20110952 Ver 1_CAMA Application_20111025

A Lv;.-K;WA
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Beverly Eaves Perdue
Governor
Dee Freeman
Secretary
MEMORANDUM
2 0, 1 f
TO: Ms. Cyndi Karoly
Env. Biological Supervisor
Division of Water Quality Wetlands Unit
FROM: David Moye
District Manager
Coastal Management Division
943 Washington Sq Mall
Washington, NC 27889
DATE: 24 October 2011

SUBJECT: CAMA Application Review OCT 2 5 2011
DW - WATER QUkP
APPLICANT: NC Division of Marine Fisheries C/o Dr. Louis B. Daniel III, DireANM AND STQRWiATER BRANCH
PROJECT LOCATION: 1.8 miles Northwest of Little Creek in the lower Neuse River, in the Pamlico
Sound Complex in Carteret County, North Carolina.
PROPOSED PROJECT: Applicant proposes to add an I Ph site to the 10 permitted Oyster Sanctuaries
authorized by Major CAMA Permit No. 140-09 at the Little Creek site in the Neuse River in Carteret
County.
Please indicate below your position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return this form by 14
November 2011. Please contact David Moye at 252-948-3852, if you have any questions regarding the
proposed project. When appropriate, in depth comments with supporting data are requested.
REPLY This office has no objection to the project as proposed.
This office has no comment on the proposed project.
This office approves of the proposed project only if the recommended changes
are incorporated. See attached.
This office objects to the proposed project for reasons described in the attached
comments.
Signed Date
Respond to David Moye
Washington Regional Office
943 Washington Square Mall, Washington, NC 27889
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: www.nccoastalmanagement,net
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer
North Carolina
;VJqtura!!Y
I
' DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT
Major Modification to Permit No. 140-09
1. APPLICANT'S NAME: N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries c/o Dr. Louis B. Daniel III, Director
2. LOCATION OF PROJECT SITE: 1.8 miles northwest of Little Creek in the lower Neuse River, in the
Pamlico Sound complex in Carteret County, North Carolina
Photo Index - N/A
State Plane Coordinates - X: 2,746,600 Y: 480,800 GPS Rover File: N/A
Broad Creek Quad. (lower right corner)
3. INVESTIGATION TYPE: CAMA & D/F
4. INVESTIGATIVE PROCEDURE: Dates of Site Visit - N/A
Was Applicant Present - N/A
5. PROCESSING PROCEDURE: Application Received - 10/21/2011
Office - Washington
6. SITE DESCRIPTION:
(A) Local Land Use Plan - Carteret County
Land Classification From LUPs - Conservation (Water)
(B) AEC(s) Involved: EW, PTA
(C) Water Dependent: YES
(D) Intended Use: Public/Government
(E) Wastewater Treatment: Existing - N/A
Planned - N/A
(F) Type of Structures: Existing - Oyster Sanctuaries with Class B granite riprap mounds
Planned - Additional 20 acre site with Class B limestone riprap mounds,
reef balls, concrete pipe and concrete blocks
(G) Estimated Annual Rate of Erosion: N/A
Source - N/A
7. HABITAT DESCRIPTION:
[AREA]
DREDGED FILLED OTHER
(A) Vegetated Wetlands

(B) Non-Vegetated Wetlands Z
±871,200 ft Oyster reef
River bottom material
(C) Other
(D) Total Area Disturbed:
(E) Primary Nursery Area
(F) Water Classification:
Open: Yes
±20 acres (±871,200 sq. ft.)
No
SA-HQW
8. PROJECT SUMMARY: The applicant proposes to add an I Ith site to the 10 permitted Oyster Sanctuaries
authorized by Major CAMA Permit No. 140-09 at the Little Creek site in the Neuse River in Carteret
County.
NC Division of Marine Fisheries
c/o Dr. Louis B. Daniel III, Director
Carteret County
Project setting
The North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries (NC DMF) Oyster Sanctuary Program has 10
existing Sanctuaries in the Pamlico Sound complex authorized under Major CAMA Permit No. 140-09
issued 3 November 2009. The existing permit authorizes a total impact of 1-5,270,760 ftz (121 acres)
of Sound and Bay bottom associated with the riprap mound construction. The Sanctuaries are
generally constructed with Class B granite riprap in 45'-60' circular mounds, on 75' centers in a grid
pattern. Water depth at the sites is 8' or greater, and the majority of the mounds maintain 6` of water
depth for navigation over the riprap. The existing Sanctuaries range in size from 4.6 to 58.2 acres.
The applicant proposes to add an 11th site to the Oyster Sanctuary Program approximately
1.8 miles northwest of Little Creek in the lower Neuse River (N 35° 02.616'W 76° 30.889'), in the
Pamlico Sound complex in Carteret County, North Carolina.
All 10 existing Sanctuaries are located in waters classified SA-HOW by the Environmental
Management Commission. Deep Bay (#4) and Middle Bay (#7) are both designated as Secondary
Nursery Areas by the NC Division of Marine Fisheries. The areas surrounding the Sanctuaries are
open to shellfishing. The proposed site is also classified SA-HQW and is open to shellfishing.
Project description
The proposed 11th Sanctuary will be located in Carteret County off Little Creek in the Neuse
River on soft bottom in an average water depth of 20.5' (NWL). NCDMF is proposing to use a variety
of materials for the oyster reef construction in soft bottom as a test, in an effort to find suitable
materials that could significantly reduce the cost of oyster reef construction in the future. The
boundaries of the proposed Sanctuary will be 938.3' by 938.3(20 acres) as depicted in Drawing 3 of
the application package. The reef boundary includes a 50' wide buffer around the perimeter of the
site that accounts for 1-4.0 acres or 20% of the total site. A minimum navigation clearance of 11' will
be maintained at this site. NCDMF proposes to place material on 10 acres of the site as described
below;
1) Ultra Balls - located in the upper half of the proposed sanctuary boundaries and
encompassing an area of 7 acres. A total of 1,026 Ultra Balls will be located within this area
and they will be placed directly on the bottom at a density of 147 structures per acre. The
height of the Ultra Balls is 5.5' and the base is a 4.3' diameter. This will result in a physical
footprint of 0.1241 acres (5,405.8 ftz) or 1.8% of this area. Drawing 6 depicts the location
and material description of the Ultra Ball field.
2) Florida Reefs - located in the center section of the proposed sanctuary boundaries along the
west half and encompassing an area of 2 acres. A total of 98 Florida Reefs will be located
within this area and they will be placed directly on the bottom at a density of 49 structures per
acre. The height of the Florida Reefs are 8.0' and the base width is 10' by 10' square. This
will result in a physical footprint of 0.1125 acres (4,900.5 ftz) or 5.6% of this area. Drawing 7
depicts the location and material description of the Florida Reef field.
3) Reinforced Concrete Pipe - located in the center section of the proposed sanctuary
boundaries and encompassing an area of 0.33 acres. A total of 150 tons of 4' - 8' long
concrete pipes will be placed randomly within this area. The height of the concrete pipes will
be 4'. This will result in a physical footprint of 0.05 acres (2,178 ftz) or 15.2% of this area.
Drawing 8 depicts the location and material description of the ultra ball field.
NC Division of Marine Fisheries
c/o Dr. Louis B. Daniel III, Director
Carteret County
Page Two
4) Limestone marl - located in the center section of the proposed sanctuary boundaries and
encompassing an area of 0.33 acres. A total of 300 tons of limestone marl will be placed in 2
mounds located within this area. Each mound will have a 50'- 60' diameter base and the
mounds will be 75 apart on center. The height of the limestone marl mounds will be 8' -10'.
This will result in a physical footprint of 0.13 acres (5,662.8 W) or 40% of this area. Drawing
9 depicts the location and material description of the limestone marl field.
5) Concrete Blocks - located in the center section of the proposed sanctuary boundaries and
encompassing an area of 0.33 acres. A total of 120 tons of precast concrete blocks will be
placed in 2 mounds located within this area. Each mound will be 20'- 30' wide by 50'- 60'
long. The height of the concrete block mounds will be 4'. This will result in a physical
footprint of 0.083 acres (3,615.5 ft2) or 25% of this area. Drawing 10 depicts the location and
material description of the concrete block field.
The applicant has proposed to place the concrete blocks in the center of the site in an effort to
minimize the potential for movement if it occurs. NCDMF proposes to monitor the site 4 times a year
for the first 2 years and then annually thereafter and compare the limestone marl mounds to the
concrete block mound to see if any movement is occurring. In the event that the concrete blocks are
shown to be moving outside the standard of the limestone marl mounds, the NCDMF has agreed to
remove all the concrete blocks from the bottom. The comers of the site will be marked with 3-pile
dolphin clusters with signage as shown on Drawing 5.
The existing Sanctuaries have a structural footprint of 171.1 acres and encompass 222.8
acres of open water. The boundaries of the Sanctuaries with the inclusion of the Little Creek site will
have a total structural footprint of 181.1 acres and encompass 242.8 acres of open water.
Anticipated impacts
The project as proposed will result in the filling ±21,762.6 ft2 (0.5 acres) of River bottom
associated with the oyster reef construction. The project as proposed will result in localized turbidity
as a result of the oyster reef installation. If successful, the project should result in additional shellfish
and habitat in the Pamlico Sound complex.
David W. Moye - 21 October 2011
NICE MP-1
APPLICATION for
Major Development Permit
(last revised 12/27/06)

