20151026 All Versions_Bonner_20151030

0
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Pat McCrory
Governor
October 30, 2015�
MEMORANDUM:
Doriald R. van der Vaart
Secretary
To: Doug Huggett, Major Permits Coordinator
Division of Coastal Management
C/O Cathy Brittingham, Transportation Project Coordinator
1617 Mail Service Center,
C/O DWR Wetlands Unit
Raleigh, NC 27699
From:
Subject:
Applicant:
Clif Whitfield, Environmental Engineer, PWSS/WaRO
CAMA/DREDGE & FILL Permit Application Review
NC Department of Transportation
Project Location: Approx. 3 miles W. of Bonner Bridge; Project site w/in Pamlico
Sound, Dare Co.
Proposed Project: B-2500 SAV Mitigation; Wave break structure
REPLY: This office has no objection to.the project as proposed.
X This office has no comment on the proposed project.
This office approves of the project only if the recommended changes
are incorporated.
This office objects to the project for reasons described in the
attached comments.
SIGNED �,� �.L/,��,,.�,�/ DATE 11-4-2015
0
Washington Regional Office '
943 Washington Square Mall, Washington, North Carolina 27889
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: www.ncwater.orglpws
An Equal Opportunily 1 Affirmative Action Employer — Made in part by recycled paper
0
I� �� �'``--�.,..
���
N��d 22 �70
_ 015 r �

l � �
��
�IV�S�ON OF COAST�Y. I�YAI�TAGE��1T
�I��,I; IIV�ST�GATION �PORT
1. APPLICANT'S NAME: North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
2. LOCATION OF PROJECT SITE: Approximately 3 miles west of the existing Herbert C.
Bonner Bridge over the Oregon Inlet on NC12, Dare County. Project site is located within
the Pamlico Sound.
Photo Index - 2006: 175-7914(A-J; 1-8) 2000: 175-2069(A-J, 1-8)
175-7915(A-J, 19-24) 175-2070(A-H, 20-24)
185-7202(D-P, 1-24) 185-2072(E-O, 1-24)
185-7203(F-L, 1-24) 185-2073(D-M, 1-24)
185-7204(K-P,14-24) 185-2074(J-0,14-24)
State Plane Coordinates - X: 3,012,580 Y: 745,664 Rover File:T071015A
Latitude: 35°45'03.54" N Longitude: 75°35' 11.99" W
3. INVESTIGATION TYPE: CAMA and D&F
4. INVESTIGATIVE PROCEDURE: Date of Site Visit - TBD
Was Applicant Present - TBD
5. PROCESSING PROCEDURE: Application Received Complete: October l, 2015
Office — Elizabeth City
6. SITE DESCRIPTION:
(A) Local Land Use Plan — Dare County
Land Classification from LUP — Conservation
(B) AEC(s) Involved: EW, PTA
(C) Water Dependent: Yes
(D) Intended Use: subaquatic vegetation (SAV) mitigation site
(E) Wastewater Treatment: Existing — N/A
Planned — N/A
(F) Type of Structures: Existing — N/A
Planned — Wave Break
(G) Estimated Annual Rate of Erosion: N/A �
Source —
7. HABITAT DESCRIPTION: [A1tEA)
(A) Open Water
2,500 sq. ft. 17 to 57 acres — wave break
shadow
(D) Total Area Disturbed: 17 to 57 acres (wave break shadow)
(E) Primary Nursery Area: No
(F) Water Classification:
SA; HQW (Pamlico Sound)
Open: Yes

FI�LD �1vV�STIGATIOlv ��OR�:
NCDOT — SAV 11�TIGATIOIV — TIIP 1�10. �-2500 PHASE �
�ONN��t �RII;GE ��I.ACE1vIENT ��OJ�CT
PE4GE #2
�. �IYO,�ECT SiJNINYAYtY: The applicant proposes to construct a wave break structure that
is engineered to attenuate wave energies and provide a suitable wave climate to promote
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) coverage. The applicant would also perform a
subsequent study. The proposed project would serve as mitigation to offset potential
loss of SAV habitat during the replacement of Bridge No. 11 over Oregon inlet on NC
Hwy 12, TIP No. B-2500 Phase I, in Dare County.
9.1�1ARItATIVE I)�SC�tIPTg01l1:
Project Setting
The mitigation site (Site S2) is located approximately 3 miles west of the existing Bonner
Bridge and is entirely within the Pamlico Sound. The site is located on a shoal that has supported
patchy seagrass cover since at least 1998.
Bodie Island forms the northern shoulder of the Oregon Inlet and is a part of the Cape
Hatteras National Seashore, which is administered by the Nat'ional Park Service (NPS). The
southern end of Bodie Island, including the Oregon Inlet campground and the Oregon Inlet Marina
and Fishing Center, is used for recreation. The Oregon Inlet Marina and Fishing Center is the only
permanent business in the vicinity of the project area, with numerous charter fishing boats
available for hire by the public. The active Oregon Inlet US Coast Guard (USCG) Station is also
in this area. South of the Bonner Bridge are Hatteras Island and the Pea Island National Wildlife
Refuge (Refuge). The Refuge lies within the boundaries of the Seashore and is administered by
the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). A former USCG Station, which is listed on the
National Register of Historic Places, is also located in this area.
The Environmental Management Commission has classified the Pamlico Sound as Class
SA; HQW in the area of the proposed mitigation site. The project area is in the Pasquotank River
basin. The North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries (NCDMF) has classified all waters in the
proposed area as Coastal Waters, but not a Primary Nursery Area. The waters are designated open
to shellfishing by the Shellfish Sanitation Section of NCDMF. The Pamlico Sound is
approximately 11.5 miles wide in the project area. The sound is approximately 1' to 3'deep on
the shoal chosen for the proposed SAV mitigation project. Numerous submerged aquatic
vegetation (SAV) beds are present in the project area.
DCM issued CAMA Major Permit #106-12 to NCDOT on September.l9, 2012 for the TIP
No. B-2500 project. TIP No. B-2500 extends for approximately 15 miles from the southern end
of Bodie Island to the community of Rodanthe. However, the September 19, 2012 permit action
only authorized construction of Phase I of the TIP No. B-2500 project. The September 19, 2012
CAMA Major Permit #106-12 for Phase I construction was legally challenged by the Defenders
of Wildlife and the National Wildlife Refuge Association, represented by the Southern
Environmental Law Center, in October 2012 when they filed a third party request to the Coastal
Resources Commission to file a contested case hearing in the Office of Administrative Hearings
(OAH). On July 29, 2013, a North Carolina Superior Court Judge remanded the case to OAH for
a contested case hearing. On August 12, 2013 DCM issued a letter to NCDOT with a notice that
DCM considers the CAMA Major Permit #106-12 issued on September 19, 2012 authorizing
Phase I of TIP No. B-2500 suspended, and.that NCDOT may not undertake any development
activities related to Phase I until further notice. On April 30, 2015, all parties involved in the
challenge of the CAMA permit, as well as a challenge in federal court of the 2010 Record of
�
.�

, ' FIEI�Ii IN�S��GATION ��0��:
NCDOT — SAV 1VV��IGA�IOIV —�'gP NO. �-2500 PHAS� �
�01�1NEI� �R�I�GE It�PI.ACEI�IV� P�YOJECT
PAGE #3
Decision for TIP No. B-2500 and related documents, reached a settlement agreement, which has
begun to be implemented. On August 14, 2015 DCM issued a letter to NCDOT with a notice that
CAMA Major Permit 106-12 is now reinstated and NCDOT may now undertake Development
pursuant to the permit.
When CAMA Major Permit 106-12 was issued on September 19, 2012, it contained a permit
condition documenting the finding that DCM did not consider the SAV mitigation plan submitted
with the permit application at that time to be a final mitigation plan. The CAMA Permit included
a condition that prior to initiating construction within any area containing SAV's, the permittee
shall submit a final SAV mitigation plan to DCM, as well as other appropriate resource agencies.
The permit condition further required that approval of this plan shall be obtained from DCM prior
to initiating construction activities in SAV areas. NCDOT has submitted the Phase I SAV
Mitigation Plan dated September ZO15 with the current proposal as the final mitigation plan in
fulfillment of the above referenced permit condition.
Project Proposal
The proposed project is intended for mitigation of SAV impacts associated with Phase I of
B-2500. Replacement of the Bonrier Bridge will permanently impact approximately 2.66 acres of
SAV areas for which mitigation is required. Mitigation measures will include removal of the
existing bridge that will unshade 1.38 acres of suitable habitat, and the remaining 1.28 acres would
be mitigated at the SAV mitigation site described in the proposed project._An engineered wave
break structure is proposed to attenuate wave energies and provide a suitable wave climate to
promote SAV coverage. The objective of the SAV 1Vlitigation Plan is to reduce the amount of
wave energy within the project site to allow far a more continuous cover of SAV to expand,
providing increased seagrass acreage and associated ecosystem services.
The design and location of the wave break structure was developed by forecasting the wave
conditions and the associated change in seagrass cover that was expected to occur with the
presence of the structure. The relationship of wave energy to predicted percent seagrass cover of
the seafloor was utilized to predict the percent seagrass cover of the seafloor with and without the
wave break structure present. Change in seagrass cover by creation of the 500' wave break was
based on the area of wave energy reduction ranging from 10 to 20 percent of ambient/normal wave
energy. This range was judged to provide a conservative estimate of energy reduction over which
to forecast seagrass cover while ensuring the target area would be met.
The construction of the SAV mitigation wave break structure would be completed in two
phases. Phase 1 involves the setting up of the casting molds and pouring concrete to create the
units at a land based staging site located in Wanchese, NC. All concrete pouring and setting of
molds would occur in the upland staging area. Phase 2 includes transferring pilings, units, and
hardware to the site location utilizing shallow draft barges.
The proposed structure is a 500' long wave break. The length was determined by iteratively
adjusting the wall length and running wave and seagrass forecasting models on each successive
wall length until an increase in seagrass cover meeting the mitigation acreage of 1.28 acres was
achieved. The proposed design involves installing a continuous series of wave attenuation
structures. Each wave attenuator "unit" is comprised of a stack of molded concrete trays set with

Fi�LD �IV�5TIGATION �POI�T:
NCI)OT — SE1V I�IITIGATIOIV — Tg�' NO. �-2500 �I�ASE I
�ONNER �R�DGE �PLAC�IV�IVT I'RO�C�
PAGE #4
natural rock material. These systems are designed to fully attenuate wave energy while still
allowing for the exchange of water and the passage through and around the structure's individual
components. Individual units are 4' tall and approximately 5' wide. Based on preliminary design �
it is anticipated that approximately two units would be submerged below the normal high water
level. Pilings would be jetted and vibrated to depths of 20' to 30' and unit hardware would be
installed following placement. Approximately 101 total pilings would be installed. The wave
attenuator units would be set upon stone scour protection, bedding stone (NCDOT Class "B"), and
geotextile fabric.
Sixty permanent quadrats would be established on the wavebreak structure to monitor
epibiota.
The nearest portion of the structure is approximately 900' east of the closest existing tidal
channel and approximately 2,200' from the deepest portion of that channel. This distance and the
observed stability of the chosen shoal over time is thought to be adequate enough to avoid any
influence of the channel.
NCDOT will install and maintain any lights/signals prescribed by the U.S. Coast Guard on
authorized facilities. NCDOT would submit a Private Aids to Navigation Application to the U.S.
Coast Guard.
NCDOT will assess the effect of biological disturbance on seagrass by installing
bioturbation exclusion treatments. Large gap (four to six inch) metal mesh would be laid flush on
the Sound bottom and anchored with approximately one to two-foot long J-shaped rebar stakes.
Ten patches would be selected for the bioturbation exclusion study per wave energy treatment,
five would be protected with wire mesh and five would be unprotected. When patch coalescence
begins, the mesh and stakes would be removed.
NCDOT will inspect the wave break structure .annually during the five year monitoring
period. If monitoring data indicate that damage to the structure is having a negative effect on SAV
coverage, then a remediation plan would be developed in coordination with the Division of Coastal
Management. This annual inspection would verify that the required signage and markings are
presendvisible.
Pressure sensors would be deployed 25 meters in front of and 25 meters behind the
wavebreak. The sensors would be approximately 2 inches in diameter by 10 inches long and would
be mounted horizontally on the seafloor approximately 6 inches above the substrate on an
embedded (into the seafloor) solid base.
Various aspects of the proposed project would be monitored for the purpose of identifying
contributing factors affecting success of the SAV establishment, coalescence of existing patches,
and overall persistence. These variables would be monitored and documented. Mitigation site
monitoring would be conducted for up to 5 years after installation of the wave break structure.
Anticipated �mpacts
The proposed SAV Mitigation Plan would have permanent surface water impacts to shallow
bottom habitat of 2,500 sq. ft. from the proposed wave break benthic footprint. There would be
additional impacts to the Sound bottom due to the pressure sensors that are mounted on the seafloor
in front of and behind the wavebreak_Permanent impacts to the Sound bottom would include the
driving of piles, and the placement of the structure. NCDOT has committed to take extra caution
during material transport and construction to not disturb the bottom. habitat.
Construction of the wave break structure would impact some existing seagrass patches.
These seagrass patches would be relocated to gaps among patches on the lee side of the wave break
•L

