20041216 Ver 1_Monitoring Report_20120809

©�-�)-,I�'U�
MEMORANDUM
TO: Dave Timpy, USACE
Cyndi Karoly, NCDWQ
Doug Huggett, NCDCM
FROM: Jenny Johnson, LMG
DATE: August 7, 2012
RE: Mason Inlet Relocation Project — Year 10 Biological Monitoring Report
On behalf of New Hanover County, please find enclosed a copy of the Biological Monitoring
Report: Year 10 (2011) Post Construction Monitoring. Please contact us if you need additional hard
copies and/or digital copies.
Thank you.
CC: Jim Iannucci, New Hanover County Engineering Department
@i;z,
www.lmgroup.net • [e-mail] • Phone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
3805 Wrightsville Ave., Suite 15, Wilmington, NC 28403 • P.O. Box 2522, Wilmington, NC 28402

MASON INLET RELOCATION PROJECT
NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NC
BIOLOGICAL MONITORING REPORT
YEAR 10 (2011) POST CONTRUCTION MONITORING
Prepared for
New Hanover County (NC), Permittee
Prepared by.
Land Management Group, Inc.
Environmental Consultants
Wilmington, NC
0@00
D
AUG -92012
�ENR _
'�Fando- &�St�� -AIITY
August 2012

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................ ..............................1
II. METHODOLOGY .............................................................................. ..............................2
A. MONITORING PARAMETERS .................................................... :.............................3
B. FIELD SAMPLING PROTOCOL .................................................. ..............................3
C. DATA ANALYSIS ......................................................................... ..............................5
III. RESULTS .................:........................................................................... ..............................5 _
A. STEM DENSITY ............................................................................ ..............................5
B. STEM HEIGHT .............................................................................. ..............................6
C. SEDIMENTS .................................................................................. ..............................6
D. BENTHIC INFAUNA .................................................................... ..............................7
IV. DISCUSSION ...................................................................................... ..............................8
A. VEGETATION (Spartina alterniflora) .......................................... .....................:........8
B. SEDIMENTS .................................................................................. ..............................9
C. BENTHIC INVERTEBRATES (BACKBARRIER INFAUNA) .. .............................10
D. PHYSICAL MONITORING AND HABITAT TYPES ..........:..... .............................10
V. CONCLUSION ................................................................................... .............................11
List of Tables, Figures and Appendices
Figure 1 .................................... ............................... Updated Transect Location Map (2010 Aerial)
Figure2- 17 .................................................................................. ............................... Data Analysis
Appendix A. Benthic Infaunal Summary of Findings
Appendix B. August 2011 Site Photographs

MASON INLET RELOCATION PROJECT
ANNUAL BIOLOGICAL MONITORING REPORT (YEAR 10)
I. INTRODUCTION
The goal of the biological monitoring program is to determine if there is a significant
difference between pre - construction (Year 0) and post - construction conditions (Year 1,
Year 2, Year 3, etc.) for specific parameters sampled annually in tidal marsh, intertidal
sand flat, and barrier island beachfront (i.e. intertidal surf zone) habitats located within
and adjacent to the project area. These data, in conjunction with data collected from
supplemental monitoring programs, will help to document any potential impact to
habitats resulting from project activities.
Pre- and post - construction monitoring provides data related to primary productivity,
benthic infaunal abundance and composition, substrate texture /organic content, and
beachfront macroinvertebrate densities (Years 0 through 6 only). Quantitative and
qualitative sampling yields information to be used to determine if any deleterious effects
may be attributable to the inlet relocation project. The extent to which monitoring
parameters will be affected depends on various physical conditions '(e.g. the character of
the dredged material, tidal and current regimes, etc.). Therefore, concurrent physical
monitoring is referenced in annual biological monitoring reports.
Additional monitoring is conducted by UNC Wilmington and Audubon North Carolina.
At the onset of the project, the Mason Inlet Waterbird Management Plan was developed
to help protect critical nesting habitat along the north end of Wrightsville Beach.
Audubon North Carolina currently manages this area through the installation of
informational signage, patrols, and visitor education programs. In addition, Audubon
assists UNC- Wilmington with monitoring of bird usage and nest success. Analysis of the
benthic infaunal communities is conducted by UNCW Center for Marine Science each
monitoring year. The summary of findings for the benthic analysis is included as an

appendix to this document (refer to Appendix A). The hydrographic monitoring report
and the waterbird monitoring report are submitted annually as independent documents to
reviewing regulatory agencies.
Reports for post - construction monitoring Year 1 to Year 6 were based on data collected
during the late fall /early winter season. The timing of the sampling during these years
was intended to coincide with the original pre - construction monitoring event conducted
in early December 2001. During an interagency meeting in April 2008, the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers ( USACE) requested that biological monitoring be shifted to the
growing season. In addition, the USACE modified the monitoring plan to discontinue
macro - invertebrate sampling of the beachfront and benthic infaunal sampling of intertidal
flats. As a result of the meeting, Year 7 monitoring was conducted in August 2008
(approximately ten months after the Year 6 event). Year 8 monitoring was conducted in
September 2009. Year 9 monitoring was conducted in August 2010. Year 10 monitoring
was conducted in August 2011. All future monitoring will occur during the late
summer /early fall season. Subsequent analysis of inter -year trends in data (winter
sampling in Year 0 through Year 6 and summer sampling in Year 7 through Year 10)
must take into consideration variability due to seasonality. The following report
summarizes.the methodology and results for Year 10 (August 2011) post - construction
monitoring.
II. METHODOLOGY
Sampling for Year 1 post - construction conditions was conducted in December 2002
approximately seven (7) months after project completion. Annual monitoring is to
continue for the life of the permit or until such time deemed necessary by relevant federal
and/or state agencies. Note that based upon the April 2008 interagency meeting,
sampling of macro - invertebrates of the beachfront and benthic infauna of intertidal flats
has been discontinued. Six years of post - construction data for these biological indices
has been provided in earlier reports.
N

