20170425 Ver 1_CAMA Application_20170407

s
Coastal Management
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
April 5, 2017
MEMORANDUM:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Applicant:
20170425
Karen Higgins
Division of Water Resources
Gregg Bodnar
Major Permits Processing Coordinator
ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretary
BRAXTON C. DAVIS
Director
RECEIVED
APR 07 2017
DENR-LAND QUALITY
STORMWATER PERMITTING
CAMA/DREDGE & FILL Permit Application Review
UNC Institute of Marine Sciences
Project Location: Carteret County, conflux of North River and Back Sound.
Proposed Project: Proposes to install Artificial Seagrass Units to study habitat configuration and
fragmentation effects on fish diversity.
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return this form by
April 25, 2017. If you have any questions regarding the proposed project, please contact Ryan Davenport,
Permit officer at [phone]. Ext. 210. When appropriate, in-depth comments with supporting data is
requested.
REPLY:
SIGNED
This agency has no objection to the project as proposed.
This agency has no comment on the proposed project.
This agency approves of the project only if the recommended changes are
incorporated. See attached.
This agency objects to the project for reasons described in the attached comments.
DATE
State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Coastal Management
Morehead City Office 1400 Commerce Avenue I Morehead City, NC 28557
252 808 2808

DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT
1. APPLICANT'S NAME: UNC Institute of Marine Science
2. LOCATION OF PROJECT SITE: Conflux of North River and Back Sound
Photo Index - No Photo Available
Longitude: 7636'11.62" W Latitude: 3442'12.15" N
3. INVESTIGATION TYPE: CAMA/D&F
4. INVESTIGATIVE PROCEDURE: Dates of Site Visit - 4/3/17
Was Applicant Present -No
5. PROCESSING PROCEDURE: Application Received - 3/29/17
Application Complete- 3/29/17
Office - Morehead City
6. SITE DESCRIPTION:
(A) Local Land Use Plan - Carteret County
Land Classification from LUP - Undeveloped
(B) AEC(s) Involved: EW, PTA
(C) Water Dependent: (yes)
(D) Intended Use: Scientific Research
(E) Wastewater Treatment: Existing - N/A
Planned - N/A
(F) Type of Structures: Existing - N/A
Planned - Artificial Seagrass
(G) Estimated Annual Rate of Erosion: N/A
Source - N/A
7. HABITAT DESCRIPTION:
URSURPED FILLED OTHER
(A) Estuarine Waters 60,550ft2 19,375ft2 N/A
(D) Total Area Disturbed: 60,550ft2
(E) Primary Nursery Area: No
(F) Water Classification: SA-HQW
(G) Shellfish Classification: CLOSED/OPEN
8. PROJECT SUMMARY: The University of North Carolina Institute of Marine Science is
proposing to install Artificial Seagrass Units to study habitat configuration and
fragmentation effects on fish diversity.

Field Investigation Report:
UNC Institute of Marine Science
Page 02
9. NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION: The UNC Institute of Marine Science project is located
at the conflux of North River and Back sound between Beaufort and Harkers Island. The
site can be accessed by boat only. The site is situated on a sand bar between Middle
Marsh and North River Marsh.
This waterbody is SA-HQW and is not a Primary Nursery Area. The Western boundary of
the project is closed to shell fishing and the Eastern boundary is open to shell fishing.
Shellfish resource in this area is unknown. There is no SAVs in this area and the bottom
substrate consists of sand. Water depth in this area is .5m at NLW and tidal amplitude is
-1.75'. This area in Carteret County's LUP is classified as conservation.
10. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The UNC Institute of Marine Science is proposing to install
Artificial Seagrass Units(ASU's) in order to test whether seagrass habitat configuration and
fragmentation effects fish diversity and whether these effects are mediated by total habitat
area. The total project area would be 60,550ft2(1.39ac). In this area the ASU's would be
placed on 19,375ft2 of Public Trust bottom. Each ASU would be comprised of lm2 of
VEXAR with -450 shoots of green ribbon attached. The ASU's would be anchored to the
bottom with 6" and 12" landscaping staples. The ASU's would be deployed from May 15
to Sept. 15. Visible PVC poles would be used to mark each corner of the individual
landscape plots. The UNC IMS has applied through NCDMF for research sanctuary status
in this area. The applicant has stated that the project will end in 2019 at which time the
material will be removed.
11. ANTICIPATED IMPACTS: There would be a total of 60,550ft2 of Public Trust Area
usurped during this project. The VEXAR material would be placed on 19,375ft2 of Public
Trust bottom. There is a potential for the ASU material to be transported during storm events
resulting as marine debris. This area has daily and frequent boat traffic and entanglement
with boat propellers and anchors could occur. The ASU material could also have adverse
interactions with marine animals and unknown interactions with other marine life.
Name: Ryan Davenport Date: 4/3/17 Morehead City

Dom NP -1
UPLICA11ON for
major Development PoroYl
(last revised 12/27/06)
North Carolina DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
11. Primary Applicant/ Landowner Information
Business Name
Unc Institute Of Marine Science
Project Name (if applicable)
Habitat fragmentation effects of fish diversity at landscape
scales: experimental tests of multiple mechanisms
Applicant 1: First Name
Fredrick
MI
J
Last Name
Fodrie
Applicant 2: First Name
MI
Last Name
If additional applicants, please attach an additional page(s) with names listed.
Mailing Address
3431 Arendell St.
PO Box
City
Morehead City
State
NC
ZIP
28557 0001
Country
US
Phone No.
252 - 726 - 6841 ext. 149
FAX No.
252 - 726 - 2426
Street Address (if different from above)
City
State
ZIP
Email
2. Agent/Contractor Information
Business Name
Agent/ Contractor 1: First Name
MI
Last Name
Agent/ Contractor 2: First Name
MI
Last Name
Mailing Address
PO Box
City
State
ZIP
Phone No. 1
-
- ext.
Phone No. 2
- - ext.
FAX No.
Contractor #
Street Address (if different from above)
City
State
ZIP
Email
r
ATM
,.
A,P,:-r oo, co
<Form continues on back>
UA 14 U ZU1.7
,a;
252-808-2808 .. 1-888-4RCOAST ., www.nccoastaimanagement.net

Form DCM MP -1 (Page 2 of 5)
APPLICATION for
Major Development Permit
252-808-2808 .. 1-888-4RCOAST .. www.nccoastaimanagement.net

Form DCM MP -1 (Page 3 of 5)
APPLICATION for
Major Development Permit
3. Project Location
County (can be multiple)
Street Address
State Rd. #
Carteret
na
na
Subdivision Name
City
State
Zip
na
Beaufort
NC
28516 -
Phone No.
Lot No. (s) (if many, attach additional page with list)
na - - ext.
na,
a. In which NC river basin is the project located?
b. Name of body of water nearest to proposed project
North River
North River / Back Sound
c. Is the water body identified in (b) above, natural or manmade?
d. Name the closest major water body to the proposed project site.
®Natural []Manmade ❑Unknown
North River / Back 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 falls within.
na
4. Site Description
a. Total length of shoreline on the tract (ft.)
b. Size of entire tract (sq.ft.)
na
Area of entire tract = 60,550 sq ft,
Area of Artificial Seagrass Units (ASUs) = 19,375 sq ft
c. Size of individual lot(s)
d. Approximate elevation of tract above NHW (normal high water) or
na, I I
NWL (normal water level)
(If many lot sizes, please attach additional page with a list)
-2 m (NHW), -1.5 m (NWL) ®NHW or ®NWL
e. Vegetation on tract
None. We are only going to work on shallow sandy bars
f. Man-made features and uses now on tract
na
g. Identify and describe the existing land uses adjacent to the proposed project site.
Small personal fishing boats and kayakers will sometimes use the marsh complex North of the proposed site. Transiting
boats used the marked cahnnel to the South.
h. How does local government zone the tract?
i. Is the proposed project consistent with the applicable zoning?
Coastal sound
(Attach zoning compliance certificate, if applicable)
[]Yes ❑No ®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?
I. Is the proposed project located in a National Registered Historic District or does it involve a []Yes ❑No ®NA
National Register listed or eligible property?
<Form continues on next page>
MAR 29 70+7
252-808-2808 .. 1-888-4RCOAST .. www.nccoastatman e 0.ntAt'g,"

Form DCM MP -1 (Page 4 of 5)
APPLICATION for
Major Development Permit
m. (i) Are there wetlands on the site? ❑Yes ®No
(ii) Are there coastal wetlands on the site? ❑Yes ®No
(iii) If yes to either (i) or (ii) above, has a delineation been conducted? ❑Yes ®No
(Attach documentation, if available)
n. Describe existing wastewater treatment facilities.
na
o. Describe existing drinking water supply source.
na
p. Describe existing storm water management or treatment systems.
na
5. Activities and Impacts
a. Will the project be for commercial, public, or private use? ❑Commercial ®Public/Government
❑Private/Community
b. Give a brief description of purpose, use, and daily operations of the project when complete.
The proposed project is a temporary (May through September) installation of ASU's (Artificial Seagrass Units), used to test
whether seagrass habitat configuration and fragmentation effects fish diversity and whether these effects are mediated by
total habitat area. Following ASU deployment, fish abundance and assemblage structure within each ASU landscape will be
assessed during periodic sampling efforts.
c. Describe the proposed construction methodology, types of construction equipment to be used during construction, the number of each type
of equipment and where it is to be stored.
The ASU's are comprised of a 1 sq meter (1.2m x .86m) sheet of VEXAR with -450 shoot of green ribbon ( each 15 cm in
length) attached. They will be transported using two or three boats to the experimental site and anchored to the sediment
using 16 heavy (eight 6" and eight 12") landscaping staples. See attached plats and photos.
d. List all development activities you propose.
These temporary installations will result in no perminant allteration to the substrate. The ASU's will be deployed within
twenty-five 225 sq meter plots, according to pre -generated gridded maps, to create 25 unique landscape arrays. Each
landscape plot will be visibly marked at each corner with PVC a pole.
e. Are the proposed activities maintenance of an existing project, new work, or both? New work
f. What is the approximate total disturbed land area resulting from the proposed project? 19,375 sq ft ®Sq.Ft or ❑
Acres
g. Will the proposed project encroach on any public easement, public accessway or other area []Yes ®No [INA
that the public has established use of?
h. Describe location and type of existing and proposed discharges to waters of the state.
Na
i. Will wastewater or stormwater be discharged into a wetland? ❑Yes ❑No ®NA
If yes, will this discharged water be of the same salinity as the receiving water? ❑Yes ❑No ®NA
j. Is there any mitigation proposed? []Yes ❑No ®NA
If yes, attach a mitigation proposal.
<Form continues on back> MAR 2 9 2017
252-808-2808 1-888-4RCOAST .. www.nccoastalm �iil'4i t` ITT

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

Form DCM MP -1 (Page 5 of 5)
APPLICATION for
Major Development Permit
6. Addidonal Information
/n addition to this completed application form, (MP -1) the following items below, if applicable, must be submitted in order for the application
package to be complete. Items (a) — (t) are always applicable to any major development application. Please consult the application
instruction booklet on how to property prepare the required items below.
a. A project narrative.
b. An accurate, dated work plat (including plan view and cross-sectional drawings) drawn to scale. Please give the present status of the
proposed project. Is any portion already complete? If previously authorized work, clearly indicate on maps, plats, drawings to distinguish
between work completed and proposed.
c. A site or location map that is sufficiently detailed to guide agency personnel unfamiliar with the area to the site.
d. A copy of the deed (with state application only) or other instrument under which the applicant claims title to the affected properties.
e. The appropriate application fee. Check or money order made payable to DENR.
f. A list of the names and complete addresses of the adjacent waterfront (riparian) landowners and signed return receipts as proof that such
owners have received a copy of the application and plats by certified mail. Such landowners must be advised that they have 30 days in
which to submit comments on the proposed project to the Division of Coastal Management.
Name Phone No.
Address
Name Phone No.
Address
Name Phone No.
Address
g. A list of previous state or federal permits issued for work on the project tract. Include permit numbers, permittee, and issuing dates.
h. Signed consultant or agent authorization form, if applicable.
L Wetland delineation, if necessary.
j. A signed AEC hazard notice for projects in oceanfront and inlet areas. (Must be signed by property owner)
k. A statement of compliance with the N.C. Environmental Policy Act (N.C.G.S. 113A 1-10), if necessary. If the project involves expenditure
of public funds or use of public lands, attach a statement documenting compliance with the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act.
7. Cert cation and Pennission to Enter on Land
I understand that any permit issued in response to this application will allow only the development described in the application.
The project will be subject to the conditions and restrictions contained in the permit.
I certify that I am authorized to grant, and do in fact grant permission to representatives of state and federal review agencies to
enter on the aforementioned lands in connection with evaluating information related to this permit application and follow-up
monitoring of the project.
I further certify that the information provided in this application is truthful to the best of my knowledge
Date _3/29/17.
Print Name _F. Joel Fodrie
� n
Signature
Please indicate application attachments pertaining to your proposed project.
❑DCM MP -2 Excavation and Fill Information ❑DCM MP -5 Bridges and Culverts
❑DCM MP -3 Upland Development
®DCM MP -4 Structures Information
MAR 2 9 20117
252-808-2808 .. 11-888-4111COAST .. www.nccoastaimanagement.net

- Form DCM MP -4
STRUCTURES
(Construction within Public Trust Areas)
Attach this form to Joint Application for CAMA Major Permit, Form DCM MP -1. Be sure to complete all other sections of the Joint
Application that relate to this proposed project. Please include all supplemental information.
1. DOCKING FACILITY/MARINA CHARACTERISTICS ®This section not applicable
a. (i) Is the docking facility/marina: b. (i) Will the facility be open to the general public?
❑Commercial ❑Public/Govemment ❑Private/Community ❑Yes []No
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. (i) Are Finger Piers included? ❑Yes []No
If yes:
(ii) Number
(iii) Length
(iv) Width
(v) Floating ❑Yes []No
f. (i) Are Boatlifts included? ❑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 and/or rail, repair or
maintenance service
❑ Dockage, fuel, and marine supplies
❑ Dockage ("wet slips") only, number of slips:
❑ Dry storage; number of boats:
❑ Boat ramp(s); number of boat ramps:
❑ Other, please describe:
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
MAR 2 9 2017
D NI-, MHQ CITE'
252-808-2808 :: 1-888-4RCOAST :: www.necoastaimanagement.net revised: 12127/06

Forth DCM MP -4 (Structures, Page 2 of 4)
2. DOCKING FACILITY/MARINA OPERATIONS ®This section not applicable
a. Check each of the following sanitary facilities that will be included in the proposed project.
❑ Office Toilets
❑ Toilets for patrons; Number: ; Location:
❑ Showers
❑ Boatholding tank pumpout; Give type and location:
b. Describe treatment type and disposal location for all sanitary wastewater.
c. Describe the disposal of solid waste, fish offal and trash.
d. How will overboard discharge of sewage from boats be controlled?
e. (i) Give the location and number of "No Sewage Discharge" signs proposed.
(ii) Give the location and number of "Pumpout Available" signs proposed.
f. Describe the special design, if applicable, for containing industrial type pollutants, such as paint, sandblasting waste and petroleum products.
g. Where will residue from vessel maintenance be disposed of?
h• Give the number of channel markers and "No Wake" signs proposed.
i. Give the location of fuel -handling facilities, and describe the safety measures planned to protect area water quality.
j. What will be the marina policy on overnight and live -aboard dockage?
k. Describe design measures that promote boat basin flushing?
1. 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
MAN
2 9 2017
252-808-2808:- 1-888-4RCOAST :: www.nccoastaimanagement.net -- - 1 aWQd. 1 7 6

Form DCM MP -4 (Structures, Page 2 of 4)
2. DOCKING-FACILITY/MARINA OPERATIONS ®This section not applicable
a. Check each of the following sanitary facilities that will be included in the proposed project.
❑ Office Toilets
❑ Toilets for patrons; Number: ; Location:
❑ Showers
❑ Boatholding tank pumpout; Give type and location:
b. Describe treatment type and disposal location for all sanitary wastewater.
c. Describe the disposal of solid waste, fish offal and trash.
d. How will overboard discharge of sewage from boats be controlled?
e. (i) Give the location and number of "No Sewage Discharge" signs proposed.
(ii) Give the location and number of "Pumpout Available" signs proposed.
f. Describe the special design, if applicable, for containing industrial type pollutants, such as paint, sandblasting waste and petroleum products.
g. Where will residue from vessel maintenance be disposed of?
h• Give the number of channel markers and "No Wake" signs proposed.
L 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? Co I
[]Yes []No
MAR 2 9 2017
252-808-2808 :: 1-888-4RCOAST :: www.nccoastaimanagement.netd. / 7 6

Form DCM MP -4 (Structures, Page 3 of 4)
n. Is the marina/docking facility proposed within or adjacent to any shellfish harvesting area?
❑Yes ❑No
o. Is the marina/docking facility proposed within or adjacent to coastal wetlands/marsh (CW), submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), shell bottom
(SB), or other wetlands (WL)? If any boxes are checked, provide the number of square feet affected.
❑CW ❑SAV 0S13
OWL ❑None
p. Is the proposed marina/docking facility located within or within close proximity to any shellfish leases? ❑Yes []No
If yes, give the name and address of the leaseholder(s), and give the proximity to the lease.
3. BOATHOUSE (including covered lifts) 0This .section ;not applicable
a. (i) Is the boathouse structure(s):
❑Commercial ❑Public/Government ❑Private/Community
(ii) Number
(iii) Length
(iv) Width
Note: Roofed areas are calculated from dripline dimensions.
4. GROIN (e.g., wood, sheetpile, etc. If a rock groin, use MP -2, Excavation and Fill.) ®This section not applicable
a. (i) Number
(ii) Length
(iii) Width
5. BREAKWATER (e.g., wood, sheetpile, etc.) ®This section not applicable
a• Length b. Average distance from NHW, NWL, or wetlands
c. Maximum distance beyond NHW, NWL or wetlands
6. MOORING PILINGS and BUOYS ®This section not applicable
a. Is the structure(s): b. Number
❑Commercial ❑Public/Government ❑Private/Community
C. Distance to be placed beyond shoreline
Note: This should be measured from marsh edge, if present.
e. Are of the swing
7. GENERAL
d. Description of buoy (color, inscription, size, anchor, etc.)
MAR 2 9 2017
0CM- CITY
252-808-2808 :: 1-888-4RCOAST :: www.nccoastalmanagement.net revised: 12127/06

Form DCM MP -4 (Structures, Page 4 of 4)
a. Proximity of structure(s) to adjacent riparian property lines
1,030 m to Harkers Island
Note: For buoy or mooring piling, use arc of swing including length
of vessel.
c. Width of water body
3,000 m
e. (i) Will navigational aids be required as a result of the project?
®Yes ❑No [INA
(ii) If yes, explain what type and how they will be implemented.
Visible PVC poles will be used to mark each corner of the
individual landscape plots in order to boats from running
over the ASU units. The entire study area will be marked as
a research sanctuary per a pending application with the
North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries (contact: Trish
Murphy)
b. Proximity of structure(s) to adjacent docking facilities
>2,000 m to a public boat ramp
d. Water depth at waterward end of structure at NLW or NWL
�7�71�1_L�l _�__Ii� `l►W�]
8. OTHER This section not applicable
a. Give complete description:
The proposed project is a temporary (May 15 through September 15) istallation of ASU's (Artificial Seagrass Units), comprised
of 1 sq meter sheets of VEXAR with —450 shoots of green ribbon attached. The ASU's will be deployed within twenty-five 225
sq meter plots, according to pre -generated gridded maps, to create 25 unique landscape arrays. Following ASU deployment,
fish abundance and assemblage structure within each ASU landscape will be assessed during periodic sampling efforts.
3/29/17
Date
Habitat fragmentation effects of fish diversity at landscape scales:
experimental tests of multiple mechanisms
Project Name
F Joel Fodrie
Applicaripame
ApplicantSignatu
SEA"
BAR 2 9, 2017
252-808-2808 :: 1-888-4RCOAST :: www.nccoastaimanagement.net revised: 12/27/06

Fotrm 0CMMP-4 (StvuctRgres, Page 4 of 4)
` a. Proximity of structure(s) to adjacent riparian property lines
1,030 m to Harkers Island
Note: For buoy or mooring piling, use arc of swing including length
of vessel.
c. Width of water body
3,000 m
e. (i) Will navigational aids be required as a result of the project?
®Yes ❑No [INA
(ii) If yes, explain what type and how they will be implemented.
.Visible PVC poles will be used to mark each corner of the
individual landscape plots in order to boats from running
over the ASU units. The entire study area will be marked as
a research sanctuary per a pending application with the
North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries (contact: Trish
Murphy)
b. Proximity of structure(s) to adjacent docking facilities.
>2,000 m to a public boat ramp
d. Water depth at waterward end of structure at NLW or NWL
0.5 m (NLW) or 1 m (NWL)
8. OTHER [I This section not applicable
a. Give complete description:
The proposed project is a temporary (May 15 through September 15) istallation of ASU's (Artificial Seagrass Units), comprised
of 1 sq meter sheets of VEXAR with —450 shoots of green ribbon attached. The ASU's will be deployed within twenty-five 225
sq meter plots, according to pre -generated gridded maps, to create 25 unique landscape arrays. Following ASU deployment,
fish abundance and assemblage structure within each ASU landscape will be assessed during periodic sampling efforts.
3/29/17
Date
Habitat fragmentation effects of fish diversity at landscape scales:
experimental tests of multiple mechanisms
Project Name
F Joel Fodrie
Applicanoame
Applicant signatur' l
11V U
vw 2 9 2017
252-808-2808:: 1-888-4113COAST :: www.ncceastaimanacgement.net revised: 12/27106

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

Eggleston, D.B., Elis, W.E., Etherington, L.L., Dahlgren, C.P., Posey, M.H., 1999. Organism
responses to habitat fragmentation and diversity: habitat colonization by estuarine macrofauna. J.
Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 236,107-132.
Gartner, A., Tuya, F., Lavery, P.S., McMahon, K., 2013. Habitat preferences of
macroinvertebrate fauna among seagrasses with varying structural forms. J. Exp. Mar. Biol.
Ecol. 439, 143-151.
Gustafsson, C., Salo, T., 2012. The effect of patch isolation on epifaunal colonization in two
different seagrass ecosystems. Mar. Biol. 159, 1497-1507.
Hair, C.A., Bell, J.D., 1992. Effects of enhancing pontoons on abundance of fish: initial
experiments in estuaries. Bul. Mar. Sci. 51, 30-36.
Haywood, M.D.E., Pendrey, R.C., 1996. A new design for a submersible chronographic tethering
device to record predation in different habitats. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 143, 307-312.
Healey, D., Hovel, K.A., 2004. Seagrass bed patchiness: effects on epifaunal communities in San
Diego Bay, USA. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 313, 155-174.
Horner, S.M.J., 1987. Similarity of epiphyte biomass distribution on posidonia and artificial
seagrass leaves. Aquatic Botany 27, 159-167.
Hovel, K.A., Fonseca, M.S., 2005. Influence of seagrass landscape structure on the juvenile blue
crab habitat -survival function. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 300, 179-191.
Hovel, K.A., Lipicus, R.N., 2001. Habitat fragmentation in a seagrass landscape: patch size and
complexity control blue crab survival. Ecology 82, 1814-1829.
Irlandi, E.A., 1997. Seagrass patch size and survivorship of an infaunal bivalve. Oikos 78, 511-
518.
Jenkins, G.P., Sutherland, C.R., 1997. The influence of habitat structure on nearshore fish
assemblages in a southern Australian embayment: colonization and turnover rate of fishes
associated with artificial macrophyte beds of varying physical structure. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. 218,
103-125.
Johnson, M.W., Heck, K.L., 2006. Effects of habitat fragmentation per se on decapods and fishes
inhabiting seagrass meadows in the northern Gulf of Mexico. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 306, 233-
246.
Jones, C.L., Anderson, T.W., Edwards, M.S., 2013. Evaluating eelgrass site quality by the
settlement, performance, and survival of a marine fish. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 445, 61-68.
r-171VED
,MAR 2 9 2017
y x , H
Y IT

Eggleston, D.B., Elis, W.E., Etherington, L.L., Dahlgren, C.P., Posey, M.H., 1999. Organism
responses to habitat fragmentation and diversity: habitat colonization by estuarine macrofauna. J.
Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 236, 107-132.
Gartner, A., Tuya, F., Lavery, P.S., McMahon, K., 2013. Habitat preferences of
macroinvertebrate fauna among seagrasses with varying structural forms. J. Exp. Mar. Biol.
Ecol. 439, 143-151.
Gustafsson, C., Salo, T., 2012. The effect of patch isolation on epifaunal colonization in two
different seagrass ecosystems. Mar. Biol. 159, 1497-1507.
Hair, C.A., Bell, J.D., 1992. Effects of enhancing pontoons on abundance of fish: initial
experiments in estuaries. Bul. Mar. Sci. 51, 30-36.
Haywood, M.D.E., Pendrey, R.C., 1996. A new design for. a submersible chronographic tethering
device to record predation in different habitats. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 143, 307-312.
Healey, D., Hovel, K.A., 2004. Seagrass bed patchiness: effects on epifaunal communities in San
Diego Bay, USA. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 313,155-174.
Horner, S.M.J., 1987. Similarity of epiphyte biomass distribution on posidonia and artificial
seagrass leaves. Aquatic Botany 27, 159-167.
Hovel, K.A., Fonseca, M.S., 2005. Influence of seagrass landscape structure on the juvenile blue
crab habitat -survival function. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 300, 179-191.
Hovel, K.A., Lipicus, R.N., 2001. Habitat fragmentation in a seagrass landscape: patch size and
complexity control blue crab survival. Ecology 82, 1814-1829.
Irlandi, E.A., 1997. Seagrass patch size and survivorship of an infaunal bivalve. Oikos 78, 511-
518.
Jenkins, G.P., Sutherland, C.R., 1997. The influence of habitat structure on nearshore fish
assemblages in a southern Australian embayment: colonization and turnover rate of fishes
associated with artificial macrophyte beds of varying physical structure. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. 218,
103-125.
Johnson, M.W., Heck, K.L., 2006. Effects of habitat fragmentation per se on decapods and fishes
inhabiting seagrass meadows in the northern Gulf of Mexico. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 306, 233-
246.
Jones, C.L., Anderson, T.W., Edwards, M.S., 2013. Evaluating eelgrass site quality by the
settlement, performance, and survival of a marine fish. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 445, 61-68.
PEAR 2 9 7017
MHD CITY

Kenyon, R.A., Haywood, M.D.E., Heales, D.S., Loneragan, N.R., Pendrey, R.C., Vance, D.J.,
1999. Abundance of fish and crustacean postlarvae on portable artificial seagrass units: daily
sampling provides quantitative estimates of the settlement of new recruits. J. Exp. Mar. Biol.
Ecol. 232, 197-216.
Laurel, B.J., Gregory, R.S., Brown, J.A., 2003. Settlement and distribution of Age -0 juvenile
cod, Gadus morhua and G. ogac, following a large-scale habitat manipulation. Mar. Ecol. Prog.
Ser. 262, 241-252.
Lavery, P.S., Reid, T., Hyndes, G.A., Van Elven, B.R., 2007. Effect of leaf movement on
epiphytic algal biomass of seagrass leaves. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 338, 97-106.
Lee, S.Y., Fong, C.W., Wu, R.S.S., 2001. The effects of seagrass (Zostera japonica) canopy
structure on associated fauna: a study using artificial seagrass units and sampling of natural beds.
J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 259,23-50.
Levin, P., Petrik, R., Malone, J., 1997. Interactive effects of habitat selection, food supply and
predation on recruitment of an estuarine fish. Oecologia 112, 55-63.
Macreadie, P.I., Connolly, R.M., Keough, M.J., Jenkins, G.P., Hindell, J.S., 2009. Short-term
differences in animal assemblages in patches formed by loss and growth of habitat. Austral
Ecology 35, 515-521.
Macreadie, P.I., Hindell, J.S., Jenkins, G.P., Connolly, R.M., Keough, M.J., 2009. Fish responses
to experimental fragmentation of seagrass habitat. Cons. Biol. 23, 644-652.
Macreadie, P.I., Connolly, R.M., Jenkins, G.P., Hindell, J.S., Keough, M.J., 2010. Edge patterns
in aquatic invertebrates explained by predictive models. Mar. Fresh. Res. 61, 214-218.
McNeill, S.E., Fairweather, P.G., 1993. Single large or several small marine reserves? An
experimental approach with seagrass fauna. J. Biogeography 20, 429-440.
Mocksnes, P., Heck, K.L., 2006. Relative importance of habitat selection and predation for the
distribution of blue crab megalopae and young juveniles. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 308, 165-181.
Moore, E.C., Hovel, K.A., 2010. Relative influence of habitat complexity and proximity to patch
edges on seagrass epifaunal communities. Oikos 119, 1299-1311
Petrick R., Levin, P.S., Stunz, G.W., Malone, J., 1999. Recruitment of atlantic croaker,
Micropogonias undulatus: do postsettlement processes disrupt or reinforce initial patterns of
settlement? Fishery Bulletin 97, 954-961.
Pinckney, J.L., Micheli, F., 1998. Microalgae on seagrass mimics: does epiphyte community
structure differ from live seagrasses? J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 221, 59-70. RECEIVED
MAR 2 9 2017
D,CM- MHD CITY

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

Pinna, S., Sechi, N., Ceccherelli, G., 2013. Canopy structure at the edge of seagrass affects sea
urchin distribution. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 485, 47-55.
Quin, L.Z., Li, W.T., Zhang, X.M., Nie, M., Li, Y., 2014. Sexual reproduction and seed dispersal
pattern of annual and perennial Zostera marina in a heterogeneous habitat. Wetlands Ecol.
Manage. 22, 671-682.
Schneider, F.I., Mann, K.H., 1991. Species specific relationships of invertebrates to vegetation in
a seagrass bed. J. Exp.. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 145, 119-139.
Sirota, L., Hovel, K.A. Simulated eelgrass Zostera marina structural complexity: effects of shoot
length, shoot density, and surface area on the epifaunal community of San Diego Bay, California,
USA. Mar Ecol. Prog. Ser. 326, 115-131.
Sogard, S.M., 1989. Colonization of artificial seagrass by fishes and decapod crustaceans:
importance of proximity to natural eelgrass. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 133, 15-37.
Sogard, S.M., Able, K.W., 1994. Diel variation in immigration of fishes and decapod crustaceans
to artificial seagrass habitat. Estuaries 17, 622-630.
Tanner, J.E., 2003. Patch shape and orientation influences on seagrass epifauna are mediated by
dispersal abilities. Oikos 100, 517-524.
Upston, J., Booth, D.J., 2003. Settlement and density of juvenile fish assemblages in natural,
Zostera capricorni (Zosteraceae) and artificial seagrass beds. Env. Biol. Fish. 66, 91-97.
Van Elven, B.R., Lavery, P.S., Kendrick, G.A., 2004. Reefs as contributors to diversity of
epiphytic macroalgae assemblages in seagrass meadows. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 276, 71-83.
Virnstein, R.W., Curran, M.C., 1986. Colonization of artificial seagrass versus time and distance
from source. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 29, 279-288.
Warry, F.Y., Hindell, J.S., Macreadie, P.I., Jenkins, G.P., Connolly, R.M., 2009. Integrating edge
effects into studies of habitat fragmentation: a test using meiofauna in seagrass. Oecologia 159,
883-892.
Worthington, D.G., Westoby, M., Bell, J.D., 1991. Fish larvae settling in seagrass: effects of leaf
density and an epiphytic alga. Aus. J. Ecol. 16, 289-293.
ipf77777VED
21111
DOW MHD CITY

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

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

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

02 INFORMATION ABOUT PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS/PROJECT DIRECTORS(PI/PD) and
co -PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS/co-PROJECT DIRECTORS
Submit only ONE copy of this form for each PI/PD and co-PI/PD identified on the proposal. The form(s) should be attached to the original
proposal as specified in GPG Section II.C.a. Submission of this information is voluntary and is not a precondition of award. This information will
not be disclosed to external peer reviewers. DO NOT INCLUDE THIS FORM WITHANY OF THE OTHER COPIES OF YOUR PROPOSAL AS
THIS MAY COMPROMISE THE CONFIDENTIALITY OF THE INFORMATION.
PI/PD Name: Fredrick J Fodrie
Gender: ® Male ❑ Female
Ethnicity: (Choose one response) ❑ Hispanic or Latino ® Not Hispanic or Latino
Race: ❑ American Indian or Alaska Native
(Select one or more) ❑ Asian
❑ Black or African American
❑ Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
® White
Disability Status: [3,
Hearing Impairment
(Select one or more) ❑
Visual Impairment
❑
Mobility/Orthopedic Impairment
❑
Other
®
None
Citizenship: (Choose one) ® U.S. Citizen ❑ Permanent Resident ❑ Other non -U.S. Citizen
Check here if you do not wish to provide any or all of the above information (excluding PI/PD name): ❑
REQUIRED: Check here if you are currently serving (or have previously served) as a PI, co -PI or PD on any federally funded
project
Ethnicity Definition:
Hispanic or Latino. A person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless
of race.
Race Definitions:
American Indian or Alaska Native. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of North and South America (including Central
America), and who maintains tribal affiliation or community attachment.
Asian. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent including, for
example, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam.
Black or African American. A person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa.
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa,
or other Pacific Islands.
White. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa.
WHY THIS INFORMATION IS BEING REQUESTED:
The Federal Government has a continuing commitment to monitor the operation of its review and award processes to identify and address
any inequities based on gender, race, ethnicity, or disability of its proposed Pls/PDs. To gather information needed for this important
task, the proposer should submit a single copy of this form for each identified PI/PD with each proposal. Submission of the requested
information is voluntary and will not affect the organization's eligibility for an award. However, information not submitted will seriously undermine
the statistical validity, and therefore the usefulness, of information recieved from others. Any individual not wishing to submit some or all the
information should check the box provided forthis purpose. (The exceptions are the PI/PD name and the information about prior Federal support, the
last question above.)
Collection of this information is authorized by the NSF Act of 1950, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 1861, et seq. Demographic data allows NSF to
gauge whether our programs and other opportunities in science and technology are fairly reaching and benefiting everyone regardless of
demographic category; to ensure that those in under -represented groups have the same knowledge of and access to programs and other
research and educational oppurtunities; and to assess involvement of international investigators in work supported by NSF. The information
may be disclosed to government contractors, experts, volunteers and researchers to complete assigned work; and to other government
agencies in order to coordinate and assess programs. The information may be added to the Reviewer file and used to select potential
candidates to serve as peer reviewers or advisory committee members. See Systems of Records, NSF -50, "Principal Investigator/Proposal
File and Associated Records", 63 Federal Register 267 (January 5, 1998), and NSF -51, "Reviewer/Proposal File and Associated Records",
63 Federal Register 268 (January 5, 1998).
1635950