North Carolina DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
1. Primary Applicant/ Landowner Information
Business Name Project Name (if applicable)
NCDENR, NCDMF LITTLE CREEK OYSTER SANCTUARY
Applicant 1: First Name MI Last Name
HARRY C HARDY
Applicant 2: First Name MI Last Name
PER J HOLMLUND
If additional applicants, please attach an additional page(s) with names listed.
Mailing Address PO Box City State
NCDENR/NC DIVISON OF MARINE FISHERIES 769 MOREH
CITY NC
ZIP Country Phone No. 7 FAX No.
28557 USA 252 - 808 - 8055 ext. 252
- 72 6 - 9218
Street Address (if different from above) City State ZIP
3441 ARENDELL STREET Morehead City NC 28557-
Email
[e-mail]
2. Agent/Contractor Information
Business Name
Agent/ Contractor 1: First Name MI Last Name
Agent/ Contractor 2: First Name MI Last Name
Mailing Address PO Box City State
ZIP Phone No. 1
- ext. Phone No. 2
ext.
FAX No. Contractor #
Street Address (if different from above) City State ZIP
Email
<Form continues on back>
3 ,.>?
Aet
Form DCM MP-1 (Page 2 of 5)
APPLICATION for
Major Development Permit
3. Project Location
County (can be multiple) Street Address State Rd. #
CARTERET N/A N/A
Subdivision Name City State Zip
N/A N/A NC _
Phone No. Lot No. (s) (if many, attach additional page with list)
- - ext.
a. In which NC river basin is the project located? b. Name of body of water nearest to proposed project
NEUSE RIVER NEUSE 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 .
PAMLICO SOUND
e. Is proposed work within city limits or planning jurisdiction? f. If applicable, list the planning jurisdiction or city limit the proposed
?Yes ®No work falls within.
STATE WATERS
4. Site Description
a. Total length of shoreline on the tract (ft.) b. Size of entire tract (sq.ft.)
N/A 871,200 SQ.FT FOR LITTLE CREEK OYSTER
SANCTUARY.
9,082,260 FOR PREVIOUSLY EXISTING OYSTER
SANCTUARIES ON MULTIPLE TRACTS
c. Size of individual lot(s) d. Approximate elevation of tract above NHW (normal high water) or
NWL (normal water level)
(If many lot sizes, please attach additional page with a list) 0 ®NHW or ®NWL
e. Vegetation on tract
NONE
f. Man-made features and uses now on tract
NONE
g. Identify and describe the existing land uses advacen to the proposed project site.
THE SURRONDING WATERS ARE PUBLIC TRUST WATERS AND IS USED FOR MULTIPLE RECREATIONAL AND
COMMERCIAL USE, I.E. FISHING AND TRANSPORTATION.
ADJECENT TO PINY ISLAND TARGET/BOMBING RANGE (BT-11)
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 ®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?
Form DCM MP-1 (Page 3 of 5)
<Form continues on next oaae>
APPLICATION for
Major Development Permit
m. (i) Are there wetlands on the site? []Yes ®No
(ii) Are there coastal wetlands on the site? ?Yes ®No
(iii) If yes to either (i) or (ii) above, has a delineation been conducted? ?Yes ONo
(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/Government
OPrivate/Community
b. Give a brief description of purpose, use, and daily operations of the project when complete.
THE PURPOSE OF THIS PROGRAM IS TO PROVIDE A SUITABLE SUBSTRATE, WHICH WILL BE PROTECTED FROM
DISTURBANCES BY COMMERCIAL AND RECREATIONAL OYSTERMEN, FOR OYSTER SPAT ATTACHMENT. THESE
SANCTUARIES ARE USED IN A CONTINUING EFFORTS OF NORTH CAROLINA TO REHABILITATE THE OYSTER
POPULATION. THESE MEASURES WILL INCREASE OYSTER BIOMASS, PROVIDE BROODSTOCK (INCREASED
LARVAE PRODUCTION), ENCOURAGE RESISTANCE TO DISEASES, PROVIDE FINFISH HABITAT, AND OTHER
ECOLOGICAL IMPORTANT FUNCTIONS OF OYSTER REEFS (I.E., WATER FILTRATION, INCREASE CLARITY,
NITROGEN FIXATION).
c. Describe the proposed construction methodology, types of construction equipment to be used during construction, the number of each type
of equipment and where it is to be stored.
THE MATERIAL USED TO CONSTRUCT THIS OYSTER SANCTUARY IS PRECAST CONCRETE STRUCTURES KNOWN
AS ULTRA BALLS, FLORIDA REEFS, REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE AND CONCERETE BLOCKS AS WELL AS
CLASS B RIP-RAP LIMESTONE ROCK. THESE MATERIALS ARE OFF LOADED FROM BARGES/LANDING CRAFT
WITH THE USE OF FRONT END LOADERS AND EXCAVATORS. VESSELS CAN CARRY SEVERAL HUNDRED TONS
OF MATERIAL PER TRIP. MATERIAL IS DEPLOYED INSIDE THE PERMITTED AREA MAINTAINING 11 FT OF
VERTICAL CLEARENCE AT NORMAL WATER LEVEL. EQUIPMENT AND MATERIAL IS STORED AT THE DMF
STOCKPILE SITE IN SOUTH RIVER CARTERET COUNTY.
d. List all development activities you propose.
CREATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW 20 ACRE OYSTER SANCTUARY SITE (LITTLE CREEK OYSTER
SANCTUARY) DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITES INCLUDE MARKING THE SITE WITH PILINGS AND THE PLACEMENT OF
ROCK AND PRECAST CONCRETE STRUCTURES WITHIN THE SANCTUARY BOUNDARIES.
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? LITTLE CREEK OYSTER
SANCTUARY IS 20 ACRES OF
WHICH UPON INITIAL 10 ACRES
COMPLETION 0.5 ACRES OF
SOFT BOTTOM WILL BE
COVERED WITH MATERIAL.
TOTAL BOTTOM ACREAGE OF ALL
PERMITTED OYSTER
SANCTUARY BOTTOM
• Form DCM MP-1 (Page 4 of 5)
APPLICATION for
Major Development Permit
INCLUDING LITTLE CREEK IS 218
?Sq.Ft or ®Acres
g. Will the proposed project encroach on any public easement, public accessway or other area ®Yes ?No ?NA
that the public has established use of?
h. Describe location and type of existing and proposed discharges to waters of the state.
N/A
i. Will wastewater or stormwater be discharged into a wetland? ?Yes ®No ?NA
If yes, will this discharged water be of the same salinity as the receiving water? ?Yes ?No ®NA
j. Is there any mitigation proposed? ?Yes ®No ?NA
If yes, attach a mitigation proposal.
<Form continues on back>
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) - (f) 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 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.
CAMA PERMIT 140-09 ISSUED NOVEMBER 3RD 2009
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 lands, attach a statement documenting compliance with the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act.
7. Certification and Permission to Enter on Land
Form DCM MP-1 (Page 5 of 5)
APPLICATION for
Major Development Permit
I understand that any permit issued in response to this application will allow only the development described in the application.
The project will be subject to the conditions and restrictions contained in the permit.
I certify that I am authorized to grant, and do in fact grant permission to representatives of state and federal review agencies to
enter on the aforementioned lands in connection with evaluating information related to this permit application and follow-up
monitoring of the project.
I further certify that the information provided in this application is truthful to the best of my knowledge.
Date October 18th 2011 Print Name H. CRAIG HARDY
d
Signature 1
j
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
Form DCM MP-2
EXCAVATION and FILL
(Except for bridges and culverts)
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)
Length 938.3 ft
Width 938.3 ft
Avg. Existing
Depth NA NA 19-22
Final Project Vert.
Depth NA NA Clearance
11 ft
1. EXCAVATION ®This 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. N/A
N/A
c. (i) Does the area to be excavated include coastal wetlands/marsh d. High-ground excavation in cubic yards.
(CW), submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), shell bottom (SIB), N/A
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 excavation in these areas:
N/A
2. 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? 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 f. (i) Does the disposal include any area in the water?
(CW), submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), shell bottom (SB), ?Yes ?No ?NA
or other wetlands (WL)? If any boxes are checked, provide the
number of square feet affected. („) If yes, how much water area is affected?
?CW ?SAV ?SB
?WL ?None
(ii) Describe the purpose of disposal in these areas:

3. SHORELINE STABILIZATION
®This section not applicable
(If development is a wood groin, use MP-4 - Structures)
a. r ypr ui snureune staou¢auon:
?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.
b. Length:
Width:
d. Maximum distance waterward of NHW or NWL:
f. (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
2897.5 tons covering 0.5 acres of bottom:
Material type Tonage Foot print (acre)
Ultra balls 2058 0.1241
Florida reefs 269.5 0.1125
Limestone mounds 300 0.13
Block mounds 120 0.083
Pipe field 150 0.05
(iii) Dimensions of fill area 938 ft X 938 ft = 20 acres (over
all boundery)
(iv) Purpose of fill
Primarly purpose for fill is oyster rehabliatation by creating
oyster habitat.
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
?WL ZNone
(ii) Describe the purpose of the fill in these areas:
5. GENERAL
a. How will excavated or fill material be kept on site and erosion b. What type of construction equipment will be used (e.g., dragline,
controlled? backhoe, or hydraulic dredge)?
Material is being placed onto sea bottom. The material itself is Front end loader to dump material off a 135' vessel.
inmobile once deployed and are common to artificial reef
development and have proved to be durable and stable.
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 what type and how they will be implemented. (ii) If yes, explain steps that will be taken to avoid or minimize
Each sanctuary corner will have a US Coast Guard regulatory environmental impacts.
three-pile-dolphin made out of 50 ft class C pilings. Two (3X3 ft)

signs will be posted on each dolphin depicting the orange hazard
diamond and saying "Oyster Sanctuary Danger Submerged
Rocks".
October 18th 2011
Date
Little Creek Oyster Sanctuary
Project Name
Divison of Marine Fisheries
Applicant Name
H. Craig Hardy
Applicant Signature
Project Narrative
Title: Little Creek Oyster Sanctuary
Issue: Modification of Major CAMA Permit 104-09 issued Nov 3rd 2009 for North
Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries Oyster Sanctuaries
Date: 10/18/2011
Federal funding, from Estuarine Habitat Restoration Council, was awarded to develop a new
oyster sanctuary, Little Creek located in Carteret county approximately 10 miles east of the town
of Oriental and 1.8 miles North West of Little Creek in lower Neuse River in Pamlico Sound,
NC. (N35° 02.616' W76° 30.889').
Dramatic declines in populations of the eastern oyster, Crassostrea virginica, are a symptom of
degradation in many U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico estuaries. In the estuary of Pamlico
Sound, North Carolina the oyster population is estimated to have declined by over 90 percent of
historical levels. Over-harvesting and damage of sub tidal beds from excessive oyster dredging
were the initial causes for the large-scale decline in oyster resources from the late 1800s to the
mid-1900s. The short term goal of this project is to provide and protect suitable substrate for
oyster larvae to attach to. The long term goal is that the attached oyster spat will grow and
transform the deployed material into long-term sustainable sub tidal oyster reefs. The restored
oyster habitat is vital to the health of the Pamlico Sound estuary, effectively filtering nutrients,
algae, bacteria, fine sediments and toxins from the water and improving water quality. Oyster
reefs provide important forage, refuge and nursery habitat for many species of invertebrates,
such as shrimp, crabs, clams, snails and worms, and many species of fish, such as gag, black sea
bass, sheepshead, flounder, and red drum. The site will help to sustain countless additional reefs
that are part of the state's sustainable oyster fisheries management program by incorporating
structures that will discourage harvest while providing high relief for sanctuary from
anoxic/hypoxic events common to the estuary.
The project area consists predominantly of subtidal soft bottom habitat in depths ranging from 19
-22 ft. Implementation of this project is not expected to cause any significant adverse impacts to
any species but will facilitate the recovery of Pamlico Sound and its beneficiaries.
The material used to construct this oyster sanctuary is precast concrete structures along with
Class B rip-rap limestone rock. Material is placed on the bottom from barges with the use heavy
equipment (excavators, loaders and cranes). These vessels can carry several hundred tons of
material per trip.
This new oyster sanctuary site will, for North Carolina, incorporate a new reef building design
that could significantly reduce costs and increase the surface area available for oyster recruitment
and growth. The new design includes the use of precast concrete structures such as Reef balls,
Florida reefs, Reinforced concrete pipe and concrete blocks. These materials will be evaluated
against the traditionally used limestone rock. Below are some points of consideration while
introducing concrete blocks, a new artificial reef material for North Carolina.
• Small concrete structures and concrete blocks in the quantity of thousands of tons have
been deployed in permitted artificial reefs in Mississippi, New Jersey, Alabama and
Florida. In most incidences concrete products have proven to be very reliable reef
material with no movement and very little subsidence (GUIDELINES FOR MARINE
ARTIFICIAL REEF MATERIALS, SECOND EDITION 2004, JOINT PUBLICATION
OF THE GULF AND ATLANTIC STATES MARINE FISHERIES COMMISIONS)
• Little Creek Oyster sanctuary is located in 20 feet of water on a historic oyster rock with
6-10 inches of soft sediment on top. The top layer of sediment will help hold material in
place.
The velocity of wind driven water movement impacting reef material in a deep water
sites in the Neuse River (Little Creek Sanctuary site) is less compared to high exposure
areas such as the ocean, inshore beaches or exposed locations where shoreline erosion
take place.
• Concrete blocks are frequently used by North Carolina Universities and NCDMF to
anchor down scientific equipment and buoys in and around oyster sanctuaries and cultch
planting sites. Seven different oyster sanctuaries have had concrete blocks for the above
mentioned tasks since 2007. These blocks have not moved. Shortly after hurricane Irene
DMF staff again checked numerous block locations that showed no evidence of
movement. One of these blocks where brought for display at Little Creek scoping
meeting (9/6/2011).
• At existing oyster sanctuaries individual limestone rocks have on occasion plunged onto
the side of the mound during deployment operations. These rocks have not showed any
records of moving from original deployment points since 1996. The estimated density of
lime stone is on 163 pounds per cubic foot and the estimated density of a 52% solid
concrete block is 149 pounds per cubic foot. Given that the two materials have
comparable densities and limestone have shown no movement we expect little to no
movement form the concrete blocks.
• A mound of concrete blocks will in less than a year accumulate an array of benthic
organisms encrusting and strengthening the integrity of the combined structure. This will
discourage lateral movement.
• DMF data show numerous long-term records of oyster shells and #4mar1 deployed in
similar environments as the Little Creek Sanctuary, these sites have been there for
decades and material is still there.
Safety precaution against lateral movement
• As a safe guard the concrete blocks will be deployed on a central location surrounded by
larger reef structures. The larger structures will stop and minimize blocks from moving
outside the permitted area.
• The suggested site is surrounded by very large areas of accumulating soft bottom. On
Neuse River accumulation-bottom DMF divers have measured over 9 ft of soft sediment
which is very unfavorable for any type of reef material movement. If concrete blocks or
any other structure would venture off-site they will encounter a softer substrate that likely
will engulf the structures.
• DMF will monitor Little Creek Oyster Sanctuary 4 times a year for the first 2 years from
initial deployment date and then continuo monitoring on an annual basis. Monitoring will
constitute of scuba dive and side scan sonar surveys.
• As a CAMA permit requirement, DMF will upon block movement outside the permitted
area retrieve and remove those concrete blocks out of the water.
Finally, monitoring of this reef site will play an important role in guiding future investments and
efforts in North Carolina's habitat restoration.
a
P f L
W
? Soafd ¦
1
ode
O
U
v ?
0
U
r
c
0
M
= O
U
? J m
t _
V
- c
l ? P
L
v ?.
f
r
40
C
ZI
O
U
O
co
N
•1
r= m
C O
Cl, U
,4? C
u
Ito

