20010405 Ver 1_B-2531 and B2532_20031020

NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Division of Coastal Management
Michael F. Easley, Governor Donna D. Moffitt, Director
Resources
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
MEMORANDUM
TO:
CC:
Mike Street, DMF
Ron Sechler, NMFS
Mike Bell, USACE
John Hennessy, DWQ
David Cox, WRC
Bill Arrington, DCM
Doug Huggett, DCM
Travis Wilson, WRC
*"L A'D'1401 GROUP
OCT 2 0 2003
WATERQUAL17Y
SEGn®Af
FROM:
Cathy Brittingham, Transportation Project Coordinator
DATE: October 14, 2003
SUBJECT: N.C. Department of Transportation survey of submersed aquatic
vegetation for US 17 Neuse River Bridge Relocation and Trent River
Bridge Widening and survey of wetland vegetation along the Trent River
Bridge, TIP Nos. B-2 31 and B-2532, Craven County. CAMA Permit No.
81-95; DWQ Projeco. 951 3; USACE Action ID No. 199401568.
Enclosed for your review and comment please find a copy of the above referenced report dated
5/22/03. This information was provided to the N.C. Division of Coastal Management (DCM) by
the N.C. Department of Transportation (DOT) in accordance with the following conditions of
LAMA Permit No. 81-95:
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.
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.
1638 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1638
Phone: [phone] \ FAX: [phone] \ Internet: http://dc,m2.enr.state.no.us
An Equal Opportunity \ Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled \ 10% Post Consumer Paper
A"
TO: Phillip S. Harris III, P.E., ONE
John Hennessy, DWQ
Cathy Brittingham, DCM
Mike Bell, COE
Pete Stafford, RK&K
FROM: Bruce O. Ellis, CLM, Environmental Supervisor
Mary Frazer, Environmental Specialist
SUBJECT: Submersed Aquatic Vegetation Survey for US 17 Neuse River Bridge
Relocation and: Trent River Bridge Widening, Federal Aid Project No. BR
OOOS(33), State Project No. 8.1170801, 3'IP Tos' B '253Ili' B}25321
DATE: 05/22/03
REFERENCE: Memorandum: Results of Submersed Aquatic Vegetation Survey by NCDOT
environmental specialist, Robin Little, October 6, 1994.
The following memorandum provides the results of a submersed aquatic vegetation (SAV) survey
for the subject project. The survey was conducted on June 5, 2001 by NCDOT environmental
biologists Bruce Ellis and Mary Frazer, and members of the NCDOT dive team, Bill Lotz and
Allen Hancock to determine impacts to SAVs as a result of the subject project. -Supplemental
surveys were conducted by Ellis and Frazer on June 27 to look at nearby SAY growth for
comparison, and on October 27 to complete the survey at Lawson Creek.
Previous surveys were conducted in August 1994, prior to project construction; June 1996,- after
construction was initiated; August 2000, after construction was complete -and June, 2001.
Surveys between 1996 and 2000 were disrupted by inclement weather (i.e., hurricanes).
METHODOLOGY
Survey methodology followed procedures outlined in the above referenced memorandum.
Briefly, transects were run perpendicular to the shoreline at ten meter intervals within.the
temporary construction zones and permanent construction limits.. A one meter square grid, which
was subdivided into nine-33 cm by 33 cm subplots, was then placed on the river bottom at ten
meter intervals along each transect. SAV species present within the one-meter square grid were
identified, and percent cover within the grid was determined for each sample location. Survey
work was conducted using contaminated water protocol, to minimize exposure to water-born
pathogens. Vegetation from each sample plot was collected and identified according to Godfrey
and Wooten (1981) and Fassett (1975).
Care was taken in the survey to establish the transects at the same locations as the August 1994 and
June 1996 surveys. However, there were four exceptions, listed. below.
1. In 1996, five additional transects were established on the western shoreline of the Neuse River at
loop BA and ramp CD. These =meets are identified as 2A'-2E'.
2. Site four was not sampled in 1996, 2000 or 2001 due.to shallow water depths and a substrate
of extremely soft muck, which prohibited divers from working safely in the area.

RESULTS
Results of the regular 2001 survey are included in. Table 1. The results of the August 1994,
June 1996 and August 2000 surveys are also included in the table for comparison. Sample
locations depicted in Figure 1. Two SAV species were identified during the course of the survey:
A. Tapegrass (Vallisneria americana)
B. Horned pondweed (Zannichellia palustris)
The tapegrass averaged 1-2 feet in height, while the horned pondweed was no more than
eight to ten inches high. During the June 2001 survey, water salinity was 1.5 ppt (vs. 2.8 ppt the
previous August) in the Neuse River and the Trent River,. and secchi depth was four feet in the
Neuse, the same as the previous year.
The June 1996 survey identified coontail (Ceratophyllum demersum) in addition to the two
species above,.but only in Lawson Creek. No SAV's were found at the Lawson Creek site (site
1) during the August 2000 survey at the bridge location, nor were any SAV's seen within 100 feet
up or down. the shoreline from the bridge.