FgE�,� I1�1VE�T�GA�I�N �PORT:
NCI)OT — SE1V NIg�gGATIOIV — TIP 1V0. �-2500 PHASE i
�ONNE� �I�GE ��I,ACElVIENT �ItO.T�CT
PAGE #5
structure to potentially accelerate the anticipated gap closure among the seagrass patches. The
effect of the relocation would be tracked as part of the monitoring survey.
The proposed wave attenuation structures would have less impact on the Sound bottom when
compared with a traditional rock wavebreak. According to the applicant's proposal, a traditional
rock wavebreak of similar size with 2:1 slopes would have a 10,000 square foot benthic footprint,
whereas the proposed 500-foot long Reefmaker structure would have a 2,500 square foot benthic
footprint.
The forecast for wave energy reduction to 10 percent of the ambient/normal wave energy
would create a wave shadow of approximately 57.3 acres. The forecast increase in seagrass
acreage for the 10 percent assessment in this shadow area is approximately 0.91 acres. The forecast
for wave energy reduction to 20 percent of the ambient/normal wave energy would create a wave
shadow of approximately 17.3 acres. The forecast increase in seagrass acreage for the 20 percent
assessment in this shadow area is approximately 1.65 acres. Therefore, the wave break shadow
would impact approximately 17 to 57 acres. NCDOT has committed to increase seagrass coverage
at this mitigation site by a minimum of 1.3 acres.
The mesh of the bioturbation units would allow seagrass shoots to extend through the
large gaps allowing their continued growth and expansion. Flush deployment of the bioturbation
units on the seafloor plus anchoring would prevent entanglement by sea life, such as diving
birds.
The wave break structure would also provide approximately 11,413 square feet of
additional hard surface habitat suitable for colonization by algae, oysters, and other sessile
communities.
The wave break structure will potentially impede navigation in Public Trust Waters in
the project area. NCDOT will install and maintain any lights/signals prescribed by the U.S. Coast
Guard on authorized facilities. NCDOT will submit a Private Aids to Navigation Application to
the U.S. Coast Guard. The project site also has the potential to be closed to fishing, particularly
when predator mesh is installed on the Sound bottom to prevent bioturbation.
During construction all precautions would be taken and activities monitored not to impact
Threatened and Endangered Species. NCDOT has committed to follow protective measures to
avoid several species in the project area. NCDOT will implement guidelines from the NOAA
Fisheries' Sea Turtle and Smalltooth Sawfish Construction Conditions and I/SFWS Guidelines
for Avoiding Impacts to the West Indian Manatee: Precautionary Measures for Construction
Activities in North Carolina Water.
This project is part of a larger, long term effort to determine the best strategy and
methodology far SAV restoration and mitigation in North Carolina. Various aspects of the
proposed project would be monitored for up to 5 years purposes of identifying contributing
factors affecting success of the SAV establishment, coalescence of existing patches, and overall
persistence.
Submitted by: Greg Daisey —Elizabeth City District — October 29, 2015

- �.w.tnm.6.w�'ssG?"oi+' ,
� • ,� .AWil�....d...�J�rr..4Nr+4TY�'!.'.^
`.- ,.. . � . .
, .��� ..
. _.r------�-""" f � � � y° �
����°'" �° p�� � _.�
. � � -� --. .._._ .�---------,
� � �
� OCT 1 2015
-r
L(,A� AL �.":F�,i•�.�,(:rF�M1i-i�t
i r n , r- � � (;' � �,✓ .
� � �-� � ""..._.._.'-..-.�-.-�-"��
,� ___..�.-.
�.. :s,: �,..J..:.:.�.,.�,. �..�,.
.- -';'` PA`T"C,:�1�1ICCRORY
GOVERNOR
,.��,�4�
y r
�T
ti �� �
.,�,�.�.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
'ARTN�NT OF TRANSPORTATION
October 1, 2015
N.C. Division of Coastal Management
1367 US 17 South
Elizabeth City, NC 27909
ATTN: Mr. Greg Daisey
NCDOT Coordinator
NICHOLAS .T. TENNYSON
SECRETARY
Subject: Request for fViodification of the CAIViA Major Development Permit for the
Construction of VUavebreak Structure and Subsequent Study to Serve as Mitigation to
Offset Potential Loss of SAV Habitat During Construction of the Replacement of Bridge
No 11 over Oregon Inlet on NC 12 in Dare County. TIP Rlo. 8-2500 Phase I, Debit $475
from UVBS Element 32635.1.3
References: CAMA Permit No. 106-12 dated September 19, 2012
Dear Sir:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation requests modification to the above referenced
permit, as the mitigation plan to offset potential impact(s) to Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) due
to the replacement of Bridge 11 has been finalized. ,
The attached Phase I SAV Mitigation Plan proposes a 500-foot long wavebreak structure, engineered to
attenuate wave energies and provide a suitable wave climate to promote SAV coverage. The mitigation
site is located southwest of Bonner Bridge, on a stable shoal that has supported patchy seagrass cover
since at least 2012.
Construction of the structure will occur from barges and equipment will not dredge or be dragged on
the sound bottom. Impacts to the sound bottom will be limited to include the driving of piles, and the
placement of the structure itself. The proposed, 500-foot long Reefmaker structure, is estimated to
have a 0.06 ac (2,500 sq. ft.) benthic footprint.
It is anticipated that any SAV impacts during construction will be offset by relocation into the forecast
wave shadow of the structure. An "as-built" report will be supplied to DCM after installation.
MAIUNG ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1598
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBS/TE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG
�ocnnoN:
1020 BIRCH RIDGE DRIVE
RALEIGH NC 27610-4328

Monitoring
Monitoring of the SAV mitigation site will be conducted for a period of up to 5 years following
installation of the wavebreak structure, and will include monitoring of wave energy, seagrass,
structure/hard surface, and sediment elevation. A detailed monitoring plan is in the Mitigation Plan.
Proposed Let Date
Construction of the structure may begin as soon as all permits are received.
Regulatory Approvals
CAMA: Request for modification of the existing CAMA permit is hereby made for the above-mentioned
activities. Authorization to debit $475 from WBS 32635.1.3 is hereby given for the permit application
fee.
Section 404 Permit: A request to the US Army Corps of Engineers for Section 404 approval will be sent
under separate cover.
Section 401 Certification: A request to the NC Division of Water Resources for Section 401 approval
will be sent under separate cover. ,
A copy of this request and its distributian list will be posted on the NCDOT Website at:
https://connect.ncdot.�ov/resources/Environmental. If you have any questions or need additional
information, contact Michael Turchy at maturchv@ncdot.�ov or 919 707-6157.
Sincerely,
•-.--..�,.._....._ .
,�c Richard W. Hancock, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Unit
cc: NCDOT Permit Application Standard Distribution List
..., .... ....:.... .
....,...�....:,�a»„�..r-�,,.,,4..,��...:.... fi
. : �; � .�-.�.�,�.. k.,�:,�....�,�,�.��,.,.��. . _ ..._.. ...�.:.�
'�,."'"�." �
�
����.i���
;
` OCT 1 2015
GOASTAL PviAiti�'+ �`=!�'l��d (
ELIZP,`��T't; C,T�' _..�.--
.. r. r.;�nd�:_5^�i��.r'. � .�J'�il.i4r.,w:...YWK'E�kd^�i.Y!ne.�':
J k
�a

I
{.
��� ���Y
��
� � � � I - , I::,
{ � �. �;,
I �II�� � y lf�',1 I = I� I _�l.
(last revised 12/27/06)
� -� .:�, "`l�a,a+`�`ni?s�k��a�,wm�a�ie,�p%v�i«�iF�u�a�n�r'w.RK:n� ~�x�,..
�,�,. �„ - .:. j
� i
4` ���� P V � Rd' •
?� -L�r-Mi�� � �k^..q
� �� " .,
� O CT 1 2015 '��� ;� . ���
� ���° g;�.
,,
'. GOASTAL' fl'APJ�1Gi_;U�tNT
� ELIZAB��T'� G(lY
x. — --
'� North Carolina DIVISION OF C�O,�{A.STAL fiAAIdAGEMENT
.•��: . •.�ycuYAe.fiJ�'=?Ga={yf�i:t:.anNww"va41•R��•tK�tY�'�s!'�'95+i*+'M� ... ..
r,.-..... ,�.�i�zy _" .......:-, ,-1':v; `. �.•�=.-;�.r;:,:.r...;.��.'.::.�1' : k?'i - � - " � _ ..�:_ .:;P � " " -
, .. ,--<, x'.;: -s., a.� .>.:..,��'� ..L . ,:�, . _> ..,.;, r -,_,Tv _ .�4x�
t3: '�.�'r✓.':33^' . S. .;�, r. _
�.�.
°'Y �'� �..'{.; �
.��
;::9: ;Pr►mary AppHcant/rL�ana!owner tnformafron � u� � ° Y
"' ::i%�: �..,.M>_�'� � �:�,. �``_�.. �ro�,. "�� �`�a�' ��
Business Name Project Name (if applicable)
North Carolina Department of Transportation B-2500 SAV Mitigation
Applicant 1: First Name MI Last Name
Richard W Hancock
Applicant 2: First Name MI Last Name
lf additional applrcants, please attach an additiona/ page(s) with names listed.
Mailing Address PO Box City State
1020 Birch Ridge Drive Raleigh NC
ZIP Country Phone No. FAX No.
27610 US 919 - 707 - 6157 ext. - -
Street Address (if different from above) City State ZIP
Email
[e-mail]
�.,..; .
; � �,; �, , � � t
2 °: �genbContractor lnformatron '� ' �� `� ' � » r �
�'w A? x"4.'.�' r F . a ^4 . ,i� , .�' +,,,:' : ,- � �'y;w .4 S ,� r
r+- a, ' � '� .� Y- v
- -i�'•}. ,..-s� e.;4-� .,_�.d`�€sct�x� m ?e �r.,._.. _sR�,��-+� �n„� _#«r,,_.c .f,<tk.-t . y:t: �
Business Name
N/A
AgenU Contractor 1: First Name MI Last Name
AgenU Contractor 2: First Name MI Last Name
Mailing Address PO Box City State
ZIP Phone No. 1 Phone No. 2
- - eM. - - ext.
FAX No. Contractor #
Street Address (if different from above) City State ZIP
Email
<Form continues on back>
252-808-2808 .. 1-888-4RCOAST ., www.nccoastalmanagement.net

