48-18 UNC Institute of Marine Science

Permit Class Permit Number
NEW 48-18
STATE OF NORTH'CAROLINA
Department of Environmental Quality
and
Coastal Resources Commission
Vermt"t
for
X Major Development in an Area of Environmental Concern
pursuant to NCGS 113A-118
X Excavation and/or filling pursuant to NCGS 113-229
Issued to UNC Institute of Marine Science, 3431 Arendell St. Morehead Citv, NC 28557
Authorizing development in Carteret County at Conflux of North River & Back Sound.
between North River & Middle Marshes, as requested in the pernrittee's application dated 3/29/17, including
attached workplan drawings (5) all dated "Received DCM I IM Citv 3/29/17".
This permit, issued on May 17, 2018 , is subject to compliance with the application (where
consistent with the permit), all applicable regulations, special conditions and notes set forth below. Any violation
rr mese terms may oe suoject to tines, imprisonment or civil action; or may cause the permit to be null and void.
Artificial Seagrass Research Development
1) Unless specifically altered herein, this permit authorizes the temporary placement of 19,375 ft of
Artificial Seagrass Units (ASU) within the larger 60,550 ft'research tract, located over Public Trust
Area, all as expressly and specifically set forth in the attached permit application, Appendix 2:
Additional notes on proposed ASUdeployment, and workplan drawings. No other structure, whether
submerged, floating or stationary, shall become a permanent part of this site without permit
modification.
2) No materials shall be placed, even temporarily, at any time in any waters outside of the alignment of
the site, as indicated on the attached workplan drawings. Any expansion of the site beyond the
approved alignment as described in the application may require additional authorization. _
(See attached sheets for Additional Conditions)
This permit action may be appealed by the permittee or other
qualified persons within twenty (20) days of the issuing date.
This permit must be accessible on -site to Department
personnel when the project is inspected for compliance.
Any maintenance work or project modification not covered
hereunder requires further Division approval.
All work must cease when the permit expires on
December 31, 2021
In issuing this permit, the State of North Carolina agrees that
your project is consistent with the North Carolina Coastal
Management Program. t
Signed by the authority of the Secretary of DEQ and the
Chairman of the Coastal Resources Commission.
Braxton At. Davis, Director
Division of Coastal Management
This permit and its conditions are hereby accepted.
Signature ofPermittee

UNC Institute of Marine Science
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
Permit No. 4848
Page 2 of 4
3) In accordance with commitments made by the permittee, and if deemed necessary by the NC Division of
Marine Fisheries, Fisheries Management Section, the ASU site shall be designated as a Research
Sanctuary.
4) All materials shall be removed from the site, accounted for, and notification of completion of operations
shall be provided to the NC Division of Coastal Management within 15 days of project completion.
5) The permittee shall be required to repair, maintain and/or remove any components of the site that are
displaced from the approved alignment as depicted in attached workplans. Anchoring materials shall be
of sufficient size and design to prevent movement from the approved alignment by wave or current
action. The permittee shall be responsible for immediate removal of any materials or debris that
becomes dislodged or moves outside the authorized alignment.
NOTE: The permittee is advised that the placement of materials may create an environment that could
promote the establishment of native, live submerged aquatic submerged vegetation within and
adjacent to the site. 'If this occurs, all submerged aquatic vegetation shall remain in place and
avoided to the greatest extent practicable.
6) The permittee shall install and maintain at his expense any signal lights or signals "prescribed by the U.S.
Coast Guard, through regulation or otherwise, at the authorized site. For further information, the
permittee should contact the U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Office at [phone]. At minimum,'
the permittee shall mark the corners of each 225 square meter plot with yellow reflectors extending at
least 3 feet above normal high water. Signage identifying the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill,
the Primary Investigator, and contact phone number shall be posted on the four outermost corners of the
sampling area.
USACE Conditions
7) " The sampling area shall be closely inspected following tropical storms and hurricanes to remove
debris, including damaged ASUs. If a tropical storm or hurricane approaches after August 15th of a
given year, all ASUs shall be removed before the storm.
8) In order to further protect the endangered West Indian Manatee, Trichechus manatus, the applicant must
implement the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service's Guidelines, and strictly adhere to all requirements therein.
The guidelines can be found at http://www.fws.gov/nc-es/mammal/manatee_gaidelines.pdf.
9) The sampling area shall be monitored for the presence of sea turtles and dolphins for a minimum of 30
minutes before the deployment of any gill net. If a sea turtle is present within the sampling area, gill
nets shall not be deployed until the sea turtle leaves the sampling area of its own volition.
10) Deployed gill nets shall be monitored at all times for sea turtle interaction. Gill nets shall be removed
from the water column if a sea turtle is seen within 50 feet of any section of the gill net.
11) To reduce the potential for sea turtle entanglement, gill nets shall be set tight in the water column
without any slack or "bag" in the net. All gill nets shall be kept in good working order and all gill nets
shall be repaired if needed, prior to each subsequent deployment.

UNC Institute of Marine Science
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
Permit No. 48-18
Page 3 of 4
12) The permittee shall observe the ASUs a minimum of 3 times per week, via snorkeling, to detect for signs
of grazing interactions. Grazing interaction shall be determined by confirming that each strand of
polypropylene ribbon on every unit is of equal length.
13) The permittee understands and agrees that, if future operations by the United States require the removal,
relocation, or other alteration, of the structure or work herein authorized, or if, in the opinion of the
Secretary of the Army or his authorized representative, said structure or work shall cause unreasonable
obstruction to the free navigation of the navigable waters, the permittee will be required, upon due
notice from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, to remove, relocate, or alter the structural work or
obstructions caused thereby, without expense to the United States.
14) Approval of the structure is based on determinations that there would be no obstruction to navigation.
The structure may be damaged by wave wash from passing vessels. Issuance of this permit should not
be construed, as relieving the permittee of taking proper steps to insure the authorized experimental
components will not be damaged by wave wash.
15) The authorized structure and associated activity must not interfere with the public's right to free
navigation on all navigable waters of the United States. No attempt will be made by the permittee to
prevent the full and free use by the public of all navigable waters at or adjacent to the authorized work
for reason other than safety.
General
16) Any mitigative measures or environmental commitments specifically made by the applicant for this
project shall be implemented, regardless of whether or not such commitments are addressed by
individual conditions of this permit.
17) This permit shall not be assigned, transferred, sold, or otherwise disposed of to a third party without the
written approval of the Division of Coastal Management.
18) The permittee shall maintain the authorized work in good condition and in conformance with the terms
and conditions of this permit. The permittee is not relieved of this requirement if he or she abandons the
permitted activity without having it transferred to a third party.
19) In order to ensure compliance with the conditions of this Permit, the permittee and his contractor shall
schedule a pre -construction conference with the Division of Coastal Management prior to the initiation
of any permitted activities.
NOTE: This permit does not eliminate the need to obtain any additional state, federal or local permits,
approvals or authorizations that may be required.
NOTE: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers authorized the project by way of Programmatic General
Permit 198000291 (Action ID SAW-2017-00782) issued 5/17/18.
NOTE: The N.C. Division of Water Resources authorized the proposed project by way of General Water
Quality Certification 4097 and assigned the project DWR Project No. 2017-0425.

of Marine Science Permit No. 48-18
Page 4 of 4
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
CE: Future development of the permittee's property may require a modification of this permit.
Contact a representative of the Division at [phone] prior to the commencement of any
such activity for this determination. .
rE: An application processing fee of $400 was received by DCM for this project. This fee also
satisfied the Section 401 application processing fee requirements of the Division of Water
Resources.

-- ENVISION OF -COASTAL MANAGEMENT- _:
Application Processing Notes
Applica
Type: (check all that apply)
New Major Mod_ Permit #_ Minor Mod_ Renewal_ Transfer_
Permit Coordinator:
Field Rep
I 1 Date Time (� . / 1n Message
5/6 wrc I av) tt4ile.J elwt,64v?. �a�1�4 1Lo' IGw�J Gl
1 \ I f �^ r f 5�7
r,�+ in `Ji5Cu5y)ony �/� a�p�;ce,'Y ,( ST4 rrn��wd� �raX'�i� �c�/Lt�-m��(' �fv e4
I-evilW, Frrar15 a 4C4,j fi `e_
GW(i
7(,III'i
16/0
6K ,Ivy�
Fv7 aro (vie uf�. ?�o �s Q�nbe iy E� PRb # wd I hart
�..�
off- va/�

DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
APPLICATION TRANSMITTAL AND PROCESSING RECORD
APPLICANT: UNC Institute of Marine Sciences County: Carteret
LOCATION OF PROJECT: Conflux of North River and Back Sound.
DATE APPLICATION RECEIVED COMPLETE BY FIELD: 3/29/17
FIELD RECOMMENDATION: Attached: No To Be Forwarded: Yes
CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION: Attached: No To Be Forwarded: Yes
FIELD REPRESENTATIVE: Ryan Davenport
DISTRICT MANAGER REVIEW: Roy Brownlow
B) DATE RECEIVED BY MAJOR PERMITS UNIT:
PUBLIC NOTICE REC'D: Yes
ADJ. RIP. PROP NOTICES REC'D: No
DISTRICT OFFICE: Morehead City
FEE REC'D: $400.00 (60/40)
END OF NOTICE DATE:4/26/17
APPLICATION ASSIGNED TKO- Gregg Bodnar /
C) 75 DAY DEADLINE:
OG=1�a41 S�I7,IS
MAIL OUT DATE: 4/5/17
FEDERAL DUE DATE:
PERMIT FINAL ACTION: ISSUE DENY
DEED REC'D: Yes
ON: 4/5/17
150 -DAY DEADLINE:
STATE DUE DATE: qW7
FED COMMENTS REC'D:
DRAFT ON
AGENCY
DATE COMMENTS
OBJECTIONS:
NOTES
RETURNED
YES NO
Coastal Management- Regional Representative
%/kh
Coastal Management - LUP Consistency Determination
Division of Community Assistance
C(
DEMLR-Lend Quality Section
I/
Division of Water Resources-401
IV
!N
DEMLR-Stoma Water Management
0I11 W MI
,
State Property Office
ry M
Division of Arcldves & History (Cultural Resources)
41.1
DMF-Shellfish Sanitation
DWR-Public Water Supply
z 7
k
Division of Highways
.t
Y
Wildlife Resources Commission
Local Permit Office
DCM-Fisheries Resource Specialist
I
Corps of Engineers
7 ��
�.
7,6l, c>07
i

PAT MCCRORY
rowm"
DONALD.R. VAN DER VAART
Secretary
Environmental
Quality
Memorandum
DATE: May 25, 2017
TO: Doug Huggett
FROM: J. Ryan Davenport
THROUGH: Roy Brownlow
SUBJECT: Comments and Recommendations - CAMA Major— UNC Institute of Marine Science
The UNC Institute of Marine Science is applying to install 19,375ft2of artificial seagrass at the conflux of North River and
Back Sound. This site is located adjacent to the intersection of three heavily used channels with frequent boat traffic.
Entanglement with boat propellers, anchors and fishing equipment could occur. Additionally, the proposed anchoring
system for the Artificial Seagrass Units may not be substantial enough to prevent transport of the material during storm
events. The General Use Standard 15A NCAC 07H .0208(2)(G) states that, development shall not jeopardize the use of
the waters for navigation or for other public trust rights in public trust areas including estuarine waters. Therefore, the
following permit terms and conditions are recommended:
1) The navigational clearances of the project units shall not exceed the clearances depicted in attached
drawing, dated "Received" MM/DD/2017. Permittee shall, be responsible for relocating or removing any
component of the project that violates the authorized clearances.
2) At no time, shall material of any kind be temporarily or permanently placed in any waters, or double -
handled, outside of the alignment of the project site boundaries as indicated on the attached workplan
drawings.
3) The permittee shall be responsible for the repair, maintenance and/or removal of any associated project
components, material, or units that are dislodged, displaced, or transported from the project site boundaries
as depicted in attached workplan(s).
4) The permittee shall be responsible for removing all portions of the project and associated project
components and restoring any impacted area to its pre -development condition should the project be
terminated or displaced beyond repair.
5) The project site corner boundaries shall be marked with signage as determined by the USCG private aids
to navigation. In addition, all necessary notifications to concerned agencies shall be complied with,
regardless of whether such commitments are addressed by individual conditions of this permit.
6) All precautions should be taken by the permittee to ensure the free and full use by the public of all
navigable waters at or adjacent to the authorized work. Use of the permitted activity shall not interfere with
the public's right to free navigation on Public Trust Waters.
400 Commerce Ave., Morehead City, NC 28557
Phone: [phone] \ FAX: [phone] Internet: www.nccoastalmanagement.net

ROY COOPER
It. Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretary
Coastal Management
BRAXTON C. DAVIS
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY FAPR
` Director
6 2017
on & Recreational
lity SeCtion
April 5, 2017
MEMORANDUM:
TO: Shannon Jenkins
Shellfish Sanitation
FROM: Gregg Bodnar
Major Permits Processing Coordinator
SUBJECT: CAMA/DREDGE & FILL Permit Application Review
Applicant: UNC Institute of Marine Sciences
Project Location: Carteret County, conflux of North River and Back Sound.
Proposed Project: Proposes to install Artificial Seagrass Units to study habitat configuration and
fragmentation effects on fish diversity.
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return this form by
April 25, 2017. If you have any questions regarding the proposed project, please contact Ryan Davenport,
Permit officer at [phone]. Ext. 210. When appropriate, in-depth comments with supporting data is
requested.
REPLY: / This agency has no objection to the project as proposed. RECEIVED
V This agency has no comment on the proposed project. APR 11 2017
This agency approves of the project only if the recommerlWUariMH&CITY
incorporated. See attached.
This agency objects to the project for reasons described in the attached comments.
SIGNED v14007� Lo�— DATE 1 f l to (7
-Fo2- SVlannerr) KG1rt S
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality l Coastal Management
Morehead City Office 1 400 Commerce Avenue I Morehead City, NC 28557
252 808 2808

ROY COOPER
Governor
>;u
MICHAEL S. REGAN
secretary
Coastal Management BRAXTON C. DDA�VroS
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
ECE11W
APR 0 7 2017
April 5, 2017
BY•
MEMORANDUM:
TO: Dan Sams
Division of Energy, Mineral & Land Resources
FROM: Gregg Bodnar
Major Permits Processing Coordinator
SUBJECT: CAMA/DREDGE & FILL Permit Application Review
Applicant: UNC Institute of Marine Sciences
Project Location: Carteret County, conflux of North River and Back Sound.
Proposed Project: Proposes to install Artificial Seagrass Units to study habitat configuration and
fragmentation effects on fish diversity.
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return this form by
April25, 2017. If you have any questions regarding the proposed project, please contact Ryan Davenport,
Permit officer at [phone]. Ext. 210. When appropriate, in-depth comments with supporting data is
requested.
REPLY: This agency has no objection to the project as proposed.
This agency has no comment on the proposed project.
This agency approves of the project only if the recommended changes are
incorporated. See attached.
This agency objects to the project for reasons described in the attached comments.
DSIGNE. N \ DATE
RECEIVED
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Coastal Management APR 17 2017
Morehead City Office 1 400 Commerce Avenue I Morehead City, NC 28557
252 808 2808
DCM- MHD CITY

Coastal Management
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
April 5, 2017
MEMORANDUM:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Applicant:
Project Location:
Proposed Project:
ECEIVE
APR 0 7 2017
Heidi Cox
Public Water Supply
Gregg Bodnar
Major Permits Processing Coordinator
ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretary
BRAXTON C. DAVIS
Director
ECEIVE
0 7 2017 '
ttY:
CAMA/DREDGE & FILL Permit Application Review
UNC Institute of Marine Sciences
Carteret County, conflux of North River and Back Sound.
Proposes to install Artificial Seagrass Units to study habitat configuration and
fragmentation effects on fish diversity.
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return this form by
April 25, 2017. If you have any questions regarding the proposed project, please contact Ryan Davenport,
Permit officer at [phone]. Ext. 210. When appropriate, in-depth comments with supporting data is
requested.
REPLY: s This agency has no objection to the project as proposed.
This agency has no comment on the proposed project.
This agency approves of the project only if the recommended changes are
incorporated. See attached.
//�� This agency objects to the project for reasons described in the attached comments.
SIGNED J.:�/6i DATE �zkz
,01 RECEIVED
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality l Coastal Management APR 17 2017
Morehead City Office 1 400 Commerce Avenue I Morehead City, NC 29557
2528082808 DCM- MHD CITY

Coastal Management
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
April 5, 2017
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Applicant:
Project Location:
Proposed Project:
RECEPI! =D
APR 07 2017
DOA
STATE PROPERTY
OFFICF
Tim Walton
State Property Office
Gregg Bodnar
Major Permits Processing Coordinator
ROY COOPER
Coyernor
MICHAEL S. RECAN
Secretory
BRAXTON C. DAVIS
Director
CAMA/DREDGE & FILL Permit Application Review
UNC Institute of Marine Sciences
Carteret County, conflux of North River and Back Sound.
Proposes to install Artificial Seagrass Units to study habitat configuration and
fragmentation effects on fish diversity.
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return this form by
April 25, 2017. If you have any questions regarding the proposed project, please contact Ryan Davenport,
Permit officer at [phone]. Ext. 210. When appropriate, in-depth comments with supporting data is
requested.
REPLY:
ir�'63
U�wa�
2Th'i
sIagency has no objection to the project as proposed.
s agency has no comment on the proposed project.
This agency approves of the project only if the recommended changes are
incorporated. See attached.
This agency objects to the project for reasons described in the attached con
"'�t
SIGNED DATE �'
RECEI ED
State of North Carolina I EnA nmemal Quality l Coastal Management
APR 17 2017
Morehead City Office 1 400 Commerce Avenue I Morehead City, NC 28557
2528082808 DCM- MHD CITY

Coastal Management
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
ECEIVE
APR 0 7 207
April 5, 2017
fuMue;.►a u
ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretary
BRAXTON C. DAVIS
Dlractor
RECEIVED
TO: Georgette Scott APR 18 2017
Division of Energy, Mineral, & Land Resources
\ DCM- MHD CITY
F M: sE Gregg Bodnar
Major Permits Processing Coordinator
SUBJECT: CAMA/DREDGE & FILL Permit Application Review
Applicant: UNC Institute of Marine Sciences
Project Location: Carteret County, conflux of North River and Back Sound.
Proposed Project: Proposes to install Artificial Seagrass Units to study habitat configuration and
fragmentation effects on fish diversity.
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return this form by
April 25, 2017. If you have any questions regarding the proposed project, please contact Ryan Davenport,
Permit officer at [phone]. Ext. 210. When appropriate, in-depth comments with supporting data is
requested.
REPLY: This agency has no objection to the project as proposed.
This agency has no comment on the proposed project.
This agency approves of the project only if the recommended changes are
incorporated. See attached.
This agency objects to the project for reasons described in the attached comments.
SIGNED- - _� ! L i
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Coastal Management
Morehead City Office 1 400 Commerce Avenue I Morehead CRy, NC 28557
252 808 2806

i
ROY COOPER
Governor
K1
MICHAEL S. REGIIAN
Seaptory
Energy, Mineral& TRACY DAMS
Direcmr
Land Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
June 1.2017
Fredrick J. Fodrie
UNC Institute of Marine Science
3431 Arendell Street
Morehead City, NC 28557
Subject: EXEMPTION
Stormwater Project No. SW8170407
UNC Marine Sciences Artificial Seagrass Units
Carteret County
Dear Mr, Fodrie:
I
On April 7, 2017, the Wilmington Regional Office of the Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources received a
copy of the CAMA Major Permit Application for the subject project. Staff review of the plans and specifications on'
April 10, 2017 has determined that the development activities proposed at this time will not pose a threat to surfac
water quality from stormwater runoff. The Director has determined that projects that are reviewed and approved y
the Division as not posing a water quality threat from stormwater runoff should not be subject. to the stormwater
management permitting requirements of 15A NCAC 2H.1000, the stormwater rules. By copy of this letter, we are
informing you that this project will not require a stormwater management permit.
If the subject project disturbs one acre or more and has a point source discharge of stormwater runoff, then it is also
subject to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater discharge requirements. You
are required to have an NPDES permit for stormwater discharge from projects meeting these criteria. All temporary
built -upon area associated with the construction of the project must be removed within 30 days of completion of the
project, or when it is no longer needed, whichever occurs first.
If you have any questions or need additional information concerning this matter please contact Georgette Scott at
[phone], or via e-mail at [e-mail].
Sincerely,
For Tracy E. Davis, P.E., Director
Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources
GDS/gds: \\\Stormwater\Permits & Projects\2017 \170407 Exemption\2017 06 permit 170407
cc: Town of Beaufort Building Inspections
DCM Morehead City RECEIVED
Wilmington Regional Office Stormwater File
JUN 13 2017
State or North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Energy. Mineral anA t.and Reran®s��PHD CITY
512 N. Salisbury Street 1 1612 Mail SeI'VIOe Cenl[v 12aleigh. North Carolina 27699-1612
9197079200

ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. RRGAN
t;, ,. 1 Secretary
Coastal Managemerit BRAXTON C. DAVIS
ENVIRONMENTAL OVALITY Wrector
RECEIVEL
APR 0 7 All
uCM-Fisnerios
April 5, 2017 WARD
MEMORANDUM:
TO: Shane Staples
Division of Coastal Management
FROM: Gregg Bodnar
Major Permits Processing Coordinator
SUBJECT: CAMA/DREDGE & FILL Permit Application Review
Applicant: UNC Institute of Marine Sciences
Project Location: Carteret County, conflux of North River and Back Sound,
Proposed Project: Proposes to install Artificial Seagrass Units to study habitat configuration and
fragmentation effects on fish diversity.
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return this form by
April 25, 2017. If you have any questions regarding the proposed project, please contact Ryan Davenport,
Permit officer a;;'[phone]. Ext. 210. When appropriate, in-depth comments with supporting data is
requested.
REPLY: ✓ This agency has no objection to the project as proposed, dNf 4A r //coneain r.
GO NIMM T� TNC INAI(�
This agency has no comment on the proposed project.
This agency approves of the project only if the recommended changes are
incorporated. See attached.
This agency objects to the project for reasons described in the attached comments.
SIGNED `0DATE s/�-z//7
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality l Coastal Management
Morehead City Office 1400 Commerce Avenue I Morehead City, NC. 28557
252 Boa 280E

Coastal Management
fl eNVIp M9WTAt pit
l u_ 1 i; \ll Ju_.
TO:
Gregg Bodnar, Assistant Major Permits Coordinator
FROM:
Shane Staples, DCM Fisheries Resource Specialist
SUBJECT:
UNC Institute of Marine Sciences, Artificial Seagrass Survey
DATE:
4/21/17
ROT COOPER.
awernae
MIG(jd SL 9. REGAN
1 . sdcermy
BRAXTON C. DAVIS
DVWron
s a''
.y
A North Carolina Division of Coastal Management (DCM) Fisheries Resource Specialist has reviewed
the subject permit application for proposed actions that impact fish and fish habitats. The applicant is
proposing a resource project studying the use of seagrass by fishes using an artificial seagrass. The
proposed project area is located at the confluence of North River and Back Sound between Beaufort and
Harker's Island North Carolina. The artificial seagrass units or ASU's are composed of VEXAR and stiff
plastic backing and with green ribbon attached to it to simulate seagrass. The total project area will cover
60,5502 of estuarine shallow bottom habitat with the ASU's placed on 19,375ft2 of that area. The
ASU's will be held in place with 6" and 12" landscape staples and PVC poles will mark the individual
plots. The UNC IMS has applied for research sanctuary status for the project area through the NCDMF.
This office does not believe the project will have significant adverse impacts to fisheries resources in the
area, but there are some concerns over the placement of plastics in estuarine waters; the landscape staples,
ribbon (synthetic seagrass), vexar material, and PVC poles all have the potential to become marine debris.
The project area is adjacent to an area that will experience a very high level of boat traffic and should be
well posted to indicate that the area should be avoided by boat traffic to help reduce the potential for
dislodging of the study materials. The applicant should be responsible for cleaning up any debris resulting
from the project.
Contact Shane Staples at [phone] or [e-mail] with further questions or
concerns.
State orWorthCarolina I. Environmental Quality I CoastalManagetrcnt
Washington office 1943 Wa Nngton Square Mall -I Washinaton,.North Carolina 27889
2,92 946 6481

It
Coastal Management
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
April 5, 2017
MEMORANDUM:
TO: Rachel Love-Adrick
Division of Coastal Management
FROM: Gregg Bodnar
Major Permits Processing Coordinator
SUBJECT: CAMA/DREDGE & FILL Permit Application Review
Applicant: UNC Institute of Marine Sciences
ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretary
BRAXTON C. DAVIS
Director
Project Location: Carteret County, conflux of North River and Back Sound.
Proposed Project: Proposes to install Artificial Seagrass Units to study habitat configuration and
fragmentation effects on fish diversity.
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return this form by
April 25, 2017. If you have any questions regarding the proposed project, please contact Ryan Davenport,
Permit officer at [phone]. Ext. 210. When appropriate, in-depth comments with supporting data is
requested.
REPLY: This agency has no objection to the project as proposed.
This agency has no comment on the proposed project.
This agency approves of the project only if the recommended changes are
incorporated. See attached.
TI =gencyobjects the project for reasons described in the attached comments.
SIGNEDCJ= Es DATE J 1251 201-3-
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Coastal Management
Morehead City Office 1 400 Commerce Avenue I Morehead City, NC 28557
252 8082808

Coastal Management
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
MEMORANDUM
TO: Gregg Bodnar, Major Permits Processing Coordinator
Division of Coastal Management
FROM: Rachel Love-Adrick, District Planner
Division of Coastal Management
ROY COOPER
Covenror
WILLIAM G. ROSS, JR.
Luerim Seerelan
BRAXTON DAVIS
Uincrm
SUBJECT: Major Permit Request by the University of North Carolina Institute of Marine Sciences
DATE: April 21, 2017
Consistency Determination: The request is consistent with/not in conflict with the Carteret County Land
Use Plan certified by the CRC on December 20, 2010.
Overview: The applicant is proposing to install 1,8001 x 1 meter Artificial Seagrass Units (ASUs), totaling
1,800 m2 (19,375 ft2). The project site is located at the conflux of North River and Back Sound between
Beaufort and Harker's Island in Carteret County, North Carolina. The site can only be accessed by boat,
as is situate on a sand bar between Middle March and North River March.
The total project area is 60,550 ft2 (1.39 acres), the ASUs would be placed on 19,375 ft2 of Public Trust
Bottom. Each ASU consists of lm2 of VEXAR with —450 shoots of green ribbon attached. The ASUs would
be anchored to the bottom with 6" and 12" landscaping staples. The ASUs would be deployed from May
15 to September 15, 2017. PVC poles would be used to mark the corners of the individual landscape
plots
The project is located at the conflux of North River and Back Sound and is classified as SA (Market
Shellfishing, Salt Water) and HQW (High Quality Waters). The western boundary of the project site is
closed to shellfishing, while the eastern boundary is open to shellfishing. The site is not a Primary
Nursery Area (PNA). No Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) was observed within the project area, and
the bottom substrate consists of sand. Shellfish resources in the area are unknown. Water depths in the
area are .5m at NLW and the tidal amplitude is—1.75'. A review archaeological and cultural resources
was not provided.
Anticipated impacts resulting from this project are expected to include: the incorporation of 60,550 ft2
of Public Trust Area. The VEXAR material would be placed on 19,375 ft2 of Public Trust Bottom. There
is a potential for the ASU material to be transported during storm events resulting in marine debris. The
area has daily and frequent boat traffic and entanglement with boat propellers and anchors could occur.
The ASU material could also have adverse interactions with marine animals and unknown interactions
with other marine life.
Nothing Compares ---,,-
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Coastal Management
400 Commerce Avenue I Morehead City, NC 28557
252-808-2808 1252-247-3330 (fax)

North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality MEMORANDUM
Division of Coastal Management Page 2 of 2
Basis for Determination:
The project site is located in Carteret County and is subject to the 2005 Carteret County Land Use Plan
Update. The Future Land Use Map (FLUM) designates the site as Conservation due to the sites location
in Estuarine Waters and Public Trust AECs (Areas of Environmental Concern). Land uses allowed in
Areas of Environmental Concern are those consistent with the State's minimum use standards and
state and federal regulations.
The following LUP policies may be applicable to this request:
2.0 Land Use Compatibility
2.4.1, pg. 71: "Carteret County will only allow development in estuarine and public trust waters that are
associated with water -dependent uses, consistent with state and federal standards, and meet all local polices
contained in this plan."
nothing Compares
State of Nonh Cuohna I Eovi on neNal Quality I Coastal Management
400 Commerce Avenue I Morehead City, NC 28557
252-808-2808 1252-247-3330 (fm)

April'5, 2017
MEMORANDUM:
TO:
FROM:
'SUBJECT:
Applicant:
Project Location:
APR 10 2017
HiSTORiC PF;ESERV-4 01 OFFICE
Renee Gledhill -Early ,
NC Department of Cultural Resources
Gregg Bodnar
Major Permits Processing Coordinator
CAMAIDREDGE & FILL Permit Application Review
UNC Institute of Marine Sciences
ROY COOPER
coverrwr
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretary
BRAXTON C. DAVIS
Director
Carteret County, conflux of North River and Back Sound.
Proposed Project: Proposes to install Artificial Scagrass Units to study habitat configuration and
fragmentation effects on fish diversity.
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and.return this form by
April 25, 2017. If you have any questions regarding the proposed project, please contact Ryan Davenport,
Permit officer at [phone]. Ext. 210. When appropriate, in-depth comments with supporting data is
requested.
REPLY: / This agency has no objection to the project as proposed,
V� This agency has no comment on the proposed project.
This agency approves of the project only if the recommended changes are
incorporated. See attached.
�This agency objects to the project for reasons described in the attached comments.
SIGNED ,� " �Y�I.VC�IStX"�� DATE la51
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality l Coastal Management APR 1 12017
Morehead City Office 1400Commttce Avenue I Morehead Cty,NC 28557
252 808 2608

Coastal Management
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
April 5, 2017
MEMORANDUM:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Applicant:
Project Locations
Proposed Project:
ROY COOPER
covemor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
secrelory
BRAXTON G. DAVIS
Dinulor
reBadrick or Mark Ziegler
Division of Community Assistance
Gregg Bodnar
Major Permits Processing Coordinator
CAMA/DREDGE & FILL Permit Application.Review
UNC.Institute of Marine Sciences
Carteret' County, conflux of North River.and Back Sound..
Proposes to install Artificial Seagrass Units to study habitat configuration and
fragmentation. effects on fish diversity.
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return this,form by
Apn125 , 201.1. Ifyou have any questions regarding the proposed project, please contact Ryan Davenport,
Permit officer of [phone].'Ext. 210. When appropriate, in-depth comments with supporting data is
requested
REPLY: 'This agency has no objection to the project as proposed.
This agency has no comment on the proposed project.
This agency approves of the project only if the recommended changes are
incorporated. See attached.
This agency objects to the project for reasons described in the attached comments,
SIGNED �iDATE — / Y::/ 7
i5tateofNorthcarouna I r{Ivimnmental Quality I Coastal Management
x Morehead City Office 1400 Commerce Avenue I Morehead City, NC 28557
2528082808

Bodnar, Gregg
From:
Mairs, Robb L
Sent:
Monday, May 01, 2017 9:19 AM
To:
Bodnar, Gregg
Cc:
Gregson, Jim
Subject:
UNC-Artificial Seagrass study, Carteret Co.
Hey Gregg,
This follows our phone conversation last Friday. Jim and I discussed this proposal and we do not feel there will be a
water quality concern; however, we're not sure on how to authorized this proposal until the US Army Corps of Engineers
Issues their permit. Liz Hair with the Corps indicated this a.m. that the public notice should be going out today through
the 291 process.
Thanks and feel free to let me know if you need any further assistance.
13011
Robb Mairs
Environmental Senior Specialist
Division of Water Resources
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
910 796.7427 office
robb.mairs(a).ncdenr.aov
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.

Coastal Management
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
April 5, 2017
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Applicant:
Project Location:
Proposed Project:
ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretary
BRAXTON C. DAVIS
Director
A�� o
APR 2 2 2017
David Harris
NC DOT, State Construction/Materials Branch
Gregg Bodnar
Major Permits Processing Coordinator
CAMA/DREDGE & FILL Permit Application Review
UNC Institute of Marine Sciences
Carteret County, conflux of North River and Back Sound.
Proposes to install Artificial Seagrass Units to study habitat configuration and
fragmentation effects on fish diversity.
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return this form by
April 25, 2017. If you have any questions regarding the proposed project, please contact Ryan Davenport,
Permit officer at [phone]. Ext. 210. When appropriate, in-depth comments with supporting data is
requested.
REPLY: / This agency has no objection to the project as proposed.
V This agency has no comment on the proposed project.
This agency approves of the project only if the recommended changes are
incorporated. See attached.
This agency objects to the project for reasons described in the attached comments.
SIGNED ni" i8n+,h I+o-u-a7ton-i DATE 4-25-17 RECEIVED
MAY 0 4 2017
State of North Carollia I Environmental Quality I Coastal Management
Morehead City Office 1 400 Commerce Avenue I Morehead City, INC 28557 DC/� MA_ M H D CITY
2528082808

1
Coastal Management
ENVIRONMENTAL aUA "
ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
secretary
BRAXTON C. DAVIS
Dir"r
c.l . ay: R-0I
April 5, 2017
MEMORANDUM:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Applicant:
Project Location:
Proposed Project:
Maria Dunn
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Gregg Bodnar
Major Permits Processing Coordinator
CAMA/DREDGE & FILL Permit Application Review
UNC Institute of Marine Sciences
Carteret County, conflux of North River and Back Sound.
Proposes to install Artificial Seagrass Units to study habitat configuration and
fragmentation effects on fish diversity.
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return this form by
April 25, 2017. If you have any questions regarding the proposed project, please contact Ryan Davenport,
Permit officer at [phone]. Ext. 210. When appropriate, in-depth comments with supporting data is
requested.
REPLY: This agency has no objection to the project as proposed.
Thus agency has no comment on the proposed project.
This agency approves of the project only if the recommended changes are
incorporated. See attached.
This agency objects to the project for reasons described in the attached comments.
SIGNED- AA` ` I • � _ DATE -5 13-?.20a-
`\
State of North Carotlm I Environmemal Qimltty 1 Coastal Marwgemem
Morehead City Ofrce 1 400 Commerce Awe I Morehead City. NC 28557
252 8082808

9 North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Gordon Myers, Executive Director
UTDI 41174121011Li 1
TO: Gregg Bodnar
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
FROM: Maria T. Dunn, Coastal Coordinator 1�
Habitat Conservation Division
DATE: May 8, 2017
SUBJECT: CAMA Dredge/Fill Permit Application for UNC Institute of Marine Sciences,
Carteret County, North Carolina.
Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) reviewed the permit
application with regard to impacts on fish and wildlife resources. The project site is located at the conflux
of North River and Back Sound in Carteret County between Harkers Island and Beaufort, NC. Our
comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the Coastal Area Management Act (G.S. 113A-
100 through I I3A-128), as amended, Sections 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act, as amended, and the
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.).
The applicant proposes to install Artificial Seagrass Units (ASUs) to study habitat configuration and
fragmentation effects on fish diversity. The ASUs are composed of 1m2 of VEXAR with approximately
450 shoots of green plastic ribbon attached and anchored with 6" and 12" landscaping staples. The units
would cover 19,375 f (0.44 acre) of public trust bottom and usurp 60,550 fF (1.39 acres) of public foist
waters. PVC poles would indicate the project area. Materials would be deployed between May 15 to
September 15 and be within a NCDMF research sanctuary area until 2019 when all materials would be
removed. Bottom sediments are composed of sandy substrates, with water depths of -1.6' NLW and a
tidal amplitude around-1.75'. This area is classified SA-HQW by the Environmental Management
Commission.
The NCWRC has reviewed the permit application and although we understand the research component of
the proposal, we have several concerns with the project. Therefore, we request the following be addressed
prior to permit issuance:
Mailing Address: Habitat Conservation • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]

CMDF UNC IMS
Page 2
May S, 2017
• The application states materials would be removed after the study is complete. It was unclear if a
regulatory determination has been made on if this constitutes a wetland / open water fill of 0.44
acre or if any mitigative measures are required.
• The ASUs will be attached to the bottom with landscaping staples. There is concern that these
staples may not keep the ASUs in place during storm events and that the materials would then
become marine debris. A monitoring and remediation plan should be in place.
• The sea turtle standing database indicates green sea turtles utilize this area. Ingestion of plastics is
significantly harmful to these and other marine species. The applicant should address what
measures will be taken to exclude seas turtles and other marine species that may confuse the
ASUs with natural submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) and what measures would be taken if it
is determined that marine species are banned by the ASUs.
• The area should be well marked to give notice to boaters about the navigation hazard.
We appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on this permit application. If you need further
assistance or additional information, please contact me at [phone] or at
nlaria.dunnY?,neNvildlife.org

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
89 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343
May 17, 2018
Regulatory Division
Action ID No. SAW-2017-00782
Mr. Doug Huggett
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department
of Environmental Quality
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City, North Carolina 28557-3421
Dear Mr. Huggett:
Reference the application of Dr. Frerick Fodrie to deploy temporary artificial seagrass units within
waters of the U.S. at the confluence of North River and Back Sound, located in between Beaufort and
Harker's Island in Carteret County, North Carolina. Coordinates in Decimal Degrees are: 34.2770 N -
77.7616 W.
The overall approximate 1.4 acre project site would involve the temporary deployment of 0.5 acres
of artificial seagrass units on the sand/mud bottom habitat. The proposed project is a multi -year research
project for the purpose of studying habitat fragmentation effects of fish diversity at landscape scales.
The project consists of placing plastic artificial seagrass units comprised of a material known as VEXAR
on shallow bottom habitat in a 19, 375 square foot area. Each unit is approximately 1 square meter in
size and would contain 450 shoots of green ribbon (approximately 75.5 miles of ribbon) attached to the
VEXAR. The units would be anchored in the sand bar with 6" and 12" landscaping staples. PVC poles
would be used to mark each corner of the individual landscape plots.
The Federal agencies have completed review of the proposal as presented by the application and
your field investigation report. We recommend that the following conditions be included in the
modification to the State authorization:
1. In order to further protect the endangered West Indian Manatee, Trichechus manatus, the
applicant must implement the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Manatee Guidelines, and strictly adhere
to all requirements therein. The guidelines can be found at http://www.fws.aov/nc-
es/mammal/manatee_guidelines.ndf.

-2-
2. Gillnet deployments: Continuous monitoring of gillnets during each deployment and pulling
the net if a sea turtle is seen within 50 ft. Scanning the area of gillnet deployment a half hour before
deployment to check for sea turtle presence
3. ASU monitoring: Observe/monitor ASUs at least 3 days a week and during deployments to
detect for foraging via snorkeling. Confirm that each unit and polypropylene strand on every unit is of
the same length (which will help determine evidence of grazing).
4. The deployment/sampling area will be scanned 30 minutes prior to each net deployment
time to observe for sea turtle/dolphin presence.
5. During net deployments, participants will maintain tight nets and repair damaged
nets after each deployment.
6. Gill nets will not be deployed if a sea turtle is observed in the area until after it has
moved off of its own volition. Damaged gill nets will be repaired prior to deployment. While
deployed, gill nets will be stretched tightly to reduce entanglement risk, and will be monitored
continuously.
7. Closely inspect the study area following tropical storms and hurricanes to remove
debris, including damaged ASUs. If a tropical storm or hurricane approaches after August 15th of
a given year, all ASUs would be removed before the storm.
8. The permittee must install and maintain, at his expense, any signal lights and signals
prescribed by the U.S. Coast Guard, through regulations or otherwise, on authorized facilities. For
further information, the permittee should contact the U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Office at (910)
772-2191.
9. All work authorized by this permit must be performed in strict compliance with the submitted
plans, which are a part of this permit. Any modification to these plans must be approved by the US
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) prior to implementation.
10. The permittee understands and agrees that, if future operations by the United States require
the removal, relocation, or other alteration, of the structure or work herein authorized, or if, in the
opinion of the Secretary of the Army or his authorized representative, said structure or work shall cause
unreasonable obstruction to the free navigation of the navigable waters, the permittee will be required,
upon due notice from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, to remove, relocate, or alter the structural
work or obstructions caused thereby, without expense to the United States.
11. Approval of the structure is based on determinations that there would be no obstruction to

BE
navigation. The structure may be damaged by wave wash from passing vessels. Issuance of this permit
should not be construed, as relieving the permittee of taking proper steps to insure the structure and
moored boats will not be damaged by wave wash.
12. The authorized structure and associated activity must not interfere with the public's right to
free navigation on all navigable waters of the United States. No attempt will be made by the permittee
to prevent the full and free use by the public of all navigable waters at or adjacent to the authorized
work for reason other than safety.
13. Except as specified in the plans attached to this permit, no excavation, fill or mechanized
land -clearing activities shall take place at any time in the construction or maintenance of this project, in
such a manner as to impair normal flows and circulation patterns within waters or wetlands or to reduce
the reach of waters or wetlands.
14. Except as authorized by this permit or any USACE approved modification to this permit, no
excavation, fill or mechanized land -clearing activities shall take place at any time in the construction or
maintenance of this project, within waters or wetlands. This permit does not authorize temporary
placement or double handling of excavated or fill material within waters or wetlands outside the
permitted area. This prohibition applies to all borrow and fill activities connected with this project.
15. All mechanized equipment will be regularly inspected and maintained to prevent
contamination of waters and wetlands from fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials.
In the event of a spill of petroleum products or any other hazardous waste, the permittee shall
immediately report it to the N.C. Division of Water Resources at [phone], Ext. 526 or (800)
662-7956 and provisions of the North Carolina Oil Pollution and Hazardous Substances Control Act will
be followed.
16. Unless otherwise authorized by this permit, all fill material placed in waters or wetlands
shall be generated from an upland source and will be clean and free of any pollutants except in trace
quantities. Metal products, organic materials (including debris from land clearing activities), or
unsightly debris will not be used.
17. If the permittee discovers any previously unknown historic or archeological remains while
accomplishing the authorized work, he will immediately notify the Wilmington District Engineer who
will initiate the required coordination procedures.
18. The permittee shall require its contractors and/or agents to comply with the terms and
conditions of this permit in the construction and maintenance of this project, and shall provide each of
its contractors and/or agents associated with the construction or maintenance of this project with a copy
of this permit. A copy of this permit, including all conditions, shall be available at the project site during
construction and maintenance of this project.

