Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
125-16 Town of Ocean Isle Beach
e, Permit Class NEW Permit Number 125-16 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA Department of Environmental Quality and Coastal Resources Commission Vermft for X Major Development in an Area of Environmental Concern pursuant to NCGS 113A-118 X Excavation and/or filling pursuant to NCGS 113-229 Issued to Town of Ocean Isle Beach, 3 West 3'd Street, Ocean Isle Beach, NC 28469 Authorizing development in Brunswick County at the Atlantic Ocean, Shallotte Inlet, & the oceanfront shoreline of Ocean Isle Beach , as requested in the permittee's application dated 7/26/16, including attached workplan drawings (16) as referenced in Condition No. 1 below. This permit, issued on December 16, 2016 , is subject to compliance with the application (where consistent with the permit), all applicable regulations, special conditions and notes set forth below. Any violation of these terms may be subject to tines, imprisonment or civil action; or may cause me perms to be suit ana vola. 1) Unless specifically altered herein, all development shall be carried out in accordance with the attached workplan drawings (16), labeled Sheets 1-16, dated 317/16; and AEC Hazard Notice dated 3/15/16. 2) In order to protect threatened and endangered species and to minimize adverse impacts to offshore, nearshore, intertidal and beach resources, no excavation or beach nourishment activities, including mobilization and demobilization, shall occur from April 1 to November 15 of any year without prior approval from the Division of Coastal Management, in consultation with the appropriate resource agencies. RECEIVED DEC 21 2016 (See attached sheets for Additional Conditions) 'n.;� ......a. a...:..., ... , t . »lai r,,, th. ,wr ,**n nr Cio ed by the anthnrity of the Cenretary of TWO and the other qualified persons within twenty (20) days of the issuing date. This permit must be accessible on -site to Department personnel when the project is inspected for compliance. Any maintenance work or project modification not covered hereunder requires further Division approval. All work must cease when the permit expires on December 31, 2019 In issuing this permit, the State of North Carolina agrees that your project is consistent with the North Carolina Coastal Management Program. Chairman of the Coastal Resources Commission. a—fav, Braxton . Davis, Director Division of Coastal Management This permit and its conditions are hereby accepted. Signature of Permittee Town of Ocean Isle Beach ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS Excavation Permit No. 125-16 Page 2 of 5 3) All excavation shall take place entirely within the areas indicated on the attached workplan drawings. 4) Excavation shall not exceed -15' MLW in Shallotte Inlet. 5) The temporary placement or double -handling of excavated or fill materials within waters or vegetated wetlands is not authorized. Beach Nourishment 6) This permit authorizes beach nourishment activities to be carried out one (1) time along the entire reach of the requested project area. Any request to carry out additional activities within an area where nourishment activities have been completed under this permit shall require a modification of this permit. 7) Prior to any nourishment activities occurring between April 1 and October 31 of any year, the Division of Marine Fisheries, Shellfish Sanitation Section shall be notified so that any necessary swimming advisories may be posted. 8) Prior to initiation of beach nourishment activity along each section of beach, the existing mean high water line shall be surveyed, and a copy of the survey provided to the Division of Coastal Management. NOTE: The permittee is advised that the State of North Carolina claims title to all currently submerged lands and any future lands that are raised above the mean high water level as a result of this project. 9) Prior to the initiation of any large-scale beach nourishment activity, the permittee shall coordinate with the Division of Coastal Management to determine the expanded static vegetation line that shall be used as the reference point for measuring future oceanfront setbacks. The expanded static vegetation line, which is defined as the vegetation line that existed within one year prior to the onset of initial project construction, shall be established using on -ground observation and survey or aerial imagery. This expanded static vegetation line shall then be marked and a survey depicting the expanded static vegetation line shall be submitted to the Division of Coastal Management prior to any large-scale beach nourishment activities. 10) Prior to the initiation of beach nourishment activity on a specific property, easements or similar legal instruments shall be obtained from the impacted property owner(s). 11) Temporary dikes shall be used to retain and direct flow of material parallel to the shorel' to mini4 surf zone turbidities. The temporary dikes shall be removed and the beach graded in accoanc�,with-) approved profiles upon completion of pumping activities in that particular section of be N 12) Should dredging operations encounter sand deemed non -compatible with 15A NCAC 0 .03 M% 2 (Technical Standards for Beach Fill Projects), the dredge operator shall immediately ce op Mtion and contact the Division of Coastal Management. Dredge operations shall resume after res on Rthe U issue of sand compatibility. Town of Ocean Isle Beach Permit No. 125-16 Page 3 of 5 ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS 13) In order to prevent leakage, dredge pipes shall be routinely inspected. If leakage is found and repairs cannot be made immediately, pumping of material shall stop until such leaks are fixed. 14) Once a section is complete, piping and heavy equipment shall be removed or shifted to a new section and the area graded and dressed to final approved slopes. 15) Land -based equipment necessary for beach nourishment work shall be brought to the site through existing accesses. Should the work result in any damage to existing accesses, the accesses shall be restored to pre -project conditions immediately upon project completion in that specific area. NOTE: The permittee is advised that any new access site would require a modification of this permit. 16) Dune disturbance shall be kept to a minimum. Any alteration of existing dunes shall be coordinated with the Division of Coastal Management as well as the appropriate property owner(s). All disturbed areas shall be restored to original contours and configuration and shall be revegetated immediately following project completion in that specific area. 17) Where oceanfront development exists at elevations nearly equal to that of the native beach, a low protective dune shall be pushed up along the backbeach to prevent slurry from draining towards the development. Spoil Disposal (Non -Beach Compatible Material) RECEIVED DEC 21 2016 18) All non -beach compatible material shall be confined above normal high water and landwar of regularly or irregularly flooded marsh behind adequate dikes or other retaining structur(Jd 5VRJ ll(agrrf solids into any marsh or surrounding waters. U 11..1Ivv�t 19) The disposal area effluent shall be contained by pipe, trough, or similar device to a point at or beyond the normal high water to prevent gully erosion and unnecessary siltation. 20) The terminal end of the pipeline shall be positioned at or greater than 50 feet from any part of the dike and a maximum distance from spillways to allow settlement of suspended sediments. 21) A water control structure shall be installed at the intake end of the effluent pipe to assure compliance with water quality standards. 22) The diked disposal area shall be constructed a sufficient distance from the normal high water or any marsh to eliminate the possibility of dike erosion into surrounding wetlands or waters. 23) The spoil area shall be inspected and approved by the Division of Coastal Management prior to the beginning of any dredge activities. Town of Ocean Isle Beach ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS Cultural Resource Protection Permit No. 125-16 Page 4 of 5 24) The permittee shall exercise all precautions to avoid damage to any potential historic structures or shipwrecks. If such materials are encountered; the permittee shall immediately stop work and notify the N.C. Division of Coastal Management at (910) 796-7215 General 25) The permittee shall obtain any necessary authorizations or approvals from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers prior to initiation of any permitted activity. Unless altered by a specific Condition of this Permit, the permittee shall adhere to all conditions on the Federal approval. 26) In order to ensure compliance of the authorized project with the conditions of State Permit No. 107-16. which authorized the Town of Ocean Isle Beach to construct of a terminal groin along with associated monitoring and possible remedial activities, the permittee and his contractor shall schedule a pre - construction conference with the Division of Coastal Management, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission, and N.C. Division of Water Resources prior to the initiation of any dredging or mobilization activities authorized by this permit. In order to facilitate these discussions, a complete set of project plans shall be provided to all listed agencies at the time of each request for a pre -construction conference. Additionally, each such request for a pre -construction conference shall include a statement by the terminal groin project engineer certifying that the proposed activities authorized under this permit will not in any way limit the Town's abilities to carry out any planned or future remedial actions required under Permit No. 107-16. 27) This permit shall not be assigned, transferred, sold or otherwise disposed of to a third party without the written approval of the Division of Coastal Management. 28) The authorized project shall not interfere with the public's right to free navigation on all navigable waters of the United States. No attempt will be made by the permittee to prevent the full and free use by the public of all navigable waters at or adjacent to the authorized work for reason other than safety. 29) No sand shall be placed on any sand bags that have been determined by the Division of Coastal Management to be subject to removal under 15A NCAC 07H .0308(a)(2). In order to ensure compliance with this condition, the Division of Coastal Management shall be contacted at (910) 796- 7215 prior to project initiation so that Division staff may meet on site with the permittee and/or contractor. NOTE: The permittee is advised that the Division of Coastal Management shall regulate the removal of existing sandbags and the placement of new sandbags in accordance wit SA NCAC 07H .0308(a)(2), or in accordance with any variances granted by the N.C. tal Resourck Commission. o� A. ti V* 30) This permit does not authorize any permanent or long-term. interference yft]ithe p�ysblic'gght of access and/or usage of all State lands and waters. 4!zv . O<`' Town of Ocean Isle Beach ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS Permit No. 125-16 Page 5 of 5 31) The permittee shall make every effort possible to minimize any negative impacts of trucks and construction equipment on roadway and pedestrian traffic. The permittee should also ensure that the ability of individuals to access and enjoy the beach is not impeded outside of the construction limits. NOTE: This permit does not eliminate the need to obtain any additional state, federal or local permits, approvals or authorizations that may be required. NOTE: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has assigned the proposed project Action ID No. SAW-2016- 01642. NOTE: An application processing fee of $475 was received by DCM for this project. This fee also satisfied the Section 401 application processing fee requirements of the Division of Water Resources. RECEIVED DEC 21 2016 DCM- MHD CITY DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT APPLICATION TRANSMITTAL AND PROCESSING RECORD 1) APPLICANT: Town of Ocean Isle Beach COUNTY: Brunswick PROJECT NAME: 30year Beach Management Plan LOCATION OF PROJECT: along approx. 5 miles of oceanfront beach, including adjacent to the Shallotte River Inlet, in the Town of Ocean Isle Beach DATE APPLICATION RECEIVED COMPLETE BY FIELD: 7-26-16 FIELD RECOMMENDATION: Attached: Yes CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION: Attached: No FIELD REPRESENTATIVE: Sean Farrell DISTRICT MANAGER REVIEW: ✓.� '--� B) DATE RECEIVED BY MAJOR PERMITS UNIT: PUBLIC NOTICE REC'D: 8-17-16 / ADJ. RIP. PROP NOTICES REC'D: APPLICATION ASSIGNED O: - C) 75 DAY DEADLINE: I b MAIL OUT DATE: 8-12-16 FEDERAL DUE DATE: PERMIT FINAL ACTION: ISSUE DENY To Be Forwarded: n/a To Be Forwarded: n/a DISTRICT OFFICE: WILMINGTON FEE REC'D: $4751 #71631 END OF NOTICE DATE: 9-3-16 / DEED RE 'D: ON: 150 DAY DEADLINE: STATE DUE DATE: 9-3-16 FED COMMENTS REC'D: DRAFT ON AGENCY DATE COMMENTS RETURNED OBJECTIONS: YES NO NOTES Coastal Management - Regional Representative Coastal Management - LUP Consistency \1 iS Ilp l Division of Community Assistance 16 (I Land Quality Section (DEMLR) V) a/db Division of Water Resources (401)lajl(i Storm Water Management (DEMLR) �V i State Property Office q 2J hP i' Division of Archives & History Division of Environmental Health I /(P l Division of Highways 7� flip /RECEIVED Wildlife Resources Commission C Local Permit Office Division of Martine Fisheries / DCM Z (It Corps of Engineers HH1 r-1 Recommendations for State Permit — Town of Ocean Isle Beach c/o CP & E August 15, 2016 The proposed maintenance excavation and beach nourishment activities appear to be CONSISTENT with 15 NCAC 07H.0208 (b)(1)(2) & (8) and 07H.0312(1)(2)(3) and (4). This office has no objection to the proposed work should it be determined to be consistent with federal navigation maintenance dredging and CSDR templates. Should a permit be issued, it should require that the project be undertaken in accordance with all other state and federal permitting requirements. RECEIVED AUG 17 2016 DCM- tAHD CITY MEMORANDUM To: Heather Coats From: Mike Christenbury, Wilmington District Planner Subject: Consistency Determination, Major Permit Application, Town of Ocean Isle Beach, Ocean Isle Beach — Brunswick County Date: November 8, 2016 Consistency Determination: This project appears to be consistent with the Town of Ocean Isle Beach Land Use Plan. The applicant proposes to obtain state authorization for a 30-year management plan to continue beach nourishment along the island's oceanfront shoreline expanding on the beach fill template authorized under the federal Coastal Storm Damage Reduction (CSDR) project to re -nourish approximately 27,650 linear feet of beach along the Atlantic Ocean in the Town of Ocean Isle Beach. Areas of Environmental Concern (AEC's) impacted by the proposal are EW, IH, OH and PT. Waters at the project site are classified as SA and are open to the harvesting of shellfish. The area is not a Primary Nursery Area. I have reviewed this proposal for consistency with the Town of Ocean Isle Land Use Plan and offer the following comments. The general area of the project is classified Developed, while the AECs impacted by the work are classified as Conservation. In general, the Town of Ocean Isle Beach allows development in Conservation classified AECs, which is consistent with the State's minimum use standards. The Town of Ocean Isle Beach Land Use Plan contains some policies, which exceed the State's minimum use standards. However, none of these standards appear to be applicable to this proposal. Provided all local, state and federal requirements can be met, this project appears to be consistent with the Town of Ocean Isle Beach Land Use Plan. Cc: File �pI Coastal Management ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY August 15, 2016 TO: Mark Zeigler Division of Community Assistance Wilmington Regional Office PAT MCCRORY Governor DONALD R. VAN DER VAART Secretary BRAXTON DAVIS Director FROM: Heather Coats, Assistant Major Permits Coordinator NCDEQ — Division of Coastal Management 127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilm., NC 28405 heather. coats(a)ncdenr.00v Fax: 395-3964 (Courier 04-16-33) SUBJECT: CAMA/Dredge & Fill Application Review Applicant: Town of Ocean Isle Beach Project Location: from the western end of Ocean Isle Beach, (including Tubbs Inlet), to the eastern end of E. 31"' St., (approx. 5 miles of beachfront) adjacent to the Atlantic Ocean, in Ocean Isle Beach, Brunswick County Proposed Project: A 30-yr beach nourishment management plan Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return this form to Heather Coats at the address above by September 3, 2016. If you have any questions regarding the proposed project, contact Sean Farrell at (910) 796-7424 when appropriate in-depth comments with supporting data is requested. REPLY: SIGNED This agency has no objection to the project as proposed. This agency has no comment on the proposed project. This agency approves of the project only if the recommended changes are incorporated. See attached. This agency objects to the project for reasons described in the attached comments. Vv\ kAU T,(ZA�c,�,, DATED 0 - 00 . ( 6 State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Coastal Management 127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilmington, NC 28405 910-796-7215 M" Coastal Management ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY August 15, 2016 TO: Dan Sams District Manager-DEMLR Wilmington Regional Office PAT MCCRORY Govemor DONALD R. VAN DER VAART Secretary BRAXTON DAVIS Director FROM: Heather Coats, Assistant Major Permits Coordinator NCDEQ — Division of Coastal Management 127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilm., NC 28405 heather. coatsc),ncdenrgov Fax: 395-3964 (Courier 04-16-33) SUBJECT: CAMA / Dredge & Fill Application Review Applicant: Town of Ocean Isle Beach Project Location: from the western end of Ocean Isle Beach, (including Tubbs Inlet), to the eastern end of E. 3rd St., (approx. 5 miles of beachfront) adjacent to the Atlantic Ocean, in Ocean Isle Beach, Brunswick County Proposed Project: A 30-yr beach nourishment management plan Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return this form to Heather Coats at the address above by September 3, 2016. If you have any questions regarding the proposed project, contact Sean Farrell at (910) 796-7424 when appropriate in-depth comments with supporting data is requested. REPLY: This agency has no objection to the project as proposed. This agency has no comment on the proposed project. This agency approves of the project only if the recommended changes a�rre� incorporated. See attached. ('�—yV�j1��Z tW�,uldl�c,�k �f'jq�,�,r� e+ �vl' GS�IJ.`}'LLS r'A 1�KC �IO.CfL i-�'J�r.�{' 1i✓i_vh +/ZGt c.'(Cv5 , This ag ncy objects to the project for reasons desc d in the attached comments. SIGNED DATED u / r- REGtIv EC DCM WILl,AINGTON, NC AUG 2 2 2016 State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Coastal Management 127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilmington, NC 28405 910-796-7215 .07� WaterResources ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY December 12, 2016 Town of Ocean Isle Beach Attn: Ms. Debbie Smith 3 West Third Street Ocean Isle Beach, NC 28469 PAT MCCRORY Governor DONALD R. VAN DER VAART Secretary S. JAY ZIMMERMAN Director DWR # 16-0801 Brunswick County Subject: Approval. of, Individual 401 Water Quality Certification with Additional Conditions Town of Ocean Isle Beach Island Wide Shoreline Management Plan Dear Ms. Smith: Attached hereto is a copy of Certification No. 4079'issued to the Town of Ocean Isle Beach, dated December 1,2, 2016. Please note that you should get any other federal, state or local permits before proceeding with the subject project, including those required by (but not limited to) Sediment and Erosion Control, Non -Discharge, and Water Supply Watershed regulations. This approval and its conditions are final and binding unless contested. This Certification can be contested as provided in Articles 3 and 4 of General Statute 150B by filing a written petition for an administrative hearing to the Office of Administrative Hearings (hereby known as OAH) within.sixty (60) calendar days. A petition form may be obtained from the OAH at http://www.ncoah.com/ or by calling the OAH Clerk's Office at (919) 431-3000 for information. A petition is considered filed when the original and one (1) copy along with any applicable OAH filing fee is received in the OAH during normal office hours (Monday through Friday between 8:00am and °5:00pm, excluding official state holidays). The petition may be faxed to the OAH at (919) 431r3100, provided the original and one copy of the petition along with any applicable OAH filing fee is received by the OAH within five (5) business days following the faxed transmission. Mailing address for the OAH: If sending via US Postal Service: 1f sending via delivery service (UPS, FedEx, etc): Office of Administrative Hearings Office of Administrative Hearings 6714 Mail Service Center 1711 New Hope Church Road Received Raleigh, NC 27699-6714 Raleigh, NC 27609-6285 NOV 1.2 1016 Stale. of North Carolina I Environmental Quality Water Resources 1617 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617 D 919 807 6300 �111I1 Cna �1 Town.of Ocean Isle Beach DWR# 16-0801 Individual Certification #t4079 Page, 2 of 8 One, (1) copy of the, petition must also be served to Department of Environmental Quality: Sam M. Hayes, General Counsel Department of Environmental Quality 1601 Mail Service, Center Raleigh; NC'27655-1601 Unless such a petition is filed, this Certification shall be final and binding. This certification completes the review of the Division under section 401 of the:Clean. Water Act and 15A N.CAC 02H ,0500. Contact Chad Coburn at 910-796-7379 or chad.coburn@ncdenr.gov or Jennifer Burdette at 919-807-6364 or jennifer.burdette@ncdenrgov if you have any questions or concerns.. Sincerely, ,,,� 91�. Karen Higgins, supervisor 401 & Buffer Permitting Branch cc: Brad A. Rosov, Coastal Planning & Engineering of'North Carolina, Inc, (via brad.rosov@cbi.com) USACE Wilmington Office Regulatory Field Office Heather Coats, DCM (via heather coats. ncdenr.gov)' DWR WiRO File DWR 401,8(Buffer Permitting Branch File Filename: l60801Townof0ceanIsfeBeachShorelineManagementPlan(Brunswick)A01 IC,docx, ; 1 ; lid `,. j d I IV Town of Ocean Isle Beach DWR# 16-0801 Individual Certification #4079 Page 3 of 8 NORTH CAROLINA 401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION CERTIFICATION #4079 is issued in conformity with the requirements of Section 401, Public Laws 92:-500 and 95-217 of the United States and subject to North Carolina's Regulations in 15 NCAC 02H .0500, to the Town of Ocean Isle Beach, who have authorization for the impacts listed below, as described within your application received by the N.C. Division of Water Resources (Division) on October 14, 2016, and by Public Notice issued by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers and received by the Division on September 12, 2016. The State of North Carolina certifies that this activity will not violate the applicable portions of Sections 301, 302, 303, 306, 307 of the Public Laws 92-500 and PL 95-217 if conducted in accordance with the application, the supporting documentation, and conditions hereinafter set forth. This approval requires you to follow the conditions listed in the certification below. Conditions of Certification: 1. Impacts Approved The following impacts are hereby approved provided that all of the other conditions of the Certification are met. No other impacts are approved, including incidental impacts. [15A NCAC 02H .0506 (b) & (c)] Type of Amount Approved Amount Approved Plan location J Impact (units) Permanent (units) Temporary Reference Attached Open Waters Borrow Area 110 (acres) 0 (acres) CAMA PLAN Sheet BA-1 Beach 14.09 (acres) 0 (acres) CAMA PLAN Sheet Re -nourishment PV-1 through PV-10 This approval is for the purpose and design described in your application and as described in the Public Notice. The plans and specifications for this project are incorporated by reference and are an enforceable part of the Certification. If you change your project, you must notify the Division and you may be required to submit a new application package with the appropriate fee. If the property is sold', the new owner must be given a copy of this Certification and is responsible for complying with all conditions. Any new owner must notify the Division and request the Certification be issued in their name. [15A NCAC 02H .0501 and .0502] Townof Ocean Isle Beaeh DW R# 16-0801 Individual Certification#4079 Page 4 of 8 3 All mechanized equipment operated near surface waters or wetlands will be regularly inspected and maintained to prevent contamination of waters and wetlands from fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids or other potential toxic chemicals. In the event of a hydrocarbon or chemical spill, the,permittee/contractor shall immediately contact the Division of Water Resources, between the hours of 8 am to 5 pm at the Wilmington Regional Office at (910) 796-7215 and after hours and on weekends call (800) 858-0368. Management of such spills shall comply with provisions of the North Carolina Oil Pollution and Hazardous Substances Control Act. [15A NCAC 02H .0506 (b)(3) and (c)(3); 15A NCACO26 .0200 (3)(f), and GS'143 Article 21A] 4., Turbidity Standard The Permittee shall adhere specially,to 15A NCAC 02B .0221 Tidal Salt Water Quality for Class SA Waters (3)(g) pH: shall be normal for waters in the area, which generally shall range between 6.8 and 8.5 except that swamp waters may have a. pH as low as 4.3 if it is the result of natural conditions; (1) Turbidity: the turbidity in the receiving water shall not exceed 25 NTU; if turbidity exceeds this level due to natural background conditions, the existing' turbidity level shall not be increased. [15A NCAC 02B .02211 5. Continuing Compliance The Town of Ocean Isle Beach shall conduct construction activities in a manner consistent with State water quality standards (including any requirements resulting from compliance with section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act) and any other appropriate requirements of State and Federal law, [15A NCAC 02B ,02001 If the Division determines that such standards or laws are not being met (including the failure tosustaina designated or achieved use) or that State or federal law is being violated; or that further conditions are necessary to assure compliance, the Division may reevaluate and modify this Certification. Before modifying; the Certification, the Division shall notify the Town of Ocean Isle Beach and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, provide public notice in accordance with 15A NCAC 02H .b503 and provide opportunity for public hearing in accordance with 15A NCAC 02H.0504. Any new or revised conditions shall be provided to the Town of Ocean Isle Beach in writing, 'shall be provided to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for reference in any Permit issued pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act; and shall also become conditions of the 404 Permit for the project, 6. The applicant and/or authorized agent shall provide a completed Certificate of Completion Form to the DWR 401, & Buffer Permitting Branch within ten days of project completion (available at: http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/swp/ws/401/`certsandpermits/apply/forms), [15A NCAC 02H .0502(f)] 7. No Impacts Beyond those Authorized No waste, spoil, solids, or fill of any kind shall occur in wetlands, waters, or riparian areas beyond the footprint of the impacts depicted in the application, as authorized in the written approval from the Division or beyond the thresholds established for use of this Certification Town of Ocean Isle Beach D W R# 16-0801 individualCertification,0 079 Page S.of 8 approval from the Division or beyond the.thresholds established for use of this Certification without written authorization, including incidental impacts. All construction activities; including the design, installation, operation, and,maintenance of sediment and erosion control Best Management Practicesshall be performed so that,no violations of state water quality standards, statutes, or rules occur. Approved plans and specifications for this ,project are incorporated by reference and are enforceable parts of this,permitz 8. 'Standard'Erosion and Sediment Control Practices Erosion, and sediment control practices must be, in full, compliance with, all specifications governing the proper design, installation and operation and maintenance of -such Best Management'Practices and if applicable, comply with the specific conditions and requirements of the NPDES Construction Stornwater Permit issued to the site; a) Design, installation, operation, and maintenance ofthe sediment and erosion control measures must, be such ihatthey equator exceed the requirements specified in the most recent version of the North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control Manual. The devices shall be maintained on all construction sites, borrow sites, and waste pile (spoil) projects, including contractor=oWned,or leased, borrow pits associated with the project, b) For borrow pit.tites, the erosion and sediment control measures must be designed; Installed, operated, and maintained in accordance with the most recent ;version afthe North Carolina Surface Mining Manual. c) ,Reclamation measures and implementation must comply with the reclamation in accordance with the requirements of the: Sedimentation Pollution. Control Act and the Mining Actof 1971. d) 5ufficient'materials required for stabilization and/or repair of erosion control measures and stormwater routing, and treatment shall be on site at alltimes, e) If the project occurs in waters or watersheds classified as Primary Nursery Areas (PNAs), SA, WS-i, WS-11, High Quality (HQW), or Outstanding; Resource (ORW) waters, thenthe sedimentation and erosion control designs must comply with the requirements; set, forth in 15A NCAC 04B .0124, Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds. a Sediment'and erosion control measures shall not be placed in wetlands,or waters. Exceptions to this condition require application, submittal Wand written approval by the Division. If placement of sediment and erosion control devices'in wetlands and waters is unavoidable, then design and placement of temporary erosion control measures shall not be conducted irra,mannerthat. may result in dis-equilibrium of wetlands, stream beds, or ibanks, adjacent to or upstream and downstream of the'above structures. All sediment and erosion control devices shall be removed and the naturalgrade restored within two (2) months of the date that the Division of Energy,, Mineral and Land Resources.(DEMLR) or locally delegated program has released the Specific area within the project. Town of Ocean We Beach DWR# 16-0801 Individual Certification #4079 Page 6 of 8 10. Construction Stormwater Permit NCG010000 An NPDES Construction Stormwater Permit is required for construction projects that disturb one (1) or more acres of land. This Permit allows stormwater to be discharged during land disturbing construction activities as stipulated in the conditions of the permit. if your project is covered by this permit, full compliance with permit conditions including the erosion & sedimentation control plan, inspections and maintenance, self -monitoring, record keeping and reporting requirements is required. A copy of the general permit (NCG010000), inspection log sheets, and other information may be found at http:/Iportal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ws/su/npdessw#tab-w. 11. Construction Moratoriums and Coordination If activities must occur during periods of high biological activity (i.e. sea turtle nesting, fish spawning, or bird nesting), then biological monitoring may be required at the request of other state or federal agencies and coordinated with these activities. All moratoriums on construction activities established by the NC Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC), US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), NC Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF), or National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to lessen impacts on trout, anadromous fish, larval/post-larval fishes and crustaceans, or other aquatic species of concern shall be implemented. Exceptions to this condition require written approval by the resource agency responsible for the given moratorium. Work within the twenty-five (25) designated trout counties or identified state or federal endangered or threatened species habitatshall be coordinated with the appropriate WRC, USFWS, NMFS, and/or DMF personnel. 12. Dredging shall not cause Shellfish Closures The effluent water from the dredge spoil should not be released into open shellfish waters. Shellfish Sanitation and the Division of Water Resources must be notified if this is to occur. 13. Work in the Dry All work in or adjacent to stream waters shall be conducted so that the flowing stream does not come in contact with the disturbed area. Approved best management practices from the most current version of the NC Sediment and Erosion Control Manual, or the NC DOT Construction and Maintenance Activities Manual, such as sandbags, rock berms, cofferdams, and other diversion structures shall be used to minimize excavation in flowing water. Exceptions to this condition require application submittal to and written approval by the Division. 14. If concrete is used during the construction, then all necessary measures shall be taken to prevent direct contact between uncured or curing concrete and waters of the state. Water Town of Ocean Isle Beach DWR# 16-0801 Individual Certification #4079 Page of 8 that inadvertently contacts uncured concrete shall not be discharged to waters of the state due to the potential for elevated pH and possible aquatic life/ fish kills. 15. All temporary fill and culverts shall be removed and the impacted area returned to natural conditions within 60 days of the determination that the temporary impact is no longer necessary. The impacted areas shall be restored to original grade, including each stream's original cross sectional dimensions, plan form pattern, and longitudinal bed and bed profile, and the various sites shall be stabilized with natural woody vegetation (except for the approved maintenance areas) and restored to prevent erosion.. 16. Any riprap required for proper culvert placement; stream stabilization, or restoration of temporarily disturbed areas shall be restricted to the area directly impacted by the approved construction activity. All rip -rap shall buried and/or "keyed in" such that the original stream elevation and streambank contours are restored and maintained. Placement of.rip-rap or other approved materials shall not result in de -stabilization of the stream bed or banks upstream or downstream of the area. 17. Any rip -rap used for stabilization shall be of a size and density to prevent movement by wave, current action, or stream flows and consist of clean rock or masonry material free of debris or toxic pollutants. Rip -rap shall not be installed in the streambed except in specific areas required for velocity control and to ensure structural integrity of bank stabilization measures. 18. If an environmental document is required under the National or State Environmental Policy Act (NEPA or SEPA),°then.this Certifigation`is;not,valid until a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) or Record'of Decision (ROD) is issue&by the State Clearinghouse. 19. In the twenty (20) coastal counties, the appropriate DWR Regional Office must be contacted to determine if Coastal Stormwater Regulations will be required. 20. This Certification does not relieve the applicant of the responsibility to obtain all other required Federal, State, or Local approvals. 21. The' applicant/permittee and their authorized agents shall conduct all activities in a manner consistent with State water quality standards (including any requirements: resulting from compliance with §303(d) of the Clean Water Act), and any other appropriate requirements of State and Federal Law' If the Division determines that such standards or laws are not being met, including failure to sustain a designated or achieved use, or that State or Federal law is being violated, or that further conditions are necessary to assure compliance, then the Division may reevaluate and modify this Water Quality Certification. 22. Upon completion of all permitted impacts included within the approval and any subsequent modifications, the applicant shall be required to return the certificate of completion attached Town of Ocean Isle Beach DWR# 16-0801 Individual Certification #4079 Page of 8 to the approval. One copy of the certificate: shall be sent to the DWR Central Office in Raleigh at 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC, 27699-,1617. 23.. Additional site -specific conditions; including monitoring and/or modeling requirements, may be addedo, to the written approval letter for projects proposed under this Water Quallty Certification in order to ensure compliance with all applicable water quality and effluent standards. 24.,This certification grants permission to the director, an authorized representative of the Director, or D6Q staff, upon the presentation of proper credentials, to enter the property during normal business hours. This approval to proceed with your proposed impacts or to conduct impacts to waters as depicted in your application shall expire upon expiration of the.404 or CAMA Permit. The conditions in effect on the date of issuance shall remain in effect for the life of the project, regardless of the expiration date of this Certification. [15A NCAC 02H .0507(d)(2) and 15A NCAC 02H, .05061 Non-compliance with or violation of the conditions herein set forth may result in revocation of this Certification and may also result in criminal and/or civil penalties. This the 12th day of December 2016 Karen Higgins, Supe o 401 & Buffer Permitting Branch KAH/job 4079 Coastal Management ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY August 15, 2016 TO: FFOM: SUBJECT: Applicant: PAT MCCRORY Govemor DONALD R. VAN DER VAART Secretary BRAXTON DAVIS Director I E G P � �``o%/ AUu 15 Z2016 Georgette Scott Stormwater Section DEMLR - WiRO Heather Coats, Assistant Major Permits Coordinator NCDEQ — Division of Coastal Management 127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilm., NC 28405 heather. coats(a).ncdenr.gov Fax: 395-3964 (Courier 04-16-33) CAMA / Dredge & Fill Application Review Town of Ocean Isle Beach Project Location: from the western end of Ocean Isle Beach, (including Tubbs Inlet), to the eastern end of E. 3rd St., (approx. 5 miles of beachfront) adjacent to the Atlantic Ocean, in Ocean Isle Beach, Brunswick County Proposed Project: A 30-yr beach nourishment management plan Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return this form to Heather Coats at the address above by September 3, 2016. If you have any questions regarding the proposed project, contact Sean Farrell at (910) 796-7424 when appropriate in-depth comments with supporting data is requested. REPLY: his agency has no objection to the project as proposed. his agency has no comment on the proposed project. This agency approves of the project only if the recommended changes are incorporated. See attached. This agency objects to the project for reasons described in the attached comments. SIGNED DATED i�//-7 �p RECEIVED DCM WILMINGTON, NC State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Coastal Management 127 Cardinal Drive E.L, Wilmington, NC 25405 AUG 2 6 2016 910-796-7215 Energy, Mineral & Land Resources ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY September 16, 2016 Ms. Debbie Smith, Mayor Town of Ocean Isle Beach 3 West Third Street Ocean Isle Beach, NC 28469 Subject: EXEMPTION Stormwater Project No. SW8 160828 Ocean Isle Beach 30-Year Management Project Brunswick County Dear Mayor Smith: PAT McCRORY Governor DONALD R. VAN DER VAART Secretary TRACY DAVIS Director On August 15, 2016, the Wilmington Regional Office of the Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources received a copy of the CAMA Major Permit Application for the subject project. Staff review of the plans and specifications on August 17, 2016 has determined that the development activities proposed at this time will not pose a threat to surface water quality from stormwater runoff. The Director has determined that projects that are reviewed and approved by the Division as not posing a water quality threat from stormwater runoff should not be subject to the stormwater management permitting requirements of 15A NCAC 2H.1000, the stormwater rules. By copy of this letter, we are informing you that this project will not require a stormwater management permit. If the subject project disturbs one acre or more and has a point source discharge of stormwater runoff, then it is also subject to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater discharge requirements. You are required to have an NPDES permit for stormwater discharge from projects meeting these criteria. All temporary built -upon area associated with the construction of the project must be removed within 30 days of completion of the project, or when it is no longer needed, whichever occurs first. If you have any questions or need additional information concerning this matter please contact Georgette Scott at (910) 796-7215, or via e-mail at georgette.scott@ncdenr.gov. Sincerely, Tracy E. Davis, P.E., Drector Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources GDS/gds: \\\Stormwater\Permits & Projects\2016 \160828 Exemption\2016 09 permit 160828 cc: Coastal Planning & Engineering of North Carolina, Inc. Brunswick County Building Inspections RECEIVED Sean Farrell/Shaun Simpson-DCM WIRO DCM Morehead City $EP 2 2016 Wilmington Regional Office Stormwater File Stole ioMnrlh CanHina Envirunmcnral Quality I Energy. Mineraland Land Resources DCM- MHD CITY Wilmington Beyional Ofrwe' 127 Cardinal Drive Ezlrnsinn I Wilmington. NC 28405 910 79G 7215 Coastal Management ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY August 15, 2016 RECEIVED AUG 17 2016 DOA STATE PROPERTY OFFICE TO: Tim Walton Dept of Administration State Property Office PAT MCCRORY Governor DONALD R. VAN DER VAART Secretary BRAXTON DAVIS Director FROM: Heather Coats, Assistant Major Permits Coordinator NCDEQ — Division of Coastal Management 127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilm., NC 28405 heather. coatsa),ncdenraov Fax: 395-3964 (Courier 04-16-33) SUBJECT: CAMA / Dredge & Fill Application Review Applicant: Town of Ocean Isle Beach Project Location: from the western end of Ocean Isle Beach, (including Tubbs Inlet), to the eastern end of E. 3r1f St., (approx. 5 miles of beachfront) adjacent to the Atlantic Ocean, in Ocean Isle Beach, Brunswick County Proposed Project: A 30-yr beach nourishment management plan Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return this form to Heather Coats at the address above by September 3, 2016. If you have any questions regarding the proposed project, contact Sean Farrell at (910) 796-7424 when appropriate in-depth comments with supporting data is requested. REPLY: This agency has no objection to the project as proposed. This agency has no comment on the proposed project. This agency approves of the project only if the recommended changes are incorporated. See attached. This agency objects to the project for reasons described in the attached comments. SIGNED #Ja*ttt"` DATED 0 RECEIVED DCM WILMINGTON, NC SEP 02 2016 Stale of North Carolina I Environmental Quality ] Coastal Management 127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilmington, NC 28405 910-796-7215 Coastal Management ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY August 15, 2016 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Applicant: b 'DONALD PAT MCCRORY Governor R. VAN DER VAART . &Cwary t� 13RAXToN DAVIS Dimaor 1477 Renee Gledhill -Early Dept. of Cultural Resources �p Archives & History � `4�, S C51 1� Heather Coats, Assistant Major Permits Coordinator NCDEQ — Division of Coastal Management 127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilm., NC 28405 heather. coats anncdenroov Fax: 395-3964 (Courier 04-16-33) CAMA / Dredge & Fill Application Review Town of Ocean Isle Beach Project LocaSon., from the western end of Ocean Isle Beach, (including Tubbs Inlet), to the eastern end of E. 3rd St.; (approx. 5 miles of beachfront) adjacent to the Atlantic Ocean, in Ocean Isle Beach, Brunswick County Proposed Project. A 30 yr beach nourishment management plan Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed ,project and 'return this form to Heather Coats at the address above by September 3, 2016 If,you have any questions regarding the proposed project, contact Sean Farrell at (910) 796-7424 when appropriate in-depth comments with supporting data is requested. REPLY: This agency has no objection to the project as proposed. This agency has no comment on the proposed project. This agency approves of the project only if the recommended changes are incorporated. See attached. This agency objects to the project for reasons described in the attached comments. SIGNED N-a DATED ( ` (� Received SEP 0 2 2016 DCM Stato ofNMh CamUna I Envfmamental Quality I Cootal 10=agmwLL ry 127 Cardinal Wr TExt- Wlmiagtoa, NG28405 AUG 1 6Q16 9I0-796-7215 fit i North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources State Historic Preservation Office Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator Governor Paz McCrory Secretary Susan Kluttz September 2, 2016 u V 1:_ ►If b,i TO: Heather Coats Division of Coastal Management Department of Environmental Quality FROM: Renee Gledhill -Earley l Environmental Review Coordinator Office of Archives and History Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry SUBJECT: Town of Ocean Isle Beach, 30-year Beach Nourishment Management Plan, Ocean Isle Beach, Brunswick County, ER 16-1477 We have carefully reviewed the permit application concerning proposed 30-year beach nourishment plan. The underwater portion constitutes a major bottom disturbance within an area of extensive historical maritime activity, however it is confined to controlled and previously dredged channels or established borrow areas. We recommend no archaeological investigation be conducted in conjunction with the underwater portions of the project. It is our opinion that proposed beach operations with earth -moving equipment may encounter unknown vessel or other cultural remains, lost, washed ashore, and buried over the last 450 years. Our files indicate a wooden shipwreck fragment measuring approximately 50-feet by 12-feet at the west end of Ocean Isle Beach, near Tubbs Inlet reported in 1981. Additionally, the remains of a Republic Aviation P-47D Thunderbolt, uncovered near STA 85+00 in 2000, and was subsequently removed after careful examination and documentation. While the archaeological and historical record does not support a recommendation for an archaeological beach survey, we would like your agency, the applicant, and the equipment operators to be aware that the possibility exists that this work may unearth unknown cultural remains. In that event, work should move immediately to another area and the NC Underwater Archaeology Branch (910-458-9042) be contacted so a staff archaeologist can be sent to assess the remains and determine the proper course of action. The above ,comMents are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800. a? Location: 109. East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 276994617 Tetephone/Fa:: (919) 807-6570/8076599 �V Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment, contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-807-6579 or environniental.review@ncdcr.gov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number cc: Debbie S. Smith, Town of Ocean Isle Beach, mayor@oibgov.com Greg Finch, Coastal Planning & Engineering of North Carolina, Inc., greg.fmch@,,cbi.com Brad Rosov, Coastal Planning & Engineering of North Carolina, Inc., brad.rosovaebi.com Coastal Management ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY August 15, 2016 TO: Shannon Jenkins NC DMF Shellfish Sanitation Section PAT MCCRORY r;avernar, DONALD R. VAN DER VAART secretary BRAXTON DAVIS Director FROM: Heather Coats, Assistant Major Permits Coordinator NCDEQ — Division of Coastal Management 127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilm., NC 28405 heather. coats(o)..ncdenrgov Fax: 395-3964 (Courier 04-16-33) SUBJECT: CAMA / Dredge & Fill Application Review Applicant: Town of Ocean Isle Beach Project Location: from the western end of Ocean Isle Beach, (including Tubbs Inlet), to the eastern end of E. 3rd St., (approx. 5 miles of beachfront) adjacent to the Atlantic Ocean, in Ocean Isle Beach, Brunswick County Proposed Project: A 30-yr beach nourishment management plan Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return this form to Heather Coats at the address above by September 3, 2016. If you have any questions regarding the proposed project, contact Sean Farrell at (910) 796-7424 when appropriate in-depth comments with supporting data is requested. REPLY: This agency has no objection to the project as proposed. This agency has no comment on the proposed project. This agency approves of the project only if the recommended changes are incorporated. See attached. This agency objects to the project for reasons described in the attached comments. Fov AmJy 1444 /..5 SIGNED DATED RECEIVED SEP 01 2016 Stale of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Coastal Management D C M - M H D CITY 127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilmington, NC 28405 910-796-7215 Coastal Management ENVIRONMENTAL OOALITY August 15, 2016 TO: Ben Hughes NC Dept. of Transportation New Hanover County AUG 17 2016 PAT MCCRORY NC DOT Governor DISTRICT3DONALD R. VAN DER VAART Secrelary BRAXTON DAVIS Director FROM: Heather Coats, Assistant Major Permits Coordinator NCDEQ — Division of Coastal Management 127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilm., NC 28405 heather. coats(aDncdenr.gov Fax: 395-3964 (Courier 04-16-33) SUBJECT: CAMA / Dredge & Fill Application Review Applicant: Town of Ocean Isle Beach Project Location: from the western end of Ocean Isle Beach, (including Tubbs Inlet), to the eastern end of E. 3rd St., (approx. 5 miles of beachfront) adjacent to the Atlantic Ocean, in Ocean Isle Beach, Brunswick County Proposed Project: A 30-yr beach nourishment management plan Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return this form to Heather Coats at the address above by September 3, 2016. If you have any questions regarding the proposed project, contact Sean Farrell at (910) 796-7424 when appropriate in-depth comments with supporting data is requested. REPLY: �'\ This agency has no objection to the project as proposed. This agency has no comment on the proposed project. This agency approves of the project only if the recommended changes are incorporated. See attached. ,v�c/ This agency objects to the project for reasons described in the attached comments. SIGNED DATED S'zZ,lfv RECEIVED iSCM WILI,MNGTON, NC AUG 2 5 2016 State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Coastal Management 127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilmington, NC 28405 910-796-7215 �u Coastal Management ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY August 15, 2016 TO: Keith Dycus Local Permit Officer Ocean Isle Beach PAT MCCRORY Governor DONALD R. VAN DER VAART Secretary BRAXTON DAVIS Director FROM: Heather Coats, Assistant Major Permits Coordinator NCDEQ — Division of Coastal Management 127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilm., NC 28405 heather. coats(JSDncdenrgov Fax: 395-3964 (Courier 04-16-33) SUBJECT: CAMA / Dredge & Fill Application Review Applicant: Town of Ocean Isle Beach Project Location: from the western end of Ocean Isle Beach, (including Tubbs Inlet), to the eastern end of E. 3ro St., (approx. 5 miles of beachfront) adjacent to the Atlantic Ocean, in Ocean Isle Beach, Brunswick County Proposed Project: A 30-yr beach nourishment management plan Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return this form to Heather Coats at the address above by September 3, 2016. If you have any questions regarding the proposed project, contact Sean Farrell at (910) 796-7424 when appropriate in-depth comments with supporting data is requested. REPLY: v This agency has no objection to the project as proposed. This agency has no comment on the proposed project. This agency approves of the project only if the recommended changes are incorporated. See attached. This agency objects to the project for reasons described in the attached comments. SIGNED I&I14P0 DATED '?I1? DCM WILMINGTON, NC AUG 2 2 2016 Stale of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Coaetal Management 127 Cardinal Drive Et, Wilmington, NC 28405 910-796-7215 Coastal Management ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY PAT MCCRORY Covemor DONALD R. VAN DER VAART Secrelary BRAXTON DAVIS D;recror August 15, 2016 �C; 1 Heidi Div, 9 2016 TO: DEM RoEnv. Engineer 'Vft,°�hvr04� Public Water Supply-WiRO FROM: Heather Coats, Assistant Major Permits Coordinator NCDEQ — Division of Coastal Management 127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilm., NC 28405 heather. coatsanncdenraov Fax: 395-3964 (Courier 04-16-33) SUBJECT: CAMA/Dredge $ Fill Application Review Applicant: Town of Ocean Isle Beach Project Location: from the western end of Ocean Isle Beach, (including Tubbs Inlet), to the eastern end of E. 3ro St., (approx. 5 miles of beachfront) adjacent to the Atlantic Ocean, in Ocean Isle Beach, Brunswick County Proposed Project: A 30-yr beach nourishment management plan Please indicate below your agency's position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return this form to Heather Coats at the address above by September 3, 2016. If you have any questions regarding the proposed project, contact Sean Farrell at (910) 796-7424 when appropriate in-depth comments with supporting data is requested. REPLY: This agency has no objection to the project as proposed. This agency has no comment on the proposed project. This agency approves of the project only if the recommended changes are incorporated. See attached. This agency objects to the project for reasons described in the attached comments. i SIGNED" Cl/1�Q DATED O 1)CM RECEIVED INC ,AUG 2 4 2016 State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Coastal Management 127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilmington, NC 28405 910-796-7215 United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Raleigh Field Office Post Office Box 33726 Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726 October 11, 2016 Mr. Tyler Crumbley U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington Regulatory Field Office 69 Darlington Avenue Wilmington, North Carolina 28403-1343 Subject: Town of Ocean Isle Beach 30-Year Beach Management Plan Brunswick County, NC Action ID #SAW- 2016-01642 Dear Mr. Crumbley: This letter is in response to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (Corps) Public Notice dated September 12, 2016, concerning the Town of Ocean Isle Beach's proposed 30-Year Beach Management Plan. The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the public notice and has the following comments. 1. The Service recommends that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) be prepared for the project. The scope of the proposed work, length of the project, and interactions with other proposed actions warrant full consideration under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). 2. The EIS should consider a full suite of alternatives to address the project purpose and need, including a "no action" alternative and "abandon and relocate" alternative. Interactions with other ongoing and proposed actions should be fully considered in the analysis. 3. The Service is concerned about potential issues that may arise as a result of the proposed terminal groin. For example, how will the terminal groin affect the recharge of the proposed borrow area in Shallotte Inlet and the availability of material for sand placement? 4. It is unclear whether the Town of Holden Beach has been involved in discussions concerning the use of borrow material from Shallotte Inlet. RECEIVED OCT 18 2016 DCM- MHD CITY 5. The Service remains concerned about the potential impacts to listed species from long-term inlet dredging and placement of sand. The project area is located adjacent to piping plover wintering critical habitat and loggerhead sea turtle terrestrial critical habitat. Piping plovers, red knots, sea turtles, and seabeach amaranth are known to be present in the project area. Mining of the inlet and placement of sand on the beach may adversely affect these species and their critical habitat. 6. Over the past two years, the Service has reviewed multiple project proposals at each of several inlets in North Carolina, along with multiple proposals for beach nourishment. The Service is concerned about the potential for broad -scale, cumulative effects on prey recovery rates along the North Carolina beaches as multiple projects commence simultaneously or within a short time -frame. This includes impacts to prey for shorebirds such as the red knot and piping plover and prey for surf fishes. 7. Potential impacts to listed species and critical habitat will be addressed during formal consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). We have received the Corps' request for formal consultation, and will respond to that request in a separate letter. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If you have questions regarding these comments, please contact Kathy Matthews at 919-856-4520, ext. 27 or by e-mail at <kathryn_matthews@fws.gov >. Sincerely, Pete Benjamin T Field Supervisor cc: Maria Dunn, NCWRC, Washington, NC Ken Riley, NOAA Fisheries Todd Bowers, USEPA Doug Huggett, NCDCM, Morehead City Debra Wilson, NCDEQ, Wilmington (RECEIVED OCT 18 2016 DCM- MHD CITY DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT SDI-5 Shallotte River Inlet APPLICANT'S NAME: Town of Ocean Isle Beach c/o CP&E, INC. 2. LOCATION OF PROJECT SITE: The project site includes the Shallotte Inlet Borrow Area and approximately 5.0 miles of beachfront area in the Town of Ocean Isle Beach adjacent to the Atlantic Ocean, in Ocean Isle Beach, Brunswick County. Photolndex: Shallotte Inlet - 2006: 1-6158 2000:1-11 &1-12 Beachfront Placement Area - 2006: 6153-6159 Oceanfront 2000: 1-6 & 1-11 Oceanfront Coordinates: Midpoint of CSDR template - Lat: 330 53' 24.84"N Long: 780 25' 17.58"W 3. INVESTIGATION TYPE: CAMA / D&F 4. INVESTIGATIVE PROCEDURE: Dates of Meeting: 06/30/16 (w/ applicant) 5. PROCESSING PROCEDURE: Application Received Complete -July 26, 2016 Office - Wilmington 6. SITE DESCRIPTION: (A) Local Land Use Plan - Town of Ocean Isle Beach Classification From LUP- No classification for dry sand beach/General Project Area is classified as Developed (B) AEC(s) Involved: EW, PT, OH, IH (C) Water Dependent: Yes (D) Intended Use: Public (E) Wastewater Treatment: Existing - N/A Planned - None (F) Type of Structures: Existing - Commercial and Residential Planned - N/A RECEIVED (G) Estimated Annual Rate of Erosion: 2.0-6.5 ft./year Source - 2011 LTAASCR Update AUG 17 2016 7. HABITAT DESCRIPTION: DREDGED D��'7=D [AREA] CCR-'HD CITY (A) Intertidal/Subtidal (Open Water) AIWW/ Shallotte Inlet _ 82acres (B) Oceanfront Beach -109 acres (D) Total Area Disturbed: (- 191 acres) (E) Primary Nursery Area: No (F) Water Classification: SA Open: Yes 8. PROJECT SUMMARY: The Town of Ocean Isle Beach proposes to obtain state authorization for a 30 -year management plan to continue beach nourishment along the island's oceanfront shoreline expanding on the beach fill template authorized under the federal Coastal Storm Damage Reduction (CSDR) project. The Town of Ocean Isle Beach plans to use the existing Shallotte Inlet borrow area for the federal CSDR project to re -nourish approximately 27,650 linear feet on the oceanfront area. P, Town of Ocean Isle Beach- c/o CP& E Page Two 9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: August 15, 2016 The project site includes the current Shallotte River Inlet Borrow Area for the federal CSDR project, the eastern oceanfront shoreline of Ocean Isle Beach including the template area for the federal CSDR project and State Permit No. 91-05 and a westward extension for an additional 1.75 miles from the eastern most limit of the CSDR tapering towards Tubbs Inlet. To find the project site from US Highway 17 South travel approximately 34 miles on US 17 South after the exit towards Shallotte/Myrtle Beach and turn left on Ocean Isle Beach Rd SW. Travel approximately 3.6 miles on Ocean Isle Beach Rd SW to the base of the Ocean Isle Beach Bridge. The Shallotte River Inlet CSDRP Borrow Area is located on the northern end of Ocean Isle Beach. The project site encompasses approximately 5.0 miles of oceanfront shoreline along Ocean Isle Beach, a barrier island located in Brunswick County near the Town of Shallotte. Holden Beach borders to the east, the Atlantic Ocean to the south, the AIWW to the north, and Sunset Beach to the West. The Island of Ocean Isle Beach is flanked on the east end by Shallotte Inlet and on the west end by Tubbs Inlet. The approximate elevation of the tract is 0 ft.-15 ft. above Mean Sea Level. The area of Ocean Isle Beach between Shallotte Boulevard and Duneside Drive (baseline station 10+00 to 181+00) has utilized a static vegetation line since 1998. The Town of Ocean Isle Beach has obtained and renewed the Static Line Exception designation as per 15A NCAC 07J.1200. The island is heavily developed with mostly residential development. The high ground portion of the property is vegetated primarily with American Beach Grass (Ammophila breviligulata) and Sea Oats (Uniola paniculata). The long term annual erosion rate for the Town of Ocean Isle Beach varies from 2.0 ft.-6.5 ft./year, per the Division of Coastal Management's 2011 Annual Erosion Rate maps. The 100-year storm recession is approximately 300' resulting in a total Ocean Hazard AEC that ranges from approximately 420 ft. to as much as 690 ft. nearing the Shallotte Inlet. The application states that the federal Coastal Storm Damage Reduction project (CSDR) was initially constructed in 2001 with the placement of 1,866,00 cubic yards of material obtained from the Shallotte Inlet Borrow area. The USACE Shallotte Inlet Borrow Area was also designated as a source for periodic beach nourishment every 3 years. The federal project has received nourishment on two separate events, once in April 2010 and once in April 2014. According to the application, the CSDR template includes a dune crest elevation of +8.5 ft. NAVD88 fronted by a 50 ft. wide berm with a crest height of +6.0 ft. NAVD88 for areas within baseline station 51+50 to 103+00. The east and west transition areas have varying berm width keeping to an elevation of 6' NAVD88. The CSDR project has been conducted approximately every four years utilizing sand material from the Shallotte Inlet Borrow Area. The Town of Ocean Isle Beach was issued CAMA Major/ Dredge and Fill State Permit #91-05 on June 28, 2005 for the nourishment of approximately 2,700 linear feet of oceanfront shoreline at the far east end of the island utilizing sand dredged from the Shallotte Inlet CSDR borrow area. This permit was modified on April 28, 2006 to authorize the use of a high ground borrow site known as the "Lakes of Lockwood Borrow Site", which is also authorized for use by the Town of Holden Beach under State Permit #14-02, and to authorize trucking of this material to the beach. Historically, the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has maintained the AIWW Crossing Tangent 17-20 as a marked navigation channel. Traditionally, they have maintained a depth of -12 ft. at MLW plus- 2 ft. overcut in the AIWW Crossing. Shallotte River Inlet has not been federally maintained and is a federally authorized CSDR borrow area only. The Town of Ocean Isle Beach currently maintains State Permit #51-16, one of the Shallow Draft Inlet-5 (SDI-5), to perform navigation maintenance work in a defined channel of Shallotte inlet to a maximum depth of -13ft. MLW plus a -2 ft. overcut as well as the AIWW Crossing with a maximum depth of -12 ft. MLW plus a - 2ft. overcut. The project template for the SDI-5 beneficial placement on Ocean Isle Beach RECEIVED AUG 17 2016 DCM- MHD CITY Town of Ocean Isle, Beach- c/o CP& E August 15, 2016 Page Three mimics the federal CSDR Project template, the USACE nearshore disposal template and the beach template authorized under State Permit #91-05 adjacent to the Atlantic Ocean. The Shallotte Inlet SDI-5 permit also designates USACE Disposal Area 300 as a placement area for non -beach compatible material. The application noted that the proposed construction of a terminal groin and the associated beach fill is not a part of the proposed 30- year management plan. The Town of Ocean Isle Beach Land Use Plan does not have the dry sand beach classified; however, the upland areas of this project are classified as Developed. The waters of the project site are classified as SA by the NC Division of Water Quality. The NC Division of Marine Fisheries has NOT designated this area of the AIWW/Shallotte Inlet/Atlantic Ocean as a Primary Nursery Area (PNA), and the waters are OPEN to the harvesting of shellfish. 10. PROPOSED PROJECT: The Town of Ocean Isle Beach proposes to obtain state authorization for a 30 -year management plan to continue beach nourishment along the island's oceanfront shoreline, expanding on the beach fill template authorized under the federal Coastal Storm Damage Reduction (CSDR) project. The Town of Ocean Isle Beach plans to use the existing Shallotte Inlet borrow area for the federal CSDR project to re -nourish approximately 27,650 linear feet on the oceanfront area. The proposed beach management plan would include beach nourishment within the existing template under the CSDR, which encompasses approximately 3.25 miles of the towns approximate 5.5-mile oceanfront shoreline. As stated in the application, the existing CSDR template starts at baseline station 10+00 and extends west to baseline station 181+00. The proposal would account for approximately 80,000 yd3 per year or 400,00 yd3 every 5 years for the eastern portion of the CSDR between baseline station 0+00 and station 120+00. The western portion of the CSDR beach nourishment template between baseline station 120+00 and 181+00 would require approximately 12,000 yd3 of material per year or 60,000 yd3 every 5 years, according to the application. The town is proposing to extend the template to include beach fill construction west of the current federal CSDR project. The proposal would include an additional 1.75 miles of beach construction to baseline station 265+00 with a taper to baseline station 275+00 adjacent to Tubbs Inlet. Beach compatible fill material would be dredged from the Shallotte Inlet Borrow Area using a hydraulic pipeline dredge and would not exceed the depths or dimensions authorized under the SDI-5 permit. The design profile proposes a beach fill area with an average width of 172 ft. that would be constructed to include a 1 Oft. in width dune with a crest elevation of +12.5 ft. NAVD88. This dune would be fronted by a 40 ft. in width berm with a crest elevation of +6.0 ft. NAVD88. The landward slope of the proposed dune would measure approximately 1:5. The oceanward slope of the dune would measure approximately 1:10. The applicant is proposing to utilize the Shallotte Inlet Borrow Area as the primary sand source, following the same dredge footprint as the USACE borrow area for the CSDR and the SDI-5 navigation project. The applicant is not proposing to exceed the authorized channel depth of -13 ft. MLW plus a -2 ft. overcut. According to the application, the proposed channel width would match the USACE Wilmington District Shallotte Inlet CSDR Borrow Area of approximately 950 ft. wide at the AIWW and 1,400 ft. wide at the bar channel with a side slope of 3:1 consistent with the width and slope dimensions for the SDI-5 Inlets. The application states that the typical Shallotte Inlet CSDR project excavates approximately 65,000 yd3 during each event. According to the applicant, bathymetric data collected by the USACE in July and August of 2013 indicated approximately 1,312,000 yd3 of sand were available within the borrow area. The Town of Ocean Isle Beach estimates that approximately 800,000 yd3 of material was dredged and used during the 2014 maintenance event. The applicant states that the borrow area is expected to re -charge due to shoaling pft�,6t�}I�i® complex. O �.• �- AUG 17 2016 M_ NIHD CITY 0 Town of Ocean Isle Beach- c% CP& E August 15, 2016 Page Four The application sites the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that was presented with the Ocean Isle Beach terminal groin application as a source for the geotechnical evaluation of the sediment within the Shallotte Inlet Borrow Area. The EIS indicated that vibracore data collected in 1998, 2005, and 2009 all showed the sediment in the proposed borrow area met the criteria defined in rule 15A NCAC 07h.0312 (3)(a). USACE Disposal Area 300 has been designated as a disposal location in the event that any incompatible material is removed. Construction would involve using a hydraulic pipeline dredge for the proposed removal of material from the Shallotte Inlet borrow area. Disposal of beach quality sand onto the beach would be accomplished via pipeline, using a direct pump -out for placement. Bulldozers and excavators would then shape and grade the discharged material according to the proposed design template. The proposed project and future maintenance events are proposed to occur within the environmental dredge window, between November 15 and April 30. In summary, the proposed beach fill and nourishment associated with dredging activities would remain within the Town limits. According to the applicant, all maintenance excavation is consistent with federal projects thereby not exceeding the depth and width. The proposed Shallotte Inlet Borrow Area is the existing federal CSDR project borrow area. As proposed, the project would mimic the current CSDR beach fill template and extend construction west of the federal project towards Tubbs Inlet. 11. ANTICIPATED IMPACTS The proposed excavation volumes are approximately 262,000 yd3 from the Shallotte Inlet CSDR borrow area for the initial construction of the new west end beach fill template (181+00 - 250+00). An additional approximately 185,000 yd3 would be used oceanward of the design template as an initial nourishment for anticipated erosion during the construction process prior to the first periodic nourishment event. Periodic nourishment of the west end (181+00- 250+00) template would again require approximately 185,000 yd3 every 5 years. Although the application states that the proposed project is not contingent on the authorization of the current terminal groin application, the nourishment volume needed to replenish between baseline station 0+00 and 120+00 would be approximately 408,000 yd3 every 3 years without the terminal groin project or approximately 400,000 yd3 every five years with the terminal groin project. The western portion of the CSDR template (120+00 — 181+00) requires a contingent volume of approximately 60,000 yd3. The application states that this area has not required any nourishment since the initial construction of the CSDR and periodic nourishment is not anticipated to occur unless the area was impacted by a storm. The application does not allocate any material for periodic nourishment between baseline station 250+00 and Tubbs Inlet. The proposed project would disturb a maximum of approximately 4,763,000 ft2 of oceanfront beach, impacting areas below and above Mean High Water (MHW) as a result of the nourishment activities. Placement of sand on the beach would result in temporary mortality for intertidal micro fauna such as crabs and worms. Placement of material below the MHW boundary would result in temporary turbidity within the nearshore waters of the Atlantic Ocean; potentially affecting fish and aquatic life in the project area at the time. Limiting the work to the winter season should reduce potential adverse impacts to fish communities. There may be some impact to sea turtle nesting as a result of this project. Beach compaction should be monitored and tilling should be required to reduce the likelihood of impacting sea turtle nesting and hatching activities. Erosion escarpments forming after the project completion should also be leveled to reduce turtle nesting impacts. Public use of the beach during the beach fill process would be limited to some degree. The project would serve to provide authorization for the Town of Ocean Isle Beach to continue periodic nourishment within limits of the existing CSDR template as well as expand beach fill construction to the western portion of the Island. In addition, USACE-Disposal Area 300 has been reserved for any non -compatible material that may be removed from the Shallotte Inlet Borrow Area. Submitted by: Sean Farrell Date: August 15, 2016 Office: Wilmington RECEIVED AUG 17 2016 DCM- MHD CITY ,ki 1.1 DCM MP-1 APPLICATION for Major Development Permit (last revised 12127/06) North Carolina DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT 1. Primary Applicant/ Landowner Information Business Name Town Of Ocean Isle Beach Project Name (If applicable) Ocean Isle Beach 30-Year Management Project Applicant 1: First Name Debbie MI S Last Name Smith Applicant 2: First Name MI Last Name ff additional applicants, please attach an additional page(s) with names listed. Mailing Address 3 West Third Street PO Box City Ocean Isle Beach State NC ZIP 28469 Country USA Phone No. 910.579-2166ext. FAX No. 910.579-8804 Street Address (if different from above) city State ZIP Email mayor@oibgov.00m 2. Agent/Contractor Information Business Name Coastal Planning & Engineering of North Carolina, Inc. R E C E I V E Agent/ Contractor 1: First Name MI Last Name Brad Rosov AUG 17 2016 Agent/ Contractor 2: First Name MI Last Name Greg Finch DCM- A✓7HD Cl Mailing Address PO Box City State 4038 Masonboro Loop Road Wilmington NC ZIP Phone No.i Phone No.2 28409 910 - 791 - 9494 exl. ext. FAX No. Contractor # 910 791 4129 Federal ID # 020623951 Street Address (if different from above) City State ZIP - ECEIVED Email t)CM \41I brad.rosov@cbi.com; greg.finch@cbi.com it it , ? f116 7Y NC COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. tv 3. Project Location County (can be multiple) Street Address State Rd. # Brunswick Western end of Ocean Isle Beach (Tubbs Inlet) to the eastern N/A end of E 3id St. Subdivision Name City State Zip N/A N/A NC N/A - Phone No. Lot No.(s) (if many, attach additional page with list) N/A - ext. N/A, I I , a. In which NC river basin is the project located? b. Name of body of water nearest to proposed project Lumber Shallotte Inlet, Tubbs Inlet and the Atlantic Ocean c. Is the water body identified in (b) above, natural or manmade? d. Name the closest major water body to the proposed project site. ®Natural ❑Manmade ❑Unknown Atlantic Ocean e. Is proposed work within city limits or planning jurisdiction? I. If applicable, list the planning jurisdiction or city limit the proposed ®Yes ONO work falls within. Town of Ocean Isle Beach 4. Site Description a. Total length of shoreline on the tract (ft.) b. Size of entire tract (sq.ft.) 27,650 ft. (Placement Limits) -4,763,000 s.f. (Placement Limits);-3,619.854 (Borrow Area) c. Size of individual lot(s) d. Approximate elevation of tract above NHW (normal high water) or N/A, I I NWL (normal water level) (If many lot sizes, please attach additional page with a list) -0 to 15' M S L ❑NHW or ❑NWL e. Vegetation on tract Typical beach and dune vegetation. f. Man-made features and uses now on tract Single family residential structures, sandbags, man-made dunes and beach fill. Recreational beach usage and public access. g. Identify and describe the existing land uses ad scent to the proposed project site. Single family residences, recreational beach uses. h. How does local government zone the tract? i. Is the proposed project consistent with the applicable zoning? Residential (Attach zoning compliance certificate, if applicable) ®Yes ❑No ❑NA j. Is the proposed activity part of an urban waterfront redevelopment proposal? ❑Yes ENo k. Has a professional archaeological assessment been done for the tract? If yes, attach a copy. []Yes ENO DNA If yes, by whom? I. Is the proposed project located in a National Registered Historic District or does it involve a [-]Yes ENo ❑NA National Register listed or eligible property? A L_J AUG 17 2016 CCM- ,�'H[) CITY RECEIVED DCM VVILMINGI CN, NC Ja 2 6 2016 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. 2 m. (i) Are there wetlands on the site? ®Yes ONO (ii) Are there coastal wetlands on the site? ®Yes ONO (ill) If yes to either (i) or (ii) above, has a delineation been conducted? ❑Yes ONO (Attach documentation, if available) There are coastal wetlands near the offloading area. All wetlands will be avoided and delineated as necessary prior to construction. n. Describe existing wastewater treatment facilities. Municipal o. Describe existing drinking water supply source. Municipal p. Describe existing storm water management or treatment systems. N/A 5. Activities and Impacts a. Will the project be for commercial, public, or private use? ❑Commercial ®Public/Govemment ❑Private/Community b. Give a brief description of purpose, use, and daily operations of the project when complete. The project purpose is to mitigate erosion on the Town's oceanfront shoreline so as to preserve the integrity of its infrastructure, provide protection to existing development and ensure the continued use of the oceanfront beach. c. Describe the proposed construction methodology, types of construction equipment to be used during construction, the number of each type of equipment and where it is to be stored. A hydraulic pipeline dredge and pipeline, bulldozers, front-end loaders and other earth moving machines will be used during construction. Storage of the equipment will not typically be a concern as the work will likely occur 24 hours a day. d. List all development activities you propose. The proposed activity includes beach nourishment along the Town's oceanfront shoreline from Tubb's Inlet to the eastern end of E. 31d Street. e. Are the proposed activities maintenance of an existing project, new work, or both? Both I. What is the approximate total disturbed land area resulting from the proposed project? Approx. 100 ❑Sq.Ft or ®Acres g. Will the proposed project encroach on any public easement, public access way or other area ®Yes ONO ❑NA that the public has established use of? h. Describe location and type of existing and proposed discharges to waters of the state. The placement location is the oceanfront beach adjacent to the eastern end of Ocean Isle Beach. i. Will wastewater or stomtwater be discharged into a wetland? ❑Yes ONO ❑NA If yes, will this discharged water be of the same salinity as the receiving water? ❑Yes ONO ®NA j. Is there any mitigation proposed? ®Yes ONO ❑NA If yes, attach a mitigation proposal. RECEIVEC �CLt�'a, V uCM\Nlu�.mrvv�� AUG 17 2016 jUL 2 6 201F DCM- MHD CITY COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. X 6. Additional Information In addition to this completed application form, (MP-1) the following items below, if applicable, must be submitted in order for the application Package to be complete. Items (a) — (n are always applicable to any major development application. Please consult the application instruction booklet on how to property prepare the required items below. a. A project narrative. b. An accurate, dated work plat (including plan view and cross -sectional drawings) drawn to scale. Please give the present status of the proposed project. Is any portion already complete? If previously authorized work, clearly indicate on maps, plats, drawings to distinguish between work completed and proposed. C. A she or location map that is sufficiently detailed to guide agency personnel unfamiliar with the area to the site. d. A copy of the deed (with state application only) or other instrument under which the applicant claims title to the affected properties. e. The appropriate application fee. Check or money order made payable to DENR. f. A list of the names and complete addresses of the adjacent waterfront (riparian) landowners and signed return receipts as proof that such owners have received a copy of the application and plats by certified mail. Such landowners must be advised that they have 30 days in which to submit comments on the proposed project to the Division of Coastal Management. Name See Appendix C Phone No. Address Name Phone No. Address Name Phone No. Address g. A list of previous state or federal permits issued for work on the project tract. Include permit numbers, permittee and issuing dates. WA h. Signed consultant or agent authorization form, if applicable. I. Wetland delineation, it necessary. j. A signed AEC hazard notice for projects in oceanfront and inlet areas. (Must be signed by property owner) k. A statement of compliance with the N.C. Environmental Policy Act (N.C.G.S. 113A 1-10). if necessary. If the project involves expenditure of public funds or use of public lands, attach a statement documenting compliance with the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act. I understand that any permit issued in response to this application will allow only the development described in the application. The project will be subject to the conditions and restrictions contained in the permit. I certify that I am authorized to grant, and do in fact grant permission to representatives of state and federal review agencies to enter on the aforementioned lands in connection with evaluating information related to this permit application and follow-up monitoring of the project. I further certify that the information provided in this application is truthful to the best of my knowledge. Date: 11' r.l tLA Print Name: Qi-rC4 Agent, Coastal Planning & Engineering of North Carolina, Inc Signature Please indicate application attachments pertaining to your proposed project. ®DCM MP-2 Excavation and Fill Information ❑DCM MP-5 Bridges and Culverts ❑DCM MP-3 Upland Development ❑DCM MP-4 Structures Information RECEIVED AUG 17 2016 DCM- MHD CITY COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. 4 RECEIVED,, Ni JUL 2 6 2016 `© 1.2 DCM MP-2 EXCAVATION and FILL (Except for bridges and culverts) Attach this form to Joint Application for CAMA Major Permit, Form DCM MP-1. Be sure to complete all other sections of the Joint Application that relate to this proposed project. Please include all supplemental information. Describe below the purpose of proposed excavation and/or fill activities. All values should be given in feet. Access Other (excluding Channel Canal Boat Boat Rock Rock shoreline (NLW or Basin Ramp Groin Breakwater stabilization) NWL) Length Avg.3800' -27,650 Width Avg. 950' Average 172.26 Avg. Existing 6' MLW NA NA Depth Final Project 15' MLW NA NA Depth 1. EXCAVATION a. Amount of material to be excavated from below NHW or NWL in cubic yards. —645,000 cy within Shallotle Inlet Borrow Area. (i) Does the area to be excavated include coastal wetlands/marsh (CW), submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), shell bottom (SB), or other wetlands (WL)? If any boxes are checked, provide the number of square feet affected. ❑CW _ ❑SAV _ ❑SB _ OWL — ®None (ii) Describe the purpose of the excavation in these areas: N/A ❑This section not applicable b. Type of material to be excavated. Beach quality sand d. High -ground excavation in cubic yards. None 12. DISPOSAL OF EXCAVATED MATERIAL ❑This section not applicable a. Location of disposal area. Oceanfront shoreline along the Ocean Isle Beach between Tubbs Inlet and the end of E 3rd St. c. (1) Do you claim title to disposal area? ®Yes ❑No ❑NA III) If no, attach a letter granting permission from the owner Easements pending. e. (i) Does the disposal area include any coastal wetlands/marsh (CW), submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), shell bottom (SB), or other wetlands (WL)? If any boxes are checked, provide the number of square feet affected. ❑CW _ ❑SAV _ ❑SB, OWL _ ❑None (ii) Describe the purpose of disposal in these areas: Dimensions of disposal area. Irregular,—27,650 length, 4,763,000 sT d. (i) Will a disposal area be available for future maintenance? ®Yes ❑No ❑NA (ii) If yes, where? Same location f. (i) Does the disposal include any area in the water? ®Yes ❑No ❑NA III) If yes, how much water area is affected? —613,617 s.f. based on most cqnt 2013 survey _ Rr.Pr— �/f_. l RF EVED — DCM WILTAINGTON, NC AUG 17 2016 JUL 2 6 2916 DCM- MHD CITY COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. 5 N 3. SHORELINE STABILIZATION ®This section not applicable (If development is a wood groin, use MP-4 — Structures) a. Type of shoreline stabilization: b. Length: ❑Bulkhead ❑Riprap ❑Breakwater/Sill ❑Other: c. Average distance waterward of NHW or NWL: e. Type of stabilization material: g. Number of square feet of fill to be placed below water level. Bulkhead backfill _ Riprap Breakwater/Sill _ other i. Source of fill material. Width: d. Maximum distance waterward of NHW or NWL: f. (i) Has there been shoreline erosion during preceding 12 months? ❑Yes []No ❑NA (ii) If yes, state amount of erosion and source of erosion amount information. h. Type of fill material. 4. OTHER FILL ACTIVITIES ®This section not applicable (Excluding Shoreline Stabilization) a. (i) Will fill material be brouaht to the site? ❑Yes ❑No ❑NA b. (i) Will fill material be placed in coastal wetlands/marsh If yes, (ii) Amount of material to be placed in the water _ (iii) Dimensions of fill area_ (iv) Purpose of fill (CW), submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), shell bottom (SB), or other wetlands (WL)? If any boxes are checked, provide the number of square feet affected. ❑CW _ ❑SAV ❑SB _ ❑WL— []None (ii) Describe the purpose of the fill in these areas: RCCENED AUG 17 2016 DCM- MHD CITY RECEIVED DCM \NILPAINGTCN, NG JUL 2 6 2016 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. 6 5. GENERAL a. How will excavated or fill material be kept on site and erosion controlled? A temporary dike will be constructed seaward of the placement area allowing sandy material to settle out before the water reenters the ocean. c. (i) Will navigational aids be required as a result of the project? []Yes ®No ❑NA (ii) If yes, explain what type and how they will be implemented. Date Ocean Isle Beach 30-Year Management Project Project Name Ocean Isle Beach, Go Debbie S. Smith Applicant Name Applicant b. What type of construction equipment will be used (e.g., dragline, backhoe, or hydraulic dredge)? Cutterhead hydraulic dredge and pipeline, bulldozers, front-end loaders and other earth moving machines. d. (i) Will wetlands be crossed in transporting equipment to project site? ❑Yes ®No ❑NA (ii) If yes, explain steps that will be taken to avoid or minimize environmental impacts. , Agent, Coastal Planning & Engineering of North Carolina, Inc. RECEIVED AUG 17 2016 DCM- MHD CITY COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. 7 RECEIV'-C 6CM WILFAl�rt"r JUL. 26 ni, 2 ATTACHMENTS 2.1 DCM MP-1. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 2.1.1 6a. Project Narrative The Town of Ocean Isle Beach (Town) is located on the southwestern coastline of Brunswick County in southeastern North Carolina. The municipality is located on a barrier island, bordered to the south by the Atlantic Ocean, to the north by the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AIWW), to the west by Tubbs Inlet and to the east by Shallotte Inlet. The Town of Holden Beach lies east of Shallotte Inlet and the Town of Sunset Beach is located west of Tubbs Inlet. Ocean Isle Beach is approximately 5.5 miles long and approximately 0.6 mi wide. The proposed project entails the placement of beach compatible material along approximately 5.0 miles of the Town's oceanfront shoreline. The borrow source for this material is located within Shallotte Inlet (Appendix A). The island was incorporated in 1959 and has a current year-round resident population of approximately 554 and a seasonal population of 25,000. 2.1,1.1 History of Shoreline Management on Ocean Isle Beach To understand the initiative behind the proposed 30-Year Management Plan, it is helpful to review the historical and current initiatives for managing shoreline erosion within Ocean Isle Beach. The Town has implemented separate strategies for various portions of the shoreline; these strategies were largely shaped by funding source and need. The following sections present the management strategies for three sections of shoreline that include the easternmost end near the Shallotte Inlet (East End), the central portion (Federal Coastal Storm Damage Reduction Project, or CSDRP), and the westernmost end near Tubbs Inlet (West End). East End The easternmost 2,800 feet of the Town's shoreline, which includes approximately 1,000 feet of shoreline with existing development and another 1,800 feet of undeveloped shoreline, was excluded from the federal CSDRP due to projected high cost of periodic nourishment that would be needed to counter the excessive erosion rates on the east end of the island. The high cost for periodic nourishment along the east end of the island resulted in a low benefits to cost ratio (B/C) that did not meet federal requirements that would have allowed the federal government to participate in a storm damage reduction project in that area. The high rates of ocean shoreline erosion on the east end of Ocean Isle Beach are associated with changes in the configuration of the Shallotte Inlet ebb tide delta that, in turn, are driven by changes in the position and orientation of the main ocean bar channel of the inlet. In association with construction of the below discussed CSDRP, the USACE has periodically deposited material on the east end, outside the federal project limits, since 2001. The material removed from the AIWW and placed within this area has eroded quickly and has been ineffective in slowing the rate of erosion. Additional measures undertaken by the T EIVE: 4JN(GTC private interests on the east end include placement of a sandbag revetment along 1,40 ee� o 2o1k COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINARECENED AUG 17 2016 DCM- MHD CITY shoreline, beginning at a point west of Shallotte Boulevard and extending east to the end of development. This revetment was installed around 2005, and has recently been extended 400 feet to the west (just past Charlotte Street). Some of the recent sandbag placement was accomplished by NCDOT in an attempt to protect the eastern end of 2"d street. Despite these previous efforts to mitigate the erosion along the Town's east end, five homes have been lost since 2005, and between 20 and 25 parcels have become unbuildable due to the inability to meet building setback requirements as dictated by the rules established by the NC Coastal Resources Commission (CRC). Therefore, the Town is actively pursuing a separate action to construct a terminal groin in proximity to Shallotte Inlet to provide added shoreline protection to the easternmost end of the island. As proposed, construction of the terminal groin will be accompanied by a small beach fill to create an accretion fillet immediately west of the terminal groin. If constructed, the terminal groin will be located at station 0+00 (east of Shallotte Blvd.) and is projected to provide a relatively stable beach west of the structure itself to approximately baseline station 30+00, which is located about 280 feet west of Lumberton Street. The results of the numerical modeling used to evaluate the potential impacts of the terminal groin indicated the shoreline between the groin and baseline 30+00 would require approximately 2,000 cy/year of periodic nourishment to maintain the shoreline compared to almost 60,000 cy/year needed without the structure (CPE-NC, 2015). With the terminal groin project in place, periodic nourishment volume needed to maintain the federal project would be reduced from 408,000 cy every three years to 400,000 cy every five years. The Town is pursuing the terminal groin separately from the presently proposed 30-Year Management Plan addressed in this permit application. It should also be noted that the proposed action is not contingent on the authorization or implementation of the terminal groin project. Federal Coastal Storm Damage Reduction Prot The Town has worked with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) since 1965 to plan and implement a storm protection project for a large, central portion of its oceanfront shoreline. The USACE's federal Coastal Storm Damage Reduction Project (CSDRP) spans 3.25 miles of the Town's approximate 5.5-mile oceanfront shoreline, from base station 10+00 at Shallotte Boulevard to east Duneside Drive (baseline station 181+00) (Appendix A). The CSDRP includes a 5,150-foot long dune and berm section covering the beach from station 51+50 (located just west of Raleigh St.) to 103+00 (located about halfway between Raeford St. and Lagrange St.), a 3,900-foot transition on the east end, and a 7,800-foot transition on the west end. The design template within the main fill includes a dune with a crest elevation of +8.5 feet NAVD88 fronted by a 50-foot wide berm at elevation +6.0 feet NAVD88. The east and west transition have variable width berms at elevation +6.0 feet NAVD88. The initial construction of the federal project in 2001 involved placement of 1,866,000 cubic yards of material obtained from a borrow area located in Shallotte Inlet. The borrow area was also designated as a source for future periodic beach nourishment, which was scheduled to occur every three years. The federal project has since been nourished twice, once in April/May 2010 and again in April 2014. Because the shoreline west of station 120+00 within the CSDRP performed so well after the initial nourishment, this area has not needed re-nourish►rW@► EIVED Rr-.CEIVttf" VIIEIINGTCN Nc COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. JUL 2 6 ?W 9 AUG 17 2016 DCM- MHD CITY Therefore, sand was not placed west of station 120+00 in the 2010 and 2014 periodic renourishment efforts. However, it is anticipated that periodic nourishment of the federal project between station 120+00 and 181+00 will likely be required at some time in the future, either due to gradual depletion of the fill, or loss during a coastal storm event. West End The shoreline extending west of the federal project limits from station 180+00 to Tubbs Inlet is currently unmanaged and has never received nourishment. The shoreline between station 181+00 (western limit of the federal CSDRP) and station 265+00 (located about 1,000 feet east of Tubbs Inlet) has been relatively stable since 1997. The shoreline between stations 180+00 and 210+00 experienced a considerable amount of accretion following completion of the initial construction of the federal CSDRP in March 2001, possibly due to the westward spreading of material place for that project. This accretion continued to around October 2005. The westward spreading of the nourishment material also appeared to extend west to about station 225+00. The accretion along these shoreline segments diminished after 2006 with the shoreline position remaining essentially stable until about May 2010. The shoreline between station 180+00 AND 250+00 experienced additional accretion from May 2010 and August 2013. A similar increase was not observed between stations 220+00 and 240+00, which is farther from the federal CSDRP. The behavior of the shoreline on the westernmost end of the island between Tubbs Inlet and baseline station 265+00 has been very erratic due to impacts the Tubbs Inlet ocean bar channel has on the west end shoreline. The westernmost end will continue to be monitored, and if shoreline conditions deteriorate in the future, consideration for remedial measures along this section of shoreline may be warranted. Shallow Draft Inlet - In May of 2015, the local stakeholders for five inlets on the southeast North Carolina coast submitted a CAMA Major Permit application to the N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) Division of Coastal Management (DCM) for conducting maintenance dredging for navigation. The Proposed Action consisted of maintenance dredging and beneficial placement at five inlets and associated Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AIWW) crossings: Bogue, New Topsail, Carolina Beach, Lockwoods Folly, and Shallotte River Inlet. With the exception of Shallotte River Inlet, which is a federally -authorized Coastal Storm Damage Reduction (CSDR) borrow area, these inlets are federally -authorized shallow -draft inlets, and were referred to as "the SDI-5" in the application for convenience. The applicants were the five local governments adjacent to the inlets, including the Town of Ocean Isle lC E i V E D who wished to obtain major CAMA permits to continue the ongoing federal navigation , `� maintenance dredging program at the inlets and the AIWW crossings, which is currently AUG 17 2016 conducted by the USACE Wilmington District. Specifically, the proposed Shallow Draft Inlet project at Ocean Isle Beach included the DC M- M H D C IT maintenance dredging from within AIWW crossings tangents 17-20 and from within the a 150' CDV€D wide channel following deep water within Shallotte Inlet. Approximately 100,000 cubic yards ofi.pE��;i J),! 2 6 m6 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. 10 material from the AI W W crossing and approximately 65,000 cubic yards of material from within Shallotte Inlet may be dredged per event. The beneficial placement of the material dredged from these navigation features would then be placed within a 19,900' stretch of shoreline along Ocean Isle Beach. Any given typical placement event, however, would extend approximately 2,800' in length. It should be noted that unlike the other shoreline management projects discussed above, the purpose of the dredging events associated with the SDI-5 permit is to maintain navigation. 