Y
r-l
r?
O
N
1,6
Ql
T
V
r-i
W
U
f?
i
a?
a
O
N
Q
O
^ Q.
1..L
c
E
L
O
U
O L U
It .10
r 'I O
yy N
b r
c T-4
•3 v
o
?J
r') p
if
0
g ?
G
`G

h
O
V
a
S
ti
Y
n'
d
M
N
N
0
A
I
C A f
H t,?P 1
O
v
L
dJ
3
O
c
L

T
V
f?
(/)
L
N

W
U ?

L
w ,
W
U
° O
a-
z
D
1-4
e-i
N
GA ?
? o
L +?
00
*% } y
•' t }
- N
N W
'- U
S
ts? C
41 0
J
1J?
co -0 c fo
S
t +? C
4? L
?....
(u
3 ;
p
? ti N ^ W
„g -C v
:o
J J JJ t? V L
v 44
s O
i U
9 t'6 c
E It M
.?
N
u L
O ?
49 o
O
a0
h. .
Ir It 4 0.1
j% j% to
0% J% 4-J
3 M
r? zx £
49
ERR
N O ?? L
N ?. N V Q?
n ?
o Jg o
m O NO
v
Q.

=?

v
Y
O H
C
O .Q

v

ca
L ro
-? _
v
v v
c O
u

? O
?
o
u
v
E
L
o
_
J C

Q to

«? 9 t r ? ; ?•s ? t Y 4

t

h t h ? S

? S
r
?' M .? ? ? f
y ?
f ? 1 ? P. 1
1 ? Q. W
r•
"t ?
? ? ? Q1
{
om { r
,t ?
? . = ;
:
h { ? v ! ? ? ? ? 1 1
?

1
s

4 }
? f• t ? 1 LL
't.•+'!???
? ? : ? + ? .

?aunq lasl OS N

CA
Q
Q
a--+
fa
L
? a--a
4-J V
to
C: co Ln Ln O (n
V
V ?
a? 0
Q ?
N ?
L
=3 ? ? N N
4-J
M 4-+
G J
V)
cu w
4-J v1 N
4A
co (L) _0 4-J
r--1
O
L) o
fp
N
i
? N

?, ?
O

Q
N

?

N

M

M
O

M

M

O

M

M
O

O

?
N
U

?
O
O

?
O

?fl
O

M
O

O

O

lD
O
N
?
f0
H
11,

N
o
0
0
,?
N 00

- N
w O
L L
Z ?

t.0

fC?

G

-'

O
U
?

O
O

C

? O
QJ
Q
U ?
• v C

-0

4
4-J

O _
.i
M4

^ '
W 4- w l

• - .:.,
Al -1
C
OA
N
Z$
' SQ Z
^
u
E wq
""
7

y t
E c
m ?'?
}`i
^

O

u

O
C6 O fa ?N
? L
? U

U
4-J

N o to V)
O
C L
•? N
f0 4-J
4-J W f

II
20
M

Ln X +-' - ' o

a --
Q U .
i
w

uj
to
. N ¦
?
CAA N

L N
fF
t,
t
t e ?{r
t D t
y}
? u fa i
C)
U
c a j N fp
Q? L(')
A'

4-J 4-J cu

mA O tv

. ,
?
?
l
S •
a Sri

c r r .? ?` { 1 , y `. '1•

lfP`, ?
Y Y
?
y C
.
0 o O '? 'r C V
V) r14

Y
w ,
CU

m u
cu a)

O SR '1 " Y 4'1• 1 ?R

?
O
O

Ln
M
?-

?t
l
N
a 1
I
w r
{ w ..

s<;
<ANh
r<
! { ?' v
:
{ A
? ?
r O s
M
?< 4
s
vft
<Yf. S
_
s .?
?
't i' t 4ti^w J%
I s ¦
S{ f

.? ?.t a t • ;-4 y r s
s

am ?-:
~
t o

U w r
w
Ir -C

V1
Q
F- s
?'.?Y ,,.
? f s a • w s •
?s??ss r w
r L r 4
q ?

? ? ? ?

?'
J Z w _
r ? ? ? ? ?{`
co

<
LU
cc IC
8*
%.

A

?

A ip

;

LLJ
ED V,
LLJ Lu 1?
tA

{ M
T 16 A, 3:
/y
V 4
t R

f?

r 8* ;
16
16
?
•
Jt
w
L
cu
-0
V1 I F uuna 1401 os j g fu O
4? r-4
O r-4

o,
a
and
? _^r"
'4? u?,
? N yt

e

°n
° M
lf1
pp '^
?, -
. w a
D "s N

V 1
m, ?
? of O
uv,t ?e

r O
w re---
? re j
- ,?
i..Y W
Q
¢) i-
J C AI V

v
L
U
°
in

N

r_'?
4-J ^L^11
? W
Q
f?
0

L L
ca U
? v
3
$ p
=
O
R w ?R

N g
.? s
?
g
~ . J J
Lr)
LA rn
d' r-q i t
4; M Y i M
;
A
'
O
!
. y s A
•
4
y v
t'
S
t• S j 3
i
S. p
• ,?

