20230797 Ver 1_More Info Received_20230901

Board of Commissioners
Jimmy Farrington, Chair
Mark Mansfield, Vice -Chair
Bob Cavanaugh
Chris Chadwick
David Quinn
Chuck Shinn
Ed Wheatly
September 1, 2023
N.C. Division of Water Resources
c/o Holley Snider
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405
(via email at [e-mail])
Dear Ms. Snider:
County Manager
Tommy R. Burns, III
Clerk to the Board
Lori R. Turner
SUBJECT: Carteret County Western Boat Ramp Project —Additional Information Request
This letter is in response to your August 3, 2023, request for additional information on the application
submitted by Carteret County for the proposed Western Carteret Boat Ramp Project. Your "additional
information" letter requested a written response to the additional informational items within 30 days of
receipt of the letter. Please accept this letter as our response to these items within the requested 30-day
timeframe, which we believe to be sufficient to prevent the Division of Water Resources (DWR) from
retiring the application package. Additional responses or clarifications will be provided to your agency as
necessary.
Before delving into the requested supplementary details outlined in your letter, I want to provide a
contextual backdrop for this project, with the hope that you will factor these elements into your
evaluation of its potential impacts. Firstly, I would like to emphasize that this initiative constitutes a
public endeavor aimed at granting access to publicly entrusted water bodies for individuals who do not
possess waterfront lots with docks that are routinely approved by your agency.
Secondly, it is worth noting that the entire project site was originally approved for a housing subdivision,
with streets and over a dozen waterfront lots and dozens of interior lots. Under this initial plan, each of
these waterfront lots would have accommodated docks with up to four boat slips. Additionally, the
remaining acreage landward of the approved subdivision was slated for future development that would
have included additional housing and commercial establishments along Highway 24. The resultant
ramifications stemming from these proposed land uses would have far exceeded the potential impacts
of the current boat ramp project, given its carefully devised design and comprehensive mitigation
features.
It is of utmost significance to highlight that a substantial portion —specifically one -third —of the county's
property has already been placed under conservation easements. These protective measures are in
place to safeguard the inherent natural features of the area, including a two -acre waterfront stretch.
Notably, these conservation designations combined with restrictions placed on the entire property by
the U.S. Navy and the N.C. Parks and Recreation Trust Fund, strictly prohibit any form of residential or

commercial development, reserving the land exclusively for public recreational uses. Finally, the county
has allowed the North Carolina Coastal Federation to install nearly 400 feet of living shoreline to protect
the waterfront conservation easement area from continued erosions due to existing boat wakes. Thus,
even preceding the pursuit of permits forthe boat ramp, the county has proactively taken measures
that have yielded significant environmental advantages by acquiring and safeguarding this property.
Evidencing the genuine need for this project, multiple federal and state public entities have made
substantial investments, totaling more than $11 million, toward land acquisition and facility
development. Noteworthy contributors include the N.C. General Assembly, the N.C. Land and Water
Fund, the N.C. Parks and Recreational Trust Fund, N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission, and the Navy.
Recognizing the necessity to counterbalance environmental effects arising from the proposed project,
the county enlisted the expertise of Dr. Jud Kenworthy, a distinguished authority in submerged aquatic
vegetation (SAV) and a former NOAA expert. Dr. Kenworthy, who currently holds a pivotal role with the
Albemarle -Pamlico National Estuary Program, has provided invaluable guidance in comprehending SAV
status and trends. It's important to note that Dr. Kenworthy's credentials are appended to this
communication. Collaborating with the county and the North Carolina Coastal Federation, his efforts
have expanded the county's mitigation strategy into an ambitious Bogue Sound restoration initiative.
The proposed mitigation plan stands as a constituent element within a more expansive strategy that the
county is actively fostering. This comprehensive approach aims to advance a suite of projects, unrelated
to the present permit application, which collectively address the diverse threats faced by SAV in the
sound.
Lastly, a close examination of the proposed ramp's location is warranted. The area in question, formerly
agricultural fields, comprises predominantly sandy terrain, facilitating rapid water infiltration. The
majority of water runoff is directed northwards, away from Bogue Sound, via the conservation zones
and wooded regions that serve as buffers for the headwaters of Sikes Branch. Stormwater generated by
the parking area is intended to be absorbed by the soil, and any residual flow is expected to proceed
laterally through groundwater, directed northward towards the creek. The groundwater that ultimately
reaches the creek will then follow an eastern trajectory, culminating in its entry into Bogue Sound,
approximately a mile away from the property, behind the Cannonsgate Subdivision.
Through careful consideration of the property's attributes and the ramp's design, it can be confidently
asserted that this project will not contribute any significant amount to stormwater pollution, even
during instances of significant rainfall.
For ease of response, each additional informational item has been separated and are being presented
individually as follows:
Provide additional information on the TOPEX/POSEIDON global tidal model utilized in the
Flushing Analysis for the Western Carteret County Boat Launch Project. Branch staff are
unfamiliar with the MIKE21 model. Models must be publicly available for replication by DWR
staff, and all data used to populate models must be included. Please submit a modeling plan to
DWR for approval.

Response: A revised Flushing Analysis — Modeling Plan is attached as to this letter (see
Attachment A). Once we receive confirmation that the proposed modeling plan
meets with DWR's approval, the model will be run, and the results provided to
DWR.
Environmental Assessment
• Address the inconsistencies in wetland and aquatic resource impact calculations between the
Division of Coastal Management (DCM) application, narrative, and mitigation plan. Review and
correct inconsistent calculations for wetland and aquatic resource impacts within the application
materials.
and
• Revise the narrative and application materials to match the DCM application's descriptions of
development impacts and shoreline stabilization plans.
Response: The following items were revised as follows:
- the submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) impact area in the mitigation plan
has been updated to .078AC (from 0.77AC) to match what was in the
application narrative, drawings, and portal forms. This value matches what
is shown in the DCM Bio-Report and application portal forms.
- Changed the length of each boat ramp from 253.5' in the application
narrative to 152.5' to correctly reflect the length of each ramp, and to be
consistent with the length (152.5') indicated in the application portal forms.
Please note that the DCM Bio-Report will need to be updated to reflect this
correct length.
- Added the dimensions of riprap to be placed along the shoreline of the
upland basin to the DCM application portal forms.
• Clearly define the mitigation area for seagrass growth and specify the post -construction
evaluation and monitoring area.
Response: Please refer to the Exhibits that were included in the originally submitted
Conceptual Compensatory Mitigation Plan, dated March 30, 2023. Exhibit A is
an overall vicinity map that identifies the primary Mitigation Site for seagrass
restoration (Method A) as well as the boat ramp site and our secondary in -kind
mitigation area (Method B). Coordinates of the primary Mitigation Site are
included in Appendix I of that document. New Exhibit C includes the baseline
seagrass survey transects for the restoration area and adjacent reference areas.
New Exhibit E (attached) includes proposed mitigation area monitoring
transects.

• Address concerns about the proposed location of the QuickReef revetment and its potential
impacts on existing SAV and shoreline stability.
Response: The QuickReef sill and revetments are intended to assist with erosion that is
severely damaging the naturalized spoil island system that protects thriving
seagrass beds and other shallow water aquatic habitats. The manufacturer of
the system (Native Shorelines) has successfully completed numerous similar
projects as an important component to living shorelines to foster salt marsh
protection and shallow water habitat enhancement. Along upland areas,
products like QuickReef accompanied by nature -based solutions are a viable
alternative to traditional bulkheads.
Additionally, recent conversations with resource and regulatory agencies have
focused on the potential impacts of living shorelines on SAV and SAV habitats.
Coastal scientists are interested in this topic and are working to shine light on
the relationship between marshes and SAV, erosion and SAV, and living
shorelines and SAV. Notably, Sanford and Goa (2018) found that when marshes
erode or are drowned by rising sea levels, they become a source of sediment
that can negatively impact SAV'. As such, stopping marsh erosion and loss could
be of benefit to SAV populations.
To quantify long-term impacts of living shorelines on SAV and SAV habitat,
Palinkas et al. (2023) studied eight living shorelines in the mesohaline
Chesapeake Bay ranging in age from 9 to 13 years old (installed between 2004
and 2008, studied in 2017 and 2018)1. They chose "four living shorelines with
persistent SAV beds adjacent to the shoreline before installation and four living
shorelines without SAV before installation... along with observations at nearby
reference (unaltered) shorelines." Their results showed the following:
"In general, shoreline erosion continued at or above historical rates at reference
shorelines, but living shoreline installation builds shorelines seaward and results
in net shoreline accretion."
"Living shoreline installation does not cause systematic changes to the subtidal
habitat in adjacent waters, with post -installation sediment characteristics being
closely linked to pre -installation conditions."
"Living shoreline installation does not cause systematic changes to SAV
distributions. Rather, SAV distributions at individual sites followed regional
trends likely driven by water quality."
"Sediment and nutrient burial in the coastal zone, which includes both intertidal
marsh and subtidal SAV habitats, was highest for living shorelines due to the
addition of marsh habitat... While this study did not consider direct replacement
of SAV with living shorelines, these results suggest that discouraging living
shoreline installation in areas with SAV may miss an opportunity to enhance
nutrient burial in the coastal zone."
M

"This study identified many areas ripe for future research such as changes as
living shorelines mature, impacts on downstream intertidal and subtidal
environments, and studies in areas with denser and more persistent SAV, though
the latter is limited by current regulations that discourage living shorelines near
SAV."
In addition to the information provided above, the North Carolina Coastal
Federation has installed approximately 1,352 linear feet of QuickReef living
shorelines at sites with known proximal SAV populations noted on the General
Permits (DCM permits 88988C, 88712C, 84691C, 88673C, 80663C, 84673C, and
87389C). The oldest of these sites was constructed in August 2021 and the
newest April 2023. This does not include QuickReef revetments or other sites
where SAV was present proximal to the site but not noted on the permit. There
have been no impacts to SAV populations observed at any of these sites.
Sanford, L. P., & Gao, J. (2018). Influences of Wave Climate and sea Level on Shoreline Erosion Rates
in the Maryland Chesapeake Bay. Estuaries and Coasts, 41(1), 19-
37. https://doi.org/10.1007/Sl2237-017-0257-7
Palinkas, C. M., Balton, M. C., & Staver, L. W. (2023). Long-term performance and impacts of living
shorelines in mesohaline Chesapeake Bay. Ecological Engineering, 190,
106944. https://doi.org/10.1016/).ecoleng.2023.106944
• Evaluate potential consequences of the QuickReef revetment on both landward and waterward
sides and address any potential losses of SAV.
Response: As stated above, the QuickReef system is being proposed to protect shorelines
from erosion, including areas of seagrass. Along the mainland living shoreline
areas proposed at the ramp site, QuickReef sills may allow SAV to grow closer to
shore where there are high levels of turbidity due to peat and clay bank erosion.
This may also be the case with the breach area (primary mitigation- Method 1)
as well as Method 2. The QuickReef and other similar sill systems absorb wave
energy and reduce wave refraction.
The North Carolina Coastal Federation has installed over 10,000 linear feet of
QuickReef living shorelines at a variety of sites in coastal North Carolina over the
last three years. No significant scour landward or waterward of the structure has
been evidenced at these sites. Pictures below show that QuickReef sills and
revetments protect marsh very well, and that marsh will grow right up to the
edge of the sill with no issues. As can be evidenced by the pictures below,
QuickReef living shorelines also do an excellentjob of protecting salt marsh
plantings.

Pictures 1, 2, 3, & 4. Hammocks Beach State Park, Swansboro, NC.
QuickReef installed December 2022,
photos taken August 2023.

Photo 5. Quiet Cove Rd, Gloucester, NC.
QuickReef installed November 2022,
photos taken August 2023.
Photo 6. Waterway Dr, Cedar Point, NC.
Oyster shell bags installed January 2021,
QuickReef installed June 2022,
photo taken January 2023.

Photos 7, 8, 9 & 10. N Beach Rd, Wilmington NC (Figure Eight Island).
QuickReef installed December 2021.
Photo 7, taken December 2021, low tide.
Photo 8 taken April 2022, low tide, following marsh planting
Photo 9 and 10 taken June 2023, High Tide

Design
• Provide justification for the proposed project depth of -7.2 feet considering boat registration
information and potential vessel draft limitations.
Response: The proposed depth of dredging of -7.2' NAVD88 (-6.2' target depth plus 1.0'
foot of allowable overdredge allowance) was chosen to allow for all
potential boats users of the ramp to have adequate water depths to reach
the AIWW. While it is acknowledged that many boats using the ramp will
not need the entire -7.2' water depth, it is anticipated that some boats will
require water depths close to the design. The chosen depth may also help to
lengthen the time between future maintenance dredging events.
• Conduct further investigation into infilling rates for channels aligned perpendicular to the AIWW
and their potential impact on maintenance needs and habitat loss.
Response: Cannonsgate Channel, which is located approximately 2,500' to the east of
the proposed channel, was constructed generally perpendicular to the
AIWW around 2005. The County is not aware of any maintenance excavation
events for this channel since construction, indicating that infilling rates have
been minimal for this channel.
Old Ferry Channel, located approximately 20,000' to the west of the
proposed channel, was constructed around 1960. Portions of this channel
most recently underwent maintenance dredging in 2021. This most recent
dredging project received all required State and Federal environmental
permits, and the authorized dredging took place without any significant
environmental impacts or concerns.
• Consider implementing additional stormwater control measures to prevent sediment and
pollutant run-off into the upland basin waters.
Response: The current parking lot design incorporates pervious parking stalls, grassy
infiltration swales, and one larger grassy infiltration basin just upland of the
ramp and basin. These existing stormwater control measures capture all of the
stormwater from the parking lot except for the area of actual ramp into the
water. Much of the area of the parking lot drains to the north and not directly
into Bogue Sound. That drainage will infiltrate, and eventually make its way to
Sikes Branch that flows to the east for more than a mile towards Cannonsgate.
There is no mechanism to treat the minimal amount of stormwater produced by
the ramp itself. With the continual flushing of water from trailers being pulled in
and out of the water, there will be much less accumulation of pollutants of

concern on this section of the site that might be treated by any additional
measure.
• Address concerns about potential secondary impacts to shorelines adjacent to the ramp,
considering residents' claims and the Town of Emerald Isle's investigations.
Response: Residents adjacent to portions of the existing access channel to the Emerald Isle
public boat ramp facility have expressed concern that use of the access channel
is causing erosion of their shorelines. These concerns are especially pronounced
in the area where the access channel comes towards shore from the AIWW and
the turns east to run parallel to the shoreline (see Figure 1)
Figure 1. Emerlad Isle Boat Ramp channel
Additionally, the North Carolina Coastal Federation (NCCF), using available
shoreline photography, performed an analysis of shoreline change adjacent to
the Emerald Isle Access Channel. The NCCF compared shoreline positions from
2004 (before the construction if the Emerald Isle Boat Ramp), 2013 (shortly after
the Emerald Isle Boat Ramp was constructed), and 2021 (See Attachment B). In
general, at this particular location, it does not appear that perceivable shoreline
10

erosion has resulted from the use of the access channel over large portions of
the area in question, although some isolated erosional pockets are evident.
Shorelines throughout coastal North Carolina are exhibiting shoreline loss
regardless of their proximity to navigation channels. Additionally, the existing
AIWW channel adjacent to the County's proposed ramp location is currently
heavily utilized by vessels of all sizes, some of which cause large wakes.
Therefore, the County does not believe that the addition of extra boat traffic
along this section of the Bogue Sound will lead to significant additional erosional
problems to adjacent properties.
Lastly, the SAV mapping conducted by Albemarle -Pamlico National Estuarine
Program shows that this area of Bogue Sound near the Emerald Isla Boat Ramp
has actually had a significant increase in SAV coverage since the ramp was
opened. It is the only area of Bogue Sound with an increase in SAV coverage.
Mitigation Plan
• Address the contradiction between the proposed boat launch facility increasing boating and its
potential negative impact on SAV growth.
Response: The mitigation plan, in conjunction with the broader SAV strategy advocated by
the Coastal Federation and County, aims to yield a net positive impact on the
growth of SAV within Bogue Sound. The implementation of the boat ramp
project acts as a catalyst, directing attention to existing threats faced by SAV in
the region. These threats stem from shoreline erosion attributed to the
consistent passage of large boats through the federal navigation channel,
generating substantial wakes. Additionally, the numerous waterfront lots and
docks further contribute to the heightened boat activity in the area.
It's important to note that the boat ramp will facilitate access for smaller, trailer
sized boats. Even on its busiest days when it will provide the capacity to launch
several hundred boats, this number of boats is significantly lower than the
existing daily peak usage of the federal channel, which has grown substantially
over the past couple of decades with all the permitted waterfront
developments. Addressing the future trajectory, it's evident that without a
policy shift from regulatory agencies preventing new private docks with boat
slips, boating activities will persist in their growth, regardless of the presence of
the public boat ramp.
In comparison to routinely approved individual private boat docks, this public
facility, combined with its mitigation measures, offers more comprehensive
safeguards for the preservation of SAV resources. This underscores the
significance of a well -managed approach to public boating access as opposed to
the continuous sanctioning of numerous separate boat docks.
11

PenderCo
Based on coordination with the DCM, issues were raised associated with a
Pender County Ramp and possible SAV impacts associated with boats. Noted
SAV research scientist Dr. Jud Kenworthy (Vitae attached in Attachment C)
identified this boat ramp and provided the following:
"Based off of an inspection of chronological sequence of photos from Google
Earth that are available forthis location, it appears that the ramp was installed
in late 2011 or early 2012. There are good aerial photos on Google Earth for
2012, 2014, and 2015 where one can visually see the seagrass bed in proximity
to the ramp. Looking closely at the seagrass bed to the northeast of the ramp,
there is visible evidence of scarring, and there also appears that there was a
vessel hull grounding on the southwest perimeter of the grass bed.
There appears to be a reasonable explanation for these prop scarring
impacts. Please see the Slides 1 & 2 in the attached PowerPoint (see
Attachment D) to visualize what may have happened at this ramp facility. First
of all, there is not a direct, marked, or deep channel exiting from the ramp out
to the AIWW. For relatively largervessels using that ramp, the nearest, deepest,
and marked channel originates offshore of the Yacht Basin just north of the
ramp, approximately 0.1 miles. The channel markers are identified in the first
slide. When a vessel operator navigates from the ramp to the markers (blue
solid arrows) at the start of this channel (NW end), the grass bed being
impacted isjust to the starboard, so any slight deviation of the vessel track will
put it on top of the shallow grass bed. It is suspected that vessels are frequently
deviating from this track and/or -cutting the turn into this channel (the most
direct route to and from the ramp; blue dashed arrows) and frequently ending
up on top of the grass bed. Vessels are likely doing the same thing returning to
the ramp, coming into the marked channel from the AIWW and taking the most
direct route back to the ramp and through the grass bed. Smaller shallow draft
boats are likely to run southwest directly in and out of the ramp; however, the
larger and deeper draft vessels are more likely using the marked channel to get
out to the AIWW and these are the ones most likely impacting the grass
bed. The second slide is zoomed in to the grass bed and shows the scarring.
The problem with this secondary impact isn't the ramp, or even where the ramp
is placed, or how many vessels use the ramp. The issue is guiding or controlling
the traffic pattern coming and going to and from the ramp to navigable waters.
A solution to this issue is a well -marked channel and a large sign with
accompanying visuals (a map or photo) located at the ramp instructing
operators to stay in the marked channel until they reach the AIWW, and
explaining why this navigation route is important. Such informational signage
and marked channel are proposed at the proposed project site (see original
12

permit application package), as is a proposal for a large "no -wake zone" (shown
elsewhere in this response)."
Harkers Island
Dr. Kenworthy also examined historical Google Earth photos for the Harkers
Island Boat Ramp, as well as aerial photos from the APNEP archive for 1992,
2006 and 2021 (See PowerPoint slides 3-13). It appears that the ramp was
installed sometime between 1998 and 2003. The marked channel for vessels
desiring to access deeper navigable waters directs them along a channel that
bisects a shallow shoal that runs north -south parallel to the causeway, with
patchy grass beds to the west and a larger continuous meadow to the east
behind the causeway (PowerPoint slides 3). Based off of this examination, two
points became evident; 1) that channel was present in older photography
before the ramp was constructed and 2) the first good grass bed image is 1992,
but older images reveal evidence the bed has been there at least since the early
90s. Anecdotal evidence from Dr. Kenworthy indicated that this SAV meadow
has been there back to at least the early 80s. PowerPoint Slides 4-13 show a
series of aerial photos with the dates noted in the upper left. There does not
appear to be compelling evidence of damage or other impacts to the seagrass
beds. In fact, it appears that the continuous meadow adjacent to the causeway
has expanded. Despite the ramp and all of the vessel traffic it generates, the
seagrass beds have persisted for three decades without obvious impacts to
adjacent seagrass beds. Most of the changes you see are due to the different
times of the year when the photos were acquired, depicting normal seasonal
fluctuations in seagrass abundance that are observed coastwide. Again, the
informational signage, well -marked channel, and large no -wake zone proposed
for this project will avoid and minimize secondary impacts to SAV.
In addition to the above points, we draw your attention to the recently
published Army Corps of Engineers Technical Note (ERDC/TN EWN-23-1 August
2023, see Attachment E) attached to this response letter. On page three of this
document there is a section discussing the HISTORICAL DREDGING IMPACTS ON
SAV. The Technical Note points out that most of the documented impacts
resulted from using outdated and discontinued practices, and argues that since
the early 2000s "in the United States, more recent dredging actions (since the
early 2000s) implement environmental -management techniques, including
sediment -plume modeling to help forecast dredge -induced turbidity and water -
quality monitoring to help track in situ conditions during dredging activities,
which have resulted in dredging practices with minimal or no impacts to
seagrass beds". In the next paragraph the Technical Note states "Although few
published studies have tracked SAV habitat recovery following dredging, SAV
habitats showed significant recovery within two to three years following an
initial decline".
13

