this survey.
-3-

Two divers using SCUBA conducted benthic sampling along each transect originating from
shoreline reference points and extending toward the center of the creek until little or no vegetation
was observed. Sampling was undertaken at 5 m(16 ft) intervals along the survey line by placing a
0.10 m2 quadrat on the bottom. Underwater visibility during all sampling periods was zero, so
percent cover was estimated by touch. A total of 63 observations were made along five transects(10
transect segments originating from the shoreline on either side of the bridge) (Figure 2).
In addition, all above-surface stems of widgeon grass were removed from each quadrat, placed in
plastic sample bags, and brought to the surface. No samples were taken from quadrats that did not
have SAV. Each bag was sealed, labeled and placed on ice in a cooler.
Samples were later washed with tap water in the laboratory to remove sediments and epiphytic
species. Material was placed in individual aluminum foil packets and allowed to air dry for a period
of 5 days. The air dried material was then oven dried at 60°C for 4 hours and weighed. Data are
summarized in Table 1; percent cover and dry weight values are graphically depicted in Appendix
C.
Bottom depths were taken at each sample point by personnel in the support vessel using a graduated
cm rod. The time of each depth measurement was also recorded.
A control site was identified approximately 160 m(525 ft)east of the existing bridge(Figure 3). The
site was selected for the following reasons: 1) the location is removed from the immediate vicinity
of proposed construction associated with replacement of Bridge #029, but remains in reasonable
proximity to the project area; 2) the control site contains SAV species identical to those observed
in the project area; 3)the site is within the same creek basin; and 4)there is a reasonable degree of
confidence that the site will remain undisturbed over time. One transect(two transect segments)was
established, and sampling protocols similar to those utilized at the project site (as previously
described) were employed.
-5-

on
ox
n1
i3
�g
Z Z
en
La
/ f*1
/ II\ to
V \\
-IR-- —
\
__ y \
1 —.
I
I ••
\I O �•
•
\
1 \
\
\
/ \
\ \
\ \
1 \
1 \
1 \
I O \
1 \
/ 1
/ 1
/ \
/ \
I \
1 1
\ I
. \ I
\ 1
\ 1
\ 1
\ 1
\ 1
1
\ 1
% I
\ I
�N 1
‘N. 1
• 1
N.
N.N.
N.
4-1
/ I .• — —I c 3 in
1 • 3 3 \
I \ \ \ _ —ram 1
\ \ 1 1
cn 1 1
r. 1
m 2 -Vito nx in 1 11
m inrnXI y� +� 1 1
25. no
Z
m me CI1
xm m
��
GI
m
m x -1m
-I
m -N-I o m
0 z zo
ti
•
Clients Protect: Own By. Date: Flalar'�
MAF Nov 1999
REFERENCE TRANSECT and SAV CONCENTRATIONS Ckd By: Scala.
NC DiPAR77L1WT OP TRANSPORTATION
P.O.BOX tow BRIDGE 29 over SCRANTON CREEK AVM I's 20m
EcoScience Corporation x"'j`�'" 11 C""°"N`Mall
HYDE COUNTY,NORTH CAROLINA 3
612 Wade AVOW;Suite 200 PIE 919421 3433 ESC Project No.e 98-024.10
Rakigh,N6r6 Conlin 2760S Fu:919 821.3310

EXISTING I
I
BOAT ACCESS
4
NW-2J j
NE-2
�e NW-If NE-1 :: NE-3IVA
•r '4, ' •, '
1
I I 1
I �'�--` I I I
Al Om I I I
I I 10m
110i� \ 110m 1--- '
I I 1 I I I
I I I I
EXISTING SAV
CONCENTRATIONS i 20m I
e 120m
• I �
1
I 1
/17
-� 130m
I I Om 1 i 30m
� 1 1
1 1
1 \ 1 I I
I I i I
1 I
I 1
I 1 1 1
<(.I 1 I
I C I 1
I 1
I
`� C R' E E id
SCR ; A N TIO N
4N. / I I
1
I i � I
I 1 z I I
I 1 n I
I I
I I I 1
II � I 1
-30m 130m I30m
I
I
I
I
1
130m I30m
I
1 I
I I
I
'
' 1 I I
PH20m 120m . I 120m 120m
, 1II1
Om I lOm I I .A• r di 1 lOm
I r--
I
I , I
`. I I \ I
`. I 1 1
‘ A. at, 1 Am._ API ilk .
/SW-2 SW-1 ; SE-1 SE-2 SE-3 1'
N 't r .
LEGEND ; ;
EXISTING SUBMERGED I
V////1 AQUATIC VEGETATION I 1
I 1
EXISTING I
1
^—mod STREAM BANK
1
1
EXISTING BRIDGE
SAV TRANSECTS
Clients ProJeot:
Own Bye Dotes Flee*
MAF NOV 1999
NC ORPAxrrsNr O)tBANSPOBTATION
SAV TRANSECTS and CONCENTRATION Ckd By; scale:
P.O.B°Z 16101 BRIDGE 29 over SCRANTON CREEK AVM IN. IOm
EcoScience Corporation B"'�O"•NO1�'� O�i4"'E1
P HYDE COUNTY,NORTH CAROUNA 2
— ' 612 wad.Avinee,Suite 200 Pba 919.02$ ESC Project No.e 98-024.10
Ralei�,Nand,Camino 27605 Fa 919 02$'3S18
3S1Y

