20090880 Ver 2_CAMA Application_20121001

. '* - T') 880 �2�
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Beverly Eaves Perdue, Governor Braxton C. Davis, Director Dee Freeman., Secretary
27 September 2012
RESPOND TO DAVID MOYE IN THE WASHINGTON REGIONAL OFFICE
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Karen Higgins
Division of Water Quality
FROM: David W. Moye, District Manager, DCM
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, NC 27889
SUBJECT: CAMA/DREDGE & FILL Permit Application Review
Applicant: NC Division of Marine Fisheries Go Craig Hardy
Project Location: Mouth of Long Shoal River in Hyde County, NW of Raccoon Island in
Carteret County and at existing Croatan Sound Sanctuary in Dare
County, North Carolina
Proposed Project: The applicant proposes to add a 12th and 13th site to the 11 permitted
Oyster Sanctuaries authorized by Major CAMA Permit No. 140 -09, one
off Long Shoal River, and one off Raccoon Island both in Pamlico Sound,
and add material to the existing Croatan Sound site.
Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return
this form by 17 October 2012. If you have any questions regarding the proposed project,
please contact David W. Moye at 252 - 948 -3852. When appropriate, in -depth comments with
supporting data is requested.
REPLY: This agency has no objection to the project as proposed.
SIGNED
This agency has no comment on the proposed project.
This agency approves of the project only if the recommended changes
are incorporated. See attached.
This agency objects to the project for reasons described in the attached
comments. _
DATE
943 Washington Square Mall, Washington, North Carolina 27889
Phone- 252-946-Ml 1 FAX- 252- 948-0478 1 Internet: www nccoastalmanagement net/
;��' Wr=#'�
ocr - 1 2012

f
DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT
2nd 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: Mouth of Long Shoal River, 2.6 miles northwest of Raccoon Island in
the Pamlico Sound complex and at the existing Croatan Sound site in Croatan Sound, in Daze, Hyde and
Carteret Counties, North Carolina
3
4
Q
7
Photo Index — N/A
State Plane Coordinates - X: 2,940,000 Y: 674,000 GPS Rover File: N/A
Long Shoal Point Quad. (lower left corner)
INVESTIGATION TYPE: CAMA & D/F
INVESTIGATIVE PROCEDURE: Dates of Site Visit - N/A
Was Applicant Present - N/A
PROCESSING PROCEDURE: Application Received - 9/27/2012
Office - Washington
SITE DESCRIPTION:
(A) Local Land Use Plans - Dare, Hyde and Carteret Counties
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, reef
balls, concrete pipe and concrete block
Planned - Additional 20 acres on 2 sites with Class B limestone riprap
mounds, reef balls and concrete pipe and additional material on existing
Croatan Sound site
(G) Estimated Annual Rate of Erosion: N/A
Source - N/A
HABITAT DESCRIPTION: [AREA]
DREDGED FILLED 01HER
(A) Vegetated Wetlands
(B) Non - Vegetated Wetlands
±871,200 ft2
Sound bottom
Oyster reef
material
(C) Other
(D) Total Area Disturbed: ±20 acres (±871,200 sq. ft.)
(E) Primary Nursery Area: No
(F) Water Classification: SA -HQW
Open: Yes
8. PROJECT SUMMARY: The applicant proposes to add a 12" and 13'h site to the 11 permitted Oyster
Sanctuaries authorized by Major CAMA Permit No. 140 -09, one offLong Shoal River (Hyde Co.), one off
Raccoon Island (Carteret Co.), and add material to the existing Croatan Sound site in Dare County.

NC Division of Marine Fisheries
c/o Dr. Louis B. Daniel III, Director
Dare, Hyde and Carteret Counties
Major Modification of CAMA Major Permit No. 140 -09
Project setting
The North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries (NC DMF) Oyster Sanctuary Program has 11
existing Sanctuaries in the Pamlico Sound complex authorized under Major CAMA Permit No. 140-09
issued 3 November 2009 and modified by Major Modification on 23 November 2011. The boundaries
of the permitted Sanctuaries have a total structural footprint of 181.1 acres and encompass 242.8
acres of open water. The Sanctuaries are generally constructed with Class B granite riprap in 45' -60'
circular mounds, on 75' centers in a grid pattern or with precast concrete reef structures in clusters.
Water depth at the sites is 8' or greater, and the majority of the mounds maintain 6' of water depth
over the riprap for navigation. The 11 existing Sanctuaries range in size from 4.6 to 58.2 acres.
All 11 existing Sanctuaries are located in waters classified SA -HQW 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 sites are also classified SA -HQW and are open to shellfishing.
Project description
The NC DMF proposes to create 2 new Sanctuaries, and continue development at 1 of the
existing Sanctuaries as described below;
1) Croatan Sound — Located in Dare County south of Wanchese in Croatan Sound with an
average water depth of 9' (NWL). This existing Sanctuary is constructed of 3 legs of granite
riprap in a U- shaped configuration with the average height of the structure 3' above the
bottom substrate. The boundaries of the site are 600' by 560'(7.7 acres) and the existing
structure occupies 3.8 acres of the Sanctuary (Drawing 7). One leg of the structure has been
enhanced with oyster shell, surf clam, and marl as an experiment to determine the
effectiveness of the material in this area. This site currently has 1,800 tons of riprap in the
structure.
NC DMF proposes to enhance this reef by installing 12 clusters of pre - fabricated
concrete reef structures consisting of Reef Balls, Florida Reefs, Reef Cones or the like. The
maximum height of the structures will be 3' and the maximum width 6'. Each cluster will
consist of a 60' diameter area with 25 reef structures randomly placed within the circle. A
total of 300 units will be deployed at this site with a physical footprint of 0.58 acres in a 1.5
acre area. This impact represents 38.7% of the proposed project area and 7.5% of the
existing reef site boundary. The navigational clearance above the reef structures will be 6' at
a minimum.
2) Long Shoal - This proposed Sanctuary will be located in Hyde County 5.6 miles southwest of
the Dare County bombing range at Long Shoal in Pamlico Sound with an average water
depth of 14' (NWL). This Sanctuary will consist of 78 clusters of pre - fabricated concrete reef
structures consisting of Reef Balls, Florida Reefs, Reef Cones or the like. The maximum
height of the structures will be 5.5' and the maximum width 6'. Each cluster will consist of a
60' diameter area with 25 reef structures randomly placed within the circle. A total of 1,950
units will be deployed at this site with a physical footprint of 3.8 acres (152,460 ft2) or 38% of
the proposed reef area. The navigational clearance above the reef structures will be 8.5' at a
minimum. The boundaries of the proposed Sanctuary will be 660' by 660' (10 acres) as
depicted in Drawing 4.