A. Monitoring Parameters
Selection of monitoring parameters has been based upon those factors potentially
impacted by project activities and those readily sampled and evaluated. The following
monitoring parameters are included in the assessment:
(1) Spartina stem density
(2) Mature ( >30 cm height) Spartina stem height
(3) Percent sand, silt, and clay of surface substrate
(4) Percent organic content of surface substrate
(5) Distance (ft) loss or gain of intertidal marsh habitat at transect locations.
These parameters, while traditionally viewed as representative indicators of marsh habitat
structure and function, require less intensive and less frequent sampling than other biotic
or chemical indices. In addition to the identified quantitative sampling, qualitative
observations of marsh and/or intertidal habitat may be noted. Photographic
documentation of Year 10 sampling is provided in Appendix B.
B. Field Sampling Protocol
Sampling efforts focused on the area of potential impact where biota and physical
conditions (e.g. soil texture) are most likely affected by project activities and associated
perturbations such as altered flooding regime and sedimentation. Any perturbations to
tidal marsh will manifest in system responses distributed linearly from Mason Creek.
Therefore, three permanent 300 -foot monitoring transects were established along a
roughly perpendicular axis on each side of Mason Creek (totaling six transects). These
transects are labeled MT I, MT2, MT3, MT4, MT5, and MT6, respectively). Five
permanent stations along each transect (located 5, 50, 100, 150 and 300 feet away from
the marsh edge along Mason Creek) were established prior to the initiation of the project.
The station located furthest from Mason Creek (300 ft) serves as the control plot for each
transect.
Any stations affected by post - project erosion/sloughing near the creek bank were re-
3

established at prescribed distances from the new creek edge. In these cases where only
one or two stations within a transect were required to be re- established, the new station
was offset perpendicular to the original transect. Note that in 2008, transects MT4, MT5,
and MT6 were relocated due to erosion on the southern bank of Masons Creek. Since
that time, transect alignments have remained unchanged. Refer to Figure 1 for current
transect locations.
One -meter square quadrats at each station were sampled for stem density and height
range of S. alterniflora. Stem heights were grouped in categories based upon pre-
determined ranges (30 -60 cm, 60 -90 cm, 90 -120 cm, >120 cm). Each height range was
assigned a value (1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively). The number of stems in each category was
then multiplied by the corresponding height value to obtain a height index. Cumulative
height indices for each quadrat were calculated and recorded.
Sediments were characterized according to percent sand/silt/clay and percent organic
matter (OM). One sample was collected at each of the fixed stations (5, 50, 100, and 150,
and 300 -ft plots). Sediment samples were transferred to A &L Agricultural Labs
(Richmond, VA) for-particle size analysis and OM by combustion. Note that during prior
monitoring years (i.e. Year 1 through Year 6), sediment deposition and/or loss was
evaluated through the use -of notched PVC pipe installed at each station. However, this
part of the assessment was discontinued after Year 6 due to the on- going, comprehensive
physical monitoring of the project area by Gahagan and Bryant Associates, Inc.
Metal rebar installed flush with the sediment surface prior to project construction was
used to evaluate sediment deposition and/or loss over time for each plot. Notched PVC
pipe was used as a supplemental method of evaluating sediment accretion and/or loss.
Note that the loss of stations throughout post - construction monitoring has limited the
scope of this assessment. This evaluation was performed for six years but has since been
discontinued due to the more comprehensive detailed physical monitoring program.
Biological monitoring included a benthic infaunal survey. Three replicates of 15 cm

deep cores (10 cm diameter) were sampled at three observation points (i.e. at 5', 150',
and 300' from creek edge) along three of the six transects (MT2, MT4, and MT6)
(N =27). Replicates were collected within 10 ft of the permanent vegetative quadrat at a
1
randomly - generated bearing. Individual core samples were transferred to sample bags
and labeled. All samples were transferred to UNCW- Center for Marine Science benthic
laboratory for processing and identification. Samples were fixed using a 10% formalin
solution and sieved through a 0.5 mm screen mesh to separate infauna from sediment and
vegetative material. Benthic infaunal organisms were enumerated and identified to the
lowest reliable taxonomic level. Species richness and abundance were calculated from
these data.
C. Data Analysis
Mean values of each parameter were statistically compared using Analysis of Variance
(ANOVA) /paired t- tests. Ninety -five percent confidence intervals were used to
determine statistically significant differences of means (means are significantly different
if confidence intervals do not overlap; p< 0.05). Outliers (values +/- 2 times the standard
deviation) were removed from all statistical operations.
III. RESULTS
A. Stem Density
(1) Post - Construction (Year 10)
Mean Spartina stem density for all quadrats sampled was 46.1 +/- 13.7 stems /m2 (N =29).
There was no significant difference in mean stem density between the north side of
Mason Creek and the south side of Mason Creek (48.3 +/- 14.9 stems /m2 and 43.8 +/-
12.5 stems /m2, respectively) (refer to Figure 2). There was no observed significant
difference in stem density related to distance from creek (refer to Figure 3). ANOVA did
not reveal any significant differences among transects with regard to stem densities (refer
to Figure 4).
W

a
(2) Pre - Construction (Year 0) vs. Post - Construction (Year I through Year 10)
Mean stem density of Year 10 (46.1 stems /m2) was not significantly different from Year 1,
Year 2, Year 8, and Year 9. However, stem densities were significantly lower than in Year 0
(pre- construction) and Year 4 (post- construction) (refer to Figure 5). Mean stem density in
Year 10 was significantly higher than in Year 3, Year 5, Year 6, and Year 7.
B. Stem Height
(1) Post - Construction (Year 10)
Mean stem height index was significantly greater on the north side of Mason Creek than
on the south side of Mason Creek (mean height indices of 117.0 +/- 48.2 and 87.8 +/-
29.3 respectively) (refer to Figure 6). There was no significant difference in height
indices as a function of distance from creek bank (refer to Figure 7). Of the six transects .
sampled, stem heights were lowest in Transects 1 and 5 (mean height indices of 77.4 +/-
51.0 and 78.2 +/- 24.6 respectively) and highest in Transects 2 and 3 (mean height indices
of 141.2 +/- 33.8 and 132.4 +/- 37.2 respectively) (refer to Figure 8).
(2) Pre - Construction (Year 0) vs. Post - Construction (Year I through Year 10)
The observed mean stem height index for Year 10 was 102.4 +/- 41.9. Observed stem -
heights during Year 10 were not significantly different than those observed during Year 0
(pre- construction), Year 4 (post- construction), Year 8 (post- construction) and Year 9
(post- construction) (refer to Figure 9). Stem heights were significantly higher in Year 10
than in Year 1, Year 2, Year 3, Year 5, Year 6, and Year 7. Of the ten years of
monitoring (including pre - construction), the mean stem height index was greatest during
Years 4, 8, and 10 (post- construction).
C. Sediments
(1) Post - Construction (Year 10)
Sediments collected from the south side of Mason Creek exhibited significantly higher
0