Secondary dredging impacts from turbidity at the proposed project location
would be minimized by adhering to all in -water work moratoria required by
permit conditions. This is the period of time when water clarity naturally begins
to improve, therefore offsetting any additional impacts from dredging induced
turbidity. This is also the period of time during the life cycle of the seagrass
meadow with the lowest growth and abundance; dredging during this time
period would minimize and/or avoid secondary impacts from turbidity. Finally,
this period of time is prior to the emergence of eelgrass seedlings. This seagrass
meadow is primarily a seasonally ephemeral eelgrass meadow which relies on
the annual replenishment of seeds for re -growth each year. There are
thousands of acres of shallow subtidal and intertidal seagrass habitat like this in
North Carolina. The seedlings emerge from the sediment in mid to late
December and January; coinciding with a period of time in the Sound when
water clarity is at its best. The plants grow and flower throughout spring and in
early summer when turbidity increases and water temperatures reach thermally
stressful levels, the eelgrass plants senesce and most die.
In addition to the points made above on this item, the County would like to
reiterate some of the avoidance and minimization items that have already been
proposed to limit impacts to SAV habitat.
Channel markers will be utilized to delineate the boundaries of the new
channel, which will help ensure that boats utilizing the facility will not stray
into adjacent areas of.
In order to limit impacts to adjacent shorelines, coastal wetlands, and SAV
habitat, Carteret County will request that a large "No -Wake Zone" be
designated and enforced by the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission. This
proposed No -Wake Zone, which is depicted in Figure 2, would cover all
waters adjacent to the project site from the shoreline to the nearshore edge
of the AIWW channel.
14

Figure 2 Proposed No -Wake Zone
Carteret County, in coordination with the N.C. Coastal Federation, will install
informational kiosks and signage on high ground educating the public to the
importance of limited traffic to the marked access channel in an effort to
avoid SAV impacts.
• Develop a comprehensive mitigation plan with measurable goals, long-term implementation and
monitoring strategies, and potential remedial actions if success criteria aren't met.
Response: The proposed mitigation plan prepared for this project has been provided and
specifies measurable goals with a five-year monitoring plan.
Since the monitoring plan is designed to evaluate success metrics over time for
five years, a fixed point systematic transect design is preferred as opposed to a
random design. The fixed systematic transect design as proposed assures
sample point coverage over the entire mitigation and reference sites (complete
spatial coverage). Measurements of the success metrics over five years can be
quantitatively analyzed with repeated measures statistical procedures that have
a higher degree of explanatory power than random sampling. The higher degree
of statistical power increases the efficiency, decreases the necessary sample
size, and therefore reduces the cost. Whereas a random stratified design has a
probability of incomplete spatial coverage of the sites, has lower statistical
power and requires a greater number of samples, thus higher cost.
15

• Provide detailed information on implementation monitoring protocols, including as -built surveys,
transect placement sampling procedures, and success criteria metrics.
Response: Details of our mitigation monitoring plan are provided in the attached
Conceptual Mitigation plan (see Attachment F). In response to this request, a
new exhibit (see Attachment G) was developed which depicts our proposed
sampling transect locations.
See also earlier responses on the same subject.
• Clearly identify the financially responsible party for post -construction monitoring, mitigation
success, and restoration/remediation.
Response: As the permit applicant and project proponent, Carteret County will be the
responsible entity for ensuring that all post -construction monitoring, mitigation
success, restoration and remediation actions are fully implemented.
Regulatory Compliance
• Ensure that the proposed project aligns with the regulations set out in 1SA NCAC 02H .0506(b)(1)
regarding impacts on existing aquatic resources and downstream waters.
Response: 15A NCAC 02H .0506(b)(1) states that projects must show that they have
"avoided and minimized impacts to surface waters and wetlands to ensure
any remaining surface waters or wetlands, and any surface waters or wetlands
downstream, continue to support existing uses during and after project
completion".
This regulation deals specifically with impact avoidance and minimization to
surface waters and wetlands. For the proposed project, impact avoidance and
minimization measures include the following:
The project location was originally chosen for purchase by the County based
on lack of SAV (per existing NCDEQ data layers) adjacent to at least a
portion of the project. As supporting documentation for this decision, the
County would like to point out that the Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF),
in their July 28, 2023 comment letter on the proposed permit application,
provided composite SAV coverage maps from 1981, 2006/08, and 2013 (see
Figures 3, 4, and 5). While all of these maps do show historic SAV coverage
along portions of the property's shoreline, none of these maps showed SAV
coverage extending in front of the eastern portion of the property. Based
upon the County's due diligence in regard to this resource, it was
reasonable to expect at the time of purchase that an SAV-free access
channel alignment could be designed and constructed.
kill

p t �
t
a
s
ire 3. • SAV Mapping..
provided .7/28/2023
comment letter)
Al . �

Figure 5. NCDEQ SAV Mapping layer from 2013
(Originally provided in NCDMF 7/28/2023 comment letter)
Based upon an analysis of flushing models for various basin designs, a
modified and shortened basin was design was chosen to ensure proper
flushing of the basin.
The proposed access channel base width was reduced from a desired 75'
base width down to 50' base width to lessen impacts to shallow bottom and
SAV habitat. This 50' base width is the absolute minimum necessary to allow
for travel into and out of the basin at the same time.
The basin location was chosen in a way that provided for excavation
through the narrowest coastal wetland fringe along the County's property.
Shellfish surveys conducted at the same time as preliminary SAV surveys
indicate no significant accumulation of shellfish within the area of the
proposed new channel. However, Carteret County does propose to
implement a shellfish relocation effort (following coordination with the
DMF) within the area of the new access channel prior to the initiation of
dredging activities.
The design of the facility was done following communications with the DMF
—Shellfish Sanitation and Recreational Water Quality Section to ensure that
should lead to no shellfish closures in waters outside of the basin. It should
also be noted that the Shellfish Sanitation Section provided "no comment"
on the permit application package during the CAMA application review
process.
Channel markers will be utilized to delineate the boundaries of the new
channel, which will help ensure that boats utilizing the facility will not stray
into adjacent areas of.

In order to limit impacts to adjacent shorelines, coastal wetlands, and SAV
habitat, Carteret County will request that a large "No -Wake Zone" be
designated and enforced by the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission. This
proposed No -Wake Zone, which is depicted in Figure 2, would cover all
waters adjacent to the project site from the shoreline to the nearshore edge
of the AIWW channel.
Carteret County, in coordination with the North Carolina Coastal Federation,
will install informational kiosks and signage on high ground educating the
public to the importance of limited traffic to the marked access channel in
an effort to avoid SAV impacts.
The upland basin will be excavated "in the dry" by leaving an earthen plug
between the area to be excavated and the waters of Bogue Sound. A 24-
hour period (minimum) after completion of excavation of the basin will
elapse prior to plug removal to prevent unnecessary siltation into the
adjacent waters.
With regards to coastal wetlands (also classified as SWL be DWR), 15A NCAC
02H.0506(b)(5) appears to allow for activities that are "water dependent and
requires access to water as a central element of its basic function", as is the case
with this project. Therefore, the County believes that we are in compliance with
this standard.
In addition to the avoidance and minimization measures listed herein, the
County has developed a comprehensive mitigation and monitoring plan that
provides for functional replacement to SAV and wetland habitats impacted by
project construction. When considered in total, the combination of all of these
measures, along with the implementation of the mitigation and monitoring plan,
will ensure that remaining surface waters or wetlands, as well as surface waters
or wetlands downstream from the project location, will continue to support
existing water quality uses during and after project completion, while also
allowing the project to be found consistent with 15A NCAC 02B .0201
(Antidegradation Policy).
In closing, the County would like to reiterate the importance of the proposed project to the boating
public. The need for a large public boat launch facility on the mainland side of Bogue Sound has long
been recognized. It is therefore the strong belief of the county that this project will have a significant
positive benefit to the citizens of eastern North Carolina. Additionally, as outlined elsewhere in the
original permit application narrative, as well as this letter, there is no reasonable alternative site available
that would meet the purpose and need of this project along the western Shoreline of Bogue Sound
within Carteret County. The avoidance, minimization and mitigation measures proposed for
implementation associated with this project should address potential concerns with adherence to North
19

Carolina Water Quality Standards, thereby allowing for a positive regulatory decision to be rendered in
this situation.
The County would also like to point out that this project has strong support of the North Carolina
Legislature, as evidenced by the appropriation of $3,300,000 to go towards the development of the
ramp facility. It should be noted that the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission has also pledged
$1,000,000 towards the project.
Thank you for your consideration of the information provided in this letter. Should you have any
additional questions, or if we can provide any additional information that will aid your agency is It's
timely review of this project, please contact Mr. Doug Huggett of Moffatt and Nichol at
[e-mail].
cc:
Sincerely,
Eugene Foxworth
Assistant County Manager
Ryan Davenport, Carteret County Shore Protection Office
Todd Miller, N.C. Coastal Federation
Dr. Jud Kenworthy
Brian Rubino, Quible
Curt Weychert, NCDCM
Doug Huggett, Moffatt and Nichol
Mark Pirrello, Moffatt and Nichol
20

Attachments:
Attachment A.
Attachment B.
Attachment C.
Attachment D.
Attachment E.
Attachment F.
Attachment G.
Carteret County Western Boat Ramp - Flushing Analysis— Modeling Plan
Carteret County Western Boat Ramp — Emerald Isle Shoreline Change Analysis
Carteret County Western Boat Ramp - Dr. Jud Kenworthy Vitae
Carteret County Western Boat Ramp— PowerPoint Showing Pender Co. and
Harkers Island Boat Ramps
Carteret County Western Boat Ramp —Army Corps of Engineers Technical Note
Carteret County Western Boat Ramp - Conceptual Mitigation Plan
Carteret County Western Boat Ramp - Proposed Sampling Transect Locations
21

Attachment A
4700 Falls of Neuse Road, Suite 300
,I„q Raleigh, NC 27609
Moffatt & n l c h o l [phone] Fax: [phone]
www.rnoffattnichol.com
MEMORANDUM
To: Eugene Foxworth, Assistant County Manager, Carteret County
Cc: Douglas Huggett, Moffatt & Nichol
From: Mark Pirrello
Date: August 24, 2023
Subject: Flushing Analysis — Modeling Plan
The purpose of this flushing analysis is to analyze the flushing within the proposed launch basin, and this
memorandum summarizes the hydrodynamic modeling plan that will be developed by Moffatt & Nichol
(M&N) to evaluate flushing characteristics of the project site.
Hydrodynamic and Flushing Modeling Plan
The Danish Hydraulic Institute (DHI) MIKE21 Hydrodynamic (HD) model will be used to assess
hydrodynamics and flushing in the Bogue Sound. MIKE21 is a comprehensive numerical modeling software
package designed for (LID) and flushing analysis in coastal environments. Developed by DHI Group, a
leading provider of software solutions for water and environment management, MIKE21 is widely used by
researchers, engineers, and environmental consultants to simulate and analyze various aspects of water flow
and water quality. MIKE21 HD model has been successfully applied by M&N to several projects in North
Carolina including bridge replacement projects across the Outer Banks area by NC Department of
Transportation (NCDOT), oyster habitat mitigation project in Pamlico Sound by NC Division of Mitigation
Services (NCDMS), and a shoreline protection project in Ocracoke by NCDOT, Ferry Division.
The Mike21 model is particularly renowned for its capabilities in hydrodynamic modeling, which involves the
simulation of water movements, including tides, currents, waves, and water levels, within coastal and inland
waters. It provides a detailed understanding of how water flows and interacts with its surroundings, aiding in
the assessment of factors such as pollutant dispersion, and circulation patterns.
The software's flushing analysis module (MIKE21 Advection-Diffusion (AD) module) simulates the transport
and dispersion of the conservative pollutant in water and helps in quantifying the rate of water renewal in a
given area, aiding in the design of effective strategies for pollution management and ecosystem protection.
The model will be utilized to simulate tidal flows at the project site, with water levels and depth -averaged flow
velocities extracted at locations of interest. The hydrodynamic model will be then coupled to the AD module
to evaluate the transport and mixing of the conservative pollutant in the basin.

Error! Reference source not found. Error! Reference source not found. M&N #10845 Error! Reference source
not found.
June 7, 2022 Memorandum
Model Setup
The model will include all of Bogue Sound, Bogue Inlet and nearshore Atlantic Ocean area and the White Oak
River (Figure 1). The model will be composed of triangulated mesh which have varying resolutions with coarser
grid cells within the offshore -most areas of the Atlantic Ocean to finer grid cells within Bogue Sound and finest
gird cells inside the upland basin. The shoreline in the vicinity of the project site will be the Mean High -Water
Line (MHWL) extracted from local bathymetry. The model bathymetry in the offshore areas and the Bogue
Sound will be derived from the USACE, C-MAP by Jeppesen and NAVIONICS. The model bathymetry at the
proposed upland basin and the entrance channel will be derived from the design files.
N
ALegend
* Profect8ite
4 2 0 4 Miles
Mosel Domain
Figure is Model Domain
moffatt & nichol

Error! Reference source not found. Error! Reference source not found. M&N #10845 Error! Reference source
not found.
June 7, 2022 Alemorandum
Model Input Parameters
Table 0.1 fists the primary parameters will be used in the HD model, and their initial values. Final value of
those parameters will be determined through calibration efforts, as opposed to direct measurement, and
following the guidelines provided by the DHI User Manual (DHI 2017a).
Manning number M (M = 1 /n) quantifies bed resistance and accounts for energy loss due to bottom friction.
Eddy viscosity quantifies turbulence and determines the rate at which momentum and constituents spread.
The Smagorinsky coefficient of horizontal eddy viscosity ranges typically between 0 and 1, with 0 meaning no
eddy viscosity. Coriolis forcing varying in the model domain will be included, which means the Coriolis force
will be calculated based on the geografical information given in the mesh file.
Table 0.1: InputPammetnrfor Hydrodynamlctbfodel
Parameter
Manning Number
Horizontal Eddy Viscosity
Coriolis forcing
Moffatt & nlchol
Initial Value
A constant of 55 ru"Ns
Smagorinsky coefficient with a constant of 0.28
Varying in domain based on the geographical information

Error! Reference source not found. Error! Reference source not found. M&N #10845 Error! Reference source
not found.
June 7, 2022 Memorandum
Boundary Conditions and Initial Conditions
A summary of boundary conditions that will be used in the HD model is presented below.
The offshore boundary conditions, both water levels and currents, will be extracted from the Oregon State
University (OSU) Tidal Data Inversion, specifically the TPXO8 global tidal solution with a resolution of 1 /6'
(Egbert & Erofeeva 2002). The OSU global model of astronomical tides was developed assimilating the
TOPEX/Poseidon global altimeter data (satellite -measured ocean surface). The TPXO models are updated
periodically to incorporate new data and improve accuracy. TPXO8 is the eighth iteration of the TpXO
series, which will be a more advanced version at the time of the HD model development. The TPXO8 model
provides predictions of tidal amplitudes and phases for various tidal constituents (individual components of
the tidal signal) across the global oceans. These predictions are used by scientists, researchers, and industries
involved in oceanography, marine navigation, and coastal management. In this study, we will extract the tidal
predictions from the TPXO8 model and apply them along the boundaries of the MIKE21 model.
For calibration analysis, only tidal variations in water levels will be applied in the model. Wind, waves, and
other freshwater inflows will not be considered to evaluate the flushing characteristics of the project site
under a more conservative condition.
For the flushing analysis, an average tide will be considered for the hydrodynamic analysis as it is reflective of
current velocities through the neap and spring ranges and, therefore, yields a representative assessment of
flushing performance of the basin.
The AD module will specify an initial condition of a non -dimensional non -decaying conservative pollutant
concentration of 100 released over a period of 20 minutes in the basin. The 20-minute period will be
representative of a fuel tank spill as vessels are launched or hauled out of the basin. This tracer concentration
is a value that is relative to the remainder of the model domain. At all other locations within the model, and at
the boundaries, the initial concentration will be specified to be Zero.
moffatl & nlchol

Error! Reference source not found. Error! Reference source not found. M&N #10845 Error! Reference source
not found.
June 7, 2022 Memorandum
Reference
Danish Hydraulic Institute PHI). 2017a. MIKE3 Flow Model FM - Hydrodynamic Module User Guide.
Egbert, G.D. and Erofeeva, S.Y. 2002. Efficient Inverse Modeling of Barotropic Ocean Tides. Journal of
Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology, Volume 19.
mo!!att & nichol

Attachment B
Emerald Isle Shoreline
�/y E
Shoreline location in 2004, 2013 and 2021 North Carolina
o 0.13 U5 os Miles Coastal Federation
S _� i 1 f 0) Wahl s Topther fora kmhay Coos
Date prepared Aug 30.2023 Shcct I of 4

IN Emerald Isle Shoreline
r, A E Shoreline location in 2004, 2013 and 2021
Z'JJ_ North Carolina
0 0,03 0.07 0.13 Mils Coastal Federation
s i xenwa rw+rx..fdox.amrcoou
Date prepared Aug 30, 2023 Shed 2 of4

Emerald Isle Shoreline
Shoreline location in 2004, 2013 and 2021
North Carolina
0 0.03 0.07 0.13 Mile,. � Coastal Federation
s i vmuq,wahcx«uM coax
Dmc payed Aug 30. 2023 Shcet 3 ef4

4
x�dir
5. 4 - •t� < �`' ,' �*fie' 1

Attachment C
W. JUDSON KENWORTHY, PhD
ADDRESS:
109 Holly Ln
Beaufort, NC 28516, U.S.A.
PHONE:
252-646-9174 (mobile)
BORN:
May 22, 1950, New Haven, Conn., USA
MARITAL STATUS: Married, two children
EDUCATION:
PhD zoology, North Carolina State University, 1992
MSc Environmental Science, University of Virginia, 1981
BS Resource Development, University of Rhode Island, 1976
AFFILIATION
Adjunct Faculty
Department of Biology and Marine Biology
University of North Carolina Wilmington
EMPLOYMENT:
2023 - Present; Consulting contract with Ocean Wind, LLC to serve as a scientific technical advisor on successful
implementation of SAV monitoring and restoration efforts in Barnegat Bay, NJ associated with the installation of
transmission cables from an offshore wind farm in NJ.
2021-- Present; Consulting contract with North Carolina Coastal Federation and the Pew Charitable Trusts
Conserving Marine Life in the U.S. Program to provide coastal wetland expertise in support of the North Carolina
Natural and Working Lands Coastal Habitat Greenhouse Gas subcommittee, with a particular focus on helping
advance the development of a Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) GHG inventory.
August 2019-December 2019; Consulting contract with the Florida Wildlife Federation and the Pew Charitable
Trust to conduct research and provide strategy advice to inform the development of a plan to protect submerged
aquatic vegetation (SAV) habitat in North Carolina.
July 2016 — 2021; Sub -contractor (CSS) to the Center for Coastal Fisheries and Habitat Research, NCCOS, NOS
NOAA, 101 Pivers Island Rd, Beaufort, NC 28516. Assist in the preparation of a national environmental
assessment of the potential interactions between shellfish aquaculture and submerged aquatic vegetation.
April 2015 — Present; Scientific advisor and external peer reviewer for the Piscataqua Region Estuaries Partnership
(PREP), University of New Hampshire, Nesmith Hall Rm. 305, 131 Main St., Durham, NH 03824
October 2011 -February 2017; Sub -contractor for Industrial Economics, Incorporated, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Served as an expert scientific consultant supporting the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
on the Federal and State Trustee Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Technical Working Group (SAVTWG) assessing
the impact of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill on submerged aquatic vegetation and restoration of ecological
communities injured by exposure to oil.
September 2013-December 2014; Fixed price contract with the New Hampshire Department of Environmental
Services and the Cities of Dover, Portsmouth and Rochester, NH (USA) serving on an expert scientific peer review
panel evaluating the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services proposal for establishing numeric
nutrient criteria in the Great Bay Estuary, NH, USA.