NC Division of Marine. Fisheries
c/o Dr. Louis B. Daniel III, Director
Dare, Hyde and Carteret Counties
Major Modification of CAMA Major Permit No. 140 -09
Page Two
3) Raccoon Island — This proposed Sanctuary will be located in Carteret County approximately 6
miles northwest of the Cedar Island ferry terminal and 2.6 miles northwest of Raccoon Island
in the Pamlico Sound with an average water depth of 15' (NWL). NC DMF proposes to place
material on site as described below;
a) 76 clusters of pre - fabricated concrete reef structures consisting of Reef Balls, Florida
Reefs, Reef Cones or the like. The maximum height of the structures will be 5.5' and the
maximum width 6'. Each cluster will consist of a 60' diameter area with 25 reef structures
randomly placed within the circle. A total of 1,900 units will be deployed at this site with a
physical footprint of 3.7 acres (161172 ft2) or 37% of the proposed reef area. Drawing 5
depicts the location and material description of the concrete reef structures.
b) Limestone marl located at 1 location within a 60' diameter area. A total of 150 tons of
limestone marl will be placed in the mound located within this area. The height of the
limestone mound will be 5.5'. This will result in a physical footprint of 0.065 acres (2,831.4 ft2)
or 0.65% of the proposed reef area. Drawing 6 depicts the location and material description
of the limestone marl mound.
c) Reinforced Concrete Pipe located at 1 location within a 60' by 80' area. A total of 80
— 120 pieces of 4' — 8' long concrete pipe will be placed randomly within this area. The
height of the concrete pipes will be 4'. This will result in a physical footprint of 0.06 acres
(2,613.6 ft2) or 0.6% of this area. Drawing 6 depicts the location and material description of
the concrete pipe field.
The navigational clearance above the reef structures described above will be 9.5' at a
minimum. The boundaries of the proposed Sanctuary will be 660' by 660'(10 acres) as
depicted in Drawings 5 and 6. The total impact for this proposed sanctuary will be a physical
footprint of 3.82 acres (166,399.2 ft2) or 38.2% of the 10 acre site.
The comers of the 2 new sites will be marked with 3 -pile dolphin clusters including signage as
shown on Drawing 8. The existing Sanctuaries have a structural footprint of 181.1 acres and
encompass 242.8 acres of open water. The boundaries of the Sanctuaries with the inclusion of the
Long Shoal and Raccoon Island sites will have a total structural footprint of 189.3 acres and
encompass 262.8 acres of open water.
Anticipated impacts
The project as proposed will result in the filling *357,192 ft2 (8.2 acres) of Sound 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 — 27 September 2012

PROJECT NARRATIVE
TITLE: Oyster Sanctuary development - Long Shoal and Raccoon Island Oyster
Sanctuary
ISSUE: Modification of Major CAMA Permit 104 -09 issued Nov 3`d 2009 for North
Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries Oyster Sanctuaries (modified 11 -15 -2011)
DATE: 9/18/2012
The proposed project involves continued development of the North Carolina Division of Marine
Fisheries ( NCDMF) oyster sanctuary network in Pamlico Sound. The permit modification
includes the addition of two new ten acre sites and the use of concrete reef structures within
existing permitted area at Croatan Sound Oyster Sanctuary.
HISTORY, PURPOSE AND NEED FOR OYSTER SANCTUARY PROGRAM
The Oyster Sanctuary Program at the North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries manages
and creates long -term protected oyster reefs. This is accomplished by placing reef materials in
suitable waters for oyster development. In their early life, oyster larvae attach to hard substrate
and begin to form their own shell. These oysters then grow and reproduce, adding to the reef.
The created oyster reefs become protected from disturbance under Marine Fisheries Commission
rule. The North Carolina Oyster Sanctuary Program with partners, have restored over 120 acres
of oyster reef in Pamlico Sound so that hundreds of millions of oysters now grow on ten oyster
sanctuaries.
The eastern oyster is a keystone estuarine species because they provide important ecological
services, including water filtration and habitat for benthos, fish, and shrimp (Mann 2001,
Peterson et al. 2003, Posey et al. 1999, Soniat et al. 2004). Healthy oyster reefs are vital to the
estuarine ecosystem ( NCDMF 2001). Eastern oyster populations are declining, especially on
sub -tidal reefs in the middle Atlantic Ocean coast (Ault et al. 1994, Hargis and Haven 1988,
NCDMF 2001, Rothschild et al. 1994). In 2007, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration's (NOAA) 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 in significant decline (Street et al. 2005). The primary causes of the historical oyster
decline in Pamlico Sound Estuary are the cumulative effects of pollution (Cooper et al. 2004,
Pinckney et al. 1998), disease, and depletion of habitat from historical harvesting by destructive
oyster dredge's (Lenihan and Peterson 1998). To combat the decline, North Carolina General
Assembly tasked three state commissions (Environmental Management Commission, Coastal
Resources Commission, and Marine Fisheries Commission) with developing, adopting and
implementing plans to protect and restore fisheries habitats. In 2004, the commissions
unanimously adopted the North Carolina Coastal Habitat Protection Plan (CHPP). The
legislative goal of the plan is the long -term enhancement of coastal fisheries associated with six
habitats (shell bottom was identified as one of six habitat types in the CHPP). The purpose of

the CHPP is to compile the latest scientific information on each habitat so that management
needs can be identified to protect, enhance, and restore associated fish populations. In 2010, the
CHPP was updated, specifically identifying management and research needs as a way of
expanding habitat restoration and protection to accomplish this goal (Deaton et al. 2010). The
Oyster Sanctuary Program is a key component of estuarine habitat restoration in North Carolina
by restoring large oyster populations, capable of providing valued ecosystem services and
supporting a vibrant fishery. This specifically aids the NCDMF, its partners, and university
researchers in meeting management and research goals of the CHPP.
NC OYSTER RESTORATION GOALS.
To offset the historic catastrophic loss of oysters and oyster habitat, the North Carolina
Coastal Federation's Northern Oyster Work Group developed a Conservation Action Plan (CAP)
identifying how much in- the -water restoration is needed to promote the recovery of native
oysters in the Albemarle - Pamlico National Estuary Program. The CAP concluded that the efforts
to restore oysters must be ambitious and aggressive, in the water and on land, with at least 500 ac
of new rock reef constructed and designated as oyster reef sanctuary, protected from fishing and
harvesting, by 2018 (NCCF 2008). At a February 10, 2010, the northern work group set a 100 -ac
sanctuary goal for the Neuse River. Current or proposed sanctuary area composes approximately
30 % of the 500 acre goal.
EXISTING PROJECT CONDITIONS
Currently NCDMF maintains eleven oyster sanctuaries (Drawing 1). Sanctuary boundaries
range from 5.7 — 58.6 acres, totaling 221.9 acres. At present, 120 acres have been developed.
Oyster sanctuaries are designated and delineated under North Carolina Marine Fisheries rule 15A
NCAC 03R .0117 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 maintained by the Resource Enhancement
Section of NCDMF.
PROPOSED PROJECT
Long Shoal Oyster Sanctuary is located 5.6 miles south west of Dare county bombing range
at Long Shoal (drawings 1 -2) and encompasses ten acres of soft bottom in 14 ft of water. The
project will initially develop five out of ten acres. The remaining 5 acres will be developed as
funds become available. To develop ten acres approximately 1950 precast concrete reef
structures will be deployed at the sanctuary site (Table 1). Upon completion the reef will have
8.5 ft of navigational clearance. Project resources are mitigation funds through the U.S.
Department of the Navy for the reactivation of the Navy Dare County Bombing Range at Long
Shoal. The second new sanctuary is Raccoon Island located approximately six miles northwest of
Cedar Island ferry terminal and 2.6 miles northwest of Raccoon Island in Pamlico Sound
(drawings 1 -2). The project area consists of soft bottom with a mean water depth of 15 ft. For
reef material Raccoon Island Oyster Sanctuary will use both concrete structures and limestone.
Approximately 2000 structures will develop ten acres utilizing approximately 3.82 acres of
bottom (Table 2). Upon completion the reef will have 9.5 ft of navigational clearance. Project

