73-17 Institute of Marine Science

Class
Permit Number
73-17
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
Excavation and/or filling pursuant to NCGS 113-229
to _ Institute of Marine Science, 3431 Arendell Street, Morehead City, NC 28557
izing development in Dare County at 4n Pamlico Sound, adjacent to Hatteras
as requested in the permittee's application dated 3/14/17 including attached
all dated "Received" 3/15/17, and the DW scientific collection permit No. 706481 dated 1/1/17
This permit, issued on June 7, 2017 is subject to compliance with the application (where
consistent with the permit), all applicable regulations, special conditions and notes set forth below. Any violation
of these terms may be subject to fines, imprisonment or civil action; or may cause the permit to be null and void.
Research Site
-1) This permit authorizes only the activities associated with the oyster aquaculture research project,
consisting of (15) test sites, each measuring 10 meters x 12 meters, as referenced in the attached
workplan drawings, the navigational aids, and other structures and uses located in or over the water
that are expressly and specifically set forth in the permit application. Any additional research sites
may require additional authorization. No other structure, whether floating or stationary, shall become
a permanent part of this lease site without permit modification. No non -water dependent uses of
structures shall be conducted on, in or over Public Trust waters without permit modification.
(See attached sheets for Additional Conditions)
.'This permit action may be appealed by the permittee or other Signed by the authority of the Secretary of DEQ and the
ualified persons within twenty (20) days of the issuing date. Chairman of the Coastal Resources Commission.
-unit must' be accessible on -site to Department
when the project is inspected for compliance.
maintenance work or project modification not covered
der requires further Division approval.
must cease when the permit expires on
December 31, 2020
issuing this permit, the State of North Carolina agrees that
,project is consistent with the North Carolina Coastal
tgement Program.
Br Eton C. Davis, Director
Division of Coastal Management
This permit and its conditions are hereby accepted.
Signature ofPermittee

of Marine Science Permit No. 73-17
f
Page 2 of 3
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
The permittee is advised that submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) habitat exists within, and in
proximity to, the authorized project. All available precautions, including a predetermined ingress and
egress navigational route, shall be utilized to ensure that damage to SAV habitat, to the greatest practical
extent, does not result from the construction and/or operation of the authorized project.
In accordance with commitments made by the permittee, all components of the research project
authorized by this permit shall be dismantled and removed from the Public Trust Area by the end of
2019.
USAGE Conditions
4)` ` 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
LL obstructions caused thereby, without expense to the United States. No claim shall be made against the
United States on account of any such removal, relocation, or alteration.
All waste will be removed from the site and deposited in waste/recycling facilities.
In the event of an approaching storm (tropical storm, hurricane), all floating bags will be moved in to
protected water near harbor by S. Stowe in accordance with his approach on his nearby lease. In the
extreme storm events, floating bags would be moved on land temporarily (24-48 hours). Post storm, the
study area will be inspected and all debris will be removed as well as any debris on nearby shorelines.
General
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.
x 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 abandons the
permitted activity without having it transferred to a third party.
No attempt shall be made by the permittee to prevent the free and full use by the public of all navigable
waters adjacent to the authorized work.
10). It is possible that the authorized research project components may be damaged by wave wash or
physical impact from passing vessels. The issuance of this permit does not relieve the permittee from
taking all proper steps to ensure the integrity of the permitted research project components. The
permittee shall not hold the United States or the State of North Carolina liable for any such damage.
11): The lease areas shall be marked to ensure they are not a hazard to navigation. At a minimum permanent
reflectors shall mark the project area in order to make it more visible during hours of darkness or
inclement weather.

of Marine Science
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
Permit No. 73-17
Page 3 of 3
This permit does not authorize the interference with any existing or proposed Federal project, and the
permittee shall not be entitled to compensation for damage or injury to the authorized research project
components or work which may be caused from existing or future operations undertaken by the United
,.States in the public interest.
E: The NC DMF Shellfish Sanitation Section has requested notification prior to the handling of
shellfish intended for human consumption.
TE: It is recommended the applicant contact the NC DMF Fisheries Management Section to inquire
if a Research Sanctuary Permit would be appropriate to protect the research project from
shellfish harvest by the public.
The applicant is encouraged to provide any monitoring reports or scientific papers to the NC
Division of Coastal Management.
This permit does not eliminate the need to obtain any additional state, federal or local permits,
approvals or authorizations that may be required.
This permit does not convey any rights, either in real estate or material.
NOTE: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers authorized the project by way of Programmatic General
Permit 198000291 (Action ID SAW-2017-00126).
The N.C. Division of Water Resources assigned the project DWR Project No. 2017-0442.
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.
NOTE: 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.

ICE M!-1
APPLICATION for
Malor Deoelopment Permit
(last revised 12127106)
North Carolina DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
1. Primary Applicant/ Landowner Information
Business Name
Project Name (if applicable)
Institute Of Marine Sciences
Effects of oyster grow -out rages on the condition and
ecosystem -services of seagrass communities
Applicant 1: First Name
MI
Last Name
F.
Joel
Fodrie
Applicant 2: First Name
MI
Last Name
If additional applicants, please attach an additional page(s) with names listed.
Mailing Address
PO Box
City -
state
3431 Arendell Street
Morehead City
NC
ZIP
Country
Phone No.
FAX No.
28557
USA
252-726-6841 ext.149
Street Address (if different from above)
City
State
ZIP
Email
[e-mail]
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 (d different from above)
city
State
ZIP
Email
1rci� I- /0 L15 — � a V L� u
�r.4 ✓ <Form continues on back> MAR 15 2017
252-808-2808 :: 1.888-4RCOAST :: www.nccoastalman n4CYil0 CITY

Major Development Permit
252-808-2808 :: 9-888-4RCOAST :: www.nccoastaimanagement.net

Fff—rrn�DCM MP=1�(Page9=of 5j T PPLl AF0.3R=
Major Development Permit
3. Project Location
County (can be multiple) -
--[N/A
Street Address
State Rd. #
Dare
(see attached maps)
Subdivision Name
city
State
Zip
Phone No.
Lot No.(s) (if many, attach additional page with list)
- - ext.
I I I ,
a. In which NC river basin is the project located?
b. Name of body of water nearest to proposed project
Pamlico 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.
ONatural ❑Manmade ❑Unknown
e. Is proposed work within city limits or planning jurisdiction?
f. If applicable, list the planning jurisdiction or city limit the proposed
❑Yes ®No
work falls within.
4. Site Description `
a.
Total length of shoreline on the tract (ft.)
b. Size of entire tract (sq.ft.)
N/A
c.
Size of individual lot(s)
d. Approximate elevation of tract above NHW (normal high water) or
NAIL (normal water leveq
(if many lot sizes, please attach additional page with a list)
-1m ®NHW or ❑NWL
e.
Vegetation on tract
Mixed Zostera marina (eelgrass) and Halodule maritime (shoalgrass)
f.
Man-made features and uses now on tract
N/A
g.
Identify and describe the existing land uses admacen to the proposed project site.
A commercial water -column shellfish lease IS. Stowe) exists —400 m to the NNW Oust "offshore" in slightly deeper water).
h.
How does local government zone the tract?
I. Is the proposed project consistent with the applicable zoning?
WA
(Attach zoning compliance certificate, if applicable)
❑Yes ❑No DNA
j.
Is the proposed activity part of an urban waterfront redevelopment proposal? ❑Yes ®No
k.
Has a professional archaeological assessment been done for the tract? If yes, attach a copy. ❑Yes ❑No ®NA
If yes, by whom?
I.
Is the proposed project located in a National Registered Historic District or does it involve a ❑Yes ❑No ®NA
National Register listed or eligible property?
<Form continues on next page> MAR 15 2017
DCM- MHD CITY
252-808-2808 :: 1-888-4RCOAST :: www.nccoasta ima nag a ment.net

Major Development Permit
m. (1) 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? SYes []No
(Attach documentation, if available)
n. Describe existing wastewater treatment facilities. .
N/A
o. Describe existing drinking water supply source.
N/A
p. Describe existing stone water management or treatment systems.
N/A
5. AcSvities and Impacts
a.
Will the project be for commercial, public, or private use? ❑Commercial NPubliclGovernment
❑Private/Community,
b.
Give a brief description of purpose, use, and daily operations of the project when complete.
This is a research project designed to evaulate the effects of shellfish aquaculture on local seagrasses and habitat use by
estuarine nekton. The project will involve the deployment of gears to mimic bag/rack aquaculture, within shallow seagrass
meadows, followed by periodic sampling of seagrass and nekton (via standard fisheries gears and DIDSON).
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.
We will construct 5 replicate bottom cage and 5 replicate floating bag treatments (each --10m x 12m). We have detailed the
design of these structures in our attached proposal and additional diagrams.
d.
List all development activities you propose.
N/A
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? N/A ❑Sq.Ft or ❑Acres
g.
Will the proposed project encroach on any public easement, public accessway or other area ❑Yes SNo ❑NA
that the public has established use of?
h.
Describe location and type of existing and proposed discharges to waters of the state.
N/A
I.
Will wastewater or stormwater be discharged into a wetland? ❑Yes NNo ❑NA
If yes, will this discharged water be of the same salinity as the receiving water? ❑Yes SNo ❑NA
j.
Is there any mitigation proposed? ❑Yes NNo ❑NA \
If yes, attach a mitigation proposal.
<Form continues on back>
252-808-2808 .. 1-888-4RCOAST .. www.nccoastaimanagement.net

- Form-DCM MP=((Page 5=of'Sj — - - - - - --- -- APPLICATION -for
Major Development Permit
6. Additional Information
In addition to this completed application form, (MP-1) the following items below, if applicable, must be submitted in order for the application
package lobe 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. Aproject 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, Beady 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.
I. A list of the names and complete address" 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 projectto the Division of Coastal Management.
Name WA - 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, pernitiee, and issuing dates.
North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries Scientific Collection
Permit 706481
h. Signed consultant or agent authorization form, if applicable.
I. Wetland delineation, 'd necessary.
j. A signed AEC hazard notice for projects in oceanfront and inlet areas. (Must be signed by properly 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.
1 7. Certification and Permission to Enter on Land
I understand that any permit issued in response to this application will allow only 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 _3/14/17.
Print Name Joel Fodrie
Signature
Please indicate application attachments pertaining to your proposed project.
❑DCM MP-2 Excavation and Fill Information ODCM MP-5 Bridges and Culverts
❑DCM MP-3 Upland Development C ^ C �"C D
®DCM MP-4 Structures Information RECEIVED
G
MAR 15 2017
Dsxrw�l 9D CITY
252-808-2808 .. 1-688.4RCOAST .. 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 ❑Public/Govemment ❑Private/Community
®This section not applicable
b. (i) Will the facility be open to the general public?
❑Yes ❑No
c. (i) Dock(s) and/or pier(s)
d. (i) Are Finger Piers included? ❑Yes ❑No
(it) Number
If yes:
(iii) Length
(it) Number
(iv) Width
(iii) Length
(v) Floating []Yes ❑No
(iv) Width
(v) Floating ❑Yes ❑No
e. (i) Are Platforms included? ❑Yes ❑No
f. (i) Are Boatlifts included? []Yes []No
If yes:
If yes:
(ii) Number
(it) Number
(iii) Length
(iii) Length
(iv) Width
(iv) Width
(v) Floating ❑Yes []No
Note: Roofed areas are calculated from dnpline 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
(it) Number of slips existing
maintenance service
❑ Dockage, fuel, and marine supplies
❑ Dockage ("wet 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:
❑ Land cut and access channel
❑Open water; dredging for basin and/or channel
❑Open water; no dredging required
[]Other; please describe:
k. Typical boat length:
m. (i) Will the facility have tie pilings?
[]Yes []No
(it) If yes number of tie pilings?
j. Describe the typical boats to be served (e.g., open runabout,
charter boats, sail boats, mixed types).
I. (1) Will the facility be open to the general public?
❑Yes [-]No RECEIVED
MAR 15 2017
DCM- NAND CITY
252-808.2808 :: 1-888-0RCOABT :: www.necoastaimanagement.net revised: 12/27/06

gar-Im-DGM-.MP--4--tStructuces,�-aae-2-0i41
Z 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 tank 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. (i) 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?
o r_
1. If this project is an expansion of an existing marina, what types of services are currently provided? W ^ U
W Lo
l
U
m. Is the marina/docking facility proposed within a primary or secondary nursery area?
r
❑Yes ❑No W
�
U
252-808-2808::1-888-4RC0AST::w .nccoastalmanagement.net revised: 12/27/06

OEM ruc ures�ge 3-of4F _-- _ - _- _-- -- -- --
n. Is the marina/docking facility proposed within or adjacent to any shellfish harvesting area?
❑Yes ❑No
o. Is the marina/docking facility proposed within or adjacent to coastal wetlands/marsh (CW), submerged aquatic vegetation (SAW shell bottom
(SB), or other wetlands (WL)? If any boxes are checked, provide the number of square feet affected.
❑CW ❑SAV ❑SB
❑WL []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 ❑PublidGovemment ❑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
(it) Length
(iii) Width
5. BREAKWATER (e.g., wood, sheetpile, etc.) 0Thiasection 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 ❑PubliclGovernment ❑Private/Community,
C. 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 15 2017
DCM- MHD CITY
252-808.2808 :: 1-888.4RCOAST :: www.nccoastalmanagement.net revised: 12127/06

a. Proximity of structure(s) to adjacent riparian property lines b. Proximity of structure(s) to adjacent docking facilities.
400 m N/A
Note: For buoy or mooring piling, use arc of swing including length
ofvessel.
c. Width of water body
40 km
e. (i) Will navigational aids be required as a result of the project?
®Yes ❑No ❑NA
(il) If yes, explain what type and how they will be implemented.
We will use standard marking posts for watercolum shellfish
leases.
d. Water depth at waterward end of structure at NLW or NWL
-1.5 in
8. OTHER ❑This section not applicable
a. Give complete description:
This is a research project designed to evaulate the effects of shellfish aquaculture on local seagrasses and habitat use by
estuarine nekton. The project will involve the deployment of gears to mimic bag/rack aquaculture, within shallow seagrass
meadows, followed by periodic sampling of seagrass and nekton (via standard fisheries gears and DIDSON). We have
included a detailed project narrative as additional information a.
3/14/17
Date
Effects of oyster grow -out cages on the condition and ecosystem -
services of seagrass communities
Project Name'
F. Joel Fodrie
Applica Name
Applicant Sig lure
}
W
V
]
o
LU
U
U'ZLU
2
U
0
252-808-2808 :: 1-888-4RCOAST :: www.neeoastalmanauement.net
revised: 12127/06

Attachment A.
Effects of oyster grow -out cages on the condition and ecosystem -services of seagrass
communities
F. Joel Fodrie, Assistant Professor, Institute of Marine Sciences, UNC-Chapel Hill
James W. Morley, Postdoctoral Associate, Department of Ecology, Evolution and Natural
Resources, Rutgers University
Katherine McGlade, Environmental Consultant with Seachange Coastal Consulting,
Hatteras, NC
Abigail.K. Poray, Laboratory Manager, Institute of Marine and Coastal Sciences, Rutgers
University
INTRODUCTION
In coastal regions conflicting demands for space are common problems faced by resource
management (Crowder et al. 2006; McGinnis and Collins 2013). Achieving a balance between
human and environmental needs can be particularly difficult in estuarine systems because these
areas are important for the early life stages of many economically valuable species (Beck et al.
2001; Dahlgren et al. 2006). There has been recent concern over bivalve aquaculture
transforming estuarine landscapes. Of particular concem is overlap between aquaculture leases
and seagrass, or submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), habitats (Dumbauld et al. 2009). This is
because seagrass beds are high quality nursery areas within coastal ecosystems, where the
density of juvenile fishes and crustaceans may exceed surrounding non -structured habitat by over
an order of magnitude (Beck et al. 2001; Heck et al. 2003; Powers et al. 2007). Conserving SAV
is important, because on a global scale, seagrass habitat is much reduced from historic levels
(Orth et al. 2006). As a result, many coastal U.S. states provide SAV habitat with some level of
protection.
Oyster aquaculture accounts for a majority of bivalve production in the U.S. with an
annual value that can exceed $100 million (NOAA Fisheries Data). Production of cultured
oysters has been increasing rapidly on the Atlantic coast. For example, sales of cultured oysters
in Virginia increased from $240,000 to over $11 million in the past decade (NC Rur. Econ.
Devel. Cent. 2013). Similarly, in Rhode Island the value of shellfish culture has grown from $84
thousand to over $5 million in the past twenty years, which is attributed to increased oyster
production (Beute12014). In some coastal areas of the U.S., oyster aquaculture is already a
dominant feature of the landscape (Everett et al. 1995; Tallis et al. 2009). The growth of this
industry will probably continue as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is
actively promoting shellfish aquaculture (Sobeck 2014).
One of the objectives of ecosystem based management is to achieve socioeconomic
balance without diminishing ecosystem integrity, which requires knowledge about the effects of
human alterations to natural areas (Pikitch et al. 2004). This includes understanding the
ecosystem costs AND benefits that may be associated with a change from natural conditions.
Culturing oysters involves growing the product, using a variety of alternative methods and gear
types, within designated plots that are typically leased from the state through a permitting
process. Culture methods may negatively impact seagrass in multiple ways, including shading
(Skinner et al. 2013, 2014), promoting sediment deposition or scouring (Everett et al. 1995), and
mechanical disturbance from contact between seagrass and growout/harvest gear, oysters E'v E D
MAR 15 2017
DCM- MHD CITY

people (Everett et al. 1995; Wisehart et al. 2007; Tallis et al. 2009). However, the effect of oyster
culture leases depends on the scale of observations. The impact of oyster culture may only
impact seagrass directly under the lease (Everett et al. 1995; Bulmer et al. 2012; Skinner et al.
2013). Dumbauld and McCoy (2015) used a distribution model for seagrass in a heavily
cultivated region of Washington, and show that SAV habitat is resilient to oyster culture
disturbances at the broader -landscape scale.
There are also several mechanisms by which bivalve aquaculture may facilitate seagrass
fitness. The biodeposits of natural bivalve populations benefit seagrass growth by enriching
sediments with nutrients (Peterson and Heck 2001). Oysters in particular have a high filtration
rate and they improve water clarity, which benefits SAV (Newell and Koch 2004). Aquaculture
of oysters can be an effective tool for removing excess nutrients from eutrophic estuarine
systems (Higgins et al. 2011). Further, the gear used for growing oysters may be effective
structured habitat for fish and shellfish (Dealteris et al. 2004; O'Beirn et al. 2004; Tallman and
Forrester 2007; Erbland & Ozbay 2008). Thus, the overall effect of shellfish aquaculture on net
ecosystem service delivery (e.g., provision of fish habitat) in areas including SAV may be
negative, positive, or neutral based on the relative balance among the factors above.
An environmental impact study is needed for oyster aquaculture in North Carolina
North Carolina has one of the highest estuarine surface areas in the U.S. However, the
growth of the oyster aquaculture industry has been stagnant and earns less than $600,000
annually (NC Rur. Econ. Devel. Cent. 2013). States to the north of NC have experienced rapid
growth of oyster aquaculture. The value of this industry in states like Virginia and Rhode Island
far exceeds even the wild oyster fishery in NC, which is among the top five most valuable state
fisheries, averaging $2.3 million in sales annually since 2000 (NCDMF). Given the expansion of
the oyster aquaculture industry in neighboring states, NC appears to be poised for increases in
farmed oyster production. Indeed, a bill was proposed to the general assembly of NC in early
2015 that would strengthen and protect the oyster industry (NC General Assembly, Session
2015). Provisions in the bill include an examination of obstacles that prevent oyster lease
establishment and a plan to enhance oyster aquaculture in NC.
Current policy in NC prevents new oyster aquaculture leases from being established over
any amount of current or historic SAV presence, which may contribute to slow industry growth
(refer to letters of support from NC Shellfish Growers Association, J. Daniels, S. Stowe, J.
Styron). While SAV habitat only comprises 7% of estuarine area in NC, many of these areas are
ideal for oyster aquaculture, such as eastern Pamlico Sound and Core Sound (NC Coastal Habitat
Protection Plan 2005; Allen et al. 2014). Policy makers in NC are facing pressure from industry
participants to allow oyster culture leases to overlap with SAV habitat (refer to letters of support
from NC Shellfish Growers Association, J. Daniels, S. Stowe, J. Styron). Unfortunately,
available published research has a limited capacity to inform NC policy regarding interactions
between oyster aquaculture and SAV communities for two major reasons. First, there have been
no studies on the U.S. Atlantic coast that have examined oyster lease impacts on seagrass. Local
studies are important because the unique environmental characteristics of an area may affect the
impact of aquaculture gear. For example, the large tidal amplitude of 4 m probably influenced
the high degree of sediment scouring observed around oyster racks in an Oregon estuary (Evereo
et al. 1995). For comparison, tidal range in Pamlico Sound, NC is typically under 0.5 m. NorthW
Carolina also differs from previous study areas because SAV communities consist of mixed blj� o
W LM
C)
W

containing both Zostera marina and Halodule wrightii; all previous published work has been
conducted in habitats with only Zostera.
The second reason NC policy change is limited by previous research is that there are
regional differences in culture methods, and the impact of growing oysters is highly dependent
on the particular method used (Everett et al. 1995; Wisehart et al. 2007; Tallis et al. 2009). Thus
any impact study needs to be conducted with culture gear that is used locally. Two common
methods for growing oysters in NC, and the east coast U.S. in general, are floating bags and
bottom cages that rest on the sea floor (O'Beirn et al. 2004; Erbland and Ozbay 2008; Allen et al.
2014). The impact of floating bag culture on seagrass has been examined in Canada (Skinner et
al. 2013) and New Zealand (Buhner et al. 2012). Despite a shading effect (Skinner et al. 2014),
floating bags appear to minimize mechanical damage to SAV, and variable amounts of seagrass
can persist within a lease. However, the value of floating cage oyster culture as fish and shellfish
habit has not been examined.
In contrast to floating cages it can be expected that bottom cages will severely impact the
seagrass it is placed over. However, there has been no work examining the spatial footprint these
cages leave on SAV and it is unknown if seagrass can persist in between cages. The value of
bottom cages as fish habitat has been examined in Delaware (Erbland and Ozbay 2008) and
Rhode Island (Dealteris et al. 2004; Tallman and Forrester 2007), and evidence suggests that
they function similar to other structured habitats. However, only one of these studies compared
oyster cages with SAV habitat (Dealteris et al. 2004). Further, Tallman and Forrester (2007)
show that the utilization of bottom cages as habitat is species -specific and that the fish
community differs between oyster aquaculture gear and natural rocky habitats. This suggests that
local studies are necessary to understand the species composition around oyster culture leases.
From a fisheries management perspective, if the abundance of economically important species
around oyster leases were high, then these areas would be considered valuable artificial habitat
(even if aquaculture has slight -to -moderate impacts on SAV). Currently, there is little known
about how NC fauna interact with oyster culture gear. The most useful study available shows that
the habitat value of hard clam Mercenaria mercenaria aquaculture in NC is similar to seagrass
beds (Powers et al. 2007). However, similar data are needed for oyster leases because of large
differences in gear and maintenance compared to clam culture.
OBJECTIVES
If NC policy regarding SAV protection changed, newly established oyster leases would
act as patches of modified seagrass habitat within the broader landscape (Skinner et al. 2014;
Dumbauld and McCoy 2015). The changes in ecosystem services within these altered patches
need to be quantified using metrics that are useful for policy makers and stakeholders (Pendleton
et al. 2015). Unlike previous studies, which have focused on either seagrass or nekton, we
propose to examine changes within the entire SAV community. Specifically we will A) quantify
how seagrass shoot density and percent cover changes when oyster culture gear is established in
a SAV area, B) create visual tools using high -frequency sonar imaging to present a before -and -
after look at how these habitat patches change when a lease is established, and C) determine how
fishes and decapod crustaceans utilize an area that is converted to oyster culture by coupling
sonar -based technology with traditional sampling. These objectives will be accomplished for
both floating bag and bottom cage oyster culture methods.
Previous studies that have examined the effects of oyster aquaculture have compared
preexisting leases to reference sites (but see Buhner et al. 2012; Skinner et al. 20101!laa E V E D
MAR 15 2017
DCM- V.1-ID CITY