.

. w f a
s
.? f
Y it f •? f
J%
1 4

y
4
8
t
..

w IC .t
w >y
c s ?•
s ?. ?' s +
M t ? Ic ?
t
V . • < s 4 M
t < + t
< <
A.
A
s
Q A s.
y t •
•
w
'. ? fA <Y ?• A
U.
W
.
S? ti
? It
? ? ?? ?
i

LL) CL
4 -C
% fp

t f

?

?

Q A? •
"
Y
?
s i
U CL 4 4a a 4 •
Y
> . q? r
_ V)
V) cc v y
IP
s-
00
o? CO oc Q ti? r gar}> t>>.•. • ? ? V,
V
Q SR A
?
t
t'
:?
r
•?? ?
cu- y t 4
p
2.
?
?R
L
N
j g
iaunq laal OS
S g
? O?

Q O O

®
??
o v
O

N

0
Lr)

® ® Q Q V
®Q 3 •Q
® Q v
J v1
® >
V) 4- cu
c
® V)0 U a-J 4-J

® c =
O 0
V 5. 0
?

p V
Q N

_

w
L-
Q_ 4-J
4-J
O
Lr)
C14

r- $ R t. " y 1+ M R
o N g t r f
y f t g
00 O :? .t
••
? r .t
J• 4a
s•~
? s.
J J
O O h
?
t w ?
?,
1'} 'C M t

LLJ ~ ts. t?
M
• V 4 i J% A
Q A i v p V.
t o i Y s•
U.1
CL
z
a w» oll
r M
v
s V,
IN All
?•

u v
d O
u
?•44;
ya •
? ? ? ?
°?
.
cr-

y
I *t
?
CC v

z
w
oc
?'
a 16
a s o
•
• 3
v
LLJ
V)
F-
+ F ell S. , ?
V J6 1? 'N
uunq Iasi OS ?
: L
fII
o
0 O °
c'

--
?y
100

k
l

ll Wy
R'

- ? ? t

f

s \
y Q
y
° ` V
'-? u oo
o v

=° = 0
R
$
't •
Y
; • Y
zt R
C?

-C le

s
uJ

V w

V ~ a ~
*8

'? {• r

v s • '` ti`

;
S.
44
{ s{• M 1?
A? 4
A
Q It IQ
M •! N r f N f 1 •
?
o • ?
N a { ! ! ! . . , s
• ?
O J Z < ! IM . ! ? ? ? ? 1 _

LAJ 44
v,

o fo v, 9, v,

C 3: of
?
1 •
LU

F
16

ial{nQ I•al

S
fp 4

F

.? a)
f? O
J o • o
J J L aJ r-I
Q 0 O

?0 v
PQ:? y 3
1

o ? ? r

o '
L

0
v
r
? x
h O O
4' 4 Q
o O 3
cu >

_O 4-J
J
r L
;.,

U i-+
V
#
p O c
$ R
•a •, U 4 ., ,. ••
~
?' ! ~? ? r ! R
~ U cn
00 t
f
r?
•=
t
s o r n
O o zg f.
•
r
?
•
s
4
`• zg
J J
W O r
?`
?
t •? M
S t• M
i
• i;
?'
• s
t i
•
i
i A ?
i
v A
? •e a f??s? ?.
s
LLJ

u ! ~ S• i

N
Q A i i b
!. .? M t$ i f. ?
z z 41 40 41t
;
D O Z?twMi? • • .??. c
U :) LL 4
J Q b w ,• ? •• f i

