20230797 Ver 1_More Info Received_20240319 (2)

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
Updated January 29, 2024
Updated March 14, 2024 (Exhibits D and F only)

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: 3/14/2024
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
feedback from NCDWR (8/7/2023 letter) and NCDMF (8/3/2023 letter), we have made
minor edits and updates to the plan. More recently, we have provided responses to the
2/16/2024 NCDWR "additional information" letter and have updated Exhibits D and F
herein in association with NCDWR requests. We have not changed the mitigation plan
scope, only additional detail to the referenced exhibits based on resource agency
feedback. Please also refer to our responses included in a letter from Carteret County.
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.
2

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 (ICW). 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 1. 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 m 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
m2 quadrats placed at 5 m 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
2

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-rectified 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 5 1 % 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 <1.0% seagrass
cover where seagrass occurred (Table 1).
3

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.
ACQUIRED "101FMARINA "ROCK SIM" TOTAL ACRES REFERENCE
SEAGRASS METRICS CHANNEL FOOTPRINT IMPACTED SITE
FOOTPRINT
ACRES 0.78
PERCENT TOTAL 76
SEAGRASS PRESENT
(PCP)
TOTAL SEAGRASS 0.96
COVER (TSGC)
ZOSTERA MARINA 74.4 / 0.95
PERCENT PRESENT /
COVER
HALODULE WRIGHTII 0.8 / 0.008
PERCENT PRESENT /
COVER
DERIVED METRICS
-A�
0.24 1.02
51
0.27
11
A
3.34a
73
1.76

TOTAL SEAGRAS 0.73 0.14 1.28
ABUNDANCE
METRIC (TSGAM)1
SEAGRASS LOSS/ 0.57 0.03 0.60 4.27
SEAGRASS GAIN2
SEAGRASS 7.1
MITIGATION RATIO3
im
Discussion of Survey Results
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.
5

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 m
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
0

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 support the 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
7

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, Kenworthy WJ, Puckett B, Deaton 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
0

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.
0

EXHIBIT A

R-�
I I�
IFO Tin'
1
I II
I r r- I II
I �
I I
I�
I I II
I � I
BOlJ6B SOUND
PARCEL & AERIAL DATA SHOWN,
ASED ON COUNTY GIS DATA.
x
00
.�*.
Uzz4^
J W�'Vlmti g��
J J 0 2 4i N N C
* Q o 0
Z Z m
p S
zZ yZ, 7 U
THIS MAP IS NOT A
CERTIFIED SURVEY
/ AND HAS NOT BEEN
REVIEWED BY A
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
AGENCY FOR
COMPLIANCE WITH
5ANDER5 ANY APPLICABLE
CREEK LAND DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS.
z
D
0
to
w
W o
� o
� N O
Q �
U p
II
"a Qi Q
O z �
J W
� W
� W
I rrl W
z
C)
U_
2
j�OLC7 !^`f111 CL
Of
W V
0
a_
3
W
z
O z Q O
U a z LLJ
� m O p >'
d d U� �LWi Q Z=UJ=
d
�000aF-z�v~icncn
OQ ww wzozazwcn
o �Q�an V) —O�wp
ti U= m (� (� J Z U Z w
w U CC w Z O
U Q (nw OZ _UOa- OZ Z
>giZQOd�JOOU w Ow
OW:E. 0 ZQ V) OOQU
O U } = O Z
U m U w Q 0 m H 0 Q
w
a05Li n�Li W
Liz
UIUn m
Sw=��mO
S Q ~ w W U
r N
O m m
c� �

EXHIBIT B

T
a
E
NOTE: THIS DOCUVIENTIIS PRELIMINARY - NO
RECORDATION, SALES OF
CON
- TF
DISCUSSION PURP SES ONLYI EXISTING INFORMA7
- DA614MEN; 19 B AVAILABLE DATA AND IS
ALL INFORMATION SHOWN ON THIS'DOCUMENT IS $UBJEI
BY ANY REP"' AGENCY, ENTITY OR AUTHORITY,
[FOR
IBtE&P.C. D�ES NOT GU�MPLETED NFOIN THIS DOCUMENT
ANY Er. �SIONR ' �OSSES OR DAM,
USE OF THIS INFOr i N.
I I
I I
I
FO CO STRUC i , _
i CUM NT IS FOR
I HOWN N THIS
T14 CERT FIED SURVEY.
ANY REQUIREMENTS
k.
URA OR THE < +
I T RESPOLE
R 'FROMaTHE
17"
i.�
7 4
15TNG/
I I 0Y5TER BAG/
GONGRETE
nr rvvaccc
Elevations Table
Number
Minimum Elevation
Maximum Elevation
Color
1
—13.000
—12.000
2
—12.000
—11.000
3
—11.000
—10.000
4
—10.000
—9.000
5
—9.000
—8.000
6
—8.000
—7.000
7
—7.000
—6.000
8
—6.000
—5.000
9
—5.000
—4.000
10
—4.000
—3.000
11
—3.000
—2.000
12
—2.000
—1.000
13
—1.000
0.000
14
0.000
1.000
EX151TNG
EDGE OF
MARSfI
C5/26/22
PROPOSED
92 LF BY
5 FT WIDE
MARSH
PROPOSED '
99 LF BY /
5 FT WIDE MARSH
PROTECTION
QUICKREEF SILL
PROPOSED
79 LF BY
5 FT WIDE MARSH
— PROTECTION
53 55
QUICKREEF SILL
r k
JJ k52 k56
\ ` k51 ' k57
50 k58 PROPOSED
k49 k59 100 LF BY
5 FT WIDE MARSH
k48 k60 PROTECTION
47 61 QUICKREEF SILL
2
3
14
15
16
k17
k18
k19
k20
k21
k22
k23
x24
k25
k26
k
k
k46
k62
45
k63
k64
k44
k65
k43
k66
42
k
k67
k41
k68 PROPOSED
4o
k69 CHANNEL
ALIGNMENT
k39
k38
k70
k71
x37
k72
k36
k73
k35
k74
k34
k75
k33
76
k
k32
k77
31
k
k30
k78
k29
k79
Uzz4^
o
U
N Z
/
h
A• J W O
WU
_oo
u
.2
``Z3t Ja_woN v
W�'Vrm ti l g";�
+" r
/
Z Q
cd LV d N 00 e0Co
Z
rl
•�
U O
•�
' �o � cc
* zZ
...
Z
Z
z m
z Z w ,p S
U
W W O
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.
0
0
N
0
0
o zQ o
owaz Li
U m
a z
� O p >'
d d U� �Lwi Q Z=UJ=
N Vl a Z N O= N0� O 0
d
ONF OOQQOd5z<vZi cn
Oa ww ,,,zoz_azwcn
Oo�Q�� ww� O4wo
'0 U=m Mm7E-'z O�Z w
= Vl O O_ w U CC w Do
U Qct
(n� OZ _UOd OZ Z
>giZQOd�JOO U w Ow
OW �viZ D < M Lj paU
O U } _ O Z
U EaU w Q O m~ O O Z O a
w w
oo°'w cnLj Ljwz=ww>
v)0< SJ���m�O
S Q ~ w w U
U
r N
O m m
w oacw
to
z Y co~ O
� a- o = u rn
�� o