TABLE 1
BRIDGE NO. 029, HYDE COUNTY
SAV SUMMARY DATA
Distance
Station Date from shore (m) Depth(m) % Cover % Ruppia Sample Dry Wt(g/m2)
NW#1(1) 8/25/99 5 -1.38 0% N 0
NW#1(2) 10 -1.66 0% N 0
NW#1(3) 15 -1.11 0% N 0
NW#1(4) 20 -1.10 20% 100% Y 6.5
NW#1(5) 25 -1.34 25% 100% Y 9.8
NW#1(6) 30 -1.60 25% 100% Y 16.2
SW#1(1) 8/26/99 5 -0.65 0% N 0
SW#1(2) 10 -1.46 0% N 0
SW#1(3) 15 -1.73 0% N 0
SW#1(4) 20 -1.71 0% N 0
SW#1(5) 25 -2.20 0% N 0
SW#1(6) 30 -2.15 0% N 0
NW#2(1) 5 -0.42 35% 100% Y 8.2
NW#2(2) 10 -0.65 5% 100% Y 2.7
NW#2(3) 15 -0.90 0% N 0
NW#2(4) 20 -1.20 20% 100% Y 9.2
NW#2(5) 25 -1.31 10% 100% Y 3.3
NW#2(6) 30 -1.53 4% 100% Y 1.8
NW#2(7) 35 -1.79 0% N 0
SW#2(1) 5 -0.88 5% 100% Y 2.3
SW#2(2) 10 -1.57 0% N 0
SW#2(3) 15 -1.68 5% 100% Y 10
SW#2(4) 20 -1.97 0% N 0
SW#2(5) 25 -2.10 0% N 0
SW#2(6) 30 -2.50 0% N 0
NE#1(1) 5 -0.30 0% N 0
NE#1(2) 10 -0.57 0% N 0
NE#1(3) 15 -0.77 100% 100% Y 176.9
NE#1(4) 20 -1.27 80% 100% Y 78.7
NE#1(5) 25 -1.64 100% 100% Y 97.4
NE#1(6) 30 -1.87 5% 100% Y 2.1
NE#1(7) 35 -2.15 0% N 0
SE#1(1) 5 -0.52 100% 100% Y 168.2
SE#1(2) 10 -0.65 50% 100% Y 220.4
SE#1(3) 15 -1.44 0% N 0
SE#1(4) 20 -1.68 0% N 0
SE#1(5) 25 -1.95 0% N 0
SE#1(6) 30 -1.90 5% 100% Y 6.4
SE#1(7) 35 -1.99 0% N 0

TABLE 1 (CONT)
Distance
Station Date from shore (m) Depth(m) % Cover % Ruppia Sample Dry Wt(q/m2)
NE#2(1) 8/26/99 5 -0.50 0% N 0
NE#2(2) 10 -0.81 0% N 0
NE#2(3) 15 -1.27 100% 100% Y 121.5
NE#2(4) 20 -1.72 20% 100% Y 13.1
NE#2(5) 25 -2.29 0% N 0
NE#2(6) 30 -2.41 0% N 0
SE#2(1) 5 -0.82 100% 100% Y 50.5
SE#2(2) 10 -1.09 100% 100% Y 281.8
SE#2(3) 15 -1.39 61% 100% Y 59.8
SE#2(4) 20 -1.51 20% 100% Y 8.4
SE#2(5) 25 -1.83 20% 100% Y 5.5
SE#2(6) 30 -1.98 0% N 0
NE#3(1) 9/14/99 5 -0.78 0% N 0
NE#3(2) 10 -1.20 0% N 0
NE#3(3) 15 -1.54 100% 100% Y 51
NE#3(4) 20 -2.10 0% N 0
NE#3(5) 25 -2.41 0% N 0
NE#3(6) 30 -2.42 0% N 0
SE#3(1) 5 -0.87 0% N 0
SE#3(2) 10 -1.14 0% N 0
SE#3(3) 15 -1.30 0% N 0
SE#3(4) 20 -1.59 5% 100% Y 4.3
SE#3(5) 25 -1.72 0% N 0
SE#3(6) 30 -2.28 0% N 0
Reference
Distance % Cover Collected
Station from shore (m) Depth(m) % Cover by Ruppia Sample Dry Wt(q/m2)
SE#2(1) 9/14/99 5 -1.18 0% N 0
SE#2(2) 10 -1.59 5% 100% Y 0.8
SE#2(3) 15 -2.10 0% N 0
SE#2(4) 20 -2.41 0% N 0
NE#2(1) 5 -0.92 0% N 0
NE#2(2) 10 -1.16 0% N 0
NE#2(3) 15 -1.18 5% 100% Y 11.6
NE#2(4) 20 -1.26 0% N 0
NE#2(5) 25 -1.27 5% 100% Y 9