�
Form DCM MP-1 (Page 2 of 4) APPLICATION for
Major Development Permit
_ " '�Y'.;� =�.F`�,` - _ - _ _
Y:
' "-i:n.l•��[..,u..v_ -:{.�. .
' _ _ ' ','�w`-'. _
=S:y�:��P s� - ::f::��-;r�: ... .
a s, ;
rb"ec`i Location,: , ` y ��" � _t,:�-:_�;;,;� � .
.l �� � ;r�'_.��;�:s;i;r :.�: f �
:-,:,'> ;-,.�..,,.. .�_,;,,::.�� :*:;: - - � �< - �.r�,��'_'�t ,.5�n.a.;M •:ri�x:.�;, ai'" a, - � �r -. .
`County (can be multiple)' Street Address � �} " � �
State Rd. #
Dare Pamlico Sound: 35.75084041, -75.58649065 NC-12
Subdivision Name City State Zip
N/A Rodanthe NC n/a -
Phone No. Lot No.(s) ('�f many, attach additiona/ page with list)
N/A - - ext. N/A, , � ,
a. In which NC river basin is the project located? b. Name of body of water nearest to proposed project
Pasquotank Pamlico Sound
c. Is the water body identified in (b) above, natural or manmade? d. Name the closest major water body to the proposed project site.
�Natural ❑Manmade ❑Unknown Pamlico Sound
e. Is proposed work within city limits or planning jurisdiction? f. If applicable, list the planning jurisdiction or city limit the proposed
❑Yes �No work falis within.
N/A
a. Total length of shoreline on the tract (ft.)
0
c. Size of individual lot(s)
N/A, �
(If many /ot sizes, please attach additiona/ page with a list)
e. Vegetation on tract
Halodule wrightii, Zostera marina, Ruppia maritima
b. Size of entire tract (sq.ft.)
2,495,969 sq.ft or 57.3 acres
d. Approximate elevation of tract above NHW (normal high water) or
NWL (normalwaterlevel)
subtidal �NHW or �NWL
f. Man-made features and uses now on tract
No features currently on tract. Tract consists of open water within Pamlico Sound. Area is used for recreational purposes
(boating, fishing).
g. Identify and describe the existing land uses adiacent to the proposed project site.
Recreational (Cape Hatteras National Seashore and Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge), open space, open water and
commercial (marina).
h. How does local govemment zone the tract? i. Is the proposed project consistent with the applicable zoning?
Open water - Unzoned (Attach zoning compliance certificate, if applicable)
�Yes ❑No �NA
j. Is the proposed activity part of an urban waterfront redevelopment proposal? �Yes �No
k. Has a professional archaeological assessment been done for the tract? If yes, attach a copy. ❑Yes �No ❑NA
If yes, by whom?
National Reqister
OCT 1 2015
ocated in a National Registered Historic District or does it involve a
or eligible property?
�] ' <Form continues on next page>
�
�
DYes �No ❑NA
808� : � 1-888-4RCOAST .. www.nccoastalmanagement.net
coasTa� ���,;,� .�r «� r
ELIZNS�T�-t i,i'i`( �
- ._.,..._ - �s: - ---•.. �_.

Form DCM MP-1 (Page 3 of 4)
m. (i) Are there wetlands on the site?
(ii) Are there coastal wetlands on the site?
(iii) If yes to either (i) or (ii) above, has a delineation been conducted?
(Attach documentation, if availab/e)
n. Describe existing wastewater treatment facilities.
N/A
o. Describe existing drinking water supply source.
N/A
p. Describe existing storm water management or treatment systems.
N/A
APPLICATIOFI for
Major Development Permit
❑Yes �No
❑Yes �No
, ❑Yes ❑No
•- ...�-��..-.K, ..,...�,..,-...,.,.,:.:,,�,:-...>._.,.:.,,,.F_ ..... _...... .
.c �.-�.a«.rn..,�.�,�..�.R,��„�,.a,.�u
�
' i��������
�; ' '
�
� oCT � ?��� !
`
�J
� GOASTAL. !�?r�,�l,���'; E;dT �
FI fZ�!��i!: i,CfY .. ..�.�
Sd" '
5 Act►vi%es�`and lrn`pacts < : �, , ; , .,�.,�,,,,�,� „�„� ,�„a M1
. ... 2 . _ � . ., 4 . `,�
�a ' '1C� h , _ r� +ti , � t y �. . ..
.._. . _-_ _:.�'�.. i �..,_ ... �..._n'�..'" t _ � >.3. . s.1a 7.y_ . at �_�..''��'£...�..._. , a' .>.z!.-, �fi, 1Ft°�_i_ ",. �- . , u..... . ->w.S. ., r�._ ,� �.: . ... t u�'_` ,�..,,`V�y.ry •
a. Will the project be for commercial, public, or private use? ❑Commerciai �PubliGGovemment
❑Private/Community
b. Give a brief description of purpose, use, and daily operations of the project when complete.
Wave attenuation using "reefmaker" wavebreak/sill to promote SAV growth. Site monitoring wili include wave energy, SAV
cover, epibiota on wavebreak, biological disturbance and sediment elevation. Monitoring will be conducted for five years
following completion of the project.
c. Describe the proposed construction methodology, types of construction equipment to be used during construction, the number of each type
of equipment and where it is to be stored.
Water based construction using one specialized shallow draft push barge with custom mini excavator and 8" spuds, two
shailow draft barges, one landing craft barge with 360° active sonar and internal bilge system, and one standard jetfloat
platform with expandable units. Equipment will be stored at 301 Harbor Road, Wanchese, NC 27981.
d. List all development activities you propose.
Relocate SAV from structure area to leeward side of wavebreak. Reefmaker precast molds will be set up at construction
staging area located at 301 Harbor Road, Wanchese, NC 27981. Reefmaker units and fiberglass pilings will be loaded on
barge and floated to site location with minimal bottom disturbance. Pilings will be jetted and vibrated into substrate and 750 ft
of reefrnaker units will be placed over and locked into pilings. Seagrasses will have predator excluder mesh installed. SAV,
epibiota, water level and sediment will be montiored for five years.
e. Are the proposed activities maintenance of an existing project, new work, or both? New work
f. What is the approximate total disturbed land area resulting from the proposed project? 2,500 �Sq.Ft or ❑Acres
g. Will the proposed project encroach on any public easement, public accessway or other area ❑Yes �No ❑NA
that the public has�established use of?
h. Describe location and type of existing and proposed discharges to waters of the state.
n/a
i. Wiil wastewater or stormwater be discharged into a wetland? DYes �No ❑NA
If yes, will this discharged water be of the same salinity as the receiving water? ❑Yes ❑No ❑NA
j. Is there any mitigation proposed? ❑Yes ❑No �NA
If yes, attach a mitigation proposal.
<Form continues on back>
252-808-2808 .. 1-888-4RCOASY .. www.nccoastalmanagement.net

Form DCM MP-1 (Page 4 of 4)
APPLICATION for
Major Development Permit
6. Additional/nformation
In addition to this comp/eted. application form, (MP-1) the foltowing items below, if applicable, must be submitted in order for the application
peckage to ba complete. lteins (a) -(� are always applicab/e to any major development,applrcation. P/ease consult tiie applrcation
instruction booklet on how to properly prepare the required items tielow.
a. A project narrative.
b. An accurate, dated work plat (inciuding plan view and cross-sectional drawings) drawn to scale. Please give the present status of the
proposed project. Is any portion already complete? If previously authorized work, clearly indicate on maps, plats, drawings to distinguish
between work completed and proposed.
c. A site or location map that is sufficiently detailed to guide agency personnei unfamiliar wiih the area to the site.
d. A copy of the deed (with state application only) or other instrument under which the applicant ciaims title to the affected properties.
e. The appropriate application fee. Check or money order made payable to DENR.
f. A list of the names and complete addresses of the adjacent waterfront (riparian) landowners and signed return receipts as proof that such
owners have received a copy of the application and plats by certified mail. Such landowners must be advised that they have 30 days in
which to submit comments on the proposed project to the Division of Coastal Management.
Name N/A Phone No.
Address
Name
Address
Name
Address
Phone No.
Phone No.
g. A list of previous state or federal permits issued for work on the project tract. Include permit numbers, permittee, and issuing dates.
h. Signed consuitant or agent authorization form, if applicable.
i. Wetland delineation, if necessary.
j. A signed AEC hazard notice for projects in oceanfront and inlet areas. (Must be signed by property owner) '
k. A statement of compliance with ihe N.C. Environmental Rolicy Act (N.C.G.S. 113A 1-10), if necessary. If the project involves expenditure
of public funds or use of pubiic lands, attach a statement documenting compliance with the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act.
7. Certification and Permission to Enter on Land
I understand that any permit issued in response to tfiis application wil) allow only the development described in the application.
The project wiil be subject to the conditions and restrictions contained in the permit.
I certify that I am authorized to grant, and do in fact grant permission to representatives of state and federal review agencies to
enter on the aforementioned lands in connection with evaluating information related to this permit application and follow-up
monitoring of the project.
I further certify that the information provided in this application is truthfui to the best of my knowledge.
Date _ (�� "' f " �l:�1 � Prin�Name �tC, tiA�'�� ��: �Ao1iL0�bC
7'��
Signatiu� _--�"`"�`'''r��..�;� _
Please indicate application attachments pertaining to your proposed project.
❑DCM MP-2 Excavation and Fill Information ❑DCM MP-5 Brid �S'and Ver�s"'�'�.—��-~�-�°-•�-~- �Y°• °-�- �-
9 �i?�a..�..T,:.�a�;,_�a..�,..,.4..,,w,�,.::,r�a.::;...FV�.;XH,..
❑DCM MP-3 Upland Development �"`".°""',-t ,-
�DCM MP-4 Structures Information "�
���G���'�Q �
`' ��rT 1 'n��
_,. . .:f?v- .;3.,,,3 . , _'�a-.�»�.fitL:i°."�;-,. C. , .. iJJL'1,V.i$^.f,;.:}L3: 3 ._ —. :?
,�.
GOASTAL ��4A�l�.G;=;��"E"JT
r ��e
�_����C�!'i i�:lji�

�o�� �c� ��-�
,.� ,� . -
(Constructioua wri4iain �ufl�IBc 'B'nast �Qreas)
r " '.w7'.SibrteuwcJiN:..�i:�od ��.++{$�>newm.M�rs��asvx�nwNa.vwraFpnarM35L
�,...v:...... . .
�
. � ���������
:,
OCT 1 2n?5 i
�
�
;
,
coas�a� ti�ar�.n.,:;,_;n,�r�r ;
EL!.7.,4Rci.r:.'�'A�`� ._..__.ti.,...__1
Attach this form to Joint Application for CAMA Major Permit, Form DCM MP-1. Be suFe,to.cc�rp�lete; all;,.other,�ect+�o�s ,of iF�� Joint '
Application that relate to this proposed project. Please include all supplemental information.
a. (i) Is the docking facility/marina:
❑Commercial ❑PubliGGovernment ❑Private/Community
c. (i) Dock(s) and�or pier(s)
(ii) Number
(iii) Length
(iv) Width
(v) Floating �Yes ❑No
e. (i) Are Platforms included? ❑Yes ❑No
If yes:
(ii) Number
(iii) length
(iv) Width
(v) Floating ❑Yes ❑No
Note: Roofed areas are calculated from dripline dimensions.
g. (i) Number of slips proposed
(ii) Number of slips existing
i. Check the proposed type of siting:
❑ Land cut and access channel
❑Open water; dredging for basin and/or channel
❑Open water; no dredging required
❑Other; please describe:
k• Typical boat length:
m. (i) Will the facility have tie pilings?
❑Yes ❑No
(ii) If yes number of tie pilings?
d.�....:�,...ai .. , .� .. . . ,.� .. .r_,,..
b. (i) Will the facility be open to the general public?
❑Yes ❑No
d. (i) Are Finger Piers included? ❑Yes ❑No
If yes:
(ii) Number
(iii) Length
(iv) Width
(v) Floating ❑Yes ❑No
f. (i) Are Boatlifts inciuded? ❑Yes ❑No
If yes:
(ii) Number
(iii) Length
(iv) Width
h. Check all the types of services to be provided.
❑ Full service, including travel lift andlor rail, repair or
maintenance service
❑ Dockage, fuel, and marine supplies
❑ Dockage ('Wet slips") only, number of siips:
❑ Dry storage; number of boats:
❑ Boat ramp(s); number of boat ramps:
❑ Other, please describe:
j. Describe the typical boats to be served (e.g., open runabout,
charter boats, sail boats, mixed types).
I. (i) Will the facility be open to the general public?
❑Yes ❑No
252-808-28d8 :: 1-888-4RCOAST :: www.nccoastalmanaaement.net revised: 12(27/06