. The August 1994 survey identified tapegrass and either coontail or horned pondweed, which
were misidentified as eelgrass (Zostera sp.) and milfoil (Myriophyllum sp.).
RESULTS FROM SUPPLEMENTAL SAMPLING AREAS, 2001
1) Lawson Creek was examined, but no vegetation. was present in the creek. The water was
slightly turbid; a loose silty substrate was present. The creek south of the bridge was
examined until the channel splits, a distance of at least 75 meters: only detritus and leaves
were found in the creek. The water depth was 0.60-1.2 meters.
2) The cove north of Union Point contained a small sandy beach about 23 meters long, while
most adjacent areas of shoreline contained low seawalls. No SAVs were found. The water .
was clear and one meter deep at about 18 meters out from the shoreline.
3) SAVs in the Neuse River, near the confluence with the Trent River, were sampled with the
first transect 30 meters north of northern edge of the new bridge; the.following transects were
.40 in north, 50 in north, etc. Tapegrass was found in all of the sample plots between 10 and
40 in from the shoreline. Results of this survey are present in Table 4.
4) _ Marsh vegetation along the Trent River bridge was examined. Data are presented in Tables 5
and 6. The results of the survey indicate that vegetation is re-establishing on the site,
however, the vegetation that is present is of a much smaller type than the surrounding marsh.
The marsh in vicinity of the bridge is dominated by cattail (Typha latifolia) and giant cord
grass, (Spartina cynosuroides). Since the vegetation in the footprint of the workbridges is of a
smaller type than the surrounding marsh, the footprints of the work bridges are very
apparent.
No horned pondweed was found in the supplmental SAV sampling areas, nor was any found
washed up onshore or observed casually. It appears that horned pondweed has been removed
from the New Bern area due. to regional environmental factors, rather than bridge construction.

Table 2. SAV Species Composition
SPECIES COMPOSITION NO. PLOTS IN NO. PLOTS IN NO. PLOTS IN
1996 2000 2001
A. Tapegrass (Vallisneria 12 32 37
americana)
Homed pondweed
B. ' 38 0 S
,
(Zannichellia palustris)
A & B. Tapegrass and Horned 18 1 9
pondweed
C. Arrowhead 0 0 1
(Sagittaria subulata)
TOTAL 68 33 53
5
2L4 ND 0 0 0 3.0
2L5 ND ND 0 ND 5.0
2M1 0 0 0 44, A 1.0
2M2 0 31 A&B 100, A 100, A 2.0
2M3 0 0 0 0 5.0
2M4 ND ND 0 ND >6.0
2N1 0 19,,B 0 22, A 1.0
2N2 0 100, B 69, A 67 A 2.0
2N3 0 0 0 0 4.0
2N4 ND ND 0 ND >6.0
201 0 6 B 0 0 1.0
202 0 100, B 0 0 4.0
203 0 0 0 0 5.0
204 ND ND .0 ND >6.0
2P1 0 38 B 0 0 1.0
2P2 0 81, B 25, A 100, A 3.0
2P3 0 0 0 0 6.0
2P4 ND ND 0 0 >6.0
201 0 44 B 0 11, A 1.0
202 0 81 A&B 56, A 100, A 3.0
203 0 0 0 100 A 5.0
204 ND 0 0 0 >6.0
2R1 0 0 0 0 <1.0
2R2 100 81 A 31, A 22, B 1.5
2R3. 100 100, A&B 81, A 100, B 3.0
2R4 25 100, A&B 81, A 100, B 4.0
2R5 0. 75, B. 100, A 66,.B. . 5.0
2R6 0 0 100, A 11, 5.0
2R7 0 0 0 0 5.0
2R8 0 0 ND 6.0
2S I 0 0. 0 0 <1.0
2S2 0 25, A 81, A 0 1.5
2S3 0 81, A 94, A 100, A&B 2.0
2S4 100 88, A 100, A 100, A 2.5
2S5 19 12, B 94, A 100 A 10
2S6 100 0 .. 100, A 100, A 4.5
2S7 0 0 0 0 5.0
2S8 0 M
W 0 ND 6.0
2T1 50 E . ND
2T2 100 ND
2 100 100, A 0 0 1.5
2T4 100 .75 A&B 0 0 2.0
2T5 0 0 0 0 3.0
2T6 0 0 ND 0 ND
2T7 0 0 ND ND ND
2U1 0 ND 0 0 <1.0
2U2 0 25, B 0 44, A 1.5
2U3 100 100, A 0 100, A 2.0
2U4 100 . 0 100 A 100, A 2.0
2U5 .100 3L A 0 0 3.0
2U6 100 0 0 0 4.5
2U7 0 0 ND ND ND
2U8 0 0 ND ND ND
2V I 0 0 0 0 <1.0
2V2 100 31,A 63, A 100, A 1.5
2V3 100 88, A 100 A 100, A 2.0
7
3D4 0 0 0 ND 6.0
3D5 0 0 ND ND ND
3D6 0 0 ND ND ND
3E' I ND ND 0 ND 0.5 .