2.1.1.2 Proposed Action The proposed action will include the placement of beach quality sand along approximately 5.0 miles of the Town's oceanfront shoreline. This encompasses the 3.25-mile extent already included within the entirety of the USACE federal CSDRP and an additional 1.75 miles of shoreline that extends from the western terminus of the CSDRP to Tubbs Inlet. Following initial construction, maintenance events would be anticipated to occur every five years. The only portion of the Town's oceanfront shoreline not included within this proposed action is the area to the east of the CSDRP, which is currently under consideration for a terminal groin and associated small beach fill project (Appendix A). Beach quality sand would be dredged from the borrow area previously used by the USACE within Shallotte Inlet using a hydraulic pipeline dredge. Placement of beach quality sand onto the beach would be accomplished via pipeline with direct pump -out. Once discharged, the sand will be shaped and graded according to the design template using earth -moving equipment such as bulldozers and excavators. Construction of the project and subsequent maintenance events would occur within the environmental dredge window between November 15 and April 30. The proposed 30-Year Management Plan would involve initial construction of the west end of the island when needed and continued periodic nourishment of the reach that includes the federal CSDRP should federal funding become unavailable. It is important to clarify that the construction of the proposed terminal groin and the associated beach fill is not part of the 30- Year Management Plan. The following sections provide a description of each component of the island -wide plan. Federal Coastal Storm Damage Reduction Project Periodic maintenance nourishment of the federal CSDRP will continue as it has since initial construction in 2001, Beach quality sand will be obtained from the permitted borrow area located within Shallotte Inlet and placed according to the template previously described above. West End The west end portion of the project refers to the shoreline extending from the western extent of the federal CSDRP located at station 181+00 to Tubbs Inlet. The portion of the federal CSDRP extending from station 70+00 to 180+00 has performed extremely well since initial construction and has not required any periodic nourishment since initial construction. This section of the federal CSDRP was therefore used as a proxy in developing the design template for EN G placement of material along the west end of Ocean Isle Beach that is not included in th-�gln «�VED ja 26 201E COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAR�»kc 11 AUG 17 2016 DCM- MHD CITY CSDRP. The goal of the design is to increase the level of storm protection along the west end of the island to a level comparable to that provided by the federal CSDRP. Using data from June 2013 survey performed by engineering firm McKim & Creed, a comparison was made of the volume material on the existing profiles within the federal CSDRP limits to the volume of material on the profiles located west of the federal CSDRP. Based on this comparison, a design template was developed that would provide the volume of material on each west end profile comparable to the volume of material residing on the profiles within the federal CSDRP between baseline stations 70+00 and 180+00. The design profile consists of a 10-foot wide dune at elevation +12.5 feet NAVD88 fronted by a 40-foot wide berm at elevation +6.0 feet NAVD88. The back or landward slope of the dune would be 1V:5H (1 Vertical to 5 Horizontal) and the front or seaward slope IV: I OR The beach fill for the west end of Ocean Isle Beach would begin at the west end of the federal project, located at station 181+00. A 400-foot transition would be constructed between station 181+00 and 185+00 with the full design template extending between station 185+00 and 245+00. A 500-foot transition would be constructed on the west end between station 245+00 and 250+00 in order to merge the project shoreline with the existing shoreline. A plan view showing the limits of the proposed placement limits is provided in Appendix A. While the use of beach fill along this reach may prove problematic given the dynamic influence of Tubbs Inlet, the shoreline between 250+00 and Tubbs Inlet (approximately station 275+00) is included in the proposed activities should future conditions warrant remedial measures. Based on existing shoreline conditions, the section of shoreline between baseline station 250+00 and Tubbs Inlet would not be included in the initial construction of the beach fill project along the west end of Ocean Isle Beach. Nevertheless, the condition of the shoreline along this extreme west end of Ocean Isle Beach is highly dependent on the behavior of the ocean bar channel of Tubbs Inlet and the influence of the bar channel on the configuration of the inlet's ebb tide delta. Given the level of uncertainty of possible future shoreline conditions on the extreme west end of Ocean Isle Beach, the proposed action includes possible future periodic nourishment of the shoreline between baseline station 250+00 and Tubbs Inlet (approximately station 275+00). The volume of material needed to construct the design template, including the two taper sections, totals approximately 262,000 cubic yards, based on a June 2013 survey. In addition to this volume, an additional 185,000 cy of material designated as advanced nourishment would be placed seaward of the design template to account for anticipated volume losses during the time interval between completion of initial construction and the first scheduled periodic nourishment operation. In total, 447,000 cy of material would be placed during initial construction of the west end. Island -wide Periodic Nourishment Periodic nourishment of the shoreline between station 0+00 to station 120+00 within the federal CSDRP limits would require 80,000 cubic yards/year, or 400,000 cubic yards every 5 years. RECEIVED DCM NIILt•AlNGTCN, NC - RECEIVED JUL 26 2016 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CARTMNAS71C ft 12 AUU 1 / Lll DCM- MHD CITY V The western portion of the federal CSDRP (120+00 to 181+00) has not required any periodic nourishment since construction and periodic nourishment of this section of the federal CSDRP is not anticipated in the near future. However, given the possibility the area could be impacted by a severe coastal storm, a nominal nourishment requirement of 2 cy/ft/yr for this section of the federal CSDRP is recommended for planning purposes. Therefore, periodic nourishment of this portion of the federal CSDRP could require an average of about 12,000 cy/yr, or 60,000 cy every five years. A five-year periodic nourishment interval would be implemented for the entire stretch of shoreline extending from the proposed terminal groin (approximately station 00+00) to station 270+00. Using the annual rates provided above, the total five-year periodic nourishment requirements for the Town of Ocean Isle Beach are estimated as follows: Table 1. Five-year periodic nourishment requirements for the Island -Wide Management plan. Periodic Nourishment Requirements for a 5-Year Interval Shoreline Reach Volume per 5 years Proposed Terminal Groin to Station 120+00 400,000 cy Contingency Volume Station 120+00 to 181+00 60,000 cy West End from Station 181+00 to 250+00 185,000 cy West End from Station 250+00 to Tubbs Inlet 0 cy Total Island Wide 5-Year Requirement 645,000 cy Borrow Source The proposed 30-Year Management Plan will utilize the existing federally approved borrow area within Shallotte Inlet as the primary sand source for initial construction of the Town's west end and for periodic nourishment of the federal CSDRP portion of the shoreline (Appendix A). This borrow area extends from the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AIWW) through the throat of the channel and turns south over the ocean bar. Shallotte Inlet is an ebb -dominated system, with a small flood delta and a much larger ebb tide delta. The original USACE borrow area was designed to have a maximum dredging depth of 15 ft. below MLW (-17.9 ft. NAVD), creating a channel with 3H:1V sides slopes measuring approximately 950 ft. wide at the AIWW and 1,400 ft. wide at the bar channel. The footprint of the borrow area covers approximately 4.8 million sq. ft. (110 ac). Preliminary engineering and design work for the 2014 maintenance event used bathymetric data collected by the USACE in July and August 2013 to determine volumes within the borrow area. At the time of the survey, approximately 1,312,000 cy of sand were available within the borrow area. Based on project estimates provided by the Town of Ocean Isle Beach, approximately 800,000 cy were removed from the borrow area for the 2014 maintenance nourishment. Based on past performance of the project, the borrow area is expected to re -charge due to shoaling of the inlet complex. Section (3)a of rule 15A NCAC 07H.0312 states that sediment completely confined to the permitted dredge depth of a maintained sediment deposition basin within an inlet shoal system ��*FS CEwEL: considered compatible if the average percentage by weight of fine-grained (less uvri�lt4lLl.pflmc1 c< COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLE,WiTl't'.EIVEDJUL 2 6 2016 13 AUG 17 2016 DCM- MAHD CITY W millimeters) sediment is less than 10%. A geotechnical evaluation of the Shallotte Inlet borrow area was presented in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Ocean Isle Beach terminal groin project. As indicated the EIS, an evaluation of vibracore data collected in 1998, 2005 and 2009 all show the sediment in the proposed borrow area meet these criteria. Composite data for vibracores collected within the proposed borrow area in 1998 indicate the percent by weight of fine-grained (less than 0.0625 millimeters) material is 1.3%. Composite data for those vibracores within the proposed borrow area collected in 2005 and 2009 indicate the percent by weight of fine-grained (less than 0.0625 millimeters) is 1.95%. The composite percent fine- grained material for the existing beach sampled along the east end of Ocean Isle beach is 1.34%. Analyses of the samples collected from the existing beach by CPE-NC and the USACE indicate that sediment along the eastern end of Ocean Isle Beach has a mean grain size of 0.23mm. The composite median grain size for the area analyzed using the 1998 vibracores is 0.16mm. The composite mean grain size for the area analyzed using the 2005 and 2009 vibracores is 0.36mm. Sediments recovered within the vertical boundaries of the proposed borrow area were described by the USACE as having a tan and or gray color (USACE, 1997; Catlin, 2009). The wet Munsell Color value ranges from 4 to 7, with a typical value of 5. The dry Munsell Color value ranges from 6 to 8 with a typical value of 7. These characteristics represent the existing beach, which is a composite of the characteristics of material that has been placed on the beach during past nourishment projects and native beach sediment. Although incompatible material has not been encountered within the Shallotte Inlet borrow area, the applicant proposed to use USACE DA-300 as a contingency disposal location. It should be noted that if incompatible material is encountered, contract language would direct the contractor to move the dredge location. Should the Town pursue removal of any incompatible material, a Consent Agreement would be obtained from the USACE prior to commencing any placement within DA-300. Construction Schedule Project construction along the west end could occur as early as 2018 and therefore may be performed in conjunction with the scheduled periodic nourishment of the federal CSDRP. 2.1.1.3 Purpose and Need The Town is focused on a long-term shoreline management program. The Town's stated purpose for implementing a beach nourishment project is to reduce the vulnerability of structures and infrastructure, including roads and utilities, along the Town's oceanfront shoreline that could become vulnerable through shoreline erosion over time. In addition, the proposed project would serve to reduce the vulnerability of public infrastructure to storm -induced erosion. In order to accomplish these goals, the Town is taking steps to maintain its oceanfront beach and dune to a configuration that provides a reasonable level of storm damage reduction, flood reduction and that mitigates long-term erosion that could threaten public and private development, recreational opportunities and biological resources. RECEIVLL RECEIVED llCMVVILIOIN"1= JUL 2 6 nik COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAkGL14,0MS. 14 DCM- MHD CITY With implementation of the separately proposed terminal groin project (assuming it will be permitted and constructed) and the existence of the federal CSDRP covering 3.25 miles of the Town's shoreline, a large portion of the Town of Ocean Isle Beach will be considered managed. Nevertheless, the Town has the following two concerns. 1) The portion of shoreline that encompasses the area between the western terminus of the federal CSDRP and Tubbs Inlet remains unmanaged. Therefore, the Town is seeking permits that would allow them to construct a non -federally funded beach nourishment project along the unmanaged western shoreline. The nourishment project along the west end of the island would include periodic maintenance events to preserve the design template. 2) Obtaining federal funds for periodic nourishment of the CSDRP has become increasingly difficult. This potential for federal -funding shortfalls has prompted the Town to seek permits to use non-federal funds to provide periodic nourishment of the entire length of the CSDRP. The proposed action will allow the Town to construct the federal CSDRP should shortfalls in federal funding occur and allow the Town to manage the currently un-managed shoreline to the west of the federal CSDRP. Essentially, the goal is to allow the Town to manage its own oceanfront shoreline, from the terminal groin to Tubbs Inlet, under one set of state and federal permits. 2.1.2 6d. A copy of the deed (with state application only) or other instrument under which the applicant claims title to the affected properties. The Town is currently in the process of securing easements that will allow for the proposed construction and maintenance of the project. See Appendix E. 2.1.3 6h. Signed Agent Authorization Form. See Appendix B. 2.1.4 6j. Signed AEC Hazard Notice. See Appendix B. RECEIVED AUG 17 2016 DCM- MHD CITY RECEIVE bCRAIti�ILM'�'�' ` JUL 2 6 RECEIVEC DCM WILM!W_ rr COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. JUL, 2 6 ?01k 15 Environmental QuaUry August 15, 2016 Coastal Planning St Engineering of North Carolina, Inc. c/o Brad Rosov 4038 Masonboro Loop Road Wilmington, NC 28409 Dear Mr. Rosov: PAT MCCRORY Govemor DONALD R. VAN DER VAART Secretary BRAXTON DAVIS Director The Division of Coastal Management hereby acknowledges receipt of your application, acting as agent for the Town of Ocean Isle Beach, for State approval for development of the property located at on the oceanfront shoreline adjacent to the Atlantic Ocean in the Town of Ocean Isle Beach, Brunswick County. It was received complete on July 26, 2016 and appears to be adequate for processing at this time. The projected deadline for making a decision is October 9, 2016. An additional 75-day review period is provided by law when such time is necessary to complete the review. If you have not been notified of a final action by the initial deadline stated above, you should consider the review period extended. Under those circumstances, this letter will serve as your notice of an extended review. However, an additional letter will be provided on or about the 75th day. If this agency does not render a permit decision within 70 days from July 26, 2016, you may request a meeting with the Director of the Division of Coastal Management and permit staff to discuss the status of your project. Such a meeting will be held within five working days from the receipt of your written request and shall include the property owner, developer, and project designer/consultant. NCGS 113A-119(b) requires that Notice of an application be posted at the location of the proposed development. Enclosed you will find a "Notice of Permit Filing" postcard which must be posted at the property of your proposed development. You should post this notice at a conspicuous point along your property where it can be observed from a public road. Some examples would be: Nailing the notice card to a telephone pole or tree along the road right-of-way fronting your property, or at a point along the road right-of-way where a private road would lead one into your property. Failure to post this notice could result in an incomplete application. An onsite inspection will be made, and if additional information is required, you will be contacted by the appropriate State or Federal agency. Please contact me if you have any questions and notify me in writing if you wish to receive a copy of my field report and/or comments from reviewing agencies. Sincerely, Sean Fa ell Field Representative Enclosures cc: Doug Huggett, DCM Heather Coats, DCM Debra Wilson, DCM Tyler Crumbley, ACOE Keith Dycus, Town of Ocean Isle Beach LPO RECEIVED AUG 17 2016 DCM- N",HD CITY State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Coastal Maaagem at 127 Cud'mal Drive Eu., Wilmington, NC 28405 910-796-7215 f.3 � U > o N LU � U CAMA PERMIT APPLIED FOR Brunswick County COMMENTS ACCEPTED THROUGfleptember 3, 2016 APPLICANT: Town of Ocean Isle Beach c/o Debbie Smith 3 W. Third St. Ocean Isle Beach, NC 28469 Agent: Greg Finch (910) 791-9494 FOR MORE DETAILS CONTACT THE LOCAL PERMIT OFFICER BELOW: NC Div. of Coastal Management 127 Cardinal Dr. Extension Wilmington, NC 28405 Sean Farrell, Field Representative 910-796-7424 Appendix B: Signed Agent Authorization Form and AEC Notice N.C. DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT AGENT AUTHORIZATION FORM m,lr Nnmt of I'ruperi, Owner Applying fur Ptrmib Town of Ocean Isle Beach Mailing Address: 3 West Third Sheet Ocean late Beech, NC 28l 1 arfify that I have au thn," (al Coeabl mannrq aM Enpiennes, at NC, In, W net an my behalf, for fhe purpme of applying for and obtalelog na CAMA Ptrmib seeebnrym install or romtract (aetivhy) «'aan Isle Beach 30-Veer Management Project at (my property I.." at) Ocean Isle Seach oceanfront shoreline This certification is Will thru (date) 1202017 �� �F3IIG Property Owner gigaatare Bate RECEIVED AUG 17 2016 DCM- I';HD CITY RECEIVED DCM WILMINGTON, NO juL 2 6 7016 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. OCEAN HAZARD AEC NOTICE Project Is in an: X Ocean Erodible Area X High Nanrld Flood Awe X Inlet H.rd Area Property Owner: Town of Ocean Isle Beach Property Address: Ocean Isle Beach Ocean Front Date Lot was Platted: Easements Pending This ndia is intended to make you, the mpplicanL swam of flat Venial risks and season, ormei ited with development in this area, which is subject to natural hmards such as mama, erovim and ... The rules of Ne Costal Rese. Cmnmiaaion require thin you eearm an AEC HaseM Notice ad acknowledge and naive in writing before a permit for do elopmrnt an be tested. The Commission's mks on building mndambi meaddhom selbeeks ad dtmt alterations are designed to minimise, but tort elimarser, mo,ay loss from beaards 9y gaa idn' peens. the Cemul Resonates e'.monission does tort guarani« the safer, of the development end assunm no liability for far. damage m the demlopmcnt. Permits issud in the Oven HanN Ana of Env red Commincidmcw e the condition that i tes be remaadmcoor dismennd if they became trimmed, threatened by lunges in doemlins configuration. The sbuawe(a) man be abaatd or dismemled within two (2) years of becoming Cady Nredisdrase upon and in say upon its collem pad ,bwaneace. 'I lie then available infommtion, m eaemm by the Coastal Resources Commiasim, indicates the the renal Im,mm ls;:eman erasion ate fat the sat what year mwh% is Domiden is uo W e fed pmyear. Pie ram was established by cmful analysis of atrial pM1otw)ama efflw cuutlira okra ovome pest 50 yen. Shades also indicate the the shamhne maid soave as much m .RM fen ladward in a major stone. dh food washers in a major moan am pmdicled to be show 19 fen deep in his area Prekned occanfrom protection measures an beech noundlwmt ad beleadon of revered ebmwms. Hand mile. ei ntml structures such in bulkheads, s.walk. on moo lr, gmins,jcnies and areakween sat prehibid. Temporary sad bags way be authorized under censin conditions. The aypliant must acknowdge Nis informetion and do,ramsenls by signing this mrim in the spec below. W ilhmt the moped rpri me. da • DII ion will rat be a mplae. 11/ire FNwany owner spire Debt SPECIAL NOTE: This hazmd its Is teouimd fa developmem in .seas subitte to sudden and massive steme end moslan. Perrin iaud for developmed is thu area rapire an catenated 31 of he had veer following tht yens In which the permit was issum. Shortly before work begins on the mojecl sit, the Lineal Permit Offar man he tmmaed m determine da vegemiar line and setback distance at your site. If the propMy has seen little change are the tins. of Permit issuance, am the mopond deveopm at can still mint Jr, whack requd.t, the LPO will airnnn gnu and yo„ may begin work. Substamul liog,ess on the moject onal be nude wihin 60 days of this reWsk dettmination. er the setback man he re-nlessumd. Also, Ile occunano, of a major shoreline drill, ar the result of a storm wain the 60day peril will nnesshate mr measurement of she attack. It is importanl that you check with the LPO Were the remain aspires for official approval to continue the work after the pmnil has aaamd. OmerallY, if f lotion pilings Its- been plasm ad aubsundal pW. is candnuing, pcunit renewal can he autboo d. It is unlawful to continue smarinerismiteapirmioa. Fw mate ie/auwrion, neaafmr: Debra Wilson Laof ParmR Offli 127 Cardinal Drive Extension Address, Wilmington, NC 28403 LOCNdy 910-7913-721 s Phone Number Revised May alto RECEIVED AUG 17 2016 DCM- MHD CITY RECEIVED DCM WILIANGTGN, NC 'JUL 2 6 2016 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. 4038 MASONSORO LOOP ROAD, WILMINGTON, NC 28409 910-791-9494 PHONE 910-791-4129 FAX July 18, 2015 Re: Town of Ocean Isle Beach Island -Wide Shoreline Protection Project Adjacent Riparian Landowner Notification Dear Sir or Madam: On behalf of the Town of Ocean Isle Beach (Town), Coastal Planning & Engineering of North Carolina (CPE-NC), Inc. is submitting a Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) Major Permit application to the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management (NC DCM) for work occurring within an Area of Environmental Concern. As more completely described in the attached application, the Town intends to submit a CAMA Major Permit application to allow for the placement of beach quality material along a 5.0 mile section of the Town's oceanfront shoreline. This area spans an area just west of Shallotte Inlet to the shoulder of Tubbs Inlet. Attached to this notice, please find a copy of the application as submitted to the NC DCM office. Within 30 days from receipt of this notice, you may submit comments regarding the referenced project to the following address: Attn: Sean Farrell Division of Coastal Management North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources 127 Cardinal Drive Extension Wilmington, North Carolina 28405 Sincerely, COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. 1--j-1-f Greg Finch, Agent, CPE-NC Enclosures: Application for Major Development Permit RECEIVED AUG 17 2016 DCM- MHD CITY RECEIVED DCM WIUMNGTCN, NC JUL 2 6 201k ■ Complete items 1, 2, and 3, A. Siipr�tu /� ■ Print your name and address on the reverse X j ,�r� � so that we can return the card to you. AAgent ddreeaea ddre B1.Received by Na )' ', Aa[e of Delivery ■. Attach this card to the back of the mallpiece, or on the front if space permits, 1. Article Addressed to: D. Is delN ress different from learn 17 �f Yes If YES enter tleliveyaddress below: C No r�J .•.rJ9 '�tl ?s,mfi Z Ga��t^�7 l �. 281/61:3 Service Type ❑AtlN Sgnnature Reslrkletl�ery ❑RReqIilred aglsttaereO Ma gchictsd 0CeMai Ra"9590 9403 0325 5155 1979 74 Certified Delivery ❑ e I ter, ❑ Crellectooevwy M¢rcu 2. Article Nun ._ -_•_-___'_'+-.ye. _-._: _ ❑ 0011_9_A99 DeuvwYRaeMe;etl Delivery ❑ Si9MWre Confimndllm" 7016 0910 0000 0334 1993 u5emweaery ivory R•sirkted Dernrve" PS Form 3811. April 2016 PSN 7530.02.O 9069 Domestic Return Receipt i ■ Complete Items 1, 2, and 3 n. signor ■ Print your name and address on the reverse X .0 Agent so that we can return the card to you. ❑ Addressee e. ec by (Rr rlfed,vam) ✓ to of Delivery ■ Attach this card to the flack of the mallpiece, or on the front K space permits. 0 t- Article Addressed to: j�� l 4i,�J� �y D. IS livetyieddrsss qt from it l Yes It ,err delivery ac�res�'below; �No VV [[mil Asiv�+. l :L C^v4e�y Oclotea -21stc, $C-Lt, IIIIIIIIIIN111111111111111111111 FIR 111 EIAAdukMgne�Ree,rktedDelivery 0fie� mt�Me ResUItd 9590 9403 0325 5155 1979 81 ° Certified Maas Delivery O Cerfi ted Mall Reatricted Delivery Cl Rair Receipt for Colledt on Delivery Moretrentlisa 2. Art,Ci - -_-- G Collect on Derive" Restricted Dalivary M Signature CW(OnSttur- 7016 0910 0000 0334 2006 led Delivery 84naturecanfi� on Restricted Delis 'S Form 3811, April 2015 PSN 7530-02-000.9053 Oa:,;=tic Return Receipt AUG 17 2016 DC J- W.HD CITY V E D %. „t r,a:.NGTON. NC JUL 2 9 2016 O h wO 04 61 N 4 9002 hEEO 0000 0'160 9TU w` n. V. i w ,(y 4 �V E66T hEEO 0000 OT60 9TOZ RECEIVED AUG 17 2016 DCM- %PHD CITY RECEIVED IDCM WILPAINGTCN, NC JUL 2 6 2016 Appendix D: Interagency Scoping Meeting Minutes Interagency Scoping Meeting Minutes For: Ocean Isle Beach 30-Tear Beach Island-W'ide Shoreline Protection PeruJtting Ocean Isle Beach, North Carolina The meeting convened at the NCDENR office in Wilmington, NC on October 1, 2015 at 11:30sm. Following introductions of meeting attendees (see Table 1). Brad Rosov (CPE-NC) provided background information regarding the proposed project. Ile stated that the Town of Ocean Isle Beach (Town) has expressed interest in obtain permits to protect an approximate 5.0 mile stretch of ocean front shoreline. Currently, the USACF.'s Coastal Storm Damage Reduction Project (CSDRP) spans 3.25 miles of the Town's shoreline. Although the existing CSDRP has served to protect a large portion of the Town's oceanfront shoreline, federal appropriations for the CSDRP have historically been challenging and all indications suggest that funding challenges will continue jeopardizing the continuation of this vital project. The remaining 2.0 miles of the Town's oceanfront shoreline, which consist of approximately 0.25 miles east of the CSDRP and 1.75 miles west of the federal project, remain unmanaged today. 'llrc Town is currently pursuing permits to manage the cast end of the island (through the proposed terminal groin project).'lltcreforc, this proposed component of the Town's Beach Management Plan entails the acquisition of permits to allow management of the remaining portion of their oceanfront shoreline, including the 3.25 mile long CSDRP and 1.75 miles of unmanaged shoreline on the west end of the island. Brad continued and suggested that the proposed permitting approach for the project would include the submittal of a CISACE Individual Permit (IP) application and a CAMA Major Pennit Application. Due to the fact that the USAGE has already evaluated impacts far the placement of material along the majority of the island through the authorization of the CSDRP, the applicant feels that an Environmental Assessment (EA) along with the development of a Biological Assessment (BA) and FAsential Fish I Iabitat assessment (EFIq would some as the environmental documentation needed to support this permitting approach. Brad went onto say that the applicant was hoping that due to the fact that the proposed project will be constructed within the environmental dredge window and that the sand source will be the same as what has been used for the CSDRP, informal consultation with NMFS and iJSF WS would suffice. In addition to the permitting approach described above, that would result in shoreline protection for both the oceanfront shoreline contained within the C SRDP and the Town's west end. Brad explained that the Town would also be intereslod in simultancousIv pursue a USAGE Cieneral Permit 291 (GP 291) and LAMA Major permit that would allow construction of the exact footprint of the CSDRP. This would be a separate effort from what is described above. The benefit of this pursuit is the GP 291 permitting process is relatively quicker due to the fact the USAC E would rely on the State of North Carolina to make the Permitting decision via the LAMA Major Permit application alone. No EA would be required from the Appliont. 'Phis would presumably allow for the issuance of permits for the CSDRP footprint prior to the issuance of the permits being sought covering both the CSDRP RECEIVED AUG 17 2016 RECEIVED 1DCM WILh4INGTON, NC JUL 2 6 2016 DCM- MHD CITY COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. footprint and the west end area. In essence, obtaining a GP 291 would serve as an `insurance policy" such that the Town would have the option to construct the federal project should the need arise prior to the issuance of the island -wide IP is obtained. Alter reviewing the proposed project and the permitting approach, Greg Bodoer (DCNI-Fisheries) asked how this project relates to the Shallow Draft Inlet 5 (SDI5) project. Brad responded that this proposed project doesn't directly white, although both projects do overlap in terms of the proposed borrow source and fill placement. Tyler Crumbly (USAGE) confirmed [his. Holley Snider (I)CLM) stated that the SDIS, terminal groin project, any mitigation associated with the terminal groin projcoL CSDRP, and now this proposed project arc all lapping into the same borrow source within Shallote Inlet and has concerns that the hornow area will not be able to provide enough material for all of these projeuls. She asked if an alternate borrow source would be available. Brad responded by slating that the CSDRP was formulated with maintenance events scheduled every 3 years. The construction of the terminal groin project would extend the maintenance cycle of the CSDRP to every 5 years. Furthermore, the terminal groin has been designed to trap sand at the cast end and thereby reduce the erosion rates further west (into the CSDRP template). This would reduce the overall volume of material that would need to he placed every 5 years within the footprint of the CSDR compared to previous maintenance events. Holley asked if the USACE has historically used the Shallottc Inlet borrow area to its full extent during previous nourishment events. Brad stated that although the USACE has not historically performed maintenance every 3 years, survey data suggests that the Shallottc Inlet borrow area has contained significant volumes of material remaining immediately following past dredge operations by the USACE. Tom Jarrett (CPE-NC) added that the 3-your average of volume removed from the borrow area and placed within the CSDR project template has been approximately 400,000 cubic yards with much of the material being placed eastern 2,000 to 3,000 feet of the project area. Brad also mentioned that CPE•NC performed some desktop studies to explore additional borrow areas including Tubbs. Inlet and offshore borrow areas. These sources have their limitations and, therefore, considering the volumes of beach compatible material residing within Shallottc Inlet, the proposed project will only seek to obtain material from that one seem. Tyler xhoed Holley's initial concern about the amount of material available within Shallottc Inlet and also brought up the fact that using this source could potentially bring up the need for a Section 408 review. Brad asked the group if the survey data that from within the borrow source from before and after the construction of the CSDRP which validates the tact that sufficient volumes would he available should simply he included in the environmental documents and permit applications. Debbie Wilson (L)CM) agreed. Greg added his concerns regarding the amount of material that would he extracted from Shallone Inlet by stating that this action could alter the tidal prism and. subsequently impact primary nursery areas to the north and west of the project area. Brad asked Tyler if he was aware of the volume of material planned to be dredged from the Shallotte Inlet and the inlet crossing in rotation to the SDI5 project. Fritz Rohde (NMFS) interjected and stalest that SDI5 would extract 65,000 cubic yards from the inlet borrow area and an additional 100,000 cubic yards from the crossing. Tom asked if the material would be sidccastcd or if it would be placed on the Town's beach. Tyler responded and staled [bat some would be sidecasled while other amounts would be disposed offshore and some onshore within the CSDR project fnotprinl. Tbm and Brad confirmud that the most rsccnt maintenance event for the CSDRP involved the placement of approximately 800,000 cubic ,yards of material. The proposed project. however, would only necessitate approximately 675.000 cubic yards of material and that would include the western 1.75 miles of shoreline as well. This would be due to the fact that the terminal groin project would serve to reduce volumetrio losses from the eastem end of the project footprint. T'om added that the fiECEV R= --IVED DCM WILMINNGTCN, NC AUG 17 2016 JUL 2 6 2016 - r� io - V COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING Off' NdkifI CAROLINA, INC. shoreline between 120 100 and 181100 he performed very well and has not needed much nourishment. Brad then asked if consultation between USACE and both N;MFS and USFWS could be performed informally. Kathy Matthews (USFWS) suggested that it would most likely undergo formal consultation even though the work would be performed within the environmental dredging window. However, this project may fit under the forthcoming Biological Opinion for sand placement within North Carolina. Kathy stated that the BO may be released sometime this coming spring. Maria Bunn (WRC) suggested that the construction activities should be limited to the time period of April I to Nov 15 (rather than May I to Nov 15). Kathy stated that USFWS would prefer this timcframc due to potential for nesting sea turtles. Frltx stated that tom an essential fish habitat pers. pective- NMFS would be able to proceed with informal consultation. He asked if the SARBO would cover the consultation with NMFS Protected Resources Division (PRD). Tyler thought that the dredging activity should indeed be covered by the SARBO. Hrad asked if the OP 291 would be a feasible means of obtaining a Dopt. of Army permit as an "insurance policy" to provide protection for the CSDRP template. Tyler suggested that CTP 2878 may serve this project better. Brad was crmeemed that the time it now takes for consultation with NiMtFS PRD may make this option moot. Heather Coats (DCM) asked if this would mean that two applications would be submitted to CAMA concurrently. Brad confirmed that this would he the one (one set of applications for the "Inland•W idc" project consisting of the CSDRP footprint and the 1.75 mile western portion of the islandAND the "OP 291"project would only include the area within the CSDRP fcotprint). Heather stated that running two permits applications concurrently could complicate things for DCM and suggested applying for a permit allowing for the nourishment within the CSDRP only first (via CANIA Major permit and a OP 291) and then modify the permits to allow for the inclusion of the west end at a later date. Brad questioned if the OP 291 could be modified to include this area. Tyler confirmed that it could. Tom stated that the OP 291 is only a 1-year permit and that it would need to be renewed each time. Tyler confirmed that is correct. He drop asked why even bother with the CSDRP permit area anyway because the SDI5 project would "cover" that footprint. That projcot, howuvsr, would only involve the dredging of 160,000 cubic yards every three years. Tom stated that the material placed within the C SRUP as a result of the SDI5 project would then simply reduce the volume needed to protect the amount required to protect the CSDR project. Tyler asked why the Town would want to cover the same area with two different permits (referring to this proposed project and the SDI5 permit). Brad mentioned that we would look into the SDI5 purpose and the specifications of that project to evaluate how it may interface with this proposed project. Tyler asked what the purpose and need would be for the west end area. Tom replied by stating that the need was established based on current erosion rates and that we formulated the fill design for this portion based off the project design within the CSDR wren. Using those criteria, the design has been developed for the west end. The cxtrcmc west end experiences some erosion due to the configuration of Tubbs Inlet. The meeting adjourned at 12:30pm. A list of meeting participants is presented below AUG 17 2016 REC_:VEG DCM VVI ,, ;-N'CTCN, IVC DCM- IhHD CITY JUL 2 6 ?016 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Table 1: List of Attendees Name A cncv Phone Email Cameron Weaver NCDENR-DEACS 910-796-7303 Cameron.WeaverrFnncdem gm Rhonda Hall DEMLR-LQ 910-796-7312 Rhonda. IiallCii)ncdenr.Kuc Maria Mon WRC 252-948-3916 Maria. Dunn(anmildlife.ora Debbic Wilson I)CM 910.796-7266 M+m.Wilson(0ncdcnr.Rov Chad Coburn DWR-401 910-796.7379 Chad.Cobtan•dmcdenneov Tyler Crumbley USACE 910-251.4170 Tyler.Cnunblex a us cQ.annv mil llcathcrCoats DCM 910-796.7424 llcalhcr,Coats•ftncdcnceov *Gregg Bodnar DCM-Fisheries 252-808-2808 x 213 GrcRR.Bodnar(&ncdcnr.Rov Holley Snider DCM 910.796.7270 Holleo.Snidercincdenr.Rov nr ov Linda Lewis DEMLR-SW 910-796-7343 Linda.lzwisirncdmr.eov Brad Rosov CPE-NC 910-794-9494 Brad Rommwchi.com • Fritz Rohde N0AA-NMF 252-838.0829 Fritz. Rohdeli'noaa.Ro% *Kathy Matthews USFWS 919-856.4520 E:athnn.Xlatthe%vvanc&ncpox • Shaun Simpson DCM 910-796.7226 Shaumslnlvsonvllcdctu. eov Tom Jarrett CPE-NC 910-794-9494 Jams Jarretta 0i.com participated vb conference call RCCENED AUG 11 2016 DCM- %P.HD CITY COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. RECEIVED 1DCM lR11LI01NIGTCN. NQ JUL 2 6 2016 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. 4038 MASONBORO LOOP ROAD, WILMINGTON, NC 28409 910-791-9494 PHONE July 26, 2016 Sean Farrell Division of Coastal Management North Carolina Department of Environment Quality 127 Cardinal Drive Extension Wilmington, North Carolina 28405 Subject: Ocean Isle Beach 30-Year Beach Management Plan Mr. Farrell: Please find enclosed a complete application for a Major Development Permit for the subject project. Also enclosed is the $475 fee check. Adjacent riparian landowner notifications have been sent by certified mail and the return receipts will be forwarded to you once they are received. Please contact me anytime should you have any questions or need anything in addition. Sincerely, COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Greg Finch Agent, CPE-NC Enclosures: Application for Major Development Permit and Fee Check R�CIFIVED JUL 2 6 2016 RECEIVC-0 AUG 17 2016 RECEIVED DCM WILMINGTON, NC DCM- MHD C a Y JUL 2 6 2016 OCEAN ISLE BEACH 30-YEAR MANAGEMENT PROJECT NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT MAJOR PERMIT APPLICATION Prepared for: The Town of Ocean Isle Beach 0('&-'0 +S1,E L B&ICH i Prepared by: COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. 4038 Masonboro Loop Road Wilmington, North Carolina 28409 R;CE�VEJ AUG 17 2016 Submitted to: DCM- VHD CITY North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Coastal Management RECEIVED Wilmington Regional Office DCM wiLMiNc?c : Jul 2 6 70tF July 2016 Ocean Isle Beach 30-Year Management Project NCDCM Major Permit Application Contents 1 FORMS.. 1.1 DCM MP-1.................................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 DCM MP-2.................................................................................................................................. 5 2 ATTACHMENTS...............................................................................................................................8 2.1 DCM MP-1. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION........................................................................... 8 2.1.1 6a. Project Narrative.......................................................................................................... 8 2.1.2 6d. A copy of the deed (with state application only) or other instrument under which the applicant claims title to the affected properties....................................................... 15 2.1.3 6h. Signed Agent Authorization Form........................................................................... 15 2.1.4 6j. Signed AEC Hazard Notice....................................................................................... 15 3 Appendices......................................................................................................................................16 Appendices Appendix A: Work Plats and Location Maps Appendix B: Signed Agent Authorization Form and AEC Notice Appendix C: Adjacent Riparian Landowner Notifications Appendix D: Interagency Scoping Meeting Minutes Appendix E: Pending Easements RECE►VED AUG 17 2016 DCM_ RECEIVED DCM WILPAINGTC'� iqc JUL 2 6 2016 Appendix E: Pending Easements RECEIVED AUG 17 2016 DCM- NIND CITY RECEIVED DCM WIL MMGTCN, JUL 2 6 2016 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Energy, Mineral & Land Resources ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY August 8, 2016 Ms. Debbie Smith Town of Ocean Isle Beach 3 West Third Street Ocean Isle Beach, NC 28469 Subject: EXEMPTION Stormwater Project No. SW8 160620 Ocean Isle Beach Shoreline Management Project Brunswick County Dear Ms Smith PAT McCRORY Governor DONALD R. VAN DER VAART Secretary TRACY DAVIS Director On June 14, 2016, the Wilmington Regional Office of the Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources received a copy of the CAMA Major Permit Application for the subject project. Staff review of the plans and specifications on June 14, 2016 has determined that the development activities proposed at this time will not pose a threat to surface water quality from stormwater runoff. The Director has determined that projects that are reviewed and approved by the Division as not posing a water quality threat from stormwater runoff should not be subject to the stormwater management permitting requirements of 15A NCAC 2H.1000, the stormwater rules. By copy of this letter, we are informing you that this project will not require a stormwater management permit. , If the subject project disturbs one acre or more and has a point source discharge of stormwater runoff, then it is also subject to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater discharge requirements. You are required to have an NPDES permit for stormwater discharge from projects meeting these criteria. All temporary built -upon area associated with the construction of the project must be removed within 30 days of completion of the project, or when it is no longer needed, whichever occurs first. If you have any questions or need additional information concerning this matter please contact Georgette Scott at (910) 796-7215, or via e-mail at georgette.scott@ncdenr.gov. Sincerely, =Tracy E. Davis, P,E., Director Division of Energy, Mineral, and Land Resources GDS/gds: \\\Stormwater\Permits & Projects\2016 \160620 Exemption\2016 08 permit 160620 cc: Brad Rosov; Coastal Planning & En$ineering of North Carolina, Inc. Brunswick County Building Inspections Tara MacPherson/Shaun Simpson — DCM WIRO DCM-Morehead City Wilmington Regional Office Stormwater File State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Energy, 14neral and Land Resources Wilmington Regional Office 1127 Cardinal Drive Extension I WRmington, NC 28405 9107%7215 M United States Department of the Interior $ FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Raleigh Field Office Post Office Box 33726 4 a Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726 February 10, 2017 Mr. Scott C. McLendon Chief, Regulatory Division Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers 69 Darlington Avenue Wilmington, NC 28403-1343 Subject: Town of Ocean Isle Beach: 30-Year Beach Management Plan Action ID No. SAW-2016-01642 FWS Log Number 04EN2000-2016-F-0757 Dear Mr. McLendon: This document transmits the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service) biological opinion based on our review of the Town of Ocean Isle Beach's proposed 30-Year Beach Management Plan, Brunswick County, NC, and its effects on piping plover (Charadrius melodus melodus), red knot (Calidris canutus rufa), seabeach amaranth (Amaranthus pumilus), West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus), green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas), leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea), Kemp's ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempi), hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata), and the Northwest Atlantic loggerhead sea turtle population (Caretta caretta) in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seg.). Your September 27, 2016 request for formal consultation was received on September 30, 2016. This biological opinion is based on information provided in the September 2016 biological assessment (BA), the September 12, 2016 public notice, and other sources of information. A complete administrative record of this consultation is on file at the Service's Raleigh Field Office. The Service has assigned Log number 04EN2000-2016-F-0757 to this consultation. The Service does not concur with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) determination of No Effect for the West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus). However, based upon the timing of the project and the proposed conservation measures, the Service believes that the project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the West Indian manatee. This species will not be discussed further in the Biological Opinion. RECEIVED FEB 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY The Service appreciates the cooperation of the Corps during this consultation. We would like to continue working with you and your staff regarding this project. Please note that issuance of the BO does not limit the Service's ability to provide comments on any future public notices or environmental documents concerning this project. For further coordination please contact Kathy Matthews at (919) 856-4520, ext. 27. In future correspondence concerning the project, please reference FWS Log No. 04EN2000-2016-F-0757. Sincerely, // I �'j�/u..t� e/teoB-enjamhl/ u / Field Supervisor cc: USFWS, Jacksonville, FL (Ann Marie Lauritsen) (via email) USFWS, Hadley, MA (Anne Hecht) (via email) USFWS, Pleasantville, NJ (Wendy Walsh) (via email) NMFS, Pivers Island (via email) NMFS, St. Peterburg, FL NCDCM, Morehead City, NC NCWRC, Washington, NC Town of Ocean Isle Beach RECEIVED F �- � 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY BIOLOGICAL OPINION Ocean Isle Beach 30-Year Beach Management Plan Town of Ocean Isle Beach Corps Action ID No. SAW-2016-01642 USFWS Log No. 04EN2000-2016-F-0757 Wk�ASigned: d)v1 F ete Benjamin 1 �� Field Office Supervisor 2 L10 zr, Date RECEIVED FEB 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY Table of Contents ACRONYMS....................................................................................................................5 CONSULTATIONHISTORY........................................................................................... 7 BIOLOGICALOPINION.................................................................................................. 8 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION........................................................ 8 1.1. Location and Project Description..................................................................... 8 1.2. Project Design................................................................................................. 10 1.3. Project Timing and Duration.......................................................................... 10 1.4. Conservation Measures................................................................................... 10 2. PIPING PLOVER....................................................................................................... 13 2.1. Status of the Species....................................................................................... 13 2.1.1. Species Description.................................................................................. 13 2.1.2. Life History............................................................................................... 15 2.1.3. Population Dynamics................................................................................ 17 2.1.3.1. Northern Great Plains breeding population ....................................... 18 2.1.3.2. Great Lakes breeding population...................................................... 20 2.1.3.3. Atlantic Coast breeding population ................................................... 22 2.1.4. Status and distribution.............................................................................. 26 2.1.5. Analysis of the Species Likely to be Affected .......................................... 36 2.2. Environmental Baseline.................................................................................. 65 2.2.1. Status of the species within the Action Area ........................................... 65 2.2.2. Factors affecting the species environment within the Action Area.......... 69 2.3. Effects of the Action....................................................................................... 71 2.3.1. Factors to be considered........................................................................... 71 2.3.2. Analyses for effects of the action............................................................. 72 2.3.3. Species' response to the proposed action ................................................. 73 2.4. Cumulative Impacts........................................................................................74 2.5. Conclusion...................................................................................................... 74 3. PIPING PLOVER WINTERING CRITICAL HABITAT ......................................... 75 3.1. Status of the Critical Habitat........................................................................... 75 3.1.1. Critical Habitat Description and Status ............................................. 75 3.1.2. Analysis of the Critical Habitat Likely to be Affected ...................... 77 3.2. Environmental Baseline.................................................................................. 81 3.2.1. Status of the Critical Habitat within the Action Area ............................... 81 3.2.2. Factors Affecting Critical Habitat within the Action Area ....................... 83 3.3. Effects of the Action....................................................................................... 84 3.3.1. Factors to be considered........................................................................... 84 3.3.2. Analysis for effects of the action.............................................................. 84 3.4. Cumulative Effects......................................................................................... 85 3.5. Conclusion...................................................................................................... 85 4. RED KNOT........................................................................................................... 86 4.1. Status of the Species....................................................................................... 86 4.1.1. Species Description.................................................................................. 86 2 RECEIVED FEB 212017 DCM- MHD CITY 4.1.2. Life History ............................................................................................... 86 4.1.3. Population Dynamics................................................................................ 88 4.1.4. Status and Distribution.............................................................................. 90 4.1.5. Analysis of the Species Likely to be Affected .......................................... 91 4.2 Environmental Baseline................................................................................102 4.2.1. Status of the species within the Action Area .......................................... 102 4.2.2. Factors affecting the species environment within the Action Area ........ 102 4.3. Effects of the Action.....................................................................................104 4.3.1. Factors to be considered.......................................................................... 104 4.3.2. Analyses for effects of the action............................................................ 105 4.3.3. Species' response to a proposed action ................................................... 106 4.4. Cumulative Effects........................................................................................ 106 4.5. Conclusion....................................................................................................106 5. SEABEACH AMARANTH.....................................................................................107 5.1. Status of the Species/Critical Habitat...........................................................107 5.1.1. Species/critical habitat description.........................................................107 5.1.2. Life history ..............................................................................................107 5.1.3. Population dynamics...............................................................................108 5.1.4. Status and distribution............................................................................. 108 5.1.5. Analysis of the Species Likely to be Affected........................................110 5.2. Environmental Baseline................................................................................ I I I 5.2.1. Status of the species within the Action Area..........................................111 5.2.2. Factors affecting the species environment within the Action Area ........ 112 5.3. Effects of the Action.....................................................................................114 5.3.1. Factors to be considered..........................................................................114 5.3.2. Analyses for effects of the action............................................................114 5.3.3. Species' response to a proposed action...................................................115 5.4. Cumulative Effects........................................................................................115 5.5. Conclusion....................................................................................................116 6. LOGGERHEAD, GREEN, LEATHERBACK, HAWKSBILL, AND KEW'S RIDLEY SEATURTLES........................................................................................................116 6.1. Status of the Species/Critical Habitat..........................................................116 6.1.1. Species/critical habitat description.........................................................116 6.1.1.1. Species/critical habitat description — Loggerhead Sea Turtle .......... 116 6.1.1.2. Species/critical habitat description — Green Sea Turtle ................... 119 6.1.1.3. Species/critical habitat description — Leatherback Sea Turtle......... 120 6.1.1.4. Species/critical habitat description — Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle.... 121 6.1.1.5. Species/critical habitat description — Hawksbill Sea Turtle ............ 122 6.1.2. Life History .............................................................................................123 6.1.2.1. Life History —Loggerhead Sea Turtle.............................................123 6.1.2.2. Life History — Green Sea Turtle......................................................126 6.1.2.3. Life History — Leatherback Sea Turtle...........................................126 6.1.2.4. Life History — Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle........................................127 6.1.2.5. Life History — Hawksbill Sea Turtle...............................................127 6.1.3. Population dynamics............................................................................... 127 RECEIVED FEB 2 1 2017 DCM- MHD CITY 6.1.3.1. Population dynamics - Loggerhead Sea Turtle ............................... 127 6.1.3.2. Population dynamics - Green Sea Turtle.........................................128 6.1.3.3. Population dynamics — Leatherback Sea Turtle..............................128 6.1.3.4. Population dynamics — Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle .........................129 6.1.3.5. Population dynamics — Hawksbill Sea Turtle.................................130 6.1.4. Status and distribution.............................................................................131 6.1.4.1 Status and distribution — Loggerhead Sea Turtle ............................ 131 6.1.4.2. Status and distribution - Green Sea Turtle......................................134 6.1.4.3. Status and distribution — Leatherback Sea Turtle ............................135 6.1.4.4. Status and distribution — Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle ....................... 137 6.1.4.5. Status and distribution — Hawksbill Sea Turtle ............................... 138 6.1.5. Analysis of the Species/Critical Habitat Likely to be Affected................139 6.2. Environmental Baseline................................................................................ 148 6.2.1. Status of Sea Turtle Species within the Action Area .............................. 148 6.2.2. Factors Affecting the Species Environment within the Action Area...... 150 6.3. Effects of the Action..................................................................................... 151 6.3.1. Factors to be considered..........................................................................151 6.3.2. Analyses for the effects of the action......................................................152 6.3.3. Species response to a proposed action....................................................156 6.4. Cumulative Effects........................................................................................157 6.5. Conclusion....................................................................................................157 7. INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT......................................................................158 7.1. Amount or Extent of Take............................................................................159 7.1.1. Piping Plover...........................................................................................159 7.1.2. Red Knot.................................................................................................159 7.1.3. Sea Turtles..............................................................................................160 7.2. Effect of the Take..........................................................................................162 7.3. Reasonable and Prudent Measures................................................................162 7.4. Terms and Conditions................................................................................... 165 7.5. Reporting Requirements............................................................................... 172 7.6. Coordination of Incidental Take Statement with Other Laws, Regulations, and Policies.........................................................................................................172 8. CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS..........................................................173 9. REINITIATION NOTICE........................................................................................174 LITERATURE CITED...................................................................................................175 APPENDIX: Examples of Predator Proof Trash Receptacles ........................................ 227 RECEIVED FEb 21 Z017 DCW MV41D CITY Acronyms Act Endangered Species Act BA Biological Assessment BO Biological Opinion CAFF Council Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna CBRA Coastal Barrier Resources Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations CH Critical Habitat CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers COSEWIC Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada CSDR Coastal Storm Damage Reduction DOI U.S. Department of the Interior DTRU Dry Tortugas Recovery Unit F Fahrenheit FAC Florida Administrative Code FDEP Florida Department of Environmental Protection FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FR Federal Register GCRU Greater Caribbean Recovery Unit HCP Habitat Conservation Plan H'CC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ITP Incidental Take Permit LF Linear Feet MHW Mean High Water MHWL Mean High Water Line MLLW Mean Low Low Water MLW Mean Low Water mtDNA Mitochondrial Deoxyribonucleic Acid NCDCM North Carolina Division of Coastal Management NCWRC North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission NGMRU Northern Gulf of Mexico Recovery Unit NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NRU Northern Recovery Unit NWR National Wildlife Refuge PBF Physical and Biological Feature PCE Primary Constituent Element PFRU Peninsular Florida Recovery Unit SAJ South Atlantic Jacksonville SAM South Atlantic Mobile Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service RECEIVED FEB 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY SF Square Feet SNBS Statewide Nesting Beach Survey TED Turtle Excluder Device TEWG Turtle Expert Worldng Group U.S.C. United States Code U.S. United States USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency RECEIVED FEB 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY CONSULTATION HISTORY September 12, 2016 — The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) issued a public notice for the Town of Ocean Isle Beach's 30-year Beach Management Plan. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) provided written comments to the public notice on October 11, 2016. September 27, 2016 — By letter, the Corps requested initiation of formal consultation. The letter and biological assessment were received on September 30, 2016. October 31, 2016 — The Service initiated formal consultation for the project. The consultation end date is February 12, 2017. November 18, 2016 — By email, the Service provided to the Corps a draft copy of the reasonable and prudent measures and terms and conditions for the project. On November 22, 2016, the Corps and applicant requested clarification of four RPMs and terms and conditions, and a revised draft was provided on November 28, 2016. The Corps and applicant indicated by email that there were no further issues on November 29, 2016. RECEIVED FEB 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY BIOLOGICAL OPINION INTRODUCTION A biological opinion (BO) is the document that states the opinion of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) as to whether a federal action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat. This BO addresses piping plover (Charadrius melodus melodus), red knot (Calidris canutus rufa), seabeach amaranth (Amaranthus pumilus), and the loggerhead (Caretta caretta), leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea), green (Chelonia mydas), hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata), and Kemp's ridley sea turtles (Lepidochelys kempit). Designated critical habitat for wintering piping plovers and terrestrial critical habitat for loggerhead sea turtles is also addressed. The BO evaluates the effects of the Action along with those resulting from interrelated and interdependent actions, and from non-federal actions unrelated to the proposed Action (cumulative effects), relative to the status of the species and the status of the critical habitat to arrive at a Service opinion that the proposed action is or isn't likely to jeopardize species or adversely modify critical habitat. Jeopardize the continued existence of means to engage in an action that reasonably would be expected, directly or indirectly, to reduce appreciably the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of a listed species in the wild by reducing the reproduction, numbers, or distribution of that species (50 CFR §402.02). Destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat means a direct or indirect alteration that appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat for the conservation of a listed species. Such alterations may include, but are not limited to, those that alter the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of a species or that preclude or significantly delay development of such features (50 CFR §402.02). 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 1.1. Location and Project Description The Town of Ocean Isle Beach proposes a 30-year beach nourishment program that will place fill material along approximately 27,650 If of oceanfront shoreline. Beach quality sand will be dredged from a borrow area within Shallotte Inlet using a hydraulic pipeline dredge. Placement of fill material onto the beach will be accomplished via pipeline with direct pump -out. Following initial construction, maintenance nourishment events are proposed to occur every five years. Please see Figure 1 for the project location. RECEIVED FFB 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY Acna.A�cw, S�dbrolnle[ Hoklen Beach i Ocean Isle Beach i i 4 bP ate Eneot on / ofp e A l 1 i �Ma i sae ai cemem ( ®i 1 a ,.. i foot to sralal - — — Figure 1. Ocean Isle Beach 30-year Beach Plan - Approximate Location RECEIVED 9 FEB 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY The Action Area includes approximately 27,650 If of shoreline habitats on Ocean Isle Beach. The Action Area for direct impacts includes those sections of each shoreline where excavation, sediment disposal, and other earthen manipulation will occur. The Action Area for indirect impacts, however, is much larger. Because piping plovers, red knots, and sea turtles are highly mobile species, animals influenced by direct project impacts may move great distances from the actual project site. The range of these movements produced by the project constitutes the Action Area for indirect impacts; for the purposes of this opinion it will be the entire length of Ocean Isle Beach (including inlet shoulders - approximately 29,05011) and Holden Beach (approximately 45,000 If) (estimated from Google Earth©, accessed December 15, 2016). 1.2. Project Design This BO addresses impacts to the piping plover (Charadrius melodus), red knot (Calidris canutus rufa), seabeach amaranth (Amaranthus pumilus), and the loggerhead (Caretta caretta), leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea), green (Chelonia mydas), hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata) and Kemp's ridley (Lepidochelys kempii) sea turtles, all Federally -listed species under the purview of the Service occurring in the Action Area. This BO also addresses designated critical habitat for wintering piping plovers and terrestrial critical habitat for loggerhead sea turtles. 1.3. Project Timing and Duration The proposed dredging and sand placement are proposed to occur within the winter work window (November 15 through April 30). The work is anticipated to last up to five and a half months each time. 1.4. Conservation Measures To reduce the potential impacts of the proposed project on Federally -listed species, the Applicant and the Corps have proposed the following Conservation Measures: 1. The contractor will adhere to the Service's "Guidelines for Avoiding Impacts to the West Indian Manatee." 2. Dredging of Shallotte Inlet and nourishment of the oceanfront shoreline is scheduled to occur between November 16 and April 30, which will avoid times of peak sea turtle activity, West Indian manatee summer occurrence, piping plover migratory and breeding seasons, and seabeach amaranth flowering period. 3. A hydraulic cutterhead dredge will be used to obtain material from the inlet, which substantially reduces the risk of entrainment of sea turtles usually associated with hopper dredging, and also reduces disturbance to the sea floor and turbidity levels. DREDGEPAK® or similar navigation and positioning software will be used by the contractor to accurately track the dredge location. Dredge anchors will not be placed any further than 200 feet from the edge of the areas to be dredged. The dredge contractor will be required to verify the location of the anchors with real time positioning each and every time the anchors are relocated. 10 RECEIVED FEB21W7 ®CM MV41) CITY 4. Construction observations will be periodically performed during periods of active construction. Most observations will be during daylight hours; however, random nighttime observations may be conducted. The Town of Ocean Isle Beach, the Engineer, or a duly authorized representative will provide onsite observation by an individual with training or experience in beach nourishment and construction observation and testing, and that is knowledgeable of the project design and permit conditions. The project manager will coordinate with the field observer. Multiple daily observations of the pump -out location will be made by the Town of Ocean Isle Beach, the Engineer, or his duly authorized representative for QA/QC of the material being placed on the beach. If incompatible material is placed on the beach, the USACE and appropriate resource agencies will be contacted immediately to determine appropriate actions. 5. Only beach quality sand comparable to the existing material at Ocean Isle Beach will be placed, which will minimize adverse impacts to future nesting females and hatchlings. The Town of Ocean Isle Beach, the Engineer, or their duly authorized representative will collect a representative sub -surface (6 inches below grade) grab sample from each 100- foot long section of the constructed beach to visually assess grain size, wet Munsell color, granular, gravel, and silt content. The sample will be visually compared to the acceptable sand criteria. If determined necessary by the Engineer, or his duly -authorized representative, quantitative assessments of the sand will be conducted for grain size, wet Munsell color, and content of gravel, granular, and silt. A record of these sand evaluations will be provided within the Engineer's daily inspection reports. 6. Visual surveys of escarpments will be made along the beach fill area immediately after completion of construction. Escarpments in the newly placed beach fill that exceed 18 inches for greater than 100 feet shall be graded to match adjacent grades on the beach. Removal of escarpments during the sea turtle hatching season (May 1 through November 15) shall be coordinated with the NCWRC, Service, and the Corps. 7. Turbidity monitoring during construction will be managed by the contractor, and will adhere to those conditions set forth in the 401 Water Quality Certification. The contractor will be responsible for notifying the construction engineer in the event that turbidity levels exceed the State water quality standards. 8. In order to avoid adverse impact on wintering piping plover, the pipeline alignment will be designed to avoid potential piping plover wintering habitat. The alignment will be coordinated with, and approved by the Corps. As -built positions of the pipeline will be recorded using GPS technology and included in the final construction observation report. 9. In order to avoid adverse impacts associated with the transport of fill material to the disposal sites, the Town of Ocean Isle Beach will negotiate with the dredging contractor to monitor and assess the pipeline during construction. This will serve to avoid leaking of sediment material from the pipeline couplings, other equipment, or other pipeline leaks that may result in sediment plumes, siltation, and/or elevated turbidity levels. The Town of Ocean Isle Beach, along with their Engineer, will coordinate with the dredgers and have in place a mechanism to cease dredge and fill activities in the event that a substantial leak is detected. Operations may resume upon appropriate repair of affected couplings or other equipment. 10. The Ocean Isle Beach Sea Turtle Protection Organization (OIBSTPO) is an independent and volunteer -only division of the Ocean Isle Museum Foundation, whose goal is to 11 RECEIVED FEB 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY provide a protected, safe environment for the sea turtles of Ocean Isle Beach. It accomplishes this through monitoring nests on Ocean Isle, rescuing sick and injured turtles, and then transporting them to the Karen Beasley Turtle Hospital where they can be rehabilitated. Nest monitoring is expected to continue by this group along the oceanfront shoreline of Ocean Isle Beach for the foreseeable future. 11. Dredge and fill operations are expected to temporarily elevate turbidity levels in the water column at the borrow area and fill sites. Higher turbidity levels are likely to be found in the discharge zone (nearshore swash zone) during periods of active construction. The use of a cutterhead suction dredge will minimize the area of disturbance since this type of dredge involves suction for the extraction of sediment. 12. The inlet, nearshore and offshore water columns are classified as SA and High Quality Water (HQW) under the North Carolina State Water Quality Standards. This classification requires that work within the water column shall not cause turbidity levels to exceed 25 NTU or background (ambient) conditions that are above 25 NTU. Turbidity monitoring during construction will be managed by the contractor. The contractor will be responsible for notifying the construction engineer in the event that turbidity levels exceed the State water quality standards. 13. Since 1992, the USACE has conducted regular monitoring along the beachfront of Ocean Isle Beach for the presence of seabeach amaranth. This monitoring is anticipated to continue for the foreseeable future. 14. The NC WRC and North Carolina Audubon Society have performed breeding surveys for colonial nesting waterbirds in the proximity of the Action Area on a regular basis since 1997. Opportunistic surveys for non -breeding piping plovers and other birds have been conducted in more recent years. This monitoring is expected to continue for the foreseeable future. 15. The Shallotte Inlet area mapping will occur in association with the conservation measures proposed for the Ocean Isle Beach terminal groin project. Therefore, additional mapping would only need to be performed for the Tubbs Inlet complex. Mapping will be accomplished by photographic interpretation of biotic communities and ground-truthing investigations within the proposed habitat mapping area. Pre -construction conditions and acreages will be compared to post -construction. 16. Cartographic aerial photography will include the acquisition of ortho-rectified color digital imagery of the mapping area within the Tubbs Inlet complex. Resolution of the imagery will be sufficient to accurately delineate and map habitats and features of environmental significance within the survey area. The aerial platform from which the imagery is acquired will have an onboard GPS that will provide an accurate basis for product correction. NMFS will be consulted regarding the performance specifications on the imagery prior to finalizing the plan by the Town of Ocean Isle Beach and authorizing a contract. RECEIVED 12 FEB 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY 17. The final product from the post -construction assessment will include a report describing the biotic community map. This report will summarize the acreage of each habitat identified and will compare the acreages to previous investigations (pre -construction and any post -construction efforts that may have occurred). Results of these mapping efforts will be incorporated into the GIS database developed for the project. Acreages of each habitat type present within the action area will be provided in a report to the USACE Wilmington District. 2. PIPING PLOVER 2.1. Status of the Species 2.1.1. Species description Listing: On January 10, 1986, the piping plover was listed as endangered in the Great Lakes watershed and threatened elsewhere within its range, including migratory routes outside of the Great Lakes watershed and wintering grounds (USFWS 1985). Piping plovers were listed principally because of habitat destruction and degradation, predation, and human disturbance. Protection of the species under the ESA reflects the species' precarious status range -wide. Three separate breeding populations have been identified, each with its own recovery criteria: the Northern Great Plains (threatened), the Great Lakes (endangered), and the Atlantic Coast (threatened). Piping plovers that breed on the Atlantic Coast of the U.S. and Canada belong to the subspecies C. m. melodus. The second subspecies, C. m. circumcinctus, is comprised of two populations. One population breeds on the Northern Great Plains of the U.S. and Canada, while the other breeds on the Great Lakes. Each of these three entities is demographically independent. The piping plover winters in coastal areas of the U.S. from North Carolina to Texas, and along the coast of eastern Mexico and on Caribbean islands from Barbados to Cuba and the Bahamas (Haig and Elliott -Smith 2004) (Figure 2). RECEIVED 13 FEB 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY C. m eireameinerus (Inrrim subspecies) Great Mains DPS Likes DPS C. m meladus (Ailmlic subspecies) areetlin9 Range Winter Range PYgure 2. Distribution and range of piping plovers (base map from Haig and Elliott -Smith 2004). Conceptual presentation of subspecies and population ranges are not intended to convey precise boundaries. Piping plovers in the Action Area include individuals from all three breeding populations. Piping plover subspecies are phenotypically indistinguishable, and most studies in the nonbreeding range report results without regard to breeding origin. Although a 2012 analysis shows strong patterns in the wintering distribution of piping plovers from different breeding populations (Gratto-Trevor et al. 2012), partitioning is not complete and major information gaps persist. This BO will consider each population separately. North Carolina is the only state where the piping plover's breeding and wintering ranges overlap and the birds are present year-round. Piping plovers nest above the high tide line on coastal beaches; on sand flats at the ends of sand spits and barrier islands; on gently sloping foredunes; in blowout areas behind primary dunes (overwashes); in sparsely vegetated dunes; and in overwash areas cut into or between dunes. The species requires broad, open, sand flats for feeding, and undisturbed flats with low dunes and sparse dune grasses for nesting. 14 RECEIVED FEB 21 Z017 DCM- MHD CITY Piping plovers from the federally endangered Great Lakes breeding population, as well birds from the threatened Atlantic Coast and Northern Great Plains breeding populations overwinter on North Carolina beaches. Piping plovers arrive on their breeding grounds in late March or early April. In the Great Lakes, arrival on the breeding grounds may be mid -April to early May. Following establishment of nesting territories and courtship rituals, the pair forms a depression in the sand, where the female lays her eggs. Some adults leave the breeding grounds as early as July. By early September both adults and young depart for their wintering areas. 2.1.2. Life history The piping plover is a small, pale sand -colored shorebird, about seven inches long with a wingspan of about 15 inches (Palmer 1967). Cryptic coloration is a primary defense mechanism for piping plovers where nests, adults, and chicks all blend in with their typical beach surroundings. Piping plovers live an average of 5 years, although studies have documented birds as old as 11 (Wilcox 1959) and 15 years. Plovers are known to begin breeding as early as one year of age (MacIvor 1990; Haig 1992). In studies with large numbers of marked interior breeding piping plovers, Saunders et al. (2014) found that 56 percent of female Great Lakes piping plovers mated in their first season post -hatch, while 68 percent of female yearlings mated in Saskatchewan in 2001-2006 (Gratto-Trevor et al. 2010). Both studies found that probability of breeding in the first year was lower for males than females, but Great Lakes males that had not bred earlier were more likely than females to recruit into the breeding population in years two and three. Virtually all surviving Great Lakes piping plovers began breeding by year three (Saunders et al. 2014). Piping plover breeding activity begins in mid -March when birds begin returning to their nesting areas (Coutu et al. 1990; Cross 1990; Goldin et al. 1990; MacIvor 1990; Hake 1993). Piping plovers generally fledge only a single brood per season, but may re -nest several times if previous nests are lost. The reduction in suitable nesting habitat due to a number of factors is a major threat to the species, likely limiting reproductive success and future recruitment into the population (USFWS 2009a). Plovers depart their breeding grounds for their wintering grounds between July and late August, but southward migration extends through November. More information about the three breeding populations of piping plovers can be found in the following documents: a. Piping Plover, Atlantic Coast Population: 1996 Revised Recovery Plan (USFWS 1996a); b. 2009 Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation (USFWS 2009a); c. 2003 Recovery Plan for the Great Lakes Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus) (USFWS 2003a); d. Questions and Answers about the Northern Great Plains population of Piping Plover (USFWS 2002). e. 2016 Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern Great Plains population of Piping Plover (USFWS 2015). RECEIVED 15 FEB 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY North Carolina is one of the only states in which piping plovers may be found year-round. Piping plovers migrate through and winter in coastal areas of the U.S. from North Carolina to Texas and in portions of Mexico and the Caribbean. Data based on five rangewide mid -winter (late January to early February) population surveys, conducted at 5-year intervals starting in 1991, show that total numbers have fluctuated over time, with some areas experiencing increases and others decreases. Regional and local fluctuations may reflect the quantity and quality of suitable foraging and roosting habitat, which vary over time in response to natural coastal formation processes as well as anthropogenic habitat changes (e.g., inlet relocation, dredging of shoals and spits). Fluctuations may also represent localized weather conditions (especially wind) during surveys, or unequal survey coverage. Changes in wintering numbers may also be influenced by growth or decline in the particular breeding populations that concentrate their wintering distribution in a given area. Breeding and wintering plovers feed on exposed wet sand in swash zones; intertidal ocean beach; wrack lines; washover passes; mud, sand, and algal flats; and shorelines of streams, ephemeral ponds, lagoons, and salt marshes by probing for invertebrates at or just below the surface (Count et al. 1990; USFWS 1996a). They use beaches adjacent to foraging areas for roosting and preening. Small sand dunes, debris, and sparse vegetation within adjacent beaches provide shelter from wind and extreme temperatures. Behavioral observations of piping plovers on the wintering grounds suggest that they spend the majority of their time foraging and roosting (Nicholls and Baldassarre 1990a; 1990b; Drake 1999a; 1999b, Maddock et al. 2009). Studies have shown that the relative importance of various feeding habitat types may vary by site (Gibbs 1986; Coutu et al. 1990; McConnaughey et al. 1990; Loegering 1992; Goldin 1993; Hoopes 1993). Feeding activities may occur during all hours of the day and night (Stain and Burger 1994; Zonick 1997), and at all stages in the tidal cycle (Goldin 1993; Hoopes 1993). Wintering plovers primarily feed on invertebrates such as polychaete marine worms, various crustaceans, fly larvae, beetles, and occasionally bivalve mollusks found on top of the soil or just beneath the surface (Bent 1929; Cairns 1977; Nicholls 1989; Zonick and Ryan 1996). Piping plovers exhibit a high degree of intra- and interannual wintering site fidelity (Nicholls and Baldassarre 1990b; Drake et al. 2001; Noel and Chandler 2008; Stucker and Cuthbert 2006). However, local movements during winter are more common. In South Carolina, Maddock et al. (2009) documented many cross -inlet movements by wintering banded piping plovers as well as occasional movements of up to 11.2 mi by approximately 10 percent of the banded population. Larger movements within South Carolina were seen during fall and spring migration. Atlantic Coast plovers nest on coastal beaches, sand flats at the ends of sand spits and barrier islands, gently -sloped foredunes, sparsely -vegetated dunes, and washover areas cut into or between dunes. Plovers arrive on the breeding grounds from mid -March through mid -May and remain for three to four months per year; the Atlantic Coast plover breeding activities begin in March in North Carolina with courtship and territorial establishment (Coutu et al. 1990; McConnaughey et al. 1990). Egg -laying begins around mid -April with nesting and brood rearing activities continuing through July. They lay three to four eggs in shallow, scraped depressions lined with light colored pebbles and shell fragments. The eggs are well camouflaged and blend extremely well with their surroundings. Chicks are precocial, often leaving the nest within hours of hatching, but are tended by adults who lead the chicks to and from feeding areas, 16 RECEIVED FEB 21 Z017 DCM- MHD CITY shelter them from harsh weather, and protect the young from perceived predators. Chicks remain together with one or both parents until they fledge (are able to fly) at 25 to 35 days of age. Atlantic and Gulf Coast studies highlighted the importance of inlets for nonbreeding piping plovers. Almost 90% of observations of roosting piping plovers at ten coastal sites in southwest Florida were on inlet shorelines (Lott et al. 2009b). In an evaluation of 361 International Shorebird Survey sites from North Carolina to Florida (Harrington 2008), piping plovers were among seven shorebird species found more often than expected (p = 0.0004; Wilcoxon Scores test) at inlet versus non -inlet locations. Wintering plovers on the Atlantic Coast prefer wide beaches in the vicinity of inlets (Nicholls and Baldassarre 1990b, Wilkinson and Spinks 1994). At inlets, foraging plovers are associated with moist substrate features such as intertidal flats, algal flats, and ephemeral pools (Nicholls and Baldassarre 1990a, Wilkinson and Spinks 1994, Dinsmore et al. 1998). 2.1.3. Population dynamics The International Piping Plover Breeding Census is conducted throughout the breeding grounds every 5 years by the Great Lakes/Northem Great Plains Recovery Team of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Although there are shortcomings in the census method, it is the largest known, complete avian species census. The 2011 survey documented 2,391 breeding pairs, with a total of 5,723 birds throughout Canada and the U.S. (Elliot -Smith et al. 2015). The most consistent finding in the various population viability analyses conducted for piping plovers (Ryan et al. 1993; Melvin and Gibbs 1996; Plissner and Haig 2000; Amirault et al. 2005; Calvert et al. 2006; Brault 2007) indicates even small declines in adult and juvenile survival rates will cause increases in extinction risk. A banding study conducted between 1998 and 2004 in Atlantic Canada concluded lower return rates of juvenile (first year) birds to the breeding grounds than was documented for Massachusetts (Melvin and Gibbs 1996), Maryland (Loegering 1992), and Virginia (Cross 1996) breeding populations in the mid-1980s and very early 1990s. This is consistent with failure of the Atlantic Canada population to increase in abundance despite high productivity (relative to other breeding populations) and extremely low rates of dispersal to the U.S. over the last 15 plus years (Amirault et al. 2005). This suggests maximizing productivity does not ensure population increases. However, Drake et al. (2001) observed no mortality among 49 radio -marked piping plovers (total of 2,704 transmitter -days) in Texas in the 1990s. Cohen et al. (2008) also reported no mortality among a small sample (n=7) of radio -marked piping plovers at Oregon Inlet, North Carolina in 2005-2006. The status of piping plovers on winter and migration grounds is difficult to assess, but threats to piping plover habitat used during winter and migration identified by the Service during its designation of critical habitat continue to affect the species. Unregulated motorized and pedestrian recreational use, inlet and shoreline stabilization projects, beach maintenance and nourishment, and pollution affect most winter and migration areas. Conservation efforts at some locations have likely resulted in the enhancement of wintering habitat. 17 RECEIVED FEB 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY 2.1.3.1. Northern Great Plains breeding population The Northern Great Plains plover breeds from Alberta to Manitoba, Canada and south to Nebraska; although some nesting has occurred in Oklahoma (Boyd 1991). Currently the most westerly breeding piping plovers in the U.S. occur in Montana and Colorado. The decline of piping plovers on rivers in the Northern Great Plains has been largely attributed to the loss of sandbar island habitat and forage base due to dam construction and operation. Nesting occurs on sand flats or bare shorelines of rivers and lakes, including sandbar islands in the upper Missouri River system, and patches of sand, gravel, or pebbly -mud on the alkali lakes of the Northern Great Plains. Plovers do nest on shorelines of reservoirs created by the dams, but reproductive success is often low and reservoir habitat is not available in many year due to high water levels or vegetation. Dams operated with steady constant flows allow vegetation to grow on potential nesting islands, making these sites unsuitable for nesting. Population declines in alkali wetlands are attributed to wetland drainage, contaminants, and predation. The Northern Great Plains breeding population is geographically widespread, with many birds in very remote places, especially in the U.S. and Canadian alkali lakes. Thus, determining the number of birds or even identifying a clear trend in the population is a difficult task. The IPPC was designed, in part, to help deal with this problem by instigating a large effort every five years in which an attempt is made to survey every area with known or potential piping plover breeding habitat during a two -week window (i.e., the first two weeks of June). The relatively short window is designed to minimize double counting if birds move from one area to another. Participation in the IPPC has been excellent on the Northern Great Plains, with a tremendous effort put forth to attempt to survey areas during the census window (Elliot -Smith et al. 2009). The large area to be surveyed and sparse human population in the Northern Great Plains make annual surveys of the entire area impractical. Many areas are only surveyed during the IPPC years. Figure 3 shows the number of adult plovers in the Northern Great Plains (U.S. and Canada) for all five IPPCs. The IPPC shows that the U.S. population decreased between 1991 and 1996, then increased in 2001 and 2006. Combined with the numbers from Canada, the IPPC numbers suggest that the population declined from 1991 through 2001, then increased almost 58% between 2001 and 2006 (Elliott -Smith et al. 2009). The 2011 breeding census count was substantially lower than the count in 2006 (over 4,500 birds in 2006 and 2,249 in 2011) (Elliott - Smith et al. 2015). It is unknown if the decrease in counts is an accurate accounting of the piping plover population numbers, or if birds were not counted due to displacement from flooding in the region that made traditional habitat unsuitable. RECENED FEB 21 2017 18 DCM- MHD CIT' 5000 4500 N 4000 m 3500 e L 3000 a 2500 9 2000 u `y 1500 a E 1000 z Soo 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 International Census Year —*—U.S. and Canada Combined —*—Prairie Canada —A U.S. Northern Great Plains Figure 3. The number of adults reported for the U.S. and Canada Northern Great Plains breeding population during the International Censuses from 1991 to 2011. Data from Elliott - Smith et al. 2009, Elliott -Smith et al. 2015, Ferland and Haig 2002, Haig and Plissner 1993, Plissner and Haig 2000. The increase in 2006 is likely due in large part to a multi -year drought across much of the region starting in 2001 that exposed thousands of acres of nesting habitat. The Corps ran low flows on the riverine stretches of the Missouri River for most of the years between censuses; allowing more habitat to be exposed and resulting in relatively high fledge ratios (USACE 2008). The Corps also began to construct habitat using mechanical means (dredging sand from the riverbed) on the Missouri River in 2004, providing some new nesting and foraging habitat. The drought also caused reservoir levels to drop on many reservoirs throughout the Northern Great Plains (e.g. Missouri River Reservoirs (ND, SD), Lake McConnaughey (NE)), providing shoreline habitat. The population increase may also be partially due to more intensive management activities on the alkali lakes, with increased management actions to improve habitat and reduce predation pressures. In 2011, the count was much lower, perhaps due to extreme flooding of nesting habitat. While the IPPC provides an index to the piping plover population, the design does not always provide sufficient information to understand the population's dynamics. The five-year time interval between IPPC efforts may be too long to allow managers to get a clear picture of what the short-term population trends are and to respond accordingly if needed. As noted above, the first three IPPCs (1991, 1996, and 2001) showed a declining population, while the fourth (2006) indicated a dramatic population rebound of almost 58% for the combined U.S. and Canada Northern Great Plains breeding population between 2001 and 2006. The results for 2011 indicate a similar grand population total as 2006, but a declining population in the U.S. The larger overall population total in 2011 can be attributed to the larger numbers of plovers 19 RECEIVED FEB 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY observed in the Bahamas. With only five data points over 20 years, it is impossible to determine if and to what extent the data reflects a real population trend versus error(s) in the 2011 census counts and/or a previous IPPC. The 2006 IPPC included a detectability component, in which a number of pre -selected sites were visited twice by the same observer(s) during the two -week window to get an estimate of error rate. This study found an approximately 76% detectability rate through the entire breeding area, with a range of between 39% to 78% detectability among habitat types in the Northern Great Plains. 2.1.3.2. Great Lakes breeding population The Great Lakes plovers once nested on Great Lakes beaches in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Ontario. Great Lakes piping plovers nest on wide, flat, open, sandy or cobble shoreline with very little grass or other vegetation. Reproduction is adversely affected by human disturbance of nesting areas and predation by foxes, gulls, crows and other avian species. Shoreline development, such as the construction of marinas, breakwaters, and other navigation structures, has adversely affected nesting and brood rearing. The Recovery Plan (USFWS 2003a) sets a population goal of at least 150 pairs (300 individuals), for at least 5 consecutive years, with at least 100 breeding pairs (200 individuals) in Michigan and 50 breeding pairs (100 individuals) distributed among sites in other Great Lakes states. The Great Lakes breeding population, which has been traditionally represented as the number of breeding pairs, has slowly increased after the completion of the recovery plan between 2003 and 2016 (Figure 4) (Cuthbert and Roche 2007; Cuthbert and Roche 2006; Westbrock et al. 2005; Stucker and Cuthbert 2004; Stucker et al. 2003; Cuthbert and Saunders 2013). The Great Lakes piping plover recovery plan documents the 2002 population at 51 breeding pairs (USFWS 2003a), and in 2016, 75 breeding pairs were estimated (Cavalieri pers. comm.2016a). Monitoring efforts in years since have documented mostly increases with a few years of decreases. The Great Lakes annual monitoring program is an intensive survey effort with nearly daily monitoring of active breeding locations. Fluctuations in the number of breeding pairs between 2009 and 2016 may have been caused by weather conditions or merlin predation (Elliott -Smith et al. 2015). A single breeding pair discovered in 2007 in the Great Lakes region of Canada represented the first confirmed piping plover nest there in over 30 years. The number of nesting pairs in Canada increased to four in 2008, six in 2011, and 15 in 2016 (Cavalieri pers. comm. 2016a; 2016d). These 15 nesting pairs are included in the total population of 75 breeding pairs above. The total fall population, including fledged chicks and captive -raised chicks was 310 in 2014. In 2015, the number was estimated at approximately 325. In fall of 2016, the number is currently estimated at approximately 330 (Cavalieri pers. comm.2016b). As winter approaches, this number is expected to be reduced rather quickly, as hatch -year mortality may be as high as 63% (Saunders et al. 2014; Saunders pers.comm. 2016). 20 RECEIVED FEB 21 Z07 80 70 60 50 M a 40 Z 30 20 10 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 Year Figure 4. Annual Breeding Pair Estimates for Great Lakes Piping Plovers (2003-2016). Data from Cuthbert and Saunders 2013, Cavalieri pers. comm. 2016a; 2016c. Survival rates in general for Great Lakes piping plovers have declined over 20 percentage points since 1994 (Table 1) (Saunders pers. comm. 2016). The estimated annual survival rates in 1994 for males in the Great Lakes breeding population was 0.878 (or almost 88%), while the survival rate for females was a bit lower at 0.87. The survival rates have fallen steadily since then, and by 2012, the survival rate was 0.667 for males and 0.650 for females (Saunders pers. comm. 2016). During this time, adult predation by merlins (Falco columbarius) increased as a result of a general increase in merlin population numbers and a range expansion that began in the 1980s (Haas 2011; Cava et al. 2014). Management of merlin predation on the breeding grounds appears to have allowed the survival rate to stabilize (Roche et al. 2010; Saunders pers. comm. 2016). RECEIVED 21 FEB 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY Table 1. Survival rates of adult male and female Great Lakes piping plovers, 1994 to 2012. Data from Saunders pers. comm. 2016. Year Male Survival Rate Female Survival Rate 1994 0.878 0.870 1995 0.878 0.870 1996 0.811 0.799 1997 0.807 0.795 1998 0.827 0.816 1999 0.792 0.778 2000 0.737 0.721 2001 0.778 0.765 2002 0.761 0.746 2003 0.747 0.732 2004 0.790 0.776 2005 0.694 0.677 2006 0.639 0.621 2007 0.666 0.648 2008 0.677 0.660 2009 0.698 0.682 2010 0.713 0.697 2011 0.664 0.646 2012 0.667 0.650 2.1.3.3. Atlantic Coast Population The Atlantic Coast piping plover breeds on coastal beaches from Newfoundland and southeastern Quebec to North Carolina. Historical population trends for the Atlantic Coast piping plover have been reconstructed from scattered, largely qualitative records. Nineteenth- century naturalists, such as Audubon and Wilson, described the piping plover as a common summer resident on Atlantic Coast beaches (Haig and Oring 1987). However, by the beginning of the 20`h Century, egg collecting and uncontrolled hunting, primarily for the millinery trade, had greatly reduced the population, and in some areas along the Atlantic Coast, the piping plover was close to extirpation. Following passage of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (40 Stat. 775; 16 U.S.C. 703-712) in 1918, and changes in the fashion industry that no longer exploited wild birds for feathers, piping plover numbers recovered to some extent (Haig and Oring 1985). Available data suggest that the most recent population decline began in the late 1940s or early 1950s (Haig and Oring 1985). Reports of local or statewide declines between 1950 and 1985 are 22 geCENED FEB%IZV ®Cm" wHp CITY numerous, and many are summarized by Cairns and McLaren (1980) and Haig and Oring (1985). While Wilcox (1939) estimated more than 500 pairs of piping plovers on Long Island, New York, the 1989 population estimate was 191 pairs (see Table 4, USFWS 1996a). There was little focus on gathering quantitative data on piping plovers in Massachusetts through the late 1960s because the species was commonly observed and presumed to be secure. However, numbers of piping plover breeding pairs declined 50 to 100 percent at seven Massachusetts sites between the early 1970s and 1984 (Griffin and Melvin 1984). Piping plover surveys in the early years of the recovery effort found that counts of these cryptically -colored birds sometimes went up with increased census effort, suggesting that some historic counts of piping plovers by one or a few observers may have underestimated the piping plover population. Thus, the magnitude of the species decline may have been more severe than available numbers imply. Annual estimates of breeding pairs of Atlantic Coast piping plovers are based on multiple surveys at most occupied sites. Sites that cannot be monitored repeatedly in May and June (primarily sites with few pairs or inconsistent occupancy) are surveyed at least once during a standard nine -day count period (Hecht and Melvin 2009). See Tables 2 and 3 for unpublished data from the Service. RECEIVED FEB 21 2017 23 DCM- MHD CITY Table 2. Estimated abundance of Atlantic Coast piping plovers, 1986 to 2000. Unpublished data from the Service (2016). State or Recovery Unit Maine New Hampshire Massachusetts Rhode Island Connecticut New York New Jersey Number of pairs /year 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 15 12 20 16 17 18 24 32 35 40 60 47 60 56 50 5 5 6 6 139 126 134 137 140 160 213 289 352 441 454 483 495 501 496 10 17 19 19 28 26 20 31 32 40 50 51 46 39 49 20 24 27 34 43 36 40 24 30 31 26 26 21 22 22 106 135 172 191 197 191 187 193 209 249 256 256 245 243 289 102 93 105 128 126 126 134 127 124 132 127 115 93 107 112 Delaware 8 7 3 3 6 5 2 2 4 5 6 4 6 4 3 Maryland 17 23 25 20 14 17 24 19 32 44 61 60 56 58 60 Virginia 100 100 103 121 125 131 97 106 96 118 87 88 95 89 96 North Carolina 30 30 40 55 55 40 49 53 54 50 35 52 46 31 24 South Carolina 3 0 1 1 1 0 U.S. Total 550 567 648 724 752 751 790 877 968 1150 1162 1187 1168 1156 1207 Eastern Canada 240 223 238 233 230 252 223 223 194 200 202 199 211 236 230 Atlantic Coast 790 790 886 957 982 1003 1013 1100 1162 1350 1364 1386 1379 1392 1437 24 Table 3. Estimated abundance of Atlantic Coast piping plovers, 2001 to 2014, with Preliminary data from 2015. Unpublished data from the Service (2016). *Numbers in parentheses are preliminary estimates, subject to revision. State or Number of pairs /year Recovery Unit 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015* Maine 55 66 61 55 49 40 35 24 27 30 33 42 44 50 62 New Hampshire 7 7 7 4 3 3 3 3 5 4 4 6 7 6 8 Massachusetts 495 538 511 488 467 482 558 566 593 591 656 676 666 663 687 Rhode Island 52 58 71 70 69 72 73 77 84 85 86 90 92 91 99 Connecticut 32 31 37 40 34 37 36 41 44 43 52 51 45 51 62 New York 309 369 386 384 374 422 457 443 437 390 318 342 289 268 (303) New Jersey 122 138 144 135 111 116 129 111 105 108 111 121 108 92 108 Delaware 6 6 6 7 8 9 9 10 10 9 8 7 6 6 6 Maryland 60 60 59 66 63 64 64 49 45 44 36 41 45 38 36 Virginia 119 120 114 152 192 202 199 208 193 192 188 259 251 245 256 North Carolina 23 23 24 20 37 46 61 64 54 61 62 70 56 65 64 South Carolina 0 0 U.S. Total Eastern Canada n�Otlantic Coast Z n r1rptal m OD 0 M r 0 N < 0 1280 1416 1420 1421 1407 1493 1624 1596 1597 1557 1554 1705 1609 1593 (1691) 250 274 256 237 217 256 266 253 252 225 209 179 184 186 179 1530 1690 1676 1658 1624 1749 1890 1849 1849 1782 1763 1884 1793 1779 (1870) 25 Since its 1986 listing under the ESA, the Atlantic Coast population estimate increased from approximately 790 pairs to an estimated 1,870 pairs in 2015, and the U.S. portion of the population more than tripled, from approximately 550 pairs to an estimated 1,691 pairs (Hecht and Melvin 2009; Elliott -Smith et al. 2015; USFWS 2015). Even discounting apparent increases in New York, New Jersey, and North Carolina between 1986 and 1989, which likely were due in part to increased census effort (USFWS 1996a), the population nearly doubled between 1989 and 2008. The overall population growth pattern was tempered by periodic rapid declines in the Southern and Eastern Canada Recovery Units. The eastern Canada population decreased 2 1 % in just three years (2002-2005), and the population in the southern half of the Southern Recovery Unit declined 68% in seven years (1995-2001). The 64% decline in the Maine population, from 66 pairs in 2002 to 24 pairs in 2008, following only a few years of decreased productivity, provides another example of the continuing risk of rapid and precipitous reversals in population growth (Hecht and Melvin 2009). 2.1.4. Status and distribution Reason for Listing: Hunting during the 10 and early 20`s centuries likely led to initial declines in the species; however, shooting piping plovers has been prohibited since 1918 pursuant to the provisions of the MBTA. Other human activities, such as habitat loss and degradation, disturbance from recreational pressure, contaminants, and predation are likely responsible for continued declines. These factors include development and shoreline stabilization. The 1985 final rule stated the number of piping plovers on the Gulf of Mexico coastal wintering grounds might be declining as indicated by preliminary analysis of the Christmas Bird Count data. Independent counts of piping plovers on the Alabama coast indicated a decline in numbers between the 1950s and early 1980s. At the time of listing, the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department stated 30 percent of wintering habitat in Texas had been lost over the previous 20 years. The final rule also stated, in addition to extensive breeding area problems, the loss and modification of wintering habitat was a significant threat to the piping plover. Range -wide Trend: Five range -wide population surveys have been conducted for the piping plover; the 1991 (Haig and Plissner 1992), 1996 (Plissner and Haig 1997), 2001, 2006 (Elliott - Smith et al. 2009), and 2011 IPPCs. These surveys were completed to help determine the species distribution and to monitor progress toward recovery. Data from these surveys were provided in the previous pages. Recovery Criteria Delisting of the three piping plover populations may be considered when the following criteria are met: Northern Great Plains Breeding Population (USFWS 1988, 1994) 1. Increase the number of birds in the U.S. Northern Great Plains states to 2,300 pairs (Service 1994). 2. Increase the number of birds in the prairie region of Canada to 2,500 �Ciadult piping plovers (Service 1988). slvE � FEB %I N11 O'Giii- Wo CATI Secure long term protection of essential breeding and wintering habitat (Service 1994). In 2016, the Service drafted new recovery criteria for the Northern Great Plains breeding population. The new criteria are expected to be finalized in the near future. Great Lakes Breedinc Population (USFWS 2003a) 1. At least 150 pairs (300 individuals), for at least 5 consecutive years, with at least 100 breeding pairs (200 individuals) in Michigan and 50 breeding pairs (100 individuals) distributed among sites in other Great Lakes states. 2. Five-year average fecundity within the range of 1.5-2.0 fledglings per pair, per year, across the breeding distribution, and ten-year population projections indicate the population is stable or continuing to grow above the recovery goal. 3. Protection and long-term maintenance of essential breeding and wintering habitat is ensured, sufficient in quantity, quality, and distribution to support the recovery goal of 150 pairs (300 individuals). 4. Genetic diversity within the population is deemed adequate for population persistence and can be maintained over the long-term. 5. Agreements and funding mechanisms are in place for long-term protection and management activities in essential breeding and wintering habitat. Atlantic Coast Breeding Population (USFWS 1996a) 1. Increase and maintain for 5 year, a total of 2,000 breeding pairs, distributed among 4 recovery units. Recovery Unit Minimum Subpopulation Atlantic (eastern) Canada 400 pairs New England 625 pairs New York -New Jersey 575 pairs Southern (DE -MD -VA -NC) 400 pairs 2. Verify the adequacy of a 2,000 pair population of piping plovers to maintain heterozygosity and allelic diversity over the long term. 3. Achieve a 5-year average productivity of 1.5 fledged chicks per pair in each of the 4 recovery units described in criterion 1, based on data from sites that collectively support at least 90% of the recovery unit's population. 