September 2012-February 2013; Fixed price contract with Photo Science, hie. 2955 Professional Place, Suite 320
Colorado Springs, CO, USA. Designed a sentinel site monitoring program for assessing the status of seagrass
resources in Massachusetts (USA) coastal waters.
September 2011-December 2011; Fixed price contract with the Cape Cod Water Protection Collaborative,
Barnstable County, MA, USA. Served as an expert member of a scientific peer review panel evaluating the
Massachusetts Estuary Project's (MEP) Linked Watershed Embayment Model. I reviewed the MEP's efforts to
develop and implement a program to apply Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) of nitrogen to protect seagrasses
and other living marine resources in coastal Massachusetts estuaries.
1979-2011(NOAA retired); Research Fisheries Biologist, Center for Coastal Fisheries and Habitat Research,
National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 101 Pivers Island Road, Beaufort, North Carolina, 28516.
Served as a research project leader for experimental laboratory and field ecology research programs located
throughout the United States, Caribbean basin, and other regions of the world directing basic and applied research
on the structure, function, dynamics and restoration of coastal and estuarine ecosystems with special emphasis on
marine seagrasses, coral reefs, benthic habitat utilization by marine organisms, and the environmental factors
controlling the distribution, abundance and population dynamics of these communities. Prepared competitive
research proposals and implemented field and laboratory research programs covering a wide range of ecological
studies in the coastal zone and at sea on board small vessels and research ships. This research also directly
addressed critical management issues in the coastal zone of the United States and globally. Daily, I worked on
scientific teams dealing with the conservation and restoration of coastal ecosystems providing expert consultation
and scientific research results in support of local, state, federal and international resource management agencies
conserving and restoring marine resources. My work also involved preparing reports and providing expert
testimony for litigation involving natural resource damage assessment for NOAA, U.S. Department of the Interior
and State Trustees.
RELATED PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE:
Nov. 1999 — present; Adjunct Faculty Appointment, Department of Biological Sciences and Marine Biology,
University of North Carolina Wilmington, N.C. Mentor graduate students, serve on graduate student committees
and prepare and implement research grant proposals.
2006 — present; Member of the Scientific Technical Advisory Committee (STAC) for the Albemarle -Pamlico
National Estuary Partnership (APNEP). Currently serving as the co-chair of the STAC providing scientific and
technical guidance to the Albemarle -Pamlico National Estuary Program on conservation, management and
restoration of natural resources in the Albemarle -Pamlico region of North Carolina. Also serving as co -team leader
for the Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Mapping and Monitoring Team.
INTERNATIONAL EXPERIENCE:
2011 -2016; Expert seagrass restoration consultant for Al Iamali Environmental Consultancy, Doha, Qatar.
2011— 20 t5; Research Associate with the Sirenia Project, USGS, US Department of the Interior assisting in the
planning and implementation of manatee captures, manatee radio tagging and tracking and benthic habitat mapping
in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
2005 — 2019; Assisted the Bermuda Department of Conservation Services in designing and implementing a benthic
habitat monitoring program in Bermuda and conducting research on the use of seagrass habitats by the green turtle
Chelonia mydas

December 2010; By invitation of the Qatar Ministry of Environment and Shell Oil Company I planned and
implemented a five day workshop on seagrass restoration in Doha, Qatar.
1995; One year temporary assignment to conduct collaborative research in Spain, Thailand and the Philippines with
Spanish, European, Philippine and Thai scientists in the Centre D'Estudis Avancats De Blanes, Consejo Superior de
Investigaciones Cientificas, Blanes, Spain. The objective of the assignment was to develop technical and applied
scientific expertise in seagrass population ecology in order to develop models of seagrass population dynamics for
use in management of living marine resources under the stewardship of NOAA and its international collaborators.
1991-1993; Co -PI of an interdisciplinary study of the effects of the Gulf War oil spill on coastal marine
communities in the Persian Gulf. This work involved planning and implementing a six month research cruise on
the NOAA ship Mt. Mitchell in the Persian Gulf, coordinating all phases of the cruise plan and collaborating with a
multinational research team from the U.S., Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iran. The cruise resulted in a comprehensive
assessment of the oil spill impacts that were summarized in an international meeting held in Kuwait and published in
the Marine Pollution Bulletin.
OTHER SELECTED ASSIGNMENTS AND EXPERIENCE;
2010 — 2016; Served as scientific technical lead for NOAA, State and Federal Trustees on the Submerged Aquatic
Vegetation Workgroup for the Natural Resource Damage Assessment of the Deepwater Horizons oil spill in the
Gulf of Mexico.
1993 - 2011; Assist NOAA's National Marine Sanctuary Program, NOAA Damage Assessment Center, NOAA
General Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice and other State and Federal Agencies in development and
implementation of scientifically valid procedures for assessing injuries to seagrass ecosystems, modeling the
recovery dynamics of these ecosystems and the development of restoration plans for these ecological communities
Provide scientific expertise for NOAA, U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers efforts to litigate for injuries to natural resources in coastal regions of the United States. This
includes the preparation of expert reports on the ecological value of seagrass communities, field review of injury
sites and proposed restoration areas, and pre-trial and trial depositions and expert testimony at trials.
1990 - 2011; Assist NOAA's Marine Protected Resources Program in the development and implementation of the
Recovery and Implementation Plans for a threatened seagrass, Halophilajohnsonii. Conduct biological status
reviews and prepare plans for conservation of Halophilajohnsonii. Halophilajohnsonii is the first marine plant
ever to be listed under the United States Endangered Species Act and required specialized expertise and attention to
research and management issues previously not encountered by the National Marine Fisheries Service and other
Federal and State resource agencies.
July 1998 - October 1999; Acted as co-editor with Dr. Michelle Waycott in organizing, implementing and
supervising the scientific and editorial review for a special session on seagrass conservation at the Society for
Conservation Biology meeting in Sydney Australia, July 1998. This meeting lead to the publication of a special
issue of Pacific Conservation Biology dedicated to papers presented at this session.
1997— 1998; Assist National Marine Fisheries Service staff and the South Atlantic Fisheries Management Council
in development and preparation of essential fish habitat requirements for fishery management plans of the South
Atlantic Fishery Management Council. This assignment was in response to newly developed legislation that
required fishery management councils to consider essential fish habitat in fishery management plans.
1995 — 2000; Planned and organized a national workshop sponsored by NOAA to evaluate the methods for
determining the value of ecological services provided by seagrasses, seagrass injury assessment, and seagrass
restoration.

1992; Acted as a scientific advisor on the steering committee to the National Biological Survey and U.S. EPA in
development of the agenda and planning for a national workshop on Seagrass monitoring and Research in the Gulf
of Mexico. This resulted in a published proceedings and continued research on the development of monitoring
protocols for seagrasses in the Gulf of Mexico.
November 1990; Planned, organized and implemented a national workshop to examine the capability of water
quality criteria, standards and monitoring programs to protect seagrasses. This resulted in published proceedings
which lead directly to development of a number of research and management programs intended for the protection
of seagrasses throughout the United States.
1989; Served on the Scientific Advisory Committee to the management team preparing the program plan and
request for proposals for the habitat component of NOAA's Coastal Ocean Program.
PROFESSIONAL AWARDS:
1981; U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Unit Citation Award in recognition of outstanding individual and
collective contributions in furthering NOAA's mission.
1982; United States Department of Commerce, NOAA Certificate of Recognition of outstanding performance
during 1982.
1987; United States Department of Commerce, NOAA Certificate of Recognition of outstanding performance
during 1987.
1991; United States Department of Commerce, NOAA Certificate of Recognition of outstanding performance
during 1990 and 1991.
1992; United States Department of Commerce Bronze Medal Award for outstanding service to NOAA, the Gulf
Program Office and the Interagency Assessment Team in Support of Operation Desert Storm.
1994; United States Department of Commerce, NOAA Certificate of Recognition of outstanding performance
during 1993 and 1994.
1996; United States Department of Commerce, NOAA Certificate of Recognition of outstanding performance
during 1995 and 1996.
1998; NOAA Administrators Award for significant research achievements and contributions in obtaining
settlements on claims pertaining to environmental impact to seagrass habitat.
1999; NOAA General Counsel Award for significant contribution to NOAA's mission to protect and conserve
trustee resources in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary.
2007; NOAA Distinguished Career Service Award for sustained career excellence.
2008; NOAA General Counsel's Award for exceptional performance and significant contributions to the Office of
the General Counsel.
PUBLICATIONS:
Megan M. Coffer, David D. Graybill, Peter J. Whitman, Blake A. Schaeffer, Wilson B. Sails, Richard C.
Zimmerman, Victoria Hill, Marie Cindy Lebrasse, Jiang Li, Darryl J. Keith, James Kaldy, Phil Colarusso, Gary
Raulerson, David Ward, W. Judson Kenworthy. 2023. Providing a framework for seagrass mapping in United

States coastal ecosystems using high spatial resolution satellite imagery. Journal of Environmental Management,
Volume 337. https:Hdoi.ore/10.1016/0.ienvman.2023.117669
Bartenfelder, A., W. J. Kenworthy, B. Puckett, C. Dealer, and J. C. Jarvis. 2022. The abundance and persistence of
temperate and tropical seagrasses at their edge -of -range in the western Atlantic Ocean. Frontiers in Marine Science.
9. Doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fnars.2022.917237
Combs, A.R., Jarvis, J.C., Kenworthy, W.J. 2020. Quantifying variation in Zostera marina seed size and
composition at the species' southern limit in the western Atlantic; Implications for eelgrass population resilience.
Estuaries and Coasts, https://doi.org/10.1007/sl2237-020-00839-5.
Fourqurean, J.W., Manuel, S.A., Coates, K, Massey, S.C., Kenworthy, W.J. 2019, Decadal Monitoring in Bermuda
Shows a Widespread Loss of Seagrasses Attributable to Overgrazing by the Green Sea Turtle Chelonia mydas.
Estuaries and Coasts, doi; 10.1007/sl2237-019-00587-1
Furman, B.T., Merello, M., Shea, C.P., Kenworthy, W.J., Hall, M.O.2018. Monitoring of physically restored
seagrass meadows reveals a slow rate of recovery for Thalassia lestudinum. Restoration Ecology, doi:
10.111 I/rec.12877
Kenworthy, W. Judson, Hall, M.O., Hammerstrom, K.K., Merello, M. & Schwartzschild, A. 2018. Restoration of
tropical seagrass beds using wild bird fertilization and sediment regrading. Ecological Engineering 112, 72-81.
Hall, N.S., Litaker, R.W., Kenworthy, W. Judson, Vandersea, M.W., Sunda, W.G., Reid, J.P., Slone, D.H., & Butler,
S. 2018. Consortial brown tide — picocyarobacteria blooms in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Harmful Algae 73, 30-43.
Burgett, C.M, Burkholder, D.A, Coates, K.A., Fourqurean, V.L, Kenworthy, W.J., Manuel, S.A., Outerbridge, M.E.
& Fourqurean, J.W. 2018. Ontogenetic diet shifts of green sea turtles (Chelonia mydas) in a mid -ocean
developmental habitat. Marine Biology 33, 1-12.
Kenworthy, W.J., Cosentino -Manning, N., Handley, L., Wild, M., & Rouhani, S. 2017. Seagrass response following
exposure to Deepwater Horizon oil in the Chandeleur Islands, Louisiana (USA). Marine Ecology Progress
Series, 76:146-161. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps 1983
Lefebvre, L. W., Provancha, J. A., Slone, D. H, & Kenworthy, W. J. (2017). Manatee grazing impacts on a mixed
species seagrass bed. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 564, 29-45. https://doi.org/10.3354/mepsl1986
Bourque, A.S., W. Judson Kenworthy and J.W. Fourqurean. 2015. Impacts of physical disturbance on ecosystem
structure in subtropical seagrass meadows. Marine Ecology Progress Series 540:27-41.
Fourqurean, J.W., S.A. Manuel, K.A. Coates, W.J. Kenworthy and J.N. Boyer. 2015. Water quality, isoscapes and
stoichioscapes of seagrasses indicate general P limitation and unique N cycling in shallow water benthos of
Bermuda. Biogeosciences 12:6235-6249.
Heithaus, M.R., T. Alcoverro, R. Arthur, D.A. Burkholder, K.A. Coates, M.J.A. Christianen, N. Kelkar, S
A. Manuel, A. J. Wirsing, W. J. Kenworthy, and J. W. Fourqurean. 2014. Seagrasses in the age of sea turtle
Conservation. Frontiers in Marine Science doi:10.3389/fmars.201400028.
Jarvis, J.C., Moore, K.A, and W.J. Kenworthy. 2014. Persistence of Zostera marina L. (eelgrass) seeds in the
sediment seed bank. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 459:126-136.
Kenworthy, W.J., C.L. Gallegos, C. Costello, D. Field and G. Di Carlo. 2014. Dependence of eelgrass (Zostera
marina) light requirements on sediment organic matter in Massachusetts coastal bays: Implications for remediation
and restoration. Mar. Pollution Bulletin 459:126-136.

Manuel, S.A., K.A. Coates, W. Judson Kenworthy and J. Fourqurean. 2013. Tropical species at the northern limit of
their range: Composition and distribution in Bermuda's benthic habitats in relation to depth and light availability,
Marine Environmental Research (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marenvres.2013.05.003.
Slone, D.H., J.P. Reid and W. Judson Kenworthy. 2013. Mapping spatial resources with GPS animal telemetry:
foraging manatees locate seagrass beds in the Ten Thousand Islands, Florida, USA Marine Ecology Progress Series
476:285-299.
Coates, K.A., J.W. Fourqurean, W. Judson Kenworthy, A. Logan, S.A. Manuel and S.R. Smith. 2013. Introduction
to Bermuda: Geology, Oceanography and Climate. In: C.R.C. Sheppard led) Coral Reefs of the United Kingdom
Overseas Territories, Coral Reefs of the World 4. Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht, pp 115-134.
Jarvis, Jessie C., Moore, K.A. and W. Judson Kenworthy. 2012. Characterization and ecological implication of
eelgrass life history strategies near the species' southern limit in the western North Atlantic. Marine Ecology
Progress Series 44:43-56.
Burke, John S, W. Judson Kenworthy, T. Shay Viehman, Vanessa L. McDonough, and Brian Degan. 2011.
Biodiversity and Ecosystem function of Shallow Bank Systems within Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary
(FKNMS. Marine Sanctuaries Conservation Series ONMS-12-03. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, Silver Spring, MD. 45 pp.
Uhrin, A.V., Kenworthy, W.J, and M.S. Fonseca, M.S. 2011. Understanding uncertainty in seagrass injury
recovery: an information -theoretic approach. Ecological Applications 21(4):1365-1379.
Costello, C., Kenworthy, W.J. 2011. Twelve-year mapping and change analysis of eelgrass (Zostera marina) areal
abundance in Massachusetts (USA) identifies statewide declines. Estuaries and Coasts 34:232-242.
Frederick T. Short, Beth Polidoro, Suzanne R. Livingstone, Kent E. Carpenter, Salomao Bandeira ,
Japar Sidik Bujang, Hilconida P. Calumpong, Tim J.B. Carruthers, Robert G. Coles, William C. Dennison,
Paul L.A. Erftemeijer, Miguel D. Fortes, Amen S. Freeman, T.G. Jagtap, Abu Hena, M. Kamal,
Gary A. Kendrick, W. Judson Kenworthy, Yayu A. La Nafie, Ichwan M. Nasution, Robert J. Orth,
Anchana Prathep, Jonnell C. Sanciangco, Brigitta van Tussenbroek, Sheila G. Vergara, Michelle Waycott, Joseph C.
Zieman. 201 L Extinction risk assessment of the world's seagrass species. Biological Conservation 14: 1961-1971.
Kenworthy, W.J., Manuel, S, Fourqurean, J., Coates, K., and M. Outerbridge. 2011. Bermuda triangle; seagrass,
green turtles & conservation. Pp. 16-18; In L.J. Mckenzie, R.L. Yoshida & R. Unsworth (eds.) Seagrass Watch
News Issue 44, November 2011. Seagrass-Watch HQ, 32pp.
Fourqurean, J.W., Manuel S., Coates, K.A., Kenworthy, W.J., Smith, S.R. 2010. Effects of excluding sea turtle
herbivores from a seagrass bed: overgrazing may have led to loss of seagrass meadows in Bermuda. Marine Ecology
Progress Series 419: 223-232.
Gallegos, C.L., W. J. Kenworthy, P.D. Biber, and B.S. Wolfe. 2009. Underwater spectral energy distribution and
seagrass depth limits. Pp. 359-368; In M.L. Lange, I.G. Macintyre, and K. Rutzler (eds.) Proceedings of the
Smithsonian Marine Science Symposium, Scholarly Press, Washington, DC.
Waycott, M., C.M. Duarte, T.J.B. Carruthers, R.G. Orth, W.C. Dennison, S. Olyarnik, A. Calladine, J.W.
Fourqurean, K.A. Heck, Jr., A.R. Hughes, G.A. Kendrick, W. J. Kenworthy, F.T. Short, and S.L. Williams. 2009.
Accelerating loss of seagrasses across the globe threatens coastal ecosystems. Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences 106:12377-12381.

Burke, J.S., W.J. Kenworthy, L. Wood. 2009. Ontogenetic patterns of concentration indicate lagoon nurseries are
essential to common grunts stocks in a Puerto Rican bay. Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science 81: 533-543.
Biber, Patrick D, W. Judson Kenworthy, Hans W. Paerl. 2009. Experimental analysis of the response and recovery
of Zostera marina (L.) and Halodule wrightii (Ascher.) to repeated light -limitation stress. 2009. Journal of
Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 369:110-117.
Di Carlo, G and W.J. Kenworthy. 2008. Evaluation of belowground biomass recovery in physically disturbed
seagrass meadows. Oecologia 158:285-298.
Schwarzschild, A.C., W.J. Kenworthy, and J.C. Zieman. 2008. Leaf growth of the seagrass Syringodium filiforme
in outer Florida Bay. Bulletin of Marine Science 83:571-585.
Fonseca, M.S., Kenworthy, W.S., Griffith, E., Hall, M.O., Finkbeiner, M., Bell, S.S. 2007. Factors influencing
landscape pattern of the seagrass Halophila decipiens in an oceanic setting. Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science 76:
163-174.
Bell, S.S., Fonseca, M.S. and Kenworthy, W.J. 2008. Dynamics of a subtropical seagrass landscape: links between
disturbance and mobile seed banks. Landscape Ecology 23: 67-74.
Biber, P., Gallegos, C, Kenworthy, W. J. 2008. Calibration of a bio-optical model in the North River, North
Carolina (Albemarle -Pamlico Sound): A tool to evaluate water quality impact on seagrasses. Estuaries and Coasts
31:177-191.
York, R., Durako, M., Kenworthy, W.J., and Freshwater, W. 2008. Megagametogenesis in Halophila johnsonii, a
threatened seagrass with no known seeds, and the seed producing Halophila decipiens. Aquatic Botany 88:277-282
Hammerstrom, KK, W.J. Kenworthy, P.E. Whitfield, M. Merello. 2007. Response and recovery dynamics of
seagrasses Thalassia testudinum and Syringodium filiforme and macroalgae in experimental motor vessel
disturbances. Marine Ecology Progress Series 345:83-92.
Orth, Robert J., Tim J.B. Carruthers, William C. Dennison, Carlos M. Duarte, James W. Fourqurean, Kenneth L.
Heck, Jr., A Randall Hughes, Gary A. Kendrick, W. Judson Kenworthy, Suzanne Olyarnik, Fred T. Short, Michelle
Waycott, and Susan L. Williams. 2006. A global crisis for seagrass ecosystems. Bioscience 56:987-996.
Kenworthy, W.J., S. Wyllie-Echeverria, R.G. Coles, G. Pergent and C. Pergent-Martini. 2006. Seagrass
conservation biology: An interdisciplinary science for protection of the seagrass biome. Chapter 25 in A.W.
Larkum, C.M. Duarte and R. Orth (eds.) Seagrass Biology, pp. 595-623. Springer, Netherlands.
Hammerstrom, K.K., W. Judson Kenworthy, M.S. Fonseca, and P.E. Whitfield. 2006. Seed bank, biomass and
productivity of Halophila decipiens, a deep water seagrass on the west Florida continental shelf. Aquatic Botany
84:110-120.
Piniak, G.A., M.S. Fonseca, W.J. Kenworthy, P.E. Whitfield, G. Fisher and B. Julius. 2006. Applied modeling of
coral reef ecosystem function and recovery. Chapter 6 in: Precht, W.F. led.). Coral Reef Restoration
Handbook. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
McNeese, P.L., C.R. Kruer, W.J. Kenworthy, A.C. Schwartzschild, P. Wells and J. Hobbs. 2006. Topogroaphic
restoration of boat grounding damage at the Lignumvitae Submerged Land Management Area. Pp. 131-146 in S.F.
Treat & R.R. Lewis III (eds.) Seagrass Restoration: Success, Failure, and the Cost of Both. Lewis Environmental
Services, Inc., Velrico, FL.