02 INFORMATION ABOUT PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS/PROJECT DIRECTORS(PI/PD) and
co -PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS/co-PROJECT DIRECTORS
Submit only ONE copy of this form for each PI/PD and co-PI/PD identified on the proposal. The form(s) should be attached to the original
proposal as specified in GPG Section II.C.a. Submission of this information is voluntary and is not a precondition of award. This information will
not be disclosed to external peer reviewers. DO NOT INCLUDE THIS FORM WITHANYOF THE OTHER COPIES OF YOUR PROPOSAL AS
THIS MAY COMPROMISE THE CONFIDENTIALITY OF THE INFORMATION.
PI/PD Name: Lauren Yeager
Gender:
Ethnicity: (Choose one response)
Race:
(Select one or more)
Disability Status:
(Select one or more)
❑ Male ® Female
❑ Hispanic or Latino ® Not Hispanic or Latino
❑ American Indian or Alaska Native
❑ Asian
❑ Black or African American
❑ Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
® White
❑ Hearing Impairment
❑ Visual Impairment
❑ Mobility/Orthopedic Impairment
❑ Other
❑ None
MAR 2 %017
Citizenship: (Choose one) ® U.S. Citizen ❑ Permanent Resident ❑ Other non -U.S. Citizen
Check here if you do not wish to provide any or all of the above information (excluding PI/PD name):
REQUIRED: Check here if you are currently serving (or have previously served) as a PI, co -PI or PD on any federally funded
project
Ethnicity Definition:
Hispanic or Latino. A person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless
of race.
Race Definitions:
American Indian or Alaska Native. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of North and South America (including Central
America), and who maintains tribal affiliation or community attachment.
Asian. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent including, for
example, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam.
Black or African American. A person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa.
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa,
or other Pacific Islands.
White. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa.
WHY THIS INFORMATION IS BEING REQUESTED:
The Federal Government has a continuing commitment to monitor the operation of its review and award processes to identify and address
any inequities based on gender, race, ethnicity, or disability of its proposed PIs/PDs. To gather information needed for this important
task, the proposer should submit a single copy of this form for each identified PI/PD with each proposal. Submission of the requested
information is voluntary and will not affect the organization's eligibility for an award. However, information not submitted will seriously undermine
the statistical validity, and therefore the usefulness, of information recieved from others. Any individual not wishing to submit some or all the
information should checkthe box provided forthis purpose. (The exceptions are the PI/PD name and the information about prior Federal support, the
last question above.)
Collection of this information is authorized by the NSF Act of 1950, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 1861, et seq. Demographic data allows NSF to
gauge whether our programs and other opportunities in science and technology are fairly reaching and benefiting everyone regardless of
demographic category; to ensure that those in under -represented groups have the same knowledge of and access to programs and other
research and educational oppurtunities; and to assess involvement of international investigators in work supported by NSF. The information
may be disclosed to government contractors, experts, volunteers and researchers to complete assigned work; and to other government
agencies in order to coordinate and assess programs. The information may be added to the Reviewer file and used to select potential
candidates to serve as peer reviewers or advisory committee members. See Systems of Records, NSF -50, "Principal Investigator/Proposal
File and Associated Records", 63 Federal Register 267 (January 5, 1998), and NSF -51, "Reviewer/Proposal File and Associated Records",
63 Federal Register 268 (January 5, 1998).
1635915

144
02 INFORMATION ABOUT PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS/PROJECT DIRECTORS(PI/PD) and
co -PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS/co-PROJECT DIRECTORS
Submit only ONE copy of this form for each PI/PD and co-PI/PD identified on the proposal. The form(s) should be attached to the original
proposal as specified in GPG Section II.C.a. Submission of this information is voluntary and is not a precondition of award. This information will
not be disclosed to external peer reviewers. DO NOT INCLUDE THIS FORM WITHANYOF THE OTHER COPIES OF YOUR PROPOSAL AS
THIS MAY COMPROMLSE THE CONFIDENTIALITY OF THE INFORMATION.
PI/PD Name: Lauren Yeager
Gender:
Ethnicity: (Choose one response)
Race:
(Select one or more)
Disability Status:
(Select one or more)
❑ Male. ® Female
❑ Hispanic or Latino ® Not Hispanic or Latino
❑ American Indian or Alaska Native
❑ Asian
❑ Black or African American
❑ Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
® White
❑ Hearing Impairment
❑ Visual Impairment
❑ Mobility/Orthopedic Impairment
❑ Other
❑ None
RCT Um
MAR 2 9 2017
Citizenship: (Choose one) ® U.S. Citizen ❑ Permanent Resident ❑ Other non -U.S. Citizen
Check here if you do not wish to provide any or all of the above information (excluding PI/PD name):
REQUIRED: Check here if you are currently serving (or have previously served) as a PI, co -PI or PD on any federally funded
project
Ethnicity Definition:
Hispanic or Latino. A person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless
of race.
Race Definitions:
American Indian or Alaska Native. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of North and South America (including Central
America), and who maintains tribal affiliation or community attachment.
Asian. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent including, for
example, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam.
Black or African American. A person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa.
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa,
or other Pacific Islands.
White. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa.
WHY THIS INFORMATION IS BEING REQUESTED:
The Federal Government has a continuing commitment to monitor the operation of its review and award processes to identify and address
any inequities based on gender, race, ethnicity, or disability of its proposed PIs/PDs. To gather information needed for this important
task, the proposer should submit a single copy of this form for each identified PI/PD with each proposal. Submission of the requested
information is voluntary and will not affect the organization's eligibility for an award. However, information not submitted will seriously undermine
the statistical validity, .and therefore the usefulness, of information recieved from others. Any individual not wishing to submit some or all the
information should checkthe box provided forthis purpose. (The exceptions are the PI/PD name and the information about prior Federal support, the
last question above.)
Collection of this information is authorized by the NSF Act of 1950, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 1861, et seq. Demographic data allows NSF to
gauge whether our programs and other opportunities in science and technology are fairly reaching and benefiting everyone regardless of
demographic category; to ensure that those in under -represented groups have the same knowledge of and access to programs and other
research and educational oppurtunities; and to assess involvement of international investigators in work supported by NSF. The Information
may be disclosed to government contractors, experts, volunteers and researchers to complete assigned work; and to other government
agencies in order to coordinate and assess programs. The information may be added to the Reviewer file and used to select potential
candidates to serve as peer reviewers or advisory committee members. See Systems of Records, NSF -50, "Principal Investigator/Proposal
File and Associated Records", 63 Federal Register 267 (January 5, 1998), and NSF -51, "Reviewer/Proposal File and Associated Records",
63 Federal Register 268 (January 5, 1998).
1635915

List of Suggested Reviewers or Reviewers Not To Include (optional)
SUGGESTED REVIEWERS:
Lenore Fahrig, [e-mail], Carleton Univ
John M. Carroll, [e-mail], Georgia Southern Univ
Jessie C. Jarvis, [e-mail], Univ of North Carolina, Wilmington
Robert J. Orth, [e-mail], Virginia Institute of Marine Science
Kevin M. Boswell, [e-mail], Florida International
University
REVIEWERS NOT TO INCLUDE:
LIAR 2 5 2017
M- NINO CITY
1635950

List of Suggested Reviewers or Reviewers Not To Include (optional)
SUGGESTED REVIEWERS:
Not Listed
REVIEWERS NOT TO INCLUDE:
Not Listed
RECEIVE
MAR 29 '2017
C - 1.01 I CITY
1635915

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

Collaborators & Other Affiliations Information
J. Fodrie
Collaborators and co -Editors:
Able, Kenneth (Rutgers University);
Andrus, Fred (University of Alabama);
Becker, Bonnie (University of Washington, Tacoma);
Byers, Jeb (University of Georgia);
Duffy, Emmett (Smithsonian);
Eggleston, David (North Carolina State University);
Grabowski, Jonathan (Northeastern University);
Galvez, Fern (Louisiana State University);
Gittman, Rachel (Northeastern University);
Herzka, Sharon (CISESE);
Hovel, Kevin (San Diego State University);
Jensen, Olaf (Rutgers University);
Layman, Craig (North Carolina State University);
Lindquist, Niels (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill);
Lipcius, Rom (Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences);
Lopez -Duarte, Paola (Rutgers University);
Martin, Charles (Louisiana State University);
Nye, Janet (Stony Brook University);
Rabalais, Nancy (Louisiana State University);
Peterson, Charles (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill);
Piehler, Mike (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill);
Pinski, Maim (Rutgers University);
Powers, Sean (Dauphin Island Sea Lab);
Puckett, Brandon (North Carolina Coastal Reserve — National Estuarine Research Reserves);
Roberts, Brian (Louisiana State University);
Rodriguez, Antonio (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill);
Scharf, Fred (University of North Carolina, Wilmington);
Scyphers, Steven (Northeastern University);
Sherwood, Graham (Gulf of Maine Research Institute);
Sotka, Eric (College of Charleston);
Stunz, Greg (Texas A&M University — Corpus Christie);
Turner, Eugene (Louisiana State University);
Whitehead, Andrew (University of California, Davis) RECEIVED
Graduate Advisors and Postdoctoral Sponsors: MAR 2 9 201
7
Heck Jr., Kenneth (Postdoctoral advisor, Dauphin Island Sea Lab);
Levin, Lisa (PhD advisor, Scripps Institution of Oceanography)
Thesis Advisor and Postgraduate -Scholar Sponsor:
Coleman, Sara (Masters, The Nature Conservancy);
Morley, James (Postdoctoral researcher, Rutgers University);
Yeager, Lauren (Postdoctoral researcher, National Socio -Environmental Synthesis Center)
1635950

Collaborators & Other Affiliations.
Collaborators and co-editors:
Burns, Taylor
Chacin, Dinorah
Deith, Mairin
Giery, Sean
Grabowski, Jon
Hammerschlag -Peyer, Caroline
Keller, Danielle
Kenworthy, Matthew
Langerhans, Brian
Peters, Joey
Selliban, Serina
Sherwood, Graham
Stoner, Elizabeth
Williams, Ivor
Zapata, Martha
Loyola University
University of South Florida
University of British Columbia
North Carolina State University
Northeastern University
Florida International University
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
North Carolina State University
Portland State University
San Francisco State University
Gulf of Maine Research Institute
Loxahatchee River District
Coral Reef Ecosystem Program, NOAA
Ohio State University
Graduate Advisors and Postdoctoral Sponsor:
Baum, Julia University of Victoria
Layman, Craig North Carolina State University
McPherson, Jana Calagary Zoo
Thesis Advisor and Postgraduate -Scholar Sponsor:
None to report.
��C
MAR 2� 2 01
yap r. Y
1635915

Collaborators & Other filiations.
Collaborators and co-editors:
Burns, Taylor
Chacin, Dinorah
Deith, Mairin
Giery, Sean
Grabowski, Jon
Hammerschlag -Peyer, Caroline
Keller, Danielle
Kenworthy, Matthew
Langerhans, Brian
Peters, Joey
Selliban, Serina
Sherwood, Graham
Stoner, Elizabeth .
Williams, Ivor
Zapata, Martha
Loyola University
University of South Florida
University of British Columbia
North Carolina State University
Northeastern University
Florida International University
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
North Carolina State University
Portland State University
San Francisco State University
Gulf of Maine Research Institute
Loxahatchee River District
Coral Reef Ecosystem Program, NOAA
Ohio State University
Graduate Advisors and Postdoctoral Sponsor:
Baum, Julia University of Victoria
Layman, Craig North Carolina State University
McPherson, Jana Calagary Zoo
Thesis Advisor and Postgraduate -Scholar Sponsor:
None to report.
C -
RECEIVED
MAR 2 9 2017
Cam IVIHD CiT
1635915

Not for distribution
COVER SHEET FOR PROPOSAL TO THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
PROGRAM ANNOUNCEMENT/SOLICITATION NO./DUE DATE
❑ Special Exception to Deadline Date Policy
FOR NSF USE ONLY
PD 98-1650 02/16/16
NSF PROPOSAL NUMBER
1635950
FOR CONSIDERATION BY NSF ORGANIZATION UNIT(S) (Indicate the most spetiflc unit lowwn, i.e. program, division, etc.)
OCE -BIOLOGICAL OCEANOGRAPHY
DATE RECEIVED
NUMBER OF COPIES
DIVISION ASSIGNED
FUND CODE
DUNS# (Data Universal Numbering System)
FILE LOCATION
02/16/2016
2
06040000 OCE
1650
608195277
02/19/201612:05pm S
EMPLOYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (EIN) OR
SHOW PREVIOUS AWARD NO. IF THIS IS
IS THIS PROPOSAL BEING SUBMITTED TO ANOTHER FEDERAL
TAXPAYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (TIN)
❑ A RENEWAL
AGENCY? YES ❑ NO E IF YES, LIST ACRONYM(S)
❑ AN ACCOMPLISHMENT -BASED RENEWAL
566001393
NAME OF ORGANIZATION TO WHICH AWARD SHOULD BE MADE
ADDRESS OF AWARDEE ORGANIZATION, INCLUDING 9 DIGIT ZIP CODE
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
104 Airport Dr Ste 2200
Chapel Hill, NC. 275991350
AWARDEE ORGANIZATION CODE (IF KNOWN)
0029744000
NAME OF PRIMARY PLACE OF PERF
ADDRESS OF PRIMARY PLACE OF PERF, INCLUDING 9 DIGIT ZIP CODE
Institute of Marine Sciences
Institute of Marine Sciences
3431 Arendell Street
Morehead City ,NC 285570001 US.
IS AWARDEE ORGANIZATION (Check All That Apply) ❑ SMALL BUSINESS ❑ MINORITY BUSINESS
❑ IF THIS IS A PRELIMINARY PROPOSAL
(See GPG ILC For Definitions) ❑ FOR-PROFIT ORGANIZATION ❑ WOMAN -OWNED BUSINESS
THEN CHECK HERE
TITLE OF PROPOSED PROJECT Collaborative Research: Habitat fragmentation effects on fish
diversity at landscape scales: experimental tests of multiple
mechanisms
REQUESTED AMOUNT
PROPOSED DURATION (1-60 MONTHS)
REQUESTED STARTING DATE
SHOW RELATED PRELIMINARY PROPOSAL NO.
$ 451,039
36 months
09/15/16
IF APPLICABLE
THIS PROPOSAL INCLUDES ANY OF THE ITEMS LISTED BELOW
❑ BEGINNING INVESTIGATOR (GPG I.G.2) ❑ HUMAN SUBJECTS (GPG II.D.7) Human Subjects Assurance Number
❑ DISCLOSURE OF LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (GPG II.C.1.e) Exemption Subsection or IRB App. Date
❑ PROPRIETARY & PRIVILEGED INFORMATION (GPG I.D, II.C.1.d) ❑ INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES: COUNTRY/COUNTRIES INVOLVED (GPG II.C.2.j)
❑ HISTORIC PLACES (GPG II.C.2.j)
E VERTEBRATE ANIMALS (GPG II.D.6) IACUC App. Date 05/08/15
®COLLABORATIVE STATUS
PHS Animal Welfare Assurance Number A3410-01
E FUNDING MECHANISM Research - other than RAPID or EAGER A collaborative proposal from multiple organizations (GPG II.D.4.b)
PI/PD DEPARTMENT
PI/PD POSTAL ADDRESS
Institute of Marine Sciences
104 AIRPORT DR STE 2200
CHAPEL HILL, NC 275991350
PI/PD FAX NUMBER
252-726-2426
UWJS� States
NAMES (TYPED)
High Degree
Yr of Degree
Telephone Number
Email Address
PI/PD NAME
Fredrick J Fodrie
DPhil
2006
919-966-3411
[e-mail]
CO-PI/PD
CO-PI/PD
CO-PI/PD
CO-PI/PD
RECEIVED
Page 1 of 3
MAR 2 9 2017
f'
4 a... -(V* -1D CITY
TM.161b7i,,

Not for distribution
CERTIFICATION PAGE
Certification for Authorized Organizational Representative (or Equivalent) or Individual Applicant
By electronically signing and submitting this proposal, the Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR) or Individual Applicant is: (1) certifying that statements made herein are true and
complete to the best of his/her knowledge; and (2) agreeing to accept the obligation to comply with NSF award terms and conditions if an award is made as a result of this application. Further
the applicant is hereby providing certifications regarding conflict of interest (when applicable), drug-free workplace, debarment and suspension, lobbying activities (see below),
nondiscrimination, flood hazard insurance (when applicable), responsible conduct of research, organizational support, Federal tax obligations, unpaid Federal tax liability, and criminal
convictions as set forth in the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide,Part I: the Grant Proposal Guide (GPG). Willful provision of false information in this application and its
supporting documents or in reports required under an ensuing award is a criminal offense (U.S. Code, Title 18, Section 1001).
Certification Regarding Conflict of Interest
The AOR is required to complete certifications stating that the organization has implemented and is enforcing a written policy on conflicts of interest (COI), consistent with the provisions
of AAG Chapter IV.A.; that, to the best of his/her knowledge, all financial disclosures required by the conflict of interest policy were made; and that conflicts of interest, if any, were,
or prior to the organization's expenditure of any funds under the award, will be, satisfactorily managed, reduced or eliminated in accordance with the organization's conflict of interest policy.
Conflicts that cannot be satisfactorily managed, reduced or eliminated and research that proceeds without the imposition of conditions or restrictions when a conflict of interest exists,
must be disclosed to NSF via use of the Notifications and Requests Module in FastLane.
Drug Free Work Place Certification
By electronically signing the Certification Pages, the Authorized Organizational Representative (or equivalent), is providing the Drug Free Work Place Certification contained in
Exhibit II -3 of the Grant Proposal Guide.
Debarment and Suspension Certification (If answer "yes", please provide explanation.)
Is the organization or its principals presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded
from covered transactions by any Federal department or agency? Yes ❑ No
By electronically signing the Certification Pages, the Authorized Organizational Representative (or equivalent) or Individual Applicant is providing the
Debarment and Suspension Certification contained in Exhibit 114 of the Grant Proposal Guide.
Certification Regarding Lobbying
This certification is required for an award of a Federal contract, grant, or cooperative agreement exceeding $100,000 and for an award of a Federal loan or a commitment providing
for the United States to insure or guarantee a loan exceeding $150,000.
Certification for Contracts, Grants, Loans and Cooperative Agreements
The undersigned certifies, to the best of his or her knowledge and belief, that:
(1) No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of the undersigned, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any
agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any Federal contract, the making of any
Federal grant, the making of any Federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal
contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement.
(2) If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a
Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement, the
undersigned shall complete and submit Standard Form -LLL, "Disclosure of Lobbying Activities," in accordance with its instructions.
(3) The undersigned shall require that the language of this certification be included in the award documents for all subawards at all tiers including subcontracts, subgrants, and contracts
under grants, loans, and cooperative agreements and that all subrecipients shall certify and disclose accordingly.
This certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was made or entered into. Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for
making or entering into this transaction imposed by section 1352, Title 31, U.S. Code. Any person who fails to file the required certification shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less
than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure.
Certification Regarding Nondiscrimination
By electronically signing the Certification Pages, the Authorized Organizational Representative (or equivalent) is providing the Certification Regarding
Nondiscrimination contained in Exhibit II -6 of the Grant Proposal Guide.
Certification Regarding Flood Hazard Insurance
Two sections of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 USC §4012a and §4106) bar Federal agencies from giving financial assistance for acquisition or
construction purposes in any area identified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as having special flood hazards unless the:
(1) community in which that area is located participates in the national flood insurance program; and
(2) building (and any related equipment) is covered by adequate flood insurance.
By electronically signing the Certification Pages, the Authorized Organizational Representative (or equivalent) or Individual Applicant located in FEMA -designated special flood hazard areas is
certifying that adequate flood insurance has been or will be obtained in the following situations:
(1) for NSF grants for the construction of a building or facility, regardless of the dollar amount of the grant; and
(2) for other NSF grants when more than $25,000 has been budgeted in the proposal for repair, alteration or improvement (construction) of a building or facility.
Certification Regarding Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR)
(This certification is not applicable to proposals for conferences, symposia, and workshops.)
By electronically signing the Certification Pages, the Authorized Organizational Representative is certifying that, in accordance with the NSF Proposal
& Award Policies & Procedures Guide, Part II, Award & Administration Guide (AAG) Chapter IV.B., the institution has a plan in place to provide appropriate training and oversight in the
responsible and ethical conduct of research to undergraduates, graduate students and postdoctoral researchers who will be supported by NSF to conduct research.
The AOR shall require that the language of this certification be included in any award documents for all subawards at all fiers.
Co
MAR 2 19 2017
A n ?� tom,iTy
�d at a
Page 2 of 3
1635950

Not for distribution
CERTIFICATION PAGE
Certification for Authorized Organizational Representative (or Equivalent) or Individual Applicant
By electronically signing and submitting this proposal, the Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR) or Individual Applicant Is; (1) certifying that statements made herein are true and
complete to the best of his/her knowledge; and (2) agreeing to accept the obligation to comply with NSF award terms and conditions if an award is made as a result of this application. Further,
the applicant is hereby providing certifications regarding conflict of interest (when applicable), drug-free workplace, debarment and suspension, lobbying activities (see below),
nondiscrimination, flood hazard insurance (when applicable), responsible conduct of research, organizational support, Federal tax obligations, unpaid Federal tax liability, and criminal
convictions as set forth in the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide,Part I: the Grant Proposal Guide (GPG). Willful provision of false information in this application and its
supporting documents or in reports required under an ensuing award is a criminal offense (U.S. Code, Title 18, Section 1001).
Certification Regarding Conflict of Interest
The AOR is required lo complete certifications stating that the organization has implemented and is enforcing a written policy on conflicts of interest (COI), consistent with the provisions
of AAG Chapter IV.A.; that, to the best of his/her knowledge, all financial disclosures required by the conflict of interest policy were made; and that conflicts of interest, if any, were,
or prior to the organization's expenditure of any funds under the award, will be, satisfactorily managed, reduced or eliminated in accordance with the organization's conflict of interest policy.
Conflicts that cannot be satisfactorily managed, reduced or eliminated and research that proceeds without the imposition of conditions or restrictions when a conflict of interest exists,
must be disclosed to NSF via use of the Notifications and Requests Module in FastLane.
Drug Free Work Place Certification
By electronically signing the Certification Pages, the Authorized Organizational Representative (or equivalent), is providing the Drug Free Work Place Certification contained in
Exhibit II -3 of the Grant Proposal Guide.
Debarment and Suspension Certification (If answer "yes", please provide explanation.)
Is the organization or its principals presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded
from covered transactions by any Federal department or agency? Yes 0 No
By electronically signing the Certification Pages, the Authorized Organizational Representative (or equivalent) or Individual Applicant is providing the
Debarment and Suspension Certification contained in Exhibit Il- of the Grant Proposal Guide.
Certification Regarding Lobbying
This certification is required for an award of a Federal contract, grant, or cooperative agreement exceeding $100,000 and for an award of a Federal ban or a commitment providing
for the United States to insure or guarantee a loan exceeding $150,000.
Certification for Contracts, Grants, Loans and Cooperative Agreements
The undersigned certifies, to the best of his or her knowledge and belief, that:
(1) No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of the undersigned, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any
agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any Federal contract, the making of any
Federal grant, the making of any Federal loan, the entering Into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal
contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement
(2) If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a
Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement, the
undersigned shall complete and submit Standard Form -LLL, "Disclosure of Lobbying Activities," in accordance with its instructions.
(3) The undersigned shall require that the language of this certification be included in the award documents for all subawards at all tiers including subcontracts, subgrants, and contracts
under grants, loans, and cooperative agreements and that all subrecipients shall certify and disclose accordingly.
This certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was made or entered Into. Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for
making or entering into this transaction imposed by section 1352, Title 31, U.S. Code. Any person who fails to file the required certification shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less
than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure.
Certification Regarding Nondiscrimination
By electronically signing the Certification Pages, the Authorized Organizational Representative (or equivalent) Is providing the Certification Regarding
Nondiscrimination contained in Exhibit II -6 of the Grant Proposal Guide.
Certification Regarding Flood Hazard Insurance
Two sections of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 USC §4012a and §4106) bar Federal agencies from giving financial assistance for acquisition or
construction purposes in any area Identified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as having special flood hazards unless the:
(1) community in which that area is located participates in the national flood insurance program; and
(2) building (and any related equipment) is covered by adequate flood insurance.
By electronically signing the Certification Pages, the Authorized Organizational Representative (or equivalent) or Individual Applicant located in FEMA -designated special flood hazard areas
certifying that adequate flood insurance has been or will be obtained in the following situations:
(1) for NSF grants for the construction of a building or facility, regardless of the dollar amount of the grant; and
(2) for other NSF grants when more than $25,000 has been budgeted in the proposal for repair, alteration or improvement (construction) of a building or facility.
Certification Regarding Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR)
(This certification is not applicable to proposals for conferences, symposia, and workshops.)
By electronically signing the Certification Pages, the Authorized Organizational Representative Is certifying that, in accordance with the NSF Proposal
& Award Policies & Procedures Guide, Part 11, Award & Administration Guide (AAG) Chapter N.B., the institution has a plan in place to provide appropriate training and oversight in the
responsible and ethical conduct of research to undergraduates, graduate students and postdoctoral researchers who will be supported by NSF to conduct research.
The AOR shall require that the language of this certification be included in any award documents for all subawards at all tiers. I
MAR 2 9 2017
DSM® MHU" CITE'
Page 2 of 3
1635950

Not for distribution
CERTIFICATION PAGE - CONTINUED
Certification Regarding Organizational Support
By electronically signing the Certification Pages, the Authorized Organizational Representative (or equivalent) is certifying that there is organizational support for the proposal as required by
Section 526 of the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010. This support extends to the portion of the proposal developed to satisfy the Broader Impacts Review Criterion as well as
the Intellectual Merit Review Criterion, and any additional review criteria specified in the solicitation. Organizational support will be made available, as described in the proposal, in order to
address the broader impacts and intellectual merit activities to be undertaken.
Certification Regarding Federal Tax Obligations
When the proposal exceeds $5,000,000, the Authorized Organizational Representative (or equivalent) is required to complete the following certification regarding Federal tax obligations.
By electronically signing the Certification pages, the Authorized Organizational Representative is certifying that, to the best of their knowledge and belief, the proposing organization:
(1) has filed all Federal tax returns required during the three years preceding this certification;
(2) has not been convicted of a criminal offense under the Internal Revenue Code of 1966; and
(3) has not, more than 90 days prior to this certification, been notified of any unpaid Federal tax assessment for which the liability remains unsatisfied, unless the assessment is the
subject of an installment agreement or offer in compromise that has been approved by the Intemal Revenue Service and is not in default, or the assessment is the subject of a non -frivolous
administrative or judicial proceeding.
Certification Regarding Unpaid Federal Tax Liability
When the proposing organization is a corporation, the Authorized Organizational Representative (or equivalent) is required to complete the following certification regarding Federal Tax
Liability:
By electronically signing the Certification Pages, the Authorized Organizational Representative (or equivalent) is certifying that the corporation has no unpaid Federal tax liability that has
been assessed, for which all judicial and administrative remedies have been exhausted or lapsed, and that is not being paid in a timely manner pursuant to an agreement with the authority
responsible for collecting the tax liability.
Certification Regarding Criminal Convictions
When the proposing organization is a corporation, the Authorized Organizational Representative (or equivalent) is required to complete the following certification regarding Criminal
Convictions:
By electronically signing the Certification Pages, the Authorized Organizational Representative (or equivalent) is certifying that the corporation has not been convicted of a felony criminal
violation under any Federal law within the 24 months preceding the date on which the certification is signed.
Certification Dual Use Research of Concern
By electronically signing the certification pages, the Authorized Organizational Representative is certifying that the organization will be or is in compliance with all aspects of the United States
Government Policy for Institutional Oversight of Life Sciences Dual Use Research of Concern.
RECEIVED
MAR 2 9 2017
DOW- MHD CITY
AUTHORIZED ORGANIZATIONAL REPRESENTATIVE
SIGNATURE
DATE
NAME
Jill Thomas
Electronic Signature
Feb 16 2016 4:13PM
TELEPHONE NUMBER
EMAIL ADDRESS
FAX NUMBER
919-962-5697
1 [e-mail]
1 919-962-3352
Page 3 of 3
1635950

Not for distribution
COVER SHEET FOR PROPOSAL TO THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
PROGRAM ANNOUNCEMENT/SOLICITATION N0./DUE DATE
❑ Special Exception to Deadline Date Policy
FOR NSF USE ONLY
PD 98-1650 02/16/16
NSF PROPOSAL NUMBER
1635915
FOR CONSIDERATION BY NSF ORGANIZATION UNIT(S) (Indicate the most specific unit known, i.e: program, division, etc.)
OCE -BIOLOGICAL OCEANOGRAPHY
DATE RECEIVED
NUMBER OF COPIES
DIVISION ASSIGNED
FUND CODE
DUNS# (Data universal Numbering system)
FILE LOCATION
02/16/2016
2
06040000 OCE
1650
790934285
02/19n01612:05pm s
EMPLOYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (EIN) OR
SHOW PREVIOUS AWARD NO. IF THIS IS
IS THIS PROPOSAL BEING SUBMITTED TO ANOTHER FEDERAL
TAXPAYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (TIN)
❑ A RENEWAL
AGENCY? YES ❑ NO ® IF YES, LIST ACRONYM(S)
❑ AN ACCOMPLISHMENT -BASED RENEWAL
526002033
NAME OF ORGANIZATION TO WHICH AWARD SHOULD BE MADE
ADDRESS OF AWARDEE ORGANIZATION, INCLUDING 9 DIGIT ZIP CODE
University of Maryland College Park
University of Maryland College Park
3112 LEE BLDG 7809 Regents DriveCOLLEGE PARK, MD. 207425141
AWARDEE ORGANIZATION CODE (IF KNOWN)
0021030000
NAME OF PRIMARY PLACE OF PERF
ADDRESS OF PRIMARY PLACE OF PERF, INCLUDING 9 DIGIT ZIP CODE
University of Maryland College Park
University of Maryland College Park
1 Park Place Suite 300
Annapolis ,MD ,214013480 ,US.
IS AWARDEE ORGANIZATION (Check All That Apply) ❑ SMALL BUSINESS ❑ MINORITY BUSINESS
❑ IF THIS IS A PRELIMINARY PROPOSAL
(See GPG ILC For Definitions) ❑ FOR-PROFIT ORGANIZATION ❑ WOMAN -OWNED BUSINESS
THEN CHECK HERE
TITLE OF PROPOSED PROJECT Collaborative Research: Habitat fragmentation effects on seagrass fish
diversity at landscape scales: experimental tests of multiple
mechanisms
REQUESTED AMOUNT
PROPOSED DURATION (1-60 MONTHS)
REQUESTED STARTING DATE
SHOW RELATED PRELIMINARY PROPOSAL NO.
$ 140,445
36 months
09/15/16
IF APPLICABLE
THIS PROPOSAL INCLUDES ANY OF THE ITEMS LISTED BELOW
N BEGINNING INVESTIGATOR (GPG I.G.2) ❑ HUMAN SUBJECTS (GPG II.D.7) Human Subjects Assurance Number
❑ DISCLOSURE OF LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (GPG II.C.1.e) Exemption Subsection or IRB App. Date
❑ PROPRIETARY & PRIVILEGED INFORMATION (GPG I.D, II.C.t.d) ❑ INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES: COUNTRY/COUNTRIES INVOLVED (GPG II.C.2.j)
❑ HISTORIC PLACES (GPG II.C.2.j)
® VERTEBRATE ANIMALS (GPG II.D.6) IACUC App. Date Pending
PHS Animal Welfare Assurance Number A327O-Ol ®COLLABORATIVE STATUS
® FUNDING MECHANISM Research - other than RAPID or EAGER A collaborative proposal from multiple organizations (GPG II.D.4.b)
PI/PD DEPARTMENT
PI/PD POSTAL ADDRESS
National Socio -Environmental Syn Center
1 Park Place Suite 300
Annapolis, MD 21401
PI/PD FAX NUMBER
305-978-6236
Unitk States
NAMES (TYPED)
High Degree
Yr of Degree
Telephone Number
Email Address
PI/PD NAME
Lauren Yeager
PhD
2013
305-978-6236
[e-mail]
CO-PI/PD
CO-PI/PD
CO-PI/PD
CO-PI/PD
Page 1 of 3
MAR 2 9 ?017
101 ­ " H D C 4 FY 1635915