EXISTING CONDITIONS
Scranton Creek is located in a rural,undeveloped area of Hyde County approximately 1.6 kilometers
(1 mile)from the town of Scranton(Figure 1). The area surrounding the bridge is relatively flat with
elevations averaging 1.5 m (5 ft) NGVD. Soils are mostly Lafitte mucky peat (hydric) subject to
frequent flooding. A boat ramp and associated informal parking area are located in the northwest
bridge quadrant; otherwise, the site supports no development.
Scranton Creek is a tributary of the Pungo River in the Tar-Pamlico River basin. This system is
classified as Class SC NSW indicating saltwaters protected for secondary recreation,fishing,aquatic
life including propagation and survival, and wildlife. The NSW status indicates Nutrient Sensitive
Waters requiring limits on nutrient inputs. Heavy siltation (noted within the creek substrate) and
tannins contribute to poor visibility and may potentially affect water quality in this system.
Terrestrial communities consist of disturbed roadside margins and utility corridors,fragmented forest
stands, and fringing marsh habitat bordering the creek. Estuarine pine forest occurs in all quadrants
supporting growth of loblolly pine(Pinus taeda),red maple(Acer rubrum),sweet gum(Liquidambar
styraciflua), wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera) and groundsel (Baccharis halimifolia). The brackish
fringing marsh is dominated by black needlerush(Juncus roemerianus)along with a mixture of saw
grass (Cladiumjamaicense) and scattered growth of wax myrtle and groundsel (see NCDOT 1997
for additional descriptions of communities).
As indicated earlier,widgeon grass was found to be the dominant SAV in Scranton Creek. Widgeon
grass is a submersed perennial aquatic found in shallow brackish pools, rivers, and estuaries in the
outer Coastal Plain region of North Carolina(Radford et al. 1968). Leaves are alternate,threadlike,
and 10 cm long by 0.4-0.6 cm wide(Goodfrey and Wooten 1979). Flowers are enclosed in the leaf
sheath during flowering, exerted on a loosely formed peduncle after anthesis; the dark, ovoid fruit
occur on a long stalked inflorescence (flowering and fruiting from July to October) (Radford et al.
1968). The common name, widgeon grass, is derived from the American widgeon, a North
American duck that often feeds in SAV beds containing this species. Such feeding patterns are
indicative of the importance of this species as a potential food source for waterfowl.
-9-

PROJECT RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
SAV distribution patterns are shown on Figure 2 and associated information is summarized in Table
1. In addition, percent cover and dry weight values are graphically depicted by station number for
each transect in Appendix B.
Widgeon grass was found to be growing in intermittent bands parallel to the shoreline in all four
project quadrants (Figure 2). Growth was limited by depth and degree of disturbance. Distribution
of SAV ceased at depths greater than -1.5 to -1.9 m (-5 to -6 ft) (Table 1; Appendix B), probably
due to lack of light penetration in murky waters. Near-shore areas in the vicinity of the boat ramp
in the northwest project quadrant were devoid of SAV growth,probably in response to boating traffic
and human use disturbances. Similar denuded areas were noted near the shoreline in the vicinity of
feeder ditches or tributaries in the southwest and southeast project quadrants. Increased water
velocities at channel discharge points into Stanton Creek or low salinities in discharge waters from
these systems may have contributed to the lack of SAV growth at confluence points. A prevalence
of bridge debris(broken concrete,relic bridge abutments and supports, stone,etc.) in the southwest
quadrant immediately adjacent to the bridge (Transect SW-1, Figure 2) provided limited habitat
opportunities for SAV colonization.
Little or no SAV growth was noted within 10 to 15 m(30 to 50 ft) of shore in the northeast project
quadrant. Stable conditions appeared to exist with fringing marsh providing shoreline protection
from upland disturbances; no other obvious features were observed that would disrupt growth.
However, floating masses of widgeon grass and other debris prevail in the lee between the bridge
and a nearby point of land in the vicinity of Transect NE-3/SE-3 (Figure 2) during August surveys;
these masses were absent during September sampling. It is assumed that long-term presence of these
floating debris mats may limit light penetration, thereby hindering growth of SAV.
SAV density was highest to the east of the existing bridge in both quadrants(Table 1;Appendix B).
Cover averaged 100 percent in the southeast quadrant close to shore and extending away from the
bridge before being affected by a feeder tributary(Figure 2;Table 1; Appendix B). Similarly, once
distanced from inshore accumulations of floating debris(15 to 25 m[50 to 82 ft]from shore),growth
of widgeon grass was abundant in the northeast quadrant. Depths of-0.77 to-1.54 m(-2.5 to -5 ft),
or shallow inshore areas devoid of perturbations, appear to be the most conducive areas for
proliferation of widgeon grass.
-10-