4 . .
13
19. The permittee shall employ all sedimentation and erosion control measures necessary to
prevent an increase in sedimentation or turbidity within waters and wetlands outside the permit area.
This shall include, but is not limited to, the immediate installation of silt fencing or similar appropriate
devices around all areas subject to soil disturbance or the movement of earthen fill, and the immediate
stabilization of all disturbed areas. Additionally, the project must remain in full compliance with all
aspects of the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 (North Carolina General Statutes Chapter
113A Article 4).
20. The activity will be conducted in such a manner as to prevent a significant increase in
turbidity outside the area of construction or construction -related discharge. Increases such that the
turbidity in the waterbody is 50 NTU's or less in all rivers not designated as trout waters by the North
Carolina Division of Environmental Management (NCDEM), 25 NTU's or less in all saltwater classes
and in all lakes and reservoirs, and 10 NTU's or less in trout waters, are not considered significant.
21. The permittee, upon receipt of a notice of revocation of this permit or upon its expiration
before completion of the work will, without expense to the United States and in such time and manner as
the Secretary of the Army or his authorized representative may direct, restore the water or wetland to its
pre -project condition.
22. Violations of these conditions or violations of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act or Section
10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act must be reported in writing to the Wilmington District U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers within 24 hours of the permittee's discovery of the violation.
Questions or comments may be addressed to Ms. Liz Hair Wilmington Field Office, Regulatory
Division, telephone [phone] or email at [e-mail].
Sincerely,
Liz Hair, Project Manager
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
Electronic copy furnished:

-5-
Ms. Karen Higgins
Division of Water Resources
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Mr. Pete Benjamin
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Dr. Pace Wilber
National Marine Fisheries Service
Habitat Conservation Division
Mr. Fritz Rohde
National Marine Fisheries Service
Habitat Conservation Service
Mr. Todd Allen Bowers
US EPA Region 4 Life Scientist
Water Protection Division
Mr. Robb Mairs
Division of Water Resources
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Mr. Gregg Bodner
North Carolina Division of Coastal Management

Water Resources w
Environmental Quality
June 6, 2017
UNC Institute of Marine Science
Attn.: Fredrick J. Fodrie
3431 Arendell Street
Morehead City, NC 28557 0001
ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretary
S. JAY ZIMMERMAN
Director
Carteret County
DWR Project: 20170425
Subject Property: Artificial Seagrass Units To Study Habitat Configuration And
Fragmentation Effects On Fish Diversity
Approval of 401 Water Quality Certification with Additional Conditions
Dear Mr. Fodie,
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions and those listed below, to
temporarily impact approximately 1.39 (60,550 square feet) of shallow bottom open water to
install Artificial Seagrass Units (ASU's) in order to test whether seagrass habitat configuration and
fragmentation effects fish diversity on a sand bar between Middle Marsh and North River Marsh
within the confluence of North River and Back Sound as described within your application
received by the Division on April 7, 2017. After reviewing your application, we have decided that
the impacts are covered by General Water Quality Certification Number 4097 (GC 4097).
You should obtain or otherwise comply with any other required federal, state or local permits
before you go ahead with your project including (but not limited to) Erosion and Sediment Control,
Non -discharge, and stormwater regulations. Also, this approval to proceed with your proposed
impacts or to conduct impacts to waters as depicted in your application shall expire upon expiration
of the 404 Permit. This Certification can also be found on line at:
http://portal ncdenr.ore/web/wo/swv/ws/401/certsg dpermits.
This approval is for the purpose and design that you described in your application. If you change
your project, you must notify us and you may be required to send us a new application. If the
property is sold, the new owner must be given a copy of this Certification and approval letter and
is thereby responsible for complying with all conditions. If total fills for this project (now or in
the future) exceed one acre of wetland or 150 linear feet of stream, compensatory mitigation may
be required as described in 15A NCAC 211.0506 (h). This approval requires you to follow the
conditions listed in the attached certification and any additional conditions listed below.
The Additional Conditions of the Certification are:
1. This approval is for the purpose and design described in your application. The plans and
specifications for this project are incorporated by reference as part of the Certification. If you
'- 'Nothing Compares'-
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality
127 Cardinal Drive Extension Wilmington, North Carolina 28405
910-796-7215

UNC Institute of Marine Science Seagrass Study- Carteret County
DWR Permit # 20170425
June 5, 2017
Page 2 of 4
change your project, you must notify the Division and you may be required to submit a new
application package with the appropriate fee. If the property is sold, the new owner must be
given a copy of this approval letter and General Certification and is responsible for complying
with all conditions. Any new owner must notify the Division and request the Certification be
issued in their name {I SA NCAC 02H .0501 and .0502).
Any final construction plans. for this project must include or reference the application and
plans approved by the Division under this authorization letter and certification. The
applicant will also be required to evaluate all acquired permits to assure that they are
consistent and all relative impacts are accounted for and shown on the construction plans.
[15A NCAC 02H .0502 (b) and 15A NCAC 02H .0506 (4)]. The applicant shall require his
contractors (and/or agents) to comply with all of the terms of this Certification, and shall
provide each of its contractors (and/or agents) a copy of this Certification.
Turbidity Standard
The turbidity standard of 25 NTUs (Nephelometric Turbidity Units) shall not be
exceeded as described in 15 A NCAC 2B .0220. Appropriate sediment and erosion
control practices must be used to meet this standard. Turbidity curtains shall be used as
appropriate. Please notify this Office if any turbidity issues arise at 910.796.7215
4 This General Certification shall expire on the same day as the expiration date of the
corresponding General Permit. The conditions in effect on the date of issuance of the
Certification for a specific project shall remain in effect for the life of the project,
regardless of the expiration of this Certification.
The pennittee shall require its contractors and/or agents to comply with the terms of this
permit in the construction and maintenance of this project, and shall provide each of its
contractors and/or agents associated with the construction or maintenance of this project a
copy of this certification. A copy of this certification including all conditions shall be
available at the project site during the construction and maintenance of this project. [15A
NCAC 02H .0507 (c) and 15A NCAC 02H .0506 (b)(2) and (c)(2)]
6 Continuing Compliance:
The applicant/permittee and their authorized agents shall conduct all activities in a
manner consistent with State water quality standards (including any requirements
resulting from compliance with 303(d) of the Clean Water Act), and any other
appropriate requirements of State and Federal law. If the Division determines that such
standards or laws are not being met, including failure to sustain a designated or achieved
use, or that State or Federal law is being violated, or that further conditions are necessary
to assure compliance, than the Division may reevaluate and modify this General Water
Quality Certification. [15A NCAC 02H .0507(d)]

UNC Institute of Madne Sdence Seagrass Study- Carteret County
DWR Permit # 20170425
June 5, 2017
Page 3 of 4
All mechanized equipment operated near surface waters or wetlands will be regularly
inspected and maintained to prevent contamination of waters and wetlands from fuels,
lubricants, hydraulic fluids or other potential toxic chemicals. In the event of a
hydrocarbon or chemical spill, the pertnittee/contractor shall immediately contact the
Division of Water Quality, between the hours of 8 am to 5 pm at the Wilmington
Regional Office at 910.796.7215 and after hours and on weekends call (soo) sss-o3ds.
Management of such spills shall comply with provisions of the North Carolina Oil
Pollution and Hazardous Substances Control Act. [15A NCAC 02H .0506 (b)(3) and
(c)(3), 15A NCAC 02B .0200 (3)(f), and GS 143 Article 21A].
8 Fueling, lubrication and general equipment maintenance should not take place within 50
feet of a waterbody or wetlands to prevent contamination by fuel and oils. [15A NCAC
02H .0506 (b)(3) and (c)(3) and 15A NCAC 02B .0200 (3)(f)].
9 This certification grants permission to the director, an authorized representative of the
Director, or DEQ staff, upon the presentation of proper credentials, to enter the property
during normal business hours 15A NCAC 02H.0502(e).
10 Certificate of Completion
Upon completion of all work approved within the 401 Water Quality Certification or
applicable Buffer Rules, and any subsequent modifications, the applicant and/or
authorized agent is required to return a completed certificate of completion form to the
NCDEQ DWR 401 and Buffers Unit North Carolina Division of Water Resources,1617
Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC, 27699 within ten days of project completion. The
certification of completion is available at:
htt ://portal ncdenr org/web/wq[swo/ws/401/cortsandpermits/apnlv/formsl.
Violations of any condition herein set.forth may result in revocation of this'Certification
and may result in criminal and/or civil penalties. The authorization to proceed with your
proposed impacts or to conduct impacts to waters as depicted in your application and as
authorized by this Certification shall expire upon expiration of the 404 or CAMA Permit.
This approval and its conditions are final and binding unless contested.
This Certification can be contested as provided in Articles 3 and 4 of General Statute 150B by
filing a written petition for an administrative hearing to the Office of Administrative Hearings
(hereby known as OAH). A petition form may be obtained from the OAH at
http://www.ncoah.com/ or by calling the OAH Clerk's Office at [phone] for information.
Within sixty (60) calendar days of receipt of this notice, a petition must be filed with the
OAH. A petition is considered filed when the original and one (1) copy along with any
applicable OAH filing fee is received in the OAH during normal office hours (Monday through
Friday between 8:00 am and 5:00 pm, excluding official state holidays).

UNC Institute of Marine Science Seagrass Study- Carteret County
DWR Permit # 20170425
June 5, 2017
Page 4 of 4
The petition may be faked to the OAH at [phone], provided the original and one copy of
the petition along with any applicable OAH filing fee is received by the OAH within five (5)
business days following the faxed transmission.
Mailing address for the OAH:
If sending via US Postal Service:
Office of Administrative Hearings
6714 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-6714
If sending via delivery service (UPS,
FedEx, etc):
Office of Administrative Hearings
1711 New Hope Church Road
Raleigh, NC 27609-6285
One (1) copy of the petition must also be served to DEQ:
Sam M. Hayes, General Counsel
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
1601 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1601
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Resources under Section 401 of the
Clean Water Act. If you have any questions, please telephone or Robb Mairs in the DWR
Wilmington Regional Office at 910.796.7427 or Robb.Mairs@,ncdenr.gov.
Sincerely,
Jim Gregson, Regional Supervisor
Water Quality Regional Operations Section
Wilmington Regional Office
Division of Water Resources, NCDEQ
Enclosure: GC 4097
cc: Liz Hair - USACE Wilmington Regulatory Field Office -EC
Gregg Bodnar — DCM Morehead City -EC
DWR 401 & Buffer Permitting Branch file- LF
WiRO

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
WATER QUALITY GENERAL CERTIFICATION NO.4097
GENERAL CERTIFICATION FOR PROJECTS ELIGIBLE FOR US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
• REGIONALGENERAL PERMIT NUMBER 198000291(NC COASTALAREA MANAGEMENT ACT)
AND
• WHEN APPLIED TO CAMA PERMITS, REGIONAL GENERAL PERMIT NUMBERS 198000M,
198700056,197800080,197800125 AND 198200277 AND NATIONWIDE PERMIT
NUMBERS 3,12,13,14,18, 27, 29, 33, 35, 39, AND 54
Water Quality, Certification Number 4097. is issued in conformity with the requirements of
Section 401, Public Laws 92-500 and 95-217 of the United States and subject to the North
Carolina Regulations in 15A NCAC 02H .0500 and 15A NCAC 02B .0200 for the discharge of fill
material to surface waters and,.wetland areas as described in Regional General Permits
198000291, 198000048, 198700056, 197800080, 197800125, and 198200277 and in 33 CFR 300
Appendix A (B) (3, 12, 13, 14, 18, 27, 29, 33, 35, 39, and 54) of the U5 Army Corps of Engineers
Regulations.
The State of North Carolina certifies that the specified category of activity will not violate
applicable portions of Sections 301, 302, 303, 306 and 307 of the Public Laws 92-500 and 95-217
if conducted in accordance with the conditions hereinafter set forth.
Effective date: March 19, 2017
Signed this day March 6, 2017
137
for S. Jay Zimmerman, P.G.
Director

GC4097
Activities meeting any one (1) of the following thresholds or circumstances require wfltten
oaoroval for a 401 Water Ctuality Certification from the Division of Water Resources (DWR):
a) If any of the Conditions of this Certification (listed below) cannot be met; or
b) Activities authorized by CAMA permits, except for:
i) Activities authorized by CAMA General Permits 1.100, 1200, 1300, 1400, 1500,
1600, 1700,1800,1900, 2000, 2100, 2200, 2300, 2400, 2500 and 2600;
ii) Boat Ramps and associated access (i.e. roads and parking lots) that involve the
excavation or filling of less than 500 square feet total of wetland and open water
area, with the exception that the excavation or filling of coastal wetlands (as
defined in 15A NCAC 07H .0205) shall not exceed 100 square feet;
iii) Shoreline protection measures (excluding living shorelines/marsh sills) that tie into
existing bulkheads, land or other shoreline protection measures or do not extend
waterward of the normal high water line or normal water level more than 30 feet
provided that the activity will not involve the excavation or filling of any Submerged
Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) or significant shellfish resources as identified by the
Division of Marine Fisheries and impacts less than 500 square feet total of wetland,
with the exception that the excavation or filling of coastal wetlands (as defined in
15A NCAC 07H .0205) shall not exceed 100 square feet;
iv) Living shorelines/marsh sills, including activities authorized by CAMA General
Permit 2700, that do not extend waterward of the normal high water line or normal
water level more than 30 feet, the activity will not involve the excavation or fill of
any Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) or significant shellfish resources, as
identified by the Division of Marine Fisheries, and do not result in any fill landward
of the toe of the sill alignment;
v) Piers and docks designed to accommodate up to but not exceeding 10 vessels
(except where prohibited in Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) as defined in 15A
NCAC 02B.0225(7) & (8)) and where the water depth is equal to or greater than two
feet of water at normal low water level or normal water level (whichever is
applicable);
vi) Maintenance dredging of less than 0.5 acres of open water or non -vegetated
wetlands provided that the applicant can provide documentation showing the
historic dimensions of the dredged channel, and no SAV or shellfish beds are
excavated or filled;
vii) Projects that involve only shading of waters or wetlands that do not meet the
criteria listed in item v above;
vii!) Utility lines, except wastewater lines and potable water discharge lines which are
subject to an NPDES Permit, as long as all impacts are temporary;
ix) Upland development which involves no more than 1/10 of an acre of excavation or
filling of non -coastal wetlands, with the exception than no more than 2,000 square
feet of the non -coastal excavation or filling may take place within a Coastal
Shoreline Area of Environmental Concern (AEC). For the purposes of this area
calculation, the excavation or filling impacts of the entire project shall be
Page 2 of 12

GC4097
considered, which may include boat ramps, bulkheads or other shoreline
stabilization measures; and
x) Single family home construction that results in fill of 404 jurisdictional wetlands as
long as written concurrence is not required from DWR for the applicable US Army
Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permit;
c) Any stream relocation or stream restoration; or
d) Any impacts except shading to SAV or significant shellfish resources as identified by the
Division of Marine Fisheries; or
e) Any impacts Unique Wetlands (UWQ; or
f) Any impact associated with a Notice of Violation or an enforcement action for violation(s)
of NC Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 02H .0500), NC Isolated Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 02H
.1300), NC Surface Water or Wetland Standards (15A NCAC 02B .0200), or State
Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 02B .0200); or
g) Any impacts to subject water bodies and/or state regulated riparian buffers along subject
water bodies in the Neuse or Tar -Pamlico River Basins (or any other basin or watershed
with State Regulated Riparian Area Protection Rules [Buffer Rules) in effect at the time of
application) unless:
i) The activities are listed as "EXEMPT" from these rules; or
ii) A Buffer Authorization Certificate is issued by the NC Division of Coastal
Management (DCM); or
iii) A Buffer Authorization Certificate or a Minor Variance is issued by a delegated or
designated local government implementing a state riparian buffer program
pursuant to 143-215.23.
Activities included in this General Certification that do not meet one of the thresholds listed above
.do not require written approval.
ACTIVITY SPECIFIC CONDITIONS:
1. Dredging shall not cause Shellfish Closures. The effluent water from the dredge spoil should
not be released into open shellfish waters. Shellfish Sanitation and the Division of Water
Resources shall be notified if this is to occur. 115A NCAC 02B .0221]
2. if this Water Quality Certification is used to access residential, commercial or industrial
building sites, then all parcels owned by the applicant that are part of the single and
complete project authorized by this Certification must be buildable without additional
impacts to streams or wetlands. If required in writing by DWR, the applicant shall provide
evidence that the parcels are buildable without requiring additional impacts to wetlands,
waters, or state regulated riparian buffers. [15A NCAC 02H .0506(b)(4) and (c)(4)]
3. For road construction purposes, this Certification shall only be utilized from natural high
ground to natural high ground. [15A NCAC 02H .0506(b)(2) and (c)(2)]
Page 3 of 12

GC4O97
4. Deed notifications or similar mechanisms shall be placed on all lots with retained
jurisdictional wetlands, waters, and state regulated riparian buffers within the project
boundaries in order to assure compliance with NC Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 02H .0500), NC
Isolated Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 02H .1300), and/or State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules
(15A NCAC 02B .0200). These mechanisms shall be put in place at the time of recording of
the property or individual parcels, whichever is appropriate. [15A NCAC 02H .0506(b)(4) and
(c)(4)]
5. For living shorelines, the sills shall have at least one five-foot opening every 100 feet and may
be staggered or overlapped or left open as long as the five-foot separation between sections
is maintained. Overlapping sections shall not overlap more than 10 feet. [15A NCAC 02H
.0506(b)(4) and (c)(4)]
6. For living shorelines, the permittee shall employ all sedimentation and erosion control
measures necessary to prevent an increase in sedimentation and turbidity within waters and
wetlands outside the permitted area. This shall include, but is not limited to, the immediate
installation of silt fencing, turbidity curtains or similar appropriate devices around all areas
subject to soil disturbance. Additionally, the project must remain in full compliance with all
aspects of the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act and the Mining Act of 1971. [15A NCAC
02H .0506(b)(4) and (c)(4))
7. Living shorelines in Primary Nursery Areas (as designated by the NC Marine Fisheries
Commission) shall be coordinated with the appropriate NC Wildlife Resources Commission
(WRC), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and NC Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF)
personnel. [15A NCAC 02B .0221)
8. For the North Carolina Department of Transportation, compliance with the NCDOrs
individual NPDES permit NCS000250 shall serve to satisfy this condition. For all other
projects that disturb one acre or more of land (including a project that disturbs less than one
acre of land that is part of a larger common plan of development or sale); have permanent
wetland, stream, or open water impacts; and are proposing new built -upon area shall comply
with the following requirements: [15A NCAC 02H .0506(b)(5) and (c)(5))
a. Stormwater management shall be provided throughout the entire project area in
accordance with 15A NCAC 02H .1003. For the purposes of 15A NCAC 02H .1003(2)(a),
density thresholds shall be determined in accordance with 15A NCAC 02H .1017.
b. Projects that have vested rights, exemptions, or grandfathering from state or locally -
implemented stormwater programs do not satisfy this condition. Projects that satisfy
state or locally -implemented stormwater programs through use of community in -lieu
programs do not satisfy this condition.
c. Projects that require written authorization from DWR shall submit the following with
their application for review and approval:
Page 4 of 12

GC4097
i. For projects that have a stormwater management plan (SMP) reviewed under a state
stormwater program' or a state -approved local government stormwater program2
shall submit plans that show the location and approximate size of all proposed
stormwater measures;
ii. All other low density projects not covered above shall submit a completed low
density supplement form with all required items; and
iii. All other high density projects not covered above shall submit a completed SMP,
including all appropriate stormwater control measure (SCM) supplemental forms and
associated items, that complies with the high density development requirements of
15A NCAC 02H .1003.
d. Projects that do not require written approval from DWR shall obtain approval of the SMP,
when required, before any impacts authorized by this Certification occur.
e. SMPs approved by DWR maybe phased on a case -by -case basis. SMPs for each future
phase must be approved before construction of that phase commences. Approved SMPs
may not be modified without prior written authorization from DWR.
H. GENERAL CONDITIONS:
1. When written authorization is required, the plans and specifications for the project are
incorporated into the authorization by reference and are an enforceable part of the
Certification. Any modifications to the project require notification to DWR and may require
an application submittal to DWR with the appropriate fee. [15A NCAC 02H .0501 and .0502]
2. No waste, spoil, solids, or fill of any kind shall occur in wetlands or waters beyond the
footprint of the impacts (including temporary Impacts) as authorized in the written approval
from DWR; or beyond the thresholds established for use of this Certification without written
authorization. 115A NCAC 02H .0501 and .0502]
No removal of vegetation or other impacts of any kind shall occur to state regulated riparian
buffers beyond the footprint of impacts approved In a Buffer Authorization or Variance or as
listed as an exempt activity in the applicable riparian buffer rules. [15A NCAC 02B .0200]
3. In accordance with 15A NCAC 02H .0506(h), compensatory mitigation may be required for
losses of greater than 150 linear feet of streams and/or greater than one (1) acre of
wetlands. Impacts to isolated and other non-404 jurisdictional wetlands shall not be
combined with 404 jurisdictional wetlands for the purpose of determining when impact
thresholds trigger a mitigation requirement. For linear publicly owned and maintained
transportation projects that are not determined to be part of a larger common plan of
1 e.g. Coastal Counties, HQW, ORW, or state -implemented Phase II NPDES
2 e.g, Delegated Phase It NPDES, Water Supply Watershed, Nutrient -Sensitive Waters, or Universal Stormwater
Management Program
Page 5 of 12

GC4O97
development by the US Army Corps of Engineers, compensatory mitigation may be required
for losses of greater than 150 linear feet per stream.
Compensatory stream and/or wetland mitigation shall be proposed and completed in
compliance with G.S. 143-214.11. For applicants proposing to conduct mitigation within a
project site, a complete mitigation proposal developed in accordance with the most recent
guidance issued by the US Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington District shall be submitted
for review and approval with the application for impacts.
4. All activities shall be in compliance with any applicable State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules
in Chapter 2 of Title 15A.
5. When applicable, all construction activities shall be performed and maintained in full
compliance with G.S. Chapter 113A Article 4 (Sediment and Pollution Control Act of 1973).
Regardless of applicability of the Sediment and Pollution Control Act, all projects shall
incorporate appropriate Best Management Practices for the control of sediment and erosion
so that no violations of state water quality standards, statutes, or rules occur. [15A NCAC
02H .0506(b)(3) and (c)(3) and 15A NCAC 02B .0200]
Design, installation, operation, and maintenance of all sediment' and erosion control
measures shall be equal to or exceed the requirements specified in the most recent version
of the North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control Manual, or for linear transportation
projects, the NCDOTSediment and Erosion Control Manual.
All devices shall be maintained on all construction sites, borrow sites, and waste pile (spoil)
sites, including contractor -owned or leased borrow pits associated with the project.
Sufficient materials required for stabilization and/or repair of erosion control measures and
stormwater routing and treatment shall be on site at all times.
For borrow pit sites, the erosion and sediment control measures shall be designed, installed,
operated, and maintained in accordance with the most recent version of the North Carolina
Surface Mining Manual. Reclamation measures and implementation shall comply with the
reclamation in accordance with the requirements of the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act
and the Mining Act of 1971.
If the project occurs in waters or watersheds classified as Primary Nursery Areas (PNAs), SA,
WS-I, WS-II, High. Quality Waters (HQW), or Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), then the
sedimentation and erosion control designs shall comply with the requirements set forth in
15A NCAC 04B .0124, Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds.
6. Sediment and erosion control measures shall not be placed in wetlands or waters except
within the footprint of temporary or permanent impacts authorized under this Certification.
Exceptions to this condition require application to and written approval from DWR. [15A
NCAC 02H .0501 and .0502]
Page 6 of 12

GC4097
7. Erosion control matting that incorporates plastic mesh and/or plastic twine shall not be used
along streambanks or within wetlands. Exceptions to this condition require application to
and written approval from DWR. 115A NCAC 02B .0201]
8. An NPDES Construction Stormwater Permit (NCG010000) is required for construction
projects that disturb one (1) or more acres of land. The NCG010000 Permit allows
stormwater to be discharged during land disturbing construction activities as stipulated in
the conditions of the permit. If the project is covered by this permit, full compliance with
permit conditions including the erosion & sedimentation control plan, inspections and
maintenance, self -monitoring, record keeping and reporting requirements is required. [15A
NCAC 02H .0506(b)(5) and (c)(5)]
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) shall be required to be in full
compliance with the conditions related to construction activities within the most recent
version of their individual NPDES (NCS000250) stormwater permit. [15A NCAC 02H
.0506(b)(5) and (c)(5)]
9. All work in or adjacent to streams shall be conducted so that the flowing stream does not
came in contact with the disturbed area. Approved best management practices from the
most current version of the NC Sediment and Erosion Control Manual, or the NC DOT
Construction and Maintenance Activities Manual, such as sandbags, rock berms, cofferdams,
and other diversion structures shall be used to minimize excavation in flowing water.
Exceptions to this condition require application to and written approval from DWR. [15A
NCAC 02H .0506(b)(3) and (c)(3)]
10. If activities must occur during periods of.high biological activity (e.g. sea turtle nesting, fish
spawning, or bird nesting), then biological monitoring may be required at the request of
other state or federal agencies and coordinated with these activities. [15A NCAC 02H
.0506(b)(2) and 15A NCAC 04B .0125]
All moratoriums on construction activities *established by the NC Wildlife Resources
Commission (WRC), US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), NC Division of Marine Fisheries
(DMF), or National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) shall be implemented. Exceptions to this
condition require written approval by the resource agency responsible for the given
moratorium. A copy of the approval from the resource agency shall be forwarded to DWR.
Work within a designated trout watershed of North Carolina (as identified by the Wilmington
District of the US Army Corps of Engineers), or identified state or federal endangered or
threatened species habitat, shall be coordinated with the appropriate WRC, USFWS, NMFS,
and/or DMF personnel:
11. Culverts shall be designed and installed in such a manner that the original stream profiles are
not altered and allow for aquatic life movement during low flows. The dimension, pattern,
and profile of the stream above and below a pipe or culvert shall not be modified by
widening the stream channel or by reducing the depth of the stream in connection with the
construction activity. The width, height, and gradient of a proposed culvert shall be such as
Page 7 of 12

GC4097
to pass the average historical low flow and spring flow without adversely altering flow
velocity. [15A NCAC 02H .0506(b)(2) and (c)(2)]
Placement of culverts and other structures in streams shall be below the elevation of the
streambed by one foot for all culverts with a diameter greater than 48 inches, and 20% of the
culvert diameter for culverts having a diameter less than or equal to 48 inches, to allow low
flow passage of water and aquatic life.
If multiple pipes or barrels are required, they shall be designed to mimic the existing stream
cross section as closely as possible including pipes or barrels at flood plain elevation and/or
sills where appropriate. Widening the stream channel shall be avoided.
When topographic constraints indicate culvert slopes of greater than 5%, culvert burial is not
required, provided that all alternative options for flattening the slope have been investigated
and aquatic life movement/connectivity has been provided when possible (e.g. rock ladders„
cross vanes, etc.). Notification, including supporting documentation to include a location
map of the culvert, culvert profile drawings, and slope calculations, shall be provided to DWR
60 calendar days prior to the installation of the culvert.
When bedrock is present in culvert locations, culvert burial is not required provided that
there is sufficient documentation of the presence of bedrock. Notification, including
supporting documentation such as, a location map of the culvert, geotechnical reports,
photographs, etc. shall be provided to DWR a minimum of 60 calendar days prior to the
installation of the culvert. If bedrock is discovered during construction, then DWR shall be
notified by phone or email within 24 hours of discovery.
If other site -specific topographic constraints preclude the ability to bury the culverts as
described above and/or it can be demonstrated that burying the culvert would result in
destabilization of the channel, then exceptions to this condition require application to and
written approval from DWR.
Installation of culverts in .wetlands shall ensure continuity of water movement and be
designed to adequately accommodate high water or flood conditions. When roadways,
causeways, or other fill projects are constructed across FEMA-designated floodways or
wetlands, openings such as culverts or bridges shall be provided to maintain the natural
hydrology of the system as well as prevent constriction of the floodway, that may result in
destabilization of streams or wetlands.
The establishment of native woody vegetation and other soft stream bank stabilization
techniques shall be used where practicable instead of rip -rap or other bank hardening
methods.
Page 8 of 12

GC4097
12. Bridge deck drains shall not discharge directly into the stream. Stormwater shall be directed
across the bridge and pre-treated through site -appropriate means to the maximum extent
practicable (e.g.. grassed swales, pre -formed scour holes, vegetated buffers, etc.) before
entering the stream. -Exceptions to this condition require application to and written approval
from DWR. [15A NCAC 02H .0506(b)(5)]
13. Application of fertilizer to establish planted/seeded vegetation within disturbed riparian
areas and/or wetlands shall be conducted at agronomic rates and shall comply with all other
Federal, State and Local regulations. Fertilizer application shall be accomplished In a manner
that minimizes the risk of contact between the fertilizer and surface waters. [15A NCAC 02B
.0200 and 15A NCAC 02B .0231]
14. If concrete is used during construction, then all necessary measures shall be taken to prevent
direct contact between uncured or curing concrete and waters of the state. Water that
inadvertently contacts uncured concrete shall not be discharged to waters of the state. 115A
NCAC 02B .0200]
15. All proposed and approved temporary fill and culverts shall be removed and the impacted
area shall be returned to natural conditions within 60 calendar days after the temporary
impact is no longer necessary. The impacted areas shall be restored to original grade,
including each stream's original cross sectional dimensions, planform pattern, and
longitudinal bed profile. For projects that receive written approval, no temporary impacts are
allowed beyond those included in the application and authorization. All temporarily
impacted sites shall be restored and stabilized with native vegetation. (15A NCAC 02H
.0506(b)(2) and (c)(2)]
16. All proposed and approved temporary pipes/culverts/rip-rap pads etc. in streams shall be
installed as outlined in the most recent edition of the North Carolina Sediment and Erosion
Control Planning and Design Manual or the North Carolina Surface Mining Manual or the
North Carolina Department of Transportation Best Management Practices for Construction
and Maintenance Activities so as not to restrict stream flow or cause dis-equilibrium during
-use of this Certification. 115A NCAC 02H .0506(b)(2) and (c)(2)]
17. Any rip -rap required for proper culvert placement, stream stabilization, or restoration of
temporarily disturbed areas shall be restricted to the area directly impacted by the approved
construction activity. All rip -rap shall be placed such that the original stream elevation and
streambank contours are restored and maintained. Placement of rip -rap or other approved
materials shall not result in de -stabilization of the stream bed or banks upstream or
downstream of the area or in a manner that precludes aquatic life passage. [15A NCAC 02H
.0506(b)(2))
18. Any rip -rap used for stream or shoreline stabilization shall be of a size and density to prevent
movement by wave, current action, or stream flows and shall consist of clean rock or
masonry material free of debris or toxic pollutants. Rip -rap shall not be installed in the
streambed except in specific areas required for velocity control and to ensure structural
integrity of bank stabilization measures. [15A NCAC 02H .0506(b)(2)]
Page 9 of 12

GC4097
19. Applications for rip -rap groins proposed in accordance with 15A NCAC 07H .1401 INC
Division of Coastal Management General Permit for construction of Wooden and Rip -rap
Groins in Estuarine and Public Trust Waters) shall meet all the specific conditions for design
and construction specified in 15A NCAC 07H .1405.
20. All mechanized equipment operated near surface waters shall be inspected and maintained
regularly to prevent contamination of surface waters from fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids,
or other toxic materials. Construction shall be staged in order to minimize the exposure of
equipment to surface waters to the maximum extent practicable. Fueling, lubrication and
general equipment maintenance shall not take place within 50 feet of a waterbody or
wetlands to prevent contamination by fuels and oils. [15A NCAC 02H .0506(b)(3) and (c)(3)
and 15A NCAC 02B .0211(12)] j
21. Heavy equipment working in wetlands shall be placed on mats or other measures shall be
taken to minimize soil disturbance. [15A NCAC 02H .0506(b)(3) and (c)(3)]
22. In accordance with 143-215.85(b), the applicant shall report any petroleum spill of 25 gallons
or more; any spill regardless of amount that causes a sheen on surface waters; any
petroleum spill regardless of amount occurring within 100 feet of surface waters; and any
petroleum spill less than 25 gallons that cannot be cleaned up within 24 hours.
23. If an environmental document is required under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA),
then this General Certification is not valid until a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) or
Record of Decision (ROD) is issued by the State Clearinghouse. If an environmental document
is required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), then this General
Certification is not valid until a Categorical Exclusion, the Final Environmental Assessment, or
Final Environmental Impact Statement is published by the lead agency 115A NCAC 01C
.0107(a)]
24. This General Certification does not relieve the applicant of the responsibility to obtain all
other required Federal, State, or Local approvals before proceeding with the project,
including those required by, but not limited to Sediment and Erosion Control, Non -Discharge,
Water Supply Watershed, and Trout Buffer regulations.
25. The applicant and their authorized agents shall conduct all activities in a manner consistent
with State water quality standards (including any requirements resulting from compliance
with §303(d) of the Clean Water Act), and any other appropriate requirements of State and
Federal Law. If DWR determines that such standards or laws are not being met, including
failure to sustain a designated or achieved use, or that State or Federal law is being violated,
or that further conditions are necessary to assure compliance, then DWR may revoke or
modify a written authorization associated with this General Water Quality Certification. [15A
NCAC 02H .0507(d)]
Page 10 of 12

GC4097
26. When written authorization is required for use of this Certification, upon completion of all
permitted impacts included within the approval and any subsequent modifications, the
applicant shall .be required to return a certificate of completion (available on the DWR
website https:Hedocs.deg.nc.gov/Forms/Certificate-of-Completion). [15A NCAC 02H
.0502(f)]
27. Additional site -specific conditions, Including monitoring and/or modeling requirements, may
be added to the written approval letter for projects proposed under this Water Quality
Certification in order to ensure compliance with all applicable water quality and effluent
standards. [15A NCAC 02H .0507(c)]
28. If the property or project is sold or transferred, the new Permittee shall be given a copy of
this Certification (and written authorization if applicable) and is responsible for complying
with all conditions. [15A NCAC 02H .0501 and .0502]
GENERAL CERTIFICATION ADMINISTRATION:
1. In accordance with North Carolina General Statute 143-215.3D(e), written approval for a 401
Water Quality General Certification must include the appropriate fee. An applicant for a
CAMA permit under Article 7 of Chapter 113A of the General Statutes for which a Water
Quality Certification is required shall only make one payment to satisfy both agencies; the fee
shall be as established by the Secretary in accordance with 143-215.3D(e)(7).
2. This Certification neither grants nor affirms any property right, license, or privilege in any
waters, or any right of use in any waters. This Certification does not authorize any person to
interfere with the riparian rights, littoral rights, or water use rights of any other person and
this Certification does not create any prescriptive right or any right of priority regarding any
usage of water. This Certification shall not be interposed as a defense in any action
respecting the determination of riparian or littoral rights or other rights to water use. No
consumptive user is deemed by virtue of this Certification to possess any prescriptive or
other right of priority with respect to any other consumptive user regardless of the quantity
of the withdrawal or the date on which the withdrawal was initiated or expanded.
3. This Certification grants permission to the Director, an authorized representative of the
Director, or DWR staff, upon the presentation of proper credentials, to enter the property
during normal business hours. [15A NCAC 02H .0502(e)]
4. This General Certification shall expire on the same day as the expiration date of the
corresponding Nationwide Permit and/or Regional General Permit. The conditions in effect
on the date of issuance of Certification for a specific project shall remain in effect for the life
of the project, regardless, of the expiration date of this Certification. This General
Certification is rescinded when the U5 Army Corps of Engineers reauthorizes any of the
corresponding Nationwide Permits and/or Regional General Permits or when deemed
appropriate by the Director of the Division of Water Resources.
Page 11 of 12

GC4097
5. Non-compliance with or violation of the conditions herein set forth by a specific project may
result in revocation of this General Certification for the project and may also result in
criminal and/or civil penalties.
6. The Director of the North Carolina Division of Water Resources may require submission of a
formal application for Individual Certification for any project in this category of activity if it is
determined that the project is likely to have a significant adverse effect upon water quality,
including state or federally listed endangered or threatened aquatic species, or degrade the
waters so that existing uses of the water or downstream waters are precluded.
7. Public hearings may be held prior to a Certification decision if deemed in the public's best
interest by the Director of the North Carolina Division of Water Resources.
History Note: Water Quality Certification (WQC) Number 4097 issued March 6, 2017 replaces
WQC Number 3900 issued March 19, 2012; WQC Number 3641 and 3642 issued March 19, 2007,
WQC Numbers 3371 and 3400 issued March 18, 2002, WQC Number 3274 issued June 1, 2000,
WQC Number 3112 issued February 11, 1997; and WQC Number 3025 issued September 6, 1995.
1
Page 12 of 12

•_w
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action Id. SAW-2017-00782 County: Carteret U.S.G.S. Quad: Barkers Island
GENERAL PERMIT (REGIONAL AND NATIONWIDE) VERIFICATION
Permittee: Dr. Fredrick Fodrie
UNC INSTITUTE OF MARINE SCIENCE
Address: 3431 Arendel Street
Morehead City NC, 28557
Telephone Number:
Size (acres) —1.4 acre Nearest Town Beaufort
Nearest Waterway North River River Basin White Oak
USGS HUC 03020301 Coordinates Latitude: 34.70318
Longitude:-76.60045
Location description: The project site is located within waters at the continence of North River and Back Sound,
located in between Beaufort and Harker's Island in Carteret County, North Carolina. .
Description of projects area and activity: This verification authorizes the overall approximate 1.4 acre project site would
involve the temporary deployment of 0.5 acres of artificial seagrass units on the sand/mud bottom habitat. The project
is a multi -year research project for the purpose of studying habitat fragmentation effects of fish diversity at landscape
scales. The project consists of placing plastic artificial seagrass units comprised of a material known as VEXAR on
shallow bottom habitat in a 19,375 square foot area. Each unit is approximately 1 square meter in size and would
contain 450 shoots of green ribbon (approximately 755 miles of ribbon) attached to the VEXAR. The units will be
anchored in the sand bar with 6" and 12" landscaping staples. PVC poles will be used to mark each corner of the
individual landscape plots.
Applicable Law: ❑ Section 404 (Clean Water Act, 33 USC 1344)
® Section 10 (Rivers and Harbors Act, 33 USC 403)
Authorization: Regional General Permit Number and/or Nationwide Permit Number: GP 291
- -- - - - SEE ATTACHED RGP or NWP GENERAL, REGIONAL AND/OR SPECIAL CONDITIONS
Your work is authorized by the above referenced permit provided it is accomplished in strict accordance with the
attached conditions and your submitted application, dated April 7, 2017 and additional information dated August 21,
2017. Any violation of the attached conditions or deviation from your submitted plans may subject the permittee to a
stop work order, a restoration order, a Class I administrative penalty, and/or appropriate legal action.
This verification will remain valid until the expiration date identified below unless the nationwide and/or regional general
permit authorization is modified, suspended or revoked. It prior to the expiration date identified below, the nationwide
and/or regional general permit authorization is reissued and/or modified, this verification will remain valid until the
expiration date identified below, provided it complies with all requirements of the modified nationwide permit. If the
nationwide and/or regional general permit authorization expires or is suspended, revoked, or is modified, such that the
activity would no longer comply with the terms and conditions of the nationwide permit, activities which have commenced
(i.e., are under construction) or are under contract to commence in reliance upon the nationwide and/or regional general
permit, will remain authorized provided the activity is completed within twelve months of the date of the nationwide and/or
regional general permit's expiration, modification or revocation, unless discretionary authority has been exercised on a case -
by -case basis to modify, suspend or revoke the authorization.
Activities subject to Section 404 (as indicated above) may also require an individual Section 401 Water Quality Certification.
You should contact the NC Division of Water Resources (telephone [phone]) to determine Section 401 requirements.
For activities occurring within the twenty coastal counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act
(CAMA), prior to beginning work you must contact the N.C. Division of Coastal Management
in Morehead City, NC, at [phone].

AI
-2-
This Department of the Army verification does not relieve the permittee of the responsibility to obtain any other required
Federal', State or local approvals/permits.
If there are any questions regarding this verification, any of the conditions of the Permit, or the Corps of Engineers regulatory
program, please contact Sarah Hair at (910) 2514049 or Sarah.E.Hairnusace.army.mil.
Corps Regulatory Official: Z:!� d'e'7
Date: June 11, 2015
Expiration Date of Verification: December 31, 2021
A. Determination of Jurisdiction:
1. ❑ There are waters, including wetlands, on the above described project area that maybe subject to Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 USC § 1344) and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403).
This preliminary determination is not an appealable action under the Regulatory Program Administrative Appeal
Process (Reference 33 CFR Part 331). However, you may request an approved JD, which is an appealable action, by
contacting the Corps district for further instruction. Please note, if work is authorized by either a general or nationwide
permit, and you wish to request an appeal of an approved JD, the appeal must be received by the Corps and the appeal
process concluded prior to the commencement of any work in waters of the United States and prior to any work that
could alter the hydrology of waters of the United States.
2. ❑ There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described project area subject to the permit
requirements of Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403) and Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (CWA) (33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this determination may
be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
3. ❑ There are waters, including wetlands, within the above described project area that are subject to the permit
requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or
our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of
this notification.
4. ® A jurisdiction determination was not completed with this request. Therefore, this is not an appealable action.
However, you may request an approved JD, which is an appealable action, by contacting the Corps for further
instruction.
5. ❑ The aquatic resources within the above described project area have been identified under a previous action. Please
reference the approved jurisdictional determination issued . Action ID: SAW-
B. Basis For Jurisdictional Determination: N/A. An Approved JD has not been completed.
C.Remarks: N/A
The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure
we continue to do so, please complete our Customer Satisfaction Survey, located online at
http://c=smat)u.usace.army.mil/cm apex/f?u=136A0.