Not for distribution
COVER SHEET FOR PROPOSAL TO THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
PROGRAM ANNOUNCEMENT/SOLICITATION N0./DUE DATE
❑ Special Exception to Deadline Date Policy
FOR NSF USE ONLY
PD 98-1650 02/16/16
NSF PROPOSAL NUMBER
1635915
FOR CONSIDERATION BY NSF. ORGANIZATION UNIT(S) (Indicate the most speclflc unit (mown, i.e. program, division, etc.)
OCE -BIOLOGICAL OCEANOGRAPHY
DATE RECEIVED
NUMBER OF COPIES
DIVISION ASSIGNED
FUND CODE
DUNS# (Data Universal Numbering System)
FILE LOCATION
02/16/2016
2
06040000 OCE
1650
790934285
02n9n01612:65pm s
EMPLOYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (EIN) OR
SHOW PREVIOUS AWARD NO. IF THIS IS
IS THIS PROPOSAL BEING SUBMITTED TO ANOTHER FEDERAL
TAXPAYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (TIN)
❑ A RENEWAL
AGENCY? YES ❑ NOS IF YES, LIST ACRONYM(S)
❑ AN ACCOMPLISHMENT -BASED RENEWAL
526002033
NAME OF ORGANIZATION TO WHICH AWARD SHOULD BE MADE
ADDRESS OF AWARDEE ORGANIZATION, INCLUDING 9 DIGIT ZIP CODE
University of Maryland College Park
Un iversity of Maryland College Park
3112 LEE BLDG 7809 Regents Drive
COLLEGE PARK, MD. 207425141
AWARDEE ORGANIZATION CODE (IF KNOWN)
0021030000
NAME OF PRIMARY PLACE OF PERF
ADDRESS OF PRIMARY PLACE OF PERF, INCLUDING 9 DIGIT ZIP CODE
University of Maryland College Park
University of Maryland College Park
1 Park Place Suite 300
Annapolis ,MD ,214013480 ,US.
IS AWARDEE ORGANIZATION (Check All That Apply) [I SMALL BUSINESS [I MINORITY BUSINESS
❑ IF THIS IS A PRELIMINARY PROPOSAL
(See GPG ILC For Definitions) ❑ FOR-PROFIT ORGANIZATION ❑ WOMAN -OWNED BUSINESSI
THEN CHECK HERE
TITLE OF PROPOSED PROJECT Collaborative Research: Habitat fragmentation effects on seagrass fish
diversity at landscape scales: experimental tests of multiple
mechanisms
REQUESTED AMOUNT
PROPOSED DURATION (1-60 MONTHS)
REQUESTED STARTING DATE
SHOW RELATED PRELIMINARY PROPOSAL NO.
$ 140,445
36 months
09/15/16
IF APPLICABLE
THIS PROPOSAL INCLUDES ANY OF THE ITEMS LISTED BELOW
0 BEGINNING INVESTIGATOR (GPG I.G.2) ❑ HUMAN SUBJECTS (GPG II.D.7) Human Subjects Assurance Number
❑ DISCLOSURE OF LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (GPG II.C.t.e) Exemption Subsection or IRB App. Date
❑ PROPRIETARY 8 PRIVILEGED INFORMATION (GPG I.D, ILCA A) ❑ INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES: COUNTRY/COUNTRIES INVOLVED (GPG II.C.2.1)
❑ HISTORIC PLACES (GPG II.C.2J)
N VERTEBRATE ANIMALS (GPG II.D.6) IACUC App. Date PeIIdInE
® COLLABORATIVE STATUS
PHS Animal Welfare Assurance Number A3270-01
® FUNDING MECHANISM Research - other than RAPID or EAGER A collaborative proposal from multiple organizations (GPG II.D.4.b)
PI/PD DEPARTMENT PUPD POSTAL ADDRESS
National Socio -Environmental Syn Cent r 1 Park Place Suite 300
PI/PD FAX NUMBER Annapolis, MD 21401
305-978-6236 Unitk States
NAMES (TYPED)
High Degree
Yr of Degree
Telephone Number
Email Address
PI/PD NAME
Lauren Yeager
PhD
2013
305-978-6236
[e-mail]
CO-PI/PD
CO-PI/PD
CO-PIIPD
CO-PUPD
Page lof3
RECEIVED
MAR 2 9 2017
DCM- MHD CITY 1635915

Not for distribution
CERTIFICATION PAGE
Certification for Authorized Organizational Representative (or Equivalent) or Individual Applicant
By electronically signing and submitting this proposal, the Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR) or Individual Applicant is: (1) certifying that statements made herein are true and
complete to the best of his/her knowledge; and (2) agreeing to accept the obligation to comply with NSF award terms and conditions if an award is made as a result of this application. Further,
the applicant is hereby providing certifications regarding conflict of interest (when applicable), drug-free workplace, debarment and suspension, lobbying activities (see below),
nondiscrimination, flood hazard insurance (when applicable), responsible conduct of research, organizational support, Federal tax obligations, unpaid Federal tax liability, and criminal
convictions as set forth in the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide,Part 1: the Grant Proposal Guide (GPG). Willful provision of false information in this application and its
supporting documents or in reports required under an ensuing award is a criminal offense (U.S. Code, Title 18, Section 1001).
Certification Regarding Conflict of Interest
The AOR is required to complete certifications stating that the organization has implemented and is enforcing a written policy on conflicts of interest (COI), consistent with the provisions
of AAG Chapter IV.A.; that, to the best of his/her knowledge, all financial disclosures required by the conflict of interest policy were made; and that conflicts of interest, if any, were,
or prior to the organization's expenditure of any funds under the award, will be, satisfactorily managed, reduced or eliminated in accordance with the organization's conflict of interest policy.
Conflicts that cannot be satisfactorily managed, reduced or eliminated and research that proceeds without the imposition of conditions or restrictions when a conflict of interest exists,
must be disclosed to NSF via use of the Notifications and Requests Module in FastLane.
Drug Free Work Place Certification
By electronically signing the Certification Pages, the Authorized Organizational Representative (or equivalent), is providing the Drug Free Work Place Certification contained in
Exhibit 11-3 of the Grant Proposal Guide.
Debarment and Suspension Certification (If answer 'yes*, please provide explanation.)
Is the organization or its principals presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded
from covered transactions by any Federal department or agency? Yes 0 No
By electronically signing the Certification Pages, the Authorized Organizational Representative (or equivalent) or Individual Applicant is providing the
Debarment and Suspension Certification contained in Exhibit 11-4 of the Grant Proposal Guide.
Certification Regarding Lobbying
This certification is required for an award of a Federal contract, grant, or cooperative agreement exceeding $100,000 and for an award of a Federal loan or a commitment providing
for the United States to insure or guarantee a loan exceeding $150,000.
Certification for Contracts, Grants, Loans and Cooperative Agreements
The undersigned certifies, to the best of his or her knowledge and belief, that:
(1) No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of the undersigned, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any
agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any Federal contract, the making of any
Federal grant, the making of any Federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal
contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement.
(2) If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a
Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement, the
undersigned shall complete and submit Standard Form -LLL, "Disclosure of Lobbying Activities," in accordance with its instructions.
(3) The undersigned shall require that the language of this certification be included in the award documents for all subawards at all tiers including subcontracts, subgrants, and contracts
under grants, loans, and cooperative agreements and that all subrecipients shall certify and disclose accordingly.
This certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was made or entered into. Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for
making or entering into this transaction imposed by section 1352, Title 31, U.S. Code. Any person who fails to file the required certification shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less
than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure.
Certification Regarding Nondiscrimination
By electronically signing the Certification Pages, the Authorized Organizational Representative (or equivalent) is providing the Certification Regarding
Nondiscrimination contained in Exhibit II -6 of the Grant Proposal Guide.
Certification Regarding Flood Hazard Insurance
Two sections of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 USC §4012a and §4106) bar Federal agencies from giving financial assistance for acquisition or
construction purposes in any area identified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as having special flood hazards unless the:
(1) community in which that area is located participates in the national flood insurance program; and
(2) building (and any related equipment) is covered by adequate flood insurance.
By electronically signing the Certification Pages, the Authorized Organizational Representative (or equivalent) or Individual Applicant located in FEMA -designated special flood hazard areas is
certifying that adequate flood insurance has been or will be obtained in the following situations:
(1) for NSF grants for the construction of a building or facility, regardless of the dollar amount of the grant; and
(2) for other NSF grants when more than $25,000 has been budgeted in the proposal for repair, alteration or improvement (construction) of a building or facility.
Certification Regarding Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR)
(This certification is not applicable to proposals for conferences, symposia, and workshops.)
By electronically signing the Certification Pages, the Authorized Organizational Representative is certifying that, in accordance with the NSF Proposal
& Award Policies & Procedures Guide, Part ll, Award & Administration Guide (AAG) Chapter IV.B., the institution has a plan in place to provide appropriate training and oversight in the
responsible and ethical conduct of research to undergraduates, graduate students and postdoctoral researchers who will be supported by NSF to conduct research.
The AOR shall require that the language of this certification be included in any award documents for all subawards at all tiers. SC
EI\J ED
AR29ZV
Page 2 of 3
D Cl"
1635915

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

Not for distribution
CERTIFICATION PAGE - CONTINUED
Certification Regarding Organizational Support
By electronically signing the Certification Pages, the Authorized Organizational Representative (or equivalent) is certifying that there is organizational supportfor the proposal as required by
Section 526 of the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010. This support extends to the portion of the proposal developed to satisfy the Broader Impacts Review Criterion as well as
the Intellectual Merit Review Criterion, and any additional review criteria specked in the solicitation. Organizational support will be made available, as described in the proposal, in order to
address the broader impacts and intellectual merit activities to be undertaken.
Certification Regarding Federal Tax Obligations
When the proposal exceeds $5,000,000, the Authorized Organizational Representative (or equivalent) is required to complete the following certification regarding Federal tax obligations.
By electronically signing the Certification pages, the Authorized Organizational Representative is certifying that, to the best of their knowledge and belief, the proposing organization:
(1) has filed all Federal tax returns required during the three years preceding this certification;
(2) has not been convicted of a criminal offense under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; and
(3) has not, more than 90 days prior to this certification, been notified of any unpaid Federal tax assessment for which the liability remains unsatisfied, unless the assessment is the
subject of an installment agreement or offer in compromise that has been approved by the Internal Revenue Service and is not in default, or the assessment is the subject of a non -frivolous
administrative or judicial proceeding.
Certification Regarding Unpaid Federal Tax Liability
When the proposing organization is a corporation, the Authorized Organizational Representative (or equivalent) is required to complete the following certification regarding Federal Tax
Liability:
By electronically signing the Certification Pages, the Authorized Organizational Representative (or equivalent) is certifying that the corporation has no unpaid Federal tax liability that has
been assessed, for which all judicial and administrative remedies have been exhausted or lapsed, and that is not being paid in a timely manner pursuant to an agreement with the authority
responsible for collecting the tax liability.
Certification Regarding Criminal Convictions
When the proposing organization is a corporation, the Authorized Organizational Representative (or equivalent) is required to complete the following certification regarding Criminal
Convictions:
By electronically signing the Certification Pages, the Authorized Organizational Representative (or equivalent) is certifying that the corporation has not been convicted of a felony criminal
violation under any Federal law within the 24 months preceding the date on which the certification is signed.
Certification Dual Use Research of Concern
By electronically signing the certification pages, the Authorized Organizational Representative is certifying that the organization will be or is in compliance with all aspects of the United States
Government Policy for Institutional Oversight of Life Sciences Dual Use Research of Concern.
RECEIVELD
MAR 2 9 2017
DCM CIT
AUTHORIZED ORGANIZATIONAL REPRESENTATIVE
SIGNATURE
DATE
NAME
Jill Frankenfield
Electronic Signature
Feb 16 2016 4:07PM
TELEPHONE NUMBER
EMAIL ADDRESS
FAX NUMBER
3014054577
[e-mail]
Page 3 of 3
1635915

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

TABLE OF CONTENTS
For font size and page formatting specifications, see GPG section II.13.2.
Total No. of Page No.*
Pages (Optional)*
Cover Sheet for Proposal to the National Science Foundation
Project Summary (not to exceed 1 page) 1
Table of Contents 1
Project Description (Including Results from Prior 15
NSF Support) (not to exceed 15 pages) (Exceed only if allowed by a
specific program announcement/solicitation or if approved in
advance by the appropriate NSF Assistant Director or designee)
References Cited 7
Biographical Sketches (Not to exceed 2 pages each) 2
Budget 6
(Plus up to 3 pages of budget justification)
Current and Pending Support 2
Facilities, Equipment and Other Resources 1
Special Information/Supplementary Documents 1
(Data Management Plan, Mentoring Plan
and Other Supplementary Documents)
Appendix (List below. )
(include only if allowed by a specific program announcement/
solicitation or if approved in advance by the appropriate NSF
Assistant Director or designee)
Appendix Items:
i\i! A.R � 2017
*Proposers may select any numbering mechanism for the proposal. The entire proposal however, must be paginated.
Complete both columns only if the proposal is numbered consecutively.
41
1635950

TABLE OF CONTENTS
For font size and page formatting specifications, see GPG section II.13.2.
Cover Sheet for Proposal to the National Science Foundation
Project Summary (not to exceed 1 page)
Table of Contents
Project Description (including Results from Prior
NSF Support) (not to exceed 15 pages) (Exceed only if allowed by a
specific program announcement/solicitation or if approved in
advance by the appropriate NSF Assistant Director or designee)
References Cited
Biographical Sketches (Not to exceed 2 pages each)
Budget
(Plus up to 3 pages of budget justification)
Current and Pending Support
Facilities, Equipment and Other Resources
Special Information/Supplementary Documents
(Data Management Plan, Mentoring Plan
and Other Supplementary Documents)
Appendix (List below.)
(Include only if allowed by a specific program announcement/
solicitation or if approved in advance by the appropriate NSF
Assistant Director or designee)
Appendix Items:
Total No. of Page No.*
Pages (Optional)*
1
1
15
7
2
6
2
1
1
ii
�1AR29Z017
om �i�
*Proposers may select any numbering mechanism for the proposal. The entire proposal however, must be paginated.
Complete both columns only if the proposal is numbered consecutively.
1635950

TABLE OF CONTENTS
For font size and page formatting specifications, see GPG section IL13.2.
Total No. of Page No.*
Pages (Optional)*
Cover Sheet for Proposal to the National Science Foundation
Project Summary (not to exceed 1 page)
Table of Contents
Project Description (Including Results from Prior 0
NSF Support) (not to exceed 15 pages) (Exceed only if allowed by a
specific program announcemenUsolicitation or if approved in
advance by the appropriate NSF Assistant Director or designee)
References Cited
Biographical Sketches (Not to exceed 2 pages each) 2
Budget 5
(Plus up to 3 pages of budget justification)
Current and Pending Support
Facilities, Equipment and Other Resources
Special Information/Supplementary Documents
(Data Management Plan, Mentoring Plan
and Other Supplementary Documents)
Appendix (List below.)
(Include only if allowed by a specific program announcement/
solicitation or if approved in advance by the appropriate NSF
Assistant Director or designee)
Appendix Items:
MAR 2 9 2017
D ® MHD UT
*Proposers may select any numbering mechanism for the proposal. The entire proposal however, must be paginated.
Complete both columns only if the proposal is numbered consecutively.
1635915

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

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

ability) drive sensitivity to habitat configuration in estuarine ecosystems, where human development is
accelerating and leading to widespread fragmentation of biogenic habitat (Gittman et al. 2015).
Seagrass as a model marine system for evaluating the fragmentation threshold hypothesis
Seagrasses provide numerous ecosystem services such as carbon sequestration and nursery habitat
provision that make them among the most valuable per -unit -area habitats on Earth (Costanza et al. 1997;
Fourqurean et al. 2012). Given their fairly narrow physiological niche as marine angiosperms, seagrasses
also serve as biological sentinels of local and climatological perturbations (Orth et al., 2006).
Temperature, CO2 concentration, and sea -level rise, all impact seagrasses making them valuable
indicators of climate change. Locally, natural processes such as wave energy (Fonseca and Bell 1998) and
anthropogenic stressors such as dredging and boat propeller "scarring" (Bell et al. 2002; Dunton and
Schonberg 2002) also contribute to changes in the cover and spatial configuration of seagrass. Indeed, in
temperate estuaries, eelgrass meadows (Zostera marina — common in temperate coastal zones) exhibit a
huge diversity of patch sizes and configurations ranging over meters to kilometers (Bostr6m et al. 2006),
making them an excellent model for evaluating the fragmentation threshold hypothesis (Fig. 2).
As a key ecosystem service, seagrass meadows have long been identified as essential nurseries for fishes
and decapod crustaceans (Heck et al., 2003), and there is a comparatively rich literature on the
characteristics of seagrass-associated fish communities that any new work can builds from (e.g., Pearson,
1929; Livingston, 1982). At small spatial scales (1-10 m2), in particular, many studies have demonstrated
the effects of seagrass structural complexity, such as shoot density, epiphytic algal cover, and canopy
height, on catch rates of both fishes and invertebrates (Orth and Heck 1980, Bell and Westoby 1986,
Worthington et al. 1991; Irlandi 1994). While these results are valuable, we have not kept pace in
understanding how seagrass area and configuration at landscape scales supports fishery production
(Bostr6m et al. 2006). For mobile fishes and crustaceans, which move among and within habitat patches
across tidal, daily, and seasonal timescales (Fodrie et al. 2015), we still lack critical information on the
scale -dependence of seagrass habitat Figure 2. Digitized maps of 10 eelgrass meadows drawn from 80'200-m ortho-
function, and specifically whether photos captured over Back Sound, North Carolina (NC) by the NC Department of
critical thresholds exist that determine Transportation on May 27, 2013 (AcrGIS v 10.1). Percent cover of seagrass within
fishery production supported by this each 80'200-m area is proved for each meadow.
or similar biogenic habitats. This is Habitat fragmentation per se
30
troubling given that the few seagrass Contiguous
studies operating at l Os -100s of
meters have suggested an important Be
role for landscape -scale processes in
maintaining species diversity and
augmenting species abundance
(Irlandi et al. 1995, Heithaus et al.
2006, Baillie et al. 2015). M
More broadly, understanding how
ecological processes scale is a central
theme in ecology and ecosystem
science over the past half century that
unifies both basic and applied research
(Levin 1992). Our ability to quantify
ecological patterns often decreases
when scaling up from the level of
habitat patch to the landscape and
across ecosystems. When uncertainty
in these patterns is inversely related
with scale, efforts to extrapolate
Fragmented
;k 2017
�ry� t 1635950

findings to explain processes operating at large spatial and temporal scales are limited. This problem
posits a fundamental challenge to researchers attempting to scale up from the level of a local habitat patch
or a short-term experiment to apply knowledge of habitat -animal associations or habitat functionality
within and across marine landscapes/ecosystems more broadly. For most marine habitats, it is unclear if
the quality or extent of habitat at landscape scales influences the delivery of ecosystem services such as
provision of nursery habitat. Thus, a more holistic understanding of the relationships between metrics of
habitat quality across multiple scales and performance of valuable ecosystem services is needed.
In large measure, this disconnect between patch -level and 16
landscape -scale understanding of animal -habitat relationships lq
in marine systems is simply a matter of the practical 12
constraints of in situ experimentation. Indeed, studies U 10
attempting to empirically quantify the independent effects of 8 -
habitat configuration generally employ one of two 6
approaches. The first approach involves experimental `t
manipulation of habitat pattern, either through habitat 2
Q
removal (e.g., mowing grassland plots; Parker and MacNally -. N en It kn �0 r` 00 0, o
2002) or creation of new, artificial habitat (e.g., artificial A
seagrass units, ASUs; Fig. 3). These experimental width or" Edge" Habitat within
manipulations allow for a true separation of habitat Seagrass Landscape (m)
configuration effects independent of habitat area, but are Figure 3. Spatial scales in recent studies defining "edge"
areas of seagrass meadows typically span distances of <
often limited in scale in marine systems (Bostr6m et al. I meter. This often represents practical limitations of
2006). Specifically, most manipulative studies are conducted field manipulations utilizing ASUs, but which may not
at relatively small spatial scales (<10-m2 patches), are short be �cea„4astua ssfor the ambit defin ng `edge" widths wereobile and
in temporal duration, and are replicated across only a few identified by searching the terms "seagmss", "fish",
levels of habitat area. For instance, Johnson and Heck (2006) "fragmentation" over the last 20 years (using ISI Web
of Science; Data sources included in reference list).
used ASUs to experimentally test for the effects of Inset photo shows a 25*25-cm ASU, which represents a
increasing edge:area ratios on densities and production of common size in studies employing seagrass mimics.
faunal communities by comparing two levels of
"fragmentation" at <0.20-m2) scales (see also Fig. 3). Hovel and Lipcius (2001) also used ASUs at <10-
m2 scales to control for variation in fine -scale seagrass attributes, and found that increasing patchiness had
negative impacts on adult Callinectes sapidus (blue crab) and positive effects on juvenile blue crab
survival, although they did not simultaneously examine effects of varying habitat area. The second
approach involves observational experiments that rely on a priori selection of landscapes that vary in area
and configuration. An advantage of this approach is the possibility to increase the scale and replication of
the study, including a greater range in habitat area. Observational studies may offer the highest realism
and generality because they are able to examine fragmentation at scales at which it occurs in nature
(McGargial and Cushman 2002). However, observational experiments typically rely on space for time
substitutions of landscapes along existing fragmentation gradients, which may introduce additional
sources of variation if other habitat attributes co -vary with change in habitat configuration or area. For
instance, local habitat quality/complexity may decline as habitat patchiness increases (Irlandi et al. 1995),
confounding underlying drivers of faunal responses (perhaps contributing to the failure of previous
observational experiments to confirm the fragmentation threshold hypothesis; Trzcinski et al. 1999, Betts
et al. 2006, Smith et al. 2011, Radford et al. 2005).
Quite recently, both marine scientists and public trust resource managers have shown accelerating
interests in exploring environmental variables at enlarged spatial scales to quantify organism -habitat
associations in nearshore environments — and this is particularly true for seagrass ecosystems (Hovel et al.
2002; Grober-Dunmore et al. 2004; Bostrom et al. 2006; Tanner 2006; Dorenbosch et al. 2007). This
shift has coincided with our growing understanding for the capacity of human activities to fragment,
degrade, or destroy marine habitats, and the resulting need for ecosystem -based conservation and
management plan to incorporate organism -habitat association at multiple spatial scales (Sandel and
2M7 1635950

findings to explain processes operating at large spatial and temporal scales are limited. This problem
posits a fundamental challenge to researchers attempting to scale up from the level of a local habitat patch
or a short-term experiment to apply knowledge of habitat -animal associations or habitat functionality
within and across marine landscapes/ecosystems more broadly. For most marine habitats, it is unclear if
the quality or extent of habitat at landscape scales influences the delivery of ecosystem services such as
provision of nursery habitat. Thus, a more holistic understanding of the relationships between metrics of
habitat quality across multiple scales and performance of valuable ecosystem services is needed.
In large measure, this disconnect between patch -level and
landscape -scale understanding of animal -habitat relationships t4
in marine systems is simply a matter of the practical 0 12
constraints of in situ experimentation. Indeed, studies v 10 7
attempting to empirically quantify the independent effects of 8 % - -
habitat configuration generally employ one of two 6 F .
approaches. The first approach involves experimental 2
manipulation of habitat pattern, either through habitat 0
removal (e.g., mowing grassland plots; Parker and MacNally N M V tn %.0 r- cc 0, o
2002) or creation of new, artificial habitat (e.g., artificial
seagrass units, ASUs; Fig. 3). These experimental Width of "Edge" Habitat Within
manipulations allow for a true separation of habitat Seagrass Landscape (m)
configuration effects .inde endent of habitat area, but are Figure 3. Spatial scales in recent studies defining "edge"
p areas of seagrass meadows typically span distances of <
often limited in scale in marine systems (Bostrom et al. I meter. This often represents practical limitations of
2006). Specifically, most manipulative studies are conducted field manipulations utilizing Asus, but which may not
2 be appropriate scales for the ambit of mobile fishes and
at relatively small spatial scales (<10-m patches), are short crustaceans. Studies defining "edge" widths were
in temporal duration, and are replicated across only a few identified by searching the terms "seagrass", .°fish'°,
levels of habitat area. For instance, Johnson and Heck (2006) "fragmentation" over the last 20 years (using ISI Web of Science; Data sources included in reference list).
used ASUs to experimentally test for the effects of Inset photo shows a 25 *25 -cm ASU, which represents a
increasing edge:area ratios on densities and production of common size in studies employing seagrass mimics.
faunal communities by comparing two levels of
"fragmentation" at <0.20-m2) scales (see also Fig. 3). Hovel and Lipcius (2001) also used ASUs at <10-
m2 scales to control for variation in fine -scale seagrass attributes, and found that increasing patchiness had
negative impacts on adult Callinectes sapidus (blue crab) and positive effects on juvenile blue crab
survival, although they did not simultaneously examine effects of varying habitat area. The second
approach involves observational experiments that rely on a priori selection of landscapes that vary in area
and configuration. An advantage of this approach is the possibility to increase the scale and replication of
the study,` including a greater range in habitat area. Observational studies may offer the highest realism
and generality because they are able to examine fragmentation at scales at which it occurs in nature
(McGargial and Cushman 2002). However, observational experiments typically rely on space for time
substitutions of landscapes along existing fragmentation gradients, which may introduce additional
sources of variation if other habitat attributes co -vary with change in habitat configuration or area. For
instance, local habitat quality/complexity may decline as habitat patchiness increases (Irlandi et al. 1995),
confounding underlying drivers of faunal responses (perhaps contributing to the failure of previous
observational experiments to confirm the fragmentation threshold hypothesis; Trzeinski et al. 1999, Betts
et al. 2006, Smith et al. 2011, Radford et al. 2005).
Quite recently, both marine scientists and public trust resource managers have shown accelerating
interests in exploring environmental variables at enlarged spatial scales to quantify organism -habitat
associations in nearshore environments — and this is particularly true for seagrass ecosystems (Hovel et al.
2002; Grober-Dunsmore et al. 2004; Bostr6m et al. 2006; Tanner 2006; Dorenbosch et al. 2007).. This
shift has coincided with our growing understanding for the capacity of human activities to fragment,
degrade, or destroy marine habitats, and the resulting need for ecosystem -based conservation and
management plans to incorporate organism -habitat associations at multiple spatial scales (Sandel and
Z017 1635950
r3T',f

Smith 2009, Yeager et al. 2011). Thus, the research proposed here would provide novel information on
whether landscape -scale thresholds in fragmentation impact the function of structurally complex biogenic
habitats (e.g., nursery function of temperate eelgrass meadows), as well as how species-specific traits and
key abiotic correlates mitigate the response of taxa to fragmentation.
OBJECTIVES
The overarching objective of the proposed research is to determine whether habitat configuration affects
biodiversity and fish assemblage structure within seagrass landscapes, and whether its effect is mediated
by total habitat area (i.e., fragmentation threshold hypothesis). We have designed this proposal
capitalizing on our previous observational work (see below) which exploited natural variation in seagrass
landscape structure to isolate the effects of seagrass habitat amount from differences in spatial pattern
among meadows. Notably, this study would harness both the relevance -of -scale from observational
studies as well as the experimental rigor of controlled field manipulations. To accomplish this, we
propose to expand the scale of manipulative marine experiments exploring habitat fragmentation by more
two orders of magnitude, representing appropriate scales for higher -order, mobile taxa such as fishes.
We will construct several hundred, 1-m2 ASUs that can be deployed across 25 landscapes of seagrass
configurations and area, while controlling for patch -level habitat characteristics. In year 1, we will
construct these landscapes and test the fragmentation threshold hypothesis broadly, hypothesizing that:
Hl: Taxonomic and functional diversity will be lower in more fragmented landscapes relative to more
contiguous landscapes once seagrass (ASi9 cover decreases to below 25% of overall available area
(using 225-m1 study sites). Above 25% cover, fragmentation will have no detectable effect on taxonomic
or functional diversity.
HZ: Total abundance and biomass of fishes will scale linearly with habitat area, but without any main or
interactive effects of fragmentation per se.
Midway through year 1, we will also conduct a series of ASU -unit removals to simulate active
fragmentation in our -constructed landscapes (sensu Macreadie et al. 2009) and hypothesize:
H3: Active fragmentation in high -cover beds will have no detectable effect on taxonomic or functional
diversity, while fragmentation in low -cover beds will have a negative effect on diversity.
H°: Total abundance and biomass of fishes will scale linearly with remnant habitat area, but without any
main or interactive effects of fragmentation per se.
In year 2, we will explore trait -mediated mechanisms that may underpin the fragmentation threshold
hypothesis. In particular, we will redeploy ASU landscapes, and conduct a seeding experiment to evaluate
the relative importance of early life -history dispersal and habitat choice in driving differences in fish
assemblage structure across fragmentation and habitat area gradients. Specifically, we hypothesize that
HS: Species absent from low -cover, fragmented beds are poor larval or post -larval colonizers of distinct
patches within a meadow. Seeding meadows with larvae (i.e., benthic egg masses) will mitigate the effects
offragmentation and habitat area on species-specific abundance and overall diversity.
In year 3, we will also explore how a key physical driver of seagrass fragmentation, hydrodynamic energy
(waves and currents), impacts the response of fish communities to fragmentation and habitat area. To
achieve this, ASUs will be redeployed with 50% of the landscapes in low-energy environments and the
other 50% in high -energy environments. We hypothesize that:
H6: Hydrodynamic regime will have interactive effects with both fragmentation and habitat area on the
taxonomic and functional diversity offishes. Specifically, we expect to observe species loss at higher
levels of habitat area (>25%) in fragmented landscapes in high-energy environments relative to low-
energy environments. Additionally, the overall response (overall # of taxalguilds lost etEivrijmore sensitive tofragmentation in high-energy environments.
'1ARt92017 a
1635950

PROOF -OF -CONCEPT DATA
During the summer of 2013, we sampled 21 natural eelgrass communities along the central North
Carolina (NC) coast to evaluate evidence supporting or refuting the fragmentation threshold hypothesis.
These seagrass meadows varied in habitat configuration (ranging from one contiguous patch of seagrass
to 75 discrete patches, edge:area = 0.06-0.98 in-), and across a wide range of total seagrass area (2-74%
cover within 80*200-m domains, as in Fig. 2). We sampled the fish assemblage within each of these 21
eelgrass meadows with an otter trawl following Baillie et al. (2015). We then evaluated fish assemblages
based on species richness (count of species within the landscape), total fish catch rates, and assemblage
structure (i.e., species composition and relative abundance).
We found strong evidence that habitat configuration does affect fish biodiversity in natural landscapes,
and the effects of configuration were dependent on the total habitat area within the landscape (Yeager et
al. in review [third round with minor revisions at Ecology]). Notably, the effects of habitat configuration
were primarily manifest when total habitat area was low
(<25% cover), where loss of fish species sensitive to
a.) sol
increasing patch number below this area threshold resulted
40
s
in shifts in assemblage structure in the low area, highly
'
®g Fish species
patchy sites (Fig. 4A). For species richness, there was an
richness
interactive effect of habitat area and habitat configuration
�10"
,
: so
(area*configuration P = 0.002; Fig. 4A). This pattern was
0a
=6
driven by a positive effect of area on species richness when
s
,'®
a
patch number was high, but little effect on species richness
rf
when patch number was low (Fig. 4A). For fish density,
'~
there was a positive effect of habitat area (P = 0.003) and
- —
negative effect of patch number (P = 0.002; Fig. 413). There
was only a weak interaction between these two variables (P
b) so
so
= 0.07). While other habitat attributes (e.g., fine -scale
40
seagrass density and shoot length) also varied with changes
C 30
in landscape variables (i.e., meadow size), the effects of
220
/M; °Soy
patch -scale seagrass biomass on the fish assemblage
� 10
2.5
2.0
11.5
appeared comparatively weak (rig < 0.04 — a value
a
indicating low -to -moderate relative effect size). As such,
S s
" °o:o
our observational results empirically support the
u
'
fragmentation threshold hypothesis predicted by modeling
studies (e.g., Hanski and Ovaskainen 2000).
Notably, these finding from NC eelgrass meadows are not
consistent with results from previous empirical studies
primarily in terrestrial ecosystems (Trzcinski et al. 1999,
Parker and Mac Nally 2002, Betts et al. 2006, Ethier and
Fahrig 2011), which have largely failed to support the
fragmentation threshold hypothesis (but see Radford et
al. 2006). Contrasting attributes of our marine study
system to those of previous studies may help reveal the
types of systems where we would expect the
fragmentation threshold hypothesis to hold. For
example, matrix effects may in part explain why our
results generally support the hypothesis, while other
empirical studies have not. For example, matrix habitats
which are useable habitat (although often lower quality),
may mitigate some of the negative effects of increased
Seagrass area (m2)
50
Figure 4. Plots of the effects of seagrass area and habitat
configuration on (a.) fish species richness and (b.) total fish
density. Each point represents a site and the color of each
point corresponds to the value of the response variable.
Contour lines on each plot show the model predictions for
each response variable, holding seagrass biomass at its
mean observed value. In panel a.) the changing curvature
ofthe model prediction contours across the plot reflects the
interaction between the two predictor variables in that the
effects of habitat configuration (i.e., fragmentation) on
species richness vary with habitat area. Specifically, the
model predicts a negative effect of patch number (as a
metric of fragmentation) when seagrass area is low, and no
effect when seagrass area is moderate or high. In panel b.)
the relatively consistently -spaced and symmetrical contour
lines reflect the independent effects of area and
configuration on fish density, which increased with habitat
area and mentation)
IAR ? 9 1017
y 1635950