approach has limitations, because baseline, and sometimes location -unique, conditions that were
present before an oyster lease was established are unknown. Thus there is potential bias in using
results from these studies to quantify how an area will change when a lease is established. We
propose to overcome these limitations by utilizing a Multiple Before After Control Impact
(MBACI) ANOVA experimental design (Underwood 1994). Using this approach, multiple
replicate plots (each —60 m2) will be sampled repeatedly through time. Baseline conditions in all
plots will be estimated in year 1 to determine the level of natural variation between sites. A
random selection of plots will then be "impacted" by establishing small-scale oyster culture
leases, while the rest remain unmanipulated controls. Sampling in year 2 will then quantify the
environmental impact of the oyster leases by revealing the comparative temporal change in
"impacted" versus "control" sites. The value of this approach is in collecting baseline data in
SAV habitats before oyster cages impact an area so that an accurate estimate of change in habitat
variables, that are responding to aquaculture specifically, can be determined.
Using DIDSON technology for unbiased sampling
Measuring the habitat value of aquaculture leases is difficult because the culture gear
prevents most traditional net -sampling methods. As a result, most studies that have examined the
communities associated with oyster culture gear have been limited in scope, and sampling gear is
typically not standardized between culture gear and reference sites (Dealteris et al. 2004;
O'Beirn et al. 2004; Erbland and Ozbay 2008). Further, these studies used highly size -selective
gear and sampling has been restricted to fauna that are tightly associated with oyster cages.
Tallman and Forrester (2007) used, standardized gear between habitats and reduced size
selectivity by deploying multiple types of trap. However, their analysis was limited to four
species and their reference sampling sites were not in
seagrass habitat. Therefore, an accurate measure of
the abundance, size composition, and species
diversity of the fauna utilizing oyster cages remains
unknown.
The proposed work will overcome the
limitations of previous research by utilizing Dual -
frequency identification sonar (DIDSON) technology
to sample SAV communities and oyster culture gear
(Sound Metrics Corp., www.soundmetrics.com). This
technology uses transmitted sound at a much higher
frequency than traditional SONAR and can image a
volume of water extending up to 10 in, at up to 10
frames per second (Fig. 1). Further, unlike traditional
video, this technology, is effective in turbid or low -
light environments. DIDSON technology is
commonly used to estimate fish abundance, length,
species composition, and to characterize habitat
(reviewed in Able et al. 2014); fish as small as 40 mm
can readily be distinguished. This gear is particularly
suited for the proposed research, because it offers a
standardized means of sampling both oyster leases
and control sites, and it is not size -selective like
M
Fig. 1. Image from a DIDSON video
taken of a dense patch of SAV. For
examples of DIDSON videos visit
htto://w .somdmetrics.comllmaze-Gallery
0
N
Let

Fig. 2. DIDSON imagery of two aquatic
plant species (A). Fully processed 3D
image of lake bottom showing two
species of aquatic plant from DIDSON
data (B). Figure modified from Mizuno
and Asada 2014.
traditional gear. While the DIDSON sampling will represent the core of our sampling approach,
we will supplement these data with a comprehensive and standardized sampling program, which
will include quadrats to estimate seagrass metrics, fish traps, and net sampling.
The proposed work will couple a well replicated and robust experimental approach with
the most comprehensive sampling of the nekton community associated with bivalve aquaculture
gear to date. Further, we will sample two commercial leases in order to compare our
experimental results with full-scale oyster culture operations. Therefore, this work would be well
suited to address two primary hypotheses that are highly relevant for guiding policy directions in
NC.
HI: Seagrass cover declines when a lease is established in an area.
We will determine the net change in seagrass shoot density and % cover within SAV
habitat when an oyster lease is established. Further, the MBACI experimental design will allow
us to determine if the initial density or % cover of seagrass influences the overall magnitude of
impact an oyster culture lease will have, which has not been previously examined. The proposed
study would represent the first time DIDSON technology has been used to quantify seagrass
density, and we will validate this technique with conventional seagrass sampling methods. Part
of our DIDSON sampling will follow recent work that integrated DIDSON imagery with GPS
data to map out large areas of lake bottom with aquatic plants (Fig. 2, Mizuno et al. 2013;
Mizuno and Asada 2014). These maps will provide both a method of estimating seagrass density
within entire plots, and effective visual tools to examine the impact of oyster cages on SAV
communities (Fig. 2b). We believe these visual tools would be effective means of providing
context to traditional results for policy makers.
H2: Habitat value of a seagrass bed is reduced when an oyster aquaculture lease is established.
We will determine how the habitat value of a seagrass bed will change in response, to the
establishment of an oyster aquaculture lease. Specifically, we will determine changes in
abundance, size structure, biomass and species composition of the fish and shellfish community.
Responses of fish to aquaculture gear is species specific (Tallman and Forrester 2007), thus we
expect communities around an oyster lease to differ from the surrounding SAV habitat. To fully
estimate habitat value, the entire nekton community must be sampled, including larger
individuals and transient species. This is because larger predators also utilize sea ss habitats as
9RECEIVED
MAR 15 2017
__ _D__CM-_11t;✓HD

foraging areas (Fodrie et al. 2015). Our use of DIDSON for sampling will overcome many of the
size -selective biases of traditional gear, and allow us to estimate the abundance of juveniles and
larger predators. Further, this would be one of the first applications of DIDSON in any
aquaculture setting and would represent the most accurate comparison of fish abundance and size
structure between shellfish -culture gear and the habitats they impact. Supplemental trap and net
sampling will make up for limitations of DIDSON sampling for the small (< 40 mm) individuals,
and species composition information.
METHODOLOGY
Manipulative experiment in Pamlico Sound
Fifteen replicate sites in Pamlico Sound near Hatteras, NC will be chosen in May 2016.
Each site will be 6 x 10 in and delineated with markers anchored in the substrate. Replicate sites
will have average seagrass coverage between 10 and 25°/u, which will be determined by
randomly placed quadrats. There will be a minimum distance of 50 in between sites. No oyster
cages will be present during the summer of 2016, so sampling that year will provide baseline
conditions for replicate plots and be used to estimate natural variation due to seasonal effects and
differences between sites. Following year-1 sampling, in September of 2016, replicates will
randomly be assigned to one of three treatments (fully crossed design): bottom cages (75 mm
oysters at onset), floating bags (4 mm oysters at onset), or unmanipulated controls. North
Carolina represents the southernmost limit of Z. marina, which is a cool -water species, and
aboveground biomass is at its lowest in early fall (Jarvis et al. 2012). Conversely, H. wrightii
biomass declines during winter (Kowalski et al. 2009). Therefore, establishing the experimental
plots during September of 2016 ensures that our small-scale, mock leases will be in place before
the 2017 growing season of Z. marina begins, and many months before 2017 growth of H.
wrightii.
To accurately replicate industry practices, bottom cage plots will consist of two rows of
three triple stacked cages (1 x 1 x 0.5 m) that rest on the bottom (Chesapeake Bay Oyster
Comp.). Floating -bag plots will consist of two 10 in rows, each consisting of ten oyster bags (1 x
0.5 m) that are fastened in series to a line, which is anchored to the substrate at each end. The
rows of both bottom cages and floating bags will be 3 m apart, which allows passage of a boat
for maintenance. We will culture triploid Crassostrea virginica, which is typical for the east
coast U.S. Oysters are held in multiple mesh bags within culture gear, up until they reach 25 mm.
The maintenance schedule of culture gear is variable throughout the year and is done mostly by
boat, using a winch to lift gear onboard. In addition to periodic defouling of cages, the oysters
need to be tumbled routinely to prevent them from clumping together. Tumbling is done
mechanically and oysters are removed from culture gear and resorted by size during the process.
During the 2017 sampling season, each floating bag or cage will be tumbled on a weekly basis.
We will periodically estimate the abundance and species composition of nekton that would be
affected by, and presumably not survive, the tumbling process.
All fifteen sites will be sampled four times between May and September in both 2016
(before impact) and 2017 (after impact). The timing of sampling will encompass the months of
maximum biomass for Zostera marina and Halodule wrightii (Fig. 3a; Jarvis et al. 2012).
Further, this range of sampling dates will include periods of high fish abundance in SAV habitats
(Fig. 3b) and will capture recruitment pulses of fish species spawned over a range of dates. Our
sampling schedules will be independent of gear maintenance, with the exception that they will

0.4- A
rn 0.3
m
E
E
T
v
c 0.2
0.1 -
00
Seasonal seagrass growth in NC
Seasonal fish abundance in NC seagrass
5 B
0
7 a 9 10 11
Month
Month
10 11
Fig. 3. Mean (SE) monthly above ground biomass (dry weight) per m2 of the two dominant seagrass
species within a mixed species bed in Middle Marsh, NC in 2010 (A). Mean (SE) monthly trawl
catch per unit effort (number of individuals per 10 m2) in seagrass beds within two estuarine systems
in NC between 2010-2014 (B). F.J. Fodrie lab database.
not occur on the same day. The DIDSON device will be used to track changes within specific
monitoring patches (-10 m2) at each replicate site through time. Fixtures will be embedded in the
sediment on the margin of each site to ensure consistent placements of the DIDSON device
throughout the experiment. Disturbance to the fish community while setting up DIDSON will be
minimized by 1) only one person will be in the water to set up DIDSON, 2) the boat will remain
anchored at a distance of at least 20 m, 3) the DIDSON frame will be set up 2 m outside of
replicate plots, 4) DIDSON will be left alone for 10 min after set up before activating the device
remotely. The DIDSON device will sample each site for five minutes.
Seagrass sampling will be conducted at two scales using DIDSON sampling and image
analysis software, which will be validated by the more traditional method of analyzing random
quadrats. First, fine scale sampling of SAV will be conducted within the DIDSON monitoring
patches described above, which will -be defined by the viewing field of the device (e.g. Fig. 1).
Second, large-scale sampling will consist of mapping SAV distribution within entire replicate
plots (60 m2), by integrating GPS information with DIDSON imagery (Mizuno et al. 2013;
Mizuno and Asada 2014). With this method, the DIDSON is moved along a transect, and the
device is aimed more directly at the sea floor to obtain a detailed look at above -ground SAV
biomass (Fig. 2a). Replicate plots will be mapped twice per year, corresponding to periods of
maximum growth for Zostera and Halodule. In addition to changes in SAV coverage, these maps
will quantify bathymetric changes associated with oyster cages, which is important because in
some regions oyster cages greatly influenced sedimentation rates (Everett et al. 1995).
RECEIVED
MAR 15 2017
DCM- MAD COTY

The DIDSON sampling will be validated by estimating seagrass density using quadrats
within each monitoring patch (small scale), and also within entire replicate sites (large scale). For
the small-scale measurements, three randomly placed quadrats will be sampled within the
DIDSON monitoring patch. For the large scale estimate of seagrass density we will sample along
two randomly positioned transects that cross the plot. Five quadrats will be positioned along each
transect at locations 3 m outside the replicate site, at the site margins, and in the center.
Regression analysis will be used to assess the ability of DIDSON to estimate seagrass density.
Traditional, fish sampling
To examine species composition between oyster cages and unmanipulated SAV habitats,
DIDSON sampling will be supplemented with trap and net sampling. Non -baited traps will be
deployed for 24 hours following DIDSON use. Two minnow traps with 3 mm mesh and a single
crab pot with 5 cm mesh will be set within each replicate site to sample a range of fish sizes.
Traps will be randomly placed, but will not be positioned within the permanent DIDSON
monitoring patches. Gill net sampling will also be conducted at each site. Gill nets will be
relatively short length (-20 m) and staked at each end to prevent gear entanglement.
Trap and gill net sampling may not be effective for species closely associated with oyster
cage gear. To determine species composition within both types of oyster cage we will use 1.5 x
1.5 m lift nets. A single floating cage, or one complete bottom rack, will be sampled at each
experimental site during each sampling period. For the bottom racks, the lift net will be
positioned beneath the rack two weeks before sampling, as in Dealteris et al. (2004); racks within
the DIDSON monitoring patches will not be used for lift net sampling. Complete oyster cages
will be brought into the boat within lift nets and will be opened up and flushed with water to
thoroughly remove all fauna.
Sampling commercial oyster leases
Our experimental plots (~60 mZ) are small in scale compared to commercial leases, which
may measure up to 20,000 m'(NC Marine Fisheries Commission Rules 2015). This is an
important difference, because the density of organisms in an area is often related to habitat patch
size (Eggleston et al. 1998; Meyer and Posey 2014). Therefore, to put our research into a broader
context we will sample two existing commercial oyster leases in 2017. Each lease will be
sampled twice corresponding to the peaks in Z. marina and H. wrightii. During each sampling
period, the DIDSON device will sample along two transect that range from the center of the
lease to —100 m outside of the lease. The position of transects will be chosen to encounter areas
of seagrass, while maintaining distance from shorelines. We are not choosing transects randomly
because our goal is to compare habitat value of SAV and oyster aquaculture leases; nonrandom
placement will maximize our ability to make this comparison given available resources. Five
sampling positions will be arranged along each transect to examine potential gradients in fish
abundance or size structure due to the presence of the oyster lease and SAV density. The
commercial leases we will sample are located in northern and southern Pamlico Sound, and each
contains seagrass within and surrounding the lease (refer to letters of support from owners J.
Daniels and J. Styron). By using this transect-sampling approach, we will determine what the
environmental footprint of a commercial lease consists of. Further, we will examine if there is
variation in habitat quality within the lease. For example, if lease margins are more effective fish
habitat than interior areas, then this will influence the overall habitat value of an oyster culture
plot.
`,A.
ti V
�.
� 4V 4�F��
V

Analyzing DIDSON data
Different methods will be used to estimate fish/shellfish metrics and seagrass density
using DIDSON data. Fast, Sound Metrics software will be used to estimate abundance, length
composition, and biomass of the fish and shellfish community. Each five-minute video will be
subsampled to estimate metrics of the faunal community; subsampling is necessary as
individuals may leave and reenter the DIDSON sampling field. Therefore a subsample represents
the abundance and length composition of the community within the DIDSON sampling field at a
certain time. This is done by tracking all individuals within a short sampling interval and
excluding new arrivals from the margins of the viewing -field. Lengths of individuals can be
estimated based on their linear dimension and location within the DIDSON field. Individual
weights, and cumulatively biomass, can be estimated by applying taxon-specific length -weight
relationships of fish tracked by DIDSON. We will develop these relationships for the most
common species sampled during this study. During video analysis, weights of each individual
will be determined by using the most appropriate length -weight relationship based on the
behavior of the individual (e.g. pelagic, schooling), or a generalized relationship will be applied
if an individual is difficult to categorize. Seagrass coverage from DIDSON samples will be
examined in multiple ways using ImageJ image analysis Software (Schneider et al. 2012).
Seagrass % cover and shoot density will be estimated by examining a sample of frames from
each video. We will compare methods including polygon -based area calculations of SAV
coverage, binarization of pixels based on DIDSON signal strength (Mizuno et al. 2013), and
counting individual shoots.
OUTCOMES
RELEVANCE TO NORTH CAROLINA
Our proposed research addresses multiple focus areas of the 2014-2017 North
Carolina Sea Grant Strategic Plan. Most directly, information from this project would contribute
toward improved management of `Healthy Coastal Ecosystems'. Simultaneously, this research
also promotes a `Safe and Sustainable Seafood Supply' to meet market demand in NC. An
increase in the NC oyster aquaculture industry would have a positive economic impact,
especially to small coastal communities. Based on neighboring states like Virginia, oyster culture
has the potential to greatly exceed the value of the wild oyster fishery. Restrictions on oyster
leases are set by the Army Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permit. This Permit is reviewed every
5 years, during which state -level policy changes are considered based on comments from
stakeholders and local management agencies. The proposed research would provide critical
information to inform changes to NC oyster aquaculture provisions in the Nationwide Permit.
Timing for this study is critical, because the present time may be the only opportunity to examine
the environmental impacts of oyster culture before the industry enters a period of rapid growth
like other east coast regions. Much of the literature cited in this proposal is from regions that
were already heavily cultivated (e.g. Everett et al. 1995; Tallis et al. 2009; Skinner et al. 2013).
The proposed study would provide information for options within the NC permitting
process. For example, if density of fish is higher around oyster culture gear compared to areas
that are naturally low in seagrass coverage, then allowing oyster leases over less productive
seagrass beds may enhance the overall habitat value of an area. This is a realistic possibility
because fish density and richness is positively related to % cover of seagrass in NC (Yeager et al.
in review). Policy makers will also gain the information needed to restrict permitting based on
culture gear used. For example, we expect floating bags to have lower impact py EG 8 / E D
MAR 15 2017
DCM- BIND COTY

bottom cages (Bulmer et al. 2012; Skinner et al. 2013). Further, the before -and -after visual tools
we will produce using DIDSON technology will provide a detailed look at how SAV habitat is
impacted by culture gear. This information might suggest additional measures to prevent
negative impacts.
RELEVANCE TO OTHER WORK
The primary PI is a member of the NC Marine Fisheries Commission Habitat and Water
Quality advisory committee. He conducts research on how fish utilize estuarine habitat, and
aquaculture leases are increasingly becoming a part of the habitat mosaic in coastal ecosystems.
This research would contribute to a growing body of literature that examines the effects of
shellfish aquaculture within an ecosystem context. For example, lease bottom is one habitat
classification in an ongoing study of the movement and estuarine use of red drum, black drum,
summer flounder and gray trout in the New River Estuary funded by the NC Division of Marine
Fisheries CRFL program (multiple grants and multiple PIs). The proposed NC Sea Grant
research would provide a fine -scale, mechanistic understanding of why these mobile, prized
species are either attracted to or avoid shellfish lease bottoms.
Chris Taylor is a collaborator on the proposed work and is part of the Marine Acoustics
Team at the NOAA Beaufort Lab (letter of support included). His group uses DIDSON
technology to detect fish and observe fish behavior in complex coastal and ocean habitats (e.g.,
vegetated, rock, coral reefs). This work will improve assessment options for estuarine habitats,
such as remotely estimating seagrass coverage. Further, our use of DIDSON to examine how
aquaculture practices interact with the natural environment would be a novel technique. Effective
tools to examine the ecological costs of in situ aquaculture practices are vital for managing
marine resources within an ecosystem framework. Aquaculture production, and specifically
bivalve culture, is expected to increase and will probably present a growing challenge to spatial
resource management in coastal waters. Thus this proposal would be an informative study for a
technology that continues to grow in its diversity of applications (Able et al. 2014).
If this project were funded, we will be applying for a two-yeanstudent support grant. This
project would provide the primary source of funding for a graduate student at UNC. The student
will assist with field work and will also develop a project that expands on our objectives. Further,
this student will be given the opportunity to participate in all manuscripts associated with this
work.
EXTENSION/OUTREACH PLAN
The primary goal of this project is to inform policy decisions in NC, so outreach is a high
priority. Specifically we will promote the project by: 1) the final report will be given to relevant
policy makers, including the Army Corps of Engineers, 2) we will offer to present our results to
the NC Marine Fisheries Commission and will also present at a regional American Fisheries
Society meeting in early 2018, 3) results will be published in peer reviewed journals, 4) this
project involves collaboration with Carteret Community College's aquaculture program, which
will be growing the oysters to be used in the study (see David Cerino letter of support). Further,
the project lead will present the final results to the aquaculture department students, 5) word of
mouth communication between stakeholders in the oyster aquaculture community will be
enhanced because our research involves collaborations with three active members of the industry
in NC, and 6) oysters produced from this project will be donated to an annual function pud f
RE
MAR 15 2017
DCM_ R"AHD CI�°�

the NC Coastal Federation ("Shellebration" in early 2018); multiple PI's and collaborators will
be present to discuss the project results.
,0N) 7�71►/:VY[�7►1
PROPOSAL TEAMROLES
• Joel Fodrie—lead PI; provide lab facilities to base the project at UNC Institute of Marine
Sciences; field work oversight; manuscript editing; ensure timely report submission
• James Morley —technical lead; all aspects of manuscript prep; field work, presentations
• Katherine McGlade—grow the oysters and maintain experimental plots as aquaculture
leases; field work; extension of results
• Abigail Poray— field work; manuscript prep and editing; presentations
EXISTING OR PROPOSED PARTNERSHIPS
The proposed work is a highly collaborative effort and involves members from the scientific
community, stakeholders in the oyster aquaculture industry of NC, and educators in the
aquaculture field. We have included letters of support from all of our proposed collaborators.
• Spurgeon Stowe, Jay Styron, and Joey Daniels own commercial leases within the
oyster aquaculture industry. Spurgeon is working with the PIs on the project to
maintain and operate our small-scale, experimental oyster leases. Jay and Joey are
allowing us to sample their commercial leases, which are each over five years old, to
put the experimental results into a broader context.
• J. Christopher Taylor is a scientist at the National Center for Coastal Ocean Science
within NOAA's Beaufort Laboratory. He will provide technical expertise with
DIDSON technology, which is being obtained from the NOAA lab. He will also be
involved with manuscript preparation.
• David Cerino is the Aquaculture Coordinator at Carteret Community College in
Morehead City, NC. Under his supervision, students in the college's aquaculture
program will be raising the juvenile oysters to be used in this experiment.
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. The PIs have a
history of sound and productive data management (e.g. Sea Grant, NOAA-MARFIN, and NSF)
to support this claim. This accessibility to data and metadata provides a mechanism for
distributing information to researchers, students, coastal zone managers, and educational users as
well as to the public. Team members will work with Fodrie to monitor the overall status of the
project's information dissemination activities. Technicians, students and PIs will maintain the
highest standards for data quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC), maintenance, and access.
The latest techniques and federal standards will be incorporated in the data collection and
management program, from automated data entry and QA/QC programs to the use of software
that provides for Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) compliant metadata. The status
of data management will be reviewed annually at project meetings to ensure that communication
and oversight is constant and accurate.
RECEIVED
MAR 15 2017
DCM- KIND CITY