LU A,
cc
G
! I• 4 ~ A
?
of 46 A A
n
10

F-
_j

g
v
V
»Nnq Iial

OS IN

O
r-4
J Q 0 O
C-4
-i
Federally Funded Oyster Sanctuary Development - EFH
Assessment
Proposed Project
The proposed project involves continued development of North Carolina Division of
Marine Fisheries (NCDMF) oyster sanctuary network in Pamlico Sound. Federal funding
from Estuarine Habitat Restoration Program was awarded to develop a new oyster
sanctuary; Little Creek, located approximately 10 miles east of the town of Oriental and
1.8 miles North West of Little Creek in the lower Neuse River in Pamlico Sound, NC.
(N35° 02.616' W76° 30.889. Project areas are shown in Figures 1 and 4.
The purpose of this program is to provide a suitable substrate, which will be protected
from disturbances by commercial and recreational oystermen for oyster spat attachment.
Sites are selected by biologists on the basis of salinity, bottom type, tidal flow, exposure
to wave action, historical oyster data, prevailing winds and location of other natural
oyster rocks along with input from public interests. The material used to construct these
oyster sanctuaries are precast concrete structures along with Class B rip-rap limestone
rock (football-basketball size). Material is placed on the bottom from barges with the use
heavy equipment (excavators, loaders and cranes). These vessels can carry several
hundred tons of material per trip. Material is deployed onto bare soft bottom in multiple
locations in a checkerboard layout. The design has emerged through decades of oyster
restoration for various reasons. The first is to reduce the impacts to North Carolina public
trust resources such as natural oyster rock, seagrass beds, and wetlands. Secondly, the
mounds/structures are built as "high-profile" so that they come off the bottom to allow
oysters to attach above hypoxic/anoxic events. Another reason is that the
mounds/structures will cause increased velocity currents around and through the
structures allowing for more thorough mixing of gametes and dispersal of larvae. Lastly,
multiple mounds within a protected area allows for more edge effect of habitat between a
hard substrate and soft bottom. At Little Creek water depth is 19-22 feet.
Materials
One goal in this project is to evaluate the effectiveness of different reef materials to
guide future habitat investments in North Carolina. This project will initially develop 10
out of 16 acres. The remaining 6 acres will be developed upon initial material evaluation.
To develop the first 10 acres; 300 tons of limestone rock, 150 tons of reinforced concrete
pipes and 2,200 tons of precast concrete reef structures will be created/transported and
deployed at the sanctuary site (Table 1). NCDMF employees will load and deploy all
materials according to NCDMF deployment protocols. As seen in Figure 1, within the
sanctuary boundaries, patches of undisturbed soft bottom will be present amongst the
different reef materials. Upon the first 10 acres completion with the current spacing
parameters, all deployed materials footprint will be approximately 0.5 acres (Table 1 &
Figure 1).
1
Methodology
NCDMF technicians will load materials from the dock in South River onto NCDMF's
deployment barge MN West Bay (135ft LCU, landing craft utility) (Figure 11) by using
a 7.5 ton crane and front-end loader. It is estimated that the M/V West Bay will hold 50
Ultra Balls or 54 Reef Pyramids or 150 tons of limestone rip rap per load in addition to
the offloading equipment (front end loader, crane or skid steer). The MN West Bay is
operated by a crew of four NCDMF employees. Deployment methodology for the
limestone, Ultra Balls and Reef Pyramids will follow similar procedures to accomplish a
checkerboard style deployment design. A trio of Ultra Balls and the Reef Pyramids will
be deployed approximately 30 feet from center to center. Limestone mounds will be
deployed approximately 75 ft center to center. The reef structure locations are
predetermined for placement using WAAS GPS coordinates within Oyster Sanctuary
boundaries. NCDMF technicians will record the depth of the water column and
environmental parameters (i.e. wind speed, wind direction, air temp, water temp, salinity,
and dissolved oxygen).
Project Background
Dramatic declines in populations of the eastern oyster, Crassostrea virginica, are a
symptom of degradation in many U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico estuaries. In the
estuary of Pamlico Sound, NC the oyster population is estimated to have declined by over
90 percent of historical levels. Over-harvesting and destruction of subtidal beds from
excessive oyster dredging were the initial causes for the large-scale decline in oyster
resources from the late 1800s to the mid-1900s (DMF 2001). Oyster harvesting reduced
the vertical relief of subtidal oyster reefs (Marshall 1954) and oyster dredging resulted in
the scattering and removal of shell and oysters, and destabilization of the shell structure
(Lenihan and Peterson 1998; Lenihan et al. 1999). These harvesting effects resulted in
reduced spawning stock biomass, reduced substrate availability for recruitment, reduced
structural complexity utilized for refuge and foraging by juvenile fish and crustaceans,
and decreased resistance to disease.
Between the 1970s and 1990s, the negative impact of oyster dredging and other
mechanical methods on shell bottom was recognized, and areas were designated where
all mechanical methods for shellfish harvest were prohibited by rules (NC Marine
Fisheries Commission rule 15A NCAC 03N.01 04 and.0105, 03J .0104, 3J.01 04).
These areas are located primarily in the upper portion of Pamlico Sound tributaries and
small bays. The methods include towed dredges, hydraulic dredges, patent tongs, rakes
powered by engine, and clam kicking. Although the use of oyster dredges has been
limited by the MFC in recent years due to habitat impacts (DMF 2008a), historically
fished subtidal oyster beds have not recovered (Lenihan and Peterson 1998), and oysters
are still listed as a species of concern (2008 DMF stock status report). Degraded water
quality, partially due to reduced filtration by oysters after stocks were reduced, and
increased disease occurrence from environmental stress are thought to have prevented
full recovery (Lenihan and Micheli 2000; Jackson et al. 2001).
Excessive turbidity, sedimentation and nutrient loading can have profound effects on
oyster health and viability. As suspended sediment disperses and settles to the bottom, it
2
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 1998a). There are many sources of human-induced
turbidity and sediment pollution. Extensive development upstream in the Neuse River has
increased sedimentation and has likely contributed to the silting over of numerous
historic oyster beds. Excessive nutrient loading in the Neuse River system from
agriculture, animal waste management systems, wastewater facilities and non-point
source runoff has created hypoxic or anoxic areas of the river and has been the cause of
occasional fish kills. To address these threats to water quality and shellfish, the NC
Environmental Management Commission has mandated a 30% reduction in nitrogen
loading in the Neuse River basin from regulated sources, new Coastal Stormwater Rules
[SL 2008-211] require more stringent stormwater controls for development draining to
nutrient sensitive waters, and 50-foot vegetated setbacks from mean high water,
mandated for new coastal development to filter nutrient and sediment laden runoff.
The State of North Carolina has conducted oyster restoration activities since the
1920's. The early activities were sporadic but effective when conducted at a significant
scale. Various methods have been used through the years including relays by paid
fishermen and the use of small barges towed by fisheries enforcement vessels. The NC
Legislature appropriated funds to establish a long-term program to replenish harvested
oyster beds in the 1970's. These funds for staff and equipment were the beginning of the
North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries' (NCDMF) Shellfish Rehabilitation
Program. The program was very effective at creating new oyster habitat through the
deployment of oyster and other available shells, fossil rock, and limestone marl. The
program relied on natural recruitment on low profile constructed reefs. The harvest of
oysters was allowed on these constructed reefs providing increased harvest opportunities
for the state's fishermen.
In the late 1980's an epidemic of the oyster parasite Dermo, Perkinsus marinus, hit
NC along with most other east coast states. The Shellfish Rehabilitation Program
struggled to manage the oyster resource to reduce the impacts of the parasite. In 1995, the
state constructed several oyster sanctuaries, using various designs, to provide areas
protected from harvest allowing unmolested natural selection of a brood stock of oysters.
The intent was for the oysters that survived the onslaught of Dermo and the stresses of
the estuary to distribute these attributes back into the oyster population. At that time,
harvest continued to occur in approved harvest areas due to the feared loss of the resource
to disease prior to the next harvest season. The continued seasonal harvest basically
removed those animals that had survived to legal size from the spawning population.
Although more testing is needed, some research results do suggest that North Carolina
oysters are developing an increased resistance to Dermo infections (Brown et al. 2005).
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). Research on experimental subtidal
oyster reefs in the Neuse River estuary (Lenihan et al. 1999) found that oysters with the