PROOF -OF -CONCEPT DATA
During the summer of 2013, we sampled 21 natural eelgrass communities along the central North
Carolina (NC) coast to evaluate evidence supporting or refuting the fragmentation threshold hypothesis.
These seagrass meadows varied in habitat configuration (ranging from one contiguous patch of seagrass
to 75 discrete patches, edge:area = 0.06-0.98 m7'), and across a wide range of total seagrass area (2-74%
cover within 80*200-m domains, as in Fig. 2). We sampled the fish assemblage within each of these 21
eelgrass meadows with an otter trawl following Baillie et al. (2015). We then evaluated fish assemblages
based on species richness (count of species within the landscape), total fish catch rates, and assemblage
structure (i.e., species composition and relative abundance).
We found strong evidence that habitat configuration does affect fish biodiversity in natural landscapes,
and the effects of configuration were dependent on the total habitat area within the landscape (Yeager et
al. in review [third round with minor revisions at Ecology]). Notably, the effects of habitat configuration
were primarily manifest when total habitat area was low
a.)
(<25% cover), where loss of fish species sensitive to
so
increasing patch number below this area threshold resulted
40
o
in shifts in assemblage structure in the low area, highly
00
I
' .
Fish spedes
patchy sites (Fig. 4A). For species richness, there was an
$20
;` f
richness
interactive effect of habitat area and habitat configuration
a to
. �` 1
s
10
14
(area*configuration P = 0.002; Fig. 4A). This pattern was
_ a
driven by a positive effect of area on species richness when
patch number was high, but little effect on species richness
when patch number was low (Fig. 4A). For fish density,
there was a positive effect of habitat area (P = 0.003) and
negative effect of patch number (P = 0.002; Fig. 4B). There
t
b' 1
-0 APO
was only a weak interaction between these two variables (P
60
= 0.07). While other habitat attributes (e.g., fine -scale
40
seagrass density and shoot length) also varied with changes
C30
Fls�hd)ensity
in landscape variables (i.e., meadow size), the effects of
20
patch -scale seagrass biomass on the fish assemblage
.R Rio
-+
appeared comparatively weak (112 <— 0.04 — a value
�`
12.5
u
to:o
indicating low -to -moderate relative effect size). As such,
5
our observational results empirically support the
fragmentation threshold hypothesis predicted by modeling
studies (e.g., Hanski and Ovaskainen 2000).
j
Notably, these finding from NC eelgrass meadows are not
consistent with results from previous empirical studies
primarily in terrestrial ecosystems (Trzcinski et al. 1999,
Parker and Mac Nally 2002, Betts et al. 2006, Ethier and
Fahrig 2011), which have largely failed to support the
fragmentation threshold hypothesis (but see Radford et
al. 2006). Contrasting attributes of our marine study
system to those of previous studies may help reveal the
types of systems where we would expect the
fragmentation threshold hypothesis to hold. For
example, matrix effects may in part explain why our
results generally support the hypothesis, while other
empirical studies have not. For example, matrix habitats
which are useable habitat (although often lower quality),
may mitigate some of the negative effects of increased
Seagrass area (mZ)
Figure 4. Plots of the effects of seagrass area and habitat
configuration on (a.) fish species richness and (b.) total fish
density. Each point represents a site and the color of each
point corresponds to the value ofthe response variable.
Contour lines on each plot show the model predictions for
each response variable, holding seagrass biomass at its
mean observed value. In panel a.) the changing curvature
of the model prediction contours across the plot reflects the
interaction between the two predictor variables in that the
effects of habitat configuration (i.e., fragmentation) on
species richness vary with habitat area. Specifically, the
model predicts a negative effect of patch number (as a
metric of fragmentation) when seagrass area is low, and no
effect when seagrass area is moderate or high. In panel b.)
the relatively consistently -spaced and symmetrical contour
lines reflect the independent effects of area and
configuration on fish density, which increased with habitat
area and ,entation).
MAR 2 9 2017
D M - NIIN D CITY 1635950

patch number or decreased patch size by facilitating inter -patch movements or increasing the effective
habitat area -(Ewers & Didham 2006). Many terrestrial studies of fragmentation focus on forest fragments
embedded within matrices of secondary forest or agricultural fields, which likely provide more shelter
than a completely unvegetated environment (e.g., Gascon et al. 1999). In our study, however, seagrass
patches were embedded within an unvegetated sand matrix, where predation risk is substantially higher
and density of prey resources can be multiple orders -of -magnitude lower (Orth et al. 1984, Heck et al.
2003). The lack of suitable shelter for juvenile fishes, in particular, may preclude inter -patch movements
or the use of sand as a secondary habitat. Therefore, patches of marine biogenic habitat embedded within
sand matrices that dominate the oceanic seafloor may be more akin to the theorized habitat/non-habitat
matrix and match the assumptions of some simulation modeling studies (e.g., Flather and Bevers 2002).
In our observational surveys, we found a particular guild of species seemed to be most sensitive to the
effects of habitat cnfiguration and were absent from the low -cover, fragmented landscapes. Therefore, we
conducted preliminary tests to evaluate whether varying movement rates between patches across taxa
could be partly responsible for this pattern. To date, we have used mesocosm trials to assess the inter -
patch movement rates of two trait groups: epibenthic species and benthopelagic species, aligning with
general patterns in assemblage structure we observed in the trawl data (i.e., absence of epibenthic species
in low -cover, fragmented landscapes). Mesocosm trials suggested strong differences in movement rates of
fishes between ASUs related to fish trait group. The number of inter -patch movements differed between
trait groups (P <0.001), but not among species within trait groups a.) 14 Species(trail group) P = 0.8
(P = 0.8). Inter -patch movement rates were an order -of- Trait group P < 0.001
magnitude higher for benthopelagic species than epibenthic 'Z
species (Fig. 5A). The number of movements across the ASU- C 10
sand boundary also varied between trait groups (P <0.001), as 1 1,
mean patch entry/emergence rates were consistently lower for
epibenthic species than for benthopelagic species (Fig. 513). 6
In low -cover, fragmented landscapes, fishes would need to use
multiple habitat patches to access the same habitat amount as the
higher area or more contiguous landscapes. Species that were
absent from the low -cover, fragmented sites were generally
smaller -bodied, epibenthic species, which may be inferior
swimmers or have behavioral strategies (e.g., being tightly
associated with seagrass structure) that result in a lower
propensity to move across the matrix or colonize new seagrass
patches during the adult stage, as reflected in our mesocosm
trials. Furthermore, dispersal of these epibenthic species at the
larval stage may also be limited by their reproductive strategies.
For example, Syngnathus floridae (pipefish), absent in our low -
cover, fragmented meadows, have direct developing young,
which greatly reduces dispersal potential relative to species with
pelagic larval dispersal (Lourie and Vincent 2004). Similarly,
Opsanus tau (oyster toadfish), which were also absent in the low -
cover, fragmented sites, lay demersal eggs and lack a pelagic
larval stage (Gray and Winn 1961). Therefore, it seems likely
that the poorer dispersal abilities (both larval and adult) for
bth' ecies are at least artiall res onsible for the loss of
SEA
2
L) 14 Species(trait group) P = 0.001
L 12 Trait group P < 0.0001
s
10
a
E 9
Ha
E 8i 6
W
e 4
-r
2 �
2�c•JOC� °\eQ`\aJ5 Jya Qcy `�� �°a�oamy
Y�o��
I
4ibenlhic Benthopelagic
ept en lc Sp , p Y P Figure 5. Number of (a.) inter -patch
these species in low -cover, fragmented eelgrass meadows. movements and (b.) movements across a
patch -matrix boundary for epibenthic and
These initial results from our observational surveys build on and benthopelagic fishes in mesocosm trials with
anupon reves o
exp P p grass d previous studies habitat fragmentation in sea two artificial seagrass units separated by a
matrix. Box plots display the 51", 25'",
habitats by increasing the scale of the landscape exatlg* i s�, and 9s° quantiles of the data.
MAR 2 9 2017
CRA - PiAN D CITY 1635950

least two orders of magnitude, allowing us to match the scale at which fragmentation naturally occurs
within this system; Fonseca and Bell 1998), and increasing the resolution of the habitat area and
configuration gradients examined, which may have allowed us to detect the fragmentation threshold with
respect to effects on fish assemblage structure. As we used an observation approach; however, we could
not completely isolate the effects of habitat configuration and area from other habitat features that co -vary
along or interact with these landscape -scale variables, such as patch -level attributes, functional traits of
fishes, or hydrodynamic regime. Building from these findings, we outline a research plan for constructing
ASU landscapes at scales relevant for mobile fauna to rigorously test the effects of habitat area and
fragmentation on fish assemblages, as well as experimentally manipulate biotic/abiotic mechanisms that
may have contributed to the diversity patterns observed in our previous seagrass surveys (Fig. 4A).
EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN AND METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH
Biotic/abiotic factors included as potential drivers of faunal response to seagrass area and configuration
Fundamentally, this research would test the fragmentation threshold hypothesis within seagrass
landscapes using a manipulative approach at novel scales. Therefore, our overarching design in all
proposed experiments is to construct seagrass landscapes across wide gradients of total area (10-60%
seagrass cover in 225-m2 domains) and fragmentation (i.e., 1 to >20 patches per landscape) to examine
the main and interactive effects of these 2 factors on fish assemblages (Fig. 6). We also propose a series
of further experiments and manipulations to better understand the environmental (hydrodynamic regime)
or biological (dispersal trait) contexts or covariates that mitigate the response of fishes to fragmentation.
However, because it is not feasible to test all possible contexts and covariates which may impact the
response of fishes to fragmentation, we provide a brief explanation of how we prioritized factors to
include in our experimental design (see also, Table 1).
Table 1. List of factors that potentially interact or covary with seagrass area and fragmentation, and an explanation for how these factors
were prioritized for inclusion in our experimental design.
Factors potentially
interacting with habitat size
or fragmentation to affect fish Reason for HIGH prioritization of mecahnism in proposed
communty structure Nature of interaction with habitat size or fragmentation experiments
Patch -level habitat Patch -level shoot density/height varies with mea-dow Can be eliminated as a covariate via use of ASUs
complexity size and fragmentation and may independently or
interactively impact fish distribution
Dispersal ability of taxa Spatial thresholds in the pre- or post -settlement For species absent in low -cover, fragmented landscapes, roles
(re)colonization potential of fishes or pre- versus post -settlement dispersal limitation can be
tested via eggmass transplants
Energy environment Energy environment co -regulates seagrass Can be tested via placement of ASU landscapes across a
fragmentation, and may independently or interactively gradient of energy environments.
impact fish distribution
As noted above, patch -level characteristics (shoot density, shoot length) affect the abundance of seagrass-
associated fauna, and we have already documented that these patch -scale seagrass characteristics change
in relation to meadow area and configuration. Although not as important in driving fish diversity as
landscape -scale variables (area and configuration) during our 2013 surveys, we appreciate that fine -scale
seagrass characteristics were another factor contributing to variability in fi1fte stCe (likely
1635950
N. =
Reason for LOW prioritization of mecahnism in proposed
experiments
Edge effects Perimeter -to -area ratios coavary with meadow size
Meta-analyses indicate that edge effects are not prominent
and framentation. Ecological process may differ
among seargass-assocaited nekton
between "edge" and "interior" of habitat.
Matrix effects Nature of matrix habitat may determine patch -to -patch
Consistenly low -structural -complexity sandflats dominate
connectivity across fragmented landscapes
around seagrass meadows. Matrix quality difficult to
manipuate in estaruines at landscape scales.
As noted above, patch -level characteristics (shoot density, shoot length) affect the abundance of seagrass-
associated fauna, and we have already documented that these patch -scale seagrass characteristics change
in relation to meadow area and configuration. Although not as important in driving fish diversity as
landscape -scale variables (area and configuration) during our 2013 surveys, we appreciate that fine -scale
seagrass characteristics were another factor contributing to variability in fi1fte stCe (likely
1635950
N. =

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

underrepresented in our analyses due to the difficulties in matching the scale of seagrass sampling with
the scale of fish sampling). The use of ASUs will allow us to control for patch -scale seagrass attributes,
and independently examine the effects of landscape -scale factors such as habitat area and fragmentation.
Our preliminary survey and mesocosm work highlight two other factors that we consider essential for
considering the roles of habitat size and fragmentation in fish utilization of benthic marine habitats:
taxon -specific dispersal potential (trait -based biotic diver) and hydrodynamic regime (abiotic driver).
Broadly, the roles of connectivity across multiple spatial scales in driving population dynamics remains of
keen interest to marine scientists (e.g., Caley et al. 1996; Levin et al. 2006), as are the relative importance
of pre- versus post -settlement processes in regulating benthic community structure (Olaffson et al. 1994).
Our previous findings suggest that the dispersal abilities of marine fauna may be a key determinant in
taxon -specific responses to changes in habitat area and fragmentation. In particular, species with low
dispersal abilities throughout their life may be most affected by habitat fragmentation, and effectively
extirpated from seagrass habitats by this process in meadows also defined by low overall cover (Figs. 4-5;
Sogard 1989). However, our previous work focused exclusively on the adult dispersal abilities of
vulnerable taxa, potentially ignoring the role of larval (or early post -larval for direct developers) dispersal
in connecting seagrass patches at landscape scales. Therefore, we propose to manipulate the abundance of
fish larvae (i.e., benthic egg masses) across seagrass meadow sizes and configurations to evaluate whether
reproductive life -history traits mitigate the response of fishes to fragmentation.
Another key consideration and potential covariate is hydrodynamic regime, which is known to be a
primary driver of fragmentation in natural seagrass systems (i.e., higher wave/current energy leads to
more fragmented meadows; Fonseca and Bell 1998). We did not quantify differences in hydrodynamic
exposure across landscapes in our earlier observational work, and it is possible that high-energy exposure
represents another environmental filter driving diversity loss within low -cover, fragmented meadows,
especially since some of the lost taxa may be inferior swimmers. Consider, Hovel et al. (2002) found that
seagrass shoot biomass and relative wave exposure were the environmental factors exerting the greatest
influence on invertebrate densities within temperate seagrass meadows. We therefore plan to take
advantage of the mobility of ASUs and construct replicate seagrass landscapes in both low- and high-
energy environments to explore the independent effects of, and potential interactions between, seagrass
area, fragmentation and hydrodynamic regime.
We will also consider functional diversity (FD) responses to varying landscape area and habitat
configuration as trait -based approaches to biodiversity measurement allow for mechanistic hypotheses
regarding sensitivities to habitat fragmentation to be tested. Notably, FD approaches also allow for greater
transferability of results across systems (McGill 2006). Furthermore, FD may be a better predictor of
ecosystem function than taxonomic -based measures of diversity because species' traits relate more
directly to their function within a community (Diaz & Cabido, 2001), and thus may better represent the
functional impact of biodiversity loss/change associated with habitat fragmentation.
Although both edge and matrix effects are relevant for considering the impacts of fragmentation (e.g.,
Carroll et al. 2012), these are not factors we will directly manipulate in our proposed research (Table 1).
While we expect that the contrast between the structural complexity of seagrass and the surrounding
sandflat matrix makes our study system a valuable model, we are not readily able to apply manipulations
on the unstructured seafloor matric at landscape scales to further evaluate this. Edge:area ratios are also
difficult to constrain while manipulating both habitat size and patchiness, precluding independent
appraisal of edge effects. Furthermore, an underway meta-analysis conducted by our research group
suggest that `edges' within seagrass meadows are not consistently functionally different than more
`interior' areas (i.e., mean effect sizes not statistically different than 0; Keller and Fodrie unpublished).
Design and logistics of landscape -scale ASU deployments
This proposal includes a major resource investment towards the construction of 3600, 1-m2 ASUs to
conduct manipulative field experiments over three years at novel spatial and temporal scales in estuarine
S
8
'MAP, 29 2017
1635950
C_"' M - `D CITY

environments. As such, we have paid special attention to the rationale and logistics of using ASUs at this
scale. The value of ASUs to explore faunal responses to seagrass structural complexity (shoot density,
shoot height) and configuration (edge:area) is well established in the marine ecological literature (e.g.,
Eggleston et al. 1999, Hovel and Lipcius 2001). An ISI Web -of -Science search of the terms "artificial
seagrass unit' and "seagrass mimics" recovered over 120 unique citations. Indeed, ASUs represent the
only practical way of manipulating seagrass meadow configuration, as conservation ethics preclude the
removal of live seagrass patches. Furthermore, experimental work has confirmed that fishes and decapod
crustaceans utilize ASUs in a nearly identical fashion to natural patches of Zostera spp. (Bell et al. 1985),
while epibionts also quickly colonize the `leaves' of ASUs in a manner that reflects natural loads
(Bologna and Heck 1999). And although there may be reasonable concern for ASU loss during
summer/fall storms (i.e., Atlantic hurricanes), previous work has demonstrated that seagrass habitats are
buffered from the wave energy associated with major storms due to the associated surge in water levels
that distance the seafloor from surface waves (Byron and Heck 2006, Anton et al. 2009). Since no
commercial supplier for ASUs exists, a significant time/personnel commitment is needed to construct
these seagrass mimics at a previously unrealized scale. Based on our past experience and recent test runs,
it requires 1.5 hours to cut and tie ribbon on to a 1-m2 VEXAR mat at a shoot density of 500 shoots M-2.
To create 1800 ASUs in year 1 and 1800 more ASUs in year two will require 2700 hours of labor
during each bout. We have allowed 8 months of construction time in both years 1 and 2, during which
time we would involve 1 PhD graduate student and 2 technicians. These 3 personnel will have a total of
4150 hours of time to commit to the project during our construction window in each year, and therefore
will dedicate approximately 60-65% (more commitment anticipated for technicians to allow the PhD
student time to develop research foci) of their effort during these periods towards ASU construction
(primarily in late fall, winter, and early spring when field experiments are not in full swing). All project
personnel will be involved during the deployment of ASUs in the field (as well as during faunal
sampling). Although this is ambitious field work at novel scales for constructing ASU landscapes, both
PIs have extensive experience restoring biogenic and artificial reef habitats at similarly large scales (<100
m2), and are well aware of what is logistically feasible for landscape -scale experimentation in temperate
estuarine environments (e.g., Yeager et al. 2011; Fodrie et al. 2014; Ridge et al. 2015). We also note that
the 3600 ASUs should have lifespans well beyond this 3 -year project. Thus, these ASUs will represent a
unique resource for research of seagrass ecosystems, and in addition to being used in their own future
research plans, the PIs commit to advertising the ASUs to colleagues (e.g., through the NSF -funded
Zostera Experimental Network) who might leverage them in additional research initiatives.
Overview of ASU landscape scale and configuration
We plan to construct experimental seagrass meadows across 15*15-m (225 mz) landscape domains. This
scale balances what is feasible experimentally (two orders -of -magnitude larger than most previous ASU -
based studies of landscape effects), and yet is also reflective of the size and general shape of many
isolated meadows in temperate estuaries (Hovel et al. 2002). Our observational work also highlights our
proposed landscapes as highly relevant for evaluating the fragmentation threshold hypothesis, as even
more mobile taxa may respond to fragmentation at this scale. Furthermore, this extent likely encompasses
the scale of potential short-term movements (tidal -daily) of many of the most common fishes in our
region (Szedlmayer and Able 1993, Irlandi and Crawford 1997, Miller and Able 2002, Potthoff and Allen
2003). Our experimental approach relies on the construction of 25 distinct landscapes that span a wide
range of habitat areas (10-60% in our experimental domains) and fragmentation levels (1 to >20 patches
per landscape)(Fig. 6). These landscapes will be generated using the randomHabitat function in the secr
package in R (Efford 2016). Landscapes will be generated along 2 orthogonal axes of habitat cover (10-
60%) and fragmentation using a random modified clusters method (percolation probability = 0.10-0.59
which determines patch #)(Saura and Martinez -Millan 2000). Landscapes will be constrained to fall
within 2% of the area input parameter, while holding edge:area ratios constant across fragmentation
ra.. V t
Iii r1 1_ 0 17
1635950

environments. As such, we have paid special attention to the rationale and logistics of using ASUs at this
scale. The value of ASUs to explore faunal responses to seagrass structural complexity (shoot density,
shoot height) and configuration (edge:area) is well established in the marine ecological literature (e.g.,
Eggleston et al. 1999, Hovel and Lipcius 2001). An ISI Web -of -Science search of the terms "artificial
seagrass unit" and "seagrass mimics" recovered over 120 unique citations. Indeed, ASUs represent the
only practical way of manipulating seagrass meadow configuration, as conservation ethics preclude the
removal of live seagrass patches. Furthermore, experimental work has confirmed that fishes and decapod
crustaceans utilize ASUs in a nearly identical fashion to natural patches of Zostera spp. (Bell et al. 1985),
while epibionts also quickly colonize the `leaves' of ASUs in a manner that reflects natural loads
(Bologna and Heck 1999). And although there may be reasonable concern for ASU loss during
summer/fall storms (i.e., Atlantic hurricanes), previous work has demonstrated that seagrass habitats are
buffered from the wave energy associated with major storms due to the associated surge in water levels
that distance the seafloor from surface waves (Byron and Heck 2006, Anton et al. 2009). Since no
commercial supplier for ASUs exists, a significant time/personnel commitment is needed to construct
these seagrass mimics at a previously unrealized scale. Based on our past experience and recent test runs,
it requires 1.5 hours to cut and tie ribbon on to a 1-m2 VEXAR mat at a shoot density of 500 shoots m'z.
To create 1800 ASUs in year 1 and 1800 more ASUs in year two will require 2700 hours of labor
during each bout. We have allowed 8 months of construction time in both years 1 and 2, during which
time we would involve 1 PhD graduate student and 2 technicians. These 3 personnel will have a total of
4150 hours of time to commit to the project during our construction window in each year, and therefore
will dedicate approximately 60-65% (more commitment anticipated for technicians to allow the PhD
student time to develop research foci) of their effort during these periods towards ASU construction
(primarily in late fall, winter, and early spring when field experiments are not in full swing). All project
personnel will be involved during the deployment of ASUs in the field (as well as during faunal
sampling). Although this is ambitious field work at novel scales for constructing ASU landscapes, both
PIs have extensive experience restoring biogenic and artificial reef habitats at similarly large scales (<100
in), and are well aware of what is logistically feasible for landscape -scale experimentation in temperate
estuarine environments (e.g., Yeager et al. 2011; Fodrie et al. 2014; Ridge et al. 2015). We also note that
the 3600 ASUs should have lifespans well beyond this 3 -year project. Thus, these ASUs will represent a
unique resource for research of seagrass ecosystems, and in addition to being used in their own future
research plans, the PIs commit to advertising the ASUs to colleagues (e.g., through the NSF -funded
Zostera Experimental Network) who might leverage them in additional research initiatives.
Overview ofASU landscape scale and configuration
We plan to construct experimental seagrass meadows across 15*15-m (225 in) landscape domains. This
scale balances what is feasible experimentally (two orders -of -magnitude larger than most previous ASU -
based studies of landscape effects), and yet is also reflective of the size and general shape of many
isolated meadows in temperate estuaries (Hovel et al. 2002). Our observational work also highlights our
proposed landscapes as highly relevant for evaluating the fragmentation threshold hypothesis, as even
more mobile taxa may respond to fragmentation at this scale. Furthermore, this extent likely encompasses
the scale of potential short-term movements (tidal -daily) of many of the most common fishes in our
region (Szedlmayer and Able 1993, Irlandi and Crawford 1997, Miller and Able 2002, Potthoff and Allen
2003). Our experimental approach relies on the construction of 25 distinct landscapes that span a wide
range of habitat areas (10-6.0% in our experimental domains) and fragmentation levels (1 to >20 patches
per landscape)(Fig. 6). These landscapes will be generated using the randomHabitat function in the secr
package in R (Efford 2016). Landscapes will be generated along 2 orthogonal axes of habitat cover (10-
60%) and fragmentation using a random modified clusters method (percolation probability = 0.10-0.59
which determines patch #)(Saura and Martinez -Millan 2000). Landscapes will be constrained to fall
within 2% of the area input parameter, while holding edge:area ratios constant across fragmentation
Ell
MAR 2 9 2017
1635950

Figure 6. Visual representations of twenty-five landscapes that could be constructed from 1800, 1-m2 ASUs to control patch -level habitat
characteristics and test for the interactive effects of habitat area and fragmentation.
Fragmentation
JF M! 0
�& 006
Percolation P = 0.59 0.4775 0.35 0.225 0.1
gradients (we acknowledge edge:area will unavoidably increase as area decreases in this scenario). Using
this approach, we can construct landscapes in which seagrass area and number of patches are uncorrelated
(R = 0.02 in Fig. 6), allowing us to independently assess the effects of seagrass area and habitat
configuration on fish communities across experimental study sites. All landscapes will be deployed in
Back Sound, NC, where previous work has identified a diverse array of seagrass landscapes (Hovel et al.
2002; Yeager et al. in review), and large expanses of shallow (<0.5 in at low tide) mud/sandflat exists
suitable for placement of ASUs. All ASUs will be constructed with a shoot density of 500 shoots M-2 and
shoot lengths of 15 cm to reflect eelgrass attributes in natural meadows (Yeager et al. in review).
Field work: ASU deployment and faunal sampling
In year 1, we will test the fragmentation threshold hypothesis over the course of a 6 -month deployment of
experimental seagrass landscapes. This will also include a period of targeted ASU removals to evaluate
the response of fishes to active fragmentation. We plan to deploy all 25 landscapes in a random fashion
across broad subtidal sandflats in between two relic flood tidal deltas in Back Sound (Middle Marsh in the
Rachel Carson National Estuarine Research Reserve and Shackleford Marsh adjacent to Shackleford
Island; N34040'53"; W76035'52") that our research group has extensive experience working around.
These sandflats cover an area >1.5 kM2, thereby allowing >100 in separation between all experimental
landscapes and naturally occurring biogenic habitat to control for the influence of interhabitat habitat
connectivity on seagrass-associated fishes (Irlandi and Crawford 1997, Baillie et al. 2015). Within this
study area, we also expect that larval delivery and energy regime are fairly uniform (time averaged).
a�
PVT D 10
MAR 2 9 2017
1635950
1I T -n i! _ ?"Pr F—1 f nn -y- s

Our ongoing (2010 -present) monthly seagrass-associated fish surveys conducted in Back Sound show that
seagrass-associated juvenile -fish catch rates begin to peak in June and July and remain consistently
diverse through October (Fodrie unpublished). Therefore, we plan to deploy 1800 ASUs during early May
(2017) to allow time for natural fouling of mimic-seagrass shoots, as well as colonization by juvenile
fishes within our experimental landscapes before sampling commences. Gridded maps of each landscape
will be used to guide the placement of each 1-m2 ASU, which will each be anchored to the sediment using
10 heavy (6") landscaping staples. We anticipate that it will take between 8-12 days to set up all ASUs in
the field, and will therefore randomize the order in which landscapes are deployed.
During both June and July, we will conduct major sampling efforts to document fish abundance and
assemblage structure within these landscapes. During each sampling effort, we will deploy 8 G -style
minnow traps in each landscape (these traps are currently being used by the Zostera Experimental
Network to sample seagrass-associated fishes and decapods, and in June, 2015, captured 19 distinct
species in NC; Fodrie unpublished). Simultaneously, we will deploy 8 commercially available crab pots
in each landscape to sample larger fishes and decapods. The location of each trap or pot within each
landscape will be randomly assigned, although all traps and pots will be deployed on top of ASU -covered
bottom. Traps and pots will fish for 24 hours, and then recovered to enumerate the abundance of each
captured species. Additionally, we will deploy 2 experimental gill nets within each landscape. These gill
nets consist of multiple panels sewn together, each with a distinct mesh size for sampling a range of fish
size classes. These gill nets will be deployed to fish for 3 hours during an early morning rising tide when
fish are actively moving (Fodrie et al. 2015), and then recovered to enumerate the abundance of each
captured species. We possess enough traps, pots, and gill nets to sample 5 landscapes each day, and
therefore anticipate that it will take between 5-8 days to complete each sampling effort (total June/July
effort: 400 minnow trap sets, 400 crab pot sets, 100 gill net sets). The order of landscape sampling will be
randomized. Because each trap/pot/net sampling across these two time periods from a single landscape
are not independent, we will sum all captures to generate 1 measure of fish (and decapod) assemblage
structure from each experimental landscape.
In August of year 1, we will randomly remove 25% of the ASUs from 12 of the 25 seagrass landscapes
we constructed in May. This will simulate the active fragmentation of seagrass meadows (including loss
of total cover in impacted landscapes; sensu Macreadie et al. 2009). Although resulting in a slightly
unbalanced design, this approach, leaving half the landscapes intact (with only procedural controls, such
as walking through the ASU landscape without ASU removals) will provide us the opportunity to
evaluate the effects of active fragmentation on seagrass using a multiple -site Before -After -Control -Impact
design (accounting for any seasonal shifts in fish assemblage structure; Gericke et al. 2014). In September
and October, before juvenile fishes begin to egress from local estuaries, we will revisit each landscape
and sample fish (and decapod) assemblages using the same regime conducted in June and July. At the end
of our October sampling, all ASUs will be removed from the field and stored over winter.
To ensure ASU landscapes reflect our planned designs, we will evaluate aerial imagery captured during
low tides using a downward -facing GoPro Hero4 camera mounted beneath a lightweight drone (Quad-
copter). Using permanent corner posts that denote the boundary of each landscape, we will digitize the
cover and extent of ASU landscapes prior to fish sampling in June, July, September, and October.
Additionally, during each sampling event, we will record environmental data such as water temperature,
salinity, and secchi depth. We will also make targeted deployments of a flow meter to document typical
current speeds at our study site. We will also deploy a RBRsolo single -channel pressure logger capable of
recording wave profiles (16Hz burst sampling) within our study site to document the local wave regime.
I
gj
A
-"«` 1635950

Our ongoing (2010 -present) monthly seagrass-associated fish surveys conducted in Back Sound show that
seagrass-associated juvenile -fish catch rates begin to peak in June and July and remain consistently
diverse through October (Fodrie unpublished). Therefore, we plan to deploy 1800 ASUs during early May
(2017) to allow time for natural fouling of mimic-seagrass shoots, as well as colonization by juvenile
fishes within our experimental landscapes before sampling commences. Gridded maps of each landscape
will be used to guide the placement of each 1-m2 ASU, which will each be anchored to the sediment using
10 heavy (6") landscaping staples. We anticipate that it will take between 8-12 days to set up all ASUs in
the field, and will therefore randomize the order in which landscapes are deployed.
During both June and July, we will conduct major sampling efforts to document fish abundance and
assemblage structure within these landscapes. During each sampling effort, we will deploy 8 G -style
minnow traps in each landscape (these traps are currently being used by the Zostera Experimental
Network to sample seagrass-associated fishes and decapods, and in June, 2015, captured 19 distinct
species in NC; Fodrie unpublished). Simultaneously, we will deploy 8 commercially available crab pots
in each landscape to sample larger fishes and decapods. The location of each trap or pot within each
landscape will be randomly assigned, although all traps and pots will be deployed on top of ASU -covered
bottom. Traps and pots will fish for 24 hours, and then recovered to enumerate the abundance of each
captured species. Additionally, we will deploy 2 experimental gill nets within each landscape. These gill
nets consist of multiple, panels sewn together, each with a distinct mesh size for sampling a range of fish
size classes. These gill nets will be deployed to fish for 3 hours during an early morning rising tide when
fish are actively moving (Fodrie et al. 2015), and then recovered to enumerate the abundance of each
captured species. We possess enough traps, pots, and gill nets to sample 5 landscapes each day, and
therefore anticipate that it will take between 5-8 days to complete each sampling effort (total June/July
effort: 400 minnow trap sets, 400 crab pot sets, 100 gill net sets). The order of landscape sampling will be
randomized. Because each trap/pot/net sampling across these two time periods from a single landscape
are not independent, we will sum all captures to generate 1 measure of fish (and decapod) assemblage
structure from each experimental landscape.
In August of year 1, we will randomly remove 25% of the ASUs from 12 of the 25 seagrass landscapes
we constructed in May. This will simulate the active fragmentation of seagrass meadows (including loss
of total cover in impacted landscapes; sensu Macreadie et al. 2009). Although resulting in a slightly
unbalanced design, this approach, leaving half the landscapes intact (with only procedural controls, such
as .walking through the ASU landscape without ASU removals) will provide us the opportunity to
evaluate the effects of active fragmentation on seagrass using a multiple -site Before -After -Control -Impact
design (accounting for any seasonal shifts in fish assemblage structure; Gericke et al. 2014). In September
and October, before juvenile fishes begin to egress from local estuaries, we will revisit each landscape
and sample fish (and decapod) assemblages using the same regime conducted in June and July. At the end
of our October sampling, all ASUs will be removed from the field and stored over winter.
To ensure ASU landscapes reflect our planned designs, we will evaluate aerial imagery captured during
low tides using a downward -facing GoPro Hero4 camera mounted beneath a lightweight drone (Quad-
copter). Using permanent corner posts that denote the boundary of each landscape, we will digitize the
cover and extent of ASU landscapes prior to fish sampling in June, July, September, and October.
Additionally, during each sampling event, we will record environmental data such as water temperature,
salinity, and secchi depth. We will also make targeted deployments of a flow meter to document typical
current speeds at our study site. We will also deploy a RBRsolo single -channel pressure logger capable of
recording wave profiles (16Hz burst sampling) within our study site to document the local wave regime.
1, E
LIAR 2 9 2017 11
�Yd
CiTY 1635950