Analysis of data management needs
For each research activity, all data will be stored in both raw and edited formats. Field
notebooks will be stored at the UNC Institute of Marine Science. Data entry into Microsoft
Excel software will be checked using both manual and automated techniques. Field data will be
geographically referenced using hand-held GPS units. GPS data will be differentially corrected
and stored as NAD83 UTM coordinates. For environmental data sets, we will use the "Content
Standard for National Biological Information Infrastructure Metadata (version 1998)".
Metamaker, developed by the NBS, or an equivalent metadata generator will be used to develop
metadata for all field data. The metadata will be made part of the NBII, FGDC, or CID
searchable metadata clearinghouses.
Data management
A data manager (designated by Fodrie) will ensure the compliance by PIs for data and
metadata contributions. A timetable will be developed to ensure that databases are available,
finalized, and documented within an acceptable time frame. The proposed new data will be made
available on open -access web page(s) (see below) after a 24 month holding period for QA/QC
and analyses.
Data archiving and availability to the public
Summary data and metadata will be made available via a web portal. Utilizing a web
browser, data tables and graphics will be accessible to a variety of computing platforms. A
central web page will be developed at the Institute of Marine Sciences with links to the project's
component web pages and data at the participating PIs individual project research institutions.
PIs will be responsible for maintaining and updating metadata and primary data in a timely
manner and posting these on the interactive website, available to all users.
Able KW, Grothues TM, Rackovan JL, Buderman FE (2014) Application of monbile dual -
frequency indentifrcation sonar (DIDSON) to fish in estuarine habitats. Northeast. Nat. 21:192-
209
Allen J, Grady Q, et al. (2014) The Oyster Banks: a dive into the political, scientific, and social
realms of oysters and oyster aquaculture in North Carolina. Accessed (June, 2015):
https://www.ie.unc.edu/for_students/courses/capstone/14/0BXFS_2014_Capstone.pdf
Beck MW, Heck KL, et al. (2001) The identification, conservation, and management of estuarine
and marine nurseries for fish and invertebrates. BioScience. 51:633-641
Beutel D (2014) Aquaculture in Rhode Island: 2014 Coastal Resource Management Council
annual status report. Accessed (June 2015): http://www.crmc.ri.gov/aquaculture.html
Bulmer R, Kelly S, Jeffs AG (2012) Hanging basket oyster farming: assessing effects on
seagrass using aerial photography. Aquacult. Environ. Interact. 2:285-292
Crowder L A�Qsherenko G, et al. (2006) Resolving mismatches in U.S. ocean governance.
SCepc� W7-618
MNO G`��
OGM

Dahlgren CP, Kellison GT (2006) Marine nurseries and effective juvenile habitats: concepts and
applications. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 312:291-295
"Dealteris JT, Kilpatrick BF, Rheault RB (2004) A comparative evaluation of the habitat value of
shellfish aquaculture gear, submerged aquatic vegetation and a non -vegetated seabed. J. Shellfish
Res. 23:867-874
Dumbauld BR, McCoy LM (2015) Effect of oyster aquaculture on seagrass Zostera marina at
the estuarine landscape scale in Willapa Bay, Washington (USA) Aquacult. Environ. Interact.
7:29-47
Dumbauld BR, Ruesink JL, Rumrill SS (2009) The ecological role of bivalve shellfish
aquaculture in the estuarine environment: a review with application to oyster and clam culture in
West Coast (USA) estuaries. Aquaculture. 290:196-223
Eggleston DB, Etherington LL, Elis WE (1998) Organism response to habitat patchiness: species
and habitat dependant recruitment of decapod crustaceans. J. Exp. Mar. Bio. Ecol. 223:111-132
Erbland PJ, Ozbay G (2008) A comparison of the macrofaunal communities inhabiting a
Crassostrea virginica oyster reef and oyster aquaculture gear in Indian River Bay, Delaware. J.
Shellfish Res. 27:757-768
Everett RA, Ruiz GM, Carlton JT (1995) Effect of oyster mariculture on submerged aquatic
vegetation: an experimental test in a Pacific Northwest estuary. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 125:205-
217
Fodrie FJ, YeagerLA, Grabowski JH, Layman CA, Sherwood GD, Kenworthy MD (2015)
Measuring individuality in habitat use across complex landscapes: approaches, constraints, and
implications for assessing resource specialization. Oecologia 178:75-87
Heck KL, Hays G, Orth RJ (2003) Critical evaluation of the nursery role hypothesis for seagrass
meadows. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 253:123-136
Higgins CB, Stephenson K, Brown BL (2011) Nutrient bioassimilation capacity of aquacultured
oysters: quantification of an ecosystem service. J. Envir. Qual. 40:271-277
Jarvis JC, Moore Kenneth AM, Kenworthy WJ (2012) Characterization and ecological
implication of eelgrass life history strategies near the species southern limit in the western North
Atlantic. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 444:43-56
Kowalski JL, DeYoe HR, Allison TC (2009) Seasonal production and biomass of the seagrass,
Halodule wrightii Aschers. (shoal grass), in a subtropical Texas lagoon. Estuar. Coast. 32:467-
482
McGinnis MV, Collins M (2015) A race for marine space: science, values, and aquaculture
planning in New Zealand. Coast. Manage. 41:401-419 RECEIVED
MAR 15 2017
DCM- ASHD CITY

Meyer DL, Posey MH (2014) Influence of salt marsh size and landscape setting on salt marsh
nekton populations. Estuar. Coast. 37:548-560
Mizuno K, Abukawa K, et al. (2013) Quantification of whooper swan damage to lotus habitats
using high -resolution acoustic imaging sonar in Lake Izunuma, Japan. Aquat. Bot. 110:48-54
Misuno K, Asada A (2014) Three dimensional mapping of aquatic plants at shallow lakes using
1.8 MHz high -resolution acoustic imaging sonar and image processing technology. IEEE Inter.
Ultrasonics Sympos. Proceed. DOI: 10. 1 109/ULTSYM.2014.0342
Newell RIE, Koch EW (2004) Modeling seagrass density and distribution in response to changes
in turbidity stemming from bivalve filtration and seagrass sediment stabilization. Estuaries.
27:793-806
North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries (2005) Chapter 4: submerged aquatic vegetation. In.
Coastal Habitat Protection Plan. Accessed (June 2015): http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/mf/66
North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries. (2014) Commercial landings query tool. Accessed
(April, 2015): htq2://Vortal.ncdenr.org/web/mf/statistics/comstat
North Carolina General Assembly (2015) Bill# H302: An act to strengthen and protect the oyster
industry in North Carolina. Sponsored by Representatives Tine, McEhaft, Millis, and Harrison.
Accessed (April, 2015): ham://mobile.ncleg.net/Sessions/2015Bills/HOuse/HTMLJH302vO.htnll
North Carolina Marine fisheries Commission (2015) North Carolina Marine Fisheries
Commission Rules. Accessed (May 2015): http://portal.nedenr.org/web/mf/rules-and-regulations
North Carolina Rural Economic Development Center (2013) A comparative case study of
Virginia and North Carolina's oyster aquaculture development. Accessed (April, 2015):
http://nsgl.gso.uri.edu/ncu/ncus I 3003pdf
O'Beirn FX, Ross PG, Luckenbach MW (2004) Organisms associated with oysters cultured in
floating systems in Virginia, USA. J. Shellfish Res. 23:825-829
Orth RJ, Carruthers TJB, et al. (2006) A global crisis for seagrass ecosystems. BioScience.
56:987-996
Pendleton L, Mongruel R, et al. (2015) A triage approach to improve the relevance of marine
ecosystem services assessments. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 530:183-193
Peterson BJ, Heck, KL (2001) Positive interactions between suspension -feeding bivalves ands
seagrass-a facultative mutualism. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 213:143-155
Pikitch EK, Santora C, et al. (2004) Ecosystem -Based Fishery Management. Science. 3016- ti V
347 V ,y �R
`V i
Q�

Power MJ, Peterson CH, Summerson HC, Powers SP (2007) Macroalgal growth on bivalve
aquaculture netting enhances nursery habitat for mobile invertebrates and juvenile fishes. Mar.
Ecol. Prog. Ser. 339:109-122
Schneifer CA, Rasband WS, Eliceiri KW (2012) NIH image to imageJ: 25 years of image
analysis. Nat. Method. 9:671-675
Skinner MA, Courtenay SC, McKindsey CW (2013) Reductions in distribution, photosynthesis,
and productivity of eelgrass Zostera marina associated with oyster Crassostrea virginica
aquaculture. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 486:105-119
Skinner MA, Courtenay SC, et al. (2014) Experimental determination of the effects of light
limitation from suspended bag oyster (Crassostrea virginica) aquaculture on the structure and
photosynthesis of eelgrass (Zostera marina). J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 459:169-180
Sobeck E (2014) Sustainable shellfish aquaculture: a message from Eileen Sobeck, head of
NOAA Fisheries. Accessed (June 2015):
http://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/aboutus/leadership_message.html
Tallis HM, Ruesink JL, et al. (2009) Oysters and aquaculture practices affect eelgrass density
and productivity in a Pacific Northwest estuary. J. Shellfish Res. 2:251-261
Tallman JC, Forrester GE (2007) Oyster grow -out cages function as artificial reefs for temperate
fishes. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc.136:790-799
Underwood AJ (1994) On beyond BACI: sampling designs that might reliably detect
environmental disturbances. Ecol. Applicat. 4:3-15
Wisehart LM, Dumbauld BR, Ruesink JL, Hacker SD (2007) Importance of eelgrass early life
history stages in response to oyster aquaculture disturbace. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 344:71-80
Yeager LA, Keller DA et al. (in review) Threshold effects of habitat fragmentation per se on fish
diversity at landscapes scales. Ecol. Letter.
RESULTS FROM PRIOR RESEARCH
Joel Fodrie has served as lead PI on multiple Sea Grant funded projects, including the
ongoing project "Understanding the impacts of climate change on the distribution, population
connectivity, and fisheries for summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus) in the Mid -Atlantic"
(2014-R/MARRI4NJ-1). His most -recently completed project was "Turning Negatives into
Postivies: Recycling Derelict Crab Pots as Substrate for Shallow -Water Oyster Reef Production"
(2011-EP-08). The overall objective of this proposal was to initiate an oyster restoration program
that utilized recycled (formerly derelict) crab pots as novel substrate for oyster settlement and
growth. Our research operated across both entire estuarine (several km) and tidal creek (100s of
m) scales to assess the efficacy of alternative pot preparations (substrate type), pot deployment
location across salinity or aerial exposure gradients, and pot migration strategies as mobile
laboratories within tidal creeks to enhance oyster reefs. In total, we deployed 528 RecoV E D
MAR 15 2017
DCM- NIND CITY

pots in NC to support enhanced oyster settlement and reef development. In Phase I of our study,
we focused on several basic questions related to the `best practices' of this approach. We found
that coating crab pots in cement significantly increased the density of attached oysters within 1-
to-2 years post pot deployment. Moreover, we found that pots deployed intertidally in central NC
supported significantly more oysters that pots deployed subtidally (likely owing to greater
predation pressure and biofouling subtidally in the high -salinity waters in which we conducted
our study).
Building from these findings, in Phase II of our work we developed an approach for
enhancing oyster reefs in the subtidal portions of tidal creeks. Intertidal oyster communities are
common in the higher salinity areas near the mouths of tidal creeks, but typically only sparse
intertidal and subtidal communities occur in the creeks' upper regions. Although the lower
salinities of upper creek areas should enhance subtidal oyster communities, less available hard
substrates and lower numbers of oyster larvae reaching these areas are thought to limit upper
creek oyster reef development. Our project enhanced oyster populations in the upper reaches of
tidal creeks by deploying refurbished, concrete -coated crab pots as oyster substrate in the lower
portions of six tidal creeks (where settlement is high), and then subsequently migrating the
oyster -coated crab pots to areas farther up -creek where salinity regimes are favorable for reef
development (i.e., enhanced individual oyster growth and survival). In both project Phases,
mobile nekton such as sheepshead, gray snapper, pigfish, and stone crabs were found utilizing
the recycled crab pots as oyster -reef habitat, suggesting that this approach may also contribute to
greater secondary (fisheries) production in our estuaries. We anticipate that successful
enhancement of tidal creek oyster populations will help improve coastal water quality.
Furthermore, we are introducing a novel "migrating reefs" restoration ideology that could help
sustain North Carolina oyster populations imperiled by increasing saltwater intrusion into the
sounds brought about by channelization of waterways, greater storminess, and rising sea levels.
A manuscript is currently being prepared for submission to Ecology based on this research (with
former undergraduate technician as lead author).
James Morley completed a Fishery Resource Grant (report# 13-FEG-03) with Kenneth
Seigler, a local fisherman, through NC Sea Grant in 2014 entitled "Alternative fishing
opportunities for white shrimp and menhaden: testing the efficiency of the lampara seine". This
study determined that a lampara seine, which is often used to target pelagic fish, is effective at
targeting white shrimp in estuarine waters with minimal bycatch. An online video was produced
(hUps•//www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbLlvTOYYZkc) to promote this gear as a viable option for
inshore fishers. A manuscript is currently being prepared for submission to Fish and Fisheries.
SUGGESTED PEER REVIEWERS (MINIMUM OF 3 — NOT FROM NORTH CAROLINA)
Bradley J. Peterson, Associate Professor, Marine Sciences Research Center
Stony Brook University, Stony Brook; NY 11968
[phone] e-mail: [e-mail]
Graham E. Forrester, Professor, Department of Natural Resources Science
University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI 02881
[phone] e-mail: [e-mail]
Jennifer L Ruesink, Professor, Department of Biology
p ECj G �l
University of Washington, Seattle WA 98195
[phone] e-mail: [e-mail]
MAR 15

Attachment B. Additional notes on proposed gear deployment.
Engineering and Gear:
Gear will be deployed in 2017 and recovered no later than 2019. At the conclusion of the
study, gears will be stored at the Institute of Marine Sciences — to be used in future research.
- Standard commercial grade lines, connectors, bags, floats, and racks are being used (see
attached plats and photos).
- Lines for floating bags will be anchored to sand screws. Sand screws will be positioned outside
of seagrass, and within unvegetated bottom. Given the patchy nature of the grass beds at our
study site, lines will generally have to extend only 5-10 to reach unvegetated bottom.
- 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 weekly by our partnering commercial
fisherman (S. Stowe) for maintenance, at 4+ times each year by our research team monitoring
seagrass condition and nekton composition/abundance.
- All waste will be removed from the site and deposited in waste/recycling facilities.
- In the event of an approaching storm (tropical storm, hurricane), all floating bags will be
moved in to protected water near harbor) by S. Stowe in accordance with his approach on his
nearby lease. In extreme storm evens, floating bags would be moved on land temporarily (24-
48 hours). This is feasible since we have 100 floating bags being deployed. Post storm, the study
area will be closely inspected for debris, which would be removed. We would also walk and
patrol (by boat) the shoreline in all of Sandy Bay, and remove any debris (e.g., VEXAR, lines, etc.
Site:
- At low tide, the study experiences depths between 0.75-1.25m. At high tide, depths range
between 1.0-1.5m. The mean astronomical tide is ` 0.25m, and the site does experience
meteorological tides. Tidal currents are low at this site (>0.2m/s; by comparison, the Gulf
Stream has an average flow rate between 1-2m/s). The predominant wind directions are SW in
the summer and NE in the winter. Within Sandy Bay, our site is protected from the major
fetches associated with those winds by Hatteras (SW winds) and the barrier islands long Hwy 12
(NE winds). During 16 days spent at the site in 2016, chop at the site was negligible except on
one day. The commercial lease to our NNW would be considered "more exposed", and has not
experienced significant problems related to rough seas during typical weather patterns.
RECEIVED
P9�^ 15 Z017
DCM- R"HD CITY

- Sea Grant staff (Chuck Weirich) visited the site in summer 2016, during a meeting with our
partnering commercial fisherman (S. Stowe) [a visit was also made to S. Stowe's nearby
commercial lease]. Sediments at the nearby lease would have been evaluated per NCDMF
protocols for establishing leases. The sediments are "sandy" in nature.
- Seagrass cover 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 Carolina waters by the North Carolina Department of Marine
Fisheries, and there is no record that we are aware of that shows shellfish/hard bottom on the
shoals we are proposing to conduct our research on. Based on multiple site visits in 2016, 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 conducted repeated sampling of seagrass cover
during 2016, and documented seagrass cover>15% at the landscape scale (seasonally
averaged, including samples from late in the year when most above -ground biomass has
senesced; Attachments C2-5). In 360 individual 0.25mz quadrat samples, seagrass cover ranged
between 0-100% given the patchy nature of the seagrass at this site (even within all 15 of our
"'100m2 study plots, this range was observed). In conversations with DCM and DMF staff, we
are confident this site would currently be excluded under current management schemes from
shellfish leasing. Recently, S. Stowe considered this area but was advised by DMF staff that
seagrass cover greatly exceeded allowable thresholds.
- There is currently ambiguity regarding the impacts of aquaculture gear on estuarine habitats
such as seagrass, as well as structure associated nekton, arising largely from the relative dearth
of information of the ecosystem injury/benefits associated with shellfish leases (refer to funded
proposal narrative). The purpose of this study is to evaluate, via direct experimentation, the
potential effects of bag/rack gears (including related maintenance activities) on seagrass and
nekton. Given the short effective dispersal distances of eelgrass seeds (Livernois et al.
submitted), and relatively low flow rates at this site, we anticipate minimal impacts related to
the flux of seeds (or other wrack/detritus) across this landscape.
Livernois, MC,1H Grabowski, AK Poray, TC Gouhier, AR Hughes, KF O'Brien, LA Yeager, and FJ
Fodrie (submitted) Effects of habitat fragmentation on Zostera marina seed distribution.
Aquatic Botany
- The novel use of DIDSON technology will allow us to consider both the very local impacts of
aquaculture gear on seagrass and estuarine nekton (CPUE), as well as the effect at broader,
landscape scales (10-100s meters). This could be accomplished via a "moving the lawn"
sampling approach across the entire study site to map seagrass and nekton distribution.
RECEI'VED
MAR 15 2017
DCM- MHD CITY

Attachment 61. Plat of floating bag treatments.
Top -down View
---3_25m---
Cross-section View
lm
---p ,----- - - - - -
,
Oyster Bags
Floats `
of
t
u
Q
IAve. Depth ^ 1.5m
Notes:
(1) Floating bag treatments will be replicated across 5 study
plots (see site maps in Attachment C).
(2) Anchor lines will extend far enough to be anchored (via
sand screw) within unvegetated, sandy bottom. Given the
patchy nature of seagrass beds at this site, sandy areas are
generally available within 5-10 m of each survey area.

Attachment B2. Floating bags at the lease of Jay Styron, which will be sampled as an additional component of this research (see project
narrative). The individual bag dimensions and spacing between lines shown here are representative of the gears we will deploy.
0
n
n
M
n
m_
0
^_
C
O
^)
`
V
1,T
1
0

Attachment B3. Plat of bottom cage treatments.
Top -down View
8m
Q7 ---- - - - - - -
I 3.25m
EI Mn __ ___ _ ___
1
I
I
I
I
I A A A A A A A A
I AA AA AAAAA
A AA AJC �A AA
�I AA AA AA A A
Jt1AAJC�A AA
T� I �jtA1AAA A�JI
y A AA AAAAA
C I J� JIJC�A JC �A JC�A
A A AA AA A A
A AAAA AAA
{(SL] I AAAAAAAA
A AAAA AAA
AA AA A
�I
Qi I
�I
�I
I
I
I
v O
� n
Q N
n o
m
v
Ui
1-4
Oyster Cages
0
Cross-section View (showing
portions of 2 of 6 stacks per
plot)
---------,
E
I
AAAAAAAAA �, F.A
A AAAAAAA 1°�
I
v v x x x u x x 0 1 x
Notes:
(1) Bottom rack treatments will be replicated across 5
study plots (see site maps in Attachment C).

