20221509 Ver 1_Updated CAMA_20230411

Quible & Associates, P.C,
ENGINEERING ® ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES - PLANNING ® SURVEYING
SINCE 1959
Mr. Gregg Bodnar
400 Commerce Ave.
Morehead City, NC 28557
P.O. Drawer 870
Kitty Hawk, NC 27949
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
web: quible.corn
M1
that are intended to address agency comments in a manner that will continue to accomplish project goals.
Enclosed is the following:
• Updated Project Narrative (4/5/2023)
• Updated CAMA Major Plan Set (6 Sheets); dated (Sheet 1 revised 3/9/2023, Sheets 2-4 revised
4/4/2023, Sheet 5 revised 3/9/2023, Sheet 6 dated 9/19/2022)
• Updated Project Narrative to Reflect Updates; dated 4/5/2023
• Updated MP-1 and MP-2 Application Forms; dated 4/5/2023
• Sea & Shoreline Seagrass Management Plan; dated 3/14/2023 (Appendix M)
• Map of Nearby Potential Seagrass Baseline Reference Areas (Appendix N)
• Published Report by Dr. Hannah Sirianni, et.al; dated 11 /14/2022 (Appendix 0)
• Letter of Support from Morehead City to NCDEQ; dated 3/16/2023
Sincerely,
Quible & Associates, P.C.
---7
Brian Rubino
CC: Christopher Turner, Morehead City Manager
Brian Henry, Sea & Shoreline
Carter Henne, Sea & Shoreline
Lexia Weaver, NCCF
Todd Miller, NCCF

Sugarloaf Island Protection and Habitat Restoration
Updated Project Narrative 4/5/2023
Project Name: Sugarloaf Island Protection and Habitat Restoration
Owner: Town of Morehead City
Non -Profit Project Sponsor: North Carolina Coastal Federation
Consultants: Sea & Shoreline (S&S), Quible & Associates, P.C. (Quible), Dr. Ping Wang
(USF), Dr. Hannah Sirianni (ECU), Scott Bartkowski (Living Shoreline Solutions), Niels Lindquist
(Sandbar Oyster Co.), David Mallinson (ECU)
Vicinity and Background
Sugarloaf Island is a small island located in the downtown harbor area of Morehead City on
Bogue Sound. Historically, Sugarloaf was a coastal marsh island that was utilized as a dredge
disposal area in the 1920's and 1930's and perhaps on occasion afterwards up through the
1950's. The island has naturalized and hosts a broad range of coastal environments, such as
tidal flats, sand spits (east and west ends), maritime forest, an embayment, peat beds, erosion
escarpments (south side), heavily rippled sand bottom, tidal creek, coastal wetlands, low dunes
and ridges and oyster beds (north side). Sugarloaf is adjacent to the Federal Navigation
Channel on its north and east sides [See enclosed CAMA plans (Appendix A) and the USACE
Hydrographic Survey from 2019 (Appendix B)].
It has been clear that the island is being eroded at an alarmingly rapid rate. This is a result of
common wind and wave forces, tropical storm events, sea level rise, strong tidal flow, and boat
generated wake. The island not only supports a wide variety of coastal habitats that are being
threatened, but this island has become an important protective barrier for the harbors,
businesses, residences and the downtown waterfront area in Morehead City as a whole. Rapid
loss of the island has exposed portions of the downtown to direct wave impacts and would
continue to do so (if no action is taken) until the island is gone and the waterfront completely
exposed. This protection must occur in the near future before the island and associated
benefits are lost. Another primary goal of the project is to protect public environmental
resources, including marine ecological resources that are consistent with the NC Coastal
Habitat Protection plan (CHPP). Sugarloaf also offers recreational opportunities for locals and
visitors. The island is owned by the Town of Morehead City who allows and supports passive
recreation. Boaters enjoy tying up on the island to spend the day or to fish. Due to the steep
erosion escarpment and excessive amount of downed trees on the south shore, beach goers
have used the ends of the island and the north side in recent years. The Town has a public
dock on the north side where boaters can tie up or get dropped off to explore the island.
Sugarloaf is also utilized by the Town for Fourth of July fireworks.
All property owners and Officials we have been involved with have expressed the desire to re-
gain much more of the island that was present not long ago and no one has expressed any
objection to the project. It has been the task of S&S, Quible, NCCF and our University Partners
to develop a design that incorporates as much of the Local input as practical, while meeting in
the CAMA Major (Joint State and Federal Permit) criteria. Not only have we drawn from other
projects, but this project has involved a historic review and analysis and a hydrodynamic model
of existing and projected wave and current forces that affect the island. Sea level rise
considerations have also been made in association with the design.
An interagency scoping meeting was held on August 10, 2022. Since the meeting, several
regulatory and resource agency representatives that were not able to attend the scoping

Sugarloaf Island Protection and Habitat Restoration
Updated Project Narrative 4/5/2023
meeting have been provided all background information that others in attendance were
provided. A CAMA Major Permit Application was submitted to NCDCM on 9/26/2022. The
application package was accepted as complete on 10/4/2022. On 2/20/2023, the application
was put on applicant hold in order to adequately address State Resource agency comments
that have been received. On 3/15/2023, a follow-up State Resource agency scoping meeting
was held to discuss all State review items to date which has prompted this re -submission of
updated materials.
Data Collection
In April 2022, Quible performed a bathymetric survey of the waters surrounding the island using
RTK GPS. This included using a single -beam ecosounder in addition to shooting beach profile
transects around the perimeter of the island. In addition, we surveyed the mean low water line,
mean high water, location of erosion escarpment, exposed peat beds, edge of coastal wetlands,
the tidal creek and other Iandforms.
The north side of the island is adjacent to a portion of the heavily utilized Federal Navigation
Channel. We have consulted with representatives of the US Army Corps (USACE) Navigation
Branch. Please see attached notes from a virtual meeting with USACE from June 3, 2022
(Appendix C). It is understood that there is a 52 ft setback from the edge of the Federal
channel on the Sugarloaf Island side. This line is shown on Sheets 2-4. The eastern tip of the
island extends into the Federal Channel. While USACE has no short-term plan to dredge the
channel, they have expressed support for dredging of this area if sponsored by the Town or
others. Any proposed work within the setbacks (including dredging or wave attenuation) would
need to be addressed through a "Section 408" review. The work proposed within the setback
and channel itself includes minor dredging, and living shoreline stabilization measures.
Hydrodynamic Modeling
Dr. Ping Wang, Oceanographer from the University of Southern Florida, was engaged to study
and model the wave and tidal forces and effects at Sugarloaf. In May 2022, Quible was present
to assist Dr. Wang and his assistant to set current and wave meters at Sugarloaf. They have
also obtained historic wind and water -level data to model existing conditions. An assessment
report by Dr. Wang (Appendix D) verifies that there are extreme erosive conditions on a normal
basis and that large storms result in rapid, large-scale erosion. This was already known and
can be clearly seen by the local community, but Dr. Wang's analysis has been influential in
determining the appropriate protection options for Sugarloaf. Our design takes into account the
results of Dr. Wang's analysis for specifying the height, stability, alignment and type of wave
protection device, but we have also had to draw from our experience in State and Federal rules
and regulations associated with permitting for restoration projects. The intent is to design a
viable project can be permitted and implemented under the Joint State -Federal "291" Process.
Cost is also an important factor, and some grant money has been secured which must be
utilized by the end of 2023. Vetting of this system has been done with the Town and all
stakeholders/consultants involved to date.
Proposed Project
Wave Attenuation System
The dominant protective solution that is proposed to be utilized is the WAD® (Wave Attenuation
Device) system that would be configured along the alignment shown on Sheets 2-4 which is
E

Sugarloaf Island Protection and Habitat Restoration
Updated Project Narrative 4/5/2023
close to the mean high water line from 2011 and is located at a bottom elevation of
approximately -4.0 (NAVD 88). The WAD® system is a concrete pyramidal unit with holes and
gaps. The structures will be cast in a staging area close to a mitigation or restoration project
and set in place by the use of barges with a crane or excavator. This system was developed by
Living Shoreline Solutions, Inc. (LSS) and has been successfully utilized in numerous projects.
The last sheet of the CAMA Plan set includes schematics of the system specific to Sugarloaf.
For the project, we have designed a two -row system (there are 2 and 4 row options) that will be
7 ft tall. This will allow the top of the WADs® to extend approximately 1.5 ft above current
MHHW. Excessively high tides and storm waves will top the units, but the majority of wave
energy will be dampened, even in those occasions. The units are hollow and have large
openings that provide an excellent source of fish habitat and a substrate for shellfish growth.
The chosen height and alignment of the WADs® considered the Local representative's goals,
but was strongly based on the modeling results and understanding of wave heights and forces.
There will be periodic larger gaps in the WAD® arrays for boat and paddle craft passage. The
wave modeling suggests that large openings on the south and west sides should be minimized
to avoid creation of funnel-like gaps for that would present the ability for continued excessive
erosion. In addition to providing wave attenuation, the WADs® can help collect sediment that is
in suspension and they also provide a relatively quiescent habitat for SAV and fish. This, in
turn, helps build coastal wetlands and beaches that are otherwise susceptible to the ongoing
erosion.
In order to address resource agency concerns, but still meet majority of the project restoration,
protection and recreational goals, we have shifted the proposed alignment landward to the fullest
extent practical. Please see enclosed plan that incorporates this proposed amendment. During our
3/15/2023 virtual meeting, we shared and discussed a plan that showed both proposed sill
alignments (the prior submitted plan dated 9/20/2022 and the current plan included here, dated
4/3/2023). This includes a slight landward shift of Sill sections B and C along the southern shore to
align the landward toe of the Sill with the low tide line. We have also significantly adjusted Section E
landward by 90 ft. This revised Sill alignment for the Section E area will adequately protect the
island, but it does reduce the SAV enhancement area in this Zone from approximately 53,837 sq.ft.
down to 37,259 sq.ft. It is crucial for the project goals not to significantly alter the Sill alignment for
Section A (west end). As stated in the project narrative and all of our interagency discussions to
date, the west end protection is extremely important for protection of Town infrastructure in addition to
the environmental benefits and recreational opportunities (See narrative). Shown on the plan are
existing concrete piles in water near the end of the Sill alignment. This is a good reference point for
understanding the extent of the ongoing erosion. In 2015, these piles were on the western tip of the
landmass beside a vegetated bank.
Oyster Sill/Reef
In addition to the WADs®, in -water work in our permit proposal includes inner oyster sill/reef
building measures that have been developed by Niels Lindquist from Sandbar Oyster Co.
These consist of biodegradable products that provide an excellent media for oyster recruitment.
These are modular products known as Oyster Catcher TablesTm and Marsh MoundSTM.
Sandbar has designed these modular products that they also install and monitor. This system
will be installed approximately between the low and high tide lines in many areas (see proposed
alignment on Sheets 2-4) where oyster reefs will be part of the restoration efforts. As depicted
on the plan, this nature -based oyster reef system will include large gaps or openings to allow
water flow and passage of aquatic life. It is important to state that due to the dynamic nature of
Sugarloaf, the specific alignment will vary to some degree from what is shown on our plan
sheets, but it will be in the intertidal zone that will allow viable oyster reefs. Other Sandbar
3

Sugarloaf Island Protection and Habitat Restoration
Updated Project Narrative 4/5/2023
products made from similar materials have been permitted through CAMA Minor Permits on
Sugarloaf Island already in areas above the mean high tide line. For those applications, the
intent is to collect wind driven sand to assist with dune establishment.
In order to attempt to address agency concerns related to the nature -based oyster table system in
the intertidal areas, we have reduced the extent of this system from 3,604 If to 2,344 If as shown on
the updated plans.
Native Plantinas
On sand flats and areas adjacent to coastal wetlands, native riparian plantings will be
incorporated. Plantings waterward of the MHW mark will primarily occur after the wave
attenuation systems have been deployed, however, areas above the MHW mark will be planted
sooner. The existing coastal wetlands on Sugarloaf include but are not limited to Juncus
roemerianus (black needle rush), Spartina alternaflora (smooth cordgrass), Spartina patens
(marsh hay), Schoenoplectus americanus (bulrush or three -square), and Distichlis spicata
(saltgrass). Native coastal wetland plantings will include some of these species. Upland
vegetation includes Spartina patens (marsh hay) Juniperus virginiana (eastern red cedar),
Morella cerifera (wax myrtle), Quercus virginiana (live oak), Baccharis halimifolia
(groundseltree), Uniola paniculata (sea oats) and Ammophila brevigulata (American
beachgrass). Many of these plants will be considered for upland native planting areas.
Submeraed Aauatic Veaetation
A project goal is to provide suitable SAV habitat and possible enhancement of SAV growth. On
Sheets 2-4, we have identified SAV Enhancement Areas that will be a direct result of wave
attenuation (protection). Water depths and existing substrate material are suitable for SAV, but
high the high energy regime now present prevents SAV growth, except for inside the north side
embayment area that is fairly -well protected. SAV mapping data obtained from NCDMF
suggests that there was some SAV present inside the embayment during the time of ground-
truthing and aerial mapping, but none was identified elsewhere. SAV surveying of shallow
waters around the east, west and south perimeters of the island was performed on June 121h by
Brian Rubino (Quible) and Carter Henne (S&S). The SAV survey procedure included
development of pre -established transects (See Appendix E) with the intent of utilizing the
Braun-Blaunquet method of sampling if SAV was encountered. No SAV was encountered along
the transects or in areas between transects.
Please see attached detailed Seagrass Monitoring and Restoration Plan (Appendix M) that was
developed by S&S. Also includes is a Google Earth Map of potential reference seagrass
meadow locations (Appendix N). These locations have been mapped as seagrass locations
and are between 0.5 miles and 2.5 miles from Sugarloaf Island. In early summer 2023, these
locations will be further evaluated and ground-truthed to determine which of these locations
would provide the optimum Site to use as a reference seagrass meadow for comparison
purposes with Sugarloaf during and after restoration efforts as described in the S&S report.
Dredaina
One proposed action that is not directly associated with habitat restoration is the dredging of the
east tip of the island, where the island has migrated in the Federal navigation Channel and
impact of this have been considered a major maritime safety concern by the Town. The east
tip of the island has been dredged in the past (last performed in 2012) and this portion of the
0

Sugarloaf Island Protection and Habitat Restoration
Updated Project Narrative 4/5/2023
island is continuing to migrate into the Federal Channel. This has created a very narrow
navigable section of waterway that is heavily used by large and small vessels. As previously
mentioned, the dredging of this area (See Appendix C) was discussed with USACE Navigation
Branch, and they are supportive of this dredging. Please see the CAMA Plan Set (Appendix A)
for the limits of this proposed maintenance dredging. This material is dominantly loose quartz
grained sand. If this portion of work is performed under this permit and not under the USACE
blanket dredge authorizations for Federal Channels, this work will be performed mechanically.
A long reach excavator will dig the material from barge or from land and will place the material
on the island above the MHWL. This will incorporate the material back into the system of the
island. The nature -based protection plan discussed herein is designed to reduce erosion rates
and the continued migration of this end of the island into the channel. The plan includes a 206 ft
section of rock revetment that will tie into the emergent WAD® system, intended to further
protect this end of the island and to reduce future dredging needs.
Staging and Access
We have been in contact with the NC Port Authority about the ability to utilize a portion of their
property for WAD® fabrication and for staging and loading during the restoration work. This is
the ideal location for this due to the close proximity to Sugarloaf, existing staging and industrial
property and deep water. The Port indicated that they have sufficient space at their facility to
allow for this. The concrete WADs will be poured and cured at the Port and directly transported
by crane to a barge that will deliver the structures to the Project Area where they will be set in
place. The Port facility may be utilized as a transfer station for the oyster sill/reef materials as
well, but it is more likely that the bulk of this material will be delivered to Sugarloaf by smaller
vessels. This is the same for the native plantings.
Signage
We are proposing to mark the location of the emergent WAD® system with yellow reflective
markers, and we proposed to install timber piles with reflective "Caution Submerged Structure"
signage in the general locations shown on our plan set. A detail of these markers is included on
Sheet 5. This is a typical sign that USCG has prescribed in the past. Solar lighting may be
included on the top of the piles. In addition, there will be educational signage, at least in the
SAV enhancement areas that informs the general public of the ecological benefits of SAV.
In addition to the navigation markers, the Applicant supports the NCDMF recommended signage
conditions for environmental education purposes (SAV protection, coastal wetlands and dune
protection, etc.).
Essential Fish Habitat
An analysis of Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) has been an important component of work to date
as we plan to restore and enhance habitat that has been lost or significantly impacted due to
erosion. As defined in the Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
(MSFCMA), EFH's are considered "those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning,
breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity".
The Fishery Management Plans of the Mid -Atlantic and South Atlantic Fishery Management
Council identify a number of categories of Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) and Habitat Areas of
Particular Concern (HAPC). While all of these habitat categories occur in this region, many are
5