Kirsch, K.D., K.A. Barry, M.S. Fonseca, P.E. Whitfield, S.R. Meehan, W. Judson Kenworthy, and B.E. Julius.
2005. The Mini-312 Program -an expedited damage assessment and restoration process for seagrasses in the Florida
Keys National Marine Sanctuary. Journal of Coastal Research SI40:109-119.
Kunzelman J.I., M.J. Durako, W.J. Kenworthy, A. Stapelton, and J. Wright. 2005. Irradiance induced changes in
the photobiology of Halophilajohnsonil. Marine Biology 148:241-250.
Piniak, G.A., N.D. Fogarty, C.M. Addison and W.J. Kenworthy. 2005. Fluorescence census techniques for coral
recruits. Coral Reefs 24:496-500.
Biber, P.D., H. W. Pried, C. L. Gallegos, and W. Judson Kenworthy. 2004. Evaluating indicators of seagrass Stress
to light. Pages 193-209 in S.A. Bortone (Ed.), Estuarine Indicators. CRC Press, Boca Raton.
Fonseca, Mark S., Whitfield, Paula E., Kenworthy, W. Judson, Colby, David, R., Julius, Brian E.
2004. Use of two spatially explicit models to determine the effect of injury geometry on
natural resource recovery. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 14:281-298
Whitfield• P.E., W. Judson Kenworthy, Michael J. Durako, Kamille K. Hammerstrom, and Manuel F. Merello.
2004. Recruitment of nalassia testudinum seedlings into physically disturbed seagrass beds. Marine Ecology
Progress Series 267:121-131.
Durako, M.J., J.I. Kunzelman, W.J. Kenworthy and K.K. Hammerstrom. 2003. Depth -related variability in the
photobiology of two populations of Halophilajohnsonii and Halophila decipiens. Marine Biology 142:1219-1228.
Hammerstrom, K.K. and W. Judson Kenworthy. 2003. A new method for estimation of Halophila decipiens
Ostenfeld seed banks using density separation. Aquatic Botany 76: 79-86.
Waycott, M., D. Wilson Freshwater, R.A. York, A. Calladine and W. Judson Kenworthy. 2002. Evolutionary
trends in the seagrass genus Halophila (Thouars): Insights from molecular phylogeny. Bulletin of Marine Science
71:1299-1308.
Kenworthy, W.J., Fonseca, M.S., Whitfield, P.E., Hammerstrom, K. 2002. Analysis of seagrass recovery in
experimental excavations and propeller -scar disturbances in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. Journal of
Coastal Research 37:75-85.
Whitfield, P.E., Kenworthy, W.J., Fonseca, M.S., Hammerstrom, K. 2002. The Role of a Hurricane in
expansion of disturbances initiated by motor vessels on subtropical seagrass banks. Journal of Coastal Research
37:86-99.
Hovel, K.A., M.S. Fonseca, D.L. Meyer, W.J. Kenworthy, and P.E. Whitfield. 2002. Effects of seagrass landscape
structure, structural complexity and hydrodynamic regime on macro -faunal densities in North Carolina seagrass
beds. Marine Ecology Progress Series 243:11-24.
Fonseca, M.S., W.J. Kenworthy, B.E. Julius, S. Shutter, and S. Fluke. 2002. Seagrasses, pp. 149-7701n M. R.
Perrow and A.J. Davy (eds.), Handbook of Ecological Restoration. University Press, Cambridge.
Kenworthy, W.J., Fonseca, M.S., Whitfield, P.E., Hammerstrom, K. 2000. Experimental manipulation and analysis
of recovery dynamics in physically disturbed tropical seagrass communities of North America: implications for
restoration and management. Proceedings of the Fourth International Seagrass Biology Workshop. Biologia Marina
Mediterranea 7:385-388.

Fonseca, M.S., Kenworthy, W.J., Whitfield, P.E. 2000. Temporal dynamics of seagrass landscapes: a preliminary
comparison of chronic and extreme disturbance events. Proceedings of the Fourth International Seagrass Biology
Workshop. Biologia Marina Mediterranea 7:373-376.
Kenworthy, W.J. 2000. The role of sexual reproduction in maintaining populations of Halophila decipiens:
implications for the biodiversity and conservation of tropical seagrass ecosystems. Pacific Conservation Biology
5:251-259.
Lefebvre, L.W., J.P. Reid, W.J. Kenworthy, and J.A. Powell. 2000. Characterizing Manatee habitat used and
seagrass grazing in Florida and Puerto Rico: implications for conservation and management. Pacific Conservation
Biology 5:289-298.
Fonseca, M.S., B.E. Julius, and W. Judson Kenworthy. 2000. Integrating biology and economics in seagrass
restoration: How much is enough and why? Ecological Engineering 15:227-237.
Rose, C.D., W.C. Sharp, W.J. Kenworthy, J.H. Hunt, W.G. Lyons, E.J. Prager, J.F. Valentine, M.O. Hall, P. Whitfield,
and J.W. Fourqurean. 1999. Sea urchin overgrazing of a large seagrass bed in outer Florida Bay. Marine Ecology
Progress Series 190:211-222.
Heidelbaugh, W.S., L.M. Hall, W.J. Kenworthy, P. Whitfield, R.W. Virnstein, L.J. Morris, and M.D. Hanisak.
1999. Reciprocal transplanting of the threatened seagrass Halophilajohnsonii (Johnson's seagrass) in the Indian River
Lagoon, Florida. In S. Bortone (ed.), Seagrasses: Monitoring Ecology, Physiology, and Management. CRC Press,
Boca Raton, Florida, pp. 197-210.
Terrados, J., J. Borum, C. M. Duarte, M. D. Fortes, L. Kamp -Nielsen, N. Sheila, R. Agawin, and W. Judson
Kenworthy. 1999. Nutrient and mass allocation of South-east Asian seagrasses. Aquatic Botany 63: 203-217.
Kenworthy, W.J. and A.C. Schwarzschild. 1998. Vertical growth and short -shoot demography of Syringodium
filiforme in outer Florida Bay, USA. Marine Ecology Progress Series 173:25-37
Terrados, J, C.M. Duarte, M.D. Fortes, J. Borum, N.S.R. Agawin, S. Bach, U. Thampanya, L. Kamp -Nielson, W.J.
Kenworthy, O. Gertz -Hansen and J. Vermaat. 1998. Changes in community structure and biomass of seagrass
communities along gradients of siltation in SE Asia. Estuarine and Coastal Shelf Science 46:757-768.
Fonseca, Mark S., W. Judson Kenworthy, and Gordon W. Thayer. 1998. Guidelines for the Conservation and
Restoration of Seagrasses in the United States and Adjacent Waters. NOAA, Coastal Ocean Program, Decision
Analysis Series No. 12. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, Coastal Ocean Office, Silver Spring, MD. 222pp.
Jewett -Smith, J., C. McMillan, W. Judson Kenworthy, and K. Bird. 1997. Flowering and genetic banding patterns of
Halophilajohnsond and conspecifics. Aquatic Botany 59:323-331.
Terrados, J., C.M. Duarte, and W.J. Kenworthy. 1997. Experimental evidence for apical dominance in the seagrass
Cymodocea nodosa. Marine Ecology Progress Series 148:263-268.
Terrados, J., C. M. Duarte, and W. Judson Kenworthy. 1997. Is the apical growth of Cymodocea nodosa dependent
on clonal integration? Marine Ecology Progress Series 158:103- 110.
Duarte, C.M., J. Terrados, N.S.R. Agawin, M.D. Fortes, S. Bach, and W. Judson Kenworthy. 1997. Response of a
mixed Philippine seagrass meadow to experimental burial. Marine Ecology Progress Series 147:285-294.
Thayer, G.W., Mark S. Fonseca, and W. Judson Kenworthy. 1997. Ecological value of seagrasses. In C. Dianne
Stephan and T.E. Bigford (eds.). Atlantic Coastal Submerged Aquatic Vegetation: A review of its ecological role,

anthropogenic impacts, state regulation, and value to Atlantic coastal fish stocks. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
Commission. pp 5-11.
Kenworthy, W.J. and M.S. Fonseca. 1996. Light Requirements of seagrasses Halodule wrightii and Syringodium
fzliforme derived from the relationship between diffuse light attenuation and maximum depth distribution. Estuaries
19:740-750.
Gallegos, C.L. and W.J. Kenworthy. 1996. Seagrass depth limits in the Indian River Lagoon (Florida, U.S.A.):
Application of an optical water quality model. Estuarine Coastal Shelf Science 42:267-288.
Fonseca, M.S., W. Judson Kenworthy and F.X. Courtney. 1996. Development of planted seagrass beds in Tampa
Bay, Florida, USA. I. Plant components. Marine Ecology Progress Series 132:127439.
Jupp, B.P., M.J. Durako, W.J. Kenworthy, G.W. Thayer, and L. Schillak. 1996. Distribution, abundance, and species
composition of seagrasses at several sites in Oman. Aquatic Botany 53:199-213.
Fourqurean, J.W., G.V.N. Powell, W. Judson Kenworthy, and J.C. Zieman. 1995. The effects of long-term
manipulation of nutrient supply on competition between the seagrasses Thalassia testudinum and Halodule wrightii
in Florida Bay. Oikos 72:349-358.
Dawes, C.J., D. Hanisak, and W.J. Kenworthy. 1995. Seagrass biodiversity in the Indian River Lagoon. Bulletin of
Marine Science 57:59-66.
Fonseca, M.S., W.J. Kenworthy, F.X. Courtney, and M.O. Hall. 1994. Seagrass transplanting in the southeastern
United States: methods for accelerating habitat development. Restoration Ecology 2:198-212.
Kenworthy, W. J. 1994. Conservation and restoration of the seagrasses of the Gulf of Mexico through a better
understanding of their minimum light requirements and factors controlling water transparency, pp. 17-31. In: Hilary
A. Neckles (ed.), Indicator development seagrass monitoring and research in the Gulf of Mexico. U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Environmental Research Laboratory, Gulf Breeze, Florida.
EPA/620/R-94029.
Kenworthy, W.J., M.J. Durako, S.M.R. Fatemy, H. Valavi, and G.W. Thayer. 1993. Ecology of seagrasses in
northeastern Saudi Arabia one year after the Gulf War oil spill. Marine Pollution Bulletin 27: 213-222.
M.J. Durako, Kenworthy, W.S., S.M.R. Fatemy, H. Valavi, and G.W. Thayer. 1993. Assessment of the toxicity of
Kuwait crude oil on the photosynthesis and respiration of seagrasses of the Northern Gulf. Marine Pollution Bulletin
27:223-227.
Kenworthy, W.J. 1993. Defining the ecological light compensation pint of seagrass in the Indian River, Lagoon, FL.
In: L. Morris and D. Tomasko (eds.). Proceedings and conclusions of workshops on: submerged aquatic vegetation
initiative and photosynthetically active radiation. Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program and St. Johns River
Water Management District, Palatka, FL., pp 195-210.
Powell, G.V.N., J.W. Fourqurean, W.J. Kenworthy, and J.C. Zieman. 1991. Bird colonies cause seagrass enrichment
in a subtropical estuary: observational and experimental evidence. Estuarine Coastal Shelf Science 32:567-579.
Kenworthy, W.J. and D.E. Haunert. 1991. The light requirements of seagrasses. Proceedings of a workshop to
examine the capabilities of water quality criteria, standards, and monitoring programs to protect seagrasses. National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFC-287.
Thayer, Gordon W., Mark S. Fonseca, and W. Judson Kenworthy. 1990 Seagrass Transplantation — Is it a viable
habitat mitigation option? In: R.L. Lazor and R. Medina (eds.). Beneficial uses of dredged material. Proceedings of
10

the Gulf Coast Regional Workshop. Technical Report D-90-3, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Effects
of Dredging Programs. pp 194-204.
Fonseca, M.S., W.J. Kenworthy, D.R. Colby, K.A. Rittmaster, and G.W. Thayer. 1990. Comparisons of fauna among
natural and transplanted eelgrass Zostera marina meadows: criteria for mitigation. Marine Ecology Progress Series
65:251-264.
Fonseca, M. S., G. W. Thayer and W. J. Kenworthy. 1990. Root/shoot ratios, p. 65-67. In: Ronald C. Philips and C.
Peter McRoy (eds.), Seagrass research methods, Monographs on oceanographic methodology (Part I. Seagrasses),
UNESCO, Paris.
Kenworthy, W.J., C.A. Curtin, M.S. Fonseca, and G. Smith. 1989. Production, decomposition, and heterotrophic
utilization of the seagrass, Halophila decipiens in a submarine canyon. Marine Ecology Progress Series 51: 277-290.
Powell, G.V.N., W.J. Kenworthy, and J.W. Fourqurean. 1989. Experimental evidence for nutrient limitation of
seagrass growth in a tropical estuary with restricted circulation. Bulletin of Marine Science 44:324-340.
Kenworthy, W. J., G. W. Thayer, and M. S. Fonseca. 1988. The utilization of seagrass meadows by fishery organisms.
In D. D. Hook, W. H. McKee, Jr., H. K. Smith, G. Gregory, V. G. Burrell, Jr., M. R. Devoe, R. E. Sojka, S. Gilbert,
R. Banks, L. H. Stolzy, C. Brooks, T. D. Matthews, and T. H. Shear (eds.). The ecology and management of wetlands.
Vol. I, Ecology of wetlands. Timber press, Oregon, pp. 548-560.
Thayer, G.W., Mark S. Fonseca, and W. Judson Kenworthy. 1988. Critical and sensitive coastal and estuarine habitats.
Sea Winds 2:7-13.
Kenworthy, W.J., C. Curtin, G. Smith, and G.W. Thayer. 1987. The abundance, biomass, and acetylene reduction
activity of bacteria associated with decomposing rhizomes of two seagrasses, Zostera marina and Thalassia
testudinum. Aquatic Botany 27:97-119.
Fonseca, M.S., G. W. Thayer and W.J. Kenworthy. 1987. The use of ecological data in the implementation and
management of seagrass restorations. Florida Marine Research Publications 42:175-188.
Fonseca, Mark S., W. Judson Kenworthy and Gordon W. Thayer. 1987. Transplanting of the seagrasses Halodule
wrightii, Syringodiumfiliforme, and Thalassia testudinum for sediment stabilization and habitat development in the
southeast region of the U. S. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, Final
Report, Technical Report EL-87-8.47 pp.
Fonseca, Mark S., W. Judson Kenworthy, Keith A. Rittmaster and Gordon W. Thayer. 1987. The use of fertilizer to
enhance transplants of the seagrasses, Zostera marina and Halodule wrightii. Environmental Impact Research
Program, Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Technical Report EL-87-12.45 pp.
Fonseca, M.S. and W.J. Kenworthy. 1987. Effects of current on photosynthesis and distribution of seagrasses.
Aquatic Botany 27:59-78.
Thayer, G. W., M. S. Fonseca and W. J. Kenworthy. 1986. Wetland mitigation and restoration in the southeast United
States and two lessons from seagrass mitigation, p. 95-117. In: Estuarine Management Practices Symposium,
November 12-13, 1985, Baton Rouge, La.
Fonseca, M. S., W. J. Kenworthy, G. W. Thayer, D. Y. Heller and K. M. Cheap. 1985. Transplanting of the seagrasses
Zostera marina and Halodule wrightii for sediment stabilization and habitat development on the east coast of the
United States. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Technical Report EL-85-9, 49
PP
11

Thayer, Gordon W., Mark S. Fonseca and W. Judson Kenworthy. 1985. Restoration of seagrass meadows for
enhancement of nearshore productivity, p. 259-278. In: Ning Labbish Chao and William Kirby -Smith (eds.),
Proceedings of the International Symposium on Utilization of Coastal Ecosystems: Planning, Pollution and
Productivity, Rio Grande, RS-Brasil, Nov. 21-27, 1982. Vol. 1.
Kenworthy, W. Judson and G.W. Thayer. 1984. Production and decomposition of the roots and rhizomes of
seagrasses, Zostera marina and Thalassia testudinum, in temperate and subtropical marine ecosystems. Bulletin of
Marine Science 35:364-379.
Thayer, Gordon W., W. Judson Kenworthy, and Mark S. Fonseca. 1984. The ecology of eelgrass meadows of the
Atlantic coast: a community profile. U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv. FWS/OBS-84/02. 147pp.
Fonseca, M. S., W. J. Kenworthy, K. M. Cheap, C. A. Currin and G. W. Thayer. 1984. A low-cost transplanting
technique for shoalgrass (Halodule wrightiz) and manatee grass (Syringodium filiforme). Instruction Report EL-84-1.
U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss., prepared by National Marine Fisheries
Service under contract to Environmental Laboratory. 16 pp.
Kenworthy, W.J., J.C. Zieman, and G.W. Thayer. 1982. Evidence for the influence of seagrasses on the benthic
nitrogen cycle in a coastal plain estuary near Beaufort, North Carolina (USA). Oecologia 54:152-158.
Homziak, J., Mark S. Fonseca, and W. Judson Kenworthy. 1982. Macrobenthic community structure in a transplanted
eelgrass (Zostera marina) meadow. Marine Ecology Progress Series 9:211-221.
Fonseca, M.S., W. Judson Kenworthy, and R.C. Phillips. 1982. A cost -evaluation technique for restoration of seagrass
and other plant communities. Environmental Conservation. 9:237-241.
Fonseca, Mark S, W. Judson Kenworthy and Gordon W. Thayer. 1982. A low-cost planting technique for eelgrass
(Zostera marina L.). U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research Center, Coastal Engineering
Technical Aid, no. 82-6. 15 pp.
Kenworthy, W. Judson, Mark S. Fonseca, Jurij Homziak and Gordon W. Thayer. 1980. Development of a transplanted
seagrass (Zostera marina L.) meadow in Back Sound, Carteret County, North Carolina, p. 175-193. In: Dorothea P.
Cole (ed.), Annual Conference on the Restoration and Creation of Wetlands, 7th, Tampa, Fla., 1980. Hillsborough
Community College, Environmental Studies Center, in cooperation with the Tampa Port Authority, Tampa, Fla.
Fonseca, M. S., W. J. Kenworthy, J. Homziak and G. W. Thayer. 1979. Transplanting of eelgrass and shoalgrass as a
potential means of economically mitigating a recent loss of habitat, p. 279-326. In: Dorothea P. Cole (ed.), Annual
Conference on the Restoration and Creation of Wetlands, 6th Tampa, Fla., 1979. Hillsborough Community College,
Environmental Studies Center, in cooperation with the Tampa Port Authority, Tampa, Fla.
Thayer, G.W., H. Hoffman Stuart, W. Judson Kenworthy, J.F. Ustach, and A.B. Hall. 1979. Habitat values of salt
marshes, mangroves, and seagrasses for aquatic organisms. p. 235-24. 7In: P.E. Greeson, J.R. Clark and J.E. Clark
(eds.). Wetland functions and values: the state of our understanding. American Water Resources Association,
Washington, D.C.
Kenworthy, W.J. and M.S. Fonseca. 1977. Reciprocal transplant of the seagrass, Zostera marina L. effect of substrate
on growth. Aquaculture 12:197-213.
12

U �-

05/1992
rzri

05/2006

C`�
—,_ice_

Earth
a-
yo
T
t
�
�l
ryf C '
1A
' i.
� f
r ra

\\
GoeUe
k
&

06/2021

Attachment E
Engineering With Nature®
ERDCITN EVVN-23-1
August 2023
Dredged Material Can Benefit Submerged Aquatic
Vegetation (SAV) Habitats
By Emily R. Russ, Amy H. Yarnall, Safra Altman
PURPOSE: This technical note (TN) was developed by the US Army Engineer Research and
Development Center —Environmental Laboratory (ERDC-EL) to provide an overview of the
ecosystem services delivered by submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) to estuarine and coastal
ecosystems and to describe potential methods for the beneficial use of dredged material (BUDM)
to aid in SAV restoration. Although dredging tends to have a negative association with SAV
habitats, BUDM may provide an opportunity to expand suitable SAV habitat to areas where depth
is the primary limiting factor. Recent in situ observations have shown that SAV has
opportunistically colonized several dredged -material placement sites. This TN provides context
on BUDM for SAV habitat restoration to encourage increased strategic placement.
BACKGROUND AND PROBLEM: SAV are rooted and flowering plants found in shallow
marine, estuarine, and freshwater habitats that provide a variety of critical ecosystem services
(Table 1). Ecologically, SAV habitats are important sources of food, foraging grounds, and shelter
from predators for a variety of species (Bostrom et al. 2006; Orth et al. 1984). SAV also provides
chemical and physical services by cycling nutrients, sequestering carbon (Romero et al. 2006;
Fourqurean et al. 2012), and preventing erosion through sediment stabilization and the attenuation
of wave and current energy (Ward et al. 1984; Fonseca and Cahalan 1992). Quantitative analyses
of these and other ecosystem services have demonstrated that seagrass (marine and estuarine SAV
subset) habitats render services valued at US dollar (USD) 37,500 ha r y r (Costanza et al. 2014;
adjusted to 2021 USD), t which rank SAV among the top three most economically valuable marine
habitats and within the top five if terrestrial habitats are included (Costanza et al. 1997; Costanza
et al. 2014). Because some benefits are poorly, if at all, quantified (Barbier 2015; Dewsbury et al.
2016), SAV ecosystems are likely undervalued.
Throughout the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, SAV habitats and their associated ecosystem
services have declined globally because of increasing sea surface temperatures; rising water -
column turbidity, which reduces light availability; declining water quality due to coastal
development; and direct disturbance of SAV beds from humans, animals, wind and wave energy,
and increasingly frequent and more severe storm events (Orth, Carruthers, et al. 2006; Waycott et
al. 2009). SAV habitat decline can also cause further water -quality decline and sediment erosion,
which creates a feedback loop that reinforces habitat loss (Maxwell et al. 2017; van der Heide et
al. 2007) and reduces blue carbon storage potential (Fourqurean et al. 2011).
1. For a full list of the spelled -out forms of the units of measure used in this document, please refer to US
Government Publishing Office Style Manual, 31st ed. (Washington, DC: US Government Publishing Office, 2016),
248-52, https:llwww. ovinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-STYLEMANUAL-2016/pdf/GPO-STYLENMNUAL-2016
dpdf.
Engineering With Nature is the intentional alignment of natural and &MRILE R LAC
engineering processes to efficiently and sustainably deliver economic, .........
US Army Corps environmental and social benefits through collaborative processes.
of Engineers© Distribution Statement A, Approved for public release: distribution is unlimited.