-3-
Electronic copy furnished:
Ms. Karen Higgins
Division of Water Resources
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Mr. Pete Benjamin
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Dr. Pace Wilber
National Marine Fisheries Service
Habitat Conservation Division
Mr. Fritz Rohde
National Marine Fisheries Service
Habitat Conservation Service
Mr. Todd Allen Bowers
US EPA Region 4 Life Scientist
Water Protection Division
Mr. Robb Mahs
Division of Water Resources
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Mr. Gregg Bodnar
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality

SAW-2017-00782
SPECIAL
1. In order to further protect the endangered West Indian Manatee, Trichechus manatus, the
applicant must implement the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Manatee Guidelines, and strictly adhere to all
requirements therein. The guidelines can be found at htti)://www.fws.gov/ne-es/mammal/manatee euidelines.pdf
2. Gillnet deployments: Continuous monitoring of gillnets during each deployment and pulling
the net if a sea turtle is seen within 50 ft. Scanning the area of gillnet deployment a half hour before
deployment to check for sea turtle presence
3. ASU monitoring: Observe/monitor ASUs at least 3 days a week and during deployments to
detect for foraging via snorkeling. Confirm that each unit and polypropylene strand on every unit is of the same
length (which will help determine evidence of grazing).
4. The deployment/sampling area will be scanned 30 minutes prior to each net deployment time to
observe for sea turtle/dolphin presence.
5. During net deployments, participants will maintain tight nets and repair damaged nets after each
deployment.
6. Gill nets will not be deployed if a sea turtle is observed in the area until after it has moved off of
its own volition. Damaged gill nets will be repaired prior to deployment. While deployed, gill nets will be
stretched tightly to reduce entanglement risk, and will be monitored continuously.
7. Closely inspect the study area following tropical storms and hurricanes to remove
debris, including damaged ASUs. If a tropical storm or hurricane approaches after August 15th of a given year, all
ASUs would be removed before the storm.
8. The permittee must install and maintain, at his expense, any signal lights and signals prescribed
by the U.S..Coast Guard, through regulations or otherwise, on authorized facilities. For further information, the
permittee should contact the U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Office at [phone].
9. All work authorized by this permit must be performed in strict compliance with the submitted
plans, which are a part of this permit. Any modification to these plans must be approved by the US Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) prior to implementation.
10. The permittee understands and agrees that, if future operations by the United States require the
removal, relocation, or other alteration, of the structure or work herein authorized, or if, in the opinion of the
Secretary of the Army or his authorized representative, said structure or work shall cause unreasonable obstruction
to the free navigation of the navigable waters, the permittee will be required, upon due notice from the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, to remove, relocate, or alter the structural work or obstructions caused thereby, without
expense to the United States.
11. Approval of the structure is based on determinations that there would be no obstruction to
navigation. The structure may be damaged by wave wash from passing vessels. Issuance of this permit should not
be construed, as relieving the permittee of taking proper steps to insure the structure and moored boats will not be
damaged by wave wash.

12. The authorized structure and associated activity must not interfere with the public's right to free
navigation on all navigable waters of the United States. No attempt will be made by the permittee to prevent the
full and free use by the public of all navigable waters at or adjacent to the authorized work for reason other than
safety.
13. Except as specified in the plans attached to this permit, no excavation, fill or mechanized land -
clearing activities shall take place at any time in the construction or maintenance of this project, in such a manner
as to impair normal flows and circulation patterns within waters or wetlands or to reduce the reach of waters or
wetlands.
14. Except as authorized by this permit or any USACE approved modification to this permit, no.
excavation, fill or mechanized land -clearing activities shall take place at any time in the construction or
maintenance of this project, within waters or wetlands. This permit does not authorize temporary placement or
double handling of excavated or fill material within waters or wetlands outside the permitted area. This
prohibition applies to all borrow and fill activities connected with this project.
15. All mechanized equipment will be regularly inspected and maintained to prevent contamination
of waters and wetlands from fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials. In the event of a spill of
petroleum products or any other hazardous waste, the permittee shall immediately report it to the N.C. Division of
Water Resources at [phone], Ext. 526 or [phone] and provisions of the North Carolina Oil
Pollution and Hazardous Substances Control Act will be followed.
16. Unless otherwise authorized by this permit, all fill material placed in waters or wetlands shall
be generated from an upland source and will be clean and free of any pollutants except in trace quantities. Metal
products, organic materials (including debris from land clearing activities); or unsightly debris will not be used.
17. If the permittee discovers any previously unknown historic or archeological remains while
accomplishing the authorized work, he will immediately notify the Wilmington District Engineer who will initiate
the required coordination procedures.
18. The permittee shall require its contractors and/or agents to comply with the terms and
conditions of this permit in the construction and maintenance of this project, and shall provide each of its
contractors and/or agents associated with the construction or maintenance of this project with a copy of this permit.
A copy of this permit, including all conditions, shall be available at the project site during construction and
maintenance of this project.
19. The permittee shall employ all sedimentation and erosion control measures necessary to prevent
an increase in sedimentation or turbidity within waters and wetlands outside the permit area. This shall include,
but is not limited to, the immediate installation of silt fencing or similar appropriate devices around all areas
subject to soil disturbance or the movement of earthen fill, and the immediate stabilization of all disturbed areas.
Additionally, the project must remain in full compliance with all aspects of the Sedimentation Pollution Control
Act of 1973 (North Carolina General Statutes Chapter 113A Article 4).
20. The activity will be conducted in such a manner as to prevent a significant increase in turbidity
outside the area of construction or construction -related discharge. Increases such that the turbidity in the
waterbody is 50 NTU's or less in all rivers not designated as trout waters by the North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management (NCDEM), 25 NTU's or less in all saltwater classes and in all lakes and reservoirs,
and 10 NTU's or less in trout waters, are not considered significant.

21: The permittee, upon receipt of a notice of revocation of this permit or upon its expiration before
completion of the work will, without expense to the United States and in such time and manner as the Secretary of
the Army or his authorized representative may direct, restore the water or wetland to its pre -project condition.
22. Violations of these conditions or violations of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act or Section 10
of the Rivers and Harbors Act must be reported in writing to the Wilmington District U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers within 24 hours of the permittee's discovery of the violation.

=t
Action ID Number: SAW-2017-00782 County: Carteret
Permittee: Dr. Fredrick Fodrie
UNC INSTITUTE OF MARINE SCIENCE
Project Name: Artificial Seaerass Study/Habitat Fraementation/Back Sound
Date Verification Issued: June 11, 2018
Project Manager: Sarah Hair
Upon completion of the activity authorized by this permit and any mitigation required by the permit,
sign this certification and return it to the following address:
US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Attn: Sarah Hair
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403
Please note that your permitted activity is subject to a compliance inspection by a U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers representative. Failure to comply with any terms or conditions of this authorization may
result in the Corps suspending, modifying or revoking the authorization and/or issuing a Class I
administrative penalty, or initiating other appropriate legal action.
I hereby certify that the work authorized by the above referenced permit has been completed in
accordance with the terms and condition of the said permit, and required mitigation was completed in
accordance with the permit conditions.
Signature of Permittee
Date

-................. ............ _.r
Permit Class Permit Number
NEW 48-18
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
Department of Environmental Quality
and
Coastal Resources Commission
Permit
for
X Major Development in an Area of Environmental Concern
pursuant to NCGS 113A-118
X Excavation and/or filling pursuant to NCGS 113-229
Issued to UNC Institute of Marine Science, 3431 Arendell St. Morehead Citv. NC 28557
Authorizing development in Carteret County at Conflux of North River & Back Sound.
between North River & Middle Marshes, as requested in the permittee's application dated 3/29/17, including
attached workplan drawings (5) all dated "Received DCM MHD Citv 3/29/17".
This permit, issued on May 17, 2018 , is subject to compliance with the application (where
consistent with the permit), all applicable regulations, special conditions and notes set forth below. Any violation
)r mese terms may oe suoject to tmes, imprisonment or civil action; or may cause the permit to be null and void.
Artificial Seaerass Research Development
1) Unless specifically altered herein, this permit authorizes the temporary placement of 19,375 ft2 of
Artificial Seagrass Units (ASU) within the larger 60,550 ftresearch tract, located over Public Trust
Area, all as expressly and specifically set forth in the attached permit application, Appendix.2:
Additional notes on proposed AS,U deployment, and workplan drawings. No other structure, whether
submerged, floating or stationary, shall become a permanent part of this site without permit
modification.
2) No materials shall be placed, even temporarily, at any time in any waters outside of the alignment of
the site, as indicated on the attached workplan drawings. Any expansion of the site beyond the
approved alignment as described in the application may require additional authorization.
(See attached sheets for Additional Conditions)
This permit action may be appealed by the permittee or other
qualified persons within twenty (20) days of the issuing date.
This permit must be accessible on -site to Department
personnel when the project is inspected for compliance.
Any maintenance work or project modification not covered
hereunder requires further Division approval.
All work must cease when the permit expires on
December 31, 2021
In issuing this permit, the State of North Carolina agrees that
your project is consistent with the North Carolina Coastal
Management Program.
Signed by the authority of the Secretary of DEQ and the
Chairman of the Coastal Resources Commission.
Braxton it. Davis, Director
Division of Coastal Management
This permit and its conditions are hereby accepted.
Signature ofPermittee

UNiC Instifute of Marine Science
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
Permit No. 48-18
Page 2 of 4
3) In accordance with commitments made by the permittee, and if deemed necessary by the NC Division of
Marine Fisheries, Fisheries Management Section, the ASU site shall be designated as a Research
Sanctuary. ,
4) All materials shall be removed from the site, accounted for, and notification of completion of operations
shall be provided to the NC Division of Coastal Management within 15 days of project completion.
5) The permittee shall be required to repair, maintain and/or remove any components of the 'site that are
displaced from the approved alignment as depicted in attached workplans. Anchoring materials shall be
of sufficient size and design to prevent movement from the approved alignment by wave or current
action. The permittee shall be responsible for immediate removal of any materials or debris that
becomes dislodged or moves outside the authorized alignment.
NOTE: The permittee is advised that the placement of materials may create an environment that could
promote the establishment of native, live submerged aquatic submerged vegetation within and
adjacent to the site. If this occurs, all submerged aquatic vegetation shall remain in place and
avoided to the greatest extent practicable.
6) The permittee shall install and maintain at his expense any signal lights or signals prescribed by the U.S.
Coast Guard, through regulation or otherwise, at the authorized site. For farther information, the
permittee should contact the U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Office at [phone]. At minimum,
the permittee shall mark the corners of each 225 square meter plot with yellow reflectors extending at
least 3 feet above normal high water. Signage identifying the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill,
the Primary Investigator, and contact phone number shall,be posted on the four outermost corners of the
sampling area.
USACE Conditions
7) The sampling area shall be closely inspected following tropical storms and hurricanes to remove
debris, including damaged ASUs. If a tropical storm or hurricane approaches after August 15th of a
given year, all ASUs shall be removed before the storm.
8) In order to further protect the endangered West Indian Manatee, Trichechus manatus, the applicant must
implement the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service's Guidelines, and strictly adhere to all requirements therein.
The guidelines can be found at http://www.fws.gov/nc-es/mammal/manatee_gWdelines.pdf.
9) The sampling area shall be monitored for the presence of sea turtles and dolphins for a minimum of 30
minutes before the deployment of any gill net. If a sea turtle is present within the sampling area, gill
nets shall not be deployed until the sea turtle leaves the sampling area of its own volition.
10) Deployed gill nets shall be monitored at all times for sea turtle interaction. Gill nets shall be removed
from the water column if a sea turtle is seen within 50 feet of any section of the gill net.
11) To reduce the potential for sea turtle entanglement, gill nets shall be set tight in the water column
without any slack or "bag" in the net. All gill nets shall be kept in good working order and all gill nets
shall be repaired if needed, prior to each subsequent deployment.

UNC Institute of Marine Science
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
Permit No. 48-18
Page 3 of 4
12) The permittee shall observe the ASUs a minimum of 3 times per week, via snorkeling, to detect for signs
of grazing interactions. Grazing interaction shall be determined by confirming that each strand of
polypropylene ribbon on every unit is of equal length.
13) The permittee understands and agrees that, if future operations by the United States require the removal,
relocation, or other alteration, of the structure or work herein authorized, or if, in the opinion of the
Secretary of the Army or his authorized representative, said structure or work shall cause unreasonable
obstruction to the free navigation of the navigable waters, the pemuttee will be required, upon due
notice from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, to remove, relocate, or alter the structural work or
obstructions caused thereby, without expense to the United States.
14) Approval of the structure is based on determinations that there would be no obstruction to navigation.
The structure may be damaged by wave wash from passing vessels. Issuance of this permit should not
be construed, as relieving the permittee of taking proper steps to insure the authorized experimental
components will not be damaged by wave wash.
15) The authorized structure and associated activity must not interfere with the public's right to free
navigation on all navigable waters of the United States. No attempt will be made by the permittee to
prevent the full and free use by the public of all navigable waters at or adjacent to the authorized work
for reason other than safety.
General
16) Any mitigative measures or environmental commitments specifically made by the applicant for this
project shall be implemented, regardless of whether or not such commitments are addressed by
individual conditions of this permit.
17) This permit shall not be assigned, transferred, sold, or otherwise disposed of to a third party without the
written approval of the Division of Coastal Management.
18) The permittee shall maintain the authorized work in good condition and in conformance with the terms
and conditions of this permit. The permittee is not relieved of this requirement if he or she abandons the
permitted activity without having it transferred to a third party.
19) In order to ensure compliance with the conditions of this Permit, the permittee and his contractor shall
schedule a pre -construction conference with the Division of Coastal Management prior to the initiation
of any permitted activities.
NOTE: This permit does not eliminate the need to obtain any additional state, federal or local permits,
approvals or authorizations that may be required.
NOTE: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers authorized the project by way of Programmatic General
Permit 198000291 (Action ID SAW-2017-00782) issued 5117/18.
NOTE: The N.C. Division of Water Resources authorized the proposed project by way. of General Water
Quality Certification 4097 and assigned the project DWR Project No. 2017-0425.

of Marine Science
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
Permit No. 48-18
Page 4 of 4
Future development of the pernuttee's property may require a modification of this permit.
Contact a representative of the Division at [phone] prior to the commencement of any
such activity for this determination.
An application processing fee of $400 was received by DCM for this project. This he also
satisfied the Section 401 application processing fee requirements of the Division of Water .
Resources.

IN Mr-1
APPLICATION for
Malor Development Permit
(last revised 12127/06)
North Carolina DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
1. Primary Applicant/ Landowner Information
Business Name
Unc Institute Of Marine Science
Project Name (if applicable)
Habitat fragmentation effects of fish diversity at landscape
scales: experimental tests of multiple mechanisms
Applicant 1: First Name
Fredrick
MI
J
Last Name
Fodrie
Applicant 2: First Name
MI
Last Name
If additional applicants, please attach an additional pag l(s) with names listed.
Mailing Address
3431 Arendell St.
PO Box
City
Morehead City
State
NC
ZIP
285570001
Country
US
Phone No.
252-726-6841 ext.149
FAX No.
252-726-2426
Street Address (if different from above)
City
State
ZIP
Email
2. Agent/Contractor Information
Business Name
Agent/ Contractor 1: First Name
MI
Last Name
Agent/ Contractor 2: First Name
MI
Last Name
Mailing Address
PO Box
City
State
ZIP
Phone No. 1
ext.
Phone No. 2
ext.
FAX No.
Contractor #
Street Address (if different from above)
City
State
ZIP
Email
ED
jj,k- 4/ 8 5 L IVIHR G N Z017
A,1- q60op <Form continues on back>
DCM- MHD C
252-808-2808 :: 1-888-4RCOAST :: www.nccoastalmanagement.net

Form DCM MP-1 (Page 3 of 5)
APPLICATION for
Major Development Permit
3. Project Location
County (can be multiple)
Street Address
State Rd. #
Carteret
na
na
Subdivision Name
city
State
Zip
na
Beaufort
NC
28516-
Phone No.
Lot No.(s) (f many, attach additional page with list)
na - ext.
na, I I ,
a. In which NC river basin is the project located?
b. Name of body of water nearest to proposed project
North River
North River / Back Sound
c. Is the water body identified in (b) above, natural or manmade?
d. Name the closest major water body to the proposed project site.
®Natural ❑Manmade ❑Unknown
North River / Beck Sound
e. Is proposed work within city limits or planning jurisdiction?
I. If applicable, list the planning jurisdiction or city limit the proposed
[]Yes; SNo
work falls within.
na
4. Site Description
a.
Total length of shoreline on the tract (ft.)
b. Size of entire tract (sq.ft.)
na
Area of entire tract = 60,550 sq ft,
Area of Artificial Seagrass Units (ASUs) = 19,375 sq ft
c.
Size of individual lot(s)
d. Approximate elevation of tract above NHW (normal high water) or
na, I I
NWL (normal water level)
(if many lot sizes, please attach additional page with a list)
-2 m (NHW), -1.5 m (NWL) ®NHW or ®NWL
e.
Vegetation on tract
None. We are only going to work on shallow sandy bars
f.
Man-made features and uses now on tract
na
g.
Identify and describe the existing land uses achacent to the proposed project site.
Small personal fishing boats and kayakers will sometimes use the marsh complex North of the proposed site. Transiting
boats used the marked cahnnel to the South.
h.
How does local government zone the tract?
I. Is the proposed project consistent with the applicable zoning?
Coastal sound
(Attach zoning compliance certificate, if applicable)
[]Yes []No SNA
j.
Is the proposed activity part of an urban waterfront redevelopment proposal? ❑Yes SNo
k.
Hasa professional archaeological assessment been done for the tract? If yes, attach a copy. ❑Yes ❑No SNA
If yes, by whom?
I.
Is the proposed project located in a National Registered Historic District or does it involve a []Yes []No SNA
National Register listed or eligible property?
<Form continues on next page>
nr-L;tIVED
MAR 292017
252-808-2808 :: 1.888.4RCOAST :: www.nccoastalman

Form DCM MP-1 (Page 4 of 5)
APPLICATION for
Major Development Permit
m. (i) Are there wetlands on the site? []Yes ®No
(ii) Are there coastal wetlands on the site? []Yes ®No
(III) If yes to either (i) or (ii) above, has a delineation been conducted? ❑Yes ®No
(Attach documentation, if available)
n. Describe existing wastewater treatment facilities.
na
o. Describe existing drinking water supply source.
na
p. Describe existing stone water management or treatment systems.
na
5. Activides and Impacts
a.
Will the project be for commercial, public, or private use? ❑Commercial ®Public/Government
❑Private/Community
b.
Give a brief description of purpose, use, and daily operations of the project when complete.
The proposed project is a temporary (May through September) installation of ASU's (Artificial Seagrass Units), used to test
whether seagrass habitat configuration and fragmentation effects fish diversity and whether these effects are mediated by
total habitat area. Following ASU deployment, fish abundance and assemblage structure within each ASU landscape will be
assessed during periodic sampling efforts.
c.
Describe the proposed construction methodology, types of construction equipment to be used during construction, the number of each type
of equipment and where it is to be stored.
The ASU's are comprised of a 1 sq meter (1.2m x .86m) sheet of VEXAR with —450 shoot of green ribbon ( each 15 cm in
length) attached. They will be transported using two or three boats to the experimental site and anchored to the sediment
using 16 heavy (eight 6' and eight 12") landscaping staples. See attached plats and photos.
d.
List all development activities you propose.
These temporary installations will result in no perminant alteration to the substrate. The ASU's will be deployed within
twenty-five 225 sq meter plots, according to pre -generated gridded maps, to create 25 unique landscape arrays. Each
landscape plot will be visibly marked at each corner with PVC a pole.
e.
Are the proposed activities maintenance of an existing project, new work, or both? New work
f.
What is the approximate total disturbed land area resulting from the proposed project? 19,375 sq ft ®Sq.Ft or ❑
Acres
g.
Will the proposed project encroach on any public easement, public accessway or other area []Yes ®No []NA
that the public has established use of?
h.
Describe location and type of existing and proposed discharges to waters of the state.
Na
I.
Will wastewater or stormwater be discharged into a wetland? ❑Yes ❑No ®NA
If yes, will this discharged water be of the same salinity as the receiving water? ❑Yes ❑No ®NA
j.
Is there any mitigation proposed? ❑Yes []No ®NA
If yes, attach a mitigation proposal. RECRIXIM
<Form continues on back> MAR 2 9 2017
252-808-2808 .. 1-888-4RCOAST .. www.nccoastalm k4mMu tCITY

Form DCM MP-1 (Page 5 of 5)
APPLICATION for
Major Development Permit
6. AdditionalInformation
In addition to this completed application form, (MP-1) the following items below, if applicable, must be submitted in order for the application
package to be complete. Items (a) — (0 are always applicable to any major development application. Please consult the application
instruction booklet on how to property prepare the required items below.
a. A project narrative.
b. An accurate, dated work plat (including plan view and cross -sectional drawings) drawn to scale. Please give the present status of the
proposed project. Is any portion already complete? If previously authorized work, clearly indicate on maps, plats, drawings to distinguish
between work completed and proposed.
c. A site or location map that is sufficiently detailed to guide agency personnel unfamiliar with the area to the site.
d. A copy of the deed (with state application only) or other instrument under which the applicant claims title to the affected properties.
e. The appropriate application fee. Check or money order made payable to DENR.
f. A list of the names and complete addresses of the adjacent waterfront (riparian) landowners and signed return receipts as proof that such
owners have received a copy of the application and plats by certified mail. Such landowners must be advised that they have 30 days in
which to submit comments on the proposed project to the Division of Coastal Management.
Name Phone No.
Address
Name Phone No.
Address
Name Phone No.
Address
g. A list of previous state or federal permits issued for work on the project tract. Include permit numbers, permittee, and issuing dates.
h. Signed consultant or agent authorization form, if applicable.
I. Wetland delineation, if necessary.
j. A signed AEC hazard notice for projects in oceanfront and inlet areas. (Must be signed by property owner)
k. A statement of compliance with the N.C. Environmental Policy Act (N.C.G.S. 113A 1-10), if necessary. If the project involves expenditure
of public funds or use of public lands, attach a statement documenting compliance with the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act.
I understand that any permit issued in response to this application will allow only the development described in the
The project will be subject to the conditions and restrictions contained in the permit.
I certify that I am authorized to grant, and do in fact grant permission to representatives of state and federal review agencies to
enter on the aforementioned lands in connection with evaluating information related to this permit application and follow-up
monitoring of the project.
I further certify that the information provided in this application is truthful to the best of my knowledge.
Date _3/29/17.
Print Name F. Joel Fodrie
IN
Signature
Please indicate application attachments pertaining to your proposed project.
❑DCM MP-2 Excavation and Fill Information ❑DCM MP-5 Bridges and Culverts
❑DCM MP-3 Upland Development
®DCM MP-4 Structures Information
RECEIVED
MAR 2 9 2017
252-808-2808 :: 1-888-4RCOAST :: www.nccoastaimanagement.net

Form DCM MP-4
STRUCTURES
(Construction within Public Trust Areas)
Attach this form to Joint Application for CAMA Major Permit, Form DCM MP-1. Be sure to complete all other sections of the Joint
Application that relate to this proposed project. Please include all supplemental information.
1. DOCKING FACILITY/MARINA CHARACTERISTICS
a. (i) Is the docking facility/marina:
❑Commercial ❑PublictGovernment ❑Private/Community
®This section not applicable
b. O Will the facility be open to the general public?
❑Yes []No
c. (i) Dock(s) and/or piers)
d. (i) Are Finger Piers included? ❑Yes ONO
(ii) Number
If yes:
(iii) Length
(ii) Number
(iv) Width
(iii) Length
(v) Floating ❑Yes []No
(iv) Width
(v) Floating ❑Yes []No
e. (i) Are Platforms included? ❑Yes ❑No
I. (i) Are Boatlifts included? ❑Yes ❑No
If yes:
If yes:
(ii) Number
(ii) Number
(iii) Length
(iii) Length
(iv) Width
(iv) Width
(v) Floating []Yes []No
Note: Roofed areas are calculated from dripline dimensions.
g. (i) Number of slips proposed
h. Check all the types of services to be provided.
❑ Full service, including travel lift and/or rail, repair or
_
(ii) Number of slips existing
maintenance service
❑ Dockage, fuel, and marine supplies
❑ Dockage ('vet slips) only, number of slips:
❑ Dry storage; number of boats:
❑ Boat ramp(s); number of boat ramps:
❑ Other, please describe:
i. Check the proposed type of siting: j. Describe the typical boats to be served (e.g., open runabout,
❑ Land cut and access channel charter boats, sail boats, mixed types).
❑Open water; dredging for basin and/or channel
[]Open water; no dredging required
[]Other; please describe:
k. Typical boat length: I. (!)Will the facility be open to the general public?
[]Yes []No `,
m. (i) Will the facility have tie pilings? RECEIVED
❑Yes ❑No
(ii) If yes number of tie pilings? MAR 2 9 2017
DCM- MHD CITY
252.808.2808 :: 1-888-4RCOAST :: www.nccoastaimanagement.net revised: 12/27/06

Form DCM MP-4 (Structures, Page 2 of 4)
2. DOCKING FACILITY/MARINA OPERATIONS ®This section not applicable
a. Check each of the following sanitary facilities that will be included in the proposed project.
❑ Office Toilets
❑ Toilets for patrons; Number: ; Location:
❑ Showers
❑ Boatholding lank pumpout; Give type and location:
b. Describe treatment type and disposal location for all sanitary wastewater.
c. Describe the disposal of solid waste, fish offal and trash.
d. How will overboard discharge of sewage from boats be controlled?
e. (1) Give the location and number of "No Sewage Discharge" signs proposed.
(ii) Give the location and number of "Pumpout Available" signs proposed.
f. Describe the special design, if applicable, for containing industrial type pollutants, such as paint, sandblasting waste and petroleum products.
g. Where will residue from vessel maintenance be disposed of?
h Give the number of channel markers and "No Wake' signs proposed.
i. Give the location of fuel -handling facilities, and describe the safety measures planned to protect area water quality.
j. What will be the marina policy on overnight and live -aboard dockage?
k. Describe design measures that promote boat basin flushing?
I. If this project is an expansion of an existing marina, what types of services are currently provided?
RECEIVED
m. Is the marina/docking facility proposed within a primary or secondary nursery area?
❑Yes ❑No MAR 2 9 2017
252-808.2808 :: 1-888.4RCOAST :: www.nccoastalmanagement.net d. (7 6

Form DCM MP-4 (Structures, Page 3 of 4)
n. Is the marina/docking facility proposed within or adjacent to any shellfish harvesting area?
[]Yes []No
o. Is the madna/docking facility proposed within or adjacent to coastal wetlands/marsh (CW), submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), shell bottom
(SB), or other wetlands (WL)? If any boxes are checked, provide the number of square feet affected.
❑CW ❑SAV ❑SB
OWL []None
p. Is the proposed marina/docking facility located within or within close proximity to any shellfish leases? []Yes ❑No
If yes, give the name and address of the leaseholder(s), and give the proximity to the lease.
3. BOATHOUSE (including covered lifts) ®This section not applicable
a. (i) Is the boathouse structure(s):
❑Commercial ❑Public/Government ❑Private/Community
(ii) Number
(III) Length
(iv) Width
Note: Roofed areas are calculated from ddpline dimensions.
4. GROIN (e.g., wood, sheetpile, etc. If a rock groin, use MP-2, Excavation and Fill.) ®This section not applicable
a. (i) Number
(ii) Length
(III) Width
& BREAKWATER (e.g., wood, sheetpile, etc.) ®This section not applicable
a. Length b. Average distance from NHW, NWL, or wetlands
c. Maximum distance beyond NHW, NWL or wetlands
6. MOORING PILINGS and BUOYS ®This section not applicable
a. Is the structure(s):
❑Commercial ❑Public/Govemment ❑Private/Community
Distance to be placed beyond shoreline
Note: This should be measured from marsh edge, if present.
e. Arc of the swing
7. GENERAL
b. Number
d. Description of buoy (color, inscription, size, anchor, etc.)
RECEIVED
MAR 2 9 2017
DCM- MHD CITY
252.808.2808 :: 1-888-4RCOAST :: www.nccoastalmanagement.net revised: 12127106

Form DCM MP-4 (Structures, Page 4 of 4)
a. Proximity of structure(s) to adjacent riparian property lines
1,030 m to Harkens Island
Note: For buoy or mooring piling, use arc of swing including length
ofvessel.
c. Width of water body
—3,000 m
e. (i) Will navigational aids be required as a result of the project?
®Yes ❑No ❑NA
(ii) If yes, explain what type and how they will be implemented.
Visible PVC poles will be used to mark each corner of the
individual landscape plots in order to boats from running
over the ASU units. The entire study area will be marked as
a research sanctuary per a pending application with the
North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries (contact: Trish
Murphy)
b. Proximity of structure(s) to adjacent docking facilities.
>2,000 m to a public boat ramp
d. Water depth at waterward end of structure at NLW or NWL
0.5 m (NLW) or 1 m (NWL)
& OTHER ❑This section not applicable
a. Give complete description:
The proposed project is a temporary (May 15 through September 15) istallation of ASU's (Artificial Seagrass Units), comprised
of 1 sq meter sheets of VEXAR with —450 shoots of green ribbon attached. The ASU's will be deployed within twenty-five 225
sq meter plots, according to pre -generated gridded maps, to create 25 unique landscape arrays. Following ASU deployment,
fish abundance and assemblage structure within each ASU landscape will be assessed during periodic sampling efforts.
3/29/17
Date
Habitat fragmentation effects of fish diversity at landscape scales:
experimental tests of multiple mechanisms
Project Name
F Joel Fodrie
Applicanj.Name
Applicant Signature,
RECEIVED
MAR 292017
ACM- MHD CITY
252-808-2808 :: 1-888.4RCOAST :: www.nccoastalmanagement.net revised: 12/27/06

Coastal Management
-ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
UNC Institute of Marine Science
3431 Arendell St.
Morehead City, NC 28557
Dear Mr. Fodrie,
May 21, 2018
ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretary
BRAXTON C. DAVIS
Director
The enclosed permit constitutes authorization under the Coastal Area Management Act,
and where applicable, the State Dredge and Fill Law, for you to proceed with your project
proposal. The original (buff -colored form) is retained by you and it must be available on site
when the project is inspected for compliance. Please sign both the original and the copy and
return the copy to this office in the enclosed envelope. Signing the permit and proceeding
means you have waived your right of appeal described below.
If you object to the permit or any of the conditions, you may request a hearing pursuant
to NCGS 113A-121.1. or 113-229. Your petition for a hearing must be filed in accordance with
NCGS Chapter 150B with the Office of Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center,
Raleigh, NC 27611-6714, [phone] within twenty (20) days of this decision on your
permit. You should also be aware that another qualified party may submit an objection to the
issuance of this permit within twenty (20) days.
The project plan is subject to those conditions appearing on the permit form. Otherwise,
all work must be carried out in accordance with your application. Modifications, time extensions,
and future maintenance requires additional approval. Please read your permit carefully prior to
starting work and review all project plans, as approved. If you are having the work done by a
contractor, it would be to your benefit to be sure that he -fully understands -all permit_..
requirements.
From time to time, Department personnel will visit the project site. To facilitate this
review, we request that you complete and mail the enclosed Notice Card just prior to work
initiation. However, if questions arise concerning permit conditions, environmental safeguards,
or problem areas, you may contact Department personnel at any time for assistance. By
working in accordance with the permit, you will be helping to protect our vitally important coastal
resources.
Enclosure
Douglas V. Huggett
Major Permits Manager
N.C. Division of Coastal Management
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Coastal. Management
Morehead City Office 1 400 Commerce Avenue I Morehead City, NC 28557
2528082808

A — Appendix 2. Additional notes on proposed ASU deployment.
Engineering and Gear:
- ASUs will be deployed in 2017 and recovered 4 months later. At the conclusion of the study,
gears will be stored at the Institute of Marine Sciences — to be used in future research.
- As noted in the project narrative. ASUs are constructed of ribbon tied to VEXAR. This is
standard, as demonstrated by Appendix 1 which list 50 previous studies that have employed
this approach.
- Each ASU will be anchored with 8 six-inch landscaping stables, and 8 twelve -inch landscaping
stapes (16 staples per 1 m2 ASU)
- We are funded to monitor the study sites in to 2018, but anticipate requesting a no -cost
extension to continue monitoring through 2019 (at which point, the gear will be removed as
noted above).
- The site is accessible by boat, and will be visited by research nearly daily during the
deployment for site maintenance as well as monitoring nekton composition/abundance.
All waste will be removed from the site and deposited in waste/recycling facilities.
- In the event of any storms (tropical storm, hurricane), the study area will be closely inspected
post storm for debris, which would be removed. We would also walk and patrol (by boat) the
shoreline in all directions within 1500 m of the site, and remove any debris (e.g., VEXAR, etc. In
the event of an approaching storm after August 15th, we will visit the site pre storm and
remove all ASUs since the experiment is planned for breakdown in mid -September anyway.
Site:
- At low tide, the study experiences depths between 0.5-1.0m. At high tide, depths range
between 1.25-1.75m. The mean astronomical tide is — 0.75m. Tidal currents are low at this site
(>0.2m/s; by comparison, the Gulf Stream has an average flow rate between 1-2m/s) due to the
horseshoe nature of the sandbars to the North, South and East. The predominant wind
directions are SW in the summer and NE in the winter. Our site is protected from the major
fetches to the North by North River Marshes, and to the South by Middle Marsh. During
monthly visits at the site in 2010-2013, chop at the site was negligible.
- The sediments are "sandy' in nature. The absence of seagrass at this site is catalogued in
digitized orthorectified aerial photographs organized by the Albemarle Pamlico National Estuary
Partnership (APNEP) and taken by the North Carolina Department of Transportation in May
2013. Additional bottom characterizations are made throughout North C a/w+Cate'\rs, bV� the
North Carolina Department of Marine Fisheries, and there is no record thw�\ari. LVFJfJ
MAR 2 9 2017
DCM- MHD CITY

that shows shellfish/hard bottom on the shoals we are proposing to conduct our research on.
Based on multiple site visits in 2010-2013, we have walked the entire shoal, and found little -to -
no evidence of shellfish. Oysters appear completely absent, and haphazard rake sampling
suggest other bivalves (e.g., clams) are relatively low in abundance. Additionally, we monitored
a remnant seagrass patch at the site starting in 2010 (Baillie et al. 2015), but this patch
disappeared in 2012 and has not regenerated since.
- This research study is needed to test how seagrass patch size and fragmentation interactively
affect fish communities.

North River Marshes
Beaufort '
/
I /
\ Proposed experimental /
♦
\
Middle Marsh
I
1151 m
f. �..
Harkers
Island
1'

Attachment C2. Map of proposed research site. Encompassing all 25 experimental landscapes, with room to allow for>75m
between plots. Insert shows an example map of a "medium" cover ASU landscape
Individual ASU
l�E
PVC Corner markers

Attachment C3. Representations of each twenty-five landscapes that would be constructed from —1800, 1-m2 ASUs to control
patch -level habitat characteristic sand test for the interactive effects of habitat area and fragmentation.
n
m
a
�
D
�
^
l
v
N
o
m
0V
m
i
Fragmentation
Pelcera[ caaer
T 104E
Percolabon P = 0,59 0.4775 0.35 0.225 0.1
27.53t:
47.5°+-
60%

"'This is a word processing form to be completed in Microsoft Word***
NC Division of Coastal Management
Major Permit Application Computer Sheet
Applicant: UNC IMS
1/3
Project Site County: Carteret
Staff: JRD
District: ❑Elizabeth City ❑Washington
®Morehead City El Wilmington
Project Name: Artificial Seagrass Units
Rover File: N/A
Date of initial application submittal,(EX,1/8/2007)} 3129117
Date application `received as complete' in the Field office (EX: 1/8/2007): 3/29/17
Permit Authorization: ®CAMA ®Dredge & Fill ❑Both
SITE DESCRIPTION/PERMIT INFORMATION
PNA: ❑Yes ®No
Photos Taken: Yes ® No[]
Setback Required (riparian): ❑Yes
No
Critical Habitat: []Yes ®No ❑Not Sure
15 foot waiver obtained: ❑Yes ®No
Hazard Notification Returned:
El Yes ®No
SAV.•❑Yes ®No El Not Sure
Shell Bottom: El Yes ®No [:1 Not
Temporary Impacts., ®Yes ❑No
Sure
Sandbags: ❑Yes ®No ❑ Not Sure
Did the land use classification come from
Mitigation Required (optional):
countyLUP:®Yes ❑No
El Yes ®No
Moratorium Conditions: ❑ Yes ❑No
Environmental Assessment Done:
®NA
❑Yes ®No®NA
SECONDARY WATER CLASSIFICATION —OPTIONAL (choose MAX of 4)
❑ Future Water Supply (FWS) ❑ Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW) El Swamp Waters (SW)
® High Quality Waters (HQW) ❑ Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW)
WETLANDS IMPACTED
❑ (404) Corp. of Engineers (Jurisdictional
❑ (LS) Sea lavender (Limonium sp.)
❑ (SS) Glasswort (Salicornia sp.)
wetlands)
El (CJ) Saw grass (Cladium jamaicense)
❑ (SA) Salt marsh cordgrass (Spartina
❑ (SY) Salt reed grass (Spartina
alterniflora)
cynosuroides)
❑ (DS) Salt or spike grass (Distichlis
❑ (SC) Bullrush or three square (Sc_hpus
(TY) Cattail (Typha sp.)
spicata)
sp.)
❑ (JR) Black needlerush (Juncus
❑ (SP) Salt/meadow grass (Spartina
roemerianus)
patens)
APPLICATION FEE
❑ No fee required - $0.00
❑ III(A) Private w/D&F up to 1 acre;
® III(D) Priv. public or comet w/ D&F to 1
3490 can be applied - $250
acre; 3490 can't be applied - $400
❑ Minor Modification to a CAMA Major
❑ Major Modification to a CAMA Major
❑ IV Any development involving D&F of
permit - $100
permit - $250
more than 1 acre - $475
❑ Permit Transfer- $100
❑ 111(B) Public or commercial w/D&F to 1
❑ Express Permit - $2000
acre; 3490 can be applied - $400
252-808.2808 :: 1-888-4RCOAST :: www.nccoastaimanagement.net revised: 02/15/10

AiC 19vision of Coastal Mgt. Application Computer Sheet, Page 2 of a)
❑ Major development extension request -
❑ 11. Public or commercial/no dredge
$100
and/or /ill - $400
❑ 1. Private no dredge and/or fill - $250
❑ III(C) Pdv. public or comm w /D&F to 1
acre; 3490 can be applied; DCM needs
DWQ agreement - $400
revised 02115/10

AAAC vivision of Coastal Mgt. Application Computer Sheet, Page 3 of 4)
Applicant: NCWRC
Date: 113116
Describe below the ACTIVITIES that have been applied for. All values should match the dimension order, and units of
measurement found In your Activities code sheet.
Number
TYPE
Choose
One
REPLACE
Choose
One
Dimension 1
Dimension 2
Dimension 3
Dimension 4
Fill
1
19375sgft
19375sgft
New Work
Maint ❑
Replace
❑ Y ❑ N
New Work
Maint ❑
Replace
❑ Y ❑ N
New Work
Maim[]
Replace
❑Y❑N
New Work ❑
Maint ❑
Replace
❑ Y ❑ N
New Work ❑
Maim[]
Replace
❑Y❑N
New Work
Maint ❑
Replace
❑ Y ❑ N
New Work El
Main t❑
Replace
❑Y❑N
New Work
Maint [I
Replace
❑Y❑N
New Work
Maint ❑
Replace
❑ Y ❑ N
New Work
Maint ❑
Replace
❑ Y ❑ N
New Work
Maint ❑
Replace
❑ Y ❑ N
New Work
Maint ❑
Replace
❑ Y ❑ N
New Work 0
Maint ❑
Replace
❑ Y ❑ N
revised 02115/10

,A!C wlivision of Coastal Mgt. Application Computer Sheet, Page 3 of 4)
Applicant UNC Ims
Date: 414117
Describe below the HABITAT disturbances for the application. All values should match the name, and units of measurement
found in your Habitat code sheet.
Habitat Name
DISTURB TYPE
Choose One
TOTAL Sq. Ft.
(Applied for.
Disturbance total
includes any
anticipated
restoration or
tem im acts
FINAL Sq. Ft.
(Anticipated final
disturbance.
Excludes any
restoration
and/or temp
impact amount)
TOTAL Feet
(Applied for.
Disturbance
total includes
any anticipated
restoration or
ternimpacts)
FINAL Feet
(Anticipated final
disturbance.
Excludes any
restoration and/or
temp impact
amount
Public Trust Area
usurp
1.39ac
1.39ac
Dredge ❑ Fill ❑ Both ❑ Other ❑
Dredge ❑ Fill ❑ Both ❑ Other ❑
Dredge ❑ Fill ❑ Both ❑ Other ❑
Dredge ❑ Fill ❑ Both ❑ Other ❑
Dredge ❑ Fill ❑ Both ❑ Other ❑
Dredge ❑ Fill ❑ Both ❑ Other ❑
Dredge ❑ Fill ❑ Both ❑ Other ❑
Dredge ❑ Fill ❑ Both ❑ Other ❑
Dredge ❑ Fill ❑ Both ❑ Other ❑
Dredge ❑ Fill ❑ Both ❑ Other ❑
252-808-2808 :: 1-888.4RCOAST :: www.nccoastaimanagement.net revised: 02MSIIO

DCM Coordinator: Permit #:
MA 2 G DISTRIBUTION SHFr -T
DCM Field Offices
Elizabeth City
^ (with revised work plan drawings)
Morehead City
��ar. (.
Washington
Wilmington
US ALOE Offices:
Washington:
Raleigh Bland (Beaufort, Camden Chowan, Craven, Hertford, Hyde, Perquimans,
Tyrrell)
Josh Peletier.(Bertie, Cutritwk, Dare, Gates; Pamlico, Pasquotank, Washington)
Tom Steffans (NC DOT- Beaufort, Carteret, Craven, Pamlico)
Bill Biddlecome (NC DOT -Remainder ECitylWashington District)
Wilmington:
Tiler Crumbley (Brunswick, New Hanover)
iLit Hair (Carteret, Onslow, Pender) i
Brad Shaver (NCDOT-Brunswick, New Hanover, Onslow, Pendei)
Cultural Resources:
LIAenee Gledhill -Barley C pMX),kA M Q rvlO�Q>
Public Water Supply:
VHeidi Cox (WIRO)
Clif Whitfield (WARO)
Marine Fisheries:
J Shane Staples
Curt Weychert
NC DOT:
J David Harris
Shellfish Sanitation:
`_
✓ Shannon Jenkins 4- S )cl U I'\ l� p �/✓t
II
State Property:
V Tim Walton +')Y(�it ! `a•�;t�l
DEM IMWR:
Karen Higgins
Knsty'Lynn Carpenter (NC DOT -All Project)
Washington:
Anthony Scarbrangh401
Roger Thorpe-Stormwater
Garoy Ward- (NCDOT-Beaufort, Bertie, Camden, Carteret, Chowan, Craven, Currituck,
Dare, Gates, Hertford, Hyde, Pamlico, Pasquotank, Perquimans, Tyrrell, Washington)
Wilmington". Robb Mairs - 401(Cartec4 Onslow, Pender, New Hanover)
Chad Coburn - 401(Brunswick) k
X-�orgette Scott - Stormwater
Joanne Steenhuis - 401(NCDOT-Brunswick, New Hanover, Onslow, Pender)
Wildlife Resources: Maria Dunn (WARD)
LPO:
Fax Distribution: Petrnittee #: Agent#