�01'r1'1 1��CM MP-4 (Structures, Page 2 of 4)
a. Check each of the following sanitary facilities that will be included in the proposed project.
❑ Office Toilets
❑ Toilets for patrons; Number: ; Location:
❑ Showers
❑ Boatholding tank pumpout; Give type and location:
b. Describe treatment type and disposal location for all sanitary wastewater.
c. Describe the disposal of solid waste, fish offal and trash.
d. How will overboard discharge of sewage from boats be controlled?
L�:`"r+w.M`b�mwwGNN�+'ew na..wi tl�eiw.��sww�,'u+"e^" . .
I
� � �
i
GQASTAL ?v1.A�d.�t;E"JI��1T I
{1 C'T'1 i
EUZ�1:::. �;_;_.1 fY�,n„�..,.._.........�
.. �. , , ,...t .. ,,.<:..�:.<m„
..
e. (i) Give the location and number of "No Sewage Discharge" signs proposed. �
(ii) Give the location and number of "Pumpout Available" signs proposed.
f. Describe the special design, if applicable, for containing industrial type pollutants, such as paint, sandblasting waste and petroleum products.
g. Where will residue from vessel maintenance be disposed of?
h• Give the number of channel markers and "No Wake" signs proposed.
i. Give the location of fuel-handling facilities, and describe the safety measures planned to protect area water quality.
j. What will be the marina policy on overnight and live-aboard dockage?
k. Describe design measures that promote boat basin flushing?
I. If this project is an expansion of an existing marina, what types of services are currently provided?
m. Is the marina/docking facility proposed within a primary or secondary nursery area?
❑Yes ❑No
252-808-2808 :: 1-888-4RCOAST :: www,nccoastaBmanaqement.net revised: 12i2�/06

FOO'mnt DfCM IVlia-4 (Structures, Page 3 of 4)
n. Is the marina/docking facility proposed within or adjacent to any shellfish harvesting area?
❑Yes ❑No
o. Is the marina/docking facility proposed within or adjacent to coastal wetlands/marsh (CV�, submerged aquatic vegetation (SA�, shell bottom
(SB), or other wetlands (WL)? If any boxes are checked, provide the number of square feet affected.
❑CW ❑SAV ❑SB
❑WL ❑None
p. Is the proposed marina/docking facility located within or within close proximity to any shellfish leases? ❑Yes ❑No
If yes, give the name and address of the leaseholder(s), and give the proximity to the lease.
;3 �0.4THOUSE (�nctudmg covered trtts) - " �' � � � "' � � `�`°
r� � _ �. : �x � r �This sect�on not'apphcabfe.x
,.r..�.. , �
- r;.•.�,:.r�`�e ..�� ., : �. :� � ��. ,,, �
,,
: �� . � . „ . �� � v � - _,�.,...-.�> �
_ ��:� _ ,�;.. _ , � <�, vc �.,�r,
_ . ax.�. u �..., �._ _ �. ..� _, ....,.. , ___ <. .��, �-_�... �_w�.. .__., >. , ..�,,., . ..a. �-;,.��„
a. (i) Is the boathouse structure(s):
❑Commercial ❑Publi�/Government ❑Private/Community
(ii) Number
(iii) Length
(iv) Width
Note.• Roofed areas are calculated from dripline dimensions.
a (i) Number
(ii) Length
(iii) Width
a• Length 500 ft
c. Maximum distance beyond NHW, NWL or wetlands
N/A
a. Is the structure(s):
❑Commercial ❑PubliGGovernment ❑Private/Community
�� Distance to be placed beyond shoreline
Note: This shou/d be measured from marsh edge, if present.
e. Arc of the swing
— :;a ^"' 4t�i�
�
�
REGElVEQ
b. Average distance from NHW, NWL, or wetlands
N/A
b• Number
d. Description of buoy (color, inscription, size, anchor, etc.)
�
� � �
COASTAL MAyA��MEN'f
Ef_IZAS�T�H C!'1'Y .�
252-808-2808 :: 1-888-4RCOAS?�y�,���9��a�j�a��ggq�t.�,t,. . �; °
revised: 12/27l06

�;x,,�„9�a d:#-�.:�(��r�tl ����='..,�a. i.��r;is,-;'tr::r'�,���; �'ra�,;;; .,�s; �:x� ��1s
a. Proximity of structure(s) to adjacent riparian propeRy lines
0.93 mile
Note: For buoy or mooring piling, use arc of swing including length
of vessel.
c. Width of water body
11.5 miles
e. (i) Will navigational aids be required as a result of the project?
�Yes ❑No ❑NA
(ii) If yes, explain what type and how they will be implemented.
To be determined by USCG.
8. OTHER
a. Give complete description:
See SAV mitigation plan and permit modification narrative.
b. Proximity of structure(s) to adjacent docking facilities.
4 miles
d. Water depth at waterward end of structure at NLW or NWL
1-3 ft
❑This secfion not app/icab/e
October 1, 2015
Date
B-2500 SAV Wavebreak Mitigation Structure
Project Name
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Applicant Name
�->%fil/�-�— -�,. l�ICf%/%�,�'�� �(..� ItLiJU(:UC-l.0
Appiicant Signature
r.�.� : ,_. . ......._.. _ , .,..u-.r.. ...,. , . . .. _. .,_.. .. .
svtM bs#�b�4a�s�rrSW+fn• ,:,a, ±,a?i�a•w,ee�yt+ia+�+adier�.
� �.�,w ...
�1 _
RECE��'E�
OCT 1 2015
COASTAL MA�IAG�MENT
�LIZ.AB�:T� I G4T�Y
'�,*A��'�iCi���.`�n�,�r �i, ras a�ws�.;n.: �a:.:,� „��,_ _
, ,,., ,,, �. — . . �
. --.it},� :: �d�;i'-1.,..'»��i:1�Pi�;. .: NP.an.�r, �.�r�cy: — .F�.y f
,..r;,_;,.,:�_ -..�, 1
� ' F�':::i::�r.4' �
'�.,.1 . � � .�.n.Y.r.t'��:�'
. . ..�.:, . - ...'up;..., :':�.14 , i ;?�%� ''•'
. ... . .. ... .. .. _' _ " � J
. _ .. .�:IA:•i'•.. .. .. .

�
. .'"r• � -•-�-'-�= .._; �^�v.:.r_ .z.,a��'+".:' . ,.. �;oa
'��. � �,du�wremw�. .
��yr.. � . _ . . . .. , " ' � � ' �
C
Fj♦{�� i ,�� �� '•{
Y
[' '(
€. , OCT 1 20i5 _1
�
,� . COA��AL. ��1A�AGEME�dT '
? ��N����TV-! Cl i�' i'
� rrs.a : : r t�: ,„. ..µ;..�����rt;i�t�' ._ .
� , .... ,
�.ar.: �1�::.�,:;,���.�;�,xr.iF. ..... ..
�•,.:,�-�.�..�. . . . - ... � ... .
''i1;.:.a..... .. � .
I , 'r' = ' rl .'; +'}
i,�
� . � ' � _� � � � i -•. r_
� •� ��a � �� " i: E� � i,l l � � .
�, :_' c. `� L �� i' i i '� I �'� ���; �� c=i �.�i
� � j � - -� �� ��� �'� � � � ���� � i ._ -. ��� I �� � �'_ t
. n � ,_') � ; a ! i _, i__ !
i�l ;1 � �: � � i�.�� � . ��.
A I.. .� �" I t 1` '�� .�) f � c. i;�
� 1
September 2015

STIP 8-2500 Bonner Bridge Phase 1 SAV Mitigation P/an
Table Of Cor9t@n�S
1.0 Introduction & Background ........................................................
1.1 Project Objective ...................................................................
1.2 Existing Conditions ................................................................
2.0 Proposed Mitigation Plan ..........................................................
3.0 Construction Implementation and Methodology ........................
4.0 Monitoring .................................................................................
5.0 Remediation and Long-Term Management ..............................
6.0 Mltigation Summary ..................................................................
7.0 References ................................................................................
......................................1
......................................1
......................................1
...................................... 2
...................................... 4
...................................... 6
...................................... 8
...................................... 8
...................................... 9
�.95� O$ ���5�@S
Table 1. Seagrass and elevation survey results ...........................................................................2
Table 2. 500-foot Reefmaker structure surface area calculations ................................................3
Table 3. Types of vessels used during construction to minimize bottom disturbance ..................4
Table 4. Mitigation summary .........................................................................................................8
L.6s� of ��gsendaces
Appendix A: Figures
Figure 1. Project Vicinity
Figure 2. Project Location
Figure 3. Percent Change in Seagrass Cover for Representative Wave Energy Difference of
, 10% or Greater �
Figure 4: Percent Change in Seagrass Cover for Representative Wave Energy Difference of
20% or Greater
Figure 5: Project Construction and Staging
Appendix B: Exhibits
Exhibit 1. Reefmaker "Ecosystem" Units Design — Front Elevation View
Exhibit 2. Reefmaker "Ecosystem" Units Design — Profile View
Exhibit 3. Reefmaker "Ecosystem" Units Design — Plan View
��a `R r..u',mr�,..a.x..wzi " - ,..a-=�� -... - «:,::+.=__ • ... ..
2 �,..rr. _ . . . .. . . . ,
't �
�i
P,
�
a
i
i�
..., . '�.�.w..,.,e:w,�u:�..wia�m�.�.c�-,vra..i.w�.*weda.. . '
�
� ;��� �
�' � p.
�S� � �,���

� ��- . - ,.,_�la]1k2^' . . � . - _ , . , -.S._� .
., .
.
, __..,.....—. ..............�, ...._a,. . ._.........,.-..: ,_.__,____.�
' ��. _'_.... .. ....�iy i i
., .,--�--._._.---'--..___.._._.f �
� � STIP 8-2500 Bonner Bridge Phase / SAV Mitigation P/an
��� � 2C��5 t
;
� � ; ;
` i c,:�����',�:�':'�';''::;I��'RODIJ;CTlO� & �ACC�CROIJ�D
� �_� ;;.:, � � ;
�---- �� ��- Ttre� H�rbert'C: "'Bon"ner Bridge is reaching the end of its service life and needs to be repiaced.
r:__.�::.,,�_.��..�;:;�.,.�he,Bon�er..B.r,idge provides the only highway connection for Hatteras Island to the mainland in
Dare County, North Carolina via NC 12 and US 64 (Appendix A, Figure 1). The Bonner Bridge
will be replaced with a new bridge that will provide access to Hatteras Island across Oregon Inlet.
The bridge replacement project is known as State Transportation Improvement Project (STIP) B-
2500, replace bridge 270011 (Herbert C. Bonner Bridge) over Oregon Inlet, NC Improvements.
In 2012 CSA Ocean Sciences, Inc. was contracted by the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) to conduct seagrass mitigation to compensate for losses anticipated to
occur during the replacement of the Bonner Bridge over Oregon Inlet (Fonseca, 2015). This
project is part of a larger long-term effort to determine the best strategy and methodology for
seagrass or submerged aquatic vegetation (SA� restoration and mitigation in North Carolina.
Submerged aquatic vegetation helps stabilize coastal shorelines through rhizome binding of
sediment in shallow nearshore regions, suspended sediment trapping, and wave and current
attenuation. SAV distribution is driven by water depth, light penetration, nutrient loading, salinity,
exposure to waves and currents, biological disturbance and fishing practices, and in particular,
vulnerability to extreme storm events. Because SAV have stabilizing effects on the coastlines
around the areas they inhabit, substantive changes in the SAV community will strongly shape the
physical integrity of the coastline. Also, because SAV provides critically important food and shelter
for fisheries, changes in SAV will affect the fisheries of the future (NCCOS, 2012).
Replacement of the Bonner Bridge will permanently impact approximately 2.66 acres of SAV
areas for which mitigation will be required. Mitigation measures will include removal of the existing
bridge that will unshade 1.38 acres of suitable habitat, and the remaining 1.28 acres will be
mitigated near the project area at the SAV mitigation site described in this plan. This 17-acre
mitigation site will generate 1.3 acres of lift in SAV cover coupled with an additional 0.3 acres of
hard surtace habitat suitable for colonization by algae, oysters and other sessile communities.
1.1 PROJECT O�JECTIVE
The objective of this mitigation project is to reduce the amount of wave energy within the project
site to allow for a more continuous cover of SAV (specifically the seagrasses Halodule wrightii
and Zostera marina) to expand, providing increased seagrass acreage and associated ecosystem
services. These services include water quality improvement, aquatic habitat creation, reduced
sediment movement and plant community establishment. The wave break proposed in this
mitigation plan will also create new linkages befinreen intertidal and aquatic environments.
'i.2 EXISTIiVG CONDITIONS
The mitigation site (Site S2) is located immediately west of the existing Bonner Bridge (Appendix
A, Figure 2), and was selected as the preferred site following an April 28, 2015 field verification.
It is located on a stable shoal that has supported patchy seagrass cover since at least 1998.
During the April 28, 2015 field verification, a point-intercept survey was conducted at sites S2,
S2A and S4 to determine the beginning and end point of seagrass along each transect and
ultimately the SAV percent cover. Site S2 demonstrated a modest seasonal fluctuation in
seagrass cover, increasing 15 percent since the previous survey conducted in 2012, but only to
26 percent cumulative cover (Table 1). Site S2A was rejected because of an emerging clay lens
observed in the potential planting area (SAV does not grow well in clay). Site S2 was se�ected
-_ ,���
� A� �����
���� C_ L�LI.IUI.��,tllu.+ll.lill���

�°� � i � +� p
i`� � �.•° � E `�! �" �.,�
. - ------.._..�.�...._.�
Y � .�„y� ;
�' • , ;,,
.7 L_
�
[,I_^_'�I 1yNJ"`'lt' ,_�,}`,;';.' ,
• �., r�. : � .
_�__.._.___ _.. =ii've r, �ise�.S�4�_be�aiasE
the existing �patches.
a�.�,.`tlM1m•�NS�4e.+:,,„;i� �w:i�,3�i',";%�o�iv:�.,r�2»eJiri�z::�(a.�7�A;r'�f
STIP 8-2500 Bonner Bridge Phase I SAV Mitiqation P/an
of the potential for more change in seagrass cover with gap closure among
Tabie 1. Sea rass and elevation surve results
, � . - � . - - � - � = �-, '" � - � Average Patch' �. Seafloor Elevation
t � . _ Percent Cover: �.�= Percent Cover � � Siie. 2015 � � � �
.: .,Site;. ( 1 , . `�(ht.'above ilASt in _
�, (2015)_ ' ' � - _(201�2)" '' ft) �
- � '(ft�) �� �� - -� .
Site S2
Site S2A
Site S4
26
54
11
53
26.9
31.2
84.6
-1.48
-2.66
-2.89
The proposed site will be staked and signed to demarcate the proposed structure location during
the public notice period; additional signage will be posted at Oregon Inlet Fishing Center.
— �' i � r. �, �� _ f �, ,;' 7 � ' :_ ' ���, , `'-'-; ' .: j" a
This project is intended for mitigation for SAV impacts associated with Phase I of B-2500, the
Bonner Bridge replacement project. A unique and proven engineered structure is proposed to
attenuate wave energies and provide a suitable wave climate to promote SAV coverage. The
wavebreak will be a permanent, `living' structure.
The proposed structure is a 500-foot long wavebreak. The length was determined by iteratively
adjusting the wall length and running wave and seagrass forecasting models (see below) on each
successive wall length until an increase in seagrass cover meeting the mitigation acreage of 1.28
acres was achieved.
The nearest portion of the structure is approximately 900 feet east of the closest existing tidal
channel and approximately 2,200 feet from the deepest portions of that channel. Given this
distance and the observed stability of the shoal over time (Google Earth imagery; 2004, 2006,
2008, 2009, 2011, 2014 and recent NCDOT high resolution imagery 2012, 2015), this distance is
judged to be adequate to avoid any influence of the channel.
The proposed design involves installing a continuous series of innovative wave attenuation
structures, termed "EcoSystem Units", by Reefmaker (htta://www.reefmaker.com/marine-
ecosvstems). Each wave attenuator "unit" is comprised of a stack of concrete molded trays set
with natural rock material such as granite. These systems are designed to fully attenuate wave
energy while still allowing for the exchange of water and the passage of organisms through and
around the structure's individual components. Moreover, they are designed for use in high energy
wave environments and to survive the passage of large storms such as hurricanes. The proposed
structures are comprised of individual units that are four feet tall and approximately five feet wide
(Appendix B, Exhibits '1, 2, and 3). The benefits of this system include its ability to decrease the
wave energy in the target location and to increase hard surFace area serving as epibiota habitat
while reducing the benthic footprint compared to other techniques.
��� �s��l
L�LI}IWW6ll�!.i51�11U�

����.-�.ti r`"' �� I
1 'a � �,.. x. �
_,,.,,_r—.....'......� 1 .
(
v
r, � �r:9k5 i
Q�;� _. STIP B-2500 Bonner Bridge Phase 1 SAV Mitigation P/an
; �
Ci;i ����'� -,�-- _'�� - �- ; � -' ;
�The'_�R�.�fi�aker_.syster�s have a much smaller benthic footprint (25 square feet per unit) to reach
�~^w�the desired height and..have less impact upon instailation than a traditional rock wavebreak. A
�;.�_��-�-�#ratlitit��9�"W'�reak of similar size with 2:1 slopes would have a 10,000 square foot benthic
footprint. The proposed, 500-foot long Reefmaker structure, is estimated to have a 2,500 square
foot benthic footprint. The design of the Reefmaker "EcoSystem Units" also provides considerable
surface area for oyster settlement and other biofauna (Table 2). Based on preliminary design it is
anticipated that approximately two units will be submerged below the normal high water level.
Table 2. 500-foot Reefmaker structure suefiace �rea calculations
The design and location of the wavebreak was developed by forecasting the wave conditions
(Malhotra and Fonseca, 2007) and the associated change in seagrass cover that was expected
to occur with the presence of the structure. The relationship of wave energy to predicted percent
seagrass cover of the seafloor (Fonseca and Bell, 1998; re-fit with a yet more conservative
regression model) was utilized to predict the percent seagrass cover of the seafloor with and
without the wavebreak structure present. Change in seagrass cover by_ creation of the 500-foot
wavebreak was based on the area of wave energy reduction ranging from 10 to 20 percent of
ambienUnormal wave energy. This range was judged to provide a conservative estimate of wave
energy reduction over which to forecast seagrass cover while ensuring the target area (1.28
acres) would be met. Figure 3(Appendix A) shows the forecast for wave energy reduction to 10
percent of the ambient/normal wave energy, creating a wave shadow of approximately 57.3 acres.
The forecast increase in seagrass.acreage for the 10 percent assessment in this shadow area is
approximately 0.91 acres. Figure 4(Appendix A) shows the forecast for wave energy reduction
to 20 percent of the ambient/normal wave energy, creating a wave shadow of approximately 17.3
acres. The forecast increase in seagrass acreage for the 20 percent assessment in this shadow
area is approximately 1.65 acres. The midpoint of the forecast change in seagrass cover in this
10 to 20 percent range of wave energy reduction is a net addition of 1.3 acres.
Construction of the wavebreak structure will impact some existing seagrass patches. These
seagrass patches will be relocated to gaps among patches on the lee side of the wavebreak
structure to potentially accelerate the anticipated gap closure among the seagrass patches. The
effect of the relocation will be tracked as part of the monitoring survey. Specifically, prior to
installation of the wavebreak, a point-intercept survey will be conducted within the footprint of the
wall and construction access corridor (e.g., construction barge). Three parallel lines running the
entire length of the structure and corridor will be surveyed by this method and the percent cover
of seagrass computed to document fhe amount of seagrass moved. The performance of the
relocated seagrass will be monitored separately from other surveys, but will employ the same
methods.
In addition, the SAV environment within the vicinity of the existing Bonner Bridge will improve
upon the bridge's removal in that shading to these habitats will be eliminated. The SAV habitat
within the existing bridge location and the area of new bridge construction will be monitored as
outlined in Section 4.0.
.:��� �,s���
g��n( �A'yp
N-�dmod/"^zl � L.w.iunwale...tu�m�.

���������
OCT 1 2.�'�
ST/P 8-2500 Bonner Bridge Phase / SAV Mitigation Plan
1
a
ry Ga�.,;t��['nnr.,.,��'—
CQ��ST;�L ��:;-:,. _�d, ..
._... �,`�.:.�:'`:' `:����������I�� ���I..���������� �Q�� ����"��������
;r,;a�:,�;;�r,��,=��ti�i:dia�°�tlie Bonner Bridge seagrass mitigation wavebreak structure involves the
following construction phases: �
Phase 1 — Reefmaker Casting
Setting up the casting molds
Pouring concrete and creating the Reefmaker units at the land base staging site (Figure
5[Appendix A]) - 301 Harbor Road Wanchese, N.C. 27981)
Concrete pouring and setting activities will remain in upland staging area
Phase 2 — Material Transport
m Materials including pilings, Reefmakers and hardware will be loaded onto the shallow draft
barges and transferred to the site location from the land based staging area (Table 3)
Table 3. T es of vessels used durin construction to minimize bottom disturbance
idumbec of; ` ` y
- Vessel - Each Vessel 8ize (Ft ) Draft (In ) * -' Specialized Equ�pment ' �
-TYpe . , �
, .. __.. _.-.. :��_.,. :-. .s_ .,._.__ __.. .. . . , ,_. .. ._
_ � ,. .
� 360°sonar
Landing Craft 1 42 X 13 g.0 � Interna► Bilge
Barge o Drill Hole
o Liftin Device
Shallow Draft 2 20 X 40 12.0
Bar e o Manual Positioning
9
Shallow Draft 1 24 X 45 12.0 � Customized Mini Excavator
Barge with 42' Extension Arm
Skiff 3 22 X 10 g.p a Custom Jack Plates
o Marine Tug Push Knee
Standard
Jetfloat 1 4 X 4 1.0 — 6.0 o Expandable Units
Platform
Phase 3 — Structure Installation
The 24 X 45 shallow draft barge with a 42-foot custom mini excavator will be used in conjunction
with specialized 8.0-inch spuds to minimize benthic impacts (Photos 1 and 2). A separate
expandable standard jetfloat platform will be erected and attached to the working shallow draft
barge. Pilings will be jetted and vibrated to depths of 20 to 30 feet. The units will be systematically
assembled using the mini excavator 42-foot arm. The Reefmaker unit hardware will be installed
following placement. Due to the dynamics of Oregon Inlet, potential entanglement of aquatic
species and issues concerning worker safety, turbidity curtains will not be used during
construction.
; .��-, � � � � I
14�+ m�l � � L unieu..uaC�n.�u�nr.