As expected, dry weight values mimic density and distribution patterns (Table 1; Appendix B).
Biomass production is expected to be the greatest during summer months, and August/September
production values in high density areas of the site were expected to be high. In areas where 100
percent coverage was noted(see NE and SE transects; Table 1;Appendix B), dry weight exceeded
281.0 g/m2.
Although sampling was not initiated outside of a 30 m (100 ft) area centered around the bridge,
general observations seem to indicate that SAV distribution and abundance increases with distance
away from the bridge, especially toward the east. This pattern extends from fringing marsh
shorelines out 30 to 50 m (100 to 165 ft) from shore. However, the amount of rooted SAV
development may be tempered by the extent of floating mats of SAV fragments. This pattern of
distribution declines approximately 100 m (328 ft) east of the bridge; concentrations of SAV are
limited to the west of the bridge and disappear at the first major bend in the creek. Relatively low
current flow and protection by land formations may contribute to extended patterns of distribution.
Substrate conditions appear to have little influence on viability of SAV species or on distribution
patterns. Heavy siltation failed to limit extensive colonization and rhizomatous development of
widgeon grass in growth areas.
The fact that some of the most prolific growth occurs toward the center of the channel suggests that
waves and water currents may have little impact on growth. However, the extensive nature of
floating mats of SAV fragments in leeward areas of the shoreline does indicate that stem breakage
is common - possibly as a result of boating activity and or wind/wave action.
The reference site,located approximately 165 m(540 ft)east of Bridge No. 029,is within proximity
to the existing facility but outside of any anticipated zone of influence due to construction. Channel
width,depth, and substrate are similar to conditions in the project area. The site is characterized by
the same monotypic beds of widgeon grass noted at the bridge. SAV distribution also occurs in
linear bands parallel to the shoreline, although the extent of distribution is significantly less than
noted within study area transects (coverage seldom exceeded 5 percent at any sampling station).
Even so,the control site should respond in similar fashion to the bridge sites with respect to changes
in weather or water quality without concern for human interference.
-11-

CONCLUSIONS
Monotypic stands of widgeon grass were observed in all four project quadrants in the vicinity of
Bridge No. 029. Growth appears to be affected by depth and degree of disturbance. Little or no
growth was observed at depths of-1.5 to -1.9 m (-5 to -6 ft). Areas devoid of SAV development
were also noted in the vicinity of the boat ramp in the northeast project quadrant and around
confluence points with feeder ditches or tributaries.
SAV densities were highest in areas east of the existing facility where the temporary detour will be
placed. Coverage of up to 100 percent was noted within 20 m (65 ft) of the existing bridge in the
southeast quadrant extending from shoreline areas out to a distance of 30+ m (100 ft). Similarly,
once distanced from inshore accumulations of floating debris, SAV growth was abundant in the
northeast quadrant.
On-site replacement of Bridge No. 029 is expected to have little influence on SAV development in
the immediate vicinity of the existing structure. No SAV growth was noted under the existing
structure, and this trend is expected to continue after replacement. Placement of the temporary
detour may result in short-term impacts to localized populations, but the extent and distribution of
widgeon grass in areas east of the bridge suggest that re-colonization is likely after removal of the
temporary structure. In addition,although current velocities were not measured as part of this study,
on-site observations indicate sufficient flushing to eliminate temporary siltation and turbidity caused
by construction of the replacement bridge.
SAV distribution can be influenced by seasonal fluctuations or environmental perturbations.
However,the presence of a control site 165 m(540 ft)east of the bridge can be utilized to determine
if impacts to on site SAV populations are the result of construction activities or other external
factors.
-12-