Sugarloaf Island Protection and Habitat Restoration
Updated Project Narrative 4/5/2023
absent from the project vicinity. Impacts (positive and negative) on habitat categories potentially
present in the project vicinity have been discussed above. They include estuarine water column,
aquatic beds, estuarine emergent wetlands, oyster reefs and shellbanks, palustrine forested
wetlands, seagrass (submerged aquatic vegetation) and state -designated areas of importance
for managed species (SA-HQW). It is also known that many migratory finfish species utilize this
area and the presence of the above referenced habitats is critical for them.
Recent remote sensing work by Dr. Hannah Sirianni (Dept. of Geography, Planning &
Environment, ECU) at Sugarloaf Island suggests the following losses of important habitat at
Sugarloaf Island between 2014 and 2020:
High Marsh: 12.7% loss
Low marsh: 11.8 % loss
Shrub -Scrub: 12.7% loss
Please see attached published report (Appendix O) by Dr. Hannah Siriani, et.al. ("Quantifying
recent storm -induced change on a small fetch -limited barrier island along North Carolina's
Crystal Coast using aerial imagery and LiDAR") that was not included in initial CAMA Permit
submission since it had not yet been published. Recent observed erosion rates have been
observed to be equal or worse and we have visually observed several feet of erosion in many
places on the east, west and south sides of Sugarloaf over the past year.
All work proposed and described above in association with this project will have a
positive impact to EFH, with the exception of maintenance dredging of the eastern tip
of the island. As stated above, the dredging is proposed as maintenance to resolve
navigational safety issues. The proposed dredge area is withing the Federal Channel
and is covered under maintenance dredge allowances already. This area will be
excavated back to pre-existing conditions and is only anticipated to have short term
turbidity impacts to the water column. It is understood that there will be an in -water
work moratorium for dredging and likely for placement installation of the wave
attenuation system which should mitigate for short term turbidity impacts.
There would be no known impacts to aquatic beds associated with the project. As
previously discussed, there have been no SAV beds in the recent past and no clam or
oyster beds in the footprint of the proposed work. Oyster beds on the north side of
Sugarloaf will not be impacted or disturbed and areas where we are proposing the
oyster sill/reef system does not currently support oysters, presumably due to the
higher energy regime, the erosive movement of sediment and lack of proper substrate
The project proponent hereby certifies that all information contained herein is true, accurate,
and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief. And, the project proponent hereby
requests that the certifying authority review and take action on this CWA 401 certification
request within the applicable reasonable period of time.
0

DCM MP-1
APPLICATION for
1 5111;1`11
Major Development Permit
(last revised 12/27/06)
North Carolina DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
1. Primary Applicantl Landowner Information
Business Name Project Name (if applicable)
Morehead City Sugarloaf Island Protection and Habitat Restoration
Applicant 1: First Name MI Last Name
Mr. Christopher Turner, Interim Town Manager
......................................................................................... . . ......... . .
Applicant 2: First Name MI Last Name
Dr. Lexia Weaver, NCCF
If additional applicants, please attach an additional page(s) with names listed.
Mailing Address PO Box City State
1100 Bridges at. Morehead
rehead City NC
ZIP Country Phone No. FAX No.
28557 USA 252 - 726 - 6848 ext. :LJ - . . . ......
Street Address (if different from above) city State ZIP
Email
[e-mail]
2. AgentlContractor Information
Business Name
Quible & Asscoiates P.C.
Agent/ Contractor 1: First Name
Ml
Last Name
Brian
Rubino
Agent/ Contractor 2: First Name
MI
Last Name
Mailing Address
PC
PC Box
City State
870
Kitty Fiawk NC
ZIP
Phone No. 1
Phone No. 2
27949
252 - 491 - 8147
ext.
ext.
FAX No.
Contractor If
Street Address (if different from above)
City
State ZIP
8466 Caratoke Highway
Po ells Point
NC 27966-
Email
[e-mail]
...............................

Form DCM MP-1 (Page 2 of 4) APPLICATION for
............................ . . ............. . .......... __ ..................... .
3. Project Location
. . . ..... . ............... . ......... . . ............ . . . . . . .......... . ......................................
County (can be multiple) Street Address State Rd. #
Carteret None.- Island in Bogue Sound (downtown Morehead City) N/A
............................................ .
Mate lip
C
512
Subdivision Name City State Zip
N/A Morehead City NC 285=1 2 -
Phone No. Lot No,(s) (if many, attach additional page with list)
252 - 726 - 6848 ext.
...................................................................
a. In which NC river basin is the project located? b. Name of body of water nearest to proposed project
White Oak vogue Sound
. ........ ................ . ...... c. Is the water (body identified in (b) above, natural or manmade?
anade? d. Name the closest major water body to the proposed project site.
ONatural ElManmade E]Unknown lBogue Sound
e. is proposed work within city limits or planning jurisdiction? f. If applicable, list the planning jurisdiction or city limit the proposed
O Yes .]No
work falls within. ['..'
Morehead City
.........................................................................................
4. Site Description
................................................................
a. Total length of shoreline on the tract (ft.) b. Size of entire tract (sq.ft,)
7,743 ft 607,744 sq,ft, (13.95 ac)
c. Size of individual lot(s) cl. Approximate elevation of tract above NFIW (normal high water) or
NWL (normal water level)
(if many lot size;, please attach additional page with a list) 6 UNI-4W or EINWL
.............................................................................
e. Vegetation on tract
Uplands: Quecus virginiana, Juniperus virginiana, Morelia cerffera, 13accharis hallirnifolla
Wetlands: Juncus roemerianus, Spatina aiternaflora, Spartina patens, SchoenopIectus sipp, Distichfis spicata
f, Man-made features and uses now on tract
Public dock with floating platform (north side), bathroom with composting toilet, storage structure
g. Identify and describe the existing land uses ggicent to the proposed project site.
Marinas, restaurants, commercial businesses, public streets, parks and residential home sites.
_ ..................................................................... . . ... . .....
h. How does local government zone the tract? I. Is the proposed project consistent with the applicable zoning?
Floodpiain (FP) (Attach zoning compliance certificate, if applicable)
IMYes []No EINA
j. is the proposed activity part of an urban waterfront redevelopment proposal? O"Yes SNo
k. Has a professional archaeological assessment been done for the tract? If yes, attach a copy. ElYes No EINA
If yes, by whom?
..........................
I. is the proposed project located in a National Registered Flistoric District or does it involve a DYes No nNA
National Register listed or eligible property?
<Foirm continues on next page>

Form DCM MP-1 (Page 3 of 4) APPLICATION for
Major Development Permit
m. (i) Are there wetlands on the site? ElYes DNo
(ii) Are there coastal wetlands on the site? SYes []No
(iii) If yes to either (h or (H) above, has a delineation been conducted? ®Yes []No
(Attach documentation, if available)
............
n, Describe existing wastewater treatment facilities.
There is only one composting toilet and no otheir wastewater treatment.
.......................................................................... - -------- .................................... . .. . ....
o, Describe existing drinking water supply source.
None
p. Describe existing storm water management or treatment systems,
None
.............
5. Activities and Impacts
a. Will the project be for commercial, public, or private use? DCommercial SPublic/Government
[jPrivate/Community
b. Give a brief description of purpose, use, and daily operations of the project when complete.
The purpose of this project is to protect the island and assoicated shoreline from heavy, ongoing erosion and to restore
essential fish habitat. This will be a living shoreline project that involves an outer wave attenuation system and intertidal
oyster reefs. There will also be native plantings in the intertidal zone and upland areas. There is also minor dredging
proposed on the east end of the island that has migrated into the Federal Navigation Channel. Excavated material form the
east end will be incorporated back into the island above the mean high tide line,
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.
Barges with a crane, clumptrucks, excavator, s1kid steer, handitools
................................. ..........................................
d. List all development activities you propose.
All activities are associated with island protection and habitat restoration. The island is used recreationally, but perhaps
more imporatant, the island has protected adjacent properties and Town infrastructure from storms and normal erosion. The
island has suffered from rapid erosion at alarming rates. If nothing is done in the near future to protect this important
resource, it will be lost. The accompanying materials include exhibits documenting erosion in recent years.
e. Are the proposed activities maintenance of an existing project, new work, or both? New
f. What is the approximate total disturbed land area resulting from the proposed project? 0.82 E]Sq.Ft or ZAcres
g. Will the proposed project encroach on any public easement, public accessway or other area ®'des ZNo ONA
that the public has established use of?
............. ..........
h, Describe location and type of existing and proposed discharges to waters of the state,
None
i. Will wastewater or stormwater be discharged into a wetland? nYes E]No IMNA
If yes, will this discharged water be of the same salinity as the receiving water? []Yes E]No EINA
j. Is there any mitigation proposed? E]Yes 0No ONA
If yes, attach a mitigation proposal,
<Form continues ruin back>

Form DCM MP-1 (Page 4 of 4) APPLICATION for
- - . 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 property prepare the required items below.
...... . ......
a. A project narrative.
b. An accurate, dated work plat (including plan view and cross -sectional drawings) drawn to scale. Please give the present status of the
proposed project. Is any portion already complete? If previously authorized work, clearly indicate on maps, plats, drawings to distinguish
between work completed and proposed.
c. A site or location map that is sufficiently detailed to guide agency personnel unfamiliar with the area to the site.
d. A copy of the deed (with state application only) or other instrument under which the applicant claims title to the affected properties.
...............................
e. The appropriate application fee. Check or money order made payable to DENR.
f. A list of the names and complete addresses of the adjacent waterfront (riparian) landowners and signed return receipts as proof that such
owners have received a copy of the application and plats by certified mail. Such landowners must be advised that they have 30 days in
which to submit comments on the proposed project to the Division of Coastal Management.
Name Residence At 9th, LLC Phone No.
Address P.O. Box 2418, Morehead City, NC 28557
............
Name NC State Ports Authority (Aftn, Mr. Todd Walton) Phone No.
Address P.O. Box 9002, Wilmington, NC 28402
....................
Name Phone No.
Address
........................... . .....
g. A list of previous state or federal permits issued for work on the project tract. Include permit numbers, parmittee, and issuing dates.
CAMA GP 38035C, Town of Morehead City, issued 3/26/2005
....................................
h. Signed consultant or agent authorization form, if applicable.
L Wetland delineation, if necessary,
... . ................................. . .............
J, A signed AEC hazard notice for projects in oceanfront and inlet areas, (Must be signed by property owner)
k. A statement of compliance with the N.C. Environr' yi-ental —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
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 LA V; — A
Print Nametct""n
Signature ......................
Please indicate application attachments pertaining to your proposed project.
ODCM MP-2 Excavation and Fill Information EIDCM MP-5 Bridges and Culverts
EIDCM MP-3 Upland Development
EIDCM MP-4 Structures Information

Form DCM MP-2
EXCAVATION and FILL
(Except for bridges and culverts)
Attach this form to Joint Application for LAMA 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
(NLW or
Rock
Breakwater
(excluding
shoreline
NWLL_
stabilization
Rock Sill: 206
Length avg length:
it
WAD@ Sill:
195 ft
Oyster Table
3,520 ft
Sill: 2,344 ft
Rock Sill: 18
Width avg. width:
ft
WAD@ Sill:
104 ft
Oyster Table
18 ft
Sill: 5 ft
Avg. Existing 1 -2 ft NA
NA
Depth
12ft(Fed
Final Project Channel NA
NA
Depth controlling
depth)
1. EXCA VA TION 0 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. sand dominated
approx. 4,000 cu yds
c. (I) Does the area to be excavated include coastal wetlands/marsh
(CW), submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), shell bottom (SD),
or other wetlands (WQ? If any boxes are checked, provide the
number of square feet affected.
Elcw — DsAv DSB
OWL SNone
(ii) Describe the purpose of the excavation in these areas:
To remove material that has migrated into the Federal
Navigation Channel and has become a navigation hazard
d. High -ground excavation in cubic yards.
approx. 3,000 cu yds
a. Location of disposal area. b. Dimensions of disposal area.
Above MHWL on the island (see LAMA Plan for detail) irregular shaped largely unvegatated areas: 32,000 sci ft
(above MHWL)
c (i) Do you claim title to disposal area?
®Yes DNo DNA
(ii) If no, attach a letter granting permission from the owner
d, (i) Will a disposal area be available for future maintenance?
ZYes DNo EINA
(ii) If yes, where?
other upland areas on the island
e. (i) Does the disposal area include any coastal wetlands/marsh t (i) Does the disposal include any area in the water?
(CW), submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), shell bottom (SB), ®Yes No EINA

or other wetlands (WI...)? If any boxes are checked, provide the
number of square feet affected.
0CW ........................ nSAV TSB
OWL - RNone
(ii) Describe the purpose of disposal in these areas:
This will help replenish sand in areas that are suffering from
heavy storm erosion. No fill proposed in wetlands.
(ii) If yes, how much water area is affected?
------ - - -------- - --------- ------- - - - ----- - -------- - ---------
3. SHORELINE STABILIZATION [I This section not applicable
(If development is a wood groin, use MP-4 — Structures)
- -------- -----
a. Type of shoreline stabilization:
®Bulkhead SRiprap gBreakwater/Sill ®Other:
c. Average distance waterward of NHW or NWL WADS: 40 ft, Oyster
Tables: 15 ft, Riprap: 0
a, Type of stabilization material:
Concrete WA D@ structures, Biodegradable Oyster Tables, Rock
g. Number of square feet of fill to be placed below water level.
Bulkhead backfill N/A Riprap 0
Breakwater/Sill WADs.-_63 360 sg.ft. Other 0 star Tables:
11 720 sg.ft.
I. Source of fill material.
Hollow concrete WA DO structures that will be fabricted and oyster
reef media,
b. Length: 206 It
Width: WAD& 18-ftOyster Tables:
d, Maximum distance waterward of NHW or NWL WADs: 215 ft
NHW, Oyster"rables: 40 ft, Riprap: 0
f, (i) Has there been shoreline erosion during preceding 12
months?
ZYes 0No ONA
(!I) If yes, state amount of erosion and source of erosion amount
information.
4-16 ft (rate varies in different portions of the island (aerial
photos and in -person surveying)
lri. Type of fill material.
Hollow concrete WA D@ structures and rock. The bottom is open
(not a solid bottom and there are large openings for fish
passage and flushing).
- --------- - ---------
4. OTHER FILL ACTIVITIES JZ This section not applicable
(Excluding Shoreline Stabilization)
------------- - - --------
a. (I) Will fill material be brought to the site? 0Yes ®No ]NA b,
If yes,
(ii) Amount of material to be placed in the water
(Iii) Dimensions of fill area
(iv) Purpose of fill
(i) Will fill material be placed in coastal wetlands/marsh (CW),
submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), shell bottom (SB), or
other wetlands (WQ? If any boxes are checked, provide the
number of square feet affected.
[JCW EISAV - EISB
[ ]WL E]None
(!I) 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)?
An important part, of this project is to plant native herbaceous Barges with crane, durnptruck, skidsteer, excavator
vegetation. This will be planted in the intertidal zone in some
locations and in open bare sand areas,
c. (I) Will navigational aids be required as a result of the project? d. (I) Will wetlands be crossed in transporting equipment to project
SYes No EINA site? ['..".]Yes ®No E]NA
. . ..................... . ........... . . . . ....... .

(ii) If yes, explain what type and how they will be implemented.
There will be .several pilings (see locations on plan) with
reflective signage and solar lights on the top. This will be
coordinated with USCG to ensure that the type of solar lights,
signage and height of piles conforms with the appropriate
standards.
..... .............. __........... _......
....... ........... _.... w... _.
Date
Project Name
Applicant Name ( 6Zx, n g6kc F ASLt o° to a .
A
ppllcant igrwature
(ii) It yes, explain steps that will be taken to avoid or minimize
environmental impacts.