ERDC/TN EWN-23-1
AUGUST 2023
Table 1. Submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) functions and associated ecosystem
services. Citations of studies exemplifying these relationships are provided. Table
adapted from Short et al. (2000) and Altman et al. (2023).
Function Performed
Services Provided
Supporting Citations
Epiphyte and epifauna substratum
Duffy and Harvilicz 2001;
Moore and Hovel 2010;
Pettit et al. 2016
Support fish and invertebrate (that is,
Bertelli and Unsworth 2014;
Addition of benthic
structural complexity
secondary) production through the provision
Bostr6m et al. 2006;
of habitat
Orth et al. 1984
Wave attenuation and current reduction,
Fonseca and Cahalan 1992;
sediment resuspension reduction
Fonseca and Fisher 1986;
Hansen and Reidenbach 2013
Oxygen production
Findlay et al. 2006;
Y. Wang et al. 2021
Carbon sequestration
Bao et al. 2022;
Duarte at al. 2010;
Fourqurean et al. 2012;
Howard et al. 2018;
Primary production
Romero et al. 2006
Food production for herbivores, directly
Heck and Valentine 2006;
supporting estuarine and coastal food webs
Santos et al. 2022
and fisheries
Organic matter production and export,
Heck et al. 2008;
indirectly supporting offshore food webs and
Nelson et al. 2013;
fisheries
Thresher et al. 1992
Improve water quality
Desmet at al. 2011;
Nutrient filtration
Piehler and Smyth 2011;
and cycling
Thomas and Cornelisen 2003
Support primary production and food webs
Jimenez -Ramos et al. 2017;
Daudi et al. 2012
Contamination
Improve water and sediment quality
Fry and Chumchal 2012
filtration
Indicator of nutrient pollution
Lee et al. 2004
Reduce erosion and sediment resuspension
Fonseca and Fisher 1986;
James et al. 2004;
C. Wang et al. 2015
Sediment and organic matter accumulation,
Asaeda et al. 2010;
Sediment filtration,
trapping, and
counter sea -level rise (SLR)
Dumbauld et al. 2022;
stabilization
Silva at al. 2009;
Potouroglou et al. 2017
Improve water quality and reduce turbidity
Findlay at al. 2006;
C. Wang et al. 2015;
Ward et al. 1984
US Army Corps of Engineers
&00
ENGINEERING WITH NATURE®
Engineer Research and Development Center

ERDC/TN EWN-23-1
AUGUST 2023
Increasing rates of climate change and anthropogenic pressures will also likely affect future SAV
growth, distribution, and resilience. Short and Neckles (1999) reviewed the potential effects
climate change may have on seagrasses, ranging from enhanced growth to habitat loss, because of
increased temperature, sea levels, CO2 concentrations,' and UVB radiation. The overall impact of
climate change on SAV is expected to be negative when paired with rapid human population
growth in coastal areas (Duarte 2002; Freeman et al. 2008; Holon et al. 2015). Although much
uncertainty surrounding the possible outcomes remains, numerical models have proven essential
tools to better capture potential impacts of climate change on SAV habitats (for example, DeMarco
et al. 2018; Dumbauld et al. 2022; Pearson et al. 2021). Many models predict that seagrass beds
will migrate shoreward into shallower waters because of decreased light penetration at the deeper
habitat limits under rising sea level scenarios (Saunders et al. 2013). However, shoreward
migration may be restricted by coastal development, causing an overall loss of SAV habitat
(Scalpone et al. 2020) (Figure 1). This process describes coastal squeeze, a term initially coined
to describe saltmarsh transgression and decline due to the combination of sea -level rise (SLR) and
coastal development (Doody 2004) but which also applies to numerous coastal marine habitats,
including SAV (Silva et al. 2020).
SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION (SAV) LOSS AND MITIGATION THROUGH
RESTORATION EFFORTS: Multiple restoration efforts have been implemented to mitigate
SAV habitat loss, usually at a high cost (Bayraktarov et al. 2016). Overall, restoration -project
success rates have been relatively low, with the greatest survival rates occurring in large-scale
planting projects (for example, Orth, Luckenbach, et al. 2006; 2010). In these cases, exposure to
greater degrees of environmental variability and higher planting densities promote SAV self-
sustaining feedbacks (Katwijk et al. 2015). However, restoration science and applications in SAV
systems are still in an early stage as compared to terrestrial and freshwater systems. Continued
investment in this research will likely enhance rates of future project success.
HISTORICAL DREDGING IMPACTS ON SAV: Open -water placement of dredged material in
denuded areas, which, apart from inappropriate depths, are otherwise suitable for SAV habitat, is
a BUDM restoration opportunity that has not been widely pursued, largely because of regulatory
restrictions in place to ensure minimal water -quality and habitat degradation. Dredging and
dredged material placement have historically had a negative association near SAV habitats because
of the removal of plants (direct impact), if located within the dredging footprint, and temporary
water -quality degradation (indirect impact). Most of the approximately 21,000 ha seagrass loss
that has been attributed to dredging since the 1950s resulted from direct impacts from using
outdated and discontinued practices (Erftemeijer and Lewis 2006).
2. For a full list of the spelled -out forms of the chemical elements used in this document, please refer to US
Government Publishing Office Style Manual, 31st ed. (Washington, DC: US Government Publishing Office, 2016),
265, hhtt s•//www govinfo gov/contenUpka/GPO-STYLEMANUAL-2016/ndf/GPO-STYLEMAN-UAL-2016 pddf.
09) 3
ENGINEERING WITH NATURE®
US Army Corps of Engineers • Engineer Research and Development Center

ERDC/TN EWN-23-1
AUGUST 2023
Ideal conditions
s
w s
v
� L
df CD
Sea level rise only I B
n
Sea level rise -'
Coastal development only
0 4
m �
C L
J J
AaVAA14r. —:
Sea level rise and Coastal development
9
b
P
a0
4
Sea level rise
No SAV
Figure 1. Four scenarios illustrating how submerged aquatic vegetation
(SAV) habitat may thrive in (A) ideal conditions or how SAV habitat may
decline because of (B) sea -level rise (SLR) only; (C) coastal development
only; and (D) SLR paired with coastal development, termed coastal
squeeze.
4 A 00
ENGINEERING WITH NATURE®
US Army Corps of Engineers • Engineer Research and Development Center

ERDC/TN EWN-23-1
AUGUST2023
Because SAV habitats have high light irradiance requirements relative to other macrophytes, they
are highly sensitive to decreased light availability (Duarte 1991). Therefore, the elevated turbidity,
increased light attenuation, and enhanced sedimentation that occurs during dredging and
placement activities are major concerns in these habitats (Sabot et al. 2005; Shafer et al. 2016).
However, dredge -induced turbidity plumes are generally short lived and often within the range of
natural turbidity fluctuations in coastal areas (Shafer et al. 2016; Fall et al. 2021). Although
dredging has been associated with seagrass loss because of persistent increased turbidity, this
association is likely because of the placement of fine-grained material, which is highly prone to
resuspension within a dynamic environment (Onuf 1994). In the United States, more recent
dredging actions (since the early 2000s) implement environmental -management techniques,
including sediment -plume modeling to help forecast dredge -induced turbidity and water -quality
monitoring to help track in situ conditions during dredging activities, which have resulted in
dredging practices with minimal or no impacts to seagrass beds (Erftemeijer and Lewis 2006;
CWA Section 404).'
Dredging activity impacts on SAV depend on (i) dredged -material -specific factors such as volume,
duration, frequency, and material -placement methods; (ii) environmental factors such as sediment
grain size, water depth, and hydrodynamics; and (iii) plant -specific factors such as their tolerance
to suboptimal light conditions and sedimentation rates, which vary considerably by species
(Erftemeijer and Lewis 2006, Fraser et al. 2017). Although few published studies have tracked
SAV habitat recovery following dredging, SAV habitats showed significant recovery within two
to three years following an initial decline (Sheridan 2004b; Sabol et al. 2005). However, these
habitats are naturally dynamic, and dredging may not be the only factor that affects their coverage
(Sabol et al. 2005; Long et al. 1996). There have also been a few attempts to vegetate dredged
deposits through seagrass transplantation, but these have been unsuccessful because of lower light
levels caused by wind -driven sediment resuspension and elevated ammonium concentrations
relative to the native environment (Kaldy et al. 2004).
BENEFICIAL USE OF DREDGED MATERIAL (BUDM) IN SAV RESTORATION: SAV
habitats continue to face a variety of natural and anthropogenic threats that are expected to be
exacerbated by climate change and increasing human population growth. Despite efforts to protect
and conserve existing beds, additional restoration of these habitats is imperative to slow or reverse
the current trajectory and reclaim valuable ecosystem services. Using clean dredged material to
elevate barren areas (as described through guidance from USACE 2015) to depths that can support
SAV is a restoration technique that can both expand suitable SAV habitat to recently or historically
unvegetated areas and keep sediment in the littoral system and out of navigation channels. These
BUDM opportunities will provide both environmental and economic benefits. Using open -water
placement to create and expand SAV habitats (and support their various ecosystem services) will
allow SAV beds to keep pace with SLR while also lowering material transport costs by not having
to place sediment offshore or in upland confined disposal facilities. And open -water placement
will help maximize BUDM (currently 40%; Esri et al. 2022) in accordance with the Water
3. Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1948 § 404.2021. 33 U.S.C. § 1344 (as amended in 2016 by Pub. L.
No. 114-322). https://www.govinfo.eov/contenUnke/USCODE-2021-title33/ndf/USCODE-2021-title33-chap26
-subehaVIV-see1344.pdf.
0® 5
ENGINEERING WITH NATURE® - -=-- ->--- 3---��as----=-m-•-
US Army Corps of Engineers • Engineer Research and Development Center

ERDC/TN EWN-23-1
AUGUST 2023
Resources Development Act of 20224 and LTG5 Spellmon's 70/30 Goal to increase BUDM to
70% by 2030 (Coleman 2022; see also Brutsche 2022 for more information on the 70/30 Goal).
SAV has proven to be resilient to short-term dredging impacts, especially with improvements in
modeling and monitoring techniques to help minimize impacts to sensitive habitats (Sheridan et
at. 2004a; Shafer et al. 2016). However, there is a dearth of information regarding long-term
outcomes of dredging near SAV habitats because there are few examples of postdredging SAV
monitoring, which severely limits our understanding of potential benefits and caveats (Erftemeijer
and Lewis 2006, Sabot et al. 2005; Sheridan 2004b).
Many of the regulatory restrictions (that is, CWA Section 4046) that preclude innovative dredging
and placement activities surrounding SAV habitats may be unnecessarily prohibitive because the
focus has been skewed towards the temporary, potentially negative impacts rather than the longer -
term results. Therefore, field -based demonstrations need to be developed and monitored to
showcase both positive and negative dredging effects on SAV habitats over both short and long
timescales. A robust, long-term monitoring program is imperative to maximize our understanding
of how BUDM can promote and enhance SAV sustainability. Proof -of -concept studies like the
examples presented in this technical note will further help determine the future of similar BUDM
opportunities by documenting best practices to optimize favorable results.
EFFECTIVE USES OF DREDGED MATERIAL FOR SAV RESTORATION: Numerous
previous studies that examine the short-term negative influences of active dredging on SAV
provide insight into nonideal conditions for SAV growth and survival. However, less is known
about possible long-term positive influences dredged -material placement has on SAV restoration,
expansion, or novel colonization. Therefore, combining previously published work and more
recent in situ observations, we suggest several conditions and scenarios that merit further
exploration to determine whether dredged material can be strategically placed to promote SAV
coverage expansion.
According to conditions in which SAV most often thrives and systems in which navigation -
channel dredging regularly occurs, BUDM in SAV restoration efforts should be pursued in shallow
coastal and estuarine systems that are experiencing benthic elevation loss because of SLR but are
otherwise mostly optimal for SAV growth and survival. Systems experiencing SLR without heavy
coastal development represent the potential for shoreward expansion of benthos available to SAV.
Areas that were previously fully or partially aerially exposed during the tidal cycle may become
ideal for SAV colonization through SLR -related water -depth increases (Dumbauld et al. 2022;
Figure 1B). The BUDM may supplement these systems to maintain or expand SAV in deeper
areas, farther from shore, where SLR would otherwise outpace SAV depth and light irradiance
requirements. Furthermore, areas that historically had SAV but are now barren, or historically
4. Water Resources Development Act of 2022, Pub. L. No. 117-263, 136 Star. 3691-3857. https://www.govinfo
. eov/content/pkg/PLA W-117publ263/pdf/PLA W-117publ263.1)df.
5. For a full list of the spelled -out forms of the title abbreviations used in this document, please refer to US
Government Publishing Office Style Manual, 31st ed. (Washington, DC: US Government Publishing Office, 2016),
227-30, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-STYLEMANUAL-2016/pdf/GPO-STYLEMANUAL-2016
6.33 U.S.C. § 1344.
6
ENGINEERING WITH NATUREiD
US Army Corps of Engineers • Engineer Research and Development Center

ERDC/TN EWN-23-1
AUGUST 2023
unvegetated areas down current of existing SAV beds that are otherwise suited to SAV aside from
depth conditions, are ideal BUDM sites.
In cases where SAV habitat exists but will soon be outpaced because of SLR, thin -layer placement
(TLP) of dredged material may be considered to assist SAV sediment -accretion rates and maintain
optimal benthic depth. Although widely used in marsh -restoration projects (Ray 2007), TLP
applications in SAV habitats will likely face many regulatory challenges since they involve
intentionally adding sediment to SAV beds. However, TLP may be justifiable if the SAV habitat
would likely disappear without intervention because of SLR. Future research and field -based case
studies are needed to help constrain TLP timing and volumes to achieve optimal SAV benefits.
There are likely many novel opportunities to create natural and nature -based features (NNBF),
which often use BUDM (see, for example, Bridges et al. 2015), to restore and expand SAV
habitats. For example, BUDM can be used in part to build longshore bars that act as breakwaters
and encourage SAV development in the more quiescent region behind the built structure (Greening
et al. 2011). However, this type of structure is more likely to be included as part of a large-scale
restoration project rather than be considered as a cost-effective material -placement alternative,
relative to the federal standard, because of planning and constructions costs.
Systems with heavy coastal development or persistent water -quality issues such as high input of
nutrient runoff from agriculture or point sources (Li et al. 2019), or high water -column turbidity
due to wave energy or bioturbation (Stevens and Lacy 2012; Townsend and Fonseca 1998; Kaldy
et al. 2004) should not be chosen as BUDM-SAV restoration sites. Therefore, these factors need
to be analyzed prior to site selection to maximize project success. In addition, dredged sediments
should be allowed to settle (that is, become compact and stable) potentially for several years prior
to the initiation of SAV restoration efforts (see Kaldy et al. 2004). Otherwise, the system chosen
should have low wind, wave, and current energy. This low -energy system will help prevent seeds
or transplanted plants from being buried to suboptimal sprouting depths or scoured from the site
prior to root establishment.
Habitat -restoration protocols emphasize that site selection is one of the most important steps in
restoration efforts (Short et al. 2002; Katwijk et al. 2009), and the BUDM for SAV restoration is
no exception. If initial SAV colonization of dredged placement sites is successful, several positive
feedback loops may be initiated and lead to further growth and restoration success. Established
SAV populations can improve water clarity and quality, stabilize sediments, and form the
foundation for coastal ecosystems, all of which can positively affect the further expansion of SAV
beds and prevent shoaling of sediments back into navigation channels (Maxwell et al. 2017; van
der Heide et al. 2007). Further, established SAV habitats may have the ability to keep pace with
SLR, self -maintain, and expand in coverage (Dumbauld et al. 2022), therefore reducing the need
for repeat placements in the future.
CASE STUDIES: The accumulation and examination of case studies where (1) SAV has naturally
recovered from dredging activity and (2) dredged -material placement sites have been
opportunistically colonized by SAV are paramount to improving dredging regulations and BUDM
protocols. Through the synthesis of such case studies, we can better understand the dredging
activity and placement specifications, timing, locations, hydrodynamics, water -quality parameters,
and material compositions that are most ideal for SAV recovery and opportunistic colonization.
® 7
ENGINEERING WITH NATURE® - -
US Army Corps of Engineers • Engineer Research and Development Center

ERDC/TN EWN-23-1
AUGUST 2023
Furthermore, we can use findings from natural opportunistic colonization events to (i) devise
thresholds and benchmarks for water -quality and sediment -composition parameters, (ii) determine
ideal system hydrodynamics and sedimentation conditions, and (iii) identify SAV species most
suited for dredged -material colonization, all of which will inform the design of protocols for
purposeful BUDM in SAV recovery and restoration efforts.
Several recorded instances exist where dredging within or nearby SAV has imposed short-term
negative impacts on SAV coverage, yet over longer timescales SAV has recovered within the
footprint of the initial dredging's direct and indirect impacts. Case studies also show opportunistic
SAV colonization of dredged -material placement sites. Recovery and opportunistic colonization
cases are described in brief below.
1. Wood Island Harbor, Maine —In 1990 the US Army Corps of Engineers —New England
District (NAE) dredged the Biddeford federal navigation channel through a 610 X 30 m
section of eelgrass (Zostera marina) (Figure 2). Surveys of the channel in 2016 indicated
eelgrass recovery in several portions of the channel, with full recovery apparent in some
areas. The channel was dredged again during the winter of 2020, directly affecting (via
vegetation removal) an estimated 1.2 ha of eelgrass. By the summer of 2021, preliminary
surveys again showed eelgrass recovery along the slope of the newly dredged channel
(Altman et at. 2023, 14; USACE-NAE 2020; Sabot et al. 2005).'
2. Scituate Harbor, Massachusetts —During the winter of 2002, NAE dredged the harbor at
ship anchorage and navigation channel locations. During this dredging event, direct
impacts to SAV included removal of eelgrass within the anchorage dredging area footprint.
In addition, indirect impacts on SAV, due to silt -screen failure, resulted in siltation of
eelgrass outside the footprints of both the anchorage and channel -dredging areas. Overall,
eelgrass in the Scituate Harbor experienced a 34% decline in coverage from immediately
pre- to postdredging, followed by an 8% relative increase in coverage from 1 to 2 years
postdredging, all within the indirectly affected zones. Notably, nearby undisturbed sites
showed normal interannual variation in seagrass coverage similar to those areas indirectly
affected by dredging (Sabot et al. 2005; Sabot and Shafer 2005). Additional SAV recovery
beyond two years postdredging was not assessed.
3. Laguna Madre, Texas —Between 1994 and 1995, 6 out of 13 dredged -material placement
sites chosen along the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway resulted in benthos within the depth
range suitable for seagrass, and each site had existing fringing seagrass partially or
completely surrounding the placement locations. After dredged -material placement
completion, within 3 years 75% of nonvegetated areas were either colonized by seagrass
or lost sediments at rapid rates because of wind and wave action. Areas within 5 in of
existing seagrass exhibited rapid seagrass colonization and had full seagrass coverage
within 1.5 years. Placement area centers exhibited slower colonization yet reached 48%
coverage within 3 years and near full coverage in 3-5 years (Sheridan 2004a, 2004b).
7. See also USACE-NAE (US Army Corps of Engineers —New England District), Island Harbor and the Pool at
Biddeford Federal Navigation Maintenance Project, Biddeford, Maine: Eelgrass Damage Assessment and
Mitigation Plan (DAMP), Working Draft —Not for Further Release (Concord, MA: US Army Corps of Engineers —
New England District, 2020), https://www.biddefordmaine.ore/DocumentCenterNiew/7481/USACE-Eelgrass
-Damage-Assessment-and-Management-Plan.
& 08
ENGINEERING WITH NATURE®
US Army Corps of Engineers • Engineer Research and Development Center

ERDC/TN EWN-23-1
AUGUST2023
4. Barnegat Bay, New Jersey —A dredged -material placement site, 26B, used 16 times from
1981 to 2017 in the lower Barnegat Bay, west of Island Beach State Park, resulted in an
emergent island and a decrease in benthic depth in the surrounding area. Although initially
unvegetated when open -water placement began, SAV, primarily composed of eelgrass,
opportunistically colonized the area surrounding the island, first documented in aerial
imagery in 1995. In the following decades the SAV bed continued to expand, with minimal
retraction in some areas, forming a contiguous meadow surrounding the island by 2015
(Figure 3). This new seagrass bed will continue to be monitored through aerial imagery
and field surveys to compare with seagrass colonization on a new, adjacent open -water
placement site.
This relatively low number of case studies exemplifying dredging -related SAV recovery and
colonization is likely due to the lack of long-term, postdredging SAV monitoring. Further, the
SAV recovery examples show that monitoring-timescale length can produce different results.
Although Wood Island Harbor showed more extensive SAV recovery after the 1990 dredging
event than the modest recovery following the 2002 dredging activity in Scituate Harbor, Scituate
Harbor was only monitored for 2 years after dredging, while Wood Island monitoring captured the
cumulative results over a 30-year period. Current and future efforts should consider monitoring
SAV around dredging activity for much longer time periods to capture SAV recovery over
numerous growing seasons.
Figure 2. Wood Island federal navigation channel (black hashed
area) and eelgrass coverage (pink area) according to a 2002
survey sourced from www.northeastoceandata.org. Figure
reprinted from Altman et al. (2023), 15. Public domain.
!#rl,
ENGINEEHING WITH NATURE®
US Army Corps of Engineers • Engineer Research and Development Center