Coastal Management
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
UNC Institute of Marine Sciences
Dr. Joel Fodrie
3431 Arendell St.
Morehead City, NC 28557
ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretary
BRAXTON C. DAVIS
Director
�i May 17, 2018
SUBJECT: Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) Permit Application Submittal for UNC
Institute of Marine Science in Carteret County
Dear Dr. Fodrie:
This letter is in response to the above referenced CAMA permit application, which was accepted
as complete by the Division's Morehead City office on March 29, 2017. On July 14, 2017,
processing of your application was placed on hold pending resolution of coordination with the
US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). This office received an email from the USACE staff
that their request for additional information had been satisfied on May 17, 2018. Therefore,
processing of your permit application has officially resumed. The revised projected 150-day
deadline for making a decision is June 29, 2018.
Please feel free to contact me by phone at [phone] ext. 215 if you would like to discuss
this matter further.
Sincerely,
Gregg Bo
Assistant Major Permits Coordinator
CC: DCM Morehead City
Liz Hair (LISACE)
Robb Mairs (DWR WiRO)
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality l Coastal Management
Morehead City Office 1 400 Commerce Avenue I Morehead City, NC 28557
252 8082808

V
Coastal Management
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
July 14, 2017
UNC Institute of Marine Sciences
Dr. Joel Fodrie
3431 Arendell St.
Morehead City, NC 28557
ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
secretary
BRAXTON C. DAVIS
Dlrecmr
FILE
SUBJECT: Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) Permit Application Submittal for Dr.
Joel Fodrie in Carteret County.
Dear Dr. Fodrie:
This letter is in response to the above referenced CAMA permit application, which was accepted
as complete by the Division's Morehead City office on March 29, 2017. Processing of the
application is ongoing. However, it has been determined that additional information will be
required prior to the Division taking final action on your application. The required item is
summarized below:
1) The US Army Corp of Engineers (USACE), through the Programmatic General Permit
198000291 has determined that the project requires Federal Agency review. The USACE
may grant extensions of time for Federal Agency review if justified by unusual
circumstances. The USACE may also request additional information during this
extended federal agency review. Once review of Federal Agency comments is complete,
the USACE will provide a coordinated federal position with opportunity for applicant
rebuttal.
Though the DCM may act to conclude the state action without the federal position, the project
may not proceed without federal authorization. Therefore, it is necessary that processing of your
permit application be placed in abeyance until such time as you have provided any required
additional information to the USACE, and the federal position is supplied to this office and
sufficient time has been given to the applicant for rebuttal.
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality l Coastal Management
Morehead City Office 1 400 Commerce Avenue I Morehead (sty. NC 28557
2528082808

If you have any questions concerning these matters, please feel free to contact me by telephone
at [phone] extension 215, or by email at gregg.bodnazna cn denr.gov.
Sincerely,
Gregg Bodnar
Division of Coastal Management
Assistant Major Permits Coordinator
CC:
Liz Hair, USACE Wilmington Regulatory Field Office (via email)
Robb Mairs, DWR WiRO (via email)
Morehead City DCM
State orNotthCamGna I Fnvuonmemal QuaBty I Coastal Management
Morehead City Office 1 400 Commerce Avenue I Morehead City, NC 285W
2528082608

Coastal Management
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
June 12, 2017
UNC Institute of Marine Sciences
Dr. Joel Fodrie
3431 Arendell St.
Morehead City, NC 28557
Dear Dr. Fodrie:
ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretary
BRAXTON C. DAVIS
Director
FILE
This letter is in reference to your application for a Coastal Area Management Act Major Permit
to undertake development activities to install Artificial Seagrass Units for scientific study at the
conflux of North River and Back Sound, in Carteret County.
Although processing of the application is nearing completion, additional time is needed for this
office to complete the review and make a decision on your request. Therefore, it is necessary that
the standard review time be extended. An additional 75 days is provided by G.S. 113A-122(c)
which would make August 26, 2017 the new deadline for reaching a decision on your request.
However, we expect to take action prior to that time and will do so as soon as possible. In the
interim, should you have any question on the status of your application, do not hesitate to contact
me by phone [phone] ext. 215) or e-mail ([e-mail]).
Sincerely,
P-0
Gregory W. o iar
Assistant Major Permits Coordinator
Cc: DCM Morehead City
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality l Coastal Management
Morehead City Office 1 400 Commerce Avenue I Morehead Oty, NC 28557
2528082808

Bodnar, Gregg
From:
Davis, Braxton C
Sent:
Monday, May 22, 2017 10:16 AM
To:
Fodrie, Joel; Bodnar, Gregg
Cc:
Huggett, Doug
Subject:
RE: CAMA GP 291/SAW-2017-00782/UNC Institute for Marine Science/Back Sound/
Artificial Seagrass Study
Dr. Fodrie,
I will try to address each of your questions below:
1) with respect to the question you raised in your prior email, assuming you are referring to the question starting with
"out of morbid curiosity": This appears to be a question for the Corps about how quickly they processed your
application, and so is not appropriate for me or my staff to answer.
2) on your question about an allowable project footprint: As we discussed, projects taking place on state submerged
lands can fall under both state and federal jurisdictions, with different governing laws and rules. From the Division of
Coastal Management's (DCM) perspective, we may not consider a small research project to be "development" under the
NC Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) if its impacts are considered "de minimis." There is no established project
footprint threshold in state law or rules for different activities, so this is a judgement call for staff (for example, a single
osprey pole can be regulated under our program).
If you would like to propose a smaller project area, DCM regulatory staff will review your specific design, materials, and
proposed location, and consider whether a state CAMA permit will be needed. Again, if you disagree with our
interpretation or decision, you can file a petition for a declaratory ruling with the N.C. Coastal Resources Commission.
Let me know if you need more information about that process. Also as we discussed, a smaller project area may not
eliminate various federal permitting concerns, so we would need to coordinate your scaled -down proposal with the
Corps of Engineers.
3) We may be able to write a letter of support describing the value of your research to fisheries management, but I can't
predict the extent to which that may be helpful for any specific, future grant funding. It also may depend on the source
of any funding, and if I or DCM staff have conflicts of interest in writing such a letter.
4)1 have not taken any steps in the past two weeks to set up a stakeholder group to begin considering potential rule
language for coastal research projects, but I hope to begin exploring this issue in greater depth in the coming months.
Finally, I may be unable to invite you to participate on a stakeholder advisory committee or to sign a letter of support for
your research if you continue to resort to name-calling or other hostilities toward me or division staff. I know that you
are frustrated and do not agree with our decision to require a state permit for your project. We will just have to disagree
on that point. DCM expedited your permit processing above several other applications in order to get the application
package in the hands of our coordinating review agencies as quickly as possible. We had no intention of "killing" your
project, and we were hopeful that our joint state/federal permit could be issued in time for your scheduled summer
deployment.
As I pointed out when you visited my office, it was ultimately your responsibility to find out about any necessary state
and federal authorizations. If you had inquired with us farther in advance, we could have set up a scoping meeting with
the relevant agencies, and you may have been able to obtain all of the necessary authorizations in advance.
I hope this answers your questions,

Braxton
Braxton C. Davis
Director
NC Divisions of Marine Fisheries and Coastal Management Department of Environmental Quality
252 808 8013 Marine Fisheries Office
252 808 2808 x202 Coastal Management Office [e-mail]
Morehead City, NC 28557
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed
to third parties.
-----Original Message -----
From: Fodrie, Joel [[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, May 12, 2017 4:17 PM
To: Bodnar, Gregg <[e-mail]>; Davis, Braxton C <[e-mail]>
Cc: Huggett, Doug <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: CAMA GP 291/SAW-2017-00782/UNC Institute for Marine Science/Back Sound/ Artificial Seagrass Study
Hello Mr. Bodnar, Mr. Huggett, and Mr. Davis,
I never received a reply to my question below (in previous email below) to you, so hoped to follow up. I would still
appreciate a reply.
Also, I did want to thank you for meeting with me, Mr. Davis, and giving me a considerable amount of your time on a
Friday afternoon.
I would like to follow up on a couple things we discussed during that conversation:
Frist, you suggested that there may be some footprint of study area that we CAN proceed with based on existing law.
Would you be able to give me that footprint area so we could begin some trials within those limits? Obviously I would
trust your ability to find that number better than mine given your familiarity with the laws.
Second, you indicated a desire to help make this project happen (within the limits of permitting), and in that context, the
potential of CRFL funding came up to help run this study in 2020 perhaps (recognizing that 2017 is now lost). While I
understand there can't be, and shouldn't be, any guarantees of CRFL support, I was hoping you could explain in more
detail how I might obtain a letter of support from DCM, DMF, or DENR about the permitting issues and the opportunity
costs the project faces. I had the impression you though such a letter was possible (pending comments you get back).
Third, understand that I have periods of "moving on" and then some days that this remains a very frustrating,
disappointing situation (any time I have to reply to someone about manatees, it's the latter). That leads me to some
comments that I hope will spur you on to a smoother "research permit".
Actually, I would be very curious if/what moves you have already begun on this front since you've expresses this is an
important issue (?).
Developing a proposal/project like this seagrass landscape one takes weeks, and is really built on months/years of
previous work. Often, work put in to proposals isn't even rewarded with funding. It's then obviously more months and
years of work once you do get the funding - in which the reward of the work is the work itself.

So yes, I remain very disappointed that in 20-30 min of deliberation (of which I was not a part), without necessarily
accurate information, a decision was made that effectively kills the first year of this study. And I'm particularly
disappointed that I was told "we'll try to have this done by May 15" when I know that you know that was never going to
happen.
The upshot is that when you made your decision, you were knowingly electing to kill the research this summer. In the
language we shared at our meeting, Mr. Davis, it's hard to see that as Sherriff Taylor. Rather, it seems very Barney Fife.
In that regard, you should be aware that a graduate student, Amy Yarnall, won't be allowed to conduct her planned
experiments this summer, and is therefore negatively impacted for the sake of "permitting" this research as
"development". Similarly, a young faculty, Dr. Lauren Yeager, is negatively impacted. Given the loss of this year, and the
pressure of the tenure clock, this is particularly disappointing. I've had multiple DCM staff comment "What's the cost of
permitting, it protects you?" I hope I'm never asked that again.
Perhaps this is just venting, but still, this issue isn't going away. I can't change this lost year, but can hope to impress on
you what's involved and potentially lost, for "next time".
Yo u rs,
Joel Fodrie
Institute of Marine Sciences
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
3431 Arendell Street
Morehead City, NC 28557
Tel: [phone] (ext. 149)
Email: [e-mail]
Web: http://fodriefishecol.wixsite.com/unc-fish
-----Original Message -----
From: Fodrie, Joel
Sent: Monday, May 8, 2017 4:40 PM'
To: 'Bodnar, Gregg' <[e-mail]>
Cc: Huggett, Doug <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: CAMA GP 291/SAW-2017-00782/UNC Institute for Marine Science/Back Sound/ Artificial Seagrass Study
Thanks,
I hadn't see this message from her. I also never really get a reply from the long, somewhat petulant email reply I sent her
a couple of weeks ago. Out of morbid curiosity, why would this only be going out for review on May 5, when I presume
the core received the application several weeks ago (not saying there's not a good reason, it's just unknown to me)?
Yours,
-Joel
-----Original Message -----
From: Bodnar, Gregg [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, May 8, 2017 8:42 AM
To: Fodrie, Joel <[e-mail]>

Cc: Huggett, Doug <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: CAMA GP 291/SAW-2017-00782/UNC Institute for Marine Science/Back Sound/ Artificial Seagrass Study
Morning Dr. Fodrie,
The email below was sent out late Friday from USACE to concerned federal review agencies. I did not see your
name on the attached list and wanted to pass the information along.
Regards,
Gregg
Gregg Bodnar
Assistant Major Permits Coordinator
Division of Coastal Management
Department of Environmental Quality
252 808 2808 ext 215 office
[e-mail]
400 Commerce Ave
Morehead City, NC 28557
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed
to third parties.
-----Original Message -----
From: Hair, Sarah E CIV CESAW CESAD (US)[mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, May 05, 2017 4:24 PM
To: Huggett, Doug <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
[e-mail]; [e-mail]; Owens, Jennifer L CIV USARMY CESAW (US)
<[e-mail]>; scott.d.mcaloon <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; HORTON, J
TODD CIV USARMY CESAW (US)<[e-mail]>; Arnette, Justin R CIV USARMY CESAW (US)
<[e-mail]>; DCR - Environmental —Review <[e-mail]>; Bowers, Todd
<[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; Mairs, Robb L<[e-mail]>; Davenport, Ryan
<[e-mail]>; Eunice.A.James <[e-mail]>; Bodnar, Gregg
<gregg. bod n a r@ ncd e n r.gov>
Cc: Crumbley, Tyler A CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>; Charles, Thomas P CIV USARMY
CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>; Reusch, Eric G CIV USARMY CESAW (US)
<E ri c. G. Re use h @ usa ce.a rm y. m i I>
Subject: CAMA GP 291/SAW-2017-00782/UNC Institute for Marine Science/Back Sound/ Artificial Seagrass Study
All:
Pursuant to the CAMA-Corps Programmatic Permit process, the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management
(NCDCM) has forwarded to our office a copy of the CAMA permit application, Field Investigation Report and Bio Report
for the subject project. The attached notice requests federal agency comments on this project by June 5, 2017.

The applicant proposes to conduct a multiple year research project within waters of Back Sound, on a sand bar
located in between Middle Marsh and North River Marsh, in Carteret County, NC.
The project consists of placing plastic artificial seagrass units comprised of a material known as VEXAR on shallow
bottom habitat in a 19, 375 square foot area. Each unit is approximately 1 square meter in size and would contain 450
shoots of green ribbon (approximately 75.5 miles of ribbon) attached to the VEXAR. The units would be anchored in the
sand bar with 6" and 12" landscaping staples. PVC poles would be used to mark each corner of the individual landscape
plots. The purpose of this project is to study habitat fragmentation and its effects on fish assemblages. The units would
be temporarily deployed between May and September of each year (2017-2019).
Please see the attached application, bio report, and kmz file for project details. The applicant has provided
approximately 50 references of similar studies as appendices for reference.
EFH:
This notice initiates the Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) consultation requirements of the Magnuson -Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act. The Corps' initial determination is that the proposed project may affect EFH and
associated fisheries managed by the South Atlantic or Mid Atlantic Fishery Management Councils or the National Marine
Fisheries Service. Impacts are unknown given the nature of the project. The waters within the project area are NOT
designated as PNA, are classified as SA-HQW. SAV is not present and there are currently no shellfish resources within the
project area footprint. Water depth within the project area is 1.6 feet at NLW with a tidal amplitude of approximately
1.75 feet.
ESA:
The Corps has reviewed the project area, examined all information provided by the applicant and consulted the latest
North Carolina Natural Heritage Database. The Corps initial determination on species listed as threatened or
endangered pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) within the project area, is may affect, likely to
adversely affect for the West Indian Manatee and the Green Turtle given their food source and potential to mistake the
artificial seagrass as a natural food source.
The Corps will initiate formal consultation under separate cover.
NHPA 106:
Pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, Appendix C of 33 CFR Part 325, and
the 2005 Revised Interim Guidance for Implementing Appendix C, the District Engineer consulted district files and
records and the latest published version of the National Register of Historic Places and initially determines that no
historic properties, nor properties eligible for inclusion in the National Register, are present within the Corps' permit
area: therefore, there will be no historic properties affected.
Please contact me if you have any questions. Please provide comments as soon as you can or by June 5, 2017.
Liz Hair
Project Manager
USACE-Wilmington District
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403
910-251-4049
[e-mail]

DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT
1. APPLICANT'S NAME: UNC Institute of Marine Science
2. LOCATION OF PROJECT SITE: Conflux of North River and Back Sound
Photo Index — No Photo Available
Longitude: 76°36' 11.62" W Latitude: 34042' 12.15" N
3. INVESTIGATION TYPE: CAMA/D&F
4. INVESTIGATIVE PROCEDURE: Dates of Site Visit —4/3/17
Was Applicant Present —No
5. PROCESSING PROCEDURE: Application Received — 3/29/17
Application Complete- 3/29/17
Office — Morehead City
6. SITE DESCRIPTION:
(A)
Local Land Use Plan — Carteret County
Land Classification from LUP — Undeveloped
(B)
AEC(s) Involved: EW, PTA
(C)
Water Dependent: (yes)
(D)
Intended Use: Scientific Research
(E)
Wastewater Treatment: Existing — N/A
Planned — N/A
(F)
Type of Structures: Existing — N/A
Planned — Artificial Seagrass
(G)
Estimated Annual Rate of Erosion: N/A
Source — N/A
HABITAT DESCRIPTION:
URSURPED FILLED OTHER
(A)Estuarine Waters 60,550ft2 19,375ft2 N/A
(D) Total Area Disturbed: 60,550ft2
(E) Primary Nursery Area: No
(F') Water Classification: SA-HQW
(G) Shellfish Classification: CLOSED/OPEN
8. PROJECT SUMMARY: The University of North Carolina Institute of Marine Science is
proposing to install Artificial Seagrass Units to study habitat configuration and
fragmentation effects on fish diversity.

Field Investigation Report:
UNC Institute of Marine Science
Page 02
9. NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION: The UNC Institute of Marine Science project is located
at the conflux of North River and Back sound between Beaufort and Harkers Island. The
site can be accessed by boat only. The site is situated on a sand bar between Middle
Marsh and North River Marsh.
This waterbody is SA-HQW and is not a Primary Nursery Area. The Western boundary of
the project is closed to shell fishing and the Eastern boundary is open to shell fishing.
Shellfish resource in this area is unknown. There is no SAVs in this area and the bottom
substrate consists of sand. Water depth in this area is .5m at NLW and tidal amplitude is
—1.75'. This area in Carteret County's LUP is classified as conservation.
10. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The UNC Institute of Marine Science is proposing to install
Artificial Seagrass Units(ASU's) in order to test whether seagrass habitat configuration and
fragmentation effects fish diversity and whether these effects are mediated by total habitat
area. The total project area would be 60,550ft2(1.39ac). In this area the ASU's would be
placed on 19,375ft2 of Public Trust bottom. Each ASU would be comprised of lmz of
VEXAR with —450 shoots of green ribbon attached. The ASU's would be anchored to the
bottom with 6" and 12" landscaping staples. The ASU's would be deployed from May 15
to Sept. 15. Visible PVC poles would be used to mark each corner of the individual
landscape plots. The UNC IMS has applied through NCDMF for research sanctuary status
in this area. The applicant has stated that the project will end in 2019 at which time the
material will be removed.
11. ANTICIPATED IMPACTS: There would be a total of 60,550ft2 of Public Trust Area
usurped during this project. The VEXAR material would be placed on 19,375ft2of Public
Trust bottom. There is a potential for the ASU material to be transported during storm events
resulting as marine debris. This area has daily and frequent boat traffic and entanglement
with boat propellers and anchors could occur. The ASU material could also have adverse
interactions with marine animals and unknown interactions with other marine life.
Name: Ryan Davenport Date: 4/3/17 Morehead City

A — Appendix 1.
Fifty recent, representative published studies using ASUs to explore seagrass ecology in
estuarine environments. This list demonstrates the wide successful application of ASUs as
an experimental approach. All papers listed used ribbon tied to gridded plastic (VEXAR)
as in this study.
Arponen, H., Bostrom, C., 2012. Responses of mobile epifauna to small-scale seagrass
patchiness: is fragmentation important? Hydrobiologia 680, 1-10.
Barber, W.E., Greenwood, J.G., Crocos, P., 1979. Artificial seagrass — a new technique for
sampling the community. Hydrobiologia 65, 135-140.
Bell, J.D., Steffe, A.S., Westoby, M., 1985. Artificial seagrass: How useful is it for field
experiments on fish and macroinvertebrates? J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 90, 171-177.
Bell, J.D., Westoby, M., Steffe, A.S., 1987. Fish larvae settling in seagrass: do they discriminate
between beds of different leaf density? J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 111, 133-144.
Bell, S., Hall, M., Robbins, B., 1995. Toward a Landscape Approach in Seagrass Beds: Using
Macroalgal Accumulation to Address Questions of Scale. Oecologia 104, 163-168.
Bologna, P.A.X., Heck, K.L., 1999. Macrofaunal associations with seagrass epiphytes. J. Exp.
Mar. Biol. Ecol. 242, 21-39.
Bologna, P.A.X., Heck, K.L., 2000. Impacts of seagrass habitat architecture on bivalve
settlement. Estuaries 23, 449-457.
Campbell, M.L., Paling, E.I., 2003. Evaluating vegetative transplant success in Posidonia
australis: a field trial with habitat enhancement. Mar..Pol. Bul. 46, 828-834.
Carroll, J.M., Furman, B.T., Tettlebach, S.T., Peterson, B.J., 2012. Balancing the edge effectcs
budget: bay scallop settlement and loss along a seagrass edge. Ecology 93, 1637-1647.
Chacin, D.H., Stallings, C.D., 2016. Disentangling fine- and broad- scale effects of habitat on
predator —prey interactions. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 483, 10-19.
Darcy, M.C., Eggleston, D.B., 2005. Do habitat corridors influence animal dispersal and
colonization in estuarine systems? Landscape Ecol. 20, 841-855.
Eggleston, D.B., Etherington, L.L., Elis, W.E., 1997.Organism response to habitat patchiness:
species and habitat -dependent recruitment of decapod crustaceans. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 223,
111-132.
RECEIVED
MAR 2 9 2017
DCM- MHD CITY

Eggleston, D.B., Elis, W.E., Etherington, L.L., Dahlgren, C.P., Posey, M.H., 1999.Organism
responses to habitat fragmentation and diversity: habitat colonization by estuarine macrofauna. J.
Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 236, 107-132.
Gartner, A., Tuya, F., Lavery, P.S., McMahon, K., 2013. Habitat preferences of
macroinvertebrate fauna among seagrasses with varying structural forms. J. Exp. Mar. Biol.
Ecol. 439, 143-151.
Gustafsson, C., Salo, T., 2012. The effect of patch isolation on epifaunal colonization in two
different seagrass ecosystems. Mar. Biol. 159, 1497-1507.
Hair, C.A., Bell, J.D., 1992. Effects of enhancing pontoons on abundance of fish: initial
experiments in estuaries. Bul. Mar. Sci. 51, 30-36.
Haywood, M.D.E., Pendrey, R.C., 1996. A new design for a submersible chronographic tethering
device to record predation in different habitats. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 143, 307-312.
Healey, D., Hovel, K.A., 2004. Seagrass bed patchiness: effects on epifaunal communities in San
Diego Bay, USA. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 313, 155-174.
Homer, S.M.J., 1987. Similarity of epiphyte biomass distribution on posidonia and artificial
seagrass leaves. Aquatic Botany 27, 159-167.
Hovel, K.A., Fonseca, M.S., 2005. Influence of seagrass landscape structure on the juvenile blue
crab habitat -survival function. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 300, 179-191.
Hovel, K.A., Lipicus, R.N., 2001. Habitat fragmentation in a seagrass landscape: patch size and
complexity control blue crab survival. Ecology 82, 1814-1829.
Irlandi, E.A., 1997. Seagrass patch size and survivorship of an infaunal bivalve. Oikos 78, 511-
518.
Jenkins, G.P., Sutherland, C.R., 1997. The influence of habitat structure on nearshore fish
assemblages in a southern Australian embayment: colonization and turnover rate of fishes
associated with artificial macrophyte beds of varying physical structure. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. 218,
103-125.
Johnson, M.W., Heck, K.L., 2006. Effects of habitat fragmentation per se on decapods and fishes
inhabiting seagrass meadows in the northern Gulf of Mexico. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 306, 233-
246.
Jones, C.L., Anderson, T.W., Edwards, M.S., 2013. Evaluating eelgrass site quality by the
settlement, performance, and survival of a marine fish. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 445, 61-68.
RECEIVED
MAR 292017
DCM- MHD CITY

Kenyon, R.A., Haywood, M.D.E., Heales, D.S., Loneragan, N.R., Pendrey, R.C., Vance, D.J.,
1999. Abundance of fish and crustacean posdarvae on portable artificial seagrass units: daily
sampling provides quantitative estimates of the settlement of new recruits. J. Exp. Mar. Biol.
Ecol. 232, 197-216.
Laurel, B.J., Gregory, R.S., Brown, J.A., 2003. Settlement and distribution of Age-0 juvenile
cod, Gadus morhua and G. ogac, following a large-scale habitat manipulation. Mar. Ecol. Prog.
Ser. 262, 241-252.
Lavery, P.S., Reid, T., Hyndes, G.A., Van Elven, B.R., 2007. Effect of leaf movement on
epiphytic algal biomass of seagrass leaves. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 338, 97-106.
�lt�; ,,Lee, S.Y., Fong, C.W., Wu, R.S.S., 2001. The effects of seagrass (Zostera japonica) canopy
4� structure on associated fauna: a study using artificial seagrass units and sampling of natural beds.
J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 259, 23-50.
Levin, P., Petrik, R., Malone, J., 1997. Interactive effects of habitat selection, food supply and
predation on recruitment of an estuarine fish. Oecologia 112, 55-63.
Macreadie, P.I., Connolly, R.M., Keough, M.J., Jenkins, G.P., Hindell, J.S., 2009. Short-term
differences in animal assemblages in patches formed by loss and growth of habitat. Austral
Ecology 35, 515-521.
u L' Macreadie, P.I., Hindell, J.S., Jenkins, G.P., Connolly, R.M., Keough, M.J., 2009. Fish responses
F� to experimental fragmentation of seagrass habitat. Cons. Biol. 23, 644-652.
Macreadie, P.I., Connolly, R.M., Jenkins, G.P., Hindell, J.S., Keough, M.J., 2010. Edge patterns
in aquatic invertebrates explained by predictive models. Mar. Fresh. Res. 61, 214-218.
McNeill, S.E., Fairweather, P.G., 1993. Single large or several small marine reserves? An
experimental approach with seagrass fauna. J. Biogeography 20, 429-440.
Mocksnes, P., Heck, K.L., 2006. Relative importance of habitat selection and predation for the
distribution of blue crab megalopae and young juveniles. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 308, 165-181.
Moore, E.C., Hovel, K.A., 2010. Relative influence of habitat complexity and proximity to patch
edges on seagrass epifaunal communities. Oikos 119, 1299-1311
Petrick R., Levin, P.S., Stunz, G.W., Malone, J., 1999. Recruitment of atlantic croaker,
Micropogonias undulatus: do postsettlement processes disrupt or reinforce initial patterns of
settlement? Fishery Bulletin 97, 954-961.
Pinckney, J.L., Micheli, F., 1998. Microalgae on seagrass mimics: does epiphyte community
structure differ from live seagrasses? J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 221, 59-70. RECEIVED
MAR 2 9 2017
DCM- MHD CITY

Pinna, S., Sechi, N., Ceccherelli, G., 2013. Canopy structure at the edge of seagrass affects sea
urchin distribution. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 485, 47-55.
Quin, L.Z., Li, W.T., Zhang, X.M., Nie, M., Li, Y., 2014. Sexual reproduction and seed dispersal
pattern of annual and perennial Zostera marina in a heterogeneous habitat. Wetlands Ecol.
Manage. 22, 671-682.
Schneider, F.I., Mann, K.H., 1991. Species specific relationships of invertebrates to vegetation in
a seagrass bed. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 145, 119-139.
Sirota, L., Hovel, K.A. Simulated eelgrass Zostera marina structural complexity: effects of shoot
length, shoot density, and surface area on the epifaunal community of San Diego Bay, California,
USA. Mar Ecol. Prog. Ser. 326, 115-131.
Sogard, S.M., 1989. Colonization of artificial seagrass by fishes and decapod crustaceans:
importance of proximity to natural eelgrass. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 133, 15-37.
Sogard, S.M., Able, K.W., 1994. Diel variation in immigration of fishes and decapod crustaceans
to artificial seagrass habitat. Estuaries 17, 622-630.
Tanner, J.E., 2003. Patch shape and orientation influences on seagrass epifauna are mediated by
dispersal abilities. Oikos 100, 517-524.
Upston, J., Booth, D.J., 2003. Settlement and density of juvenile fish assemblages in natural,
Zostera capricorni (Zosteraceae) and artificial seagrass beds. Env. Biol. Fish. 66, 91-97.
Van Elven, B.R., Lavery, P.S., Kendrick, G.A., 2004. Reefs as contributors to diversity of
epiphytic macroalgae assemblages in seagrass meadows. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 276, 71-83.
Vimstein, R.W., Curran, M.C., 1986. Colonization of artificial seagrass versus time and distance
from source. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 29, 279-288.
Warry, F.Y., Hindell, J.S., Macreadie, P.I., Jenkins, G.P., Connolly, R.M., 2009. Integrating edge
effects into studies of habitat fragmentation: a test using meiofauna in seagrass. Oecologia 159,
883-892.
Worthington, D.G., Westoby, M., Bell, J.D., 1991. Fish larvae settling in seagrass: effects of leaf
density and an epiphytic alga. Aus. J. Ecol. 16, 289-293.
7 R`
DCM- MHD CITY

02 INFORMATION ABOUT PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS/PROJECT DIRECTORS(PI/PD) and
co -PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS/co-PROJECT DIRECTORS
Submit only ONE copy of this form for each PI/PD and co-PIIPD identified on the proposal. The form(s) should be attached to the original
proposal as specified in GPG Section II.C.a. Submission of this information is voluntary and is not a precondition of award. This information will
not be disclosed to external peer reviewers. DO NOT INCLUDE THIS FORM 97THANYOFTHE OTHER COPIES OF YOUR PROPOSAL AS
THIS MAY COMPROMISE THE CONFIDENTIALITY OF THE INFORMATION.
PI/PD Name: Fredrick J Fodde
Gender:
®
Male ❑
Female
Ethnicity: (Choose one response)
❑
Hispanic or Latino
® Not Hispanic or Latino
Race: ❑
American Indian or Alaska Native
(Select one or more) ❑
Asian
❑
Black or African American
❑
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
®
White
Disability Status: ❑
Hearing Impairment
(Select one or more)
❑
Visual Impairment
❑
Mobility/Orthopedic Impairment
❑
Other
®
None
Citizenship: (Choose one) ® U.S. Citizen ❑ Permanent Resident ❑ Other non-U.S. Citizen
Check here if you do not wish to provide any or all of the above information (excluding PIIPD name): ❑
REQUIRED: Check here if you are currently serving (or have previously served) as a PI, co -PI or PD on any federally funded
project
Ethnicity Definition:
Hispanic or Latino. A person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless
of race.
Race Definitions:
American Indian or Alaska Native. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of North and South America (including Central
America), and who maintains tribal affiliation or community attachment.
Asian. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent including, for
example, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam.
Black or African American. A person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa.
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa,
or other Pacific Islands.
White. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa.
WHY THIS INFORMATION IS BEING REQUESTED:
The Federal Government has a continuing commitment to monitor the operation of its review and award processes to identify and address
any inequities based on gender, race, ethnicity, or disability of its proposed Pis/PDs. To gather information needed for this important
task, the proposer should submit a single copy of this form for each identified PI/PD with each proposal. Submission of the requested
information is voluntary and will not affect the organization's eligibility for an award. However, information not submitted will seriously undermine
the statistical validity, and therefore the usefulness, of information recieved from others. Any individual not wishing to submit some or all the
information should checkthe box provided forthis purpose. (The exceptions arethe PI/PD name and the information about priorFederal support, the
last question above.)
Collection of this information is authorized by the NSF Act of 1950, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 1861, at seq. Demographic data allows NSF to
gauge whether our programs and other opportunities in science and technology are fairly reaching and benefiting everyone regardless of
demographic category; to ensure that those in under -represented groups have the same knowledge of and access to programs and other
research and educational oppurtunities; and to assess involvement of international investigators in work supported by NSF. The information
may be disclosed to government contractors, experts, volunteers and researchers to complete assigned work; and to other government
agencies in order to coordinate and assess programs. The information may be added to the Reviewer file and used to select potential
candidates to serve as peer reviewers or advisory committee members. See Systems of Records, NSF-50, 'Principal Investigator/Proposal
File and Associated Records", 63 Federal Register 267 (January 5, 1998), and NSF-51, "Reviewer/Proposal File and Associated Records",
63 Federal Register 268 (January 5, 1998).
1635950

f
02 INFORMATION ABOUT PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS/PROJECT DIRECTORS(PI/PD) and
co -PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS/co-PROJECT DIRECTORS
Submit only ONE copy of this form for each PI/PD and co-PI/PD identified on the proposal. The form(s) should be attached to the original
proposal as specified in GPG Section II.C.a. Submission of this information is voluntary and is not a precondition of award. This information will
not be disclosed to external peer reviewers. DO NOT INCLUDE THIS FORM WITHANYOF THE OTHER COPIES OF YOUR PROPOSAL AS
THIS MAY COMPROMISE THE CONFIDENTIALITY OF THE INFORMATION.
PI/PD Name: Lauren Yeager
Gender:
❑
Male ® Female
Ethnicity: (Choose one response)
❑
Hispanic or Latino ® Not Hispanic or Latino
Race:
❑
American Indian or Alaska Native
(Select one or more)
❑
Asian
❑
Black or African American
❑
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
®
White
Disability Status: ❑ Hearing Impairment RECEIVED
(Select one or more) ❑ Visual Impairment
❑ Mobility/Orthopedic Impairment MAR 2 9 2017
❑ Other
❑ None DCM- MHD CITY
Citizenship: (Choose one) ® U.S. Citizen ❑ Permanent Resident ❑ Other non-U.S. Citizen
Check here if you do not wish to provide any or all of the above information (excluding PI/PD name):
REQUIRED: Check here if you are currently serving (or have previously served) as a PI, co -PI or PD on any federally funded
project
Ethnicity Definition:
Hispanic or Latino. A person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless
of race.
Race Definitions:
American Indian or Alaska Native. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of North and South America (including Central
America), and who maintains tribal affiliation or community attachment.
Asian. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent including, for
example, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam.
Black or African American. A person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa.
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa,
or other Pacific Islands.
White. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa.
WHY THIS INFORMATION IS BEING REQUESTED:
The Federal Government has a continuing commitment to monitor the operation of its review and award processes to identify and address
any inequities based on gender, race, ethnicity, or disability of its proposed Pls/PDs. To gather information needed for this important
task, the proposer should submit a single copy of this form for each identified PI/PD with each proposal. Submission of the requested
information is voluntary and will not affect the organization's eligibility for an award. However, information not submitted will seriously undermine
the statistical validity, and therefore the usefulness, of information recieved from others. Any individual not wishing to submit some or all the
information should checkthe box provided forthis purpose. (The exceptions arethe PI/PD name and the information about prior Federal support, the
last question above.)
Collection of this information is authodzed by the NSF Act of 1950, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 1861, at seq. Demographic data allows NSF to
gauge whether our programs and other opportunities in science and technology are fairly reaching and benefiting everyone regardless of
demographic category; to ensure that those in under -represented groups have the same knowledge of and access to programs and other
research and educational oppurtunities; and to assess involvement of international investigators in work supported by NSF. The information
may be disclosed to government contractors, experts, volunteers and researchers to complete assigned work; and to other government
agencies in order to coordinate and assess programs. The information may be added to the Reviewer file and used to select potential
candidates to serve as peer reviewers or advisory committee members. See Systems of Records, NSF-50, "Principal Investigator/Proposal
File and Associated Records", 63 Federal Register 267 (January 5, 1998), and NSF51, "Reviewer/Proposal File and Associated Records",
63 Federal Register 268 (January 5, 1998).
1635915

List of Suggested Reviewers or Reviewers Not To Include (optional)
SUGGESTED REVIEWERS:
Lenore Fahrig, [e-mail], Carleton Univ
John M. Carroll, [e-mail], Georgia Southern Univ
Jessie C. Jarvis, [e-mail], Univ of North Carolina, Wilmington
Robert J. Orth, [e-mail], Virginia Institute of Marine Science
Kevin M. Boswell, [e-mail], Florida International
University
1:7;kr1I A4yjA.440[0a11ill.DOto] 01:1
RECEIVED
MAR 2 9 2017
DCM- MHD CITY
i[sicl.'i'b'isl

List of Suggested Reviewers or Reviewers Not To Include (optional)
SUGGESTED REVIEWERS:
Not Listed
REVIEWERS NOT TO INCLUDE:
Not Listed
RECEIVED
MAR 2 9 2017
DCM- MHD CITY
1635915

Collaborators & Other Affiliations Information
J. Fodrie
Collaborators and co -Editors:
Able, Kenneth (Rutgers University);
Andrus, Fred (University of Alabama);
Becker, Bonnie (University of Washington, Tacoma);
Byers, Jeb (University of Georgia);
Duffy, Emmett (Smithsonian);
Eggleston, David (North Carolina State University);
Grabowski, Jonathan (Northeastern University);
Galvez, Fern (Louisiana State University);
Gutman, Rachel (Northeastern University);
Herzka, Sharon (CISESE);
Hovel, Kevin (San Diego State University);
Jensen, Olaf (Rutgers University);
Layman, Craig (North Carolina State University);
Lindquist, Niels (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill);
Lipcius, Rom (Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences);
Lopez -Duarte, Paola (Rutgers University);
Martin, Charles (Louisiana State University);
Nye, Janet (Stony Brook University);
Rabalais, Nancy (Louisiana State University);
Peterson, Charles (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill);
Pichler, Mike (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill);
Pinsky Malin (Rutgers University);
Powers, Sean (Dauphin Island Sea Lab);
Puckett, Brandon (North Carolina Coastal Reserve — National Estuarine Research Reserves);
Roberts, Brian (Louisiana State University);
Rodriguez, Antonio (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill);
Scharf, Fred (University of North Carolina, Wilmington);
Scyphers, Steven (Northeastern University);
Sherwood, Graham (Gulf of Maine Research Institute);
Sotka, Eric (College of Charleston);
Sturm, Greg (Texas A&M University — Corpus Christie);
Turner, Eugene (Louisiana State University);
Whitehead, Andrew (University of California, Davis) RECEIVED
Graduate Advisors and Postdoctoral Sponsors: MAR 2 9 2ol7
Heck Jr., Kenneth (Postdoctoral advisor, Dauphin Island Sea Lab);
Levin, Lisa (PhD advisor, Scripps Institution of Oceanography)
DCM- MHD CITY
Thesis Advisor and Postgraduate -Scholar Sponsor:
Coleman, Sara (Masters, The Nature Conservancy);
Morley, James (Postdoctoral researcher, Rutgers University);
Yeager, Lauren (Postdoctoral researcher, National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center)
1635950

Collaborators & Other Affiliations.
Collaborators and co-editors:
Burns, Taylor
Chacin, Dinorah
Deith, Mairin
Giery, Sean
Grabowski, Jon
Hammerschlag-Peyer, Caroline
Keller. Danielle
Kenworthy, Matthew
Langerhans, Brian
Peters, Joey
Selliban, Serina
Sherwood, Graham
Stoner, Elizabeth
Williams, Ivor
Zapata, Martha
Loyola University
University of South Florida
University of British Columbia
North Carolina State University
Northeastern University
Florida International University
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
North Carolina State University
Portland State University
San Francisco State University
Gulf of Maine Research Institute
Loxahatchee River District
Coral Reef Ecosystem Program, NOAA
Ohio State University
Graduate Advisors and Postdoctoral Sponsor:
Baum, Julia University of Victoria
Layman, Craig North Carolina State University
McPherson, Jana Calagary Zoo
Thesis Advisor and Postgraduate -Scholar Sponsor:
None to report.
RECEIVED
MAR 292017
DCM- MHD CITY
1635915

Not for distribution
COVER SHEET FOR PROPOSAL TO THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
PROGRAM ANNOUNCEMENT/SOLICITATION NOJDUE DATE
❑ Special Exception to Deadline Data Policy
FOR NSF USE ONLY
PD 98-1650 02/16/16
NSF PROPOSAL NUMBER
635950
FOR CONSIDERATION BY NSF ORGANIZATION UNITS) (IMIGeNe moM epedllc unn brown,ia.pm9nm,amelan, xc.I
OCE -BIOLOGICAL OCEANOGRAPHY
DATE RECEIVED
NUMBER OF COPIES I DIVISION ASSIGNED
FUND CODE
DUNS# (Deu(lnlxamalNurnsnnasyabm)
FILE LOCATION
02/16/2016
2 06040000 OCE
1650
608195277
02/19201612:09pm S
EMPLOYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (EIN) OR
SHOW PREVIOUS AWARD NO. IF THIS IS
IS THIS PROPOSAL BEING SUBMITTED TO ANOTHER FEDERAL
TAXPAYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (TIN)
❑ A RENEWAL
AGENCY? YES ❑ NOS IF YES, LIST ACRONYM(S)
O AN ACCOMPLISHMENT BASED RENEWAL
566001393
NAME OF ORGANIZATION TO WHICH AWARD SHOULD BE MADE
ADDRESS OF AWARDEE ORGANIZATION, INCLUDING 9 DIGIT ZIP CODE
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
University of North Carolina at Chapel HIII
104 Airport Dr Ste 2200
Chapel Hill, NC. 275991350
AWARDEE ORGANIZATION CODE (IF KNOWN)
0029744000
NAME OF PRIMARY PLACE OF PERF
ADDRESS OF PRIMARY PLACE OF PERF, INCLUDING 9 DIGIT ZIP CODE
Institute of Marine Sciences
Institute of Marine Sciences
3431 Arendell Street
Morehead City NC ,285570001,US.
IS AWARDEE ORGANIZATION (Check Al That Apply) ❑ SMALL BUSINESS O MINORITY BUSINESS
10 IF THIS IS A PRELIMINARY PROPOSAL
(See GPG ILC For Definitions) ❑ FOR -PROFIT ORGANIZATION ❑ WOMAN -OWNED BUSINESSI
THEN CHECK HERE
TITLE OF PROPOSED PROJECT Collaborative Research: Habitat fragmentation effects on fish
diversity at landscape scales: experimental tests of multiple
mechanisms
REQUESTED AMOUNT
PROPOSED DURATION (i.6o mDNTHs)
REQUESTED STARTING DATE
SHOW RELATED PRELIMINARY PROPOSAL NO.
t 451,039
36 months
09/15/16
IF APPLICABLE
THIS PROPOSAL INCLUDES ANY OF THE ITEMS LISTED BELOW
❑ BEGINNING INVESTIGATOR (GPG I.G.2) ❑ HUMAN SUBJECTS (GPG II.D.7) Human Subjects Assurance Number
❑ DISCLOSURE OF LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (GPG II.C.1.e) Exemption Subsection or IRB App. Date
❑ PROPRIETARY 8 PRIVILEGED INFORMATION (GPG 10, ILCAA) ❑ INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES: COUNTRY/COUNTRIES INVOLVED (GPG II.C.2.j)
❑ HISTORIC PLACES (GPG II.C.2.j)
® VERTEBRATE ANIMALS (GPG II.D.6) IACUC App. Date 05/08/15
N COLLABORATIVE STATUS
PHS Animal Welfare Assurance Number A3410-01
® FUNDING MECHANISM Research - other than RAPID or EAGER A collaborative proposal from multiple organizations (GPG I1.13.41)
PI/PD DEPARTMENT
PI/PD POSTAL ADDRESS
Institute of Marine Sciences
104 AIRPORT DR STE 2200
CHAPEL HILL, NC 275991350
PI/PD FAX NUMBER
252-726-2426
Unite States
NAMES (TYPED)
High Degree
Yr of Degree
Telephone Number
Email Address
PI/PD NAME
Fredrick J Fodrie
DPh6
2006
919-966-3411
[e-mail]
CO-0I/PD
CO-PI/PD
CO-P11PD
CO-PIIPD
RECIZINIED
Page l of
MAR 2 9 2017
DCM- MHD CITY
1635950