REFERENCES
Godfrey, R.K. and J.W. Wooten. 1979. Aquatic and Wetland Plants of the Southeastern United
States Monocotyledons. The University of Georgia Press, Athens, Ga.
North Carolina Department of Transportation(NCDOT). 1997. Categorical Exclusion US 264 -
NC 45, Bridge No. 29 over Scranton Creek, Hyde County. Federal Aid Project BRSTP-
264(6). State Project No. 8.1080501. TIP No. B-319. Raleigh,N.C.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas.
University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill,N.C.
-13-

APPENDIX
- Resumes
- Percent Cover and Dry Weight
— Coordinates
-14-

APPENDIX A
RESUMES

ECOSCIENCE CORPORATION
ILO
GERALD RAY MCCRAIN
PRESIDENT
EcoScience
Title: President and Principal-In-Charge
Academic Background: Ph.D. Resource Management (Minor: Interdisciplinary/Public Policy). N.C.
State University. 1990.
M.S. Botany(Minor: Ecology). N.C. State University. 1975.
B.S. Botany. N.C. State University. 1972.
ESC Responsibilities: Responsible for all phases of marketing, project development, and management. -
Specialties include wetland jurisdictional concerns,preparation of environmental
assessments, permitting, mitigation planning, environmental policy.
Prior Experience: 1990-1998. Vice President. Environmental Services,Inc. Responsible for office
management and project oversight in Raleigh Branch. Managed as many as 18
other professionals and administrative personnel and responsible for project
budgets exceeding$1,000,000.00.
1984-1989. N.C. Department of Transportation, Planning and Environmental
Branch. Raleigh,N.C. Mitigation and Permit Specialist.
1978-1982. Virgin Islands Department of Conservation and Cultural Affairs,
Division of Coastal Zone Management. St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. Environmental
Specialist. V.I. Bureau of Fish and Wildlife. Fisheries Biologist.
1975-1977. Bluebeards Castle Hotel. St.Thomas,U.S.V.I. Director of Grounds
and Gardens and Principal Horticulturalist.
Professional Affiliations: Certified Environmental Professional (#90033764)
National Association of Environmental Professionals
Society of Wetland Scientists -Professional Wetland Scientist#000912
Ecological Society of America
Sigma Xi Scientific Honor Society
U.S. Coast Guard Masters License - 50 Ton (#808202)
Professional Association of Diving Instructors (Instructor#8458)
Project Experience: Principal-In-Charge, Wake County Open Space Plan environmental studies
(examples) Project Mgr& Principal,N.C. Global TransPark, Raleigh,NC.
Project Manager, SAV survey, Croatan Bridge access pier
Principal-In-Charge,NCDOT and SCDOT wetland mitigation studies.
Project Mgr, highway planning studies (300+), Southeast.

414Plik
*124._ ECOSCIENCE CORPORATION
ALEXANDER PARKER SMITH
EcoScience
Title: Senior Project Manager
Academic Background: M.S. Marine Biology(Coastal Ecology Track)
University of North Carolina at Wilmington, Wilmington,NC
B.S. Biology
Davidson College, Davidson,NC
ESC Responsibilities: 1998-present. Project management. Specialties include wetlands delineations and
environmental permitting, wetlands functional assessments, natural systems assessments,
environmental assessments,mitigation planning,protected species surveys,wildlife surveys.
Prior Experience: 1993-1998. Environmental Services, Inc., Senior Scientist Staff, Raleigh, NC. Project
manager, technical writer and editor, wetlands delineations,wetlands mitigation planning
and site searches, environmental permitting, natural systems assessments, environmental
assessments, protected species surveys, wildlife surveys.
1988-1993. CZR Incorporated,Technical Staff,Wilmington,NC. Wetlands delineator,fish
and wildlife populations surveyor, wetlands mitigation design and implementation, and
office boat captain.
1988. UNC-Wilmington. Conducted field surveys of coastal NC for colonially-nesting
waterbirds. Developed a US Army Corps of Engineers computer database for the present
and historical breeding status of colonial waterbirds.
1987. U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service. Field technician,Alaska Maritime National Wildlife
Refuge, Bering Sea Unit. Monitored breeding biology of cliff-nesting seabirds in the
Pribilof Islands.
Professional Affiliations: National Association of Environmental Professionals
Sigma Xi Scientific Research Society
American Ornithologists Union
Wilson Ornithological Society
Society of Wetland Scientists, Professional Wetland Scientist#000276
Project Experience: Project Supervisor, 18 EAs and 3 Biological Assessments for N.C. State Parks
improvements throughout NC.
Project Supervisor, US 21/21 Permitting and Mitigation, Beaufort, SC for SCDOT
Project Supervisor,4-H Environmental Conference Center Environmental Assessment,
Warren Co.N.C.
Project Supervisor, Wetland Delineation, US 52 improvements, Wayne County, WV.
Project Supervisor, Wetland Delineation(40 miles)for NC 24 relocation in Sampson,
Duplin, Cumberland Counties,NC.
Project Supervisor,New Bern Marsh Mitigation, Craven Co.,NC for NCDOT.
Project Supervisor,Feasibility Analysis for Dredged Spoil Deposition Site Associated
with Roanoke Sound and Shallowbag Bay Channels, Dare Co.,NC.
Dioxin monitoring fisheries sampling: Chowan, Bertie, Martin Counties,NC.
Red-cockaded woodpecker Section 7 coordination;wildlife studies N.Rhett Ave.,SC.