highest Dermo prevalence, infection intensity, and mortality were located at the base of
reefs, where currents and food quality were lowest and sedimentation rates the highest.
Oysters located at the crest of reefs, however, were much less susceptible to parasitism
3
and Dermo-related mortality. Maintenance of high-profile oyster rocks is therefore a
critical need for subtidal oysters to perform their ecological functions, as well as provide
resources for harvest.
Four experimental reefs were constructed in the mid-1990's as a cooperative project
between the NCDMF's Artificial Reef and Shellfish Rehabilitation programs. The
original concept for these reefs was to provide long-term protected oyster habitat and
increase the number and availability of estuarine artificial fishing reefs. The success of
three of the four experimental reefs, both as fishing reefs and oyster sanctuaries, provided
the impetus to continue and expand the project. Funding for the construction of six
additional reefs has been provided through grants, cooperative projects with non-
governmental organizations, mitigation, and in the last five years, state appropriations
were provided for construction and expansion of coastal reefs for fish habitats and oyster
sanctuaries.
Early experimental sanctuaries were constructed with Class B marine limestone riprap
in either a mound or ridge design. Subsequent enhancement of some of the sites where
ridges were constructed tested the value of a veneer of oyster shell, 2" limestone marl, or
surf clam shells in a side-by-side comparison with a control area of untreated riprap. The
addition of the materials to the riprap ridges did not improve the function of the
constructed reef and was deemed not necessary or cost effective. The mound construction
design evolved as the deployment method of choice due to the increased surface area and
flow characteristics through the site. Amount of material, profile, and distance between
structures could be adjusted to suit the selected site. The mounds are deployed in a
checkerboard scheme with 150' to 75' between the centers of mounds. The original 150'
spacing was reduced to 75' to provide increased spawning stock density to increase
gamete interaction and increased utilization as nursery habitat by associated species. The
tightening of the mound grid was also hoped to provide transit corridors between mounds
increasing utilization of the site by juvenile marine and estuarine species.
Existing Project Conditions
Currently NCDMF maintains ten oyster sanctuaries (Figure 1). Sanctuary boundaries
range from 5.7 - 58.6 acres, totaling 201.9 acres. 101.5 acres have been developed at
present. Six of the existing ten sanctuaries incorporate the mound design and all have
demonstrated recruitment and survival of oysters.
Oyster sanctuaries are designated and delineated under North Carolina Marine
Fisheries Rule 15A NCAC 03R.01 17 and are protected from damaging harvest practices
under rule 15A NCAC 03K.0209. Under this rule it is unlawful to use a trawl net, long
haul seine, swipe net or mechanical methods for oystering or clamming, or to take oysters
or clams from designated Oyster Sanctuaries. These areas are marked with buoys that are
maintained by the NCDMF.
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.
4
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 and utilize space within the water column which may
in turn alter currents and velocities in the immediate vicinity. 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 additional abundance of larvae will help
restore the oyster population in North Carolina. The impacts on the estuarine water
column are expected to be minimal.
Intertidal Flats
Little Creek Oyster Sanctuary is in no vicinity of intertidal flats. Any turbidity
elevations that do arise are expected to be temporary and within the immediate vicinity of
the project area. Intertidal flats are far enough from the project area that no impacts will
occur as a result of the project.
Oyster Reefs and Shell Banks
These natural habitat types are present in close proximity of the project area but
NCDMF protocols prohibit deployment of materials on existing shellfish resource. As
reef materials are placed on the bottom they will cause a local brief turbidity increase.
However deployment activities will not affect or cause smothering of any natural habitat
type.
Seagrass and Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV)
Due to the nature of the project area, 19-22 feet of water depth and the relatively high
natural turbidity Sea-grass/SAV is not expected. Neither bottom surveys with sonar,
divers nor dredging reviled any seagrass/SAV within the project area. There is shallow
water approximately 1 mile from the project area that may contain habitat suitable for sea
grasses. As reef materials are placed on the bottom they will cause a local brief turbidity
increase. However this increase is unlikely to have any adverse effect on potential
seagrass/SAV habitat.
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 salt waters that provide essential habitat for the early
development of commercially important fish and shellfish. This project is far enough
from both primary and secondary areas that this project will not have adverse impacts.
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 of subtidal soft
bottom habitat ranging in depth from 19 to 22 feet. The subtidal bottoms are subjected to
vigorous trawling/ fishing activities. The flora/fauna communities are a function of the
frequently disturbed regime which varies both temporally and spatially. 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 within Little Creek Sanctuary boundaries is 20 acres
of which upon initial completion 0.5 acres of soft bottom will be covered with material.
The area to be filled consists entirely of soft bottom and the impact to this EFH would be
permanent. Areas of temporally impacted soft bottom will be present between the
mounds as well as expansive soft bottom habitat surrounding the oyster sanctuaries. 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. Given the
mobility of the organisms resting or feeding and the extensive areas of 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 waters of the mouth of Neuse River during varying life stages. The
proposed project will not adversely affect prey species populations.
Impact Summary for Essential Fish Habitat
The purpose of this project is to provide a suitable substrate, which will be protected
from bottom disturbing activities for oyster spat settlement. This will be accomplished by
developing 16 acres of unconsolidated soft bottom to a protected oyster sanctuary site.
Artificial/manmade reefs are deployed to change habitats from a soft substrate to a
hard substrate system or to add vertical profile to low profile (< lm.) hard substrate
systems. 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 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
6
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 artificial/manmade 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 multiple mounds of hard substrate 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 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.
As noted by researchers the physical characteristics of manmade reef habitat may
result in differences in the observed behavior of fish species on or around such structures
in contrast to behavior observed on equivalent areas of natural hard bottoms (Bohnsack,
1989). Some reef structures, particularly those of higher profile, seem to yield generally
higher densities of managed and non-managed species than a more widely spread, lower
profile, natural hard bottom (Rountree, 1989).
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 Dankers 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.
Artificial/manmade 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
7
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).
Marine reserves and sanctuaries are a proven management technique that has been
implemented successfully worldwide to protect essential fisheries habitat and sustain
fisheries stocks and genetic variability. The potential role that manmade reefs could play
in implementing marine reserves and similar management measures remains largely
unexplored at present. It is conceivable that effective marine reserves / sanctuaries
consisting of manmade structures could be developed in habitat-limited areas to assist
specifically in such roles as habitat and stock enhancement.
Perhaps the most important contribution that manmade reef technology can provide
for fisheries management efforts employing marine reserves / sanctuaries would be to
create additional habitat and fisheries to mitigate user groups for perceived loses due to
hurricanes, disease, overfishing, and habitat loss. Coupled with positive effects of
accessibility and adjacent cultch planted sites, more accessible artificial/manmade reefs
would increase benefits to user groups.
Some impacts to EFH will be permanent since the deployment of material onto soft
bottom will change the availability of the bottom under the reef material. The other
impact is the loss of estuarine water column due to the "high profile" nature of the
structures/mounds being built, although minimal in that water flow will not be impeded,
but permanent.
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 biomass (broodstock) of oysters to help restore the population, creating habitat,
in a hard substrate limited system, that supports high diversity and multiple ecological
functions, and provides habitats that will be protected from over exploitation.
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 Pamlico Sound
and its beneficiaries.
8