Not for distribution
CERTIFICATION PAGE
Certification for Authorized Organizational Representative (or Equivalent) or Individual Applicant
By electronically signing and submitting this proposal, the Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR) or Individual Applicant is: (1) certifying that statements made herein are true and
compete to the best of his/her knowledge; and (2) agreeing to accept the obligation to comply with NSF award tens and conditions if an award is made as a result of this application. Further
the applicant is hereby providing certifications regarding conflict of interest (when applicable), drug -free workplace, debarment and suspension, lobbying activities (see below),
nondiscrimination, flood hazard insurance (when applicable), responsible conduct of research, organizational support, Federal lax obligations, unpaid Fadeal tax liability, and criminal
convictions as set forth in the NSF Proposal & Award Polides & Procedures Guide,Part I: the Gram Proposal Guide (GPG). Willful provision of false information in this application and its
supporting documents or in reports required under an ensuing award is a criminal offense (U.S. Code, Title 18, Section 1001).
Certification Regarding Conflict of Interest
The AOR is required to complete certifications stating that the organization has implemented and is enforcing a written policy on conflicts of interest (COI), consistent with the provisions
of AAG Chapter IV.A.; that, to the best of hisher knowledge, all financial disclosures required by the conflict of interest policy were made; and that conflicts of interest, if any, were,
or prior to the organization's expenditure of any funds under the award, will be, satisfactorily managed, reduced or eliminated in accordance with the organization's conflict of interest policy.
Conflicts that cannot be satisfactorily managed, reduced or eliminated and research that proceeds without the imposition of conditions or restrictions when a conflict of interest exists,
must be disclosed to NSF via use of the Notifications and Requests Module in FaslLzne.
Drug Free Work Place Certification
By electronically signing the Certification Pages, the Authorized Organizational Representative (or equivalent), is providing the Drug Free Work Place Certification contained in
Exhibit II-3 of the Grant Proposal Guide.
Debarment and Suspension Certification (If answer yes', please provide explanation.)
Is the organization a its principals presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded
from covered transactions by any Federal department or agency? yes ❑ No
By electronically signing the Certification Pages, the Authorized Organizational Representative (or equivalent) or Individual Applicant is providing the
Debarment and Suspension Certification contained in Exhibit II-0 of the Grant Proposal Guide.
Certification Regarding Lobbying
This cartification is required for an award of a Federal contract, grant, or cooperative agreement exceeding $100,000 and for an award of a Federal ban or a commitment providing
for the United Stales to insure or guarantee a loan exceeding $150,000,
Certification for Contracts, Grants, Loans and Cooperative Agreements
The undersigned certifies, to the best of his or her knowledge and belief, that:
(1) No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of the undersigned, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any
agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any Federal contract, the making of any
Federal grant, the making of any Federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal
contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement.
(2) If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a
Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this Federal contract, grant, loan, a cooperative agreement, the
undersigned shall complete and submit Standard Fom-U L,'Disclosure of Lobbying Activities," in accordance with its instructions.
(3) The undersigned shall require that the language of this certification be included in the award documents for all subawards at all tiers including subcontracts, subgrants, and contracts
under grants, loans, and cooperative agreements and that all subrecipients shall certify and disclose accordingly.
This certthcabon is a material representation of fad upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was made or entered into. Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for
making or entering into this transaction imposed by section 1352, Title 31, U.S. Code. Any person who fails to file the required certification shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less
than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure.
Certification Regarding Nondiscrimination
By electronically signing the Certification Pages, the Authorized Organizational Representative (or equivalent) is providing the Certification Regarding
Nondiscrimination contained in Exhibit II-6 of the Grant Proposal Guide.
Certification Regarding Flood Hazard Insurance
Two sections of the National Flood Insurance Ad of 1968 (42 USC §4012a and §4106) bar Federal agencies from giving financial assistance for acquisition or
construction purposes in any area identified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as having special flood hazards unless the:
(1) community in which that area is located participates in the national flood insurance program; and
(2) building (and any related equipment) is covered by adequate flood insurance.
By electronically signing the Certification Pages, the Authorized Organizational Representative (or equivalent) or Individual Applicant located in FEMAdesignated special flood hazard areas is
certifying that adequate flood insurance has been or will be obtained in the following situations:
(1) fa NSF grants for the construction of a Wilding or facility, regardless of the dollar amount of the grant; and
(2) for other NSF grants when more than $25,000 has been budgeted in the proposal for repair, alferation a improvement (construction) of a building or facility.
Certification Regarding Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR)
(This certification is not applicable to proposals for conferences, symposia, and workshops.)
By electronically signing the Certification Pages, the Authorized Organizational Representative is certifying that, in accordance with the NSF Proposal
& Award Policies & Procedures Guide, Part II, Award & Administration Guide (AAG) Chapter W.B., the institution has a plan in place to provide appropriate training and oversight in the
responsible and ethical conduct of research to undergraduates, graduate students and postdoctoral researchers who will be supported by NSF to conduct research.
The AOR shall require that the language of this camfication be included in any award documents for all subawards at all tiers. RECEIVED
MAR 2 9 7017
DCM- MHu Ui'i
Page 2 of 3
1635950

Not for distribution
CERTIFICATION PAGE - CONTINUED
Certification Regarding Organizational Support
By electronically signing the Certification Pages, the Authorized Organizational Representative (or equivalent) is certifying that there is organizational support for the proposal as required by
Section 526 of to Arieda COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010. This support extends to the portion of the proposal developed to safisfy the Broader Impacts Review Criterion as well as
the Intellectual Merit Review Criterion, and any additional review criteria specified in the solicitation. Organizational support will be made available, as described in the proposal, in order to
address the broader impacts and intellectual merit activities to be undertaken.
Certification Regarding Federal Tax Obligations
When the proposal exceeds $5,000,000, the Authorized Organizational Representative (or equivalent) is required to complete the following certification regarding Federal tax obligations.
By electronically signing the Certification pages, the Authorized Organizational Representative is certifying that, to the best of their knoidedge and belief, the proposing organization:
(1) has filed all Federal tax returns required during the three years preceding this certification;
(2) has not been convicted of a criminal offense under the Internal Revenue Code of 1966; and
(3) has not more than 90 days prior to this certification, been notified of any unpaid Federal tax assessment for which the liability remains unsatisfied, unless the assessment is the
subject of an installment agreement or offer in compromise that has been approved by the Internal Revenue Service and is not in default, or the assessment is the subject of a nun -frivolous
administrative or judicial proceeding.
Certification Regarding Unpaid Federal Tax Liability
When the proposing organization is a corporation, the Authorized Organizational Representative (or equivalent) is required to complete the following certification regarding Federal Tax
Liability:
By electronically signing the Certification Pages, the Authorized Organizational Representative (or equivalent) is certifying that the corporation has no unpaid Fedeml tax liability that has
been assessed, for which all judicial and administrative remedies have been exhausted or lapsed, and that is not being paid in a timely manner pursuant to an agreement with the authority
responsible for collecting the tax liability.
Certification Regarding Criminal Convictions
When the proposing organization is a corporation, the Authorized Organizational Representative (or equivalent) is required to complete the following certification regarding Criminal
Convictions:
By electronically signing the Certification Pages, the Authorized Organizational Representative (or equivalent) is certifying that the corporation has not been convicted of a felony criminal
violation under any Federal law within the 24 months preceding the date on which the certification is signed.
Certification Dual Use Research of Concern
By electronically signing the certification pages, the Autonzed Organizational Representative is certifying that the organization will be or is in compliance with all aspects of the United Stales
Government Policy for Institutional Oversight of Life Sciences Dual Use Research of Concern.
RECEIVED
MAR 2 9 2017
DCM- MHD CITY
AUTHORIZED ORGANIZATIONAL REPRESENTATIVE
SIGNATURE
DATE
NAME
JM Thomas
Electronic Signature
Feb 16 2016 4:13PM
TELEPHONE NUMBER
EMAIL ADDRESS
FAX NUMBER
919-962-5697
[e-mail]
1 919-962-3352
Page 3 of 3
fI.*1019111

Not for distribution
COVER SHEET FOR PROPOSAL TO THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
PROGRAM ANNOUNCEMENT/SOLICITATION NO./DUE DATE
❑ Special Exception to Deadline Date Pclicy
FOR NSF USE ONLY
PD 98-1650 02/16/16
NSF PROPOSAL NUMBER
1635915
FOR CONSIDERATION BY NSF ORGANIZATION UNIT(S) (Iaadnm the mesa specific unx trews, te, gpgnm, d1wSIM, etc)
OCE -BIOLOGICAL OCEANOGRAPHY
DATE RECEIVED
I NUMBER OF COPIES I
DIVISION ASSIGNED
FUND CODE
DUNS# IDamwir alNuaneein,Spaem)
FILE LOCATION
02/16/2016
2
06040000 OCE
1650
790934285
02n9401612:e5pm s
EMPLOYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (EIN) OR
SHOW PREVIOUS AWARD NO. IF THIS IS
IS THIS PROPOSAL BEING SUBMITTED TO ANOTHER FEDERAL
TAXPAYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER(TIN)
❑A RENEWAL
AGENCY? YES❑ NO® IF YES, LIST ACRONYM($)
❑ AN ACCOMPLISHMENT -BASED RENEWAL
526002033
NAME OF ORGANIZATION TO WHICH AWARD SHOULD BE MADE
ADDRESS OF AWARDEE ORGANIZATION, INCLUDING 9 DIGIT ZIP CODE
University of Maryland College Park
Unlvera ity of Maryland college Park
3112 LEE BLDG 7809 Regents Drive
COLLEGE PARK, MD. 207425141
AWARDEE ORGANIZATION CODE (IF KNOWN)
0021030000
NAME OF PRIMARY PLACE OF PERF
ADDRESS OF PRIMARY PLACE OF PERF, INCLUDING 9 DIGIT ZIP CODE
University of Maryland College Park
University of Maryland College Park
1 Park Place Suite 300
Annapolis MD,214013480,US.
IS AWARDEE ORGANIZATION (Check All That Apply) ❑ SMALL BUSINESS ❑ MINORITY BUSINESS
❑ IF THIS IS A PRELIMINARY PROPOSAL
(Sea GPG ILC For Definitions) ❑ FOR -PROFIT ORGANIZATION ❑ WOMAN -OWNED BUSINESS
THEN CHECK HERE
TITLE OF PROPOSED PROJECT Collaborative Research: Habitat fragmentation effects on seagrass fish
diversity at landscape scales: experimental tests of multiple
mechanisms
REQUESTED AMOUNT
PROPOSED DURATION (1e0 MONTHS)
REQUESTED STARTING DATE
SHOW RELATED PRELIMINARY PROPOSAL NO.
$ 140,445 1
36 months
09/15/16
IF APPLICABLE
THIS PROPOSAL INCLUDES ANY OF THE ITEMS LISTED BELOW
0 BEGINNING INVESTIGATOR (GPG I.G.2) ❑ HUMAN SUBJECTS (GPG ILD.7) Human Subjects Assurance Number
❑ DISCLOSURE OF LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (GPG II.C.1.e) Exemption Subsection ar IRS App. Date
❑ PROPRIETARY 8 PRIVILEGED INFORMATION (GPG I.D, II.C.1.d) ❑ INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES: COUNTRY/COUNTRIES INVOLVED (GPG II.C.2.j)
❑ HISTORIC PLACES (GPG II.C.2.j)
N VERTEBRATE ANIMALS (GPG II.D.S) IACUC App. Date Pending
PHS Animal WelfareAssurance Number A3270-01 IA COLLABORATIVE STATUS
19 FUNDING MECHANISM Research - other than RAPID or EAGER A collaborative proposal from multiple organizations (GPG ILD.4.b)
PI/PD DEPARTMENT
PI/PD POSTAL ADDRESS
National Socio-Environmental Syn Cent
r I Park Place Suite 300
Annapolis, MD 21401
PI/PD FAX NUMBER
305-978-6236
United States
NAMES (TYPED)
High Degree
Yr of Degree
Telephone Number
Email Address
PIIPD NAME
Lauren Yeager
PhD
2013
305-978-6236
[e-mail]
CO•PI/PD
CO-PI1PD
GO-PI1PD
CO-PI1PD
Pap i of DECEIVED
MAR 2 9 2017
DCM- MHD CITY 1635915

Not for distribution
CERTIFICATION PAGE
Certification for Authorized Organizational Representative (or Equivalent) or Individual Applicant
By electronically signing and submilting this proposal, the Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR) or Individual Applicant is: (1) certifying that statements made herein are true and
complete to the best of his/her knowledge; and (2) agreeing to accept the obligation to comply with NSF award terms and conditions if an award is made as a result of this application. Further
the applicant is hereby providing certifications regarding conflict of interest (when applicable), dmgdree workplace, debarment and suspension, lobbying activities (see below),
nondiscrimination, flood hazanl insurance (when applicable), responsible conduct of research, organizational support, Federal tax obligations, unpaid Federal tax liability, and criminal
convictions as set forth in the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide,Part I: the Gant Proposal Guide (GPG). Willful provision of false information in this application and its
supporting documents or in reports required under an ensuing award is a criminal oeense (U.S. Code, Title 18, Section 1001).
Certification Regarding Conflict of Interest
The AOR is required to complete certifications stating that the organization has implemented and is enforcing a written policy on conflicts of interest (COI), consistent with the provisions
of AAG Chapter IV.A.; that, to the best of his/her knowledge, all financial disclosures required by the conflict of interest policy were made; and that conflicts of interest, if any, were,
or prior to the oganization's expenditure of any funds under the award, will be, satisfactorily managed, reduced or eliminated in accordance with the organization's conflict of interest policy.
Conflicts that cannot be satisfactorily managed, reduced or eliminated and research that proceeds without the imposition of conditions or restrictions when a conflict of interest exists,
must be disclosed to NSF via use of the Nolrificatons and Requests Module in FastLane.
Drug Free Work Place Certification
By electronically signing the Certification Pages, the Authorized Organizational Representative (or equivalent), is providing the Drug Free Work Place Certification contained in
Exhibit 113 of the Grant Proposal Guide.
Debarment and Suspension Certification (If answer yes', please provide explanation.)
Is the organization or its principals presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded
from covered transactions by any Federal department or agency? Yes ❑ No 19
By electronically signing the Certification Pages, the Authorized Organizational Representative (or equivalent) or Individual Applicant is providing the
Debarment and Suspension Certification contained in Exhibit 114 of the Grant Proposal Guide.
Certification Regarding Lobbying
This certRcetion is required for an award of a Federal contact, grant, or cooperative agreement exceeding $100,000 and for an award of a Federal loan or a commitment Providing
for the United States to insure or guarantee a loan exceeding $150,000.
Certification for Contracts, Grants, Loans and Cooperative Agreements
The undersigned certifies, to the best of his a her knowledge and belief, that:
(1) No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of the undersigned, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any
agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding at any Federal contract, the making of any
Federal grant, the making of any Federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, confinuabon, renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal
contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement.
(2) If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a
Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement, the
undersigned shall complete and submit Standard Form-LLL,"Disclosure of Lobbying Activities," in accordance with its instructions.
(3) The undersigned shall require that the language of this certfication be included in the award documents for all subawards at all tiers including subcontracts, subgrants, and contracts
under grants, loans, and cooperative agreements and that all subreapients shall certify and disclose accordingly.
This certification is a material representation of fad upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was made or entered into. Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for
making or entering into this transaction imposed by section 1352, Tilde 31, U.S. Code. Any person who fails to file the required certification shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less
than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure.
Certification Regarding Nondiscrimination
By electronically signing the Certification Pages, the Authorized Organizational Representative (or equivalent) is providing the Certification Regarding
Nondiscrimination contained in Exhibit I1-6 of the Grant Proposal Guide.
Certification Regarding Flood Hazard Insurance
Two sections of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 USC §4012a and §4106) bar Federal agencies from giving financial assistance for acquisition or
construction purposes in any area identified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as having special flood hazards unless the:
(1) community in which that area is located participates in the national flood insurance program; and
(2) building (and any related equipment) is covered by adequate flood insurance.
By electronically signing the Certification Pages, the Authorized Organizational Representative (or equivalent) or Individual Applicant located in FEMAEesignated special flood hazard areas is
certifying that adequate flood insurance has been or will be obtained in the follovmg situations:
(1) for NSF grants for the construction of a building or facility, regardless of the dollar amount of the grant; and
(2) for other NSF grants when more than $25,000 has been budgeted in the proposal for repair, alteration or improvement (construction) of a building or facility.
Certification Regarding Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR)
(This certification is not applicable to proposals for conferences, symposia, and workshops.)
By electronically signing the Cedificetion Pages, the Authorized Organizational Representative is certifying that, in accordance with the NSF Proposal
& Award Policies & Procedures Guide, Part 11, Award & Administration Guide (AAG) Chapter IV.S., the institution has a plan in place to provide appropriate training and oversight in the
responsible and ethical conduct of research to undergraduates, graduate students and postdoctoml researchers who will be supported by NSF to conduct research.
The AOR shall require that the language of this certification be included in any award documents for all subawards at all tiers.
'RECE
w292011
r ff kl - MHO CITY
Page 2 of 3
1635915

Not for distribution
CERTIFICATION PAGE - CONTINUED
Certification Regarding Organizational Support
By electronically signing the Certification Pages, the Authorized Organizational Representative (or equivalent) is certifying that there is organizational support for the proposal as required by
Section 526 of the Amenca COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010. This support extends to the portion of the proposal developed to satisfy the Broader Impacts Review Criterion as well as
the Intellectual Ment Review Criterion, and any additional review criteria speafied in the solicitation. Organizational support will be made available, as described in the proposal, in order to
address the broader impacts and intellectual mast activities to be undertaken.
Certification Regarding Federal Tax Obligations
When the proposal exceeds $5,000,000, the Authorized Organizational Representative (or equivalent) is required to complete the following certification regarding Federal tax obligations.
By electronically signing the Certification pages, the Authorized Organizational Representative is certifying that, to the best of their knowledge and belief, the proposing organization:
(1) has fled all Federal lax returns required during the three years preceding this certification;
(2) has not been convicted of a criminal offense under the Internal Revenue Code of 1966; and
(3) has not, more than 90 days prior to this certification, been notified of any unpaid Federal tax assessment for which the liability remains unsatisfied, unless the assessment is the
subject of an installment agreement or offer in compromise that has been approved by the Internal Revenue Service and is not in default, or the assessment is the subject of a ran -frivolous
administrative or judicial proceeding.
Certification Regarding Unpaid Federal Tax Liability
When the proposing organization is a corporation, the Authorized Organizational Representative for equivalent) is required to complete the following certification regarding Federal Tax
Liability:
By electronically signing the Certification Pages, the Authorized Organizational Representative (or equivalent) is certifying that the corporation has no unpaid Federal tax liability that has
been assessed, for which all judicial and administrative remedies have been exhausted or lapsed, and that is not being paid in a timely manner pursuant to an agreement with the authority
responsible for collecting the lax liability.
Certification Regarding Criminal Convictions
When the proposing organizaton is a corporation, the Authorized Organizational Representative (or equivalent) is required to complete the following certification regarding Criminal
Convictions:
By electronically signing the Certification Pages, the Authorized Organizational Representative (or equivalent) is certifying that the corporation has not been convicted of a felony criminal
violation under any Federal law within the 24 months preceding the dale on which the certification is signed.
Certification Dual Use Research of Concern
By electronically signing the certification pages, the Authorized Organizational Representative is certifying that are organization will be or is in compliance with all aspects of the United Slates
Government Policy for Institutional Oversight of Life Sciences Dual Use Research of Concern.
RECEIVED
MAR 2 9 2017
DCM- MHD CITY
AUTHORIZED ORGANIZATIONAL REPRESENTATIVE
SIGNATURE
DATE
NAME
Jill Frankenfield
Electronic Signature
Feb 16 2016 4:07PM
TELEPHONE NUMBER
EMAIL ADDRESS
FAX NUMBER
3014054577
[e-mail]
Page 3 of 3
1635915

PROJECT SUMMARY
Overview:
Fragmentation involves habitat loss concomitant with changes in spatial configuration, confounding
mechanistic drivers of biodiversity change associated with habitat disturbance. This has led
to confusion surrounding the relative importance of habitat loss versus fragmentation per
se in driving community shifts associated with landscape alterations. Studies attempting to
isolate the effects of altered habitat configuration on associated fauna have reported variable
results, limiting the applicability of theory to conservation initiatives. This variability
may be explained in part by the 'fragmentation threshold hypothesis', which predicts that
the effects of habitat configuration may only manifest at low levels of remnant habitat area.
Recent work by the Pis in natural seagrass meadows has provided the first empirical support
for the fragmentation threshold hypothesis in marine landscapes. Still, many questions remain
regarding the potential mechanisms that underpin this threshold, such as patch -level habitat
attributes, abiotic correlates (wave energy), and taxa-specific dispersal abilities. Building
from previous work, the proposed research will employ an experimental approach at novel, yet
relevant scales, to test whether seagrass habitat configuration effects fish diversity and
whether these effects are mediated by total habitat area. Specifically, entire habitat landscapes
(15x15m) will be created using artificial seagrass units (ASUs) that independently vary along
2 axes (controlling seagrass density and length): total habitat area (10-60% cover) and fragmentation
(percolation prob; 0.1-0.6). These landscapes will be deployed in a temperate (NC) estuary.
In YR1, the response of the fishes that colonize these landscapes will be indexed as abundance,
biomass, community structure, as well as taxonomic and functional diversity. This would be
followed by targeted ASU removals to explore the dynamics of species -specific extirpation
from disturbed landscapes. In YR2, the landscape array and sampling regime will be duplicated
(doubled) and half of the landscapes seeded with post -larval fish of low dispersal ability
(i.e., taxa previously shown to be absent in low -cover, fragmented landscapes) to test whether
pre- or post -recruitment processes drive landscape -scale patterns. In YR3, the role of wave
exposure (a natural driver of seagrass fragmentation) in mediating fishes' responses (i.e.,
abundance, diversity, etc.) to landscape configuration will be tested by deploying ASU meadows
across low and high energy environments.
Intellectual Merit :
This research would supply new data for predictive models that link biodiversity and habitat
fragmentation. Studies that empirically quantify the independent effects of habitat configuration
versus habitat loss generally employ one of two approaches: observational studies or manipulative
experiments. While observational studies tend to best match the scale at which fragmentation
occurs in nature, they often introduce additional sources of variation that confound generalizable
findings. For example, habitat quality may co -vary with landscape configuration. Alternatively,
manipulative experiments offer a more rigorous approach to mechanistically link marine landscape
features to community responses, but are typically conducted at very small spatial scales
(often -1 m2) due to logistical constraints. This study will harness both the relevance -of -scale
from observational studies as well as the experimental rigor of controlled field manipulations.
Indeed, it will expand the scale of manipulative marine experiments exploring habitat fragmentation
by two orders of magnitude, representing appropriate scales for higher -order, mobile taxa
such as fishes. It will also advance conceptual disturbance models via novel exploration of
how species traits and abiotic stressors (wave energy) interact with landscape features to
determine patterns of fish biodiversity.
Broader Impacts :
Habitat fragmentation is cited as a prominent driver of biodiversity loss and is a focus of
conservation efforts aimed at curbing this loss. Determining if/when fragmentation matters
will help prioritize conservation efforts, as recent studies have questioned if/how habitat
configuration serves as a primary driver of biodiversity loss. Beyond direct links between
research outcomes and habitat conservation, the proposed work will provide extensive training
opportunities for graduate (1 PhD student) and pre -graduate students. We will target students
from underrepresented groups in the Ocean Sciences for these opportunities. RECEIVED
MAR 2 9 2017
Page DCM- MHD CITY
1635950

TABLE OF CONTENTS
For font size and page formatting specifications, see GPG section H.B.2.
Total No. of Page No.*
Pages (Optional)*
Cover Sheet for Proposal to the National Science Foundation
Project Summary (not to exceed 1 page) 1
Table of Contents 1
Project Description (Including Results from Prior 15
NSF Support) (not to exceed 15 pages) (Exceed only if allowed by a
specific program announcement/solicitation or if approved in
advance by the appropriate NSF Assistant Director or designee)
References Cited 7
Biographical Sketches (Not to exceed 2 pages each) 2
Budget 6
(Plus up to 3 pages of budget justification)
Current and Pending Support 2
Facilities, Equipment and Other Resources 1
Special Information/Supplementary Documents 1
(Data Management Plan, Mentoring Plan
and Other Supplementary Documents)
Appendix (List below.)
(Include only if allowed by a specific program announcement/
solicitation or If approved In advance by the appropriate NSF
Assistant Director or designee)
Appendix Items:
RECEIVED
MAR 292017
DCM- MHD CITY
*Proposers may select any numbering mechanism for the proposal. The entire proposal however, must be paginated.
Complete both columns only if the proposal is numbered consecutively.
1635950

TABLE OF CONTENTS
For font size and page formatting specifications, see GPG section II.B.2.
Total No. of Page No.*
Pages (Optional)*
Cover Sheet for Proposal to the National Science Foundation
Project Summary (not to exceed 1 page)
Table of Contents
Project Description (Including Results from Prior 0
NSF Support) (not to exceed 15 pages) (Exceed only if allowed by a
specific program announcement/solicitation or if approved in
advance by the appropriate NSF Assistant Director or designee)
References Cited
Biographical Sketches (Not to exceed 2 pages each) 2
Budget 5
(Plus up to 3 pages of budget justification)
Current and Pending Support 1
Facilities, Equipment and Other Resources 1
Special Information/Supplementary Documents 1
(Data Management Plan, Mentoring Plan
and Other Supplementary Documents)
Appendix (List below.)
(Include only if allowed by a specific program announcement/
solicitation or if approved in advance by the appropriate NSF
Assistant Director or designee)
Appendix Items:
RECEIVED
MAR 2 9 2017
DCM- MHD CITY
*Proposers may select any numbering mechanism for the proposal. The entire proposal however, must be paginated.
Complete both columns only if the proposal is numbered consecutively.
1635915

INTRODUCTION
Habitat fragmentation is an aggregate process that involves both declines in total habitat area along with
changes in spatial configuration (e.g., patch size, number, or isolation; Fig. IA; Fahrig 2003). While
habitat fragmentation in this broad sense is often associated with declines in biodiversity and decreased
population fitness for many marine and terrestrial species (Saunders et al. 1991, Foley et al. 2005), the
primary cause of these losses is not always clear. Because total habitat area changes concomitantly with
changes in patch attributes, many studies confound area -based effects with those mediated through
changes in habitat configuration or other forms of habitat degradation. This has contributed to debate
surrounding the relative importance of coastal marine habitat loss versus shifts in other habitat attributes
or faunal behaviors in driving ecological change (Lindenmayer and Fischer 2007, Fahrig 2013).
A Ii
Habitat / \ Habitat
loss (// fragmentation
Parse
:t
a iy
.. h
• o
. 0
• • •o 0 0
0 0 00
. Contiguous
o Fragmented
The positive relationship between habitat area and species
richness is perhaps one of the most general and accepted
patterns in ecology (i.e., "island biogeography'; Lomolino
2000). Therefore, it is understood that habitat fragmentation
should lead to a loss in biodiversity merely through the
effects of decreasing habitat amount (e.g., Summerville and
Crist 2001). The remaining question is, with increasing
habitat fragmentation, are there additional effects of habitat
configuration on biodiversity that are separate from purely
area -based responses? Determining if/when fragmentation
matters for marine biodiversity would help prioritize
conservation efforts, as recent studies have questioned the
strong focus on changes in habitat configuration as a primary
driver of ecosystem degradation (Fahrig 2013). This is a
particularly important consideration in the coastal ocean,
where biogenic habitats such as seagrasses (>30% habitat
loss; Waycott et al. 2009), saltmarshes (>30 loss; Kennish
2001), mangroves (>35% loss; Valiela et al. 2001), and
oyster reefs (--85% loss; Zu Ermgassen et al. 2012) face
multiple stressors that lead to both overall habitat loss as well
as increased patch fragmentation (e.g., Orth et al. 2006).
HabitatAmoant Relative to the effects of habitat area (e.g., Simberloff 1974),
Threshold evidence regarding the magnitude, and even direction, of the
effects of habitat configuration (also termed fragmentation
Figure 1. (A) Habitat loss versus habitat fragmentation per se) on species richness and faunal abundance is much
per se, taken from Fahrig 2003. (m Hypothetical more equivocal (Fahrig 2003, Villard and Metzger 2014,
interaction between habitat amount (area) and
fragmentation leading to a difference in the function of Fahrig 2015). Divergent species -level responses to habitat
habitats at low, but not high, remnant habitat amounts configuration have suggested that traits like body size,
(i.e, fragmentation threshold hypothesis). trophic level, and motility may be key in determining
species -specific sensitivities to fragmentation (Ewers and Didham 2006). Another reason why studies
examining the effects of habitat configuration have reported disparate results may be that the effects of
configuration are contingent upon the overall cover of the focal habitat within the landscape. Studies
employing simulation models have predicted that the effects of habitat patchiness on population
persistence may only manifest at low levels (>30% cover) of remnant habitat area (Fahrig 1997, Fahrig
1998, Hanski and Ovaskainen 2000, Flather and Bevers 2002). These observations have led to the
`fragmentation threshold hypothesis', which suggest a statistical interaction between the effects of habitat
area and configuration on species occurrence or diversity (Fig. 1 B; Trzcinski et al. 1999). We propose to
test the efficacy of this hypothesis in regulating the community ecology of estuarine biogenic habitats. We
also consider how drivers of habitat change (hydrodynamic regime) or spe C C G V Gbdispersal
MAR 2 9 2017
DCM- MHD CITY
1635950

ability) drive sensitivity to habitat configuration in estuarine ecosystems, where human development is
accelerating and leading to widespread fragmentation of biogenic habitat (Gittman et al. 2015).
Seagrass as a model marine system for evaluating the fragmentation threshold hypothesis
Seagrasses provide numerous ecosystem services such as carbon sequestration and nursery habitat
provision that make them among the most valuable per -unit -area habitats on Earth (Costanza et al. 1997;
Fourqurean et al. 2012). Given their fairly narrow physiological niche as marine angiosperms, seagrasses
also serve as biological sentinels of local and climatological perturbations (Orth et al., 2006).
Temperature, CO2 concentration, and sea -level rise, all impact seagrasses making them valuable
indicators of climate change. Locally, natural processes such as wave energy (Fonseca and Bell 1998) and
anthropogenic stressors such as dredging and boat propeller "scarring" (Bell et al. 2002; Dunton and
Schonberg 2002) also contribute to changes in the cover and spatial configuration of seagrass. Indeed, in
temperate estuaries, eelgrass meadows (Zostera marina — common in temperate coastal zones) exhibit a
huge diversity of patch sizes and configurations ranging over meters to kilometers (BostrOm et al. 2006),
making them an excellent model for evaluating the fragmentation threshold hypothesis (Fig. 2).
As a key ecosystem service, seagrass meadows have long been identified as essential nurseries for fishes
and decapod crustaceans (Heck et al., 2003), and there is a comparatively rich literature on the
characteristics of seagrass-associated fish communities that any new work can builds from (e.g., Pearson,
1929; Livingston, 1982). At small spatial scales (1-10 m2), in particular, many studies have demonstrated
the effects of seagrass structural complexity, such as shoot density, epiphytic algal cover, and canopy
height, on catch rates of both fishes and invertebrates (Orth and Heck 1980, Bell and Westoby 1986,
Worthington et al. 1991; Irlandi 1994). While these results are valuable, we have not kept pace in
understanding how seagrass area and configuration at landscape scales supports fishery production
(BostrSm et al. 2006). For mobile fishes and crustaceans, which move among and within habitat patches
across tidal, daily, and seasonal timescales (Fodrie et al. 2015), we still lack critical information on the
scale -dependence of seagrass habitat Figure 2. Digitized maps of 10 eelgmss meadows drawn from 80*200-m ortho-
function, and specifically whether photos captured over Back Sound, North Carolina (NC) by the NC Department of
critical thresholds exist that determine Transportation on May 27, 2013 (AcrGIS v 10.1). Percent cover of seagrass within
fishery production supported by this each 80*200-m area is proved for each meadow.
or similar biogenic habitats. This is Habitat fragmentation per ae
troubling given that the few seagrass Contiguous Fragmented
studies operating at IOs-100s of
meters have suggested an important 88 as% w A
role for landscape -scale processes in I �.
maintaining species diversity and
augmenting species abundance aa%
(Irlandi et al. 1995, Heithaus et al. m " '•.
2006, Baillie et al. 2015). 2 �•
m �
More broadly, understanding how
ecological processes scale is a central
theme in ecology and ecosystem
science over the past half century that
unifies both basic and applied research
(Levin 1992). Our ability to quantify
ecological patterns often decreases
when scaling up from the level of
habitat patch to the landscape and
across ecosystems. When uncertainty
in these patterns is inversely related
with scale, efforts to extrapolate
s
25% 27%
ta% tax, .ro..
2% 2%
• f .a r
E
MAR 2 9 2017
CITY 1635950

findings to explain processes operating at large spatial and temporal scales are limited. This problem
posits a fundamental challenge to researchers attempting to scale up from the level of a local habitat patch
or a short-term experiment to apply knowledge of habitat -animal associations or habitat functionality
within and across marine landscapes/ecosystems more broadly. For most marine habitats, it is unclear if
the quality or extent of habitat at landscape scales influences the delivery of ecosystem services such as
provision of nursery habitat. Thus, a more holistic understanding of the relationships between metrics of
habitat quality across multiple scales and performance of valuable ecosystem services is needed.
In large measure, this disconnect between patch -level and 16
landscape -scale understanding of animal -habitat relationships 14
in marine systems is simply a matter of the practical 4 12
constraints of in situ experimentation. Indeed, studies to
attempting to empirically quantify the independent effects of a 8
habitat configuration generally employ one of two 6
approaches. The first approach involves experimental 4
manipulation of habitat pattern, either through habitat 0
removal e. g grassland p y o
( g., mowing assland lots; Parker and MacNall
2002) or creation of new, artificial habitat (e.g., artificial
seagrass units, ASUs; Fig. 3). These experimental Width of "Edge" Habitat Within
manipulations allow for a true separation of habitat Seagrass Landscape (m)
configuration effects independent of habitat area, but are Figure 3. Spatial scales in recent studies defining "edge"
areas of seagrass meadows typically span distances of <
often limited in scale in marine systems (Bostrom et al. 1 meter. This often represems practical limitations of
2006). Specifically, most manipulative studies are conducted field manipulations utilizing ASUs, but which may not
at relatively small spatial scales (<I O-m2 patches) are short be appropriate scales for the ambit of mobile fishes and
crustaceans. Studies defining "edge" widths were
in temporal duration, and are replicated across only a few identified by searching the terms "seagrass', "fish",
levels of habitat area. For instance, Johnson and Heck (2006) "fragmentanon" over the last 20 years (using tSl web
of Science; Data sources included in reference list).
used ASUs to experimentally test for the effects of Inset photo shows a 25*25-cm ASU, which represents a
increasing edge:area ratios on densities and production of common size in studies employing seagrass mimics,
faunal communities by comparing two levels of
"fragmentation" at <0.20-m2) scales (see also Fig. 3). Hovel and Lipcius (2001) also used ASUs at <10-
m2 scales to control for variation in fine -scale seagrass attributes, and found that increasing patchiness had
negative impacts on adult Callinectes sapidus (blue crab) and positive effects on juvenile blue crab
survival, although they did not simultaneously examine effects of varying habitat area. The second
approach involves observational experiments that rely on a priori selection of landscapes that vary in area
and configuration. An advantage of this approach is the possibility to increase the scale and replication of
the study, including a greater range in habitat area. Observational studies may offer the highest realism
and generality because they are able to examine fragmentation at scales at which it occurs in nature
(McGargial and Cushman 2002). However, observational experiments typically rely on space for time
substitutions of landscapes along existing fragmentation gradients, which may introduce additional
sources of variation if other habitat attributes co -vary with change in habitat configuration or area. For
instance, local habitat quality/complexity may decline as habitat patchiness increases (Irlandi et al. 1995),
confounding underlying drivers of faunal responses (perhaps contributing to the failure of previous
observational experiments to confirm the fragmentation threshold hypothesis; Trzcinski et al. 1999, Betts
et al. 2006, Smith et al. 2011, Radford et al. 2005).
Quite recently, both marine scientists and public trust resource managers have shown accelerating
interests in exploring environmental variables at enlarged spatial scales to quantify organism -habitat
associations in nearshore environments — and this is particularly true for seagrass ecosystems (Hovel et al.
2002; Grober-Dunsmore et al. 2004; Bostrom et al. 2006; Tanner 2006; Dorenbosch et al. 2007). This
shift has coincided with our growing understanding for the capacity of human activities to fragment,
degrade, or destroy marine habitats, and the resulting need for ecosystem -based conservation and
management plans to incorporate organism -habitat associations at multiple spatial scales (Sandel and
F{ECEIVED 3
MAR 2 9 ZV 1635950
DCM- MH[) CITY

Smith 2009, Yeager et al. 2011). Thus, the research proposed here would provide novel information on
whether landscape -scale thresholds in fragmentation impact the function of structurally complex biogenic
habitats (e.g., nursery function of temperate eelgrass meadows), as well as how species -specific traits and
key abiotic correlates mitigate the response of taxa to fragmentation.
OBJECTIVES
The overarching objective of the proposed research is to determine whether habitat configuration affects
biodiversity and fish assemblage structure within seagrass landscapes, and whether its effect is mediated
by total habitat area (i.e., fragmentation threshold hypothesis). We have designed this proposal
capitalizing on our previous observational work (see below) which exploited natural variation in seagrass
landscape structure to isolate the effects of seagrass habitat amount from differences in spatial pattern
among meadows. Notably, this study would harness both the relevance -of -scale from observational
studies as well as the experimental rigor of controlled field manipulations. To accomplish this, we
propose to expand the scale of manipulative marine experiments exploring habitat fragmentation by more
two orders of magnitude, representing appropriate scales for higher -order, mobile taxa such as fishes.
We will construct several hundred, I-m' ASUs that can be deployed across 25 landscapes of seagrass
configurations and area, while controlling for patch -level habitat characteristics. In year 1, we will
construct these landscapes and test the fragmentation threshold hypothesis broadly, hypothesizing that:
Hl: Taxonomic and fractional diversity will be lower in more fragmented landscapes relative to more
contiguous landscapes once seagrass (ASL9 cover decreases to below 25% of overall available area
(using 125-m1 study sites). Above 25% cover, fragmentation will have no detectable effect on taxonomic
orpoctional diversity.
H : Total abundance and biomass offishes will scale linearly with habitat area, but without any main or
interactive effects offragmentation per se.
Midway through year 1, we will also conduct a series of ASU-unit removals to simulate active
fragmentation in ounconstructed landscapes (sensu Macreadie et al. 2009) and hypothesize:
H3: Active fragmentation in high -cover beds will have no detectable effect on taxonomic or functional
diversity, while fragmentation in low -cover beds will have a negative effect on diversity.
H6: Total abundance and biomass offishes will scale linearly with remnant habitat area, but without any
main or interactive effects of fragmentation per se.
In year 2, we will explore trait -mediated mechanisms that may underpin the fragmentation threshold
hypothesis. In particular, we will redeploy ASU landscapes, and conduct a seeding experiment to evaluate
the relative importance of early life -history dispersal and habitat choice in driving differences in fish
assemblage structure across fragmentation and habitat area gradients. Specifically, we hypothesize that
Hs: Species absent from low -cover, fragmented beds are poor larval or post -larval colonizers ofdistinct
patches within a meadow. Seeding meadows with larvae (i.e., benthic egg masses) will mitigate the effects
offragmentation and habitat area on species -specific abundance and overall diversity.
In year 3, we will also explore how a key physical driver of seagrass fragmentation, hydrodynamic energy
(waves and currents), impacts the response of fish communities to fragmentation and habitat area. To
achieve this, ASUs will be redeployed with 500/6 of the landscapes in low -energy environments and the
other 50% in high -energy environments. We hypothesize that:
H6: Hydrodynamic regime will have interactive effects with both fragmentation and habitat area on the
taxonomic and functional diversity offishes. Specifically, we expect to observe species loss at higher
levels of habitat area (>2501o) in fragmented landscapes in high-energy environments relative to low -
energy environments. Additionally, the overall response (overall # of tarovkuilds losg%jV+ eD
more sensitive to fragmentation in high-energy environments. I - C
MAR 2 9 Z017 a
MHD CITY
1635950