APPENDIX B
TRANSECT COORDINATES

COORDINATES FOR SAV SURVEY
BRIDGE NO. 029
"ISL01","Point_generic"
197117.940,841213.999,1.151
"ISL02","Point_generic"
197118.642,841217.033,2.377
"ISL03","Point_generic"
197117.710,841218.841,0.966
"ISL04","Point_generic"
197120.723,841219.151,2.221
"ISL05","Point_generic"
197117.009,841221.983,3.072
"IS L07","P oint_generic"
197117.089,841224.034,2.034
"ISL08","Point_generic"
197123.372,841224.388,0.658
"I S L09","Po int_generic"
197120.404,841227.986,1.242
"ISL09","Point_generic"
197120.780,841229.623,0.25 5
"ISL 10","Point_generic"
197118.685,841231.889,0.257
"ISL11 W2 0","Point_generic" -NW 2 Transect
197118.787,841233.472,0.513
"ISL 12","Point_generic"
197117.672,84123 5.112,0.511
"ISL 13","Point_generic"
197116.508,841236.015,0.538
"ISL14","Point_generic"
197115.965,841238.083,0.472
"ISL15","Point_generic" -NW 1 Transect
197117.257,841241.097,1.591
"ISL16","Point_generic"
197116.615,841244.364,1.138
"ISL17","Point_generic" - Bridge NW Corner
197115.217,841248.057,1.286
"ISL18","Point generic" -Bridge NE Corner
197113.316,84125 8.545,1.011
"ISL 19","P o int_generic"
197113.404,841261.354,1.036
"ISL20","P oint_generic"
197115.814,841262.886,1.086

Page 2
"ISL21 NE 1","Point_generic" -NE 1 Transect
197117.475,841264.433,0.659
"IS L22","Point_generic"
197118.009,841266.865,0.806
"ISL23","Point_generic"
197119.544,841270.718,-0.227
"ISL25","Point_generic"
197122.081;841274.916,0.331
"ISL26 NE2","Point_generic" -NE 2 Transect
197120.504,841273.741,0.582
"ISL27","Point_generic"
197119.032,84127 8.03 3,2.184
"ISL2 8","Point_generic"
197118.742,841281.285,1.631
"ISL29 NE3","Point_generic" -NE 3 Transect
197119.707,841283.966,0.598
"ISL30","Point_generic"
197124.5 79,8412 8 5.294,1.212
"ISL31","Point_generic"
197127.109,841285.886,-0.3 81
"ISL3 2","P oint_generic"
197129.026,841287.171,-0.475
"IISLO I","Point_generic"
197017.155,841235.351,-0.190
"II S L 02","P o i nt_generi c"
197021.128,84123 5.3 84,0.021
"IIS L03","Po int_generic"
197025.985,841236.711,-1.801
"IISL04 SW2","Point_generic" - SW 2 Transect
197026.690,841237.219,-1.813
"IISO5","Point_generic"
197028.403,841238.632,-1.897
"IISL06","Point_generic"
197027.990,841240.8 5 9,-1.849
"IISL07","Point_generic"
197025.396,841243.098,0.431
"IISL08 SW1","Point_generic" - SW 1 Transect
197027.3 3 8,841245.646,2.498
"II S L 0 9","P o int_ge neri c"
197028.410,841247.945,2.146
"IISL9.5","Point_generic"
19703 0.126,841248.224,2.970