ERDC/TN EWN-23-1
AUGUST 2023
1995 SAV 2015 SAV zmsavas sav compaasnn
Figure 3. Areal coverage of SAV determined using supervised classification of high -
resolution (1 m) National Agriculture Imagery Program data at dredged -material
placement site 26B in Barnegat Bay, New Jersey, in 1995 (left) and 2015 (middle). A
comparison of the SAV coverage from 1995 to 2015 (right) revealed an overall gain
(green, G) in SAV coverage, with a large portion of the area remaining the same (purple,
S) in SAV coverage and a small proportion exhibiting loss (orange, L).
The dearth of examples of SAV colonization following dredged -material placement is also related
to lack of monitoring, which may be because SAV monitoring is not considered for unvegetated
open -water placement sites. Therefore, future efforts should monitor SAV if the altered placement -
site characteristics are conducive to SAV colonization —especially if placement occurs near
existing beds.
SAV recovery and opportunistic colonization are currently being monitored in recently completed
and ongoing BUDM projects, which include (i) a second open -water placement site in Barnegat
Bay (site 6), approximately 1 km west of 26B; (ii) the restoration of an eroding island in the
Chesapeake Bay (Swan Island, Maryland), which is fringed by discontinuous SAV beds; and (iii)
the restoration of a barrier island in Mississippi Sound (Ship Island, Mississippi) that was split into
two segments following Hurricane Camille (1969), which supports patchy and reduced (relative
to prebreach conditions) seagrass habitats in more -protected areas. These ongoing projects may
present future case studies for analysis of seagrass colonization in real time. By further examining
instances where dredged -material placement sites have naturally and successfully been colonized
by SAV, we can strategically choose new placement locations where these ideal conditions are
recreated to either encourage further natural SAV colonization events or more purposefully pair
BUDM efforts with large-scale SAV habitat -restoration projects.
BUDM and SAV restoration can be paired to cobenefit coastal ecosystems and economies through
improved secondary production of fishery species, shoreline stabilization, and wave attenuation.
Further, strategic sediment placement to augment SAV beds will reduce long-term channel
backfilling by minimizing sediment resuspension and erosion over time. This reduction will
diminish the need for frequent and costly channel -dredging projects, leaving shipping channels
and ports unhindered for extended periods. Finally, using dredged material as a component of SAV
restoration practice has the potential to create and perpetuate positive feedback loops between
sediment accretion and improved water clarity, which will facilitate continued SAV growth to help
keep pace with SLR.
SUMMARY: SAV and its provided ecosystem services have experienced marked declines during
the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. Efforts to restore these foundational coastal marine
habitats are often highly expensive and have relatively low success rates. Navigation -channel
10 00
aENGINEERING WITH NATURE®
US Army Corps of Engineers • Engineer Research and Development Center

ERDC/TN EWN-23-1
AUGUST 2023
dredging formerly had negative impacts on SAV habitat, by direct impacts (that is, SAY removal
or burial) and indirect impacts (that is, increased water -column turbidity, reducing light
availability). Since the early 2000s, dredge designs and protocols have been improved such that
negative impacts on SAV are minimized. Further, recent observations of SAV recovery and
colonization of dredged -material placement sites suggest burgeoning opportunities to leverage
BUDM in SAV restoration efforts. This technical note provides background on SAV decline and
former dredging impacts then further proposes several site -selection criteria for BUDM in SAV
restoration efforts. This technical note also describes case studies of SAV that has recovered
following dredging impacts or opportunistically colonized dredged -material placement sites,
which provides context for future BUDM opportunities.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: Funding for these analyses was provided by the EWN program. The
authors wish to thank Dr. Matt Balazik of ERDC-EL and Ms. Taylor Cagle of ERDC-CHL for
internal reviews of this document.
POINTS OF CONTACT: For additional information, contact Dr. Emily Russ (202-761-0204,
Emily.R.Russkusace.army.mil) or Dr. Safra Altman (601-634-3435,
[e-mail]). This technical note should be cited as follows:
Russ, Emily R., Amy H. Yarnall, and Safra Altman. 2023. Dredged Material Can
Benefit Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) Habitats. ERDC/TN EWN-23-1.
Vicksburg, MS: US Army Engineer Research and Development Center —
Environmental Laboratory.
® 11
ENGINEERING WITH NATURE® - - -
USArmy Corps ofEngineers • Engineer Research and Development Center

ERDC/TN EWN-23-1
AUGUST 2023
Lll-311111610730VA
Altman, Safra, Matthew Balazik, and Catherine Thomas. 2023. Eelgrass Functions, Services, and Considerations
for Compensatory Mitigation. ERDC/EL TR-23-1. Vicksburg, MS: US Army Engineer Research and
Development Center -Environmental Laboratory. https://dx.doi.orp/10.21079/11681/46833.
Asaeda, Takashi, Lalith Rajapakse, and Masahiro Kanoh. 2010. "Fine Sediment Retention as Affected by Annual
Shoot Collapse: Sparganium erection as an Ecosystem Engineer in a Lowland Stream." River Research and
Applications 26 (9): 1153-69. httns://doi.orp/10.1002/rra.1322.
Bao, Qian, Zailrua Liu, Min Zhao, Yundi Hu, Dong Li, Cuihong Han, Cheng Zeng, et al. 2022. "Role of Carbon and
Nutrient Exports from Different Land Uses in the Aquatic Carbon Sequestration and Eutrophication Process."
Science ofthe Total Environment 813:151917. https://doi.org/10.1016/i.scitotenv.2021.151917.
Barbier, Edward B. 2015. "Valuing the Storm Protection Service of Estuarine and Coastal Ecosystems." Ecosystem
Services 11:32-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/'.ecoser.2014.06.010.
Bayraktarov, Elisa, Megan I. Saunders, Sabah Abdullah, Morena Mills, Julia Beher, Hugh P. Possingham, Peter J.
Mumby, and Catherine E. Lovelock. 2016. "The Cost and Feasibility of Marine Coastal Restoration."
Ecological Applications 26 (4): 1055-74. https://doi.org/10.1890/15-1077.
Bertelli, Chiara M., and Richard K. F. Unsworth. 2014. "Protecting the Hand That Feeds Us: Seagrass (Zostera
marina) Serves as Commercial Juvenile Fish Habitat." Marine Pollution Bulletin 83 (2): 425-29. https://doi
.ore/ 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2013.08.011.
Bostr6m, Christoffer, Emma L. Jackson, and Charles A. Simenstad. 2006. "Seagrass Landscapes and Their Effects
on Associated Fauna: A Review." Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 68 (3-4): 383-403. https://doi.org/l0
.1016/j.ecss.2006.01.026.
Bridges, Todd S., Paul W. Wagner, Kelly A. Burks -Copes, Matthew E. Bates, Zachary A. Collier, J. Craig
Fischenich, Joseph Z. Gailani, et al. 2015. Use of Natural and Nature -Based Features (NNBF) for Coastal
Resilience. ERDC SR- 15-1. Vicksburg, MS: US Army Engineer Research and Development Center. https://hdl
.handle.net/I 1681 /4769.
Brutsche, Katie. 2022. Increasing Beneficial Use of Dredged Material in the USACE. PowerPoint Presentation.
Vicksburg, MS: US Army Engineer Research and Development Center -Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory.
https://www.usace.army.mil/Portals/2/lncreasing%20Benefici al%2OUse%2OoP/e2ODredged%2OMaterial%20 in
%20USACE.pdf.
Coleman, Carol C. 2022. "Ongoing R&D Is Discovering New Ways to Put Dredged Sediment to Use." https://www
.usace.army.mil/MediaMews/NewsSearch/Article/3188616/on oing-rd-is-discovering-new-ways-to-nut
-dredged-sediment-to-use/.
Costanza, Robert, Ralph d'Arge, Rudolf de Groot, Stephen Farber, Monica Grasso, Bruce Hannon, Karin Limburg,
et al. 1997. "The Value of the World's Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital." Nature 387 (6630): 253-60.
hUps://doi.org/10.1038/387253aO.
Costanza, Robert, Rudolf de Groot, Paul Sutton, Sander van der Ploeg, Sharolyn J. Anderson, Ida Kubiszewski,
Stephen Farber, and R. Kerry Turner. 2014. "Changes in the Global Value of Ecosystem Services." Special
issue, GEC+30: Human and Policy Dimensions of Environmental Change. Global Environmental Change 26
(May): 152-58. https://doi.org/10.1016/*.gloenveha.2014.04.002.
Daudi, Lillian Nduku, Charles Lugomela, Jacqueline Nduku Uku, and Marleen De Troch. 2012. `Effect of Nutrient
Enrichment on Seagrass Associated Meiofauna in Tanzania." Marine Environmental Research 82:49-58.
httys://doi.org/10.1016/i.marenvres.2012.09.005.
DeMarco, Kristin, Brady Couvillion, Stuart Brown, and Megan La Peyre. 2018. "Submerged Aquatic Vegetation
Mapping in Coastal Louisiana through Development of a Spatial Likelihood Occurrence (SLOO) Model."
Aquatic Botany 151: 87-97. https://doi.org/10.1016/l*.a(ivabot.2018.08.007.
12 & 00D
ENGINEERING WITH NATURE®
US Army Corps of Engineers • Engineer Research and Development Center

ERDC/TN EWN-23-1
AUGUST2023
Desmet, N.J.S., S. Van Belleghem, P. Seuntjens, T.J. Bouma, K. Buis, and P. Meire. 2011. "Quantification of the
Impact of Macrophytes on Oxygen Dynamics and Nitrogen Retention in a Vegetated Lowland River." Physics
and Chemistry ofthe Earth, Parts AIBIC 36 (12): 479-89. https://doi.org/l0.1016/i.pce.2008.06.002.
Dewsbury, Bryan M., Mahadev Bhat, and James W. Fourqurean. 2016. "A Review of Seagrass Economic
Valuations: Gaps and Progress in Valuation Approaches." Ecosystem Services 18 (April): 68-77. https://doi.org
/10.1016/i.ecoser.2016.02.010.
Doody, J. Pat. 2004. "`Coastal Squeeze' -An Historical Perspective." Journal of Coastal Conservation 10, no. 1-2
(January): 129-38. https://doi.org/10.1652/1400-0350(2004)O10[0129:Csahpl2.0.Co:2.
Duarte, Carlos M. 1991. "Seagrass Depth Limits." Aquatic Botany 40 (4): 363-77. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304
-3770(91)90081-f.
Duarte, Carlos M. 2002. "The Future of Seagrass Meadows." Environmental Conservation 29 (2): 192-206.
https://doi.orW I0.1017/s0376892902000127.
Duarte, Carlos M., Nuria Marba, Esperanga Gacia, James W. Fourqurean, Jeff Beggins, Cristina Barr6n, and
Eugenia T. Apostolaki. 2010. "Seagrass Community Metabolism: Assessing the Carbon Sink Capacity of
Seagrass Meadows." Global Biogeochemical Cycles 24 (4): GB4032. https://doi.org/10.1029/2010g6003793.
Duffy, J. Emmet, and Annie M. Harvilicz. 2001. "Species -Specific Impacts of Grazing Amphipods in an Eelgrass-
Bed Community." Marine Ecology Progress Series 223: 201-11. https://doi.org/10.3354/mel)s223201.
Dumbauld, Brett R., Erin R. Graham, Lee M. McCoy, and Nathaniel S. Lewis. 2022. "Predicted Changes in
Seagrass Cover and Distribution in the Face of Sea Level Rise: Implications for Bivalve Aquaculture in a US
West Coast Estuary." Estuaries and Coasts 45 (7): 1823-41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12237-022-01060-2.
Erftemeijer, Paul L. A., and Roy R. Robin Lewis III. 2006. "Environmental Impacts of Dredging on Seagrasses: A
Review." Marine Pollution Bulletin 52, no. 12 (December): 1553-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2006
.09.006.
Esri, Garmin, FAO, NOAA, USGS, EPA, USACE, USACE-SAM-Spatial Data Branch, and ERDC-CHL (Esri,
Gamin, Food and Agricultural Organization, NOAA, US Geological Survey, Environmental Protection
Agency, US Army Corps of Engineers, Spatial Data Branch US Army Corps of Engineers -Mobile Disrict, and
US Army Engineer Research and Development Center -Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory). 2023. RSM
Navigation Sediment Placement Volumes Summary. Database. https://www.arcpis.com/apps/dashboards
/ld9lfcfd05cl4569be7d3e67c73e03bc.
Fall, Kelsey A., David W. Perkey, Zachary J. Tyler, and Timothy W. Welp. 2021. Field Measurement and
Monitoring ofHydrodynamie and Suspended Sediment within the Seven 1file Island Innovation Laboratory,
New Jersey. ERDC/CHL TR-21-9. Vicksburg, MS: US Army Engineer Research and Development Center -
Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory. httys://dx.doi.org/10.21079/11681/40980.
Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972. Pub. L. No. 92-500, 86 Stat. 816-903. https://www
.govinfo.gov/contenUpkg/STATUTE-86/pdf/STATUTE-86-Pg816.pdf.
Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1948 § 404. 2021. 33 U.S.C. § 1344. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg
/USCODE-2021-title33/pdf/USCODE-2021-title33-chai)26-subchaulV-sec 1344.pdf.
Figueiredo da Silva, J., R.W. Duck, and J.B. Catarino. 2009. "Nutrient Retention in the Sediments and the
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation of the Coastal Lagoon of the Ria De Aveiro, Portugal." Journal of Sea Research
62 (4): 276-85. https://doi.org/I0.I016/*.seares.2009.06.007.
Findlay, Stuart E. G., William C. Nieder, Elizabeth A. Blair, and David T. Fischer. 2006. "Multi -Scale Controls on
Water Quality Effects of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation in the Tidal Freshwater Hudson River." Ecosystems 9
(1):84-96.https://doi.ore/l0.1007/sIO021-004-0053-7.
Fonseca, Mark S., and Jennifer A. Cahalan. 1992. "A Preliminary Evaluation of Wave Attenuation by Four Species
of Seagrass." Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 35 (6): 565-76. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0272-
7714(05)80039-3.
® 13
ENGINEERING WITH NATURE®
US Army Corps of Engineers - Engineer Research and Development Center

ERDC/TN EWN-23-1
AUGUST 2023
Fonseca, Mark S., and John S. Fisher. 1986. "A Comparison of Canopy Friction and Sediment Movement between
Four Species of Seagrass with Reference to Their Ecology and Restoration." Marine Ecology Progress Series
29:15-22. https://doi.org/10.3354/mepsO29015.
Fourqurean, James W., Carlos M. Duarte, Hilary Kennedy, Nuria Marba, Marianne Holmer, Miguel Angel Mateo,
Eugenia T. Apostolaki, et al. 2012. "Seagrass Ecosystems as a Globally Significant Carbon Stock." Nature
Geoscience 5, no. 7 (Jully): 505-09. https://doi.oriz/10.1038/ngeol477.
Fraser, Matthew W., Jessie Short, Gary Kendrick, Dianne McLean, John Keesing, Maria Byrne, M. Julian Caley, et
al. 2017. "Effects of Dredging on Critical Ecological Processes for Marine Invertebrates, Seagrasses and
Macroalgae, and the Potential for Management with Environmental Windows Using Western Australia as a
Case Study." Ecological Indicators 78:229-42. https://doi.ore/10.10I6/j.ecolind.2017.03.026.
Freeman, A.S., F.T. Short, I. Isnain, F.A. Razak, and R.G. Coles. 2008. "Seagrass on the Edge: Land -Use Practices
Threaten Coastal Seagrass Communities in Sabah, Malaysia." Biological Conservation 141 (12): 2993-3005.
https://doi.org/l0.1016/*.biocon.2008.09.018.
Fry, Brian, and Matthew M. Chumehal. 2012. "Mercury Bioaccumulation in Estuarine Food Webs." Ecological
Applications 22 (2): 606-23. https://doi.org/10.1890/11-0921.1.
Greening, Holly S., Lindsay M. Cross, and Edward T. Sherwood. 2011. "A Multiscale Approach to Seagrass
Recovery in Tampa Bay, Florida." Ecological Restoration 29, nos. 1-2 (March): 82-93. https://doi.ore/10.3368
/er.29.1-2.82.
Hansen, Jennifer C. R., and Matthew A. Reidenbach. 2013. "Seasonal Growth and Senescence of a Zosiera marina
Seagrass Meadow Alters Wave -Dominated Flow and Sediment Suspension within a Coastal Bay." Estuaries
and Coasts 36 (6): 1099 114. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12237-013-9620-5.
Heck, Kenneth L., Jr., Tim J. B. Carruthers, Carlos M. Duarte, A. Randall Hughes, Gary Kendrick, Robert J. Orth,
and Susan W. Williams. 2008. "Trophic Transfers from Seagrass Meadows Subsidize Diverse Marine and
Terrestrial Consumers." Ecosystems 11 (7): 1198-210. https://doi.ore/10.1007/sIO021-008-9155-y.
Heck, Kenneth L., Jr., and John F. Valentine. 2006. "Plant Herbivore Interactions in Seagrass Meadows." Journal
of Experimental Marine Biologyand Ecology 330 (1): 420-36. https://doi.ora/l0.10I6/i.'embe.2005.12.044.
Holon, F., P. Boissery, A. Guilbert, E. Freschet, and J. Deter. 2015. "The Impact of 85 Years of Coastal
Development on Shallow Seagrass Beds (Posidonia oceanica L. (Delile)) in South Eastern France: A Slow but
Steady Loss without Recovery." Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 165:204-12. https://doi.oriz/10. 10 16
/i.ecss.2015.05.017.
Howard, Jason L., Joel C. Creed, Mariana V. P. Aguiar, and James W. Fourqurean. 2017. "CO2 Released by
Carbonate Sediment Production in Some Coastal Areas May Offset the Benefits of Seagrass `Blue Carbon'
Storage." Limnology and Oceanography 63 (1): 160-72.httys:Hdoi.org/10.1002/lno.10621.
James, William F., John W. Barko, and Malcolm G. Butler. 2004. "Shear Stress and Sediment Resuspension in
Relation to Submersed Macrophyte Biomass." Hydrobiologia 515 (1-3): 181-91. https://doi.org/10.1023
/B:HYDR.0000027329.67391.c6.
Jimenez -Ramos, Rocio, Monique Mantilla, Beatriz Villazan, Luis G. Egea, Vanessa Gonzalez -Ortiz, Juan Jose
Vergara, Jose Lucas Perez-Llorens, and Fernando G. Brun. 2017. "Resistance to Nutrient Enrichment Varies
among Components in the Cymodocea Nodosa Community." Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and
Ecology 497: 41-49. https://doi.org/l0.1016/i.iembe.2017.09.008.
Kaldy, James E., Kenneth H. Dunton, Joseph L. Kowalski, and Kun-Seop Lee. 2004. "Factors Controlling Seagrass
Revegetation onto Dredged Material Deposits: A Case Study in Lower Laguna Madre, Texas." Journal of
Coastal Research 20, no. 1 (January): 292-300. https://doi.ore/10.2112/1551-5036(2004)20[292:Fcsrod]2.0
.CO,2.
Katwijk, Marieke M. van, A.R. Bos, V.N. de Jonge, L.S.A.M. Hanssen, D.C.R. Hermits, and D.J. de Jong. 2009.
"Guidelines for Seagrass Restoration: Importance of Habitat Selection and Donor Population, Spreading of
Risks, and Ecosystem Engineering Effects." Marine Pollution Bulletin 58, no. 2 (February): 179-88. httsp •//doi
.ora/ 10.1016/i.marpolbul.2008.09.028.
14 owe
__ _ ENGINEERING WITH NATURE®
US Army Corps of Engineers • Engineer Research and Development Center

ERDCIfN EWN-23-1
AUGUST 2023
Katwijk, Marieke M. van, Anitra Thorhaug, N6ria Marba, Robert J. Orth, Carlos M. Duarte, Gary A. Kendrick, Inge
H. J. Althuizen, et al. 2015. "Global Analysis of Seagrass Restoration: The Importance of Large -Scale
Planting." Special issue, British Ecological Society Special Feature: Demography Beyond the Population.
Journal of Applied Ecology 53, no. 2 (April): 567-78. https://doi.org/l0.1111/1365-2664.12562.
Lee, Kun-Seop, Frederick T. Short, and David M. Burdick. 2004. "Development of a Nutrient Pollution Indicator
Using the Seagrass, Zostera marina, Along Nutrient Gradients in Three New England Estuaries." Aquatic
Botany78 (3): 197-216. ems://doi.ore/10.1016/4.acivabot.2003.09.010.
Li, Moyang, Carolyn J. Lundquist, Conrad A. Pilditch, T. A. V. Rees, and Joanne Ellis. 2019. "Implications of
Nutrient Enrichment for the Conservation and Management of Seagrass Zostera muelleri Meadows." Aquatic
Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 29 (9): 1484-502. https:Hdoi.ore/10.1002/agc.3141.
Long, B.G., D.M. Dennis, T.D. Skewes, and I.R. Poiner. 1996. "Detecting an Environmental Impact of Dredging on
Seagrass Beds with a BACIR Sampling Design." Aquatic Botany 53, nos. 3-4 (April): 235-43. https://doi.ore
/10. 10 16/0304-3770(95)01006-8.
Maxwell, Paul S., Johan S. Eklof, Marieke M. van Katwijk, Katherine R. O'Brien, Maricela de la Torre -Castro,
Christoffer Bostrom, Tjeerd J. Bouma, et al. 2017. "The Fundamental Role of Ecological Feedback
Mechanisms for the Adaptive Management of Seagrass Ecosystems - A Review." Biological Reviews 92 (3):
1521-38. https://doi.org/10.IIII/brv.12294.
Moore, Eliza C., and Kevin A. Hovel. 2010. "Relative Influence of Habitat Complexity and Proximity to Patch
Edges on Seagrass Epifaunal Communities." Oikos 119 (8): 1299-311. https://doi.org/10.1I I I/i.1600-0706
.2009.17909.x.
Nelson, James A., Christopher D. Stallings, William M. Landing, and Jeffery Chariton. 2013. "Biomass Transfer
Subsidizes Nitrogen to Offshore Food Webs." Ecosystems 16 (6): 1130-38. https://doi.ore/10.1007/s10021-013
-9672-I.
Onuf, Christopher P. 1994. "Seagrasses, Dredging and Light in Laguna Madre, Texas, U.S.A. " Estuarine, Coastal
and Shelf Science 39 (1): 75-91. https://doi.ory/10.1006/eess.1994.1050.
Orth, Robert J., Tim J. B. Carruthers, William C. Dennison, Carlos M. Duarte, James W. Fourqurean, Kenneth L.
Heck, A. Randall Hughes, et al. 2006a. "A Global Crisis for Seagrass Ecosystems." Bioscience 56 (12): 987-96.
htti)s://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2006)56r987:Agcfsel2.0.Co:2.
Orth, Robert J., Kenneth L. Heck, and Jacques van Montfrans. 1984. "Faunal Communities in Seagrass Beds: A
Review of the Influence of Plant Structure and Prey Characteristics on Predator -Prey Relationships." Estuaries
7 (4): 339-50. https://doi.orp/10.2307/1351618.
Orth, Robert J., Mark L. Luckenbach, ScottR. Marion, Kenneth A. Moore, and David J. Wilcox. 2006. "Seagrass
Recovery in the Delmarva Coastal Bays, USA." Aquatic Botany 84 (1): 26-36. https://doi.org/i0.1016/j.aguabot
.2005.07.007.
Orth, Robert J., Scott R. Marion, Kenneth A. Moore, and David J. Wilcox. 2010. "Eelgrass (Zostera marina L.) in
the Chesapeake Bay Region of Mid -Atlantic Coast of the USA: Challenges in Conservation and Restoration."
Estuaries and Coasts 33 (1): 139-50. https://doi.ore/l0.1007/sl2237-009-9234-0.
Pearson, Ryan M., Catherine J. Collier, Christopher J. Brown, Michael A. Rasheed, Jessica Bourner, Mischa P.
Turschwell, Michael Sievers, and Rod M. Connolly. 2021. "Remote Estimation of Aquatic Light Environments
Using Machine Learning: A New Management Tool for Submerged Aquatic Vegetation." Science ofthe Total
Environment 782:146886. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.146886.
Pettit, N.E., D.P. Ward, M.F. Adame, D. Valdez, and S.E. Bunn. 2016. "Influence of Aquatic Plant Architecture on
Epiphyte Biomass on a Tropical River Floodplain." Aquatic Botany 129: 35-13. https://doi.ore/10.1016
/i. aouabot.2015.12.001.
Pichler, M. F., and A. R. Smyth. 2011. "Habitat -Specific Distinctions in Estuarine Denitrifrcation Affect Both
Ecosystem Function and Services." Ecosphere 2, no. 1 (January): Article 12. https://doi.ore/10.1890/es10
-00082.1.
AWR 15
ENGINEERING WITH NATURE® - --- -
--+-
USArmyCorpsofEngineers • Engineer Research and Development Center