PROOF -OF -CONCEPT DATA
During the summer of 2013, we sampled 21 natural eelgrass communities along the central North
Carolina (NC) coast to evaluate evidence supporting or refuting the fragmentation threshold hypothesis.
These seagrass meadows varied in habitat configuration (ranging from one contiguous patch of seagrass
to 75 discrete patches, edge:area = 0.06-0.98 In I), and across a wide range of total seagrass area (2-74%
cover within 80*200-m domains, as in Fig. 2). We sampled the fish assemblage within each of these 21
eelgrass meadows with an otter trawl following Baillie et al. (2015). We then evaluated fish assemblages
based on species richness (count of species within the landscape), total fish catch rates, and assemblage
structure (i.e., species composition and relative abundance).
We found strong evidence that habitat configuration does affect fish biodiversity in natural landscapes,
and the effects of configuration were dependent on the total
habitat area within the landscape (Yeager et
al. in review [third round with minor revisions at Ecology]).
Notably, the effects of habitat configuration
were primarily manifest when total habitat area was low
(<25%cover), where loss of fish species sensitive to
a JOD
so
increasing patch number below this area threshold resulted
ao
in shifts in assemblage structure in the low area, highly
90
�
•
• Flsn spatles
patchy sites (Fig. 4A). For species richness, there was an
oi0
fl
j""
richness
40
interactive effect of habitat area and habitat configuration
to
•
•
10
(area*configuration P = 0.002; Fig. 4A). This pattern was
8
a
driven by a positive effect of area on species richness when
5
/
•
•
4
patch number was high, but little effect on species richness
Is
when patch number was low (Fig. 4A). For fish density,
•
there was a positive effect of habitat area (P = 0.003) and
negative effect of patch number (P = 0.002; Fig. 41:1). There
I
was only a weak interaction between these two variables (P
so
b) 60
= 0.07). While other habitat attributes (e.g., fine -scale
40
seagrass density and shoot length) also varied with changes
30
Fish density
in landscape variables (i.e., meadow size), the effects of
220
patch -scale seagrass biomass on the fish assemblage
g to
• i o
appeared comparatively weak (t)2 < 0.04 — a value
to
Its
indicating low -to -moderate relative effect size). As such,
8< s
* 0.5
our observational results empirically support the
„
0.0
fragmentation threshold hypothesis predicted by modeling
studies (e.g., Hanski and Ovaskainen 2000).
Notably, these finding from NC eelgrass meadows are not
consistent with results from previous empirical studies
primarily in terrestrial ecosystems (Trzcinski et al. 1999,
Parker and Mac Nally 2002, Betts et al. 2006, Ethier and
Fahrig 2011), which have largely failed to support the
fragmentation threshold hypothesis (but see Radford et
al. 2006). Contrasting attributes of our marine study
system to those of previous studies may help reveal the
types of systems where we would expect the
fragmentation threshold hypothesis to hold. For
example, matrix effects may in part explain why our
results generally support the hypothesis, while other
empirical studies have not. For example, matrix habitats
which are useable habitat (although often lower quality),
may mitigate some of the negative effects of increased
Figure 4. Plots of the effects of seagrass area and habitat
configuration on (a.) fish species richness and (b.) total fish
density. Each point represents a site and the color of each
point corresponds to the value of the response variable.
Contour lines on each plot show the model predictions for
each response variable, holding seagrass biomass at its
mean observed value. In panel a.) the changing curvature
of the model prediction contours across the plot reflects the
interaction between the two predictor variables in that the
effects of habitat configuration (i.e., fragmentation) on
species richness vary with habitat area. Specifically, the
model predicts a negative effect of patch number (as a
metric of fragmentation) when seagrass area is low, and no
effect when seagrass area is moderate or high. In panel b.)
the relatively consistently -spaced and symmetrical contour
lines reflect the independent effects of arm and
configuration on fish density, which increased with habitat
area and "RE CiR[effEDmentation)
MAR 2 9 2017
DCM- MHD CITY 1635950

patch number or decreased patch size by facilitating inter -patch movements or increasing the effective
habitat area (Ewers & Didham 2006). Many terrestrial studies of fragmentation focus on forest fragments
embedded within matrices of secondary forest or agricultural fields, which likely provide more shelter
than a completely unvegetated environment (e.g., Gascon et al. 1999). In our study, however, seagrass
patches were embedded within an unvegetated sand matrix, where predation risk is substantially higher
and density of prey resources can be multiple orders -of -magnitude lower (Orth et al. 1984, Heck et al.
2003). The lack of suitable shelter for juvenile fishes, in particular, may preclude inter -patch movements
or the use of sand as a secondary habitat. Therefore, patches of marine biogenic habitat embedded within
sand matrices that dominate the oceanic seafloor may be more akin to the theorized habitat/non-habitat
matrix and match the assumptions of some simulation modeling studies (e.g., Flather and Bevers 2002).
In our observational surveys, we found a particular guild of species seemed to be most sensitive to the
effects of habitat cnfiguration and were absent from the low -cover, fragmented landscapes. Therefore, we
conducted preliminary tests to evaluate whether varying movement rates between patches across taxa
could be partly responsible for this pattern. To date, we have used mesocosm trials to assess the inter -
patch movement rates of two trait groups: epibenthic species and benthopelagic species, aligning with
general patterns in assemblage structure we observed in the trawl data (i.e., absence of epibenthic species
in low -cover, fragmented landscapes). Mesocosm trials suggested strong differences in movement rates of
fishes between ASUs related to fish trait group. The number of inter -patch movements differed between
trait groups (P <0.001), but not among species within trait groups a,) 14 Species(trait group) P= 0.8
(P = 0.8). Inter -patch movement rates were an order -of- Trait group P < 0.001
magnitude higher for benthopelagic species than epibenthic tQ
species (Fig. 5A). The number of movements across the ASU- °
sand boundary also varied between trait groups (P <0.001), as
mean patch entry/emergence rates were consistently lower for °
epibenthic species than for benthopelagic species (Fig. 5B). e
In low -cover, fragmented landscapes, fishes would need to use " 4
multiple habitat patches to access the same habitat amount as the 7
higher area or more contiguous landscapes. Species that were
absent from the low -cover, fragmented sites were generally a
smaller -bodied, epibenthic species, which may be inferior b) t4 Spiscleyprag group) P=0.001
swimmers or have behavioral strategies (e.g., being tightly t2 Trait group P <0.0001
associated with seagrass structure) that result in a lower
propensity to move across the matrix or colonize new seagrass 'a
patches during the adult stage, as reflected in our mesocosm E s
trials. Furthermore, dispersal of these epibenthic species at the 0 a
larval stage may also be limited by their reproductive strategies. v
For example, Syngnathus floridae (pipefish), absent in our low- E 4 +
cover, fragmented meadows, have direct developing young, : 2 NowT
which greatly reduces dispersal potential relative to species with
pelagic larval dispersal (Lourie and Vincent 2004). Similarly, a o9a e3
Opsanus tau (oyster toadfish), which were also absent in the low- ' �e°� + �sy ae.0
cover, fragmented sites, lay demersal eggs and lack a pelagic
larval stage (Gray and Winn 1961). Therefore, it seems likely
that the poorer dispersal abilities (both larval and adult) for Epm"thic gMftPoggk
epibenthic species, are at least partially responsible for the loss of ,
theses species in low -cover, fragmented eel ass meadows. Figure 5. Number.) movements
inter -patch ach
p , g gr movements and (b.) movements across a
patch -matrix boundary for epibenthic and
These initial results from our observational surveys build on and benthopelagic fishes in mesocosm trials with
expand upon previous studies of habitat fragmentation in seagrass two artificial seagrass units separated by a
0' 1 V rA=n matrix. Box plots display the at 250,
habitats by increasing the scale of the landscape exa _s nA ti5 %t and Box
platsquatilesdisplay
of the data.
MAR 2 9 2017
DCM- MHD CITY 1635950

least two orders of magnitude, allowing us to match the scale at which fragmentation naturally occurs
within this system; Fonseca and Bell 1998), and increasing the resolution of the habitat area and
configuration gradients examined, which may have allowed us to detect the fragmentation threshold with
respect to effects on fish assemblage structure. As we used an observation approach; however, we could
not completely isolate the effects of habitat configuration and area from other habitat features that co -vary
along or interact with these landscape -scale variables, such as patch -level attributes, functional traits of
fishes, or hydrodynamic regime. Building from these findings, we outline a research plan for constructing
ASU landscapes at scales relevant for mobile fauna to rigorously test the effects of habitat area and
fragmentation on fish assemblages, as well as experimentally manipulate biotic/abiotic mechanisms that
may have contributed to the diversity patterns observed in our previous seagrass surveys (Fig. 4A).
EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN AND METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH
Biotic/abiotic factors included as potential drivers offaunal response to seagrass area and configuration
Fundamentally, this research would test the fragmentation threshold hypothesis within seagrass
landscapes using a manipulative approach at novel scales. Therefore, our overarching design in all
proposed experiments is to construct seagrass landscapes across wide gradients of total area (10-60%
seagrass cover in 225-m2 domains) and fragmentation (i.e., 1 to>20 patches per landscape) to examine
the main and interactive effects of these 2 factors on fish assemblages (Fig. 6). We also propose a series
of further experiments and manipulations to better understand the environmental (hydrodynamic regime)
or biological (dispersal trait) contexts or covariates that mitigate the response of fishes to fragmentation.
However, because it is not feasible to test all possible contexts and covariates which may impact the
response of fishes to fragmentation, we provide a brief explanation of how we prioritized factors to
include in our experimental design (see also, Table 1).
Table I. List of factors that potentially interact or covary with seagrass area and fragmentation, and an explanation for how these factors
were prioritized for inclusion in our experimental design.
Factors potentially
interacting with habitat six
or frabsnentation to affect fish
communly structure
Nature of interaction with habitat six or fiagmentation
Reason for SIGH prioritization of mecahnism in proposed
experiments
Pamh-level habitat
Patch -level shoot density/height varies with ma-dow
Can be eliminated as a covariate via use of ASUs
complexity
six and fiagmentation and may independently or
interactively impact fish distribution
Dispersal ability of taxa
Spatial thresholds in the pre- or post -settlement
For species absent in low -cover, fragmented landscapes, roles
(m)colonization potential of fishes
or pre- versus post -settlement dispersal limitation can be
tested via eggrnass transplants
Energy environment
Energy envimnmera co -regulates seagrass
Can be tested via placement of ASU landscapes across a
fragmentation, and may independently or interactively
gradient of energy environments.
impact fish distribution
Reason for LOW pnontization of mecahmsm in proposed
experimeras
Edge effects
Perimeter -to -area ratios coavary with meadow six
Meta -analyses indicate that edge effects are not prominent
and frernentation Ecological process may differ
among seargass-assocaited nekton
between "edge" and "interior" of habitat.
Matrix effects
Nature of matrix habitat nay determine patch -to -patch
Consistenly low-stractuml-complexty sandFlats dominate
connectivity across fragmented landscapes
around seagrass meadows. Matrix quality difficult to
mantpuate in estandws at landscape scales.
As noted above, patch -level characteristics (shoot density, shoot length) affect the abundance of seagrass-
associated fauna, and we have already documented that these patch -scale seagrass characteristics change
in relation to meadow area and configuration. Although not as important in driving fish diversity as
landscape -scale variables (area and configuration) during our 2013 surveys, we appreciate that fine -scale
seagrass characteristics were another factor contributing to variability in fikLoeleAd� (likely
MAR 2 9 2017
DCM- MHD CMY 1635950

underrepresented in our analyses due to the difficulties in matching the scale of seagrass sampling with
the scale of fish sampling). The use of ASUs will allow us to control for patch -scale seagrass attributes,
and independently examine the effects of landscape -scale factors such as habitat area and fragmentation.
Our preliminary survey and mesocosm work highlight two other factors that we consider essential for
considering the roles of habitat size and fragmentation in fish utilization of benthic marine habitats:
taxon-specific dispersal potential (trait -based biotic diver) and hydrodynamic regime (abiotic driver).
Broadly, the roles of connectivity across multiple spatial scales in driving population dynamics remains of
keen interest to marine scientists (e.g., Caley et al. 1996; Levin et al. 2006), as are the relative importance
of pre- versus post -settlement processes in regulating benthic community structure (Olaffson et al. 1994).
Our previous findings suggest that the dispersal abilities of marine fauna may be a key determinant in
taxon-specific responses to changes in habitat area and fragmentation. In particular, species with low
dispersal abilities throughout their life may be most affected by habitat fragmentation, and effectively
extirpated from seagrass habitats by this process in meadows also defined by low overall cover (Figs. 4-5;
Sogard 1989). However, our previous work focused exclusively on the adult dispersal abilities of
vulnerable taxa, potentially ignoring the role of larval (or early post -larval for direct developers) dispersal
in connecting seagrass patches at landscape scales. Therefore, we propose to manipulate the abundance of
fish larvae (i.e., benthic egg masses) across seagrass meadow sizes and configurations to evaluate whether
reproductive life -history traits mitigate the response of fishes to fragmentation.
Another key consideration and potential covariate is hydrodynamic regime, which is known to be a
primary driver of fragmentation in natural seagrass systems (i.e., higher wavelcurrent energy leads to
more fragmented meadows; Fonseca and Bell 1998). We did not quantify differences in hydrodynamic
exposure across landscapes in our earlier observational work, and it is possible that high-energy exposure
represents another environmental filter driving diversity loss within low -cover, fragmented meadows,
especially since some of the lost taxa may be inferior swimmers. Consider, Hovel et al. (2002) found that
seagrass shoot biomass and relative wave exposure were the environmental factors exerting the greatest
influence on invertebrate densities within temperate seagrass meadows. We therefore plan to take
advantage of the mobility of ASUs and construct replicate seagrass landscapes in both low- and high-
energy environments to explore the independent effects of, and potential interactions between, seagrass
area, fragmentation and hydrodynamic regime.
We will also consider functional diversity (FD) responses to varying landscape area and habitat
configuration as trait -based approaches to biodiversity measurement allow for mechanistic hypotheses
regarding sensitivities to habitat fragmentation to be tested. Notably, FD approaches also allow for greater
transferability of results across systems (McGill 2006). Furthermore, FD may be a better predictor of
ecosystem function than taxonomic -based measures of diversity because species' traits relate more
directly to their function within a community (Diaz & Cabido, 2001), and thus may better represent the
functional impact of biodiversity loss/change associated with habitat fragmentation.
Although both edge and matrix effects are relevant for considering the impacts of fragmentation (e.g.,
Carroll et al. 2012), these are not factors we will directly manipulate in our proposed research (Table 1).
While we expect that the contrast between the structural complexity of seagrass and the surrounding
sandflat matrix makes our study system a valuable model, we are not readily able to apply manipulations
on the unstructured seafloor matric at landscape scales to further evaluate this. Edge:area ratios are also
difficult to constrain while manipulating both habitat size and patchiness, precluding independent
appraisal of edge effects. Furthermore, an underway meta -analysis conducted by our research group
suggest that `edges' within seagrass meadows are not consistently functionally different than more
`interior' areas (i.e., mean effect sizes not statistically different than 0; Keller and Fodrie unpublished).
Design and logistics of landscape -scale ASU deployments
This proposal includes a major resource investment towards the construction of —3600, 1-m2 ASUs to
conduct manipulative field experiments over three years at novel spatial and temporal scales in estuarine
RECEIVED
8
MAR 2 9 2017
1635950
DCM- MHD CITY

environments. As such, we have paid special attention to the rationale and logistics of using ASUs at this
scale. The value of ASUs to explore faunal responses to seagrass structural complexity (shoot density,
shoot height) and configuration (edge:area) is well established in the marine ecological literature (e.g.,
Eggleston et al. 1999, Hovel and Lipcius 2001). An ISI Web -of -Science search of the terms "artificial
seagrass unit" and "seagrass mimics" recovered over 120 unique citations. Indeed, ASUs represent the
only practical way of manipulating seagrass meadow configuration, as conservation ethics preclude the
removal of live seagrass patches. Furthermore, experimental work has confirmed that fishes and decapod
crustaceans utilize ASUs in a nearly identical fashion to natural patches of Zostera spp. (Bell et al. 1985),
while epibionts also quickly colonize the `leaves' of ASUs in a manner that reflects natural loads
(Bologna and Heck 1999). And although there may be reasonable concern for ASU loss during
summer/fall storms (i.e., Atlantic hurricanes), previous work has demonstrated that seagrass habitats are
buffered from the wave energy associated with major storms due to the associated surge in water levels
that distance the seafloor from surface waves (Byron and Heck 2006, Anton et al. 2009). Since no
commercial supplier for ASUs exists, a significant time/personnel commitment is needed to construct
these seagrass mimics at a previously unrealized scale. Based on our past experience and recent test runs,
it requires 1.5 hours to cut and tie ribbon on to a 1-m2 VEXAR mat at a shoot density of 500 shoots m".
To create —1800 ASUs in year 1 and —1800 more ASUs in year two will require 2700 hours of labor
during each bout. We have allowed 8 months of construction time in both years 1 and 2, during which
time we would involve 1 PhD graduate student and 2 technicians. These 3 personnel will have a total of
4150 hours of time to commit to the project during our construction window in each year, and therefore
will dedicate approximately 60-65% (more commitment anticipated for technicians to allow the PhD
student time to develop research foci) of their effort during these periods towards ASU construction
(primarily in late fall, winter, and early spring when field experiments are not in full swing). All project
personnel will be involved during the deployment of ASUs in the field (as well as during faunal
sampling). Although this is ambitious field work at novel scales for constructing ASU landscapes, both
Pis have extensive experience restoring biogenic and artificial reef habitats at similarly large scales (<100
m'), and are well aware of what is logistically feasible for landscape -scale experimentation in temperate
estuarine environments (e.g., Yeager et al. 2011; Fodrie et al. 2014; Ridge et al. 2015). We also note that
the —3600 ASUs should have lifespans well beyond this 3-year project. Thus, these ASUs will represent a
unique resource for research of seagrass ecosystems, and in addition to being used in their own future
research plans, the Pis commit to advertising the ASUs to colleagues (e.g., through the NSF -funded
Zostera Experimental Network) who might leverage them in additional research initiatives.
Overview of ASU landscape scale and configuration
We plan to construct experimental seagrass meadows across 15*I5-m (225 in) landscape domains. This
scale balances what is feasible experimentally (two orders -of -magnitude larger than most previous ASU-
based studies of landscape effects), and yet is also reflective of the size and general shape of many
isolated meadows in temperate estuaries (Hovel et al. 2002). Our observational work also highlights our
proposed landscapes as highly relevant for evaluating the fragmentation threshold hypothesis, as even
more mobile taxa may respond to fragmentation at this scale. Furthermore, this extent likely encompasses
the scale of potential short-term movements (tidal -daily) of many of the most common fishes in our
region (Szedlmayer and Able 1993, Irlandi and Crawford 1997, Miller and Able 2002, Potthoff and Allen
2003). Our experimental approach relies on the construction of 25 distinct landscapes that span a wide
range of habitat areas (10-60% in our experimental domains) and fragmentation levels (1 to >20 patches
per landscape)(Fig. 6). These landscapes will be generated using the randomHabitat function in the secr
package in R (Efford 2016). Landscapes will be generated along 2 orthogonal axes of habitat cover (10-
60%) and fragmentation using a random modified clusters method (percolation probability = 0.10-0.59
which determines patch #)(Santa and Martinez-Millan 2000). Landscapes will be constrained to fall
within 2% of the area input parameter, while holding edge:area ratios constant across fragmentation
RECEIVED 9
MAR 2 9 2017
1635950
DCM- MOLD CIPY

Figure 6. visual representations of twenty-five landscapes that could be constructed from —1800, 1-mt ASUs to control patch -level habitat
characteristics and test for the interactive effects of habitat area and fragmentation.
Fragmentation
CEL
16
Percolation P=0.59 0.4775 0.35 0.225 0.1
Percentcover
10%
22.5%
35%
47.5%
60%
gradients (we acknowledge edge:area will unavoidably increase as area decreases in this scenario). Using
this approach, we can construct landscapes in which seagrass area and number of patches are uncorrelated
(R = 0.02 in Fig. 6), allowing us to independently assess the effects of seagrass area and habitat
configuration on fish communities across experimental study sites. All landscapes will be deployed in
Back Sound, NC, where previous work has identified a diverse array of seagrass landscapes (Hovel et al.
2002; Yeager et al. in review), and large expanses of shallow (<0.5 in at low tide) mud/sandflat exists
suitable for placement of ASUs. All ASUs will be constructed with a shoot density of 500 shoots m and
shoot lengths of 15 cm to reflect eelgrass attributes in natural meadows (Yeager et al. in review).
Field work: ASU deployment and faunal sampling
In year 1, we will test the fragmentation threshold hypothesis over the course of a 6-month deployment of
experimental seagrass landscapes. This will also include a period of targeted ASU removals to evaluate
the response of fishes to active fragmentation. We plan to deploy all 25 landscapes in a random fashion
across broad subtidal sandflats in between two relic flood tidal deltas in Back Sound (Middle Marsh in the
Rachel Carson National Estuarine Research Reserve and Shackleford Marsh adjacent to Shackleford
Island; N34040'53'; W76035'52') that our research group has extensive experience working around.
These sandflats cover an area >1.5 km', thereby allowing >100 in separation between all experimental
landscapes and naturally occurring biogenic habitat to control for the influence of interhabitat habitat
connectivity on seagrass-associated fishes (Irlandi and Crawford 1997, Baillie et al. 2015). Within this
study area, we also expect that larval delivery and energy regime are fairly uniform (time averaged).
RECEIVED 10
MAR 2 9 2017
1635950
DCM- MHD CITY

Our ongoing (2010-present) monthly seagrass-associated fish surveys conducted in Back Sound show that
seagrass-associated juvenile -fish catch rates begin to peak in June and July and remain consistently
diverse through October (Fodrie unpublished). Therefore, we plan to deploy 1800 ASUs during early May
(2017) to allow time for natural fouling of mimic-seagrass shoots, as well as colonization by juvenile
fishes within our experimental landscapes before sampling commences. Gridded maps of each landscape
will be used to guide the placement of each 1-m' ASU, which will each be anchored to the sediment using
10 heavy (6") landscaping staples. We anticipate that it will take between 8-12 days to set up all ASUs in
the field, and will therefore randomize the order in which landscapes are deployed.
During both June and July, we will conduct major sampling efforts to document fish abundance and
assemblage structure within these landscapes. During each sampling effort, we will deploy 8 G-style
minnow traps in each landscape (these traps are currently being used by the Zostera Experimental
Network to sample seagrass-associated fishes and decapods, and in June, 2015, captured 19 distinct
species in NC; Fodrie unpublished). Simultaneously, we will deploy 8 commercially available crab pots
in each landscape to sample larger fishes and decapods. The location of each trap or pot within each
landscape will be randomly assigned, although all traps and pots will be deployed on top of ASU-covered
bottom. Traps and pots will fish for 24 hours, and then recovered to enumerate the abundance of each
captured species. Additionally, we will deploy 2 experimental gill nets within each landscape. These gill
nets consist of multiple panels sewn together, each with a distinct mesh size for sampling a range of fish
size classes. These gill nets will be deployed to fish for 3 hours during an early morning rising tide when
fish are actively moving (Fodrie et al. 2015), and then recovered to enumerate the abundance of each
captured species. We possess enough traps, pots, and gill nets to sample 5 landscapes each day, and
therefore anticipate that it will take between 5-8 days to complete each sampling effort (total June/July
effort: 400 minnow trap sets, 400 crab pot sets, 100 gill net sets). The order of landscape sampling will be
randomized. Because each trap/pot/net sampling across these two time periods from a single landscape
are not independent, we will sum all captures to generate 1 measure of fish (and decapod) assemblage
structure from each experimental landscape.
In August of year 1, we will randomly remove 25% of the ASUs from 12 of the 25 seagrass landscapes
we constructed in May. This will simulate the active fragmentation of seagrass meadows (including loss
of total cover in impacted landscapes; sensu Macreadie et al. 2009). Although resulting in a slightly
unbalanced design, this approach, leaving half the landscapes intact (with only procedural controls, such
as walking through the ASU landscape without ASU removals) will provide us the opportunity to
evaluate the effects of active fragmentation on seagrass using a multiple -site Before -After -Control -Impact
design (accounting for any seasonal shifts in fish assemblage structure; Gericke et al. 2014). In September
and October, before juvenile fishes begin to egress from local estuaries, we will revisit each landscape
and sample fish (and decapod) assemblages using the same regime conducted in June and July. At the end
of our October sampling, all ASUs will be removed from the field and stored over winter.
To ensure ASU landscapes reflect our planned designs, we will evaluate aerial imagery captured during
low tides using a downward -facing GoPro Hero4 camera mounted beneath a lightweight drone (Quad-
copter). Using permanent corner posts that denote the boundary of each landscape, we will digitize the
cover and extent of ASU landscapes prior to fish sampling in June, July, September, and October.
Additionally, during each sampling event, we will record environmental data such as water temperature,
salinity, and secchi depth. We will also make targeted deployments of a flow meter to document typical
current speeds at our study site. We will also deploy a RBRsolo single -channel pressure logger capable of
recording wave profiles (16Hz burst sampling) within our study site to document the local wave regime.
RECEIVED
MAR 2 9 2017 11
DCM- MHD CITY 1635950

All sampling gears and environmental measurement/logging devices are already owned by the PIs,
although we have budgeted to purchase additional pressure loggers.
In year 2, we will continue testing the fragmentation threshold hypothesis, and extend this work by
evaluating the role of early life -history dispersal in determining fish assemblage patterns across seagrass
landscapes. In May 2018, we will deploy double the number of ASU landscapes at our Back Sound study
site (-3600 ASUs). Twenty-five unique landscapes will be generated as in year 1, and in the field we will
deploy identical pairs of each landscape. We will also deploy —200 cinderblocks around Middle Marsh.
From experience, we know that these structures are quickly colonized by oyster toadfish that lay benthic
egg masses (clusters of 50-200 eggs) throughout spring and summer (Gray and Winn 1961). We are
targeting oyster toadfish as a model epibenthic fish to test the role of early life -history dispersal in
assemblage patterns given toadfish's absence in low -cover, fragmented seagrass meadows (Yeager et al.
in review), their important role in temperate estuaries as a predator (Gray and Winn 1961, Keller et al.
submitted), and the relative ease with which their egg masses can be collected and transplanted.
As in 2017, we will sample all landscapes in June and July, which will require double the number of field
days to accomplish this task but will otherwise follow protocols identical to our 2017 sampling (total
June/July effort: 800 minnow trap sets, 800 crab pot sets, 200 gill net sets). In August 2018, we will
transplant 4-8 egg masses (targeting 400 total eggs per landscape) to one of each pair of the 25 distinct
landscapes deployed three months earlier, resulting in 25 "seeded" and 25 "unseeded" landscapes. In
September and October, all 50 landscapes will be sampled as in June and July. This again leverages a
multiple -site Before -After -Control -Impact design to evaluate the effects of seeding (i.e., dispersal ability)
on taxon-specific (i.e., toadfish; which would most likely only be captured in the minnow traps given
their small young -of -year sizes following egg mass transplants in August) abundance and assemblage
structure across gradients of habitat area and fragmentation. Sampling of"unseeded" landscapes during
2018 will also provide an interannual comparison for our 2017 sampling.
During year 2, we will again routinely map ASU landscapes and record environmental data at our study
site. Furthermore, we will use previously published data on the wave and current environment of Back
Sound (i.e., Fonseca and Bell 1998; Kelly et al. 2001) to identify locations for deploying flow meters and
RBRsolo single -channel pressure loggers during 2018 to map hydrodynamic environments. These data
will be used to site ASU landscapes during year 3. Again, ASUs will again be over winter after October.
In year 3, we plan to test the relative importance of seagrass area, seagrass configuration, and
hydrodynamic regime on the assemblage structure of fishes. During May 2019, we will again deploy 25
pairs of ASU landscapes that span a broad range of sizes and fragmentation levels. During deployment,
one landscape within each matched (identical) pair will be deployed in a "high" energy environment,
while the other will be deployed in a "low" energy environment (guided by our scouting work in 2018).
Following Fonseca and Bell (1998), high energy environments will be defined as having maximum tidal
current speeds >25 cm s-' and a wave exposure index (WEI) >3 * 106. Above these current speeds and
WEIs, seagrass meadows typically exist as groups of discrete patches. Correspondingly, sites below these
thresholds will be defined as low energy environments and typically support contiguous meadows. To
reduce the risk of random site effects confounding experimental conclusions (e.g., distance to nearest
ocean inlet) we will attempt to identify multiple areas of low and high hydrodynamic regimes across
which individual landscapes will be randomly deployed/clustered.
As in previous years, we will sample all ASU landscapes in both June and July to document fish
assemblage structure in relation to habitat area, habitat configuration, and hydrodynamic regime (total
June/July effort: 800 minnow trap sets, 800 crab pot sets, 200 gill net sets). Unlike previous years, this
RECEIVED
12
MAR 2 9 2017
1635950
DCM- MHD CITY

study will not require further manipulation of landscapes (i.e., ASU removals, eggmass seeding) and
therefore additional sampling in September and October will not be conducted. In June and July, we will
again map ASU landscapes and record environmental data at each landscape during each sampling bout.
As this component of the project relies on a rigorous understanding of the local hydrodynamic regime
associated with each ASU landscape, we will also conduct repeated (>3) 1-week deployments of flow
(current) meters and pressure (wave amplitude/frequency) loggers in each area in Back Sound where we
have sited clusters of ASU landscapes.
Statistical approaches
We will evaluate fish communities sampled within each landscape based on overall abundance, species
richness, and functional diversity. To calculate FD metrics, we will classify each collected species based
on functional traits related to trophic group, body size, life -history strategy (e.g., broadcast spawner vs.
brooder), and microhabitat use (e.g., epibenthic vs. benthopelagic). We will calculate functional diversity
using the abundance -weighted FD metric (Petchy and Gaston 2006) where FD is maximized when the
amount of trait space occupied by a community is high and the fish abundance is evenly distributed across
trait space. For each experiment in each year, our general approach will be to regress species richness,
FD, and fish abundance (i.e., catch rate) onto seagrass area within the experimental landscape, number of
seagrass patches (a robust metric of fragmentation), and seeding level or hydrodynamic energy (as
appropriate), as well as all higher -order interactions among explanatory variables using the Im function in
R. F-tests representing the significance of each independent variable will be based on Type 11 Sum of
Squares (SS) to preserve the principal of marginality when testing main effects (Langsrud 2003). We will
also calculate qZ (partial variation explained) for each independent variable as a measure of effect size, as
it relates to the amount of unique variation in the response variable explained by each predictor variable
and the sum of q' values equals the total model R2. Differences in fish assemblage structure across
landscapes will be analyzed based on a Bray -Curtis similarity matrix of fish species observed at each site.
We anticipate applying a presence -absence transformation to examine shifts in species composition across
sites to limit the influence of the most locally dominant species, Lagodon rhomboids (pintish), which can
account for >80% of all seagrass-associated fishes captured in nets or traps (Baillie et al. 2015). We will
also test whether assemblage structure varies (accounting for seasonally) with seagrass area, patch
number, and seeding or wave energy (as appropriate), as well as any higher -order interactions among
independent variables with a permutational analysis of variance (PERMANOVA, adonis function in the
vegan package; Anderson 2001, Oksanen et al. 2014). A similarity percentages analysis (SIMPER) will
be used to identify which taxa or functional groups contribute to any difference in assemblage structure
among landscapes (simper function in vegan package; Clarke 1993).
Broader impacts
In a triage sense, seagrass meadows are among the most imperiled habitats on the planet (Waycott et al.
2009). Whether local (e.g., boat motor scaring, dredging) or regional/global (e.g., warming, diminished
water clarity), many of the stressors that threaten seagrass lead to increased habitat fragmentation while
also contributing to overall habitat loss (Orth et al. 2006). Seagrass habitat degradation may result in
forfeiture of several ecosystem services of recognized importance, such as water purification, carbon
burial, shoreline stabilization, and nursery provision (senu Costanza et al. 1997). Our proposed research
represents a novel exploration, largely owing to the ambitious scale at which we recognize we must work,
of the patterns and mechanisms that determine if/how fragmentation affects the nursery function of
seagrass habitat for fishes (and invertebrates). Additionally, there are real opportunities to conserve and
restore seagrass habitat (e.g., Tampa Bay recovery; Lewis et al. 1999). Knowing how the nursery function
of seagrass meadows depends on landscape configuration (including identifying thresholds in
area/fragmentation that lead to diversity loss) will be key for planning restoration de_glpUo maximize
ecosystem service delivery. As 75% of commercially and recreation se estuarine
MAR 2 9 2017 13
DCM- MHD CITY 1635950

habitats such as seagrass at some stage in their life history (Gunter 1967), this information would
contribute directly towards truly ecosystem -based fisheries management (including marine spatial
planning; Crowder et al. 2008).
More broadly, habitat fragmentation following from both natural and anthropogenic drivers is a pervasive
pattern in both coastal marine and terrestrial landscapes (Fahrig 2003). Recent reviews have questioned
the importance of habitat fragmentation (independent of habitat loss) in driving diversity loss, however,
and even suggest that the effects of fragmentation may more often be positive than negative (Fahrig 2003,
Fahrig 2015). These observations have led to calls to shift conservation efforts away from curbing habitat
fragmentation. Yet, much of the fragmentation literature focuses on terrestrial systems, where factors like
high matrix quality and landscape complementation likely serve to increase diversity in more fragmented
landscapes. In contrast, seagrass fragments are typically embedded within extremely low -quality matrix
habitats (i.e., unvegetated bottom) and thus likely differ from observations across terrestrial landscapes.
Determining if/when fragmentation matters in affecting diversity in marine landscapes will therefore be
critical in prioritizing conservation efforts in the marine realm.
A PhD graduate student will be closely involved in all aspects of the project for their degree work, and is
expected to lead at least one of the core studies outlined in this proposal. The PhD student will also be
positioned to expand on our work and identify new lines of research. Potentially additional lines of
research may include: (1) tethering trials within our ASU landscapes to evaluate links between
fragmentation and predator -prey interactions; (2) leveraging existing acoustic tracking gear within the
Fodrie lab to explore the movement of large fishes in contiguous and fragmented seagrass landscapes; and
(3) deploying ASUs in 20*30* 1-m flowing seawater, earthen ponds at IMS to conduct detailed behavioral
experiments. The project will also provide research experience for approximately 5 baccalaureate (pre -
graduate) students. We will specifically target recent graduates from underrepresented minorities in
Ocean Sciences (African Americans and Hispanics), as research has shown that loss of these groups
between the beginning of undergraduate degree programs and enrollment in graduate school is a major
bottleneck in retention within the field (Johnson and Okoro 2016). We will conduct targeted advertising
of our positions, working with the Division of Diversity and Multicultural Affairs at UNC and a new
SESYNC initiative to engage undergraduate students from Historically Black Colleges and Universities.
The Fodrie lab has had success with immersing recent graduates in marine science research through
similar 12-15 month technician positions, often resulting in a first lead- or co-authored publication (e.g.,
Toscano et al. 2010, Baillie et al. 2015), and subsequent enrollment in leading marine science graduate
programs such as UC Davis, SDSU, NEU, CBL, UNCW, USC, and Duke. We believe in this approach
for tangible broader impacts that expand the power and cross-fertilization of our work. Three additional
undergraduate students will participate in our research through the UNC Institute for the Environment fall
semester program. This program requires students to complete an independent research project while they
are in residence at IMS. Regularly, these undergraduates produce new research findings that also merit
them inclusion in peer -reviewed submissions (e.g., Yeager et al. in review; Keller et al. submitted).
Table 2. Proposed schedule of project activities.
Year 1 (20162017) Year 2 (2017-2018) Year 3 (2018-2019)
Task Fa W Sp Su Fa W Sp Su Fa W Sp Su
Construct ASUs (-1800 in Year 1 and —I800 in Year 2)
ASU deployment for Yl fragmentation study
ASU removals for Y I fmgmenlation study
Toadfish eggmass collector deployment for Y2 seeding study
ASU deployment and toadfish eggrms seeding for Y2 study
Pressure and flow logger deployment in prep for Y3 hydrodynamics study
ASU and pressure sensor deployment for Y3 hydro•frag study
x x x x x x
x x
Trap and net sampling to document faunal abundance, diversity, etc. x x x X X x x x
Data analyses x x x x
Report Preparation _ f+)C I I D x x
MAR 2 9 IV 14
DCW MHD CITY 1635950

Working with IMS's outreach coordinator, Kerry Irish, results of this research will be disseminated to the
general public through spots on PBS, NPR, social media, and print media. Her past efforts publicizing our
work led to stories by PBS' QUEST The Science of Sustainability, The Atlantic, Nature World News, and
Huffington Post. We will also work with research/outreach coordinators at our local National Estuarine
Research Reserve to create educational posters and videos to help communicate our findings to reserve
visitors and other researchers. Notably, a similar effort by graduate students in the Fodrie lab was
awarded "best student submission" at the 2013 Beneath the Waves Film Festival for "Saving North
Carolina's Reefs". Results will be made available to the K 12 community through the Scientific Research
and Education Network (SciREN; www.thesciren.org), co -created by a current PhD student advised by
Fodrie (Theuerkauf and Ridge, 2014). This event is held annually at the Pine Knoll Shores Aquarium,
NC, for 60-100 teachers who interact with scientists exhibiting classroom activities and lessons plans.
Work plan
To accomplish the tasks outlined in Table 2, the research team includes: 1) PI Fodrie, who will oversee
construction of ASUs, advise the PhD graduate student, participate in field research, ensure proper data
management, and prepare manuscripts and reports for submission; 2) co -PI Yeager, who will be
responsible for the design or ASU landscapes, participate in field research, oversee all statistical
modelling and data analyses, and prepare manuscripts for submission; 3) a PhD graduate student, who
will participate in all aspects of the project, including IACUC management, ASU construction, running
field experiments, analyzing data, developing new lines of research that leverage our proposed work,
preparing presentations, and drafting manuscripts; and 4) multiple baccalaureate -level technicians, who
will work with the Pis and PhD student to ensure day-to-day progress on all aspects of the planned
research, especially ASU construction, field work, and data entry with quality assurance. As feasible,
technicians will also be encouraged to generate independent research projects that contribute toward our
overall objectives.
Results from prior NSF support: Fodrie: OCE-1155628 ($510,000, 2/15/2012-2/14/2017)
"Collaborative research: Interacting effects of local demography and larval connectivity on estuarine
metapopulation dynamics". Intellectual Merit: This work has focused on spatial gradients and controls of
oyster reef (and larval) connectivity, ecology, and conservation. To date, the project has supported 9
publications appearing in Ecol, Front in Ecol Environ, Ecol Appl, Fish Oce, J Appl Ecol, MEPS, Nat
Clim Chg, Rest Ecol, and Sci Rep (denoted with' in References), as well as 1 additional submitted
manuscript (Oecol). Broader Impacts: Two Ph.D. graduate students have worked on this study, with both
students having already published first -authored papers that acknowledge this NSF support. Furthermore,
research findings have been integrated in K12 curriculum development through SciREN.
Yeager was supported by a NSF GRF from 8/2007-7/2012. Intellectual Merit: Her dissertation research
focused on applications of landscape ecology to marine systems and used novel, manipulative field
experiments to vary landscape context around artificial reefs, making links to community assembly,
population regulation, and food web subsidies. This support resulted in 11 publications (denoted with an
in References) including core ecology (e.g., Ecol, Ecol. Appl.) and marine biology journals (e.g., MEPS,
JEMBE). Broader Impacts: Yeager led internships for undergraduates (10/12 from underrepresented
groups, n=7 co-authored publications) and high school students (n=4). Yeager also lead an educational
outreach program for a local mangrove restoration project in The Bahamas involving>500 students in
school presentations and field trips.
RECEIVED
MAR 2 9 2017 15
DCM- MHD CITY 1635950

REFERENCES
Papers supported by OCE-1155628 denoted by t. (Mentored: "graduate student; undergraduate/
technician; tpostdoctoral researcher):
Papers supported by a NSF GRF to L. Yeager denoted by tt.
tt Allgeier, J.E., L.A. Yeager, and C.A. Layman. 2013. Consumer regulation of nutrient limitation
regimes and primary production. Ecology 94(2):521-529.
Anderson, M.J., K.E. Ellingsen and B.H. McArdle. 2006. Multivariate dispersion as a measure of beta
diversity. Ecology Letters 9:683-693.
Anderson, M.J. 2001. A new method for non -parametric multivariate analysis of variance. Austral
Ecology 26:32-46.
Anton, A., J. Cebrian, C.M. Duarte, K.L. Heck, and J. Goff. 2009. Low impact of Hurricane Katrina on
seagrass community structure and functioning in the Northern Gulf of Mexico. Bulletin of Marine
Science, 85(1):45-59.
Baillie', C., J. Fear, and F.J. Fodrie. 2015. Ecotone effects on seagrass and saltmarsh habitat use by
juvenile nekton in a temperate estuary. Estuaries and Coasts 38: 1414-1430.
Barnes, R. S. K., and S. Hamylton. 2013. Abrupt transitions between macrobenthic faunal assemblages
across seagrass bed margins. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 131:213-223.
Bell, J.D. and M. Westoby. 1986. Variation in seagrass height and density over a wide spatial scale:
effects on common fish and decapods. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology,
104(1):275-295.
Bell, J.D., A.S. Steffe, and M. Westoby. 1985 Artificial seagrass: how useful is it for field experiments on
fish and macroinvertebrates?. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 90(2):171-177.
Bell, S.S., M.O. Hall, S. Soffian, and K. Madley. 2002. Assessing the impact of boat propeller scars on
fish and shrimp utilizing seagrass beds. Ecological Applications 12(1):206-217.
Bell, S.S., R.A. Brooks, B.D. Robbins, M.S. Fonseca, and M.O. Hall. 2001. Faunal response to
fragmentation in seagrass habitats: implications for seagrass conservation. Biological Conservation
100(1):115-123.
Betts, M.G., G.J. Forbes, A.W. Diamond, and P.D. Taylor. 2006. Independent effects of fragmentation on
forest songbirds: An organism -based approach. Ecological Applications 16:1076-1089.
Bologna, P.A.. 2006. Assessing within habitat variability in plant demography, faunal density, and
secondary production in an eelgrass (Zostera marina L.) bed. Journal of experimental marine biology
and ecology 329(1):122-134.
Bologna, P.A. and K.L. Heck. 1999. Macrofaunal associations with seagrass epiphytes: relative
importance of trophic and structural characteristics. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and
Ecology 242:21-39.
Bostr0m, C., E.L. Jackson, and C.A. Simenstad. 2006. Seagrass landscapes and their effects on associated
fauna: A review. Estuarine, Coastal, and Shelf Science 68:383-403.
t Brodeur", M.C., and F.J. Fodrie. in review. Effects of interspecific competition are mediated by body
size and environmental stress in a biogenic reef community. Oecologia
Brun, F.G., J.L. P6rez-LlorEns, 1. Herndndez, and J. J. Vergara. 2005. Patch Distribution and Within -
Patch Dynamics of the Seagrass Zostera noltii Hornem. in Los Toruflos Salt -Marsh, CSdiz Bay, Natural
Park, Spain. Botanica Marina 46(6):513-524.
Byron, D. and K.L. Heck. 2006. Hurricane effects on seagrasses along Alabama's Gulf Coast. Estuaries
and Coasts 29(6):939-942.
Caley, M. J., M. H. Carr, M. A. Hixon, T. P. Hughes, G. P. Jones, and B. A. Menge. 1996. Recruitment
and the local dynamics of open marine populations. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 477-
500.
Carroll, J.M., B.T. Furman, S.T. Tettelbach, and B.J. Peterson. 2012. Balancing the edge effects budget:
bay scallop settlement and loss along a seagrass edge. Ecology 93(7):1637-1647.
RECEIVED
MAR 2 9 Z017
1635950
DCM- MHD CITY