ST/P 8-2500 Bonner Bridge Phase 1 SAV Mitigation P/an
Photo 1. Shallow Draft Barge Photo 2. Customized Mini Excavator
NCDOT will install and maintain any signal lights and signals prescribed by the U.S. Coast Guard,
through regulations or otherwise, on authorized facilities. NCDOT will submit a Private Aids to
Navigation Application to the U.S. Coast Guard. The construction schedule is dependent on
receipt of permits, procurement of contractors, and appropriate weather conditions.
SAV and Benthic Habitat minimization and avoidance measures
During material transport and construction extra caution will be taken not to disturb the bottom
habitat. A specialized landing craft barge will be used during transport and construction phases
to assist with supplies and emergency response (Photo 3). The barge will be equipped with 360°
sonar and an internal bilge system that will be used to monitor water level depths to avoid any
impact to existing SAV during construction.
___ ._._.__
-------- - -
_.'s
7
i ± _....__�-._..... „' L�
� '''.5 � �:', i _,, ,,
� :�_' 8 t= - -i
i ; -�y, j rv '� :
i .A . ' ' ..� t
� •9 _
�eu � "' ^
� r _ ;.�.r t
1 A ~-:�.i
a.� h-• _'-! f� i !
� p `:' i`� �
� �
.�� i
:�
�
�
�
cc
�
Photo 3. Landing Craft Barge
5
��� � �����
¢.. �.,.
�6o�Jd� C. L.cniw.ueG�.x�xu�ir.

r• t� i"- �'i
�" t k
��������:��
ST/P 8-2500 Bonner Bridge Phase 1 SAV Mitigation Plan
�GOAS i A����afened' and Endanaered Sqecies Protection
F1_t�-�.�.. ..
..... . . ........_...... -�----
�� During construction all precautions will be taken and activities monitored not to impact Threatened
,�..�����red�^Species. Threatened and Endangered Species Protection measures are
addressed in the original CAMA permit additional conditions sections 35 and 36. These conditions
specify:
35) In accordance with commitments made by the permittee, the discretionary measures
for the piping plover and three species of sea turtles that are described in the permit
application that include the terms and conditions outlined in the July 10, 2008 United
States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Biological and Conference Opinions shall be
implemented.
36) In accordance with commitments made by the permittee, all conditions outlined in the
USFWS Guidelines for Avoiding the West Indian Manatee: Precautionary Measures for
Construction Activities in North Carolina Waters shall be implemented.
-i �� ► �rC�7TT�� �. '►�C�
Various aspects of the proposed project will be monitored solely for purposes of identifying
contributing factors affecting success of the SAV establishment, coalescence of existing patches,
and overall persistence. These variables will be monitored through statistically robust design and
sampling and documented in order to advance the science and improve the future of SAV
mitigation success in North Carolina.
SAV Mitiqation Site Monitorinq
Mitigation site monitoring will be conducted for up to five years after installation of the wavebreak
structure. The methodology for SAV restoration monitoring includes the following:
o Wave Energy: Pressure sensors will be deployed 25 meters in front of and 25 meters
behind the wavebreak to validate wave simulation models. Sensors are cylindrical
(approximately two inches in diameter by 10 inches long) and will be mounted horizontally
on the seafloor approximately six inches above the substrate on an embedded (into the
seafloor) solid base. These sensors will record wave characteristics. They will be set to
record bursts of pressure data every 30 minutes at a sampling rate of 4 Hz for 128
seconds. These data will also provide water level and tide documentation. During times of
onsite seagrass surveys, these sensors will be systematically but temporarily relocated
across the site to provide a spatially articulated assessment of wave energy distribution
with regard to prevailing conditions. These wave energy maps of the area around each
wavebreak will be used to inform the seagrass survey and determine the onsite
relationships between wave energy distribution and seagrass coverage response.
o Seagrass: Gap closure among seagrass patches and change in seagrass cover will be
evaluated across wave energy regimes (to include at least 57 acres). Four wave energy
regimes (treatments) will be defined by a required re-analysis of the wave energy
distribution of the final wavebreak design and validation. The wave energy regimes will
represent ambient (reference; < 10 percent forecast reduction), low reduction (10 to 33
percent forecast reduction), moderate reduction (34 to 66 percent forecast reduction) and
high wave energy reduction (> 66 percent forecast reduction). The percent reduction
regimes will be defined from a cumulative frequency analysis of the area covered by the
6
��� ��,��I
Lv, ...e a � u.. � F v, i u�.

� . . .. ...
.�
�
�
>
����� ����
STIP 8-2500 Bonner Bridge Phase 1 SAV Mitigation Plan
.. i
GnAS ���. ":`":' ti'iodeling effort where greater than 10 percent energy reduction was forecast to occur as
_ mA,E`. "'°'��.���_the result..of the wavebreak structure.
-��•� �°°--°-�-M-�-°�h�'^'�ff�'ct""�f biological disturbance on seagrass, specifically gap closure will also be
tested. Two bioturbation exclusion treatments will be utilized, one with and one without
exclusionary wire mesh (removed after patch coalescence has occurred). Large gap (four
to six inch) metal mesh will be laid flush on the seafloor and anchored with approximately
one to two-foot long J-shaped rebar stakes. Seagrass shoots would extend through the
large gaps allowing their continued growth and expansion (vis a vis "TERF" method
http�//seagrant mit edu/eelqrass/background/transplantincLhtml; F. Short, UNH). Flush
deployment on the seafloor plus anchoring is performed to prevent entanglement by sea
life, such as diving birds.
Randomly selected seagrass patches will constitute the individual (replicate) test units. To
choose individual test units, a location will be randomly chosen in each forecast wave
energy treatment area. The nearest seagrass patch to that location meeting finro criteria
will be selected as a test unit. The individual seagrass patch must first approximately
match the average site patch size (+/- 1 standard deviation). The seagrass patch must
also be separated from the next nearest patch by a minimum of the site average gap
distance. Ten patches will be selected per wave energy treatment; five will be protected
with wire mesh and five will be un-protected. The statistical approach for this experiment
on the effect of waves and biological disturbance on patch expansion is a repeated
measures two-way analysis of variance with wave energy and patch protection as main
effects. The survey will end when patch coalescence begins; at this point the mesh and
stakes will be removed and disposed of appropriately.
o Sfructure/Hard Surface: Epibiota on the structure will be monitored through the
establishment of randomly-placed, permanent quadrats, stratified by either side of the
wavebreak (exposed versus sheltered side) and by elevation on the structure (near
seafloor, mid-tide, high-tide) for a total of six monitoring strata. Ten quadrats would be
assigned per strata for a total of 60 quadrats. Epibiotic coverage will be evaluated annually
using a repeated measures design. The quantification will be determined based on the
epibiota that recruit, but is anticipated to include percent cover by community type visually
identified to the lowest practicable taxonomy.
o Sediment Elevation: Digital elevation models will be created encompassing the full
forecast extent of wave attenuation out to and including adjacent reference areas un-
affected by the wavebreak to relate seagrass response not only to changes in wave
climate but also to quantify any changes in sediment elevation. Sediment accumulation or
loss can strongly affect seagrass coverage and thus is needed to provide explanatory
capacity for seagrass performance. Because the wavebreak structure will be installed on
a flat sand surface, little change in seafloor elevation is anticipated around the structure
as the result of changes in wave energy. Wave refraction should be limited (i.e., no change
in seafloor elevations) and effects should be limited primarily to wave diffraction. Any
changes arising from the structure are anticipated to be minor and immediately adjacent
to the wavebreak itself. The wavebreak is also installed at the seafloor surface to prevent
sand scour under the structure.
The information obtained through the monitoring of this project will substantially increase the state
of seagrass mitigation science by both quantifying the relationship between seagrass cover and
��
���
�����
�.�ni�xnaacm.miuin

��,�.�.�.�..
a
k
�
s
v
i:
i:
, :-� �. .. . . .., .
��������
STIP 8-2500 Bonner Bridge Phase I SAV Mitigation P/an
:s GOAS�.�°•��rg��+�nd by I understanding the difference in the expansion rate of patches among
E�'n�r� � Lunarmer�d patches. Improving the quantification of wave and seagrass landscape
cover will specifically„ .inform future seagrass mitigation efforts using wave attenuation
��,:�m��-��ro��'�"�F4i7f�'t'Ijr, understanding the relative impact of bioturbation versus waves on
maintenance of seagrass landscapes will inform future mitigation efforts as to the degree (if any)
of bioturbation exclusion needed to effect persistent coverage. Both aspects (waves and
bioturbation) address important information gaps for North Carolina (and elsewhere) regarding
the relative influence of waves and bioturbation on seagrass patchiness and have high intrinsic
value.
Temqorary SAV Impact Monitorinq
NCDOT will provide an annual update on the SAV areas temporarily impacted by the bridge
construction. This annual update will consist of photographs and a written report on the progress
of the temporarily impacted areas in re-attaining their pre-project abundance. Within three years
after project completion, NCDOT will hold an agency field meeting with DCM to assess if the SAV
areas temporarily impacted by this project have re-attained pre-project abundance (distribution or
coverage).
Existinq Bridqe SAV Habitat Monitorinp
In addition to the proposed mitigation site, the aquatic area in the vicinity of the existing Bonner
Bridge will be monitored upon removal of the bridge to assess whether and/or to what extent the
effects of removing shade will be to SAV and their habitat.
5°0 R�MEDIAT60� AGUD LO�IG-�'�R� MANAG�fI����'
The wavebreak will be inspected for damage annually during the five year monitoring period. If
monitoring data indicate that damage to the structure is having a negative effect on SAV coverage,
then a remediation plan will be developed in coordination with DCM. In addition, the annual
inspection will verify that the required signage and markings are present and visible.
6.0 (�E��GAT�OI� SlJ�Bl�AB�V
The implementation of this plan is proposed as mitigation for approximately 2.66 acres of impact
from the B-2500 Bonner Bridge replacement project to existing SAV by creating and affecting the
local marine environment in the vicinity of the bridge, as an attempt to make it more conducive to
the establishment and enhancement of SAV. Table 4 includes a summary of the proposed
mitigation and the estimated acreages of each component.
Table 4. Miti ation summa
-SA
= Unshaded;A�ea ': � "'''�
°� . F�om Existing ;
�� .� �Bridge� (ac)
1.38
wave A
10:to�,
0.91
icrease� . , _ . _
� Due to . � � -� �Harii: Surface �. =� � � � � � � - � ' � Increase.in � :
� UNavebreak
tenuation: , �;.- Habitat Area ° �` �$eagcass
=�.Sliadoini (ac)..: :
if �` .�(sq ft.(acjj ��: _ ., � (lift �n'ac) _
0% ac �
- 1.65 11,413 (0.3) 17 to 57 � 1.3 �
� 8
' ;. ;� ..
� g
��i � � ����,���,Y

ST/P 8-2500 Bonner Bridge Phase / SAV Mitigation P/an
7.o R���RE�CES
Fonseca, Mark and Susan S. Bell. 1998. "Influence of Physical Setting on Seagrass Landscapes
near Beaufort, North Carolina, USA." Marine Ecology-Progress Series. 171: 109-121.
Fonseca. 2015. Memo on 9 June, 2015 from Mark Fonseca to Kathy Herring at NCDOT RE:
Bonner Bridge Seagrass Mitigation Project (State Project 32635.1.3; TIP B-2500) Task B(Site
Verification) Letter Report.
Google Earth Imagery, 2004, 2006, 2008, 2009, 2011, 2014
Malhotra, A. and M.S. Fonseca. 2007. WEMo (Wave Exposure Model): Formulation, Procedures
and Validation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS NCCOS #65. 28 pp.
http�//www.ccfhr.noaa.aov/docs/NOS NCCOS 65.pdf
NCCOS. 2012. Habitats of coastal North Carolina.
NCDOT. 2012. High Resolution Aerial Photography.
NCDOT. 2015. High Resolution Aerial Photography.
NCDWQ 401 Water Quality Certification Pursuant to Section 401 of the Federal Clean Water Act
with ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS for the Proposed Replacement of the Herbert C. Bonner Bridge
over Oregon Inlet in Dare County, Federal Aid Project No. BRNHF-0012(48), TIP B-2500 (Phase
I). NCDWQ Project No. 20120629. September 7, 2012.
_,�,,,q,,.,,,.,,�,>•.�'.�-...,�.,,,�.._-- � ..�..,. _._. �.a..,�
�. ,w�,���..� . . _ .. . . .,� "`�
�.M1I�1lYH � f
° �������� �1 �
� ,
� ,
�.
F Q�T 1 2415
s" � 4
i.
' _.___--_.__------ � �
E GOASTAL !�1Ai��A��� MEN i �
� E�1�;6�r,i C�TY „______----i
���.���. . ..
. . , 'F�S�#r.,'yv � ' „ _ .
9
}�4 �����
=��� � �.�,.,w.�,M�.,..,��.,,.,.