funds were awarded from the Coastal Recreational Fishing License receipted Marine Resource
Fund to develop an inshore coastal fishing reef /oyster sanctuary. At existing Croatan Sound
oyster sanctuary (drawingl.3) 3.8 of 7.7 acres of permitted area are undeveloped. Approximately
300 structures will be added, developing 1.5 acres of sanctuary area utilizing a footprint of 0.6
acres (Table 3). Upon completion the reef will have 6 ft of navigational clearance.
Table 1. Show number of units, tonnage and material footprint along with total area usage for
each reef material at suggested Long Shoal oyster sanctuary.
Material type
# Units
Tonnage
Total material
footprint (acre)
Deployment area
(acre)
Concrete reef structure
1950
3705
3.8
10
Table 2. Show number of units, tonnage and material footprint along with total area usage for each reef
material at suggested Raccoon Island Oyster Sanctuary.
Concrete structure
# Units
Tonnage
Total material
footprint (acre)
Deployment area
(acre)
Concrete reef structure
1900
3610
3.7
9.54
Reinforced concrete pipe
80 -120
150
0.05
0.33
Limestone mounds
1
150
0.065
0.13
Total
3100
3.82
10
Table 3. Show numbers of units, tonnage and material footprint along with total area usage for each reef
material at existing Croatan Sound oyster sanctuary.
Material type
# Units
Tonnage
Total material
footprint (acre)
Deployment area
(acre)
Concrete reef structure
300
325
0.58
1.5

rtenr� k
>a
40
t
C46
t _
rRil
Middle Bav
Raccoon IslandOcracoke
Little Creek
"? NeuseRNW
wlwNwar.l�a•st West Bay
r NMypt
,/
N
mo Miles A
0357 14 21 28 "11
9
:• eNwon
Drawing 1 Existing Oyster Sanctuaries
September 3'd Existing Croatan Sound Oystcr Sanctuary
2012 Proposed Oyster Sanctuaries
Drawing 1. Map depicting locations of NCDMF Oyster Sanctuaries. Green markings are existing sanctuary
locations. Black and green is existing Croatan Sound with proposed modification. The red markings show
the new proposed sites Long Shoal and Raccoon Island Oyster sanctuaries.
Drawing 2. Map showing location of the proposed Long Shoal (A) and Raccoon Island (B) sanctuaries over
NOAA chart background.
— — Ilk
_
,
•Raccoon Island
>ti •,.
_. -
Miles
-.. - .: �- -Awe
0 0408 16 24
A) -, :_ -
B)-1��
Drawing 2
Locator map.
September 3rd
.-_
A) Proposed Long Oyster Sanctuary
zotz
B) Proposed Raccoon Island Oyster Sanctuary
Drawing 2. Map showing location of the proposed Long Shoal (A) and Raccoon Island (B) sanctuaries over
NOAA chart background.

7. OYSW C �\ d r y
de
.t
HOAt�it 77M,nar V' .•
C++
oz
\� O p
13
too-
to a Ci'
i
OcA 2Q4
Drawing 3 'J�; locator map of existing Croatan Oyster
September 3111 `+ Sanctuary
2012
Drawing 3. Map showing location of existing Croatan Sound sanctuary over NOAA chart background.
REFERENCES
See reference list in Essential Fish Habitat Assessment.

f DCM MP -1
APPLICATION for
Mayor Development Permit
(last revised 12/27106)
North Carolina DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
9. Primary Applicant/ Landowner Information
Business Name
Project Name (if applicable)
Ncdenr / Ncdmf
Long Shoal & Raccoon Island Oyster Sanctuaires and
continuation of existing Croatan Sound 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 Division of Marine Fisheries
769
Morehead City
NC
ZIP
Country
Phone No
FAX No
28557
USA
252 - 808 - 8055 ext
252 - 726 - 9218
Street Address (if different from above)
City
State
ZIP
3441 Arendell Street
Morehead City
NC
28557 -
Email
pelle holmlund @ncdenr.gov
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>
vGd =. '�.. 6A� "= R�°. �l±c�`� ti a i un 'c, a a ,2 e S'ba Fna. net

Form DCM MP -1 (Page 3 of 6)
APPLICATION for
Major Development Permit
3. Project Location
County (can be multiple)
Street Address
State Rd #
Carteret, Hyde Dare
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
Size of individual lot(s)
a In which NC river basin is the project located?
b Name of body of water nearest to proposed project
Neuse, Pasquotank and TarPamlico
Raccoon Island Sanctuary = lower Neuse River & Pamlico
Sound Long Shoal Sanctuary = Pains Bay & Long Shoal
0 ®NHW or ®NWL
river
Vegetation on tract
Croatan Sanctuary = Albemarle Sound & Pamlico Sound.
c Is the water body identified in (b) above, natural or manmade?
d Name the closest major water body to the proposed project site
®Natural ❑Manmade ❑Unknown
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
The surrounding waters are public trust waters and are used for multiple recreational and commercial use, i e fishing and
State waters
4.
Site Description
a
Total length of shoreline on the tract (ft )
b Size of entire tract (sq ft )
NA
Raccoon Island 435600 sq ft + Long Shoal 435600 sq ft
= 871,200 sq It
Existing oyster sanctuaries (including Croatan Sound) on
multiple tracts 9,953,460 sq ft
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 adiacent to the proposed project site
The surrounding waters are public trust waters and are used for multiple recreational and commercial use, i e fishing and
transportation Raccoon island sanctuary is adjacent to Piney island target/bombing range and Long Shoal sanctuary is 6
miles north east of Navy Hyde county target/bombing range at Long Shoal
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 [DNA
I
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 (DNA
If yes, by whom?

I
Form DCM MP -1 (Page 4 of 6)
APPLICATION for
Major Development Permit
I Is the proposed project located in a National Registered Historic District or does it involve a []Yes ®No ❑NA
National Register listed or eligible property?
<Form continues on next page>
m (i) Are there wetlands on the sites []Yes ®No
(n) Are there coastal wetlands on the site? []Yes ®No
(iii) If yes to either (i) or (n) 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/Government
❑PrnvatelCommunity
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 continuing efforts of North Carolina to
rehabilitate the oyster population These measures will increase oyster biomass, provide brood stock (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 these oyster sanctuaries is precast concrete artificial reef structures 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 cranes
Vessels can carry several hundred tons of material per trip Material is deployed inside the permitted area maintaining 9 ft of
vertical clearance at normal water level at Long Shoal and Raccoon Island sanctuaries and 7 ft at Croatan Sound sanctuary.
d List all development activities you propose
1. Creation and development of two new ten acre oyster sanctuary sites Long Shoal and Raccoon Island Oyster Sanctuaries.
Development activities include marking the site with signs on pilings and the placement of rock and precast concrete
structures within the sanctuary boundaries
2. Continuation and improvement of existing oyster sanctuary Croatan Sound with the addition of 1 5 acres of reef structures
The site currently has 3.8 of 7 7 acres of bottom undeveloped
e Are the proposed activities maintenance of an existing project, new work, or both? Both
f What is the approximate total disturbed land area resulting from the proposed project? Raccoon Island Oyster sanctuary will
encompass 10 acres and which
upon completion 3 815 acres of soft
bottom will be covered by reef
material.
Long Shoal oyster sanctuary is 10
acres of which upon completion 3 8
acres of soft bottom will be covered
with reef material.
Existing Croatan Sound Oyster
sanctuary 0.58 acres of soft bottom