4. Institute long-term agreements to assure protection and management sufficient to maintain the population targets and average productivity in each recovery unit. 5. Ensure long-term maintenance of wintering habitat, sufficient in quantity, quality, and distribution to maintain survival rates for a 2,000-pair population. RECEIVED 27 FED 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY Conservation Recommendations Nonbreeding Plovers from All Three Breeding Populations (USFWS 2012) 1. Maintain natural coastal processes that perpetuate wintering and coastal migration habitat. 2. Protect wintering and migrating piping plovers and their habitat from human disturbance. 3. Monitor nonbreeding plovers and their habitat. 4. Protect nonbreeding plovers and their habitats from contamination and degradation from oil or other chemical contaminants. 5. Assess predation as a potential limiting factor for piping plovers on wintering and migration sites. 6. Improve application or regulatory tools. 7. Develop mechanisms to provide long-term protection of nonbreeding plovers and their habitat. 8. Conduct scientific investigations to refine knowledge and inform conservation of migrating and wintering piping plovers. Breeding Range Northern Great Plains Breeding Population The IPPC numbers indicate that the Northern Great Plains breeding population (including Canada) declined from 1991 through 2001, and then increased dramatically in 2006. This increase corresponded with a multi -year drought in the Missouri River basin that exposed a great deal of nesting habitat, suggesting that the population can respond fairly rapidly to changes in habitat quantity and quality. Despite this improvement, we do not consider the numeric, distributional, or temporal elements of the population recovery criteria achieved. As the Missouri River basin emerged from drought and breeding habitat was inundated in subsequent years after 2006, the population declined (See Figure 3). The management activities carried out in many areas during drought conditions undoubtedly helped to maintain and increase the piping plover population, especially to mitigate for otherwise poor reproductive success during wet years when habitat is limited. While the population increase seen between 2001 and 2006 demonstrates the possibility that the population can rebound from low population numbers, ongoing efforts are needed to maintain and increase the population. In the U.S., piping plover crews attempt to locate most piping plover nests and take steps to improve their success. This work has suffered from insufficient and unstable funding in most areas. Emerging threats, such as energy development (particularly wind, oil and gas and associated infrastructure) and climate change are likely to impact piping plovers both on the breeding and 28 RECEIVED FEB 212017 DCM- MHD CITY wintering grounds. The potential impact of both of these threats is not well understood, and measures to mitigate for them are also uncertain at this time. In the 2009 status review, the Service concluded that the Northern Great Plains breeding population remains vulnerable, especially due to management of river systems throughout the breeding range (USFWS 2009a). Many of the threats identified in the 1988 recovery plan, including those affecting Northern Great Plains breeding population during the two-thirds of its annual cycle spent in the wintering range, remain today or have intensified. Great Lakes Breeding Population Despite a declining annual survival rate, the population has shown significant growth, from approximately 17 pairs at the time of listing in 1986, to 75 pairs in 2015 and 2016. The total of 75 breeding pairs represents 50% of the current recovery goal of 150 breeding pairs for the Great Lakes breeding population. Productivity goals, as specified in the 2003 recovery plan, have been met over the past 5 years. During this time period the average annual fledging rate has varied, but averages about 1.7, well above the 1.5 fledglings per breeding pair recovery goal (Cavalieri pers. comm. 2016d). The total estimated population in 2016, including breeding pairs, non - breeding adults, and 2016 chicks, is approximately 330 individuals. Approximately 130 of those are 2016 chicks. However, that number may decline quickly over the next several months with the expected mortality of some hatch -year adults (Cavalieri pers. comm. 2016b). Survival of fledged hatch -year individuals has been estimated at approximately 37% (Roche et al. 2008; Saunders et al. 2014), so approximately 48 chicks of the 130 chicks are expected to survive until the 2017 breeding season. Analyses of banded piping plovers in the Great Lakes suggests that after -hatch year (adult) survival rates are declining, although management of merlin predation on the breeding grounds appears to have allowed the survival rate to stabilize (Roche et al. 2010; Saunders pers. comm. 2016). It is the productivity rate, or recruitment rate, that has continued to increase the overall population, despite considerable decreases in adult survival rates. Continued population growth will require the long-term maintenance of productivity goals concurrent with measures to sustain or improve important vital rates. Older birds are typically more successful breeders (Cavalieri pers.comm. 2016b), so after -hatch year survival rates may have a great effect on the overall population growth. An additional factor in the number of breeding pairs is a sex ratio that is skewed towards males. Many of the non -breeding adults are males. There may be as many as 40 more males in the population each year than females, and males make up the majority of the non -breeding population. Females are more valuable individuals in part because of their reduced number compared to males (Cavalieri pers. comm. 2016b). Several years of population growth is evidence of the effectiveness of the ongoing Great Lakes piping plover recovery program. However, the average annual growth of just less than 2.3% in this small population typically results in only 3 or 4 additional surviving individuals each year (Catlin pers. comm. 2016a). Most major threats, including habitat degradation, predation, and human disturbance remain persistent and pervasive. Severe threats from human disturbance and predation remain ubiquitous within the Great Lakes. Expensive labor-intensive management to 29 RECEIVED FEB 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY minimize the effects of these continuing threats, as specified in recovery plan tasks, are implemented every year by a network of dedicated governmental and private partners. Because threats to Great Lakes piping plovers persist and annual gains are rather small, reversal of gains in abundance and productivity are expected to quickly follow if current protection efforts are reduced. Habitat destruction and development have greatly reduced the amount of nesting habitat in all states in the Great Lakes region from which piping plovers are extirpated. Human disturbance and high predator densities compromise the quality of habitat that otherwise currently possesses physical characteristics suitable for piping plover foraging and breeding. Many physically suitable sites that are no longer occupied are distant from the current breeding area, potentially limiting opportunities for recolonization. Additionally, lake level fluctuations and winter storms periodically alter the quantity and quality of habitat at individual sites throughout the region (USFWS 2003a). Emerging potential threats to piping plovers in the Great Lakes basin include disease, increased predation by merlins on adults and chicks, wind turbine generators and, potentially, climate change. Type-E botulism in the Northern Lake Michigan basin has resulted in 15 to 20 piping plover mortalities since 2000 (USFWS 2013c), including at least 4 in 2016. Future outbreaks in areas that support a concentration of breeding piping plovers could impact survival rates and population abundance. Wind turbine projects, many of which are currently in the planning stages, need further study to determine potential risks to piping plovers and/or their habitat, as well as the need for specific protections to prevent or mitigate impacts. Climate change projections for the Great Lakes include the potential for significant water -level decreases. The degree to which this factor will impact piping plover habitat is unknown, but prolonged water -level decreases are likely to alter habitat condition and distribution. In the 2009 status review, the Service concluded that the Great Lakes breeding population remains at considerable risk of extinction due to its small size, limited distribution and vulnerability to stochastic events, such as disease outbreak (USFWS 2009a). In addition, the factors that led to the piping plover's 1986 listing remain present. Atlantic Coast Breeding Population Substantial population growth, from approximately 790 pairs in 1986 to an estimated 1,870 pairs in 2015, has decreased the Atlantic Coast piping plover's vulnerability to extinction since ESA listing (Tables 2 and 3). Thus, considerable progress has been made towards the overall goal of 2,000 breeding pairs articulated in recovery criterion 1. As discussed in the 1996 revised recovery plan, however, the overall security of the Atlantic Coast piping plover is fundamentally dependent on even distribution of population growth, as specified in subpopulation targets, to protect a sparsely -distributed species with strict biological requirements from environmental variation (including catastrophes) and increase the likelihood of interchange among subpopulations. Population growth has been tempered by geographic and temporal variability. By far, the largest net population increase between 1989 and 2015 occurred in New England (445 percent). Net growth in the southern recovery unit population was over 182 percent between 1989 and 2015, but the subpopulation target has not yet been attained. Preliminary estimates indicate abundance in the New York -New Jersey recovery unit experienced a net 30 RECENED FEB 21 Z017 DCM- MHD CITY increase of 129 percent between 1989 and 2015. However, the population declined sharply from a peak of 586 pairs in 2007 and has still not recovered, with only 411 pairs in 2015. In Eastern Canada, where increases have often been quickly eroded in subsequent years, the population posted a 25-percent decline between 1989 and 2015. Productivity goals (criterion 3) specified in the 1996 recovery plan must be revised to accommodate new information about latitudinal variation in productivity needed to maintain a stationary population. Population growth, particularly in the three U.S. recovery units, provides indirect evidence that adequate productivity has occurred in at least some years. However, overall security of a 2,000 pair population will require long-term maintenance of these revised recovery -unit -specific productivity goals concurrent with population numbers at or above abundance goals. Twenty years of relatively steady population growth, driven by productivity gains, also evidences the efficacy of the ongoing Atlantic Coast piping plover recovery program. However, all of the major threats (habitat loss and degradation, predation, human disturbance, and inadequacy of other (non -ESA) regulatory mechanisms) identified in the 1986 ESA listing and 1996 revised recovery plan remain persistent and pervasive. Severe threats from human disturbance and predation remain ubiquitous along the Atlantic Coast. Expensive labor-intensive management to minimize the effects of these continuing threats, as specified in recovery plan tasks, are implemented every year by a network of dedicated governmental and private cooperators. Because threats to Atlantic Coast piping plovers persist (and in many cases have increased since listing), reversal of gains in abundance and productivity would quickly follow diminishment of current protection efforts. Finally, two emerging potential threats, wind turbine generators and climate change (especially sea -level rise) are likely to affect Atlantic Coast piping plovers throughout their life cycle. These two threats must be evaluated to ascertain their effects on piping plovers and/or their habitat, as well as the need for specific protections to prevent or mitigate impacts that could otherwise increase overall risks to the species. In the 2009 status review, the Service concluded that the Atlantic Coast piping plover remains vulnerable to low numbers in the Southern and Eastern Canada (and, to a lesser extent, the New York -New Jersey) Recovery Units (USFWS 2009a). Furthermore, the factors that led to the piping plover's 1986 listing remain operative rangewide (including in New England), and many of these threats have increased. Interruption of costly, labor-intensive efforts to manage these threats would quickly lead to steep population declines. Nonbreeding Range Piping plovers spend up to 10 months of their life cycle on their migration and winter grounds, generally July 15 through as late as May 15. Piping plover migration routes and habitats overlap breeding and wintering habitats, and, unless banded, migrants passing through a site usually are indistinguishable from breeding or wintering piping plovers. Coastal migration stopovers by banded piping plovers from the Great Lakes region have been documented in New Jersey, 31 RECEIVED FEB 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia (Stucker et al. 2010). Migrating birds from eastern Canada have been observed in Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and North Carolina (Amirault et al. 2005). Piping plovers banded in the Bahamas have been sighted during migration in nine Atlantic Coast states and provinces between Florida and Nova Scotia (C. Gratto-Trevor, Environment Canada, pers. comm. 2012a). In general, the distance between stopover locations and the duration of stopovers throughout the coastal migration range remain poorly understood (USFWS, 2015). Review of published records of piping plover sightings throughout North America by Pompei and Cuthbert (2004) found more than 3,400 fall and spring stopover records at 1,196 sites. Published reports indicated that piping plovers do not concentrate in large numbers at inland sites and that they seem to stop opportunistically. In most cases, reports of birds at inland sites were single individuals. Piping plovers migrate through and winter in coastal areas of the U.S. from North Carolina to Texas and in portions of Mexico and the Caribbean. Gratto-Trevor et al. (2009) reported that six of 259 banded piping plovers observed more than once per winter moved across boundaries of the seven U.S. regions. This species exhibits a high degree of intra- and inter -annual wintering site fidelity (Noel and Chandler 2016; Cohen and Gratto-Trevor 2011; Gratto-Trevor et al. 2016; Drake et al. 2001; Noel et al. 2005; Stucker and Cuthbert 2006). Of 216 birds observed in different years, only eight changed regions between years, and several of these shifts were associated with late summer or early spring migration periods (Gratto-Trevor et al. 2009). Local movements are more common. In South Carolina, Maddock et al. (2009) documented many cross -inlet movements by wintering banded piping plovers as well as occasional movements of up to 18 km by approximately 10% of the banded population; larger movements within South Carolina were seen during fall and spring migration. Similarly, eight banded piping plovers that were observed in two locations during 2006-2007 surveys in Louisiana and Texas were all in close proximity to their original location, such as on the bay and ocean side of the same island or on adjoining islands (Maddock 2008). In Cape Lookout NS, wintering banded birds were surveyed along Shackleford Banks. Individual birds were always observed in the same general area over multiple seasons, indicating that the wintering birds are very site -specific and return to the same area in consecutive years (CALO 2003) Gratto-Trevor et al. (2012) found strong patterns (but no exclusive partitioning) in winter distribution of uniquely banded piping plovers from four breeding populations (Figure 5). Resightings of more than 700 uniquely marked birds from 2001 to 2008 were used to analyze winter distributions along the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts. Plovers from eastern Canada and most Great Lakes birds wintered from North Carolina to Southwest Florida. However, eastern Canada birds were more heavily concentrated in North Carolina, while a larger proportion of Great Lakes piping plovers were found in South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida. This pattern is consistent with analysis of band sightings of Great Lakes plovers from 1995-2005 by Stucker et al. (2010). Gratto-Trevor et al. (2012) also found that Northern Great Plains breeding population were primarily seen farther west and south, especially on the Texas Gulf Coast. 32 itECEIN►ED F 21 n11 0(;M- MSC CI'TY L I exas North Atlantic Central, Atlantic South Mississippi) Gulf Florida Louisiana )Alabama Gulf N,> Florlds South 40 0 a • Figure 5. (From Gratto-Trevor et al. 2012, reproduced by permission). Four breeding locations (inset) included in Gratto-Trevor et al.'s (2012) study of wintering piping plovers in North America, 1998-2008, including eastern Canada (white circle with a large black spot in the center), Great Lakes (gray circle), Great Plains (white circle), and Prairie Canada (black circle). The North American wintering area is expanded to the right, divided into different wintering regions. The size of the adjacent circles relative to others represents the percentage of individual piping plovers from a specific breeding area reported in each wintering region up to December 2008. The majority of birds from the Canadian Prairie were observed in Texas (particularly southern Texas), while individuals from the U.S. Great Plains were more widely distributed on the Gulf Coast from Texas to Florida. Seventy-nine percent of 57 piping plovers banded in the Bahamas in 2010 have been reported breeding on the Atlantic Coast; one has been resighted in the Northern Great Plains (Catlin pers. comm. 2013). Furthermore, consistent with patterns observed in other parts of the wintering range, a few individuals banded in the Great Lakes and Northern Great Plains breeding populations have been observed in the Bahamas (Gratto-Trevor pers. comm. 2012; Catlin pers. comm. 2012a). Collectively, these studies demonstrate an intermediate level of connectivity between breeding and wintering areas. Specific breeding populations will 33 RECEIVED FEB 2 1 2017 DCM- MHD CITY be disproportionately affected by habitat and threats occurring where they are most concentrated in the winter (USFWS 2015). The findings of Gratto-Trevor et al. (2009; 2012) provide evidence of differences in the wintering distribution of piping plovers from these four breeding areas. However, the distribution of birds by breeding origin during migration remains largely unknown. Until recently, the wintering locations of the U.S. Atlantic Coast breeding population was relatively unknown, as was the breeding origin of piping plovers wintering on Caribbean islands. A 2010 banding effort in the Bahamas, led by Dr. Cheri Trevor-Gratto, indicated that the majority of piping plovers wintering in the Bahamas are from the Atlantic breeding population (Gratto- Trevor et al. 2016; AFWA 2015). A 2014/2015 winter census effort on five Bahamian islands located 657 piping plovers, 31 of which had bands identifying them as members of the U.S. or Canadian breeding population. Research efforts indicate that around half of the Atlantic population of piping plovers winter across the Bahamas for up to ten months each year. The majority (25%) of the plovers are in just three locations — Andros Island, Joulter Cays and the Berry Islands (AFWA 2015). In September 2015, the Bahamian government established the 113,920-acre Joulter Cays National Park. This large group of uninhabited islands and intertidal sand flats will continue to provide important wintering habitat for piping plovers, red knots, and other shorebirds (Audubon 2015; BNT 2015). Five rangewide mid -winter (late January to early February) IPPCs, conducted at five-year intervals starting in 1991, are summarized in Table 4. Total numbers have fluctuated over time, with some areas experiencing increases and others decreases. Regional and local fluctuations may reflect the quantity and quality of suitable foraging and roosting habitat, which vary over time in response to natural coastal formation processes as well as anthropogenic habitat changes (e.g., inlet relocation, dredging of shoals and spits). Fluctuations may also represent localized weather conditions (especially wind) during surveys, or unequal survey coverage. Changes in wintering numbers may also be influenced by growth or decline in the particular breeding populations that concentrate their wintering distribution in a given area. 34 RECENED FFB $1 Z017 0CM_ MHp CITN' Table 4. Results of the 1991, 1996, 2001, 2006, and 2011 International Piping Plover Winter Censuses (Haig and Plissner 1993; Plissner and Haig 2000; Ferland and Haig 2002; Haig et al. 2005; Elliott -Smith et al. 2009; Elliott -Smith et al. 2015). Location 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 Virginia not surveyed (ns) ns ns 1 1 North Carolina 20 50 87 84 43 South Carolina 51 78 78 100 86 Georgia 37 124 ill 212 63 Florida 551 375 416 454 306 Atlantic 70 31 111 133 83 -Gulf 481 344 305 321 223 Alabama 12 31 30 29 38 Mississippi 59 27 18 78 88 Louisiana 750 398 511 226 86 Texas 1,904 1,333 1,042 2,090 2,145 Puerto Rico 0 0 6 2 2 U.S. Total 3,384 2,416 2,299 3,357 2,858 Mexico 27 16 ns 76 30 Bahamas 29 17 35 417 1,066 Cuba 11 66 55 89 19 Other Caribbean Islands 0 0 0 28 ns GRAND TOTAL 3,451 2,515 2,389 3,884 3,973 Percent of Total International Piping Plover Breeding Census 62.9% 42.4% 40.2% 48.2% 69.4% Mid -winter surveys may substantially underestimate the abundance of nonbreeding piping plovers using a site or region during other months. In late September 2007, 104 piping plovers were counted at the south end of Ocracoke Island, North Carolina (NPS 2007), where none were seen during the 2006 International Piping Plover January Winter Census (Elliott -Smith et al. 2009). Noel et al. (2007) observed up to 100 piping plovers during peak migration at Little St. Simons Island, Georgia, where approximately 40 piping plovers wintered in 2003-2005. Differences among fall, winter, and spring counts in South Carolina were less pronounced, but 35 RECEIVED FEB '21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY inter -year fluctuations (e.g., 108 piping plovers in spring 2007 versus 174 piping plovers in spring 2008) at 28 sites were striking (Maddock et al. 2009). Even as far south as the Florida Panhandle, monthly counts at Phipps Preserve in Franklin County ranged from a mid -winter low of four piping plovers in December 2006 to peak counts of 47 in October 2006 and March 2007 (Smith 2007). Pinkston (2004) observed much heavier use of Texas Gulf Coast (ocean -facing) beaches between early September and mid -October (approximately 16 birds per mi) than during December to March (approximately two birds per mi). Local movements of nonbreeding piping plovers may also affect abundance estimates. At Deveaux Bank, one of South Carolina's most important piping plover sites, five counts at approximately 10-day intervals between August 27 and October 7, 2006, oscillated from 28 to 14 to 29 to 18 to 26 (Maddock et al. 2009). Noel and Chandler (2008) detected banded Great Lakes piping plovers known to be wintering on their Georgia study site in 73.8 + 8.1 % of surveys over three years. Abundance estimates for nonbreeding piping plovers may also be affected by the number of surveyor visits to the site. Preliminary analysis of detection rates by Maddock et al. (2009) found 87% detection during the mid -winter period on core sites surveyed three times a month during fall and spring and one time per month during winter, compared with 42% detection on sites surveyed three times per year (Cohen 2009 pers. communication). The 2004 and 2005 hurricane seasons affected a substantial amount of habitat along the Gulf Coast. Habitats such as those along Gulf Islands NS have benefited from increased washover events, which created optimal habitat conditions for piping plovers. Conversely, hard shoreline structures put into place following storms throughout the species range to prevent such shoreline migration prevent habitat creation (see Factors Aflecting Species Environment within the Action Area). 2.1.5. Analysis of the Species Likely to be Affected The three recovery plans stated that shoreline development throughout the wintering range poses a threat to all populations of piping plovers. The plans further stated that beach maintenance and nourishment, inlet dredging, and artificial structures, such as jetties, groins, and revetments, could eliminate wintering areas and alter sedimentation patterns leading to the loss of nearby habitat. Unregulated motorized and pedestrian recreational use, inlet and shoreline stabilization projects, beach maintenance and nourishment, and pollution affect most winter and migration areas. Data from studies at Hilton Head, Kiawah Island, and other locations in South Carolina and Georgia demonstrate that impacts from poor winter habitat conditions can be seen the following year on the breeding grounds (Saunders et al. 2014; Gibson et al. 2016). Piping plovers wintering at areas with fewer anthropogenic disturbances had higher survival, recruitment, and population growth rates than areas with greater disturbance. Important components of ecologically sound barrier beach management include perpetuation of natural dynamic coastal formation processes. Structural development along the shoreline or manipulation of natural inlets upsets the dynamic processes and results in habitat loss or 36 RECEIVED FES 212017 DCM_ MHD CITY degradation (Melvin et al. 1991). Throughout the range of migrating and wintering piping plovers, inlet and shoreline stabilization, inlet dredging, beach maintenance and nourishment activities, and seawall installations continue to constrain natural coastal processes. Dredging of inlets can affect spit formation adjacent to inlets and directly remove or affect ebb and flood tidal shoal formation. Jetties, which stabilize an island, cause island widening and subsequent growth of vegetation on inlet shores. Seawalls restrict natural island movement and exacerbate erosion. As discussed in more detail below, all these efforts result in loss of piping plover habitat. Construction of these projects during months when piping plovers are present also causes disturbance that disrupts the birds' foraging efficiency and hinders their ability to build fat reserves over the winter and in preparation for migration, as well as their recuperation from migratory flights. In addition, up to 24 shorebird species migrate or winter along the Atlantic Coast and almost 40 species of shorebirds are present during migration and wintering periods in the Gulf of Mexico region (Helmers 1992). Continual degradation and loss of habitats used by wintering and migrating shorebirds may cause an increase in intra-specific and inter -specific competition for remaining food supplies and roosting habitats. The shrinking extent of shoreline that supports natural coastal formation processes concentrates foraging and roosting opportunities for all shorebird species, and forces some individuals into suboptimal habitats. Thus, intra- and inter -specific competition most likely exacerbates threats from habitat loss and degradation. Loss, modification, and degradation of habitat The wide, flat, sparsely vegetated barrier beaches, spits, sandbars, and bayside flats preferred by piping plovers in the U.S. are formed and maintained by natural forces and are thus susceptible to degradation caused by development and shoreline stabilization efforts. As described below, barrier island and beachfront development, inlet and shoreline stabilization, inlet dredging, beach maintenance and nourishment activities, seawall installations, and mechanical beach grooming continue to alter natural coastal processes throughout the range of migrating and wintering piping plovers. Dredging of inlets can affect spit formation adjacent to inlets, as well as ebb and flood tidal shoal formation. Jetties stabilize inlets and cause island widening and subsequent vegetation growth on the updrift inlet shores; they also cause island narrowing and/or erosion on the downdrift inlet shores. Seawalls and revetments restrict natural island movement and exacerbate erosion. Although dredge and fill projects that place sand on beaches and dunes may restore lost or degraded habitat in some areas, in other areas these projects may degrade habitat quality by altering the natural sediment composition, depressing the invertebrate prey base, hindering habitat migration with sea level rise, and replacing the natural habitats of the dune- beach-nearshore system with artificial geomorphology. Construction of any of these projects during months when piping plovers are present also causes disturbance that disrupts the birds' foraging and roosting behaviors. These threats are exacerbated by accelerating sea level rise, which increases erosion and habitat loss where existing development and hardened stabilization structures prevent the natural migration of the beach and/or barrier island. DECEIVED 37 FEB 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY Development and Construction Development and associated construction threaten the piping plover in its migration and wintering range by degrading, fragmenting, and eliminating habitat. Constructing buildings and infrastructure adjacent to the beach can eliminate roosting and loafing habitat within the development's footprint and degrade adjacent habitat by replacing sparsely vegetated dunes or back -barrier beach areas with landscaping, pools, fences, etc. In addition, bayside development can replace foraging habitat with finger canals, bulkheads, docks and lawns. High -value plover habitat becomes fragmented as lots are developed or coastal roads are built between oceanside and bayside habitats. Development activities can include lowering or removing natural dunes to improve views or grade building lots, planting vegetation to stabilize dunes, and erecting sand fencing to establish or stabilize continuous dunes in developed areas; these activities can further degrade, fragment, and eliminate sparsely vegetated and unvegetated habitats used by the piping plover and other wildlife. Development and construction of other infrastructure in close proximity to barrier beaches often creates economic and social incentives for subsequent shoreline stabilization projects, such as shoreline hardening and beach nourishment. At present, there are approximately 2,119 miles of sandy beaches within the U.S. continental wintering range of the piping plover (Table 5). Approximately 40% (856 miles) of these sandy beaches are developed, with mainland Mississippi (80%), Florida (57%), Alabama (55%), South Carolina (51 %), and North Carolina (49%) comprising the most developed coasts, and Mississippi barrier islands (0%), Louisiana (60/6), Texas (14%) and Georgia (17%) the least developed (Rice 2012b). As discussed further below, developed beaches are highly vulnerable to further habitat loss because they cannot migrate in response to sea level rise. Several studies highlight concerns about adverse effects of development and coastline stabilization on the quantity and quality of habitat for migrating and wintering piping plovers and other shorebirds. For example, Zdravkovic and Durkin (2011) observed fewer plovers on the developed portions of the Laguna and Gulf beach sides of South Padre Island than on undeveloped portions during both migratory and wintering surveys. Drake et al. (2001) observed that radio -tagged piping plovers overwintering along the southern Laguna Madre of Texas seldom used tidal flats adjacent to developed areas (five of 1,371 relocations of radio -marked individuals), suggesting that development and associated anthropogenic disturbances influence piping plover habitat use. Detections of piping plovers during repeated surveys of the upper Texas coast in 2008 were low in areas with significant beach development (Arvin 2008). The development of bayside or estuarine shorelines with forger canals and their associated bulkheads, docks, buildings, and landscaping leads to direct loss and degradation of plover habitat. Finger canals are channels cut into a barrier island or peninsula from the soundside to increase the number of waterfront residential lots. Finger canals can lead to water pollution, fish kills, loss of aquatic nurseries, saltwater intrusion of groundwater, disruption of surface flows, island breaching due to the funneling of storm surge, and a perpetual need for dredging and disposal of dredged material in order to keep the canals navigable for property owners (Morris et al. 1978; Bush et al. 1996). 38 REC;E►vE® FEB 21 ZZ17 pCM- MHO CIT`� Table 5. The lengths and percentages of sandy oceanfront beach in each state that are developed, undeveloped, and preserved as of December 2011 (Rice 2012b). Approximate Approximate Approximate Approximate Miles of Beach Miles of Beach Miles of Beach State Shoreline Developed Undeveloped Preserved Beach Length (percent of total (percent of total (percent of total (des) shoreline length) shoreline length)' shoreline length)" 159 167 178.7 North Carolina 326 (49%) (51%) (55%) 93 89 84 South Carolina 182 (51%) (49%) (460/6) 15 75 68.6 Georgia 90 (17%) (830/6) (760/,) 459 351 297.5 Florida 809 (57%) (43%) (370/6) 236 136 132.4 Atlantic 372 (63%) (3791o) (3601.) 223 215 168.0. -Gulf 437 (51016) (49%) (3801o) 25 21 11.2 Alabama 46 (55%) (45%) (24%) Mississippi barrier 0 27 27 island coast 27 (0%) (100%) (1000/0) Mississippi mainland 51` 41 10 12.6 coast (80°/u) (20%) (25%) 13 205 66.3 Louisiana 218 (6%) (94%) (300%) 51 319 152.7 Texas 370 (14%) (86%) (41%) 856 1,264 901.5 TOTAL 2,119 (40%) (60%) (43%) 'Beaches classified as "undeveloped" occasionally include a few scattered structures. Preserved beaches include public ownership, ownership by non -governmental conservation organizations, and conservation easements. The miles of shoreline that have been preserved generally overlap with the miles of undeveloped beach but may also include some areas (e.g., in North Carolina) that have been developed with recreational facilities or by private inholdings. ` The mainland Mississippi coast along Mississippi Sound includes 51.3 miles of sandy beach as of 2010- 2011, out of approximately 80.7 total shoreline miles (the remaining portion is non -sandy, either marsh or armored coastline with no sand). See Rice 2012b for details. 39 RECEIVED FEB 21 Z017 DCM- MHD CITY Rice (2012b) has identified over 900 miles (43%) of sandy beaches in the wintering range that are currently "preserved" through public ownership, ownership by non -governmental conservation organizations, or conservation easements (Table 5). These beaches may be subject to some erosion as they migrate in response to sea level rise or if sediment is removed from the coastal system, and they are vulnerable to recreational disturbance. However, they are the areas most likely to maintain the geomorphic characteristics of suitable piping plover habitat. In summary, approximately 40% of the sandy beach shoreline in the migration and wintering range is already developed, while 43% are largely preserved. This means, however, that the remaining 17% of shoreline habitat (that which is currently undeveloped but not preserved) is susceptible to future loss to development and the attendant threats from shoreline stabilization activities and sea level rise. Dredging and Sand Mining The dredging and mining of sediment from inlet complexes threatens the piping plover on its wintering grounds through habitat loss and degradation. The maintenance of navigation channels by dredging, especially deep shipping channels such as those in Alabama and Mississippi can significantly alter the natural coastal processes on inlet shorelines of nearby barrier islands, as described by Otvos (2006), Morton (2008), Otvos and Carter (2008), and Stockdon et al. (2010). Cialone and Stauble (1998) describe the impacts of mining ebb shoals within inlets as a source of beach fill material at eight locations and provide a recommended monitoring protocol for future mining events; Dabees and Kraus (2008) also describe the impacts of ebb shoal mining in southwest Florida. Forty-four percent of the tidal inlets within the U.S. wintering range of the piping plover have been or continue to be dredged, primarily for navigational purposes (Table 6). States where more than two-thirds of inlets have been dredged include Alabama (three of four), Mississippi (four of six), North Carolina (16 of 20), and Texas (13 of 18), and 16 of 21 along the Florida Atlantic coast. The dredging of navigation channels or relocation of inlet channels for erosion - control purposes contributes to the cumulative effects of inlet habitat modification by removing or redistributing the local and regional sediment supply; the maintenance dredging of deep shipping channels can convert a natural inlet that normally bypasses sediment from one shoreline to the other into a sediment sink, where sediment no longer bypasses the inlet. Among the dredged inlets identified in Rice (2012a), dredging efforts began as early as the 1800s and continue to the present, generating long-term and even permanent effects on inlet habitat; at least 11 inlets were first dredged in the 19a' century, with the Cape Fear River (North Carolina) being dredged as early as 1826 and Mobile Pass (Alabama) in 1857. Dredging can occur on an annual basis or every two to three years, resulting in continual perturbations and modifications to inlet and adjacent shoreline habitat. The volumes of sediment removed can be major, with 2.2 million cubic yards (racy) of sediment removed on average every 1.9 years from the Galveston 1 See chapters 1 and 2 in Titus (2011) for a detailed discussion of the relationship between shoreline development and sea level rise. 40 RECC V ED FEB 212011 pCW Wt) CITY Bay Entrance (Texas) and 3.6 mcy of sediment removed from Sabine Pass (Texas) on average every 1.4 years (USACE 1992). Table 6. The number of open tidal inlets, inlet modifications, and artificially closed inlets in each state as of December 2011. Numbers for North Carolina are as of September 2016 (USFWS 2012; Rice 2012a; 2016). Existing Inlets Total Habitat Modification Type Artificially artificially State Number Number of closed of Inlets Modified structures' dredged relocated mined opened Inlets North 20 17 (85%) 7 16 5 10 4 13 Carolina South 47 21 (45%) 17 11 2 3 0 1 Carolina Georgia 23 6 (26%) 5 3 0 1 0 0 Florida 21 19 (90%) 19 16 0 3 10 0 Adandc Florida 48 24 (50%) 20 22 0 6 7 1 -Gulf Alabama 4 4 (100%) 4 3 0 0 0 2 Mississippi 6 4 (67%) 0 4 0 0 0 0 Louisiana 34 10 (29%) 7 9 1 2 0 46 Texas 18 14 (78%) 10 13 2 1 11 3 119 89 97 8 20 30 64 TOTAL 221 (54°/u) (40%) (44%) (4%) (9%) (14%) (N/A) Structures include jetties, terminal groins, groin fields, rock or sandbag revetments, seawalls, and offshore breakwaters. As sand sources for beach nourishment projects have become more limited, the mining of ebb tidal shoals for sediment has increased (Cialone and Stauble 1998). This is a problem because exposed ebb and flood tidal shoals and sandbars are prime roosting and foraging habitats for piping plovers. In general, such areas are only accessible by boat; and as a result, they tend to receive less human recreational use than nearby mainland beaches. Rice (2012a) found that the ebb shoal complexes of at least 20 inlets within the wintering range of the piping plover have been mined for beach fill. Ebb shoals are especially important because they act as "sand bridges" that connect beaches and islands by transporting sediment via longshore transport from one side (updrift) to the other (downdrift) side of an inlet. The mining of sediment from these shoals upsets the inlet system equilibrium and can lead to increased erosion of the adjacent inlet shorelines (Cialone and Stauble 1998). Rice (2012a) noted that this mining of material from inlet shoals for use as beach fill is not equivalent to the natural sediment bypassing that occurs at 41 RECEIVED FEB 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY unmodified inlets for several reasons, most notably for the massive volumes involved that are "transported" virtually instantaneously instead of gradually and continuously and for the placement of the material outside of the immediate inlet vicinity, where it would naturally bypass. The mining of inlet shoals can remove massive amounts of sediment, with 1.98 mcy mined for beach fill from Longboat Pass (Florida) in 1998, 1.7 mcy from Shallotte Inlet (North Carolina) in 2001 and 1.6 mcy from Redfish Pass (Florida) in 1988 (Cialone and Stauble 1998, USACE 2004). Cialone and Stauble (1998) found that monitoring of the impacts of ebb shoal mining has been insufficient, and in one case the mining pit was only 66% recovered after five years; they conclude that the larger the volume of sediment mined from the shoals, the larger the perturbation to the system and the longer the recovery period. Information is limited on the effects to piping plover habitat of the deposition of dredged material, and the available information is inconsistent. Drake et al. (2001) concluded that the conversion of bayshore tidal flats of southern Texas mainland to dredged material impoundments results in a net loss of habitat for wintering piping plovers because such impoundments eventually convert to upland habitat. Zonick et al. (1998) reported that dredged material placement areas along the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway in Texas were rarely used by piping plovers, and noted concern that dredge islands block the wind -driven water flows that are critical to maintaining important shorebird habitats. Although Zdravkovic and Durkin (2011) found 200 piping plovers on the Mansfield Channel dredge material islands during a survey in late 2009, none were counted there in early 2011. By contrast, most of the sound islands where Cohen et al. (2008) found foraging piping plovers at Oregon Inlet, North Carolina were created by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers from dredged material. Another example is Pelican Island, in Corpus Christi Bay, Texas, where dredged material is consistently used by piping plovers (R. Cobb pers. comm. 2012a). Research is needed to understand why piping plovers use some dredge material islands, but are not regularly found using many others. In summary, the removal of sediment from inlet complexes via dredging and sand mining for beach fill has modified nearly half of the tidal inlets within the continental wintering range of the piping plover, leading to habitat loss and degradation. Many of these inlet habitat modifications have become permanent, existing for over 100 years. The expansion of several harbors and ports to accommodate deeper draft ships poses an increasing threat as more sediment is removed from the inlet system, causing larger perturbations and longer recovery times; maintenance dredging conducted annually or every few years may prevent full recovery of the inlet system. Sand removal or sediment starvation of shoals, sandbars and adjacent shoreline habitat has resulted in habitat loss and degradation, which may reduce the system's ability to maintain a full suite of inlet habitats as sea level continues to rise at an accelerating rate. Rice (2012a) noted that the adverse impacts of this threat to piping plovers may be mitigated, however, by eliminating dredging and mining activities in inlet complexes with high habitat value, extending the interval between dredging cycles, discharging dredged material in nearshore downdrift waters so that it can accrete more naturally than when placed on the subaerial beach, and designing dredged material islands to mimic natural shoals and flats. 92 RECENED FEB 21 Z017 0CM- MHD CITY Inlet Stabilization and Relocation Many navigable tidal inlets along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts are stabilized with hard structures. A description of the different types of stabilization structures typically constructed at or adjacent to inlets —jetties, terminal groins, groins, seawalls, breakwaters and revetments — can be found in the Manual for Coastal Hazard Mitigation (Herrington 2003) and in Living by the Rules of the Sea (Bush et al. 1996). The adverse direct and indirect impacts of hard stabilization structures at inlets and inlet relocations can be significant. The impacts of jetties on inlet and adjacent shoreline habitat have been described by Cleary and Marden (1999), Bush et al. (1996), Wamsley and Kraus (2005), USFWS (2009a), Thomas et al. (2011), and many other,. The relocation of inlets or the creation of new inlets often leads to immediate widening of the new inlet and loss of adjacent habitat, among other impacts, as described by Mason and Sorenson (1971), Masterson et al. (1973), USACE (1992), Cleary and Maiden (1999), Cleary and Fitzgerald (2003), Erickson et al. (2003), Kraus et al. (2003), Wamsley and Kraus (2005) and Kraus (2007). Rice (2012a) found that, as of 2011, an estimated 54% of 221 mainland or barrier island tidal inlets in the U.S continental wintering range of the piping plover had been modified by some form of hardened structure, dredging, relocation, mining, or artificial opening or closure (Table 6). On the Atlantic Coast, 43% of the inlets have been stabilized with hard structures, whereas 37% were stabilized on the Gulf Coast. The Atlantic coast of Florida has 17 stabilized inlets adjacent to each other, extending between the St. John's River in Duval County and Norris Cut in Miami -Dade County, a distance of 341 miles. A shorebird would have to fly nearly 344 miles between unstabilized inlets along this stretch of coast. The state with the highest proportion of natural, unmodified inlets is Georgia (74%). The highest number of adjacent unmodified, natural inlets is the 15 inlets found in Georgia between Little Tybee Slough at Little Tybee Island Nature Preserve and the entrance to Altamaha Sound at the south end of Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge, a distance of approximately 54 miles. Another relatively long stretch of adjacent unstabilized inlets is in Louisiana, where 17 inlets between a complex of breaches on the West Belle Pass barrier headland (in Lafourche Parish) and Beach Prong (near the western boundary of the state Rockefeller Wildlife Refuge) have no stabilization structures; one of these inlets (the Freshwater Bayou Canal), however, is dredged (Rice 2012a). Unstabilized inlets naturally migrate, reforming important habitat components over time, particularly during a period of rising sea level. Inlet stabilization with rock jetties and revetments alters the dynamics of longshore sediment transport and the natural movement and formation of inlet habitats such as shoals, unvegetated spits and flats. Once a barrier island becomes "stabilized" with hard structures at inlets, natural overwash and beach dynamics are restricted, allowing encroachment of new vegetation on the bayside that replaces the unvegetated (open) foraging and roosting habitats that plovers prefer. Rice (2012a) found that 40% (89 out of 221) of the inlets open in 2011 have been stabilized in some way, contributing to habitat loss and degradation throughout the wintering range. Accelerated erosion may compound future habitat 93 RECEIVED FEB 2 1 2017 DCM- MHD CITY loss, depending on the degree of sea level rise (Titus et al. 2009). Due to the complexity of impacts associated with projects such as jetties and groins, Harrington (2008) noted the need for a better understanding of potential effects of inlet -related projects, such as jetties, on bird habitats. Relocation of tidal inlets also can cause loss and/or degradation of piping plover habitat. Although less permanent than construction of hard structures, the effects of inlet relocation can persist for years. For example, December -January surveys documented a continuing decline in wintering plover numbers from 20 birds pre -project (2005-2006) to three birds during the 2009 - 2011 seasons (SCDNR 2011). Subsequent decline in the wintering population on Kiawah is strongly correlated with the decline in polychaete worm densities, suggesting that plovers may have emigrated to other sites as foraging opportunities in these habitats became less profitable (SCDNR 2011). At least eight inlets in the migration and wintering range have been relocated; a new inlet was cut and the old inlet was closed with fill. In other cases, inlets have been relocated without the old channels being artificially filled (Table 6). The artificial opening and closing of inlets typically creates very different habitats from those found at inlets that open or close naturally (Rice 2012a). Rice (2012a) found that 30 inlets have been artificially created within the migration and wintering range of the piping plover, including 10 of the 21 inlets along the eastern Florida coast (Table 6). These artificially created inlets tend to need hard structures to remain open or stable, with 20 of the 30 (67%) of them having hard structures at present. An even higher number of inlets (64) have been artificially closed, the majority in Louisiana (Table 6). One inlet in Texas was closed as part of the Ixtoc oil spill response efforts in 1979 and 32 were closed as part of Deepwater Horizon oil spill response efforts in 2010-2011. Of the latter, 29 were in Louisiana, two in Alabama and one in Florida. To date only one of these inlets, West (Little Lagoon) Pass in Gulf Shores, Alabama, has been reopened, and the rest remain closed with no plans to reopen any of those identified by Rice (2012a). Most other artificial inlet closures in Louisiana are part of barrier island restoration projects, because much of that state's barrier islands are disintegrating (Otvos 2006; Morton 2008; Otvos and Carter 2008). Inlets closed during coastal restoration projects in Louisiana are purposefully designed to approximate low, wide naturally closed inlets and to allow overwash in the future. By contrast, most artificially closed inlets have higher elevations and tend to have a constructed berm and dune system. Overwash may occur periodically at a naturally closed inlet but is prevented at an artificially closed inlet by the constructed dune ridge, hard structures, or sandbags (Rice 2012a). The construction of jetties, groins, seawalls and revetments at inlets leads to habitat loss and both direct and indirect impacts to adjacent shorelines. Rice (2012a) found that these structures result in long-term effects, with at least 13 inlets across six of the eight states having hard structures initially constructed in the 19`s century. The cumulative effects are ongoing and increasing in intensity, with hard structures built as recently as 2011 and others proposed for 2012. With sea level rising and global climate change altering storm dynamics, pressure to modify the remaining half of sandy tidal inlets in the range is likely to increase, notwithstanding that this would be counterproductive to the climate change adaptation strategies recommended by the USFWS 44 jjECENED FEB I I ZOV 0GM_ {AHD CITY (2010d), CCSP (2009), Williams and Gutierrez (2009), Pilkey and Young (2009), and many others. Groins Groins pose an ongoing threat to piping plover beach habitat within the continental wintering range. Groins are hard structures built perpendicular to the shoreline (sometimes in a T-shape), designed to trap sediment traveling in the littoral drift and to slow erosion on a particular stretch of beach or near an inlet. "Leaky" groins, also known as permeable or porous groins, are low - crested structures built like typical groins but which allow some fraction of the littoral drift or longshore sediment transport to pass through the groin. They have been used as terminal groins near inlets or to hold beach fill in place for longer durations. Although groins can be individual structures, they are often clustered along the shoreline in "groin fields." Because they intentionally act as barriers to longshore sand transport, groins cause downdrift erosion, which degrades and fragments sandy beach habitat for the piping plover and other wildlife. The resulting beach typically becomes scalloped in shape, thereby fragmenting plover habitat over time. Groins and groin fields are found throughout the southeastern Atlantic and Gulf Coasts and are present at 28 of 221 sandy tidal inlets (Rice 2012a). Leaky terminal groins have been installed at the south end of Amelia Island, Florida, the west end of Tybee Island, Georgia, and the north end of Hilton Head Island, South Carolina. Permeable or leaky groins have also been constructed on the beaches of Longboat Key and Naples, Florida, and terminal groins were approved in 2011 for use in up to four inlet locations in North Carolina (reversing a nearly 30-year prohibition on hard stabilization structures in that state). Although most groins were in place before the piping plover's 1986 ESA listing, new groins continue to be installed, perpetuating the threat to migrating and wintering piping plovers. Two groins were built in South Carolina between 2006 and 2010, bringing the statewide total to 165 oceanfront groins (SC DHEC 2010). Eleven new groins were built in Florida between 2000 and 2009. The East Pass Navigation Project in Okaloosa County, Florida (USFWS 2009c) illustrates the negative impacts to plover habitat that can be associated with groins, which are often built as one component of a much larger shoreline or inlet stabilization project. The East Pass Navigation Project includes two converging jetties, one with a groin at the end, with dredged material placed on either side to stabilize the jetties; minimal piping plover foraging habitat remains due to changed inlet morphology. As sea level rises at an accelerating rate, the threat of habitat loss, fragmentation and degradation from groins and groin fields may increase as communities and beachfront property owners seek additional ways to protect infrastructure and property. 45 RECEIVED FEB 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY Seawalls and Revetments Seawalls and revetments are hard vertical structures built parallel to the beach in front of buildings, roads, and other facilities 2. Although they are intended to protect human infrastructure from erosion, these armoring structures often accelerate erosion by causing scouring both in front of and downdrift from the structure, which can eliminate intertidal plover foraging and adjacent roosting habitat. Physical characteristics that determine microhabitats and biological communities can be altered after installation of a seawall or revetment, thereby depleting or changing composition of benthic communities that serve as the prey base for piping plovers. Dugan and Hubbard (2006) found in a California study that intertidal zones were narrower and fewer in the presence of armoring, armored beaches had significantly less macrophyte wrack, and shorebirds responded with significantly lower abundance (more than three times lower) and species richness (2.3 times lower) than on adjacent unarmored beaches. As sea level rises, seawalls will prevent the coastline from moving inland, causing loss of intertidal foraging habitat (Galbraith et al. 2002; Defeo et al. 2009). Geotubes (long cylindrical bags made of high -strength permeable fabric and filled with sand) are less permanent alternatives, but they prevent overwash and thus the natural production of sparsely vegetated habitat. Rice (2012b) found that at least 230 miles of beach habitat has been armored with hard erosion - control structures 3. Data were not available for all areas, so this number is a minimum estimate of the length of habitat that has been directly modified by armoring. Out of 221 inlets surveyed, 89 were stabilized with some form of hard structure, of which 24 had revetments or seawalls along their shorelines. The Texas coast is armored with nearly 37 miles of seawalls, bulkheads and revetments, the mainland Mississippi coast has over 45 miles of armoring, the Florida Atlantic coast has at least 58 miles, and the Florida Gulf coast over 59 miles (Rice 2012b). Shoreline armoring has modified plover beachfront habitat in all states, but Alabama (4.7 miles), Georgia (10.5 miles) and Louisiana (15.9 miles) have the fewest miles of armored beaches. Although North Carolina has prohibited the use of hard erosion -control structures or armoring since 19854 the "temporary" installation of sandbag revetments is allowed. As a result the precise length of armored sandy beaches in North Carolina is unknown, but at least 350 sandbag revetments have been constructed (Rice 2012b). South Carolina also limits the installation of some types of new armoring but already has 24 miles (27% of the developed shoreline or 13% of the entire shoreline) armored with some form of shore -parallel erosion -control structure (SC DHEC 2010). The repair of existing armoring structures and installation of new structures continues to degrade, destroy, and fragment beachfront plover habitat throughout its continental wintering range. As sea level rises at an accelerating rate, the threat of habitat loss, fragmentation and degradation from hard erosion -control structures is likely to increase as communities and property owners 2 See page 19 for references describing these stabilization structures. 3 Although Rice (2012b) included jetties and groins in this inventory, structures that are perpendicular to the shoreline comprised a very small proportion of the armored shoreline; seawalls and revetments predominated. 4 In 2011 North Carolina made a further exception for authorization of up to four terminal groins. 46 RECEIVED FEB 212011 ®CM_ mvit) CITY seek to protect their beachfront development. As coastal roads become threatened by rising sea level and increasing storm damage, additional lengths of beachfront habitat may be modified by riprap, revetments, and seawalls. Sand Placement Projects Sand placement projects threaten the piping plover and its habitat by altering the natural, dynamic coastal processes that create and maintain beach strand and bayside habitats, including the habitat components that piping plovers rely upon. Although specific impacts vary depending on a range of factors, so-called "soft stabilization" projects may directly degrade or destroy roosting and foraging habitat in several ways. Beach habitat may be converted to an artificial berm that is densely planted in grass, which can in turn reduce the availability of roosting habitat. Over time, if the beach narrows due to erosion, additional roosting habitat between the berm and the water can be lost. Berms can also prevent or reduce the natural over -wash that creates and maintains sparsely vegetated roosting habitats. The growth of vegetation resulting from impeding the natural overwahh can also reduce the availability of bayside intertidal feeding habitats. Overwash is an essential process, necessary to maintain the integrity of many barrier islands and to create new habitat (Donnelly et al. 2006). In a study on the Outer Banks of North Carolina, Smith et al. (2008) found that human "modifications to the barrier island, such as construction of barrier dune ridges, planting of stabilizing vegetation, and urban development, can curtail or even eliminate the natural, self-sustaining processes of overwash and inlet dynamics." They also found that such modifications led to island narrowing from both oceanside and bayside erosion. Lott et al. (2009b) found a strong negative correlation between ocean shoreline sand placement projects and the presence of piping and snowy plovers in the Panhandle and southwest Gulf Coast regions of Florida5. Sand placement projects threaten migration and wintering habitat of the piping plover in every state throughout the range (Rice 2012b, Table 7). At least 684.8 miles (32%) of sandy beach habitat in the continental wintering range of the piping plover have received artificial sand placement via dredge disposal activities, beach nourishment or restoration, dune restoration, emergency berms, inlet bypassing, inlet closure and relocation, and road reconstruction projects. In most areas, sand placement projects are in developed areas or adjacent to shoreline or inlet hard stabilization structures in order to address erosion, reduce storm damages, or ameliorate sediment deficits caused by inlet dredging and stabilization activities. The beaches along the mainland coast of Mississippi are the most modified by sand placement activities with at least 85% affected (Table 7). Of the oceanfront beaches, the Atlantic coast of Florida has had the highest proportion (at least 51°/o) of beaches modified by sand placement activities. Approximately 47% of Florida's sandy beach coastline has received sand placement 5 Lott (2009) noted that sand placement projects may directly degrade plover habitat, but they may also correlate with high human density, where disturbance is higher. 47 RECEIVED FEB 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY of some type, with many areas receiving fill multiple times from dredge disposal, emergency berms, beach nourishment, dune restoration and other modifications (Rice 2012b). Table 7. Approximate shoreline miles of sandy beach that have been modified by sand placement activities for each state in the U.S. continental wintering range of the piping plover as of December 2011. These totals are minimum numbers, given missing data for some areas (Rice 2012b; USFWS 2012). State Known Approximate Miles of Beach Receiving Sand Proportion of Modified Sandy Beach Shoreline North Carolina 91.3 28% South Carolina 67.6 37% Georgia 5.5 6% Florida Atlantic coast 189.7 51% Florida Gulf coast 189.9 43% Alabama 7.5 16% Mississippi barrier island coast 1.1 4% Mississippi mainland coast 43.5 85% Louisiana 60.4 28% Texas 28.3 8% TOTAL 684.8+ 32% In Louisiana, the sustainability of the coastal ecosystem is threatened by the inability of the barrier islands to maintain geomorphologic functionality. The state's coastal systems are starved for sediment sources (USACE 2010). Consequently, most of the planned sediment placement projects in Louisiana are conducted as environmental restoration projects by various federal and state agencies because without the sediment many areas would erode below sea level. Several Louisiana Coastal Wetland Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act projects have been constructed on portions of undeveloped islands within the Terrebonne Basin to restore and maintain the diverse functions of those barrier island habitats (USFWS 2010b). Altogether over 60 miles of sandy beaches have been modified with sand placement projects in Louisiana, both through restoration projects and in response to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill (Rice 2012b). Both the number and the size of sand projects along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts are increasing (Trembanis et al. 1998), and these projects are increasingly being chosen as a means to combat sea level rise and related beach erosion problems (Klein et al. 2001). Lott et al. (2009a) documented an increasing trend in sand placement events in Florida (Figure 6). In northwest Florida, the USFWS consulted on first-time sand placement projects along 46 miles of shoreline in 2007-2008. Much of this work was authorized on public lands (Gulf Islands National Seashore [USFWS 2007b], portions of St. Joseph State Park [USFWS 2007c], and at Eglin Air Force Base [USFWS 2008a]). Throughout the plover migration and wintering range, the number 48 WIECEIVED FEB 21 2017 +ACM- ]AHD CITY of sand placement events has increased every decade for which records are available, with at least 710 occurring between 1939 and 2007, and more than 75% occurring since 1980 (PSDS 2011). The cumulative volume of sand placed on East Coast beaches has risen exponentially since the 1920s (Trembanis et al. 1998). As a result, sand placement projects increasingly pose threats to plover habitat. As of 2011, at least 32% (— 685 miles) of the sandy beaches in the continental wintering range have had one or more sand placement projects. Figure 6. Number of sand placement events per decade in Florida between 1959-1999, and 2000-2006 (from Lott et al. 2009b). Loss of Macroinvertebrate Prey Base due to Shoreline Stabilization Wintering and migrating piping plovers depend on the availability and abundance of macroinvertebrates as an important food item. Studies of invertebrate communities have found that communities are richer (greater total abundance and biomass) on protected (bay or lagoon) intertidal shorelines than on exposed ocean beach shorelines (McLachlan 1990; Cohen et al. 2006; Defeo and McLachlan 2011). Polychaete worms tend to have a more diverse community and be more abundant in more protected shoreline environments, and mollusks and crustaceans such as amphipods thrive in more exposed shoreline environments (McLachlan and Brown 2006). Polychaete worms comprise the majority of the shorebird diet (Kalejta 1992; Mercier and McNeil 1994; Tsipoura and Burger 1999; Verkuil et al. 2006); and of the piping plover diet in particular (Hoopes 1993; Nicholls 1989; Zonick and Ryan 1996). The quality and quantity of the macroinvertebrate prey base is threatened by shoreline stabilization activities, including the approximately 685 miles of beaches that have received sand placement of various types. The addition of dredged sediment can temporarily affect the benthic 49 RECEIVED FEB 21 Z017 DCM- MHD CITY fauna of intertidal systems. Invertebrates may be crushed or buried during project construction. Although some benthic species can burrow through a thin layer of additional sediment (38-89 cm for different species), thicker layers (i.e., >1 meter) are likely to smother these sensitive benthic organisms (Greene 2002). Numerous studies of such effects indicate that the recovery of benthic fauna after beach nourishment or sediment placement projects can take anywhere from six months to two years, and possibly longer in extreme cases (Thrush et al. 1996; Peterson et al. 2000; Zajac and Whitlatch 2003; Bishop et al. 2006; Peterson et al. 2006). Invertebrate communities may also be affected by changes in the physical environment resulting from shoreline stabilization activities that alter the sediment composition or degree of exposure. For example, SCDNR (2011) found the decline in piping plovers to be strongly correlated with a decline in polychaete densities on the east end of Kiawah Island, South Carolina, following an inlet relocation project in 2006. Similar results were documented on Bird Key, South Carolina, in 2006 when rapid habitat changes occurred within the sheltered lagoon habitat following dredge disposal activities, and piping plovers shifted to more exposed areas. Their diet also appeared to have shifted to haustoriid amphipods, based on analysis of fecal samples containing pieces of Neohaustorius schmitzi, Lepidactylus dytiscus, and Acanthohaustorius sp., which were also found during the invertebrate sampling in both locations (SCDNR 2011). Shoreline armoring with hard stabilization structures such as seawalls and revetments can also alter the degree of exposure of the macroinvertebrate prey base by modifying the beach and intertidal geomorphology, or topography. Seawalls typically result in the narrowing and steepening of the beach and intertidal slope in front of the structure, eventually leading to complete loss of the dry and intertidal beach as sea level continues to rise (Pilkey and Wright 1988; Hall and Pilkey 1991; Dugan and Hubbard 2006; Defeo et al. 2009; Kim et al. 2011). Sand placement projects bury the natural beach with up to millions of cubic yards of new sediment, and grade the new beach and intertidal zone with heavy equipment to conform to a predetermined topographic profile. This can lead to compaction of the sediment (Nelson et al. 1987; USACE 2008; Defeo et al. 2009). If the material used in a sand placement project does not closely match the native material on the beach, the sediment incompatibility may result in modifications to the macroinvertebrate community structure, because several species are sensitive to grain size and composition (Rakocinski et al. 1996; Peterson et al. 2000; 2006; Peterson and Bishop 2005; Colosio et al. 2007; Defeo et al. 2009). Delayed recovery of the benthic prey base or changes in their communities due to physical habitat changes may affect the quality of piping plover foraging habitat. The duration of the impact can adversely affect piping plovers because of their high site fidelity. Although recovery of invertebrate communities has been documented in many studies, sampling designs have typically been inadequate and have only been able to detect large -magnitude changes (Schoeman et al. 2000; Peterson and Bishop 2005). Therefore, uncertainty persists about the impacts of various projects to invertebrate communities and how these impacts affect shorebirds, particularly the piping plover. Rice (2009) has identified several conservation measures that can avoid and minimize some of the known impacts. 50 Re(;e V ED FEB 2I ZM7 0cm- MHD CIT'Y Invasive Vegetation The spread of invasive plants into suitable wintering piping plover habitat is a relatively recently identified threat (USFWS 2009a). Such plants tend to reproduce and spread quickly and to exhibit dense growth habits, often outcompeting native plants. Uncontrolled invasive plants can shift habitat from open or sparsely vegetated sand to dense vegetation, resulting in the loss or degradation of piping plover roosting habitat, which is especially important during high tides and migration periods. The propensity of invasive species to spread, and their tenacity once established, make them a persistent threat that is only partially countered by increasing landowner awareness and willingness to undertake eradication activities. Many invasive species are either currently affecting or have the potential to affect coastal beaches and thus plover habitat. Beach vitex (Vitex rotundifolia) is a woody vine introduced into the southeastern U.S. as a dune stabilization and ornamental plant which has spread to coastal communities throughout the southeastern U.S. from Virginia to Florida, and west to Texas (Westbrooks and Madsen 2006). Hundreds of beach vitex occurrences and targeted eradication efforts in North and South Carolina and a small number of known locations in Georgia and Florida are discussed in the 5-Year Review (USFWS 2009a). Crowfootgrass (Dactyloctenium aegyptium), which grows invasively along portions of the Florida coastline, forms thick bunches or mats that can change the vegetative structure of coastal plant communities and thus alter shorebird habitat (USFWS 2009a; Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council 2009). Australian pine (Casuarina equisetifolia) affects piping plovers and other shorebirds by encroaching on foraging and roosting habitat (Stibolt 2011); it may also provide perches for avian predators. Japanese sedge (Carex kobomugi), which aggressively encroaches into sand beach habitats (USDA plant profile website), was documented in Currituck County, North Carolina, in the mid-1970s and as recently as 2003 on Currituck National Wildlife Refuge Q. Gramling pers. comm. 2011), at two sites where migrating piping plovers have also been documented. Defeo et al. (2009) cite biological invasions of both plants and animals as global threats to sandy beaches, with the potential to alter the food web, nutrient cycling and invertebrate assemblages. Although the extent of the threat is uncertain, this may be due to poor survey coverage more than an absence of invasions. Wrack Removal and Beach Cleaning Wrack on beaches and baysides provides important foraging and roosting habitat for piping plovers (Drake 1999a; Smith 2007; Maddock et al. 2009; Lott et al. 2009b) and for many other shorebirds. Because shorebird numbers are positively correlated both with wrack cover and the biomass of their invertebrate prey that feed on wrack (Tarr and Tarr 1987; Hubbard and Dugan 2003; Dugan et al. 2003), beach grooming has been shown to decrease bird numbers (Defeo et al. 2009). It is increasingly common for beach -front communities to carry out "beach cleaning" and "beach raking" activities. Beach cleaning is conducted on private beaches, where piping plover use is 51 RECEIVED FEB 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY not well documented, and on some municipal or county beaches used by piping plovers. Most wrack removal on state and federal lands is limited to post -storm cleanup and does not occur regularly. Wrack removal and beach raking both occur on the Gulf beach side of the developed portion of South Padre Island in the Lower Laguna Madre in Texas, where plovers have been documented during both the migratory and wintering periods (Zdravkovic and Durkin 2011). Wrack removal and other forms of beach cleaning have been the subject of formal consultations between the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, municipalities, and USFWS in Nueces County, Texas (USFWS 2008c, 2009c). Although beach cleaning and raking machines effectively remove human -made debris, these efforts also remove accumulated wrack, topographic depressions, emergent foredunes and hummocks, and sparse vegetation nodes used by roosting and foraging piping plovers (Nordstrom 2000; Dugan and Hubbard 2010). Removal of wrack also reduces or eliminates natural sand -trapping, further destabilizing the beach. Cathcart and Melby (2009) found that beach grooming and raking beaches "fluffs the sand" whereas heavy equipment compacts the sand below the top layer; the fluffed sand is then more vulnerable to erosion by storm water runoff and wind. These authors found that beach raking and grooming practices on mainland Mississippi beaches "exacerbate the erosion process and shorten the time interval between renourishment projects" (Cathcart and Melby 2009). Furthermore, the sand adhering to seaweed and trapped in the cracks and crevices of wrack also is lost to the beach when the wrack is removed. Although the amount of sand lost during a single sweeping activity may be small, over a period of years this loss could be significant (Neal et al. 2007). Tilling beaches to reduce soil compaction, which is sometimes required by the USFWS for sea turtle protection after beach nourishment activities, has similar impacts to those described above. In northwest Florida, tilling on public lands is currently conducted only if the land manager determines that it is necessary. Where tilling is needed, adverse effects are reduced by Florida USFWS sea turtle protection provisions that require tilling to be above the primary wrack line, rather than within it. As of 2009, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection's Beaches and Coastal Management Systems section had issued 117 permits allowing multiple entities to conduct beach raking or cleaning operations. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection estimated that 240 of 825 miles (29%) of sandy beach shoreline in Florida are cleaned or raked on vaned schedules, i.e., daily, weekly, monthly (L. Teich pers. comm. 2009). Beach cleaning along 45 miles of coastline in Nueces, Kleberg, and Cameron Counties in Texas was addressed in five USFWS biological opinions completed between 2008 and 2012 (Cobb pers. comm. 2012c). Dugan and Hubbard (2010), studying beach grooming activities on the beaches and dunes of southern California, concluded that "beach grooming has contributed to widespread conversion of coastal strand ecosystems to unvegetated sand" by removing wrack cover, increasing the transport of windblown sediment, lowering the seed bank and the survival and reproduction of native plants, and decreasing native plant abundance and richness. They argue that conserving beach ecosystems by reducing beach grooming and raking activities "could help retain sediment, 52 RECEIVED FEB 21w7 ®CM- MHD CITY promote the formation of dunes, and maintain biodiversity, wildlife, and human use in the face of rising sea level (Dugan and Hubbard 2010)." Accelerating sea level rise and other climate change impacts Accelerating sea level rise poses a threat to piping plovers during the migration and wintering portions of their life cycle. As noted in the previous section, threats from sea level rise are tightly intertwined with artificial coastal stabilization activities that modify and degrade habitat. If climate change increases the frequency or magnitude of extreme temperatures, piping plover survival rates may be affected. Other potential adverse and beneficial climate change -related effects (e.g., changes in the composition or availability of prey, emergence of new diseases, fewer periods of severe cold weather) are poorly understood, but cannot be discounted. Numerous studies have documented accelerating rise in sea levels worldwide (Rahmstorf et al. 2007; Douglas et al. 2001 as cited in Hopkinson et al. 2008; CCSP 2009; Pilkey and Young 2009; Vermeer and Rahmstorf 2009; Pilkey and Pilkey 2011). Predictions include a sea level rise of between 50 and 200 cm above 1990 levels by the year 2100 (Rahmstorf 2007; Pfeffer et al. 2008; Vermeer and Rahmstorf 2009; Grinsted et al. 2010; Jevrejeva et al. 2010) and potential conversion of as much as 33% of the world's coastal wetlands to open water by 2080 (IPCC 2007; CCSP 2008). Potential effects of sea level rise on piping plover roosting and foraging habitats may vary regionally due to subsidence or uplift, the geological character of the coast and nearshore, and the influence of management measures such as beach nourishment, jetties, groins, and seawalls (CCSP 2009; Galbraith et al. 2002; Gutierrez et al. 2011). Sea level rise along the U.S. Gulf Coast exceeded the global average by 13-15 cm because coastal lands there are subsiding (EPA 2009). The rate of sea level rise in Louisiana is particularly high (Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Task Force and the Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Authority 1998). Sediment compaction and oil and gas extraction compound tectonic subsidence along the Gulf of Mexico coastline (Penland and Ramsey 1990; Morton et al. 2003; Hopkinson et al. 2008). Low elevations and proximity to the coast make all nonbreeding piping plover foraging and roosting habitats vulnerable to the effects of rising sea level. Areas with small tidal ranges are the most vulnerable to loss of intertidal wetlands and flats (EPA 2009). Sea level rise was cited as a contributing factor in the 68% decline in tidal flats and algal mats in the Corpus Christi, Texas region (i.e., Lamar Peninsula to Encinal Peninsula) between the 1950s and 2004 (Tremblay et al. 2008). Mapping by Titus and Richman (2001) showed that more than 80% of the lowest land along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts was in Louisiana, Florida, Texas, and North Carolina. Gutierrez et al. (2011) found that along the Atlantic coast, the central and southern Florida coast is the most likely Atlantic portion of the wintering and migration range to experience moderate to severe erosion with sea level rise. Inundation of piping plover habitat by rising seas could lead to permanent loss of habitat, especially if those shorelines are armored with hardened structures (Brown and McLachlan 2002; Dugan and Hubbard 2006; Fish et al. 2008; Defeo et al. 2009). Overwash and sand migration are impeded on the developed portions of sandy ocean beaches (Smith et al. 2008) that comprise 53 RECEIVED FEB 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY 40% of the U.S. nonbreeding range (Rice 2012b). As the sea level rises, the ocean -facing beaches erode and attempt to migrate inland. Buildings and artificial sand dunes then prevent sand from washing back toward the lagoons (i.e., bayside), and the lagoon side becomes increasingly submerged during extreme high rides (Scavia et al. 2002). Barrier beach shorebird habitat and natural features that protect mainland developments are both diminished as a result. Modeling by Galbraith et al. (2002) for three sea level rise scenarios at five important U.S. shorebird staging and wintering sites predicted aggregate loss of 20-70% of current intertidal foraging habitat. The most severe losses were projected at sites where the coastline is unable to move inland due to steep topography or seawalls. Of five study sites, the model predicted the lowest loss of intertidal shorebird foraging habitat at Bolivar Flats, Texas (a designated piping plover critical habitat unit) by 2050 because the habitat at that site will be able to migrate inland in response to rising sea level. The potential for such barrier island migration with rising sea level is most likely in the 42% of plover's U.S. nonbreeding range that is currently preserved from development (Rice 2012b). Although habitat losses in some areas are likely to be offset by gains in other locations, Galbraith et al. (2002) noted that time lags between these losses and the creation of replacement habitat elsewhere may have serious adverse effects on shorebird populations. Furthermore, even if piping plovers are able to move their wintering locations in response to accelerated habitat changes, there could be adverse effects on the birds' survival rates or subsequent productivity. In summary, the magnitude of threats from sea level rise is closely linked to threats from shoreline development and artificial stabilization. These threats will be perpetuated in places where damaged structures are repaired or replaced, exacerbated where the height and strength of structures are increased, and increased at locations where development and coastal stabilization is expanded. Sites that are able to adapt to sea level rise are likely to become more important to piping plovers as habitat at developed or stabilized sites degrades. Weather events Storm Events Storms are an integral part of the natural processes that form coastal habitats used by migrating and wintering piping plovers, and positive effects of storm -induced overwash and vegetation removal have been noted in portions of the wintering range. For example, biologists reported piping plover use of newly created habitats at Gulf Islands National Seashore in Florida within six months of overwash events that occurred during the 2004 and 2005 hurricane seasons (M. Nicholas pers. comm. 2005). Hurricane Katrina created a new inlet and improved habitat conditions on some areas of Dauphin Island, Alabama, but subsequent localized storms contributed to habitat loss there (D. LeBlanc pers. comm. 2009) and the inlet was subsequently closed with a rock dike as part of Deepwater Horizon oil spill response efforts (Rice 2012a). Following Hurricane Ike in 2008, Arvin (2009) reported decreased numbers of piping plovers at some heavily eroded Texas beaches in the center of the storm impact area and increases in plover numbers at sites about 100 miles to the southwest. Piping plovers were observed later in the 54 FtscejV D FEB % I zM7 season using tidal lagoons and pools that Hurricane Ike created behind the eroded beaches (Arvin 2009). Adverse effects attributed to storms alone are sometimes actually due to a combination of storms and other environmental changes or human use patterns. For example, four hurricanes between 2002 and 2005 are often cited in reference to rapid erosion of the Chandeleur Islands, a chain of low-lying islands in Louisiana where the 1991 International Piping Plover Winter Census (Haig and Plissner 1992) tallied more than 350 birds. Comparison of imagery taken three years before and again several days after Hurricane Katrina found that the Chandeleur Islands had lost 82% of their combined surface area (Sallenger 2010). A review of aerial photographs taken before the 2006 Census suggested that little piping plover habitat remained (Elliott -Smith et al. 2009). However, Sallenger et al. (2009) noted that habitat changes in the Chandeleur Islands stem not only from the effects of these storms, but rather from the combined effects of the storms, and more than a thousand years of diminishing sand supply and sea level rise. Although the Chandeleur Islands marsh platform continued to erode for 22 months post -Katrina, some sand was released from the marsh sediments which in turn created beaches, spits, and welded swash bars that advanced the shoreline seaward. Despite the effects of intense erosion, the Chandeleur Islands are still providing high quality shorebird habitat in the form of sand flats, spits, and beaches used by substantial numbers of piping plovers (Catlin et al. 2011), a scenario that could continue if restoration efforts are sustainable and successful from a shorebird perspective (USACE 2010). Storm -induced adverse effects include post -storm acceleration of human activities such as beach nourishment, sand scraping, closure of new inlets, and berm and seawall construction. Such stabilization activities can result in the loss and degradation of feeding and resting habitats. Land managers sometimes face public pressure after big storm events to plant vegetation, install sandfences, and bulldoze artificial "dunes." For example, national wildlife refuge managers sometimes receive pressure from local communities to "restore" the beach and dunes following blow -outs from storm surges that create the overwash foraging habitat preferred by plovers (C. Hunter pers. comm. 2011). At least 64 inlets have been artificially closed, the vast majority of them shortly after opening in storm events? (see Table 6). Storms also can cause widespread deposition of debris along beaches. Subsequent removal of this debris often requires large machinery that in turn can cause extensive disturbance and adversely affect habitat elements such as wrack. Challenges associated with management of public use can grow when storms increase access (Gibson et. al. 2009; D. LeBlanc pers. comm. 2009). Some available information indicates that birds may be resilient, even during major storms, and move to unaffected areas without harm. Other reports suggest that birds may perish in or following storm events. Noel and Chandler (2005) suspected that changes in habitat caused by multiple hurricanes along the Georgia coastline altered the spatial distribution of piping plover and may have contributed to the winter mortality of three individuals. Wilkinson and Spinks 6 The State of Louisiana built a sand berm along the northern end of the Chandeleur Island chain during the Deepwater Horizon oil spill response effort, restoring a sand supply to seven miles of the chain and closing approximately 11 inlets (Rice 2012b). 7 See discussion of differences between naturally and artificially closed inlets, page 20. 55 RECEIVED FEB 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY (1994) suggested that low plover numbers in South Carolina in January 1990 could have been partially influenced by effects on habitat from Hurricane Hugo the previous fall, while Johnson and Baldassarre (1988) found a redistribution of piping plovers in Alabama following Hurricane Elena in 1985. Climate change studies indicate a trend toward increasing numbers and intensity of hurricane events (Emanuel 2005; Webster et al. 2005). Combined with the predicted effects of sea level rise, this trend indicates potential for increased cumulative impact of future storms on habitat. Major storms can create or enhance piping plover habitat while causing localized losses elsewhere in the wintering and migration range. Severe Cold Weather Several sources suggest the potential for adverse effects of severe winter cold on survival of piping plovers. The Atlantic Coast piping plover recovery plan mentioned high mortality of coastal birds and a drop from approximately 30-40 to 15 piping plovers following an intense 1989 snowstorm along the North Carolina coast (Fussell 1990). A preliminary analysis of survival rates for Great Lakes piping plovers found that the highest variability in survival occurred in spring and correlated positively with minimum daily temperature (weighted mean based on proportion of the population wintering near five weather stations) during the preceding winter (E. Roche pers. comm. 2010; 2012). Catlin (pers. comm. 2012b) reported that the average mass of ten piping plovers captured in Georgia during unusually cold weather in December 2010 was 5.7 grams (g) less than the average for nine birds captured in October of the same year (46.6 g and 52.4 g, respectively; p = 0.003). Disturbance from recreation activities Increasing human disturbance is a major threat to piping plovers in their coastal migration and wintering range (USFWS 2009a). Intense human disturbance in shorebird winter habitat can be functionally equivalent to habitat loss if the disturbance prevents birds from using an area (Goss - Custard et al. 1996). Nicholls and Baldassarre (1990a) found less people and off -road vehicles at sites where nonbreeding piping plovers were present than at sites without piping plovers. Pfister et al. (1992) implicate anthropogenic disturbance as a factor in the long-term decline of migrating shorebirds at staging areas. Disturbance can cause shorebirds to spend less time roosting or foraging and more time in alert postures or fleeing from the disturbances (Burger 1991; 1994; Elliott and Teas 1996; Lafferty 2001a, 2001b; Thomas et al. 2003). Shorebirds that are repeatedly flushed in response to disturbance expend energy on costly short flights (Nudds and Bryant 2000). Shorebirds are more likely to flush from the presence of dogs than people, and breeding and nonbreeding shorebirds react to dogs from farther distances than people (Lafferty 2001a, 2001b; Lord et al. 2001; Thomas et al. 2003). Hoopes (1993) found that dogs flush breeding piping plovers from further distances than people and that both the distance the plovers move and the duration of their response is greater. Foraging shorebirds at a migratory stopover on Delaware Bay, New Jersey responded most strongly to dogs compared with other disturbances; shorebirds 56 �ECE�VE� FEB 21 2011 cITY often failed to return within ten minutes after the dog left the beach (Burger et al. 2007). Dogs off -leash were disproportionate sources of disturbance in several studies (Thomas et al. 2003; Lafferty 2001b), but leashed dogs also disturbed shorebirds. Pedestrians walking with dogs often go through flocks of foraging and roosting shorebirds; some even encourage their dogs to chase birds. Off -road vehicles can disrupt piping plover's normal behavior patterns. The density of off -road vehicles negatively correlated with abundance of piping plovers on the ocean beach in Texas (Zonick 2000). Cohen et al. (2008) found that radio -tagged wintering piping plovers using ocean beach habitat at Oregon Inlet in North Carolina were far less likely to use the north side of the inlet where off -road vehicle use was allowed. Ninety-six percent of piping plover detections occurred on the south side of the inlet even though it was more than four times farther away from foraging sites, prompting a recommendation that controlled management experiments be conducted to determine if recreational disturbance drives roost site selection (Cohen et al. 2008). Zdravkovic and Durkin (2011) stated that Laguna Madre Gulf beaches are considered part of the Texas state highway system and are severely impacted by unrestricted public recreational off - road vehicle use. In a study of migrating shorebirds in Maryland, Forgues (2010) found that shorebird abundance declined with increased off -road vehicle frequency, as did the number and size of roosts. Migrants spent less time foraging in the presence of vehicles. In a before -after control -impact experiment, densities of three focal species were significantly reduced after a vehicle closure was lifted, while densities outside the closure zone exhibited little change; densities of two other species also decreased more in the area where the closure was removed, but the difference was not significant (Forgues 2010). In North Carolina, a before -after control -impact experiment using the undisturbed plots as the controls found that vehicle disturbance decreased abundance of shorebirds and altered their habitat use during fall migration (Tarr 2008). Recreational activities, especially off -road vehicles, may degrade piping plover habitat. Tires that crush wrack into the sand render it unavailable as a roosting habitat or foraging substrate (Goldin 1993; Hoopes 1993). At four study beaches in New York and Massachusetts, Kluft and Ginsberg (2009) found that abundance of invertebrates in pitfall trap samples and abundance of wrack was higher on vehicle -free beaches, although invertebrate abundance in wrack clumps and cores taken below them did not show consistent differences between areas open and closed to vehicles. Off -road vehicles significantly lessened densities of invertebrates on intertidal flats on the Cape Cod National Seashore in Massachusetts (Wheeler 1979). In eastern Australia, off -road vehicles use has been documented as a significant cause of invertebrate mortality on beaches (Schlacher et al. 2008a; 2008b). Results of Schlacher and Thompson (2012) in eastern Australia also suggest that channeling major pedestrian access points away from key shorebird habitat may enhance protection of their prey base. Various local and regional examples also illustrate threats from recreation. On a 12-kilometer stretch of Mustang Island in Texas, Foster et al. (2009) observed a 25% decline in piping plover abundance and a simultaneous five -fold increase in human use over a 29-year study period, 1979 — 2007. This trend was marginally significant, but declines in two other plover species were 57 RECEIVED FEB 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY significant; declining shorebird abundance was attributed to a combination of human disturbance and overall declines in shorebird populations (Foster et al. 2009). In South Carolina, almost half of sites with five or more piping plovers had ten or more people present during surveys conducted in 2007-2008 and more than 60% allow dogs (Maddock and Bimbi unpubl. data). Zdravkovic and Durkin (2011) noted disturbance to piping plovers in Texas from kite -boarding, windsurfing, and horseback riding. LeDee et al. (2010a) surveyed land managers of designated critical habitat sites across seven southern states and documented the extent of beach access and recreation. All but four of the 43 reporting sites owned or managed by federal, state, and local governmental agencies or by non- governmental organizations allowed public beach access year-round (88% of the sites). At the sites allowing public access, 62% of site managers reported more than 10,000 visitors during September -March, and 3 1 % reported more than 100,000 visitors in this period. However, more than 80% of the sites allowing public access did not allow vehicles on the beach and half did not allow dogs during the winter season. Oil spills and other contaminants Piping plovers may accumulate contaminants from point and non -point sources at migratory and wintering sites. Depending on the type and degree of contact, contaminants can have lethal and sub -lethal effects on birds, including behavioral impairment, deformities, and impaired reproduction (Rand and Petrocelli 1985; Gilbertson et al. 1991; Hoffman et al. 1996). Notwithstanding documented cases of lightly oiled piping plovers that have survived and successfully reproduced (Amirault-Langlais et al. 2007), contaminants have both the potential to cause direct toxicity to individual birds and to negatively impact their invertebrate prey base (Chapman 1984; Rattner and Ackerson 2008). Piping plovers' extensive use of the intertidal zone puts them in constant contact with coastal habitats likely to be contaminated by water -borne spills. Negative impacts can also occur during rehabilitation of oiled birds. Frink et al. (1996) describe how standard treatment protocols were modified to reflect the extreme susceptibility of piping plovers to handling and other stressors. Oil Spills Following the Ixtoc spill, which began on June 3, 1979 off the coast of Mexico, approximately 350 metric tons of oil accumulated on South Texas barrier beaches, resulting in a 79% decrease in the total number of infaunal organisms on contaminated portions of the beach (Kindinger 1981; Tunnell et al. 1982). Chapman (1984) collected pre- and post -spill data on the abundance, distribution, and habitat use of shorebirds on the beaches in the affected area and saw declines in the numbers of birds as well as shifts in the habitats used. Shorebirds avoided the intertidal area of the beach, occupying the backshore or moving to estuarine habitats when most of the beach was coated. Chapman surmised that the decline in infauna probably contributed to the observed shifts in habitats used. His observations indicated that all the shorebirds, including piping plovers, avoided the contaminated sediments and concentrated in oil -free areas. Amos, however, reported that piping plovers ranked second to sanderlings in the numbers of oiled birds he observed on the beach, although there was no recorded mortality of plovers due to oil (Amos 58 j:�ECENED FEB 21 ZW7 D M- MHD C►TY pers. comm. 2009; 2012). Oiled birds were seen for a year or more following the initial spill, likely due to continued washing in of sunken tar; but there were only occasional subsequent observations of oiled or tarred plovers (Amos pers. comm. 2009). According to government estimates, the 2010 Deepwater Horizon Mississippi Canyon Well #252 oil spill discharged more than 200 million gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico (U.S. Government 2010). Containment activities, recovery of oil -water mix, and controlled burning removed some oil, but additional impacts to natural resources may stem from the 1.84 million gallons of dispersant that were applied to the spill (U.S. Government 2010). At the end of July 2010, approximately 625 miles of Gulf of Mexico shoreline was oiled. This included approximately 360 miles in Louisiana, 105 miles in Mississippi, 66 miles in Alabama, and 94 miles in Florida (U.S. Government 2010). These numbers do not address cumulative impacts or include shoreline that was cleaned earlier. The U.S. Coast Guard, the states, and responsible parties that form the Unified Command (with advice from federal and state natural resource agencies) initiated protective measures and clean-up efforts as provided in contingency plans for each state's coastline. The contingency plans identified sensitive habitats, including all ESA - listed species' habitats, which received a higher priority for response actions. Efforts to prevent shoreline oiling and cleanup response activities can disturb piping plovers and their habitat. Although most piping plovers were on their breeding grounds in May, June, and early July when the Deepwater well was discharging oil, oil was still washing onto Gulf beaches when the plovers began arriving back on the Gulf in mid -July. Ninety percent of piping plovers detected during the prior four years of surveys in Louisiana were in the Deepwater Horizon oil spill impact zone, and Louisiana's Department of Wildlife and Fisheries reported significant disturbance to birds and their habitat from response activities. Wrack lines were removed, and sand washing equipment "cleansed" beaches (M. Seymour pers. comm. 2011). Potential long- term adverse effects stem from the construction of sand berms and closing of at least 32 inlets (Rice 2012a). hnplementation of prescribed best management practices reduced, but did not negate, disturbance to plovers (and to other beach -dependent wildlife) from cleanup personnel, all -terrain vehicles, helicopters, and other equipment. USFWS and state biologists present during cleanup operations provided information about breeding, migrating, and wintering birds and their habitat protection needs. However, high staff turnover during the extended spill response period necessitated continuous education and training of clean up personnel (M. Bimbi pers. comm. 2011). Limited clean-up operations were still on -going throughout the spill area in November 2012 (H. Herod pers. comm. 2012). Results of a natural resources damage assessment study to assess injury to piping plovers (Fraser et al. 2010) are not yet available. More subtle but cumulatively damaging sources of oil and other contaminants are leaking vessels located offshore or within the bays on the Atlantic and Gulf coasts, offshore oil rigs and undersea pipelines in the Gulf of Mexico, pipelines buried under the bay bottoms, and onshore facilities such as petroleum refineries and petrochemical plants. In Louisiana, about 2,500-3,000 oil spills are reported in the Gulf region each year, ranging in size from very small to thousands of barrels (L. Carver pers. comm. 2011). Chronic spills of oil from rigs and pipelines and natural seeps in the Gulf of Mexico generally involve small quantifies of oil. The oil from these smaller leaks and seeps, if they occur far enough from land, will tend to wash ashore as tar balls. In cases such 59 RECEIVED FEB 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY as this, the impact is limited to discrete areas of the beach, whereas oil slicks from larger spills coat longer stretches of the shoreline (K. Rice pers. comm. 2009). In late July and early August 2009, for example, oil suspected to have originated from an offshore oil rig in Mexican waters was observed on plumage or legs of 14 piping plovers in south Texas (Cobb pers. comm. 2012b). Pesticides and Other Contaminants A piping plover was found among dead shorebirds discovered on a sandbar near Marco Island, Florida following the county's aerial application of the organophosphate pesticide Fenthion for mosquito control in 1997 (Pittman 2001; Williams 2001). Subsequent to further investigations of bird mortalities associated with pesticide applications and to a lawsuit being filed against the Environmental Protection Agency in 2002, the manufacturer withdrew Fenthion from the market, and Environmental Protection Agency banned all use after November 30, 2004 (American Bird Conservancy 2007). Absent identification of contaminated substrates or observation of direct mortality of shorebirds on a site used by migrating and wintering piping plovers, detection of contaminants threats is most likely to occur through analysis of unhatched eggs. Contaminants in eggs can originate from any point in the bird's annual cycle, and considerable effort may be required to ascertain where in the annual cycle exposure occurred (see, for example, Dickerson et al. 2011 characterizing contaminant exposure of mountain plovers). There has been limited opportunistic testing of piping plover eggs. Polychlorinated biphenol (PCB) concentrations in several composites of Great Lakes piping plover eggs tested in the 1990s had potential to cause reproductive harm. Analysis of prey available to piping plovers at representative Michigan breeding sites indicated that breeding areas along the upper Great Lakes region were not likely the major source of contaminants to this population (D. Best pers. comm. 1999 in USFWS 2003a). Relatively high levels of PCB, dichloro diphenyl dichloroethylene (DDE), and polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE) were detected in one of two clutches of Ontario piping plover eggs analyzed in 2009 (V. Cavalieri pers. comm. 2011). Results of opportunistic egg analyses to date from Atlantic Coast piping plovers did not warrant follow-up investigation (Mierzykowski 2009; 2010; 2012; S. Mierzykowski pers. comm. 2012). No recent testing has been conducted for contaminants in the Northern Great Plains piping plover population. Energy development Land -based Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Various oil and gas exploration and development activities occur along the Gulf Coast. Examples of conservation measures prescribed to avoid adverse effects on piping plovers and their habitats include conditions on driving on beaches and tidal flats, restrictions on discharging fresh water across unvegetated tidal flats, timing exploration activities during times when the plovers are not present, and use of directional drilling from adjacent upland areas (USFWS 2008d; B. Firmin pers. comm. 2012). With the implementation of appropriate conditions, threats to nonbreeding piping plovers from land -based oil and gas extraction are currently very low. 60 RECEIVED FEB 21 2017 Wind Turbines Wind turbines are a potential future threat to piping plovers in their coastal migration and wintering ranges. Relatively small single turbines have been constructed along the beachfront in at least a few locations (M. Caldwell pers. comm. 2012). Current risk to piping plovers from several wind farms located on the mainland north and west of several bays in southern Texas is deemed low during months of winter residency because the birds are not believed to traverse these areas in their daily movements (D. Newstead pers. comm. 2012a). To date, no piping plovers have been reported from post -construction carcass detection surveys at these sites (P. Clements pers. comm. 2012). However, Newstead (pers. comm. 2012a) has raised questions about collision risk during migration departure, as large numbers of piping plovers have been observed in areas of the Laguna Madre east of the wind farms during the late winter. Furthermore, there is concern that, as sea level rises, the intertidal zone (and potential piping plover activity) may move closer to these sites. Several off -shore wind farm proposals in South Carolina are in various stages of early scoping (Caldwell pers. comm. 2012). In addition to uncertainty regarding the location and design (e.g., number and height of turbines) of future wind turbines, the magnitude of potential threats is difficult to assess without better information about piping plover movements and behaviors. For wind projects situated on barrier beaches, bay shorelines, or within bays, relevant information includes the flight routes of piping plovers moving among foraging and roosting sites, flight altitude, and avoidance rates under varying weather and light conditions. For off -shore wind projects, piping plover migration routes and altitude, as well as avoidance rates will be key determinants of threats. Predation The extent of predation on migrating or wintering piping plovers remains largely unknown and is difficult to document. Avian and mammalian predators are common throughout the species' wintering range. Human activities affect the types, numbers, and activity patterns of some predators, thereby exacerbating natural predation on breeding piping plovers (USFWS 1996). One incident involving a cat observed stalking piping plovers was reported in Texas (NY Times 2007). It has been estimated that free -roaming cats kill over one billion birds every year in the U.S., representing one of the largest single sources of human -influenced mortality for small native wildlife (Sax and Gaines 2008). Predatory birds, including peregrine falcons, merlin, and harriers, are present in the nonbreeding range. Newstead (pers. comm. 2012b) reported two cases of suspected avian depredation of piping plovers in a Texas telemetry study, but he also noted that red tide may have compromised the health of these plovers. It has been noted, however, that the behavioral response of crouching when in the presence of avian predators may minimize avian predation on piping plovers (Monier and McNeil 1991; Drake 1999a; Drake et al. 2001). Drake (1999a) theorized 8 Piping plovers are under consideration for inclusion in a habitat conservation plan addressing wind energy development that overlaps the piping plover's interior migration routes (USFWS 201 lb). 