All sampling gears and environmental measurement/logging devices are already owned by the PIs,
although we have budgeted to purchase additional pressure loggers.
In year 2, we will continue testing the fragmentation threshold hypothesis, and extend this work by
evaluating the role of early life -history dispersal in determining fish assemblage patterns across seagrass
landscapes. In May 2018, we will deploy double the number of ASU landscapes at our Back Sound study
site (3600 ASUs). Twenty-five unique landscapes will be generated as in year 1, and in the field we will
deploy identical pairs of each landscape. We will also deploy —200 cinderblocks around Middle Marsh.
From experience, we know that these structures are quickly colonized by oyster toadfish that lay benthic
egg masses (clusters of 50-200 eggs) throughout spring and summer (Gray and Winn 1961). We are
targeting oyster toadfish as a model epibenthic fish to test the role of early life -history dispersal in
assemblage patterns given toadfish's absence in low -cover, fragmented seagrass meadows (Yeager et al.
in review), their important role in temperate estuaries as a predator (Gray and Winn 1961, Keller et al.
submitted), and the relative ease with which their egg masses can be collected and transplanted.
As in 2017, we will sample all landscapes in June and July, which will require double the number of field
days to accomplish this task but will otherwise follow protocols identical to our 2017 sampling (total
June/July effort: 800 minnow trap sets, 800 crab pot sets, 200 gill net sets). In August 2018, we will
transplant 4-8 egg masses (targeting 400 total eggs per landscape) to one of each pair of the 25 distinct
landscapes deployed three months earlier, resulting in 25 "seeded" and 25 "unneeded" landscapes. In
September and October, all 50 landscapes will be sampled as in June and July. This again leverages a
multiple -site Before -After -Control -Impact design to evaluate the effects of seeding (i.e., dispersal ability)
on taxon -specific (i.e., toadfish; which would most likely only be captured in the minnow traps given
their small young -of -year sizes following egg, mass transplants in August) abundance and assemblage
structure across gradients of habitat area and fragmentation. Sampling of "unseeded" landscapes during
2018 will also provide an interannual comparison for our 2017 sampling.
During year 2, we will again routinely map ASU landscapes and record environmental data at our study
site. Furthermore, we will use previously published data on the wave and current environment of Back
Sound (i.e., Fonseca and Bell 1998; Kelly et al. 2001) to identify locations for deploying flow meters and
RBRsolo single -channel pressure loggers during 2018 to map hydrodynamic environments. These data
will be used to site ASU landscapes during year 3. Again, ASUs will again be over winter after October.
In year 3, we plan to test the relative importance of seagrass area, seagrass configuration, and
hydrodynamic regime on the assemblage structure of fishes. During May 2019, we will again deploy 25
pairs of ASU landscapes that span a broad range of sizes and fragmentation levels. During deployment,
one landscape within each matched (identical) pair will be deployed in a "high" energy environment,
while the other will be deployed in a "low" energy environment (guided by our scouting work in 2018).
Following Fonseca and Bell (1998), high energy environments will be defined as having maximum tidal
current speeds >25 cm s'I and a wave exposure index (WEI) >3*106. Above these current speeds and
WEIs, seagrass meadows typically exist as groups of discrete patches. Correspondingly, sites below these
thresholds will be defined as low energy environments and typically support contiguous meadows. To
reduce the risk of random site effects confounding experimental conclusions (e.g., distance to nearest
ocean inlet) we will attempt to identify multiple areas of low and high hydrodynamic regimes across
which individual landscapes will be randomly deployed/clustered.
As in previous years, we will sample all ASU landscapes in both June and July to document fish
assemblage structure in relation to habitat area, habitat configuration, and hydrodynamic regime (total
June/July effort: 800 minnow trap sets, 800 crab pot sets, 200 gill net sets). Unlike previous years, this
E ED
12
MAR 2 9 2017
Vic; ¢ �. J 7 j
1�_ . 1635950

study will not require further manipulation of landscapes (i.e., ASU removals, eggmass seeding) and
therefore additional sampling in September and October will not be conducted. In June and July, we will
again map ASU landscapes and record environmental data at each landscape during each sampling bout.
As this component of the project relies on a rigorous understanding of the local hydrodynamic regime
associated with each ASU landscape, we will also conduct repeated (>3) 1 -week deployments of flow
(current) meters and pressure (wave amplitude/frequency) loggers in each area in Back Sound where we
have sited clusters of ASU landscapes.
Statistical approaches
We will evaluate fish communities sampled within each landscape based on overall abundance, species
richness, and functional diversity. To calculate FD metrics, we will classify each collected species based
on functional traits related to trophic group, body size, life -history strategy (e.g., broadcast spawner vs.
brooder), and microhabitat use (e.g., epibenthic vs. benthopelagic). We will calculate functional diversity
using the abundance -weighted FD metric (Petchy and Gaston 2006) where FD is maximized when the
amount of trait space occupied by a community is high and the fish abundance is evenly distributed across
trait space. For each experiment in each year, our general approach will be to regress species richness,
FD, and fish abundance (i.e., catch rate) onto seagrass area within the experimental landscape, number of
seagrass patches (a robust metric of fragmentation), and seeding level or hydrodynamic energy (as
appropriate), as well as all higher -order interactions among explanatory variables using the lm function in
R. F -tests representing the significance of each independent variable will be based on Type II Sum of
Squares (SS) to preserve the principal of marginality when testing main effects (Langsrud 2003). We will
also calculate 712 (partial variation explained) for each independent variable as a measure of effect size, as
it relates to the amount of unique variation in the response variable explained by each predictor variable
and the sum of r12 values equals the total model R2. Differences in fish assemblage structure across
landscapes will be analyzed based on a Bray -Curtis similarity matrix of fish species observed at each site.
We anticipate applying a presence -absence transformation to examine shifts in species composition across
sites to limit the influence of the most locally dominant species, Lagodon rhomboids (pinfish), which can
account for >80% of all seagrass-associated fishes captured in nets or traps (Baillie et al. 2015). We will
also test whether assemblage structure varies (accounting for seasonally) with seagrass area, patch
number, and seeding or wave energy (as appropriate), as well as any higher -order interactions among
independent variables with a permutational analysis of variance (PERMANOVA, adonis function in the
vegan package; Anderson 2001, Oksanen et al. 2014). A similarity percentages analysis (SIMPER) will
be used to identify which taxa or functional groups contribute to any difference in assemblage structure
among landscapes (simper function in vegan package; Clarke 1993).
Broader impacts
In a triage sense, seagrass meadows are among the most imperiled habitats on the planet (Waycott et al.
2009). Whether local (e.g., boat motor scaring, dredging) or regional/global (e.g., warming, diminished
water clarity), many of the stressors that threaten seagrass lead to increased habitat fragmentation while
also contributing to overall habitat loss (Orth et al. 2006). Seagrass habitat degradation may result in
forfeiture of several ecosystem services of recognized importance, such as water purification, carbon
burial, shoreline stabilization, and nursery provision (senu Costanza et al. 1997). Our proposed research
represents a novel exploration, largely owing to the ambitious scale at which we recognize we must work,
of the patterns and mechanisms that determine if/how fragmentation affects the nursery function of
seagrass habitat for fishes (and invertebrates). Additionally, there are real opportunities to conserve and
restore seagrass habitat (e.g., Tampa Bay recovery; Lewis et al. 1999). Knowing how the nursery function
of seagrass meadows depends on landscape configuration (including identifying thresholds in
area/fragmentation that lead to diversity loss) will be key for planning restoration de ' o maximize
ecosystem service delivery. As 75% of commercially and recreation- e�V se estuarine
MA. R. 2, 9 20117 13
a
1® i` °k.4 s.. ra't y 1635950

study will not require further manipulation of landscapes (i.e., ASU removals, eggmass seeding) and
therefore additional sampling in September and October will not be conducted. In June and July, we will
again map ASU landscapes and record environmental data at each landscape during each sampling bout.
As this component of the project relies on a rigorous understanding of the local hydrodynamic regime
associated with each ASU landscape, we will also conduct repeated (>3) 1 -week deployments of flow
(current) meters and pressure (wave amplitude/frequency) loggers in each area in Back Sound where we
have sited clusters of ASU landscapes.
Statistical approaches
We will evaluate fish communities sampled within each landscape based on overall abundance, species
richness, and functional diversity. To calculate FD metrics, we will classify each collected species based
on functional traits related to trophic group, body size, life -history strategy (e.g., broadcast spawner vs.
brooder), and microhabitat use (e.g., epibenthic vs. benthopelagic). We will calculate functional diversity
using the abundance -weighted FD metric (Petchy and Gaston 2006) where FD is maximized when the
amount of trait space occupied by a community is high and the fish abundance is evenly distributed across
trait space. For each experiment in each year, our general approach will be to regress species richness,
FD, and fish abundance (i.e., catch rate) onto seagrass area within the experimental landscape, number of
seagrass patches (a robust metric of fragmentation), and seeding level or hydrodynamic energy (as
appropriate), as well as all higher -order interactions among explanatory variables using the lm function in
R. F -tests representing the significance of each independent variable will be based on Type II Sum of
Squares (SS) to preserve the principal of marginality when testing main effects (Langsrud 2003). We will
also calculate 112 (partial variation explained) for each independent variable as a measure of effect size, as
it relates to the amount of unique variation in the response variable explained by each predictor variable
and the sum of 112 values equals the total model R2. Differences in fish assemblage structure across
landscapes will be analyzed based on a Bray -Curtis similarity matrix of fish species observed at each site.
We anticipate applying a presence -absence transformation to examine shifts in species composition across
sites to limit the influence of the most locally dominant species, Lagodon rhomboids (pinfish), which can
account for >80% of all seagrass-associated fishes captured in nets or traps (Baillie et al. 2015). We will
also test whether assemblage structure varies (accounting for seasonally) with seagrass area, patch
number, and seeding or wave energy (as appropriate), as well as any higher -order interactions among
independent variables with a permutational analysis of variance (PERMANOVA, adonis function in the
vegan package; Anderson 2001, Oksanen et al. 2014). A similarity percentages analysis (SUVIPER) will
be used to identify which taxa or functional groups contribute to any difference in assemblage structure
among landscapes (simper function in vegan package; Clarke 1993).
Broader impacts
In a triage sense, seagrass meadows are among the most imperiled habitats on the planet (Waycott et al.
2009). Whether local (e.g., boat motor scaring, dredging) or regional/global (e.g., warming, diminished
water clarity), many of the stressors that threaten seagrass lead to increased habitat fragmentation while
also contributing to overall habitat loss (Orth et al. 2006). Seagrass habitat degradation may result in
forfeiture of several ecosystem services of recognized importance, such as water purification, carbon
burial, shoreline stabilization, and nursery provision (senu Costanza et al. 1997). Our proposed research
represents a novel exploration, largely owing to the ambitious scale at which we recognize we must work,
of the patterns and mechanisms that determine if/how fragmentation affects the nursery function of
seagrass habitat for fishes (and invertebrates). Additionally, there are real opportunities to conserve and
restore seagrass habitat (e.g., Tampa Bay recovery; Lewis et al. 1999). Knowing how the nursery function
of seagrass meadows depends on landscape configuration (including identifying thresholds in
area/fragmentation that lead to diversity loss) will be key for planning restoration de ' o maximize
ecosystem service delivery. As 75% of commercially and recreatio j se estuarine
MAR 2 9 2017 13
C "TY 1635950

habitats such as seagrass at some stage in their life history (Gunter 1967), this information would
contribute directly towards truly ecosystem -based fisheries management (including marine spatial
planning; Crowder et al. 2008).
More broadly, habitat fragmentation following from both natural and anthropogenic drivers is a pervasive
pattern in both coastal marine and terrestrial landscapes (Fahrig 2003). Recent reviews have questioned
the importance of habitat fragmentation (independent of habitat loss) in driving diversity loss, however,
and even suggest that the effects of fragmentation may more often be positive than negative (Fahrig 2003,
Fahrig 2015). These observations have led to calls to shift conservation efforts away from curbing habitat
fragmentation. Yet, much of the fragmentation literature focuses on terrestrial systems, where factors like
high matrix quality and landscape complementation likely serve to increase diversity in more fragmented
landscapes. In contrast, seagrass fragments are typically embedded within extremely low -quality matrix
habitats (i.e., unvegetated bottom) and thus likely differ from observations across terrestrial landscapes.
Determining if/when fragmentation matters in affecting diversity in marine landscapes will therefore be
critical in prioritizing conservation efforts in the marine realm.
A PhD graduate student will be closely involved in all aspects of the project for their degree work, and is
expected to lead at least one of the core studies outlined in this proposal. The PhD student will also be
positioned to expand on our work and identify new lines of research. Potentially additional lines of
research may include: (1) tethering trials within our ASU landscapes to evaluate links between
fragmentation and predator -prey interactions; (2) leveraging existing acoustic tracking gear within the
Fodrie lab to explore the movement of large fishes in contiguous and fragmented seagrass landscapes; and
(3) deploying ASUs in 20*30*1-m flowing seawater, earthen ponds at IMS to conduct detailed behavioral
experiments. The project will also provide research experience for approximately 5 baccalaureate (pre -
graduate) students. We will specifically target recent graduates from underrepresented minorities in
Ocean Sciences (African Americans and Hispanics), as research has shown that loss of these groups
between the beginning of undergraduate degree programs and enrollment in graduate school is a major
bottleneck in retention within the field (Johnson and Okoro 2016). We will conduct targeted advertising
of our positions, working with the Division of Diversity and Multicultural Affairs at UNC and a new
SESYNC initiative to engage undergraduate students from Historically Black Colleges and Universities.
The Fodrie lab has had success with immersing recent graduates in marine science research through
similar 12-15 month technician positions, often resulting in a first lead- or co-authored publication (e.g.,
Toscano et al. 2010, Baillie et al. 2015), and subsequent enrollment in leading marine science graduate
programs such as UC Davis, SDSU, NEU, CBL, UNCW, USC, and Duke. We believe in this approach
for tangible broader impacts that expand the power and cross-fertilization of our work. Three additional
undergraduate students will participate in our research through the UNC Institute for the Environment fall
semester program. This program requires students to complete an independent research project while they
are in residence at IMS. Regularly, these undergraduates produce new research findings that also merit
them inclusion in peer-reviewed submissions (e.g., Yeager et al. in review; Keller et al. submitted).
Table 2. Proposed schedule of project activities.
Year 1 (2016-2017) Year 2 (2017-2018) Year 3 (2018-2019)
Task Fa W Sp Su Fa W Sp Su Fa W Sp Su
Construct ASUs (-1800 in Year 1 and —1800 in Year 2) X X X X X X
ASU deployment for Y1 fragmentation study X X
ASU removals for Y 1 fragmentation study X
Toadfish eggmass collector deployment for Y2 seeding study X X
ASU deployment and toadfish eggmass seeding for Y2 study X X X
Pressure and flow logger deployment in prep for Y3 hydrodynamics study X
ASU and pressure sensor deployment for Y3 hydro°frag study X X
Trap and net sampling to document faunal abundance, diversity, etc. X X X X X X X X
Data analyses X X 8 `P-- T"N X X X
14
IV
3- 1635950

Working with IMS's outreach coordinator, Kerry Irish, results of this research will be disseminated to the
general public through spots on PBS, NPR, social media, and print media. Her past efforts publicizing our
work led to stories by PBS' QUEST The Science of Sustainability, The Atlantic, Nature World News, and
Huffington Post. We will also work with research/outreach coordinators at our local National Estuarine
Research Reserve to create educational posters and videos to help communicate our findings to reserve
visitors and other researchers. Notably, a similar effort by graduate students in the Fodrie lab was
awarded "best student submission" at the 2013 Beneath the Waves Film Festival for "Saving North
Carolina's Reefs". Results will be made available to the K12 community through the Scientific Research
and Education Network (SciREN; www.thesciren.org), co -created by a current PhD student advised by
Fodrie (Theuerkauf and Ridge, 2014). This event is held annually at the Pine Knoll Shores Aquarium,
NC, for 60-100 teachers who interact with scientists exhibiting classroom activities and lessons plans.
Work plan
To accomplish the tasks outlined in Table 2, the research team includes: 1) PI Fodrie, who will oversee
construction of ASUs, advise the PhD graduate student, participate in field research, ensure proper data
management, and prepare manuscripts and reports for submission; 2) co -PI Yeager, who will be
responsible for the design or ASU landscapes, participate in field research, oversee all statistical
modelling and data analyses, and prepare manuscripts for submission; 3) a PhD graduate student, who
will participate in all aspects of the project, including IACUC management, ASU construction, running
field experiments, analyzing data, developing new lines of research that leverage our proposed work,
preparing presentations, and drafting manuscripts; and 4) multiple baccalaureate -level technicians, who
will work with the PIs and PhD student to ensure day-to-day progress on all aspects of the planned
research, especially ASU construction, field work, and data entry with quality assurance. As feasible,
technicians will also be encouraged to generate independent research projects that contribute toward our
overall objectives.
Results from prior NSF support: Fodrie: OCE -1155628 ($510,000, 2/15/2012-2/14/2017)
"Collaborative research: Interacting effects of local demography and larval connectivity on estuarine
metapopulation dynamics". Intellectual Merit: This work has focused on spatial gradients and controls of
oyster reef (and larval) connectivity, ecology, and conservation. To date, the project has supported 9
publications appearing in Ecol, Front in Ecol Environ, Ecol Appl, Fish Oce, J Appl Ecol, MEPS, Nat
Clim Chg, Rest Ecol, and Sci Rep (denoted with # in References), as well as 1 additional submitted
manuscript (Oecol). Broader Impacts: Two Ph.D. graduate students have worked on this study, with both
students having already published first -authored papers that acknowledge this NSF support. Furthermore,
research findings have been integrated in K12 curriculum development through SciREN.
Yeager was supported by a NSF GRF from 8/2007-7/2012. Intellectual Merit: Her dissertation research
focused on applications of landscape ecology to marine systems and used novel, manipulative field
experiments to vary landscape context around artificial reefs, making links to community assembly,
population regulation, and food web subsidies. This support resulted in 11 publications (denoted with an
in References) including core ecology (e.g., Ecol, Ecol. Appl.) and marine biology journals (e.g., MEPS,
JEMBE). Broader Impacts: Yeager led internships for undergraduates (10/12 from underrepresented
groups, n=7 co-authored publications) and high school students (n=4). Yeager also lead an educational
outreach program for a local mangrove restoration project in The Bahamas involving >500 students in
school presentations and field trips.
tY,AR 9 JQ 47
15
1635950

Working with IMS's outreach coordinator, Kerry Irish, results of this research will be disseminated to the
general public through spots on PBS, NPR, social media, and print media. Her past efforts publicizing our
work led to stories by PBS' QUEST The Science of Sustainability, The Atlantic, Nature World News, and
Huffington Post. We will also work with researeb/outreach coordinators at our local National Estuarine
Research Reserve to create educational posters and videos to help communicate our findings to reserve
visitors and other researchers. Notably, a similar effort by graduate students in the Fodrie lab was
awarded "best student submission" at the 2013 Beneath the Waves Film Festival for "Saving North
Carolina's Reefs". Results will be made available to the K12 community through the Scientific Research
and Education Network (SciREN; www.thesciren.org), co -created by a current PhD student advised by
Fodrie (Theuerkauf and Ridge, 2014). This event is held annually at the Pine Knoll Shores Aquarium,
NC; for 60-100 teachers who interact with scientists exhibiting classroom activities and lessons plans.
Work plan
To accomplish the tasks outlined in Table 2, the research team includes: 1) PI Fodrie, who will oversee
construction of ASUs, advise the PhD graduate student, participate in field research, ensure proper data
management, and prepare manuscripts and reports for submission; 2) co -PI Yeager, who will be
responsible for the design or ASU landscapes, participate in field research, oversee all statistical
modelling and data analyses, and prepare manuscripts for submission; 3) a PhD graduate student, who
will participate in all aspects of the project, including IACUC management, ASU construction, running
field experiments, analyzing data, developing new lines of research that leverage our proposed work;
preparing presentations, and drafting manuscripts; and 4) multiple baccalaureate -level technicians, who
will work with the PIs and PhD student to ensure day-to-day progress on all aspects of the planned
research, especially ASU construction, field work, and data entry with quality assurance. As feasible,
technicians will also be encouraged to generate independent research projects that contribute toward our
overall objectives.
Results from prior NSF support: Fodrie: OCE -1155628 ($510,000, 2/15/2012-2/14/2017)
"Collaborative research: Interacting effects of local demography and larval connectivity.on estuarine
metapopulation dynamics". Intellectual Merit: This work has focused on spatial gradients and controls of
oyster reef (and larval) connectivity, ecology, and conservation. To date, the project has supported 9
publications appearing in Ecol, Front in Ecol Environ, Ecol Appl, Fish Oce, J Appl Ecol, MEPS, Nat
Clim Chg, Rest Ecol, and Sci Rep (denoted with # in References), as well as 1 additional submitted
manuscript (Oecol). Broader Impacts: Two Ph.D. graduate students have worked on this study, with both
students having already published first -authored papers that acknowledge this NSF support. Furthermore,
research findings have been integrated in K12 curriculum development through SciREN.
Yeager was supported by a NSF GRF from 8/2007-7/2012. Intellectual Merit: Her dissertation research .
focused on applications of landscape ecology to marine systems and used novel, manipulative field
experiments to vary landscape context around artificial reefs, making links to community assembly,
population regulation, and food web subsidies. This support resulted in 11 publications (denoted with an
in References) including core ecology (e.g., Ecol, Ecol. Appl.) and marine biology journals (e.g., MEPS,
JEMBE). Broader Impacts: Yeager led internships for undergraduates (10/12 from underrepresented
groups, n=7 co-authored publications) and high school students (n=44). Yeager also lead an educational
outreach program for a local mangrove restoration project in The Bahamas involving>500 students in
school presentations and field trips.
RECEIVED
LIAR 2 9 2017 15
C 1- NIN QTY 1635950

REFERENCES
Papers supported by OCE -1155628 denoted by j'. (Mentored: #graduate student; *undergraduate/
technician; $postdoctoral researcher):
Papers supported by a NSF GRF to L. Yeager denoted by tt.
�t Allgeier, J.E., L.A. Yeager, and C.A. Layman. 2013. Consumer regulation of nutrient limitation
regimes and primary production. Ecology 94(2):521-529.
Anderson, M.J., K.E. Ellingsen and B.H. McArdle. 2006. Multivariate dispersion as a measure of beta
diversity. Ecology Letters 9:683-693.
Anderson, M.J. 2001. A new method for non -parametric multivariate analysis of variance. Austral
Ecology 26:32-46.
Anton, A., J. Cebrian, C.M. Duarte, K.L. Heck, and J. Goff. 2009. Low impact of Hurricane Katrina on
seagrass community structure and functioning in the. Northern Gulf of Mexico. Bulletin of Marine
Science, 85(1):45-59.
Baillie*, C., J. Fear, and F.J. Fodrie. 2015. Ecotone effects on seagrass and saltmarsh habitat use by
juvenile nekton in a temperate estuary. Estuaries and Coasts 38: 1414-1430.
Barnes, R. S. K., and S. Hamylton. 2013. Abrupt transitions between macrobenthic faunal assemblages
across seagrass bed margins. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 131:213-223.
Bell, J.D. and M. Westoby. 1986. Variation in seagrass height and density over a wide spatial scale:
effects on common fish and decapods. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology,
104(1):275-295.
Bell, J.D., A.S. Steffe, and M. Westoby. 1985 Artificial seagrass: how useful is it for field experiments on
fish and macroinvertebrates?. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 90(2):171-177.
Bell, S.S., M.O. Hall, S. Soffian, and K. Madley. 2002. Assessing the impact of boat propeller scars on
fish and shrimp utilizing seagrass beds. Ecological Applications 12(1):206-217.
Bell, S.S., R.A. Brooks, B.D. Robbins, M.S. Fonseca, and M.O. Hall. 2001. Faunal response to
fragmentation in seagrass habitats: implications for seagrass conservation. Biological Conservation
100(1):115-123.
Betts, M.G., G.J. Forbes, A.W. Diamond, and P.D. Taylor. 2006. Independent effects of fragmentation on
forest songbirds: An organism -based approach Ecological Applications 16:1076-1089.
Bologna, P.A.. 2006. Assessing within habitat variability in plant demography, faunal density, and
secondary production in an eelgrass (Zostera marina L.) bed. Journal of experimental marine biology
and ecology 329(1):122-134.
Bologna, P.A. and K.L. Heck. 1999. Macrofaunal associations with seagrass epiphytes: relative
importance of trophic and structural characteristics. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and
Ecology 242:21-39.
Bostrom, C., E.L. Jackson, and C.A. Simenstad. 2006. Seagrass landscapes and their effects on associated
fauna: A review. Estuarine, Coastal, and Shelf Science 68:383-403.
j Brodeur#, M.C., and F.J. Fodrie. in review. Effects of interspecific competition are mediated by body
size and environmental stress in a biogenic reef community. Oecologia
Brun, F.G., J.L. Pdrez-L1orEns, I. Hernandez, and J. J. Vergara. 2005. Patch Distribution and Within -
Patch Dynamics of the Seagrass Zostera noltii Hornem. in Los Torunos Salt -Marsh, Cadiz Bay, Natural
Park, Spain. Botanica Marina 46(6):513-524.
Byron, D. and K.L. Heck. 2006. Hurricane effects on seagrasses along Alabama's Gulf Coast. Estuaries
and Coasts 29(6):939-942.
Caley, M. J., M. H. Carr, M. A. Hixon, T. P. Hughes, G. P. Jones, and B. A. Menge. 1996. Recruitment
and the local dynamics of open marine populations. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 477-
500.
Carroll, J.M., B.T. Furman, S.T. Tettelbach, and B.J. Peterson. 2012. Balancing the edge effects budget:
bay scallop settlement and loss along a seagrass edge. Ecology 93(7):1637-1647. pC&_JVt
,in292011
1635950

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

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

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

Jelbart, J.E., P.M. Ross, and R.M. Connolly. 2006. Edge effects and patch size in seagrass landscapes: an
experimental test using fish. Marine Ecology -Progress Series 319:93.
Johnson, A., and M.H. Okoro. 2016 How to Recruit and Retain Underrepresented Minorities From
kindergarten through fulltime positions, what works to engage aspiring minority researchers in studying
ocean science? Amercian Scientist 104:76-81.
Johnson, M.W., and K.L. Heck. 2006. Effects of habitat fragmentation per se on decapods and fishes
inhabiting seagrass meadows in the northern Gulf of Mexico. Marine Ecology Progress Series 306:233-
246.
Kallen, J., H. Muller, M. L. Franken, A. Crisp, C. Stroh, D. Pillay, and C. Lawrence. 2012. Seagrass-
epifauna relationships in a temperate South African estuary: Interplay between patch -size, within -patch
location and algal fouling. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 113:213-220.
Keller, D.A., R.K. Gittman, R. Bouchilloni, and F.J. Fodrie. submitted. Life -stage and behavior
determine whether habitat subsidies enhance or simply redistribute secondary production. Ecology
Kelly, N.M., M. Fonseca, and P. Whitfield. 2001. Predictive mapping for management and conservation
of seagrass beds in North Carolina. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems,
11(6):437-451.
Kennish, M.J. 2001. Coastal salt marsh systems in the US: a review of anthropogenic impacts. Journal of
Coastal Research 1:731-748.
Kroll", I.R., A.K. Poray, B.J. Puckett, D.B. Eggleston, and F.J. Fodrie. 2016. Environmental effects on
elemental uptake in the shells of the Eastern oyster, Crassostrea virginica: implications for the use of
geochemical tagging to assess connectivity. Marine Ecology Progress Series 543: 173-186.
Langsrud, 0.2003. ANOVA for unbalanced data: use type II instead of type III sums of squares.
Statistics and Computing 13:163-167.
Layman, C.A., J.E. Allgeier, L.A. Yeager, and EW. Stoner. 2013. Thresholds of ecosystem response to
nutrient enrichment from fish aggregations. Ecology 94(2):530-536.
Levin, L.A., 2006. Recent progress in understanding larval dispersal: new directions and digressions. Int.
Comp. Biol. 46:282-297.
Levin, S.A. 1992. The problem of pattern and scale in ecology: the Robert H. MacArthur award lecture.
Ecology 73(6):1943-1967.
Lewis III, R.R., P.A. Clark, W.K. Fehring, H.S. Greening, R.O. Johansson, and R.T. Paul. 1999. The
rehabilitation of the Tampa Bay Estuary, Florida, USA, as an example of successful integrated coastal
management. Marine Pollution Bulletin 37(8):468-473.
Lindenmayer, D.B., and J. Fischer. 2007. Tackling the habitat fragmentation panchreston. Trends in
Ecology and Evolution 22:127-132.
Livingston, R.J. 1982. Trophic organization of fishes in a coastal seagrass system. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser,
7(1):12.
Lomolino, M.V. 2000. Ecology's most general, yet protean pattern: The species -area relationship. Journal
of Biogeography 27:17-26.
Lourie, S.A., and A.C.J. Vincent. 2004. A marine fish follows Wallace's line: The phylogeography of the
three -spot seahorse (Hippocampus trimaculatus, Syngnathidae, Teleostei) in Southeast Asia. Jounral of
Biogeography 31:1975-1985.
Macreadie, P.I., J.S. Hindell, G.P. Jenkins, R.M. Connolly, and M.J. Keough. 2009. Fish responses to
experimental fragmentation of seagrass habitat. Conservation Biology, 23:644-652
Macreadie, P.I., N.R. Geraldi, and C.H. Peterson. 2012. Preference for feeding at habitat edges declines
among juvenile blue crabs as oyster reef patchiness increases and predation risk grows. Marine Ecology
Progress Series 466:145.
Martin, C.W, F.J. Fodrie, K.L Heck Jr, and J. Mattila. 2010. Differential habitat use and antipredator
response of juvenile roach (Rutilus rutilus) to olfactory and visual cues from multiple predators.
Oecologia 162: 893-902.
McGarigal, K., and S.A. Cushman. 2002. Comparative evaluation of experimental approaches to the
study of habitat fragmentation. Ecological Applications 12:335-345X f7fi
,6 ati t 1635950