Form DCM MP -1 (Page 5 of 6)
APPLICATION for
Major Development Permit
<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) — (t) are always applicable to any ma /or 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 mad 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 3rtl 2009
Major Cama permit 140 -09 modification on November 15th
2011 (one additional site, Little Creek Oyster sanctuary, not
constructed yet)
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)
will be convered with reef material
Total bottom acreage of all permitted
oyster sanctuary bottom including
Long Shoal and Raccoon Island
oyster sanctuary is 238 acres
❑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) — (t) are always applicable to any ma /or 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 mad 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 3rtl 2009
Major Cama permit 140 -09 modification on November 15th
2011 (one additional site, Little Creek Oyster sanctuary, not
constructed yet)
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)

Form DCM MP -1 (Page 6 of 6) APPLICATION for
Mayor Development Permit
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
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 Septermber 21 s` 2012 Print Name H. CRAIG HARDY
Signature
Please indicate application attachments pertaining to your proposed project
®DCM MP -2 Excavation and Fill Information ❑DCM MP -5 Bridges and Culverts
❑DCM MP -3 Upland Development
❑DCM MP -4 Structures Information

,)
Form DCM MP-2
� v, A� .? .•� a : � k ,'� . ^:� ..has
(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.
7. 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
(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
N/A
d High- ground excavation in cubic yards
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 areal
❑Yes ❑No ❑NA
(ii) If no, attach a letter granting permission from the owner
d (i) Will a disposal area be available for future maintenance?
[—]Yes ❑No ❑NA
(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 (ii ) If Y es, how much water area is affected
Access
Other
Channel
(NLW or
Canal
Boat Basin
Boat Ramp
Rock Groin
Rock
Breakwater
(excluding
shoreline
NWL )
stabilization
Long Shoal
Length
660 ft
Raccoon
Island 660 ft
Long Shoal
Width
660 ft
Raccoon
Island 660 ft
Long Shoal
Avg. Existing
14 ft
Depth
NA
NA
Raccoon
Island 15 ft
Final Project
Vert.
Depth
NA
NA
Clearance 9
ft
7. 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
(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
N/A
d High- ground excavation in cubic yards
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 areal
❑Yes ❑No ❑NA
(ii) If no, attach a letter granting permission from the owner
d (i) Will a disposal area be available for future maintenance?
[—]Yes ❑No ❑NA
(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 (ii ) If Y es, how much water area is affected

❑CW ❑SAV ❑SB _
❑WL ❑None
(u) 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 yNc ui snurcmrc araumcauurr
❑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
D Lengin
Width
d Maximum distance waterward of NHW or NWL
f (i) Has there been shoreline erosion during preceding 12
months'?
❑Yes ❑No ❑NA
(u) 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 b) Will fill material be placed in coastal wetlands /marsh (CW)
If yes,
(u) Amount of material to be placed in the water
Long Shoal Oyster Sanctuary
Material type Tonage # of structures Foot print (acre)
Concrete reef
structures 3705 1950 38
Raccoon Island oyster sanctuary
Material type Tonage # of structures Foot print(acre)
Concrete reef
structures 3610 1900 37
Reinforced
concrete pipe 150 80 -120 005
Limestone
mounds 150 1 0 065
Existing Croatan Sound ovster sanctua
Material type Tonage # of structures Foot print (acre)
Concrete reef
structures 551 300 058
(iii) Dimensions of fill area
Long shoal 660 ft X 660 ft Raccoon Island 660 ft X 660 ft
Grand total of 20 acres (both are 10 acres sites)
(w) Purpose of fill
Pnmarly 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
OWL ®None
(u) Describe the purpose of the fill in these areas
f

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 in Front end loader will set material off a 135' vessel
mobile once deployed and is common to artificial reef
development and has proved to be durable and stable
c (i) Will navigational aids be required as a result of the project?
®Yes ❑No DNA
(n) If yes, explain what type and how they will be implemented
Each sanctuary corner will marked according to US Coast Guard
regulation Each sanctuary corner will have a two 3X3 ft signs facing
the Outside boundary of the sanctuary depicting the orange hazard
diamond and saying "Oyster Sanctuary Danger Submerged Rocks"
This signs will be upheld by wood pilings driven into the bottom
September 21s` 2012
Date
Continuation of Oyster Sanctuary development
Project Name
Divison of Marine Fisheries
Applicant Name
H. Craig Hardy y '
Applicant Signature
d (i) Will wetlands be crossed in transporting equipment to project
site? ❑Yes ®No ❑NA
(n) If yes, explain steps that will be taken to avoid or minimize
environmental impacts

Form DCM MP -2
I
(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.
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
(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
N/A
d High- ground excavation in cubic yards
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 (u) 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 DNA
or other wetlands (WQ? If any boxes are checked, provide the
number of square feet affected (ii) If yes, how much water area is affected?
Access
Other
Channel
(NLW or
Canal
Boat Basin
Boat Ramp
Rock Groin
Rock
Breakwater
(excluding
shoreline
NWL)
stabilization
Long Shoal
Length
660 ft
Raccoon
Island 660 ft
Long Shoal
Width
660 ft
Raccoon
Island 660 ft
Long Shoal
Avg. Existing
14 ft
Depth
NA
NA
Raccoon
Island 15 ft
Final Project
Vert.
Depth
NA
NA
Clearance 9
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
(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
N/A
d High- ground excavation in cubic yards
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 (u) 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 DNA
or other wetlands (WQ? If any boxes are checked, provide the
number of square feet affected (ii) If yes, how much water area is affected?

❑CW ❑SAV ❑SB _
❑WL ❑None
(n) 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)
C1 1 yNc vi WIVICIIIIC staumcauuii
❑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
D Lengtn
Width
d Maximum distance waterward of NHW or NWL
f (i) Has there been shoreline erosion during preceding 12
months')
❑Yes ❑No F-1 NA
(n) If yes, state amount of erosion and source of erosion amount
information
h Type of fill material
4. OTHER FILL ACTIVITIES El This section not applicable
(Excluding Shoreline Stabilization)
a (i) Ww rill material oe brougnt to the site-/ p9Yes LJNo LJNA
If yes,
(n) Amount of material to be placed in the water
Long Shoal Oyster Sanctuary
Material type Tonage # of structures Foot print (acre)
Concrete reef
structures 3705 1950 38
Raccoon Island oyster sanctuary
Material type
Tonage # of structures
Foot print(acre)
Concrete reef
structures
3610 1900
37
Reinforced
concrete pipe
150 80 -120
005
Limestone
mounds
150 1
0 065
Existina Croatan Sound ovster sanctua
Material type Tonage # of structures Foot print (acre)
Concrete reef
structures 551 300 058
(ni) Dimensions of fill area
Long shoal 660 ft X 660 ft Raccoon Island 660 ft X 660 ft
Grand total of 20 acres (both are 10 acres sites)
(w) Purpose of fill
Pnmarly purpose for fill is oyster rehabliatation by creating
oyster habitat
b (i) Will fill material be placed in 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
❑WL ®None
(n) Describe the purpose of the fill in these areas
f
L