percent sand than sediments collected from the north side of Mason Creek (85.9 +/- 5.5%
sand and 74.6 +/- 13.1 % sand, respectively) (refer to Figure 10). There was no
significant difference in percent sand as a function of distance from the creek bank (refer
to Figure 11). However, samples collected 5 ft from Mason Creek consistently exhibited
the highest percent sand (88.7 +/- 4.1% sand).
Sediments collected from the north side of Mason Creek exhibited significantly higher
percent organic matter than sediments collected from the south side of Mason Creek (5.7
+/- 4.9% OM and 1.8 ±/- 1.1 % OM, respectively) (refer to Figure 12). There was no
significant difference in percent OM as a function of distance from the creek bank (refer
to Figure 13). However, samples collected 5 ft. from Mason Creek -consistently exhibited
slightly lower percent OM (0.9 +/- 0.3% OM).
(2) Pre - Construction (Year 0) vs. Post - Construction (Year 1 through Year 10)
There was no statistically significant difference observed between mean percent sand for
pre - construction (December 2001, 84.5 %) and post - construction Year 1 through 10
samples (80.0 %, 81.1%, 86.2 %, 86.1%, 84.8 %, 84.1%, 84.6 %, 83.9 %, 76.2 %, and 80.2%
respectively) (refer to Figure 14). Mean percent sand was lower in Year 9 (post -
construction) than in Year 3 (post- construction).
There was no statistical difference observed between mean percent OM for pre -
construction (December 2001, 2.8 %) and post - construction Year 1 through 8 and Year 10
samples (4.2 %, 4.0 %, 2.9 %, 2.6 %, 2.2 %, 2.2 %, 3.2 %, 3.4 %, and 3.7% respectively)
(refer to Figure 15). However, mean percent OM for Year 9 (post- construction) (5.5 %)
was significantly higher than in Year 0 (pre- construction).
D. - Benthic Infauna
Benthic infaunal identification and data analysis was conducted by Troy Alphin,
Research Associate at the Center for Marine Science (University of North Carolina at
Wilmington). A summary report of findings with supporting tables and figures is
7

included as Appendix A.
IV. DISCUSSION
A. Vegetation (Spartina alterniflora)
As identified above, annual monitoring for Year 7 through Year 10 has been conducted
during the latter part of summer (i.e. August and September). During prior years (Year 0
through Year 6), monitoring was conducted during late November or early December of
each year. As a result of the temporal shift, seasonality is introduced as a confounding
variable when evaluating inter -year (i.e. Year 7 through Year 10 vs. Year 0 through Year
6) data trends. - Inter -year patterns inferred through data collected in future monitoring
events will not be influenced by seasonality since future monitoring is to occur during
August or early September of each year.
Comparison between years is possible while recognizing seasonality as a confounding
variable. It should be noted that the mean stem density of Spartina alterniflora during
Year 10 monitoring was significantly higher than Years 3, 5, 6, and 7. However, overall
stem densities for Year 10 remain significantly lower than those documented during pre -
construction monitoring. Of all the monitoring events, Year 0 and Year 4 exhibited the
greatest mean stem densities. These same trends are evident in the control plots (Figure
16). In consideration of this, inter -year variation (rather than project - related factors)
appears to have a greater influence on observed stem densities.
No significant differences in Spartina stem densities were observed between quadrat
locations (5', 50', 150', and 300') in any monitoring year. Stem densities were not
significantly different between the north and south sides of Mason Creek during most
years. However, stem density was significantly higher on the north side of Mason Creek
than on the south side of Mason Creek during Year 4 and Year 9. Sedimentation

processes of the inlet throat and flood tide shoals have resulted in adjustments to the
channel pattern of Mason Creek and associated sediment losses and/or gains along the
length of the creek. As a result, transects MT4, MT5, and MT6 (on the southern side of
the creek) were re- established in 2008 (Year 7). Prior to the re- establishment of these
transects, stem densities at MT5 and MT6 were often lower than the other transects.
However, since re- establishment, there have been no significant differences in stem
densities between transects other than in Year 8. In Year 8, stem density was
significantly lower at MT6. Between Year 9 and Year 10, the channel bank along MT4
exhibited some erosion (14 ft) as evidenced by the sampling station distance from the
creek bank. Transect conditions at MT5 and MT6 appeared to be relatively unchanged.
It appears that the recent relatively stable conditions at MT5 and MT6 may have resulted
in stem densities that are comparable to the other transects.
Stem height indices were significantly greater on the north side of Mason Creek than on
the south side in Year 10. While Year 0 data did not yield a statistical difference in stem
height indices between the north and south sides of the creek, it has been noted that the
north side of the creek is a more mature marsh system with generally taller Spartina
stems. For all years of monitoring (including pre - construction), stem height indices were
highest during Year 4, Year 8, and Year 10 monitoring. There was no observed statistical
difference in stem heights between pre - construction and Year 4 through Year 10 post -
construction. Stem heights were lowest in Years 1 through 3 and Years 5 through 7. The
same pattern was also observed in the control plots (Figure 17). In light of the results for
all years and the observed pattern for control sites, it appears as though inter -year
variation has a more prominent effect on stem heights than project - related factors.
B. Sediments
Sediments collected from the south side of Mason Creek exhibited significantly higher
percent sand than sediments collected from the north side of Mason Creek. Conversely,
sediments from the north side of Mason Creek exhibited significantly higher percent OM.
This same pattern was observed during the pre - project monitoring conducted in
I