APPENDIX M

i
SLA(
m�
S1 ............. 10RU..I IN E
Sugarloaf Island Seagrass Monitoring Plan
A Coastal Resiliency Restoration Project
Contents
1.1
Year One SAV Restoration and Enhancement at Sugarloaf Island ...............................................
2
1.2
Seagrass transplanting..................................................................................................................
2
1.3
Monitoring....................................................................................................................................3
1.4
Sampling Design............................................................................................................................3
1.5
Physical and chemical parameters................................................................................................4
1.6
Discrete Water Quality Data Collection........................................................................................4
1.7
Continuous Water Quality Data Collection...................................................................................4
1.8
Biological Parameters...................................................................................................................4
1.9
Survival Rates................................................................................................................................5
1.10
Seagrass Frequency, Abundance and Density..............................................................................
6
1.11
Canopy Height...............................................................................................................................9
1.12
Shoot Density................................................................................................................................9
1.13
Epiphyte Cover..............................................................................................................................9
1.14
Permanent Archive.....................................................................................................................11
Relative
Abundance of Drift Algae............................................................................................................11
1.15
Photosynthetically Active Radiation (PAR).................................................................................12
1.16
Water Quality..............................................................................................................................12
1.17
Photo and Video..........................................................................................................................13
1.18
General Observations.................................................................................................................14
1.19
Data Analysis...............................................................................................................................14
1.20
Corrective Actions.......................................................................................................................15
1.21
Reporting.....................................................................................................................................15

1.1 Year One SAV Restoration and Enhancement at Sugarloaf Island
After installation of the WAD® system, prior to planting with SAV, the Site will be left to
naturalize for one year or more to allow the system to equalize and for new sediment accumulation
patterns to occur. This will allow for us to evaluate whether natural recruitment of SAV has begun
to occur on the lee side of the WAD® system. During this initial assessment period, SAV
monitoring will occur in the Spring and Fall and will include a thorough evaluation of SAV
presence and cover. The intent is to evaluate whether there is a significant positive trend in
seagrass growth without planting. As stated in the CAMA submission, this concept of evaluating
the natural recruitment potential for at least one year was recommended as a consideration by
resource agency representatives. Any net gain in SAV within the first year would be a successful
step towards providing a viable SAV habitat and will guide decision -making moving forward.
And, the project as a whole will be deemed successful in any year where there is a gain in SAV
and no loss of vegetated or unvegetated shoreline.
After year one, SAV planting will occur unless seagrass coverage throughout the project footprint
reaches at least 50% cover of an adjacent, reference seagrass meadow within a half mile of the
project site. This is not being proposed as a SAV mitigation project and there are no proposed
impacts to existing SAV resources, but, at least three years of thorough monitoring will occur as
prescribed in the CAMA Permit submission after planting. Therefore, there will be at least four
full years of monitoring total, including the first year of natural recruitment evaluation. If there is
a significant amount of natural recruitment at the end of the first year, it may be beneficial to allow
this to continue to occur prior to planting. Natural recruitment results after year one may also lead
project scientists to recommend SAV planting in certain areas, especially if SAV recruitment
displays positive results in some locations [i.e. sections of the restoration areas (east, west or south)
or specific stratified areas based on water depth or proximity to shore or the wave attenuation
system]. At the end of year one, we propose to meet with NCDMF and NMFS to discuss the
findings prior to the decision of when to start plantings. The project budget does include financial
resources not only for implementation of the SAV plantings, but also for SAV monitoring and
plantings for at least three years after plantings occur. We want to stress that SAV planting is in
the project budget and delaying planting over the first year or more is not due to lack of funding,
but is a step that will help to better understand SAV responses to creation of a wave -protected
publicly accessible navigable shallow water resource.
1.2 Seagrass transplanting
For the purpose of transplanting, viable seagrass vegetative fragments and seeds of the fast-
growing opportunist species (H. wrightii and Zostera marina) will be collected from the shoreline
11

(washed onshore) or floating wrack and transplanted for growth in a local nursery until ready for
out planting at the restoration areas.
Seagrass shoots with intact roots and rhizomes collected from the shoreline wrack will be gently
rinsed free of sediment and stored in mesh bags immersed in water, either in trays or coolers, and
planted into the nursery the same day. Planting units (hereafter referred to as PUs) will be
assembled once nursery plants are viable and will consist of several types. Staple units will be
created by attaching horizontal rhizomes and their shoots (vegetative fragment) to a 25 cm U-
shaped metal staple using paper -coated wire twist ties (Fonseca et al. 1998). Each staple PU will
have roughly 15-30 shoots with at least five rhizome apical meristems. Mechanical Planting
Units (hereafter referred to as MPUs) will be utilized for smaller plants that germinate from seed.
MPUs will consist of a single shoot and rhizome section inserted into a 1-inch Jiffy Pellet. These
units will be grown 30 -60 days before out -planting, allowing the small, fragile plants to become
pre -rooted. A combination of staple PU and MPUs will be planted by hand throughout the
project footprint by a team of marine biologists using small shovels or trowels when necessary.
Staple planting units will be installed at 2-meter spacing, and MPUs will be installed at 1-meter
spacing throughout the project footprint. Using multiple types of nursery -grown PU for this
project will help provide insight for best seagrass planting methods to be used in future
restoration efforts.
1.3 Monitoring
Monitoring of seagrass in the restoration areas is essential for evaluating the success of SAV
restoration efforts. The following sections outline a framework for a robust and scientifically
valid assessment of the success of seagrass natural recruitment and planting associated with the
Sugarloaf restoration project.
1.4 Sampling Design
In order to assess both temporal and spatial changes in the health and growth of the seagrasses at
the restoration areas at Sugarloaf Island a comprehensive suite of biological attributes will be
quantified. These include measurements of planting unit survival, seagrass species composition,
Braun Blanquet frequency, abundance, and density, canopy height, shoot density, and macroalgae
cover. Physical and chemical water and seabed properties will also be measured at each site to
provide an environmental context for any observed biological changes in the seagrasses at the
reference and relocation sites.
The following sections provide an overview of the main survey and monitoring methods that will
be employed throughout the restoration areas. These sections also detail the recommended
periodicity and frequency of sampling over a proposed 4-year monitoring period following.

1.5 Physical and chemical parameters.
The following physical and chemical parameters will be monitored at each site during each
monitoring event to evaluate environmental conditions in the seabed and in the adjacent water
column.
1.6 Discrete Water Quality Data Collection
Water quality will be assessed in situ using multi -parameter water quality loggers. The
instruments will be calibrated prior to each survey event and deployed to within 0.5 m of the
seabed at each site from a survey vessel. The parameters measured will include the following:
• Water temperature
• pH
• Salinity
• Turbidity
• Dissolved oxygen
1.7 Continuous Water Quality Data Collection
Water quality properties will be measured continuously at both relocation and reference sites using
fixed data loggers. These instruments will be deployed on the seafloor at the commencement of
the study and programmed to record water quality measurements at set intervals. The following
parameters will be recorded continuously:
• Water temperature
• Light intensity
1.8 Biological Parameters
The seafloor biota at each site will be quantified with 1 m2 quadrats collected by divers.
Supplementary photo -quadrats of the seafloor will be collected at each of the designated
permanent/random quadrats in the relocation site and in the reference site during each sampling
event. These photographs will be reviewed in the laboratory to verify seagrass survival and
provide a permanent record of the status of the seagrasses in the reference and relocation site.

1.9 Survival Rates
Recruitment of seagrass withing the project footprint will be assessed independently using a 1 m2
quadrat. A statistically valid proportion of the project footprint will be identified using a spatially
stratified random grid design to obtain uniform coverage of the sampling sites across the entire
relocation area (U.S. EPA Environmental Monitoring and Assessments (EMAP) hexes; see Fig.1).
Seagrass that occurs within sample sites will be permanently `tagged' and assessed for survival
over the duration of the 4-year monitoring period. Survival of these tagged plants will be assessed
by noting the presence or absence of healthy seagrass within the planting units (Fonseca et al.,
1998). For this assessment, the presence of a single shoot in the planting unit is taken as an
indicator of survival, as the single shoot indicates association with a growing rhizome meristem
(Fonseca et al., 1998.)
I

HEXAGONAL GRID
0
Figure 1: Example of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program (EMAP) tessellated hexagonal grid used in Florida Bay, FL, USA.
1.10 Seagrass Frequency, Abundance and Density
The coverage, frequency, abundance and density of each seagrass species, the total seagrass
community and macroalgae in the relocation and reference sites will be evaluated in 1 m2 quadrats
using the globally standardized Braun-Blanquet visual assessment method (Table 1) (Braun-
Blanquet 1965, Kenworthy et al. 1992, Fourqurean et al. 2001). At each sample quadrant, all
observed macrophytes will be visually scored and recorded. The cover -abundance score for each
species will then be assigned using the following scale with corresponding ranges of cover for
each score:

Table 1: Braun - Blanquet Score
Braun Blanquet Score
Cover
0.0
Absent
0.1
Solitary, < 5%
0.5
Sparse, <5%
1.0
Many, <5%
2.0
5% - 25%
3.0
25% - 50%
4.0
50% - 75%
5.0
75% - 100%
The use of this method will provide quantitative information on frequency of occurrence,
abundance and density for the seagrasses on a relocation -wide scale based on the following three
formulas:
1) Frequency = # of occupied quads - total # of quads,
2) Abundance = sum of B-B score values - # of occupied quads, and
3) Density = sum of B-B score values - total # of quads.
Year One
During the natural recruitment evaluation period, a statistically valid proportion of randomly
selected quadrats waterward of the intertidal zone out to the landward toe of the WAD units will
be identified using a spatially stratified random design to obtain uniform coverage of sampling
sites across the restoration areas (Fig. 1). The percentage cover of seagrasses and macroalgae will
be expressed as the midpoint of the range of the Braun Blanquet abundance categorical scores.
Years two to Four
A similar statistically valid proportion of randomly selected transplanted planting units (from
nursery stock) will be identified using a spatially stratified random design.

Figure 2: Photograph showing a surveyor using a 0.25m' Braun-Blanquet quadrat for seagrass monitoring.
From the Braun-Blanquet data we will obtain quarterly regional coverage (GIS map) of the
frequency distribution and abundance of seagrasses and macroalgae in the restoration areas, as
well as the extent, distribution, and vegetational changes associated with anthropogenic and non-
anthropogenic disturbances in the relocation and reference areas. An example of the summary
data for the project illustrates how these data are used to represent the spatial coverage of seagrass
density (Figure 3).
Figure 3: GIS map for seagrass Braun Blanquet density values. The map illustrates application of the
EMAP tessellated hexagonal grid sampling design. Darker green colors indicate higher seagrass density.

1.11 Canopy Height
Canopy height of the dominant species Shoal grass (Holodule wrightii) or Eel grass (Zostera
marina) will be monitored to assess temporal and spatial variability in above -ground seagrass
canopy structure across the reference and relocation sites. The maximum length of the seagrass
shoots (cm) will be recorded in 10cmxlOcm quadrats placed at the center of a representative
proportion of the Braun Blanquet quadrats sampled at each site (Fig. 4). All canopy height
measurements will be recorded and rounded off to the nearest 0.5 cm in situ by divers.
1.12 Shoot Density
Shoot density of seagrass will be monitored in 10cm x 10cm quadrats in concert with canopy
height measurements to evaluate changes in above ground biomass across the reference and
relocation sites. An assessment of the relative shoot density will be recorded in a 10cm x 10cm
shoot counting quad place in the center of each permanent Braun Blanquet monitoring quadrat
(0.25 m2 quadrat) (Fig.4). All shoot density measurements will be recorded in situ by divers.
Figure 4: Underwater photograph showing the measurement of canopy height and shoot density in a 10cm
x 10 cm quadrat.
1.13 Epiphyte Cover
Epiphyte cover on seagrass will be assessed using a visual estimation technique in the same 10cm
x lOcm quadrats used for canopy height and shoot density measurements. The health (signs of
disease, mortality events) of fauna and flora present within the study area will be noted during
field monitoring events (Fig.5). These field observations will inform a general assessment of
ecosystem health.

Table 2: Epiphyte Cover Scale
Scale
Description
1
Clean cover
2
Light Cover
3
Moderate Cover
4
Heavy Cover
Figure 5: Underwater photograph showing different epiphyte cover of seagrass each with respective scale.

1.14 Permanent Archive
Video recordings of the seafloor along longitudinal transects in the restoration areas will also be
collected during each monitoring period. These recordings will be electronically archived and will
serve as a permanent reference to support the analyses and interpretation of the survey data.
Relative Abundance of Drift Algae
Relative abundance of drift algae will be assessed to see if the presence of drift algae will have
any impacts to the growth of the transplanted seagrass. This parameter will be estimated per
monitoring event inside the 1 in quad in all monitoring and reference stations. The algal
percentage cover standards presented in Figure 6 will be used for the visual estimates.
« «:
Figure 6: Algal photo percent cover standardized values developed by Seagrass Watch, Australia and will
be used by Sea and Shoreline to assess macroalgae cover.

1.15 Photosynthetically Active Radiation (PAR)
PAR is light energy in the 400 - 700 nanometer wave length range and is required for seagrass
photosynthesis and growth. Mid -day PAR values measured just beneath the water surface are
typically in the range of 3000 millimoles m-2. However, Sea and Shoreline will record
measurements of PAR from the top of the seagrass canopy approximately 40 centimeters from the
seabed at the monitoring and reference stations to determine if these sites are receiving sufficient
PAR to support seagrass growth.
Recordings will be taken on a monthly basis during the first year and bi-annual for the subsequent
two (2) years between 10:00 to 12:00 noon for morning readings and 12:01 to 2:00 PM for
afternoon readings during cloudless skies and relatively calm waters. AM and PM readings will
be taken on two (2) separate monitoring days. Five (5) measures will be taken sequentially,
separated by 30 seconds and averaged per station. Care will be taken to prevent casting any
shadows over the recording sensor.
Sea and Shoreline will monitor the PAR using Onset HOBO pendant temp/light sensor (Figure 8)
with readings in lux (lumen/m2) as unit of measurement. However, the standard conversion for lux
to millimoles will be done by dividing the lux reading by 54 to achieve the millimole m-2 reading.
Figure 7 : The Onset HOBO Pendant temp/light sensor used by SEA AND SHORELINE team
1.16 Water Quality
The water quality measurements will be taken from all monitoring and reference stations. Sea and
Shoreline will measure DO, pH, temperature and salinity using a calibrated YSI Professional Plus
multi -parameter probe that will collect data in situ between 10:OOAM to 12:00 noon simultaneous

with morning PAR readings (Figure 9). These measurements shall be performed on a monthly
basis but will be reported quarterly during the first year. For years 2 and 3 however, it will be
performed and reported bi-annually.
Figure 8: The YSI multi -parameter handheld instrument for taking in situ water quality measurements.
1.17 Photo and Video
The designated team photo/videographer will take a photo of every assessed quadrat with
corresponding label by using several units of Go Pro HERO3 HD camera installed on the frame
of the new multi -quadrat system developed by Sea and Shoreline. A video footage of one (1)
randomly -selected transect will also be documented by carefully traversing a transect tape laid
along the entire length of the monitored stations per monitoring campaign (Figure 10).
The photograph of each assessed quadrat will be used to confirm parameter estimates of the
observers especially the total percentage cover as well as to countercheck the survival rate. General
analysis of the video footages will be provided to back up the results presented especially on the
overall seagrass coverage, coverage of each seagrass species and other observable occurrences
which may affect the general health condition of the seagrasses and its environment along the
documented transects.

Figure 9: Sea and Shoreline monitoring team members documenting the assessed seagrass sods with Go
Pro HER03 HD cameras.
1.18 General Observations
During the course of the monthly monitoring, Sea and Shoreline team will also conduct visual
observations along the entire relocation and in the reference sites to determine any additional
factors that could possibly affect the planted seagrasses. Some of the factors that the team will
assess but not limited to are natural low tide events, recruitment of faunal species utilizing the
newly -established habitat, human activities near the vicinity like boating, fishing, wading,
crabbing and any additional activities by either the Contractor or the general public.
1.19 Data Analysis
Two-way fixed factor analysis of variance (ANOVA) will be employed to test for differences in
seagrass assessment metrics between the reference and relocation sites at the end of three years of
monitoring. In these analyses, each quadrat sample will be treated as an independent replicate.
Prior to conducting the ANOVA tests, homogeneity of variance will be assessed using Levene's
test, and heterogeneity removed where necessary using LoglO (n+l) and 1/(n+l) transformations.
Similar tests will also be applied to examine site and time related differences in water quality.
Pearson correlation analyses will be undertaken to evaluate the extent to which measured
environmental variables (i.e., light intensity, day length, temperature, salinity, pH, dissolved
oxygen and turbidity) are related to any differences in seagrass cover over the course of the study.
Sampling Frequency
A total of 14 sampling events will be conducted over a 4-year monitoring period. These are to

occur at the following frequencies:
• Baseline sampling of the restoration areas to be completed after setting of the WAD system.
• Monitoring for natural recruitment only for at least one year (two events- Fall and Spring)
• Post Planting- Monitoring of initial survival will be conducted at one month after completion
of a planting and quarterly thereafter for a total of four sampling events
• Any missing or dead planting unit (PU) will be re -planted to bring the survival to 100%.
• Quarterly sampling per year for the first year after planting (four sampling events).
• Bi-annual sampling for the next two years (four sampling events).
1.20 Corrective Actions
If the monitoring program does not show a trend toward the minimum acceptable recruitment rates
after one year post WAD installation, corrective actions will be implemented in order to rectify
the situation.
During each monitoring event, the Sea & Shoreline Team will assess obvious and potential threats
that may have reduced the potential for successful relocation and establishment. Observations will
be specifically focused on whether unsuitable methods may have been used to transport or install
the seagrass sods. Additional threats such as excessive sediment accretion or loss, elevated
turbidity, and third -parry actions (e.g., recreational or marine activities beyond our control) will be
assessed. If necessary, the Sea and Shoreline Project Team will make recommendations for
corrective actions that my increase the likelihood of success. However, implementation of these
actions is not included in this proposal due to the unknown nature and unpredictability of these
events. If needed from the threat assessment, we will work the Environmental Manager and/or
Project Engineer to determine what actions can be taken to mitigate the threats and develop an
effective Corrective Action Plan.
1.21 Reporting
A report for each monitoring period shall be submitted to the NCDMF not more than 60 working
days following completion of the relevant monitoring period and delivery of the complete data set.
Any comments or requirements issued by the NCDMF will be incorporated into a final delivery
to the client.
N

Monitoring schedule
Recruitment
Monitoring
Braun-Blanquet
Abundance
Shoot density
Video
Documentation
Year 1
180 days
x
30 days
x
Year 2 (Post -
Planting)
0 days
x
x
x
x
30 days
x
x
x
x
180 days
x
x
x
x
360 days
x
x
x
x
Year 3
360 days
x
x
x
x
x
Year 4
180 days
x
x
x
x