J
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 in Front end loader will set material off a 135' vessel
mobile once deployed and is common to artificial reef
development and has proved to be durable and stable
c (i) Will navigational aids be required as a result of the project?
®Yes ❑No ❑NA
(i) If yes, explain what type and how they will be implemented
Each sanctuary corner will marked according to US Coast Guard
regulation Each sanctuary corner will have a two 3X3 ft signs facing
the outside boundary of the sanctuary depicting the orange hazard
diamond and saying "Oyster Sanctuary Danger Submerged Rocks"
This signs will be upheld by wood pilings driven into the bottom
September 21St 2012
Date
Continuation of Oyster Sanctuary development
Project Name
Divison of Marine Fisheries
Applicant Name
H Craig Hardy
Applicant Signature
d (Q Will wetlands be crossed in transporting equipment to project
site? []Yes ®No ❑NA
(n) If yes, explain steps that will be taken to avoid or minimize
environmental impacts
-,_6 .;Z. 6,_

ca
A
O
ca
0
u
m
u
t:
E
Z,<
V)
ctl
0
06
Aik
Em
Z.
LO
(3)
4-1
u
cli
o
E
C:
10
V()
(31
4�
Ln
4-J
V)
LA
. (3)
o
fa
U
4-J
U
c
ro
o
Lf)
aJ
4-J ra
(3)
UO 4-j
4-j
V)
>.
m
0
L-
>-
0
0
bm
u
b.0
C:
4-J
C:
4-J
o
CL
0
LU
LU
d.
Z.
(3)
E
(31
4�
c-
cu ON

9�
Q
sy
r
Of
'a
r
Qi
y
=
Y
�
f
-
JJ
V
r
m
J
CL
• °
L
� 8
�V
Y � 7 i i
�P
Q
..,
� •, f
O
I\
�\
co
0 • •
* i
R
Y
v•
�
,�
�� ydti .�� � ^ - - -�— —__�
a�} as
jF
71��
�_..••�.
a �
3 �g .
� �
�
LO
!
F
j ,.
Ijj�
�ei'�j
•'
b' �
II
$4��.Ei5i � �
i
,
p
ti
t
fi
a
0t
+�
N
CL
N
N

4o W
'I IDo
Q
1 �r
`w
t,
1
♦� S
ti
ti
k
f
F
f
!
r
m
x
4
�iF6!'ldfdr
y
tlS M aD
R7/
r
r
0
yti
k�
d1Nl�lti�l� N
1 T
O
r
:,", � i 5 N a pN M PP
i
N
N
O
M
V°
ca
m
0
u
T
O ••
E L
L �
O v
U C
O N
�I
..t
`r
,JI
o
m
r
�
m
r d O
•�
r
C6
41 N
r
Q
to O

E
O V) E
-0 cu `~ X
ai c 41
° 0
N
4� U v >
U a1 aJ c
�-0 N O_ +, t
�_
L- p +d +-+
_ 4 U m u N t1A Lr)
to U
Q i E .�
Ln Ul LL c C
L
CU � /o ® -J._
4ml =5
U U 0
i1 N v U
o 0 0 0O
Ln
o L���"'° 0 000
> — c ° Q0 0 ca
o Q'3 3 o
CL
_ a °J O c c v +J vi /}[ t
Y U N = OO (Q
m O
� 099
v O N
a a *� •� N i
c
U V) U Z ° / Qi °i �i 2 ; Qi O CL 4-0
Qi
.to o c C CL
o
0
0 C5
Ln v
° v ^/ �/ �/ es Ko
v vi = n
Q1 •i 41
> Q i=
°; o E
go % %
o O =3 °
rn
"' m "/ g/ so
O V; = m
QJ � % a
m O i s4J 2ti Z' N
axi O N
*' •� ai
CL
.3
o No

QJ U
Q O 0 > +
4- (0
U a-
O Q) U')
Lri
fo
uo
v o N 3
s
-0 cn v 0 v `� O
" a' N N E E t +� };
QI C C L WJ
v E Q C N
U Ln
O N 0 E
0 _ N N
In OL ) /
Q% 'F', / 0 '
T U- L L QJ U
v v fay 0
L L
> �+ c O L
aJ � v ui m � 0 0
M� p N O 4J C o c�f • 0� OO O
c N QJ +J "a 0 0 L
QJ U N •� 0 N 0 v 0 >'
+� c a� 0 3 V, a Q- v
U v a, Q on (u v, a� its v o 0 0 0 0 Q �
o U� �� O�� c L Lt 0 0 4J Q V
L o o I— a, o f6 4' v 0 0 v
a; U �, Q ns C E �
U L. 0 0 u
U H (6 U O N O U V (%i
L N N
+- �
" N c 4 Q O
U a) ; Q V) u
O O +0-+ SO ■_
I 1 Q ^t �� °� % its
ci
E Ti
ajN 00 p 08 Its 9� lee
-a = -a 4 3� ^� so %
N 4- e
O
4.1 O M E O �. Q. �. '
U
O O U 0
="1 No
r
U bA .p
cu O U c of �; i;
•>
Ln
p ai t
Q) z� lee
txo m
4Ul As so
aj
0 lie ve -ED
v N v fa Q)
aj me Me go
X o Ln °

Q
..•
Q
v
.
\ '
/
�
�
o
°
0
\
\
/
/
�
m 4- r-I
�
$
§
� .�
(
. > C�
re
/
§
� ?
.®
$ E
/
E �
�
D
L
f
%
�
\
E
V)
CL
O
E
■
§
V M
o
U
M
m -0
E
(D 0
E /
#
a'
$
z(
4, CL 0
$
/
All
2
u
_
° \
-j
m
g
C $
-
k
o
m �
—
a
®
�
ƒ
\
/
z
P*
■
,
V)
v
�
'
/
\
\
`|
� c
/ \
2
o
7
R
§
.
[
E
�
m
. _�
.
% 2 0 u
m ^
%
a
f
7%
2
CL
O
is
r4o
s
■
± e
2
f
#
3
/
°
L-
\ 0
4-
r
so
/
\
`
0
/
_
Lr)
c
y /
n
-
/
E m
ƒ
Q
zi
■
o
/
�®
No
-\
� E
CJ 0
i
■
s
2 u
m
q
�f
U/
V) q

� v v
° _ v 4° `° m
U) (, o ate"'
U Q� U - •� :21 O
.L N � b.0
v O Z E E
v1 U H A C c iN%
E N
L L
-a m
U
i OU O
L
�• i Nv v
N LL o ® ' i0 0
U
° v o v 0
v v v 0 v: o 4-J 0 0
+�
U m Q +� —= O ate, v' L >.
4J
O a°n 3 3 .QO ( � O
U c a) ++ VI : O O O U H
U •L 4-1 L o L ° O O
(31 U � ) Q CU � U rn o 0 0 4-a
N �_
E
_; c c�
� � o
Q
LLI
JP
� ^ �i.•_ ?, �� J �.: ?s.! �y rte_
ep c'c�e : �S ?fit rSi�f'e'.
C
• Q-
�r CL
m -a
c
3
"w •t N $ O
m
o E
U N o
N 3 =
on
>
W Q
i
e m
i n t�A
ai
11L' Q `N O