EXHIBIT C

T
a
E
Elevations Table
Number
Minimum Elevation
Maximum Elevation
Color
1
—13.000
—12.000
■
2
—12.000
—11.000
■
3
—11.000
—10.000
4
—10.000
—9.000
5
—9.000
—8.000
6
—8.000
—7.000
7
—7.000
—6.000
8
—6.000
—5.000
9
—5.000
—4.000
10
—4.000
—3.000
11
—3.000
—2.000
12
—2.000
—1.000
13
—1.000
0.000
14
0.000
1.000—
IL [*PARCEL & AERIAL DATA SHOWN,
ASED ON COUNTY GIS DATA.
A- 310
k311
312
313
14
132315
316
317
318
319
20
k1
322
k323
k324
k325
k326
k327
k328
k329
k330
\
SHORELINE
EK15T/NG
\
~'^
NAR5H EDGE117
-k
k81
k116
k82
k115
k83
k114
k84
k113
k85
k112
k86
kill
ka7
5AV 5TATION ki 10
k88
(7YP) 109
k89
k108
k90
k107
k91
k106 1114'
k92
k105
k93
k94
k95
k96
X97
k98
k99
k100
k101
k102
k103
k104
k309 k120
k172
k308 121
k
171
X
k k� (�122
k170
k123
k169
305k 1124 k168
304k12 303
167
X127
127k
302166
301165
i2830i64
J298,
k129
2163
30131
62
k
k297 k161
ki32
k296 k160
k133
k295 k159
k134
I. k294 k158
ki35
k293k157
k136
29J 56
k
ki37
kk155
291
k138
k290
154 k289
k139
k
A10 153 k288
k1.40
152k151 k287
k141
k150 k286
k149 k 285
k142
148 k284
k
143
k
147 283
k
ki46
ki44
k282
k
ki45
k281
k280
k279
3006uE souNV
k230
k231
k232
k233
k234
k235
k236
k237
k238
k239
k240
k241
k242
k243
k244
k245
k246
k247
k248
k249
k250
k251
k252
k253
k254
k255
k256
k257
k258
EXI5TING
k 5HORELINE .
k277
k276 \ .w
k275
173
k274
174
273 k 191
k 175 k
272 k k192 210
k 271 ki76 k193 211
kk
ki77 k194
270 k212
k269 k178 X195 1(213
k268 k179 k196 k214
197
k267 180 k k215
k k198 k216
k266 k181 199
k265 1\1182 200 k217
k264 ki83 201
k218
k k
k263 ki84 219k202
220
k262 k185 k203 1
221
k261 k186 204 k
k187 205 k222
k260 223
188 206 k
k k 224
k259 k189 k207 225
k190 k208 226
k209 k
k227
k228
k229
0
r4
1n
cq- go
Z * w m m
U
Uzz4^ N
aJWOz
C
* E
co�
V
A * J a o
W F-(n m ti•-g ��
W
U a
.N.. W o
J 0 2 4i N N C
�zwz oL .sa
a a o
W \ U
a S
z Z w U
W O
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.
O
04
II
w
w
L,
Z
W
J
Q
U
U
2
W
Of
0
0
o zQ
ooLL
}� awaz
U m
a z � V) O p >'
o ace= ��az=b =
N V1 a 0 N O= N O H
Lj
d
ON F 0 00 p o d� z� v~i U) cn
Oa ww wzoz—azwcn
Oo �Q�� ww� owLJp
,0 U=m(n O7E= (_) -w
= Vl 0 0_ w U CC w, Z O
oa U)wOzoOw:Eoz z
>- q i Z Q 0- w C) U w W
ow z z<V)LJ0 o
O U } _ - O Z
U m U w Q 0 m~ 0 0 0 0 a
w
a 0 w U) LLJ w
w w>
U) C i w S J m h o
S Q ~ W w U
r N
O m m
� z Y co~ O
� a o = u rn

