42-13 NC Coastal Federation

's TPen;il Glass
Permit Number
42-13
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
and
Coastal Resources Commission
Permit
for
X Major Development in an Area of Environmental Concern
pursuant to NCGS 113A-118
X Excavation and/or filling pursuant to NCGS 113-229
Issued to AC. Coastal Federation c/o Edward Wilgis, 530 Causeway Drive, Suite F-1, Wrightsville Beach, -NC 28480
Authorizing development in Brunswick County Open water area in the Lockwood Folly
River, as requested in the permittee's application dated revised 9/28/12 (MP-1)
and 8/27/12 (MP-2), including the attached workplan drawings (6), all dated revised 11/28/12.
This „permit, issued on April 1, 2013 , is subject to compliance with the application (where consistent
with the permit), all applicable regulations, special conditions and notes set forth below. Any violation of these terms may
be subject to tines, imprisonment or civil action; or may cause the permit to be null and void.
Oyster Reefs
1) The authorized oyster reefs shall adhere to the alignment depicted on the attached workplan
drawings, including the location and design.
2) The outer boundaries of each oyster reef shall be marked with a minimum of 4 yellow reflectors
extending at least three feet above normal high water level.
3) All oyster reef material shall be free from loose dirt or any pollutant, except in trace quantities.
(See attached sheets for Additional Conditions)
This nermit action may he annealed by the nermittee or Signed by the authority of the Secretary of T)F.NR and the
other qualified persons within twenty (20) days of the issuing
date. An appeal requires resolution prior to work initiation or
continuance as the case may be.
This permit shall be accessible on -site to Department
personnel when the project is inspected for compliance.
Any maintenance work or project modification not covered
hereunder requires further Division approval.
All work shall cease when the permit expires on
December 31, 2016
In issuing this permit, the State of North Carolina agrees
that your project is consistent with the North Carolina Coastal
Management Program.
Chairman of the Coastal Resources Commission.
�a v ti,, r
�D Z Braxton C. Davis, Director
Division of Coastal Management
This permit and its conditions are hereby accepted.
Signature of Permittee

i
i
N.C. Coastal Federation Permit # 42-13
Page 2 of 3
ADDITIONAL, CONDITIONS
4) The permittee shall submit an "As -Built" Report to the Division of Coastal Management within 30 days
of initial project completion.
5) The permittee shall prepare annual monitoring reports that assess the relative success of the various
oyster reef restoration efforts. At a minimum, the permittee shall include within the monitoring reports
photopoints (established location and direction at which photos are taken annually at low tide). These
reports shall be submitted annually to the Division of Coastal Management for a minimum period of
three years.
6) Should the Division determine that the oyster reefs are not functioning as intended, or if it is determined
- that the authorized project is not being carried out in accordance with the conditions of this permit, the
permittee shall be responsible for removal of the reef structure(s) within 30 days of official notification
from the Division.
7) , This permit does not grant any property rights or exclusive privileges.
Easement
8) The permittee may be required to apply for a submerged land lease from the Department of
Administration's State Property Office. Contact the Department of Administration's State Property
Office directly at [phone] for this determination. Should it be determined that an Easement is
required, the permittee shall supply a copy of the easement to the Division within 30 days of issuance of
the Easement.
General
9) No open water areas shall be filled outside the alignment depicted on the attached workplan drawings
10) The permittee understands and agrees that, if future operations by the United States requires the
removal, relocation, or other alteration of the structure or work authorized by this permit, or if in the
opinion of the Secretary of the Army or his authorized representative, said structure or work shall cause
unreasonable obstruction to free navigation of the navigable waters, the permittee will be required, upon
due, notice from the Corps of Engineers, to remove, relocate or alter the structural work or obstructions
caused thereby, without expense to the United States or the state of North Carolina. No claim shall be
made against the United States or the state of North Carolina on account of any such removal or
alteration.
l l)- The permittee shall maintain the authorized work in good condition and in conformance with the terms
and conditions of this permit. The permittee is not relieved of this requirement if he abandons the
permitted activity without having it transferred to a third party.
12) This permit shall not be assigned, transferred, sold, or otherwise disposed of to a third party without the
written approval of the Division of Coastal Management.

� ':v.Ww+rvvitiviPo-Peotroa4oaaou
N.C. Coastal Federation
ADDITIONAL. CONDITIONS
Permit # 42-13
Page 3 of 3
13) The permittee and/or his contractor shall meet with a representative of the Division of Coastal
Management prior to project initiation in order to discuss the conditions set forth in this permit.
NOTE: This permit does not eliminate the need to obtain any additional state, federal or local permits,
approvals or authorizations that may be required.
NOTE: Future development of the permittee's property may require a modification of this permit.
Contact a representative of the Division at [phone] prior to the commencement of any
such activity for this determination. The permittee is further advised that many non -water
dependent activities are not authorized within 30 feet of the normal high water level.
NOTE:
NOTE:
The N.C. Division of Water Quality has authorized the proposed project under General Water
Quality Certification No. 3900 (DWQ Project No. 13-0043).
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has assigned the proposed project COE Action Id. No. SAW-
2011-01896.

DCM IAF7
APPLICATION for
Major OOvelooment POMR DC'..4-NAND CITY
(last revised 12/27/06)
North Carolina DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
1. Primary Applicant/ Landowner Information
Business Name
Project Name (if applicable)
N.C. Coastal Federation
ERA Lockwood Folly Oyster Reef Habitat Restoration Project
Applicant 1: First Name
MI
Last Name
Edward (Ted)
S
Wilgis
Applicant 2: First Name
MI
Last Name
N/A
N/A
N/A
If additional applicaMa, please attach an additional page(s) with names listed.
Mailing Address
PO Box
City
State
530 Causeway Dr, Suite F-1
n/a
Wrightsville Beach
NC
ZIP
Country
Phone No.
FAX No.
28480
USA
910-509-2838 ext.202
910-509-2840
Sheet Address (f different from above)
City
State
ZIP
same as above
-
Email
[e-mail]
2. Agent/Contractor Information
Business Name
N/A
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 S
Street Address (if different from above)
City
State
ZIP
Email
<Form continues on back>
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
OCT 0 1 2012

Form DCM MP-1 (Page 2 of 6)
APPLICATION for
�7rCZ,V'cD Major Development Permit
3. Project Location
j r • 16 2013
Street Address
County (can be multiple)
N/A- nearest roads are Varnamtown
Rd SW & Geno6kx& M.
State Rd. #
Brunswick
SW
N/A
Subdivision Name
city
State
zip
rule
Vamamtown
NC
28463 -
Phone No.
Lot No.(s) (d many, attach additional page with Est)
n/a - ext. n/a
n/a, I ,
a. In which NC river basin is the project located?
b. Name of body of water nearest to proposed project
Lumber
Lockwood Folly River
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
Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AMIW)
e. Is proposed work within city limits or planning jurisdiction?
f. If applicable, list the planning jurisdiction or city limit the proposed
[]Yes SNo
work falls within.
n/a
4. Site Description
a. Total length of shoreline on the tract (ft.)
b. Size of entire tract (sq.ft.)
rile
130,640 sq. ft. (3 acres)
c. Size of individual lot(s)
d. Approximate elevation of tract above NHW (normal high water) or
n/a, I I
NWL (normal waterlevel)
(If many lot sizes, please attach additional page with a fist)
n/a ❑NHW or ❑NWL
e. Vegetation on tract
The project area is comprised of intertidal and shallow subtidal flats in the Lockwood Folly River. There is a small patch
(-12 sq. ft) of Spartina aftemiflora on the intertidal flat That is the only vegetation in the project area. It will be marked and
flagged to avoid any disturbance.
f. Man-made features and uses now on tract
There are no man-made features on the site. Uses include boating and fishing.
g. Identify and describe the existing land uses adjacent to the proposed project site.
The adjacent land is within the Lockwood Folly Country Club and the Town of Vamamtown.
h. How does local government zone the tract?
I. Is the proposed project consistent with the applicable zoning?
n/a
(Attach zoning compliance certificate, if applicable)
❑Yes []No SNA
J. Is the proposed activity part of an urban waterfront redevelopment proposal? ❑Yes S No
k. Hasa professional archaeological assessment been done for the tract? If yes, attach a copy. []Yes ❑No SNA
If yes, by whom?
I. Is the proposed project located in a National Registered Historic District or does it involve a ❑Yes ❑No SNA
National Register listed or eligible property?
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
OCT 01 201F-

Form DCM MP-1 (Page 3 of 6) APPLICATION for
RECEIVED Major Development Permit
<Fonn continues on next page>1 6 2013
m. (I) Are there wetlands on the site?
®Yes ❑ No
(ii) Are there coastal wetlands on the site?
DCM-M.HDC:Th' Yes []No
(lit) If yes to either () or (ii) above, has a delineation been conducted?
❑Yes SNo
(Attach documentation, if available)
n. Describe existing wastewater treatment facilities.
n/a
o. Describe existing drinking water supply source.
n/a
p. Describe existing storm water management or treatment systems.
n/a
5. Activities and Impacts
a. Will the project be for commercial, public, or private use? ❑Commercial SPublie/Govemment
❑Prtvate/Community
b. Give a brief description of purpose, use, and dally operations of the project when complete.
The North Carolina Coastal Federation is proposing to create and restore 15,000 square feet of intertidal Eastern Oyster
(Crassostrea virginica) patch reef habitat in a 3 acre project area in the lower Lockwood Folly River in Brunswick County.
The proposed project will use a maximum of 14,500 bushels of oyster shell and 500 bushels of marine limestone marl to
create a series of 21 patch oyster reefs in the 3 acre project area. The proposed project provides an opportunity to protect,
restore and create additional oyster habitat in the lower Lockwood Folly River. Oyster habitat is under increasing pressure
from harvest and water quality declines. The goals of the project are to provide substrate for the attachment of oyster larvae
and oyster reef development for valuable habitat for finfish, shellfish and waterfowl.
Once constructed, NCCF will apply to the N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries to have the project area designated as a Shellfish
Research Sanctuary (closed to shellfish harvesting) to allow for the continued monitoring and management of the project.
Since the project is located in closed shellfish waters the project does not represent a loss of harvest area. The project area
will be open to the public for fishing and monitoring.
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.
(See Workplan Drawings 1-3 and Project Narrative).
21 patch reefs of Eastern Oyster (Crassostrea virginica) habitat will be created as a result of the proposed project (Figure 6).
The reefs will be placed within the proposed 3-acre project area in a manner that is appropriate for oyster larval recruitment
and settlement; reef development; and nekton and epifauana utilization. NCCF has consulted with UNCW shellfish
researchers and NC Division of Marine Fisheries staff regarding the design and placement of the created reefs. The reefs will
be designed with suitable elevations, patch size, inter -reef habitat, surface and edge complexity and shell layer thickness to
allow for maximum potential for oyster larvae recruitment and settlement, water flow and transport of oxygen and food for the
oysters, habitat provision and other ecosystem services. Existing natural reefs near the project site will be used as reference
reefs for the project design and monitoring. As a whole the proposed project will construct 21 oyster reefs covering a total
area of 15,000 square feet containing 18,015 cubic feet (14,700 bushels) of oyster shell and mad reef material.
NCCF will mark the project site and reef locations with PVC poles according to the designated project design prior to reef
construction. The oyster reef material will be purchased from oyster shucking houses and quarries (marl) and transported by
truck to a stockpile location near the project site. The stockpile area is a vacant lot owned by the Town of Varnamtown near
the town boat ramp. The project contractor will haul the reef material from the stockpile area to the boat ramp area to load it
onto barges. The loads of reef material may be temporarily be stored on the concrete pad of the boat ramp so that a front
end loader can scoop up the material and load it onto the barges. The contractor will load the reef material onto small,
shallow draft barges. The barges will travel to the project site during high tide conditions. The contractor will most likely
deploy the shell off the barge using a small front end loader on the barge. The reef material will scooped up on the barge and
then deployed into the reef footprints as indicated by the PVC poles placed earlier. All natural reefs and wetlands will be
posted so the contractor can avoid those areas as he works in the project area. NCCF will be monitoring the reef
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
OCT 0 1 2012

Form DCM MP-1 (Page 4 of 6)
RECEIVED APPLICATION for
Major Development Permit
6 2013
construction activities and will check the placement of the shell at low tide to ensure that it meets the project design
specifications. Depending on the tides the contractor may deploy — 500-1000 bi4hels of reef material a day. Reef
construction is anticipated to occur between September and October while oyster larvae are still present.
Upon the satisfactory completion of the reef material deployment NCCF will place signage on the project area posts and work
with NCDMF to have the site proolamated as a shellfish research sanctuary. The she will remain in the public trust, and all
activities except shellfish harvesting will be allowed in the project area.
The Benthic Ecology Lab at UNCW will be conducting pre and post project monitoring of the site in conjunction with NCCF. The
post monitoring will begin in the summer of 2013 and occur according to the monitoring schedule for a period of 5 years.
d. List all development activities you propose.
(See Workplan Drawings 1-6 and Project Narrative).
21 patch reefs of Eastern Oyster (Crassostrea virginica) habitat will be created as a result of the proposed project
The reefs will be placed within the proposed 3-acre project area in a manner that is appropriate for oyster larval recruitment and
settlement; reef development; and nekton and epifauana utilization. NCCF has consulted with UNCW shellfish researchers
and NC Division of Marine Fisheries staff regarding the design and placement of the created reefs. The reefs will be
designed with suitable elevations, patch size, inter -reef habitat, surface and edge complexity and shell layer thickness to
allow for maximum potential for oyster larvae recruitment and settlement, water flow and transport of oxygen and food for the
oysters, habitat provision and other ecosystem services. Existing natural reefs near the project site will be used as reference
reefs for the project design and monitoring.
A) The proposed project will use a maximum of 14,250 bushels of recycled oyster shell to create 19 patch intertidal oyster reefs.
Each reef will:
D cover a maximum area of 710 square feet
:3 have a height of 16' above the existing substrate
7 contain a maximum of 750 bushels of oyster shell
7 contain a maximum of 920 cubic feet of oyster shell
The total area covered by the (21) created patch oyster shell reefs in the project area will be 14,500 square feet containing
17,480 cubic feet of oyster shell.
B) If allowed, the project will use #4 marine limestone marl to build two patch oyster reefs to demonstrate and monitor the
effectiveness of this reef material. Marl is a suitable reef material and is utilized by NCDMF for oyster reef enhancement
activities. Using marl in conjunction with oyster shell supplements the amount of reef material and enables further evaluation
of marl as reef material in estuaries along the coast. The project is proposing that 450 bushels of #4 marine limestone marl
be used in conjunction with the oyster shell to create two oyster reef mounds each containing 225 bushels of 4 marine
limestone marl. Each reef mound will:
7 cover a maximum area of 205 square feet
7 have a height of 16" above the existing substrate
7 contain a maximum of 225 bushels of marl
contain a maximum of 265 cubic feet of marl
The total area covered by the (2) created patch marl reef mounds in the project area will be 500 square feet containing 535
cubic feet of #4 marine limestone marl.
As a whole the proposed project will construct 21 oyster reefs covering a total area of 15,000 square feet containing 18,015
cubic feet (14,700 bushels) of oyster shell and marl reef material.
NCCF will mark the project site and reef locations with PVC poles according to the designated project design prior to reef
construction.
e. Are the proposed activities maintenance of an existing project, new work, or both? New work
I. What is the approximate total disturbed land area resulting from the proposed project? 15,000 sq ft within a 130,640 sq. ft (3
acres) project area
Sq.Ft or []Acres
g. Will the proposed project encroach on any public easement, pudic sccessway or other area []Yes ®No ❑NA
that the public has established use of?
RECEIVED
nrm wii hAiNnTnNl nir.
OCT 0 1 2012

Form DCM MP-1 (Page 5 of 6)
APPLICATION for
Major Development Permit
h. Describe location and type of existing and proposed discharges to waters of the state.
n/a DCM-MHD C,
i. Will wastewater or stormwater be discharged into a wetland?
If yes, will this discharged water be of the same salinity as the receiving water? ❑Yes ❑No ®NA
j. Is there any mitigation proposed? UYes UNo ImNA
If yes, attach a mitigation proposal.
<Form continues on back>
6. Additionallnformation
In 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) — (0 are always applicable to any major development application. Please consult the application
instruction booklet on how to properly 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 N/A Phone No.
Address
Name N/A 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.
n/a
h. Signed consultant or agent authorization form, if applicable.
I. Watland 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 ]ands, attach a statement documenting compliance with the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act.
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 knowledgeR EC E j V E D
0 C T 0 1 2012

_,
�
� .0
t
'C
`
i �
_
..
�[
'
a '
I
'
i .
I
f

Form DCM MP-1 (Page 6 of 6)
APPLICATION for
Major Development Permit
Date Original: August 27, 2012 Revised: September 28, 2012 Print Name Ted Wilgis - NCCF
IA �
Signature �N C-C��
Please indicate application attachments pertaining to your proposed project.
®DCM MP-2 Excavation and Fill Information
❑DCM MP-3 Upland Development
❑DCM MP-4 Structures Information
❑DCM MP-5 Bridges and Culverts
RECEIVED
JAN 16 2013
DCM•MHD CITY
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC

RECEIVED
Form DCM MP-2
EXCAVATION and FILL
(Except for bridges and culverts)
V", 16 2013
DCM-MHD CIT y
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.
Describe below the purpose of proposed excavation and/or fill activities. All values should be given in feet.
Access
Other
Channel
Canal
Boat Basin
Boat Ramp
Rock Groin
Rock
(excluding
(NLW or
Breakwater
shoreline
NWL
stabilization
15,000
Length
square feet
Width
Avg. Existing
NA
NA
4' NHW - 0'
Depth
NLW
Final Project
NA
NA
2'8" NHW - 0'
Depth
NLW
11. EXCAVATION ®This section not applicable
a. Amount of material to be excavated from below NHW or
cubic yards.
c. (i) Does the area to be excavated include 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 ❑SB
OWL ❑None
(ii) Describe the purpose of the excavation in these areas:
2. DISPOSAL OF EXCAVATED MATERIAL
a. Location of disposal area.
c. (i) Do you claim title to disposal area?
❑Yes ❑No ❑NA
(ii) If no, attach a letter granting permission from the owner
e. (i) Does the disposal area include any 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 ❑SB
OWL ❑None
(ii) Describe the purpose of disposal in these areas:
to be excavated.
d. High -ground excavation in cubic yards.
®This section not applicable
b. Dimensions of disposal area.
d. (i) Will a disposal area be available for future maintenance?
❑Yes ❑No [:]NA
(ii) If yes, where?
f. (i) Does the disposal include any area in the water?
❑Yes ❑No ❑NA
(ii) If yes, how much water area is affected?
HEUEIVEE)
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
SEP 0 4 2012
252.808-2808 :: 1.888.4RCOAST :: www.nccoastalmanag_ement.net revised: IIZ26+06

fo'rirn DCM MP-2 (Excavation and Fill, Page 2 of 3)
RECEIVED
3. SHORELINE STABILIZATION ®This section not applicable
(If development is a wood groin, use MP-4 — Structures) 6 % n i-1
a. Type of shoreline stabilization: - b. Length:
[]Bulkhead ❑Riprap ❑Breakwater/Sill ❑Other:
c. Average distance waterward of NHW or NWL:
e. Type of stabilization material:
g. Number of square feet of fill to be placed below water level.
Bulkhead backfill Riprap
Breakwater/Sill _ Other
i. Source of fill material.
Width: tv'
d. Maximum distance waterward of NXM-MAP: CITY
(i) Has there been shoreline erosion during preceding 12
months?
❑Yes ❑No ❑NA
(ii) If yes, state amount of erosion and source of erosion amount
information.
h. Type of fill material.
4. OTHER FILL ACTIVITIES ®This section not applicable
(Excluding Shoreline Stabilization)
a. (i) Will fill material be brought to the site? ®Yes []No ❑NA b. (i) Will fill material be placed in coastal wetlands/marsh (CW),
If yes,
(ii) Amount of material to be placed in the water 18,015 cf
(iii) Dimensions of fill area 15,000 sf
(iv) Purpose of fill
The proposed project will use recycled, cured oyster shell and
#4 marine limestone marl (as used by NCDMF for oyster
cultch plantings) to build 21 patch intertidal oyster reefs.
The reef (cultch) material is necessary to provide a suitable
substrate for oyster larvae to settle on and attach. The reef
material also provides habitat for finfish, shellfish and crabs.
5. GENERAL
a. How will excavated or fill material be kept on site and erosion
controlled?
The reef material, like the native reef material on site, is heavy and
will remain in place in the project area. As the reef material is
deployed from the barge a temporary slight increase in localized
turbidity may occur, but will quickly dissipate.
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
SFp o 4 2012
submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), shell bottom (56), or
other wetlands (WL)? If any boxes are checked, provide the
number of square feet affected.
❑CW ❑SAV ❑SB
❑WL ®None
(ii) Describe the purpose of the fill in these areas:
N/A
What type of construction equipment will be used (e.g., dragline,
backhoe, or hydraulic dredge)?
The project contractor will haul the reef material from the stockpile
area to the boat ramp area to load it onto barges. The loads of
reef material may be temporarily be stored on the concrete pad
of the boat ramp so that a front end loader can scoop up the
material and load It onto the barges. The contractor will load
the reef material onto small, shallow draft barges. The barges
will travel to the project site during high tide conditions. The
contractor will most likely deploy the shell off the barge using a
small front end loader on the barge. The reef material will
scooped up on the barge and then deployed into the reef
footprints as indicated by the PVC poles placed earlier.
c. (i) Will navigational aids be required as a result of the project? d. (i) Will wetlands be crossed in transporting equipment to project
❑Yes ❑No ®NA site? ❑Yes ®No []NA
(ii) If yes, explain steps that will be taken to avoid or minimize
252-808-2808 :: 1-888.4RCOAST :: www-nccoastaimana�r ement.net revised: 12/26/06

Form DGM MP-2 (Excavation and Fill, Page 3 of 3)
RECEIVED
(ii) If yes, explain what type and how they will be implemented.
(8) 2" x 10' PVC poles with reflective tape and signage will be
placed along the boundaries of the 3 acre project area.
environmental impacts.
IAf\ 1 6 2013
DCM-MHD CITY
August 27, 2012
Date
Lockwood Folly River Oyster Reef Habitat Restoration Project
Project Name
Ted Wilgis, N.C. Coastal Federation
Appli me
7 ,( Uc F
Applicant
rture
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
SEP 0 4 20i2
252.808.2808 :: 1.888.4RCOAST :: w vw,nccoastalmanagement_net revised: 12126i06

vi wGr r+., ., ', U g ,q� � •'per *r. ,
'C
* V2 r*n all118WI1i:.
�p
iL
V.
a* }�'d'��^ C.• � i. gi., �, ysa#.fihi x*�6'" � � 2 p�.«—a�."�*
e y OCI(WOCI's,, Il SGO ftSi"°*e
om
oz
aormw1 w
. "4 �. ;r Fr" "" d .+m SES�
v
1
�.c&'ak.' ° :- } eG `s4'a r rv•"'* H�t. 5 ..
Al
a ��..
.y>.,r#' &E %t �p:"�'N v'Os *�
ro�ec*% rea,"*'° %' d ,„ n'g n ^+ ,. Sunset-Harb
.. (�
l"
y (y �y
-;o!' . Eby 5 `.^�,� VY..W`^ (j}'"��.
mi fl a�i �5.i{ tl � ` �I 1

py > P
'mot #x P r y5p
Ip SA Waters Permanent Closure Boundary
r
A
.. exact scale. Drawing or project areaGoole earth
A, location and coordinates air-
�i �€

ERA Lockwood Folly River Oyster Reef Habitat Restoration Project.
Applicant: NC Coastal Federation Date: 8/27/12; 1st Rev: 9/27/12; 2"d Rev: 11/28/12
Work Plan Drawing 3 of 6
Project Location with PNA and SA Waters Closure Boundaries

NC®ENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Pat McCrory Braxton C. Davis
Governor Director
\ April 1, 2013
N.C. Coastal Federation
Attn: Edward Wilgis
530 Causeway Drive, Suite F-1
Wrightsville Beach, N.C. 28480
Dear Sir or Madam:
John E. Skvarla, III
Secretary
The enclosed permit constitutes authorization under the Coastal Area Management Act, and where applicable, the
State Dredge and Fill Law, for you to proceed with your project proposal. The original (buff -colored form) is retained by
you and it must be available on site when the project is inspected for compliance. Please sign both the original and the
copy and return the copy to this office in the enclosed envelope. Signing the permit and proceeding means you have
waived your right of appeal described below.
If you object to the permit or any of the conditions, you may request a hearing pursuant to NCGS 113A-121.1 or
113-229. Your petition for a hearing must be filed in accordance with NCGS Chapter 150B with the Office of
Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27611-6714, [phone] within twenty (20) days
of this decision on your permit. You should also be aware that if another qualified parry submits a valid objection to the
issuance of this permit within twenty (20) days, the matter must be resolved prior to work initiation. The Coastal
Resources Commission makes the final decision on any appeal.
The project plan is subject to those conditions appearing on the permit form. Otherwise, all work must be carried
out in accordance with your application. Modifications, time extensions, and future maintenance requires additional
approval. Please read your permit carefully prior to starting work and review all project plans, as approved. If you are
having the work done by a contractor, it would be to your benefit to be sure that he fully understands all permit
requirements.
From time to time, Department personnel will visit the project site. To facilitate this review, we request that you
complete and mail the enclosed Notice Card just prior to work initiation. However, if questions arise concerning permit
conditions, environmental safeguards, or problem areas, you may contact Department personnel at any time for assistance.
By working in accordance with the permit, you will be helping to protect our vitally important coastal resources.
ARSincerely, p,
C, Vn �h ��e kO�r'
;gDouglas V. Huggef,
Major Permits and Consistency Manager
Enclosure
400 Commerce Ave., Morehead City, NC 28557
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: www.nccoastalmanagement.net
An Equal Opportunity l Affirmative Action Employer

DCM Coordinator: • Cc� Permit #: `7 2'�j�
��ii11�� MAILING DISTRIBUTION SHEET
/// Permitee: /- (,GlvS'/2�( f ����5'�� q
Agents:
DCM Field Offices
Elizabeth City (with revised work plan drawings)
Morehead City
Washington
Wilmington
US ACOE Offices:
Washington: Raleigh Bland
Tracey Wheeler
William Westcott (NC DOT)
Bill Biddlecome (NC DOT)
Wilmington: Dave Timpy
Cultural Resources: Renee Gledhill -Early
Public Water Supply: Debra Benoy (WIRO)--'�
Joey White (WAROO))
Marine Fisheries: Anne Deaton ✓
r Jeannie Hardy
NC DOT: Ken Pace
Shellfish Sanitation: Patti Fowler
State Property: Tim Walton
Water Quality: Karen Higgins (Raleigh)
John Hennessy (NC DOT)
Washington: Anthony Scarbraugh-401
Scott Vinson-Stormwater
Wilmington: Joanne Steenhuis — 401
Chad Coburn - 401
Linda Lewis - Stormwater
Wildlife Resources: Maria Dunn (WARD)
Vacant (WIRO)
LPO:
Fax Distribution: Permitee #: /
Agent #:

DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT
I. APPLICANT'S NAME: North Carolina Coastal Federation
2. LOCATION OF PROJECT SITE: Open water area in the Lockwood Folly River in Brunswick
County.
Photo Index - 2006: 7-6182 L,M,N,O- 7-10 RECEIVED
State Plane Coordinates— LAT: 33°56.411'N LON: 78°13.165'W
33056.499'N 78013.096'W JAN 16 2013
33056.365'N 78013.074'W
33056.351'N 78013.161'W
3. INVESTIGATION TYPE: CAMA/D&F DCM-MftDCTfy
4. INVESTIGATIVE PROCEDURE: Dates of Site Visit—10/24/12, 12/11/12
Was Applicant Present —No, No
5. PROCESSING PROCEDURE: Application Received — 10/01/12, 11/29/12, 12/11/12
Office — Wilmington
6. SITE DESCRIPTION:
(A)
Local Land Use Plan — Brunswick County
Land Classification from LUP —Conservation
(B)
AEC(s) Involved: Public Trust Area, Estuarine Waters
(C)
Water Dependent: Yes
(D)
Intended Use: Public
(E)
Wastewater Treatment:Existing — N/A
Planned — N/A
(F) Type of Structures: Existing —none
Planned —Oyster restoration patch reef areas
(G) Estimated Annual Rate of Erosion: N/A
Source — N/A
7. HABITAT DESCRIPTION:
DREDGED FILLED OTHER
(A) Highground Disturbance
N/A
N/A
N/A
(B) Open Water
N/A
N/A
130,640 sq.ft.
usurped
(B) Shallow Bottom
N/A
15,000
N/A
sq.ft.(0.34 acres)
(D) Total Area Disturbed: 15,000 sq. ft. (0.34 acres)
(E) Primary Nursery Area: No
IF) Water Classification: SA Open: No
8. PROJECT SUMMARY: The applicant is proposing to construct a total of 21 oyster
restoration patch reefs, to establish cultch for oyster attachment and creation of fish
habitat within the intertidal zone and estuarine waters of the Lockwood Folly River in
Brunswick County.

RECEIVED
NC Coastal Federation JAN 16 2013
Page 02
DCM•MRD CITY
9. NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION:
The project site is located in open waters of the Lockwood Folly River. The site must be
accessed by boat. The area is located southeast of Varnumtown (west bank of river), west
of Money Point (east side of river) and near red channel Marker #8. This area of the river is
only accessable by boat.
The subject project would take place in a 3.0 acre intertidal flat within the Lockwood Folly
River. The applicant has staked the proposed 3 acre project area with PVC posts. The PVC
posts designate the four (4) corners of the proposed 3 acre area to be impacted. A small
patch of Smooth Cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora) measuring approximately 10 feet wide by
15 feet long is present in the western edge of the proposed project area. Also in this area
are two (2) existing oyster reefs measuring on average, 70 feet wide by 20 feet in length and
have minimal new growth present. Water depths in the proposed project area are
approximately 0 feet at NLW and are exposed during low water. Existing natural drainage
channels within the project area have depths of approximately -1 foot at NLW and follow
the down river flow, from north to south. This area of the Lockwood Folly River has a tidal
amplitude of approximately 4.5-5.0 feet. The bottom substrate is mostly sandy shoal with
some finer silts and mud are present in the location of the natural drainage channels. The
marked federal channel is located west of the proposed project area, however the ACOE
claims jurisdiction of the open waters of the Lockwood Folly River from bank to bank.
The Division of Water Quality classifies this area of the Lockwood Folly River as SA. This
area IS designated a Primary Nursery Area by the Division of Marine Fisheries. This portion
of the Lockwood Folly River is closed to the harvesting of shellfish. The parcel is classified as
conservation in the Brunswick County LUP.
10. PROJECr DESCRIPTION:
The applicant is proposing to construct approximately 15,000 square feet of new patch
oyster restoration reef areas. The purpose for these reefs is to establish cultch for oyster
attachment and creation of fish habitat within the intertidal zone and estuarine waters of
the Lockwood Folly River in Brunswick County. The site is currently a sand mud flat shoal
with some existing oyster reefs present and a small patch of Spartina alterniflora. The
proposed reefs would be constructed of two (2) types of substrate; clean, loose oyster shell
cultch and marine limestone marl. A total of 19 patch oyster reefs would be constructed of
clean, loose oyster shell cultch. As proposed, the oyster shell reefs would be circular in
shape with a diameter of approximately 30 feet and would cover an area approximately 710
square feet and would have a maximum height of 16 inches above the existing substrate.
The applicant states individual reefs would consist of a maximum of 750 bushels of loose
oyster shell. The proposed marine limestone marl reefs would be circular in shape with a
diameter of approximately 15 feet and would cover an area approximately 205 square feet.
As proposed, the marl reefs would have a maximum height of 16 inches above the existing
substrate. The applicant states the individual marl reefs would consist of a maximum of 225

RECEIVED
NC Coastal Federation
Page 03
JAi\ 16 ?n'
bushels of marl. The proposed patch oyster reefs would be constructed in the sub -tidal and
intertidal locations and all reef materials used for construction would be fer'ried by small
barge to the project site.
The structures would be located in the open waters and intertidal flats of the Lockwood Folly
River. The proposed reefs would be located approximately 100 feet from Channel Marker 8,
which marks the federal navigation channel of the river. At periods of low tide,
approximately 1.5 feet of the proposed oyster reefs would be exposed above the water's
surface. The reefs would be constructed using a barge with an excavator to unload the
material onsite. All structures proposed would be located along the intertidal flats and as
proposed, would be aligned to avoid any existing natural drainage channels, no upland
development is proposed. No SAVs are located within the waters adjacent to the proposed
development at the times of field visits.
12. ANTICIPATED IMPACTS:
The proposed reefs would fill 15,000 square feet of shallow bottom habitat and incorporate
130,640 square feet (3 acres) of Estuarine Waters. The location of the proposed reefs in
relation to the proximity of the existing oyster reefs and drainage channels could potentially
make accessing the eastern shoreline of the river difficult. The position of the proposed
structures appears to make access thru the natural drainage channels more restrictive during
periods of low tides for public use. The reefs are proposed to extend above the surface of
the water at NLW to a height of approximately +1.5 feet above the substrate. This could
cause a hazard to navigation for boaters utilizing the area for recreational and commercial
purposes, being the reefs would be exposed above the water's surface at periods of low tide
and submerged during periods of high tide exhibiting minimal clearance. The existing
natural drainage channels appear to connect to the narrow channels that provide access to
the east side of the river near Money Point. During site visits it was observed that on the
existing reefs in and near the project area, new oyster growth was minimal. During site visits
it was noted that the areas adjacent the reefs, and existing natural drainage channels had
converted from a sandy substrate to a soft silt laden substrate. It appears both the position
and close proximity to one another affects the natural current flow, therefore causing a
disruption in the natural sediment deposition for the immediate area. The proposed reefs
would add structure to an area otherwise void of structure/habitat therefore would benefit
many native species of finfish.
Holley Snider Wilmington January 10, 2013

Project Narrative RECEIVED
Lockwood Folly River Oyster Reef Habitat Restoration Project" N 16 2013
Applicant: North Carolina Coastal Federation, Inc.
Date: August 27, 2012
DCM-MHD CITY
Project Summary:
The North Carolina Coastal Federation is proposing to create and restore 15,000 square feet of intertidal Eastern Oyster
(Crassostrea virginica) patch reef habitat in a 3 acre project area in the lower Lockwood Folly River in Brunswick
County. The proposed project will use a maximum of 14,500 bushels of oyster shell and 500 bushels of marine limestone
marl to create a series of 21 patch oyster reefs in the 3 acre project area.
Project Area Description:
The Lockwood Folly River, within the Lumber River Basin, is located in southeastern North Carolina in coastal
Brunswick County. The river's headwaters are in the Green Swamp and flow into the Atlantic Ocean through the
Lockwood Folly Inlet. The estuary maintains polyhaline to euhaline conditions ranging from 18 to 36 ppt salinity. Due to
the proximity of the inlet and strong tidal flow the estuary experiences a high rate of water exchange and flushing. This
allows the lower river to maintain high water quality despite increasing non -point source pollution from a developing
watershed. Tidal salt marshes, dominated by saltmarsh cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora), saltmeadow hay (Spartina
patens), saltgrass (Distichils spicata), occur along the estuarine shorelines and make up small islands in the lower river.
The lower river contains extensive intertidal flats with areas of shell hash and mud. The Lockwood Folly River contains
significant areas of intact wetland areas along its length which valuable buffering and water quality benefits. The existing
estuarine habitats, water quality direct connection with the ocean makes the Lockwood Folly a vital area for estuarine and
marine organisms foraging, migrating, breeding, spawning and seeking refuge as juveniles.
Project Background:
The Lockwood Folly contains significant areas of oyster beds and maintains high levels of annual oyster spat fall.
However, due to water quality declines, heavy sedimentation rates, and focused harvest pressure in the remaining open
waters viable oyster reef habitat has been degraded and lost. Oyster spat monitoring by UNCW's Benthic Ecology Lab
and volunteers indicates that high levels of oyster larvae are present each year from May -October in the waters adjacent to
the project area. However, substrate for the larval settlement is a limiting factor. Providing adequate reef habitat and
settlement substrate will help to enhance the oyster population, oyster reef habitat, fish habitat and potentially some
localized water quality benefits in the lower river estuary.
Recent global analyses suggest that shellfish reefs are near or past functional extinction in many regions (Beck et al.
2009). Management strategies that include restoration efforts designed to conserve or even improve reef conditions are
recommended to reverse the negative consequences of reef losses (Brumbaugh et al. 2006, Beck et al. 2009). Unlike many
other global regions, reefs in the southeastern US are characterized as good to poor (Beck et al. 2009), in part because of
historical under -exploitation and until recent (1990s) delayed coastal development. Although far from ideal, the good to
poor condition of southeastern oyster habitats represents an opportunity to be proactive environmentally and attempt to
reverse the losses before reefs become functionally extinct in the region.
Once valued primarily as a resource, oysters are now recognized as ecosystem engineers (sensu Jones et al. 1994) and
oyster reefs are one of the key structural elements within southeast estuaries. Reefs create complex habitats used by fish,
crustaceans and bivalves including commercial and recreational species as well as other invertebrates, birds and mammals
(Zimmerman et al. 1989, Wenner et al. 1996, Coen et al. 1999b, Coen and Luckenbach 2000, Meyer and Townsend
2000). Oysters also can improve water clarity and quality by filtering large quantities of water (Nelson et al. 2004, Newell
2004, Grizzle et al. 2008); a mature oyster can filter =200 L of water per day. Observed declines in oyster populations not
only affect the resource but also are associated with adverse effects to reef -associated species and reduced water quality,
ultimately leading to shifts away from "natural" ecosystem functioning. Few species besides the oyster are as readily
identified as central to the functioning of estuarine systems.
State and federal fisheries management recognize shell bottom habitat as critical to fisheries production. Although fully
functional reefs may require 3-5 yrs. to develop, data suggest oyster shell alone attracts many more fish than adjacent bare
mud flats (Coen et al. 1999, Lenhert & Allen 2004, Garwood et al. submitted). An impressive mRVtl@lff1iJr es,
>85 species, quickly colonize oyster shell providing food sources for larger invertebrates an#)W*lLr# W9Vft I4C
Page 1 of 4
SEP 0 4 2012

natural process of stabilizing the shells. Similar to natural shell habitat, restored oyster reefs also provide habitat for
economically important species. These species use shell bottom as spawning, nursery, foraging, and/or refuge areas and
emphasizes the importance of oyster reefs/shell bottom as fisheries habitat. In consideration of the economic importance
of shellfish producing areas, the NC Marine Fisheries Commission classified reefs as critical habitat areas under 15A
NCAC 31.0101. The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council also recognizes oyster reefs as L4kc"1Fish Habitat
for estuarine and nearshore coastal ecosystems (Coen et al. 1999).
JAN 16 2013
Project Site:
The 3 acre proposed project site is located on an intertidal flat just off the main stem of the lower Lockwood Folly River.
The proposed site is above the section of the river called Eastern Bend, below the town of Varnamtor4Wf�170rpposite of
the Lockwood Folly Golf and Country Club community. The site is between the Cross Rock Shellfish Management Area
and the oyster reef known as the "S Rock". The patch oyster reef habitat will be constructed in the project site in the
public trust waters of North Carolina the lower estuary of the Lockwood Folly River (Work Plan Drawing #4).
The GPS coordinates for the site are:
NW Corner: 33' 56'25.16" N x 78' 13'9.86" W; NE Corner: 33' 56'25.21"N x 78° 13'5.42" W
SW Corner: 33' 56'21.74" N x 78' 13'9.80" W; SE Corner: 33' 56'21.71" N x 78' 13'5.39" W
The proposed oyster reef site will be located just upriver of the line marking the permanent closure of waters to shellfish
harvest (Work Plan Drawing #5). The closure is due to bacteriological contamination. While the bacteria are not harmful
to reef development and the oysters' health, the persistent presence of high levels of bacteria has resulted in the permanent
closure of waters to shellfish harvest above the closure line. Placement of the reefs just inside the closed area eliminates a
potential user conflict from the potential closure of open shellfish waters to build and protect the habitat restoration sites.
Placing the reefs in the closed areas will also allow for monitoring, research and comparison of created oyster reefs to
existing oyster reefs further upstream and closer to the pollution sources in the closed areas.
The proposed reef site is located downriver of the DMF Primary Nursery Area demarcation (Work Plan Drawing #5) in
the river (coordinates downloaded from DMF website). The proposed project site is located in an area designated as
Secondary Nursery Area. Oyster reef habitat is considered Essential Fish Habitat and provides refuge and foraging
opportunities for larval, juvenile and adult transient, resident and facultative fish, crustaceans and shellfish. The created
oyster reef habitat is designed to restore and enhance important fishery habitat in the lower river which has experienced
loss and degradation of historic oyster reefs.
The proposed project site is dominated by intertidal sand/mud flats with a few existing patch oyster reefs and a small area
of Spartina alternii fora vegetation. No reef material will be placed on any existing oyster reefs or on the small patch of
Spartina alternii fora in the project site.
Project Methodology - Patch Oyster Reef Habitat Creation:
21 patch reefs of Eastern Oyster (Crassostrea virginica) habitat will be created as a result of the proposed project (Work
Plan Drawing #2). The reefs will be placed within the proposed 3-acre project area in a manner that is appropriate for
oyster larval recruitment and settlement; reef development; and nekton and epifauana utilization. NCCF has consulted
with UNCW shellfish researchers and NC Division of Marine Fisheries staff regarding the design and placement of the
created reefs. The reefs will be designed with suitable elevations, patch size, inter -reef habitat, surface and edge
complexity and shell layer thickness to allow for maximum potential for oyster larvae recruitment and settlement, water
flow and transport of oxygen and food for the oysters, habitat provision and other ecosystem services. Oyster spat
monitoring by UNCW's Benthic Ecology Lab and volunteers indicates that high levels of oyster larvae are present each
year from May -October in the waters adjacent to the project area. Existing natural reefs near the project site will be used
as reference reefs for the project design and monitoring.
A) The proposed project will use a maximum of 14,250 bushels of recycled oyster shell to create 19 patch intertidal
oyster reefs. Each reef will:
— cover a maximum area of 710 square feet RECEIVED
— have a height of 16" above the existing substrate DCM WILMINGTON, NC
— contain a maximum of 750 bushels of oyster shell
SEP o 4 2012
Page 2 of 4

— contain a maximum of 920 cubic feet of oyster shell RECEIVED
The total area covered by the 21 created patch oyster shell reefs in the project area will be 14,500 square feet
containing 17,480 cubic feet of oyster shell. JANi 16 2013
B) If allowed, the project will use #4 marine limestone marl to build two patch oyster reefs to demonstrate and
monitor the effectiveness of this reef material. Marl is a suitable reef material and is uji4i$ Y590 l3DMF for
oyster reef enhancement activities. Using marl in conjunction with oyster shell supplements the amount of reef
material and enables further evaluation of marl as reef material in estuaries along the coast. Two similar patch
marl intertidal oyster reefs were created by NCCF and NCDMF in Dicks Bay off of Myrtlegrove Sound. 5 years
of monitoring of the reefs indicate that they have statistically similar levels of oyster and epifauna densities as
created reefs with oyster shell.
The project is proposing that 450 bushels of #4 marine limestone marl be used in conjunction with the oyster shell
to create two oyster reef mounds each containing 225 bushels of 4 marine limestone marl. Each reef mound will:
— cover a maximum area of 205 square feet
— have a height of 16" above the existing substrate
— contain a maximum of 225 bushels of marl
— contain a maximum of 265 cubic feet of marl
The total area covered by the 2 created patch marl reef mounds in the project area will be 500 square feet
containing 535 cubic feet of #4 marine limestone marl.
As a whole the proposed project will construct 21 oyster reefs covering a total area of 15,000 square feet containing
18,015 cubic feet (14,700 bushels) of oyster shell and marl reef material.
NCCF will mark the project site and reef locations with PVC poles according to the designated project design prior to reef
construction.
The oyster reef material will be purchased from oyster shucking houses and quarries (marl) and transported by truck to a
stockpile location near the project site. The stockpile area is a vacant lot owned by the Town of Varnamtown near the
town boat ramp. The project contractor will haul the reef material from the stockpile area to the boat ramp area to load it
onto barges. The loads of reef material may be temporarily be stored on the concrete pad of the boat ramp so that a front
end loader can scoop up the material and load it onto the barges. The contractor will load the reef material onto small,
shallow draft barges. The barges will travel to the project site during high tide conditions. The contractor will most likely
deploy the shell off the barge using a small front end loader on the barge. The reef material will scooped up on the barge
and then deployed into the reef footprints as indicated by the PVC poles placed earlier. All natural reefs and wetlands will
be posted so the contractor can avoid those areas as he works in the project area. NCCF will be monitoring the reef
construction activities and will check the placement of the shell at low tide to ensure that it meets the project design
specifications. Depending on the tides the contractor may deploy — 500-1000 bushels of reef material a day. Reef
construction is anticipated to occur between September and October while oyster larvae are still present.
Upon the satisfactory completion of the reef material deployment NCCF will place signage on the project area posts and
work with NCDMF to have the site proclamated as a shellfish research sanctuary. The site will remain in the public trust,
and all activities except shellfish harvesting will be allowed in the project area.
Project Monitoring Plan
The Benthic Ecology Lab at UNCW has been contracted by NCCF to conduct pre- and post -project monitoring of the site
in conjunction with NCCF and volunteers. The pre -project monitoring will occur in Fall 2012 prior to reef construction.
Post -project monitoring will begin in the summer of 2013 and occur according to the monitoring schedule for a period of
5 years.
The monitoring program will be implemented to evaluate progress towards the project's habitat restoration objectives;
measure overall project success and to comply with NOAA's minimum scientific monitoring requirements. The
parameters include the structural and functional parameters listed below for the project components. The parameters,
where appropriate, will be measured and monitored prior to the project initiation, concurrent with project implementation
and continue until the results point to a trend of restoration success. Monitoring timing will be ccplE1�9to the
Page 3or4 DCM WILMINr~TnN, NC
S t: D n 4

project schedule and the selected parameters. The timing will allow for any necessary changes or adaptive management
during the project. RECEIVED
Oyster Reef Habitat Monitoring
I. Project Objectives:
a. Increase the acreage of oyster reef habitat (structural)
b. Increase the amount of substrate available for oyster recruitment, reef development, an7dcflW habitat
(functional)
II. Monitoring Parameters:
a. Acreage of oyster habitat created (structural)
b. Abundances and densities of oysters and epifauna (functional)
c. Oyster spat fall within the project area and reference areas
III. Monitoring Measurements:
a. Structural - Extent and area of created oyster habitat calculated by measuring reef footprints using on the
ground measurements, aerial photographs and mapping tools
b. Functional - Sample 20cm x 20cm quadrat random excavations from created and reference reefs identify
and enumerate all oysters and epifauna within the quadrat
c. Per NCDMF spat count parameters: 30 random shells will be collected and the number of spat on each
counted. The average # of spat/shell will be calculated.
IV. Baseline ConditionsNalues:
a. Pre -project survey for oysters and oyster habitat in the project area
b. Comparison to existing natural reference reefs representative of existing conditions and similar reef
architecture and landscape characteristics (series of patch reefs on mudflats )
c. 1-2 Reference reefs will be selected at each site within the project area that:
i. best represent the existing natural condition;
ii. are similar in architecture and landscape characteristics to designed created reefs; and
iii. represent target conditions.
V. Evaluation of Results:
a. Quantitative comparison to baseline pre -project conditions
b. Statistical comparison to reference reefs at each site
c. Success Criteria:
i. Increase in oyster habitat in the project area equal to or greater than project goal
ii. Created reefs exhibit similar densities and abundances of oyster and epifauna as natural reefs at
corresponding sites
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
Page of SEP 0 4 2012

0
�Ipllllll IIIIIIIIIII�
. �IIIIIIIV Illlllb IIIIIIIIII illlllllllll�
,-
°�� _ (IIIIIII. (IIIIIIIIII 11111111111
�� � ���. illlllllllIIIIIIIIII
-_ II!!II. (IIIIIII IIIIIIID
t lllll�i
IIIIIIIII
.-O- ,.

y Varna�5my{ wn.
�.°:
13
"�. emir $tiT° e •r m • nos a d�
✓.ya t, `3 - ,. ��. :aiSrBSa'3A'* + #. 4h�11
cN , _ockwodfWD'yzG f& �*vv
• y m. �t'tg'i�iv"S�pG"" • r.^��t �, ' � a.,'t;`� §Tm`�z yt4 °� q, �^
w.�'�
++S
5'c� n n �, �Wy CI ^hdyV'#s• a p y9• '�
y i ?• '7
anv7»-•.. in
a"
b
rojec Ares If
t g p•

a
c
Pf
30 Ivky"4N�'p.
IV
b �
® J'..°
°'. t• Cry°, � .; ^ ,7{rbc�wo d
el&�ut:zwv� SA Waters Permanent Closure Boundary
Not to exact scale. Drawing is for project area
i _.., a 9 t fW' � [ •S.�L PT a ®� ® f .
mT
HriOi a 1+f 7 9 tlwaL s 'aY rA
?i.' location •coordinates♦� a... �sJ�\J O..%•l..e4 l±S

ERA Lockwood Folly River Oyster Reef Habitat Restoration Project
Applicant: NC Coastal Federation Date: 8/27/12; 1st Rev: 9/27/12; 2"d Rev: 11/28/12
Work Plan Drawing 3 of 6
Project Location with PNA and SA Waters Closure Boundaries

r
'V +N
ti Created Reefs = illlllll�
Existing Natural Reefs =
g II
IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII
K�; p ��� �IIIIIIII�Illlllb IIIIIIIIII 'lllllllllll�
�. '�. IIIIIIIIII
�� ,�_ ��f � (IIIIIII. (IIIIIIIIII
�j � QIIIIIIIII
� " �, . �IIIIIIIIIII IIIIIII
"ry llllll� � IIIIIIIII
� � ��� (IIIIIII (IIIIIII
I-
o IIIIIII
'3
4 Google-earth

G
1r .
�aYiie � � � ag
/,r sF`s tie n.an '.m...m r � ::r ,`.� ' •• • � � :• •. � �+r+..
✓t � J. 1
t
s anti Dt`'
•r'rr qI .1.
t m Font Dr
� j jjgyyy
• ......C''P.�O �--.._LyOCkWpaa�
54-1 i
R.'0, SA Waters Permanent Closure Boundary
i
w0OA' 6� � • � ._'��iq�i n
J� J ocNot' .' ::.. , ._,.•. project
• Goggle earth

e'it—_, IVtU
Dr' I_MINGTON, NC
RECEIVED
NOV 2 9 2012
ERA Lockwood Folly River Oyster Reef Habitat Restoration Project
Applicant: NC Coastal Federation Date: 8/27/12; 15Y Rev: 9/27/12; 2nd Rev: 11/28/12
Work Plan Drawing 3 of 6
Project Location with PNA and SA Waters Closure Boundaries

DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
APPLICATION TRANSMITTAL AND PROCESSING RECORD
1) APPLICANT: NC Coastal Federation c% Ted Wilgis COUNTY: Brunswick
PROJECT NAME: ERA Lockwood Folly Oyster Reef Habitat Restoration Project
LOCATION OF PROJECT: Open water area in the Lockwood Folly River
DATE APPLICATION RECEIVED COMPLETE BY FIELD: 12-11-12
FIELD RECOMMENDATION: Attached: NO
CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION: Attached: n/a
FIELD REPRESENTATIVE: Snider
DISTRICT MANAGER REVIEW:
B) DATE RECEIVED BY MAJOR PERMITS UNIT:
PUBLIC NOTICE RECD: 1-17-13
ADJ. RIP. PROP NOTICES RECD:
APPLICATION ASSIGNS TO:
C) 75 DAY DEADLINE:
MAIL OUT DATE:1-14-13
FEDERAL DUE DATE:
To Be Forwarded: YES
To Be Forwarded: n/a
RECEIVED
JAN 16 2013
DC41-M11D CITY
DISTRICT OFFICE: WII.MINGTON
FEE RECD: $475.00
END OF NOTICE DATE: 2-7-13
DEED RECD: YES
ON: Ilw/3
150 DAY DEADLINE:
STATE DUE DATE: 2-7-13
FED COMMENTS REC ):
PERMIT FINAL ACTION: ISSUE DENY DRAFT
AGENCY
DATE
COMMENTS
RETURNED
OBJECTION
S:
YES NO
NOTES
Coastal Management - Regional Representative
—
Coastal Management - LUP Consistency
Division of Community Assistance
Land Quality Section
Z
Division of Water Quality
L Ig
Storm Water Management (DWQ)
State Property Office
, l �-
Division of Archives & History
Division of Environmental Health
-Z - S
Division of Highways
(--L y
Wildlife Resources Commission
_2
f
Local Perndt Office
Division of Marine Fisheries
Z �l)
✓
Corps of Engineers
2 - i
i c, f - i; Is l 4
V\>5 (-73

Project (Name �C CGu SA ( f—"
Assigned to
X
ru,j
Assigned on
//(tp11-3
Prepare for signature following review by other Assistant Major Permits Coordinator
Date draft permit given to other Assistant Major Permits Coordinator
Date reviewed by other Assistant Major Permits Coordinator
Prepare draft for review by Major Permits Coordinator
Other
Date draft permit given to Major Permits Coordinator
Date reviewed by other Major Permits Coordinator
Written approval from DW is is not required for this project.

J
ffl�
_'�� v
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Pat McCrory Braxton C. Davis
Governor Director
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
February 26, 2013
TO:
Doug Huggett
THRU:
Debra Wilsont;il//
FROM:
Holley Snider A
John E. Skvarla, III
Secretary
SUBJECT: Comments and Recommendations - CAMA Major Permit —North Carolina Coastal Federation,
Oyster reef construction within inter -tidal area and open water area of the Lockwood Folly River,
Brunswick County
The following is my assessment and consequent recommendations of the above referenced proposal:
The applicant is proposing to construct a total of 21 oyster restoration patch reefs, to establish cultch
for oyster attachment and creation of fish habitat within the intertidal zone and estuarine waters of
the Lockwood Folly River in Brunswick County. The reefs would be constructed utilizing two (2) types
of substrate material; oyster cultch and marine marl. The area affected would be approximately
15,000 square feet or 0.34 acres of shallow bottom habitat. The development appears to conform to
the guidelines set forth under 15A NCAC 07H .0206, 15A NCAC 07H .0207 and 15A NCAC 07H .0208.
Assuming that state and federal agencies concur with the proposal, the District recommends the
project be authorized as proposed, contingent upon the following specific and general conditions:
1. The permitted activity will be conducted in such a manner as to prevent a significant increase in
turbidity outside of the area of construction or construction -related discharge. Increases such that the
turbidity in the waterbody is 25 NTU's or less in all saltwater classes are not considered significant.
2. The reef areas shall not be more than the 21 areas as submitted and shown on plats dated received
3/15/12.
3. All precautions should be taken to ensure navigation is not hindered and Public Trust Area is not
unduly affected. It is strongly recommended that each of the individual oystervisiefs be marked with
reflectors so that boaters may navigate around them when submerged during the tidal cycle.
MAR 0 5 2913
127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilmington, NC 26405 DCM-NHD CITY
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: www.nocoastalmanagementnet
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer

PAGE 2
4. The fill material will be clean and free of any pollutants, except in trace quantities. Metal products,
organic materials, or unsightly debris will not be used.
5. No excavated or fill material will be placed at any time, in any marsh or surrounding waters, outside of
the alignment of the fill area indicated on the workplat(s). It may be necessary to use hand tools and
rakes to achieve the size and shape of the individual reefs.
6. No attempt will be made by the permittee to prevent the full and free use by the public of all navigable
waters at or adjacent to the authorized work.
7. The authorized structure and associated activity must not cause an unacceptable interference with
navigation.
8. The permittee will maintain the authorized work in good condition and in conformance with the terms
and conditions of this permit. The permittee is not relieved of this requirement if he abandons the
project without having the permit transferred to a third -party.
9. NOTE: A copy of this permit is being forwarded to the Department of Administration (DOA), State
Property Office, from which you must receive an easement prior to proceeding with your project.
Contact a representative of the DOA at [phone] for more information about easements.
10. NOTE: Permanent reflectors should be attached to the structure in order to make it more visible during
hours of darkness or inclement weather.
11. NOTE: Future development on the permittee's property may require a modification of this permit.
Contact a representative of this Division at [phone] prior to commencement of any such activity
for this determination.
12. NOTE: The permittee and/or his contractor is urged to meet with a representative from the Divison of
Coastal Management prior to project initiation.
RECEIVED
MAR 0 5 2013
DCrg :v_'.DCTIY
127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilmington, NC 28405
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: www,nccoastalmanagement.net
An Equal Opportunity \ Afirmahve Action Employer

fir' AN 15 2013
NCDENR JAfV 15 2013
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources � QN R
Division of Coastal Management
Pat McCrory Braxton C. Davis John E. Skvarla, III
Governor Director Secretary
January 14, 2013
MEMORANDUM:
TO: Chad Coburn
401 Wetlands
Division of Water Quality - WiRO
FROM: Doug Huggett, NC DENR-DCM Major Permits Cc
400 Commerce Ave., Morehead City, NC 28557 (Courier 11-12-09)
SUBJECT: CAMA / Dredge & Fill Major Permit Application Review
Applicant: North Carolina Coastal Federation c/o Ted Wilgis
Project Location: Open water area in the Lockwood Folly River, Brunswick County
Proposed Project: construction of 21 oyster restoration patch reefs
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and
return this form to Doug Huggett at the address above by February 7, 2013. If you have
any questions regarding the proposed project, contact Holley Snider at [phone], when
appropriate, in-depth comments with supporting data is requested.
/ L{C! (c?CC (2-; ."{jA',--) C�&2_113 e- C C-_
REPLY: 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.
SIGNED -- DATE eo7—l-4_ii
127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilmington, NC 28405
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone]Internet: www.nccoastalmanagement.net
An Equal Opportunity � Aff native Action Employer

NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Pat McCrory
Governor
North Carolina Coastal Federation
Mr. Ted Wilgis
530 Causeway Drive, Suite F-1
Wrightsville Beach NC 28480
Division of Water Quality
Charles Wakild, P. E.
Director
February 12, 2013
RECEIVED
FF-H1A2013
John E. Skvada, III
Secretary
Brunswick County
DWQ Project #: 13-0043
Subject Property: ERA Lockwood Folly Oyster Reef Habitat Restoration Project
Approval of 401 Water Quality Certification with Additional Conditions
Dear Mr. Wilgis,
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions to construct 0.34 acres (15,000
square feet) of oyster restoration patch reefs as described in your application received by the N.C.
Division of Water Quality (DWQ) on January 16, 2013. After reviewing your application, we have
decided that the impacts are covered by General Water Quality Certification Number 3900 (GC
3900).
This Certification can also be found on line at: httv://Dortal.ncdenr.oriz/web/wq/swi)/ws/401/certsandoermits.
This Certification allows you to use the Regional General Permit # 198000291 (GP 291) when issued
by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the CAMA permit when issued by the Division of Coastal
Management. In addition, you should obtain or otherwise comply with any other required federal,
state or local permits before you go ahead with your project including (but not limited to) Erosion and
Sediment Control, Non -discharge, and stormwater regulations. Also, this approval to proceed with
your proposed impacts or to conduct impacts to waters as depicted in your application shall
expire upon expiration of the 404 or CAMA Permit.
This approval is for the purpose and design that you described in'your application. If you change
your project, you must notify us and you may be required to send us a new application. If the
property is sold, the new owner must be given a copy of this Certification and approval letter and
is thereby responsible for complying with all conditions.
If total fills for this project (now or in the future) exceed one acre of wetland or 150 linear feet of
stream, compensatory mitigation may be required as described in 15A NCAC 2H .0506 (h). This
approval requires you to follow the conditions listed in the attached certification and any
additional conditions listed below.
Wetlands, Buffers, Stormwater—Compliance and Permitting (Webscape) Unit One 1
1650 Mail Service Center, Ralegh, North Carolina 27699-1650 NOrthCarolina
Phone:
ho ne: 9 512 N. Salisbury St. Raleigh; North Carolina r S604 � �atumily
Phone:[phone] FAX: 919-807&1941 Customer Service: tA77823E748 t�/'/ L
Internet: www.ncwaterquality.org

2
NCCF Lockwood Folly Oyster Reef Restoration
Brunswick County
2013-0043
The Additional Conditions of the Certification are:
1. No Waste, Spoil, Solids, or Fill of Any Kind
No waste, spoil, solids, or fill of any kind shall occur in wetlands, waters, or riparian areas
beyond the footprint of the impacts depicted in the CAMA Major application. All
construction activities, including the design, installation, operation, and maintenance of
sediment and erosion control Best Management Practices, shall be performed so that no
violations of state water quality standards, statutes, or rules occur.
2. No Impacts Beyond Those Approved
No waste, spoil, solids, or fill of any kind shall occur in wetlands, waters, or riparian
areas beyond the footprint of the impacts depicted in the 404/401 Permit Application. All
construction activities, including the design, installation, operation, and maintenance of
sediment and erosion control Best Management Practices, shall be performed so that no
violations of state water quality standards, statutes, or rules occur;
3. Moratoria
All applicable moratoriums shall be observed as required by the NC Division of Marine
Fisheries, NC Wildlife Resources, US Fish and Wildlife and National Marine Fisheries.
4. Standard Erosion and Sediment Control Practices
Erosion and sediment control practices must be in full compliance with all specifications
governing the proper design, installation and operation and maintenance of such Best
Management Practices:
a. Erosion and sediment control measures for the project must be designed, installed,
operated, and maintained in accordance with the most recent version of the North
Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control Planning and Design Manual.
b. Design, installation, operation, and maintenance of the sediment and erosion control
measures must be such that they equal, or exceed, the requirements specified in the
most recent version of the North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control Manual.
The devices shall be maintained on all construction sites, borrow sites, and waste pile
(spoil) projects, including contractor -owned or leased borrow pits associated with the
project.
c. For borrow pit sites, the erosion and sediment control measures must be designed,
installed, operated, and maintained in accordance with the most recent version of the
North Carolina Surface Mmng lYlanualy
-51
d. Reclamation measures and nnpleriieniatian must comp y'with the reclamation in
accordance with the requirements of the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act.
e. Sufficient materials refliured for stabtiiz� tion aridlbrirepair o ' erosion control
measures and stormwater. routing' lha 4reaiment shall 156 on site at all times.

3
NCCF Lockwood Folly Oyster Reef Restoration
Brunswick County
2013-0043
5. Construction Stormwater Pennit NCG010000
Upon the approval of an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan issued by the Division
of Land Resources (DLR) or a DLR delegated local erosion and sedimentation control
program, an NPDES General stormwater permit (NCGO10000) administered by DWQ is
automatically issued to the project. This General Permit allows stormwater to be
discharged during land disturbing construction activities as stipulated by conditions in the
permit. If your project is covered by this permit [applicable to construction projects
that disturb one (1) or more acres], full compliance with permit conditions including
the sedimentation control plan, self -monitoring, record keeping and reporting
requirements are required. A copy of this permit and monitoring report forms may be
found at http://Portal.ncdenr.oriz/web/wo/ws/su/construction RECEIVED
6. Turbidity Standard
FH 1 3 �r'q
The turbidity standard of 25 NTUs (Nephelometric Turbidity Units) shall not be
exceeded as described in 15 A NCAC 213 .0200. Appropriate sediment and erosion
control practices must be used to meet this standard.
7. Certificate of Completion
Upon completion of all work approved within the 401 Water Quality Certification or
applicable Buffer Rules, and any subsequent modifications, the applicant is required to
return the attached Certificate of Completion to the 401/Wetlands Unit, North Carolina
Division of Water Quality, 1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC, 27699-1650.
Violations of any condition herein set forth may result in revocation of this Certification and may
result in criminal and/or civil penalties. The authorization to proceed with your proposed
impacts or to conduct impacts to waters as depicted in your application and as authorized by this
Certification shall expire upon expiration of the 404 or CAMA Permit.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this Certification (associated with the approved
wetland or stream impacts), you may ask for an adjudicatory hearing. You must act within 60
days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a written petition, which
conforms to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative
Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, N.C. 27699-6714. This certification and its
conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
anAR

4
NCCF Lockwood Folly Oyster Reef Restoration
Brunswick County
2013-0043
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean
Water Act. If you have any questions, please telephone Karen Higgins in the Central Office in
Raleigh at 919-807-6301 or Chad Coburn in the DWQ Wilmington Regional Office at 910-796-
7215.
Sincerely,
)Charles Wakild, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
Enclosures: GC 3900
Certificate of Completion
cc: Doug Huggett — DCM Morehead City
Debbie Wilson — DCM Wilmington
Dave Timpy — USACE Wilmington Field Office
Karen Higgins — Wetlands, Buffers, and Stormwater Compliance and Permitting Unit
WiRO

Certification of Completion
DWQ Project No.: County:
Applicant:
Project Name:
Date of Issuance of Wetland Permit:
Certificate of Comaletion
Upon completion of all work approved within the 401 Water Quality Certification and Buffer Rules, and any
subsequent modifications, the applicant is required to return this certificate to the 401 Oversight/Express Permitting Unit,
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC, 27699-1650. This form may be
returned to DWQ by the applicant, the applicant's authorized agent, or the project engineer. It is not necessary to send
certificates from all of these.
Applicant's Certification
1, hereby state that, to the best of my abilities, due care and diligence was
used in the observation of the construction such that the construction was observed to be built within substantial
compliance and intent of the 401 Water Quality Certification and Buffer Rules, the approved plans and specifications,
and other supporting materials.
Signature:
Agent's Certification
I,
used in the observation of the
compliance and intent of the 401
and other supporting materials.
Signature:
Date:
, hereby state that, to the best of my abilities, due care and diligence was
construction such that the construction was observed to be built within substantial
Water Quality Certification and Buffer Rules, the approved plans and specifications,
Date:
If this project was designed by a Certified Professional
1 , as a duly registered Professional (i.e., Engineer,
Landscape Architect, Surveyor, etc.) in the State of North Carolina, having been authorized to observe (periodically,
weekly, full time) the construction of the project, for the Permittee hereby state that, to the best of my abilities, due care
and diligence was used in the observation of the construction such that the construction was observed to be built within
substantial compliance and intent of the 401 Water Quality Certification and Buffer Rules, the approved plans and
specifications, and other supporting materials.
Signature: Registration No. Date

Water Quality Certification No. 3900
CAMA PERMIT CERTIFICATION
Water Quality Certification Number 3900 is issued in conformity with the requirements of Section
401, Public Laws 92-500 and 95-217 of the United States and subject to the North Carolina
Division of Water Quality (DWQ) Regulations in 15A NCAC 02H .0500 and 15A NCAC 02B .0200
for the discharge of fill material to waters and wetland areas as described in General Permits
198000291, 198000048, 198700056, 197800080, 197800125, and 198200277, Nationwide
Permits 3, 12, 13, 14, 18, 27, 29, 33, 35, 39, and 43, and for the Riparian Area Protection Rules
(Buffer Rules) in 15A NCAC 02B .0200.
The State of North Carolina certifies that the specified category of activity will not violate
applicable portions of Sections 301, 302, 303, 306 and 307 of the Public Laws 92-500 and 95-217
if conducted in accordance with the conditions hereinafter set forth.
Activities meeting any one (1) of the following thresholds or circumstances require wrltten
approval for a 401 Water Quality Certification from the Division of Water Quality (the
"Division"):
a) Activities authorized by CAMA major permits, except:
i. Boat Ramps and associated access (i.e. roads and parking lots) that involve the
excavation or filling of less than 500 square feet total of wetland and open water
area, with the exception that the excavation or filling of coastal wetlands may not
exceed 100 square feet;
ii. Shoreline protection measures that tie into existing bulkheads, land or other
shoreline protection measures or do not extend waterward of the normal high water
lineornormal water level more than 10 feet provided that the activity will not
involve the excavation or filling of any SAV or significant shellfish resources as
identified by the Division of Marine Fisheries and impacts less than 500 square feet
total of wetland, with the exception that the excavation or filling of coastal wetlands
may not exceed 100 square feet;
iii. Piers and docks designed to accommodate up to but not exceeding 10 vessels
(except where prohibited in ORW Waters as defined in 15A NCAC
02B.0225(7)&(B)) and where the water depth is equal to or greater than two feet of
water at normal low water level or normal water level (whichever is applicable),,
iv. Maintenance dredging of less than 0.5 acres of open water or non -vegetated
wetlands provided that the applicant can provide documentation showing the
historic dimensions of the dredged channel, and no Submerged Aquatic Vegetation
or shellfish beds are excavated or filled;
v. Projects that involve only shading of waters or wetlands;
vi. Utility lines, except wastewater lines and potable water discharge lines which are
subject to an NPDES Permit, as long as wetland or water impacts are temporary;
vii. Upland development which involves no more than 1/10 of an acre of excavation or
filling of non -coastal wetlands, with the exception than no more than 2,000 square
feet of the non -coastal excavation or filling may take place within a Coastal
Shoreline Area of Environmental Concern (AEC). For the purposes of this area
calculation, the excavation or filling impacts of the entire project must be
considered, which may include boat ramps, bulkheads or other shoreline
Water Quality Certification No. 3900

Water Quality Certification No. 3900
stabilization measures. The applicant must comply with all applicable coastal
stormwater rules;
viii. Single family home construction that results in fill of 404 wetlands as long as
written concurrence is not required from DWQ for the applicable Corps of
Engineers Nationwide Permit; or
b) Any stream relocation; or
c) Any impact associated with a Notice of Violation or an enforcement action for violation(s)
of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 02H .0500), Isolated Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 02H
.1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards, or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC
02B .0200); or
d) Any impacts to streams and/or buffers in the Neuse or Tar -Pamlico River Basins (or any
other basin or watershed with Riparian Area Protection Rules [Buffer Rules] in effect at
the time of application) unless the activities are listed as "EXEMPT" from these rules or a
Buffer Authorization Certificate is issued through N.C. Division of Coastal Management
(DCM) delegation for "ALLOWABLE" activities.
In accordance with North Carolina General Statute 143-215.3D(e), written approval for a 401
Water Quality General Certification must include the appropriate fee. If a project also requires a
CAMA Permit, then one payment to both agencies shall be submitted and will be the higher of the
two fees.
Activities included in this General Certification that do not meet one of the thresholds
listed above do not require written approval from the Division as long as they comply with
the Conditions of Certification listed below. Activities authorized by Coastal Area
Management Act (CAMA) General Permits do not require written approval from the
Division as long as they comply with the Conditions of Certification listed below. If any of
these Conditions cannot be met, then written approval from the Division is required.
Conditions of Certification:
1. No Impacts Beyond those Authorized in the Written Approval or Beyond the Threshold of Use
of this Certification
No waste, spoil, solids, or fill of any kind shall occur in wetlands, waters, or riparian areas
beyoria`the footprint of the impacts depicted in the Pre -Construction Notification, as
authorized in the written approval from the Division or beyond the thresholds established for
use of this Certification without written authorization, including incidental impacts. All
construction activities, including the design, installation, operation, and maintenance of
sediment and erosion control Best Management Practices shall be performed so that no
violations of state water quality standards, statutes, or rules occur. Approved plans and
specifications for this project are incorporated by reference and are enforceable parts of this
permit.
2. Standard Erosion and Sediment Control Practices
Erosion and sediment control practices must be in full compliance with all specifications
governing the proper design, installation and operation and maintenance of such Best
Management Practices and if applicable, comply with the specific conditions and
requirements of the NPDES Construction Stormwater Permit issued to the site:
a) Design, installation, operation, and maintenance of the sediment and erosion control
measures must be such that they equal or exceed the requirements specified in the most
recent version of the North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control Manual. The devices
shall be maintained on all construction sites, borrow sites, and waste pile (spoil) projects,
including contractor -owned or leased borrow pits associated with the project.
Water Quality Certification No. 3900

Water Quality Certification No. 3900
b) For borrow pit sites, the erosion and sediment control measures must be designed,
installed, operated, and maintained in accordance with the most recent version of the
North Carolina Surface Mining Manual.
c) Reclamation measures and implementation must comply with the reclamation in '2 ,,
accordance with the requirements of the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act and the
Mining Act of 1971.
.. Tx
d) Sufficient materials required for stabilization and/or repair of erosion control measures
and stormwater routing and treatment shall be on site at all times.
e) If the project occurs in waters or watersheds classified as Primary Nursery Areas (PNAs),
SA, WS-1, WS-II, High Quality (HQW), or Outstanding Resource (ORW) waters, then the
sedimentation and erosion control designs must comply with the requirements set forth
in 15A NCAC 04B .0124, Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds.
3, No Sediment and Erosion Control Measures in Wetlands or Waters
Sediment and erosion control measures shall not be placed in wetlands or waters.
Exceptions to this condition require application submittal to and written approval by the
Division. If placement of sediment and erosion control devices in wetlands and waters is
unavoidable, then design and placement of temporary erosion control measures shall not be
conducted in a manner that may result in dis-equilibrium of wetlands, stream beds, or banks,
adjacent to or upstream and downstream of the above structures. All sediment and erosion
control devices shall be removed and the natural grade restored within two (2) months of the
date that the Division of Land Resources (DLR) or locally delegated program has released
the specific area within the project.
4. Construction Stormwater Permit NCGO10000
An NPDES Construction Stormwater Permit is required for construction projects that disturb
one (1) or more acres of land. This Permit allows stormwater to be discharged during land
disturbing construction activities as stipulated in the conditions of the permit. if your project
is covered by this permit, full compliance with permit conditions including the erosion &
sedimentation control plan, inspections and maintenance, self -monitoring, record keeping
and reporting requirements is required. A copy of the general permit (NCG010000),
inspection log sheets, and other information may be found at
http //portal ncdenr orWWeb/wa/wstsu/nodessw#tab-w .
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) shall be required to be in full
compliance with the conditions related to construction activities within the most recent version
of their individual NPDES (NCS000250) stormwater permit.
5. Construction Moratoriums and Coordination
If activities must occur during periods of high biological activity (i.e. sea turtle nesting, fish
spawning, or bird nesting), then biological monitoring may be required at the request of other
state or federal agencies and coordinated with these activities.
All moratoriums on construction activities established by the NC Wildlife Resources
Commission (WRC), US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), NC Division of Marine Fisheries
(DMF), or National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to lessen impacts on trout, anadromous
fish, larval/post-larval fishes and crustaceans, or other aquatic species of concern shall be
implemented. Exceptions to this condition require written approval by the resource agency
responsible for the given moratorium.
Water Quality Certification No. 3900

Water Quality Certification No. 3900
Work within the twenty-five (25) designated trout counties or identified state or federal
endangered or threatened species habitat shall be coordinated with the appropriate WRC,
USFWS, NMFS, and/or DMF personnel.
6. Dredging shall not cause Shellfish Closures
The effluent water from the dredge spoil should not be released into open shellfish waters.
Shellfish Sanitation and the Division of Water Quality must be notified if this is to occur.
7. Work in the Dry
All work in or adjacent to stream waters shall be conducted so that the flowing stream does
not come in contact with the disturbed area. Approved best management practices from the
most current version of the NC Sediment and Erosion Control Manual, or the NC DOT
Construction and Maintenance Activities Manual, such as sandbags, rock berms, cofferdams,
and other diversion structures shall be used to minimize excavation in flowing water.
Exceptions to this condition require application submittal to and written approval by the
Division.
8.. Riparian Area Protection (Buffer) Rules
Activities located in the protected riparian areas (whether jurisdictional wetlands or not),
within the Neuse, Tar -Pamlico, or Catawba River Basins or in the Randleman, Jordan, or
Goose Creek Watersheds (or any other basin or watershed with buffer rules) shall be limited
to "uses" identified within and constructed in accordance with 15A NCAC 02B .0233, .0259,
.0243. .0250,.0267 and .0605, and shall be located, designed, constructed, and maintained
to have minimal disturbance to protect water quality to the maximum extent practicable
through the use of best management practices. All buffer rule requirements, including diffuse
flow requirements, must be met.
9. If concrete is used during the construction, then all necessary measures shall be taken to
prevent direct contact between uncured or curing concrete and waters of the state. Water
that inadvertently contacts uncured concrete shall not be discharged to waters of the state
due to the potential for elevated pH and possible aquatic life/ fish kills.
10. Compensatory Mitigation
In accordance with 15A NCAC 02H .0506 (h), compensatory mitigation may be required for
losses of equal to or greater than 150 linear feet of streams (intermittent and perennial)
and/or equal to or greater than one (1) acre of wetlands. For linear public transportation
projects, impacts equal to or exceeding 150 linear feet per stream shall require mitigation.
Buffer mitigation may be required for any project with Buffer Rules in effect at the time of
application for activities classified as "Allowable with Mitigation" or "Prohibited" within the
Table of Uses.
A determination of buffer, wetland, and stream mitigation requirements shall be made for any
General Water Quality Certification for this Nationwide and/or Regional General Permit.
Design and monitoring protocols shall follow the US Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington
District Stream Mitigation Guidelines (April 2003) or its subsequent updates. Compensatory
mitigation plans shall be submitted to the Division for written approval as required in those
protocols. The mitigation plan must be implemented and/or constructed before any impacts
occur on site. Alternatively, the Division will accept payment into an in -lieu fee program or a
mitigation bank. In these cases, proof of payment shall be provided to the Division before
any impacts occur on site.
Water Quality Certification No. 3900

Water Quality Certification No. 3900
11. Placement of Culverts and Other Structures in Waters and Wetlands
Culverts required for this project shall be designed and installed in such a manner that the
original stream profiles are not altered and allow for aquatic life movement during low flows. nr..
Existing stream dimensions (including the cross section dimensions, pattern, and longitudina.'
profile) must be maintained above and below locations of each culvert.
Placement of culverts and other structures in waters and streams must be below the
elevation of the streambed by one foot for all culverts with a diameter greater than 48 inches,
and 20 percent of the culvert diameter for culverts having a diameter less than or equal to 48
inches, to allow low flow passage of water and aquatic life.
When topographic constraints indicate culvert slopes of greater than 5%, culvert burial is not
required, provided that all alternative options for flattening the slope have been investigated
and aquatic life movement/ connectivity has been provided when possible (rock ladders,
crossvanes, etc). Notification to the Division including supporting documentation to include a
location map of the culvert, culvert profile drawings, and slope calculations shall be provided
to the Division 60 days prior to the installation of the culvert.
When bedrock is present in culvert locations, culvert burial is not required provided that there
is sufficient documentation of the presence of bedrock. Notification to the Division including
supporting documentation such as, but not limited to, a location map of the culvert,
geotechnical reports, photographs, etc shall be provided to the Division a minimum of 60
days prior to the installation of the culvert. If bedrock is discovered during construction, then
the Division shall be notified by phone or email within 24 hours of discovery.
If other site -specific topographic constraints preclude the ability to bury the culverts as
described above and/or it can be demonstrated that burying the culvert would result in
destabilization of the channel, then exceptions to this condition require application submittal
to, and written approval by, the Division of Water Quality, regardless of the total impacts to
streams or wetlands from the project.
Installation of culverts in wetlands must ensure continuity of water movement and be
designed to adequately accommodate high water or flood conditions. Additionally, when
roadways, causeways, or other fill projects are constructed across FEMA-designated
floodways or wetlands, openings such as culverts or bridges must be provided to maintain
the natural hydrology of the system as well as prevent constriction of the floodway that may
result in destabilization of streams or wetlands.
The establishment of native, woody vegetation and other soft stream bank stabilization
techniques must be used where practicable instead of riprap or other bank hardening
methods.
12. All temporary fill and culverts shall be removed and the impacted area returned to natural
conditions within 60 days of the determination that the temporary impact is no longer
necessary. The impacted areas shall be restored to original grade, including each stream's
original cross sectional dimensions, plan form pattern, and longitudinal bed and bed profile,
and the various sites shall be stabilized with natural woody vegetation (except for the
approved maintenance areas) and restored to prevent erosion.
13, All temporary pipes/ culverts/ riprap pads etc, shall be installed in all streams as outlined in
the most recent edition of the North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control Planning and
Design Manual or the North Carolina Surface Mining Manual so as not to restrict stream flow
or cause dis-equilibrium during use of this General Certification.
Water Quality Certification No. 3900

Water Quality Certification No. 3900
14. Any riprap required for proper culvert placement, stream stabilization, or restoration of
temporarily disturbed areas shall be restricted to the area directly impacted by the approved
construction activity. All rip -rap shall buried and/or "keyed in" such that the original stream
elevation and streambank contours are restored and maintained. Placement of rip -rap or
other approved materials shall not result in de -stabilization of the stream bed or banks
upstream or downstream of the area.
15. Any rip -rap used for stream stabilization shall be of a size and density so as not to be able to
be carried off by wave, current action, or stream flows and consist of clean rock or masonry
material free of debris or toxic pollutants. Rip -rap shall not be installed in the streambed
except in specific areas required for velocity control and to ensure structural integrity of bank
stabilization measures.
16. If this Water Quality Certification is used to access building sites, then all lots owned by the
applicant must be buildable without additional impacts to streams or wetlands. The applicant
is required to provide evidence that the lots are buildable without requiring additional impacts
to wetlands, waters, or buffers if required to do so in writing by the Division. For road
construction purposes, this Certification shall only be utilized from natural high ground to
natural high ground.
17. Deed notifications or similar mechanisms shall be placed on all retained jurisdictional
wetlands, waters, and protective buffers within the project boundaries in order to assure
compliance for future wetland, water, and buffer impact. These mechanisms shall be put in
place at the time of recording of the property or of individual lots, whichever is appropriate. A
sample deed notification can be downloaded from the Division's web site at
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wg/swp/ws/401/certsandpermits/apply/forms. The text of the
sample deed notification may be modified as appropriate to suit to a specific project.
Documentation of deed notifications shall be provided to the Division upon request.
18. If an environmental document is required under the National or State Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA or SEPA), then this General Certification is not valid until a Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI) or Record of Decision (ROD) is issued by the State
Clearinghouse.
19. In the twenty (20j coastal counties, the appropriate DWQ Regional Office must be contacted
to determine if Coastal Stormwater Regulations will be required.
20. This General Certification does not relieve the applicant of the responsibility to obtain all other
required Federal, State, or Local approvals.
21. The applicant/permittee and their authorized agents shall conduct all activities in a manner
consistent with State water quality standards (including any requirements resulting from
compliance with §303(d) of the Clean Water Act), and any other appropriate requirements of
State and Federal Law. If the Division determines that such standards or laws are not being
met, including failure to sustain a designated or achieved use, or that State or Federal law is
being violated, or that further conditions are necessary to assure compliance, then the
Division may reevaluate and modify this General Water Quality Certification.
22. When written authorization is required for use of this certification, upon completion of all
permitted impacts included within the approval and any subsequent modifications, the
applicant shall be required to return the certificate of completion attached to the approval.
One copy of the certificate shall be sent to the DWQ Central Office in Raleigh at 1650 Mail
Service Center, Raleigh, NC, 27699-16%
23. Additional site -specific conditions, including monitoring and/or modeling requirements, may
be added to the written approval letter for projects proposed under this Water Quality
Water Quality Certification No. 3900 6

Water Quality Certification No. 3900
Certification in order to ensure compliance with all applicable water quality and effluent
standards.
24. This certification grants permission to the director, an authorized representative of the
Director, or DENR staff, upon the presentation of proper credentials, to enter the property
during normal business hours.
This General Certification shall expire on the same day as the expiration date of the
corresponding Nationwide and/or Regional General Permit. The conditions in effect on the date
of issuance of Certification for a specific project shall remain in effect for the life of the project,
regardless of the expiration date of this Certification.
Non-compliance with or violation of the conditions herein set forth by a specific project may result
in revocation of this General Certification for the project and may also result in criminal and/or civil
penalties.
The Director of the North Carolina Division of Water Quality may require submission of a formal
application for Individual Certification for any project in this category of activity if it is determined
that the project is likely to have a significant adverse effect upon water quality, including state or FEB 18
federally listed endangered or threatened aquatic species, or degrade the waters so that existing
uses of the wetland or downstream waters are precluded.
Public hearings may be held for specific applications or group of applications prior to a
Certification decision if deemed in the public's best interest by the Director of the North Carolina
Division of Water Quality.
Effective date: March 19, 2012
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
By
zzz
Charles Wakild, P.E.
Director
History Note: Water Quality Certification (WQC) Number 3900 issued March 19, 2012 rep/aces
WQC Number 3641 and 3642 issued March 19, 2007; WQC Numbers 3371 and 3400 issued
March 18, 2002; WQC Number 3274 issued June 1, 2000; WQC Number 3112 issued February
11, 1997, and WQC Number 3025 issued September 6, 1995. This General Certification is
rescinded when the Corps of Engineers reauthorizes any of the corresponding Nationwide and/or
Regional General Permits or when deemed appropriate by the Director of the Division of Water
Quality.
Water Quality Certification No. 3900

Dr, RECEIVED
�F A JAN 2 2 2013
NCDENR
DCM-MHDCTTY
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Pat McCrory
Braxton C. DavisC07 hn E. Skvarla, III
�Oa�
Governor
Director Secretary
January 14, 2013MEMORANDUM:
'-TO:
Tim Walton
ro
NC Dept. of Administration
State Property Office
FROM:
Doug Huggett, NC DENR-DCM Major Permits Co
400 Commerce Ave., Morehead City, NC 28557 (Courier 11-12-09)
SUBJECT:
CAMA / Dredge & Fill Major Permit Application Review
Applicant:
North Carolina Coastal Federation c/o Ted Wilgis
Project Location:
Open water area in the Lockwood Folly River, Brunswick County
Proposed Project: construction of 21 oyster restoration patch reefs
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and
return this form to Doug Huggtett at the address above by February 7, 2013. If you have
any questions regarding the proposed project, contact Holley Snider at [phone], when
appropriate, in-depth comments with supporting data is requested.
REPLY: Th1*6gency 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.
SIGNED DATE
127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilmington, NC 28405
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone]Internet: www.ncooastaJmanaciement.net
An Equal Opportunny 1 Affimbve Adon Employer

DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT RECEIVED
FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT
I. APPLICANT'S NAME: North Carolina Coastal Federation JAN 2 2 2013
2. LOCATION OF PROJECT SITE: Open water area in the Lockwood Folly River in Brunswick
County. of-MHD CITY
Photo Index - 2006: 7-6182 L,M,N,O- 7-10
State Plane Coordinates— LAT: 33056.411'N LON: 78°13.165'W
33056.499'N 78013.096'W
33056.365'N 78013.074'W
33056.351'N 78013.161'W
3. INVESTIGATION TYPE: CAMA/D&F
4. INVESTIGATIVE PROCEDURE: Dates of Site Visit-10/24/12, 12/11/12
Was Applicant Present —No, No
5. PROCESSING PROCEDURE: Application Received—10/O1/12, 11/29/12, 12/11/12
Office — Wilmington
6. SITE DESCRIPTION:
(A) Local Land Use Plan — Brunswick County
Land Classification from LUP —Conservation
(B) AEC(s) Involved: Public Trust Area, Estuarine Waters
(C) Water Dependent: Yes
(D) Intended Use: Public
(E) Wastewater Treatment: Existing — N/A
Planned — N/A
(F) Type ofStructures:Existing — none
Planned —Oyster restoration patch reef areas
(G) Estimated Annual Rate of Erosion: N/A
Source — N/A
7. HABITAT DESCRIPTION:
UKLUUtD
FILLED OTHER
d Disturbance
N/A
N/A
N/A
er
ffShallow
N/A
N/A
130,640 sq.ft.
usurped
ttom
N/A
15,000
N/A
sq.ft.(0.34 acres)
(D) Total Area Disturbed: 15,000 sq. ft. (0.34 acres)
(E) Primary Nursery Area: No
(F) Water Classification: SA Open: No
8. PROJECT SUMMARY: The applicant is proposing to construct a total of 21 oyster
restoration patch reefs, to establish cultch for oyster attachment and creation of fish
habitat within the intertidal zone and estuarine waters of the Lockwood Folly River in
Brunswick County.

RECEIVED
NC Coastal Federation JAN 2 2 2013
Page 02
DCMMRDCITY
9. NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION:
The project site is located in open waters of the Lockwood Folly River. The site must be
accessed by boat. The area is located southeast of Varnumtown (west bank of river), west
of Money Point (east side of river) and near red channel Marker #8. This area of the river is
only accessable by boat.
The subject project would take place in a 3.0 acre intertidal flat within the Lockwood Folly
River. The applicant has staked the proposed 3 acre project area with PVC posts. The PVC
posts designate the four (4) corners of the proposed 3 acre area to be impacted. A small
patch of Smooth Cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora) measuring approximately 10 feet wide by
15 feet long is present in the western edge of the proposed project area. Also in this area
are two (2) existing oyster reefs measuring on average, 70 feet wide by 20 feet in length and
have minimal new growth present. Water depths in the proposed project area are
approximately 0 feet at NLW and are exposed during low water. Existing natural drainage
channels within the project area have depths of approximately -1 foot at NLW and follow
the down river flow, from north to south. This area of the Lockwood Folly River has a tidal
amplitude of approximately 4.5-5.0 feet. The bottom substrate is mostly sandy shoal with
some finer silts and mud are present in the location of the natural drainage channels. The
marked federal channel is located west of the proposed project area, however the ACOE
claims jurisdiction of the open waters of the Lockwood Folly River from bank to bank.
The Division of Water Quality classifies this area of the Lockwood Folly River as SA. This
area IS designated a Primary Nursery Area by the Division of Marine Fisheries. This portion
of the Lockwood Folly River is closed to the harvesting of shellfish. The parcel is classified as
conservation in the Brunswick County LUP.
10. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The applicant is proposing to construct approximately 15,000 square feet of new patch
oyster restoration reef areas. The purpose for these reefs is to establish cultch for oyster
attachment and creation of fish habitat within the intertidal zone and estuarine waters of
the Lockwood Folly River in Brunswick County. The site is currently a sand mud flat shoal
with some existing oyster reefs present and a small patch of Spartina alterniflora. The
proposed reefs would be constructed of two (2) types of substrate; clean, loose oyster shell
cultch and marine limestone marl. A total of 19 patch oyster reefs would be constructed of
clean, loose oyster shell cultch. As proposed, the oyster shell reefs would be circular in
shape with a diameter of approximately 30 feet and would cover an area approximately 710
square feet and would have a maximum height of 16 inches above the existing substrate.
The applicant states individual reefs would consist of a maximum of 750 bushels of loose
oyster shell. The proposed marine limestone marl reefs would be circular in shape with a
diameter of approximately 15 feet and would cover an area approximately 205 square feet.
As proposed, the marl reefs would have a maximum height of 16 inches above the existing
substrate. The applicant states the individual marl reefs would consist of a maximum of 225

NC Coastal Federation
Page 03
bushels of marl. The proposed patch oyster reefs would be constructed in the sub -tidal and
intertidal locations and all reef materials used for construction would be ferried by small
barge to the project site.
The structures would be located in the open waters and intertidal flats of the Lockwood Folly
River. The proposed reefs would be located approximately 100 feet from Channel Marker 8,
which marks the federal navigation channel of the river. At periods of low tide,
approximately 1.5 feet of the proposed oyster reefs would be exposed above the water's
surface. The reefs would be constructed using a barge with an excavator to unload the
material onsite. All structures proposed would be located along the intertidal flats and as
proposed, would be aligned to avoid any existing natural drainage channels, no upland
development is proposed. No SAVs are located within the waters adjacent to the proposed
development at the times of field visits.
11. ANTICIPATED IMPACTS:
The proposed reefs would fill 15,000 square feet of shallow bottom habitat and incorporate
130,640 square feet (3 acres) of Estuarine Waters. The location of the proposed reefs in
relation to the proximity of the existing oyster reefs and drainage channels could potentially
make accessing the eastern shoreline of the river difficult. The position of the proposed
structures appears to make access thru the natural drainage channels more restrictive during
periods of low tides for public use. The reefs are proposed to extend above the surface of
the water at NLW to a height of approximately +1.5 feet above the substrate. This could
cause a hazard to navigation for boaters utilizing the area for recreational and commercial
purposes, being the reefs would be exposed above the water's surface at periods of low tide
and submerged during periods of high tide exhibiting minimal clearance. The existing
natural drainage channels appear to connect to the narrow channels that provide access to
the east side of the river near Money Point. During site visits it was observed that on the
existing reefs in and near the project area, new oyster growth was minimal. During site visits
it was noted that the areas adjacent the reefs, and existing natural drainage channels had
converted from a sandy substrate to a soft silt laden substrate. It appears both the position
and close proximity to one another affects the natural current flow, therefore causing a
disruption in the natural sediment deposition for the immediate area. The proposed reefs
would add structure to an area otherwise void of structure/habitat therefore would benefit
many native species of finfish.
Holley Snider Wilmington January 10, 2013
RECEP✓ED
JAN 2 2 2013
DCM-MPD CITY

RECEIVED
Proiect Narrative
Lockwood Folly River Oyster Reef Habitat Restoration Project JAN 2 2 2013
Applicant: North Carolina Coastal Federation, Inc.
Date: August 27, 2012 DCM-MILD CITY
Proiect Summary
The North Carolina Coastal Federation is proposing to create and restore 15,000 square feet of intertidal Eastern Oyster
(Crassostrea virginica) patch reef habitat in a 3 acre project area in the lower Lockwood Folly River in Brunswick
County. The proposed project will use a maximum of 14,500 bushels of oyster shell and 500 bushels of marine limestone
marl to create a series of 21 patch oyster reefs in the 3 acre project area.
Proiect Area Description:
The Lockwood Folly River, within the Lumber River Basin, is located in southeastern North Carolina in coastal
Brunswick County. The river's headwaters are in the Green Swamp and flow into the Atlantic Ocean through the
Lockwood Folly Inlet. The estuary maintains polyhaline to euhaline conditions ranging from 18 to 36 ppt salinity. Due to
the proximity of the inlet and strong tidal flow the estuary experiences a high rate of water exchange and flushing. This
allows the lower river to maintain high water quality despite increasing non -point source pollution from a developing
watershed. Tidal salt marshes, dominated by saltmarsh cordgrass (Spartina alternii fora), saltmeadow hay (Spartina
patens), saltgrass (Distichils spicata), occur along the estuarine shorelines and make up small islands in the lower river.
The lower river contains extensive intertidal flats with areas of shell hash and mud. The Lockwood Folly River contains
significant areas of intact wetland areas along its length which valuable buffering and water quality benefits. The existing
estuarine habitats, water quality direct connection with the ocean makes the Lockwood Folly a vital area for estuarine and
marine organisms foraging, migrating, breeding, spawning and seeking refuge as juveniles.
Proiect Backeround:
The Lockwood Folly contains significant areas of oyster beds and maintains high levels of annual oyster spat fall.
However, due to water quality declines, heavy sedimentation rates, and focused harvest pressure in the remaining open
waters viable oyster reef habitat has been degraded and lost. Oyster spat monitoring by UNCW's Benthic Ecology Lab
and volunteers indicates that high levels of oyster larvae are present each year from May -October in the waters adjacent to
the project area. However, substrate for the larval settlement is a limiting factor. Providing adequate reef habitat and
settlement substrate will help to enhance the oyster population, oyster reef habitat, fish habitat and potentially some
localized water quality benefits in the lower river estuary.
Recent global analyses suggest that shellfish reefs are near or past functional extinction in many regions (Beck et al.
2009). Management strategies that include restoration efforts designed to conserve or even improve reef conditions are
recommended to reverse the negative consequences of reef losses (Brumbaugh et al. 2006, Beck et al. 2009). Unlike many
other global regions, reefs in the southeastern US are characterized as good to poor (Beck et al. 2009), in part because of
historical under -exploitation and until recent (1990s) delayed coastal development. Although far from ideal, the good to
poor condition of southeastern oyster habitats represents an opportunity to be proactive environmentally and attempt to
reverse the losses before reefs become functionally extinct in the region.
Once valued primarily as a resource, oysters are now recognized as ecosystem engineers (sensu Jones et al. 1994) and
oyster reefs are one of the key structural elements within southeast estuaries. Reefs create complex habitats used by fish,
crustaceans and bivalves including commercial and recreational species as well as other invertebrates, birds and mammals
(Zimmerman et al. 1989, Wenner et al. 1996, Coen et al. 1999b, Coen and Luckenbach 2000, Meyer and Townsend
2000). Oysters also can improve water clarity and quality by filtering large quantities of water (Nelson et al. 2004, Newell
2004, Grizzle et al. 2008); a mature oyster can filter --200 L of water per day. Observed declines in oyster populations not
only affect the resource but also are associated with adverse effects to reef -associated species and reduced water quality,
ultimately leading to shifts away from "natural" ecosystem functioning. Few species besides the oyster are as readily
identified as central to the functioning of estuarine systems.
State and federal fisheries management recognize shell bottom habitat as critical to fisheries production. Although fully
functional reefs may require 3-5 yrs. to develop, data suggest oyster shell alone attracts many more fish than adjacent bare
mud flats (Coen et al. 1999, Lenhert & Allen 2004, Garwood et al. submitted). An impressive tuREfipfr VeHi fXes,
>85 species, quickly colonize oyster shell providing food sources for larger invertebrates an4)WSjuAr1 *9iQg1#1g (MCI
Page 1 of 4
sEF 0 4 2012

natural process of stabilizing the shells. Similar to natural shell habitat, restored oyster reefs also provide habitat for
economically important species. These species use shell bottom as spawning, nursery, foraging, and/or refuge areas and
emphasizes the importance of oyster reefs/shell bottom as fisheries habitat. In consideration of the economic importance
of shellfish producing areas, the NC Marine Fisheries Commission classified reefs as critical habitat areas under I5A
NCAC 3I.0101. The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council also recognizes oyster reefs as Essential Fish Habitat
for estuarine and nearshore coastal ecosystems (Coen et al. 1999).
Proiect Site:
The 3 acre proposed project site is located on an intertidal flat just off the main stem of the lower Lockwood Folly River.
The proposed site is above the section of the river called Eastern Bend, below the town of Vamamtown, and opposite of
the Lockwood Folly Golf and Country Club community. The site is between the Cross Rock Shellfish Management Area
and the oyster reef known as the "S Rock". The patch oyster reef habitat will be constructed in the project site in the
public trust waters of North Carolina the lower estuary of the Lockwood Folly River ( Work Plan Drawing #4).
The GPS coordinates for the site are:
NW Corner: 33' 56'25.16" N x 78' 13'9.86" W, NE Corner: 33° 56'25.21" N x 78' 13'5.42" W
SW Corner: 33' 56'21.74" N x 78' 13'9.80" W; SE Corner: 33' 56'21.71" N x 78' 13'5.39" W
The proposed oyster reef site will be located just upriver of the line marking the permanent closure of waters to shellfish
harvest (Work Plan Drawing #5). The closure is due to bacteriological contamination. While the bacteria are not harmful
to reef development and the oysters' health, the persistent presence of high levels of bacteria has resulted in the permanent
closure of waters to shellfish harvest above the closure line. Placement of the reefs just inside the closed area eliminates a
potential user conflict from the potential closure of open shellfish waters to build and protect the habitat restoration sites.
Placing the reefs in the closed areas will also allow for monitoring, research and comparison of created oyster reefs to
existing oyster reefs further upstream and closer to the pollution sources in the closed areas.
The proposed reef site is located downriver of the DMF Primary Nursery Area demarcation (Work Plan Drawing #5) in
the river (coordinates downloaded from DMF website). The proposed project site is located in an area designated as
Secondary Nursery Area. Oyster reef habitat is considered Essential Fish Habitat and provides refuge and foraging
opportunities for larval, juvenile and adult transient, resident and facultative fish, crustaceans and shellfish. The created
oyster reef habitat is designed to restore and enhance important fishery habitat in the lower river which has experienced
loss and degradation of historic oyster reefs.
The proposed project site is dominated by intertidal sand/mud flats with a few existing patch oyster reefs and a small area
of Spartina alternii fora vegetation. No reef material will be placed on any existing oyster reefs or on the small patch of
Spartina alterni, flora in the project site.
Proiect Methodology - Patch Oyster Reef Habitat Creation:
21 patch reefs of Eastern Oyster (Crassostrea virginica) habitat will be created as a result of the proposed project (Work
Plan Drawing #2). The reefs will be placed within the proposed 3-acre project area in a manner that is appropriate for
oyster larval recruitment and settlement; reef development; and nekton and epifauana utilization. NCCF has consulted
with UNCW shellfish researchers and NC Division of Marine Fisheries staff regarding the design and placement of the
created reefs. The reefs will be designed with suitable elevations, patch size, inter -reef habitat, surface and edge
complexity and shell layer thickness to allow for maximum potential for oyster larvae recruitment and settlement, water
flow and transport of oxygen and food for the oysters, habitat provision and other ecosystem services. Oyster spat
monitoring by UNCW's Benthic Ecology Lab and volunteers indicates that high levels of oyster larvae are present each
year from May -October in the waters adjacent to the project area. Existing natural reefs near the project site will be used
as reference reefs for the project design and monitoring.
A) The proposed project will use a maximum of 14,250 bushels of recycled o ster shell to create 19 patch intertidal
oyster reefs. Each reef will: 96 RECENED
— cover a maximum area of 710 square feet RECEIVED
— have a height of 16" above the existing sub a JAN 2 2 7�11 DGM WA-M ;'z� TON, NC
— contain a maximum of 750 bushels of oyster s ell
SEP 0 4 2012
Page 2 of 4 DCM-Mr-ITY

— contain a maximum of 920 cubic feet of oyster shell
The total area covered by the 21 created patch oyster shell reefs in the project area will be 14,500 square feet
containing 17,480 cubic feet of oyster shell.
B) If allowed, the project will use #4 marine limestone marl to build two patch oyster reefs to demonstrate and
monitor the effectiveness of this reef material. Marl is a suitable reef material and is utilized by NCDMF for
oyster reef enhancement activities. Using marl in conjunction with oyster shell supplements the amount of reef
material and enables further evaluation of marl as reef material in estuaries along the coast. Two similar patch
marl intertidal oyster reefs were created by NCCF and NCDMF in Dicks Bay off of Myrtlegrove Sound. 5 years
of monitoring of the reefs indicate that they have statistically similar levels of oyster and epifauna densities as
created reefs with oyster shell.
The project is proposing that 450 bushels of #4 marine limestone marl be used in conjunction with the oyster shell
to create two oyster reef mounds each containing 225 bushels of 4 marine limestone marl. Each reef mound will:
— cover a maximum area of 205 square feet 1tBCE
— have a height of 16" above the existing substrate
— contain a maximum of 225 bushels of marl
— contain a maximum of 265 cubic feet of marl
IVZU
JAN 2 2 2013
The total area covered by the 2 created patch marl reef mounds in the project area will be 500 square feet
containing 535 cubic feet of #4 marine limestone marl. DCM-MHD CITY
As a whole the proposed project will construct 21 oyster reefs covering a total area of 15,000 square feet containing
18,015 cubic feet (14,700 bushels) of oyster shell and marl reef material.
NCCF will mark the project site and reef locations with PVC poles according to the designated project design prior to reef
construction.
The oyster reef material will be purchased from oyster shucking houses and quarries (marl) and transported by truck to a
stockpile location near the project site. The stockpile area is a vacant lot owned by the Town of Vamamtown near the
town boat ramp. The project contractor will haul the reef material from the stockpile area to the boat ramp area to load it
onto barges. The loads of reef material may be temporarily be stored on the concrete pad of the boat ramp so that a front
end loader can scoop up the material and load it onto the barges. The contractor will load the reef material onto small,
shallow draft barges. The barges will travel to the project site during high tide conditions. The contractor will most likely
deploy the shell off the barge using a small front end loader on the barge. The reef material will scooped up on the barge
and then deployed into the reef footprints as indicated by the PVC poles placed earlier. All natural reefs and wetlands will
be posted so the contractor can avoid those areas as he works in the project area. NCCF will be monitoring the reef
construction activities and will check the placement of the shell at low tide to ensure that it meets the project design
specifications. Depending on the tides the contractor may deploy — 500-1000 bushels of reef material a day. Reef
construction is anticipated to occur between September and October while oyster larvae are still present.
Upon the satisfactory completion of the reef material deployment NCCF will place signage on the project area posts and
work with NCDMF to have the site proclamated as a shellfish research sanctuary. The site will remain in the public trust,
and all activities except shellfish harvesting will be allowed in the project area.
Project Monitoring Plan
The Benthic Ecology Lab at UNC W has been contracted by NCCF to conduct pre- and post -project monitoring of the site
in conjunction with NCCF and volunteers. The pre -project monitoring will occur in Fall 2012 prior to reef construction.
Post -project monitoring will begin in the summer of 2013 and occur according to the monitoring schedule for a period of
5 years.
The monitoring program will be implemented to evaluate progress towards the project's habitat restoration objectives;
measure overall project success and to comply with NOAA's minimum scientific monitoring requirements. The
parameters include the structural and functional parameters listed below for the project components. The parameters,
where appropriate, will be measured and monitored prior to the project initiation, concurrent with project implementation
and continue until the results point to a trend of restoration success. Monitoring timing will be ccplEJnLw4oetftto the
Pap of DOM NO
fry ' -.

project schedule and the selected parameters. The timing will allow for any necessary changes or adaptive management
during the project.
Oyster Reef Habitat Monitoring
I. Project Objectives:
a. Increase the acreage of oyster reef habitat (structural)
b. Increase the amount of substrate available for oyster recruitment, reef development, and fish habitat
(functional)
H. Monitoring Parameters:
a. Acreage of oyster habitat created (structural)
b. Abundances and densities of oysters and epifauna (functional)
c. Oyster spat fall within the project area and reference areas
M. Monitoring Measurements:
a. Structural - Extent and area of created oyster habitat calculated by measuring reef footprints using on the
ground measurements, aerial photographs and mapping tools
b. Functional - Sample 20cm x 20cm quadrat random excavations from created and reference reefs identify
and enumerate all oysters and epifauna within the quadrat
c. Per NCDMF spat count parameters: 30 random shells will be collected and the number of spat on each
counted. The average # of spat/shell will be calculated.
IV. Baseline Conditions/Values:
a. Pre -project survey for oysters and oyster habitat in the project area
b. Comparison to existing natural reference reefs representative of existing conditions and similar reef
architecture and landscape characteristics (series of patch reefs on mudflats )
c. 1-2 Reference reefs will be selected at each site within the project area that:
i. best represent the existing natural condition;
ii. are similar in architecture and landscape characteristics to designed created reefs; and
iii. represent target conditions.
V. Evaluation of Results:
a. Quantitative comparison to baseline pre -project conditions
b. Statistical comparison to reference reefs at each site
c. Success Criteria:
i. Increase in oyster habitat in the project area equal to or greater than project goal
ii. Created reefs exhibit similar densities and abundances of oyster and epifauna as natural reefs at
corresponding sites
RECEIVED
JAN 2 2 Z013
DCM-N!HDCTTY
RECEIVED
DOM WILMINGTON, NO
Page 4 of 4 � , h f3 1 1919

ACM M'-1
r1'r-'VED
APPLICAT1eII Ur z 2013
Maier Development Permit
(last revised 12/27/06) T)rv.T,gT3,n C'Tv
North Carolina DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
1. Primary Applicant/ Landowner Information
Business Name
Project Name (d applicable)
N.C. Coastal Federation
ERA Lockwood Folly Oyster Reef Habitat Restoration Project
Applicant 1: First Name
MI
Last Name
Edward (Ted)
S
Wilgis
Applicant 2: First Name
MI
Last Name
N/A
N/A
N/A
If additional applicants, please attach an additional page(s) with names fated.
Mailing Address
PO Box
City
State
530 Causeway Dr, Suite F-1
n/a
Wrightsville Beach
NC
ZIP
Country
Phone No.
FAX No.
28480
USA
910-509-2838 ext.202
910 - 509 -2840
Street Address (Addferentfrom above)
City
State
ZIP
same as above
-
Email
[e-mail]
2. AgentlContractor Information
Business Name
WA
AgenV 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
-
- Wd.
Phone No. 2
- - ext.
FAX No.
Contractor#
Street Address (if different from above)
City
State
ZIP
Email
<Form continues on back>
HLULiVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
OCT 0 12012

Form DCM MP-1 (Page 2 of 6)
APPLICATION for
Major Development Permit
3. Project Location
Street Address
County (can be multiple)
WA -nearest roads are Vamamtown Rd $W & Genoes Pt Rd.
state Rd. #
Brunswick
SW
NIA
Subdivision Name
city
State
zip
n/a
Vamamtown
NC
28463 -
Phone No.
Lot No.(s) fit many, attach additional page with NsV
n/a - - ext. n/a
n/a, ,
a. In which NC Over basin is the project located?
b. Name of body of water nearest to proposed project
Lumber
Lockwood Folly River
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
Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (ANVW)
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.
n/a
4. Site Description
a. Total length of shoreline on the tract (ft.)
b. Size of entire tract (sq.ft.)
n/a
130,640 sq. ft. (3 acres)
c. Size of individual lot(s)
d. Approximate elevation of tract above NHW (normal high water) or
Ma, I I
NWT (normal waterleveq
Of many lot sizes please attach additional page with a W)
n/a ❑ NHW or ❑NWL
e. Vegetation on tract
The project area is comprised of intertidal and shallow subtidal flats in the Lockwood Folly River. There is a small patch
(-12 sq. ft) of Spartina aftemiflora on the intertidal flat. That is the only vegetation in the project area. It will be marked and
flagged to avoid any disturbance.
f. Man-made features and uses now on pact
There are no man-made features on the site. Uses include boating and fishing.
g. Identify and describe the existing land uses adjacent to the proposed project site.
The adjacent land is within the Lockwood Folly Country Club and the Town of Vamamtown.
h. How does local government zone the tract?
i. Is the proposed project consistent with the applicable zoning?
Na
(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?
1. 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?
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC

Form DCM MP-1 (Page 3 of 6) APPLICATION for
Major Development Permit
<Form continues on next page>
m. () Are there wetlands on the site? ®Yes ❑No
(ii) Are there coastal wetlands on the site? ®Yes ONO
7CM-MHD ow
(III) If yes to either (1) or (il) above, has a delineation been conducted? ❑Yes ®No
(Attach documentation, if available)
n. Describe existing wastewater treatment facilities.
n/a
o. Describe existing drinking water supply source.
n/a
p. Describe existing storm water management or treatment systems.
n/a
5. Activities and Impacts
a. Will the project be for commercial, public, or private use? ❑Commercial ®Public/Govemment
❑Private/Community,
b. Give a brief description of purpose, use, and daily operations of the project when complete. '
The North Carolina Coastal Federation is proposing to create and restore 15,000 square feet of intertidal Eastern Oyster
(Crassostrea virginica) patch reef habitat in a 3 acre project area in the lower Lockwood Folly River in Brunswick County.
The proposed project will use a maximum of 14,500 bushels of oyster shell and 500 bushels of marine limestone marl to
create a series of 21 patch oyster reefs in the 3 acre project area. The proposed project provides an opportunity to protect,
restore and create additional oyster habitat in the lower Lockwood Folly River. Oyster habitat is under increasing pressure
from harvest and water quality declines. The goals of the project are to provide substrate forthe attachment of oyster larvae
and oyster reef development for valuable habitat for finfish, shellfish and waterfowl.
Once constructed, NCCF will apply to the N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries to have the project area designated as a Shellfish
Research Sanctuary (dosed to shellfish harvesting) to allow forthe continued monitoring and management of the project
Since the project is located in dosed shellfish waters the project does not represent a loss of harvest area. The project area
will be open to the public for fishing and monitoring.
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.
(See Workplan Drawings 1-3 and Project Narrative).
21 patch reefs of Eastern Oyster (Crassostrea virginica) habitat will be created as a result of the proposed project (Figure 6).
The reefs will be placed within the proposed 3-acre project area in a manner that is appropriate for oyster larval recruitment
and settlement, reef development; and nekton and epifauana utilization. NCCF has consulted with UNCW shellfish
researchers and NC Division of Marine Fisheries staff regarding the design and placement of the created reefs. The reefs will
be designed with suitable elevations, patch size, inter -reef habitat, surface and edge complexity and shell layer thickness to
allow for maximum potential for oyster larvae recruitment and settlement, water flow and transport of oxygen and food for the
oysters, habitat provision and other ecosystem services. Existing natural reefs near the project site will be used as reference
reefs for the project design and monitoring. As a whole the proposed project will construct 21 oyster reefs covering a total
area of 15,000 square feet containing 18,015 cubic feet (14,700 bushels) of oyster shell and marl reef material.
NCCF will mark the project site and reef locations with PVC poles according to the designated project design prior to reef
construction. The oyster reef material will be purchased from oyster shucking houses and quarries (marl) and transported by
truck to a stockpile location near the project site. The stockpile area is a vacant lot owned by the Town of Vamamtown near
the town boat ramp. The project contractor will haul the reef material from the stockpile area to the boat ramp area to load it
onto barges. The loads of reef material may be temporarily be stored on the concrete pad of the boat ramp so that a front
end loader can scoop up the material and load it onto the barges. The contractor will load the reef material onto small,
shallow draft barges. The barges will travel to the project site during high tide conditions. The contractor will most likely
deploy the shell off the barge using a small front end loader on the barge. The reef material will scooped up on the barge and
then deployed into the reef footprints as indicated by the PVC poles placed earlier. All natural reefs and wetlands will be
posted so the contractor can avoid those areas as he works in the project area. NCCF will be monitoring the reef
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
OCT 0 1 2012

Form DCM MP-1 (Page 4 of 6)
APPLICATION for
Major Development Permit
construction activities and will check the placement of the shell at low tide to ensure that it meets the project design
specifications. Depending on the tides the contractor may deploy — 500-1000 bushels of reef material a day. Reef
construction is anticipated to occur between September and October while oyster larvae are still present.
Upon the satisfactory completion of the reef material deployment NCCF will place signage on the project area posts and work
with NCDMF to have the site proclamated as a shellfish research sanctuary. The site will remain in the public trust, and all
activities except shellfish harvesting will be allowed in the project area.
The Benthic Ecology Lab at UNCW will be conducting pre and post project monitoring of the site in conjunction with NCCF. The
post monitoring will begin in the summer of 2013 and occur according to the monitoring schedule for a period of 5 years.
d. List all development activities you propose.
(See Workplan Drawings 1-6 and Project Narrative).
21 patch reefs of Eastern Oyster (Crassostrea virginica) habitat will be created as a result of the proposed project
The reefs will be placed within the proposed 3-acre project area in a manner that is appropriate for oyster larval recruitment and
settlement, reef development; and nekton and epifauana utilization. NCCF has consulted with UNCW shellfish researchers
and NC Division of Marine Fisheries 'staff regarding the design and placement of the created reefs. The reefs will be
designed with suitable elevations, patch size, inter -reef habitat, surface and edge complexity and shell layer thickness to
allow for maximum potential for oyster larvae recruitment and settlement, water flow and transport of oxygen and food for the
oysters, habitat provision and other ecosystem services. Existing natural reefs near the project site will be used as reference
reefs for the project design and monitoring.
A) The proposed project will use a maximum of 14,250 bushels of recycled oyster shell to create 19 patch intertidal oyster reefs.
Each reef will
:3 cover a maximum area of 710 square feet
�l have a height of 16" above the existing substrate
7 contain a maximum of 750 bushels of oyster shell
�l contain a maximum of 920 cubic feet of oyster shell
The total area covered by the (21) created patch oyster shell reefs in the project area will be 14,500 square feet containing
17,480 cubic feet of oyster shell.
B) If allowed, the project will use #4 marine limestone marl to build two patch oyster reefs to demonstrate and monitor the
effectiveness of this reef material. Marl is a suitable reef material and is utilized by NCDMF for oyster reef enhancement
activities. Using marl in conjunction with oyster shell supplements the amount of reef material and enables further evaluation
of marl as reef material in estuaries along the coast. The project is proposing that 450 bushels of #4 marine limestone marl
be used in conjunction with the oyster shell to create two oyster reef mounds each containing 225 bushels of 4 marine
limestone marl. Each reef mound will:
7 cover a maximum area of 205 square feet
�l have a height of 16" above the existing substrate
�] contain a maximum of 225 bushels of marl
7 contain a maximum of 265 cubic feet of marl
The total area covered by the (2) created patch marl reef mounds in the project area will be 500 square feet containing 535
cubic feet of #4 marine limestone marl.
As a whole the proposed project will construct 21 oyster reefs covering a total area of 15,000 square feet containing 18,015
cubic feet (14,700 bushels) of oyster shell and marl reef material.
NCCF will mark the project site and reef locations with PVC poles according to the designated project design prior to reef
construction.
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? 15,000 sq ft. within a 130,640 sq. ft (3
acres) project area
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?
RECEIVED
nrnn .III ..ln TAN p
OCT 0 1 2012

Form DCM MP-1 (Page 5 of 6)
APPLICATION for
Major Development Permit
Na
or stormwater be discharged Into a wetland?
to
ECEIVED
JAN 2 2 2013
If yes, will this discharged water be of the same salinity as the receiving water? ❑Yes ❑No IONA
J.Isthere any mitigation proposed? ❑Yes ❑No ®NA
If yes, attach a mtNation proposal
<Form continues on back>
6. AddMonal Information
In addition to this completed application form, (MP-1) the foNowing items below, if applicable, must be submitted in order for the application
package to be complete. items (a) — to are always applicable to any major development application. Please consult the application
instruction booklet on how to property prepare the required 'dams 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 mall. Such landowners must be advised that they have 30 days in
which to submit comments on the proposed project to the Division of Coastal Management
Name N/A Phone No.
Address
Name N/A 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.
We
h. Signed consultant or agent authorization form, if applicable.
i. Wetland delineation, if necessary.
J. A signed AEC hazard notice for projects in oceanfront and inlet areas. (Must be signed by property owner)
k. A statement of compliance with 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 lards, attach a statement documenting compliance with the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act.
I understand that any permit issued in response to this application will allow only the development described in the
The project will be subject to the conditions and restrictions contained in the permit
I certify that I am authorized to grant, and do in fact grant permission to representatives of state and federal review agencies to
enter on the aforementioned lands in connection with evaluating information related to this permit application and follow-up
monitoring of the project.
I further certify that the information provided in this application is truthful to the best of my knowledgeR EC E I V E D
0 C T 0 1 2012

.Form DCM MP-1 (Page 6 of 6)
APPLICATION ror
Major Development Permit
Date Original: August 27, 2012 Revised: September 28, 2012 Print Name Ted Wilgis - NCCF
Signature ✓' i�) —t (�
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
RECFMD
JAN 2 2 2013
DCM-MMCTTY
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTtON, NC

RECErm
Form DCM MP-2
EXCAVATION and FILL
(Except for bridges and culverts)
J1N222013
DCM-MHD CITY
Attach this form to Joint Applicafion 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.
Describe below the purpose of proposed excavation and/or fill activities. All values should be given in feet
Access
Other
Channel
Canal
Boat Basin
Boat Ram P
Rock Groin
Rock
(excluding
(NLW or
Breakwater
shoreline
NWL)
stabilization
Length
15,000
square feet
Width
Avg. Existing
NA
NA
4 ' NHW - 0'
Depth
NLW
Final Project
NA
NA
2'8" NHW - 0'
Depth
NLW
1. EXCAVATION ®This section not applicable
a. Amount of material to be excavated from below NHW or NAIL in b. Type of material to be excavated.
cubic yards.
c. (i) Does the area to be excavated include 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 ❑SB
OWL _ ❑None
(ii) Describe the purpose of the excavation in these areas:
d. High -ground excavation in cubic yards.
12. DISPOSAL OF EXCAVATED MATERIAL ®This section not applicable
a. Location of disposal area. b. Dimensions of disposal area.
c. (i) Do you claim title to disposal area?
❑Yes ❑No ❑NA
(ii) If no, attach a letter granting permission from the owner.
e. (i) Does the disposal area include any 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 ❑SB
OWL ❑None
(ii) Describe the purpose of disposal in these areas:
d. (I) Will a disposal area be available for future maintenance?
❑Yes ❑No ❑NA
(ii) If yes, where?
f. (i) Does the disposal include any area in the water?
❑Yes ❑No ❑NA
(ii) If yes, how much water area is affected?
HECEME-D
DCM WiU.1;1`4 i_; T CAN, NC
SEP042012
252-808.2808 :: 1.888.4RCOAST :: www.nccoastalmanaaement.net revised: 12/26106

Form DCM MP-2 (Excavation and Fill, page 2 of 3)
3. SHORELINE STABILIZATION ®This section not applicable
(If development is a wood groin, use MP-4 — Structures)
a. Type of shoreline stabilization: b. Length:
[]Bulkhead ❑Riprap ❑Breakwater/Sill ❑Other_
Width:
c. Average distance waterward of NHW or NWL:
d. Maximum distance waterward of NHW or NWL:
e. Type of stabilization material:
I. (i) Has there been shoreline erosion during preceding 12
months?
[]Yes ❑No ❑NA
RECE17MID yes, state amount of erosion and source of erosion amount
s
information.
JAN 2 2 %1) 13
g. Number of square feet of fill to be placed below water level.
h. Type of fill material.
Bulkhead backfill Riprap _
Breakwater/Sill _ Other _
TJr-fv`IF13f•T�
i. Source of fill material.
4. OTHER FILL ACTIVITIES
®This section not applicable
(Excluding Shoreline Stabilization)
a. (i) Will fill material be brought to the site? ®Yes ❑No ❑NA
b. (i) Will fill material be placed in coastal wetlands/marsh (CW),
it yes
submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), shell bottom (SB), or
(ii) Amount of material to be placed in the water 18.015 cf
other wetlands (WL)? If any boxes are checked, provide the
number of square feet affected.
(iii) Dimensions of fill area 15,000 sf
❑CW ❑SAV _ ❑SB
(iv) Purpose of fill
❑WL ®None
The proposed project will use recycled, cured oyster shell and
(ii) Describe the purpose of the fill in these areas:
*4 marine limestone marl (as used by NCDMF for oyster
WA
eultch plantings) to build 21 patch intertidal oyster reefs.
The reef (cultch) material is necessary to provide a suitable
substrate for oyster larvae to settle on and attach. The reef
material also provides habitat for finfish, shellfish and crabs.
5. GENERAL
a. How will excavated or fill material be kept on site and erosion
controlled?
The reef material, like the native reef material on site, is heavy and
will remain in place in the project area. As the reef material is
deployed from the barge a temporary slight increase in localized
turbidity may occur, but will quickly dissipate.
RECEIVED
DCM WEB 1 1I) ,TON, N
SEP () 4 21312
backhoe, or hydraulic dredge)?
The project contractor will haul the reef material from the stockpile
area to the boat ramp area to load it onto barges. The loads of
reef material may be temporarily be stored on the concrete pad
of the boat ramp so that a front end loader can scoop up the
material and load it onto the barges. The contractor will load
the reef material onto small, shallow draft barges. The barges
will travel to the project site during high tide conditions. The
contractor will most likely deploy the shell off the barge using a
small front end loader on the barge. The reef material will
scooped up on the barge and then deployed into the reef
footprints as indicated by the PVC poles placed earlier.
c. (i) Will navigational aids be required as a result of the project? d. (i) Will wetlands be crossed in transporting equipment to project
❑Yes []No ®NA site? []Yes ®No ❑NA
(ii) If yes, explain steps that will be taken to avoid or minimize
252-808.2808 :: 1.888-4RCOAST :: www nccoastalmanaaement.net revised: 12126106

Form DCM MP-2 (Excavation and Fill, Page 3 of 3)
(ii) If yes, explain what type and how they will be implemented.
(8) 2" x 10' PVC poles with reflective tape and signage will be
placed along the boundaries of the 3 acre project area.
environmental impacts.
August 27, 2012
Date
RELct'J"cD
Lockwood Folly River Oyster Reef Habitat Restoration Project
Project Name
JAN 2 2 2013
Ted Wilgis, N.C. Coastal Federation
DCMTAMCTTY
Appli t yy me
Applicant rture
RECEIVED
DCM 4hIUMN`;u^ T ON, NC
SEP 0 4 -612
252-808.2808 :: 1.888-4RCOAST :: www.nccoastalmanaaement.net revised: 1212610G

- Varnamtown
13
y
ZlyGolf
�_.;ProjeGiArea fi' Sunset Harbgr,

GM WILMINGTON, NC
ERA Lockwood Folly River Oyster Reef Habitat Restoration Project
Applicant: NC Coastal Federation Date: 8/27/12; 111 Rev: 9/27/12; 2" d Rev
Work Plan Drawing 2 of 6
Project Location with PNA and SA Waters Closure Boundaries
NOV 292012
11/28/12

I.AVIINGTON.N(
ERA Lockwood Folly River Oyster Reef Habitat Restoration Project NOV 2 9 2012
Applicant: NC Coastal Federation Date: 8/27/12; 15Y Rev: 9/27/12; 2"d Rev: 11/28/12
Work Plan Drawing 3 of 6
Project Location with PNA and SA Waters Closure Boundaries

Pat McCrory
Governor
January 14, 2013
MEMORANDUM:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Applicant:
Project Location
L�
r..
NC E R JAN 14 2913
N
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Braxton C. Davis John E. Skvarla, III
Director Secretary
RECEIVED
Dan Sams FEB 0 4 2013
Division of Land Resources
Doug Huggett, NC DENR-DCM Major Permits Co
400 Commerce Ave., Morehead City, NC 28557 (Courier 11-12-09)
CAMA / Dredge & Fill Major Permit Application Review
North Carolina Coastal Federation c/o Ted Wilgis
Open water area in the Lockwood Folly River, Brunswick County
Proposed Project: construction of 21 oyster restoration patch reefs
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and
return this form to Dou4 Huggett at the address above by February 7, 2013. If you have
any questions regarding the proposed project, contact Holley Snider at [phone], when
appropriate, in-depth comments with supporting data is requested.
REPLY: This agency has no objection to the project as proposed.
�C 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.
SIGNED DATE JA-) Z.5 Zo r
127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilmington, INC 28405
Phone: [phone] % FAX: [phone] Internet: www nccoastalmanaoement,net
An Equal Opportunity \Affirmative Action Employer

O (r DISTRICT 3
�i� `JAN " 2313
NCDENR ECEIVED
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Pat McCrory Braxton C. Davis John E. Skvarla, III
Governor Director Secretary
January 14, 2013
RECEIVED
MEMORANDUM:
TO: Anthony Law t1)CM-MffDCrrY
AN 24 2013
NC DOT
Brunswick Co.
FROM: Doug Huggett, NC DENR-DCM Major Permits Co
400 Commerce Ave., Morehead City, NC 28557 (Courier 11-12-09)
SUBJECT: CAMA / Dredge & Fill Major Permit Application Review
Applicant: North Carolina Coastal Federation c/o Ted Wilgis
Project Location: Open water area in the Lockwood Folly River, Brunswick County
Proposed Project: construction of 21 oyster restoration patch reefs
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and
return this form to Doug Huggett at the address above by February 7, 2013. If you have
any questions regarding the proposed project, contact Holley Snider at [phone], when
appropriate, in-depth comments with supporting data is requested.
REPLY: This agency has no objection to the project as proposed.
V--� 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.
SIGNED DATE 7 Z Cam/
127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilmington, NC 28405
Phone: [phone] \ FAX: [phone] Internet: www nocoastalmanagement.net
An Equal Opportunity \ Affirmative Action Employer

DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT
I. APPLICANT'S NAME: North Carolina Coastal Federation
2. LOCATION OF PROJECT SITE: Open water area in the Lockwood Folly River in Brunswick
County.
Photo Index - 2006: 7-6182 L,M,N,O- 7-10
State Plane Coordinates— LAT:33°56.411'N LON:78°13.165'W
33056.4991N 78013.096'W
33056.365'N 78013.074'W
33056.351'N 78013.161'W
3. INVESTIGATION TYPE: CAMA/D&F
4. INVESTIGATIVE PROCEDURE: Dates of Site Visit—10/24/12, 12/11/12
Was Applicant Present —No, No
5. PROCESSING PROCEDURE: Application Received—10101112, 11/29/12, 12/11/12
Office — Wilmington
6. SITE DESCRIPTION:
(A) Local Land Use Plan — Brunswick County
Land Classification from LUP —Conservation RECEIVED
(B) AEC(s) Involved: Public Trust Area, Estuarine Waters
(C) Water Dependent: Yes "'' 24 2013
(D) Intended Use: Public
(E) Wastewater Treatment: Existing— N/A DC I MMDCITY
Planned — N/A
(F) Type of Structures: Existing— none
Planned —Oyster restoration patch reef areas
(G) Estimated Annual Rate of Erosion: N/A
Source — N/A
7. HABITAT DESCRIPTION:
uKtuGtu
FILLED OTHER
(A) Highground Disturbance
N/A
N/A
N/A
Open Water
N/A
N/A
130,640 sq.ft.
F_(B)
usurped
hallow Bottom
N/A
15,000
N/A
sq.ft.(0.34 acres)
(D) Total Area Disturbed: 15,000 sq. ft. (0.34 acres)
(E) Primary Nursery Area: No
(F) Water Classification: SA Open: No
8. PROJECT SUMMARY: The applicant is proposing to construct a total of 21 oyster
restoration patch reefs, to establish cultch for oyster attachment and creation of fish
habitat within the intertidal zone and estuarine waters of the Lockwood Folly River in
Brunswick County.

NC Coastal Federation
Page 02
9. NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION:
The project site is located in open waters of the Lockwood Folly River. The site must be
accessed by boat. The area is located southeast of Varnumtown (west bank of river), west
of Money Point (east side of river) and near red channel Marker #8. This area of the river is
only accessable by boat.
The subject project would take place in a 3.0 acre intertidal flat within the Lockwood Folly
River. The applicant has staked the proposed 3 acre project area with PVC posts. The PVC
posts designate the four (4) corners of the proposed 3 acre area to be impacted. A small
patch of Smooth Cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora) measuring approximately 10 feet wide by
15 feet long is present in the western edge of the proposed project area. Also in this area
are two (2) existing oyster reefs measuring on average, 70 feet wide by 20 feet in length and
have minimal new growth present. Water depths in the proposed project area are
approximately 0 feet at NLW and are exposed during low water. Existing natural drainage
channels within the project area have depths of approximately -1 foot at NLW and follow
the down river flow, from north to south. This area of the Lockwood Folly River has a tidal
amplitude of approximately 4.5-5.0 feet. The bottom substrate is mostly sandy shoal with
some finer silts and mud are present in the location of the natural drainage channels. The
marked federal channel is located west of the proposed project area, however the ACOE
claims jurisdiction of the open waters of the Lockwood Folly River from bank to bank.
The Division of Water Quality classifies this area of the Lockwood Folly River as SA. This
area IS designated a Primary Nursery Area by the Division of Marine Fisheries. This portion
of the Lockwood Folly River is closed to the harvesting of shellfish. The parcel is classified as
conservation in the Brunswick County LUP.
10. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
RECEIVED
The applicant is proposing to construct approximately 15,000 square feet of new patch C 4 2013
oyster restoration reef areas. The purpose for these reefs is to establish cultch for oyster
attachment and creation of fish habitat within the intertidal zone and estuarine waterb*.T,,HDCITY
the Lockwood Folly River in Brunswick County. The site is currently a sand mud flat shoal
with some existing oyster reefs present and a small patch of Spartina alterniflora. The
proposed reefs would be constructed of two (2) types of substrate; clean, loose oyster shell
cultch and marine limestone marl. A total of 19 patch oyster reefs would be constructed of
clean, loose oyster shell cultch. As proposed, the oyster shell reefs would be circular in
shape with a diameter of approximately 30 feet and would cover an area approximately 710
square feet and would have a maximum height of 16 inches above the existing substrate.
The applicant states individual reefs would consist of a maximum of 750 bushels of loose
oyster shell. The proposed marine limestone marl reefs would be circular in shape with a
diameter of approximately 15 feet and would cover an area approximately 205 square feet.
As proposed, the marl reefs would have a maximum height of 16 inches above the existing
substrate. The applicant states the individual marl reefs would consist of a maximum of 225

NC Coastal Federation
Page 03
bushels of marl. The proposed patch oyster reefs would be constructed in the sub -tidal and
intertidal locations and all reef materials used for construction would be ferried by small
barge to the project site.
The structures would be located in the open waters and intertidal flats of the Lockwood Folly
River. The proposed reefs would be located approximately 100 feet from Channel Marker 8,
which marks the federal navigation channel of the river. At periods of low tide,
approximately 1.5 feet of the proposed oyster reefs would be exposed above the water's
surface. The reefs would be constructed using a barge with an excavator to unload the
material onsite. All structures proposed would be located along the intertidal flats and as
proposed, would be aligned to avoid any existing natural drainage channels, no upland
development is proposed. No SAVs are located within the waters adjacent to the proposed
development at the times of field visits.
11. ANTICIPATED IMPACTS:
The proposed reefs would fill 15,000 square feet of shallow bottom habitat and incorporate
130,640 square feet (3 acres) of Estuarine Waters. The location of the proposed reefs in
relation to the proximity of the existing oyster reefs and drainage channels could potentially
make accessing the eastern shoreline of the river difficult. The position of the proposed
structures appears to make access thru the natural drainage channels more restrictive during
periods of low tides for public use. The reefs are proposed to extend above the surface of
the water at NLW to a height of approximately +1.5 feet above the substrate. This could
cause a hazard to navigation for boaters utilizing the area for recreational and commercial
purposes, being the reefs would be exposed above the waters surface at periods of low tide
and submerged during periods of high tide exhibiting minimal clearance. The existing
natural drainage channels appear to connect to the narrow channels that provide access to
the east side of the river near Money Point. During site visits it was observed that on the
existing reefs in and near the project area, new oyster growth was minimal. During site visits
it was noted that the areas adjacent the reefs, and existing natural drainage channels had
converted from a sandy substrate to a soft silt laden substrate. It appears both the position
and close proximity to one another affects the natural current flow, therefore causing a
disruption in the natural sediment deposition for the immediate area. The proposed reefs
would add structure to an area otherwise void of structure/habitat therefore would benefit
many native species of finfish.
Holley Snider Wilmington January 10, 2013
RECEIVED
JAN 24 2013
jJrw T_i,+,mom TV

Project Narrative
RECEIVED
Lockwood Folly River Oyster Reef Habitat Restoration Project
Applicant: North Carolina Coastal Federation, Inc. ,J A N 2 4 2013
Date: August 27, 2012
Protect Summary: pr ... .
The North Carolina Coastal Federation is proposing to create and restore 15,000 square feet of intertidal Eastem Oyster
(Crassostrea virginica) patch reef habitat in a 3 acre project area in the lower Lockwood Folly River in Brunswick
County. The proposed project will use a maximum of 14,500 bushels of oyster shell and 500 bushels of marine limestone
marl to create a series of 21 patch oyster reefs in the 3 acre project area.
Project Area Description:
The Lockwood Folly River, within the Lumber River Basin, is located in southeastern North Carolina in coastal
Brunswick County. The river's headwaters are in the Green Swamp and flow into the Atlantic Ocean through the
Lockwood Folly Inlet. The estuary maintains polyhaline to euhaline conditions ranging from 18 to 36 ppt salinity. Due to
the proximity of the inlet and strong tidal flow the estuary experiences a high rate of water exchange and flushing. This
allows the lower river to maintain high water quality despite increasing non -point source pollution from a developing
watershed. Tidal salt marshes, dominated by saltmarsh cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora), saltmeadow hay (Spartina
patens), saltgrass (Distichils spicata), occur along the estuarine shorelines and make up small islands in the lower river.
The lower river contains extensive intertidal flats with areas of shell hash and mud. The Lockwood Folly River contains
significant areas of intact wetland areas along its length which valuable buffering and water quality benefits. The existing
estuarine habitats, water quality direct connection with the ocean makes the Lockwood Folly a vital area for estuarine and
marine organisms foraging, migrating, breeding, spawning and seeking refuge as juveniles.
Project Backeropnd:
The Lockwood Folly contains significant areas of oyster beds and maintains high levels of annual oyster spat fall.
However, due to water quality declines, heavy sedimentation rates, and focused harvest pressure in the remaining open
waters viable oyster reef habitat has been degraded and lost. Oyster spat monitoring by UNCW's Benthic Ecology Lab
and volunteers indicates that high levels of oyster larvae are present each year from May -October in the waters adjacent to
the project area. However, substrate for the larval settlement is a limiting factor. Providing adequate reef habitat and
settlement substrate will help to enhance the oyster population, oyster reef habitat, fish habitat and potentially some
localized water quality benefits in the lower river estuary.
Recent global analyses suggest that shellfish reefs are near or past functional extinction in many regions (Beck et al.
2009). Management strategies that include restoration efforts designed to conserve or even improve reef conditions are
recommended to reverse the negative consequences of reef losses (Brumbaugh et al. 2006, Beck et al. 2009). Unlike many
other global regions, reefs in the southeastern US are characterized as good to poor (Beck et al. 2009), in part because of
historical under -exploitation and until recent (1990s) delayed coastal development. Although far from ideal, the good to
poor condition of southeastern oyster habitats represents an opportunity to be proactive environmentally and attempt to
reverse the losses before reefs become functionally extinct in the region.
Once valued primarily as a resource, oysters are now recognized as ecosystem engineers (sensu Jones et al. 1994) and
oyster reefs are one of the key structural elements within southeast estuaries. Reefs create complex habitats used by fish,
crustaceans and bivalves including commercial and recreational species as well as other invertebrates, birds and mammals
(Zimmerman et al. 1989, Wenner et al. 1996, Coen et al. 1999b, Coen and Luckenbach 2000, Meyer and Townsend
2000). Oysters also can improve water clarity and quality by filtering large quantities of water (Nelson et al. 2004, Newell
2004, Grizzle et al. 2008); a mature oyster can filter =200 L of water per day. Observed declines in oyster populations not
only affect the resource but also are associated with adverse effects to reef -associated species and reduced water quality,
ultimately leading to shifts away from "natural" ecosystem functioning. Few species besides the oyster are as readily
identified as central to the functioning of estuarine systems.
State and federal fisheries management recognize shell bottom habitat as critical to fisheries production. Although fully
functional reefs may require 3-5 yrs. to develop, data suggest oyster shell alone attracts many more fish than adjacent bare
mud flats (Coen et al. 1999, Lenhert & Allen 2004, Garwood et al. submitted). An impressive ntRF=G3rhfi1oHEHbltes,
>85 species, quickly colonize oyster shell providing food sources for larger invertebrates anJ)t"*#r#,lit:giffe INC,
Page I of 4
SEP 0 4 2012

natural process of stabilizing the shells. Similar to natural shell habitat, restored oyster reefs also provide habitat for
economically important species. These species use shell bottom as spawning, nursery, foraging, and/or refuge areas and
emphasizes the importance of oyster reefs/shell bottom as fisheries habitat. In consideration of the economic importance
of shellfish producing areas, the NC Marine Fisheries Commission classified reefs as critical habitat areas under 15A
NCAC 3I.0101. The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council also recognizes oyster reefs as Essential Fish Habitat
for estuarine and nearshore coastal ecosystems (Coen et al. 1999).
Project Site:
The 3 acre proposed project site is located on an intertidal flat just off the main stem of the lower Lockwood Folly River.
The proposed site is above the section of the river called Eastern Bend, below the town of Vamamtown, and opposite of
the Lockwood Folly Golf and Country Club community. The site is between the Cross Rock Shellfish Management Area
and the oyster reef known as the "S Rock". The patch oyster reef habitat will be constructed in the project site in the
public trust waters of North Carolina the lower estuary of the Lockwood Folly River (Work Plan Drawing #4).
The GPS coordinates for the site are:
NW Corner: 33° 56'25.16" N x 78' 13'9.86" W, NE Comer: 33' 56'25.21"N x 78° 13'5.42" W
SW Comer: 33156'21.74" N x 781 13'9.80" W; SE Corner: 33° 56'21.71" N x 78' 13'5.39" W
The proposed oyster reef site will be located just upriver of the line marking the permanent closure of waters to shellfish
harvest (Work Plan Drawing #5). The closure is due to bacteriological contamination. While the bacteria are not harmful
to reef development and the oysters' health, the persistent presence of high levels of bacteria has resulted in the permanent
closure of waters to shellfish harvest above the closure line. Placement of the reefs just inside the closed area eliminates a
potential user conflict from the potential closure of open shellfish waters to build and protect the habitat restoration sites.
Placing the reefs in the closed areas will also allow for monitoring, research and comparison of created oyster reefs to
existing oyster reefs further upstream and closer to the pollution sources in the closed areas.
The proposed reef site is located downriver of the DMF Primary Nursery Area demarcation (Work Plan Drawing #5) in
the river (coordinates downloaded from DMF website). The proposed project site is located in an area designated as
Secondary Nursery Area. Oyster reef habitat is considered Essential Fish Habitat and provides refuge and foraging
opportunities for larval, juvenile and adult transient, resident and facultative fish, crustaceans and shellfish. The created
oyster reef habitat is designed to restore and enhance important fishery habitat in the lower river which has experienced
loss and degradation of historic oyster reefs.
The proposed project site is dominated by intertidal sand/mud flats with a few existing patch oyster reefs and a small area
of Spartina alterni, flora vegetation. No reef material will be placed on any existing oyster reefs or on the small patch of
Spartina alterniora in the project site.
Project Methodoloev - Patch Oyster Reef Habitat Creation:
21 patch reefs of Eastern Oyster (Crassostrea virginica) habitat will be created as a result of the proposed project ( Work
Plan Drawing #2). The reefs will be placed within the proposed 3-acre project area in a manner that is appropriate for
oyster larval recruitment and settlement; reef development; and nekton and epifauana utilization. NCCF has consulted
with UNCW shellfish researchers and NC Division of Marine Fisheries staff regarding the design and placement of the
created reefs. The reefs will be designed with suitable elevations, patch size, inter -reef habitat, surface and edge
complexity and shell layer thickness to allow for maximum potential for oyster larvae recruitment and settlement, water
flow and transport of oxygen and food for the oysters, habitat provision and other ecosystem services. Oyster spat
monitoring by UNCW's Benthic Ecology Lab and volunteers indicates that high levels of oyster larvae are present each
year from May -October in the waters adjacent to the project area. Existing natural reefs near the project site will be used
as reference reefs for the project design and monitoring.
A) The proposed project will use a maximum of 14,250 bushels of recycledtayster shell to create 19 patch intertidal
oyster reefs. Each reef will:
— cover a maximum area of 710 square feet Q 4 2013 RECEIVED
— have a height of 16 above the existing substrate
— contain a maximum of 750 bushels of oyster shell
DCM 1t6�i1.",.;Ir,i,7N, NC
DCM-MHDCITY $FP 0 4 2012
Page 2 of 4

— contain a maximum of 920 cubic feet of oyster shell
The total area covered by the 21 created patch oyster shell reefs in the project area will be 14,500 square feet
containing 17,480 cubic feet of oyster shell.
B) If allowed, the project will use #4 marine limestone marl to build two patch oyster reefs to demonstrate and
monitor the effectiveness of this reef material. Marl is a suitable reef material and is utilized by NCDMF for
oyster reef enhancement activities. Using mar] in conjunction with oyster shell supplements the amount of reef
material and enables further evaluation of marl as reef material in estuaries along the coast. Two similar patch
marl intertidal oyster reefs were created by NCCF and NCDMF in Dicks Bay off of Myrtlegrove Sound. 5 years
of monitoring of the reefs indicate that they have statistically similar levels of oyster and epifauna densities as
created reefs with oyster shell.
The project is proposing that 450 bushels of #4 marine limestone marl be used in conjunction with the oyster shell
to create two oyster reef mounds each containing 225 bushels of 4 marine limestone marl. Each reef mound will:
— cover a maximum area of 205 square feet RECEIVED
— have a height of 16" above the existing substrate
— contain a maximum of 225 bushels of marl 'fd 2 g 2013
— contain a maximum of 265 cubic feet of marl
The total area covered by the 2 created patch marl reef mounds in the project area will be 500 square feet
containing 535 cubic feet of #4 marine limestone marl. nr+,Cp;rc=� y;Tv
As a whole the proposed project will construct 21 oyster reefs covering a total area of 15,000 square feet containing
18,015 cubic feet (14,700 bushels) of oyster shell and marl reef material.
NCCF will mark the project site and reef locations with PVC poles according to the designated project design prior to reef
construction.
The oyster reef material will be purchased from oyster shucking houses and quarries (marl) and transported by truck to a
stockpile location near the project site. The stockpile area is a vacant lot owned by the Town of Vamamtown near the
town boat ramp. The project contractor will haul the reef material from the stockpile area to the boat ramp area to load it
onto barges. The loads of reef material may be temporarily be stored on the concrete pad of the boat ramp so that a front
end loader can scoop up the material and load it onto the barges. The contractor will load the reef material onto small,
shallow draft barges. The barges will travel to the project site during high tide conditions. The contractor will most likely
deploy the shell off the barge using a small front end loader on the barge. The reef material will scooped up on the barge
and then deployed into the reef footprints as indicated by the PVC poles placed earlier. All natural reefs and wetlands will
be posted so the contractor can avoid those areas as he works in the project area. NCCF will be monitoring the reef
construction activities and will check the placement of the shell at low tide to ensure that it meets the project design
specifications. Depending on the tides the contractor may deploy — 500-1000 bushels of reef material a day. Reef
construction is anticipated to occur between September and October while oyster larvae are still present.
Upon the satisfactory completion of the reef material deployment NCCF will place signage on the project area posts and
work with NCDMF to have the site proclamated as a shellfish research sanctuary. The site will remain in the public trust,
and all activities except shellfish harvesting will be allowed in the project area.
Project Monitoring Plan
The Benthic Ecology Lab at UNCW has been contracted by NCCF to conduct pre- and post -project monitoring of the site
in conjunction with NCCF and volunteers. The pre -project monitoring will occur in Fall 2012 prior to reef construction.
Post -project monitoring will begin in the summer of 2013 and occur according to the monitoring schedule for a period of
5 years.
The monitoring program will be implemented to evaluate progress towards the project's habitat restoration objectives;
measure overall project success and to comply with NOAA's minimum scientific monitoring requirements. The
parameters include the structural and functional parameters listed below for the project components. The parameters,
where appropriate, will be measured and monitored prior to the project initiation, concurrent with project implementation
and continue until the results point to a trend of restoration success. Monitoring timing will be ccp0EVBqFJ00rftto the
Page 3of4 DOM W?1 fi?INI- TON. NO

project schedule and the selected parameters. The timing will allow for any necessary changes or adaptive management
during the project.
Oyster Reef Habitat Monitoring
1. Project Objectives:
a. Increase the acreage of oyster reef habitat (structural)
b. Increase the amount of substrate available for oyster recruitment, reef development, and fish habitat
(functional)
U. Monitoring Parameters:
a. Acreage of oyster habitat created (structural)
b. Abundances and densities of oysters and epifauna (functional)
c. Oyster spat fall within the project area and reference areas
III. Monitoring Measurements:
a. Structural - Extent and area of created oyster habitat calculated by measuring reef footprints using on the
ground measurements, aerial photographs and mapping tools
b. Functional - Sample 20cm x 20cm quadrat random excavations from created and reference reefs identify
and enumerate all oysters and epifauna within the quadrat
c. Per NCDMF spat count parameters: 30 random shells will be collected and the number of spat on each
counted. The average # of spat/shell will be calculated.
IV. Baseline Conditions/Values:
a. Pre -project survey for oysters and oyster habitat in the project area
b. Comparison to existing natural reference reefs representative of existing conditions and similar reef
architecture and landscape characteristics (series of patch reefs on mudflats )
c. 1-2 Reference reefs will be selected at each site within the project area that:
i. best represent the existing natural condition;
ii. are similar in architecture and landscape characteristics to designed created reefs; and
iii. represent target conditions.
V. Evaluation of Results:
a. Quantitative comparison to baseline pre -project conditions
b. Statistical comparison to reference reefs at each site
c. Success Criteria:
i. Increase in oyster habitat in the project area equal to or greater than project goal
ii. Created reefs exhibit similar densities and abundances of oyster and epifauna as natural reefs at
corresponding sites
REC- JHD
1 !v242013
Dlrm ".`,ED CITY
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
Page 4 of SF1, o .` 26112

ncM Mr-11
APPLICK1911 for
2 d 2013
Maur Development Permit
(last revised 12127106)
North Carolina DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
1. Primary Applicant/ Landowner information
Business Name
Project Name (d applicable)
N.C. Coastal Federation
ERA Lockwood Folly Oyster Reef Habitat Restoration Project
Applicant 1: First Name
MI
Last Name
Edward (Ted)
S
Wilgis
Applicant 2: First Name
MI
Last Name
N/A
N/A
N/A
It additional applicants, please attach an additional pages) with names listed.
Mailing Address
PO Box
City
State
530 Causeway Dr, Suite F-1
n/a
Wrightsville Beach
NC
ZIP
Country
Phone No.
FAX No.
28480
USA
910 - 509 -2838 wd.202
910-509-2840
Street Address (6 different from above)
City
State
ZIP
same as above
Email
[e-mail]
2. AgentlContractor Information
Business Name
WA
Agent/ Contractor 1: First Name
MI
Last Name
Agent/ Contractor 2: First Name
MI -
Last Name
Mailing Address
PC Box
City
State
ZIP
Phone No. 1
-
- eM.
Phone No. 2
- - ext.
FAX No.
Contractor tt
Street Address (A different from above)
City
State
ZIP
Email
Ht=t;CIVLU
<Form continues on back> DCM WILMINGTON, NC
OCT 0 12012

Form UCM MP-1 (Page 2 of 6)
APPLICATION for
Major Development Permit
3. Project Location
Street Address
County (can be multiple)
WA -nearest roads are Vamamtown Rd SW & Genoes Pt Rd.
State Rd. #
Brunswick
SW
N/A
Subdivision Name
city
State
zip
n/a
Vamamtown
NC
26463 -
Phone No.
Lot No.(s) (if many, attach additional page with list)
n/a - - ext. rile
n/a, I I ,
a. In which NC river basin is the project located?
b. Name of body of water nearest to proposed project
Lumber
Lockwood Folly River
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
Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AIWW)
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.
n/a
4. Site Description
a. Total length of shoreline on the tract (ft.)
b. Size of entire tract (sq.ft.)
n/a
130,640 sq. ft. (3 acres)
C. Size of individual lots)
d. Approximate elevation of tract above NHW (normal high water) or
n/a, I I
NWL (normal waterleveo
Of many lot sizes, please attach additional page with aGs)
Na ❑NHWor❑NWL
e. Vegetation on bad
The project area is comprised of intertidal and shallow subticial flats in the Lockwood Folly River. There is a small patch
(-12 sq. ft) of Spartina aftemiflora on the intertidal flat That is the only vegetation in the project area. It will be marked and
flagged to avoid any disturbance.
f. Man-made features and uses now on tract
There are no man-made features on the site. Uses include boating and fishing.
g. Identify and describe the existing land uses adjacent to the proposed project site.
The adjacent land is within the Lockwood Folly Country Club and the Town of Vamamtown.
h. How does local government zone the tract?
I. Is the proposed project consistent with the applicable zoning?
n/a
(Attach zoning compliance certificate, A applicable)
[]Yes []No ®NA
j. Is the proposed activity part of an urban waterfront redevelopment proposal? []Yes ®No
k. Hasa professional archaeological assessment been done for the tract? If yes, attach a copy. ❑Yes ❑No ®NA
If yes, by whom?
-13
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?
;�. RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC

Form DCM MP-1 (Page 3 of 6)
APPLICATION for
Major Development Permit
<Fonn continues on next page>
m. in Are there wetlands on the site? ®Yes ❑No
(h) Are there coastal wetlands on the site? ®Yes ❑No
(Ili) If yes to either (1) or (ik) above, has a delineation been conducted? ❑Yes ®No
(Attach documentation, if available)
n. Describe existing wastewater treatment facilities.
n/a
o. Describe existing drinking water supply source.
n/a
p. Describe existing storm water management or treatment systems.
n/a
5. Activities and Impacts
a. Will the project be for commercial, public, or private use? ❑Commercial ®Publie/Govemmerd
❑Private/Community
b. Give abrief desuiption of purpose, use, and daily operations of the project when complete.
The North Carolina Coastal Federation is proposing to create and restore 15,000 square feet of intertidal Eastern Oyster
(Crassostrea virginica) patch reef habitat in a 3 acre project area in the lower Lockwood Folly River in Brunswick County.
The proposed project will use a maximum of 14,500 bushels of oyster shell and 500 bushels of marine limestone marl to
create a series of 21 patch oyster reefs in the 3 acre project area. The proposed project provides an opportunity to protect,
restore and create additional oyster habitat in the lower Lockwood Folly River, Oyster habitat is under increasing pressure
from harvest and water quality declines. The goals of the project are to provide substrate forthe attachment of oyster larvae
and oyster reef development for valuable habitat for finfish, shellfish and waterfowl.
Once constructed, NCCF will apply to the N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries to have the project area designated as a Shellfish
Research Sanctuary (closed to shellfish harvesting) to allow for the continued monitoring and management of the project
Since the project is located in closed shellfish waters the project does not represent a loss of harvest area. The project area
will be open to the public for fishing and monitoring.
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.
(See Workplan Drawings 1-3 and Project Narrative).
21 patch reefs of Eastern Oyster (Crassostrea virginica) habitat will be created as a result of the proposed project (Figure 6).
The reefs will be placed within the proposed 3-acre project area in a manner that is appropriate for oyster larval recruitment
and settlement reef development; and nekton and epifauana utilization. NCCF has consulted with UNCW shellfish
researchers and NC Division of Marine Fisheries staff regarding the design and placement of the created reefs. The reefs will
be designed with suitable elevations, patch size, inter -reef habitat surface and edge complexity and shell layer thickness to
allow for maximum potential for oyster larvae recruitment and settlement, water flow and transport of oxygen and food for the
oysters, habitat provision and other ecosystem services. Existing natural reefs near the project site will be used as reference
reefs for the project design and monitoring. As a whole the proposed project will construct 21 oyster reefs covering a total
area of 15,000 square feet containing 18,015 cubic feet (14,700 bushels) of oyster shell and mad reef material.
NCCF will mark the project site and reef locations with PVC poles according to the designated project design prior to reef
construction. The oyster reef material will be purchased from oyster shucking houses and quarries (mad) and transported by
truck to a stockpile location near the project site. The stockpile area is a vacant lot owned by the Town of Vamamtown near
the town boat ramp. The project contractor will haul the reef material from the stockpile area to the boat ramp area to load it
onto barges. The loads of reef material may be temporarily be stored on the concrete pad of the boat ramp so that a front
end loader can scoop up the material and load it onto the barges. The contractorwill load the reef material onto small,
shallow draft barges. The barges will travel to the project site during high tide conditions. The contractor will most likely
deploy the shell off the barge using a small front end loader on the barge. The reef material will scooped up on the barge and
then deployed into the reef footprints as indicated by the PVC poles placed eadier. All natural reefs and wetlands will be
posted so the contractor can avoid those areas as he works in the project area. NCCF will be monitoring the reef
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
OCT 0 1 2012

Form DCM MP-1 (Page 4 of 6)
APPLICATION for
Major Development Permit
construction activities and will check the placement of the shell at low tide to ensure that it meats the project design
specifications. Depending on the tides the contractor may deploy — 500-1000 bushels of reef material a day. Reef
construction is anticipated to occur between September and October while oyster larvae are still present.
Upon the satisfactory completion of the reef material deployment NCCF will place signage on the project area posts and work
with NCDMF to have the site proclamated as a shellfish research sanctuary. The she will remain in the public trust, and all
activities except shellfish harvesting will be allowed in the project area.
e Benthic Ecology Lab at UNCW will be conducting pre and post project monitoring of the site in conjunction with NCCF. The
post monitoring will begin in the summer of 2013 and occur according to the monitoring schedule for a period of 5 years.
List all development activities you propose.
(See Workplan Drawings 1-6 and Project Narrative).
21 patch reefs of Eastern Oyster (Crassostrea virginica) habitat will be created as a result of the proposed project.
ie reefs will be placed within the proposed 3-acre project area in a manner that is appropriate for oyster larval recruitment and
settlement; reef development; and nekton and epifauana utilization. NCCF has consulted with UNCW shellfish researchers
and NC Division of Marine Fisheries 'staff regarding the design and placement of the created reefs. The reefs will be
designed with suitable elevations, patch size, inter -reef habitat, surface and edge complexity and shell layer thickness to
allow for maximum potential for oyster larvae recruitment and settlement, water flow and transport of oxygen and food for the
oysters, habitat provision and other ecosystem services. Existing natural reefs near the project site will be used as reference
reefs for the project design and monitoring.
The proposed project will use a maximum of 14,250 bushels of recycled oyster shell to create 19 patch intertidal oyster reefs.
Each reef will:
cover a maximum area of 710 square feet
have a height of 16' above the existing substrate
contain a maximum of 750 bushels of oyster shell
contain a maximum of 920 cubic feet of oyster shell
e total area covered by the (21) created patch oyster shell reefs in the project area will be 14,500 square feet containing
17,480 cubic feet of oyster shell.
B) If allowed, the project will use #4 marine limestone marl to build two patch oyster reefs to demonstrate and monitor the
effectiveness of this reef material. Mari is a suitable reef material and is utilized by NCDMF for oyster reef enhancement
activities. Using marl in conjunction with oyster shell supplements the amount of reef matedal and enables further evaluation
of marl as reef material in estuaries along the coast. The project is proposing that 450 bushels of #4 marine limestone mad
be used in conjunction with the oyster shell to create two oyster reef mounds each containing 225 bushels of 4 marine
limestone marl. Each reef mound will:
7 cover a maximum area of 205 square feet
7 have a height of 16" above the existing substrate
7 contain a maximum of 225 bushels of marl
7 contain a maximum of 265 cubic feet of marl
The total area covered by the (2) created patch marl reef mounds in the project area will be 500 square feet containing 535
cubic feet of #4 marine limestone marl.
a whole the proposed project will construct 21 oyster reefs covering a total area of 15,000 square feet containing 18,015
cubic feet (14,700 bushels) of oyster shell and marl reef material.
NCCF will mark the project site and reef locations with PVC poles according to the designated project design prior to reef
construction.
e. Are the proposed activities maintenance of an existing project, new work, or both? New work
If. What is the approximate total disturbed land area resulting from the proposed project? 15,000 sq ft. within a 130,640 sq. ft. (3
acres) project area
Sq.Ft or []Acres
g. Will the proposed project encroach on any public easement, public accessway or other area ❑Yes LgNo ❑NA
that the public has established use of?
RECEIVED
nt tin wu ww-,TAN, Nic
0 C T 0 1 2012

Form DCM MP-1 (Page 5 of 6)
APPLICATION for
Major Development Permit
Describe location and type of existing and proposed discharges to waters of the state.
Na
1. Will wastewater or
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 RE( ci.VED
<Fonn continues on bill
'r13
6. Additional information
In addition to this completed application form, (MP-1) the following items below, If applicable, must be submitted in order for the application
package to be complete. Items (a) - (0 are always applicable to any major development appbcation. Please consult the application
instrucb'on booklet on how to property prepare the required Hems 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 (dparian) 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 NIA Phone No.
Address
Name N/A 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,
n/a
h. Signed consultant or agent authorization form, if applicable.
I. Welland 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), g 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. Certification and Permission 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 certifythat the information provided in this application is truthful to the best of my knowledgeR EC E I V E D
.0CT 0 1 2012

Form DCM MP-1 (Page 6 of 6)
APPLICATION ror
Major Development Permit
Date Original: August 27, 2012 Revised: September 28, 2012 Print Name Ted Wilgis - NCCF
f.'
Signature ti
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 MPA Structures Information
RECEIVED
1 24 2013 RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC

RECEWW
Form DCM MP-2
EXCAVATION and FILL
(Except for bridges and culverts)
JAN 2 4 2013
Fir -NI -MITE) C17Y
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.
Describe below the purpose of proposed excavation and/or fill activities. All values should be given in feet
Access
Other
Channel
(NLW or
Canal
Boat Basin
Boat Ramp
Rock Groin
Rock
Breakwater
(excluding
shoreline
NWL)
stabilization
15,000
square feet
pE,cntg
NA
NA
4'NHW-0'
NLW
NA
NA
2'8-NH`N-0'
Depth
NLW
1. EXCAVATION IDThis section not applicable
a. Amount of material to be excavated from below NHW or NWL in b. Type of material to be excavated.
cubic yards.
c. (i) Does the area to be excavated include 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 ❑SB
OWL ❑None
(ii) Describe the purpose of the excavation in these areas:
d. High -ground excavation in cubic yards.
12. DISPOSAL OF EXCAVATED MATERIAL ®This section not applicable
a.
area.
area.
c. (i) Do you claim title to disposal area? d. (i) Will a disposal area be available for future maintenance?
❑Yes ❑No ❑NA ❑Yes ❑No ❑NA
(ii) If no, attach a letter granting permission from the owner. (ii) If yes, where?
e. (i) Does the disposal area include any coastal wetlands/marsh
(CW), submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), shell bottom (SO).
or other wetlands (WL)? If any boxes are checked, provide the
number of square feet affected.
❑CW ❑SAV ❑SB
OWL ❑None
(ii) Describe the purpose of disposal in these areas:
f. (i) Does the disposal include any area in the water?
❑Yes ❑No ❑NA
(ii) If yes, how much water area is affected?
RECEIVED
DCM WIL NHN1 TON, NO
SEP 0 4 2012
252-608.2808 :: 1-888.4RCOAST e: www.necoastaimanagerne!lt.net revised: 12/26/06

Form DCM MP-2 (Excavation and Fill, Page 2 of 3)
3. SHORELINE STABILIZATION ®This section not applicable
(if development is a wood groin, use MP-4 — Structures)
a. Type of shoreline stabilization: b. Length:
[]Bulkhead ❑Riprap ❑Breakwater/Sill ❑Other: _ Width:
c. Average distance waterward of NHW or NWL: d. Maximum distance waterward of NHW or NWL:
e. Type of stabilization material:
f. (i) Has there been shoreline erosion during preceding 12
months?
[]Yes ❑No ❑NA
(it) If yes, state amount of erosion and source of erosion amount
information.
g. Number of square feet of fill to be placed below water level.
It. Type of fill material.
Bulkhead backfill _ Riprap
Breakwater/Sill Other
i. Source of fill material.
4. OTHER FILL ACTIVITIES
®This section not applicable
(Excluding Shoreline Stabilization)
a. (i) Will fill material be brought to the site? ®Yes []No ❑NA
b. (i) Will fill material be placed in coastal wetlands/marsh (CM,
If yes,
submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), shell bottom (SB), or
(ii) Amount of material to be placed in the water 18.075 cf
other wetlands (WL)? If any boxes are checked, provide the
number of square feet affected.
(iii) Dimensions of fill area 15,000 sf
❑CW ❑SAV _ ❑SB _
(iv) Purpose of fill
❑WL ®None
The proposed project will use recycled, cured oyster shell and
(ii) Describe the purpose of the fill in these areas:
#4 marine limestone marl (as used by NCDMF for oyster
WA
cultch plantings) to build 21 patch intertidal oyster reefs.
The reef (cultch) material is necessary to provide a suitable
substrate for oyster larvae to settle on and attach. The reef
material also provides habitat for finfish, shellfish and crabs.
5. GENERAL
a. How will excavated or fill material be kept on site and erosion b.
controlled?
The reef material, like the native reef material on site, is heavy and
will remain in place in the project area. As the reef material is
deployed from the barge a temporary slight increase in localized
turbidity may occur, but will quickly dissipate.
1�111vtu RECEIVED
DCM WIL MI NGTON, N
02 4 2013 '
sFP 4 2012
What type of construction equipment will be used (e.g., dragline,
backhoe, or hydraulic dredge)?
The project contractor will haul the reef material from the stockpile
area to the boat ramp area to load it onto barges. The loads of
reef material may be temporarily be stored on the concrete pad
of the boat ramp so that a front end loader can scoop up the
material and load it onto the barges. The contractor will load
the reef material onto small, shallow draft barges. The barges
will travel to the project she during high tide conditions. The
contractor will most likely deploy the shell off the barge using a
small front end loader on the barge. The reef material will
scooped up on the barge and then deployed into the reef
footprints as indicated by the PVC poles placed earlier.
c. (1) Will navigational aids be required as a result of the project? d. (i) Will wetlands be crossed in transporting equipment to project
[]Yes []No ®NA site? []Yes ONO ❑NA
(it) If yes, explain steps that will be taken to avoid or minimize
252.808-2808 :: 4-888-4RCOAST:: www.nccoastalmanagement.net revised: 12126/06

Form DCM MP-2 (Excavation and Fill, Page 3 of 3)
(ii) If yes, explain what type and how they will be implemented.
(8) 2" x 10' PVC poles with reflective tape and signage will be
placed along the boundaries of the 3 acre project area.
August 27, 2012
Date
Lockwood Folly River Oyster Reef Habitat Restoration Project
Project Name
Ted Wilgis, N.C. Coastal Federation
Appli t game
�. —A) ( _
Applicant ff ature
environmental impacts.
x RECuMr. D R$Cci m'D
JAN 24 2013 JAN24 2-
DCM-MHD CITY DCt1" C,'Yy
RECEIVED
CM DAl��A01I VU I CN, NC
SEP042012
252.808.2808 :: 1-888.4RCQAST :: www.nccoastaimanagement.net revised: 1212610G

Varnamtown
i
lockwod.Folly Golf &
.,Country Club.
10 '
o�J
o�
rofecgtAroa '� ! Sunset Harb r_
I ��i

CPA WILMINGTON, NC
xEcaivaD NOV 2 9 2652
ERA Lockwood Folly River Oyster Reef Habitat Restoration Project
Applrcaht: NC Coastal Federation Date: 8/27/12; 15t Rev: 9/27/12; 2nd Rev: 11/28/12
Work Plan Drawing 2 of 6
Project Location with PNA and SA Waters Closure Boundaries

RECEIVED
"''" 2 A 9fERA Lockwood Folly River Oyster Reef Habitat Restoration Project
Applicant: NC Coastal Federation Date: 8/27/12; 15Y Rev: 9/27/12; 2"d Rev
Work Plan Drawing 3 of 6
Project Location with PNA and SA Waters Closure Boundaries
Dr' I..NIINGTON, fit
NOV 2 9 2012
11/28/12

NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Pat McCrory Braxton C. Davis John E. Skvarla, III
Governor Director Secretary
January 14, 2013
MEMORANDUM:
o �p112013 u
TO:
CC !II>t
Maria Dunn
9s��
For if
NC Wildlife Resources Commission Z ( 1,20��'�0��
FROM:
Doug Huggett, NC DENR-DCM Major Permits Co
400 Commerce Ave., Morehead City, NC 28557 (Courier 11-12-09)
SUBJECT: CAMA / Dredge & Fill Major Permit Application Review
Applicant: North Carolina Coastal Federation c/o Ted Wilgis
Project Location: Open water area in the Lockwood Folly River, Brunswick County
Proposed Project: construction of 21 oyster restoration patch reefs
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and
return this form to Doug Huggett at the address above by February 7, 2013. If you have
any questions regarding the proposed project, contact Holley Snider at [phone], when
appropriate, in-depth comments with supporting data is requested.
REPLY: 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.
SIGNED A4AAA DATE 2- IT- 17-n 17
127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilmington, NC 28405
Phone: [phone] \ FAX: [phone] Internet: www.necoastaimanagement.net
An Equal Opportunity \ Affirmative Action Employer

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Gordon S. Myers, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Doug Huggett, Major Permits Processing Coordinator
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
FROM: Maria T. Dunn, Northeast Coastal Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: February 5, 2013
SUBJECT: CAMA Dredge/Fill Permit Application for North Carolina Coastal Federation,
c/o Ted Wilgis, Brunswick County, North Carolina.
Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) reviewed the
permit application with regard to impacts on fish and wildlife resources. The project site is located in the
open water area of the Lockwood Folly River, near red channel marker #8. Our comments are provided in
accordance with provisions of the Coastal Area Management Act (G.S. 113A-100 through 113A-128), as
amended, Sections 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act, as amended, and the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.).
The applicant proposes to construct 21 individual oyster reefs in a three acre area to establish
cultch for oyster attachment and create additional aquatic habitat. The area is within the intertidal zone
and outside of natural drainage channels. The reefs will be exposed approximately 1.5' at low tide events.
The Lockwood Folly River at this location is classified SA by the Environmental Management
Commission and is designated a primary nursery area (PNA) by the NC Division of Marine Fisheries.
The NC WRC does not object to the reestablishment of oyster populations in appropriate marine
environments. Oysters provide excellent forage opportunities for aquatic species as well as water quality
benefits. We are, however, concerned with potential navigation hazards caused by the introduction of the
reef areas and request the area be well marked with reflective signage to denote the intertidal zone where
the reefs have been established. If it is determined in time that the site imposes a significant navigation
hazard or that sediment depositions change and alter navigation opportunities, we request the applicant
consider the reefs' influence to the area and alter the project site as necessary.
We appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on this permit application. If you need
further assistance or additional information, please contact me at [phone].
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]

Ad ©�
ARI.W►
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Pat McCrory Braxton C. Davis John E. Skvarla, III
Governor Director Secretary
January 14, 2013
MEMORANDUM: RECEIVEo
TO: Shannon Jenkins FEB 0 5 2013
NC DEH
Shellfish Sanitation Section
FROM: Doug Huggett, NC DENR-DCM Major Permits Co
400 Commerce Ave., Morehead City, NC 28557 (Courier 11-12-09)
SUBJECT: CAMA / Dredge & Fill Major Permit Application Review
Applicant: North Carolina Coastal Federation c/o Ted Wilgis
Project Location: Open water area in the Lockwood Folly River, Brunswick County
Proposed Project: construction of 21 oyster restoration patch reefs
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and
return this form to Doug Huggett at the address above by February 7, 2013. If you have
any questions regarding the proposed project, contact Holley Snider at [phone], when
appropriate, in-depth comments with supporting data is requested.
REPLY: This agency has no objection to the project as proposed.
—Y—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
comments.
SIGNED DATE
Fovjlel
127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wlmington, NC 28405
Phone: [phone] \ FAX: [phone]Internet: www.nccoastaimanagement.net
for reasons described in the attached
—I-2el
An Egwl Opportunity \ Affimk&e Action Employer

A m-
WDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Pat McCrory Charles Wakild, P. E.
Governor Director
February 12, 2013
Mr. Ted Wilgis
North Carolina Coastal Federation
530 Causeway Dr., Suite F-1
Wrightsville Beach, NC 28480
Subject: EXEMPTION
Stormwater Project No. SW8130119
ERA Lockwood Folly Oyster Reef Habitat Restoration Project
Brunswick County
Dear Mr. Wilgis
John E. Skvarla, III
Secretary
Fro t 4 .
The Wilmington Regional Office of the Division of Water Quality received a copy of the CAMA Major Permit
Application for the subject project on January 15, 2013. Staff review of the plans and specifications has determined
that the development activities proposed at this time will not pose a threat to surface water quality from stormwater
runoff. The Director has determined that projects that are reviewed and approved by the Division as not posing a
water quality threat from stormwater runoff should not be subject to the stormwater management permitfing
requirements of 15A NCAC 2H.1000, the stormwater rules. By copy of this lefter, we are informing you that this
project will not require a stormwater management permit
If the subject project disturbs one acre or more and has a point source discharge of stormwater runoff, then it is also
subject to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater discharge requirements. You
are required to have an NPDES permit for stormwater discharge from projects meeting these criteria. All temporary
built -upon area associated with the construction of the project must be removed within 30 days of completion of the
project, or when it is no longer needed, whichever occurs first.
If you have any questions or need additional information concerning this matter please contact Linda Lewis at (910)
796-7215, or e-mail her at Iinda.lewis0nodenr.gov.
Zinelarles W ild, P.E., Director
Division of Water Quality
GDS/arl: S:1WQS1StormwaterlPermits & Projects120131130119 Exemption12013 02 permit 130119
Brunswick County Building Inspections
DCM WIRO/Shaun Simpson
Doug Huggett, DCM
Wilmington Regional Office Stormwater File
Wilmington Regional Office One 127 Cardinal Drive Extension, Wilmington, North Carolina 28405 N Orth Ca ro i 11l a
Phone: [phone] FAX [phone] DENR Assistance: 1A77-823fi748 �" 1��"
Internet: www.nmaterquality.org c
An Equal Oppodunity \ Atfirmatm Action Employer

Q4
.A o
NC ENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Pat McCrory Braxton C. Davis John E. Skvarla, III
Governor Director 4 Nn Secretary
January 14, 2013 5/J
MEMORANDUM:
l�ty PECEIVE
TO: Linda Lewis JAN 15 2013
Stormwater Section
Division of Water Quality -WiRO
FROM: Doug Huggett, NC DENR-DCM Major Permits Co
400 Commerce Ave., Morehead City, NC 28557 (Courier 11-12-09)
SUBJECT: CAMA / Dredge & Fill Major Permit Application Review
Applicant: North Carolina Coastal Federation c/o Ted Wilgis
Project Location: Open water area in the Lockwood Folly River, Brunswick County
Proposed Project: construction of 21 oyster restoration patch reefs
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and
return this form to DoW Huggtett at the address above by February 7, 2013. If you have
any questions regarding the proposed project, contact Holley Snider at [phone], when
appropriate, in-depth comments with supporting data is requested.
REPLY: I>< 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.
SIGNED �DATE
127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilmington, NC 28405
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: www.nccoastaimanagement.net
An Equal opportunity \ Aftirmal Action Employer

Z4(43
Pat McCrory
Governor
January 14, 2013
MEMORANDUM:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Applicant:
[1a
AGPA...
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and
Division of Coastal Management
Braxton C. Davis
Director
Jessi Baker
Division of Marine Fisheries
t-f 1rJANLI
7 u"IE '2013
Natural
L V' =1WED
John E. Skvarla, III
Secretary
FEB 12 2013
Doug Huggett, NC DENR-DCM Major Permits Co
400 Commerce Ave., Morehead City, NC 28557 (Courier 11-12-09)
CAMA / Dredge & Fill Major Permit Application Review
-North Carolina -Coastal Federation c/o=Ted-Wilgis
Project Location: Open water area in the Lockwood Folly River„Brunswick County
Proposed Project: construction of 21 oyster restoration patch reefs
PROTECTION
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and
return this form to Dow Hw-gett at the address above by Feb uary 7, 2013. If you have
any questions regarding the proposed project, contact Holley Snider at [phone], when
appropriate, in-depth comments with supporting data is requested._____
REPLY: This agency has no objection to the project as proposed.
X_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.
SIGNED iJQQ���— DATE Zlyl13
127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilmington, NC 28405
Phone: [phone] \ FAX: [phone] Internet: www,nccoastaimana.gement.net
An Equal Opportunity 1AKrmalive Action Employer

r
Pat McCrory
Governor
January 14, 2013
MEMORANDUM:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Applicant:
1 G- RECEIVE n
�� JAN f y 20131Ed1E R
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Braxton C. Davis John E. Skvarla, III
Director Secretary
Debra Benoy
Public Water Supply District Manager
RECEIVED
I I v, 2 3 2013
DC-M-YED CITY
Doug Huggett, NC DENR-DCM Major Permits Co
400 Commerce Ave., Morehead City, NC 28557 (Courier 11-12-09)
CAMA / Dredge & Fill Major Permit Application Review
North Carolina Coastal Federation c/o Ted Wilgis
Project Location: Open water area in the Lockwood Folly River, Brunswick County
Proposed Project: construction of 21 oyster restoration patch reefs
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and
return this form to Doug Huggett at the address above by February 7, 2013. If you have
any questions regarding the proposed project, contact Holley Snider at [phone], when
appropriate, in-depth comments with supporting data is requested.
REPLY: —A_ 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.
lI This agency objects to the project for reasons described in the attached
t� �.eP,%( A� comments. SIGNED 2
DATE I � 13
127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilmington, NC 28405
Phone: [phone] \ FAX: [phone] Internet: www.ncooastaimanagement.net
An Equal Opportunity\Affirmative-Action Employer

rcoln&
r
NCDENR r
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Pat McCrory Braxton C. Davis John E. Skvarla, III
Governor Director Secretary
January 14, 2013
MEMORANDUM:
TO: Connie Marlowe
County of Brunswick
FROM: Doug Huggett, NC DENR-DCM Major Permits Cc
400 Commerce Ave., Morehead City, NC 28557 (Courier 11-12-09)
SUBJECT: CAMA / Dredge & Fill Major Permit Application Review
Applicant: North Carolina Coastal Federation c/o Ted Wilgis
Project Location: Open water area in the Lockwood Folly River, Brunswick County
Proposed Project: construction of 21 oyster restoration patch reefs
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and
return this form to Doug Huggett at the address above by February 7, 2013. If you have
any questions regarding the proposed project, contact Holley Snider at [phone], when
appropriate, in-depth comments with supporting data is requested.
REPLY: 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.
SIGNED DATE
127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilmington, NC 28405
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone]Internet: www.nccoastalmanagement.net
An Equal Opportunity 1 AlPomative Achm Employer

Pat McCrory
Governor
k 4D �
t er JAN 1 5 2 1
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Braxton C. Davis John E. Skvarla, ill
Director Secretary
January 14, 2013
ti
tx
t)
MEMORANDUM:
TO: Renee Gledhill -Early
NC Dept. of Guttural Resources , _ J�`'�q3
Archives & History i
FROM Doug Huggett, NC DENR-DCM Major Permits Co
400 Commerce Ave., Morehead City, NC 28557 (Courier 11-12-09)
SUBJECT CAMA / Dredge & Fill Major Permit Application Review f
Applicant: North Carolina Coastal Federation c/o Ted Wilgis� ,�[,
Project Location: Open water area in the Lockwood Folly River, Brunswick County
Proposed Project: construction of 21 oyster restoration patch reefs
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and
return this form to Doug Huggett at the address above by February 7. 2013, If you have
any questions regarding the proposed project, contact Holley Snider at [phone], when
appropriate, in-depth comments with supporting data is requested.
REPLY: 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.
SIGNED _ __ DATE
127 Carrfr W Drive Ev., Witningm. NC 2M
Prime:910-7*72151PAX: 910-395-39641rnemet www.n=sta1mar�agemen1.net
An Cj ; tkr�'Y­Vfi-q'Ve Add EMOCyM JAN 1 6 2913

MEMORANDUM
To: Daniel Govoni
From: Michael Christenbury
Subject: Consistency Determination, Major Permit Application, North
Carolina Coastal Federation — Lockwood Folly River — Brunswick
County
Date: February 12, 2013
i � _ �•_S y y
b i
This pro,ect is consistent with the 2U07 BranswiclCounty Land IIsc >'lan Update '':
6 is
The applicant proposes to construct a total of 21 oyster restoration patch reefs, to
establish cultch for oyster attachment and creation of fish habitat within the intertidal
zone and estuarine waters of the Lockwood Folly River in Brunswick County.
Areas of Environmental Concern (AFC's) impacted by the proposal are EW and PT.
Waters at the project site are classified as SA and are open to the harvesting of shellfish.
The area is not a Primary Nursery Area.
I have reviewed this proposal for consistency with the Brunswick County Land Use Plan
and offer the following comments.
The general area of the project is classified as Conservation
In general, Brunswick County allows development in Conservation classified AECs
which is consistent with the State's minimum use standards. The Brunswick County
Land Use Plan contains some policies, which exceed the State's minimum use standards.
However, none of these standards appear to be' applicable to this proposal.
This project is consistent and not in conflict with the 2007 Brunswick County Land Use
Plan.
Cc: File

01-15-'13 09:20 FI30M-DENR Wilmington
910-350-2004 T-577 P0001/0003 F-920
North Carolina Department of Commerce
Division of Community Assistance, Office of Community Planning
Fax Cover Sheet
Date: / / /.i l /3
To: bO u q LJg t
Fax number: Z S-21 - L y% -- 2 s? 3 n
From: Mark D. Zeigler, AICP — Community Development Planner
NC Department of Commerce, Division of Community Assistance
Office of Community Planning, South East Regional Field Office
127 Cardinal Drive Extension, Wilmington, NC 28405
Tel. [phone] Fax. [phone]
E-mail: mxeigler@nccommerce,com
Remarks: [A m /Ur. Ai4 f.S
Number of pages including cover sheet: 3

01-15-'13 09:20 FROM-DENR Wilmington 910-350-2004 T-577 P0002/0003 F-920
WNW
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Pat McCrory Braxton C. Davis John E. Skvarla, III
Governor Director Secretary
January 14, 2013
MEMORANDUM:
TO: Mark Zeigler
WRO
Division of Community Assistance
FROM: Doug Huggett, NC DENR-DCM Major Permits Co
400 Commerce Ave., Morehead City, NC 28557 (Courier 11-12-09)
SUBJECT: CAMA / Dredge & Fill Major Permit Application Review
Applicant: North Carolina Coastal Federation c/o Ted Wilgis
Project Location: Open water area in the Lockwood Folly River, Brunswick County
Proposed Project: construction of 21 oyster restoration patch reefs
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and
return this form to Doug Hu ett at the address above by February 7, 2013. If you have
any questions regarding the proposed project, contact Holley Snider at [phone], when
appropriate, in-depth comments with supporting data is requested.
REPLY: 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
�n ��/jccomments. /
SIGNED /fl"""� �C4�' � DATE_ �li` /3
127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wiimington, NC 28405
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone]ntemet: www nccoastalmanarrement,net
An Equal Oppoauniryl AffrmetiveAction Employer

e1-15 li uy:Zld tE M—UENH W11MIn9ton 310-350-2004 T-577 P0003/0003 F-920
WORM
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Pat McCrory Braxton C. Davis John E. Skvarla, III
Governor /.� Director Secretary
January f, 2013
MEMORANDUM:
TO: Mark Zeigler
WIRO
Division of Community Assistance
FROM: Doug Huggett, NC DENR-DCM Major Permits Co
400 Commerce Ave., Morehead City, NC 28557 (Courier 11-12-09)
SUBJECT: CAMA / Dredge & Fill Major Permit Application Review
Applicant: Cape Fear Public Utility Authority (CFPUA) c/o Frank Styers
Project Location: Mutiple properties off Masonboro Sound Rd., including Seabreeze, Oyster Bay and Windchase
Subdivisions, adjacent to Masonboro Sound & Whiskey Creek, in Wilm., New Hanover County.
Proposed Project: to extend water distribution system and sanitary sewer collection system to serve
citizens located off Masonboro Sound Road.
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and
return this form to Doug Huggett at the address above by February 7,2013. If you have
any questions regarding the proposed project, contact Robb Mairs at [phone], when
appropriate, in-depth comments with supporting data is requested.
REPLY: is 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.
SIGNED IXAA- DATE
127 Cardinal Drive Ext., WBminglon, NC 28405
Phone: [phone] \ PAX: 910395-39641nternet: www.n000astalmanaaement.nal
An Equal oppoauniry lAflnmalive Acton EMP*t

Govoni, Daniel
From: Ted Wilgis [[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 9:03 AM
To: Govoni, Daniel
Subject: NCCF Lockwood Folly Oyster Habitat Restoration Project - CAMA Application
Attachments: image002.png; image003.png; NCCF Lockwood Folly River Reef Updated Drawings
2-25-13.pptx
Hello Daniel:
Thank you very much for your review and guidance on our permit application for the Lockwood Folly Oyster Reef Habitat
Restoration project. I've attached the drawings for the project, and I added in a new drawing as you requested. The drawing shows the
location of the proposed reefs in the project area. The reefs will be located on an intertidal mud/sand flat out of any existing
maintained, navigable waterways. There are a couple of existing natural drains in the project area, and the reefs will be kept out of
those natural drains. The reefs will be the same height as the existing natural reefs in and around the project area. There are numerous
existing reefs in the area. The project area will be posted with PVC poles with reflective tape. The reefs can be marked as well.
I hope this helps with the review. Please let me know if you need any additional information or if you have any questions.
Thanks very much — Ted Wilgis
Ted Wilgis - Biologist, CEE
Coastal Education Coordinator
North Carolina Coastal Federation
Southeast Region Office
530 Causeway Drive, Suite Fl
Wrightsville Beach, NC 28480
[phone] Ext. 202
[phone] mobile
[phone] fax
tedwo,nccoast.ore
Subscribe to Coastal Review Online
Become a Facebook Fan In
Join the Coastal Federation today at www.necoast.org

February 25, 2013
Regulatory Division
Action ID No. SAW-2011-01896
Mr. Doug Huggett
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City, North Carolina 28557-3421
Dear Mr. Huggett:
Reference the application of N.C. Coastal Federation to construct a total of 21 oyster
restoration patch reefs, to establish cultch for oyster attachment and creation of fish habitat
within the intertidal zone and estuarine waters of the Lockwood Folly River in Brunswick
County, North Carolina.
The Federal agencies have completed review of the proposal as presented by the
application and your field investigation report.
We recommend that the following conditions be included in the State authorization:
1. All work authorized by this permit must be performed in strict compliance with the
attached plans, which are a part of this permit. Any modification to these plans must be approved
by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) prior to implementation.
2. The permittee understands and agrees that, if future operations by the United States
require the removal, relocation, or other alteration, of the structure or work herein authorized, or
if, in the opinion of the Secretary of the Army or his authorized representative, said structure or
work shall cause unreasonable obstruction to the free navigation of the navigable waters, the
permittee will be required, upon due notice from the U.S. Amy Corps of Engineers, to remove,
relocate, or alter the structural work or obstructions caused thereby, without expense to the
United States. No claim shall be made against the United States on account of any such removal,
relocation, or alteration. The permittee shall notify NOAA/NATIONAL OCEAN SERVICE
Chief Source Data Unit N CS261, 1315 E West HWY- RM 7316, Silver Spring, MD 20910-
3282 at least two weeks prior to beginning work and upon completion of work.

3. Except as specified in the plans attached to this permit, no excavation, fill or
mechanized land -clearing activities shall take place at any time in the construction or
maintenance of this project, in such amanner as to impair normal flows and circulation patterns
within waters or wetlands or to reduce the reach of waters or wetlands.
4. Except as authorized by this permit or any USACE approved modification to this
permit, no excavation, fill or mechanized land -clearing activities shall take place at any time in
the construction or maintenance of this project, within waters or wetlands. This permit does not
authorize temporary placement or double handling of excavated or fill material within waters or
wetlands outside the permitted area. This prohibition applies to all borrow and fill activities
connected with this project.
5. Unless otherwise authorized by this permit, all fill material placed in waters or
wetlands shall be generated from an upland source and will be clean and free of any pollutants
except in trace quantities. Metal products, organic materials (including debris from land clearing
activities), or unsightly debris will not be used.
6. All mechanized equipment will be regularly inspected and maintained to prevent
contamination of waters and wetlands from fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids, or other toxic
materials. In the event of a spill of petroleum products or any other hazardous waste, the
permittee shall immediately report it to the N.C. Division of Water Quality at [phone],
Ext. 526 or [phone] and provisions of the North Carolina Oil Pollution and Hazardous
Substances Control Act will be followed.
7. The authorized structure and associated activity must not interfere with the public's
right to free navigation on all navigable waters of the United States. No attempt will be made by
the permittee to prevent the full and free use by the public of all navigable waters at or adjacent
to the authorized work for reason other than safety.
8. If the permittee discovers any previously unknown historic or archeological remains
while accomplishing the authorized work, he will immediately notify the Wilmington District
Engineer who will initiate the required coordination procedures.
9. The permittee shall advise the Corps in writing at least two weeks prior to beginning
the work authorized by this permit and again upon completion of the work authorized by this
permit.
10. Approval of the structure was based on determinations that there would be no
obstruction to navigation. Under conditions existing in the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway
(AIW W), a possibility exists that the structure may be damaged by wave wash from passing
vessels. Unreasonable slowing down of vessel traffic cannot be required because it would tend to
nullify the navigational benefits on which the AIW W was justified. Issuance of this permit
should not be construed, as relieving the permittee of taking proper steps to insure the structure

and moored boats will not be damaged by wave wash normally to be expected in the AIW W.
11. The permittee shall require its contractors and/or agents to comply with the terms and
conditions of this permit in the construction and maintenance of this project, and shall provide
each of its contractors and/or agents associated with the construction or maintenance of this
project with a copy of this permit. A copy of this permit, including all conditions, shall be
available at the project site during construction and maintenance of this project.
12. The permittee shall employ all sedimentation and erosion control measures necessary
to prevent an increase in sedimentation or turbidity within waters and wetlands outside the permit
area. This shall include, but is not limited to, the immediate installation of silt fencing or similar
appropriate devices around all areas subject to soil disturbance or the movement of earthen fill,
and the immediate stabilization of all disturbed areas. Additionally, the project must remain in
full compliance with all aspects of the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 (North
Carolina General Statutes Chapter I I3A Article 4).
13. The activity will be conducted in such a manner as to prevent a significant increase in
turbidity outside the area of construction or construction -related discharge. Increases such that
the turbidity in the waterbody is 50 NTU's or less in all rivers not designated as trout waters by
the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (NCDEM), 25 NTU's or less in all
saltwater classes and in all lakes and reservoirs, and 10 NTU's or less in trout waters, are not
considered significant.
14. The permittee, upon receipt of a notice of revocation of this permit or upon its
expiration before completion of the work will, without expense to the United States and in such
time and manner as the Secretary of the Ariiiy or his authorized representative may direct, restore
the water or wetland to its pre -project condition.
15. Violations of these conditions or violations of Section 404 of.the Clean Water Act or
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act must be reported in writing to the Wilmington District
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers within 24 hours of the pemuttee's discovery of the violation.
Questions or comments may be addressed to Mr. Dave Timpy, Wilmington Field Office,
Regulatory Division, telephone [phone].
Sincerely,
David L. Timpy, Project Manager
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office

Copy Furnished (without enclosure)
Ms. Karen Higgins
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
Mr. Doug Huggett
Morehead City Regional Office
North Carolina Division of Coastal Management
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City, North Carolina 28557-3421
Mr. Pete Benjamin
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Mr. Fritz Rhode
National Marine Fisheries Service
Habitat Conservation Service
Pivers Island
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516
Mr. Pace Wilber
National Marine Fisheries Service
Habitat Conservation Division
219 Fort Johnson Road
Charleston, South Carolina 29412-9110
Todd Allen Bowers
US EPA Region 4 Life Scientist
Water Protection Division
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, GA 30303-8960
BOSN3 Joseph M. Edge

United States Coast Guard
Sector North Carolina Waterways Management
2301 E. Fort Macon Rd
Atlantic Beach, NC 28512
Ms. Debra Wilson
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Chad Coburn
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources
127 Cardinal Drive Ext
Wilmington, NC 28405
BCF:
CESAW-RG-L/TIMPY
5

Govoni, Daniel
From:
Baker, Jessi E
Sent:
Friday, February 22, 2013 3:32 PM
To:
Govoni, Daniel
Subject:
NCCF oyster reefs
Daniel,
DMF has reviewed the Restoring Coastal Estuarine Habitat in Four North Carolina Estuaries Environmental Assessment
(EA) by the North Carolina Coastal Federation, as well as CAMA permit applications for individual projects included in the
EA. NCCF proposes to construct patch oyster reefs and living shorelines in four water bodies in the southern coastal
areas of NC. The project will total 9.3 acres of oyster reef habitat and 1.24 acres of saltmarsh restoration.
DMF has been involved with the planning of several of these proposed sites, including the Lockwoods Folly site. DMF is
currently working with NCCF to consider potential revisions to the Masonboro area site mentioned in the EA. All sites
are in areas permanently closed to shellfish harvest or will be protected as a Shellfish Management Area. Many sites are
adjacent to and extensions of previous cultch planting efforts that were collaborations between DMF and NCCF.
DMF will continue to assist NCCF in choosing the most appropriate sites. DMF is aware that requests for oyster reefs
projects are increasing in size and number and is currently considering policies and guidelines regarding private oyster
reefs projects.
Please feel free to contact Jessi Baker at [phone] or [e-mail] if you have any further questions or
concerns.
Thank you
Jessi
Jessi Baker
Biologist, Habitat Section
NC Division of Marine Fisheries
5285 Hwy. 70 West
Morehead City, NC 28557
Morehead City - [phone]
Wilmington - [phone]
j essi.baker@ncdenngov
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be
disclosed to third parties.

US ARMY CIORPS
of ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Restoring Coastal Estuarine Habitat in Four North Carolina
Estuaries
Prepared by the N.C. Coastal Federation
November 2012

Table of Contents
EnvironmentalAssessment........................................................................................................................1
1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED......................................................................................................................
I
1.1 Purpose...........................................................................................................................................2
1.2 Need................................................................................................................................................2
1.3 Environmental Review Process......................................................................................................
9
2.0 ALTERNATIVES...............................................................................................................................9
2.1 Proposed Action..............................................................................................................................9
2.1.1 Proposed Action — Overview................................................................................................
9
2.1.2 Proposed Action —project Specifics.................................................................................122
2.2 Site Selection Criteria...................................................................................................................25
2.3 No Action Alternative...................................................................................................................26
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
..............................266
3.1 Summary of Environmental Impacts..........................................................................................
266
3.2 Affected Environment.................................................................................................................
277
3.3 Environmental Consequences.......................................................................................................29
3.3.1 Tides and Currents..............................................................................................................29
3.3.2 Water Quality......................................................................................................................29
3.3.3 Sediment Quality.................................................................................................................30
3.3.4 Shoreline Processes...........................................................................................................300
3.3.5 Threatened and Endangered Species...................................................................................30
3.3.6 Aquatic Resources...............................................................................................................31
3.3.7 Essential Fish Habitat..........................................................................................................32
3.3.8 Fish and Wildlife Resources................................................................................................33
3.3.9 Recreation, Navigation and Aesthetic Resources..............................................................333
3.3.10 Archaeological/Historical Resources................................................................................34
3.3.11 Coastal Barrier Resources Act..........................................................................................35
3.3.12 Wetlands..........................................................................................................................366
3.3.13 Floodplains......................................................................................................................366
3.3.14 Prime and Unique Agricultural Land:...............................................................................36
3.3.15 Hazardous and Toxic Waste Sites.....................................................................................37
3.3.16 Air Quality.........................................................................................................................37
3.3.17 Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Communities and Low
IncomePopulations......................................................................................................................37
3.3.18 Indirect and Cumulative Impacts.....................................................................................37
4.0 REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS AND REQUIRED COORDINATION.................................38
4.1 Required Permitting......................................................................................................................38
4.2 Executive Orders..........................................................................................................................39
4.3 Coordination.................................................................................................................................
41
5.0 FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT...................................................................................42
6.0 PREPARERS..................................................................................................................................
422
7.0 LITERATURE CITED...................................................................................................................422

List of Figures
Figure 1. Cross Section of Patch Oyster Reef Project............................................................................10
Figure 2. Overview of Patch Oyster Reef Project...................................................................................10
Figure 3. Cross Section of Typical Living Shoreline Project with Oyster Shell Bags ...........................
I I
Figure 4. Cross Section of Typical Living Shoreline Project with Oyster Domes .................................
I I
Figure 5.Overview of a Typical Living Shoreline Project.....................................................................11
Figure 6. Locations of Project Sites........................................................................................................12
Figure 7. Project Area #1, Lockwood Folly River..................................................................................14
Figure 8. Project Area # 1, Lockwood Folly River Patch Oystef Reef....................................................14
Figure 9. Project Area # 1, Living Shoreline Location at Town of Oak Island.......................................15
Figure 10. Project Area #2, Masonboro-Myrtle Grove Sound................................................................16
Figure 11. Project Area #2, Patch Oyster Reef, Masonboro-Myrtle Grove Sound................................17
Figure 12. Project Area #3, Stump Sound -Patch Oyster Reefs and Living Shoreline ...........................17
Figure 13. Project Area #3, Locations of Patch Oyster Reef in Stump Sound .......................................
IS
Figure 14. Project Area #3, Living Shoreline Location at Morris Landing............................................19
Figure 15. Project Area #4, Jones Island................................................................................................20
Figure 16. Project Area #4, Location of Patch Oyster Reefs & Living Shorelines at Jones Island ........
21
Figure 17. Project Area #4, Circles Represent Locations of Patch Oyster Reefs at Jones Island ..........
21
Figure 18. Project Area #4, Letter from the N.C. Department of Cultural Resources ............................35
List of Tables
Table 1. Summary of Environmental Impacts........................................................................................27

Environmental Assessment
Restoring Coastal Estuarine Habitat in Three North Carolina Estuaries
1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED
1.1 Purpose
The project purpose is to restore intertidal and shallow subtidal patch eastern oyster (Crassostrea
virginica) reef habitat and fringing salt marsh habitats. Additional objectives are to increase
public awareness and support for habitat restoration efforts, provide opportunities for the public
to engage in these activities, and develop and enhance scientific understanding of habitat
restoration techniques through monitoring and evaluation.
The North Carolina Coastal Federation (the federation) proposes to construct and restore 10.5
acres of intertidal and shallow subtidal patch oyster reefs and fringing salt marsh habitats in four
project sites in southeastern North Carolina. Project sites are in the Lockwood Folly River,
Masonboro-Myrtle Grove Sound, Stump Sound and White Oak River. The federation will
coordinate with the North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries, Hammocks Beach State Park,
the Town of Oak Island, University of North Carolina at Wilmington, community volunteers and
students to accomplish these actions. The locations of the four project areas are illustrated in
Figure 6.
A total of 9.3 acres of fringing, intertidal and shallow patch oyster reef habitat will be created
along with 1.24 acres of fringing shoreline saltmarsh habitat. This combination of restoration
practices will be designed to restore and enhance intertidal and shallow subtidal patch oyster reef
habitat and reduce shoreline erosion caused by storm activity and rising sea levels, providing an
innovative approach to managing the declining habitats in these estuaries.
The proposed project will be funded under the Estuary Restoration Act (ERA) of 2000, Title I of
Public Law 106-457. The ERA makes restoring estuaries a national priority to:
• Promote a coordinated Federal approach to estuary habitat restoration;
• Forge effective partnerships among public agencies and between the public and private
sectors;
• Provide financial and technical assistance for estuary habitat restoration projects; and
• 'Develop and enhance monitoring and research capabilities.
The ERA is administered by an interagency council to carry out these objectives. Member
federal agencies of the council include:
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Current Chair;
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS);
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA);
• Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS); and
• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE).

This project evolved from more than a decade of planning and fieldwork by the federation
working directly with the general public, landowners, as well as state and federal agencies to
select priority areas and restore oyster reefs and fringing salt marsh habitats. These experiences
have created or restored more than 100 acres of oyster reefs and more than 50 acres of salt marsh
habitat. The federation responded to a call for proposals by the interagency council administering
the ERA in March 2010. This project was reviewed by council staff and members, and approved
for funding of $400,000 in October 2010 through the USACE to conduct this project to
implement its national strategy for fisheries habitat restoration.
The Federal action for USACE is the providing of a grant to the North Carolina Coastal
Federation for construction of the proposed estuarine restoration projects. The National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA) requires that the environmental
consequences of Federal actions be evaluated, and the details of this proposed action, and the
potential environmental consequences must be presented to the public. The purpose of this
Environmental Assessment (EA) is to provide a summary of this evaluation, to facilitate review
by relevant government agencies and the public.
1.2 Need
Intertidal and shallow subtidal patch eastern oyster (Crassostrea virginica) reef habitat and
fringing salt marsh habitats in have been deteriorating through the years due to natural and
anthropogenic disturbances including increases in development, declines in water quality and
climate impacts. Oyster habitat has also degraded due to overharvesting and disease, while
erosion from storms and sea level rise has reduced the coverage of salt marsh habitat.
Oyster reefs are one of the most threatened habitats in the world (Beck et al. 2009). The eastern
oyster (Crassostrea virginica), the primary intertidal and subtidal reef -building species along the
east coast of the United States, has declined more than 90 percent from historic levels.
Worldwide, functional extinction (greater than 99 percent loss) of oyster reefs in estuaries is
common (Beck et al. 2009) and habitat losses exceed levels reported for more well-known coral
reef, mangrove, and seagrass habitats. Both human activities and natural phenomena including
over -harvest, disease, coastal development and habitat disturbance have affected oyster
distribution -and abundance, as well as contributed to oyster habitat losses (Lenihan and Peterson
1998, Coen and Luckenbach 2000, Luckenbach et al. 1999, Breitburg et al. 2000).
In 2007, NOAA's Eastern Oyster Biological Review Team conducted a status review (EOBRT
2007). The review determined that the oyster harvest along the east coast of the United States is
only 2 percent of the peak historical harvest and that oyster restoration and enhancement efforts
are "necessary to sustain populations" in about half of the estuaries in the middle and south
Atlantic Ocean coast. The historical oyster harvest in North Carolina is showing significant
decline (Street et al. 2005), and they are currently listed as a species of concern. Estimates of
historical acreage of oyster reefs compared to current levels determined through N.C. Division of
Marine Fisheries Substrate Mapping Program, suggest a 50 percent decline in oyster reef habitat
in North Carolina.
Once valued primarily as a food resource, oysters are now recognized as ecosystem engineers
(Jones et al. 1994). Oyster reefs are regarded as one of the key structural elements within
2

southeast estuaries. Reefs create complex habitats which are used by fish, crustaceans and
bivalves that include commercial and recreational species as well as other invertebrates, birds
and mammals (Zimmerman et al. 1989; Wenner et al. 1996; Coen et al. 1999; Coen and
Luckenbach 2000, Meyer and Townsend 2000). Oysters can also improve water quality and
clarity by filtering large quantities of water. One mature oyster can filter approximately 200 liters
of water per day (Nelson et al. 2004; Newell 2004; Grizzle et al. 2008). Observed declines in
oyster populations not only affect the resource but are also closely associated with adverse
effects to reef -associated species and reduced water quality, ultimately leading to shifts away
from "natural" ecosystem functioning.
Oyster habitats are the primary hard -bottom structure in the southeast near -shore coastal region
in North Carolina. Oyster reefs support both commercial and recreational harvesting, improve
water quality, provide habitat for many non -shellfish species (e.g., marketable fish and crabs), as
well as protect shorelines from erosion. Fringing and patch oyster reef habitat is characterized by
the presence of living and dead oysters, shell hash (accumulation of unconsolidated broken shell)
and associated reef epifauna and nekton located on sand or mud substrates. The vertical relief of
oyster reef habitat varies between intertidal and subtidal habitats. Intertidal oyster reefs in the
central and southern estuarine systems may have relatively low vertical relief (5 to 60 cm) made
up of several layers of oysters and shell hash. Shallow subtidal areas with water depths ranging
from one-half to one meter in the central and southern coastal region contain oyster reefs that are
often characterized by groups of highly developed oyster clusters in widely spread aggregations.
Oyster reefs offer critical habitat for oyster populations, providing preferred substrate (oyster
shell) for larval settlement (Marshall 1995; Kennedy et al. 1996; DMF 2008). While oysters
colonize a wide variety of locations within the estuary, their distribution and abundance is
generally limited by ambient physicochemical conditions. Intertidal oyster growth and
distribution is generally less influenced by predation than exposure, tidal flow and food
availability. Other factors, such as turbidity, sediment deposits from shoreline erosion and
circulation patterns can also have profound effects on oyster survival and viability. Water
circulation is of critical importance for larval dispersal and successful spat settlement (Burrell
1986). Adult oysters also require adequate circulation to deliver food and oxygen and to remove
wastes and sediment.
Oyster reef habitat provides direct and indirect ecosystem services that benefit coastal and open
ocean fisheries through water filtration, benthic-pelagic coupling and sediment stabilization
(Coen et al. 1999; Newell 2004; ASMFC 2007; Coen et al. 2007). As oysters take in water for
suspension feeding and oxygen absorption they remove particulate matter, phytoplankton and
microbes from the surrounding water column (Coen et al. 1999; Wetz et al. 2002; Nelson et al.
2004; Newell 2004; Coen et al. 2007; Wall et al. 2008). Oyster reefs can also enhance water
quality through coupling benthic and pelagic processes (Newell et al. 2002; Newell 2004; Porter
et al. 2004; Newell et al. 2005; ASMFC 2007; Coen et al. 2007; DMF 2008). Oysters consume
seston from the water column and their biodeposits accumulate on the sediment surface (Newell
2004; Porter et al. 2004; Newell et al. 2005).
The structural relief of oyster reefs has an important role in the estuarine system. High relief
oyster reefs alter currents and water flows, and physically trap and stabilize large quantities of

suspended solids, reducing turbidity (Dame et al. 1989; Coen et al. 1999; Lenihan et al. 1999;
Grabowski et al. 2000). In addition, intertidal oyster reefs protect shoreline habitats from waves
and currents, which aids in creek bank stabilization and reduction of salt marsh erosion (Bahr
and Lanier 1981; Dame and Patten 1981; Marshall 1995; Breitburg et al. 2000; Henderson and
O'Neil 2003; Piazza et al. 2005; ASMFC 2007). By decreasing erosive forces, intertidal oyster
reefs reduce vegetative losses and, in some instances, promote marsh accretion (Meyer and
Townsend 2000; Piazza et al. 2005; ASMFC 2001). In North Carolina, Meyer et al. (1997) found
that placement of oyster cultch along the lower intertidal fringe of Spartina marshes resulted in
net sediment accretion, while noncultched shorelines eroded. Additional studies in the Gulf of
Mexico and along the Atlantic coast have also suggested the value of shell bottom for shoreline
protection and erosion control, indicating lower erosion rates at shorelines protected by intertidal
oyster reefs as compared to unprotected locations (Piazza et al. 2005; ASMFC 2007).
In southeastern states, including North Carolina, intertidal oyster reefs are critical to maintaining
the integrity of fringing marshes along the complex tidal creek networks commonly found within
the barrier island and lagoonal estuaries of the region; such networks form a protective
breakwater that reduces shoreline erosion (Coen and Fischer 2002; Grizzle et al. 2002; Coen and
Bolton-Warberg 2003). Fringing marshes throughout the southeastern United States are vitally
important as fisheries habitat (Bell 1997, Kneib 2000). Once oyster reefs are lost or damaged,
marshes can rapidly erode. The ability of viable oyster reefs to prevent shoreline erosion will
also be critical to ameliorate the future challenge of sea level rise, attributable to global warming.
Oyster reefs have been widely recognized as Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for oysters and other
reef -forming mollusks (Coen et al. 1999; ASMFC 2007). The functional value of shell bottom
for oysters includes aggregation of spawning stock, chemical cues for successful spat settlement
and refuge from predators and siltation (Coen et al. 1999). As a reef matures, a complex habitat
with greater reef height and more interstitial spaces for recruiting oysters to settle is created. This
has led numerous authors to describe oysters as ecosystem engineers in recognition of the
importance of the biogenic reef structure to estuarine biodiversity, fishery production, water
quality and hydrodynamic processes (Lenihan and Peterson 1998; Gutierrez et al. 2003; Dame
2005; Brumbaugh et al. 2006).
In addition to the role as essential habitat for oysters, reefs also provide critical fisheries habitat
for ecologically and economically important finfish, mollusks and crustaceans which use the
shell bottom as spawning, nursery, foraging and/or refuge areas. In the 1990s, state and federal
fisheries management agencies formally began to recognize oyster reef habitat as critical to
fisheries production. Although fully functional reefs may require three to five years to develop,
data suggest that oyster shell alone attracts many more fish than adjacent bare mud flats (Coen et
al. 1999; Lehnert and Allen 2002; Garwood et al. submitted). In North Carolina, well over 40
species of fish and decapod crustaceans have been documented using natural and restored oyster
reefs including American eel, Atlantic croaker, Atlantic menhaden, black sea bass, sheepshead,
spotted seatrout, red drum and southern flounder (Coen et al. 1999; Lenihan et al. 2001; Peterson
et al. 2003; Grabowski et al. 2005; ASMFC 2007). These documented species include twelve
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission managed species and seven South Atlantic Fishery
Management Council managed species, suggesting the importance of this habitat for recreational
and commercial fisheries. In consideration of the economic importance of shellfish producing

areas, the N.C. Marine Fisheries Commission classified oyster reefs as critical habitat areas
under 15A NCAC 3I .0101. The South Atlantic Fisheries Management Council also recognizes
oyster reefs as Essential Fish Habitat for estuarine and near shore coastal ecosystems (Coen et al.
1999).
The most abundant species on oyster reefs, however, are generally small forage fishes and
crustaceans, such as pinfish, gobies, grass shrimp and mud crabs (Coen et al. 1999; Minello
1999; Posey et al. 1999; Plunket and La Peyre 2005; ASMFC 2007). These small fish and
crustaceans are important prey items in the diet of the larger recreationally and commercially
important invertebrates and fish that make foraging excursions to this habitat, reflecting the
aforementioned importance of shell bottom to fisheries production.
Seasonal recruitment of oyster larvae is needed to sustain reef development and oyster
populations. Activities that directly remove or destroy live shellfish, impact reefs or indirectly
prevent or slow growth and survival are considered as threats to oyster reef habitat.
Oyster harvesting reduces the vertical relief of subtidal oyster reefs (Marshall 1954). The harvest
of oysters by tonging or raking on intertidal oyster beds causes damage to not only living oysters
but also the cohesive shell structure of the reef (Lenihan and Peterson 1998). This destruction has
been an issue on intertidal oyster beds in the southern areas of North Carolina (DMF 2001).
Removal of adult, breeding age oysters can also have an effect on oyster reproduction and the
production of oyster larvae.
Degradation of the water column including eutrophication, sedimentation and turbidity, and
microbial and chemical contamination affects oyster reef habitat. Anthropogenic nutrient loading
from expanding urban, agricultural and industrial development can indirectly impair shell bottom
habitat by stimulating nuisance phytoplankton blooms and causing episodic oxygen depletion.
Recent research indicates that the magnitude of eutrophication in coastal waters has increased
globally over the past century (Paerl et al. 1995; NRC 2000; CENR 2003; Selman et al. 2008).
The detrimental effects of oxygen depletion are exacerbated on fishery -disturbed oyster beds
where reduced reef heights increase the exposure of oysters and other sessile invertebrates to
bottom water hypoxia and anoxia (Lenihan and Peterson 1998; Kirby and Miller 2005).
Excessive turbidity and sedimentation, including deposition of sediment from eroding shorelines,
can have profound effects on oyster health and viability. As suspended sediment disperses and
settles to the bottom, it can bury oyster larvae, adults, or shell, deterring successful recruitment
of larvae due to lack of an exposed hard substrate (Coen et al. 1999). Excessive sedimentation
can clog the gills of shellfish, increase survival time of pathogenic bacteria, or increase ingestion
of non-food particles (SAFMC 1998). Oyster eggs and.larvae are most sensitive to suspended
sediment loading (Davis and Hidu 1969).
The protozoan pathogens Perkinus marinus (Dermo) and Haplosporidium nelson (MSX) have
caused significant oyster mortality throughout the species' geographic range (Andrews 1988;
Hargis and Haven 1988; Kennedy 1996; Lenihan et al. 1999). Although MSX can infect all ages
of oysters (Andrews 1966; Barber et al. 1991), Dermo infects a disproportionate amount of
larger, more fecund individuals (Mackin 1951; Ray 1954; Andrews and Hewatt 1957). Once
infected, oysters suffer reduced growth, poor condition and diminished reproductive capacity

(Ray and Chandler 1955; Haskin et al. 1966; Ford and Figueras 1988; Ford and Tripp 1996).
Eventually, mortality results as a consequence of tissue lysis and occlusion of hemolymph
vessels. Infection rates of both pathogens generally increase with water temperature and salinity
(Paynter and Burreson 1991; Ewart and Ford 1993; La Peyre et al. 2006). Environmental
stressors, such as low dissolved oxygen, sediment loading and anthropogenic pollution increase
the susceptibility of oysters to parasitism and disease (Barber 1987; Kennedy 1996; Lenihan et
al. 1999).
Global climate change also has potentially profound implications for oyster reef habitat in North
Carolina. Long-term changes in temperature regimes, precipitation/streamflow patterns and sea
level can alter shellfish distributions, growth, reproduction and survival (Hofmann and Powell
1998; Dekshenieks et al. 2000; Najjar et al. 2000; Scavia et. al. 2002; Wood et al. 2002;
Lawrence and Soame 2004; Oviatt 2004; Harley et al. 2006; Kimmel and Newell 2007).
Oysters are often used as an indicator species, as their health is a good indicator of the overall
health of the coast. Therefore, it is not at all surprising that a reduction in oysters has been linked
to significant losses and degradation of seagrass beds, coastal wetlands and riparian buffers and
water quality. Some of the most persistent problems include: (1) increased pollution including
bacteria and sediment coming from stormwater runoff, (2) unstable salinity patterns caused by
altered hydrology of coastal watersheds, (3) increased contaminants that disrupt larval stages; (4)
concentrated harvest pressure on remaining viable beds; (5) increased boat wake impacts that
damage reefs and shorelines; and (6) reduction of suitable substrate for establishment of new
recruits due to sedimentation and silting of estuarine bottoms. The N.C. Division of Water
Quality Cape Fear River Basin Plan identifies non -point source pollution from stormwater and
nearby marinas as some of the primary causes for water quality declines in the targeted estuaries.
Management strategies, including restoration efforts designed to conserve or even improve reef
conditions, are recommended to reverse the negative consequences of reef losses (Brumbaugh et
al. 2006, Beck et al. 2009). Unlike many other global regions, oyster reefs in the southeastern
United States are characterized as good -to -poor (Beck et al. 2009), in part because of historical
under -exploitation and, until the 1990s, delayed coastal development. Although far from ideal,
the good -to -poor condition of southeastern oyster habitats represents an opportunity to be
proactive environmentally and attempt to reverse the losses before oyster reefs become
functionally extinct in the region.
The loss of salt marsh edge habitat reduces estuarine productivity and negatively impacts
commercial and recreational fisheries (e.g., Micheli and Peterson 1999, Meyer et al. 1997, NRC
2007). These fringing habitats also act as important water quality buffers (e.g., Holland et al.
2004, Mallin and Lewitus 2004, Mallin et al. 2004, Long et al. 2006). Possible effects of these
threats on marshes and oyster reefs include reduced oyster productivity and destabilization of the
marsh -edge resulting in a greater likelihood of diminished oyster (e.g., Coen et al. 1999, 2007,
Grabowski and Peterson 2007) and marsh (Weinstein and Kreeger 2000, Mallin and Lewitus
2004) ecosystem services.
The latest estimates from the N.C. Division of Coastal Management show that between 1984 and
2000, approximately 457 miles of shoreline were issued permits for shoreline stabilization. This
0

represents about five percent of the estimated 9,000 miles of estuarine shoreline (DCM 2006).
However, there are much higher local concentrations of stabilization,.including within the
proposed project's focus areas. These hardened structures can result in the loss (due to sea level
rise) of critical habitat for a variety of estuarine -dependent species (e.g., fish, mollusks).
Salt marsh habitat provides primary production for estuaries, water quality benefits, habitat for
commercially and recreationally important finfish and shellfish and flood and storm surge
buffering. Estuarine wetlands are generally found along the margins of estuaries and sounds.
Estuarine wetlands include salt marshes that are the focus of the proposed action. As classified
by the N.C. Division of Coastal Management, salt marsh habitat is comprised of a herbaceous
community containing an assemblage of species including smooth cordgrass (Spartina
alternii fora), saltmeadow hay (Spartina patens), black needlerush (Juncus roemerianus),
glasswort (Salicornia spp.), salt grass (Distichlis spicata), seaside oxeye (Borrichia frutescens),
sea lavender (Limonium carolinianum) and other species.
Salt marsh habitat occurs in salinities averaging greater than 15 parts per thousand. Within this
salinity range, salt -tolerant marsh plants persist in low -energy protected areas where the rate of
sediment building (accretion) exceeds the rate of sediment loss (through erosion) or subsidence
(Mitsch and Gosselink 1993). Inorganic sediments are deposited by river currents, tidal creeks
and ocean overwash on and adjacent to the marsh platform (Wiegert and Freeman 1990; Mitsch
and Gosselink 1993). Deposition from sediment -laden creek water builds side banks of higher
elevation (low marsh) and coarser particle size than the sediments in the marsh interior (high
marsh). Fringing salt marshes bordering larger water bodies exhibit different patterns of
accretion and particle size (Currin et al. 2008; Morgan et al. 2009).
Erosion and sedimentation are natural processes that can result in changing distributions of
marsh vegetation. The rate of erosion is dependent upon shoreline orientation, fetch, water depth,
bank height, sediment bank composition, shoreline vegetation and presence of offshore
vegetation (Riggs 2001). South of Bogue Sound (including the proposed project areas), estuarine
erosion is significant in portions of drowned river estuaries such as the Lockwood Folly, Cape
Fear, New and White Oak Rivers, and along the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway and navigation
channels.
Salt marshes are well known for the ecological services they provide. They improve the quality
of adjacent habitats with their capacity for water control and filtration. They can also protect
upland habitats from erosion. Salt marshes play a vital role in providing abundant food and cover
for juvenile and adult finfish and shellfish.
The flood control and water quality benefits of wetlands have been extensively studied (Mitsch '
and Gosselink 1993). By spreading and slowing floodwaters and storm surges, wetlands decrease
flooding in adjacent upland areas. Reduced extent of coastal wetlands has been linked to
increased hurricane damage. Constanza et al. (2008) estimated that a 1-acre loss of coastal
wetlands resulted in a $13,360 loss of gross domestic product. The study also estimated that
coastal wetlands in the U.S. could provide as much as $23.2 billion/year in storm protection
services.

Rooted vegetation in salt marsh habitats stabilizes unconsolidated sediment, buffering erosive
forces and improving water clarity for submerged aquatic vegetation and benthic microalgae
(Mitsch and Gosselink 1993; Riggs 2001). Studies have shown that even narrow (7-25 meter)
marsh borders reduce incoming wave energy by 60-95 percent (Knutson et al. 1982; Morgan et
al. 2009). The buffering of sediment -laden water also causes deposition of suspended solids
(inorganic sediment and organic matter) among the vegetation (Mitsch and Gosselink 1993). The
buffering effect of wetland vegetation also reduces sediment additions from upland areas
creating new shallow water habitat (Rogers and Skrabal 2001). Wetland shorelines play an
important role in maintaining the function of the estuarine system. Maintaining a natural
proportion and relative position of wetland shorelines will be a vital component of habitat
restoration and management.
Under favorable conditions, toxic chemicals and nutrients (especially phosphorus) are also
retained in wetlands due to adsorption to sediment particles (Wolfe and Rice 1972; Mitsch and
Gosselink 1993). Salt marshes can act as nutrient sinks and sources depending on the season, but
over the long term they are effectively sinks where they are not losing material from erosion
(Brinson & Moorhead 1989).
Because of the abundant supply of water, nutrients and sunlight, wetland plant communities can
be one of the most biologically productive ecosystems in the world (Teal 1962; Teal and Teal
1969; Mitsch and Gosselink 1993). Some of the high primary production (creation of organic
compounds through photosynthesis) of wetland vegetation is transferred to aquatic habitats via
detritus and microalgae (Peterson and Howarth 1987; Wiegert and Freeman 1990; Mitsch and
Gosselink 1993). Primary production in salt marshes is converted into fish production through
several pathways including Spartina (detritus) and microalgae.
Finfish and shellfish using salt marshes fall into categories of either year-round residents
(killifish, mummichugs), transient species (red drum, flounder, spot, croaker) or facultative
species (penaid shrimp, menhaden). Salt marshes along the North Carolina coast are probably the
most recognizable nursery habitat for estuarine -dependent species. Salt marshes are a vital
component of estuarine nursery habitat. Many of the juveniles of fishery species found in salt
marsh nurseries were spawned offshore during winter. The larvae were transported through inlets
and into estuarine waters where they settled in the salt marsh -bordered reaches of the estuaries.
Many small species, such as grass shrimp and killifish, and juvenile fin and shellfish find refuge
from predators and storms in salt marshes. The structural complexity of vegetation and intertidal
submersion regime in salt marsh habitat provides spawning habitat for a number of species
(killifish, silversides, gobies and grass shrimp). The proximity of salt marshes to other habitats
(open water, submerged aquatic vegetation, oyster reef and mud flats) can enhance the
connectivity of these habitats. Salt marshes can also enhance the foraging and refuge function of
adjacent habitats.
The major causes of salt marsh habitat loss include shoreline development, ditching and
draining, shoreline stabilization with vertical wall and hardened structures, marina/boat basin
development, docks and piers and dredging for navigation channels. In addition to conversion
caused directly by humans, salt marsh habitat is also being lost to erosion from storms and sea
level rise.

The loss and/or disturbance of marsh -edge habitat, if significant, may reduce estuarine
productivity and negatively impact commercial and recreational fisheries (e.g., Micheli and
Peterson 1999, Meyer et al. 1997, NRC 2007). These fringing habitats also act as important
water quality buffers (e.g., Holland et al. 2004, Mallin and Lewitus 2004, Mallin et al. 2004,
Long et al. 2006). Possible effects of the aforementioned threats on marshes and oyster reefs
include reduced oyster productivity/loss and destabilization of the marsh -edge resulting in a
greater likelihood of diminished oyster (e.g., Coen et al. 1999, 2007, Grabowski and Peterson
2007) and marsh (Weinstein and Kreeger 2000, Mallin and Lewitus 2004) ecosystem services.
1.3 Environmental Review Process
Under NEPA, federal agencies must prepare an EA or environmental impact statement (EIS) for
any Federal action, except those actions that are determined to be "categorically excluded" from
further analysis. An EIS is prepared for those federal actions that may significantly affect the
quality of the human environment. An EA is a concise public document that provides sufficient
analysis for determining whether the potential environmental impacts of a proposed action are
significant, resulting in the preparation of an EIS, or not significant, resulting in the preparation
of a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). The EA includes brief discussions of the
following:
• Purpose and need for the Proposed Action
• Description of the Proposed Action and alternatives
• Description of the affected environment
• Description of the potential environmental impacts of the Proposed Action and alternatives,
and actions that would be taken to avoid or minimize these impacts.
This EA has been prepared pursuant to NEPA and the following NEPA implementation
regulations and guidelines:
• The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations as contained in 40 CFR Parts
1500 to 1508 that direct federal agencies on how to implement the provisions of NEPA.
• ER 200-1-5, Environmental Quality — Policy for Implementation and Integrated
Application of the USACE Environmental Operating Principles and Doctrine.
• ER 200-2-2, Environmental Quality — Procedures for Implementing NEPA
The intent of this EA is to assess the potential environmental effects of the estuarine habitat
restoration activities. Information and analyses documented in this EA will be used to support
the USACE in making a decision to approve or disapprove the Proposed Action.
2.0 ALTERNATIVES
2.1 Proposed Action
2.1.1 Proposed Action - Overview
The proposed action includes the creation of patch oyster reefs and living shorelines consisting
of oyster reef sills with landward salt marsh plantings. Project actions include:
• Create patch oyster reefs (Figures 1 and 2);
i7

• Restore salt marsh habitat along an eroding shorelines (Figures 3, 4 and 5);
• Develop and refine patch oyster reef and living shoreline restoration methods; and
• Increase public awareness, support and involvement in estuary habitat restoration.
NHW 2'-5'
(depending upon
Approx. diameterot the base of the Approx. height of the created oyster site conditions)
created patch oysterreef= 10' 30' reef= 10%24°(depending upon site
(depending upon site conditions) conditions)
site
Figure 1. Cross Section of Patch Oyster Reef Project.
Figure 2.Overview of Patch Oyster Reef Project.
10
NLW 0'

Upland Area Oyster/Marl Bag
ll
tl Rructur
High Marsh Planting Structure
Area Low Marsh Restoration
1 Area —sand fill &plants Approx. height of
1 oysterJmad hag
4
reeftsgl s Wcture=?4'
-md -It n ,
Approx. width of low marsh
restoration area= 20'-25' Approx. width of
oyster/mar, bag reeflsi© Existing Substrate
structure = 6 9' Grade
Figure 3. Cross Section of a Typical Living Shoreline Project.
ovster Dome
Upland Area
High Marsh Planting.
Law Marsh Panting •
SillS
Restoration Area
Restoration Area
I Wr
/
Approx. height of Oyster
Dome Sill Structure = 24'•26'
�(
2%Fjilne
1L
..................
O
�. _ _._._
_ ._ �. ._ _. ._....._.
NLIN 6'
_._..._._._.
(if needed)
Approx. width of1m marsh
Approx. width of Oyster
Existing Substrate
Grade
restoration area=2g•25'
Come Sill Structure = 6`-9'
Figure 4. Cross Section of Typical Living Shoreline Project with Oyster Domes.
Ti aG°p
Yi UO U hFJ--N-
11 � #tet�rauanA.roa LYif i
'jr YY C \Y3i rcs:a+as:nerca i
� .r�eq 2S'whio
p'� �� C��t���ryC�9Q���0©�Q __ xt " :rt�as 4'.e
'� df kV 0 t� Q Q e t -Y }i
tergah craystcrrY3snt3ag � Oytta£1CaProtgavw � Y CargnorGxstwa.'ad aYa
Sa$OykGxt7acx Sa \\\ `�=�twe=fl5'.Yp7' S.tdP/sis<tvro S]
fNm**-tw•¢a a rb' .tOg' S4utaaes a SS •tC0
r+ati g9ssata
Figure 5. Overview of Typical Living Shoreline Project.
11

2.1.2 Proposed Action — Project Specifics -
The preferred alternative will create and restore 10.5 acres of fringing, intertidal and shallow
subtidal patch oyster reefs and fringing salt marsh habitats in four targeted estuarine systems.
Project sites are in the Lockwood Folly River, Masonboro-Myrtle Grove Sound, Stump Sound
and White Oak River. The N.C. Coastal Federation will coordinate with the N.C. Division of
Marine Fisheries, Hammocks Beach State Park, the Town of Oak Island, University of North
Carolina at Wilmington, community volunteers and students to implement this alternative. The
locations of the four project areas are illustrated in Figure 6.
Figure 6. Locations of project sites.
The Lockwood Folly and White Oak Rivers as well as Masonboro-Myrtle Grove Sound and
Stump Sounds contain significant areas of oyster beds and maintain high levels of annual oyster
spatfall. However, due to continuing harvest pressure, sedimentation, disease, and water quality
degradation, a significant amount of viable oyster reef habitat has been lost or has deteriorated.
Providing adequate reef and settlement substrate will significantly enhance the oyster population
and oyster reef habitat in the lower river estuaries.
A total of 9.3 acres of fringing, intertidal and shallow patch oyster reef habitat will be created
along with 1.24 acres of fringing shoreline saltmarsh habitat. This combination of restoration
practices will be designed to restore and enhance intertidal and shallow subtidal patch oyster reef
habitat and reduce shoreline erosion caused by storm activity and rising sea levels, providing an
innovative approach to managing the declining habitats in these estuaries.
12

The proposed action will demonstrate the effectiveness of "Living Shorelines" which include
two components: a sill made up of bags of oyster shell and marl (marine limestone) and concrete
oyster domes; and a restored coastal salt marsh. Living shoreline projects are used in medium to
high energy open -water environments for the purpose of dissipating wave energy and enhancing,
restoring and protecting existing habitats.
The project will be monitored for five years by university researchers and the federation staff
working with volunteers to document their success. The project will use loose shell and small
limestone marl for the patch reefs, and oyster shell bags, limestone marl bags and oyster domes
for the shoreline sills. Approximately 900 linear feet of shoreline/fringing salt marsh habitat will
be restored by planting over 45,000 marsh plants. Public awareness and support for the
restoration of these habitats will be expanded through educational and outreach activities and
public participation in the project by teachers, students, community members and volunteers. All
of the reef habitat constructed through this project will be placed in permanently closed shellfish
waters and/or will be designated as research sanctuaries, and therefore will not be subject to
commercial or recreational harvest.
Project Area #1 is within the watershed of the Lockwood Folly River in Brunswick County. A
patch oyster reef and living shoreline will be constructed in the project area. The river's
headwaters are in the Green Swamp and flow into the Atlantic Ocean through the Lockwood
Folly Inlet. The estuary maintains polyhaline to euhaline conditions ranging from 18 to 36 ppt
salinity. Due to the proximity of the inlet and strong tidal flow the estuary experiences a high rate
of water exchange and flushing. This allows the lower river to maintain good water quality
despite increasing non -point source pollution from a developing watershed. Salt marshes,
dominated by smooth cordgrass (Spartina alternii fora), saltmeadow hay (Spartina patens) and
saltgrass (Distichils spicata), occur along the estuarine shorelines and make up small islands in
the lower river. The lower river contains extensive intertidal flats with areas of shell hash and
mud. The Lockwood Folly River contains significant areas of intact wetland areas along its
length which provide valuable buffering and water quality benefits. The existing estuarine
habitats, water quality status, and direct connection with the ocean makes the Lockwood Folly a
vital area for estuarine and marine organisms foraging, migrating, breeding, spawning and
seeking refuge as juveniles.
Project components at Project Area #lwill include the creation of intertidal patch eastern oyster
(Crassostrea virginica) reef habitat in a three acre project area, and the construction of 200' of
living shoreline along an eroding estuarine shoreline to create 0.2 acres of saltmarsh habitat and
0.1 acres of oyster habitat (See Figure 7). The patch oyster reef habitat will be constructed in the
public trust waters on an intertidal flat in the lower estuary of the Lockwood Folly River (See
Figure 8). The project site is located just off the main stem of the lower river, in a section of the
river called Eastern Bend, below the town of Varnamtown, and opposite of the Lockwood Folly
Golf and Country Club community. The site is between the Cross Rock Shellfish Management
Area and the oyster reef known as the "S Rock". The approximate GPS coordinates for the site
are N 33°56'.099' x W 78'13.113'.
13

I
0
iAM1iii r ht r�. y.�1'. vtM1 R v v ""WI eaN
ERA PeteS Reek-_ i.t
H I, I
au
Goo8l,,c earth

The living shoreline component will be located within the Lockwood Folly River watershed at a
site within the jurisdiction of the Town of Oak Island. A total of 200 feet of living shoreline
which will include oyster reef and salt marsh habitat will be constructed along the Town's
Waterway Municipal Park at the end of NE 15a' St on Oak Island. The approximate GPS
coordinates for the site are N 33°55'48" x W 78109'8.64". The project activities will occur at
and below the mean high water mark in public trust waters.
Oyster reef restoration activities at Project Area #1 will include purchasing and transporting
15,000 bushels of oyster shell and reef material to a stockpile location near the project site. The
oyster shell stockpile for Project Area # 1 is on a parcel of land owned by the Town of
Varnamtown next to the Lockwood Folly River. The federation will coordinate the use of the
stockpile with the Town and contractors working from the site. No permits are required to use
this existing stockpile. The oyster reef material will be loaded onto barges for transport to the
project site. The oyster reef material will be spread onto the restoration site from private
contractor barges to create the patch oyster reef habitat in the three acre project site.
Figure 9. Project Area #1, Living Shoreline Location at Town of Oak Island.
The living shoreline project includes two components: an oyster shell and marl bag sill
(functions both as erosion control and as an oyster reef), and a restored coastal salt marsh. The
federation will work with volunteers and contractors to install the living shoreline project
totaling 200 feet along the estuarine shoreline of the Town's Waterway Park. Volunteers, aided
by the Town's donated Bobcat/skid loader, will use about 2,000 bushels of oyster shell and
marine limestone #4 (marl) to create 5,000 oyster shell/marl bags. The bags will be placed by
volunteers as two 100 foot long low profile oyster reef sills along the intertidal estuarine
shoreline and shallow subtidal areas. The oyster reef sills will have a minimum six feet width
and a maximum nine feet width. Once the oyster reef sills have been constructed, salt marsh
restoration between the sill and eroding shoreline will be implemented through planting of
15.

saltmarsh cordgrass seedlings. The living shoreline will create 0.2 acres of salt marsh habitat and
0.1 acres of oyster habitat (See Figure 9).
Project Area #2 is in Masonboro-Myrtle Grove Sound in New Hanover County. The project area
is within the Cape Fear River Sub -basin 03-06-24 and includes the shallow estuarine waters of
Greenville, Masonboro, Myrtle Grove and Middle Sounds as well as Hewletts and Bradley
Creeks. The project area also includes the Masonboro Island component of the N.C. National
Estuarine Research Reserve (NERR). Within the project area Masonboro Sound is classified by
the N.C. Division of Water Quality as Shellfishing and Outstanding Resource Waters. Habitat
areas within these waters have also been classified as Primary Nursery Areas by the N.C.
Division of Marine Fisheries. The location of the project site is shown in Figure 10.
Figure 10. Project Area #2, Masonboro-Myrtle Grove Sound.
Project Area #2 will include the creation of intertidal patch eastern oyster (Crassostrea virginica)
reef habitats in a two acre project area in Masonboro-Myrtle Grove Sound. The intertidal patch
reef will be constructed in the public trust waters on an intertidal mud flat near the mouth of
Johns Creek which empties into Masonboro Sound. The approximate GPS coordinates for the
site are N 34°5'52.28" x W 77°52'46.87".
Oyster reef restoration implementation activities at Project Area #2 will include purchasing and
transporting a maximum of 5,000 bushels of oyster shell and reef material to a stockpile location
owned by the USACE on Snows Cut near the project site in Carolina Beach. The federation will
coordinate the use of the stockpile with the USACE and contractor working from the site. The
oyster reef material will be loaded onto barges for transport to the project site within the project
area. The oyster reef material will be deployed from the barges into project site per project
design for two acres of patch oyster reef habitat creation (See Figure 11).
16

Figure 11. Project Area 92, Patch Oyster Reef, Masonboro-Myrtle Grove Sound.
Project Area #3 is located in Stump Sound which is located in Onslow County. The sound is
primarily a shallow estuary with a tidal range of approximately 18 inches containing polyhaline
to euhaline conditions ranging from 18 to 36 parts per thousand salinity. Due to the exceptional
water quality and extremely high fisheries value, the shallow subtidal waters of Stump Sound are
classified as Shellfishing, Outstanding Resource Waters and are designated as Primary Nursery
Areas. The location of the project site is in Figure 12.
Figure 12. Project Area #3, Stump Sound - Patch Oyster Reefs and Living Shoreline.
17

Restoration activities at Project Area #3 will include the creation of one acre of shallow subtidal
patch eastern oyster (Crassostrea virginica) reef habitat. In addition 200 feet of living shoreline
will be constructed along the eroding shoreline at property owned by the federation known as the
Morris Landing Clean Water Preserve. This will create 0.2 acres of saltmarsh habitat and 0.1
acres of oyster habitat. The locations of the patch oyster reef are shown in Figure 13.
Figure 13. Project Area #3, Locations of Patch Oyster Reef in Stump Sound.
The shallow subtidal patch oyster reef habitat will be constructed in the public trust waters on
mud flats near the opening of Kings Creek and Spicer Bay in Stump Sound. The approximate
GPS coordinates for the site are N 34028'37.92" x W 77°29'24".
Oyster reef restoration implementation activities at Project Area #3 will includd purchasing and
transporting of 7,000 bushels of oyster shell and reef material to an existing stockpile location
near the project site. The oyster shell stockpile location for Project Area #3 will be located at the
federation's Morris Landing Clean Water Preserve which has an existing oyster shell stockpile
area and barge loading pier. The oyster reef material will be loaded onto barges for transport to
the project site within the project area. The oyster reef material will be deployed from the barges
into project site per project design for one acre of patch oyster reef creation.
The living shoreline will be constructed along the eroding shoreline of the Morris Landing Clean
Water Preserve on Stump Sound (See Figure 14). The Morris Landing site has 3,300 feet of
estuarine shoreline. The federation constructed a 600' living shoreline with a granite sill and salt
marsh restoration in 2005; a 150' oyster shell bag and marl sill with salt marsh restoration in
2008; and a 225' living shoreline with salt marsh restoration and three sills made up of oyster
shell and marl bags and oyster domes in 2011 along the shoreline of Morris Landing.
The approximate GPS coordinates for the project area are N 34128' 12" x W 77°30'41.76". The
project will include two components: an oyster shell and marl bag and oyster dome sill
(functions for both erosion control and as an oyster reef), and a restored/protected coastal salt
it

marsh. The federation will work with volunteers and contractors to install the living shoreline
project along 200 feet along the estuarine shoreline of Stump Sound. Volunteers, aided by a
rented Bobcat/skid loader will use 2,000 bushels of oyster shell and marine limestone #4 (marl)
to create 5,000 oyster shell/marl bags. The bags will be emplaced along with the concrete oyster
domes to make two 100 feet sections of long low profile oyster reefs to create an oyster reef sill
along the intertidal shoreline. The oyster reef sills will have minimum six feet width and a
maximum nine feet width. Once the oyster reef sills have been constructed, saltmarsh restoration
between the sill and eroding shoreline will be implemented by means of fill (if necessary) and
revegetation. The living shoreline will create 0.2 acres of saltmarsh habitat and 0.1 acres of
oyster habitat.
Figure 14. Project Area #3, Living Shoreline Location at Morris Landing.
The Project Area #4 is located at Jones Island, a 23-acre island located in the White Oak River in
Onslow County. The project area is located on part of the island was purchased by the federation
through a grant from the N.C. Clean Water Management Trust Fund. In 2007, the federation's
portion of the island, along with a tract owned by Audubon North Carolina, was donated to the
N.C. Division of Parks and Recreation and became part of Hammocks Beach State Park. The
White Oak River that surrounds Jones Island is classified for shellfishing by the N.C. Division of
Water Quality. This part of the river is also considered Essential Fish Habitat for spot, croaker
and brown shrimp, and two nearby tributaries are identified as Primary Nursery Areas by the
N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries. For these reasons, the N.C. Oyster Management Plan Central
Regional Oyster Workgroup identified the project area as a high priority area for oyster
restoration projects. The island's shoreline is comprised of coastal fringing marsh that is
dominated by smooth cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora). However, these areas have eroded
significantly in recent years. The federation has been working to restore the shoreline of Jones
Island since 2007. To date, these restoration activities have included creating 1,350 linear feet of
oyster shell bag sills with landward marsh grass plantings and three acres of oyster reef habitat.
The location of the project site is shown in Figure 15.
19

Restoration activities at Project Area 44 will consist of creation of 0.84 acres of salt marsh
habitat and approximately 0.1 acres of intertidal and shallow subtidal eastern oyster (Crassostrea
virginica) reef habitat at Jones Island.
Figure 15. Project Area #4, Jones Island.
This will be accomplished by: (1) planting marsh grass landward of previously constructed
oyster shell bag sills, (2) creating 500 linear feet of new living shoreline consisting of oyster
shell bag sills and landward marsh grass plantings; and (3) creating new patch oyster reef habitat.
Additionally three acres of shallow subtidal and intertidal patch oyster reef habitat will be
created. The living shoreline and shoreline plantings will occur in the intertidal zone along the
eroding shoreline of Jones Island. The approximate GPS coordinates for the site are N
34°41.904' x W 77°6.46'.
A total of 20,000 plugs of smooth cordgrass (Spartina alterniora) will be planted in the
intertidal zone, landward of previously constructed oyster shell bag sills during spring 2013.
Planting dibblers will be used to create six-inch V-shaped holes in the sediment. Individual plugs
of S. alterniflora will be inserted into each hole. Marsh plants will be randomly planted about
one foot apart within the planting area. This component of the project will restore 0.5 acres of
coastal marsh habitat. Living shorelines, consisting of oyster shell bag sills and landward marsh
grass plantings will be constructed along 500 linear feet of eroding shoreline at Jones Island in
spring -summer 2013. The oyster sills will have a minimum six feet width and a maximum nine
feet width. The sill design consists of three layers high of oyster shell bags. At least six feet of
open area will be left for every 100 linear feet of sill to allow for fish passage and inter -reef
fisheries habitat. A total of 20,000 plugs of Spartina alterniora will be planted in the intertidal
zone, landward of the oyster shell bag sills in Spring 2013. This component of the project will
create 0.1 acres of oyster reef and 0.34 acres of coastal marsh habitat. The shallow subtidal and
20

intertidal patch oyster reef habitat will be constructed in public trust waters on mud flats adjacent
to Jones Island. The approximate GPS coordinates for the reef site are N 34' 41.930' x W
77°6.360' (See Figure 16).
Figure 16. Project Area #4, Location of Patch Oyster Reefs and Living Shorelines on Jones
Island.
t�{3
Y
_
,3
-
CAR
MR,
Figure 17. Project Area #4, Circles Represent Locations of Patch Oyster Reefs at Jones
Island
21

The reefs are being constructed close to an eroded shoreline that because of sedimentation does
not have any existing oyster reefs suitable for commercial or recreational harvest (See Figure
17).
All four of the project areas where intertidal and shallow subtidal eastern oyster (Crassostrea
virginica) patch reef habitat will be constructed have adequate levels of oyster larval recruitment
and settlement as well as nekton and epifauna utilization. Within the southern region project
areas (Lockwood Folly, Masonboro-Myrtle Grove Sound and Stump Sound) the reef sites will be
located just inside of the line marking the permanent closure of waters to shellfish harvest due to
bacteriological contamination. This bacteria is not harmful to reef development and will prevent
any harvest of restored oysters. Placement of the reefs just inside the closed area eliminates user
conflicts that would be caused by closing open shellfish waters to build and protect the habitat
restoration sites. Placing the reefs in the closed areas will also allow for more research and
comparison of oysters further upstream and closer to the pollution sources in the closed areas.
Within the White Oak River, the reef sites will be adjacent to Jones Island which is a component
of Hammocks Beach State Park. The Park and the federation have maintained research
sanctuary or shellfish management area designations for all their oyster reef habitat projects in
these waters that are subject to shellfish harvest.
The reefs will be designed with suitable elevations, patch size, inter -reef habitat, surface and
edge complexity and shell layer thickness to allow for maximum potential for oyster larvae
recruitment and settlement, water flow and transport of oxygen and food for the oysters, habitat
provision and other ecosystem services. The federation will mark the project site and reef
locations with PVC poles according to the designated project design prior to reef construction.
The project will use oyster shells to create the intertidal and shallow subtidal oyster reefs. At
some of the sites, a limited amount of #4 marine limestone marl may be used in conjunction with
the oyster shells. Marl is a suitable reef material and is utilized by N.C. Division of Marine
Fisheries for oyster reef enhancement activities. Using marl in conjunction with oyster shells
supplements the amount of reef material and enables further evaluation of marl as reef material
in estuaries along the coast.
The oyster reef material will be purchased from oyster shucking houses and quarries (marl) and
transported by truck to a stockpile location near each project site. Project contractors (either N.C.
Division of Marine Fisheries or private contractors) will load the reef material onto small,
shallow draft barges. The barges will travel to the project site where the contractor will spread
the shell into the reef locations as indicated by the PVC poles placed earlier. Using its flat bottom
boats, the federation will be monitoring the reef construction activities and will check the
placement of the shells to ensure that it meets the project design specifications. Upon the
satisfactory completion of the reef material deployment, the federation will place signage on the
project area indicating their designation by the N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries as shellfish
research sanctuaries. Post project monitoring will then begin and occur according to the
monitoring schedule.
Previous monitoring of federation restored oyster reefs in North Carolina indicates that they
provide oyster habitat during the first spatfall season, and that recruitment may be heavy,
22

depending upon larval availability and seasonal fluctuations. Oysters generally reach maturity in
two to three years, and the reef will provide oyster habitat for as long as the reef exists, since
new oysters will continue to attach onto previous oyster shell layers, even in a scenario of rising
sea level. Lifecycle estimates of the individual oysters are highly variable, and are not impacted
by the project, but by natural predation, oyster diseases, and pollution.
Monitoring of oyster reefs previously created by the federation also shows that they provide
habitat and are used by a variety of finfish during the first year. Again, the reefs will provide
habitat for finfish for as long as the reefs exist. Since the reefs are formed from oyster shells,
there is no known limit to the structure lifetime. Sea level rise predictions are expected to
increase significantly over the next century, and it is currently unknown whether oyster
recruitment patterns will be able to be sustained during periods of rapid sea level rise.
The federation will work with volunteers and contractors to install the innovative living shoreline
projects. Each living shoreline project will create saltmarsh and oyster habitat along a section of
eroding shoreline. The projects will include the restoration of coastal salt marsh and the
implementation of an oyster reef sill made up of oyster shell and marl bags and in some cases
concrete oyster domes. The project employs the innovative technique of using a combination of
"softer" approaches to reducing shoreline erosion instead of relying on a vertical wall bulkhead,
rip -rap revetment or other hardened structure. The oyster reef sills serve as the wave dampening
mechanism or sill. This use of oyster shell and marl bags and oyster domes is an innovative
approach to erosion control along estuarine shorelines.
This approach also allows for the potential for adaptation to rising sea levels. The living
shoreline allows the project components to adapt and migrate to changing levels of water. The
oyster sills made up of oyster shell and marl bags and oyster domes will recruit oyster larvae that
will attach to the oyster shell and marl in the bags and the marine friendly concrete oyster domes.
As these oyster spat develop and mature they will transform the shell and marl bags and oyster
domes into a developing reef. The oysters will continue to grow and more larvae will settle onto
the reef. The oysters will tolerate a certain vertical range in this growing reef. As water levels
change, the oysters will settle and grow in this range using the reef base as a foundation for
continual buildup of the newer, taller reaches of the reef. The created and restored salt marsh
habitat behind the oyster shell bag sill will also be able to migrate to maintain its preferred
elevation in relation to the water level and tidal amplitude.
Each of the project areas along with nearby reference sites will be surveyed to determine the
exact location, elevation and grade needed to establish the oyster reef sill and the marsh
plantings. If necessary, clean sandy fill of compatible grain size and color will be installed in the
project area to create a suitable grade and elevation for successful marsh restoration. The fill
would come from a commercial sand mine that has provided sand for previous marsh restoration
projects.
The project contractor will use a Bobcat/skid loader to haul the sand from the stockpile area to
the project site. The contractor will place the sand in the designated restoration area and will
work on the sand fill to avoid travel on existing marsh. The fill will be placed from the top of the
marsh scarp at normal high water and extend towards the base of the oyster shell bag, marl bag
23

or oyster dome sills. Once all the sand is in place the contractor will use the blade of the
Bobcat/skid loader to shape and grade the sand to the approved elevations. The fill will be
graded to match the natural grade suitable for Spartina patens and Spartina alternii fora. The fill
will be stabilized with the installation of Spartina alternii fora planted on 12 inch centers to
enhance the restoration of the salt marsh. Some high marsh plant seedlings, Spartina patens will
be installed as needed in any high marsh zones.
The ground will be protected through the use of logging/marsh mats for the equipment and
people to pass over. Once the project is complete, all the mats and any project debris will be
removed and the path area will be allowed to return to its natural state. No fill will be used at the
Jones Island living shoreline restoration site because the grade is acceptable and the logistical
difficulties in moving it to the site.
Oyster shell bags, marl bags and concrete oyster domes will be placed by volunteers and project
contractors along the shoreline to form long low profile oyster reefs to create the oyster sills.
Depending upon the project area, the oyster sills will have a minimum 6 feet in width and a
maximum 9 feet in width, and each sill will range from 200 to 500 feet in length. The reefs will
be made up of oyster shell and marine limestone marl placed in aquaculture mesh bags and in
some cases marine friendly concrete oyster domes. Marl is an approved oyster reef cultch
material, but is more readily available and is less expensive than oyster shells, The marl, while
successful for oyster larvae recruitment and attachment, is best used as a base for the sill. The
base of the sill is often covered in sediment fairly early on in the development of the shell bag
blanket reef so it is best to use the marl in this area. The marl will be placed, either in bags or
loose depending on the site conditions, in the footprint of the sill. Then mesh bags filled with
recycled oyster shells will be placed on top of the marl so that the shell is in the optimum
elevation range for oyster larvae recruitment. In areas with strong wave and wake action,
primarily the Morris Landing site in Project Area #3, concrete oyster domes will be used in
conjunction with the oyster shell and marl bags. The domes, placed in staggered rows, would
occupy the same reef footprint as designed for the marl and shell bags. Approximately 5 feet of
open area will be left between each of the oyster reef sills to allow for fish passage and inter -reef
fisheries habitat. These reefs will protect existing oyster and salt marsh habitat and will enhance
and restore lost oyster reef and salt marsh habitats.
Once the oyster reef sills have been constructed, the salt marsh restoration between the sill and
eroding shoreline will take place. The pre -project survey will determine if clean sandy fill of
compatible grain size and color will need to be installed in the project area (except no fill will be
used at Jones Island). Once the fill is in place and settled, Spartina alternii fora (smooth
cordgrass) and saltmeadow hay (Spartina patens) seedlings will be planted along the intertidal
zone, landward of the restored oyster reef area in each project area. In all the salt marsh
restoration areas the plants will be planted by volunteers on 1 foot centers, in an offset grid
pattern in the zone between the created oyster habitat and the existing eroding salt marsh at each
project site.
Flat bottom boats will be used to scout the project sites, haul oyster shell and marl bags, and
volunteer work crews. Spartina alternii lora seedlings will be acquired and planted by volunteer
work crews in the construction of the living shoreline. Monitoring activities will consist of the
24

use of flat bottom boats to transport volunteers and staff to the project site, and the acquisition
and installation of Spartina alternii fora seedlings for use in annual maintenance activities.
For the oyster reef sills, previous project monitoring indicates that the sills provide oyster reef
habitat within weeks of construction through colonization by reef epifauna, followed by nekton
utilization. Oyster recruitment occurs during the first spatfall season, and recruitment may range
from light to heavy, depending upon larval availability and seasonal fluctuations. Oysters
generally reach maturity in two to three years, and the reef will provide oyster habitat for as long
as the reef exists, since new oysters will continue to attach onto previous oyster shell layers, even
in a scenario of rising sea level. Lifecycle estimates of the individual oysters are highly variable,
and are not impacted by the project, but by natural predation, oyster diseases, pollution, etc.
Monitoring of previously created oyster reef sills also show that these reefs provide habitat and
are used by a variety of finfish during the first year. Again, the reefs will provide habitat for
finfish for as long as the reefs exist. Since the reefs are formed from oyster shells, there is no
known limit to the structure lifetime, although it is possible that these structures may be damaged
or destroyed during a strong hurricane.
The restored marsh shoreline provides certain habitat functions during the first season (erosion
control, fisheries habitat), but restored marshes in North Carolina usually require two to three
years to provide aerial plant coverage similar to natural marshes, and may take seven to ten years
to provide most of the functions of a natural marsh, including production of peat layer, nutrient
cycling, etc. Monitoring of similar sill/marsh projects indicate that restored low/high marshes
landward of sills has remained stable for 20 to 30 years. Since sills function to retain sediment
and provide stability of the marshes landward of the sill, some sill projects can result in accretion
of sediment landward of the sill, and resultant evolution from low to high marsh. Although
research data is fairly limited, current findings show that some marshes may accrete landward of
the sills, while others reach a stable elevation and location of low to high marshes. Given the
recent estimates for significantly increased rates of sea level rise and storms, it is possible that
the marshes landward of sills may be more successful in keeping pace with sea level rise,
although no data yet exists to support this possibility.
2.2 Site Selection Criteria
Site selection criteria for the restoration of intertidal and shallow subtidal patch eastern oyster
reef habitat included:
• Previous loss of oyster reef habitat;
• High harvest pressure;
• Absence of oyster sanctuaries in the area;
• Presence of adequate natural reefs and larval production to populate newly created reefs;
• Areas targeted with a multifaceted approach to address water quality declines and habitat
degradation;
• Waters closed to shellfishing that are suitable for reef restoration;
• Presence of suitable substrate for reef establishment;
• Suitable conditions (water flow, salinity levels, phytoplankton, etc.) for reef development
and oyster survival present;
• Low or moderate levels of oyster disease (Dermo, MSX); and
• Absence of user conflicts with respect to harvest, navigation, recreation, etc.
25

Sea level rise, subsidence, increased storm damage and development along estuarine shorelines
has led to the loss of significant areas of salt marsh. Site selection criteria for fringing salt marsh
habitat included:
• Presence of erosion and loss of salt marsh habitat;
• Suitability of site for a living shoreline project combining oyster reef sill and salt marsh
restoration;
• Water depth, fetch area relative to the project area, wave action and boat wakes being at a
level that will allow a living shoreline project to successfully provide oyster reef habitat
and protect existing and restored salt marsh habitat;
• Suitable substrate and depth elevations for salt marsh restoration through the installation
of salt marsh vegetation or a combination of a minimal amount of sand fill and the
installation of salt marsh vegetation;
• Suitable substrate for shoreline oyster reef/sill establishment; and
• Suitable conditions (water flow, salinity levels, phytoplankton, etc.) for oyster sill/reef
development and oyster survival.
Project sites are areas of high priority for restoration as determined by the N.C. Oyster Protection
and Restoration Action Plan, the N.C. Oyster Fishery Management Plan, the N.C. Coastal
Habitat Protection Plan, the Onslow Bight Conservation Forum and the Cape Fear Arch
Conservation Collaboration. Other areas within North Carolina's estuaries did not rank as
priorities for restoration and did not meet the site selection criteria discussed above.
2.3 No Action Alternative
The No Action alternative involves no construction of intertidal and shallow subtidal patch
oyster reefs and fringing salt marsh habitats in four project sites in southeastern North Carolina
using Estuary Restoration Act (ERA) grant funding. The No Action alternative would not
provide for restoration of salt marsh and oyster reef estuarine habitat. The no action alternative
does not increase public awareness and support for habitat restoration efforts, and provides no
opportunity for the public to engage in these activities. Scientific understanding of the best way
to conduct these projects will not be enhanced by the No Action alternative since monitoring and
evaluation of these restoration techniques will not occur. Although the No Action alternative
does not meet the purpose and need for this action, it was retained for comparison with the
proposed plan and therefore, discussed in Section 5 (Environmental Consequences) of this EA.
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES n
3.1 Summary of Environmental Impacts
As shown in Table 1, construction of the patch oyster reefs and living shorelines will have
positive impacts on the environment. The No Action alternative will have negative effects on the
environment. The information summarized in Table 1 is discussed in greater detail in Sections
3.3.1 through 3.3.16.

Table 1. Summary of Environmental Impacts.
Resource
No Action
Proposed Action
Tides and Currents
No impact
No impact
Water Quality
No impact
Positive impact
Sediment Quality
No impact
Positive impact in areas of
shoreline erosion
Shoreline Processes
Negative impact from continued
Positive impact on shoreline
loss of habitat and lost education
erosion and in demonstrating
and involvement opportunity
living shoreline methods
Threatened and Endangered
No affect
Minor positive direct impact by
Species
providing more habitat, long-
term benefits by promoting
habitat restoration and living
shorelines. Either no affect or
may affect not likely to adversely
affect.
Aquatic Resources
Negative impact because of lost
Positive impacts by providing
opportunity to provide more
more habitat for shellfish and fish
habitat as well as greater
education and involvement in
restoration efforts.
Essential Fish Habitat
No impact
Positive impact by providing
more reefs and salt marsh habitat
that is designated as EFH
Fish and Wildlife Resources
No impact
Positive impact by providing
more habitat and food for fish
and wildlife
Recreation, Navigation, and
No impact
Positive impact by providing
Aesthetic Resources
more habitat for shellfish, fish
and birds
Archaeological/Historical
Negative impact since
Positive impact by providing for
Resources
archaeological resources will not
traditional uses of estuaries and
be protected at Jones Island
protection of archaeological
resources at Jones Island
Coastal Barrier Resources Act
No impact
No impact
Wetlands
No impact
Positive impact by protecting and
restoring salt marsh
Prime and Unique Agricultural
No impact
No impact
Land
Hazardous and Toxic Waste Sites
No impact
No impact
Air Quality
No impact
No impact
3.2 Affected Environment
The Lockwood Folly River in Brunswick County begins in the Green Swamp and flows into the
Atlantic Ocean through the Lockwood Folly Inlet. The living shoreline and patch oyster reef
restoration project area is located in the lower estuary of the river. Due to the proximity of the
27

inlet and strong tidal flow, the estuary experiences a high rate of water exchange and flushing.
This allows the lower river to maintain good water quality despite increasing nonpoint source
pollution from a developing watershed. The river is classified as shellfish waters (SA) by the
N.C. Division of Water Quality. Tidal salt marshes, dominated by smooth cordgrass (Spartina
alternii fora), saltmeadow hay (Spartina patens) and saltgrass (Distichils spicata), occur along
the estuarine shorelines and make up small islands in the lower river. The lower river contains
extensive intertidal flats with areas of shell hash and mud. The river contains significant areas of
intact wetlands along its length which provide valuable buffering and water quality benefits.
Stump Sound in Onslow County is an estuary with polyhaline to euhaline conditions ranging
from 18 to 36 parts per thousand salinity. Due to the exceptional water quality and extremely
high fisheries value, the shallow waters of Stump Sound are classified by North Carolina as
shellfish waters, outstanding resource waters (ORW) and are designated as a primary nursery
area (PNA). These ecological attributes and the presence of oyster reefs and shell bottom habitat,
submerged aquatic vegetation, soft bottom habitat and extensive wetlands make these waters
critical for fish foraging, refuge, spawning and nursery areas.
Masonboro Sound - Myrtle Grove Sound in New Hanover County includes the shallow estuarine
waters of Greenville, Middle Sounds and Bradley and Hewletts Creeks. The project area also
includes the Masonboro Island component of the N.C. National Estuarine Research Reserve
(NERR). The N.C. Oyster Management Plan Southern Regional Workgroup has identified the
project area as a high priority area for oyster restoration projects. Within the proposed project
area, the estuary is classified as shellfish waters (SA), outstanding resource waters (ORW) and is
designated as a primary nursery area (PNA). Masonboro Island is the largest undisturbed barrier
island along the southern part of the North Carolina coast.
Jones Island in Onslow County is a 23-acre island located in the White Oak River. The lower
portion of the White Oak River surrounding Jones Island is classified as shellfish waters (SA)
and as high quality waters (HQW). The lower White Oak River is also considered Essential Fish
Habitat for spot, croaker and brown shrimp. For these reasons, the North Carolina Oyster
Management Plan Central Regional Oyster Workgroup identified the project area as a high
priority area for oyster restoration projects. The island's shoreline is comprised of coastal
fringing marsh that is dominated by smooth cordgrass (Spartina alternii fora). However, these
areas have eroded significantly in recent years. The federation has been working to restore the
shoreline of Jones Island since 2007. To date, these restoration activities have included creating
1,350 linear feet of oyster shell bag sills with landward marsh grass plantings and three acres of
oyster reef habitat.
All the project areas include nearby barrier islands, tidal creeks and a variety of estuarine
habitats. The various salinity patterns found in the extensive subtidal and intertidal areas support
a myriad of estuarine species. The habitats include subtidal soft bottom, tidal flats, hard surfaces,
salt marshes, shrub thicket, maritime forest, dredge spoil areas, grasslands, ocean beach and sand
dunes. The existing estuarine habitats, water quality status, and direct connection with the ocean
make these areas vital area for estuarine and marine organisms foraging, migrating, breeding,
spawning and seeking refuge as juveniles.
M-

3.3 Environmental Consequences
3.3.1 Tides and Currents
Existing Conditions: All four project sites are located in estuaries near inlets and are subject to
lunar and wind tides that range from about one a half feet in Stump Sound to over four and one-
half feet in the Lockwood Folly River.
No Action: No impacts to tides and currents associated with the No Action alternative.
Proposed Action: No impacts to tides and currents associated with the Proposed Action
alternative
3.3.2 Water Quality
Existing Conditions: Project sites #1, #2, and #3 are located in waters that have been closed to
the harvest of shellfish because high fecal coliform levels indicate that there would be a public
health hazard if shellfish are harvested and consumed by humans. Project site #4 is normally
open to shellfish harvest except after heavy rainfall. Overall, these sites have generally good
water quality.
No Action: The erosion and loss of shore and wetlands may produce some water quality
impacts during high energy events.
Proposed Action: The project will generate very limited short-term impacts on water quality
and in the long-term, the project will positively affect water quality. An increase in oyster
abundance will increase water clarity through filtration. Short-term, nominal adverse impacts to
water quality may result from the actual placement of shells and possibly sand fill in the water.
Placement of shells on the estuary bottom will result in a temporary elevation of turbidity during
operations but this will dissipate very quickly upon completion because the particle size is large
(>20mm) with a high sinking rate. No adverse impacts to water quality, including oxygen
depletion or the release of chemical substances will occur as oyster shells are a natural substance
that is already present in high concentrations within the estuaries and carries with it a very low
oxygen demand and inconsequential levels of contaminant risk. To minimize the impact on
oxygen demand, only cured shell will be used: shell stored on land for a sufficient amount of
time as to insure that any associated shellfish meat left by the shucking process will have
decomposed prior to shell planting. Mobile organisms such as fish and crabs can temporarily
vacate the area whereas benthic organisms associated with the existing oyster beds will only be
temporarily impacted by the increased turbidity levels during the shell planting procedure. Shell
planting for recruitment enhancement requires planting shell in a thin veneer to optimize surface
area in contact with the water, consequently burial and mortality of benthic biota will be low;
typically near zero.
If sand fill is necessary for the living shoreline component of the restoration project, a small path
(— 7 wide x — 60 long) will be used to provide access for a Bobcat to bring in the sand for the
marsh creation and for volunteers to haul the oyster shell and marl bags into the project area
along the shoreline. The path will run at an angle to avoid any major trees. Only vegetation
shrubs will be cleared if necessary, and the soil in this buffer zone will not be disturbed. The

ground will be protected through the use of logging/marsh mats for the equipment and people to
pass over. Once the project is complete, all the mats and any vegetation or project debris will be,
removed and the path area will be replanted and allowed to return to its natural state.
In addition, 400' of turbidity boom will be installed and maintained in the project area prior to
construction. The boom will be temporarily anchored in place during the construction and until
the project is deemed stable.
3.3.3 Sediment Quality
Existing Conditions: Sediments in the three project locations are typical of soft muds within
estuarine locations and do not contain any known contaminants. The sediments at the Jones
Island project site are harder and sandier. They have been deposited over the softer natural
bottom due to high rates of shoreline erosion.
No Action: No impact at sites #1, #2, and D. Site number 44 (Jones Island) will become
increasingly sandy as shoreline erosion continues.
Proposed Action: No Impact at sites #1, #2, and #3. The Jones Island site will become more
typical of a natural soft muddy bottom that existing outside the influence of the shoreline erosion
that is occurring once a vegetated stable shoreline is established.
3.3.4 Shoreline Processes
Existing Conditions: Storms and sea level rise is causing some shoreline retreat near all the
project sites. The most shoreline erosion is occurring at Jones Island due to the cliffs that
surround the island and the wave energy that can be created by storms.
No Action: Productive estuarine habitat for oysters and salt marsh will be degraded by shoreline
erosion. The projects sites will not demonstrate more environmentally responsible ways to
protect property that is eroding while at the same time providing valuable fisheries habitat.
Proposed Action: The projects will include the restoration of coastal salt marsh and the
implementation of an oyster reef sill made up of oyster shell and marl bags and in some cases
concrete oyster domes. The project employs the innovative technique of using a combination of
"softer" approaches to reducing shoreline erosion instead of relying on a vertical wall bulkhead,
rip -rap revetment or other hardened structure. The oyster reef sills will serve as the wave
dampening mechanism or sill. Thus Shoreline erosion will be reduced. The projects will
demonstrate how to protect upland property from erosion while maintaining or enhancing
fisheries habitat.
3.3.5 Threatened and Endangered Species
Existing Conditions: Threatened and endangered species that may be found temporarily in or
around the project areas include: loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta), green sea turtle
(Chelonia mydas), leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea), hawksbill sea turtle
(Eretmochelys imbricate), Kemp's ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempi), Atlantic sturgeon
(Acipenser oxyrhynchus), shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum), West Indian manatee
(Trichechus manatus), roseate tern (Sterna dougallii), piping plover (Charadrius melodus) and
30

seabeach amaranth (Amaranthus pumilus) which grow on the foredunes of the barrier islands.
There are also both federal and state listed species of concern in and around the project areas,
including: black skimmers, Wilson's plovers, least terns, Hartman's Echiurid and a polychaete
worm in the genus Notomastus.
Population stressors for sturgeon evaluated throughout existing literature indicate that by -catch
mortality, water quality, lack of adequate state or federal regulatory mechanisms and dredging
activities are the most significant threat to the viability of Atlantic sturgeon populations.
Additionally, some populations were affected by unique stressors, such as habitat impediments
(e.g., dams on the Cape Fear and Santee -Cooper rivers) and apparent ship strikes (e.g., Delaware
and James rivers). Dams on the Neuse River and its tributaries might also have adversely
affected Atlantic sturgeon populations in the Neuse River Basin.
No Action: No effects on Threatened and Endangered Species associated with the No Action
alternative.
Proposed Action: Healthier fisheries habitats should benefit threatened and endangered species.
Shormose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) and Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrhyncus) may
be indirectly affected by filling of the substrate. However, due to the lack of suitable freshwater
spawning areas within the project area and the requirement of low salinity waters by juveniles,
any shortnose sturgeons present would most likely be non -spawning adults. Given the mobility
of the organisms resting or feeding and the extensive areas of soft bottom surrounding the area of
disturbance, the project may affect but is not likely to adversely affect the shormose sturgeon.
Sea turtles could use the project areas which could serve as feeding and resting grounds, Sea
turtles may be indirectly affected by filling of the substrate in the late spring/early summer. To
minimize the risk of adverse impacts, should sea turtles be seen within 50 yards of the work site,
all work will cease until the sea turtles have moved out of the area as recommended by the U.S.
Fish & Wildlife Service. The project may affect but is not likely to adversely affect the sea
turtles.
West Indian manatees (Trichechus manatus) are unlikely to be present at the project site. Wo&
will follow the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service's "Guidelines for Avoiding Impacts to the West
Indian Manatee" to minimize the risk of adverse impacts to this species. The project may affect
but is not likely to adversely affect the West Indian manatee.
3.3.6 Aquatic Resources
Existing Conditions: The project sites all contain significant areas of oyster beds and maintain
high levels of annual oyster spatfall. However, due to continuing harvest pressure and
sedimentation rates, a significant amount of viable oyster reef has been lost. Providing adequate
reef and settlement substrate will significantly enhance the oyster population and oyster reef
habitat in the lower river estuaries.
Throughout the four project areas, oysters and shellfish bottom, coastal marshes, and associated
intertidal mud bottoms provide spawning, nursery and feeding areas for most of the region's
31

important coastal fishery species, including many species that migrate throughout the Atlantic
coast. It has been estimated that over 90 percent of commercially harvested finfish and shellfish
in the southeast are dependent on these estuaries and wetlands.
In the waters of the four project areas, oyster reefs are primarily intertidal with some areas of
shallow subtidal reefs. Oyster reef habitat represents the dominant structural habitat in some of
the project areas' tidal creeks and sounds. Shell bottom has been found to have significant
impacts on population dynamics and community ecology. In addition to the well -studied benefits
of oyster areas for fisheries, recent research indicates that oysters provide additional values such
as water quality improvements, benthic pelagic coupling, nutrient dynamics and sediment
stabilization. Researchers have begun to connect the role of oyster habitat in maintaining the
integrity of fringing marshes in tidal creeks throughout the southeast, forming a protective
breakwater that retards shoreline erosion.
A recent study conducted by researchers at UNC W (Posey et al., 2008) indicated that existing
oyster reefs in the project areas may have a diversity of structure and vertical relief and a range
of ratios of live oysters to shell hash on individual oyster reefs. The diverse conditions of the
reefs within the project areas may reflect the influence of stress from disease, siltation or other
factors affecting survival and growth of oysters.
No Action: No restoration of these degraded habitats. No increase in public awareness and
involvement in fisheries habitat restoration. No new scientific information upon which to base
future management decisions.
Proposed Action: The impacts anticipated to occur as the result of this restoration project are
positive. The deployed oyster shells will provide oysters the needed hard substrate of a sufficient
elevation above the sediments to settle and grow. The proposed project will restore shellfish
habitats, particularly intertidal and subtidal oyster habitats. Oyster habitats are the primary hard -
bottom structure in the southeast near shore coastal region and support both commercial and
recreational harvesting, improve water quality, provide habitat for many non -shellfish species
(e.g., marketable fish and crabs) and protect shorelines from erosion. Providing adequate reef
and settlement substrate will significantly enhance the oyster population and oyster reef habitat
in the lower river estuaries.
3.3.7 Essential Fish Habitat
Existing Conditions: The proposed project areas contain extensive areas of estuarine marshes,
oyster reefs, the estuarine water columns, and intertidal flats that are designated as Essential Fish
Habitat (EFH) by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. These areas are essential
nursery habitat for shellfish and finfish.
No Action: No impacts related to Essential Fish Habitat associated with the No Action
alternative.
Proposed Action: Habitat will increase and the long-term effects of this alternative are positive
both as a result of the direct creation and restoration of 10.54 acres of designated EFH, and
indirect benefits that come from greater public and scientific support for restoration efforts.
32

3.3.8 Fish and Wildlife Resources
Existing Conditions: The nutrient rich waters of the sounds and tidal creeks within the project
areas are an important nursery area for shellfish, spot, mullet, summer flounder, pompano,
menhaden and bluefish.
No Action: No impacts related to Fish and Wildlife Resources associated with the No Action
alternative. However, shellfish and oyster habitats which provide a source of food that directly
and indirectly benefit a diverse and extensive number of birds and wildlife will not be restored.
Proposed Action: Approximately five feet of open area will be left for every 100 feet of reef/sill
to allow for fish passage and inter -reef fisheries habitat. In addition, at the Morris Landing site,
three oyster domes will be placed about two feet channel ward of each fish passage opening to
help buffer wave action at the opening and prevent erosion behind the opening.
These restored shellfish and finfish habitats provide a source of food that directly and indirectly
benefit a diverse and extensive number of birds and wildlife. For example, the mechanism of
interaction between some avian piscivorous species such as the bald eagle and North American
osprey species is indirect: a change in the oyster population could cause changes in the
populations of planktivorous fish (particularly menhaden) through competition for food, which
could affect avian piscivores. No long-term, adverse impacts to birds are expected from the
project.
The creation of oyster and salt marsh habitats will benefit waterfowl, wading birds, shorebirds,
songbirds and other native bird species. The work proposed follows guidance provided by the
North American Waterfowl Management Plan, United States Shorebird Conservation Plan,
North American Waterbird Conservation Plan, and the regional plans for Bird Conservation
Region 27 as detailed in Atlantic Coast Joint Venture (ACJV) conservation planning efforts for
waterfowl, shorebirds, waterbirds and area -sensitive forest -dwelling land birds through its
integrated bird plan - South Atlantic Migratory Bird Initiative Implementation Plan (SAMBI).
Additionally, ten North American Wetlands Conservation Act Priority Species of wetland -
dependent migratory birds from ACJV Bird Conservation Region 27 will benefit from the
increased foraging, nesting, or roosting habitat (little blue heron, swallow-tailed kite, yellow rail,
black rail, short -billed dowitcher, red knot, stilt sandpiper, short -billed dowitcher, American
woodcock, prothonotary warbler, Swainson's warbler). At least 50 other species of wetland -
dependent or wetland associated species will also benefit directly from this work, including four
federally listed, threatened or candidate species (wood stork, red -cockaded woodpecker,
swallow-tailed kite, American alligator) and three state -listed endangered or species of concern
(glossy ibis, little blue heron, bald eagle).
3.3.9 Recreation, Navigation and Aesthetic Resources
Existing Conditions: The project sites are in public trust waters that are used for boating,
swimming, bird watching, fishing, and other public uses common to the coastal waters of North
Carolina. The living shoreline component of Project Area # 1 is at a public park owned by the
Town of Oak Island. The living shoreline project site in Project Area #2 is at Morris Landing
33

which is a site open to the public for recreation. Project site #4 is located at a component of
Hammocks Beach State Park (Jones Island).
No Action: No impacts related to Recreation, Navigation and Aesthetic Resources associated
with the No Action alternative.
Proposed Action: The reefs and living shorelines will be marked with PCV Pipes and reflective
tape to notify boaters of their existence. The restored oyster reefs are not located in any
maintained navigation channel, and they will be built to the same height as existing adjacent
oyster reefs. Therefore, the reefs pose a very minor threat to navigation. All of the created reefs
will be marked according to the recommendations of state and federal agencies included in the
permits to prevent navigational hazards. These restored habitats will provide more fish, birds and
wildlife for public use and enjoyment.
3.3.10 Archaeological/Historical Resources
Existing Conditions: Historically, the sounds and creeks served as a source for abundant oyster
harvests for commercial and recreational oystermen. North Carolina Division of Marine
Fisheries' historical oyster landings data indicates that thousands of bushels of oysters were
harvested annually from oyster leases and public trust waters within Greenville, Masonboro and
Middle Sounds and Bradley Creek. Restoring crucial oyster habitat will not only restore the
historical role of oysters in coastal North Carolina, it will also increase recreational fishing
opportunities by creating critical habitat for larval and juvenile fmfish. Jones Island is known to
also have Native American archaeological sites within or near the project area that are of cultural
importance and have been evaluated through past regulatory and permit actions on the island
(See Figure 18).
No Action: At Jones Island, the archaeological resources will not be protected from shoreline
erosion by the living shoreline.
Proposed Action: The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) was passed in 1966 to
protect, enhance, and preserve any property that possesses significant architectural,
archaeological, historical, or cultural characteristics. Section 106 of this act requires the head of
any federal agency with jurisdiction over a federally financed action, prior to the expenditure, to
take into account the effect of the action on any district, site, building, structure, or object that is
included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. With the
exception of Jones Island discussed below, no such sites have been identified at the proposed
restoration area and therefore no significant impacts on these resources are anticipated. This
finding will be coordinated for concurrence with the State Historic Preservation Officer during
public review of this EA.
Restoring crucial oyster habitat will not only restore the historical role of oysters in coastal
North Carolina, it will also increase recreational fishing opportunities by creating critical habitat
for larval and juvenile finfish. The project is consistent with protecting archaeological resources
on Jones Island by preventing shoreline erosion.
34

M
North Cuolina Department of Cultural ].resources
Sine Historic Preservation Wee
Ptta H. Svdta'uy Aamivi..m,m
ar, yFm.Pc�,c,ee.tnv. arse de,w..e.>re ttsap
Icda1_Gu`' k ScmuT LPmm�dfGumol&canttr
I�fFCma.CM-'96r.�ess, Da,;dnce4.nbaw
February 10, 2009
MEMORANDUM,
TO: Doug Haggett, Chief
Major Permits Pzmessing Section
Division of Coastal a �' f
FROM: Peter Sandbeck tjU t /See-e5utl�lerr
SUBJECT: CAMA/Drcdge and Fill Perraic Application, NC Division of Parks and Recreation Joaea Island
Oyster and Mush Habitat Restoration, Oaelaw County, ER 08-3013
'On February, 5, 2009, laterence Abbott of the OSA staff met with Amin Davis of the NC Division of Parks
v sad Recreation and Le tii Weaver and Todd'Nfiller of the NC Coastal Federation. The purpose of this meeting
was to discuss the construction and logistical deists surrounding the above project Based on this discussion
we offet the following comments.
It is our present understaxiding that the proposed project will not involve any ground-duntbing activities
inland of the existing shoreline on the island. All wastrucrioa activities will occur within the votes. The
staging of construction materials (oyster shell -filled bags) will occur inland and does not appear w represent a
significaat threat to say etdstiag culmml msou ovs in the general ama. All consuvcdan will be done by hand
with no involvement of heavy machinery. The undertaking will senor to stabilize and protect the island from
father erosion within the given seen under consideration.
As a result of this discussion we conclude that the undertaking will not adversely impact any cultural
resources, We recommend that the conditions placed on the applicsnt's permit regarding cultural resources
have ban fulfilled.. We teeomtnend no further work in teuiw of archacologieal resources. We also
muxmmead that the project proceed as presently designed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
.Part 800,
Thank you for year cooperation and cousidcation. If you have questions concerning the above comment.
place comact Renee Gledhi0-Farley, environmcnal review wordinaeur, at 919-807-6579. In all futoro
communication concerning this project, pleast cite The above -referenced tracking number.
ce Paul Donne0y, Parke and Recreation
Todd Miller, North Carolina Coastal Federation CGi,
routiesrp9E..tlaa,euer PJCY4 NC 2Hll1 anauYMdmx Nli t43&MxC. .RAO NC215s9017 SAe,teee)Fez YSj L'}4xta/501<SW
Figure 18. Project Area #4, Letter from the N.C. Department of Cultural Resources.
3.3.11 Coastal Barrier Resources Act
Existing Conditions: No segments of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act system exist within the
project sites.
35

No Action: No impacts to the Coastal Barrier Resources System associated with the No Action
alternative.
Proposed Action: There are no impacts to the Coastal Barrier Resources System associated with
the Proposed Action.
3.3.12 Wetlands
Existing Conditions: Salt marsh habitat exists within the project area. Estuarine wetlands are
generally found along the margins of estuaries and sounds. Estuarine wetlands include salt
marshes that are the focus of the proposed action. As classified by the N.C. Division of Coastal
Management, salt marsh habitat is comprised of a herbaceous community containing an
assemblage of species including smooth cordgrass (Spartina alternii fora), saltmeadow hay
(Spartina patens), black needlerush (Juncus roemerianus), glasswort (Salicornia spp.), salt grass
(Distichlis spicata), seaside oxeye (Borrichia frutescens), sea lavender (Limonium carolinianum)
and other species.
No Action: Estuarine wetlands will continue to be lost due to shoreline erosion.
Proposed Action: The living shoreline project components are designed to enhance and restore
salt marsh habitat.
3.3.13 Floodplains
Existing Conditions: The project sites are all located below mean high water within estuaries.
Executive Order 11988 requires federal agencies to avoid to the extent possible the long and
short-term adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains and to
avoid direct and indirect support of floodplain development wherever there is a practicable
alternative. In accomplishing this objective, "each agency shall provide leadership and shall take
action to reduce the risk of flood loss, to minimize the impact of floods on human safety, health,
and welfare, and to restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains
in carrying out its responsibilities" for the following actions: (1) acquiring, managing, and
disposing of federal lands and facilities; (2) providing federally -undertaken, financed, or assisted
construction and improvements; and (3) conducting federal activities and programs affecting
land use, including but not limited to water and related land resources planning, regulation, and
licensing activities.
No Action: No impacts to the Floodplains associated with the No Action alternative.
Proposed Action: There are no impacts to the Floodplains associated with the Proposed Action
alternative.
3.3.14 Prime and Unique Agricultural Land
Existing Conditions: No prime and unique agricultural land is located within the project area.
No Action: No impacts to Prime and Unique Agricultural Land.
Proposed Action: No impacts to Prime and Unique Agricultural Land.
36

3.3.15 Hazardous and Toxic Waste Sites
Existing Conditions: No hazardous or toxic waste sites are located within the project area.
No Action: No impacts to or from hazardous or toxic waste sites.
Proposed Action: No impacts to or from hazardous or toxic waste sites.
3.3.16 Air Quality
Existing Conditions: The ambient air quality for the project areas is in compliance with the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards and the counties designated as attainment areas. The
State of North Carolina does have a State Implementation Plan (SIP) approved or promulgated
under Section 110 of the Clean Air Act.
No Action: No impacts.
Proposed Action:. The proposed actions are not anticipated to create any adverse impacts on air
quality of these attainment areas. A conformity determination is not required.
3.3.17 Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Communities and
Low Income Populations
Existing Conditions: Environmental justice is the protection of every person.regardless of
color, race, or income from negative health, environmental, and economic impacts from a
Federal project.
No Action: None. Any change in the oyster population that affects water quality and habitat in
the estuaries will affect all residents of the area, regardless of minority or economic status. To the
extent that minorities or low-income individuals are involved in oystering or in other
components of the oyster industry they would be positively affected by the increases in oyster
populations or oyster -related businesses. The projects will not adversely impact any minority or
low-income communities. The economic and environmental impacts of the recommended oyster
restoration projects are expected to be beneficial, so there would be no adverse impact, either
short- or long-term, related to environmental justice for all persons.
Proposed Action: The project will comply with Executive Order 12989, dated February 11,
1994 (Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low -Income Populations).
3.3.18 Indirect and Cumulative Impacts
Indirect or secondary effects are those that are reasonably foreseeable and caused by a project,
but occur at a different time or place. Indirect or secondary effects may include growth -inducing
effects and other effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land use, population density,
or growth rate, and related effects on air and water and other natural systems.
No Action: The No Action alternative, on the other hand, could have the adverse indirect effect
on adjacent areas as the loss of marsh and oyster would be expected to continue.
37

Proposed Action: The purpose of the Proposed Action is to restore marsh and oyster reef
habitat. The Proposed Action will restore and maintain these estuarine resources and will
provide benefits to adjacent areas. The indirect effect of the Proposed Action, therefore, will be
positive in the area.
Cumulative effects have been defined by the CEQ in 40 CFR 1508.7 as: "the impact on the
environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non -
Federal) or person undertakes such other actions."
No Action: The No Action Alternative is not anticipated to have appreciable adverse cumulative
impacts. However, the benefits of the project will be foregone.
Proposed Action: This project evolved from more than a decade of planning and fieldwork by
the NC Coastal Federation working directly with the general public, landowners, as well as state
and federal agencies to restore oyster reefs and fringing salt marsh habitats. These experiences
have created or restored more than 100 acres of oyster reefs and more than 50 acres of salt marsh
habitat. Future restoration projects are expected to occur as funding and opportunities arise. The
impacts of the Proposed Action, when added to other past, present, and future restoration actions,
should be positive with regard to estuarine resources and systems.
4.0 REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS AND REQUIRED COORDINATION
The federation, the non-federal sponsor, will be responsible for complying with securing any
necessary regulatory permits for the project activities. The federation has complied with the
Programmatic Environmental Assessment of NOAA Fisheries' Implementation Plan for the
Community -Based Restoration Program.
4.1 Required Permitting
For project activities at Project Area #4 White Oak River — Jones Island, a Coastal Area
Management Act (CAMA) Modification to an existing Major Development Permit (Permit No.
47-09) will be necessary for the installation of the 500 linear ft. of oyster shell bag sills. The
federation will request and apply for this modification in fall and winter of 2012 and 2013, with
approval expected in winter or spring of 2013. Once constructed, the reefs will be designated as
Shellfish Management Areas through proclamation by the N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries.
Due to the archaeological sites on the island, the project was previously subject to review by the
N.C. Department of Cultural Resources State Historic Preservation Office (NCDCR SHPO). It
was determined on February 10, 2009, that the proposed project would not involve any ground -
disturbing activities and did not appear to represent a significant threat to any existing cultural
resources within the project area (Figure 10). The N.C. Division of Water Quality Wilmington
Regional Office also reviewed the project proposal and decided that any impacts of the project
are covered by General Water Quality Certification Number 3642. This allowed for use of a 404
permit when issued by the US Army Corps of Engineers and a CAMA Major Permit when issued
by the N.C. Division of Coastal Management. Erosion and sediment control measures were
m

designed according to the North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control Planning and Design
Manual.
Construction of the proposed patch oyster reefs at Jones Island is already permitted through a
previous Major Modification (received on October 10, 2011) of CAMA Major Development
Permit No. 47-09.
For project activities at Project Area 43 Stump Sound — Morris Landing, a Coastal Area
Management Act (CAMA) Modification to an existing Major Development Permit (Permit No.
28-05) will be necessary for the installation of the 200 linear ft. of oyster shell bag, marl bag and
oyster dome sills. The federation will request and apply for this modification in fall and winter of
2012 and 2013, with approval expected in winter or spring of 2013.
The remaining environmental permits will be obtained for all project activities at project areas 1,
2, and 3. These will primarily include: Coastal Area Management Act permit issued by the N.C.
Division of Coastal Management; 401 Water Quality Certification issued by the N.C. Division of
Water Quality; and General Permits and Consistency Determination issued by the USACE.
All of the project components will require coordination with state and federal regulatory
agencies for permitting and environmental compliance. The federation will work with the project
partners to prepare and submit the necessary state and federal permit applications.
4.2 Executive Orders
Because funding for construction of the proposed restoration would be received from the
USACE the project must comply with applicable Executive Orders. The sections below describe
the applicable Executive Orders and discuss how both the Proposed Action and the No Action
alternative comply with these orders.
Executive Order 11988: Floodplain Management
This Order requires agencies to reduce the risk of flood loss, minimize the impact of floods on
human safety, health and welfare, and restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values
served by floodplains. Neither the Proposed Action, nor the No Action Alternative would impact
floodplains.
Executive Order 11990: Protection of Wetlands
This Order requires agencies to minimize the destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands and to
preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands in carrying out the agency's
responsibilities. The Proposed Action would restore and protect wetlands in several locations in
southeastern North Carolina. The No Action Alternative would have no impact on wetlands.
Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations
and Low Income Communities and Low Income Populations
The EPA defines environmental justice as the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all
people, regardless of race, color, national origin, or income, with respect to the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. Fair
treatment means that no group of people, including a racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic group,
39

should bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental consequences of industrial,
municipal, or commercial operations or the execution of federal, state, local, or tribal programs
and policies.
Any change in the oyster population that affects water quality and habitat in the estuaries will
affect all residents of the area, regardless of minority or economic status. To the extent that
minorities or low-income individuals are involved in oystering or in other components of the
oyster industry they would be positively affected by the increases in oyster populations or oyster -
related businesses. The projects will not adversely impact any minority or low-income
communities. There are no residential neighborhoods within the Project Area. The economic
and environmental impacts of the recommended oyster restoration projects are expected to be
beneficial, so there would be no adverse impact, either short- or long-term, related to
environmental justice for all persons.
Based on this evaluation, neither the Proposed Action nor No Action Alternative is anticipated to
have the potential for disproportionate health or environmental effects on minorities or low-
income populations or communities.
Executive Order 11593: Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment
This Order mandates that federal agencies take measures to protect and enhance the cultural
environment. No impacts to cultural resources are anticipated. Regardless, care would be taken
during construction to identify potential archaeological concerns, and work would be stopped to
evaluate, and preserve these areas, as appropriate. No impacts would be expected as a result of
either the Proposed Action, or No Action Alternative.
Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks
This Order mandates federal agencies identify and assess environmental health and safety risks
that may disproportionately affect children as a result of federal policies, programs, activities,
and standards (63 Federal Register 19883 — 19888). Neither the Proposed Action nor the No
Action Alternative would result in short- or long-term actions that would disproportionately
affect the safety and health of children.
Executive Order 13186: Protection of Migratory Birds
The creation of oyster and salt marsh habitats will benefit waterfowl, wading birds, shorebirds,
songbirds and other native bird species. The work proposed follows guidance provided by the
North American Waterfowl Management Plan, United States Shorebird Conservation Plan,
North American Waterbird Conservation Plan, and the regional plans for Bird Conservation
Region 27 as detailed in Atlantic Coast Joint Venture (ACJV) conservation planning efforts for
waterfowl, shorebirds, waterbirds and area -sensitive forest -dwelling land birds through its
integrated bird plan - South Atlantic Migratory Bird Initiative Implementation Plan (SAMBI).
Proposed Action would not have a significant impact on migratory birds. The No Action
Alternative would not have any impact on migratory birds.
Executive Order 13112: Invasive Species
Section 2(a)(3) of Executive Order 13112 - Invasive Species (February 3, 1999) directs federal
agencies to "not authorize, fund, or carry out actions that is believes are likely to cause or
40

promote the introduction or spread of invasive species...... The Proposed Action is not
anticipated to cause or promote the spread of invasive species. In areas where there would be
ground disturbance in natural areas that would be susceptible to invasive species, the area would
be revegetated with a native wetland plant species. Monitoring will be conducted to ensure no
invasive species are occurring in the project areas.
4.3 Coordination
The project components have all been identified as priority action items in the N.C. Oyster
Protection and Restoration Plan, the N.C. Coastal Habitat Protection Plan, the White Oak,
Lumber and Cape Fear Rivers Basinwide Plans, the Albemarle Pamlico National Estuary
Program's Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan, the Cape Fear Arch
Conservation Collaborative and the Onslow Bight Conservation Forum.
All of the project sites are areas of multi -year focus and planning by the federation and its
partners. The federation has worked with the N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries, researchers
from the UNC-Wilmington and local oyster harvesters to select the oyster reef restoration sites in
Stump Sound, the lower Lockwood Folly River and Masonboro-Myrtle Grove Sound. Reef
building will be a collaborative effort between all these partners.
The projects have stand-alone restoration and ecological value and also serve as part of a larger
mosaic of work within each of the targeted estuarine systems including:
(1) Lockwood Folly:
a. Adopted 319 Total Maximum Daily Load study and implementation; and
b. Installation of low impact development techniques and Best Management Practices in
partnership with the Community Conservation Assistance Program of the N.C.
Division of Soil and Water Conservation.
(2) Masonboro — Myrtle Grove Sound:
a. City of Wilmington Grey to Blue watershed restoration plans;
b. Coastal restoration projects funded by Restore America's Estuaries; and
c. Property acquisition of Airlie Gardens and the N.C. Division of Coastal Management's
Masonboro Island Coastal Reserve (N.C. Clean Water Management Trust Fund).
(3) Stump Sound:
a. Coastal restoration projects funded by Restore America's Estuaries; and
b. N.C. Department of Justice's Environmental Enhancement Grants.
(4) White Oak River:
a. Property acquisition of Jones Island in 2006 (North Carolina Clean Water
Management Trust Fund);
b. Jones Island oyster and marsh habitat restoration projects funded by the NOAA
Community -based Restoration Program; Restore America's Estuaries, Community
Conservation Assistance Program, Fish America Foundation and others;
c. Adopted Total Daily Maximum Load study and implementation; and
d. Installation of low impact development techniques.
In addition, each project components require coordination with state and federal regulatory
agencies for permitting. Dave Timpy of the USACE and Ted Wilgis and Lexia Weaver from
the federation have participated in three interagency coordination meetings on August 24,
41

2011; March 15, 2012; and May 8, 2012. NEPA compliance, permitting, and specific issues
at project sites were discussed. Federal and state agency participants in these meetings
included:
• Cameron Weaver, N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources;
• Stephen Taylor and Jessi Baker, N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries;
• Jeremy Humphrey, N.C. Shellfish Sanitation;
• Holly Snider, Debra Wilson, Heather Coats, Shaun Simpson, Jason Dail, and
Robb Mairs, N.C. Division of Coastal Management;
• Chad Coburn and Joanne Steenhuis, N.C. Division of Water Quality;
• Molly Ellwood, N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission;
• Ron Sechler, National Marine Fisheries Service
• John Ellis, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; and
• Jonathan Bingham, USACE.
Future meetings will be held with these agencies as the project partners prepare and submit
the necessary state and federal permit applications.
5.0 FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
The Proposed Action would not significantly impact the quality of the human environment;
therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. If this opinion is upheld
following circulation and review of this Environmental Assessment, a Finding of No Significant
Impact will be signed and circulated.
6.0 PREPARERS
This Environmental Assessment was prepared by the federation in coordination with Chuck
Wilson, Biologist and Phil Payonk Chief of the Environmental Resources Section of the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District, Wilmington, North Carolina. The document was
prepared by biologist Ted Wilgis, who is the Project Manager and by coastal scientist, Dr. Lexia
Weaver.
7.0 LITERATURE CITED
Andrews, J.D. & W.F. Hewatt. 1957.Oyster mortality studies in Virginia II. The fungus disease
caused by Dermocystidium marinum in oysters in Chesapeake Bay. Bay Ecology
Monographs 27: 1-26.
Andrews, J.D. 1966. Oyster mortality studies in Virginia. V. Epizootiology of MSX, a protistan
pathogen of oysters. Ecology 47 (1): 19-31.
Andrews, J.D. 1988. Epizootiology of the disease caused by the oyster pathogen, Perkinsus
marinas, and its effects on the oyster industry. American Fishery Society Special
Publication 18: 47-63.
ASMFC (Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission). 2007. The importance of habitat created
by molluscan shellfish to managed species along the Atlantic coast of the United States.
Habitat Management Series 8, 108p.
Bahr, L.N. & W.P. Lanier. 1981. The ecology of intertidal oyster reefs of the South Atlantic
coast: a community profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Reports,
FWS/OBS-81/15, 105p.

Barber, B.J. 1987. Influence of stress on disease susceptibility. p. 82-85In: Fisher, W.S. &
Figueras (eds.), A.J. Marine Bivalve Pathology. Maryland Sea Grant, College Park, MD.
Barber, R.D., S.A. Kanaiey & S.E. Ford. 1991. Evidence for regular sporulation by
Haplosporidium nelsoni (MSX) (Ascetospora: Haplosporidiidae) in spat of the American
oyster, Crassostrea virginica. Journal ofEukaryotic Microbiology 38(4): 305-306.
Beck, M.W., R.D. Brumbaugh, L. Airoldi, A. Carranza, L.D. Coen, C. Crawford, O. Defeo, G.J.
Edgar, B. Hancock, M. Kay, H. Lenihan, M.W. Luckenbach, C.L. Toropova & G. Zhang.
2009. Shellfish Reefs at Risk: A Global Analysis of Problems and Solutions. The Nature
Conservancy, Arlington VA. 52 pp.
Bell, F.W. 1997. The economic valuation of saltwater marsh supporting marine recreational
fishing in the southeastern United States. Ecological Economics 21: 243-254.
Breitburg, D.L., L.D. Coen, M.W. Luckenbach, R. Mann, M. Posey & J.A. Wesson. 2000.
Oyster reef restoration: convergence of harvest and conservation strategies. Journal of
Shellfish Research 19(1): 371-377.
Brinson, M.M. and K.K. Moorhead. 1989. Sea level rise and fringe wetlands in North Carolina:
recommendations from a workshop on management and research. Journal of the Elisha
Mitchell Scientific Society 105(4):149-157.
Brumbaugh, R.D., M.W. Beck, L.D. Coen, L. Craig & P. Hicks. 2006. A practitioners' guide to
the design and monitoring of shellfish restoration projects: an ecosystem approach. The
Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VA, 28p.
Burrell, V.G. 1986. Species profiles: life histories and environmental requirements of coastal
fishes and invertebrates (South Atlantic) -- American oyster. US Fish and Wildlife
Service, Biological Report 82(11.57), 17p.
CENR (Committee on Environment and Natural Resources). 2003. An Assessment of Coastal
Hypoxia and Eutrophication in U.S. Waters. National Science and Technology Council
Committee on Environment and Natural Resources, Washington, D.C., 76p.
Clark, M.K. 1993. Curator of Mammals, North Carolina State Museum of Natural Sciences.
Personal communication regarding seasonal distribution of manatees in the Cape Fear
region. In Biological Assessment: Channel Realignment Masonboro Inlet, New Hanover.
County, NC. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. October 2011 Draft Integrated Feasibility
Report and Draft EA for the Neuse River Basin 232.
Coen, L.D., M.W. Luckenbach & D.L. Breitburg. 1999. The role of oyster reefs as essential fish
habitat: a review of current knowledge and some new perspectives. p. 438-454 In L.R.
Benaka (ed.). Fish habitat: Essential fish habitat and rehabilitation. American Fisheries
Society, Bethesda, MD, Symposium 22, 459 p.
Coen, L.D. & M.W. Luckenbach. 2000. Developing success criteria and goals for evaluating
oyster reef restoration: ecological function or resource exploitation? Ecological
Engineering 15:323-343.
Coen, L.D. & A. Fischer. 2002. Managing the future if South Carolina's oysters: an experimental
approach to evaluating current harvesting practices and boat wake impacts. Journal of
Shellfish Research 21:894.
Coen, L.D. & M. Bolton-Warberg. 2003. Evaluating the impacts of harvesting practices, boat
wakes and associated shoreline erosion on intertidal creek habitats in the southeastern
U.S.: managers and restoration programs take note. Journal of Shellfish Research 22:325.
43

Coen, L.D., R.D. Brumbaugh, D. Bushek, R. Grizzle, M.W. Luckenbach, M.H. Posey, S.P.
Powers & S.G. Tolley. 2007. Ecosystem services related to oyster restoration. Marine
Ecology Progress Series 341:303-307.
Costanza, R., O.Perez-Maqueo, M.L. Martinez, P. Sutton, S.J. Anderson, and K. Mulder. 2008b.
The value of coastal wetlands for hurricane protection. Ambio 37(4): 241-248.
Currin, C.A., P.C. Delano, and L.M. Valdes -Weaver. 2008. Utilization of a citizen monitoring
protocol to assess the structure and function of natural and stabilized fringing salt
marshes in North Carolina. Wetlands Ecology and Management 16: 97-118.
DCM (North Carolina Division of Coastal Management). 2006. The North Carolina Estuarine
Biological and Physical Processes Work Group's Recommendations for Appropriate
Shoreline Stabilization Methods for the Different North Carolina Estuarine Shoreline
Types. North Carolina Division of Coastal Management. Raleigh, NC. 49p.
DEM (NC Division of Environmental Management). 1994. An examination of fecal colifonn
bacteria levels in the South River, Carteret County, NC. NC DEHNR, DEM, Raleigh,
NC, 71p.
DMF (North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries). 2001. North Carolina oyster fishery
management plan. N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of
Marine Fisheries, 225p.
DMF (North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries). 2008. North Carolina oyster fishery
management plan amendment II. NC Division of Marine Fisheries, Morehead City, NC,
282p.
Dame, R.F. & B.C. Patten. 1981. Analysis of energy flows in an intertidal oyster reef. Marine
Ecology Progress Series 5:115-124.
Dame, R.F., J.D. Spurner & T.G. Wolaver. 1989. Carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus processing
by an oyster reef. Marine Ecology Progress Series 54:249-256.
Dame, R. 2005.Oyster reefs as complex ecological systems. p. 331-343 In R. Dame & S. Olenin
(eds.). The comparative roles of suspension -feeders in ecosystems. Springer, The
Netherlands.
Dauer, D.M., J.A. Ranasinghe & S.B. Weisberg. 2000. Relationships between benthic
community condition, water quality, sediment quality, nutrient loads, and land use
patterns in Chesapeake Bay. Estuaries 23(1):80-96._
Davis, H.C. & H. Hidu. 1969. Effects of turbidity -producing substances in sea water on egg and
larvae of three genera of bivalve mollusks. Veliger 11:316-323.
Dekshenieks, M.M., E.E. Hofmann, J.M. Klinck & E.N. Powell. 2000. Quantifying the effects of
environmental change on an oyster population: a modeling study. Estuaries 23(5):593-
610.
Epperly, S. P., J. Braun, and A. Veishlow. 1995. Sea turtles in North Carolina waters. Conserv.
Biol. 9:384-394.
Ewart, J.W. & S.E. Ford. 1993. History and Impact of MSX and Dermo Diseases on Oyster
Stocks in the Northeast Region. Northeastern Regional Aquaculture Center, North
Dartmouth, MA, NRAC Fact Sheet No. 200, 8p.
Ford, S.E. & A.J. Figueras. 1988. Effects of sublethal infection by the parasite Haplosporidium
nelsoni (MSX) on gametogenesis, spawning, and sex ratios of oysters in Delaware Bay,
USA. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 4(2):121-133.
44

Ford, S.E. & M.R. Tripp. 1996. Diseases and defense mechanisms. p. 581-660In Kennedy,
V.S., Newell, R.I.E. & Eble, AX (eds.). The eastern oyster Crassostrea virginica.
Maryland Sea Grant, College Park, MD.
Frankenberg, D. 1995. Report of the North Carolina Blue Ribbon Advisory Council on Oysters .
NC DEHNR, Raleigh, NC.
Funderburk, S.L., J.A. Mihursky, S.J. Jordan & D. Riley. 1991. Habitat requirements for
Chesapeake Bay living resources. Habitat Objectives Workgroup, Living Resources
Subcommittee and Chesapeake Research Consortium with assistance from Maryland
Department of Natural Resources, Solomons, MD.
Garwood, J.A., D.C. Abel & K. Walters. Submitted. The effect of vertical structure on inshore
artificial reef fish and macroinvertebrate communities. Journal of Experimental Marine
Biology and Ecology.
Grabowski, J.H., and C.H. Peterson. 2007. Restoring oyster reefs to recover ecosystem services.
Ch. 15, pp. 281-298, in Ecosystem Engineers: Concepts, Theory and Applications, Eds.,
K. Cuddington.
Grabowski, J.H., D. Pettipas, M.A. Dolan, A.R. Hughes & D.L. Kimbro. 2000. The economic
and biological value of restored oyster reef habitat to the nursery function of the estuary,
NC Sea Grant, Morehead City, NC, FRG # 97-EP-6, 29p.
Grabowski, LH., A.R. Hughes, D.L. Kimbro & M.A. Dolan. 2005. How habitat setting
influences restored oyster reef communities. Ecology 86(7):1926-1935.
Grizzle, R.E., J.R. Adams & L.J. Walters. 2002. Historical changes in intertidal oyster
(Crassostrea virginica) reefs in a Florida lagoon potentially related to boating activities.
Journal of Shellfish Research 21: 749-756.
Grizzle, R.E., J.K. Green & L.D. Coen. 2008. Seston Removal by Natural and Constructed
Intertidal Eastern Oyster (Crassostrea virginica) Reefs: A Comparison with Previous
Laboratory Studies, and the Value of in situ Methods. Estuaries & Coasts 31:1208-1220.
Gutierrez, J.L., C.G. Jones, D.L. Strayer & O.O. Iribarne. 2003. Mollusks as ecosystem
engineers: the role of shell production in aquatic habitats. Oikos 101(1):79-90.
Hargis, W.J. Jr. & D.S. Haven. 1988. Rehabilitation of the troubled oyster industry of the lower
Chesapeake Bay. Journal of Shel fsh Research 7(2):271-279.
Harley, C.D.G., A.R. Hughes, K.M. Hultgren, B.G. Miner, C.J.B. Sorte, C.S. Thomber, L.F.
Rodriguez, L. Tomanek & S.L. Williams. 2006. The impacts of climate change in coastal
marine systems. Ecology Letters 9(2):228-241.
Haskin, H.H., L.A. Stauber & G. Mackin. 1966. Minchinia nelsoni n. sp. (Haplosporida,
Haplosporidiidae): causative agent of the Delaware Bay oyster epizootic. Science
153:1414-1416.
Henderson, J. & J. ONeal. 2003. Economic values associated with construction of oyster reefs
by the Corps of Engineers. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center,
Vicksburg, MS, EMRRP Technical Notes Collection (ERDC TN-EMRRP-ER-01), 10p.
Hofmann, E.E. & T.M. Powell. 1998. Environmental variability effects on marine fisheries: four
case histories. Ecological Applications 8(1):S23-S32.
Holland, A.F., D.M. Sanger, C.P. Gawle, S.B. Lerberg, M.S. Santiago, G.H. M. Riekerk, L.E.
Zimmerman, and G.I. Scott, 2004. Linkages between tidal creek ecosystems and the
landscape and demographic attributes of their watersheds. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol.
298:151-178.

Huanxin, W., Z. Lejun, & B.J. Presley. 2000. Bioaccumulation of heavy metals in oyster
(Crassostrea virginica) tissue and shell. Environmental Geology 39(11):1216-1226.
Hwang, H. & G.D. Foster. 2006. Characterization of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in urban
stormwater runoff flowing into the tidal Anacostia River, Washington, D.C., USA.
Environmental Pollution 140(3):416-426.
Jartun, M., R.T. Ottesen, E. Steiniies & T. Volden. 2008. Runoff of particle bound pollutants
from urban impervious surfaces studied by analysis of sediments from stormwater traps.
Science of the Total Environment 396(2-3):147-163.
Jones, C.G., J.H. Lawton & M. Shachak. 1994.Organisms as ecosystem engineers. Oikos
69:373-386.
Kennedy, V.S. 1996. The ecological role of eastern oyster, Crassostrea virginica, with remarks
on disease. Journal of Shellfish Research 15:177-183.
Kennedy, V.S., R.I.E. Newell & A.F. Ebele. 1996. The Eastern Oyster, Crassostrea virginica.
Maryland Sea Grant College, College Park, MD.
Kimmel, D.G. & R.I.E. Newell. 2007. The influence of climate variation on eastern oyster
(Crassostrea virginica) juvenile abundance in Chesapeake Bay. Limnology and
Oceanography 52(3):959-965.
Kirby, M.X. & H.M. Miller. 2005. Response of a benthic suspension feeder (Crassostrea
virginica Gmelin) to three centuries of anthropogenic eutrophication in Chesapeake Bay.
Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 62(4):679-689.
Kneib, R.T. 2000. Salt marsh ecoscapes and production transfers by estuarine nekton in the
Southeastern United States. In: M.P. Weinstein and D.A. Kreeger (eds.), Concepts and
Controversies in Tidal Marsh Ecology. Springer, NY, NY. pp. 267-291.
Knutson, P.L.W.N.S. and M.R. hiskeep. 1982. Wave damping in Spartina alterniora marshes.
Wetlands 2:85-105.
La Peyre, M., S. Casas & J. La Peyre. 2006. Salinity effects on viability, metabolic activity and
proliferation of three Perkinsus species. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms7l(1):59-74.
Lawrence, A.J. & J.M. Soame. 2004. The effects of climate change on the reproduction of
coastal invertebrates. This 146:29-39.
Lehnert, R.L. & D.M. Allen. 2002. Nekton use of subtidal oyster shell habitat in a southeastern
U.S. estuary. Estuaries 25(5):1015-1024.
Lenihan, H.S. & C.H. Peterson. 1998. How habitat degradation through fishery disturbance
enhances impacts of hypoxia on oyster reefs. Ecological Applications 8(1):128-140.
Lenihan, H.S., F. Micheli, S.W. Shelton & C.H. Peterson. 1999. The influence of multiple
environmental stressors on susceptibility to parasites: an experimental determination with
oysters. Limnology and Oceanography 44:910-924.
Lenihan, H.S., C.H. Peterson, J.E. Byers, J.H. Grabowski & G.W. Thayer. 2001. Cascading of
habitat degradation: oyster reefs invaded by refugee fishes escaping stress. Ecological
Applications 11(3):764-782.
Long, L.C., M. Conley and M. Hey. 2006. Sewee-Santee-Winyah Marine Conservation Action
Plan. The Nature Conservancy, 64pp.
Luckenbach, M.W., R. Mann & J.A. Wesson (eds.) 1999.Oyster Reef Habitat Restoration. A
Synopsis and Synthesis of Approaches. Virginia Institute of Marine Science Press.
Virginia Institute of Marine Science Press, Gloucester Point, VA, 358 pp.
46

Mackin, J.G. 1951. Incidence of infection of oysters by Dermocystidium marinum in the
Barataria Bay area of Louisiana. Proceedings of the National Shellfish Association: 22-
35.
Mallin, M.A., J.M. Burkholder, L.B: Cahoon & M.H. Posey. 2000a. North and South Carolina
coasts. Marine Pollution Bulletin 41(1-6):56-75.
Mallin, M.A., and A.J. Lewitus. 2004. The importance of tidal creek ecosystems. J. Exp. Mar.
Biol. Ecol. 298:145-149.
Mallin, M.A., D.C. Parsons, V.L. Johnson, M.R. McIver, and H.A. CoVan. 2004. Nutrient
limitation and algal blooms in urbanizing tidal creeks. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 298:211-
231.
Mallin, M.A., K.E. Williams, E.C. Esham & R.P. Lowe. 2000b. Effect of human development on
bacteriological water quality in coastal watersheds. Ecological Applications 10(4): 1047-
1056.
Marshall, N. 1954. Changes in the physiography of oyster bars in the James River, Virginia.
Proceedings of the National Shellfisheries Association 44:113-122.
Marshall, M.D. 1995. North Carolina oyster restoration and fishery management plan. North
Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries and the North Carolina Blue Ribbon Advisory
Council on Oysters, Morehead City, NC, 116p.
Meyer, D.L., E.C. Townsend & G.W. Thayer. 1997. Stabilization and erosion control value of
oyster cultch for intertidal marsh. Restoration Ecology 5(1):93-99.
Meyer, D.L. & E.C. Townsend. 2000. Faunal utilization of created intertidal eastern oyster
(Crassostrea virginica) reefs in the southeastern United States. Estuaries 23(1):34-45.
Micheli, F., and C. H. Peterson. 1999. Estuarine vegetated habitats as corridors for predator
movements. Conservation Biology 13:869-881.
Minello, T.J. 1999. Nekton densities in shallow estuarine habitats of Texas and Louisiana and the
identification of Essential Fish Habitat. p. 43-75 In: Benaka, L. R. ed. Fish Habitat:
Essential Fish Habitat and Rehabilitation. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda,
Maryland, 459 p.
Mitsch, W.J. and J.G. Gosselink. 1993. Wetlands-2nd edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., U.S.A.,
722p.
Morgan, P.A., D.M. Burdick, and F.T. Short. 2009. The functions and values of fringing salt
marshes in northern New England, USA. Estuaries and Coasts 32: 483-495
Murawski, S. A. and A. L. Pacheco. 1977. Biological and fisheries data on Atlantic Sturgeon,
Acipenser oxyrhynchus (Mitchill). National Marine Fisheries Service Technical Series
Report 10:1-69.
NRC (National Research Council). 2000. Clean coastal waters: Understanding and reducing the
effects of nutrient pollution. Committee on the causes and management of eutrophication,
ocean studies board, Water Science and Technology Board. National Academy Press,
Washington, DC.
Najjar, R.G., H.A. Walker, P.J. Anderson, E.J. Barron, R.J. Bord, J.R. Gibson, V.S. Kennedy,
C.G. Knight, J.P. Megonigal, R.E. O'connor, C.D. Polsky, N.P. Psuty, B.A. Richards,
L.G. Sorenson, E.M. Steele & R.S. Swanson. 2000. The potential impacts of climate
change on the Mid -Atlantic coastal region. Climate Research 14(3):219-233.
Nelson, K.A., L.A. Leonard, M.H. Posey, T.D. Alphin & M.A. Mallin. 2004. Transplanted
oyster (Crassostrea virginica) beds as a self-sustaining mechanism for water quality
47

improvement in small tidal creeks. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology
298(2): 347-368.
Newell, R.I.E., J.C. Cornwell & M.S. Owens. 2002. Influence of simulated bivalve biodeposition
and microphytobenthos on sediment nitrogen dynamics: a laboratory study. Limnology
and Oceanography 47(5):1367-1379.
Newell, R.I.E. 2004. Ecosystem influences of natural and cultivated populations suspension -
feeding bivalve molluscs: A review. Journal of Shellfish Research 23(1):51-61.
Newell, R.I.E., T.R. Fisher, R.R. Holyoke & J.C. Cornwell. 2005. Influence of eastern oysters on
nitrgen and phosphorus regeneration in Chesapeake Bay, USA. p. 93-120 In: R. Dame
and S. Olenin (eds.). The comparative roles of suspension feeders in ecosystems.
Springer, The Netherlands, 47.
O'Connor, T. P. and G G. Lauenstein. 2005. Status and trends of copper concentrations in
mussels and oysters in the USA. Marine Chemistry 97(1-2):49-59.
Oviatt, C. A. 2004. The changing ecology of temperate coastal waters during a warming trend.
Estuaries 27(6): 895-904.
Paerl, H. W., M.M. Mallin, C.A. Donahue, M.-Go, and B.L. Peierls. 1995. Nitrogen loading
sources and eutrophication of the Neuse River, North Carolina: direct and indirect roles
of atmospheric deposition. UNC - Chapel Hill, Water Resources Research Institute,
Chapel Hill, NC, Publication 291.
Paynter, K. T. and E.M. Burreson. 1991. Effects of Perkinsus marinas infection in the eastern
oyster, Crassostrea virginica: 2. Disease development and impact on growth rate at
different salinities. Journal of Shellfish Research 10:425-431.
Peterson, B.J. and R.W. Howarth. 1987. Sulfur, carbon, and nitrogen isotopes used to trace
organic matter flow in the salt -marsh estuaries of Sapelo Island, Georgia. Limnology and
Oceanography 32(6):1195-1213.
Peterson, C. H., J.H. Grabowski, and S.P. Powers. 2003. Quantitative enhancement of fish
production by oyster reef habitat: restoration valuation. Marine Ecology Progress Series
264:249-264.
Piazza, B. P., P.D: Banks, and M.K. La Peyre. 2005. The potential for created oyster shell reefs
as a sustainable shoreline protection strategy in Louisiana. Restoration Ecology
13(3):499-506.
Plunket, J. and M.K. La Peyre. 2005. Oyster beds as fish and macroinvertebrate habitat in
Barataria Bay, Louisiana. Bulletin of Marine Science 77(1):155-164.
Porter, E. T., J.C. Cornwell, and L.P. Sanford. 2004. Effect of oysters Crassostrea virginica and
bottom shear velocity on benthic-pelagic coupling and estuarine water quality. Marine
Ecology Progress Series 271:61-75.
Posey, M. H., T.D. Alphin, C.M. Powell, and E. Townsend. 1999. Use of oyster reefs as habitat
for epibenthic fish and decapods. p. 229-238 in M.W. Luckenbach, R. Mann and J. A.
Wesson eds. Oyster Reef Habitat Restoration: A Synopsis and Synthesis of Approaches.
Virginia Institute of Marine Science Press, Gloucester Point, VA.
Posey, M; Mallin, M; McIver, M; Spivey, M; Tavares, M; Alphin, T; 2008. Environmental
Quality of Wilmington and New Hanover County Watersheds 2006-2007
Quast, W. D., M.A. Johns, D.E. Pitts Jr., G.C. Matlock, and J.E. Clark. 1988. Texas oyster
fishery management plan. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Coastal Fisheries
Branch, Austin, Texas, Fishery Management Plan Series Number 1, 178p.
'48

Ray, S. M. 1954. Biological studies of Dermocystidium marinum , a fungus parasite of oysters.
Rice Institute Pamplet Special Issue November.
Ray, S. M. and A.C. Chandler. 1955. Parasitological reviews: Dermocystidium marinum, a
parasite of oysters. Experimental Parasitology 4:172-200.
Reilly, J. D. and W.W. Kirby -Smith. 1999. Development of the technical basis and a
management strategy for reopening a closed shellfishing area. Water Resources Research
Institute, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, UNC-WRRI-99-321, 46 p.
Riggs, S.R. 2001. Shoreline Erosion in North Carolina estuaries. North Carolina Sea Grant,
Raleigh. NC, UNC-SG-01-11. 68p.
Rogers, S. and T. Skrabal. 2002. Managing erosion on estuarine shorelines. North Carolina
Division of Coastal Management and North Carolina Sea Grant, UNC-SG-01-12, 32p.
SAFMC (South Atlantic Fishery Management Council). 1998a. Final habitat plan for the South
Atlantic region: Essential Fish Habitat requirements for fishery management plans of the
South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. SAFMC, Charleston, SC.
Sanger, D. M. and A.F. Holland. 2002. Evaluation of the impacts of dock structures on South
Carolina estuarine environments. SC Department of Natural Resources, Marine
Resources Research Institute, Charleston, SC, Tech. Rep. No. 99, 82p.
Scavia, D., J.C. Field, D.F. Boesch, R.W. Buddemcier, V. Burkett, D.R. Cayan, M. Fogarty,
M.A. Harwell, C. M. R.W. Howarth, D.J. Reed, T.C. Royer, A.H. Sallenger, and J.G.
Titus. 2002. Climate change impacts on US coastal and marine ecosystems. Estuaries
25(2):149-164.
Schueler, T. R. 1999. Microbes and urban watersheds- implications for watershed managers.
Watershed Protection Techniques 3(1):549-620.
Selman, M., S. Greenhalgh, R. Diaz, and Z. Sugg. 2008. Eutrophication and hypoxia in coastal
areas: global assessment of the state of knowledge. WRI Policy Note Water Quality:
Eutrophication and Hypoxia(1):1-6.
Shumway, S. E. 1996. Natural environmental factors. p. 467-513 in Kennedy, V. S., Newell, R.
I. E., and Eble (eds.), A. F. The Eastern Oyster Crassostrea virginica. Maryland Sea
Grant College, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland.
Smith, T.I.J., and J.P. Clungston.,1997. Status and management of Atlantic sturgeon, Acipenser
oxyrinchus, in North America. Environmental Biology offishes 48:335-346.
Street, M.W,. A.S. Deaton, W.S. Chappell, and P.D. Mooreside. 2005 North Carolina Coastal
Habitat Protection Plan. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources. Division of Marine Fisheries, Morehead City, NC. 656p.
Sutter, L. 1999. DCM wetland mapping in coastal North Carolina. Division of Coastal
Management. Raleigh, NC. 33p
Teal, J. 1962. Energy flow in salt marsh macrophyte production: a review. Ecology 43:614-624.
Teal, J. and M. Teal. 1969. Life and death of the salt marsh. Audubon/Ballentine Books, New
York, NY, 274p.
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service).
- 1991. Endangered and Threatened Species of the Southeast United States. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service.
- 1999a. West Indian Manatees in North Carolina.
http://web.ral.r4.fws.gov/mammal/manatee.html. Accessed March 2010.
- 1999b. Shortnose Sturgeon in North Carolina. http://web.ral.r4.fws.gov/fish/shortst.html.
Accessed March 2010.
49

Wall, C. C., B.J. Peterson, and C.J. Gobler. 2008. Facilitation of seagrass Zostera marina
productivity by suspension -feeding bivalves. Marine Ecology Progress Series 357:165-
174.
`Weinstein, M.P., and D.A. Kreeger, eds.. 2000. Concepts and controversies in tidal marsh
ecology. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, the Netherlands.
Wenner, E., H. R. Beatty, and L. Coen. 1996. A quantitative system for sampling nekton on
intertidal oyster reefs. Journal of Shellfish Research 15: 769-775.
Wetz, M. S., A.J. Lewitus, E.T. Koepfler, and K.C. Hayes. 2002. Impact of the Eastern oyster
Crassostrea virginica on microbial community structure in a salt marsh estuary. Aquatic
Microbial Ecology 28:87-97.
Wiegert, R.G. and B.J. Freeman. 1990. Tidal salt marshes of the southeast Atlantic coast: a
community profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife.
50

Appendix A
EFH Assessment
51

Restoring Coastal Estuarine Habitat in Four North Carolina Estuaries North
Carolina Estuaries Restoration Project
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Proposed Project
The North Carolina Coastal Federation (the federation) proposes to construct and restore 10.5
acres of intertidal and shallow subtidal patch oyster reefs and fringing salt marsh habitats in four
project sites in southeastern North Carolina. Project sites are in the Lockwood Folly River,
Masonboro-Myrtle Grove Sound, Stump Sound and White Oak River. The federation will
coordinate with the North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries, Hammocks Beach State Park,
the Town of Oak Island, University of North Carolina at Wilmington, community volunteers and
students to accomplish these actions. The locations of the four project areas are illustrated in
Figure 1.
A total of 9.3 acres of fringing, intertidal and shallow patch oyster reef habitat will be created
along with 1.24 acres of fringing shoreline saltmarsh habitat. This combination of restoration
practices will be designed to restore and enhance intertidal and shallow subtidal patch oyster reef
habitat and reduce shoreline erosion caused by storm activity and rising sea levels, providing an
innovative approach to managing the declining habitats in these estuaries.
Figure 1. Locations of project sites.
52

The proposed project will be funded under the Estuary Restoration Act (ERA) of 2000, Title I of
Public Law 106-457. The ERA makes restoring estuaries a national priority to:
• Promote a coordinated Federal approach to estuary habitat restoration;
• Forge effective partnerships among public agencies and between the public and private
sectors;
• Provide financial and technical assistance for estuary habitat restoration projects; and
• Develop and enhance monitoring and research capabilities.
The ERA is administered by an interagency council to carry out these objectives. Member
federal agencies of the council include:
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Current Chair;
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS);
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA);
• Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS); and
• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE).
Need for proposed action
Intertidal and shallow subtidal patch eastern oyster (Crassostrea virginica) reef habitat and fringing salt
marsh habitats in North Carolina have been deteriorating through the years due to natural and
anthropogenic disturbances including increases in development, declines in water quality and climate
impacts. Oyster habitat has also degraded due to overharvesting and disease, while erosion from storms
and sea level rise has reduced the coverage of salt marsh habitat.
Oyster reefs are one of the most threatened habitats in the world (Beck et al. 2009). The eastern oyster
(Crassostrea virginica), the primary intertidal and subtidal reef -building species along the east coast of
the United States, has declined more than 90 percent from historic levels. Worldwide, functional
extinction (greater than 99 percent loss) of oyster reefs in estuaries is common (Beck et al. 2009) and
habitat losses exceed levels reported for more well-known coral reef, mangrove, and seagrass habitats.
Both human activities and natural phenomena including over -harvest, disease, coastal development and
habitat disturbance have affected oyster distribution and abundance, as well as contributed to oyster
habitat losses (Lenihan and Peterson 1998, Coen and Luckenbach 2000, Luckenbach et al. 1999,
Breitburg et al. 2000).
In 2007, NOAA's Eastern Oyster Biological Review Team conducted a status review (EOBRT 2007).
The review determined that the oyster harvest along the east coast of the United States is only 2 percent of
the peak historical harvest and that oyster restoration and enhancement efforts are "necessary to sustain
populations" in about half of the estuaries in the middle and south Atlantic Ocean coast. The historical
oyster harvest in North Carolina is showing significant decline (Street et al. 2005), and they are currently
listed as a species of concern. Estimates of historical acreage of oyster reefs compared to current levels
determined through N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries Substrate Mapping Program, suggest a 50 percent
decline in oyster reef habitat in North Carolina.
Once valued primarily as a food resource, oysters are now recognized as ecosystem engineers (Jones et al.
1994). Oyster reefs are regarded as one of the key structural elements within southeast estuaries. Reefs
53

create complex habitats which are used by fish, crustaceans and bivalves that include commercial and
recreational species as well as other invertebrates, birds and mammals (Zimmerman et al. 1989; Wenner
et al. 1996; Coen et al. 1999; Coen and Luckenbach 2000, Meyer and Townsend 2000). Oysters can also
improve water quality and clarity by filtering large quantities of water. One mature oyster can filter
approximately 200 liters of water per day (Nelson et al. 2004; Newell 2004; Grizzle et al. 2008).
Observed declines in oyster populations not only affect the resource but are also closely associated with
adverse effects to reef -associated species and reduced water quality, ultimately leading to shifts away
from "natural' ecosystem functioning.
Oyster habitats are the primary hard -bottom structure in the southeast near -shore coastal region in North
Carolina. Oyster reefs support both commercial and recreational harvesting, improve water quality,
provide habitat for many non -shellfish species (e.g., marketable fish and crabs), as well as protect
shorelines from erosion. Fringing and patch oyster reef habitat is characterized by the presence of living
and dead oysters, shell hash (accumulation of unconsolidated broken shell) and associated reef epifauna
and nekton located on sand or mud substrates. The vertical relief of oyster reef habitat varies between
intertidal and subtidal habitats. Intertidal oyster reefs in the central and southern estuarine systems may
have relatively low vertical relief (5 to 60 cm) made up of several layers of oysters and shell hash.
Shallow subtidal areas with water depths ranging from one-half to one meter in the central and southern
coastal region contain oyster reefs that are often characterized by groups of highly developed oyster
clusters in widely spread aggregations.
Oyster reefs offer critical habitat for oyster populations, providing preferred substrate (oyster shell) for
larval settlement (Marshall 1995; Kennedy et al. 1996; DMF 2008). While oysters colonize a wide variety
of locations within the estuary, their distribution and abundance is generally limited by ambient
physicochemical conditions. Intertidal oyster growth and distribution is generally less influenced by
predation than exposure, tidal flow and food availability. Other factors, such as turbidity, sediment
deposits from shoreline erosion and circulation patterns can also have profound effects on oyster survival
and viability. Water circulation is of critical importance for larval dispersal and successful spat settlement
(Burrell 1986). Adult oysters also require adequate circulation to deliver food and oxygen and to remove
wastes and sediment.
Oyster reef habitat provides direct and indirect ecosystem services that benefit coastal and open ocean
fisheries through water filtration, benthic-pelagic coupling and sediment stabilization (Coen et al. 1999;
Newell 2004; ASMFC 2007; Coen et al. 2007). As oysters take in water for suspension feeding and
oxygen absorption they remove particulate matter, phytoplankton and microbes from the surrounding
water column (Coen et al. 1999; Wetz et al. 2002; Nelson et al. 2004; Newell 2004; Coen et al. 2007;
Wall et al. 2008). Oyster reefs can also enhance water quality through coupling benthic and pelagic
processes (Newell et al. 2002; Newell 2004; Porter et al. 2004; Newell et al. 2005; ASMFC 2007; Coen et
al. 2007; DMF 2008). Oysters consume seston from the water column and their biodeposits accumulate
on the sediment surface (Newell 2004; Porter et al. 2004; Newell et al. 2005).
The structural relief of oyster reefs has an important role in the estuarine system. High relief oyster reefs
alter currents and water flows, and physically trap and stabilize large quantities of suspended solids,
reducing turbidity (Dame et al. 1989; Coen et al. 1999; Lenihan et al. 1999; Grabowski et al. 2000). In
54

addition, intertidal oyster reefs protect shoreline habitats from waves and currents, which aids in creek
bank stabilization and reduction of salt marsh erosion (Bahr and Lanier 1981; Dame and Patten 1981;
Marshall 1995; Breitburg et al. 2000; Henderson and O'Neil 2003; Piazza et al. 2005; ASMFC 2007). By
decreasing erosive forces, intertidal oyster reefs reduce vegetative losses and, in some instances, promote
marsh accretion (Meyer and Townsend 2000; Piazza et al. 2005; ASMFC 2007). In North Carolina,
Meyer et al. (1997) found that placement of oyster cultch along the lower intertidal fringe of Spartina
marshes resulted in net sediment accretion, while noncultched shorelines eroded. Additional studies in the
Gulf of Mexico and along the Atlantic coast have also suggested the value of shell bottom for shoreline
protection and erosion control, indicating lower erosion rates at shorelines protected by intertidal oyster
reefs as compared to unprotected locations (Piazza et al. 2005; ASMFC 2007).
In southeastern states, including North Carolina, intertidal oyster reefs are critical to maintaining the
integrity of fringing marshes along the complex tidal creek networks commonly found within the barrier
island and lagoonal estuaries of the region; such networks form a protective breakwater that reduces
shoreline erosion (Coen and Fischer 2002; Grizzle et al. 2002; Coen and Bolton-Warberg 2003). Fringing
marshes throughout the southeastern United States are vitally important as fisheries habitat (Bell 1997,
Kneib 2000). Once oyster reefs are lost or damaged, marshes can rapidly erode. The ability of viable
oyster reefs to prevent shoreline erosion will also be critical to ameliorate the future challenge of sea level
rise, attributable to global warming.
Oyster reefs have been widely recognized as Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for oysters and other reef -
forming mollusks (Coen et al. 1999; ASMFC 2007). The functional value of shell bottom for oysters
includes aggregation of spawning stock, chemical cues for successful spat settlement and refuge from
predators and siltation (Coen et al. 1999). As a reef matures, a complex habitat with greater reef height
and more interstitial spaces for recruiting oysters to settle is created. This has led numerous authors to
describe oysters as ecosystem engineers in recognition of the importance of the biogenic reef structure to
estuarine biodiversity, fishery production, water quality and hydrodynamic processes (Lenihan and
Peterson 1998; Gutierrez et al. 2003; Dame 2005; Brumbaugh et al. 2006).
In addition to the role as essential habitat for oysters, reefs also provide critical fisheries habitat for
ecologically and economically important finfish, mollusks and crustaceans which use the shell bottom as
spawning, nursery, foraging and/or refuge areas. In the 1990s, state and federal fisheries management
agencies formally began to recognize oyster reef habitat as critical to fisheries production. Although fully
functional reefs may require three to five years to develop, data suggest that oyster shell alone attracts
many more fish than adjacent bare mud flats (Coen et al. 1999; Lehnert and Allen 2002; Garwood et al.
submitted). In North Carolina, well over 40 species of fish and decapod crustaceans have been
documented using natural and restored oyster reefs including American eel, Atlantic croaker, Atlantic
menhaden, black sea bass, sheepshead, spotted seatrout, red drum and southern flounder (Coen et al.
1999; Lenihan et al. 2001; Peterson et al. 2003; Grabowski et al. 2005; ASMFC 2007). These
documented species include twelve Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission managed species and
seven South Atlantic Fishery Management Council managed species, suggesting the importance of this
habitat for recreational and commercial fisheries. In consideration of the economic importance of shellfish
producing areas, the N.C. Marine Fisheries Commission classified oyster reefs as critical habitat areas
55

under 15A NCAC 3I.0101. The South Atlantic Fisheries Management Council also recognizes oyster
reefs as Essential Fish Habitat for estuarine and near shore coastal ecosystems (Coen et al. 1999).
The most abundant species on oyster reefs, however, are generally small forage fishes and crustaceans,
such as pinfish, gobies, grass shrimp and mud crabs (Coen et al. 1999; Minello 1999; Posey et al. 1999;
Plunket and La Peyre 2005; ASMFC 2007). These small fish and crustaceans are important prey items in
the diet of the larger recreationally and commercially important invertebrates and fish that make foraging
excursions to this habitat, reflecting the aforementioned importance of shell bottom to fisheries
production.
Seasonal recruitment of oyster larvae is needed to sustain reef development and oyster populations.
Activities that directly remove or destroy live shellfish, impact reefs or indirectly prevent or slow growth
and survival are considered as threats to oyster reef habitat.
Oyster harvesting reduces the vertical relief of subtidal oyster reefs (Marshall 1954). The harvest of
oysters by tonging or raking on intertidal oyster beds causes damage to not only living oysters but also the
cohesive shell structure of the reef (Lenihan and Peterson 1998). This destruction has been an issue on
intertidal oyster beds in the southern areas of North Carolina (DMF 2001). Removal of adult, breeding
age oysters can also have an effect on oyster reproduction and the production of oyster larvae.
Degradation of the water column including eutrophication, sedimentation and turbidity, and microbial and
chemical contamination affects oyster reef habitat. Anthropogenic nutrient loading from expanding urban,
agricultural and industrial development can indirectly impair shell bottom habitat by stimulating nuisance
phytoplankton blooms and causing episodic oxygen depletion. Recent research indicates that the
magnitude of eutrophication in coastal waters has increased globally over the past century (Paerl et al.
1995; NRC 2000; CENR 2003; Selman et al. 2008). The detrimental effects of oxygen depletion are
exacerbated on fishery -disturbed oyster beds where reduced reef heights increase the exposure of oysters
and other sessile invertebrates to bottom water hypoxia and anoxia (Lenihan and Peterson 1998; Kirby
and Miller 2005). Excessive turbidity and sedimentation, including deposition of sediment from eroding
shorelines, can have profound effects on oyster health and viability. As suspended sediment disperses and
settles to the bottom, it can bury oyster larvae, adults, or shell, deterring successful recruitment of larvae
due to lack of an exposed hard substrate (Coen et al. 1999). Excessive sedimentation can clog the gills of
shellfish, increase survival time of pathogenic bacteria, or increase ingestion of non-food particles
(SAFMC 1998). Oyster eggs and larvae are most sensitive to suspended sediment loading (Davis and
Hidu 1969).
The protozoan pathogens Perkinus marinus (Dermo) and Haplosporidium nelsoni (MSX) have caused
significant oyster mortality throughout the species' geographic range (Andrews 1988; Hargis and Haven
1988; Kennedy 1996; Lenihan et al. 1999). Although MSX can infect all ages of oysters (Andrews 1966;
Barber et al. 1991), Dermo infects a disproportionate amount of larger, more fecund individuals (Mackin
1951; Ray 1954; Andrews and Hewatt 1957). Once infected, oysters suffer reduced growth, poor
condition and diminished reproductive capacity (Ray and Chandler 1955; Haskin et al. 1966; Ford and
Figueras 1988; Ford and Tripp 1996). Eventually, mortality results as a consequence of tissue lysis and
occlusion of hemolymph vessels. Infection rates of both pathogens generally increase with water

temperature and salinity (Paynter and Burreson 1991; Ewart and Ford 1993; La Peyre et al. 2006).
Environmental stressors, such as low dissolved oxygen, sediment loading and anthropogenic pollution
increase the susceptibility of oysters to parasitism and disease (Barber 1987; Kennedy 1996; Lenihan et
al. 1999).
Global climate change also has potentially profound implications for oyster reef habitat in North Carolina.
Long -tern changes in temperature regimes, precipitation/streamflow patterns and sea level can alter
shellfish distributions, growth, reproduction and survival (Hofmann and Powell 1998; Dekshenieks et al.
2000; Najjar et al. 2000; Scavia et al. 2002; Wood et al. 2002; Lawrence and Soame 2004; Oviatt 2004;
Harley et al. 2006; Kimmel and Newell 2007).
Oysters are often used as an indicator species, as their health is a good indicator of the overall health of
the coast. Therefore, it is not at all surprising that a reduction in oysters has been linked to significant
losses and degradation of seagrass beds, coastal wetlands and riparian buffers and water quality. Some of
the most persistent problems include: (1) increased pollution including bacteria and sediment coming
from stormwater runoff; (2) unstable salinity patterns caused by altered hydrology of coastal watersheds,
(3) increased contaminants that disrupt larval stages; (4) concentrated harvest pressure on remaining
viable beds; (5) increased boat wake impacts that damage reefs and shorelines; and (6) reduction of
suitable substrate for establishment of new recruits due to sedimentation and silting of estuarine bottoms.
The N.C. Division of Water Quality Cape Fear River Basin Plan identifies non -point source pollution
from stormwater and nearby marinas as some of the primary causes for water quality declines in the
targeted estuaries.
Management strategies, including restoration efforts designed to conserve or even improve reef
conditions, are recommended to reverse the negative consequences of reef losses (Brumbaugh et al. 2006,
Beck et al. 2009). Unlike many other global regions, oyster reefs in the southeastern United States are
characterized as good -to -poor (Beck et al. 2009), in part because of historical under -exploitation and,
until the 1990s, delayed coastal development. Although far from ideal, the good -to -poor condition of
southeastern oyster habitats represents an opportunity to be proactive environmentally and attempt to
reverse the losses before oyster reefs become functionally extirict in the region.
The loss of salt marsh edge habitat reduces estuarine productivity and negatively impacts commercial and
recreational fisheries (e.g., Micheli and Peterson 1999, Meyer et al. 1997, NRC 2007). These fringing
habitats also act as important water quality buffers (e.g., Holland et al. 2004, Mallin and Lewitus 2004,
Mallin et al. 2004, Long et al. 2006). Possible effects of these threats on marshes and oyster reefs include
reduced oyster productivity and destabilization of the marsh -edge resulting in a greater likelihood of
diminished oyster (e.g., Coen et al. 1999, 2007, Grabowski and Peterson 2007) and marsh (Weinstein and
Kreeger 2000, Mallin and Lewitus 2004) ecosystem services.
The latest estimates from the N.C. Division of Coastal Management show that between 1984 and 2000,
approximately 457 miles of shoreline were issued permits for shoreline stabilization. This represents
about five percent of the estimated 9,000 miles of estuarine shoreline (DCM 2006). However, there are
much higher local concentrations of stabilization, including within the proposed project's focus areas.
57

These hardened structures can result in the loss (due to sea level rise) of critical habitat for a variety of
estuarine -dependent species (e.g., fish, mollusks).
Salt marsh habitat provides primary production for estuaries, water quality benefits, habitat for
commercially and recreationally important finfish and shellfish and flood and storm surge buffering.
Estuarine wetlands are generally found along the margins of estuaries and sounds. Estuarine wetlands
include salt marshes that are the focus of the proposed action. As classified by the N.C. Division of
Coastal Management, salt marsh habitat is comprised of a herbaceous community containing an
assemblage of species including smooth cordgrass (Spartina alternii fora), saltmeadow hay (Spartina
patens), black needlerush (Juncus roemerianus), glasswort (Salicornia spp.), salt grass (Distichlis
spicata), seaside oxeye (Borrichia frutescens), sea lavender (Limonium carolinianum) and other species.
Salt marsh habitat occurs in salinities averaging greater than 15 parts per thousand. Within this salinity
range, salt -tolerant marsh plants persist in low -energy protected areas where the rate of sediment building
(accretion) exceeds the rate of sediment loss (through erosion) or subsidence (Mitsch and Gosselink
1993). Inorganic sediments are deposited by river currents, tidal creeks and ocean overwash on and
adjacent to the marsh platform (Wiegert and Freeman 1990; Mitsch and Gosselink 1993). Deposition
from sediment -laden creek water builds side banks of higher elevation (low marsh) and coarser particle
size than the sediments in the marsh interior (high marsh). Fringing salt marshes bordering larger water
bodies exhibit different patterns of accretion and particle size (Curtin et al. 2008; Morgan et al. 2009).
Erosion and sedimentation are natural processes that can result in changing distributions of marsh
vegetation. The rate of erosion is dependent upon shoreline orientation, fetch, water depth, bank height,
sediment bank composition, shoreline vegetation and presence of offshore vegetation (Riggs 2001). South
of Bogue Sound (including the proposed project areas), estuarine erosion is significant in portions of
drowned river estuaries such as the Lockwood Folly, Cape Fear, New and White Oak Rivers, and along
the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway and navigation channels.
Salt marshes are well known for the ecological services they provide. They improve the quality of
adjacent habitats with their capacity for water control and filtration. They can also protect upland habitats
from erosion. Salt marshes play a vital role in providing abundant food and cover for juvenile and adult
finfish and shellfish.
The flood control and water quality benefits of wetlands have been extensively studied (Mitsch and
Gosselink 1993). By spreading and slowing floodwaters and storm surges, wetlands decrease flooding in
adjacent upland areas. Reduced extent of coastal wetlands has been linked to increased hurricane damage.
Constanza et al. (2008) estimated that a 1-acre loss of coastal wetlands resulted in a $13,360 loss of gross
domestic product. The study also estimated that coastal wetlands in the U.S. could provide as much as
$23.2 billion/year in storm protection services.
Rooted vegetation in salt marsh habitats stabilizes unconsolidated sediment, buffering erosive forces and
improving water clarity for submerged aquatic vegetation and benthic microalgae (Mitsch and Gosselink
1993; Riggs 2001). Studies have shown that even narrow (7-25 meter) marsh borders reduce incoming
wave energy by 60-95 percent (Knutson et al. 1982; Morgan et al. 2009). The buffering of sediment -laden
58

water also causes deposition of suspended solids (inorganic sediment and organic matter) among the
vegetation (Mitsch and Gosselink 1993). The buffering effect of wetland vegetation also reduces sediment
additions from upland areas creating new shallow water habitat (Rogers and Skrabal 2001). Wetland
shorelines play an important role in maintaining the function of the estuarine system. Maintaining a
natural proportion and relative position of wetland shorelines will be a vital component of habitat
restoration and management.
Under favorable conditions, toxic chemicals and nutrients (especially phosphorus) are also retained in
wetlands due to adsorption to sediment particles (Wolfe and Rice 1972; Mitsch and Gosselink 1993). Salt
marshes can act as nutrient sinks and sources depending on the season, but over the long term they are
effectively sinks where they are not losing material from erosion (Brinson & Moorhead 1989).
Because of the abundant supply of water, nutrients and sunlight, wetland plant communities can be one of
the most biologically productive ecosystems in the world (Teal 1962; Teal and Teal 1969; Mitsch and
Gosselink 1993). Some of the high primary production (creation of organic compounds through
photosynthesis) of wetland vegetation is transferred to aquatic habitats via detritus and microalgae
(Peterson and Howarth 1987; Wiegert and Freeman 1990; Mitsch and Gosselink 1993). Primary
production in salt marshes is converted into fish production through several pathways including Spartina
(detritus) and microalgae.
Finfish and shellfish using salt marshes fall into categories of either year-round residents (killifish,
mummichugs), transient species (red drum, flounder, spot, croaker) or facultative species (penaid shrimp,
menhaden). Salt marshes along the North Carolina coast are probably the most recognizable nursery
habitat for estuarine -dependent species. Salt marshes are a vital component of estuarine nursery habitat.
Many of the juveniles of fishery species found in salt marsh nurseries were spawned offshore during
winter. The larvae were transported through inlets and into estuarine waters where they settled in the salt
marsh -bordered reaches of the estuaries. Many small species, such as grass shrimp and killifish, and
juvenile fin and shellfish find refuge from predators and stones in salt marshes. The structural complexity
of vegetation and intertidal submersion regime in salt marsh habitat provides spawning habitat for a
number of species (killifish, silversides, gobies and grass shrimp). The proximity of salt marshes to other
habitats (open water, submerged aquatic vegetation, oyster reef and mud flats) can enhance the
connectivity of these habitats. Salt marshes can also enhance the foraging and refuge function of adjacent
habitats.
The major causes of salt marsh habitat loss include shoreline development, ditching and draining,
shoreline stabilization with vertical wall and hardened structures, marina/boat basin development, docks
and piers and dredging for navigation channels. In addition to conversion caused directly by humans, salt
marsh habitat is also being lost to erosion from storms and sea level rise.
The loss and/or disturbance of marsh -edge habitat, if significant, may reduce estuarine productivity and
negatively impact commercial and recreational fisheries (e.g., Micheli and Peterson 1999, Meyer et al.
1997, NRC 2007). These fringing habitats also act as important water quality buffers (e.g., Holland et al.
2004, Mallin and Lewitus 2004, Mallin et al. 2004, Long et al. 2006). Possible effects of the
aforementioned threats on marshes and oyster reefs include reduced oyster productivity/loss and
59

destabilization of the marsh -edge resulting in a greater likelihood of diminished oyster (e.g., Coen et al.
1999, 2007, Grabowski and Peterson 2007) and marsh (Weinstein and Krceger 2000, Mallin and Lewitus
2004) ecosystem services.
Purpose of proposed action
The project purpose is to restore intertidal and shallow subtidal patch eastern oyster (Crassostrea
virginica) reef habitat and fringing salt marsli habitats. Additional objectives are to increase public
awareness and support for habitat restoration efforts, provide opportunities for the public to engage in
these activities, and develop and enhance scientific understanding of habitat restoration techniques
through monitoring and evaluation.
The North Carolina Coastal Federation (the federation) proposes to construct and restore 10.5 acres of
intertidal and shallow subtidal patch oyster reefs and fringing salt marsh habitats in four project sites in
southeastern North Carolina. Project sites are in the Lockwood Folly River, Masonboro-Myrtle Grove
Sound, Stump Sound and White Oak River. The federation will coordinate with the North Carolina
Division of Marine Fisheries, Hammocks Beach State Park, the Town of Oak Island, University of North
Carolina at Wilmington, community volunteers and students to accomplish these actions.
A total of 9.3 acres of fringing, intertidal and shallow patch oyster reef habitat will be created along with
1.24 acres of fringing shoreline saltmarsh habitat. This combination of restoration practices will be
designed to restore and enhance intertidal and shallow subtidal patch oyster reef habitat and reduce
shoreline erosion caused by storm activity and rising sea levels, providing an innovative approach to
managing the declining habitats in these estuaries.
The results of this project will be monitored by university researchers and federation staff working with
volunteers to document their success. The project will use loose shell and small limestone marl for the
patch reefs, and oyster shell bags, limestone marl bags and oyster domes for the shoreline sills.
Approximately 900 linear feet of living shoreline will be restored by planting over 45,000 marsh plants.
Public awareness and support for the protection and restoration of these habitats will be expanded through
educational and outreach activities and public participation in the project by teachers, students,
community members and volunteers. The project will implement estuarine habitat creation and restoration
objectives described in the N.C. Oyster Protection and Restoration Action Plan, the N.C. Oyster Fishery
Management Plan, and the N.C. Coastal Habitat Protection Plan, the Onslow Bight Conservation Forum
and the Cape Fear Arch Conservation Council plan. These estuarine systems have some of the highest
species diversity and productivity in the Southeastern Atlantic region. The proposed project will restore
oyster reef habitats, particularly intertidal and shallow subtidal fringing and patch reef oyster habitats, and
fringing saltmarsh habitat.
Oyster habitats are the primary hard -bottom structure in the southeast near shore coastal region in North
Carolina. Oyster reefs support both commercial and recreational harvesting, work towards improving
water quality, provide habitat for many non -shellfish species (e.g., marketable fish and crabs), as well as
protect shorelines from erosion. Salt marsh habitat provides primary production for estuaries; water
quality benefits; habitat for commercially and recreationally important finfish and shellfish; flood and
storm surge buffering
.e

The Lockwood Folly and White Oak Rivers and Myrtlegrove/Masonboro and Stump Sounds all contain
significant areas of oyster beds and maintain high levels of annual oyster spat fall. However, due to
continuing harvest pressure and sedimentation rates, a significant amount of viable oyster reef has been
lost. Providing adequate reef and settlement substrate will significantly enhance the oyster population and
oyster reef habitat in the lower river estuary.
The proposed project areas also contain valuable salt marsh habitat. Sea level rise, subsidence, increased
storm damage, and development along estuarine shorelines has led to the loss of significant areas of
saltmarsh. The protection, enhancement and restoration of salt marsh habitat will increase intertidal
habitats for species such as: Crassostrea virginica (eastern oyster), Spartina alternii fora (saltmarsh
cordgrass) and Spartina patens (saltmeadow hay). In addition to crabs and shrimp, numerous species of
fish — spot, mullet, summer flounder, pompano, menhaden, bluefish, striped killfish, mummichog, pinfish,
silversides, and sheepshead minnow — rely on North Carolina's saltmarshes for their survival. Invertebrate
residents of the intertidal mud and sand flats include various mollusks: quahog clams, marsh razor clams,
oysters and mud snails.
All the reef habitat constructed through this project will be placed in permanently closed shellfish waters
or will be designated as research sanctuaries, and therefore will not be subject to commercial or
recreational harvest.
Methodology
Patch Oyster Reef Habitat Creation:
Intertidal and shallow subtidal Eastern Oyster (Crassostrea virginica) patch reef habitat will be created as
a result of the proposed project. The federation will work with the N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries,
researchers from LTNCW, and local oyster harvesters to select the oyster reef restoration sites within each
of the project areas select the reef layout and design the reefs.
All four of the project areas where intertidal and shallow subtidal eastern oyster (Crassostrea virginica)
patch reef habitat will be constructed have adequate levels of oyster larval recruitment and settlement as
well as nekton and epifauna utilization. Within the southern region project areas (Lockwood Folly,
Masonboro-Myrtle Grove Sound and Stump Sound) the reef sites will be located just inside of the line
marking the permanent closure of waters to shellfish harvest due to bacteriological contamination. This
bacteria is not harmful to reef development and will prevent any harvest of restored oysters. Placement of
the reefs just inside the closed area eliminates user conflicts that would be, caused by closing open
shellfish waters to build and protect the habitat restoration sites. Placing the reefs in the closed areas will
also allow for more research and comparison of oysters further upstream and closer to the pollution
sources in the closed areas. Within the White Oak River, the reef sites will be adjacent to Jones Island
which is a component of Hammocks Beach State Park. The Park and the federation have maintained
research sanctuary or shellfish management area designations for all their oyster reef habitat projects in
these waters that are subject to shellfish harvest.
The reefs will be designed with suitable elevations, patch size, inter -reef habitat, surface and edge
complexity and shell layer thickness to allow for maximum potential for oyster larvae recruitment and
61

settlement, water flow and transport of oxygen and food for the oysters, habitat provision and other
ecosystem services. The federation will mark the project site and reef locations with PVC poles according
to the designated project design prior to reef construction.
The project will use oyster shells to create the intertidal and shallow subtidal oyster reefs. At some of the
sites, a limited amount of #4 marine limestone marl may be used in conjunction with the oyster shells.
Marl is a suitable reef material and is utilized by N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries for oyster reef
enhancement activities. Using marl in conjunction with oyster shells supplements the amount of reef
material and enables further evaluation of marl as reef material in estuaries along the coast.
The oyster reef material will be purchased from oyster shucking houses and quarries (marl) and
transported by truck to a stockpile location near each project site. Project contractors (either N.C. Division
of Marine Fisheries or private contractors) will load the reef material onto small, shallow draft barges.
The barges will travel to the project site where the contractor will spread the shell into the reef locations
as indicated by the PVC poles placed earlier. Using its flat bottom boats, the federation will be monitoring
the reef construction activities and will check the placement of the shells to ensure that it meets the
project design specifications. Upon the satisfactory completion.of the reef material deployment, the
federation will place signage on the project area indicating their designation by the N.C. Division of
Marine Fisheries as shellfish research sanctuaries. Post project monitoring will then begin and occur
according to the monitoring schedule.
Previous monitoring of federation restored oyster reefs in North Carolina indicates that they provide
oyster habitat during the first spatfall season, and that recruitment may be heavy, depending upon larval
availability and seasonal fluctuations. Oysters generally reach maturity in two to three years, and the reef
will provide oyster habitat for as long as the reef exists, since new oysters will continue to attach onto
previous oyster shell layers, even in a scenario of rising sea level. Lifecycle estimates of the individual
oysters are highly variable, and are not impacted by the project, but by natural predation, oyster diseases,
and pollution.
Monitoring of oyster reefs previously created by the federation also shows that they provide habitat and
are used by a variety of finfish during the first year. Again, the reefs will provide habitat for finfish for as
long as the reefs exist. Since the reefs are formed from oyster shells, there is no known limit to the
structure lifetime. Sea level rise predictions are expected to increase significantly over the next century,
and it is currently unknown whether oyster recruitment patterns will be able to be sustained during
periods of rapid sea level rise.
62

NHW 2'-5'
(dependingupon
Approx. diameter of the base of the Approx. height of the created oyster - site conditions)
created patch oyster reef=10'-30' reef=10"-24"(depending upon site ,
(depending upon site conditions) conditions)
Figure 2. Cross Section of Patch Oyster Reef Project.
Created Patch
J. Overview ur ratca
Inter -Patch Reef Habitat - 5-15'
site
Project Area
Boundary w/
PVC Posts
NLW 0'
Living Shoreline Projects:
The federation will design the Living Shoreline Projects based on previous successful designs and in
consultation with researchers and permitting agencies. The federation will work with volunteers and
contractors to install the innovative living shoreline projects. Each living shoreline project will create
saltmarsh and oyster habitat along a section of eroding shoreline. The projects will include the restoration
of coastal salt marsh and the implementation of an oyster reef sill made up of oyster shell and marl bags
and in some cases concrete oyster domes. The project employs the innovative technique of using a
63

combination of"softer" approaches to reducing shoreline erosion instead of relying on a vertical wall
bulkhead, rip -rap revetment or other hardened structure. The oyster reef sills serve as the wave
dampening mechanism or sill. This use of oyster shell and marl bags and oyster domes is an innovative
approach to erosion control along estuarine shorelines.
This approach also allows for the potential for adaptation to rising sea levels. The living shoreline allows
the project components to adapt and migrate to changing levels of water. The oyster sills made up of
oyster shell and marl bags and oyster domes will recruit oyster larvae that will attach to the oyster shell
and marl in the bags and the marine friendly concrete oyster domes. As these oyster spat develop and
mature they will transform the shell and marl bags and oyster domes into a developing reef. The oysters
will continue to grow and more larvae will settle onto the reef. The oysters will tolerate.a certain vertical
range in this growing reef. As water levels change, the oysters will settle and grow in this range using the
reef base as a foundation for continual buildup of the newer, taller reaches of the reef. The created and
restored salt marsh habitat behind the oyster shell bag sill will also be able to migrate to maintain its
preferred elevation in relation to the water level and tidal amplitude.
Each of the project areas along with nearby reference sites will be surveyed to determine the exact
location, elevation and grade needed to establish the oyster reef sill and the marsh plantings. If necessary,
clean sandy fill of compatible grain size and color will be installed in the project area to create a suitable
grade and elevation for successful marsh restoration. The fill would come from a commercial sand mine
that has provided sand for previous marsh restoration projects.
The project contractor will use a Bobcattskid loader to haul the sand from the stockpile area to the project
site. The contractor will place,the sand in the designated restoration area and will work on the sand fill to
avoid travel on existing marsh. The fill will be placed from the top of the marsh scarp at normal high
water and extend towards the base of the oyster shell bag, marl bag or oyster dome sills. Once all the sand
is in place the contractor will use the blade of the Bobcat/skid loader to shape and grade the sand to the
approved elevations. The fill will be graded to match the natural grade suitable for Spartina patens and
Spartina alternii fora. The fill will be stabilized with the installation of Spartina alternii fora planted on 12
inch centers to enhance the restoration of the salt marsh. Some high marsh plant seedlings, Spartina
patens will be installed as needed in any high marsh zones.
The ground will be protected through the use of logging/marsh mats for the equipment and people to pass
over. Once the project is complete, all the mats and any project debris will be removed and the path area
will be allowed to return to its natural state. No fill will be used at the Jones Island living shoreline
restoration site because the grade is acceptable and the logistical difficulties in moving it to the site.
Oyster shell bags, marl bags and concrete oyster domes will be placed by volunteers and project
contractors along the shoreline to form long low profile oyster reefs to create the oyster sills. Depending
upon the project area, the oyster sills will have a minimum 6 feet in width and a maximum 9 feet in width,
and each sill will range from 200 to 500 feet in length. The reefs will be made up of oyster shell and
marine limestone marl placed in aquaculture mesh bags and in some cases marine friendly concrete oyster
domes. Marl is an approved oyster reef cultch material, but is more readily available and is less expensive
than oyster shells. The marl, while successful for oyster larvae recruitment and attachment, is best used as
64

a base for the sill. The base of the sill is often covered in sediment fairly early on in the development of
the shell bag blanket reef so it is best to use the marl in this area. The marl will be placed, either in bags or
loose depending on the site conditions, in the footprint of the sill. Then mesh bags filled with recycled
oyster shells will be placed on top of the marl so that the shell is in the optimum elevation range for oyster
larvae recruitment. In areas with strong wave and wake action, primarily the Morris Landing site in
Project Area #3, concrete oyster domes will be used in conjunction with the oyster shell and marl bags.
The domes, placed in staggered rows, would occupy the same reef footprint as designed for the marl and
shell bags. Approximately 5 feet of open area will be left between each of the oyster reef sills to allow for
fish passage and inter -reef fisheries habitat. These reefs will protect existing oyster and salt marsh habitat
and will enhance and restore lost oyster reef and salt marsh habitats.
Once the oyster reef sills have been constructed, the salt marsh restoration between the sill and eroding
shoreline will take place. The pre -project survey will determine if clean sandy fill of compatible grain size
and color will need to be installed in the project area (except no fill will be used at Jones Island). Once the
fill is in place and settled, Spartina alterniora (smooth cordgrass) and saltmeadow hay (Spartina patens)
seedlings will be planted along the intertidal zone, landward of the restored oyster reef area in each
project area. In all the salt marsh restoration areas the plants will be planted by volunteers on 1 foot
centers, in an offset grid pattern in the zone between the created oyster habitat and the existing eroding
salt marsh at each project site.
Flat bottom boats will be used to scout the project sites, haul oyster shell and marl bags, and volunteer
work crews. Spartina altemii fora seedlings will be acquired and planted by volunteer work crews in the
construction of the living shoreline. Monitoring activities will consist of the use of flat bottom boats to
transport volunteers and staff to the project site, and the acquisition and installation of Spartina
alternii fora seedlings for use in annual maintenance activities.
For the oyster reef sills, previous project monitoring indicates that the sills provide oyster reef habitat
within weeks of construction through colonization by reef epifauna, followed by nekton utilization.
Oyster recruitment occurs during the first spatfall season, and recruitment may range from light to heavy,
depending upon larval availability and seasonal fluctuations. Oysters generally reach maturity in two to
three years, and the reef will provide oyster habitat for as long as the reef exists, since new oysters will
continue to attach onto previous oyster shell layers, even in a scenario of rising sea level. Lifecycle
estimates of the individual oysters are highly variable, and are not impacted by the project, but by natural
predation, oyster diseases, pollution, etc. Monitoring of previously created oyster reef sills also show that
these reefs provide habitat and are used by a variety of finfrsh during the first year. Again, the reefs will
provide habitat for finfish for as long as the reefs exist. Since the reefs are formed from oyster shells,
there is no known limit to the structure lifetime, although it is possible that these structures may be
damaged or destroyed during a strong hurricane.
The restored marsh shoreline provides certain habitat functions during the first season (erosion control,
fisheries habitat), but restored marshes in North Carolina usually require two to three years to provide
aerial plant coverage similar to natural marshes, and may take seven to ten years to provide most of the
functions of a natural marsh, including production of peat layer, nutrient cycling, etc. Monitoring of
similar sill/marsh projects indicate that restored low/high marshes landward of sills has remained stable
65

for 20 to 30 years. Since sills function to retain sediment and provide stability of the marshes landward of
the sill, some sill projects can result in accretion of sediment landward of the sill, and resultant evolution
from low to high marsh. Although research data is fairly limited, current findings show that some marshes
may accrete landward of the sills, while others reach a stable elevation and location of low to high
marshes. Given the recent estimates for significantly increased rates of sea level rise and storms, it is
possible that the marshes landward of sills may be more successful in keeping pace with sea level rise,
although no data yet exists to support this possibility.
Upland Area
1 High Marsh Planting
Area Law Marsh Restoration
1 1 Area —sand fig &plants
Sand Fill Line
(ffneeded) -
Approx. width of low marsh
restoration area = 20'•25'
Oyster/fr'larl Bag
Reef/Sill
Structure
APprox, height of
oysterlmarl bag
reefjsrli structure = 24'
Approx, width of
oysterlmad bag reellsig Existing Substrate
stmeture = 6' g, Grade
Figure 4. Cross Section of a Typical Living Shoreline Project.
Oyster [Some
Up"and Area
High btamh Pm brgt-
Law Marsh Ptammg -
Sill Structure
RestnrananAres
ResroraUonArea
Appr= height of Oyster
Donte Sit Structure = 24'•2V
.S m
Q Q
Sant Fiit t:ina
NLW 6-
Vneeded7
_ _._
_ _ _ _._._._._.-.
_._.
Appmx. wtdih of low marsh
Approx. width of Oyster
Exeshng Substrate
Grade
•
restoratlenarea=20.25'
Come Sill Strudbwe a 6-9'
.
Figure 5. Cross Section of Typical Living Shoreline Project with Oyster Domes.

±'
i.cevttarsn Pi-
`t Rew.r�A^ea �(
r.e"nth cet;�xxr�,an�ea�.
S9 a VystsrCerca 3�
scaapnm a 76 .tCV'
Figure 6. Overview of Typical Living Shoreline Project.
a
Loxsa'�varei+
,[ tet94Fa5`"cxx,aECa
1p1� RNe...:3'w
Cepero an
lc;,nctoy:x aaasa�
s s=xs=�u
Essential Fisheries Habitat, Habitat Areas of Particular Concern, and Managed Species
The 1996 Congressional amendments to the Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
(MSFCMA) (PL 94-265) set forth new requirements for the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS),
regional fishery management councils (FMC), and other federal agencies to identify and protect important
marine and anadromous fish habitat. These amendments established procedures for the identification of
Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) and a requirement for interagency coordination to further the conservation of
federally managed fisheries. Table 2 shows the categories of EFH and Habitat Areas of Particular Concern
(HAPC) for managed species which were identified in the Fishery Management Plan Amendments of the
South Atlantic Fishery Management Council and which may occur in southeastern states. Table 3 lists, by
life stages, 77 fish species which may occur in the vicinity of the project area and which are managed
under MSFCMA. These fish species and habitats require special consideration to promote their viability
and sustainability. The potential impacts of the proposed action on these fish and habitats can be seen in
Table 2 and are discussed below.
Estuarine Water Column
The estuarine water column is defined as a medium of transport for nutrients, larvae and migrating
organisms between river systems and the open ocean. This project will not impede the flow of waters to
or from wetland areas nor the ocean waters. This project intends on adding hard substrate on which
multiple organisms, especially oysters, may attach and produce an abundance of larvae. The reef
formation will interact with the estuarine water column enabling a variety of organisms to inhabitant the
water column; enable water currents to swirl and eddy promoting the deposition of fine materials and the
settlement of oyster larvae. The additional abundance of larvae will help restore the oyster population in
North Carolina. Project construction may result in a temporary increase in localized turbidity. The
impacts on the estuarine water column are expected to be none to minimal.
67

Intertidal Flats
In the waters of the four project areas, oyster reefs are primarily intertidal with some areas of shallow
subtidal reefs. Oyster reef habitat represents the dominant structural habitat in some of the project areas'
tidal creeks and sounds. Shell bottom has been found to have significant impacts on population dynamics
and community ecology. In addition to the well -studied benefits of oyster areas for fisheries, research
indicates that oysters provide additional values such as water quality improvements, benthic pelagic
coupling, nutrient dynamics and sediment stabilization. Researchers have begun to connect the role of
oyster habitat in maintaining the integrity of fringing marshes in tidal creeks throughout the southeast,
forming a protective breakwater that retards shoreline erosion. Some of the project activities will occur on
or in the vicinity of intertidal flats.
Oyster Reefs and Shell Banks
The project protocols and coordination with the N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries prohibit deployment of
cultch materials or placement of beach sand for marsh substrate on existing shellfish resource. This
project intends on adding hard substrate on which multiple organisms, especially oysters, may attach and
produce an abundance of larvae.
Seagrass and Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV)
Seagrasses/SAV exist within some of the project areas. The project protocols and coordination with the
N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries prohibit deployment of cultch materials or placement of beach sand for
marsh substrate in any areas contacting SAV. The project strives to enhance estuarine habitat and
covering existing SAV would not be consistent with program goals. Impacts to any seagrasses/SAV that
might be present in waters adjacent to the project area are expected to be additional turbidly from
deployment operations and would be negligible or minimal and short-lived.
State —Designated Areas Important for Managed Species
Primary and Secondary Nursery Areas are designated by the NC Marine Fisheries Commission and are
defined as tidal saltwaters that provide essential habitat for the early development of commercially
important fish and shellfish. This project provides fishery nursery habitats that are consistent with the
existing habitats within primary and secondary nursery areas.
Unconsolidated Soft Bottom
Surficial sediments on a soft bottom can act as habitat for a variety of microscopic plants and benthic
epifauna/infauna species. These organisms may serve as food sources for many other organisms. These
other organisms in turn can feed larger, economically important, fishery species such as red drum,
summer flounder, spot, atlantic croaker, weak fish, and striped bass to name a few.
The project areas consist predominantly of intertidal and shallow subtidal soft bottom habitat ranging in
depth from -Oft to -oft NVGD. Given the nature of environment and human induced stressors on these
communities the dominant organisms are opportunistic in nature and thus are adapted to a relatively rapid
colonization and recovery.
The sites within the project areas consist of soft/sandy bottom and the project activities will alter the
estuarine substrate. In the footprints of the created oyster reefs, reef material will cover the existing
m

substrate. Areas of soft bottom will be present between the reef patches and oyster reef sills. There will be
expansive areas of soft bottom habitat surrounding the reefs and oyster reef sills. In addition, the reefs
will slow down water flow and allow sediment to settle out. This will result in the maintenance and
addition of unconsolidated soft bottom.
The activities proposed have been demonstrated to have minimal affects overall on this EFH type, but it is
important to consider post -larval development that may occur in these areas. This habitat serves as
feeding and resting grounds of juvenile and adult species. Thus, these organisms may be indirectly
affected by filling of the substrate. But, given the mobility of the organisms resting or feeding and the
extensive areas of remaining soft bottom, the area of disturbance is likely to have no significant adverse
effects.
Additional Project Area Concerns
In addition to EFH species in Table 1, prey species such as spot, croaker, and pinfish may also occupy the
estuarine waters of North Carolina during varying life stages. The proposed project will not adversely
affect prey species populations.
Impact Summary for Essential Fish Habitat
The objectives of this project are to enhance/restore and protect intertidal and shallow subtidal patch
oyster reefs and salt marsh habitat in the Lockwood Folly River, Masonboro/Myrtle Grove Sound, Stump
Sound and the White Oak River. The project is designed to restore and enhance oyster reef and salt marsh
habitats and reduce shoreline erosion caused by storm activity and rising sea levels. The targeted estuaries
have environmental conditions that will allow oyster recruitment and provide for the subsequent survival
and growth, and they have areas suitable for salt marsh restoration.
Created oyster reefs are created to change habitats from a soft substrate to a mixture of hard and soft
substrates by adding cultch materials in a low profile (< 0.5m.) deployment scheme. These reefs are
generally deployed to provide fisheries habitat in a desired location that provides some measurable benefit
to several different species as well as humans. When manmade reefs are constructed, they provide new
hard substrate similar in function to newly exposed hard bottom (Goren, 1985). Aside from the often
obvious differences in the physical characteristics and nature of the materials involved in creating a
manmade reef, the ecological succession and processes involved in the establishment of the epibenthic
assemblages (i.e. oysters) occur in a similar fashion on natural hard substrates and man -placed hard
substrates (Wendt et al., 1989). Finfish use natural and manmade hard substrates in very similar ways and
often interchangeably (Sedberry, 1988). The changes in species composition and local abundance of
important species in a specific area are often seen as the primary benefits of artificial reef deployment
activities.
Additional benefits of created oyster reefs placed on soft bottoms are the increase of diversity and edges.
The increase of biotic diversity is accomplished by adding hard substrate where none existed. This in turn
will attract organisms that settle on hard bottom but cannot settle on a shifting bottom and then attract
predators that feed on these sessile organisms. Edges can be described as areas of transition between
habitat types. Edges can also create areas of high diversity, more so than over continuous areas of one
habitat type. This has come to be known as the edge effect principle. The edge created by deploying
••

cultch material onto a soft bottom habitat may also create a habitat of its own. The edge habitat is a
culmination of the two habitats (i.e. soft and hard substrates) because it is inhabited by a characteristic set
of species. By adding hard substrate to a soft bottom habitat the possible effect is that a third habitat is
created. This has been observed on oyster sanctuary mounds where reef fishes congregate near the center
of the substrate to graze on algae and are afforded the sense of security. Sheepshead, on the other hand,
patrol the edge of the substrate foraging out into the soft bottom habitat but continuously return to hard
substrate.
Oysters have often been described as the "keystone" species in an estuary (Bahr and Lanier 1981) and
provide significant surface area as habitat. Sometimes compared to submerged aquatic vegetation in the
mid -Atlantic states, the oyster community has been identified as critical to a healthy estuarine ecosystem.
Direct and indirect ecosystem services (filtering capacity, benthic-pelagic coupling, nutrient dynamics,
sediment stabilization, provision of habitat, etc.) derived from the oyster reef have been largely
underestimated (Coen and Lukenbach 1998). Oyster reefs can remove, via filter feeding, large amounts of
particulate material from the water column, and release large quantities of inorganic and organic nutrients
that will benefit other co -inhabitants of the reef (Haven and Morales -Alamo 1970; Dame and Drinkers
1988; Dame et al. 1989).
The ecological role of the oyster reef as structure, providing food and protection, contribute to its value as
a critical fisheries habitat. The three-dimensional oyster reef provides more area for attachment of oysters
and other sessile organisms and creates more habitat niches than occur on the surrounding flat or soft
bottom habitat. Clams, mussels, anemones, polychaetes, amphipods, sponges, and many species of crabs
are part of the oyster reef community. The invertebrates recycle nutrients and organic matter and are prey
for many finfish. Red and black drum, striped bass, sheepshead, weakfish, spotted seatrout, summer and
southern flounder, oystertoads, and other fish frequent the oyster reef.
Created oyster reefs are known to promote extensive invertebrate communities and enhance habitat for
reef fish and other fish species, including cryptic, tropical, and gamefish species, as well as many of
commercial or recreational significance. The success of a reef and its contributions to stock enhancement
varies geographically and is determined by a wide range of complex parameters, including existing
habitat, physical limitations, material design, reef configuration, reef management, and the health of the
targeted species complex, which in turn is reliant on effective fisheries management locally, regionally,
and nationally. This potential is further enhanced since domestic reef programs today possess better
information and improved technology and are more focused in using this tool towards specific stock
enhancement and fishery management needs.
For species which may be to some degree habitat -limited, the establishment of additional suitable habitat
targeted to specific life -history stages may improve survival. Additional manmade habitat designed
specifically to promote survival of targeted species in "protected" areas could potentially enhance existing
ecosystems or create new ones to fill in gaps where essential fish habitat had been damaged, lost, or
severely over -fished. Man-made structures also may provide essential habitat while simultaneously acting
as a deterrent to illegal fishing practices in specially managed areas. (e.g. oyster sanctuaries).
70

Free swimming organisms will be able to avoid the area directly affected by project activities and move to
other soft bottom habitat and thus impacts to these organisms shall be minimal. Some impacts to EFH
will be permanent since the deployment of cultch onto soft bottom will change the availability of the
bottom under the reef material.
Each living shoreline project will create saltmarsh and oyster habitat along a section of eroding shoreline.
The projects will include the restoration of coastal saltmarsh and the implementation of an oyster shell
bag sill reef made up of oyster shell and marl bags and in some cases concrete oyster domes. The project
employs the innovative technique of using a combination of "softer" approaches to reducing shoreline
erosion instead of relying on a vertical wall bulkhead, rip -rap revetment or other hardened structure. The
oyster. reef sills serve as the wave dampening mechanism or sill. This use of oyster shell and marl bags
and oyster domes is an innovative approach to erosion control along estuarine shorelines.
This approach also allows for the potential for adaptation to rising sea levels. The living shoreline allows
the project components to adapt and migrate to changing levels of water. The oyster sills made up of
oyster shell and marl bags and oyster domes will recruit oyster larvae which will attach to the oyster shell
and marl in the bags and the marine friendly concrete oyster domes. As these oyster spat develop and
mature they will transform the shell and marl bags and oyster domes into a developing reef. The oysters
will continue to grow and more larvae will settle onto the reef. The oysters will tolerate a certain vertical
range in this growing reef. As water levels change, the oysters will settle and grow in this range using the
reef base as a foundation for continual buildup of the newer, taller reaches of the reef. The created and
restored saltmarsh habitat behind the oyster shellbag sill will also be able to migrate to maintain its
preferred elevation in relation to the water level and tidal amplitude.
Each of the project sites along with nearby reference sites will be surveyed to determine the exact
location, elevation and grade needed to establish the oyster reef sill and the marsh plantings. If necessary,
clean sandy fill of compatible grain size and color will be installed in the project area to create a suitable
grade and elevation for successful marsh restoration.
Monitoring of the oyster shell bag sills indicates that they provide oyster habitat during the first spatfall
season, and that recruitment may be heavy, depending upon larval availability and seasonal fluctuations.
Oysters generally reach maturity in 2-3 years, and the reef will provide oyster habitat for as long as the
reef exists, since new oysters will continue to attach onto previous oyster shell layers, even in a scenario
of rising sea level. Lifecycle estimates of the individual oysters are highly variable, and are not impacted
by the project, but by natural predation, oyster diseases, pollution, etc. Monitoring of previously created
oyster sill bag reefs also show that these reefs provide habitat and are used by a variety of finfish during
the first year. Again, the reefs will provide habitat for finfish for as long as the reefs exist. Since the reefs
are formed from oyster shells, there is no known limit to the structure lifetime, although it is possible that
these structures may be damaged or destroyed during a category 4-5 hurricane.
The restored marsh shoreline provides certain habitat functions during the first season (erosion control,
fisheries habitat), but restored marshes in North Carolina usually require 2-3 years to provide aerial plant
coverage similar to natural marshes, and may take 7-10 years to provide most of the functions of a natural
marsh, including production of peat layer, nutrient cycling, etc. Monitoring of similar sill/marsh projects
71

indicate that restored low/high marshes landward of sills has remained stable for 20-30 years. Since sills
function to retain sediment and provide stability of the marshes landward of the sill, some sill projects can
result in accretion of sediment landward of the sill, and resultant evolution from low to high marsh.
Although research data is fairly limited, current findings show that some marshes may accrete landward
of the sills, while others reach a stable elevation and location of low to high marshes. Given the recent
estimates for significantly increased rates of sea level rise and storms, it is possible that the marshes
landward of sills may be more successful in keeping pace with sea level rise, although no data yet exists
to support this possibility.
In contrast to the permanent impacts to the existing EFH, the ecological functions of oyster reefs and salt
marsh, be it manmade or natural, are numerous and an essential component of the estuarine system.
While a few EFH types will be subject to temporary impacts and other EFH categories will have
permanent impacts, these disturbances are trade-offs that will increase the biomass of oysters and salt
marsh to help restore the oyster population, creating habitat that supports high diversity and multiple
ecological functions. Implementation of this project is not expected to cause any significant adverse
impacts to any managed species and in fact will hopefully facilitate the recovery of the oyster population
and its beneficiaries, add essential fish habitat, create additional salt marsh habitat for fishery utilization
and benefit estuarine systems.
Table 1: Essential Fish Habitat and Habitat Areas of Particular Concern in Southeast United States (1) (N/A
= Not Applicable; NS = Not Significant)
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT
Present within or
adjacent to
project area
Impacts from filling for
oyster cultch planting
Estuarine Areas
1. Aquatic Beds
NO
N/A
2. Estuarine Emergent Wetlands
NO
N/A
3. Estuarine Scrub/shrub Mangroves
NO
N/A
4. Estuarine Water Column
YES
permanent
5. Intertidal Flats
YES
NS
6. Oyster Reefs & Shell Banks
YES
NO
7. Palustrine Emergent & Forested Wetlands
NO
N/A
8. Seagrass
YES
NO
Marine Areas
9. Artificial/Manmade Reefs
NO
N/A
10. Coral & Coral Reefs
NO
N/A
11. Live/Hard Bottoms
NO
N/A
12. Sargassum
NO
N/A
13, Water Column
NO
N/A
GEOGRAPHICALLY DENFINED HABITAT AREAS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN
Area -Wide
72

14. Council -designated Artificial Reef
Special Management Zones
NO
N/A
15. Hermatypic (reef -forming) Coral Habitat
& Reefs
NO
N/A
16. Hard Bottoms
NO
N/A
17. Hoyt Hills
NO
N/A
18. Sargassum Habitat
NO
N/A
19. State -designated Areas Important for
Managed Species
YES
NO
20. Submerged Aquatic Vegetation(SAV)
YES
NO
North Carolina
21. Big Rock
NO
N/A
22. Bogue Sound
NO
N/A
23. Cape Fear, Lookout & Hatteras
(sandy shoals)
YES
NS
24. New River
YES
NS
25. The Ten Fathom Ledge
NO
N/A
26. The Point
NO
N/A
Areas shown are identified in Fishery Management Plan Amendments of the South Atlantic Fishery Management
Council and are included in Essential Fish Habitat: New Marine Fish Habitat Mandate for Federal Agencies.
February 1999.
Table 2. Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Species of North Carolina oyster producing waters.
Source: NMFS, Beaufort, North Carolina, October 1999.
E=Eggs; L=Larval; J=Juvenile; A=Adult; N/A=Not Found
EFH FISH SPECIES
Stump
Sound
Masonboro
Sound
Myrtle
Sound
White
Oak
Lockwoods
Folly
Bluefish
ELJA
ELJA
ELJA
ELJA
ELJA
Summer flounder
LJA
LJA
LJA
LJA
L J A
Gag grouper
J
J A
J
J
J
Gray snapper
J
J A
J
J
J
Dolphin
N/A
N/A _
N/A
N/A
N/A
Cobia
ELJA
ELJA
ELJA
ELJA
ELJA
King mackerel
J A
J A
J A
J A
J A
Spanish mackerel
J A
J A
J A
LJA
J A
Black sea bass
LJA
LJA
LJA
LJA
LJA
Spiny dogfish
J A
J A
J A
J A
J A
Brown shrimp
ELJA
ELJA
ELJA
ELJA
ELJA
Pink shrimp
ELJA
ELJA
ELJA
ELJA
ELJA
White shrimp
ELJA
ELJA
ELJA
ELJA
ELJA
Atlantic bigeye tuna
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Atlantic bluefin tuna
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Skipjack tuna
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Longbill spearfish
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
73

Shortfin mako shark
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Blue shark
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Spinner shark
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Swordfish
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Yellowfln tuna
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Blue marlin
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
White marlin
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Sailfish
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Calico scallop
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Scalloped hammerhead
shark
N/A
A
N/A
N/A
J A
Big nose shark
N/A
A
N/A
N/A
J A
Black tip shark
N/A
A
N/A
N/A
J A
Dusky shark
N/A
A
N/A
N/A
J A
Night shark
N/A
A
N/A
N/A
J A
Sandbar shark
N/A
A
N/A
N/A
J A
Silky shark
N/A
A
N/A
N/A
J A
Tiger shark
N/A
A
N/A
N/A
J A
Atlantic sharpnose shark
N/A
A
N/A
N/A
J A
Longfin mako shark
N/A
A
N/A
N/A
J A
Whitetip shark
N/A
A
N/A
N/A
J A
Thresher shark
N/A
A
N/A
N/A
J A
References
Andrews, J.D. & W.F. Hewatt. 1957. Oyster mortality studies in Virginia Il. The fungus disease
caused by Dermocystidium marinum in oysters in Chesapeake Bay. Bay Ecology
Monographs 27: 1-26.
Andrews, J.D. 1966. Oyster mortality studies in Virginia. V. Epizootiology of MSX, a protistan pathogen
of oysters. Ecology 47 (1): 19-31.
Andrews, J.D. 1988. Epizootiology of the disease caused by the oyster pathogen, Perkinsus marinus, and
its effects on the oyster industry. American Fishery Society Special Publication 18: 47-63.
ASMFC (Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission). 2007. The importance of habitat created by
molluscan shellfish to managed species along the Atlantic coast of the United States. Habitat
Management Series 8, 108p.
Bahr, L.N. & W.P. Lanier. 1981. The ecology of intertidal oyster reefs of the South Atlantic coast: a
community profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Reports, FWS/OBS-81/15, 105p.
Barber, B.J. 1987. Influence of stress on disease susceptibility. p. 82-85 hi: Fisher, W.S. & Figueras
(eds.), A.J. Marine Bivalve Pathology. Maryland Sea Grant, College Park, MD.
Barber, R.D., S.A. Kanaley & S.E. Ford. 1991. Evidence for regular sporulation by Haplosporidium
nelson (MSX) (Ascetospora: Haplosporidiidae) in spat of the American oyster, Crassostrea
virginica. Journal of Eukaryotic Microbiology 38(4): 305-306.
74

Beck, M.W., R.D. Brumbaugh, L. Airoldi, A. Carranza, L.D. Coen, C. Crawford, O. Defeo, G.J. Edgar,
B. Hancock, M. Kay, H. Lenihan, M.W. Luckenbach, C.L. Toropova & G. Zhang. 2009. Shellfish
Reefs at Risk: A Global Analysis of Problems and Solutions. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington
VA. 52 pp.
Bell, F.W. 1997. The economic valuation of saltwater marsh supporting marine recreational fishing in the
southeastern United States. Ecological Economics 21: 243-254.
Breitburg, D.L., L.D. Coen, M.W. Luckenbach, R. Mann, M. Posey & J.A. Wesson. 2000. Oyster reef
restoration: convergence of harvest and conservation strategies. Journal of Shellfish Research
19(1): 371-377.
Bohnsack, J. 1989. Are high densities of fishes at artificial reefs the result of habitat limitation or
behaviorial preference? Bulletin of Marine Science 44(2): 631-645.
Brinson, M.M. and K.K. Moorhead. 1989. Sea level rise and fringe wetlands in North Carolina:
recommendations from a workshop on management and research. Journal of the Elisha Mitchell
Scientific Society 105(4):149-157.
Brumbaugh, R.D., M.W. Beck, L.D. Coen; L. Craig & P. Hicks. 2006. A practitioners' guide to the design
and monitoring of shellfish restoration projects: an ecosystem approach. The Nature
Conservancy, Arlington, VA, 28p.
Burrell, V.G. 1986. Species profiles: life histories and environmental requirements of coastal fishes and
invertebrates (South Atlantic) -- American oyster. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological
Report 82(11.57), 17p.
CENR (Committee on Environment and Natural Resources). 2003. An Assessment of Coastal Hypoxia
and Eutrophication in U.S. Waters. National Science and Technology Council Committee on
Environment and Natural Resources, Washington, D.C., 76p.
Clark, M.K. 1993. Curator of Mammals, North Carolina State Museum of Natural Sciences. Personal
communication regarding seasonal distribution of manatees in the Cape Fear region. In Biological
Assessment: Channel Realignment Masonboro Inlet, New Hanover County, NC. U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers. October 2011 Draft Integrated Feasibility Report and Draft EA for the Neuse
River Basin 232.
Coen, L.D., M.W. Luckenbach & D.L. Breitburg. 1999. The role of oyster reefs as essential fish habitat: a
review of current knowledge and some new perspectives. p. 438-454 In L.R. Benaka (ed.). Fish
habitat: Essential fish habitat and rehabilitation. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD,
Symposium 22, 459 p.
Coen, L.D. & M.W. Luckenbach. 2000. Developing success criteria and goals for evaluating oyster reef
restoration: ecological function or resource exploitation? Ecological Engineering 15:323-343.
Coen, L.D. & A. Fischer. 2002. Managing the future if South Carolina's oysters: an experimental
approach to evaluating current harvesting practices and boat wake impacts. Journal of Shellfish
Research 21:894.
Coen, L.D. & M. Bolton-Warberg. 2003. Evaluating the impacts of harvesting practices, boat wakes and
associated shoreline erosion on intertidal creek habitats in the southeastern U.S.: managers and
restoration programs take note. Journal of Shellfish Research 22:325.
Coen, L.D., R.D. Brumbaugh, D. Bushek, R. Grizzle, M.W. Luckenbach, M.H. Posey, S.P. Powers &
S.G. Tolley. 2007. Ecosystem services related to oyster restoration. Marine Ecology Progress
Series 341:303-307.
75

Costanza, R., O.Perez-Maqueo, M.L. Martinez, P. Sutton, S.J. Anderson, and K. Mulder. 2008b. The
value of coastal wetlands for hurricane protection. Ambio 37(4): 241-248.
Currin, C.A., P.C. Delano, and L.M. Valdes -Weaver. 2008. Utilization of a citizen monitoring protocol to
assess the structure and function of natural and stabilized fringing salt marshes in North Carolina.
Wetlands Ecology and Management 16: 97-118.
DCM (North Carolina Division of Coastal Management). 2006. The North Carolina Estuarine Biological
and Physical Processes Work Group's Recommendations for Appropriate Shoreline Stabilization
Methods for the Different North Carolina Estuarine Shoreline Types. North Carolina Division of
Coastal Management. Raleigh, NC. 49p.
DEM (NC Division of Environmental Management). 1994. An examination of fecal coliform bacteria
levels in the South River, Carteret County, NC. NC DEHNR, DEM, Raleigh, NC, 71p.
DMF (North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries). 2001. North Carolina oyster fishery management
plan. N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Marine Fisheries,
225p.
DMF (North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries). 2008. North Carolina oyster fishery management
plan amendment II. NC Division of Marine Fisheries, Morehead City, NC, 282p.
Dame, R. F. and N. Dankers. 1988. Uptake and release of materials by a Wadden Sea mussel bed. Journal
of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 118:207-216.
Dame, R.F. & B.C. Patten. 1981. Analysis of energy flows in an intertidal oyster reef. Marine Ecology
Progress Series 5:115-124.
Dame, R.F., J.D. Spurrier & T.G. Wolaver. 1989. Carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus processing by an
oyster reef. Marine Ecology Progress Series 54:249-256.
Dame, R. 2005.Oyster reefs as complex ecological systems. p. 331-343 In R. Dame & S. Olenin (eds.).
The comparative roles of suspension -feeders in ecosystems. Springer, The Netherlands.
Dauer, D.M., J.A. Ranasinghe & S.B. Weisberg. 2000. Relationships between benthic community
condition, water quality, sediment quality, nutrient loads, and land use patterns in Chesapeake
Bay. Estuaries 23(1):80-96.
Davis, H.C. & H. Hidu. 1969. Effects of turbidity -producing substances in sea water on egg and larvae of
three genera of bivalve mollusks. Veliger 11:316-323.
Dekshenieks, M.M., E.E. Hofmann, J.M. Klink & E.N. Powell. 2000. Quantifying the effects of
environmental change on an oyster population: a modeling study. Estuaries 23(5):593-610.
Epperly, S. P., J. Braun, and A. Veishlow. 1995. Sea turtles in North Carolina waters. Conserv. Biol.
9:384-394.
Ewart, J.W. & S.E. Ford. 1993. History and Impact of MSX and Dermo Diseases on Oyster Stocks in the
Northeast Region. Northeastern Regional Aquaculture Center, North Dartmouth, MA, NRAC
Fact Sheet No. 200, 8p.
Florida Museum of Natural History. 2003 (FLMNH). htti)://www.fLnnli.ufl.edu
Ford, S.E. & A.J. Figueras. 1988. Effects of sublethal infection by the parasite Haplosporidium nelsoni
(MSX) on gametogenesis, spawning, and sex ratios of oysters in Delaware Bay, USA. Diseases of
Aquatic Organisms 4(2):121-133.
Ford, S.E. & M.R. Tripp. 1996. Diseases and defense mechanisms. p. 581-660 In Kennedy, V.S., Newell,
R.I.E. & Eble, AT (eds.). The eastern oyster Crassostrea virginica. Maryland Sea Grant, College
Park, MD.
76

Frankenberg, D. 1995. Report of the North Carolina Blue Ribbon Advisory Council on oysters. NC
DEHNR, Raleigh, NC.
Funderburk, S.L., J.A. Mihursky, S.J. Jordan & D. Riley. 1991. Habitat requirements for Chesapeake Bay
living resources. Habitat Objectives Workgroup, Living Resources Subcommittee and
Chesapeake Research Consortium with assistance from Maryland Department of Natural
Resources, Solomon, MD.
Garwood, J.A., D.C. Abel & K. Walters. Submitted. The effect of vertical structure on inshore artificial
reef fish and macroinvertebrate communities. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and
Ecology.
Grabowski, J.H., and C.H. Peterson. 2007. Restoring oyster reefs to recover ecosystem services. Ch. 15,
pp. 281-298, in Ecosystem Engineers: Concepts, Theory and Applications, Eds., K. Cuddington.
Grabowski, J.H., D. Pettipas, M.A. Dolan, A.R. Hughes & D.L. Kimbro. 2000. The economic and
biological value of restored oyster reef habitat to the nursery function of the estuary. NC Sea
Grant, Morehead City, NC, FRG # 97-EP-6, 29p.
Grabowski, J.H., A.R. Hughes, D.L. Kimbro & M.A. Dolan. 2005. How habitat setting influences
restored oyster reef communities. Ecology 86(7):1926-1935.
Goren, M. 1985. Succession of benthic community on artificial substratum at Elat (Red Sea).
Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 38: 1940.
Grizzle, R.E., J.R. Adams & L.J. Walters. 2002. Historical changes in intertidal oyster (Crassostrea
virginica) reefs in a Florida lagoon potentially related to boating activities. Journal of Shellfish
Research 21: 749-756.
Grizzle, R.E., J.K. Green & L.D. Coen. 2008. Seston Removal by Natural and Constructed Intertidal
Eastern Oyster (Crassostrea virginica) Reefs: A Comparison with Previous Laboratory Studies,
and the Value of in situ Methods. Estuaries & Coasts 31:1208-1220.
Gutierrez, J.L., C.G. Jones, D.L. Strayer & O.O. Iribame. 2003. Mollusks as ecosystem engineers: the
role of shell production in aquatic habitats. Oikos 101(1):79-90.
Hargis, W.J. Jr. & D.S. Haven. 1988. Rehabilitation of the troubled oyster industry of the lower
Chesapeake Bay. Journal of Shellfish Research 7(2):271-279.
Harley, C.D.G., A.R. Hughes, K.M. Hultgren, B.G. Miner, C.J.B. Sorte, C.S. Thomber, L.F. Rodriguez,
L. Tomanek & S.L. Williams. 2006. The impacts of climate change in coastal marine systems.
Ecology Letters 9(2):228-241.
Haskin, H.H., L.A. Stauber & G. Mackin. 1966. Minchinia nelson n. sp. (Haplosporida,
Haplosporidiidae): causative agent of the Delaware Bay oyster epizootic. Science 153:1414-1416.
Haven, D. and R. Morales -Alamo. 1970. Filtration of particles from suspension by American
oyster, Crassostrea virginica. Biological Bulletin 139: 248-264.
Henderson, J. & J. O'Neal. 2003. Economic values associated with construction of oyster reefs by the
Corps of Engineers. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS,
EMRRP Technical Notes Collection (ERDC TN-EMRRP-ER-01), 10p.
Hofmann, E.E. & T.M. Powell. 1998. Environmental variability effects on marine fisheries: four case
histories. Ecological Applications 8(1):S23-S32.
Holland, A.F., D.M. Sanger, C.P. Gawle, S.B. Lerberg, M.S. Santiago, G.H. M. Riekerk, L.E.
Zimmerman, and G.I. Scott, 2004. Linkages between tidal creek ecosystems and the landscape
and demographic attributes of their watersheds. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 298:151-178.
77

Huanxin, W., Z. Lejun, & B.J. Presley. 2000. Bioaccumulation of heavy metals in oyster (Crassostrea
virginica) tissue and shell. Environmental Geology 39(11):1216-1226.
Hwang, H. & G.D. Foster. 2006. Characterization of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in urban
stormwater runoff flowing into the tidal Anacostia River, Washington, D.C., USA.
Environmental Pollution 140(3):416-426.
Jartun, M., R.T. Ottesen, E. Steinnes & T. Volden. 2008. Runoff of particle bound pollutants from urban
impervious surfaces studied by analysis of sediments from stormwater traps. Science of the Total
Environment 396(2-3):147-163.
Jones, C.G., J.H. Lawton & M. Shachak. 1994. Organisms as ecosystem engineers. Oikos 69:373-386.
Kennedy, V.S. 1996. The ecological role of eastern oyster, Crassostrea virginica, with remarks on disease.
Journal of Shellfish Research 15:177-183.
Kennedy, V.S., R.I.E. Newell & A.F. Ebele. 1996. The Eastern Oyster, Crassostrea virginica. Maryland
Sea Grant College, College Park, MD.
Kimmel, D.G. & R.I.E. Newell. 2007. The influence of climate variation on eastern oyster (Crassostrea
virginica) juvenile abundance in Chesapeake Bay. Limnology and Oceanography 52(3):959-965.
Kirby, M.X. & H.M. Miller. 2005. Response of a benthic suspension feeder (Crassostrea virginica
Gmelin) to three centuries of anthropogenic eutrophication in Chesapeake Bay. Estuarine, Coastal
and Shelf Science 62(4):679-689.
Kneib, R.T. 2000. Salt marsh ecoscapes and production transfers by estuarine nekton in the Southeastern
United States. In: M.P. Weinstein and D.A. Kreeger (eds.), Concepts and Controversies in Tidal
Marsh Ecology. Springer, NY, NY. pp. 267-291.
Knutson, P.L.W.N.S. and M.R. Inskeep. 1982. Wave damping in Spartina altemiflora marshes. Wetlands
2:85-105.
La Peyre, M., S. Casas & J. La Peyre. 2006. Salinity effects on viability, metabolic activity and
proliferation of three Perkinsus species. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 71(1):59-74.
Lawrence, A.J. & J.M. Soame. 2004. The effects of climate change on the reproduction of coastal
invertebrates. Ibis 146:29-39.
Lehnert, R.L. & D.M. Allen. 2002. Nekton use of subtidal oyster shell habitat in a southeastern U.S.
estuary. Estuaries 25(5):1015-1024.
Lenihan, H.S. & C.H. Peterson. 1998. How habitat degradation through fishery disturbance enhances
impacts of hypoxia on oyster reefs. Ecological Applications 8(1):128-140.
Lenihan, H.S., F. Micheli, S.W. Shelton & C.H. Peterson. 1999. The influence of multiple environmental
stressors on susceptibility to parasites: an experimental determination with oysters. Limnology
and Oceanography 44:910-924.
Lenihan, H.S., C.H. Peterson, J.E. Byers, J.H. Grabowski & G.W. Thayer. 2001. Cascading of habitat
degradation: oyster reefs invaded by refugee fishes escaping stress. Ecological Applications
11(3):764-782.
Long, L.C., M. Conley and M. Hey. 2006. Sewee-Santee-Winyah Marine Conservation Action Plan. The
Nature Conservancy, 64pp.
Luckenbach, M.W., R. Mann & J.A. Wesson (eds.) 1999. Oyster Reef Habitat Restoration. A Synopsis
and Synthesis of Approaches. Virginia Institute of Marine Science Press. Virginia Institute of
Marine Science Press, Gloucester Point, VA, 358 pp.
Mackin, J.G. 1951. Incidence of infection of oysters by Dermocystidium marinum in the Barataria Bay
area of Louisiana. Proceedings of the National Shellfish Association: 22-35.
78

Mallin, M.A., J.M. Burkholder, L.B. Cahoon & M.H. Posey. 2000a. North and South Carolina coasts.
Marine Pollution Bulletin 41(1-6):56-75.
Mallin, M.A., and A.J. Lewitus. 2004. The importance of tidal creek ecosystems. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol.
298:145-149.
Mallin, M.A., D.C. Parsons, V.L. Johnson, M.R. McIver, and H.A. CoVan. 2004. Nutrient limitation and
algal blooms in urbanizing tidal creeks. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 298:211-231.
Mallin, M.A., K.E. Williams, E.C. Esham & R.P. Lowe. 2000b. Effect of human development on
bacteriological water quality in coastal watersheds. Ecological Applications 10(4): 1047-1056.
Marshall, N. 1954. Changes in the physiography, of oyster bars in the James River, Virginia. Proceedings
of the National Shellfrsheries Association 44:113-122.
Marshall, M.D. 1995. North Carolina oyster restoration and fishery management plan. North Carolina
Division of Marine Fisheries and the North Carolina Blue Ribbon Advisory Council on Oysters,
Morehead City, NC, 116p.
Meyer, D.L., E.C. Townsend & G.W. Thayer. 1997. Stabilization and erosion control value of oyster
cultch for intertidal marsh. Restoration Ecology 5(1):93-99.
Meyer, D.L. & E.C. Townsend. 2000. Faunal utilization of created intertidal eastern oyster (Crassostrea
virginica) reefs in the southeastern United States. Estuaries 23(1):34-45.
Micheli, F., and C. H. Peterson. 1999. Estuarine vegetated habitats as corridors for predator movements.
Conservation Biology 13:869-881.
Minello, T.J. 1999. Nekton densities in shallow estuarine habitats of Texas and Louisiana and the
identification of Essential Fish Habitat. p. 43-75 In: Benaka, L. R. ed. Fish Habitat: Essential Fish
Habitat and Rehabilitation. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland, 459 p.
Mitsch, W.J. and J.G. Gosselink. 1993. Wetlands-2nd edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., U.S.A., 722p.
Morgan, P.A., D.M. Burdick, and F.T. Short. 2009. The functions and values of fringing salt marshes in
northern New England, USA. Estuaries and Coasts 32: 483-495
Murawski, S. A. and A. L. Pacheco. 1977. Biological and fisheries data on Atlantic Sturgeon, Acipenser
oxyrhynchus (Mitchill). National Marine Fisheries Service Technical Series Report 10:1-69.
NRC (National Research Council). 2000. Clean coastal waters: Understanding and reducing the effects of
nutrient pollution. Committee on the causes and management of eutrophication, ocean studies
board, Water Science and Technology Board. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
Najjar, R.G., H.A. Walker, P.J. Anderson, E.J. Barron, R.J. Bord, J.R. Gibson, V.S. Kennedy, C.G.
Knight, J.P. Megonigal, R.E. O'connor, C.D. Polsky, N.P. Psuty, B.A. Richards, L.G. Sorenson,
E.M. Steele & R.S. Swanson. 2000. The potential impacts of climate change on the Mid -Atlantic
coastal region. Climate Research 14(3):219-233.
Nelson, K.A., L.A. Leonard, M.H. Posey, T.D. Alphin & M.A. Mallin. 2004. Transplanted oyster
(Crassostrea virginica) beds as a self-sustaining mechanism for water quality improvement in
small tidal creeks. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 298(2): 347-368.
Newell, R.I.E., J.C. Cornwell & M.S. Owens. 2002. Influence of simulated bivalve biodeposition and
microphytobenthos on sediment nitrogen dynamics: a laboratory study. Limnology and
Oceanography 47(5):1367-1379.
Newell, R.I.E. 2004. Ecosystem influences of natural and cultivated populations suspension -feeding
bivalve molluscs: A review. Journal of Shellfish Research 23(1):51-61.
79

Newell, R.I.E., T.R. Fisher, R.R. Holyoke & J.C. Cornwell. 2005. Influence of eastern oysters on nitrgen
and phosphorus regeneration in Chesapeake Bay, USA. p. 93-120 hi: R. Dame and S. Olenin
(eds.). The comparative roles of suspension feeders in ecosystems. Springer, The Netherlands, 47.
O'Connor, T. P. and G G. Lauenstein. 2005. Status and trends of copper concentrations in mussels and
oysters in the USA. Marine Chemistry 97(1-2):49-59.
Oviatt, C. A. 2004. The changing ecology of temperate coastal waters during a warming trend. Estuaries
27(6): 895-904.
Paerl, H. W., M.M. Mallin, C.A. Donahue, M. Go, and B.L. Peierls. 1995. Nitrogen loading sources and
eutrophication of the Neuse River, North Carolina: direct and indirect roles of atmospheric
deposition. UNC - Chapel Hill, Water Resources Research Institute, Chapel Hill, NC, Publication
291.
Paynter, K. T. and E.M. Burreson. 1991. Effects of Perkinsus marinus infection in the eastern oyster,
Crassostrea virginica: 2. Disease development and impact on growth rate at different salinities.
Journal of Shellfish Research 10:425-431.
Peterson, B.J. and R.W. Howarth. 1987. Sulfur, carbon, and nitrogen isotopes used to trace organic matter
flow in the salt -marsh estuaries of Sapelo Island, Georgia. Limnology and Oceanography
32(6):1195-1213.
Peterson, C. H., J.H. Grabowski, and S.P. Powers. 2003. Quantitative enhancement of fish production by
oyster reef habitat: restoration valuation. Marine Ecology Progress Series 264:249-264.
Piazza, B. P., P.D. Banks, and M.K. La Peyre. 2005. The potential for created oyster shell reefs as a
sustainable shoreline protection strategy in Louisiana. Restoration Ecology 13(3):499-506.
Plunket, J. and M.K. La Peyre. 2005. Oyster beds as fish and macroinvertebrate habitat in Barataria Bay,
Louisiana. Bulletin of Marine Science 77(1):155-164.
Porter, E. T., J.C. Cornwell, and L.P. Sanford. 2004. Effect of oysters Crassostrea virginica and bottom
shear velocity on benthic-pelagic coupling and estuarine water quality. Marine Ecology Progress
Series 271:61-75.
Posey, M. H., T.D. Alphin, C.M. Powell, and E. Townsend. 1999. Use of oyster reefs as habitat for
epibenthic fish and decapods. p. 229-238 in M.W. Luckenbach, R. Mann and J. A. Wesson eds.
Oyster Reef Habitat Restoration: A Synopsis and Synthesis of Approaches. Virginia Institute of
Marine Science Press, Gloucester Point, VA.
Posey, M; Mallin, M; McIver, M; Spivey, M; Tavares, M; Alphin, T; 2008. Environmental Quality of
Wilmington and New Hanover County Watersheds 2006-2007
Quast, W. D., M.A. Johns, D.E. Pitts Jr., G.C. Matlock, and J.E. Clark. 1988. Texas oyster fishery
management plan. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Coastal Fisheries Branch, Austin,
Texas, Fishery Management Plan Series Number 1, 178p.
Ray, S. M. 1954. Biological studies of Dermocystidium marinum , a fungus parasite of oysters. Rice
Institute Pamplet Special Issue November.
Ray, S. M. and A.C. Chandler. 1955. Parasitological reviews: Dermocystidium marinum, a parasite of
oysters. Experimental Parasitology 4:172-200.
Reilly, J. D. and W.W. Kirby -Smith. 1999. Development of the technical basis and a management
strategy for reopening a closed shellfishing area. Water Resources Research Institute, University
of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, UNC-WRRI-99-321, 46 p.
Riggs, S.R. 2001. Shoreline Erosion in North Carolina estuaries. North Carolina Sea Grant, Raleigh. NC,
UNC-SG-01-11. 68p.
m

Rogers, S. and T. Skrabal. 2002. Managing erosion on estuarine shorelines. North Carolina Division of
Coastal Management and North Carolina Sea Grant, UNC-SG-01-12, 32p.
Roundtree, R.A. 1989. Association of fishes with fish aggregation devices: effects of structure size on fish
abundance. Bulletin of Marine Science 44:960-972.
SAFMC (South Atlantic Fishery Management Council). 1998a. Final habitat plan for the South Atlantic
region: Essential Fish Habitat requirements for fishery management plans of the South Atlantic
Fishery Management Council. SAFMC, Charleston, SC.
Sanger, D. M. and A.F. Holland. 2002. Evaluation of the impacts of dock structures on South Carolina
estuarine environments. SC Department of Natural Resources, Marine Resources Research
Institute, Charleston, SC, Tech. Rep. No. 99, 82p.
Scavia, D., J.C. Field, D.F. Boesch, R.W. Buddemeier, V. Burkett, D.R. Cayan, M. Fogarty, M.A.
Harwell, C. M. R.W. Howarth, D.J. Reed, T.C. Royer, A.H. Sallenger, and J.G. Titus. 2002.
Climate change impacts on US coastal and marine ecosystems. Estuaries 25(2):149-164.
Schueler, T. R. 1999. Microbes and urban watersheds- implications for watershed managers. Watershed
Protection Techniques 3(1):549-620.
Selman, M., S. Greenhalgh, R. Diaz, and Z. Sugg. 2008. Eutrophication and hypoxia in coastal areas:
global assessment of the state of knowledge. WRI Policy Note Water Quality: Eutrophication
and Hypoxia(1):1-6.
Shumway, S. E. 1996. Natural environmental factors. p. 467-513 in Kennedy, V. S., Newell, R. I. E.,
and Eble (eds.), A. F. The Eastern Oyster Crassostrea virginica. Maryland Sea Grant College,
University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland.
Smith, T.I.J., and J.P. Clungston. 1997. Status and management of Atlantic sturgeon, Acipenser
oxyrinchus, in North America. Environmental Biology of Fishes 48:335-346.
Street, M. W,. A.S. Deaton, W.S. Chappell, and P.D. Mooreside. 2005 North Carolina Coastal Habitat
Protection Plan. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Division of
Marine Fisheries, Morehead City, NC. 656p.
Sutter, L. 1999. DCM wetland mapping in coastal North Carolina. Division of Coastal Management.
Raleigh, NC. 33p
Teal, J. 1962. Energy flow in salt marsh macrophyte production: a review. Ecology 43:614-624.
Teal, J. and M. Teal. 1969. Life and death of the salt marsh. AudubonBallentine Books, New York, NY,
274p.
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service).
- 1991. Endangered and Threatened Species of the Southeast United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
- 1999a. West Indian Manatees in North Carolina. http://web.ral.r4.fws.gov/mammal/manatee.html.
Accessed March 2010.
- 1999b. Shormose Sturgeon in North Carolina. http://web.ral.r4.fws.gov/fish/shortst.html. Accessed
March 2010.
Wall, C. C., B.J. Peterson, and C.J. Gobler. 2008. Facilitation of seagrass Zostera marina productivity by
suspension -feeding bivalves. Marine Ecology Progress Series 357:165-174.
Weinstein, M.P., and'D.A. Kreeger, eds.. 2000. Concepts and controversies in tidal marsh ecology.
Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, the Netherlands.
Wenner, E., H. R. Beatty, and L. Coen. 1996. A quantitative system for sampling nekton on intertidal
oyster reefs. Journal of Shellfish Research 15: 769-775.
LE

Wetz, M. S., A.J. Lewitus, E.T. Koepfler, and K.C. Hayes. 2002. Impact of the Eastern oyster Crassostrea
virginica on microbial community structure in a salt marsh estuary. Aquatic Microbial Ecology
28:87-97.
Wiegert, R.G. and B.J. Freeman. 1990. Tidal salt marshes of the southeast Atlantic coast: a community
profile. U.S. Fish and Wildli
Wendt, P. H., D. M. Knott, and R. F. Van Dolah. 1989. Community structure of the sessile biota on five
artificial reefs of different ages. Bulletin ofMorine Science 44:1106-1122.
Attachment 1
Project Monitoring Plan
A monitoring program will be implemented to evaluate progress towards the project's habitat restoration
objectives; measure overall project success and to comply with NOAA's minimum scientific monitoring
requirements. The project will be monitored for five years by UNCW researchers and the federation staff
working with volunteers to document their success. The monitoring parameters include the structural and
functional parameters listed below for the project components. The parameters, where appropriate, will be
measured and monitored prior to the project initiation, concurrent with project implementation and
continue until the results point to a trend of restoration success. Monitoring timing will be conducted
according to the project schedule and the selected parameters. The timing will allow for any necessary
changes or adaptive management during the project.
I. Oyster Reef Habitat Monitoring
➢ Habitat Restoration Start Date:
o Spring 2013
➢ Monitoring Start Date:
o Pre -project - Winter/Spring 2013
o Post project - Fall 2013, annually there after
➢ Monitoring End Date:
o Fall 2017
➢ Project Goal:
o Create and restore at least 9.3 acres of viable intertidal and shallow subtidal oyster habitat
in North Carolina estuaries
➢ Project Objectives:
o Increase the acreage of oyster reef habitat (structural)
o Increase the amount of substrate available for oyster recruitment and reef development
(functional)
➢ Monitoring Parameters:
o Acreage of oyster habitat created (structural)
o Abundances and densities of oysters and epifauna (functional)
➢ Monitoring Measurements:
o Structural - Extent and area of created oyster habitat calculated by measuring reef
footprints using on the ground measurements, aerial photographs and mapping tools
Once annually
Each subsite within the project areas
[N

o Functional - Sample 20cm x 20cm quadrat random excavations from created and
reference reefs (sample random individual shellbags from shell bag "sill' blanket oyster
reefs), identify and enumerate all oysters and epifauna within the quadrat
• Once annually
■ At least one quadrat from one reef per sub site
➢ Baseline ConditionsNalues:
o Pre -project survey for oysters and oyster habitat in the project area
o Comparison to existing natural reference reefs representative of existing conditions at
each site and similar reef architecture and landscape characteristics (series of patch reefs
on mudflats or fringing reefs along saltmarsh habitat)
• 1-2 Reference reefs will be selected at each site within the project area that:
• best represent the existing natural condition;
• are similar in architecture and landscape characteristics to designed
created reefs; and
represent target conditions.
➢ Evaluation of Results:
o Quantitative comparison to baseline pre -project conditions
o Statistical comparison to reference reefs at each site
➢ Success Criteria:
o Increase in oyster habitat in the project area equal to or greater than project goal
o Created reefs exhibit similar densities and abundances of oyster and epifauna as natural
reefs at corresponding sites
➢ Indicators for Adaptive Management/Corrective Action
o Acreage targets not met
o Persistent absence or very low levels of oyster and epifuana on created reefs when
compared to natural reference reefs
➢ Watershed Scale Monitoring Programs:
o NCDMF conducts spat settlement counts in all the basins in deploys cultch in
o NCDMF also identifies and evaluates the presence of disease in the new juvenile oysters
on the shell planting sites
o UNCW SPAT monitoring program is collecting spat settlement and water temperature
and salinity data from all the major subbasins along the coast
o NCSU CMAST, UNC MIS and others are conducting a series of studies on oyster larval
transport, reef development and water quality trends in estuaries containing the project
areas.
o NCCF is conducting Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) water quality studies and
watershed restoration plans in the Lockwood Folly River and White Oak River.
II. Saltmarsh Habitat Monitoring
➢ Habitat Restoration Start Date:
o Spring 2013
➢ Monitoring Start Date:
o Pre-project—Winter/Spring2013
o Post project —Fall 2013, annually thereafter
➢ Monitoring End Date:
o Fall 2017
➢ Project Goal:
o Create and restore at least 1.24 acres of viable estuarine shoreline saltmarsh habitat in
North Carolina estuaries
LX1

➢ Project Objectives:
o Increase the acreage of saltmarsh habitat (structural)
o Provide refuge and feeding grounds for resident, transient and facultative benthic and
nektonic species and migratory birds (functional)
o Reduce the erosion potential affecting the estuarine shoreline saltmarsh habitat
(functional)
➢ Monitoring Parameters:
o Acreage of saltmarsh created (structural)
o Species, composition, stem density and % cover of herbaceous vascular plants (i.e.:
Spartina alternii fora, Spartina patens, Distichlis spicata) in the project area (functional)
o Geomorphology — slope of the shoreline supporting the created saltmarsh habitat
(functional)
➢ Monitoring Measurements:
o Structural - Extent and area of created saltmarsh habitat calculated by measuring extent
of planted/re-vegetated area containing saltmarsh vegetation using on the ground
measurements, aerial photographs and mapping tools
• Once annually
Each subsite within the project areas
o Functional -Sample .5m x .5m quadrats along transects extending through the created
saltmarsh habitat
• Once annually
• At least three quadrats along three transects per project area
➢ Baseline Conditions/Values:
o Pre -project survey for saltmarsh habitat in the project area
o Pre -project survey to determine baseline slope and elevations in the project area
o Comparison to existing natural reference saltmarsh habitats representative of existing
conditions at each site
• 1 Reference saltmarsh will be selected at each site within the project area that:
• best represent the existing natural condition;
• are similar in plant species composition and exposure to fetch as the
created saltmarsh habitat; and
• represent target conditions.
➢ Evaluation of Results:
o Quantitative comparison to baseline pre -project conditions
o Statistical comparison to reference reefs at each site
➢ Success Criteria:
o Increase in saltmarsh habitat in the project area equal to or greater than project goal
o Created saltmarsh exhibit similar densities and abundances of vegetation and similar
slopes and elevations as natural reference saltmarshes at corresponding sites
➢ Indicators for Adaptive Management/Corrective Action
o Acreage targets not met
o Persistent low stem density and % coverage of plants in the project areas when compared
to natural saltmarsh habitat
M.,

Appendix B
USFWS Manatee Guidelines
m

United States Department of the Interior
a
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field orr«
'
'Pko;t
Post Office lion 33726
s,?m`�
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
GUIDELINES FOR AVOIDING IMPACTS TO THE WEST INDIAN MANATEE
Precautionary Measures for Construction Activities in North Carolina Waters
The West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus), also known as the Florida manatee, is
a Federally -listed endangered aquatic mammal protected under the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C.1531 et seq.) and the Marine Mammal Protection Act
of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.0 1461 et seq.). The manatee is also listed as endangered
under the North Carolina Endangered Species Act of 1987 (Article 25 of Chapter 113 of
the General Statutes). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is the lead Federal
agency responsible for the protection and recovery of the West Indian manatee under the
provisions of the Endangered Species Act.
Adult manatees average 10 feet long and weigh about 2,200 pounds, although some
individuals have been recorded at lengths greater than 13 feet and weighing as much as
3,500 pounds. Manatees are commonly found in fresh, brackish, or marine water habitats,
including shallow coastal bays, lagoons, estuaries, and inland rivers of varying salinity
extremes. Manatees spend much of their time underwater or partly submerged, making
them difficult to detect even in shallow water. While the manatee's principal stronghold in
the United States is Florida, the species is considered a seasonal inhabitant of North
Carolina with most occurrences reported from June through October.
To protect manatees in North Carolina, the Service's Raleigh Field Office has prepared
precautionary measures for general construction activities in waters used by the species.
Implementation of these measure will allow in -water projects which do not require blasting
to proceed without adverse impacts to manatees. In addition, inclusion of these guidelines
as conservation measures in a Biological Assessment or Biological Evaluation, or as part
of the determination of impacts on the manatee in an environmental document prepared
pursuant to the National Environmental PolicyAct, will expedite the Service's review of the
document for the fulfillment of requirements under Section 7 of the Endangered Species
Act. These measures include:
1. The project manager and/or contractor will inform all personnel associated with the
project that manatees may be present in the project area, and the need to avoid any harm
to these endangered mammals. The project manager will ensure that all construction
personnel know the general appearance of the species and their habit of moving about
completely or partially submerged in shallow water. All construction personnel will be
informed that they are responsible for observing water -related activities for the presence
of manatees.
2. The project manager and/or the contractor will advise all construction personnel that

there are civil and criminal penalties for harming, harassing, orkilling manatees which are
protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act.
3. If a manatee is seen within 100 yards of the active construction and/or dredging
operation or vessel movement, all appropriate precautions will be implemented to ensure
protection of the manatee. These precautions will include the immediate shutdown of
moving equipment if a manatee comes within 50 feet of the operational area of the
equipment. Activities will not resume until the manatee has departed the project area on
its own volition (i.e., it may not be herded or harassed from the area).
4. Any collision with and/or injury to a manatee will be reported immediately. The report
must be made to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (ph. 919.856,4520 ext. 16), the
National Marine Fisheries Service (ph. 252.728.8762), and the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission (ph. 252.448.1546).
5. A sign will be posted in all vessels associated with the project where it is clearly visible
to the vessel operator. The sign should state:
CAUTION: The endangered manatee may occur in these waters during the warmer
months, primarily from June through October. Idle speed is required if operating
this vessel in shallow water during these months. All equipment must be shut down
if a manatee comes within 50 feet of the vessel or operating equipment. A collision
with and/or injury to the manatee must be reported immediately to the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (919-856-4520 ext. 16), the National Marine Fisheries Service
(252,728.8762), and the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
(252,448.1546).
6. The contractor will maintain a log detailing sightings, collisions, and/or injuries to
manatees during project activities. Upon completion of the action, the project manager will
prepare a report which summarizes all information on manatees encountered and submit
the report to the Service's Raleigh Field Office.
7. All vessels associated with the construction project will operate at"no wake/idle"speeds
at all times while in water where the draft of the vessel provides less than a four foot
clearance from the bottom. All vessels will follow routes of deep water whenever possible.
8. If siltation barriers must be placed in shallow water, these barriers will be: (a) made of
material in which manatees cannot become entangled; (b) secured in a manner that they
cannot break free and entangle manatees; and, (c) regularly monitored to ensure that
manatees have not become entangled. Barriers will be placed in a manner to allow
manatees entry to or exit from essential habitat.
Prepared by (rev. 0612003):
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Raleigh Field office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636.3726
9191856.4620

Figure 1. The whole body of the West Indian manatee may be visible in clear water; but
in the dark and muddy waters of coastal North Carolina, one normally sees only a small
part of the head when the manatee raises its nose to breathe.
AIL
Illustration used with the permission of the North Carolina State Museum of Natural Sciences.
Source: Clark, M. K. 1987. Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Fauna of North Carolina: Part I.
A re-evaluation of the mammals. Occasional Papers of the North Carolina Biological Survey 1987-
3. North Carolina State Museum of Natural Sciences. Raleigh, NC. pp. 52.

Govoni, Daniel
From:
Baker, Jessi E
Sent:
Friday, February 22, 2013 3:32 PM
To:
Govoni, Daniel
Subject:
NCCF oyster reefs
Daniel,
DMF has reviewed the Restoring Coastal Estuarine Habitat in Four North Carolina Estuaries Environmental Assessment
(EA) by the North Carolina Coastal Federation, as well as CAMA permit applications for individual projects included in the
EA. NCCF proposes to construct patch oyster reefs and living shorelines in four water bodies in the southern coastal
areas of NC. The project will total 9.3 acres of oyster reef habitat and 1.24 acres of saltmarsh restoration.
DMF has been involved with the planning of several of these proposed sites, including the Lockwoods Folly site. DMF is
currently working with NCCF to consider potential revisions to the Masonboro area site mentioned in the EA. All sites
are in areas permanently closed to shellfish harvest or will be protected as a Shellfish Management Area. Many sites are
adjacent to and extensions of previous cultch planting efforts that were collaborations between DMF and NCCF.
DMF will continue to assist NCCF in choosing the most appropriate sites. DMF is aware that requests for oyster reefs
projects are increasing in size and number and is currently considering policies and guidelines regarding private oyster
reefs projects.
Please feel free to contact Jessi Baker at [phone] or Jess!.bakerPncdenr.¢ov if you have any further questions or
concerns.
Thank you
Jessi
Jessi Baker
Biologist, Habitat Section
NC Division of Marine fisheries
5285 Hwy. 70 West
Morehead City, NC 28557
Morehead City - [phone]
Wilmington - [phone]
j [e-mail]
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be
disclosed to third parties.

Govoni, Daniel
From:
Baker, Jessi E
Sent:
Friday, February 22, 2013 3:32 PM
To:
Govoni, Daniel
Subject:
NCCF oyster reefs
Daniel,
DMF has reviewed the Restoring Coastal Estuarine Habitat in Four North Carolina Estuaries Environmental Assessment
(EA) by the North Carolina Coastal Federation, as well as CAMA permit applications for individual projects included in the
EA. NCCF proposes to construct patch oyster reefs and living shorelines in four water bodies in the southern coastal
areas of NC. The project will total 9.3 acres of oyster reef habitat and 1.24 acres of saltmarsh restoration.
DMF has been involved with the planning of several of these proposed sites, including the Lockwoods Folly site. DMF is.
currently working with NCCF to consider potential revisions to the Masonboro area site mentioned in the EA. All sites
are in areas permanently closed to shellfish harvest or will be protected as a Shellfish Management Area. Many sites are
adjacent to and extensions of previous cultch planting efforts that were collaborations between DMF and NCCF.
DMF will continue to assist NCCF in choosing the most appropriate sites. DMF is aware that requests for oyster reefs
projects are increasing in size and number and is currently considering policies and guidelines regarding private oyster
reefs projects.
Please feel free to contact Jessi Baker at [phone] or iessi.bakeria)ncdenr.gov if you have any further questions or
concerns.
Thankyou
Jessi
Jessi Baker
Biologist, Habitat Section
NC Division of Marine Fisheries
5285 Flwy. 70 West
Morehead City, NC 28557
Morehead City - [phone]
Wilmington - [phone]
jessi.bakerkn ncdenr.gov
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be
disclosed to third parties.

Govoni, Daniel
From: Baker, Jessi E
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 3:26 PM
To: Govoni, Daniel
Subject: FW: Coastal Federation Estuary Restoration Act (ERA) Project Background
Attachments: image001.png; image002.png
Ilittle background.
From: Ted Wilgis [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 4:25 PM
To: Weaver, Cameron; Coats, Heather; Snider, Holley; Wilson, Debra; Baker, Jessi E; Taylor, Stephen; Ellwood, Molly M.;
[e-mail]; [e-mail]; Timpy, David L SAW'; Coburn, Chad; Humphrey, Jeremy; Dail, Jason; Mairs,
Robb L; Gregson, Jim; Deaton, Anne
Cc: Bingham, Jonathan E SAW; Payonk, Philip M SAW
Subject: Coastal Federation Estuary Restoration Act (ERA) Project Background
Hello all:
Thank you for your review, comments and guidance on the Coastal Federation's habitat restoration, enhancement and
protection initiatives funded under the Estuary Restoration Act (ERA) of 2000, Title I of Public Law 106-457. The Coastal
Federation proposes to construct and restore 10.5 acres of intertidal and shallow subtidal patch oyster reefs and fringing
salt marsh habitats in four project sites in the Lockwood Folly River, Masonboro-Myrtle Grove Sound, Stump Sound and
White Oak River. This project evolved from more than a decade of planning and fieldwork by the federation working
directly with the general public, landowners, as well as state and federal agencies to select priority areas and restore
oyster reefs and fringing salt marsh habitats. These experiences have created or restored more than 100 acres of oyster
reefs and more than 50 acres of salt marsh habitat. The federation responded to a call for proposals by the interagency
council administering the ERA in March 2010. This project was reviewed by council staff and members, and approved for
funding of $400,000 in October 2010 through the USACE to conduct this project to implement its national strategy for
fisheries habitat restoration.
Due to the funding source for the ERA and the funds for the project coming through the Corps the project required an
Environmental Assessment. In the past the large majority of the funding for our habitat initiatives has come through the
NOAA Restoration Center which has a programmatic EA covering the NEPA process for the funded projects. Also, in the
past we had partnered with the Division of Marine Fisheries on oyster habitat enhance, restoration and protection projects
under their permit. When the ERA grant was submitted in 2010 that was the initial plan as well. The ERA funding is also
coupled with funding from NOAA to support the implementation of the targeted projects. Therefore, the projects outlined in
the ERA project have multiple federal and state funding sources, with programmatic EA's covering some of the federal
funding.
Once the ERA grant was awarded through the Corps in October 2010 a conference call with NCDENR representatives,
Corps and Federation staff was held to discuss the NEPA process for the project. It was determined that an EA would be
necessary to satisfy the Corps NEPA requirements for the ERA funding, and the Coastal Federation should apply for its
own permits for the oyster restoration components instead of working under the DMF permit. The Coastal Federation
began working on the EA for the project. In the meantime we worked with Cameron Weaver to host an interagency
meeting on August 24, 2011 to discuss all the projects under the ERA grant and gain input on the scope of the projects
and the permitting process.
Due to the multiple funding sources and deadlines for the projects the Coastal Federation began working with NCDENR to
host a series of project specific interagency meetings, prepare and submit CAMA major permit applications, and prepare
and submit modifications to existing CAMA major permits for ongoing projects. A series of interagency meetings were
held to discuss the living shoreline and patch oyster reef projects, permit applications and modifications for work on and
around Jones Island in the White Oak River in Onslow County. In the southern region, interagency meetings were held on
March 15 and May 8, 2012 to review and discuss the living shoreline project on Oak Island and patch oyster reef project
in the Lockwood Folly. Based on agency comments and input, CAMA major applications for both projects were submitted.

In August 2012 the Coastal Federation completed the draft programmatic EA for the ERA project funding and submitted it
to the Corps for the review and input prior to publishing. The Coastal Federation and the Corps completed the EA and
published it for review on November 16, 2012. We are currently waiting for the comments on the EA to be forwarded to us
from the Corps to determine the next steps.
Due to the complexity of the ERA funding and scope of the various projects, the Coastal Federation held and will continue
to request to hold interagency meetings to discuss the project components prior to submitting any permit applications. The
remaining components of the ERA projects still to be discussed at an interagency meeting include patch oyster reef
habitat project proposals in Myrtlegrove/Masonboro Sound and Stump Sound and a living shoreline project at Morris
Landing on Stump Sound. We will work with Cameron Weaver to determine the most appropriate process moving
forward.
I hope that this description provides some helpful information. We greatly appreciate the time, effort, consideration and
review you provide on all of our habitat restoration, enhancement and protection initiatives.
Please let us know if you need any additional information at this point. We look forward to working with you as the ERA
project moves forward.
Best wishes — Ted Wilgis
Ted Wilgis - Biologist, CEE
Coastal Education Coordinator
NC Coastal Federation
Southeast Region Office
530 Causeway Drive, Suite F1
Wrightsville Beach, NC 28480
[phone] Ext. 202
[phone] mobile
[phone] fax
tedw(@nccoast.org
www.nccoast.org
From: Weaver, Cameron[mailto:cameron.weaverc&ncdenr.00vl
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 2:46 PM
To: Ted Wilgis
Cc: Timpy, David L SAW; Taylor, Stephen
Subject: RE: Next round of ERA restoration projects
OK, thanks for the explanation; I think I understand why I am hearing about this through channels here; DMF will be
instrumental in the entire process. I am copying Stephen with DMF and Dave Timpy at the Corps to see if he can track
down where things stand over there with their comments. Then we can work to get an interagency meeting together as
needed before you submit any applications.
Cameron
Cameron Weaver
Cameron.Weaver(@ncdenr.go
Environmental Assistance Coordinator
NCDENR / Division of Environmental Assistance and Outreach (DEAD)
127 Cardinal Drive
Wilmington, NC 28405
910-796-7303 (F) 910-350-2004
http://ncenvironmentalassistance.org/
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be
disclosed to third parties.

From: Ted Wilgis [mailto:tedw(o)nccoast.oro]
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 1:39 PM
To: Weaver, Cameron
Subject: RE: Next round of ERA restoration projects
Hi Cameron:
Thanks for checking in on this. Unfortunately this process has been a little convoluted due to the Corps EA requirement
for the ERA grant. We normally work through funding from NOAA for our habitat restoration projects which has a
programmatic EA which satisfies the NEPA compliance, and then we work with you and all the agencies on SEPA and
permitting. We haven't yet seen the comments on the EA. We are waiting for the Corps to forward them. I was still
planning on requesting an interagency meeting for these projects before submitting the applications, but I can wait to see
the comments and/or rely on your recommendation.
Thanks very much for your help - Ted
Ted Wilgis - Coastal Education Coordinator
NC Coastal Federation
Southeast Region Office
[phone] Ext. 202
[phone] mobile
tedw(c nccoast.org
www.nccoast.org
Subscribe to our daily email service for important coastal stories
Become our Facebook fan
From: Weaver, Cameron[mailto:cameron.weaver(abncdenr.ci
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 11:10 AM
To: Ted Wilgis
Subject: RE: Next round of ERA restoration projects
Hi Ted.
Based on conversations around here, I imagine that you've already sent in applications regarding these. Hopefully you
won't hit any snags that we could have worked out; if a meeting would be helpful or if there are other ways I may assist,
just let me know.
Cameron
Cameron Weaver
Cameron.Weaver(cancdenr.eov
Environmental Assistance Coordinator
NCDENR / Division of Environmental Assistance and Outreach (DEAD)
127 Cardinal Drive
Wilmington, NC 28405
910-796-7303 (F) 910-350-2004
http://ncenvironmentalassistance.ora/
E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be
disclosed to third parties.
From: Ted Wilgis fmailto:tedw(nlnccoast.org]
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2012 11:23 AM

To! Weaver, Cameron
Subject: Next round of ERA restoration projects
Hi Cameron:
Hope you are doing well. We are working on our next round of oyster reef creation and living shoreline projects in New
Hanover and Onslow Counties, and we will need to schedule an interagency meeting. I just wanted to check with you on
what the current schedule looks like? We hope to time the meeting for late November -early December.
Thanks for your time and consideration.
Best - Ted
Ted Wilgis - Coastal Education Coordinator
NC Coastal Federation
Southeast Region Office
[phone] Ext. 202
[phone] mobile
tedw at7.nccoast.orc
www.nccoast.org
Subscribe to our daily email service for important coastal stories
Become our Facebook fan

Varnamtown `
13
i fy
Apr"iy .tx '"
♦ j
Lockwod Folly Golf & F" geacnr ew p" tEr
Country Club
sE
y, x4 daYsAe`
o
oS r
v ew 7r.SEnr
neviev+Or SE Lockwo Y Rdgr_ �Y. y
Project Area o�zc�oo�` Sunset Harb
J - Z%ooc Ie ecth

Ix
lUC C06sfz� �e //-6c&waa�l
RECE D Major Permit Fee Schedullb
Jk,, 16 2013
DCM-MHDMY 7 Zr O v
DCM %
DWQ %
Development Type
Fee
(14300160143510009316256253)
(2430016024351000952341)
I. Private, non-commercial
development that does not involve
the filling or excavation of any
wetlands or open water areas:
$250
100% ($250)
0% ($0)
II. Public or commercial
development that does not involve
the filling or excavation of any
wetlands or open water areas:
$400
100% ($400)
0% ($0)
III. For development that involves
the filling and/or excavation of up
to 1 acre of wetlands and/or open
water areas, determine if A,B, C,
or D below applies: -
-
III(A). Private, non-commercial
development, if General Water
Quality Certification No. 3490
(See attached) can be applied:
$250
100% ($250)
0% ($0)
I II(B). Public or commercial
development, if General Water
Quality Certification No. 3490
(See attached) can be applied:
$400
100% ($400)
0% ($0)
Ill(C). If General Water Quality
Certification No. 3490 (see
attached) could be applied, but
DCM staff determined that
additional review and written
DWQ concurrence is needed
because of concerns related to
water quality or aquatic life:
$400
60% ($240)
40% ($160)
III(D). If General Water Quality
Certification No. 3490 (see
attached) cannot be applied:
$400
60% ($240)
40% ($160)
IV, Development that involves the
-
filling and/or excavation of more
`
than one acre of wetlands and/ r
open water areas:
$475
60% ($285)
40% ($190)

- ILFF
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Pat McCrory, Braxton C. Davis John E. Skvarla, III
Governor Director Secretary
January 15, 2013
RECEIVED
[e-mail] JAN 16 2013
2 Pages
DCM-MHD CITY
Star News
Legal Advertisement Section
Post Office Box 840
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
Re: Major Combo Public Notice in New Hanover County:
• NCCF / Brunswick Co.
• CFPUA / New Hanover Co.
Kyle/Heather: Please publish the attached Notice in the Thursday, January 17, 2013 issue.
The State Office of Budget and Management requires an original Affidavit of Publication prior to
payment for newspaper advertising. Please send the original affidavit and invoice for payment to Shaun
Simpson at Div. of Coastal Management, 127 Cardinal Drive Extension, Wilmington, NC 28405, 910-796-
7226. Paying by Credit Card (number on file with Elsa Lawrence, Ref acct # 796-7215). Please send a copy of
the credit card receipt to me.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter. If you should have any questions, please contact me at our
Wilmington office.
Sincerely,
Shaun K�Simpson
Permit Support Teclmici
Division of Coastal Management
Enclosure
cc: WiRO
Doug Huggett
127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilmington, NC 28405
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone]Internet: www.noroastalmanagement.net
An Equal Opporlunily 1 ARnmative Action Emgoyer

RECEIVED
N•
JAN 16 2013
NOTICE OF FILING OF
APPLICATION FOR CAMA MAJOR DCM M-Tm MY
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
The Department of Environment and Natural Resources hereby gives public notice as required by NCGS
113A-119(b) that the following have applied for development permits in Areas of Environmental Concern as
designated under the CAMA: On December 12, 2012, the North Carolina Coastal Federation proposed to
construct artificial oyster patch reefs within the Lockwood Folly River, in Brunswick County and on January 2,
2013 the Cape Fear Public Utility Authority proposed to extend water stems to the Masonboro Loop Ivad
area of Wilmington, adjacent to Masonboro Sound & Whiskey Creek, in New Hanover County. Copies of these
entire applications may be examined or copied at the office of Holley Snider (BR Co.) and Robb Mairs (NH
Co.), N.C. Dept. of Environment & Natural Resources, Division of Coastal Management, 127 Cardinal Drive
Ext., Wilmington, NC 28405, (910-796-7215) during normal business hours.
Comments mailed to Braxton C. Davis, Director, Division of Coastal Management, 400 Commerce
Avenue, Morehead City, NC 28557-3421, prior to February 7, 2013, will be considered in making the permit
decision. Later comments will be accepted and considered up to the time of permit decision. Project
modification may occur based on review and comment by the public and state and federal agencies. Notice of
the permit decision in this matter will be provided upon written request.

© OF
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Beverly Perdue, Governor Braxton C. Davis, Director Dee Freeman, Secretary
September 25, 2012
Ted Wilgis
N.C. Coastal Federation
530 Causeway Drive, Suite F1
Wrightsville Beach, INC 28480
Re: Lockwood Folly Oyster Reef Habitat Restoration Project
Major Permit Application
Dear Mr. Wilgis:
The NC Division of Coastal Management hereby acknowledges receipt of your application on,
September 24, 2012, for State approval for the development of the referenced project. An
initial screening of the submittal package has been conducted. This revealed certain
deficiencies, which must be corrected before the application package can be accepted as
complete. To assist you in expediting the permitting process as much as possible, I am notifying
you of these deficiencies immediately so that they can be quickly corrected to facilitate the
detailed review.
Because the deficiencies are easily correctable, I am not returning the original application
package. Please make the needed changes, and submit the appropriate documentation. With
the retained copy of the application, the Field Representative can commence the detailed
review. Please understand that the subsequent detailed review may reveal additional areas
where further information or documentation is required to demonstrate compliance with the
rules directly applicable to the proposed development. If this occurs, you will be notified of
such issues separately.
Our initial screening has identified the following deficiencies:
1. Not all questions on the application have been answered, or indicated as "not
applicable." Please address the following items:
• Form DCM-MP-1:
- Number 3. d, please indicate the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway as the
closest major water body to the proposed site.
- Number 4. j, k, I, please indicate that these items are not applicable to
the project as proposed.
127 Cardinal Drive Extension, Wilmington, North Carolina 28405-3285
Phone: [phone] \ FAX: [phone] \ Internet: www.nccoastalmanagement.net
An Equal Opportunity \ Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled \ 10% Post Consumer Paper

NC Coastal Federation
September 25, 2012
Page 2
- Number 4.m, please clarify the presence of wetlands within the project
boundary.
- Number 5.g, please clarify whether the project will encroach on any
public easement, accessway or other area that the public has use of.
- Number
2. Adequate Work Plans or Drawings have not been submitted. Please address the
following items:
■ Each drawing must have a simple Title Block and it must:
- Identify the project or work
- Provide the name of the Applicant
- Provide the date of plat preparation
- Indicate the date of any revisions
• A Top/Plan View Drawing must be submitted that:
- Addresses the water depths within the project area and the existing
natural drainage patterns present.
- Depicts the project location relative to navigable water ways and
adjacent lands.
- Accurately depicts the size of the proposed patch reefs.
■ A Cross -Section Drawing must be submitted that:
- References elevations to -zero at MLW or NWL, please clarify the water
depths, bottom substrate and tidal. amplitude on the submitted cross
section drawing.
• The Plat must locate project area wetlands and identify the agency or consultant
making the determination, along with the date the determination was made.
■ All drawings must be accurately drawn to scale. The cross section and plan view
drawing indicate reefs of two different sizes, please clarify.
3. Please provide a vicinity map that references major highways, municipalities and
landmarks.
4. The submitted work plan drawings labeled Drawing 1 of 6, Drawing 2 of 6 and Drawing 3
of 6 will need to be submitted so that they may be reproduced legibly in black and white
copy or you may submit 27 color copies of each of the drawings.
To expedite our response to your permitting request, we will commence the detailed review of
your application for a permit pending the receipt of the additional information requested
above. However, the statutorily provided 75/150 days allowed for review cannot commence
until such time as we have received a complete application package. Once your application has
been accepted as complete, you will receive a separate notification letter.
If it is not possible to render a permit decision within 70 days of the date when your application
is received complete, you may request a meeting with the Director of the Division of Coastal
Management and permit staff to discuss the status of your project. Such a meeting will be held

NC Coastal Federation
September 25, 2012
Page 3
within five working days from the receipt of your written request and shall include the property
owner, developer, and project designer/consultant.
I am also sending a copy of this letter to you by email to try to expedite the review process. Our
procedures provide for the processing clock to not be suspended if within 3 working days of the
email, or within 5 working days from the date of this letter, we receive a reply from you that
adequately addresses the issues that have been raised.
Please do not hesitate to contact me at our Wilmington office (910 796 7270) if you have any
questions regarding this letter or the permitting process.
Sincerely,
Holley Snide
Field Representative
cc: Doug Huggett, Major Permits Coordinator, NC DCM

r�
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management John E. Skvarta, III
Pat McCrory Braxton C. Davis
Governor Director Secretary
January 14, 2013 RECEIVED
Ted Wilgis
North Carolina Coastal Federation JAN 16 2013
530 Causeway Drive, Suite F1
Wrightsville Beach, INC 28480 DCM-N'ITDCITY
Dear Mr. Wilgis
The Division of Coastal Management hereby acknowledges receipt of your application for State approval for development of
property located within the open waters of the Lockwood Folly River, near Shallotte, Brunswick County. It was received
complete on 12/11/12, and appears to be adequate for processing at this time. The projected deadline for making a decision
is 2/26/13. An additional 75-day review period is provided by law when such time is necessary to complete the review. If you
have not been notified of a final action by the initial deadline stated above, you should consider the review period extended.
Under those circumstances, this letter will serve as your notice of an extended review. However, an additional letter will be
provided on or about the 75th day.
If this agency does not render a permit decision within 70 days from December 11, 2012, you may request a meeting with the
Director of the Division of Coastal Management and permit staff to discuss the status of your project. Such a meeting will be
held within five working days from the receipt of your written request and shall include the property owner, developer, and
project designer/consultant.
NCGS 113A-119(b) requires that Notice of an application be posted at the location of the proposed development. Enclosed
you will find a "Notice of Permit Filing" postcard which must be posted at the property of your proposed development. You
should post this notice at a conspicuous point along your property where it can be observed from a public road. Some
examples would be: Nailing the notice card to a telephone pole or tree along the road right-of-way fronting your property, or
at a point along the road right-of-way where a private road would lead one into your property. Failure to post this notice
could result in an incomplete application.
An onsite inspection will be made, and if additional information is required, you will be contacted by the appropriate State or
Federal agency. Please contact me if you have any questions and notify me in writing if you wish to receive a copy of my field
report and/or comments from reviewing agencies.
1 cerely,
olley 5nid r
Coastal Management Representative
Enclosure
cc: Doug Huggett, DCM
Debra Wilson, District Manager
Dave Timpy, COE
Connie Marlow, Brunswick County LPO
127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilmington, NC 28405
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: waw.nxoastalmanagementnet
An Equal Oppo nity 1 Affi bwA nEmpbyer
NorthCarolina
Naturally

� ~ m
to
N0T1(0'$17gA
o C
CAMA PERMItw
APPLIE
PROJECT:
F R
COMMENTS ACCEPTED THROUGH _ February Z 20Y3
APPLICANT:
NCCF c/o Ted Wilgis
530 Causeway Dr, Suite F-1
Wrightsville Beach, NC 28480
FOR MORE DETAILS CONTACT
THE LOCAL PERMIT OFFICER BELOW:
NC Div. of Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Dr. Ext. T
Wilmington, NC 28405
Holley Snider, Field Representative
910-796-7215

RECEt cD
Lockwood Folly River Oyster Reef Habitat Restoration Project 16 ?013
Applicant: North Carolina Coastal Federation, Inc.
Date: August 27, 2012 DCM-MUD cr y
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Proposed Project
The North Carolina Coastal Federation (Federation) has been funded by the Estuary
Restoration Act (ERA) through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
to implement the North Carolina Estuaries Restoration Project. This Essential Fish
Habitat Assessment is part of a comprehensive EFHA for the entire ERA project. This
EFHA focuses on the Lockwood Folly River Oyster Reef Habitat Restoration Project.
The North Carolina Coastal Federation is proposing to create and restore 15,000 square
feet of intertidal Eastern Oyster (Crassostrea virginica) patch reef habitat in a 3 acre
project area in the lower Lockwood Folly River in Brunswick County. The proposed
project will use a maximum of 14,500 bushels of oyster shell and 500 bushels of marine
limestone marl to create a series of 21 patch oyster reefs in the 3 acre project area.
Need for proposed action
Global bivalve shellfish habitats, in particular oyster reefs, are one of the most threatened
habitats in the world (Beck et al. 2009). In more than half of the world's marine
ecoregions, American Oyster (Crassostrea virginica) populations, the primary intertidal
and subtidal reef -building species along the eastern coast of the United States, have
declined more than 90% from historic levels. Functional extinction (>99% loss) of oyster
reefs in estuaries is common (Beck et al. 2009) and habitat losses exceed levels reported
for more well-known coral reef, mangrove, and seagrass habitats. Both human activities
and natural phenomena — over -harvest, disease, coastal development and habitat
disturbance — have affected oyster distribution and abundance, as well as contributed to
oyster habitat losses (Lenihan and Peterson 1998, Coen and Luckenbach 2000,
Luckenbach et al. 1999, Breitburg et al. 2000).
In 2007 the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA's) Eastern
Oyster Biological Review Team conducted a status review of the eastern oyster (EOBRT
2007). The review determined that the oyster harvest along the East Coast of the United
States is only 2 percent of the peak historical harvest and that oyster restoration and
enhancement efforts are "necessary to sustain populations" in about half of the estuaries
in the middle and south Atlantic Ocean coast. The historical oyster harvest in North
Carolina is showing significant decline (Street et al. 2005), and they are currently listed
as a species of concern. Estimates of historical acreage of oyster reefs compared to
current levels determined through N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries Substrate Mapping
Program, suggest a 50% decline in oyster reef habitat in North Carolina.
Once valued primarily as a food resource, oysters are now recognized as ecosystem
engineers (Jones et al. 1994). Oyster reefs are regarded as one of the key structural
elements within southeast estuaries. Reefs create complex habitats used by fish,
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
SEP 0 4 2012

RECEIVED
->,., 16 2013
crustaceans and bivalves — including commercial and recreational species — as well as
other invertebrates, birds and mammals (Zimmerman et al. 1989; Wenner et al. 1996;
Coen et al. 1999; Coen and Luckenbach 2000, Meyer and Townsend 2000). OXWfVG&n-'
also improve water quality and clarity by filtering large quantities of water. One mature
oyster can filter approximately 200 L of water per day (Nelson et al. 2004; Newell 2004;
Grizzle et al. 2008). Observed declines in oyster populations not only affect the resource
but are also closely associated with adverse effects to reef -associated species and reduced
water quality, ultimately leading to shifts away from "natural" ecosystem functioning.
Few species are as readily identified as being fundamental to the functioning of estuarine
systems as oysters are.
Recent global analyses suggest that shellfish reefs are near or past functional extinction in
many regions (Beck et al. 2009). Management strategies, including restoration efforts
designed to conserve or even improve reef conditions, are recommended to reverse the
negative consequences of reef losses (Brumbaugh et al. 2006, Beck et al. 2009). Unlike
many other global regions, oyster reefs in the southeastern United States are
characterized as good -to -poor (Beck et al. 2009), in part because of historical under -
exploitation and, until the 1990s, delayed coastal development. Although far from ideal,
the good -to -poor condition of southeastern oyster habitats represents an opportunity to be
proactive environmentally and attempt to reverse the losses before oyster reefs become
functionally extinct in the region.
Purpose of proposed action
The federation will coordinate with the N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries and the
University of North Carolina at Wilmington, community volunteers and students to
enhance, restore and protect restore 15,000 square feet of intertidal Eastern Oyster
(Crassostrea virginica) patch reef habitat in a 3 acre project area in the lower Lockwood
Folly River in Brunswick County. The project will be monitored by university
researchers and federation staff working with volunteers to document their success. The
project will use loose shell and small limestone marl for the patch reefs. Public awareness
and support for the protection and restoration of these habitats will be expanded through
educational and outreach activities and public participation in the project by teachers,
students, community members and volunteers. The project will implement estuarine
habitat creation and restoration objectives described in the N.C. Oyster Protection and
Restoration Action Plan, the N.C. Oyster Fishery Management Plan, and the N.C. Coastal
Habitat Protection Plan, the Onslow Bight Conservation Forum and the Cape Fear Arch
Conservation Council plan. These estuarine systems have some of the highest species
diversity and productivity in the Southeastern Atlantic region.
Oyster habitats are the primary hard -bottom structure in the southeast near shore coastal
region in North Carolina. Oyster reefs support both commercial and recreational
harvesting, work towards improving water quality, provide habitat for many non -shellfish
species (e.g., marketable fish and crabs), as well as protect shorelines from erosion. Salt
marsh habitat provides primary production for estuaries; water quality benefits; habitat
for commercially and recreationally important finfish and shellfish; flood and storm surge
buffering
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
SEP042012

RECEIVED
JAi, 16 2013
The Lockwood Folly River contains significant areas of oyster beds and maint _Mcrry
levels of annual oyster spat fall. However, due to continuing harvest pressure an
sedimentation rates, a significant amount of viable oyster reef has been lost. Providing
adequate reef and settlement substrate will significantly enhance the oyster population
and oyster reef habitat in the lower river estuary.
All the reef habitat constructed through this project will be placed in permanently closed
shellfish waters or will be designated as a research sanctuary, and therefore will not be
subject to commercial or recreational harvest.
Methodology
Intertidal Eastern Oyster (Crassostrea virginica) patch reef habitat will be created as a
result of the proposed project. The federation will work with the N.C. Division of Marine
Fisheries, researchers from UNCW, and local oyster harvesters to select the oyster reef
restoration site within the project areas, and select the reef layout and design the reefs.
The reefs will be placed within the project area at a site that is appropriate for oyster reef
development, oyster larval recruitment and settlement and nekton and epifauana
utilization. The reef site will be located just inside of the line marking the permanent
closure of waters to shellfish harvest due to bacteriological contamination. While the
bacteria are not harmful to reef development and the oysters health, their presence closes
the area to harvest. Placement of the reefs just inside the closed area eliminates a user
conflict of closing open shellfish waters to build and protect the habitat restoration sites.
Placing the reefs in the closed areas will also allow for more research and comparison of
oysters further upstream and closer to the pollution sources in the closed areas.
The federation will coordinate the reef building with the N.C. Division of Marine
Fisheries and researchers. The reefs will be designed with suitable elevations, patch size,
inter -reef habitat, surface and edge complexity and shell layer thickness to allow for
maximum potential for oyster larvae recruitment and settlement, water flow and transport
of oxygen and food for the oysters, habitat provision and other ecosystem services. The
federation will mark the project site and reef locations with PVC poles according to the
designated project design prior to reef construction.
The proposed project will use oyster shell to create the intertidal and shallow subtidal
oyster reefs. A limited amount #4 marine limestone marl may be used in conjunction with
the oyster shell. Marl is a suitable reef material and is utilized by N.C. Division of Marine
Fisheries for oyster reef enhancement activities. Using marl in conjunction with oyster
shell supplements the amount of reef material and enables further evaluation of marl as
reef material in estuaries along the coast.
The oyster reef material will be purchased from oyster shucking houses and quarries
(marl) and transported by truck to a stockpile location near each project site. Project
contractors will load the reef material onto small, shallow draft barges. The barges will
travel to the project site where the contractor will spread the shell into the reef locations
RECEIVED
a DCM WILMINGTON, NC
SFP 0 4 202

RECEPJED
X\ 16 2013
as indicated by the PVC poles placed earlier. Using its flat bottom boat, the federation
will be monitoring the reef construction activities and will check the placemeramf_Am Crry
shell to ensure that it meets the project design specifications. Upon the satisfactory
completion of the reef material deployment the federation will place signage on the
project area posts and work to have the site proclamated as a shellfish research sanctuary.
Post project monitoring will be begin and occur according to the monitoring schedule.
Previous monitoring of our restored oyster reefs in North Carolina indicates that these
reefs provide oyster habitat during the first spatfall season, and that recruitment may be
heavy, depending upon larval availability and seasonal fluctuations. Oysters generally
reach maturity in two to three years, and the reef will provide oyster habitat for as long as
the reef exists, since new oysters will continue to attach onto previous oyster shell layers,
even in a scenario of rising sea level. Lifecycle estimates of the individual oysters are
highly variable, and are not impacted by the project, but by natural predation, oyster
diseases, pollution, etc.
Monitoring of our previously created oyster reefs also show that these reefs provide
habitat and are used by a variety of finfish during the first year. Again, the reefs will
provide habitat for finfish for as long as the reefs exist. Since the reefs are formed from
oyster shells, there is no known limit to the structure lifetime. Sea level rise predictions
are expected to increase significantly over the next century, and it is currently unknown
whether oyster recruitment patterns will be able to be sustained during periods of rapid
sea level rise.
Essential Fisheries Habitat, Habitat Areas of Particular Concern, and Managed
Species
The 1996 Congressional amendments to the Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (MSFCMA) (PL 94-265) set forth new requirements for the National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), regional fishery management councils (FMC), and other
federal agencies to identify and protect important marine and anadromous fish habitat.
These amendments established procedures for the identification of Essential Fish Habitat
(EFH) and a requirement for interagency coordination to further the conservation of
federally managed fisheries. Table 2 shows the categories of EFH and Habitat Areas of
Particular Concern (HAPC) for managed species which were identified in the Fishery
Management Plan Amendments of the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council and
which may occur in southeastern states. Table 3 lists, by life stages, 77 fish species which
may occur in the vicinity of the project area and which are managed under MSFCMA.
These fish species and habitats require special consideration to promote their viability
and sustainability. The potential impacts of the proposed action on these fish and habitats
can be seen in Table 2 and are discussed below.
Estuarine Water Column
The estuarine water column is defined as a medium of transport for nutrients, larvae and
migrating organisms between river systems and the open ocean. The impact of this
project is expected to be permanent but minimal. This project will not impede the flow of
waters to or from wetland areas nor the ocean waters. This project intends on adding
RECEIVED
4 DCM WILMINGTON, NC
S E P 0 4 2012

hard substrate on which multiple organisms, especially oysters, may attach and produce
an abundance of larvae. The additional abundance of larvae will help restore the o�WFV :D
population in North Carolina. The impacts on the estuarine water column are expected to
be minimal. JAP 16 2013
Intertidal Flats
Effects to intertidal flats will be the addition of complex substrate to the flats. SMY'`MfiU
of the flats will be covered with reef material, however research indicates that benthic
processes continue and may be enhanced as the created reef matures.
Oyster Reefs and Shell Banks
The project protocols and coordination with the N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries
prohibit deployment of cultch materials on existing shellfish resource.
Seagrass and Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV)
No seagrasses/SAV exist within the project area.
State —Designated Areas Important for Managed Species
Primary and Secondary Nursery Areas are designated by the NC Marine Fisheries
Commission and are defined as tidal saltwaters that provide essential habitat for the early
development of commercially important fish and shellfish. This project provides nursery
habitat that is consistent with primary and secondary nursery areas.
Unconsolidated Soft Bottom
Surficial sediments on a soft bottom can act as habitat for a variety of microscopic plants
and benthic epifauna/infauna species. These organisms may serve as food sources for
many other organisms. These other organisms in turn can feed larger, economically
important, fishery species such as red drum, summer flounder, spot, atlantic croaker,
weak fish, and striped bass to name a few.
The project area consists predominantly of intertidal and shallow subtidal soft bottom
habitat ranging in depth from -Oft to -4ft NVGD. Given the nature of environment and
human induced stressors on these communities the dominant organisms are opportunistic
in nature and thus are adapted to a relatively rapid colonization and recovery.
The area to be filled consists of soft/sandy bottom and the impact to this EFH would be
permanent. Areas of soft bottom will be present between the patches of material as well
as expansive soft bottom habitat surrounding the cultch plantings.
The activities proposed have been demonstrated to have minimal effects overall on this
EFH type, but it is important to consider post -larval development that may occur in these
areas. This habitat serves as feeding and resting grounds of juvenile and adult species.
Thus, these organisms may be indirectly affected by filling of the substrate. But, given
the mobility of the organisms resting or feeding and the extensive areas of remaining soft
bottom, the area of disturbance is likely to have no significant adverse effects.
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
SEP 04 2012

Additional Project Area Concerns
In addition to EFH species in Table 1, prey species such as spot, croaker, and pinfish may
also occupy the estuarine waters of North Carolina during varying life stages. ThVC'U ID
proposed project will not adversely affect prey species populations.
!'' 16 2013
Impact Summary for Essential Fish Habitat
The objectives of this project are to enhance/restore and protect intertidal patch r,
reef habitat in the Lockwood Folly River. The targeted estuary has environmen
conditions that will allow oyster recruitment and provide for the subsequent survival and
growth, and it has areas suitable for salt marsh restoration.
Created oyster reefs are created to change habitats from a soft substrate to a mixture of
hard and soft substrates by adding cultch materials in a low profile (< 0.5m.) deployment
scheme. These reefs are generally deployed to provide fisheries habitat in a desired
location that provides some measurable benefit to several different species as well as
humans. When manmade reefs are constructed, they provide new hard substrate similar in
function to newly exposed hard bottom (Goren, 1985). Aside from the often obvious
differences in the physical characteristics and nature of the materials involved in creating
a manmade reef, the ecological succession and processes involved in the establishment of
the epibenthic assemblages (i.e. oysters) occur in a similar fashion on natural hard
substrates and man -placed hard substrates (Wendt et al., 1989). Finfsh use natural and
manmade hard substrates in very similar ways and often interchangeably (Sedberry,
1988). The changes in species composition and local abundance of important species in a
specific area are often seen as the primary benefits of artificial reef deployment activities.
Additional benefits of created oyster reefs placed on soft bottoms are the increase of
diversity and edges. The increase of biotic diversity is accomplished by adding hard
substrate where none existed. This in turn will attract organisms that settle on hard
bottom but cannot settle on a shifting bottom and then attract predators that feed on these
sessile organisms. Edges can be described as areas of transition between habitat types.
Edges can also create areas of high diversity, more so than over continuous areas of one
habitat type. This has come to be known as the edge effect principle. The edge created
by deploying cultch material onto a soft bottom habitat may also create a habitat of its
own. The edge habitat is a culmination of the two. habitats (i.e. soft and hard substrates)
because it is inhabited by a characteristic set of species. By adding hard substrate to a
soft bottom habitat the possible effect is that a third habitat is created. This has been
observed on oyster sanctuary mounds where reef fishes congregate near the center of the
substrate to graze on algae and are afforded the sense of security. Sheepshead, on the
other hand, patrol the edge of the substrate foraging out into the soft bottom habitat but
continuously return to hard substrate.
Oysters have often been described as the "keystone" species in an estuary (Bahr and
Lanier 1981) and provide significant surface area as habitat. Sometimes compared to
submerged aquatic vegetation in the Mid -Atlantic States, the oyster community has been
identified as critical to a healthy estuarine ecosystem. Direct and indirect ecosystem
services (filtering capacity, benthic-pelagic coupling, nutrient dynamics, sediment
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
SEP 0 4 200

stabilization, provision of habitat, etc.) derived from the oyster reef have been largely
underestimated (Coen and Lukenbach 1998). Oyster reefs can remove, via filter feeding,T�
large amounts of particulate material from the water column, and release large quaRR D
of inorganic and organic nutrients that will benefit other co -inhabitants of the reef (Haven
and Morales -Alamo 1970; Dame and Dankers 1988; Dame et al. 1989). JAI\ 16 202
The ecological role of the oyster reef as structure, providing food and protectionDCM-MHD crrY
contribute to its value as a critical fisheries habitat. The three-dimensional oyster reef
provides more area for attachment of oysters and other sessile organisms and creates
more habitat niches than occur on the surrounding flat or soft bottom habitat. Clams,
mussels, anemones, polychaetes, amphipods, sponges, and many species of crabs are part
of the oyster reef community. The invertebrates recycle nutrients and organic matter and
are prey for many finfish. Red and black drum, striped bass, sheepshead, weakfish,
spotted seatrout, summer and southern flounder, oystertoads, and other fish frequent the
oyster reef.
Created oyster reefs are known to promote extensive invertebrate communities and
enhance habitat for reef fish and other fish species, including cryptic, tropical, and
gamefish species, as well as many of commercial or recreational significance. The
success of a reef and its contributions to stock enhancement varies geographically and is
determined by a wide range of complex parameters, including existing habitat, physical
limitations, material design, reef configuration, reef management, and the health of the
targeted species complex, which in turn is reliant on effective fisheries management
locally, regionally, and nationally. This potential is further enhanced since domestic reef
programs today possess better information and improved technology and are more
focused in using this tool towards specific stock enhancement and fishery management
needs.
For species which may be to some degree habitat -limited, the establishment of additional
suitable habitat targeted to specific life -history stages may improve survival. Additional
manmade habitat designed specifically to promote survival of targeted species in
"protected" areas could potentially enhance existing ecosystems or create new ones to fill
in gaps where essential fish habitat had been damaged, lost, or severely over -fished. Man-
made structures also may provide essential habitat while simultaneously acting as a
deterrent to illegal fishing practices in specially managed areas. (e.g. oyster sanctuaries).
Free swimming organisms will be able to avoid the area directly affected by project
activities and move to other soft bottom habitat and thus impacts to these organisms shall
be minimal. Some impacts to EFH will be permanent since the deployment of cultch onto
soft bottom will change the availability of the bottom under the reef material.
In contrast to the permanent impacts to the existing EFH, the ecological functions of
oyster reefs, be it manmade or natural, are numerous and an essential component of the
estuarine system. While a few EFH types will be subject to temporary impacts and other
EFH categories will have permanent impacts, these disturbances are trade-offs that will
increase the biomass of oysters and salt marsh to help restore the oyster poliftebE I V E D
DCM WILMINGTON. NC
SEP 0 4 2012

creating habitat that supports high diversity and multiple ecological functions.
Implementation of this project is not expected to cause any significant adverse iRk oWtb
any managed species and in fact will hopefully facilitate the recovery of the oyster
population and its beneficiaries, add essential fish habitat, create additional sajt w r* 2013
habitat for fishery utilization and benefit estuarine systems.
Table 1: Essential Fish Habitat and Habitat Areas of Particular Concern in SoRAF i- CtTY
United States") (N/A= Not Aoolicable; NS = Not Significant)
ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT
Present within or
adjacent to
ro'ect area
Impacts from filling for
oyster cultch planting
Estuarine Areas
1. Aquatic Beds
NO
N/A
2. Estuarine Emergent Wetlands
NO
N/A
3. Estuarine Scrub/shrub Mangroves
NO
N/A
4. Estuarine Water Column
YES
permanent
5. Intertidal Flats
YES
NS
6. Oyster Reefs & Shell Banks
YES
NO
7. Palustrine Emergent & Forested Wetlands
NO
N/A
8. Seagrass
YES
NO
Marine Areas
9. Artificial/Manmade Reefs
NO
N/A
10. Coral & Coral Reefs
NO
N/A
11. Live/Hard Bottoms
NO
N/A
12. Sar assum
NO
N/A
13. Water Column
NO
N/A
GEOGRAPHICALLY DENFINED HABITAT AREAS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN
Area -Wide
14. Council -designated Artificial Reef
Special Management Zones
NO
N/A
15. Hermatypic (reef -forming) Coral Habitat
& Reefs
NO
N/A
16. Hard Bottoms
NO
N/A
17. Hoyt Hills
NO
N/A
18. Sar assum Habitat
NO
N/A
19. State -designated Areas Important for
Managed Species
YES
NO
20. Submer ed Aquatic Ve etation SAV
YES
NO
North Carolina
21. Big Rock
NO
N/A
22. Bo ue Sound
NO
N/A
23. Cape Fear, Lookout & Hatteras
(sandy shoals
YES
NS
24. New River
YES
NS
25. The Ten Fathom Ledge
NO
N/A
26. The Point
NO
N/A
Areas shown are identified in Fishery Management Plan Amendments of the South Atlantic Fishery
Management Council and are included in Essential Fish Habitat: New Marine Fish Habitat Mandate foF C E I V E D
Federal Agencies. February 1999. (Tables 6 and 7).
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
8 SEP 0 4 2012

Table 2. Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Species of North Carolina oyster producing waters.
Source: NMFS, Beaufort, North Carolina, October 1999.
E=Eggs; L=Larval; J=Juvenile; A=Adult; N/A=Not Found
RECEIVED
EFH FISH SPECIES
Lockwoods
Folly
Bluefish
E L J A
Summer flounder
L J A
Gag grouper
J
Gray snapper
J
Dolphin
N/A
Cobia
E L J A
King mackerel
J A
Spanish mackerel
J A
Black sea bass
L J A
Spiny dogfish
J A
Brown shrimp
E L J A
Pink shrimp
E L J A
White shrimp
E L J A
Atlantic bi e e tuna
N/A
Atlantic bluefin tuna
N/A
Ski jack tuna
N/A
Lon bills earfish
N/A
Shortfin mako shark
N/A
Blue shark
N/A
Spinner shark
N/A
Swordfish
N/A
Yellowfin tuna
N/A
Blue marlin
N/A
White marlin
N/A
Sailfish
N/A
Calico scallop
N/A
Scalloped hammerhead
shark
J A
Big nose shark
J A
Black tip shark
J A
Dusky shark
J A
Night shark
J A
Sandbar shark
J A
Silky shark
J A
Tiger shark
J A
Atlantic shay nose shark
J A
Lon fin mako shark
J A
Whitetip shark
J A
Thresher shark
J A
1�1 16 2013
DCAf MLTD CITY
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
SEP 0 4 2012

RECEIVED
JAN 16 2013
D` NI-MM CITY
References
Bohnsack, J. 1989. Are high densities of fishes at artificial reefs the result of habitat limitation or
behaviorial preference? Bulletin of Marine Science 44(2): 631-645.
Dame, R. F. and N. Dankers. 1988. Uptake and release of materials by a Wadden Sea mussel
bed. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 118:207-216.
Dame, R. F., J.D. Spurrier, and T.G. Wolaver. . 1989. Carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus
processing by an oyster reef. Marine Ecology Progress Series 54: 249-256.
Florida Museum of Natural History. 2003 (FLMNH). httv://www.flmnh.ufl.edu
Goren, M. 1985. Succession of benthic community on artificial substratum at Elat (Red Sea).
Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 38: 19-40.
Haven, D. and R. Morales -Alamo. 1970. Filtration of particles from suspension by American
oyster, Crassostrea virginica. Biological Bulletin 139: 248-264.
Roundtree, R.A. 1989. Association of fishes with fish aggregation devices: effects of structure
size on fish abundance. Bulletin of Marine Science 44:960-972.
Sedberry, G. R. 1988. Food and feeding of Black Sea Bass, Centropristis striata, in live bottom
habitats in the South Atlantic Bight. Journal of the Elisha Mitchell Scientific Society
104:35-50.
Wendt, P. H., D. M. Knott, and R. F. Van Dolah. 1989. Community structure of the sessile biota
on five artificial reefs of different ages. Bulletin of Marine Science 44:1106-1122.
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
10
S E P 0 4 2012

North Carolina Coastal Federation
CITIZENS WORKING TOGETHER FOR A HEALTHY COAST
Cele iratirlg 30 Years o Coasta(Conservation
1982-2012
RECEIVED
November 28, 2012 JAN 16 Z013
Ms. Holley Snider
NC Division of Coastal Management DCM-MAD CITY
127 Cardinal Dr. Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405
RE: Revisions — Work Plan Drawings CAMA Major Permit Application - Lockwood Folly River Oyster Reef
Habitat Restoration Project
Dear Holley:
Thank you for your review and guidance on the NC Coastal Federation's application for a Coastal Area
Management Act (CAMA) Major Permit for the Lockwood Folly River Oyster Reef Habitat Restoration
Project. I have made the suggested changes to the work plan drawings, and they are attached for your review.
Please feel to contact me if you have any questions or need any additional information. Thank you very much
for your time and consideration.
Sin ly`
Ted Wil ' — N.C. Coastal Federation
530 Ca ay Drive, Suite F1
Wrightsville Beach, NC 28480
[phone] Ext. 202
[phone] fax
tedwna nccoast.org
\Attachments
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
NOV 2 9 2012
N.C. Coastal Federation Southeast Regional Office 5W Causeway Dr., Suite F1 Wilmington, NC 28480
Phone: MUM Email: [e-mail] Web: wwx.nxoast.org

North Carolina Coastal Federation
IZENS WORKING TOGETHER FOR A HEALTHY
Celebrating 30 Years 40astal Conservation
198 -2012 UCE,,,rn
September 28, 2012
Ms. Holley Snider
NC Division of Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Dr. Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405
RE: Revisions - CAMA Major Permit Application - Lockwood Folly River Oyster Reef Habitat Restoration
Project
Dear Ms. Snider:
On behalf of the NC Coastal Federation, I received your letter on 9/27/12 detailing needed revisions on the
Coastal Federation's application for a Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) Major Permit for the Lockwood
Folly River Oyster Reef Habitat Restoration Project. I have made the requested changes to the application and
work plan drawings. The revised application and work plan drawings are attached for your review.
Below is some additional information regarding questions #4 and #5 on Form DCM-MP-1:
■ Form DCM-MP-1:
Number 4.m: The project site is comprised of intertidal flats in the river. A small area (-12
square feet) of Spartina alterniflora vegetation has emerged in one area of the intertidal flat. I am
classifying this as "wetlands on site" and "coastal wetlands on site". However, since the area is
the only area of wetlands on the intertidal flat, and is highly visible, we have not had a
delineation performed. We have noted the area of Spartina alterni, flora vegetation on the project
work plans. The area will be marked and no construction activity will occur in the area or impact
the area. Please let me know if more information is needed.
Number 5.g: The project area is located in the public trust waters and estuarine bottom of North
Carolina. The project will enhance these public trust resources through the enhancement,
restoration and protection of shellfish resources and essential fish habitat. The bottom will be
slightly altered through the construction of low profile (16" high) patch oyster reef mounds.
Areas of natural "drainage" in the project area will be untouched. The public access and use of
the project area will remain the same. The project area is located within permanently
closed/prohibited harvest waters designated by the DMF Shellfish Sanitation Section. The taking
of shellfish is prohibited by this designation. The designation of the project area as a proclamated
Research Sanctuary by DMF prohibiting the taking of shellfish from the project area will not
alter the public's use of the area. All other recreational and commercial fishing practices allowed
by law will remain the same in the project area. Public access to the project area will remain the
same. Please let me know if more information is needed.
RF-CE1VFn
N.C. Coastal Federation Southeast Regional office 530 Causeway Dr., Suite F1I Wilmington, NC 28480
Phone: 91 -9CM 11 Email: [e-mail] I Web: www.nccoast.org OCT 0 12012
JCfvi VVIi M INGTON, NC

.;_
`.
r,_
_
-
.-
L� 1
..
�
1
t.
_.

Please feel to contact me if you have any questions or need any additional information. Thank you very much
for your time and consideration.
-Ncc- (—,
Ted Wi1gN.C. Coastal Federation
530 Cau ay Drive, Suite F1
Wrightsville Beach, NC 28480
[phone] Ext. 202
[phone] fax
tedwanccoast.org
Attachments
RECEIVED
P.0 IVI-'MHD CTY
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
N C. Coastal Federation Southeast Regional Office 530 Causeway Dr., Suite F1 Wilmington, NC 28480
Phone: 91M Email: nccf@nccoast org Web: w .nccoast.org
0 C T 0 1 2012

e
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Beverly Perdue, Governor Braxton C. Davis, Director Dee Freeman, Secretary
September 25, 2012 RECEIVED
Ted Wilgis JAN 16 2013
N.C. Coastal Federation
530 Causeway Drive, Suite F1
Wrightsville Beach, NC 28480 DCM-tvlf DCTTY
Re: Lockwood Folly Oyster Reef Habitat Restoration Project
Major Permit Application
Dear Mr. Wilgis:
The NC Division of Coastal Management hereby acknowledges receipt of your application on,
September 24, 2012, for State approval for the development of the referenced project. An
initial screening of the submittal package has been conducted. This revealed certain
deficiencies, which must be corrected before the application package can be accepted as
complete. To assist you in expediting the permitting process as much as possible, I am notifying
you of these deficiencies immediately so that they can be quickly corrected to facilitate the
detailed review.
Because the deficiencies are easily correctable, I am not returning the original application
package. Please make the needed changes, and submit the appropriate documentation. With
the retained copy of the application, the Field Representative can commence the detailed
review. Please understand that the subsequent detailed review may reveal additional areas
where further information or documentation is required to demonstrate compliance with the
rules directly applicable to the proposed development. If this occurs, you will be notified of
such issues separately.
Our initial screening has identified the following deficiencies:
1. Not all questions on the application have been answered, or indicated as "not
applicable." Please address the following items:
■ Form DCM-MP-1:
- Number 3. d, please indicate the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway as the
closest major water body to the proposed site.
- Number 4. j, k, I, please indicate that these items are not applicable to
the project as proposed.
127 Cardinal Drive Extension, Wilmington, North Carolina 28405-3285
Phone: [phone] \ FAX: [phone] \ Internet: www.nccoastalmanMemept.net
An Equal Opportunity \ Affirmative Action Employer- 50% Recycled \ 10% Post Consumer Paper

NC Coastal Federation
September 25, 2012
Page 2
RECEIVED
1 6 2013
- Number 4.m, please clarify the presence of wetlands within the project
boundary.
- Number 5.g, please clarify whether the project will encroach on any
public easement, accessway or other area that the public has use of.
- Number
2. Adequate Work Plans or Drawings have not been submitted. Please address the
following items:
• Each drawing must have a simple Title Block and it must:
- Identify the projector work
- Provide the name of the Applicant
- Provide the date of plat preparation
- Indicate the date of any revisions
• A Top/Plan View Drawing must be submitted that:
- Addresses the water depths within the project area and the existing
natural drainage patterns present.
- Depicts the project location relative to navigable water ways and
adjacent lands.
- Accurately depicts the size of the proposed patch reefs.
• A Cross -Section Drawing must be submitted that:
- References elevations to zero at MLW or NWL, please clarify the water
depths, bottom substrate and tidal amplitude on the submitted cross
section drawing.
• The Plat must locate project area wetlands and identify the agency or consultant
making the determination, along with the date the determination was made.
• All drawings must be accurately drawn to scale. The cross section and plan view
drawing indicate reefs of two different sizes, please clarify.
3. Please provide a vicinity map that references major highways, municipalities and
landmarks.
4. The submitted work plan drawings labeled Drawing 1 of 6, Drawing 2 of 6 and Drawing 3
of 6 will need to be submitted so that they may be reproduced legibly in black and white
copy or you may submit 27 color copies of each of the drawings.
To expedite our response to your permitting request, we will commence the detailed review of
your application for a permit pending the receipt of the additional information requested
above. However, the statutorily provided 75/150 days allowed for review cannot commence
until such time as we have received a complete application package. Once your application has
been accepted as complete, you will receive a separate notification letter.
If it is not possible to render a permit decision within 70 days of the date when your application
is received complete, you may request a meeting with the Director of the Division of Coastal
Management and permit staff to discuss the status of your project. Such a meeting will be held

NC Coastal Federation
September 25, 2012
Page 3
RECEYVED
1 6 2013
DCNf- 'TT) CITY
within five working days from the receipt of your written request and shall include the property
owner, developer, and project designer/consultant.
I am also sending a copy of this letter to you by email to tryto expedite the review process. Our
procedures provide for the processing clock to not be suspended if within 3 working days of the
email, or within 5 working days from the date of this letter, we receive a reply from you that
adequately addresses the issues that have been raised.
Please do not hesitate to contact me at our Wilmington office (910 796 7270) if you have any
questions regarding this letter or the permitting process.
Sincerel4Snide
Holle
Field Representative
cc: Doug Huggett, Major Permits Coordinator, NC DCM

North Carolina Coastal Federation
CITIZENS WORKING TOGETHER FOR A HEALTHY COAST
Cefebrariny 30 Years offCoastaCConservation
1982-2012
August 31, 2012
Ms. Holley Snider
NC Division of Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Dr. Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405
RECEIVED
PCN!-,"TD MY
RE: CAMA Major Permit Application - Lockwood Folly River Oyster Reef Habitat Restoration Project
Dear Ms. Snider:
Please accept the enclosed completed application, attachments and permit fee of $475.00 as an application for a
Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) Major Permit for the Lockwood Folly River Oyster Reef Habitat
Restoration Project. The North Carolina Coastal Federation is proposing to create and restore 15,000 square
feet of intertidal Eastern Oyster (Crassostrea virginica) patch reef habitat in a 3 acre project area in the lower
Lockwood Folly River in Brunswick County.
For the application, I have attached:
■ Project description and narrative
■ NCDCM CAMA Major Permit Application DCM MP-1
■ NCDCM CAMA Major Permit — Excavation and Fill Information DCM MP-2
• Project work plans and drawings — Sheets 1-6, including a location map
■ Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
■ $475.00 application fee
I did not include adjacent property owner information or notifications for the project per the DCM provided
example of a CAMA Major permit application for a previously permitted similar oyster restoration project.
Please feel to contact me if you have any questions or need any additional information. Thank you very much
for your time and consideration.
Si�ely,
Ted Wi 's—N.C. Coastal Federation
530 Causeway Drive, Suite Fl
Wrightsville Beach, NC 28480
[phone] Ext. 202
[phone] fax
tedw(&nccoast.org
\Attachments
RECEIVED
DCM WILMINGTON, NC
N.C. Coastal Federation Southeast Regional Office 530 Causeway Dr., Suite Ft Wilmington, NC 28M
Phone: 900MI Email: [e-mail] Weh: www.nocoast.org
SEP 0 4 2012

__
,:,
.,
•��
`.
Y
'�
.
,,.