Q N N
(� m
O x
dJ m
to �.
c
"0 N L
C: O
N
� •N -r
C10
XC:
.;J-
(Y) u
O v
4 v
bz t1A . QJ U N
LJ C: 0
O
'Q � N
O
(� m 0 dJ C N
O
N J N
CO E
ccc U O f6
U 0
to O 4-J
(n O v u C u
D a a0 0
O
0
v N
O :
(D a-J
O +J
O
N 4-J
aj
f
CL
,�
>- E
4-1 1 O �
u _O O
C: _ �
N CL v O m
O t10 L
-C v v E )
co E
fro C u
w 4-1 O N
L Q r-q
Q `N O

OYSTER SANCTUARY DEVELOPMENT - EFH ASSESSMENT FOR LONG
SHOAL AND RACCOONISLAND OYSTER SANCTUARY
PROPOSED PROJECT
The proposed project involves continued development of the North Carolina
Division of Marine Fisheries ( NCDMF) oyster sanctuary network in Pamlico Sound. The
permit modification includes the addition of two new ten acres sites and the use of
concrete reef structures within existing permitted area at Croatan Sound Oyster Sanctuary
(drawing L3). The first new site (Long Shoal Oyster Sanctuary) is located 5.6 miles
south west of Dare county bombing range at Long Shoal (drawing 1.2) and encompasses
ten acres. Project resources are mitigation funds through the U.S. Department of the Navy
for the reactivation of the Navy Dare County Bombing Range at Long Shoal. The second
sanctuary is Raccoon Island located approximately six miles northwest of Cedar Island
ferry terminal and 2.6 miles northwest of Raccoon Island in Pamlico Sound (drawing
1.2). Project funds were awarded from the Coastal Recreational Fishing License receipted
Marine Resource Fund to develop an inshore coastal fishing reef /oyster sanctuary.
HISTORY, PURPOSE AND NEED FOR OYSTER SANCTUARY PROGRAM
The Oyster Sanctuary Program at the North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries,
manages and creates long -term protected oyster reefs. This is accomplished by placing
reef materials in suitable waters for oyster development. In their early life, oyster larvae
attach to hard substrate and begin to form their own shell. These oysters then grow and
reproduce, adding to the reef. The created oyster reefs become protected from disturbance
under,Marine Fisheries Commission rule. The North Carolina Oyster Sanctuary Program
with - partners, have restored over 120 acres of oyster reef in Pamlico Sound s6that
hundreds of millions of oysters now grow on ten oyster sanctuaries.
The eastern oyster is a keystone estuarine species because they provide important
ecological services, including water filtration and habitat for benthos, fish, and shrimp
(Mann 2001, Peterson et al. 2003, Posey et al. 1999, Soniat et al. 2004). Healthy oyster
reefs are vital to the estuarine ecosystem ( NCDMF 2001). Eastern oyster populations are
declining, especially on sub -tidal reefs in the middle Atlantic Ocean coast (Ault et al.
1994, Hargis and Haven 1988, NCDMF 2001, Rothschild et al. 1994). In 2007, the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) 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 in
significant decline (Street et al. 2005). The primary causes of the historical oyster decline
in Pamlico Sound Estuary are the cumulative effects of pollution (Cooper et al. 2004,
Pinckney et al. 1998), disease, and depletion of habitat from historical harvesting by
destructive oyster dredges (Lenihan and Peterson 1998). To combat the decline, North
Carolina General Assembly tasked three state commissions (Environmental Management
Commission, Coastal Resources Commission, and Marine Fisheries Commission) with
developing, adopting and implementing plans to protect and restore fisheries habitats. In
2004, the commissions unanimously adopted the North Carolina Coastal Habitat

Protection Plan (CHPP). The legislative goal of the plan is the long -term enhancement of
coastal fisheries associated with six habitats (shell'bottom was identified as one of six
habitat types in the CHPP). The purpose of the CHPP is to compile the latest scientific
information on each habitat so that management needs can be identified to protect,
enhance, and restore associated fish populations. In 2010, the CHPP was updated,
specifically identifying management and research needs as a way of expanding habitat
restoration and protection to accomplish this goal (Deaton et al. 2010). The Oyster
Sanctuary Program is a key component of estuarine habitat restoration in North Carolina
by restoring large oyster populations, capable of providing valued ecosystem services and
supporting a vibrant fishery. This specifically aids the NCDMF, its partners, and
university researchers in meeting management and research goals of the CHPP.
NC OYSTER RESTORATION GOALS.
To offset the historic catastrophic loss of oysters and oyster habitat, the North
Carolina Coastal Federation's Northern Oyster Work Group developed a Conservation
Action Plan (CAP) identifying how much in- the -water restoration is needed to promote
the recovery of native oysters in the Albemarle- Pamlico National Estuary Program. The
CAP concluded that the efforts to restore oysters must be ambitious and aggressive, in the
water and on land, with at least 500 ac of new rock reef constructed and designated as
oyster reef sanctuary, protected from fishing and harvesting, by 2018 (NCCF 2008). At a
February 10, 2010, the northern work group set a 100 -ac sanctuary goal for the Neuse
River. Current or proposed sanctuary area composes approximately 30 % of the 500 acre
goal.
EXISTING PROJECT CONDITIONS
Currently NCDMF maintains eleven oyster sanctuaries (Drawing 1). Sanctuary
boundaries range from 5.7 — 58.6 acres, totaling 221.9 acres. At present, 120 acres have
been developed. 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 maintained by the Resource Enhancement Section of 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 (NNIFS), 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
2

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 which utilize the water column for transport.
The additional abundance of larvae will help, restore the oyster population in North
Carolina. The impacts orr the estuarine water column are expected to be minimal.
INTERTIDAL FLATS
Long Shoal nor Raccoon Island Oyster Sanctuary are in the 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 axesult of the project.
OYSTER REEFS AND SHELL BANKS
This project is designed to enhance areas of historical oyster presence. Therefore,
these natural habitat types are present in close proximity ter 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. The - restoration efforts of this project can increase the oyster, population and -help to
improve the overall ecological health of our estuary. Implementation of this project is not
expected to cause any significant adverse impacts on existing oyster reefs and-shell
banks. -
SEAGRASS AND SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION (SAV)
Due to the nature of the project areas at Cedar Island and Long shoal, 14 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. The closest existing SAV resource has been mapped by NCDMF's shellfish
mapping program and for the Cedar Island reef it is located�approximately 2.6 miles
southwest from the project area in close vicinity to Raccoon Island aS well as four miles
south at .Cedar Island. For the Long Shoal sanctuary the closest SAV resource is located
2.7 miles northeast of the project site as well as approximately 3.7 miles northwest in
Parched Corn Bay. As reef materials are placed on the bottom they will cause a local
brief turbidity increase. However this increase is highly unlikely to have any adverse
effect on potential sea grass /SAV habitat at either of the two selected sites. -'