Jelbart, J.E., P.M. Ross, and R.M. Connolly. 2006. Edge effects and patch size in seagrass landscapes: an
experimental test using fish. Marine Ecology-Progress Series 319:93.
Johnson, A., and M.H. Okoro. 2016 How to Recruit and Retain Underrepresented Minorities From
kindergarten through fulltime positions, what works to engage aspiring minority researchers in studying
ocean science? Amercian Scientist 1.04:76-81.
Johnson, M.W., and K.L. Heck. 2006. Effects of habitat fragmentation per se on decapods and fishes
inhabiting seagrass meadows in the northern Gulf of Mexico. Marine Ecology Progress Series 306:233-
246.
KW16n, J., H. Muller, M. L. Franken, A. Crisp, C. Stroh, D. Pillay, and C. Lawrence. 2012. Seagrass-
epifauna relationships in a temperate South African, estuary: Interplay between patch -size, within -patch
location and algal fouling. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 113:213-220.
Keller#, D.A., R.K. Gittman, R. Bouchillon', and F.J. Fodrie. submitted. Life-stage and behavior
determine whether habitat subsidies enhance or simply redistribute secondary production. Ecology
Kelly, N.M., M. Fonseca, and P. Whitfield. 2001. Predictive mapping for management and conservation
of seagrass beds in North Carolina. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems,
11(6):437-451.
Kennish, M.J. 2001. Coastal salt marsh systems in the US: a review_ of anthropogenic impacts. Journal of
Coastal Research 1:731-748.
t Kroll#, I.R., A.K. Poray, B.J. Puckett, D.B. Eggleston, and F.J. Fodrie. 2016. Environmental effects on
elemental uptake in the shells of the Eastern oyster, Crassostrea virginica: implications for the use of
geochemical tagging to assess connectivity. Marine Ecology Progress Series 543: 173-186.
Langsrud, 0.2003. ANOVA for unbalanced data: use type II instead of type III sums of squares.
Statistics and Computing 13:163-167.
tt Layman, C.A., J.E. Allgeier, L.A. Yeager, and EW. Stoner. 2013. Thresholds of ecosystem response to
nutrient enrichment from fish aggregations. Ecology 94(2):530-536.
Levin, L.A., 2006. Recent progress in understanding larval dispersal: new directions and digressions. Int.
Comp. Biol. 46:282-297.
Levin, S.A. 1992. The problem of pattern and scale in ecology: the Robert H. MacArthur award lecture.
Ecology 73(6):1943-1967.
Lewis I1I, R.R., P.A. Clark, W.K. Fehring, H.S. Greening, R.O. Johansson, and R.T. Paul. 1999. The
rehabilitation of the Tampa Bay Estuary, Florida, USA, as an example of successful integrated coastal
management. Marine Pollution Bulletin 37(8):468-473.
Lindenmayer, D.B., and J. Fischer. 2007. Tackling the habitat fragmentation panchreston. Trends in
Ecology and Evolution 22:127-132.
Livingston, R.J. 1982. Trophic organization of fishes in a coastal seagrass system. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser,
7(1):12.
Lomolino, M.V. 2000. Ecology's most general, yet protean pattern: The species-area relationship. Journal
of Biogeography 27:17-26.
Lourie, S.A., and A.C.J. Vincent. 2004. A marine fish follows Wallace's line: The phylogeography of the
three-spot seahorse (Hippocampus trimaculatus, Syngnathidae, Teleostei) in Southeast Asia. Jounral of
Biogeography 31:1975-1985.
Macreadie, P.I., J.S. Hindell, G.P. Jenkins, R.M. Connolly, and M.J. Keough. 2009. Fish responses to
experimental fragmentation of seagrass habitat. Conservation Biology, 23:644-652
Macreadie, P.I., N.R. Geraldi, and C.H. Peterson. 2012. Preference for feeding at habitat edges declines
among juvenile blue crabs as oyster reef patchiness increases and predation risk grows. Marine Ecology
Progress Series 466:145.
Martin, C.W, F.J. Fodrie, K.L Heck Jr, and J. Mattila. 2010. Differential habitat use and antipredator. .
response of juvenile roach (Rutilus rutilus) to olfactory and visual cues from multiple predators.
Oecologia 162: 893-902.
McGarigal, K., and S.A. Cushman. 2002. Comparative evaluation of experimental approaches to the
study of habitat fragmentation. Ecological Applications 12:335-345.8
MAR 2 9 2017
D I - M H D U TY 1635950

McGill, B.J., B.J. Enquist, E.Weiher, and M. Westoby. 2006. Rebuilding community ecology from
functional traits. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 21:178-185.
McGarigal, K., S.A. Cushman, and E. Ene. 2012. Fragstats v4: Spatial pattern analysis program for
categorical and continuous maps. University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
http://www.umass.edu/landeco/research/fragstats/fragstats.html
Micheli, F., M.J. Bishop, C.H. Peterson, and J. Rivera. 2008. Alteration of seagrass species composition
and function over two decades. Ecological Monographs 78:225-244.
Miller, M.J., and K.W. Able. 2002. Movements and growth of tagged young -of -the -year Atlantic croaker
(Micropogonias undulatus 1.) in restored and reference marsh creeks in Delaware Bay, USA. Journal of
Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 267:15-33.
Moore, E.C., and K.A. Hovel. 2010. Relative influence of habitat complexity and proximity to patch
edges on seagrass epifaunal communities. Oikos, 119(8):1299-1311.
Murphy, H.M., G.P. Jenkins, J.S. Hindell, and R.M. Connolly. 2010. Response of fauna in seagrass to
habitat edges, patch attributes and hydrodynamics. Austral Ecology 35(5):535-543.
Oksanen, J., F.G. Blanchet, R. Kindt, P. Legendre, P.R. Minchin, R.B. O'Hara, G.L. Simpson, P.
Solymos, M.H.H. Stevens, H. Wagner. 2014. Vegan: Community ecology package. http://CRAN.R-
project.org/package=vegan
Olafsson, E.B., C.H. Peterson, and W. G. J. Ambrose. 1994. Does recruitment limitation structure
populations and communities of macro -invertebrates in marine soft sediments. In UCL Press, London.
Orth, R.J., T.J. Carruthers, W.C. Dennison, C.M. Duarte, J.W. Fourqurean, K.L. Heck, A.R. Hughes,
G.A. Kendrick, W.J. Kenworthy, S. Olyarnik, and F.T. Short. 2006. A global crisis for seagrass
ecosystems. Bioscience 56(12):987-996.
Orth, R., K. Heck and J. van Montfrans. 1984. Faunal communities in seagrass beds: A review of the
influence of plant structure and prey characteristics on predator -prey relationships. Estuaries 7:339-350.
Orth, R.J., and K.L. Heck. 1980. Structural components of eelgrass (Zostera marina) meadows in the
lower Chesapeake Bay -fishes. Estuaries 3(4):278-288.
Parker, M., and R. Mac Nally. 2002. Habitat loss and the habitat fragmentation threshold: An
experimental evaluation of impacts on richness and total abundances using grassland invertebrates.
Biological Conservation 105:217-229.
Pearson, J.C. 1929. Natural history and conservation of the redfish and other commercial sciaenids on the
Texas coast. Fishery Bulletin 44:129-214.
Petchey, O.L., and K.J. Gaston. 2002. Functional diversity (FD), species richness and community
composition. Ecology Letters 5(3):402-411.
Potthoff, M.T., and D.M. Allen. 2003. Site fidelity, home range, and tidal migrations of juvenile pinfish,
lagodon rhomboides, in salt marsh creeks. Environmental Biology of Fishes 67:231-240.
f Puckett, B.J., D.B. Eggleston, P.C. Kerr, and R.A. Luettich. 2014. Larval dispersal and population
connectivity among a network of marine reserves. Fisheries Oceanography 23(4): 342-361.
R Core Team 2015. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical
Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org/.
Radford, J.Q., A.F. Bennett, and G.J. Cheers. 2005. Landscape -level thresholds of habitat cover for
woodland -dependent birds. Biological conservation 124:317-337.
f Ridge", J.T., A.B. Rodriguez, F.J. Fodrie, N.L. Lindquist, M.C. Brodeur#, S.E. Coleman?, J.H.
Grabowski, and E.J. Theuerkauf. 2015. Maximizing oyster -reef growth supports green infrastructure
with accelerating sea -level rise. Nature Scientific Reports 5: 14785.
t Rodriguez, A.B., F.J. Fodrie, J.T. Ridge#, N.L. Lindquist, E.J. Theuerkauf, S.E. Coleman?, J.H.
Grabowski, M.C. Brodeur", R.K. Gittman, D.A. Keller#, and M.D. Kenworthy. 2014. Oyster reefs can
outpace sea -level rise. Nature Climate Change 4: 493-497.
Sandel, B., and A.B. Smith. 2009. Scale as a lurking factor: incorporating scale -dependence in
experimental ecology. Oikos 118(9):1284-1291.
Saura, S., and J. Martinez -Millan. 2000. Landscape patterns simulation with a modified random clusters
method. Landscape Ecology 15:661-678. N
MAR 2 9 2017
1635950
0ANIH D Cgs`

Saunders, D.A., R.J. Hobbs, and C.R. Margules. 1991. Biological consequences of ecosystem
fragmentation: A review. Conservation Biology 5:18-32.
Simberloff, D.S. 1974. Equilibrium theory of island biogeography and ecology. Annual review of
Ecology and Systematics 161-182.
Smith, A.C., L. Fahrig, and C.M. Francis. 2011. Landscape size affects the relative importance of habitat
amount, habitat fragmentation, and matrix quality on forest birds. Ecography 34:103-113.
Sogard, S., and K. Able. 1994. Diel variation in immigration of fishes and decapod crustaceans to
artificial seagrass habitat. Estuaries 17:622-630.
Sogard, S.M.. 1989. Colonization of artificial seagrass by fishes and decapod crustaceans: importance of
proximity to natural eelgrass. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 133(1-2)15-37.
Stoner, E.W., L.A. Yeager, and C.A. Layman. 2014. Effects of epibenthic jellyfish, Cassiopea spp., on
faunal community composition of Bahamian seagrass beds. Caribbean Naturalist 12:1-10.
Stoner, E.W., L.A. Yeager, S.S. Selliban, and C.A. Layman. 2014. Modification of a seagrass
community by benthic jellyfish blooms and nutrient enrichment. Journal of Experimental Marine
Biology and Ecology 461: 182-192.
Stoner, E.W., C.A. Layman, L.A. Yeager, and H.M. Hassett. 2011. Effects of anthropogenic
disturbance on the abundance and size of epibenthic jellyfish Cassiopea spp. Marine Pollution Bulletin
62: 1109-1114.
Summerville, K.S., and T.O. Crist. 2001. Effects of experimental habitat fragmentation on patch use by
butterflies and skippers (Lepidoptera). Ecology 82:1360-1370.
Szedlmayer, S.T., and K.W. Able. 1993. Ultrasonic telemetry of age -0 summer flounder, Paralichthys
dentatus, movements in a southern New Jersey estuary. Copeia 1993:728-736.
Tanner, J.E. 2006. Landscape ecology of interactions between seagrass and mobile epifauna: the matrix
matters. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 68(3):404-412.
Theuerkauf, E.J., and J.T. Ridge. 2014. Researchers bring local science into classrooms. Eos,
Transactions American Geophysical Union 95(5):41-42.
Toscano, B.J., F.J. Fodrie, S.L. Madsen, and S.P. Powers. 2010. Multiple prey effects: agonistic behaviors
between prey species enhances consumption by their shared predator. Journal of Experimental Marine
Biology and Ecology 385(1):59-65.
Trzcinski, M., K., L. Fahrig, and G. Merriam. 1999. Independent effects of forest cover and fragmentation
on the distribution of forest breeding birds. Ecological Applications 9: 586-593.
Valiela, I., J.L. Bowen, and J.K. York. 2001. Mangrove Forests: One of the World's Threatened Major
Tropical Environments At least 35% of the area of mangrove forests has been lost in the past two
decades, losses that exceed those for tropical rain forests and coral reefs, two other well-known
threatened environments. Bioscience 51(10):807-815.
Villard, M.A., and J.P. Metzger. 2014. Review: Beyond the fragmentation debate: A conceptual model to
predict when habitat configuration really matters. Journal of Applied Ecology 51:309-318.
Walles, B., F.J. Fodrie, S. Nieuwhof, P.M.J. Herman, and T. Ysebaert. 2016. Guidelines for evaluating
performance of oyster habitat restoration should include tidal emersion: reply to Baggett et al.
Restoration Ecology 24: 4-7.
Waycott M, C.M. Duarte, T.J. Carruthers, R.J. Orth, W.C. Dennison, S. Olyamik, A. Calladine, J.W.
Fourqurean, K.L. Heck, A.R. Hughes, G.A. Kendrick. 2009 Accelerating loss of seagrasses across the
globe threatens coastal ecosystems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 106(30):12377-
81.
Worthington, D.G., M. Westoby, and J.D. Bell. 1991. Fish larvae settling in seagrass: effects of leaf
density and an epiphytic alga. Australian journal of ecology, 16(3):289-293.
tt Yeager, L.A., E.W. Stoner, M.J. Zapata, and C.A. Layman. 2014. Does landscape context mediate
density dependence in a coral reef fish? Ecological Applications 24: 1833-1841.
tt Yeager, L.A., C.M. Hammerschlag -Peyer, and C.A. Layman. 2014. Diet variation of a generalist fish
predator, grey snapper Lutjanus griseus, across an estuarine gradient: trade-offs of quantity for quality?
Journal of Fish Biology 85(2): 264-277. - fm 77
AR' .2 5i %
- 1635950

Saunders, D.A., R.J. Hobbs, and C.R. Margules. 1991. Biological consequences of ecosystem
fragmentation: A review. Conservation Biology 5:18-32.
Simberloff, D.S. 1974. Equilibrium theory of island biogeography and ecology. Annual review of
Ecology and Systematics 161-182.
Smith, A.C., L. Fahrig, and C.M. Francis. 2011. Landscape size affects the relative importance of habitat
amount, habitat fragmentation, and matrix quality on forest birds. Ecography 34:103-113.
Sogard, S., and K. Able. 1994. Diel variation in immigration of fishes and decapod crustaceans to
artificial seagrass habitat. Estuaries 17:622-630.
Sogard, S.M.. 1989. Colonization of artificial seagrass by fishes_ and decapod crustaceans: importance of
proximity to natural eelgrass. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 133(1-2)15-37.
f f Stoner, E.W., L.A. Yeager, and C.A. Layman. 2014. Effects of epibenthic jellyfish, Cassiopea spp., on
faunal community composition of Bahamian seagrass beds. Caribbean Naturalist 12:1-10.
Stoner, E.W., L.A. Yeager, S.S. Selliban, and C.A. Layman. 2014. Modification of a seagrass
community by benthic jellyfish blooms and nutrient enrichment. Journal of Experimental Marine
Biology and Ecology 461:. 182-192.
f f Stoner, E.W., C.A. Layman, L.A. Yeager, and H.M. Hassett. 2011. Effects of anthropogenic
disturbance on the abundance and size of epibenthic jellyfish Cassiopea spp. Marine Pollution Bulletin
62: 1109-1114.
Summerville, K.S., and T.O. Crist. 2001. Effects of experimental habitat fragmentation on patch use by
butterflies and skippers (Lepidoptera). Ecology 82:1360-1370.
Szedlmayer, S.T., and K.W. Able. 1993. Ultrasonic telemetry of age -0 summer flounder, Paralichthys
dentatus, movements in a southern New Jersey estuary. Copeia 1993:728-736.
Tanner, J.E. 2006. Landscape ecology of interactions between seagrass and mobile epifauna: the matrix
matters. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 68(3):404-412.
Theuerkauf, E.J., and J.T. Ridge. 2014. Researchers bring local science into classrooms. Eos,
Transactions American Geophysical Union 95(5):41-42.
Toscano, B.J., F.J. Fodrie, S.L. Madsen, and S.P. Powers. 2010. Multiple prey effects: agonistic behaviors
between prey species enhances consumption by their shared predator. Journal of Experimental Marine
Biology and Ecology 385(1):59-65.
Trzcinski, M., K., L. Fahrig, and G. Merriam. 1999. Independent effects of forest cover and fragmentation
on the distribution of forest breeding birds. Ecological Applications 9: 586-593.
Valiela, I., J.L. Bowen, and J.K. York. 2001. Mangrove Forests: One of the World's Threatened Major
Tropical Environments At least 35% of the area of mangrove forests has been lost in the past two
decades, losses that exceed those for tropical rain forests and coral reefs, two other well-known
threatened environments. Bioscience 51(10):807-815.
Villard, M.A., and J.P. Metzger. 2014. Review: Beyond the fragmentation debate: A conceptual model to
predict when habitat configuration really matters. Journal of Applied Ecology 51:309-318.
f Walles, B., F.J. Fodrie, S. Nieuwhof, P.M.J. Herman, and T. Ysebaert. 2016. Guidelines for evaluating
performance of oyster habitat restoration should include tidal emersion: reply to Baggett et al.
Restoration Ecology 24: 4-7.
Waycott M, C.M. Duarte, T.J. Carruthers, R.J. Orth, W.C. Dennison, S. Olyamik, A. Calladine, J.W.
Fourqurean, K.L. Heck, A.R. Hughes, G.A. Kendrick. 2009 Accelerating loss of seagrasses across the
globe threatens coastal ecosystems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 106(30):12377-
81.
Worthington, D.G., M. Westoby, and J.D. Bell. 1991. Fish larvae settling in seagrass: effects of leaf
density and an epiphytic alga. Australian journal of ecology, 16(3):289-293.
f Yeager, L.A., E.W. Stoner, M.J. Zapata, and C.A. Layman. 2014. Does landscape context mediate
density dependence in a coral reef fish? Ecological Applications 24: 1833-1841.
f f Yeager, L.A., C.M. Hammerschlag -Peyer, and C.A. Layman. 2014. Diet variation of a generalist fish
predator, grey snapper Lutjanus griseus, across an estuarine gradient: trade-offs of quantity for quality?
Journal of Fish Biology 85(2): 264-277. RECEIVED"
MAR 2 9 2012
M m A HD Y 1635950

f Yeager, L.A., C.L. Acevedo, and C.A. Layman. 2012. Effects of seascape context on condition,
abundance, and secondary production of a coral reef fish, Haemulon plumierii. Marine Ecology
Progress Series 462: 231-240.
j f Yeager, L.A., C.A. Layman, and J.E. Allgeier. 2011. Effects of habitat heterogeneity at multiple
spatial scales on fish community assembly. Oecologia 167:157-168.
Yeager, L.A., and C.A. Layman. 2011. Energy flow to two abundant consumers in a sub -tropical
oyster reef food web. Apatic Ecology 45:267-277.
Yeager$, L.A., D.A. Keller , T.R. Burns, A. Pool, and F.J. Fodrie. in review. Threshold effects of habitat
fragmentation per se on fish diversity at landscapes scales. Ecology
tf Zapata, M.J., L.A. Yeager, and C.A. Layman. 2014. Day -night patterns in natural and artificial patch
reef fish assemblages of The Bahamas. Caribbean Naturalist 18:1-15.
Zu Ermgassen, P.S., M.D. Spalding, B. Blake, L.D. Coen, B. Dumbauld, S. Geiger, J.H. Grabowski, R.
Grizzle, M. Luckenbach, K. McGraw, and W. Rodney. 2012. Historical ecology with real numbers: past
and present extent and biomass of an imperilled estuarine habitat. Proceedings of the Royal Society of
London B: Biological Sciences 279(1742):3393-3400.
MAR 292017
' 'a - AfflHO C
1635950

Biographical Sketch
Fredrick Joel Fodrie
Institute of Marine Sciences and Department of Marine Sciences
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Phone: [phone] (ext. 149)
Email: [e-mail]
Web: http://www.unc.edu/ims/fodrie/
A. Professional Preparation
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Biology (Highest Honors) and History (B.A.) 1999
Scripps Institution of Oceanography (UCSD) Biological Oceanography (Ph.D.) 2006
Dauphin Island Sea Lab (Alabama) Post -Doctoral Researcher (Fisheries) 2006-2008
B. Appointments
2010- Assistant Professor, Institute of Marine Sciences & Department of Marine Sciences, University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Morehead City, NC
2009-2010 Research Assistant Professor, Institute of Marine Sciences & Department of Marine Sciences,
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Morehead City, NC
2008-2009 Research Assistant Professor, Dauphin Island Sea Lab & Department of Marine Sciences,
University of South Alabama, Mobile, AL
C. Publications
(i) 5 products closely related to the proposed project (out of 46). Mentored: 'Postdoctoral researcher; "graduate
student; "undergraduate/technician.
Yeager$, LA, DA Keller, TR Burns`, A Pool`, and FJ Fodrie (in review) Threshold effects of habitat
fragmentation per se on fish diversity at landscapes scales. Ecology
Fodrie, FJ, LA Yeager$, JH Grabowski, CA Layman, GD Sherwood, and MD Kenworthy (2015) Measuring
individuality in habitat use across complex landscapes: approaches, constraints, and implications for assessing
resource specialization. Oecologia 178: 75-87.
Gittman, RK, FJ Fodrie, AM Popowich, DA Keller", JF Bruno, CA Currin, CH Peterson, and MF Piehler (2015)
Engineering away our natural defenses: an analysis of shoreline hardening in the United States. Frontiers in
Ecology and the Environment 13: 301-307. *Research featured in Science (special section on Oceans and
Climate): Popkin, G. (2015) Breaking the waves. Science 350:756-759.
Baillie*, CJ, JM Fear, and FJ Fodrie (2015) Ecotone effects on seagrass and saltmarsh habitat -use by juvenile
fishes in a temperate estuary. Estuaries and Coasts 38: 1414-1430.
Fodrie, FJ, KL Heck Jr, SP Powers, WM Graham, and KL3. gw(,2)1 )Climate -related, decadal-scale
assemblage changes of seagrass-associated fishes in the nolt�eEul£ dlo. Global Change Biology 16:
48-59.
MAR 29 9 X17
D.3 535 �e.vl'..5'Y
1635950

Biographical Sketch
Fredrick Joel Fodrie
Institute of Marine Sciences and Department of Marine Sciences
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Phone: [phone] (ext. 149)
Email: [e-mail]
Web: http://www.unc,edu/ims/fodrie/
A. Professional Preparation
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Scripps Institution of Oceanography (UCSD)
Biology (Highest Honors) and History
Biological Oceanography
(B.A.)1999
(Ph.D.) 2006
Dauphin Island Sea Lab (Alabama) Post -Doctoral Researcher (Fisheries) 2006-2008
B. Appointments
2010- Assistant Professor, Institute of Marine Sciences & Department of Marine Sciences, University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Morehead City, NC
2009-2010 Research Assistant Professor, Institute of Marine Sciences & Department of Marine Sciences,
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Morehead City, NC
2008-2009 Research Assistant Professor, Dauphin Island Sea Lab & Department of Marine Sciences,
University of South Alabama, Mobile, AL
C. Publications
(i) 5 products closely related to the proposed project (out of 46). Mentored: $postdoctoral researcher; "graduate
student; undergraduate/technician.
Yeager$, LA, DA Keller#, TR Burns;, A Pool, and FJ Fodrie (in review) Threshold effects of habitat
fragmentation per se on fish diversity at landscapes scales. Ecology
Fodrie, FJ, LA Yeager$, JH Grabowski, CA Layman, GD Sherwood, and MD Kenworthy" (2015) Measuring
individuality in habitat use across complex landscapes: approaches, constraints, and implications for assessing
resource specialization. Oecologia 178: 75-87.
Gittman, RK, FJ Fodrie, AM Popowich, DA Keller", JF Bruno, CA Currin, CH Peterson, and MF Piehler (2015)
Engineering away our natural defenses: an analysis of shoreline hardening inthe United States. Frontiers in
Ecology and the Environment 13: 301-307. *Research featured in Science (special section on Oceans and
Climate): Popkin, G. (2015) Breaking the waves. Science 350:756-759.
Baillie;, CJ, JM Fear, and FJ Fodrie (2015) Ecotone effects on seagrass and saltmarsh habitat -use by juvenile
fishes in a temperate estuary. Estuaries and Coasts 38: 1414-1430.
Fodrie, FJ, KL Heck Jr, SP Powers, WM Graham, andKL 1 Climate -related, decadal-scale
assemblage changes of seagrass-associated fishes in the e 'Wo. Global Change Biology 16:
48-59.
MAR 2 9 2017
1
M- AIND CITE
1635950

(ii) 5 other products
Gittman, RK, CH Peterson, CA Currin, FJ Fodrie, MF Piehler, and JF Bruno (2016) Living shorelines can
enhance the nursery role of threatened coastal habitats. Ecological Applications 26: 249-263.
Able, KW and FJ Fodrie (2015) Distribution and dynamics of habitat use by juvenile and adult flatfishes. Pgs.
242-282. In: Gibson, RN, RDM Nash, AJ Geffen, and HW Van der Veer (eds.), Flatfishes: Biology and
Exploitation, Second Edition. Fish and Aquatic Resources Series. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, United
Kingdom.
Fodrie, FJ, KW Able, F Galvez, KL Heck Jr, OP Jensen, PC L6pez-Duarte, CW Martin, RE Turner, and A
Whitehead (2014) Integrating organismal and population responses of estuarine fishes in Macondo spill
research. BioScience 64: 778-788.
Rodriguez, AB, FJ Fodrie, JT Ridge, NL Lindquist, EJ Theuerkauf, SE Coleman?, JH Grabowski, MC Brodeur",
RK Gittman, DA Keller#, and MD Kenworthy# (2014) Oyster reefs can outpace sea -level rise. Nature Climate
Change 4: 493-497.
Powers, SP, FJ Fodrie, SB Scyphers, JM Drymon, RL Shipp, and GW Stunz (2013) Gulf -wide decreases in the
size of large coastal sharks documented by generations of fishermen. Marine and Coastal Fisheries: Dynamics,
Management, and Ecosystem Science 5: 93-102. *Awarded Marine and Coastal Fisheries Best Paper of 2013
D. Synergistic Activities
2016 Faculty Host/Manager: North Carolina Blue Heron Bowl and National Ocean Sciences Bowl
2015 National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship Program Panelist
2014- Zostera Experimental Network (zenscience.org), North Carolina Site Principle Investigator
2013- North Carolina Marine Habitat and Water Quality Advisory Committee
2012- Workgroup Participant, "Quantitative Value of Coastal Habitats for Exploited Species",
International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), Copenhagen, Denmark.
CEIVED
MAR 2 9 2017
C N11
U CITY
1635950

Lauren A. Yeager
Biographical Sketch
Lauren A. Yeager
Postdoctoral Fellow
National Socio -Environmental Synthesis Center, 1 Park Place Suite 300, Annapolis, MD 21401
[e-mail]
A. Professional Preparation
Eckerd College St. Petersburg, FL Marine Science B.S., May 2006
And Spainsh
Florida International Miami, FL Biology Ph.D., April 2013
University
The University of North Morehead City, NC Landscape ecology 2013-2014
Carolina at Chapel Hill
National Socio -Environmental Annapolis, MD Marine Biodiversity 2014 -present
Synthesis Center
B. Appointments
2014 -present Postdoctoral fellow, National Socio -Environmental Synthesis Center
2013-2014 Postdoctoral researcher, Institute of Marine Sciences, The University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill
2007-2012 Graduate Research Fellow, National Science Foundation, Florida International
University
2006-2007 Fulbright Researcher, Institute of International Education, CINVESTAV, Merida,
Mexico
C. Products
5 Products Relevant to the Proposed Work
Yeager, LA, Keller, DA, Burns, TR, Pool, AS, and Fodrie, FJ. In review. Threshold effects of habitat
fragmentation on fish diversity at landscapes scales. Ecology.
Fodrie, FJ, Yeager, LA, Layman, CA, Grabowski, JH, and Kenworthy, MD. 2015. Measuring
individuality in habitat use across complex landscapes: approaches, constraints, and implications for
assessing resource specialization. Oecologia 178(1):75-87
Yeager, LA, Stoner, EW, Zapata, MJ, and Layman, CA. 2014. Does landscape context mediate density -
dependence in a coral reef fish? Ecological Applications 24(7):1833-1841.
Yeager, LA, Acevedo, CL, and Layman, CA. 2012. Effects of seascape context on condition, abundance,
and secondary production of a coral reef fish, Haemulon plumierii. Marine Ecology Progress Series
462: 231-240.
Ye age r, LA, Layman, CA, and Allgeier, JE. 2011. Effects of habitat heterogeneity at multiple spatial
scales on fish community assembly. Oecologia 167:157-168.
5 Additional Products
Yeager, LA, Stoner, EW, Peters, JR, and Layman, CA. 2016. A terrestrial -aquatic food web subsidy is
potentially mediated by multiple predator effects on an arboreal crab. Journal of Experimental
Marine Biology and Ecology 475:73-79.
Ye age r, LA, Hammerschlag -Peyer, CM, and Layman, CA. 2014. Diet variation of a generalist fish
predator, grey snapper Lutjanus griseus, across an estuarine gradi ;Dade off of uantity for
quality? Journal of Fish Biology 85(2):264-277 E 11 V DO
MA,R 2 117
° 4VTy 1635915

Lauren A. Yeager
Biographical Sketch
Lauren A. Yeager
Postdoctoral Fellow
National Socio -Environmental Synthesis Center, 1 Park Place Suite 300, Annapolis, MD 21401
[e-mail]
A. Professional Preparation
Eckerd College St. Petersburg, FL Marine Science B. S., May 2006
And Spainsh
Florida International Miami, FL Biology Ph.D., April 2013
University
The University of North Morehead City, NC
Carolina. at Chapel Hill
National Socio -Environmental Annapolis, MD
Synthesis Center
Landscape ecology 2013-2014
Marine Biodiversity 2014 -present
B. Appointments
2014 -present Postdoctoral fellow, National Socio -Environmental Synthesis Center
2013-2014 Postdoctoral researcher, Institute of Marine Sciences, The University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill
2007-2012 Graduate Research Fellow, National Science Foundation, Florida International
University
2006-2007 Fulbright Researcher, Institute of International Education, CINVESTAV, Merida,
Mexico
C. Products
5 Products Relevant to the Proposed Work
Yeager, LA, Keller, DA, Burns, TR, Pool, AS, and Fodrie, FJ. In review. Threshold effects of habitat
fragmentation on fish diversity at landscapes scales. Ecology.
Fodrie, FJ, Yeager, LA, Layman, CA, Grabowski, JH, and Kenworthy, MD. 2015. Measuring
individuality in habitat use across complex landscapes: approaches, constraints, and implications for
assessing resource specialization. Oecologia 178(1):75-87
Yeager, LA, Stoner, EW, Zapata, MJ, and Layman, CA. 2014. Does landscape context mediate density -
dependence in a coral reef fish? Ecological Applications 24(7):1833-1841.
Yeager, LA, Acevedo, CL, and Layman, CA. 2012. Effects of seascape context on condition, abundance,
and secondary production of a coral reef fish, Haemulon plumierii. Marine Ecology Progress Series
462: 231-240.
Ye age r, LA, Layman, CA, and Allgeier, JE. 2011. Effects of habitat heterogeneity at multiple spatial
scales on fish community assembly. Oecologia 167:157-168.
5 Additional Products
Yeager, LA, Stoner, EW, Peters, JR, and Layman, CA. 2016. A terrestrial -aquatic food web subsidy is
potentially. mediated by multiple predator effects on an arboreal crab. Journal ofExperimental
Marine Biology and Ecology 475:73-79.
Yeager, LA, Hammerschlag -Peyer, CM, and Layman, CA. 2014. Diet variation of a generalist fish
predator, grey snapper Lu yanus griseus, across an estuarine gradi , - o tfftity for
quality? Journal offish Biology 85(2):264277
MAR 2 9 2017
"l' kHD CITY 1635915

Lauren A. Yeager
Allgeier, JE, Yeager, LA, and Layman, CA. 2013. Consumer regulation of nutrient limitation regimes
and primary production. Ecology.
Yeager, LA and Layman, CA. 2011. Energy flow to two abundant consumers in a sub -tropical oyster reef
food web. Aquatic Ecology 45267-277.
Layman, CA, Allgeier, JE, Rosemond, AD, Dahlgren, CP, and Ye age r, LA. 2011. Marine fisheries
declines viewed upside -down: Human impacts on consumer -driven nutrient recycling. Ecological
Applications 21343-349.
D. Synergistic Activities
1. Review Panelist, SESYNC
Served on the review panel for the Postdoctoral Immersion Program (2015) and LTER Postdoctoral
Program (2015&2016)
2. Undergraduate mentor, FIU and UNC -CH
I have advised 14 undergraduate students (12 of which are from groups under -represented in the
Ocean Sciences) with field internships and independent research projects, leading to six co-authored
manuscripts in review or published and two honor theses.
3. Teacher Training Workshop, Mangrove and Tidal Creek Ecosystems
I helped lead a field-based workshop in 2011 on the importance of mangrove ecosystems in Abaco,
Bahamas involving 40 teachers.
4. Restoration at Broad Creek, Abaco, Bahamas
This project involved the restoration of tidal flow to a mangrove creek previously fragmented by a
road in 2010. Concomitant with the restoration project, I gave school presentations and ran field trips
involving 510 local students (grades K-12).
5. Jupiter High School Summer Internship Program, Jupiter, FL
I created a field-based summer internship program for local high school students during the summer
of 2009. The top four students were selected based on an application process. The students were
involved in weekly field work, being exposed to multiple research projects (grades 11-12). All four
have gone on to study STEM fields as undergraduates.
MAR 2 ; 2017
1635915