December 2001. As stated in the Pre - Construction Biological Monitoring Report,
sediment data suggest that the south side of Mason Creek is a relatively new, accreting
marsh system compared to the marsh located north of the creek.
As was reported in Year 0, there was no significant difference in percent sand as a
function of distance from the creek bank. However, samples collected near the edge of
Mason Creek consistently exhibited the highest percent sand. Likewise, there was no
significant difference in percent OM as a function of distance from the creek bank.
However, samples collected near the edge of Mason Creek exhibited the lowest percent
OM. During Year 1 and Year 2, percent OM was highest at stations furthest from Mason
Creek (i.e. 300 -ft). Results from Year 10 resemble those from pre - construction
monitoring (Year 0).
C. Benthic Invertebrates (Backbarrier Infauna)
A summary of findings for the benthic infaunal sampling and characterization is provided
as Appendix A of this report. Overall, mean abundances were fairly consistent among
sampling locations in 2011. Species richness was similar to previous years with no site
differences. Diversity was relatively low as in previous years. Please refer to Appendix
A for more detailed characterization of the benthic community sampled during Year 10.
D. Physical Monitoring and Habitat Types
Physical (i.e. hydrographic) monitoring is conducted on an annual basis to document
sedimentation processes in the inlet area over time. As part of this monitoring effort,
Gahagan & Bryant Associates, Inc. (GBA) produces annual monitoring reports that
include detailed shoreline /channel profiles and bathymetric maps. Based upon the data
collected, observed trends in sediment deposition and loss are evaluated. As evidenced
through physical survey and aerial imagery, adjustments occurring within the inlet
interior include increased shoaling of the flood -tidal delta and of the channel thalweg
connecting Mason Creek to the inlet throat. Please refer to the hydrographic reports
10

submitted under separate cover by GBA for more detailed information regarding
bathymetric conditions within and adjacent to the relocated inlet.
V. CONCLUSION
Pre - construction monitoring data demonstrate some observed patterns related to station
location (i.e. distance and position relative to creek). Year 10 monitoring demonstrated
stem heights and densities similar to Year 9. Stem density remains significantly lower
than Year 0 (pre- construction) and lower than Year 4 (post- construction). This pattern
was observed within the 300 -ft. control stations as well (indicative of inter -year
variation). Note also that stem height in Year 10 was not significantly different from
Year 0 or Year 4. Given the range of recorded data, it appears that inter - annual variation
exerts equal or greater influence over plant growth rather than project - related effects.
This is further supported by the fact that stem densities and stem heights recorded during
Year 4 were not significantly different from pre - construction data.
While adjustments in the channel morphology of Mason Creek resulted in physical
changes to sampling locations in previous .years, no significant changes were noted
during Year 10. In addition, there were no significant differences in sediment
composition or benthic infaunal species richness between Year 9 and Year 10. As noted
in Appendix A, there was some variation in relative dominance among stations.
However, all three transects were dominated by a deep burrowing polychaete (Capitella
capitata) and a deep burrowing oligochaete (Tubificidae spp.). Both of these organisms
are not likely to be readily available as a food source for most juvenile fishes. Future
monitoring will identify any shifts in species composition, relative dominance, and
diversity.
11

FIGURES

.t
rr
s,
N
F"
s
•
CL
+cu
G
CU A
U -C
0.
Co
U 0)
N O
t/) 0
e .e
cu n
�L
-F-I Q
cu
Q. O
0
N
N
L
W
c
m
M
C)'J
;l ]
1
11
0 IR P, A-
LNI
Q
co
ZI, o"',
S
�
.X f„c
4 4, ,
s,
N
F"
s
•
CL
+cu
G
CU A
U -C
0.
Co
U 0)
N O
t/) 0
e .e
cu n
�L
-F-I Q
cu
Q. O
0
N
N
L
W
c
m
M
C)'J
;l ]
1
11
0 IR P, A-
LNI
Q
co

Figure 2. Analysis of Stem Density vs. Position Relative to Mason Creek (Year 10)
N
E
AL
W
Q
N
AE
W
4-8
N
O
N
C
N
E
N
U)
N
E
L
CL
cW
C
a)
CO
O
N
i
a)
0
C
a)
a...
w
40
SO
!0
North South
Position Relative to Mason Creek
Figure 3. Stem Density vs. Distance from Mason Creek
N =25
p = 0.8773
.. vv IVV 1.7V .iI
Distance from Mason Creek (ft)

Figure 4. Analysis of Stem Density vs. Transect Number (Year 10)
N
E
ALA
W
Q
CA
AE
W
Cn
%F
O
N
^C
W
^E
W
VJ
1 2 3 4 5 6
Transect Number
Figure 5. Analysis of Stem Density (Pre- Project vs. Post - Project)
140
130 N = 316
p = <0.0001
120
C^ 110
E
L 100
N —
Q- go
-
E 80- -
N
v 70
O 60 � _
� 50 � — —
C 40 — -
N
0 <I>4><z>
30
N20
() 10
0
-10
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Year

Figure 6. Analysis of Height Index vs. Position Relative to Mason Creek (Year 10)
� 1
m
cc 1
>
F
N 1
N
O
� 1
X
N 1
C
+..
O1
E
N
U)
North South
Position Relative to Mason Creek
Figure 7. Analysis of Stem Height Index vs. Distance from Mason Creek (Year 9)
� 1
7
� 1
>
is
N
N 1
.-
N
`— 1
O
X 1
N
C
L
E
N
U)
5 50 100 150 300
Distance from Mason Creek (ft)

Figure 8. Analysis of Height Index vs. Transect Number (Year 10)
� 1a
> 1E
N 14
r
O
0 12
X 1C
a�
5 a
L
E 4
N
W 2
0
M
cu
0
0
D
0
D
D
D
D
D
N =30
p = 0.0348
I
1 2 3 4 5 6
Transect Number
Figure 9. Analysis of Stem Height Index (Pre- Project vs. Post - Project)
200
E 150
N
N
O
U
X
N 100
C
L
O)
Z
2
E 50
(D
y-+
U)
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1C
Year

Figure 10. Analysis of % Sand of Sediments vs. Position Relative to Mason Creek
-v
cc
aD
U
N
d
North South
Position Relative to Mason Creek
Figure 11. Analysis of % Sand of Sediments vs. Distance from Mason Creek
1a
90
C
CU
07 80
c
N
U
N
i7
70
60
50
///T
N =30
p = 0.1949
5 50 100 150 300
Distance from Creek (ft)