Hatteras
100 m
Existing Lease
m
n
Observed course
% w Research for wind surfers
Site
Kayak/ wind
surfer access
point
J
`Goog e Earth

Attachment C2. Map of proposed research site.
Among the 15 plots
diagrammed here within
our study area, 5 plots
will be used as non -
manipulated controls.
We will deploy floating
bags (2 lines of 10 bags —
standard commercial
designs) at 5 other plots
as described in our work
plats. In the remaining 5
plots, we will deploy
bottom racks (6 stacks of
3 cages) as described in
our work plats.
The assignment of plots
as "control", "floating
bag", or "bottom rack'
will be random per
standard research
protocol.

o
O u
tN m
c» v ao v
RECEIVED
C 0 Q i
L CL z
MAR 15 2017
;_ '
o a L
DCM- KIND CITY

Attachment C4. Photos from
proposed research site. Note
patchy seagrass cover
surrounding researcher (cover
quantified using replicate
quadrates and DIDSON (stand
in foreground) scanning.
n m
'
0
r� M
�
cr.
m

Attachment C5. Photos from
proposed research site. Note
seagrass cover in the
foreground (vessel of
partnering commercial
fishermen S. Stowe in the
distance).
E
�
�
n
m
v
^'
m

North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries
Proof of Purchase
UPDATE : Scientific or Educational Collection Permit : Permit Number 706481
Permit Number: 706481 NC Residency:
Sales Outlet :
DMF Morehead City Office
Permit Year: 2017 Qualifying Product :
Terminal Number : MLHENSLEY
Effective Date/rime; 01/012017 00:00
Fee:
0.00
Expiration Datevrime : 1213112017 23:59 Status : Active
Issue Datelrime : 12/19/2016 11:05 Status Date: 12/19/2016
Permit Holder: 729210 UNC INSTITUTE OF MARINE SCIENCES
Business Type:
Physical Address : 3431 ARENDELL STREET,
Mailing Address:
MOREHEAD CITY, NC, 28557
United States
County : Carteret
County
Race :
Eya :
Weight:
Gender: Date of Birth :
Hair:
Height :
h. Inches
Home Phone: PrimaryRaidence: NC
Prior Noma:
Business Phone : [phone] Secondary Residence
Fix: [phone]
Ids:
E-Mail
Business Agent : 1176346 FODRIE, FREDRICK JOEL
Physical Address : 1156 STRAITS RD,
Mailing Address
SMYRNA, NC, 29579
United States
County: Carteret
County:
Rau: Caucasian
Eyes: Hazel
Weight:
Gander: Male Date of Birth 12/21/1976
Heir: Bmvm
Height:
6 R 4 Inches
Home Phone: Primary Residence : NC
Prior Noma:
Business Phone : [phone] Secondary Residents :
Fax:
Ids:
&Mad : [e-mail]
Contact Information
Contact Person
Contact Person DOB
Contact Person Telephone 9
FREDRICK JOEL FODRIE
12/21/1976
Purpose of Collection
X Research
X Teaching Specimens
Educational Display (Aquariums)
Other (specify)
Collectors
Panici antld Name
DOB
Contact Phone
DR. CHARLES H. PETERSON (PETE)
02118/1946
(252) 726ld41
DR. NEILS LINDQUIST
01/01/1959
(252) 72&6941
ABIGAIL PORAY
07/15/1981
(252) 7266841
CHRISTINE V OSS
05/09/1960
(252) 7266841
JEREMY BRADDY
09/05/1979
(252) 7266841
VITZ
[phone]
MEREDITH BURKE RECEIVED
04109/1992
[phone]
DR. JOHN BRUNO -
10/13/1965
(252) 7266841
GLENN � JR.
15
2017
STACY DAVIS MAR
07/19/1963
(252) 7266941
PHILLIP HERBST
07/09/1987
[phone]
DR. MIKE PIEHLER
-s8,yj5/'968
[phone]
SUZANNE THOMPSON p M _ !\�
f { p C i 03 04/1962
[phone]
JOEL FODRIE
12/21/1976
(252) 7266941
TONY WHIPPLE
04119/1963
(252) 7266841
J IPOCK
07t2V1956
(252) 7266841
PATRICK BARRETT
12/31/1991
(252) 7266941
ALEXANDER REQUARTH
09/20/1995
(252) 7266841
HANNAH AICHELMAN
06110/1992
(252) 7266841
DMF Mmehced City Office, 3441 Arc dell S" PO Box 769, Mort eed City NC., 28557-0769 MICHELLE HENSa
Printed: 1221/2016
Page:

DCMCoordinator: Permit#:
MAILING DISTRIBUTION SHEET--
Permitee: J - G 4 d 9r% �ot( t VIe -zitru AY.J00 51_ 14(Tt_ "WC
Agents: K' 57
DCM Fie=be
i (with revised work plan drawings)
City
Washington
Wilmington
US ACOE Offices:
Washington:
Raleigh Bland (Beaufort, Camden, Chowan, Craven, Hertford, Hyde, Perquimans,
Tyrrell)
Josh Peletier (Bertie, Currituck, Dare, Gates, Pamlico, Pasquotank, Washington)
Tom Steffan (NC DOT- Beaufort, Carteret, Craven, Pamlico)
Bill Biddlecome (NC DOT -Remainder ECity/Washington District)
Wilmington:
Tyler Crumbley (Brunswick, New Hanover)
Liz Hair (Carteret, Onslow, Pender)
Brad Shaver (NCDOT-Brunswick, New Hanover, Onslow, Pender)
Cultural Resources:
Renee Gledhill -Earley
Public Water Supply:
Heidi Cox (WIRO)
Clif Whitfield (WARD)
Marine Fisheries:
Shane Staples
Curt Weychert
NC DOT:
David Harris
Shellfish Sanitation:
Shannon Jenkins
State Property: Tim Walton
DEMLR/DWR: Karen Higgins
Kristy Lynn Carpenter (NC DOT -All Projects)
Washington: ` Anthony Scarbraugh-401 I
Roger Thorpe-Stonnwater
Garcy Ward- (NCDOT-Beaufort, Bertie, Camden, Carteret, Chowan, Craven, Currituck,
Dare, Gates, Hertford, Hyde, Pamlico, Pasquotank, Perquimans, Tyrrell, Washington)
Wilmington: Robb Mairs — 401 (Carteret, Onslow, Pender, New Hanover)
Chad Coburn — 401 (Brunswick)
Georgette Scott - Stormwater
Joanne Steenhuis - 401 (NCDOT-Brunswick, New Hanover, Onslow, Pender)
Wildlife Resources:
LPO:
Fax Distribution:
Maria Dunn (WARD)
Permittee #: Agent#

t:
Coastal Management
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
June 8, 2017
Institute of Marine Science
3431 Arendell St.
Morehead City, N.C. 28557
Dear Sir or Madam:
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
Sincerely,
Youglas V. Hu
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
252 808 2808

DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
APPLICATION TRANSMITTAL AND PROCESSING RECORD
APPLICANT: UNC Institute of Marine Sciences County: Dare
LOCATION OF PROJECT: Adjacent Hatteras Island and Sandy Bay, Pamlico Sound.
DATE APPLICATION RECEIVED COMPLETE BY FIELD: 3/15/17
FIELD RECOMMENDATION: Attached: No To Be Forwarded: Yes
CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION: Attached: No To Be Forwarded: Yes
FIELD REPRESENTATIVE: Jonathan Howell DISTRICT OFFICE: Morehead City
DISTRICT MANAGER REVIEW:
B) DATE RECEIVED BY MAJOR PERMITS UNIT:
FEE REC'D: $400.00 (60/40)
PUBLIC NOTICE REC'D: Yes
END OF NOTICE DATE: 4/29/17
ADJ. RIP. PROP NOTICES REC'D: No
DEED REC'D: Yes
APPLICATION ASSIGNED TO: Gregg Bodnar
ON: 4/12/17
/b�
C) 75 DAY DEADLINE: 5/29/17
150 - DAY DEADLINE: k //%
4-1,111
MAIL OUT DATE: 4/9/17
STATE DUE DATE:
FEDERAL DUE DATE:
FED COMMENTS REC'D:
PERMIT FINAL ACTION: ISSUE DENY
DRAFT ON
AGENCY
DATE COMMENTS
RETURNED
OBJECTIONS:
YES NO
NOTES
Coastal Management- Regional Representative
516111
X
Coastal Management- LUP Consistency Determination
Division of Community Assistance
DEMLR-Land Quality Section
Z-�
Division of Water Resources401
pp
z.� 11 —�yL12 Idlljtlpl lQ/s(y .,�
DEMLR-Strom Water Management
.f
t
State Property Office
l
Division of Archives & History (Cultural Resources)
�/ I
DMF-ShellEsh Sanitation
y �0.
V
C_ % t— K4
�C co
DWR.Pu ic Water Supply
N
ll
l
K
Division of Highways
Wildlife Resources Commission
S t-j 1,
1
/�
51• ��[pYCM r,�GCa�sy, �� \�'
t t
Local Permit Once
tiln
DCM-Fisheries Resource Specialist
114 l
Corps of Engineers
(

Coastal Management
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
serreram
BRAXTON C. DAVIS
Director
Gregg Bodnar
Jonathan Howell
5/18/17
Field Recommendations — NC IMS c/o Joel Fodrie
1. This permit does not authorize the interference with any existing or proposed Federal
project, and the permittee will not be entitled to compensation for damage to the authorized
structure or work, or injury which may be caused from existing or future operations
undertaken by the United States in the public interest.
2. 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.
3. The authorized structure and associated activity must not cause an unacceptable
interference with navigation.
4. No vegetated wetlands/marsh grass will be excavated or filled.
5. The permittee will maintain the authorized work in good condition and in conformance
with the terms and conditions of this permit.
Nothing Compares—,..
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Coastal Management
943 Washington Square Mall I Washington, NC 27889
252-946-64811252-948-0478 [fa ]

Coastal Management
CNV:RQNMCNTAL QUALITY
RECEIVE-D
APR 1 1 2017
DOA
STATE PROPERTY
OFFICE
ul u I t 4 ►U
ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretary
BRAXTON C. DAVIS
Director
TO: Mr. Tim Walton
Director
State Property Office
FROM: Greg Bodnar Respond to Greg Bodnar
Major Permits Processing Coordinator Morehead City Office
Coastal Management Division
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City NC 28557
DATE: 07 April 2017
SUBJECT: CAMA Application Review
APPLICANT: NC Institute of Marine Sciences
PROJECT LOCATION: Adjacent to Hatteras Island and Sandy Bay, Pamlico Sound, Dare County
PROPOSED PROJECT: The applicant proposes to conduct research on the effects of aquaculture on submerged
aquatic vegetation by replicating traditional shellfish aquaculture using bottom cages and floating bags.
Please indicate below your position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return this form by 27 April 2017.
Please contact Jonathan Howell at 252-948-3851, if you have any questions regarding the proposed project. When
appropriate, in depth comments with supporting data are requested.
REPLY is office has no objection to the project as proposed.
This office has no comment on the proposed project.
This office approves of the proposed project only if the recommended changes are
incorporated. See attached.
This office objects to the proposed project for reasons described in the attached
co ents. j
Signed Date
/'Nothing Compares-=
Suao!\'"Cudma Enmtt wal QaaUy Cmml\iammmt
9431VwhiMImSRmaa\1a11 NvathirymR.]KC:1889
2$29466481
RECEIVED
APR 17 2017
DCM- MHD CITY

Coastal Management
r NY1RONMr NTAL QUALITY
TO:
Dare County Building Inspector, Buddy Sheldon
ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretary
BRAXTON C. DAVIS
Director
FROM: Greg Bodnar Respond to Greg Bodnar
Major Permits Processing Coordinator Morehead City Office
Coastal Management Division
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City NC 28557
DATE: 07 April 2017
SUBJECT: CAMA Application Review
APPLICANT: NC Institute of Marine Sciences
PROJECT LOCATION: Adjacent to Hatteras Island and Sandy Bay, Pamlico Sound, Dare County
PROPOSED PROJECT: The applicant proposes to conduct research on the effects of aquacuhure on submerged
aquatic vegetation by replicating traditional shellfish aquaculture using bottom cages and floating bags.
Please indicate below your position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return this form by 27 April 2017.
Please contact Jonathan Howell at 252-948-3851, if you have any questions regarding the proposed projecL When
appropriate, in depth comments with supporting data are requested.
REPLY This office has no objection to the project as proposed.
This office has no comment on the proposed project.
This office approves of the proposed project only if the recommended changes are
incorporated. See attached.
This office objects to the proposed project for reasons described in the attached
tfomm nts.
Signed Date 4 _I Z-1-.0 19
/Nothing Compares-" RECEIVED
Sowef`.%'aACrdma rsst dal Qoahw Cwtd%bmaxa t
943Wyh.1 mSq=*% tl Wa,%.4 m,SC27$39 APR 17 2017
:!_ 9a66s8:
DCM- MHD CITY

ROY COOPER
Governor
ITRAIL S. REGAN
"' Secretary
Ceur., l u! :been aril,•")n<"+r.
r::•::Roree:�e;rr.; ::a:.;.: •.., '`BRAXTON C. DAVIS
Director
MEMORANDUM DECEIVED .
APR 10 201-A
TO: Mr. Cliff Whitfield BY;`__
Public Water Supply Section
NCDENR WARO
FRQM: Greg Bodnar Respond to Greg Bodnar
Major Permits Processing Coordinator Morehead City Office
Coastal Management Division
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City NC 28557
DATE: 07 April 2017
SUBJECT: CAMA Application Review
APPLICANT: NC Institute of Marine Sciences
PROJECT LOCATION: Adjacent to Hatteras Island and Sandy Bay,Pamlico Sound, Dare County
PROPOSED PROJECT: The applicant proposes to conduct research on the effects of aquaculture on submerged
aquatic vegetation by replicating traditional shellfish aquaculture using bottom cages and floating bags.
Please indicate below your position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return this form by 27 April 2017.
Please contact Jonathan Howell at 252-948-3851, if you have any questions regarding the proposed projecL When
appropriate, in depth comments with supporting data are requested.
REPLY
This office has no objection to the project as proposed.
This office has no comment on the proposed project.
This office approves of the proposed project only if the recommended changes are
incorporated. See attached.
This office objects to the proposedprojectfor reasons described in the attached
Si `t Signed o� n nts. Date 11" YI7
Su:r ol�aoh Cudina.Emimrmrctil Qrdiy Count \firatnnent
934 \Caf hirata+Sasva \tall' \\'arhintwn.\C :75�
2529466431

Bodnar, Gregg
From: Thorpe, Roger
Sent: Monday, April 17, 2017 5:18 PM
To: Bodnar, Gregg
Subject: NC Institute of Marine Sciences - Research on effects of aquaculture on submerged
aquatic vegetation 7)44' Co
Gregg
The subject project that has applied for a CAMA Major will not require a State stormwater permit.
Roger
Roger K. Thorpe
Environmental Engineer
Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
252-948-3923 office
[e-mail]
Washington Regional Office
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, NC 27889
!'-"Nothing Compares.
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.

Coastal 4anagernent
C%V;ROUMEN'TAL OV_'.t!Y
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mr. Lee Padrick
Division of Community Assistance
FROM:
Greg Bodnar
Major Permits Processing Coordinator
Coastal Management Division
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead.City NC 28557
DATE:
07 April 2017
SUBJECT:
CAMA Application Review
APPLICANT:
NC Institute of Marine Sciences:
ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretary
BRAXTON C. DAVIS
Director
Respond to Greg Bodnar
Morehead City Office
PROJECT LOCATION: Adjacent to Hatteras Island and Sandy Bay, Pamlico Sound, Dare County
PROPOSED PROJECT. The applicant proposes to conduct research on the effects;of aquaculture on submerged
aquatic vegetation by replicating traditional shellfish aquaculture using bottom cages and floating bags..
Please indicate below your position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return this form by 27.April 2017.
Please contact Jonathan Howell at 252-948-3851, if you.have any: questions regarding the. -proposed project. When
appropriate, in depth comments with supporting data are requested.
REPLY This office has no objection to the.project as proposed.
'Tbis office has no comment on the proposed project.
This office approves of the proposed project only, if the recommended changes are
incorporated. See attached.
This office objects to the proposed project for reasons described in the attached
co ments.
Signed, IDate j�-/�.� / 7
Nothing Compares
_ 7wcf%cnh Cudiax lrrM�dl: Q:LW ICwW*11==tmtrt
9176'uhir4t 3acu*',149 1%41hjn3tM','C:79S9

I\44
Marine Fisheries
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
April 18, 2017
MEMORANDUM
TO:
From:
Through:
SUBJECT:
Applicant:
Project Location:
ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretary
BRAXTON C. DAVIS
Director
Greg Bodnar, Major Permits Processing Coordinator
Division of Coastal Management
Valerie Wunderly,
Environmental Health Regional Specialist
Shannon Jenkins, Section Chief
Shellfish Sanitation & Recreational Water Quality
CAMA Application Review
NC Institute of Marine Sciences
Dare County, adjacent to Hatteras Island and Sandy Bay, Pamlico Sound.
Proposed Project: To conduct research on the effects of aquaculture on submerged aquatic
vegetation by replicating traditional shellfish aquaculture using bottom cages and floating bags.
We have no concerns or comments regarding this CAMA permit application. However, in the
interest of public health we would recommend that the applicant contact the Shellfish Sanitation
and Recreational Water Quality Section prior to the handling of shellfish intended for human
consumption. This includes, but is not limited to: harvesting, buying, selling, processing, or
distributing to other individuals or parties.
It is also recommended that the applicant contact the Fisheries Management Section to inquire if
a Research Sanctuary would be appropriate to protect the research project from shellfish harvest
by the public.
APR 2 4 2017
Nothing Compares OCAC r
State of Forth Carolina I Divlslon of Marine Fisheries
3441 Arendell Street I P.O. Box 769 1 Morehead City. North Carolina 28557
252-726-7021

Coastal Management
r NVIROUMCRTAL OUeLTY
ApR 1 1 2W L
;h Sanitation e y° 'eational
Water Gualry S
MEMORANDUM
ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretary
BRAXTON C. DAVIS
Director
TO: Mr. Shannon Jenkins
NCDENR
Division of Environmental Health
FROM: Greg Bodnar Respond to Greg Bodnar
Major Permits Processing Coordinator Morehead City Office
Coastal Management Division
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City NC 28557
DATE: 07 April 2017
SUBJECT: CAMA Application Review
APPLICANT: NC Institute of Marine Sciences
PROJECT LOCATION: Adjacent to Hatteras Island and Sandy Bay, Pamlico Sound, Dare County
PROPOSED PROJECT: The applicant proposes to conduct research on the effects of aquaculture on submerged
aquatic vegetation by replicating traditional shellfish aquaculture using bottom cages and floating bags.
Please indicate below your position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return this form by 27 April 2017.
Please contact Jonathan Howell at 252-948-3851, if you have any questions regarding the proposed project. When
appropriate, in depthpomments with supporting qata are requested.
V See o4ac h-e rYt&rnO
REPLY This office has no objection to the project as proposed.
This office has no comment on the proposed project.
This office approves of the proposed project only if the recommended changes are
incorporated. See attached.
This office objects to the proposed project for reasons described in the attached
ts
Signed / ! !
FofZ 5hahvlovq Jt nktnS
Date' 1�
!` Nothing Compares'.
Sn RfNer&Cudw En.im d&IQ;aNty Cp WNfamaammt
943Wuhvv"S9ara Uall n'athv�aan.NC —339
252 9a66a8:
FtECE1VE®
ppR242017
DCM. MHp CITY

ived ROY COOPGovernER
4Vi; i J 1017 MICHAEL S. REGAN
ra. Secretary
Coastal Management DCM-EC
BRAXTON C. DAVIS
Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Ms. Charlan Owens
District Planner
Division of Coastal Management
FROM: Greg Bodnar Respond to Greg Bodnar
Major Permits Processing Coordinator Morehead City Office
Coastal Management Division
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City NC 28557
DATE: 07 April 2017
SUBJECT: CAMA Application Review
APPLICANT: NC Institute of Marine Sciences
PROJECT LOCATION: Adjacent to Hatteras Island and Sandy Bay, Pamlico Sound, Dare County
PROPOSED PROJECT: The applicant proposes to conduct research on the effects of aquaculture on submerged
aquatic vegetation by replicating traditional shellfish aquaculture using bottom cages and floating bags.
Please indicate below your position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return this form by 27 April 2017.
Please contact Jonathan Howell at 252-948-3851, if you have any questions regarding the proposed project. When
appropriate, in depth comments with supporting data are requested.
REPLY This office has no objection to the project as proposed.
This office has no comment on the proposed project.
This otfr roves of the proposed project only if the recommended changes are
incorpo . See hed.
k S IE»Tbis offi objects the proposed project for reasons described in the attached
:!
Sign Date[
''Nothing Compare
Su:..fNQ61CYd= E.,, m aal QaaWy Couu.'\laW.m .!
9a? R'yhm�een S au.. ?4ll ll'a0uggn. \C ]'S�
]'] 946648:
RECEIVED
APR 2 4 2017
DCM- MHD CITY

Curtsttd�'�'onurerr,�rtt
y
[ Ar 4 2017
HI`iMRIC' c itWleid
MEMORANDUM
TO: Ms. Renee Gledhill -Early
NC Department of Cultural Resources
Archives & History. Building
FROM: Greg Bodnar
Major Permits Processing Coordinator
Coastal Management Division
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City NC 28557
DATE: 07 April 2017
SUBJECT: CAMA Application Review
APPLICANT: NC Institute of Marine Sciences
ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretary
BRAXTON C. DAVIS
Director
Ik 41743
T2cspond to Greg Bodnar '
Morehead City Office
1>1" 5 I) [ 11-
PROJECT LOCATION:, Adjacent to Hatteras Island and Sandy Bay, Pamlico Sound, Dare County
PROPOSED PROJECT: The applicant proposes to conduct research on the effects of aquacultureon submerged
aquatic vegetation by replicating traditional shellfish aquaculture using bottom cages and floating bags.
Please indicate below your position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return this form by 27 April 2017.
Please contact Jonathan Howell at 252-948-3851, if you have any questions regarding the proposed project. When
appropriate, in depth comments with supporting data are requested.
REPLY This office has no objection to the project as proposed.
This office has no comment on the proposed project.
This office approves of the proposed project only if the recommended changes are
incorporated. See attached.
Tghiiissn�office objects to the proposed 'project for reasons described in the, attached
e
Signed lt/"� �14 �XJULQdIJLA/ Date
Susn ai" ac§Curii:x?Enurr`-arr.+:4:x»^��Ccs�u:lFitu; xs*nf
APR 2 5 XOIi

Coastal Management
CNV4R0?JMCJJTAL QUALITY
TO:
MEMORANDUM
Mr. Anthony Scarbraugh
DWR Water Quality Programs
943 Washington Regional Office
ROY COOPER
Governor
RECEIVED/NCDENRID11M MICHAEL S. REGAN
APR 0 7 2017
Water Ci1J:SJM
Operations A09s fon
Washington RegiOn
ional Once
Secretary
BRAXTON C. DAVIS
Director
FROM: Greg Bodnar Respond to Greg Bodnar
Major Permits Processing Coordinator Morehead City Office
Coastal'Management Division
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City NC 28557
DATE! 07 April 2017
SUBJECT: CAMA Application Review
APPLICANT: NC Institute of Marine Sciences
PROJECT LOCATION: Adjacent to Hatteras Island and Sandy Bay, Pamlico Sound, Dare County
PROPOSED PROJECT: The applicant proposes to conduct research on the effects of aquacultute'on submerged
aquatic vegetation by replicating traditional shellfish aquaculture using bottom cages and floating bags.
Please indicate below your position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return this form by 27 April 2017.
Please contact Jonathan Howell at 252-948-3851, if you have any questions regarding the proposed project. When
appropriate, in depth comments with supporting data are requested.
REPLY �T tg office has no objection to the project as proposed.
t/ This office has no comment on the proposed project.
Signed
This office approves of the
incorporated. See attached.
This office objects to the
proposed project only if the recommended changes are
proposed project for reasons described in the attached
Date t%�Z-71/%
Nothing Compares'% -
5 ua o!\aeh Ca,c ine I Emimnm+rul Q�diry 1 CN'Ul \lamtemmo
943%V,,hinzicn SpwJY Mall R'nAtnl:en,SC 275S9
:529466.91

:4
Water Resources
Environmental Quality
May 18, 2017
NC Institute of Marine Sciences
Attn: Mr. Joel F. Fodrie
3431 Arendell Street
Morehead City, NC 28557
ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretary
S. JAY ZIMMERMAN
Director
DW R # 2017-0442
DARE County
Subject: APPROVAL OF 401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION WITH ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
NC INSTITUTE OF MARINE SCIENCES —STUDYING THE INTERACTION OF OYSTER CAGES
OF SEAGRASS BEDS
Dear Mr. Fodrie:
You have our approval for the impacts listed below for the purpose described in your application dated
April 7, 2017 and received by the Division of Water Resources (Division) on April 11, 2017. These impacts
are covered by the attached Water Quality General Certification Number 4097 and the conditions listed
below. This certification is associated with the use of CAMA Major Permit and General Permit(s)
198000291 issued by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). This Certification allows you to use the
CAMA Major Permit when the Division of Coastal Management issues it. Please note that you should
get any other federal, state or local permits before proceeding with your project, including those required
by (but not limited to) Sediment and Erosion Control, Non -Discharge, and Water Supply Watershed
regulations.
This approval requires you to follow the conditions listed in the enclosed certification(s) or general
permit and the following additional conditions:
1. The following impacts are hereby approved provided that all of the other specific and
general conditions of the Certification are met. No other impacts are approved,
including incidental impacts. [15A NCAC 02B .0506(b)(c)]
Type of Impact
Amount Approved
Amount,Reduced
Plan location/
(units)
(units)
Reference
Permanent
Temporary
Attached
Open Water,
OW-1 (Oyster Cages)
0 (acres)
0.56 (acres)
Attachments B1,
83, C1 and C2
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Water Resources -Water Quality Regional Operations Section -Washington Regional Office
943 Washington Square Mall, Washington, North Carolina 27889
252-946-6481