ERDC/TN EWN-23-1
AUGUST 2023
Potouroglou, Maria, James C. Bull, Ken W. Krauss, Hilary A. Kennedy, Marco Fusi, Daniele Daffonchio, Mwita M.
Mangora, Michael N. Githaiga, Karen Diele, and Mark Huxham. 2017. "Measuring the Role of Seagrasses in
Regulating Sediment Surface Elevation." Scientific Reports 7 (1): 11917. https://doi.org/10.1038/S4l598-017
-12354-v.
Ray, Gary L. 2007. Thin Layer Placement of Dredged Material on Coastal Wetlands: A Review of the Technical and
Scientific Literature. ERDC Technical Notes Collection. ERDC/EL TN-07-1. Vicksburg, MS: US Army
Engineer Research and Development Center -Environmental Laboratory. https://hdl.handle.neU11681/3795.
Romero, Javier, Kun-Seop Lee, Marta Pdrez, Miguel A. Mateo, and Teresa Alcoverro. 2006. "Nutrients Dynamics
in Seagrass Ecosystems." In Seagrasses: Biology, Ecology and Conservation, edited by Anthony W.D. Larkum,
Robert J. Orth, and Carlos M. Duarte, 227-54. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. https://doi.ory/I0.1007
/1-4020-2983-7 9.
Sabol, Bruce M., and Deborah J. Shafer. 2005. "Dredging Effects on Seagrasses: Case Studies from New England
and Florida." In Proceedings of the Western Dredging Association, Twenty -Fifth Technical Conference and
Thirty -Seventh Annual Texas A&M Dredging Seminar, 335-46. Center for Dredging Studies Report No. 507.
251h Annual WEDA Conference, 19-22 June, New Orleans, LA. Vancouver, WA: Western Dredging
Association. https://westerildredgin2.or index.php/woda-conference-presentations/category/49-25th-annual
-weda-conference?download=429:16-sabol-dredging-effects-on-seagrasses-case-studies-from-new-england-and
-florida.
Sabol, Bruce, Deborah J. Shafer, and Elizabeth Lord. 2005. Dredging Effects on Eelgrass (Zostera marina) in a New
England Small Boat Harbor. ERDC/EL TR-05-8. Vicksburg, MS: US Army Engineer Research and
Development Center -Environmental Laboratory. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA438020.pddf.
Santos, Rolando O., W. Ryan James, James A. Nelson, Jennifer S. Rehage, Joseph Serafy, Simon J. Pittman, and
Diego Lirman. 2022. "Influence of Seascape Spatial Pattern on the Trophic Niche of an Omnivorous Fish."
Ecosphere 13 (2): e3944. https:/Idoi.oro,/10.1002/ecs2.3944.
Saunders, Megan I., Javier Leon, Stuart R. Phinn, David P. Callaghan, Katherine R. O'Brien, Chris M. Roelfsema,
Catherine E. Lovelock, Mitchell B. Lyons, and Peter J. Mumby. 2013. "Coastal Retreat and Improved Water
Quality Mitigate Losses of Seagrass from Sea Level Rise." Global Change Biology 19 (8): 2569-83. https:
doi.org/10.I I 1 I /geb.12218.
Scalpone, Cara R., Jessie C. Jarvis, James M. Vasslides, Jeremy M. Testa, and Neil K. Ganju. 2020. "Simulated
Estuary -Wide Response of Seagrass (Zostera marina) to Future Scenarios of Temperature and Sea Level."
Frontiers in Marine Science 7:539946. https://doi.org/l0.3389/fmars.2020.539946.
Shafer, Deborah J, Coraggio K Maglio, Deborah McConnell, Tanya M Beck, and Cheryl E Pollock. 2016.
Characterizing Seagrass Exposure to Light Attenuation and Turbidity Associated with Dredging Activity in the
Gulflntracoastal Waterway, Sarasota Bay, Florida. ERDC Technical Notes Collection. ERDC TN-DOER-E39.
Vicksburg, MS: US Army Engineer Research and Development Center -Environmental Laboratory. https://hdl
.handle.net/I 1681/20441.
Sheridan, P. 2004a. "Comparison of Restored and Natural Seagrass Beds near Corpus Christi, Texas." Estuaries 27,
no. 5 (October): 781-92. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02912040.
Sheridan, P. 2004b. "Recovery of Floral and Faunal Communities after Placement of Dredged Material on
Seagrasses in Laguna Madre, Texas." Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 59, no. 3 (March): 441-58. https://
doi.org/ 10.1016/i.cess.2003.10.004.
Short, Frederick T, David M Burdick, Catherine A Short, Ryan C Davis, and Pamela A Morgan. 2000. "Developing
Success Criteria for Restored Eelgrass, Salt Marsh and Mud Flat Habitats." Ecological Engineering 15, nos. 3-
4 (July): 239-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0925-8574(00)00079-3.
Short, Frederick T., R. C. Davis, B. S. Kopp, C. A. Short, and D. M. Burdick. 2002. "Site -Selection Model for
Optimal Transplantation of Eelgrass Zostera marina in the Northeastern US." Marine Ecology Progress Series
227 (February): 253-67. https://doi.org/10.3354/meiis227253.
Short, Frederick T., and Hilary A. Neckles. 1999. "The Effects of Global Climate Change on Seagrasses." Aquatic
Botany 63, nos. 3--4 (April): 169-96. https://doi.ore/10.1016/s0304-3770(98)00117-x.
1& 08
6
ENGINEERING WITH NATURE®
US Army Corps of Engineers • Engineer Research and Development Center

ERDC/TN EWN-23-1
AUGUST 2023
Silva, Rodolfo, Maria Luisa Martinez, Brigitte I. van Tussenbroek, Laura Odette Guzman -Rodriguez, Edgar
Mendoza, and Jorge Lopez-Portillo. 2020. "A Framework to Manage Coastal Squeeze." Sustainability 12 (24):
10610. https://doi.org/10.3390/sul22410610.
Stevens, Andrew W., and Jessica R. Lacy. 2012. "The Influence of Wave Energy and Sediment Transport on
Seagrass Distribution." Estuaries and Coasts 35 (1): 92-108. https://doi.ore/10.1007/sl2237-011-9435-1.
Thomas, Florence L M., and Christopher D. Connelisen. 2003. "Ammonium Uptake by Seagrass Communities:
Effects of Oscillatory Versus Unidirectional Flow." Marine Ecology Progress Series 247 (February):51-57.
https://doi.org/10.3354/meps247051.
Thresher, Ronald E., Peter D. Nichols, John S. Gunn, Barry D. Bruce, and Dianne M. Furlani. 1992. "Seagrass
Detritus as the Basis of a Coastal Planktonic Food Chain." Limnology and Oceanography 37 (8): 1754-58.
https://doi.oriz/ 10.4319/lo.1992.37.8.1754.
Townsend, Edward C., and Mark S. Fonseca. 1998. "Bioturbation as a Potential Mechanism Influencing Spatial
Heterogeneity of North Carolina Seagrass Beds." Marine Ecology Progress Series 169 (August):123-32.
https://doi.orW I0.3354/mess l69123.
USACE (US Army Corps of Engineers). 2015. Dredging and Dredged Material Management. EM 1110-2-5025.
Engineer Manual. Washington, DC: US Army Corps of Engineers. https://www.publications.usace.anny.mil
/portals/76/publications/engineerfrranuals/em 1110-2-5025.0df.
USACE-NAE (US Army Corps of Engineers —New England District). 2020. "Appendix C — 2016 USACE
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) Survey Report" In Environmental Assessment, Finding of No
Significant Impact and Section 404(b) (1) Evaluation for Maintenance Dredging: Wood Island harbor and the
Pool at Biddeford, Biddeford, Maine. Final Draft Environmental Assessment. Concord, MA: US Army Corps of
Engineers —New England District.
van der Heide, Tjisse, Egbert H. van Nes, Gertjan W. Geerling, Alfons J. P. Smolders, Tjeerd J. Bouma, and
Marieke M. van Katwijk. 2007. "Positive Feedbacks in Seagrass Ecosystems: Implications for Success in
Conservation and Restoration." Ecosystems 10 (8): 1311-22. https://doi.orWI0.1007/sIO021-007-9099-7.
Wang, Chao, Sha-sha Zheng, Pei -fang Wang, and Jun Hou. 2015. "Interactions between Vegetation, Water Flow
and Sediment Transport: A Review." Journal of Hydrodynamics 27 (1): 24-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/s 1001-
6058(15)60453-x.
Wang, Yutao, Wencai Wang, Zhongze Zhou, Wan Xia, and Yixing Zhang. 2021. "Effect of Fast Restoration of
Aquatic Vegetation on Phytoplankton Community after Removal of Purse Seine Culture in Huayanghe Lakes."
Science of the Total Environment 768:144024. https://doi.or• 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.144024.
Ward, Larry G., W. Michael Kemp, and Walter R. Boynton. 1984. "The Influence of Waves and Seagrass
Communities on Suspended Particulates in an Estuarine Embayment." Marine Geology 59 (1-4): 85-103.
https://doi.ore/10.1016/0025-3227(84)90089-6.
Water Resources Development Act of 2022, Pub. L. No. 117-263, 136 Stat. 3691-3857. https://www.aovinfo.eov
/content/pkg/PLAW-I 17publ263/pdf/PLAW- I 171)ubl263.odf.
Waycott, Michelle, Carlos M. Duarte, Tim J. B. Carruthers, Robert J. Orth, William C. Dennison, Suzanne Olyarnik,
Ainsley Calladine, et al. 2009. "Accelerating Loss of Seagrasses across the Globe Threatens Coastal
Ecosystems." Proceedings ofthe National Academy of Sciences 106 (30): 12377-81. https://doi.ore/10.1073
/onas.0905620106.
NOTE: The contents ofthis technical note are not to be used for advertising, publication, or promotional
purposes. Citation of trade names does not constitute an official endorsement or approval of the use of
such products.
4*8 17
ENGINEERING WITH NATURE®
US Army Corps of Engineers • Engineer Research and Development Center

Attachment F
SINCE 1959
WESTERN CARTERET BOAT RAMP
CONCEPTUAL COMPENSATORY MITIGATION PLAN
FOR SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION IMPACTS
Prepared For:
State and Federal Resource/Permitting Agencies
(A Component of the Carteret County CAMA Major Permit Submission by Moffatt and Nichol)
Prepared By,
Quible & Associates, P.C.
Dr. Judson Kenworthy
NC Coastal Federation
Carteret County
Project Number P21130
March 30, 2023
Updated August 28, 2023

RE: Western Carteret Boat Ramp Conceptual Submerged Aquatic Vegetation
(SAV) Mitigation Plan- Updated
TO: State and Federal Resource/Permitting Agencies
FROM: Brian Rubino, Quible & Associates, P.C.
DATE: 8/28/2023
Dear Resources Agency Representatives,
This Conceptual Compensatory Mitigation Plan has been developed by a team of
environmental scientists that includes North Carolina Coastal Federation (NCCF),
Dr. Judson Kenworthy, Don Field and Quible & Associates, P.C. (Quible), with support
from Moffat and Nichol (M&N) on behalf of Carteret County. The Mitigation Plan is
intended to compensate for impacts to submerged aquatic vegetation ("SAV"), SAV
habitat, and shallow water habitat associated with proposed dredging of a single boat
channel to accommodate needs for a public [Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC)]
boat ramp.
The Mitigation Plan primarily includes "in -kind" mitigation to specifically offset SAV
impacts. The in -kind proposal is also intended to be part of a concentrated effort of
NCCF and Carteret County to enhance and restore SAV resources to waterways within
the region that are being lost at alarming rates due to sea level rise, storm -based erosion
and boating (wake and prop scar) impacts.
We introduced our mitigation plan components to State and Federal Resource Agencies
during a November 10, 2022 scoping meeting that was held via Webex, starting at 2:00
pm. The purpose of that meeting was to discuss our baseline SAV surveying results,
our proposed mitigation measures and to gain feedback from the various resource
agency representatives. It was understood from the meeting that NC Division of Coastal
Management would take the lead in coordinating permit application review and that a
description of proposed mitigation would be included in the submission. Based on recent
feedback from NCDWR (8/7/2023 letter) and NCDMF (8/3/2023 letter), we have made
minor edits and updates to the plan. We have not changed the mitigation plan scope,
only items for clarification and additional detail based on resource agency feedback.
Proposed in -Kind Mitigation includes
Method 1 (Primary Mitigation Concept); See Appendix I and Exhibits A-E for
a full description.
Method 2- Living Shoreline protection for a 1,062 linear foot (If) section of sand
bar barrier island directly across from the Project Area. See Exhibit F. This is
considered an in -kind mitigation measure since this is a very sensitive barrier
island location that supports SAV beds on the south side. Living shoreline
measures are intended to protect the island, enhance coastal wetlands, and in
doing so, will protect important SAV meadows on the south side. While this is
not our primary mitigation method, the importance of this protection should not be
minimized. Without protection, this functioning barrier island area will

undoubtedly become fragmented and then lost in the near future, which will
impact robust SAV resources that would otherwise be lost.
Method 3- Establishing a permanent water quality monitoring station and
multiple SAV monitoring stations in selected Bogue Sound locations that would
allow all to better understand SAV trends, growth patterns, and associated water
quality. We will select monitoring station locations based on consultation with
resource agencies and others (NCDMF, NMFS, APNEP, etc.) that may already
be involved with SAV mapping programs. The intent is to expand the database
of SAV and water quality conditions and to make this readily available.
We propose to coordinate with the on -going coastwide seagrass mapping
monitoring program lead by APNEP. We would adopt their Tier 2 monitoring
protocols which are the same protocols we used to assess the ramp channel
seagrass cover and abundance as well as the reference sites for the proposed
mitigation. The goal of this would be two -fold; 1) fill in notable gaps in APNEPs
station coverage on the northern shoreline of Bogue Sound by adding 10
stations, and 2) monitor a subset of established APNEP stations (10 stations of
approximately 70) twice annually to fill in temporal gaps in the APNEP monitoring
plan. The notable gaps in coverage on the northern shoreline result from the
spatially balanced stratified random sampling design adopted by APNEP. Due to
the relatively lower coverage of seagrass along the northern shoreline, there are
fewer sampling stations selected by the random process. Additionally, we can
propose to supplement APNEPs temporal gap in the return frequency of
monitoring Bogue Sound. Under the currently approved APNEP spatially rotating
monitoring plan, Bogue Sound was last mapped and monitored twice in spring
and fall, 2021 and will only be monitored every four years into the future. To fill
this temporal gap, we can co-ordinate with APNEP to select 10 of the fixed,
randomly selected monitoring stations to monitor in the intervals between
scheduled surveys.
Method 4- Living Shoreline Protection of the shoreline of the Project Area on
either side of the future boat channel entrance (the entire balance of shoreline).
See Exhibit A and B and CAMA Major Plans by M&N.
After further review of the permit application package and our Conceptual Compensatory
Mitigation Plan by all State and Federal reviewers, we look forward to finalizing and
implementing this Plan.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
APPENDIX I: PRIMARY MITIGATION (METHOD 1) PROPOSAL DETAILS
EXHIBIT A: VICINITY MAP
EXHIBIT B: SAV REVIEW AREA 1 (BOAT RAMP AND CHANNEL SITE)
EXHIBIT C: SAV REVIEW AREA 2 (MITIGATION SITE)
EXHIBIT D: PROPOSED SAV ENHANCEMENT AND ISLAND PROTECTION SYSTEM
EXHIBIT E: FUTURE SAV MONITORING STATIONS
EXHIBIT F: PROPOSED LIVING SHORELINE AND ISLAND PROTECTION (METHOD 2)

APPENDIX I

Primary Seagrass Mitigation Proposal for the Western Carteret Bogue Sound Boat Ramp
Summary
To mitigate for the loss of an estimated 0.78 acres of seagrass habitat in Bogue Sound, we are
proposing a nature -based solution to establish suitable environmental conditions for seagrass
growth over approximately 3.34 acres of subtidal area in the Sound. The area we are proposing
for the primary mitigation method is located on the south side of a series of dredge spoil islands
in Bogue Sound, Carteret County, approximately centered at 34.700459°N and-76.975774°W
(Exhibit A). The spoil islands in this region of Bogue Sound were originally constructed as part
of the expansion and maintenance of the Intracoastal Waterway (IC W). Inspection of a time
series of aerial photography dating back to 1981 shows how effective these spoil islands have
been in creating and sustaining healthy seagrass habitat (Figure 1).
Figure]. Historical time series of aerial photos from May 1992 (left panel), May 2006 (center
panel) and May 2020 (right panel) showing the development of a breach (yellow arrow) in one of
the spoil islands.
The islands attenuate boat wake wave waves and tidal energy and function like our larger NC
barrier islands to establish ideal conditions for seagrass growth, especially on their south side
(Figure 1). In Figure 1, the darker subtidal areas parallel to the south side of the islands are
meadows of primarily two species of seagrass, Zostera marina and Halodule wrightii which have
persisted in these locations for at least four decades.
For the past several decades, some of the islands have been experiencing significant deterioration
in size and elevation due to boat wake waves from vessel traffic on the ICW, wind, and severe
storms. Some of the islands have been breached (Figure 1), creating channels with strong tidal
flow and boat wake wave exposure resulting in the loss of seagrasses on the south side of the
islands. The island site we are proposing was breached sometime between 1992 and 2006 and
the impacts of the breach and the loss of seagrasses have continued to expand since (Figure 1).
To prevent further expansion, we propose to build a barrier in one of the breaches to baffle waves
and currents and promote sediment stability to recreate the conditions suitable for seagrass
growth. Once the hydrodynamic conditions are modified by the barrier, seagrasses in the
adjacent meadows will naturally recruit into the mitigation site by seed (Zostera marina), clonal
growth (Halodule wrightii & Zostera marina) and vegetative fragments (Zostera marina &
Halodule wrightii). We expect that within five years the rate of natural seagrass recovery will
exceed the seagrass lost at the channel dredge site; the seagrass meadow at the mitigation site

will have higher density, significantly greater coverage, and more diversity than the channel
dredge site.
Supporting Data and Site Surveys
Channel Dredging Site
To determine the potential impacts of the dredging activity we surveyed the distribution and
abundance of seagrasses and the bathymetry in the vicinity of the proposed dredged channel
footprint. The presence and abundance of seagrasses was surveyed along three shore normal
transects on May 27, 2022. The transects were approximately 135m long spaced 30 in apart
aligned parallel to the proposed boat ramp channel out to a depth of 1.4 m (Figure 2 and Exhibit
B; full-sized scaled drawing).
Figure 2. Illustration of the benthic survey transects at the dredge channel site (left panel) and
the mitigation site (right panel); See Exhibits B and C for scaled drawings with legend.
For each transect we surveyed the presence/absence and cover of seagrass in each of three 0.25
1112 quadrats placed at 5 in intervals along the transect using the Braun-Blanquet visual
assessment method; the same method used by the Albemarle Pamlico Estuary partnership to
monitor the abundance of seagrasses coastwide in NC. At each point we also determined the
water depth using Carlson and Topcon RTK GPS. We sampled a total of 79 points on the three
transects. On May 26, 2022, prior to seagrass surveying, we performed a complete bathymetric
survey of both the proposed channel site and primary mitigation area. This was done on foot
(using RTK GPS) in shallow nearshore waters and on boat with the use of a Seafloor Systems©
single beam echosounder connected to RTK GPS.
Mitigation Site
We selected the mitigation site from an inspection of a series of aerial photographs dating back to
May 1992 (Figure 1). We identified a breach in one of the spoil islands 1.35 km east of the
proposed boat ramp channel created sometime between 1992 and 2006 which has persisted until
the most recent aerial photography in May 2021 (34.700459°N and-76.975774°W). Using ARC
GIS and geo-rectified images from May 1992 and May 2021 we delineated the area of seagrass

present on the south side of the island prior to the breach (May 1992) and seagrass absence in the
same area after the breach (May 2021) (Figure 3; yellow rectangle). Based on these images and
the surveyed water depths known to be suitable for seagrass growth in Bogue Sound (< 1.5 m),
we estimate an area of potential seagrass mitigation habitat to be 3.34 acres in the polygon.
Figure 3. May 1992 aerial photograph of the mitigation site prior to the breach in the spoil
island (left panel) and May 2021 photo (right panel). Geo-rectied yellow polygon delineates
seagrass present in 1992 and mostly absent in 2021.
Using the same approach and methodology as described for the channel dredge site, we surveyed
the presence and abundance of seagrasses on 10 transects around the proposed mitigation site on
May 27 and June 22, 2022 (Figure 2; right panel and Exhibit C; full-sized scaled drawing).
Four of the transects were positioned along a north south axis in the breach and six were
positioned along an axis perpendicular to the islands to survey conditions in the existing seagrass
habitat (Reference Site). Using the same techniques described for the channel dredging site we
also recorded the water depth at each sampling station and mapped the bathymetry of the site
(Figure 2; right panel and Exhibit C; full-sized scaled drawing).
Seagrass Distribution and Abundance at the Channel Dredge Site
Seagrasses were present in 76% of the quadrats sampled (Table 1). Most of the seagrasses at
this site were small individual clones (patches) of Zostera marina seedlings that recruited the
previous winter. Only six percent of the samples had H. wrightii and most of it was in a few
small patches in shallow water adjacent to the shoreline. The average total seagrass Braun
Blanquet value was 0.96 indicating <5.0% seagrass cover where the seagrass occurred (Table 1).
Seagrass Distribution and Abundance in the Mitigation Site (Spoil Island Breech)
Seagrasses were present in 51% of the quadrats sampled (Table 1). Like the channel dredge site,
most of the seagrasses at this site were small individual clones (patches) of Zostera marina
seedlings that recruited the previous winter (Table 1). Only eleven percent of the samples had H.
wrightii. The average total seagrass Braun Blanquet value was 0.21 indicating <l .0% seagrass
cover where seagrass occurred (Table 1).