Page 3
"IISLIO BR","Point_generic" - Bridge SW Corner
197029.609,841252.002,2.751
"IISL11 BR","Point_generic" - Bridge SE Corner
197030.334,841261.661,4.678
"IISL11.5","Point_generic"
197029.861,841264.3 55,1.779
"IISL12 SE1","Point_generic" - SE 1 Transect
197028.257,841266.415,1.658
"IISL 13","Point_generic"
197029.248,841268.5 51,2.216
"IISL14 DITCH","Point_generic"
197029.970,841273.179,1.999
"IISL 15","Point_generic"
197029.478,841274.324,2.057
"IISL16 SE2","Point_generic" - SE 2 Transect
197028.556,841276.505,1.750
"IISL 17","Point_generic"
197028.781,841279.351,1.585
"IISL 18","Point_generic"
197029.898,841283.687,1.559
"IISL19 SE3","Point_generic" - SE 3 Transect
197028.904,841287.592,1.593
"II S L20","P oint_generic"
197027.299,841289.620,1.184
"IISL21","Point_generic"
197024.949,841290.23 6,1.314
REFERENCE SITE
"REFSE02","Point_generic"
197097.486,841422.674,1.301
"CENREF02","Point_generic"
197121.383,841428.773,2.830
"CENREFNE02","Point_generic"
197164.481,841415.224,1.867
"REFNE02","Point_generic"
197188.143,841408.728,3.507

Page 4
SAV LINE
"NE3 SAV S","Point_generic"
197106.697,8412 8 8.3 5 0,3.212
"NE2 SAV S","Point_generic"
197103.5 79,8412 81.163,1.45 6
"NE 1 SAV S","Point_generic"
- 197088.896,841267.219,0.520
"SE 1 SAV S","Point_generic"
197040.23 8,841265.614,2.131
"SE3 SAV S","Point_generic"
197045.614,841289.301,1.749
"SE2SAVS","Point_generic"
197052.087,841276.688,2.565
"S W2 SAV S","Point_generic"
19703 8.917,84123 8.495,3.271
"NW 1 SAV S","Point_generic"
197100.554,841243.371,2.857
"NW2S AV S","Point_generic"
197099.474,841235.856,2.721

APPENDIX B
TRANSECT % COVER AND DRY WEIGHT VALUES

Northeast Transect 1
100
v;I rt
:',,..:::it
S �•j1
80 - T -" �, 's. -2.15
4
y� r
�- 70 - vz w0.
ear. -1.87
G� �r y
i".° `! A' i. ` fin`
60 - " '
V :�
E 7,0, : w
0 50 - Water Depth (m)
m 40 - '- Att ,,
30 - -0.57 y w YI :� `Y
-0.30 w ., - ..
x.
N
t
w
1 1 • ' f t
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Distance From Shore (m)
280 -
260
240 -
220 - c r+
200 - :44 * .
N
E 180 - l^
a' 160 - .4
cD 140 - - , ;
120 -
100 -
80 -
60 - ='_'1 k k ;
20 - ` YY^^> `FC
0 I - 1 f I I f... .
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Distance From Shore (m)

Northeast Transect 2
•
100 - x.; .�:
a*....,,, ,,,,„..t.,,
90 - .w-
80 - • 44
0fyC
xk^P "K, '
al -2.41
c) 60 ,,Y
cam _ , :
-2.29
c 50 - •
.-0
}, . =., -1.72
m , ' �, Water Depth (m)
127.`'
30 - ;,,-�
-0.81 'l",�.",
Y .� N+z _.
20.- k-
10 - -0.50
0 I I I I .., I
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Distance From Shore (m)
280 -
26 0 -
240 -
220 - ; aa:..
' P f
200 - `a�;r N tifti:;
CD
a� 140 -
120 -
›." 100 -
60 -
40 - '
20 -
0 I I ' I I I
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
•
Distance From Shore (m)

Northeast Transect 3
100 -
90 - ;4 `
80 - �tux'
S
Nlr
0 60 - fh4tz,
V r t ;
sAI•
c 50 - fr . -2.41 -2.42
CI
40 - rAk -2.10 -
hkf ,
`30 - x, Y Water Depth (m)
T.154.<
-1.20 :�-t ,� ,
20 - ,tip
10 - 04
-0.78 `'gym r
0 I i
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Distance From Shore (m)
280 -
260 -
- 240 - -
220 -
200 -
N_
E 180 -
a' 160 -
am 140 -
120 -
>-' 100 -
G
80 -
60 -
40 -
20 -
0 1 I ..I,1 I I I .
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Distance From Shore (m)

Dry Weight (glm2) % Bottom Cover
NI N N N., N
NI A Q) 00 O N A 0) 00 0 Ni A O) co - N W . (n O) - Oo (O 0
O 0 0 O O O O O O O CD O O O O 0 O 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 0 O
O I I I 1 1 1 I I I I I 1 I I
O 1 1 1 1 i i 1 i 1 1
'O -'y s 1+Yf a'i'i .r•t l .; �RA i ;i r 0) 4- cr ,a; Cr)
C3
0
c
N CD
CD
d UI - A
n T CI)C enT 3 r.f.
o No _ CANo
3 ? —.I
C
oCD
CD
c-n 9N, - CD
2 CJI
°r c�
CD
F"+
-,
wo Ca H_ 0
O CD m
.0 o
1
w I
0ca