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. At the first proposed Long
Shoal site, two permanent secondary nursery areas are in the vicinity of the project area.
Approximately one mile northwest is Pains Bay and two and half miles northwest is Long
Shoal River permanent secondary nursery areas. The second proposed site, Raccoon
Island, is located eight and half miles north east of the closest protected nursery area at
Cedar Island Bay. As reef materials are placed on the bottom they will cause a local brief
turbidity increase. However this increase is highly unlikely to have any adverse effect on
any primary and secondary nursery areas. D. Eggleston et al, 2011, sampled fish at two
oyster sanctuaries in Pamlico Sound and collected thirteen species of fish listed in the
2010 NC DMF Stock Status Report. Eight of these fish species are considered
recovering, depleted, or species of concern. The development and protection of oyster
habitat through this project will benefit finfish by improving chances of survival in their
early life stages.
(http: / /www.ncfisheri es. net / stocks /NCDMFStockStatusReport20l O.pd fl.
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 sub tidal soft
bottom habitat ranging in depth from 13 to 15 feet. The area within Long Shoal and
Cedar Island Sanctuary boundaries are 10 acres each, of which upon initial completion,
0.5 acres of soft bottom will be covered by 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 structures 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 project areas during varying life stages. The proposed
project will not adversely affect prey species populations.
IMPACT SUMMARY FOR ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT
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
4

impact is the loss of estuarine water column due to the "high profile" nature of the
structures /mounds being built. Though the water column will be permanently affected,
the overall flow impact will be minimal. In contrast to the permanent impacts to the
existing EFH, the ecological functions of oyster reefs 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 (brood stock) 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 but will facilitate the recovery of
Pamlico Sound and its beneficiaries.
MATERIALS
As proposed, Long Shoal Oyster sanctuary will -initially develop five out of ten acres
the remaining 5 acres will be developed upon initial material evaluation. To develop the
first five acres, approximately 1000 precast concrete reef structures will be deployed at
the sanctuary site. Upon the total completion approximately 2000 structures will develop
ten acres utilizing approximately 3.8 acres of bottom (Table 3). Raccoon Island Oyster
Sanctuary will use both concrete structures and limestone: Approximately 1925 structures
will develop ten acres utilizing approximately 3.82 acres of bottom (Tatsle 4). At existing
Croatan Sound oyster sanctuary 3.8 of 7.7 acres of permitted area are undeveloped.
Approximately 290 structures will be added, developing 1.5' acres of sanctuary, area
utilizing a footprint of 0.6 acres (Table 5).

Table 1. Categories of Essential Fish Habitat and Habitat Areas of Particular Concern in
Southeast United States (t) (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
N/A
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 Ve etation(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).

Table 2. Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Species of Pamlico Sound and its Tributaries,
North Carolina
Source: NMFS, Beaufort, North Carolina, October 1999 and NCDMF September 2012.
E = Eggs; L = Larval; J = Juvenile; A = Adult; N/A = Not Found
EFH Fish Species
Water Body
EFH Fish Species
Water Body
Pamlico Sound
Pamlico Sound
Bluefish,
ELJA
Gray tri gerfish
J 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
ELJA
Greater ambe 'ack
N/A -
King mackerel
J A
Almaco jack
N/A
Spanish mackerel
J A
Berided rudderfish
N/A -
Black sea bass
L J-A -
Spade fish
A
Spiny dogfish
E-L J A-
White grunt -
N/A
Brown shrimp
ELJA
Hogfish
N/A
Pink shrimp
ELJA
Puddingwife
N/A.
White shrimp
ELJA
Blackfm snapper -
N/A
Atlantic bigeye tuna
N /A- -
Red snapper - -
N/A
Atlantic bluefm tuna
N/A
Cubera snapper
N/A - -
Skipjack tuna
N/A
Silk snapper
N/A
L- ongbill spearfish
N/A
Blueline tilefish -
N/A
Shortfm mako shark
N/A
Sand tilefish
N/A
Blue shark •
N /A-
Bank sea bass
N/A
Spinner shark
N/A
Rock -sea bass`
-JA
Swordfish
N/A
Grasby -
N/A
Yellowfin tuna
N/A
Speckled bird
N/A -
Blue ri -ra in
N/A
Yellowedge you per
N/A
White rip -ra in
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 grou er
N/A
Big nose shark
N/A
Misty grouper
N/A
Black tip shark
N/A
Warsaw ou er
N/A
Dusky shark
N/A
Snowy grouper
N/A
Night shark -
N/A
Yellowmouth grouper
N/A
Sandbar shark
JA
Scam -
N/A
Silky shark
N/A
Sheepshead
J A
Tiger shark
N/A
Red porgy
N/A
Atlantic sharpnose shark
N/A
Longs pine porgy
N/A
Longfin mako shark
N/A
Scup
N/A,
Whitetip shark
N/A
Little tunny
N/A
Thresher shark
N/A
Gray Snapper-
J -
Bull shark
J A
Atlantic Menhaden
J A
Striped Bass
L J A
Atlantic Thread Herring j
JA
Spotted Seatraout
ELJA
Weakfish
I ELJA
7

EFH Fish Species
Water Body
Pamlico Sound
EFH Fish Species
Water Body
Pamlico Sound
Red Drum
ELJA
Black Drum
ELJA
Spot
LJA
Atlantic Croaker
LJA
Atlantic Silverside
ELJA
Bay Anchovy
ELJA
American Eel
JA
Atlantic Sturgeon
EJA
Southern Flounder
LJA
Gulf Flounder
LJA
Atlantic Stingray
JA
Inshore Pinfish
LJA
Spot tail Pinfish
JA
Table 3. Show number of units, tonnage and material footprint along with total area
usage for each reef material at suggested Long Shoal oyster sanctuary.
Material type
# Units '
Tonnage
_Total material
footprint (acre)
Deployment area
(acre)
Concrete reef structure
1950
3705
3.8
10
Table 4. Show number of units, tonnage and material footprint along with total area
usage for each reef material at suggested Raccoon Island Oyster Sanctuary.
Concrete structure
# Units
Tonnage
Total material
footprint (acre)
Deployment area
(acre)
Concrete reef structure
1900
3610
3.7
9.54
Reinforced concrete pipe
80 -120
150
0.05
0.33
Limestone mounds
1
150
0.065
0.13
Total
3100
3.82
10
Table 5. Show numbers of units, tonnage and material footprint along with total area
usage for each reef material at existing Croatan Sound oyster sanctuary.
Material type
# Units
Tonnage—
[Total material
footprint (acre)
Deployment area
(acre)
Concrete reef structure
300
325
1 0.58
1.5

M-Y Aj
W-, W
W110
Cfoatan Souncl,
Crab Ho:e
xsc
•Larg slioal
Deep Bayer
West Bluff y Uarn Shoal
Middle Bav
Raccoon Island Orracoke
Little Creek
NeuseRrver'
West say
s+averece y3 c.1 Wes
0357 14 21 28
Existing Oyster Sanctuaries 0
Drawin I
5eOtemoei g 3"' Existing Croatan Sound Oyster Sanctuary Cr
2012 " I Proposed Oyster Sanctuaries a 01
Drawing 1. Map depicting locations of all current Oyster Sanctuaries and the pyoposed
Long Shoal and Raccoon Island sanctuaries created by North Carolina Division'of Marine
Fisheries.
Drawing 2. Map showing location of the proposed Long Shoal (A) and Raccoon Island
(B) sanctuaries over NOAA chart background.
-4
A 11 1 1
z,
004C6
16 24
3 4
A)
B)
Drawing 2
Locatormap.
September 3'11
A) Proposed Long Oyster Sanctuary
2012
13) Proposed Raccoon Island Oyster Sanctuary
Drawing 2. Map showing location of the proposed Long Shoal (A) and Raccoon Island
(B) sanctuaries over NOAA chart background.