Figure 12. Analysis of % Organic Matter of Sediments vs. Position Relative to Mason Creek
L
C�
G
U_
C
t0
C1
L
O
Y
^C
W
U
L
^Q
I -
North South
Position Relative to Mason Creek
Figure 13. Analysis of % Organic Matter of Sediments vs. Distance from Mason Creek
L
2)
O
c
m
U
N
a-
12
N =29
1 — p = 0.0615
0 —
9
7 \ \
6 \
5 \� —
3 \ / —
0 \\
2
5 50 100 150 300
Distance from Creek (ft)

Figure 14. Analysis of % Sand by Year (Pre-Project vs. Post-Project)
IUU
90
80
a)
AL`
CL
70
60
A
'71
N =317
p = 0.0483
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
Year
Figure 15. Analysis of % Organic Matter by Year (Pre-Project vs. Post-Project)
N
0
C.)
N = 306
p = 0.0387
'-7
L_
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
Year

Figure 16. Stem Densities at Control Locations (300' away from marsh edge) by Year
1
E
CI
CO
E
Ca
%4.--
0
M
C
a)
E
cn
)0- p = <0.0001
30-
70-
io-
io
to-
47
'17
!0
10-
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1C
Year
Figure 17. Stem Heights at Control Locations (300' away from marsh edge) by Year
200 ,
CO
E
2
U)
O
100
N
E
0
W
\ 3\
7,
—
N =66
p = <0.0001
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Year

APPENDIX A.
BENTHIC INFAUNAL SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

Monitoring of Benthic Faunal Communities associated with the
Mason Inlet Relocation Project — 2011 (Year 10) Sampling
Prepared by Troy Alphin
Research Associate, Center for Marine Science
University of North Carolina at Wilmington
Introduction
The status/health of the environment is the critical question facing private, municipal, and
commercial property owners throughout the coastal areas of the United States, since
regulations to protect these sensitive areas tend to impact them to a greater extent.
Federal and state management agencies as well as non - governmental organizations
(NGO's) have studied the issue from a number of perspectives. With large scale impacts
to many of our estuarine systems, the idea of assessing the health of key parameters is
important. This project focuses on assessing the benthic community on a regular basis to
address the issue of marsh health. Why evaluate benthic communities? What are the
organisms that make up the benthic community? Why does the composition of these
communities matter? These are generally the questions that are asked regarding the
benthic fauna and communities.
The health of estuarine habitats is often based on the provision of certain ecosystem
functions. Marsh habitats act as nurseries because they provide both refuge for early
juveniles of many species and because they provide areas for them to forage. In most
cases these species forage (or prey) upon small organisms (mostly macro invertebrates)
that live in or on the substrate surface or closely associated with the plant structures. The
investigation of these organisms and the communities they form is often difficult because
of their small size and highly variable abundance which is based on small scale spatial
changes, temporal fluctuation, and response to predators. The development of these
macro invertebrate communities is closely tied to the proper ecosystem function of marsh
systems. If the benthic community is insufficient for the needs of the juvenile fishes to
forage, then the fish community will leave the relative safety of the marsh habitat,
potentially increasing the risk of predation. It is possible that large scale changes in
benthic macro invertebrate communities could lead to shifts in the year class strength of
some species.
Benthic infaunal and epibenthic macrofauna are often studied to help evaluate the
function of various estuarine, marine, and aquatic habitats. Many of these organisms
comprise a significant portion of the diet of estuarine fishes and are critical to the
maintenance of healthy fish populations. In many cases benthic organisms are the
critical food resource for larval and juvenile fishes. Since the life history stages of both
predator (fish) and prey (infauna and epifauna) are closely linked temporally, it is vital
that benthic communities thrive during periods that precede the recruitment of juvenile
1

fish. In essence if the benthic organisms are not present when juvenile fish move into the
river, bay, or sound, then the possibility of recruitment failure for these fish increases.
Benthic infauna are those organisms that live within the sedimentary environment or on
the sediment surface, although organisms that primarily live on the sediment surface are
referred to as "epi - benthic ". In general any reference to epi- fauna, in this report, is
referring to the more motile crustaceans and fishes, especially juvenile finfish that may
derive a significant portion of their diet from the benthos. The organisms that comprise
the majority of the benthic community are annelids (both polychaete and oligochaete),
bivalves, amphipods, isopods, and insects. Although other taxonomic groups are often
present, these groups tend to represent the numerical dominants for most estuarine sites.
These organisms demonstrate a variety of life history strategies, based on feeding type
and living position. While surface oriented species may be readily available to bottom
foraging fishes, deep burrowing forms are less like to be preyed upon.
This study focuses on the subgroup of benthic fauna considered macrofauna within the
size class of 500 microns (1000 microns = 1 millimeter) or greater. Most benthic
organisms in this size class are heavily preyed upon by larger finish and crustaceans.
These organisms tend to live 6 months to 1 year (although there are some groups such as
bivalves that can live for a number of years to decades depending on the species). These
organisms also tend to have relatively low motility and once settled tend to move less
than 5 meters over the course of their lives. The benthic community provides a critical
ecosystem role in transferring energy to higher trophic levels because this group feeds
primarily on algae and detritus (although there are some predatory forms as well). The
other main reason for studying this group is based on their close relationship with the
sediment, and different taxa will respond to acute and chronic disturbances of this habitat
in different ways. Monitoring of benthic fauna is an important part of many
environmental studies, including dredge and fill operations, beach renourishment
projects, and marsh restoration projects because they provide a good indicator of both
short and long term impacts and recovery. While year to year changes (inter - annual
variation) are natural, acute and chronic impacts to the habitat are better evaluated on a
multi -year basis when annual variation can be factored out.
Sampling Design
This report covers the 2011 sampling period. Samples were collected along three marsh
transect locations during August 2011. Benthic infaunal assessments have been
conducted in August since the 2008 sampling year. All previous benthic assessments
(2002 -2007) were collected in November/ December. In general most members of the
benthic community recruit into the system in the spring of the year with some species
recruiting in the fall (there are a few species with a longer recruitment period that lasts
throughout the summer). However many species of finfish synchronize their recruitment
into the system to take advantage of the benthic resource, so their appearance in the
system tends to track the benthos.
FA