Southeast Transect 2
100 - t
90 - • t.';
80 - '� - ��
tier ;as :g
P. 4.,-z
70 -
L
E 50 - i ! -1.83
o as VIc 40 - ;: -1.51
CC , x Water Depth (m)t e r 3
30 — 1mt.i� Fx
w 4 g ee__
t.O it k-
y rr
20 V82. 4. xill �w
10 - :: � ,�,` " • '
0 1 i
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Distance From Shore (m)
280 -
„.-.2 ,!..!,_,!,
_ 260-- "
.4,74:7240 -
220 - J, .,a r }
•A- '�
200 -
NC
180 - �' x
G ` xM
CD 160 - �; ,,
r
an
100 ,
L
0 80 - J:
60 - `
40 - #.4=
20 - `
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Distance From Shore (m)

Southeast Transect 3
100 -
90 -
80 -
I-
70 -
CB
60 -
v
co50 -
-2.28
pp 40 -
-1.72
30 - -1.59
-1.30 Water Depth (m)
20 - -1.14
10 -0.87
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Distance From Shore (m)
280 -
260 -
240 -
220 -
200 -
E 180 -
160 -
140
cn
120
�. 100 -
80 -
60 -
40 -
20 -
•
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Distance From Shore (m)

Northwest Transect 1
100 -
90 -
80 -
6-
70 -
a�
v 60 -
50 _ " Water Depth (m)
o _
40 -
-1.66 -1.60
30 - -1.38 -1.34
-1.11 -1.10
20 -
10 -
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Distance From Shore (m)
280 -
260 -
240 -
2-20 -
200 -
N
180 -
a' 160
a� 140 -
120
100 -
CI
80 -
60 -
40 -
20 -
0 , I 1
•
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Distance From Shore (m)

Northwest Transect 2
100 -
90 -
-1.79
80 -
-1.53
70 - -1.31
60 - -1.20
-0.90
E • 50 -
ov 40 - -0.65 Water Depth (m)
-0.42
30 - ,
20
.11
10 - °
0 I I I f t '_• 1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Distance From Shore (m)
280 -
260 -
240 -
220 -
200 -
N
E 180 -
160 -
a' 140 -
120 -
100 -
80 -
60 -
40 -
20 -
0 I [ 1
0 5 , 10 15 20 25 . 30 35
Distance From Shore (m)

Southwest Transect 1
- 100
90 -
80 -
70 -
60 - * None Collected
50 -
0
40 - -2.15 -2.20
m .
30 - -1.73 -1.71
-1.46 Water Depth (m)
20 -
-0.65
10 -
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Distance From Shore (m)
280 -
260 -
-240 =
220 -
200 -
N
E 180
Q)
160
cp 140 -
'�
120
0 100 -
80 -
60 -
40 -
20 -
0 . 5 10 15 20 25 30
Distance From Shore (m)

Southwest Transect 2
100 -
90 -
80 -
70 -
cS5 60 -
-2.50
c 50 -
-2.10
m 40 - -1.97
30 - -1.68
-1.57 Water Depth (m)
20 -
10 - -0.88
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Distance From Shore (m)
280 -
260 -
240 -
220 -
nj 200 -
E 180 -
a,
160 -
am 140 -
120 -
>- 100 -
C3 80 -
60 -
40 -
20 -
0 I I • I
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Distance From Shore (m)

Reference Northeast Transect 2
too -
90 -
80 -
70 -
CB
-O 60 -
U
0 50 - Water Depth (m)
40 -
30 - -1.27
-1.26
20 -
-1.16 -1.18
-0.92
10 -
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Distance From Shore (m)
280 -
260 -
240 -
- 220 -
200 -
N 180 -
E
160 -
- 140 -
c
'a- 120
'S
a 100 -
80 -
60 -
40 -
20 -
0 5 10 15 20 25
Distance From Shore (m)

Reference Southeast Transect 2
100 -
90 -
80 -
70
a�
v 60 -
0 50 - -2.41
40 -2.10
30 -
Water Depth (m)
-1.59
20 -
-1.18
10 -
0
0 5 10 15 20
Distance From Shore (m)
280 -
260 -
240 -
220 -
NE 200 -
180 -
160 -
an
140 -
�- 120 -
100 -
80 -
60 -
40 -
20 -
0
0 5 10 15 20
Distance From Shore (m)