Clarke, K.R. 1993. Non -parametric multivariate analyses of changes in community structure. Australian
Journal of Ecology 18:117-143.
Crowder, L., and E. Norse. 2008. Essential ecological insights for marine ecosystem -based management
and marine spatial planning. Marine policy 32(5):772-778.
d'Arge, R., K. Limburg, M. Grasso, R. de Groot, S. Faber, R.V. O'Neill, M. Van den Belt, J. Paruelo,
R.G. Raskin, R. Costanza, and B. Hannon. 1997. The value of the world's ecosystem services and
natural capital.
Diaz, S., and M. Cabido. 2001. Vive la difference: plant functional diversity matters to ecosystem
processes. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 16:646-655.
Dorenbosch, M., W.C.E.P. Verberk, 1. Nagelkerken, and G. Van der Velde. 2007. Influence of habitat
configuration on connectivity between fish assemblages of Caribbean seagrass beds, mangroves and
coral reefs. Marine Ecology Progress Series 334:103-116.
Dunton, K.H., and S.V. Schonberg. 2002. Assessment of propeller scarring in seagrass beds of the south
Texas coast. Journal of Coastal Research 100-110.
Efford, M. G. 2016. secr: Spatially explicit capture -recapture models. R package version 2.10.2.
http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=secr
Eggleston, D.B., W.E. Elis, L.L. Etherington, C.P. Dahlgren, and M.H. Posey. 1999. Organism responses
to habitat fragmentation and diversity: habitat colonization by estuarine macrofauna. Journal of
Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 236(1):107-132.
Ethier, K., and L. Fahrig. 2011. Positive effects of forest fragmentation, independent of forest amount, on
bat abundance in eastern Ontario, Canada. Landscape Ecology 26:865-876.
Ewers, R. M., and R. K. Didham. 2006. Confounding factors in the detection of species responses to
habitat fragmentation. Biological Reviews 81:117-142.
Fahrig, L. 1997. Relative effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on population extinction. Journal of
Wildlife Management 61:603-610.
Fahrig, L. 1998. When does fragmentation of breeding habitat affect population survival? Ecological
Modelling 105:273-292.
Fahrig, L. 2003. Effests of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annual Review of Ecology, Evoluation,
and Systematics 34:487-515.
Fahrig, L. 2013. Rethinking patch size and isolation effects: the habitat amount hypothesis. J. Biogeogr.,
40: 1649-1663.
Fahrig, L., J. Girard, D. Duro, J. Pasher, A. Smith, S. Javorek, D. King, K.F. Lindsay, S. Mitchell, and
Tischendorf, L., 2015. Farmlands with smaller crop fields have higher within -field biodiversity.
Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 200:219-234.
t Fodrie, F.J., A.B. Rodriguez, C.J. Baillie , M.C. Brodeur", S.E. Coleman", R.K. Gittman, D.A. Keller",
M.D. Kenworthy, A.K. Poray, J.T. Ridge", E.J. Theuerkauf, and N.L. Lindquist. 2014 Classic
paradigms in a novel environment: inserting food -web and productivity lessons from rocky shores and
saltmarshes in to biogenic reef restoration. Journal of Applied Ecology 51: 1314-1325.
Fodrie, F.J., L.A. Yeager, J.H. Grabowski, C.A. Layman, G.D. Sherwood, and M.D. Kenworthy. 2015.
Measuring individuality in habitat use across complex landscapes: approaches, constraints, and
implications for assessing resource specialization. Oecologia, 178(1):75-87.
Fourquerean, J.W., C.M. Duarte, H. Kennedy, N. Marb6 M. Holmer, M.A. Mateo, E.T. Apostolaki, G.A.
Kendrick, D. Krause -Jensen, K.J. McGlathery, and O. Serrano. 2012. Seagrass ecosystems as a globally
significant carbon stock. Nature Geoscience 5:505-509.
Flather, C.H.; and M. Bevers. 2002. Patchy reaction -diffusion and population abundance: The relative
importance of habitat amount and arrangement. American Naturalist 159:40-56.
Foley, J.A., R. DeFries, G.P. Asner, C. Barford, G. Bonan, S.R. Carpenter, F.S. Chapin, M.T. Coe, G.C.
Daily, H.K. Gibbs, J.H. Helkowski, T. Holloway, E.A. Howard, C.J. Kucharik, C. Monfreda, J.A. Patz,
I.C. Prentice, N. Ramankutty, P.K. Snyder. 2005. Global consequences of land use. Science 309:570-
574.
RECEIVED
MAR 2 9 2017
DCM- MHD CITY 1635950

Fonseca, M.S., and S.S. Bell. 1998. Influence of physical setting on seagrass landscapes near Beaufort,
North Carolina, USA. Marine Ecology Progress Series 171:109-121.
Gascon, C., T.E. Lovejoy, R.O. Bierregaard Jr, J.R. Malcolm, P.C. Stouffer, H.L. Vasconcelos, W.F.
Laurance, B. Zimmerman, M. Tocher, and S. Borges. 1999. Matrix habitat and species richness in
tropical forest remnants. Biological Conservation 91:223-229.
Gericke, R.L., K.L. Heck, and F.J. Fodrie. 2014. Interactions between northern -shifting tropical species
and native species in the northern Gulf of Mexico. Estuaries and Coasts 37:952-961.
t Gittman, R.K. and D.A. Keller. 2013. Fiddler crabs facilitate Spartina alterniflora growth, mitigating
periwinkle overgrazing of marsh habitat. Ecology 94(12):2709-2718.
Gittman, R.K., F.J. Fodrie, A.M. Popowich, D.A. Keller", J.F. Bruno, C.A. Currin, C.H. Peterson, and
M.F. Piehler. 2015. Engineering away our natural defenses: an analysis of shoreline hardening in the
United States. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 13: 301-307. *Research featured in Science
(special section on Oceans and Climate): Popkin, G. (2015) Breaking the waves. Science 350: 756-759.
t Gittman, R.K., C.H. Peterson, C.A. Currin, F.J. Fodrie, M.F. Piehler, and J.F. Bruno. 2016. Living
shorelines can enhance the nursery role of threatened coastal habitats. Ecological Applications 26: 249-
263.
Grober-Dunsmore, R., T.K. Frazer, J. Beets, N. Funicelli, and P.D. Zwick, 2004. The Significance of
Adjacent Habitats on Reef Fish Assemblage Structure: Are Relationships Detectable and Quantifiable
at a Landscape -Scale? In Proceedings of the Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute 55:713-734
Gray, G.A., and H.E. Winn. 1961. Reproductive ecology and sound production of the toadfish, Opsanus
tau. Ecology 42:274-282.
Gunter, G. 1967. Some relationships of estuaries to the fisheries of the Gulf of Mexico. 621-638 in:
Lauff, G.H. (ed.) Estuaries. Washington, DC. American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Hanski, I., and 0. Ovaskainen. 2000. The metapopulation capacity of a fragmented landscape. Nature
404:755-758.
Heck, K.L., G. Hays, and R.J. Orth. 2003. Critical evaluation of the nursery role hypothesis for seagrass
meadows. Marine Ecology Progress Series 253:123-136.
Heithaus, M.R., I.M. Hamilton, A.J. Wirsing, and L.M. Dill. 2006. Validation of a randomization
procedure to assess animal habitat preferences: microhabitat use of tiger sharks in a seagrass ecosystem.
Journal of Animal Ecology 75(3):666-676.
Horinouchi, M. 2009. Horizontal gradient in fish assemblage structures in and around a seagrass habitat:
some implications for seagrass habitat conservation. Ichthyological research 56(2):109-125.
Hovel, K.A. 2003. Habitat fragmentation in marine landscapes: relative effects of habitat cover and
configuration on juvenile crab survival in California and North Carolina seagrass beds. Biological
Conservation 110: 401-412.
Hovel, K.A., M.S. Fonseca, D.L. Myer, W.J. Kenworthy, and P.E. Whitfield. 2002. Effects of seagrass
landscape structure, structural complexity and hydrodynamic regime on macrofaunal densities in North
Carolina seagrass beds. Marine Ecology Progress Series 243:11-24.
Hovel, K.A., and R.N. Lipcius. 2002. Effects of seagrass habitat fragmentation on juvenile blue crab
survival and abundance. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 271(1):75-98.
Hovel, KA., and R.N. Lipcius 2001. Habitat fragmentation in a seagrass landscape: patch size and
complexity control blue crab survival. Ecology 82: 1814-1829.
Irlandi, E.A. 1994. Large -and small-scale effects of habitat structure on rates of predation: how percent
coverage of seagrass affects rates of predation and siphon nipping on an infaunal bivalve. Oecologia,
98(2):176-183.
Irlandi, E.A., W.G. Ambrose, and B.A. Orlando. 1995. Landscape Ecology and the Marine Environment:
How Spatial Configuration of Seagrass Habitat Influences Growth and Survival of the Bay Scallop.
Oikos, 72:307-313.
Irlandi, E.A. and M.K. Crawford. 1997. Habitat linkages: The effect of intertidal saltmarshes and adjacent
subtidal habitats on abundance, movement, and growth of an estuarine fish. Oecologia 110:222-230.
RECEIVED
MAR 2 9 2017
DCM- MHD CITY 1635950

lelbart,l.E., P.M. Ross, and R.M. Connolly. 2006. Edge effects and patch size in seagrass landscapes: an
experimental test using fish. Marine Ecology -Progress Series 319:93.
Johnson, A., and M.H. Okoro. 2016 How to Recruit and Retain Underrepresented Minorities From
kindergarten through fulltime positions, what works to engage aspiring minority researchers in studying
ocean science? Amercian Scientist 104:76-81.
Johnson, M.W., and K.L. Heck. 2006. Effects of habitat fragmentation per se on decapods and fishes
inhabiting seagrass meadows in the northern Gulf of Mexico. Marine Ecology Progress Series 306:233-
246.
Kdlldn, J., H. Muller, M. L. Franken, A. Crisp, C. Stroh, D. Pillay, and C. Lawrence. 2012. Seagrass-
epifauna relationships in a temperate South African estuary: Interplay between patch -size, within -patch
location and algal fouling. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 113:213-220.
Keller", D.A., R.K. Gittman, R. Bouchilloti , and F.J. Fodrie. submitted. Life -stage and behavior
determine whether habitat subsidies enhance or simply redistribute secondary production. Ecology
Kelly, N.M., M. Fonseca, and P. Whitfield. 2001. Predictive mapping for management and conservation
of seagrass beds in North Carolina. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems,
11(6):437-451.
Kennish, M.J. 2001. Coastal salt marsh systems in the US: a review of anthropogenic impacts. Journal of
Coastal Research 1:731-748.
t Kroll", I.R., A.K. Poray, B.J. Puckett, D.B. Eggleston, and F.J. Fodrie. 2016. Environmental effects on
elemental uptake in the shells of the Eastern oyster, Crassostrea virginica: implications for the use of
geochemical tagging to assess connectivity. Marine Ecology Progress Series 543: 173-186.
Langsrud, 0.2003. ANOVA for unbalanced data: use type II instead of type III sums of squares.
Statistics and Computing 13:163-167.
tt Layman, C.A., J.E. Allgeier, L.A. Yeager, and EW. Stoner. 2013. Thresholds of ecosystem response to
nutrient enrichment from fish aggregations. Ecology 94(2):530-536.
Levin, L.A., 2006. Recent progress in understanding larval dispersal: new directions and digressions. Int.
Comp. Biol. 46:282-297.
Levin, S.A. 1992. The problem of pattern and scale in ecology: the Robert H. MacArthur award lecture.
Ecology 73(6):1943-1967.
Lewis 111, R.R., P.A. Clark, W.K. Fehring, H.S. Greening, R.O. Johansson, and R.T. Paul. 1999. The
rehabilitation of the Tampa Bay Estuary, Florida, USA, as an example of successful integrated coastal
management. Marine Pollution Bulletin 37(8):468-473.
Lindenmayer, D.B., and J. Fischer. 2007. Tackling the habitat fragmentation panchreston. Trends in
Ecology and Evolution 22:127-132.
Livingston, R.J. 1982. Trophic organization of fishes in a coastal seagrass system. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Set,
7(1):12.
Lomolino, M.V. 2000. Ecology's most general, yet protean pattern: The species -area relationship. Journal
of Biogeography 27:17-26.
Lourie, S.A., and A.C.J. Vincent. 2004. A marine fish follows Wallace's line: The phylogeography of the
three -spot seahorse (Hippocampus trimaculatus, Syngnathidae, Teleostei) in Southeast Asia. Jounral of
Biogeography 31:1975-1985.
Macreadie, P.I., J.S. Hindell, G.P. Jenkins, R.M. Connolly, and M.J. Keough. 2009. Fish responses to
experimental fragmentation of seagrass habitat. Conservation Biology, 23:644-652
Macreadie, P.I., N.R. Geraldi, and C.H. Peterson. 2012. Preference for feeding at habitat edges declines
among juvenile blue crabs as oyster reef patchiness increases and predation risk grows. Marine Ecology
Progress Series 466:145.
Martin, C. W, F.J. Fodrie, K.L Heck Jr, and J. Mattila. 2010. Differential habitat use and antipredator
response of juvenile roach (Rutilus rutilus) to olfactory and visual cues from multiple predators.
Oecologia 162: 893-902.
McGarigal, K., and S.A. Cushman. 2002. Comparative evaluation of ex elemental approaches to the
study of habitat fragmentation. Ecological Applications 12:335-345E C E I V E D
MAR 2 9 2017
DCM- MHD CITY 1635950

McGill, B.J., B.J. Enquist, E.Weiher, and M. Westoby. 2006. Rebuilding community ecology from
functional traits. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 21:178-185.
McGarigal, K., S.A. Cushman, and E. Ene. 2012. Fragstats v4: Spatial pattern analysis program for
categorical and continuous maps. University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
http://www.umass.edu/landeco/research/fragstats/fragstats.html
Micheli, F., M.J. Bishop, C.H. Peterson, and J. Rivera. 2008. Alteration of seagrass species composition
and function over two decades. Ecological Monographs 78:225-244.
Miller, M.J., and K.W. Able. 2002. Movements and growth of tagged young -of -the -year Atlantic croaker
(Micropogonias undulates 1.) in restored and reference marsh creeks in Delaware Bay, USA. Journal of
Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 267:15-33.
Moore, E.C., and K.A. Hovel. 2010. Relative influence of habitat complexity and proximity to patch
edges on seagrass epifaunal communities. Oikos, 119(8):1299-1311.
Murphy, H.M., G.P. Jenkins, J.S. Hindell, and R.M. Connolly. 2010. Response of fauna in seagrass to
habitat edges, patch attributes and hydrodynamics. Austral Ecology 35(5):535-543.
Oksanen, J., F.G. Blanchet, R. Kindt, P. Legendre, P.R. Minchin, R.B. O'Hara, G.L. Simpson, P.
Solymos, M.H.H. Stevens, H. Wagner. 2014. Vegan: Community ecology package. http://CRAN.R-
project.org/package--vegan
Olafsson, E.B., C.H. Peterson, and W. G. J. Ambrose. 1994. Does recruitment limitation structure
populations and communities of macro -invertebrates in marine soft sediments. In UCL Press, London.
Orth, R.J., T.J. Carruthers, W.C. Dennison, C.M. Duarte, J.W. Fourqurean, K.L. Heck, A.R. Hughes,
G.A. Kendrick, W.J. Kenworthy, S. Olyarnik, and F.T. Short. 2006. A global crisis for seagrass
ecosystems. Bioscience 56(12):987-996.
Orth, R., K. Heck and J. van Montfrans. 1984. Faunal communities in seagrass beds: A review of the
influence of plant structure and prey characteristics on predator -prey relationships. Estuaries 7:339-350.
Orth, R.J., and K.L. Heck. 1980. Structural components of eelgrass (Zostera marina) meadows in the
lower Chesapeake Bay -fishes. Estuaries 3(4):278-288.
Parker, M., and R. Mac Nally. 2002. Habitat loss and the habitat fragmentation threshold: An
experimental evaluation of impacts on richness and total abundances using grassland invertebrates.
Biological Conservation 105:217-229.
Pearson, J.C. 1929. Natural history and conservation of the redfish and other commercial sciaenids on the
Texas coast. Fishery Bulletin 44:129-214.
Petchey, O.L., and K.J. Gaston. 2002. Functional diversity (FD), species richness and community
composition. Ecology Letters 5(3):402-411.
Potthoff, M.T., and D.M. Allen. 2003. Site fidelity, home range, and tidal migrations of juvenile pinfish,
lagodon rhomboides, in salt marsh creeks. Environmental Biology of Fishes 67:231-240.
t Puckett, B.J., D.B. Eggleston, P.C. Kerr, and R.A. Luettich. 2014. Larval dispersal and population
connectivity among a network of marine reserves. Fisheries Oceanography 23(4): 342-361.
R Core Team 2015. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical
Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org/.
Radford, J.Q., A.F. Bennett, and G.J. Cheers. 2005. Landscape -level thresholds of habitat cover for
woodland -dependent birds. Biological conservation 124:317-337.
t Ridge", J.T., A.B. Rodriguez, F.J. Fodrie, N.L. Lindquist, M.C. Brodeur", S.E. Coleman", J.H.
Grabowski, and E.J. Theuerkau£ 2015. Maximizing oyster -reef growth supports green infrastructure
with accelerating sea -level rise. Nature Scientific Reports 5: 14785.
t Rodriguez, A.B., F.J. Fodrie, J.T. Ridge", N.L. Lindquist, E.J. Theuerkauf, S.E. Coleman", J.H.
Grabowski, M.C. Brodeur", R.K. Gillman, D.A. Keller", and M.D. Kenworthy. 2014. Oyster reefs can
outpace sea -level rise. Nature Climate Change 4: 493-497.
Sandel, B., and A.B. Smith. 2009. Scale as a lurking factor: incorporating scale -dependence in
experimental ecology. Oikos 118(9):1284-1291.
Saura, S., and J. Martinez-Millan. 2000. Landscape patterns simulation with a modified random clusters
method. Landscape Ecology 15:661-678. RECEIVED
MAR 2 9 2017
1635950
DCM- MHD CITY

Saunders, D.A., R.J. Hobbs, and C.R. Margules. 1991. Biological consequences of ecosystem
fragmentation: A review. Conservation Biology 5:18-32.
Simberloff, D.S. 1974. Equilibrium theory of island biogeography and ecology. Annual review of
Ecology and Systematics 161-182.
Smith, A.C., L. Fahrig, and C.M. Francis. 2011. Landscape size affects the relative importance of habitat
amount, habitat fragmentation, and matrix quality on forest birds. Ecography 34:103-113.
Sogard, S., and K. Able. 1994. Diel variation in immigration of fishes and decapod crustaceans to
artificial seagrass habitat. Estuaries 17:622-630.
Sogard, S.M.. 1989. Colonization of artificial seagrass by fishes and decapod crustaceans: importance of
proximity to natural eelgrass. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 133(1-2)15-37.
tt Stoner, E.W., L.A. Yeager, and C.A. Layman. 2014. Effects of epibenthic jellyfish, Cassiopea spp., on
faunal community composition of Bahamian seagrass beds. Caribbean Naturalist 12:1-10.
tt Stoner, E.W., L.A. Yeager, S.S. Selliban, and C.A. Layman. 2014. Modification of a seagrass
community by benthic jellyfish blooms and nutrient enrichment. Journal of Experimental Marine
Biology and Ecology 461: 182-192.
tt Stoner, E.W., C.A. Layman, L.A. Yeager, and H.M. Hassett. 2011. Effects of anthropogenic
disturbance on the abundance and size of epibenthic jellyfish Cassiopea spp. Marine Pollution Bulletin
62:1109-1114.
Summerville, K.S., and T.O. Crist. 2001. Effects of experimental habitat fragmentation on patch use by
butterflies and skippers (Lepidoptera). Ecology 82:1360-1370.
Szedlmayer, S.T., and K.W. Able. 1993. Ultrasonic telemetry of age-0 summer flounder, Paralichthys
dentatus, movements in a southern New Jersey estuary. Copeia 1993:728-736.
Tanner, J.E. 2006. Landscape ecology of interactions between seagrass and mobile epifauna: the matrix
matters. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 68(3):404-412.
Theuerkauf, E.J., and J.T. Ridge. 2014. Researchers bring local science into classrooms. Eos,
Transactions American Geophysical Union 95(5):41-42.
Toscano, B.J., F.J. Fodrie, S.L. Madsen, and S.P. Powers. 2010. Multiple prey effects: agonistic behaviors
between prey species enhances consumption by their shared predator. Journal of Experimental Marine
Biology and Ecology 385(l):59-65.
Trzcinski, M., K., L. Fahrig, and G. Merriam. 1999. Independent effects of forest cover and fragmentation
on the distribution of forest breeding birds. Ecological Applications 9: 586-593.
Valiela, I., J.L. Bowen, and J.K. York. 2001. Mangrove Forests: One of the World's Threatened Major
Tropical Environments At least 35% of the area of mangrove forests has been lost in the past two
decades, losses that exceed those for tropical rain forests and coral reefs, two other well-known
threatened environments. Bioscience 51(10):807-815.
Villard, M.A., and J.P. Metzger. 2014. Review: Beyond the fragmentation debate: A conceptual model to
predict when habitat configuration really matters. Journal of Applied Ecology 51:309-318.
t Wailes, B., F.J. Fodrie, S. Nieuwhof, P.M.J. Herman, and T. Ysebaert. 2016. Guidelines for evaluating
performance of oyster habitat restoration should include tidal emersion: reply to Baggett et al.
Restoration Ecology 24: 4-7.
Waycott M, C.M. Duarte, T.J. Carruthers, R.J. Orth, W.C. Dennison, S. Olyamik, A. Calladine, J.W.
Fourqurean, K.L. Heck, A.R. Hughes, G.A. Kendrick. 2009 Accelerating loss of seagrasses across the
globe threatens coastal ecosystems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 106(30):12377-
81.
Worthington, D.G., M. Westoby, and J.D. Bell. 1991. Fish larvae settling in seagrass: effects of leaf
density and an epiphytic alga. Australian journal of ecology, 16(3):289-293.
tt Yeager, L.A., E.W. Stoner, M.J. Zapata, and C.A. Layman. 2014. Does landscape context mediate
density dependence in a coral reef fish? Ecological Applications 24: 1833-1841.
tt Yeager, L.A., C.M. Hammerschlag-Peyer, and C.A. Layman. 2014. Diet variation of a generalist fish
predator, grey snapper Lutjanus griseus, across an estuarine gradient: trade-offs of quantity for quality?
Journal of Fish Biology 85(2): 264-277. RECEIVED
MAR 2 9 2017
DCM- MHD CITY 1635950

tt Yeager, L.A., C.L. Acevedo, and C.A. Layman. 2012. Effects of seascape context on condition,
abundance, and secondary production of a coral reef fish, Haemulon plumierii. Marine Ecology
Progress Series 462: 231-240.
tt Yeager, L.A., C.A. Layman, and J.E. Allgeier. 2011. Effects of habitat heterogeneity at multiple
spatial scales on fish community assembly. Oecologia 167:157-168.
tt Yeager, L.A., and C.A. Layman. 2011. Energy flow to two abundant consumers in a sub -tropical
oyster reef food web. A9uatic Ecology 45:267-277.
Yeagers, L.A., D.A. Keller", T.R. Bums*, A. Pool, and F.J. Fodrie. in review. Threshold effects of habitat
fragmentation per se on fish diversity at landscapes scales. Ecology
tt Zapata, M.J., L.A. Yeager, and C.A. Layman. 2014. Day -night patterns in natural and artificial patch
reef fish assemblages of The Bahamas. Caribbean Naturalist 18:1-15.
Zu Ermgassen, P.S., M.D. Spalding, B. Blake, L.D. Coen, B. Dumbauld, S. Geiger, J.H. Grabowski, R.
Grizzle, M. Luckenbacly K. McGraw, and W. Rodney. 2012. Historical ecology with real numbers: past
and present extent and biomass of an imperilled estuarine habitat. Proceedings of the Royal Society of
London B: Biological Sciences 279(1742):3393-3400.
RECEIVED
MAR 2 9 2017
DCM- MHD CITY
1635950

Biographical Sketch
Fredrick Joel Fodrie
Institute of Marine Sciences and Department of Marine Sciences
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Phone: [phone] (ext. 149)
Email: [e-mail]
Web: http://www.unc.edu/ims/fodrie/
A. Professional Preparation
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Biology (Highest Honors) and History (B.A.) 1999
Scripps Institution of Oceanography (UCSD) Biological Oceanography (Ph.D.) 2006
Dauphin Island Sea Lab (Alabama) Post -Doctoral Researcher (Fisheries) 2006-2008
B. Appointments
2010- Assistant Professor, Institute of Marine Sciences & Department of Marine Sciences, University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Morehead City, NC
2009-2010 Research Assistant Professor, Institute of Marine Sciences & Department of Marine Sciences,
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Morehead City, NC
2008-2009 Research Assistant Professor, Dauphin Island Sea Lab & Department of Marine Sciences,
University of South Alabama, Mobile, AL
C. Publications
(i) 5 products closely related to the proposed project (out of 46). Mentored: $postdoctoral researcher, "graduate
student; .undergraduate/technician.
Yeager', LA, DA Keller", TR Bums', A Pool , and FJ Fodrie (in review) Threshold effects of habitat
fragmentation per se on fish diversity at landscapes scales. Ecology
Fodrie, FJ, LA Yeager', JH Grabowski, CA Layman, GD Sherwood, and MD Kenworthy" (2015) Measuring
individuality in habitat use across complex landscapes: approaches, constraints, and implications for assessing
resource specialization. Oecologia 178: 75-87.
Gillman, RK, FJ Fodrie, AM Popowich, DA Keller", JF Bruno, CA Currin, CH Peterson, and MF Pichler (2015)
Engineering away our natural defenses: an analysis of shoreline hardening in the United States. Frontiers in
Ecology and the Environment 13: 301-307. *Research featured in Science (special section on Oceans and
Climate): Popkin, G. (2015) Breaking the waves. Science 350:756-759.
Baillie', CJ, JM Fear, and FJ Fodrie (2015) Ecotone effects on seagrass and saltmarsh habitat -use by juvenile
fishes in a temperate estuary. Estuaries and Coasts 38: 1414-1430.
Fodrie, FJ, KL Heck Jr, SP Powers, WM Graham, and K nson_ , I Climate -related, decadal-scale
assemblage changes of seagmss-associated fishes in the 14T fiQo. Global Change Biology 16:
48-59.
MAR 2 9 2017
DCM- MHD CITY
1635950

(ii) 5 other products
Gittman, RK, CH Peterson, CA Currin, FJ Fodrie, MF Piehler, and JF Bruno (2016) Living shorelines can
enhance the nursery role of threatened coastal habitats. Ecological Applications 26: 249-263.
Able, KW and FJ Fodrie (2015) Distribution and dynamics of habitat use by juvenile and adult flatfishes. Pgs.
242-282. In: Gibson, RN, RDM Nash, AJ Geffen, and HW Van der Veer (eds.), Flatfishes: Biology and
Exploitation, Second Edition. Fish and Aquatic Resources Series. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, United
Kingdom.
Fodrie, FJ, KW Able, F Galvez, KL Heck Jr, OP Jensen, PC L6pez-Duarte, CW Martin, RE Turner, and A
Whitehead (2014) Integrating organismal and population responses of estuarine fishes in Macondo spill
research. BioScience 64: 778-788.
Rodriguez, AB, FJ Fodrie, JT Ridge, NL Lindquist, EJ Theuerkauf, SE Coleman", JH Grabowski, MC Brodeur",
RK Gittman, DA Keller", and MD Kenworthy" (2014) Oyster reefs can outpace sea -level rise. Nature Climate
Change 4: 493-497.
Powers, SP, FJ Fodrie, SB Scyphers, JM Drymon, RL Shipp, and GW Stunz (2013) Gulf -wide decreases in the
size of large coastal sharks documented by generations of fishermen. Marine and Coastal Fisheries: Dynamics,
Management, and Ecosystem Science 5: 93-102. *Awarded Marine and Coastal Fisheries Best Paper of 2013
D. Synergistic Activities
2016 Faculty Host/Manager: North Carolina Blue Heron Bowl and National Ocean Sciences Bowl
2015 National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship Program Panelist
2014- Zostera Experimental Network (zenscience.org), North Carolina Site Principle Investigator
2013- North Carolina Marine Habitat and Water Quality Advisory Committee
2012- Workgroup Participant, "Quantitative Value of Coastal Habitats for Exploited Species",
International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), Copenhagen, Denmark.
RECEIVED
MAR 2 9 2017
DCM- MHD CITY
1635950

Lauren A. Yeager
Biographical Sketch
Lauren A. Ye age r
Postdoctoral Fellow
National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center, 1 Park Place Suite 300, Annapolis, MD 21401
laurenayeager@gmaiL c om
A. Professional Preparation
Eckerd College St. Petersburg, FL Marine Science B.S., May 2006
And Spainsh
Florida International Miami, FL Biology Ph.D.,April 2013
University
The University of North Morehead City, NC Landscape ecology 2013-2014
Carolina at Chapel Hill
National Socio-Environmental Annapolis, MD Marine Biodiversity 2014-present
Synthesis Center
B. Appointments
2014-present Postdoctoralfellow, National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center
2013-2014 Postdoctoral researcher, Institute of Marine Sciences, The University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill
2007-2012 Graduate Research Fellow, National Science Foundation, Florida International
University
2006-2007 FulbrightResearcher, Institute of International Education, CINVESTAV, Mdrida,
Mexico
C. Products
5 Products Relevant to the Proposed Work
Yeager, LA, Keller, DA, Burns, TR, Pool, AS, and Fodrie, FJ. In review. Threshold effects of habitat
fragmentation on fish diversity at landscapes scales. Ecology.
Fodrie, FJ, Yeager, LA, Layman, CA, Grabowsky JH, and Kenworthy, MD. 2015. Measuring
individuality in habitat use across complex landscapes: approaches, constraints, and implications for
assessing resource specialization. Oecologia 178(1):75-87
Yeager, LA, Stoner, EW, Zapata, MJ, and Layman, CA. 2014. Does landscape context mediate density -
dependence in a coral reef fish? Ecological Applications 24(7):1833-1841.
Ye age r, LA, Acevedo, CL, and Layman, CA. 2012. Effects of seascape context on condition, abundance,
and secondary production of a coral reef fish, Haemulon plumierii. Marine Ecology Progress Series
462: 231-240.
Yeager, LA, Layman, CA, and Allgeier, JE. 2011. Effects of habitat heterogeneity at multiple spatial
scales on fish community assembly. Oecologia 167:157-168.
5 Additional Products
Yeager, LA, Stoner, EW, Peters, JR, and Layman, CA. 2016. A terrestrial -aquatic food web subsidy is
potentially mediated by multiple predator effects on an arboreal crab. Journal of Experimental
Marine Biology and Ecology 475: 73-79.
Yeage r, LA, Hammerschlag-Peyer, CM, and Layman, CA. 2014. Diet variation of a generalist fish
predator, grey snapperLutjanus griseus, across an estuarine gradiCi ;lrade of quantity for
quality? Journal of Fish Biology 85(2):264-277 E (,� t � �/ E 6
MAR 2 9 2017
DCM- MHD CITY 1635915

Lauren A. Yeager
Allgeier, JE, Yeager, LA, and Layman, CA. 2013. Consumer regulation of nutrient limitation regimes
and primary production. Ecology.
Yeager, LA and Layman, CA. 2011. Energy flow to two abundant consumers in a sub -tropical oyster reef
food web. Aquatic Ecology 45:267-277.
Layman, CA, Aligeier, JE, Rosemond, AD, Dahlgen, CP, and Yeager, LA. 2011. Marine fisheries
declines viewed upside -down: Human impacts on consumer -driven nutrient recycling. Ecological
Applications 21343-349.
D. Synergistic Activities
1. Review Panelist, SESYNC
Served on the review panel for the Postdoctoral Immersion Program (2015) and LTER Postdoctoral
Program (2015&2016)
2. Undergraduate mentor, FIU and UNC-CH
I have advised 14 undergraduate students (12 of which are from groups under -represented in the
Ocean Sciences) with field internships and independent research projects, leading to sic co-authored
manuscripts in review or published and two honor theses.
3. Teacher Training Workshop, Mangrove and Tidal Creek Ecosystems
I helped lead a field -based workshop in 2011 on the importance of mangrove ecosystems in Abaco,
Bahamas involving 40 teachers.
4. Restoration at Broad Creek, Abaco, Bahamas
This project involved the restoration of tidal flow to a mangrove creek previously fragmented by a
road in 2010. Concomitant with the restoration project, I gave school presentations and ran field trips
involving 510 local students (grades K-12).
5. Jupiter High School Summer Internship Program, Jupiter, FL
I created a field -based summer internship program for local high school students during the summer
of 2009. The top four students were selected based on an application process. The students were
involved in weekly field work, being exposed to multiple research projects (grades 11-12). All four
have gone on to study STEM fields as undergraduates.
RECEIVED
MAR 2 9 2017
DCM- MHD CITY
1635915

SUMMARY YEAR
PROPOSAL BUDGET FOR NSF USE ONLY
ORGANIZATION PROPOSAL NO.
UnivemitV of NoAh Carolina at Chapel HIII
DURATION months
Proposed
Granted
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR I PROJECT DIRECTOR AWARD IN
Fredrick Fodrie
A. SENIOR PERSONNEL: PI/PD, Co-PI's, Faculty and Other Senior Associates
(List each separately with title, A.7. show number in brackets)
PNSF Fug
ft.
F.M.
Rene m Y
Furls
(n tlieerYenp
CAL
ACAD
SUMR
1. Fredrick J Fodrie - PI Assistant Professor
1.00
0.00
0.00
8.436
2.
3.
4.
5.
6. O OTHERS LIST INDIVIDUALLY ON BUDGET JUSTIFICATION PAGE
0.00
0.00
0.00
0
7. 1 TOTAL SENIOR PERSONNEL 1 - 6
1.00
0.00
0.00
8,436
B. OTHER PERSONNEL SHOW NUMBERS IN BRACKETS
1. O POST DOCTORAL SCHOLARS
i 0.0q
0.001
0.00
0
2. 0 OTHER PROFESSIONALS(TECHNICIAN, PROGRAMMER, ETC.
O.Od
O.Od
0.
0
3. 1 GRADUATE STUDENTS
22.000
4. 0 UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS
0
5. 0 SECRETARIAL - CLERICAL IF CHARGED DIRECTLY
0
6. 2 OTHER
42,240
TOTAL SALARIES AND WAGES A+B
72676
C. FRINGE BENEFITS (IF CHARGED AS DIRECT COSTS)
10,928
TOTAL SALARIES, WAGES AND FRINGE BENEFITS A + B + C
83,604
D. EQUIPMENT (LIST ITEM AND DOLLAR AMOUNT FOR EACH ITEM EXCEEDING $5,000.)
TOTAL EQUIPMENT
0
E. TRAVEL 1. DOMESTIC INCL. U.S. POSSESSIONS
750
2. FOREIGN
0
F. PARTICIPANT SUPPORT COSTS
1. STIPENDS $ 0
2. TRAVEL 0
3. SUBSISTENCE 0
4. OTHER 4.572
TOTAL NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS 0 TOTAL PARTICIPANT COSTS
4,572
G. OTHER DIRECT COSTS
1. MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES
18,450
2. PUBLICATION COSTS/DOCUMENTATION/DISSEMINATION
0
3. CONSULTANT SERVICES
0
4. COMPUTER SERVICES
0
5. SUBAWARDS
0
6. OTHER
2,000
TOTAL OTHER DIRECT COSTS
20,450
H. TOTAL DIRECT COSTS (A THROUGH G)109
376
I. INDIRECT COSTS (FaA)(SPECIFY RATE AND BASE)
F&A (Rate: 52.0000, Base:104804)
TOTAL INDIRECT COSTS F&A
54,498
J. TOTAL DIRECT AND INDIRECT COSTS H + I
163,874
K. SMALL BUSINESS FEE
0
L. AMOUNT OF THIS REQUEST J OR J MINUS K
163,874
M. COST SHARING PROPOSED LEVEL $ 0 AGREED LEVEL IF
DIFFERENT $
PI/PD NAME
Fredrick Fodrie
FOR NSF USE ONLY
INDIRECT COST RATE VERIFICATION
ORG. REP. NAME* RECEIVED
Jill Thomas
Dms Checu d
Deis or Reet
Rt. Sh
Ini4els - ORG
1 'ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES REQUIRED FOR REVISED BUDGET
MAR 2 9 2017
DCM- MHD CITY 1635950

SUMMARY YEAR 2
PROPOSAL BUDGET
FOR NSF
USE ONLY
ORGANIZATION
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
PROPOSAL NO.
DURATION months
Proposed
I Granted
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR t PROJECT DIRECTOR
Fredrick Fodrie
AWARD NO.
A. SENIOR PERSONNEL: PUPD, Co-PI's, Faculty and Other Senior Associates
(List each separately with e8e, A.7. show number in brackets)
NSF FUM
Fume
Requested By
proposer
F.M.
ranted by NSF
anW byN
CAL
ACAD
SUMR
1. Fredrick J Fodrie - PI Assistant Professor
1.00
0.00
0.00
8,773
2.
3.
4.
5.
6. 0 OTHERS LIST INDIVIDUALLY ON BUDGET JUSTIFICATION PAGE
0.00
0.00
0.00
0
7. 1 TOTAL SENIOR PERSONNEL 1 - 8
1.00
0.00
0.00
8.773
B. OTHER PERSONNEL SHOW NUMBERS IN BRACKETS
1. POST DOCTORAL SCHOLARS
0.001
0.001
0.00
0
2. 0 OTHER PROFESSIONALS CrECHNICIAN, PROGRAMMER, ETC.
0.001
0.001
0.0o
0
3. 1 GRADUATE STUDENTS
22,880
4. 0 UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS
0
5. 0 SECRETARIAL - CLERICAL IF CHARGED DIRECTLY
0
8. 2 OTHER
43,930
TOTAL SALARIES AND WAGES A+ B
75,583
C. FRINGE BENEFITS IF CHARGED AS DIRECT COSTS
11,365
TOTAL SALARIES, WAGES AND FRINGE BENEFITS A+B+C
86,948
D. EQUIPMENT (LIST ITEM AND DOLLAR AMOUNT FOR EACH ITEM EXCEEDING $5,000.)
TOTAL EQUIPMENT
0
E. TRAVEL 1. DOMESTIC INCL. U.S. POSSESSIONS
3,250
2. FOREIGN
0
F. PARTICIPANT SUPPORT COSTS
1. STIPENDS $ 0
2. TRAVEL 0
3. SUBSISTENCE 0
4. OTHER 4,754
TOTAL NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS 0 TOTAL PARTICIPANT COSTS
4,754
G. OTHER DIRECT COSTS
1. MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES
16,986
2. PUBLICATION COSTSIDOCUMENTATIONIDISSEMINATION
0
3. CONSULTANT SERVICES
0
4. COMPUTER SERVICES
0
5. SUBAWARDS
O
6. OTHER
2,080
TOTAL OTHER DIRECT COSTS
19,066
H. TOTAL DIRECT COSTS A THROUGH G
14,018
I. INDIRECT COSTS (FaAXSPECIFY RATE AND BASE)
F&A (Rate: 52.0000, Base:109263)
TOTAL INDIRECT COSTS F8A
56,817
J. TOTAL DIRECT AND INDIRECT COSTS H+I
170835
K. SMALL BUSINESS FEE
0
L. AMOUNT OF THIS REQUEST J OR J MINUS
170,835
M. COST SHARING PROPOSED LEVEL $ 0 AGREED LEVEL IF
DIFFERENT $
PUPD NAME
Fredrick Fodrie
FOR NSF USE ONLY
INDIRECT COST RATE VERIFICATION
ORG. REP. NAME' EKED Deb
JIII Thomas
Checked
Dares Rare Sheet
Initlels-ORG
e 2 *ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES REQUIRED FOR REVISED BUDGET
MAR 292017
DCM- MHD CITY 1635950

