Avon BA-July2021

— THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK —

AVON VILLAGE BEACH NOURISHMENT
DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
CAPE HATTERAS NATIONAL SEASHORE
JULY 2021

Prepared for:
US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS-WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Washington NC Field Office
2407 West 5th Street
Washington, NC 27889
910.251.4615

and
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE – US DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR
Cape Hatteras National Seashore
1401 National Park Drive
Manteo, NC 27954
252.472.2111

Prepared by:
CZR Incorporated
4709 College Acres Drive, Suite 2
Wilmington, NC 28412
910.392.9253

and

Coastal Science & Engineering, Inc.
160 Gills Creek Parkway
Columbia, SC 29209
803.799.8949

— THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK —
CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] i Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Purpose of this Biological Assessment (BA) ............................................................................................................... 6
1.2 Current NPS Management Direction ........................................................................................................................ 11
2.0 CONSULTATION HISTORY ............................................................................................................................................... 12
3.0 PROPOSED MANAGEMENT ACTIONS AND ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED .............................................................. 13
3.1 Plan Formulation ....................................................................................................................................................... 13
3.2 Historical and Recent Erosion Rates ........................................................................................................................ 15
3.3 Beach Condition Survey in July 2020, Volumetric Analysis, and Project Formulation .................................................. 15
3.4 Alternatives ............................................................................................................................................................... 16
3.4.1 Project Description ........................................................................................................................................ 19
3.4.2 Sediment Quality and Compatibility .............................................................................................................. 21
3.4.3 Cultural Resources Study in the Borrow Area ............................................................................................... 26
3.4.4 Dune Management Plan ............................................................................................................................... 26
3.4.5 Methods of Construction ............................................................................................................................... 27
3.4.6 Alternative 3-Summer Construction (Applicant’s Proposed Action) .............................................................. 28
3.5 Additional Details of Applicant-Proposed Action (Alternative 3-Summer Construction) ........................................... 30
4.0 PROPOSED PROJECT AREA DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................................. 39
5.0 PRE-FIELD REVIEW ........................................................................................................................................................... 45
6.0 PROTECTED SPECIES CONSIDERED AND EVALUATED ............................................................................................. 45
7.0 EVALUATED PROTECTED SPECIES INFORMATION FROM SEASHORE SURVEYS .................................................. 51
7.1 Field Reconnaissance .............................................................................................................................................. 51
7.2 Status and Biology of Species with Federal ESA Protection .................................................................................... 53
7.2.1 Birds .............................................................................................................................................................. 53
7.2.2 Reptiles ......................................................................................................................................................... 63
7.2.3 Mammals ....................................................................................................................................................... 76
7.2.4 Fish ............................................................................................................................................................... 87
7.2.5 Plants ............................................................................................................................................................ 95
8.0 STATUS AND BIOLOGY OF SPECIES WITH OTHER FEDERAL AND STATE PROTECTION .................................... 101
8.1 Marine Mammals .................................................................................................................................................... 101
8.1.1 Atlantic Spotted Dolphin (Stenella frontalis) ................................................................................................ 104
8.1.2 Short-beaked Common Dolphin (Delphinus delphis) .................................................................................. 105
8.1.3 Common Bottlenose Dolphin (Tursiops truncatus truncatus) ...................................................................... 107
8.1.4 Short-finned Pilot Whale (Globicephala macrorhnchus) ............................................................................. 109
8.2 Colonial Waterbirds, Other Shorebirds, and Birds of Prey ..................................................................................... 111
8.2.1 Wilson’s Plover (Charadrius wilsonia wilsonia) ........................................................................................... 111
8.2.2 Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus) ........................................................................................................... 112
8.2.3 Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucoephalus) ........................................................................................................ 114
8.2.4 Caspian Tern (Hydroprogrogne caspia) ...................................................................................................... 115
8.2.5 Gull-billed Tern (Gelochelidon niloctia) ....................................................................................................... 115
8.2.6 Least Tern (Sternula antillarum) .................................................................................................................. 117
8.2.7 Common Tern (Sternula hirundo) ............................................................................................................... 118
8.2.8 Black Skimmer (Ryhnchops niger) .............................................................................................................. 120
8.2.9 American Oystercatcher (Haematopus palliates) ........................................................................................ 121
8.3 Reptiles ................................................................................................................................................................... 123
8.3.1 Diamondback Terrapin (Malaclemys terrapin) ............................................................................................ 123
8.4 Plants ...................................................................................................................................................................... 124
8.4.1 Seabeach Knotweed (Polygonum glaucum) ............................................................................................... 124
CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] ii Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina
8.5 State Natural Areas ................................................................................................................................................ 125
9.0 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE ........................................................................................................................................ 127
9.1 Previous Consultation with USFWS within the Analysis Area ................................................................................ 127
9.2 Past and Current Activities within the Analysis Area .............................................................................................. 127
9.2.1 Dune Reconstruction and Management ...................................................................................................... 128
9.2.2 Beach Nourishment ..................................................................................................................................... 129
9.2.3 Highway NC 12 ........................................................................................................................................... 131
9.2.4 Oregon Inlet Dredging ................................................................................................................................. 132
10.0 EFFECTS TO EVALUATED FEDERAL ESA SPECIES, CRITICAL HABITAT, AND DETERMINATIONS .................... 133
10.1 Piping Plover ........................................................................................................................................................... 135
10.2 Roseate Tern .......................................................................................................................................................... 137
10.3 Red Knot ................................................................................................................................................................. 138
10.4 Sea Turtles ............................................................................................................................................................. 140
10.4.1 Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle ............................................................................................................................ 144
10.4.2 Leatherback Sea Turtle ............................................................................................................................... 144
10.4.3 Green Sea Turtle ......................................................................................................................................... 145
10.4.4 Loggerhead Sea Turtle ............................................................................................................................... 145
10.4.5 Hawksbill Sea Turtle ................................................................................................................................... 145
10.5 Marine Mammals .................................................................................................................................................... 146
10.5.1 Whales ........................................................................................................................................................ 146
10.5.2 West Indian Manatee .................................................................................................................................. 149
10.6 Fishes ..................................................................................................................................................................... 150
10.6.1 Atlantic Sturgeon ......................................................................................................................................... 150
10.6.2 Shortnose Sturgeon .................................................................................................................................... 151
10.6.3 Giant Manta Ray ......................................................................................................................................... 152
10.7 Plants ...................................................................................................................................................................... 152
10.7.1 Seabeach Amaranth ................................................................................................................................... 152
10.8 Critical Habitat ........................................................................................................................................................ 153
11.0 EFFECTS TO EVALUATED SPECIES WITH OTHER FEDERAL AND/OR STATE PROTECTIONS AND DETERMINATIONS .. 155
11.1 Marine Mammals .................................................................................................................................................... 155
11.2 Colonial Waterbirds, Other Shorebirds, and Birds of Prey ..................................................................................... 158
11.2.1 Colonial Waterbirds ..................................................................................................................................... 158
11.2.2 Other Shorebirds and Birds of Prey ............................................................................................................ 159
12.0 EFFECTS TO SPECIES WITH ONLY STATE PROTECTION AND DETERMINATIONS ............................................... 163
12.1 Reptiles ................................................................................................................................................................... 163
12.1.1 Diamondback Terrapin ................................................................................................................................ 163
12.2 Plants ...................................................................................................................................................................... 164
12.2.1 Seabeach Knotweed ................................................................................................................................... 164
13.0 EFFECTS TO STATE-DESIGNATED NATURAL AREAS ............................................................................................... 165
14.0 EFFECTS DETERMINATION SUMMARY FOR EVALUATED PROTECTED SPECIES ................................................. 165
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................................................. 173

Cape Hatteras National Seashore photos on cover courtesy of National Park Service Photo Gallery (clockwise from
upper left): loggerhead sea turtle hatchlings head to sea; harbor seal resting on beach, sea shell assortment, piping
plover, and sea oats on dune.
CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] iii Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1 Proposed Action Area for the nourishment project at Avon Village showing maximum limit of
beach nourishment and proposed offshore borrow area within state waters near Avon
Figure 3.1 Representative profile of the littoral zone illustrating the principal features between the dune and
offshore
Figure 3.2 The concept of unit-width profile volumes for a series of beach profiles showing an eroded beach
with a deficit, a normal beach, and a beach with a volume surplus
Figure 3.3 Color-coded topography and bathymetry Digital Terrain Models (DTM) from the July 2020 beach
condition survey for the Avon study area
Figure 3.4 Unit volumes by station from the foredune to the approximate depth of closure at –24 ft NAVD
along the Avon study area using the July 2020 survey
Figure 3.5 Aerial photo taken on 15 July 2020 showing the proposed project area, particularly Reach 3 – north
of the Avon Pier
Figure 3.6 Aerial photo taken on 15 July 2020 showing the proposed project area, particularly Reach 4 –
south of the Avon Pier.
Figure 3.7 Representative fill templates at station 1560+00 for Reach 3 and 1610+00 for Reach 4. Beach
profiles represent the beach condition in July 2020
Figure 3.8 Location of the five sediment sample transects (14 samples per transect) along the Avon project
area
Figure 3.9 Sample positions for “beach” grab samples along the Avon project area following North Carolina
sediment sampling criteria rules
Figure 3.10 Mean grain size, percent shell, and percent gravel for core composite samples to 10 ft in the
proposed offshore Borrow Area 1 and 6 ft in the proposed Borrow Area 2 based on borings
obtained in April 2021
Figure 3.11 GSDs for Avon native beach samples (n=70) compared with offshore samples in the proposed
borrow area (composite). [UPPER] Borrow Area 1 where 10 ft excavation depth is proposed.
[LOWER] Borrow Area 2 where 6 ft excavation depth is proposed.
Figure 3.12 Example core photo log for one of the 10-ft borings (AV-27) obtained by AVS in April 2021
Figure 3.13 Core log for AV-27 showing the lithology, sample intervals, and mean grain sizes
Figure 3.14 Three hopper dredges and one suction cutterhead dredge (inset photos) were used to construct
the Nags Head (NC) beach nourishment project (24 May to 27 October 2011).
Figure 3.15 Graph showing the monthly average wave climate from 2003–2020 at NDBC Wave Buoy Station
41025 at Diamond Shoals (NC) near Buxton compared with the wave climate at the USACE Field
Research Facility at Duck (NC).
CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] iv Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina
Figure 3.16 Types of land-based support equipment generally required for construction of beach
nourishment
Figure 3.17 Pre- and post-nourishment profiles from a station in south Nags Head ~900 ft south of Jennette’s
Pier (Whalebone Junction) showing fill adjustment after three years
Figure 3.18 Natural dune growth along south Nags Head (NH Station 855+00) after the 2011 nourishment
project. [UPPER] 11 June 2012 locality in Nags Head (NC) seven months after nourishment.
[LOWER] 5 June 2014 same locality two years and seven months after nourishment
Figure 4.1 Digital terrain model (DTM) showing topography and bathymetry in the project area in July 2020
Figure 4.2 Aerial photo of the project area (15 July 2020)
Figure 4.3 Habitat area map of the project area showing acreage of various dune, beach, and inshore
habitats out to the −24 ft NAVD depth contour
Figure 4.4 Representative habitat profile in the Avon project area showing elevation limits for various habitat
types and corresponding areas along ~13,200 linear feet based on conditions in July 2020
Figure 4.5 Detailed borrow area bathymetry and representative sections based on condition surveys in July
2020
Figure 7.1 Variation in annual reproductive activity of piping plover in North Carolina
Figure 7.2 Piping plover breeding pair summary over the past 22 years
Figure 7.3 Summary of red knot observations in Cape Hatteras National Seashore 2008–2019.
Figure 7.4 Green sea turtle nests and trend at Cape Hatteras National Seashore from 2000 to 2020
Figure 7.5 Green sea turtle nest numbers and locations recorded in the proposed Avon nourishment area
between 2010 and 2020
Figure 7.6 Green sea turtle nest numbers at Cape Hatteras National Seashore from 2010 to 2020 within the
Avon sand placement footprint
Figure 7.7 Number and trend of Kemp's ridley nests document in North Carolina
Figure 7.8 Number and trend of loggerhead nests by year at the Seashore
Figure 7.9 Loggerhead sea turtle nests and locations along the proposed Avon nourishment area from 2010-2020
Figure 7.10 Loggerhead sea turtle nesting history for 2010 to 2020 in the Avon sand placement footprint
Figure 7.11 Predicted mean density of baleen whales in July and January with inset table of mean monthly
abundance and coefficient of variation
Figure 7.12 Unusual Mortality Event for North Atlantic right whale from 2017- 2020
Figure 7.13 Winter 2016 telemetry paths of two tagged female blue whales in Mid-Atlantic Bight
CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] v Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina
Figure 7.14 Catch per unit effort for NCDMF Atlantic sturgeon gill net surveys in Albemarle Sound 1991-2018
Figure 7.15 Seabeach amaranth census for Bogue Banks following nourishment between 2002-2004
Figure 8.1 Marine mammal strandings and trend in Cape Hatteras National Seashore 2001-2019
Figure 8.2 Predicted mean density of small delphinoids with inset table of mean monthly abundance and
predicted mean density of baleen whales with inset table of mean monthly abundance
Figure 8.3 NOAA fisheries stocks of bottlenose dolphins in North Carolina
Figure 8.4 Map of the Avon area and the approximate boundaries of the Hatteras Island Middle Section RHA
Figure 9.1 Effect of borrow material grain size (nourishment scale parameter, AF) on the width of the dry beach
for a fixed volume of nourishment sand added per unit beach length (from Dean 1991, Fig 25)
Figure 10.1 Hearing frequency ranges of selected fish and mammal species and main energy frequencies
reported for anthropogenic and ambient sources
Figure 10.2 [UPPER] Critical migratory habitat for the loggerhead sea turtle. [LOWER] Critical migratory
habitat designated units for loggerhead sea turtle
CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] vi Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1 Anticipated species protection recommendations for dredge operations in addition to regular
NPS monitoring surveys (after USACE 2013)
Table 3.1 Beach nourishment projects using offshore borrow areas completed or planned in Dare
County (MCY – Million Cubic Yards
Table 6.1 Threatened, endangered, and candidate/proposed species with the potential to occur within
the action/analysis area as determined by state or federal agencies with jurisdictional
authority
Table 7.1 Number of piping plover breeding pairs by site at Cape Hatteras National Seashore
Table 7.2 Historical red knot observations in Cape Hatteras National Seashore survey segments from
2008-2019
Table 7.3 Sea turtle stranding annual total by species at Cape Hatteras National Seashore and Hatteras
Island
Table 7.4 Temporal and spatial distribution of various Atlantic sturgeon life stages in the Carolinas and
northern portions of the South Atlantic distinct population segment
Table 7.5 Temporal and spatial distribution of various shortnose sturgeon life stages in the Carolinas and
northern portions of the South Atlantic distinct population segment
Table 7.6 Population estimates of seabeach amaranth in Cape Hatteras National Seashore
Table 8.1 Marine mammals which may occur in North Carolina waters
Table 10.1 Sea turtle nest relocation compared to in-situ success in the Seashore 2011-2019
Table 11.1 Reported biological responses of mammals to dredge-induced underwater sounds
Table 14.1 Effects matrix summary for the three evaluated alternatives for state and federally protected
species with the potential to occur and proposed mitigation to offset potential adverse effects
Table 14.2 Summary effects determination of proposed action for protected species with potential to occur
in project area or vicinity

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] vii Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ATV – all terrain vehicle
AOS – American Ornithological Society
ASMFC – Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Council
ASSRT – Atlantic Sturgeon Status Review Team
BA – biological assessment
BEGEPA – Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle Protection Act
BO – biological opinion
BOEM – Bureau of Ocean Energy Management
CAHA – Cape Hatteras National Seashore
CAMA – Coastal Area Management Act
CITES – Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
CSE – Coastal Science & Engineering, Inc.
CWA – Clean Water Act
ca – circa
cal yr BP – calibrated years before present
cy – cubic yard
DPS – distinct population segment
DTMA – diamondback turtle management area
EA – environmental assessment
ECOS – environmental conservation online system (USFWS)
EEZ – exclusive economic zone
EFHA – essential fish habitat assessment
EIS – environmental impact statement
ESA – Endangered Species Act
FEMA – Federal Emergency Management Administration
FONSI – finding of no significant impact
ITP – incidental take permit
lf – linear foot/feet
MBTA – Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MMPA – Marine Mammal Protection Act
NABCI – North American Bird Conservation Initiative
CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] viii Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina
NAVD – North American Vertical Datum of 1988
NCDCM – North Carolina Division of Coastal Management
NCDENR – North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
NCDEQ – North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (formerly NCDENR)
NCDMF – North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries
NCDOT–North Carolina Department of Transportation
NCDWR – North Carolina Division of Water Resources
NCNHP – North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
NCWRC – North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
NDBC – National Data Wave Buoy
NEPA – National Environmental Policy Act
NOAA – National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NMFS – National Marine Fisheries Service
NMNH – National Museum of Natural History
NPS – National Park Service
OPR – Office of Protected Resources (NOAA)
ORV – off-road recreational vehicle
OSHA – Occupational Safety and Health Administration
PDC – project design criteria
PSO – protected species observer
pers comm. – personal communication
SARBO –South Atlantic Regional Biological Opinion
SEPA – State Environmental Policy Act
SERO – Southeast Regional Office (NMFS)
SPBO – State Programmatic Biological Opinion (USFWS-Raleigh NC office)
STIP – State Transportation Improvement Program (NCDOT)
TED – turtle excluder device
UME – unusual mortality event
USACE – United States Army Corps of Engineers
USFWS – United States Fish and Wildlife Service

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 1 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

AVON VILLAGE BEACH NOURISHMENT
DARE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C 153 et seq.), as amended (ESA or Act) requires lands under federal
jurisdiction to conserve and recover listed species and use their authorities in furtherance of the purposes of the
Act by carrying out programs for the conservation of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR § 402). The Act
directs all federal agencies to consult (referred to as section 7 consultation) with the US Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) and/or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) when their activities “may affect” a listed species
or designated critical habitat. The Act also mandates that federal agencies contribute to the conservation of
federally listed species by using their authorities to conserve (recover) federally listed species so that listing is no
longer mandatory. Additionally, National Park Service (NPS) Management Policy (2006) states parks must also
“inventory, monitor, and manage state and locally listed species in a manner similar to its treatment of federally
listed species to the greatest extent possible”. In North Carolina, animal species designated by the Wildlife
Resources Commission (NCWRC) and the Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP–under the NCDEQ) as
threatened, endangered, or species of concern are afforded legal protection by the ESA (Article 25 of Chapter
113 of the General Statutes 1987). Plant species in North Carolina determined by the Plant Conservation
Program (NC Department of Agriculture) and the NCNHP as threatened, endangered, or special concern are
protected by the Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979.
Via federal (SAW-2015-01612 and state permits (CAMA 136-15) and NPS Special Use Permit (GOV-16-5700-014)
issued to Dare County in 2015 and 2016, a beach restoration project to protect NC Highway 12 (NC 12) at Buxton,
North Carolina was completed between June 2017 and February 2018. As part of the consultation and permit
process for the restoration project, in 2015 a biological assessment (BA) and Environmental Assessment (EA)
were prepared in coordination with local personnel from Cape Hatteras National Seashore (National Seashore)
as well as personnel from the NPS Denver office for the BA and other federal and state agencies for the EA. Based
on those previous documents, a new BA for a proposed beach renourishment project at Buxton (very similar
project footprint on the beach to the 2015/2016 permitted Buxton restoration) was prepared concurrently with
this document.
This document is the BA for a proposed beach nourishment project for the Village of Avon, just a few miles to the
north of Buxton projects. The 2021 Buxton renourishment BA was updated from the 2015 Buxton BA to reflect
changes in specific project elements, in protected resources or information about those resources, in efforts or
requirements to minimize, mitigate, or monitor potential impacts to protected resources, and to update the
effects determinations. This Avon BA used the Buxton renourishment project BA as a template and modified
text, figures, and tables as necessary to differentiate the two proposed projects. Dare County intends for all
documents and permit applications for the two proposed projects (Buxton beach renourishment and Avon
beach nourishment) to be submitted to regulatory agencies at the same time.

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 2 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

Over the course of interagency consultations begun in May of 2013 and completed in May of 2017, a State
Programmatic Biological Opinion (SPBO) to address the impacts of sand placement activities on the 163 miles
of managed coastal beach in North Carolina was issued by the Raleigh Field Office of the USFWS in August
2017 (USFWS 2017) and addressed eight species and covered activities which occur between 16 November
and 30 April.
Since the 2015 Buxton restoration permit process and completion of the Buxton project itself in 2018, a new
South Atlantic Regional Biological Opinion for Dredging and Material Placement Activities in the Southeast
United States (2020 SARBO) was issued by NMFS in March 2020 and revised in July 2020 (NMFS 2020a) in
response to USACE and BOEM requests for Section 7 consultation. The 2020 SARBO differs from the 1997
SARBO it four key ways below:
• expanded the project area from that covered by the 1997 SARBO,
• expanded the seasonal window for hopper dredge activities,
• allowed for more flexibility through its process of risk based assessment of effects, and
• was no longer sea turtle centric.
While it balanced the risks to 25 species and five critical habitat units and allowed for the USACE to uphold its
mandate to maintain navigational waterways and beaches, the 1997 SARBO’s Terms and Conditions and
Conservation Recommendations have also been updated in the 2020 SARBO as Project Design Criteria (PDC)
to which all projects must comply either by design and/or during the permitted activity itself.
Also since the Buxton restoration project permit process, Regional NOAA Administrators were directed by the
Director of the Office of Protected Resources (OPR) and the NMFS Leadership Council in 2016 to implement
revised guidance about how to consider climate change information and uncertainty in their decision process
relative to the ESA (NMFS 2016). The revised NMFS guidance included seven policy considerations about use
of scientific and technical information where scientific uncertainty exists. For low-lying areas of passive
continental margins like the US east coast, the sea level rise component of climate change has greater impact
in the short term. Despite the increase in sea level rise which tends to drive net shoreline retreat, a study of
USGS shoreline records of the US Atlantic coast from 1830-2007 showed a recent counter-intuitive trend of
accretion since 1960 (Armstrong and Lazarus 2019). This study concluded that beach nourishment,
proliferated since 1960, masked the erosion hazard and led to a systematic underestimation of "true" long-
term shoreline erosion rates (Armstrong and Lazarus 2019).
In September of 2020, the Seashore published a draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) to evaluate a
programmatic framework for sediment management in the Cape Hatteras National Seashore to help streamline
the process of Special Use Permits expected for projects which may impact the Seashore over the next 20 years
(NPS 2020). The final EIS was published March 2021 and Record of Decision issued on 30 April 2021 (NPS 2021).
Similar to the two Buxton projects in many aspects, the Avon Village nourishment project place up to 1 million
cubic yards (cy) of beach-quality sand along a 13,200-foot (2.5-mile) length of the Cape Hatteras National
Seashore in front of the developed shoreline at Village of Avon (Figure 1.1). The average fill density is ~75 cubic
yards per foot (cy/ft). Nourishment sand will be excavated from a ~250 acre offshore borrow area located ~2–3
miles offshore of Avon within state waters. Confirmed by reconnaissance vibracores and the final twelve 10-ft
long vibracores in the proposed borrow area, the Applicant proposes an excavation depth of 10 feet in Borrow
Area 1 (~150 acres) and 6 feet in Borrow Area 2 (~100 acres). The proposed borrow area contains approximately

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 3 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

3.4 million cubic yards of beach-quality sand if the proposed excavation depths are permitted. Therefore, it will
provide sufficient volume to achieve the proposed Avon beach nourishment project.
The purposes of the proposed Avon Village nourishment project are to protect infrastructure and development
in the village of Avon and widen a portion of the National Seashore shoreline and dunes along much of the Avon
beachfront. While overwash through the village of Avon is not as frequent as that of Buxton, Avon beach and
dune erosion have accelerated in recent years and such overwash events have forced temporary closures NC
Highway 12 more than in the past due to continued erosion. As the only north-south highway along Hatteras
Island, NC Highway 12 serves Avon, Buxton, and Hatteras villages and the community of Frisco, as well as NPS
facilities at the National Seashore. The historic Cape Hatteras Lighthouse, situated just south of Buxton, draws
thousands of visitors each year. Dare County is the project applicant with US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
as lead federal agency.
Through the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) process which includes preparation of an Essential
Fish Habitat Assessment (EFHA) and this BA, the NPS will determine whether, where, and under what conditions
it may issue a Special Use Permit (SUP) to Dare County for the Proposed Action, and in consultation with other
federal agencies, the USACE will determine whether or not to issue required federal permits under their authority
(e.g., Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Parallel state environmental review of permit application
documents/materials will determine whether or not the NC Division of Coastal Management (NCDCM) issues a
Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) Major Permit and the NC Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) issues a
Section 401 Water Quality Certification for the proposed nourishment project. In proactive anticipation of the
likelihood for more requests for Special Use Permits related to beach management activities from NC
Department of Transportation, various towns of the Outer Banks, or Dare County, the NPS 2021 FEIS and ROD
will serve as a guides for issuance of these NPS permits.

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 4 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

FIGURE 1.1. The proposed action area for the nourishment project at Avon Village, Dare County (NC), showing maximum
limit of beach nourishment and proposed offshore borrow area 2–3 miles offshore within state waters near Avon.

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 5 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

The Avon Village nourishment project is located north of one of the narrower portions of Hatteras Island north
of Buxton Village which has a history of dune breaches, washovers onto NC 12, and formation of breach inlets
(Everts et al 1983). Each of these types of erosion events have occurred at various frequencies both historically
and over the past 60 years along this vulnerable portion of the Seashore since NC 12 was completed (NPS 1980,
Birkemeier et al. 1984).
The most impactful events occurred under storms like Hurricane Irene (27 August 2011), Hurricane Sandy (28
October 2012), Hurricane Florence (September 2018), and Hurricane Dorian (September 2019) which caused
emergency closure of NC 12 at those breaches. Unnamed storms in conjunction with lunar tides have also
caused closure due to overwash near Avon Village and other NC 12 hotspots (e.g., March 2018). After each event,
NCDOT typically scrapes sand off the road and pushes up a protective dune in the project area. Thus, the
foredune along the project area was manipulated frequently before the proposed nourishment project. Dune
construction and other coastal stabilization activities have been implemented in the National Seashore,
including the Avon area, with increased frequency in recent years.
The NC Division of Coastal Management (NCDCM) reports official erosion rates (“setback factors”) for Avon in
2020 ranging from 2.0 feet per year (ft/yr) north of Avon Pier to 6.0 ft/yr along a ~4,000 ft section of beach south
of the pier. Erosion reduces to 3.0 ft/yr at the south limit of the Village.
In a feasibility report for the proposed project, CSE analyzed historical shorelines for fourteen different dates
(1852 to 2020) and determined that the critically eroded section south of Avon Pier has experienced erosion as
high as 16–20 ft/yr over the past 20 years (CSE 2020). Because state erosion rates average over 60+ years, the
official rate is lower but has been increasing with each update along south Avon. The cause of accelerated
erosion is unclear, but one factor is rhythmic alongshore sand waves spaced ~3000 ft apart that slowly migrate
downcoast, producing systematic variations in beach width. The trough (narrow dry beach area) of one such
rhythmic sand wave has persisted south of Avon Pier in recent years. The offshore bar is also deeper off the
critically eroded section, possibly contributing to the locally high erosion rate over the past decade. These
erosion features are likely linked to inshore bars and shoals, and this theory is expected to be tested and
confirmed in the future when more comparative surveys are available.
Dare County proposes to add sand to the existing beach system and portions of the dune system which will
replace what was removed by recent storms and provide additional defense in this vulnerable portion of the
island. With a major infusion of sand, after equilibration the beach would be wider and together with restored
dunes better able to attenuate storm tides and waves before they can damage the dunes, private properties, NC
12, or the power and communication infrastructure. Highway NC 12 and power/communication infrastructure
are the lifeline to the historic communities on Hatteras Island south of Avon. Prior to the previous Buxton
restoration project, Dare County determined that beach nourishment, using an offshore borrow source, was the
most viable and environmentally compatible alternative to address erosion over a time scale of 5–10 years
county wide (USACE/NPS 2015).
Other alternatives considered for the proposed Avon beach nourishment project include: Alternative 1-No-
Action, likely to force frequent, costly repairs and abandonment of property, and potential increased repairs to
NC 12 when overwash occurs, Alternative 2-Offshore Borrow Area and Winter Construction, hazardous wave
climate and increased cost, and Alternative 3-Offshore Borrow Area and Summer Construction (applicant
preferred alternative). Other borrow sources as an alternative (use of Pamlico Sound, onshore borrow areas, and
Oregon Inlet or Pamlico Sound deposits) as well as hard stabilization alternatives were considered but rejected
in the previous Buxton permit process; see Environmental Assessment (EA), for the proposed Avon project

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 6 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

(USACE/NPS 2015). The rationale behind rejection of those alternatives for Buxton are applicable for the Avon
project: use of sediments from Avon Harbor and/or an inland borrow area were also considered and eliminated.
The 2017 SPBO (USFWS) addresses sand placement projects constructed only in the winter/spring window of 16
November through 30 April; however, a critical requirement for sand placement for the proposed Avon beach
nourishment project is the summer dredge schedule which renders the 2017 SPBO inapplicable.
A summer construction window is necessary for work offshore in this case because of safety and operations
concerns. Prior to a 2011 beach nourishment project at Nags Head, dredge industry officials indicated it was
not possible to safely or efficiently dredge offshore in winter along the northern Outer Banks of North Carolina
(Dredging Contractors of America, B Holliday, Executive Director, pers. comm., 2009). Average waves in the
project vicinity are higher than any site along the US East Coast (Leffler et al. 1996). The nearest safe harbor
for oceangoing dredges is Little Creek, Virginia, at the entrance to Chesapeake Bay ~100 miles north of the
project site. It is also likely the preferred equipment for dredge operations would be a self-propelled, trailing
arm, hopper dredge. Such dredges can motor to a safe harbor on the approach of a storm, whereas a
traditional cutterhead pipeline dredge is a barge that must be towed by tug at slow speeds to a safe harbor.
Because the Proposed Action may be conducted during summer months, additional measures are
anticipated to safeguard threatened and endangered species, such as sea turtles, the piping plover, red
knots, or Atlantic sturgeon, which may be present at the time of construction. Regular NPS management
activities and species monitoring surveys will occur on their scheduled basis which helps to minimize effects
of the project on protected species within the National Seashore (summarized pgs 11, 28). While the NEPA
process and permit conditions may identify specific monitoring, the applicant has anticipated the necessity
to follow species protection measures during dredge operations as were followed for the Buxton restoration
project. These protection measures are also based on those followed in the project to protect NC 12 at
Rodanthe (USACE 2013), and as required by the PDCs in the 2020 SARBO. These dredge measures are shown
in Table 1.1 and have been updated with comments pertinent to Avon where possible and include
information from the 2020 SARBO.
Additional measures to minimize impacts during sand placement activities on the beach are discussed in
more detail in the section on summer construction (pages 28-37). Monitoring anticipated in addition to NPS
policies and procedures would be typical of other North Carolina beach nourishment projects (e.g., marine
mammal, sturgeon, and turtle spotters on the dredges at all times, trawling for sea turtles ahead of hopper
dredges during operations, nightly sea turtle patrols on the beach, and maintenance of sand ramps and
pipeline along the beach).
1.1 Purpose of this Biological Assessment (BA)
This BA analyzes the potential effects of the applicant-proposed action, Beach Nourishment at Village of Avon,
Dare County, North Carolina, on federally listed threatened, endangered, candidate animal (wildlife,
invertebrates, and fish) or plant species, and designated or proposed critical habitats, pursuant to Section 7
of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C 1531-1544), as amended. Other federal laws which protect
species considered in this document include the US Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 as amended, the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA) as amended, and the Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle Protection Act of
1940 (BEGEPA) as amended. Potential effects of the proposed action on protected North Carolina species
(species of concern, threatened, and endangered) or habitats protected by Article 25 of Chapter 113 of the

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 7 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

North Carolina General Statutes 1987 and/or the Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979 are also
considered.
Three alternatives (mentioned above) to the Proposed Action are also evaluated. Federally-listed threatened
or endangered animal or plant species and designated or proposed critical habitat or state-listed
species/habitats meeting the following criteria are addressed in this assessment:
1) known to occur in the Seashore based on confirmed sightings;
2) may occur in the Seashore based on unconfirmed sightings;
3) potential habitat exists for the species in the Seashore; or
4) potential effects may occur to these species.
As part of the federal ESA Section 7 Consultation process, an effects determination would be made only for
the species protected pursuant to the ESA. The document may also serve to outline the steps taken to reduce
and minimize potential effects to those species which may be affected by the Proposed Action. On the
federal level, the species, or their designated critical habitat, (wildlife, fish, reptiles, and plants) listed as
threatened, endangered, or candidate by the USFWS and/or the NOAA Fisheries Service—NMFS benefit from
legal protection. This BA is prepared in accordance with legal requirements set forth under Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 USC. 1535 (c)) and policy requirements of the Biological Assessment
Guidebook (NPS 2014). On the state level, threatened, endangered, as well as species of concern have legal
protection and as part of the permit application process the BA will be distributed to the State
Environmental Clearing House for review by agencies or commissions charged with protection of those
species under the State Environmental Protection Act (SEPA).

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 8 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

TABLE 1.1. Anticipated species protection recommendations for dredge operations (after USACE 2013 and the 2020 SARBO PDCs) in addition to regular NPS monitoring surveys. Other additional monitoring may be required as a result of NEPA process and/or specific
conditions attached to permits as a result of USACE risk assessments or consultations. The comment column has been modified to reflect the Avon Village Beach nourishment project. Sea turtles and Atlantic sturgeon are primary species of concern.
Source Recommendation
Considered in Borrow Area
Design and Dredging Comments Updated for Avon Where Possible/Applicable (in bold)
Yes Partial No
Dibajnia and
Nairn (2011)
Avoid shoals in waters deeper than 30 meter (m) which show a
decrease in height with increasing depth representing a
possible Shoal Height Decrease Zone beyond 30 m depth
X The shallowest portion of the proposed borrow area proposed to be dredged (i.e., top of ridge) ranges between
35–40 ft deep and the deepest areas along the gently sloping sides of the ridge ranges between 45–50 ft deep.
Consider ridge and shoal dredging scenarios which minimize
impacts to overall shoal integrity and protect habitat for
benthos and fish
X
The proposed borrow area use plans would be developed in accordance with dredge guidelines to the
maximum extent practicable to minimize morphologic shoal response provided by Dibajnia and Nairn (2011).
Cuts would be targeted such that portions of the habitat structure unique to the feature and important to
resource use would be maintained; thus, no adverse effects to overall shoal integrity are expected.
Geotechnical data (CSE 2021a) confirm there is uniformity of sediment size and type within the full section of
the proposed dredge cut, with similar quality surficial sediments expected to be left in place after excavations
of overlying material.
CSA
International Inc
et al. (2009)
Priority locations for shoal dredging to minimize physical
impacts is the leading edge due to net long-term deposition and
faster infilling rates, followed by the crest and the trailing edge
X
Use of the topographic high within the proposed borrow area, overall shallow excavation depth of the
cutterhead or hopper dredge, and the borrow site’s location in an area of high sand movement are important
factors that would maximize biological recovery rates. However, once the proposed borrow area surveys have
been completed, coordination with appropriate State and Federal Agencies would occur to avoid impacts to
existing high valued biological resources associated with specific shoal features.
Innovative dredging methodologies utilizing “striped” dredging
pattern appear to support a more timely and uniform recovery X Hopper dredges are the proposed primary dredge method. Hopper dredge operations typically dredge in a
"striped" pattern to maximize production over long expansive portions of the borrow area leaving portions of
the borrow area unimpacted.
Shallow dredging over large areas rather than excavating small
but deep pits may be preferred X The current borrow area design and borrow area use plan supports this recommendation. Hopper dredges
operate most efficiently dredging shallow cuts over a large surface area rather than excavation of small deep
pits. The usable dredge depths would be determined once the surveys have been completed.
Dredging in a striped pattern to leave sediment sources
adjacent to and interspersed throughout target areas, leading
to a more uniformly distributed infilling process
X Hopper dredge operations typically dredge in a "striped" pattern to maximize production over long expansive
portions of the borrow area leaving portions of the borrow area unimpacted to support infill processes.
Discussions with
NMFS and
NCDMF
Borrow area design should consider a wider and shallower cuts
rather than deep dredge holes X
Geotechnical data (CSE 2021a) within the proposed borrow area confirm the sediments are beach compatible
and exceed North Carolina state standards for similarity with the native beach. A high density of 12 borings (~1
per 20 acres) demonstrates general uniformity of sediments in the upper 6–10 ft of substrate. The potential
beach quality sand reserves total >3.4 million cubic yards within an ~250-acre area if dredged to 6 ft and 10 ft
within the designated boundaries. Shallower cuts over a smaller area are therefore feasible. The final borrow
area layout and dredge plan would be prepared in consultation with resource agencies pending results of
cultural resource studies. If a suction cutterhead dredge is used, the minimum and maximum excavation depth
would be in the range 8–10 ft due to operational considerations for large ocean-certified dredges. If a hopper
dredge is used, the cut depths would vary between ~2 ft and 10 ft according to the number of passes over a
given area.

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 9 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

TABLE 1.1. (continued)
Source Recommendation
Considered in Borrow Area
Design and Dredging Comments
Yes Partial No
Discussions with
NMFS and
NCDMF (cont’d)
Review published literature and integrate significant
information or lessons learned from dredging of other shoal
features throughout the region into borrow area use planning
for this project
X Relevant literature as it pertains to the physical and biological activities associated with sand ridge features as
well as potential dredge-related impacts have been integrated into this impact evaluation.
Consider leaving a segment of un-dredged sediment to allow for
recovery and recolonization into impacted areas. X
Hopper dredges would likely be the primary dredge methodology for this project. As a result of the operation
characteristics of the hopper dredge, it is likely that un-dredged ridges would be left behind for recolonization
from un-impacted areas. Additionally, it is anticipated that the dynamic nature of the borrow area would result
in infill of the impacted areas with adjacent sediments.
Diaz et al. (2004)
and Slacum et
al. (2010)
Shoals should be only partially dredged to facilitate post
dredging re-colonization from un-impacted refuge areas X The proposed borrow areas and associated quantity of sediment to be dredged is small relative to the areas of
shoals off Hatteras Island, including Platt, Wimble, Kinnakeet, and Diamond Shoals.
Limiting the distance between the remaining patches of shoal
habitat would reduce the distance and time a shoal-associating
species would have to travel between patches
X The proposed borrow area is located at an un-named sand ridge and is approximately 1.5 miles southeast of
Kinnakeet Shoal. It is a rather small component within the overall complex of available habitat. Considering
the nearness of similar adjacent habitat types no adverse impacts to shoal associated species are anticipated.
Shoals with less relief should be targeted for mining instead of
steeper shoals when the option is available X The borrow area use plan would be developed that maximizes opportunity to dredge along the relatively flat
and gradual sloped transition towards the shoal crest in order to minimize shoal impacts to higher relief shoal
features.
Dredging should be avoided when demersal finfish are using the
inner continental shelf as a nursery ground X Dredging for the proposed Avon Village beach nourishment is proposed to occur in summer 2022 and is
anticipated to be completed in two to three months (anticipated to begin between May and July).
Sand could be mined at night, when some species migrate
vertically into the water column to reduce the direct injury to
fish that can result from mining activities
X Dredge activities would not be confined to nighttime activities due to efficiency constraints.
Shoals should be mined in rotation to allow shoal-associated
assemblages to recover between mining events; this should be
done in consideration of the rate at which sand accumulates at
the particular shoal where sand is being harvested
X
The proposed Avon Village nourishment project is expected to provide erosion relief for up to five years. Dare
County (applicant) anticipates future projects may be needed along erosion hot spots and is generally
budgeting for ~5 years between nourishment events, subject to funding availability and the performance of
each project. Benthic communities of the borrow area are expected to recover fully between nourishment
events based on monitoring results at other projects.

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 10 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

TABLE 1.1. (concluded)

Source Recommendation
Considered in Borrow Area
Design/Dredging and Sand
Placement

Yes Partial No
2020 SARBO
Project Design
Criteria (PDC)
General PDCs of Appendix B as applicable. Dredge depth and
configuration
DREDGE 2. - (pg 522)
X Depth limit such that no hypoxic or anoxic conditions result. No-step banked deep holes.
PLACE 1. – 3. (pg 523 -524) IN WATER 1. Species movement, IN
WATER 2. Equipment Placement, IN WATER 4. Turbidity beach
nourishment, IN WATER 5. Entanglement and IN WATER 8
Lighting (pgs 526-528).
X
No mounds or berms during sand placement that would prevent sea turtle access or egress. Stiff non-looping
in-water buoy lines or cables; flexible lines must be encased in sleeves- all lines monitored while in use and
removed at completion. USCG safety and sea turtle-friendly lighting specifications/practices on dredge vessels
and all equipment on nesting beaches (https://myfwc.com/wildlifehabitats/wildlife/sea-turtle/lighting/)
2020 SARBO
(concluded)
EDUCATE 1. - 4. Education and observation requirements (pg
525) X All on-site personnel must be made aware of and adhere to all requirements to avoid and minimize effects to
ESA-listed species.
HOPPER 1. – 5. Equipment specific & personnel requirements
(pg 529-531) X Approved PSOs on board, draghead inflow and overflow screening observation requirements, pump
disengagement requirements, and state of the art solid faced deflector required.
CUTTER 1. (pg 532) Cutterhead will be off when not engaged in the sediment to the maximum extent possible.
RELOCATE 1. – 3. (pgs 532-533) X Non-capture trawling or relocation trawling requirements (tow time speed, duration) to avoid and minimize
lethal take would be followed.
APPENDIX H
OBSERVE 1.-11., 14. – 15., 16. Protected Species Observer (pgs
600-613), Handling Sea Turtles, Sturgeon, and Giant Manta Ray
(pg 614-625)
X All credentials, responsibilities, and guidance in the PDCs will be followed for all observations, interactions, and
handling of any protected species in the water.
APPENDIX I
USACE Risk Assessment X Project will be in compliance with modifications to PDCs or additional prudent measures to minimize take of
any protected species which are deemed necessary as a result of the risk assessment of the proposed
nourishment project.

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 11 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

1.2 Current NPS Management Direction
Current management direction for federally listed and proposed threatened and endangered species can be
found in the following documents, filed at the National Seashore office:
• Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA or Act)
• 1916 NPS Organic Act
• NPS General Authorities Act of 1978
• NPS Management Policies 2006
• Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)
• National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
• Species-specific recovery plans which establish population goals for recovery
• Species management plans, guides, or conservation strategies
• Cape Hatteras National Seashore Off-Road Vehicle (ORV) Management Plan (2010)
• EA-Review and Adjustment of Wildlife Buffers, Cape Hatteras National Seashore (2015)
• Coastal Species of Concern Predation Management Plan (2018)
• Sediment Management Framework Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision (2021)
As stated in the NPS Management Policies 2006 (NPS 2006), natural resources of each park will be managed
to preserve fundamental biological and physical processes as well as individual species, features, and plant
and animal communities. These 2006 policies also recognize that natural change is an integral part of the
evolution and function of all natural systems and that each park must be managed within the context of its
larger ecosystems. However, the park is not to intervene in natural biological or physical processes except in
four situations, one of which is “when a park plan has identified the intervention as necessary to protect park
resources, human health and safety or facilities.”
The enabling 1937 legislation by Congress established Cape Hatteras National Seashore for the enjoyment
and benefit of the people and to permanently reserve the area and its resources as primitive wilderness for
future generations. Management decisions are made in response to increased understanding of the
significance of the National Seashore, whenever new species are provided federal or state protection (or
become delisted), or when other unique circumstances require new management directive(s). The 2020-2021
NPS draft and final environmental impact statement for sand management was the most recent protection of
the National Seashore assets through intervention into natural processes. The 2021 NPS sediment framework
FEIS reflects the Seashore's efforts to document the benefits of human infrastructure protection via future
beach nourishment activities and the potential impacts (i.e., costs) to the natural resources of the Seashore
from those activities for the next 20 years.
One unique circumstance reflected the slow cultural shift in the amount of, the frequency of, and the purpose
of vehicle use of the beaches since establishment of the Seashore and the subsequent necessity to manage
continued beach access for these vehicles (as well as pedestrians) and to protect natural resources of the
National Seashore. The 2010 final Cape Hatteras National Seashore Off-Road Vehicle (ORV) Management Plan
/ Environmental Impact Statement (plan/EIS), the December 2010 Record of Decision (ROD) on that plan/EIS,
and the 2015 EA-Review and Adjustment of Wildlife Protection Buffers (NPS 2015a), resulted in very specific
regulations. Those regulations covered permits, time of, and kind of vehicle use, vehicle and pedestrian
routes, closures, and resource protection measures, including resource monitoring.

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 12 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

Of pertinence to this BA, the various species management strategies identified in the ORV plan/EIS/ROD afford
“protection for threatened, endangered, and other protected species (e.g. state listed species) and their
habitats, and minimize impacts related to ORV and other uses as required by laws and policies, such as the
ESA, the MBTA, and NPS laws and management policies.” Management actions and directives currently in
place that affect this Proposed Action include:
• daily beach patrols by NPS staff biologists;
• establishment of pre-nest closures for shorebirds and colonial waterbirds in March;
• frequent surveys March to July/August and establishment of 248–660-ft (75–200-meter) buffers
dependent on certain behaviors observed during surveys (e.g. courtship, breeding, nesting,
hatching);
• daily patrols to identify sea turtle crawls and nests from May 1 to September 15 (or later
depending on last nest or crawl) and periodic patrols until 15 November; erection of 33 by 33-ft
(10 by 10-meter) symbolic fencing and signage around each turtle nest which expand to the surf
line after 50–55-day incubation and which include silt fencing to protect hatchlings from
artificial lighting as shown in the photographs below; and

• selective predation management tools/methods (e.g., relocations, fencing, and toxicants under
certain conditions among others) as specified in the Coastal Species of Concern Predation
Management Plan and Programmatic Environmental Assessment (NPS 2018) and Finding of No
Significant Impact (NPS 2019).

2.0 CONSULTATION HISTORY
On behalf of Dare County and the National Park Service, CZR Incorporated (CZR) contacted the USFWS via their
ECOS IPaC website on 2 March 2021 and requested an official species list and final or proposed designated
critical habitat that may occur within the analysis area/project boundary and/or may be affected by the
Proposed Action (Consultation Code 04EN2000-2021-E-01680). Additionally, the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration—National Marine Fisheries Service Southeast Region (NMFS/SERO) website
provided a list of those species under their purview when in the water and various personnel were also
contacted via email for site-specific information. Formal consultation with USFWS and NMFS will be initiated
by the USACE upon receipt of the permit application from Dare County.

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 13 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

3.0 PROPOSED MANAGEMENT ACTIONS AND ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
As previously described, the foredunes along the narrowest portions of the National Seashore in the vicinity of
southern Avon have eroded more over the past few years under various storms and high lunar tides in
conjunction with unnamed storms or nor'easters. Rainfall associated with such storms also often floods the
highway through the village and overcomes the surface water drainage capacity of the village. The National
Park Service and Dare County worked together to maintain federal and state infrastructure in the Avon vicinity,
and allow continued public access to the natural and cultural resources managed by the National Park Service
within the Seashore.
Representatives of NCDOT attended several meetings to discuss the previous Buxton restoration project
purpose as the action area was within a 4.7-mile zone identified in their long range study of NC 12 as the
aforementioned Buxton-Canadian Hole “hotspot” (NCDOT TIP No. R 4070 B—one of the three transportation
improvement projects south of Rodanthe discussed in their study). To assist in the appropriation of funds and
future project schedule and plans, a feasibility study for NC 12 from Avon to Buxton (included the Canadian
hole) presented an analysis of potential short-term and long-term options, examined the potential
environmental impacts of the project, as well as preliminary project costs (NCDOT 2015). Dare County and
National Park Service proceeded forward with the previous Buxton restoration project, the proposed Buxton
renourishment action, and the proposed Avon Village nourishment project out of a pragmatic, proactive
concern that NCDOT may not be able to act on the Buxton-Canadian hole hotspot except in an emergency
mode. Rollout of future State Transportation Improvement Plans [STIP], project design/schedule constraints,
and/or lack of funds, could interfere with a timely response) except in an emergency mode, a situation which
Dare County and National Park Service would prefer to avoid if possible.

3.1 Plan Formulation
Dare County commissioned a feasibility study of the Rodanthe and Buxton beaches to quantify differences in
beach condition relative to healthy beaches along the National Seashore and to outline alternative strategies for
beach restoration in hotspot areas (CSE 2013) and followed with a similar feasibility study of the Avon area (CSE
2020). The County studies used detailed surveys of the littoral profile to compute unit volumes in the active beach
zone. It is well established that beaches develop a profile which adjusts to changes in wave energy (Fig 3.1) (Komar
1998). The condition of the profile can be measured as a function of sediment grain size, average wave heights
and periods, tidal range, and foreshore slope (Dean 1991). It can also be measured in terms of the unit volume of
sand contained between reference contours (Verhagen 1992). Figure 3.2 illustrates the concept of unit-width
profile volumes for a normal healthy beach (one with sufficient volume to withstand normal seasonal adjustments
of the profile without damage to the foredune) or beaches with more or less volume than normal.
In response to the emergent need for beach restoration in Avon Village, Dare County completed a feasibility study
to assess erosion and formulate solutions along the Village of Avon in November 2020 (CSE 2020). This feasibility
report evaluates the beach in detail upcoast and downcoast of the critically eroded area to place the area in
context and establish linkages with the sand sharing system alongshore. It also provides several levels of beach
restoration plans for different project longevities.

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 14 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

FIGURE 3.2

The concept of unit-width profile volumes for a
series of beach profiles showing an eroded beach
with a deficit, a normal beach, and a beach with a
volume surplus.

Profile volumes integrate small-scale perturbations
in profile shape and provide a simple objective
measure of beach condition based on three
conditions (eroded, normal, and sand surplus).

Indicated quantities are realistic for many east
coast beaches within the elevation limits shown.
[After Kana 1990]

FIGURE 3.1. Representative profile of the littoral zone illustrating the principal features between the dune and offshore. Areas
identified include the foredune, dry beach, wet beach, low tide terrace, trough, and longshore bar. The profile varies with changes
in wave energy, the passage of storms, and differences in sediment quality. [Based on Komar 1998]

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 15 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

3.2 Historical and Recent Erosion Rates
The NC Division of Coastal Management (NCDCM) reports official erosion rates (“setback factors”) for Avon in
2020 ranging from 2.0 feet per year (ft/yr) north of Avon Pier to 6.0 ft/yr along a ~4,000 ft section of beach south
of the pier. Erosion reduces to 3.0 ft/yr at the south limit of the Village.
In the feasibility report, CSE analyzed historical shorelines for fourteen different dates (1852 to 2020) and
determined that the critically eroded section south of Avon Pier has experienced erosion as high as 16–20 ft/yr
over the past 20 years (CSE 2020). Because state erosion rates average over 60+ years, the official rate is lower
but has been increasing with each update along south Avon. The cause of accelerated erosion is unclear, but
one factor is rhythmic alongshore sand waves spaced ~3000 ft apart that slowly migrate downcoast,
producing systematic variations in beach width. The trough (narrow dry beach area) of one such rhythmic
sand wave has persisted south of Avon Pier in recent years. The outer bar at this locality is lower than upcoast
sections and produces less wave impedance. These erosion features are likely linked to inshore bars and
shoals, and this theory is expected to be tested and confirmed in the future when more comparative surveys
are available.
3.3 Beach Condition Survey in July 2020, Volumetric Analysis, and Project Formulation
CSE established a baseline and measured profiles every 500 ft along the shoreline from the dune line to deep
water (>30 ft below sea level) along the entire 18,000-ft (~3.4-mile) Avon Village in July 2020. An additional
5,000 ft of upcoast and downcoast shoreline into the Cape Hatteras National Seashore, managed by the
National Park Service (NPS), was also surveyed. It is believed that the July 2020 data set is the first
comprehensive data set for the beach condition of this area, and it provided the basis for the proposed
nourishment formulation along with the historical erosion analysis.
The calculation limits extend from the dune crest to the offshore depth of closure* at –24 ft NAVD,**
representing the “littoral sand box” for Avon, where nearly all sand exchange across the beach occurs. Volume
analyses were used to determine the sand deficit south of the Avon Pier relative to healthy sections of beach
north of the Pier that contains a high protective dune and wide dry-sand beach.
[*Depth of Closure is the approximate limit of measurable bottom change over particular time scales, and it
is where waves and currents have no measurable impact on bottom elevations. The calculation limits from
the dune to the depth of closure will be used by FEMA to determine sand volume losses after a declared
disaster under Category G – Public Assistance (FEMA 2020). Based upon historical profiles analysis in the
adjacent Buxton project area (NPS/USACE 2015), the closure depth for the Avon project area should be around
−24 ft NAVD.]
[ **NAVD’88 — North American Vertical Datum of 1988 which is roughly 0.5 ft above present mean sea level
along the North Carolina coast.]
Figure 3.3 illustrates the Digital Terrain Models (DTM) of the study area by color-coded, smooth-contour maps
using the indicated elevation/depth intervals for each color. Light colors indicate the dune-beach zone and
longshore bar; deep blue represents water depths >30 ft. The bathymetry DTMs show relatively smooth,
continuous morphology of a longshore bar (yellow-green color band) (inside the 20-ft depth contour) along
the northern half of Avon. The longshore bar diminishes to the south, and an inshore bar develops in
shallower water.

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 16 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

Figure 3.4 shows unit volumes station by station using the July 2020 survey. The five reaches delineated for
the study area are marked in the figure, and the horizontal lines (in red) show the average unit volume of each
reach. Reaches 3, 4, and a small portion of Reach 5 are the proposed project area.
The present results indicate that Reach 4 has the lowest unit volume of 748 cy/ft, which is 128 cy/ft less than
Reach 3, 133 cy/ft less than Reach 5, 440 cy/ft less than Reach 1, and 471 cy/ft less than Reach 2. These profile
volume differences along Avon provide a basis for CSE’s proposed nourishment volume determinations. We
used the results to determine the profile deficit with respect to an ideal or target beach condition (CSE 2020).
It would take approximately 1 million cubic yards of sand to restore Reaches 3 and 4 and maintain the project
area for five years under normal weather conditions. This is the total nourishment volume proposed herein.
3.4 Alternatives
Three alternatives have been evaluated for the proposed beach nourishment:
• Alternative 1 – No-Action
• Alternative 2 – Nourishment with Offshore Sand Source and Winter Construction
• Alternative 3 – Nourishment with Offshore Sand Source and Summer Construction
Additional alternatives and other sand sources (material dredged from Avon Harbor and inland deposits from
nearby sand stockpiles) were considered during the feasibility study but were dismissed from further analysis
for environmental, geological, technical, or economic reasons (CSE 2020).
Construction during the summer months is necessary in this setting because of high wave conditions for the
remainder of the year, as was proved by other nourishment projects completed (or being planned) in Dare
County as listed in Table 3.1. The full scope of work proposed under Alternative 3 would best protect NC 12
and National Park Service (NPS) facilities at Cape Hatteras. It would increase the area of sea turtle and
shorebird nesting habitat, and it would also reduce the frequency of future remedial or emergency measures.
The short-term biological impacts to benthic organisms under Alternative 3 may be greater than Alternative
2. However, Alternative 2 would require work in the winter months, placing Contractor personnel at much
greater risk due to unsafe conditions offshore. Therefore, Alternative 3 is the Applicant’s preferred alternative.

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 17 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

FIGURE 3.3. Color-coded topography and bathymetry Digital Terrain Models (DTM) from the July 2020 beach condition
survey for the Avon study area. Note: the proposed nourishment project area is from stations 1550+00 to 1682+00, mainly
along Reaches 3 and 4.

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 18 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

TABLE 3.1. Beach nourishment projects using offshore borrow areas completed or planned in Dare County (MCY
– Million Cubic Yards).
FIGURE 3.4. Unit volumes by station from the foredune to the approximate depth of closure at –24 ft NAVD along
the Avon study area using the July 2020 survey. Note: the proposed nourishment project area is from stations
1550+00 to 1682+00, mainly Reaches 3 and 4.

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 19 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

3.4.1 Project Description
Based on the feasibility study (CSE 2020) and available funds, Dare County has elected to nourish the critically
eroded section of beach and its immediate upcoast. The proposed project area, marked as Reaches 3 and 4
in Figures 3.5 and 3.6, is 13,200 ft (2.5 miles) out of the 18,000 ft (~3.8 miles) of the Avon Village. The maximum
nourishment volume will be 1 million cubic yards. It will involve excavating beach-quality sand from an
offshore borrow area via hydraulic and/or hopper dredge (see Figure 1.1). Borrow sediment will be pumped
to the beach and spread by land-based equipment (eg – bulldozers) in the beach zone between the toe of
dune/mid-dry sand beach and the low watermark. The elevation of the nourishment berm will be set at or
below the normal dry-beach level (approximately +7 feet NAVD) so that it is naturally overtopped by waves
during minor storms. The nourishment profile will be designed to adjust rapidly to changing wave conditions
with an expected gradual shift of sand into deeper water as the profile equilibrates. Backshore areas are
expected to be enhanced gradually after construction by natural dune building processes.
The average maximum fill density (volume of nourishment per linear foot of beach) will be ~75 cubic yards per
foot (cy/ft). This is equivalent to an average beach width increase after natural profile adjustment of ~40 ft in
Reach 3 and 90 ft in Reach 4. During construction for a 2.5-mile-long project, the anticipated maximum impact
area is ~80 acres. The maximum project is expected to create ~15 acres of new dry-beach habitat. This
expanded dry-beach area will eventually produce ~3.5 acres of new dune habitat via natural processes after
the equipment is removed from the beach. The maximum scale is expected to provide approximately five
years of erosion relief, dune growth, and NC 12 protection under normal conditions. The final project volume
will be determined according to the state and federal permits, the County’s construction fund, and the
responsible bid.
Fill densities will vary from 43 cy/ft in Reach 3 (north of the Avon Pier) to 90 cy/ft in Reach 4 (south of the Avon
Pier) to best achieve the Applicant’s purpose and goals of the proposed nourishment project. Figure 3.7
includes the fill design of two representative stations, and the details of the design are illustrated in Permit
Drawing Sheets 03–10. The elevation of the dry-sand berm is set to be at +7 ft NAVD, and the initial dunes will
be constructed along Reach 4 from stations 1590+00 to 1682+00. The dune crest is set to be at +13 ft NAVD,
the typical dune width is 20 ft, and the dune seaward slope is 1 on 4 (vertical versus horizontal). The width of
the constructed dry-sand berm (before normal profile adjustment) in front of the toe of the initial dunes varies
from 90–200 ft. The initial dune will tie into the existing profile but will not encroach on existing vegetation or
house foundations under any circumstances.
Final fill templates for each section of the beach will be determined close to the time of construction
(according to standard practice) based on beach conditions. However, the total project volume and the
impact area will not exceed the maximum values proposed herein unless otherwise directed by the permits.
Final fill templates for construction will be submitted to the permitting agencies for approval before the
commencement of nourishment.

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 20 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

FIGURE 3.6. Aerial photo taken on 15 July 2020 showing the proposed project area, particularly Reach 4 –
south of the Avon Pier.
FIGURE 3.5. Aerial photo taken on 15 July 2020 showing the proposed project area, particularly Reach 3 –
north of the Avon Pier.

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 21 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

3.4.2 Sediment Quality and Compatibility
(1) Beach Sampling
CSE established five stations in 2020 along the proposed project area while conducting the feasibility study
(CSE 2020). Sediment samples were collected at 14 positions across each station in March 2021. The location
of the five alongshore stations are shown in Figure 3.8, and the 14 positions across each station are illustrated
in Figure 3.9. The mean grain size of beach sand at the Avon project area was 0.289 millimeters (mm) with 4
percent of shell and 1.8 percent of gravel as of March 2021. Samples collected below –8 ft NAVD were finer
than those collected from the upper portions of the profile. Samples collected within the trough (next to MLW
in Figure 3.9) were significantly coarser. The mean grain size of samples collected above mean low water
(MLW) is 0.323 mm with 4 percent shell material and 1.8 percent gravel (>2 mm) by weight. Not including the
trough, beach samples contained ~2–3 percent shell material and ~1–2 percent gravel by weight.
(2) Offshore Borrow Area Sediment Quality and Compatibility Analysis
The proposed offshore borrow area encompasses ~250 acres and is located within NC state waters. Fifteen
(15) 3-inch borings were obtained in April 2021, and each core has a uniform depth of 10 ft below the existing
substrate. Twelve out of the 15 cores are located in the proposed borrow area, yielding an average core
density of one core per ~20 acres. The core locations are marked in Figures 1.1 and 3.10 and on Permit Drawing
Sheets 11–12. The borings were split, logged, subsampled, and analyzed for grain-size distribution and
comparison with the existing beach sand, then pro-rated according to the length of each sample interval. This
allows the calculation of boring statistics to a specified “composite” depth, which is useful for the operational
considerations of dredge vessels. After calculating the composite values to 6 ft, 8 ft, and 10 ft depths, seven
(7) borings were found to have beach-quality sand to a depth up to 10 ft in Borrow Area 1, and five (5) borings
were found to have beach-quality sand to a depth up to 6 ft in Borrow Area 2.
The mean grain size of the seven borings in Borrow Area 1, composited to a 10-ft depth, is 0.308 mm with 16.4
percent shell material and 2.8 percent gravel (>2 mm) by weight.
The mean grain size of the five borings in Borrow Area 2, composited to a 6-ft depth, is 0.331 mm with 16.8
percent shell material and 5.8 percent gravel (>2 mm) by weight.
Overfill factor provides a measure of how a particular sand source will perform as beach nourishment (CERC
1984). Low overfill factors are generally preferred, with the ideal being equal to 1.0. The overfill factor of
Borrow Area 1 (10-ft cut depth) is 1.0, and 1.1 for Borrow Area 2 (6-ft cut depth), indicating a good match
between the material in the borrow areas and the native beach.
The boring density in both Borrow Area 1 and Borrow Area 2 is approximately 1 core per 20 acres. Based on
these descriptive statistics, the proposed borrow area contains compatible sand (Figure 3.11) and meets the
requirements of the updated North Carolina Technical Standards for Beach Fill Projects (15A NCAC 07H .0312
effective April 1, 2021 –Attachment A) and National Park Service Sediment Management Framework (NPS
2021a and 2021b).

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 22 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

FIGURE 3.7. Representative fill templates at station 1560+00 for Reach 3 and 1610+00 for Reach 4. Beach profiles represent
the beach condition in July 2020. An initial dune is proposed to be constructed along portions of Reach 4. The dune crest is
set to be at +13 ft NAVD and the seaward slope is 1 on 4. The typical dune crest width is 20 ft, and the constructed dry-sand
berm in front of the dune is approximately 157 ft at station 1610+00 (~2,000 ft south of Avon Pier).

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 23 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

FIGURE 3.8. Location of the five sediment
sample transects (14 samples per transect) along
the Avon project area. Samples were collected in
March 2021.

FIGURE 3.9. Sample positions for “beach” grab samples along the Avon project area following North Carolina sediment
sampling criteria rules. The Avon littoral profile exhibits a narrow berm (dry-sand beach) and deep trough separating the outer
bar from the beach. Elevations and depths (y-axis) are relative to approximate Mean Sea Level.

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 24 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

FIGURE 3.10. Mean grain size, percent shell, and percent gravel for core composite samples to 10 ft in the proposed offshore
Borrow Area 1 and 6 ft in the proposed Borrow Area 2 based on borings obtained in April 2021. Each boring has a uniform
length of 10 ft. Composite results of the twelve vibracores are listed in table on the upper left.

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 25 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

FIGURE 3.11. GSDs for Avon native beach samples (n=70) compared with offshore samples in the proposed
borrow area (composite). [UPPER] Borrow Area 1 where 10 ft excavation depth is proposed. [LOWER] Borrow
Area 2 where 6 ft excavation depth is proposed. In both borrow areas, sediments are expected to be coarser
than the native beach initially. Over time, the grain size of the post-nourishment beach is expected to move
closer to the historical grain size distribution around Avon.

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 26 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

The proposed 250-acre borrow area would provide up to 3.4 million cubic yards of beach quality sand if
excavation is permitted to a depth of 10 ft in Borrow Area 1 and 6 ft in Borrow Area 2. The proposed ~250-acre
borrow area will provide sufficient volume to accomplish a 1-million cubic yard project. More details of the
geotechnical data and analysis are included in Appendix A of the Environmental Assessment.
Large sediment sampling was conducted in March 2021 as required by North Carolina sediment standards for
the proposed beach nourishment (15A NCAC 07H.0312 Effective 1 April 2021).
The fieldwork, data analysis, photo processing, and the report were performed under Grant Contract No.
CW20490 between the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality and the County of Dare. Large
clasts are defined as sediments greater than, or equal to, one inch (25.4 millimeters) in diameter, and shell
material greater than or equal to three inches (76 millimeters) in diameter. Survey results show that 26 clasts
were observed along the five transects in the Avon project area in March 2021. Each transect averaged 5.2
shell fragments greater than three inches in diameter. More details and the full conclusions are included in
Appendix C of the Environmental Assessment.
3.4.3 Cultural Resources Study in the Borrow Area
The coastal waters off the Outer Banks of North Carolina have one of the highest documented concentrations
of shipwrecks in the western Atlantic. Hundreds of vessels have been reported lost off the Outer Banks and
especially off Cape Hatteras. Weather, currents, natural magnetic anomalies, and shoals make navigation
along the Outer Banks and off Cape Hatteras more hazardous than most East Coast areas.
Although the proposed action area lies within the area of highest sensitivity for historic shipwrecks in North
Carolina, no shipwreck remains have been documented on the adjacent beach or in the offshore vicinity
(NPS/USACE 2015).
The Applicant retained Tidewater Atlantic Research (TAR) to conduct a cultural resources survey in the
proposed borrow area for the Avon nourishment project. Because the proposed borrow area contains over
three times more sand than the volume needed for the proposed nourishment project, “no-work” buffer zones
around possible anomalies (if any) are not likely to impact construction.
3.4.4 Dune Management Plan
Dare County proposes to integrate a dune management plan into the proposed nourishment project. The
purpose of the plan is to improve storm protection along the vulnerable section of the project area, accelerate
dune growth, and provide guidance for possible sand relocation activities in the event of future sand
encroachment to existing structures.
The dune management plan proposed as part of the nourishment plan and present permit application includes
the following actions at two major stages:
(1) During Construction – Initial dunes are proposed to be built along Reach 4 – south of the Avon
Pier. The typical elevation at the top of the dune will be at +13 ft NAVD, and the typical width of the
dune crest will be 20 ft. The typical seaward slope will be at 1 on 4 (vertical versus horizontal). The
constructed berm width in front of the dune varies from 90–200 ft, providing sufficient dry-sand
beach to minimize scarping at the toe of the dune following project completion. The protective

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 27 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

dune will tie into the existing profile but in no circumstance encroach on existing vegetation or
house foundations.
(2) Following Construction – Sand fencing will be installed, and vegetation will be planted along the
entire project area (i.e. – Reaches 3 and 4) following nourishment. General instructions are
illustrated on Permit Drawing Sheet 13, and the exact locations of sand fencing and vegetation will
be determined based on the condition after the proposed nourishment.
3.4.5 Methods of Construction
The proposed beach nourishment will be placed by ocean-going trailing suction hopper dredge(s) or cutterhead
pipeline dredge(s) between the seaward crest of the existing dry beach and the outer bar. Only the profile above
high water is controllable in nourishment construction. Intertidal and underwater portions of the profile will
be subject to natural adjustment by waves. The fill will be placed no higher than +7 ft NAVD (the average natural
elevation of the berm).
Work will progress in sections within the borrow area and along the beach. Fill placement along the beach will
typically progress at an average rate of 300 ft per day. Construction activities will involve the movement of
heavy equipment and pipe along ~4,000-ft reaches over a period of 1–2 weeks. Once a section is complete,
piping and heavy equipment will be shifted to a new section, and the process will be repeated. As soon as
practicable, sections will be graded and dressed to final slopes. Other than at equipment staging areas, beach
residents along the project area will experience disruption due to construction for only several days or less.
Land-based equipment will be brought to the site over public roads and will enter the beach at designated
beach access areas. Any alteration of dune vegetation/topography necessary for equipment access will be
authorized prior to undertaking any work and be repaired to pre-project conditions. Daily equipment staging
will be on the constructed beach seaward of the dune line. Existing dunes and vegetation on the beach will be
avoided and preserved. The Contractor will provide proper storage and disposal of oils, chemicals, hydraulic
fluids, etc., necessary for operation according to state and federal regulations.
Construction Schedule — The proposed project will require summer dredging because of safety issues,
particularly the lack of a nearby safe harbor for ocean dredges. Construction duration is expected to be a
maximum of ~3 months if work is permitted between 1 May and 15 September.
CSE evaluated potential cost savings during the feasibility study should an Avon nourishment project using
offshore deposits be combined with similar work at Buxton (CSE 2020). Some sharing of mobilization costs
would potentially offer savings of $2–3 million for the proposed project. Permit applications for the Buxton
renourishment project were submitted to the state and federal agencies in May 2021, targeting construction in
summer 2022. Therefore, the preferred schedule for the proposed Avon nourishment is summer 2022. The
summer construction proposed herein is consistent with all prior nourishment projects in Dare County since
2011 (see Table 3.1). It also follows the applicant’s goal of maintaining the project with renourishment at
approximate five-year intervals between projects.

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 28 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

3.4.6 Alternative 3-Summer Construction (Applicant’s Proposed Action)
Alternative 3-Summer Construction would meet the goal to protect infrastructure, achieve the wider
oceanfront beach, and would meet the project purpose and need. This alternative is predicted to afford
protection for twice as long as Alternative 2-Winter Construction. The applicant-proposed action would
include placement of up to 1.0 million cubic yards of compatible sands (also dredged from the proposed 250-
acre offshore borrow area) along up to 13,200 ft (2.5 miles). While all of this length is within National Seashore
property, the entire project length is along the oceanfront of Avon Village (see Figure 1.1). The proposed
dredging offshore and sand placement on the beach is projected to occur over a <3-month period between
June and August 2022.
Recognizing the serious concern for endangered and threatened species protection during summer dredge
operations along the ocean coast of the South Atlantic Region, certain monitoring and mitigation measures
would be implemented by the project owner (Dare County) and dredge contractor in close coordination with
resource agencies (e.g. PDCs and other guidance from the 2020 SARBO as appropriate) and the NPS.
National Seashore biologists closely monitor shore bird and turtle nesting activities along the National
Seashore and establish closure areas when certain species are present and actively nesting. Fewer shorebirds
nest in the Avon project area compared to the Buxton project area; however, one least tern nest and chick was
observed in 2014 but none since. Shorebirds do rest and forage on the Avon beach every year, and loggerhead
sea turtle nests are usually documented on the Avon beach every year. After informal interagency
consultation with USFWS, NCWRC, and NPS for the 2017/2018 Buxton project, Dare County proposed to
minimize or mitigate impacts to nesting shorebirds and sea turtles and marine mammals by the following
measures which would also guide the Avon restoration project:
• Time construction activities to avoid active nesting areas to the extent practicable.
• Configure the fill sections to avoid placement on the dry sand beach in the vicinity of any
designated bird closure areas; placement would occur seaward of mean low water for limited
sections of the project.
• Monitor both sides of the shore pipe each night during construction for signs of turtle activity.
• Daily sea turtle nesting surveys initiated by 1 May through end of project.
• USFWS- and/or NCWRC-authorized personnel will relocate all sea turtle nests that may be
affected by construction or sand placement ahead of construction to minimize impacts to sea
turtles. All relocated nests must be moved before 0900 the morning following deposition to a
secure setting meeting criteria to optimize hatch. Nest relocations will cease as project
segments are completed unless other factors threaten successful hatch. All nests will be marked
and avoided.
• Use special lights for turtles as recommended by USFWS and, per the 2020 SARBO, Florida Fish
and Wildlife Conservation Commission, and subject to conformance with OSHA minimums for
work safety.
• Maintain a minimum back beach buffer of the order 50-ft (no work area) between the
foredune and active nourishment area to avoid disturbance of incipient vegetation or
potential nesting areas.

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 29 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

• Maintain certified and NMFS/OPR-approved onboard protected species observers (PSOs) with
authority to stop work as deemed necessary by current ESA protocols, the 2020 SARBO, and/or
standard conditions of the any biological opinion (BO) issued for the project. Optional measures
suggested to mitigate adverse effects will be fully considered.
• Trawl ahead of hopper dredges (non-capture trawling) to mobilize any sea turtles or Atlantic
sturgeon that may be resting in the surficial sediments of the borrow area.
A goal of summer dredge operation is to accomplish the work at the largest volume possible in the shortest
time, so as to provide the greatest project longevity. A project of ~1.0 million cubic yards can be constructed
in two to three months in the summer; however, based on recent experience at Buxton, wave climate is critical
to the timeline, even in the summer. Typically, projects at the scale of Buxton and Avon require two or more
landing points for the submerged pipeline. The sand slurry is pumped via the submerged pipeline to shore,
then runs parallel to the beach by way of “shore pipe”. Work proceeds north or south for a distance of 3,000-
4,000 ft (typical) until that section of the project is complete. Then the shore pipe is removed and used to
build the next section in the opposite direction until complete. Avon would likely be completed in four
discrete sections, working around the clock due to the high cost and number of personnel required for the
operation of ocean certified dredges. It is not practical or cost-effective to suspend operations for several
weeks and restart the project. Suspension of work for several weeks would result in remobilization costs or
high standby costs per day (order of $150,000-200,000) with concomitant reduction in the volume that can be
dredged under a fixed budget.
Fill sections can be modified to avoid placement landward of the low tide line for limited distances so as to
place active construction as far as possible from nest closure areas. Such a configuration would leave a swale
between the nourishment berm and the native beach. After construction is finished and all equipment
removed, autumn storms would be expected to overtop the nourishment berm and drive sand into the swale.
This procedure was used at Nags Head to avoid placing sand under condemned houses that were positioned
in the active swash zone (CSE 2012). It is not practical or advisable to leave gaps in the project, given the
anticipated cross-shore dimensions. Bulges in the fill adjacent to gaps potentially produce accelerated
erosion of unnourished sections. For similar reasons, the ends of the project would incorporate long taper
sections (order of 1,000–1,500 ft).
As sections are completed, a 1,000-4,000 ft length of shore pipe remains in place for a 1–2-week period. The
connection points every 40 ft must remain exposed for inspection for leaks by the dredgers, but numerous
sand ramps will be placed over the pipe for vehicles and beach goers. The duration of time that the shore pipe
would be strung out the maximum distance alongshore (~4,000 ft) would be a few days. As soon as the section
volume is in place, the shore pipe would be removed and the nourishment berm graded to final contours with
nearly all construction activity ceasing in that section. To minimize ingress of heavy equipment along the
beach at night, unused pipe sections would be pre-positioned by loaders during daylight hours near the active
work area for adding as needed during the night shift. This would also confine lighting to the ~300 ft active
work area each night.
Dare County proposes these monitoring and mitigation measures based on consultation with USFWS, NMFS,
and NPS officials, experience from the Buxton restoration project, and experience with Northern Outer Banks
nourishment projects.

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 30 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

3.5 Additional Details of Applicant-Proposed Action (Alternative 3-Summer Construction)
In addition to what has been described above, the applicant-proposed action (see Fig 1.1) includes the
following items:
1) All sediment placed on the Avon project beach would be compatible with the native beach. Figure
3.11 presents the grain size comparison for native beach samples and offshore samples in the
proposed borrow area. The beach fill sand would be dredged from the proposed borrow areas
located about 2 miles offshore of Avon from within an unnamed sand ridge just northeast of the
proposed borrow area dredged for the Buxton restoration project (see Fig 1.1). Geotechnical
investigations were conducted in March 2021 within the proposed borrow area to identify sufficient
quantities of beach compatible material (≥90% sand) and determine presence of cultural resources
or hard grounds.
Figures 3.12 and 3.13 show an example core photo log and core log from the center of the proposed
borrow area. Figure 3.11 shows a preliminary comparison of the grain-size distribution along the
subaerial beach and borrow area (composited samples in the upper 6–10 ft of section). The
proposed borrow area for the project is a shoal exposed to high wave energy in water depths
between 40 to 50 ft with negligible fine grained material present (e.g., mud or organics) (CSE
2021a). Geotechnical data within the proposed borrow area confirm the sediments are beach
compatible and exceed North Carolina state standards for similarity with the native beach (CSE
2021a). A high density of 15 borings (12 within the actual boundaries) (~1 per 20 acres)
demonstrates general uniformity of sediments in the upper 10 ft of substrate in Borrow Area 1 and
6 ft in Borrow Area 2.
2) The proposed work would use either an ocean certified hopper dredge (with pump-ashore
capabilities) and/or a hydraulic pipeline cutterhead dredge (Fig 3.14) to excavate and pump the
material from the proposed offshore borrow area to the sand placement area. The most feasible
and safe method for excavation is anticipated to be via hopper dredge during summer months
when wave energy at the borrow site is within threshold criteria for safest and most optimal
operations (see Fig 3.15). The project area is exposed to the highest waves along the East Coast
(Leffler et al. 1996) and is situated approximately 105 miles from the nearest safe harbor at Little
Creek Virginia. Ocean-going dredges, which can legally operate offshore, generally have drafts
which exceed the navigation channel depth or actual depth at Oregon Inlet (~45 miles away) or
Hatteras Inlet (~20 miles away, extra distance required to navigate around Diamond Shoals for safe
passage).
3) Once sand has been pumped to the site, heavy equipment typically used in beach fill placement
operations (i.e., bulldozers, front end loaders, excavators) would be used to fine tune the design
beach profile; other support vehicles (i.e., ATVs, trucks) would also drive on the beach (Fig 3.16).
Operations at the active beach construction site would be around the clock seven days a week until
completion, the active beach discharge point would be fenced to protect public safety, and land-
based personnel would work within the beach construction zone to ensure compliance with
conditions and restrictions of the applicable state and federal permits. Staging areas would be
used to store additional shore pipe, fuel, mobile on-site office, and other necessary equipment.
Locations of any staging areas and two anticipated access points for support vehicles and heavier
equipment would be coordinated with the NPS and the Village of Avon, as necessary.

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 31 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

FIGURE 3.12. Example core photo log for one of the 10-ft borings (AV-27) obtained by AVS in April 2021.

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 32 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

FIGURE 3.13. Core log for AV-27 showing the lithology, sample intervals, and mean grain sizes.

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 33 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

FIGURE 3.14. Three hopper dredges and one suction cutterhead dredge (inset photos) were used to construct the
Nags Head (NC) beach nourishment project (24 May to 27 October 2011). Image shows nourishment construction in
progress working south to north toward Outer Banks Pier in south Nags Head. [Photos by CSE and Great Lakes
Dredge & Dock Co.]

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 34 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

FIGURE 3.15. Graph showing the monthly average wave climate from 2003–2020 at NDBC Wave Buoy Station
41025 at Diamond Shoals (NC) near Buxton and Avon compared with the wave climate at the USACE Field
Research Facility at Duck (NC). The criteria for safe dredging apply to hopper-dredge operations using ocean-
certified equipment per informal guidance by dredging contractors. Suction-cutterhead dredges generally
cannot operate safely in waves >3 feet (USACE 2010). The graph shows that average monthly wave height
exceeds 5 feet from September to April in the proposed project area. Calmest conditions occur in June and July
when average wave heights are ~3.7 feet. The bars at the bottom of the lower graph show approximate range
of dates when certain protected species may be present in or near the Project Area. (Source: NDBC).

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 35 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

4) The duration of construction is expected to be ~2–3 months assuming operations are permitted
during summer months and weather/wave climate is conducive. Safe harbor interruptions, which
may be expected but are not quantifiable, are not included in the 3-month construction estimate.
Production for a 4.6 million cubic yard project at Nags Head, North Carolina (~50–60 miles north of
the Buxton project site) was ~3.8 million cubic yards in three months between 27 May and 27 August
2011 using one large hopper dredge (~6,000 cy capacity) and one suction cutterhead dredge (for
~1.5 months), and ~0.8 million cubic yards in two months between 27 August and 27 October using
two smaller hopper dredges (~3,000 cy capacity each) (CSE 2012). Low production rates for the
latter 20 percent of the Nags Head project reflect a high frequency of no-work days associated with
high wave events in September and October. Hurricane Irene impacted the Nags Head project on
27 August 2011.
5) On a given day, the typical impact area along the beach in the project area would average ~1,000
linear feet. Project areas outside the active work area would remain open to the public, subject to
NPS natural resource protection, management, and policy. As sections of the project are
completed, the nourished area would be reopened immediately to the public as appropriate.
Sections of shore pipeline extending up to ~4,000 linear feet along the beach would be left in place
along the completed berm. Sand ramps would be placed over the pipeline for vehicle and
pedestrian access to and from the beach every 100–200 feet (ft). The pipeline would be monitored
nightly while in place to detect any turtle activity in the project area and to insure no turtles are
stranded landward of the pipeline. Upon completion of a section of the project, the shore pipeline
would be removed and relocated to a new pump-out point and shore pipe extended along the beach
as the subsequent sections are completed. Thus, the shore length over which pipe extends during
construction would vary from <100 ft to ~4,000 ft. Resource closure areas designated by NPS
biologists before or during construction would be bypassed or avoided by shifting construction as
far seaward as practicable to minimize impacts and maintain acceptable no work buffers near
closure areas. Close coordination between NPS personnel and contractors would be maintained
throughout the construction of the project.
6) Loaders would remove and relocate the pipeline and bulldozers would shape the nourishment berm
into its final grades and slopes above mean high water. The seaward slope cannot be controlled
accurately, but the likely intertidal beach slope for the nourished beach at the time of construction
would be ~1 on 15 based on experience in similar settings. The constructed berm is expected to adjust
rapidly to slopes and morphology typical of the surf zone, including low-tide bars and troughs formed
within weeks in response to varying wave action. During fall months, the project area is subject to
frequent high energy wave events associated with minor extra-tropical storms (“northeasters”). The
berm elevation of the nourished beach is expected to be lower than the typical wave uprush limit
during northeasters and be overtopped periodically within months of project completion. Washover
deposits would shift sand landward to higher elevations near the foredune and shift sand into shallow
water. Figure 3.17 illustrates a sequence of profile changes at one station along the Nags Head project
area during and shortly after construction (from CSE 2012). Figure 3.18 shows natural buildup of the
foredune over sand fencing placed at the toe of the foredune one year and three years after
construction of the Nags Head project. No dune planting or sand fencing are included in project plans.

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 36 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

FIGURE 3.16. Types of land-based support equipment generally required for beach nourishment construction.
[Photo annotations courtesy of J Lignelli and First Coastal Corp of New York.]

7) The offshore borrow area would be excavated to a maximum depth of 10 ft in Borrow Area 1 and 6
ft in Borrow Area 2 below existing grade. If hopper dredges are used, excavations would leave
undisturbed areas in close proximity to dredged corridors. High wave energy is expected to rapidly
eliminate irregularities in the borrow area topography and promote mixing of exposed sands which
underlie the removed sediments. The anticipated borrow area contains potential sand resources
totaling >3.4 million cubic yards. The maximum project volume to be removed would be less than
30 percent of the sand resources in the designated area. Upon adjustment, the average depth over
the designated borrow area is expected to increase by ~3 ft to an average depth in the range ~40–50
ft below mean sea level. The excavations over a natural ridge are not expected to leave deep holes.

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 37 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

FIGURE 3.17. Pre- and post-nourishment profiles from a station in south Nags Head ~900 ft south of
Jennette’s Pier (Whalebone Junction) showing fill adjustment after three years. Note ~20:1 vertical
exaggeration. No sand was placed above the +7-ft NAVD contour. Natural profile adjustment by Year 3
included a large shift of sand from the nourishment berm to the foredune as well as a buildup of sand
offshore. The buildup of the foredune since nourishment is due to natural processes (from CSE 2014). The
profile changes include impacts from Hurricane Irene (2011) and Hurricane Sandy (2012).
FIGURE 3.18. Natural dune growth along south Nags Head (NH Station 855+00) after the 2011 nourishment project.
[UPPER] 11 June 2012 locality in Nags Head (NC) seven months after nourishment. [LOWER] 5 June 2014 same locality two years and
seven months after nourishment (From CSE 2014)

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 38 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

— THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK —

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 39 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

4.0 PROPOSED PROJECT AREA DESCRIPTION
Cape Hatteras National Seashore occupies over 30,000 acres (ac) from the ocean to the sound and includes
64 miles of shoreline across three North Carolina islands, Bodie, Hatteras, and Ocracoke. The Proposed Action
Area is in Dare County, North Carolina and in the jurisdiction and management of the National Park Service in
front of Avon Village. The sand placement will widen the beach in front of much of the village of Avon, and the
northern and southern ends of the sand placement will taper into the existing beach profile.
As shown on the topographic/bathymetric map (Fig 4.1) and aerial photograph (Fig 4.2), the majority of the
project area considered terrestrial is unvegetated. Figure 4.3 shows the terrestrial foot-print ranges in
elevation (NAVD) from mean sea level to 13 ft and includes the backshore (13 ft elevation and landward 50 ft
= 15.2 ac), foredune (9 ft to 13 ft elevation = 10 ac), and dry beach (5 ft to 9 ft elevation = 16.1 ac). The aquatic
or marine footprint ranges in elevation from −24 ft to 5 ft and is comprised of wet beach (5 ft to −1 ft elevation
= 16.6 ac), nearshore bottom (−1 ft to −8 ft elevation = 92 ac), and the offshore bottom (−8 ft to −24 ft elevation
= 526.7 ac). No nourishment would be placed directly on the backshore above the +13-ft elevation contour.
However, post-construction adjustment of the profile would likely include natural aeolian transport of sand
from the nourishment berm to the upper beach and foredune. Therefore, habitat areas 50 ft landward of the
+13-ft contour are referenced herein as part of the project area habitat.
Borrow Area 1 and Borrow Area 2 include an additional 250 ac of offshore bottom from approximately −35 ft
to −50 ft elevation. Nearshore and offshore bottom includes the trough and longshore bars of the surf zone
as well as the more persistent shoals in deeper waters. Figures 4.4 and 4.5 show typical profiles of the
topography of the beach and proposed borrow areas. East of NC 12, construction access points for equipment
staging and manipulation will occur at two points along the project length chosen by the selected contractor
(in coordination with NPS personnel) and may include other somewhat vegetated terrestrial habitats not
affected by the actual sand placement.
The analysis/action area, includes both the marine and terrestrial proposed footprint of the activities (sand
placement and offshore borrow) and within 1 mile of the edge of the proposed footprint. All direct effects
would be those which may occur during the project itself including the dredging within the proposed borrow
areas, pipeline transport of dredged sediments to the placement areas, and/or the sand placement and
shaping activities on the dunes, beach and nearshore. Indirect effects would include those which may occur
after the project but as a secondary response to the project.
The Proposed Action would occur between May and September 2022 and would include use of the following
equipment and activities:
• an ocean certified dredge (hopper dredge and possibly a suction cutterhead dredge) to dredge
suitably sized sand from a borrow area ~2-3 miles offshore;
• these sands would be piped to shore and placed seaward of the toe of the dune (+7-ft contour);
and
• bulldozers would shape the piped sand to closely match the contours and elevations of the
natural beach.

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 40 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

FIGURE 4.1. Digital terrain model (DTM) showing topography and bathymetry in the project area in August 2020.

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 41 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

FIGURE 4.2. Aerial photos of the project area (15 July 2020).

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 42 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

FIGURE 4.3. Habitat area map of the project area showing acreage of various dune, beach, and inshore habitats out to the
−24 ft NAVD depth contour.

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 43 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

FIGURE 4.4. Representative habitat profile in the Avon project area showing elevation limits for various
habitat types and corresponding areas along ~13,200 linear feet based on conditions in July 2020.
FIGURE 4.5. Detailed borrow area bathymetry and representative sections based on condition surveys in July 2020.
Depths are in feet NAVD’88.

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 44 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

The nourishment berm may be varied as necessary to avoid or provide additional separation around nest
closure areas.
The project would likely increase the area of beach suitable for turtle, shorebird, and colonial waterbird nests
and increase suitable areas for shorebird and colonial waterbird foraging and resting. Therefore, both the size
and location of pre-nest closures may increase, as well as the time required for NPS personnel to establish the
closures and perform their required surveys. Although unlikely, it is also possible that species not currently
managed (or found within the National Seashore) become established in or use portions of the increased
habitats subsequent to the project which may then require additional NPS management (e.g. seabeach
amaranth).

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 45 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

5.0 PRE-FIELD REVIEW
A list of all federal and state ESA species considered as endangered, threatened, candidate, proposed, or
special concern by regulatory authorities was generated. Those federal authorities included USFWS and
NMFS and the state authorities included the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) and the
North Carolina Plant Conservation Program; lists of rare and other protected species are updated every two
years by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP). Species with the potential to occur within
the analysis area are shown in Table 6.1. Species not known to occur in the analysis area are documented
with rationale for exclusion in Table 6.1 and some of these species are not discussed further in this document.
Excluded species were dropped from further analysis under one or more of the following three conditions:
1) species does not occur nor is expected in the action area during the time period activities would
occur;
2) occurs in habitats (including water depths) that are not present in the action area; and/or
3) is outside of the expected or documented geographical range of the species.
In addition, Table 6.1 also gives a very brief summary of the species, designated critical habitat, species’
habitat requirements, and known occurrence information of species that are known to or may occur in the
analysis area. Table 6.1 indicates whether the species from the USFWS official species list (dated December
21 2020), the NMFS southeast region list accessed from the NOAA website, the NCNHP and NCWRC websites
are (a) known or expected to occur within the analysis/action area and/or within 1 mile, (b) suitable habitat is
present, or (c) if not, why they are excluded from further analysis. Additionally, for the marine mammals,
North Carolina stranding data collected from 1997–2020 were consulted to help determine whether or not to
evaluate a species in more detail (Byrd et al. 2014; Cummings et al. 2014) and NOAA's Southeast US Marine
Mammal Stranding Network 2000-2020).
For all federally listed species in Table 6.1, there is no proposed critical habitat within the analysis area;
however, designated critical migratory habitat for the loggerhead sea turtle does exist within the analysis
area. There is no other designated or proposed critical habitat for any species within the analysis area.
6.0 PROTECTED SPECIES CONSIDERED AND EVALUATED
Species listed as threatened or endangered by USFWS or NMFS are afforded federal protection under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 as amended. Section 9 of the ESA expressly provides specific lists of
prohibitions only for endangered species and does not automatically provide the same prohibitions for
threatened species. However, Section 4(d) of the ESA allows the Secretary of the Interior (department over
USFWS) and Secretary of Commerce (department over NMFS) to also extend some or all Section 9 protections
to threatened species. Historically, the USFWS extended all protections to threatened species while NMFS
specified appropriate regulations on a species-basis when a species was given threatened status. The Section
4(d) rules, sometimes called “special rule under 4(d)” provide regulators (USFWS and NOAA) flexibility to
identify/allow certain actions to occur which may result in incidental take of a threatened species but are not
deemed to interfere in the species overall recovery. As of 28 October 2019, the USFWS was required to change
its procedures to match those of NMFS for threatened species (either newly listed species or status change of
previously listed species).

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 46 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

TABLE 6.1. Threatened, endangered, and candidate/proposed species with the potential to occur within the
action/analysis area as determined by state and/or federal agencies with jurisdictional authority. The species lists
were obtained from appropriate agencies (FWS, NMFS, NCNHP, and NCWRC) and reviewed; species without the
potential to occur were excluded from further review with a no-effect determination based on the rationale codes
as shown below.
1 Status Codes: E/E= federally and state listed endangered; E*=state listed endangered; T/T=federally and
state listed threatened; T*=state listed threatened; SC= state listed special concern; V=state listed
vulnerable; P= federally proposed for listing; Exp=experimental population, non-essential
2 Exclusion Rationale Codes: ODR=outside known distributional range of the species; HAB=no habitat
present in analysis area; and SEA=species not expected to occur during the season of use/impact
SPECIES COMMON AND
SCIENTIFIC NAME
STATUS1 POTENTIAL TO
OCCUR
RATIONALE FOR
EXCLUSION2
HABITAT DESCRIPTION AND RANGE
INVERTEBRATES1
Elkhorn coral
(Acropora palmata) T No ODR Coral reefs in southern Florida, the Bahamas, and
across the Caribbean
Staghorn coral
(Acropora cervicornis) T No ODR Back and fore reef zones in southern Florida, the
Bahamas, and across the Caribbean
BIRDS
Caspian tern
(Hydroprogne caspia) T* Yes Primarily coastal shorelines/waters but also larger
lakes and rivers of North America
Eastern black rail
(Laterallus jamaicensis
jamaicensis)
T/PT* No
Variety of heavily vegetated salt, brackish,
freshwater wetland habitats of Mexico, Central
American, Caribbean, and US east of Rockies
Piping plover
(Charadrius melodus) T/T Yes
Coastal shorelines, sandflats at the end of sand
spits and barrier islands, gently sloped foredunes,
sparsely vegetated dunes, and washovers
Red-cockaded
woodpecker
(Picoides borealis)
E (PT)/E No HAB Mature pine forests with an open understory
Roseate tern
(Sterna dougallii
dougallii)
E/E Yes
Nest on ends of or breaks in small barrier islands
other than NC; NEUS population may use NC
beaches as stopover during seasonal migrations
Peregrine falcon
(Falco peregrinus) E* Yes
Fall and spring migrant; uses NC beaches for resting
and as winter visitor; can be seen on telephone
poles on Pea Island/Hatteras Island. No suitable
nesting habitat in project vicinity.
Bald eagle (Haliaeetus
leucoephalus) T* Yes Year round resident in vicinity but no nesting habitat
in project vicinity. Forages along the seashore.
Gull-billed tern
(Gelochelidon niloctica) T* Yes
Breeding summer resident early fall migrant; rests
on sandbars and spits with other terns; feeds over
coastal grasslands, dunes, marshes
Red knot
(Calidris canuta rufa) T Yes Coastal shorelines/interitdal areas for resting and
feeding during spring and fall migration

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 47 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

TABLE 6.1. (continued)
SPECIES COMMON AND
SCIENTIFIC NAME
STATUS1 POTENTIAL TO
OCCUR
RATIONALE FOR
EXCLUSION2
HABITAT DESCRIPTION AND RANGE
BIRDS (concluded)
Common tern
Sterna hirundo) E* Yes
Breeds on bare sand on barrier islands and dredge
spoil islands; summer resident; more numerous in
fall migration
Least tern
(Sterna antillarum) SC Yes Open sandy beaches, sparsely vegetated areas
often on islands through the southeast US
Black skimmer
(Rhynchops niger) SC Yes
Open sandy beaches, sparsely vegetated areas
often on islands throughout southeast US, colonial
nester; mostly summer resident in NC
American oystercatcher
(Haematopus palliatus) SC Yes Coastal shoreline and estuaries, oyster beds,
mudflats, beach nester
Wilson’s plover
(Charadrius wilsonia) SC Yes Beaches, island end flats, estuarine islands
Little blue heron
(Egretta caerulea) SC No HAB Forests or thickets on maritime islands
Snowy egret
(Egretta thula) SC No HAB Forests or thickets on maritime islands
Tricolored heron
(Egretta tricolor) SC No HAB Forests or thickets on maritime islands
Least bittern
(Ixobrychus exilis) SC No HAB Fresh or brackish marshes
Glossy ibis
(Plegadis falcinellus) SC No HAB Forests or thickets on maritime islands
FISHES1
Atlantic sturgeon
(Acipenser oxyrinchus) E/SC Yes
Western Atlantic waters- fresh water rivers to
spawn, estuarine waters as juveniles, marine waters
as subadults and adults (10-50m depths)
Shortnose sturgeon
(Acipenser brevirostrum) E/E Yes Rivers and estuaries of the east coast of US
Smalltooth sawfish
(Pristis pectinata) E No ODR US DPS; shallow warm estuaries and off warm
water beaches and warm deep water reefs
Giant manta ray
(Manta birostris) T Yes
Tropical, subtropical, temperate oceans worldwide
and near productive coastlines seasonally;
estuarine waters near inlets; scattered and
fragmented populations
Oceanic whitetip shark
(Carcharhinus
longimanus)
T No ODR;HAB Worldwide surface waters of tropical, subtropical
offshore open ocean of >600 ft depth
FLOWERING PLANTS
Seabeach amaranth
(Amaranthus pumilus) T/T Yes Overwash flats, dunes, and accretion areas on
barrier islands of the Atlantic Ocean
Seabeach knotweed
(Polygonum glaucum) E* Yes Beach dunes and interdune swales and overwash
sands, margins of salt ponds
Georgia sunrose
(Crocanthemum
georgianum)
E* No HAB Maritime forests
Gulfcoast spikerush
(Eleocharis cellulosa) E* No HAB Brackish marsh

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 48 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

TABLE 6.1 (continued)
SPECIES COMMON AND
SCIENTIFIC NAME
STATUS1 POTENTIAL TO
OCCUR
RATIONALE FOR
EXCLUSION2
HABITAT DESCRIPTION AND RANGE
FLOWERING PLANTS
Lanceleaf seedbox
(Ludwigia lanceolata) E* No HAB Brackish marsh
Florida adder’s mouth
(Malaxis spicata) SC-V No HAB Swamps, low woods, streambanks
Four angled flatsedge
(Cyperus tetragonus) SC-V No HAB Open woods, thickets, barrier islands
MAMMALS
Blue whale
(Balaenoptera
musculus)
E Yes HAB;SEA

Worldwide oceans; occasionally in coastal waters but
thought to occur generally more offshore than other
whales; poleward migration in spring; 0 NC strandings
1997-2020; recent documented sighting 27 mi off Cape
Hatteras
Fin whale
(Balaenoptera
physalus)
E Yes
Deep offshore waters of all major temperate to polar
oceans; may be in NC waters during winter migration
from north to south; 3 NC strandings 1997-2020, 1 in
proposed construction window (May)
Humpback whale
(Megaptera
novaeangliae)
E Yes
Worldwide oceans equator to subpolar; winter
migration to tropical and subtropical waters; 50 NC
strandings 1997-2020, 8 from May to Oct
North Atlantic
right whale
(Eubalaena glacialis)
E Yes
Worldwide temperate to subpolar oceans; nursery
grounds in shallow coastal waters; movements strongly
tied to prey food distribution; in lower latitudes and
coastal waters in winter, more inshore during spring
migration; 6 NC strandings 1997-2020, 2 during
proposed construction window (Aug and Sept)
Sei whale
(Balaenoptera borealis) E No HAB;SEA
Subtropical to subpolar waters on continental edge and
slope; usually observed in deeper oceans far from
coastline; move to northern latitudes in summer; 2 NC
strandings 1997-2020; not in proposed construction
window or Dare County
Sperm whale
(Physeter
macrocephalus)
E Yes HAB
Worldwide oceans; uncommon in waters <300m; 9 NC
strandings 1997-2020, 2 in proposed construction
window (June)
West Indian manatee
(Trichetus manatus) T/T Yes
Florida coast and Caribbean; rare visitor to NC waters
and further north; 5 NC strandings 1997-2008 all
inshore, 2 in proposed construction window (July, Aug)
Red wolf (Canis rufus) Exp/T No HAB
NC’s Albemarle peninsula, species found from
agricultural lands to pocosins in areas of low human
density, a wetland soil type, and distance from roads.
Northern long eared bat
(Myotis septentrionalis) T/T No HAB;
NC represents southern coastal extent of range; needs
forests (live and snags) for summer roosts. Project
meets 2017 SLOPES IV.B conditions
Buxton Woods white-
footed deermouse
(Peromyscus leucopus
buxtoni)
SC No HAB Only found in maritime forest of Buxton Woods

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 49 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

TABLE 6.1. (concluded)
SPECIES COMMON AND
SCIENTIFIC NAME
STATUS1 POTENTIAL TO
OCCUR
RATIONALE FOR
EXCLUSION2
HABITAT DESCRIPTION AND RANGE
REPTILES1
Green sea turtle
(Chelonia mydas) T/T Yes
Global distribution in tropical and subtropical waters
along continents and islands; inshore and nearshore
waters of NC; nests on ocean beaches
Hawksbill sea turtle
(Eretmochelys imbricata) E Yes
Circumtropical; usually in waters <20m; rare in NC
waters but has stranded on NC beaches; nests on
ocean beaches elsewhere
Kemp’s ridley sea turtle
(Lepidochelys kempii) E/E Yes Neritic habitats including Gulf of Mexico and US
Atlantic seaboard; nests on ocean beaches
Leatherback sea turtle
(Dermochelys coriacea) E/E Yes Pelagic species found globally, but also forages in
coastal waters; nests on ocean beaches
Loggerhead sea turtle
(Caretta caretta) T/T Yes
Circumglobal in temperate and tropical oceans; nest
on ocean beaches; critical migratory habitat in NC
offshore waters within project area
Diamondback terrapin
(Malaclemys terrapin) SC Yes Coastal salt marshes and shallow bays; nests in
sand dunes or in scrub near ocean
Carolina watersnake
(Nerodia sipedon
williamengelsi)
SC No HAB Salt or brackish marshes
Outer Banks king snake
(Lampropeltis getula
sticticeps)
SC No HAB Maritime forests, thickets, and grasslands of the
Outer Banks
Timber rattlesnake
(Crotalus horridus) SC No HAB Wetland forests in the coastal plain.
Carolina pygmy
rattlesnake
(Sistrurus miliarius)
SC No HAB Pine flatwoods, pine oak sandhills, or other pine/oak
forests
Eastern chicken turtle
(Deirochelys reticularia
syn. Deirochelys
reticularia)
SC No HAB Quiet waters, ponds, ditches, sluggsish streams
Carolina swamp snake
(Seminatrix pygaea
paludis syn. Liodytes
pygaea paludis)
SC No HAB Lush vegetation of ponds, ditches and sluggish
streams

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 50 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

As indicated in Table 6.1, of the 55 protected species listed for Dare County by the USFWS, NMFS, or NCNHP,
29 species were determined to have the potential to occur within the project analysis area/vicinity (YES in the
table), the other 26 were eliminated for detailed evaluation based on habitat, seasonality, or range (NO in the
table); one of the 29 with YES was also eliminated due to habitat, seasonality, or range (sperm whale). The
evaluation included 19 species with both federal and state protection (11 birds, two fishes, one mammal, four
reptiles, and one plant), seven species with only federal protection under the ESA (one bird, one fish, three
mammals, one sea turtle, and one reptile; one of these seven is currently proposed for listing by the state),
and two species with only state protection (one reptile and one plant). One of the 19 species was evaluated
despite the fact that habitat and season provided exclusion (blue whale). The blue whale was included since
it has been recently documented within 28 miles of Cape Hatteras (Lesage 2017) and two confirmed sightings
were also documented off the Virginia coast in 2018 and 2019 although further offshore than the one in North
Carolina (Engelhaupt et al 2020). The Virginia photographs represent the southernmost extent of sightings of
the blue whale in the western Atlantic US EEZ. Only those 19 species were addressed in this assessment
(evaluated species). A No Effect determination was assumed for the 26 species not evaluated in detail.

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 51 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

7.0 EVALUATED PROTECTED SPECIES INFORMATION FROM SEASHORE SURVEYS
Since successful integration of recreational uses of the Seashore with wildlife management depends on
accurate knowledge of the needs of wildlife species and the potential impact of human activity on those
needs, NPS contacted the American Ornithological Society (AOS) in June 2016 to request that the AOS
convene an independent panel to review and synthesize current scientific knowledge about the biology of the
Seashore’s beach-nesting species of conservation concern (both federal and state species with various types
of legal protections), and to assess the appropriateness of the Seashore’s beach management plan in light of
current science and understanding. The AOS agreed to conduct the review, convened a panel of scientists
with expertise appropriate to the task, and recently published their results for piping plover, American
oystercatcher, colonial waterbirds, and sea turtles (Walters et al 2020).
7.1 Field Reconnaissance
National Seashore biologists provided the following information about recent surveys or documentation of
listed species within the park by the Park Service:
• Piping plover (Charadrius melodus) — The species nests within the park on a yearly basis, primarily
on Cape Point which has the premier habitat. Within the past five years, no piping plover nests have
been documented within the Proposed Action Area.

• Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) — Habitat does not exist for this species within the
Proposed Action Area; no documentation of species.

• Roseate tern (Sterna dougallii) — The species may be observed within the National Seashore while in
migration along the east coast. The majority of nesting habitat is located at the Northeast/New
England states. The species has never been documented to nest in the park.

• Red knot (Calidris canutus) — The species is primarily observed foraging on mudflats near the points
and spits, but can use beaches for resting and foraging. From 2014-2020, a total of 19 red knot
observations occurred the project area.

• Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus) — No documented instances of this species
within the Proposed Action Area. Typically observed within low-salinity habitat characteristic of bays
and inlets; the closest inlet (Hatteras Inlet) is located ~15 miles southwest of the Proposed Action Area.

• Shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) — No documented instances of this species within the
Proposed Action Area. Typically observed within low-salinity habitat characteristic of bays and inlets;
the closest inlet (Hatteras Inlet) is located ~15 miles southwest of Proposed Action Area.

• Seabeach amaranth (Amaranthus pumilus) — Although habitat for this particular species is sufficient,
yearly surveys within the park have yielded zero documentations of the plant since 2005. There are
no historic records of this plant from within the Proposed Action Area (Cape Hatteras National
Seashore, Randy Swilling, Natural Resource Program Manager, pers. comm. 15 April 2015 and Paul
Doshkov, Supervisory Biological Science Technician, pers. comm. January 2020).

• Red wolf (Canis rufus) — Habitat does not exist for this species within the Proposed Action Area; no
documentation of species.

• West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus) — Preferred habitat does not exist for this species within
Proposed Action Area, which is highly turbid and has little to no aquatic vegetation; their usual NC
occurrence is inshore along rivers and channels behind barrier islands south of Cape Hatteras.

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 52 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

However, there have been a few documented instances of manatees north of the project area nearer
inlets where the manatee is likely to traverse into the sound for vegetation consumption and to drink;
one was photographed near the Rodanthe pier in June 2019. No annual survey of the Seashore for this
species is conducted.

• Green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas) — The species nests on National Seashore beaches on a yearly
basis but makes up a fraction of the overall nesting turtle numbers. Total strandings on Hatteras
Island is almost six times higher than the other sea turtles over the past 10 years (2,328). Four nests
have been documented within the sand placement footprint area in the past five years.

• Hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) — The majority distribution for this species is limited to
the equatorial tropics and well out of range of the proposed nourishment area. To date, the species has
not been documented alive within the park, but strandings have occurred in the Seashore. Strand data
from www.seaturtle.org indicate that 11 have stranded in NC since 1988, only one of which was on
Hatteras Island (in 2003); no strandings have been documented on Hatteras Island for the past 10 years.

• Kemp's ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempii) — Primarily nesting in the Gulf of Mexico, this species
is a very rare nester at the National Seashore; 12 Kemp’s ridley sea turtle nests have been documented
in the National Seashore in the last five years (including 2020). No Kemp’s ridley sea turtle nests have
been documented by NPS surveys within the project area in the past five years.

• Leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) — Regularly observed off the coast of the National
Seashore during peak summer months, very seldom does this species nest in the park (majority
nesting occurs in tropics). In the past five years, there have been no nests documented in the
Seashore; the most recent nest was in 2012 ~30 miles southwest on Ocracoke Island. Over the past 10
years, a total of nine have stranded on Hatteras Island (www.seaturtle.org).

• Loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) — The most commonly observed nester on National Seashore
beaches. Over the past five years, a total of 55 loggerhead nests have been documented within the
proposed project area. Over the past 10 years, 417 have stranded on Hatteras Island.

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 53 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

7.2 Status and Biology of Species with Federal ESA Protection
7.2.1 Birds
7.2.1.1 Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus)
The Great Lakes watershed population of piping plover was designated endangered in January 1986 and
designated as threatened elsewhere in its range, including its migratory corridors. There are three
demographically independent breeding populations, the Great Lakes (lake shores), the Northern Great
Plains (along lakes, rivers, and wetlands), and the Atlantic Coast (beaches from Newfoundland to South
Carolina). Individuals from any of these populations may use the North Carolina coast for migration and
wintering. North Carolina is one of the only states where the breeding and the wintering ranges overlap.
The piping plover is a small shorebird about 6.7 inches in length with a 15-inch wingspan (USFWS 2003).
The species is named for its melodic call. Overall plumage is light colored, allowing it to often blend into
sandy habitats. During the breeding season the species has a single black band across the upper breast, a
smaller band across the forehead, and bright orange legs and bill with a black tip. (photo of chick courtesy
of NPS; adult photo courtesy of USFWS Digital Library.) Females are often duller in coloration and lack a
complete breast band. In the winter, the bill is black, legs are pale, and dark markings (breast and forehead
bands) are absent.

Both federally and state protected, there are 18 designated critical habitat units for the wintering
population of the piping plover from Oregon Inlet to Mad Inlet and four of those units are on the Outer
Banks; Unit NC-2 Cape Hatteras Point is the closest to the proposed project. The northern boundary of Unit
NC-2 is 468 ft south of the southern tip of the project footprint. This Unit extends south ~2.8 miles from the
old ocean groin at the old Cape Hatteras Lighthouse location to the point of Cape Hatteras and then
continues west for ~4.7 miles along Hatteras Cove shoreline (Shore Beach) to the edge of Ramp 49 near the
campground at Frisco; it does not include the groin. Beaches, pools, and intertidal areas, especially in the
vicinity of inlets, are the primary habitats used by piping plovers and their precocious chicks; the area of
analysis which may affect this species is composed of beach face and intertidal zones.
Piping plovers occur year-round along the Outer Banks; North Carolina represents the normal southern
edge of the breeding range and the northern edge of the wintering range, and is the only Atlantic coast state
to have piping plover during all phases of its annual cycle. The species is migratory, and birds from coastal

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 54 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

and interior nesting populations both winter in North Carolina. For nesting, piping plovers typically select
open, sparsely vegetated, sandy habitats near inlets and overwash areas. The nesting season lasts from
April through August. Nests consist of shallow depressions or scrapes in sand often lined with shell
fragments or pebbles. Both adults defend territories and share nest incubation duties. Typically, a clutch
consists of three to four eggs which are incubated for 25 to 31 days. Re-nesting will often be attempted if
nests are destroyed. Young are precocial, feeding themselves after hatching, but still depend on adults for
protection until flight (about 28 to 35 days after hatching). Chick survival has been linked to access to
quality foraging habitats (Loegering and Fraser 1995). Contrary to most other bird behavior, Halimubieke
et al (2020) documented the tendency among plover species, including piping plover, for a pair to “divorce”
upon mating success and found that usually it is the female who abandons the chicks to find another mate.
This strategy produced more offspring within a season than those who retained their mate after nest failure.
Foraging occurs on a variety of substrates including: intertidal beaches, sand/mud flats, wrack lines,
shorelines, and tidal and ephemeral pools. Use of areas for foraging is largely dependent upon availability
of habitat, food abundance, stage of breeding cycle, and disturbance from humans (Burger 1991; Loegering
and Fraser 1995; Zonick et al. 1998). Wintering birds spend much of their time foraging on insects, marine
worms, crustaceans, and mollusks (Haig 1992).
Primary threats to eggs and young include avian and mammalian predators, including red foxes (Vulpes
vulpes), feral cats (Felis catus), raccoon (Procyo lotor), gulls (Larus spp.), fish crows (Corvus ossifragus),
grackles (Quiscalus sp.), and ghost crabs (Oncypoda sp.) (USFWS 1996a, 2003). Invasive species of
plants in some areas of its range also may present a threat to the open sandy habitats it prefers. Lack
of suitable and undisturbed habitat creates additional pressures on nesting and foraging birds.
Human-related disturbances of threat to the species are those associated with recreational activities
and pets (USFWS 2003).
North Carolina breeding pair estimates from 2011-2016 were 27 percent higher than the estimates from
the 1990s and estimates of the number of North Carolina pairs per year from 2001 -2015 (preliminary data
from 2015) ranged from a low of 20 in 2004 to a high of 70 in 2012 with > 50 pair each year since 2007
(USFWS 2017). The Southern Recovery Unit goal of 400 breeding pair/year had not been met by 2015,
although for the previous decade, except for 2011, the number was above 300 (USFWS 2017). Cold, wet,
and windy spring weather can delay breeding and can be a factor in low productivity as can wind and
flooding which interferes with territory establishment. Figure 7.1 shows the lack of trend in productivity
of piping plover in North Carolina.
Table 7.1 shows numbers of piping plover breeding pairs documented in Cape Hatteras National Seashore
from 1987–2018 (modified from NPS 2010). Within the Seashore, surveys from 1987-2018 document Cape
Point as the area with consistently the most number of piping plover nests with a high of eight in 1990 and
2012 (42.6 percent of pairs among the six nesting locations (Figure 7.2). The closest documented piping
plover nest is ~0.59 mi SW of Ramp 44 in Cape Point, or ~5 miles south of the southern limit of the project
area. While it is likely that the project area may be used by this bird during migration or foraging, the National
Seashore field data has not documented this use; neither individuals nor breeding activity has ever been
documented in the Avon sand placement footprint (Fig. 7.2 and Cape Hatteras National Seashore, Paul
Doshkov, Supervisory Biological Technician, pers. comm., 18 March 2021).

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 55 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

Conclusions reached on the success of the National Seashore's beach management plan with the needs for
piping plover were confounded by the difficulty to distinguish between stochastic and deterministic variation
in addition to the small population size (Walters et al 2020). However, per Walters et al. (2020), one clear
conclusion was that predator removal and protective buffers did not consistently result in achievement of
short-term (1 chick per breeding pair) or long-term (1.5 chicks per breeding pair) objectives for piping plover
productivity; nonetheless, without this management, productivity likely would be even lower, possibly almost
nil. An additional finding of Walters et al. (2020) was that low productivity of piping plover in the National
Seashore was due to low chick survival rather than low hatching success but further study was recommended
to understand the effectiveness of exclosures and food/habitat availability among other topics.
FIGURE 7.1. Variation in annual reproductive activity of piping plover in North Carolina (as shown in Figure 6 from
USFWS 2017).

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 56 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

TABLE 7.1. Number of piping plover breeding pairs by site at Cape Hatteras National Seashore (1987–2019).
aAfter Hurricane Irene, erosion of this spit had removed all suitable breeding habitat. bTotal numbers of pairs
was 202 through 2011, but locations were not available in 1989, so percentages from the specific sites are
based on the 187 nests recorded at one of the six specific nesting areas.

Year Bodie
Island Spit
Cape
Point
South
Beach
Hatteras
Inlet Spita
North
Ocracoke
Spit
South
Point
Total
Pairs
1987 0 4 0 4 1 1 10
1989 ------15
1990 0 8 0 4 2 0 14
1991 0 5 0 3 5 0 13
1992 0 4 0 4 4 0 12
1993 0 5 1 3 3 0 12
1994 0 5 1 3 2 0 11
1995 0 6 1 4 2 1 14
1996 1 5 1 5 1 1 14
1997 1 4 1 3 0 2 11
1998 0 4 1 3 0 1 9
1999 0 3 1 1 0 1 6
2000 0 2 0 2 0 0 4
2001 1 1 0 1 0 0 3
2002 1 0 0 1 0 0 2
2003 0 0 0 1 0 1 2
2004 1 0 0 1 0 1 3
2005 0 0 1 1 0 1 3
2006 1 2 1 1 0 1 6
2007 1 4 0 0 0 1 6
2008 1 5 1 0 0 4 11
2009 0 5 0 0 0 4 9
2010 0 6 1 0 1 4 12
2011b 2 5 2 0 1 5 15
2012 1 8 1 0 1 4 15
2013 0 7 0 0 0 2 9
2014 0 7 0 0 1 4 12
2015 1 4 1 0 1 5 12
2016 2 6 0 0 1 2 11
2017 1 5 0 0 1 5 12
2018 0 2 0 0 0 1 3
2019 0 4 0 0 0 1 5
Tot al
15 126 15 45 27 53 296
Percent of
total pairsb 5.1 42.6 5.1 15.2 9.1 17.9

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 57 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

FIGURE 7.2. Piping plover breeding pair summary over past 32 years; no pair documented in the project area. Numbers
are the cumulative totals for the Table 7.1 record, or in the case of Cape Point, an average of 3.9 pairs/year.

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 58 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

7.2.1.2 Roseate Tern (Sterna dougalliidougalli)
The roseate tern a federally endangered migratory coastal
seabird about 14–16 inches in length, with light-gray wings and
back. Its first three or four primaries are black and so is its cap.
The rest of the graceful and slender body is white, with a rosy tinge
on the chest and belly during the breeding season. The tail is
deeply forked, and the outermost streamers extend beyond the
folded wings when perched. During the breeding season the
basal three-fourths of the otherwise entirely black bill and legs
turn orange-red. It feeds by plunge diving, often completely
submerging, but also may feed in the shallows and even steal food from common terns. It can be found singly,
in small loose groups, or in mixed flocks with hundreds of other birds (Urban et al. 1986, Snow and Perrins
1998, Ramos 2000). (Photo courtesy of USFWS Digital Library.)
It is divided into four subspecies, based largely on small differences in size and bill color. The North American
subspecies is divided into two separate breeding populations, one in the northeastern US and Nova Scotia
and one in the southeastern US and Caribbean. It once bred from Sable Island, Nova Scotia to Virginia, but it
no longer breeds south of Long Island, New York. It nests in widely but sparsely distributed colonies and
among the northeastern US populations, usually among colonies of common tern. In these colonies, it is much
less defensive of its nest and young than other white terns and often even relies on other parents of other tern
species for such defense. Birds younger than three may remain all year in the wintering grounds.
Threats to the species include habitat loss to barrier island development, nest or even entire colony
abandonment due to disturbance from humans, vehicles, or predators, and competition from expanding
numbers of larger gulls (e.g., great backed gull and herring gull in the northeastern US population) (USFWS
2011). As it forages and migrates far off the coast during breeding season, development of offshore wind
facilities poses an additional threat through collision with the blades of the wind turbines.
In North Carolina, the roseate tern is rare and most likely only to be seen on a Dare County barrier island as it
passes through the area to and from northern breeding grounds May through September. There are 124 eBird
observations of roseate tern in Dare County, most frequently in May and June (eBird website accessed 15
October 2020). Observations of rare species on eBird may include multiple reports of the same bird(s) by
different observers and conversely an observation may include multiple individual birds. Within the county
and the National Seashore, the eBird observations were often in the Cape Point vicinity (76 of the 124 county
observations). There were 14 eBird observations reported in 2020 in the Cape Point area, including two birds
present for much of May through July and an unusual high of 16 birds seen and photographed on 15 June.
7.2.1.3 Red Knot (Calidris canuta rufa)
On September 27, 2013, the US Fish and Wildlife Service released a proposal to list the red knot as a threatened
species under the Endangered Species Act and the final rule was published in the Federal Register on 11
December (Volume 79, No. 238) effective date 10 January 2015. During more than 130 days of public comment
periods and three public hearings since September 2013, the Service received more than 17,400 comments
on the threatened listing proposal, many of which were supportive form letters, while others raised issues
with the adequacy of horseshoe crab management, the impacts of wind turbines, the inclusion of interior
states in the range, and other topics. The agency requested additional time to complete the final decision in

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 59 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

order to thoroughly analyze complex information available after the proposal, such as national and global
climate assessments and carefully consider and address extensive public comments. On 9 December 2014,
USFWS designated the bird as threatened. There is no designated critical habitat for this species, although
some areas may be proposed for public review and comment in the future. Included among the highest
research priorities of the USFWS for 2019-2022 for this species are: to document habitat, prey, and bird
responses to coastal engineering projects, better characterize the non-breeding diet, and to develop a reliable
and cost-effective method for estimation of the size of the populations that winter from North Caroling to
Texas (possibly into northeast Mexico) implemented at regular intervals (https://www.fws.gov/northeast/red-
knot/pdf/red-knot-research-priorities-March-2019.pdf).
A handsome robin-sized shorebird with a wingspan of 20 inches, this species annually migrates from the
Canadian Arctic to southern Argentina, a 19,000-mile distance which ranks the birds among the longest
migrants in the animal kingdom. Adult plumage in spring:
above finely mottled with grays, black and light ochre,
running into stripes on crown; throat, breast and sides of
head cinnamon-brown; dark gray line through eye;
abdomen and undertail coverts white; uppertail coverts
white, barred with black; in winter: pale ashy gray above,
from crown to rump, with feathers on back narrowly edged
with white; underparts white, the breast lightly streaked and
speckled, and the flanks narrowly barred with gray; and in
autumn: underparts of some individuals show traces of the
"red" of spring. (Photo courtesy of Greg Breese, USFWS)
The red knot, whose range includes 25 countries and 40 US states, uses spring and fall stopover areas along
the Atlantic and Gulf coasts arriving in large flocks containing hundreds of birds. Estimates for the mid-
Atlantic population based on marked bird data and mathematical models are 44,680 for birds stopping in
Delaware Bay (2012) and 12,611 to 14,688 stopping annually in Virginia (2007-2011) (USFWS Red Knot QAs
092713). These estimates do not include birds migrating overland directly to Canada from Texas or the
Southeast. The flocks appear to depend on and return to known and consistently productive foraging areas
to “refuel” during their migration that includes thousands of miles of non-stop flight. The bird is known is
display some site fidelity to particular staging areas between years. Although foraging red knots may be found
in small numbers widely distributed within suitable habitats during migrations, they tend to concentrate in
those areas of consistently abundant food resources; therefore, the quality of these areas of abundance are
essential to the survival of the species. Climate changes already affect the bird’s food supply, the timing of its
migration, and its breeding habitat in the Arctic. Variations in annual breeding success is closely tied to the
high-amplitude arctic lemming population cycle; low population years for the lemming cause lemming
predators to switch to other available food sources such as red knot eggs and young. It is not known how
continued climate change may affect the existing three to four-year lemming boom/bust population cycles,
but as lemmings are keystone tundra species there may be significant knock-on effects to trophically linked
species. The Arctic is changing more rapidly than other climes (warmer shorter winters) and how this affects
population dynamics of the lemming is a research topic; Domine et al 2018 show that dynamics of rain on
snow can strongly influence the amplitude of brown lemming populations. Reduced snow cover in winter
makes it difficult for lemmings to build up peak density as winter predators have easier access as postulated
by Bart S. Ebbinge in a study of high Arctic tundra ecosystems from 2004-2006 (author content uploaded on

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 60 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

ResearchGate); continued winters of reduced snow cover may contribute to collapse of the boom/bust
lemming cycles. Mismatches in migration timing often put the bird out of synchrony with peak periods of food
availability.
The shorebird also is losing areas along its range due to sea level rise, shoreline projects, and coastal
development (USFWS 9 December 2014 Press Release). Just over half of the beaches from North Carolina
south to Texas are developed and one third of the available knot habitat in the US is available for development
(USFWS Red Knot QAs 092713). A primary factor in the recent decline of the species was reduced food supplies
in Delaware Bay due to commercial harvest of horseshoe crabs. In 2012, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
Commission adopted a management framework that explicitly ties horseshoe crab harvest levels along the
Atlantic Coast to red knot recovery targets. The Service’s analysis shows that although the horseshoe crab
population has not yet fully rebounded, the framework should ensure no further threat to the red knot from
the crab harvest. The Smith et al. (2016) regional status assessment of the horseshoe crab determined that
the population is stable in the Delaware Bay portion of the Mid-Atlantic region and has grown in the Southeast
region; North Carolina is the most southern component of the Mid-Atlantic. Other regions have either mixed
trends or continued declines.
The peak spring migration for the red knot in North Carolina is May to early June and the peak fall migration
occurs from late July to early November (ebird.org). The red knot does not nest in North Carolina but has
been documented foraging on mudflat habitats in the points/spits within the National Seashore by NPS
personnel. The eBird abundance regional stats for the species show that during pre-breeding migration (19
April – 31 May) the percentage of the entire seasonal North American population in North Carolina is 0.12
percent and is 0.0 percent for post-breeding migration (13 July – 2 November). Most shorebirds are absent in
the Seashore, or nearly so, from January to March but more red knot have been found in the Seashore from
November to March than from April to October; most of the red knots documented in the Seashore were
concentrated on south-facing beaches near Cape Point and Ocracoke Island (Walters et al. 2020).
Table 7.2 contains summary data of red knot observations within the Seashore from 2008-2019 and
demonstrates that while the project area is used by the species in most years, the North Hatteras segment is
among the segments with the least numbers of observations. Red knot observations from 2010-2019 with a
gap in much of the project area are displayed in Figure 7.3. The foraging habitat for this species is very
marginal in portions of the southern Avon project area due to the high energy conditions and eroding beach
face; nonetheless from 2014-2020, NPS personnel documented 19 observations of foraging red knot in the
project area.

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 61 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

TABLE 7.2. Historical red knot observations in Cape Hatteras National Seashore survey segments from 2008–2019. The project area is contained within segment PM19-PM44 (blue fill) and PM indicates Park Mile along the ocean side. Since 2016, Park biologists conducted daily beach patrols for red knots vs actual PM transect surveys (CAHA, pers comm. Paul Doshkov Biological Science Technician 17 January 2020). 200820092010201120122013201420152016201720182019Total by segmentBodi e I sl and( PM 0 - PM 3 )006517443399239017424Bodi e I sl and Spi t( PM 4 - PM 5 )10201058100224901198Nor t h Hat t er as( PM 19 - PM 44)001022241636642381,387533332,183Cape Poi nt( PM 45 - PM 46)00237130731352742555515Sout h Hat t er as( PM 47 - PM 57)0021321, 2921, 6065,3712,1803,8412,2561,0827,12724,808Hat t er as I nl et( PM 58)0000130002400037Nor t h Ocr acoke( PM 59 - PM 60)018491291400474NANANANANA2,1143,554Ocr acoke I sl and( PM 61 - PM 73)001583782, 2929, 640NANA87NANA1,97014,525Sout h Poi nt( PM 74)43967111688683494NANANANANA3112,802Total by year4408554068534,83912,2425,4942,2784,3464,2051,16011,928

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 62 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

FIGURE 7.3. Summary of red knot observations in Cape Hatteras National Seashore 2008–2019. Since 2016, daily
beach patrols have counted red knots instead of only the Park Mile transect surveys as was done previously.

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 63 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

7.2.2 Reptiles
7.2.2.1 Green Sea Turtle (Chelonia mydas)
The largest of the hard-shelled sea turtles, the green sea turtle is both federally and state threatened in North
Carolina. In 2004, the Marine Turtle Specialist Group of the IUCN classified this turtle as endangered globally.
On 20 March 2015, NOAA reclassified 11 distinct population segments as threatened due to successful
conservation efforts while three segments remain classified as endangered. The North Atlantic population
(also included Florida and the Gulf coast of Mexico) is one of the 11 distinct population segments. The two
largest nesting populations are found at Tortuguero, on the Caribbean coast of Costa Rica, where 22,500
females nest per season on average and Raine Island, on Australia’s Great Barrier Reef where 18,000 females
nest per season on average (www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/turtles/green.htm). In the US, green turtles nest
primarily along the central and southeast coast of Florida where an estimated 200-1,100 females nest
annually. All marine sea turtles spend up to 90 percent of their lives in the open oceans; such inaccessibility
complicates population monitoring regardless of species and is the reason why nesting data are used to
extrapolate population health.
The green sea turtle grows to a maximum of about 4 ft and
440 pounds. Variably colored, it has a heart-shaped shell,
small head, and single-clawed flippers. Hatchlings generally
have a black carapace, white plastron, and white margins on
the shell and limbs, while the adult carapace is smooth, keel
less, and light to dark brown with dark mottling and a white
to light yellow plastron. Heads of adult green sea turtles are
light brown with yellow markings. Identifying characteristics
include four costal plates which do not border the nuchal
shield, no jagged marginals, and one pair of prefontals
between the eyes (photo courtesy of Doug Shea).
When not migrating, green sea turtles are generally found in relatively shallow waters where marine grass and
algae can flourish, such as those found inside lagoons, reefs, bays, and inlets. Green sea turtles require open,
sloping beach platforms and minimal disturbance for nesting. Strong nesting site fidelity (tendency to return
to birth beach areas) is characteristic of the species and long distances often exist between feeding grounds
and nesting beaches. Sargassum clumps are often used as refugia and food resource areas. Carnivorous as
hatchlings and juveniles, they begin feeding on algae and marine grasses when they are approximately
8 to 10 inches in size and, as adults, they are the only plant-eating sea turtle. This trait is thought to render a
greenish color to their fat from which they are named.
For the southeastern United States, nesting season is usually June through September and occurs nocturnally
at 2-, 3-, or 4-year intervals. One turtle may lay as a many as seven clutches in a season at 9- to 13-day intervals
with 75 to 200 eggs in a clutch requiring incubation for 48 to 70 days, depending on nest temperatures.
Although hatching generally occurs at night, mortality is extremely high. Age at maturity is thought to be
between 20 and 50 years.
A major factor contributing to the green sea turtle's decline worldwide is commercial harvest for eggs and
meat. Mortality of green sea turtles has been documented in Florida, Hawaii, and other parts of the world

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 64 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

from fibropapillomatosis, a disease of sea turtles characterized by the development of multiple tumors on the
skin and internal organs. These tumors interfere with swimming, eating, breathing, vision, and reproduction,
and heavy tumor burdens can lead to severe debilitation and death. Evidence is mounting that this disease
may not be the death knell for green sea turtles as was originally thought in the early 1990s. Like other sea
turtles, other threats to this species include loss and/or degradation of nesting habitat from human activities
such as armoring and development projects; disorientation of hatchlings by beachfront lighting; excessive
nest predation by native and non-native predators; degradation of foraging habitat; marine pollution and
debris; watercraft strikes; and incidental take from channel dredging and commercial fishing operations. A
time series analysis of annual nesting abundance found an upward trend for green sea turtles in the northwest
Atlantic Ocean (Mazaris et al. 2017).
Green sea turtles have nested every year in the National Seashore since 2006 but on average represent ~4
percent of the total sea turtle nests; at 32 nests, 2019 was the year with the highest number of nests followed
by 2013 at 23 while the other years each had 11 or fewer (www.seaturtle.org; Fig 7.4). Figure 7.5 shows green
sea turtle nest numbers and locations documented from 2010 to 2020 within the proposed sand placement
footprint. It is important to note that turtles do not clump their nests in any particular location at the National
Seashore and that nests have been relatively evenly distributed in the project area over the years (Cape
Hatteras National Seashore, Randy Swilling, Natural Resource Program Manager, pers. comm., 4 June 2015).
Figure 7.6 depicts a summary of green sea turtle nest numbers within the Buxton nourishment area (sand
placement footprint) from 2010-2020 (Cape Hatteras National Seashore, Paul Doshkov, Supervisory Biological
Technician, pers. comm. 18 March 2021). Green sea turtles strand on the National Seashore at a much higher
rate than the other four species of sea turtle described in this document and represent 77 percent of the total
strandings documented by www.seaturtle.org between 2014 and 2019 (Table 7.3). The 2017-2018 winter cold
stun season lasted longer than usual at four months (December – March) per data collected by NCWRC
(http://www.seaturtle.org/groups/ncwrc).

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 65 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

TABLE 7.3. Sea turtle strandings annual total by species at Cape Hatteras National Seashore (2014-2019 reports and pers
comm. Cape Hatteras National Seashore, Paul Doshkov, Supervisory Biological Technician,11 November 2020) and Hatteras
Island from 2014-18 November 2020 from www.seaturtle.org.

Year Stranding
Total Loggerhead Kemp’s
Ridley Green Leatherback Hawksbill Unk.
Cape Hatteras National Seashore
2014 219 50 61 104 1 0 3
2015 286 44 39 198 3 0 2
2016 637 45 49 541 1 0 1
2017 280 56 53 168 1 0 2
2018 156 42 41 69 1 0 3
2019 137 31 14 91 1 0 0
1715 268 257 1,171 8 0 11
Hatteras Island total (includes CAHA numbers through 2019 and most of 2020)
2014 258 31 76 148 1 0 2
2015 254 37 40 174 3 0 0
2016 1057 57 45 954 1 0 0
2017 365 52 62 247 2 0 2
2018 126 37 28 59 1 0 1
2019 230 29 21 176 0 0 4
2020* 229 17 20 192 0 0 0
2,519 260 292 1,950 8 0 9
* not complete data for year

FIGURE 7.4. Green sea turtle nests and trend at Cape Hatteras National Seashore from
2000 to 2020 (from www.seaturtle.org).
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Green sea turtle nests at Cape Hatteras
National Seashore
2000-2020

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 66 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

FIGURE 7.5. Green sea turtle nest numbers and locations recorded along the proposed Avon nourishment area between
2010 and 2020. [Source: Cape Hatteras National Seashore, Paul Doshkov, Supervisory Biological Technician, pers. comm.
18 March 2021]

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 67 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

FIGURE 7.6. Green sea turtle nest numbers at Cape Hatteras National Seashore from 2010 to 2020
within the Avon sand placement footprint (Cape Hatteras National Seashore, Paul Doshkov,
Supervisory Biological Technician, pers. comm. 18 March 2021).
7.2.2.2 Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle (Lepidochelys kempii)
This species is the most endangered of the sea turtles and was
given endangered status throughout its range in 1970. The
Kemp’s ridley was historically abundant in the Gulf of Mexico.
Approximately 60 percent of Kemp’s ridley sea turtles nest
within a 25-mile length of beach at Rancho Nuevo in
Tamaulipas, Mexico. Scattered nests also exist to the north
and south of this primary nesting ground. During one nesting
season in the 1940s, an estimate of 40,000 turtle nests was
recorded at Rancho Neuvo. However, the Kemp’s ridley
declined substantially from the 1940s to the 1980s, primarily
because of the harvest of eggs and mortality from commercial
fish and shrimp trawling and gill net operations, but also from
pollution, dredging, and commercial exploitation of adults for food. It was given endangered status
throughout its range in 1970. By 1985, only 740 nests were recorded in Rancho Nuevo. Since species
management and recovery plans were implemented, populations have rebounded. Nesting increased
steadily from the early 1990s to the present. The number of nests at Rancho Nuevo increased to 1,430 in 1995,
6,947 in 2005, and 15,459 in 2009; however, nest numbers dropped to below 10,000 in 2010, followed by a jump
to over 16,000 in both 2011 and 2012, then dropped in 2013 to 11,995 (2013 numbers include two neighboring
beaches, Tepehuajes and Playa Dos) (NMFS and USFWS 2015) and 10,986 in 2014. The three Mexican beaches
comprise the primary nesting beaches for this turtle. The required 5-year review since the NMFS and USFWS
(2015) report on the accuracy of the listing classification had not been published at the time of this document's
preparation.
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020Number of NestsEvent Year
Green Sea Turtle Nesting History
Avon Nourishment Project Area

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 68 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

Kemp’s ridley is one of the smallest of all extant sea turtles. Adults grow to about 2 ft in carapace length and
120 pounds in weight. The Kemp’s ridley has a light grey-olive carapace and a cream-white or yellowish
plastron (photo courtesy of USFWS). Males display distinct morphological features not found on females
including a longer tail, a more distal vent, recurved claws, and, during breeding, a softened, mid-plastron.
Hatchling sea turtles likely spend 1.5–4 years associated with floating Sargassum near the ocean surface.
Subsequently, at about 8 inches in length, they enter a benthic-feeding immature stage until reaching sexual
maturity 7–9 years later. During this juvenile period, they enter shallow coastal waters and forage along the
bottom. As adults, Kemp’s ridley sea turtles continue to forage in the sediments of shallow estuaries,
consuming crabs and other invertebrates. Females reach sexual maturity at ~2 ft in length. Females nest
multiple times during the nesting season (April to June in tropical areas) producing clutches of about 100 eggs.
A unique feature of the Kemp’s ridley is that they tend to nest in large aggregations. Most females nest once
every two years. As with other sea turtles, hatchling sex is temperature dependent. A 1:1 ratio of males to
females is produced at 30.2° C. Above this temperature an egg will likely develop into a female, while more or
all males will be produced at 28°–29° C. In most natural nests, 64 percent of hatchlings are female.
Sea turtle data have been collected prior to 2010 statewide and in the National Seashore, and while those
data are available in NPS online annual reports and on the NCWRC website (www.seaturtle.org), the data are
subject to review and should be considered preliminary for that reason. Sometimes, the nest numbers from
the two sources do not exactly agree for a given year but never differ greatly. Figure 7.7 depicts preliminary
Kemp's ridley nest numbers for North Carolina from 2010-2020. While the Kemp’s ridley is rarely found in
North Carolina, numbers of this species sighted in North Carolina appear to be on the increase; possibly a
phenological response to environmental changes associated with sea temperature variations (Solow et al.
2002; Mazaris et al. 2013). Pound nets set in Core and Pamlico Sound from 2007 to 2009 showed an increase
in Kemp’s ridley and recent gill net captures in Cape Lookout Bight in May 2014 yielded seven Kemp’s ridley,
while in previous years only loggerheads were netted there (NMFS, Joanne B. McNeill, Fishery Biologist, pers.
comm., 14 October 2014). The North Carolina Natural Heritage program has documented this species in
Beaufort, Brunswick, Carteret, Dare, Hyde, and Pamlico, Currituck, New Hanover, Pender, and Onslow
counties (North Carolina Natural Heritage Program 2014).

FIGURE 7.7. Number and trend of Kemp's ridley nests documented in North Carolina
(2010- 2020) (preliminary NWRC data from www.seaturtle.org on 18 November 2020).
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Kemp's ridley sea turtle nests in
North Carolina 2010-2020

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 69 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

The Kemp’s ridley is the second most common species found in strandings on the National Seashore;
generally, 10 or more individuals have been found most every year between 1996 and 2006 (National Park
Service 2006) and more than 30 a year since 2014. At least 20 strandings occurred every year since 2010 on
Hatteras Island and numbers ranged from 20 in 2020 to 89 in 2010 (www.seaturtle.org). According to
preliminary data from https://www.seaturtle.org, 12 Kemp’s ridley sea turtle nests have been documented in
the National Seashore in the last five years (including 2020), the first ever occurred in 2011 and was not in the
area of analysis. In 2013, one loggerhead nest was incorrectly identified as a Kemp’s ridley (Outer Banks
Group, Leslie Frattaroli, Acting GIS Specialist, pers. comm., 29 December 2014); after 2011, no nests were
documented again in the National Seashore until 2016. No Kemp’s ridley sea turtle nests were documented
by NPS surveys in the Avon nourishment area from 2010-2020 (Cape Hatteras National Seashore, Paul
Doshkov, Supervisory Biological Technician, pers. comm. 18 March 2021).
7.2.2.3 Leatherback Sea Turtle (Dermochelys coriacea)
The leatherback sea turtle was listed as endangered under the ESA throughout its global range on 2 June 1970,
and is listed as endangered by the State of North Carolina. The leatherback nests all over the world, but most
commonly nests in the tropics. Nesting in the continental United States occurs mainly in Florida, but has also
occurred in Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina. The leatherback is a common visitor in waters along
the North Carolina coast during certain times of the year.
The Recovery Plan for Leatherback Sea Turtles (NMFS and USFWS 1992) includes an estimate of 115,000
existing adult female Leatherback sea turtles. The International Sea Turtle Society estimates that there are
17,000 nesting females from the Atlantic Ocean (International Sea Turtle Society, press release, April 2, 2007).
In a 2003 interview, Larry Crowder of Duke University indicated that leatherbacks in the Pacific have declined
more than 90 percent in the last 20 years (Black 2003). A time series analysis of annual nesting abundance
found an upward trend for leatherback sea turtles in the northwest Atlantic Ocean (Mazaris et al. 2017).
Largest of all turtles, the leatherback is easily distinguished by its ridged leathery skin rather than the more
common hard shell of marine turtles. The back, head, and neck are dark brown or black with a few white or
yellow mottles or blotches. The lower shell is whitish and ridged. The flippers are paddle-like without claws
and proportionally longer than in other sea turtles
(photo courtesy of USFWS). The average adult can weigh
640 to 1,300 pounds and its carapace length measures
61 inches. The hatchlings are mostly black on their backs
and covered with tiny bead-like scales (NMFS and
USFWS 1992).
While this species is killed for its meat, the greatest
threats are fishing gear, ingestion of marine debris, and
egg collection. Threats to nesting areas stem
predominantly from increased human presence and
include beach erosion and beach nourishment, beach
armoring, artificial lighting, and vehicular compaction
of the beach.

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 70 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

Although common in North Carolina waters during certain times of the year, the leatherback is a rare nester
in North Carolina. North Carolina beaches are the northern most extent of confirmed Atlantic nesting of this
species (Rabon et.al.2003). The first documented leatherback nest was in 1998 in the National Seashore and
since 2010, there have been 9 documented nests in North Carolina, one of which occurred in the park in 2012
(www.seaturtle.org). Data have been collected prior to 2010 statewide and in the National Seashore; those
data are available in online annual NPS reports and on the NCWRC website, but those data are under review
and revision and not included here. In 2012, the one leatherback nest was relocated approximately 28 beach
miles from the project area (Outer Banks Group, Leslie Frattaroli, Acting GIS Specialist, pers. comm., 29
December 2014); the only other leatherback nests that year in North Carolina were found in Cape Lookout
National Seashore (www.seaturtle.org). In 2018, two nests were found, one of which was also in Cape Lookout
National Seashore while the other was further south at Fort Fisher near Wilmington.
7.2.2.4 Loggerhead Sea Turtle (Caretta carretta)
The loggerhead sea turtle has received federal protection as a threatened species under the ESA since 28 July
1978 and the State of North Carolina also considers this marine turtle threatened. This species of sea turtle is
widely distributed within its range of the temperate and tropical regions of the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian
oceans. According to the Recovery Plan, finalized in 2008, for the North Atlantic population of loggerhead sea
turtles, only two loggerhead nesting beaches have greater than 10,000 females nesting per year: South Florida
and Masirah, Oman. Beaches with 1,000 to 9,999 females nesting each year are north Florida through North
Carolina, Cape Verde Islands, and Western Australia. Smaller nesting aggregations with 100 to 999 annual
nesting females are found in northwest Florida, Cay Sal Bank (Bahamas), Quintana Roo and Yucatán (Mexico),
Sergipe and Northern Bahia (Brazil), Southern Bahia to Rio de Janeiro (Brazil), Tongaland (South Africa),
Mozambique, Arabian Sea Coast (Oman), Halaniyat Islands (Oman), Cyprus, Peloponnesus (Greece), Island of
Zakynthos (Greece), Turkey, and Queensland (Australia).
Adult females from United States beaches are found in
waters off the eastern United States and throughout
the Gulf of Mexico, Bahamas, Greater Antilles, and
Yucatán in years when they are not nesting. The
Northern Recovery Unit, extending from northeast
Florida through North Carolina, represents
approximately 1,287 nesting females per year with
annual total nests ranging from 3,629 to 6,642 between
1989 and 1998. With the addition of the females
estimated to occupy the other three Recovery Units,
the total estimate of females nesting in the United
States is 19,993 (NMFS and USFWS, unpublished data).
The Sea Turtle Conservancy estimated in 2004 that
there were 44,560 nesting female loggerhead sea turtles. The USFWS says the number of nests in the United
States has fluctuated between 47,000 and 90,000 a year for the past two decades. Nesting of this species on
all Florida beaches was in decline for the decade after 1998, but according to recently completed trend
analysis of data from 1988–2014, the trend has been upward since 2009 with 2014 nest totals being slightly
higher than the previous high in 1998 (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission website, 10
December 2014). A time series analysis of annual nesting abundance also found an upward trend for

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 71 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

loggerhead sea turtles in the northwest Atlantic Ocean (Mazaris et al. 2017). However, after an analysis of 30
years of reproductive data for loggerhead sea turtles in Florida (the largest sea turtle nesting population
worldwide) Ceriani et al. (2019) concluded that loggerhead nest counts are not a direct proxy for adult female
population status because females do not reproduce every year and often lay more than one nest; no evidence
for a strong population recovery or trend over the period. The required 5-year review for the NW Atlantic and
seven foreign DPSs of loggerhead sea turtle was initiated by NMFS on 26 December 2019 to verify accuracy of
the listing classifications.
The loggerhead has a large head with blunt jaws with a reddish-brown carapace and flippers and yellow
plastron. Identifying characteristics include five pairs of costal scutes on the carapace, with the first touching
the nuchal scute and three large inframarginal scutes on each of the bridges between the plastron and
carapace (photo courtesy of NOAA website; shows loggerhead escaping fishing net via TED). Adults grow to
an average weight of about 200 pounds and they feed on mollusks, crustaceans, fish, and other marine
animals (NMFS and USFWS 1991).
Loggerheads are found at sea hundreds of miles from the coast, as well as in inshore areas such as bays,
lagoons, salt marshes, creeks, ship channels, and the mouths of large rivers. Common feeding areas are coral
reefs, rocky places, and ship wrecks. Loggerheads nest on ocean beaches typically between the high tide line
and the dune front, but occasionally will nest on estuarine shorelines with suitable sand. It is thought that
most United States-hatched loggerheads lead a pelagic existence in the North Atlantic gyre for an extended
period of time while young, perhaps as long as 10 to 12 years. They are most documented from the eastern
North Atlantic near the Azores and Madeira. Post-hatchlings have been found floating at sea in association
with Sargassum rafts taking advantage of the food and refuge offered in these rafts. Juvenile loggerheads
begin moving to coastal areas in the western Atlantic, feeding on the benthos of lagoons, estuaries, bays, river
mouths, and shallow coastal waters. These feeding grounds may be utilized for a decade or more before their
first reproduction when females will return to their natal beach to lay their eggs.
The continental United States nesting season extends from about May through August with nesting occurring
primarily at night. A single loggerhead may build from one to seven nests within a season (mean is about 4.1
nests per season) at intervals of approximately 14 days. Mean clutch size varies from about 100 to 126 along
the southeastern United States coast, with incubation time ranging from about 45 to 95 days, depending on
incubation temperatures. Hatchlings typically emerge at night. Remigration intervals (intervals between
successive nesting years) of 2 to 3 years are most common in nesting loggerheads, but this has been known
to vary from 1 to 7 years. Like all sea turtles, loggerheads are slow to mature with age at sexual maturity
estimated to be about 20 to 30 years. Adult loggerheads will make long distance migratory journeys between
foraging areas and nesting beaches.
The majority of loggerhead nesting occurs in the western rims of the Atlantic and Indian Oceans where high
energy, generally narrow, moderate to steeply sloped, coarse grained beaches backed by high dunes are
preferred. In the US, loggerheads will nest from Texas to Virginia, but over 80 percent of nesting occurs in six
counties in Florida (Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, Palm Beach, and Broward). In the southeast US,
mating occurs in late March to early June, and females lay eggs between late April and early September. In a
single nesting season, females may lay three to five nests and sometimes more. Incubation requires about
two months but is very dependent on temperature; hatching occurs between late June and mid-November.
Both egg-laying and hatching usually occur at night.

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 72 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

Researchers at the University of Georgia have been genetically fingerprinting nesting loggerhead mothers
since 2008 in the Northern Recovery Unit and in October 2013 the researchers were awarded additional NOAA
funds to continue the fingerprinting in Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina. Through the NCWRC, NPS
personnel have participated in this Georgia-based research since 2010. While flipper tags are the most
common method used to track turtle numbers, it is estimated that flipper tagging typically misses up to 20
percent of all nesting females on a beach each season. Previous studies had also shown that nesting females
may use more than one beach which can lead to incorrect estimates about the population. One unexpected
result of the Georgia research findings shows that sister turtles often do not nest on the same island, contrary
to the common belief of strong natal beach fidelity (philopatry). At least for the turtle population in the study,
philopatry was relaxed; one suspected reason was the abundance of good nesting habitat (The Red & Black,
October 2013).
Other investigations of loggerhead nesting preferences indicate that among four environmental factors
evaluated (temperature, moisture, slope, and salinity) for nest site location, slope appeared to have the
greatest influence (Wood and Bjorndal 2000). Some investigators attribute large inter-annual variations in
nesting numbers of sea turtles to be driven by individual variation in re-migration patterns which are often
triggered by sea surface temperature variables which then affect feeding conditions at sea where turtles
spend 90 percent of their lives (Solow et al. 2002). In 2012, approximately 8,000 loggerhead nests were
documented in the Northern Recovery Unit (The Red & Black, October 2013).
Loggerhead sea turtles have nested every year in the National Seashore since 2000 with generally increasing
numbers and a record of 440 nests in 2019 (Fig 7.9 per www.seaturtle.org). Between the years 2000 and 2007,
less than 100 nests were recorded each year. Since 2008, there have been over 207 nests per year on average.
Figure 7.11 shows that 120 loggerhead sea turtles nested in the proposed sand placement footprint from 2010
to 2020. NPS data also indicate that over the same period, approximately 48 loggerheads nested within 1 mile
north of the sand placement footprint compared to approximately 42 nests within 1 mile south. It is important
to note that turtles do not clump their nests in any particular location at the Seashore and that nests have
been relatively evenly distributed in the Proposed Action Area over the years (Cape Hatteras National
Seashore, Randy Swilling, Natural Resource Program Manager, pers. comm., 4 June 2015). Figure 7.12 is a
record of the number of loggerhead nests in the Avon nourishment area from 2010 to 2020 (Cape Hatteras
National Seashore, Paul Doshkov, Supervisory Biological Technician, pers. comm.18 March 2021).

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 73 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

FIGURE 7.8. Number and trend of loggerhead nests by year (2000–2020) at the Seashore (revised
from Figure 13 of NPS 2010 – 2018 reports and 2019-2020 per www.seaturtle.org).
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
Number of loggerhead sea turtle nests by year at
Cape Hatteras National Seashore 2000-2020

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 74 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

FIGURE 7.9. Loggerhead sea turtle nests and locations recorded along the Village of Avon nourishment area
from 2010 to 2020. [Source: Cape Hatteras National Seashore, Paul Doshkov, Supervisory Biological Technician,
pers. comm. 18 March 2021]

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 75 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

FIGURE 7.10. Loggerhead sea turtle nesting history for 2010-2020 in the Avon sand placement
footprint (Cape Hatteras National Seashore, Paul Doshkov, Supervisory Biological Technician,
pers. comm. 18 March 2021). Note: numbers differ from Fig 7.9 because the northernmost ~0.9
miles of Avon is outside the proposed sand placement area.

7.2.2.5 Hawksbill Sea Turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata)
The hawksbill sea turtle was listed as a federally endangered species in June 1970. Currently, the hawksbill
sea turtle lacks any protective status from North Carolina, most likely due to its rarity of occurrence in the
state. The hawksbill sea turtle derives its name from its distinctive hawk-like beak. The shell of the hawksbill
is brown with yellow, orange, and reddish-brown markings. The underside of the hawksbill is yellowish with
black spots. The hawksbill may reach up to 3 ft in length and 300 pounds in weight, but is more commonly 2.5
ft in length and 95–160 pounds in weight. (Photo courtesy Caroline S. Rogers, USGS.)
This sea turtle is found worldwide in tropical and sub-tropical
marine waters although it has been documented as far north
as Massachusetts. It prefers rocky bottoms, coral reefs, and
coastal bays and lagoons, in water depths <65 ft. In the US,
hawksbill turtles nest only in Florida on rare occasions. Like
other sea turtles, hawksbills occupy a variety of habitats over
their life cycle.
For the first few years of their lives, hawksbill turtles are
associated with floating algal mats in deep oceanic waters. At
~8 to 10 inches, hawksbills migrate to nearshore marine waters
and begin consuming sponges, which will be their primary
dietary constituent throughout their life. Hawksbill sea turtles reach sexual maturity (27 inches for males and
31 inches for females) at 20–30 years of age. Nesting occurs on tropical and subtropical sandy beaches from
April to November, depending on location. Females show high fidelity to natal beaches (beaches where they
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020Number of NestsEvent Year
Loggerhead Sea Turtle Nesting History
Avon Nourishment Project Area

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 76 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

hatched) and nest three to five times per season, laying about 130 eggs per nest. Adult females generally
reproduce every two years. Sex ratio of hatchlings is temperature dependent with warmer temperatures
producing more females.
The historical decline in hawksbill turtle populations was primarily due to commercial exploitation of adults
for their shell. Other causes of mortality include habitat degradation, marine pollution, and incidental take
by commercial trawling and gill netting activities. In general, Caribbean populations have increased
somewhat in recent years, coinciding with the decline in the shell trade. However, hawksbills nest in isolated
locations, and it is often difficult to gather accurate records of the number of reproductively active individuals.
Today, worldwide numbers are likely decreasing, although certain populations in the Caribbean and Pacific
are increasing because of better management.
Stranding data from NCWRC's www.seaturtle.org preliminary data indicate there have been 14 hawksbill
strandings in North Carolina since 2000 five of which were in Dare County, while most of the others were in
Carteret County. Until 2015, the most northern hawksbill nest beach was thought to have been central Florida.
But genetic analysis of two turtle nests laid on the National Seashore in the second half of the 2015 nesting
season determined both nests to have been laid by the same female turtle and that she was 100 percent
hawksbill (Finn et al 2016). The North Carolina Natural Heritage program has a record of this species in Dare
County (North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, 2006), and four strandings of hawksbills were recorded
between 1996 and 2006 (National Park Service, 2007). Hawksbills have occurred in the Pea Island National
Wildlife Refuge during the last 20 years (USFWS, 2006); however, no further nests since 2015 nor strandings
since 2010 have been documented on Hatteras Island (www.seaturtle.org).
7.2.3 Mammals
7.2.3.1 West Indian Manatee (Trichetus manatus)
A distant relative of the elephant, there are three species of manatees worldwide. There are two distinct
subspecies contained within the West Indian manatee; both subspecies were changed from endangered to
threatened under the ESA in April of 2017. Manatees and
also have federal protection under the MMPA. The
historical range of the West Indian manatee included the
entire Gulf of Mexico, southwest Atlantic US coast,
throughout the Caribbean, and the entire Atlantic coast
of Brazil. It has disappeared from portions of that historic
range as it is only found on the north coast of Brazil, and
is no longer found in the western Gulf of Mexico, in
Guadeloupe or some of the Lesser Antilles. The
subspecies most likely to be along the US east coast in the
vicinity of the proposed project is the Florida manatee
(Trichetus manatus latirostris).
The West Indian manatee is large seal shaped marine mammal found in marine, estuarine, and freshwater
environments. They have paired front flippers and a spoon shaped tail which leaves a very distinctive wake
on the water surface. Typically grey in color, color can range from black to light brown, and some individuals
are occasionally spotted with barnacles or colored by algal patches. The muzzle is heavily whiskered with

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 77 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

coarse single hairs sparsely distributed over the body. These whiskers are called vibrissae and are used to
detect current and obstacles in turbid waters (Gaspard 2013). Adults average about 9 or 10 feet in length and
weigh 1,000 pounds but have been known to be as large as 14 feet and 3,000 pounds. At birth, calves are
between 3 and 4 feet long and weigh between 40 and 60 pounds. (Photo of manatee cow with nursing calf
courtesy of Keith Ramos of USFWS).
The population estimate within the current range of West Indian manatee is at least 13,000 with more than
6,500 in the US and Puerto Rico. When aerial surveys began in 1991, there were an estimated 1,267 manatees
in Florida while today, that population has significantly increased to more than 6,300 over the past 25 years.
Some speculate that this increase has driven the expansion of the number of individuals seen in the summer
at the northern extent of the range.
Very temperature sensitive, the manatee winters in waters of at least 68 degrees F and often can be found
near hot springs or power plant outfalls for this reason. Since they surprisingly have almost no body fat or
blubber to insulate them, manatees may experience “cold stress” if they are consistently exposed to waters
below 61 degrees F, a condition that can form various health defects (Cummings et al. 2014). In summer,
predominantly along inshore channels and rivers, they venture further north with warmer waters to the
fringes of their range but can also be found in the nearshore marine environment; males are thought to range
farther than females in the summer. They can become stranded and cold stunned if they fail to migrate south
in the fall. The manatee feeds exclusively on seagrasses and other aquatic plants which grow in shallow waters
and this behavior is the source of their "sea cow" nickname. They survive mostly on seagrass, and must
consume about 9 percent of their body weight in food. Their lungs are found below the spine instead of within
the rib cage and stretch almost the entire length of the torso, and help to maintain optimal buoyancy. With
only six cervical vertebrae (most mammals have seven), a manatee cannot turn its head to the side and must
turn its entire body to see behind. They require freshwater for drinking and prefer to forage along the edge of
seagrass beds next to deeper channels which they use to escape threats. Seagrass beds are common near the
higher water quality of inlets (e.g., water clarity, suitability of sediments, and prominence of associated
shallow flood tidal deltas/shoals) so the rare oceanic manatee in NC waters might use inlets for access to
seagrass beds and fresher inshore waters.
They have no natural predators, but sewage runoff often causes algal blooms which can be toxic to the
manatee upon ingestion. Collision with boats present another major threat to their survival, especially in
shallow sounds and canals with no deeper water for escape. Another threat on the horizon is the widespread
retirement of power plants that provide warm water discharges for manatees in the winter, without them
locations for manatees to overwinter may become even more limited (Laist and Reynolds 2005). Of the more
than 6,000 manatees estimated to live in Florida, as many as 75 percent may depend on these discharges.
Opponents to the 2017 downgraded threatened status argued that the increases in population presented a
false sense of stability as they were tied to the high numbers of individuals which have become habituated to
the power plant outfalls and that the vulnerability of the manatee Climate change also poses a threat with
perhaps repeats of the massive 2010 manatee die-off due to unprecedented winter temperatures in Florida.

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 78 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

7.2.3.2 Fin Whale (Balaenoptera physalus)
Endangered throughout its range under the precursor to the ESA since June (USFWS) and December 1970
(NMFS), this slender streamlined whale is the second largest of all whale species. It is also listed as depleted
throughout its range under the U.S. Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (MMPA). For management
purposes, fin whales in US waters are divided into four stocks, one of which includes the western North
Atlantic Ocean. The 2018 stock assessment shows the best population estimate for this stock at 1,618 and the
minimum estimate at 1,234. These numbers represent US and partial Canadian waters from 2011 shipboard
surveys; while confident numbers in and of themselves, it is highly probable to be an underestimate and is no
longer very current. Insufficient data prevents determination of any trends. No critical habitat rules have
been published for the fin whale.
The fin whale is a fast swimmer found in deep,
offshore waters of all major oceans primarily in
temperate to polar latitudes and less commonly in
the tropics. In the northern hemisphere, these
whales reach a maximum length of about 75 ft with
the females usually 5–10 percent larger than the
males. The whale has a V-shaped head, a tall
curved dorsal fin located about two-thirds of the
way back on the body, and a distinctive coloration
pattern: the back and sides of the body are black or
dark brownish grey, and the ventral surface is white
(photo courtesy of Lori Mazzuca, NOAA). The
unique, asymmetrical head color is dark on the left side of the lower jaw, and white on the right side. Many
individuals have several light-gray, V-shaped "chevrons" behind their head, and the underside of the tail flukes
is white with a gray border. Lifespan is 80–90 years. Recent research and analysis of acoustic data by NOAA’s
Northeast Fisheries Center published in July 2020 indicated that four of the six baleen whales of the western
North Atlantic, including fin whales, have altered their distribution since 2010; the fin have shown an increase
of time spent in northern latitudes. Over the last decade, fin whale were found nearly year round in waters
from Virginia to Greenland; feeding grounds are known in New England but their mating and calving ground
remain unknown (Davis et al 2020 and https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/07/200717120132.htm).
Usually associated with small social groups of two to seven individuals, they often are also part of larger
feeding aggregations of marine mammals (humpback and minke whales and other species) in the north
Atlantic. Commercial hunting was a major threat to the species but this practice ended in 1987 for the north
Atlantic population. Vessel collisions are a primary threat to this species and this species is the large whale
most often reported in vehicle collisions (Jensen and Silber 2004). The 2018 stock assessment mentioned a
review of records from 2012-2016 that showed a total of seven deaths attributed to vessel strikes (a rate of
1.4/year); however, the true total is unknown since the NMFS records do not cover the entire area used for the
population estimate. The 2018 assessment also showed that no fishery related mortalities or serious injuries
of fin whales were in the NMFS Sea Sampling by-catch database. A review of the records on file with NMFS for
stranding, floating, or injured fin whales for the period 2010-2016 found no evidence of fishery-related
interactions as cause of mortality in US waters while serious injury from non-fatal fishery interactions showed
an annual average of 1.1/year. These records are not thought to be accurate estimates of entanglements.

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 79 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

Other threats include fishing gear entanglement, reduced prey abundance due to overfishing (krill, herring,
capelin, sand lance, and squid), habitat degradation, and disturbance from low-frequency noise.
Although the deeper ocean habitat where this species is most commonly found does not exist within the
project vicinity and the 2020 SARBO determined no effect for this species for winter projects, the fin whale is
included in analysis because of the project’s proposed summer window and the fact that the species may be
in the deeper offshore waters during its winter migrations through the area from the north. Additionally, three
strandings have occurred on North Carolina beaches between 1997 and 2008, one of which occurred during
the proposed construction window (May). The Southeast US Marine Mammal Stranding Network listed only
one stranding record from 2000-2020 for fin whales in Dare County; it was found freshly dead near Kill Devil
Hills on 27 February 2003. Research published in 2016 on habitat-based cetacean density for the US Atlantic
and Gulf of Mexico used 23 years of aerial surveys and shipboard cetacean observations to make predictions
(Roberts et al 2016). Predicted mean density and mean monthly abundance for baleen whales in July and
January are shown in Figure 7.12 (as shown in Roberts et al 2016); predictions for mean monthly abundance
and mean density for baleen whales were higher in January than July.

FIGURE 7.12. Predicted mean density of baleen whales in July (A) and January (B) with inset table of mean monthly
abundance (N) and coefficient of variation (CV) (as shown in Figure 5 of Roberts et al 2016).

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 80 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

7.2.3.3 Humpback Whale (Megaptera novaeangliae)
Protected from commercial whaling since 1966, the humpback whale was listed as endangered under the
precursor to the ESA in June 1970. This whale lives in all major oceans from the equator to sub-polar
latitudes and abundance has increased in much of their range, especially in the Pacific populations. On
20 April 2015, NOAA proposed delisting most
populations of this whale (10 of the 14 distinct
populations were proposed for removal, including the
West Indies population that migrates through the
western Atlantic to its northern Atlantic feeding
grounds). Currently, four of the 14 are listed as
endangered, one is threatened, and nine are not at risk;
the West Indies population was delisted under the ESA,
but the species still is protected under the MMPA.
For the north Atlantic, the best available estimate is
about 11,500 individuals. The recent Northeast Fisheries
Center acoustic research mentioned above showed humpback to be in all regions of the western North
Atlantic, but researchers were surprised at the length of time they were present in all areas (Davis et al 2020
and https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/07/200717120132.htm).
The Latin name means "big-winged New Englander" as the New England population was best known to
Europeans and refers to their long pectoral fins. This species is the favorite of whale watchers as they perform
acrobatic displays with their fins, heads, and bodies. Similar to all baleen whales, females are larger than
males and can reach up to 60 ft in length. Their body coloration is primarily dark grey, but individuals have a
variable amount of white on their pectoral fins and belly. This variation is so distinctive that the pigmentation
pattern on the undersides of their "flukes" is used to identify individual whales, similar to a human fingerprint
(photo courtesy USFWS digital library).
Humpback whales migrate the farthest of all mammals during their travel from summer high latitude feeding
grounds to winter calving grounds in subtropical or tropical waters. During migration, they stay near the ocean
surface and during feeding and calving, they prefer shallow waters. Their summer feeding builds up the
blubber on which they will live off of during the winter as the warm water calving grounds are less productive.
They utilize multiple feeding strategies and methods to corral, herd, or disorient the small fish upon which they
prey, one of which is called “bubble netting”. This technique unique to humpbacks involves a coordinated
effort among groups, with defined roles for individual whales, to concentrate the prey and force it to the surface
for easy feeding. For the western Atlantic population, feeding occurs during spring, summer, and fall with a
range that encompasses the eastern US coast and into western Greenland. The wintering grounds are used for
calving and mating and are where their famous, but poorly understood, singing takes place.
Threats to the species include fish gear entanglement, ship strikes, harassment by whale watcher, habitat
impacts, and legal harvest (Japan has issued scientific permits in the Antarctic and western north Pacific in
recent years). Numerous conservation efforts have been undertaken by NOAA and various partners to reduce
these threats including education, take reduction measures, and monitoring.

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 81 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

This species is more likely to be in the offshore waters of North Carolina than the fin whale, as evident by the
33 strandings documented by the Southeast US Marine Mammal Stranding Network for Dare County from
2000-2020; 11 were found between Avon and Hatteras Inlet. Of those strandings, 29 were found between
September and April and all but one between Avon and Hatteras Inlet were found from October to April.

7.2.3.4 North Atlantic Right Whale (Eubalanae glacialis)
Originally listed endangered throughout its range under the precursor to the ESA in June 1970 as the North
Atlantic right whale and under the ESA since 1973, it is also considered depleted throughout its range by the
MMPA. In 2008, NMFS listed the North Atlantic right whale as two separate endangered species, the North
Pacific right whale (E. japonica) and the North Atlantic right whale (E. glacialis). There are two other species of
right whale, one found in the north Pacific and the other found in oceans of the southern hemisphere.
Primarily found in coastal or shelf waters in all the oceans of the world, right whales can sometimes be found
moving over deeper waters. They migrate to higher latitudes in spring and summer. Current population
estimates for this critically endangered whale suggest 400individuals; despite 50 years of protection, the
species shows no signs of recovery. Once heavily exploited by whalers off southern Europe and northwest
Africa, the species is suspected to no longer frequent these areas and in fact the eastern North Atlantic right
whales are nearly extinct.
This large whale grows to about 50 ft in length with a stocky black body, large head, no dorsal fin, deeply
notched tail, and raised patches of rough skin (callosities) on the head region (Photos courtesy GA Dept of
Natural Resources [right] and NOAA [left]; open baleen and callosities visible on whale shown on right and
North Atlantic right whale feeding from above on left -NEFSC Christen Kahn).

Like other baleens, the females are larger than the males and while few data exist on longevity of right whales,
their lifespan is estimated to be about 50 years. They feed on zooplankton and are skimmers, removing prey
from the water with their mouth open. They were deemed the “right” whale to hunt because of their tendency
to float when dead due to their thick blubber.
The North Atlantic right whale has two critical habitat areas designated by NMFS, the Northeast US (Unit 1 for
foraging, Gulf of Maine and Georges Bank) and the Southeast US (Unit 2 for calving), neither of which is within

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 82 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

the project vicinity. The northern limit of the Southeast US critical habitat includes the waters offshore of the
southern half of the Georgia coast. On 13 February 2015, NOAA proposed to expand designated critical habitat
in the northwest Atlantic to include areas that will support calving and nursing (calving from southern North
Carolina into northern Florida and nursing/feeding in Gulf of Maine and Georges Bank); however, when the
designations were finalized, Unit 2 no longer included the entire North Carolina coast.
This whale feeds from spring to fall although in some areas they may also feed in winter; however, their
distribution is strongly tied to prey distribution. The whereabouts of the winter population remained
unknown until Davis et al (2017) published long-term passive acoustic results collected collaboratively from
19 organizations from 2004-2014 (324 recorders; >35,600 days; species’ acoustic signal in 7 percent of the
days). Results of analysis showed minimum presence for this species widely distributed across most regions
throughout the winter months. Results also indicated almost year round use of the western Atlantic,
particularly north of Cape Hatteras, with a decrease in detections off Cape Hatteras in summer and fall (Cape
Hatteras region did not have a recorder from 2004 to 2010); post 2010, there was increased use of the mid-
Atlantic region and decreased use in the northern Gulf of Maine. A broad scale distribution shift in sightings
of this whale in its southeast calving grounds and three of its northern feeding habitats since 2010 or 2011
co-occurred with an increase in sightings in Cape Cod Bay and in two lesser known feeding habitats
(Fauquier et al. 2020). While there are seasonal concentrations of North Atlantic right whales in some
habitats, historically a large proportion of the population has always been, and continues to be,
unaccounted for in most months of the year (Fauquier et al. 2020).

Most known right whale nursery areas are in shallow coastal waters and nursing mothers will often aggregate
in other areas; breeding areas were not known for any population until Davis et al. (2017) showed the Gulf of
Maine as a potential winter mating ground. It is not clear if the shift in regions detected in the long-term
acoustic data are driven by anthropogenic or natural factors or a combination. Studies such as this may
indicate that areas deemed to be critical habitat may not be static. The most common human threats include
ship collisions, largely due to their cryptic coloring and lack of dorsal fin which obscures visibility to ships
when at the surface, and fish gear entanglements. Additional threats of habitat degradation, contaminants,
climate change, increased human-sourced noise in the oceans or seaways they frequent, disturbances from
whale watchers, and noise from industrial activities are other human threats. They are also prey of large
sharks and killer whales.
Adult females used to calve every 3 to 5 years but now it is every 6 to 10 years. Up to 85 percent of right whales
are estimated to have been entangled at least primarily with vertical buoy lines, or ropes, connected to fishing
gillnets, traps, and pots on the ocean floor; entangled whales can drag gear for hundreds of miles. Once
entangled the lines can cut into a whale’s body, cause serious injuries, and result in infections and mortality.
Even if gear is shed or disentangled, the time spent entangled can cause severe stress, which weakens it,
prevents it from feeding, and saps the energy it needs to swim and feed, or successfully bring to term and
nurture a calf. The North Atlantic right whale habitat and migration routes are close to major ports and overlap
the major shipping lanes which make vessel strikes more likely. Underwater noise from human activities such
as shipping, recreational boating, development, and energy exploration can interrupt the normal behavior of
right whales and interfere with their communication with potential mates, other group members, and their
offspring. Noise can also reduce their ability to avoid predators, navigate and identify physical surroundings,
and find food.

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 83 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

Numerous conservation efforts have been
undertaken by NOAA and various partners
to reduce these threats including
measures to reduce ship collision and fish
gear entanglement, take reduction
measures, establishment of seasonal
management areas which include ship
speed restrictions, and monitoring. As
shown in map to right, the project area
does not fall within a designated seasonal
management area.
Of particular concern is the decline of
adult females in the population, estimated
at 200 in 2010, 186 in 2015, and fewer than
95 in 2019. Only 12 births have been
documented since 2017. High mortality of
North Atlantic right whales in 2016 and the known deaths of 17 in 2017 add to the widening gap between
numbers of males and females (Pace et al. 2017). In fact, 2017-2020 (partial data for 2020) has been named
an Unusual Mortality Event (UME) for the species by NOAA due to the significant increase of deaths in Canada
evident in the graph on the NOAA website about the UME (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-
life-distress/2017-2019-north-atlantic-right-whale-unusual-mortality-event) shown in Figure 7.12 below. As
of 30 September 2019, the UME total was 30 (21 in Canada and nine in the US) 14 of which were female (gender
of two was undetermined). Preliminary findings show the majority of the deaths were attributed to either
vessel strikes or net entanglement. To date, of all UME’s since 1991, the highest percent by group has been
cetaceans (57 percent) and the highest by geographic region is the Atlantic (36 percent).

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 84 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

FIGURE 7.12. Unusual Mortality Event (UME) for North Atlantic right whales from 2017-2020.

Of the three whale species evaluated in this BA, the North Atlantic right whale is the species most likely to
occur in the shallower coastal ocean within the Proposed Action Area. While all of the 30 Canadian UME deaths
occurred in the Gulf of St Lawrence in June and July with one in September, the nine US UME deaths were
spread over six months of the calendar year with the most southern death offshore of Virginia Beach, VA in
January 2018. The shift into different Canadian waters (from the typical Bay of Fundy and Gulf of Maine into
the more northern Gulf of St. Lawrence) drove the increase in lethal encounters. Researchers believe the shift
north was probably driven by the rapid spike in deep water temperatures in the Gulf of Maine attributed to
climate change, which caused a decline in the copepod population, which drove the whales further north for
food. Conservation and management efforts lagged behind the shift and have struggled to keep pace. The
Southeast US Marine Mammal Stranding Network data for Dare County documented six North Atlantic Right
Whales from 2000-2020, five were found from Avon to Hatteras Inlet; five of the six recorded whales were found
between September and April. However, the most recent stranding in the Seashore was August of 2013 (south
southeast of Cape Point); other more recent strandings in 2007 and 2008 were near Avon. The 2019 Atlantic
Marine Assessment Program for Marine Species (AMAPPS) report documented two north Atlantic right whales
in their winter 2019/2020 aerial survey track off of Cape Hatteras, but it is difficult to tell from the figure in the
report how close to shore these two individuals were documented (Figure 3-5, pg 49 in NOAA 2020).

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 85 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

7.2.3.5 Blue Whale (Balaenoptera musculus)
Endangered throughout its range (world oceans except for
the Arctic) effective 2 December 1970 under the ESA and
granted protection by NMFS, the blue whale is also
protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act.
Generally long and slender, with characteristic mottling
used for individual identification, the blue whale feeds
almost solely on krill which are sifted through its baleen
plates; individuals may consume up to six tons of krill a day.
At up to 110 feet long, the blue whale is the largest animal
known to have ever existed on the planet. (Photo courtesy
of NOAA)
Worldwide commercial whaling reduced the population to a fraction of its numbers prior to 1900; however,
population numbers appear to be on the increase for the western North Atlantic region (latest stock
assessment in November 2010 mentioned between 200 and 600 individuals). Total abundance for this region’s
stock was highest in 1995 (979) and lowest in 1987 (222). However, the small proportion of range sampled and
limited population data are insufficient to determine trends with much certainty. A study to document
wintering and foraging behavior of blue whales from eastern Canada satellite-tagged 23 individuals and
documented for the first time that the Mid-Atlantic Bight was a wintering destination and was possibly also a
breeding and/or calving area (Lesage et al. 2017). Figure 7.13 shows the path of two females of the 23 whales
tagged, both of which spent part of the winter (late December to mid-February) within the waters of the Mid-
Atlantic Bight. In fact, the one shown in A (whale ID B244) spent part of January and February in waters “off
Pamlico Sound and Cape Hatteras, North Carolina” with the closest distance of 28 miles. This particular whale
documented a path of 7,406 miles during the study. This rare sighting, so close to shore, is the main reason
the blue whale has been included in this document. Additionally, as mentioned in the fin and humpback
sections above, a study of broadly situated acoustic data shows that since 2010, like the others, blue whale
have also altered their distribution; also like the others, perhaps due to changes in prey habit as a result of
temperature alterations due to climate change. Acoustic detections also showed the blue whale as far south
as North Carolina (Davis et al 2020 and https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/07/200717120132.htm).
Threats to the species are poorly known, but vessel strikes and net entanglement are the most likely causes
of any direct mortality; pollution, acoustic communication disruptions from human activities, changes in
distribution of prey due to changes in climate which concomitantly affect ocean temperatures and currents
may also affect numbers and population health. As a cool water deeper ocean species, a blue whale is unlikely
to be within this project’s area or vicinity (within 10 miles of the beach), but a sick individual or one wounded
from a ship strike or net entanglement could drift that close.

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 86 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

FIGURE 7.13. Winter 2016 telemetry paths of two tagged female blue whales in the Mid-Atlantic
Bight; the path shown in A was ~28 miles from Cape Hatteras (although the yellow dots appear much
closer on the map) (Figure 4 shown in Lesage et al.2017).

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 87 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

7.2.4 Fish
7.2.4.1 Atlantic Sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus)
The Atlantic sturgeon, specifically the Carolina and South Atlantic distinct population segments (DPSs), was
designated as “endangered” in February 2012 (effective April 2012) and granted protection by NMFS (Federal
Register, 2012). The Gulf of Maine DPS was listed
then as threatened. Atlantic sturgeon is also listed as
an endangered species in the state of North
Carolina. In 1998, Amendment 1 to the Atlantic
sturgeon Fishery Management Plan (FMP)
implemented a fishery moratorium and efforts to
reduce or eliminate by-catch. In June 2016, NMFS
proposed that Critical Habitat be designated for the
Carolina and south Atlantic DPSs and the
designations were adopted 16 August 2017.
Approximately 3,968 miles of coastal rivers along the
east coast have been designated as critical habitat.
Sturgeons, including the Atlantic sturgeon, are among the most primitive of the bony fishes. All are
characterized by bony plates (scutes) that run the length of the body, sensory organs called barbels, and a
mouth positioned on the underside of their snout. Atlantic sturgeon can reach 14 ft to 18 feet in length and
weigh up to 800 pounds; however, individuals over 10 to 12 feet are rarely encountered (ASMFC 2017). They
have olive-brown or bluish-black backs with paler sides and have a white belly (NOAA Fisheries 2014).
Sturgeon species, including the Atlantic, are long-lived and may reach over 60 years old. Atlantic sturgeon
mature at approximately seven years and the young may remain in freshwaters for up to five years before
migrating to the ocean (Rohde et al. 1994). Both gender and population segment location affect age at, and
frequency of, reproduction (Photo courtesy of NOAA)
The Atlantic sturgeon is an anadromous species that inhabits the lower downstream sections of larger rivers
and coastal waters of the Atlantic coast (found in 32 rivers and spawns in perhaps 20), moving into freshwater
only to spawn in the spring. Five DPS’s of Atlantic sturgeon have been identified: Gulf of Maine, New York
Bight, Chesapeake Bay, Carolina, and South Atlantic. Recent preliminary DNA research on Atlantic sturgeon
tagged by the Navy in Virginia’s Pamunkey River, a tributary of the York River in the Chesapeake DPS, proved
not only that reproduction was occurring in a river previously thought to no longer support the fish, but also
that the York River population was genetically distinct from all other known Atlantic sturgeon populations
along the Atlantic Coast, including the nearby James River (Watterson 2015). In addition, one group of the
Chesapeake Atlantic sturgeon spawn in May (James River) and another in mid-September (York River, as well
as the James) (Hager et al, 2014; Balazik and Musick 2015). Fall spawning has been documented in the
Roanoke River of NC (Smith et al 2015) and in other western Atlantic rivers. Dual race (run) spawning occurs
in other Acipenseriformes globally, the historic record of colonial America also indicates its occurrence, and
data suggest that perhaps the fall group was/is the principal group in some cases (Balazik and Musick 2015).
Results on the genetics of juveniles from the Connecticut River run contrary to the belief that re-colonizers of
extirpated populations primarily originate in proximal populations as these juveniles were comprised of
specimens mostly from South Atlantic and Chesapeake DPS origins (Savoy et al 2017). Current research into

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 88 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

the underappreciated dual run aspect of the reproductive biology of Atlantic sturgeon and discovery of
reproduction in rivers once thought to have extirpated populations are encouraging. The species has
improved chances for continued survival if other unstudied or discounted tributaries are also used by the
species and if dual races exist in other Atlantic rivers. Such information and results also have management
implications for population assessments and recovery plans and may affect windows for permitted activities.
The Carolina DPS includes all Atlantic sturgeon that spawn, or are spawned, in the watersheds from Albemarle
Sound southward along the southern Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina coastal areas to Charleston
Harbor, South Carolina. The marine range of Atlantic sturgeon from the Carolina DPS extends from Labrador,
Canada south to Cape Canaveral, Florida. A bottom dweller and benthic feeder, it prefers areas with soft
substrate and vegetated bottom for most of the year. At spawning, the fish requires fast current and rough
bottoms. Suitable Atlantic sturgeon habitat exists in the project vicinity and Proposed Action Area and this
species has been documented in the project vicinity. The suitable habitats include open water marine and
estuarine environments, including inlets. As bottom feeding animals, sturgeon primarily consume organisms
associated with sediment such as worms, bivalves, crustaceans, insect larvae, and small fish. They also
consume live and detrital plant material.
Historically, Atlantic sturgeons have been abundant in most North Carolina coastal rivers and estuaries, with
the largest fisheries located in the Roanoke River/Albemarle Sound system and the Cape Fear River (Kahnle et
al. 1998). Landing records from the late 1800s indicate that Atlantic sturgeons were very abundant in the
Albemarle Sound, and North Carolina as a whole supported an estimated 7,200 to 10,500 adult females
(Armstrong and Hightower, 2002; and Secor, 2002). In 2007, it was estimated that fewer than 300 spawning
adults reside within the Carolina DPS (Atlantic Sturgeon Status Review Team [ASSRT] 2007). There also are
many records of Atlantic sturgeon from the Neuse River, Tar River, and Pamlico Sound. Estimates of Atlantic
sturgeon >1 meter total length in the Carolina DPS ranged from 1,912 to 2,031 dependent on method used to
count based on a side-scan sonar study (Flowers and Hightower 2015).
Between April 2004 and December 2005, the NCDENR-DMF Observer Program documented the capture of 12
Atlantic sturgeon in the Pamlico Sound (ASSRT, 2007). Laney et al. (2007) documented mostly juvenile Atlantic
sturgeon in North Carolina nearshore water depths of <60 ft from cooperative winter tagging conducted from
1998 to 2006. Other captures in North Carolina waters were primarily associated with inlets and nearby bays
(Stein et al. 2004). Recent acoustic data collected from the vicinity (Atlantic Cooperative Telemetry Network
data referenced in CBI 2015) indicate that Atlantic sturgeon are present in nearshore North Carolina in higher
numbers in November and March. An array of 12 acoustic receivers was deployed periodically at Hatteras Inlet
in 2008/2009 through April 2014 to detect tagged fish (originally only spiny dogfish; other sharks, Atlantic
sturgeon, and other fish were added later) (Rulifson et al. 2020). Table 7.4 shows the distribution of Atlantic
sturgeon by life stage, month of the year, and habitat location as Wickliffe et al. compiled in a Technical
Memorandum prepared for NOAA's National Centers for Ocean Science (2019). Figure 3.4.4 in Wickliffe et al
(2019) showed that for the sum of all of ASMFC's Cooperative Winter tagging cruises from 1988-2016 the counts
of Atlantic sturgeon per square kilometer were 1 to 2 in the vicinity of Cape Hatteras; cruises occurred in
January and February, no cruise occurred in 2011, 2013, or 2014 and no Atlantic sturgeon were counted in
1993 or 1995. While the state no longer has funds to tag Atlantic sturgeon, the Hatteras array continues to
collect data on tagged fish including those tagged by other researchers. The most recent tagged Atlantic
sturgeon to pass the array was documented on 22 November 2019 (NCDMF, Michael S. Loeffler, Marine
Fisheries Biologist, pers comm. 26 January 2021).

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 89 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

TABLE 7.4. Temporal and spatial distribution of various Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus) life stages in the Carolinas
and the northern portion of the South Atlantic distinct population segment (from Table 3.4.1 in Wickliffe et al. 2019, page 121).

* Pre-spawn adults are present in estuaries May through August as they stage to get ready to run up the river. In North Carolina
subadults are in the estuaries year round. A certain proportion of these individuals overwinter in the ocean.
The NCDMF currently has three independent gill net programs that encounter and tag Atlantic sturgeon. The
Albemarle Sound Independent Gill Net Survey (IGNS) is a stratified random gill net survey that employs gill
nets with different mesh sizes and floating and sinking nets; each 40-yard shot net set is fished for
approximately 24 hours before retrieval from January through May, November, and December. Figure 7.14
shows the IGNS catch per unit effort (CPUE) and trend for Atlantic sturgeon in the Albemarle Sound from 1991-
2018 as variable with a generally positive trend, although not strong (R2 = 0.44) (NCDMF 2019).
R² = 0.4385
0.000
0.005
0.010
0.015
0.020
0.025
0.030
0.035
0.040
0.045
0.050
19911993199519971999200120032005200720092011201320152017Catch per unit effortAtlantic Sturgeon CPUE
NCDMF Albemarle Sound IGNS
1991 -2018

River
Estuary
Ocean Life Stage Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
Pre-spawn
& spawning
adults
****
Egg
Larvae
YOY growth
Subadults
year-round
Subadult
overwinter
Q1 = Winter Q2 =Spring Q3 = Summer Q4 = Fall
Atantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus)FIGURE 7.14. Catch per unit effort for NCDMF Atlantic sturgeon gill net
surveys in Albemarle Sound 1991-2018.

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 90 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

As of 2019, Incidental Take Permits (ITPs) issued by NMFS are held by NCDMF for the commercial inshore
gillnet fishery (issued in 2014) and by Georgia Department of Natural Resources for the commercial shad
fishery (issued in 2013); both permits are for 10 years. In North Carolina, from 2015-2018, observers for the
estuarine large and small gillnet fishery for southern flounder from 2015-2018 self-reported 74, 82, 51, and 24
netted Atlantic sturgeon respectively; of those three in 2015, five in 2016, three in 2017, and 2 in 2018 were
dead (ASMFC 2017, ASPRT 2018; NCDMF 2018 and 2019). Each year since the first report year (2015) when 86
were taken, the number of takes in the Albemarle Sound have been over 100 (124, 173, and 155 from 2016-
2018); mortalities from these incidental takes were 15, 9, 18, and 16. Takes in the Pamlico Sound, which is
clumped with Pamlico River and Pungo and Neuse rivers were much less at 24,10, 5, and 11 for the same
period; among the incidental takes in the Pamlico complex were five mortalities in 2015, two in 2016, none in
2017, and two in 2018. Estimates of bycatch from the North Carolina gillnet fishery were averaged at 4,179 per
year with 218 dead and the Federal Observer estimated bycatch program (gillnets and trawls combined)
estimated 1,139 per year with 295 dead in gillnet fishery and 1,062 per year with 41 dead in otter trawl fishery
(ASMFC 2019).
Threats to current populations of Atlantic sturgeon include incidental by-catch, human activity such as
dredging, dams, and water withdrawals that result in habitat loss, and ship strikes (NOAA Fisheries 2014). In
a presentation at NOAA’s May 2016 Atlantic and Shortnose Sturgeon Workshop (Threats Session), researchers
concluded that thermal effects due to climate change pose a threat to early life stages of Atlantic sturgeon
(Chambers et al. 2016). At the 2016 Workshop, it became apparent that fish passages at dams were not
necessarily the panacea once thought due to the fact that juveniles need to be able to move downstream; a
function perhaps not considered in existing fish passage designs. The Workshop also identified water quality
degradation as a potential threat from certain compounds such as copper, mercury, selenium, retene
(particularly for spawning areas downstream of pulp mills in the case of retene), and that Atlantic sturgeon
are sensitive to endocrine disruptors. While sturgeons are known to be “sensitive”, data gaps exist. Another
threat identified with many unknown effects was impingement/entrainment from facilities with water
intakes. Yet another threat to recruitment presented at the 2016 Workshop, is habitat displacement and/or
potential predation from the blue catfish, an invasive species in rivers of Virginia and both North and South
Carolina (Kahn et al. 2016).
As commercial by-catch of this species occurs across a range of gear types, by-catch has been identified as the
predominant impediment to recovery (ASSRT 2007). However, the 2016 Workshop participants noted the lack
of consistent by-catch information (self-reports and volunteer) and differences across states on mandatory
reporting requirements made it difficult to know true extent of this threat. Research on the northeast
populations has shown that most human interaction occurs during their coastal migrations in fall, winter, and
spring (Dunton et al. 2015). Breece et al. 2016 used seascape models to predict preferences of tagged Atlantic
sturgeon during spring migrations offshore Delaware Bay. Results of their research indicates readily
accessible and easy to use seascape tools could target smaller closure areas which would have less disruptive
impacts to gillnet fisheries and reduce the by-catch of Atlantic sturgeon. Recent study of gill-net adaptations
to reduce capture of Atlantic sturgeon in North Carolina from this fishery reduced by-catch by 39.6 percent
and encounters by 60.9 percent; in this study, the Atlantic sturgeon was most often in depths that ranged from
approximately 17 to 21 ft (Levesque et al. 2016).
The most recent stock assessment showed there is a high probability that the coast-wide index is above the
1998 levels (year moratorium began) and that Atlantic sturgeon populations have begun a slow recovery

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 91 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

(ASMFC 2017). Indices for the Gulf of Maine DPS, New York Bight DPS, and the Carolina DPS all have a greater
than 50 percent chance of being above their 1998 level; the Chesapeake Bay DPS was at 36 percent and there
were no representative indices for the South Atlantic DPS (ASMFC 2017).
In July 2019, NOAA recommended $10.4M for 19 new coastal and marine habitat restoration projects and two
ongoing projects which included $42K in funds for a Nature Conservancy project to restore floodplains and
remove barriers to fish migration in the Roanoke River of North Carolina. This type of habitat restoration will
benefit both Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon.
7.2.4.2 Shortnose Sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum)
In March 1967, the shortnose sturgeon was listed as endangered under the precursor to the ESA. The NMFS
later assumed jurisdiction for shortnose sturgeon under a 1974 government reorganization plan (38 FR 41370).
The shortnose sturgeon is managed by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) of which
North Carolina is a member. In 1990, the ASMFC devised a Fishery Management Plan (FMP) to aid in the
recovery of Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon. In response to continued declines, in 1998, the FMP was
amended to include a moratorium on sturgeon fishing in participating states. Although the shortnose
sturgeon was not targeted by the commercial fishing industry, it was a common incidental catch in the Atlantic
sturgeon fishery. Therefore, with the ban on all sturgeon, the ASMFC reduced the fishing related mortality to
the shortnose sturgeon. In addition, possession of the shortnose sturgeon is illegal because of its federally
protected status. The shortnose sturgeon is also listed as endangered by the state of North Carolina.
The shortnose sturgeon is the
smallest North American sturgeon,
reaching 3–4.5 ft in length and 61
pounds in weight. The shortnose
sturgeon has a blackish head and
back, a yellowish-brown body and a
pale underside and can be
distinguished from Atlantic sturgeon by its shorter snout, wider mouth, and the lack of scutes between the
anal fin base and the lateral row of plates (NMFS 1998). Distinguishing between the two species can be tricky
as the adult shortnose may be the same size as a juvenile Atlantic sturgeon. Like other sturgeon, this species
is long lived and may live 60 years. It is primarily amphidromous, born in freshwater, lives and feeds in its
natal river system with the exception of short feeding or migratory forays into salt water; all sturgeon return
to freshwater to spawn (Photo courtesy of Gary Shepard, NOAA; shortnose shown on top, Atlantic beneath).
Telemetry data show the species makes long coastal migrations to other river systems but there is little
evidence to show shortnose sturgeon at sea (Wickliffe et al. 2019). Table 7.5 shows the distribution of
shortnose sturgeon lifestages in the Carolinas and northern portion of the South Atlantic DPS.
Shortnose sturgeon is found in 41 rivers and bays along the east coast from the St. John River in New
Brunswick Canada south to the St. Johns River in north Florida. They spawn in 19 river systems along the east
coast, including the Albemarle Sound drainages and the Cape Fear River drainages of North Carolina. There
are three distinct metapopulations which comprise reproductively isolated groups, the northern, the mid-
Atlantic and the southern. There is a 250-mile separation between the northern and mid-Atlantic groups and
the southern which deprives adults the chance to interbreed across the gap. In general, the Atlantic sturgeon
is more saline oriented, whereas the shortnose sturgeon spends more time in freshwaters and migrates

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 92 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

upstream earlier in the year (Gilbert, 1989). When it is in oceanic waters, it tends to stay closer to shore than
the Atlantic sturgeon. Shortnose sturgeon begin their freshwater migration in late winter and early spring and
spawn from April to June. Developing sturgeon may occupy the upper reaches of the natal river for up to five
years, at which time they move to the ocean. However, unlike other anadromous species, the shortnose
sturgeon does not seem to make long distance offshore migrations after spawning, but rather occupies the
estuarine and nearshore marine environments.

TABLE 7.5. Temporal and spatial distribution of various shortnose sturgeon life stages in the Carolinas and the northern
portion of the South Atlantic DPS (from Table 3.5.1 in Wickliffe et al. 2019, page 140).

In the mid-Atlantic region, both male and female shortnose sturgeons reach sexual maturity at three to five
years, spawning every three years thereafter in the case of females and often yearly in males. As bottom
feeding animals, shortnose sturgeon primarily consume organisms associated with sediment such as
worms, bivalves, crustaceans, insect larvae and small fish. They also consume live and detrital plant
material. Suitable habitat exists within Dare County, and historic records document the species within the
area. It is believed that the shortnose sturgeon declined along with the Atlantic sturgeon beginning in the
early 1900s. Population declines were a result of dam construction, commercial fishing, pollution,
dredging, and habitat loss.
Today, these human activities continue to threaten the survival of the shortnose sturgeon. Historically the
species probably occurred in major rivers throughout North Carolina; however, the current distribution is not
well known. There is no historical information on the shortnose sturgeon population size, but today, the
shortnose sturgeon population varies by river system. Few if any shortnose sturgeons are collected in
scientific trawl surveys, so population assessments are difficult to make. The shortnose population in the St.
John River is among the largest in North America and the Hudson and Delaware Rivers also support
substantial numbers. Oakley (2003) adds evidence to the opinion that the species has been extirpated from
the Neuse River of North Carolina.
River
Estuary
Ocean Life Stage Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
Pre-spawn
& spawning
adults
Egg
Larvae
YOY growth
Subadults
year-round
Subadult
overwinter
Q1 = Winter Q2 =Spring Q3 = Summer Q4 = Fall
Shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum)

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 93 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

While the Georgia Department of Natural Resources also holds an ITP for shortnose sturgeon for its
commercial shad fishery, no other southern state has an ITP for the species. In North Carolina the shortnose
sturgeon seems to be most abundant in the Cape Fear River system. The USFWS cites 2003 NCNHP data
indicating records from 11 counties in North Carolina, not including Dare County. There is, however, a record
from 2006 in Pamlico Sound in Dare County (USFWS, David Rabon, Biologist, November 30 2006). Further
information from NMFS indicates that this record probably occurred in summer of 2005 during the North
Carolina Independent Fisheries Assessment. Personnel participating in this assessment were trained to
identify species, but the sturgeon referred to in this instance was not verified nor were any photographs taken.
However, NCDMF has submitted annual reports on Atlantic sturgeon per the 2014 ITP and only one shortnose
sturgeon has been reported in any Albemarle Sound gill net (2016) and none in independent sampling or
during observed on board or alternative platform large gill net trips since then (NCDMF 2016-2019).
7.2.4.3 Giant Manta Ray (Manta birostris)
First proposed for listing in 2015 by Defenders of Wildlife, NOAA Fisheries followed with publication of their
90-day review in February of 2016; NMFS issued its Final Rule 22 January 2018 which listed the giant manta
ray as threatened throughout its range. To date, no critical habitat has been designated for the species
(NOAA/NMFS 2019). Some have modified the genus from Manta to Mobula (Fishbase website, Stewart et al
2018 among others); however, as of December 2020, NOAA and the Integrated Taxonomic Information System
(ITIS) nomenclature remains Manta.
A slow moving migratory circumglobal planktivorous
filter feeder, the giant manta ray is the world’s largest ray
with a wingspan up to 29 feet (photo courtesy of
Pixabay). Diamond shaped with wing like pectoral fins
and a wide terminal mouth, manta rays can be one of two
colors: chevron (black back white belly) or almost
completely black on both sides. Constant and distinctive
patterns of belly spots can be used to identify
individuals. Found in all tropical, subtropical, and
temperate oceans it can also be found seasonally near
productive coastlines with regular upwelling where it
follows zooplankton, the predominant food source. It
also has been known to frequent estuarine waters near coastal inlets; it is suspected that its depth preferences
and foraging habits are more complex than currently understood (Miller and Klimovich 2017). Stable isotope
analyses suggest that more than 50 percent of the diet of M. birostris comes from mesopelagic prey in some
regions (Stewart et al 2018). Water temperature preferences appear to vary regionally and to range from 66 -
72° F off the US east coast and it is more cold tolerant than the Indo-Pacific manta species M. alfredi. The
oceanic manta has one of the largest brains (10 times larger than a whale shark) and the largest brain-to-mass
ratio of any cold blooded fish. It heats the blood going to its brain and is one of the few animals (land or sea)
that might pass the mirror test, seemingly exhibiting self-awareness (McDermott 2017).
Aside from the taxonomy, not much is understood about population biology (e.g. age at maturity, habitat use,
pupping and nurseries) and spatial distribution, but they are sparsely distributed in small fragmented
populations with Ecuador suspected to support the largest population. Considered predominantly an oceanic

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 94 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

species of the continental shelf or other areas where productive upwelling occurs, it can be sometimes found
in shallower waters. While the presence of juveniles has been documented in US waters in the Gulf of Mexico
and Florida (Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary and near Jupiter Inlet), juvenile presence alone
is not enough to designate any area as a nursery. Data to date indicate that the species displays both long-
and short-distance migratory patterns, although there is some evidence that some individuals do not range
as far as others. However, not enough is known to confidently identify any frequently used or preferred
migratory corridors.
The giant manta ray, M. birostris, can be found in all ocean basins, while the reef manta ray, M. alfredi, is
currently only observed in the Indian Ocean and the western and south Pacific. Additionally, a third, putative
manta ray species has been identified (referred to as M. cf. birostris), with its range extending along the Atlantic
coast, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean, based on research conducted in the western Atlantic by Dr. Andrea
Marshall founder of the Marine Megafauna Foundation. A manuscript identifying this third species is expected
in the near future; however, this potential newly identified manta species is highly abundant off the U.S. east
coast, with a large population also found off the Yucatán peninsula (NOAA/NMFS 2019). This new cryptic
species looks very similar to M. birostris, with only a few diagnostic features that could potentially distinguish
the two (mainly small morphological and meristic ones). Without genetic testing and a formal description,
species identification cannot be completely validated (Stewart et al 2018 and Hinojosa-Alvarez et al. 2016,
Kashiwagi et al. 2017, and Hosegood et al. 2019 as cited in NOAA/NMFS 2019).
Largely solitary, giant manta rays do congregate for cleaning and reproductive behaviors and occasionally
they have been observed to work cooperatively for feeding and demonstrate habitat fidelity. Very little is
known about their growth and development but its fecundity is the lowest of the elasmobranchs (a subclass
of cartilaginous species); it is viviparous and slow to mature. While it has few predators, its low reproduction
rate and other aspects of its life history make it vulnerable to depletions from fishery bycatch; they are also
specifically targeted for their gill rakers which are internationally traded to meet Asian demand. Other threats
include ingestion of microplastics, gear entanglement, and vessel strikes; their slow speed and apparent lack
of fear of humans add to their vulnerability (NMFS 2020). Strongly associated with the thermocline, M. birostris
bycatch rates could be mitigated by gear sets above the thermocline, but feasibility of such an approach in
commercial fisheries is unproven and questionable (Stewart et al 2018).
While documented as far north as Long Island, they generally are not found further north than Cape Hatteras
and are considered rare in the mid-Atlantic and northeast. Many of the previous observations of “giant manta
ray” logged in aerial survey or ship survey records with accompanying photo documentation have since been
proven to be identification errors when examined by manta experts (NOAA/NMFS 2019). These earlier surveys
incorrectly expanded the “normal” range of the species. Nonetheless, an Instagram video of a giant manta
ray taken from the Avon Fishing Pier in July of 2019 documented “chasing” behavior which was speculated to
be associated with courtship (NOAA 2019). Historic documentation of the giant manta ray in North Carolina
include 11 individuals near Cape Lookout one of which was a pregnant female (Coles 1916), one in the Cape
Fear estuary in 1977, one in Lockwood Folly River in 1978, one in Beaufort Inlet in 1981, and one in Bogue
Sound in 1999 (Schwartz 2000). The low and widely sporadic documentation of the species in North Carolina
estuaries are considered accidental incursions of errant individuals (Medeiros, Luiz, and Domit 2015).

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 95 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

7.2.5 Plants
7.2.5.1 Seabeach Amaranth (Amaranthus pumilus)
Seabeach amaranth is a federally threatened annual plant native to the Atlantic coast barrier island beaches
where it prefers the lowest topographic position that can support vascular plants. A fugitive species, it is able
to spread quickly and colonize habitat as it becomes available in space and time. This species occurs where
there is low competition from other vegetation and it can serve to trap and stabilize sand. A single large plant
is capable of building a mini-dune up to 1.9 ft in height that contains up to 105.9 cubic feet of sand (USFWS
1993, 1996b).
Historically, and as documented by the National Seashore
surveys, during times of sea level rise and/or accelerated
erosion, most populations have been found on south, or
southeast, facing beaches and on accreting spits near
inlets (USFWS 1996b). Its preferred habitat is barrier-
island beaches and nearby environments which are
sparsely vegetated with annual herbs (forbs) and, less
commonly, perennial herbs (mostly grasses) and
scattered shrubs. Primary habitat consists of overwash
flats at accreting ends of islands, lower foredunes, and
upper strands of non-eroding beaches (landward of the
wrack line). These habitats are often shared with other rare (slender sea-purslane and shoreline sea-purslane)
or protected species (e.g., seabeach knotweed, piping plover, and roseate tern). In rare situations, this annual
is found on sand spits 160 ft or more from the base of the nearest foredune. It occasionally establishes small
temporary populations in other habitats, including sound-side beaches, blowouts in foredunes, interdunal
areas, and on sand and shell material deposited for beach replenishment or as dredge spoil. It has a low,
sprawling habit and small, fleshy spinach-like leaves on red stems. (Photo courtesy of USFWS Digital Library.)
Seabeach amaranth germinates from April to July, from a small sprig which branches from the center to form
a clump which may contain over 100 stems. The diameter of a large clump can be over 3 ft, although size is
more typically 8–16 inches. Flowering begins in June and lasts through late fall, with seed production
beginning in July. The yellow flowers are inconspicuous and wind pollinated. The species is a prolific seed
producer, and the waxy seed are thought viable for extended periods. Wind, water, and possibly birds
disperse seed, and whole plants and seed are temporarily buoyant. Plants are usually detectable from April
through December (frost dependent).
As stated in the 2014 Cape Hatteras National Seashore annual report on this species, some notable research in
the past several decades have assessed the life history and habitat requirements of seabeach amaranth (Bucher
and Weakley 1990, Johnson 2004, Jolls et al. 2004, Sellars and Jolls 2004, Strand 2002). Compilation and review
of these studies, many of which address the crucial habitat characteristics that determine likelihood of
amaranth occurrence (i.e., elevation, overwash disturbance potential, and competition), have provided a
baseline for the selection of survey locations and methods at the Seashore. Locations of historic amaranth
occurrences in the Seashore are also taken into consideration. Specific habitats surveyed include high beach
(between the wrack line and foredune), sand flats on accreting ends of the islands, and large dune blowouts. All

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 96 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

surveys are conducted in accordance with the Cape Hatteras National Seashore Seabeach Amaranth Monitoring
Protocol created in 2013 and amended in 2014.
Seabeach amaranth has historically been documented in the National Seashore and suitable habitat exists
within the area of analysis, but it has not been documented in any annual surveys in the park since 2005. As
shown in Table 7.6, seabeach amaranth populations have fluctuated greatly since surveys began throughout
the park in 1985. The area on Bodie Island spit where amaranth had been located in 2004 and 2005 has been
continuously protected through summer and winter resource management closures. At Cape Point, a portion
of the area where amaranth was historically found has also been continuously protected through summer and
winter resource closures while at Hatteras Inlet, large portions of the historic range have eroded and are no
longer suitable. Although it is thought that the plant may possibly be extirpated from the National Seashore,
it should be noted that since plants are not evident every year, but may survive in the seed bank, populations
of seabeach amaranth may still be present even though plants are not visible for several years (USFWS 2007).
Primary threats to continued existence of seabeach amaranth are habitat loss due to natural conditions
(dynamic characteristics of the habitat itself, erosion, competition from perennial species, herbivory by
webworms) and human activities (armored and stabilized shorelines, sand fencing, recreational use and
vehicle use on beach during its growing season).
On some North Carolina beaches, experience indicates seabeach amaranth can propagate following beach
nourishment (CSE 2004, USACE 2006, CSE 2008). This is likely due to the extra width of dry beach that is
created by the nourishment project and the addition of habitat acreage is slightly above the normal wave
uprush level. Amaranth surveys were performed at Bogue Banks (NC) before and after nourishment. Over an
~16-mile length of shoreline, the number of plants observed in August 2001 prior to nourishment was under
35. After nourishment, seabeach amaranth increased to over 5,000 plants as mapped in August 2002, August
2003, and August 2004 (CSE 2004) (Fig 7.15).
Results of seabeach amaranth surveys from other developed beaches show large variations in plant
populations from year to year. At Topsail Beach, USACE (2006) reported a range of 3–22,410 plants per year
between 1992 and 2004. [Physical conditions (saltwater inundation, temperature) control seabeach
amaranth propagation (Hancock 1995, Hancock and Hosier 2003). The seeds must be within ~1 cm of the
surface substrate to propagate. However, amaranth seeds are noted for their resilience and longevity with
century-old seeds reportedly capable of successful germination and growth (USFWS 1996b)].
Seabeach amaranth is confined to a relatively narrow elevation range, just 0.2–1.5 meters above mean high
tide. Any physical process—human or animal activity—that modifies this zone poses a threat to the species.
Furthermore, seabeach amaranth is an annual which propagates from seed at temperatures between ~25̊ C
and 35̊ C during a limited growing season in the summer months. It cannot grow where perennials are
established (USFWS 1996b).

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 97 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

Physical factors, some inter-related, that pose the greatest threat to its occurrence include:
• Beach erosion
• Active washovers or flooding and inundation
• Burial by windblown sand
• Vehicle traffic on the beach
• Pedestrian traffic on the beach
• Expansion of perennials by natural succession into its habitat, particularly along stable narrow
beaches
• Fortnightly tide cycle, which may cause periodic tidal inundation of the dry beach habitat required
by seabeach amaranth
• Minor storm surges associated with northeasters, which inundate the habitat during the growing
season
• Beach bulldozing, a common practice along many erosional, developed beaches
• Installation of erosion control structures, including sand bags which inhibit recovery of the dry beach
• Major storm surges associated with landfall hurricanes during the growing season

Of the physical factors listed above, beach erosion is considered to be the primary threat (USACE 2006).
Beach bulldozing in response to erosion further exacerbates the erosion problem in the zone where
seabeach amaranth is most likely to propagate. Shoreline stabilization structures (ie – bulkheads, sea-
walls, riprap) are seen as threats to seabeach amaranth populations. The USFWS recommends beach
nourishment in the winter months to avoid damage to seabeach amaranth habitat
(www.fws.gov/northeast/nyfo/info/factsheets/amaranth.pdf). Evidence from Wrightsville Beach and Bogue
Banks suggests populations may expand exponentially in the subsequent growing season after nourishment
(USFWS 1996b, CSE 2004, USACE 2006) (Fig 7.15).
To address its decline before possible extinction, USFWS biologists initiated a plan in 2017 to re-propagate
seabeach amaranth in selected wildlife refuges along the East Coast. Among those was the Cape Romain
National Wildlife Refuge in Charleston County, SC, where the project began in May 2017. Using seeds collected
from the wild, botanists at the NC Botanical Garden grew new seabeach amaranth plants from which they
harvested seeds for planting. The result was some 12,000 seeds used to establish planted plots in selected
wildlife refuges. As the plots were in protected areas, new plants could grow within wildlife preserves without
disturbance from human activity. As part of the project, biologists re-propagated seabeach amaranth in other
wildlife refuges within the plant’s former range, in Virginia, New Jersey, and Massachusetts. Another 80,000
seeds are preserved in long-term storage for future seed plots (J. Koches, USFWS, 2017).

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 98 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

Seabeach Amaranth Propagation - Bogue Banks (NC) 2002–2004
Plant Location Number of Plants
Aug-02 Aug-03 Aug-04
Pine Knoll Shores 779 2,690 1,524
Indian Beach/Salter Path 437 1,047 1,558
Emerald Isle 175 530 2,210
Total Plants 1,390 4,267 5,292

FIGURE 7.15. Seabeach amaranth census for Bogue Banks following nourishment between
2002–2004. Pre-project plan census detected only 36 plants within the 16-mile-long project area.
(Source: CSE 2004)
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
2002 2003 2004Number of PlantsIndividual Town Totals (2002-2004)
Pine Knoll
Shores
Indian
Beach/Salter Path
Emerald Isle
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
2002 2003 2004Number of PlantsTotal Plants -(2002-2004)
Pine Knoll
Shores
Indian
Beach/Salter
PathEmerald Isle

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 99 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

TABLE 7.6. Population estimates* of seabeach amaranth in Cape Hatteras National Seashore. [*Population estimates by
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, East Carolina University and NPS. Table provided via Paul Doshkov, Supervisory
Biological Science Technician, CAHA, 31 October 2019.]
Year Bodie Island
Spit
Cape Pt. / South
Beach Hatteras Island Spit Ocracoke
Island Totals
1981 15 15
1984 1 1
1985 0 300-500 300-500 100 700-1100
1986 0 >200 >300 >100 >600
1987 0 5,200 274 1,409 6883
1988 0 800 1,718 13,310 15,828
1990 0 2,830 252 250 3332
1994 0 0 0
1996 0 6 82 10 98
1997 0 59 16 6 81
1998 0 55 210 0 265
1999 0 3 5 0 8
2000 0 1 1 0 2
2001 0 27 16 8 51
2002 0 11 75 7 93
2003 0 16 3 11 30
2004 1 0 0 0 1
2005 1 0 0 1 2
2006-2019 0 0 0 0 0

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 100 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

— THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK —

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 101 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

8.0 STATUS AND BIOLOGY OF SPECIES WITH OTHER FEDERAL AND STATE PROTECTION
8.1 Marine Mammals
The US Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) of 1972 as amended protects all marine mammals, including
cetaceans (whales, dolphins, and porpoises), pinnipeds (seals and sea lions), sirenians (manatees and dugongs),
sea otters, and polar bears within the waters of the United States. It was the first act of the US Congress to
specifically call for an ecosystem approach to natural resource management and conservation. The MMPA
prohibits marine mammal take and enacts a moratorium on the import, export, and sale of any marine mammal,
along with any marine mammal part or product within the United States. The Act defines take as the act of
hunting, killing, capture, and/or harassment of any marine mammal; or, the attempt at such. The MMPA defines
harassment as any act of pursuit, torment or annoyance which has the potential to either: a) injure a marine
mammal in the wild, or b) disturb a marine mammal by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, which
includes, but is not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering.
The Marine Mammal Protection Act provides for enforcement of its prohibitions, and for the issuance of
regulations to implement its legislative goals. The US Fish & Wildlife Service was given the authority to ensure
protection of sea otters and marine otters, walruses, polar bears, three species of manatees and dugongs and
National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration was given responsibility to conserve and manage pinnipeds
including seals and sea lions, and cetaceans such as whales and dolphins.
As shown in Table 8.1, four species of earless seal, 17 species of oceanic dolphin, one porpoise species, three
sperm whale species, five species of beaked whales, five species of rorquals, one species of right whale, and
one manatee species have the potential to occur in North Carolina waters. Of these 37 species, seven species
have additional federal protection under the ESA; six of the seven are under the protection of NMFS and one
is under USFWS. All seven have been addressed earlier in this document. The four highlighted species in Table
8.1 not yet addressed in this BA text but shown as common or abundant are described in more detail below.
Research published in 2016 on habitat-based cetacean density for the US Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico used 23
years of aerial surveys and shipboard cetacean observations to make predictions (Roberts et al 2016).
Predicted mean density and abundance for three of the four common to abundant species among others are
depicted in Figure 8.1 (as shown in Roberts et al 2016). Roberts et al (2016) combined pilot whales into a single
guild and none of the figures in the paper depicted this guild; however, the data showed that pilot whales as
a guild were found throughout oceanic waters in highest density along the continental slope (consistent with
prior reports) and were especially concentrated off Cape Hatteras, just north of where the Gulf Stream
separates from the shelf (Roberts et al 2016).
Quality and consistency of marine mammal stranding data is a challenge with heavy reliance on public reports
and ties to state, federal, and local municipalities for access to stranded animals. But spatial and temporal
patterns of NC strandings from 1997-2008 corroborated existing public records and served as proxy for live
animal distribution and biodiversity; changes in these patterns can indicate shifts of source populations due
to anthropogenic interactions (e.g., vessel strikes, gear entanglements, climate change) or natural events
(Byrd et al 2014). While the marine mammal stranding trend in the Seashore decreased from 2001-2019 for
unknown reasons, a mass stranding of pilot whales in the Seashore in 2005 (30+ animals), 16 spotted dolphins
in 2013, and a significant Unusual Mortality Event (UME) of bottlenose dolphins in 2013 due to the morbillivirus
contributed to the spikes shown in Figure 8.2 (Cape Hatteras National Seashore, Biological Science
Technician, pers. comm. 6 January 2021).

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 102 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

TABLE 8.1. Marine mammals which may occur in North Carolina waters. Only common bottlenose dolphin is known to be
abundant. X =accidental/casual; R = rare; U= uncommon; C = common; A = abundant; * = northern limit of range; **=
southern limit of range. Occurrences and range limits from 30 October 2019 website access to
http://www.dpr.ncparks.gov/mammals/accounts.php, Harry LeGrand (NCDENR-Parks) and Tom Howard (NCDENR-Parks)
pers comm. 29/30 October 2019, and Webster et al. (1985).

PHOCIDAE (earless seals)
Hooded seal Cystophora cristata X
Harbor seal Phoca vitulina R/U
Harp seal Pagophilus groenlandicus X/R
Gray seal Halichoerus grypus R
DELPHINIDAE (oceanic dolphins)
Killer whale Orcinus orca X/R
Rough-toothed dolphin Steno bredanensis R
Striped dolphin Stenella coeruleoalba R/U
Atlantic spotted dolphin Stenella frontalis C
Spinner dolphin Stenella longirostris X/R*
Clymene dolphin Stenella clymene R
Pantropical spotted dolphin Stenella attenuata X/R*
Short-beaked common dolphin Delphinus delphis U/C
Common bottlenose dolphin Tursiops truncatus C/A
Fraser's dolphin Lagenodelphis hosei X
Atlantic white-sided dolphin Lagenorhynchus acutus R
False killer whale Pseudorca crassidens R
Risso's dolphin Grampus griseus U/R
Long-finned pilot whale Globicephala melas R**
Short-finned pilot whale Globicephala macorhynchus C
Pygmy killer whale Feresa attentuata X
Melon-headed whale Peponocephala electra X
PHOCOENIDAE (porpoises)
Harbor porpoise Phocoena phocoena U
PHYSTERIDAE (sperm whales)
Sperm whale Physeter macrocephalus U
ZIPHIIDAE (beaked whales)
Gervais' beaked whale Mesoplodon europaeus R/U
Blainville's beaked whale Mesoplodon densirostris R
True's beaked whale Mesoplodon mirus X/R
Northern bottlenose whale Hyperoodon ampullatus X/R
Cuvier's beaked whale Ziphius cavirostris U
BALAENOPTERIDAE (rorquals)
Blue whale Balaenoptera musculus R
Fin whale Balaenoptera physalus U/R
Sei whale Balaenoptera borealis X/R
Common minke whale Balaenoptera acutorostrata X/U/R
Humpback whale Megaptera novaengliae U
BALAENIDAE (bowhead and right whales)
North Atlantic right whale Eubalaena glacialis R
KOGIIDAE (small sperm whale)
Pygmy sperm whale Kogia breviceps R/U
Dwarf sperm whale Kogia simus R
TRICHECHIDAE (manatees)
West Indian manatee Trichechus manatus R

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 103 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

FIGURE 8.1. Predicted mean density of small delphinoids with inset table of mean monthly abundance (N) and
coefficient of variation (CV) (as shown in Figure 2 of Roberts et al. 2016).

0
20
40
60
80
100
120
2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019
Marine Mammal Strandings in Seashore
FIGURE 8.2. Marine mammal strandings and trend in Cape Hatteras National Seashore 2001-2019.

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 104 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

8.1.1 Atlantic Spotted Dolphin (Stenella frontalis)
Due to uncertainties about population status and trends,
the Atlantic spotted dolphin is considered as Data
Deficient by the International Union for Conservation of
Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) although it is not
considered strategic under the MMPA. It occurs
throughout the warm temperate, subtropical, and
tropical waters of the Atlantic Ocean. They have a
widespread distribution that ranges from the US East
Coast (Gulf of Mexico to Cape Cod, MA), the Azores and
Canary Islands, to Gabon, and Brazil; distribution is
suspected to be affected by warm currents such as the
Gulf Stream. A long-term resident population is well
known in the sand flats of the Bahamas.
A common to abundant dolphin in its range and equally common to at times very common off the North
Carolina coast, this gregarious dolphin is found mainly in warmer waters of the Gulf Stream, less so farther
offshore. It is present in North Carolina waters year-round, as it is not seasonally migratory. It is often more
frequently seen than the common bottlenose dolphin on boat trips, though the latter is the most abundant
cetacean in North Carolina waters. It has been known to hunt small fish prey cooperatively and also feeds
on bottom dwelling invertebrates and cephalopods (octopus and squid). They also use their beak to dig in
the sandy bottom to dislodge prey; most dives typically occur in less than 30 feet of water and last from
2 to 6 minutes.
The Southeast US Marine Mammal Stranding Network lists 36 stranding records in Dare County from 2000-
2020 with 29 found between Avon and Hatteras Inlet. The majority of stranding records occurred between
September and February (28 of 36) with only two reported in August and one in July. All but four stranding
records between Avon and Hatteras Inlet were reported between October and April. The Smithsonian National
Museum of Natural History mammal collections lists 31 stranding records for Dare County (1900- November
2020 http://collections.nmnh.si.edu/search/mammals/) fairly well spread across the year. As of 1995, there
had been 25 strandings along the NC coast (Webster et al., 1995), covering most months of the year.
Unlike most of the dolphins in NC waters, this species prefers the "shallower" inshore waters, mainly over the
continental shelf; south of Cape Hatteras it is more likely to be closer to shore in NC waters. Its status beyond
the continental slope is not well known, and perhaps the majority of the spotted dolphins at these depths are
pantropical spotted dolphin (Stenella attenuata) (http://www.dpr.ncparks.gov/mammals/reference.php). A
medium-build dolphin, it is quite agile and frequently is seen leaving the water for its dives (more so than does
the bottlenose dolphin). They are about 5-7.5 ft long, weigh 220-315 lbs, are fast agile acrobatic swimmers often
active at the surface, and are known to surf boat wakes. They have a robust or chunky body with a tall, falcate
dorsal fin located midway down their back. The rounded melon is separated from the moderately long beak by
a distinct crease (photo courtesy of NOAA Southeast Fisheries Science Center). Their shape is often described as
an intermediate between a bottlenose and pantropical spotted dolphin (Shirihai and Jarrett 2006 referenced at
NMFS website http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/cetaceans/spotteddolphin_atlantic.htm).

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 105 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

The coloration and patterns vary with age, life stage, and geographic location. Calves and immature animals
have an unspotted three-part muted coloration pattern consisting of a dark gray cape and lighter flanks with
a pale white underside giving it a counter-shading effect. As animals age and mature, they gradually become
darker and more heavily spotted, especially on the dorsal area. It also often comes to boats to bow-ride, where
observers can see the spots and the pale blaze or wedge below the dorsal fin. It travels in smaller groups than
most other dolphins, mainly 10-25 individuals. The two spotted dolphin species -- Pantropical and Atlantic --
are easily confused, as the amount of spotting is quite variable; some Atlantics can look spotless. On many
pelagic trips to the Gulf Stream, observers can expect to see a few individuals of this species, and often a few
dozen or more can be seen (http://www.dpr.ncparks.gov/mammals/reference.php). For management
purposes, Atlantic spotted dolphins inhabiting U.S. waters have been divided into two stocks: the Northern
Gulf of Mexico Stock and the Western North Atlantic Stock. The northern Gulf of Mexico stock is estimated at
24,500-31,000 animals, while the population in the western North Atlantic is estimated at 36,000-51,000
animals. Estimates are at least 81,000 in US waters (NOAA fisheries website species overview); however, the
most recent 2016 summer surveys from central Florida to the Bay of Fundy estimated abundance for the
western North Atlantic at 39,921 (two ecotypes combined). The three most recent abundance estimates from
2004 to 2016 (2004, 2011, and 2016) show a statistically significant decline in abundance although it is
unknown to what to attribute the apparent decline. It could be variability in environmental conditions which
drive spatial variability or actual changes in population size (NMFS 2020c).
Like all marine mammals that use sound to communicate and echolocate, underwater noise pollution from
human activities has been shown to be disruptive to feeding, communication, and orientation, or can even
cause temporary or permanent hearing loss if loud enough. Noise pollution is also suspected to cause some
stranding events; however, susceptibility to temporary and/or permanent hearing loss is likely to vary across
species (Department of the Navy 2017). Atlantic spotted dolphins have been incidentally taken as bycatch in
fisheries such as gillnets and purse seines. This species has been observed interacting with various fishing
vessels, often following and feeding on discarded catch. Despite this behavior, total estimated fishery-related
mortality or injury from 2013 – 2017 was zero as there were no reports of such in the western North Atlantic
(NMFS 2020c). A few animals have been harpooned in the Caribbean, South America (e.g. Brazil), West Africa,
and other offshore islands for food and bait. Offshore wind development will likely pose additional potential
threats from associated activities beyond noise, which include geophysical and geotechnical surveys,
installation of foundations and cables, vessel collision due to increased vessel traffic, benthic habitat loss,
entanglement due to increased fishing around structures, marine debris, dredging, and
contamination/degradation of habitat and operation, maintenance and decommissioning of facilities (BOEM
2018 in NMFS 2020c).
8.1.2 Short-beaked Common Dolphin (Delphinus delphis)
Short-beaked common dolphins prefer warm tropical to cool temperate waters (52-88° F or 10-28° C) that are
primarily oceanic and offshore, but still along the continental slope in waters 650-6,500 ft (200-2,000 m) deep.
Short-beaked common dolphins also prefer areas where upwelling occurs. Though this species is found
worldwide in temperate and tropical waters, in the Atlantic off the east coast of the United States it seems to
prefer the more temperate zone, is seen more often from Cape Hatteras northward than it is off the southern
half of the North Carolina coast, and is seen much less often than common bottlenose dolphins and Atlantic
spotted dolphins. The southernmost stranding record is for Carteret County, with none at all along the

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 106 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

southern 40% of the coastline. In the western
North Atlantic, they are often associated with
the Gulf Stream, although in the waters off NC
it seems to favor deeper temperate (cooler)
water and is not often seen in the warm Gulf
Stream waters or close to shore. The IUCN
status of this dolphin is Least Concern.
Short-beaked common dolphins are small
dolphins less than 9 feet long and weigh about
440 lbs. As adults, males are slightly larger than
females. They have a rounded melon,
moderately long beak, and a sleek but robust body with a tall, pointed, triangular, falcate dorsal fin located
in the middle of the back. This species can be identified by its distinct bright coloration and patterns. A dark
gray cape extends along the back from the beak and creates a "V" just below the dorsal fin on either side of
the body. There is a yellow/tan panel along the flank, between the dark cape and white ventral patch, forward
of the dorsal fin. This bold coloration forms a crisscrossing "hourglass" pattern. A narrow dark stripe extends
from the lower jaw to the flipper. There is also a complex color pattern on the facial area and beak that
includes a dark eye patch. The coloration and patterns of young and juvenile dolphins are muted and pale,
but become more distinguishable and bolder as they mature into adulthood. These morphologies can be
variable and distinct based on different geographic and regional populations. (Photo courtesy Howard
Goldstein, NOAA.)
This is a very active and lively species, often coming to boats to bow-ride, and individuals are often seen
leaping completely out of the water, so that the hourglass pattern and amber-colored patch on the side of the
animal can be seen. Short-beaked dolphins are usually found in large social groups averaging hundreds of
individuals, but have occasionally been seen in larger herds consisting of thousands of animals (up to at least
10,000), known as "mega-pods." These large schools are thought to consist of sub-groups of 20-30 individuals
that are possibly related or separated by age and/or sex. Groups of several dozen dolphins are normal off NC
and winter boat trips seem more reliable for seeing them than those in the warmer months. At times, 100 or
more can be seen on a single boat trip. They feed on a variety of prey which often includes herring, mackerel,
and squid.
Short-beaked dolphin is common within its overall range; however, in North Carolina waters, it is fairly
common to at times common and that mainly north of Cape Hatteras; it is rare in the warmer months and in
warmer waters. The Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History mammal collections (1900-November
2020; most recent record was 2011) lists 36 stranding records for Dare County, all between December and May
with the great majority from February to April. The Southeast US Marine Mammal Stranding Network lists 89
stranding records from 2000-2020 for Dare County and 30 between Avon and Hatteras Inlet. All stranding
records occurred from September to May with the majority occurring between December and March. Thus, in
North Carolina waters, the short-beaked common dolphin is very rare to nearly absent in summer and most
of the fall, and present mainly in the latter part of winter into early spring.
The short-beaked common dolphin is still abundant in most oceans with the exception of depleted
populations in the Mediterranean and Black Sea. The most recent stock assessment indicates that as of 2016,

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 107 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

the western North Atlantic stock contains 172,825 (NMFS 2020d). Threats include incidental "take" in a
number of fisheries in the Atlantic Ocean as bycatch with several types of fishing gear, including longlines,
driftnets, gillnets, and trawls, in addition to aforementioned noise pollution effects. The species has the
highest mortality rate of all cetaceans impacted by the drift gillnet fishery off the coast of California. Hunting,
for their meat and oil, in Russia, Japan, and by nations bordering the Black Sea and Mediterranean Sea also
pose threats.
8.1.3 Common Bottlenose Dolphin (Tursiops truncatus truncatus)
Found worldwide in temperate and tropical waters
ranging from latitudes of 45°N to 45°S, the bottlenose
dolphin is one of the most well-known species of
marine mammals in North America. It occurs in the
Atlantic all along the coastline and far offshore and at
times enters estuaries and river mouths. Given
uncertainties about its productivity rate, and the fact
that the maximum mean annual human-caused
mortality and serious injury exceeds Potential
Biological Removal rates, NMFS considers this stock
strategic under the MMPA (NMFS 2018a).
They have a robust body and a short, thick beak. Their coloration ranges from light gray to black with lighter
coloration on the belly. Inshore and offshore individuals vary in color and size. Inshore animals are smaller
and lighter in color, while offshore animals are larger, darker in coloration and have smaller flippers.
Bottlenose dolphins can sometimes be confused with the rough toothed dolphins (Steno bredanensis), Risso’s
dolphins (Grampus griseus), and Atlantic spotted dolphins in regions of overlapping distributions. (Photo
courtesy of NOAA Southwest Fisheries Science Center-female with calf.)
Bottlenose dolphins range in lengths from 6.0 to 12.5 ft with males slightly larger than females. Adults weigh
from 300-1,400 lbs. This is a long-lived dolphin species with a lifespan of 40-45 years for males and more than
50 years for females. Sexual maturity varies by population and ranges from 5-15 years for females and 9-15
years for males. Calves are born after a 12-month gestation period and are weaned at 18 to 20 months. On
average, calving occurs every 3 to 6 years. Females as old as 45 years have given birth
(http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/dolphins/bottlenose-dolphin.html).
Bottlenose dolphins are generalists and feed on a variety of prey items endemic to their habitat, foraging
individually and cooperatively. Like other dolphins, bottlenose dolphins use high frequency echolocation to
locate and capture prey. Coastal animals prey on benthic invertebrates and fish, and offshore animals feed
on pelagic squid and fish. Bottlenose dolphins employ multiple feeding strategies, including "fish whacking,"
where they strike a fish with their flukes and knock it out of the water. Bottlenose dolphins are commonly
found in groups of 2-15 individuals in North Carolina waters instead of many dozens to hundreds like those in
other genera, but offshore herds can sometimes have several hundred individuals. This species is often
associated with pilot whales and other cetacean species.

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 108 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

By far the most widely distributed cetacean in North Carolina waters from the continental shelf to the coastline,
this species is the only dolphin species likely to be seen from shore. Bottlenose dolphins are quite active, though
they are not quite as agile as some species, because they are somewhat stocky; leaps completely out of the water
are not as frequent as with many other dolphins. On offshore North Carolina boat trips, numbers can be matched
or exceeded by Atlantic spotted dolphins, but bottlenose dolphins are typically seen on most trips. There are
separate populations/forms found "inshore" and "offshore", with an apparent gap between them; a few
biologists believe that the two populations or forms might represent separate species, but most probably do not
share that belief (http://www.dpr.ncparks.gov/mammals/reference.php). Figure 8.3 shows North Carolina
stocks of the species and their seasonal distribution (per NMFS 2018b).

FIGURE 8.3. NOAA fisheries stocks of bottlenose dolphins in North Carolina (in NC two are
estuarine and 3 are oceanic) https://www.coastalreview.org/2020/04/bottlenose-could-be-ncs-
marine-mammal/

The Southeast US Marine Mammal Stranding Network lists 687 stranding records between 2000-2020 for Dare
County and 288 between Avon and Hatteras Inlet while the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History
mammal collections (1900-2020 http://collections.nmnh.si.edu/search/mammals/) lists approximately 500
stranding records for Dare County with the most recent in 2007; by far the most for any cetacean species.
Bottlenose dolphin can occur year-round in North Carolina waters. There are numerous stranding records for
all 12 months, with more in the winter perhaps owing to pregnant or nursing females or young with females
at that time of year. Threats include incidental injury and mortality from fishing gear, such as gillnet, seine,
trawl, and longline commercial and recreational operations, vehicle collisions, exposure to pollutants and
biotoxins, viral outbreaks, noise pollution as mentioned above, and direct harvest in Japan and Taiwan. In

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 109 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

2006, NMFS implemented the Bottlenose Dolphin Take Reduction Plan (BDTRP) to reduce the serious injury
and mortality of Western North Atlantic coastal bottlenose dolphins incidental to nine U.S. commercial
fisheries. In addition to multiple non-regulatory provisions for research and education, the BDTRP requires
modifications of fishing practices for small, medium, and large-mesh gillnet fisheries from New York to Florida.
The BDTRP also established seasonal closures for certain commercial fisheries in state waters. According to
most recent meeting summary of the BDTRP Team available on the website (December 2017 meeting),
commercial gillnet fishery mortality from 2011 to 2015 was above sustainable levels (i.e., Potential Biological
Removal, PBR) for bottlenose dolphin stocks inhabiting waters off of North Carolina, notably the Northern NC
estuarine system stock and the gillnet mortality for Southern NC estuarine system stock likely was as well.
The small size of these two stocks is of great concern; however, the mortality estimate provided at the 2017
meeting could be complicated due to the Unusual Mortality Event (UME) for Mid-Atlantic bottlenose dolphins
from July 2013 to March 2015. Nonetheless, the mortality estimates for these two stocks indicate the BDTRP
is not meeting its MMPA-mandated short-term goal outlined in Section 118 of the statute (pers comm. Stacey
Horstman, Bottlenose Dolphin Conservation Coordinator, Southeast Regional Office, NOAA Fisheries,18
November 2020). In March 2019, the IUCN reclassified bottlenose dolphin from Data Deficient to Least
Concern.
8.1.4 Short-finned Pilot Whale (Globicephala macrorhnchus)
Short-finned pilot whales are found primarily in deep
waters throughout tropical and subtropical areas of
the world. There are four recognized stocks in the U.S.:
West Coast, Hawaii, Northern Gulf of Mexico, and
Western North Atlantic. They prefer warmer tropical
and temperate waters and can be found at varying
distances from shore but typically in deeper waters.
Areas with a high density of squid are their primary
foraging habitats but they may also feed on octopus
and fish, all from moderately deep water of 1,000 feet
or more. These whales are also known as "cheetahs of
the deep sea" for their deep and high speed dives to capture large squid. When they are swimming and
probably looking for food, pilot whales form ranks that can be more than 0.5-mile long.
Short-finned pilot whales are larger members of the dolphin group reaching average lengths of 12 feet for
females and 18 feet for males with maximum male size of 24 feet. Adult weight is 2,200 to 6,600 pounds. They
have a bulbous melon head with no discernible beak. Their dorsal fin is located far forward on the body and
has a relatively long base. Body color is black or dark brown with a large gray saddle behind the dorsal fin.
They are polygynous (males have more than one mate) and are often found in groups with a ratio of one
mature male to about every eight mature females.
Males generally leave their birth school, while females may remain in theirs for their entire lifetime. Gestation
lasts approximately 15 months while lactation lasts for at least two years. The last calf born to a mother may
be nursed for as long as 15 years. The calving interval is five to eight years, but older females do not give birth
as often as younger females. Maturity occurs around 10 years of age and maximum longevity is 45 years for

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 110 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

males and 60 years for females. Sluggish for a fairly small cetacean, it does not emerge far out of the water
like some smaller species, but is seen mostly moving slowly, in pods of 20 or more, fairly horizontally at and
near the water surface. The species is easily confused with the closely related long-finned pilot whale
(Globicephala melas), which favors cooler waters.
It is numerically common throughout North Carolina waters offshore, though mainly in warmer waters, and
thus perhaps scarce in inshore waters north of Cape Hatteras (in the Labrador Current). The species is one of
the more numerous cetaceans off the NC coastline, exceeded in numbers by the common bottlenose dolphin
but perhaps as numerous or more so than Atlantic spotted dolphin. The western North Atlantic population is
estimated to be 28,924 animals based on summer 2016 shipboard surveys (NMFS 2020e).
Pilot whales have a propensity to mass strand throughout their range for reasons that are not understood.
Stranding data is never a completely accurate measure, but deeper water and shelf species data are likely to be
less accurate than more inshore species as carcasses may decompose well offshore. However, the Southeast US
Marine Mammal Stranding Network lists 53 stranding records for Dare County and six between Avon and
Hatteras Inlet from the past 20 years. These data showed that 44 records occurred from November to April and
stranding records from Avon to Hatteras Inlet all occurred within those months. The Smithsonian National
Museum of Natural History mammal collections (1900-2020 http://collections.nmnh.si.edu/search/mammals/)
lists 34 stranding records for Dare County with the most recent in 2012; all but one specimen was stranded
between January and May with the majority of reports occurring in January. Webster et al. (1995) found a
statistical difference in seasonal strandings of the species along the North Carolina coast, with more in the
cooler months; of the 18 stranded, all but three were between December and May. However, these stranding
dates seem odd, as the species is frequently seen offshore in the warmer months. Likely, the species is
probably resident all year in North Carolina waters, as it is not known to be strongly migratory
(http://www.dpr.ncparks.gov/mammals/reference.php).
Bycatch in fishing gear is the primary threat to pilot whales. Several types of commercial fishing gear,
including gillnets, longlines, and trawls, incidentally take short-finned pilot whales. Short-finned pilot whales
have been documented entangled, hooked, and captured in these various types of fishing gear. In addition,
drive fisheries that specifically target pilot whales exist in Japan and the Lesser Antilles. Ship strikes may also
pose a threat in Hawaii as propeller scarred whales have been documented. Low- to mid-frequency
anthropogenic sound has been shown to be detrimental to marine mammals (e.g., active naval sonar, vessel
traffic, seismic surveys) but effects vary by species; effects from such noise are also possible on prey species,
but even less is understood about this aspect and how it may affect marine mammals in general or specifically
(NMFS 2019). The IUCN Red List classifies the short-finned pilot whale as Lower Risk-Conservation Dependent.

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 111 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

8.2 Colonial Waterbirds, Other Shorebirds, and Birds of Prey
Details for each federal ESA-protected species are contained in earlier pages of this document. Other species
of birds federally protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) or Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle
Protection Act (BEGEPA), are evaluated in more detail below. These other birds with federal protection include
some species which are also listed by the State of North Carolina as threatened or endangered. Species that
have only state level protection are discussed in the section “State-Protected Species.”
8.2.1 Wilson’s Plover (Charadrius wilsonia wilsonia)
Wilson’s plover is not listed under the Endangered Species Act, but is federally protected under the Migratory
Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and listed by southeastern coastal states and a few bird groups. They are listed as
special concern in North Carolina, rare in Georgia, threatened in South Carolina, and endangered in Virginia.
They are considered a Bird of Conservation Concern by US Fish & Wildlife Service and High Concern by the US
Shorebird Conservation Plan and Southeast Coastal Plain – Caribbean Region. The Audubon Watch List has
given them a Moderately High Priority status. After a recent
reevaluation of estimated American shorebird populations, the
Wilson’s plover population was designated as in Apparent
Decline (Zdravkovic 2013).
Three subspecies of Wilson’s plover have been identified, with
only one occurring on the US Atlantic coast, C. wilsonia
(Zdravkovic 2013). This coastal subspecies breeds from Virginia to
Florida, along the Gulf Coast from Florida to Mexico, and in parts
of the Caribbean and Central and South America. They spend the
winter months along the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts from Florida to
Texas and south to parts of South America. The Wilson’s plover is not considered a completely migratory bird
because some birds stay on nesting beaches year long. Birds in the more northern reaches of their breeding
range will migrate short distances (https://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/Wilsons_Plover/maps-range).
(photo courtesy of Wikimedia commons).
Like some other plovers, it is a small bird with single dark neck ring although slightly larger than other plovers.
The most distinctive field mark of this species is its oversized bill which enables it to capture and eat larger
prey. Wilson’s plovers can be found on sparsely vegetated coastal areas, including beaches, sand bars, barrier
and dredge spoil islands, lagoons, tidal mudflats, and river mouths where fiddler crabs, their main food
source, can be found (http://www.allaboutbirds.org - Wilson’s Plover). A 2008 study in North Carolina found
83 percent of breeding Wilson’s plovers on barrier islands (Cameron 2008) while six NCWRC surveys from 2004-
2019 found that percentage to be slightly higher at 88.6 (NCWRC unpublished data 2019; pers comm. 12
November 2020, Carmen Johnson, NCWRC Wildlife Diversity Biologist, Waterbirds Investigation and
Management Project). They build nests in areas with varying vegetation ground cover from open to dense, but
they prefer to build nests on sparsely vegetated sites (Zdravkovic 2013). Wilson’s plovers nest in pairs or small
groups and often return to the same nesting site (http://www.allaboutbirds.org – 2015 - Wilson’s Plover).
At the time of listing of the species Guilfoyle and Fischer (2006) estimated about 1,500 breeding pairs were
present on the US Southeast coastal plain and peninsular Florida. More recent estimates put the total

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 112 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

population of C. wilsonia from 13,550 to 14,650 breeding adults—of those adults, about 2,000–2,220 compose
the US Atlantic Coast population (Zdravkovic 2013).
In a comprehensive study (Cameron 2008), the coastal North Carolina population was estimated to range from
245 to 270 breeding pairs. A more recent North Carolina study documented nest success rates of 46 percent
for 20 nests in 2008 and 44 percent for 26 nests in 2009; the hatched survival rates in this study were 45 percent
in 2008 and 50 percent in 2009 (Zdravkovic 2013). Six NCWRC surveys from 2004-2019 showed an average of
217 breeding pairs of Wilson's plover for the state (range: 128 in 2013 to 326 in 2019) (NCWRC unpublished
data 2019; pers comm. 12 November 2020, Carmen Johnson, NCWRC Wildlife Diversity Biologist, Waterbirds
Investigation and Management Project). Unlike some other waterbirds of the state, no population or habitat
goals have been set for this species by the North Carolina Waterbird Program.
The numbers of nesting pairs on Hatteras Spit on Hatteras Island and Ocracoke Island have decreased, and
Oregon Inlet no longer has nesting plovers (Fussell 1994; Zdravkovic 2013). In 2014, three nests occurred in
the Seashore, all on Ocracoke Island, and no fledglings were documented (Cape Hatteras Resource
Management Field Summary 20 August 2014). From 2009-2018, the average number of annual breeding pairs
in the Seashore was 2.3, although 2018 was the first year in that set where not one breeding pair was
documented (Doshkov et al 2019). The NCWRC's 2019 state-wide survey documented two pair (one territorial
and one non-territorial) in the Seashore but which island was not specified (NCWRC unpublished data 2019;
pers comm. 12 November 2020, Carmen Johnson, NCWRC Wildlife Diversity Biologist, Waterbirds Investigation
and Management Project). In Dare County, this plover is not an abundant species, but can be spotted from
March through October. There have been a few sightings documented in the first week of November and
January (eBird 2020 Bird Observations North Carolina and Dare County).
The biggest threat to the survival of Wilson’s plover is human disturbance. This includes coastal development
that diminishes or alters habitat and human disturbances to nesting areas. Sometimes nests and chicks have
been run over by four-wheelers driven by sea turtle biologists (Guilfoyle & Fischer 2006).
8.2.2 Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus)
The peregrine falcon does not have federal protection
under the Endangered Species Act, but it does have
federal protection under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
and appears on the USFWS Birds of Conservation
Concern (2008) for the southeastern coastal plain of the
US. The peregrine falcon is also listed as an endangered
species by the State of North Carolina. After being listed
as an endangered species under the ESA for 29 years,
the peregrine falcon was removed on 25 August 1999.
The post-delisting monitoring plan calls for monitoring
by various agencies and biologists for five times at three year intervals beginning in 2003 and ending in 2015.
Analysis of North Carolina monitoring data for the period of 2003-2015 showed acceptable levels of territory
occupancy and productivity but unacceptably low nest success rates; in most years, only five nesting pair
produced all of the young for the year (NCWRC 2018).

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 113 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

The peregrine falcon is a crow-sized bird with a wing span of about 3 feet with long, pointed wings and a long
tail (USFWS 2014, http://www.allaboutbirds.org). Famous for their 200-mph "stoops" or dives, acute eyesight,
and aerial agility, peregrines often prey on other birds in flight. Adult peregrine falcons have a dark gray back
and hood that extends down their face on either side of their beak. They have a pale chest with dark horizontal
bars and spots on their abdomens and legs. Juvenile falcons have brown backs and many brown vertical
stripes covering their pale underside. Males are smaller than females, but are otherwise identical in
appearance (USFWS 2014). (Photo courtesy USFWS)
In North America, common areas with year-round falcon residents include the western North American coast
from Alaska to Mexico, Utah, Arizona, western Colorado, around the Great Lakes, and the northeastern portion
of the US coast (USFWS Species Profile 2014, https://www.audubon.org/field-guide - Peregrine Falcon). They
typically breed in the summer months in Alaska and northern Canada, the Rocky and Appalachian Mountains,
and the southern portion of South America. Highly territorial, they build nests on cliffs, bluffs, or tall buildings
in the city; typically, they build only one nest a year and if disturbed, they often abandon the nest for that year.
Disturbances from humans, drones, or other interruptive activities also may cause them to vacate the nest for
periods of time which may compromise the eggs or chicks from desiccation, temperature changes, or lack of
food while the parent investigates the disturbance. Life expectancy is about 20 years although only 60 percent
live to adulthood and 90 percent die within first year and (NCWRC 2018). Rebounding populations are
expanding breeding and nesting areas across North America. One of the migration routes taken by peregrine
falcons includes the Atlantic coastal areas (USFWS Species Profile 2014).
In Dare County, peregrine falcons are more common from September through mid-April with highest numbers
sighted in October. Around May, sightings decrease and are not spotted again until mid-July. Peregrine falcon
numbers remain low until September (eBird 2020 Bird Observations North Carolina and Dare County).
Preferred habitats for peregrine falcons include open areas, along lakes, river and stream banks, mudflats,
coastal areas, and even in cities where they can perch on tall structures (USFWS Species Profile 2014).
Peregrine falcons rely on shorelines, mudflats, and areas near open water to prey on waterfowl and
shorebirds. The peregrine falcon is common during its spring (January – April) and fall migrations (mid-
September-early November), with more abundance in October than during earlier months.
The peregrine was never very abundant with population estimates from the 1930s and 1940s at about 500
breeding pairs for the eastern United States and about 1,000 pair in the west and Mexico. By the 1970s,
populations had plummeted. The major contributing factor to peregrine falcon decline was the pesticide
DDT. Since banning the use of DDT (31 December 1972), population recovery programs have helped establish
a self-sustaining population of peregrine falcons in the eastern US (USFWS Species Profile 2014). Humans
now pose the greatest threat, with habitat destruction being the most detrimental action. Poisoning,
shooting, theft of eggs or young, electrocution by power lines, collisions with moving vehicles, and human
disturbances during nesting and breeding as mentioned above are also threats to this species (USFWS
Species Profile 2014; NCWRC 2018).

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 114 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

8.2.3 Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucoephalus)
In August of 2007, the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucoephalus) was removed
from the federal list of species protected under the Endangered Species Act
(ESA) due to recovery. However, the species remains federally protected
under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act (MBTA). In addition, the bald eagle has threatened status in the
State of North Carolina and is on the USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern
(2008) for the US southeastern coastal plain.
The national bird, the bald eagle is easily recognizable due to its white head
and tail feathers that contrast with its dark brown body and wings, with a
bright yellow beak and feet. Juvenile bald eagles have a dark head and tail
feathers and are mottled with white on their underside. They acquire adult
plumage after about five years (http://www.allaboutbirds.org). Female
bald eagles can weigh up to 14 pounds and have a wingspan of 5.5 to 8 feet
while male bald eagles are smaller, weighing up to 10 pounds with a
wingspan of about 6 feet (USFWS 2014). (Photo courtesy NCWRC)
Bald eagles take up permanent residence in areas along the coast from Alaska to northern California, the
Rocky Mountains, the Great Lakes, the Mississippi River, and along the Gulf and southeast US coasts
(https://www.audubon.org/field-guide - Bald Eagle). They can be seen all over the United States during winter
months and migration for breeding. Breeding hotspots include two areas: Canada and the northern US near
the Great Lakes and Florida and the southeastern US coast (http://www.allaboutbirds.org - Bald Eagle). Bald
eagles can be found near bodies of water such as lakes, rivers, marshes, and coastlines to feed on their
preferred food, fish, but will also eat birds, reptiles, crabs, and small mammals (http://www.allaboutbirds.org
- Bald Eagle).
In Dare County, bald eagles are common to widespread from April through September and less common
November through March (eBird 2020 Bird Observations North Carolina and Dare County). A species that mates
for life, huge nests are usually built in tall trees in forested areas near large bodies of water and are used from
year to year; nests can weigh up to 1,000 pounds (http://www.allaboutbirds.org/field-guide - Bald Eagle; USFWS
species profile 2020). Current online Dare County NCWRC bald eagle nest data identify three active nests, three
inactive nests, two abandoned nests, and four other nests which could not be located, none of which are south
of Oregon Inlet(NCWRC, John Carpenter, Wildlife Diversity Biologist-Landbirds, pers. comm, 12 November 2020)
(https://ncwrc.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=869d743a724348359b3fec84ebe6f19d).
In the south, eagles typically breed from late September through November and lay eggs from November
through January (Bald Eagle Info 2014).
Increasingly common in North Carolina since their historic low numbers, bald eagles can be seen perching,
fishing, or soaring near the back barrier portions behind the Proposed Action Area but are less likely to be seen
over the beach itself or over nearshore ocean waters. Much like peregrine falcons, threats to bald eagles
include habitat destruction, poisoning, shooting, theft of eggs or young, electrocution by power lines, and
collision with moving vehicles (USFWS Species Profile 2014).

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 115 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

8.2.4 Caspian Tern (Hydroprogrogne caspia)
The largest of all the terns, the Caspian tern can be found on five
continents and is a permanent resident of but sparse breeder on
the coastal plain of North Carolina while an uncommon to rare
transient in the piedmont and mountains. The bird was proposed
for threatened state status by the NC Wildlife Commission in 2017
but was not included in the latest State of North American Birds
Watch List published in 2016. There is little information on
population trends, but the species appears stable overall;
however, where it is considered rare or vulnerable, it is mostly due
to the scattered nature of breeding colonies. The 2017 survey of
colonial waterbirds by the NCWRC reported a 46 percent decrease in relative change in number of sites where
the species was nesting over a 13-year period; the number of nests met the population goal of the North
Carolina Waterbird Program only in 1993, 1995, and 1999 (Schweitzer et al. 2017); the nest sites goal was met
(one) in the 2020 NCWRC survey but the number of nests goal was not (Johnson et al. 2020). The 2020 NCWRC
estimated number of Caspian tern nests compared to the 14-year average declined (-16 percent) as did the
number of 2020 sites compared to the 14-year mean (-100 percent) (Johnson et al. 2020).
Found near large bodies of water, lakes, lagoons, beaches, and bays with a preference for quieter water, it is
seldom seen foraging over open sea, although it may forage along the ocean beach edge. During breeding
season, it forages mostly in fresh and brackish impoundments and marshes and leaves the saltwater habitats
to other terns. It has a thick based and prominent red bill sometimes with a black tip, a rather thick neck, and
in flight, the tail has a shallow fork. A breeding adult has a black cap, frequently raised, and the undersides of
the wings are mostly white to grey with black on the outer primaries (photo of breeding adult courtesy of Nick
Rosen/Macaulay Library).
The species nests on open ground it scrapes on islands and coasts; in Dare County about 10 to 12 pairs nest
annually, but mostly in vicinity of Oregon Inlet, with fewer pair and/or less frequency near Hatteras Inlet
(LeGrand 2018-11-09). The 13-year average of nests in North Carolina documented by the NCWRC is 18 +/- 3
at one to three sites (Schweitzer et al. 2017). Each pair will typically raise only one brood per season and a nest
will contain one to three eggs. Usually a solitary bird who nest by themselves, this bird aggressively defends
the its breeding area and will chase and pursue other potentially predatory birds and even draw blood on the
head of humans who threaten too near; ironically, the entire colony will take flight when a bald eagle appears,
which then exposes the chicks to predation by gulls (Cornell University- All About Birds 2020). The species is
noteworthy for extended adolescence and prolonged care of adults for their young for as many as eight
months. The diet of Caspian terns consists mostly of fish and it will hover above the water, then plunge and
dive below the surface to capture prey; it will also consume insects and eggs and young of other birds. Threats
to the species include predation and human disturbance to beach nest areas.
8.2.5 Gull-billed Tern (Gelochelidon niloctia)
The gull-billed tern is state listed as threatened in North Carolina (2005) and Virginia, endangered in Maryland,
and has various other legal statuses in South Carolina, Alabama, California, Louisiana, and Michigan. It also

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 116 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

has federal protection under the MBTA. It is included in the US
Fish & Wildlife Service's Birds of Conservation Concern (2008) for
the US southeastern coastal plain. If conservation actions are not
taken, the species could become a candidate for listing under the
ESA. The 2017 state-wide survey of colonial waterbirds by the
NCWRC reported a 36 percent decrease in relative change in
number of sites where the species was nesting over a 13-year
period (Schweitzer et al. 2017).
This medium-sized tern has light gray wings with some black in the tips, a thick, black bill, and black legs.
Their tails are short and notched and have a light gray to white body. During the winter, they have white heads
with some black around their eyes. In the summer, when they are breeding, they have a black cap that extends
from their beak back to the nape of their neck. Juveniles look similar to winter adults
(http://www.allaboutbirds.org). They have a wingspan of about 35 inches and are approximately 14 inches in
length (https://www.audubon.org/field-guide). (Photo courtesy of Glen Fergus)
Gull-billed terns are year-long residents in parts of southern California and the western coast of Mexico, the
Gulf coast, the Caribbean Islands, the northeast coast of South America, and parts of Argentina. Some terns
spend the winter months along the coasts of Central America, Columbia, and Venezuela
(http://www.allaboutbirds.org – Gull-billed Tern.).
Breeding occurs during the summer months along the Gulf coast from Mexico to Florida and from Florida
to New Jersey along the Atlantic coast (https://www.audubon.org/field-guide – Gull-billed Tern). Most
Atlantic hatching occurs in June (USFWS 2010). It is not abundant in any part of its North American range
and by 2006, Texas was thought to contain over 60 percent of the eastern subspecies (G. niloctia aranea).
The subspecies was probably extirpated in Maryland with declines in population numbers in Virginia,
North Carolina, Florida, and possibly Georgia (Molina & Erwin 2006). Although breeding pair numbers in
North Carolina have declined from 1977 levels, it was rather stable (200–250 pair) from 2000 to 2010.
However, recent North Carolina census data indicate a reduction in the number of North Carolina colony
sites and a center abundance shift from the Cape Fear River area to the northeastern part of the state
(USFWS 2010). The species has a tendency to nest in relatively, small, scattered and often ephemeral
colonies (Molina and Erwin 2006). Terns make their nests on sandy exposed beaches and dredge spoil sites
with usually sparse vegetation and feed over mudflats, marshes, and dunes (Georgia Wildlife 2010 –
http://www.georgiawildlife.com/sites/degault/files/uploads/wildlife/nongame/pdf/accounts/birds/gelochel
idon_nilotica.pdf - 24 October 2013, USFWS 2010).
Always among the least-common of the breeding terns in North Carolina, the gull-billed has declined more
strongly than other ground nesting colonial waterbirds over the past decade or more with the reasons not
clearly understood (LeGrand 2019-04-19; Birds of North Carolina). The 2020 NCWRC state-wide colonial
waterbird survey reported that nest numbers were a little over half the goal of 300 but the number of sites met
the habitat goal of the North Carolina Waterbird Program; this bird has never met the number of nests goal of
the North Carolina Waterbird Program since surveys began in 1977 (Johnson et al. 2020). Gull-billed terns are
uncommon to fairly common in the coastal plain and in Dare County during mid-May through July where they
breed, build nests, and hatch their young, although numbers have been in decline in the northern coastal
plain especially since 2000. Beginning in August, the terns begin to migrate south, and by September, very few

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 117 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

are left. By November, the terns have departed from the North Carolina coast and begin to return the next
year by the end of March (eBird 2020 “Bird Observations North Carolina” and “Dare County”). An NPS nesting
survey conducted in 2013 for its annual Seashore colonial waterbird study found six gull-billed tern nests
during the first part of June (NPS 2013c). This number is lower than the previous years, with 15 nests counted
in 2011 and 43 nests counted in 2012 (NPS 2013c). Lower nest numbers in 2013 are likely due to habitat
changes caused by Hurricane Sandy fall 2012 and extreme winds and high tides caused by Tropical Storm
Andrea which washed out nesting sites in early June 2013 (NPS 2013c). The gull-billed terns are one of the less
common nesters on the Seashore (NPS 2013c). Since a low in 2014, the numbers of nests within the Seashore
increased to a high of 50 in 2018; however, all gull-billed terns detected in 2018 were in two multi-species
colonies on South Point of Ocracoke Island, none were in the Proposed Action Area (Doshkov et al 2019). The
2018 increase is speculated to be related to several factors such as no severe weather events during nesting
season and installation and maintenance of yearly pre-nesting closures to reduce human disturbance and
interactions.
Human disturbance at nesting sites is perhaps the biggest threat to gull-billed terns. Eggs and young in nests
can be crushed by vehicles, people, and pets (Georgia Wildlife 2010). Other losses include elimination of
natural nest sites to beach erosion or perturbations to estuarine functions, development or modification of
upland habitats important for foraging near breeding areas, and feral predation (Molina and Erwin 2006). Gull-
billed terns are considered to be more susceptible to disturbance than other terns. Constant disturbance of
gull-billed tern nesting sites can upset important activities that are essential for species survival and can even
cause terns to abandon nesting sites. According to Molina and Erwin (2006), this species often nests on man-
made substrates, which suggests it could be responsive to management of breeding sites.
8.2.6 Least Tern (Sternula antillarum)
While the least tern is not federally protected under the ESA, it is protected under the MBTA. The least tern is
listed as Special Concern in North Carolina due to continued disturbance of nesting sites along the coast. In
fact, most states along the Atlantic coast list the tern as endangered, threatened, or special concern due to
loss of nesting habitat (http://www.allaboutbirds.org - Least Tern). On 12 January 2021, the USFWS
announced that the interior DPS was fully recovered and could be removed from the federally endangered list
while the California populations remain endangered. The least tern was included in the USFWS list of Birds of
Conservation Concern (2008; most recent list) for the US southeastern coastal plain. If conservation actions
are not taken, the species could become a candidate for listing under the ESA for this region. However, both
the 2017 and the 2020 surveys of colonial waterbirds by the NCWRC reported increases in relative change in
number of sites where the species was nesting over the period
of record; the increase was most likely attributed to its
plasticity in nest site selection (beaches, dredged spoil, and
gravel roofs) (Schweitzer et al. 2017 and Johnson et al 2020);
such resiliency, along with conservation efforts, were
fundamental to the recovery of the interior DPS.
The smallest of the American terns, least terns are
approximately 9 inches in length, with their long, narrow wings
reaching a 20-inch wingspan (http://www.allaboutbirds.org).
Breeding plumage of least terns includes a black cap; white

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 118 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

forehead; a short, white eyestripe; grayish-white back; white underside; short, notched tail; yellow legs; and
a yellow bill with a black tip. During nonbreeding season, they have a black eyestripe that extends to the back
of the head, a white cap, and a black bill. Males and females look alike and immature terns appear similar to
wintering adults (https://www.audubon.org/field-guide ). (Photo courtesy Dick Daniels, carolinabirds.org)
Least terns build their nests on sandy or gravelly beaches or along wide sandy river banks and lake shores and
also may even use flat gravel rooftops as nesting sites. Guilfoyle and Fischer (2006) estimated that of the 50
percent of all coastal pairs nesting on rooftops, 90 percent occur from Florida (both coasts) north to North
Carolina. Eastern populations occur all along the Atlantic US and Gulf coasts and in the Caribbean during
breeding season. In Dare County, least terns begin to arrive in early April and are abundant May through
August. By the end of September, very few may remain until the beginning of October (eBird 2020 “Bird
Observations North Carolina” and “Dare County”). By November, all have flown south to coastal areas along
Central and South America for the winter. The Seashore is a traditional nesting site for the least tern, and in
2013, Cape Point had the largest colony along the Seashore with 329 nests out of the 802 total observed. The
2013 total is only slightly lower than the 832 nests observed in 2012 (NPS 2013c). Since 2007, the highest
number was in 2011 with 1,063 nests, much higher than the 381 nests observed in 2010 (NPS 2013c). A steady
decline in least tern nest counts in the Seashore occurred from 2011 to 2017 with an increase in 2018 to 475
nests which produced 15 chicks (Doshkov et al. 2019). The NCWRC 2017 state-wide colonial waterbird survey
noted a 17 percent decrease in least tern nest numbers since the previous survey in 2014; the number of nests
documented in North Carolina has met or exceeded the population goal of the North Carolina Waterbird
Program every survey since 2004 (Schweitzer et al. 2017). The 2020 NCWRC survey proved this trend
continued; the estimated number of least tern nesting pairs in 2020 compared to the 14-year average was +55
percent while the number of 2020 sites compared to the 14-year mean was +37 percent (Johnson et al. 2020).
One least tern nest and chick was documented in 2014 in the project area, but since then all shorebird
breeding activity moved to the north near Ramp 34 outside of Proposed Project Area (Cape Hatteras National
Seashore, Paul Doshkov, Supervisory Biological Technician, pers. comm. 18 March 2021). However, the least
tern is likely to use the nearshore waters of the Avon area for foraging.
The biggest threat to the least tern, and many other shore birds that use sandy beaches for nesting and
foraging, is human disturbance. Recreational use, residential development, and water diversion are
hazardous to the least tern’s survival (http://www.allaboutbirds.org - Least Tern). As gravel rooftops are being
phased out due to storm safety concerns and energy efficiency, the loss of this alternate nesting habitat
further threatens this species. Although there were two instances in Florida in 2010 where least terns were
documented nesting on roofs other than gravel, this is not considered a long-term alternate choice for the
bird (Warraich et al 2012). (The two roofs had been gravel and were previously used by nesting terns.) Despite
increased development over the years, the least tern population has steadily increased since 1997, with the
largest colonies found on inlets (Schweitzer 2012).
8.2.7 Common Tern (Sternula hirundo)
Common terns are the most widespread tern species of North America. This tern species decreased drastically
declined within the last 20 years due to loss or disturbance of nesting habitats (LeGrand 2020-02-08; Birds of
North Carolina “Common Tern’). Prior to 1995, the bird was common to fairly common in the warmer months in
North Carolina; it still is mainly seen from mid-April to mid-October and is easiest to find around inlets although
overall numbers are in decline. Peak counts at Bird Shoal near Beaufort, NC were 9,000 in 1973, 5,000 in 1974,

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 119 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

3,928 in 1979; since 1995, the peak count is only 375 except for a
report of 1,000 in spring of 2015. The common tern is listed as
endangered in North Carolina since October 2017 and has been
listed as threatened, endangered, or special concern in other
states although it is in no immediate danger of appearance on the
federal list (LeGrand 2020-02-08; Birds of North Carolina
“Common Tern”). This species is not federally protected under
the ESA but it is protected under the MBTA. The 2017 survey of
colonial waterbirds by the NCWRC reported a 28 percent
decrease in relative change in number of sites where the species
was nesting over a 13-year period (Schweitzer et al. 2017).
Common terns are considered medium-sized at 12 inches long with a 30-inch wingspan. Male and females
look similar with black caps and wingtips, grayish-white bodies, red legs and bills with a black tip, and long
deeply forked tails during the breeding season (http://www.audubon.org/field-guide). Nonbreeding and
immature terns have only a partial cap and juveniles have a brownish head and brown stripes across their
backs (http://www.allaboutbirds.org). (Photo courtesy Jeff Lewis, Carolina Bird Club)
Breeding areas for common terns include Canada, US states bordering Canada, and beaches along the
Atlantic coast from Canada to North Carolina. Guilfoyle and Fischer (2006) estimated that less than 1percent
of the world population breeds along the coast of North Carolina. In North Carolina, common terns use bare
sand islands, dredge islands, and sandy beaches as nesting sites (Birds of North Carolina 2014 “Common
Tern”). They build nests on the ground in shallow depressions or scrapes, sometimes with dead vegetation
and shells (http://www.allaboutbirds.org - Common Tern). During migrations, they may also be found around
lakes and marshes.
Common tern sightings have been documented in North Carolina during winter months, but it is believed that
these may be misidentifications, and that common terns are absent from North Carolina in December,
January, February, and most of March (LeGrand 2020-02-08; Birds of North Carolina “Common Tern"). In 2011,
the largest colonies of common terns were found on Big Foot Island, Clark Reef, Cape Hatteras, and Cape
Lookout National Seashore along the North Carolina coast, and approximately one-fourth of nests were built
on dredged material (Schweitzer 2012). In Dare County, these terns are commonly seen April through October
(eBird 2020 “Bird Observations North Carolina” and “Dare County” 2020). They appear in April during spring
migration and while some remain to breed in the vicinity, others continue further north to breed. Local
breeders begin to leave in the fall joined by northern breeders on their way south for the winter in South
America. The Seashore is a traditional nesting site for the common tern. From 2007 to 2013, the lowest number
of nests observed was 19 (2008) and the highest number was 218 (2012), followed by a substantial decrease
to 34 nests in 2013 (NPS 2013c). Lower nest numbers in 2013 were likely due to habitat changes caused by
Hurricane Sandy in the fall of 2012 and extreme winds and high tides caused by Tropical Storm Andrea that
washed out nesting sites in early June 2013 (NPS 2013c). The lower nest numbers persisted in 2014 and 2015
but increased in 2016 and 2017 to slightly less than 100 both years, followed by a slight decrease in 2018 to 72.
In the past, the points and spits of the Seashore consistently provided its preferred nesting habitat. However,
many of these areas have expanded their adjacent dune systems in the absence of overwash events which
deposit the sandy shell beds of their preferred nest habitat.

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 120 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

The NCWRC 2017 and 2020 colonial waterbird survey documented common tern nests at 11 sites in the state
which were less than the habitat goal of 20 and the number of nests documented was far below the number
of nests goal of the North Carolina Waterbird Program; this goal has not been met since 1988 (Johnson et al.
2020). The 2020 NCWRC survey showed the number of common tern nesting pairs in 2020 compared to the
14-year average declined (-83 percent) as did the number of 2020 sites compared to the 14-year mean
(-51 percent) (Johnson et al. 2020). Predation, competing gulls, pets, loss of nesting habitat, human
disturbance at nesting sites, weather, and rising sea levels are all factors that threaten breeding populations
of common tern along the Atlantic coast and they remain concentrated in a few well protected colonies
(https://www.audubon.org/field-guide - Common Tern). Despite the bittersweet irony of its name, the
common tern is one of the beach-nesting bird species in most rapid decline.
8.2.8 Black Skimmer (Ryhnchops niger)
Although black skimmers are not protected under the Endangered Species Act, they are federally protected
under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The skimmer is listed as endangered in New Jersey and special concern
in Florida and North Carolina. The North American populations are on the 2014 State of the Birds watch list
(NABCI 2014). The 2017 NCWRC state-wide colonial waterbird survey reported that both the number of black
skimmer nests and number of nesting sites were less than the population and habitat goals of the North
Carolina Waterbird Program; the nest goal has not been met since 1993 (Schweitzer et al 2017).
Unmistakable with its unique
red and black bill and short,
red legs, the black skimmer’s
bill is thin with a longer lower
mandible used to skim the
water for fish as it flies; the
upper beak snaps shut when
a fish is sensed. Black
skimmers are medium to
large-sized waterbirds (18 inches long with a 44-inch wingspan) (http://www.allaboutbirds.org). They have
long, pointed wings and a short, white tail (https://www.audubon.org/field-guide). The top of the head, back,
and wings are black and the forehead and underparts are white. Skimmers have thin vertical pupils that
reduce glare from the sand and water; a trait that is highly unusual in birds. Males and females are similar in
appearance and immature skimmers have mottled brown caps and backs (http://www.allaboutbirds.org).
(Left photo courtesy Lindsay Addison, Audubon; right photo Phil Zeigler, NPS). Active at all times of the day,
with dawn and dusk peaks, they are able to hunt even in low light due to their fine sense of touch. A group of
black skimmers in flight are a synchronous spectacle as they circle, bank, and alight as one.
Of the three races of the black skimmer, the North American race is largely coastal with the exception of some
large inland lakes in Florida and the Salton Sea in California (https://www.audubon.org/field-guide - Black
Skimmer). During breeding season, black skimmers occupy areas ranging from Massachusetts to Texas and
areas in Central and South America. Guilfoyle and Fischer (2006) estimated that as much as 20% of the world’s
population of this bird breeds in the southeast US where they are found year-round.

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 121 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

During winter months, skimmers are not found any further north than North Carolina
(https://www.audubon.org/field-guide - Black Skimmer). Skimmers may move inland to the North Carolina
piedmont during hurricanes (Birds of North Carolina 2014 Black Skimmer). Black skimmers use open sandy
beaches, dredge spoil islands, sparsely vegetated shell or gravel bars, and mats of sea wrack in salt marshes
as nesting habitats. In some instances, nests are built on rooftops (http://www.allaboutbirds.org - Black
Skimmer). They nest in groups and share nesting areas with laughing gulls and common, least, and gull-billed
tern colonies. In 2011, one-third of observed black skimmer nests built along North Carolina coast were on
dredged material (Schweitzer 2012). The 2020 survey of colonial waterbirds by the NCWRC reported a 59
percent decrease in number of sites where black skimmer nested compared to the 14-year mean and a
decrease of 54 percent in the estimated number of nesting pairs (Johnson et al. 2020).
In Dare County, black skimmers can be spotted year-round, commonly April through October (breeding
season) with peak abundance from May through September, but less seldom seen December through
February (eBird 2020 Bird Observations North Carolina and Dare County). The National Seashore is a
traditional nesting site for the black skimmer, with the number of nests increasing between 2007 and 2012.
From 2007 to 2010, low numbers of nests were observed, ranging from 4 in 2008 to 61 in 2009; 99 and 119 nests
were observed in 2011 and 2013, respectively; and the highest number of nests was 221 in 2012 (NPS 2013c).
Lower nest numbers in 2013 was likely due to habitat changes caused by Hurricane Sandy in the fall of 2012
and extreme winds and high tides caused by Tropical Storm Andrea that washed out nesting sites in early
June 2013 (NPS 2013c). Since declines in 2013 and 2014, nest numbers increased every year with the highest
number since 2012 in 2018 (368 nests and 116 chicks) and in 2018 black skimmer nests were documented
among the multi-species colony at Cape Point for the first time (Doshkov et al. 2019).
With an 87 percent cumulative loss in population between 1966 and 2015, the North American Waterbird
Conservation Plan estimates 65,000 to 70,000 breeding black skimmers in North America (All About Birds 2020
black skimmer conservation). Black skimmers are under the same types of threats as gulls and terns. Loss of
habitat due to human development and disturbance of nesting sites due to human recreational use of
beaches, along with predation or disturbance by pets, and sea level rise are the main risks to their survival.
8.2.9 American Oystercatcher (Haematopus palliates)
American oystercatchers are listed as endangered, threatened, or of special concern in almost every state
along the Atlantic Coast; in North Carolina, they are listed as a special concern species (nc.audubon.org;
NCNHP 2020 Dare County list). This species is included in the USFWS (2008) of Birds of Conservation Concern
(2008) for the US southeastern coastal plain and if conservation
actions are not taken, the species could become a candidate for
listing under the ESA. Currently, oystercatchers have federal
protection under the MBTA.
American oystercatchers are unlikely to be confused with other
shorebirds due to their bold coloring and size. With long, sharp
bright red bills and stout, pale-pinkish legs, black heads, brown
backs, and white bellies, yellow eyes with red eye ring, they are
distinctive birds. At 18 inches in length, with a 32-inch wingspan,
they are one of the largest shorebird species in North America

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 122 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

(https://www.audubon.org/field-guide). Young oystercatchers look very similar to adults except for duller bill
color and the feathers on their backs impart a flecked look. As their common name indicates, they feed almost
entirely on shellfish, including oysters, limpets, clams, mussels, crabs, starfish, sea urchins and worms
(http://www.allaboutbirds.org). (Photo courtesy Planetofbirds.com)
These unique birds are strictly coastal and use large open sandy areas, sand dunes, and tidal marshes as
habitat. During summer months, the American oystercatcher can be seen along the Atlantic Coast from New
England to the Gulf Coast, Mexico, and Central America, parts of South America, and the Caribbean.
Oystercatchers are typically considered non-migratory; however, most all birds from New England to
Maryland head south for the winter around late September. Approximately 12 percent of the global
population of American oystercatchers inhabits the United States, with one third of that population wintering
in South Carolina alone. Virginia through the Carolinas has the largest concentration of wintering populations
along the Atlantic Coast (https://www.audubon.org/field-guide - American Oystercatcher).
American oystercatchers can be seen in Dare County throughout the year; however, numbers are lower during
winter months (eBird 2014, 2020 Bird Observations North Carolina and Dare County). Guilfoyle and Fischer
(2006) estimated about 1,875 breeding pairs along both the Atlantic and Gulf coasts, with 1,200 pairs
estimated from Florida to North Carolina. Six recent NCWRC surveys (2004-2019) showed an increase in
American oystercatcher counts in the state from a total of 699 in 2004 to 890 in 2019 (high of 1,014 in 2016)
with a range of observed singles from 23 in 2010 to 134 in 2016 (2019 total singles observed was lower at 104,
but continued the upward trend) (NCWRC unpublished data 2019; pers comm. 10 November 2020, Carmen
Johnson, NCWRC Wildlife Diversity Biologist, Waterbirds Investigation and Management Project). Along the
Seashore, 27 total breeding pairs were documented in 2013 (Schweitzer and Abraham 2014) and in 2014 with
14 of them documented on Hatteras Island (Cape Hatteras resource field summary August 20, 2014). The
Hatteras Island nests (22) had seven of the nine documented fledglings for 2014 and by 2018 the 10 pairs on
Hatteras Island had 12 of the 20 total documented fledglings (Doshkov et al. 2019). From 2014 through 2018
in the Seashore, the number of breeding pairs ranged from 24 to 26 (2016 was the high) and total nests ranged
from 38 to 53 (2017 was the high); the 2018 fledge rate for the entire Seashore at 0.8 was the highest since 2011
(Doshkov et al 2019). In cooperation with NC State University, since 2002, 232 American oystercatchers have
been banded at the National Seashore (52 adults and 180 fledglings) including 10 chicks in 2018. The average
number of breeding pairs of American oystercatchers documented in the six NCWRC state-wide surveys from
2004-2019 was 381 (range: 337 in 2004 to 440 in 2016) (NCWRC unpublished data 2019; pers comm. 10
November 2020, Carmen Johnson, NCWRC Wildlife Diversity Biologist, Waterbirds Investigation and
Management Project). American oystercatcher breeding activity occurs both to the north and south of the
Proposed Project Area (Cape Hatteras National Seashore, Paul Doshkov, Supervisory Biological Technician,
pers. comm. 18 March 2021). The bird is likely to use the beach within the Avon area for foraging.
Like many other shorebirds, loss of habitat and nesting sites, human disturbance, and predators pose the
biggest threat to the survival of American oystercatchers. This species is particularly sensitive to disturbance
and is more vulnerable because on average a pair may take up to four years to successfully fledge one young
(Guilfoyle and Fischer 2006). One human activity that has been beneficial is the creation of sand islands from
dredge spoils. These islands are good nesting sites because they are often high in elevation and fairly isolated
from people and predators like raccoons and skunks (http://www.allaboutbirds.org).

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 123 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

Status and Biology of Species or Areas with only State Protection. The two species discussed here
represent the species with the potential to occur in the Proposed Action Area or vicinity which have only state
level protection. Within North Carolina, endangered, threatened and special concern species listed by the
state have legal protection status. Other state-protected species which also have federal protection (although
sometimes with a different status) are discussed in previous sections of this document.
8.3 Reptiles
8.3.1 Diamondback Terrapin (Malaclemys terrapin)
The diamondback terrapin is legally protected only by
the State of North Carolina with Special Concern status
while the International Union for Conservation of Nature
categorizes it as Vulnerable. However, in early 2020 the
North Carolina Marine Fisheries Commission submitted a
proposal to further protect the species from depletion by
the blue crab fishery with the designation of
Diamondback Terrapin Management Areas (DTMAs) and
use of turtle excluder devices in blue crab pots in the
DTMAs. The first two DTMAs were selected in May 2020 (Bald Head Island and Masonboro Island) and the
framework for the NCMFC proposal will become effective in 2021.
Native to coastal states from Cape Cod, Massachusetts to Corpus Christi, Texas, it is the only species of turtle
in the temperate zone adapted to life in the salt marsh. It is found in brackish coastal waters in habitats
including coastal swamps, mangrove swamps, salt marshes, lagoons, and estuarine tidal creeks. There is also
a separate small breeding subpopulation on the east end of Bermuda.
The females of this medium-sized hard shell turtle grow to a much larger size than males. Females reach a
maximum of 25 centimeters (9.8 inches) while males reach only 14 centimeters (5.5 inches). Coloration is
highly variable, although adult terrapin carapaces (top shells) are generally a shade of grey with lighter
colored concentric rings (circles inside of circles). Heads and limbs are also a shade of grey, with variable
spots or blotches. Orange rings with a grey or greenish background may appear on shells, but there is a wide
variety of patterns and colors in the species, sometimes even within single populations. Feet are webbed for
strong swimming (photo courtesy ncpedia.org).
Where they occur, diamondback terrapin contribute important functions in coastal saltwater marsh
ecosystems (tidal creeks, lagoons, and estuaries) which include seed dispersal, vegetation management,
insect and snail population controls, and help keep water clean. In some places, diamondback terrapin are
an important predator of the salt marsh periwinkle (Littoraria irrorata), a snail that feeds on salt marsh cord
grass (Spartina alterniflora). Research has shown that when the diamondback terrapin and other predators
are removed, periwinkles overgraze the cord grass leaving a barren mudflat (CITES 2013)
It needs periodic access to nearby freshwater for long-term health. It has the ability to distinguish drinking
water of different salinities (Davenport and Macedo 1990) and several sophisticated behaviors to capture fresh
water have been documented including drinking from the fresh surface layer that accumulates during rainfall

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 124 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

and even swimming on the surface with an open mouth to capture falling rain drops (Bels, Davenport, and
Renous 1995).
Cape Hatteras marks the interbreeding fulcrum between the ranges of two of the seven subspecies of this
reptile; the two subspecies compose the entire east coast population. The more northern subspecies M.
terrapin intergrades with the more southern subspecies M. terrapin centrata in the Cape Hatteras region.
Although these seven subspecies are recognized, these designations do not correspond well with genetic data
(CITES 2013). A long-lived species (~40 years), the turtle is also known for its high site fidelity which means it
stays in the same area its entire life. In North Carolina, it was once so abundant, it was considered a nuisance.
Diamondback terrapin are currently collected for the pet trade and are exported primarily to Asia. Exports of this
species from the United States have increased from under 1,000 individuals per year in 1999 to 3,000 individuals
per year by 2010, with a high of 6,000 individuals exported in the year in 2006 (USFWS, International Affairs
species profile page). Threats to the species include habitat degradation and loss from urbanization since the
1700s, collision with vehicles particularly adult females crossing to and from nest areas in dunes to the back
barrier sound marshes, raccoon predation of unprotected nests, international pet trade, sea level rise, beach
development, loss of sand dunes, and incidental drowning in blue crab pots (CITES 2013). One crab pot, found
in North Carolina, contained 29 decomposing terrapins. Adult females are typically too large to enter crab pots
so adult males and young females are usually the casualties. Terrapin biologists advocate the use of BRDs
(bycatch reduction devices), which prevent smaller
terrapins from entering crab pots (ncwildlife.org species
profile)
8.4 Plants
8.4.1 Seabeach Knotweed (Polygonum glaucum)
The State of North Carolina considers the seabeach
knotweed endangered, but it is not afforded any federal
protection. It is found in maritime coastal habitats from
Florida to Massachusetts, which are often subject to both
natural and anthropogenic disruptions and disturbances. An annual prostrate member of the Buckwheat
family, the small narrow foliage of seabeach knotweed is bluish green with a waxy coating (glaucous) on
sprawling fleshy stems growing from a central taproot. The leaves have inrolled margins. On beaches, it is
found seaward of dunes, above the wrack line or high spring tide zone, and often forms interwoven mats when
growing conditions allow. It is also often found on the margins of salt ponds in the back barrier environment
and interdune swales. Flowers form from May to October and fruits from June to September.
Often subject to overwash which may aid in seed dispersal, it is considered a pioneer colonizer species in these
dynamic conditions although little is known about the biology of this plant. This species was known in North
Carolina from nearby Chicamicomico (~15 miles to the north of Avon) prior to initiation of dune stabilization
projects in that area but has not been seen in recent years. This species has also been documented south of
the former location of the Cape Hatteras Lighthouse (Pers. Comm. Allison Weakley, Conservation Planner,
NCNHP, 8 October 2014); the 2018 list of rare plants of North Carolina show the species documented in six
counties, including Dare; it may be extirpated in two of the six counties (Beaufort and New Hanover) (NCNHP

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 125 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

2018). Known threats to the species are from vehicle traffic and dune stabilization projects. (Photo courtesy
Rhode Island Department Environmental Management, Fish and Wildlife Division)

8.5 State Natural Areas
The Hatteras Island Middle Section natural area is a Registered Natural Heritage Area (RHA) under an
agreement between the National Park Service and North Carolina Department Environment & Natural
Resources (now the Department of Environmental Quality). Within the Hatteras Island Middle Section
RHA the following natural communities have been documented: Dune Grass (Southern Subtype), Dune
Grass (Northern Subtype), Stable Dune Barren (Southern Subtype), Maritime Dry Grassland (Typic
Subtype), Maritime Shrub (Bayberry Subtype), Maritime Wet Grassland, Maritime Shrub Swamp (Red Bay
Subtype), Brackish Marsh (Salt Meadow Cordgrass Subtype), and Upper Beach (Southern Subtype). This
Natural Heritage Area is depicted on Figure 8.4.

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 126 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

FIGURE 8.4. Map of Avon area and the approximate boundaries of the Hatteras Island Middle Section (the
one state Natural Heritage site located about 1 mile from the Proposed Action Area).

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 127 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

9.0 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE
The environmental baseline is defined as the past and present impacts of all federal, state, or private actions
and other human activities in an action area. This baseline also includes the anticipated impacts of all proposed
federal projects in an area that have already undergone formal or early ESA Section 7 consultation and the
impacts of state or private actions that are contemporaneous with the consultation in process. The
environmental baseline for this BA refers to conditions based on the assumption that the Proposed Action
would not occur. As the Proposed Action Area is a dynamic barrier island system subject to rapid and ongoing
responses to short-term (storms) and long-term (sea level rise and or climate change) wind, wave, and ocean
current conditions, many changes occurred before the establishment of the National Seashore in 1937; those
responses continue today. The flora and fauna found in a variety of habitats at the park include migratory birds
and several threatened and endangered species. The islands are rich with maritime history of humankind’s
attempt to survive at the edge of the sea, and with accounts of dangerous storms, shipwrecks, and valiant
rescue efforts. Today, the National Seashore provides unparalleled opportunities for millions to enjoy
recreational pursuits in a unique natural seashore setting and to learn of the nation’s unique maritime heritage.
Additionally, as a very popular park within the national park system, other changes have occurred based on
human uses of the National Seashore ecosystems as well continued growth of the towns and villages of the
islands shared by the National Seashore. For the period 1967– 2014, each year has documented more than 1
million visits/year to the Seashore (NPS 2015b), with a steady annual increase each year since 2013 to a high
of 2.61 million visits in 2019 (www.statista.com)
While vehicle use on the beach occurred prior to 1937, it was primarily done for transportation and it was not
until NC12 was paved, the Bonner Bridge was completed in 1967, and the Ocracoke ferry was added to the
North Carolina ferry system, that access to the National Seashore was significantly facilitated (NPS 2010). The
increased access and subsequent popularity of sport utility vehicles in recent years have changed the vehicle
use from primarily transportation to primarily recreation (NPS 2010). Off-road vehicle (ORV) use on the
beaches of the National Seashore (includes the Avon beach), continues to increase with as many as 2,200
vehicles/day counted by rangers during summer months concentrated near the three spits associated with
inlets through the National Seashore (Bodie, Hatteras, and Ocracoke Islands) and Cape Point (NPS 2005).
Land within the Proposed Action Area is comprised of ocean beach and portions of dunes within the National
Seashore, in front of Avon Village. See Figure 4.3 for approximate project acreage within various elevations.
9.1 Previous Consultation with USFWS within the Analysis Area
The National Park Service submitted a BA in support of the Final ORV Management Plan (EIS) on 27 February
2010 and received the Biological Opinion (BO) with concurrence 15 November 2010. The USFWS also
amended the ORV plan BO in early 2015 for the modified wildlife protection buffers (NPS 2015a). The National
Park Service also conducted an informal consult for the Proposal to Facilitate Additional Beach Access (EA);
concurrence was received on 24 September 2013. A BO was also received for the initial Buxton beach
restoration project to protect NC 12 (CSE 2015).
9.2 Past and Current Activities within the Analysis Area
Previous shore-protection measures along the Avon Action Area mainly include dune reconstruction and
enhancement.

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 128 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

9.2.1 Dune Reconstruction and Management
In 1935, during the height of the Great Depression, the federal government funded a major dune
reconstruction effort to build up a protective dune line and reduce the threat of breaching along barrier
islands. This Works Progress Administration (WPA) project “… saved 120 miles of the barrier islands on the
state’s northeastern coast” (Stratton 1957, pg 4). Over 1,500 workers were brought to the Outer Banks “… to
eliminate the flow of ocean water over the Banks” (Stratton 1943, pg 26). Brush panels were installed over a
denuded landscape to trap sand and establish a dune line.
AC Stratton was the field supervisor with the National Park Service during the dune restoration efforts. His
reports (Stratton 1943, 1957) describe the degraded condition of the Outer Banks in the 1930s compared with
conditions in the late 1800s. “What at one time was a thriving, prosperous, and productive part of the country
became only a fast eroding barrier reef …. It almost ceased to be a productive asset and it became questionable
as to the length of time it would continue to protect the mainland” (Stratton 1943, pg 25). Stratton (1943)
reported that in earlier times, “… villages scattered along the beach were dotted with woods, grape vines, and
vegetation of great variety extending from the sounds toward the ocean and in some cases to the beach itself”
(pg 25). He attributed the denudation in the early part of the 20th century to overgrazing, particularly by hogs,
and timber removal by commercial interests. He also discussed the adverse impacts of blowing sand on the
elevation of the Outer Banks and the “… salt water that flowed over into the Currituck Sound…” (pg 25). As
erosion took its toll in “several places along the coast for a distance of three miles or more, ordinary high tides
were running over the Banks” (pg 26).
Stratton (1957) reported that much of the efforts from the 1930s project remained in place 20 years later. The
work was credited with reducing erosion and saving the Cape Hatteras Lighthouse which had been
abandoned in 1936 (www.ncsu.edu/coast/chl/timeline.html, accessed 31 October 2013). Stratton (1957)
described a planned rehabilitation program by the National Park Service (Mission 66) to repair damaged
dunes over a ten-year period and restore them to their condition following the 1930s project.
Everts et al. (1983) prepared a detailed analysis of shoreline change for the Outer Banks. This cooperative
study by the Coastal Engineering Research Center (CERC) and National Ocean Service (NOS) within the US
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (respec-
tively) measured ocean and sound shoreline changes between the 1850s and 1980. Everts et al. found that
the Outer Banks, on average, were narrowing by ~3 ft/yr (~0.9 m) with the majority of the recession occurring
along the oceanfront ~2.6 ft/yr (~0.8 m/yr average).
The CERC–NOS study found that the sound shoreline was not prograding significantly by overwash at decadal
to century time scales. It further suggested that the principal losses of sand along the Outer Banks were
associated with inlets, particularly the deposits of sand in the flood shoals in the sounds. After breach
channels or ephemeral inlets closed, the deposits in the sound stabilized with marsh vegetation and left a
characteristic bulge into the sound which is readily observable in aerial photographs (Everts et al. 1983).
While Everts et al. (1983) documented a narrowing of the Outer Banks, they emphasized that this trend was
established well before the dune reconstruction efforts of the 1930s. They concluded “… overwash has not
been an important mechanism in sound shoreline progradation for the last several hundred years. Today, the
islands are probably too wide in most places for overwash penetration across the entire island” (pg 95). Everts
et al. concluded that “… if island migration occurred … between 1585 and 1850, it was probably the result of
inlet processes,” which is the primary mechanism for major withdrawal of sand from the littoral zone in
settings like the Outer Banks.

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 129 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

One implication of prior dune reconstruction efforts along Hatteras Island is the apparent positive effect in
reducing sand losses while restoring the general character of the island to its condition prior to overgrazing
and timber harvesting. A number of references suggest the northern Outer Banks is relatively sand-rich
compared with the southern coast of North Carolina (Byrnes et al. 2003) or with barrier islands that have been
in stable position for at least several centuries (Everts et al. 1983). Average erosion rates along Hatteras Island
are low relative to the average width of the island and have likely benefitted by the presence of high natural
dunes which tend to reduce the frequency of washovers and breach inlets (CSE 2013).
9.2.2 Beach Nourishment
Beach nourishment projects in Cape Hatteras National Seashore have emplaced over 10.2 million cubic yards
of sediment on National Seashore beaches between 1962 and 2011; 1.7 million cubic yards in front of
Rodanthe in 2014, and 2.6 million cubic yards in front of the Buxton project area in 2017–2018. This quantity
does not include dredged sediment (Dallas et al. 2013). Dredging at three inlets and two marinas has also
removed an unquantified, but likely significant, volume of material. Not counting side cast dredging, 12
million cubic yards have been taken out of the inlet system between 1960 and 2012 and over 5.7 million cubic
yards of this material was placed offshore; the remaining 6.3 million cubic yards were placed on northern Pea
Island beaches and the nearshore from 1997 to 2010 (Dallas et al. 2013).
Commonly, nourishment is placed in the upper part of the foreshore, mostly above low-tide wading depth so
the sections and volumes can be controlled. Waves then shift a portion of the fill toward deeper water as the
profiles equilibrate (Dean 2002). If nourishment sediments are coarser than the native beach sediments, there
is a natural tendency for the beach slope to become steeper and for more sand to be retained along the visible
beach. By comparison, if the nourishment sediments are significantly finer than the native beach, the
resulting slope will be gentler with a high proportion of the added sand shifting to the underwater zone (Fig
9.1). Thus, to achieve a particular dry-beach width upon equilibration, more fine sand would be required than
coarse sand as demonstrated by Dean (1991, 2002). The sand losses detected by Fisher et al. (1975) following
the 1973 nourishment project provide indirect evidence that the borrow material may have been finer than
the native sand on the beach and the loss was more accurately a shift of sand into the active surf zone.
Further north along the Outer Banks, a 10-mile beach nourishment project for the Town of Nags Head (North
Carolina) in the summer of 2011 provides a good example of the fate of nourishment sediments during profile
adjustment. At Nags Head, about 1 million cubic yards (out of 4.6 million cubic yards) shifted from the visible
beach at placement to the inshore zone between mean low water and −12 ft depths within the first month or
so after nourishment (Kana & Kaczkowski 2012). Such profile adjustment is normal and necessary for the
equilibration of nourishment projects (NRC 1995, Dean 2002). While no other monitoring reports were found
for the Buxton projects, some local observers believe the 1973 project yielded benefits for many years because
of the lack of emergency protection measures needed along existing hotels and houses until recently
(Lighthouse View Motel, J Hooper, former Dare County commissioner, pers. comm., April 2013).
An emergency project in the National Seashore to widen the beach in front of where Hurricane Sandy severed
NC 12 was completed in October 2012. The worst damage occurred in the NCDOT-identified “hot spot” known
as the S-Curves just north of Mirlo Beach (Rodanthe approximately 18 miles north of the Proposed Action
Area). The damaged area was subject to ocean overwash and direct surf zone energy and the emergency
response to NC 12 damage from Hurricane Sandy was ongoing for months after the storm. This emergency
nourishment project was designed to provide short-term protection against ocean overwash and future NC
12 damage (estimated three-year project life) by the application of 1.7 million cubic yards of sand to this
vulnerable section of Hatteras Island (USACE 2013).

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 130 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

FIGURE 9.1. Effect of borrow material grain size (nourishment scale parameter, AF) on the width of the dry beach
for a fixed volume of nourishment sand added per unit beach length (from Dean 1991, Fig 25). In simple terms,
coarser sand relative to the native sediment produces a wider visible beach than finer sand. [Note: 1 m ≈ 3.28
ft]

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 131 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

The most recent beach restoration/nourishment within the National Seashore occurred in 2017/2018 (as
described earlier in this document) near the Village of Buxton and south of the proposed project addressed
by this BA. Several hurricanes and nor’easters impacted the Buxton area during construction and in the
months just after completion which caused a premature sand deficit in the targeted beach profile and resulted
in continued exposure of NC 12 and Buxton to overwash hazards. A proposed beach maintenance project for
Buxton in almost the same footprint as the 2017/2018 project is also proposed for summer 2022 construction
and effects evaluated in a separate BA.
Four northern Outer Banks towns (Duck, Kill Devil Hills, Kitty Hawk and Southern Shores) each completed a
nourishment project in 2017. These four northern towns along with the Town of Nags Head also propose
maintenance projects in summer 2022 (see Table 3.1).
In 2019, the Town of Nags Head completed a second renourishment in nearly the same 2011 project footprint,
with 4 million cubic yards placed along the 10-mile length instead of the 4.6 million that was placed in 2011.

9.2.3 Highway NC 12
Prior to the 1950s, Highway NC 12 was an intermittent paved road and unpaved trail between Oregon Inlet
and Buxton. In 1952, the two-lane highway (fully paved) was completed. Shortly thereafter (1953), the
National Park Service officially established Cape Hatteras National Seashore. Certain sections of Highway NC
12 along Hatteras Island have been subject to erosion, washovers, and inlet breaching from the beginning
(Riggs et al. 2009).
Three hurricanes in 1955, (Connie on 12 August, Diane on 17 August, Ione on 19 September) resulted in severe
erosion and damages to Highway NC 12 between Buxton and Oregon Inlet (USACE 1996). The “Ash
Wednesday” northeaster of record (March 1962) in the Middle Atlantic states breached the barrier island
between Buxton and Avon (CHWA 1977), causing emergency repairs to close the channel and rebuild the
highway. In 1973, the “Lincoln’s Birthday Storm” (NPS 1980) produced considerable erosion including severe
overwash into Pamlico Sound immediately north of Buxton. “Oceanfront motels at Buxton and beach cottages
north of the lighthouse were significantly damaged” (NPS 1980, pg 32). The storms of the early 1970s forced
officials to relocate a section of Highway NC 12 in the Buxton area, but the narrow width of Hatteras Island in
some places and concern for fringing wetlands along the back barrier preclude further shifts. Other factors
which restrict NCDOT relocation of the highway are existing easements and rights-of-way through the
Seashore (NCDOT, J Jennings, Division Engineer, pers. comm., August 2014).
In recent years, including 2011 after Hurricane Irene and 2012 after Hurricane Sandy, portions of the foredune
in the Buxton Action Area breached. Sand washed over NC 12 and forced temporary road closures (NCDOT
2015,). NCDOT scraped sand off the road and pushed it back into the protective dune to restore vehicle access
as soon as possible. In other areas of Hatteras Island where the barrier island and foredune are narrow, breach
inlets formed during Hurricane Irene (see Fig 1.5). These inlets resulted in over two months of road closure
and lack of normal access to all communities on the island. Prior to Irene, the separation distance between
high water and NC 12 was <150 ft in the S-Curves Mirlo Beach (Rodanthe) “hot-spot” area, where one of the
inlets formed. Riggs and Ames (2011) estimated that NCDOT has spent a minimum of $100 million from 1983-
2009 to maintain NC 12. In the past 10 years alone, $72.6 million dollars have been spent in repairs to this road
(https://www.carolinacoastonline.com/regional/article_65db140e-a8cb-11ea-a81e-0f536569a647.html
accessed January 2021).

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 132 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

9.2.4 Oregon Inlet Dredging
Oregon Inlet is an outlet/inlet across the barrier island that opened in 1846 and separates Bodie Island from
Pea Island. In response to dynamic conditions, the inlet steadily migrated south from its original position and
then in 1962-63 a 2.4-mile-long bridge (the Herbert C Bonner Bridge), with a fixed navigational span, was
constructed across the inlet. To maintain the main channel under the bridge, dredging occurred with offshore,
deep water disposal of the dredged sand. The southern migration of the inlet was halted by a terminal groin
and rock revetment built in 1989–1991. However, the northern Oregon Inlet shoreline (Bodie Island spit)
continued to migrate southward into the inlet channel driven by the dominant energy of nor’easter storms
which required a further increase in frequency and volume of dredging to “hold the channel” under the fixed
navigation span (Riggs and Ames 2011a). After the terminal groin and revetment were built, dredged sand
from the inlet was more frequently put on Pea Island beaches between 1 and 3 miles south of the inlet. Riggs
and Ames (2011b) compiled data from various sources to summarize Oregon Inlet dredging and Pea Island
nourishment which had occurred from 1992-2009; the conservative estimate is 12.7 million cubic yards.
Major dredging of Oregon Inlet is estimated to occur every four or five years with maintenance dredging as
needed on a more frequent basis. However, a new memorandum of agreement is under negotiation between
the USACE, the state, and Dare County which would provide dredging on a more regular basis. A recent
tactic by the USACE during the spring 2015 Oregon Inlet dredging was to cut the Bodie Island spit in two with
the hopes that the encroaching south end would be swept away by the current (The Outer Banks Voice 26
April 2015). In 2019, Dare County applied to the USACE to dredge year-round in Oregon Inlet via a proposed
public-private partnership and the use of a $15-million-dollar state appropriation to build a dredge for the
County and its partner (The Outer Banks Voice-Coastal Review Online 6 February 2019). In the meantime,
the NPS issued the USACE a Special Use Permit in June 2020 to dredge Oregon Inlet and discharge the
sediments in accordance with the USACE’s Dredge Plan.

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 133 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

10.0 EFFECTS TO EVALUATED FEDERAL ESA SPECIES, CRITICAL HABITAT, AND DETERMINATIONS
The following ESA definitions apply to federally listed species and designated critical habitats and are used
in the evaluation of effects of a proposed action:
• No effect – the proposed action or project and its interrelated and interdependent actions
would not directly or indirectly affect listed species or destroy or adversely affect designated
critical habitat. Formal Section 7 consultation with NMFS and USFWS is not required when the
no effect conclusion is reached.
• May affect, not likely to adversely affect – the proposed action or project and its interrelated
and interdependent actions may occur in suitable habitat, or may result in indirect impacts on
the species but the impact is likely to be insignificant (small, immeasurable), or discountable
(unlikely to occur), or even beneficial (contemporaneous positive effects with no adverse
effects). Based on best judgment, the impacts could not be meaningfully measured, detected,
or evaluated, are not expected to occur, and never reach the scale where a take could occur.
• May affect, likely to adversely affect – the proposed action or project and its interrelated or
interdependent actions have at least one adverse effect that does not meet the above
definitions. There may be a combination of beneficial and adverse effects which result in
neutral or positive effects. Incidental take may or may not be anticipated and this definition
requires formal Section 7 consultation with NMFS and USFWS who must prepare a Biological
Opinion (BO).
Direct effects are caused by a proposed action and occur simultaneously and in the area of the proposed
action and indirect effects are those reasonably certain to occur as a result of the proposed action but at a
later time and/or place. Interrelated activities and their effects are part of the proposed action that depends
on the proposed action for their justification and interdependent actions have no independent utility apart
from the action.
Cumulative effects under the ESA include the environmental baseline plus the additive effect of reasonable
foreseeable future state, private, and tribal activities; however, the effect of future federal actions are not
considered. Under NEPA, the cumulative effects are almost identical to those described for ESA, the only
difference being that cumulative effects under NEPA also include the effect from reasonably foreseeable
future federal actions as well. Below is a summary of future non-federal (private, state, or tribal) activities
that are reasonably likely to occur within the Proposed Action Area that directly and indirectly affect species
addressed in this assessment. These are added to the environmental baseline (discussed above). In many
instances, these past activities and their effects remain to this day and are currently ongoing as well.
Potential projects identified as cumulative actions include planning or construction of beach nourishment
projects that have been completed in the recent past, are currently being implemented, or are expected to be
constructed in the near future. The shoreline referenced for cumulative impacts is the Dare County ocean
beach north of Cape Point. This ~70-mile barrier-island coast is part of the Cape Henry to Cape Hatteras littoral
cell (~120 miles) with similar wave climate and coastal processes. During the past decade, five beach
nourishment projects were conducted within this littoral cell: Nags Head 2011 and 2019 (~10 miles each year)
Rodanthe-Pea Island 2014 (~2 miles), Duck, Kitty Hawk, Kill Devil Hills and Southern Shores 2017 (~10 miles),
and Buxton 2017 (~3 miles). Several dredge disposal projects at Oregon Inlet impacting ~2 miles were also
conducted. Combined with the proposed action at Avon of 2.5 miles, a total of ~30 miles (~35 percent) of the

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 134 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

Dare County shoreline north of Cape Hatteras has been nourished or is likely to receive nourishment over the
12-year period 2010–2022. In June 2020, the NPS approved a plan to issue a Special Use Permit to Dare County
to use a privately owned hopper dredge for future maintenance dredging of Oregon Inlet and disposal on the
north end of Pea Island (~2,300-acre project). The majority of shoreline (18 miles out of 25 miles) that has or
may receive additions of sand is developed and situated north of Oregon Inlet.
The following future activities are likely to occur within the action area or adjacent to it within the next several
years to decades:
• Maintenance and repair of NC 12 after major storms which breach the foredune and deposit
sand over the roadbed or into Pamlico Sound (removal of overwashed sand into bulldozed
artificial dunes to protect the roadway contributes to sand deficit which steepens and narrows
the beach and degrades nesting, resting, and foraging habitat for birds and nesting habitat for
sea turtles).
• Installation of emergency sand bags along private property within the villages of Buxton and
Avon (steepens the beach face and removes potential foraging and nesting habitat for birds and
nesting habitat for sea turtles).
• Beach nourishment or renourishment/maintenance projects in Dare County combined with the
proposed restoration at Avon of about 2.5 miles, a total of ~28 miles (~31%) of the Dare County
shoreline north of Cape Hatteras is likely to receive nourishment over the next 10-yr period
2020-2030. The majority of shoreline that has or may be nourished is developed (similar
potential adverse and beneficial impacts for resting, foraging, and nesting habitats for birds and
sea turtles; similar potential adverse effects for Atlantic sturgeon and swimming turtles).
• Beach restoration at Avon at five-year to 10-year intervals based on documented performance
of the proposed project; funding is anticipated by Dare County (construction of a wider beach
in more developed coastal regions of North Carolina may cause an increase in summer rentals
with a concomitant increase in night lighting which may affect nesting and hatching sea turtles;
also likely to increase the use of the beach by both beach-goers and their pets which may
contribute to increased disturbance to birds in the area).
• Beach nourishment along other erosional “hotspots” and dune breaches along Hatteras Island
based on documented surveys for purposes of restoration of the measured sand deficit (see first
beach nourishment bullets above).
• Identification and use of other offshore borrow areas along Hatteras Island (may affect Atlantic
sturgeon, North Atlantic right whale, and swimming sea turtles).
• Installation of sand fencing and vegetation along the foredune to intercept nourishment sand
and help promote dune growth without encroachment onto NC 12 or adjacent developed
properties (may provide benefit to species which use the dry beach for nesting and foraging).
As described earlier, this BA addresses those species with federal and/or state protection. For ESA protected
species, in the absence of an overarching regional biological opinion, Section 7 consultation is the process for
incidental take. For MBTA-protected species, there is no provision for incidental take related to dredging or
filling or crushing by equipment. Additionally, the Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BEGEPA) offers
legal protections to these two birds and a mechanism for issuance of incidental take permits. The U.S. Marine
Mammal Protection Act of 1972 as amended (MMPA) protects all marine mammals including cetaceans
(whales, dolphins, and porpoises), pinnipeds (seals and sea lions), sirenians (manatees and dugongs), sea
otters, and polar bears within the waters of the U.S. The MMPA prohibits marine mammal take and enacts a

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 135 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

moratorium on the import, export, and sale of any marine mammals, along with any marine mammal part or
product within the U.S. The MMPA defines “take” as the “act of hunting, killing, capturing, and/or harassment
of any marine mammal; or, the attempt at such”. The North Carolina Endangered Species Act prohibits the
take of any protected species without a permit.
In August 2017, the USFWS issued a Statewide Programmatic Biological Opinion (SPBO) for Beach Sand
Placement on beaches of North Carolina between 16 November and 30 April. Since this proposed Avon
project will likely occur outside that calendar period, the USACE as lead federal agency will initiate Section
7 consultation with USFWS. The 2020 SARBO includes more flexibility on seasonal windows for dredging
and sand placement than did the 1997 SARBO and it identifies a risk assessment and risk management
process as a strategy to assess whether or not federal resource agencies can utilize the 2020 SARBO or
whether individual consultation is required. Either under the 2020 SARBO or under individual Section 7
consultation and subsequent biological opinion, USFWS or NMFS may authorize incidental take for ESA-
protected species that are likely to be adversely affected by the project activities. State resource protection
agencies have the opportunity to review and comment on the permit application and supporting
documents for the Proposed Action.
10.1 Piping Plover
As part of standard annual management practices, NPS personnel patrol the Seashore and evaluate all
potential areas of breeding habitat for this species by 1 March and recommend pre-nesting closures based on
that evaluation. Surveys continue three times/week and closures are adjusted accordingly throughout the
nesting season until 31 July when unused pre-nesting closures are removed if no breeding activity is seen in
the area; or 2 weeks after all chicks have fledged whichever comes later. All NPS surveys are conducted seven
days a week once nesting has begun. Non-breeding habitat protection areas are implemented prior to
removal of pre-nesting closures and are designated vehicle free areas (VFA) but are open to pedestrians.
Under the revised buffers for piping plovers implemented by NPS (2015a), the mandated breeding
behavior/nest buffer is 165 ft (50 meters) for both ORVs and pedestrians and the buffer from unfledged chicks
is 1,650 feet (500 meters) for ORVs and 330 feet (100 meters) for pedestrians. Shorter than those identified in
the 2010 plan and ROD, the revised buffer distances are contingent upon the ability of NPS biologists to
conduct intensive monitoring of plover chicks for the duration of the day that the beach is open for ORV driving
(0700–2100 hr).
Direct and Indirect Effects on Piping Plover. While the closest, documented piping plover nest was ~4
miles away from the project area, one non-breeding plover was observed ~1.5 miles south of the southern
limit of the proposed Avon sand placement footprint. While it is reasonable that piping plovers may use the
area during migration, neither individuals nor breeding behaviors have been documented in the sand
placement footprint since the July-May weekly migratory bird surveys began in 2010. No direct effects are
expected as a result of the offshore dredging activity, but individuals could be temporarily affected by sand
placement activities. The sand placement activities on the beach will occur outside of NPS-established
buffers designed to minimize disturbance effects for breeding, nesting, foraging, and roosting behaviors.
Additionally, this species is not as likely as other species to occur in the area of sand placement and is very
unlikely to nest in the project area. However, if the bird occurs outside of established closures, direct effects
for foraging, roosting, or nesting adults would include disruptions and disturbance from the pipeline
application of slurry sands, movements of support vehicles, and scraping the new beach. Even so, for non-
nesting adults, the effects in a given area would be temporary as the project is predicted to cover ~800–1,000
feet per day (ft/day) within the larger context of miles and miles of shoreline available for foraging and

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 136 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

roosting; these mobile adults can move to more favorable habitat. However, in the unlikely event there are
any chicks in the project area, direct effects would include disturbance and interruptions in foraging activities
since the chicks are unable to fly elsewhere to forage. Infaunal prey species in the surf zone would suffer direct
effects as existing organisms would be buried in the slurry deposit and the beach scraping would reduce
available food in the vicinity of the active impact. Therefore, direct effects which may occur are considered
short-term, temporary, and insignificant or discountable.
Potential indirect effects could stem from the wider post-project beach. Wider beaches lead to more rapid
dune growth (Bagnold 1941) as demonstrated by the 2011 Nags Head nourishment project (CSE 2014). Along
accreting beaches or where sustained nourishment is implemented, the dune field can become stabilized to
the detriment of species which prefer unvegetated washover deposits. Indirect effects are considered
insignificant with the abundance of preferred habitats nearby.
While burial of many benthic surf zone prey of the piping plover will occur during the sand placement, an
indirect effect on the prey population could include potential reduction on subsequent visits the following
season or year which could affect the ability of the piping plover to refuel with enough reserves to complete
their annual life-cycle in optimum condition, or at least in the condition they might have been without the
Proposed Action. This effect would also be difficult to meaningfully quantify or evaluate in regards to this
project. However, as shore protection project studies in different locations and settings have demonstrated,
compatible sediments placed on the target beach in a configuration appropriate to the geomorphology result
in a short-term impact to the infauna of the surf zone; viable communities are often present within the first
year and recolonization begins to occur rapidly for some species.
Studies have shown that depending on species, recolonization of beach benthos can begin as soon as two to
6.5 months if borrow sediments are similar in grain size to the target beach (USACE-Burlas et al. 2001) as is the
case for the proposed Avon project. The benthic organisms which thrive in the harsh dynamics of the surf
zone are well adapted to perturbation and wide fluctuations of wave energy, suspended sediments,
transported sediments, and other disruptions from coastal storms which can sometimes last over several days
and in any season of the year- conditions not dissimilar to sand placement activities of the Proposed Action
(Deaton et al. 2010). Infauna in these disturbed environments are well adapted by being small bodied, short
lived, with a maximum rate of fecundity, efficient dispersal mechanisms, dense settlement, and rapid growth
rates. However, it is recognized that tube dwellers and permanent burrow dwellers are most susceptible to
these types of disturbances compared to more mobile organisms. Additionally, most studies of benthic
recovery post-dredge or-sand placement activities have focused on macrobenthos and not the meiofauna
(benthic animals that pass through a 500-micron sieve but are retained on a 40-micron sieve). A recent study
of North Carolina meiofauna data from historic ocean beaches and from heavily and lightly nourished beaches
discovered increased heterogeneity to beach sediment structure and habitat in the nourished beaches and
posited that such physical and biological changes to the production of ecosystem services provided by the
fundamental meiofauna may not be without consequence (Fegley et al. 2020).
Daily NPS surveys within the project area and vicinity will help minimize disturbance to the piping plover; if
individual birds are observed within the project activities NPS personnel will alert the contractor and
appropriate management measures will ensue to reduce potential effect. One positive effect for this species
would be a wider less steep beach with the potential for increased habitat suitable for roosting, wintering,
and for foraging (more intertidal surf zone after a recovery period for the benthic organisms and increased
production of wrack lines).

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 137 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

Cumulative Effects on Piping Plover. Please refer to the introduction to cumulative impacts for a description
of past, present, and reasonable foreseeable future actions (Section 10.0). Climate change would likely bring
changes in temperature and precipitation which can significantly affect habitats in both the short-term and
the long-term, especially if the seasonality of precipitation deviates from the norm. Such changes are difficult
to predict with accuracy and therefore it is hard to state how such changes might affect piping plover habitats.
However, most scientists think that climate change is likely to bring more intense storms and potentially more
frequent storms but in a somewhat unpredictable manner. Storms and other weather events during the piping
plover breeding season (March-August) can result in temporary displacement and disturbance to nesting
birds or even wash away nests, eggs, chicks, and breeding adults, depending on timing and severity of the
event. More powerful storms can surge and overwash large areas of piping plover habitat even up to the toe
of the foredune and beyond. Conversely, storms outside of breeding season may provide benefit to piping
plover with new overwash areas and new nesting and foraging habitats but may also adversely affect existing
suitable habitat by associated erosion.
Hurricanes can also affect the piping plover because of their impact on National Seashore staff resources.
Storm recovery that pulls staff from resource management duties (including species monitoring or law
enforcement) during piping plover breeding season would have adverse impacts. A hurricane after August
would have no direct effect on piping plover and for the reasons stated in the preceding paragraph could
benefit or enhance habitat.
Coastal development is likely to continue throughout Dare County on both state and private lands. This would
bring added pressures of more vehicles on NC 12 and more people to the Proposed Action Area beach and
beyond, either as residents or tourist rentals. The need to maintain NC 12 for vehicles reduces the chance of
natural washover formation and reduces formation of new nesting habitat in back barrier areas. Even without
more development, recreation on the beach within the Proposed Action Area and throughout Dare County is
expected to continue to increase with a concomitant rise of tourists and vehicles on the beach especially in
the summer. While recreational vehicle and pedestrian use is highly managed by the Seashore’s efforts to
protect the natural resources of the Park, the summer season coincides with high productivity life cycles for
piping plover (mating, nesting, incubating, and fledging).
Visitor use of the beach, notably surf fishers, will likely increase not only in summer, but also in fall and spring.
Such use is not likely to adversely affect piping plover prey in the surf or intertidal area. Commercial fishing
will continue in nearshore and offshore waters which may affect the abundance of the prey which both the
fish (target and bycatch) and piping plover may prefer.
Interrelated and Interdependent Actions. There are no interrelated and interdependent actions associated
with this project; therefore, there are no anticipated adverse effects to the piping plover from such actions.
Determination on Piping Plover. Effects are considered insignificant or discountable; therefore, the
Proposed Action may affect but is not likely to adversely affect the piping plover.
10.2 Roseate Tern
Direct and Indirect Effects on Roseate Tern. Due to rarity of appearance in the Proposed Action Area, no
direct or indirect effects to this species are expected. However, since it is a rare visitor to North Carolina,
visitor(s) could occur during construction. Normal beach surveys performed by NPS biologists will note any
roseate terns in the Proposed Action Area or vicinity; although unlikely to occur, if individuals are noted by

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 138 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

NPS staff during construction their presence will be communicated to contractor and appropriate actions will
be taken to minimize disturbance. Project‐related activity will not affect their ability to feed because
preferred locations for foraging (shallow bays, tidal inlets and channels, sandbars) are widespread, thereby
providing the rare visitor with other options for these activities. Nonetheless, potential visitor(s) could
attempt to rest in the project area and be temporarily disturbed by sand placement activities, although
preferred habitat for resting (sheltered estuaries, inshore waters, and creeks) are not found within the sand
placement area. No nests have been documented in North Carolina.
Cumulative Effects on Roseate Tern. Please refer to the introduction to cumulative impacts for a description
of past, present, and reasonable foreseeable future actions (Section 10.0) and Cumulative Effects on Piping
Plover above. The roseate tern is a rare visitor to North Carolina and does not nest in the state, so the activities
discussed above would have even less likelihood to adversely affect the roseate tern than the piping plover.
Interrelated and Interdependent Actions. There are no interrelated and interdependent actions associated
with this project; therefore, there are no anticipated adverse effects to the roseate tern from such actions.
Determination on Roseate Tern. Effects to the roseate tern are considered insignificant or discountable
therefore, the Proposed Action may affect but is not likely to adversely affect the roseate tern.

10.3 Red Knot
There are no standard management practices currently in place specifically for the red knot within the
National Seashore’s current ORV management plan but its presence and use of the beach will be included in
data collected by NPS biologists during their other beach bird surveys (e.g., non-breeding survey from July
through May). As it will not nest in North Carolina, no pre-nesting surveys or closures are expected. When
compared with seven other US east coast locations, the Outer Banks ranked last in regional importance for
red knots (Dinsmore et al. 1998). In addition, North Carolina observations of red knot are generally more
numerous in the southern half of the coast and outside the Proposed Action Area (Carolina Bird Club 2014).
Direct and Indirect Effects on Red Knot. No direct effects are expected to this species as a result of the
offshore dredging activity but individuals could be temporarily affected by sand placement activities. The
sand placement activities on the beach will occur outside of NPS-established buffers which are designed to
minimize disturbance effects for foraging and roosting behaviors for the red knot. As the red knot forages in
the surf zone and roosts on the beach, activities on the target beach associated with sand placement,
particularly from April through June, would temporarily disrupt migrating adults from foraging or roosting in
the area, will therefore cause expenditure of energy to seek quieter locations, and will temporarily reduce surf
zone prey preferred by the species (coquina clams, mole crabs, marine worms, and horseshoe crab eggs).
Stress and the bioenergetics impact on shorebirds from such project disturbance are very difficult to measure,
although this species already suffers from asynchronies in migration timing and food supply. These direct
effects may negatively affect their ability to gain enough weight to arrive at the next stop over in an optimal
condition, which may affect their ability to successfully nest, breed, and rear young, or complete their
migration. However, these effects are difficult to measure, meaningfully quantify, or evaluate.
Current NPS management practices will help minimize the likelihood of prolonged disturbance to the rufa red
knot and there are abundant higher quality roosting and foraging habitats north and south of the project area.

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 139 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

In addition, compared to species which nest on North Carolina beaches, individual migrating birds do not
remain very long in the vicinity and will either move to adjacent areas undisturbed by nourishment activities,
or continue their migration. Also, the foraging habitat for this species is very marginal in the project area due
to the high energy conditions and eroding beach face. One beneficial direct long-term effect for this species
would include a wider beach with the potential for increased habitat suitable for roosting and for foraging
after a recovery period for the benthic organisms.
While burial of many benthic surf zone prey of the red knot will occur during the sand placement, an indirect
effect on the prey population could include potential reduction on subsequent visits the following season or
year which could affect the ability of the red knot to refuel with enough reserves to complete their annual life-
cycle in optimum condition, or at least in the condition they might have been without the Proposed Action.
This effect would also be difficult to meaningfully quantify or evaluate in regards to this project. However, as
shore protection project studies in different locations and settings have demonstrated, compatible sediments
placed on the target beach in a configuration appropriate to the geomorphology result in a short-term impact
to the infauna of the surf zone and viable communities are present within the first year; recolonization begins
to occur rapidly depending on species.
Studies have shown that depending on species, recolonization of beach benthos can begin as soon as two to
6.5 months if borrow sediments are similar in grain size to the target beach as is the case for the proposed
Avon project (USACE-Burlas et al. 2001). The benthic organisms which thrive in the harsh dynamics of the surf
zone are well adapted to perturbation and wide fluctuations of wave energy, suspended sediments,
transported sediments, and other disruptions from coastal storms which can sometimes last over several days
- conditions not dissimilar to sand placement activities of the Proposed Action (Deaton et al. 2010; NCDEQ
2016). Infauna in these disturbed environments are well adapted by being small bodied, short lived, with a
maximum rate of fecundity, efficient dispersal mechanisms, dense settlement, and rapid growth rates.
However, it is recognized that tube dwellers and permanent burrow dwellers are most susceptible to these
types of disturbances compared to more mobile organisms.
Cumulative Effects on Red Knot. Please refer to the introduction to cumulative impacts for a description of
past, present, and reasonable foreseeable future actions (Section 10.0) and Cumulative Effects on Piping Plover
above as the same activities have the potential to affect resting or foraging red knots that may be migrating
through the Proposed Action Area and beyond during the spring and early fall.
Most of the precipitous decline of the red knot is tied to (1) climate change which is likely to continue to affect
asynchrony with food supplies as the birds migrate south too soon from the Arctic and (2) the commercial
horseshoe crab harvest in Delaware Bay which has severely depleted a preferred food source during their
migration. While horseshoe crab harvests have been managed since 2012 with conservation of the red knot
in mind, the horseshoe crab populations in Delaware Bay have not yet rebounded; data from a 2016 study
(Smith et al.) show the Delaware Bay population of horseshoe crab to be stable and to have grown in the
Southeast. Preferred red knot prey in Virginia during spring migration was determined to be blue mussels on
peat banks (despite the availability and abundance of other prey); blue mussels have been shown to migrate
north in response to climate changes and shifts may occur more rapidly than the red knot can adapt to and
result is spatial and temporal mismatches (Heller 2020). Any such mismatches of other benthic prey would
adversely affect red knot's ability to refuel during spring migration.
Cumulative impact from persistent stress can be inferred when a population declines. More specifically, when
combined with other stressors such as repeated flushing while foraging or from sheltered areas during

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 140 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

inclement weather, such impacts can have a cumulative negative impact on fecundity and overwinter survival
(Byrne et al. 2009).
Interrelated and Interdependent Actions. There are no interrelated and interdependent actions associated
with this project; therefore, there are no anticipated adverse effects to the rufa red knot from such actions.
Determination on Red Knot. Effects are considered insignificant or discountable; therefore, the
Proposed Action may affect but is not likely to adversely affect the red knot.
10.4 Sea Turtles
For sea turtles occurring in the Atlantic Ocean, the applicant presumes to operate under the 2020 SARBO
which found physical injury or other take by mechanical (cutterhead) dredging of green, loggerhead,
hawksbill, leatherback, and/or Kemp's ridley sea turtles to be "extremely unlikely" while hopper dredging was
determined likely to adversely affect these species. Sand placement activities described in the 2020 SARBO
were deemed temporary and insignificant to these sea turtles due to the included PDCs. The applicant
acknowledges the needs for compliance with all current recommendations and PDCs of the 2020 SARBO as
well as future revisions to the SARBO should they occur during the timeframe of the project.
Direct and Indirect Effects Common to Sea Turtles. Non-breeding sea turtles of all five species with
potential to be affected can be found in the nearshore waters in the Proposed Action Area during much of the
year and may be disturbed by increased turbidity or disrupted while swimming during dredging activities (NPS
2013b). During sand placement activities, the primary direct effects on sea turtles which may nest on the
beach include disturbance during nesting and the potential for escarpments and compaction of beach sand.
Large escarpments can impede access to nesting areas, increase the number of false crawls, or cause a turtle
to lay eggs in a location subject to overwash (Byrd 2004). Sand compaction can affect digging behavior and
result in false crawls, can affect incubation temperature which in turn affects sex ratios, and can affect gas
exchange parameters within incubating nests (Mann 1977, Ackerman 1980, Mortimer 1982b, Raymond 1984).
Other effects from construction activities would be noise, construction lighting, and the potential for a nest to
be crushed if missed by the NPS regular patrols.
Noise criteria for sea turtles as well as other species have been somewhat formalized between NMFS and the
US Navy. To replace regulatory uncertainty with scientific facts, NOAA convened a panel in 2004 to develop
noise exposure criteria for fishes and sea turtles. When NOAA’s support ended in 2006, a Working Group was
established to determine broadly applicable sound exposure guidelines for fishes and sea turtles under the
support of ANSI-Accredited Standards Committee S3/SC 1, Animal Bioacoustics, which is supported by the
Acoustical Society of America. Few data are available on the hearing abilities of sea turtles, their uses of
sounds, or their vulnerabilities (Popper et al. 2014), although Level A (205 dB re 1µPa2·sec) and Level B (182
dB re 1µPa2·sec) criteria for sea turtle harassment have been considered by NMFS and the US Navy for
explosions associated with certain ordnance disposal training operations, and interim criteria have been
developed by NMFS for pile driving. While some researchers have suggested that marine mammals should be
used as the analog for sea turtle responses to noise, the view of the Working Group was that fishes are more
appropriate due to dissimilar functions of the marine mammal cochlea and the basilar papilla in the ear of
sea turtles (Popper et al. 2014). Broadband sounds of many frequencies are generated from dredge activities
and are non-impulsive and intermittent. Figure 10.1 displays hearing frequency ranges for some marine
species, including sea turtles, and the main energy frequencies for some anthropogenic sources (after Figure
3 in McQueen, Suedel, and Wilkins 2019).

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 141 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

FIGURE 10.1. Hearing frequency ranges of selected fish and mammal species and main energy frequencies reported for
anthropogenic and ambient sources (from Figure 3 McQueen et al 2019, after Suedel et al. 2018)

For turtle activities on shore, much research links decreased sea turtle nesting in areas with human activity,
disruptions to hatchling ability to orient, caused by high light levels, and increased hatchling predation
compared to natural beaches (Witherington 1992, Kikukawa et al. 1999, and Martin 2000) Although nest
relocations in the project area already occur somewhat regularly due to the narrow eroding beach, relocations
as a result of the project construction would be another direct effect. During the 2017 nesting season and
previous Buxton beach restoration project, one sea turtle nest was laid in an active work zone on a night when
the dredge was not in operation. A total of 15 sea turtle nests were laid within the 2017 nourishment area and
all were relocated. These relocations comprised 20.8 percent of the 72 relocated nests in 2017 (Doshkov et al
2018). In 2018, there was no nourishment activity and a total of 61 nests were relocated (Thompson et al 2019).
Dredging itself, the noise associated with dredging and piping, and the concomitant increased turbidity in the
waters of the proposed borrow area, could also present adverse effects to sea turtles. While monitoring
requirements and procedures prior to and during dredging make it unlikely, potential entrainment of a turtle
by the dredge operation could also be a direct effect.
As part of the standard management practices, NPS personnel conduct daily patrols from 1 May to 15
September in most years but the end date can extend through September when conditions favor late nesting.

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 142 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

Ordinarily, they are charged to relocate only those nests directly threatened with loss from erosion, nests laid
below the high tide line and subject to frequent inundation, and nests with broken eggs from predation or
ORV contact. Over the period of 2012 – 2014 within all of Hatteras District (Ramp 30 to Hatteras Spit), the
relocation rate is slightly higher in Hatteras South-from Cape Point to Hatteras Inlet (24.9 percent average)
than from Hatteras North-from Cape Point to Ramp 30 (16.8 percent). But it is impossible to predict how many
nests would be moved in any given year in the future if the project were not to occur. Conclusions reached on
the success of the Seashore's beach management plan with the needs for management of nesting sea turtle
concluded that the current criteria for nest relocation and frequency of relocation matched the Seashore's
goal for such activity and the nest management program is likely sufficient (Walters et al 2020).
However, per project specific informal guidance from USFWS/NCWRC on 29 July 2015, any turtle nest found
within the project area will be relocated as soon as possible after discovery by USFWS and NCWRC-approved
personnel. The relocations would follow all current USFWS/NPS/NCWRC guidelines and protocols should they
be different than what was provided in 2015. Within the entire Seashore for the past nine years (2011-2019),
the average percent of relocated nests is 26.7. Over that same period, except for one year, mean hatch
success, mean emergence success, and overall nest success has been higher in the relocated nests than in the
in situ nests; the exception was 2017 when mean hatch success and mean emergence success was less in the
relocated nests (Table 10.1).
From 2010 to 2019, the number of sea turtle nests laid within the project area ranged from 4 in 2014 to 43 in
2019. As described elsewhere, lack of safe harbors in the Proposed Action Area results in preference for a
summer dredging window. Therefore, this project poses a higher threat to sea turtles because the sand
placement is proposed to occur during two months of the nesting season which runs from May through
September. Existing NPS management activities will continue to occur in addition to daily turtle patrols
during construction to limit and minimize adverse effects to these species.
The project also may have indirect effects on sea turtle nesting habitat which could include changes in beach
morphology or sediment characteristics. Changes in beach morphology could result in less preferred nest
sites and changes in sand characteristics (higher mineral content or color change) can cause a temperature
change in the nest which is known to affect the sex ratios of hatchlings.

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 143 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

TABLE 10.1. Sea turtle nest relocation compared to in situ success in the Seashore 2011-2019
(compiled from Cape Hatteras National Seashore annual sea turtle monitoring reports available online
and Cape Hatteras National Seashore, Paul Doshkov, Supervisory Biological Technician, pers. comm. 4
November 2020).
Year
Percent
relocated
nests
Nest Type Mean hatch
success
Mean
emergence
success
Nest
success
In situ 58.6 49.1 64.2
Relocated 66.6 55 75.3
In situ 53.7 47.9 68.2
Relocated 66.8 56.2 80.3
In situ 61.1 54.3 67.2
Relocated 59.2 51.1 69.4
In situ 59.3 52.3 68.2
Relocated 70.5 58.3 89.4
In situ 55.4 47.4 63
Relocated 62.7 55.1 73.2
In situ 48 44 57
Relocated 58.9 47 60.6
In situ 63.7 55 72
Relocated 68.3 59.6 89.2
In situ 78 73.1 88.6
Relocated 80.96 74.46 98.1
In situ ---
Relocated ---
In situ 59.7 52.9 68.6
Relocated 66.7 57.1 79.4
*one nest was laid within the active work zone on a night when dredge was not in
operation. Of the 72 relocated nests, 15 were laid in the sand placement area (20.8%)
**2011 report did not contain summary data in this format
Average 26.7
25.9
26.6
26
24.3
Selected Sea Turtle Nest Data from Cape Hatteras Annual Monitoring
Reports 2011-2019
2014
2013
2012
2011**
2019
2018
2017*
2016
2015
36.7
28.8
26.1
19.3
27

Suitable sand size and color and measures to avoid disturbance of sea turtles during dredging and sand
placement will help minimize effects. One beneficial direct effect for this species would include the potential
for increased habitat suitable for nesting due to the wider beach.
Although ORV access and authorized ORV calendar use of ORV areas are strictly managed by NPS practices
and regulations, known turtle nests are protected with buffers, and incubating nests and hatchlings are
monitored and protected, a wider beach may also promote increased use of the beach by ORVs, as well as
pedestrians. Under this scenario, the potential that a turtle is disrupted from nesting or that a nest or
hatchling is disturbed also increase.
The project action may temporarily adversely affect turtles during the short term of construction although it
is likely to have a longer term beneficial effect post-construction as potential turtle nesting habitat is likely to
expand from a wider beach. Addition of appropriate sand from the proposed borrow area similar in color and

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 144 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

grain size is expected. The addition of sand in the nearshore environment replaces sand lost as a result of
natural processes in this eroding beach, which will reduce this beach’s susceptibility to a breach in the near
future, enhance its resilience, and help sustain its biological integrity. While construction of a wider beach in
more developed coastal regions of North Carolina may cause an increase in summer rentals with a
concomitant increase in night lighting, the majority of this project occurs in the National Seashore where
further development and increased lighting will not occur. The portion of the project area adjacent to existing
sandbagged structures in Buxton Village (where the beach is currently so narrow that a turtle is unlikely to
select it for a nest and if one was laid it would have to be relocated) will also be wider; a wider beach front
may spur an increase in rental use of these particular structures and therefore an increase in nighttime lights
and nighttime pedestrians.
Differences in Direct and Indirect Effects among Sea Turtles. The difference between the potential
effects on these five sea turtle species is based on the extent to which the species is likely to be present during
the proposed activity. Species presence and potential effects are closely related to nesting, with the
leatherback, Kemp’s ridley and green sea turtles being infrequent nesters, while the hawksbill never nests in
North Carolina. Of the five sea turtles, the loggerhead is the species most likely to be affected by the Proposed
Action.
10.4.1 Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle
Of the sea turtles that commonly or occasionally nest in North Carolina, the Kemp’s ridley is the rarest and is
least likely to nest on eroding or steep beaches, characteristics of the proposed beach at Buxton. Kemp’s ridley
is primarily a tropical to subtropical nesting species; however, preliminary data from 2000 through 2020
documented 37 nests in North Carolina with 36 of them since 2010 with 14 of those in the Seashore
(www.seaturtle.org through 18 November 2020) a clear indication of increased use of NC beaches. The
National Seashore documented its first Kemp’s ridley nest in 2011 (this nest was not in the previous action
area (Cape Hatteras National Seashore, Randy Swilling, Natural Resource Program Manager, pers. comm., 10
April 2015); information about the location of the other 13 relative to the Proposed Action Area was not
available at the time of document preparation. As the use of North Carolina beaches by this species seems to
be on the increase, the potential exists for it to come ashore in the Proposed Action Area or to be in the waters
in the vicinity of the dredge and pipeline.
10.4.2 Leatherback Sea Turtle
The leatherback is also a rare nester in North Carolina and especially rare in the northern part of North
Carolina; from 2000 to 2020 preliminary NCWRC data documented 37 nests (www.seaturtle.org). Nine nests
have been documented in North Carolina since 2010, one of which was in the Seashore in 2012, but no nests
were documented in the state for the past two years. Although loggerhead, green, and Kemp’s ridley sea
turtles are commonly found in beach strandings in the National Seashore, leatherbacks strand more rarely
and only nine were documented from 2010-2020 on Hatteras Island (www.seaturtle.org; preliminary data). No
leatherback nests were documented in the previous Buxton action area (Cape Hatteras National Seashore,
Randy Swilling, Natural Resource Program Manager, pers. comm., 10 April 2015); according to the NRWC
preliminary data, this statement remains true since neither of the only other nests documented after 2015
(two in 2018) were located in the Seashore. This species is less likely to be impacted by either dredge or sand
placement activities than loggerheads or green sea turtles. Per project specific USFWS/NCWRC guidance, nest
surveys for leatherback may be required to begin 15 April since this species may nest earlier than May.

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 145 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

10.4.3 Green Sea Turtle
The green sea turtle is essentially a tropical species and does not generally breed in temperate zones, but it
does occasionally nest on North Carolina beaches, and occurs in North Carolina waters during the warmer
months where it feeds on sea grass in the sounds. Preliminary NCWRC data indicate that from 2000 to 2020,
456 green sea turtle nests were documented in North Carolina, 332 of that total were found since 2010
(www.seaturtle.org). Over those same years, 164 nests were located in the Seashore, 123 of those since 2010.
A somewhat regular nester in the Seashore with an upward trend over the last decade, individual green sea
turtles may be impacted in the water during dredging or on the beach during sand placement activity.
10.4.4 Loggerhead Sea Turtle
The loggerhead sea turtle is well adapted to the highly dynamic environment of the Outer Banks and is the most
common marine turtle nesting in North Carolina; the average number of nests per year reported in Godfrey
(2013) was around 750 while preliminary NCWRC data indicate that from 2000-2020 the average was 941
(www.seaturtle.org). Since 2000, 19,754 loggerhead nests were documented in North Carolina with 10,744 of
them in the National Seashore; since 2010 the state total was 13,052 of which 4,042 were in the Seashore
(www.seaturtle.org). Within the action area from 2010-2019, mostly loggerhead nests have been documented
(Outer Banks Group, Leslie Frattaroli, Acting GIS Specialist, pers. comm., 27–28 October, 29 December 2014 and
Cape Hatteras National Seashore, Paul Doshkov, Supervisory Biological Technician, pers comm.5 November
2020). While tagging data have been used most extensively to predict population numbers for marine sea
turtles, satellite telemetry of a southwest Florida loggerhead rookery improved measurements of site fidelity
(philopatry) and revealed a need to recalculate fecundity estimates (Tucker 2009). If clutch frequency numbers
are representative of the Western Atlantic population of this species, then confidence bounds on the estimated
breeding stock could be underestimated by as much as 32 percent (Tucker 2009). The Proposed Action is most
likely to impact the loggerhead sea turtle, the most common sea turtle to nest in North Carolina, with either
dredge or sand placement activity.
10.4.5 Hawksbill Sea Turtle
From 2008 to 2020 (as of 7 October), there is no record of a stranding of a hawksbill (www.seaturtle.org) while
the first two nests were documented in North Carolina in 2015 (Finn et al 2016). While it is possible one could
occur in North Carolina waters, due to its rarity of occurrence in North Carolina among sea turtle species with
the potential to occur, hawksbill individuals are the least likely to be encountered.
Cumulative Effects Common to Sea Turtles. Please refer to the introduction to cumulative impacts for a
description of past, present, and reasonable foreseeable future actions (Section 10.0). Climate change directly
affects the reproduction of sea turtles in three ways: (1) sea level rise may affect significant nesting beach
areas on low-level sand beaches, (2) higher temperatures increase the chance that sand temperature will
exceed the upper limit for egg incubation which is 34°C, and (3) higher temperatures bias the sex ratio toward
females because incubation temperature determines the sex of the egg. Loggerhead turtle nests in Florida are
already producing 90 percent females owing to high temperatures, and if warming raises temperatures by an
additional 1°C or more, no males will be produced there.
Adult feeding patterns are also affected by climate change. Sea grass beds are in decline, water temperature
is higher on intertidal sea grass flats, and coral reefs, typically feeding grounds for green turtles, are affected
by bleaching. Sea turtles have existed for more than 100 million years and have survived ice ages, sea level

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 146 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

fluctuations of more than 100 meters and major changes to the continents and the seas. As a result, they may
be able to respond to unfavorable nesting temperatures or inundation of beaches as they have in the past, by
seeking out new nesting sites or modifying the seasonality of nesting. However, changes in the climate may
not proceed in a linear fashion and may cross thresholds of stability in ways that are unpredictable and that
lead to rapid and abrupt and potential irreversible changes in temperature or other abiotic factors. Such rapid
or abrupt changes may challenge the historic resilience of sea turtles to adapt. Even if the pace of change is
not rapid or abrupt, it may still take decades or centuries for sea turtles to re-establish and stabilize their
habitats, and steadily encroaching human development of coastal areas makes the availability of new habitat
for them very limited.
Without rapid or abrupt changes in coastal storm patterns or intensity, coastal development will continue to
increase which would increase the number of buildings and roads which are lighted at night which may
adversely affect nesting and hatching sea turtles. With more development come more residents and tourists
which increase recreational use of the beach in the Proposed Action Area and beyond. Increased use of the
beach by both beach-goers and their pets may contribute to increased disturbance of nesting sea turtles and
turtle hatchlings in the area. More people bring more trash/garbage and associated scavengers which may
rob sea turtle nests. Despite expected increased development in other parts of the Outer Banks, the miles of
the Seashore will remain undeveloped and mostly unlit and the village of Buxton will not be able to expand
to its north or south due to the Seashore boundary.
Interrelated and Interdependent Actions. There are no interrelated and interdependent actions associated
with this project; therefore, there are no anticipated adverse effects to sea turtles from such actions.
Determination on Sea Turtles. Minimization measures followed by the National Park Service (all nests will
be relocated prior to construction) and adherence by the dredge contractor to the required 2020 SARBO PDCs
during the project would minimize the likelihood of lethal take on the beach and in nearshore waters;
however, there is a likelihood that an incidental take could occur (especially for the loggerhead). The 2020
SARBO final NMFS determination for four of the five sea turtles addressed in this document was Likely
to Adversely Affect while a Not Likely to Adversely Affect determination was included for the hawksbill.
The USACE would initiate formal Section 7 consultation with USFWS for nesting sea turtles and the 2020
SARBO from NMFS is expected to be utilized for any sea turtle take which may occur in nearshore waters. The
National Park Service would issue a Special Use Permit subject to issuance of a USACE permit for the project.
10.5 Marine Mammals
10.5.1 Whales
Direct and Indirect Effects Common among Whales. Noise generated as part of the dredge and pipeline
operations would be one direct effect experienced among any whale in the vicinity of the operation within
range of its hearing. Short impulsive sounds and nearby high frequency sounds have been documented to be
disruptive to many species of marine life including whales, other aquatic mammals, and fishes. However,
aside from the occasional normal activity which may create a punctuation noise event at higher or louder
frequency such as transit maneuvers or cavitations, most of the noise generated during the dredge and
pipeline activity would be continuous and low range. A trailing suction hopper dredge operation is purported
to emit sound levels at frequencies below 500 Hz, a level generally parallel to that of a cargo ship traveling at
moderate speed [Robinson et al. 2011 (per CEDA Position Paper 7 November 2011) Reine et al. 2014].

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 147 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

As stated by Reine et al. (2014), using the current NMFS threshold, peak source levels did not exceed Level A
Criterion (180dB re 1µPa rms) for injury/mortality to marine mammals during any aspect of the dredging
operations in the study. However, in this Reine study, noise levels exceeded 120dB, Level B Criterion for
harassment, and were measured at this level out to 1.3 miles from the source. While it is acknowledged that
smaller support vessels and the pipeline emit higher frequency noise than the dredge and that pipeline noise
also increases with size of the aggregate in the pipe, the sand size in the proposed borrow area will not be
large; in addition, higher frequency sound attenuates faster than low frequency. For the dredges in the Reine
et al. (2014) study, attenuation distances for noise levels associated with eight different dredge operations
among three different dredges ranged from <0.7 mile to 1.7 miles.
In August of 2016, NOAA NMFS released its advisory acoustic guidance on effects of human activities on marine
mammal hearing and followed in September with its Ocean Noise Strategy Roadmap to better guide the
agency for the next 10 years to minimize acute, chronic, and cumulative effects of noise on marine species
and their habitat. Efforts included robust and cooperative cetacean and sound mapping efforts, management,
and outreach. In response to Presidential Executive Order 13795 in 2017, the technical guidance was reviewed
and deemed scientifically based and remained unchanged in the 2018 update although efforts to clarify and
improve implementation of the guidance were added (NOAA/NMFS 2018). In 2020, NOAA posted two new
tools for users to assess noise effects generated from their project based on the type of equipment/activity
and potential cetaceans present; tools which were designed to assist with implementation of the guidance
(https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-acoustic-technical-
guidance). More can be found about NOAA’s 10-year plan and Ocean Noise Strategy at this website:
https://cetsound.noaa.gov/ons. However, the 2016/2018 advisory acoustic thresholds apply to a single
source and may not be appropriate for multiple sources or for animal exposures over various temporal and
spatial scales and the thresholds and guidance serve as one tool among others to evaluate effects.
Nevertheless, while research has increased in the last decade on the biological effects of marine noise and
more is known about types of noise to which some types of cetacean are most susceptible, not enough is
known to be able to confidently state a degree of injury with a particular degree of noise for a particular
species, especially not on an individual basis. Therefore, an individual whale in close proximity to the dredge
operation could experience a temporary hearing loss if exposed for long enough, but this is not thought likely
as the whale could move away from the noise source; this noise avoidance could be considered harassment
if the noise level exceeded 120 dB. Noise avoidance could affect foraging behavior which could lead to reduced
productivity if there were prey in the vicinity of the noise that did not also avoid the noise source. Noises could
interfere with communication between whales in the vicinity. There would be an increased risk of collision
with a project-associated vessel. Nourishment and renourishment projects targeted for segments of the North
Carolina coast that include offshore dredging may pose the potential for indirect effects.
Previously, based on limited photographs taken by observers on vessels and occasionally from airplanes, it
was thought that the larger whales did not entangle as frequently with fishing gear as the smaller marine
mammals. However, analysis of recent photographs collected by drones in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence showed
that as much as 60 percent of the blue whales and 50 percent of the fin whales showed evidence of
entanglement with nets at some point in their lives; for the North Atlantic right whales it was also 60 percent
while humpbacks were 80 percent (Ramp et al. 2021).
As required for previous similar operations/projects, under the 2020 SARBO, the PDCs for protected species
observers will require trained on board marine mammal observers to greatly reduce the potential for collision

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 148 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

or other direct interaction with any whales in the area. In addition, if disturbed by the noise associated with
the dredge operation, any whale is likely to avoid the project vicinity.
Differences in Direct and Indirect Effects among Whales. As the whale most often recorded in ship strikes
and collisions, the fin whale is more susceptible to activities which result in an increase in ocean vessel traffic,
addition of a new commercially targeted fishery, or changes in methods or popularity of an existing fishery.
None of these effects are expected as a result of the Proposed Action.
As the most popular whale species targeted for human observation, humpback whales are more susceptible
to potential harassment from whale watchers in both their winter and summer congregation areas. Although
more humpbacks have stranded in Dare County than other species of whales, humpbacks generally are
further offshore and migrate through in the fall and spring so the whale-watching industry is not as popular
or as sophisticated in North Carolina as it is in places like the Gulf of Maine or Baja California. Potential
harassment of humpback whales is not likely to increase as a result of the Proposed Action.
As the whale most likely to utilize the shallower waters within the Proposed Action Area, especially during
spring migration, the North Atlantic right whale is the species with the highest likelihood of being in the vicinity
of the dredge activity. One of the rarest and most critically endangered of whale, the species is also a
somewhat regular fall and winter visitor to North Carolina waters.
Cumulative Effects Common among Whales. Please refer to the introduction to cumulative impacts for a
description of past, present, and reasonable foreseeable future actions (Section 10.0). In response to a rise in sea
surface temperatures from climate change, recent research has shown that over a 27-year period, fin and
humpback whales have adapted their arrival to feeding grounds in the Gulf of St. Lawrence by one day later
each year. During the period of the study researchers were surprised to find that, despite following separate
migration routes, the two species synchronized their arrival times each year to avoid competing with each
other for food (Ramp et al. 2015). As whales have adapted to many other changes in climate in the historic
record, this study gives hope that these animals will continue to adapt to the current challenges of climate
change, but their response would be affected by the rate of change and how adaptable their food source is to
the same challenges. Climate change effects on the North Atlantic right whale is tied to a tiny crustacean,
Calanus finmarchicus, a key food source. Without dense patches of this zooplankton, female whales are
unable to bulk up to prepare for calving, carry a pregnancy to term or produce enough milk. When the
concentration of zooplankton is too low, right whales do not feed; such highly concentrated patches often
occur where currents converge or at the boundary of water of different densities. Changes of seawater
temperature, winds and water currents can affect patch formation of zooplankton (New England Aquarium
website www.neaq.org).
On 25 September 2020, President Trump issued a Memorandum to the Secretary of the Interior that added
certain areas off the coasts of North Carolina and Virginia into the previous moratorium against offshore
drilling for oil and gas leasing, exploration, or production and extended that moratorium to 2032. The coasts
of the Gulf of Mexico, Georgia, and South Carolina were included in the original moratorium issued a month
earlier. While the moratorium may reduce the potential cetacean impacts from noise and other related
activities of this industry and is therefore hopeful from a biological resource protection point of view, the
political life of such a moratorium is speculative. Cumulative effects to the fin, humpback, and North Atlantic
right whales would include the continuation of current threats such as ensnarement in commercial fishing
gear, overfishing of prey species for human or animal food sources, and habitat degradation. Noise
generated as a result of LaMont-Doherty Earth Observatory’s month-long 2014 air gun survey off North
Carolina to study the earth’s crust may have been disruptive to whales moving through the area. A recent

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 149 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

study modeled over 8,000 hours of cetacean survey data across a large marine ecosystem (> 308,000 mi2) to
investigate the effect of seismic surveys on baleen and toothed whales and found significant effect of seismic
activity across multiple species and habitats compared to control surveys (88% decrease in sightings of
baleen whales and 53% decrease in sightings of toothed whales) (Kavanagh et al 2019). When added to the
noise generated by any previous larger scale seismic testing/surveys in ocean waters from Delaware to
Florida as part of oil/gas exploration activities proposed in 2015 and supported in 2017 by the Trump
administration until the recent moratorium mentioned above and by pile-driving associated with
construction of offshore wind turbine clusters on the western Atlantic continental shelf, noise may be
cumulatively detrimental even if it does not cause measureable injury. Once constructed, offshore oil/gas
platforms and wind turbines will require vessels to supply operation and/or maintenance personnel and
equipment which will increase noise from vessel traffic, facility operations, and will increase potential for
ship collisions.
Interrelated and Interdependent Actions. There are no interrelated and interdependent actions associated
with this project; therefore, there are no anticipated adverse effects to whales from such actions.
Determination on Whales. Under the 2020 SARBO, No Effect determinations by the USACE/BOEM were
included for blue, fin, sei, and sperm whales when all pertinent PDCs are followed by all participants of
any proposed project covered under the 2020 SARBO; however, a determination of Not Likely to Adversely
Affect was also included for the North Atlantic right whale. The NMFS final determination in the 2020 SARBO
for each of the five whales was Not Likely to Adversely Affect (2020 SARBO, Table 8, pg 91). Pertinent 2020
SARBO North Atlantic right whale PDCs (e.g. vessel speed reductions if sighted within 38 nautical miles) will
be followed and since the applicant's preferred construction window is summer, the Proposed Action will
align with the NMFS determination of Not Likely to Adversely Affect the North Atlantic right whale.
While humpback whales are unlikely to be in shallow waters of the Proposed Action, but potentially could be,
and the species was not included in the SARBO, the Proposed Action may affect, but is not likely to
adversely affect the humpback whale.
10.5.2 West Indian Manatee
Direct and Indirect Effects on West Indian Manatee. Although a very rare summer visitor in inland waters
north of Cape Hatteras and also seldom in the NC ocean waters north of Carteret County, the West Indian
manatee might be found in the vicinity of, or between, Hatteras or Oregon inlet in the summer to access its
preferred shallow vegetated back barrier habitats away from more saline ocean waters. Noise effects on
manatee may be similar to those experienced by whales (see above text) although perhaps a manatee would
not perceive the noise from as far away as a whale may or levels may differ slightly as the manatee is neither
a pinniped nor is it depicted among the species shown in Figure 9.1. In quieter waters of canals and rivers
manatees are known to avoid boats when they can escape to nearby deeper water; boat collisions are a
primary source of injury and death to manatees. Along with their own results, Gaspard et al. (2015) cite other
research that confirms manatees have relatively high frequency hearing and the ability to localize sound
sources from boats (fast or slow moving) as long as the background noise did not exceed their broad hearing
range. Hopper dredge noise from propeller cavitation, draghead vacuuming, and submerged slurry pipeline
noise, was shown to interfere with manatees' ability to detect boat noise in a river (Gerstein et al. 2006) while
McQueen et al. (2019) indicated a modeled masking zone distance from dredging noise of 1,680 to 13,438
feet for manatee.
Cumulative Effects on West Indian Manatee. Please refer to the introduction to cumulative impacts for a
description of past, present, and reasonable foreseeable future actions (Section 10.0). Summer dredge work
associated with Oregon Inlet could also possibly disturb West Indian manatee, although it is a very rare visitor

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 150 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

to the ocean side of NC inlets. Increased development of the Outer Banks increases the likelihood of more
boats in the sounds which may collide with the rare manatee summer visitor, while an increase in
temperatures of summer waters in North Carolina due to climate change could attract more manatee visitors
in the future and increase the opportunity for and likelihood of human interactions. However, as winter
populations may be negatively affected by the future closure of coal plants and the warm water outfall
congregations of manatees and climate change may foster more frequent winter temperature anomalies,
there may be less pressure for the males (typically) to wander further north in the summer.
Interrelated and Interdependent Actions. There are no interrelated and interdependent actions associated
with this project; therefore, there are no anticipated adverse effects to West Indian manatee from such actions.
Determination on West Indian Manatee. Although its appearance in North Carolina near Cape Hatteras is
rare and there is little to no summer preferred habitat in the project area, a summer visitor could be in vicinity
of the dredge operations; effects are considered insignificant and discountable so the Proposed Action may
affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the West Indian manatee.
10.6 Fishes
10.6.1 Atlantic Sturgeon
Direct and Indirect Effects on Atlantic Sturgeon. Atlantic sturgeon have been documented in the
nearshore marine waters in the vicinity of the Proposed Action Area so the potential exists that one could be
foraging or migrating in the waters during the dredge and pipeline activity or during the placement of
sediments on the target beach. Their presence is possible throughout the year, so a summer dredge window
does not necessarily increase the potential for effect; in fact, results from a recent acoustic study conducted
by the Atlantic Cooperative Telemetry Network from February 2012 – May 2014 off of Cape Hatteras indicated
numbers are highest in November and March (referenced in CBI 2015). Direct effects could include noise,
turbidity, temporary interruption of access to food sources, accidental collision with hopper dredge or
support vessels, and potential loss of foraging habitat due to potential changes in prey species habitat as a
result of the dredge activity. However, the average incidental take of Atlantic sturgeon during all USACE-
authorized dredging projects on the southeast Atlantic coast since 1995 is 0.7/year, and most of those
incidental takes associated with dredging occur in inlets or harbors, not offshore (David Bauman, Regional
Environmental Specialist, USACE Southeast Division HQ, pers. comm., 4 September 2015). In US Gulf and
Atlantic sandy borrow areas studied within BOEM jurisdiction, general faunal recovery (total abundance and
biomass) has been shown to vary from 3 months to 2.5 years; however, paucity of long term studies suggest
that diversity and dominants composition may take 3.5 years (Michel et al. 2013). No infilling fines in the
borrow area and accurate placement of properly sized sediment at Nags Head Beach in 2011 allowed a full
suite of species similar to the native beach and offshore zone to recolonize the impact areas within one season
and by the second year taxa richness and abundances were similar to controls (CZR 2014).
Indirect effects to Atlantic sturgeon as a result of the project may include changes in the marine nearshore
bottom habitats as a result of changes in bathymetry in the proposed borrow area shoal. If those changes in
bathymetry occur, the suite of potential prey species might also be altered. However, these effects are not
likely due to construction procedures designed to minimize such changes.
Cumulative Effects on Atlantic Sturgeon. Please refer to the introduction to cumulative impacts for a
description of past, present, and reasonable foreseeable future actions (Section 10.0). Like other species, climate
change has the potential to affect the Atlantic sturgeon with changes in temperature of the rivers and oceans

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 151 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

or seasonality of these changes. The variations in conditions may affect prey species or timing of sturgeon
movements from the ocean into freshwaters. Dams in place in spawning rivers will continue to block the
migration of Atlantic sturgeon into their native rivers; although there are efforts to remove some dams or
improve the migration pathway by construction of rock ramps at some dams. These rock ramps are
considered beneficial. Cumulative effects would also include continued commercial fisheries that use bottom
disturbing fishing gear in particular and accidental by catch of all types of commercial fisheries.
Interrelated and Interdependent Actions. There are no interrelated and interdependent actions
associated with this project; therefore, there are no anticipated adverse effects to the Atlantic sturgeon from
such actions.
Determination on Atlantic Sturgeon. Research has shown that the Atlantic sturgeon may be in the Proposed
Action Area in higher concentrations during November and March and primarily in proximity to inlets.
Although the nearest inlet is ~12 miles from the project area, the dredge activities may result in an incidental
take since there is much uncertainty about the habits of the species. The 2020 SARBO has no seasonal window
restrictions for sturgeon and includes a Likely to Adversely Affect determination for the Atlantic sturgeon. The
pertinent sturgeon 2020 SARBO PDCs will be followed during all proposed activities to minimize potential
effects, but as determined by the 2020 SARBO, the Proposed Action is likely to adversely affect Atlantic
sturgeon.
10.6.2 Shortnose Sturgeon
Direct and Indirect Effects on Shortnose Sturgeon. As this species is rarely documented within the aquatic
marine habitats of the Proposed Action Area there are no direct effects expected. They are sometimes
documented in nearshore marine areas close to inlets but the closest inlet is 12 miles away. There is a remote
chance that a shortnose sturgeon on its way between inlets and its estuarine and riverine habitats would be
in the area and potentially disturbed by dredging activities but this effect is unlikely. An indirect effect would
include a short-term decline in the amount and quality of benthic foraging habitat in the borrow area but this
effect is considered insignificant in light of the scale of available nearby similar foraging habitat.
Cumulative Effects on Shortnose Sturgeon. Please refer to the introduction to cumulative impacts for a
description of past, present, and reasonable foreseeable future actions (Section 10.0) and Cumulative Effects for
Atlantic Sturgeon which would also be considered similar for shortnose sturgeon. However, climate change
effects may affect the shortnose in different ways since more of its life is spent in the shallower waters of rivers,
river mouths, and estuaries. These bodies of water may respond to changes in precipitation or temperature
more quickly, or with more frequent variation, than the ocean with uncertain effects to the species which use
those habitats, including the shortnose sturgeon.
Interrelated and Interdependent Actions. There are no interrelated and interdependent actions associated
with this project; therefore, there are no anticipated adverse effects to shortnose sturgeon from such actions.
Determination on Shortnose Sturgeon. The 2020 SARBO includes a Likely to Adversely Affect determination
for the shortnose sturgeon largely due to the riverine and inlet dredging activities of many of the USACE
projects covered by the 2020 SARBO. This proposed Avon nourishment project is not located either in
proximity to a river or a nearby inlet and the species is very rare in the project area. Therefore, the Proposed
Action is not likely to adversely affect the shortnose sturgeon.

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 152 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

10.6.3 Giant Manta Ray
Direct and Indirect Effects on Giant Manta Ray. Never documented within the nearshore marine aquatic
habitats of the Proposed Action Area or project area and almost never documented in North Carolina north of
Cape Hatteras, there is the remote possibility that giant manta ray could be in the vicinity of the dredge
operation. However, direct and indirect effects are not likely.
Cumulative Effects on Giant Manta Ray. Please refer to the introduction to cumulative impacts for a
description of past, present, and reasonable foreseeable future actions (Section 10.0). All of its habits and
behaviors are not completely understood so additional threats may exist from activities not yet described. It
is likely that many of the existing threats from overutilization and bycatch, vessel strikes, entanglement, and
habitat degradation will continue despite its protected status. Its low fecundity and apparent habitat fidelity
make it particularly vulnerable to climate change factors which could be disruptive to past patterns of prey
which are driven by variations in currents and temperatures.
Interrelated and Interdependent Actions. There are no interrelated and interdependent actions associated
with this project; therefore, there are no anticipated adverse effects to giant manta ray from such actions.
Determination on Giant Manta Ray. The NMFS determined a Likely to Adversely Affect while the USACE
determined a Likely to Adversely Affect for hopper dredging and relocation trawling in the 2020 SARBO, but a
Not Likely to Adversely Affect for other activities covered by the SARBO. The 2020 SARBO covers a vast
geography that includes known congregation areas of the giant manta ray and offshore dredge locations
beyond state waters and in tropical inlets and estuaries the giant manta ray may frequent. However, the
likelihood of this species in the Proposed Action Area is very remote as it is considered generally rare north of
Cape Hatteras. A large portion of existing data are observational and incidental (usually tied to other types of
surveys), often lumped as "manta ray", aerial data may overlap which leads to potential double counts, and
rays are notoriously prone to misidentification, especially north of Cape Hatteras and without photographs
to corroborate (NMFS 2019 CFR 84 No. 234). Therefore, the proposed Action is not likely to adversely affect
giant manta ray.
10.7 Plants
10.7.1 Seabeach Amaranth
Direct and Indirect Effects on Seabeach Amaranth. As this species has not been documented within
Proposed Action Area and NPS personnel perform annual surveys, no direct effects are expected to any
existing populations. The deteriorated condition of the beach and absence of backshore area free of
vegetation with a stable dry beach to sustain the species continues to make the project area unsuitable for
seabeach amaranth. The project may increase suitable habitat, but no harmful indirect effects are expected.
Cumulative Effects on Seabeach Amaranth. Please refer to the introduction to cumulative impacts for a
description of past, present, and reasonable foreseeable future actions (Section 10.0). Increased storm intensity
or frequency could have both adverse and beneficial effects on seabeach amaranth. Often colonizing species
on somewhat ephemeral habitats like overwash fans, the seabeach amaranth could benefit from increased
events of this type provided there was seed available from a nearby population or dormant seeds exposed by
the erosion/deposit. Conversely, larger more frequent storms could wash away or bury established
populations. Coastal development and encroachment on habitat by increased human recreational use of the
dry beach will continue to have adverse effects on seabeach amaranth.

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 153 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

Interrelated and Interdependent Actions. There are no interrelated and interdependent actions associated
with this project; therefore, there are no anticipated adverse effects to seabeach amaranth from such actions.
Determination on Seabeach Amaranth. Effects are considered discountable; therefore, the Proposed
Action will have no effect on this species.
10.8 Critical Habitat
The only species with designated critical habitat in the project area is the loggerhead sea turtle. Recent
telemetric tracking of juvenile loggerheads indicate that the life history of sea turtles is likely more complex
than previously understood (Mansfield et al. 2009, McClellan & Read 2007). Largely as a result of such tracking,
Constricted Migratory Corridor Critical Habitat for the northwest Atlantic Ocean loggerhead turtle Designated
Population Segment (DPS) was designated by final rule in July 2014 (Fig 10.2). This habitat is designated
primarily because of its high use and constricted narrow width (land to west and Gulf Stream to east). The
corridor is used by juvenile and adult loggerheads migrating between nesting, breeding, and foraging areas,
and because of such high use and narrowness, is more subject to perturbation. The Carolina DPS critical
habitat designation final rule 17 August 2017 includes the Tar-Pamlico River (unit 17 of Carolina DPS) for
Atlantic sturgeon; the mouth of the Tar-Pamlico River is approximately 39 miles west of Hatteras Inlet which
is the nearest inlet to the project area (16 miles to the southwest on the other side of Diamond Shoals).
Dredging and sand placement activities could present obstructions to loggerhead turtles in transit through
either the surf zone or the offshore borrow area. But as stated in the final rule (CFR # 15725 on 7.10.2014,
Comments on Constricted Migratory Corridors, response to comment 73), “…many of the possible impacts
associated with dredging and or disposal activities are not expected to occur, or to occur at a level that would
affect or modify the essential features of the critical habitat.” Additional conservation measures to avoid
impacts to this designated corridor are not likely beyond those measures that are typical for projects of this
type and which would be in place to protect the species itself.
Interrelated and Interdependent Actions. There are no interrelated and interdependent actions associated
with this project; therefore, there are no anticipated adverse effects to critical habitat from such actions.
Determination on Critical Habitat. Effects are considered insignificant; therefore, no critical habitat for
any species will be adversely affected by the Proposed Action.

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 154 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

FIGURE 10.2. [UPPER] Critical migratory habitat for the loggerhead sea turtle (in light yellow).
[LOWER] Critical migratory habitat designated units for loggerhead sea turtle.

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 155 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

11.0 EFFECTS TO EVALUATED SPECIES WITH OTHER FEDERAL AND/OR STATE PROTECTIONS AND
DETERMINATIONS
11.1 Marine Mammals
The aforementioned Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) of 1972, as amended, offers federal protection to
marine mammals within the waters of the U.S. The MMPA prohibits marine mammal takes and enacts a
moratorium on the import, export, and sale of any marine mammal, along with any marine mammal part or
product within the U.S. The Act defines take as the act of hunting, killing, capture, and/or harassment of any
marine mammal; or, the attempt at such. The MMPA defines harassment as any act of pursuit, torment or
annoyance which has the potential to either: (1) injure a marine mammal in the wild, or (2) disturb a marine
mammal by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, which includes, but is not limited to, migration,
breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering.
Of the 37 marine mammals with the potential to occur in the Proposed Action Area (see Table 8.1), only four are
considered common, uncommon/common, or common/abundant and the biology and distribution of these
four were described earlier in this text. Thirteen of the 37 are considered accidental/ casual or accidental/casual
to rare, 11 are considered rare, and 10 are considered uncommon or rare/uncommon. Seven of the 37 have
federal protection under the ESA and six of those were evaluated in earlier sections of this BA.
In the text below, when the term “marine mammal” is used, it does not include the marine mammal species with
ESA protection addressed earlier in this BA.
Direct and Indirect Effects on Marine Mammals. The common bottlenose dolphin is the most abundant
NC visitor among the 17 oceanic dolphins which may occur in NC waters and often will use inlets and river
mouths to access estuaries. A breach inlet formed due to continued erosion could have a beneficial effect and
provide new access to the sound and other back barrier habitats; duration of the effect would be determined
by time to closure or whether it was bridged. Of the four species of marine mammal common or abundant in
North Carolina waters, three are found year round (Atlantic spotted dolphin, common bottlenose dolphin,
and short-finned pilot whale) and one is found only during the winter or early spring (short-beaked common
dolphin). With the exception of the four earless seals, all of which are rare or accidental/casual but also occur
in shallower waters like the common bottlenose dolphin, most of the other marine mammals with potential
occurrence in North Carolina waters are oceanic and found further offshore in deeper waters than the −25 feet
to −50 feet found in the vicinity of the borrow area for the Proposed Action Area. Common bottlenose dolphin
in the shallow waters closer to the beach during sand placement under either winter or summer construction
may experience adverse impact during pumping operations or disturbance from other project-associated
vessels, but being mobile they would be able to easily find nearby suitable habitat for foraging or other
behaviors. Noise and turbidity may disrupt foraging of any marine mammals in the offshore borrow area
depending on prey availability and/or mask their ability to communicate with one another whether
construction occurs in winter or summer.
As only the common bottlenose dolphin is abundant to common and can be found close to the beach and
offshore, it is the only marine mammal likely to be affected by both the dredge operation and sand placement
activities under either alternative; winter construction may be more likely to affect pregnant or nursing
females of this species than summer construction. Winter construction would also be more likely to affect

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 156 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

short-beaked common dolphin during dredge operations compared to summer construction but this species
is usually associated with deeper waters.
NOAA guidelines define two levels of harassment for marine mammals: Level A based on a temporary
threshold shift (190dB re 1µPa for pinnipeds and 180dB re 1µPa for cetaceans), and Level B harassment with
the potential to disturb a marine mammal in the wild by a disruption to behavioral patterns such as
migration, breeding, feeding, and sheltering (160dB re 1µPa for impulse noise such as pile driving and 120
dB re 1µPa for continuous noise such as vessel thrusters). The 2015 guidance on anthropogenic-sourced
noise for temporary threshold shifts (TTS) and permanent threshold shifts (PTS) based on hearing
sensitivities within certain marine mammal groups was recently updated (NOAA 2018). Non-impulsive
sources evaluated in the updated guidance do include drilling and dB thresholds (peak and cumulative) for
non-impulsive activities range from 173 to 219 dB for PTS and 153 to 199 dB for TTS depending on whether
the cetacean is considered susceptible to a low, medium, or high frequency range (NOAA 2018). However,
dredging is not one of the activities evaluated and the new noise thresholds do not address behavioral
effects. So in the interim, noise associated with hydraulic cutterhead or hopper dredges operating in sandy
substrates are unlikely to exceed either the Level A or Level B thresholds. However, McQueen et al. (2019)
reviewed available marine mammal effects data for dredge-specific sounds and no adverse auditory
impacts were observed; biological responses of proxy species were limited to avoidance and potential
masking (Table 11.1 is screen shot of Table 2 from McQueen et al. 2019).

TABLE 11.1. Reported biological responses of mammals to dredge-induced underwater sounds.
NR = not reported; RMS = root mean square; SEL = sound exposure level; TTS = temporary threshold shift
aCalculated SEL values were below the TTS threshold values of 183 (seal; Southall 2007)
bCalculated SEL values were below the TTS threshold values of 195 (harbor porpoise; Southall 2007)

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 157 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

Cumulative Effects on Marine Mammals. Please refer to the introduction to cumulative impacts for a
description of past, present, and reasonable foreseeable future actions (Section 10.0). All of the dredging
associated with Hatteras Island future projects, either in Oregon Inlet or offshore, and sand placement during
future disposal of Oregon Inlet dredged material, or beach nourishment activities for other Dare County
beaches, would possibly disturb marine mammals in the vicinity of the dredge and pumping operations
(Atlantic spotted dolphin and common bottle nose dolphin primarily; other species are most often found in
deeper waters). Sand placement activities would possibly disturb species found closer to shore in shallower
water, e. g. the common bottle nose dolphin. Anthropogenic background sounds in the marine environment
have steadily increased and are likely to continue to increase from shipping and other uses of the ocean and
inland waters. Adverse biological effects from predominantly low frequency continuous sounds (such as
dredgers) that overlap with the hearing frequencies of many aquatic species have been of recent research
interest and McQueen et al. (2020) developed a framework of ecological risk flexible enough to adapt to new
information as species' exposures and responses are better understood. Shipping is the dominant source of
underwater noise below 300 Hz (Ross 1987, 1993 as referenced in USACE 2015). While this level is below 1 kHz,
the potential exists that this sound can mask biologically important significant sounds from groups of marine
mammals that produce and receive sounds in this band (e.g., pinnipeds and baleen whales such as fin and
humpback). Numerous actions around fisheries activities (e.g., legal and illegal bottom-disturbing fishing
gear) within state waters would continue and potential future actions (offshore wind projects, offshore oil and
gas seismic testing and drilling) all have the potential to adversely affect marine mammals to a larger degree
than the Proposed Action.
It is commonly assumed that climate variability will affect oceanographic conditions which contribute to sea
temperature, algal blooms, prey availability, and food webs; some of these factors, whether local or distant,
are likely to affect marine mammal strandings in unpredictable ways given the cryptic movements of certain
species. For example, if upwelling occurs closer to shore, or concentration of prey is dispersed atypically, some
marine mammals may be more likely to strand (e.g., shallower waters, exposure to toxins, or malnourishment
due to extra effort required to obtain food) (Department of the Navy 2017). Research also suggests that
hierarchical effects of environmental parameters such as variations in the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO)
were linked to marine mammal strandings for some species in New England (Harry 2015) and the St. Lawrence
Seaway (Truchon et al. 2013).
Interrelated and Interdependent Actions. There are no interrelated and interdependent actions associated
with this project; therefore, there are no anticipated adverse effects to marine mammals from such actions.
Determination on Marine Mammals. Either winter or summer construction has the potential to adversely
affect certain behaviors of some marine mammal species but effects would be temporary and short duration.
Many species demonstrate avoidance behaviors to noise levels associated with dredge activity and all species
are mobile. Effects are considered insignificant and discountable; therefore, the Proposed Action may effect
but is not likely to adversely affect marine mammals (most likely effects, should any occur, will most
likely be to the common bottlenose dolphin).

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 158 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

11.2 Colonial Waterbirds, Other Shorebirds, and Birds of Prey
Additional species of birds federally protected under the Migratory Bird Protection Act (MBTA) may occur in
the project area/vicinity; e.g., colonial waterbirds, other shorebirds, and birds of prey (bald eagle and
peregrine falcon). For MBTA-protected species, there is no provision for incidental take related to dredging or
filling or crushing by equipment. Take under the MBTA is defined as pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, capture,
or collect or attempt to purse, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, capture, or collect per 50 CFR §10.12. Some of these
birds also have state-level protection status as shown in Table 6.1 (pgs 46 – 49).
11.2.1 Colonial Waterbirds
Direct and Indirect Effects on Colonial Waterbirds. Continued erosion would affect colonial waterbird
nesting habitat, as the beach would eventually become too narrow to support nesting; however, a beneficial
effect would be the additional foraging and resting habitat should an inlet breach occur. Duration of this
benefit would depend on whether the breach remained open or closed and whether it was bridged. Winter
construction could have minor effects on foraging or resting black skimmer (present all year), common tern
(could be present March to November), and gull-billed tern and least tern (not likely to be present) while
summer construction could affect all five species. Caspian terns could be in project vicinity all year but most
are seen in closer proximity to rivers, inlets, and lakes; more are seen near Oregon Inlet (>30 miles away) than
Hatteras Inlet (12 miles away). Birds would be disturbed by construction activities on the beach. Existing
foraging and nesting habitat would also have short-term minor impacts during sand placement. These
impacts would be staggered, however, and progress over an 800 – 1,000-foot active impact area of the beach
at any given time as the sand is pumped and bulldozed. Approximately 200–300 feet of nourishment would be
completed per day, which would become immediately available for use by birds in the area, based on their
tolerance to disturbance and proximity to human activity. These disturbances would be minimized by the NPS
shorebird surveys, which are conducted March to mid-August, depending on species presence. These would
establish pre-nesting closures based on observed behaviors of target species and designated buffer distances
around nests, unfledged chicks, or fledglings (modified buffer distances for species and activity type as
described in the environmental assessment for ORVs prepared by Cape Hatteras National Seashore) (NPS
2015). No construction would occur within the closures or buffers.
Cumulative Effects on Colonial Waterbirds — Please refer to the introduction to cumulative impacts for a
description of past, present, and reasonable foreseeable future actions (Section 10.0). Habitat loss or
degradation due to human activities associated with recreation or development elsewhere in Dare County
would continue. Alternative 2–Winter Construction would provide up to ~3 years of beneficial long-term
impacts to nesting habitat (wider beach) and Alternative 3–Summer Construction would provide ~5 years.
Interrelated and Interdependent Actions on Colonial Waterbirds There are no interrelated and
interdependent actions associated with this project; therefore, there are no anticipated adverse effects to
colonial waterbirds from such actions.
Determination on Colonial Waterbirds. While potential effects differ due to seasonal presence or absence
of some species, construction would be unlikely to adversely affect colonial waterbirds due to NPS-
established monitoring surveys, closures, and buffers. Those NPS conservation activities and restrictions
would minimize, reduce, or avoid adverse potential effect. When added to the cumulative effect of the periodic
Oregon Inlet dredging continued development in Dare County, other Outer Banks beach nourishment projects,

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 159 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

effects are insignificant to discountable; therefore, the Proposed Action may affect but is not likely to
adversely affect colonial waterbirds.

11.2.2 Other Shorebirds and Birds of Prey
Direct and Indirect Effects on Wilson's Plover. The likelihood of an inlet breach would increase if erosion
is allowed to continue in the Proposed Action Area. Should an inlet breach occur, additional foraging habitat
(tidal mudflats and lagoons which support fiddler crabs, their favorite food) could result in a beneficial impact
to the back barrier west of NC 12. The duration of the benefit would depend on how long the inlet breach
remained open and whether or not it was bridged. Continued erosion would reduce available nesting habitat
although the bird seldom nests in the Seashore. Either winter or summer construction could temporarily
affect foraging and resting areas although post-equilibration both foraging and nesting area would have
increased in width. Any birds which may be in the vicinity of sand placement activity could experience short-
term temporary disruption from resting or foraging. Regular bird surveys conducted by NPS biologists begin
in March for this bird, and all NPS protocols (buffer distances and closures as appropriate) would be followed
in the unlikely event one was observed in the active work area.
Cumulative Effects on Wilson's Plover — Please refer to the introduction to cumulative impacts for a
description of past, present, and reasonable foreseeable future actions (Section 10.0) and Cumulative Impacts for
Piping Plover as many of those effects would be similar for Wilson's plover (pg 135). Habitat loss or degradation
due to human activities associated with recreation or development elsewhere in Dare County would continue.
Additionally, while the Proposed Action Area would likely revert to the pre-project deficit condition within
~3 years under Alternative 2–Winter Construction and ~5 years under Alternative 3–Summer Construction, sand
that migrates from the nourished beach downcoast within the littoral current would feed the existing foraging
and roosting habitat south of Buxton at Cape Point, a potential long-term benefit to the species.
Interrelated and Interdependent Actions on Wilson's Plover. There are no interrelated and
interdependent actions associated with this project; therefore, there are no anticipated adverse effects to
Wilson's plover from such actions.
Determination on Wilson's Plover. Continued erosion in the Proposed Action Area would cause adverse
impact to nesting habitat, but if an inlet breach occurred, it would provide the beneficial effect of additional
resting and foraging habitat. Effects to nesting and foraging habitat would occur and individual birds may be
disturbed during either winter or summer construction, but these are considered negligible, temporary, and
short-term; therefore, the Proposed Action may affect but would not likely adversely affect Wilson’s plover.

Direct and Indirect Effects on American Oystercatcher. Continued erosion would provide similar effects
to that described for colonial shorebirds and Wilson's plover (potentially adverse and beneficial). Winter or
summer construction would have minor effects to American oystercatcher foraging and resting habitat in the
Proposed Action Area during sand placement; although fewer oystercatchers are in Dare County in the winter,
which reduces the likelihood of an encounter. Summer construction would disturb nesting birds especially in
the northern portion of the Proposed Action Area where nests have been documented since 2009. However,
NPS biologists establish pre-nesting closures when breeding behaviors are noted and maintain a 495-foot

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 160 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

buffer around active nests and a 660-foot buffer around unfledged chicks where no construction can occur;
NPS established buffers would be strictly observed by the contractor. These buffers should help to minimize
and avoid adverse impact to American oystercatcher; in fact, NPS biologists can enlarge the buffers if
individual birds appear disturbed at the shorter distances. Beneficial, site-specific, long-term, moderate
effects would include ~35 additional feet (Alternative 2) and ~75 additional feet (Alternative 3) of dry beach for
nesting and resting post-equilibration. Alternative 2 would have no adverse impact on nesting birds.
Cumulative Effects on American Oystercatcher — Please refer to the introduction to cumulative impacts
for a description of past, present, and reasonable foreseeable future actions (Section 10.0) and Cumulative
Impacts for Piping Plover as many of those effects would be similar for American oystercatcher (pg 135).
Additionally, while the Proposed Action Area would likely revert to the pre-project deficit condition until future
renourishment), sand that migrates from the nourished beach downcoast within the littoral current would
feed the existing foraging and roosting habitat between Avon and Cape Point, a potential long-term benefit to
this species. Habitat loss or degradation due to human activities associated with recreation or development
elsewhere in Dare County would continue.
Interrelated and Interdependent Actions on American Oystercatcher. There are no interrelated and
interdependent actions associated with this project; therefore, there are no anticipated adverse effects to
American oystercatcher from such actions.
Determination on American Oystercatcher. Either winter or summer construction, as well as no
construction could have beneficial impact by the addition of, or expansion of, nesting, resting, or foraging
habitat; winter construction would have slightly less disturbance effect to individual birds than summer as
nesting birds would not be present. Summer adverse effects to nesting would be reduced by avoidance and
conservation measures already in place. Therefore, the Proposed Action may affect but would not likely
adversely affect the American oystercatcher.

Direct and Indirect Effects on Bald Eagle. Continued erosion would have no effect on habitats commonly
frequented by the bald eagle. Bald eagle foraging and resting areas would have short-term and negligible
effects during sand placement under either winter or summer construction although winter construction may
have a slightly higher likelihood of disturbance since the bald eagle is more common at the Seashore in the
winter. Current online Dare County NCWRC bald eagle nest data identify no nests south of Oregon Inlet.
Neither beach nourishment nor dredging is specifically listed in the National Bald Eagle Management
Guidelines (USFWS 2007). These guidelines provide buffer distances for activity categories based on type of
activity, visibility of activity from an active eagle nest, or whether similar activity exists within 1 mile. However,
extremely loud intermittent noises within 0.5-mile of nests are discouraged, unless greater tolerance to the
activity is demonstrated by eagles in the nesting area. Any impacts from noise, should they occur, would be
considered site-specific and short-term.
Cumulative Effects on Bald Eagle. Please refer to the introduction to cumulative impacts for a description of
past, present, and reasonable foreseeable future actions (Section 10.0). These cumulative effects are considered
imperceptible to noticeable.

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 161 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

Interrelated and Interdependent Actions on Bald Eagle. There are no interrelated and interdependent
actions associated with this project; therefore, there are no anticipated adverse effects to bald eagle from
such actions.
Determination on Bald Eagle. Based on the information presented, effects are considered incremental and
insignificant; therefore, the Proposed Action is not likely to adversely affect the bald eagle.

Direct and Indirect Effects on Peregrine Falcon. Continued erosion in the Proposed Action Area would
have no effect on nesting or breeding habitat of this falcon as none exists in the Seashore; however, foraging
habitat could be affected as a narrower beach reduces shorebird congregation areas and shorebirds are
among their prey. If an inlet breach occurred from continued erosion, a beneficial effect could be formation
of additional foraging habitats. The peregrine falcon is uncommon from May to August, and becomes slightly
more common in October so winter construction would have a slightly higher likelihood of a falcon visitor,
depending on the actual months of construction. Foraging habitat (near congregations of shorebirds) would
have direct, site-specific, short-term, negligible to minor effects during sand placement activities. However,
as stated above, the active zone of disturbance would range from 800-1,000 feet long on any given day, and
extensive foraging habitat is otherwise available. Winter or summer construction may have beneficial long-
term effect to foraging and resting habitat of the peregrine falcon, due to the wider dry beach which would be
likely to attract shorebirds, preferred coastal falcon prey.
Cumulative Effects on Peregrine Falcon — Please refer to the introduction to cumulative impacts for a
description of past, present, and reasonable foreseeable future actions (Section 10.0). Habitat loss or degradation
due to human activities associated with recreation or development elsewhere in Dare County would continue.
Long-term beneficial impacts of a wider dry beach from future nourishment in the Proposed Action Area should
it occur would equate to more potential use by shorebirds, which are prey for peregrine falcon.
Interrelated and Interdependent Actions on Peregrine Falcon. There are no interrelated and
interdependent actions associated with this project; therefore, there are no anticipated adverse effects to
peregrine falcon from such actions.
Determination on Peregrine Falcon. Effects are considered negligible to minor but since some disturbance
to foraging habitat would occur from sand placement activities, the Proposed Action may affect but is not
likely to adversely affect the peregrine falcon.

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 162 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

— THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK —

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 163 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

12.0 EFFECTS TO SPECIES WITH ONLY STATE PROTECTION AND DETERMINATIONS
One additional reptile, the diamondback terrapin, and one additional plant, the seabeach knotweed, have the
potential to be affected by the alternatives addressed in this document. Both species are designated for state-
level protection and are discussed in more detail earlier in this document. Potential impacts to those species
by each alternative are discussed below.
12.1 Reptiles
12.1.1 Diamondback Terrapin
Direct and Indirect Effects on Diamondback Terrapin. The diamondback terrapin has been documented
by NPS biologists west of the Proposed Action Area on the west side of NC 12, so continued erosion may
permanently affect some existing back-barrier habitats preferred by the diamondback terrapin, as erosion
would increase the likelihood of overwash events or a breach in the future. While both overwash and a breach
would be unpredictable in time and duration, a breach would remove back-barrier dune and marsh areas the
terrapin may currently use for foraging, nesting, and hibernation. Overwash events would have the potential
to bury either active or dormant individuals or preclude use of existing foraging or habitat. The duration of
those effects would depend on whether or not the breach closed naturally or remained open and was
temporarily bridged. Disturbance and disruptions from erosion and overwash would continue to affect the
terrapin and its habitats. After some overwash events, some short periods of decreased traffic may occur
before NCDOT could clear NC 12, or decreased traffic may occur over longer periods if NCDOT needs to
conduct more extensive repairs to NC 12, or in the event of a breach. These effects would be considered short-
term and minor to moderate. The diamondback terrapin would not likely be affected by winter construction
as the species is less active. While no suitable habitat exists for it within the Proposed Action Area, there is a
chance that a project-associated support vehicle could encounter a terrapin as it crossed NC 12, but it would
not likely be found on the ocean side of beach dunes where much of the project activities would occur,
regardless of season. While this terrapin is not found on the ocean side of dunes in the summer, a project-
associated vehicle en route from one beach access point to another could encounter a female diamondback
terrapin crossing NC 12 on her way to or from the back barrier to a back-dune nest area. Although existing
traffic is heaviest in the summer, which raises the potential for an encounter with a vehicle, the odds are
somewhat remote that it would be a project-associated vehicle. Should an encounter occur, this effect would
be considered short-term and moderate. Existing habitats for this terrapin west of the dune crest to the edge
of Pamlico Sound would have no adverse impacts during summer construction and would have long-term
beneficial impact from a wider beach in front of the dunes.
Cumulative Effects on Diamondback Terrapin — Please refer to the introduction to cumulative impacts for
a description of past, present, and reasonable foreseeable future actions (Section 10.0). Traffic is not expected
to increase as a direct result of the continued erosion or construction; however, traffic on NC 12 in general
may increase as it has historically and would likely continue with or without the project. An increase in traffic
raises the likelihood that a diamondback terrapin would be killed as it crossed NC 12 between habitats.
Habitat loss or degradation due to human activities associated with recreation or development elsewhere in
Dare County would continue. Sea level rise or increased frequency and intensity of storms associated with
climate change might reduce or destroy nests or preferred habitats or occur more rapidly than adaptation by
the diamondback terrapin.

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 164 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

Interrelated and Interdependent Actions on Diamondback Terrapin. There are no interrelated and
interdependent actions associated with this project; therefore, there are no anticipated adverse effects to
diamondback terrapin from such actions.
Determination on Diamondback Terrapin. As effects are unlikely and imperceptible, the Proposed Action
will have no effect on the diamondback terrapin.
12.2 Plants
12.2.1 Seabeach Knotweed
Direct and Indirect Effects on Seabeach Knotweed. Continued erosion could increase habitat for the
seabeach knotweed, as more frequent overwash events may disperse dormant seeds into new suitable
habitats formed by the overwash deposits, a beneficial effect. However, should the species colonize such a
deposit, continued erosion and other overwash events may bury or eliminate the pioneering plants which
would be an adverse effect. No adverse effects are likely to occur under either winter or summer construction
as there is currently no known occurrence of the seabeach knotweed, and it has not historically been found
in the Proposed Action Area. Occurrences of the seabeach knotweed have been documented in the Seashore
south of the former location of the Cape Hatteras Lighthouse; however, not since 2005 and never within the
Proposed Action Area. The species was last documented during monthly visits between 1989 and October
1995 at the “beach south of Buxton light (pre-1995 location)” with no other details as to density of occurrence
or more specific distances (NCNHP, Allison Weakley, Conservation Planner, pers. comm. 10 August 2015).
Since Park Service biologists conduct surveys for this plant each year along the Seashore, they would notify
the Applicant and/or the maintenance contractor if any plants are found. Construction in either season is
designed to widen the beach which would be a beneficial effect. As the nourished beach equilibrates over time
to the additional sediment in the system, Aeolian processes may also enhance the species’ preferred habitat
between the wrack line and dune face. Therefore, the project under either alternative has the potential to
provide more habitats for this pioneering species and is not likely to threaten its continued existence.

Cumulative Effects on Seabeach Knotweed — Please refer to the introduction to cumulative impacts for a
description of past, present, and reasonable foreseeable future actions (Section 10.0). Habitat loss or
degradation due to human activities associated with recreation or development elsewhere in Dare County
would continue. Sea level rise or increased frequency and intensity of storms associated with climate change
might reduce or destroy or create potential habitats preferred by the seabeach knotweed.
Interrelated and Interdependent Actions on Seabeach Knotweed. There are no interrelated and
interdependent actions associated with this project; therefore, there are no anticipated adverse effects to
critical habitat from such actions.
Determination on Seabeach Knotweed. While each of the three alternatives would have minor effect on
potential habitat for seabeach knotweed, only continued erosion would have moderate effect. Each alternative
has the potential for beneficial effect which differs in time (temporary overwash habitats with continued erosion
and a wider more stable beach between the wrack line and dune toe with either winter or summer construction.
The lack of historic occurrence in the Proposed Action Area and NPS surveys performed prior to construction
make it not likely for seabeach knotweed to be adversely affected by the Proposed Action.

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 165 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

13.0 EFFECTS TO STATE-DESIGNATED NATURAL AREAS
No state-designated natural areas or natural communities exist within the Proposed Action Area. While the
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database shows two so-designated areas nearby, Turtle
Pond Registered Heritage Area (RHA) and Buxton Woods, neither would experience effects from the project
activities of any of the three alternatives evaluated in this BA (see Fig 8.3). Cumulative effects on these natural
areas may occur from increased pressure from visitors with continued development of the Outer Banks;
however, if such pressures become detrimental, agencies in charge of management of these areas may limit
access frequency or density or types of allowed activity. Climate change (e.g., increased intensity/frequency
of storms) and sea-level rise (e.g., increased potential of flooding events/duration and salt water intrusion)
may alter the vegetation communities in these areas and render them less unique or worthy of designation.
14.0 EFFECTS DETERMINATION SUMMARY FOR EVALUATED PROTECTED SPECIES
Using the terms described above for analysis (see pg 133), and the three alternatives, a summary matrix of
potential effects on federal- and state-protected species expected within the project area and mitigation to
offset those effects is provided in Table 14.1. The effects determinations of the Proposed Action (summer
construction) for the evaluated protected species are shown in Table 14.2 and summarized in the next
paragraph.
Of the 29 protected species with the potential to occur in the Proposed Action Area or vicinity shown in Table
6.1 (see page 42), evaluation of the effects of the Proposed Action resulted in: a No Effect conclusion for
seabeach amaranth and diamondback terrapin; a May Effect, not Likely to Adversely Affect conclusion for nine
species (piping plover, roseate tern, red knot, fin whale, humpback whale, north Atlantic right whale, blue
whale, and shortnose sturgeon, and seabeach knotweed); and a May Effect, Likely to Adversely Affect
conclusion for five sea turtles (Kemp’s ridley, green, leatherback, loggerhead, and hawksbill), and for Atlantic
sturgeon. As mentioned previously, the 2020 SARBO from NMFS is expected to be utilized for the marine
species while in the water after the USACE performs its risk assessment and risk management analysis of the
proposed project. Section 7 consultation will be initiated with USFWS for their Biological Opinion and
Incidental Take Statement(s) as applicable for species on land; NMFS will either agree that the 2020 SARBO
covers the project or determine an individual consultation is necessary.

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 166 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

TABLE 14.1. Effects matrix summary for the three alternatives addressed in this BA for state and/or federally protected species
with the potential to occur and proposed mitigation to offset adverse effects.
Resource No-Action
Alternative
Alternative 2
Winter Construction
Preferred Alternative 3
Summer Construction
EASTERN BLACK RAIL

Present year round on
NC Outer Banks but
mostly north of Oregon
Inlet and rare

Existing breeding, foraging,
or resting habitat in back
barrier areas could be
reduced by inlet breach
should one occur.
Temporary-short term, negligible
disruption from noise from project
activities for the rare individuals
who may be in the back barrier
habitats in vicinity.
Temporary-short term, negligible
disruption from noise from project
activities for the rare individuals
(more in summer than winter but
still rare) who may be in the back
barrier habitats in vicinity.
PIPING PLOVER

Present year round on
NC Outer Banks; nests
in Seashore near tidal
inlets or overwash
areas; no nests in
project area.
No effect to existing breeding,
foraging, or resting habitat.
Potential beneficial effect
should a breach occur and
new tidal inlet habitat form.
Potential beneficial effect if
future overwash events build
new breeding, foraging, or
resting habitat. No adverse
effect to critical wintering
habitat.
Temporary-short term, negligible
disruption of foraging areas.
Foraging habitat could be
affected although historically
project area is low quality
foraging habitat. Any plovers
resting in the project area during
construction would be temporarily
displaced. No adverse effect to
critical wintering habitat. Potential
beneficial long term effect to
resting habitat (wider dry beach)
and foraging habitat (lower slope
intertidal beach) and critical
wintering habitat by downcoast
migration of nourishment
sediment.
Temporary to short term,
negligible disruption of foraging
areas; but not likely to adversely
affect. Foraging habitat could be
affected although historically
project area is low quality
foraging habitat. No nesting
habitat within the project area.
Any plovers resting in the project
area during construction would be
temporarily displaced. Not
adverse effect to critical wintering
habitat.
Potential beneficial long term
effect to resting habitat (wider dry
beach) and foraging habitat
(lower slope intertidal beach) and
critical wintering habitat by
downcoast migration of
nourishment sediment.

MITIGATION: Prescribed NPS
surveys for use of the beach by
piping plovers will occur into mid-
August and include the project
area. No construction will occur
within any NPS established
buffers.
ROSEATE TERN

No nesting habitat or
breeding occurs at
Seashore; rare visitor
during migration May
through Sep. Jul
records within
Seashore.
No effect to breeding,
foraging or resting habitat.
Negligible effect to resting
habitat.
No effects to breeding, foraging,
or resting habitat. Negligible
effect to resting habitat. Beneficial
short term effect to resting habitat
(wider dry beach).
Temporary to short term,
negligible disruption of resting
and foraging areas for the rare
visitor; but not likely to adversely
affect. Any birds resting in the
project area during construction
would be temporarily displaced.
Beneficial long term effect to
resting habitat (wider dry beach).
RED KNOT

No nesting in North
Carolina; birds have
been observed in all
months in Seashore
with highest numbers
during peak migration
in Apr-May and Aug-
Sep.
No effect to foraging or
resting habitat.
Temporary, negligible effect but
not likely to adversely affect.
Foraging habitat could be
affected although historically
project area is low quality
foraging habitat. Beneficial long-
term effect to resting habitat
(wider dry beach) and foraging
habitat (lower slope intertidal
beach).

Temporary, negligible, minor
adverse effect. Foraging habitat
could be affected although
historically project area is low
quality foraging habitat.
Beneficial long-term effect to
resting habitat (wider dry beach)
and foraging habitat (lower slope
intertidal beach).

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 167 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

TABLE 14.1. (continued)

Resource No-Action
Alternative
Alternative 2
Winter Construction
Preferred Alternative 3
Summer Construction
ATLANTIC STURGEON
Documented in project vicinity
waters most all year; moves
to freshwaters inshore to
spawn in spring.
No adverse effect. Potential
beneficial effect if inlet breach
opens new access to Pamlico
Sound habitats. Duration of
benefit would depend on
NCDOT response or length of
time inlet remained open.
Temporary, negligible to minor
effect due to potential
disruption in early spring during
inshore migration.

MITIGATION: Conservation
measures to minimize impacts
or disruption provided by NMFS
during consultation will be
followed. Qualified NMFS/PRD
approved endangered species
observer on dredge at all times
who will follow standard
reporting procedures and has
authority to stop dredge ops if
Atlantic sturgeon observed in
area of danger or in dredge
screen, skimmer funnels or
drag heads.

Temporary, negligible to minor
effect due to potential
disruption in late spring during
inshore migration.

MITIGATION: Conservation
measures to minimize impacts
or disruption provided by NMFS
consultation will be followed.
Qualified NMFS/PRD-
approved PSO on dredge at all
times would follow standard
reporting procedures and
would have authority to stop
dredge ops if Atlantic sturgeon
observed in area of danger or in
dredge screen, skimmer
funnels, or drag heads.
SHORTNOSE STURGEON
Move to freshwater from late
winter to early spring; remains
in estuarine and nearshore
waters remainder of year.
One record from Pamlico
Sound.
No effect. Potential beneficial
effect if inlet breach opens
new access to Pamlico
Sound habitats. Benefit
duration depends on how
long inlet open and NCDOT
response.
Temporary, negligible to minor
adverse effect due to potential
disruption in late winter or early
spring during migration to fresh
and estuarine waters.
Temporary, negligible to minor
effect due potential disruption
in nearshore waters but not
likely to adversely affect.
GIANT MANTA RAY
Errant individuals could be
present in most any month
but usually in deeper oceanic
waters associated with
upwelling.

No effect. Temporary, negligible to minor.
Noise avoidance could affect
feeding behavior depending on
presence of prey species.

MITIGATION: Qualified NMFS/
PRD-approved PSO on dredge
at all times would follow
standard reporting procedures
and has authority to stop
dredge ops if a giant manta ray
is spotted in area of danger.

Temporary, negligible to minor.
Noise avoidance could affect
feeding behavior depending on
presence of prey species

MITIGATION: Qualified NMFS/
PRD-approved PSO on dredge
at all times would follow
standard reporting procedures
with authority to stop dredge
ops if a giant manta ray is
spotted in area of danger.
SEABEACH AMARANTH
No plants documented in the
Seashore since 2005; no
records from project area.
Long-term, moderate effects
to potential habitat. Beach
would eventually become too
narrow to support;
alternatively, regular
overwash would increase
potential habitat.
Temporary, negligible to minor.
Potential beneficial long term
effects (wider beach above
wrack line).

MITIGATION: NPS biologists,
who survey for the plant each
year, would notify if found. If
found, steps to avoid the
plant(s) will be identified by
NPS manager coordinating
with USFWS biologists.

Temporary, negligible to minor.
Potential beneficial long term
effects (wider beach above
wrack line).

MITIGATION: NPS biologists.
who survey for the plant each
year, would notify if found. If
found, steps to avoid the
plant(s) will be identified by
NPS manager coordinating
with USFWS biologists.

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 168 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

TABLE 14.1. (continued)

Resource No-Action
Alternative
Alternative 2
Winter Construction
Preferred Alternative 3
Summer Construction
WEST INDIAN MANATEE No adverse effects. Beneficial
effect if breach inlet formed to
provide additional access to
inshore/sound foraging
areas.
No effects. Species not
typically present in winter.

MITIGATION: Qualified NMFS/
PRD-approved PSO on dredge
at all times would follow
standard reporting procedures
and has authority to stop
dredge ops if a manatee is
spotted in area of danger.
Temporary, negligible to minor
adverse effects. Noise
avoidance could affect
behavior.

MITIGATION: Qualified NMFS/
PRD- approved PSO on dredge
at all times would follow
standard reporting procedures
with authority to stop dredge
ops if a manatee is spotted in
area of danger.
WHALES
Fin and humpback migrate
through the western Atlantic
in winter, North Atlantic right
migrate through in spring and
are found closer to shore in
spring but can be in project
vicinity throughout the winter
months. Blue whales have
been documented closer to
shore (winter only) than once
expected but no strandings
have been documented in NC
1997-2020.
No effects. Temporary, negligible to minor
effects. Noise avoidance could
affect behavior of N. Atlantic
right whale, depending on
presence of prey species; could
affect fin, blue, and humpback
during winter migration.

MITIGATION: Qualified NMFS/
PRD-approved PSO on dredge
at all times would follow
standard reporting procedures
and has authority to stop
dredge ops if a whale is spotted
in area of danger.
Temporary, negligible to minor
effects. Noise avoidance could
affect behavior of N. Atlantic
right whale if project activity
occurs in the fall, depending on
presence of prey species.

MITIGATION: Qualified NMFS/
PRD- approved PSO on dredge
at all times would follow
standard reporting procedures
and has authority to stop
dredge ops if a whale is spotted
in area of danger.
SEA TURTLES

(includes green, hawksbill,
Kemp’s ridley, leatherback,
and loggerhead)
Some commonly nest in
Seashore; others never to
rarely, but may be present in
project vicinity waters.
Long-term, moderate adverse
effect to nesting habitat.
Beach would eventually
become too narrow to support
nesting. Regular overwash
would decrease nest
success. Potential beneficial
short term effect if breach
occurred which would allow
new temporary access to
back barrier habitats until the
breach closed. A potential
NCDOT solution to a breach
may include a temporary
bridge which may have short
term adverse effect to turtles
in the area during
construction.
No effect during construction.
Project would occur outside of
the sea turtle nesting season.
No adverse effect on critical
migratory habitat. Nesting
beaches would have long term
beneficial effect (wider beach
and lower slope).
Temporary, negligible to minor;
likely to adversely affect.
Nesting females could be
disturbed in project area. No
adverse effect on critical
migratory habitat. Nesting
beaches would have short-term
negligible effect but beneficial
long-term effects (wider beach
and lower slope).

MITIGATION: No night work or
only night work w/turtle friendly
lighting; night-time monitors
must survey the affected beach
area on any given night before
the required 9 am daily survey.
Nesting surveys initiated by 15
April for leatherback and 1 May
for others. Surveys would

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 169 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

TABLE 14.1. (continued)

Resource No-Action
Alternative
Alternative 2
Winter Construction
Preferred Alternative 3
Summer Construction
SEA TURTLES (concluded)

continue during project by
trained experienced personnel,
duly authorized and permitted
by agencies. Construction
would not begin until the daily
survey was completed in any
given area. All nests in project
area to be relocated by NPS
personnel as soon as possible
after discovery (no later than
0900) to a location to ensure
hatch success. Nests
discovered after project
completion in an area will not be
relocated if laid in location
conducive to hatch. All in-situ or
relocated nests must be marked
with stakes to delimit a 10-foot
buffer zone around the nest,
two on-beach markers, and
must be monitored daily.
Qualified NMFS/ PRD-
approved PSO on dredge at all
times would follow standard
reporting procedures and has
authority to stop dredge ops if a
sea turtle is spotted in area of
danger.

MARINE MAMMALS (other than
those above)
Four species common to
abundant in project vicinity;
three of which are present
year round.

No adverse effect. Beneficial
effect from breach inlet (new
access to back barrier sound
and river habitats) for species
which seek such areas.
Temporary, negligible to minor
potential adverse effect during
dredge and pumping activity.
Common bottlenose dolphin
most likely to be affected by
noise from project construction.
Temporary, negligible to minor
potential adverse effects during
dredge and pumping activity.
Common bottlenose dolphin
most likely to be affected by
noise from project construction.
COLONIAL WATERBIRDS
(includes gull-billed tern,
common tern, least tern,
Caspian tern, and black
skimmer)
All nest on NC beaches
including Seashore and
within project area. As a
group, can be in project area
from March to Nov.

Long-term, moderate adverse
effect to nesting habitat as
beach would eventually
become too narrow to support
nesting. Breach inlet would
provide new foraging and
resting habitats.
No effect. Birds not normally
present in winter. Beneficial
long term effect to nesting
habitat (wider beach).
Temporary to short term,
negligible to minor effect to
nesting birds and disruption of
foraging and resting areas.
Beneficial long term effect to
nesting habitat (wider beach).

MITIGATION: NPS surveys
and no construction within 300
meters of active colonies.

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 170 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

TABLE 14.1. (continued)

Resource No-Action
Alternative
Alternative 2
Winter Construction
Preferred Alternative 3
Summer Construction
AMERICAN OYSTERCATCHER
Common in Dare County all
year with low numbers in
winter months. Nests and
breeds in Seashore.

Long-term, moderate
adverse effect to nesting
habitat. Beach would
eventually become too
narrow to support nesting.
No effect. Species not
normally present in this area
during winter. Beneficial long
term effect to nesting habitat
(wider beach).
Temporary to short term,
negligible to minor effect to
nesting birds and foraging and
resting areas. Beneficial long-
term effect to nesting habitat
(wider beach).

MITIGATION: NPS surveys
and no construction within 300
meters of active nests or
chicks.

WILSON’S PLOVER
Rare nester in Seashore;
present March to October
with occasional Jan or Nov
occurrence.
Long-term, moderate
adverse effect to nesting
habitat. Beach would
eventually become too
narrow to support nesting.
No nests in project area but
a few nests have been
documented elsewhere at
Seashore.
Temporary to short term,
negligible disruption of
foraging and resting areas.
Temporary, negligible, minor.
Foraging habitat could be
affected; historically, project
area is low quality foraging
habitat. Beneficial long-term
effect to resting habitat (wider
dry beach) and foraging
habitat (lower slope intertidal
beach).

MITIGATION: NPS surveys
and no construction within 300
meters of active colonies.

PEREGRINE FALCON

No nesting along NC coast;
uncommon May to Aug;
more common in Oct.
Winter resident.
No effect to breeding or
resting habitat. Potential
beneficial effect to foraging
habitat if inlet breach
occurs.
Temporary to short term,
negligible adverse effect from
disruption of foraging areas.
Beneficial long term effect to
foraging and resting habitat
(wider dry beach).
Temporary to short term,
negligible adverse effect
from disruption of foraging
areas. Beneficial long term
effect to foraging and
resting habitat (wider dry
beach).

BALD EAGLE

No nests in project area;
birds observed all months in
Seashore, but more
common in winter.

No effect to breeding,
foraging, or resting habitat.
Temporary to short term,
negligible adverse effect from
disruption of foraging and
resting areas
Temporary to short term,
negligible adverse effect from
disruption of foraging and
resting areas.

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 171 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

TABLE 14.1. (concluded)

State Protection Only
Resource
No-Action
Alternative
Alternative 2
Winter Construction
Preferred Alternative 3
Summer Construction
DIAMONDBACK TERRAPIN
Nests and forages in marsh
or back dune areas;
hibernates in back-barrier
muds. No record from within
project activity area.
Long-term, unpredictable,
moderate effects to existing
potential habitat. Overwash
could bury nests, young, or
adults and habitats, but may
increase and build habitats
further into the sound
overtime which could be
beneficial. A breach may
destroy habitat if inlet
became permanent.
No effects. Temporary, negligible to minor
effects due to potential
disruption when crossing NC
12; such disruptions already
occur from existing traffic.
Project related traffic would be
temporary and mostly confined
to the beach where the turtle is
not found.
SEABEACH KNOTWEED
Unpredictable colonizer
species found between
wrack line and foredunes and
overwash fans. No record
from within project footprint,
but documented in project
vicinity (near the Cape
Hatteras lighthouse).
Long-term, unpredictable,
moderate effects to existing
potential back-barrier habitat
(existing foredune habitat not
suitable). Overwash could
bury seeds and habitats, but
may increase brackish and
back barrier habitat or assist
in seed dispersal which could
be beneficial.
Temporary, negligible to minor
effects. Potential beneficial
long term effects (wider beach).

MITIGATION: NPS biologists
survey for the plant each year
and will notify if found.
Temporary, negligible to minor
effects. Potential beneficial
long term effects (wider beach).

MITIGATION: NPS biologists
survey for the plant each year
and will notify if found.

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 172 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

TABLE 14.2. Summary effects determination of Proposed Action for protected species with potential to occur in
project area or vicinity.
SPECIES FEDERAL/
STATE STATUS DETERMINATION
Birds
Eastern black rail T/PT NO EFFECT
Piping plover T/T MAY AFFECT, NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY
AFFECTRoseate tern E/E MAY AFFECT, NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY
AFFECTRed knot T/T MAY AFFECT, NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY
Caspian tern T MAY AFFECT, NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY
AFFECTCommon tern MBTA/E MAY AFFECT, NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY
Least tern MBTA/SC MAY AFFECT, NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY
AFFECTGull-billed tern MBTA/T MAY AFFECT, NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY
AFFECTBlack skimmer MBTA/SC MAY AFFECT, NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY
American oystercatcher MBTA/SC MAY AFFECT, NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY
AFFECTWilson's plover MBTA/SC MAY AFFECT, NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY
Bald eagle BEGEPA/T MAY AFFECT, NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY
Peregrine falcon MBTA/E MAY AFFECT, NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY
AFFECTFishes
Atlantic sturgeon E/SC MAY AFFECT, LIKELY TO ADVERSELY AFFECT
Shortnose sturgeon E/E MAY AFFECT, NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY
Giant manta ray T MAY AFFECT, NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY
Plants
Seabeach amaranth T/T NO EFFECT
Seabeach knotweed E NO EFFECT
Mammals
Fin whale E MAY AFFECT, NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY
Humpback whale E MAY AFFECT, NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY
AFFECTNorth Atlantic right whale E MAY AFFECT, NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY
Blue whale E MAY AFFECT, NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY
AFFECTWest Indian manatee T/T MAY AFFECT, NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY
AFFECTMarine mammals (other)MMPA MAY AFFECT, NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY
Reptiles
Green sea turtle T/T MAY AFFECT, LIKELY TO ADVERSELY AFFECT
Hawksbill sea turtle E MAY AFFECT, NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY
Kemp’s ridley sea turtle E/E MAY AFFECT, LIKELY TO ADVERSELY AFFECT
Leatherback sea turtle E/E MAY AFFECT, LIKELY TO ADVERSELY AFFECT
Loggerhead sea turtle T/T MAY AFFECT, LIKELY TO ADVERSELY AFFECT
Diamondback terrapin SC NO EFFECT

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 173 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

REFERENCES
ASMFC.
2017 ASMFC Stock Assessment Overview Atlantic Sturgeon. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Council. October.
2019 Review of the Interstate Fisheries Management Plan for Atlantic Sturgeon. 2017 Fishing Year. May.

ASPRT
2018 2018 Review of Atlantic Marine Fisheries Commission Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Sturgeon. 2016 Fishing
Year. August.

ASSRT
2007 Status Review of Atlantic Sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus). Report to National Marine Fisheries Service,
Northeast Regional Office. Atlantic Sturgeon Status Review Team

Armstrong, SB and ED Lazarus.
2019. Masked Shoreline Erosion at Large Spatial Scales as a Collective Effect of Beach Nourishment. Earth’s Future, Vol
7(2), pp 74-84.

Bagnold, RA
1941 The Physics of Blown Sand and Desert Dunes. Chapman and Hall, London, UK, 265 pp.

Balazik, Matthew T. and John A. Musick.
2015 Dual Annual Spawning Races in Atlantic Sturgeon. PLoS ONE 10(5): e0128234.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0128234

Bels, VL, J Davenport, and S Renous.
1995 Drinking and water expulsion in the diamondback terrapin Malaclemys terrapin. Journal of Zoology 236: 483-497.
doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7998.1995.tb02726x

Birkemeier, W, R Dolan, and N Fisher
1984 “The evolution of a barrier island: 1930–1980.” Journal of the American Shore & Beach Preservation Association 52(2):
2-12.

Booher, M and L Ezell
2001 Out of Harm’s Way: Moving America’s Lighthouse. Eastwind Publishing Company, Annapolis, MD, 144 pp.

Bridges, TS, et al.
2015 Use of natural and nature-based features (NNBF) for coastal resilience. ERDC SR-15-1, Environmental Laboratory,
US Army Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS, 477 pp.

Bucher, M and A Weakley
1990 Status survey of seabeach amaranth (Amaranthus pumilus Rafinesque) in North and South Carolina. Report to
North Carolina Plant Conservation Program, NC Department of Agriculture, Raleigh, NC, and Asheville Field Office,
USFWS, Asheville, NC. 149 pp.

Burger, J
1991 Foraging behavior and the effect of human disturbance on the piping plover (Charadrius melodus). Journal of
Coastal Research 7: 39-52.

Byrd, BL, et al.
2014 Strandings as indicators of marine mammal biodiversity and human interactions off the coast of North Carolina.
Fisheries Bulletin 112: 1-23.

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 174 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

Byrd, Julia
2004 The effect of beach nourishment on loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) nesting in South Carolina. MS Thesis,
College of Charleston, SC.

Byrne, MW, JM Maxfield, and JC DeVivo
2009 Migrating and wintering shorebird monitoring at Cape Hatteras National Seashore 2006/2007. Natural Resource
Technical Report NPS/SECN/NRTR – 2009/189. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Byrnes, MR, RM Hammer, BA Vittor, SW Kelley, DB Snyder, JM Côté, JS Ramsey, TD Thibaut, NW Phillips, JD Wood, and JD
Germano
2003 Collection of environmental data within sand resource areas offshore North Carolina and the environmental
implications of sand removal for coastal and beach restoration. US Dept Interior, MMS, Leasing Div, Sand and Gravel
Unit, Herndon, VA; OCS Rept MMS 2000-056, Vol I (main text 256 pp), Vol II (appendices 69 pp).

CBI-Coastal Planning and Engineering
2015 Draft Environmental Assessment Town of Kill Devil Hills Shore Protection Project. January.

CHWA
1977 Environmental assessment: Buxton to Avon waterline: Cape Hatteras National Seashore, Dare County, North
Carolina. EA by Cape Hatteras Water Association, Manuscript, 77 pp (accessed via NC Sea Grant Library, August
2013).

CSE
2004 Seabeach amaranth survey. Letter Report for USACE (Wilmington District) and NC Div Coastal Management.
Submitted by Carteret County, Town of Pine Knoll Shores, Town of Indian Beach, Town of Emerald Isle, NC.
Prepared by CSE, Columbia, SC and Morehead City, NC, 5 pp.
2008 Biological assessment for Isle of Palms beach restoration project, Charleston (SC). Prepared for US Army Corps of
Engineers, Charleston Regulatory District, SC. Coastal Science & Engineering (CSE), Columbia, SC, 70 pp + appendix.
2013 Shoreline erosion assessment and plan for beach restoration, Rodanthe and Buxton areas, Dare County, North
Carolina. Feasibility Report for Dare County Board of Commissioners, Manteo, NC. Coastal Science & Engineering
Inc, Columbia, SC, 159 pp with synopsis plus appendices.
2014 Monitoring and analyses of the 2011 Nags Head beach nourishment project. Year 3 (2014) beach monitoring report
for Town of Nags Head, NC. CSE, Columbia (SC), 128 pp + appendices.
2015 Geotechnical Data Report. Appendix C. Draft Environmental Assessment. Beach Restoration to Protect NC Highway
12, Buxton NC. Prepared for Dare County Board of Commissioners. Coastal Science & Engineering Inc. Columbia
SC. 78 pp + Attachments.
2015 Environmental Assessment, Beach Restoration to Protect NC Highway 12. Coastal Science & Engineering Inc.
Columbia SC. September. 204 pp + Attachments.
2020 Phase 1 Feasibility Report: Shoreline Erosion Assessment and Alternatives for the Avon Beach Restoration prepared
for Dare County Commissioners. November
2021a Geotechnical Data Analysis for the Avon Village Beach Nourishment, Dare County (NC). Coastal Science &
Engineering Inc. Columbia SC. June. 48 pp + Attachments.
2021b Littoral processes: Appendix D. Beach Renourishment to Protect NC Highway 12 at Buxton, Dare County (NC).
Prepared for Dare County (NC). CSE, Columbia, SC.

CITES
2013 Sixteenth meeting of Congress of the Parties, Considerations of Proposals for Amendment of Appendices I and II.
CoP16 Prop. XXX Bangkok (Thailand) March 3-14.

CEDA
2011 Position Paper. 7 November. Central Dredging Association Environment Commission. www.dredging.org.

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 175 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

Cameron, S.
2008 Annual Perfromance Report, North Carolina Wildlife Diversity Program, Segment #1, Coastal Region Waterbird
Investigations.

Ceriani, SA, P Casale, M Brost, EH Leone, and BE Witherington.
2019 Conservation implications of sea turtle nesting trends: elusive recovery of a globally important loggerhead
population. Ecosphere 10(11):e02936. 10.1002/ ecs2.2936

Chambers, RC, EA Haback, KM Haback, and I Wirgin.
2016 Thermal effects on early life stages of shortnose and Atlantic sturgeon. Presentation abstract for Threats
Session at NOAA's Atlantic and Shortnose Sturgeon Workshop 2016.

Coles, R. J.
1916 Natural history notes on the devilfish, Manta birostris (Walbaum) and Mobula olfersi (Muller). Bulletin of the
American Museum of Natural History 35, 649–657.

Dallas, K. L., J. Eshleman, and R. Beavers
2012 National Park Service beach nourishment guidance. Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/NRSS/GRD/NRTR—
2012/581. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Dallas, K, M Berry, and P Ruggerio
2013 Inventory of coastal engineering projects in Cape Hatteras National Seashore. Natural Resource Technical Report
NPS/NRSS/GRD/NRTR-2013/713. Fort Collins, Colorado.

Davenport, J. and E.A.Macedo.
1990 Behavioral osmotic control in the euryhaline diamondback terrapin Malaclemys terrapin:responses to low salinity
and rainfall. Journal of Zoology. 220 (3): 487-496. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7998.1990.tb04320.x

Davis, Genevieve E., Mark F. Baumgartner, Julianne M. Bonnell, Joel Bell, Catherine Berchok, Jacqueline Bort Thornton, Solange
Brault, Gary Buchanan, Russell A. Charif, Danielle E. Cholewiak, Christopher W. Clark, and 25 others
2017 Long-term passive acoustic recordings track the changing distributions of the North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena
glacialis) from 2004 to 2014. Scientific Reports 17:13460. October. DOI:10.1038/s41598-017-13359-3
Davis, Genevieve E., Mark F. Baumgartner, Peter J. Corkeron, Joel Bell, Catherine Berchok, Julianne M. Bonnell, Jacqueline Bort
Thornton, Solange Brault, Gary Buchanan, Danielle E. Cholewiak, and 23 others
2020 Exploring movement patterns and changing distributions of baleen whales in the western North Atlantic using a
decade of passive acoustic data. Global Change Biology. Vol. 26: Issue 9. DOI: 10.1111/gcb.15191

Dean, RG
1991 Equilibrium beach profiles: characteristics and applications. Journal of Coastal Research 7(1): 53-84.
2002 Beach Nourishment: Theory and Practice. World Scientific, NJ, 399 pp.

Deaton, AS, WS Chappell, K Hart, JO‘Neal, and B Boutin
2010 North Carolina Coastal Habitat Protection Plan. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
Division of Marine Fisheries, NC, 639 pp.

Department of the Navy
2017 Marine Mammal Strandings Associated with U.S. Navy Sonar Activities. Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center
Pacific, San Diego. 47p.

Dinsmore SJ, JA Collazo, and JR Walters
1998 Seasonal numbers and distribution of shorebirds on North Carolina’s Outer Banks. Wilson Bulletin 110(2): 171-181.

Domine, Florent, Gauthier, Gilles, Vionnet, Vincent, Fauteux, Dominique, DuMont, Marie, and Barrere, Mattieu
2018 Snow physical properties may be a physical determinant of lemming population dynamics in the high Arctic. Arctic
Science 4: 813-826. http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/as-2018-0008

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 176 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

Doshkov, P., K. Losch, W. Thompson, J. Wright, and T. A. Ziegler
2019 Shorebird monitoring and management at Cape Hatteras National Seashore: 2018 annual report. National Park
Service, Cape Hatteras National Seashore, Manteo, NC

Doshkov, P., K. Losch, W. Thompson, J. Wright, C. Campbell, and N. Sweeney
2018 Sea turtle monitoring and management at Cape Hatteras National Seashore: 2017 annual report. Natural Resource
Report NPS/CAHA/ NRR—2018/1652. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Dunton, Keith.J., Adrian Jordaan, K.A. Mckown, David O.Conover, and M.G. Frisk
2010 Abundance and distribution of Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus) within the Northwest Atlantic Ocean,
determined from five fishery‐independent surveys. Fishery Bulletin, 108 (4), 450-465. October.

Ebbinge, Bart S
Impact of climate change on high Arctic tundra ecosystems. Author content uploaded on ResearchGate.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242277014.

Engelhaupt, Dan T., Todd Pusser, Jessica M. Aschettino, Amy G. Engelhaupt, Mark P. Cotter, Michel F. Richlen, and Joel T. Bell
2020 Blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus) sightings off the coast of Virginia. Marine Biodiversity Records. 13:6. May.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s41200-020-00189-y

Everts, CH, JP Battley, and PN Gibson
1983 Shoreline movements: report 1: Cape Henry, Virginia, to Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, 1849–1980. Technical
Report CERC-83-1, Coastal Engineering Research Center, US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, MS, 111 pp.

Fauquier, Deborah, Kristy Long, Ingrid Biedron, Sarah Wilkin, Teresa Rowles, Eric Patterson, Allison Henry, Mendy Garron, Erin
Fougeres, Nicholas A. Farmer, Jason Baker and Michael Ziccardi.
2020 Report of the Health Assessment Workshop for North Atlantic Right Whales (Eubalaena glacialis), June 24-26, 2019.
NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-OPR-65, 67 p.

Fegley, Stephen R, Julian PS Smith III, Douglas Johnson, Amelia Schirmer, Jeremiah Jones-Boggs, Austin Edmonds, and Joseph
Bursey.
2020 Nourished Beaches Exhibit Altered Sediment Structure and Meiofaunal Communities. Diversity 12, 245, 35pp.
doi:10.3390/d12060245

Finn, Sarah A., William P. Thompson, Brian M. Shamblin, Campbell J. Nairn, and Matthew H. Godfrey
2016 Northernmost Records of Hawksbill Sea Turtle Nests and Possible Trans-Atlantic Colonization Event. Marine Turtle
Newsletter No. 151, pg 27.

Fischetti, DC, OH Pilkey Jr, DM Bush, and BD Wilson
1987 Move or Lose it! The Case for Relocation of Cape Hatteras Lighthouse. Prepared by Move the Lighthouse Committee,
Cary NC, 87 pp.

Fisher, JS, W Felder, L Gulbrandsen, and J Ponton
1975 Cape Hatteras nourishment study post-pumping report: March 1974–February 1975. Department of Environmental
Sciences, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, 95 pp.

Flowers, H. J., and J.E. Hightower
2015 Estimating Sturgeon Abundance in the Carolinas using Side-scan Sonar. Marine and Coastal Fisheries 7 (1), 1-9.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19425120.2014.982334

Fussell, III, JO
1994 A Birder’s Guide to Coastal North Carolina. University of North Carolina Press, 540 pp.

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 177 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

Gaspard, Joseph Charles III.
2013 Tactile Abilities of the Florida Manatee (Trichetus manatus latirostris). Dissertation presented University of Florida.
97 pp.

Gaspard, Joseph Charles III, Gordon B Bauer, Roger L Reep, Kimberly Dziuk, Adrienne Cardwell, LaToshia Read, and David A
Mann.
2015 Audiogram and auditory critical ratios of two Florida manatees. Journal of Experimental Biology 215, 1442-1447.
doi:10.1242/jeb.065649
Godfrey, M
2013 NCWRC website news article, 7 January 2013.

Guilfoyle, MA and RA Fischer
2006 Summary of first regional workshop on dredging, beach nourishment, and birds on the south Atlantic coast. US
Army Corps of Engineers, Dredging Operations and Environmental Research Program. ERDC/EL TR-06-10.

Hager, Christian, Jason Kahn, Carter Watterson, Jay Russo, and Kyle Hartman
2014 Evidence of Atlantic sturgeon spawning in the York River system. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society.
Volume 143: Issue 5. September. pgs1217-1219.

Haig, SM and JH Plissner
1992 The 1991 international piping plover census. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Twin Cities, MN, 200 pp.

Halimubieke, Naerhulan, Krisztina Kupán, José O. Valdebenito, Vojtěch Kubelka, Maria Cristina Carmona-Isunza, Daniel Burgas,
Daniel Catlin, James J. H. St. Clair, Jonathan Cohen, Jordi Gifuerola, Mai Yasué, Matthew Johnson, Mauro
Mencarelli, Medaro Cruz-Lépez, Michelle Stantial, Michael A. Weston, Penn Lloyd, Pinjia Que, Tomás Montalvo,
Udita Bassal, Grant C. McDonald, Yang Liu, András Kosztolányi and Tamás Székely
2020 Successful breeding predicts divorce in plovers. Scientific Reports 10:15576. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-
72521-6

Hancock, TE
1995 Ecology of the threatened species seabeach amaranth (Amaranthus pumilus Rafinesque). MS Thesis, University of
North Carolina at Wilmington.
Hancock, TE, and PE Hosier
2003 Ecology of the threatened species Amaranthus pumilus Rafinesque. Castanea, Vol 68(3), pp 236–244.

Harry, Charles Thomas II
2015 Linkages between New England dolphin stranding frequency and North Atlantic Oscillation Variability. Open
Access Master's Theses. Paper 543.https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/theses/543

Hayes, MO
1994 Georgia Bight. Chapter 7 in RA Davis, Jr (ed), Geology of the Holocene Barrier Island System, Springer-Verlag, Berlin,
pp 233-304.

Heller, Erin Leigh
2020 Factors affecting Western Atlantic red knots (Calidris canutus rufa) and their prey during spring migration on
Virginia’s barrier islands. Doctoral thesis submitted at Virginia Polytechnic Institute. Blacksburg, VA. 294 pp.
https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/bitstream/handle/10919/99099/Heller_EL_D_2020.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

Howey-Jordan Lucy A., E.J. Brooks, D. L. Abercrombie, L.K.B. Jordan, A. Brooks, S. Williams S, et al.
2013 Complex Movements, Philopatry and Expanded Depth Range of a Severely Threatened Pelagic Shark, the Oceanic
Whitetip (Carcharhinus longimanus) in the Western North Atlantic. PLoS ONE 8(2): e56588.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0056588

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 178 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

Jensen, Aleria S. and Gregory K Silber
2004 Large whale ship strike database. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-OPR-25. January.

Johnson, Carmen, Constance Powell, and Marianna Miller
2020 Status and Distribution of Colonial Waterbirds during the 2020 Nesting Season in Coastal North Carolina. Final
Report to the US Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District. NCWRC. 37 pp.

Johnson, SE
2004 An assessment of the nearest associates and the effects of competition on the threatened dune annual, Amaranthus
pumilus, Rafinesque (Amaranthaceae). East Carolina University, Department of Biology, M.S. Thesis.
Jolls, CL, JD Sellars, SE Johnson, and CA Wigent
2004 Restore seabeach amaranth; A federally threatened species, habitat assessment and restoration of Amaranthus
pumilus (Amaranthaceae), using remote sensing data. 2001 Natural Resource Presentation Program, RMP Project
Statement CAHA-N-018.000, National Park Service, Final Report. 116 pp.

Kahn, J.E., C. Hager, J.C. Watterson, and K. Hartman
2016 Abundance of adult Atlantic sturgeon in the York River and an assessment of the primary threat to the population.
NOAA and USGS Atlantic and Shortnose Sturgeon Workshop. Shepardstown WVA. May.

Kana, TW
1990 Conserving South Carolina Beaches Through the 1990s: A Case for Beach Nourishment. South Carolina Coastal
Council, Charleston, SC, 33 pp.

Kana, TW and HL Kaczkowski
2012 Planning, preliminary design, and initial performance of the Nags Head beach nourishment project. In Proceedings
33rd International Conference on Coastal Engineering (ICCE July 2012, Santander, Spain, 12 pp).

Kavanagh, A.S., M. Nykänen, W. Hunt, N. Richardson & M.J. Jessopp
2019 Seismic surveys reduce cetacean sightings across a large marine ecosystem. Scientific Reports 9:19164
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-55500-4 Kikukawa, A, N Kamezaki, and H Ota
1999 Factors affecting nesting beach selection by loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta: a multiple regression approach.
Journal of Zoology 249 (4): 447-454.

Koches, J
2017 From Massachusetts to South Carolina, recovering seabeach amaranth. USFWS (12/07/17).
fws.gov/southeast/articles/from-massachusetts-to-south-carolina-recovering-seabeach-amaranth/.

Komar, PD
1998 Beach Processes and Sedimentation. Second Edition, Prentice-Hall, Inc, Simon & Schuster, Upper Saddle River, NJ,
544 pp.

Laist, David W, and John E Reynolds III
2005 Influence of Power Plants and other Warm Water Refuges on Florida Manatees. Marine Mammal Science 21 (4): 739-
764. October

Leffler, M, C Baron, B Scarborough, K Hathaway, P Hodges, and C Townsend
1996 Annual data summary for 1994 CERC Field Research Facility (2 volumes). USACE-WES, Coastal Engineering Research
Center, Vicksburg, MS, Tech Rept CERC-96-6.

Lesage, Véronique, Katharine Gavrilchuk, Russel D. Andrews, and Richard Sears
2017 Foraging areas, migratory movements, and winter destinations of the blue whale from the western North Atlantic.
Endangered Species Research. Vol. 34: 27-43. https://doi.org/10.3354/esr00838.

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 179 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

Levesque, J.C. Hager, C., Diaddorio, E., and Dickey, R.J.
2016 Commercial fishing gear modifications to reduce interactions between Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus
oxyrinchus) and the southern flounder (Paralichthys lethostigma) fishery in North Carolina (USA). PeerJ, 4.
https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.2192.

Loegering, JP and JD Fraser
1995 Factors affecting piping plover chick survival in different brood-rearing habitats. Journal of Wildlife Management
59(4): 646-655.

Machemehl, JL
1973 Artificial beach saves Hatteras motels. Shore & Beach 41(1): 10–13.
1979 Damage and repairs to coastal structures. In Proceedings Coastal Structures ‘79, ASCE, New York, NY,
pp 314–332.

Madeiros, Andrielli Maryan, Oscar J. Luiz, and Camila Domit
2015 Occurrence and use of an estuarine habitat by giant manta ray Manta birostris. Journal of Fish Biology. 86,1830-
1838. April. DOI: 10.1111/jfb.12667

Mallinson, David J, Stephen J. Culver, Stanley R Riggs, JP Walsh. Dorothea Ames, and Curtis W. Smith
2008 Past, Present, and Future Inlets of the Outer Banks Barrier Islands of North Carolina. White paper. North Carolina
Coastal Geology Cooperative Research Program. December 28 pp.

Mansfield, Katherine L., Vincent S. Saba, John Keinath, and John A. Musick
2009 Satellite tracking reveals a dichotomy in migration strategies among juvenile loggerhead turtles in the northwest
Atlantic. Marine Biology (2009) 156: 2555-2570.

Mazaris, Antonio D, Athanasios S. Kallimanis, John D. Pantis, and Graeme C. Hays
2013 Phenological response of sea turtles to environmental variation across a species’ northern range. In Proc of Royal
Society B 280: 20122397.
Mazaris, Antonio D, Gail Schofield, Chrysoula Gkazinou, Vasiliki Ampanidou, Graeme C. Hays
2017 Global sea turtle conservation success. Science Advances. 3: e1600730. 20 September.

McClellan, CM and AJ Read
2007 Complexity and variation in loggerhead sea turtle life history. Biology Letters.

McQueen, Andrew D., Burton C. Suedel, and Justin L. Wilkins
2019 Review of Adverse Biological Effects of Dredging-induced Underwater Sounds. WEDA Journal of Dredging. 17 No. 1.
March.

McQueen, Andrew D., Burton C. Suedel, and Frank Thomsen
2020 Ecological Risk Assessment of Underwater Sounds from Dredging Operations. Integrated Environmental
Assessment and Management. March. DOI: 10.1002/ieam.4261

Michel, J, AC Bejarano, CH Peterson, and C Voss
2013 Review of Biological and Biophysical Impacts of Dredging and Handling of Offshore Sand. US Department of the
Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. OCS Study BOEM 2013-0119. 258pp.

Miller, M H and C Klimovich
2017 Endangered Species Act Status Review Report: Giant Manta Ray (Manta birostris) and Reef Manta Ray (Manta alfredi).
Report to National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Protected Resources, Silver Spring, MD. September. 128 pp.

Moslow, TF and SD Heron Jr.
1979 Quaternary evolution of Core Banks, North Carolina: Cape Lookout to New Drum Inlet. In SP Leatherman (ed),
Barrier Islands, Academic Press, New York, NY, pp 211-236.

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 180 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

Molina, KC and RM Erwin
2006 Distribution and conservation status of the gull-billed tern (Gelochelidon nilotica) in North America. Waterbirds 29:
271-295.

NABCI The State of the Birds and Watch List. US Committee of the North American Bird Conservation Initiative
2014

NCDENR
2012 North Carolina 2011 long-term average annual oceanfront erosion rate update study methods report. NC
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Coastal Management, Raleigh, 125 pp.
2019 North Carolina 2019 Oceanfront Setback Factors & Long Term Annual Erosion Rate Update Study: Methods Report.
Division of Coastal Management. January. 190 pp.

NCDEQ
2016 NC Coastal Habitat Protection Plan. NC Department of Environmental Quality. Source Document. 475 pp.

NCDMF
2016 ASMFC Atlantic Sturgeon Plan-Amendment 1, North Carolina Atlantic Sturgeon Annual Compliance Report 2015. October.
2017 ASMFC Atlantic Sturgeon Plan-Amendment 1, North Carolina Atlantic Sturgeon Annual Compliance Report 2016. October.
2018 ASMFC Atlantic Sturgeon Plan-Amendment 1, North Carolina Atlantic Sturgeon Annual Compliance Report 2017. October.
2019 ASMFC Atlantic Sturgeon Plan-Amendment 1, North Carolina Atlantic Sturgeon Annual Compliance Report 2018. October.

NCNHP
2018 List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. October
2020 List of Rare Plant and Animal Species of Dare County. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program.

NCWRC
2018 Peregrine falcon wildlife profile. North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission.

NOAA
2016 Ocean Noise Strategy Roadmap. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. September. Office of Protected
Resources. 144pp.
2018 2018 Revision to: Technical Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing
(Version 2.0). NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-OPR-59. April.
2019 84 FR 66652. Notice of determination on designation of critical habitat for giant manta ray. 5 December. Pages
66652-66664
2020a 2019 Annual Report of a Comprehensive Assessment of a Marine Mammal, Marine Turtle, and Seabird Abundance
and Spatial Distribution in US Waters of the Western North Atlantic – AMAPPS II, NOAA Northeast and Southeast
Fisheries Centers. 112 pp.

NMFS
2016 Guidance for Treatment of Climate Change in NMFS Endangered Species Act Decisions. National Marine Fisheries
Service Procedural Instruction 02-110-18. Office of Protected Resources. September. 9 pp.
2018a 2017 US Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Reports. April. 171 pp.
2018b Common bottlenose dolphin. 2017 regional stock assessment-northern North Carolina estuarine system stock. April.
2020a South Atlantic Regional Biological Opinion for Dredging and Material Placement Activities in the Southeast United
States. NOAA/NMFS/Southeast Regional Office Protected Resource Division, Consultation Number SERO-2019-
03111. March with July update. 653 pp.
2020b Atlantic spotted dolphin. 2019 regional stock assessment-western North Atlantic stock. April.
2020c Common dolphin (short beaked). 2019 regional stock assessment-western North Atlantic. April
2020d Short-finned pilot whale. 2019 regional stock assessment. April.

NMFS and USFWS
2015 Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle ( Lepidochelys kempii) Five Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. NMFS Office of
Protected Resources, Silver Spring MD and USFWS Southwest Region Albuquerque, NM. July.63 pp.

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 181 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

NPS
1980 Cape Hatteras Lighthouse, Buxton, North Carolina. National Park Service, Authors: MTMA Design Group, JL
Machemehl, NPS, 139 pp.
2006 Management Policies. The Guide to Managing the National Park System. US Department of Interior, National Park
Service, US Government Printing Office, 180 pp.
2010 Final Off-Road Vehicle Management Plan/EIS. Cape Hatteras National Seashore. US Department of Interior.
National Park Service. 274 pp.
2012 Cape Hatteras National Seashore marine mammal strandings, 2008-2012 a five-year summary.
2013a Cape Hatteras National Seashore marine mammal strandings, 2013 summary.
2013b Cape Hatteras National Seashore sea turtle monitoring 2013 annual report.
2014a Biological Assessment Guidebook. US Department of the Interior.
2014b Cape Hatteras National Seashore marine mammal strandings 2014 summary.
2015a EA-Review and Adjustment of Wildlife Buffers, Cape Hatteras National Seashore. US Department of Interior,
National Park Service. April.
2015b Annual Park Recreation Visitation Report; Recreation Visitors by Month Report. National Park Service Public Use
Statistics Office. Denver CO. http://www.irma.nps.gov/stats.
2016 State of the Park for Cape Hatteras National Seashore of State of the Park Series No. 33. National Park Service,
Washington DC.
2018 Coastal Species of Concern Predation Management Plan and Programmatic Environmental Assessment. Southeast
Region National Park Service. September. 124 pp.
2019 Coastal Species of Concern Predation Management Plan and Programmatic Environmental Assessment. Southeast
Region National Park Service –Finding of No Significant Impact. February. 50 pp.
2020 Cape Hatteras National Seashore Sediment Management Framework Draft Environmental Impact Statement. US
Department of the Interior. National Park Service. September. 215 pp. Volume 2 Appendices and Figures. 66 pp.
2021a Cape Hatteras National Seashore Sediment Management Framework – Final Environmental Impact Statement.
National Park Service, Fort Collins, CO, 150 pp + appendices.
2021b Joint Record of Decision Sediment Management Framework – Cape Hatteras National Seashore. National Park
Service, Fort Collins, CO, 13 pp + appendices.

NPS and USACE
2015 Environmental assessment — beach restoration to protect NC Highway 12 at Buxton, Dare County, North Carolina.
US Army Corps of Engineers, US Department of Interior, National Park Service, NPS 603/129663, Volume I (204 pp)
and Volume II (Appendixes A to G).

NRC
1988 Saving Cape Hatteras Lighthouse from the Sea: Options and Policy Implications. Committee on Options for Preserving
Cape Hatteras Lighthouse, National Research Council; National Academy Press, National Academy of Sciences,
Washington, DC, 150 pp.
1995 Beach Nourishment and Protection. Committee on Beach Nourishment and Protection, Marine Board, Commission
on Engineering and Technical Systems, National Research Council, National Academy Press, National Academy of
Sciences, Washington, DC, 334 pp.

Pace, Richard M, Peter J. Corkeron, Scott D. Kraus
2017 State-space mark-recapture estimates reveal a recent decline in abundance of North Atlantic right whales. Ecology
and Evolution. Vol. 7, 21: 8730-8741. November. DOI: 10.1002/ece3.3406.

Peek, Katie, Shannon A. Mahan, and David Mallinson
2014. Holocene geologic development of Cape Hatteras region, Outer Banks, North Carolina, USA. Journal of Coastal
Research Vol. 30. No.1: 41-58. DOI: 10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-12-00192.1

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 182 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

Popper, AN, AD Hawkins, RR Fay, D Mann, S Bartol, TH Carlson, S Coombs, WT Ellison, R Gentry, MB Halvorsen,
S Lokkeborg, P Rogers, BL Southall, DG Zeddies, and WN Tavolga
2014 ASA S3/SC1.4 TR-2014 Sound Exposure Guidelines for Fishes and Sea Turtles: A Technical Report prepared by ANSI-
Accredited Standards Committee S3/SC1 and registered with ANSI. Springer. XVI. 76 pp. ISBN 978-3-319-06658-5.

Ramos, JA
2000 Azores bullfinch Pyrrhula murina. Bulletin of the African Bird Club 7(1): 31-33.

Ramp, C, J Delarue, Per J Pasbøll, R Sears, and PS Hammond
2015 Adapting to a warmer ocean-seasonal shifts of baleen whale movements over three decades. PLOS-one. DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0121374.

Ramp, Christian, David Gaspard, Katherine Gavrilchuk, Miranda Unger, Anna Schleimer, Julien Delarue, Scott Landry, and
Richard Sears
2021 Up in the air: drone images reveal underestimation in entanglement rates in large rorqual whales. Endangered
Species Research. Vol 44: 33-44.

Reine, KJ, D Clarke, C Dickerson, and G Wikel
2014 Characterization of underwater sounds produced by trailing suction hopper dredges during sand mining and pump-
out operations. US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and US Army Corps of
Engineers. ERDC/EL TR 14-3, BOEM 2014-055. Herndon, VA, March 2014.

Riggs, SR, DV Ames, SJ Culver, DJ Mallinson, DR Corbett, and JP Walsh
2008 North Carolina's Coasts in Crisis: A Vision for the Future. White paper. North Carolina Coastal Geology Cooperative
Research Program. October 32 pp.
2009 Eye of a human hurricane: Pea Island, Oregon Inlet, and Bodie Island, northern Outer Banks, North Carolina. In JT
Kelley, OH Pilkey, and JAG Cooper (eds), America’s Most Vulnerable Coastal Communities, Geological Society of
America, Special Paper 460-04, pp 43-72.

Riggs. SR and DV Ames
2011a Consequences of Human Modifications in Oregon Inlet to the Down-Drift Pea Island, North Carolina Outer Banks.
Southeastern Geology. Volume 43, Issue 3, October.
2011b Impact of the Oregon Inlet Terminal Groin on Downstream Beaches of Pea Island North Carolina
Riggs, SR and DV Ames

Roach, Nicolette S and Kyle Barrett
2015 Managed Habitats Increase Occupancy of Black Rails (Laterallusjamaicensis) and May Buffer Impacts of Sea Level
Rise. Wetlands. Society of Wetland Scientists. September. 21pp. DOI: 10.1007/s13157-015-0695-6

Roberts, Jason, BD Best, Laura Mannocci, Ei Fujioka, PN Halpin, Debra L Palka, Lance P Garrison, Keith D Mullin, Timothy VN
Cole, Kristin B Kahn, William A McClellan, D Ann Pabst, and Gwen G Lockhart
2016 Habitat-based cetacean density models for the US Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. Scientific Reports 6:22615. doi:
10.1038/srep22615

Rogers, Jr, S
1986 Artificial seaweed for shoreline erosion control. Sea Grant Publication UNC-SG-WP-86-4, UNC Sea Grant Marine
Advisory Service, Kure Beach, NC, 18 pp.
Rulifson, Roger A, Charles W Bangley, Jennifer Cudney, Andrea Dell'Apa, Keith J. Dunton, Michael G Frisk, Michael S Loeffler,
Matthew T Balazik, Christian Hager, Tom Savoy, Harold M Brundage III, and William C Post.
2020 Seasonal Presence of Atlantic Sturgeon and Sharks at Cape Hatteras, a Large Continental Shelf Constriction to
Coastal Migration. Marine and Coastal Fisheries: Dynamics, Management, and Ecosystem Science 12: 308-321. ISSN
1942-5120 online; DOI 10.1002/mcf2.10111

Savoy,Tom, Lorraine Maceda, Nirmal K. Roy, Doug Peterson, and Isaac Wirgin
2017 Evidence of natural reproduction of Atlantic sturgeon in the Connecticut River from unlikely sources. PlosONE.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0175085

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 183 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

Schwartz, FJ
2000 Elasmobranchs of the Cape Fear River, North Carolina. Journal of the Elisha Mitchell Scientific
Society 116, 206–224.

Schweitzer, Sara, Annika Andersson, Nick Jennings, and Carmen Johnson
2017 Status and Distribution of Colonial Waterbirds during the 2017 Nesting Season in Coastal North Carolina. Final
Report to the US Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District. NCWRC. 33 pp.

Sellars, JD and CL Jolls
2004 Habitat modeling for Amaranthus pumilus: an application of light detection and ranging (LIDAR) data. Journal of
Coastal Resources.

Smith JA, Flowers HJ, Hightower JE
2015 Fall spawning of Atlantic Sturgeon in the Roanoke River, North Carolina. Transactions of the American Fisheries
Society1: 48–54.

Smith, David R., H.J. Brockmann, M.A.Beekey, T.L. King, M.J. Millard, and J.Zaldivar-Rae
2016 Conservation status of the American horseshoe crab (Limulus polyphemus): a regional assessment. Rev Fish Biol
Fisheries. December. 41 pp. DOI 10.1007/s/11160-016-9461-y

Snow, DW and CM Perrins
1998 The Birds of the Western Paleoarctic Vol. 1: Non-Passerines. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Solow, Andrew R, Karen A Bjorndal, and Alan B Bolton
2002 Annual variation in nesting numbers of marine sea turtles: the effect of sea surface temperature on re-migration
intervals. Ecology Letters 5: 742-746.

Stein, AB, KB Friedland, and M Sutherland
2004 Sturgeon marine distribution and habitat use along the northeast coast of the United States. Transactions of the
American Fisheries Society 133: 527-537.

Stewart JD, Jaine FRA, Armstrong AJ, Armstrong AO, Bennett MB, Burgess KB, Couturier LIE, Croll DA, Cronin MR, Deakos MH,
Dudgeon CL, Fernando D, Froman N, Germanov ES, Hall MA,Hinojosa-Alvarez S, Hosegood JE, Kashiwagi T,
Laglbauer BJL, Lezama-Ochoa N, Marshall AD, McGregor F, Notarbartolo di Sciara G,Palacios MD, Peel LR,
Richardson AJ, Rubin RD, Townsend KA, Venables SK and Stevens GMW
2018 Research Priorities to Support Effective Manta and Devil Ray Conservation. Front. Mar. Sci. 5:314. doi:
10.3389/fmars.2018.00314

Strand, A.
2002 Characterization of geographic genetic structure in Amarnathus pumilus. Department of Biology, College of
Charleston. Charleston, SC

Stratton, AC
1943 Reclaiming the North Carolina “Banks.” Shore & Beach, 1: 25-27, 32.
1943 Artificial beach saves Hatteras hotel. Shore & Beach 41(1): 10-13.
1957 Beach erosion control in the Cape Hatteras National Seashore recreational area. Shore & Beach 25(1): pp 4-8.

TAR 2021 Remote-sensing archaeological survey of a proposed borrow site off Buxton, Dare County, North Carolina. Cultural
Resources Report, Tidewater Atlantic Research Inc, Washington (NC).

Thompson, William, Paul Doshkov, K. Losch, J. Wright, C. Campbell, N. Sweeney, and T. A. Ziegler
2019 Cape Hatteras National Seashore sea turtle monitoring and management program: 2018 annual report. National
Park Service, Cape Hatteras National Seashore, Manteo, NC.

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 184 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

Tolotti, Marianna Travassos, Pascal Bach, Fabio Hazin, Paulo Travassos, Laurent Dagorn
2015 Vulnerability of the Oceanic Whitetip Shark to Pelagic Longline Fisheries. PLoS ONE 10(10): e0141396.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0141396

Truchon, Marie-Hélène, Lena Measures, Vincent L'Hérault, Jean-Claude Brêthes, Peter S Galbraith, Michel Harvey, Silvie Lessard,
Michel Starr, and Nicolas LeComte
2013 Marine Mammal Strandings and Environmental Changes: a 15 Year Study in the St. Lawrence Ecosystem.
PLoS ONE 8(3): e59311.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0059311

Tucker, Anton D
2010 Nest site fidelity and clutch frequency of loggerhead turtles are better elucidated by satellite telemetry than by nocturnal
tagging efforts: implications for stock estimation. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 383(1): 48-55.

URS Corporation
2015 NC Feasibility Study from Avon to Buxton, Dare County North Carolina. State Transportation Improvement Program
Project. Prepared for NCDOT Project Development and Environmental Analysis Unit. Division 1 WSB Number
34611.1.2. December.

USACE
1996 Cape Hatteras Lighthouse, North Carolina, fourth groin alternative: design report and environmental assessment.
Prepared for the National Park Service. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District, NC, 73 pp plus appendices.
2006 Appendix I – Biological Assessment. In Draft General Reevaluation Report and Environmental Impact Statement on
Hurricane Protection and Beach Erosion Control: West Onslow Beach and New River Inlet (Topsail Beach), North
Carolina. US Army Corps of Engineers, pp 11-I28. 2013 Final Essential Fish Habitat Assessment for emergency beach
fill along NC Highway 12 in Rodanthe, Dare County, NC.
2015 Appendix G. Noise Assessment for Chaleston Harbor Post 45 Final Integrated Feasibility Report and Environmental
Impact Statement. June.

USACE–Burlas et al.
2001 The New York District’s Biological Monitoring Program for the Atlantic Coast of New Jersey, Asbury Park to
Manasquan Section Beach Erosion Control Project. Final Report, US Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS, 11 chapters.

USFWS
1993 Amaranthus pumilus (seabeach amaranth) determined to be threatened: final rule. US Fish & Wildlife Service,
Federal Register 58, 65: 18035-18042.
1996a Piping plover (Charadrius melodus), Atlantic Coast population, revised recovery plan. Hadley, MA, 258 pp.
1996b Recovery plan for seabeach amaranth (Amaranthus pumilus Rafinesque). Atlanta, Georgia: p 59.
2003 Recovery plan for the Great Lakes piping plover (Charadrius melodus). Ft. Snelling, MN, viii + 141 pp.
2007 Seabeach amaranth (Amaranthus pumilus): 5-year review: summary and evaluation. Ecological Services,
Southeast Region, Raleigh, NC.
2008 Birds of Conservation Concern. US Department of Interior, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, VA,
85 pp [online version available at http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/<].
2010 Status review and conservation recommendations for the Gull-billed Tern (Gelochelidon nilotica) in North America.
Biological Technical Publication. BTP-R1013-2010.
2011 Roseate tern: North American sub-species. Fact Sheet.
2014 Rufa Red Knot Background Information and Threats Assessment. Supplement to Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and Plants; Final Threatened Status for the Rufa Red Knot (Calidrus canuta rufa). [Docket No. FWS-R5-ES-
2013-0097; RIN-AY17]. Northeast Region New Jersey Field Office. November.
2016 Habitat Conservation Planning and Incidental Take Permit Processing Handbook. With US Department of Interior
and Department of Commerce. December.
2017 North Carolina Coastal Beach Sand Placement-Statewide Programmatic Biological Opinion. Service Log Number
04EN2000-2017-F-0126. 28 August.
2019 Species status assessment report for the eastern black rail (Laterallus jamaicensis jamaicensis). Version 1.3. August. Atlanta GA.
2020 Official species list of threatened and endangered species that may occur in proposed action location or be affected
by proposed action (Buxton Maintenance Project: 04EN2000-2019-SLI-1612) 30 September and 21 December 2020.

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 185 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

Urban, EK, CH Fry, and S Keith
1986 The Birds of Africa. Vol. II, Academic Press, London.

Verhagen, HJ
1992 Method for artificial beach nourishment. In Proceedings 23rd Intl Coastal Engineering Conf, ASCE, New York, NY, pp
2474-2485.

Walters, Jeffery R., Ashley A. Dayer, Stephen J. Dinsmore, Matthew H. Godfrey, Cheri L. Gratto-Trevor, Erica Nol, and Stanley R. Riggs
2020 Evaluating Past and Present Management of Beach-Nesting Wildlife Species at Cape Hatteras National Seashore.
The American Ornithological Society Committee on Science Arbitration. July 84 pp.

Warraich, Natasha, Ricardo Zambrano, and Elizabeth A. Wright. \
2012 First records of least terns nesting on non-gravel roofs. Southeastern Naturalist 11 (4): 775-778.

Watts, B. D.
2016 Status and distribution of the eastern black rail along the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts of North America. The Center for
Conservation Biology Technical Report Series, CCBTR-16-09. College of William and Mary/Virginia Commonwealth
University, Williamsburg, VA. 148 pp.

Watterson, J. Carter
2015 Navy Sponsored Research Uncovers the Mystery of the Atlantic Sturgeon. Endangered Species Bulletin. Fall.

Webster, William David, James F Parnell, and Walter C Biggs, Jr
1985 Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Maryland. University of North Carolina Press. 255 pp.

Wickliffe, L.C., F.C. Rohde, K.L. Riley, and J.A. Morris, Jr. (eds.).
2019. An Assessment of Fisheries Species to Inform Time-of-Year Restrictions for North Carolina and South Carolina. NOAA
Technical Memorandum NOS NCCOS 263. 268 p. October. https://doi.org/10.25923/7xdd-nw91

Wilber, D, D Clarke, G Ray, and R Van Dolah
2009 Lessons learned from biological monitoring of beach nourishment projects. In Proc of the Western Dredging
Association Twenty-Ninth Technical Conference & Fortieth Texas A&M Dredging Seminar, 14-17 June 2009, Tempe,
AZ. RE Randall (ed.), Center for Dredging Studies, Texas A&M University, pp 262-274.

Wilson, MD, B. D. Watts, and D. Poulton
2016 Black Rail Status Survey in North Carolina. Center for Biology Technical Report Series, CCBTR-16-01. College of
William and Mary and Virginia Commonwealth University. 21 pp.

Witherington, BE
1992 Behavioral responses of nesting sea turtles to artificial lighting. Herpetologica 48(1): 31-39

Young, C. N., Carlson, J., Hutchinson, M., Hutt, C., Kobayashi, D., McCandless, C.T., and Wraith, J.
2017 Status review report: oceanic whitetip shark (Carcharhinius longimanus). Final Report to the National Marine
Fisheries Service, Office of Protected Resources. December 2017. 170 pp.

Zdravkovic, MG
2013 Conservation Plan for the Wilson's Plover (Charadrius wilsonia). Version 1.0 Manomet Center for Conservation
Sciences, Manomet Massachusetts. USA.

Zonick, C, et al.
1998 The effects of dredged material on the ecology of the piping plover and the snowy plover. A report to the US Army
Corps of Engineers, Galveston, TX, 147 pp.

CZR Inc. and Coastal Science & Engineering Biological Assessment – July 2021
[2525–Task 4–Appendix E] 186 Avon Village, Dare County, North Carolina

Websites

https://oceana.org/blog/manta-ray-brainpower-blows-other-fish-out-water-10 (McDermott, Amy. Oceana. 25 July 2017.
Retrieved 14 October 2019.

http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/speciesfactsheet.php?id=3266 (roseate tern; with references added in text above)
http://www.carolinabirdclub.org/ncbirds/accounts.php (accessed 3 August 2015)
http://ebird.org/ebird/GuideMe?cmd=decisionPage&speciesCodes=baleag&getLocations=counties&counties=US-NC-
(eBird Oct 12 2020)
http://ebird.org/ebird/GuideMe?cmd=decisionPage&speciesCodes=gubter1&getLocations=counties&counties=US-NC-
055&bYear=1900&eYear=2014&bMonth=1&eMonth=12&reportType=species& (eBirds Oct 24 2014)
http://ebird.org/ebird/GuideMe?cmd=decisionPage&getLocations=counties&counties=US-NC-055&yr=all&m.
Accessed 19 March 2015.
http://ebird.org/ebird/GuideMe?cmd=decisionPage&getLocations=states&states=US-NC&yr=all&m. Accessed 19 March 2015.
http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=B01H (USFWS Species Profile Oct 23 2014)
http://www.fws.gov/northeast/redknot/pdf/Redknot_BWfactsheet092013.pdf
http://www.fws.gov/northeast/redknot/pdf/QAs_RedKnotpL_FINAL_092713.pdf
http://www.fws.gov/northeast/pdf/Roseatetern0511.pdf
http://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/es_seabeach_amaranth.html
http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?speciesID=488 (blue back herring fact sheet)
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/esa/listed.htm#mammals (mammals, turtles, and fish species information)
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/07/200717120132.htm (accessed 3 November 2020) baleen whales in western North
Atlantic (NOAA Northeast Fisheries Center)
LeGrand, Harry. 2018-11-09. http://ncbirds.carolinabirdclub.org/view.php?species_id=299
LeGrand, Harry. 2019-04-19. http://ncbirds.carolinabirdclub.org/view.php?species_id=298
LeGrand, Harry. 2020-02-08. http://ncbirds.carolinabirdclub.org/view.php?species_id=303