NC INSTITUTE OF MARINE SCIENCES —STUDYING THE
INTERACTION OF OYSTER CAGES ON SEAGRASS BEDS
I
DWR# 2017-0442
.401 APPROVAL
Page 2 of 3
2. Water Quality Certification
The proposed project must comply with all the conditions of the General Water Quality
Certification(s) 4097. [15A NCAC 02B .0507(c)]
Continuing Compliance
3. Turbidity Standard
The Permittee shall adhere specially to 15A NCAC 02B .0220 Tidal Salt Water Quality for
Class SA Waters (3)(g) pH: shall be normal for waters in the area, which generally shall
range between 6.8 and 8.5 except that swamp waters may have a pH as low as 4.3 if it is
the result of natural conditions; (1) Turbidity: the turbidity in the receiving water shall not
exceed 25 NTU; if turbidity exceeds this level due to natural background conditions, the
existing turbidity level shall not be increased. [15A NCAC 028 .0220)
Other Conditions
4. This approval and its conditions are final and binding unless contested. [G.S. 143-215.5]
These Certifications can be contested as provided in Articles 3 and 4 of General Statute 1.50E 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 httb://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 8:00am and 5:00pm, excluding
official state holidays).
The petition may be faxed 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: If sending via delivery service (UPS, F'edEx,
etc.):
Office of Administrative Hearings Office of Administrative Hearings
6714 Mail Service Center 1711 New Hope Church Road
Raleigh, NC 27699-6714 Raleigh, NC 27609-6285
One (1) copy of the petition must also be served to DEQ:
William F. Lane, General Counsel
Department of Environmental Quality
1601 Mail Service Center

-f
L1
NC INSTITUTE OF MARINE SCIENCES —STUDYING THE
INTERACTION OF OYSTER CAGES ON SEAGRASS BEDS
DWR# 2017-0442
401 APPROVAL
Page 3 of 3
Raleigh, NC 27699-1601
This letter completes the review of the Division under section 401 of the Clean Water Rules. Please
contact Anthony Scarbraugh at 252-948-3924 or [e-mail] if you have any
questions or concerns.
Sincerely, e
M_e' (%s/Av/lJJ
Robert Tankard, Assistant Regional Supervisor
Water Quality Regional Operations Section
Division of Water Resources, NCDEQ
Enclosures: GC 4097
Certification of Completion
cc: Gregg Bodnar, DCM Morehead City Office (via email)
Jonathan Howell, DCM WaRO
Josh Pelletier, USACE Washington Regulatory Field Office (via email)
Laserfiche
File

Attachment B1. Plat of floating bag treatments.
Top -down View
IN
u
Cross-section View
im
r Bags of <`+=
... is .
0
u
Ave. Depth ^' ,.5m
Notes:
(1). Floating bag treatments will be replicated across 5 study
Plots (see site maps in Attachment C).
(2) Anchor lines will extend far enough to be anchored (via
sand screw) within umiegetated, sandy bottom. Given the
a patchy nature of seagrass beds at this site, sandy areas are
generally available within 546 in of each surveyarea,

Attachment 83. Plat of bottom cage treatments.
Top -down View
'fie ao w q a
u4'4:.j.YJw'OVv,nw
-o++r_o.n o� r�rq♦♦ter
oa->osyrso- Ltf�4„v fci
•-e-H-a-a
a+ar•oo-ora e14
•���oo+yra�o�� 'fit° ti` s9tt � -0 R
♦rt-owsa-r� ����
e ae m.eas.ir �,��iitfiYy �`f�eSf�
o.—.—ter �"o.�'e.:.a-
Cross-section View (showing
portions of 2 of 6 stacks per
..:...plot)
Cajis ,e:nas..
im-. .. .
r
C'
i
Notes:
(1) Bottom rack treatments will: be replicated across s
study plots (see, site maps In Attachment C).

c
Existing Lease
n Observed course
Research � Ir v ind suders
Silt
Kayak ' wind
surNr access
point
�y
Google Earth

Attachment C2. Map of proposed research site.
Among the 15 plots
diagrammed here within
our study area, 5 plots
will be used as non -
manipulated controls.
We will deploy floating
bags (2 lines of 10 bags —
standard commercial
designs) at 5 other plots
as described in our work
plats. In the remaining 5
plots, we will deploy
bottom racks (6 stacks of
3 cages) as described in
our work plats.
The assignment of plots
as "control", "floating
bag", or "bottom rack"
will be random per
standard research
protocol.

Bodnar, Gregg
From: Scarbraugh, Anthony
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 8:19 AM
To: Bodnar, Gregg
Subject: RE: UNC project in Dare County
The project will require written concurrence and the project number is 2017-0442.
Anthony Scarbraugh
Environmental Senior Specialist
Division of Water Resources — Water Quality Regional Operations
Department of Environmental Quality
252 948 3924 office
[e-mail]
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, NC 27889
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Bodnar, Gregg
Sent: Friday, May 12, 2017 10:12 AM
To: Scarbraugh, Anthony <[e-mail]>
Subject: UNC project in Dare County
Morning Anthony,
I wanted to ask to see if there was a DWR number with this one. You sent in no comment, but this was a 60/40
split permit fee so I wanted to double check.
Thanks,
Gregg
Gregg Bodnar
Assistant Major Permits Coordinator
Division of Coastal Management
Department of Environmental Quality
252 808 2808 ext 215 office
Gregg. Bodnarnc ncdenr.gov
400 Commerce Ave
Morehead City, NC 28557

C.i+Ct]t tl! ivi(7/It+ilf•lllPli i'
RLCPll/Eo
APR '.10 7017
DCat-Flehorlts
WARO
MEMORANDUM
ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAELS.REGAN
Secretary
BRAXTON C. DAVIS
Director
TO: Mr. Shane Staples
Division of Coastal Management
943 Washington Sq. Mall
FROM: Greg Bodnar Respond to Greg Bodnar
Major Permits Processing Coordinator Morehead City Office
Coastal Management Division
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City NC 28557
DATE: 07 April 2017
SUBJECT: CAMA Application Review
APPLICANT: NC Institute of Marine Sciences
PROJECT LOCATION: Adjacent to Hatteras Island and Sandy Bay, Pamlico Sound, Dare County
PROPOSED PROJECT: The applicant proposes to conduct research on the effects of aquaculture on submerged
aquatic vegetation by replicating traditional shellfish aquaculture using bottom cages and floating bags.
Please indicate below your position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return this form by 27 April 2017.
Please contact Jonathan Howell at 252-948-3851, if you have any questions regarding the proposed project. When
appropriate, in depth comments with supporting data are requested.
REPLY ` `—/ This office has no objection to the project as proposed. b w
'. Go nc vv r
This office has no comment on the proposed project.
This office approves of the proposed project only if the recommended changes are
incorporated. See attached.
This office objects to the proposed project for reasons described in the attached
Signed '.% Date r/� r/7
6 ua oi�a6,Cno:ina Emirorm,na: Q�i:n• Cmml \larsjmm�t
9s34CafiH:on Spmr�\4a R'a,hin[,an,\C: SS9
:3:9s66s5I

N
Coastal Management
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALM
MEMORANDUM:
TO: Gregg Bodnar, Assistant Major Permits Coordinator
FROM: Shane Staples, DCM Fisheries Resource Specialist
SUBJECT: NC lMS Aquaculture effects on Seagrass
DATE: 4/24/17
ROY COOPER
cover wr
MTCHAEt S. REGAN
3ira Wy
BRA.XTON Q. DAVIS
Dfri&mr
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 University backed research project to study the effects of two types of oyster aquaculture on
seagrass. The project located in Sandy Bay near Hatteras, NC will consist of stacked bottom cages and
floating bag methods replicating a small-scale shellfish operation.
Due to the small scale and research nature of the activity this office does not have great concerns for
project to negatively affect seagrass beds in the project area. However, there are still concerns about
access of the site with outboard powered vessel through areas of SAV beds and the potential for marine
debris. The applicant should have a plan in place to clean up the material should they become dislodged
and potentially a plan to move or reinforce the anchoring should a tropical storm be forecast to cross the
area. To reduce the potential prop -kick impacts accessing the site the applicant should use the same route
each time accessing the site when possible.
Contact Shane Staples at [phone] or [e-mail] with further questions or
concerns:,
State ofNorth Carolina I Emironmemai Qualfty l Coastal Management
Washington Office 1943 Washngton Square Mag I Washington. North Caroilna 27889
252946.6481

iA0\i01 niat7cti�RiiY1!
TO:
MEMORANDUM
Mrs. Maria Dunn
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
FROM: Greg Bodnar
Major Permits Processing Coordinator
Coastal Management Division
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City NC 28557
DATE: 07 April 2017
SUBJECT: CAMA Application Review
APPLICANT: NC Institute of Marine Sciences
ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretary
BRAXTON C. DAVIS
Director
Respond to Greg Bodnar
Morehead City Office
PROJECT LOCATION: Adjacent to Hatteras Island and Sandy Bay; Pamlico Sound, Dare County
PROPOSED PROJECT: The applicant proposes to conduct research on the effects of aquaculture;on submerged
aquatic vegetation by replicating traditional shellfish aquaculture using bottom cages and floating bags.
Please indicate below your position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return this form'by 27.April 2017.
Please contact Jonathan Howell at 252-948-3851, if you have any questions regarding the proposed project. When
appropriate, in depth comments with supportingdata are requested.
REPLY This office has no objection to the project as proposed.
IX— _. This office has no comment on the proposed project.
F This office approves of the proposed project only if the recommended changes are
incorporated. See attached.
This office objects to the proposed project for reasons described in the attached
ts.
ommen
SignedVe Date
,1:>1i 0 hi g �i 2aasis •,_._
5 ra:g of $Cr:a Carding _ En�ir:.rcra: Q:iip�. Cwsu \Lm=er.^.1nt
$:?1Cn}.irglon Si'-+T��IaP, P'g �tiza:m.SC ];S%
7!25a6 <:S:
u of �u
+u-K-
,acii c� s�
� .1 GCCQ.SN

NEB
Coastal Management
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
May 26, 2017
UNC Institute of Marine Sciences
Dr. Joel Fodrie
3431 Arendell St.
Morehead City, NC 28557
ROY COOPER
Govo,nor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretary
BRAXTON C. DAVIS
Director
P/L 'tr
This letter is in reference to your application for a Coastal Area Management Act Major Permit
to undertake development activities to study the effects of oyster grow -out cages on submerged
aquatic vegetation, in Dare 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. I I3A-122(c)
which would make August 12, 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,
114
i
Gregory W. Bodnar
Assistant Major Permits Coordinator
Cc: DCM Morehead City
State of North Carolina I Environmemal Quality l Coastal Management
Morehead City Office 1 400 Commerce Avenue I Morehead City, NC 28557
252 808 2808

40P__it.
DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT
1. APPLICANT'S NAME: NC Institute of Marine Sciences, c/o Joel Fodrie
2. LOCATION OF PROJECT SITE: Adjacent Hatteras Island and Sandy Bay, Pamlico
Sound, Dare County.
NE corner: 35.225180*,-75.662065* SE corner: 35.223977*,-75.662820*
SW comer: 35.225530*,-75.667231* NW corner: 35.227093*,-75.666747*
Photo Index - 2006: 2006: 172-7873 (J 3)
LAT: 35.225485 LON:-75.664316
3. INVESTIGATION TYPE: CAMA/D & F
4. INVESTIGATIVE PROCEDURE:Dates of Site Visit —N/A
Was Applicant Present N/A
5. PROCESSING PROCEDURE: Application Received — CC 3/15/17
Office — Washington
6. SITE DESCRIPTION:
(A) Local Land Use Plan — Dare County
Land Classification From LUP — Conservation
(B) AEC(s) Involved: Public Trust Area, Estuarine Water
(C) Water Dependent: Yes
(D) Intended Use: Research
(E) Wastewater Treatment: Existing — N/A
Planned — N/A
(F) Type of Structures: Existing —N/A
Planned - Oyster Aquaculture Gear (Hanging Bags, Cages)
(G) Estimated Annual Rate of Erosion: N/A
Source — N/A
HABITAT DESCRIPTION:
(A) Uplands
N/A
N/A
N/A
(B) Open Water
N/A
N/A
12, 916 ft2 (Incorp.
Temporarily)
(C) Coastal Wetlands
N/A
N/A
N/A
(D) Total Area Disturbed: 12,916 ft2
(E) Primary Nursery Area: No APR 10 2017
(F) Water Classification: SA-HQW Open: Yes
DCM- MHD CITY
8. PROJECT SUMMARY: The applicant is proposing to conduct research on the effects of
aquaculture on submerged aquatic vegetation by replicating traditional shellfish
aquaculture using bottom cages and floating bags.

NC IMS c/o Joel Fodrie
Page 02
9. Narrative Description:
The proposed research project is located in the Sandy Bay area of the Pamlico Sound, Dare
County, North Carolina The center of the study area is located at point 35.22548,-75.664316
with the corners being located at the following points. Northeast comer is located at point
35.225180,-75.662065, Southeast corner is located at point 35.223977,-75.662820,
Southwest corner is located at point 35.225530,-75.667231 and Northwest corner is located at
point 35.227093,-75.666747
The subject area is the open waters of the Pamlico Sound. Water depth in this area is
approximately -3' NWL and there are presently no structures on -site. There is SAV coverage of
between 101/6 and 25% in the project area
No portion of the waters adjacent to this project are designated Primary Nursery Area The
substrate composition at the project site is sand. The Pamlico Sound in this area is open to the
taking of shellfish. The Pamlico Sound is designated SA;HQW at the project location. The Dare
County Land Use Plan designates the AEC's as Conservation.
10. Proiect Description:
The applicant is proposing to conduct research in this area by replicating traditional shellfish
aquaculture and documenting the effects of this activity on the adjacent SAV beds. There will
be 15 test sites, each measuring 10m x 12m with a minimum distance of 50m between any
sites. 5 of the sites will be bottom cages, 5 of the sites will be floating bags and the additional
5 sites will be control sites. The bottom cage sites will consist of two rows of bottom cages
stacked 3 cages high, resting on legs. The top of the bottom cages will be approximately 24"
above the substrate. The floating bag sites will consist of two rows measuring approximately
1 Om in length, each with 10 oyster bags attached to a series of anchored lines with 3m
between each row. The floating bags will be secured with sand screws and an anchor line
attached to the floats. The research project will be in place for two growing cycles, monitored
weekly and removed prior to the end of 2019.
11. Anticipated Impacts:
There will be 1,200 square meters (approximately 1,2916 square feet) of disturbed area
resulting from this proposed project. This disturbance will result from the placement of
bottom cages and floating bags as well as the subsequent disturbance from working within
these areas on a weekly basis. These impacts will be temporary in nature on a weekly basis as
well as temporary due to the removal of the gear after the research project is complete.
Jonathan Howell Washington April 6, 2017
RECEIVED
APR 10 2017
DCM- MHD CITY

June 6, 2017
Regulatory Division
Action ID No. SAW 2017-00126
Mr. Doug Huggett
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City, North Carolina 28557-3421
Dear Mr. Huggett:
Reference the application of Mr. Joel Fodrie and the NC Institute of Marine Science for
Department of the Army authorization to conduct research replicating traditional shellfish
aquaculture by constructing 15 test sites each measuring 10m x 12m with a minimum distance of
50m between any sites. 5 sites will be bottom cages, 5 sites will be floating bags, and 5 will be
control sites, located adjacent to Hatteras Island, in Sandy Bay, Dare County, North Carolina.
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 State authorization:
1. All work authorized by this permit must be performed in strict compliance with the
attached 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.
2. 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. No claim shall be made against the United States on account of any such removal,
relocation, or alteration. The permittee shall notify NOAA/NATIONAL OCEAN SERVICE
Chief Source Data Unit N CS261, 1315 E West HWY- RM 7316, Silver Spring, MD 20910-
3282 at least two weeks prior to beginning work and upon completion of work.

3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. The permittee shall advise the Corps in writing at least two weeks prior to beginning the
work authorized by this permit and again upon completion of the work authorized by this permit.
8. 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.
9. 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).
10. 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

4
saltwater classes and in all lakes and reservoirs, and 10 NTU's or less in trout waters, are not
considered significant.
11. 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.
12. All waste will be removed from the site and deposited in waste/recycling facilities.
13. In the event of an approaching storm (tropical storm, hurricane), all floating bags will be
moved in to protected water near harbor by S. Stowe in accordance with his approach on his nearby
lease. In the extreme storm events, floating bags would be moved on land temporarily (24-48
hours). Post storm, the study area will be inspected and all debris will be removed as well as any
debris on nearby shorelines.
Questions or comments may be addressed to Mr. Josh Pelletier, Washington Field Office,
Regulatory Division, telephone [phone].
Sincerely,
Josh Pelletier
Regulatory Project Manager
Copies Furnished:
Mr. Ian McMillan
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
Mr. Pete Benjamin
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726

tv .
Mr. Ken Riley
National Marine Fisheries Service
Habitat Conservation Service
101 Pivers Island Road
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516
Mr. Jeffrey Garnett
Wetlands and Marine Regulatory Section
Water Protection Division -Region IV
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Jonathan Howell, District Manager
Washington Field Office
North Carolina Division of Coastal Management

!CM MP-1
APPLICATION for
Maier Development Permit
(last revised 12127/05)
North Carolina DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
PrimaryAppiicaiif/Lantiownerinformagoi7 -
- --
Project Name (if applicable)
Business Name
Institute Of Marine Sciences Effects of oyster grow -out cages on the condition and
ecosystem-services of seagrass communities
Applicant 1: First Name -
MI
Last Name
F.
Joel
Fodde
Applicant 2: First Name -
MI
Last Name - -
If additional applicants, please attach an additional page(s) with names listed.
Mailing Address
PO Box
city
-State .
3431 Arendell Street
Morehead City
INC
ZIP
Country
Phone No.
FAX No. .
28557
USA
252-726-6841 ext.149
-
StrestAddress(if different from above)
City
State
ZIP
Email
[e-mail] _
Z Agent1Conftct6r1nforma_tlon,
Business Name
-
Agent/ Contractor 1: First Name
MI
Last Name
Agent/ Contractor 2: First Name
MI
Last Nam -
-WAKU
Mailing Address
PO Box
City.
State
ZIP
-
Phone No. t
-
- ext.
Phone No. 2 -
- - ext:
FAX No. -
Contractor #
Street Address (if different from above)
.City
State
TIP
Email
RECEIVED
APK 1 U LUI(
<Form continues on back>
prm- MHD C� Y
252.808-2808 :: 1.888.41ill :: www..neeoastalmanaglernent-net

-_____dorm DCM_MP-1�P_age_2 of_5)___—____.
Major Development Permit
DCM
MAR 15 2017
WARO
RECEIVED
OR 10 2017
DCM= MHD CITY
252-808-2808 -. 1-888-4RCOA57 .. www.nccoastaimanagement.net

For�-CMzMPDl=(Page�3�fa3)------- — -- ----"7kPPElG*TMN=Tor—
Major Development Permit
3. Project Location,
County (can be multiple)
Street Address
State Rd. #
Dare
N/A (see attached maps)
Subdivision Name
city
State
Zip
Phone No.
Lot No.(s) - (if many; attach addffonef page with fist)
ext.
4 i
a. In which NC river basin is the project located?
b. Name of body of water nearest to proposed project
Pamlico Sound
c. Is the waterbody identified in (b) above, natural or manmade?
d. Name the closest major water body to. the proposed, project site.
®Natural ❑Manmade ❑Unknown
e. Is proposed work within city limits or planning jurisdiction?
f. If applicable, list the planning jurisdiction or city limit the proposed
[]Yes ®No
work falls within.
4. Site Des t►om'a<w ky: ` r,x .y; qsw,+:,<
l
a. Total length of shoreline on the tract (ft.)
b. Size of entire tract (sq.fL)
N/A
c. Size of Individual lot(s)
d. Approximate elevation of tract above NHW (normal high water) or
NWL (normal water level)
(If many lot sizes, piesse attach additional page with a fist)
-1 m ®NHW or ❑NWL
9. Vegetation on trail
Mixed Zostera marina (eelgrass) and Halodule maritime (shoalgrass)
f. Man-made features and uses now on trail
N/A
MAR 15 2017
g. Identify and describe the existing land uses adjacent to the proposed project site.
A
A commercial water -column shellfish lease (S. Stowe) exists —400 m to the NNW Oust "offshore" in at t e e r).
h. How does local government zone the tract?
L- Is the proposed project consistent with the applicable zoning?
N/A
(Attach zoning compliance certificate, 0 applicable)
.
[]Yes )]No, ONA
1. Is the proposed activity part of an urban waterfront redevelopment proposal? ❑Yes ®No
k Hasa professional archaeological assessment been done for the tract? If yes, attach a copy. ❑Yes ❑No ®NA
If yes, by whom?
I. Is the proposed project located In a National Registered Historic District or does @Involve a []Yes ❑No ®NA
National Register listed or eligible property?
KECEIVED
<Form continues on next page>
APR 10 2017
252.808•2808 :: 1-888-4RCOAST :: www.ncaoastalman agement.net

Form QQM MP-1 (PAge 4 of 5) APPLICATION for
Major Development Permit
m. (i) Are there wetiandson the site? ®Yes []NO
(Ip Are there coastal wetlands on the site? NYes []NO
(iilj If yes to either O or (it) above, has a delineation been conducted? - NYes []No -
(Attach documentation, lfavailable)
n. Deser be existing wastewater treatment facilities.
NIA
o. Describe existing drinking water supply source.
N/A
p. Describe existing storey water management or treatment systems. -
N/A
1,"Addidtles and Impacts
a. Will the project be for commercial, public, or private use? ❑Commercial NPublidGovernment
❑Private/Community
b. Give a brief description of purpose, use, and daily operations of the project when complete.
This is a research project designed to evaulate the effects of shellfish aquaculture on local seagrasses and habitat use by
estuarine nekton. The project will involve the deployment of gears to mimic bag/rack aquaculture, within shallow seagrass
- meadows, followed by periodic. sampling of seagrass and nekton (via standard fisheries gears and DIDSON).
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.
We will construct 5 replicate bottom cage and 5 replicate floating bag treatments (each - 10m x 12m). We have detailed the
design of these structures in our attached proposal and additional diagrams.
d. List all development activities you propose.
NIA
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 protect? N/A ❑Sq.Ft or ❑Acres
g. Will the proposed project encroach on any public easement, public accessway or other area ❑Yes NNo ❑NA
that thepublic has established use on
h. Describe location and type of existing and proposed discharges to waters of the state. MAR Y
N/A 1
WA
1. Will wastewater or stormwater be discharged into a wetland? ❑Yes NNe ❑NA
If yes, will this discharged water beof the same salinity as the receiving water? []Yes NNo ❑NA _
1. Is there any mitigation proposed? - ❑Yes NNo . C E I VE
If yes, attach a mitigation proposal. -
<Forrn continues on back> APR 10 2917
ai
2017 "
'O
DCM- MHD CITY
252-808-2808 .. 1-888-4RCOAST .. www.nccoastaimanagament.net