Infaunal samples were collected using standard benthic cores, 10 cm diameter x 15 cm
deep. The sites sampled in the 2011 sampling period included a series of marsh transect
locations (MT2, MT4 and MT6). These stations have been sampled since the start of the
project in 2002, although some sites and /or positions have been relocated due to site
changes such as erosion. The MT transects consisted of three replicate core samples
taken at each of three distances from the marsh edge (5, 150, and 300 feet into the marsh)
on each transect (though the exact edge location varied somewhat over time with erosion
or accretion).
All samples were fixed in 10% buffered formalin (formaldehyde derivative) solution with
rose Bengal dye added and later transferred to a 70% isoproponol preservative for storage
and processing. Samples were sieved through a 500 micron screen to remove fine
sediments and aid processing. All organisms retained were separated from the remaining
sediment and vegetative material using light microscopes and identified to the lowest
possible taxonomic level (generally species). As part of our standard quality control and
quality assurance procedures, identifications are subject to verification and a subset of
sorted samples are rechecked to ensure removal of all organisms. All newly identified
species and those that could not be identified to the species level are sent to authorities
for clarification. Community assessment is based on the composition, density, and
dominance of organisms. For the purpose of this report species richness is defined at the
total number of taxa collected at a given site. Organisms that could not be identified to
the species level were left at the higher taxon but were not included in the calculation for
species richness. Diversity was calculated using the Shannon Diversity Index that takes
into account the relative abundance of organisms as well as the evenness or proportion of
individuals of each species at a given site. Here dominance is defined as all of those
species that make up 3% or more of the total number of individuals at a given site.
Community Description
Mean total abundance was fairly consistent in 2011. Only MT4 300 differed from other
sites and transects (Figure 1). Species richness showed a similar pattern to previous years
with no differences among sites (Figure 2). As reported in the 2010 report, MT6 300
showed the lowest number of species present. Species richness per site was similar to
previous years with a range of 5 to as many as 15 species present at a site. The Shannon
Diversity Index takes into account number of taxa as well as species distribution or
evenness. Comparison of mean diversity among sites showed, as in previous years,
diversity was low at all sites (Figure 3). In this case most of the values calculated fell
between 0.5 and 0.8. Comparison among sites and transects reveals that MT6 300 has
significantly lower diversity than sites on the MT2 and MT4 transects. Comparison
between 2010 and 2011 for total abundance (Figure 4) and diversity (Figure 5) showed a
single difference between years for MT2 5. In both cases 2011 showed a distinct increase
over 2010. Figure 6 -8 show the breakdown of dominance by major taxonomic grouping.
Figures 9 -11 show the species level breakdown of dominance by species for each
transect. Tables 2 -4 show the mean density of dominant taxa in 2010 and 2011. For
3

comparative purposes the mean values in these tables have been rounded to one decimal
place. These tables illustrate the interannual change between dominant taxa in 2010 and
2011. While taxa such as Capitella capitata and Tubificidae were consistent between
years (and in fact over several previous years), a number of the other taxa have been
replaced completely.
A total of 49 taxa were collected during the 2011 sampling period (similar to 2009 and
2010) including terrestrial forms (Table 1). There were 14 taxa that represented 3% or
more of the individuals collected at MT2 (Figure 6 and 9, Table 2) (Tubificidae sp.,
Streblospio benedicti, Sphaeroma quadidentatum, Nematoda sp., Lumbriculidae sp.,
Lepidactylus dytiscus, Laeonereis culveri, Hydracarina sp., Hargeria sp., Gastropoda
juv., Dolichopodidae sp., Capitella capitata, Brachidontes exutus, and Anurida
maritime),11 taxa for MT4 (Figure 7 and 10, Table 3) ( Uca pugilator, Tubificidae sp.,
Sphaeroma quadidentatum, Nematoda sp., Lumbriculidae sp., Hydracarina sp., Hargeria
rapax., Dolichopodidae sp., Capitella capitata, Anurida maritime and Acarina sp.), and
8 taxa for MT6 (Figure 8 and 12, Table 4) (Tubificidae sp., Sphaeroma quadidentatum,
Lumbriculidae sp., Lepidactylus dytiscus, Dolichopodidae sp., Capitella capitata,
Anurida maritime and Acarina sp.)
This listing of dominant taxa is similar to those reported in 2010 but only about half of
those reported in 2009. There was some degree of variation in the relative dominance
among the three transects. However, all three transects were dominated by Capitella
capitata (a deep burrowing polychaete) and Tubificidae spp. (a deep burrowing
oligochaete) as they did in 2010. Both of these particular groups tend to live well below
the substrate surface and neither of these species is likely to be readily available as a food
source for most juvenile fishes. One of the major functions of any marsh is the provision
of general nursery habitat for both finfish and crustaceans. The dominance of these
transects by deep burrowing organisms may not fully support the nursery function of the
marsh. However these sites seem to continue their development via shifts in species
composition, relative dominance, and diversity.
0

250
200
a
u
m 150
-o
c
.n
a
To
0
M 100
50
0
AB
0
0
A
AB
B B
B
B
MT2 5 MT2 150 MT2 300 MT4 5 MT4 150 MT4 300 MT6 5 MT6 150 MT6 300
Figure 1. Mean total abundance of organisms collected from all sites 2011. Columns
that share a letter designation do not differ from one another.
5

16
A
I
14
12
AB
N
N
10
r
v
N
8
d
a
N
c
d 6
4-
2-
M
AB
AB AB AB
AB
W.
B
MT2 5 MT2 150 MT2 300 MT4 5 MT4 150 MT4 300 MT6 5 MT6 150 MT6 300
Figure 2. Mean species richness. Species richness is defined as the total number of taxa
as a given site /position. Columns that share a letter designation do not differ
significantly.
J

0.9
0.8 I
0.7
0.6
d
0.5
N
�u
QI
a 0.4
c
A
d
0.3
0.2
0.1
m
A A
AB AB AB
BCD CD
ABC
L17
MT2 5 MT2 150 MT2 300 MT4 5 MT4 150 MT4 300 MT6 5 MT6 150 MT6 300
Figure 3. Mean species diversity per site. Diversity was calculated using the Shannon
diversity index that accounts for the relative aduncane of each species and the evenness
of each species.
7