N
4
t %
1 •� c3�'�FA �SYU VA
� •• trti • � O(,� dr�
a3 as a -0
t
-Z
N
Miles-
OT 244 0%, 12
Drawing 3 ,I ";. Locatormap of existing Croatan Oyster
September 3rd Sanctuary e:
2012
Drawing 3. Map showing location of existing Croatan Sound sanctuary over NOAA chart
background.
REFERENCES
Ault, J.S., P. Goulletquer, and M. Heral. 1994. Decline of the Chesapeake Bay oyster
population: A century of habitat destruction and overfishing. Marine Ecology Progress
Series 111:29 -39.
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.
Coen, L.E., M.W. Luckenbach, and D.L. Breitburg. 1999. The role of oyster reefs as
essential fish habitat: a review of current knowledge and some new perspectives. Pp.
438 -454 in L.R.
Cooper, S.R., S.K. McGlothlin, M. Madritch, and D.L. Jones. 2004. Paleoecological
evidence of human impacts on the Neuse and Pamlico Estuaries of North Carolina, USA.
Estuaries 27:617 -633.
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.
10

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.
Deaton, A.S., W.S. Chappell, K. Hart, J. O'Neal, B. Boutin. 2010. North Carolina
Coastal Habitat Protection Plan. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources. Division of Marine Fisheries, NC: 639 pp.
Eggleston B. Efland, G. Plaia, B. Puckett, R. Ridone, K. Pierson. 2011. Ecological
Performance and Recreational Fishing Impacts of Large - Scale, Sub -Tidal Oyster
RestorationNorth Carolina State University Center for Marine Sciences and Technology
303 College Circle Drive Morehead City, NC 28557.
EOBRT (Eastern Oyster Biological Review Team). 2007. Status review of the eastern
oyster (Crassostrea virginica). Report to the National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast
Regional Office.
Florida Museum of Natural History. 2003 (FLMNH). http: / /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.
Hargis, W.J. Jr., and D.S. Haven. 1988. The imperiled oyster industry of Virginia: a
critical analysis with recommendations for restoration. Special report 290 in applied
marine science and ocean engineering.Virginia Sea Grant Marine Advisory,Services,-
Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester Point, VA.
Haven, D. and R. Morales - Alamo. 1970. Filtration of particles from suspension, by
American oyster, Crassostrea virginica. Biological Bulletin 139: 248 -264.
Lenihan, H.S.,, and C.H., Peterson.. 1998. How habitat degradation. through fishery.
disturbances enhances impacts of hypoxia on oyster reefs. Ecological Applications
8(1):128 -140.
Mann, R. 2001. Oyster reefs as fish habitat: Opportunistic use of restored reefs by
transient fishes. Journal of Shellfish Research 20:951 -959..
Mann, R. 2001. Oyster reefs as fish habitat: Opportunistic use of restored reefs by
transient fishes. Journal of Shellfish Research 20:951 -959.
NCDMF (North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries). 2001. North Carolina oyster
fishery management plan. North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries, Department of
Environment and Natural Resources.
- 2008. North Carolina Oyster Fishery Management Plan. North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries.
< http: / /www.nefisheries.net/rules.htm >. July 2008.
11

- 2010. Stock status of important coastal fisheries in North Carolina, 2009.
http: / /www.ncfisheries.net/stocks /index.html. Accessed March 2010.
Peterson, C.H., J.H. Grabowski, and S.P. Powers. 2003. Estimated enhancement of fish
production resulting from restoring oyster reef habitat: Quantitative valuation. Marine
Ecology Progress Series 264:249 -264.
Pinckney, J.L., J.M. Fear, and B.L. Peierls. 1998. Ecosystem responses to internal and
watershed organic matter loading: Consequences for hypoxia in the eutrophying Neuse
River Estuary, North Carolina, USA. Marine Ecology Progress Series 166:17 -25.
Posey, M.H., T. Alphin, C.M. Powell, and E. Townsend. 1999. Use of Oyster Reefs a
Habitat for Epibenthic Fish and Decapods. A Synopsis and Synthesis of Approaches (eds
M.W. Luckenbach, R.
Restoration Goals, Quantitative Metrics and Assessment Protocols for Evaluating
Success on Oyster Reef Sanctuaries. Submitted to the Sustainable Fisheries Goal
Implementation Team
of the Chesapeake Bay Program.December 2011
Rothschild, B.J., J.S. Ault, P. Goulletquer, and M. Heral. 1994. Decline of the
Chesapeake Bay oyster population: a century of habitat destruction and overfishing.
Marine Ecology Program Series 111:29 -39.
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.
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.
Soniat, T.M., Finelli, C.M. and Ruiz, J.T. 2004. Vertical structure and predator refuge
mediate oyster reef development and community dynamics. Journal of Experimental
Marine Biology and Ecology 310:163 -182.
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.
12

APPENDIX A
MONITORING PLAN FOR OYSTER SANCTUARIES
The proposed oyster sanctuary sites 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. r, 1
BIOLOGICAL SUCCESS CRITERIA
The following recommendations are informed by available science and restoration
results by December 2011• and originate from the Chesapeake Bay Program Oyster
Metric Work group. Despite geographical distance from North Carolina it is the most
comprehensive guide identifying biological success criteria for Oyster restoration in
sanctuaries on the US east coast. However these criteria may be subject to change as
improved understanding of the restoration practice become available.
Reasonable target operational goal for reef -level restoration.
I. A mean density of 50 oysters /m2 and 50 grams dry weight /m2 containing at
least two year classes, and covering at least 30% of the reef area. (Note that 3
inch oyster has a dry weight of approximately P gram, so this target would
require 50 adult oysters /m2 or many more small oysters) three to six years
post restoration.
A minimum threshold for a successful reef as a mean density of 15 oysters/ in 2
z . -
and 15 grams dry weight/ in containing at least two year classes, and covering
at least 30% of the reef area.
II. As a structural goal that reef spatial extent, reef height, and shell budget
should remain neutral or increase from a post- restoration baseline assessed
three to six years post restoration.
III. On a time horizon of 2 —10 years following restoration activity; a stable'or
positive shell budget, stable or increasing oyster biomass and multi -year class
age distributions is represented.
Settlement and growth is a key function of a long term sustainable oyster reef. In addition
to our target goals, focus is on three categories of live and dead oyster densities over time
and depth. This gives us an index of abundance for spat, sublegal and legal size oysters.
13

I. Spat (0 -3 cm)
II. Sub legal (3 -8 cm)
III. Legal (greater than 8 cm)
The index of abundance gives us a general idea of the status of the oyster population
and the 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. Sampling
methodology also allows additional analyses to be made depending on needs.
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 assessment 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.
14