EXHIBIT D

Q
E
NOTE: THIS DOCUMENT IS`VOELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION,
RECORDATION, SALES OR CONVEYANCES - THIS DOCUMENT IS FOR
DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY! EXISTING INFORMATION SHOWN ON THIS
DOCUMENT IS BASED ON BEST AVAILABLE DATA AND IS NOT A CERTIFIED SURVEY.
ALL INFORMATION SHOWN ON THIS DOCUMENT IS- SUBJECT TO ANY REQUIREMENTS
BY ANY REGULATORY AGENCY, ENTITY OR AUTHORITY.
QUIBLE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. DOES NOT GUARANTEE THE ACCURACY OR THE
COMPLETENESS OF ANY INFORMATION IN THIS DOCUMENT AND IS NOT RESPONSIBLE
FOR ANY ERROR OR OMISSION OR ANY LOSSES OR DAMAGES RESULTING FROM THE
USE OF THIS INFORMATION.
0-
BOU6UE SOUND
PROPOSED
QUICKREEF REVETMENT MEAN PROPOSED
800 LF BY 5 FT on RIPRAP SILL
WIDE BASE {HATER AND BREAKWATER
861 LF BY 12-18 FT
A CRO55- WIDE BASE
5ECTION
'A
COASTAL
�- MAR5H
MARSH
PROPOSED
10,000 SF
OF NATIVE
�( MARSH
`.. 1 PLANTINGS
Elevations Table
Number
Minimum Elevation
Maximum Elevation
Color
1
—13.000
—12.000
2
—12.000
—11.000
3
—11.000
—10.000
4
—10.000
—9.000
5
—9.000
—8.000
A
6
—8.000
—7.000
0
7
—7.000
—6.000
8
—6.000
—5.000
9
—5.000
—4.000
10
—4.000
—3.000
11
—3.000
—2.000
12
—2.000
—1.000
13
—1.000
0.000
14
0.000
1.000
KI*PARCEL & AERIAL DATA SHOWN,
ASED ON COUNTY GIS DATA.
BOU&UE SOUND
B
PROPOSED 5 FT
WIDE BASE
QUICKREEF SILL
TOP ELEVATION
A MAXIMUM DF 1.0'
r'tw ABOVE MHW
1 5
EV5rinC7 _etW7 A7E
I, III 111111111=1 I'm 111-
CROSS SECTION A - QUICKREEF SILL FOR WETLAND PROTECTION
N.T.S
I
I
I
I MEAN _
z7!27 HIGH
WATER
PROPOSED I ��
11,000 SF
OF NATIVE I
MARSH
PLANTINGS
I
I
I
I
I
I
BLOCK /6
MEAN
LOW
WATER
PAXON M HOLTZ
RE5/DUARY TRU5T
630504420310000
DB 224,, P& 399
PROPOSED 12 FT
WIDE BASE
ROCK SILL
TOP ELEVATION
1.5' ABOVE MHW
=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 I I=Z1 11= 1 12.0 Li 1=1 1= I a
�jEl�_���—���-���� Ali- ...ni�ii—nr iTl"—Tliiili ���—���riii iii _ EXISTlN65f/BSTRATE
I�TI=III=III=I I I I I .. ... 11-111-111
CROSS SECTION B - ROCKSILL FOR SAV PROTECTION
N.T.S
A
9
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.
Q
z
J
O
of
U N
2
F—
O
z
0
^O
w
U-
z
w
J
U
U
2
CL
w
01
o �
0 z
O
�l¢w zwm�Q���
EU:E (DLQ =
NN W W cn O} Scn Da H
U n 0 0
w
O H � 0 H
NQ ww�LjZoZz¢zwcn
OOcn ~<=m`nz�wz 00 �zL.
xN �o�= wo�w� -z0 �Q-�nL�ozoow�oz _z
3f Of w Q o w� J o 0 0
cn
CL z D¢V)�oowQU
U J o U r S W Z
m 0JQ 007HoO W Ow
0 o5� cr,owz ww>
=a< ?w 0w07�o
(n
v
o m
w M = K w
_ z < rn
N Q m
a CL o 0