300
250
a
= 200
v
= Q
Q 150
m
■ 2010
°1 100 I ■ 2011
� I 1
50 'K T
1
pz
MT2 5 MT2 150 MT2 300 MT4 5 MT4 150 MT4 300 MT6 5 MT6 150 MT6 300
Figure 4. Comparison of mean total abundance between 2010 and 2011. In this case
only MT2 5 differed between years.
E

0.90
0.80
0.70
0. 60
d
0.50
N
d
'v
c-0.40
Ln
C
A
2 0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
MT2 5 MT2 150 MT2 300 MT4 5 MT4 150 MT4 300 MT6 5 MT6 150 MT6 300
Figure S. Comparison between years based on diversity. In this case only MT2 5
showed a significant difference.
■ 2010
■ 2011
0

Tanaidacea
Polychaeta
Oligiochaete
Nematoda
Isopoda
Insects
Hydracarina
Gastropoda
Decapoda
Bivalvia
Archnida
Anneiida
Amphipoda
MT2 5
• MT2 150
• MT2 300
0 10 20 30 40 50
Figure 6. Dominance of major taxonomic groups for the MT2 sites. Dominance is
presented for all taxonomic groups greater than 3% of all total fauna.
10

Tanaidacea
Polychaeta t:•,: - ,
Oligiochaete _ -
Nematoda
Isopoda I
Insects �+
Hydracarina
MT4 S
Gastropoda
■ MT4 150
Decapoda
Bivatvia ■ MT4 300
Archnida
Annelida
Amphipoda
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Figure 7. Dominance of major taxonomic groups for the MT4 sites. Dominance is
presented for all taxonomic groups that comprise 3% or more of the total fauna.
11

Tanaidacea
Polychaeta
Oligiochaete
Ne matoda
Isopoda
Insecta A
Hydracarina
MT6 5
Gastropoda
■ MT6 150
Decapoda
■ MT6 300
Bivalvia
Archnida
Annelida
Amphipoda
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Figure 8. Dominance of major taxonomic groups for the MT 6 sites. Dominance
is based on all taxonomic groups that comprise 3% or more of the total faunal
abundance.
12

Uca pugilator
Tubiticidae sp
Streblospio benedictii
Sphaeroma quadridentatum
Nematoda sp
Neanthes succinea
lumbriculidae sp
Lepidactylus dytiscus
Laeonereis culveri
Hydracarina sp MT2 5
Hargeria rapax ■ MT2 150
I
Gastropoda juv sp ■ MT2 300
Dolichopodidea sp
Capitella capitata
Brachidontes exustus
Anurida maritima
Annelida sp
Acarina (Acari) sp
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Figure 9. Dominance of individual taxa for the MT2 sites. Dominance is defined as
species that comprise 3% or more of the total faunal abundance.
13

Uca pugilator
Tubificidae sp
Streblospio benedicti
Sphaeroma quadridentatum
Nematoda sp
Neanthes succinea
Lumbriculidae sp
Lepidactylus dytiscus
Laeonereis culveri
Hydracarina sp MT4 5
Hargeria rapax ■ MT4 150
Gastropoda juv sp ■ MT4 300
Dolichopodidea sp
Capitella capitata
Brachidontes exustus
Anurida mar4ima
Annelida sp
Acarina (A(ari) sp
0 10 20 30 40 so 60
Figure 10. Dominance of individual taxa for the MT4 sites. Dominance is defined as
species that comprise 3% or more of the total faunal abundance
14

Uca pugilator
Tubificidae sp
Streblospio benedicti
Sphaeroma quadridentatum
Nematoda sp
Neanthes succinea
lumbriculidae sp
lepidactylus dytiscus
laeonereis culveri
Hydracarina sp
Hargeria rapax
Gastropoda juv sp
Dolichopodidea sp
Capitella capitata
Brachidontes exusthu
Anurida maritima
Annelida sp
Acarina (Acari) sp
MT6 5
■ MT6 150
pM[:iEICA
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Figure 11. Dominance of individual taxa for the MT6 sites. Dominance is defined as
species that comprise 3% or more of the total faunal abundance
15

0
11
Table 1. Complete listing of species collected as part of the 2011 sampling. Species are
listed alphabetically.
SPECIES 2011
Acarina (Acari) sp. (terrestrial)
(Hydrobiomorpha sp.)
Anurida maritima
Laeonereis culveri
Aphelochaeta sp.
Leitoscoloplos fragilis
Bezzia/Palpomyia
Leitoscoloplos robustus
Capitella capitata
Leitoscoloplos sp.
Chelonethida sp. (terrestrial pseudoscorpion)
Lepidactylus dytiscus
Cirratulidae sp.
Leptocheliidae sp.
Coleoptera sp. (terrestrial adult)
Leptocheliidae sp. (juvenile)
Coleoptera sp. (terrestrial)
Littorina irrorata
Curculionidae sp. (terrestrial larval weevil)
Lumbriculidae sp.
Curculionidae sp. (terrestrial weevil)
Mediomastus ambiseta
Dasyhelea sp.
Mediomastus sp.
Diptera spp. (pupa)
Megalops sp.
Dolichopodidae sp.
Naididae sp.
Dytiscidae sp.
Neanthes succinea
(Enchytraeidae sp.)
Nematoda sp.
Eteone heteropoda
Nemertea sp.
Fabriciola trilobata
Neohaustorius schmitzi
Flabellifera sp.
Orchestia ulheri
Flabellifera sp. (juvenile)
Panopeus herbstii
Gastropoda sp. (juvenile)
Platyhelminthes sp.
Hargeria rapax
Protohaustorius sp.
Harpacticoida sp.
Sphaeroma sp.
Haustoriidae sp. (juvenile)
Tubificidae sp.
Heteromastus filiformis
Uca sp.
Hydracarina sp.
Uca sp. (juvenile)
16