3E'2 ND ND 0 ND 2.5
3E'3 ND ND 0 ND 3.0
3F'1 ND ND 0 ND 0.5
3F'2 ND ND 0 ND 2.5
3F'3 ND ND 0 ND 3:0
3G' I ND ND 0 ND 0.5
3G'2 ND ND 88, A&B ND 2.5
3G'3 ND ND 0 ND 3.0.
3G'4 ND ND 0 ND 6.0
3E1 .0 0 0 22, B 1.0
3E2 94 0 0 0 3.0
3E3 19 0 0 0 5.0
3E4 62 0 ND 0 ND
3E5 100 ND ND ND ND
3E6 .94 ND ND ND ND
3E7 75 ND ND ND ND
3E8 0 ND ND ND ND
3F1 0 0 0 0 1.0
3F2 100 12, B 0 0 3.0
3F3 100 0 0 67, A 4.0
3F4 94 0 ND 0 ND
3F5 100 0 ND ND ND
3F6 100 ND ND ND ND
'3G1 50 No data 0 0 1.0
3G2 100 collected 0 89, A&B 3.0
3G3 - due to 0 0 4.0
.3G4 100 n ND ND ND
3G5 75 prese
ce ND ND ND
3G6 38 of ND ND ND
3G7 0 construc- ND ND ND
3G8 0 tion barge ND ND ND
3G9 100 ND ND ND
3G10 50 ND ND ND
3H1 13 0 1.0
3H2 38 0 22, A 3.0
3H3 63 0 0 4.0
3H4 56 ND ND ND
3H5 100 ND ND ND
3H6 88 ND ND ND
3H7 100 ND ND ND
3H8 100 ND ND' ND
3119 50 ND ND ND
3H10 25 ND ND ND
ND
SAl 0 0 0 0 <1.0
5A2 0 0 0 0 1.5
5A3 0 0 0 0 3.5
5A4 ND ND 0 0 5.0
5B I 0 0 0 0 <1.0
5B2 0 0 0 0 1.5
5B3 0 0 0 0 3.5
5B4 ND ND 0 0 5.0
TABLE 4. SAV Samnline Data from Neuse River at Confluence with Trent River. 2001
Plot Number
(South of Union Pt.,
south of old bridge,
north of new. bridge) Percent Cover per Plot
and Species* Type (if any)

2001 Water Depth
(feet)
1A 0 0
1B 894-A 1.5
1C 100, A 2.0
1D 100, A 1.5
lE 0 2.5
IF ND
2A 0 0
2B 100 A 1.5
2C 100, A 2.0
2D 100, A 2.0
2E 100, A 2.5
2F 0 3.0
3A 0 0
3B 89, A 1.5
3C 100, A 1.6
3D 100, A 2.0
3E 100, A 3.0
3F 0 3.5-
4A 0 0
4B 78, A 1.0
4 100. A 1.5
4D 100, A 2.5
4E 100, A 3.0
4F 0 3.5
SA 0 0
5B 67, A .1.5
5C 100, A 2.0
5D 100, A 2.5
5E 100, A . 3.0
5F 0 3.5
Species A = Tapegrass (Vallisneria americana)
Species B = Homed pondweed (Zannichellia palustris)
Species C = Arrowhead (Sagittaria subulata)
ND. = No Data
0 = No SAV's present
11
Table 6: Vegetation Plot Samnlinu Results, Trent River Bridges
PlotNumber* Percent Cover by Species Percent cover
A PH, SL, HM (20°/Q cut) 100%
B TL, SC, SL, JS, CY, CX (30% cut) 100%
C SC, TL, ScP, JR (20% standing water) 80%
D SC; is, CX; HM 100%
E SC, CX, SCp, PV .90%
F SC, CX, OR, BH 90%
G SC, PV, CX, lim 90% .
H SC, TL; PH, CX (20% standing water) 100%
I TI;, PH, CX, SL, Cy 100%
J SC, PH, EC, GO . 90%
K SC, PV, EC, CX (channel open water 20%) 100%
L. JR, PP, HM, EC 100%
M JR, SC, HM, EC (river edge) 100%
A PP, AP,'FM VN; BH (channel open water 50%) 100%
B SC, PP, PH, JS,.CY, 100%
C SC, PV, PP, HM, OR, is 100%
D SC, TL, HM, CX 100%
E SC, TL, HM (50% cut) .100%
F SC, TI, HM, CX (50% cut) 100%.
435 SC, TL, HM (50% cut .100%
H SC, TL; HM, JS (50% cut) 100%.
I SC,-TL, PV (50 % cut) 100%
J PV, AP, SL, JS 100%
"" denotes north side of Bridge; denotes denotes nouth side of Bridge.
13