Farm-DCM�IJIPYI=(Page-rs--of 5 PPEICWTION7or®
Major Development Permit
8 ,Additional lnfornladon ".
In addl¢wrltQ thlSAornpfeted:applkehon form, (MP-1) the following items below, ifapplicable, must be submitted in order for the appbcation�
•package to be complete ifems'(a) - (0 ani always applicable to any major development application. Please consult the application
-.;r)asbtroHon.rSgoldet on hm to pmpedy prep in the requited 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. Aalte 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 30days In
which to submit comments on the proposed project to the Division of Coastal Management.
Name N/A > ' Phone Na.
Address
Name Phone No.
Address
Name Phone No.
i
Address, n '
g. A list of pfevious state or federal permits issued for work on the project tract. Include permit numbers, permittee, and issuing dates.
North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries Scientific Collection
Permit 706481
h. Signed consultant or agent authorization form, g 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.
. t.emncation and penni."ion to=Enter on Land ;r
I understand that any permit issued in response to this application will allow only the development described In the application.
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 connectionwith evaluating information relatedto 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 _3114117 Prim Name Jce1 Fodrie - D C 1 " A
Signature
MAR 15 2017
Please indicate application attachments pertaining to your proposed project.
❑DCM MP-2 Excavation and Fill Information ❑DCM MP-5 9ridges and Culverts W /� li
❑DCM MP-3 Upland Development ` A R
®DCM MPA Structures Information RiECEO V ED
APR 10 2017
252-808.2808 1-888-4RCOAST :: www..-nccof)(jMan1Nl'i n .net

RECEIVED
APR 10 2017
DCM- MHD CITY
DCM
MAR 15 2017
WARE

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 ® Ihis section not applicable
a. (i) Is the docking facildy/marina:
[]Commercial ❑Public/Govemment ❑Pdvate/Community
c. (i) Dock(s) and/or pier(s)
(ii) Number
(li) Length
(N)Width
(v) Floating []Yes ❑No
a.. (i) Ara Platforms included? ❑Yes ❑No
If yes:
(ii) Number
(ii) Length
(N) Width
(v)-Floating []Yes []No
Note: Roofed areas are calculated from drfpfine dimensions.
g. () Number or slips proposed
(i) Number of slips existing
1. Check the proposed type of sitting:
❑ Land cut and access channel
[]Open water; dredging for basin and/or channel
❑Open water, no dredging required
❑Other, please describe:
k. Typical boat length:
m. (p WIII the facility have tie pilings?
[]Yes ❑No
(i) If yes number of tie pilings?
b. (i) Will the facility be open to the general public?
[]Yes ❑No
d. (i) Ara Finger Piers included? ❑Yes []No
If yes:
(i) Number
(III) Length _
(iv) Width
(v) Floating []Yes []No
f. () Are Boatfdts included? []Yes []No
If yes:
(ii) Number
(II) Length
(iv) Width
In. Check all the types of services to be provided.
❑ Full service, including travel lift and/or rail, repair or
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:
j. Describe the typical boats to be server e. open ronabou
charter boats, sail boats, mixed t C \ / E
APR 10 2017
DCM- NIND CITY
O I. WIII the facility be open to the pane I public? DCM
❑Yea []No + MAR 15 2017
252.808.2808:: 1-88114RCOAST :: www.nccoastaimanaaement.net revised: 12/27/06

&r. nCM MD"d ictra¢tuses.-Raae-2ri4)
2. DOCKING FACILITY/MARIATA OPERATIONS OThrs seciwn not epprioebfe
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 tank 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?
6. () Give the location and number of "No Sewage Discharge" signs proposed.
(ii) Give the location and number of'Pumpout Available" signs proposed.
I. 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 ovemight and live -aboard dockage? RCj 4. t
k. Describe design measures that promote boat basin Bushing? - D ^ s n �^D V 1
I. If this project is an expansion of an existing manVna, whet types of services are currently provided? O II ' f
m. Is the marinaidocking facility proposed within a primary or secondary nursery area?
❑Yes []NO
WAR ;
252-808-2808 :: 7-888.41111 :: www.nceo stalmananement.net revised: 12/27/06

FUFFFi DCTW (Structures, Page o
n. Is the manna/docking facility proposed within or adjacent to any shellfish harvesting area?
❑Yes []No
o. Is the marinaldocking facility proposed Within or adjacent to coastal wellandslmarsh (CW), submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), shell bottom
(SS), or other wetlands (WL)? If any boxes are checked, provide the number of square feet affected.
❑CW ❑SAV. ❑SS
❑WL []None
p. Is the proposed marina/docking facility located within or within close proximity to any shellfish leases? ❑Yea ❑No
If yes, give the name and address of the leaseholder(s), and give the proximity to the lease.
3 BOATHOUSE (fncludldg covered'liffs) ®This section notappticable`
a. (q Is the boathouse strudure(s):
❑Commercial ❑PubliclGovemmenl ❑Private/Community
(I) Number
Oil) Length
Ov) Width
Hole: Rooted areas era calculated from drfplina dimensions.
4. GROIN (e.g., wood, sheetpile, etc. (f a rock groin, use MP2, Excavation and Fill.) ®This section not applicable
a. (1) Number
01) Length
pip Width
5 BREAKWATER (e.g., wood. sheelpile, etc.) ,. ®This section not applicable
a. Length b. Average distance from Ni NAT., or wetlands
c. Maximum distance beyond NHW, NWL or wetlands
GS and BUOYS
a. Is the structure(s):
❑Commercial ❑Public/Government ❑Private/Communhy
C. Distance to be placed beyond shoreline _
Able: This should be measured from marsh edge, if present
,.®i his sea
b. Number
d. Description of.buoy (color, Inscription, size, anchor, etc.)

—Forum-DCM_ME—_&,atru ctures._Qaae_4ofA)—:
a. Proximity of shvcture(s) to adjacent riparian property lines b. Proximfty of structure(s) to adjacent docking facilities.
400 m NM
Note: For buoy or mooning piling, use en; of swing including length
ofvessei.
c. Width of water body
40 lon
e. (1) Will navigational aids be required as a result of the project?
®Yes []No ❑NA
(ii) If yes, explain what type and how they will he implemented.
We will use standard marking posts for watercolum shellfish
leases.
d. Water depth at waterward end of structure at NLW or NWL
-1.5 m
8. OTHER pThis section not applicable:
a. Give complete description:
This is a research project designed to evaulate the effects of shellfish aquaculture on local seagrasses and habitat use by
estuarine neMon. The project will involve the deployment of gears to mimic bagirack aquaculture, within shallow seagrass
meadows, followed by periodic sampling of seagrass and nekton (via standard fisheries gears and DIDSON). We have
included a detailed project narrative as additional information a.
Applicant Sig ature
RECE VEJ
APR 10 2017
DCM- MHD CITY
DCM
MAR 15 2017
WA���.k,
252-808-2808 :: 1-888-4RCOAST -.: w ,niccoastalmanagement.net revised: 12127106

Attachment A.
Effects of oyster grow -out cages on the condition and ecosystem -services of seagrass
communities
F. Joel Fodrie, Assistant Professor, Institute of Marine Sciences, UNC-Chapel Hill
James W. Morley, Postdoctoral Associate, Department of Ecology, Evolution and Natural
Resources, Rutgers University
Katherine McGlade, Environmental Consultant with Seachange Coastal Consulting,
Hatteras, NC
Abigail K.-Poray, Laboratory Manager, Institute of Marine and Coastal Sciences, Rutgers
University
In coastal regions conflicting demands for space are common problems faced by resource
management (Crowder et al. 2006; McGinnis and Collins 2013). Achieving a balance between
human and environmental needs can be particularly difficult in estuarine systems because these
areas are important for the early life stages of many economically valuable species (Beck et al. .
2001; Dahlgren et al. 2006). There has been recent concern over bivalve aquaculture
transforming estuarine landscapes. Of particular concern is overlap between aquaculture leases
and seagrass, or submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), habitats (Dumbauld et al. 2009). This is
because seagrass beds are high quality nursery areas within coastal ecosystems, where the
density of juvenile fishes and crustaceans may exceed surrounding non -structured habitat by over
an order of magnitude (Beck et al. 2001; Heck et al. 2003; Powers et al. 2007). Conserving SAV
is important, because on. a global scale, seagrass habitat is much reduced from historic levels
(Orth et al. 2006). As a result, many coastal U.S. states provide SAV habitat with some level of
protection.
Oyster aquaculture accounts for a majority of bivalve production in the U.S. with an
annual value that can exceed $100 million (NOAA Fisheries Data). Production of cultured
oysters has been increasing rapidly on the Atlantic coast. For example, sales of cultured oysters
in Virginia increased from $240,000 to over $11 million in the past decade (NC Rur. Econ.
Devel. Cent. 2013). Similarly, in Rhode Island the value of shellfish culture has grown from $84
thousand to over $5 million in the past twenty years, which is attributed to increased oyster
production (Beutel 2014). In some coastal areas of the U.S., oyster aquaculture is already a
dominant feature of the landscape (Everett et al. 1995; Tallis et al. 2009). The growth of this
industry will probably continue as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is
actively promoting shellfish aquaculture (Sobeck 2014).
One of the objectives of ecosystem based management is to achieve socioeconomic
balance without diminishing ecosystem integrity, which requires knowledge about the effects of
human alterations to natural areas (Pikitch et at. 2004). This includes understanding the
ecosystem costs AND benefits that may be associated with a change from natural conditions.
Culturing oysters involves growing the product, using a variety of alternative methods and gear
types, within designated plots that are typically leased from the state through a emu
process. Culture methods may negatively impact seagrass in multiple ways, in uding t r
(Skinner et al. 2013, 2014), promoting sediment deposition or scouring (Ever e et al. 1995), and
mechanical disturbance from contact between seagrass and growouvtharvest g , oysWrl 5 2017
RECEIVED
APR 10 2017
WARD
DCM- MHD'CITY

people (Everett et al. 1995; Wisehart et al. 2007; Tallis et al. 2009). However, the effect of oyster
culture leases depends on the scale of observations. The impact of oyster culture may only
impact seagrass directly under the lease (Everett et al. 1995; Bulmer et al. 2012; Skinner et al.
2013). Dumbauld and McCoy (2015) used a distribution model for seagrass in a heavily
cultivated region of Washington, and show that SAV habitat is resilient to oyster culture
disturbances at the broader -landscape scale.
There are also several mechanisms by which bivalve aquaculture may facilitate seagrass
fitness. The biodeposits of natural bivalve populations benefit seagrass growth by enriching
sediments with nutrients (Peterson and Heck 2001). Oysters in particular have a high filtration
rate and they improve water clarity, which benefits SAV (Newell and Koch 2004). Aquaculture
of oysters can be an effective tool for removing excess nutrients from eutrophic estuarine
systems (Higgins et al. 2011). Further, the gear used for growing oysters may be effective
structured habitat for fish and shellfish (Dealteris et al. 2004; O'Beirn et al. 2004; Tallman and
Forrester 2007; Erbland & Ozbay 2008). Thus, the overall effect of shellfish aquaculture on net
ecosystem service delivery (e.g., provision of fish habitat) in areas including SAV may be
negative, positive, or neutral based on the relative balance among the factors above.
An environmental impact study is needed for oyster aquaculture in North Carolina
North Carolina has one of the highest estuarine surface areas in the U.S. However, the
growth of the oyster aquaculture industry has been stagnant and earns less than $600,000
annually (NC Rur. Econ. Devel. Cent. 2013). States to the north of NC have experienced rapid
growth of oyster aquaculture. The value of this industry in states like Virginia and Rhode Island
far exceeds even the wild oyster fishery m NC, which is among the top five most valuable state
fisheries, averaging $2.3 million in sales annually since 2000 (NCDMF). Given the expansion of
the oyster aquaculture industry in neighboring states, NC appears to be poised for increases in
farmed oyster production. Indeed, a bill was proposed to the general assembly of NC in early
2015 that would strengthen and protect the oyster industry (NC General Assembly, Session
2015). Provisions in the bill include an examination of obstacles that prevent oyster lease
establishment and a plan to enhance oyster aquaculture in NC.
Current policy in NC prevents new oyster aquaculture leases from being established over
any amount of current or historic SAV presence, which may contribute to slow industry growth
(refer to letters of support from NC Shellfish Growers Association, J. Daniels, S. Stowe, J.
Styron). While SAV habitat only comprises 7% of estuarine area in NC, many of these areas are
ideal for oyster aquaculture, such as eastern Pamlico Sound and Core Sound (NC Coastal Habitat
Protection Plan.2005; Allen et al. 2014), Policy makers in NC are facing pressure from industry
participants to allow oyster culture leases to overlap with SAV habitat (refer to letters of support
from NC Shellfish Growers Association, L Daniels, S. Stowe, J. Styron). Unfortunately,
available published research has a limited capacity to inform NC policy regarding interactions
between oyster aquaculture and SAV communities for two major reasons. First, there have been
no studies on the U.S. Atlantic coast that have examined oyster lease impacts on seagrass. Local
studies are important because the unique environmental characteristics of an area may affect the
impact of aquaculture gear. For example, the large tidal amplitude of 4 in probably influenced
the high degree of sediment scouring observed around oyster racks in an Oregon estuary (Everett
et al. 1995). For comparison, tidal range in Pamlico Sound, NC is typically under 0.5 m. North
Carolina also differs from previous study areas because SAV communities consist of mixed beds
RECEIVED
APR 10 2017 DCM,
MAR 15 201i
DCM- MHD CITY

containing both Zostera marina and Halodule wrightii; all previous published work has been
conducted in habitats with only Zostera.
The second reason NC policy change is limited by previous research is that there are
regional differences in culture methods, and the impact of growing oysters is highly dependent
on the particular method used (Everett et al. 1995; wsehart et al. 2007; Tallis et al. 2009). Thus
any impact study needs to be conducted with culture gear that is used locally. Two common
methods for growing oysters in NC, and the east coast U.S. in general, are floating bags and
bottom cages that rest on the sea floor (O'Beirn et al. 2004; Brbland and Ozbay 2008; Allen et al.
2014). The impact of floating bag culture on seagrass has been examined in Canada (Skinner et
al. 2013) and New Zealand (Buhner et al. 2012). Despite a shading effect (Skinner et al. 2014),
floating bags appear to minimize mechanical damage to SAV, and variable amounts of seagrass
can persist within a lease. However, the value of floating cage oyster culture as fish and shellfish
habit has not been examined.
In contrast to floating cages it can be expected that bottom cages will severely impact the
seagrass it is placed over. However, there has been no work examining the spatial footprint these
cages leave oil SAV and it is unknown if seagrass can persist in between cages. The value of
bottom cages as fish habitat has been examined in Delaware (Erbland and Ozbay 2008) and
Rhode Island (Dealteris et al. 2004; Tallman and Forrester 2007), and evidence suggests that
they function similar to other structured habitats. However, only one of these studies compared
oyster cages with SAV habitat (Dealteris et al. 2004). Further, Tallman and Forrester (2007)
show that the utilization of bottom cages as habitat is species -specific and that the fish
community differs between oyster aquaculture gear and natural rocky habitats. This suggests that
local studies are necessary to understand the species composition around oyster culture leases.
From a fisheries management perspective, if the abundance of economically important species
around oyster leases were high, then these areas would be considered valuable artificial habitat
(even if aquaculture has slight -to -moderate impacts on SAV). Currently, there is little known
about how NC fauna interact with oyster culture gear. The most useful study available shows that
the habitat value of hard clam Mercenaria mercenaria aquaculture in NC is similar to seagrass
beds (Powers et al. 2007). However, similar data are needed for oyster leases because of large
differences in gear and maintenance compared to clam culture.
OBJECTIVES
If NC policy regarding SAV. protection changed, newly established oyster leases would
act as patches of modified seagrass habitat within the broader landscape (Skinner et al. 2014;
Dumbauld and McCoy 2015). The changes in ecosystem services within these altered patches
need to be quantified using metrics that are useful for policy makers and stakeholders (Pendleton
et al. 2015). Unlike previous studies, which have focused on either seagrass or nekton, we
propose to examine changes within the entire SAV community.. Specifically we will A) quantify
how seagrass shoot density and percent cover changes when oyster culture gear is established in
a SAV area, B) create visual tools using high -frequency sonar imaging to present a before -and -
after look at how these habitat patches change when a lease is established, and C) determine how
fishes and decapod crustaceans utilize an area that is converted to oyster culture by coupling
sonar -based technology with traditional sampling. These objectives will be accomplished for
both floating bag and bottom cage oyster culture methods.
Previous studies that have examined the effects of oyster aquaculture have compared
preexisting leases to reference sites (but see Bulmer et al. °° 20 er et al. 2014). This
RECE11% . I ®CNN
APR 10 2017 MAR 15 2017
MHD CITY
DCM- WA R 0

approach has limitations, because baseline, and sometimes location -unique, conditions that were
present before an oyster lease was established are unknown. Thus there is potential bias in using
results from these studies to quantify how an area will change when a lease is established. We
propose to overcome these limitations by utilizing a Multiple Before After Control Impact
(MBACI) ANOVA experimental design (Underwood 1994). Using this approach, multiple
replicate plots (each —60 m2) will be sampled repeatedly through time. Baseline conditions in all
plots will be estimated in year 1 to determine the level of natural variation between sites. A
random selection of plots will then be "impacted" by establishing small-scale oyster culture
Ieases, while the rest remain unmanipulated controls. Sampling in year 2 will then quantify the
environmental impact of the oyster leases by revealing the comparative temporal change in
"impacted" versus `control" sites. The value of this approach is in collecting baseline data in
SAV habitats before oyster cages impact an area so that an accurate estimate of change in habitat
variables, that are responding to aquaculture specifically, can be determined.
Using DIDSON technology for unbiased sampling
Measuring the habitat value of aquaculture leases is difficult because the culture gear
prevents most traditional net -sampling methods. As a result, most studies that have examined the
communities associated with oyster culture gear have been limited in scope, and sampling gear is
typically not standardized between culture gear and reference sites (Dealteris et al. 2004;
O'Beirn et al. 2004; Erbland and Ozbay 2008). Further, these studies used highly size -selective
gear and sampling has been restricted to fauna that are tightly associated with oyster cages.
Tallman and Forrester (2007) used standardized gear between habitats and reduced size
selectivity by deploying multiple types of trap. However, their analysis was limited to four
species and their reference sampling sites were not in
seagrass habitat.Therefore, an accurate measure of
the abundance, size composition, and species
diversity of the fauna utilizing oyster cages remains
.:u
The proposed work will overcome the
limitations of previous research by utilizing Dual -
frequency identification sonar (DIDSON) technology
to sample SAV communities and oyster culture gear
(Sound Metrics Corp., www.soundmetrics.com). This
technology uses transmitted sound at a much higher
frequency than traditional SONAR and can image a
volume of water extending up to 10 m, at up to 10
frames per second (Fig. 1). Further, unlike traditional
video, this technology is effective in turbid or low -
light environments. DIDSON technology is
commonly used to estimate fish abundance, length,
species composition, and to characterize habitat
(reviewed in Able et al. 2014); fish as small as 40 mm
can readily be distinguished. This gear is particularly
suited for the proposed research, because it offers a
standardized means of sampling both oyster leases
and control sites, and it is not size -selective like
Fig. 1. Image from a DIDSON video
taken of a dense patch of SAV. For
examples of DIDSON yjdeos visit
httvJ/www.so=dmetncs.co F1ma e-G r%PA
RECEIVED
APR 10 2017 MAR 15 2017
DCM- MHD CA I W ••

Fig. 2. DIDSON imagery of two aquatic
plant species (A)'. Fully processed 3D
image of lake bottom showing two
species of aquatic plant from DIDSON
data (B). Figure modified from Mizuno
and Asada 2014.
traditional gear. While the DIDSON sampling will represent the core of our sampling approach,
we will supplement these data with a comprehensive and standardized sampling program, which
will include quadrats to estimate seagrass metrics, fish traps, and net sampling.
The proposed work will couple a well replicated and robust experimental approach with
the most comprehensive sampling of the nekton community associated with bivalve aquaculture
gear to date. Further, we will sample two commercial leases in order to compare our
experimental results with full-scale oyster culture operations. Therefore, this work would be well
suited to address two primary hypotheses that are highly relevant for guiding policy directions in
NC.
Hl : Seagrass cover declines when a lease is established in an area.
We will determine the net change in seagrass shoot density and % cover within SAV
habitat when an oyster lease is established. Further, the MBACI experimental design will allow
us to determine if the initial density or % cover of seagrass influences the overall magnitude of
impact an oyster culture lease will have, which has not been previously examined. The proposed
study would represent the fast time DIDSON technology has been used to quantify seagrass
density, and we will validate this technique with conventional seagrass sampling methods. Part
of our DIDSON sampling will follow recent work that integrated DIDSON imagery with GPS
data to map out large areas of lake bottom with aquatic plants (Fig. 2, Mizuno et al. 2013;
Mizuno and Asada 2014). These maps will provide both a method of estimating seagrass density
within entire plots, and effective visual tools to examine the impact of oyster cages on SAV
communities (Fig. 2b). We believe these visual tools would be effective means of providing
context to traditional results for policy makers.
H2: Habitat value of a seagrass bed is reduced when an oyster aquaculture lease is established.
We will determine how the habitat value of a seagrass bed will change in response to the
establishment of an oyster aquaculture lease. Specifically, we will determine changes in
abundance, size structure, biomass and species composition of the fish and shellfish community.
Responses of fish to aquaculture gear is species specific (Tallman and Forrester 2007), thus we
expect communities around an oyster lease to differ from the surrounding SAV habitat. To fully
estimate habitat value, the entire nekton community must be sampled, including larger
individuals and transient species. This is because laRF predators also u)lize eagrass
APR 10 2017 MAR 15 2017
DCM-_MHD CIT`�WARO

foraging areas (Fodrie et aL 2015). Our use of DIDSON for sampling will overcome many of the
size -selective biases of traditional gear, and allow us to estimate the abundance of juveniles and
larger predators. Further, this would be one of the first applications of DIDSON in any
aquacultare setting and would represent the most accurate comparison of fish abundance and size
structure between shellfish -culture gear and the habitats they impact. Supplemental trap and net
sampling will makeup for limitations of DIDSON sampling for the small (< 40 mm) individuals,
and species composition information.
METHODOLOGY
Manipulative experiment in Pamlico Sound
Fifteen replicate sites in Pamlico Sound near. Hatteras, NC will be chosen in May 2016.
Each, site. will be 6 x 10 m and delineated with markers anchored in the substrate. Replicate sites
Will have average seagrass coverage between 10 and 25%, which will be determined by
randomly placed quadrats. There will be a minimum distance of.50 m between sites. No oyster
cages will be presentduiitig the summer of 2016, so sampling that year will provide baseline
conditions for replicate plots and be used to estimate natural variation due to seasonal effects and
differences between sites. Following year-1 sampling, in September of 2016, replicates will
randomly be assigned to one of three treatments (fully crossed design): bottom cages (75 mm
oysters at onset), floating bags (4 mm oysters at onset), or unman;pulated controls. North
Carolina represents the southernmost limit of Z. marina, which is a cool -water species, and
aboveground biomass is at its lowest in early fall (Jarvis et al. 2012). Conversely, H. wrightii
biomass declines during winter (Kowalski et al. 2009). Therefore, establishing the experimental
plots during September of 2016 ensures that our small-scale, mock leases will be in place before
the 2017 growing season of Z. marina begins, and many months before 2017 growth of H.
wrightii.
To accurately replicate industry practices, bottom cage plots will consist of two rows of
three triple stacked cages (1 x 1 x 0.5 m) that rest on the bottom (Chesapeake Bay Oyster
Comp.). Floating -bag plots will consist of two 10 m rows, each consisting of ten oyster bags (1 x
0.5 m) that are fastened in series to aline, which is anchored to the substrate at each end. The
rows of both bottom cages and floating bags will be 3 m apart, which allows passage of a boat
for maintenance. We will culture triploid Crassostrea virginica, which is typical for the east .
coast U.S, Oysters are held in multiple mesh bags within culture gear, up until they reach 25 mm.
The maintenance schedule of culture gear is variable throughout the year and is done mostly by
boat, using a winch to lift gear onboard. In addition to periodic defouling of cages, the oysters
need to be tumbled routinely to prevent them from clumping together. Tumbling is done
mechanically and oysters are removed from culture gear and resorted by size during the process.
During the 2017 sampling season, each floating bag or cage will be tumbled on a weekly basis.
We will periodically estimate the abundance and species composition of nekton that would be
affected by, and presumably not survive, the tumbling process.
All fifteen sites will be sampled four times between May and September in both 2016
(before impact) and 2017 (after impact). The timing of sampling will encompass the months of
.maximum biomass for Zostera marina and Ralodule wrightii (Fig. 3a; Jarvis et al. 2012).
Further, this range of sampling dates will include periods of high fish abundance in SAV habitats
(Fig. 3b) and will capture recruitment pulses, of fish species spawned over a range of dates. Our
sampling schedules will be independent of gear maintenance, with the exception that they will
RECEIVED DCM
APR 10 2017 MAR 15 2017
CITY
D �9HI
DCM- WAR,