EXHIBIT E

Elevations Table
Number
Minimum Elevation
Maximum Elevation
Color
1
—13.000
—12.000
2
—12.000
—11.000
3
—11.000
—10.000
4
—10.000
—9.000
5
-9.000
—6.000
6
—6.000
—7.000
7
—7.000
—6.000
a
-6.000
-5.000
9
—5.000
—4.000
10
—4.000
—3.000
11
—3.000
—2.000
12
—2.000
—1.000
13
—1.000
0.000
14
0.000
1.000
*PARCEL & AERIAL DATA SHOWN,
BASED ON COUNTY GIS DATA.
6"
!75 T/NG
SHOREL/1� � \
T— 6
B0U6UB 50UND
T-1
*ALL PROPOSED TRANSECTS WILL BE SAMPLED ON 5 METER INCREMENTS
EXl5TING
5HORELY E
r I"
Do
.�*
cq
O � /1 Z W.
OI !/ Z � N U
U h Q W O U Z
m a s 0= ti Z C
* N :VDg.�n`arn E U N Y V 10i
C
Q�o U� m
v)m
+J W F- N 7 U M V
Z Z W D N CO op
O
F� 0VUNw •�mroo
3 E
T* J 02 m ai
6� VJ C�Z Z YL L o
Z W aw o
W O U i
Z Z W v U
rn
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.
Z
D
0
U
Z
< N 0
Q N
O U
O z
F+ 0 UJI
Ofli
U N _Z
_ W
J
A
W Z
CL
pw
CL
�' al
ao
W
Z
o
0 Z Q
}� QowQ� w
O—
� �Qw zwmzQ70
UD U)wQ =
N N�� Z (n D =cn 0 0
U
W
O H 0 H
N Q w w�� W (n
OO �U7 1DE zOOczOw
= v1 cn O� S w
�U'w,w
UQ OwOZOoZ
O
OZ _Z
QOT"J"O0w��QcwOow
OWZ <
U J O U r S w O Z
m UJQ 007H OD DOcn w
d0mw cn�wz>
=aQ ?w �w07wo
M
— O m 04
m < 04
�
o
a a 01 - a0
0

EXHIBIT F

Q
E
Do
o
.�*
Z * w p op
N
o
Z 4 n
Zol
U Lo
. < >w N Z
Z
aa�
N
ti C
* Zf p rn E
U
c
n N Y C^ 'C o
BOIJOUE 50UND
pd�
po 6
N m A
W N 7 U M P
Z
Z w 0 N CO op
•1-4 C) N N.
v) 3�m� w
O* J O
W Z T o s
W O w U i
Z � >
j p c
Z Z U
W
W * O
m
PROPOSED
MEAN
THIS MAP IS NOT A
1,062 LF BY
H
CERTIFIED SURVEY
_ 5 FT WIDE
w�
AND HAS NOT BEEN
MARSH PROTECTION
k
REVIEWED BY A
QUICKREEF REVETMENT
zo8, k-/62,
ALONG MLW LINE
k_
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
PROPOSED AREA
OF NATIVE MARSH
PLANTINGS
(14,976 SF)
X-0 r
X�24 w
k 232,
*PARCEL & AERIAL DATA SHOWN,
BASED ON COUNTY GIS DATA.
BOU(5UF SOUND
40
r IR
i- a
k2�9'
k,28,
os
ko6 �_
k,o9o,
COASTAL
MARSH
IV �✓
AGENCY FOR
COMPLIANCE WITH
ANY APPLICABLE
LAND DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS.
1
z
o >�
I -FAN HIGH HATER
Q
141
U
co
W
OfCOA5TAL
L�
1�^ill
j.T,�
v
0
z
MARSH
w
R
F
w
Q
Q
a
z
U
U
UCL
4/
d
W
Z
0
Z Q
O} UJ Q Z W¢ W
U
00
W U) O
0
PROPOSED 5 FT EXI5TIN6
N N U (n' 0
CA ��000��z�z~cn n
WIDE BASE MAR5H
az w
QUICKREEF SILL
�� ~�=m� z�wz�anz�
TOP ELEVATION
� a �0''L o � � o z � zz
A MAXIMUM OF 1.0'
of -c"o�WJo Damon
} @S Z Q W� O U W
MNW ABOVE MHW
ow> z Da�ooQo
o U S O Z
_
ML{N
JQ om~oo�ow
— s' ll__ 1=III=III=III
I I I I �-
aom� n�wz�ww>
m�
-- EX15TIM6 5U55TRA7E III I I Ti �Ti
n o = w o
S Q ~ w w U
QUICKREEF SILL FOR WETLAND PROTECTION
N. T.S
— O
m
v
w M
z �
= K
w
F- O)
o ^
a
<
- m
-
o
a
o
cy
0