SUMMARY YEAR 3
PROPOSAL BUDGET FOR NSF USE ONLY
_
ORGANIZATION PROPOSAL NO.
Universityof North Carolina at Chapel HIII
DURATION monNs
Pro
Granted
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR / PROJECT DIRECTOR AWARD NO.
Fredrick Fodrle
A. SENIOR PERSONNEL: PI/PD, Co-PI's, Faculty and Other Senior Associates
(List each separately with title, A.7. show number in brackets)
FaaF Funag�g
Funds
Repuesred By
dus.tepnoFnser
Funds
ranted s NSF
kned!b,N
CAL
ACAD
SUMR
1. Fredrick J Fodrle - PI Assistant Professor
1.00
0.001
0.00
9124
2.
3.
4.
5.
6. 0 OTHERS LIST INDIVIDUALLY ON BUDGET JUSTIFICATION PAGE
0'0C
0.0
0.0
0
7. 1 TOTAL SENIOR PERSONNEL 1 - 6
1.00
0.00
0.00
9,124
B. OTHER PERSONNEL SHOW NUMBERS IN BRACKETS
1. B POST DOCTORAL SCHOLARS
0.00
0.00
0.00
0
2. 0 OTHER PROFESSIONALS(TECHNICIAN, PROGRAMMER, ETC.
0.nd
0.00
0.0
0
3.( 1 ) GRADUATE STUDENTS
23,795
4.( 0) UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS
0
5.( 0) SECRETARIAL - CLERICAL IF CHARGED DIRECTLY
0
6. 2 OTHER
22,843
TOTAL SALARIES AND WAGES A+B
55762
C. FRINGE BENEFITS IF CHARGED AS DIRECT COSTS
9,631
TOTAL SALARIES, WAGES AND FRINGE BENEFITS A+B+C
65393
D. EQUIPMENT (LIST ITEM AND DOLLAR AMOUNT FOR EACH ITEM EXCEEDING $5,000.)
TOTAL EQUIPMENT
0
E. TRAVEL 1. DOMESTIC INCL. U.S. POSSESSIONS
3,250
2. FOREIGN
0
F. PARTICIPANT SUPPORT COSTS
1. STIPENDS $ 0
2. TRAVEL 0
3. SUBSISTENCE 0
4. OTHER 4,945
TOTAL NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS O TOTAL PARTICIPANT COSTS
4.945
G. OTHER DIRECT COSTS
1. MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES
2,473
2. PUBLICATION COSTS/DOCUMENTATIONIDISSEMINATION
g
3. CONSULTANT SERVICES
0
4. COMPUTER SERVICES
0
5. SUBAWARDS
0
6.OTHER
2,163
TOTAL OTHER DIRECT COSTS
4,636
H. TOTAL DIRECT COSTS A THROUGH G
78,224
I. INDIRECT COSTS (F&A)(SPECIFY RATE AND BASE)
F&A (Rate: 52.0000, Base: 73280)
TOTAL INDIRECT COSTS F&A
38,106
J. TOTAL DIRECT AND INDIRECT COSTS H + I E)CM116,330
K. SMALL BUSINESS FEE
0
L. AMOUNT OF THIS REQUEST J OR J MINUS K
116 330
M. COST SHARING PROPOSED LEVEL $ 0 AGREED LEVEL IF
DIFFERENT $
PI/PD NAME
Fredrick Fodrle
FOR NSF USE ONLY
INDIRECT COST RATE VERIFICATION
ORG. REP. NAME'
Jill Thomas
D.recnerkee
Dore Olrs Sheet
INliere-ORG
3 'ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES REQUIRED FOR REVISED BUDGET
1635950

SUMMARY Cumulative
PROPOSAL BUDGET
FOR NSF
USE ONLY
ORGANIZATION
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
PROPOSAL NO.
DURATION months
I Proposed
I Granted
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR/PROJECT DIRECTOR
Fredrick Fodrie
AWARD NO.
A. SENIOR PERSONNEL: PI/PD, Co-PI's, Faculty and Other Senior Associates
List each separately with title, A.7. show number in brackets
( Pa Y )
NSF Fu'
CAL ACAD
SUMR
Faade
Regaa•bd By
praFaaar
Faada
tad by Ns
teal byN
1. Fredrick J Fodrie - PI Assistant Professor
3.00
o.od
b.00
26,333
2.
3.
4.
5.
6. OTHERS LIST INDIVIDUALLY ON BUDGET JUSTIFICATION PAGE
0.0
0.0
0A
0
7. 1 TOTAL SENIOR PERSONNEL 1 - 8
3.0
0.001
0.0
26.3331
B. OTHER PERSONNEL SHOW NUMBERS IN BRACKETS
1. POST DOCTORAL SCHOLARS
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
2. 0 OTHER PROFESSIONALS(TECHNICIAN, PROGRAMMER, ETC.
O.O
0.0
0.0
0
3. 3 GRADUATE STUDENTS
68,675
4. UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS
0
5. 0 SECRETARIAL -CLERICAL IF CHARGED DIRECTLY
0
6. OTHER
109.013
TOTAL SALARIES AND WAGES A+B
204.021
C. FRINGE BENEFITS IF CHARGED AS DIRECT COSTS
31.924
TOTAL SALARIES, WAGES AND FRINGE BENEFITS A+g+C
23 945
D. EQUIPMENT (LIST ITEM AND DOLLAR AMOUNT FOR EACH ITEM EXCEEDING $5.000.)
TOTAL EQUIPMENT
O
E. TRAVEL 1. DOMESTIC INCL. U.S. POSSESSIONS)7
250
2. FOREIGN
0
F. PARTICIPANT SUPPORT COSTS
1. STIPENDS $ 0
2. TRAVEL 0
3. SUBSISTENCE 0
4. OTHER 14.271
TOTAL NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS 0 TOTAL PARTICIPANT COSTS
14. 71
G. OTHER DIRECT COSTS
1. MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES
37,909
2. PUBLICATION COSTS/DOCUMENTATION/DISSEMINATION
0
3. CONSULTANT SERVICES
0
4. COMPUTER SERVICES
0
5. SUBAWARDS
0
6. OTHER
6,243
TOTAL OTHER DIRECT COSTS
44 152
H. TOTAL DIRECT COSTS A THROUGH G
301.61811
I. INDIRECT COSTS (F&AXSPECIFY RATE AND BASE)
TOTAL INDIRECT COSTS F&A
149,421
J. TOTAL DIRECT AND INDIRECT COSTS H + I
451,039
K. SMALL BUSINESS FEE
0
L. AMOUNT OF THIS REQUEST J OR J MINUS K
451.0391
M. COST SHARING PROPOSED LEVEL $ 0 AGREED LEVEL IF
DIFFERENT $
PI/PD NAME
Fredrick Fodrie
FOR NSF USE ONLY
INDIRECT COST RATE VERIFICATION
ORG. REP. NAME' Dab
Jill Thomas
CMMed
Date Of Rab Sh l
Mira%-ORG
MAR C'ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES REQUIRED FOR REVISED BUDGET
DCM- MHD CITY
1635950

UNC Budget Justification
Lines A&B. Salaries: (Senior Personneo J. Fodrie will serve as the UNC project PI. He is a 9-
month state-finded Assistant Professor based at the Institute of Marine Sciences. He will oversee
the construction and deployment of artificial seagrass units, as well as all field experiments and
project administration/reporting. He will serve as the graduate advisor for the PhD student
associated with this work (see below). He will also work with L. Yeager and the PhD student to
analyze project results. We request one month ofsnurmer salary support in each year so he can
complete these duties. (Graduate student and technicians) We know from experience that this is
ambitious and labor-intensive work. Therefore, a significant portion of our budget is for
personnel crucial for day-to-day execution of this research, and to facilitate the development of
several young researchers. We seek support for one PhD -track graduate student that will aid in
the construction of artificial seagrass units, participate and lead aspect of the proposed research,
and develop new Imes of research questions that leverage and expand on the proposed research.
Additionally, we will hue BS-level technicians (2 individuals in years 1 and 2, and 1 individual
in year 3) to aid in the construction of artificial seagrass units (years 1 and 2) and participate
actively in all aspects of our field experiments (all 3 years).
Salaries have been inflated by 4% in years 2-3.
Line C. Fringe Benefits: Benefits are based on the standard 2016 UNC rates of.
PI: 22.741%of base salary (FICA; RSA; unemployment; long-term disability; short-term
disability)
Graduate student: 8.99% of base salaries (FICA) + $3,234 per year for medical insurance.
Medical insurance for the graduate student has been inflated by 4% in years 2 and 3.
Temporary technicians: 8.99% of base salaries (FICA)
Line D. Permanent Equipment: none
Line E. Travel: Support is requested for annual face-to-face Pis meetings between J. Fodrie
(UNC) and L. Yeager (SFSYNC) to improve project coordination and facilitate data analyses
and interpretation Additionally, support is requested in years 2 and 3 for the PI and the PhD
student to travel to national meetings and disseminate project findings (includes registration,
airfare, lodging, and per diem for 2 people).
Line F. Participant Support: Graduate student tuition is based on the 2016 UNC in -state
graduate tuition rate of$4,571 for fi&time enrollment during fall and spring semesters. Tuition
rates have been inflated by 4% in years 2 and 3.
Line GI. Materials and Supplies: These fiords will be used to pay for: 1) ribbon, VEXAR, and
landscaping staples to construct —3600d of artificial seagrass units; 2) RBRsolo pressure
loggers; 3) gasoline for boats and trucks used to transit to field sites; 4) general field and
laboratory supplies such as bags, snorkeling gear, computer hardware/software support contracts,
printer supplies, etc.; and 5) publication costs.
RECEIVED
MAR 2 9 2017
DCM- MHD CITY 1635950

Line G6. Miscellaneous Services: Funds are needed to reserve IMS boats ($25 per day) in all 3
years. Additional fiords are requested for annual maintenance (not covered by daily use fees) of
IMS boats and trucks used extensively during this project to ensure the safety of our research
team while transiting to and from field sites.
Indirect Costs. Applied at the Federally agreed UNC rate of 52% of modified total direct costs
(total direct costs minus equipment and student tuition;
RECEIVED
MAR 2 9 2017
DCM- MHD CITY
1635950

SUMMARY YEAR
PROPOSAL BUDGET FOR NSF USE ONLY
ORGANIZATION PROPOSAL NO.
University of Maryland Colle a Park
DURATION months
Proposed
I Granted
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR / PROJECT DIRECTOR AWARD IN
Lauren Yealser
A. SENIOR PERSONNEL: PI/PD, Co-PI's, Faculty and Other Senior Associates
(List each separately with title, A.7. show number in brackets)
raSF momf's
Funds
Rpc� W By
Funds
rantmmaeNSF
CAL
ACAD
SUMR
1. Lauren Yea er- Research Associate
4.00
0.00
0.00
20.280
2.
3.
4.
5.
6. 0 OTHERS LIST INDIVIDUALLY ON BUDGET JUSTIFICATION PAGE
0.0
0.0
0.00
0
7. 1 TOTAL SENIOR PERSONNEL (1 - 6)
4.00
0.00
0.00
20,280
B. OTHER PERSONNEL SHOW NUMBERS IN BRACKETS
1. O POST DOCTORAL SCHOLARS
0.0q
0.001
0.00
O
2. O OTHER PROFESSIONALS CrECHNICIAN, PROGRAMMER, ETC.
0.001
0.0
0.00
0
3. 0 GRADUATE STUDENTS
9
4. 0 UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS
0
5. 1 SECRETARIAL - CLERICAL IF CHARGED DIRECTLY
1000
6. B OTHER
9
TOTAL SALARIES AND WAGES A+B
21280
C. FRINGE BENEFITS IF CHARGED AS DIRECT COSTS
8,512
TOTAL SALARIES, WAGES AND FRINGE BENEFITS A+ B + C
29,792
D. EQUIPMENT (LIST ITEM AND DOLLAR AMOUNT FOR EACH ITEM EXCEEDING $5,000.)
TOTAL EQUIPMENT
9
E. TRAVEL 1. DOMESTIC INCL. U.S. POSSESSIONS
5,200
2. FOREIGN
0
F. PARTICIPANT SUPPORT COSTS
1. STIPENDS $ 0
2.TRAVEL 0
3. SUBSISTENCE 0
4. OTHER 0
TOTAL NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS O TOTAL PARTICIPANT COSTS
0
G. OTHER DIRECT COSTS
1. MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES
0
2. PUBLICATION COSTS/DOCUMENTATIONIDISSEMINATION
0
3. CONSULTANT SERVICES
0
4. COMPUTER SERVICES
0
S. SUBAWARDS
RECEIVED
0
6. OTHER
0
TOTAL OTHER DIRECT COSTS
0
H. TOTAL DIRECT COSTS (A THROUGH G) MAR 2 9 2017
1 34 992
I. INDIRECT COSTS (F&A)(SPECIFY RATE AND BASE)
F&A (Rate: 27.5000, Base: 34992)
TOTAL INDIRECT COSTS F&A
9.623
J. TOTAL DIRECT AND INDIRECT COSTS H + I
44 615
K. SMALL BUSINESS FEE
0
L. AMOUNT OF THIS REQUEST J OR J MINUS K
44 615
M. COST SHARING PROPOSED LEVEL $ 0 AGREED LEVEL IF
DIFFERENT $
PIIPD NAME
Lauren Yea er
FOR NSF USE ONLY
INDIRECT COST RATE VERIFICATION
ORG. REP. NAME'
Jill Frankenfield
Dare Chsced
Dery Or Rate sheer
InldaM-ORG
1 'ELECTRONIC
1635915

SUMMARY YEAR 2
PROPOSAL BUDGET
FOR NSF
USE ONLY
ORGANIZATION
University of Maryland Colle a Park
PROPOSAL NO.
DURATION months
Proposed
I Granted
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR/PROJECT DIRECTOR
Lauren Yeaper
AWARD NO.
A SENIOR PERSONNEL: PI/PD, Co-PI's, Faculty and Other Senior Associates
List each separately with title, A.7. show number in brackets
( Pa Y )
NSF F
Funee
Repropm By
propoesr
ones
tea by Na
(u eieemnp
CAL
ACAD
SUMR
1. Lauren Yea er - Research Associate
4.09
0.00
0.00
20,888
2.
3.
4.
5.
8. O OTHERS LIST INDIVIDUALLY ON BUDGET JUSTIFICATION PAGE
0.00
0.00
O.00
0
7. 1 TOTAL SENIOR PERSONNEL 1 - 6
4.00
0.00
0.00
20,888
B. OTHER PERSONNEL SHOW NUMBERS IN BRACKETS
1. O POST DOCTORAL SCHOLARS
0.0
0.001
0.00
0
2. 0 OTHER PROFESSIONALS(TECHNICIAN, PROGRAMMER, ETC.
0.001
O.OQ
0.0
0
3. 0 GRADUATE STUDENTS
0
4. 0 UNDERGRADUATESTUDENTS
0
5. 1 SECRETARIAL -CLERICAL IF CHARGED DIRECTLY
1030
6. 0 OTHER
0
TOTAL SALARIES AND WAGES A+ B
21,918
C. FRINGE BENEFITS IF CHARGED AS DIRECT COSTS
8,767
TOTAL SALARIES, WAGES AND FRINGE BENEFITS A+B+C
30685
D. EQUIPMENT (LIST ITEM AND DOLLAR AMOUNT FOR EACH ITEM EXCEEDING $5,000.)
TOTAL EQUIPMENT
0
E. TRAVEL 1. DOMESTIC INCL. U.S. POSSESSIONS
5 200
2. FOREIGN
0
F. PARTICIPANT SUPPORT COSTS
1. STIPENDS $ 0
2. TRAVEL 0
3. SUBSISTENCE 0
4.OTHER 0
TOTAL NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS 0 TOTAL PARTICIPANT COSTS
0
G. OTHER DIRECT COSTS
1. MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES
0
2. PUBLICATION COSTS/DOCUMENTATION/DISSEMINATION
5,000
3. CONSULTANT SERVICES
0
4. COMPUTER SERVICES
0
5.SUBAWARDS
0
6. OTHER
0
TOTAL OTHER DIRECT COSTS
5,000
H. TOTAL DIRECT COSTS ATHROUGH G
40885
I. INDIRECT COSTS (FaA)(SPECIFY RATE AND BASE)
F&A (Rate: 27.5000, Base: 40885)
TOTAL INDIRECT COSTS F8A
11,243
J. TOTAL DIRECT AND INDIRECT COSTS H + I
52,128
K. SMALL BUSINESS FEE
0
L. AMOUNT OF THIS REQUEST J OR J MINUS K
52,128
M. COST SHARING PROPOSED LEVEL $ 0 AGREED LEVEL IF
DIFFERENT $
PI/PD NAME
Lauren Yeaper
FOR NSF USE ONLY
INDIRECT COST RATE VERIFICATION
ORG. REP. NAME* Date
Jill Frenkenfield
Checked
Date Of Rate sneer
IM., ORG
2 'ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES REQUIRED FOR REVISED BUDGET
MAR 2 9 2017
DCM- MHD CITY 1635915

SUMMARY YEAR
PROPOSAL BUDGET FOR NSF USE ONLY
ORGANIZATION PROPOSAL NO.
University of Maryland Colle a Perk
DURATION months
Proposed
I Granted
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR / PROJECT DIRECTOR AWARD NO.
Lauren Yea er
A. SENIOR PERSONNEL: PI/PD, Co-PI's, Faculty and Other Senior Associates
(List each separately with title, A.7. show number in brackets)
pNSF Um
gQ,
FUM
RepraposeraY
Funds
granted!
dmereNs
CAL
ACAD
SUMR
1. Lauren Yea er -Research Associate
3.00
0.00
0.00
16136
2.
3.
4.
5.
6. 0 OTHERS LIST INDIVIDUALLY ON BUDGET JUSTIFICATION PAGE
0.00
0.00
0.00
0
7. 1 TOTAL SENIOR PERSONNEL 1-8
3.00
0.00
0.00
16,136
B. OTHER PERSONNEL (SHOW NUMBERS IN BRACKETS
1. 0 POST DOCTORAL SCHOLARS
0.0
0.001
0.00
0
2. 0 OTHER PROFESSIONALS(TECHNICIAN, PROGRAMMER, ETC.)
0.0
0.00
0.0
0
3. 0 GRADUATE STUDENTS
0
4. 0 UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS
0
5. 1 SECRETARIAL - CLERICAL IF CHARGED DIRECTLY
1,061
6. Q OTHER
0
TOTAL SALARIES AND WAGES A+B
17197
C. FRINGE BENEFITS IF CHARGED AS DIRECT COSTS
6,879
TOTAL SALARIES, WAGES AND FRINGE BENEFITS A+B+C
24,076
D. EQUIPMENT (LIST ITEM AND DOLLAR AMOUNT FOR EACH ITEM EXCEEDING $5,000.)
TOTAL EQUIPMENT
0
E. TRAVEL 1. DOMESTIC INCL. U.S. POSSESSIONS
5,200
2. FOREIGN
0
F. PARTICIPANT SUPPORT COSTS
1. STIPENDS $ 0
2. TRAVEL 0
3. SUBSISTENCE 0
4. OTHER 0
TOTAL NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS 0 TOTAL PARTICIPANT COSTS
0
G. OTHER DIRECT COSTS
1. MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES
0
2. PUBLICATION COSTS/DOCUMENTATION/DISSEMINATION
5,000
3. CONSULTANT SERVICES
0
4. COMPUTER SERVICES
0
S. SUBAWARDS
0
6. OTHER 1qECff=1 v Ill0
TOTAL OTHER DIRECT COSTS
5,000
H. TOTAL DIRECT COSTS A THROUGH G
MAR34,276
I. INDIRECT COSTS (F&A)(SPECIFY RATE AND BASE)
F&A (Rate: 27.5000, Base: 34276)
TOTAL INDIRECT COSTS(F&ADem
9,426
J. TOTAL DIRECT AND INDIRECT COSTS H+I
43702
K. SMALL BUSINESS FEE
0
L. AMOUNT OF THIS REQUEST J OR J MINUS K
-4 702
M. COST SHARING PROPOSED LEVEL $ 0 AGREED LEVEL IF
DIFFERENT $
PI/PD NAME
Lauren Yeatier
FOR NSF USE ONLY
INDIRECT COST RATE VERIFICATION
ORG. REP. NAME'
JIII Frankenfleld
Dete checked
Dele Or Rate Sheel
Infidels-ORG
3 `ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES REQUIRED FOR REVISED BUDGET
1635915

SUMMARY Cumulative
PROPOSAL BUDGET FOR NSF
USE ONLY
ORGANIZATION PROPOSAL NO.
Universtily Of Maryland Colle a Park
DURATION months
Pmposed
I Granted
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR / PROJECT DIRECTOR AWARD NO.
Lauren Yeacler
A. SENIOR PERSONNEL: PI/PD, Co-PI's, Faculty and Other Senior Associates
(List each separately with title, A.7. show number in brackets)
NSF Fu
Funds
Repine By
Funds
lu=q
CAL
ACAD
SUMR
I. Lauren Yea er - Research Associate
11.00
0.001
0.00
57,304
2.
3.
4.
S.
6. OTHERS LIST INDIVIDUALLY ON BUDGET JUSTIFICATION PAGE
0.00
0.00
0.00
0
7. 1 TOTAL SENIOR PERSONNEL 1 - 6
11.00
0.00
0.00
57 304
B. OTHER PERSONNEL SHOW NUMBERS IN BRACKETS
1. POST DOCTORAL SCHOLARS
0.0
0.00
0.00
0
2. 0 OTHER PROFESSIONALS(TECHNICIAN, PROGRAMMER, ETC.
0.00
0.00
0.00
0
3. 0 GRADUATE STUDENTS
0
4. 0 UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS
0
5. 3 SECRETARIAL -CLERICAL IF CHARGED DIRECTLY
3091
6. 0 OTHER
0
TOTAL SALARIES AND WAGES A+ B
60,395
C. FRINGE BENEFITS IF CHARGED AS DIRECT COSTS
24,158
TOTAL SALARIES, WAGES AND FRINGE BENEFITS A+B+C
84553
D. EQUIPMENT (LIST ITEM AND DOLLAR AMOUNT FOR EACH ITEM EXCEEDING $5,000.)
TOTAL EQUIPMENT
0
E. TRAVEL 1. DOMESTIC INCL. U.S. POSSESSIONS
15,600
2. FOREIGN
0
F. PARTICIPANT SUPPORT COSTS
1. STIPENDS $ 0
2. TRAVEL 0
3. SUBSISTENCE 0
4. OTHER 0
TOTAL NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS TOTAL PARTICIPANT COSTS
0
G. OTHER DIRECT COSTS
1. MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES
0
2. PUBLICATION COSTS/DOCUMENTATION/DISSEMINATION
10,000
3. CONSULTANT SERVICES
0
4. COMPUTER SERVICES
0
5. SUBAWARDS
0
6. OTHER
0
TOTAL OTHER DIRECT COSTS
10,000
H. TOTAL DIRECT COSTS A THROUGH G
110.1531
I. INDIRECT COSTS (FaA)(SPECIFY RATE AND BASE)
TOTAL INDIRECT COSTS F&A
30.292
J. TOTAL DIRECT AND INDIRECT COSTS H + I
140 445
K. SMALL BUSINESS FEE
0
L. AMOUNT OF THIS REQUEST J OR J MINUS K
140 445
M. COST SHARING PROPOSED LEVEL $ 0 AGREED LEVEL IF
DIFFERENT $
PI/PD NAME
Lauren Yeaper
FOR NSF USE ONLY
INDIRECT COST RATE VERIFICATION
ORG. REP. NAME ECEI
Jill Frenkenfield
Dats Ceea�ed
Dats Of Rate Shen
Initials -ORG
MAR 2 9 2017 C*ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES REQUIRED FOR REVISED BUDGET
TY
CM_ MHp ClD1635915

University of Maryland at College Park Budget Justification
We request funds to cover 4 months of salary in years 1-2 and 3 months of salary in year
3 for the co -PI (L. Yeager). Yeager will be responsible for generating random landscapes, co -
developing experimental design and set-up, analyzing community and functional responses, and
contributing to data collection as well as manuscript preparation. As Yeager will be in soft -
money position receiving no institutional support at the time if the project is selected for funding,
we request an exemption form NSF's 2-month salary limit (total, across multiple projects).
A small amount of support is requested for administrative staff at SESYNC, whose
salaries are funded through other grants and not by the University of Maryland. This will cover
effort expended on their part in the overall fiscal management of the award to include monthly
accounting, invoice processing, and arranging travel. The fringe rate (40%) is estimated at
standard rates for UMD employees and includes health insurance, retirement, social security, and
unemployment benefits. We have budgeted for a 3% cost of living increase in salaries in years 2
and 3.
We request funds for Yeager to travel to UNC Institute of Marine Sciences (airfare plus
lodging) bi-annually: once for experimental set-up (-2 weeks) and once for experimental break
down (—I week) in each year/field season at estimated cost of $3,700 per year. We request
$1,500 in each year to cover attendance at a national scientific meeting (e.g., Benthic Ecology
Meeting/Ecological Society of America Meeting) by the co -PI to disseminate the results of our
research.
In years 2 and 3 we request $5,000 each year to cover the costs of publication of our
results in peer -reviewed joumals.
Being based at SESYNC, we are eligible for the reduced off -campus indirect cost rate of
27.5%.
RECEIVED
MAR 2 9 2017
DCM- M,HD CITY
1635915

Current and Pending Support
The following information should be promded to the NSF program. Failure to provide this information may delay con-
sideration of this proposal.
Other agencies to which this proposal has been/will be submit-
Imiestigator: F. Joel Fodrie
n/a
Support: 0 Current D Pending U Submission Planned in Near Future U 'Transfer of Support
Project/Proposal Title:
Collaborative research: interacting effects of local demography and larval connectivity on estuarine metapopulation
dynamics
Source of Support: NSF — Bio Oce
Total Award Amount: $510,000 Total Award Period Covered: 2/15/12 — 2/14/17
Location of Project: North Carolina
Person -Months Per Year Committed to the Cal: Acad: Sumr: 1.0 (0 remaining)
Support: 0 Current U Pending U Submission Planned in Near Future'Transfer of Support
Project/Proposal Title:
Effects of landscape setting on the function of North Carolina seagrass meadows as essential fish habitat
Source of Support: NC Marine Resources Fund
Total Award Amount: $217,366 Total Award Period Covered: 7/1/13-6/30/16
Location of Project: North Carolina
Person -Months Per Year Committed to the Cal: Acad: Sumr. 1.0 (0 remaining)
Support: H Current El Pending LJ Submission Planned in Near Future U 'Transfer of Support
Project/Proposal Title:
Investigating salinity fluxes on natural and restored shell bottom habitat to better predict disturbance effects driven by
climate change
Source of Support: NC Marine Resources Fund
Total Award Amount: $225,963 Total Award Period Covered: 7/1/13.6/30/16
Location of Project: North Carolina
Person -Months Per Year Committed to the Cal: Acad: Sumr. 0.5 (0 remaining)
Support: N Current LJ Pending LJ Submission Planned in Near Future LJ 'Transfer of Support
Project/Proposal Title:
Incorporating stakeholder knowledge of the status and value of coastal habitats into education, outreach, and
conservation initiatives
Source of Support: NC Marine Resources Fund
Total Award Amount: $63,101 Total Award Period Covered: 7/1/13-6/30/16
Location of Project: North Carolina
Person -Months Per Year Committed to the Cal: Acad: 1.0 Sumr:
Support: D9 Current LJ Pending LJ Submission Planned in Near Future Ll 'Transfer of Support
Project/Proposal Title:
Understanding the impacts of climate change on the distribution, population connectivity, and fisheries for summer
Flounder
Source of Support: NC Sea Grant
Total Award Amount: $149,983 Total Award Period Covered: 2/15/14-2/14/17
Location of Project: Mid Atlantic Bight
Person -Months Per Year Committed to the Cal: Acad: 1.25 Sumr. 1.0 (0 remaining)
'If this project has previously been funded by another agency, please list and fumish information for immediately pre-
ceding funding period.
RECEIVED USE ADDITIONAL SHEETS AS
NECESSARY
MAR 2 9 2017
DCM- MHD CITY 1635950

Current and Pending Support
The following information should be provided for the NSF program. Failure to provide this information may delay con-
sideration of this proposal.
Other agencies to which this proposal has been/will be submit -
Investigator. F. Joel Fodde
n/a
Support: Current Pending LJ Submission Planned in Near Future LJ 'Transfer of Support
Project/Proposal Title:
Coastal Waters Consortium — Phase II
Source of Support: GOMRI
Total Award Amount $128,126 Total Award Period Covered: 1/1/15-12/31/17
Location of Project: Louisiana
Person -Months PerYear Committed to the Project Cal: Aced: Sumr. 1.0
Support: Current Ll Pending LJ Submission Planned in Near Future LJ 'Transfer of Support
Project/Proposal Title:
Enhancing the quality of fish habitat and quantity of oysters by refining reef -restoration techniques
Source of Support: NC Marine Resources Fund
Total Award Amount: $321,656 Total Award Period Covered: 7/1/15-6/30/18
Location of Project: North Carolina
Person -Months Per Year Comm ittedtothe Project Cal: Aced: Sumr. 1.0
Support: D9 Current Pending LJ Submission Planned in Near Future LJ 'Transfer of Support
Project/Proposal Title:
Effects of oyster grow -out cages on the condition and ecosystem -services of seagrass communities
Source of Support: NC Sea Grant
Total Award Amount $149,999 Total Award Period Covered: 2/15/16-2/14118
Location of Project: North Carolina
Person -Months PerYear Comm itted to the Project. Cal: Aced:1.25 Sumr. 0.25
Support: N Current Pending LJ Submission Planned in Near Future LJ 'Transter of Support
Project/Proposal Title:
Seasonal residency patterns, landscape -scale habitat use, and movement ecology of bonnethead sharks, Sphyma
tiburo, in North Carolina estuaries
Source of Support: NC Aquariums Conservation Fund
Total Award Amount: $43,525 Total Award Period Covered: 8/1/15-12/31/16
Location of Project: North Carolina
Person -Months Per Year Committed to the Project Cal: Aced: Sumr: 0.25
Support: Current Pending L1 Submission Planned in Near Future LJ 'Transfer of Support
Project/Proposal Title:
(THIS PROPOSAL) Collaborative Research: Habitat fragmentation effects on fish diversity at landscape scales: exper-
imental tests of multiple mechanisms
Source of Support: NSF — Bio Oce
Total Award Amount $451,037 Total Award Period Covered: 9/15/16-9/14/19
Location of Project: North Carolina
Person-MonthsPerYear Committed to the Project Cal: Aced: Sumr. 1.0
'If this project has pretiously been funded by another agency, please list and furnish information for immediately pre-
ceding funding period.
USE ADDITIONAL SHEETS AS
E I V E D' NECESSARY
h,a� 2 9 2017
C)UX NIND CITY 1635950

Current and Pending Support
(See GPG Section II.C.2.h for guidance on information to include on this form.)
The Wo rg hdormadon should E pro d for each Inveetlgalar and other senior pereanel. Fallure b prwltl finis Inbrmatbn may delay mnsideration of this proposal.
Other agendas (including NSF) to which this proposal has beenAvill be submitted.
Investigator: Lauren Yeager
Support: O Current ® Pending O Submission Planned in Near Future O'Transfer of Support
Project/Proposal Title: Collaborative Research: Habitat fragmentation effects on
seagrass fish diversity at landscape scales: experimental
tests of multiple mechanisms
Source of Support: NSF
Total Award Amount: $ 140,445 Total Award Period Covered: 09/15/16 - 09/14/19
Location of Project: University of Maryland at College Park
Person -Months Per Year Committed to the Project. Cal:4.00 Acad: 0.00 Sumr: 0.00
Support: O Current ❑ Pending ❑ Submission Planned in Near Future O `Transfer of Support
Project/Proposal Title:
Source of Support:
Total Award Amount: $ Total Award Period Covered:
Location of Project:
Person -Months Per Year Committed to the Project. Cal: Acad: Sumr:
Support: O Current 0 Pending ❑ Submission Planned in Near Future ❑'Transfer of Support
ProjecttProposal Title:
Source of Support:
Total Award Amount: $ Total Award Period Covered:
Location of Project:
Person -Months Per Year Committed to the Project. Cal: Acad: Sumr:
Support: ❑ Current O Pending 0 Submission Planned in Near Future ❑'Transfer of Support
Project/Proposal Title:
Source of Support:
Total Award Amount: $ Total Award Period Covered:
Location of Project:
Person -Months Per Year Committed to the Project. Cal: Acad: Sumr:
Support: ❑ Current O Pending ❑ Submission Planned in Near Future O'Transfer of Support
Project/Proposal Title: RECEIVE
MAR 2 9 20V
Source of Support:
Total Award Amount: $ Total Award Period Covered:
Location of Project: DCM- MHD
Person -Months Per Year Committed to the Project. Cal: Aced: Summ:
'If this project has previously been funded by another agency, please list and furnish information for immediatety preceding funding period.
Page G-1 USE ADDITIONAL SHEETS AS NECESSARY
J
ITY
1635915

Facilities, Equipment, and Other Resources
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill's Institute of Marine Sciences
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill's Institute of Marine Sciences (IMS) is well -
suited for the proposed research. IMS is located in Morehead City, NC, within a 30 minute
truck/boat drive of all proposed field sites.
The PI's lab operates a truck (Ford F-250), 3 kayaks, a 17' skiff, and a 22' skiff devoted solely to
fisheries research activities. In addition, IMS owns a fleet of seven 4-WD trucks, 2 vans, and 15
outboard motor -powered boats ranging in length from 17-25 feet. IMS has a fully equipped
mechanical/carpentry shop and dive locker, and maintains American Academy of Underwater
Sciences (AAUS) certification. Most members of the PI's lab group are dive certified.
Recent renovation of IMS and construction of an entirely new wing of labs and offices provides
more than ample space to satisfy the needs of this project. Facilities available for the project
include: 1. Desk space for all project personnel; 2. a lab for GIS imaging and mapping analyses
with 3 PC work stations; 3. a lab for fish/invertebrate specimen sorting and identification; 4. a
flowing seawater wet lab, several outdoor water tables, and three 30-by-50-by-1.5 meter
mesocosm ponds (available to further test mechanisms of interest following our proposed field
studies); and 5. a warehouse and several large storage/shipping containers that will house the
—3600, 1-m2 artificial seagrass units in between field experiments. Relevant laboratory
equipment includes: measuring/cutting boards; four binocular microscopes (one with imaging
capability); a drying oven; a complete set of sieves; 4 electronic balances; a large walk-in cold
room for sample storage; and 4 Hach handheld YSIs. The relevant field equipment includes:
multiple handheld GPS units; a Dell E6420 XFR rugged field laptop; Trimble RTK-GPS
surveying equipment; 6 Hobo water -level loggers; and multiple sets of dive gear owned by the
PI's lab.
UNC subscribes to multiple video- and voice-conferencing software packages, and has 3 rooms
equipped with video-conferencing technology to facilitate communication and collaboration.
Equipment, buildings, and campus grounds are maintained at IMS by a full-time technical
support staff.
RECEIVED
MAR 2 9 2017
DCM- IVHD CITY
1635950

FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT AND OTHER RESOURCES
The required fieldwork and laboratory analyses will be completed at the lead institution (UNC-CH) and as
such we do not require additional laboratory, clinical or animal resources at UMD. Instead cyber-
infrastructure and computational resources will be important to the project completion in terms of random
landscape generation, spatial landscape analyses, and functional diversity analyses (which can takes
days to calculate with proper rarefaction and MST reshuffling algorithms on the computing cluster).
These required resources will be mailable through existing resources at SESYNC, detailed below.
COMPUTATIONAL RESOURCES:
SESYNC provides a fully -integrated cyberinfrastructure which we will leverage for this project.
Specifically, SESYNC will provide access to:
• Large file storage. SESYNC has approximately 1100Th of file storage available for use by its
researchers. This storage is tightly integrated with all computational resources at the center. This
means that all cluster, Rstudio servers, and desktops can access this storage as though it was
locally attached. In addition, access for remote collaborators is available via a web gateway
(hftps: //files. sesy nc. org).
• R-Studio Server Access. SESYNC will provide access to a large R Studio server containing 90Gb
of memory and a dozen CPU cores.
• Computational Cluster. SESYNC has a 16 node cluster which will be made available to this
project. Each node contains 6 cpu cores and 64Gb memory and is managed by the slurm
scheduling system.
• Software access. While we anticipate using open source (R) to perform most of the necessary
modeling, SESYNC also provides access to Matlab, ArcGIS and other commercial software that
may be necessary.
• Network Connectivity. SESYNC is connected to regional and national high speed networks
through a 10Gbit connection to the center. All high performance computational resources are
connected via 10Gbit connections allowing them to fully utilize all available bandwidth.
OFFICE:
At SESYNC, L. Yeager will have dedicated desk and storage space within a 135 sq. ft. office with access
to the intemet via wired and wireless connections, copying, scanning, and printing resources, and
scientific journals from UMD's extensive library subscription service.
OTHER RESOURCES:
L. Yeager will also have access to the computational support team at SESYNC which can provide a
variety of services including consulting on workflow, speeding up computation time, and computational
trouble -shooting. In addition, SESYNC will provide access to a collaborative document editing system and
video conferencing services as needed for this project.
RECEIVED
MAR 2 9 2017
DCM- MHD CITY
1635915

Data Management Plan
Overview
'the Pis are committed to the goal of making the highest quality data, metadata, and research
summaries available to the scientific and management communities, and have a history of sound
and productive data management (e.g. GOMRI's GRIIDC, search'Todrie') to support this
claim. Our management plan provides a mechanism for distributing data and metadata to
researchers, students, coastal zone managers, and educational users as well as to the public.
1. Types of data produced
The proposed research will generate new data on fish assemblage structure (species identity,
biomass, abundance) and environmental correlates (habitat area, fragmentation, wave energy).
Ancillary work related to the overarching project goal may rely on existing seagrass
distribution/mapping or wave energy data already publically available through corresponding
government agencies (e.g., NOAA, APNEP). We will use these data in subsequent statistical
exercises predicting fish assemblage structure based on environmental variables such as meadow
size, degree of fragmentation within meadows, physical energy, etc.
2. Data and Metadata standards
For all data analysis and modeling, we will keep detailed notes on our work flow, including
methods, troubleshooting, data exploration, and programs used, which will be shared among L.
Yeager, J. Fodrie, and the PhD graduate student. 'These notes will be compiled using Microsoft
Word, version controlled, and backed -up daily on widely used platforms such as Dropbox or
Druvia inSync. Code will also be stored in a concurrent versioning system such as Git in order to
allow all members of the research team to make and track modifications.
3. Policies for Access and Sharing
The Pis and PhD graduate student will have dedicated space on either UNC's and SISYNC's
internal servers (based on each person's home institution) for the storage and processing of all
data. At both facilities, these storage servers and all computers are backed -up twice daily. All
files will also be backed -up weekly on an external hard -drive and taken off -site nightly. AM code
used for data processing and analysis wig also be backed -up and shared using GitHub.
4. Policies for revision and reuse
For any data produced during the work, the Pi's will retain the rights to the data until publication
or within two years, whichever is sooner.
5. Plans for archiving
We anticipate publishing all raw data, code, model outputs, and results of simulations along with
corresponding manuscripts. This will be made open an online supplements (e.g., Ecological
Archives). We will also publish all data to The Biological and Chemical Oceanography Data
Management Office (BCO-DMO) data archiving repository with corresponding metadata.
RECEIVED
MAR 2 9 2017
DCM- M'HD CITY
1635950

Coastal Management
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
UNC Institute of Marine Science
C/o J. Fodrie
3431 Arendell St.
Morehead City, NC 28557
Dear Mr. Fodrie:
ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretary
BRAXTON DAVIS
Director
4/4/17
The NC Division of Coastal Management hereby acknowledges receipt of your application for State
approval for development in Back Sound near Beaufort. The complete package was received on 3/29/17.
The projected deadline for making a decision is 6/11/17. An additional 75-day review period is provided
by law when such time is necessary to complete the review. If you have not been notified of a final action
by the initial deadline stated above, you should consider the review period extended. Under those
circumstances, this letter will serve as your notice of an extended review. However, an additional letter
will be provided on or about the 75th day.
If this agency does not render a permit decision within 70 days from 3/29/17, you may request a meeting
with the Director of the Division of Coastal Management and permit staff to discuss the status of your
project. Such a meeting will be held within five working days from the receipt of your written request and
shall include the property owner, developer, and project designer/consultant.
NCGS 113A-119(b) requires that Notice of an application be posted at the location of the proposed
development. Enclosed you will find a "Notice of Permit Filing' postcard which must be posted at the
property of your proposed development. You should post this notice at a conspicuous point along your
property where it can be observed from a public road. Some examples would be: Nailing the notice card
to a telephone pole or tree along the road right-of-way fronting your property, or at a point along the road
right-of-way where a private road would lead one into your property. Failure to post this notice could
result in an incomplete application.
An onsite inspection will be made, and if additional information is required, you will be contacted by the
appropriate State or Federal agency. Please contact me if you have any questions and notify me in
writing if you wish to receive a copy of my field report and/or comments from reviewing agencies.
Si rely
J. an aven
astal Management Representative
Enclosure
cc: Doug Huggett, Major Permits Coordinator
Roy Brownlow, District Manager/Compliance Coordinator
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Coastal Management
400 Commerce Ave I Morehead City, NC 28557
252 808 2802

A
= I =
or
n
= I '1 �
mm ii0] �
1
-Jzi-,f v fAmmRAalj �,
IIOX rTAT&�����i
.�T��1�1��.1►L

ROY COOPER
Governor
M, MICHAEL S. REGAN
5'errela v
Coastal Management BRAXTON DAVIS
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Director
Carteret News Times
Re: Public Notice — Carteret Co.
Dear Sir:
Please publish the attached Notice in the 4/7/17 issue of the Carteret News Times.
The State Office of Budget and Management require an original Affidavit of Publication prior to
payment for newspaper advertising. Please send the affidavit, an original copy of the published
notice, and an original invoice to Arthur Stadiem, NC Division of Coastal Management, 400
Commerce Avenue, Morehead City, North Carolina 28557, Telephone [phone].
Thank you for your assistance in this matter. If you should have any questions, please contact
me at our Morehead City office.
J.
Representative
Enclosure
cc: Roy Brownlow, District Manager
Doug Huggett, Major Permits Coordinator
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Coastal Management
400 Commerce Ave I Morehead City, NC 28557
252 808 2808

NOTICE OF FILING OF
A PPLICATION FOR CAMA
MAJOR DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
The Department of Environmental Quality hereby gives public notice as required by NCGS
113A-119(b) that an application for a development permit in an Area of Environmental Concern
as designated under the CAMA was received on 3/29/17. According to the application, UNC
Institute of Marine Science applied to install Artificial Seagrass Units in Back Sound adjacent to
Beaufort, Carteret County. A copy of the entire application may be examined or copied at the
office of Ryan Davenport, NC Division of Coastal Management, located at 400 Commerce
Avenue, Morehead City, NC, [phone] during normal business hours. Comments mailed
to Braxton C. Davis, Director, Division of Coastal Management, 400 Commerce Avenue,
Morehead City, N.C. 28557, prior to 4/26/17, will be considered in making the permit decision.
Later comments will be accepted and considered up to the time of permit decision. Project
modification may occur based on review and comment by the public and state and federal
agencies. Notice of the permit decision in this matter will be provided upon written request.
PUBLISHED ON: 4/7/17
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Coastal Management
400 Commerce Ave 1 Morehead City, NC 28557
252 808 2808