Seasonal seagrass growth in NC Seasonal fish abundance in NC seagrass
0.4 - 5 I3
—• 11810d010 4
m0.3-
;, _Zostera r
E o
34
0.2-
n 9 y
m r is
m n
a U Z
/ w E
Core Sound
411dd1e Mh a k
ars�
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1'1 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Month .Month
Fig. 3. Mean (SE) monthly above ground biomass (dry weight) per m2 of the two dominant seagrass
species within a mixed species bed in Middle Marsh, NC in 2010 (A). Mean (SE) monthly trawl
catch per unit effort (number of individuals per 10 In) in seagrass beds within two estuarine systems
in NC between 2010-2014 (B). F.J. Fodrie lab database.
not occur on the same day. The DIDSON device will be used to track changes within specific
monitoring patches (-10 in) at each replicate site through time. Fixtures will be embedded in the
sediment on the margin of each site to ensure consistent placements of the DIDSON device
throughout the experiment. Disturbance to the fish community while setting up DIDSON will be
minimized by 1) only one person will be in the water to set up DIDSON, 2) the boat will remain
anchored at a distance of at least 20 in, 3) the DIDSON frame will be set up 2 m outside of
replicate plots, 4) DIDSON will be left alone for 10 min after set up before activating the device
remotely. The DIDSON device will sample each site for five minutes.
Seagrass sampling will be conducted at two scales using DIDSON sampling and image
analysis software, which will be validated by the more traditional method of analyzing random
quadrats. First, fine scale sampling of SAV will be conducted within the DIDSON monitoring
patches described above, which will be defined by the viewing field of the device (e.g. Fig. 1).
Second, large-scale sampling will consist of mapping SAV distribution within entire replicate
plots (60 m2), by integrating GPS information with DIDSON imagery (Mizuno et al. 2013;
Mizuno and Asada 2014). With this method, the DIDSON is moved along a iransect, and the
device is aimed more directly at the sea floor to obtain a detailed look at above -ground SAV
biomass (Fig. 2a). Replicate plots will be mapped twice per year, corresponding to periods of
maximum growth for Zostera and Halodule. In addition to changes in SAV coverage, these maps
will quantify bathymetric changes associated with oyster cages, which is important because in
some regions oyster cages greatly influenced sedimentation rates (Everett et al. 1995).
RECEIVED DCm
APR 10 2017 MAR 15 2017
DCM- MND CITY -
VIfARO

The DIDSON sampling will be validated by estimating seagrass density using quadrats
within each monitoring patch (small scale), and also within entire replicate sites (large scale). For
the small-scale measurements, three randomly placed quadrats will be sampled within the
DIDSON monitoring patch. For the large scale estimate of seagrass density we will sample along
two randomly positioned transects that cross the plot. Five quadrats will be positioned along each
transect at locations 3 in outside the replicate site, at the site margins, and in the center.
Regression analysis will be used to assess the ability of DIDSON to estimate seagrass density.
Traditional fish sampling
To examine species composition between oyster cages and unmanipulated SAV habitats,
DIDSON sampling will be supplemented with trap and net sampling. Non -baited traps will be
deployed for 24 hours following DIDSON use. Two minnow traps with 3 mm mesh and a single
crab pot with 5 cm mesh will be set within each replicate site to sample a range of fish sizes.
Traps will be randomly placed, but will not be positioned within the permanent DIDSON
monitoring patches. Grill net sampling will also be conducted at each site. Gill nets will be
relatively short length (-20 m) and staked at each end to prevent gear entanglement.
Trap and gill net sampling may not be effective for species closely associated with oyster
cage gear. To determine species composition within both types of oyster cage we will use 1.5 x
1 S in lift nets. A single floating cage, or one complete bottom rack, will be sampled at each
experimental site during each sampling period. For the bottom racks, the lift net will be
positioned beneath the rack two weeks before sampling, as in Dealteris et al. (2004); racks within
the DIDSON monitoring patches will not be used for lift net sampling. Complete oyster cages
will be brought into the boat within lift nets and will be opened up and flushed with water to
thoroughly remove all fauna.
Sampling commercial oyster leases
Our experimental plots (-60 in) are small in scale compared to commercial leases, which
may measure up to 20,000 m' (NC Marine Fisheries Commission Rules 2015). This is an
important difference, because the density of organisms in an area is often related to habitat patch
size (Eggleston et al. 1998; Meyer and Posey 2014). Therefore, to put our research into a broader
context we will sample two existing commercial oyster leases in 2017. Each lease will be
sampled twice corresponding to the peaks in Z. marina and H. wrightii. During each sampling
period, the DIDSON device will sample along two transect that range from the center of the
lease to —100 m outside of the lease. The position of transects will be chosen to encounter areas
of seagrass, while maintaining distance from shorelines. We are not choosing transects randomly
because our goal is to compare habitat value of SAV and oyster aquaculture leases; nonrandom
placement will maximize our ability to make this comparison given available resources. Five
sampling positions will be arranged along each transect to examine potential gradients in fish
abundance or size structure due to the presence of the oyster lease and SAV density. The
commercial leases we will sample are located in northern and southern Pamlico Sound, and each
contains seagrass within and surrounding the lease (refer to letters of support from owners J.
Daniels and J. Styron). By using this tramect-sampling approach, we will determine what the
environmental footprint of a commercial lease consists of. Further, we will examine if there is
variation in habitat quality within the lease. For example, if lease margins are more effective fish
habitat than interior areas, then this will influence the overall habitat value of an oyster culture
plot.
RECEIVED ACM
APR 10 2017 MAR 15 2017
DCM- MHD CITY I
WARD

Analyzing DIDSON data
Different.methods will be used to estimate fish/shellfish metrics and seagrass density
using DIDSON data. First, Sound Metrics software will be used to estimate abundance, length
composition, and biomass of the fish and shellfish community. Each five-minute video will be
subsampled to estimate metrics of the faunal community; subsamphng is necessary as
individuals may leave and reenter the DIDSON sampling field. Therefore a subsample represents
the abundance and length composition of the community within the DIDSON sampling field at a
certain time. This is done by tracking all individuals within a short sampling interval and
excluding new arrivals from the margins of the viewing field. Lengths of individuals can be
estimated based on their linear dimension and location within the DIDSON field. Individual
weights, and cumulatively biomass, can be estimated by applying taxon-specific length -weight
relationships of fish tracked by DIDSON. We will develop these relationships for the most
common species sampled during this study. During video analysis, weights of each individual
will be determined by using the most appropriate length -weight relationship based on the
behavior of the individual (e.g. pelagic, schooling), or a generalized relationship will be applied
if an individual is difficult to categorize. Seagrass coverage from DIDSON samples will be
examined in multiple ways using ImageJ image analysis Software (Schneider et al. 2012).
Seagrass % cover and shoot density will be estimated by examining a sample of frames from
each video. We will compare methods including polygon -based area calculations of SAV
coverage, binarization of pixels based on DIDSON signal strength (Mizuno et al. 2013), and
counting individual shoots.
OUTCOMES
RELEVANCE TO NORTH CAROLINA
Our proposed research addresses multiple focus areas of the 2014-2017 North
Carolina Sea Grant Strategic Plan. Most directly, information from this project would contribute
toward improved management of `Healthy Coastal Ecosystems'. Simultaneously, this research
also promotes a `Safe and Sustainable Seafood Supply' to meet market demand in NC. An
increase in the NC oyster aquaculture industry would have a positive economic impact,
especially to small coastal communities. Based on neighboring states like Virginia, oyster culture
has the potential to greatly exceed the value of the wild oyster fishery. Restrictions on oyster
leases are set by the Army Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permit. This Permit is reviewed every
5 years, during which state -level policy changes are considered based on comments from
stakeholders and local management agencies. The proposed research would provide critical
information to inform changes to NC oyster aquaculture provisions in the Nationwide Permit.
Timing for this study is critical, because the present time may be the only opportunity to examine
the environmental impacts of oyster culture before the industry enters a period of rapid growth
like other east coast regions. Much of the literature cited in this proposal is from regions that
were already heavily cultivated (e.g. Everett et al. 1995; Tallis et al. 2009; Skinner et al. 2013).
The proposed study would provide information for options within the NC permitting
process. For example, if density of fish is higher around oyster culture gear compared to areas
that are naturally low in seagrass coverage, then allowing oyster leases over less productive
seagrass beds may enhance the overall habitat value of an area.. This is a realistic possibility
because fish density and richness is positively related to %cover of seagrass in NC (Yeager et al.
in review). Policy makers will also gain the information needed to restrict perig b�
culture gear used_ For example, we expect floatit bags to have la impact SAVVr
o--�l.a`Iti6—
APR 10 2017 I MAR 15 20i7
DCM- MHD CITY WARS,

bottom cages (Bulmer et al. 2012; Skinner et al. 2013). Further, the before -and -after visual tools
we will produce using DIDSON technology will provide a detailed look at how SAV habitat is
impacted by culture gear. This information might suggest additional measures to prevent
negative impacts.
RELEVANCE TO OTHER WORK
The primary PI is a member of the NC Marine Fisheries Commission Habitat and Water
Quality advisory committee. He conducts research on how fish utilize estuarine habitat, and
aquaculture leases are increasingly becoming a part of the habitat mosaic in coastal ecosystems.
This research would contribute to a growing body of literature that examines the effects of
shellfish aquaculture within an ecosystem context. For example, lease bottom is one habitat
classification in an ongoing study of the movement and estuarine use of red drum, black drum,
summer flounder and gray trout in the New River Estuary funded by the NC Division of Marine
Fisheries CRFL program (multiple grants and multiple PIs). The proposed NC Sea Grant.
research would provide a fine -scale, mechanistic understanding of why these mobile, prized
species are either attracted to or avoid shellfish lease bottoms.
Chris Taylor is a collaborator on the proposed work and is part of the Marine Acoustics
Team at the NOAA Beaufort Lab (letter of support included). His group uses DIDSON
technology to detect fish and observe fish behavior in complex coastal and ocean habitats (e.g.,
vegetated, rock, coral reefs). This work will improve assessment options for estuarine habitats,
such as remotely estimating seagrass coverage. Further, our use of DIDSON to examine how
aquaculture practices interact with the natural environment would be a novel technique. Effective
tools to examine the ecological costs of in situ aquaculture practices are vital for managing
marine resources within an ecosystem framework. Aquaculture production, and specifically
bivalve culture, is expected to increase and will probably present a growing challenge to spatial
resource management in coastal waters. Thus this proposal would be an informative study for a
technology that continues to grow in its diversity of applications (Able et al. 2014).
If this project were funded, we will be applying for a two-year.student support grant. This
project would provide the primary source of funding for a graduate student at UNC. The student
will assist with field work and will also develop a project that expands on our objectives. Further,
this student will be given the opportunity to participate in all manuscripts associated with this
work.
EXTENSION/O UTREACH PLAN
The primary goal of this project is to inform policy decisions in NC, so outreach is a high
priority. Specifically we will promote the project by: 1) the final report will be given to relevant
policy makers, including the Army Corps of Engineers, 2) we will offer to present our results to
the NC Marine Fisheries Commission and will also present at a regional American Fisheries
Society meeting in early 2018, 3) results will be published in peer reviewed journals, 4) this
project involves collaboration with Carteret Community College's aquaculture program, which
will be growing the oysters to be used in the study (see David Cerino letter of support). Further,
the project lead will present the final results to the aquaculture department students, 5) word of
mouth communication between stakeholders in the oyster aquaculture community will be
enhanced because our research involves collaborations with three active members of the industry
in NC, and 6) oysters produced from this project will be donated to an annual function put on by
RECEIVED DCM .
APR 10 2017
MAR 15 2017
DCM-.rf' iD C7Y WARO

the NC Coastal Federation ("Shellebration" in early 2018); multiple PI's and collaborators will
be present to discuss the project results.
COORDINATION
PROPOSAL TEAMROLES
• Joel Fodrie—lead PI; provide lab facilities to base the project at UNC Institute of Marine
Sciences; field work oversight; manuscript editing; ensure timely report submission
• James Morley —technical lead; all aspects of manuscript prep; field work; presentations
• Katherine McGlade—grow the oysters and maintain experimental plots as aquaculture
leases; field work; extension of results
• Abigail Poray—field work; manuscript prep and editing; presentations
EXISTING OR PROPOSED PARTNERSHIPS
The proposed work is a highly collaborative effort and involves members from the scientific
community, stakeholders in the oyster aquaculture industry of NC, and educators in the
aquaculture field. We have included letters of support from all of our proposed collaborators.
• Spurgeon Stowe, Jay Styron, and Joey Daniels own commercial leases within the
oyster aquaculture industry. Spurgeon is working with the Pls on the project to
maintain and operate our small-scale, experimental oyster leases. Jay and Joey are
allowing us to sample their commercial leases, which are each over five years old, to
put the experimental results into a broader context.
• J. Christopher Taylor is a scientist at the National Center for Coastal Ocean Science
within NOAA's Beaufort Laboratory. He will provide technical expertise with
DIDSON technology, which is being obtained from the NOAA lab. He will also be
involved with manuscript preparation.
• David Cerino is the Aquaculture Coordinator at Carteret Community College in
Morehead City, NC. Under his supervision, students in the college's aquaculture
program will be raising the juvenile oysters to be used in this experiment.
DATA MANAGEMENT PLAN
Overview
The Pls are committed to the goal of making the highest quality data, metadata, and
research summaries available to the scientific and management communities. The PIs have a
history of sound and productive data management (e.g. Sea Grant, NOAA-MARFIN, and NSF)
to support this claim. This accessibility to data and metadata provides a mechanism for
distributing information to researchers, students, coastal zone managers, and educational users as
well as to the public. Team members will work with Fodrie to monitor the overall status of the
project's information dissemination activities. Technicians, students and PIs will maintain the
highest standards for data quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC), maintenance, and access.
The latest techniques and federal standards will be incorporated in the data collection and
management program, from automated data entry and QA/QC programs to the use of software
that provides for Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) compliant metadata. The status
of data management will be reviewed annually at project meetings to ensure that communication
and oversight is constant and accurate.
RECEIVED
APR`10 2017 DCM
DCM MHD CITY MAR 15 2ai7
WARS;

Analysis of data management needs
For each research activity, all data will be stored in both raw and edited formats. Field
notebooks will be stored at the UNC Institute of Marine Science. Data entry into Microsoft
Excel software will be checked using both manual and automated techniques. Field data will be
geographically referenced using hand-held GPS units. GPS data will be differentially corrected
and stored as NAD83 UTM coordinates. For environmental data sets, we will use the "Content
Standard for National Biological Information Infrastructure Metadata (version 1998)'.
Metamaker, developed by the NBS, or an equivalent metadata generator will be used to develop
metadata. for all field data. The metadata will be made part of the NBII, FGDC, or CID
searchable metadata clearinghouses.
Data management
A data manager (designated by Fodrie) will ensure the compliance by PIs for data and
metadata contributions. A timetable will be developed to ensure that databases are available,
finalized, and documented within an acceptable time frame. The proposed new data will be made
available on open -access web page(s) (see below) after a 24 month holding period for QA/QC
and analyses.
Data archiving and availability to the public
Summary data and metadata will be made available via a web portal. Utilizing a web
browser, data tables and graphics will be accessible to a variety of computing platforms. A
central web page will be developed at the Institute of Marine Sciences with links to the project's
component web pages and data at the participating PIs individual project research institutions.
PIs will be responsible for maintaining and updating metadata and primary data in a timely
manner and posting these on the interactive website, available to all users.
REFERENCES
Able KW, Grothues TM, Rackovan JL, Buderman FE (2014) Application of monbile dual -
frequency indentifrcation. sonar (DIDSON) to fish in estuarine habitats. Northeast. Nat. 21:192-
209
Allen J, Grady Q, et al. (2014) The Oyster Banks: a dive into the political, scientific, and social
realms of oysters and oyster aquaculture in North Carolina. Accessed (June, 2015):
https://www.ie.unc.edu/for_students/courses/capstone/14/OBXFS_2014_Capstone.pdf
Beck MW, Heck KL, et al.. (2001) The identification, conservation, and management of estuarine
and marine nurseries for fish and invertebrates. BioScience. 51:633-641
Beutel D (2014) Aquaculture in Rhode Island: 2014 Coastal Resource Management Council
annual status report. Accessed (June 2015): http://www.crmcri.gov/aquaculu=.html
Bulmer R, Kelly S, Jeffs AG (2012) Hanging basket oyster farming: assessing effects on
seagrass using aerial photography. Aquacult. Environ. Interact. 2:285-292
Crowder LB, Osherenko G, et al. (2006) Resolving mismatches in U.S. ocean governance.
Science 313:617-618
RECEIVED I)CM
APR 10 2017
MAR 15 2017
DCM- MHD CITY WARO

Dahlgren CP, Kellison GT (2006) Marine nurseries and effective juvenile habitats: concepts and
applications. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 312:291-295
Dealteris JT, Kilpatrick BF, Rheault RB (2004) A comparative evaluation of the habitat value of
shellfish aquaculture gear, submerged aquatic vegetation and a non -vegetated seabed. J. Shellfish
Res. 23:867-874
Dumbauld BR, McCoy LM (2015) Effect of oyster aquaculture on seagrass Zostera marina at
the estuarine landscape scale in Willapa Bay, Washington (USA) Aquacult. Environ. Interact.
7:29-47
Dumbauld BR, Ruesink JL, Rumrill SS (2009) The ecological role of bivalve shellfish
aquaculture in the estuarine environment: a review with application to oyster and clam culture in
West Coast (USA) estuaries. Aquaculture. 290:196-223
Eggleston DB, Etherington LL, Elis WE (1998) Organism response to habitat patchiness: species
and habitat dependant recruitment of decapod crustaceans. J. Exp. Mar. Bio. Ecol. 223:111-132
Erbland PJ, Ozbay G (2008), A comparison of the macrofaunal communities inhabiting a
Crassostrea virginica oyster reef and oyster aquaculture gear in Indian River Bay, Delaware. J.
Shellfish Res. 27:757-768
Everett RA, Ruiz GM, Carlton JT (1995) Effect of oyster mariculture on submerged aquatic
vegetation: an experimental test in a Pacific Northwest estuary. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 125:205-
217
Fodrie FJ, YeagerLA, Grabowski JH, Layman CA, Sherwood GD, Kenworthy MD (2015)
Measuring individuality in habitat use across complex landscapes: approaches, constraints, and
implications for assessing resource specialization. Oecologia 178:75-87
Heck KL, Hays G, Orth RJ (2003) Critical evaluation of the nursery role hypothesis for seagrass
meadows. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 253:123-136
Higgins CB, Stephenson K, Brown BL (2011) Nutrient bioassimilation capacity of aquacultured
oysters: quantification of an ecosystem service. J. Envir. Qual. 40:271-277
Jarvis JC, Moore Kennel AM, Kenworthy WJ (2012) Characterization and ecological
implication of eelgrass life history strategies near the species southern limit in the western North
Atlantic. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 444:43-56
Kowalski JL, DeYoe HR, Allison TC (2009) Seasonal production and biomass of the seagrass,
Halodule wrightii Aschers. (shoal grass), in a subtropical Texas lagoon. Estuar. Coast. 32:467-
482
McGinnis MV, Collins M (2015) A race for marine space: science, values, and aquaculture
planning in New Zealand. Coast. Manage. 41:401419
RECEIVED DCMt
APR 10 2017 MAR 15 L
DCM- MHD CITY WA1

Meyer DL, Posey MH (2014) Influence of salt marsh size and landscape setting on salt marsh
nekton populations. Estuar. Coast. 37:548-560
Mizuno K, Abukawa K, et al. (2013) Quantification of whooper swan damage to lotus habitats
using high -resolution acoustic imaging sonar in Lake Izunuma, Japan. Aquat. Bot. 110:48-54
Misuno K, Asada A (2014) Three dimensional mapping of aquatic plants at shallow lakes using
1.8 MHz high -resolution acoustic imaging sonar and image processing technology. IEEE Inter.
Ultrasonics Sympos. Proceed. DOI: 10.1109/ULTSYM.2014.0342
Newell RIE, Koch EW (2004) Modeling seagrass density and distribution in response to changes
in turbidity stemming from bivalve filtration and seagrass sediment stabilization. Estuaries.
27:793-806
North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries (2005) Chapter 4: submerged aquatic vegetation. In.
Coastal Habitat Protection Plan. Accessed (June 2015): http://portal.nedenr.org/web/mf/66
North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries. (2014) Commercial landings query tool. Accessed
(April, 2015): h_pt ://uortalncdem.org/web/mf/statistics/comstat
North Carolina General Assembly (2015) Bill# H302: An act to strengthen and protect the oyster
industry in North Carolina. Sponsored by Representatives Tine, McEhaft, Millis, and Harrison.
Accessed (April, 2015): http://mobilemclea.net/Sessions/2015Bills/House/HTMLM302v0 html
North Carolina Marine fisheries Commission (2015) North Carolina Marine Fisheries
Commission Rules. Accessed (May 2015): http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/mf/rules-and-regulations
North Carolina Rural Economic Development Center (2013) A comparative case study of
Virginia and North Carolina's oyster aquaculture development. Accessed (April, 2015):
W://nsel.gso.uri.edu/ncu/ncusl3003.pff
O'Beirn FX, Ross PG, Luckenbach MW (2004) Organisms associated with oysters cultured in
floating systems in Virginia, USA. J. Shellfish Res. 23:825-829
Orth RJ, Carruthers TJB, et al. (2006) A global crisis for seagrass ecosystems. BioScience.
56:987-996
Pendleton L, Mongruel R, et al. (2015) A triage approach to improve the relevance of marine
ecosystem services assessments. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 530:183-193
Peterson BJ, Heck, KL (2001) Positive interactions between suspension -feeding bivalves and
seagrass-a facultative mutualism. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Set. 213:143-155
Pikitch EK, Santora C, et al. (2004) Ecosystem -Based Fishery Management. Science. 305:346-
347
RECEIVED
APR 10 2017
DCM- NAND CITY
ACM
MAR 15 2017
WARD.