SUMMARY YEAR
PROPOSAL BUDGET
FOR NSF USE ONLY
ORGANIZATION
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
PROPOSAL NO.
DURATION (months)
Proposed
Granted
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR / PROJECT DIRECTOR
Fredrick Fodrie
AWARD NO.
I
dd
A. SENIOR PERSONNEL: PI/PD, Co-PI's, Faculty and Other Senior Associates Person un fhs Funds Funds
(List each separately with title, A.7. show number in brackets) Requested By anted by NS
CAL ACAD SUMR proposer (if different)
1. Fredrick J Fodrie - PI Assistant Professor 1.00 0.00 0.00 8.436
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.( 0) OTHERS (LIST INDIVIDUALLY ON BUDGET JUSTIFICATION PAGE) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0
7.( 1 ) TOTAL SENIOR PERSONNEL (1 -6) 1.00 0.00 0.00 8,436
B. OTHER PERSONNEL (SHOW NUMBERS IN BRACKETS)
1. ( 0) POST DOCTORAL SCHOLARS 0.00 0.001 0.00 0
2.( 0) OTHER PROFESSIONALS (TECHNICIAN, PROGRAMMER, ETC.) 0 . 001 0.001 0.00 0
3.( 1 ) GRADUATE STUDENTS
22,000
4.( 0) UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS
Q
5.( 0) SECRETARIAL - CLERICAL (IF CHARGED DIRECTLY)
Q
6.( 2) OTHER
42,240
TOTAL SALARIES AND WAGES (A + B)
72 676
C. FRINGE BENEFITS (IF CHARGED AS DIRECT COSTS)
10 928
TOTAL SALARIES, WAGES AND FRINGE BENEFITS (A + B + C)
83 604
D. EQUIPMENT (LIST ITEM AND DOLLAR AMOUNT FOR EACH ITEM EXCEEDING $5,000.)
TOTAL EQUIPMENT Q
E. TRAVEL 1. DOMESTIC (INCL. U.S. POSSESSIONS)
750
2. FOREIGN
Q
F. PARTICIPANT SUPPORT COSTS 0
1. STIPENDS $
2.TRAVEL 0
3. SUBSISTENCE 0
4. OTHER 4,572
TOTAL NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS ( 0) TOTAL PARTICIPANT COSTS 4,572
G. OTHER DIRECT COSTS
1. MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES
18,450
2. PUBLICATION COSTS/DOCUMENTATION/DISSEMINATION
0
3. CONSULTANT SERVICES
Q
4. COMPUTER SERVICES
0
5.SUBAWARDS
0-
6. OTHER
2,000
TOTAL OTHER DIRECT COSTS
20,450,
H. TOTAL DIRECT COSTS (A THROUGH G)
109,376
I. INDIRECT COSTS (F&A)(SPECIFY RATE AND BASE)
F&A (Rate: 52.0000, Base: 104804)
TOTAL INDIRECT COSTS (F&A)
54 498
J. TOTAL DIRECT AND INDIRECT COSTS (H + 1)
163 874
K. SMALL BUSINESS FEE
Q
L. AMOUNT OF THIS REQUEST (J) OR (J MINUS K)
163,874
M. COST SHARING PROPOSED LEVEL $ Q AGREED LEVEL IF DIFFERENT $
PI/PD NAME
Fredrick Fodrie
FOR NSF USE ONLY
INDIRECT COST RATE VERIFICATION
ORG. REP. NAME' -
Jill Thomas
Date Checked
Date Of Rate Sheet
Initials - ORG
1 'ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES REQUIRED FOR REVISED BUDGET
MAR 2 9 2017
DCIM,- KIND CITY 1635950

SUMMARY YEAR
PROPOSAL BUDGET
FOR NSF USE ONLY
ORGANIZATION
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
PROPOSAL NO.
DURATION (months)
Proposed
Granted
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR/ PROJECT DIRECTOR
Fredrick Fodrie
AWARD NO.
Id
A. SENIOR PERSONNEL: PI/PD, Co-PI's, Faculty and Other Senior Associates Pe son mo ihs
List each separately with title, A.7. show number in brackets
( P Y ) CAL ACAD SUMR
Funds Funds
Requested By ranted by NS
proposer (if different)
1 • Fredrick J Fodrie - PI Assistant Professor 1.00 0.00 0.00
8,436
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.( 0) OTHERS (LIST INDIVIDUALLY ON BUDGET JUSTIFICATION PAGE) 0.00 0.00 0.00
0
7.( 1 ) TOTAL SENIOR PERSONNEL (1 -6) 1.00 0.00 0.00
8,436
B. OTHER PERSONNEL (SHOW NUMBERS IN BRACKETS)
1. ( 0) POST DOCTORAL SCHOLARS 0.00 0.00 0.00
0
2.( 0) OTHER PROFESSIONALS (TECHNICIAN, PROGRAMMER, ETC.) 0.00 0.00 0.00
0
3.( 1 ) GRADUATE STUDENTS
22,000
4.( 0) UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS
0
5.( O) SECRETARIAL - CLERICAL (IF CHARGED DIRECTLY)
0
6.( 2) OTHER
42,2401
TOTAL SALARIES AND WAGES (A+6)
72,676
C. FRINGE BENEFITS IF CHARGED AS DIRECT COSTS)
10 928
TOTAL SALARIES, WAGES AND FRINGE BENEFITS (A + B + C)
83 604
D. EQUIPMENT (LIST ITEM AND DOLLAR AMOUNT FOR EACH ITEM EXCEEDING $5,000.)
TOTAL EQUIPMENT
0
E. TRAVEL 1. DOMESTIC (INCL. U.S. POSSESSIONS)
750
2. FOREIGN
0
F. PARTICIPANT SUPPORT COSTS
1. STIPENDS$ 0
2.TRAVEL 0
3. SUBSISTENCE 0
4. OTHER 4,572
TOTAL NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS ( 0) TOTAL PARTICIPANT COSTSM4,57�2G.
OTHER DIRECT COSTS
1. MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES
2. PUBLICATION COSTS/DOCUMENTATION/DISSEMINATION
3. CONSULTANT SERVICES
4. COMPUTER SERVICES
0
5. SUBAWARDS
0
6. OTHER
2,000
TOTAL OTHER DIRECT COSTS
20,450
H. TOTAL DIRECT COSTS (A THROUGH G)
109,37
I. INDIRECT COSTS (F&A)(SPECIFY RATE AND BASE)
F&A (Rate: 52.0000, Base: 104804)
TOTAL INDIRECT COSTS (F&A)
54,498
J. TOTAL DIRECT AND INDIRECT COSTS (H + I)
163,874
K. SMALL BUSINESS FEE
0
L. AMOUNT OF THIS REQUEST (J) OR (J MINUS K) 1
163,8741
M. COST SHARING PROPOSED LEVEL $ 0 AGREED LEVEL IF DIFFERENT $
PI/PD NAME
Fredrick Fodrie
FOR NSF USE ONLY
INDIRECT COST RATE VERIFICATION
ORG. REP. NAME"a
Jill ThomasEC 3 �
Date Checked
Date Of Rate Sheet
Initials - ORG
1 'ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES REQUIRED FOR REVISED BUDGET
MAR 2 9 7017
DCM- IMND CITY 1635950

CIIMMARV VFAR
PROPOSAL BUDGET
FOR NSF USE ONLY
ORGANIZATION
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
PROPOSAL NO.
DURATION months
Proposed
Granted
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR / PROJECT DIRECTOR
Fredrick Fodrie
AWARD NO.
A. SENIOR PERSONNEL: PI/PD, Co-PI's, Faculty and Other Senior Associates PNSF Fun de erson-moat s Funds Funds
Requested By granted by NS
(List each separately with title, A.7. show number in brackets) CAL ACAD I SUMR proposer (if different)
1. Fredrick J Fodrie - PI Assistant Professor 1.00 0.001 0.00 8,773
2.
3.
4.
5.
6. 0 OTHERS LIST INDIVIDUALLY ON BUDGET JUSTIFICATION PAGE 0.00 0.001 0.00 0
7. 1 TOTAL SENIOR PERSONNEL 1 - 6 1.00 0.00[-0.00 8,773
B. OTHER PERSONNEL SHOW NUMBERS IN BRACKETS
1. 0 POST DOCTORAL SCHOLARS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0
2. 0 OTHER PROFESSIONALS TECHNICIAN, PROGRAMMER, ETC. 0.00 o.00l 0.00 0
3. 1 GRADUATE STUDENTS 22,880
4. O UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS 0
5. O SECRETARIAL - CLERICAL IF CHARGED DIRECTLY 0
6. 2 OTHER 43,930
TOTAL SALARIES AND WAGES A+ B 75,58
C. FRINGE BENEFITS IF CHARGED AS DIRECT COSTS 11,365
TOTAL SALARIES, WAGES AND FRINGE BENEFITS A + B + C 86,948
D. EQUIPMENT (LIST ITEM AND DOLLAR AMOUNT FOR EACH ITEM EXCEEDING $5,000.)
TOTAL EQUIPMENT 0
E. TRAVEL 1. DOMESTIC INCL. U.S. POSSESSIONS 3 250
2. FOREIGN 0
F. PARTICIPANT SUPPORT COSTS 0
1. STIPENDS $ 0
2.TRAVEL
3. SUBSISTENCE 0
4. OTHER 4,754
TOTAL NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS 0 TOTAL PARTICIPANT COSTS 4,754
G. OTHER DIRECT COSTS
1. MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES 16,98
2. PUBLICATION COSTS/DOCUMENTATION/DISSEMINATION 0
3. CONSULTANT SERVICES 0
4. COMPUTER SERVICES O
5.SUBAWARDS 0
6. OTHER 2,080
TOTAL OTHER DIRECT COSTS 19,066
H. TOTAL DIRECT COSTS A THROUGH G 114,018
I. INDIRECT COSTS (F&A)(SPECIFY RATE AND BASE)
F&A (Rate: 52.0000, Base: 109263)
TOTAL INDIRECT COSTS (F&A) 56 817
J. TOTAL DIRECT AND INDIRECT COSTS H + I 170,8 5
K. SMALL BUSINESS FEE 0
L. AMOUNT OF THIS REQUEST J OR J MINUS K 170,835
M. COST SHARING PROPOSED LEVEL $ 0 AGREED LEVEL IF DIFFERENT $
PI/PD NAME
Fredrick Fodrie
FOR NSF USE ONLY
INDIRECT COST RATE VERIFICATION
ORG. REP. NAME' _ _ * y _�
Jill Thomas " 3s
Date Checked
Date Of Rate Sheet
Initials - ORG
2 'ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES REQUIRED FOR REVISED BUDGET
AR � g 201?
1635950
0C 'HO

SUMMARY YEAR
PROPOSAL BUDGET
FOR NSF USE ONLY
ORGANIZATION
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
PROPOSAL NO.
DURATION (months)
Proposed
I Granted
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR/ PROJECT DIRECTOR
Fredrick Fodrie
AWARD NO.
I
F
A. SENIOR PERSONNEL: PI/PD, Co-PI's, Faculty and Other Senior Associates pNSF n mo ihs Funds Funds
(List each separately with title, A.7. show number in brackets) Requested By ranted by NS
CAL ACAD SUMR proposer (if different)
1. Fredrick J Fodrie - PI Assistant Professor 1.00 0.00 0.00 9 124
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.( 0) OTHERS (LIST INDIVIDUALLY ON BUDGET JUSTIFICATION PAGE) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0
7.( 1 ) TOTAL SENIOR PERSONNEL (1 -6) 1.00 0.00 0.00 9 124
B. OTHER PERSONNEL (SHOW NUMBERS IN BRACKETS)
1. ( 0) POST DOCTORAL SCHOLARS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0
2.( 0) OTHER PROFESSIONALS (TECHNICIAN, PROGRAMMER, ETC.) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0
3.( 1 ) GRADUATE STUDENTS 23,795
4.( 0) UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS 0
5.( 0) SECRETARIAL - CLERICAL (IF CHARGED DIRECTLY) 0
6.( 2) OTHER 22,843
TOTAL SALARIES AND WAGES (A+ B) 55,7 2
C. FRINGE BENEFITS (IF CHARGED AS DIRECT COSTS) 9 631
TOTAL SALARIES, WAGES AND FRINGE BENEFITS (A + B + C) 65,393
D. EQUIPMENT (LIST ITEM AND DOLLAR AMOUNT FOR EACH ITEM EXCEEDING $5,000.)
TOTAL EQUIPMENT 0
E. TRAVEL 1. DOMESTIC (INCL. U.S. POSSESSIONS) 3,250
2. FOREIGN 0
F. PARTICIPANT SUPPORT COSTS 0
1. STIPENDS $
2. TRAVEL 0
3. SUBSISTENCE 0
4. OTHER 4,945
TOTAL NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS ( 0) TOTAL PARTICIPANT COSTS 4,945
G. OTHER DIRECT COSTS
1. MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES 2 478
2. PUBLICATION COSTS/DOCUMENTATION/DISSEMINATION 0
3. CONSULTANT SERVICES 0
4. COMPUTER SERVICES 0
5.SUBAWARDS 0
6. OTHER = 2 163
TOTAL OTHER DIRECT COSTS 4,636
H. TOTAL DIRECT COSTS (A THROUGH G) 78 224
I. INDIRECT COSTS (F&A)(SPECIFY RATE AND BASE) MAR
F&A (Rate: 52.0000, Base: 73280)
TOTAL INDIRECT COSTS (F&A) a38,106
J. TOTAL DIRECT AND INDIRECT COSTS (H + 1) �` Fxc� 116 330
K. SMALL BUSINESS FEE 0
L. AMOUNT OF THIS REQUEST (J) OR (J MINUS K) 16.3301
M. COST SHARING PROPOSED LEVEL $ 0 1 AGREED LEVEL IF DIFFERENT $
PI/PD NAME
Fredrick Fodrie
FOR NSF USE ONLY
INDIRECT COST RATE VERIFICATION
ORG. REP. NAME*
Jill Thomas
Date Checked
Date Of Rate Sheet
Initials - ORG
3 *ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES REQUIRED FOR REVISED BUDGET
1635950

SUMMARY YFAR
PROPOSAL BUDGET
FOR NSF USE ONLY
ORGANIZATION
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
PROPOSAL NO.
DURATION (months)
Proposed
Granted
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR / PROJECT DIRECTOR
Fredrick Fodrie
AWARD NO.
A. SENIOR PERSONNEL: PI/PD, Co-PI's, Faculty and Other Senior Associates
List each separately with title, A.7. show number in brackets
( P Y )
dd
PNSF ruilnoa Funds Funds
SF
Repropose By ranted by t)
CAL ACAD SUMR proposer (if different)
1. Fredrick J Fodrie - PI Assistant Professor
1.00 0.00 0.00 9,124
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.( 0) OTHERS (LIST INDIVIDUALLY ON BUDGET JUSTIFICATION PAGE)
0.00 0.001 0.00 0
7.( 1 ) TOTAL SENIOR PERSONNEL (1 - 6)
1.00 0.00 0.00 9 124
B. OTHER PERSONNEL (SHOW NUMBERS IN BRACKETS)
_ =_
1. ( 0) POST DOCTORAL SCHOLARS
0.00 0.00 0.00 0
2.( 0) OTHER PROFESSIONALS (TECHNICIAN, PROGRAMMER, ETC.) 1
0.00 0.001 0.00 0
3.( 1 ) GRADUATE STUDENTS
23,795
4.( 0) UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS
0
5.( 0 ) SECRETARIAL - CLERICAL (IF CHARGED DIRECTLY)
0
6.( 2) OTHER
22,843
TOTAL SALARIES AND WAGES (A + B)
55 762
C. FRINGE BENEFITS (IF CHARGED AS DIRECT COSTS)
9 631
TOTAL SALARIES, WAGES AND FRINGE BENEFITS (A + B + C)
65,393
D. EQUIPMENT (LIST ITEM AND DOLLAR AMOUNT FOR EACH ITEM EXCEEDING $5,000.)
TOTAL EQUIPMENT 0
E. TRAVEL 1. DOMESTIC (INCL. U.S. POSSESSIONS)
3,250
2. FOREIGN
0
F. PARTICIPANT SUPPORT COSTS 0
1. STIPENDS $ 0
2. TRAVEL
3. SUBSISTENCE 0
4. OTHER 4,945
TOTAL NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS ( 0) TOTAL PARTICIPANT COSTS 4,945
G. OTHER DIRECT COSTS
1. MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES
2A73
2. PUBLICATION COSTS/DOCUMENTATION/DISSEMINATION
0
3. CONSULTANT SERVICES
0
4. COMPUTER SERVICES
0
5.SUBAWARDS
0
6. OTHER , C-7 '
I f a M 2,163
TOTAL OTHER DIRECT COSTS
4 636
H. TOTAL DIRECT COSTS (A THROUGH G)
78,224
I. INDIRECT COSTS (F&A)(SPECIFY RATE AND BASE) MAR 21
F&A (Rate: 52.0000, Base: 73280)
TOTAL INDIRECT COSTS (F&A)38
s 106
J. TOTAL DIRECT AND INDIRECT COSTS (H + 1) 1m e m
C i y 116,330
K. SMALL BUSINESS FEE
0
L. AMOUNT OF THIS REQUEST (J) OR (J MINUS K)
116,330
M. COST SHARING PROPOSED LEVEL $ 0 AGREED LEVEL IF DIFFERENT $
PUPD NAME
Fredrick Fodrie
FOR NSF USE ONLY
INDIRECT COST RATE VERIFICATION
ORG. REP. NAME`
Jill Thomas
Date Checked
Date Of Rate Sheet
Initials - ORG
3 -ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES REQUIRED FOR REVISED BUDGET
1635950

SUMMARY Cumulative
PROPOSAL BUDGET
FOR NSF USE ONLY
ORGANIZATION
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
PROPOSAL NO.
DURATION months
Proposed
Granted
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR/ PROJECT DIRECTOR
Fredrick Fodrie
AWARD NO.
A. SENIOR PERSONNEL: PI/PD, Co-PI's, Facultyand Other Senior Associates NSF Fun de Funds Funds
Person-mont s Requested By granted by NS
(List each separately with title, A.7. show number in brackets) CAL ACAD I SUMR Proposer (if different)
1. Fredrick J Fodrie - PI Assistant Professor 3.00 0.00 0.00
26,333
2.
3.
4.
5.
6. OTHERS LIST INDIVIDUALLY ON BUDGET JUSTIFICATION PAGE 0.00 0.001 0.00
0
7. 1 TOTAL SENIOR PERSONNEL 1 -6) 3.00 0.00 0.00
26.333
B. OTHER PERSONNEL SHOW NUMBERS IN BRACKETS
1. 0 POST DOCTORAL SCHOLARS 0.00 0.00 0.00
0
2. 0 OTHER PROFESSIONALS TECHNICIAN, PROGRAMMER, ETC. 0.00 0.00 0.00
0
3. 3 GRADUATE STUDENTS
68,675
4. O UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS
0
5. 0 SECRETARIAL - CLERICAL IF CHARGED DIRECTLY
0
6. 6 OTHER
109,013
TOTAL SALARIES AND WAGES A + g
204,021
C. FRINGE BENEFITS IF CHARGED AS DIRECT COSTS
31,9 4
TOTAL SALARIES, WAGES AND FRINGE BENEFITS A + B + C
235,945
D. EQUIPMENT (LIST ITEM AND DOLLAR AMOUNT FOR EACH ITEM EXCEEDING $5,000.)
TOTAL EQUIPMENT
0
E. TRAVEL 1. DOMESTIC INCL. U.S. POSSESSIONS
7,25
2. FOREIGN
0
F. PARTICIPANT SUPPORT COSTS 0
1. STIPENDS $
2. TRAVEL 0
3. SUBSISTENCE 0
4. OTHER 14.271
TOTAL NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS 0 TOTAL PARTICIPANT COSTS
14,271
G. OTHER DIRECT COSTS
1. MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES
37,909
2. PUBLICATION COSTS/DOCUMENTATION/DISSEMINATION
0
3. CONSULTANT SERVICES
0
4. COMPUTER SERVICES
0
5.SUBAWARDS
0
6. OTHER
6.243
TOTAL OTHER DIRECT COSTS
44152
H. TOTAL DIRECT COSTS A THROUGH G
301,618
I. INDIRECT COSTS (F&A)(SPECIFY RATE AND BASE)
TOTAL INDIRECT COSTS (F&A)
149,421
J. TOTAL DIRECT AND INDIRECT COSTS H + 1
451,039
K. SMALL BUSINESS FEE
0
L. AMOUNT OF THIS REQUEST J OR J MINUS K
451,039,
M. COST SHARING PROPOSED LEVEL $ 0 AGREED LEVEL IF DIFFERENT $
PI/PD NAME
Fredrick Fodrie Fan
ORG. REP. NAME` 'a '^-
Jill Thomas
FOR NSF USE ONLY
INDIRECT COST RATE VERIFICATION
Date Checked Date Of Rate Sheet Initials - ORG
I AR % 9 zU i ! C `ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES REQUIRED FOR REVISED BUDGET
y�,. 1635950

UNC Budget Justification
Lines A&B. Salaries: (Senior Personnel) J. Fodrie will serve as the UNC project PI. He is a 9 -
month state -funded Assistant Professor based at the Institute of Marine Sciences. He will oversee
the construction and deployment of artificial seagrass units, as well as all field experiments and
project administration/reporting. He will serve as the graduate advisor for the PhD student
associated with this work (see below). He will also work with L. Yeager and the PhD student to
analyze project results. We request one month of summer salary support in each year so he can
complete these duties. (Graduate student and technicians) We know from experience that this is
ambitious and labor-intensive work. Therefore, a significant portion of our budget is for
personnel crucial for day-to-day execution of this research, and to facilitate the development of
several young researchers. We seek support for one PhD -track graduate student that will aid in
the construction of artificial seagrass units, participate and lead aspect of the proposed research,
and develop new lines of research questions that leverage and expand on the proposed research.
Additionally, we will hire BS -level technicians (2 individuals in years 1 and 2, and 1 individual
in year 3) to aid in the construction of artificial seagrass units (years 1 and 2) and participate
actively in all aspects of our field experiments (all 3 years).
Salaries have been inflated by 4% in years 2-3.
Line C. Fringe Benefits: Benefits are based on the standard 2016 UNC rates of:
PI: 22.741% of base salary (FICA; RSA; unemployment; long-term disability; short-term
disability)
Graduate student: 8.99% of base salaries (FICA) + $3,234 per year for medical insurance.
Medical insurance for the graduate student has been inflated by 4% in years 2 and 3.
Temporary technicians: 8.99% of base salaries (FICA)
Line D. Permanent Equipment: none
Line E. Travel: Support is requested for annual face-to-face PIs meetings between J. Fodrie
(UNC) and L. Yeager (SESYNC) to improve project coordination and facilitate data analyses
and interpretation. Additionally, support is requested in years 2 and 3 for the PI and the PhD
student to travel to national meetings and disseminate project findings (includes registration,
airfare, lodging, and per diem for 2 people).
Line F. Participant Support: Graduate student tuition is based on the 2016 UNC in-state
graduate tuition rate of $4,571 for full-time enrollment during fall and spring semesters. Tuition
rates have been inflated by 4% in years 2 and 3.
Line G1. Materials and Supplies: These funds will be used to pay for: 1) ribbon, VEXAR, and
landscaping staples to construct—3600rr? of artificial seagrass units; 2) RBRsolo pressure
loggers; 3) gasoline for boats and trucks used to transit to field sites; 4) general field and
laboratory supplies such as bags, snorkeling gear, computer hardware/software support contracts,
printer supplies, etc.; and 5) publication costs.
�m a 1
E
1635950

UNC Budget Justification
Lines A&B. Salaries: (Senior Personnel) J. Fodrie will serve as the UNC project PI. He is a 9 -
month state -funded Assistant Professor based at the Institute of Marine Sciences. He will oversee
the construction and deployment of artificial seagrass units, as well as all field experiments and
project administration/reporting. He will serve as the graduate advisor for the PhD student
associated with this work (see below). He will also work with L. Yeager and the PhD student to
analyze project results. We request one month of summer salary support in each year so he can
complete these duties. (Graduate student and technicians) We know from experience that this is
ambitious and labor-intensive work. Therefore, a significant portion of our budget is for
personnel crucial for day-to-day execution of this research, and to facilitate the development of
several young researchers. We seek 'support for one PhD -track graduate student that will aid in
the construction of artificial seagrass units, participate and lead aspect of the proposed research,
and develop new lines of research questions that leverage and expand on the proposed research
Additionally, we will hire BS -level technicians (2 individuals in years 1 and 2, and .1 individual
in year 3) to aid in the construction of artificial seagrass units (years 1 and 2) and participate
actively in all aspects of our field experiments (all 3 years).
Salaries have been inflated by 4% in years 2-3.
Line C. Fringe Benefits: Benefits are based on the standard 2016 UNC rates of
PI: 22.741% of base salary (FICA; RSA; unemployment; long-term disability; short-term
disability)
Graduate student: 8.99% of base salaries (FICA) + $3,234 per year for medical insurance.
Medical insurance for the graduate student has been inflated by 4% in years 2 and 3.
Temporary technicians: 8.99% of base salaries (FICA)
Line D. Permanent Equipment: none
Line E. Travel: Support is requested for annual face-to-face PIs meetings between J. Fodrie
(UNC) and L. Yeager (SESYNC) to improve project coordination and facilitate data analyses
and interpretation. Additionally, support is requested in years 2 and 3 for the. PI and the PhD
student to travel to national meetings and disseminate project findings (includes registration,
airfare, lodging, and per diem for 2 people).
Line F. Participant Support: Graduate student tuition is based on the 2016 UNC in-state
graduate tuition rate of $4,571 for full-time enrollment during fall and spring semesters. Tuition
rates have been inflated by 4% in years 2 and 3.
Line G1. Materials and Supplies: These funds will be used to pay for: 1) ribbon, VEXAR, and
landscaping staples to construct—3600m2 of artificial seagrass units; 2) RBRsolo pressure
loggers; 3) gasoline for boats and trucks used to transit to field sites; 4) general field and
laboratory supplies such as bags, snorkeling gear, computer hardware/software support contracts,
printer supplies, etc.; and 5) publication costs.
RECEIVED
AR 2 9 2017
DOW MHD CITY 1635950

Line G6. Miscellaneous Services: Funds are needed to reserve IMS boats ($25 per day) in all 3
years. Additional funds are requested for annual maintenance (not covered by daily use fees) of
IMS boats and trucks used extensively during this project to ensure the safety of our research
team while transiting to and from field sites.
Indirect Costs. Applied at the Federally agreed UNC rate of 52% of modified total direct costs
(total direct costs minus equipment and student tuition;
htW/research. unc.ed iVo ffices/sponsored-researc h/resources/research-too (kits/deve by i ng-
submitting_proposals/data res osr proposalbudget/#facilities administrative).
N/1AR 2 9 2017
1635950

SUMMARY YEAR
PROPOSAL BUDGET
FOR NSF USE ONLY
ORGANIZATION
University of Maryland College Park
PROPOSAL NO.
DURATION (months)
Proposed
Granted
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR / PROJECT DIRECTOR
Lauren Yeager
AWARD NO.
I
d
A. SENIOR PERSONNEL: PI/PD, Co-PI's, Faculty and Other Senior Associates Person months Funds Funds
(List each separately with title, A.7, show number in brackets) Requested By ranted by NS
CAL ACAD SUMR proposer (if different)
1. Lauren Yeager - Research Associate 4.00 0.00 0.00 20,280
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.( 0) OTHERS (LIST INDIVIDUALLY ON BUDGET JUSTIFICATION PAGE) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0
7.( 1 ) TOTAL SENIOR PERSONNEL (1 -6) 4.00 0.00 0.00 20,2801
B. OTHER PERSONNEL (SHOW NUMBERS IN BRACKETS)
1. ( 0) POST DOCTORAL SCHOLARS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0
2.( 0) OTHER PROFESSIONALS (TECHNICIAN, PROGRAMMER, ETC.) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0
3.( 0) GRADUATE STUDENTS 0
4.( 0) UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS 0
5.( 1 ) SECRETARIAL - CLERICAL (IF CHARGED DIRECTLY) 1 000
6.( 0) OTHER 0
TOTAL SALARIES AND WAGES (A + B) 21 280
C. FRINGE BENEFITS (IF CHARGED AS DIRECT COSTS) 8 512
TOTAL SALARIES, WAGES AND FRINGE BENEFITS (A + B + C) 2g 7g2
D. EQUIPMENT (LIST ITEM AND DOLLAR AMOUNT FOR EACH ITEM EXCEEDING $5,000.)
TOTAL EQUIPMENT 0
E. TRAVEL 1. DOMESTIC (INCL. U.S. POSSESSIONS) 5,200
2. FOREIGN 0
F. PARTICIPANT SUPPORT COSTS 0
1. STIPENDS $
2. TRAVEL 0
3. SUBSISTENCE 0
4. OTHER o
TOTAL NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS ( 0) TOTAL PARTICIPANT COSTS 0
G. OTHER DIRECT COSTS
1. MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES 0
2. PUBLICATION COSTS/DOCUMENTATION/DISSEMINATION 0
3. CONSULTANT SERVICES 0
4. COMPUTER SERVICES 0
5.SUBAWARDS 0
6. OTHER 0
TOTAL OTHER DIRECT COSTS 0
H. TOTAL DIRECT COSTS (A THROUGH G) 34,992
I. INDIRECT COSTS (F&A)(SPECIFY RATE AND BASE)
F&A (Rate: 27.5000, Base: 34992)
TOTAL INDIRECT COSTS (F&A) 9 623
J. TOTAL DIRECT AND INDIRECT COSTS (H + 1) 44,615
K. SMALL BUSINESS FEE 0
L. AMOUNT OF THIS REQUEST (J) OR (J MINUS K) 44,615
M. COST SHARING PROPOSED LEVEL $ 0 AGREED LEVEL IF DIFFERENT $
PI/PD NAME
Lauren YeaGer
FOR NSF USE ONLY
INDIRECT COST RATE VERIFICATION
ORG. REP. NAME'
Jill Frankenfield
Date Checked
Date Of Rate Sheet
Initials - ORG
1 -ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES REQUIRED FOR REVISED BUDGET
1635915

SUMMARY YEAR
PROPOSAL BUDGET
FOR NSF USE ONLY
ORGANIZATION
University of Maryland College Park
PROPOSAL NO.
DURATION (months)
ProposedGranted
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR/ PROJECT DIRECTOR
Lauren Yeager
AWARD NO.
A. SENIOR PERSONNEL: PI/PD, Co-PI's, Faculty and Other Senior Associates Pe son rh is
List each separately with title, A.7. show number in brackets
( P Y ) CAL ACAD SUMR
Funds Funds
Requested By anted by NS
proposer (if different)
1. Lauren Yeager - Research Associate 4.00 0.00 0.00
20,280
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.( 0) OTHERS (LIST INDIVIDUALLY ON BUDGET JUSTIFICATION PAGE) 0.00 0.001 0.00
0
7.( 1 ) TOTAL SENIOR PERSONNEL (1 -6) 4.00 0.00 0.00
20,280
B. OTHER PERSONNEL (SHOW NUMBERS IN BRACKETS)
1. ( 0) POST DOCTORAL SCHOLARS 0.00 0.00 0.00
0
2.( 0) OTHER PROFESSIONALS (TECHNICIAN, PROGRAMMER, ETC.) 0.00 0.00 0.00
0
3.( 0) GRADUATE STUDENTS
0
4.( O) UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS
0
5.( 1 ) SECRETARIAL - CLERICAL (IF CHARGED DIRECTLY)
1,000
6.( 0)OTHER
0
TOTAL SALARIES AND WAGES (A + B)
21,280
C. FRINGE BENEFITS (IF CHARGED AS DIRECT COSTS)
8 512
TOTAL SALARIES, WAGES AND FRINGE BENEFITS (A + B + C)
29,792
D. EQUIPMENT (LIST ITEM AND DOLLAR AMOUNT FOR EACH ITEM EXCEEDING $5,000.)
TOTAL EQUIPMENT
0
E. TRAVEL 1. DOMESTIC (INCL. U.S. POSSESSIONS)
5,200
2. FOREIGN
0
F. PARTICIPANT SUPPORT COSTS 0
1. STIPENDS $ 0
2. TRAVEL
3. SUBSISTENCE 0
4. OTHER 0
TOTAL NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS ( 0) TOTAL PARTICIPANT COSTS
0
G. OTHER DIRECT COSTS
1. MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES
0
2. PUBLICATION COSTS/DOCUMENTATION/DISSEMINATION
0
3. CONSULTANT SERVICES
0
4. COMPUTER SERVICES
0
5. SUBAWARDS
R
0
6. OTHER ., E I ' E 1)
0
TOTAL OTHER DIRECT COSTS
0
H. TOTAL DIRECT COSTS (A THROUGH G) IMP 29 2017
34,992
I. INDIRECT COSTS (F&A)(SPECIFY RATE AND BASE)
F&A (Rate: 27.5000, Base: 34992) a
TOTAL INDIRECT COSTS (F&A) y �. 1•: s
9,623
J. TOTAL DIRECT AND INDIRECT COSTS (H + 1)
44 615
K. SMALL BUSINESS FEE
0
L. AMOUNT OF THIS REQUEST (J) OR (J MINUS K)
44615,
M. COST SHARING PROPOSED LEVEL $ 0 AGREED LEVEL IF DIFFERENT $
PI/PD NAME
Lauren Yeager
FOR NSF USE ONLY
INDIRECT COST RATE VERIFICATION
ORG. REP. NAME'
Jill Frankenfield
Date Checked
Date Of Rate Sheet
Initials - ORG
1 `ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES REQUIRED FOR REVISED BUDGET
1635915

SIIMMARY YEAR
PROPOSAL BU GET
FOR NSF USE ONLY
ORGANIZATION
University of Maryland College Park
PROPOSAL NO.
DURATION months
Proposed
Granted
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR / PROJECT DIRECTOR
Lauren Yeager
AWARD NO.
A. SENIOR PERSONNEL: PI/PD, Co-PI's, Facultyand Other Senior Associates NSF Funda Funds Funds
Person -Monts Requested By granted by NS
(List each separately with title, A.7. show number in brackets) CAL ACAD I SUMR Proposer (if different)
1. Lauren Yeager -Research Associate 4.00 0.001 0.00
20,888
2.
3.
4.
5.
6. 0 OTHERS LIST INDIVIDUALLY ON BUDGET JUSTIFICATION PAGE 0.00 0.00 0.00
0
7. 1 TOTAL SENIOR PERSONNEL 1 -6) 4.00 0.001 0.00
20,8 8
B. OTHER PERSONNEL SHOW NUMBERS IN BRACKETS
1. 0 POST DOCTORAL SCHOLARS 0.00 0.00 0.00
0
2. 0 OTHER PROFESSIONALS TECHNICIAN, PROGRAMMER, ETC. 0.00 0.001 0.00
0
3. Q GRADUATE STUDENTS
0
4. Q UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS
0
5. 1 SECRETARIAL - CLERICAL IF CHARGED DIRECTLY
1'0 0
6. 0 OTHER
0
TOTAL SALARIES AND WAGES A + B
21,918
C. FRINGE BENEFITS IF CHARGED AS DIRECT COSTS
8,767
TOTAL SALARIES, WAGES AND FRINGE BENEFITS A + B + C
30.685
D. EQUIPMENT (LIST ITEM AND DOLLAR AMOUNT FOR EACH ITEM EXCEEDING $5,000.)
TOTAL EQUIPMENT
0
E. TRAVEL 1. DOMESTIC INCL. U.S. POSSESSIONS
5,200
2. FOREIGN
0
F. PARTICIPANT SUPPORT COSTS
1. STIPENDS $ 0
2.TRAVEL 0
3. SUBSISTENCE 0
4. OTHER 0
TOTAL NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS 0 TOTAL PARTICIPANT COSTS
0
G. OTHER DIRECT COSTS
1. MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES
0
2. PUBLICATION COSTS/DOCUMENTATION/DISSEMINATION
5,0 0
3. CONSULTANT SERVICES
0
4. COMPUTER SERVICES
0
5.SUBAWARDS
O
6. OTHER
0
TOTAL OTHER DIRECT COSTS
5,000
H. TOTAL DIRECT COSTS A THROUGH G
40,885
I. INDIRECT COSTS (F&A)(SPECIFY RATE AND BASE)
F&A (Rate: 27.5000, Base: 40885)
TOTAL INDIRECT COSTS (F&A)
11,243
J. TOTAL DIRECT AND INDIRECT COSTS H + I
52,128
K. SMALL BUSINESS FEE
0
L. AMOUNT OF THIS REQUEST J OR J MINUS K
52,128
M. COST SHARING PROPOSED LEVEL $ 0 AGREED LEVEL IF DIFFERENT $
PI/PD NAME
Lauren Yea er
FOR NSF USE ONLY
INDIRECT COST RATE VERIFICATION
ORG. REP. NAME'
Jill Frankenfield
Date Checked
Date Of Rate Sheet
Initials - ORG
2 -ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES REQUIRED FOR REVISED BUDGET
MAR 2 9 2017
CM- � r 1635915

SUMMARY YEAR
PROPOSAL BUDGET
FOR NSF USE ONLY
ORGANIZATION
University of Maryland College Park
PROPOSAL NO.
DURATION (months)
Proposed
Granted
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR/ PROJECT DIRECTOR
Lauren Yeager
AWARD NO.
d
A. SENIOR PERSONNEL: PI/PD, Co-PI's, Faculty and Other Senior Associates Person months Funds Funds
(List each separately with title, A.7. show number in brackets) Requested By ranted byNSF
CAL ACAD SUMR proposer (if Requested
1. Lauren Yeager -Research Associate 3.00 0.001 0.00 16,136
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.( 0) OTHERS (LIST INDIVIDUALLY ON BUDGET JUSTIFICATION PAGE) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0
7.( 1 ) TOTAL SENIOR PERSONNEL (1 -6) 3.00 0.001 0.00 16,136
B. OTHER PERSONNEL (SHOW NUMBERS IN BRACKETS)
1. ( 0) POST DOCTORAL SCHOLARS 0.00 0.001 0.00 0
2.( 0) OTHER PROFESSIONALS (TECHNICIAN, PROGRAMMER, ETC.) 0.00 uoF 0.00 0
3.( 0) GRADUATE STUDENTS
0
4.( 0) UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS
0
5.( 1 ) SECRETARIAL - CLERICAL (IF CHARGED DIRECTLY)
1 061
6.( 0) OTHER
0
TOTAL SALARIES AND WAGES (A + B)
17,197
C. FRINGE BENEFITS (IF CHARGED AS DIRECT COSTS)
6 879
TOTAL SALARIES, WAGES AND FRINGE BENEFITS (A + B + C)
24.076
D. EQUIPMENT (LIST ITEM AND DOLLAR AMOUNT FOR EACH ITEM EXCEEDING $5,000.)
TOTAL EQUIPMENT 0
E. TRAVEL 1. DOMESTIC (INCL. U.S. POSSESSIONS)
5 200
2. FOREIGN
0
F. PARTICIPANT SUPPORT COSTS 0
1. STIPENDS $
2. TRAVEL 0
3. SUBSISTENCE 0
4. OTHER 0
TOTAL NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS ( 0) TOTAL PARTICIPANT COSTS 0
G. OTHER DIRECT COSTS
1. MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES
0
2. PUBLICATION COSTS/DOCUMENTATION/DISSEMINATION
5 000
3. CONSULTANT SERVICES
0
4. COMPUTER SERVICES
0
5.SUBAWARDS
0
6. OTHER
0
TOTAL OTHER DIRECT COSTS
5,000
H. TOTAL DIRECT COSTS (A THROUGH G)
34,276
I. INDIRECT COSTS (F&A)(SPECIFY RATE AND BASE)
F&A (Rate: 27.5000, Base: 34276)
TOTAL INDIRECT COSTS (F&A)
9.426
J. TOTAL DIRECT AND INDIRECT COSTS (H + 1)
43,702
K. SMALL BUSINESS FEE
0
L. AMOUNT OF THIS REQUEST (J) OR (J MINUS K)
43,702
M. COST SHARING PROPOSED LEVEL $ 0 AGREED LEVEL IF DIFFERENT $
PI/PD NAME
Lauren Yeager
FOR NSF USE ONLY
INDIRECT COST RATE VERIFICATION
ORG. REP. NAME`
Jill Frankenfield
Date Checked
Date Of Rate Sheet
Initials - ORG
3 'ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES REQUIRED FOR REVISED BUDGET
1635915

SUMMARY YEAR
PROPOSAL BUDGET
FOR NSF USE ONLY
ORGANIZATION
University of Maryland Colle a Park
PROPOSAL NO.
DURATION (months)
Proposed
Granted
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR / PROJECT DIRECTOR
Lauren Yea er
AWARD NO.
A. SENIOR PERSONNEL: PI/PD, Co-PI's, Faculty and Other Senior Associates
List each separately with title, A.7. show number in brackets
(� P Y )
d
Pe son Mot Funds Funds
Requested By anted by NS
CAL ACAD SUMR proposer (d different)
1. Lauren Yeager - Research Associate
3.00 0.00 0.00
16,136
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.( 0) OTHERS (LIST INDIVIDUALLY ON BUDGET JUSTIFICATION PAGE)
0.00 0.001 0.00
0
7.( 1 ) TOTAL SENIOR PERSONNEL (1 -6)
3.00 0.00 0.00
16,136
B. OTHER PERSONNEL (SHOW NUMBERS IN BRACKETS)
1. ( 0) POST DOCTORAL SCHOLARS
0.00 0.00 0.00
0
2.( 0) OTHER PROFESSIONALS (TECHNICIAN, PROGRAMMER, ETC.)
0.00 0.00 0.00
0
3. ( O) GRADUATE STUDENTS
0
4.( 0) UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS
0
5.( 1 ) SECRETARIAL - CLERICAL (IF CHARGED DIRECTLY)
1 061
6.( 0)OTHER
0
TOTAL SALARIES AND WAGES (A + B)
17,197
C. FRINGE BENEFITS (IF CHARGED AS DIRECT COSTS)
6,879
TOTAL SALARIES, WAGES AND FRINGE BENEFITS (A + B + C)
24,076
D. EQUIPMENT (LIST ITEM AND DOLLAR AMOUNT FOR EACH ITEM EXCEEDING
TOTAL EQUIPMENT
$5,000.)
0
E. TRAVEL 1. DOMESTIC (INCL. U.S. POSSESSIONS)
5,200
2. FOREIGN
0
F. PARTICIPANT SUPPORT COSTS
1. STIPENDS 0
$ 0
2. TRAVEL
3. SUBSISTENCE 0
4. OTHER 0
"S h
F
TOTAL NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS ( 0) TOTAL PARTICIPANT COSTS
0
G. OTHER DIRECT COSTS
1. MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES
0
2. PUBLICATION COSTS/DOCUMENTATION/DISSEMINATION
5 000
3. CONSULTANT SERVICES
0
4. COMPUTER SERVICES
0-
5. SUBAWARDS""
O
6. OTHER a" . f
9 E,
0
TOTAL OTHER DIRECT COSTS
5,0 0
H. TOTAL DIRECT COSTS (A THROUGH G)()
f
34,276
I. INDIRECT COSTS (F&A)(SPECIFY RATE AND BASE) MAR
F&A (Rate: 27.5000, Base: 34276)
TOTAL INDIRECT COSTS (F&A)
_
' ) , �r 7
9,426
J. TOTAL DIRECT AND INDIRECT COSTS (H + 1) s
43,702
K. SMALL BUSINESS FEE
0
L. AMOUNT OF THIS REQUEST (J) OR (J MINUS K)
43,702,
M. COST SHARING PROPOSED LEVEL $ Q AGREED LEVEL IF DIFFERENT $
PI/PD NAME
Lauren Yea er
FOR NSF USE ONLY
INDIRECT COST RATE VERIFICATION
ORG. REP. NAME'
Jill Frankenfield
Date Checked
Date Of Rate Sheet
Initials - ORG
3 'ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES REQUIRED FOR REVISED BUDGET
1635915

CI IMMARY r .Mlllnfi%lo
PROPOSAL BUDGET
FOR NSF USE ONLY
ORGANIZATION
University of Maryland Colle a Park
PROPOSAL NO.
DURATION months
Proposed
Granted
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR / PROJECT DIRECTOR
Lauren Yea er
AWARD NO.
dr1
A- SENIOR PERSONNEL: PI/PD, Co-PI's, Faculty and Other Senior Associates Pe soFunds hs Funds Funds
List each separately with title, A.7. show number in brackets Requested By ranted by NS
( P Y ) CAL ACAD SUMR proposer (if different)
1. Lauren Yea er -Research Associate 11.00 0.001 0.00 57,304
2.
3.
4.
5.
6. OTHERS LIST INDIVIDUALLY ON BUDGET JUSTIFICATION PAGE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0
7. 1 TOTAL SENIOR PERSONNEL 1 -6) 11.00 0.00 0.00 57,304
B. OTHER PERSONNEL SHOW NUMBERS IN BRACKETS
1. 0 POST DOCTORAL SCHOLARS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0
2. 0 OTHER PROFESSIONALS TECHNICIAN, PROGRAMMER, ETC. 0.000.001
0.00 0
3. 0 GRADUATE STUDENTS
0
4. 0 UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS
0
5. 3 SECRETARIAL - CLERICAL IF CHARGED DIRECTLY
3,0 1
6. 0 OTHER
0
TOTAL SALARIES AND WAGES A + B
60,395
C. FRINGE BENEFITS IF CHARGED AS DIRECT COSTS
24,158
TOTAL SALARIES, WAGES AND FRINGE BENEFITS A + B + C
84,553
D. EQUIPMENT (LIST ITEM AND DOLLAR AMOUNT FOR EACH ITEM EXCEEDING $5,000.)
TOTAL EQUIPMENT 0
E. TRAVEL 1. DOMESTIC INCL. U.S. POSSESSIONS
15.600
2. FOREIGN
0
F. PARTICIPANT SUPPORT COSTS 0
1. STIPENDS $
2.TRAVEL 0
3. SUBSISTENCE 0
4. OTHER 0
TOTAL NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS 0 TOTAL PARTICIPANT COSTS 0
G. OTHER DIRECT COSTS
1. MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES
0
2. PUBLICATION COSTS/DOCUMENTATION/DISSEMINATION
10,000
3. CONSULTANT SERVICES
0
4. COMPUTER SERVICES
0
5.SUBAWARDS
0
6. OTHER
0
TOTAL OTHER DIRECT COSTS
10,0 0
H. TOTAL DIRECT COSTS A THROUGH G
1101 3
I. INDIRECT COSTS (F&A)(SPECIFY RATE AND BASE)
TOTAL INDIRECT COSTS (F&A)
30,292
J. TOTAL DIRECT AND INDIRECT COSTS H + I
140,445
K. SMALL BUSINESS FEE
0
L. AMOUNT OF THIS REQUEST J OR J MINUS K
140,445
M. COST SHARING PROPOSED LEVEL $ 0 AGREED LEVEL IF DIFFERENT $
PI/PD NAME
Lauren Yeager
FOR NSF USE ONLY
INDIRECT COST RATE VERIFICATION
ORG. REP. NAME' .�.,.,, '
Jill Frankenfield
Date Checked
Date Of Rate Sheet
Initials - ORG
C'ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES REQUIRED FOR REVISED BUDGET
�AR�9201i
®'�� 1635915

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

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

Current and Pending Support
The following information should be provided to the NSF program. Failure to provide this information may delay con-
sideration of this proposal.
Other agencies to which this proposal has been/will be submit -
Investigator: F. Joel Fodrie
n/a
Support: N Current El Pending El Submission Planned in Near Future El *Transfer of Support
Project/Proposal Title:
Collaborative research: interacting effects of local demography and larval connectivity on estuarine metapopulation
dynamics
Source of Support: NSF — Bio Oce
Total Award Amount: $510,000 Total Award Period Covered: 2/15/12 — 2/14/17
Location of Project: North Carolina
Person -Months Per Year Committed to the Cal: Acad: Sumr: 1.0 (0 remaining)
Support: 0 Current El Pending El Submission Planned in Near Future El *Transfer of Support
Project/Proposal Title:
Effects of landscape setting on the function of North Carolina seagrass meadows as essential fish habitat
Source of Support: NC Marine Resources Fund
Total Award Amount: $217,366 Total Award Period Covered: 7/1/13-6/30/16
Location of Project: North Carolina
Person -Months Per Year Committed to the Cal: Acad: Sumr: 1.0 (0 remaining)
Support: 0 Current LJ Pending LJ Submission Planned in Near Future El *Transfer of Support
Project/Proposal Title:
Investigating salinity fluxes on natural and restored shell bottom habitat to better predict disturbance effects driven by
climate change
Source of Support: NC Marine Resources Fund
Total Award Amount: $225,963 Total Award Period Covered: 7/1/13-6/30/16
Location of Project: North Carolina
Person -Months Per Year Committed to the Cal: Acad: Sumr: 0.5 (0 remaining)
Support: N Current El Pending El Submission Planned in Near Future U *Transfer of Support
Project/Proposal Title:
Incorporating stakeholder knowledge of the status and value of coastal habitats into education, outreach, and
conservation initiatives
Source of Support: NC Marine Resources Fund
Total Award Amount: $63,101 Total Award Period Covered: 7/1/13-6/30/16
Location of Project: North Carolina
Person -Months Per Year Committed to the Cal: Acad: 1.0 Sumr:
Support: D9 Current LJ Pending L1 Submission Planned in Near Future El *Transfer of Support
Project/Proposal Title:
Understanding the impacts of climate change on the distribution, population connectivity, and fisheries for summer
Flounder
Source of Support: NC Sea Grant
Total Award Amount: $149,983 Total Award Period Covered: 2/15/14-2/14/17
Location of Project: Mid Atlantic Bight
Person -Months Per Year Committed to the Cal: Acad: 1.25 Sumr: 1.0 (0 remaining)
*If this project has previously been funded by another agency, please list and fumish information for immediately pre-
ceding funding period.
h� USE ADDITIONAL SHEETS A5
NECESSARY
M0 2 9 201?
�`'�" " CATS 1635950

Current and Pending Support
The following information should be provided for the NSF program. Failure to provide this information may delay con-
sideration of this proposal.
Other agencies to which this proposal has been/will be submit -
Investigator: F. Joel Fodrie
n/a
Support: 0 Current El Pending LJ Submission Planned in Near Future D *Transfer of Support
Project/Proposal Title:
Coastal Waters Consortium — Phase II
Source of Support: GOMRI
Total Award Amount: $128,126 Total Award Period Covered: 1/1/15-12/31/17
Location of Project: Louisiana
Person -Months Per Year Com mittedtothe Project. Cal: Acad: Sumr: 1.0
Support: 0 Current El Pending El Submission Planned in Near Future El *Transfer of Support
Project/Proposal Title:
Enhancing the quality of fish habitat and quantity of oysters by refining reef -restoration techniques
Source of Support: NC Marine Resources Fund
Total Award Amount: $321,656 Total Award Period Covered: 7/1/15-6/30/18
Location of Project: North Carolina
Person -Months Per Year Corn mittedtothe Project. Cal: Acad: Sumr: 1.0
Support: N Current LJ Pending LJ Submission Planned in Near Future LJ *Transfer of Support
Project/Proposal Title:
Effects of oyster grow -out cages on the condition and ecosystem -services of seagrass communities
Source of Support: NC Sea Grant
Total Award Amount: $149,999 Total Award Period Covered: 2/15/16-2/14/18
Location of Project: North Carolina
Person -Months PerYear Committed tothe Project. Cal: Acad: 1.25 Sumr: 0.25
Support: X Current L1 Pending LJ Submission Planned in Near Future El *Transfer of Support
Project/Proposal Title:
Seasonal residency patterns, landscape -scale habitat use, and movement ecology of bonnethead sharks, Sphyma
tiburo, in North Carolina estuaries
Source of Support: NC Aquariums Conservation Fund
Total Award Amount: $43,525 Total Award Period Covered: 8/1/15-12/31/16
Location of Project: North Carolina
Person -Months PerYear Committed to the Project. Cal: Acad: Sumr: 0.25
Support: El Current N Pending El Submission Planned in Near Future EJ *Transfer of Support
Project/Proposal Title:
(THIS PROPOSAL) Collaborative Research: Habitat fragmentation effects on fish diversity at landscape scales: exper-
imental tests of multiple mechanisms
Source of Support: NSF — Bio Oce
Total Award Amount: $451,037 Total Award Period Covered: 9/15/16-9/14/19
Location of Project: North Carolina
Person -Months PerYear Committedtothe Project. Cal: Acad: Sumr: 1.0
*If this project has previously been funded by another agency, please list and fumish information for immediately pre-
ceding funding period.
USE ADDITIONAL SHEETS AS
Vy k NECESSARY
101,,
1635950

Current and Pending Support
The following information should be provided for the NSF program. Failure to provide this information may delay con-
sideration of this proposal.
Other agencies to which this proposal has been/will be submit-
ln\estigator. F. Joel Fodrie
n/a
Support: 0 Current D Pending El Submission Planned in Near Future El *Transfer of Support
Project/Proposal Title:
Coastal Waters Consortium " Phase 11
Source of Support: GOMRI
Total Award Amount: $128,126 Total Award Period Covered: I/l/15-12/31/17
Location of Project: Louisiana
Person -Months PerYear Commiftedtothe Project. Cal: Acad: Sumr. 1.0
Support: 0 Current El Pending El Submission Planned in Near Future El *Transfer of Support
Project/Proposal Title:
Enhancing the quality of fish habitat and quantity of oysters by refining reef -restoration techniques
Source of Support: NC Marine Resources Fund
Total Award Amount: $321,656 Total Award Period Covered: 7/1115-6/30/18
Location of Project: North Carolina
Person -Months PerYear Committed to the Project. Cal: Acad: Sumr: 1.0
Support: D9 Current El Pending El Submission Planned in Near Future El *Transfer of Support
Project/Proposal Title:
Effects of oyster grow -out cages on the condition and ecosystem -services of. seagrass communities
Source of Support: NC Sea Grant
Total Award Amount $149,999 Total Award Period Covered: 2/15/16-2/14/18
Location of Project: North Carolina
Person -Months PerYear Committed to the Project. Cal: Acad: 1.25 Sumr: 0.25
Support: 0 Current LJ Pending U Submission Planned in Near Future U *Transfer of Support
Project/Proposal Title:
Seasonal residency patterns, landscape -scale habitat use, and movement ecology of bonnethead sharks, Sphyma
tiburo, in North Carolina estuaries
Source of Support: NC Aquariums Conservation Fund
Total Award Amount: $43,525 Total Award Period Covered: 8/1115-12/31/16
Location of Project: North Carolina
Person -Months Per Year Comm itled to the Project Cal: Acad: Sumr: 0.25
Support: current Pending D Submission Planned in Near Future D *Transfer of Support
Project/Proposal Title:
(THIS PROPOSAL) Collaborative Research: Habitat fragmentation effects on fish diversity at landscape scales: exper-
imental tests of multiple mechanisms
Source of Support: NSF — Bio Oce
Total Award Amount $451,037 Total Award Period Covered: 9/15/16-9/14/19
Location of Project: North Carolina
Person -Months PerYear Committed to the Project. Cal: Acad: Sumr: 1.0
*If this project has previously been funded by another agency, please list and furnish information for immediately pre-
ceding funding period.
Utit AUU1 I 1UNAL tWitt 1,-> tk,-j
R iv
ENECESSARY !� (" �"'E " T D
92017
D C iTY 1635950

Current and Pending Support
(See GPG Section II_C_2_h for ouidance on information to include on this form.)
The following information should be provided for each investigator and other senior personnel. Failure to provide this Information may delay consideration of this proposal.
Other agencies (including NSF) to which this proposal has been/will be submitted.
Investigator: Lauren Yeager
Support: ❑ Current IN Pending ❑ Submission Planned in Near Future ❑ *Transfer of Support
Project/Proposal Title: Collaborative Research: Habitat fragmentation effects on
seagrass fish diversity at landscape scales: experimental
tests of multiple mechanisms
Source of Support: NSF
Total Award Amount: $ 140,445 Total Award Period Covered: 09/15/16 - 09/14/19
Location of Project: University of Maryland at College Park
Person -Months Per Year Committed to the Project. Cal:4.00 Acad: 0.00 Sumr: 0.00
Support: ❑ Current ❑ Pending ❑ Submission Planned in Near Future ❑ *Transfer of Support
Project/Proposal Title:
Source of Support:
Total Award Amount: $ Total Award Period Covered:
Location of Project:
Person -Months Per Year Committed to the Project. Cal: Acad: Sumr:
Support: ❑ Current ❑ Pending ❑ Submission Planned in Near Future ❑ *Transfer of Support
Project/Proposal Title:
Source of Support:
Total Award Amount: $ Total Award Period Covered:
Location of Project:
Person -Months Per Year Committed to the Project. Cal: Acad: Sumr:
Support: ❑ Current ❑ Pending ❑ Submission Planned in Near Future ❑ *Transfer of Support
Project/Proposal Title:
Source of Support:
Total Award Amount: $ Total Award Period Covered:
Location of Project:
Person -Months Per Year Committed to the Project. Cal: Acad: Sumr:
Support: ❑ Current ❑ Pending ❑ Submission Planned in Near Future ❑ *Transfer of Support
Project/Proposal Title:
MAR 2 9 2017
Source of Support:
Total Award Amount: $ Total Award Period Covered:
Location of Project: M - UN
Person -Months Per Year Committed to the Project. Cal: Acad: Summ:
`If this project has previously been funded by another agency, please list and furnish information for Immediately preceding funding period.
Page G-1 USE ADDITIONAL SHEETS AS NECESSARY
1635915

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

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

FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT AND OTHER RESOURCES
The required fieldwork and laboratory analyses will be completed at the lead institution (UNC -CH) and as
such we do not require additional laboratory, clinical or animal resources at UMD. Instead cyber -
infrastructure and computational resources will be important to the project completion in terms of random
landscape generation, spatial landscape analyses, and functional diversity analyses (which can takes
days to calculate with proper rarefaction and MST reshuffling algorithms on the computing cluster).
These required resources will be available through existing resources at SESYNC, detailed below.
COMPUTATIONAL RESOURCES:
SESYNC provides a fully -integrated cyberinfrastructure which we will leverage for this project.
Specifically, SESYNC will provide access to:
• Large file storage. SESYNC has approximately 100Th of file storage available for use by its
researchers. This storage is tightly integrated with all computational resources at the center. This
means that all cluster, Rstudio servers, and desktops can access this storage as though it was
locally attached. In addition, access for remote collaborators is available via a web gateway
(https://files. sesync. org).
• R -Studio Server Access. SESYNC will provide access to a large R Studio server containing 90Gb
of memory and a dozen CPU cores.
• Computational Cluster. SESYNC has a 16 node cluster which will be made available to this
project. Each node contains 8 cpu cores and 64Gb memory and is managed by the slurm
scheduling system.
• Software access. While we anticipate using open source (R) to perform most of the necessary
modeling, SESYNC also provides access to Matlab, ArcGIS and other commercial software that
may be necessary.
• Network Connectivity. SESYNC is connected to regional and national high speed networks
through a 10Gbit connection to the center. All high performance computational resources are
connected via 10Gbit connections allowing them to fully utilize all available bandwidth.
OFFICE:
At SESYNC, L. Yeager will have dedicated desk and storage space within a 135 sq. ft. office with access
to the internet via wired and wireless connections, copying, scanning, and printing resources, and
scientific journals from UMD's extensive library subscription service.
OTHER RESOURCES:
L. Yeager will also have access to the computational support team at SESYNC which can provide a
variety of services including consulting on workflow, speeding up computation time, and computational
trouble -shooting. In addition, SESYNC will provide access to a collaborative document editing system and
Video conferencing services as needed for this project.
-'
MAR 2 9 2017
1635915

Data Management Plan
Overview
The PIs are committed to the goal of making the highest quality data, metadata, and research
summaries available to the scientific and management communities, and have a history of sound
and productive data management (e.g. GOMRI's GRIIDC, search "Fodrie') to support this
claim. Our management plan provides a mechanism for distributing data and metadata to
researchers, students, coastal zone managers, and educational users as well as to the public.
1. Tropes of data produced
The proposed research will generate new data on fish assemblage structure (species identity,
biomass, abundance) and environmental correlates (habitat area, fragmentation, wave energy).
Ancillary work related to the overarching project goal may rely on existing seagrass
distribution/mapping or wave energy data already publically available through corresponding
government agencies (e.g., NOAA, APNEP). We will use these data in subsequent statistical
exercises predicting fish assemblage structure based on environmental variables such as meadow
size, degree of fragmentation within meadows, physical energy, etc.
2. Data and Metadata standards
For all data analysis and modeling, we will keep detailed notes on our work flow, including
methods, troubleshooting, data exploration, and programs used, which will be shared among L.
Yeager, I Fodrie, and the PhD graduate student. These notes will be compiled using Microsoft
Word, version controlled, and backed -up daily on widely used platforms such as Dropbox or
Druvia inSync. Code will also be stored in a concurrent versioning system such as Git in order to
allow all members of the research team to make and track modifications.
3. Policies for Access and Sharing
The PIs and PhD graduate student will have dedicated space on either UNC's and SESYNC's
internal servers (based on each person's home institution) for the storage and processing of all
data. At both facilities, these storage servers and all computers are backed -up twice daily. All
files will also be backed -up weekly on an external hard -drive and taken off-site nightly. All code
used for data processing and analysis will also be backed -up and shared using GitHub.
4. Policies for revision and reuse
For any data produced during the work, the PI's will retain the rights to the data until publication
or within two years, whichever is sooner.
5. Plans for archiving
We anticipate publishing all raw data, code, model outputs, and results of simulations along with
corresponding manuscripts. This will be made open in online supplements (e.g., Ecological
Archives). We will also publish all data to The Biological and Chemical Oceanography Data
Management Office (BCO-DMO) data archiving repository with corresponding metadata.
i1AR :2 2017
1635950

Data Management Plan
Overview
The PIs are committed to the goal of making the highest quality data, metadata, and research
summaries available to the scientific and management communities, and have a history of sound
and productive data management (e.g. GOMRI's GRUDC, search Todrie') to support this
claim. Our management plan provides a mechanism for distributing data and metadata to
researchers, students, coastal zone managers, and educational users as well as to the public.
1. Types of data produced
The proposed research will generate new data on fish assemblage structure (species identity,
biomass, abundance) and environmental correlates (habitat area, fragmentation, wave energy).
Ancillary work related to the overarching project goal may rely on existing seagrass
distribution/mapping or wave energy data already publically available through corresponding
government agencies (e.g., NOAA, APNEP). We will use these data in subsequent statistical
exercises predicting fish assemblage structure based on environmental variables such as meadow
size, degree of fragmentation within meadows, physical energy, etc.
2. Data and Metadata standards
For all data analysis. and modeling, we will keep detailed notes on our work flow, including
methods, troubleshooting, data exploration, and programs used, which will be shared among L.
Yeager, J. Fodrie, and the PhD graduate student. These notes will be compiled using Microsoft
Word, version controlled, and backed -up daily on widely used platforms such as Dropbox or
Druvia. inSyna. Code will also be stored in a concurrent versioning system such as Git in order to
allow all members of the research team to make and track modifications.
3. Policies for Access and Sharing
The PIs and PhD graduate student will have dedicated space on either UNC's and SESYNC's
internal servers (based on each person's home institution) for the storage and processing of all
data. At both facilities, these storage servers and all computers are backed -up twice daily. All
files will also be backed -up weekly on an external hard -drive and taken off-site nightly. All code
used for data processing and analysis will also be backed -up and shared using GitHub.
4. Policies for revision and reuse
For any data produced during the work, the PI's will retain the rights to the data until publloation
or within two years, whichever is sooner.
5. Plans for archiving
We anticipate publishing all raw data, code, model outputs, and results of simulations along with
corresponding manuscripts. This will be made open in online supplements (e.g., Ecological
Archives). We win also publish all data to The Biological and Chemical Oceanography Data
Management Office (BCO-DMO) data archiving repository with corresponding metadata.
RECEIVED
MAR 2 9 2013
M- CITY
1635950

��� orf r� ►4' s .�, ,,, •i•, ,�� -t-, *, ,-r-k - i tr, t', t�hw', 'h-„'' 'P , 0 ►
4r4 ,o, + #1►►*�4,+h+r4,0 + 4 ►T+�4,+�+r4 ►+r+�4,+h!r4 t#r*r! trr+ 4 ;
'++40 +44+4.044+44♦4♦+44*4♦♦! -s♦�
;'�4�4 4' V.�W� V +A4,
►r4 ►+R4a4 4*+R4` ��
+R4 t4k *4A 1 ,1h4
►t4 �+hi�4 �t+t� ►+
!R4,+� !r4�,4►+h4
►rt ►+rt♦t VIMt
►h40 ►*4,*,0444444,tt►j,i,04+,04► 4'F0
+�+t4
$,+4 t 0+4 *+4 ►* +{4 ►+,+h4 rt+R4 �0r�+h4, ,
+t►4�►�� 4r4� 1 t+h:4 4 ►+h4 4 *4 `►4 ►+h4 4 ►+h4 4 +A
4+h+t4t+*4++4►+tS
+4►++4,►4►*R41++4
+n4 )4,+h4,!. ►+n4 ►4 ►+n4 i :I♦n4.14 +h! 14 ►+h4 4 ►+r►
�.4, r*h+h4,fh*i4 r+�+R4 ►*R�n4 ►+n*tr ►*R*R4 r♦t++R. i
+P4, �4. ,+T4� ►4 ►+r4 ►! �+r! ►41+r4, ►4.+ 4, .! .+t►4 �4 ►+t�
�4 0+4 0+4 0 +r4, 0+4 *+V4 ►+r+r4,+t+r4 *+4 **4
i
4h4,,0� �t4+!r4 �4, ►+R4 ,1, ►+h4, ►4+1+4 4 41+ 4'�+f
r4t+f!�4, ;**,i 0+4.0+4 r++4 t++4 ►+h+t4�►
,+*4v4, ,04 4 t 4 4 �+i44 �4 �+A4v4 ►`N4 ►4 '�# 4 ►4 �+li
�! t+w+T4 4r +r4 0+4 **4 y * *h! r+R+t►+P*14 ►+*+�+ r
+R4 ,4 0r41 ,*t44 t4R4 4 ►+h+ ,4 t0P4�',4'�0 4, 4, 0
r4►r++4
+ 4 $i;,+ 4tP0v+, 4► + ►*v4 + *4 A+ ►+ 4t0+4
�+ 4
,►h►►tr►►tRt �i
+40$t44044044+44+44044*NAA"
►+R+t4 ►+h+P4 ►+R*t+ ►+f, J4 i
►r4 t4 4*4 i,+h4„� ,�f►� ►�. ►1h� r� t�R4, t4 ,0h4 't� 't��
AWN

t�
North River Marshes �� d
Beaufort y..
Ile
Harkers
Island
s
4 FKA
Proposed experimental ite R 4�`
Xx
Middle Marsh °^
°
1151 m

Attachment C2. Map of proposed research site. Encompassing all 25 experimental landscapes, with room to allow for >75m
between plots. Insert shows an example map of a "medium" cover ASU landscape
0
C)
t4
Individual ASU
/ PVC Corner markers

Attachment C2. Map of proposed research site. Encompassing all 25 experimental landscapes, with room to allow for >75m
between plots. Insert shows an example map of a "medium" cover ASU landscape
18m
Individual ASU
_�- PVC Corner markers

ii
Q
Ln
kD
*J
ZA
0
�iVt l
'mss
Area
1 Ar
r r To.
,.,?A loilpt
1 ISAI: I
Y m
T r
■ r
r!
rr� r
-a D
d
S �
< 3
M
2.3
S rF
CU In
a- W
CT 0-
r+ '+ a.
� (D
DJ A
CCD O
Ol �
Dl +
3 C
G, fP,
:;hM
a) O.
mO
3
r+ Z
00
O o
M O