Seagrass Distribution and Abundance in the Reference Seagrass Meadows Adjacent to
Mitigation Site
In the adjacent reference meadows seagrasses were present in 73% of the samples (Table 1).
The average total seagrass Braun Blanquet value was 1.76 indicating 5-25% seagrass cover
where the seagrasses occurred. Unlike the channel dredge site and the breach, H. wrightii was
more abundant in the reference meadow; occurring in 47% of the samples with an average Braun
Blanquet score of 1.38.
Table 1. Results of field surveys of seagrass presence and Braun Blanquet cover at the proposed
marina channel dredge site, the footprint of the proposed rock sill (attenuator) and the reference
sites adjacent to the mitigation site. The acres shown in the Reference Site Column are the
estimated acres of the mitigation site. Calculations for the mitigation metrics are; 1 Total seagrass
abundance metric = percent seagrass present * total seagrass cover, 2 Seagrass loss or gain =
acres * total seagrass abundance metric, and 'seagrass mitigation ratio = 4.27 _ 0.60 = acreage of
the proposed mitigation site.
ACQUIRE
SEAGRASS ME
ACRES
0.78 0.24 1.02 3.34a
PERCENT TOTAL '= 76 51
SEAGRASS PRESEN
(PCP)
73
TOTAL SEAGR 0.96 0.27 1.76
COVER (TSGC)
ZOSTERA MARINA74.4 / 0.95
PERCENT PRESENT
COVER
IL4LODULE WRIGHlqq 0.8 / 0.008
PERCENT PRESENT /
COVER j9MM&W -
DERIVED METRICS

TOTAL SEAGRASS 0.73 0.14
ABUNDANCE
METRIC (TSGAM)'
1.28
SEAGRASS LOSS/ 0.57 0.03 0.60 4.27
SEAGRASS GAIN'
SEAGRASS
ll
MITIGATION " ..
Discussion of Survey Results
7.1
Based on our survey results, the seagrass habitat in the vicinity of the channel dredge site can be
characterized as a sparsely covered, seasonally ephemeral eelgrass meadow maintained annually
by the recruitment of seedlings and an abbreviated period of clonal growth in spring and early
summer. These eelgrass meadow characteristics are common throughout the NC estuarine
system. We refer to these as mixed semi-annual eelgrass meadows (Jarvis et al. 2012). In March
2022, prior to our surveys, visual observations during low tide detected newly recruited seedlings
across the site. In NC, Zostera seeds begin germinating in December during cooler temperatures
and relatively clear water (Combs et al. 2020). The seedlings reproduce clonally and produce
both vegetative shoots and flowers through the spring. Seeds are released from the flowers and
settle into the sediment seed bank during April and May. In June and early July as water
temperatures exceed the thermal stress threshold of eelgrass (> 250 C) and water turbidity limits
the availability of light, most of the living plants senesce and die. At this location adjacent to the
ICW and with the exposure to extremely frequent and large vessel traffic and boat wake waves,
sediments are continuously resuspended. The turbidity generated by these resuspended sediments
severely limits the amount of light needed for growth of eelgrass and the formation of large
perennial meadows in shallow water.
At the mitigation site the seagrass growth in the channel breaching the spoil islands is very
similar to the proposed channel dredge site; mainly consisting of relatively sparse eelgrass
patches derived from seed. In March 2022, prior to our surveys, we also visually observed
seedlings recruiting at this site.
In contrast, the seagrass meadows located to the south of the remaining spoil islands, on both
sides of the breach, have almost twice the cover than either the proposed dredge channel site or
in the breach (Table 1). These meadows not only have a substantially higher cover, but they are
also more diverse. Zostera and Halodule are nearly equally abundant and the cover of Halodule
is relatively higher (Table 1). This demonstrates that the physical conditions established by the
presence of the islands, largely the attenuation of boat wake waves and tidal currents, favors the
development of seagrass meadows with greater abundance and diversity. Based on our
inspection of the historical aerial photography, these meadows have persisted for at least four to
five decades.

Proposed Seagrass Mitigation
To mitigate for the loss of seagrass at the channel dredge site (primarily Zostera marina), we
propose to install a wave and current attenuation system (consisting of a granitic rock sill) in the
breach between the spoil islands (Exhibit D). By attenuating waves and water currents this
system will mimic the effects of the islands and promote the recruitment and growth of
seagrasses that once occurred in this location before the island was breached (Figures 1 & 3).
This method does not propose to import sand fill to the washout area, but would allow longshore
transport of existing sand on the south side of the island area to naturally migrate as the north
side erosional forces are reduced. We will propose to gauge the amount of siltation on the south
side of the sill to understand future accretion and/or erosion on the south side.
Based on our fundamental understanding of the growth and population dynamics of seagrasses in
NC and supported by the observations and data from our surveys, we predict with high
confidence that once waves and water currents are reduced in the breach, seagrasses will recruit
naturally into the mitigation site without the need for transplanting. Eelgrass will begin to
naturally recruit by seed into the mitigation site after the first flowering season and continue to
recruit and establish during subsequent flowering seasons. At the same time, conditions will
become more favorable for the recruitment of both Zostera and Halodule with vegetative
fragments, as well as clonal growth from the existing reference seagrass meadows on the eastern
and western boundaries of the mitigation site. Halodule rarely flowers in NC but spreads rapidly
by horizontal rhizome growth. In favorable conditions, rhizomes can grow as much as 1-3 in
year-1.
This mitigation measure would be implemented after all State and Federal permits are issued for
the ramp project and the overall site construction is underway. In addition to the rock sill a
Quickreef© or similar shoreline protection system will be installed along a broad area of the
remaining island system on the east and west sides (this is intended to protect other portions of
the island from washing out which will be inevitable if nothing is done to address this). Island
protection and enhancement is primarily to restore and protect SAV resources, and secondary
environmental benefits include other habitat restoration. The rock protection will provide a
viable oyster substrate and the associated native herbaceous plantings will help stabilize the
island and will provide cover, habitat and food source for birds and marine organisms. The
County proposes erecting reflective navigation hazard signs along the length of the rockwork.
For this proposal we are estimating a potential seagrass mitigation ratio of 7.1 using commonly
measured metrics of seagrass abundance acquired in our surveys and the expectation that the
mitigation site will achieve the same seagrass frequency and abundance as the reference sites
(Table 1). For each site (marina channel impact site, rock sill footprint, and reference site) we
computed; 1) the frequency seagrasses occurred (percent seagrasses present), 2) the total
seagrass percent cover where they occurred (total seagrass cover), and 3) the area (acres). From
these primary metrics we derived a total seagrass abundance metric to account for both how

frequently seagrass occurred over the entire site and the cover where it occurred. We then
multiplied this derived metric by the acres at each site to calculate loss (marina channel + rock
sill footprints) and gain (mitigation site). After accounting for the differences in the seagrass
acreage, we divide the gain in seagrass (mitigation site = 4.27) by the loss (boat ramp channel &
rock sill footprint = 0.60) to obtain the mitigation ratio (7.1). Assuming there are no catastrophic
environmental disturbances (e.g., tropical cyclones) that interrupt seagrass colonization of the
mitigation site, the mitigation ratio presented in table 1 (7.1) is a plausible but ambitious long-
term target. Based on other mitigation projects that we have worked on, it is typically more
common for a mitigation to impact ratio to be significantly less (i.e. 3:1).
We expect there will be a succession of seagrass colonization of the mitigation site beginning
with relatively rapid and sustained annual seed recruitment of Zostera. Within two years (two
flowering seasons) we expect that the distribution and abundance of eelgrass at the mitigation
site will equal or exceed the impacted sites. In the meantime, there will be a slower rate of
clonal recruitment from the adjacent seagrass meadows by both Halodule and Zostera. We
predict that within five years the loss of a sparse and patchy semi-annual Zostera meadow at the
channel dredge site will be mitigated with a more dense and resilient mixed species seagrass
meadow. Meadow resilience is an important co -benefit of our mitigation proposal. North
Carolina lies at the interface of the temperate (Zostera) and tropical (Halodule) seagrass
bioregions in the western Atlantic Ocean (Bartenfelder et al. 2021). The extremely warm
temperatures limit Zostera growth and abundance in summer, while favoring Halodule. On an
annual basis, a mixed species meadow sustains more productivity, persistent seagrass cover, and
provides habitat and ecological services over longer periods of time than meadows with only one
species.
Monitoring and Success Criteria
The mitigation site will be monitored twice annually for five years following installation of the
rock sill. Seagrass monitoring will occur in April and September in order to assess the presence
and cover of both the temperature species Z. marina and the tropical species H. wrightii. We will
establish 13 equally spaced permanent transects oriented along the north -south axis of the 3.34-
acre site and sample three 0.25 m2 quadrats spaced approximately 5 m apart along each transect.
In each quadrat we will survey the presence/absence and cover of seagrass using the Braun-
Blanquet visual assessment method; the same method used by the Albemarle Pamlico Estuary
partnership to monitor the abundance of seagrasses coastwide in NC. At each
point on the transects we will also determine the water depth using Carlson and Topcon RTK
GPS. We will also determine the density of eelgrass flowering shoots in a subset of a least 25
quadrats in April of each of the five years to assess the reproductive effort during colonization of
the mitigation site. In addition to the seagrass monitoring at the mitigation site, we will also
monitor permanent transects in the reference areas behind the islands east and west of the
mitigation site to assess whether environmental conditions in the general area of the mitigation
continue to supportthe growth and abundance of the established seagrass meadows. The same
sampling protocols described earlier will be used in the reference site including a subset of
quadrats to assess eelgrass reproductive effort in April of each year. In addition to the seagrass

monitoring, we will also record water temperature, tidally corrected water depths at each
sampling station, and the bathymetry of the mitigation site once each year for the duration of the
monitoring period.
Success will be assessed at the end of the five-year monitoring period using the total seagrass
abundance metric (Table 1). Assuming the mitigation goal is to replace the seagrass lost in the
dredge channel we calculated the cumulative loss of seagrass over the five year period. Based on
the data in Table 1, the annual total seagrass abundance loss at the boat ramp channel and the
footprint of the rock sill is estimated to be 0.87 (0.73 + 0.14) and therefore, over five years the
total loss in seagrass abundance is 4.35 (5 * 0.87). For each year following the initiation of the
mitigation we will calculate the total seagrass abundance metric at the mitigation site and
calculate the cumulative gain of seagrass abundance each year. Given these data metrics, we
propose three success criteria. First, at the end of five years the abundance of seagrasses at the
mitigation site should at least equal the impacted site and therefore the total seagrass abundance
metric must> 0.87. Second, the mitigation should at a minimum replace the seagrass lost over
the five-year period, therefore at the end of five years, the cumulative gain must be > the
cumulative loss (4.35). The third criterion addresses the challenging issue of perpetual loss at the
impact site for each year beyond the five year monitoring period. For this, we propose to use the
slope of the regression line calculated from the rate of gain at the mitigation site over the five-
year monitoring period to project future gains (or no change if the slope = 0) in abundance at the
mitigation site. The cumulative annual total seagrass abundance predicted from the slope of the
regression must equal the cumulative loss at the dredge site. Progress toward achieving the
mitigation goals will be reported to the responsible agencies annually during the five-year
monitoring period.
Human Access and Notice
The restoration area described above will allow people paddling/operating small craft and on
foot access to the SAV Mitigation Area and will not interfere with public trust rights. The
County does not plan to propose restrictions of access, but there is County and NCCF support for
creating a no -wake zone and they will commit to talking to USACE Navigation Branch and US
Coast Guard (USCG) about the ability to do so.
To minimize human impact to the Mitigation Area and the two Reference Areas, the County and
NCCF will install signs on the land at the eastern and western extremes of the island restoration
area that make three statements (in descending type size, provided that the third statement will
not be smaller than one inch in height), "Seagrass enhancement area, [over the statement] Please
do not disturb emergent or submerged plants, [over the statement] See NCCF for additional
information."
References
Bartenfelder A, Kenwortby WJ, Puckett B, Denton C and Jarvis JC (2022) The Abundance and
Persistence of Temperate and Tropical Seagrasses at Their Edge -of -Range in the Western
Atlantic Ocean. Front. Mar. Sci. 9:917237, doi: 10.3389/fmars.2022.917237

Combs, A.R., Jarvis, J.C., Kenworthy, W.J. 2020. Quantifying variation in Zostera marina seed
size and composition at the species' southern limit in the western Atlantic; Implications for
eelgrass population resilience. Estuaries and Coasts, https:Hdoi.org/10.1007/sl2237-020-00839-
5.
Jarvis, J.C.,Moore, K.A., Kenworthy,W.J., 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.

EXHIBIT A

EXHIBIT B

D 11lSCA �lR C Y NYat N NOwN� � � W g��R =
bP6RMENiJ�B D. , ' IUBL J FUD 1s T
i
l.LL N(ORMA bk SYO THIS DOCIIM J S SUB r:R 0 'JJY ENI
lU roi; iL4uRr nc r. FNTITx.uQ I
r>uleeE- 6 ,efm .c. n Fs NorF IDn I +-` a ".+"a
CONPLETENFSS b RV FOR N NI - MEM P IS NPrR-SPONSISI.E --- PROPOSED
09 ANY E JR 51i,36ON OR AW LOSSES OR D.W I QlDFRO%Y I'll his/ - - 99 LF BY
�
wE uF T i, ID6E CF rty 5 FT MDE MARSH 7•/y U u;� -D ^ /L^ PROTECTION _� ru 0•-'bi•'N
'05/Sb?1 I0'JICKREEF SILL p.l a-`e•R";'9
I. Vi uzz:�
gl
I PRDPDSEO Pa0PO5E0 `z�iu e
i I cX/5 /NS _ 94 LF 6Y _ — \ I J9 LF BT _U P
oY52x end/'. 5 R O MARSH J
s -r woE
co�ee MAasN CKREEF SILL ancKaw EelON OUICRREEF SILL THIS MAP IS NOT A
slus OWCKREEF SILL " - CERTIFIED SURVEY
AND HAS NOT BEEN
ss z
REVIEWED BY A
s so sm LOCAL GOVERNMENT
PROPOSED
s ss 19D LE BY AGENCY FOR
s. FT WIDEOMC VnRSH COMPLIANCE WITH
�4:•^.. "``�" PROPOSED x48 PROBEcPCN ANY APPLICABLE
94 CE BY xs xn 1 BUICRREEF SILL J.j: LAND DEVELOPMENT
5 R WroE MARSH CKRE.t] : s a REGULATIONS.
SIL
L
hL
x2 en
O
a:
11 PROPOSED
CHANNEL
S4✓STRIION x16 jP ss ALIGNMENT
IttHJ �-x15 tis x/1 a S � II
W 1 J] Q
py O
L
4a FXISIR.K / ',A
]d
Sy PICA h'/JJJ x20 /> < F - LL
AWN
f rR'f
1v R
NumEor Mln— El.11., MaMl—n EIe A, Colov y F �'
1 1.100a 12000 ® a rm�
a -1".0 -M., 555 oLL
a-10.0ao -s.000
5 -sXoo -8,00
6 -$.am -2.000 < y x w
> -T,oao -6.o00 _ ion
Ez—
o
2 EOUGUE SOUND aYqIzs 8gmogz
M m
RARCEI b JN7
eases ON Ouury Gf s
g

EXHIBIT C

J 55 ON G 12P 11 x 7] NC R , ..
hY 1 tl/ C Y J N ! T .lei Fl U .L
"I'll 11 0 U i i`. JO c., J 4\Y RCI UfA LI .ry.c
b" PNY R �Lr'ILR x.G AIRY CIi 1Y 91 .l1i PI0 RIlY
OIIA9L t :SSO IF
AN Nl i GW.FIMC it(E h[CL'RALY GR TH:
LOtIG6RC S o' ANY s"M I, e. iII lOf M .. ANC II Ntli ./ONAUL1
fPR ANY E1 11 0:! ATIICSInN DF::.N'i I.DJ'GGS OE Ow!xn6 Q' V�.SU ci.. v'G fF.Ok INE
lh2 GF iHAS INFOFUAiIOM
3-ID
mu14� !Im
m F1awLm
129W
DW
_
Gler
7g
3:
i
11 -3 W9
1
Po
�.000
�~
exisnNs�.
'.IbFtllNc
El/Si/MS
HAKSFI.WiE "—
,e1
hB2
n4
h84
hB3
K1 2
Is$
67
SRVSTATION 114
�I4]
Y }GTF121
h111
Af°i
3f161�
l'I
305h�!24211
]4Jeh 0
667
231
h236
�..._—. —
c66
hE]>
\
2
30
164
> 163
3P 162
h23B
h24
241
2 ]] /
h277
-
h
h275
R ] 64
95
5,242
y
h211/
]
y;a
hE S� 1S3
2l3
h244
h1J
h2 JS ]S
_
•'•
��
112
3]
E9 IS$
t2 1t1
h2a5
h246
,2]2
hV1 h J6
2I
21 C
194
as
xE
�e
y26]
h1]]
h.2]4
h269 ]
hl 95
x6]
2
♦ B
hv0
N249
h266 h9
I7
h196
h,19J
J �
s
Bs yyy
Y
�] 9 .
,141
46
ll4l
Y X 2G'
11i,20a
e261
I6
FY221
h22E
tE67
258
p0]
R60 Y19 A]
` F206
hE2
117
220.
h190
pzz
f%i�Seia
VIeV 2�,e e�i
THIS MAP IS NOT A
CERTIFIED SURVEY
AND HAS NOT BEEN
REVIEWED BY A
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
AGENCY FOR
COMPLIANCE WITH
ANY APPLICABLE
LAND DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS.
Ila
O
V
N Z �
o v
WO a
w
a
z
U��m �owas w
f NL-6flU
�N�LLomw' �8�'4
ib W�oa�a�e?u�.ow
"sENH€oB�gc
o R g�W
v z

EXHIBIT D

EXHIBIT E

EXHIBIT F

DRDATION, tAl-t' OR COWV ANCLS THIS 0000MEITL IS FOB
2
"Qu
Pi :Fmaz
77o
PROPOSED
THIS MAP IS NOT A
1,062 LF BY
CERTIFIED SURVEY
5 FT WIDE
MARSH PROTECTION-�'
AND HAS NOT BEEN
UIGKRCEF REVETMENT
REVIEWED BY A
ALONG NLW LINE
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
AGENCY FOR
x.
COMPLIANCE WITH
ANY APPLICABLE
LAND DEVELOPMENT
PROPOSED AREA
REGULATIONS.
OF NATIVE MARSH
PLANTINGS
Z
O
E.S
PROPOSED 5 7
L 50U67uE 5
MIN
LL
„_
OUICKREEF
SILL FOR WETLAND
PROTECTION
IS

Attachment G