Table 2. Mean abundance of dominant species for MT2 by location for Fall 2010 and
Fall 2011.
17
`2010
2011
SPECIES
MTi25
!MT2 150
IMTi2 300
MT2 5
IMT2 150
MT2 300
(Enchytraeidae sp.)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
(Lumbriculidae sp.)
4.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Acarina (Acari) sp (terrestrial)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Annelida sp
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Anurida maritima
0.0
3.4
51.0
33.0
0.0
38.4
Bezzia /Palpomyia
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Brachidontes exustus
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.8
0.0
0.0
Capitella copitato
17.3
34.2
33.2
15.8
0.0
11.5
Diptera spp. (pupa)
5.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Dolichopodidea sp
0.0
0.0
0.0
11.1
0.0
4.3
Fabriciola trilobata
0.0
8.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Gastropoda sp (juvenile)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
24.0
0.0
Flabellifera sp (juvenile)
0.0
0.0
1 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Hargeria ropax
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
30.5
0.0
Haustoriidae sp (juvenile)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Hydracarina sp
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
25.8
Laeonereis culveri
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
12.1
0.0
Leitoscoloplos fragilis
6.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Lepidactylus dytiscus
54.2
0.0
0.0
3.8
0.0
0.0
Lumbriculidae sp
0.0
8.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.5
Neanthes succinea
0.0
5.5
0.0
0.0
6.6
0.0
Nematoda sp
0.0
6.8
0.0
0.0
8.7
0.0
Neohaustorius schmitzi
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Sphoeroma quodridentatum
0.0
0.0
0.0
16.6
0.0
0.0
Streblospio benedicti
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.4
0.0
Tubificidae sp
4.2
27.7
0.0
3.3
7.1
0.0
Uca pugilator
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Uca sp
0.0
0.0
5.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
Uca sp (juvenile)
2.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
17

Table 3. Mean abundance of dominant species for MT4 by location for Fall 2010 and
Fall 2011.
18
2010
2011
SPECIES
IVIT4 5
IVIT4 150
IVIT4 300
IVIT4 5
IVIT4 150
IVIT4 300
(Enchytraeidae sp.)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
(Lumbriculidae sp.)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Acarina (Acari) sp (terrestrial)
0.0
2.9
0.0
0.0
8.1
0.0
Annelida sp
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.2
1 0.0
0.0
Anurida maritima
4.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
10.3
0.0
Bezzia /Palpomyia
0.0
0.0
6.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
erochidontes exustus
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Capitello capitato
64.8
39.9
15.6
24.5
37.7
11.6
Diptera spp. (pupa)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Dolichopodidea sp
0.0
0.0
0.0
21.2
0.0
0.0
Fabrnciola trilobato
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Gastropoda sp (juvenile)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Flabellifera sp (juvenile)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Hargeria rapax
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1 53.9
Haustoriidae sp (juvenile)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Hydracarina sp
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.8
0.0
Laeonereis culveri
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Leitoscoloplos fragilis
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Lepidactylus dytiscus
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Lumbriculidae sp
0.0
5.2
23.9
31.4
0.0
0.0
Neanthes succinea
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Nematoda sp
4.4
7.2
0.0
0.0
3.4
0.0
Neohaustorius schmitzi
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Sphaeroma quadridentatum
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.7
0.0
0.0
Streblospio benedicti
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Tubificidae sp
12.1
31.0
47.5
0.0
22.3
25.9
Uca pugilator
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.8
0.0
Uca sp
5.4
3.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Uca sp (juvenile)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
18

Table 4. Mean abundance of dominant species for MT6 by location for Fall 2010 and
Fall 2011.
[L7'
;2010
120111
SRECI ES
I1VIT6 I5
IM T6 ,1150
I1VIT6 300
IMT6 15
MM X6.1150
I1VIT6 ,300
(Enchytraeidae sp.)
24.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
(Lumbriculidae sp.)
13.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Acarina (Acari) sp (terrestrial)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
7.2
0.0
Annelida sp
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Anurida maritima
0.0
17.9
0.0
3.1
0.0
0.0
Bezzia /Palpomyia
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Brachidontes exustus
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Capitella capitato
0.0
43.6
40.6
0.0
43.9
32.1
Diptera spp. (pupa)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Dolichopodidea sp
2.8
0.0
9.1
6.5
0.0
6.4
Fabriciola trilobata
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Gastropoda sp (juvenile)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Flabellifera sp (juvenile)
3.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Hargeria rapax
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Haustoriidae sp (juvenile)
5.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Hydracarina sp
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Laeonereis culveri
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Leitoscoloplos fragilis
3.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Lepidactylus dytiscus
0.0
0.0
0.0
46.3
0.0
0.0
Lumbriculidae sp
0.0
0.0
0.0
34.9
0.0
56.4
Neanthes succinea
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Nematoda sp
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Neohoustorius schmitzi
24.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Sphaeroma quadridentatum
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.9
0.0
0.0
Streblospio benedicti
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Tubificidae sp
13.0
25.1
41.6
0.0
31.0
0.0
Uca pugilator
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Uca sp
0.0
3.9
7.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
Uca sp (juvenile)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
[L7'

APPENDIX B.
AUGUST 2011 SITE PHOTOGRAPHS

(1) View of interior of MT1 transect on the north side of Mason Creek
(2) View of interior of MT2 transect on north side of Mason Creek
Mason Inlet
Relocation Project
New Hanover County,
LMG
LAND MANAUMENT 4RUL�P:..
NC ..,,a ..
Site Photographs
August 2011
(Post- Construction Year 10)

(1) View of interior of MT4 transect on the south side of Mason Creek
(2) View of vegetation sampling quadrat at MT4 transect on south side of Mason Creek
Mason Inlet
Relocation Project
New Hanover County, NC
LAG
Site Photographs
August 2011
(Post- Construction Year 10)

(1) View of exterior of MT4 transect on the south side of Mason Creek
(2) View of exterior of MT6 transect on south side of Mason Creek
Mason Inlet
Relocation Project
New Hanover County, NC
LMG
L NDMANAGEMENTGAUL'�Y .,
_.1r. I.,
Site Photographs
August 2011
(Post- Construction Year 10)

(1) View of sediment deposition at MT6 transect on the south side of Mason Creek
ta
Ft
(2) View of interior of MT6 transect on south side of Mason Creek
a
Mason Inlet
Relocation Project
New Hanover County, NC
LMG
LANV MANAGEMENt GROUP
Site Photographs
August 2011
(Post- Construction Year 10)