�-::� � ..,.... :.. . . .... .. ...� .
M:.. ; ....�� ;....,.. ,_:,_ .
. ..... ......,.......__.
.. .. ........ ....��:�.., _.,�
�..w. � .... _, ,� ,.b...
. __rr�4 .._. _ _.,.� ..............,__.,_.__.__� �p�endaces
' � �,._ y .,..-_._-. ��..-_ �..,�.�� I '
_ �j �� ;!
! � '
�. ��� � ���a ' `
� ;
' � �;Ct;� ',;� ?s`:�`!:% —:?pr; �,-' �
F I '. , ;, ;' � '':�
>.�;_. ,..
,...._,:�':; �
, ,, ..
.. �.,-. .. . , � � ; �
�.._.._.,__ __. . .. _

�►ppendiu �►: Figures
Figure 1. Project Vicinity
Figure 2. Project Location
Figure 3. Percent Change in Seagrass Cover for Ftepresen4ative lNave EnePgy
Difference of 10% or Greater
Figure 4: Percent Change in Seagrass Cover for Representative V�ave EnePgy
Difference of 20% or Greater
Figure 5: Project Construction and Staging
..�.,,��.�.�..._,_ ......, ., .. _ .,. : ... ; . .. .
�:�.�.. "�,.^��,:,�; . .
. .. .
� _
�:
:
�
t.
�.
,
r
'r.
§
1
e
i�
---������l��� -
OCT 1 2015
GOASTAL h.�AP:�GEn�^;EtvT
E�{L:�UCl'E-� i�Il 1�
Y .:•n•.°A+nwrex.'ttvqawa�wyn'�r�s^n»w-:.-nstTr^r.ww!wewiwr..'..:- -
;

....�.�.�..�.,�„�.�...,,.a..- w,�,..��..��,
�...�.�._.._. . _ .�y
�
�� 3
�
�i/' � �°`� ���`,,�, ���� � Y x� -
" �' � �`'����
� ��.
��e ":
�� � �� � �
� � �..,,,__ �,
NGIPIEERING &
COASTAL ti"P,N:AuE?�p ' 0 P! S T R U C T I 0 M
ELiZABEiH �i�' �
-- , ,�
7
=�Hi��,�vSA.`�'N«k1di,T�i�� 'RH.'ic+a+Ke,un...Amt-lrcwn.ae,.'— - •
����r� 1a
��°o��c� V������y
. ;. _ �, �, _ , , : ; . _ ;� , ;
.
: : . . ,:
DARE COUNTY - NORTH CAROLINA
SEPTEMBER 2015
. - _ -„
� - N - _ . �J' - '
. :
_' ' , _ . - _ , ` _
. , '
, , _',
� - � , _ , � ... r. '
^ ,-
.� _
.. - . -. � }y�= £�A�
-"._� _.', ...-` r' . -t. -_�:- :,.;�-' .., . -
,3^n �
_-, �W' E . ' - - _
� 1
. - - _ _i - - - �
, . t ., , , ,
.. . .. . ... - , ,
.� �.., , . . . .
.
_ - _ _ Y �:�.Eti��i` _ .
_
.; - _
,
i' - , _ -_' ' "
.. . ' '_ ', 9'.. � � �
. . � � - � .. ��.: � _
� .... ,.. - '. . �...:' �
- '- �.
,, - , ,
.
,a -'_ -' . '._..' . : , ._ , ,-•, .
�'
. . . .. , . . . '. " � ,y'
_ _ Y � {-�,.��
_ .. , � 1'' � ' 'i'�' - ` ' ,
- . .. _ ' f�.� -
,-.S ff C 1 � . �'7.
_ " �` -_� yQ _ _
' ' %,�' � # � �� '' � t�fi- �L�' ..
� � 7, 7� '�'S ��� _�
- ' ,..`t�*'?~ ;;, ' L - . .
. . _ _ : _ - ; _ _ _ � . - - ' _ _ : -_ .,.,<-X � �' - - - .
`_ ` �
.;,,='� �r+' r'. F-'� � � . - .
+` ', � „ , . p _
.,` : � . _ :.� � ;`'!� . : ^'� - -0. _ o�r = . � .� .
.` _ , - �- f.-it341tLi : - -:' W _
, _ _ • =-'!]al�l::'.'i. , ' �".�':.'.F e i`e� ' ." �._.. .
t�M1! 6! t�N W � 'i y" % �'�
p' '; '! tJ t _'1 , p ,� Y � �
r� 2 {' +�. S `f - r?'
' �� _ �s ' _ _ . _
, _
" ' ' ' _ ^ " _ _ - . �
.. � - . . •'. . _. '_ � _ ' - - - - "- " " '
�� : . . .� ' _ _ -
��'-; ndi� , Y j ' '
� :� 14t� E'vlu.lY = ' ' , - ��' ,
. . . , ' , - � , l - ' 4 _
-- - _ _ _- _ _ . __ " ' - _ _ - -- _ ' -"�.a!:�a' " -- �
' _ - ` _ " %=1_ •
_ _ � 1 `�iti� � f,' �.',"5 � t .
.
- _ - dy S
- - - - ° =: - - - � _ Source: Bin M
- as
5 P
� • � � � '� � Figure Date: 05/O6/2015
� �9�'�. �� : -
- � � ` "� � - _, - • � `� 0 1,500 3,000 6,000
- � _ . . _ - ,- - � Feet
: �� � : - � - . _ _ _ • ; •- °- � �,����..

fi4:3.C+ . .,.. .^ I•�^!L:iX.t3�'+�3`L�NC'Y.t�K?.i•.
� p
F
� ��;1
This Exhibit is for planninp Pueposes only and shown hewin daes not meet NC 47•30 1 IIICh = 4,000 feet
Requiremmis and Iheretore is not for design, consWC9on, or rewrtling or transfer of
htle. T�e ExhibM1 was compiled irom aveilable information o6Wined hom Me sources
�s�a teiow. GRAPHIC SCALE
so�«�: o z,000 a,000 s,aoo
ESRI Base Mapping, Septamber2015
Feet
Figure 2: Project Location
STIP B-2500 BONNER BRIDGE
SAV MITIGATION PLAN
�
Legend
� Primary Site S2
� Secondary Site S2A
� Distant Site 4
�����
C EMGINEERING 6
CONSTPYCTION