Table 1. Show # units, tonnage and material footprint along with total area usage for
each reef material.
Material type # Units Tonnage Total material
footprint (acre) Deployment
area (acre)
Ultra balls 1000 2058 0.1241 7
Florida reefs 98 269.5 0.1125 2
Limestone mounds 2 120 0.13 0.33
Block mounds 2 300 0.083 0.33
Pipe field 240 150 0.05 0.33
Total 2897.5 0.4996 10

J6 K K .C. 't '?' ? Y .t i n .t t K 4 4 :' •C .q. lr Y •+ L
S. V a. V 'r o 't 0.
-t t- 46
r -s •i A '. .: .t 1• K A M A ? :. K t• A •t 7• •. Y 1•
b« r v i S z r It A? K 4 Q i A A Y Q 4
K K:••1YY r K Y :••1 M r A
r. Y + ? ? N ? ?. w + f + ?
Future deployments
Figure L {
Little Creek Oyster Sanctuary maps with material layout.
Wirtz^:
Rtxc?r

9
Table 2. Categories of 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
artificial reefs (oyster
sanctuaries)
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 NO 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
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 NO N/A
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. (Tables 6 and 7).
10
Table 3. Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Species of Pamlico, Pamlico Sound and its
Tributaries, North Carolina
Source: NMFS, Beaufort, North Carolina, October 1999.
E = Eggs; L = Larval; J = Juvenile; A = Adult; N/A = Not Found
Water Body ter Body
W
EFH Fish Species Pamlico Sound EFH Fish Species ic o Sound
ffP
a
Bluefish E L J A Gray triggerfish N/A
Summer flounder L J A Yellow jack N/A
Gag grouper J Blue runner N/A
Gray snapper J Crevalle jack N/A
Dolphin N/A Bar jack N/A
Cobia E L J A Greater amberjack N/A
King mackerel J A Almaco jack N/A
Spanish mackerel J A Bended rudderfish N/A
Black sea bass L J A Spade fish N/A
Spiny dogfish E L J A White grunt N/A
Brown shrimp E L J A Hogfish N/A
Pink shrimp E L J A Puddingwife N/A
White shrimp E L J A Blackfin snapper N/A
Atlantic bigeye tuna N/A Red snapper N/A
Atlantic bluefn tuna N/A Cubera snapper N/A
Skipjack tuna N/A Silk snapper N/A
Longbill spearfish N/A Blueline tilefish N/A
Shortfn mako shark N/A Sand tilefish N/A
Blue shark N/A Bank sea bass N/A
Spinner shark N/A Rock sea bass N/A
Swordfish N/A Grasby N/A
Yellowfin tuna N/A Speckled bird N/A
Blue rip-rapin N/A Yellowedge grouper N/A
White rip-rapin N/A Coney N/A
Sailfish N/A Red bird N/A
Calico scallop N/A Jewfish N/A
Scalloped hammerhead shark N/A Red grouper N/A
Big nose shark N/A Misty grouper N/A
Black tip shark N/A Warsaw grouper N/A
Dusky shark N/A Snowy grouper N/A
Night shark N/A Yellowmouth grouper N/A
Sandbar shark JA Scamp N/A
Silky shark N/A Sheepshead J A
Tiger shark N/A Red porgy N/A
Atlantic sharpnose shark N/A Longspine porgy N/A
Longfin mako shark N/A Scup N/A
Whitetip shark N/A Little tunny N/A
Thresher shark N/A
11
... `,..... - - Gibbs Shoal ..
rye, ?,
=West Bluff Clam Show
3 ddle Bav
lyyaros`coro
? T
Figure 2. Map depicting locations of all current Oyster Sanctuaries and the proposed Little
Creek site created by North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries.
12
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). ham://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.
13
Appendix A
Monitoring Plan Little Creek Oyster Sanctuary
The proposed oyster sanctuary site will be monitored on an annual basis and data will
be collected and maintained in a standardized format in North Carolina Division of
Marine Fisheries Biological Database (Program 611). The monitoring program has a
standardized format to collect and evaluate data from all NC oyster sanctuaries on an
annual basis. The monitoring is conducted by scuba divers. Physical data such as
location, size, material type, deployment configuration and structure dimensions will be
measured and recorded as well as biological data including oyster recruitment, size, and
density. The information from the sampling and monitoring will be used to refine the
methods for future sanctuary site construction and to achieve maximum ecological
benefit. In regards to the NOAA Estuary Habitat Restoration Program funds, spat set
(recruitment) and reef development will be closely monitored and evaluated in
comparison to our existing and parallel constructed limestone reefs. Two separate
analyses will be conducted to determine which artificial structure is the most cost
effective for oyster restoration. The first will determine the most economical method to
provide the most surface for settling oyster larvae. The second will include data from
oyster monitoring to quantify which artificial reef is the most cost effective in producing
the most oysters per meter squared or in other words, which has the lowest per oyster
cost.
Monitoring objectives for NOAA Estuary Habitat Restoration Program:
Success criteria for Project Objective I.
The short term objective is that the deployed reef structures should display similar
recruitment densities (spat / m2), as existing natural sub tidal oyster reefs in close
proximity and the existing Neuse River Oyster Sanctuary site. The long term
objectives are that each reef structure should display a higher recruitment than
mortality rate and become a long-term sustainable oyster reef with all its
associated benefits. The long term success will be quantified by an index of
abundance according to the oyster sanctuary 611 data collection program. The
deployed reef structures should measure similar oyster densities as existing
natural sub tidal oyster reefs in close proximity and the existing Neuse River
Oyster Sanctuary site.
Success Criteria for Project Objective 11.
Evaluate the biological and financial value of the new reef structures compared to
our existing and parallel constructed limestone reefs. Is there a potential cost
saving and habitat benefit in using concrete structures based on oyster per meter
square, utilized foot print, total surface area and total reef construction cost?
1. Determine the most economical material to provide the most surface for
settling oyster larvae.
11. Quantify cost per oyster in each of the three experimental substrates: Ultra
Balls, Florida Reefs, limestone rip rap mounds, reinforced concrete pipe
and concrete blocks.
14
Methodology:
Reef Structure Sampling Selection
Randomly select two mounds, five sets of Ultra Balls (bundle of three), and five
Reef Pyramids at each sanctuary/reef site that will be sampled on an annual basis.
2. Data Collection
a. Record environmental parameters such as temperature, salinity, DO, turbidity
using YSI and Secchi disk.
b. Record the height of the mound/structure from the substrate (subsidence).
c. Via scuba diving, collect three samples from each of three strata (see ? for
definition) on each mound/structure and put in sample bag/basket. On
limestone mounds one rock constitutes one sample. On reef structures and
natural reefs a 25x25 cm quadrangular frame makes one sample.
• Diver takes basket with attached lanyard (rope), and swims to reef
structure/mound to collect quadrangular samples/rocks from bottom strata
first.
• Three samples are placed in individual sample bags and a signal (using
underwater communications) to surface crew that basket/bags is/are full,
surface crew pulls the basket aboard, and the diver returns to the boat.
Surface crew retrieves basket and places sample/rocks into separate bags
marked with correct mound and strata and returns empty basket to diver.
• Repeat steps until all samples/rocks from each strata for that
structure/mound have been collected
? Bottom Strata - rocks should be of average size (football size) and
not be touching substrate but as close to substrata as possible
(within 2 in.)
? Middle Strata - from the midpoint of the mound from top to
bottom
? Top Strata - from the top of the structure/mound
If sampling reefs other than riprap mounds or if oyster growth on a
mound has exceeded the point where an easy extraction of a rock can be
made, quadrangular frames can be used. The frames shall be 25x25 cm.
All biota attached to the rock surface of the mound/structure/reef shall be
collected. A minimum of five sets (bundle of three) of Ultra Balls, five
Reef Pyramids and two limestone mounds will be sampled.
Reef type Strata Total # samples
Limestone mounds 3 27
Reef Pyramids 3 27
Ultra balls 2 18
Concrete pipe 1 9
Concrete blocks 2 18
15
d. Pertinent information recorded prior to sample/rock manipulation
• Oyster Sanctuary Name
• Mound #/reef structure identification #
• Date mound/structure deployed
• Treatments of mound/structure (seeded, Class B, freshly planted,
overplanting)
• Strata
• Amount of sedimentation (subjective)
o Samples are removed from labeled container and the amount of
sedimentation is observed
¦ Sedimentation is recorded as thin, average, or heavy
e. Sample is rinsed with sea water to remove sediment and the following
information is recorded:
• Length x Width x Height of rock (mm) (25x25 for quadrangular frames)
• Number of live and dead oysters
• Height of each alive and dead oyster. (Size distribution)
• Organisms found attached to rock and extent (fouling)
o Barnacles, mussels,, tunicates, bryozoans, sponges, limpets, etc.
o Recorded as percent coverage using 7 graded scale (1, 5, 10, 25, 50,
75, 100)
• Presence and number of predators
o Oyster drills, crabs, etc.
• Comments
f. Return rocks back into water, preferably on mounds/reef
Analysis
a) All associated costs including, materials, making of, transporting and
deploying the different types of artificial reef materials will be calculated.
The cost will be standardized by surface area (meter squared) so that the
different artificial structures can be compared and the least expensive can be
determined.
b) The most cost effective material for producing oysters will be calculated by
dividing the mean number of oysters per meter squared for each of the
artificial structures by the per meter squared cost of that material. This
information will help guide future investments and efforts in North Carolina's
oyster restoration.
Future Monitoring:
Upon project completion the Little Creek Oyster Sanctuary site will be incorporated
and monitored on an annual basis and data will be collected and maintained in a
standardized format in the North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries Biological
Database (Program 611).
Settlement and growth are key functions of a long-term sustainable oyster reef. Three
size categories of oysters (spat, sublegal, and legal) are evaluated to determine densities
(oysters / m2) and size-frequency over time and depth. At the end of each sampling
season, an index of abundance of spat, sublegal and legal size oysters is produced. It
16
includes all Oyster Sanctuaries and several natural subtidal reference reef sites. Each year
class of oyster reef structures has its own analysis for each individual site. The index of
abundance provides insight into the status of the oyster population and the success of
material types and locations of reef development. Oyster densities are complemented by
data showing coverage and depth distribution of predators, parasites and organisms
competing for space with the oyster or that could have effects on spat settlement for each
sanctuary. The data is also used for ecological and economic models related to our
restoration efforts.
The NCDMF oyster restoration partners (university researchers and NGO's) and other
Atlantic Coast fishery management agencies will use results from this project to evaluate
the effectiveness of current management practices and to identify additional strategies
that may be necessary to conserve and proliferate marine and estuarine stocks.
Establishing a long-term database of recruitment, densities, and long-term sustainability
of subtidal oyster reefs allows the NCDMF to assess the status of these stocks and habitat
without relying solely on commercial fishery dependent data. The information gained
from the comparison of materials used in this project will allow future oyster restoration
efforts to identify materials for use that maximize oyster recruitment, growth, and
survival that are cost-effective to build and deploy. When sea level rise affects the
subtidal oyster habitat of the Pamlico Sound, NCDMF will have the environmental data
and the material success information to transition oyster restoration efforts into estuarine
areas that provide the necessary environmental conditions. North Carolina intends to
continue incorporating lessons learned to develop the most biologically robust and cost-
effective materials and methods to enhance oyster habitat, the oyster population, and the
multitudes of ecological benefits they provide.
17