APPENDIX N

APPENDIX O

iii coasts
Article
Quantifying Recent Storm -Induced Change on a Small
Fetch -Limited Barrier Island along North Carolina's Crystal
Coast Using Aerial Imagery and LiDAR
Hannah Sirianni r,*, Matthew J. Sirianni 2, David J. Mallinson 2, Niels L. Lindquist 3, Lexia M. Valdes-Weaver4,
Michael Moody r, Brian Henry 5, Christopher Colli 51 Brian Rubino 6, Manuel Merello Penalver s and Carter Henne s
Department of Geography, Planning & Environment, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC 27858, USA
s Department of Geological Sciences, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC 27858, USA
3 Institute of Marine Sciences, University of North Carolina -Chapel Hill, Morehead City, NC 28557, USA
4 North Carolina Coastal Federation, Newport, NC 28570, USA
5 Sea & Shoreline, LLC., Winter Garden, FL 34778, USA
6 Quible & Associates, P.C., Powells Point, NC 27966, USA
* Correspondence: [e-mail]
Abstract: Barrier islands within sheltered environments are an important natural defense from se-
vere storm impacts for coastal communities worldwide. Despite their importance, these fetch -lim-
ited barrier islands remain understudied and their ability to withstand and recover from storms is
not well -understood. Here, we present a case study of Sugarloaf Island in North Carolina that
demonstrates the operational use of openly accessible LiDAR and aerial imagery data to quantify
synoptic habitat, shoreline, and volumetric change between 2014 and 2020, a period that encom-
Citation: Sirianni, H.; Sirianni, M.J.;
passes four hurricanes and a winter storm event. During this time period, our results show: (1) an
Mallinson, D.J.; Lindquist, N.L.;
Valdes -weaver, L.M.; Moody, M.;
11-13% decrease in marsh and shrub habitat, (2) an average landward shoreline migration of 2.9 m
Henry, B.; Colli, C.; Rubino, B.;
yr 1 and up to 5.2 m yr 1 in extreme areas, and (3) a net volume loss of approximately 9800 m3. The
Penalver, M.M.; et al. Quantifying
results of this study highlight the importance of storms as a driver of morphologic change on Sugar -
Recent Storm -Induced Change on a
loaf Island and have implications for better understanding the resiliency of fetch -limited barrier
Small Fetch -Limited Barrier Island
islands to storms. This work helps to enhance prerestoration data availability and supports
along North Carolinas Crystal Coast
knowledge -based decision -making regarding habitat change, erosional issues, and the efficacy of
Using Aerial Imagery and LiDAR.
nature -based solutions to increase the resiliency of a coastal community in North Carolina.
Coasts 2022, 2, 302 322.
https:Hdoi.org/10.3390/coasts2O4OOl5
Keywords: barrier islands; fetch -limited; LiDAR; aerial imagery; storms; change detection;
Academic Editor: Yannis
bio-geomorphology; remote sensing; nature -based solutions; coastal governance
Androulidakis
Received: 17 September 2022
Accepted: 25 October 2022
1• Introduction
Published: 14 November 2022
Barrier islands are highly dynamic coastal landforms that provide storm defenses for
Publisher's Note: MDPI stays neu-
o 0
roughly 10 /o of the world's open -ocean coastlines, particularly in the U.S., where 24 /o of
tral With regard to jurisdictional
the world's barrier islands occur [1]. While open -ocean -facing barrier island evolution has
claims inpublished maps and institu-
been subject to intense scientific study for nearly 180 years (e.g., [2-18]), barrier islands
tional affiliations.
that form within sheltered and fetch -limited environments such as bays, lagoons, and
sounds have received little attention or systematic research. In fact, they were an unrec-
ognized coastal landform until recently [14,15]. Termed fetch -limited barrier islands
Copyright: ©2022 by the authors. Li-
(hereinto fetch -limited islands), these islands are about six times more numerous than
censee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
open -ocean -facing barrier islands and, often, front estuarine shorelines with sensitive
This article is an open access article
community development [15-21]. As such, fetch -limited islands serve as important barri-
distributed under the terms and con-
ditions of the Creative Commons At-
ers for coastal communities that buffer them against intense wave action and other storm
tribution (CC BY) license (https://cre-
event impacts [22,23]. By the end of the century, coastal issues are anticipated to have
ativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
worsened as a result of spatiotemporally variable accelerated sea -level rise (e.g., [24]),
2022, 2, 302-322. https:Hdoi.org/10.3390/coasts20400l5 www.mdpi.com/journal/

2022, 2
303
elevated storm frequency and intensity (e.g., [25]), and increased coastal development
(e.g., [20]). Barrier islands will be particularly vulnerable to these factors, considering that
a 50% acceleration in barrier island retreat is expected due to a lagged response to previ-
ous sea -level rise [26]. It is therefore critical to better understand the spatiotemporal resil-
iency of fetch -limited islands to storms, particularly where coastal communities rely on
them as nature -based coastal defense infrastructure.
Fetch -limited islands have a complex evolutionary dynamic with storms. Intense
and/or prolonged coastal storms can subject islands to elevated water levels, wave runup,
and/or wave attack that exceed the island's ability to withstand prolonged erosion,
thereby causing them to disappear entirely [1,14]. Yet overwash, the storm -driven process
where sediments eroded from the beach and foredune are carried inland and deposited
into back barrier marsh environments, is typically the most important sediment transport
process responsible for fetch -limited island evolution [15]. During nonstorm conditions,
fetch -limited island morphology is predominately influenced by low -energy, locally gen-
erated waves and negligible aeolian inputs [15,21,27,28]. As a result, fetch -limited island
systems are thought to show little change during poststorm recovery periods, making
their morphology a product of storm events [15,21,27,28]. In comparison, during non -
storm conditions, open -ocean -facing barrier systems can be exposed to higher -energy,
nonlocally generated waves, such as those from further offshore or other ocean basins
[21,27,28]. As a result, open -ocean -facing barrier systems can experience cyclical post -
storm recovery patterns, where mobilized offshore bars are transported landward and
provide a sediment source for features such as dunes to reform following damage from
storm events [15,27-32]. Fetch -limited islands are thus particularly vulnerable to high-en-
ergy coastal storms if they do not experience a poststorm recovery period like open -ocean
barrier systems. However, recent work (e.g., [21]) on inlet barrier islands (a subgroup of
fetch -limited islands studied by [15]) in North Carolina suggests that over time, some
fetch -limited islands may fall into and out of conformance with the open -ocean -facing
barrier system poststorm recovery model. Considering the lack of studies and lack of
agreement between studies in the available literature, it is important to better understand
and monitor the spatiotemporal resiliency of fetch -limited islands to storm events.
Storm impacts on barrier islands are primarily a function of the combined effects of
storm -induced water levels, wave energy, storm duration, island morphology, and the
island's resiliency to prolonged erosion [33,34]. However, other variables such as storm
path, storm timing, and vegetation cover can also affect coastal responses to storms [35].
This relationship is conceptualized in the Sallenger Storm Impact Scale by four storm im-
pact regimes with increasing magnitudes of potential hazards [33]. These four regimes are
defined as swash, collision, overwash, and inundation. The swash regime is the lowest
impact level and defined where wave runup is confined to the foreshore and where no
net change occurs [33]. The next impact level is the collision regime where wave runup
exceeds the base of the foredune ridge or berm and results in net dune erosion [33]. The
overwash regime is the third highest impact level and is defined where wave runup over -
tops the foredune ridge or berm and results in net landward sediment transport and net
landward migration of the barrier island [33]. Lastly, the highest impact regime is the in-
undation regime where water level only is sufficient to continually submerge the barrier
island, resulting in net landward sediment transport over the barrier island in quantities
and distances greater than what occurs during overwash regime impacts [33]. The Bal-
lenger Storm Impact Scale can be used to reasonably predict the coastal response to storms
and explain aspects of the spatial variability observed related to shoreline and volumetric
change magnitude [36]. Since many fetch -limited islands are typically uninhabited and
unmonitored, quantitative historical information regarding their morphological change is
not readily available and may only be anecdotal in nature, if it exists at all [15]. Openly
available (e.g., NOAA's Data Access Viewer) remote sensing datasets, such as Light De-
tection and Ranging (LiDAR) and aerial imagery, therefore play a critical role in providing

2022, 2
304
accurate and reliable data for synthesizing historical change estimates and monitoring on-
going changes in complex coastal environments [15,37-41].
Here we present a case study that demonstrates the operational use of remote sensing
technologies to support knowledge -based management of coastal resources. The main ob-
jectives of this study are two -fold: (1) to further understand the influence of storms on the
bio-geomorphology of fetch -limited islands, and (2) to synthesize a remotely sensed
knowledge base for an ongoing coastal restoration project. Specifically, we use openly ac-
cessible LiDAR and aerial imagery data to quantify synoptic habitat, shoreline, and volu-
metric change on a fetch -limited island in central eastern North Carolina between 2014
and 2020, a period that encompasses four hurricanes and a winter storm event. This work
is unique and timely in that it (1) enhances understanding of the relationship between
coastal processes and the bio-geomorphology of fetch -limited islands, (2) contributes to a
larger multidisciplinary coastal governance project that combines efforts from private cit-
izens, governmental and nongovernmental organizations, and academia, and (3) en-
hances prerestoration data availability that supports knowledge -based decision -making
regarding habitat change, erosional issues, and the efficacy of innovative science- and na-
ture -based solutions to increase the resiliency of fetch -limited islands.
2. Site Description and Historical Context
The North Carolina coastal region comprises of -23 open -ocean -facing barrier islands
that cover -320 km of shoreline, as well as over 4800 km of estuarine shoreline comprising
coastal communities, back barrier marsh, and oyster -reef habitats known as the Inner
Banks [42,43]. Sugarloaf Island is a small, anthropogenically modified fetch -limited bar-
rier island (-14 ha) located in Morehead City, North Carolina, within a region called the
'Crystal Coast' (indicated by the red dot and green outline in Figure 1A). Sugarloaf Island
is situated landward of the developed open -ocean -facing barrier island, Bogue Banks, in
the eastern end of the Bogue Sound near its confluence with the Beaufort Inlet Channel
that connects the Sound with the Atlantic Ocean (Figure 1B). As early as 1888, modern
Sugarloaf Island was identified on nautical charts as a marsh island [44]. By 1913, the Is-
land is shown to have developed some subaerial exposure [45], which is likely due to
dredge -spoil deposition associated with the construction of an anchorage basin along
Morehead City's waterfront between 1910 and 1913 [46]. Dredge -spoil deposition would
continue to augment islands in this area throughout the 20th century. A portion of Sugar-
loaf Island was modified from spoils associated with Port of Morehead City navigational
improvements along the city's waterfront in the 1950's [46-48]. However, no additional
spoil deposition on the Island has been documented by the Army Corps of Engineers for
at least the past 35 years [48], and the island has characteristics of a natural fetch -limited
barrier island.
Contemporarily, Sugarloaf Island is bounded on the north and east sides by the Har-
bor Channel, separating the Island by approximately 100 m from the city's commercial
downtown waterfront and port areas. The western end of the Island is characterized by a
recurved sandy spit (i.e., West Spit in Figure 1C) that partially encloses a shallow back -
barrier lagoon and marsh along its northern -facing shoreline (i.e., Back Barrier Marsh in
Figure 1C). Moving to the east, the south -facing shoreline transitions to a rapidly eroding
sediment bank escarpment with dense woody vegetation (e.g., Morella cerifera (wax myr-
tle)). Past the sediment bank to the east (i.e., East Spit in Figure 1C), the Island is again
characterized by a sandy barrier ridge and spit with washover deposits and a back barrier
marsh dominated by Spartina alterniflora (smooth cordgrass). Within the back barrier
marsh, there are two tidal creeks that can segment the Island into three smaller islands
during elevated water levels. During higher -than -normal tides and storm conditions, this
area can experience overwash, as is evidenced by the presence of washover deposits. The
south- and southeast -facing shorelines along the East Spit are characterized by a thin
sandy shoreface with scattered patches of beach and dune grasses (e.g., Spartina patens
(salt meadow cordgrass)). On both the West and East Spit areas, previously buried marsh

2022, 2
305
deposits are exposed along the shoreline and are actively eroding away. Examples of the
different habitat types on Sugarloaf Island are shown in Figure 1D. Sugarloaf Island ex-
periences semidiurnal tides with a mean tidal range of 0.9 m (Beaufort, Duke Marine Lab,
NC —Station ID: 8656483). Sugarloaf Island's proximity to and parallel orientation with
the city's waterfront area provides the community with protection during marine weather
events and is critical to Morehead City's future resiliency.
Figure 1. Maps of different scales of Sugarloaf Island located in North Carolina's Crystal Coastal
region. (A) The location of Sugarloaf Island is indicated by a red dot. The dotted circle denotes a 60
nautical mile radius from the Island where hurricanes passed. Hurricane -best -track data obtained
from: https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/data/ (accessed on 25 October 2022), (B) 2010 bathymetry model
from TCarta Marine LLC, (C) RGB aerial imagery from 2020, (D) visual line of sight captured while
in the field in June 2022.
Anecdotally, the seaward shoreline of Sugarloaf Island experiences shoreline erosion
from wave exposure and currents that destroy vegetation and sweep sediment from the
Island into the water, thereby contributing to nearby navigational channel infilling and
water quality deterioration. This trend is shown in historical satellite imagery from 1984
to 2020, which shows the island contracting in the north, east, and west directions with no
visually noticeable recovery year over year [49]. Moreover, local reports document strik-
ing and accelerating morphologic and ecologic changes to Sugarloaf Island in association
with storms; however, to the authors' knowledge, the Island has never been formally stud-
ied and historical changes are poorly documented. In an effort to increase the resiliency
of downtown Morehead City, a partnership consisting of private citizens, governmental
and nongovernmental organizations, and academia was created to protect Sugarloaf Is-
land from continued erosion by implementing nature -based stabilization methods. These
methods include: (1) wave attenuation devices to reduce erosion, (2) aquatic and

2022, 2
306
terrestrial plantings to stabilize sediment and create habitat, and (3) living shorelines to
build saltmarsh and upland vegetation. In recognition of the economic importance of this
island as a tourist destination and coastal defense resource, the project was awarded USD
2 million by the North Carolina General Assembly in the state's 2022 budget. To support
the implementation of this project, remote sensing techniques were used to enhance
Sugarloaf Island's prerestoration data availability in order to (1) better understand recent
habitat, shoreline, and volumetric change in relation to storm events and (2) establish a
baseline dataset by which the efficacy of future restoration activities can be assessed.
3. Data and Methods
3.1. Data Availability and Description
At the time of this study, the best available openly accessible topobathymetric LiDAR
and corresponding aerial imagery were from 2014 and 2020 and are available through
NOAA's Data Access Viewer (https:Hcoast.noaa.gov/dataviewer/; accessed on 25 October
2022). Both the 2014 and 2020 topobathymetric LiDAR were collected between the months
of November and April, while the 2014 and 2020 aerial imagery were collected between
the months of January and April. All datasets are horizontally referenced to the North
American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83) and projected to the State Plane Coordinate System in
meters. Additional aerial imagery were available, but corresponding LiDAR collected
during the same year and season were not. Since wetland plant productivity and growth
is sensitive to small variations in elevation on the order of centimeters [50], LiDAR eleva-
tion is an important feature when driving a machine learning algorithm to classify habitat
[51]. For these reasons, the authors limited the study to the 2014 and 2020 datasets.
The 2014 and 2020 topobathymetric LiDAR were acquired using Riegle VQ sensors
and then classified as ground and submerged topography classes before the vendor gen-
erated 1 m horizontal resolution topobathymetric LiDAR DEMs. The vertical accuracy of
each DEM was assessed by each vendor using independent survey checkpoints. The re-
ported open terrain vertical Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) was 0.057 m for the 2014
DEM and 0.037 m for the 2020 DEM [52,53]. The 2014 and 2020 DEMs were vertically
referenced to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88) using Geoid 12B. In
this study, we converted the DEMs to local tidal datums of Mean Lower Low Water
(MLLW) and Mean Higher High Water (MHHW) using NOAA's open -source vertical da-
tum transformation tool, VDatum (https://vdatum.noaa.gov/; accessed on 25 October
2022). MLLW represents the modern lowest low-water mark, which allows us to identify
where land is dry daily. On the other hand, MHHW is the modern highest high-water
mark, and is used in this study as a baseline to capture areas inundated by storms. The
maximum cumulative uncertainty, which is the value from the transformation from the
International Terrestrial References Frame to a tidal datum, is 0.09 m for the North Caro-
lina coastal region (https://vdatum.noaa.gov/; accessed on 25 October 2022).
The 2014 aerial imagery was acquired with an Intergraph/Leica DMC sensor at a 0.35
m ground sampling distance and horizontal accuracy tested at 0.53 m [54]. The specifica-
tions for the 2020 aerial imagery included data acquisition with a Leica ADS100
pushbroom sensor, a slightly better ground sampling distance of 0.3 m, and horizontal
accuracy of 0.28 m [55]. Both the 2014 and 2020 imagery contained 4 bands (i.e., Red (R),
Green (G), Blue (B), and Near -Infrared (NIR)), but were not tidally controlled. Therefore,
we performed a quality assessment in a GIS by overlaying the transparent imagery with
the respective DEM relative to MLLW to determine any potentially submerged areas that
were dry at low tide [56]. The results showed that the 2014 imagery was collected at low
tide, while the 2020 imagery was collected near low tide. Since the images were collected
at similar tidal stages, they were considered suitable for further analysis as recommended
by other previous studies [56-61].

2022, 2
307
3.2. Image Analysis and Classification Workflow
In this study, we use a well -established workflow to segment and classify aerial im-
agery using object -based image analysis (OBIA) and the Random Forest (RF) machine
learning algorithm. OBIA is a technique used to recognize homogeneous objects in digital
imagery through image segmentation and classification [62]. The defined objects can have
varying shapes and sizes and can also incorporate spectral, textural, and contextual sta-
tistics associated with them to classify objects. RF is an ensemble classification technique,
developed by [63], that can be used to predict image classes based on the partition of data
from multiple uncorrelated decision trees. Advantages of RF include its speed, capability
to deal with complex relationships between predictors, ease of input parameter specifica-
tion, and accuracy of its classifications compared to other machine learning models
[64,65].
This study used an OBIA workflow in Esri's ArcGIS Pro v2.9.3, which consisted of
the following three main steps. In the first step of the OBIA workflow, the Segment Mean
Shift algorithm uses a moving window average to group pixels with similar spectral char-
acteristics into segments [66]. In the algorithm, there are three adjustable parameters: (1)
spectral detail, (2) spatial detail, and (3) minimum segment size. The spectral detail and
spatial detail parameters set the level of importance given to the spectral difference and
the proximity between features, respectively. Both parameters range from 1 to 20, with
higher numbers signifying greater sensitivity to slight differences between features. The
minimum segment size parameter is directly related to the minimum mapping unit (i.e.,
the smallest size that can be used to capture a feature), and segments smaller than the
minimum segment size are merged by the algorithm with their best -fitting neighbor seg-
ment. In this study, a spectral detail of 17, spatial detail of 15, and minimum segment size
of 20 were used as inputs in the Segment Mean Shift algorithm.
The second step in the OBIA workflow involved the use of tools within Esri's Train-
ing Samples Manager to create representative class categories and training samples for
each class and imagery date. Commonly, real-time kinematic global navigation satellite
system (RTK-GNSS) data of each class type are collected at the time of imagery acquisition
to aid in training. However, since no ancillary RTK-GNSS data were available for this
study, training sample objects were created for each class category and imagery year
through a supervised image classification scheme and a priori knowledge of the habitat
types on the island over the past several years. Class categories were based on four major
habitat types on the island: (1) high marsh, (2) low marsh, (3) sand, and (4) shrub (i.e,
those shown in Figure 1D). High and low marsh were differentiated by a combination of
RGB and false -color aerial imagery, DEMs relative to MHHW and MLLW, and a priori
field observations (e.g., Figure 1D). A total of 1272 training sample objects were selected
for the 2014 imagery and 952 for the 2020 imagery.
The last step in the OBIA workflow used Esri's Compute Segment Attributes tool to
extract analytical information for each segment within the image. In this study, six explan-
atory variables were extracted and included: (1) LiDAR elevation minimum, (2) LiDAR
elevation mean, (3) RGB band mean, (4) NIR band mean, (5) segment compactness (the
degree to which a segment is compact or circular), and (6) segment rectangularity (the
degree to which the segment is rectangular). The derived analytical information from each
image was then synthesized into object layers and used as an input into the RF classifica-
tion algorithm.
Esri's adaptation of the RF supervised classification algorithm, called Forest -based
Classification and Regression (Spatial Statistic Tools), can be used to train the models be-
fore making predictions on unseen data. Training samples are randomly split into two
datasets used to: (1) train and fine-tune the model's parameters used to classify the objects
(80% of the training samples) and (2) test the predictive performance of the model used to
generate the habitat maps (20% of the training samples). Based on trial and error, we used
500 trees in a forest where each tree included every one of the four habitat classes, a max-
imum tree depth that was data driven (set on the 500 trees and six explanatory variables),

2022, 2
308
and the number of randomly sampled explanatory variables used to create each decision
tree was set to two. For each year, a total of 25 model runs were carried out to determine
the most stable model based on the highest Rz value. To help reduce overfitting, training
time, and improve model accuracy, an automatic attribute selection was used for deter-
mining the relevant explanatory variables. The variables of importance identified for both
imagery datasets included the LiDAR mean and minimum elevation as well as the RGS
and NIR mean values. Once the models were trained, all training samples were used to
make predictions on unseen data that were used to generate habitat maps.
3.3. Habitat, Shoreline, and Volumetric Change Detection
Changes in habitat were determined by calculating the total area for each habitat
class category and calculating the percent difference between the 2014 and 2020 imagery.
By analyzing various accuracy and error metrics of the classified maps, we can assess their
suitability for understanding the relative composition of the major habitat types on the
Island between 2014 and 2020. The validation of the model's performance is based on ran-
domly selected independent test sample objects used to calculate the overall accuracy and
kappa value. The overall accuracy provides information on what proportion of the test
sites were correctly classified. On the other hand, the kappa value evaluates how well the
classification performed when compared to randomly assigned classifications, with val-
ues close to 1 indicating classifications are better than random. Classification accuracies
can also be examined from the map user and producer points of view. The user accuracy
represents the probability that an object classified as a known class on the map represents
that class on the true ground. On the other hand, the producer's accuracy represents how
well the training sample objects of the ground class features are classified on the map. All
these accuracy statistics were used in this study to assess the suitability of the classifica-
tions.
The shoreline is generally defined as the physical interface of land and water [66], yet
this definition is challenging to objectively apply due to the dynamic water levels at the
coastal boundary [56]. As such, numerous shoreline indicators have been used in the lit-
erature to define shoreline change through time (for a review see [56]). In this study, the
shoreline was determined through a tidal datum -based indicator rather than a visually
discernable feature -based indicator in order to increase objectiveness of our shoreline def-
inition [56,67]. Specifically, we used the MLLW tidal datum to define the land —water
boundary [68,69] in order to minimize tidal variation between years [70]. Changes in
shoreline were calculated using a common endpoint method, where shoreline rate of
change is equal to the change in horizontal shoreline position divided by the change in
time between the two shorelines [70-72], with positive values indicating accretion and
negative values indicating erosion. We calculated shoreline change rates at shore -normal
transects spaced 5 m along the shoreline. The 2014 and 2020 horizontal shoreline positions
from each transect were then used to calculate an annual rate of change. Consistent with
NOAA's Coastal Mapping Program standards, where imagery must meet a 1.5 m hori-
zontal accuracy at the 95% circular error confidence interval, we chose to remove all shore-
line positions with differences in horizontal distance less than 1.5 m [53,54]. This was our
minimum critical threshold for determining horizontal changes.
Morphological changes were quantified using the DEM of Difference (DoD) ap-
proach, a common method used in various morphological change -detection studies [73-
75]. In this study, we applied the DoD approach to the 2014 DEM and 2020 DEM to quan-
tify volumetric change. Since ground truth measurements were not available to estimate
spatially variable DEM error [73], we subjected the spatially uniform DEM error to the
Linear Error (LE) at a 95% confidence interval (RMSE X 1.96 = LE) [76] using the DEM with
the highest error, which, in our case, was the 2014 DEM (RMSE = 0.057 m). In this study,
the LE of ±0.11 m (0.057 X 1.96 = 0.11 m) was used as the minimum critical threshold for
determining vertical changes. We chose to remove all DoD grid cells within the LE of ±0.11
m. The remaining DoD grid cells were then used to estimate erosion (negative values) and

2022, 2
309
deposition (positive values) volumes and create a volumetric difference map and histo-
gram showing the distribution of elevation change across the Island. Given the synoptic
nature of this study, we use the Sallenger Storm Impact Scale to understand the cumula-
tive effect of storms on Sugarloaf Island's morphology and landscape composition be-
tween 2014 and 2020. This was performed by examining hourly wind speed, wind direc-
tion, and water level observations from a nearby (-2 km) tide station (Beaufort, Duke Ma-
rine Lab, NC —Station ID: 8656483) for each storm and topographic profiles extracted from
each DEM to infer impacted regions across the Island.
4. Results
4.1. Habitat Change and Model Validation
Maps showing the total habitat distribution for the 2014 and 2020 imagery are shown
in Figure 2A,B, respectively, with a table summarizing the important statistics below in
Figure 2C. Overall, between 2014 and 2020, high marsh and shrub habitat experienced the
largest percent change, both decreasing by 12.7% between 2014 and 2020. The low marsh
habitat also experienced a decrease during this period, losing 11.8% of its 2014 area. In
contrast to the other habitat types, the area predominantly characterized by sand in-
creased by 1.2% between 2014 and 2020. Another noticeable difference between the habitat
maps is the change in the shape of the Island, particularly the sand spits located on the
eastern and western ends. This difference is highlighted by superimposing a black solid
line parallel to the eastern and western extents of the 2014 Island in Figure 2A,B.
92
ov
N
200 w+ e
a Meters s
Habitat
2014 area (ha)
2020 area (ha)
Change (ha)
(C) High marsh IJ11),
2.8
2.4
—0.4
Low marsh IIIIIIII
5.1
4.5
--0.6
Sand
2.5
2.5
*0.0
Shrub VW
5.5
4.8
—0.7
Total
15.9
14.2
—1.7
Asterisk " denotes change of 0.01 ha.
Figure 2. (A) 2014 habitat map, (B) 2020 habitat map, and (C) table showing the percentage of habitat
decrease from 2014 to 2020. In the habitat maps, a color scheme was chosen where high marsh was
assigned olive green, low marsh was leather brown, sand was medium sand, and shrub was spruce
green.
As shown in Table 1, the overall accuracy of the 2014 and 2020 imagery classification
is similar, with values of 0.921 and 0.903, respectively. Based on the minimum overall
accuracy criteria of 0.85 set by the U.S. Geological Survey [77], these classifications are
acceptable. Additionally shown in Table 1 are the kappa values for the 2014 and 2020 im-
agery classification. Like the overall accuracy results, the kappa values between the 2014
and 2020 classification are also similar, with values of 0.895 and 0.876, respectively.

2022, 2
310
Table 1. Classification accuracies for 2014 and 2020 of Sugarloaf Island.
Imagery Date Overall Accuracy Kappa Value
2014 0.921 0.895
2020 0.903 0.876
A summary of the user and producer accuracies per -class for the 2014 and 2020 hab-
itat classification is shown in Table 2. For the 2014 imagery classification, the results show
that the user and producer accuracies are the same for the high marsh and shrub classes.
In contrast, the user accuracy for the low marsh class is less than the producer accuracy,
while the user accuracy for the sand class is greater than the producer accuracy. For the
2020 imagery classification, no classes had the same user and producer accuracies. In con-
trast to the 2014 imagery, the high marsh, low marsh, and sand classes have a user accu-
racy that is less than the producer accuracy, while the shrub class has a greater user than
producer accuracy. Overall, all user and producer accuracies are greater than or equal to
0.75, and the 2014 and 2020 imagery classifications were considered suitable, particularly
when considering all accuracy statistics that were assessed.
Table 2. Per -class accuracy for habitat classification of Sugarloaf Island. Where UA = User's Accu
racy and PA = Producer's Accuracy.
Classes
2014 Imagery
UA PA
2020 Imagery
UA PA
High Marsh
0.866 0.866
0.750 0.857
Low Marsh
0.937 1.000
0.818 0.900
Sand
1.000 0.750
0.882 0.937
Shrub
0.960 0.960
1.000 0.823
4.2. Shoreline Change
A more detailed map of the changes to the Island's shoreline is shown in Figure 3.
Between 2014 and 2020, the Island decreased in area by 1.7 ha from 15.9 ha in 2014 to 14.2
ha in 2020. Like the habitat change maps, the shoreline change map in Figure 3 shows
marked changes particularly on the eastern and western ends of the Island. Overall, the
shoreline migrated landward between 2014 and 2020 by 2.9 m yr-1 on average and up to
5.2 m yr 1 in extreme areas such as the western end of the island. Another area of noticea-
ble change is related to the tidal creeks in the northeastern portion of the Island. In both
cases, the tidal creeks are observed to elongate toward the south—southeast and become
more incised in the landscape. In general, the shoreline on the northern side of the island
showed little to no change in position over the study period.
N
.m-..-.j 2014 Shoreline w-s
200
2020 Shoreline o deters
Figure 3. Shorelines derived from object -based image analysis techniques, where blue indicates 2014
and red indicates 2020.

2022, 2
(C)
311
4.3. Volumetric Change
The DEMs generated from the 2014 and 2020 LiDAR data relative to MHHW are
shown in Figure 4A,B, respectively. Here, shades of blue indicate where beach and low
marsh habitat are inundated at higher high tide, while shades of green and brown indicate
areas with higher elevation such as high marsh and shrub habitat. Based on a qualitative
inspection of the DEMs, there are several areas on the Island that have had noticeable
volumetric change and are highlighted in Figure 4A,B by colored arrows. Highlighted by
the red arrow in Figure 4A,B, we see that in 2014, there was a small breach in the narrow
foredune just to the southeast of the tidal channel, but in 2020, the dune area above
MHHW had grown more robust in width and height, and the breach had been filled. To
the west and highlighted by the black arrow, we see a narrow foredune exposed just above
MHHW in 2014, but in 2020, overwash had created a channel cutting through the narrow
foredune.
2020 elevation
20�1114�shoreline t
N
Mum A mi 200 vvE
3.4 0 -1.08 o Meters s
Elevations relative to MHHW
10 3V3 1V !Jr Um
rn m co as co 0 as 3
a c c o 00 a Meters
O D O n
QS7 C'i r,^j C7 Q
O c? ® AAA
W v V )01
+1-0.11 m removed
Volume change from 2014 to 2020
(D) Net volume: (—)9823 m3
Adtd od vlr,Vl.a,ne,: (.,.) l5,°114- rut'
Ren,ioved volume: (—)25,7:37 ml
as 25
d� .�a��iaaauuuuu.ii pd.::: z� J1111111IIGini'iii ..
rirsn vTco r vasconcancomcNurn Meters'
cja NNN !, I cl a6 000�-
�-
Volume (based an 41,651values)
Figure 4. (A) 2014 DEM relative to Mean Higher High Water (MHHW); (B) 2020 DEM relative to
MHHW, (C) difference of DEMs (DoD's) where the 2014 DEM was subtracted from the 2020 DEM
and spatially uniform DEM error removed (+/-0.11 m) to reveal morphological change as erosion
(red negative values) and deposition (blue positive values), and (D) corresponding bar graph show-
ing elevation change distributions. Colored arrows in (A,B) depict features described in the text.
To provide a quantitative assessment of volumetric change as erosion and deposi-
tion, the differences between the 2020 and 2014 DEMs relative to MHHW were calculated,
as shown in Figure 4 by the map (Figure 4C) and histogram (Figure 4D). Erosion is shown
in red as negative values, while deposition is shown in blue as positive values. Overall,
between 2014 and 2020, the Island experienced a net volume loss of approximately 9823
m3. There are three distinct erosional patterns shown in Figure 4: (1) very little to no
change, (2) erosion without inland deposition, and (3) erosion with inland deposition. In

2022, 2
312
general, on the northern side of the Island, there is very little volumetric change detected
between 2014 and 2020, with some stretches in this area experiencing no detectable volu-
metric change. In contrast, areas generally oriented to the south and associated with the
sediment bank experienced moderate to high erosion without landward deposition, while
areas generally oriented southwest or southeast experienced moderate to high erosion
with landward deposition. Of the area that experienced detectable change between 2014
and 2020, approximately 61.8% experienced volumetric loss, while approximately 38.2%
experienced volumetric gain. A histogram summarizing the distribution of volumetric
change within the area that experienced detectable change between 2014 and 2020 is
shown in Figure 4D.
4.4. Storm Characteristics
A summary of the wind and water level characteristics of the storm events that im-
pacted Sugarloaf Island between 2014 and 2020 are shown in Table 3 in chronological or-
der. For this study, a storm was considered to be any 24 h period where at least 1 h of
tropical storm force winds (i.e., >17.4 m s-1) impacted Sugarloaf Island. Over the course of
the study, Sugarloaf Island received a total of approximately 22 h of tropical storm force
winds over four hurricane events and one winter storm event. On average, Sugarloaf Is-
land experiences gentle breeze conditions from the southeast with an average hourly wind
speed of 3.7 m s-1. Additionally, on average, the Island experiences approximately 0.14 m
of inundation above MHHW for 3 h per day. Generally, the storms fall into two categories:
(1) winds predominately from the west to southwest (e.g., Arthur, Matthew, Winter
Storm, and Dorian) and (2) winds predominately from the east to southeast (e.g., Flor-
ence). Of all storms, Hurricane Florence reported the highest maximum and average wind
speeds (i.e., 24.1 and 18.3 m s-1, respectively), duration of tropical storm force winds (i.e.,
13 h), maximum water level above MHHW (i.e., 1.12 m), duration of water level above
MHHW (i.e., 23 h), and magnitude of average water level above MHHW (i.e., 0.50 m).
Next, Hurricane Matthew and Dorian reported similar maximum and average wind
speeds (i.e., 20.0 and 10.5 m s-1 and 19.6 and 10.6 m s 1, respectively), duration of tropical
storm force winds (i.e, 3 h), and duration of water levels above MHHW (i.e, 11 and 10 h,
respectively). However, Hurricane Matthew reported higher maximum water levels (i.e.,
0.64 m) and magnitude of average water level above MHHW (i.e., 0.28 m) than Hurricane
Dorian (i.e., 0.41 and 0.23 m, respectively). Lastly, Hurricane Arthur and Winter Storm
report similar maximum and average wind speeds (i.e., 20.3 and 6.5 m s-1 and 17.5 and 9.9
m s 1, respectively) and duration of tropical storm force winds (i.e., 2 and 1 h, respectively).
However, Winter Storm reports higher maximum water level above MHHW (i.e., 0.49 m),
duration of water levels above MHHW (i.e., 6 h), and magnitude of average water level
above MHHW (i.e., 0.28 m) than Hurricane Arthur (i.e., 0.42 m, 4 h, and 0.17 m, respec-
tively).
Table 3. Summary of wind and water level characteristics of storm events that impacted Sugarloaf
Island, NC, between 2014 and 2020. Note that maximum hourly wind speed is reported outside of
parentheses, and average hourly wind speed is reported inside parentheses. Wind and water level
duration are reported in hours (h). Duration of water level >MHHW for the total study period is
reported in hours per day (h d-1) and is highlighted by the asterisk.
Hourly Wind
Duration of
Avg Hourly Max Hourly Duration of Avg Magnitude
Date Near Sugar-
Name
Speed (m s-r) Tropical Winds Wind Direc- Water Level Water Level
of Water Level
loaf Island
Max (Avg.)
>17.4 m s-r
tion >MHHW (m) >MHHW
>MHHW (m)
Total Study Period
24.1 (3.7)
22 h
1690 1.12 3 h d-1*
0.14
Arthur (H2)
4 July 2014
20.3 (6.5)
2 h
2370 0.42 4 h
0.17
Winter
7 February 2016
17.5 (9.9)
1 h
2540 0.49 6 h
0.28
Storm

2022, 2
313
Matthew
9 October 2016
20.0 (10.5) 3 h 2830 0.64 11 h 0.28
(H1)
Florence 14 September
24.1 (18.3) 13 h 1060 1.12 23 h 0.50
(H2) 2018
Dorian (H2) 6 September 2019
19.6 (10.6) 3 h 2270 0.41 10 h 0.23
5. Discussion
5.1. Morphological Indicators of Dominant Storm Impact Regimes
Our short-term (i.e., <10 years) synoptic investigation of two openly accessible, re-
motely sensed datasets reveals dynamic changes to Sugarloaf Island's habitat, shoreline,
and morphology between 2014 and 2020, a timeframe that encompasses the impacts of
four hurricanes and one strong winter storm on the region. The results of this study high-
light the importance of storms as a driver of morphologic change on Sugarloaf Island,
similar to other fetch -limited islands documented in the literature [14,15,21]. The locations
of four selected topographic profiles distributed across the island are shown in Figure 5.
In each of the profiles, blue denotes the topography in 2014, while red is the topography
in 2020. Changes in habitat along the profiles and maximum hurricane water levels are
also summarized in Figure 5. To contextualize the morphological changes to Sugarloaf
Island, refer to the summary of the wind- and water -level observations for the study pe-
riod, previously shown in Table 3. For reference, coastal terminology usage is consistent
with the standards outlined in [78].
Profile 1 (Figure 5A) was extracted from the western spit area of Sugarloaf Island,
where substantial changes to the Island's morphology were observed during the study
period. Minimal change in habitat type occurred along Profile 1, since this area was pre-
dominately sand in 2014 and 2020 (Figures 2A,S and 5A). However, we see a marked
change in the location of the spit area with its shoreline location having shifted to the east
by approximately 15 m from its original location in 2014. While changes in the horizontal
location of the western spit are clearly evident, the feature generally retained its overall
shape and appearance, which is consistent with [39]'s conceptual profile translation
model. Under nonstorm conditions, the 2014 and 2020 profiles are located within the in-
tertidal zone, both becoming inundated by average MHHW conditions for several hours
every day (Table 3). During storm conditions in our study, water levels were, on average,
2 times higher and persisted for 3.5 times longer than average MHHW conditions during
nonstorm times (Table 3). The pronounced landward translation of the western spit likely
occurs during high-water events that are accompanied by storm waves and is consistent
with impacts expected during overwash and inundation regimes on the Sallenger Storm
Impact Scale [33-35]. Given the low elevations in this area of Sugarloaf Island, it is highly
susceptible to storms where water levels and winds are elevated for prolonged periods,
such as Hurricane Florence. During Hurricane Florence, Sugarloaf Island experienced
persistent tropical storm -force winds, which coincided with prolonged elevated water
levels (Table 3). However, it is also important to consider the orientation of Sugarloaf Is-
land in relation to the average wind direction. For instance, the long axis of Sugarloaf
Island is oriented approximately west to east and parallel with the direction of maximum
fetch within the Sogue Sound. Storms that produce winds out of the west to southwest,
such as Arthur, Winter Storm, Matthew, and Dorian, could enhance wave heights on the
western side of Sugarloaf Island given the additional fetch the Island experiences from
that direction. It is likely that higher wave energies from the direction of maximum fetch
contribute to the observed landward translation despite the lower durations of tropical
winds and elevated water levels of the storms when compared to Hurricane Florence (Ta-
ble 3). However, based on our synoptic dataset, it is uncertain which storm metric is most
important for predicting future impacts from specific storms on Sugarloaf Island.

2022, 2
Profile 1
location
W,
N
(Profile 2
location
Profile 3
location
2019 image, sediment bank
314
12014 Ii'votii e Habraal Sand
2020 r'aAllle Habl at Farad
2.5
2.0
1.5
a 1, 0
a
0 6 Afth wk,
C ., s.. ...,.....�... .... .,,... ,. .... „.�. .. ,., ,i ... Dorian
� i}Qlir'Fdl..
._, 0.0 MHHW
CO
a -0.5
2014 w �„ 2020
1.0
d.t..�
-1.5
2022 Image, western spit 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Distance from 2014 shoreline (Meters)
2014 Pi cOfllle 11 leabitaat —{ Sand INNIONSURNEEIM
20201Piublllr, tl,DUU.at 1 Sand KI, m
2.5 2014
20 �
1.5 2020
mr 1.0
05 �a arr,ew
...... _ . AdP ux
s� .: ., ... Darden,
0 0.0 MHHW
Lij '0
-1.5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Distance from 2014 shoreline (Meters)
2Ol'I4 Pii aatale h i-atai11 at Sand miiiiiiii, ®� M ore' w„ m I
2020 Flicafile i-Wbit at Sand
2.5
2.0
1.5
� Matthew..., .... , .:, Arthur
0.0 MHHW
2014 2020
w -1'0 �
2022 imagle, washover fan 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Distance from 2014 shoreline (Meters)
2014 prrcrtiVa� V {rcabita t —
Sand
-
2020 4'cr,tulle Haka,tat
Sand
2.5
f 2.0
0, ; 1.5
�� 1'0
0.5
Matthew
Atthup
',t.
a 0.0
MHHW
'
7 /
-0.5
14 2020 n
_ 1 0
m
alitEd.hA,a
���IIIII�IIIWIII!!u'dVk -1.5
2019 Image, dune scarp 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Distance from 2014 shoreline (Meters)
Figure 5. Morphology change is shown at selected profiles where the 2014 shoreline is blue and the
2020 shoreline is red. (A) Profile 1 of western spit, (B) Profile 2 of sediment bank, (C) Profile 3 of
beach and foredune flattened into a washover fan, and (D) Profile 3 where waves cut back the dune,
forming a scarp. The water levels for the four hurricanes are also shown to match the color of their

2022, 2
315
tracks in Figure 1, as are 2019 images of sediment bank and dune scarp by Niels Lindquist and 2022
images of western spit and washover fan by Matthew Sirianni.
Moving to the east, Profile 2 (Figure 5S) was extracted from the sediment bank of
Sugarloaf Island, where substantial erosion occurred. Profile 2 shows a landward shore-
line migration of nearly 15 m between 2014 and 2020, which is similar to Profile 1. While
a clear change in horizontal position of the sediment bank was observed, the height of the
bank remained unchanged between 2014 and 2020. Under nonstorm conditions, the nar-
row foreshore is situated within the intertidal zone, with the sediment bank toe represent-
ing the intersection point of the profile with MHHW. The backshore is characterized by
the steep cliff face of the sediment bank that extends approximately 2 m above MHHW.
The dominant morphology of this area, a scarp, is indicative of a collision impact regime
on the Sallenger Storm Impact Scale. Scarping takes place when the resistive strength of a
sediment bank is exceeded by destabilizing forces, such as wave attack, via processes such
as sliding, notching, and slumping along failure planes [79-82,]. Considering the height
of the sediment bank (Figure 5S) and the water level record (Table 3), it is likely that the
sediment bank remains supratidal during storm conditions, which is also consistent with
the collision impact regime. Compared to other areas of Sugarloaf Island, the sediment
bank is heavily vegetated. Vegetation exerts a strong control on the resistance of the sed-
iment banks to erosion through above- and below -ground biomass [79-82]. As such, the
presence of toppled trees and exhumed root systems along the scarp toe are obvious evi-
dence of previous erosion and shoreline retreat events. This response was commonly ob-
served throughout North Carolina's estuaries following Hurricane Florence [83,84], and
is likely related to the prolonged and intense storm conditions exerted by Hurricane Flor-
ence on Sugarloaf Island (Table 3). Coincidently, foreshore vegetation plays a significant
role in dissipating wave energy [85,86]. The presence of foreshore vegetation (albeit dead
vegetation in this scenario) along the sediment bank may therefore exert a stabilizing ef-
fect and help to prevent future erosion during lower magnitude and shorter duration
storms similar to Hurricane Arthur. However, further work is needed to assess how the
presence or absence of toe -slope debris contributes to the Island's resiliency and storm
response.
The eastern spit shows some of the most striking changes observed in the study, par-
ticularly where the washover deposit is present. The extracted profile from this area (i.e.,
Profile 3 shown in Figure 5C) shows an approximately 15 m shoreline retreat and an over-
all flattening of the topography between 2014 and 2020. Under nonstorm conditions, the
2014 profile has a roughly 25 m wide supratidal exposure with a maximum height of ap-
proximately 0.25 m above MHHW. Immediately beyond the landward extent of the
subaerial dune, the topography drops sharply and then smooths out through the rest of
the profile. In contrast to the 2014 profile, the 2020 profile is flattened, fully situated within
the intertidal zone, and does not have any supratidal exposure. Given the low elevation
shown in the 2014 and 2020 profile, this area of Sugarloaf Island is susceptible to overwash
and inundation regime impacts considering the persistently elevated water levels during
the storm events of this study (Table 3). Unlike the other profiles shown in Figure 5, Profile
3 shows sediment accretion as thick as 0.5 m landward of the 2014 subaerial dune that
corresponds with areas that were classified as low marsh in 2014 (Figures 2A,S and 5C).
This pattern of foreshore erosion and back barrier marsh deposition is consistent with
overwash regime impacts on the Sallenger Storm Impact Scale. It is likely that Hurricane
Florence was a major source of overwash, particularly given the parallel orientation of the
tropical storm -force winds (Table 3) with the direction of washover deposit growth (Fig-
ures 4C and 5C). When coupled with elevated inundation time and inundation magni-
tude, the higher energy waves generated from tropical storm -force winds were likely suf-
ficient to mobilize the sediment landward. However, it is important to note that given the
synoptic nature of our study, individual storm impacts cannot definitively be quantified.
While sediment transported to the back barrier marsh contributes to annual marsh

2022, 2
316
accumulation and can enhance marsh growth [29,87-89], burial of marsh vegetation be-
yond the optimal depth of 0.05 to 0.1 m has been found to lead to plant mortality [83],
which, consequently, impacts island resiliency. Commonly, barrier islands experience
breaching and channel incision in response to inundation regime impacts [35]. For in-
stance, the 2014 profile (Figure 5C) shows the presence of a thin supratidal dune that is
continuous toward the eastern end of the Island (Figure 4A). In the 2020 profile (Figure
5C), we observe destruction of the dune and the creation of a breach that connects the
foreshore with the back barrier marsh via an incised channel (Figure 4B) that was not pre-
viously active in 2014 (Figure 4A). Furthermore, it is also notable that the breached area
corresponds to a tidal channel seen in the back barrier marsh, suggesting an antecedent
control on the position of the breach. The filled channel may extend beneath the barrier to
the south and offer less resistance to erosion than the surrounding cohesive marsh peat
platforms underlying the foreshore in other areas. A relationship similar to this was noted
with respect to the formation of Isabel Inlet on North Carolina's Outer Banks [16].
Extracted from the eastern extent of Sugarloaf Island, Profile 4 (Figure 5D) shows the
largest magnitude change in the horizontal location of the shoreline, where roughly 35 m
of shoreline migration occurred. The 2014 profile is convex in nature and characterized by
a sloped foreshore within the intertidal zone and a backshore with an approximately 60-
meter-wide subaerial dune up to 1 m above MHHW at its maximum. Comparatively, the
2020 profile is generally concave in nature and characterized by a wider and more gently
sloping foreshore within the intertidal zone and a backshore with a steep scarp and a berm
height of approximately 1 m above MHHW. As discussed previously in regard to Profile
2, scarping is an indicator of the collision impact regime on the Sallenger Storm Impact
Scale. In contrast to Profile 2, however, Profile 4 does not have extensive vegetation pre-
sent, as summarized by the horizontal bars above the profile in Figure 5D. The lack of
vegetation and its stabilizing influence helps to explain why Profile 4 experienced approx-
imately two times greater horizontal shoreline migration compared to the densely vege-
tated region of Profile 2 [79-82], since they were both subjected to similar storm conditions
(Table 3). Similar to Profile 2, however, the sediment that was eroded from Profile 4 seems
to have been lost to transport offshore or longshore, since there is not landward deposition
of sediment observed in the profile or in Figure 4C. Without the stabilizing effect of veg-
etation, this area of the island will likely experience additional scarping during future
storm events, shifting the shoreline further inland such as what was observed between
2014 and 2020. Loss of sediment from the Island not only impacts its future persistence,
but it also impacts the Port of Morehead City's navigational channels surrounding the
Island, since the sand is known to be infilling the channel on the Island's eastern end.
5.2. Implications for Future Restoration Monitoring
Due to growing concern over Sugarloaf Island's continued erosional issues, plans are
being made to increase the resiliency of Morehead City's downtown waterfront by en-
hancing Sugarloaf Island's capacity to (1) mitigate disturbances such as hurricanes and (2)
return to a predisturbance state. Commonly, structural hardening of the shoreline through
bulkheads, seawalls, and revetments is one way in which coastal communities have at-
tempted to address erosional issues [90]. However, these hardened structures can bring
about a number of negative side -effects such as loss of biodiversity, erosion and scouring,
reduced storm protection, and loss of ecosystem services [91-95]. Alternatively, nature -
based infrastructure solutions, such as living shorelines, have recently gained attention as
a method to increase coastal resiliency while limiting negative repercussions [92-95]. Liv-
ing shorelines work by harnessing the adaptive capacity of natural habitats, such as salt
marshes and oyster reefs, in combination with low-lying engineered structures, such as
sills and breakwaters, to stabilize the shoreline and restore critical habitat and ecosystem
services [92-95]. Since each restoration technique has its pros and cons, the Sugarloaf Is-
land project design aims to employ a hybrid approach that combines nature -based solu-
tions and engineered structures to enhance the Island's resiliency. This hybrid approach

2022, 2
317
consists of several living shoreline restoration approaches and includes offshore hollow
Wave Attenuation Devices (WADs), seagrass planting, oyster reef installation, and upland
dune enhancement. WADs may be able to reduce wave heights and stabilize the shoreline
position and volume of sand on the beach during storms, but this will depend on the Is-
land's coastal processes and underlying geology [96]. Seagrasses can provide additional
erosion control, habitat for economically important aquatic species, and carbon sequestra-
tion [97]; however, seagrass beds cannot be installed until sediment has gathered land-
ward of the WAD and wave -sheltered conditions are present. Oyster reefs complement
seagrass beds and provide habitat, water filtration, coastal stabilization, and fisheries,
which can enhance recreation, although this can be highly variable by location [98]. Up-
land dune enhancement through the planting of appropriate plants, such as Spartina pat-
ens, can help to stabilize existing dune features, adding to the sediment's cohesiveness via
above -ground and below -ground biomass and trapping aeolian transported sediment.
Assessment of similar designs demonstrates that marsh vegetation is established within
three to eight years, and sediment accretion and organic matter accumulation occur at
rates similar to or greater than natural fringing marsh [93,99]. However, the success of
these projects will vary regionally and are based on specific design parameters [100]. Con-
sidering that sediment from Sugarloaf Island is infilling the Port of Morehead City's nav-
igational channels, dredge spoils are a potential sediment source for new dune and beach
creation; however, periodic replenishment of the sediment will likely be needed [101].
Ideally, all of these approaches will work in conjunction with one another to stabilize the
island while also continuing to provide public recreational access to the Island for boating,
fishing, and beach -going. Short- and long-term monitoring of Sugarloaf Island is another
critical future component of the project since there is a distinctive need to understand the
efficacy of living shorelines and other restoration devices at different spatial and temporal
scales to improve coastal resiliency [94,95]. With the rapid advancement of small Unoccu-
pied Aircraft Systems (sUAS) (e.g., [102]), on -demand remote sensing devices are availa-
ble for high -resolution, real-time monitoring pre- and poststorms and long-term resiliency
assessments. Given that aerial imagery has a limited ability to measure bathymetry, future
work should consider coupling sUAS imagery data with nearshore bathymetric data, or
the use of a sUAS equipped with a topobathymetric LiDAR payload, for a more holistic
understanding of the coastal geomorphology.
5.3. Study Limitations
The most glaring limitation of this study is its synoptic nature, in that we are only
able to infer the cumulative impact of storms rather than assess specific storm event im-
pacts. For example, our dataset shows erosion over the six -year period of the study, which
we inferred to be related to episodic occurrence of hurricanes based on an interpretation
of the predominant morphological features on the Island. However, studies such as [21]
used sUAS imagery and higher -frequency surveys to capture a fetch -limited island re-
sponse to individual storms and identify a pattern of poststorm recovery that contradicts
the standard evolutionary model [15]. Our study was unable to determine if Sugarloaf
Island experienced any recovery period following the storms that impacted the area dur-
ing the study; thus, it is unclear if the Island conforms to the standard evolutionary model
for fetch -limited islands [15] or contradicts the model [21]. Yet, even with higher -fre-
quency surveys, repeated storms in quick succession can prevent or potentially mask a
recovery stage, which could thus lead to the misclassification of the Island's poststorm
behavior.
While LiDAR and aerial imagery are critical tools for monitoring coastal change, it is
important to understand their associated limitations. For example, timing available satel-
lite and/or aircraft coverage to coincide with pre-/poststorm comparisons can be difficult,
and factors such as weather conditions, sun angle, and water levels can negatively impact
the quality or comparability of the collected datasets [103]. Moreover, the datasets' spatial
resolution and geolocation error are important considerations, as changes in location and

2022, 2
318
elevation below that error threshold cannot be differentiated from noise in the data [21].
While the availability of openly accessible and reliable remotely sensed data is a great
benefit, it comes at a cost, because ground truth data for certain locations are often not
collected simultaneously. The logistics of collecting ground truth data simultaneously
with state or federal government survey campaigns can be complex. For this study, it
would have been best to collect RTK-GNSS data with corresponding attributes of latitude,
longitude, elevation, and vegetation species at hundreds of locations spread throughout
the Island. Since the Island is experiencing rapid change, it would be best to collect the
data for both dates being monitored, which can be labor intensive and expensive, since
the Island is only accessible by boat. This type of data could then be used to train and
validate a machine learning or deep learning model to better classify habitat and coastal
landforms [104]. Another use of this data would be as a correction factor for the LiDAR
DEMs, particularly in the marsh areas where LiDAR may not penetrate the vegetation and
thus overestimate the marsh surface [105]. Moreover, ground truth data would also allow
for each DEM's error to be analyzed spatially when calculating the volume of sediment
deposition and erosion on the Island [74]. This issue of collecting ground truth data sim-
ultaneously can be addressed with sUAS survey campaigns, which involves experienced
scientific pilots and data processing and analysis workflows [106].
In addition to the DEM error, future work should consider the transformation errors
when defining the minimum critical threshold for determining vertical changes. In this
study, we used the DEM's Linear Error (LE) at a 95% confidence interval (RMSE X 1.96 =
LE) [76] to define the minimum critical threshold to estimate erosion and deposition vol-
umes. Our estimates are likely overestimated because they do not incorporate the uncer-
tainty in datum transformations. It is best to consider the DEM and transformation error
when defining the minimum critical threshold.
6. Conclusions
In this study, we used openly accessible topobathymetric LiDAR and aerial imagery
to quantify synoptic changes to Sugarloaf Island's habitat, shoreline, and morphology in
response to storms between 2014 and 2020. Our workflow uses several proven data pro-
cessing and analysis techniques by combining OBIA to segment the images into homoge-
neous vegetation patches rather than pixels, machine learning to classify the landscape
patches into habitat types, and raster algebra to calculate areas of sediment erosion and
deposition. Our results highlight the overall impact of recent storms on the Island and
demonstrate that the Island's current morphology is a legacy of cumulative storm im-
pacts, which is consistent with other previous studies. In summary, Sugarloaf Island lost
approximately 1.7 ha of area and 9800 m3 of sediment during the study period. Although
this study is limited by its lack of individual storm impact quantification, it suggests that
if the current trend in storms continues, Sugarloaf Island may not recover naturally and
may therefore be susceptible to further inundation or rapid transgression and erosion.
Due to growing concern over Sugarloaf Island's dynamic erosion problem, a multidisci-
plinary coastal governance project that combines efforts from private citizens, govern-
mental and nongovernmental organizations, and academia was brought together to de-
sign and implement a shoreline stabilization project for future implementation. In order
to manage and monitor the project's success, the authors suggest that future work should
implement the use of sUAS and RTK-GNSS in seasonal and/or annual surveys.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, H.S., M.J.S., D.J.M., N.L.L., L.M.V.-W., M.M., B.H., B.R.,
C.C., M.M.P. and C.H.; Methodology, H.S.; formal analysis, H.S.; writing —original draft prepara-
tion, H.S. and M.J.S.; writing —review and editing, H.S., M.J.S. and D.J.M.; All authors have read
and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.

2022, 2
319
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable
Data Availability Statement: LiDAR and aerial imagery data are publicly available at:
https://coast.noaa.gov/dataviewer/#/; accessed on 25 October 2022). Wind and water level data are
publicly available at: https:Htidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/; accessed on 25 October 2022).
Acknowledgments: We thank the town of Morehead City, N.C., for its cooperation and support.
We thank the editors and four anonymous reviewers for their role in improving the manuscript
through peer review.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. Stutz, M.L.; Pilkey, O.H. Open -ocean barrier islands: Global influence of climatic, oceanographic, and depositional settings. J.
Coast. Res. 2011, 27, 207-222.
2. De Beaumont, L.E. Lecons de Geologic Practique; Bertrand, S.L.P., Ed.; Biblioteca Santa Scholastica: Subiaco, Italy, 1845; pp 221-
252.
3. Gilbert, G.K. The Topographic Features of Lake Shores; 5th Annual Report; US Government Printing Office: Washington, DC, USA,
1885; pp 69-123.
4. Johnson, D.W. Shore Processes and Shoreline Development; Hafner Publishing Company: New York, NY, USA, 1919.
5. Hoyt, J.H. Barrier island formation. Geol. Soc. Amer. Bull. 1967, 78, 1125-1135.
6. Dolan, R. Barrier Dune system along the Outer Banks of North Carolina: A reappraisal. Science 1972, 176, 280-288.
7. Godfrey, P.J.; Godfrey, M.M. Barrier Island Ecology of Cape Lookout National Seashore and Vicinity, North Carolina; National Park
Service Scientific Monograph Series, No. 9; National Park Service: Washington, DC, USA, 1976; p. 160.
8. Oertel, G.F. The Barrier Island System. Mar. Geol. 1985, 63, 1-18.
9. Davis, R.A. Geology of Holocene Barrier Island Systems; Springer-Verlag: New York, NY, USA, 1994; p. 464.
10. Hayes, M.O. Barrier island morphology as a function of tidal and wave regime. In Barrier Islands: From the Gulf of St. Lawrence to
the Gulf of Mexico; Leatherman, S.P., Ed.; Academic Press: New York, NY, USA, 1979; pp. 1-29.
11. Hayes, M.O. The Georgia Bight barrier system. In Geology of Holocene Barrier Island Systems; Davis, R.A., Jr., Ed.; Springer: Berlin,
Germany, 1994; pp. 233-304.
12. Riggs, S.R.; Cleary, W.J.; Snyder, S.W. Influence of inherited geologic framework on barrier shoreface morphology and dynam-
ics. Mar. Geol. 1995,126, 213-234.
13. Pilkey, O.H. Celebration of the World's Barrier Islands; Columbia University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2003; p. 400.
14. Lewis, D.A.; Cooper, J.A.G.; Pilkey, O.H. Fetch -limited barrier islands of Chesapeake Bay and Delaware Bay USA. Southeast.
Geol. 2005, 44, 1-17.
15. Pilkey, O.H.; Cooper, J.A.G.; Lewis, D.A. Global distribution and geomorphology of fetch -limited barrier islands. J. Coast. Res.
2009, 254, 819-837. https:Hdoi.org/10.2112/08-1023.1.
16. Mallinson, D.J.; Smith, C.W.; Culver, S.J.; Riggs, S.R.; Ames, D.V. Geological characteristics and spatial distribution of paleo-
inlet channels beneath the Outer Banks barrier islands, North Carolina, USA. Estuar. Coast Shelf Sci. 2010, 88, 175-189.
17. Mallinson, D.J.; Smith, C.W.; Mahan, S.; Culver, S.J.; McDowell, K. Barrier island processes and response to late Holocene cli-
mate patterns: Outer Banks barrier islands, North Carolina, USA. Quat. Res. 2011, 76, 46-57.
18. Fitzgerald, D.M.; Georgiou, I.; Hein, C.; Hughes, Z.; Kulp, M.; Miner, M. Runaway barrier island transgression concept: Global
case studies. In Barrier Dynamics and the Impact of Climate Change on Barrier Evolution; Moore, L., Murray, B., Ed.; Springer: New
York, NY, USA, 2018.
19. Cooper, J.A.G.; Lewis, D.A.; Pilkey, O.H. Fetch -limited barrier islands: Overlooked coastal landforms. GSA Today 2007, 17, 4-9.
https://doi.org/10.1130/GSAT01703A.1.
20. Neumann, B.; Vafeidis, A.T.; Zimmermann, J.; Nicholls, R.J. Future coastal population growth and exposure to sea -level rise
and coastal flooding —a global assessment. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0118571. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0118571.
21. Seymour, A.C.; Ridge, J.T.; Newton ERodriguez, A.B.; Johnston, D.W. Geomorphic response of inlet barrier islands to storms.
Geomorphology 2019, 339, 127-140.
22. Feagin, R.A.; Smith, W.K.; Psuty, N.P.; Young, D.R.; Martinez, M.L.; Carter, G.A.; LUCAS, K.L.; Gibeaut, J.C.; Gemma, J.N.;
Koske, R.E. Barrier islands: Coupling anthropogenic stability with ecological sustainability. J. Coast. Res. 2010, 26, 987-992.
23. Anderson, C.P.; Carter, G.A.; Funderburk, W.R. The Use of Aerial RGB Imagery and LIDAR in Comparing Ecological Habitats
and Geomorphic Features on a Natural versus Man -Made Barrier Island. Remote Sens. 2016, 8, 602.
24. Valle -Levinson, A.; Dutton, A.; Martin, J.B. Spatial and temporal variability of sea level rise hot spots over the eastern United
States. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2017, 44, 7876-7882. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL073926.
25. Paerl, H.W.; Hall, N.S.; Hounshell, A.G.; Luettich, R.A., Jr.; Rossingnol, K.L.; Osbum, C.L.; Bales, J. Recent increase in cata-
strophic tropical cyclone flooding in coastal North Carolina, USA: Long-term observations suggest a regime shift. Sci. Rep. 2019,
9, 10620. https:Hdoi.org/10.1038/s4l598-019-46928-9.
26. Mariotti, G.; Hein, C.J. Lag in response of coastal barrier -island retreat to sea -level rise. Nat. Geosci. 2022, 15, 633-638.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s4l56l-O22-00980-9.

2022, 2 320
27. Jackson, N.L. Wind and waves: Influence of local and non -local waves on mesoscale beach behaviour in estuarine environments.
Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 1995, 85, 21-37.
28. Jackson, N.L.; Nordstrom, K.F.; Eliot, I.; Masselink, G. "Low energy' sandy beaches in marine and estuarine environments: A
review. Geomorphology 2002, 48, 147-162. https:Hdoi.org/10.1016/s0169-555x(02)00179-4.
29. Baustian, J.J.; Mendelssohn, I.A. Hurricane -induced sedimentation improves marsh resilience and vegetation vigor under high
rates of relative sea level rise. Wetlands 2015, 35, 795-802. https://doi.org/10.1007/sl3157-015-0670-2.
30. Nordstrom, K.F. Cyclic and seasonal beach response: A comparison of oceanside and bayside beaches. Phys. Geogr. 1980,1, 177-
196. https:Hdoi.org/10.1080/ 02723646.1980.10642199.
31. Suanez, S.; Cariolet, J.M.; Cancouet, R.; Ardhuin, F.; Delacourt, C. Dune recovery after storm erosion on a high-energy beach:
Vougot Beach, Brittany (France). Geomorphology 2012, 139-140, 16-33. https:Hdoi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2011.10.014.
32. Houser, C.; Wernette, P.; Rentschlar, E.; Jones, H.; Hammond, B.; Trimble, S. Poststorm beach and dune recovery: Implications
for barrier island resilience. Geomorphology 2015, 234, 54-63. https:Hdoi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2014.12.044.
33. Sallenger, A.H. Storm impact scale for barrier islands. J. Coast. Res. 2000, 16, 890-895.
34. Wang, P.; Briggs, T. Storm -Induced Morphology Changes along Barrier Islands and Poststorm Recovery. In Coastal and Marine
Hazards, Risks, and Disasters; Shroder, J.F., Ellis, J.T., Sherman, D.J., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2015; pp. 271-
306.
35. Morton, R.A. Factors controlling storm impacts on coastal barriers and beaches -a preliminary basis for near real-time forecast-
ing. J. Coast. Res. 2002, 18, 486-501.
36. Stockdon, H.F.; Sallenger, A.H., Jr.; Holman, R.A.; Howd, P.A. A simple model for the spatially -variable coastal response to
hurricanes. Mar. Geol. 2007, 238, 1-20.
37. Liu, H.X. Shoreline mapping and coastal change studies using remote sensing imagery and LIDAR data. In Remote Sensing and
Geospatial Technologies for Coastal Ecosystem Assessment and Management; Yang, X., Ed.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2009; pp.
297-322.
38. Glennie, C.L.; Carter, W.E.; Shrestha, R.L.; Dietrich, W.E. Geodetic imaging with airborne LiDAR: The Earth's surface revealed.
Rep. Prog. Phys. 2013, 76, 086801.
39. Smith, C.G.; Culver, S.J.; Riggs, S.R.; Ames, D.; Corbett, D.R.; Mallinson, D. Geospatial analysis of barrier island width of two
segments of the Outer Banks, North Carolina, USA: Anthropogenic curtailment of natural self-sustaining processes. J. Coast.
Res. 2008, 24, 70-83.
40. Juel, A.; Groom, G.B.; Svenning, J.C.; Ejrnaes, R. Spatial application of Random Forest models for fine -scale coastal vegetation
classification using object based analysis of aerial orthophoto and DEM data. Int. J. Appl. Eart.h Obs. Geoinf. 2015, 42, 106-114.
41. McCarthy, M.J.; Colna, K.E.; El-Mezayen, M.M.; Laureano-Rosario, A.E.; Mendez-Lazaro, P.; Otis, D.B.; Toro -Farmer, G.; Vega -
Rodriguez, M.; Muller-Karger, F.E. Satellite Remote Sensing for Coastal Management: A Review of Successful Applications.
Environ. Manag. 2017, 60, 323-339. https:Hdoi.org/10.1007/s00267-017-0880-x.
42. Crawford, T. North Carolina's Final Coastal Frontier: Land Cover Change in the Inner Banks, 1996-2001. N. C. Geog. 2007, 15,
37-52.
43. Gharagozlou, A.; Dietrich, J.C.; Karanci, A.; Luettich, R.A.; Overton, M.F. Storm -driven erosion and inundation of barrier islands
from dune -to region -scales. Coast. Eng. 2020, 158, 103674.
44. United States Coast and Geodetic Survey. Coast Chart No. 147, Core Sound to Bogue Inlet Including Cape Lookout, North Carolina;
United States Coast and Geodetic Survey: Washington, DC, USA, 1888.
45. United States Coast and Geodetic Survey. Coast Chart No. 147, Core Sound to Bogue Inlet Including Cape Lookout, North Carolina;
United States Coast and Geodetic Survey: Washington, DC, USA, 1913.
46. Angley, F.W. Historical overview of Beaufort Inlet, Cape Lookout Area of North Carolina; North Carolina Department of Natural and
Cultural Resources: Raleigh, NC, USA, 1982. Available online: https:Hdigital.ncdcr.gov/digital/collection/pl6062coII6/id/l0345/
(accessed on 25 October 2022).
47. Evans, J.P. Plant Succession and Stabilization of Dredge Spoil Habitats in the Rachel Carson National Estuarine Research Reserve; NC.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Technical Memorandum: Washington, DC, USA, 1988.
48. United States Environmental Protection Agency; United States Army Corps of Engineers. Morehead City Ocean Dredged Material
Disposal Site (ODMDS) Site Management and Monitoring Plan; United States Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC,
USA; Fort Belvoir, VA, USA, 2020.
49. Google Earth Engine Timelapse. Available online: https://earthengine.google.com/timelapse/#v=34.716758,-
76.710594,11.973,latLng&t=3.23 (accessed on 15 October 2018).
50. Suchrow, S.; Jensen, K. Plant Species Responses to an Elevational Gradient in German North Sea Salt Marshes. Wetlands 2010,
30, 735-746.
51. Zhang, C.; Denka, S.; Mishra, D.R. Mapping Freshwater Marsh Species in the Wetlands of Lake Okeechobee using Very High -
resolution Aerial Photography and Lidar Data. Int. J. Remote Sens. 2018, 39, 5600-5618.
52. Office for Coastal Management. 2022: 2014 NOAA Post -Sandy Topobathymetric LiDAR: Void DEMs South Carolina to New
York. Available online: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/inport/item/48367 (accessed on 25 October 2022).
53. National Geodetic Survey. 2022a: 2019-2020 NOAA NGS Topobathy Lidar DEM: Coastal VA, NC, SC. Available online:
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/inport/item/66714 (accessed on 25 October 2022).

2022, 2 321
54. National Geodetic Survey. 2022b: 2014 NOAA Ortho-rectified Mosaic of Hurricane Sandy Coastal Impact Area. Available
online: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/inport/item/48588 (accessed on 25 October 2022).
55. National Geodetic Survey. 2022c: 2020 NOAA NGS Ortho-rectified Color Mosaic Hurricane Florence: NC, SC, and VA. Availa-
ble online: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/inport/item/66699 (accessed on 25 October 2022).
56. Boak, E.H.; Turner, I.L. Shoreline Definition and Detection: A Review. J. Coast. Res. 2005, 21, 688-703.
57. Nyandwi, N. Reassessment of the nature of beach erosion north of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Marine SCIENCE development in
Tanzania and Eastern Africa. In Proceedings of the 20th Anniversary Conference on Advances in Marine Science in Tanzania,
Zanzibar, Tanzania, 28 June-1 July 1999; Richmond, M.D., Francis, J., Eds.; IMS/WIOMSA: Zanzibar, Tanzania; pp. 107-120.
58. Nayak, S.R. Use of satellite data in coastal mapping. In. Cart. 2002, 22, 1.
59. Pugh, D. Changing Sea Levels: Effects of Tides, Weather and Climate; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2004; p. 280.
60. Shaghude, Y.W.; Wannas, K.O.; Lunden, B. Assessment of shoreline changes in the western side of Zanzibar channel using
satellite remote sensing. Int. J. Remote Sens. 2003, 24, 4955-4969.
61. Shaghude, Y.W. Coastal Impacts of Water Abstraction and Impoundment in Africa: The Case of Rufiji River. Final Report Sub-
mitted to START; OceanDocs: E-Repository of Ocean Publications; 2004. Available online: https://aquadocs.org/han-
dle/1834/187 (accessed on 25 October 2022).
62. Kumar, D.A.; Venkatanarayana, M.; Murthy, V.S.S. Object -Based Image Analysis. In Encyclopedia of Mathematical Geosciences;
Daya Sagar, B., Cheng, Q., McKinley, J., Agterberg, F., Eds.; Encyclopedia of Earth Sciences Series; Springer: Cham, Switzerland,
2021. https:Hdoi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26050-7-229-1.
63. Breiman, L. Random Forests. Mach. Learn. 2001, 45, 5-32.
64. Belgiu, M.; Dragut, L. Random forest in remote sensing: A review of applications and future directions. ISPRS J. Photogram.
Remote Sens. 2016,114, 24-31.
65. Zhang, C.; Mishra, D.R.; Pennings, S. Mapping Salt Marsh Soil Properties Using Imaging Spectroscopy. ISPRS J. Photogram.
Remote Sens. 2019,148, 221-234.
66. Comaniciu, D. Mean Shift: A Robust Approach Toward Feature Extraction Space Analysis. IEEE PAMI 2022, 24, 603-619.
67. Gens, R. Remote sensing of coastlines: Detection, extraction and monitoring. Int. J. Remote Sens. 2010, 31, 1819-1836.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01431160902926673.
68. Fisher, J.S.; Overton, M.F. Interpretation of shoreline position from aerial photographs. In Proceedings of the 24th International
Conference on Coastal Engineering, Kobe, Japan, 23-28 October 1994.
69. Woolard, J.W.; Aslaksen, M.; Longenecker, J.L.T.; Ryerson, A. Shoreline mapping from airborne lidar in Shilshole Bay, Wash-
ington. In Proceedings of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Ocean Service (NOS), US
Hydrographic Conference, Washington, DC, USA, 3 February 2003.
70. Office of Coast Survey. 2014. Datums and transformations. Available online: http://www. nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/csdl/ learn
datum.html (accessed on 25 October 2022).
71. Cowart, L.; Walsh, J.P.; Corbett, D.R. Analyzing estuarine shoreline change: A case study of cedar island, North Carolina. J.
Coast. Res. 2010, 26, 817-830.
72. Currin, C.; Davis, J.; Cowart Baron, L.; Malhotra, A.; Fonseca, M. Shoreline change in the New River Estuary, North Carolina:
Rates and consequences. J. Coast. Res. 2015, 31, 1069-1077.
73. Lane, S.N.; Chandler, J.H.; Richards, K.S. Developments in monitoring and modeling small-scale river bed topography. Earth
Surf. Process. Landf. 1994,19, 349-368. https:Hdoi.org/10.1002/ esp.3290190406.
74. Wheaton, J.M.; Brasington, J.; Darby, S.E.; Sear, D.A. Accounting for uncertainty in DEMs from repeat topographic surveys:
Improved sediment budgets. Earth Surf. Process. Landf. 2010, 35, 136-156. https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.1886.
75. James, M.R.; Robson, S.; Smith, M.W. 3-D uncertainty -based topographic change detection with structure -from -motion photo-
grammetry: Precision maps for ground control and directly georeferenced surveys. Earth Surf. Process. Landf. 2017, 42, 1769-
1788.
76. Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC). Geospatial Positioning Accuracy Standards, Part 3: National Standard for Spatial Data
Accuracy; US Geological Survey Report no. FGDC-STD-007.3-1998; Federal Geographic Data Committee Secretariat, Reston,
VA, USA, 1998.
77. Anderson, J.R.; Hardy, E.E.; Roach, J.T.; Witmer, R.E. A Land Use and Land Cover Classification System for Use with Remote Sensor
Data; Geological Survey Professional Paper No. 964, U.S.; Government Printing Office: Washington, DC, USA, 1976; p. 28.
78. USACE. Coastal Engineering Manual; Report No 110-2-1100; US Army Corps of Engineers: Washington, DC, USA, 2012. Available
online: https://www.publications.usace.army.mil/USACE-Publications/Engineer-Manu-
als/u43544q/636F617374616C20656E67696E656572696E67206D616E75616C/ (accessed on 25 October 2022).
79. Barbier, E.B.; Koch, E.W.; Silliman, B.R.; Hacker, S.D.; Wolanski, E.; Primavera, J.; Reed, D.J. Coastal ecosystem -based manage-
ment with nonlinear ecological functions and values. Science 2008, 319, 321-323.
80. Tiggeloven, T.; de Moel, H.; van Zelst, V.T.; van Wesenbeeck, B.K.; Winsemius, H.C.; Eilander, D.; Ward, P.J. The benefits of
coastal adaptation through conservation of foreshore vegetation. J. Flood Risk Manag. 2022, 15, e12790.
81. Phillips, J.D. Geomorphic impacts of Hurricane Florence on the lower Neuse River: Portents and particulars. Geomorphology
2022, 397, 108026.
82. Davidson, S.G.; Hesp, P.A.; Silva, G.M.D. Controls on dune scarping. Prog. Phys. Geogr. Ear. Env. 2020, 44, 923-947.

2022, 2 322
83. Walters, D.C.; Kirwan, M.L. Optimal hurricane overwash thickness for maximizing marsh resilience to sea level rise. Ecol. Evol.
2016, 6, 2948-2956. https:Hdoi.org/10.1002/ece3.2024.
84. Moore, L.J.; Patsch, K.; List, J.H.; Williams, S.J. The potential for sea -level -rise -induced barrier island loss: Insights from the
Chandeleur Islands, Louisiana, USA. Mar. Geol. 2014, 355, 244-259.
85. Sallenger, A.; Wright, W.; Lillycrop, J.; Howd, P.; Stockdon, H.; Guy, K.K.; Morgan, K. Extreme Changes to Barrier Islands along
the Central Gulf of Mexico Coast during Hurricane Katrina; No. 1306-5C; US Geological Survey: Reston, VA, USA, 2007; pp. 113-
118.
86. Dingler, J.R.; Reiss, T.E. Beach erosion on Trinity Island, Louisiana caused by Hurricane Andrew. J. Coast. Res. 1995, 21, 254-
264.
87. Hein, C.J.; Fenster, M.S.; Gedan, K.B.; Tabar, J.R.; Hein, E.A.; DeMunda, T. Leveraging the Interdependencies Between Barrier
Islands and Backbarrier Saltmarshes to Enhance Resilience to Sea -Level Rise. Front. Mar. Sci. 2021, 8, 721904.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2021.721904.
88. Cahoon, D.R.; Reed, D.; Day, J.W.; Steyer, D.; Boumans, R.M.; Lynch, C.J.; McNally, D.; Latif, N. The influence of Hurricane
Andrew on sediment distribution in Louisiana coastal marshes. J. Coast. Res. 1995, 21, 280-294.
89. Tweel, A.W.; Turner, R.E. Contribution of tropical cyclones to the sediment budget for coastal wetlands in Louisiana. USA.
Landsc. Ecol. 2014, 29, 1083-1094.
90. Dugan, J.E.; Airoldi, L.; Chapman, M.G.; Walker, S.J.; Schlacher, T.; Wolanski, E.; McLusky, D. Estuarine and coastal structures:
Environmental effects a focus on shore and nearshore structures. Treat. Estuar. Coast. Sci. 2011, 8, 17-41.
91. Riggs, S.R. Report No.: UNC-SG-01-11; Shoreline Erosion in North Carolina Estuaries. North Carolina Sea Grant Program Pub-
lication: Raleigh, NC, USA, 2001.
92. Gittman, R.K.; Popowich, A.M.; Bruno, J.F.; Peterson, C.H. Marshes with and without sills protect estuarine shorelines from
erosion better than bulkheads during a category 1 hurricane. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2014,102, 94-102. https:Hdoi.org/10.1016/j.oce-
coaman.2014.09.016.
93. Gittman, R.K.; Peterson, C.H.; Currin, C.A.; Fodrie, F.J.; Pichler, M.F.; Bruno, J.F. Living shorelines can enhance the nursery role
of threatened estuarine habitats. Ec. Soc. Am. 2016, 26, 249-263.
94. Gittman, R.K.; Smith, C.; Neylan, I.; Grabowski, J. Ecological consequences of shoreline hardening: A meta -analysis. BioScience
2016, 66, 760-773.
95. Polk, M.A.; Gittman, R.K.; Smith, C.S.; Eulie, D.O. Coastal resilience surges as living shorelines reduce lateral erosion of salt
marshes. Integr. Environ. Assess. Manag. 2022, 18, 82-98.
96. Stauble, D.K.; Tabar, J.R. The use of submerged narrow -crested breakwaters for shoreline erosion control. J. Coast. Res. 2003,19,
684-722.
97. Barber, E.B.; Hacker, S.D.; Kennedy, C.; Koch, E.W.; Stier, A.C.; Silliman, B.R. The value of estuarine and coastal ecosystem
services. Ecol. Monogr. 2011, 81, 169-193.
98. Grabowski, J.H.; Brumbaugh, R.D.; Conrad, R.F.; Keeler, A.G.; Opaluch, J.J.; Peterson, C.H.; Pichler, M.; Powers, S.; Smyth, A.R.
Economic valuation of ecosystem services provided by oyster reefs. BioScince 2012, 81, 169-193.
99. Currin, C.A. Chapter 30—Living Shorelines for Coastal Resilience. In Coastal Wetlands; Perillo, G.M.E., Wolanski, E., Cahoon,
D.R., Hopkinson, C.S., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019; pp. 1023-1053, ISBN 9780444638939.
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-63893-9.00030-7.
100. Bilkovic, D.M.; Mitchell, M.; Mason, P.; Duhring, K. The role of living shorelines as estuarine habitat conservation strategies.
Coast. Manag. 2016, 44, 161-174.
101. Duhring, K. Overview of Living Shoreline Design Options for Erosion Protection on Tidal Shorelines; VIMS Books and Book Chapters
123; Chesapeake Research Consortium: Edgewater, MD, USA, 2008. Available online: https:Hscholarworks.wm.edu/vims-
books/126 (accessed on 25 October 2022).
102. Tmusic, G.; Salvator, M.; Helge, A.; James, M.R.; Goncalves, G.; Ben-Dor, E.; Brook, A.; Polinova, M.; Arranz, J.J.; Meszaros, J.;
et al. Current practices in UAS-based environmental monitoring. Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 1001.
103. Tysiac, P. Bringing bathymetry LiDAR to coastal zone assessment: A case study in the Southern Baltic. Remote Sens. 2020, 12,
3740.
104. Lamba, A.; Cassey, P.; Segaran, R.R.; Lian, P. Deep learning for environmental conservation. Curr. Biol. 2019, 29, R977—R982.
105. Cooper, H.; Zhang, C.; Davis, S.; Troxler, T. Object -based correction of LiDAR DEMs using RTK-GPS data and machine learning
modeling in the Coastal Everglades. Env. Mod. Soft. 2019, 112, 179-191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2018.11.003.
106. Guan, S.; Sirianni, H.; Wang, G.; Zhu, Z. sUAS monitoring of coastal environments: A review of best practices from field to lab.
Drones 2022, 6, 142; https://doi.org/10.3390/drones6060142.

�.'. �,' j i
J. I!.,
March 16, 2023
The Honorable Elizabeth S. Biser
Secretary of North Carolina
Departi,nent of Environmental Quality
217 West,lones Street
Raleigh, W 27603
,
((c�r,fld /%- h,)t1cs Jr , T11vlayor
Re: Letter of Support for g)`Ugarloaflsland Livirig Shoreline Restoration Project
Honorable Secretary Biser,
This letter is to express Support F01- thC' SUgarloaf Wand Living Shoreline Restoratiori.
Project on behalf of [tie '['own of Morehead City. SLIgarloaf island is a critical natural barrier
system for Morehead City and the keystone to our aquatic, recreational, and parks infrastructure,
Since its conservatiori purchase over two decades ago, Sugarloaf Island has experienced
rapid deterioration of its shoreline fil-011i erosion. By restoring the islands' natural shoreline, thc
fragile ecological systeni rr.kay be re-establishcd protecting both Morehead City"s vibrant
downtown area as well as Sugarloaf Island's natural ecological and shorebird habitat.
Morehead City and its citizens have long been advocates and unwavering stewards of our
great state's natural aquatic and ecological resources, The Sugarloaf Island Living Shoreline
Restoration Prqject benefits all North Carolinians and aligns with the NC Coastal Habitat
Protection flan (CI- PP) as a strategic tool to erdiance habitat protection efforts. Specifically,, this
project carries a stabilization and design fea:[ur(-.,, that, places a sill structure in((.) the water,
supporting the enhancement of coastal fisheries through habitat protection on Sugarloaf Island.
To rnaintain our commitment, Morehead City will include sig nag as you have
recornryiended, to clearly mark the sills for safe water navigation purposes and to prominently
inform the public of the CD.Virorn-iiental restoration work that includes the submerged aquatic
vegetation restoration areas, coastal wetlands, dunes, and coastal maritin-ie forest, Morehead City
is working closely with a. tearn. dedicated to saving Sugarloaf Island, whic.1-1 includes an
environmental consultant and associates, an aquatic restoration agency, and the NC Coastal
Federation,
On beliall'of our citizens, we strongly implore you and other regulatory agencies to permit
this project as soon as possible so that all restoration efforts rnay begin and the rapid deterioration
of Sugarloaf Island's natural barrier and ecological systern can be halted.
1 f r 0 r i dt-�, 's ,,4orc,hcad 28,1157-42'34�
P (2 ", 2) /`2" 6 - 0 84,8, � "'x [ I 11) 1 x ('2, 5 2) 221 21 0 �1, i ira y no s (i 1� I a o I c L, f. V rI o I
Ica d ci 11c, � xn Y

Sincerely,
Ger A. "Jerry" Jones, Jr.
Mayor, Morehead City North Carolina
m Senator Norman Sanderson.. NC Senate
Representative Celeste Cairns, NC House of Representatives
Morehead City 'town Council
Dr. Lexia Weaver., NC Coastal Federation
Brian Rubino, Sea and Shoreline Aquatic Restoration

��,�nrorsvuocsau suciavxaaxv xo�aacoxa3a� w
Q�r��sr a�o�x�ons
z I n
4 m V+�
,L�gHS S'IIdZffQ

k- Kg"
HOW NOIIVUOISI'd IVIIUVH8
z p4l
NOLDI 'ddaNvisijvouvDns
133H lIV13G
dwma
SAS
PO
�4
CO
2
16