Power MJ, Peterson CH, Summerson HC, Powers SP (2007) Macroalgai growth on bivalve
aquaculture netting enhances nursery habitat for mobile invertebrates and juvenile fishes. Mar.
Ecol. Prog. Ser. 339:109-122
Schneifer CA, Rasband WS, Eliceiri KW (2012) NIH image to imageJ: 25 years of image
analysis. Nat. Method. 9:671-675
Skinner MA, Courtenay SC, McKindsey CW (2013) Reductions in distribution, photosynthesis,
and productivity of eelgrass Zostera marina associated with oyster Crassostrea virginica
aquaculture. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 486:16-119
Skinner MA, Courtenay SC, et al. (2014) Experimental determination of the effects of light
limitation from suspended bag oyster (Crassostrea virginica) aquaculture on the structure and
photosynthesis of eelgrass (Zostera marina). J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 459:169-180
Sobeck E (2014) Sustainable shellfish aquaculture: a message from Eileen Sobeck, head of
NOAA Fisheries. Accessed (June 2015):
http://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/aboutus/lea.dership_message.html
Tallis HM, Ruesink JL, et al. (2009) Oysters and aquaculture practices affect eelgrass density
and productivity in a Pacific Northwest estuary. J. Shellfish Res. 2:251-261
Tallman JC, Forrester GE (2007) Oyster grow -out cages function as artificial reefs for temperate
fishes. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 136:790-799
Underwood Al (1994) On beyond BACI: sampling designs that might reliably detect
environmental disturbances. Ecol. Applicat. 4:3-15
Wisehart LM, Dumbauld BR, Ruesink JL, Hacker SD (2007) Importance of eelgrass early life
history stages in response to oyster aquaculture disturbace. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 344:71-80
Yeager LA, Keller DA et al. (in review) Threshold effects of habitat fragmentation per se on fish
diversity at landscapes scales. Ecol. Letter.
RESULTS FROM PRIOR RESEARCH
Joel Fodrie has served as lead PI on multiple Sea Grant funded projects, including the
ongoing project "Understanding the impacts of climate change on the distribution, population
connectivity, and fisheries for summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus) in the Mid -Atlantic"
(2014-R/MARRI4NJ-1). His most -recently completed project was "Turning Negatives into
Postivies: Recycling Derelict Crab Pots as Substrate for Shallow -Water Oyster Reef Production"
(2011-EP-08). The overall objective of this proposal was to initiate an oyster restoration program
that utilized recycled (formerly derelict) crab pots as novel substrate for oyster settlement and
growth. Our research operated across both entire estuarine (several km) and tidal creek (100s of
m) scales to assess the efficacy of alternative pot preparations (substrate type), pot deployment
location across salinity or aerial exposure gradients, and pot migration strategies as mobile
laboratories within tidal creeks to enhance oyster reefs. In total, we deployed 528 recycled crab
RECEIVED AGM
APR 10 2017 MAR 15 20w
DCM- HIND CITY WARD

pots in NC to support enhanced oyster settlement and reef development. In Phase I of our study,
we focused on several basic questions related to the `best practices' of this approach. We found
that coating crab pots in cement significantly increased the density of attached oysters within I-
to-2 years post pot deployment. Moreover, we found that pots deployed intertidally in central NC
supported significantly more oysters that pots deployed subtidally (likely owing to greater
predation pressure and biofouling subtidally in the high -salinity waters in which we conducted
our study).
Building from these findings, in Phase II of our work we developed an approach for
enhancing oyster reefs in the subtidal portions of tidal creeks. Intertidal oyster communities are
common in the higher salinity areas near the mouths of tidal creeks, but typically only sparse
intertidal and subtidal communities occur in the creeks' upper regions. Although the lower
salinities of upper creek areas should enhance subtidal oyster communities, less available hard
substrates and lower numbers of oyster larvae reaching these areas are thought to limit upper
creek oyster reef development. Our project enhanced oyster populations in the upper reaches of
tidal creeks by deploying refurbished, concrete -coated crab pots as oyster substrate in the lower
portions of six tidal creeks (where settlement is high), and then subsequently migrating the
oyster -coated crab pots to areas farther up -creek where salinity regimes are favorable for reef
development (i.e., enhanced individual oyster growth and survival). In both project Phases,
mobile nekton such as sheepshead, gray snapper, pigfish, and stone crabs were found utilizing
the recycled crab pots as oyster -reef habitat, suggesting that this approach may also contribute to
greater secondary (fisheries) production in our estuaries. We anticipate that successful
enhancement of tidal creek oyster populations will help improve coastal water quality.
Furthermore, we are introducing a novel "migrating reefs" restoration ideology that could help
sustain North Carolina oyster populations imperiled by increasing saltwater intrusion into the
sounds brought about by channelization of waterways, greater storminess, and rising sea levels.
A manuscript is currently being prepared for submission to Ecology based on this research (with
former undergraduate technician as lead author).
James Morley completed a Fishery Resource Grant (report# 13-FEG-03) with Kenneth
Seigler, a local fisherman, through NC Sea Grant in 2014 entitled "Alternative fishing
opportunities for white shrimp and menhaden: testing the efficiency of the lampara seine". This
study determined that a lampara seine, which is often used to target pelagic fish, is effective at
targeting white shrimp in estuarine waters with minimal bycatch. An online video was produced
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbLlvTOyZkc) to promote this gear as a viable option for
inshore fishers. A manuscript is currently being prepared for submission to Fish and Fisheries.
SUGGESTED PEER REVIEWERS (MINIMUM OF 3 — NOT FROM NORTH CAROLINA)
Bradley J. Peterson, Associate Professor, Marine Sciences Research Center
Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY 11968
[phone] e-mail: [e-mail]
Graham E. Forrester, Professor, Department of Natural Resources Science
University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI 02881
[phone] e-mail: [e-mail]
Jennifer L Ruesink, Professor, Department of Biology
University of Washington, Seattle WA 98195
[phone] e-mail: [e-mail].
. D�
RECEI V E�
APR 1.0 2017 MAR 15 2017
DCM- "D CITY WARD

Attachment B. Additional notes on proposed gear deployment.
Engineering and Gear:
Gear will be deployed in 2017 and recovered no later than 2019. At the conclusion of the
study, gears will be stored at the Institute of Marine Sciences —to be used In future research.
- Standard commercial grade lines, connectors, bags, floats, and racks are being used (see
attached plats and photos).
- Lines for floating bags will be anchored to sand screws. Sand screws will be positioned outside
of seagrass, and within unvegetated bottom. Given the patchy nature of the grass beds at our
study site, lines will generally have to extend only 5-10 to reach unvegetated bottom.
- 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 weekly by our partnering commercial
fisherman (S. Stowe) for maintenance, at 4+ times each year by our research team monitoring
seagrass condition and nekton composition/abundance.
- All waste will be removed from the site and deposited in waste/recycling facilities.
- In the event of an approaching storm (tropical storm, hurricane), all floating bags will be
moved in to protected water near harbor) by S. Stowe in accordance with his approach on his
nearby lease. In extreme storm evens, floating bags would be moved on land temporarily (24-
48 hours). This is feasible since we have 100 floating bags being deployed. Post storm, the study
area will be closely inspected for debris, which would be removed. We would also walk and
patrol (by boat) the shoreline in all of Sandy Bay, and remove any debris (e.g., VEXAR, lines, etc.
Site:
- At low tide, the study experiences depths between 0.75-1.25m. At high tide, depths range
between 1.0-1.5m. The mean astronomical tide is ^ 0.25m, and the site does experience
meteorological tides. Tidal currents are low at this site (>0.2m/s; by comparison, the Gulf
Stream has an average flow rate between 1-2m/s). The predominant wind directions are SW in
the summer and NE in the winter. Within Sandy Bay, our site is protected from the major
fetches associated with those winds by Hatteras (SW winds) and the barrier islands long Hwy 12
(NE winds). During 16 days spent at the site in 2016, chop at the site was negligible except on
one day. The commercial lease to our NNW would be considered "more exposed", and has not,
experienced significant problems related to rough seas during typical we they patterns.
RECEI Da:
APR 10 2017 I MAR 15 2;1
DCM- !.,HD CITY . WAt .

- Sea Grant staff (Chuck Weirich) visited the site in summer 2016, during a meeting with our
partnering commercial fisherman (S. Stowe) [a visit was also made to S. Stowe's nearby
commercial lease]. Sediments at the nearby lease would have been evaluated per NCDMF
protocols for establishing leases. The sediments are "sandy" in nature.
- Seagrass cover 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 Carolina waters by the North Carolina Department of Marine
Fisheries, and there is no record that we are aware of that shows shellfish/hard bottom on the
shoals we are proposing to conduct our research on. Based on multiple site visits in 2016, 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 conducted repeated sampling of seagrass cover
during 2016, and documented seagrass cover >15% at the landscape scale (seasonally
averaged, including samples from late in the year when most above -ground biomass has
senesced; Attachments C2-5). In 360 individual 0.25m2 quadrat samples, seagrass cover ranged
between 0-100% given the patchy nature of the seagrass at this site (even within all 15 of our
—100m2 study plots, this range was observed). In conversations with DCM and DMF staff, we
are confident this site would currently be excluded under current management schemes from
shellfish leasing. Recently, S. Stowe considered this area but was advised by DMF staff that
seagrass cover greatly exceeded allowable thresholds.
- There is currently ambiguity regarding the impacts of aquaculture gear on estuarine habitats
such as seagrass, as well as structure associated nekton, arising largely from the relative dearth
of information of the ecosystem injury/benefits associated with shellfish leases (refer to funded
proposal narrative). The purpose of this study is.to evaluate, via direct experimentation, the
potential effects of bag/rack gears (including related maintenance activities) on seagrass and
nekton. Given the short effective dispersal distances of eelgrass seeds (Livernois et al.
submitted), and relatively low flow rates at this site, we anticipate minimal impacts related to
the flux of seeds (or other wrack/detritus) across this landscape.
Livernois, MC, JH Grabowski, AK Poray, TC Gouhier, AR Hughes, KF O'Brien, LA Yeager, and FJ
Fodrie (submitted) Effects of habitat fragmentation on Zostera marina seed distribution.
Aquatic Botany
- The novel use of DIDSON technology will allow us to consider both the very local impacts of
aquaculture gear on seagrass and estuarine nekton (CPUE), as well as the effect at broader,
landscape scales (10-100s meters). This could be accomplished via a "moving the lawn"
sampling approach across the entire study site to map seagrass and nekton distribution.
APR 10 2017 MAR 15 2017
DCM— 6l!HD Ca7Y WARI

Attachment B2. Floating bags atthe lease of Jay Styron, which will be sampled as an additional component of this research (see project
narrative). The individual bag dimensions and spacing between lines shown here are representative of the gears we will deploy.
O
n
n
M
•r
o
C
®
o

t
i fr4f f� P y� '�j • {� a I'9fS ' ' {a-y '.'9Y - S' � �i" , �i a ! w' .'�v s.. ' �i
.# i } .ell i� 4 f .� __�ge i�qj',� y l-',•y� -�i'� rf' �' t ♦ ;4 �{ ♦.a yy� x_
�If1

:s-
UJ
N
7 0
C )
N
o
w
z
L,
U
U
L
Attachment C3. Photos
from proposed research
site. Note seagrass cover in
the vicinity of researchers.

�Y
_ C) = O
N N
O L.
r.
v �
AttachmentC4. Photosfrom
proposed research site. Note
patchy seagrass cover
surrounding researcher (cover
quantified using replicate
quadrates and DIDSON (stand
in foreground) scanning.

U
� o
�
0
2
Attachment CS. Photos from
proposed research site. Note
seagrass cover in the
foreground (vessel of
partnering commercial
fishermen S. Stowe in the
distance).

C T'VZD
APR 10 2011
DCM- MHD CITY
®Cm
MAR 15 2017
WARD

J North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries -
Proof of Purchase
UPDATE : Scientific or Educational Collection Permit : Permit Number 706481
Permit Number ; 706481 NC Residency :
Suits Outlet :
DMF Morehead City Office
I
Permit Year: 2017 Qualifying Product:
Terminal Number: MLHENSLEY
Effective Datefrlme : 01/012017 0090
Fee:
0.00
Expiration DaWrime: 12/311201723:59 Status: Active
Issue Date?ime: 12119M 1611:05 Slams Date: lVl92016
Permit Holder : 729210 UNC INSTTIIITE OF MARINE SCIENCES
Business Type:
Physical Address: 3431 ARENDELL STREET,
Mailing Address;
MOREHEAD CITY, NC, 28557
United States
County: Carteret -
County:
Race:
Eyes :
Weight:
Geoder ; Date of Birth:
Hair:
Height: B. Inch"
Home Phone: Primary Residence: NC
Prior Names:
Business Phone: [phone] Secondary Residence:
Fax: [phone]
Ids :
E-Mad :
Business Agent; 1176346 - FODRIE, FREDRICK JOEL
Physical Address : 1156 STRAITS RD, _
Mailing Address
SMYRNA, NC, 28579
United State
County: Carteret
County:
Rau: Caueasim -
Eyes:
Hazel
Weight:
Deader: Mole - Date of Binh 1212111976
Hair:
Bmwn
Height: 6 A. 4 Inches
Home Phone: Primary Residence: NC
Prior Names:
Business Phone: [phone] SecondaryResidence:
Fax:
Ids!
E•Mall :
Jfodrie@=c.edu
Contact Information
Contact Person
Contact Person DOB
Contact Person Telephone#
FREDRICK JOEL FODRIE
1221//976
Purpose of Collection
X Research
s --
X Teaching Specimens
Educational Display (Aquarium.)
APR 10 2017 "
Other (sptrlfy)
o actors
r
Partici andd Name
DOB
Contact Phone
DR. CHARLES H. PETERSON (PETE)
02118/1946
[phone]
DR. NEILS LINDQUIST
01/01/1959
(252) 7266841
ABIGAIL FORAY
07/15/1991
(252) 7266841
CHRISTINE VOSS
05/09/1960
(252) 7266g41
JEREMY BRADDY
09/05/1979
[phone]
HOWARD MENDLOVrrZ
08/08/1969
(252)7266841
MEREDITH BURKE
04/O8/1992
cop
(� g3/1 (252)726-M41
DR. JOHN BRUNO
10/1311%5
v 1 � l (252) 7266041
GLENN SAFRIT, AL
01/20/1953
(252) 7266841
STACY DAVIS
07/19/1963
52) 7266841
PHILLIP HERBST
07/09119g7
MAR 15 201952)7266941
DE. MIKE PIEHLER
07/05/1968
[phone]
SUZANNE THOMPSON
03/0411962
[phone]
TOFODRIE
12121/1976
27266841
TONY WHIPPLE
0419/1963
V„RG`12)726041
J IPOCK
07/21/1956
(252) 7266841
PATRICK BARRETT
IV3111991
[phone]
ALEXANDER REQUARTH
09/20/1995
(252) 72"41
HANNAH AICHELMAN
06110/1992
(252) 7264841
DMFMonhosd City Ofliro, 3441 An:ndell St, PO Box 769, Morehead City NC., 28557-0769 WCHELLE t@NSIE
Pnntcd :. 1221/1016
Rep:

RECENED
APR 10 2017
DCM- MHD CITY
®CM
MAR 15 2017
WARO

Attachment C2. Map of proposed research site.
Among the 15 plots
diagrammed here within
our study area, 5 plots
will be used as non -
manipulated controls.
We will deploy floating
bags (2 lines of 30 bags —
standard commercial
designs) at 5 other plots
as described in our work
plats. In the remaining 5
plots, we will deploy
bottom racks (6 stacks of
3 cages) as described in
our work plats.
The assignment of plots
as "control", "floating
bag" or "bottom rack'
will be random per
standard research
protocol.

f.�
t"
i
'n
Hatteras
100 m
Z, Existing Lease
d
Observed course
s Research for wind surfers
s
ym, Site
Kayak / wind
surfer access
point >:`=
'Google Earth

Attachment B1. Plat of floating bag treatments.
Top -down View
---3.25m---
MMM
Cross-section View
---Q ,--- lm----,
Oyster Bags
C
Floats p
C
Q
Ave. Depth ~ 1.5m
Notes:
(1) Floating bag treatments will be replicated across 5 study
plots (see site maps in Attachment C).
(2) Anchor lines will extend far enough to be anchored (via
sand screw) within unvegetated, sandy bottom. Given the
Q patchy nature of seagrass beds at this site, sandy areas are
generally available within 5-10 m of each survey area.

Attachment B3. Plat of bottom cage treatments.
Top -down View
n
Q
r Cages
Cross-section View (showing
portions of 2 of 6 stacks per
plot)
lm
----------,
E
nxnnnai acxx
t!'1I
x.
x xz xxx
Oj-
y;
Notes:
(1) Bottom rack treatments will be replicated across 5
study plots (see site maps in Attachment Q.

5.225485.-75.664316
6 Go•'og
Goog
110 Imagery Date: 4/6/2013 lat 35.226154" Ion-75.6617251'elev -1 ft eye

Coastal Management
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
EMAIL MEMORANDUM
TO: Susan Simpson
The Coastland Times
Manteo, NC 27954
IegaIsCcDthecoaStlandtlmes.net
FROM: Jonathan Howell
DATE: 4/6/17
SUBJECT: Major Public Notice:
MIONK6191rrx11
MICHAEL S. REGAN
BRAXTON C. DAVIS
Please publish the attached Notice in the 4/9/17 issue of The Coastland Times.
The State Office of Budget and Management requires 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 Melissa Sebastian, NC Division
of Coastal Management, 400 Commerce Avenue, Morehead City, NC 28557,
(Telephone [phone]).
Thank you for your assistance in this matter. If you should have any questions, please
contact me at our Washington office [phone].
Attachment
cc: Melissa Sebastian, Accounts Payable, DCM, Morehead City
File
RECEIVED
APR 10 2017
DCM- MHD CITY
'Nothing Compares
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Coastal Managemmt
401 S. Griffin St., Suite 3001 Elizabeth City, NC 27909
252-264-39011252-331-2951 [fax]

AWK
NOTICE OF FILING OF
APPLICATION FOR CAMA MAJOR
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
The NC Department of Environmental Quality hereby gives public notice as
required by NCGS 113A-119(b) that application for a development permit in an AEC as
designated under the CAMA was received on 3/15/17. NC Institute of Marine Sciences
c/o Joel Fodrie proposes to conduct research on the effects of aquaculture on submerged
aquatic vegetation at a site adjacent Hatteras Island and Sandy Bay, Pamlico Sound,
Dare County.
A copy of the entire application may be reviewed at the office of the Division of
Coastal Management, 943 Washington Square Mall, Washington, NC 27889, during
normal business hours. Comments mailed to Braxton Davis, Director, DCM, 400
Commerce Avenue, Morehead City, NC 28557, prior to April 29, 2017, will be considered
in making the permit decision. Later comments will be considered up to the time of permit
decision. Project modification may occur based on review & comment by the public, state
& federal agencies. Notice of the permit decision in this matter will be provided upon
written request.
PLEASE PUBLISH ON: 4/9/17
RECEIVED
APR 10 2017
DCM- MHD CITY

Coastal Management
ENVIRONMENTAL OUALITV
April 5, 2017
Institute of Marine Sciences
c/o Joel Fodrie
3431 Arendell Street
Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
Dear Mr. Fodrie:
ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
secretary
BRAXTON C. DAVIS
Director
The NC Division of Coastal Management hereby acknowledges receipt of an application
on behalf of the NC Institute of Marine Sciences for State approval to study the effects of oyster
grow out cages on Submerged Aquatic Vegetation. The project site is located in the Sandy Bay
area of the Pamlico Sound, Dare County, North Carolina. It was received as complete on March
15, 2017, and appears to be adequate for processing at this time. The projected deadline for
making a decision is May 29, 2017. 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 March 15, 2017, 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 location of your proposed development. You should post this notice at a
conspicuous point where it can be easily identified. Failure to post this notice could result in an
incomplete application. RECEIVED
APR 10 2017
DCM- MHD CITY
State of North Carolina I EnOronmental Quality l Coastal Management
Washington Office 1943 Washington Square Mall I Washington, North Carolina 27889
252 946 6481

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. Onsite inspections will be
made by several agency representatives, and if additional information is required, you will be
contacted by the appropriate State or Federal agency.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Howell
District Manager
Washington Regional Office
RECEIVED
APR 10 2017
DCM- MHD CITY
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality l Coastal Management
Washington Office 1 943 Washington Square Mall I Washington, North Carolina 27889
252 946 6481

�H'
AMA PERM
W^
�
N
W
o
U
ITOTQ_
Q
APPLIED FOR
COMMENTS ACCEPTED THROUGH �� ` ' 7
APPLICANT:
II
,t
I � H
FOR MORE DETAILS CONTACT
THE LQCAL PERMIT OFFjCER BELOW:
27 AS

MAJOR PERMIT FEE MATRIX
Applicant: N� �ttis��`� C� �� Pr1 K.Q_oS
Selection
Development Type
Fee
DCM %
DWQ %
(1430016014351000931625 6253)
(243001602 435100095 2341)
I. Private, noncommercial
development that does not
$250
100% ($250)
00/($0)
involve the filling or
excavation of any wetlands
or open water areas:
11. Public or commercial
development that does not
$400
100% ($400)
0% ($0)
involve the filling or
excavation of any wetlands
or o n water areas:
Major Modification a
$250
100% ($250)
0% ($0)
ito
CAMA Ma or perm t
Ill. For development that
involves the filling and/or
excavation of up to 1 acre
of wetlands and/or open
water areas, determine if A,
B, C, or D below applies:
111(A). Private, non-
ED
commercial development, if
$250
100% ($250)
0% ($0)
General Water Quality
Certification No. 3490 (See
attached) can be applied:
III(B). Public or commercial
development, if General
$400
100% ($400)
0% ($0)
Water Quality Certification
No. 3490 (See attached)
can be applied:
III(C). If General Water
Quality Certification No.
$400
60% ($240)
40% ($160)
3900 (see attached) could
be applied, but DCM staff
determined that additional
r- tt t�
RE C E IV G D
review and written DWQ
concurrence is needed
APR 10 2017
because of concerns
related to water quality or
,
1TY
III(D). If General Water
Quality Certification No.
$400
600/o($240)
400/o($160
3900 (see attached) cannot
be a lied:
IV. For development that
involves the filling and/or
$475
60% ($285)
40% ($190)
excavation of more than
one acre of wetlands and/or
open water areas: