Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout42-13 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 (919) 807-4650 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 (910) 796-7215 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 tedw@ncooast.org 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, (919) 733-2698 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: 252-808-28081 FAX: 252-247-3330 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: 910-796-72151 FAX: 910-396-3964 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 (919) 733-4346 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 (919) 726-7021 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: 910-796-72151 FAX: 910-395-3964 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 (910) 796-7215, 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: 910-796-72151 FAX: 910-395-3964Internet: 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:919-807-63001 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 (910) 796-7215, 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: 910-796-72151 FAX: 910.3953964Internet: 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 tedw@nccoast.org 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 (910) 796-7215, 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: 910-796-7215 % FAX: 910-395-3964 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 (910) 796-7215, 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: 910-796-7215 \ FAX: 910-395-3964 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 tedw@ncooast.org 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 (910) 796-7215, 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: 910-796-7215 \ FAX: 910-395-3964 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 (252) 948-3916. Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721 Telephone: (919) 707-0220 • Fax: (919) 707-0028 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 (910) 796-7215, 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: 910-796.7215 \ FAX: 910-395-3964Internet: 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: 910-796-72151 FAX 9103500.20041 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 (910) 796-7215, 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: 910-796-72151 FAX: 910-395-3964 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 (910) 796-7215, 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: 910-796-7215 \ FAX: 910.395-3964 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 (910) 796-7215, 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: 910-796.7215 \ FAX: 910-395-3964 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 (910) 796-7215, 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: 910-796-72151 FAX: 910-395.3964Internet: 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 (910) 796-7215, 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. (910) 796-7268 Fax. (910) 350-2004 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 (910) 796-7215, 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: 910-796-72151 FAX: 910-395-39641ntemet: 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 (910) 796-7215, 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: 910-796-7215 \ PAX: 910395-39641nternet: www.n000astalmanaaement.nal An Equal oppoauniry lAflnmalive Acton EMP*t Govoni, Daniel From: Ted Wilgis [tedw@nccoast.org] 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 (910) 509-2838 Ext. 202 (910) 231-6605 mobile (910) 509-2840 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 (919) 733-5083, Ext. 526 or (800) 662-7956 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 (910) 251-4634. 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 (252) 808-8064 or iessi.baker@ncdenr.eov 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 - (252) 808-8064 Wilmington - (910) 796-7311 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 (252) 808-8064 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 - (252) 808-8064 Wilmington - (910) 796-7311 j essi.baker@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 3:32 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 (252) 808-8064 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 - (252) 808-8064 Wilmington - (910) 796-7311 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:tedw@nccoast.org] 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.; ron.sechler@noaa.gov; John_Ellis@fws.gov; 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 (910) 509-2838 Ext. 202 (910) 231-6605 mobile (910) 509-2840 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 (910) 509-2838 Ext. 202 (910) 231-6605 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 (910) 509-2838 Ext. 202 (910) 231-6605 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 Advertising@stamewsonline.com 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: 910-796-72151 FAX: 910-395-3964Internet: 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: 910-796-7215 \ FAX: 910-395-3964 \ 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: 910-796-72151 FAX: 910-395.3964 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 (910) 509-2838 Ext. 202 (910) 509-2840 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: nccf@nccoast.org 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: nccf@nccoast.org 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 (910) 509-2838 Ext. 202 (910) 509-2840 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: 910-796-7215 \ FAX: 910-395-3964 \ 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 (910) 509-2838 Ext. 202 (910) 509-2840 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: nccf@nccoast.org Weh: www.nocoast.org SEP 0 4 2012 __ ,:, ., •�� `. Y '� . ,,.