61 RECEIVED FEB 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY that this piping plover behavior enhances concealment associated with roosting in depressions and debris in Texas. Nonbreeding piping plovers may reap some collateral benefits from predator management conducted for the primary benefit of other species. Florida Keys Refuges National Wildlife Refuge (USFWS 2011a), for example, released a draft integrated predator management plan that targets predators, including cats, for the benefit of native fauna and flora. Other predator control programs are ongoing in North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, and Texas beach ecosystems (USFWS 2009a). Although the extent of predation to nonbreeding piping plovers is unknown, it remains a potential threat. At this time, however, the USFWS considers predator control and related research on wintering and migration grounds to be a low priority9 . Military operations Five of the eleven coastal military bases located in the U.S. continental range of nonbreeding piping plovers have consulted with the USFWS about potential effects of military activities on plovers and their habitat (USFWS 2009a; USFWS 2010b). Formal consultation under section 7 of the ESA with Camp Lejeune, North Carolina in 2002 provided for year-round piping plover surveys, but restrictions on activities on Onslow Beach only pertain to the plover breeding season (J. Hammond, USFWS, pers. comm. 2012). Informal consultations with three Florida bases (Naval Station Mayport, Eglin Air Force Base, Tyndall Air Force Base) addressed training activities that included beach exercises and occasional use of motorized equipment on beaches and bayside habitats. Eglin Air Force Base conducts twice -monthly surveys for piping plovers, and habitats consistently used by piping plovers are posted with avoidance requirements to minimize direct disturbance from troop activities. Operations at Tyndall Air Force Base and Naval Station Mayport were determined to occur outside optimal piping plover habitats. A 2001 consultation with the Navy for one-time training operations on Peveto Beach in Louisiana concluded informally (USFWS 2010b). Current threats to wintering and migrating piping plovers posed by military activities appear minimal. Disease No instances of disease have been documented in piping plovers outside the breeding range. In the southeastern U.S., the cause of death of one piping plover received from Texas was emaciation (C. Acker pers. comm. 2009). Newstead (pers. comet. 2012b) reported circumstantial evidence that red tide weakened piping plovers in the vicinity of the Laguna Madre and Padre Island, Texas during the fall of 2011. Samples collected in Florida from two live piping plovers in 2006 both tested negative for avian influenza (M. Hines pers. comm. 2009). The 2009 5-Year Review concluded that West Nile virus and avian influenza remain minor threats to piping plovers on their wintering and migration grounds. 9 However, the threat of predation should be distinguished from the threat of disturbance to roosting and feeding piping plovers posed by dogs off leash. 62 RECEIVED FEB 21 ZOV DCM- MHD CITY Threats along the North Carolina Coast Over the past decade or two, development of the North Carolina coast has accelerated. Of the 20 currently open inlets, 16 are modified by man in some manner (Rice 2016). All 16 are dredged, and 7 have hardened structures (Table 8). Brown's Inlet, Bear Inlet, New Old Drum Inlet, and Ophelia Inlet are the only four that have not had some type of habitat modification. Table 8. Open tidal inlets from north to south along the North Carolina coast in 2015 with actual (X) and proposed (P) habitat modification(s) at each. Note that an X in the Jetties column indicates one jetty is present and a D indicates two (dual) jetties. Table from Rice (2016). Type of Habitat Modification d Order Inlet .on _ PO �7 � F � d U Vi L L Qa i♦t A U� iYi U 1 Ore on Inletl X X X 2 Hatteras Inlet X 3 Ocracoke Inlet X 4 New Old Drum Inlet 5 O hetia Inlet 6 Barden Inlet X X X 7 Beaufort Inlet X X X 8 Bo ue Inlet X X X X 9 Bear Inlet 10 Brown's Inlet 11 New River Inlet X X X X 12 New Topsail Inlet X X 13 Rich Inlet P X P X 14 Mason Inlet X X X X 15 Masonboro Inlet X D X X X 16 Carolina Beach Inlet X X X 17 Cape Fear River X X 18 Lockwoods Folly Inlet P X 19 Shallotte Inlet P X X 20 Tubbs Inlet X X X X 1 — The NCDOT mined—33,000 cy of sediment from within Oregon Inlet to fill a scour hole adjacent to the Herbert C. Bonner Bridge across the inlet in December 2013, which had destabilized the bridge and led to its emergency closure. 63 (RECEIVED FEB 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY Inlets associated with ports and other high -traffic areas typically have maintenance dredging conducted annually, if not more often. At four shallow -draft inlets (Bogue, Topsail, Carolina Beach, and Lockwoods Folly) the Corps has typically dredged the inlet on a quarterly basis, and maintained inlet crossings and connecting channels every 1-2 years (NCDENR, 2015). Local governments have received authorization to also conduct maintenance dredging of these inlets on the same general schedule, with beach disposal during the winter work window. Inlets that are mined for Coastal Storm Damage Reduction (CSDR) projects (conducted by the Corps or local governments) are typically dredged on three-year intervals, with placement of the sand on the adjacent shoreline. Dredging may remove intertidal shoals and unvegetated sandy habitat on inlet shoulders. Table 9 lists biological opinions since 2014 within the Raleigh Field Office geographic area that have been issued for adverse impacts to piping plovers. The BOs include those for beach renourishment, sandbag revetments, and terminal groin construction, all of which are included in the Environmental Baseline for this BO. Table 9. Biological opinions issued since 2014 within the Raleigh Field Office geographic area, for adverse impacts to piping plovers PIPING PLOVER HABITAT OPINIONS Critical Habitat Habitat 12,600 If Fiscal Year 2014: 1 BO n/a (2.4 mi) Approx. 33.49 acres, 70,268 If Fiscal Year 2015: 5 BOs 2,2001f (13.3 mi) 9,6961f 229,937 If Fiscal Year 2016: 8 BOs (1.83 mi) (43.54 mi) 11,896 If (2.25 mi) 312,805 If Total: 14 BOs approx. 33.49 acres (61.04 mi) Summary and synthesis of threats A review of threats to piping plovers and their habitat in their migration and wintering range shows a continuing loss and degradation of habitat due to sand placement projects, inlet stabilization, sand mining, groins, seawalls and revetments, dredging of canal subdivisions, invasive vegetation, and wrack removal. This cumulative habitat loss is, by itself, of major threat to piping plovers, as well as the many other shorebird species competing with them for 64 RECENED FEB 21 Z517 DCM- MHD C1TY foraging resources and roosting habitats in their nonbreeding range. However, artificial shoreline stabilization also impedes the processes by which coastal habitats adapt to storms and accelerating sea level rise, thus setting the stage for compounding future losses. Furthermore, inadequate management of increasing numbers of beach recreationists reduces the functional suitability of coastal migration and wintering habitat and increases pressure on piping plovers and other shorebirds depending upon a shrinking habitat base. Experience during the Deepwater Horizon oil spill illustrates how, in addition to the direct threat of contamination, spill response activities can result in short- and long-term effects on habitat and disturb piping plovers and other shorebirds. If climate change increases the frequency and magnitude of severe weather events, this may pose an additional threat. The best available information indicates that other threats are currently low, but vigilance is warranted, especially in light of the potential to exacerbate or compound effects of very significant threats from habitat loss and degradation and from increasing human disturbance. 2.2. Environmental Baseline North Carolina barrier beaches are part of a complex and dynamic coastal system that continually respond to inlets, tides, waves, erosion and deposition, longshore sediment transport, and depletion, fluctuations in sea level, and weather events. The location and shape of the coastline perpetually adjusts to these physical forces. Winds move sediment across the dry beach forming dunes and the island interior landscape. The natural communities contain plants and animals that are subject to shoreline erosion and deposition, salt spray, wind, drought conditions, and sandy soils. Vegetative communities include foredunes, primary and secondary dunes, interdunal swales, sand pine scrub, and maritime forests. During storm events, overwash across the barrier islands is common, depositing sediments on the bayside, clearing vegetation and increasing the amount of open, sandflat habitat ideal for shoreline dependent shorebirds. However, the protection or persistence of these important natural land forms, processes, and wildlife resources is often in conflict with long-term beach stabilization projects and their indirect effects, i.e., increases in residential development, infrastructure, and public recreational uses, and preclusion of overwash which limits the creation of open sand flats preferred by piping plovers. 2.2.1. Status of the species within the Action Area In North Carolina, piping plovers may be observed during every month of the year. Nesting pairs are most likely to be seen on Cape Hatteras and Cape Lookout National Seashores (Seashores), where up to 97% of North Carolina's breeding individuals and breeding pairs have been recorded each year. One breeding pair nested at Rich Inlet on the north end of Figure Eight Island in 2014, 2015, and 2016. One chick fledged in the summer of 2016. The nests on Figure Eight Island are not only the southernmost piping plover nests in recent years, but also the only North Carolina nests outside of the Seashores. Recent data from the NCWRC database (www.ncpaws.org, accessed November 9, 2016) for breeding surveys in the Action Area indicated no breeding pairs on Ocean Isle Beach in the years 65 RECEIVED FEB 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY 2011 to 2014, and two pairs on Holden Beach in 2014. However, various surveys in the database (ncpaws.org) indicate as many as 17 piping plovers from 2011 to 2015 on Holden Beach and Ocean Isle Beach during various times of the year. Data included in the Biological Assessment (BA) indicates that piping plovers have been recorded on Ocean Isle Beach and Holden Beach during every month of the year, with the most observations in March and July (Table 10), which may reflect migration of individuals through the area. 66 RECENED F E-H 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY VVED FEB 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY According to the BA, low numbers of piping plover breeding pairs were often observed at Ocean Isle Beach and Holden Beach during the 1990s, but only one pair has been observed in the Action Area since 1998 (Table 11). The reason for the decline is not clear. It is important to note that none of the breeding pairs are documented as successfully nesting or fledging chicks. July observations could actually be observations of migrating individuals rather than breeding individuals, but it is difficult to tell from the data provided. Table 11. Number of piping plover breeding pairs at Ocean Isle Beach and Holden Beach from 1987 to 2012. NR = Not reported (no data was reported for 2010 in the BA). Number of breeding pairs Year May June July 1987 1 1988 0 1989 1990 2 2 1991 2 1992 4 1993 4 1994 1 1995 1 1996 0 1997 1 1 1998 2 2 1999 0 0 2000 0 0 2001 0 0 0 2002 0 2003 0 0 2004 0 2005 0 2006 0 0 0 2007 0 1 2008 0 0 0 2009 2010 NR NR NR 2011 2012 Monthly Totals 2 5 17 iaECEIVED FE8 21 2017 DCtA_ MHD CITY 2.2.2. Factors affecting the species environment within the Action Area A wide range of recent and on -going activities have altered the proposed Action Area and others are proposed along the coastline for the near future. Table 12 lists the most recent projects in the Action Area, within the past 5 years. Table 12. Actions that have occurred in the Shallotte Inlet, Holden Beach, and Ocean Isle Beach area in the last five years. Year Species Impacted Project Type Anticipated Take 2016 Piping plover and red Extension of sandbag 468 If of oceanfront, inlet, and estuarine knot revetment shoreline on Tubbs Inlet. Regularly, most Loggerhead, green, USACE Coastal Up to 16,850 If of oceanfront shoreline recently in 2014, Kemp's ridley, Storm Damage and an unknown amount of inlet 2010, and 2001 hawksbill, and Reduction (CSDR) habitats. Re -nourishment actions in leatherback sea turtle, Project: Dredging of 2010 and 2014 were closer to 11,000 If piping plover, red knot, AIW W Inlet crossing of shoreline. seabeach amaranth and Shallotte Inlet, and associated beach disposal Date unknown, Loggerhead, green, Extension of sandbag 4001f of shoreline. Extension added to original installation Kemp's ridley, revetment on east end existing 1,400 if sandbag revetment. in 2005 hawksbill, and of Ocean Isle Beach leatherback sea turtle, piping plover, red knot, seabeach amaranth Various dates, Loggerhead, green, USACE sand Up to 2,8001f of shoreline. unknown Kemp's ridley, placement on east end hawksbill, and of Ocean Isle Beach leatherback sea turtle, piping plover, red knot, seabeach amaranth 2014 Loggerhead, green, Beach Approximately 1,2001fofbeach leatherback, hawksbill, bulldozing/scraping shoreline and Kemp's ridley sea turtle, piping plover, red knot, seabeach amaranth Regularly, Loggerhead, green, USACE dredging of Varying amounts - Potential to dredge unknown dates and leatherback, hawksbill, Shallotte Inlet and/or habitats above MLW on along Shallotte intervals and Kemp's ridley sea the AIW W, with Inlet on Holden Beach and Ocean Isle turtle, piping plover, disposal on adjacent Beach red knot, seabeach beach. amaranth M. RECEIVED FEB 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY Beach nourishment: The beaches of Ocean Isle Beach are regularly nourished with sand from the Corps. Nourishment activities widen beaches, change their sedimentology and stratigraphy, alter coastal processes and often plug dune gaps and remove overwash areas. Inlet dredging activities alter the sediment dynamics on adjacent shorelines and stabilize these dynamic environments; beach disposal of dredge material further alters the natural habitat adjacent to inlets. Estuarine dredging of navigational channels can alter water circulation patterns and sediment transport pathways, as well as increase the frequency and magnitude of boat wakes; sound -side sand or mud flats may be impacted by increased erosion rates as a result. Historically, there have been Federal navigation projects in the AIWW and in Shallotte Inlet for decades. In an unknown number of dredging events, the sediment has often been placed on the adjacent beach using pipelines. In addition, the Town of Ocean Isle has recently received authorization from the Corps to conduct dredging of Shallotte Inlet and the AIW W in the same manner as the Corps, and to place the sand on the beach. Beach scrapinr can artificially steepen beaches, stabilize dune scarps, plug dune gaps, and redistribute sediment distribution patterns. Artificial dune building, often a product of beach scraping, removes low-lying overwash areas and dune gaps. As chronic erosion catches up to structures throughout the Action Area, artificial dune systems are constructed and maintained to protect beachfront structures either by sand fencing or fill placement. Beach scraping or bulldozing has become more frequent on North Carolina beaches in the past 20 years, in response to storms and the continuing retreat of the shoreline with rising sea level. These activities primarily occur during the winter months. Artificial dune or berm systems have been constructed and maintained in several areas. These dunes make the artificial dune ridge function like a seawall that blocks natural beach retreat, evolution, and overwash. In 2014, the Town of Ocean Isle conducted beach scraping along approximately 1,2001f of beach shoreline. Beach raking and rock pickine: Man-made beach cleaning and raking machines effectively remove seaweed, fish, glass, syringes, plastic, cans, cigarettes, shells, stone, wood, and virtually any unwanted debris (Barber Beach Cleaning Equipment 2009). These efforts may remove accumulated wrack, topographic depressions, and sparse vegetation nodes used by roosting and foraging piping plovers. Removal of wrack also eliminates a beach's natural sand -trapping abilities, further destabilizing the beach. In addition, sand adhering to seaweed and trapped in the cracks and crevices of wrack is removed from the beach. Although the amount of sand lost due to single sweeping actions may be small, it adds up considerably over a period of years (Nordstrom et al. 2006; Neal et al. 2007). Beach cleaning or grooming can result in abnormally broad unvegetated zones that are inhospitable to dune formation or plant colonization, thereby enhancing the likelihood of erosion (Defreo et al. 2009). Pedestrian Use of the Beach: There are a number of potential sources of pedestrians and pets on Ocean Isle Beach, including those individuals originating from beachfront, public access points, and nearby hotels, resorts, and residences. 70 ►RECEIVED FEB 21 ZOV DCM- MHD CITY Shoreline stabilization: Sandbags on private properties provide stabilization to the shoreline of North Carolina Beaches. Sandbags and sandbag revetments have been placed along at least 1,8001f of the eastern shoreline on Ocean Isle Beach, and the Tubbs Inlet shoreline on Ocean Isle Beach is completely lined with a sandbag revetment. In 2014/2015, a sandbag revetment was constructed on over 1,8001f of shoreline at the north end of Topsail Island. The intertidal areas and sand flats along the inlet were used as a sand source. The inlet shoreline downdrift of the sandbag revetment has eroded significantly since installation. A rock revetment was constructed several years ago in Carolina Beach (approximately 2,050 If). In addition, the Town of Ocean Isle Beach has requested authorization for construction of a single, 1,0501f terminal groin (3001f landward, and 7501f waterward of mean high water or MHW) on the east end of the island, placement of a concurrent 3,2141f sand fillet, and the periodic placement of sand in the fillet from either scheduled federal disposal events and/or from locally -sponsored beach nourishment and disposal projects. The project is not yet constructed. 2.3. Effects of the Action This section is an analysis of the beneficial, direct and indirect effects of the proposed action on migrating and wintering piping plovers within the Action Area. The analysis includes effects interrelated with and interdependent of the project activities. An interrelated activity is an activity that is part of a proposed action and depends on the proposed activity. An interdependent activity is an activity that has no independent utility apart from the action. 2.3.1. Factors to be considered The proposed project will occur within habitat for migrating, wintering, and breeding piping plovers and construction will occur during a portion of the migration, winter, and breeding seasons. Long-term and permanent impacts could preclude the creation of new habitat and increase recreational disturbance. Short-term and temporary impacts to piping plovers could result from project work disturbing roosting plovers and degrading currently occupied adjacent foraging areas. Proximity of the action: Placement of dredged material on up to 27,650 If of beach would occur within and adjacent to foraging, roosting, and breeding habitats for migrating, wintering, or breeding piping plovers. Dredging of the channel may remove emergent sand bars or other habitats above MLLW, and may remove or degrade piping plover critical habitat in unit NC-17. Distribution: Project construction activities that may impact migrating, wintering, or breeding piping plovers would occur along the shoreline of Ocean Isle Beach, the inlet shoulders of Ocean Isle Beach and Holden Beach, and within Shallotte Inlet. 71 RECEIVED FEB 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY Timinr: The timing of project construction could directly and indirectly impact migrating, wintering, and/or breeding piping plovers. Piping plovers may be present year-round in the Action Area. Nature of the effect: The effects of the project construction include a long-term reduction in foraging, roosting, and nesting habitat, a long-term decreased rate of change that may preclude habitat creation. A decrease in the survival of piping plovers on the migration and winter grounds due to the lack of optimal habitat may contribute to decreased survival rates, decreased productivity on the breeding grounds, and increased vulnerability to the three populations. The Service expects the action will result in direct and indirect, long-term effects to piping plovers. The Service expects there may be morphological changes to adjacent piping plover habitat, including roosting, foraging, and nesting habitat. Activities that affect or alter the use of optimal habitat or increase disturbance to the species may decrease the survival and recovery potential of the piping plover. Duration: This is a recurring event, expected to last up to five and a half months each time. Thus, the direct effects would be expected to be short-term in duration. Indirect effects from the activity may continue to impact migrating, wintering, and breeding piping plovers in subsequent seasons after dredged material placement. Disturbance frequencti: Disturbance from each event will be short term, lasting up to two years. However, sand placement activities may take place several times over the life of the project. Recreational disturbance may increase after project completion and have long-term impacts. Disturbance intensity and severity: Project construction is anticipated to be conducted during portions of the piping plover migration, winter, and breeding seasons. Conservation measures have been incorporated into the project to minimize impacts. The Action Area encompasses an area in the nesting and wintering range of the piping plover. Plovers located within the Action Area are expected to move outside of the construction zone due to disturbance; therefore, no plovers are expected to be directly taken as a result of this action. 2.3.2. Analyses for effects of the action Beneficial effects: For some highly eroded beaches, sand placement will have a beneficial effect on the habitat's ability to support wintering and nesting piping plovers. Narrow beaches that do not support a productive wrack line may see an improvement in foraging habitat available to piping plovers following sand placement. Direct effects: Direct effects are those direct or immediate effects of a project on the species or its habitat. The construction window will extend through the piping plover migration and winter season and into the beginning of the breeding season. Since piping plovers can be present on these beaches year-round, construction is likely to occur while this species is utilizing these 72 RECEIVED FEB 21 M7 DCM- MHD CITE` beaches and associated habitats. Heavy machinery and equipment (e.g., dredges, trucks and bulldozers operating in Action Area) may adversely affect piping plovers in the Action Area by disturbance and disruption of normal activities such as roosting and foraging, and possibly forcing birds to expend valuable energy reserves to seek available habitat elsewhere. Burial and suffocation of invertebrate species will occur during the sand placement, and will affect up to 27,650 If of shoreline. Dredging of the channel may require removal of emergent shoals near or attached to Holden Beach or Ocean Isle Beach that may have formed over time. In this case, the dredging activities will result in a complete take of that habitat and destruction or degradation of the critical habitat unit in which the habitat is removed. However, this take could be either temporary or more permanent in nature depending upon the location of future shoaling within the inlet. The rest of the respective critical habitat unit should remain functional to serve the intended conservation role for the piping plover. Indirect effects: The proposed project includes placement of dredged material as a protective element against shoreline erosion to protect man-made infrastructure. Indirect effects include reducing the potential for the formation of optimal habitats. The proposed project may limit the creation of optimal foraging and roosting habitat, and may increase the attractiveness of these beaches for recreation increasing recreational pressures within the Action Area. Recreational activities that potentially adversely affect plovers include disturbance by unleashed pets and increased pedestrian use. 2.3.3. Species' response to the proposed action The Service anticipates potential adverse effects throughout the Action Area by limiting proximity to roosting, foraging, and nesting habitat and degrading occupied foraging habitat, and increasing disturbance from increased recreational use. Piping plovers have been documented foraging and roosting within the project area. Elliott and Teas (1996) found a significant difference in actions between piping plovers encountering pedestrians and those not encountering pedestrians. Piping plovers encountering pedestrians spend proportionately more time in non -foraging behavior. This study suggests that interactions with pedestrians on beaches cause birds to shift their activities from calorie acquisition to calorie expenditure. In winter and migration sites, human disturbance continues to decrease the amount of undisturbed habitat and appears to limit local piping plover abundance (Zonick and Ryan 1996). Disturbance also reduces the time migrating shorebirds spend foraging (Burger 1991). Pfister et al. (1992) implicate disturbance as a factor in the long-term decline of migrating shorebirds at staging areas. While piping plover migration patterns and needs remain poorly understood and occupancy of a particular habitat may involve shorter periods relative to wintering, information 73 RECEIVED FEB 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY about the energetics of avian migration indicates that this might be a particularly critical time in the species' life cycle. Because of high migrating and wintering site fidelity by piping plovers from all three populations, and territoriality that often prevents movement of individuals to other optimal habitats, it is expected that individual birds that have chosen the Action Area for migrating and overwintering sites will continue to use the area despite the loss or degradation of habitat, and will experience higher mortality rates as a result. 2.4. Cumulative Effects This project occurs on non-federal lands. Cumulative effects include the effects of fixture State, tribal, local, or private actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the Action Area considered in this biological opinion. Future Federal actions that are unrelated to the proposed action are not considered in this section, because they require separate consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Act. It is reasonable to expect continued shoreline stabilization, inlet dredging, and beach renourishment projects in this area in the future since erosion and sea -level rise increases would impact the existing beachfront development. However, with the exception of some shoreline stabilization projects, most of the future actions that are reasonable certain to occur will require a Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 permit, and thus will require separate consultation. 2.5 Conclusion After reviewing the current status of the wintering piping plover populations from all three breeding populations, the environmental baseline for the Action Area, the effects of the proposed activities, the proposed Conservation Measures, and the cumulative effects, it is the Service's biological opinion that implementation of these actions, as proposed, is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the three breeding populations of piping plover. • Construction will occur and/or will likely have an effect on 27,650 If of shoreline. • Piping plovers have been documented in the Action Area. • Short-term and temporary impacts to piping plover activities could result from project work occurring on the beach that flushes birds from roosting or foraging habitat. • Long-term impacts could include a hindrance in the ability of migrating or wintering piping plovers to recuperate from their migratory flight from their breeding grounds, survive on their wintering areas, or to build fat reserves in preparation for migration. • The survival and recovery of all breeding populations of piping plovers are fundamentally dependent on the continued availability of sufficient habitat in their coastal migration and wintering range. • All piping plover populations are inherently vulnerable to even small declines in their most sensitive vital rates, i.e., survival of adults and fledged juveniles. 74 RECEIVED F E'3 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY 3. Piping Plover Wintering Critical Habitat 3.1. Status of the Critical Habitat The Act defines critical habitat as the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the provisions of section 4 of the Act, on which are found those physical or biological features (1) essential to the conservation of the species and (2) which may require special management considerations or protection, as well as specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed in accordance with the provisions of section 4 of the Act, upon a determination by the Secretary that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species (16 U.S.C. 1532(5)(A)). This section summarizes the effects of all past human and natural activities or events that have led to the current status of designated critical habitat for the piping plover and are relevant to formulating the biological opinion about the proposed action. 3.1.1. Critical Habitat Description and Status In 2001, critical habitat was designated for the breeding population in the Great Lakes region (USFWS 2001 a), while a separate rule determined critical habitat for the U.S. portion of the Northern Great Plains breeding population in 2002 (USFWS 2002). No critical habitat has been proposed or designated for the Atlantic Coast breeding population, but the needs of all three breeding populations were considered in the 2001 critical habitat designation for wintering piping plovers (USFWS 2001b) and in subsequent re -designations (USFWS 2008b; 2009c). Critical habitat for wintering piping plovers currently comprises 141 units totaling 256,513 acres along the coasts of North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas. The original designation included 142 areas (the rule erroneously states 137 units) encompassing approximately 1,798 miles of mapped shoreline and 165,211 acres of mapped areas (USFWS 2001b). A revised designation for four North Carolina units was published in 2008 (USFWS 2008b). Eighteen revised Texas critical habitat units were designated in 2009, replacing 19 units that were vacated and remanded by a 2006 court order (USFWS 2009b). Designated areas include habitats that support roosting, foraging, and sheltering activities of piping plovers. Critical Habitat Physical and Biological Features (PBFs) In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) and 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA and regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, in determining which areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing to designate as critical habitat, the Service considers the physical or biological features (PBFs) that are essential to the conservation of the species and which may require special management considerations or protection. 75 RECEIVED FEB 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY These include, but are not limited to: (1) Space for individual and population growth and for normal behavior; (2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological requirements; (3) Cover or shelter; (4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing (or development) of offspring; and (5) Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are representative of the historical, geographic, and ecological distributions of a species. The term "primary constituent elements" was introduced in the critical habitat designation regulations (50 CFR 424.12) to describe aspects of the PBFs, which are referenced in the statutory definition of critical habitat; the Services have proposed to remove the term "primary constituent elements" and return to the statutory term "physical or biological features" for future listings of critical habitat. See 79 FR 27066, May 12, 2014 and 81 FR 7214. Critical Habitat Primary Constituent Elements The PCEs essential for the conservation of wintering piping plovers are those habitat components that support foraging, roosting, and sheltering and the physical features necessary for maintaining the natural processes that support these habitat components. The PCEs include intertidal beaches and flats (between annual low tide and annual high tide) and associated dune systems and flats above annual high tide. Important components of intertidal flats include sand and/or mud flats with no or very sparse emergent vegetation. In some cases, these flats may be covered or partially covered by a mat of blue-green algae. Adjacent non -or sparsely -vegetated sand, mud, or algal flats above high tide are also important, especially for roosting piping plovers, and are PCEs of piping plover wintering habitat. Such sites may have debris, detritus (decaying organic matter), or micro -topographic relief (less than 50 cm above substrate surface) offering refuge from high winds and cold weather. Important components of the beach/dune ecosystem include surf -cast algae, sparsely vegetated backbeach and saltems (beach area above mean high tide seaward of the permanent dune line, or in cases where no dunes exist, seaward of a delineating feature such as a vegetation line, structure, or road), spits, and washover areas. Washover areas are broad, unvegetated zones, with little or no topographic relief, that are formed and maintained by the action of hurricanes, storm surge, or other extreme wave action. The units designated as critical habitat are those areas that have consistent use by piping plovers and that best meet the biological needs of the species. The amount of wintering habitat included in the designation appears sufficient to support future recovered populations, and the existence of this habitat is essential to the conservation of the species. Additional information on each specific unit included in the designation can be found at 66 FR 36038 (USFWS 2001a). Critical habitat does not include existing developed sites consisting of buildings, marinas, paved areas, boat ramps, exposed oil and gas pipelines and similar structures. Only those areas containing these PCEs within the designated boundaries are considered critical habitat. 76 �EcENED H 21 Z017 ocw1� MH[) CITY Although 141 units totaling 256,513 acres along the coasts of North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas have been designated, not all units are equally important depending on the presence, juxtaposition, and acreage of the PCEs and not all units are equally important to the three breeding populations. Piping plovers from the three breeding populations are not evenly distributed throughout their nonbreeding range (Gratto- Trevor et al. 2012). Distribution of Breeding Populations within Designated Critical Habitat in the Non - breeding Range Gratto-Trevor et al. (2012) emphasizes the significance of geographic differences between wintering locations for the three piping plover populations. Plovers from eastern Canada and most Great Lakes individuals wintered from North Carolina to Southwest Florida. However, eastern Canada birds were more heavily concentrated in North Carolina, while a larger proportion of Great Lakes piping plovers were found in South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida. Very few individuals from the Great Lakes breeding population were observed in winter on the Gulf Coast, west of Florida. Using information provided on inlets in Rice (2012a), the Service determined that there are 151 inlets in the non -breeding range of the Great Lakes piping plover population (including inlets from North Carolina to the Florida Gulf of Mexico shoreline). Based on Rice (2012a), 19% of the inlets in piping plover critical habitat in this region have been modified by dredging/mining, shoreline hardening, or relocation. Of these modified inlets, approximately 34% are within piping plover critical habitat. In North Carolina, 16 of the 20 (75%) existing inlets are modified in some manner, most often by dredging (Table 8, page 62) (Rice 2016). This is higher than any other state in the non -breeding range of the Great Lakes piping plover population (Rice 2012a). 3.1.2. Analysis of the Critical Habitat Likely to be Affected There are many man-made activities that degrade or remove PCEs of piping plover wintering critical habitat. Beach nourishment At least 684 of 2,340 coastal shoreline mi (32% of beaches throughout the piping plover winter and migration range in the U.S.) are bermed, nourished, or renourished, generally for recreational purposes and to protect commercial and private infrastructure. The quantity and quality of piping plover prey may also be affected by the placement of sediment for beach nourishment or disposal of dredged material. Invertebrates may be crushed or buried during project construction. Although some benthic species can burrow through a thin layer of additional sediment, thicker layers (over 35 in (90 cm)) smother the benthic fauna (Greene 2002). By means of this vertical burrowing, recolonization from adjacent areas, or both, the benthic faunal communities typically recover. Recovery can take as little as 2 weeks or as long as 2 years, but usually averages 2 to 7 77 RECEIVED FEB 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY months (Greene 2002; Peterson and Manning 2001). Only a few percent of these impacts have occurred within critical habitat mainly because nourishment is most often conducted adjacent to infrastructure along the beachfront, rather than on the ends of islands near inlets. Sand mining/dredging Sand mining, the practice of extracting (dredging) sand from sand bars, shoals, and inlets in the nearshore zone, is a less expensive source of sand than obtaining sand from offshore shoals for beach nourishment. Sand bars and shoals are sand sources that move onshore over time and act as natural breakwaters. Inlet dredging reduces the formation of exposed ebb and flood tidal shoals considered to be primary or optimal piping plover roosting and foraging habitat. Removing these sand sources can alter depth contours and change wave refraction as well as cause localized erosion (Hayes and Michel 2008). Exposed shoals and sandbars are also valuable to piping plovers, as they tend to receive less human recreational use (because they are only accessible by boat) and therefore provide relatively less disturbed habitats for birds. Most jettied inlets need maintenance dredging, but non -hardened inlets are often dredged as well. According to Rice (2012; 2016), approximately 44% of the inlets in the non -breeding range have been dredged or mined. Shoreline Stabilization Many navigable mainland or barrier island tidal inlets along the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts are stabilized with jetties, groins, or by seawalls and/or adjacent industrial or residential development. This includes seawalls or adjacent development, which lock the inlets in place. Rice (2012a) created database of the inlets within the migration and wintering range of the piping plover, including identification of existing hard structures or other habitat modifications. Several studies highlight concerns about adverse effects of development and coastline stabilization on the quantity and quality of habitat for migrating and wintering piping plovers and other shorebirds. For example, Zdravkovic and Durkin (2011) observed fewer plovers on the developed portions of the Laguna and Gulf beach sides of South Padre Island than on undeveloped portions during both migratory and wintering surveys. Drake et al. (2001) observed that radio -tagged piping plovers overwintering along the southern Laguna Madre of Texas seldom used tidal flats adjacent to developed areas (five of 1,371 relocations of radio -marked individuals), suggesting that development and associated anthropogenic disturbances influence piping plover habitat use. Groins (structures made of concrete, rip rap, wood, or metal built perpendicular to the beach in order to trap sand) are typically found on developed beaches with severe erosion. Although groins can be individual structures, they are often clustered along the shoreline. Groins can act as barriers to longshore sand transport and cause downdrift erosion (Hayes and Michel 2008), resulting in the loss of habitat and preventing future piping plover habitat creation by limiting sediment deposition and accretion. As sand fills the area updrift from the groin or jetty, some in ,mCEIVED Fy 21 209 DCM- MHD CITY littoral drift and sand deposition on adjacent downdrift beaches may occur due to spillover. However, these groins and jetties often force the stream of sand into deeper offshore water where it is lost from the system (Kaufman and Pilkey 1979). The loss of sand from the inlet system can be exacerbated by inlet dredging and disposal outside of the inlet. Groins deflect longshore currents offshore. This aggravates downdrift erosion and erosion escarpments are common on the downdrift side of groins (Humiston and Moore 2001). Rice (2016) found that several inlets along the Atlantic Coast have hard stabilization structures such as jetties or groins along the entire inlet shoreline that have eliminated all sandy beach habitat from the inlet shoulders. Terminal groins along adjacent developed areas can alter erosion and accretion patterns and diminish the magnitude of the inlet cycle. As an example, the stabilization and dredging of Shinnecock Inlet on Long Island's South Shore in New York has directly negatively affected the inlet's ebb shoal equilibrium since construction in 1940. Buonaiuto et al. (2008) found that these impacts will persist for nearly 150 years and possibly longer. As of 2008, the ebb shoal had only reached approximately 60% of its estimated equilibrium volume and it is expected to take another 75 years to reach full equilibrium. If the ebb shoal is mined or dredged, the time for recovery will increase. Seawalls and revetments are vertical hard structures built parallel to the beach in front of buildings, roads, and other facilities to protect them from erosion. However, these structures often accelerate erosion by causing scouring in front of and downdrift from the structure (Hayes and Michel 2008), which can eliminate intertidal foraging habitat and adjacent roosting habitat. Seawalls confine the wave energy and intensify the erosion by concentrating the sediment transport processes in an increasingly narrow zone. Eventually, the beach disappears, leaving the seawall directly exposed to the full force of the waves (Williams et al 1995). Physical characteristics that determine microhabitats and biological communities can be altered after installation of a seawall or revetment, thereby depleting or changing composition of benthic communities that serve as the prey base for piping plovers. Geotubes (long cylindrical bags made of high -strength permeable fabric and filled with sand) and sandbag revetments are softer alternatives, but act as barriers by preventing overwash. We did not find any sources that summarize the linear extent of seawall, revetment, and geotube installation projects that have occurred across the piping plover's wintering and migration habitat. Inlet Relocation Tidal inlet relocation can cause loss and/or degradation of piping plover habitat; although less permanent than construction of hard structures, effects can persist for years. Service biologists are aware of at least seven inlet relocation projects (two in North Carolina, three in South Carolina, two in Florida), but this number likely under -represents the extent of this activity. The Mason Inlet Preservation Group (MIPG) has Corps authorization to conduct the Mason Inlet Relocation Project (MIRP) at the south end of Figure Eight Island. The inlet relocation project is conducted every 2-3 years, and may temporarily impact piping plover habitat, causing birds to 79 RECEIVED FEB 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY select other sites (USFWS 2006a). Ongoing stabilization and growth of vegetation the north end of Wrightsville Beach due to the MIRP has led to a decline in the amount of suitable unvegetated intertidal habitat available in the Mason Inlet area. The acreage of unvegetated intertidal flats has significantly decreased, in part due to the lack of vegetation management in the Waterbird Management Area on North Wrightsville Beach. Approximately 50-60 acres of unvegetated intertidal flats was available within critical habitat unit NC-12 in 1998, prior to the project's initial construction (GoogleEarth©, accessed January 29, 2015). At that time, almost all available habitat was on the south end of Figure Eight Island. In October 2014, the approximate acreage of unvegetated intertidal flats in the same area was 22 to 28 acres (estimated from Google Earth, accessed on January 29, 2015). This represents a degradation of about half of the previously available intertidal flat habitat within piping plover critical habitat unit NC-12. Exotic/invasive vegetation The spread of coastal invasive plants is a threat to suitable piping plover habitat. Like most invasive species, coastal exotic plants reproduce and spread quickly and exhibit dense growth habits, often outcompeting native plant species. If left uncontrolled, invasive plants cause a habitat shift from open or sparsely vegetated sand to dense vegetation, resulting in the loss or degradation of piping plover roosting habitat, which is especially important during high tides and migration periods. Beach vitex (Vitex rotundifolia) is a woody vine introduced into the southeastern U.S. as a dune stabilization and ornamental plant (Westbrooks and Madsen 2006). It currently occupies a very small percentage of its potential range in the U.S. The species has been found on beaches in all eight coastal counties in North Carolina and three counties in South Carolina. Small populations have been found in Maryland, Virginia, Georgia, Florida and Alabama. Task forces formed in North and South Carolina in 2004-2005 have made great strides to remove this plant from their coasts. To date, over 800 sites in North Carolina have been treated, with an additional 100 sites in need of treatment. Similar efforts are underway in South Carolina and several hundred sites have been treated there (Suiter pers. comm. 2015). Unquantified amounts of crowfootgrass (Dactyloctenium aegyptium) grow invasively along portions of the Florida coastline. It forms thick bunches or mats that may change the vegetative structure of coastal plant communities and alter shorebird habitat. The Australian pine (Casuarina equisetifolia) changes the vegetative structure of the coastal community in south Florida and islands within the Bahamas. Shorebirds prefer foraging in open areas where they are able to see potential predators, and tall trees provide good perches for avian predators. Australian pines potentially impact shorebirds, including the piping plover, by reducing attractiveness of foraging habitat and/or increasing avian predation. The propensity of these exotic species to spread, and their tenacity once established, make them a persistent threat, partially countered by increasing landowner awareness and willingness to undertake eradication activities. so ; -EiVED F H 212017 D�C1v7- MHO CIT The Australian pine (Casuarina equisetifolia) changes the vegetative structure of the coastal community in south Florida and islands within the Bahamas. Shorebirds prefer foraging in open areas where they are able to see potential predators, and tall trees provide good perches for avian predators. Australian pines potentially impact shorebirds, including the piping plover, by reducing attractiveness of foraging habitat and/or increasing avian predation. The propensity of these exotic species to spread, and their tenacity once established, make them a persistent threat, partially countered by increasing landowner awareness and willingness to undertake eradication activities. Wrack removal and beach cleaning or rock picking Wrack on beaches and baysides provides important foraging and roosting habitat for piping plovers (Drake 1999a; Smith 2007; Maddock et al. 2009; Lott et al. 2009b) and many other shorebirds on their winter, breeding, and migration grounds. Because shorebird numbers are positively correlated with wrack cover and biomass of their invertebrate prey that feed on wrack (Tarr and Tarr 1987; Hubbard and Dugan 2003; Dugan et al. 2003), grooming will lower bird numbers (Defreo et al. 2009). There is increasing popularity in the Southeast, especially in Florida, for beach communities to cant' out "beach cleaning" and "beach raking" actions. Beach cleaning occurs on private beaches, where piping plover use is not well documented, and on some municipal or county beaches that are used by piping plovers. Most wrack removal on state and federal lands is limited to post -storm cleanup and does not occur regularly. Man-made beach cleaning and raking machines effectively remove seaweed, fish, glass, syringes, plastic, cans, cigarettes, shells, stone, wood, and virtually any unwanted debris (Barber and Sons 2012). However, these efforts also remove accumulated wrack, topographic depressions, and sparse vegetation nodes used by roosting and foraging piping plovers. Removal of wrack also eliminates a beach's natural sand -trapping abilities, further destabilizing the beach. In addition, sand adhering to seaweed and trapped in the cracks and crevices of wrack is removed from the beach. Although the amount of sand lost due to single sweeping actions may be small, it adds up considerably over a period of years (Nordstrom et al. 2006; Neal et al. 2007). Beach cleaning or grooming can result in abnormally broad unvegetated zones that are inhospitable to dune formation or plant colonization, thereby enhancing the likelihood of erosion (Defreo et al. 2009). The Town of Carolina Beach rakes the beach front in Freeman Park at least twice per year, including areas in piping plover critical habitat unit NC-14. 3.2. Environmental Baseline 3.2.1. Status of the Critical Habitat within the Action Area The PCEs for piping plover critical habitat include intertidal beaches and flats, particularly those with no or very sparse emergent vegetation. Adjacent non -or sparsely -vegetated sand, mud, or algal flats above high tide are also important, especially for roosting. Important components of E31 RECEIVED FEB 2 1 2017 DCM- MHD CITY the beach/dune ecosystem include surf -cast algae, sparsely vegetated backbench and saltems (beach area above mean high tide seaward of the permanent dune line, or in cases where no dunes exist, seaward of a delineating feature such as a vegetation line, structure, or road), spits, and washover areas. General locations of the designated critical habitat for the Wintering Piping Plover. C'dumbur Co N NC - Bean,*kCpl� NC e� oceanw ypat Ucca Cawp; Sc �Sume�xs 'Little Rivv • „. ShaWas Sound .41 �srd ids" ldtae River tide \ Hoelda SC-2 C-1 island n VRaa-(aNO Ids Reach Hold. death latawoad Oak Fully Inlet Island ' NC-17 NC-16 shdlotte Ink( Atlantic Ocean General Area Distance: Miles - �v ' ) o s to Legend a'v v�y __ p City/Town rn n< ' N N Major Road / Flighwa) sG t Land GA �� .,...... A - Critical Habitat Use Coaatrdats: This map is intended to be used r>e a guide to identify the general areas where Wintering Piping Plover critical habitat has bmn designated. Included within the designation of critical habitat are all land areas to the mean lower low water. Refer to the narrative unit descriptions as the prcclse lewd definition of critical habitat. Figure 7. Nonbreeding piping plover designated critical habitat units NC-16 through SC-2. 82 RECEIVE-0 FEB 81 20'.7 DCM- MHD Cr a'1 3.2.2. Factors Affecting Critical Habitat within the Action Area Beach nourishment: The beaches of Ocean Isle Beach are regularly nourished with sand from the Corps. Nourishment activities widen beaches, change their sedimentology and stratigraphy, alter coastal processes and often plug dune gaps and remove overwash areas. Beach nourishment or disposal of dredged material typically crushes or buries invertebrate prey during project construction, suppressing prey populations for months. Although some benthic species can burrow through a thin layer of additional sediment, thicker layers (over 35 in (90 cm)) smother the benthic fauna (Greene 2002). Recovery can take as long as 2 years, but usually averages 2 to 7 months (Greene 2002; Peterson and Manning 2001). Inlet dredging activities: Dredging of Shallotte Inlet has been conducted on a regular basis. Beach scraniniz or bulldozing: Beach scraping or bulldozing has been frequent on North Carolina beaches. Beach scraping disturbs the benthic invertebrate community, and may decrease the availability of suitable prey for piping plovers. In 2014, the Town of Ocean Isle conducted beach scraping along approximately 1,2001f of beach shoreline. Sandbags and revetments: There are two existing rock revetments along the coast of North Carolina: one at Fort Fisher (approximately 3,040 If), and another along Carolina Beach (approximately 2,050 If). Sandbags and sandbag revetments have been placed along at least 1,8001f of the eastern shoreline on Ocean Isle Beach, and the Tubbs Inlet shoreline on Ocean Isle Beach is completely lined with a sandbag revetment. A sandbag revetment at least 1,8001f long (with a geotube in front of a portion) was constructed in 2015 at the north end of North Topsail Beach, and more sandbags were recently added to protect a parking lot north of the revetment. In 2000 and 2001, sandbag revetments were installed on the north end of Figure Eight Island along Surf Court, Inlet Hook Road, and Comber Road. Groins: In North Carolina, there are three currently existing terminal groins, along Oregon Inlet, at Fort Macon along Beaufort Inlet in Carteret County, and on Bald Head Island in New Hanover County. The terminal groin on Bald Head Island was installed only two years ago, but the other two (Oregon Inlet and Fort Macon) were installed decades ago, and downdrift erosion has been severe at both, requiring frequent nourishment (Pietrafesa 2012; Riggs et al 2009). The Oregon Inlet and Fort Macon Groins are located on the updrift side of the island, but accretion in these areas is not significant due to scour. At Oregon Inlet, there is no sandy habitat on the inlet shoulder updrift of the groin and revetment, and there has not been for decades. There are two degraded groin/jetty structures in Dare County, adjacent to the old location of the Cape Hatteras lighthouse. The Service has issued BOs for the authorization of two other terminal groins (Towns of Ocean Isle Beach and Holden Beach), and these projects are considered in the environmental baseline for the Ocean Isle Beach 30-year beach plan. Also, in 2015, the North Carolina legislature revised state regulations to allow additional terminal groins to be constructed 31 RECEIVED FEB 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY at New River Inlet and Bogue Inlet. However, it is unclear whether the local governments in the vicinity of these two inlets will propose the construction of a terminal groin. Recreational Use: On Ocean Isle Beach, there are a number of potential sources of pedestrians and pets, including those individuals originating from beachfront and nearby residences. 3.3. Effects of the Action This section is an analysis of the beneficial, direct and indirect effects of the proposed action on piping plover wintering critical habitat within the Action Area. Direct effects are caused by the Action and occur at the same time and place. Indirect effects are caused by the Action, but are later in time and reasonably certain to occur. The analysis includes effects interrelated and interdependent of the project activities. 3.3.1. Factors to be considered The proposed project will occur adjacent to and potentially within piping plover critical habitat unit NC-17, during a portion of the migration and winter seasons. Short-term and temporary impacts could result from project work degrading currently occupied foraging areas in the critical habitat unit. The direct effects would be expected to be short-term in duration, until the benthic community reestablishes within the new beach profile. 3.3.2. Analyses for effects of the action Beneficial effects: Dredging sand from the inlet adjacent to and potentially within piping plover wintering critical habitat is not expected to provide any beneficial effects to critical habitat. Direct effects: Direct effects are those direct or immediate effects of a project on the species or its habitat. The construction window (i.e., beach renourishment and groin installation) will extend through one or more piping plover migration and winter seasons. Since piping plovers can be present on these beaches year-round, construction is likely to occur while this species is utilizing these beaches and associated habitats. Maintenance dredging of inlets can occasionally require the removal of emergent shoals that may have formed at the location of the Federally - authorized channel from the migration of the channel over time. In these cases, the dredging activities would result in a complete take of that habitat. However, this take could be either temporary or more permanent in nature depending upon the location of future shoaling within the inlet. Indirect effects: Removing sand from the inlet and placing it in another location often changes the inlet dynamics. hndirect effects include reducing the potential for the formation of PCEs and foraging and roosting habitat, and increasing the attractiveness of these beaches for recreation, thereby increasing recreational pressures within the Action Area. sa !RECEIVED FEB 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITE' Interrelated and Interdependent Actions: An interrelated activity is an activity that is part of the proposed action and depends on the proposed action for its justification. An interdependent activity is an activity that has no independent utility apart from the action under consultation. The Service has addressed all interrelated and interdependent actions in the analysis of effects above. Therefore, there are no interdependent or interrelated actions associated with the proposed action that have not already been analyzed under the effects of the action, that are expected to affect wintering piping plover critical habitat. 3.4. Cumulative Effects This project occurs on non-federal lands. Cumulative effects include the effects of future State, tribal, local, or private actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the Action Area considered in this biological opinion. Future Federal actions that are unrelated to the proposed action are not considered in this section, because they require separate consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Act. It is reasonable to expect continued shoreline stabilization, inlet dredging, and beach renourishment projects in this area in the future since erosion and sea -level rise increases would impact the existing beachfront development. However, with the exception of some shoreline stabilization projects, most of the future actions that are reasonable certain to occur will require a Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 permit, and thus will require separate consultation. 3.5. Conclusion After reviewing the current status of piping plover wintering critical habitat, the environmental baseline for the Action Area, the effects of the proposed activities, the proposed Conservation Measures, and the cumulative effects, it is the Service's biological opinion that the project is not likely to destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat for wintering piping plovers. • An unknown acreage of critical habitat included in the PCEs may be lost or degraded due to dredging or changes in inlet dynamics. • Approximately 19% of the inlets within critical habitat in the Great Lakes piping plover non -breeding range have been modified. • Of all inlets modified in the piping plover non -breeding range, 34% is within a critical habitat unit. • 40% of North Carolina's 20 inlets are currently modified with hard shoreline stabilization structures (groins, jetties, or revetments) (Rice 2016), and if the two proposed groins at Lockwoods Folly Inlet and Shallotte Inlet are built, the percentage will increase to 50%, resulting in fewer and fewer optimal habitats for migrating and wintering piping plovers. • The modification of PCEs/PBFs in the action area will not cause an appreciable reduction in the conservation value provided by all designated CH for the species. 85 RECEIVED FEB 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY 4. RED KNOT 4.1. Status of the Species/Critical Habitat 4.1.1. Species/critical habitat description On December 11, 2014, the Service listed the rufa red knot (Calidris canutus rufa) (or red knot) as threatened throughout its range (79 FR 73706). The red knot is a medium-sized shorebird about 9 to 11 inches (in) (23 to 28 centimeters (cm)) in length. The red knot migrates annually between its breeding grounds in the Canadian Arctic and several wintering regions, including the Southeast U.S. (Southeast), the Northeast Gulf of Mexico, northern Brazil, and Tierra del Fuego at the southern tip of South America. During both the northbound (spring) and southbound (fall) migrations, red knots use key staging and stopover areas to rest and feed. Red knots migrate through and overwinter in North Carolina. The term "winter" is used to refer to the nonbreeding period of the red knot life cycle when the birds are not undertaking migratory movements. Red knots are most common in North Carolina during the migration season (mid -April through May and July to Mid -October), and may be present in the state throughout the year (Fussell 1994; Potter et al. 1980). Wintering areas for the red knot include the Atlantic coasts of Argentina and Chile, the north coast of Brazil, the Northwest Gulf of Mexico from the Mexican State of Tamaulipas through Texas to Louisiana, and the Southeast U.S. from Florida to North Carolina (Newstead et al. 2013; Niles et al. 2008). Smaller numbers of knots winter in the Caribbean, and along the central Gulf coast, the mid -Atlantic, and the Northeast U.S. Little information exists on where juvenile red knots spend the winter months (USFWS and Conserve Wildlife Foundation 2012), and there may be at least partial segregation of juvenile and adult red knots on the wintering grounds. There is currently no designation of critical habitat for red knot. 4.1.2. Life history Each year red knots make one of the longest distance migrations known in the animal kingdom, traveling up to 19,000 miles (mi) (30,000 kilometers (km) annually between breeding grounds in the Arctic Circle and wintering grounds. Red knots undertake long flights that may span thousands of miles without stopping. As they prepare to depart on long migratory flights, they undergo several physiological changes. Before takeoff, the birds accumulate and store large amounts of fat to fuel migration and undergo substantial changes in metabolic rates. In addition, leg muscles, gizzard (a muscular organ used for grinding food), stomach, intestines, and liver all decrease in size, while pectoral (chest) muscles and heart increase in size. Due to these physiological changes, red knots arriving from lengthy migrations are not able to feed maximally until their digestive systems regenerate, a process that may take several days. Because stopovers arc time -constrained, red knots require stopovers rich in easily -digested food to achieve adequate weight gain (Niles et al. 2008; van Gils et al. 2005a; van Gils et al. 2005b; Piersma et al. 1999) that fuels the next migratory flight and, upon arrival in the Arctic, fuels a body transformation to breeding condition (Morrison 2006). Red knots from different wintering areas appear to employ 86 RECEIVED FEB 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY different migration strategies, including differences in timing, routes, and stopover areas. However, full segregation of migration strategies, routes, or stopover areas does not occur among red knots from different wintering areas (USFWS 2013a; USFWS 2013b). Major spring stopover areas along the Mid- and South Atlantic coast include Rio Gallegos, Peninsula Valdes, and San Antonio Oeste (Patagonia, Argentina); Lagoa do Peixe (eastern Brazil, State of Rio Grande do Sul); Maranhao (northern Brazil); the Virginia barrier islands (U.S.); and Delaware Bay (Delaware and New Jersey, U.S.) (Cohen et al. 2009; Niles et al. 2008; Gonzalez 2005). Important fall stopover sites include southwest Hudson Bay (including the Nelson River delta), James Bay, the north shore of the St. Lawrence River, the Mingan Archipelago, and the Bay of Fundy in Canada; the coasts of Massachusetts and New Jersey and the mouth of the Altamaha River in Georgia, U.S.; the Caribbean (especially Puerto Rico and the Lesser Antilles); and the northern coast of South America from Brazil to Guyana (Newstead et al. 2013; Niles 2012; Niles et al. 2010; Schneider and Winn 2010; Niles et al. 2008; Antas and Nascimento 1996; Morrison and Harrington 1992; Spaans 1978). However, large and small groups of red knots, sometimes numbering in the thousands, may occur in suitable habitats all along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts from Argentina to Canada during migration (Niles et al. 2008; USFWS 2013a; USFWS 2013b). Some red knots wintering in the Southeastern U.S. and the Caribbean migrate north along the U.S. Atlantic coast before flying overland to central Canada from the mid -Atlantic, while others migrate overland directly to the Arctic from the Southeastern U.S. coast (Niles et al. 2012). These eastern red knots typically make a short stop at James Bay in Canada, but may also stop briefly along the Great Lakes, perhaps in response to weather conditions (Niles et al. 2008; Morrison and Harrington 1992). Red knots are restricted to the ocean coasts during winter, and occur primarily along the coasts during migration. However, small numbers of rufa red knots are reported annually across the interior U.S. (i.e., greater than 25 miles from the Gulf or Atlantic Coasts) during spring and fall migration —these reported sightings are concentrated along the Great Lakes, but multiple reports have been made from nearly every interior State (eBird.org 2012; USFWS 2013a). Long-distance migrant shorebirds are highly dependent on the continued existence of quality habitat at a few key staging areas. These areas serve as stepping stones between wintering and breeding areas. Conditions or factors influencing shorebird populations on staging areas control much of the remainder of the annual cycle and survival of the birds (Skagen 2006; International Wader Study Group 2003). At some stages of migration, very high proportions of entire populations may use a single migration staging site to prepare for long flights. Red knots show some fidelity to particular migration staging areas between years (Duerr et al. 2011; Harrington 2001). Habitats used by red knots in migration and wintering areas are similar in character, generally coastal marine and estuarine (partially enclosed tidal area where fresh and salt water mixes) 87 RECEIVED FEB 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY habitats with large areas of exposed intertidal sediments. In North America, red knots are commonly found along sandy, gravel, or cobble beaches, tidal mudflats, salt marshes, shallow coastal impoundments and lagoons, and peat banks (Cohen et al. 2010; Cohen et al. 2009; Niles et al. 2008; Harrington 2001; Truitt et al. 2001). The supra -tidal (above the high tide) sandy habitats of inlets provide important areas for roosting, especially at higher tides when intertidal habitats are inundated (Harrington 2008; USFWS 2013a). The red knot is a specialized molluscivore, eating hard -shelled mollusks, sometimes supplemented with easily accessed softer invertebrate prey, such as shrimp- and crab -like organisms, marine worms, and horseshoe crab (Limulus polyphemus) eggs (Piersma and van Gils 2011; Harrington 2001). Mollusk prey are swallowed whole and crushed in the gizzard (Piersma and van Gils 2011). Foraging activity is largely dictated by tidal conditions, as red knots rarely wade in water more than 0.8 to 1.2 in (2 to 3 cm) deep (Harrington 2001). Due to bill morphology, the red knot is limited to foraging on only shallow -buried prey, within the top 0.8 to 1.2 in (2 to 3 cm) of sediment (Gerasimov 2009; Zwarts and Blomert 1992). The primary prey of the rufa red knot in non -breeding habitats include blue mussel (Mytilus edulis) spat (juveniles); Donax and Darina clams; snails (Littorina spp.), and other mollusks, with polychaete worms, insect larvae, and crustaceans also eaten in some locations. A prominent departure from typical prey items occurs each spring when red knots feed on the eggs of horseshoe crabs, particularly during the key migration stopover within the Delaware Bay of New Jersey and Delaware. Delaware Bay serves as the principal spring migration staging area for the red knot because of the availability of horseshoe crab eggs (Clark et al. 2009; Harrington 2001; Harrington 1996; Morrison and Harrington 1992), which provide a superabundant source of easily digestible food. In South Carolina, red knots appear to concentrate on Donax spp. as prey items, until horseshoe crab eggs become available, and then the horseshoe crab eggs become the main prey item (Melissa Bimbi pers. comm. April 16, 2015). Red knots and other shorebirds that are long-distance migrants must take advantage of seasonally abundant food resources at intermediate stopovers to build up fat reserves for the next non-stop, long-distance flight (Clark et al. 1993). Although foraging red knots can be found widely distributed in small numbers within suitable habitats during the migration period, birds tend to concentrate in those areas where abundant food resources are consistently available from year to year (USFWS 2013a). 4.1.3. Population dynamics In the U.S., red knot populations declined sharply in the late 1800s and early 1900s due to excessive sport and market hunting, followed by hunting restrictions and signs of population recovery by the mid-1900s (Umer and Storer 1949; Stone 1937; Bent 1927). However, it is unclear whether the red knot population fully recovered its historical numbers (Harrington 2001) following the period of unregulated hunting. More recently, long-term survey data from two key areas (Tierra del Fuego wintering area and Delaware Bay spring stopover site) both show a 88 RECEIVED FEB 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY roughly 75 percent decline in red knot numbers since the 1980s (Dey et al. 2011; Clark et al. 2009; Morrison et al. 2004; Morrison and Ross 1989; Kochenberger 1983; Dunne et al. 1982; Wander and Dunne, 1982; USFWS 2013a). For many portions of the knot's range, available survey data are patchy. Prior to the 1980s, numerous natural history accounts are available, but provide mainly qualitative or localized population estimates. No population information exists for the breeding range because, in breeding habitats, red knots are thinly distributed across a huge and remote area of the Arctic. Despite some localized survey efforts, (e.g., Niles et al. 2008), there are no regional or comprehensive estimates of breeding abundance, density, or productivity (Niles et al. 2008). Counts in wintering areas are useful in estimating red knot populations and trends because the birds generally remain within a given wintering area for a longer period of time compared to the areas used during migration. This eliminates errors associated with turnover or double -counting that can occur during migration counts. Harrington et al. (1988) reported that the mean count of birds wintering in Florida was 6,300 birds (f 3,400, one standard deviation) based on 4 aerial surveys conducted from October to January in 1980 to 1982. Based on these surveys and other work, the Southeast wintering group was estimated at roughly 10,000 birds in the 1970s and 1980s (Harrington 2005a; USFWS 2013b). Based on resightings of birds banded in South Carolina and Georgia from 1999 to 2002, the Southeast wintering population was estimated at 11,700 t 1,000 (standard error) red knots. Although there appears to have been a gradual shift by some of the southeastern knots from the Florida Gulf coast to the Atlantic coasts of Georgia and South Carolina, population estimates for the Southeast region in the 2000s were at about the same level as during the 1980s (Harrington 2005a). Based on recent modeling using resightings of marked birds staging in Georgia in fall, as well as other evidence, the Southeast wintering group may number as high as 20,000 (B. Harrington pers. comm. November 12, 2012), but field survey data are not available to corroborate this estimate (USFWS 2013b). Beginning in 2006, coordinated red knot surveys have been conducted from Florida to Delaware Bay during 2 consecutive days from May 20 to 24 (Table 13). This period is thought to represent the peak of the red knot migration. There has been variability in methods, observers, and areas covered. From 2006 to 2010, there was no change in counts that could not be attributed to varying geographic survey coverage (Dey et al. 2011); thus, we do not consider any apparent trends in these data before 2010. m RECEIVED FEB 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY Table 13. Red knot counts along the Atlantic coast of the U.S., May 20 to 24, 2006 to 2012 (A. Dey pens. comm. October 12, 2012; Dey et al. 2011). State 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 New Jersey 7,860 4,445 10,045 16,229 8,945 7,737 23,525 Delaware 820 2,950 5,350 5,530 5,067 3,433 Maryland nr nr 663 78 5 83 139 Virginia 5,783 5,939 7,802 3,261 8,214 6,236 8,482 North Carolina 235 304 1,137 1,466 1,113 1,868 2,832 South Carolina nr 125 180 10 1,220 315 542 Geor 'a 796 2,155 1,487 nr 260 31071 1,466 Florida nr nr 868 800 41 10 1 Total 15,494 15,918 27,532 21,844 25,328 24,377 40,429 nr = not reported Because red knot numbers peak earlier in the Southeast than in the mid -Atlantic (M. Bimbi pers. comm. June 27, 2013), the late -May coast -wide survey data likely reflect the movement of some birds north along the coast, and may miss other birds that depart for Canada from the Southeast along an interior (overland) route prior to the survey window. Thus, greater numbers of red knots may utilize Southeastern stopovers than suggested by the data in Table 13. For example, a peak count of over 8,000 red knots was documented in South Carolina during spring 2012 (South Carolina Department of Natural Resources 2012). Dinsmore et al. (1998) found a mean of 1,363 (t725) red knots in North Carolina during spring 1992 and 1993, with a peak count of 2,764 birds (USFWS 2013b). 4.1.4. Status and Distribution Reason for listing: The Service has determined that the mfa red knot is threatened due to loss of both breeding and nonbreeding habitat; potential for disruption of natural predator cycles on the breeding grounds; reduced prey availability throughout the nonbreeding range; and increasing frequency and severity of asynchronies ("mismatches") in the timing of the birds' annual migratory cycle relative to favorable food and weather conditions. Range -Wide Trends: Wintering areas for the red knot include the Southeast U.S. from Florida to North Carolina, the Atlantic coasts of Argentina and Chile, the north coast of Brazil, and the Northwest Gulf of Mexico from the Mexican State of Tamaulipas to Louisiana (Newstead et al. 2013; L. Patrick 90 GEIVE® EB 212011 pers. comm. August 31, 2012; Niles et al. 2008). Smaller numbers of knots winter in the Caribbean, and along the central Gulf coast (Alabama, Mississippi), the mid -Atlantic, and the Northeast U.S. Calidris canutus is also known to winter in Central America and northwest South America, but it is not yet clear if all these birds are the rufa subspecies In some years, more red knots have been counted during a coordinated spring migration survey than can be accounted for at known wintering sites, suggesting there are unknown wintering areas. Indeed, geolocators have started revealing previously little-known wintering areas, particularly in the Caribbean (Niles et al. 2012; L. Niles pers. comm. January 8, 2013). The core of the Southeast wintering area (i.e., that portion of this large region supporting the majority of birds) is thought to shift from year to year among Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina (Niles et al. 2008). However, the geographic limits of this wintering region are poorly defined. Although only small numbers are known, wintering knots extend along the Atlantic coast as far north as Virginia (L. Patrick pers. comm. August 31, 2012; Niles et al. 2006), Maryland (Burger et al. 2012), and New Jersey (BandedBirds.org 2012; H. Hanlon pers. comm. November 22, 2012; A. Dey pers. comm. November 19, 2012). Still smaller numbers of red knots have been reported between December and February from Long Island, New York, through Massachusetts and as far north as Nova Scotia, Canada (eBird.org 2012). Recovery Criteria A Recovery Plan for the red knot has not yet been completed. It will be developed, pursuant to Subsection 4(f) of the ESA, in the near future. 4.1.5. Analysis of the Species Likely to be Affected Within the nonbreeding portion of the range, red knot habitat is primarily threatened by the highly interrelated effects of sea level rise, shoreline stabilization, and coastal development. Lesser threats to nonbreeding habitat include agriculture and aquaculture, invasive vegetation, and beach maintenance activities. Within the breeding portion of the range, the primary threat to red knot habitat is from climate change. With arctic warming, vegetation conditions in the breeding grounds are expected to change, causing the zone of nesting habitat to shift and perhaps contract. Arctic freshwater systems —foraging areas for red knots during the nesting season — are particularly sensitive to climate change. Climate Change & Sea Level Rise The natural history of Arctic -breeding shorebirds makes this group of species particularly vulnerable to global climate change (Meltofte et al. 2007; Piersma and Lindstrom 2004; Rehfisch and Crick 2003; Piersma and Baker 2000; Zockler and Lysenko 2000; Lindstrom and Agrell 1999). Relatively low genetic diversity, which is thought to be a consequence of survival 91 RECEIVED FEB 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY through past climate -driven population bottlenecks, may put shorebirds at more risk from human -induced climate variation than other avian taxa (Meltofte et al. 2007); low genetic diversity may result in reduced adaptive capacity as well as increased risks when population sizes drop to low levels. In the short term, red knots may benefit if warmer temperatures result in fewer years of delayed horseshoe crab spawning in Delaware Bay (Smith and Michaels 2006) or fewer occurrences of late snow melt in the breeding grounds (Meltofte et al. 2007). However, there are indications that changes in the abundance and quality of red knot prey are already underway (Escudero et al. 2012; Jones et al. 2010), and prey species face ongoing climate -related threats from warmer temperatures (Jones et al. 2010; Philippart et al. 2003; Rehfisch and Crick 2003), ocean acidification (NRC 2010; Fabry et al. 2008), and possibly increased prevalence of disease and parasites (Ward and Lafferty 2004). In addition, red knots face imminent threats from loss of habitat caused by sea level rise (NRC 2010; Galbraith et al. 2002; Titus 1990), and increasing asynchronies ("mismatches") between the timing of their annual breeding, migration, and wintering cycles and the windows of peak food availability on which the birds depend (Smith et al. 2011; McGowan et al. 2011; Meltofte et al. 2007; van Gils et al. 2005a; Baker et al. 2004). With arctic warming, vegetation conditions in the red knot's breeding grounds are expected to change, causing the zone of nesting habitat to shift and perhaps contract, but this process may take decades to unfold (Feng et al. 2012; Meltofte et al. 2007; Kaplan et al. 2003). Ecological shifts in the Arctic may appear sooner. High uncertainty exists about when and how changing interactions among vegetation, predators, competitors, prey, parasites, and pathogens may affect the red knot, but the impacts are potentially profound (Fraser et al. 2013; Schmidt et al. 2012; Meltofte et al. 2007; Ims and Fuglei 2005). For most of the year, red knots live in or immediately adjacent to intertidal areas. These habitats are naturally dynamic, as shorelines are continually reshaped by tides, currents, wind, and storms. Coastal habitats are susceptible to both abrupt (storm -related) and long-term (sea level rise) changes. Outside of the breeding grounds, red knots rely entirely on these coastal areas to fulfill their roosting and foraging needs, making the birds vulnerable to the effects of habitat loss from rising sea levels. Because conditions in coastal habitats are also critical for building up nutrient and energy stores for the long migration to the breeding grounds, sea level rise affecting conditions on staging areas also has the potential to impact the red knot's ability to breed successfully in the Arctic (Meltofte et al. 2007). According to the NRC (2010), the rate of global sea level rise has increased from about 0.02 in (0.6 mm) per year in the late 190' century to approximately 0.07 in (1.8 mm) per year in the last half of the 20th century. The rate of increase has accelerated, and over the past 15 years has been in excess of 0.12 in (3 mm) per year. In 2007, the IPCC estimated that sea level would "likely" rise by an additional 0.6 to 1.9 feet (ft) (0.18 to 0.59 meters (m)) by 2100 (NRC 2010). This projection was based largely on the observed rates of change in ice sheets and projected future 92 RECEIVED FEB E 120V DCM- MHD CITY thermal expansion of the oceans but did not include the possibility of changes in ice sheet dynamics (e.g., rates and patterns of ice sheet growth versus loss). Scientists are working to improve how ice dynamics can be resolved in climate models. Recent research suggests that sea levels could potentially rise another 2.5 to 6.5 ft (0.8 to 2 m) by 2100, which is several times larger than the 2007 IPCC estimates (NRC 2010; Pfeffer et al. 2008). However, projected rates of sea level rise estimates remain rather uncertain, due mainly to limits in scientific understanding of glacier and ice sheet dynamics (NRC 2010; Pfeffer et al. 2008). The amount of sea level change varies regionally because of different rates of settling (subsidence) or uplift of the land, and because of differences in ocean circulation (NRC 2010). In the last century, for example, sea level rise along the U.S. mid- Atlantic and Gulf coasts exceeded the global average by 5 to 6 in (13 to 15 cm) because coastal lands in these areas are subsiding (USEPA 2013). Land subsidence also occurs in some areas of the Northeast, at current rates of 0.02 to 0.04 in (0.5 to 1 mm) per year across this region (Ashton et al. 2007); primarily the result of slow, natural geologic processes (NOAA 2013). Due to regional differences, a 2-ft (0.6-m) rise in global sea level by the end of this century would result in a relative sea level rise of 2.3 ft (0.7 m) at New York City, 2.9 ft (0.9 m) at Hampton Roads, Virginia, and 3.5 ft (1.1 m) at Galveston, Texas (U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) 2009). Table 14 shows that local rates of sea level rise in the range of the red knot over the second half of the 20th century were generally higher than the global rate of 0.07 in (1.8 mm) per year. Table 14. Local sea level trends from within the range of the red knot (NOAA 2012) Station Mean Local Sea Level Trend nun per ear Data Period Pointe-Au-P&e, Canada -0.36 f 0.40 1900-1983 Woods Hole, Massachusetts 2.61 t 0.20 1932-2006 Cape May, New Jersey 4.06 f 0.74 1965-2006 Lewes, Delaware 3.20 f 0.28 1919-2006 Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel, Virginia 6.05 f 1.14 1975-2006 Beaufort, North Carolina 2.57 f 0.44 1953-2006 Clearwater Beach, Florida 2.43 t 0.80 1973-2006 Padre Island, Texas 3.48 f 0.75 1958-2006 Punto Deseado, Argentina -0.06 t 1.93 1970-2002 Data from along the U.S. Atlantic coast suggest a relationship between rates of sea level rise and long-term erosion rates; thus, long-term coastal erosion rates may increase as sea level rises (Florida Oceans and Coastal Council 2010). However, even if such a correlation is borne out, predicting the effect of sea level rise on beaches is more complex. Even if wetland or upland coastal lands are lost, sandy or muddy intertidal habitats can often migrate or reform. However, forecasting how such changes may unfold is complex and uncertain. Potential effects of sea level 93 RECEIVED FEB 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY rise on beaches vary regionally due to subsidence or uplift of the land, as well as the geological character of the coast and nearshore (U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) 2009b; Galbraith et al. 2002). Precisely forecasting the effects of sea level rise on particular coastal habitats will require integration of diverse information on local rates of sea level rise, tidal ranges, subsurface and coastal topography, sediment accretion rates, coastal processes, and other factors that is beyond the capability of current models (CCSP 2009b; Frumhoff et al. 2007; Thieler and Hammar-Klose 2000; Thieler and Hammar-Klose 1999). Because the majority of the Atlantic and Gulf coasts consist of sandy shores, inundation alone is unlikely to reflect the potential consequences of sea level rise. Instead, long-term shoreline changes will involve contributions from inundation and erosion, as well as changes to other coastal environments such as wetland losses. Most portions of the open coast of the U.S. will be subject to significant physical changes and erosion over the next century because the majority of coastlines consist of sandy beaches, which are highly mobile and in a state of continual change (CCSP 2009b). By altering coastal geomorphology, sea level rise will cause significant and often dramatic changes to coastal landforms including barrier islands, beaches, and intertidal flats (CCSP 2009b; Rehfisch and Crick 2003), primary red knot habitats. Due to increasing sea levels, storm - surge -driven floods now qualifying as 100-year events are projected to occur as often as every 10 to 20 years along most of the U.S. Atlantic coast by 2050, with even higher frequencies of such large floods in certain localized areas (Tebaldi et al. 2012). Rising sea level not only increases the likelihood of coastal flooding, but also changes the template for waves and tides to sculpt the coast, which can lead to loss of land orders of magnitude greater than that from direct inundation alone (Ashton et al. 2007). Red knot migration and wintering habitats in the U.S. generally consist of sandy beaches that are dynamic and subject to seasonal erosion and accretion. Sea level rise and shoreline erosion have reduced availability of intertidal habitat used for red knot foraging, and in some areas, roosting sites have also been affected (Niles et al. 2008). With moderately rising sea levels, red knot habitats in many portions of the U.S. would be expected to migrate or reform rather than be lost, except where they are constrained by coastal development or shoreline stabilization (Titus et al. 2009). However, if the sea rises more rapidly than the rate with which a particular coastal system can keep pace, it could fundamentally change the state of the coast (CCSP 2009b). Climate change is also resulting in asynchronies during the annual cycle of the red knot. The successful annual migration and breeding of red knots is highly dependent on the timing of departures and arrivals to coincide with favorable food and weather conditions. The frequency and severity of asynchronies is likely to increase with climate change. In addition, stochastic encounters with unfavorable conditions are more likely to result in population -level effects for red knots now than when population sizes were larger, as reduced numbers may have reduced the resiliency of this subspecies to rebound from impacts. 94 RECEIVED FEB 21 2017 DCM- MHD C1 i.y For unknown reasons, more red knots arrived late in Delaware Bay in the early 2000s, which is generally accepted as a key causative factor (along with reduced supplies of horseshoe crab eggs) behind red knot population declines that were observed over this same timeframe. Thus, the red knot's sensitivity to timing asynchronies has been demonstrated through a population -level response. Both adequate supplies of horseshoe crab eggs and high -quality foraging habitat in Delaware Bay can serve to partially mitigate minor asynchronies at this key stopover site. However, the factors that caused delays in the spring migrations of red knots from Argentina and Chile are still unknown, and we have no information to indicate if this delay will reverse, persist, or intensify. Superimposed on this existing threat of late arrivals in Delaware Bay are new threats of asynchronies emerging due to climate change. Climate change is likely to affect the reproductive timing of horseshoe crabs in Delaware Bay, mollusk prey species at other stopover sites, or both, possibly pushing the peak seasonal availability of food outside of the windows when red knots rely on them. In addition, both field studies and modeling have shown strong links between the red knot's reproductive output and conditions in the Arctic including insect abundance and snow cover. Climate change may also cause shifts in the period of optimal arctic conditions relative to the time period when red knots currently breed. Shoreline stabilization Structural development along the shoreline and manipulation of natural inlets upset the naturally dynamic coastal processes and result in loss or degradation of beach habitat (Melvin et al. 1991). As beaches narrow, the reduced habitat can directly lower the diversity and abundance of biota (life forms), especially in the upper intertidal zone. Shorebirds may be impacted both by reduced habitat area for roosting and foraging, and by declining intertidal prey resources, as has been documented in California (Defeo et al. 2009; Dugan and Hubbard 2006). In Delaware Bay, hard structures also cause or accelerate loss of horseshoe crab spawning habitat (CCSP 2009b; Botton et al. in Shuster et al. 2003; Botton et al. 1988), and shorebird habitat has been, and may continue to be, lost where bulkheads have been built (Clark in Farrell and Martin 1997). In addition to directly eliminating red knot habitat, hard structures interfere with the creation of new shorebird habitats by interrupting the natural processes of overwash and inlet formation. Where hard stabilization is installed, the eventual loss of the beach and its associated habitats is virtually assured (Rice 2009), absent beach nourishment, which may also impact red knots. Where they are maintained, hard structures are likely to significantly increase the amount of red knot habitat lost as sea levels continue to rise. In a few isolated locations, however, hard structures may enhance red knot habitat, or may provide artificial habitat. In Delaware Bay, for example, Botton et al. (1994) found that, in the same manner as natural shoreline discontinuities like creek mouths, jetties and other artificial obstructions can act to concentrate drifting horseshoe crab eggs and thereby attract shorebirds. Another example comes from the Delaware side of the bay, where a seawall and jetty at Mispillion Harbor protect the confluence of the Mispillion River and Cedar Creek. These structures create a low energy environment in the harbor, which seems to provide highly suitable 95 RECEIVED FEB 21 2017 DCM_ MHD CITY conditions for horseshoe crab spawning over a wider variation of weather and sea conditions than anywhere else in the bay (G. Breese pers. comm. March 25, 2013). Horseshoe crab egg densities at Mispillion Harbor are consistently an order of magnitude higher than at other bay beaches (Dey et al. 2011), and this site consistently supports upwards of 15 to 20 percent of all the knots recorded in Delaware Bay (Lathrop 2005). Notwithstanding localized red knot use of artificial structures, and the isolated case of hard structures improving foraging habitat at Mispillion Harbor, the nearly universal effect of such structures is the degradation or loss of red knot habitat. Sand Placement Where shorebird habitat has been severely reduced or eliminated by hard stabilization structures, beach nourishment may be the only means available to replace any habitat for as long as the hard structures are maintained (Nordstrom and Mauriello 2001), although such habitat will persist only with regular nourishment episodes. In Delaware Bay, beach nourishment has been recommended to prevent loss of spawning habitat for horseshoe crabs (Kalasz 2008; Carter et al. in Guilfoyle et al. 2007; Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) 1998), and is being pursued as a means of restoring shorebird habitat in Delaware Bay following Hurricane Sandy (Niles et al. 2013; USACE 2012). Beach nourishment was part of a 2009 project to maintain important shorebird foraging habitat at Mispillion Harbor, Delaware (Kalasz pers. comm. March 29, 2013; Sink and Wilson 2011). However, red knots may be directly disturbed if beach nourishment takes place while the birds are present. On New Jersey's Atlantic coast, beach nourishment has typically been scheduled for the fall, when red knots are present, because of various constraints at other times of year. In addition to causing disturbance during construction, beach nourishment often increases recreational use of the widened beaches that, without careful management, can increase disturbance of red knots. Beach nourishment can also temporarily depress, and sometimes permanently alter, the invertebrate prey base on which shorebirds depend. In addition to disturbing the birds and impacting the prey base, beach nourishment can affect the quality and quantity of red knot habitat (M. Bimbi pers. comm. November 1, 2012; Greene 2002). The artificial beach created by nourishment may provide only suboptimal habitat for red knots, as a steeper beach profile is created when sand is stacked on the beach during the nourishment process. In some cases, nourishment is accompanied by the planting of dense beach grasses, which can directly degrade habitat, as red knots require sparse vegetation to avoid predation. By precluding overwash and Aeolian transport, especially where large artificial dunes are constructed, beach nourishment can also lead to further erosion on the bayside and promote bayside vegetation growth, both of which can degrade the red knot's preferred foraging and roosting habitats (sparsely vegetated flats in or adjacent to intertidal areas). Preclusion of overwash also impedes the formation of new red knot habitats. Beach nourishment can also encourage further development, bringing further habitat impacts, reducing future alternative management options such as a retreat from the coast, and perpetuating the developed and stabilized conditions that may ultimately lead to inundation where beaches are prevented from migrating (M. Bimbi pers. comm. November 1, 2012; Greene 2002). 96 RECEIVED F H 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY The quantity and quality of red knot prey may also be affected by the placement of sediment for beach nourishment or disposal of dredged material. Invertebrates may be crushed or buried during project construction. Although some benthic species can burrow through a thin layer of additional sediment, thicker layers (over 35 in (90 cm)) smother the benthic fauna (Greene 2002). By means of this vertical burrowing, recolonization from adjacent areas, or both, the benthic faunal communities typically recover. Recovery can take as little as 2 weeks or as long as 2 years, but usually averages 2 to 7 months (Greene 2002; Peterson and Manning 2001). Although many studies have concluded that invertebrate communities recovered following sand placement, study methods have often been insufficient to detect even large changes in abundance or species composition due to high natural variability and small sample sizes (Peterson and Bishop 2005). Peterson et al (2006) found that although Emerita talpoida abundance recovered relatively rapidly after beach nourishment on Bogue Banks, recovery ofDonax spp. and amphipods was much longer. This is thought to be because Emerita is known to prefer relatively coarse sediments (Bowman and Dolan 1985). Donax is one of the preferred prey items of red knot. Uncertainty remains about the effects of sand placement on invertebrate communities and how these impacts may affect red knots. Dredging/sand mining Many inlets in the U.S. range of the red knot are routinely dredged and sometimes relocated. In addition, nearshore areas are routinely dredged ("mined") to obtain sand for beach nourishment. Regardless of the purpose, inlet and nearshore dredging can affect red knot habitats. Dredging often involves removal of sediment from sand bars, shoals, and inlets in the nearshore zone, directly impacting optimal red knot roosting and foraging habitats (Harrington in Guilfoyle et al. 2007; Winn and Harrington in Guilfoyle et al. 2006). These ephemeral habitats are even more valuable to red knots because they tend to receive less recreational use than the main beach strand. In addition to causing this direct habitat loss, the dredging of sand bars and shoals can preclude the creation and maintenance of red knot habitats by removing sand sources that would otherwise act as natural breakwaters and weld onto the shore over time (Hayes and Michel 2008; Morton 2003). Further, removing these sand features can cause or worsen localized erosion by altering depth contours and changing wave refraction (Hayes and Michel 2008), potentially degrading other nearby red knot habitats indirectly because inlet dynamics exert a strong influence on the adjacent shorelines. Studying barrier islands in Virginia and North Carolina, Fenster and Dolan (1996) found that inlet influences extend 3.4 to 8.1 mi (5.4 to 13.0 km), and that inlets dominate shoreline changes for up to 2.7 mi (4.3 km). Changing the location of dominant channels at inlets can create profound alterations to the adjacent shoreline (Nordstrom 2000). 97 RECEIVE® FEB 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY Reduced food availability Commercial harvest of horseshoe crabs has been implicated as a causal factor in the decline of the rufa red knot, by decreasing the availability of horseshoe crab eggs in the Delaware Bay stopover (Niles et al. 2008). Notwithstanding the importance of the horseshoe crab and Delaware Bay, other lines of evidence suggest that the mfa red knot also faces threats to its food resources throughout its range. During most of the year, bivalves and other mollusks are the primary prey for the red knot. Mollusks in general are at risk from climate change -induced ocean acidification (Fabry et al. 2008). Oceans become more acidic as carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere dissolves in the ocean. The pH (percent hydrogen, a measure of acidity or alkalinity) level of the oceans has decreased by approximately 0.1 pH units since preindustrial times, which is equivalent to a 25 percent increase in acidity. By 2100, the pH level of the oceans is projected to decrease by an additional 0.3 to 0.4 units under the highest emissions scenarios (NRC 2010). As ocean acidification increases, the availability of calcium carbonate declines. Calcium carbonate is a key building block for the shells of many marine organisms, including bivalves and other mollusks (USEPA 2012; NRC 2010). Vulnerability to ocean acidification has been shown in bivalve species similar to those favored by red knots, including mussels (Gaylord et al. 2011; Bibby et al. 2008) and clams (Green et al. 2009). Reduced calcification rates and calcium metabolism are also expected to affect several mollusks and crustaceans that inhabit sandy beaches (Defeo et al. 2009), the primary nonbreeding habitat for red knots. Relevant to Tierra del Fuego -wintering knots, bivalves have also shown vulnerability to ocean acidification in Antarctic waters, which are predicted to be affected due to naturally low carbonate saturation levels in cold waters (Cummings et al. 2011). Blue mussel spat is an important prey item for red knots in Virginia (Karpanty et al. 2012). The southern limit of adult blue mussels has contracted from North Carolina to Delaware since 1960 due to increasing air and water temperatures (Jones et al. 2010). Larvae have continued to recruit to southern locales (including Virginia) via currents, but those recruits die early in the summer due to water and air temperatures in excess of lethal physiological limits. Failure to recolonize southern regions will occur when reproducing populations at higher latitudes are beyond dispersal distance (Jones et al. 2010). Thus, this key prey resource may soon disappear from the red knot's Virginia spring stopover habitats (Karpanty et al. 2012). Reduced food availability at the Delaware Bay stopover site due to commercial harvest and subsequent population decline of the horseshoe crab is considered a primary causal factor in the decline of the rufa subspecies in the 2000s (Escudero et al. 2012; McGowan et al. 2011; CAFF 2010; Niles et al. 2008; COSEWIC 2007; Gonzalez et al. 2006; Baker et al. 2004; Morrison et al. 2004), although other possible causes or contributing factors have been postulated (Fraser ct at. 2013; Schwarzer et al. 2012; Escudero et al. 2012; Espoz et al. 2008; Niles et al. 2008). M. F-CEIVED Ft8 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY Due to harvest restrictions and other conservation actions, horseshoe crab populations showed some signs of recovery in the early 2000s, with apparent signs of red knot stabilization (survey counts, rates of weight gain) occurring a few years later. Since about 2005, however, horseshoe crab population growth has stagnated for unknown reasons. Under the current management framework (known as Adaptive Resource Management, or ARM), the present horseshoe crab harvest is not considered a threat to the red knot because harvest levels are tied to red knot populations via scientific modeling. Most data suggest that the volume of horseshoe crab eggs is currently sufficient to support the Delaware Bay's stopover population of red knots at its present size. However, because of the uncertain trajectory of horseshoe crab population growth, it is not yet known if the egg resource will continue to adequately support red knot populations over the next 5 to 10 years. In addition, implementation of the ARM could be impeded by insufficient funding for the shorebird and horseshoe crab monitoring programs that are necessary for the functioning of the ARM models. Many studies have established that red knots stopping over in Delaware Bay during spring migration achieve remarkable and important weight gains to complete their migrations to the breeding grounds by feeding almost exclusively on a superabundance of horseshoe crab eggs. A temporal correlation occurred between increased horseshoe crab harvests in the 1990s and declining red knot counts in both Delaware Bay and Tierra del Fuego by the 2000s. Other shorebird species that rely on Delaware Bay also declined over this period (Mizrahi and Peters in Tanacredi et al. 2009), although some shorebird declines began before the peak expansion of the horseshoe crab fishery (Bolton et al. in Shuster et al. 2003). Hunting Legal and illegal sport and market hunting in the mid -Atlantic and Northeast U.S. substantially reduced red knot populations in the 1800s, and we do not know if the subspecies ever fully recovered to its former abundance or distribution. Neither legal nor illegal hunting are currently a threat to red knots in the U.S., but both occur in the Caribbean and parts of South America. Hunting pressure on red knots and other shorebirds in the northern Caribbean and on Trinidad is unknown. Hunting pressure on shorebirds in the Lesser Antilles (e.g., Barbados, Guadeloupe) is very high, but only small numbers of red knots have been documented on these islands, so past mortality may not have exceeded tens of birds per year. Red knots are no longer being targeted in Barbados or Guadeloupe, and other measures to regulate shorebird hunting on these islands are being negotiated. Much larger numbers (thousands) of red knots occur in the Guianas, where legal and illegal subsistence shorebird hunting is common. About 20 red knot mortalities have been documented in the Guianas, but total red knot hunting mortality in this region cannot be surmised. Subsistence shorebird hunting was also common in northern Brazil, but has decreased in recent decades. We have no evidence that hunting was a driving factor in red knot population declines in the 2000s, or that hunting pressure is increasing. In addition, catch limits, handling protocols, and studies on the effects of research activities on survival all indicate that overutilization for scientific purposes is not a threat to the red knot. 99 RECEIVED FEB 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY Threats to the red knot from overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes exist in parts of the Caribbean and South America. Specifically, legal and illegal hunting does occur. We expect mortality of individual knots from hunting to continue into the future, but at stable or decreasing levels due to the recent international attention to shorebird hunting. Predation In wintering and migration areas, the most common predators of red knots are peregrine falcons (Falco peregrinus), harriers (Circus spp.), accipiters (Family Accipitridae), merlins (F. columbarius), shorteared owls (Asio,Jlammeus), and greater black -backed gulls (Larus marinus) (Niles et al. 2008). Other large are anecdotally known to prey on shorebirds (Breese 2010). In migration areas like Delaware Bay, terrestrial predators such as red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) and feral cats (Felis catus) may be a threat to red knots by causing disturbance, but direct mortality from these predators may be low (Niles et al. 2008). Although little information is available from the breeding grounds, the long-tailed jaeger (Stercorarius longicaudus) is prominently mentioned as a predator of red knot chicks in most accounts. Other avian predators include parasitic jaeger (S. parasiticus), pomarine jaeger (S. pomarinus), herring gull and glaucous gulls, gyrfalcon (Falcon rusticolus), peregrine falcon, and snowy owl (Bubo scandiacus). Mammalian predators include arctic fox (Alopex lagopus) and sometimes arctic wolves (Canis lupus arctos) (Niles et al. 2008; COSEWIC 2007). Predation pressure on Arctic -nesting shorebird clutches varies widely regionally, interannually, and even within each nesting season, with nest losses to predators ranging from close to 0 percent to near 100 percent (Meltofte et al. 2007), depending on ecological factors. Abundance of arctic rodents, such as lemmings, is often cyclical, although less so in North America than in Eurasia. In the Arctic, 3- to 4-year lemming cycles give rise to similar cycles in the predation of shorebird nests. When lemmings are abundant, predators concentrate on the lemmings, and shorebirds breed successfully. When lemmings are in short supply, predators switch to shorebird eggs and chicks (Niles et al. 2008; COSEWIC 2007; Meltofte et al. 2007; USFWS 2003b; Blomqvist et al. 2002; Summers and Underhill 1987). Recreational disturbance In some wintering and stopover areas, red knots and recreational users (e.g., pedestrians, ORVs, dog walkers, boaters) are concentrated on the same beaches (Niles et al. 2008; Tarr 2008). Recreational activities affect red knots both directly and indirectly. These activities can cause habitat damage (Schlacher and Thompson 2008; Anders and Leatherman 1987), cause shorebirds to abandon otherwise preferred habitats, and negatively affect the birds' energy balances. Effects to red knots from vehicle and pedestrian disturbance can also occur during construction of shoreline stabilization projects including beach nourishment. Red knots can also be disturbed by motorized and nomnotorized boats, fishing, kite surfing, aircraft, and research activities (Niles et 100 RECEIVED FEB 21 2017 DCM4 MHD CITY al. 2008; Peters and Otis 2007; Harrington 2005b; Meyer et al. 1999; Burger 1986) and by beach raking or cleaning. Table 15 lists biological opinions that have been issued for adverse impacts to red knots since 2014, within the Raleigh Field Office geographic area. Activities addressed by the BOs include inlet dredging, sand placement, construction of sandbag revetments, and terminal groin construction. Table 15. BOs issued since 2014 within the Raleigh Field Office geographic area. OPINIONS RED KNOT HABITAT Fiscal Year 2014: 1 BO 12,600 If (2.4 mi) Fiscal Year 2015: 5 BOs 70,268 If (13.3 mi) Fiscal Year 2016: 8 BOs 229,937 If (43.54 mi) Total: 14 BOs 312,805 If (61.04 mi) The proposed action has the potential to adversely affect wintering and migrating red knots and their habitat. Potential effects to red knots include degradation of foraging habitat and destruction of the prey base from dredged material disposal, and attraction of predators due to food waste from the construction crew. Like the piping plover, red knots face predation by avian and mammalian predators that are present year-round on the migration and wintering grounds. 101 RECEIVED FEB 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY 4.2. Environmental Baseline 4.2.1. Status of the species within the Action Area Various surveys for rufa red knots have been performed throughout the state and data from these surveys are maintained by NCWRC. Data from the BA and NCWRC (www.paws.org, accessed January 18, 2017) are provided in Table 16. Table 16. Number of red knots observed on Ocean Isle Beach, Holden Beach, and in Shallotte Inlet by Year. Only years with reported numbers are included. Year Month Ocean Isle Beach Holden Beach Shallotte Inlet 1986 April 200 NR NR 2006 January 6 5 NR May 0 0 NR 2007 May NR NR 0 2009 May 11 NR NR 2010 May 0 0 NR 2011 May 23 15 NR 2012 May 112 56 NR 2014 June NR NR 1(banded) NR = not reported 4.2.2. Factors affecting the species environment within the Action Area A wide range of recent and on -going beach disturbance activities have altered the proposed Action Area and, to a greater extent, the North Carolina coastline, and many more are proposed along the coastline for the near future. Table 12 (page 69) lists the most recent projects, within the past 5 years. Beach nourishment: The shorelines of Ocean Isle Beach and Holden Beach are regularly nourished with sand from the Corps. Nourishment activities widen beaches, change their sedimentology and stratigraphy, alter coastal processes and often plug dune gaps and remove overwash areas. RECEIVED 102 FEB 21 2017 pCM" MHp CJTY Inlet dredging activities alter the sediment dynamics on adjacent shorelines and stabilize these dynamic environments; beach disposal of dredge material further alters the natural habitat adjacent to inlets. Estuarine dredging of navigational channels can alter water circulation patterns and sediment transport pathways, as well as increase the frequency and magnitude of boat wakes; sound -side sand or mud flats may be impacted by increased erosion rates as a result Historically, there have been Federal navigation projects in the AIW W and in Shallotte Inlet for decades. In an unknown number of dredging events, the sediment has often been placed on the adjacent beach using pipelines. In addition, the Town of Ocean Isle has recently received authorization from the Corps to conduct dredging of Shallotte Inlet and the AIW W in the same manner as the Corps, and to place the sand on the beach. Beach scraping can artificially steepen beaches, stabilize dune scarps, plug dune gaps, and redistribute sediment distribution patterns. Artificial dune building, often a product of beach scraping, removes low-lying overwash areas and dune gaps. As chronic erosion catches up to structures throughout the Action Area, artificial dune systems are constructed and maintained to protect beachfront structures either by sand fencing or fill placement. Beach scraping or bulldozing has become more frequent on North Carolina beaches in the past 20 years, in response to storms and the continuing retreat of the shoreline with rising sea level. These activities primarily occur during the winter months. Artificial dune or berm systems have been constructed and maintained in several areas. These dunes make the artificial dune ridge function like a seawall that blocks natural beach retreat, evolution, and overwash. In 2014, the Town of Ocean Isle conducted beach scraping along approximately 1,2001f of beach shoreline. Beach raking and rock picking: Man-made beach cleaning and raking machines effectively remove seaweed, wrack, fish, glass, syringes, plastic, cans, cigarettes, shells, stone, wood, and virtually any unwanted debris (Barber Beach Cleaning Equipment 2009). Removal of wrack eliminates a beach's natural sand -trapping abilities, further destabilizing the beach. In addition, sand adhering to seaweed and trapped in the cracks and crevices of wrack is removed from the beach. Although the amount of sand lost due to single sweeping actions may be small, it adds up considerably over a period of years (Nordstrom et al. 2006; Neal et al. 2007). Beach cleaning or grooming can result in abnormally broad unvegetated zones that are inhospitable to dune formation or plant colonization, thereby enhancing the likelihood of erosion (Defreo et al. 2009). Pedestrian Use of the Beach: There are a number of potential sources of pedestrians and pets on Ocean Isle Beach, including those individuals originating from beachfront, public access points, and nearby hotels, resorts, and residences. Shoreline stabilization: Sandbags on private properties provide stabilization to the shoreline of North Carolina Beaches. Sandbags and sandbag revetments have been placed along at least 1,8001f of the eastern shoreline on Ocean Isle Beach, and the Tubbs Inlet shoreline on Ocean Isle Beach is completely lined with a sandbag revetment. In 2014/2015, a sandbag revetment 103 RECEIVED FEB 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY was constructed on over 1,8001f of shoreline at the north end of Topsail Island. The intertidal areas and sand flats along the inlet were used as a sand source. The inlet shoreline downdrift of the sandbag revetment has eroded significantly since installation. A rock revetment was constructed several years ago in Carolina Beach (approximately 2,050 If). In addition, the Town of Ocean Isle Beach has requested authorization for construction of a single, 1,0501f terminal groin (3001f landward, and 7501f waterward of mean high water or MHW) on the east end of the island, placement of a concurrent 3,2141f sand fillet, and the periodic placement of sand in the fillet from either scheduled federal disposal events and/or from locally -sponsored beach nourishment and disposal projects. The project is not yet constructed. 4.3. Effects of the Action This section is an analysis of the beneficial, direct and indirect effects of the proposed action on migrating and wintering red knots within the Action Area. The analysis includes effects interrelated and interdependent of the project activities. An interrelated activity is an activity that is part of a proposed action and depends on the proposed activity. An interdependent activity is an activity that has no independent utility apart from the action. 4.3.1. Factors to be considered The proposed project will occur within habitat used by migrating and wintering red knots and construction will occur during a portion of the migration and winter seasons. Project impacts could include dredging of intertidal foraging habitat, and precluding the creation of new habitat and increasing recreational disturbance. Short-term and temporary impacts to red knots could result from project work disturbing roosting red knots and degrading currently occupied foraging areas. Proximity of action: Dredging and beach renourishment will occur within and adjacent to red knot roosting and foraging habitat. Distribution: Project construction activities that may impact migrants and the wintering population of red knots on Ocean Isle Beach and within Shallotte Inlet would occur on the inlet shoulder, emergent sandbars, and beach front. Timing: The timing of project construction could directly and indirectly impact migrating and wintering red knots. Nature of the e{j`ect: The effects of the project construction include a temporary reduction in foraging habitat, a long term decreased rate of change that may preclude habitat creation, and increased recreational disturbance. A decrease in the survival of red knots on the migration and winter grounds due to the lack of optimal habitat may contribute to decreased survival rates, decreased productivity on the breeding grounds, and increased vulnerability to the population. 104 gECel\►ED FEB 21 2017 pCM_ MHp CITY Duration: This is a recurring event, expected to last up to five and a half months each time. Thus, the direct effects would be expected to be short-term in duration. Indirect effects from the activity may continue to impact migrating and wintering red knots in subsequent seasons after dredged material placement. Disturbance,frequency: Disturbance from each event will be short term, lasting up to two years. However, sand placement activities may take place every four years, several times over the life of the project. Recreational disturbance may increase after project completion and have long- term impacts. Disturbance intensity and severity: Project construction is anticipated to be conducted during portions of the red knot migration and winter seasons. The Action Area encompasses an area in the wintering range of the red knot. Conservation measures have been incorporated into the project to minimize impacts. The severity is likely to be slight, as red knots located within the Action Area are expected to move outside of the construction zone due to disturbance; therefore, no red knots are expected to be directly taken as a result of this action. 4.3.2. Analyses for effects of the action Beneficial effects: For some highly eroded beaches, sand placement with compatible sand may have a beneficial effect on the habitat's ability to support wintering or migrating red knots. The addition of compatible sand to the sediment budget may increase a sand -starved beach's likelihood of developing habitat features valued by red knots. Direct effects: Direct effects are those direct or immediate effects of a project on the species or its habitat. The construction window will extend into one or more red knot migration and winter seasons. Heavy machinery and equipment (e.g., trucks and bulldozers operating on Action Area beaches, the placement of the dredge pipeline along the beach, and sand disposal) may adversely affect migrating and wintering red knots in the Action Area by disturbance and disruption of normal activities such as roosting and foraging, and possibly forcing birds to expend valuable energy reserves to seek available habitat elsewhere. Dredging of the channel may require removal of intertidal habitats and emergent shoals that may have formed over time. In this case, the dredging activities will result in a complete loss of habitat. However, this loss could be either temporary or more permanent in nature depending upon the location of future shoaling within the inlet. Burial and suffocation of invertebrate species will occur during the sand placement activity. Impacts will affect up to 27,650 If of shoreline. Timefirames projected for benthic recruitment and re-establishment following beach nourishment are between 6 months to 2 years. Depending on actual recovery rates, impacts will occur even if nourishment activities occur outside the red knot migration and wintering seasons. RECEIVED 105 FEB 2 1 2017 DCM- MHD CITY Indirect effects: The proposed project includes beach renourishment along up to 27,6501f of shoreline. Indirect effects include reducing the potential for the formation of optimal habitats (coastal marine and estuarine habitats with large areas of exposed intertidal sediments). The proposed project may limit the creation of optimal foraging and roosting habitat, and may increase the attractiveness of these beaches for recreation increasing recreational pressures within the Action Area. Recreational activities that potentially adversely affect red knots include disturbance by unleashed pets and increased pedestrian use. 4.3.3. Species' response to the proposed action The proposed project will occur within habitat that is used by migrating and wintering red knots. Since red knots can be present on these beaches almost year-round, construction is likely to occur while this species is utilizing these beaches and associated habitats. Short-term and temporary impacts to red knot activities could result from project work occurring on the beach that flushes birds from roosting or foraging habitat. Long-term impacts could include a hindrance in the ability of migrating or wintering red knots to recuperate from their migratory flight from their breeding grounds, survive on their wintering areas, or to build fat reserves in preparation for migration. Long-term impacts may also result from changes in the physical characteristics of the beach from the placement of the dredged material. 4.4. Cumulative Effects This project occurs on non-federal lands. Cumulative effects include the effects of future State, tribal, local, or private actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the Action Area considered in this 130. Future Federal actions that are unrelated to the proposed action are not considered in this section, because they require separate consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Act. It is reasonable to expect continued shoreline stabilization, inlet dredging, and beach renourishment projects in this area in the future since erosion and sea -level rise increases would impact the existing beachfront development. However, with the exception of some shoreline stabilization projects, most of the future actions that are reasonable certain to occur will require a Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 permit, and thus will require separate consultation. 4.5 Conclusion After reviewing the current status of the migrating and wintering red knot populations, the environmental baseline for the Action Area, the effects of the proposed activities, the proposed Conservation Measures, and the cumulative effects, it is the Service's biological opinion that implementation of these actions, as proposed, is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the red knot. Construction will occur and/or will likely have an effect on 27,6501f of shoreline. Red knots have been documented in the Action Area. 106 RECEIVED FEB 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY Short-term and temporary impacts to red knot activities could result from project work occurring on the beach that flushes birds from roosting or foraging habitat. Long-term impacts could include a hindrance in the ability of migrating or wintering red knots to recuperate from their migratory flight from their breeding grounds, survive on their wintering areas, or to build fat reserves in preparation for migration. The survival and recovery of red knots is fundamentally dependent on the continued availability of sufficient habitat in their migration and wintering range. 5. SEABEACH AMARANTH 5.1. Status of the Species/Critical Habitat 5.1.1. Species/critical habitat description Seabeach amaranth (Amaranthus pumilus) is an annual plant that grows on Atlantic barrier islands and ocean beaches currently ranging from South Carolina to New York. It was listed as threatened under the ESA on April 7, 1993 (58 FR 18035) because of its vulnerability to human and natural impacts and the fact that it had been eliminated from two-thirds of its historic range (USFWS 1996b). Seabeach amaranth stems are fleshy and pink -red or reddish, with small rounded leaves that are 0.5 to 1.0 inches in diameter. The green leaves, with indented veins, are clustered toward the tip of the stems, and have a small notch at the rounded tip. Flowers and fruits are relatively inconspicuous, bome in clusters along the stems. Seabeach amaranth will be considered for delisting when the species exists in at least six states within its historic range and when a minimum of 75 percent of the sites with suitable habitat within each state are occupied by populations for 10 consecutive years (USFWS 1996b). The recovery plan states that mechanisms must be in place to protect the plants from destructive habitat alterations, destruction or decimation by off -road vehicles or other beach uses, and protection of populations from debilitating webworm predation. There is no designation of critical habitat for seabeach amaranth. 5.1.2. Life history Seabeach amaranth is an annual plant. Germination of seabeach amaranth seeds occurs over a relatively long period, generally from April to July. Upon germinating, this plant initially forms a small unbranched sprig, but soon begins to branch profusely into a clump. This clump often reaches one foot in diameter and consists of five to 20 branches. Occasionally, a clump may get as large as three feet or more across, with 100 or more branches. Flowering begins as soon as plants have reached sufficient size, sometimes as early as June, but more typically commencing in July and continuing until the death of the plant in late fall. Seed production begins in July or August and peaks in September during most years, but continues until the death of the plant. Weather events, including rainfall, hurricanes, and temperature extremes, and predation by webworms have strong effects on the length of the reproductive season of seabeach amaranth. 107 RECEIVED FEB 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY Because of one or more of these influences, the flowering and fruiting period can be terminated as early as June or July. Under favorable circumstances, however, the reproductive season may extend until January or sometimes later (Radford et al. 1968; Bucher and Weakley 1990; Weakley and Bucher1992). 5.1.3. Population dynamics Within North Carolina and across its range, seabeach amaranth numbers vary from year to year. Data in North Carolina is available from 1987 to 2013. Recently, the number of plants across the entire state dwindled from a high of 19,978 in 2005 to 165 in 2013. This trend of decreasing numbers is seen throughout its range. 249,261 plants were found throughout the species' range in 2000. By 2013, those numbers had dwindled to 1,320 plants. In 2014, there was a slight increase in the number of plants to 2,829 (USFWS, unpublished data). Seabeach amaranth is dependent on natural coastal processes to create and maintain habitat. However, high tides and storm surges from tropical systems can overwash, bury, or inundate seabeach amaranth plants or seeds, and seed dispersal may be affected by strong storm events. In September of 1989, Hurricane Hugo struck the Atlantic Coast near Charleston, South Carolina, causing extensive flooding and erosion north to the Cape Fear region of North Carolina, with less severe effects extending northward throughout the range of seabeach amaranth. This was followed by several severe storms that, while not as significant as Hurricane Hugo, caused substantial erosion of many barrier islands in the seabeach amaranth's range. Surveys for seabeach amaranth revealed that the effects of these climatic events were substantial (Weakley and Bucher 1992). In the Carolinas, populations of amaranth were severely reduced. In South Carolina, where the effects of Hurricane Hugo and subsequent dune reconstruction were extensive, amaranth numbers declined from 1,800 in 1988 to 188 in 1990, a reduction of 90 percent. A 74 percent reduction in amaranth numbers occurred in North Carolina, from 41,851 plants in 1988 to 10,898 in 1990. Although population numbers in New York increased in 1990, range -wide totals of seabeach amaranth were reduced 76 percent from 1988 (Weakley and Bucher 1992). The extent stochastic events have on long-term population trends of seabeach amaranth has not been assessed. 5.1.4. Status and distribution The species historically occurred in nine states from Rhode Island to South Carolina (USFWS 2003c). By the late 1980s, habitat loss and other factors had reduced the range of this species to North and South Carolina. Since 1990, seabeach amaranth has reappeared in several states that had lost their populations in earlier decades. However, threats like habitat loss have not diminished, and populations are declining overall. It is currently found in New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. The typical habitat where this species is found includes the lower foredunes and upper beach strands on the ocean side of the primary sand dunes and overwash flats at accreting spits or ends of barrier islands. 108 RECEIVED FEB 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY Seabeach amaranth has been and continues to be threatened by destruction or adverse alteration of its habitat. As a fugitive species dependent on a dynamic landscape and large-scale geophysical processes, it is extremely vulnerable to habitat fragmentation and isolation of small populations. Further, because this species is easily recognizable and accessible, it is vulnerable to taking, vandalism, and the incidental trampling by curiosity seekers. Seabeach amaranth is afforded legal protection in North Carolina by the General Statutes of North Carolina, Sections 106-202.15, 106- 202.19 (N.C. Gen. Stat. section 106 (Supp. 1991)), which provide for protection from intrastate trade (without a permit). The most serious threats to the continued existence of seabeach amaranth are construction of beach stabilization structures, natural and man -induced beach erosion and tidal inundation, fungi (i.e., white wilt), beach grooming, herbivory by insects and mammals, and off -road vehicles. Herbivory by webworms, deer, feral horses, and rabbits is a major source of mortality and lowered fecundity for seabeach amaranth. However, the extent to which herbivory affects the species as a whole is unknown. Potential effects to seabeach amaranth from vehicle use on the beaches include vehicles running over, crushing, burying, or breaking plants, burying seeds, degrading habitat through compaction of sand and the formation of seed sinks caused by tire ruts. Seed sinks occur when blowing seeds fall into tire ruts, then a vehicle comes along and buries them further into the sand preventing germination. If seeds are capable of germinating in the tire ruts, the plants are usually destroyed before they can reproduce by other vehicles following the fire ruts. Those seeds and their reproductive potential become lost from the population. Pedestrians also can negatively affect seabeach amaranth plants. Seabeach amaranth occurs on the upper portion of the beach which is often traversed by pedestrians walking from parking lots, hotels, or vacation property to the ocean. This is also the area where beach chairs and umbrellas are often set up and/or stored. In addition, resorts, hotels, or other vacation rental establishments may set up volleyball courts or other sporting activity areas on the upper beach at the edge of the dunes. All of these activities can result in the trampling and destruction of plants. Pedestrians walking their dogs on the upper part of the beach, or dogs running freely on the upper part of the beach, may result in the trampling and destruction of seabeach amaranth plants. The extent of the effects that dogs have on seabeach amaranth is not known. Recovery Criteria Delisting of seabeach amaranth will be considered when a minimum of 75 percent of the sites with suitable habitat within at least six of the nine historically occupied States are occupied by seabeach amaranth populations for 10 consecutive years. 109 RECEIVED FEB 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY 5.1.5. Analysis of the species likely to be affected The predominant threat to seabeach amaranth is the destruction or alteration of suitable habitat, primarily because of beach stabilization efforts and storm -related erosion (USFWS 1993). Other important threats to the plant include beach grooming and vehicular traffic, which can easily break or crush the fleshy plant and bury seeds below depths from which they can germinate; and predation by webworms (caterpillars of small moths) (USFWS 1993). Webworms feed on the leaves of the plant and can defoliate the plants to the point of either killing them or at least reducing their seed production. Beach vitex (Vitex rotundifulia) is another threat to seabeach amaranth, as it is an aggressive, invasive, woody plant that can occupy habitat similar to seabeach amaranth and outcompete it (Invasive Species Specialist Group (ISSG) 2010). The proposed action has the potential to adversely affect seabeach amaranth within the proposed Action Area. Potential effects include burying, trampling, or injuring plants as a result of construction operations and/or sediment disposal activities; burying seeds to a depth that would prevent future germination as a result of construction operations and/or sediment disposal activities; and, destruction of plants by trampling or breaking as a result of increased recreational activities. The Applicant proposes to place sand between November 16 and March 31, and Corps proposes to place sand between November 16 and April 30. These time periods may include the growing season of seabeach amaranth. Therefore, there is the potential for sand placement to adversely impact plants in the Action Area. However, because of the highly eroded nature of the Action Area, the likelihood is not very high. Table 17 lists biological opinions that have been issued for adverse impacts to seabeach amaranth since 2014, within the Raleigh Field Office geographic area. Activities addressed by the BOs include inlet dredging, sand placement, construction of sandbag revetments, and terminal groin construction. 110 ,EEIVED I Eb 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY Table 17. BOs issued since 2014 within the Raleigh Field Office geographic area. SEABEACH AMARANTH OPINIONS HABITAT Fiscal Year 2014: 1 BO 12,600 If (2.4 mi) Fiscal Year 2015: 4 BOs 67,968 If (12.9 mi) Fiscal Year 2016 (to date): 5 BOs 169,250 If (32.05 mi) 249,818 If Total: 10 BOs (47.3 mi) 5.2. Environmental Baseline 5.2.1. Status of the species within the Action Area Since 1992, seabeach amaranth surveys have been conducted on Ocean Isle and Holden Beach. The numbers of seabeach amaranth vary widely from year to year. On Holden Beach, the numbers vary from 1 individual in 1997 to 1,647 individuals in 2006. On Ocean Isle Beach, the numbers vary from 1 individual in 2012 and 2013 to 819 in 1996. See Table 18 for data from the Corps and the Service (unpublished). Ill DECEIVED FEB 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY Table 18. Annual seabeach amaranth results on Ocean Isle and Holden Beach, NC between 1992 and 2015. Year Number of Scabeach Amaranth Ocean Isle Holden Beach 1992 5 21 1993 15 52 1994 112 239 1995 22 59 1996 819 99 1997 7 1 1998 11 32 1999 5 231 2000 4 106 2001 5 109 2002 45 >1162 2003 206 383 2004 49 52 2005 545 382 2006 337 1647 2007 20 264 2008 1 110 553 2009 36 86 2010 4 427 2011 5 115 2012 1 46 2013 1 106 2014 20 323 2015 1 37 388 5.2.2 Factors affecting the species environment within the Action Area A wide range of recent and on -going beach disturbance activities have altered the proposed Action Area and, to a greater extent, the North Carolina coastline, and many more are proposed along the coastline for the near future. Table 12 (page 69) lists the most recent projects, within the past 5 years. Beach nourishment: The beaches of Brunswick County are regularly nourished with sand from the Corps and locally -managed activities. Nourishment activities widen beaches, change their 112 RECHVED , PH 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY sedimentology and stratigraphy, alter coastal processes and often plug dune gaps and remove overwash areas. Beach scraping can artificially steepen beaches, stabilize dune scarps, plug dune gaps, and redistribute sediment distribution patterns. Artificial dune building, often a product of beach scraping, removes low-lying overwash areas and dune gaps. As chronic erosion catches up to structures throughout the Action Area, artificial dune systems are constructed and maintained to protect beachfront structures either by sand fencing or fill placement. Beach scraping or bulldozing has become more frequent on North Carolina beaches in the past 20 years, in response to storms and the continuing retreat of the shoreline with rising sea level. These activities primarily occur during the winter months. Artificial dune or berm systems have been constructed and maintained in several areas. These dunes make the artificial dune ridge function like a seawall that blocks natural beach retreat, evolution, and overwash. In 2014, the Town of Ocean Isle conducted beach scraping along approximately 1,2001f of beach shoreline. Beach raking and rock picking: Man-made beach cleaning and raking machines effectively remove seaweed, plants, fish, glass, syringes, plastic, cans, cigarettes, shells, stone, wood, and virtually any unwanted debris (Barber Beach Cleaning Equipment 2009). These efforts may remove seabeach amaranth. Although the amount of sand lost due to single sweeping actions may be small, it adds up considerably over a period of years (Nordstrom et al. 2006; Neal et al. 2007). Beach cleaning or grooming can result in abnormally broad unvegetated zones that are inhospitable to dune formation or plant colonization, thereby enhancing the likelihood of erosion (Defreo et al. 2009). Pedestrian Use of the Beach: There are a number of potential sources of pedestrians and pets on Ocean Isle Beach, including those individuals originating from beachfront, public access points, and nearby hotels, resorts, and residences. Shoreline stabilization: Sandbags on private properties provide stabilization to the shoreline of North Carolina Beaches. Sandbags and sandbag revetments have been placed along at least 1,8001f of the eastern shoreline on Ocean Isle Beach, and the Tubbs Inlet shoreline on Ocean Isle Beach is completely lined with a sandbag revetment. In 2014/2015, a sandbag revetment was constructed on over 1,8001f of shoreline at the north end of Topsail Island. The intertidal areas and sand flats along the inlet were used as a sand source. The inlet shoreline downdrift of the sandbag revetment has eroded significantly since installation. A rock revetment was constructed several years ago in Carolina Beach (approximately 2,050 If). In addition, the Town of Ocean Isle Beach has requested authorization for construction of a single, 1,0501f terminal groin (3001f landward, and 7501f waterward of mean high water or MHW) on the east end of the island, placement of a concurrent 3,2141f sand fillet, and the periodic placement of sand in the fillet from either scheduled federal disposal events and/or from locally -sponsored beach nourishment and disposal projects. The project is not yet constructed. 113 RECEIVED FEB 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY 5.3. Effects of the Action 5.3.1. Factors to be considered Proximity of action: Beach renourishment will occur within and adjacent to seabeach amaranth habitat. Distribution: Project construction activities that may affect seabeach amaranth plants on Ocean Isle Beach would occur along the shoreline. Timing: The riming of project construction could directly and indirectly impact seabeach amaranth. In warm years, seabeach amaranth plants may be present until January. Nature of the a ect: The effects of the project construction include burying, trampling, or injuring plants as a result of construction operations and/or sediment disposal activities; burying seeds to a depth that would prevent future germination as a result of construction operations and/or sediment disposal activities; and, destruction of plants by trampling or breaking as a result of increased recreational activities. Duration: This is a recurring event, expected to last up to five and a half months each time. Thus, the direct effects would be expected to be short-term in duration. Indirect effects from the activity may continue to impact seabeach amaranth in subsequent seasons after sand placement. Disturbance frequency: Disturbance from each event will be short term, lasting up to two years. However, sand placement activities may take place every four years, and several times over the life of the project. Recreational disturbance may increase after project completion and have long- term impacts. Disturbance intensity and severity: Project construction is anticipated to be conducted during portions of the seabeach amaranth growing and flowering season. Conservation measures have been incorporated into the project to minimize impacts. The severity is likely to be slight. 5.3.2. Analyses for effects of the action Beneficial Effects: The placement of beach -compatible sand may benefit this species by providing additional suitable habitat or by redistributing seed sources buried during past storm events, beach disposal activities, or natural barrier island migration. Disposal of dredged sand may be compatible with seabeach amaranth provided the timing of beach disposal is appropriate and the material placed on the beach is compatible with the natural sand. Further studies are needed to determine the best methods of beach disposal in seabeach amaranth habitat (Weakley and Bucher 1992). 114 8 12017 DCM- MHD CITY Direct Effects: Sand placement activities may bury or destroy existing plants, resulting in mortality, or bury seeds to a depth that would prevent future germination, resulting in reduced plant populations. Increased traffic from recreationists and their pets can also destroy existing plants by trampling or breaking the plants. Indirect Effects: Future tilling on the beach may be necessary if beach compaction hinders sea turtle nesting activities. Thus, the placement of heavy machinery or associated tilling equipment on the beach may destroy or bury existing plants. 5.3.3. Species' response to the proposed action The placement of sand in the Action Area could bury existing plants if work is conducted during the growing season. Sand placement at any time of year could also bury seeds to a depth that would prevent germination. Sand placement beaches could also have positive impacts on seabeach amaranth by creating additional habitat for the species, if the material is compatible. Although more study is needed before the long-term impacts can be accurately assessed, several populations are shown to have established themselves on beaches receiving dredged sediments, and have thrived through subsequent applications of dredged material (Weakley and Bucher 1992). 5.4. Cumulative Effects This project occurs on non-federal lands. Cumulative effects include the effects of future State, tribal, local, or private actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the Action Area considered in this biological opinion. Future Federal actions that are unrelated to the proposed action are not considered in this section, because they require separate consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Act. It is reasonable to expect continued shoreline stabilization, inlet dredging, and beach renourishment projects in this area in the future since erosion and sea -level rise increases would impact the existing beachfront development. However, with the exception of some shoreline stabilization projects, most of the future actions that are reasonable certain to occur will require a Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 permit, and thus will require separate consultation. 115 DECEIVED FEB 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY 5.5. Conclusion After reviewing the current status of the seabeach amaranth population, the environmental baseline for the Action Area, the effects of the proposed activities, the proposed Conservation Measures, and the cumulative effects, it is the Service's biological opinion that implementation of these actions, as proposed, is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the seabeach amaranth. • Construction will occur and/or will likely have an effect on 27,650 If of shoreline. • Seabeach amaranth has been documented in the project area. • The placement of sand in the Action Area could bury existing plants and also bury seeds to a depth that would prevent germination. • Increased traffic from recreationists and their pets can also destroy existing plants by trampling or breaking the plants. • It is unclear whether the placement of sand would have positive impacts on seabeach amaranth by creating additional habitat for the species, or by exposing seeds that had previously buried. 6. LOGGERHEAD, GREEN, LEATHERBACK, HAWKSBILL, AND KEMP'S RIDLEY SEA TURTLES 6.1. Status of the Species/Critical Habitat 6.1.1. Species/critical habitat description 6.1.1.1. Species/critical habitat description — Loggerhead Sea Turtle The loggerhead sea turtle, which occurs throughout the temperate and tropical regions of the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans, was federally listed worldwide as a threatened species on July 28, 1978 (43 Federal Register (FR) 32800). On September 22, 2011, the loggerhead sea turtle's listing under the ESA was revised from a single threatened species to nine distinct population segments (DPS) listed as either threatened or endangered (79 FR 39755). The nine DPSs and their statuses are: Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS — threatened Northeast Atlantic Ocean DPS — endangered Mediterranean Sea DPS — endangered South Atlantic Ocean DPS — threatened North Pacific Ocean DPS — endangered South Pacific Ocean DPS — endangered North Indian Ocean DPS — endangered Southwest Indian Ocean DPS — threatened 116 DECEIVED i 2 12017 DCM- MIND CITY Southeast Indo-Pacific Ocean DPS — threatened The loggerhead sea turtle grows to an average weight of about 200 pounds and is characterized by a large head with blunt jaws. Adults and subadults have a reddish -brown carapace. Scales on the top of the head and top of the flippers are also reddish -brown with yellow on the borders. Hatchlings are a dull brown color (National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 2009a). The loggerhead feeds on mollusks, crustaceans, fish, and other marine animals. The loggerhead may be found hundreds of miles out to sea, as well as in inshore areas such as bays, lagoons, salt marshes, creeks, ship channels, and the mouths of large rivers. Coral reefs, rocky places, and ship wrecks are often used as feeding areas. Within the Northwest Atlantic, the majority of nesting activity occurs from April through September, with a peak in June and July (Williams -Walls et al. 1983; Dodd 1988; Weishampel et al. 2006). Nesting occurs within the Northwest Atlantic along the coasts of North America, Central America, northern South America, the Antilles, Bahamas, and Bermuda, but is concentrated in the southeastern U.S. and on the Yucatdn Peninsula in Mexico on open beaches or along narrow bays having suitable sand (Sternberg 1981; Ehrhart 1989; Ehrhart et al. 2003; NMFS and USFWS 2008). Designated critical habitat On July 10, 2014, the Service designated portions North Carolina beaches as critical habitat for the Northwest Atlantic (NWA) population of loggerhead sea turtles. Holden Beach is located within Critical Habitat Unit LOGG-T-NC-08 (Oak Island, Brunswick County). From the Federal Register (FR) Notice (see http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FWS-R4-ES-2012- 0103-0001), this unit consists of 13.4 km (8.3 miles) of island shoreline along the Atlantic Ocean and extends from Lockwoods Folly Inlet to Shallotte Inlet. The island is separated from the mainland by the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, Elizabeth River, Montgomery Slough, Boone Channel, and salt marsh. The unit includes lands from the MHW line to the toe of the secondary dune or developed structures. Land in this unit is in private and other ownership (see Table 1). This unit was occupied at the time of listing and is currently occupied. This unit supports expansion of nesting from an adjacent unit (LOGG-T-NC-07) that has high -density nesting by loggerhead sea turtles in North Carolina. In total, 1,189.9 kilometers (Ian) (739.3 miles) of loggerhead sea turtle nesting beaches are designated critical habitat in the States of North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, and Mississippi. These beaches account for 48 percent of an estimated 2,464 km (1,531 miles) of coastal beach shoreline, and account for approximately 84 percent of the documented nesting (numbers of nests) within these six States. The designated critical habitat has been identified by the recovery unit in which they are located. Recovery units are management subunits of a listed entity that are geographically or otherwise identifiable and essential to the recovery of the listed entity. Within the United States, four terrestrial recovery units have been designated for the Northwest Atlantic population of the loggerhead sea turtle: the 117 RECEIVED FEB 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY Northern Recovery Unit (NRU), Peninsular Florida Recovery Unit (PFRU), Dry Tortugas Recovery Unit (DTRU), and Northern Gulf of Mexico Recovery Unit (NGMRU). For the NRU, the Service has designated 393.7 Ian (244.7 miles) of Atlantic Ocean shoreline in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, encompassing approximately 86 percent of the documented nesting (numbers of nests) within the recovery unit. Under the Act and its implementing regulations, the Service is required to identify the physical or biological features (PBFs) essential to the conservation of the loggerhead sea turtle in areas occupied at the time of listing, focusing on the features' primary constituent elements (PCEs). The Service determined that the following PBFs are essential for the loggerhead sea turtle: (1) PBF 1—Sites For Breeding, Reproduction, or Rearing (or Development) of Offspring. To be successful, reproduction must occur when environmental conditions support adult activity (e.g., sufficient quality and quantity of food in the foraging area, suitable beach structure for digging, nearby inter -nesting habitat) (Georges et al. 1993). The environmental conditions of the nesting beach must favor embryonic development and survival (i.e., modest temperature fluctuation, low salinity, high humidity, well drained, well aerated) (Mortimer 1982; Mortimer 1990). Additionally, the hatchlings must emerge to onshore and offshore conditions that enhance their chances of survival (e.g., less than 100 percent depredation, appropriate offshore currents for dispersal) (Georges et al. 1993). (2) PBF 2 - Natural Coastal Processes or Activities That Mimic These Natural Processes. It is important that loggerhead nesting beaches are allowed to respond naturally to coastal dynamic processes of erosion and accretion or mimic these processes. The Service considers PCEs to be those specific elements of the PBFs that provide for a species' life -history processes and are essential to the conservation of the species. Based on our current knowledge of the PBFs and habitat characteristics required to sustain the species' life -history processes, the terrestrial primary constituent elements specific to the Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS of the loggerhead sea turtle are the extra -tidal or dry sandy beaches from the mean high- water line to the toe of the secondary dune, which are capable of supporting a high density of nests or serving as an expansion area for beaches with a high density of nests and that are well distributed within each State, or region within a State, and representative of total nesting, consisting of four components: (1) PCE 1—Suitable nesting beach habitat that has (a) relatively unimpeded nearshore access from the ocean to the beach for nesting females and from the beach to the ocean for both post - nesting females and hatchlings and (b) is located above mean high water to avoid being inundated frequently by high rides. RECEIVED 118 FEB 21 2017 DCM_ IVIHD CITY (2) PCE 2—Sand that (a) allows for suitable nest construction, (b) is suitable for facilitating gas diffusion conducive to embryo development, and (c) is able to develop and maintain temperatures and moisture content conducive to embryo development. (3) PCE 3—Suitable nesting beach habitat with sufficient darkness to ensure nesting turtles are not deterred from emerging onto the beach and hatchlings and post -nesting females orient to the sea. (4) PCE 4—Natural coastal processes or artificially created or maintained habitat mimicking natural conditions. This includes artificial habitat types that mimic the natural conditions described in PCEs 1 to 3 above for beach access, nest site selection, nest construction, egg deposition and incubation, and hatchling emergence and movement to the sea. This unit contains all of the PBFs and PCEs. The PBFs in this unit may require special management considerations or protections to ameliorate the threats of recreational use, predation, beach sand placement activities, in -water and shoreline alterations, climate change, beach erosion, artificial lighting, human -caused disasters, and response to disasters. The critical habitat in the project area has been relatively undisturbed since designation in 2014. 6.1.1.2. Species/critical habitat description - Green Sea Turtle The green sea turtle was federally listed on July 28, 1978 (43 FR 32800). On April 6, 2016, the NMFS and Service issued a final rule to list 11 DPSs of the green sea turtle. Three of the DPSs are endangered species (Central South Pacific, Central West Pacific, and Mediterranean Sea), and eight are threatened species (81 FR 20058). In North Carolina, the green sea turtle is part of the North Atlantic Ocean DPS, and is listed as threatened. The green sea turtle has a worldwide distribution in tropical and subtropical waters. The green sea turtle grows to a maximum size of about 4 feet and a weight of 440 pounds. It has a heart -shaped shell, small head, and single -clawed flippers. The carapace is smooth and colored gray, green, brown, and black. Hatchlings are black on top and white on the bottom (NMFS 2009b). Hatchling green turtles eat a variety of plants and animals, but adults feed almost exclusively on seagrasses and marine algae. Major green turtle nesting colonies in the Atlantic occur on Ascension Island, Aves Island, Costa Rica, and Surinam. Within the U.S., green turtles nest in small numbers in the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico, and in larger numbers along the east coast of Florida, particularly in Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, Palm Beach, and Broward Counties (NMFS and USFWS 1991). Nests have been documented, in smaller numbers, north of these Counties, from Volusia through Nassau Counties in Florida, as well as in Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and as far north as Delaware in 2011. In 2015, 41 green sea turtle nests were documented in North Carolina. Nests have been documented in smaller numbers south of 119 RECEIVE® FEB 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY Broward County in Miami -Dade. Nesting also has been documented along the Gulf coast of Florida from Escambia County through Franklin County in northwest Florida and from Pinellas County through Monroe County in southwest Florida (FWC/FWRI 2010b). Green sea turtles are generally found in fairly shallow waters (except when migrating) inside reefs, bays, and inlets. The green turtle is attracted to lagoons and shoals with an abundance of marine grass and algae. Open beaches with a sloping platform and minimal disturbance are required for nesting. Critical habitat for the green sea turtle has been designated for the waters surrounding Culebra Island, Puerto Rico, and its outlying keys (63 FR 46693). No designated critical habitat is present in the Action Area. 6.1.1.3. Species/critical habitat description - Leatherback Sea Turtle The leatherback sea turtle was federally listed as an endangered species on June 2, 1970 (35 FR 8491). Leatherbacks have the widest distribution of the sea turtles with nonbreeding animals recorded as far north as the British Isles and the Maritime Provinces of Canada and as far south as Argentina and the Cape of Good Hope (Pritchard 1992). Foraging leatherback excursions have been documented into higher -latitude subpolar waters. They have evolved physiological and anatomical adaptations (Frain et al. 1972; Greer et al. 1973) that allow them to exploit waters far colder than any other sea turtle species would be capable of surviving. The adult leatherback can reach 4 to 8 feet in length and weigh 500 to 2,000 pounds. The carapace is distinguished by a rubber -like texture, about 1.6 inches thick, made primarily of tough, oil -saturated connective tissue. Hatchlings are dorsally mostly black and are covered with tiny scales; the flippers are edged in white, and rows of white scales appear as stripes along the length of the back (NMFS 2009c). Jellyfish are the main staple of its diet, but it is also known to feed on sea urchins, squid, crustaceans, tunicates, fish, blue-green algae, and floating seaweed. This is the largest, deepest diving of all sea turtle species. Leatherback turtle nesting grounds are distributed worldwide in the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans on beaches in the tropics and subtropics. The Pacific Coast of Mexico historically supported the world's largest known concentration of nesting leatherbacks. The leatherback turtle regularly nests in the U.S. Caribbean in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Along the U.S. Atlantic coast, most nesting occurs in Florida (NMFS and USFWS 1992). Nesting has also been reported in Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina (Rabon et al. 2003) and in Texas (Shaver 2008). Adult females require sandy nesting beaches backed with vegetation and sloped sufficiently so the distance to dry sand is limited. Their preferred beaches have proximity to deep water and generally rough seas. RECEIVED 120 FEB 212017 oCM- MHD CITY Marine and terrestrial critical habitat for the leatherback sea turtle has been designated at Sandy Point on the western end of the island of St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands (44 FR 17710). There is no designated critical habitat in North Carolina. 6.1.1.4. Species/critical habitat description — Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle The Kemp's ridley sea turtle was federally listed as endangered on December 2, 1970 (35 FR 18320). The Kemp's ridley, along with the flatback sea turtle (Natator depresses), has the most geographically restricted distribution of any sea turtle species. The range of the Kemp's ridley includes the Gulf coasts of Mexico and the U.S., and the Atlantic coast of North America as far north as Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. Adult Kemp's ridleys and olive ridleys are the smallest sea turtles in the world. The weight of an adult Kemp's ridley is generally between 70 to 108 pounds with a carapace measuring approximately 24 to 26 inches in length (Heppell et al. 2005). The carapace is almost as wide as it is long. The species' coloration changes significantly during development from the grey -black dorsum and plastron of hatchlings, a grey -black dorsum with a yellowish -white plastron as post - pelagic juveniles and then to the lighter grey -olive carapace and cream -white or yellowish plastron of adults. Their diet consists mainly of swimming crabs, but may also include fish, jellyfish, and an array of mollusks. The Kemp's ridley has a restricted distribution. Nesting is essentially limited to the beaches of the western Gulf of Mexico, primarily in Tamaulipas, Mexico (NMFS et al. 2011). Nesting also occurs in Veracruz and a few historical records exist for Campeche, Mexico (Marquez-Millan 1994). Nesting also occurs regularly in Texas and infrequently in a few other U.S. states. However, historic nesting records in the U.S. are limited to south Texas (Werler 1951, Carr 1961, Hildebrand 1963). Most Kemp's ridley nests located in the U.S. have been found in south Texas, especially Padre Island (Shaver and Caillouet 1998; Shaver 2002, 2005). Nests have been recorded elsewhere in Texas (Shaver 2005, 2006a, 2006b, 2007, 2008), and in Florida (Johnson et al. 1999, Foote and Mueller 2002, Hegna et al. 2006, FWC/FWRI 2010b), Alabama Q. Phillips, Service, personal communication, 2007 cited in NMFS et al. 2011; J. Isaacs, Service, personal communication, 2008 cited in NMFS et al. 2011), Georgia (Williams et al. 2006), South Carolina (Anonymous 1992), and North Carolina (Marquez et al. 1996), but these events are less frequent. Kemp's ridleys inhabit the Gulf of Mexico and the Northwest Atlantic Ocean, as far north as the Grand Banks (Watson et al. 2004) and Nova Scotia (Bleakney 1955). They occur near the Azores and eastern north Atlantic (Deraniyagala 1938, Brongersma 1972, Fontaine et al. 1989, Bolten and Martins 1990) and Mediterranean (Pritchard and Marquez 1973, Brongersma and Can 1983, Tomas and Raga 2007, Insacco and Spadola 2010). 121 RECEIVED FEB 2 g 2017 DCM- MHD CITY Juvenile Kemp's ridleys spend on average 2 years in the oceanic zone (NMFS SEFSC unpublished preliminary analysis, July 2004, as cited in NMFS et al. 2011) where they likely live and feed among floating algal communities. They remain here until they reach about 7.9 inches in length (approximately 2 years of age), at which size they enter coastal shallow water habitats (Ogren 1989); however, the time spent in the oceanic zone may vary from 1 to 4 years or perhaps more (Turtle Expert Working Group (TEWG) 2000, Baker and Higgins 2003, Dodge et al. 2003). No critical habitat has been designated for the Kemp's ridley sea turtle. 6.1.1.5. Species/critical habitat description — Hawksbill Sea Turtle The hawksbill sea turtle was Federally listed as endangered on June 2, 1970 (35 FR 8491). The hawksbill is found in tropical and subtropical seas of the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans. The species is widely distributed in the Caribbean Sea and western Atlantic Ocean. Data collected in the Wider Caribbean reported that hawksbills typically weigh around 176 pounds or less; hatchlings average about 1.6 inches straight length and range in weight from 0.5 to 0.7 ounces. The carapace is heart shaped in young turtles, and becomes more elongated or egg - shaped with maturity. The top scutes are often richly patterned with irregularly radiating streaks of brown or black on an amber background. The head is elongated and tapers sharply to a point. The lower jaw is V-shaped (NMFS 2009d). Within the continental U.S., hawksbill sea turtle nesting is rare, and nests are only known from Florida and North Carolina. Nesting in Florida is restricted to the southeastern coast of Florida (Volusia through Miami -Dade Counties) and the Florida Keys (Monroe County) (Meylan 1992; Meylan et al. 1995). Two nests have been recorded in North Carolina, both in 2015. Both nests, located on the Seashore, were originally thought to be loggerhead nests, but discovered to be hawksbill nests after DNA testing of eggshells. Hawksbill tracks are difficult to differentiate from those of loggerheads and may not be recognized by surveyors. Therefore, surveys in Florida and elsewhere in the southeastern U.S. likely underestimate actual hawksbill nesting numbers (Meylan et al. 1995). In the U.S. Caribbean, hawksbill nesting occurs on beaches throughout Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands (NMFS and USFWS 1993). Critical Habitat for the hawksbill sea turtle was designated on June 24, 1982 (47 FR 27295) and September 2, 1998 (63 FR 46693). Critical habitat for the hawksbill sea turtle has been designated for selected beaches and/or waters of Mona, Monito, Culebrita, and Culebra Islands, Puerto Rico. There is no designated critical habitat in North Carolina. R, ECEIVED 122 i E6 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY 6.1.2. Life history 6.1.2.1. Life history — Loggerhead Sea Turtle Loggerheads are long-lived, slow -growing animals that use multiple habitats across entire ocean basins throughout their life history. This complex life history encompasses terrestrial, nearshore, and open ocean habitats. The three basic ecosystems in which loggerheads live are the: 1. Terrestrial zone (supralittoral) - the nesting beach where both oviposition (egg laying) and embryonic development and hatching occur. 2. Neritic zone - the inshore marine environment (from the surface to the sea floor) where water depths do not exceed 656 feet. The neritic zone generally includes the continental shelf, but in areas where the continental shelf is very narrow or nonexistent, the neritic zone conventionally extends to areas where water depths are less than 656 feet. Oceanic zone - the vast open ocean environment (from the surface to the sea floor) where water depths are greater than 656 feet. Maximum intrinsic growth rates of sea turtles are limited by the extremely long duration of the juvenile stage and fecundity. Loggerheads require high survival rates in the juvenile and adult stages, common constraints critical to maintaining long-lived, slow -growing species, to achieve positive or stable long-term population growth (Congdon et al. 1993; Heppell 1998; Crouse 1999; Heppell et al. 1999; 2003; Musick 1999). Numbers of nests and nesting females are often highly variable from year to year due to a number of factors including environmental stochasticity, periodicity in ocean conditions, anthropogenic effects, and density -dependent and density -independent factors affecting survival, somatic growth, and reproduction (Meylan 1982; Hays 2000; Chaloupka 2001; Solow et al. 2002). Despite these sources of variation, and because female turtles exhibit strong nest site fidelity, a nesting beach survey can provide a valuable assessment of changes in the adult female population, provided that the study is sufficiently long and effort and methods are standardized (Meylan 1982; Gerrodette and Brandon 2000; Reina et al. 2002). Table 19 summarizes key life history characteristics for loggerheads nesting in the U.S. Loggerheads nest on ocean beaches and occasionally on estuarine shorelines with suitable sand. Nests are typically laid between the high tide line and the dune front (Routa 1968; Witherington 1986; Hailman and Elowson 1992). Wood and Bjomdal (2000) evaluated four environmental factors (slope, temperature, moisture, and salinity) and found that slope had the greatest influence on loggerhead nest -site selection on a beach in Florida. Loggerheads appear to prefer relatively narrow, steeply sloped, coarse -grained beaches, although nearshore contours may also play a role in nesting beach site selection (provancha and Ehrhart 1987). 123 RECEIVED FEB 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY The warmer the sand surrounding the egg chamber, the faster the embryos develop (Mrosovsky and Yntema 1980). Sand temperatures prevailing during the middle third of the incubation period also determine the sex of hatchling sea turtles (Mrosovsky and Yntema 1980). Incubation temperatures near the upper end of the tolerable range produce only female hatchlings while incubation temperatures near the lower end of the tolerable range produce only male hatchlings. RECEIVED F E'3 21 2017 124 r)-; - MHD CITY Table 19. Typical values of life history parameters for loggerheads nesting in the U.S. (NMFS and USFWS 2008). Life History Trait Data Clutch size (mesa) 100-126 eggs' Incubation duration (varies depending on time of year and latitude) z 3 Range = 42-75 days ' Pivotal temperature (incubation temperature that produces an equal number of males and females 84,Fs Nest productivity (emerged hatchlings/total eggs) x 100 (varies depending on site specific factors) 6 45-70 perceniz' Clutch frequency (number of nests/female/season) 3-4 nests? Internesting interval (number of days between successive nests within a season) 12-15 days Juvenile (<34 inches Curved Carapace Length) sex ratio 65-70 percent female4 Remigration interval (number of years between successive nesting migrations) 2.5-3.7 years Nesting season late April -early September Hatching season late June -early November Age at sexual maturity 32-35 years'° Life span >57 yearsir t Dodd(1988). 2 Dodd and Mackinnon (1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004). 3 Witherington (2006) (information based on nests monitored throughout Florida beaches in 2005, n = 865). 4 NMFS (2001); Foley (2005). 5 Mrosovsky (1988). 6 Witherington (2006) (information based on nests monitored throughout Florida beaches in 2005, n = 1,680). 7 Murphy and Hopkins (1984); Frazer and Richardson (1985); Hawkes et al. 2005; Scoff 2006. s Caldwell (1962), Dodd (1988). 9 Richardson et al. (1978); Bjomdal et al. (1983). 10 Snover (2005). 1 ' Dahlen et al. (2000). 125 RECEIVE® F B 21 2017 DCM- MH® CITY Loggerhead hatchlings pip and escape from their eggs over a 1- to 3-day interval and move upward and out of the nest over a 2- to 4-day interval (Christens 1990). The time from pipping to emergence ranges from 4 to 7 days with an average of 4.1 days (Godfrey and Mrosovsky 1997). Hatchlings emerge from their nests en masse almost exclusively at night, and presumably using decreasing sand temperature as a cue (Hendrickson 1958; Mrosovsky 1968; Witherington et al. 1990). Moran et al. (1999) concluded that a lowering of sand temperatures below a critical threshold, which most typically occurs after nightfall, is the most probable trigger for hatchling emergence from a nest. After an initial emergence, there may be secondary emergences on subsequent nights (Carr and Ogren 1960; Witherington 1986; Ernest and Martin 1993; Houghton and Hays 2001). Hatchlings use a progression of orientation cues to guide their movement from the nest to the marine environments where they spend their early years (Lohman and Lohman 2003). Hatchlings fast use light cues to find the ocean. On naturally lighted beaches without artificial lighting, ambient light from the open sky creates a relatively bright horizon compared to the dark silhouette of the dune and vegetation landward of the nest. This contrast guides the hatchlings to the ocean (Daniel and Smith 1947; Limpus 1971; Salmon et al. 1992; Witherington and Martin 1996; Witherington 1997; Stewart and Wyneken 2004). 6.1.2.2. Life history - Green Sea Turtle Green sea turtles deposit from one to nine clutches within a nesting season, but the overall average is about 3.3 nests. The interval between nesting events within a season varies around a mean of about 13 days (Hirth 1997). Mean clutch size varies widely among populations. Clutch size varies from 75 to 200 eggs with incubation requiring 48 to 70 days, depending on incubation temperatures. Only occasionally do females produce clutches in successive years. Usually two or more years intervene between breeding seasons (NMFS and USFWS 1991). Age at sexual maturity is believed to be 20 to 50 years (Hirth 1997). 6.1.2.3. Life history — Leatherback Sea Turtle Leatherbacks nest an average of five to seven times within a nesting season, with an observed maximum of 11 nests (NMFS and USFWS 1992). The interval between nesting events within a season is about 9 to 10 days. Clutch size averages 80 to 85 yolked eggs, with the addition of usually a few dozen smaller, yolkless eggs, mostly laid toward the end of the clutch (Pritchard 1992). Nesting migration intervals of 2 to 3 years were observed in leatherbacks nesting on the Sandy Point National Wildlife Refuge, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands (McDonald and Dutton 1996). Leatherbacks are believed to reach sexual maturity in 13 to 16 years (Dutton et al. 2005; Jones et al. 2011). 126 RECEIVED FEB 21 Z017 DCM- MHD CITE' 6.1.2.4. Life history — Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle Nesting occurs primarily from April into July. Nesting often occurs in synchronized emergences, known as "arribadas" or "arribazones," which may be triggered by high wind speeds, especially north winds, and changes in barometric pressure (Jimenez et al. 2005). Nesting occurs primarily during daylight hours. Clutch size averages 100 eggs and eggs typically take 45 to 58 days to hatch depending on incubation conditions, especially temperatures (Marquez -Milian 1994, Rostal 2007). Females lay an average of 2.5 clutches within a season (TEWG 1998) and inter -nesting interval generally ranges from 14 to 28 days (Miller 1997; Donna Shaver, Padre Island National Seashore, personal communication, 2007 as cited in NMFS et al. 2011). The mean remigration interval for adult females is 2 years, although intervals of 1 and 3 years are not uncommon (Marquez et al. 1982; TEWG 1998, 2000). Males may not be reproductively active on an annual basis (Wibbels et al. 1991). Age at sexual maturity is believed to be between 10 to 17 years (Snover et al. 2007). 6.1.2.5. Life history — Hawksbill Sea Turtle Hawksbills nest on average about 4.5 times per season at intervals of approximately 14 days (Corliss et al. 1989). In Florida and the U.S. Caribbean, clutch size is approximately 140 eggs, although several records exist of over 200 eggs per nest (NMFS and USFWS 1993). On the basis of limited information, nesting migration intervals of two to three years appear to predominate. Hawksbills are recruited into the reef environment at about 14 inches in length and are believed to begin breeding about 30 years later. However, the time required to reach 14 inches in length is unknown and growth rates vary geographically. As a result, actual age at sexual maturity is unknown. 6.1.3. Population dynamics 6.1.3.1. Population dynamics — Loggerhead Sea Turtle The loggerhead occurs throughout the temperate and tropical regions of the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans (Dodd 1988). However, the majority of loggerhead nesting is at the western rims of the Atlantic and hidian Oceans. The most recent reviews show that only two loggerhead nesting beaches have greater than 10,000 females nesting per year (Baldwin et al. 2003; Ehrhart et al. 2003; Kamezaki et al. 2003; Limpus and Limpus 2003; Margaritoulis et al. 2003): Peninsular Florida (U.S.) and Masirah (Oman). Those beaches with 1,000 to 9,999 females nesting each year are Georgia through North Carolina (U.S.), Quintana Roo and Yucatan (Mexico), Cape Verde Islands (Cape Verde, eastern Atlantic off Africa), and Western Australia (Australia). 127 RECEIVED FEB 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY The major nesting concentrations in the U.S. are found in South Florida. However, loggerheads nest from Texas to Virginia. Since 2000, the annual number of loggerhead nests in NC has fluctuated between 333 in 2004 to 1,260 in 2013 (Godfrey, unpublished data). Total estimated nesting in the U.S. has fluctuated between 49,000 and 90,000 nests per year from 1999-2010 (NMFS and USFWS 2008; FWC/FWRI 2010a). Adult loggerheads are known to make considerable migrations between foraging areas and nesting beaches (Schroeder et al. 2003; Foley et al. 2008). During non -nesting years, adult females from U.S. beaches are distributed in waters off the eastern U.S. and throughout the Gulf of Mexico, Bahamas, Greater Antilles, and Yucatan. From a global perspective, the U.S. nesting aggregation is of paramount importance to the survival of the species, as is the population that nests on islands in the Arabian Sea off Oman (Ross 1982; Ehrhart 1989; Baldwin et al. 2003). 6.1.3.2. Population dynamics - Green Sea Turtle There are an estimated 150,000 females that nest each year in 46 sites throughout the world (NMFS and Service 2007a). In the U.S. Atlantic, the majority of nesting occurs along the coast of eastern central Florida, with an average of 10,377 each year from 2008 to 2012 (B. Witherington, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, pers. comm., 2013). Years of coordinated conservation efforts, including protection of nesting beaches, reduction of bycatch in fisheries, and prohibitions on the direct harvest of sea turtles, have led to increasing numbers of turtles nesting in Florida and along the Pacific coast of Mexico. On April 6, 2016, NMFS and the Service reclassified the status of the two segments that include those breeding populations (North Atlantic Ocean DPS and East Pacific Ocean DPS) from endangered to threatened (81 FR 20058). In North Carolina, between 4 and 44 green sea turtle nests are laid annually (Godfrey, unpublished data). In the U.S. Pacific, over 90 percent of nesting throughout the Hawaiian archipelago occurs at the French Frigate Shoals, where about 200 to 700 females nest each year (NMFS and Service 1998a). Elsewhere in the U.S. Pacific, nesting takes place at scattered locations in the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas, Guam, and American Samoa. In the western Pacific, the largest green turtle nesting aggregation in the world occurs on Raine Island, Australia, where thousands of females nest nightly in an average nesting season (Limpus et al. 1993). In the Indian Ocean, major nesting beaches occur in Oman where 30,000 females are reported to nest annually (Ross and Barwani 1995). 6.1.3.3. Population dynamics — Leatherback Sea Turtle A dramatic drop in nesting numbers has been recorded on major nesting beaches in the Pacific. Spotila et al. (2000) have highlighted the dramatic decline and possible future extirpation of leatherbacks in the Pacific. 14ECENED 128 FEB 21 Z017 ®CM- MHD CITY The East Pacific and Malaysia leatherback populations have collapsed. Spotila et al. (1996) estimated that only 34,500 females nested annually worldwide in 1995, which is a dramatic decline from the 115,000 estimated in 1980 (Pritchard 1982). In the eastern Pacific, the major nesting beaches occur in Costa Rica and Mexico. At Playa Grande, Costa Rica, considered the most important nesting beach in the eastern Pacific, numbers have dropped from 1,367 leatherbacks in 1988-1989 to an average of 188 females nesting between 2000-2001 and 2003- 2004. In Pacific Mexico, 1982 aerial surveys of adult female leatherbacks indicated this area had become the most important leatherback nesting beach in the world. Tens of thousands of nests were laid on the beaches in 1980s, but during the 2003-2004 seasons a total of 120 nests were recorded. In the western Pacific, the major nesting beaches lie in Papua New Guinea, Papua, Indonesia, and the Solomon Islands. These are some of the last remaining significant nesting assemblages in the Pacific. Compiled nesting data estimated approximately 5,000 to 9,200 nests annually with 75 percent of the nests being laid in Papua, Indonesia. However, the most recent population size estimate for the North Atlantic alone is a range of 34,000 to 94,000 adult leatherbacks (TEWG 2007). During recent years in Florida, the total number of leatherback nests counted as part of the SNBS program ranged from 540 to 1,797 from 2006-2010 (FWC/FWRI 2010a). Assuming a clutch frequency (number of nests/female/season) of 4.2 in Florida (Stewart 2007), these nests were produced by a range of 128 to 428 females in a given year. Nesting in North Carolina is sporadic. In 2010, two nests were reported in North Carolina, five were reported in 2012, and none were reported in 2013- 2015. Nesting in the Southern Caribbean occurs in the Guianas (Guyana, Suriname, and French Guiana), Trinidad, Dominica, and Venezuela. The largest nesting populations at present occur in the western Atlantic in French Guiana with nesting varying between a low of 5,029 nests in 1967 to a high of 63,294 nests in 2005, which represents a 92 percent increase since 1967 (TEWG 2007). Trinidad supports an estimated 6,000 leatherbacks nesting annually, which represents more than 80 percent of the nesting in the insular Caribbean Sea. Leatherback nesting along the Caribbean Central American coast takes place between Honduras and Colombia. In Atlantic Costa Rica, at Tortuguero, the number of nests laid annually between 1995 and 2006 was estimated to range from 199 to 1,623. Modeling of the Atlantic Costa Rica data indicated that the nesting population has decreased by 67.8 percent over this time period. In Puerto Rico, the main nesting areas are at Fajardo (Northeast Ecological Corridor) and Maunabo on the main island of Puerto Rico and on the islands of Culebra and Vieques. Between 1993 and 2010, the number of nests in the Fajardo area ranged from 51 to 456. In the Maunabo area, the number of nests recorded between 2001 and 2010 ranged from a low of 53 in 2002 to a high of 260 in 2009 (Diez 2011). On the island of Culebra, the number of nests ranged from a low 41 in 1996 to a high of 395 in 1997 (Diez 2011). On beaches managed by the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico on the island of Vieques, the Puerto Rico Department of Natural and Environmental Resources recorded annually 14-61 leatherback nests between 1991 and 129 RECEIVED FEB 21 2017 ACM- MHD CITY 2000; 145 nests in 2002; 24 in 2003; and 37 in 2005 (Diez 2011). The number of leatherback sea turtle nests recorded on Vieques Island beaches managed by the Service ranged between 13 and 163 during 2001-2010. Using the numbers of nests recorded in Puerto Rico between 1984 and 2005, the Turtle Expert Working Group (2007) estimated a population growth of approximately 10 percent per year. Recorded leatherback nesting on the Sandy Point National Wildlife Refuge on the island of St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands, between 1982 and 2010, ranged from a low of 82 in 1986 to a high of 1,008 in 2001 (Garner and Gamer 2010). Using the number of observed females at Sandy Point from 1986 to 2004, the Turtle Expert Working Group (2007) estimated a population growth of approximately 10 percent per year. In the British Virgin Islands, annual nest numbers have increased in Tortola from zero to six nests per year in the late 1980s to 35 to 65 nests per year in the 2000s (TEWG 2007). The most important nesting beach for leatherbacks in the eastern Atlantic lies in Gabon, Africa. It was estimated there were 30,000 nests along 60 miles of Mayumba Beach in southern Gabon during the 1999-2000 nesting season (Billes et al. 2000). Some nesting has been reported in Mauritania, Senegal, the Bijagos Archipelago of Guinea-Bissau, Turtle Islands and Sherbro Island of Sierra Leone, Liberia, Togo, Benin, Nigeria, Cameroon, Sao Tome and Principe, continental Equatorial Guinea, Islands of Corisco in the Gulf of Guinea and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Angola. In addition, a large nesting population is found on the island of Bioko (Equatorial Guinea) (Fretey et al. 2007). In North Carolina between the year 2000 and 2013, as many as 9 nests were laid per year (Godfrey, unpublished data). 6.1.3.4. Population dynamics — Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle Most Kemp's ridleys nest on the beaches of the western Gulf of Mexico, primarily in Tamaulipas, Mexico. Nesting also occurs in Veracruz and Campeche, Mexico, although a small number of Kemp's ridleys nest consistently along the Texas coast (NMFS et al. 2011). In addition, rare nesting events have been reported in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina. Historical information indicates that tens of thousands of ridleys nested near Rancho Nuevo, Mexico, during the late 1940s (Hildebrand 1963). The Kemp's ridley population experienced a devastating decline between the late 1940s and the mid-1980s. The total number of nests per nesting season at Rancho Nuevo remained below 1,000 throughout the 1980s, but gradually began to increase in the 1990s. In 2009, 16,273 nests were documented along the 18.6 miles of coastline patrolled at Rancho Nuevo, and the total number of nests documented for all the monitored beaches in Mexico was 21,144 (USFWS 2010). In 2011, a total of 20,570 nests were documented in Mexico, 81 percent of these nests were documented in the Rancho Nuevo beach (Burchfield and Pena 2011). In addition, 153 and 199 nests were recorded during 2010 and 2011, respectively, in the U.S., primarily in Texas. COVED � -a 21 Z017 130 DCM- MHD CITY 6.1.3.5. Population dynamics - Hawksbill Sea Turtle About 15,000 females are estimated to nest each year throughout the world with the Caribbean accounting for 20 to 30 percent of the world's hawksbill population. Only five regional populations remain with more than 1,000 females nesting annually (Seychelles, Mexico, Indonesia, and two in Australia) (Meylan and Donnelly 1999). Mexico is now the most important region for hawksbills in the Caribbean with about 3,000 nests per year (Meylan 1999). In the U.S. Pacific, hawksbills nest only on main island beaches in Hawaii, primarily along the east coast of the island of Hawaii. Hawksbill nesting has also been documented in American Samoa and Guam (NMFS and USFWS 1998b). 6.1.4. Status and distribution Reason for Listing: There are many threats to sea turtles, including nest destruction from natural events, such as tidal surges and hurricanes, or eggs lost to predation by raccoons, foxes, ghost - crabs, and other animals. However, human activity has significantly contributed to the decline of sea turtle populations along the Atlantic Coast and in the Gulf of Mexico (NRC 1990). These factors include the modification, degradation, or loss of nesting habitat by coastal development, artificial lighting, beach driving, and marine pollution and debris. Furthermore, the overharvest of eggs for food, intentional killing of adults and immature turtles for their shells and skin, and accidental drowning in commercial fishing gear are primarily responsible for the worldwide decline in sea turtle populations. 6.1.4.1. Status and distribution — Loggerhead Sea Turtle Range -wide Trend: Five recovery units have been identified in the Northwest Atlantic based on genetic differences and a combination of geographic distribution of nesting densities, geographic separation, and geopolitical boundaries (NMFS and USFWS 2008). Recovery units are subunits of a listed species that are geographically or otherwise identifiable and essential to the recovery of the species. Recovery units are individually necessary to conserve genetic robustness, demographic robustness, important life history stages, or some other feature necessary for long- term sustainability of the species. The five recovery units identified in the Northwest Atlantic are: Northern Recovery Unit (NRU) - defined as loggerheads originating from nesting beaches from the Florida -Georgia border through southern Virginia (the northern extent of the nesting range); 2. Peninsula Florida Recovery Unit (PFRU) - defined as loggerheads originating from nesting beaches from the Florida -Georgia border through Pinellas County on the west coast of Florida, excluding the islands west of Key West, Florida; 131 RECEIVED FEB 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY 3. Dry Tortugas Recovery Unit (DTRU) - defined as loggerheads originating from nesting beaches throughout the islands located west of Key West, Florida; 4. Northern Gulf of Mexico Recovery Unit (NGMRU) - defined as loggerheads originating from nesting beaches from Franklin County on the northwest Gulf coast of Florida through Texas; and 5. Greater Caribbean Recovery Unit (GCRU) - composed of loggerheads originating from all other nesting assemblages within the Greater Caribbean (Mexico through French Guiana, The Bahamas, Lesser Antilles, and Greater Antilles). The mtDNA analyses show that there is limited exchange of females among these recovery units (Ehrhart 1989; Foote et al. 2000; NMFS 2001; Hawkes et al. 2005). Male -mediated gene flow appears to be keeping the subpopulations genetically similar on a nuclear DNA level (Francisco - Pearce 2001). Historically, the literature has suggested that the northern U.S. nesting beaches (NRU and NGMRU) produce a relatively high percentage of males and the more southern nesting beaches (PFRU, DTRU, and GCRU) a relatively high percentage of females (e.g., Hanson et al. 1998; NMFS 2001; Mrosovsky and Provancha 1989). The NRU and NGMRU were believed to play an important role in providing males to mate with females from the more female -dominated subpopulations to the south. However, in 2002 and 2003, researchers studied loggerhead sex ratios for two of the U.S. nesting subpopulations, the northern and southern subpopulations (NGU and PFRU, respectively) (Blair 2005; Wyneken et al. 2005). The study produced interesting results. In 2002, the northern beaches produced more females and the southern beaches produced more males than previously believed. However, the opposite was true in 2003 with the northern beaches producing more males and the southern beaches producing more females in keeping with prior literature. Wyneken et al. (2005) speculated that the 2002 result may have been anomalous; however, the study did point out the potential for males to be produced on the southern beaches. Although this study revealed that more males may be produced on southern recovery unit beaches than previously believed, the Service maintains that the NRU and NGMRU play an important role in the production of males to mate with females from the more southern recovery units. The NRU is the second largest loggerhead recovery unit within the Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS. Annual nest totals from northern beaches averaged 5,446 nests from 2006 to 2011, a period of near -complete surveys of NRU nesting beaches, representing approximately 1,328 nesting females per year (4.1 nests per female, Murphy and Hopkins 1984) (NMFS and USFWS 2008). In 2008, nesting in Georgia reached what was a new record at that time (1,646 nests), with a downturn in 2009, followed by yet another record in 2011 (1,987 nests). South Carolina had the two highest years of nesting in the 2000s in 2009 (2,183 nests) and 2010 (3,141 nests). The previous high for that 11-year span was 1,433 nests in 2003. North Carolina had 1,252 nests in 2015. The Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina nesting data come from the 132 DECEIVE =EB 21 Z�17 DCM- MHD CVTY seaturtle.org Sea Turtle Nest Monitoring System, which is populated with data input by the State agencies. The loggerhead nesting trend from daily beach surveys was declining significantly at 1.3 percent annually from 1983 to 2007 (NMFS and USFWS, 2008). Overall, there is strong statistical data to suggest the NRU has experienced a long-term decline (NMFS and USFWS 2008). Currently, however, nesting for the NRU is showing possible signs of stabilizing (76 FR 58868, September 22, 2011). Recovery Criteria (only the Demottranhic Recovery Criteria are presented below: for the Lkdnr Factor Recovery Criteria. see NMFS and USFWS 2008) Number of Nests and Number of Nesting Females a. Northern Recovery Unit i. There is statistical confidence (95 percent) that the annual rate of increase over a generation time of 50 years is 2 percent or greater resulting in a total annual number of nests of 14,000 or greater for this recovery unit (approximate distribution of nests is North Carolina =14 percent [2,000 nests], South Carolina =66 percent [9,200 nests], and Georgia =20 percent [2,800 nests]); and ii. This increase in number of nests must be a result of corresponding increases in number of nesting females (estimated from nests, clutch frequency, and remigration interval). b. Peninsular Florida Recovery Unit i. There is statistical confidence (95 percent) that the annual rate of increase over a generation time of 50 years is statistically detectable (one percent) resulting in a total annual number of nests of 106,100 or greater for this recovery unit; and ii. This increase in number of nests must be a result of corresponding increases in number of nesting females (estimated from nests, clutch frequency, and remigration interval). c. Dry Tortugas Recovery Unit i. There is statistical confidence (95 percent) that the annual rate of increase over a generation time of 50 years is three percent or greater resulting in a total annual number of nests of 1,100 or greater for this recovery unit; and ii. This increase in number of nests must be a result of corresponding increases in number of nesting females (estimated from nests, clutch frequency, and remigration interval). d. Northern Gulf of Mexico Recovery Unit i. There is statistical confidence (95 percent) that the annual rate of increase over a generation time of 50 years is three percent or greater resulting in a 133 RECEIVED FEB 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY total annual number of nests of 4,000 or greater for this recovery unit (approximate distribution of nests (2002-2007) is Florida— 92 percent [3,700 nests] and Alabama =8 percent [300 nests]); and ii. This increase in number of nests must be a result of corresponding increases in number of nesting females (estimated from nests, clutch frequency, and remigration interval). e. Greater Caribbean Recovery Unit i. The total annual number of nests at a minimum of three nesting assemblages, averaging greater than 100 nests annually (e.g., Yucatan, Mexico; Cay Sal Bank, Bahamas) has increased over a generation time of 50 years; and ii. This increase in number of nests must be a result of corresponding increases in number of nesting females (estimated from nests, clutch frequency, and remigration interval). 2. Trends in Abundance on Foraging Grounds A network of in -water sites, both oceanic and neritic across the foraging range is established and monitoring is implemented to measure abundance. There is statistical confidence (95 percent) that a composite estimate of relative abundance from these sites is increasing for at least one generation. 3. Trends in Neritic Strandings Relative to In -water Abundance Stranding trends are not increasing at a rate greater than the trends in in -water relative abundance for similar age classes for at least one generation. 6.1.4.2. Status and distribution - Green Sea Turtle Range -wide Trend: The North Atlantic Ocean DPS currently exhibits high nesting abundance, with an estimated total nester abundance of 167,424 females at 73 nesting sites. More than 100,000 females nest at Tortuguero, Costa Rica, and more than 10,000 females nest at Quintana Roo, Mexico. Nesting data indicate long-term increases at all major nesting sites. There is little genetic substructure within the DPS, and turtles from multiple nesting beaches share common foraging areas. Nesting is geographically widespread and occurs at a diversity of mainland and insular sites (81 FR 20058). Annual nest totals documented as part of the Florida SNBS program from 1989-2010 have ranged from 435 nests laid in 1993 to 13,225 in 2010. Nesting occurs in 26 counties with a peak along the east coast, from Volusia through Broward Counties. Although the SNBS program provides information on distribution and total abundance statewide, it cannot be used to assess trends because of variable survey effort. Therefore, green turtle nesting trends are best assessed using standardized nest counts made at INBS sites surveyed with constant effort overtime (1989-2010). Green sea turtle nesting in Florida is increasing based on 22 years (1989-2010) of INBS data from throughout the state ((FWC/FWRI 2010b). The increase in nesting in Florida is likely a result of several factors, including: (1) a Florida statute enacted in 134 r,,; IVED r , -; 21 2017 MHD CITY the early 1970s that prohibited the killing of green turtles in Florida; (2) the species listing under the ESA afforded complete protection to eggs, juveniles, and adults in all U.S. waters; (3) the passage of Florida's constitutional net ban amendment in 1994 and its subsequent enactment, making it illegal to use any gillnets or other entangling nets in State waters; (4) the likelihood that the majority of Florida green turtles reside within Florida waters where they are fully protected; (5) the protections afforded Florida green turtles while they inhabit the waters of other nations that have enacted strong sea turtle conservation measures (e.g., Bermuda); and (6) the listing of the species on Appendix I of Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), which stopped international trade and reduced incentives for illegal trade from the U.S (NMFS and Service 2007a). Recovery Criteria The U.S. Atlantic population of green sea turtles can be considered for delisting if, over a period of 25 years, the following conditions are met: 1. The level of nesting in Florida has increased to an average of 5,000 nests per year for at least six years. Nesting data must be based on standardized surveys; 2. At least 25 percent (65 miles) of all available nesting beaches (260 miles) is in public ownership and encompasses at least 50 percent of the nesting activity; 3. A reduction in stage class mortality is reflected in higher counts of individuals on foraging grounds; and 4. All priority one tasks identified in the recovery plan have been successfully implemented. 6.1.4.3. Status and distribution - Leatherback Sea Turtle Range -wide Trend: Pritchard (1982) estimated 115,000 nesting females worldwide, of which 60 percent nested along the Pacific coast of Mexico. Declines in leatherback nesting have occurred over the last two decades along the Pacific coasts of Mexico and Costa Rica. The Mexican leatherback nesting population, once considered to be the world's largest leatherback nesting population (historically estimated to be 65 percent of the worldwide population), is now less than 1 percent of its estimated size in 1980. Spotila et al. (1996) estimated the number of leatherback sea turtles nesting on 28 beaches throughout the world from the literature and from communications with investigators studying those beaches. The estimated worldwide population of leatherbacks in 1995 was about 34,500 females on these beaches with a lower limit of about 26,200, and an upper limit of about 42,900. This is less than one-third the 1980 estimate of 115,000. Leatherbacks are rare in the Indian Ocean and in very low numbers in the western Pacific Ocean. The most recent population size estimate for the North Atlantic is a range of 34,000 to 94,000 adult leatherbacks (TEWG 2007). The largest population is in the western Atlantic. Using an age -based demographic model, Spotila et al. (1996) determined that 135 RECEIVED FEB 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY leatherback populations in the Indian Ocean and western Pacific Ocean cannot withstand even moderate levels of adult mortality and that the Atlantic populations are being exploited at a rate that cannot be sustained. They concluded that leatherbacks are on the road to extinction and further population declines can be expected unless action is taken to reduce adult mortality and increase survival of eggs and hatchlings. In the western Atlantic, the U.S., nesting populations occur in Florida, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. In Florida, the SNBS program documented an increase in leatherback nesting numbers from 98 nests in 1989 to between 453 and 1,747 nests per season in the early 2000s (FWC 2009a; Stewart and Johnson 2006). Although the SNBS program provides information on distribution and total abundance statewide, it cannot be used to assess trends because of variable survey effort. Therefore, leatherback nesting trends are best assessed using standardized nest counts made at INBS sites surveyed with constant effort overtime (1989-2010). Under the INBS program, approximately 30 percent of Florida's SNBS beach length is surveyed. The MS nest counts represent approximately 34 percent of known leatherback nesting in Florida. An analysis of the INBS data has shown an exponential increase in leatherback sea turtle nesting in Florida since 1989. From 1989 through 2010, the annual number of leatherback sea turtle nests at the core set of index beaches ranged from 27 to 615 (FWC 2010b). Using the numbers of nests recorded from 1979 through 2009, Stewart et al. (2011) estimated a population growth of approximately 10.2 percent per year. In Puerto Rico, the main nesting areas are at Fajardo (Northeast Ecological Corridor) and Maunabo on the main island and on the islands of Culebra and Vieques. Nesting ranged from 51 to 456 nests between 2001 and 2010 (Diez 2011). In the U.S. Virgin Islands, leatherback nesting on Sandy Point National Wildlife Refuge on the island of St. Croix ranged from 143 to 1,008 nests between 1990 and 2005 (TEWG 2007; NMFS and USFWS 2007b). Recovery Criteria The U.S. Atlantic population of leatherbacks can be considered for delisting if the following conditions are met: 1. The adult female population increases over the next 25 years, as evidenced by a statistically significant trend in the number of nests at Culebra, Puerto Rico, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands, and along the east coast of Florida; 2. Nesting habitat encompassing at least 75 percent of nesting activity in U.S. Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, and Florida is in public ownership; and 3. All priority one tasks identified in the recovery plan have been successfully implemented. jjEr JED 136 Fri 21 2017 pCM_ MHp CITY 6.1.4.4. Status and distribution — Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle Nesting aggregations of Kemp's ridleys at Rancho Nuevo were discovered in 1947, and the adult female population was estimated to be 40,000 or more individuals based on a film by Andres Herrera (Hildebrand 1963, Carr 1963). Within approximately 3 decades, the population had declined to 924 nests and reached the lowest recorded nest count of 702 nests in 1985. Since the mid-1980s, the number of nests observed at Rancho Nuevo and nearby beaches has increased 15 percent per year (Heppell et al. 2005), allowing cautious optimism that the population is on its way to recovery. This increase in nesting can be attributed to full protection of nesting females and their nests in Mexico resulting from a bi-national effort between Mexico and the U.S. to prevent the extinction of the Kemp's ridley, the requirement to use Turtle Excluder Devices (TEDs) in shrimp trawls both in the U.S. and Mexico, and decreased shrimping effort (NMFS et al. 2011, Heppell et al. 2005). Recovery Criteria (only the Demographic Recovery Criteria are presented below: for the Listing Factor Recovery Criteria. see NMFS et al. 2011) The recovery goal is to conserve and protect the Kemp's ridley sea turtle so that protections under the ESA are no longer necessary and the species can be removed from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. Biological recovery criteria form the basis from which to gauge whether the species should be reclassified to threatened (i.e., downlisted) or delisted, whereas the listing factor criteria ensure that the threats affecting the species are controlled or eliminated. Downlisting Criteria 1. A population of at least 10,000 nesting females in a season (as estimated by clutch frequency per female per season) distributed at the primary nesting beaches (Rancho Nuevo, Tepehuajes, and Playa Dos) in Mexico is attained. Methodology and capacity to implement and ensure accurate nesting female counts have been developed. 2. Recruitment of at least 300,000 hatchlings to the marine environment per season at the three primary nesting beaches (Rancho Nuevo, Tepehuajes, and Playa Dos) in Mexico is attained to ensure a minimum level of known production through in situ incubation, incubation in corrals, or a combination of both. Delisting Criteria 1. An average population of at least 40,000 nesting females per season (as measured by clutch frequency per female per season and annual nest counts) over a 6-year period distributed among nesting beaches in Mexico and the U.S. is attained. Methodology 137 RECEIVED FEB 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY and capacity to ensure accurate nesting female counts have been developed and implemented. 2. Ensure average annual recruitment of hatchlings over a 6-year period from in situ nests and beach corrals is sufficient to maintain a population of at least 40,000 nesting females per nesting season distributed among nesting beaches in Mexico and the U.S into the future. This criterion may rely on massive synchronous nesting events (i.e., arribadas) that will swamp predators as well as rely on supplemental protection in corrals and facilities. 6.1.4.5. Status and distribution — Hawksbill Sea Turtle The hawksbill sea turtle has experienced global population declines of 80 percent or more during the past century and continued declines are projected (Meylan and Donnelly 1999). Most populations are declining, depleted, or remnants of larger aggregations. Hawksbills were previously abundant, as evidenced by high -density nesting at a few remaining sites and by trade statistics. Recovery Criteria The U.S. Atlantic population of hawksbills can be considered for delisting if, over a period of 25 years, the following conditions are met: 1. The adult female population is increasing, as evidenced by a statistically significant trend in the annual number of nests on at least five index beaches, including Mona Island and Buck Island Reef National Monument; 2. Habitat for at least 50 percent of the nesting activity that occurs in the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico is protected in perpetuity; 3. Numbers of adults, subadults, and juveniles are increasing, as evidenced by a statistically significant trend on at least five key foraging areas within Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, and Florida; and 4. All priority one tasks identified in the recovery plan have been successfully implemented. The Recovery Plan for the Hawksbill Turtle in the U.S. Caribbean, Atlantic, and Gulf of Mexico was signed in 1993 (NMFS and USFWS 1993), and the Recovery Plan for U.S. Pacific Populations of the Hawksbill Turtle was signed in 1998 (NMFS and USFWS 1998b). 138 ��M.M 6.1.5. Analysis of the species/critical habitat likely to be affected Barrier islands and inlets are complex and dynamic coastal systems that are continually responding to sediment supply, waves, and fluctuations in sea level. The location and shape of the beaches of barrier islands perpetually adjusts to these physical forces. Waves that strike a barrier island at an angle, for instance, generate a longshore current that carries sediment along the shoreline. Cross -shore currents cant' sediment perpendicular to the shoreline. Wind moves sediment across the dry beach, dunes and island interior. During storm events, overwash may breach the island at dune gaps or other weak spots, depositing sediments on the interior and back sides of islands, increasing island elevation and accreting the soundside shoreline. Tidal inlets play a vital role in the dynamics and processes of barrier islands. Sediment is transferred across inlets from island to island via the tidal shoals or deltas. The longshore sediment transport often causes barrier spits to accrete, shifting inlets towards the neighboring island. Flood tidal shoals that are left behind by the migrating inlet are typically incorporated into the soundside shoreline and marshes of the island, widening it considerably. Many inlets have a cycle of inlet migration, breaching of the barrier spit during a storm, and closure of the old inlet with the new breach becoming the new inlet. Barrier spits tend to be low in elevation, sparse in vegetation, and repeatedly submerged by high and storm rides. The Service and the NMFS share Federal jurisdiction for sea turtles under the ESA. The Service has responsibility for sea turtles on the nesting beach. NMFS has jurisdiction for sea turtles in the marine environment. In accordance with the ESA, the Service completes consultations with all Federal agencies for actions that may adversely affect sea turtles on the nesting beach. The Service's analysis only addresses activities that may impact nesting sea turtles, their nests and eggs, and hatchlings as they emerge from the nest and crawl to the sea. NMFS assesses and consults with Federal agencies concerning potential impacts to sea turtles in the marine environment, including updrift and downdrift nearshore areas affected by sand placement projects on the beach. The proposed action has the potential to adversely affect nesting females, nests, and hatchlings on the beach within the proposed Action Area. Potential effects include destruction of nests deposited within the boundaries of the proposed project, harassment in the form of disturbing or interfering with female turtles attempting to nest within the construction area or on adjacent beaches as a result of construction activities, disorientation of hatchling turtles on beaches adjacent to the construction area as they emerge from the nest and crawl to the water as a result of project lighting or equipment on the beach, and behavior modification of nesting females during the nesting season resulting in false crawls or situations where they choose marginal or unsuitable nesting areas to deposit eggs within the Action Area, due to compaction or escarpments. The quality of the placed sand could affect the ability of female turtles to nest, the 139 RECEIVED FEB 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY suitability of the nest incubation environment, and the ability of hatchlings to emerge from the nest. Threats to Sea Turtle Species Coastal Development Loss of sea turtle nesting habitat related to coastal development has had the greatest impact on nesting sea turtles. Beachfront development not only causes the loss of suitable nesting habitat, but can result in the disruption of powerful coastal processes accelerating erosion and interrupting the natural shoreline migration (National Research Council 1990b). This may in turn cause the need to protect upland structures and infrastructure by armoring, groin placement, beach emergency berm construction and repair, and beach nourishment, all of which cause changes in, additional loss of, or impact to the remaining sea turtle habitat. Hurricanes and Storms Hurricanes and other large storms were probably responsible for maintaining coastal beach habitat upon which sea turtles depend through repeated cycles of destruction, alteration, and recovery of beach and dune habitat. Hurricanes and large storms generally produce damaging winds, storm rides and surges, and rain, which can result in severe erosion of the beach and dune systems. Overwash and blowouts are common on barrier islands. Hurricanes and other storms can result in the direct loss of sea turtle nests, either by erosion or washing away of the nests by wave action and inundation or "drowning" of the eggs or pre - emergent hatchlings within the nest, or indirectly by causing the loss of nesting habitat. Depending on their frequency, storms can affect sea turtles on either a short-term basis (nests lost for one season and/or temporary loss of nesting habitat) or long term, if frequent (habitat unable to recover). The manner in which hurricanes affect sea turtle nesting also depends on their characteristics (winds, storm surge, rainfall), the time of year (within or outside of the nesting season), and where the northeast edge of the hurricane crosses land. Because of the limited remaining nesting habitat in a natural state with no immediate development landward of the sandy beach, frequent or successive severe weather events could threaten the ability of certain sea turtle populations to survive and recover. Sea turtles evolved under natural coastal environmental events such as hurricanes. The extensive amount of predevelopment coastal beach and dune habitat allowed sea turtles to survive even the most severe hurricane events. It is only within the last 20 to 30 years that the combination of habitat loss to beachfront development and destruction of remaining habitat by hurricanes has increased the threat to sea turtle survival and recovery. On developed beaches, typically little space remains for sandy beaches to become reestablished after periodic storms. While the beach itself 140 RECEIVED FEB 21 Z917 DCM- MHD CITY moves landward during such storms, reconstruction or persistence of structures at their pre -storm locations can result in a loss of nesting habitat. Erosion A critically eroded area is a segment of shoreline where natural processes or human activity have caused or contributed to erosion and recession of the beach or dune system to such a degree that upland development, recreational interests, wildlife habitat, or important cultural resources are threatened or lost. It is important to note that for erosion to be considered critical there must be an existing threat to or loss of one of those four specific interests listed. Beachfront Lighting Artificial lights along a beach can deter females from coming ashore to nest or misdirect females trying to return to the surf after a nesting event. A significant reduction in sea turtle nesting activity has been documented on beaches illuminated with artificial lights (Witherington 1992). Artificial beachfront lighting may also cause disorientation (loss of bearings) and misorientation (incorrect orientation) of sea turtle hatchlings. Visual signs are the primary sea -fording mechanism for hatchlings (Mrosovsky and Carr 1967; Mrosovsky and Shettleworth 1968; Dickerson and Nelson 1989; Witherington and Bjorndal 1991). Artificial beachfront lighting is a documented cause of hatchling disorientation and misorientation on nesting beaches (Philibosian 1976; Mann 1977; Witherington and Martin 1996). The emergence from the nest and crawl to the sea is one of the most critical periods of a sea turtle's life. Hatchlings that do not make it to the sea quickly become food for ghost crabs, birds, and other predators, or become dehydrated and may never reach the sea. In addition, research has documented significant reduction in sea turtle nesting activity on beaches illuminated with artificial lights (Witherington 1992). During the 2010 sea turtle nesting season in Florida, over 47,000 turtle hatchlings were documented as being disoriented (FWC/FWRI 2011). Predation Predation of sea turtle eggs and hatchlings by native and introduced species occurs on almost all nesting beaches. Predation by a variety of predators can considerably decrease sea turtle nest hatching success. The most common predators in the southeastern U.S. are ghost crabs (Ocypode quadrata), raccoons (Procyon lotor), feral hogs (Sus scrofa), foxes (Urocyon cinereoargenteus and Vulpes vulpes), coyotes (Canis latrans), armadillos (Dasypus novemcinctus), and fire ants (Solenopsis invicta) (Dodd 1988; Stancyk 1995). In the absence of nest protection programs in a number of locations throughout the southeast U.S., raccoons may depredate up to 96 percent of all nests deposited on a beach (Davis and Whiting 1977; Hopkins and Murphy 1980; Stancyk et al. 1980; Talbert et al. 1980; Schroeder 1981; Labisky et al. 1986). 141 RECEIVED FEB 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY Beach Driving The operation of motor vehicles on the beach affects sea turtle nesting by interrupting or striking a female turtle on the beach, headlights disorienting or misorienting emergent hatchlings, vehicles running over hatchlings attempting to reach the ocean, and vehicle tracks traversing the beach that interfere with hatchlings crawling to the ocean. Hatchlings appear to become diverted not because they cannot physically climb out of the rut (Hughes and Caine 1994), but because the sides of the track cast a shadow and the hatchlings lose their line of sight to the ocean horizon (Mann 1977). The extended period of travel required to negotiate tire tracks and ruts may increase the susceptibility of hatchlings to dehydration and depredation during migration to the ocean (Hosier et al. 1981). Driving on the beach can cause sand compaction which may result in adverse impacts on nest site selection, digging behavior, clutch viability, and emergence by hatchlings, decreasing nest success and directly killing pre -emergent hatchlings (Mann 1977; Nelson and Dickerson 1987; Nelson 1988). The physical changes and loss of plant cover caused by vehicles on dunes can lead to various degrees of instability, and therefore encourage dune migration. As vehicles move either up or down a slope, sand is displaced downward, lowering the trail. Since the vehicles also inhibit plant growth, and open the area to wind erosion, dunes may become unstable, and begin to migrate. Unvegetated sand dunes may continue to migrate across stable areas as long as vehicle traffic continues. Vehicular traffic through dune breaches or low dunes on an eroding beach may cause an accelerated rate of overwash and beach erosion (Godfrey et al. 1978). If driving is required, the area where the least amount of impact occurs is the beach between the low and high tide water lines. Vegetation on the dunes can quickly reestablish provided the mechanical impact is removed. Climate Change The varying and dynamic elements of climate science are inherently long term, complex, and interrelated. Regardless of the underlying causes of climate change, glacial melting and expansion of warming oceans are causing sea level rise, although its extent or rate cannot as yet be predicted with certainty. At present, the science is not exact enough to precisely predict when and where climate impacts will occur. Although we may know the direction of change, it may not be possible to predict its precise timing or magnitude. These impacts may take place gradually or episodically in major leaps. Climate change is evident from observations of increases in average global air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising sea level, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Report (IPCC 2007a). The IPCC Report (2007a) describes changes in natural ecosystems with potential widespread effects on many organisms, including marine mammals and migratory birds. The potential for rapid climate change poses a significant challenge for fish and wildlife conservation. Species' abundance and distribution are 142 RECEIVED FEB 21 Z017 DCW MHD CITY dynamic, relative to a variety of factors, including climate. As climate changes, the abundance and distribution of fish and wildlife will also change. Highly specialized or endemic species are likely to be most susceptible to the stresses of changing climate. Based on these findings and other similar studies, the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) requires agencies under its direction to consider potential climate change effects as part of their long-range planning activities (Service 2007). In the southeastern U.S., climatic change could amplify current land management challenges involving habitat fragmentation, urbanization, invasive species, disease, parasites, and water management. Global warming will be a particular challenge for endangered, threatened, and other "at risk" species. It is difficult to estimate, with any degree of precision, which species will be affected by climate change or exactly how they will be affected. The Service will use Strategic Habitat Conservation planning, an adaptive science -driven process that begins with explicit trust resource population objectives, as the framework for adjusting our management strategies in response to climate change (USFWS 2006). As the level of information increases relative to the effects of global climate change on sea turtles and its designated critical habitat, the Service will have a better basis to address the nature and magnitude of this potential threat and will more effectively evaluate these effects to the range -wide status of sea turtles. Temperatures are predicted to rise from 1.6°F to 9°F for North America by the end of this century (IPCC 2007a, b). Alterations of thermal sand characteristics could result in highly female -biased sex ratios because sea turtles exhibit temperature dependent sex determination (e.g., Glen and Mrosovsky 2004; Hawkes et al. 2008). Along developed coastlines, and especially in areas where shoreline protection structures have been constructed to limit shoreline movement, rising sea levels will cause severe effects on nesting females and their eggs. Erosion control structures can result in the permanent loss of dry nesting beach or deter nesting females from reaching suitable nesting sites (National Research Council 1990a). Nesting females may deposit eggs seaward of the erosion control structures potentially subjecting them to repeated tidal inundation or washout by waves and tidal action. Based on the present level of available information concerning the effects of global climate change on the status of sea turtles and their designated critical habitat, the Service acknowledges the potential for changes to occur in the Action Area, but presently has no basis to evaluate if or how these changes are affecting sea turtles. Nor does our present knowledge allow the Service to project what the future effects from global climate change may be or the magnitude of these potential effects. 143 RECEIVED FEB 2 1 2017 DCM- MHD CITY Recreational Beach Use Human presence on or adjacent to the beach at night during the nesting season, particularly recreational activities, can reduce the quality of nesting habitat by deterring or disturbing and causing nesting turtles to avoid otherwise suitable habitat. In addition, human foot traffic can make a beach less suitable for nesting and hatchling emergence by increasing sand compaction and creating obstacles to hatchlings attempting to reach the ocean (Hosier et al. 1981). The use and storage of lounge chairs, cabanas, umbrellas, catamarans, and other types of recreational equipment on the beach at night can also make otherwise suitable nesting habitat unsuitable by hampering or deterring nesting by adult females and trapping or impeding hatchlings during their nest to sea migration. The documentation of non -nesting emergences (also referred to as false crawls) at these obstacles is becoming increasingly common as more recreational beach equipment is left on the beach at night. Sobel (2002) describes nesting turtles being deterred by wooden lounge chairs that prevented access to the upper beach. Sand Placement Sand placement projects may result in changes in sand density (compaction), beach shear resistance (hardness), beach moisture content, beach slope, sand color, sand grain size, sand grain shape, and sand grain mineral content if the placed sand is dissimilar from the original beach sand (Nelson and Dickerson 1988a). These changes could result in adverse impacts on sea turtle nest site selection, digging behavior, clutch viability, and hatchling emergence (Nelson and Dickerson 1987; Nelson 1988). Beach nourishment projects create an elevated, wider, and unnatural flat slope berm. Sea turtles nest closer to the water the first few years after nourishment because of the altered profile (and perhaps unnatural sediment grain size distribution) (Ernest and Martin 1999; Trindell 2005) Beach compaction and unnatural beach profiles resulting from beach nourishment activities could negatively impact sea turtles regardless of the timing of projects. Sand compaction may increase the length of time required for female sea turtles to excavate nests and cause increased physiological stress to the animals (Nelson and Dickerson 1988b). The placement of rocky material may have similar effects. These impacts can be minimized by using suitable sand. A change in sediment color on a beach could change the natural incubation temperatures of sea turtle nests in an area, which, in turn, could alter natural sex ratios. To provide the most suitable sediment for nesting sea turtles, the color of the nourished sediments should resemble the natural beach sand in the area. Natural reworking of sediments and bleaching from exposure to the sun would help to lighten dark nourishment sediments; however, the timeframe for sediment mixing and bleaching to occur could be critical to a successful sea turtle nesting season. 144 RECEIVED FEB 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY In -water and Shoreline Alterations Many navigable mainland or barrier island tidal inlets along the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts are stabilized with jetties or groins. Jetties are built perpendicular to the shoreline and extend through the entire nearshore zone and past the breaker zone to prevent or decrease sand deposition in the channel (Kaufinan and Pilkey 1979). Groins are also shore -perpendicular structures that are designed to trap sand that would otherwise be transported by longshore currents and can cause downdrift erosion (Kaufman and Pilkey 1979). These in -water structures have profound effects on adjacent beaches (Kaufman and Pilkey 1979). Jetties and groins placed to stabilize a beach or inlet prevent normal sand transport, resulting in accretion of sand on updrift beaches and acceleration of beach erosion downdrift of the structures (Komar 1983; Pilkey et al. 1984). Witherington et al. (2005) found a significant negative relationship between loggerhead nesting density and distance from the nearest of 17 ocean inlets on the Atlantic coast of Florida. The effect of inlets in lowering nesting density was observed both updrift and downdrift of the inlets, leading researchers to propose that beach instability from both erosion and accretion may discourage sea turtle nesting. Following construction, the presence of groins and jetties may interfere with nesting turtle access to the beach, result in a change in beach profile and width (downdrift erosion, loss of sandy berms, and escarpment formation), trap hatchlings, and concentrate predatory fishes, resulting in higher probabilities of hatchling predation. In addition to decreasing nesting habitat suitability, construction or repair of groins and jetties during the nesting season may result in the destruction of nests, disturbance of females attempting to nest, and disorientation of emerging hatchlings from project lighting. Threats to loggerhead sea turtle terrestrial habitat Recreational beach use: beach cleaning, human presence (e.g., dog beach, special events, piers, and recreational beach equipment); Beach driving: essential and nonessential off -road vehicles, all -terrain vehicles, and recreational access and use; Predation: depredation of eggs and hatchlings by native and nonnative predators; Beach sand placement activities: beach nourishment, beach restoration, inlet sand bypassing, dredge material disposal, dune construction, emergency sand placement after natural disaster, berm construction, and dune and berm planting; 145 RECEIVED FEB 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY In -water and shoreline alterations: artificial in -water and shoreline stabilization measures (e.g., in -water erosion control structures, such as groins, breakwaters, jetties), inlet relocation, inlet dredging, nearshore dredging, and dredging and deepening channels; Coastal development: residential and commercial development and associated activities including beach armoring (e.g., sea walls, geotextile tubes, rock revetments, sandbags, emergency temporary armoring); and activities associated with construction, repair, and maintenance of upland structures, stormwater outfalls, and piers; Artificial lighting: direct and indirect lighting, skyglow, and bonfires; Beach erosion: erosion due to aperiodic, short-term weather -related erosion events, such as atmospheric fronts, northeasters, tropical storms, and hurricanes; Climate change: includes sea level rise; Habitat obstructions: tree stumps, fallen trees, and other debris on the beach; nearshore sand bars; and ponding along beachfront seaward of dry beach; Human -caused disasters and response to natural and human -caused disasters: oil spills, oil spill response including beach cleaning and berm construction, and debris cleanup after natural disasters; Military testing and training activities: troop presence, pyrotechnics and nighttime lighting, vehicles and amphibious watercraft usage on the beach, helicopter drops and extractions, live fire exercises, and placement and removal of objects on the beach. Some individuals in a population are more "valuable" than others in terms of the number of offspring they are expected to produce. An individual's potential for contributing offspring to future generations is its reproductive value. Because of delayed sexual maturity, reproductive longevity, and low survivorship in early life stages, nesting females are of high value to a population. The loss of a nesting female in a small recovery unit would represent a significant loss to the recovery unit. The reproductive value for a nesting female has been estimated to be approximately 253 times greater than an egg or a hatchling (NMFS and USFWS 2008). With regard to indirect loss of eggs and hatchlings, on most beaches, nesting success typically declines for the first year or two following sand placement, even though more nesting habitat is available for turtles (Trindell et al. 1998; Ernest and Martin 1999; Herren 1999). Reduced nesting success on constructed beaches has been attributed to increased sand compaction, escarpment formation, and changes in beach profile (Nelson et al. 1987; Crain et al. 1995; Lutcavage et al. 1997; Steinitz et al. 1998; Ernest and Martin 1999; Rumbold et al. 2001). In addition, even though constructed beaches are wider, nests deposited there may experience higher rates of wash out than those on relatively narrow, steeply sloped beaches (Ernest and 146 RECEIVED FEB 21 Z517 DCM- MHD CITY Martin 1999). This occurs because nests on constructed beaches are more broadly distributed than those on natural beaches, where they tend to be clustered near the base of the dune. Nests laid closest to the waterline on constructed beaches may be lost during the first year or two following construction as the beach undergoes an equilibration process during which seaward portions of the beach are lost to erosion. As a result, the project may be anticipated to result in decreased nesting and loss of nests that are laid within the Action Area for two subsequent nesting seasons following the completion of the proposed sand placement. However, it is unknown whether nests that would have been laid in an Action Area during the two subsequent nesting seasons had the project not occurred are actually lost from the population, or if nesting is simply displaced to adjacent beaches. Regardless, eggs and hatchlings have a low reproductive value; each egg or hatchling has been estimated to have only 0.004 percent of the value of a nesting female (NMFS and USFWS 2008). Thus, even if the majority of the eggs and hatchlings that would have been produced on the project beach are not realized for up to 2 years following project completion, the Service would not expect this loss to have a significant effect on the recovery and survival of the species, for the following reasons: 1) some nesting is likely just displaced to adjacent non -project beaches, 2) not all eggs will produce hatchlings, and 3) destruction and/or failure of nests will not always result from a sand placement project. A variety of natural and unknown factors negatively affect incubating egg clutches, including tidal inundation, storm events, and predation, accretion of sand, and erosional processes. The loss of all life stages of sea turtles including eggs are considered "take" and minimization measures are required to avoid and minimize all life stages. During project construction, predators of eggs and nestlings may be attracted to the Action Area due to food waste from the construction crew. In the U.S., consultations with the Service have included military missions and operations, beach nourishment and other shoreline protection projects, and actions related to protection of coastal development on sandy beaches along the coast. Much of the Service's section 7 consultation involves beach nourishment projects. A list of the Service's consultations completed over the last two years in North Carolina is included in Table 20. The Act does not require entities conducting projects with no Federal nexus to apply for a section 10(a)(1)(13) permit. This is a voluntary process and is applicant driven. Section 10(a)(1)(A) permits are scientific permits that include activities that would enhance the survival and conservation of a listed species. Those permits are not listed as they are expected to benefit the species and are not expected to contribute to the cumulative take assessment. 147 RECEIVED FEB 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY Table 20. Biological opinions within the Raleigh Field Office geographic area that have been issued since 2014 for adverse impacts to sea turtle species. Activities addressed by the BOs include inlet dredging, sand placement, construction of sandbag revetments, and terminal groin construction. OPINIONS SPECIES HABITAT Critical Habitat Habitat (loggerhead) Fiscal Year Loggerhead, leatherback, green, and 12,6001f 12,600 If 2014: 1 BO Kemp's ridley sea turtles (2.4 mi) (2.4 mi) Fiscal Year Loggerhead, leatherback, green, 50,268 If 70,268 If 2015: 5 BOs hawksbill, and Kemp's ridley sea (9.5 mi) (13.3 mi) turtles Fiscal Year Loggerhead, leatherback, green, 133,150 If 229,469 If 2016: 7 BOs hawksbill, and Kemp's ridley sea (25.22 mi) (45.25 mi) turtles Total: 13 BOs 1969018If 312,337 If 37.12 mi 59.15 mi 6.2. ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE 6.2.1. Status of sea turtle species within the Action Area The loggerhead sea turtle nesting and hatching season for North Carolina beaches extends from May 1 through November 15. Incubation ranges from about 45 to 95 days. See Table 21 for data on observed loggerhead sea turtle nests in the Action Area. 148 RECENED FEB 21 Z017 TY DCM_ MHD Cl Table 22. Number of loggerhead nests observed between 2009 and 2016 on Ocean Isle Beach and Holden Beach. Data from www.scaturtle.org. Year Ocean Isle Beach Holden Beach 2009 25 23 2010 17 27 2011 23 30 2012 24 48 2013 36 74 2014 4 19 2015 33 53 2016 35 52 The green sea turtle nesting and hatching season on North Carolina beaches extends from May 15 through November 15. Incubation ranges from about 45 to 75 days. No green sea turtle nests have been reported on Ocean Isle Beach since 2009. One green sea turtle nest was reported on Holden Beach in 2010, and one false crawl was reported in 2016. The Kemp's ridley sea turtle nesting and hatchling season on North Carolina beaches appears to be similar to other species. Incubation ranges from 45 to 58 days. Between 2009 and 2016 in Brunswick County, no Kemp's ridley sea turtle nests were reported in Ocean Isle Beach or Holden Beach. However, Kemp's ridley sea turtles are known to occasionally nest throughout the state, including beaches both north and south of the project area. The leatherback sea turtle nesting and hatching season on North Carolina beaches extends from April 15 through November 15. Incubation ranges from about 55 to 75 days. One leatherback sea turtle nest was reported in Holden Beach on 2010. Leatherback sea turtles are known to occasionally nest throughout the state, including beaches both north and south of the project area. The hawksbill sea turtle nesting and hatching season has not been determined on North Carolina beaches, but is assumed to be similar to other species. Two hawksbill nests were reported in 2015 at Cape Hatteras National Seashore south of Hatteras; the first records of hawksbill sea turtle nests in the state of North Carolina, and also the first outside the state of Florida. Both nests were north of the Action Area. One nest successfully hatched (hatching success of 64.51/0); the other was destroyed by high surf from storms. The nest that successfully hatched had an incubation period of 59 days. It is currently unclear whether or not the hawksbill sea turtle may nest in the Action Area. However, suitable nesting habitat is present. 149 RECEIVED FEB 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY 6.2.2. Factors affecting the species environment within the Action Area The Service and NMFS share Federal jurisdiction for sea turtles under the ESA. The Service has responsibility for sea turtles on the nesting beach. NMFS has jurisdiction for sea turtles in the marine environment. Activities proposed in this formal consultation would involve only impacts to sea turtles in the terrestrial environment, which includes the following life stages: nesting sea turtles, nests and eggs, and hatchlings as they emerge from the nest and crawl to the sea. A wide range of recent and on -going beach disturbance activities have altered the proposed Action Area and, to a greater extent, the North Carolina coastline, and many more are proposed along the coastline for the near future. Table 12 (page 69) lists the most recent projects, within the past 5 years. Beach nourishment: The beaches of Brunswick County are regularly nourished with sand from the Corps and locally -managed activities. Nourishment activities widen beaches, change their sedimentology and stratigraphy, alter coastal processes and often plug dune gaps and remove overwash areas. Beach scrancan artificially steepen beaches, stabilize dune scarps, plug dune gaps, and redistribute sediment distribution patterns. Artificial dune building, often a product of beach scraping, removes low-lying overwash areas and dune gaps. As chronic erosion catches up to structures throughout the Action Area, artificial dune systems are constructed and maintained to protect beachfront structures either by sand fencing or fill placement. Beach scraping or bulldozing has become more frequent on North Carolina beaches in the past 20 years, in response to storms and the continuing retreat of the shoreline with rising sea level. These activities primarily occur during the winter months. Artificial dune or berm systems have been constructed and maintained in several areas. These dunes make the artificial dune ridge function like a seawall that blocks natural beach retreat, evolution, and overwash. In 2014, the Town of Ocean Isle conducted beach scraping along approximately 1,2001f of beach shoreline. Beach raking and rock -picking: Man-made beach cleaning and raking machines effectively remove seaweed, plants, fish, glass, syringes, plastic, cans, cigarettes, shells, stone, wood, and virtually any unwanted debris (Barber Beach Cleaning Equipment 2009). These efforts may remove seabeach amaranth. Although the amount of sand lost due to single sweeping actions may be small, it adds up considerably over a period of years (Nordstrom et al. 2006; Neal et al. 2007). Beach cleaning or grooming can result in abnormally broad unvegetated zones that are inhospitable to dune formation or plant colonization, thereby enhancing the likelihood of erosion (Defreo et al. 2009). Pedestrian Use of the Beach: There are a number of potential sources of pedestrians and pets on Ocean Isle Beach, including those individuals originating from beachfront, public access points, and nearby hotels, resorts, and residences. 150 RECEIVED FEB 21 Z017 DCM- MHD CITY Shoreline stabilization: Sandbags on private properties provide stabilization to the shoreline of North Carolina Beaches. Sandbags and sandbag revetments have been placed along at least 1,8001f of the eastern shoreline on Ocean Isle Beach, and the Tubbs Inlet shoreline on Ocean Isle Beach is completely lined with a sandbag revetment. In 2014/2015, a sandbag revetment was constructed on over 1,8001f of shoreline at the north end of Topsail Island. The intertidal areas and sand flats along the inlet were used as a sand source. The inlet shoreline downdrift of the sandbag revetment has eroded significantly since installation. A rock revetment was constructed several years ago in Carolina Beach (approximately 2,050 If). In addition, the Town of Ocean Isle Beach has requested authorization for construction of a single, 1,0501f terminal groin (3001f landward, and 7501f waterward of mean high water or MHW) on the east end of the island, placement of a concurrent 3,2141f sand fillet, and the periodic placement of sand in the fillet from either scheduled federal disposal events and/or from locally -sponsored beach nourishment and disposal projects. The project is not yet constructed. Terminal Groins: Groins often result in accelerated beach erosion downdrift of the structures (Komar 1983; National Research Council 1987) and corresponding degradation of suitable sea turtle nesting habitat (NMFS and Service 1991; 1992). Initially, the greatest changes are observed close to the structures, but effects may eventually extend significant distances along the coast (Komar 1983). Groins operate by blocking the natural longshore transport of littoral drift (Kaufman and Pilkey 1979; Komar 1983). Conventional rubble mound groins control erosion by trapping sand and dissipating some wave energy. In general, except for terminal groins at the downdrift limit of a littoral cell, groins are not considered favorable erosion control alternatives because they usually impart stability to the updrift beach and transfer erosion to the downdrift side of the structure. In addition, groins deflect longshore currents offshore, and excess sand builds up on the updrift side of the structure which may be carried offshore by those currents. This aggravates downdrift erosion and erosion escarpments are common on the downdrift side of groins (Humiston and Moore 2001). In North Carolina, there are two currently existing groins, at Fort Macon in Carteret County and on Bald Head Island in New Hanover County. There are also two degraded groin/jetty structures in Dare County, adjacent to the old location of the Cape Hatteras lighthouse. Three other local governments in North Carolina are seeking authorization for terminal groins (Ocean Isle Beach, Holden Beach, and Figure 8 Island). 6.3. EFFECTS OF THE ACTION 6.3.1. Factors to be considered Proximity of action: Dredged material placement activities would occur within and adjacent to nesting habitat for sea turtles and dune habitats that ensure the stability and integrity of the nesting beach. Specifically, the project would potentially impact loggerhead, green, leatherback, hawksbill, and Kemp's ridley nesting females, their nests, and hatchling sea turtles. 151 RECEIVED FEB 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY Distribution: Dredged material placement activities may impact nesting and hatchling sea turtles and sea turtle nests occurring along up to 27,6501f of shoreline on Ocean Isle Beach. The Service expects the proposed construction activities could directly and indirectly affect the availability and suitability of habitat for nesting and hatchling sea turtles. Timinr: The timing of the dredged material placement activities could indirectly impact nesting females, their nests, and hatchling sea turtles when conducted between November 16 and April 30 and directly and indirectly impact nesting females, their nests, and hatchling sea turtles when conducted between May 1 and November 15. Nature of the a ect: The effects of dredged material placement activities may change the nesting behavior of adult female sea turtles, diminish nesting success, and cause reduced hatching and emerging success. Dredged material placement can also change the incubation conditions within the nest. Any decrease in productivity and/or survival rates would contribute to the vulnerability of the sea turtles nesting in the southeastern U.S. However, if portions of the area to be nourished are severely eroded, placement of sand may provide nesting habitat where it doesn't currently exist. Duration: The sand placement activity is a recurring activity, lasting up to five and a half months each time. Thus, the direct effects would be expected to be short-term in duration. Indirect effects from the activity may continue to impact nesting and hatchling sea turtles and sea turtle nests in subsequent nesting seasons. Disturbance frequency: Disturbance from each event will be short term, lasting up to two years. However, sand placement activities may take place several times over the life of the project. Recreational disturbance may increase after project completion and have long-term impacts. Disturbance intensity and severity: Project construction is anticipated to be conducted outside of the sea turtle nesting season. Conservation measures have been incorporated into the project to minimize impacts. The severity is likely to be slight. 6.3.2. Analyses for effects of the action The Action Area encompasses up to 27,650 If of shoreline on the Atlantic coast of North Carolina. Beneficial Effects: The placement of sand on a beach with reduced dry foredune habitat may increase sea turtle nesting habitat if the placed sand is highly compatible (i.e., grain size, shape, color, etc.) with naturally occurring beach sediments in the area, and compaction and escarpment remediation measures are incorporated into the project. In addition, a nourished beach that is designed and constructed to mimic a natural beach system may benefit sea turtles more than an eroding beach it replaces. 152 RECEIVED FEB 21 2917 DCM- MHD CITY Direct Effects: Although sand placement activities may increase the potential nesting area, significant negative impacts to sea turtles may result if protective measures are not incorporated during project construction. a. Equipment during construction The use of heavy machinery on beaches during a construction project may also have adverse effects on sea turtles. The physical changes and loss of plant cover caused by vehicles on vegetated areas or dunes can lead to various degrees of instability and cause dune migration. As vehicles move over the sand, sand is displaced downward, lowering the substrate. Since the vehicles also inhibit plant growth, and open the area to wind erosion, the beach and dunes may become unstable. Vehicular traffic on the beach or through dune breaches or low dunes may cause acceleration of overwash and erosion (Godfrey et al. 1978). Driving along the beachfront should be between the low and high tide water lines. To minimize the impacts to the beach, dunes, and dune vegetation, transport and access to the construction sites should be from the road to the maximum extent possible. However, if vehicular access to the beach is necessary, the areas for vehicle and equipment usage should be designated and marked. b. Artificial lighting as a result of an unnatural beach slope on the adjacent beach Visual cues are the primary sea -finding mechanism for hatchling sea turtles (Mrosovsky and Can 1967; Mrosovsky and Shettleworth 1968; Dickerson and Nelson 1989; Witherington and Bjomdal 1991). When artificial lighting is present on or near the beach, it can misdirect hatchlings once they emerge from their nests and prevent them from reaching the ocean (Philibosian 1976; Mann 1977; FWC 2007). In addition, a significant reduction in sea turtle nesting activity has been documented on beaches illuminated with artificial lights (Witherington 1992). The unnatural sloped beach adjacent to the structure exposes sea turtles and their nests to lights that were less visible, or not visible, from nesting areas before the sand placement activity, leading to a higher mortality of hatchlings. Review of over 10 years of empirical information from beach nourishment projects indicates that the number of sea turtles impacted by lights increases on the post -construction berm. A review of selected nourished beaches in Florida (South Brevard, North Brevard, Captiva Island, Ocean Ridge, Boca Raton, Town of Palm Beach, Longboat Key, and Bonita Beach) indicated disorientation reporting increased by approximately 300 percent the first nesting season after project construction and up to 542 percent the second year compared to pre -nourishment reports (Trindell et al. 2005). Specific examples of increased lighting disorientations after a sand placement project include Brevard and Palm Beach Counties, Florida. A sand placement project in Brevard County, completed in 2002, showed an increase of 130 percent in disorientations in the nourished area. Disorientations on beaches in the County that were not nourished 153 RECEIVED FEB 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY remained constant (Trindell 2007). This same result was also documented in 2003 when another beach in Brevard County was nourished and the disorientations increased by 480 percent (Trindell 2007). Installing appropriate beachfront lighting is the most effective method to decrease the number of disorientations on any developed beach including nourished beaches. A shoreline protection project was constructed at Ocean Ridge in Palm Beach County, Florida, between August 1997 and April 1998. Lighting disorientation events increased after nourishment. In spite of continued aggressive efforts to identify and correct lighting violations in 1998 and 1999, 86 percent of the disorientation reports were in the nourished area in 1998 and 66 percent of the reports were in the nourished area in 1999 (Howard and Davis 1999). Indirect Effects: Many of the direct effects of beach nourishment may persist over time and become indirect impacts. These indirect effects include increased susceptibility of relocated nests to catastrophic events, the consequences of potential increased beachfront development, changes in the physical characteristics of the beach, the formation of escarpments, and future sand migration. a. Changes in the physical environment Beach nourishment projects create an elevated, wider, and unnatural flat slope berm. Sea turtles nest closer to the water the first few years after nourishment because of the altered profile (and perhaps unnatural sediment grain size distribution) (Ernest and Martin 1999; Trindell 2005). Beach compaction and unnatural beach profiles resulting from beach nourishment activities could negatively impact sea turtles regardless of the timing of projects. Very fine sand or the use of heavy machinery can cause sand compaction on nourished beaches (Nelson et al. 1987; Nelson and Dickerson 1988a). Significant reductions in nesting success (i.e., false crawls occurred more frequently) have been documented on severely compacted nourished beaches (Fletemeyer 1980; Raymond 1984; Nelson and Dickerson 1987; Nelson et al. 1987), and increased false crawls may result in increased physiological stress to nesting females. Sand compaction may increase the length of time required for female sea turtles to excavate nests and cause increased physiological stress to the animals (Nelson and Dickerson 1988b). Nelson and Dickerson (1988c) concluded that, in general, beaches nourished from offshore borrow sites are harder than natural beaches, and while some may soften over time through erosion and accretion of sand, others may remain hard for 10 years or more. The placement of rocky material on the beach may cause significant reductions in nesting success (i.e., increased frequency of false crawls), and may make it difficult for hatchlings to emerge from the nest. These impacts can be minimized by using suitable sand and by tilling compacted sand and/or removing rock (minimum depth of 36 inches) after project completion. However, 154 RECENED FEB %1 ZW pCM- MHp CITY a pilot study by Nelson and Dickerson (1988c) showed that a tilled nourished beach will remain uncompacted for only up to 1 year. Thus, multi -year beach compaction monitoring and, if necessary, tilling would help to ensure that project impacts on sea turtles are minimized. As the material is reworked by natural forces, the percentage of rock and gravel may increase. A change in sediment color on a beach could change the natural incubation temperatures of nests in an area, which, in turn, could alter natural sex ratios. To provide the most suitable sediment for nesting sea turtles, the color of the nourished sediments should resemble the natural beach sand in the area. Natural reworking of sediments and bleaching from exposure to the sun would help to lighten dark nourishment sediments; however, the timefi-ame for sediment mixing and bleaching to occur could be critical to a successful sea turtle nesting season. b. Escarpment formation On nourished beaches, steep escarpments may develop along their water line interface as they adjust from an unnatural construction profile to a more natural beach profile (Coastal Engineering Research Center 1984; Nelson et al. 1987). Escarpments can hamper or prevent access to nesting sites (Nelson and Blihovde 1998). Researchers have shown that female sea turtles coming ashore to nest can be discouraged by the formation of an escarpment, leading to situations where they choose marginal or unsuitable nesting areas to deposit eggs (e.g., in front of the escarpments, which often results in failure of nests due to prolonged tidal inundation). This impact can be minimized by leveling any escarpments prior to the nesting season. c. Increased susceptibility to catastrophic events Nest relocation within a nesting season may concentrate eggs in an area making them more susceptible to catastrophic events. Hatchlings released from concentrated areas also may be subject to greater predation rates from both land and marine predators, because the predators learn where to concentrate their efforts (Glenn 1998; Wyneken et al. 1998). d. Increased beachfront development Pilkey and Dixon (1996) stated that beach replenishment frequently leads to more development in greater density within shorefront communities that are then left with a future of further replenishment or more drastic stabilization measures. Dean (1999) also noted that the very existence of a beach nourishment project can encourage more development in coastal areas. Following completion of a beach nourishment project in Miami during 1982, investment in new and updated facilities substantially increased tourism there (National Research Council 1995). Increased building density immediately 155 RECEIVED FEB 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY adjacent to the beach often resulted as much larger buildings that accommodated more beach users replaced older buildings. Overall, shoreline management creates an upward spiral of initial protective measures resulting in more expensive development that leads to the need for more and larger protective measures. Increased shoreline development may adversely affect sea turtle nesting success. Greater development may support larger populations of mammalian predators, such as foxes and raccoons, than undeveloped areas (National Research Council 1990a), and can also result in greater adverse effects due to artificial lighting, as discussed above. 6.3.3 Species' response to the proposed action The Service determined there is a potential for long-term adverse effects on sea turtles as a result of dredged material placement. An increase in sandy beach may not necessarily equate to an increase in suitable sea turtle nesting habitat. The following summary illustrates sea turtle responses to and recovery from a nourishment project comprehensively studied by Ernest and Martin (1999). A significantly larger proportion of turtles emerging on nourished beaches abandoned their nesting attempts than turtles emerging on natural or pre -nourished beaches. This reduction in nesting success is most pronounced during the fast year following project construction and is most likely the result of changes in physical beach characteristics associated with the nourishment project (e.g., beach profile, sediment grain size, beach compaction, frequency and extent of escarpments). During the first post -construction year, the time required for turtles to excavate an egg chamber on unfilled, hard - packed sands increases significantly relative to natural conditions. However, tilling (minimum depth of 36 inches) is effective in reducing sediment compaction to levels that did not significantly prolong digging times. As natural processes reduced compaction levels on nourished beaches during the second post -construction year, digging times returned to natural levels (Ernest and Martin 1999). During the first post -construction year, nests on nourished beaches are deposited significantly seaward of the toe of the dune and significantly landward of the tide line than nests on natural beaches. More nests are washed out on the wide, flat beaches of the nourished treatments than on the narrower steeply sloped natural beaches. This phenomenon may persist through the second post -construction year monitoring and result from the placement of nests near the seaward edge of the beach berm where dramatic profile changes, caused by erosion and scarping, occur as the beach equilibrates to a more natural contour. The principal effect of beach nourishment on sea turtle reproduction is a reduction in nesting success during the first year following project construction. Although most studies have attributed this phenomenon to an increase in beach compaction and escarpment formation, Ernest and Martin (1999) indicated that changes in beach profile may be more important. Regardless, as a nourished beach is reworked by natural processes in subsequent years and adjusts from an 156 RECEIVED FEB 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY unnatural construction profile to a natural beach profile, beach compaction and the frequency of escarpment formation decline, and nesting and nesting success return to levels found on natural beaches. 6.4. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS This project occurs on non-federal lands. Cumulative effects include the effects of fixture State, tribal, local, or private actions that are reasonably certain to occur in the Action Area considered in this biological opinion. Future Federal actions that are unrelated to the proposed action are not considered in this section, because they require separate consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Act. It is reasonable to expect continued shoreline stabilization, inlet dredging, and beach renourishment projects in this area in the future since erosion and sea -level rise increases would impact the existing beachfront development. However, with the exception of some shoreline stabilization projects, most of the fixture actions that are reasonable certain to occur will require a Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 permit, and thus will require separate consultation. 6.5. CONCLUSION After reviewing the current status of the nesting loggerhead sea turtle, green sea turtle, leatherback sea turtle, hawksbill sea turtle, and Kemp's ridley sea turtle, the environmental baseline for the Action Area, the effects of the proposed sand placement, the proposed Conservation Measures, and the cumulative effects, it is the Service's biological opinion that the placement of sand is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the loggerhead sea turtle, green sea turtle, leatherback sea turtle, hawksbill sea turtle, and Kemp's ridley sea turtle. It is the Service's biological opinion that the placement of sand is not likely to adversely modify terrestrial loggerhead critical habitat. The conservation of the five loggerhead recovery units in the Northwest Atlantic is essential to the recovery of the loggerhead sea turtle. Each individual recovery unit is necessary to conserve genetic and demographic robustness, or other features necessary for long-term sustainability of the entire population. Thus, maintenance of viable nesting in each recovery unit contributes to the overall population. The NRU, one of the five loggerhead recovery units in the Northwest Atlantic occurs within the Action Area. The NRU averages 5,215 nests per year (based on 1989-2008 nesting data). Of the available nesting habitat within the NRU, construction will occur and will likely have an effect on up to 27,650 If of nesting shoreline. Generally, green, leatherback, hawksbill, and Kemp's ridley sea turtle nesting overlaps with or occurs within the beaches where loggerhead sea turtles nest on both the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico beaches. Thus, for green, leatherback, hawksbill, and Kemp's ridley sea turtles, sand placement activities will affect as much as 27,6501f of shoreline. 157 RECEIVED FEB 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY Research has shown that the principal effect of sand placement on sea turtle reproduction is a reduction in nesting success, and this reduction is most often limited to the first year or two following project construction. Research has also shown that the impacts of a typical sand nourishment project on sea turtle nesting habitat are short-term because a nourished beach will be reworked by natural processes in subsequent years, and beach compaction and the frequency of escarpment formation will decline. INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT Section 9 of the ESA and Federal regulations pursuant to section 4(d) of the ESA prohibit the take of endangered or threatened species, respectively, without special exemption. Take is defined as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct. Harm is further defined by the Service to include significant habitat modification or degradation that results in death or injury to listed species by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Harass is defined by the Service as intentional or negligent actions that create the likelihood of injury to listed species to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Incidental take is defined as take that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, carrying out an otherwise lawful activity. Under the terms of section 7(b)(4) and section 7(o)(2), taking that is incidental to and not intended as part of the agency action is not considered to be prohibited under the ESA, provided that such taking is in compliance with the terms and conditions of this incidental take statement. The measures described below in Sections 7.3 and 7.4 are non -discretionary, and must be implemented by the Corps so that they become binding conditions of any funding action or any grant or permit issued to the Applicant, as appropriate, for the exemption in section 7(o)(2) to apply. The Corps has a continuing duty to regulate the activity covered by this incidental take statement. If the Corps (1) fails to assume and implement the terms and conditions or (2) fails to require the Applicant to adhere to the terms and conditions of the incidental take statement through enforceable terms that are added to the permit or grant document, the protective coverage of section 7(o)(2) may lapse. In order to monitor the impact of incidental take, the Corps must report the progress of the action and its impacts on the species to the Service as specified in the incidental take statement [50 CFR §402.14(i)(3)]. Sections 7(b)(4) and 7(o)(2) of the ESA generally do not apply to listed plant species. However, limited protection of listed plants from take is provided to the extent that the ESA prohibits the removal and reduction to possession of Federally listed endangered plants or the malicious damage of such plants on areas under Federal jurisdiction, or the destruction of endangered plants on non -Federal areas in violation of state law or regulation, or in the course of any violation of a State criminal trespass law. 158 RECEiNED VEb 2.1 M7 pCM. MHp CITY 7.1. AMOUNT OR EXTENT OF TAKE 7.1.1. Amount or Extent of Take —Piping Plover It is difficult for the Service to estimate the exact number of piping plovers that could be migrating through or wintering within the Action Area at any point in time and place during and after maintenance events. Disturbance to suitable habitat resulting from dredging and placement of sand would affect the ability of an undetermined number of piping plovers to find suitable foraging and roosting habitat for an unknown length of time after construction. The Service anticipates that directly and indirectly an unspecified amount of piping plovers along up to 27,650 If of shoreline, all at some point, potentially usable by piping plovers, could be taken in the form of harm, harassment, and/or habitat loss as a result of this proposed action; however, incidental take of piping plovers will be difficult to detect for the following reasons: (1) harassment to the level of harm may only be apparent on the breeding grounds the following year; and (2) dead plovers may be carried away by waves or predators. The level of take of this species can be anticipated by the proposed activities because: (1) piping plovers nest, migrate through and winter in the Action Area; (2) the placement of the constructed beach is expected to affect the coastal morphology and prevent early successional stages, thereby precluding the maintenance and creation of additional recovery habitat; (3) increased levels of pedestrian disturbance may be expected; and (4) a temporary reduction of food base will occur. The Service has reviewed the biological information and other information relevant to this action. The take is expected in the form of harm and harassment because of: (1) decreased fitness and survivorship of plovers due to loss and degradation of foraging and roosting habitat; and (2) decreased fitness and survivorship of plovers nesting or attempting to migrate to breeding grounds due to loss and degradation of nesting, foraging, and roosting habitat. 7.1.2. Amount or Extent of Take — Red Knot It is difficult for the Service to estimate the exact number of red knots that could be migrating through or wintering within the Action Area at any one point in time and place during maintenance events. Disturbance to suitable habitat resulting from dredging and sand placement activities within the Action Area would affect the ability of an undetermined number of red knots to find suitable foraging and roosting habitat during any given year. 159 RECEIVED FEB 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY The Service anticipates that directly and indirectly an unspecified amount of red knots along up to 27,6501f of shoreline, all at some point, potentially usable by red knots, could be taken in the form of harm, harassment, and/or habitat loss as a result of this proposed action; however, incidental take of red knots will be difficult to detect for the following reasons: (1) harassment to the level of harm may only be apparent on the breeding grounds the following year; and (2) dead red knots may be carried away by waves or predators. The level of take of this species can be anticipated by the proposed activities because: (1) red knots migrate through and winter in the Action Area; (2) the placement of the constructed beach is expected to affect the coastal morphology and prevent early successional stages, thereby precluding the maintenance and creation of additional recovery habitat; (3) increased levels of pedestrian disturbance may be expected; and (4) a temporary reduction of food base will occur. The Service has reviewed the biological information and other information relevant to this action. The take is expected in the form of harm and harassment because of: (1) decreased fitness and survivorship of red knots due to loss and degradation of foraging and roosting habitat; and (2) decreased fitness and survivorship of red knots attempting to migrate to breeding grounds due to loss and degradation of foraging and roosting habitat. 7.1.3. Amount or Extent of Take — Loggerhead, Green, Leatherback, Hawksbill, and Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtles The Service anticipates as much as 27,6501f of nesting beach habitat could be taken as a result of this proposed action. Take is expected to be in the form of. (1) destruction of all nests that may be constructed and eggs that may be deposited and missed by a nest survey, nest mark and avoidance program, or egg relocation program within the boundaries of the proposed project; (2) destruction of all nests deposited during the period when a nest survey, nest mark and avoidance, or egg relocation program is not required to be in place within the boundaries of the proposed project; (3) reduced hatching success due to egg mortality during relocation and adverse conditions at the relocation site; (4) harassment in the form of disturbing or interfering with female turtles attempting to nest within the construction area or on adjacent beaches as a result of construction activities; (5) misdirection of nesting and hatchling turtles on beaches adjacent to the sand placement or construction area as a result of project lighting; (6) behavior modification of nesting females due to escarpment formation within the Action Area during the nesting season, resulting in false crawls or situations where they choose marginal or unsuitable nesting areas to deposit eggs; (7) 160 RECEIVED FEES 21 Z017 DCM- MHD CITY behavior modification of nesting females due to unsuitable material within the Action Area during the nesting season, resulting in false crawls or situations where they choose marginal or unsuitable nesting areas to deposit eggs; (8) reduced hatching or emergence success due to unsuitable nesting habitat, resulting in egg mortality or inability of hatchlings to emerge from the egg cavity; and (9) destruction of nests from escarpment leveling within a nesting season when such leveling has been approved by the Service. Incidental take is anticipated for the 27,6501f of beach that has been identified. The Service anticipates incidental take of sea turtles will be difficult to detect for the following reasons: (1) the turtles nest primarily at night and all nests are not found because [a] natural factors, such as rainfall, wind, and tides may obscure crawls and [b] human -caused factors, such as pedestrian and vehicular traffic, may obscure crawls, and result in nests being destroyed because they were missed during a nesting survey, nest mark and avoidance, or egg relocation program (2) the total number of hatchlings per undiscovered nest is unknown; (3) the reduction in percent hatching and emerging success per relocated nest over the natural nest site is unknown; (4) an unknown number of females may avoid the project beach and be forced to nest in a less than optimal area; (5) lights may misdirect an unknown number of hatchlings and cause death; and (6) escarpments may form and prevent an unknown number of females from accessing a suitable nesting site. The incidental take of these species can be anticipated by the sand placement activities on suitable turtle nesting beach habitat because: (1) turtles nest within the Action Area; (2) the renourishment project will modify the incubation substrate, beach slope, and sand compaction; and (3) artificial lighting will deter and/or misdirect nesting hatchling turtles. 161 RECEIVED FEB 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY 7.2. EFFECT OF THE TAKE Piping Plovers In the accompanying biological opinion, the Service determined that this level of anticipated take is not likely to result in jeopardy to the piping plover species. Incidental take of piping plovers is anticipated to occur along approximately 27,650 If of shoreline. Red Knot In the accompanying biological opinion, the Service determined that this level of anticipated take is not likely to result in jeopardy to the red knot species. Incidental take of red knots is anticipated to occur along approximately 27,650 If of shoreline. Seabeach Amaranth In the accompanying biological opinion, the Service determined that the potential of the project to damage or destroy seabeach amaranth is not likely to result in jeopardy to the seabeach amaranth species. Damage or destruction of seabeach amaranth plants is anticipated to occur along approximately 27,650 if of shoreline. Loggerhead, Green, Leatherback, Hawksbill, and Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtles In the accompanying biological opinion, the Service determined that this level of anticipated take is not likely to result in jeopardy to the loggerhead sea turtle, green sea turtle, leatherback sea turtle, hawksbill sea turtle, and Kemp's ridley sea turtle species. Incidental take of nesting and hatchling sea turtles is anticipated to occur along 27,650 if of shoreline. 7.3. REASONABLE AND PRUDENT MEASURES The Service believes the following reasonable and prudent measures (RPMs) are necessary and appropriate to minimize take of piping plovers, red knots, seabeach amaranth, and sea turtles. Unless specifically addressed below, these RPMs are applicable for the maintenance dredging and placement of sand for the life of the permit. If unable to comply with the RPMs and Terms and Conditions, the Corps as the regulatory authority may inform the Service why the RPM or Term and Condition is not reasonable and prudent and request exception under the BO. RPMs — All Species 1. For the life of the permit, all sand placement activities above MRW must be conducted within the winter work window (November 16 to April 30), unless allowed after 162 RECEIVED FEB 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY additional consultation with the Service. Additional RPMs and Terms and Conditions will be required if work extends into the sea turtle nesting season. 2. Prior to sand placement, all derelict material, large amounts of rock, or other debris must be removed from the beach to the maximum extent possible. 3. Conservation Measures included in the permit applications/project plans must be implemented in the proposed project. If a RPM and Term and Condition address the same requirement, the requirements of the RPM and Term and Condition take precedence over the Conservation Measure. 4. Predator -proof trash receptacles must be installed and maintained at all beach access points used for the project construction, to minimize the potential for attracting predators of piping plovers, red knots, and sea turtles. 5. Pipeline placement must be coordinated with North Carolina Division of Coastal Management (NCDCM), the Corps, the Service's Raleigh Field Office, and the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC). 6. A meeting between representatives of the Applicant and contractor(s), the Corps, the Service, the NCWRC, the permitted sea turtle surveyor(s), and other species surveyors, as appropriate, must be held prior to the commencement of work. Advance notice (of at least 10 business days) must be provided prior to conducting this meeting. 7. Access points for construction vehicles should be as close to the project site as possible. Construction vehicle travel down the beach should be limited to the maximum extent possible. 8. Beach fill must be conducted from east to west, so that the oceanfront shoreline closest to Shallotte Inlet is nourished first. Between March 31 and September 30, the staging of construction equipment should avoid the east end of Ocean Isle Beach. RPMs - Piping Plovers and Red Knots 9. All personnel involved in the construction or sand placement process along the beach shall be aware of the potential presence of piping plovers and red knots. Before start of work each morning, a visual survey must be conducted in the area of work for that day, to determine if piping plovers and red knots are present. 10. The Corps or the Applicant shall provide the mechanisms necessary to monitor impacts to piping plovers and red knots within the Action Area. 163 RECEIVED FEB 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY 11. If work extends past March 31, the Applicant or Corps shall implement a plan to protect and monitor breeding waterbirds on the east end of Ocean Isle Beach and west end of Holden Beach. RPMs — Loggerhead, Green, Leatherback, Hawksbill, and Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtles 12. Beach quality sand suitable for sea turtle nesting, successful incubation, and hatchling emergence shall be used for sand placement. 13. During dredging operations, material placed on the beach shall be qualitatively inspected daily to ensure compatibility. If the inspection process finds that a significant amount of non -beach compatible material is on or has been placed on the beach, all work shall stop immediately and the NCDCM and the Corps will be notified by the permittee and/or its contractors to determine the appropriate plan of action. 14. Sea turtle nesting surveys must be conducted within the project area between May 1 and November 15 of each year, for at least two consecutive nesting seasons after completion, if the sand remains on the beach. Acquisition of readily available sea turtle nesting data from qualified sources (volunteer organizations, other agencies, etc.) is acceptable. 15. Visual surveys for escarpments along the Action Area must be made immediately after completion of sand placement, and within 30 days prior to May 1, for two subsequent years after any construction or sand placement event. 16. Sand compaction must be qualitatively evaluated at least twice after each sand placement event. Sand compaction must be inspected in the project area immediately after completion of any sand placement event and one time after project completion between October 1 and May 1. 17. A report describing the fate of observed sea turtle nests and hatchlings and any actions taken, must be submitted to the Service's Raleigh Field Office following completion of work for each year when a sand placement activity has occurred. RPMs — Seabeach Amaranth 18. Seabeach amaranth surveys must be conducted within the entire oceanfront sand placement area (up to 27,650 If) for a minimum of three years after completion of construction and each maintenance event. At a minimum, the stretches of oceanfront where sand placement occurred should be surveyed. Surveys should be conducted in August or September of each year. Habitat known to support this species, including the upper edges of the beach, lower foredunes, and overwash flats must be visually surveyed 164 RECEIVED FEB 21 Z017 DCW ►VIHD CITY for the plant. Annual reports should include numbers of plants, laritude/longitude, and habitat type. Please see REPORTING REQUIREMENTS, below, for more information. 19. If tilling of the beach is required due to high compaction levels resulting from beach disposal, surveys should be conducted in advance of the tilling for seabeach amaranth. 7.4. TERMS AND CONDITIONS In order to be exempt from the prohibitions of section 9 of the ESA, the Corps must comply with the following terms and conditions, which implement the RPMs described above and outline reporting/monitoring requirements. These terms and conditions are non -discretionary. Unless addressed specifically below, the terms and conditions are applicable for maintenance dredging and placement of sand for the life of the permit. Terms and Conditions — All Species 1. For the life of the permit/project, all sand placement activities above MHW must be conducted within the winter work window (November 16 to April 30), unless allowed after additional consultation with the Service. Additional RPMs and terms and conditions will be required if work extends into the sea turtle nesting season. 2. Prior to sand placement, all derelict material, large amounts of rock, or other debris must be removed from the beach to the maximum extent possible. 3. Conservation Measures included in the permit applications, project plans, and biological assessment must be implemented in the proposed project. If a RPM and Term and Condition address the same requirement, the requirements of the RPM and Term and Condition take precedence over the Conservation Measure. 4. Predator -proof trash receptacles must be installed and maintained during construction at all beach access points used for the project construction and any maintenance events, to minimize the potential for attracting predators of piping plovers, red knots, and sea turtles. All contractors conducting the work must provide predator -proof trash receptacles for the construction workers. All contractors and their employees must be briefed on the importance of not littering and keeping the Action Area free of trash and debris. See the Appendix for examples of suitable receptacles. 5. Pipeline placement must be coordinated with NCDCM, the Corps, the Service's Raleigh Field Office, and the NCWRC. 6. A meeting between representatives of the contractor(s), the Corps, the Service, the NCWRC, the permitted sea turtle surveyor(s), and other species surveyors, as 165 RECEIVED FEB 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY appropriate, must be held prior to the commencement of work. Advance notice (of at least 10 business days) must be provided prior to conducting this meeting. The meeting will provide an opportunity for explanation and/or clarification of the sea turtle protection measures, as well as additional guidelines when construction occurs during the sea turtle nesting season, such as storing equipment, minimizing driving, and reporting within the work area, as well as follow-up meetings during construction. 7. Access points for construction vehicles should be as close to the project site as possible. Construction vehicle travel down the beach should be limited to the maximum extent possible. 8. Beach fill must be conducted from east to west, so that the oceanfront shoreline closest to Shallotte Inlet is nourished first. Between March 31 and September 30, the staging of construction equipment should avoid the east end of Ocean Isle Beach. Equipment not in use should be stored in a location away from the east end of the beach or inlet shoulders. Terms and Conditions — Piping Plovers and Red Knots 9. All personnel involved in the construction or sand placement process along the beach shall be aware of the potential presence of piping plovers and red knots. Before start of work each morning, a visual survey must be conducted in the area of work for that day, to determine if piping plovers and red knots are present. If shorebirds are present in the work area, careful movement of equipment in the early morning hours should allow those individuals to move out of the area. Construction operations shall be carried out at all times in a manner as to avoid antagonizing shorebirds while allowing them to exit the area. 10. For two years following each dredging and sand placement event, bimonthly (twice - monthly) surveys for piping plovers and red knots shall be conducted in the beach fill and in any other intertidal or shoreline areas within or affected by the project, including the east and west ends of Ocean Isle Beach. If a full season is not available, at least 5 consecutive months with three surveys per month spaced at least 9 days apart are required. Piping plover and red knot identification, especially when in non -breeding plumage, can be difficult. 11. The person(s) conducting the survey must demonstrate the qualifications and ability to identify shorebird species and be able to provide the information listed below. The following will be collected, mapped, and reported: a. Date, location, time of day, weather, and tide cycle when survey was conducted; b. Latitude and longitude of observed piping plover and red knot locations (decimal degrees preferred); c. Any color bands observed on piping plovers or red knots; 166 RECEIVED FEB 21 Z017 DCM- MHD CITY d. Behavior of piping plovers or red knots (e.g., foraging, roosting, preening, bathing, flying, aggression, walking); e. Landscape features(s) where piping plovers and/or red knots are located (e.g., inlet spit, tidal creeks, shoals, lagoon shoreline); f. Habitat features(s) used by piping plovers or red knots when observed (e.g., intertidal, fresh wrack, old wrack, dune, mid -beach, vegetation); g. Substrata used by piping plovers and red knots (e.g., sand, mud/sand, mud, algal mat); h. The amount and type of recreational use (e.g., people, dogs on or off leash, vehicles, kite -boarders); and i. All other shorebirds/waterbirds seen within the survey area. All information shall be provided in an Excel spreadsheet. Monitoring results shall be submitted (datasheets, maps, database) on standard electronic media (e.g., CD, DVD) to the Service for each year in which monitoring is completed. Please see REPORTING REQUIREMENTS, below. 12. If work extends past March 31, the Applicant or Corps shall implement the following breeding waterbird protection and monitoring program to delineate and manage an area for potential waterbird use on both inlet shoulders of Shallotte Inlet (east end of Ocean Isle Beach and west end of Holden Beach); provide educational and cautionary signage along the delineated perimeter; minimize disturbance from construction activities within the delineated area; and monitor waterbird nesting activities in the delineated area. a. All available suitable waterbird nesting habitat (outside of the active construction area) on the east end of Ocean Isle Beach and west end of Holden Beach will be marked with lin x 2 in (or larger) posts with signage, and connected with a highly visible line. The signs (at least every third post) will concisely inform readers that the delineated area is maintained for potential waterbird usage. b. A buffer of at least 100 yards between the rope and the closest nest shall be maintained, as long as it does not impact emergency or construction vehicle access. In areas where there is notl00 yards of beach to form a buffer between the nest and MHW, the posting will be placed as far from the nest as possible, while allowing a corridor above MHW for emergency and construction vehicle access. Any modifications to the posted area that do not comply with the language of this Item (4(b)) must be approved by the Service. c. The posted area will be assessed daily during construction, and for at least two weeks after construction and demobilization is complete, to monitor and protect waterbird breeding territories, nests (scrapes), eggs, and fledglings. If no nests (scrapes) are documented before construction and demobilization is completed, then monitoring may cease immediately upon completion of demobilization. The posted area must remain in place until the end of the nesting season, regardless of the date that monitoring stops. 167 RECEIVED FEB 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY d. During the assessment period discussed in Item 4(c), above, waterbird nesting surveys will be conducted to determine the nesting activity and nesting productivity of bird species that use the inlet area as nesting habitat. Waterbird nesting areas east and west of Shallotte Inlet will be identified and monitored from April 1 until at least two weeks after construction and demobilization is complete. If no nests (scrapes) are documented before construction and demobilization is completed, then monitoring may cease immediately upon completion of demobilization. e. The posted area should be monitored daily for the entire monitoring period (two weeks past demobilization). Monitoring may be conducted using a spotting scope or binoculars while scanning from the periphery of the posted area so nesting territories remain undisturbed. f. During each survey, the number of breeding pairs by species should be recorded, along with the type of activity exhibited (courting, territorial behavior, nest building, incubation, etc.), general location and type of habitat used. g. During each survey, number of chicks by species should be recorded along with general location and types of habitat used. If piping plover nesting activity is present on the site, data collection will include (USFWS, 1996a): i. Dates monitoring began and ended; ii. Nesting chronology (dates when plovers were first seen on the site, nest establishment dates, dates when unfledged chicks are present); iii. Location of nests and brood foraging territories; iv. Known or suspected causes of any nest or chick loss; v. Indicators of predator abundance; vi. Locations of commonly used foraging areas during each stage of the breeding cycle; and vii. Use of the site by post -breeding or migrating plovers. h. Reproductive success should be determined per species. Number of documented breeding pairs and number of documented chicks may be used to determine the general level of reproductive success. Terms and Conditions — Sea Turtles 13. Beach compatible fill shall be placed on the beach or in any associated dune system. Beach compatible fill must be sand that is similar to a native beach in the vicinity of the site that has not been affected by prior sand placement activity. Beach compatible fill must be sand comprised solely of natural sediment and shell material, containing no construction debris, toxic material, large amounts of rock, or other foreign matter. The beach compatible fill must be similar in both color and grain size distribution (sand grain frequency, mean and median grain size and sorting coefficient) to the native material in the Action Area. Beach compatible fill is material that maintains the general character f -13 RECEIVED FEB 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY and functionality of the material occurring on the beach and in the adjacent dune and coastal system. In general, fill material that meets the requirements of the North Carolina Technical Standards for Beach Fill (15A NCAC 07H .0312) is considered compatible. 14. During dredging operations, material placed on the beach shall be qualitatively inspected daily to ensure compatibility. If the inspection process finds that a significant amount of non -beach compatible material is on or has been placed on the beach, all work shall stop immediately, and the NCDCM and the Corps will be notified by the permittee and/or its contractors to determine the appropriate plan of action. 15. Sea turtle nesting surveys must be conducted within the project area between May 1 and November 15 of each year, for at least two consecutive nesting seasons after completion of sand placement (2 years post -construction monitoring). Acquisition of readily available sea turtle nesting data from qualified sources (volunteer organizations, other agencies, etc.) is acceptable. However, in the event that data from other sources cannot be acquired, the permittee will be responsible to collect the data. Data collected by the permittee for each nest should include, at a minimum, the information in the table, below. This information will be provided to the Service's Raleigh Field Office in the annual report, and will be used to periodically assess the cumulative effects of these projects on sea turtle nesting and hatchling production and monitor suitability of post construction beaches for nesting. Please see REPORTING REQUIREMENTS, below. Parameter Measurement Variable Number of False Visual Assessment of Number/location of false crawls in nourished areas; Crawls all false crawls any interaction of turtles with obstructions, such as sand bags or scarps, should be noted. False Crawl Categorization of the Number in each of the following categories: Type stage at which nesting a) Emergence - no digging; was abandoned b) Preliminary body pit; c) Abandoned egg chamber. Nests Number The number of sea turtle nests in nourished areas should be noted. If possible, the location of all sea turtle nests should be marked on a project map, and approximate distance to scarps or sandbags measured in meters. Any abnormal cavity morphologies should be reported as well as whether turtle touched sandbags or scarps during nest excavation. Nests Lost Nests The number of nests lost to inundation or erosion or the number with lost markers. 169 RECEIVED FEB 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY Nests Relocated nests The number of nests relocated and a map of the relocation area(s). The number of successfully hatched eggs per relocated nest. Lighting Impacts Disoriented sea turtles The number of disoriented hatchlings and adults. 16. Visual surveys for escarpments along the Action Area must be made immediately after completion of sand placement, and within 30 days prior to May 1, for two subsequent years after any construction or sand placement event. Escarpments that interfere with sea turtle nesting or that exceed 18 inches in height for a distance of 100 feet must be leveled and the beach profile must be reconfigured to minimize scarp formation by the dates listed above. Any escarpment removal must be reported by location. The Service must be contacted immediately if subsequent reformation of escarpments that interfere with sea turtle nesting or that exceed 18 inches in height for a distance of 100 feet occurs during the nesting and hatching season to determine the appropriate action to be taken. If it is determined that escarpment leveling is required during the nesting or hatching season, the Service or NCWRC will provide a brief written authorization within 30 days that describes methods to be used to reduce the likelihood of impacting existing nests. An annual summary of escarpment surveys and actions taken must be submitted to the Service's Raleigh Field Office. 17. Sand compaction must be qualitatively evaluated at least twice after each sand placement event, once in the project area immediately after completion of any sand placement event and once after project completion between October 1 and May 1. Compaction monitoring and remediation are not required if the placed material no longer remains on the dry beach. Within 14 days of completion of sand placement and prior to any tilling (if needed), a field meeting shall be held with the Service, NCWRC, and the Corps to inspect the project area for compaction and determine whether tilling is needed. If tilling is needed for sand suitability, the area must be tilled to a depth of 36 inches. All tilling activities shall be completed prior to May 1 of any year. a. Tilling must occur landward of the wrack line and avoid all vegetated areas that are 3 square feet or greater, with a 3-foot buffer around all vegetation. b. If tilling occurs during the shorebird nesting season or seabeach amaranth growing season (after April 1), shorebird surveys and/or seabeach amaranth surveys are required prior to tilling. c. A summary of the compaction assessments and the actions taken shall be included in the annual report to NCDCM, the Corps, and the Service's Raleigh Field Office. d. These conditions will be evaluated and may be modified if necessary to address and identify sand compaction problems. 170 RECEIVED FEB 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY 18. A report describing the fate of observed sea turtle nests and hatchlings and any actions taken, must be submitted to the Service's Raleigh Field Office following completion of the proposed work for each year when a sand placement activity has occurred. Please see REPORTING REQUIREMENTS, below. Terms and Conditions — Seabeach Amaranth 19. Seabeach amaranth surveys must be conducted within the entire oceanfront sand placement area (up to 27,650 If) for a minimum of three years after completion of construction and each maintenance event. At a minimum, the stretches of oceanfront where sand placement occurred should be surveyed. Monitoring of the project area shall be conducted annually to determine the status of the seabeach amaranth populations and the effects that beach disposal has on this species. Surveys should be conducted in August or September so that the number of plants reaching reproductive age can be determined. Habitat known to support this species, including the upper edges of the beach, lower foredunes, and overwash flats must be visually surveyed for the plant by a qualified person who has knowledge and experience identifying seabeach amaranth. 20. A report describing the seabeach amaranth survey and results should be submitted to this office each year. The report should include a map showing locations of seabeach amaranth populations and the numbers of plants, with separate figures for those in flower or fruit, found in the beach disposal areas. A table listing numbers of plants and the latitude and longitude of locations should also be included. Please see REPORTING REQUIREMENTS, below. 21. If tilling of the beach is required due to high compaction levels resulting from beach disposal, surveys should be conducted in advance of the tilling for seabeach amaranth (see Term and Condition 17). No tilling should be conducted in the immediate areas where seabeach amaranth plants are growing. 171 RECEIVED FEB 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY 7.5. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS An annual report detailing the monitoring and survey data collected during the preceding year (required in the above Terms and Conditions) and summarizing all piping plover, red knot, and sea turtle data must be provided to the Raleigh Field Office by January 31 of each year for review and comment. In addition, any information or data related to a conservation measure or recommendation that is implemented should be included in the annual report. The contact for these reporting requirements is: Pete Benjamin, Supervisor Raleigh Field Office U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Post Office Box 33726 Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726 (919)856-4520 Upon locating a dead, injured, or sick individual of an endangered or threatened species, initial notification must be made to the Service's Law Enforcement Office below. Additional notification must be made to the Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office identified above and to the NCWRC at (252) 241-7367. Care should be taken in handling sick or injured individuals and in the preservation of specimens in the best possible state for later analysis of cause of death or injury. Jason Keith U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 551-F Pylon Drive Raleigh, NC 27606 (919) 8564786, extension 34 7.6. COORDINATION OF INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT WITH OTHER LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND POLICIES The Service will not refer the incidental take of any migratory bird for prosecution under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as amended (16 USC S 703-712), if such take is in compliance with the terms and conditions specified herein. Take resulting from activities that are not in conformance with the Corps permit or this biological opinion (e.g. deliberate harassment of wildlife, etc.) are not considered part of the proposed action and are not covered by this incidental take statement and may be subject to enforcement action against the individual responsible for the act. 172 RECEIVED FEB 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY 8. CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS Section 7(a)(1) of the ESA directs Federal agencies to utilize their authorities to further the purposes of the ESA by carrying out conservation programs for the benefit of endangered and threatened species. Conservation recommendations are discretionary agency activities to minimize or avoid adverse effects of a proposed action on listed species or critical habitat, to help implement recovery plans, or to develop information. For the benefit of the piping plover, the Service recommends the following conservation recommendations: 1. Construction activities for these projects and similar future projects should be planned to take place outside the shorebird nesting season (prior to March 30). 2. The Applicant or the Corps should maintain suitable piping plover migrating and wintering habitat. Natural accretion at inlets should be allowed to remain. Accreting sand spits on barrier islands provide excellent foraging habitat for migrating and wintering plovers. 3. A conservation/education display sign would be helpful in educating local beach users about the coastal beach ecosystem and associated rare species. The sign could highlight the piping plovers life history and basic biology and ways recreationists can assist in species protection efforts (e.g., keeping pets on a leash, removing trash to sealed refuse containers, etc.). The Service would be willing to assist the Corps or the Applicant in the development of such a sign, in cooperation with NCWRC, interested non -governmental stakeholders (i.e., National Audubon Society), the Corps, and the other interested stakeholders (i.e., property owners, etc.). For the benefit of sea turtles, the Service recommends the following conservation recommendations: 1. Educational signs should be placed where appropriate at beach access points explaining the importance of the area to sea turtles and/or the life history of sea turtle species that nest in the area. In order for the Service to be kept informed of actions minimizing or avoiding adverse effects or benefitting listed species or their habitats, the Service requests notification of the implementation of any conservation recommendations. 173 RECEIVED FEB 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY 9. REINITIATION NOTICE — CLOSING STATEMENT This concludes formal consultation on the action outlined in the request. As provided in 50 CFR §402.16, reinitiation of formal consultation is required where discretionary Federal agency involvement or control over the action has been retained (or is authorized by law) and if. (1) the amount or extent of incidental take is exceeded; (2) new information reveals effects of the Corps' action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not considered in this opinion or the project has not been completed within five years of the issuance of this biological opinion; (3) the Corps' action is subsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect to the listed species or critical habitat not considered in this opinion; or (4) a new species is listed or critical habitat designated that may be affected by the action. In instances where the amount or extent of incidental take is exceeded, any operations causing such take must cease pending reinitiation. For this biological opinion, the incidental take will be exceeded when the placement of dredged material extends beyond the project's authorized boundaries (27,650 If of beach). Incidental take of an undetermined number of adult, young, or eggs of sea turtles, piping plovers, and red knots has been exempted from the prohibitions of section 9 by this opinion. 174 RECEIVED FEB 21 2017 DCM-- MHD CITY LITERATURE CITED Ackerman, R.A. 1980. Physiological and ecological aspects of gas exchange by sea turtle eggs. American Zoologist 20:575-583. Addison, L., and T. McIvor. 2014. Masonboro Inlet Bird Surveys, 2009-2014: Preliminary Summary of Results. Unpublished report from Audubon North Carolina, Wilmington, NC. 24 pp. Amirault, D.L., F. Shaffer, K. Baker, A. Boyne, A. Calvert, J. McKnight, and P. Thomas. 2005. Preliminary results of a five year banding study in Eastern Canada — support for expanding conservation efforts to non -breeding sites? Unpublished Canadian Wildlife Service report. Amorocho, D. 2003. Monitoring nesting loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta) in the central Caribbean coast of Colombia. Marine Turtle Newsletter 101:8-13. Anders, F.J., and S.P. Leatherman. 1987. Disturbance of beach sediment by off -road vehicles. Environmental Geology and Water Sciences 9:183-189. Anonymous. 1992. First Kemp's ridley nesting in South Carolina. Marine Turtle Newsletter 59:23. Antas, P.T.Z., and I.L.S. Nascimento. 1996. Analysis of red knot Calidris canutus rufa banding data in Brazil. International Wader Studies 8:63-70. Arvin, J.C. 2009. Hurricane shifts plover populations. Gulf Coast Bird Observatory's Gulf Crossings. Vol. 13, No.1. Ashton, A.D., J.P. Donnelly, and R.L. Evans. 2007. A discussion of the potential impacts of climate change on the shorelines of the northeastern USA. Unpublished report prepared for the Northeast Climate Impacts Assessment, Union of Concerned Scientists, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, MA, Available at <httt)://www. jaeorizetownclimate.org/resources/a-discussion-of-the-potential-impacts-of- climate-change-on-the-shorelines-of-the-northeast. Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. 2015. Protecting the Piping Plover and other Shorebirds in the Bahamas. Report on Accomplishments 2014-2015. Available at <http://www.fishwildlife.org/files/SouthemWingsReportMarch2Ol5.pdf>. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. 1998. Interstate fishery management plan for horseshoe crab. Fishery management report no. 32, Available at <http://http://www.asmfc.or_g . 175 RECEIVED FEB 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY Audubon Society. 2012. Solving the Piping Plover Puzzle. Available at https://www.audubon.org/magazine/november-december-2012/solving-piping-plover- puzZle. Audubon Society. 2015. New Bahamas National Park will Protect Migratory Piping Plovers, Red Knots, Other Atlantic Coast Birds. Available at < https://www.audubon.org/news/new-bahamas-national-park-will-protect-migratory- piping-plovers-red-knots-other>. Bahamas National Trust. 2015. BNT Congratulates the Government on Protecting the Bahamas' Future. 9/2/2015 Press Release. Available at < http://www.bnt.bs/_ml840/press-releases/BNT-Congratulates-the-Government-on- Protecting-The-Bahamas-Future>. Baker, A.J., P.M. Gonzalez, T. Piersma, L.J. Niles, d.N. de Lima Serrano, P.W. Atkinson, N.A. Clark, C.D.T. Minton, M.K. Peck, G. Aarts, and et al. 2004. Rapid population decline in red knots: Fitness consequences of decreased refueling rates and late arrival in Delaware Bay. Proceedings of the Royal Society Biological Sciences Series B 271(1541):875-882. Baker, S. and B. Higgins. 2003. Summary of CWT project and recoveries, tag detection, and protocol for packaging and shipping Kemp's ridley flippers. Unpublished presentation at the Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage Network annual meeting. February 2003. Baldwin, R., G.R. Hughes, and R.I.T. Prince. 2 Pages 218-232 in Bolten, A.B. and B.E. Smithsonian Books, Washington D.C. 003. Loggerhead turtles in the Indian Ocean. Witherington (editors). Loggerhead Sea Turtles. Bandedbirds.org. 2012. Bandings and resightings, Available at <http://www.bandedbirds.org>. Barber, H. and Sons. 2012. Beach cleaning equipment and beach cleaning machines. http://www.hbarber.comICleanersIBeach_Cleaning Equipment.html. Accessed August 30, 2012. Beggs, J.A., J.A. Horrocks, and B.H. Krueger. 2007. Increase in hawksbill sea turtle Eretmochelys imbricata nesting in Barbados, West Indies. Endangered Species Research 3:159-168. Bent, A.C. 1927. Life histories of North American shore birds: Order Limicolae (Part 1). Smithsonian Institution U.S. National Museum Bulletin (142):131-145. Bent, A.C. 1929. Life histories of North American Shorebirds. U.S. Natural Museum Bulletin 146:236-246. 176 RECEIVED FEB 21 Z017 DCM- MHD CITY Bernardo, J. and P.T. Plotkin. 2007. An evolutionary perspective on the arribada phenomenon and reproductive behavior polymorphism of olive ridley sea turtles (Lepidochelys olivacea). Pages 59-87 in Plotkin, P.T. (editor). Biology and Conservation of Ridley Sea Turtles. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland. Bibby, R., S. Widdicombe, H. Parry, J. Spicer, and R. Pipe. 2008. Effects of ocean acidification on the immune response of the blue mussel Mytilus edulis. Aquatic Biology 2:67-74. Billes, A., J.-B. Moundemba, and S. Gontier. 2000. Campagne Nyamu 1999-2000. Rapport de fin de saison. PROTOMAC-ECOFAC. I I I pages. Bimbi, M. 2012. Biologist. E-mails of September 12, and November 1, 2012. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Recovery and Endangered Species, South Carolina Field Office. Charleston, SC. Bimbi, M. 2013. Biologist. E-mails of January 31, June 27, and July 2, 2013. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Recovery and Endangered Species, South Carolina Field Office, Charleston, SC. Bimbi, M. 2015. Biologist. Conference Call April 16, 2015. Discussion of red knot preferred prey items in South Carolina, and recent studies. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service internal conference call on research priorities for the red knot. Bjomdal, K.A., A.B. Meylan, and B.J. Turner. 1983. Sea turtles nesting at Melbourne Beach, Florida, I. Size, growth and reproductive biology. Biological Conservation 26:65-77. Blair, K. 2005. Determination of sex ratios and their relationship to nest temperature of loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta, L.) hatchlings produced along the southeastern Atlantic coast of the United States. Unpublished Master of Science thesis. Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, Florida. Bleakney, J.S. 1955. Four records of the Atlantic ridley turtle, Lepidochelys kempi, from Nova Scotia. Copeia 2:137. Blomqvist, S., N. Hohngren, S. tlkesson, A. Hedenstrom, and J. Pettersson. 2002. Indirect effects of lemming cycles on sandpiper dynamics: 50 years of counts from southern Sweden. Oecologia 133(2):146-158. Bolten, A.B. 2003. Active swimmers - passive drifters: the oceanic juvenile stage of loggerheads in the Atlantic system. Pages 63-78 in Bolten, A.B. and B.E. Witherington (editors). Loggerhead Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Books, Washington D.C. 177 RECEIVED FEB 21 2011 DCM- MHD CITY Bolten, A.B. and H.R. Martins. 1990. Kemp's ridley captured in the Azores. Marine Turtle Newsletter 48:23. Botton, M.L., R.E. Loveland, and T.R. Jacobsen. 1988. Beach erosion and geochemical factors: Influence on spawning success of horseshoe crabs (Limulus polyphemus) in Delaware Bay. Marine Biology 99(3):325-332. Botton, M.L., R.E. Loveland, and T.R. Jacobsen. 1994. Site selection by migratory shorebirds in Delaware Bay, and its relationship to beach characteristics and abundance of horseshoe crab (Limulus polyphemus) eggs. The Auk 111(3):605-616. Boulon, R.H., Jr. 1983. Some notes on the population biology of green (Chelonia mydas) and hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata) turtles in the northern U.S Virgin Islands; 1981-83. Report to the National Marine Fisheries Service, Grant No. NA82-GA-A-00044. 18 pages. Boulon, R.H., Jr. 1984. Growth rates of wild juvenile hawksbill turtles, Eretmochelys imbricata, in St. Thomas, United States Virgin Islands. Copeia 1994(3):811-814. Bowen, B. W., A.L. Bass, L. Soares, and R.J. Toonen. 2005. Conservation implications of complex population structure: lessons from the loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta). Molecular Ecology 14:2389-2402. Bowman, M.L. and Dolan, R. 1985. The relationship of Emerita talpoida to beach characteristics. J. Coastal Res. 1, 151-163. Boyd, R.L. 1991. First Nesting Record for the Piping Plover in Oklahoma. The Wilson Bulletin 103(2): 305-308. Brault, S. 2007. Population Viability Analysis for the New England population of the Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus). Prepared for Cape Wind Associates, January 2007. 34 pp. Breese, G. 2010. Compiled by Gregory Breese from notes and reports. Unpublished report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Shorebird Technical Committee. Breese, G. 2013. Project Leader. E-mails of March 11, 12, 25, and April 26 and 29, 2013. US Fish & Wildlife Service, Delaware Bay Estuary Project. Smyrna, Delaware. Brongersma, L.D. 1972. European Atlantic Turtles. Zoologische Verhandelingen 121:318. Brongersma, L. and A. Can. 1983. Lepidochelys kempii (Garman) from Malta. Proceedings of the Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen (Series C) 86(4):445-454. 178 REcE.NED FE8 21 ZM7 MW MHD CITY Burchfield, P.M. and J.L Pena. 2011. Final report on the Mexico/United Stated of America population for the Kemp's Ridley sea turtle, Lepidochelys kempii, on the coasts of Tamaulipas, Mexico. 2011. Annual report to Fish and Wildlife Service. 43 pages. Burger, J. 1986. The effect of human activities on shorebirds in two coastal bays in the Northeastern United States. Environmental Conservation 13:123-130. Burger, J. 1991. Foraging behavior and the effect of human disturbance on the piping plover (Charadrius melodus). Journal of Coastal Research 7:39-52. Burger, J. 1994. The effect of human disturbance on foraging behavior and habitat use in piping plover (Charadrius melodus). Estuaries 17:695-701. Burger, J., L.J. Niles, R.R. Porter, A.D. Dey, S. Koch, and C. Gordon. 2012. Migration and over - wintering of red knots (Calidris canutus rufa) along the Atlantic coast of the United States. The Condor 114(2):1-12. Burton, N.H.K., P.R. Evans, and M.A. Robinson. 1996. Effects on shorebirds numbers of disturbance, the loss of a roost site and its replacement by an artificial island at Hartlepool, Cleveland. Biological Conservation 77:193-201. Cairns, W.E. 1977. Breeding Biology and Behaviour of the Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus) in Southern Nova Scotia. M.S. Thesis, Dalhousie University. Cairns, W.E. and I.A. McLauren 1980. Status of the Piping Plover on the East Coast of North America: A summary of our recent knowledge of this Blue -listed species. American Birds 34(2): 206-208. Caldwell, D.K. 1962. Comments on the nesting behavior of Atlantic loggerhead sea turtles, based primarily on tagging returns. Quarterly Journal of the Florida Academy of Sciences 25(4):287-302. Calvert, A.M., D.L. Amirault, F. Shaffer, R. Elliott, A. Hanson, J. McKnight, and P.D. Taylor. 2006. Population assessment of an endangered shorebird: the Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus melodus) in eastern Canada. Avian Conservation and Ecology — Ecologie et conservation des olseaux 1(3): 4. Camfield, F.E. and C.M. Holmes. 1995. Monitoring completed coastal projects. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 9:169-171. Carr, A. 1961. The ridley mystery today. Animal Kingdom 64(1):7-12. 179 RECEIVED FEB 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY Carr, A. 1963. Panspecific reproductive convergence in Lepidochelys kempii. Ergebnisse der Biologie 26:298-303. Carr, A. and L. Ogren. 1960. The ecology and migrations of sea turtles, 4. The green turtle in the Caribbean Sea. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 121(1):1-48. Chaloupka, M. 2001. Historical trends, seasonality and spatial synchrony in green sea turtle egg production. Biological Conservation 101:263-279. Christens, E. 1990. Nest emergence lag in loggerhead sea turtles. Journal of Herpetology 24(4):400-402. Clark, K.E., L.J. Niles, and J. Burger. 1993. Abundance and distribution of migrant shorebirds in Delaware Bay. The Condor 95:694-705. Clark, K.E., R.R. Porter, and J.D. Dowdell. 2009. The shorebird migration in Delaware Bay. New Jersey Birds 35(4):85-92. Clark, R.R. 1992. Beach Conditions in Florida: A Statewide Inventory and Identification of the Beach Erosion Problem Areas in Florida. Beaches and Shores Technical and Design Memorandum 89-1. Florida Department of Natural Resources, Division of Beaches and Shores. Coastal Engineering Research Center. 1984. Shore protection manual, Volumes I and H. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Cohen, J. B., J. D. Fraser, and D. H. Catlin. 2006. Survival and site fidelity of piping plovers on Long Island, New York. Journal of Field Ornithology 77:409-417. Cohen, J.B., S.M. Karpanty, D.H. Catlin, J.D. Fraser, and R.A. Fischer. 2008. Winter ecology of piping plovers at Oregon Inlet, North Carolina. Waterbirds 31:472-479. Cohen, J. 2009. Electronic mail dated 15 and 16 January 2009 from Jonathan Cohen, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia, to Anne Hecht, USFWS. Cohen, J.B., S.M. Karpanty, J.D. Fraser, B.D. Watts, and B.R. Truitt. 2009. Residence probability and population size of red knots during spring stopover in the mid -Atlantic region of the United States. Journal of Wildlife Management 73(6):939-945. Cohen, J.B., S.M. Karpanty, J.D. Fraser, and B.R. Truitt. 2010. The effect of benthic prey abundance and size on red knot (Calidris canutus) distribution at an alternative migratory stopover site on the US Atlantic Coast. Journal of Ornithology 151:355-364. 180 RECENED FFb 21 Z017 DCMe MHD CITY Collard, S.B. and L.H. Ogren. 1990. Dispersal scenarios for pelagic post-hatchling sea turtles. Bulletin of Marine Science 47(1):233-243. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 2007. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the red knot Calidns canutus in Canada. COSEWIC, Gatineau, QC, Available at < http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/virtual_sara/files/cosewic/sr calidris_Canutus_e.pdf>. Conant, T.A., P.H. Dutton, T. Eguchi, S.P. Epperly, C.C. Fahy, M.H. Godfrey, S.L. MacPherson, E.E. Possardt, B.A. Schroeder, J.A. Seminof, , M.L. Snover, C.M. Uptite, and B.E. Witherington. 2009. Loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) 2009 status review under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. Report to the National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA. 219 pages. Congdon, J.D., A.E. Dunham, and R.C. van Loben Sels. 1993. Delayed sexual maturity and demographics of Blanding's turtles (Emydoidea blandingh): implications for conservation and management of long-lived organisms. Conservation Biology 7(4):826-833. Corliss, L.A., J.1. Richardson, C. Ryder, and R. Bell. 1989. The hawksbills of Jumby Bay, Antigua, West Indies. Pages 33-35 in Eckert, S.A., K.L. Eckert, and T.H. Richardson (compilers). Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Conservation and Biology. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFC-232. Council Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna [CAFF]. 2010. Arctic Biodiversity Trends 2010 — Selected indicators of change. CAFF, Akureyri, Iceland, Available at <ft://www.caff.is/Rublications/view document/162-arctic-biodiversity-trends-2010- selected-indicators-of-change. Coutu, S.D., J.D. Fraser, J.L. McConnaughy, and J.P. Loegering. 1990. Piping plover distribution and reproductive success on Cape Hatteras National Seashore. Unpublished report to the National Park Service. Crain, D.A., A.B. Bolten, and K.A. Bjomdal. 1995. Effects of beach nourishment on sea turtles: review and research initiatives. Restoration Ecology 3(2):95-104. Cross, R.R. 1990. Monitoring, management and research of the piping plover at Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge. Unpublished report. Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, Richmond, Virginia. 181 RECEIVED FEB 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY Cross, R.R. 1996. Breeding Ecology, Success, and Population Management of the Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus) at Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge, Virginia. M.A. Thesis, The College of William and Mary. Crouse, D. 1999. Population modeling and implications for Caribbean hawksbill sea turtle management. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 3(2):185-188. Cummings, V., J. Hewitt, A. Van Rooyen, K. Currie, S. Beard, S. Thrush, J. Norkko, N. Barr, P. Heath, N.J. Halliday, and et al. 2011. Ocean acidification at high latitudes: Potential effects on functioning of the Antarctic bivalve Laternula elliptica. PLoS ONE 6(1):e16069. Cuthbert, F.J. and E.A. Roche. 2006. Piping plover breeding biology and management in the Great Lakes, 2006. Report submitted to the US Fish and Wildlife Service, East Lansing, MI. Cuthbert, F.J. and E.A. Roche. 2007. Estimation and evaluation of demographic parameters for recovery of the endangered Great Lakes piping plover population. Unpublished report submitted to the US Fish and Wildlife Service, East Lansing, MI. Cuthbert, F.J., and S. Saunders. 2013. Piping plover breeding biology and management in the Great Lakes, 2013. Report submitted to the US Fish and Wildlife Service, East Lansing, MI. 34 pp. Dahlen, M.K., R. Bell, J.I. Richardson, and T.H. Richardson. 2000. Beyond D-0004: Thirty- four years of loggerhead (Caretta caretta) research on Little Cumberland Island, Georgia, 1964-1997. Pages 60-62 in Abreu-Grobois, F.A., R. Briseno-Duenas, R. Marquez, and L. Sarti (compilers). Proceedings of the Eighteenth International Sea Turtle Symposium. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC436. Daniel, R.S. and K.U. Smith. 1947. The sea -approach behavior of the neonate loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta). Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology 40(6):413-420. Davis, G.E. and M.C. Whiting. 1977. Loggerhead sea turtle nesting in Everglades National Park, Florida, U.S.A. Herpetologica 33:18-28. Dean, C. 1999. Against the tide: the battle for America's beaches. Columbia University Press; New York, New York. Defeo, O., A. McLachlan, D.S. Schoeman, T.A. Schlacher, J. Dugan, A. Jones, M. Lastra, and F. Scapini. 2009. Threats to sandy beach ecosystems: a review. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 81:1-12. 182 RECEIVED Fa 21 ZzV OCM- MHO CITY Deraniyagala, P.E.P. 1938. The Mexican loggerhead turtle in Europe. Nature 142:540. Dey, A., L. Niles, H. Sitters, K. Kalasz, and R.I.G. Morrison. 2011. Update to the status of the red knot Calidris canutus in the Western Hemisphere, April, 2011, with revisions to July 14, 2011. Unpublished report to New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Fish and Wildlife, Endangered and Nongame Species Program. Dey, A. 2012. Principal Zoologist. E-mails of August 9, 13, 20; October 12, 29; November 19; and December 3, 2012. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Fish and Wildlife, Endangered & Nongame Species Program. Millville, NJ. Dickerson, D.D. and D.A. Nelson. 1989. Recent results on hatchling orientation responses to light wavelengths and intensities. Pages 41-43 in Eckert, S.A., K.L. Eckert, and T.H. Richardson (compilers). Proceedings of the 9th Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Conservation and Biology. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFC-232. Diez, C. E. 2011. Personal communication to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Puerto Rico Department of Natural and Environmental Resources. Diez, C.E., R.P. van Dam. 2002. Habitat effect on hawksbill turtle growth rates on feeding grounds at Mona and Monito Islands, Puerto Rico. Marine Ecology Progress Series 234:301-309. Dinsmore, S.J., J.A. Collazo, and J.R. Walters. 1998. Seasonal numbers and distribution of shorebirds on North Carolina's Outer Banks Wilson Bulletin 110:171-181. Dodd, C.K., Jr. 1988. Synopsis of the biological data on the loggerhead sea turtle Caretta caretta (Linnaeus 1758). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Report 88(14). Dodd, M.G. and A.H. Mackinnon. 1999. Loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) nesting in Georgia, 1999: implications for management. Georgia Department of Natural Resources report Dodd, M.G. and A.H. Mackinnon. 2000. Loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) nesting in Georgia, 2000: implications for management. Georgia Department of Natural Resources unpublished report. Dodd, M.G. and A.H. Mackinnon. 2001. Loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) nesting in Georgia, 2001. Georgia Department of Natural Resources. Report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Jacksonville, Florida.. 183 RECEIVED FEB 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY Dodd, M.G. and A.H. Mackinnon. 2002. Loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) nesting in Georgia, 2002. Georgia Department of Natural Resources. Report submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Jacksonville, Florida. Dodd, M.G. and A.H. Mackinnon. 2003. Loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) nesting in Georgia, 2003. Georgia Department of Natural Resources. Report submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Jacksonville, Florida. Dodd, M.G. and A.H. Mackinnon. 2004. Loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) nesting in Georgia, 2004. Georgia Department of Natural Resources. Report submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Jacksonville, Florida. Dodge, K.D., R. Prescott, D. Lewis, D. Murley, and C. Merigo. 2003. A review of cold stun strandings on Cape Cod, Massachusetts from 1979-2003. Unpublished Poster NOAA, Mass Audubon, New England Aquarium. htto://ealveston.sM.nmfs.eov/reseg h/protectedspeciest Drake, K.R. 1999a. Movements, habitat use and survival of wintering piping plovers. M.S. Thesis. Texas A&M University -Kingsville, Kingsville, TX. 82 pp. Drake, K. R. 1999b. Time allocation and roosting habitat in sympatrically wintering piping and snowy plovers. M. S. Thesis. Texas A&M University -Kingsville, Kingsville, TX. 59 pp. Drake, K.R., J.E. Thompson, K.L. Drake, and C. Zonick. 2001. Movements, habitat use, and survival of non -breeding Piping Plovers. Condor 103(2):259-267. Duerr, A.E., B.D. Watts, and F.M. Smith. 2011. Population dynamics of red knots stopping over in Virginia during spring migration. Center for Conservation Biology technical report series. College of William and Mary & Virginia Commonwealth University, CCBTR-11- 04, Williamsburg, VA. Dugan, J.E., D.M. Hubbard, M.D. McCrary, and M.O. Pierson. 2003. The response of macrofauna communities and shorebirds to macrophyte wrack subsidies on exposed sandy beaches of southern California. Estuarine. Coastal and Shelf Science 58, 25-40. Dugan and Hubbard. 2006. Ecological responses to coastal armoring on exposed sandy beaches. Journal of the American Shore and Beach Preservation Association. Winter. Volume 74, No. 1. Dunne, P., D. Sibley, C. Sutton, and W. Wander. 1982. 1982 aerial shorebird survey of the Delaware Bay endangered species. New Jersey Birds 9:68-74. 184 RECEIVE® FEB 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY Dutton, D.L., P.H. Dutton, M. Chaloupka, and R.H. Boulon. 2005. Increase of a Caribbean leatherback turtle Dermochelys coriacea nesting population linked to long-term nest protection. Biological Conservation 126:186-194. eBird.org. 2014. eBird: An online database of bird distribution and abundance [web application]. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York. , Available at http://www.ebird.org/. eBird.org. 2012. eBird: An online database of bird distribution and abundance [web application]. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York. , Available at http://www.ebird.org/. Ehrhart, L.M., D.A. Bagley, and W.E. Redfoot. 2003. Loggerhead turtles in the Atlantic Ocean: geographic distribution, abundance, and population status. Pages 157-174 in Bolten, A.B. and B.E. Witherington (editors). Loggerhead Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Books, Washington D.C. Ehrhart, L.M., D.A. Bagley, and W.E. Redfoot. 2003. Loggerhead turtles in the Atlantic Ocean: geographic distribution, abundance, and population status. Pages 157-174 in Bolten, A.B. and B.E. Witherington (editors). Loggerhead Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Books, Washington D.C. Elliott, L.F. and T. Teas. 1996. Effects of human disturbance on threatened wintering shorebirds. In fulfillment of Texas Grant number E-1-8. Project 53. 10 pp. Elliott -Smith, E., Haig, S.M., and Powers, B.M. 2009. Data from the 2006 International Piping Plover Census: U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 426, 332 p. Elliott -Smith, E., Bidwell, M., Holland, A.E., and Haig, S.M. 2015. Data from the 2011 International Piping Plover Census: U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 922. 296 pp. Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ds922. Emanuel, K. 2005. Increasing destructiveness of tropical cyclones over the past 30 years. Nature, Volume 436(4), pp. 686-688. Encalada, S.E., J.C. Zurita, and B.W. Bowen. 1999. Genetic consequences of coastal development: the sea turtle rookeries at X'cacel, Mexico. Marine Turtle Newsletter 83:8- 10. Environment Canada. 2006. Recovery Strategy for the Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus circumcinctus) in Canada. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Environment Canada, Ottawa. 185 RECEIVED FEB 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY Environmental Protection Agency. 2009. Coastal Zones and sea level rise. Accessed on 29 January 2009 at http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/effects/coastal/ index/html. Ernest, R.G. and R.E. Martin. 1993. Sea turtle protection program performed in support of velocity cap repairs, Florida Power & Light Company St. Lucie Plant. Applied Biology, Inc., Jensen Beach, Florida. Ernest, R.G. and R.E. Martin. 1999. Martin County beach nourishment project: sea turtle monitoring and studies. 1997 annual report and final assessment. Unpublished report prepared for the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Escudero, G., J.G. Navedo, T. Piersma, P. De Goeij, and P. Edelaar. 2012. Foraging conditions `at the end of the world' in the context of long-distance migration and population declines in red knots. Austral Ecology 37:355-364. Espoz, C., A. Ponce, R. Matus, O. Blank, N. Rozbaczylo, H.P. Sitters, S. Rodriguez, A.D. Dey, and L.J. Niles. 2008. Trophic ecology of the red knot Calidris canutus rufa at Bahia Lomas, Tierra del Fuego, Chile. Wader Study Group Bulletin 115(2):69-76. Fabry, V.J., B.A. Seibel, R.A. Feely, and J.C. Orr. 2008. Impacts of ocean acidification on marine fauna and ecosystem processes. ICES Journal of Marine Science 65:414-432. Farley, R. 2009. Phone conversation on 11 February 2009 between Robert Farley, Planning and Landscape Architecture, Post, Buckley, Schuh, and Jernigan, Inc. and Patricia Kelly, USFWS, Panama City, Florida, Field Office regarding status of beach vitex on northwest Florida beaches. Farrell, J.G., and C.S. Martin. 1997. Proceedings of the Horseshoe Crab Forum: Status of the resource. University of Delaware, Sea Grant College Program, Newark, Delaware. Feng, S., C. Ho, Q. Hu, R.J. Oglesby, and S. Jeong. 2012. Evaluating observed and projected future climate changes for the Arctic using the Koppen-Trewartha climate classification. Climate Dynamics 38:1359-1373. Fenster, M., and R. Dolan. 1996. Assessing the impact of tidal inlets on adjacent barrier island shorelines. Journal of Coastal Research 12(1):294-310. Fletemeyer, J. 1980. Sea turtle monitoring project. Unpublished report prepared for the Broward County Environmental Quality Control Board, Florida. Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 2009. Critically eroded beaches in Florida. Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems. Tallahassee, Florida http://www.dep.state.fl.us/beaches/publications/pdf/critical-erosion-report-2012.pdf I RECEIVED FEB 21 Z017 DCM- MHD CITY Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC). 2007. Light sources contributing to reported disorientation events in Florida, 2007. http://www.myfwc.com/docs/WildlifeHabitats/Seaturtle_DisorientationEvents2007.pdf Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC). 2008a. Reported nesting activity of the Kemps Ridley (Lepidochelys kempii), in Florida, 1979-2007. Fish and Wildlife Research Institute. http://research.myfwc.com/images/articles/2377/sea_turtle_nesting_on_florida_bchs_93- 07.pdf Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC). 2008b. Personal communication to the Loggerhead Recovery Team. Florida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC). 2009a. Statewide Nesting Beach Survey database http://research.myfwc.com/features/view article.asp?id=10690 Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC). 2009b. Index Nesting Beach Survey Totals. http://research.myfwc.com/features/view_article.asp?id=10690 Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC). 2009c. Florida's endangered species, threatened species, and species of special concern. http://research.myfwc.com/featurestview_article.asp?id=5182 Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission/Florida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute (FWC/FWRI). 2010a. A good nesting season for loggerheads in 2010 does not reverse a recent declining trend. http://research.myfwc.com/features/view_article.asp?id=27537 Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission/Florida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute (FWC/FWRI). 2010b. Index nesting beach survey totals (1989 - 2010). http://myfwc.com/research/wildlife/sea-turtles/nesting/beach-survey-totals-1989-2010/ Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission/Florida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute (FWC/FWRI). 2011. Personal communication to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Florida Oceans and Coastal Council. 2010. Climate change and sea -level rise in Florida: An update of "The effects of climate change on Florida's ocean and coastal resources". FOCC, Tallahassee, FL, Available at http://www.floridaoceanscouncil.org/reports/Climate_ Change_ and Sea_Level_Rise.pdf Foley, A. 2005. Personal communication to Loggerhead Recovery Team. Florida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute. 187 RECEIVED FEB 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY Foley, A., B. Schroeder, and S. MacPherson. 2008. Post -nesting migrations and resident areas of Florida loggerheads. Pages 75-76 in Kalb, H., A. Rohde, K. Gayheart, and K. Shanker (compilers). Proceedings of the Twenty-fifth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-582. Fontaine, C.T., S.A. Manzella, T.D. Williams, R.M. Harris, and W.J. Browning. 1989. Distribution, growth and survival of head started, tagged and released Kemp's ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempii) from year -classes 1978-1983. Pages 124-144 in Caillouet, C.W., Jr., and A.M. Landry Jr. (editors). Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle Biology, Conservation and Management. TAMU-SG:89-105. Foote, J.J. and T.L. Mueller. 2002. Two Kemp's ridley (Lepidochelys kempii) nests on the Gulf coast of Sarasota County, Florida, USA. Page 217 in Mosier, A., A. Foley, and B. Brost (compilers). Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Symposium Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-477. Foote, J., J. Sprinkel, T. Mueller, and J. McCarthy. 2000. An overview of twelve years of tagging data from Caretta caretta and Chelonia mydas nesting habitat along the central Gulf coast of Florida, USA. Pages 280-283 in Kalb, H.J. and T. Wibbels (compilers). Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-443. Frair, W., R.G. Ackerman, and N. Mrosovsky. 1972. Body temperature of Dermochelys coriacea: warm water turtle from cold water. Science 177:791-793. Francisco -Pearce, A.M. 2001. Contrasting population structure of Caretta caretta using mitochondrial and nuclear DNA primers. Unpublished Master of Science thesis. University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Fraser, J.D., S.M. Karpanty, J.B. Cohen, and B.R. Truitt. 2013. The red knot (Calidris canutus rufa) decline in the western hemisphere: Is there a lemming connection? Canadian Journal of Zoology 91:13-16. Frazer, N.B. and J.I. Richardson. 1985. Annual variation in clutch size and frequency for loggerhead turtles, Caretta-caretta, nesting at Little Cumberland Island, Georgia, USA. Herpetologica 41(3):246-251. Fretey, J., A. Billes, and M. Tiwari. 2007. Leatherback Dermochelys coriacea, nesting along the Atlantic coast of Africa. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 6(1): 126-129. 188 RECEIVED E B 21 2017 DClvi- MHD CITY Frumhoff, P.C., J.J. McCarthy, J.M. Melillo, S.C. Moser, and D.J. Wuebbles. 2007. Confronting climate change in the U.S. Northeast: Science, impacts, and solutions. Synthesis report of the Northeast Climate Impacts Assessment (NECIA). Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), Cambridge, MA. Fussell, John. O. III. 1994. A Binder's Guide to Coastal North Carolina. University of North Carolina Press. 540 pages. Galbraith, H., R. Jones, R. Park, J. Clough, S. Herrod-Julius, B. Harrington, and G. Page. 2002. Global climate changes and sea level rise: Potential loss of intertidal habitat for shorebirds. Waterbirds 25:173-183. Garduiio-Andrade, M. 1999. Nesting of the hawksbill turtle, Eretmochelys imbricata, in Rio Lagartos, Yucatdn, Mexico, 1990-1997. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 3(2):281- 285. Garner, J.A. and S.A. Gamer. 2010. Saturation tagging and nest management of leatherback sea turtles on (Dermochelys coriacea) on Sandy Point, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Island, 2010. Annual report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 49 pages. Gaylord, B., T.M. Hill, E. Sanford, E.A. Lenz, L.A. Jacobs, K.N. Sato, A.D. Russell, and A. Hettinger. 2011. Functional impacts of ocean acidification in an ecologically critical foundation species. Journal of Experimental Biology 214:2586-2594. Gerasimov, K.B. 2009. Functional morphology of the feeding apparatus of red knot Calidris canutus, great knot C. tenuirostris and surtbird Aphriza virgate. In International Wader Study Group Annual Conference, September 18-21, 2009, International Wader Study Group, Norfolk, UK. Gerrodette, T. and J. Brandon. 2000. Designing a monitoring program to detect trends. Pages 36-39 in Bjomdal, K.A. and A.B. Bolten (editors). Proceedings of a Workshop on Assessing Abundance and Trends for In -water Sea Turtle Populations. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-445. Gibbs, J.P. 1986. Feeding ecology of nesting piping plovers in Maine. Unpublished report to Maine Chapter, The Nature Conservancy, Topsham, Maine. Gibson, M., C.W. Nathan, A.K. Killingsworth, C.Shankles, E. Coleman, S. Bridge, H. Juedes, W. Bone, and R. Shiplett. 2009. Observations and implications of the 2007 amalgamation of Sand -Pelican Island to Dauphin Island, Alabama. Geological Society of America. Paper No. 20-10, Southeastern Section - 58`s Annual Meeting. Volume 41, No.1, p. 52. RECEIVED 189 FEB 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY Glenn, L. 1998. The consequences of human manipulation of the coastal environment on hatchling loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta, L.). Pages 58-59 in Byles, R., and Y. Fernandez (compilers). Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-412. Glen, F. and N. Mrosovsky. 2004. Antigua revisited: the impact of climate change on sand and nest temperatures at a hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) nesting beach. Global Change Biology 10:2036-2045. Godfrey, M.H. and N. Mrosovsky. 1997. Estimating the time between hatching of sea turtles and their emergence from the nest. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 2(4):581-585. Godfrey, P.J., S.P. Leatherman, and P.A. Buckley. 1978. Impact of off -road vehicles on coastal ecosystems. Pages 581-599 in Coastal Zone '78 Symposium on Technical, Environmental Socioeconomic and Regulatory Aspects of Coastal Zone Management. Vol. II, San Francisco, California. Goldin, M.R., C. Griffin, and S. Melvin. 1990. Reproductive and foraging ecology, human disturbance, and management of piping plovers at Breezy Point, Gateway National Recreational Area, New York, 1989. Progress report for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Newton Comer, Massachusetts. Goldin, M.R. 1993. Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus) management, reproductive ecology, and chick behavior at Goosewing and Briggs Beaches, Little Compton, Rhode Island, 1993. The Nature Conservancy, Providence, Rhode Island. Gonzalez, P.M. 2005. Report for developing a red knot status assessment in the U.S. Unpublished report by Fundacion Inalafquen, Rio Negro, Argentina. Gonzalez, P.M., A.J. Baker, and M.E. Echave. 2006. Annual survival of red knots (Calidris canutus rufa) using the San Antonio Oeste stopover site is reduced by domino effects involving late arrival and food depletion in Delaware Bay. Homero 21(2):109-117. Grant, G.S. 2014. Town of North Topsail Beach Post -Construction Bird Monitoring Report. Sneads Ferry, NC. 23p. Grant, G.S. 2015. Town of North Topsail Beach Post -Construction Bird Monitoring Report — Second Year. Sneads Ferry, NC. 29p. Goss -Custard, J.D., R.T. Clarke, S.E.A. le V. dit Durell, R.W.G. Caldow, and B.J. Ens. 1996. Population consequences of winter habitat loss in migratory shorebird. 11. Model predictions. Journal of Applied Ecology 32:337-351. 190 j�ECENED FEB 21 N17 ACM_ MH'D CITY Gratto-Trevor, C., D. Amirault-Langlais, D. Catlin, F. Cuthbert, J. Fraser, S. Maddock, E. Roche, and F. Shaffer. 2009. Winter distribution of four different piping plover breeding populations. Report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 11 pp. Gratto-Trevor, C., D. Amirault-Langlais, D. Catlin, F. Cuthbert, J. Fraser, S. Maddock, E. Roche, and F. Shaffer. 2012. Connectivity in piping plovers: do breeding populations have distinct winter distributions? Journal of Wildlife Management 76:348-355. Green, M.A., G.G. Waldbusser, S.L. Reilly, K. Emerson, and S. O'Donnell. 2009. Death by dissolution: Sediment saturation state as a mortality factor for juvenile bivalves. Limnology and Oceanography 54(4):1037-1047. Greene, K. 2002. Beach nourishment: A review of the biological and physical impacts. ASMFC Habitat Management Series # 7. ASMFC, Washington, DC., Available at <htto://www.asmfc.org[publications/habitat/beachNourishment.pdfl Greer, A.E., J.D. Lazell, Jr., and R.M. Wright. 1973. Anatomical evidence for counter -current heat exchanger in the leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea). Nature 244:181. Griffin, C.R. and S.M. Melvin. 1984. Research plan on management, habitat selection, and population dynamics of piping plovers on outer Cape Cod, Massachusetts. University of Massachusetts. Research proposal submitted to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Newton Comer, Massachusetts. Guilfoyle, M.P., R.A. Fischer, D.N. Pashley, and C.A. Lott editors. 2006. Summary of first regional workshop on dredging, beach nourishment, and birds on the south Atlantic coast. ERDC/EL TR-06-10. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC, Available at <http://www.fws. ovg /raleigh/pdfs/ES/trel06-10.pdf>. Guilfoyle, M.P., R.A. Fischer, D.N. Pashley, and C.A. Lott editors. 2007. Summary of second regional workshop on dredging, beach nourishment, and birds on the north Atlantic coast. ERDC/EL TR-07-26. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC, Available at <htto://www.dtic.mil/cei-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA474358>. Gyuris E. 1994. The rate of predation by fishes on hatchlings of the green turtle. Coral Reefs 12:137. Haig, S.M. 1992. Piping Plover. In The Birds of North America, No. 2 (A. Poole, P. Stettenheim, & F. Gill, eds). Philadelphia: The academy of Natural Sciences; Washington DC: The American Ornithologists' Union. 17 pp. 191 RECEIVED FEB 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY Haig, S.M., and E. Elliott -Smith. 2004. Piping Plover. In A. Poole (eds.), The Birds of North America Online. Ithaca: Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology; Retrieved from The Birds of North American Online database: hiip://bna.birds.comell.edu/BNA/account/Piping_Plover/. Haig, S.M., and L.W. Oring. 1985. The distribution and status of the piping plover throughout the annual cycle. Journal of Field Ornithology 56:334-345. Haig, S.M., and L.W. Oring. 1987. The piping plover. Audubon Wildlife Report. Pp. 509-519. Haig, S.M. and J.H. Plissner. 1992. Distribution and Abundance of Piping Plovers: Results and Implications of the 1991 International Census. The Condor 95:145-156. Haig, S.M., and C.L. Ferland, F.J. Cuthbert, J. Dingledine, J.P. Goossen, A. Hecht, and N. McPhillips. 2005. A complete species census and evidence for regional declines in piping plovers. Journal of Wildlife Management. 69(1): 160-173. Hake, M. 1993. 1993 summary of piping plover management program at Gateway NRA Breezy Point district. Unpublished report. Gateway National Recreational Area, Long Island, New York. Hailman, J.P. and A.M. Elowson. 1992. Ethogram of the nesting female loggerhead (Caretta caretta). Herpetologica 48:1-30. Hanlon, H. 2012. Biologist. E-mail of November 22, 2012. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Cape May National Wildlife Refuge. Cape May Court House, NJ. Hanson, J., T. Wibbels, and R.E. Martin. 1998. Predicted female bias in sex ratios of hatchling loggerhead sea turtles from a Florida nesting beach. Canadian Journal of Zoology 76(10):1850-1861. Harrington, B.R. 2008. Coastal inlets as strategic habitat for shorebirds in the southeastern United States. DOER Technical Notes Collection. ERDC TN-DOER-E25. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/dots/doer. Harrington, B.A. 1996. The flight of the red knot: A natural history account of a small bird's annual migration from the Arctic Circle to the rip of South America and back. W. W. Norton & Company, New York. Harrington, B.A. 2001. Red knot (Calidris canutus). In A. Poole, and F. Gill, eds. The birds of North America, No. 563, The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. 192 RECEIVED FEB 21 Z017 DCM- MHD CITY Harrington, B.A. 2005a. Unpublished information on red knot numbers and distribution in the eastern United States: Based largely on ongoing projects and manuscripts under development at the Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences and the Georgia Department of Natural Resources. Harrington, B.A. 2005b. Studies of disturbance to migratory shorebirds with a focus on Delaware Bay during north migration. Unpublished report by Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences, Manomet, M.A. Harrington, B.A., J.M. Hagen, and L.E. Leddy. 1988. Site fidelity and survival differences between two groups of New World red knots (Calidris canutus). The Auk 105:439-445. Harrington, B. 2012. Biologist. E-mail of November 12, 2012. Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences. Manomet, MA. Hawkes, L.A., A.C. Broderick, M.H. Godfrey, and B.J. Godley. 2005. Status of nesting loggerhead turtles Caretta caretta at Bald Head Island (North Carolina, USA) after 24 years of intensive monitoring and conservation. Oryx 39(1):65-72. Hawkes, L.A., A.C. Broderick, M.H. Godfrey, and B.J. Godley. 2009. Climate change and marine turtles. Endangered Species Research 7:137-154. Hayes, M.O. and J. Michel. 2008. A coast for all seasons: A naturalist's guide to the coast of South Carolina. Pandion Books, Columbia, South Carolina. 285 pp. Hays, G.C. 2000. The implications of variable remigration intervals for the assessment of population size in marine turtles. Journal of Theoretical Biology 206:221-227. Hecht, A., and S. M. Melvin. 2009. Expenditures and effort associated with recovery of breeding Atlantic Coast piping plovers. Journal of Wildlife Management 73(7):1099-1107. Hegna, R.H., M.J. Warren, C.J. Carter, and J.C. Stiner. 2006. Lepidochelys kempii (Kemp's Ridley sea turtle). Herpetological Review 37(4):492. Helmers, D.L. 1992. Shorebird management manual. Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve. Network, Manomet, Massachusetts, USA. Hendrickson, J.R. 1958. The green sea turtle Chelonia mydas (Linn.) in Malaya and Sarawak. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London 130:455-535. Heppell, S.S. 1998. Application of life -history theory and population model analysis to turtle conservation. Copeia 1998(2):367-375. 193 RECEIVED FEB 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY Heppell, S.S., L.B. Crowder, and T.R. Menzel. 1999. Life table analysis of long-lived marine species with implications for conservation and management. Pages 137-148 in Musick, J.A. (editor). Life in the Slow Lane: Ecology and Conservation of Long-lived Marine Animals. American Fisheries Society Symposium 23, Bethesda, Maryland. Heppell, S.S., L.B. Crowder, D.T. Crouse, S.P. Epperly, and N.B. Frazer. 2003. Population models for Atlantic loggerheads: past, present, and future. Pages 225-273 in Bolten, A.B. and B.E. Witherington (editors). Loggerhead Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Books, Washington D.C. Heppell, S.S., D.T. Crouse, L.B. Crowder, S.P. Epperly, W. Gabriel, T. Henwood, R. Marquez, and N.B. Thompson. 2005. A population model to estimate recovery time, population size, and management impacts on Kemp's ridley sea turtles. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 4(4):767-773. Herren, R.M. 1999. The effect of beach nourishment on loggerhead (Caretta caretta) nesting and reproductive success at Sebastian Inlet, Florida. Unpublished Master of Science thesis. University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida. 138 pages. Hildebrand, H.H. 1963. Hallazgo del urea de anidaci6n de la tortuga marina "lora" Lepidochelys kempi (Garman), en la coasta occidental del Golfo de M6xico. Sobretiro de Ciencia, M6xico 22:105-112. Hirth, H.F. 1997. Synopsis of the biological data on the green turtle Chelonia mydas (Linnaeus 1758). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Report 97(1). Hoopes, E.M. 1993. Relationships between human recreation and piping plover foraging ecology and chick survival. M.S. Thesis. University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts. Hopkins, S.R. and T.M. Murphy. 1980. Reproductive ecology of Caretta Caretta in South Carolina. South Carolina Wildlife Marine Resources Department Completion Report. Hopkinson, C.S., A.E. Lugo, M. Alber, A.P. Covich, and S.J. Van Bloem. 2008. Forecasting effects of sea -level rise and windstorms on coastal and inland ecosystems. Frontiers in Ecology and Environment 6:255-263. Hosier, P.E., M. Kochhar, and V. Thayer. 1981. Off -road vehicle and pedestrian track effects on the sea —approach of hatchling loggerhead turtles. Environmental Conservation 8:158-161. 194 RECENED vEb 21 zoV DCM. MHD CITY Houghton, J.D.R. and G.C. Hays. 2001. Asynchronous emergence by loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) hatchlings. Naturwissenschaften 88:133-136. Howard, B. and P. Davis. 1999. Sea turtle nesting activity at Ocean Ridge in Pahn Beach County, Florida 1999. Palm Beach County Department of Environmental Resources Management, West Pahn Beach, Florida. Hubbard, D.M. and J.E. Dugan. 2003. Shorebird use of an exposed sandy beach in southern California. Estuarine Coastal Shelf Science 58, 41-54. Hughes, A.L. and E.A. Caine. 1994. The effects of beach features on hatchling loggerhead sea turtles. Pages 237 in Bjomdal, K.A., A.B. Bolten, D.A. Johnson, and P.J. Eliazar (compilers). Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-351. Humiston and Moore Engineers. 2001. "Naples Beach Erosion Control Project 1-Year Post Construction Monitoring Report." Prepared for The City of Naples, Florida. Ims, R.A., and E. Fuglei. 2005. Trophic interaction cycles in tundra ecosystems and the impact of climate change. BioScience 55(4):311-322. Insacco, G. and F. Spadola. 2010. First record of Kemp's ridley sea turtle, Lepidochelys kempii (Garman 1880) (Cheloniidae), from the Italian waters (Mediterranean Sea). Acta Herpetologica 5(1):113-117. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007a. Summary for Policymakers. In Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Avery, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (editors). Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, and New York, New York, USA. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007b. Summary for Policymakers. In Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Avery, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (editors). Climate Change 2007: Climate Change Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, and New York, New York, USA. International Wader Study Group. 2003. Wader Study Group Workshop 26 September 2003 - Are waders world-wide in decline? Reviewing the evidence. Wader Study Group Bulletin 101/102:8-41. 195 RECEIVED FEB 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY Invasive Species Specialist Group. 2009. ISSG Global Invasive Species Database: Impact information for Vitex rotundifolia. Accessed November 11, 2010: h=://www.issg.org/database/species/impact info.asp?si=1110&fr=1&sts=&Iang=EN Jimenez, M.C., A. Filonov, I. Tereshchenko, and R.M. Marquez. 2005. Time -series analyses of the relationship between nesting frequency of the Kemp's ridley sea turtle and meteorological conditions. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 4(4):774-780. Johnson, C.M. and G.A. Baldassarre. 1988. Aspects of the wintering ecology of piping plovers in coastal Alabama. Wilson Bulletin 100:214-233. Johnson, S.A., A.L. Bass, B. Libert, M. Marmust, and D. Fulk. 1999. Kemp's ridley (Lepidochelys kempi) nesting in Florida. Florida Scientist 62(3/4):194-204. Jones, S.J., F.P. Lima, and D.S. Wethey. 2010. Rising environmental temperatures and biogeography: Poleward range contraction of the blue mussel, Mytilus edulis L., in the western Atlantic. Journal of Biogeography 37:2243-2259. Jones, T.T., M.D. Hastings, B.L. Bostrom, D. Pauly, and D.R. Jones. 2011. Growth of captive leatherback turtles, Dermochelys coriacea, with inferences on growth in the wild: h aplications for population decline and recovery. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 399:84-92. Kalasz, K. 2008. Delaware shorebird conservation plan. Version 1.0. Delaware Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program Division of Fish and Wildlife, Delaware Department of Natural Resources & Environmental Control, Smyrna, DE. Kalasz, K. 2013. Biologist. E-mails of February 8, and March 29, 2013. Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Delaware Shorebird Project. Dover, DE. Kamezaki, N., Y. Matsuzawa, O. Abe, H. Asakawa, T. Fujii, K. Goto, S. Hagino, M. Hayami, M. Ishii, T. Iwamoto, T. Kamata, H. Kato, J. Kodama, Y. Kondo, I. Miyawaki, K. Mizobuchi, Y. Nakamura, Y. Nakashima, H. Naruse, K. Omuta, M. Samejima, H. Suganuma, H. Takeshita, T. Tanaka, T. Toji, M. Uematsu, A. Yamamoto, T. Yamato, and I. Wakabayashi. 2003. Loggerhead turtles nesting in Japan. Pages 210-217 in Bolten, A.B. and B.E. Witherington (editors). Loggerhead Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Books, Washington D.C. Kaplan, J.O., N.H. Bigelow, P.J. Bartlein, T.R. Christiansen, W. Cramer, S.M. Harrison, N.V. Matveyeva, A.D. McGuire, D.F. Murray, I.C. Prentice, and et al. 2003. Climate change and Arctic ecosystems II: Modeling, paleodata-model comparisons, and future projections. Journal of Geophysical Research 108(D17):8171. 196 RECEIVED FEB 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY Karpanty, S.M., J.D. Fraser, J.B. Cohen, S. Ritter, B. Truitt, and D. Catlin. 2012. Update of red knot numbers and prey counts in Virginia using ground survey methods. Unpublished report to the Delaware Bay Technical Committee and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, Department Fish and Wildlife Conservation. Kaufman, W. and O. Pilkey. 1979. The Beaches are Moving: The Drowning of America's Shoreline. Anchor Press/Doubleday, Garden City, New York. Kochenberger, R. 1983. Survey of shorebird concentrations along the Delaware bayshore. Peregrine Observer spring 1983. New Jersey Audubon Publications. Komar, P.D. 1983. Coastal erosion in response to the construction of jetties and breakwaters. Pages 191-204 in Komar, P.D. (editor). CRC Handbook of Coastal Processes and Erosion. CRC Press. Boca Raton, Florida. Labisky, R.F., M.A. Mercadante, and W.L. Finger. 1986. Factors affecting reproductive success of sea turtles on Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida, 1985. Final report to the United States Air Force. United States Fish and Wildlife Service Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Agreement Number 14-16-0009-1544, Research Work Order Number 25. Lafferty, K.D. 2001a. Birds at a Southern California beach: Seasonality, habitat use and disturbance by human activity. Biodiversity and Conservation 10:1949-1962. Lafferty, K.D. 2001b. Disturbance to wintering western snowy plovers. Biological Conservation 101:315-325. Lamont, M.M., H.F. Percival, L.G. Pearlstine, S.V. Colwell, W.M. Kitchens, and R.R. Carthy. 1997. The Cape San Blas ecological study. U.S. Geological Survey -Biological Resources Division. Florida Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit Technical Report Number 57. Lathrop, R.G., Jr. 2005. Red knot habitat in Delaware Bay: Status and trends. Unpublished report by the Department of Ecology, Evolution & Natural Resources, Center for Remote Sensing & Spatial Analysis, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ. LeBlanc, D. 2009. Electronic mail dated 29 January 2009 from Darren LeBlanc, USFWS, Daphne, Alabama, Ecological Services Office to Patricia Kelly, USFWS, Panama City, Florida, Field Office regarding habitat changes along Alabama coast from hurricanes. LeBuff, C.R., Jr. 1990. The loggerhead turtle in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. Caretta Research, Inc.; Sanibel Island, Florida. 197 RECEIVED FEB 21 2017 DCM_ ► 4HD CITY LeDee, O.E. 2008. Canaries on the coastline: estimating survival and evaluating the relationship between nonbreeding shorebirds, coastal development, and beach management policy. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Minnesota, Twin Cities. 73 pp. Leon, Y.M. and C.E. Diez. 1999. Population structure of hawksbill turtles on a foraging ground in the Dominican Republic. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 3(2):230-236. Limpus, C.J. 1971. Sea turtle ocean finding behaviour. Search 2(10):385-387. Limpus, C.J. 1997. Marine turtle populations of Southeast Asia and the western Pacific Region: distribution and status. Pages 37-72 in Noor, Y.R.., I.R. Lubis, R. Ounsted, S. Troeng, and A. Abdullah (editors). Proceedings of the Workshop on Marine Turtle Research and Management in Indonesia. Wetlands International, PHPA/Environment Australia, Bogor, Indonesia. Limpus, C.J. 2002. Western Australia marine turtle review. Unpublished report to Western Australian Department of Conservation and Land Management. Limpus, C.J. 2004. A biological review of Australian marine turtles. iii. hawksbill turtle, Eretmochelys imbricate (Linnaeus). Department of Environment and Heritage and Queensland Environmental Protection Agency. Limpus, C.J., V. Baker, and J.D. Miller. 1979. Movement induced mortality of loggerhead eggs. Herpetologica 35(4):335-338. Limpus, C., J.D. Miller, and C.J. Parmenter. 1993. The northern Great Barrier Reef green turtle Chelonia mydas breeding population. Pages 47-50 in Smith, A.K. (compiler), K.H. Zevering and C.E. Zevering (editors). Raine Island and Environs Great Barrier Reef: Quest to Preserve a Fragile Outpost of Nature. Raine Island Corporation and Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Townsville, Queensland, Australia. Limpus, C.J., and D.J. Limpus. 2003. Loggerhead Turtles in the Equatorial and Southern Pacific Ocean. Pages 199-209 in Bolten, A.B. and B.E. Witherington (editors). Loggerhead Sea Turtles. The Smithsonian Institution. Lindstrom, A., and J. Agrell. 1999. Global change and possible effects on the migration and reproduction of Arctic -breeding waders. Ecological Bulletins 47:145-159. Loegering, J.P. 1992. Piping plover breeding biology, foraging ecology and behavior on Assateague Island National Seashore, Maryland. M.S. Thesis. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia. 198 RECENED F+b 212017 DCM. MHD CITY Lohman, K.J. and C.M.F. Lohmann. 2003. Orientation mechanisms of hatchling loggerheads. Pages 44-62 in Bolten, A.B. and B.E. Witherington (editors). Loggerhead Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Books, Washington D.C. Lohman, K. J., Witherington, B. E., Lohmann, C. M. F. and Salmon, M. 1997.Orientation, navigation, and natal beach homing in sea turtles. In The Biology of Sea Turtles (ed. P. Lutz and J. Musick), pp. 107-136. Boca Raton: CRC Press. Lott, C.A., P.A. Durkee, W.A. Gierhart, and P.P. Kelly. 2009a. Florida coastal engineering and bud conservation geographic information system (GIS) manual. US Army Corps of Engineers, Dredging Operations and Environmental Research Program, Engineer Research and Development Center, Technical Report, 42 pp. Lott, C.A., C.S. Ewell Jr., and K.L. Volansky. 2009b. Habitat associations of shoreline - dependent birds in barrier island ecosystems during fall migration in Lee County, Florida. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center, Technical Report. 103 pp. Lutcavage, M.E., P. Plotkin, B. Witherington, and P.L. Lutz. 1997. Human impacts on sea turtle survival. Pages 387-409 in Lutz, P.L. and J.A. Musick (editors). The Biology of Sea Turtles. CRC Press. Boca Raton, Florida. MacIvor, L.H. 1990. Population dynamics, breeding ecology, and management of piping plovers on outer Cape Cod, Massachusetts. M.S. Thesis. University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts. Maddock, S. B. 2008. Wintering piping plover surveys 2006 2007, East Grand Terre, LA to Boca Chica, TX, December 20, 2006 — January 10, 2007, final report. Unpublished report prepared for the Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada, Edmonton, Alberta. 66 pp. Maddock, S., M. Bimbi, and W. Golder. 2009. South Carolina shorebird project, draft 2006 — 2008 piping plover summary report. Audubon North Carolina and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Charleston, South Carolina. 135 pp. Man, T.M. 1977. Impact of developed coastline on nesting and hatchling sea turtles in southeastern Florida. Unpublished Master of Science thesis. Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, Florida. Manning, L.M., C.H. Peterson, and M.J. Bishop. 2014. Dominant macrobenthic populations experience sustained impacts from annual disposal of fine sediments on sandy beaches. Marine Ecology Progress Series 508:1-15. 199 RECEIVED FEB 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY Margaritoulis, D., R. Argano, I. Baran, F. Bentivegna, M.N. Bradai, J.A. Camiiias, P. Casale, G. De Metric, A. Demetropoulos, G. Gerosa, B.J. Godley, D.A. Haddoud, J. Houghton, L. Laurent, and B. Lazar. 2003. Loggerhead turtles in the Mediterranean Sea: present knowledge and conservation perspectives. Pages 175-198 in Bolten, A.B. and B.E. Witherington (editors). Loggerhead Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Books, Washington D.C. Marquez, M.R., A. Villanueva O., and M. Sanchez P. 1982. The population of the Kemp's ridley sea turtle in the Gulf of Mexico —Lepidochelys kempii. Pages 159-164 in Bjomdal, K.A. (editor). Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Washington, D.C. Smithsonian Institute Press. Marquez, M.R., M.A. Carrasco, C. Jimenez, R.A. Byles, P. Burchfield, M. Sanchez, J. Diaz, and A.S. Leo. 1996. Good news! Rising numbers of Kemp's ridleys nest at Rancho Nuevo, Tamaulipas, Mexico. Marine Turtle Newsletter 73:2-5. Marquez-Millan, R. 1994. Synopsis of biological data on the Kemp's ridley sea turtle, Lepidochelys kempi (Garman, 1880). NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFC- 343. Marquez-Millan, R., A. Villanueva O., and P.M. Burchfield. 1989. Nesting population and production of hatchlings of Kemp's ridley sea turtle at Rancho Nuevo, Tamaulipas, Mexico. Pages 16-19 in Caillouet, Jr., C.W. and A.M. Landry, Jr. (editors). Proceedings of the First international Symposium on Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle Biology, Conservation, and Management. Texas A&M University, Sea Grant Program. TAMU- SG-89-105. College Station, Texas. Martin, R.E. 1992. Turtle nest relocation on Jupiter Island, Florida: an evaluation. Presentation to the Fifth Annual National Conference on Beach Preservation Technology, February 12-14, 1992, St. Petersburg, Florida. McConnaughey, J.L., J.D. Fraser, S.D. Coutu, and J.P. Loegering. 1990. Piping plover distribution and reproductive success on Cape Lookout National Seashore. Unpublished report to National Park Service. McDonald, D.L. and P.H. Dutton. 1996. Use of PIT tags and photoidentification to revise remigration estimates of leatherback turtles (Dermochelys coriacea) nesting in St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands, 1979-1995. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 2(2):148-152. McGehee, M.A. 1990. Effects of moisture on eggs and hatchlings of loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta). Herpetologica 46(3):251-258. 200 RECOVED FEB 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY McGowan, C.P., J.E. Hines, J.D. Nichols, J.E. Lyons, D.R. Smith, K.S. Kalasz, L.J. Niles, A.D. Dey, N.A. Clark, P.W. Atkinson, and et al. 2011. Demographic consequences of migratory stopover: Linking red knot survival to horseshoe crab spawning abundance. Ecosphere 2(6):1-22. Meltofte, H., T. Piersma, H. Boyd, B. McCaffery, B. Ganter, V.V. Golovnyuk, K. Graham, C.L. Gratto-Trevor, R.I.G. Morrison, E. Nol, and et al. 2007. Effects of climate variation on the breeding ecology of Arctic shorebirds. Meddelelser om Grenland, Bioscience 59. Danish Polar Center, Copenhagen, Available at <http://www.worldwaders.org/dokok/literature/125/effects of climate on arctic shorebi rds mog biosci 59 2007.pdfl. Melvin, S.M. and J.P Gibbs. 1996. Viability analysis for the Atlantic coast population of piping plovers. Appendix E (Pages 175-186) in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus), Atlantic Coast Population, Revised Recovery Plan. Hadley, Massachusetts. Melvin, S.M., C.R. Griffin, and L.H. MacIvor. 1991. Recovery strategies for piping plovers in Managed coastal landscapes. Coastal Management 19: 21-34. Meyer, S.R., J. Burger, and L.J. Niles. 1999. Habitat use, spatial dynamics, and stopover ecology of red knots on Delaware Bay. Unpublished report to the New Jersey Endangered and Nongame Species Program, Division of Fish and Wildlife, Trenton, NJ. Meylan, A. 1982. Estimation of population size in sea turtles. Pages 135-138 in Bjomdal, K.A. (editor). Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Meylan, A. 1992. Hawksbill turtle Eretmochelys imbricata. Pages 95-99 in Moler, P.E. (editor). Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida, Volume III. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Meylan, A. 1995. Facsimile dated April 5, 1995, to Sandy MacPherson, National Sea Turtle Coordinator, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Jacksonville, Florida. Florida Department of Environmental Protection. St. Petersburg, Florida. Meylan, A.B. 1999. Status of the hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) in the Caribbean region. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 3(2):177-184. Meylan, A.B. and M. Donnelly. 1999. Status justification for listing the hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) as critically endangered on the 1996 IUCN Red List of Threatened Animals. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 3(2):200-224. 201 RECEIVE® EEB 21 2017 DCM- A4HD CITY Meylan, A., B. Schroeder, and A. Mosier. 1995. Sea turtle nesting activity in the State of Florida 1979-1992. Florida Marine Research Publications Number 52, St. Petersburg, Florida. Miller, K., G.C. Packard, and M.J. Packard. 1987. Hydric conditions during incubation influence locomotor performance of hatchling snapping turtles. Journal of Experimental Biology 127:401-412. Moody, K. 1998. The effects of nest relocation on hatching success and emergence success of the loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) in Florida. Pages 107-108 in Byles, R. and Y. Fernandez (compilers). Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-412. Moran, K.L., K.A. Bjomdal, and A.B. Bolten. 1999. Effects of the thermal environment on the temporal pattern of emergence of hatchling loggerhead turtles Caretta careua. Marine Ecology Progress Series 189:251-261. Morrison, R.I.G., and R.K. Ross. 1989. Atlas of Nearctic shorebirds on the coast of South America in two volumes. Canadian Wildlife Service, Ottawa, Canada. Morrison, R.I.G., K. Ross, and L.J. Niles. 2004. Declines in wintering populations of red knots in southern South America. The Condor 106:60-70. Morrison, R.I.G. 2006. Body transformations, condition, and survival in red knots Calidris canutus travelling to breed at Alert, Ellesmere Island, Canada. Ardea 94(3):607-618. Morrison, R.I.G., and B.A. Harrington. 1992. The migration system of the red knot Calidris canutus in the New World. Wader Study Group Bulletin 64:71-84. Morton, R.A. 2003. An overview of coastal land loss: With emphasis on the southeastern United States. USGS Open File Report 03-337. U.S. Geological Survey Center for Coastal and Watershed Studies, St. Petersburg, FL, Available at <http://Pubs.usgs.gov/of/2003/ofo3- 337/odf.html>. Morton, R., G. Tiling, and N. Ferina. 2003. Causes of hot -spot wetland loss in the Mississippi delta plain. Environmental Geosciences 10:71-80. Mrosovsky, N. 1988. Pivotal temperatures for loggerhead turtles from northern and southern nesting beaches. Canadian Journal of Zoology 66:661-669. Mrosovsky, N. and A. Carr. 1967. Preference for light of short wavelengths in hatchling green sea turtles (Chelonia mydas), tested on their natural nesting beaches. Behavior 28:217- 231. 202 RECEIVED FEB 2120V DCM- MHD CITY Mrosovsky, N. and J. Provancha. 1989. Sex ratio of hatchling loggerhead sea turtles: data and estimates from a five year study. Canadian Journal of Zoology 70:530-538. Mrosovsky, N. and S.J. Shettleworth. 1968. Wavelength preferences and brightness cues in water finding behavior of sea turtles. Behavior 32:211-257. Mrosovsky, N. and C.L. Yntema. 1980. Temperature dependence of sexual differentiation in sea turtles: implications for conservation practices. Biological Conservation 18:271-280. Murphy, T.M. and S.R. Hopkins. 1984. Aerial and ground surveys of marine turtle nesting beaches in the southeast region. Unpublished report prepared for the National Marine Fisheries Service. Musick, J.A. 1999. Ecology and conservation of long-lived marine mammals. Pages 1-10 in Musick, J.A. (editor). Life in the Slow Lane: Ecology and Conservation of Long-lived Marine Animals. American Fisheries Society Symposium 23, Bethesda, Maryland. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2001. Stock assessments of loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles and an assessment of the impact of the pelagic longline fishery on the loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles of the Western North Atlantic. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-455. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2009a. Loggerhead Sea Turtles (Caretta caretta). National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Protected Resources. Silver Springs, Maryland. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/turtles/loggerhead.htm National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2009b. Green Sea Turtles (Chelonia mydas). National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Protected Resources. Silver Springs, Maryland. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/turtles/green.htm National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2009c. Leatherback Sea Turtles (Dermochelys corfacea). National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Protected Resources. Silver Springs, Maryland. http://www.mnfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/turtles/leatherback.htm National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2009d. Hawksbill Turtles (Eretmochelys imbricata). National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Protected Resources. Silver Springs, Maryland. http://www.mnfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/turtles/hawksbill.htm National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1991. Recovery plan for U.S. population of Atlantic green turtle (Chelonia mydas). National Marine Fisheries Service, Washington, D.C. 203 RECEIVED FEB 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Recovery plan for leatherback turtles (Dermochelys coriacea) in the U.S. Caribbean, Atlantic, and Gulf of Mexico. National Marine Fisheries Service, Washington, D.C. National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Recovery plan for hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) in the U.S. Caribbean, Atlantic, and Gulf of Mexico. National Marine Fisheries Service, St. Petersburg, Florida. National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998a. Recovery plan for U.S. Pacific populations of the green turtle (Chelonia mydas). National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland. National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998b. Recovery plan for U.S. Pacific populations of the hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata). National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland. National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007a. Green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas) 5-year review: summary and evaluation. 102 pages. National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007b. Leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) 5-year review: summary and evaluation. 79 pages. National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007c. Hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) 5-year review: summary and evaluation. 90 pages. National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Recovery plan for the Northwest Atlantic population of the loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta), second revision. National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland. National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and SEMARNAT. 2011. Bi- national recovery plan for the Kemp's ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempii), second revision. National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2012. Linear mean sea level (MSL) trends and standard errors in mm/yr. Available at <http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/msltrendstable.htm>. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2013. Regional climate trends and scenarios for the U.S. national climate assessment. Part 1. Climate of the northeast U.S. NOAA technical report NESDIS 142-1. NOAA, Washington, DC, Available at <htto:Hscenarios. globalchange.gov/ret)ort/regional-climate-trends-and-scenarios-us- national-climate-assessment-nart-l-climate-northeast. 204 RECEIVED FEB 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY National Park Service. 2007. Cape Hatteras National Seashore 2007 annual piping plover (Charadrius melodus) report. Cape Hatteras National Seashore, Manteo, North Carolina. National Research Council. 1987. Responding to changes in sea level: Engineering Implications. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. National Research Council. 1990a. Decline of the sea turtles: causes and prevention. National Academy Press; Washington, D.C. National Research Council. 1990b. Managing coastal erosion. National Academy Press; Washington, D.C. National Research Council. 1995. Beach nourishment and protection. National Academy Press; Washington, D.C. National Research Council. 2010. Advancing the science of climate change. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC. Available at <hq://www.ngR.edu/catalogphp?record id=12782>. Neal, W.J., O.H. Pilkey, and J.T. Kelley. 2007. Atlantic coast beaches: a guide to ripples, dunes, and other natural features of the seashore. Mountain Press Publishing Company, Missoula, Montana. 250 pages. Nelson, D.A. 1987. The use of tilling to soften nourished beach sand consistency for nesting sea turtles. Unpublished report of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Nelson, D.A. 1988. Life history and environmental requirements of loggerhead turtles. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 88(23). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers TR EL-86-2 (Rev.). Nelson, D.A. and B. Blihovde. 1998. Nesting sea turtle response to beach scarps. Page 113 in Byles, R., and Y. Fernandez (compilers). Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-412. Nelson, D.A. and D.D. Dickerson. 1987. Correlation of loggerhead turtle nest digging times with beach sand consistency. Abstract of the 7th Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Conservation and Biology. 205 RECEIVED FEB 21 2017 DCIVI_ MHD CITY Nelson, D.A. and D.D. Dickerson. 1988a. Effects of beach nourishment on sea turtles. In Tait, L.S. (editor). Proceedings of the Beach Preservation Technology Conference '88. Florida Shore & Beach Preservation Association, Inc., Tallahassee, Florida. Nelson, D.A. and D.D. Dickerson. 1988b. Hardness of nourished and natural sea turtle nesting beaches on the east coast of Florida. Unpublished report of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Nelson, D.A. and D.D. Dickerson. 1988c. Response of nesting sea turtles to tilling of compacted beaches, Jupiter Island, Florida. Unpublished report of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Nelson, D.A., K. Mauck, and J. Fletemeyer. 1987. Physical effects of beach nourishment on sea turtle nesting, Delray Beach, Florida. Technical Report EL-87-15. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Newstead, D.J., Niles, L.J., Porter, R.R., Dey, A.D., Burger, J. & Fitzsimmons, O.N. 2013. Geolocation reveals mid-continent migratory routes and Texas wintering areas of Red Knots (Calidris canutus rufa). Wader Study Group Bull. 120(1): 53-59. Nicholas, M. Electronic mail dated 8 March 2005 from Mark Nicholas, Gulf Islands National Seashore, Gulf Breeze, Florida to Patricia Kelly, USFWS, Panama City, Florida Field Office providing documentation of Great Lakes piping plover sightings post -hurricane. Nicholls, J.L. 1989. Distribution and other ecological aspects of piping plovers (Charadrius melodus) wintering along the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts. M.S. Thesis. Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama. Nicholls, J.L. and G.A. Baldassare. 1990a. Habitat selection and interspecific associations of piping plovers along the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts of the United States. M.S. Thesis. Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama. Nielsen, J.T. 2010. Population structure and the mating system of loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta). Open Access Dissertations. Paper 507. http://scholarlyrepository.miami.edu/oa—dissertations/507 Niles, L.J., Burger, J., Porter, R.R., Dey, A.D., Minton, C.D.T., Gonzalez, P.M., Baker, A.J., Fox, J.W. and Gordon, C. 2010. First results using light level geolocators to track Red Knots in the Western Hemisphere show rapid and long intercontinental flights and new details of migration pathways. Wader Study Group Bull. 117(2): 123-130. Niles, L.J. 2010. Blog - a rube with a view: Delaware Bay update 5/28/10-The importance of good habitat, Available at <http://www.arubewithaview.com/blog/2010/5/29/delaware- bay-update-52810-the-importance-of-good-habitat.html>. 206 RECENED FEB 21 N17 DCM- MHD C9T°y Niles, L.J. 2012. Blog - a rube with a view: Unraveling the Texas knot, Available at <http://arubewithaview.com/2012/05/01 /unraveling -the -texas -knot/>. Niles, L.J., J. Burger, R.R. Porter, A.D. Dey, S. Koch, B. Harrington, K. Iaquinto, and M. Boarman. 2012. Migration pathways, migration speeds and non -breeding areas used by northern hemisphere wintering red knots Calidris canutus of the subspecies rufa. Wader Study Group Bull. 119(2): 195-203. Niles, L. 2013. Consulting Biologist/Leader. E-mails of January 4, 8, and 25, and March 15, 2013. International Shorebird Project, Conserve Wildlife Foundation of New Jersey. Greenwich, NJ. Niles, L., L. Tedesco, D. Daly, and T. Dillingham. 2013. Restoring Reeds, Cooks, Kimbles and Pierces Point Delaware Bay beaches, NJ, for shorebirds and horseshoe crabs. Unpublished draft project proposal. Noel, B.L., C.R. Chandler, and B. Winn. 2005. Report on migrating and wintering Piping Plover activity on Little St. Simons Island, Georgia in 2003-2004 and 2004-2005. Report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Noel, B.L., C.R. Chandler, and B. Winn. 2007. Seasonal abundance of nonbreeding piping plovers on a Georgia barrier island. Journal of Field Ornithology 78:420-427. Noel, B. L., and C. R. Chandler. 2008. Spatial distribution and site fidelity of non -breeding piping plovers on the Georgia coast. Waterbirds 31:241-251. Nordstrom, K.F. 2000. Beaches and dunes of developed coasts. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Nordstrom, K.F., and M.N. Mauriello. 2001. Restoring and maintaining naturally -functioning landforms and biota on intensively developed barrier islands under a no -retreat alternative. Shore & Beach 69(3):19-28. Nordstrom, K.F., N.L. Jackson, A.H.F. Klein, D.J. Sherman, and P.A. Hesp. 2006. Offshore Aeolian transport across a low foredune on a developed barrier island. Journal of Coastal Research. Volume 22., No. 5. ppl260-1267. Nudds, R.L. and D.M. Bryant. 2000. The energetic cost of short flight in birds. Journal of Experimental Biology 203:1561-1572. 207 RECEIVED FEB 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY Ogren, L.H. 1989. Distribution of juvenile and subadult Kemp's ridley turtles: preliminary results from the 1984-1987 surveys. Pages 116-123 in Caillouet, C.W., Jr., and A.M. Landry, Jr. (eds.). Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle Biology, Conservation and Management. Texas A&M University Sea Grant College Program TAMU-SG-89-105. Packard, M.J. and G.C. Packard. 1986. Effect of water balance on growth and calcium mobilization of embryonic painted turtles (Chrysemys picta). Physiological Zoology 59(4):398-405. Packard, G.C., M.J. Packard, and T.J. Boardman. 1984. Influence of hydration of the environment on the pattern of nitrogen excretion by embryonic snapping turtles (Chelydra serpentina). Journal of Experimental Biology 108:195-204. Packard, G.C., M.J. Packard, and W.H.N. Gutzke. 1985. Influence of hydration of the environment on eggs and embryos of the terrestrial turtle Terrapene ornata. Physiological Zoology 58(5):564-575. Packard,G.C., M.J. Packard, T.J. Boardman, and M.D. Ashen. 1981. Possible adaptive value of water exchange in flexible -shelled eggs of turtles. Science 213:471-473. Packard G.C., M.J. Packard, K. Miller, and T.J. Boardman. 1988. Effects of temperature and moisture during incubation on carcass composition of hatchling snapping turtles (Chelydra serpentina). Journal of Comparative Physiology B 158:117-125. Palmer, R.S. 1967. Piping plover. In: Stout, G.D. (editor), The shorebird of North America. Viking Press, New York. 270 pp. Parmenter, C.J. 1980. Incubation of the eggs of the green sea turtle, Chelonia mydas, in Torres Strait, Australia: the effect of movement on hatchability. Australian Wildlife Research 7:487-491. Patrick, L. 2012. Biologist. E-mails of August 31, and October 22, 2012. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region. Panama City, FL. Penland, S., and K. Ramsey. 1990. Relative sea level rise in Louisiana and the Gulf of Mexico: 1908-1988. Journal of Coastal Resources 6:323-342. Perkins, S. 2008. Perkins, S. 2008. "South Beach PIPLs", 29 September 2008. electronic correspondence (30 September 2008) NEFO. Peters, K.A., and D.L. Otis. 2007. Shorebird roost -site selection at two temporal scales: Is human disturbance a factor? Journal of Applied Ecology 44:196-209. 208 RECEIVED FEB 21 20V DCM- MHD CITY Peterson, C.H., and M.J. Bishop. 2005. Assessing the environmental impacts of beach nourishment. BioScience 55(10):887-896. Peterson, C.H., M.J. Bishop, G.A. Johnson, L.M. D'Anna, and L.M. Manning. 2006. Exploiting beach filling as an unaffordable experiment: Benthic intertidal impacts propagating upwards to shorebirds. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 338:205- 221. Peterson, C.H., and L. Manning. 2001. How beach nourishment affects the habitat value of intertidal beach prey for surf fish and shorebirds and why uncertainty still exists. Pages 2 In Proceedings of the coastal ecosystems & federal activities technical training symposium, August 20-22, 2001, Available at <http://www.fws.gov/nc- es/ecoconf/ppeterson%20abs.pdf>. Pfeffer, W.T., J.T. Harper, and S. O Neel. 2008. Kinematic constraints on glacier contributions to 21st-century sea -level rise. Science 321(5894):1340-1343. Pfister, C., B.A. Harrington, and M. Lavine. 1992. The impact of human disturbance on shorebirds at a migration staging area. Biol. Conserv. 60:115-126. Philibosian, R. 1976. Disorientation of hawksbill turtle hatchlings (Eretmochelys imbricata) by stadium lights. Copeia 1976:824. Philippart, C.J.M., H.M. van Aken, J.J. Beukema, O.G. Bos, G.C. Cadge, and R. Dekker. 2003. Climate -related changes in recruitment of the bivalve Macoma balthica. Limnology and Oceanography 48(6):2171-185. Piersma, T., and A.J. Baker. 2000. Life history characteristics and the conservation of migratory shorebirds. Pages 105-124 In L.M. Gosling, and W.J. Sutherland, eds. Behaviour and Conservation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Piersma, T., and A. Lindstrom. 2004. Migrating shorebirds as integrative sentinels of global environmental change. Ibis 146 (Suppl.1):61-69. Piersma, T., G.A. Gudmundsson, and K. Lilliendahl. 1999. Rapid changes in the size of different functional organ and muscle groups during refueling in a long-distance migrating shorebird. Physiological and Biochemical Zoology 72(4):405415. Piersma, T., and J.A. van Gils. 2011. The flexible phenotype. A body -centred integration of ecology, physiology, and behavior. Oxford University Press Inc., New York. 209 RECEIVED FEB 21 2017 DCM. ► 48D CITY Pilcher, N. J., Enderby, J. S., Stringell, T. and Bateman, L. 2000. Nearshore turtle hatchling distribution and predation. In Sea Turtles of the Indo-Pacific: Research, Management and Conservation (ed. N. J. Pitcher and M. G. Ismai), pp.151 -166. New York: Academic Press. Pilkey, O.H. and K.L. Dixon. 1996. The Corps and the shore. Island Press; Washington, D.C. Pilkey, O.H. and H.L. Wright III. 1988. Seawalls versus beaches. Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue 4:41-64. Pilkey, Jr., O.H., D.C. Sharma, H.R. Wanless, L.J. Doyle, O.H. Pilkey, Sr., W. J. Neal, and B.L. Gruver. 1984. Living with the East Florida Shore. Duke University Press, Durham, North Carolina. Plant, N.G. and G.B. Griggs. 1992. Interactions between nearshore processes and beach morphology near a seawall. Journal of Coastal Research 8(1): 183-200. Plissner, J.H. and S.M. Haig. 1997. 1996 International Piping Plover Census Report to U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division, Forest and Rangeland Ecosystems Science Center, Corvallis, Oregon. 231pp. Plissner, J.H. and S.M. Haig. 2000. Status of the broadly distributed endangered species: results and implications of the second International Piping Plover Census. Can. J. Zool. 78: 128- 139. Pompei, V. D., and F. J. Cuthbert. 2004. Spring and fall distribution of piping plovers in North America: implications for migration stopover conservation. Report the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. University of Minnesota, St. Paul. Possardt, E. 2005. Personal communication to Sandy MacPherson, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Jacksonville, Florida. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA. Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell, and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. University of North Carolina Press. 402 pages. Pritchard, P.C.H. 1982. Nesting of the leatherback turtle, Dermochelys coriacea in Pacific Mexico, with a new estimate of the world population status. Copeia 1982(4):741-747. Pritchard, P.C.H. 1992. Leatherback turtle Dermochelys coriacea. Pages 214-218 in Moler, P.E. (editor). Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida, Volume III. University Press of Florida; Gainesville, Florida. 210 RECEIVED FEB 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY Pritchard, P.C.H. and R. Marquez M. 1973. Kemp's ridley or Atlantic ridley, Lepidochelys kempii. IUCN Monograph No. 2. (Marine Turtle Series). Provancha, J.A. and L.M. Ehrhart. 1987. Sea turtle nesting trends at Kennedy Space Center and Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida, and relationships with factors influencing nest site selection. Pages 33-44 in Witzell, W.N. (editor). Ecology of East Florida Sea Turtles: Proceedings of the Cape Canaveral, Florida Sea Turtle Workshop. NOAA Technical Report NMFS-53. Putman, N.F., T.J. Shay, and K.J. Lohmann. 2010. Is the geographic distribution of nesting in the Kemp's ridley turtle shaped by the migratory needs of offspring? Integrative and Comparative Biology, a symposium presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology, Seattle, WA. 10 pages. Rabon, D.R., Jr., S.A. Johnson, R. Boettcher, M. Dodd, M. Lyons, S. Murphy, S. Ramsey, S. Roff, and K. Stewart. 2003. Confirmed leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) nests from North Carolina, with a summary of leatherback nesting activities north of Florida. Marine Turtle Newsletter 101:4-8. Radford, A. E., H. E. Ahles, and C. R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the vascular flora of the Carolinas. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. Rahmstorf, S. 2007. A Semi -Empirical Approach to Projecting Future Sea -Level Rise. Science 315:368-370. Raymond, P.W. 1984. The effects of beach restoration on marine turtles nesting in south Brevard County, Florida. Unpublished Master of Science thesis. University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida. Rehfisch, M.M., and H.Q.P. Crick. 2003. Predicting the impact of climatic change on Arctic - breeding waders. Wader Study Group Bulletin 100:86-95. Reina, R.D., P.A. Mayor, J.R. Spotila, R. Piedra, and F.V. Paladino. 2002. Nesting ecology of the leatherback turtle, Dermochelys coriacea, at Parque Nacional Marino Las Baulas, Costa Rica: 1988-1989 to 1999-2000. Copeia 2002(3):653-664. Rice, T.M. 2009. Best management practices for shoreline stabilization to avoid and minimize adverse environmental impacts. Unpublished report prepared for the USFWS, Panama City Ecological Services Field Office, Available at http://www.fws.gov/charleston/pdf/PIPIJBMPs%20For%2OShoreline%2OStabilization% 20To%20Avoid%2OAnd°/u20Minimize%20Adverse%20Environmental%2OImpacts.pdf. 211 RECEIVED FEB 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY Richardson, T.H., J.I. Richardson, C. Ruckdeschel, and M.W. Dix. 1978. Remigration patterns of loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta) nesting on Little Cumberland Island and Cumberland Island, Georgia. Pages 39-44 in Henderson, G.E. (editor). Proceedings of the Florida and Interregional Conference on Sea Turtles. Florida Marine Research Publications Number 33. Richardson, J.I., R. Bell, and T.H. Richardson. 1999. Population ecology and demographic implications drawn from an 11-year study of nesting hawksbill turtles, Eretmochelys imbricata, at Jumby Bay, Long Island, Antigua, West Indies. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 3(2):244-250. Roche, E. A., J. B. Cohen, D. H. Catlin, D. L. Amirault-Langlais, F. J. Cuthbert, C. L. Gratto- Trevor, J, Felio, and J. D. Fraser. 2010. Range -wide piping plover survival: correlated patterns and temporal declines. Journal of Wildlife Management 74:1784-1791. Roche, E.A., J.B. Cohen, D.H. Catlin, D.L. Amirault, F.J. Cuthbert, C.L. Gratto-Trevor, J. Felio, and J.D. Fraser. 2009. Range -wide estimation of apparent survival in the piping plover. Report submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, East Lansing, Michigan. Ross, J.P. 1979. Sea turtles in the Sultanate of Oman. World Wildlife Fund Project 1320. May 1979 report. 53 pages. Ross, J.P. 1982. Historical decline of loggerhead, ridley, and leatherback sea turtles. Pages 189-195 in Bjomdal, K.A. (editor). Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Institution Press; Washington, D.C. Ross, J.P. and M.A. Barwani. 1995. Review of sea turtles in the Arabian area. Pages 373-383 in Bjomdal, K.A. (editor). Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles, Revised Edition. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. 615 pages. Rostal, D.C. 2007. Reproductive physiology of the ridley sea turtle. Pages 151-165 in Plotkin P.T. (editor). Biology and Conservation of Ridley Sea Turtles. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland. Routa, R.A. 1968. Sea turtle nest survey of Hutchinson Island, Florida. Quarterly Journal of the Florida Academy of Sciences 30(4):287-294. Rumbold, D.G., P.W. Davis, and C. Perretta. 2001. Estimating the effect of beach nourishment on Caretta caretta (loggerhead sea turtle) nesting. Restoration Ecology 9(3):304-310. Ryan, M.R., B.G. Root, and P.M. Mayer. 1993. Status of piping plovers in the great plains of North America: a demographic simulation model. Conservation Biology 7(3): 581-585. 212 RECEIVED FEB 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY Sallenger, A.H. Jr., C.W. Wright, P. Howd, and K. Doran. 2009 (unpublished). Barrier island failure modes triggered by Hurricane Katrina: implications for future sea -level -rise impacts. Salmon, M. and J. Wyneken. 1987. Orientation and swimming behavior of hatchhng loggerhead turtles Caretta caretta L. during their offshore migration. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 109: 137-153. Salmon, M., J. Wyneken, E. Fritz, and M. Lucas. 1992. Seafinding by hatchling sea turtles: role of brightness, silhouette and beach slope as orientation cues. Behaviour 122 (1-2):56-77. Scavia, D., J.C. Field, D.F. Boesch, R.W. Buddemeier, V. Burkett, D.R. Cayan, M. Fogarty, M.A. Harwell, R.W. Howarth, C. Mason, D.J. Reed, T.C. Royer, A.H. Sallenger, and J.G. Titus. 2002. Climate change impacts on U.S. coastal and marine ecosystems. Estuaries 25:149-164. Schlacher, T.A., and L.M.C. Thompson. 2008. Physical impacts caused by off -road vehicles (ORVs) to sandy beaches: Spatial quantification of car tracks on an Australian barrier island. Journal of Coastal Research 24:234-242. Schmidt, N.M., R.A. Ims, T.T. Hoye, O. Gilg, L.H. Hansen, J. Hansen, M. Lund, E. Fuglei, M.C. Forchhammer, and B. Sittler. 2012. Response of an arctic predator guild to collapsing lemming cycles. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 279:4417-4422. Schmitt, M.A. and A. C. Haines. 2003. Proceeding of the 2003 Georgia Water Resources Conference April 23-24, 2003, at the University of Georgia. Schneider, T.M., and B. Winn. 2010. Georgia species account: Red knot (Calidris canutus). Unpublished report by the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife Resources Division, Nongame Conservation Section, Available at <http://www.georgiawildlife.com/sites/default/files/uploads/wildlife/nongame/pdf/accoun ts/birds/calidris_canutus.pdf>. Schroeder, B.A. 1981. Predation and nest success in two species of marine turtles (Caretta caretta and Chelonia mydas) at Merritt Island, Florida. Florida Scientist 44(1):35. Schroeder, B.A. 1994. Florida index nesting beach surveys: are we on the right track? Pages 132-133 in Bjomdal, K.A., A.B. Bolten, D.A. Johnson, and P.J. Eliazar (compilers). Proceedings of the 14th Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-351. 213 RECEIVED FEB 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY Schroeder, B.A., A.M. Foley, and D.A. Bagley. 2003. Nesting patterns, reproductive migrations, and adult foraging areas of loggerhead turtles. Pages 114-124 in Bolten, A.B. and B.E. Witherington (editors). Loggerhead Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Books, Washington D.C. Schroeder, B.A. and A.E. Mosier. 1996. Between a rock and a hard place: coastal armoring and marine turtle nesting habitat in Florida. Proceedings of the 18th International Sea Turtle Symposium (Supplement, 16th Annual Sea Turtle Symposium Addendum). NOAA Technical Memorandum. Schwarzer, A.C., J.A. Collazo, L.J. Niles, J.M. Brush, N.J. Douglass, and H.F. Percival. 2012. Annual survival of red knots (Calidris canutus rufa) wintering in Florida. The Auk 129(4):725-733. Schweitzer, S.H. 2015. 2015 Breeding Season Report for the Piping Plover in North Carolina. Unpublished report. 6 pp. Schweitzer, S., and M. Abraham. 2014. 2014 Breeding Season Report for the Piping Plover in North Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife Commission. 6 pp. Scott, J.A. 2006. Use of satellite telemetry to determine ecology and management of loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) during the nesting season in Georgia. Unpublished Master of Science thesis. University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia. Shaver, D.J. 2002. Research in support of the restoration of sea turtles and their habitat in national seashores and areas along the Texas coast, including the Laguna Madre. Final NRPP Report. U.S. Geological Survey, Department of the Interior. Shaver, D.J. 2005. Analysis of the Kemp's ridley imprinting and headstart project at Padre Island National Seashore, Texas, 1978-88, with subsequent nesting and stranding records on the Texas coast. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 4(4):846-859. Shaver, D.J. 2006a. Kemp's ridley sea turtle project at Padre Island National Seashore and Texas sea turtle nesting and stranding 2004 report. National Park Service, Department of the Interior. Shaver, D.J. 2006b. Kemp's ridley sea turtle project at Padre Island National Seashore and Texas sea turtle nesting and stranding 2005 report. National Park Service, Department of the Interior. Shaver, D.J. 2007. Texas sea turtle nesting and stranding 2006 report. National Park Service, Department of the Interior. 214 xr-CENED {- -b 21 N17 DCM- MHD CITY Shaver, D. 2008. Personal communication via e-mail to Sandy MacPherson, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Jacksonville, Florida, on Kemp's ridley sea turtle nesting in Texas in 2008. National Park Service. Shaver, D.J. 2008. Texas sea turtle nesting and stranding 2007 report. National Park Service, Department of the Interior. Shaver, D.J. and C.W. Caillouet, Jr. 1998. More Kemp's ridley turtles return to south Texas to nest. Marine Turtle Newsletter 82:1-5. Shuster, C.N. Jr., R.B. Barlow, and J.H. Brockmann editors. 2003. The American horseshoe crab. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Sick, D., and B. Wilson. 2011. Using dredge spoils to restore critical American horseshoe crab (Limulus polyphemus) spawning habitat at the Mispillion Inlet. Delaware Coastal Program, Dover, DE. Skagen, S.K. 2006. Migration stopovers and the conservation of Arctic -breeding Calidridine sandpipers. The Auk 123:313-322. Smith, B.S. 2007. 2006-2007 Nohbreeding shorebird survey, Franklin and Wakulla Counties, Florida. Final report to the USFWS in fulfillment of Grant #40181-7-J008. Apalachicola Riverkeeper, Apalachicola, Florida. 32 pp. Smith, D.R., and S.F. Michels. 2006. Seeing the elephant: Importance of spatial and temporal coverage in a large-scale volunteer -based program to monitor horseshoe crabs. Fisheries 31(10):485-491. Smith, D.R., N.L. Jackson, K.F. Nordstrom, and R.G. Weber. 2011. Beach characteristics mitigate effects of onshore wind on horseshoe crab spawning: Implications for matching with shorebird migration in Delaware Bay. Animal Conservation 14:575-584. Snover, M. 2005. Personal communication to the Loggerhead Sea Turtle Recovery Team. National Marine Fisheries Service. Snover, M.L., A.A. Holm, L.B. Crowder, and S.S. Heppell. 2007. Age and growth in Kemp's ridley sea turtles: evidence from mark -recapture and skeletochronology. Pages 89-106 in Plotkin P.T. (editor). Biology and Conservation of Ridley Sea Turtles. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland. RECEIVED 215 FEB 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY Sobel, D. 2002. A photographic documentation of aborted nesting attempts due to lounge chairs. Page 311 in Mosier, A., A. Foley, and B. Brost (compilers). Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-477. Solow, A.R., K.A. Bjomdal, and A.B. Bolten. 2002. Annual variation in nesting numbers of marine turtles: the effect of sea surface temperature on re -migration intervals. Ecology Letters 5:742-746. South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR). 2012. Interim performance report, October 1, 2011-September 30, 2012, South Carolina USFWS Project E-1, Segment 34 (FI IAP00805). Spaans, A.L. 1978. Status and numerical fluctuations of some North American waders along the Surinam coast. Wilson Bulletin 90:60-83. Spotila, J.R., E.A. Standora, S.J. Morreale, G.J. Ruiz, and C. Puccia. 1983. Methodology for the study of temperature related phenomena affecting sea turtle eggs. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Endangered Species Report 11. Spotila, J.R., A.E. Dunham, A.J. Leslie, A.C. Steyermark, P.T. Plotkin, and F.V. Paladino. 1996. Worldwide population decline of Dermochelys coriacea: are leatherback turtles going extinct? Chelonian Conservation and Biology 2(2):290-222. Spotila, J.R. R.D. Reina, A.C. Steyermark, P.T. Plotkin, and F.V. Paladino. 2000. Pacific leatherback turtles face extinction. Nature 405:529-530. Staine, K.J., and J. Burger. 1994. Nocturnal foraging behavior of breeding piping plovers (Charadrius melodus) in New Jersey. Auk 111:579-587 Stancyk, S.E., O.R. Talbert, and J.M. Dean. 1980. Nesting activity of the loggerhead turtle Caretta caretta in South Carolina, II: protection of nests from raccoon predation by transplantation. Biological Conservation 18:289-298. Stancyk, S.E. 1995. Non -human predators of sea turtles and their control. Pages 139-152 in Bjorndal, K.A. (editor). Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles, Revised Edition. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington D.C. Steinitz, M.J., M. Salmon, and J. Wyneken. 1998. Beach renourishment and loggerhead turtle reproduction: a seven year study at Jupiter Island, Florida. Journal of Coastal Research 14(3):1000-1013. RECEIVED 216 FEB 21 Z017 DCM_ MHp CITY Sternberg, J. 1981. The worldwide distribution of sea turtle nesting beaches. Center for Environmental Education, Washington, D.C. Stewart, K.R. 2007. Establishment and growth of a sea turtle rookery: the population biology of the leatherback in Florida. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Duke University, Durham, North Carolina. 129 pages. Stewart, K. and C. Johnson. 2006. Dermochelys coriacea-Leatherback sea turtle. In Meylan, P.A. (editor). Biology and Conservation of Florida Turtles. Chelonian Research Monographs 3:144-157. Stewart, K.R. and J. Wyneken. 2004. Predation risk to loggerhead hatchlings at a high -density nesting beach in Southeast Florida. Bulletin of Marine Science 74(2):325-335. Stewart, K., M. Sims, A. Meylan, B. Witherington, B. Brost, and L.B. Crowder. 2011. Leatherback nests increasing significantly in Florida, USA; trends assessed over 30 years using multilevel modeling. Ecological Applications 21(1):263-273. Stone, W. 1937. Bird studies at Old Cape May: An ornithology of coastal New Jersey. Dover Publications, New York. Stucker, J.H. and F.J. Cuthbert. 2004. Piping plover breeding biology and management in the Great Lakes, 2004. Report submitted to the US Fish and Wildlife Service, East Lansing, MI. Stucker, J.H., and F.J. Cuthbert. 2006. Distribution of non -breeding Great Lakes piping plovers along Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coastlines: 10 years of band resightings. Final Report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Stucker, J.H., F.J. Cuthbert and C.D. Haffner. 2003. Piping plover breeding biology and management in the Great Lakes, 2003. Report submitted to the US Fish and Wildlife Service, East Lansing, MI. Suiter, D. 2009. Electronic mail dated 2 February 2009 from Dale Suiter, USFWS, Raleigh, North Carolina Field Office to Patricia Kelly, USFWS, Panama City, Florida Field Office on February 2, 2009 regarding status of beach vitex and control measures along the North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia coast. Summers, R.W., and L.G. Underhill. 1987. Factors related to breeding production of Brent Geese Branta b. bernicla and waders (Charadriz) on the Taimyr Peninsula. Bird Study 34:161-171. 217 RECEIVED FEB 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY Tait, J.F. and G.B. Griggs. 1990. Beach response to the presence of a seawall. Shore and Beach, April 1990:11-28. Talbert, O.R., Jr., S.E. Stancyk, J.M. Dean, and J.M. Will. 1980. Nesting activity of the loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) in South Carolina I: a rookery in transition. Copeia 1980(4):709-718. Tanacredi, J.T., M.L. Botton, and D. Smith. 2009. Biology and conservation of horseshoe crabs. Springer, New York. Tarr, J.G., and P.W. Tarr. 1987. Seasonal abundance and the distribution of coastal birds on the northern Skeleton Coast, South West Africa/Nimibia. Madoqua 15, 63-72. Tarr, N.M. 2008. Fall migration and vehicle disturbance of shorebirds at South Core Banks, North Carolina. North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC. Tebaldi, C., B.H. Strauss, and C.E. Zervas. 2012. Modeling sea level rise impacts on storm surges along US coasts. Environmental Research Letters 7:014032. Thieler, E.R., and E.S. Hammar-Klose. 1999. National assessment of coastal vulnerability to sea - level rise: Preliminary results for the U.S. Atlantic coast. Open -file report 99-593. U.S. Geological Survey, Woods Hole, MA, Available at <hq://nubs.usgs.gov/of/1999/of99- 593/>. Thieler, E.R., and E.S. Hammar-Klose. 2000. National assessment of coastal vulnerability to sea - level rise: Preliminary results for the U.S. Gulf of Mexico coast. Open -file report 00-179. U.S. Geological Survey, Woods Hole, MA, Available at <bgp://Pubs.usgs.gov/oF2000/ofOO-179/>. Thomas, K., R.G. Kvitek, and C. Bretz. 2002. Effects of human activity on the foraging behavior of sanderlings (Calidris alba). Biological Conservation 109:67-71. Titus, J.G., and C. Richman. 2001. Maps of lands vulnerable to sea level rise: Modeled elevations along the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf coasts. Climatic Research 18:205-228 Titus, J.G. 1990. Greenhouse effect, sea level rise, and barrier islands: Case study of Long Beach Island, New Jersey. Coastal Management 18:65-90. Terchunian, A.V. 1988. Permitting coastal armoring structures: can seawalls and beaches coexist? Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue 4:65-75. RECEIVED 21s FEB 21 Z017 DCM- MHD CITY Tomas, J. and J.A. Raga. 2007. Occurrence of Kemp's ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempiz) in the Mediterranean. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 2. Biodiversity Records 5640. 3 pages. Tremblay, T.A., J.S. Vincent, and T.R. Calnan. 2008. Status and trends of inland wetland and aquatic habitats in the Corpus Christi area. Final report under CBBEP Contract No. 0722 submitted to Coastal Bend Bays and Estuaries Program, Texas General Land Office, and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Trindell, R. 2005. Sea turtles and beach nourishment. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Imperiled Species Management Section. Invited Instructor, CLE Conference. Trindell, R. 2007. Personal communication. Summary of lighting impacts on Brevard County beaches after beach nourishment. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Imperiled Species Management Section, Tallahassee, Florida to Loma Patrick, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Panama City, Florida. Trindell, R., D. Arnold, K. Moody, and B. Morford. 1998. Post -construction marine turtle nesting monitoring results on nourished beaches. Pages 77-92 in Tait, L.S. (compiler). Proceedings of the 1998 Annual National Conference on Beach Preservation Technology. Florida Shore & Beach Preservation Association, Tallahassee, Florida. Truitt, B.R., B.D. Watts, B. Brown, and W. Dunstan. 2001. Red knot densities and invertebrate prey availability on the Virginia barrier islands. Wader Study Group Bulletin 95:12. Turtle Expert Working Group (TEWG). 1998. An assessment of the Kemp's ridley (Lepidochelys kempii) and loggerhead (Caretta caretta) sea turtle populations in the western North Atlantic. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC409. Turtle Expert Working Group (TEWG). 2000. Assessment for the Kemp's ridley and loggerhead sea turtle populations in the western North Atlantic. NOAA Technical Memorandum. NMFS-SEFSC-444. Turtle Expert Working Group (TEWG). 2007. An assessment of the leatherback turtle population in the Atlantic Ocean. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-555. Turtle Expert Working Group (TEWG). 2009. An assessment of the loggerhead turtle population in the Western North Atlantic Ocean. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-575. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2008. Missouri River recovery program: least tern and piping plover: endangered and threatened species. USACE, Omaha District, Paper 68. 219 RECEIVED FEB 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2012. Project factsheet: Delaware Bay coastline, DE & NJ, Reeds Beach and Pierces Point, NJ, Available at <http://www.ngp.usace.army.mil/Missions/Factsheets/FactSheetArticleView/tabid/4694/ Article/6442/delaware-bay-coastline-de-ni-reeds-beach-and-pierces-point-nj.asnx U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District. 2015. 2015 Seabeach amaranth (Amaranthus pumilus) survey. December 2015. Report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh Field Office. 72 pp. U.S. Climate Change Science Program. 2008. Weather and climate extremes in a changing climate: Regions of Focus: North America, Hawaii, Caribbean, and U.S. Pacific Islands. U.S. Climate Change Science Program synthesis and assessment product 3.3. 162 pp. U.S. Climate Change Science Program. 2009. Coastal sensitivity to sea -level rise: A focus on the Mid -Atlantic Region. U.S. Climate Change Science Program synthesis and assessment product 4.1. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA, Available at <http://downloads. globalchange. gov/sav/sao-1 /sgp4- l -final-report-all.pdf>. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Accessed June 19, 2014. Impacts on Coastal Resources. Available at <http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/impacts-adaptation/southeast.html>. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2013. Coastal zones and sea level rise. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Accessed June 19, 2014. Impacts on Coastal Resources. Available at <htti)://www.eDa.gov/climatechange/impacts-adaptation/southeast.html>. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1970. United States List of Endangered Native Fish and Wildlife. Federal Register 35(199):16047. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1985. Determination of endangered and threatened status for the piping plover. Federal Register 50:50726-50734. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1988. Recovery plan for piping plovers (Charadrius melodus) of the Great Lakes and Northern Great Plains. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, South Dakota, and Twin Cities, Minnesota. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Revised Draft -Recovery plan for piping plovers - Breeding on the Great Lakes and Northern Great Plains. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Twin Cities, MN. 99 pp. 220 RECEIVED FEB 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996a. Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus), Atlantic Coast Population, Revised Recovery Plan. Hadley, Massachusetts. 258 pp. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996b. Recovery plan for seabeach amaranth (Amaranthus pumilus). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001 a. Final determination of critical habitat for the Great Lakes breeding population of the piping plover. Federal Register 66:22938-22969. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001b. Final determination of critical habitat for wintering piping plovers. Federal Register 66:36037-36086. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Final designation of critical habitat for the Northern Great Plains breeding population of the piping plover. Federal Register. 67:57637-57717. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003a. Recovery plan for the Great Lakes piping plover (Charadrius melodus). Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort Snelling, Minnesota. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003b. Delaware Bay shorebird -horseshoe crab assessment report and peer review. ASMFC, Arlington, VA, Available at <http://digitalmedia.fws. gov/cdm/ref/collection/document/id/ 1418>. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Report on the Mexico/United States of America population restoration project for the Kemp's ridley sea turtle, Lepidochelys kempii, on the coasts of Tamaulipas and Veracruz, Mexico 2005. Fish and Wildlife Service Technical Report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. Strategic Habitat Conservation. Final Report of the National Ecological Assessment Team to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Geologic Survey. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Draft communications plan on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Role in Climate Change. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Revised designation of critical habitat for the wintering population of the piping plover (Charadrius melodus) in Texas. Federal Register 74:23476-23524. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Final report on the Mexico/United States of America population restoration project for the Kemp's ridley sea turtle, Lepidochelys kempii, on the coasts of Tamaulipas and Veracruz, Mexico. 221 RECEIVED FEB 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Abundance and productivity estimates — 2010 update: Atlantic Coast piping plover population. Sudbury, Massachusetts. 4 pp. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Conserve Wildlife Foundation of New Jersey. 2012. Cooperative agreement. Project title: Identify juvenile red knot wintering areas U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. Comprehensive Conservation Strategy for the Piping Plover in its Coastal Migration and Wintering Range in the Continental United States. East Lansing, Michigan. Available at http://www.fws.gov/midwest/EastLansinQ/. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013a. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Threatened Status for the Rufa Red Knot (Calidris canutus rufa). 78 FR 60024-60098. Docket FWS-R5-ES-2013-0097 (September 30, 2013). Available at www.regulations.gov. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013b. Rufa Red Knot Ecology and Abundance. Supplement to Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Threatened Status for the Rufa Red Knot (Calidris canutus rufa) [FWS—R5—ES-2013—AY17]. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013c. Preventing the Spread of Avian Botulism in Piping Plovers. Available at: http://www.fws.govhnidwest/insider3/Octoberl3Story4.htm U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service. 1978. Listing and Protecting Loggerhead Sea Turtles as Threatened Species and Populations of Green and Olive Ridley Sea Turtles as Threatened Species or Endangered Species. Federal Register 43(146):32800-32811. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service. 2016. Definition of Destruction or Adverse Modification of Critical Habitat. Federal Register 81(28):7214- 7226. U.S. Global Change Research Program. 2009. Global climate change impacts in the United States. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, Available at <http://library.globalchange.gov/2009-global-climate-change-impacts-in-the-united- states>. Umer, C.A., and R.W. Storer. 1949. The distribution and abundance of shorebirds on the North and Central New Jersey Coast, 1928-1938. The Auk 66(2):177-194. van Gils, J.A., P.F. Battley, T. Piersma, and R. Drent. 2005a. Reinterpretation of gizzard sizes of red knots world-wide emphasis overriding importance of prey quality at migratory stopover sites. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B 272:2609-2618. 222 evEa ReCe V:rg21n11 IDCM- MHp CITY` van Gils, J.A., A. Dekinga, B. Spaans, W.K. Vahl, and T. Piersma. 2005b. Digestive bottleneck affects foraging decisions in red knots (Calidris canutus). II. Patch choice and length of working day. Journal of Animal Ecology 74:120-130. Ward, J.R., and K.D. Lafferty. 2004. The elusive baseline of marine disease: Are diseases in ocean ecosystems increasing? PLoS Biology 2(4):542-547. Watson, J.W., D. G. Foster, S. Epperly, and A. Shah. 2004. Experiments in the western Atlantic Northeast Distant Waters to evaluate sea turtle mitigation measures in the pelagic longline fishery. Report on experiments conducted in 2001-2003. February 4, 2004. Webster, P., G. Holland, J. Curry, and H. Chang. 2005. Changes in tropical cyclone number, duration, and intensity in a warming environment. Science Vol. 309: pp. 1844-1846. Weishampel, J.F., D.A. Bagley, and L.M. Ehrhart. 2006. Intra-annual loggerhead and green turtle spatial nesting patterns. Southeastern Naturalist 5(3):453-462. Werler, J.E. 1951. Miscellaneous notes on the eggs and young of Texan and Mexican reptiles. Zoologica 36(3):37-38. Westbrock, M., E.A. Roche, F.J. Cuthbert and J.H. Stucker. 2005. Piping plover breeding biology and management in the Great Lakes, 2005. Report submitted to the US Fish and Wildlife Service, East Lansing, MI. Westbrooks, R.G., and J. Madsen. 2006. Federal regulatory weed risk assessment beach vitex (Vitex rotundifolia L.f.) assessment summary. USGS Biological Research Division, Whiteville, North Carolina, and Mississippi State University, GeoResources Institute. 5pp. Wheeler, N.R. 1979. Effects of off -road vehicles on the infauna of Hatches Harbor, Cape Cod National Seashore. Unpublished report from the Environmental Institute, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts. UM-NPSCRU Report No. 28. [Also submitted as a M.S. Thesis entitled "Off -road vehicle (ORV) effects on representative infauna and a comparison of predator -induced mortality by Polinices duplicatus and ORV activity on Mya arenaria at Hatches Harbor, Provincetown, Massachusetts" to the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts.] Wibbels, T., D.W. Owens, and D.R. Rostal. 1991. Soft plastra of adult male sea turtles: an apparent secondary sexual characteristic. Herpetological Review 22:47-49. Wilcox, L. 1939. Notes on the life history of the piping plover. Birds of Long Island 1: 3-13. Wilcox, L. 1959. A twenty year banding study of the piping plover. Auk 76: 129-152. 223 RECEIVED FEB 21 2017 DCM- NIHD CITY Williams, S.J., K. Dodd, and K.K. Gohn. 1995. Coasts in Crisis. U.S Geological Survey Circular 1075. 32 pp. Williams, K.L., M.G. Frick, and J.B. Pfaller. 2006. First report of green, Chelonia mydas, and Kemp's ridley, Lepidochelys kempii, turtle nesting on Wassaw Island, Georgia, USA. Marine Turtle Newsletter 113:8. Williams -Walls, N., J. O'Hara, R.M. Gallagher, D.F. Worth, B.D. Peery, and J.R. Wilcox. 1983. Spatial and temporal trends of sea turtle nesting on Hutchinson Island, Florida, 1971- 1979. Bulletin of Marine Science 33(1):55-66. Winstead, N. 2008. Letter dated 8 October 2008 from Nick Winstead, Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks, Museum of Natural Science to Patty Kelly, USFWS, Panama City, Florida Field Office regarding habitat changes in Mississippi from hurricanes and estimates of shoreline miles of mainland and barrier islands. Witherington, B.E. 1986. Human and natural causes of marine turtle clutch and hatchling mortality and their relationship to hatching production on an important Florida nesting beach. Unpublished Master of Science thesis. University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida. Witherington, B. E. 1991.Orientation of hatchling loggerhead turtles at sea off artificially lighted and dark beaches. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 149, 1-11. Witherington, B.E. 1992. Behavioral responses of nesting sea turtles to artificial lighting. Herpetologica 48:31-39. Witherington, B.E. 1997. The problem of photopollution for sea turtles and other nocturnal animals. Pages 303-328 in Clemmons, J.R. and R. Buchholz (editors). Behavioral approaches to conservation in the wild. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom. Witherington, B.E. 2006. Personal communication to Loggerhead Recovery Team on nest monitoring in Florida during 2005. Florida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute. Witherington, B.E. and K.A. Bjomdal. 1991. Influences of artificial lighting on the seaward orientation of hatchling loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta). Biological Conservation 55:139-149. Witherington, B.E., K.A. Bjomdal, and C.M. McCabe. 1990. Temporal pattern of nocturnal emergence of loggerhead turtle hatchlings from natural nests. Copeia 1990(4):1165- 1168. RECEIVED 224 FEB 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY Witherington, B.E. and L.M. Ehrhart. 1989. Status and reproductive characteristics of green turtles (Chelonia mydas) nesting in Florida. Pages 351-352 in Ogren, L., F. Berry, K. Bjomdal, H. Kumpf, R. Mast, G. Medina, H. Reichart, and R. Witham (editors). Proceedings of the Second Western Atlantic Turtle Symposium. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFC-226. Witherington, B.E. and M. Salmon. 1992. Predation on loggerhead turtle hatchlings after entering the sea. Journal of Herpetology. 26(2):226-228. Witherington, B.E. and R.E. Martin. 1996. Understanding, assessing, and resolving light pollution problems on sea turtle nesting beaches. Florida Marine Research Institute Technical Report TR-2. Witherington, B., L. Lucas, and C. Koeppel. 2005. Nesting sea turtles respond to the effects of ocean inlets. Pages 355-356 in Coyne, M.S. and R.D. Clark (compilers). Proceedings of the Twenty-first Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-528. Wood, D.W. and K.A. Bjorndal. 2000. Relation of temperature, moisture, salinity, and slope to nest site selection in loggerhead sea turtles. Copeia 2000(1):119-128. Wyneken, J. 2000. The migratory behavior of hatchling sea turtles beyond the beach. Pages 121- 142 in N.J. Pilcher and G. Ismail, eds. Sea turtles of the Indo-Pacific. ASEAN Academic Press, London. Wyneken, J., Salmon, M. and K. J. Lohmann. 1990.Orientation by hatchling loggerhead sea turtles Caretta caretta in a wave tank. J. exp. mar. Biol. Ecol. 139, 43-50. Wyneken, J., L. DeCarlo, L. Glenn, M. Salmon, D. Davidson, S. Weege., and L. Fisher. 1998. On the consequences of timing, location and fish for hatchlings leaving open beach hatcheries. Pages 155-156 in Byles, R. and Y. Fernandez (compilers). Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-412. Wyneken, J., L.B. Crowder, and S. Epperly. 2005. Final report: evaluating multiple stressors in loggerhead sea turtles: developing a two -sex spatially explicit model. Final Report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency National Center for Environmental Research, Washington, DC. EPA Grant Number: R829094. 225 RECEIVED FEB 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY Z6ckler, C., and I. Lysenko. 2000. Water birds on the edge: First circumpolar assessment of climate change impact on Arctic breeding water birds. World Conservation Press, Cambridge, UK, Available at <hM://www.ungp-wcmc.orgibiodiversit3Lseries- 11 114.html>. Zonick, C. 1997. The use of Texas barrier island washover pass habitat by piping plovers and Other coastal waterbirds. National Audubon Society. A Report to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 19 pp. Zonick, C.A. 2000. The winter ecology of the piping plover (Charadrius melodus) along the Texas Gulf Coast. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri. Zonick, C. and M. Ryan. 1996. The ecology and conservation of piping plovers (Charadrius melodus) wintering along the Texas Gulf Coast. Dept. of Fisheries and Wildlife, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri 65211. 1995 Annual report. 49pp. Zug, G.R. and J.F. Parham. 1996. Age and growth in leatherback turtles, Dermochelys coriacea (Testudines: Dermochelyidae): a skeletochronological analysis. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 2(2):244-249. Zurita, J.C., R. Herrera, A. Arenas, M.E. Tones, C. Calderon, L. G6mez, J.C. Alvarado, and R. Villavicencio. 2003. Nesting loggerhead and green sea turtles in Quintana Roo, Mexico. Pages 125-127 in Seminoff, J.A. (compiler). Proceedings of the Twenty-second Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-503. Zwarts, L., and A.M. Blomert. 1992. Why knot Calidris canutus take medium-sized Macoma balthica when six prey species are available. Marine Ecology Progress Series 83:113- 128. 226 RECEIVED FEB 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY Appendix EXAMPLES OF PREDATOR PROOF TRASH RECEPTACLES 227 RECEIVED FEB 2 1 2017 DCM- MHD CITY Example of predator proof trash receptacle at Gulf Islands National Seashore. Lid must be tight fitting and made of material heavy enough to stop animals such as raccoons. Example of trash receptacle anchored into the ground so it is not easily turned over. 228 RECEIVED FEB 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY Example of predator proof trash receptacle at Perdido Key State Park. Metal trash can is stored inside. Cover must be tight fitting and made of material heavy enough to stop animals such as raccoons. 229 not easily turned over. RECEIVED FEB 21 2017 DCM- MHD CITY NC Division of Coastal Management Major Permit Application Computer Sheet AEC: Atlantic Ocean Fee: $475 #71631 CDAITS MHC cc Applicant: Town of Ocean Isle Beach Agent/Contractor: Coastal Planning & Engineering of NC, Inc. c/o Greg Finch Project Site County: Brunswick Staff: Sean Farrell District: Wilmington Project Name: 30-yr Beach Management Plan Rover File: n/a River Basin: Lumber Initial date of application submittal: 7-26-16 Date application "received as complete" in the Field office: SITE DESCRIPTION/PERMIT INFORMATION ORW: ❑Yes 7WO I PNA: []Yes No Photos Taken: Yes ❑ NoL [ Setback Required (riparian): Yes NNo Critical Habitat: ❑Yes RNo ❑Not Sure 15 foot waiver obtained: ❑Yes No Hazard Notification Returned: Ayes ❑No SAV: ❑Yes PNo []Not Sure Shell Bottom: ❑Yes ❑No P Not Temporary Impacts: Yes ❑No Sure Sandbags: Yes ❑No ❑ Not Sure Did the land use classificati n come Mitigation Required (optional): from county LUP: ❑Yes P9No ❑Yes,%No Moratorium Conditions: Environmental Assessment Done: Length of Shoreline: XYes ❑No ❑NA []Yes PNo ❑NA u- FT. Shellfish Area Designation: Project Description: (code) Development Area: (code) Operi -or- Closed r If % a 'ti V 1 ol(V eS '= SECONDARY WATER CLASSIFICATION — OPTIONAL (choose MAX of4) $�3a�O®QSc( 44- Future Water Supply WETLANDSIMPACTED ❑ (404) Corp. of Engineers (Jurisdictional ❑ (LS) Sea lavender (Limonium sp.) ❑ (SS) Glasswort ( Salicomia sp.) wetlands) ❑ (CJ) Saw grass (Cladium jamaicense) ❑ (SA) Salt marsh oordgrass (Spartina ❑ (SY) Salt reed grass (Spartina alterniflora) cynosuroides) ❑ (DS) Salt or spike grass (Distichlis ❑ (SC) Bullrush or three square (Scirpus ❑ (TY) Cattail (Typha sp.) spicata) sp.) ❑ (JR) Black needlerush (Juncus ❑ (SP) Salt/meadow grass (Spartina roemerianus) patens) APPLICATION FEE ❑ No fee required - $0.00 ❑ III(A) Private w/ D&F up to 1 acre; 3490 ❑ III(D) Priv. public or Comm w/ D&F to 1 can be applied - $250 acre; 3490 can't be applied - $400 ❑ Minor Modification to a CAMA Major ❑ Major Modification to a CAMA Major g IV Any development involving D&F of permit - $100 permit - $250 more than 1 acre - $475 ❑ Permit Transfer - $100 III(B) Public or commercial w/ D&F to 1 ❑ Express Permit - $2000 acre; 3490 can be applied - $400 ❑ Major development extension request - ❑ It. Public or commercial/no dredge $100 and/or fill - $400 ❑ I. Private no dredge and/or fill - $250 El III(C) Priv. public or comm w /D&F to 1 acre; 3490 can be applied; DCM needs DWQ agreement - $400 ., T Town of OIB Date: 7-26-16 Describe below the ACTIVITIES that have been applied for. All values should match the dimension order, and units of measurement found in your Activities code sheet. TYPE REPLACE Activity Name Number Choose Choose Dimension 1 Dimension 2 Dimension 3 Dimension 4 One One 6/ J New Work ❑ Maint ❑ [IYa❑ N AC New Work ❑ Replace i qC 50 Man N QD I New Work ❑ Replace Maint ❑ ❑ Y ❑ N New Work ❑ Replace Maint ❑ ❑ Y ❑ N New Work Replace Maint ❑ ❑ Y ❑ N New Work-0 Replace Maint ❑ ❑ Y ❑ N New Work Replace Maint ❑ ❑ Y ❑ N New Work ❑ Replace Maint ❑ ❑ Y ❑ N Describe below the HABITAT disturbances for the application. All values should match the name, and units of measurement found in your Habitat code sheet. TOTAL Sq. Ft. FINAL Sq. Ft. TOTAL Feet FINAL Feet (Applied for. (Anticipated final (Applied for. (Anticipated final DISTURB TYPE Disturbance total disturbance. Disturbance disturbance. Habitat Name Choose One includes any Excludes any total induces Excludes any anticipated restoration any anticipated restoration and/or restoration or and/or temp restoration or temp impact temp impacts) impact amount) temp impacts) amount Dredge ❑ Fill ❑ Both ❑ Other ❑ Dredge Fill ❑ Both ❑ Other ❑ 9 Ur �D 000 Dredge ❑ Fill ❑ Both ❑ Other ❑ ���%�� Dredge ❑ Fill ❑ Both ❑ Other ❑ Dredge ❑ Fill ❑ Both ❑ Other ❑ Dredge ❑ Fill ❑ Both ❑ Other ❑ 105 Dredge ❑ Fill ❑ Both ❑ Other ❑ G Dredge ❑ Fill ❑ Both ❑ Other ❑ LYN2 '000 . 919-733-2293 :: 1-888-4RCOAST :: www.nccoastaimanagement.net revised: 101/2/06 �( MAJOR PERMIT FEE SCHEDULE}` J' Western End of Ocean Isle Beach /$475 CK #071631 /BR Co DCM % DWQ % Development Ta Fee 14300160143510009316256253 2430016024351000952341 I. Private, non-commercial development that does not involve the filling or excavation of any wetlands or open water areas: $250 100% $250 0% $0 II. Public or commercial development that does not involve the filling or excavation of any wetlands or open water areas: $400 100% $400 0% ($0) III. For development that involves the filling and/or excavation of up to 1 acre of wetlands and/or open water areas, determine if A,B, C, or D below applies: III(A). Private, non-commercial development, if General Water Quality Certification No. 3490 See attached can be applied: $250 100% $250 0% $0 III(B). Public or commercial development, if General Water Quality Certification No. 3490 See attached can be applied: $400 100% $400 0% $0 III(C). If General Water Quality Certification No. 3490 (see attached) could be applied, but DCM staff determined that additional review and written DWQ concurrence is needed because of concerns related to water quality or aquatic life: $400 60% $240 40% $160 III(D). If General Water Quality Certification No. 3490 see attached cannot be applied: $400 60% $240 40% $160 IV. Development that involves the filling and/or excavation of more than one acre of wetlands and/or open water areas: $475 60% $285 40% $190 RECE,IVE.D AUG 17 2016 DCM- MHD CITY ENR CAMA Daily Check Lon for WIRO Date Date Deposits Check Receiptor Received d Check From Name Name ofPermlt Holder Vendor Check Number amount Permit Number/Comments Refund/Reallocared 7/26/20161 Town of Ocean Isle Beach Ocean Isle Beach/CPE-NCl9rad Rosov Branch Bankin and Trust 71631' 75.00 ma' fee, Western End of OIB Bruns Co SF M. 2457D M Coastal Management ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY PAT MCCRORY Govemor DONALD R. VAN DER VAART Secretary BRAXTON DAVIS Director August 12, 2016 Advertising@starnewsonline.com 2 Pages Star News Legal Advertisement Section Post Office Box 840 Wilmington, North Carolina 28402 Re: Brunswick County Major Public Notice Combo: • Sharon & Steve McCoy Town of Ocean Isle Beach Kyle & Heather: Please publish the attached Notice in the Wednesday, August 17, 2016 issue. The State Office of Budget & Management requires an original Affidavit of Publication prior to payment for newspaper advertising. Please send the original affidavit and invoice for payment to Shaun Simpson at the NC Division of Coastal Management, 127 Cardinal Drive Extension, Wilmington, NC 28405, 910-796-7226. Paying by credit card to the attention of Luke Skiers, (Ref acct # 796-7215). Please email a copy of the credit card receipt to me. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. If you should have any questions, please contact me at our Wilmington office. «IN Sincerely, � Shaun K. Simpson Permitting Support &Customer Assistance Heather Coats - WiRO Doug Huggett -MHC Tyler Crumbley — USACE Sarah Young- DCM R AUG 17 2016 Dcm-1�"tHD CITY State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Coastal Management 127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilmington, NC 28405 910-796-7215 0 NOTICE OF FILING OF APPLICATION FOR CAMA MAJOR DEVELOPMENT PERMIT The Department of Environmental Quality hereby gives public notice as required by NCGS 113A-119(b) that the following applications were submitted for development permits in Areas of Environmental Concern in Brunswick County as designated under the CAMA: On July 26, 2016 the Town of Ocean Isle Beach proposed to obtain state authorization of a 30 year management plan to continue beach nourishment along approx. 5 miles of beachfront, adjacent to the Atlantic Ocean, in the Town of Ocean Isle Beach; and on August 1, 2016, Sharon and Steve McCoy proposed to construct a single-family residence and install a retaining wall, resulting in the filling of Coastal and Section 404 Wetlands at 29 Tanbark Ct., adjacent to Bald Head Island Creek, on Bald Head Island The applications can be examined or copied at the office of Tara MacPherson (McCoy), or Sean Farrell (Town of OIB), N.C. Dept. of Environmental Quality, Division of Coastal Management, 127 Cardinal Drive Ext., Wilmington, NC 28405, (910-796-7215) during normal business hours. Comments mailed to Braxton C. Davis, Director, Division of Coastal Management, 400 Commerce Avenue, Morehead City, NC 28557-3421, prior to September 3, 2016 will be considered in making the permit decision. Later comments will be accepted and considered up to the time of permit decision. Project modification may occur based on review and comment by the public and state and federal agencies. Notice of the permit decision in these matters will be provided upon written request. RECENED AUG 11 2016 DCM- MHD CITY State of North Carolina I Environmental Quality I Coastal Management 127 Cardinal Drive Eat, Wilmington, NC 29405 910-796-7215 Qceelt, �s<t✓� �r-a maybe subject the North Carolina Public a Records Law andd may be disclosed to third parties. C/ V 'ram ' y`-�"JC `,��{•-,rp `. / .� r From: Finch, Greg Imailto:greg.finch@cbi.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 2:59 PM To: Simpson, Shaun <shaun.simpson@ncdenr.gov> Cc: Farrell, Sean C <Sean. Farrell@ ncdenr.gov>; Rosov, Brad <Brad.Rosov@cbi.com> Subject: RE: CAMA Site Card Shaun, The Town has been receiving an above average number of phone calls in regards to the Ocean Isle Beach noticed posted for the 30-yr project. The concern raised is the thought that the Town is planning to conduct nourishment in Tubbs Inlet. While the proposed taper extends near Tubbs inlet, the main fill stops well over 1000 feet away. To alleviate any confusion, could you please modify the Notice placard to remove the text "(including Tubbs Inlet)" ? Thanks and let me know if you have any questions, impp Greg Finch Scientist Coastal & Maritime Sciences Environmental & Sustainability Tel: +1 910 791 9494 Fax: +1 910 791 4129 areg.f nchCDCBl.com CB&I 4038 Masonboro Loop Road Wilmington, NC 28409 United States www.CBI.com From: Simpson, Shaun Sent: Monday, August 15, 2016 9:18 AM To: Justin Whiteside (lustin@oibgov.com) <Iustin@oibgov.com> Cc:'Keith Dycus' <keith@oibgov.com>; Sean Farrell<sean.farreII@ncdenr:gov>;'greg.finch@shawgrp.com Subject: CAMA Site Card Hello Justin, We are sending out the Field Report for the OIB 30-yrBeoch Management Plan today. Debbie Wilson asks if it is possible for you to prepare the attached for viewing on the town's tv channel? We are sending the original card to your agent, Greg Finch, and suggest that he post it at Town Hall. Thanks for the assistance, Shaun Shaun Simpson Permit Support & Customer Service NC Department of Environmental Quality Simpson, Shaun From: Finch, Greg <greg.finch@cbi.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 3:42 PM To: Simpson, Shaun Subject: RE: CAMA Site Card Awesome, thanks Shaun! We can just print a copy as needed Thanks again, Greg Finch Scientist Coastal & Maritime Sciences Environmental & Sustainability Tel: +1 910 791 9494 Fax: +1 910 7914129 areg.finch( CBI.com CB&I 4038 Masonboro Loop Road Wilmington, NC 28409 United States www.CBI.com From: Simpson, Shaun [mailto:shaun.simpson@ncdenr.gov] Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 3:40 PM To: Finch, Greg<greg.finch@cbi.com> Cc: Justin Whiteside (Justin@oibgov.com) <justin@oibgov.com>; Farrell, Sean C <Sean.Farrell@ncdenr.gov> Subject: RE: CAMA Site Card Hey Greg, Modified copy attached. Would you like me to mail the hard -copy to you, the town, or leave it at the front desk for you? Or none of the above?! Shaun Shaun Simpson Permit Support & Customer Service NC Department of Environmental Quality NC Division of Coastal Management 127 Cardinal Drive Ext. Wilmington, NC28405 Phone: (910)796-7226 Shaun.Simason @ncdenr. gov fMI_ -i""NothingCompares.�..,. E-mail correspondence to and from this address LAMA PERMIT ECT: 30_ nourtsm to the Pa Ocean, i APPLICANT: r ma Town of Ocean Isle Beach c/o Debbie Smith, Mayor 3 W. Third Street Ocean Isle Beach, NC 28469 Agent: Greg Finch (910) 791.9494 I Fm agement; an to continue beach 3ch, antic cptember 3, 2016. FOR MORE DETAILS CONTACT THE LOCAL PERMIT OFFICER BELOW: NC Div. of Coastal Management 127 Cardinal Dr. Extension Wilmington, NC 28405 Sean Farrell, Field Representative 910-796-7424 C:l k r311: I I L US Army Corps of pgigT— Wilmington Distnc 79'e�g'u aFto;y�f1 Division Attn: Mr. Tyler C+i�i 15l 4-,Vro4§Manager 69 Darlington Avgiip¢,£_•,.. Wilmington, NC 28403-1343 RECEIVED SEP 2 12016 DCM- rv'-HE) r•1STATE OF NC U.S. POSTAGE>) PITNEY BOWES 02 4111 $ 000.340 0000338507SEP 12 2016 'D'4'rH e c- GvioN 1 T," Co,1 1 MOREHEAD CITY, NC 28557 QQJA 1111111"' 11'111111111„ 1, 1111,111 Ill, 11, 111„111 +111„I„1111 US Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington District PUBLIC NOTICE Issue Date: September 12, 2016 Comment Deadline: October 12, 2016 Corps Action ID No: SAW-2016-01642 The Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers (Corps) received an application, from The Town of Ocean Isle Beach, to obtain authorization to continue current beach nourishment operations and add an additional nourishment area along a total of 27,650 linear feet of the oceanfront shoreline df Ocean Isle Beach. The project is located in waters of the United States, in Section 404-and Section 10 waters, Township of Ocean Isle Beach, Brunswick County, North Carolina. The Corps of Engineers has issued a public notice soliciting comments on this project. The proposed project has been assigned Action ID #SAW-2016-01642. This notice is available on the Wilmington District website at: http•//www saw usace armv mil/Missions/RegulatoryPermitProgram/PublicNotices asox In the event you are unable to download the Public Notice, access our website, if you wish to receive a hardcopy, or to submit comments, please contact the Project Manager, Mr! Tyler Crumbley, atlthe contaci h'um6erbr, email addrbss.provided in this postcard. Comments will be received by the Corps of Engineers',.Wil'igirigton District, until Spm, October 12. 2016 at: tvler.crumblevf@usace.armv.mil and/or 010f251-4170. 1;787;11 RECEIVED US Army Corps PUBLIC NOTICE SEP 15 2016 Of Engineers Wilmington District DC M- M H D CITY Issue Date: 12 September, 2016 Comment Deadline: 12 October, 2016 Corps Action ID Number: SAW-2016-01642 The Wilmington District, Corps of Engineers (Corps) received an application from The Town of Ocean Isle Beach, to obtain authorization to continue current beach nourishment operations and add an additional nourishment area along a total of 27,650 linear feet of the oceanfront shoreline of Ocean Isle Beach. The project is located in waters of the United States, in Section 404 and Section 10 waters, Township of Ocean Isle Beach, Brunswick County, North Carolina. The proposed project has been assigned Action ID #SAW-2016-01642. Specific plans and location information are described below and shown on the attached plans. This Public Notice and all attached plans are also available on the Wilmington District Web Site at: htip://www.saw.usace.amiy.mil/Missions/ReaulatoryPermitPro rgram.aspx. Applicant: AGENT (if applicable): Authority: Town of Ocean Isle Beach Attn: Ms. Debbie Smith, Mayor 3 West Third Street Ocean Isle Beach, North Carolina 28469 Coastal Planning and Engineering of NC, Inc. Attn: Mr. Brad Rosov 4038 Masonboro Loop Road Wilmington, North Carolina 28409 The Corps evaluates this application and decides whether to issue, conditionally issue, or deny the proposed work pursuant to applicable procedures of the following Statutory Authorities: ® Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) ® Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403) ❑ Section 103 of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1413) SAW-2016-01642 OIB 30yr Management Plan Page 1 Location: The Town of Ocean Isle Beach (Town) is located on the southwestern coastline of Brunswick County in southeastern North Carolina. The municipality is located on a barrier island, bordered to the south by the Atlantic Ocean, to the north by the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AIWW), to the west by Tubbs Inlet, and to the east by Shallotte Inlet. The Town of Holden Beach lies east of Shallotte Inlet, and the Town of Sunset Beach is located west of Tubbs Inlet. Ocean Isle Beach is approximately 5.5 miles long and approximately 0.6 mi wide. The proposed project involves the placement of beach compatible material along approximately 5.0 miles of the Town's oceanfront shoreline. The borrow source for this material is located within Shallotte Inlet (Figure 1F*tw*4). The island was incorporated in 1959.and has a current year-round resident population of approximately 554, with a seasonal population of 25,000. Project Area (square miles): 3.0 Nearest Town: Ocean Isle Beach Nearest Waterway: Atlantic Ocean River Basin: Lower Pee Dee River Basin Latitude and Longitude: 33.8904877 N,-78.4213477 W Ocean to the south, and Tubbs Inlet to the West. SAW-2016-01642 OIB 30yr Management Plan Page 2 Existing Site Conditions: Placement Locations The Town of Ocean Isle Beach has worked with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) since 1965 to implement a storm protection project on the oceanfront shoreline. The Corps' Coastal Storm Damage Reduction Project (CSDRP) spans 3.25 miles of the Town's approximate 5.5 mile oceanfront shoreline, from base station 10+00 at Shallotte Boulevard to east Duneside Drive (baseline station 181+00) (see attached plan sheets for station numbers). The existing CSDRP includes a 5,150-foot long dune and berm section covering the beach from station 51+50 (located just west of Raleigh St.) to 103+00 (located about half way between Raeford St. and Lagrange St.), a 3,900-foot transition on the east end, and a 7,800-foot transition on the west end. The design template within the main fill includes a dune with a crest elevation of +8.5 feet NAVD fronted by a 50-foot wide berm at elevation +6.0 feet NNAVD88. The east and west transition have variable width berms at elevation+6.0 feetNAVD88. The initial construction of the federal project in 2001 involved placement of 1,866,000 cubic yards of material obtained from a borrow area located in Shallotte Inlet. The borrow area was also designated as a source for future periodic beach nourishment, which was scheduled to occur every three years. The federal project has since been nourished twice: in April/May 2010, and April 2014. Because the shoreline west of station 120+00 within the CSDR project performed so well after the initial nourishment, this area has not needed re -nourishment. Therefore sand was not placed west of station 120+00 in the 2010 and 2014 periodic nourishment efforts. However, it is anticipated that periodic nourishment of the federal project between station 120+00 and 181+00 will likely be required at some time in the future, either due to gradual depletion of the fill, or loss during a coastal storm event. East End The extreme eastern 2,800 feet of the town's shoreline, which includes approximately 1,000 feet of shoreline with existing development and another 1,800 feet of undeveloped shoreline, was excluded from the federal project due to projected high cost of periodic nourishment that would be needed to counter the excessive erosion rates on the east end of the island. The high cost for periodic nourishment along the east end of the island resulted in a low benefits to cost ratio that did not meet federal requirements to participate in a storm damage reduction project in that area. The high rates of ocean shoreline erosion on the east end of Ocean Isle Beach are associated with changes in the configuration of the Shallotte Inlet ebb tide delta which, in turn, are driven by changes in the position and orientation of the main ocean bar channel of the inlet. In association with construction of the previously discussed CSDRP, the Corps has periodically deposited material on the east end, outside the federal project limits, since 2001. The material removed from the AIW W and placed within this area has eroded quickly and has been ineffective in slowing the rate of erosion. Additional measures SAW-2016-01642 01B 30yr Management Plan Page 3 undertaken by the Town and private interests on the east end include placement of a sandbag revetment along 1,400 feet of shoreline, beginning at a point west of Shallotte Boulevard and extending east to the end of development. This revetment was installed around 2005, and has recently been extended 400 feet to the west (just past Charlotte Street). Some of the recent sandbag placement was accomplished by NCDOT in an attempt to protect the eastern end of 2nd street. West End The shoreline extending west of the federal project limits (180+00) to Tubbs Inlet is currently unmanaged, and has never received nourishment. The shoreline between station 181+00 (western limit of the federal CSDRP) and station 265+00 (located about 1,000 feet east of Tubbs Inlet) has been relatively stable since 1997. The shoreline between stations 180+00 and 210+00 experienced a considerable amount of accretion following completion of the initial construction of the federal project in March 2001, possibly due to the westward spreading of material from the federal CSDRP. This accretion continued to around October 2005. The westward spreading of the nourishment material also appeared to extend west to about station 225+00. The accretion along these shoreline segments diminished after 2006 with the shoreline position remaining essentially stable until about May 2010. The shoreline between station 180+00 AND 250+00 experienced additional accretion from May 2010 and August 2013. A similar increase was not observed between stations 220+00 and 240+00, which is farther from the federal project. The behavior of the shoreline on the extreme western end of the island between Tubbs Inlet and baseline station 265+00 has been very erratic due to the impacts the ocean bar channel of Tubbs Inlet has on the west end shoreline. This extreme west end will continue to be monitored, and if shoreline conditions deteriorate in the future, consideration for remedial measures along this section of shoreline may be in order. While the use of beach fill along may prove problematic given the dynamic influence of Tubbs Inlet, the shoreline between 250+00 and Tubbs Inlet (approximately station 275+00) is included in the proposed activities should future conditions warrant. Borrow Location The proposed 30-Year Management Plan will utilize the existing federally approved borrow area within Shallotte Inlet as the primary sand source for initial construction of the Town's west end and for periodic nourishment of the federal CSDRP portion of the shoreline. This borrow area extends from the AIW W through the throat of the channel and turns south over the ocean bar. Shallotte Inlet is an ebb -dominated system, with a small flood delta and a much larger ebb tide delta. The original Corps borrow area was designed to have a maximum dredging depth of 15 ft. below MLW (-17.9 ft. NAVO), creating a channel with 31-1: IV sides slopes measuring approximately 950 ft. wide at the AIW W and 1,400 ft. wide at the bar channel. The footprint of the borrow area covers approximately 4.8 million sq. ft. (110 ac). Preliminary engineering and design work for the 2014 maintenance event used bathymetric data collected by the Corps in July and August 2013 to determine volumes within the borrow area. At the time of the survey, approximately I,-312,000 cy of sand SAW-2016-01642 OIB 30yr Management Plan were available within the borrow area. Based on project estimates provided by the Town of Ocean Isle Beach, approximately 800,000 cy were removed from the borrow area for the 2014 maintenance nourishment. Based on past performance of the project, the borrow area is expected to re -charge due to shoaling of the inlet complex. Sediments recovered within the vertical boundaries of the proposed borrow area were described by the CORPS as having a tan and or gray color. The wet Munsell Color value ranges from 4 to 7, with a typical value of 5. The dry Munsell Color value ranges from 6 to 8 with a typical value of 7. These characteristics represent the existing beach, which is a composite of the characteristics of material that has been placed on the beach during past nourishment projects and native beach sediment. Although incompatible material has not been encountered within the Shallotte Inlet borrow area, the applicant proposed to use Corps DA-300 as a contingency disposal location. It should be noted that if incompatible material is encountered, contract language would direct the contractor to move the dredge location. Should the Town pursue removal of any incompatible material, a Consent Agreement would need to be obtained from the Corps prior to commencing any placement within DA-300. Applicant's Stated Purpose: The applicant's stated purpose for implementing a beach nourishment project is to reduce the vulnerability of structures and infrastructure, including roads and utilities, along the Town's oceanfront shoreline that could become vulnerable through shoreline erosion over time. In addition, the proposed project would serve to reduce the vulnerability of public infrastructure to storm -induced erosion. Project Description: The proposed action will include the placement of fill material along approximately 5.0 miles of the Town's oceanfront shoreline. This encompasses the 3.25-mile extent already included within the entirety of the Corps CSDRP, and an additional 1.75 miles of shoreline that extends from the western terminus of the CSDRP to Tubbs Inlet. Following initial construction, maintenance events would be anticipated to occur every five (5) years. The only portion of the Town's oceanfront shoreline not included within this proposed action is the area to the east of the CSDRP, which is currently under consideration for a terminal groin and associated small beach fill project. Although the proposed terminal groin project and this proposed Island -Wide project are two completely separate actions, the two projects contain a fill template that overlap by approximately 2,000 ft. on the east end of the island between stations 10+00 and 30+00. In order to avoid cumulative impacts within this area, the Island -Wide project will limit the footprint of its fill template on the east to station 30+00 should the terminal groin project be permitted. SAW-2016-01642 0113 30yr Management Plan Page 5 Beach quality sand would be dredged from the borrow area previously used by the Corps within Shallotte Inlet using a hydraulic pipeline dredge. Placement of fill material onto the beach would be accomplished via pipeline with direct pump -out. Once discharged, the sand will be shaped and graded according to the design template using earth -moving equipment such as bulldozers and excavators. Construction of the project and subsequent maintenance events would occur within the environmental dredge window (Nov. 15 through April 30). Avoidance and Minimization: The applicant provided the following information in support of efforts to avoid and/or minimize impacts to the aquatic environment: Construction Practices Dredging of Shallotte Inlet along with the nourishment of the oceanfront shoreline of Ocean Isle Beach is scheduled to occur between November 16 and April 30. The timing of beach nourishment construction activities was specifically scheduled to occur outside of the sea turtle nesting season, the West Indian manatee summer occurrence in North Carolina, the piping plover (and other shorebirds) migratory and breeding seasons, and the seabeach amaranth flowering period. Also, sand placement and dredge operation conducted outside of primary invertebrate production and recruitment periods (spring and fall) limit impacts to amphipods, polychaetes, crabs and clams. Dredge Type A hydraulic cutterhead is proposed for dredging the proposed borrow area within Shallotte Inlet. A cutterhead dredge uses a rotating cutter assembly at the end of a ladder arm to excavate bottom material, which is then drawn into the suction arm and pumped to the shoreline. On the beach, pipelines will transport the sediment to the designated beach fill area. Bulldozers will be used to construct seaward shore parallel dikes to contain the material on the beach, and to shape the beach to the appropriate construction cross- section template. During construction, the contractor will utilize surveying techniques for compliance with the designed berm width, height, and slope. Compared to similar types of dredging methodologies, a cutterhead dredge creates minimal disturbance to the seafloor resulting in lower sedimentation and turbidity levels. Anchor Environmental (2003) conducted a literature review of suspended sediments from dredging activities, and concluded that the use of a hydraulic dredge (i.e., cutter suction) limits the possibilities for re -suspension of sediment to the point of extraction. Also, since the sediment is suctioned into the dredge head, the sediment cannot directly enter into the middle or upper water column. Dredge Positioning DREDGEPAK® or similar navigation and positioning software will be used by the contractor to accurately track the dredge location. The software will provide real-time dredge positioning and digging functions to allow color display of dredge shape, physical SAW-2016-01642 OIB 30yr Management Plan feature data as found in background Computer Aided Design (CAD) charts and color contour matrix files from hydrographic data collection software described above on a Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) display. The software shall also provide a display of theoretical volume quantities removed during actual dredging operations. Dredge anchors shall not be placed any further than 200 feet from the edge of the areas to be dredged. The dredge contractor will be required to verify the location of the anchors with real time positioning each and every time the anchors are relocated. Pipeline Positioning On the beach, pipelines will transport the sediment to the designated beach placement area. The pipeline alignment will be placed to avoid sea turtle nests. The alignment will be coordinated with, and approved by, the Corps. As -built positions of the pipeline will be recorded using OPS technology and included in the final construction observation report. Construction Observations Several initiatives will be undertaken by the Town of Ocean Isle Beach, the Engineer, or a duly authorized representative to monitor construction practices. Construction observation will be periodically performed during periods of active construction. Most observations will be during daylight hours; however, random nighttime observations may be conducted. The Town of Ocean Isle Beach, the Engineer, or a duly authorized representative will provide onsite observation by an individual with training or experience in beach nourishment and construction observation and testing, and that is knowledgeable of the project design and permit conditions. The project manager will coordinate with the field observer. Multiple daily observations of the pump -out location will be made by the Town of Ocean Isle Beach, the Engineer, or his duly authorized representative for QA/QC of the material being placed on the beach. If incompatible material is placed on the beach, the Corps and appropriate resource agencies will be contacted immediately to determine appropriate actions. Sediment Compatibility Many environmental resources can be strongly influenced by the compaction and compatibility of material used for nourishment with a natural beach. Compaction of fill could impact the ability of sea turtles to dig and nest along the nourished beach, resulting in an increase in false crawls. Also, macroinfauna, indicative of a healthy benthic community, depend upon variable particle sizes and available interstitial pore space in the substrate for aeration properties. Compaction of the fill material could impact resident macroinfaunal populations thereby affecting the migratory and resident shorebirds, waterbirds, as well as the commercially and recreationally important fish that depend upon them. Section (3) (a) of rule 15A NCAC 07H.0312 states that sediment completely confined to the permitted dredge depth of a maintained sediment deposition basin within an inlet shoal system is considered compatible if the average percentage by weight of fine-grained (less than 0.0625 millimeters) sediment is less than 10%. Details of sediment composition of the recipient beach and fill material are provided in section 3 .4 of this document. As a result of sediment compliance efforts, compaction of fill material on the beach is less likely to occur due to the lower silt content or hardening of the beach SAW-2016-01642 OIB 30yr Management Plan Page 7 due to high shell and/or carbonates. The Town of Ocean Isle Beach, the Engineer, or their duly authorized representative, will collect a representative sub -surface (6 in below grade) grab sediment sample from each 100-ft long (along the shoreline) section of the constructed beach to visually assess grain size, wet Munsell color, granular, gravel, and silt content. Each sample will be archived with the date, time, and location of the sample. Samples will be collected during beach observations. The sample will be visually compared to the acceptable sand criteria. If determined necessary by the Engineer, or his duly authorized representative, quantitative assessments of the sand will be conducted for grain size, wet Munsell color, and content of gravel, granular and silt. A record of these sand evaluations will be provided within the Engineer's daily inspection reports. Escarpments Visual surveys of escarpments will be made along the beach fill area immediately after completion of construction. Escarpments in the newly placed beach fill that exceed 18 inches for a distance greater than 100 ft. shall be graded to match adjacent grades on the beach. Removal of any escarpments during the sea turtle hatching season (May 1 through November 15) shall be coordinated with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), USFWS and the Corps. The likelihood of escarpment formation can be reduced by incorporating a beach design that closely resembles the native beach in terms of berm elevation, sediment size, and sediment sorting characteristics. The proposed project will be designed with a berm elevation of +6 ft. NA VD88, and sediment characteristics that fall within the ranges required by the North Carolina State Sediment Criteria. Water Quality The inlet, nearshore and offshore water columns are classified as SA and High Quality Water (HQW) under the North Carolina state water quality standards. This classification requires that work within the water column shall not cause turbidity levels to exceed 25 NTU or background (ambient) conditions that are above 25 NTU. Dredge and fill operations are expected to temporarily elevate turbidity levels in the water column at the borrow area and fill sites. Higher turbidity levels are likely to be found in the discharge zone (nearshore swash zone) during periods of active construction. The use of a cutterhead suction dredge will minimize the area of disturbance since this type of dredge involves suction for the extraction of sediment. Turbidity monitoring during construction will be managed by the contractor, and will adhere to those conditions set forth in the 401 Water Quality Certification Approval. The contractor will be responsible for notifying the construction engineer in the event that turbidity levels exceed the State water quality standards. Pipeline Observations . In order to minimize adverse impact on wintering piping plover, the pipeline alignment will be designed to avoid potential piping plover wintering habitat. The alignment will be coordinated with, and approved by the Corps. As -built positions of the pipeline will be recorded using GPS technology and included in the final construction observation report. hi order to avoid adverse impacts associated with the transport of fill material to the disposal sites, the Town of Ocean Isle Beach will negotiate with the dredging contractor SAW-2016-01642 01B 30yr Management Plan JUM to monitor and assess the pipeline during construction. This will serve to avoid leaking of sediment material from the pipeline couplings, other equipment, or other pipeline leaks that may result in sediment plumes, siltation and/or elevated turbidity levels. The Town of Ocean Isle Beach, along with their Engineer, will coordinate with the dredgers and have in place a mechanism to cease dredge and fill activities in the event that a substantial leak is detected (leaks resulting in turbidity that exceed state water quality standards or sedimentation). Operations may resume upon appropriate repair of affected couplings or other equipment. Aerial Photograph Cartographic aerial photography will include the acquisition of ortho-rectified color digital imagery of the mapping area within the Tubbs Inlet complex. Resolution of the imagery will be sufficient to accurately delineate and map habitats and features of environmental significance within the survey area. The aerial platform from which the imagery is acquired will have an onboard GPS that will provide an accurate basis for product correction. NMFS will be consulted regarding the performance specifications on the imagery prior to finalizing the plan by the Town of Ocean Isle Beach and authorizing a contract. In compliance with State and Federal agency requests, digital image acquisition will be scheduled, to the greatest extent possible, to coincide with good weather conditions and an ebb tide that may provide for increased accuracy of habitat interpretation. Considering the weather dependent nature of this activity, every effort will be made to accomplish this task under optimum conditions. Aerial imagery will be collected in accordance with NOAA's Coastal Services Center 2001 Guidance for Benthic Habitat Mapping -An Aerial Photographic Approach (U.S. NOAA Coastal Services Center, 2001). Aerial photographs include the acquisition of ortho- rectified color digital imagery of the mapping area. Resolution of the acquired imagery will be sufficient (<0.6 in [2 ftl) to accurately delineate and map habitats and features of environmental significance within the survey area. An emphasis will be placed on those marine and estuarine habitats located immediately within and adjacent to the mapping area. The aerial platform from which the imagery is acquired will include an onboard Global Positioning System (GPS) that will provide an accurate basis for product correction. Visual interpretations of biotic community types will be digitally mapped using Are View 9.3 software over high -resolution georeferenced digital multispectral aerial photographs as part of the initial pre -constriction assessment of biotic communities. The methods employed for interpretation of aerial photography will include visual analysis of color variations in the photographs to delineate habitats (dark areas = submerged land; white areas = sediment exposed above high tide line), Resolution of this imagery (< 2 feet) will allow for adequate delineation of the habitats and features within the Action Area. Following the development of the preliminary biotic community mapping within the action area via visual interpretation, field investigations will be conducted to groundtruth the initial delineations. Sites selected for ground-truthing will be determined by identifying any areas that were difficult to classify from the aerial photography. These locations will be visited and the biotic community type (as identified through aerial photographic interpretation) will then be verified. Based on the results of the field investigations, the preliminary habitat map will be revised as necessary and acreages were determined. SAW-2016-01642 0113 30yr Management Plan Page 9 Reporting The final product from the post -construction assessment will include a report describing the biotic community map derived from the methods explained above. This report will summarize the acreage of each habitat identified and will compare the acreages to previous investigations (pre -construction and any post construction efforts that may have occurred). Results of these mapping efforts will be incorporated into the Global Information Systems (GIS) database developed for the project. Acreages of each habitat type present within the action area will be provided in a report to the CORPS Wilmington District. Species Monitoring and Impact Minimization: West Indian Manatee, Humpback and North Atlantic Right Whales Monitoring During construction or dredging activities, the contractor will adhere to the "Guidelines for Avoiding Impacts to the West Indian Manatee" created by the USFWS. In the event a whale or manatee is spotted, the ship's captain will make proper maneuvers to avoid collisions or injury to the marine mammals. Vessel operators will abide by the 10 kt (18.`- km/h) speed restrictions in any Dynamic Management Areas (DMAs) that may be established while underway. Operators will abide by NMFS Southeast Region marine mammal viewing guidelines and maintain 50 yds from sea turtles and dolphins and 100 yds from whales. Vessel operators will also follow the restricted vessel approach of 500 yds established for North Atlantic right whales. Sea Turtle Monitoring Several aspects of the project will reduce the likelihood of adverse impacts to sea turtles, should any occur within the action area during construction. Dredging of Shallotte Inlet and nourishment of the oceanfront shoreline is scheduled to occur between November 16 and April 30, which will avoid times of peak sea turtle activity that occurs during the warmer months. A cutterhead dredge will be used to obtain material from the inlet, which substantially reduces the risk of entrainment of sea turtles usually associated with hopper dredging. Additionally, only beach quality sand that is comparable to the existing material at Ocean Isle Beach will be placed, which will minimize adverse impacts to future nesting females and hatchlings. The Ocean Isle Beach Sea Turtle Patrol has been actively monitoring sea turtle nests on their beach since 1984. Currently, the Ocean Isle Beach Sea Turtle Protection Organization provides monitoring along the island. This monitoring is anticipated to continue for the foreseeable future. Bird Monitoring The North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission and partners have performed breeding surveys for colonial nesting waterbirds within proximity to the Permit Area on a regular basis since 1977. Specifically, surveys have been conducted along the eastern and western portion of the island in proximity to Tubbs Inlet and Shallotte Inlet. Surveys for breeding piping plovers have been conducted since 1989 at the same locations. Surveys for non -breeding piping plovers have been conducted in more recent years. These surveys include data from breeding and nonbreeding seasons for several listed bird species as SAW-2016-01642 OIB 30yr Management Plan Page 10 well as other shorebirds and waterbirds. This monitoring is expected to continue for the foreseeable future. Compensatory Mitigation: No compensatory mitigation is proposed by the applicant due to the impacts being to open beach environment and no special aquatic sites being permanently lost due to fill or dredge impacts. Essential Fish Habitat: Pursuant to the Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, this Public Notice initiates the Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) consultation requirements. The Corps' initial determination is that the proposed project may affect, likely not adversely affect EFH or associated fisheries managed by the South Atlantic or Mid Atlantic Fishery Management Councils or the National Marine Fisheries Service. Cultural Resources: Pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Appendix C of 33 CFR Part 325, and the 2005 Revised Interim Guidance for Implementing Appendix C, the District Engineer consulted district files and records and the latest published version of the National Register of Historic Places and initially determines that no historic properties, nor properties eligible for inclusion in the National Register, are present within the Corps' permit area; therefore, there will be no historic properties affected. The Corps subsequently requests concurrence from the SHPO. The District Engineer's final eligibility and effect determination will be based upon coordination with the SHPO with frill consideration given to the proposed undertaking's potential direct and indirect effects on historic properties within the Corps-indentified permit area. Endangered Species: Pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, the Corps reviewed the project area, examined all information provided by the applicant and consulted the latest North Carolina Natural Heritage Database. Based on an evaluation of the proj ect's design and location, and additional information (including biological evaluations, environmental reports, or other studies), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) has determined that this project may affect one or more federally protected species, and potentially modify their designated critical habitat. The Corps will make'a final determination on the effects of the proposed project upon completion of any necessary biological assessment and/or SAW-2016-01642 OIB 30yr Management Plan Page 11 consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or National. Marine Fisheries Service. Other Required Authorizations: The Corps forwards this notice and all applicable application materials to the appropriate State agencies for review. North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) The Corps will generally not make a final permit decision until the NCDWR issues, denies, or waives the state Certification as required by Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (PL 92-500). The receipt of the application and this public notice, combined with the appropriate application fee, at the NCDWR Central Office in Raleigh constitutes initial receipt of an application for a 401 Certification. A waiver will be deemed to occur if the NCDWR fails to act on this request for certification within sixty days of receipt of a complete application. Additional information regarding the 401 Certification may be reviewed at the NCDWR Central Office, 401 and Buffer Permitting Unit, 512 North Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-2260. All persons desiring to make comments regarding the application for a 401 Certification should do so in writing to: NCDWR Central Office Attention: Ms. Karen Higgins, 401 and Buffer Permitting Unit (LISPS mailing address): 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 Or to, (physical address): 512 North Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604 North Carolina Division of Coastal Management (NCDCM The application did not include a certification that the proposed work complies with and would be conducted in a manner that is consistent with the approved North Carolina Coastal Zone Management Program. Pursuant to 33 CFR 325.2 (b)(2) the Corps cannot issue a Department of Army (DA) permit for the proposed work until the applicant submits such a certification to the Corps and the NCDCM, and the NCDCM notifies the Corps that it concurs with the applicant's consistency certification. As the application did not include the consistency certification, the Corps Requests, during this Public Notice, concurrence or objection from the NCDCM. Evaluation: The decision whether to issue a permit will be based on an evaluation of the probable impacts, including cumulative impacts, of the proposed activity on the public interest. That decision will reflect the national concern for both protection and utilization of SAW-2016-01642 0113 30yr Management Plan Page 12 important resources. The benefit which reasonably may be expected to accrue from the proposal must be balanced against its reasonably foreseeable detriments. All factors which may be relevant to the proposal will be considered including the cumulative effects thereof, among those are conservation, economics, aesthetics, general environmental concerns, wetlands, historic properties, fish and wildlife values, flood hazards, flood plain values (in accordance with Executive Order 11988), land use, navigation, shoreline erosion and accretion, recreation, water supply and conservation, water quality, energy needs, safety, food and fiber production, mineral needs, considerations of property ownership, and, in general, the needs and welfare of the people. For activities involving the discharge of dredged or fill materials in waters of the United States, the evaluation of the impact of the activity on the public interest will include application of the Environmental Protection Agency's 404(b)(1) guidelines. Commenting Information: The Corps of Engineers is soliciting comments from the public; Federal, State and local agencies and officials, including any consolidated State Viewpoint or written position of the Governor; Indian Tribes and other interested parties in order to consider and evaluate the impacts of this proposed activity. Any comments received will be considered by the Corps of Engineers to determine whether to issue, modify, condition or deny a permit for this proposal. To make this decision, comments are used to assess impacts on endangered species, historic properties, water quality, general environmental effects and the other public interest factors listed above. Comments are used in the preparation of an Environmental Assessment (EA) and/or an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Comments are also used to determine the need for a public hearing and to determine the overall public interest of the proposed activity. Any person may request, in writing, within the comment period specified in this notice, that a public hearing be held to consider the application. Requests for public hearings shall state, with particularity, the reasons for holding a public hearing. Requests for a public hearing shall be granted, unless the District Engineer determines that the issues raised are insubstantial or there is otherwise no valid interest to be served by a hearing. The Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District will receive written comments pertinent to the proposed work, as outlined above, until 5pm, 12 October, 2016. Comments should be submitted to Mr. Tyler Crumbley, Wilmington Regulatory Field Office, 69 Darlington Avenue, Wilmington, North Carolina 28403 , or at tyler.crumbley@usace.anny.mil. SAW-2016-01642 01B 30yr Management Plan Page 13 OCEAN ISLE BEACH, NORTH CAROLINA 30 YEAR PLAN a9 ' c = BRUNSWICK COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA NORTH CAROLINA -- SHEETINDEX_ 1 COVER SHEET SHALLO 4, . 2 PROJECT OVERVIEW 3-12 PLACEMENT AREA PLAN VIEWS i o INLET':: 13 PLACEMENT AREA CROSS SECTIONS IL o a OCEAN ISLE BEACH 14 BORROW AREA PLAN VIEW 15-16 BORROW AREA CROSS SECTIONS D-D', E-F & F-F sL $g$ S= / E - ! GENERAL NOTES:° SF RF R 1 M1'E7 1. COORDINATES ARE IN FEET BASED ON NORTH CAROLINA STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM, NORTH AMERICAN .4V _ DATUM 1983, PROJECT LOCAT RE REFERENCED AN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988 (NAVD88). 2. ELEVATIONS ARE REFERENCED TO NORTH 10, 20 3. DATE OF AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY: OCTOBER 2010. 'i 4. SURVEY DATA COLLECTED BY MCKIM AND CREED, INC. DUNE AND OLTOBER 2013. RE LEGEND Q� STA. 180+00 BASELINE STATION CRAP,:' SCA_E N FT EROSION CONTROL LINE { MEAN HIGH WATER LINE a PROJECT BASELINE FILL PLACEMENT AREAS • �� k RALEICH* P � 0. CHARLOTTE �+ pPSI'C'P' CAPE HATIERAS C JACK50NVILLE• OREHEAD CITY CAPE LOOKOUT E CAPE FEAR N.T.S. PROJECT SITE ATLANTIC OCEAN o 5� �R $ 5 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION FOR REGULATORY REVIEW ONLY E _ i t ,ram_ S gx t�µ a � �'A� \ ip:r F� _<O „� .-mow M — � •� � l -. -ly L -- -- ag 0. Aiw _ - -- 10 io j 14 Ln 10 W V) UI W Z Z LANDWARD LIMIT _ _ — — — — — — — — — — = s + + OF FILL — / U �+ a--- -------- - - -- -- '4 LANDWARD DUNE CREST MHLANDWARD BERM CREST -6 / W (1.79' NAVD88) (6.0' NAVD88) / (12.NAVD88) s SEAWARD 6 ORM CREST ) SEAWARD DUNE CREST MLW (-2.94 NAVD88) -a (12.5' NAVD88) -10 S w ll �R G•y,,. . .16 .wxcro. 0 00 200 w SCALE .-. ,._. .5. I PV-2 —_1t0 r {N LLJ _ — — — — Z _ _ J tANDWAR9 LIMIT —--_--..— --.— -� i OF FILL LANDWARD BERM CREST .q Q I MMW (1.79' NAVD88) (6.0' NAV088) LANDWARD DUNE CREST (12.5' NAVD88) SEAWARD BERM CREST / MLW (-2.94' NAVD88) (6.0' NAVD88) s SEAWARD DUNE CREST ((12S' NAVDRR) d0 A72ANTTC OCEAN �R S PV-3 TJ 3 • 7 a, 62 D • _ . . `F GGG 55 - � i • L ' . :..� ray`-.� ���'Lf � 9 � .V o 12 io.,. _ — 12 F— 10 w W U1 0 ------ _ _ - — _ — _. _.. U) w Z _ 0 / _. _ W Z J I G 4 _ _ _ LRNDWARO FILL — — -2 — — — LANBWRROBERMTREST — — — — AND UM1T OF FILL (6.0' NAVD88) J C) Q r e a 1 6 N4asoo e I LANDWARD DUNE CREST --J MHW(1.79'NAVD88) J SEAWARD BERM CREST -- �.. !a!^ (12.5' NAVD88) .e (6.0' NAVD88) MLW (-2.94' NAVD88) -B SEAWARD DUNE CREST (12.5' NAVD88) "e -10 10 � -- - ATLANTIC OCEAN 12 a� s - -14 -14 yYR 46 6 WR fQf a P ,a — — — — — — LANDWARD LrM1T OF FILL LANDWARD DUNE CREST (12.5' NAVD88) SEAWARD DUNE CREST (12.5' NAVD88) .. - PRt38EET O N O + I � MLW (-L.tlq- NAVUOU) J AT ANRC OCEAN la W W 2 !n W Z J U H Q E 8 MAP wiz:.. .Ds. �_ ':i4�'•,;3�' ,.i e t .Ai�War— i0 6 _ LANDWARD LIMIT .a OF FILL LANDWARD BERM CREST J -6 (6.0' NAVD88) a MHW (1.79' NAVD88) e LANDWARD DUNE CREST — (12.5' NAVD88) SEAWARD BERM CREST SEAWARD DUNE CREST MLW (-2.94' NAVD88) (6.0' NAVD88) (12.5' NAVD88) s ATfANTIC OCEAN' �PV-6 W PR�OyJECyi A� 0 F1LL -- — — —— -- — -—---%-- — — — —— --———— — — — — —— -- LANDWARD DUNE CREST (12.5' NAVD88) LANDWARD BERM CREST (6.0' NAVD88) / �,.79' NAVD88) � -s SEAWARD DUNE CREST (12.5' NAVD88) (-2.94' NAVDBB) - SEAWARD BERM CREST .a — (6.0' NAVD88) e �0 9 12 I �R is I ATLANTIC PV-7 � M.-val ro,, 0p - T PROJECT : e T V{ r Di.T'.�7 ,'.+S-cat. :. y,, \-�/ BASELINE 7.,,t��r�M.. 7YY:`°@ Q ••9 "D i1'', •f -�Ei-—. +"; ) itrtiys.�s-.. 'vim - - i 4' 44 Lll LANDWARD LIMIT J / _—— — ---BF FILL— _ LANDWARD DUNE CREST (12.5' NAVD88) SEAWARD DUNE CREST (12.5' NAVD88) �— — — — — — — — — — -- , -6 1 .g _6 MHW (1.79' NAVD88) MLW (-2.94' NAVD88) LANDWARD BERM CREST (6.0' NAVD88) SEAWARD BERM CREST (6.0' NAVD88) -12 .14 - — — U B I gF0F �% aN PV-8 I BRSEE� j PROJ e sy q (p LINE y t , t f4j�4��'� awf 4 ( r _ _ - - - - _ Lo LANDWARD LIMIT LANDWARD BERM CREST J MHW (1.79' NAVD88) OF FILL l� Q Ns3ooa (6.0' NAVD88) - E SEAWARD BERM CREST "a LANDWARD DUNE CREST (6.0' NAVD88) MLW (-2.94' NAVD88) (12.5' NAVD88) -12 ATLANTIC OCEAN -18 SEAWARD DUNE CREST ' (12.5' NAVDE8) - -14 Elm ON&L .4 N •-I MATCH LINE SHEET 11 z N f I O m m 3 _m i d, d I 00+b y A � � d ro 00+5- b1S o-o- m QkOt. S t 1 \ t dy9 1 Off' O r• 'r CouTw� Puxxxx: & Exa�xeauxq Ixc � � OF Nart� C�n14u� IM. � tlAMI.WMORDtOTIq. r as STATION 250+00 STATION 95+00 J d 3 20 ............. ........... ............ 20 w 20--........................ ... ... ....... 20 EL'. 12.5'. o :��\. � � EL: 12.5' : / \ EL. 6.0' s u 10 15 : \ 0 0 .... ... ... ..1. .... 0 o p .......... ..... .�,\11: .. 0 ca w-10 ...... ..... .......................... -10 w -10 ............... ........... ice... -ioz 180 210 3 D 40 5 0 80 7 0 8 0 9 0 1000 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 D 6 0 6 0 AG 8 0 9 0 1000 DISTANCE ALONG PROFILE (FEET) DISTANCE ALONG PROFILE (FEET) i o is STATION STATION 200+00 STATION 45+00 $; w 20 ...:...:.... ...:... :. ..:... :...: ...:... 20 w 20--- .......:. ...... ... .......... .... 20. w w EL. 12.5' 10 — --�/ \. .:... ... .. 10 10 __._._._.\ ...... EL. 6.0'.... ... ... 10 � 15 p p ......... ......: 0 0 0 ..... : .�� 15. ..:....... .... . . 0 w-70..................................... .10 w -10 ... ................. .......� AD l r 180 20 30 4 D 50 60 70 B 0 90 lobo -1 0 6 160 20 30 40 50 fi b 70 8 D 90 lobo r r =8 DISTANCE ALONG PROFILE (FEET) DISTANCE ALONG PROFILE (FEET) lfi fit �y FIT STATION 150+00 STATION 25+00 a w w > 10z to —..... ......... 1010 E6.0' 3 ....... .15 ....... z .. �.... \ \ :..:... �.......... p p .`�; 1. 0 0 0 SS : D S .......:...............:...... -- .................... .:. ...., gS w-10 � � � -10 w -10 � �� � � -10 J -1 0 8 AD 2 0 AD 4� 0 6 D 6 0 7 0 8 0 9 0 1000 -1 0 l 0 AD 3 0 4 0 80 AD 760 800 900 1600 J _ J DISTANCE ALONG PROFILE (FEET) DISTANCE ALONG PROFILE (FEET) XS-1 Y u NAVD88 \Q n e + L �x /+/ a m' f .m LJ x ®] m J xa '� 1 ;• •� f e ♦ r�i � T• ywl�' R• �k;a r" 1 ••i ,. l S x.p J ` �� p � � ns 1 q f: a;l lx I • fr' f 1 I i t i + '` / � a t x . a I '" � '• (r li lkY t j t r Tki rrtV r F a, `I�f 5 ,i°� iT ' '• a� se ✓.� n , 1 a r jf� 5k t a �.'. , ,IV Ilk U t ul ) Oe � q 20 ru 0 -20 z 0 -40 -68" L -200 0 200 400 9 a Z SECTION D-D' - E' USAGE A U < Z a LU M�NG .......................... - - - - - - --- - - 7 ............................ ...................... u MAXIMUM AD EL. 0 L < -17.97' NAVD88 (-15' MLW) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BORROW AREA LIMITS u . ................................ ............ ............. .................................... ........ ......... 2 600 860 l000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 DISTANCE ALONG SECTION (FEET) F-F' SECTION D-D' sus 2 GRADE DISTANCE ALONG SECTION (FEET) 0 20 qu z 0 r 50 0 00 6 z 0 SECTION E-E' D-D 40 40 20-- LL .. .. ... ... ...... ............. 20 O 0 . a USAGEAUGUST 2013 .. . ........ .. ........ . .... 'EXIS NGGUO . ......... 0 0 —20- :..3 .... ......... 3 ... —4U MAXIMUM AD EL —17.97' NAVD88 w 40 .. ....... .. ....... (-is- MLW) BORROW A -40 LIMITS -60- -60 DISTANCE ALONG SECTION (FEET) SECTION F-F' D-D' 20- 20 U�U AUGUST 2013 A.D. ............ - ....... -------- ........................................ 7.—...—.— -------- .—..E—jU—M—N.G..U...E........................ —----- .. 0 II -20- - - L .... ...... .. .... . . ............ .. .... . ..... 3 . ........ -20 BORJROW ARE -40 -- .. . ... .......... .......... . ....... LIMITS .................. \�L. ....... ............. ....................... -40 MAXIMUM AD EL. I --17.97 NAVD88 (-15' MLW) -60 1 i I i I 1 1 -60 -200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 DISTANCE ALONG SECTION (FEET) g g I XS-2 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS 69 DARLINGTON AVENUE WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343 REPLYM A'TEZMONOF: September 27, 2016 Wilmington Regulatory Field Office SAW-2016-01642 Dr. Pace Wilber Supervisory Fishery Biologist Habitat Conservation Division Atlantic Branch NOAA Fisheries Service 219 Fort Johnson Road Charleston, South Carolina 29412 Dear Dr. Wilber: Reference is made to a Department of the Army permit application, submitted by ThAwrn of Ocean Isle Beach, North Carolina, in order to continue beach nourishment along 27,650 linear feet of the oceanfront shoreline of Ocean Isle Beach. The project is located in waters of the United States, in Section 404 and Section 10 waters, Township of Ocean Isle Beach, Brunswick County, North Carolina. The proposed project has been assigned Action ID #SAW-2016-01642. This notice initiates the Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) consultation requirements of the Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 USC 1855(b)(2). The Corps' initial determination is that the proposed project may have minor adverse impacts EFH or associated fisheries managed by the South Atlantic or Mid -Atlantic Fishery Management Councils or the National Marine Fisheries Service. This determination is being made based on the project's description, and the location of the project. The Corps anticipates that the effects of the project on EFH and Federally managed fisheries would be minor and due largely to the temporary suspension of sediments in the water column at the construction site of the excavation and nourishment sites. The project would adhere to construction windows for most species as well as abide by water quality monitoring and conditions required by the State of North Carolina. Section 10 of the EFH Assessment; (Ocean Isle Beach 30-Year Beach Management Plan;'September, 2016) describes the conservation measures proposed to ensure that the adverse impacts to EFH are minor. The EFH assessment is provided to facilitate your review and determination of the project's effects on EFH and Federally managed fisheries. The project public notice can be accessed at: hqR://www saw usace army mil/Missions/Re ugulg!Q PermitProgram/PublieNotices aspx. RECEIVED SEP 3 0 2016 DCM- MHD CITY In accordance with the Act, the Corps requests your Agency's final determination of the effects of this project on EFH and Federally -managed fisheries, and asks that you provide any further conservation measures that would serve to mitigate for these impacts. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Mr. Tyler Crumbley at the letterhead address, by telephone at 910-251-4170, by fax at 910-251-4025, or by email at: Tyler.Crumbiey(a.usace.army.mil. Sincerely,] _ �p Scott CA on Chief, Regulatory Division Enclosures: Essential Fish Habitat Assessment; Ocean Isle Beach 30-Year Beach Management Plan (September, 2016) Copies Furnished (without enclosures): Dr. Ken Riley U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Habitat Conservation Division Atlantic Branch 101 Pivers Island Road Beaufort, North Carolina 28516-9722 Mr. Pete Benjamin U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office Post Office Box 33726 Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726 Mr. Doug Huggett Division of Coastal Management North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality 400 Commerce Avenue Morehead City, North Carolina 28557-3421 Ms. Debra Wilson Division of Coastal Management North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality 127 Cardinal Drive Extension Wilmington, North Carolina 28405-3845 2 Mr. Greg Bodnar NC Division of Marine Fisheries Southern Coastal 5285 Highway 70 West Morehead City, North Carolina 28557 RECEIVED SEP 3 0 2016 DCM- MHD CITY U I DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY Wilmington District Corps of Engineers Regulatory Division 69 Darlington Avenue Wilmington, North Carolina 28403-1343 REPLY TO ATTENTION OF September 27, 2016 Wilmington Regulatory Field Office SAW-2016-01642 Pete Benjamin, Field Supervisor Attn: Ms. Kathryn Mathews, Fish and Wildlife Biologist Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Post Office Box 33726 Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726 Roy E. Crabtree, Ph.D., Administrator Protected Resources Division Southeast Regional Office National Marine Fisheries Service 263 131 Avenue South St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Dear Mr. Benjamin and Dr. Crabtree: Reference is made to a Department of the Army permit application, submitted bye The Town of Wean ea lAch, to obtain authorization in order to continue beach nourishment along 27,650 linear feet of the oceanfront shoreline of Ocean Isle Beach. The project is located along the ocean front of Ocean Isle Beach for disposal and borrow from Shallotte Inlet, all in waters of the United States, (Section 404 and Section 10 waters), in the Township of Ocean Isle Beach, Brunswick County, North Carolina. The proposed project has been assigned Action ID #SAW-2016-01642. Based on an evaluation of the project's design and location, and additional information (including biological evaluations, environmental reports, or other studies), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) has determined that this project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the following species protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and would not adversely modify their designated critical habitat: Common Name Latin Name Listing Critical Habitat Responsible (CH) Designated Agency in North Carolina Right whale Eubalaena Endangered Yes NMFS glacialis (No adverse modification Humpback whale Megaptera Endangered No NMFS navaean liae Finback Whale Balaenoptera Endangered No NMFS h salus Sei Whale Balaenoptera Endangered No NMFS borealis ED SEP 3 0 2016 DCM- MHD CITY -2- S erm Whale Ph seter catodon Endangered No NMFS West Indian Trichechus Endangered No FWS manatee manatus Atlantic sturgeon Acipenser Endangered No NMFS DPS-South oxyrinchus Atlantic Shortnose sturgeon Acipenser Endangered No NMFS brevirostrum Seabeach Amaranthus Threatened No FWS amaranth pumilis Green sea turtle Chelonia mydas Endangered No NMFS- marine/FWS- nesting Loggerhead sea Caretta caretta Threatened Yes NMFS- turtle (No adverse marine/FWS- modification) nesting Hawksbill sea Eretmochelys Endangered No NMFS- turtle imbricata marine/FWS- nesting Kemp's Ridley sea Lepidochelys Endangered No NMFS- turtle kempi marine/FWS- nestin Leatherback sea Dermochelys Endangered No NMFS- turtle coriacea marine/FWS- nesting This may affect, not likely to adversely affect/no adverse modification to species and their designated critical habitat determination is based on the applicant's proposed construction methods, conservation measures, adherence to construction moratoria and specific guidelines. The Corps requests your concurrence on the project's effects on the above listed species pursuant to Section 7 of the ESA of 1973, as amended. ((�'�,�`. Also, based on an evaluation of the project's design and location, and additional informat��anZ7udinVg L�16 biological evaluations, environmental reports, or other studies), the Corps has determined that this may affect, and is likely to adversely affect the following bird species protected under ESA andFray \J adversely modify their designated critical habitat: MN� G Common Name Latin Name Listing Critical Habitat Respo e (CH) Designated Agency in North Carolina Piping plover Charadrius Threatened Yes FWS melodus Rufa Red knot CaUdris canutus Proposed- No FWS ru a Threatened -3- Piping plover Charadrius Threatened Yes FWS melodus Rufa Red knot Calidris canutus Proposed- No FWS ru a Threatened This may affect, likely to adversely affect determination for Piping plover and Red Knot considers the spatial and temporal loss of resting, nesting, and foraging habitat and impacts to food sources and critical habitat in the area. By copy of this letter, we request the initiation of formal consultation, pursuant to 50 CFR §402.14; and additionally request your concurrence, pursuant to 50 CFR §402.12, on the findings made in the BA. Your expeditious review and preparation of the attached Biological Opinion (BO) is appreciated. The Corps request opportunity to review the draft BO terms and conditions prior to finalization. Last, the Corps has determined that the project would have no effect on any other federally listed threatened or endangered species, and/or modify their designated critical habitat. If you have any questions regarding this letter, .please contact Mr. Tyler Crumbley at the letterhead address, by telephone at 910-2514170 by fax at 9.1.0:01-4025, or by email at: iyler.crumbley@usace.gmy.mil. Sincerely, .'.ro�, [ Y Scott C. endon Chief, Regulatory Division Enclosures: Project drawings Biological Assessment NMFS Checklist EFH/PNA assessment Copies Furnished (without enclosures): Ms. Karen Higgins Division of Water Resources North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality 1650 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650 Dr. Ken Riley National Marine Fisheries Service Habitat Conservation Service Pivers Island . Beaufort, North Carolina 28516 DECEIVED SEP 3 0 2016 DCM- MHD CITY 13 Dr. Pace Wilber National Marine Fisheries Service Habitat Conservation Division 219 Fort Johnson Road Charleston, South Carolina 29412-9110 Mr. Chad Coburn Division of Water Resources North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality 127 Cardinal Drive Extension Wilmington, North Carolina 28405 Mr. Doug Huggett Division of Coastal Management North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality 400 Commerce Avenue Morehead City, North Carolina 28557-3421 Ms. Heather Coats Division of Coastal Management North Carolina Division of Environmental Quality 127 Cardinal Drive Extension Wilmington, North Carolina 28405 Rf-Ge\vSO SY 3 p jp$ c\j D CM' MND � a - OCEAN ISLE BEACH, NORTH CAROLINA NORTH CAROLINA SHALLOTTE INLET OCEAN ISLE BEACH LITTLE RVER INLET PROJECT LOCATION - ATLANTIC OCEAN CHARLOTT= N T S o 75�00 lsooc GRAPHIC SCALE IN FT RALEIGH aNP, N GPO OR. 1 JACKSONVILLE• PROJECT SITE NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION FOR REGULATORY REVIEW ONLY 6 fit' CAPE FEAR r.4CAPE HATTERAS EHEAD CITY LOOKOUT ATLANTIC OCEAN 30 YEAR PLAN 1 BRUNSWICK COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA SHEETINDEX 1 COVER SHEET 2 PROJECT OVERVIEW 3-12 PLACEMENT AREA PLAN VIEWS 13 PLACEMENT AREA CROSS SECTIONS 14 BORROW AREA PLAN VIEW 15-16 BORROW AREA CROSS SECTIONS D-D', E-E' & F-F' GENERAL NOTES: 1. COORDINATES ARE IN FEET BASED ON NORTH CAROLINA STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM, NORTH AMERICAN DATUM 1983, (NAD83). 2. ELEVATIONS ARE REFERENCED TO NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988 (NAVD88). 3. DATE OF AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY: OCTOBER 10, 2010. 4. SURVEY DATA COLLECTED BY McKIM AND CREED, INC. JUNE AND OCTOBER 2013. LEGEND STA. 180+00 BASELINE STATION EROSION CONTROL LINE MEAN HIGH WATER LINE PROJECT BASELINE FILL PLACEMENT AREA Ftr-CEIVE-D J AUG 17 2016 DCM- N"FID C RECEIVED I)CM WILbAINGTCN. NC JUL 2 6 2016 CS-1 1 1 16 ra D Z ti n 0 rn a z o v n > N � j o � rn C 0 rn ZIp 1-s\ rn Z L n p- Co = m O D r no =m z n 0 z z G) m Nz m O Ln �O C) in 0 D r m ➢ OCEAN ISLE BEACH, NORTH CAROLINA Q > JO YEAR PLAN C■ PROJECT OVERVIEW F+ 3 COASTAL PLAwMNG & EmmmEERmG Iwc. OF North Carolina, Inc. 4038 MASONBORO LOOP RD. WILMINGTON, NC 28409 PH. (910)191-9494 w .CBL=n FAX (910I7914129 ,� k • nr' PROJECT N BASELINE b d -A t + c �p 1 D yBs 2 + ell) L ...- - ICD OZ _ {IAZi i !t 14 7 r LL Lu s — _ - — W 112 ADJACENT PROPERTY LANDWARD LIMIT a LANDWARD BERM CRES (6.0 OWNER: USACE OF FILL NAVD88) �r Nqs -4 MHW (1.79' NAVD88) 1 SEAWARD BERM CREST I (6.0' NAVD88) LANDWARD DUNE CREST —J (12.5' NAVD88) MLW (-2.94' NAVD88) SEAWARD DUNE CREST iz (12.5' N AUG 17 2616 � 0 0 100 200 1 oanx+rvc rvo_ GRAPHIC SCALE IN FT PV-1 ry �S^ i, ` � -�•�r `�'► � ,� ^'"'fir � �� �'�� - � _; -:'"�� , � � �#_ � �• ` t 44, PROJECT cn _-1. I BASELINE D CD CD d 3 � 51 + CD1 +o s I s e O .y J 0. O a ON OZ < e t oa Z a ng i ti to ------ to _ 1 M I 14 IA Lu - 1 Lu10 S W I _ — — Lu — — — — — — — — — — - — -- z _ — — - — — — cn z— — — — — —Z — — — — — — — — 0 Lu — / Z t o --— — Z =I— _ LANDWARD LIMIT — — — — — — — — _ I = a U OF FILL U ' $ Q--- ——— — — — — —— a h— _ — 4 LANDWARD BERM CREST -8 (12.5' NAVD88) x° g" 6 LANDWARD DUNE CREST MHW (1.?9' NAVD88) (6.0' NAVD88) I € SEAWARD BERM CREST — a (6.0' NAVD88) < SEAWARD DUNE CREST MLW (2.94' NAVD88) 8 0 (12.5' NAVD88) �z -10 og !, = 3 a w -12 m g o ATLANTIC OCEAN -14 016a z �1I1R w Cal- I 8 O -16 DRNN=NG NO. o o�o I GRAPHIC SCALE IN FT I PV-2 . SHEET � Of 16 D „ N g85poLn Ul� t+ 3 D r Trt -�. ,._ 3 .f 1 C 10 10 I 12 E 12 8 �- W 4 W In W Z F-1 J 7-1 — — — — — — — — — — —-tANDWAR-D UMIT U . OF FILL mo ON k= e 1, `Z,; LANDWARD DUNE CREST (12.5' NAVD88) SEAWARD DUNE CREST / In cl Kl.1 lllnn\ 9 — —1 — — — — — — — — — — — MHW (1.79' NAVD88) MLW (-2.94' NAVD88) PROJECT # er i 1, 10 14 14 _ `14 12 - - LANDWARD BERM CREST (6.0' NAVD88) SEAWARD BERM CREST (6.0' NAVD88) -8 -12 14 -16 ATLANTIC OCEAN -18 4 F- W Lli i I �z / j Ia z m8 d 2 I � I o 0 100 200 I DRAWNG NO. GRAPHIC SCALE PV-3 SHEET 5 OF 16 V, 11 a 47 b *a. vw� ,.,jaiT �y��"' )ii�ii � df •r x 1�3 t� l� •���" y{• _ Y - DY Up pe 12 o ' E ( BASELINE E -- W Ln o L I s i ul q O LL a O / 3 t.. 1O L a f p ,� oo �- - I-- O Z Z 1 9 10 10 ♦ g� V 00 i 17. � 3 10 Au 8 € W w - — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — a Lu V1 NO ��.�� — — — — — — — — — — — — 2— — .� —. — — — v uj J2 — -2 ( I J - _ — ——------L7zN6W#RBLI�AI� — — ——————— — — — --- L�cNBWXCR�BERM CREST s — _ _ — — — —— , U H _4 OF FILL AND LIMIT OF FILL U Q (6.0' NAVD88) Q e3 n IV 485pp MHW (1.79' NAVD88) 4 z LANDWARD DUNE CREST SEAWARD BERM CREST (12.5' NAVD88) -a (6.0' NAVD88) I MLW (-2.94' NAVD88) — $ SEAWARD DUNE CREST --- 6 (12.5' NAVD88) -8 -10 -12a -10 F-< w ATLANTIC OCEAN 2 I < 5 -14 2•- m� a 14 -16 6 � -16 I o 0" i0_�� 0 DRAMNO N0, nh ,b -18 'V 18 GRAPHIC SCALE IN FT PV-4 W SHEET 6 Of ie vi- . rw It r r•yl.t t a 2 t- +► F Y - . ♦ -� PROJECT - (n RVAS E L I# pw ;. , e r +o O + + Aft I-.-a _a > ..� ,.. � - - -.;r�. • �._ -. ( � a -:`,yet tE. -�.a`iAi 7 �>.�'• r • +Y: 1 -. - � .. __�........ .• � �. — Lu W W JI U I LANDWARD LTMrT Q l OF FILL LANDWARD DUNE CREST (12.5' NAVD88) SEAWARD DUNE CREST (12.5' NAVD88) -10 MLW (-2.S4' NAVD88) 12 00 W W 4 W z o I� 12 -2 U ✓� (6.0' NAVD88) _8 ATLANTIC OCEAN , 4: 2 JAUG 17 2616 -14 CITY 16 0 100 200 . GRAPHIC SCALE W Ff AMN •- • ry a= ix dLL e Wa t1 t z ILoo a f o oVo w =o a 0 E? U �3 PV-5 - c 7 4w 1 .0 ;br Loop'lloi T IFIL-a I Ad� T w , i I-M IT--F PROJECT Ail u) &6 BASELINE 11 A IL + to I 14 1.4 12 LLJ Lu 10 m V) Lu — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — /4 o -2 u F-- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — LANDWARD LIMIT u -8 OF FILL LANDWARD DUNE CREST (12.5- NAVD88) SEAWARD DUNE CREST (12.5' NAVD88) — -4- — --t — — — — — — — — V MH8 W (1.79'NAVD88) - M LW (- 2.94' NAVD88) .8 ATLANTIC OCEAN 12 LLI -5QQIn Lu — — — — — — --- — — — 10 LANDWARD BERM CREST (6.0- NAVD88) SEAWARD BERM CREST (6.0' NAVD88) An' 17 ?p,c -12 14 ,16 loo ir z is > m z O F7 PV-6 kir. I I SHEET OF I- VK- I � r _ yy J fi 7�{ l{ �{� r■ "'-A s"a.y � r.F ''1 . ql.J 'o HI w w V7 w N SSG z H t7— — --..— —..— — J 21 U— — — — — — Q MHW (1.79' NAVD88) I MLW (-2.94' NAVD88) 8 SEAWARD DUNE CREST (12.5' NAVD88) -16 14 r PROJECT BASELINE D ' � L i + i� 4 j i -- 10 "- 12 0r CO �, O l o rdr?)' 0 —t — SEAWARD BERM CREST (6.0' NAVD88) ATLANTIC OCEAN y L �m w' V� � k*QM _1 liv 14, sip N O I yt w _ w a = V) 6 w _2 I = — — — — — — — U H 4UG 17 2016 ,,.:r) CITY J I 0 1�00 200 I GRAPHIC SCALE IN FT Q r a• PV-7 I I Lu Ln u LANDWARD LIMIT ef FtLt- LANDWARD DUNE CREST (12.5- NAVD88) -8 lee SEAWARD DUNE CREST (12.5- NAVD88) IL t PROJECT BASELINE N - — —/ — — -- — 422 — — T — — — — -- — — — — — — f - - - - - - - - - - / --- - - - - - - - - - - .4 -8 -6 MHW (1.79'NAVD88) MLW (-2.94'NAVD88) -6 LANDWARD BERM CREST (6.0'NAVD88) SEAWARD BERM CREST (6.0' NAVD88) -14 Lu Lu I Ln - MIRA ti u all SCALE IN Fr 10 OF 16 c: lk r,, r � air a 6 E: �a AL! PROJECT _ J BASELINE + t `� -vr-E I I Y _ Sp 12 4_ � NI iw � �� t cn � �. o* F o 12 O` 6 O N 1-1 — — — a _ 2 — — — _ r-1 F- LU = W z— — — --- — — — -- — — w --------------a -- — — — — _ — — — — — — — — — — -- — — Ln W = I "e -6 I� LANDWARD BERM CREST — LANDWARD LIMIT I = IU- N MHW (1.79' NAVD88) OF FILL F S3000 (6.0' NAVD88) / U l SEAWARD BERM CREST '$ LANDWARD DUNE CREST — (6.0' NAVD88) MLW (-2.94 NAVD88) ( ) SEAWARD DUNE CREST o -12 (12.5' NAVD88) oQ � N i � I 14 y _ I _r! tC ATLANTIC OCEAN o/ 0 - 100 2 MATCH LINE SHEET 11 -00 z µm ry > p D : 1 ^ O 00 O �. �m Dm 00 n < 00 m 3 m Ul GO ti 00+s b_LS I 'L I � I 00+b b 0 a N a rz> z v I \. Go ) 00 I E 2�85soo 00 O3 a I I 0 90 r- m I rn o o zCrLl 00-I-S_ �r l I I ` E' rn G) n D01 i) m t NZ 1 I z m l/) \ I AL I '° J l i -A\ R Z\on V� `v te r\ 1 - y51 r) a � � m \ ° s j \ 00 \ er. JKW x M po OCEAN ISLE BEACH, NOR7H CAROIJNA Kw COASTAL PLANNING RENGINEERING, INC. 30 YEAR PLAN a.., eF Gx OF North Carolina, inc. a.4038 MASONBORO LOOP RDPLAN VIEW 3/7 6 WILMINGTON. NC 28409 PH.(910)791-9494 wet U. FA% 10 7914129 . xot. www.CBlmm (9 ) STATION 250+00 w 20--�:::: 20 w EL.12.5': > 10 _ � `l 10 > z__--- EL. ��: z O 0 . . . . . �.� _�1. pui O w -10-- -10 w 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 DISTANCE ALONG PROFILE (FEET) STATION 200+00 w 20--20 W o EL.12.5' w W 10 10 o z _I \\ EL. Z z O p �\ 15 . . . . . .�`.-11. p z O \ — w w -10 -10 W W w w z z z O a w J W PbZ�' DISTANCE ALONG PROFILE (FEET) STATION 150+00 20 t I + 20 100 0 1 DISTANCE ALONG PROFILE (FEET) 1 10 0 -10 p w W w z z Z 0 a w J W 20 10 0 -10 W2 i[ ME STATION 95+00 i \ . EL. 12.5' . / EL. 6.0' 15 \ —11 i DISTANCE ALONG PROFILE (FEET) STATION 45+00 20 10 D •10 �. 15.... ....... 1 0 1010 200 300 400 500 600 7 9 0 1 DISTANCE ALONG PROFILE (FEET) STATION 25+00 20+ 1 .. I ....... I . . . . . ... ... EL. 6.0' 0 .......... 11: -100 6 180 2VO 3 4tO 5tO 6tO 7tO 8tO 9 1 DISTANCE ALONG PROFILE (FEET) 20 10 D •10 20 RECEIVE® 10 AUG 17 2016 0 u, Z )tm- mw) CIT w0 m� go U -10 _ a u RECEIVED �CA1 WILfANGTCN, NC - - DRNWINC NO XS-1 SNEEt �3 OF t6 196 a D o 0 00 N x V T In A W N xr+ O O V O Ln A W N LD r O O W O CCX ;0 m D N N r N r N r N r N r N r N r N r N r N r N r N r N r N r N OD N r I'ji 1 O GO OD V 0 V GO V Lm OD CO 00 00 OD 00 CD CD GD V OD V CD V GD V OD V GD V ao V OD GO D GD V Y O W A A W 0A LD G COO r LD N Ln 04 V A 4 W W O W O A A ODr W In O W r Ad 007, X O O A r A LD LO V W O V N V A W LD Ln W N V 00 O LD ODW N A LD &I Ln O N T W LD Z G) ~ z D m r n z O In ON DO Ln 0ON Ln In DT Ln 0 Ln Ln VI Ln W FZn pig r to A Ln A to A w m Ln O1 Ln W Ln O1 D 0+ Ln ID In w w O Ln CD Ln W - Tc 01 O CA �I� "O Y-W Yi" w Ln V %D w w OD V V r V A w A N O r V V LD OD —{ = O w Vi 00 �7 W V in N r N V z ' rn IN O F O 2�°8 z sOo W m D n x I OCEAN ISLE BEACH, NORTH CAROLINA <,«a rn<:. D<.�ao.a er Kw cn.rx.e ey AMBI -- PLANNING & ENGIN[FJ[ING, INC. ICOASTAL W > 30 YEAR PLAN D,a.,, xx ea.x.•e ex D i GK GX OF North Carolina, Inc. 9, n BORROW AREA oa. Wu.e ex 4038 MASONBORO LOOP RD. 1--• z p CROSS SECTION D-D° 3/7I16 KW WILMINGTON. NC 2UN PH. (910)797-9494 P rm, 9edR A6 NOTED x•.: 756185 www.LBLeom FAX )910)791 4729 xe. IM, Lu W W 0 z z O J W �v y( a LL SECTION D-D' E E' 20 9 a C - LL¢I : e O c - USACE AUGUST 3 �: EXISTING GRADE Ol I Q W o 0 - -- . �.-.-._.__._ - x�I -Y_ _r _ _ --- -_ ------ ------ ---- ` _ ___�--------_ - - ,, _ _ _ __ W z ---- I z tn -20 ........... :..g._.. .........._... ....._.. ... ...... _ i ...... .: I MAXIMUM AD EL d ° & I _-17.97' NAVD88 (-15' MLW) Q - a 40 .... . L...... .. .._. __..� ...... _...... _...__.. .... _ $ BORROW AREA LIMITS ol m= -60 ....... ..... ........ _L...... .;....... o s 0 �3 80 -200 0 260 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 DISTANCE ALONG SECTION (FEET) F-F' SECTION D-DI cvw Luuu wuU .szuu 34UU .36UU 38UU 4000 DISTANCE ALONG SECTION (FEET) 4200 20 0 I- W W W -20 0 z Z -40 z O RECEIVED AUG 17 2016 DCM- MHD CITY RECEIVED DC4 �AJILF.4iNGTCN; JUL 2 6 211 z U Q Xz 66 i a a 0 cU ai 0. w z� �R ow ow w ww U O IS OF 16 TN 20 F w w 0 0 z -20 z O -40 J W m Gil, w 20 w w 2 0 z O -20 7 w -40 -60 4- -200 SECTION E-E' D-D' I USACE AUGUST 2013 ......... 1.. _ _ _._.— _ EXISTING GRADE............ 3.... ............. MAXIMUM AD EL. _-17.97' NAVD88 BORROW AREA : (-15' MLW) LIMITS 40 20 0 -20 -40 -60 0 200 400 600 800 DISTANCE ALONG SECTION (FEET) SECTION F-F' D-D' USACE AUGUST 2013 DUS TING ISTING GRADE ------------------ ----r--------------------------- _... ............... .......... 3 BORROW AREA LIMITS. . r 1: ................. 3 : MAXIMUM AD EL. =-17.97' NAVD88 (-15' MLW) -cvu u zUU 4uU 600 800 1000 1200 DISTANCE ALONG SECTION (FEET) 1400 1600 20 0 -20 -40 REC-IVED DCM'NILivl1NGTCN, ,NC JU1. 26 2016 XS-2 16 Or 16 4- 4 4! f4 k , 1 M3 Notes: 1. Coordinates are in feet based on the North Carolina State Plane Coordinate System, North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83). 2. 2014 background imagery is from the USDA's National Agricultural Imagery Program. 3. Parcel data was downloaded from Brunswick County GIS Department on September 4, 2015. A Legend: Easement Parcels . \ O 2013 MHW (+1.79 ft NAVD) 0 Parcels 2016 Landward Limit of Fill v E-�V , AUG 17 2016 159 108 OJ 10 O N Fil Ocean Isle Beach 30-Year Plan Easements COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. Feet 4038 MASONBORO LOOP ROAD 0 150 300 WILMINGTON, NC 28409 PH. (910) 791-9494 FAX (910) 791.4129 i inch = 300 feet Date: 05/19/16 By: HMV Comm No.: 155185 Figure No. 1 a l- ------------------ - - Notes: 1. Coordinates are in feet based on the North Carolina State Plane Coordinate System, North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83). 2. 2014 background imagery is from the USDA's National Agricultural Imagery Program. -3. Parcel data was downloaded from j 'Wl5nswick County GIS Department on September 4, 2015. Legend: Easement Parcels 0 Parcels / 2013 MHW (+1.79 ft NAVD) -- 2016 Landward Limit of Fill �8a. opsg$8 p Feet 0 150 300 1 inch = 300 feet TITLE. Ocean Isle Beach 30-Year Plan Easements OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. 4038 MASONBORO LOOP ROAD WILMINGTON, INC 28409 PH. (910) 791-9494 Date: 05/19/16 1 By: HMVI Comm No.: 155185 1 Figure No. 6 I / ------------ 1 1 Ir r I a� a Notes: Legend: 1. Coordinates are in feet based on the Easement Parcels North Carolina State Plane Coordinate System, North American Datum of 0 Parcels 1983 (NAD 83). 2. 2014 background imagery is from the USDA's National Agricultural Imagery Program. 3. Parcel data was downloaded from Brunswick County GIS Department ;J t WED fl on September 4, 2015. Fes_ / 2013 MHW (+1.79 ft NAVD) — 2016 Landward Limit of Fill J INEMINNE� Feet 0 150 300 1 inch = 300 feet e Ocean Isle Beach 30-Year Plan Easements OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. 4038 MASONBORO LOOP ROAD WILMINGTON, NC 28409 PH.(910) 791-9494 FAX (910) 7914129 Date: 05/19/16 I By: HMV Comm No.: 155185 Figure No. 7 DCM- R-1Hll rITV Map ID RECEIVED AUG 17 2016 DCM- MI -ID CITY Parcel Number Owner 0 107516825689 OIB HOLDINGS LLC ETALS 1 108514236973 POPPY LLC 2 108514347276 MARITIME PLACE PROPERTY OWNERS ASS 3 108513233884 HAWKINS ROBERT Z AND ETALS 4 108513233834 SPENCE MARTHA W 5 108514444427 476 OCEAN ISLE LLC 6 108514442475 KERNODLE DENNIS 7 108514442424 SOUTHER DAN L ET FRIEDA 8 108514442335 MUELLER ROBERT E ETUX POLLY 9 108514349394 MILHEN LLC 10 108514349299 JENNINGS ROGER A III ETUX MARLEEN O 11 108514346161 LAMM MICHAEL J ET KAREN H 12 108514346110 LW LEGACY ASSETS LLC & DW LEGACY ASSETS LLC 13 108514344068 LW LEGACY ASSETS LLC & DW LEGACY ASSETS LLC 14 108514344017 LW LEGACY ASSETS LLC & DW LEGACY ASSETS LLC 15 108514343067 LW LEGACY ASSETS LLC & DW LEGACY ASSETS LLC 16 108514343026 BOYD RAYMOND O 17 108514342015 DOYLE DEBORAH A ETALS 18 108514341064 ALLEN THOMAS R 19 108514249011 WILLIAMSON VIRGINIA ALMA TRUSTEE & OIB HOLDINGS LLC 20 108514248060 SCHOCH BARRY H ET SHARON L 21 108514248020 BROWN STACIE L 22 108514237975 T BEAR INVESTMENTS LLC 23 108513232837 MOODY WILLIAM D ET NOREEN M 24 108514239982 LEWIS SHIRLEY R 25 108514239921 TOWN OF OCEAN ISLE BEACH 26 108514238981 SCHOCH BARRY H ET SHARON L 27 108514238930 TENNYSON LLC 28 108514235836 ANDREW SONJA R 29 106407697014 KERN H MAX & SHIRLEY H TRUSTEES 30 106406370796 SPENCER GEORGE MICHAEL ETUX JOANNE 31 106406370734 BAKER BEACH LLC 32 106407680844 CROCKETT JERRY B ET ANNE O 33 106406374829 BESCHERER DAVID ET JO ANNE 34 106406373867 WILLIAMS JOHNNY L ET SARAH J 35 106406373814 ZIDD YVONNE M 36 106406480194 THE LADANE FOUNDATION LTD 37 106406389180 THE LADANE FOUNDATION LTD 38 106406389038 THE LADANE FOUNDATION LTD 39 106406376957 OCEAN GRANDE LLC 40 106406375995 OCEAN GRANDE LLC 41 106406372800 WERTZ SCOTT E ET CHRISTINE M 42 106406279771 ERPENBECK JEROME J ETALS 43 106406276690 MCMURRAY BRIAN L ETUX KONNIE A 44 106406276548 SCHMIDT DAVID K ET CAROL A 45 106406275586 PROVENCE DE MER RLLP 46 106409273467 POTEAT INVESTMENTS LLC 47 108514345069 LW LEGACY ASSETS LLC & DW LEGACY ASSETS LLC 48 108514345019 LW LEGACY ASSETS LLC & DW LEGACY ASSETS LLC 49 108514341014 JAMES CHARLES N DR ETUX BARBARA 50 108514340063 WILLIAMSON VIRGINIA ALMA TRUSTEE & OIB HOLDINGS LLC 51 108514330928 DEW JERRY T SR ETUX BEVERLY 52 108514249062 LEWIS SHIRLEY R 53 108514235897 HARRILL J L 54 108513234886 WILLIAMSON JOHN W ETUX GRACE T 55 108513234835 CARPENTER CHRISTOPHER & ETALS 56 108513231662 PHILLIPS ROBERT C Mailing Address 11 CAUSEWAY DRIVE 11522 WOOD BROOK RD INC PO BOX 8126 PO BOX 428 101 BROADUS AVE 2450 SHADYWOOD Cl 4880 SARTIN ROAD 4219 FARLIN AVE PO BOX 3755 419 LIGHTWOOD LANE 9053 DEER HILL ROAD P O BOX 2395 11 CAUSEWAY DRIVE 11 CAUSEWAY DRIVE 11 CAUSEWAY DRIVE 11 CAUSEWAY DRIVE 5600 ROSWELL RD SUITE 300 NORTH 8032 E WILSHIRE 613 HARDSCRABBLE DR 2 CAUSEWAY DRIVE PO BOX 669 101 CHRISTA COURT P O BOX 614 600 BARRINGTON PLACE 872 LEGGETT RD 3 WEST THIRD STREET PO BOX 669 PO BOX 2312 8 ASHTON SQUARE PO BOX 6296 5 DOVERCREST COURT 603 HOGANS VALLEY WAY 701 SW 27TH ROAD 5850 HICKORY HOLLOW LN 702 LIPSCOMB RD 2656 WEYMOUTH ROAD 11 CAUSEWAY DRIVE 11 CAUSEWAY DRIVE 11 CAUSEWAY DRIVE C/O LADANE WILLIAMSON 11 CAUSEWAY DRIVE C/O LADANE WILLIAMSON 11 CAUSEWAY DRIVE 106 TRIDENT COURT 3 KIOWA LN 25 CYPRESS POINT DRIVE 905 DOMINION HILL DR % ROSEMARY PULLIAM 2857 MERRY ACRES LANE P O BOX 339 11 CAUSEWAY DRIVE 11 CAUSEWAY DRIVE 3748 BEASON ROAD 2 CAUSEWAY DRIVE 702 BIRKDALE DRIVE 872 LEGGETT RD BOX 541 410 RIDGEWOOD DRIVE 4545 LAKEFIELD BEND 2222 SELWYN AVE UNIT 403 RECEIVED AUG 17 2016 DCM- MHD CITY REO IVEC UCMNALk. iN(3TCI,' NC JUL 2 6 2016 Beach Easement Table.xls 57 108513231612 ROUECHE JAMES L JR 58 108513230661 ROUECHE JAMES L JR 59 108513230610 SMITH LANCE L ET & REDDEN JOSEPH J 60 108513139660 WOOTEN HELEN J 61 108513139519 BAXLEY C G 62 108513138568 WHITE REBERT E 63 108513138518 BROCKINGTON JOHN S 64 108513233614 LW LEGACY ASSETS LLC & DW LEGACY ASSETS LLC 65 108513232664 MOODY WILLIAM D ET NOREEN M 66 108513232613 LW LEGACY ASSETS LLC & DW LEGACY ASSETS LLC 67 108513137567 MOODY WILLIAM D ET NOREEN M 68 108513132469 REYNOLDS JOHN A S ET 69 108513039483 WINDS CORP 70 108513039421 MOODY WILLIAM D ETUX NOREEN 71 108513135565 GOSS PAULA TRUSTEE & M ALAN TRULUCK 72 108513135514 KELLEY KATHLEEN T 73 108513134563 TOWN OF OCEAN ISLE BEACH 74 108513134512 BRUN ALBERT F TRUSTEE 75 108513133561 MARSHALL WILLIAM CLAYTON III 76 108513133520 SMITH DOUGLAS 77 108513038470 RODZIK CHERYL L TRUSTEE 78 108513038329 HAWKS JERRY L ETUX MARTHA SUE W 79 108513037388 ISLEY PATSY CRUMPLER 80 107517100476 LW LEGACY ASSETS LLC & DW LEGACY ASSETS LLC 81 107517105681 82 107517103430 OIB HOLDINGS LLC ETALS 83 106407684987 SMITH DEBBIE SLOANE 84 106407683943 NEESE FAMILY PROPERTIES LLC 85 106407682971 SMITH JOHN D III 86 106407681847 COOK CHARLES E MD ETUX KAREN ANNE 87 106407680895 MCGRAW WARD JAMES ETUX NANCY GRAPER 88 106407589892 WARREN HANNIBAL GODWIN JR 89 106407698069 HOLCOMBE PHILIP ET MARY 90 106407698017 SHOAF EARL F ET PHYLLIS 91 106407697066 PORTER JOHN ET ANN 92 106407696063 GOODE WILLIAM C III & RUTH A 93 106407696011 HAMLETT CHARLENE W & MIRIAM WELLONS 94 106407685959 PURSER ALMA TRUSTEE 95 106407587713 HOURI NADER A ETUX NAJAT DOUGHAN 96 106407580585 WOOD DAVID R ET KAREN 97 106406487481 OCEAN ISLE VILLAS INC 98 106406480142 THE LADANE FOUNDATION LTD 99 106406388075 THE LADANE FOUNDATION LTD 100 106406377909 OCEAN GRANDE LLC 101 106406375933 OCEAN GRANDE LLC 102 106407684915 WILLIAMS JAMES L 103 106407587754 VAUGHAN MARION D TRUST ETALS 104 106406388013 OCEAN GRANDE LLC 105 106406387061 OCEAN GRANDE LLC 106 106406275534 IRISH VENTURES LLC 107 106405274565 NANTUCKET LLP 108 106409177440 109 106409273405 RLF PROPERTIES LLC 110 106406372852 CONNON ERNEST JAMES ET CATHERINE 111 106406278604 MCMURRAY BRIAN L ETUX KONNIE A 112 106406277652 MCMURRAY BRIAN L ETUX KONNIE A 113 106409274427 DEVANNEY KEVIN 114 106406371748 FALCON PLACE TRUST Beach Easement Table.xls 1415 SEMINOLE DR ROUECHE ET UX MARY C 1415 SEMINOLE DRIVE % SHIRLEY W REDDEN 901 CROSS FIRE RDG NW 105 OLD STAGECOACH LANE % BARBARA B SMITH 2359 JUNIOR ORDER HOME RD 2053 GORE TRAILOR RD ETUX ANNE/APT 103B 1001 WILDWOOD DOWNS CIR 11 CAUSEWAY DRIVE 600 BARRINGTON PLACE 11 CAUSEWAY DRIVE 600 BARRINGTON PLACE 3933 HUCKLEBERRY RD 310 EAST FIRST ST 600 BARINGTON PLACE 4040 ROCKWOOD LANE 405 YALE ROAD 3 WEST THIRD STREET 377 ALBION STREET 14318 SUMMERWOOD LAKES DR 216 N FRANKLIN ST 7704 BLUFF TOP COURT 4125 JAMES B WHITE HWY N 2710 CHARLOTTE LANE 11 CAUSEWAY DRIVE 11 CAUSEWAY DRIVE 16 CAUSEWAY DRIVE 350 N STRATFORD ROAD P O BOX 590 16324 HARBOR VIEW ROAD 255 SOMERSBY WAY 1301 QUEENS RD APT 504 223 W FIRST ST 5117 WYNNEFORD WAY 253 KING OWEN COURT 302 WALDEN COURT PO BOX 52328 6070 CARLISLE LANE 24 CAUSEWAY DRIVE 2710 S MAIN ST STE E-1 PO BOX 8126 11 CAUSEWAY DRIVE 11 CAUSEWAY DRIVE C/O LADANE WILLIAMSON C/O LADANE WILLIAMSON 11 CAUSEWAY DRIVE 11 CAUSEWAY DRIVE 627 BONANZA DRIVE % CLAI JORGENSEN 12713 SABASTIAN DR C/O LADANE WILLIAMSON 11 CAUSEWAY DRIVE C/O LADANE WILLIAMSON 11 CAUSEWAY DRIVE 381 WEST FIRST STREET % JAMES A BOWDEN 551 NE GOLDIE DRIVE PO BOX 759 PO BOX 7367 25 CYPRESS POINT DRIVE 25 CYPRESS POINT DRIVE 5411 SUNNINGDALE DRIVE 6617 BABAK DR AUG 17 2016 DCM- NIND CITY REC-�IVEC DCM \N'ILP.AINGTCN. NC JUL 2 6 2016 3 115 108514449821 116 108514449871 117 108514449741 118 106409069849 119 106409069991 120 106409160932 121 108514445429 122 108514444478 123 108514443426 124 108514441474 125 108514441423 126 108514443336 127 108514442386 128 108514441385 129 108514445479 130 108514446520 131 108514441334 132 108514440383 133 108513232877 134 105412868115 135 105412867154 136 105412962288 137 105412962225 138 105412961264 139 105412961202 140 105412960250 141 105412869198 142 105412869146 143 105412868175 144 108513130464 145 107518208849 146 108513131415 147 108514448649 148 108514449791 149 107519515764 150 106406279629 151 106406278666 152 106409160984 153 106409161936 154 106407580532 155 106406489416 156 106408998996 157 106407589851 158 106407582537 159 106405272764 160 106406374980 161 106407792123 162 106406495126 163 106407588706 164 106408894482 `, R E C E I V E J 166 108513132407 167 108513137516 AUG 17 2016 168 108513136515 169 106407586731 DCM- MI -ID CITY 170 106407584664 LW LEGACY ASSETS LLC & DW LEGACY ASSETS LLC 11 CAUSEWAY DRIVE LW LEGACY ASSETS LLC & DW LEGACY ASSETS LLC 11 CAUSEWAY DRIVE LW LEGACY ASSETS LLC & DW LEGACY ASSETS LLC 11 CAUSEWAY DRIVE PEREIRA RUTH PO BOX 144 POWELL CHRISTOPHER GREGORY TR P O BOX 2104 ROBICHAUD PAUL A 1203 PINEVIEW DRIVE MCMURTRIE BARRY & TONI TITONE 5887 LYCIA LN BLEVINS THOMAS S ETUX 478 EAST THIRD STREET ROBERTS ROBERT JAMES JR ETALS 474 E THIRD STREET JURANICH PETER F ETUX DENISE A 25 OLD FORT DR ZORZI KERRY & HEATHER 9204 CONCORD HILL CT LW LEGACY ASSETS LLC & DW LEGACY ASSETS LLC 11 CAUSEWAY DRIVE LW LEGACY ASSETS LLC & DW LEGACY ASSETS LLC 11 CAUSEWAY DRIVE LW LEGACY ASSETS LLC & DW LEGACY ASSETS LLC 11 CAUSEWAY DRIVE MCMURTRIE BARRIE ETUX TONI TITONE 5887 LYCIA LANE VENABLE ONETA MICHELLE PO BOX 1685 LW LEGACY ASSETS LLC & DW LEGACY ASSETS LLC 11 CAUSEWAY DRIVE DYE JOHN R ET JACQUELINE H 4915 LAKESHORE DR HAJI NAZ ETUX HANIFA 4711 HOPE VALLEY RD STE 4F-210 BELL ROBERT E JR 186 HIMATSWEG ROAD PICHA KAY P 6965 LORIEN CHATER DR HINSHAW WALTER ERIC 6 TURNBERRY CT MILLER ROBERT & MARGARET TRUST 4022 BARCLAY DOWNS DR ROGERS CURTIS L ET ALICE P 4601 KUYENDALL ROAD BROWN LTD PARTNERSHIP 1255 ROBERT DICKEY PKWY LINDAMAR HOLDINGS LLC 6835 TOWBRIDGE ROAD PETERSON DONALD D ET DONNA L 1842 COUNTRY CLUB RD GROSS RICK ET GAIL 2512 MATTERHORN DR TOOVATECH LLC 7535 SUMMIT RIDGE RD HARDISON LEWIS B & ETALS 016 HOLDINGS LLC ETALS 11 CAUSEWAY DRIVE MOHLER WILLIAM E ETUX 919 NEWTON RD GOLD ELIAS 2256 JACOBS ROAD LW LEGACY ASSETS LLC & DW LEGACY ASSETS LLC 11 CAUSEWAY DRIVE OIB HOLDINGS LLC ETALS 11 CAUSEWAY DRIVE VESTAL MARK ET ANITA 117 GREAT OAKS MCMURRAY BRIAN L ETUX KONNIE A 25 CYPRESS POINT DRIVE PEREIRA RUTH PO BOX 144 PEREIRA RUTH E & BRENDA M SMART PO BOX 144 MANGUM MAZIE S 1511 N LAFAYETTE ST OIB HOLDINGS LLC ETALS 11 CAUSEWAY DRIVE BARHAM EDWARD LEE JR ET DIANE J 1113 GILGO RD ISLANDER RESORT RESTAURANT & BCH CL 2618 NEW VILLAGE WAY OCEAN GRANDE LLC C/O LADANE WILLIAMSON 11 CAUSEWAY DRIVE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DIV OF MARINE FISHERIES 3441 ARENELL STREET OCEAN GRANDE LLC C/O LADANE WILLIAMSON 11 CAUSEWAY DRIVE MUNROE HOMER ALEXANDER TRUSTEE 212 WATER STREET S 112 WILLIAMSON VIRGINIA ALMA TRUSTEE & VIRGINIA WILLIAMSON 2 CAUSEWAY DRIVE HILL DAVID M SUBMARINE -IN -A -CORNFIELD LANGSTON L B JR ET CAROL 730 GREENVILLE BLVD % WILLIAM K DIEHL JR. 600 SOUTH COLLEGE ST 1208 SALUDA CHASE WAY AUG 17 2016 DCM- I�!,HD CITY RECEIVED DCM VNILI�AiNGTC"I, NC JUL 2 6 2016 Beach Easement Table.xls