:����a a_ ,� ��:�•, e , �.:�. ;zA� w��,-�,a� , �j; �� r ° - ° a'r� _
�� �`�"°�,� "'�f �' '`�,.... `�`.`�' �,g°»'m ,� ; ��' ',�, 4 �^�`� � _'�*• �e�e` "°��; ��?�°
� ' �. ��.��m r, : � ' � n � ��� � �' d
':S° ' - - - ' �. , . ,� 4 ,r �� a°•°� �S°`" � i � z '� � ' �`��`f 7'�` � aE'`�'i
��'° , Legend . � ; � „ � ^ � �a ��, r° � � t
g � � � `e� �,� �� �s�-� tit o �
,, y � � . � a " .,w � .r e, �, -' , �+ d�' � �' .
. UVave Shadow Estimate - ,� �'d;, � . � g R=,� a .�� o � o � ,�
� � 10% 57 Acres � (� � �+�a
� � / � � �` � � ,� � , � � °'� '�� e " �� °�' Q""',s°� � ���" O
� m �°^°- t *t
,�E� - -'� .�;y : - �,'..°� ���r`. �- � e9.�,..Q=:OvC�,�;�0 CS�.
, , _ � ,"�. ",�a . o �.t ' d� '-y ., � ��6
g �"�� �" °�� M R ��R ��'a d;r,�� �5�;� y, ,ga,�. „��RT��w3 � �r+.�"�,�,g. � R ; `�,q � ���3
. �" - � � . . '� a- � , &.�` . , 4 y�� s, .
,9„P'4r ..,n . -q, `� ��+ , �' �� `��`�„, mpe�" Y�O�yOS�SO O�°Oc"°bhia;,v�w
�3i� " u " $ 8 B ��y wP °o� �.'�M � �"q°_ a
k
. .a � _ _ �a�a . -. .F ��� KPp° O O O-aa O d� O 0-�„� �
, �l'y,�°�s �', i ' . t�� P ` � _^� y� � � e'� ro y� ' � "�4*p' a �n � ���°' ���
g�� , a` °, a�• �° s� #a�".�m� 1. .C° g�1'��o O° °Oa'° O��'O O�'O� �1-��
+9 ne '� p � `:�e ° M ` ° n�R t5a1"O :�'�(� " '` fi.,.k�,,....e
� . r-� �-,��';:`_
¢ � �.�,s � k d .� � - ` �°•� , aa« ��',a � ti'
�� � .-�� '�. . i�' � . `4 ��" k �� � a ,.'D �"�k O N,�i, h'�Y.P'
°�� ' a �aw �
�>� � e. � � ,�. ��.'" �. 08 � � y �� � 6 0 � :?
. ` •"� " �' s'� . � ���� . �� e °`�r o ��� , ��o =B0 ��;�o°, ��. � �,�
�� , s �.�� _�, °'�'�. � �',� .5 -e'�x� �?��_
.���z , . u -"f` r o. �o w,0 „��Clo'�O�>R±di° d.,.
,e�g�'t �' , � [Fe`,i �;.fi � "�f'�R s'n � �:°°°
� t� � � ad ,,z�� _ ,� � c � d ,��6�di t3.'�, � O ��'0�,*
.F�.;.'-4 - - " �'r� `` . .� -- .- 0 ` ��?{ Os �'O t7+ � ..
�r�f �y°` '�,�"" �'� �.F,�,_°��,� 'u"" �m`ryy�''y���� �',n`+� �.'`�4?"�.',
�:'�'� a ��' gSev \d'- �� � � 4 '�'i� 9$ . b 4. `'.4'q'.q��" a=y �� ' 4' e
p d ��p �'q' �� � ,{
`'��, 4 �- e�n �, . �,&g�:c �b,, - oy _ 6.'� �'�.ii.+� ES _� , ��f F`J�.�,��
�� �°� ,� � �°�✓{��^� b! ;�,,.� ��yf � � �° � ���^e� � � `��.�a�e`A
' �� ' � >„qr`T F � �.�g - y ?e � .�'-''' a�� f;�'' ^ � , '�' A'
: u ,�- V °� , � '� �_ �� ��� � ;=�* � "�` p.
-=.�a:�,. °��, �- x �,Nr �-, � '�� , z , °�y;��. �'A_ �_ �y.'Y a . �`
v, e
� �^ q� ��� °�. '� a,� s ��� �* �g�, a ok r �=�.ao 'r�,,'�lo.
�T - ' . ` � g�b � An ,3_ .
.__ A. - y �d. 9' ' _ ,
�,t��. _�, _ � � .��' ,�'� `�' O � o �� �O �°�P��n �',�����`�,O
��9° ��� ;��-: ^",�'�"' e� � , �� `� ',���T C� tS° °`��O y�e'SJ �`vn'"�,'� Q d°
' " _$' .cr, �� ,� ,'�. �a � a��° - ,
v� �i T�� ^� O � O � CY 'd` � O e i7` II
_ � � s_ �' '� - ro - - , �'- ,� �� ,�"° �,. '� _� .��'�
� ��fi '` � , . a,�s°,�, ,�' O �"'° a ` � � o P.; ���Q ���, � a 0� 0 ',i
:, 3 -t � _.r-� _ ,� �� -E •�-' ��• .����`-°`�°..F(5' �"� x.0,, �`�'
� ��-° - ,-' , - t z _ �. � .,fi � �
" ,�� r -- v ' . �° a'
;�� § �. w ��TMt �s'a� ��P-�e -9,. .a9m �� '+"F . fiD`"8i`'
. :x,a^r .�i2 s: -ui's . .�a' �'.,�tr <�. ."ge
�°
�
�
�
,e , `$' o � a � ' 4 . � � .� e F7, c CS �"��„O p � b, 'e"O , 6>; *Q= o
�'o-, R -a q, J• " ' ' . , i a
� s � S �; , ` � ea3 x ��.,r o b "� o' �� 4�R.`�«o�.�°�`� cs e� �,`� �C;�,4� �� -,
s� o � a,µ� p
`� ?94 `� .� �i✓ � ° � H' 4a �2 t, ^� �j � � �.� � ± � � �
� . * - - �,' S o .� o �' os `- �;,a �,,,,p a� m o� o- ;.� '�
4 � �� A� � ° .� ' � $ .�� �� '�s _ i��-� - � - a�, f� ,
e, i P�`", " ,:�,�"'�° a , -�� ' ���- �" m�"�'f� . �`8'�m �kdl� �"�'-..r�� �TJ' � d�° �. q{�$.�.d� ,a��'
a�
� � Na &; ,� .os�e r , . •� o. ,o>a.�; �'O Oa-q � 0'°�6�-�L� . i�.
° � �� -R - �" . � ��. ��'� � �,$.�. �_.
�t �'�'�"$ ,� s"�' ; a �q ?'a � a 6 * : �� � � �•tio '� ��by; co�d�o €m��. ,e ���, i,
'��,,_ : �'� ' s - � �' o �; o < ^tf'��.,o � �o o �, a�'� o '. � s � �.
`��
.��".p + � ' "� �� °
. �� �� k°��p �t�',''^�g,�.� 'a
r��� .. e "p��� �',�4 �
�� �
��
,�`°',� fi�� e,�,���. �a�^�' o
�'r" dsA� ya�..
' :�- ,�£�����;
<
A '�x�.
� � �2 ;�� ����
�" � � � �° �
�
�' � , w r`" p ..�, ,x.
'��" A��g � �`' .... r
J d� �'�
� �.4y� � �' �,
s _ x ^A q
v'
�, &� .
'W �[ ni'��y�' �� ' �, '�
a
.O rc,3dl�,�,' �p .
,� x'�8, �?� `0��°�`,'�i r�
Y
� e
��, �?a �. �'�
" - �� '. .
! ,�a. � , _
� e� �Q �,
� �� ��� ��% � �
��'`y '� �- � �,
,� �
�
� �� �� i
�� � �
�, " `
�+ a.t� ��a--�+�,� �;
< �
� ` g
��t��� ��d� s
6 � � F '
a � - .
.'o�. �k't•`�._..,, .
� � q� 61 ��
^.�? � t.:
�'3 �c r ga6� r,a
F � � � � ,
� +.� }� + 'j�w. 1
. .. ��s �, � �. �
. 'N,gaL.A s._ � �: � �i 9r >
°a�' �,iF �, 3 0' ..s"'
o "� �,�,y,�," � -s� , � �.`�'� �°
� � � , '��"4 '���:�� ,� z
�+ �� � . r'.` aa ' . n � • � ,���'#�'�
,� > . - � ° ��,' , ,. e � y. , ,,3° - � `� � _ � `-
d
O�a.� � �; Q"',� � Y �'��p�,� ��_ � , b„2��y� � �� � ��,ya
��?�'�(�w.� � y o:��, s�;�a� r` �N_ h�� c3 � n��4
C��... ,�, ��' 6 6 $ ' �.� .� -
'e o '.� , � �, "d '.,�; � � '�r�
( ^0 . ,� �,,�� - n ,�,-i(M y�h5
V 'M ' # -'�f � �kA'' * C& '�`�
g -0 d
� e t¢ g�� g. ��' � ,y� �'t �
o � ° �� � s. �� � ss � e
"�,�' ` ,,� ����°r �a " � � �� ^�
°,�, � ., '_ � �� ���' '�`�;� � :t�.- �� . ��?��
- � , s �4" _ : s+fi: °L�'.e .e �,,,'�c
�� .
d �� ��f •a
�� 4�,�� �n dy `�'�3
:� �'� � � � _ � -�1 ,
�, �� � �
�� _ 3 . .y� � � r
� F� � �� n�;�,
s ,y e � - , v.?, a �
� �� � ��
c- ,. �.Fr •�.��e--
��' -,�� � -r�'
� ��° ' - .s .�
;° ����A .,�°� � �' �°��
� : �L`eN�.� .,` '�'F .;.
� � �- , � �,
i,
'�, �`� ��" #, � '4�m�g,
'�!
� � O
������� " � k+�
�" �'�� �' ��� d.
�.. � x � , c� s F � � '� � �� �.
,�'�b���'" a'�, { '.�:��, "� »�s "'(➢ � Awt���.,�=oP=�u��,es4��a4't� �s� ���ir'� ���,.f,�,+�Rd°r� ,,�b,
: �:° � ° ,��� ����`P o� �ro���C' z �� �e��» ,� Qo�� �,
�-- � e�yf., : �. k4'd q, s s '.g . g , � � �.�, �Yr'.
`a 9 � .�. °� < ,�; � `�_� � m `i a � a �a�ma �r� �` ° °� , a; , �.�"' ' Sz'� �'E �O�a,q� < � �� ° ,� °
` ��' �� � � � @�,a �
�� '�'� e ` �4. z w o � ci ;�5��� �g�.��� A �'sE'��`` - ' �'' '6°d'°�•
`_ �° ,f, � �° e � ��s��. � .�1� :ea �.d F,•,;�� "•p �> � �
„t � o �y.��$ 6_ , �5, � A _ V �}' d� �'^ �� Q_ 'Ik" +�A
y � & ��� 4 - �<i:P h�'^i`F+0 n �'''r� - ,?� � .p: L �.� o p� o Y� � R 5 P"��, d-%2� �R tl' �A �3_�'A}J �
�J.��� '�'� � °`- � ''�° o � _ 0 02^4�0� �,9 �' '�`'� z"-�"� 0w,�� � t'8� a�' ,� �,� ;�'
� _ �� e � � e ._ . �'�� „ � - ��",�,� q 5t ��? °° �, ��'� _
p � �� o �p [� F e�q, 0�°O a ; : c�.i
"qre �t Y ,` ��, s �. o � '6� - ,v � ",'7� �. s��"r�' s�. P ;i ' a'e° �''�h. 4 � :��� �- . p � �, a�y#"� &�`'F' � �"��� 3°
.. ��a_ � .y,� R o ad. .�' e R � c5 a rD �. o : � � . �;�a� m p��: y _
' �'` .„� ' : a � . � � ° � � �
�'S; � ,° � , o � Q ' o � �rf O.'- � � �'" y �''aa � �+" t �-.�
, ,:�;' �4� a : �r� ✓ � �, °TM o r�� ��';�� ; �` �. �� "��� � '� ��' �.��,° �.�g. ^yy �5�
�k " =� i ;'
; F�' �' � ' -r � .� � �As � : � � °.a=`_�;,�, .�Q .'?'�"e,.�
t�� 'lv,� o �' -'?`� e ,g ' ,`r�. �-e "� '� e�y+�',r � �`-� � h,ArC ° "" � �.d R�js ° �a °�u a
�,������. s. Y` �t �,�4���+ 6�, ,e_ �� '� '� �' 3` r �N�+������y���;�;����*",+:�'
. ,°�.,.�.,,_ J�". . ,�.P°',��.a_ . .�,.o_ _��'� ..,a__., .w. �.A'.d` ,��::._.. . �_ . �s� _���tti'?.�`r-s .. -a.� ,.. +6 �.,�;
k,
p W9
����� ��a
. -Fi���,° �u... �
,
L���!'Bd
Change in Seagrass Cover
� 1.3°Jo - 1.719/0
O 1.724�0 - 2.21 %
O 2.22�0 - 2.95%
0 2.96°.�0 - 3.99%
O 4% - 5.34%
O 5.35?�0 - 7.98%
A 7.99°l0 -11.62%
O 11.63% -19.22°10
� 500' wali
�'"ti`— -- -- - .., . _ .. - �- �_.K_�..,om��
� ' i
. n� Change in Seagrass Cover for Representative
�, �a��a � IfUa e Energy Difference of 10% or Greater
� , �� �, �TIP B-2500 BONNER �RIDGE
� , �. � � ��ti� 1 2015 ; S�►V �iIITIGATlO� PLAN
� �� °�C y� {� � 0 195 390 780
!� C..1k dcean��0`���P4�'Ai�A�7�1� �1'C••• = 90! feei
: Feet
� .... . _ . �
, ,,_
. ,.
.,r._,... __ _ . ...,..,...
' FI'.�t'-::tiJ��f •...uo.x,:'_iL�.' , . .. , �. .. . ��._..-.er:..,
���,
�a
N��
���. �
� ���
C EHGINfEFIN,C
[ O N S T R U[ T 1 0 N

�.;: i ��
�: . ��
� .r� � , ,
� �� s e, ; ,�
_ � � . ��� � J.
���` ~�.,
+ \"` � �k�" ���;: k � ;
���. '�� � �
\ �.�,� � ���,� / �:
�. ��. .a. ... . . s . . . . / . _ , .. , `.�
t'
��
�
{': gr , ,I
t -
�'�;:
�. } v` _ ..
�

i4ppendix B: Exhibits
Exhibit 1. Reefmaker "Ecosystem" Units Design - Front Elevaiion View
Exhibit 2. Reefrnaker "Ecosystem" Units Design - Profile Vievv
Euhibit 3. Reefmaker "Ecosystem" Units Design - Plan Viev�r
t..-,s:::-,,.. �� „�--•-:...:...
����,e:�.,.....� ..... .. :..:._...._, :... .....
.,��,�,,,.,.„�
� '°��s�-
.:��
E
�������[� �
i. .
�
� OCT 1 2015 =
E
!� c�asra� �a�,�,AGEMENT
:; E��z��Fr� c�r�r �'
�n,�....- . � ,
`�, "" -,°'°'°' •".�»»,a�-.... : �
"°.�,*w"��'u"""u�:;�,.:.,:. ,

�• .r.�,N.,. . .� ,.. _, . .
��� ..s .
�
��������
OCT 1 2Q�5
COASTAL MFi�?A� .F.,�1�9E�,r
EL':Zf,3E�t-f C17`%
a •... , �;._,
....
,..... ._�. _..,,. .
E . � .. ' � `S �.:. .� �h:.wa e: �.y.AlFiFia"sFsi•41rw,wc�,; � •
�Pas.i�....i�::..._,. _.
�
Exhibit 1. Reefmaker "Ecosytem" Units Design - Front Elevation View
NAVIGATI/1A I A I
MUST E
WAVE AT7
PYL(JN WI
FROIVT ELEVATION VIEW
n� er�vrn
>SITE

r
Exhibit 2. Reefmaker'�Ecosystem�� Units Design - Profile View

E�ibit 3. Reefmaker "Ecosystem" Units Design - Plan View
�
